ROE and OBP

[Strike2]

No. That's like saying the batter is frozen and has no option or opportunity to get out of the way of a bad pitch, which is ridiculous (mostly - yes, there are some pitches that the batter will not be able to avoid).

So, is it "ridiculous" or not? I don't know where you play, but sometimes, there is no getting out of the way.

 

[Strike2]

Watch a Florida game and then tell me the batter plays no role in the HBP. They absolutely do by the way the align themselves in the box and then the nerve to overcome the natural reaction to get the heck out of the way of a thown pitch. I wouldn't want to tell Bailey Castro she didn't have a role in all of her HBP. Saw a great interview with Craig Biggio talking this summer about getting on base via the HBP. It's an art form.

Also, not swinging is as much (or maybe more) conscious decision than swinging. I want my players to be in the swing, swing, swing mindset and only decide to hold at the last possible moment. It's a basic tenet of what Matt Lisle teaches.

The tactics of Florida aside, most FP players aren't looking to lean into a pitch. BTW, I love facing teams with a "swing, swing, swing mindset"...

 

[cuzmail]

I would assume that some of that 20 percent should be ruled a hit. If a shortstop knocks down a difficult grounder but still would've thrown out 90 percent of runners, but not your speedy DD, then that's a base hit. I'd think that if anyone is getting ROE 20 percent of the time, that has to be a low level of play.

Not sure I agree with your assumption about the level of play.

However, I will admit 20% was an educated guess. I was too lazy to actually go back and review notes. The miscues usually tend to happen on the 2nd or 3rd PA (if the 1st PA resulted in contact). Normally during the 1st PA, they don't know anything about her other than what they see walking up to the plate.

I use ordinary effort in distinguishing a hit from an error. In your scenario, the difficult grounder could go either way. I would need more info.

 

[reagansdaddy]

The tactics of Florida aside, most FP players aren't looking to lean into a pitch. BTW, I love facing teams with a "swing, swing, swing mindset"...

Well, I'm sure you'd just destroy us then. Nothing like letting ego and testosterone get in the way of a conversation....especially when you're wrong on pretty much each point. Have a good one.

 

[CoogansBluff]

It's well-established that certain softball players draw more walks and HBP than others.

Can we establish that certain softball players attract more ROE than others? Or is it all anecdotal or theoretical?

One theory is that players who put the ball in play more often are more likely to ROE. But at some levels, ROE via dropped third strike is fairly common.

I'd also challenge the idea that fast runners create more errors. Fast runners do require a quicker response, but some of those responses become no throw at all because the runner is so fast there is no play. A slower runner provides more time, and sometimes draws a throw that a faster runner would've already beaten.

I'd like to see the issue studied. In MLB, from what I've read, there is really no substantial evidence that certain players produce significantly more ROE than others. Of course, I realize softball is a different game.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

So, is it "ridiculous" or not? I don't know where you play, but sometimes, there is no getting out of the way.

It's ridiculous to say:

...it's all up to the pitcher.

I don't have any stats to back me up so I'll qualify this as 100% anecdotal, but I'd guess the majority of HBP could be avoided.

The case for using ROE in OBP:
Should the OBP formula include errors? - Beyond the Box Score

"So even if gOBP doesn't help predict the performance of Major Leaguers, those working in leagues where the fielding is not so sure -- including high schools, colleges, and minor leagues -- should consider including errors in their on-base percentage formulas."

But notice in the proposed gOBP formula that if you're going to include ROE as a positive (and they're doing so on the premise that HBP is the pitcher's error) for the batter, then a sac bunt is to be counted against the batter.

The interesting thing to me about wOBA is how ROE has a greater weight than a single and HBP is weighted more than uBB.

 

[Greenmonsters]

It's well-established that certain softball players draw more walks and HBP than others.

Can we establish that certain softball players attract more ROE than others? Or is it all anecdotal or theoretical?

One theory is that players who put the ball in play more often are more likely to ROE. But at some levels, ROE via dropped third strike is fairly common.

