I heard Sam Miller mention on
a recent episode of Effectively Wild that you have to figure the WAR of a civilian would be considerably less than zero, possibly up to negative 20.
Let's do the math.
We'll assume a few things before we start. I am mandated by law to play every inning of every game. I am me, an overweight 30-year-old. This thought experiment doesn't put me on a specific team, just a general baseball season.
WAR is composed of six parts. Batting, fielding, baserunning, positional adjustment, league adjustment, and replacement level. I'm going to skip league adjustment because it requires me to do calculations for the whole league and it doesn't really change the player's final WAR that much. We'll assign values to these from simplest to hardest.
Fielding
I will not be allowed to take the field. This is simple. 0 runs.
Positional Adjustment
As I won't be taking the field, I'd be relegated the the Designated Hitter position. The positional adjustment for 162 games of DH is -17.5 runs.
Replacement Level
The formula for replacement level runs is
Replacement Level Runs = (570 x (MLB Games/2,430)) x (Runs Per Win/lgPA) x PA If I play 162 games and bat 9th (because duh) I figure I'd get ~600 PA. I came to this conclusion thusly: The two players with the most PA in 2019 were Marcus Semien with 747 and Whit Merrifield with 735. They were both leadoff hitters who played 162 games. So if I average that number, a leadoff hitter would get ~741 PA over the course of the season if he plays every game. The difference between a full season of a leadoff hitter and a number 9 hitter is 1 PA per game minus 1 PA every 9 games. This is because the leadoff hitter will always have one more PA than the number 9 hitter at the end of a game, unless the number 9 hitter wat the last batter to come up in the game. This would happen roughly once every nine games. So 741-(162-(162/9))= 597 PA. So let's do the calculation based on that. (We'll use 2019 numbers.) (570x(2430/2430))x(10.296/186516)x600= 18.9. This brings me up to 1.4 runs.
Batting
In response to a
Chris Hayes tweet musing on whether or not he'd get a hit against a full season of Major League pitching, Eno Sarris wrote
an article for Fangraphs discussing the idea. He concludes that Hayes would get about 2 hits in a season. If we assume I'm roughly at the level of Hayes (he's ten years older than me, but seems to be in better shape), I'm going to say nah. If they pitch to me like a regular Major Leaguer, there is no way in hell I would make contact, let alone get a hit. However, they will quickly realize they don't have to pitch to me like a Major Leaguer. This will change two things, to varying degrees, depending on how far they go with it. The first is whether or not I actually end up getting a hit. If I'm pitched somewhere around 70 MPH with few breaking pitches, I'm sure I'd get a couple of hits. However, I doubt this would happen, for a couple of reasons. This brings me to the second thing, walks. If I were pitched to as a big leaguer, I'd get on base via walks. It wouldn't be close to Major League average, as my eye is not close to Major League average, but at the same time I have
much less incentive to swing, so I'd probably be doing that less. Which brings us back to pitchers throwing softer in order to avoid walks.
First, let's analyze how that works in real baseball. I think that while taking something off your fastball
does improve a pitcher's control, it hits diminishing returns quite quickly. My reasoning for this is twofold. First, pitchers are conditioned to throw the way they throw. Slowing down too much changes everything. It messed with their mechanics in ways that wouldn't necessarily be positive. The second point is that throwing a ball from 60 feet six inches away into a box roughly 500 inches square is
really hard, even for a Major League pitcher.
Take 2019 for example. In 2019, non-pitchers batted .256. Pitchers, on the other hand, batted exactly half that, .128. As a result of pitchers being that much worse at hitting, the average fastball thrown to them was 92.4 MPH, as opposed to 93.2 MPH thrown to non-pitchers. While their walk rates were only 3.1%, well below the non-pitcher rate of 8.7%, I believe this is due mostly to pitchers' ineptitude at taking walks. This is because the drop in velocity only improved their Zone% from 41.6% to 49.9%. Not an insignificant difference, but still really close in context. You'd think pitchers would take off even more than the less than 1 MPH they do when throwing to pitchers, all it does is improve Zone% by 8.3%, but they don't.
So let's assume the average fastball I see is 89 MPH. I still have a hard time believing I'd get a hit on one of the slower pitches in that range. If all I saw was the lower bounds of this range over the course of a full season, sure. But that wouldn't be the case. I'd be seeing very few of those lower bounds pitches, not to mention a nice amount of breaking balls to keep me honest. I'm going to stick with 0 hits. I'm going walk rate will probably be somewhere around pitchers' walk rates. Again, my guessing pitches would be abysmal, but if I'm smart, I'd swing as little as possible. Working the count won't be a thing, and I probably won't be able to stick to my 'swing as little as possible' rule as well as I'd like, so 3% seems reasonable. 3% of 600 PA is 18 walks.
That gets me to a .000/.030/.000 slash line. Yeah, that looks about right.
The first thing we have to do to determine my batting runs is calculate my wOBA. Using 2019 numbers, that would be (18
walks x.69
walk constant +0
didn't do anything else )/600
PA =.021 wOBA
We then determine wRAA ((.021
wOBA -.320
lg wOBA )/1.157
wOBA Scale )x600
PA = -155.2 wRAA
There is a further adjustment based on league, but since I won't be putting myself on any specific team, I don't need to do this part.
