Royals Should we start Dyson in game 3

'Hamas' Jenkins · 10-23-2014, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Does Gordon really still deserve to be #3? I know his few hits and driven in some runs, but there have been very few hits. Going back a couple months now.

He's been the best hitter on the team for five years, and he was far and away your best hitter this year. He's the only guy you have who can hit for power, average, and who has a good batting eye.

cosmo20002 · 10-23-2014, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

He's been the best hitter on the team for five years, and he was far and away your best hitter this year. He's the only guy you have who can hit for power, average, and who has a good batting eye.

Is it not relevant that he's hit about .180 over the last two months?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 10-23-2014, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Is it not relevant that he's hit about .180 over the last two months?

Not given what has caused the .180.

His LD% since August is 25%. About 70% of your LDs end up as hits, so that alone should have his BA at about .180 even if no other ball type that he hit fell for a hit. His flyball percentage has gone up a bit, so that would cause some erosion in his average, especially since he didn't have many balls leave the park.

His BB% increased significantly in September and his K% went up. If it was only his K%, you could say that he wasn't seeing the ball well, but given that he's taking significantly more walks, he's simply seeing more pitches, and when you see more pitches, you strike out more often. Overall his K/BB% has stayed consistent

Baseball isn't uniform. A .300 hitter doesn't get three hits every ten ABs.

Unless he's battling some kind of injury that has sapped his power, there's no compelling argument that he's actually become a worse hitter; he's just had some rotten luck.

Here's a good way to consider it: Aoki in September: Chris Moneymaker lucky; Gordon in September: Martin Short in Pure Luck

cosmo20002 · 10-23-2014, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Not given what has caused the .180.

His LD% since August is 25%. About 70% of your LDs end up as hits, so that alone should have his BA at about .180 even if no other ball type that he hit fell for a hit. His flyball percentage has gone up a bit, so that would cause some erosion in his average, especially since he didn't have many balls leave the park.

His BB% increased significantly in September and his K% went up. If it was only his K%, you could say that he wasn't seeing the ball well, but given that he's taking significantly more walks, he's simply seeing more pitches, and when you see more pitches, you strike out more often. Overall his K/BB% has stayed consistent

Baseball isn't uniform. A .300 hitter doesn't get three hits every ten ABs.

Unless he's battling some kind of injury that has sapped his power, there's no compelling argument that he's actually become a worse hitter; he's just had some rotten luck.

Here's a good way to consider it: Aoki in September: Chris Moneymaker lucky; Gordon in September: Martin Short in Pure Luck

I'm not sure this part makes sense. I know a .300 hitter isn't going to get 3 hits every 10 ABs. But we're talking about two months here. That's a fairly good chunk of a season.

You said if you see more pitches, you strike out more often. But if you swing and miss, you are going to see more pitches. If his walks went up, it tells me his approach is the same, he's trying to be selective, but he's just not making contact as much. And when he is, he's hitting infield flies and harmless pop-ups.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 10-23-2014, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm not sure this part makes sense. I know a .300 hitter isn't going to get 3 hits every 10 ABs. But we're talking about two months here. That's a fairly good chunk of a season.

You said if you see more pitches, you strike out more often. But if you swing and miss, you are going to see more pitches. If his walks went up, it tells me his approach is the same, he's trying to be selective, but he's just not making contact as much. And when he is, he's hitting infield flies and harmless pop-ups.

Two months is not a representative sample size. If it was, Chris Shelton would be Babe Ruth and not a scrub, and Mike Morse would have been the AL MVP last year.

If he was just swinging and missing, he wouldn't be drawing more walks.

He's also not flying out on the infield at a ruinous rate. If he was, his IFF% would correlate with poor hitting months, and it isn't there. He hit more IFFs in May than September and posted his second best month of offensive production for the entire year.

In August Gordon tore the cover off the ball. He saw 475 pitches, of which, 293 were strikes, for a 61.6% strike rate. And he killed the ball that month.

In September Gordon saw 445 pitches, of which, 256 were strikes, for a 57.5% strike percentage.

That indicates that he was actually more selective in September.

The data just doesn't support your conclusion.

cosmo20002 · 10-23-2014, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Two months is not a representative sample size. If it was, Chris Shelton would be Babe Ruth and not a scrub, and Mike Morse would have been the AL MVP last year.

If he was just swinging and missing, he wouldn't be drawing more walks.

He's also not flying out on the infield at a ruinous rate. If he was, his IFF% would correlate with poor hitting months, and it isn't there. He hit more IFFs in May than September and posted his second best month of offensive production for the entire year.

In August Gordon tore the cover off the ball. He saw 475 pitches, of which, 293 were strikes, for a 61.6% strike rate. And he killed the ball that month.

In September Gordon saw 445 pitches, of which, 256 were strikes, for a 57.5% strike percentage.

That indicates that he was actually more selective in September.

The data just doesn't support your conclusion.

Not if he's swinging and missing good pitches. I said he was still being selective. Two months is not insignificant. He's striking out more and getting on base less. You can analyze it all you want but that's the bottom line and over a two-month period, it is worth being concerned about.

Are you trying to argue he's been just as good the last two months as he was prior? You're just saying he's been unlucky?

'Hamas' Jenkins · 10-23-2014, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Not if he's swinging and missing good pitches. I said he was still being selective. Two months is not insignificant. He's striking out more and getting on base less. You can analyze it all you want but that's the bottom line and over a two-month period, it is worth being concerned about.

Are you trying to argue he's been just as good the last two months as he was prior? You're just saying he's been unlucky?

Yes, he's been unlucky. Every metric you can find supports that conclusion.

He's not swinging and missing good pitches. That's demonstrated by his OSwing%, his ZSwing% and his contact rate

There is also not a single person in the analytical field who things that 150 PAs is a significant sample size.

Yes, he's been just as good. That's supported by his walk rate, and his LD rate. He's hitting the ball just as hard and walking more often. He's not swinging at a lot more strikes. If that was the case, he wouldn't have seen four percent fewer strikes.

In order for your claim to have validity, he'd have to be missing at pitches out of the zone 30% more than he normally does, and there is no indication that is the case.