June 03, 2007
Small Sample Size
Francona just brought in Javier Lopez to face Bobby Abreu. ESPN flashed the graphic that Bobby was 0 for 11 with three strikeouts against Javier. Of course, Abreu lines a solid single to right-center to put runners on first and third with New York down a run with one out. Just once I'd like to hear the announcers talk about how an 0 for 11 is really meaningless.
Posted by David Pinto at
10:52 PM
|
Strategy
|
TrackBack (0)
It is not meaningless, it just doesn't carry a great deal of statistical significance. If you were managing and a pinch hit situation came up, would you send a guy out there who was 0-11 against a pitcher if you had another option and things were otherwise roughly equivalent.
Okay, I'll amend my comment. What I'd like to hear is a reason why the player is 0 for 11. Does the pitcher throw a pitch this particular hitter can't hit? Were there three fantastic plays behind him? Or is it just luck? It very well could be there is a good reason, but we never hear it. We just hear a number with no context.
What would make the entire process easier is if there were more hitters like Scott Hatteberg. Hatty is the rare hitter who will actually say to his manager, "I don't see the ball well off of this guy." Aha! A lack of ego, an admission of weakness, and a legitimate, valid reason to play someone else that day.
I think that so few guys admit that, it's hard for a manager to know if an 0-for-11 situation is simply the result of a small sample size, or if there is a legitimate reason to bench the player vs. that pitcher - a reason to believe that the poor performance trend will continue.
As is the case in most situations in all of life, the world would be better if there were more Scott Hattebergs.