-153.8 runs
Baserunning
Well the good news is that I'd only get on base 18 times. Simulating baserunning stats isn't exactly easy. Luckily, I noticed that players' sprint speeds are fairly strongly correlated with their BSR. When I put all the 2019 sprint speeds and BSR into excel, the conversion equation it gives me is
(Sprint Speed x 0.0086-0.2348)=BSTimes on Base Great. So now all there is to figure out is my sprint speed. I asked my wife to clock me running down the block at full speed, but she didn't seem so jazzed about the idea. Well if you want something done, you gotta do it yourself. Before I get into the numbers, bear in mind I was running down a 40 ft driveway with a flip phone in my hand, only gave myself about 5 feet to get to full speed, pressed the button at the starting point, probably started slowing down early, and then pressed it again at the ending point. Science.
I clocked myself at 2.08 seconds. I measured out the distance and it came out to 485 inches. Which is 233.2 in/sec. Convert that to feet, and I was running at 19.4 ft/sec. Which was below Brian McCann's 2019 league minimum speed of 22.2 ft/sec, but not so far off that it would make me think I did something wrong. Good enough for me. So if we plug my 19.4 ft/sec into the equation, we get -0.07 BSR per times on base. I expect to get on base 18 times, so it comes out to a -1.2 BSR for the season.
-155 runs.
Conclusion
Finally, the last step is to convert runs to wins. The 2019 Runs/Win number was 10.296. So if I divide -155 by 10.296 I end up with -15.1 WAR. Yikes. Let's put that in context. According to Fangraphs, I would cancel out any season of
any great player if we were on the same team and then some. 1923 Ruth? Gone. 2002 Bonds? We would net -2.4 WAR. 2013 Trout? Not even close. If I were were to replace Edgar Martinez on the 2001 Mariners, the winningest team in modern history, they'd only win 96 games, but hey, we'd still make the playoffs! Same with the 1998 Yankees. And this is the conclusion we should come out with. I would not necessarily ruin the greatest teams of all time. So I deserve a shot.
TL;DR
-15.1 WAR, but I deserve a shot. Welcome to Part Two of my 'Unusual Bowling Feats' post! Link to Part One
here.
Peaking Too Soon
Whenever
cricket has a discussion regarding comparisons between different bowlers, some people always pipe up with 'yes, but if you take this bowler at their peak, then...', as if comparing Bowler X at their peak to the entire career of Bowler Y is remotely fair. All players have peaks; purple patches are not restricted to player who you happen to like. With all this nonsense about restricting stats to the last ten years, to the 1980s, to the period after reaching the age of 25, to after that one innings of 5/6 against the mighty Zimbabwe back in 1996, and even to the past year or two years (because
that's a representative sample), there's nothing stopping me from looking at a bowler's first delivery and declaring that to be their 'peak'.
There have been 65 cases in which a bowler has taken a wicket off their first ball in a particular format: 20 in Tests, 26 in ODIs and 19 in T20Is. The first to accomplish such a feat was Australia's Tom Horan, who dismissed England's Walter Read in only the second ever Test in January 1883 with his first ball in international cricket. As with the unusual dismissals section of my previous post, I won't go through everyone, but I'll highlight some notable bowlers who went above and beyond when it comes to achieving unusual bowling feats.
Firstly, there are seven bowlers who can truly be said to have 'peaked too soon'. What do New Zealand's Dennis Smith and South Africa's Hardus Viljoen have in common? Both of them took their first wicket with their first ball in Tests...and both of them took their
only wicket with their first ball in Tests. In fact, both of them were one-Test wonders, and in Smith's case, a one-
innings wonder. At their peaks, they had a bowling average of 0 and a strike rate of 1, but alas, they both went through a decline as they ended up averaging 113 and 94 with the ball respectively. Just imagine how great they would have been had the rest of the careers not taken a nosedive after their excellent first deliveries. 😔
In ODIs, three bowlers took their only wicket with their first ball: India's Sadagoppan Ramesh, New Zealand's Andrew Mathieson and Zimbabwe's Ainsley Ndlovu. However, Ndlovu hasn't yet retired from what I can tell, so there's still time yet. Bangladesh's Taijul Islam and England's Lewis Gregory round off the list for T20Is, but both of them are still playing, so they also have time. These seven bowlers are nonetheless all united in the fact that if you take just their peak (i.e. their first delivery), they end up with better stats than Sydney Barnes, Glenn McGrath, Muttiah Muralitharan and Dale Steyn. This should solve those 'who is the GOAT bowler' debates once and for all.
There are other bowlers who I want to mention, however. In Tests, I've spoken about all the bowlers who I feel went above and beyond when it comes to unusual bowling feats, but in ODIs, there are two bowlers who I want to single out. The scorers among us will know that when it comes to bowling figures, no-balls and wides are added to the 'Runs' column but
not to the 'Balls' column, as they don't count as legal deliveries in an over. Remember also that those 65 cases are of bowlers taking wickets off their first
ball, not necessarily of bowlers taking wickets off their first
delivery. A no-ball or a wide counts as a
delivery but not a
ball, as the latter term applies only to
legal deliveries. Thus, if you count all the legal deliveries and throw out all the illegal deliveries (bowled by dead people), you'll find that I've bowled the most balls, BY A LOT!
