[Brooksgate] How a batters odds to get on base change after every pitch
August 7, 2024
[Brooksgate] How a batters odds to get on base change after every pitch
18 comments
Can 0-3 really be 0% if dropped third strikes exist?
this is cool! what’s the scope of the dataset used to generate this?
No no no. This can’t be right. As an Angels fan, I’m confident that our percent chance of getting on base with a full count is single digits.
nVenue: “nah, you’re gonna need 119 more data points to unnecessarily complicate and overfit the data”
I’d be curious what this looks like if you remove walks too.
Love this. I have countlessly bitched to friends about how one bad call can change the whole complexion of an AB. 3-1 vs 2-2 is huge.
I wish the 2024 Braves knew it was bad to get down 0-2 in every count.
This is cool. These numbers all seem to completely line up with my viewing experience. There’s really no number here that seems surprising to me somehow, which is… surprising
Fun fact – Tony Gwynn’s batting average on a 3-0 count was .222, but his OBP was .975 (.953 when you remove intentional walks)
This is a good visualization thank you for sharing. I wonder if its hard to add conditional probability for individual batters. Would be good to see something like this for key plate appearances.
I would love to see this dataset if it included the batter fouling off pitches after reaching 2 strikes. I mean it would probably be a nightmare to display it, but I think it would be interesting to see how the odds change as the batter forces the pitcher to throw more and more pitches in the at bat.
Very cool regardless though.
This is really cool
I know 2-1 is called the pivot pitch for good reason, but it looks as though 2-0 actually has greater odds in both directions of the pitch result. Very cool to see!
That’s why you ALWAYS take on 3-0
* 0-0, 1-1, and 2-2 are pretty much the same * 2-0 isn’t as good for the batter as it feels * At 0-2, the batter has lost two-thirds of their strikes but only one-third of their opportunity * Of course batters regularly take on 3-0 or 3-1; perhaps they are right to do so
Interesting.
Man, this is really cool stuff. It’s really interesting to me that even counts are so close to having the same odds as the first pitch—as a fan (or as a player, back in Little League / high school), a 2-2 count in particular feels like it favors the pitcher a lot more than a 0-0 count does. Also interesting just how good hitters’ counts really are; I’m kinda surprised that 2-0 is a bigger positive swing than 0-2 is a negative one (for the batter).
Imagine swinging 3-0
I wonder what the difference is between ball-strike 1-1 counts and strike-ball 1-1 counts. I feel like the order might matter.
18 comments
Can 0-3 really be 0% if dropped third strikes exist?
this is cool! what’s the scope of the dataset used to generate this?
No no no. This can’t be right. As an Angels fan, I’m confident that our percent chance of getting on base with a full count is single digits.
nVenue: “nah, you’re gonna need 119 more data points to unnecessarily complicate and overfit the data”
I’d be curious what this looks like if you remove walks too.
Love this. I have countlessly bitched to friends about how one bad call can change the whole complexion of an AB. 3-1 vs 2-2 is huge.
I wish the 2024 Braves knew it was bad to get down 0-2 in every count.
This is cool. These numbers all seem to completely line up with my viewing experience. There’s really no number here that seems surprising to me somehow, which is… surprising
Fun fact – Tony Gwynn’s batting average on a 3-0 count was .222, but his OBP was .975 (.953 when you remove intentional walks)
This is a good visualization thank you for sharing. I wonder if its hard to add conditional probability for individual batters. Would be good to see something like this for key plate appearances.
I would love to see this dataset if it included the batter fouling off pitches after reaching 2 strikes. I mean it would probably be a nightmare to display it, but I think it would be interesting to see how the odds change as the batter forces the pitcher to throw more and more pitches in the at bat.
Very cool regardless though.
This is really cool
I know 2-1 is called the pivot pitch for good reason, but it looks as though 2-0 actually has greater odds in both directions of the pitch result. Very cool to see!
That’s why you ALWAYS take on 3-0
* 0-0, 1-1, and 2-2 are pretty much the same
* 2-0 isn’t as good for the batter as it feels
* At 0-2, the batter has lost two-thirds of their strikes but only one-third of their opportunity
* Of course batters regularly take on 3-0 or 3-1; perhaps they are right to do so
Interesting.
Man, this is really cool stuff. It’s really interesting to me that even counts are so close to having the same odds as the first pitch—as a fan (or as a player, back in Little League / high school), a 2-2 count in particular feels like it favors the pitcher a lot more than a 0-0 count does. Also interesting just how good hitters’ counts really are; I’m kinda surprised that 2-0 is a bigger positive swing than 0-2 is a negative one (for the batter).
Imagine swinging 3-0
I wonder what the difference is between ball-strike 1-1 counts and strike-ball 1-1 counts. I feel like the order might matter.