I'd also challenge the idea that fast runners create more errors. Fast runners do require a quicker response, but some of those responses become no throw at all because the runner is so fast there is no play. A slower runner provides more time, and sometimes draws a throw that a faster runner would've already beaten.

I'd like to see the issue studied. In MLB, from what I've read, there is really no substantial evidence that certain players produce significantly more ROE than others. Of course, I realize softball is a different game.

FWIW, reaching on a dropped third strike is scored as a K WP or K PB and not a ROE (unless a bad throw to/drop at 1B).

 

[Greenmonsters]

Not all walks are created equal i.e., 4 pitches that you couldn't reach with an oar obviously is different than a 12-pitch AB resulting in a walk. Not all ROEs are created equal i.e., a drop by F3 on a routine throw v. a wide, rushed throw trying to nip a speedster v. a smash that eats up a SS. Not all hits are created equal i.e., the IF pop up that no one calls v. a line drive to the OF. Not all outs are created equal i.e., a 3-pitch looking K v. a frozen rope at the CF.

What is routine effort? Does it consider an individual player's ability or the ability of the average/best player at that position? The ability of the average/best player on the team/league/conference/division?

IME, you need to pick a system/method and be consistent, but don't hesitate to re-evaluate/modify it based on on-going experience and the characteristics you value most. When it comes down to it, most of us don't need stats to know who we want at the plate or on the field when the game is in the balance.

 

[junkball]

Think of it this way - in NCAA, in the SEC to be specific, teams will have two sets of stats. One set is all games played, whether it's Eastern Nobody State, or Alabama, or UCLA. They also have a set of stats for SEC games only. Can't tell you how many times I've heard people complain that so-and-so isn't in the lineup for a conference game, because when you look at the stats, sure they are batting .350 and have 10 HRs, but in SEC play they are hitting a buck twenty. While just about all players see a drop off in their stats from non-coference to conference play, some are much more extreme. Likewise, if you have a player that can hit ground balls to third and short that get booted or thrown into RF against inferior opponents that's great, but what happens when they do the same thing against the better teams? That "triple" as some like to think of it when 3B throws it into RF, becomes a routine 5-3 ground ball out. We had a few girls on our team last year who were .350+ hitters, but put any sort of decent defense or pitcher in front of them and suddenly they have a lot of 0-3 games. Sure, they pad the stats in pool games that don't matter, or when we play some lower level team.

There will come a time when these girls "forcing" these errors will become routine outs. Sugar coating it now will just make it harder to accept when it does happen.

 

[cuzmail]

Think of it this way - in NCAA, in the SEC to be specific, teams will have two sets of stats. One set is all games played, whether it's Eastern Nobody State, or Alabama, or UCLA. They also have a set of stats for SEC games only. Can't tell you how many times I've heard people complain that so-and-so isn't in the lineup for a conference game, because when you look at the stats, sure they are batting .350 and have 10 HRs, but in SEC play they are hitting a buck twenty. While just about all players see a drop off in their stats from non-coference to conference play, some are much more extreme. Likewise, if you have a player that can hit ground balls to third and short that get booted or thrown into RF against inferior opponents that's great, but what happens when they do the same thing against the better teams? That "triple" as some like to think of it when 3B throws it into RF, becomes a routine 5-3 ground ball out. We had a few girls on our team last year who were .350+ hitters, but put any sort of decent defense or pitcher in front of them and suddenly they have a lot of 0-3 games. Sure, they pad the stats in pool games that don't matter, or when we play some lower level team.

There will come a time when these girls "forcing" these errors will become routine outs. Sugar coating it now will just make it harder to accept when it does happen.

Good to hear. I also do something similar. Lineups and positions tend to be a little different in playing to win games versus others.
Round Robins, pool games, and scrimmages are scored as one type of game while bracket games are scored as another. I can look at everything together or the two separate types.

Now if I could only decide about showcase games......