Anyway, the first bowler I want to talk about is Sri Lanka's Charitha Buddhika Fernando. In a 2001 ODI against Zimbabwe, Buddhika bowled his first ever delivery in ODIs...and it was a no-ball. Bit of an anti-climax. He then got a second opportunity to make some magic happen...and it was another no-ball. Not the best start. However, third time's the charm, and Buddhika finally dismissed Dougie Marillier LBW. Thus, although Buddhika had technically taken a wicket with his first ball in ODIs, it was actually his third delivery.
Secondly, we have the West Indian allrounder Keemo Paul. Against Afghanistan in a World Cup qualifier in 2018, he was brought on to bowl in the second over of Afghanistan's innings. His first delivery was a wide outside off, so a bit of a nervy start. However, he then dismissed Javed Ahmadi LBW on his very next delivery, which was also technically his first ball in ODIs.
Now, some of you will complain that I'm strawmanning the argument a bit. Of course 'one-ball peaks' are ridiculous, but they're hardly comparable to periods of, say, ten years. I hear you, so why not double that timeframe and consider those bowlers who peaked with their first
two balls? Oh, yeah, now things are getting spicy. Two bowlers have taken two wickets with their first two balls in an international format, and both of them did so in T20Is.
The first was Australia's Michael Kasprowicz. What's interesting about this one is that this happened in the very first T20I back in 2005 between Australia and New Zealand, back when the format was dismissed by many as a mere novelty. Kasprowicz bowled Stephen Fleming with his first ball, before then dismissing Mathew Sinclair (thanks to a catch from Simon Katich) for a golden duck (which also happened to be the first ever golden duck in a T20I). How fitting that the first ever instance in international cricket of a bowler taking two wickets from their first two balls would occur in the first ever T20I.
The second such instance occurred in a 2017 T20I between New Zealand and Bangladesh. Lockie Ferguson, who was on his debut, was brought on in the sixth over, and started by bowling a full toss outside off. Somehow, this resulted in a wicket, as the batsman, Sabbir Rahman, completely messed up the execution of what should have been an easy shot and ended up being caught. Ferguson's second delivery was much better: An outswinger that found the outside edge of Soumya Sarkar's bat and ended up in the hands of Corey Anderson at gully. Ferguson's third delivery was a yorker on off stump, but Mahmudullah somehow managed to keep it out, thus denying Ferguson a hat-trick from his first three balls in T20Is.
Both Kasprowicz and Ferguson, at their peak, had T20I bowling figures of 0.2-0-0-2, which gives us a bowling average of 0, an economy rate of 0 and a strike rate of 1 over the course of their first two balls. Unfortunately, no bowler has ever taken a hat-trick on their first three balls in an international format, or at least not yet. Similarly, as far as I can tell, no bowler has ever taken a wicket off their first ball in two different international formats, let alone in all three. These two feats have yet to be achieved; who will be the first?
There is one last bowler who I want to cover. Out of all the feats in this post, this one has to be my favourite just for its meme value alone. Remember when I mentioned that an illegal delivery did not count as a ball bowled? Some of you may be wondering if it's thus theoretically possible for a bowler to take a wicket without having bowled a ball at all. Let's consider the two situations in which a bowler delivers a ball without it actually counting as a ball.
The first such situation is a no-ball. Unfortunately for us, a no-ball precludes the possibility of a batsman being dismissed bowled, caught, stumped, LBW or hit wicket, which is a problem as those are the only forms of dismissal which are credited to the bowler. A batsman can still be dismissed run out, hit the ball twice or obstructing the field, but those aren't credited to the bowler. No luck here, then.
What about wides? Well, this is where things get interesting. As with a no-ball, a batsman cannot be dismissed bowled, caught or LBW off a wide. However, unlike a no-ball, a batsman
can be dismissed stumped or hit wicket. I don't know the rationale behind this, but the implications are mouth-watering for anyone who is interested in unusual bowling feats. It is theoretically possible for a bowler to deliver a wide on their first delivery yet still dismiss a batsman stumped or hit wicket. The question is: Has this ever actually happened in international cricket? The answer? Yes, it has, on exactly one occasion.
It's the 31st of August 2011, and India is playing in a one-off T20I against England. This match is notable for marking the T20I debuts of Alex Hales, Jos Buttler, Rahul Dravid and Ajinkya Rahane. More notable for our purposes, however, is an incident which occurred in the eighth over of England's innings. Given a target of 166 to chase, England were cruising along at 60/2 after seven overs, requiring 106 runs from 78 balls to win. A task that is more than doable, I'm sure you can agree, especially considering that at that moment in time, Eoin Morgan and Kevin Pietersen (arguably England's two greatest ever T20I batsmen) were at the crease. MS Dhoni needed to conjure up a masterstroke to have any chance of beating England.
Thankfully, he had in his arsenal a truly special bowler. You see, batsmen are used to playing pace bowlers at various speeds, ranging from medium to fast, and they're also used to playing spinners, both finger-spinners and wrist-spinners, both left-handed and right-handed. However, the England batsmen were not prepared for MS Dhoni to make the 900IQ move of bringing on right-arm quick
TM bowler Virat Kohli to break the partnership. As the very first right-arm quick
TM bowler in the history of the sport, England were not prepared for the havoc which Kohli was about to unleash on their sorry excuse of a batting lineup.
