|
|
|
|
#1
10-11-2005, 02:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
A theoretical baseball question
What would the range of batting averages be if every batter in MLB knew what pitch the pitcher was trying to throw?
Assumptions: - The pitcher doesn't know that the batter knows - The batter knows that the pitcher is going for an inside fastball...this doesn't mean that the pitch will actually be inside...the pitcher may miss out over the plate, high, etc... - Manager's don't know that the batter's know (for either team) What would the 'average' BA be for the entire MLB? What average would lead the league? How many homeruns would lead the league for a given season? *question originally derived from this thread **warning NSFOOT 
|
|
#2
10-11-2005, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A theoretical baseball question
It would be pretty high...around .400 or higher. MLB hitters can all hit fastballs when they know they are coming. They would simply wait for them. Look at the MLB average when the count is 2-0, which means fastball like 80% of the time. It is up there.
|
|
#3
10-11-2005, 02:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A theoretical baseball question
[ QUOTE ]
It would be pretty high...around .400 or higher. MLB hitters can all hit fastballs when they know they are coming. They would simply wait for them. Look at the MLB average when the count is 2-0, which means fastball like 80% of the time. It is up there. [/ QUOTE ] There is no way they would just sit there and wait for a fastball. They would tattoo any hanging offspeed pitch as well as a fastball. This would not be BP no doubt about that, and there would still be some pretty decent pitchers, but runs would go through the roof. League leader would be around .500 I would guess (may seem high, but I feel it is about right). League avg overall would be up 100-150 pts and HRs would approach 100. These stats may seem absurd, but in the majors, no pitcher totally overpowers hitters, not even the Unit and the likes. Pitchers survive by mixing it up. A pitcher like Trevor Hoffman who was once one of the most dominant pitchers for a long time, would be absolutely shelled. He mainly relies on 2 pitches, fastball and change-up. If a hitter knew that it was a FB instead of a change, or vice-versa, it would be all over. Most hitters do not want to know what is coming because it throws their timing off if they rely on the info too much and they get crossed up. That could be the difference between a brushback and getting drilled in the head by a fastball because you "knew" it was a breaking ball. Obviously the OP said the the hitter would know 100% accurate what the pitch is. Like I said, it wouldn't be BP, but it would resemble it a bit.
|
|
#5
10-11-2005, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A theoretical baseball question
[ QUOTE ]
you seem to be under the impression that everytime a hitter gets out its the pitcher that gets him out. [/ QUOTE ] Not at all... BUT, there would be less weak groundballs and popups. There are several pitchers who have nasty sliders, but as the OP stated, the pitcher does not know that you know, so it is doubtful that you'd have someone throwing slider after slider. If the hitter knows what is coming, there is much less likelyhood that he'll top the ball to the SS because he got out on his front leg too earlty. You see guys like Manny, ARod, and Pujols who hit everyone hard. Pujols hit .359 in 2003 and I'd guarantee that it would be at least 100 pts higher if he knew every pitch. We would run a lot of situational hitting/fielding when I was in college, and guys would rip the ball. We would run a lot of hit and run drills. As a LHP, I absolutely hated them because I knew I was most likely gonna take one off the body at sometime (usually my foot) since these guys knew a curveball was coming and had to hit it to the right side. Guys were still hitting ropes to the right side even through they "had" to make contact and were cutting down on their cuts. If you know a curve or changeup is coming, it is much easier to then sit back and groove one. For a few pitchers, nothing at all would change. Take Tim Wakefield for example. There would be very little change since he throws 90% knukles and everyone already knows it is coming.
|
|
#6
10-11-2005, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A theoretical baseball question
[ QUOTE ]
HRs would approach 100. [/ QUOTE ] This is absurdly high.
|
|
#7
10-11-2005, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A theoretical baseball question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] HRs would approach 100. [/ QUOTE ] This is absurdly high. [/ QUOTE ] And 73 is not? Bonds hit a HR that year in every 6.5 ABs. You have to also take into consideration that the hitters would be getting many more ABs throughout the season.
|
|
#8
10-11-2005, 04:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A theoretical baseball question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] HRs would approach 100. [/ QUOTE ] This is absurdly high. [/ QUOTE ] And 73 is not? Bonds hit a HR that year in every 6.5 ABs. You have to also take into consideration that the hitters would be getting many more ABs throughout the season. [/ QUOTE ] Bonds was a lab experiment. I'm assuming post-steroid era, for whatever that is worth..
|
|
#9
10-11-2005, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A theoretical baseball question
Batting practice.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
