quality at bat definition?

[InsidePitch]

I have used GC for about 4 years and can say with some certainty that the more QAB=more on base. Whether a walk or finally getting a hit the runner gets on. Usually when DD has a QAB that goes 7-8 pitches she is fouling off a few that were down and away. Pitches that the blue was giving but not over the plate. This works best when the batter is behind in the count and the P is trying to get them to chase. If it's far enough off to lay off you get the ball and run the count full. I can pretty much guarantee if a kid has a high number of QAB she is up in your order whether you keep track or not.

 

[CoogansBluff]

No, you said:

I wasn't attempting to repeat my original comment, but add to it. So, yes, IMO.

The implication is clear: fouling it off is not skillful, square contact is. So is not-square contact in fair territory partially skilled? And what about square contact into foul territory? Honestly, you don't think it takes skill to hang tough in an at bat fouling of marginal pitches to get to a good one?

Remembering your place in the batting order and walking to the plate requires some skill. So does fouling marginal pitches vs. Clayton Kershaw. Point conceded.

An 8 pitch at bat requires that you fail more than a 1 pitch fly out, but the 1st batter saw 8 pitches whereas the 2nd batter saw 1. Ted Williams would say that batter #1 had the better at bat.

TW would be correct in assessing the result of the at-bat. One is a definite out, the other a possible hit, or at worse, an AB that worked the pitcher. I'm not debating that.

However, I am less impressed by the effort of a long at-bat than you are. So while TW might prefer the result, I'm not sure he would prefer the hitter.

 

[chinamigarden]

Didn't say that it's skillful only if you make square contact. But will say that it isn't skillful to repeatedly fail to square the ball into fair territory. An 8-pitch at-bat requires that you fail a lot. Have a hard time thinking of that as quality.

Well, when they change the stat to skillful at bats I think you have a point.

Think of quality in terms of the team game. Every pitch that you make the pitcher throw is a small benefit to your team, enough of those small benefits and it becomes a quality at bat. If a pitcher is averaging 12 pitches an inning, and all of a sudden you have a couple of girls in a row extending her out 8 pitches each, that benefits your team. The other batters get more looks at what she is throwing, the pitcher is getting frustrated at the foul balls, your pitcher is getting a longer rest...

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

However, I am less impressed by the effort of a long at-bat than you are. So while TW might prefer the result, I'm not sure he would prefer the hitter.

TW was that hitter lol! But we're not talking about the batters, we're talking about the at bat. I'm ok with the GC formula, though I'd like to see some changes to it. What I've noticed over the past several years using GC is the QAB differential. When there is a large gap in QAB %, the higher QAB % team wins almost every time. When the QAB % gap is small, it's a coin toss. I can't quantify the gap %, not enough data - but I bet we could pull that info out of MLB and see how it looks.

 

[CoogansBluff]

TW was that hitter lol!

TW was a patient hitter who walked a ton. But I see no evidence that he frequently had 8- and 9-pitch at-bats in which he was fouling a bunch of balls. Or getting himself into a lot of dangerous 2-strike situations where he was fighting for his life in the at-bat. I'd suspect he would strike out a lot more if he did.

But we're not talking about the batters, we're talking about the at bat. I'm ok with the GC formula, though I'd like to see some changes to it. What I've noticed over the past several years using GC is the QAB differential. When there is a large gap in QAB %, the higher QAB % team wins almost every time. When the QAB % gap is small, it's a coin toss. I can't quantify the gap %, not enough data - but I bet we could pull that info out of MLB and see how it looks.

I assume that the quality-AB statistic was designed to quantify and reward batters for good outcomes might not otherwise show up anywhere. So you ground out 4-3, move a runner, that's fine, although even that is dubious because it's still an out, and it requires a runner on base, so it's situational. But while I agree that there is some value in an 8-pitch at-bat, I just have trouble rewarding something that is often the result of failing to hit the ball squarely. Also don't believe in the theory that batters foul balls off on purpose.