Kevin Pietersen evidently underestimated Kohli, however, as he launched himself forwards, presumably wishing to slog him for six. The bad news for Kohli was that his first delivery in T20I cricket was a leg-side wide, so he ended up conceding a run from it. The good news was that Dhoni was ready to whip off the stumps before Pietersen could return to his crease in time, and thus the Virgin KP was outsmarted by the Chad Kohli. At that exact moment, since the wide was not a legal delivery, Kohli's bowling figures read 0-0-1-1. Many bowlers have taken wickets off their first balls in international cricket, but only the Chad Kohli could take a wicket off his
zeroth ball in an international format. 🐐
England ended up winning that match by six wickets (though with only three balls remaining), but it's fair to say that Dhoni achieved the moral victory in that game. If dismissing one of the GOAT T20I batsmen off your zeroth ball is a chad move then bringing on that bowler when your team is struggling to take wickets is a gigachad move. Eoin Morgan would never.
Anyway, that's it for Part One. The post ended up being so long that I had to split it in two, which I wasn't expecting.
Why Bowl Many Deliveries When One Delivery Do Trick?
Some of the most bizarre and unusual bowling innings are those in which a bowler delivers just one ball and nothing else. The reasons for this can vary: Perhaps a bowler is injured after five deliveries and someone has to bowl the final delivery of an over; perhaps a bowler only makes it to one delivery before breaking down; perhaps a bowler takes the final wicket off their only delivery; perhaps a batsman scores the winning runs off a bowler's only delivery.
In any case, such an achievement is quite unusual, but not unique by any stretch. It has occurred 29 times in Tests, 56 times in ODIs and 18 times in T20Is. Generally speaking, what ends up happening is that the ball results in a dot or in a single; if a bowler is really unlucky, it'll end up as a boundary four. However, occasionally, something truly strange happens. For starters, let's deal with the two occasions on which a bowler has ended a Test innings with figures of 0.1-0-6-0.
The first instance occurred in a 1982 Test between Australia and Pakistan which took place in Karachi. The Test was marred by such incidents as a marquee being set alight and missiles and rocks being thrown onto the field as a result of political agitation; there was even a full-blown pitch invasion by the spectators at one point, driving Aussie captain Kim Hughes to remove his players from the field and even to consider cancelling the tour outright and to call for a ban on all international cricket in Pakistan (as if they'd ever actually ban international cricket in a country as crazy for the sport as Pakistan due to a violent incident).
Anyway, as far as the match itself, we actually witnessed an unusual
batting feat, as opener Mohsin Khan was given out on 58 for handling the ball in Pakistan's first innings. Despite this, by the fourth innings, Pakistan had to chase down just 45 runs to beat Australia, and from Cricinfo's account, the pitch was pretty flat as well. Nonetheless, after eleven overs, with Pakistan requiring a boundary four to win, Kim Hughes decided to turn his arm around and see if his military mediums could do the trick. They couldn't; Mohsin Khan promptly finished it off in style, hitting Hughes' first (and only) ball of his spell for six.
The second instance occurred in Bangladesh's 50th Test match, which was against New Zealand in 2008. After Bangladesh collapsed to 137 all out in their first innings, New Zealand managed to score 357 in the second innings of the match. Matthew Bell scored 107(184) while Jacob Oram scored 117(166); the lack of quality in the Bangladeshi attack can be gleaned from the fact that this was the match in which Chris Martin famously made his Test high score of 12*. New Zealand ended up needing to chase just 35 runs in their second innings, which they succeeded in doing after Peter Fulton smacked Mohammad Ashraful for six off the all-rounder's first delivery in the innings. How did this humiliation occur?
Well, you see, the inside part of Oram's bat was made up of rubber and the outside part was covered by some wood, so all he had to do was touch the ball and it flew to the boundary; that's the secret why he was scoring runs. The ICC didn't check his bat because ICC=NZC=PIG3, so don't respect them. BD would still win, however, because their daddy Tamim made his debut, and they couldn't threaten him with a Super Smash contract to play badly like they did to Aftab Ahmed (seriously, though, Tamim Iqbal did very well, scoring 53 and 84 in his two debut innings and being involved in an opening partnership of 161, a record for Bangladeshi openers at the time, whereas Aftab Ahmed was dismissed for a pair).
On the other end of the spectrum, let's discuss the only instance in the history of Test cricket in which a bowler has finished an innings with figures of 0.1-0-0-1. It was 1912, and England were playing Australia in Melbourne. The Aussies were favourites for the clash, but a spectacular 5/44 from the great Sydney Barnes (at an economy rate of 1.91 as well; no other bowler who bowled an over or more had an economy rate below 2.20) resulted in them falling to 184 all out in their first innings. Despite England needing 219 runs to win in their final innings, a graceful 126*(206) from Jack Hobbs ensured a comfortable victory.
