How to check pitching numbers for fly balls/ground balls

So there is a distinction to be exploited, although I will concede that I could have arrived at that distinction selecting my draft choices with the SOM SLG sort as opposed to using the ESPN GB/FB sort.

If you could have arrived at that same "distinction" by simply using the SOM slg ratings, then what extra information can gb/fb analysis actually give us, if any? I'm not going anywhere ontological here, but this could be a place for sound semiotic analysis/theory.

I read stuff like this:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/ground-bal ... st-friend/

Then it generates ideas. Some of it appears effective, some of it appears to be wheel-spinning, and some of it I can't tell between the two. But I'm always trying to exploit the statistics into wins.

Not once, not twice, but several times I chased FB>GB into rings. So I think there is some merit in the process. My concession is that what I call "hydrogen and oxygen based liquid" might also rightly be called "water". I may just be over-analyzing it, and as an over-analyzer, that's what I'm prone to do.

My concession is that what I call "hydrogen and oxygen based liquid" might also rightly be called "water".

See, you're a semiotician after all. Umberto Eco would have been proud.

That was some heady technical stuff, much of it challenging to my Liberal Arts sensibilities. I did however get two excellent nuggets: "Line drives are where it’s at, period" and "leave swinging down to bad hitters at the amateur level, who have no chance at playing at the highest levels of the game. Otherwise, hit the damn ball in the air." So, the Willie Mays Hayes approach is finally debunked.

As to my original question, it looks like the fb/gb differential might be a mythical snipe hunt. If anyone actually shows the truth behind the curtain on that one, this SOM puzzle box might just reveal another corner.

Here's another article:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/page/Mag ... n-magazine

More brain pain:

http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2010/2/24 ... roundballs (and see the links within).

Your original question is what more than SLG can G/F tell us?

"The results were that the average ground ball generated 0.04 runs and caused 0.80 outs while the average ball in air generated 0.23 runs and caused just 0.62 outs. On a runs-per-out basis, balls hit into the air created almost 7.5 times as much offense as balls kept on the ground did."

We can ask Billy Beane, too:

http://regressing.deadspin.com/a-decade ... 1489963694

There's always another corner.

I've never checked FB/gb ratios (probably to my own detriment), but more typically K rates, and ballpark effects.

Just as importantly, I pay attention to J Pav's analysis. Always intrigued by his winning formula posts, and patented Winning Inc teams! My own approach has changed over time to filter out noise when reading the cards, and concentrate on relative values by position (eg., some positions are very shallow in certain years, so if I know I don't need or can't get those top 2-3 players, I buy way low and save dollars for big bangs elsewhere), and give more weight to certain stats depending on the ballpark I'm choosing (HR parks, the #'s...pitchers parks, batting avg/OBP).

Sorry, wandered off topic there. I guess I'm saying for now I'll ignore GB/FB ratios, until my simpler methods start to fail...or unless I see some evidence of consistent success with it.

The varying ways of analyzing and composing teams is what makes me continue to be addicted to this game!

I have been talking a lot about the outs. Hits though with respect to strat are the same issue.
You see a single on a card. It only matters whether that was a ground ball through the infield or a line drive to the outfield to the extent your imagination "sees" the hit take place. Strat boxscore descriptions may describe such events as one or the other because it helps add to enjoyment for some.

But understand the reality of strat is that it is just a dice roll. A single is a single. A double is a double. There really is no difference whether that hit was a ground ball over the bag and down the line or a line shot in the gap. In truth it was neither. It was just the word DOUBLE derived from a dice roll. The impact on your team is not related at all to whether that hit was attributed to being on the ground or in the air. If it makes playing more fun for you to imagine seeing that hit one way or the other then by all means do so. Ultimately it is about the enjoyment you get for the money you spend. But from a purely strat perspective it makes no difference.

When it comes to hits in strat it matters not whether they were hits on the ground or up in the air. The results are discreet and simple. Looking to find sluggers just look for and count the HRs, triples, and doubles on a card. That data is there and is solid, knowable, cut and dried. I could Take the Ruth card leaving the HRs alone and change all the outs to ground balls making him a high ground ball to fly ball hitter and his HR total in the end would be exactly the same. Being one or the other does not drive the results in Strat. It may provide some value as a predictor of future results in real life (different debate) but meaningless in strat. Just as for the most part an out is an out in strat a hit is a hit equally applies. The impact on the game is equal whether you arbitrarily declare that hit a ground ball or a fly ball. In strat reality it was neither. It was just a hit.

I always find it funny when someone has a player with a great card...say Miggy...and the manager is looking to dump him because he's batting like .100 with only 1 HR after the first week of games. Or conversely, if I happen to have that underperformer, and someone tries to trade for him, saying I need to shake things up...lol.

...But understand the reality of strat is that it is just a dice roll. A single is a single. A double is a double. There really is no difference whether that hit was a ground ball over the bag and down the line or a line shot in the gap. In truth it was neither. It was just the word DOUBLE derived from a dice roll. The impact on your team is not related at all to whether that hit was attributed to being on the ground or in the air. If it makes playing more fun for you to imagine seeing that hit one way or the other then by all means do so. Ultimately it is about the enjoyment you get for the money you spend. But from a purely strat perspective it makes no difference...

When I play softball and someone hits an ugly little pop fly that somehow falls in for a hit, I tell them, "History will record it as a line drive to center field." Now if everyone on my team play Strat, I could amend my little joke to "Strat-O-Matic will record it as a line drive to center field."

We keep going round and round here, but just to clarify, from my perspective, I care zero about the imagination of the action. I'm not imagining fly balls turning into homers from the swirling winds. And I also recognize a printed word on a card is just a word. However, those words have statistical meaning in our game. Runners move around the bases and score based on the statistical realities of the dice rolls.

You say all X chances are the same. I agree. If I had an imaginary Strat hitter card and rolled an x chance on the pitchers card, and the result was a single thru the shortstop, that does not qualify me as a ground ball hitter any more than it makes Mike Trout a ground ball hitter. But Trout's card is full of hits and ways to move runners that a lesser card is not. Now, I am making an assumption that extra base hits are scored by the Strat models as fly balls (at the very least, more often than not). Therefore, doubles, triples and home runs, which appear to be ruled as fly balls, are obviously of more value. So if balls hit in the air (even imaginary air) create 7.5 times the offense of balls hit on the ground (singles and assorted ground outs), it would be more productive to seek out the fly ball hitters.

I'm not intentionally trying to be thick here, but there's a disconnect that I just can't figure out. It seems like you're saying every card yields the exact same results, but I know that can 't be right. You can visually see that Pierre has a LOT of ground outs on his card. This is confirmed by the Sim Misc tab for G/F. You can also see Ibanez will usually have more FB than GB. I think most of us would agree that Ibanez' card will yield more overall production than Pierre's card, demonstrating that FB are more productive.

The only thing I can figure is that you're saying that doubles and triples, like singles, are ruled 50% GB, 50% FB. Maybe that's the case. But even then, no ground balls are home runs. So although this isn't any kind of revelation, home run hitters have more value than non-home run hitters (generally speaking). And home run hitters don't usually also ground out a lot.

We seem to agree that SLG = production. If I use G/F as a synonym for SLG, I just don't see what I'm doing wrong.