 

[The Maj]

QAB is situational and is tied to a specific situation that changes throughout the game... I know in iScore, you can customize up to 3 different QAB stats for what you want to track as a coach, so in some instances all "QAB stats" will not be the same... For single games QAB really does not mean a lot but when you put the numbers together over a season it can identify small things about a batter (both good and bad)... For example at bats with RISP... Do you have an otherwise solid hitter that chokes when bases are loaded more times than not? Do you have a batter that averages seeing 3 pitches? Like has been said, it is a subjective stat and it is situational so there is not going to be a right or wrong answer... However, it is not just a "reward the batter" stat if it is utilized right....

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

TW was a patient hitter who walked a ton. But I see no evidence that he frequently had 8- and 9-pitch at-bats in which he was fouling a bunch of balls. Or getting himself into a lot of dangerous 2-strike situations where he was fighting for his life in the at-bat. I'd suspect he would strike out a lot more if he did.

You're seeing a lot of trees but wondering where the forest is. TW was special, but in his book he preaches at length about seeing more pitches. IMO, when we're looking at at bats that go longer than 5 pitches (or whatever arbitrary number you like), the advantage is moving the batter's way.

I assume that the quality-AB statistic was designed to quantify and reward batters for good outcomes might not otherwise show up anywhere. So you ground out 4-3, move a runner, that's fine, although even that is dubious because it's still an out, and it requires a runner on base, so it's situational. But while I agree that there is some value in an 8-pitch at-bat, I just have trouble rewarding something that is often the result of failing to hit the ball squarely. Also don't believe in the theory that batters foul balls off on purpose.

I don't know what the metric was created for. I've read that it is used as a measure of positive contribution towards the team's goals:

Quality At-Bats Defined | Brian Cain Peak Performance

I can buy that easily. 4-3 to move a runner might be a bit ambiguous without knowing the base/out state, but if it puts a runner on 3B with 1 out, bottom 7 and you're tied, that might could be considered contributing to the team's goal.

QAB doesn't seem to be a "normal" SABR stat either, which would explain the very varied definitions in use. You could easily create your own. In the link above, the author claims that moving a runner from 2B to 3B with zero outs is quality. This implies that the batter did something to move the runner: hit or sac. But if the batter sac bunts and moves the runner, RE goes down by almost half a run. Quality? Hard to say without knowing the rest of the game situation.

Let me ask you which is the better at bat: 3 straight whiffs, or 3 straight foul tips?

 

[Grogger31]

I revived this thread and everyone ignored me ... haha ... kind of what it's like being in my house with all females.

So I'll try again ...

Do you guys consider ANY hit a quality at bat? Is a weak blooper over the second baseman considered a quality at bat in your opinion or only balls that are hit hard? I've seen a few differing opinions on this.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

I revived this thread and everyone ignored me ... haha ... kind of what it's like being in my house with all females.

So I'll try again ...

Do you guys consider ANY hit a quality at bat? Is a weak blooper over the second baseman considered a quality at bat in your opinion or only balls that are hit hard? I've seen a few differing opinions on this.

Here's the thing - certain definitions say only hard hit balls count (hit or out), but then count a 5+ pitch at bat, or seeing 3+ pitches after going down 0-2. Very much a contradiction. If a bloop single doesn't count, how can fouling off 6 pitches count? Or consider this: a full swing bloop single vs a "just reaching out to make contact" swing resulting in a bloop single. Which is a more "quality" at bat?

The whole thing is very subjective IMO.

 

[wjdempkowski]

I don't get the idea that seeing a bunch of pitches makes an at-bat 'quality.' ...

If you see 8 pitches, that means you swung and failed to put the ball in play at least 2 times, if not 8 times. It also means you had 2 strikes on you for at least 3 pitches, if not 8. Quality hitters avoid 2-strike situations more often than poor hitters do. It's also possible that the 8-pitch at-bat should've been a walk but that you swung at a bunch of bad pitches, fouling many off.

I think seeing 8 pitches in an at-bat is definitely quality. In the above example you show it as a failure.
- Seeing 8 pitches with the umpires we usually have is definitely a quality at-bat since the batter did everything to prevent a bad called strike.
- 5 pitches to a full count. This batter held off 3 more before getting called out.
- 8 pitches doesn't mean there was a strike out. Batter could have put the ball in play, moved runners or reached safely on an error / fielder's choice.
- 8 pitches means the pitcher had to pitch to essentially two batters before securing the out, or not securing the out.
- 8 pitches means the batter is attacking.