It is in the first innings to which we must look for this feat. Frank Woolley was a batting all-rounder whose first-class statistics would put Garry Sobers and Imran Khan to shame, and he holds the record for the second-most FC runs scored and the second-most FC matches played (behind only Hobbs and Wilfred Rhodes respectively). Unfortunately, while his batting in Tests was solid enough, he could never replicate his bowling form, and in this particular match, he wasn't given the ball until the 63rd over, by which time Australia were 184/9. He proceeded to bowl the tail-ender Bill Whitty, thus ending up with innings figures of 0.1-0-0-1.
Now, last time round, I made a glaring omission. I'd mentioned situations in which batsmen had finished on scores of 6(2), 6*(1) and even 6(1), but
as a commenter pointed out, scores of 5*(1) and 5(1) are arguably even more impressive on the scale of unusual achievements. I'm not making the same mistake this time, so now I'll move on to the two occasions in the history of Test matches in which a bowler finished an innings with figures of 0.1-0-5-0.
The first occurred in a 1992 Test between England and Pakistan. The two sides were similar in many respects: both had recently been forced to move on from their star all-rounders (Ian Botham in England's case and Imran Khan in Pakistan's case); both had recently emerged from a World Cup Final (which Pakistan had won); and both had just dropped two promising young batsmen who were struggling to make the step-up to Test cricket (Graeme Hick in England's case and Inzamam-ul-Haq in Pakistan's case).
However, one metric on which the teams were clearly unequal was the bowling. The Pakistani bowling attack consisted of Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis, whereas England had Neil Mallender, Devon Malcolm and Chris Lewis. Slight mismatch there, methinks. Thanks to the two kings of swing (they both bowled so well with the old ball that the England coach, Micky Stewart, accused them of ball-tampering), Pakistan needed just two runs in their final innings to secure victory. A straightforward task, you'd think, but they were not prepared for England's secret weapon: Mark Ramprakash.
Unfortunately for Ramps, his first delivery was called a wide, meaning that the scores were already level. He knew, however, that the tie was still on so long as he took the next ten wickets without conceding any runs. The very next delivery was smacked by Aamer Sohail for four, meaning that Ramprakash ended up with innings figures of 0.1-0-5-0.
The second such occurrence was in a Test between England and South Africa in 1998. Alec Stewart won the toss and went 'we'll have a bowl, thanks', which seemed a masterstroke at first as Dominic Cork swiftly dismissed Bacher, Kirsten, Kallis (for a duck) and Cullinan, leaving the Saffers at 46/4. However, with Darren Gough injured, England lacked bite once Cork's spell was over, and South Africa would go on to produce a fifth-wicket stand of 184 runs (a record fifth-wicket stand for South Africa at the time). Specialist fielder Jonty Rhodes chipped in with a score of 117, and England collapsed to 110 all out in their first innings, which allowed South Africa to enforce the follow-on.
The result was that South Africa required 15 runs in their second innings to win. Angus Fraser conceded ten runs in his first over, and it was left to Dominic Cork (who had taken 6/119 in the first innings) to try to save the match. Cricinfo states that Cork conceded a boundary four and a no-ball (both were definitely separate as the two openers faced eight balls between them), but it doesn't give the order. Thus, I'm going to pretend that it was a four followed by a no-ball, as I love the mental image of a Test bowler conceding a no-ball when the scores are level. Like Ramprakash before him, Cork finished with innings figures of 0.1-0-5-0.
Right, time for ODIs! There have been seven different instances of bowlers finishing on 0.1-0-0-1, and I'm not going through all of them. Let me just say that the seven bowlers in question are Clive Lloyd, Martin van Jaarsveld, Dinesh Mongia, Tillakaratne Dilshan, Mohammad Yousuf (who I've already talked about), Sanath Jayasuriya and Kedar Jadhav. I checked all of them to try to spot anything unusual, but they were all situations in which the opponent was nine wickets down and the tenth wicket was taken on the first ball of the over, so there's nothing interesting to say about any of them. Let's move on to the two incidents in which a bowler finished on figures of 0.1-0-6-0.
First, let's look at a 2008 ODI between South Africa and Bangladesh. The Saffers were set a target of 174 runs (this was despite a record fifth-wicket partnership for Bangladesh of 119 runs between Shakib Al Hasan and Raqibul Hasan), so you'd think it'd be more than comfortable for them, especially with AB de Villiers in the middle order. However, it appears that the pitch was a bit of a minefield, as South Africa were still short of the target after 48 overs (albeit by just one run). Bangladesh decided to bowl Tamim Iqbal (who had never bowled a ball in his entire ODI career at that point), who was promptly smashed for six by AB.
For the second case, it's time to return to our old friend Cephas Zhuwao (the guy who averages 1.00 with the ball in T20Is). This ODI took place between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in 2018, and Zimbabwe did decently well in their innings, scoring 246/7. However, Bangladesh were left requiring three runs from 36 balls, so Cephas Zhuwao was brought into the Zimbabwe attack (presumably due to his stellar T20I record). It didn't work, as Mohammad Mithun hit a long-hop for six.
I don't think figures of 0.1-6-0 would be regarded as too unusual in T20Is (it's happened three times if you're curious), so now it's time to consider the two occasions on which a bowler has taken a wicket in a T20I innings despite bowling just one ball. The first such situation happened in a 2012 T20I between England and South Africa. A rain-affected match saw the Saffers score 77/5 from nine overs, which England then had to chase down within their nine overs. However, after four overs, the rain started to pour down again, and since five overs is needed for a result, South Africa tried to continue bowling by bringing on Morne Morkel. England, for their part, required twelve runs for a victory (or thirteen if a wicket fell) thanks to the very simple and very intuitive Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method. Unfortunately, the match had to be abandoned as soon as Morkel took the wicket of Luke Wright on the first ball of the over as the rain just continued to drop. Morkel ended up with innings figures of 0.1-0-0-1.
The second instance is special for a particular reason: We've seen examples of a bowler finishing with figures of 0.1-0-0-1, but this is the one and only time in the history of international cricket that a bowler has ended with innings figures of 0.1-0-1-1. How is that even possible? Well, allow me to tell the story. Before I begin, have a guess at which bowler achieved this feat. I have to say personally that if Kohli's zeroth-ball wicket is my favourite story of the bunch, this is my second-favourite. Out of all the bowlers who have played international cricket, I find it fitting that this particular bowler is the only one to have achieved these unusual figures. In a way, they represent a perfect microcosm of his international career in a way that no other innings bowling figures do.
The year was 2009, and Australia was touring England and Scotland. After 20 overs, the Aussies had managed a total of 145/4, which was a pretty decent total for the time. However, England's innings was delayed due to rain, but the target remained 146 from 20 overs. England's two greatest all-rounders, Ravi Bopara and Joe Denly, opened that day (the latter making his T20I debut), but poor old Dendulkar was dismissed by Brett Lee in the first over for a golden duck. Then came the second over, with Bopara on strike. The person bowling? None other than Mitchell 'bowls to the left, bowls to the right' Johnson.
The very first delivery by Johnson was a wide. How typical. Of course, the partisan England crowd did not hesitate to jeer Johnson for this (this was before that infamous 2010-11 Ashes during which we first heard
that chant). Much like in the Ashes, however, it was Mitch who got the last laugh, as he then dismissed Bopara on his very next delivery. Unfortunately, the match was then immediately abandoned due to rain, leaving Johnson as the only bowler in the history of international cricket to finish an innings with figures of 0.1-0-1-1. A wide followed by a wicket; I don't think any two deliveries have summed up a bowler's entire career like those two did.
Speaking of which, I'll briefly discuss entire careers rather than just individual innings. In ODIs, six bowlers have bowled just one ball in their entire career (though Australia's Wally Edwards holds the unique distinction of having his sole delivery be a dot ball, even though looking at the
scorecard, I can't for the life of me figure out how), whereas in T20Is, four bowlers have achieved this feat. This has yet to be achieved in Tests, however. The next person to bowl their first ball in Test cricket should thus retire due to a "permanent injury" and go down in history as the only one-ball wonder in Tests.
Participation Trophies
So far, we've mostly been looking at bowlers taking wickets, as that tends to be the entire point of bowlers. However, for some bowlers, taking wickets is optional, and it's amazing how long some bowlers can keep on going without dismissing a single batsman. In a way, they ought to be praised for their perseverance, even if their bowling clearly isn't up to scratch.
Firstly, there are Test matches. West Indian all-rounder Denis Atkinson (who could apparently bowl both right-arm medium and right-arm offbreak) holds the record for the most balls bowled in a single Test innings without taking any wickets. The year was 1957 and the Windies were up against England in the first Test of a five-match series. Atkinson actually took 1/30 in his first innings, but it then unravelled in the second. This particular Test match was bizarre in so many ways.
Following the first two innings, England were behind by 288 runs and seemed to face certain defeat. However, a mammoth fourth-wicket partnership of 411 runs between Colin Cowdrey and the captain Peter May (which is still the highest ever partnership by England for
any wicket) turned the match on its head, and England declared on 583/4. The partnership lasted for 8 hours 20 minutes, with May finishing on 285* after batting for nearly ten hours! Think the Buttler-Crawley partnership against Pakistan, but on steroids.
Having been set a target of 296 runs, the West Indies nearly conspired to lose the match, finishing on 72/7 (the world-class quartet of Garry Sobers, Everton Weekes, Frank Worrell and Clyde Walcott somehow made just 48 runs between them in that innings). I'm not sure many Test matches have had the momentum shift that drastically!
Anyway, as you can guess, it was during England's second innings in which this unusual record was broken. Poor Denis Atkinson bowled 72 overs, but spare a thought for his partner Sonny Ramadhin, who bowled
98 overs that innings and took two wickets (FYI, that's still the record for the most balls bowled in a single Test match innings, though that record, while frankly incredible, unfortunately isn't 'unusual' enough to make this list). If the name Sonny Ramadhin rings a bell then that might be because he was the same guy who bowled 72 overs in that Test match in 1950 when John Goddard bowled six maiden overs out of six while trying to prevent the draw; the poor guy just can't catch a break, can he?
Anyway, back to Atkinson. Unlike Ramadhin, he failed to take any wickets, but can you blame him? The West Indies didn't take the second new ball until 96 overs had passed, and they then proceeded to bowl 162 overs using the second new ball without ever taking the third, so that can't have helped. At least Atkinson's economy rate was a low 1.90, and he finished with innings figures of 72-29-137-0. Fantastic effort from him, it has to be said, as well as from Ramadhin (again).
It should be remembered that Denis Atkinson did in fact take a wicket in the first innings, so who holds the record for the most balls bowled in a single Test
match without taking any wickets? For that, we have to go back even further to 1929 where we find an even more bizarre Test match between England and Australia. For one, this happened to be a timeless Test, and is still the longest Test match to be played on Australian soil, lasting nine days in total (though the third day was a rest day, so in actuality, there were only eight days of play).
Due to an injury to Herbert Sutcliffe, Douglas Jardine was forced to open alongside a 47-year-old Jack Hobbs. England's innings was very slow, with Jardine scoring 19(126), Wally Hammond scoring 38(100) and Ernest Tyldesley scoring 31(116). Nonetheless, it worked, as England scored 519 in their first innings, with Hobbs and Maurice Leyland scoring centuries (the former top-scored with 142 from 301 balls). England probably felt good about themselves, until it was Australia's turn to bat.
Somehow, Australia were even slower than England, scoring at a run-rate of just 1.81 RPO. Particular lowlights included Bill Woodfull's 102(381), Alan Kippax's 38(145), Jack Ryder's 30(125) and Alan Fairfax's 65(242). Even the tailenders got in on the (lack of) action, with Clarrie Grimmett and Percy Hornibrook putting on a partnership of 59 runs, with the former scoring 38(170) and the latter scoring 26(106). Only Don Bradman, with his comparatively swashbuckling 123(247), looked to be positive. Then again, perhaps this should just be expected with timeless Tests and zero pressure to get the match over with. I'm beginning to see why these aren't a thing anymore. I mean, it worked, I guess, as Australia scored 491.
Despite all this scoring, England only made 257 runs in their second innings (Jack Hobbs once again top-scored with 65 runs from 126 balls; how the heck he was playing this well in his late 40s, I have no idea), leaving Australia with a target of 286 runs and infinite time in which to achieve it. There was a chance for Bradman to be stumped while on 5*, but the opportunity was missed, and Australia ended up winning comfortably with a score of 287/5 (three of the five wickets were taken by Wally Hammond of all people, though that included the two openers who were essentially nightwatchmen anyway).
As I said, a bizarre match, but this is all tangential. England's Maurice Tate bowled 62 overs in Australia's first innings (which somehow was only the third-most) and 38 overs in the second innings, for a total of 100 overs throughout the match. In those 100 overs, he failed to take a single wicket. Let me be clear: That's 600 balls bowled without a single wicket being taken...in one match! He ended up with figures of 100-39-184-0 for the entire match, so he was pretty economical, though that might just have been the result of the Aussies batting quite defensively. An unusual feat for an unusual game.
Anyway, that's only two out of the three pieces of the puzzle. Who has bowled the most balls without taking a single wicket
in their entire Test career? The answer to that is the Lancashire all-rounder Len Hopwood, who was given an England cap in 1934 following good performances with bat and ball. In his first Test against Australia, he scored just 2(4) in his only innings with the bat and failed to impress with the ball, ending up with match figures of 47-25-62-0. No matter; he can redeem himself in the next match.
Except he didn't. In the first innings, he scored 8(50), then was thrashed about in the second innings by Don Bradman, who ended up scoring 304(473). Say, this Bradman fellow seems like a decent batsman (he's still got nothing on Andy Ganteaume and Kurtis Patterson, though). To be fair to Hopwood, he scored 2*(39) in the third innings, but the match was drawn before he could kick on and score his century. He was subsequently dropped and never selected for England again following his poor performances. All in all, Len Hopwood bowled 462 balls in Test cricket without taking a single wicket, which is still the record by quite a distance.
I should note that right now, Bangladesh's Khaled Ahmed sits in third place, having bowled 360 balls in Test cricket so far without taking any wickets. Can he be the one to break Hopwood's record? It won't be easy: Even if he reaches the 463-ball mark without taking a wicket, any subsequent wickets will cause him to lose the record. Definitely one to keep an eye on, though (in all seriousness, I hope it clicks for him sooner rather than later; it can't feel good as a bowler to bowl that many deliveries and not have anything to show for it).
Now, when it comes to ODIs and T20Is, there is not much use looking at individual innings, as I don't think anyone would find it particularly unusual for a bowler to make it through their allotted overs without taking a single wicket. However, we
can look at entire careers, which is precisely what I'm going to do.
For ODIs, the record belongs to Sri Lanka's Athula Samarasekera. Selected as an all-rounder, he bowled 56.2 overs (or 338 balls) of medium pace between 1983 and 1989 at an economy rate of 5.16; he never took any ODI wickets. He continued to play in the format until 1994, but never bowled again after 1989.
In T20Is, the record-holder is still playing: Behold, 41-year-old fast-medium bowler Anasim Khan from Bahrain! Not only has he bowled 25 overs (or 150 balls) in T20Is without taking any wickets, but he's done so at an economy rate of 8.84. Beyond that, not much is known about him, which tends to be the case with these smaller associate members. On another note, much like with the batting feats post, minnows have began to pop up when it comes to T20Is, as was to be expected when every associate nation received T20I status. Opening up T20Is has had the side effect of increasing the likelihood of these unusual occurrences, so props to the ICC for that.
That's it for Part Two. Now for
Part Three!
This year’s Hall of Fame ballot includes 11 first time players. None of them are first ballot locks and some of them are guaranteed to fall off the ballot after one year of eligibility. So once again, we’re taking a look at all the ballot rookies, starting from the bottom. This is episode two, so it’s time for…
Michael Cuddyer
Bill James Hall of Fame Monitor: 26
Career bWAR (14 years): 17.7
Stats: .277/.344/.461, 333 doubles, 197 HR, 809 R, 794 RBI, 113 OPS+
Awards: All Star x2 (2011, AL; 2013, NL), Silver Slugger (2013, NL, OF)
League Leading Stats: 2013 Batting Champ
Teams Played For: Twins (2001-2011), Rockies (2012-14), Mets (2015)
Through the late ‘90s and early ‘00s, I was really into the Baseball Mogul series of baseball sims. It was the closest thing I could find at the time to recreating the Strat-o-matic experience on a computer and I loved it. In one simulation, I found this kid. Alex Straton was his name. Pitcher. Lefty. I plucked him out of the late rounds of the draft, moved him straight to the bigs from AA. He went on to win 316 games for the Cubs, struck out over 4,000 batters. Sometimes I still wish I could put Alex Straton on my resume. Anyway, the 2002 edition of Baseball Mogul just LOVED the idea of Michael Cuddyer for some reason. Simulation after simulation, there he was. Multiple MVPs, perennial All Star, homers in bunches. No matter how many times I reset the simulation, Cuddyer could be counted on for at least one 60 homer season in his career. Baseball Mogul was utterly convinced that Cuddyer was the next Mickey Mantle.
Michael Cuddyer was not the next Mickey Mantle. He was more along the lines of a slightly beefier Mickey Morandini. Which is not to say that Twins fans had much of a reason to be disappointed by Cuddyer’s career; at least not the ones who never played Baseball Mogul 2002.
Though he broke into the bigs at the age of 22, Cuddyer didn’t play in 100 games until his age 25 season. It would take him two more seasons before he’d get 500 plate appearances. But once he became a regular, he settled into a seven year stretch (2006-2013) of solid if unspectacular production that resulted in a .281/.349/.470 slash, 145 HR, 243 2B, 613 RBI and a 117 OPS+. He also made two All Star teams in that time and had a couple of production spikes that saw him crank a career high 32 homers in ’09 and then sell his soul to Tony Gwynn so that he could hit .331 and steal 10 bases as a 34 year old.
At first blush, it can be easy to say that Cuddyer was one of those guys whose overall value with a bat was hurt by his defensive metrics. To an extent, this is true: wherever he managed to play, Cuddyer was an indifferent fielder at best and an outright bad one at worst. He was, technically speaking, nimble enough to play all four infield spots. In the minors he was primarily a third/second baseman, but he was 6’2, 220 lbs and moved with all the grace of a dancing bear. Still, he was athletically gifted enough to be able to play six different positions in the majors (seven, if you count his one inning of no run, two hit, one walk relief pitching), including three of the four infield positions.
And yes, his inability to field any position with grace absolutely hurt his overall production. BBref has Cuddyer being worth -15 dWAR, while Fangraphs gives him a -39.3 UZR and -53.9 RngR. It’s like he was trying to win a Gold Glove with an actual gold glove.
If Cuddyer could have spent all of his time as a DH, he might have had a slightly more “valuable” career; he was a 27 oWAR player over his career. But the ‘00s Twins didn’t have that luxury, especially after guys like Corey Koskie and Jacque Jones left town. What were the 2006 Twins going to do, if not give a glove to Cuddyer? Turn to 900-year-old Rondell White? Expect Phil Nevin or snicker Ruben Sierra to remember the movements required to get their arms over their heads?
So Cuddyer did the best he could, and had all but one of his best seasons in Minnesota as a result. In the 2011 offseason the Twins kind of made a half-hearted “no, don’t go” gesture at Cuddyer’s back as they were showing him the door, but they did it while cuddling on the couch with Josh Willingham, so nobody really took them seriously. Cuddyer would instead sign a three year, $31 million deal with the Rockies.
While he was mostly forgettable in two and a half seasons there, Willingham actually turned out a very productive 2012 for the Twins, hitting .260 with 35 homers and 110 RBI, en route to a 143 OPS+ 3.3 WAR (turns out, he was no better a fielder than Cuddyer. The Twins definitely had a type.)
Cuddyer, meanwhile, just kind of kept being Micheal Cuddyer. He hit .260, he played the outfield with all the panache and sizzle of a bored housewife on “begrudging handjob” night, and he earned his paycheck in seemingly the only way he knew how.
But then, on some cold, January night in 2013, David Bowie’s astral projection hovered above a sleeping Michael Cuddyer’s bed and whispered: “we can be heroes.”
Cuddyer took that vision to heart and proceeded to spank every pitch he saw like it was your girlfriend after four tequila shots. .331/.389/.530 slash, all career highs. 136 OPS+, career high. 31 doubles, 20 homers, 84 RBI, his second All Star appearance, his only Silver Slugger, MVP votes and one of the more improbable batting titles in recent memory.
And that, the baseball Gods decided, was that.
Cuddyer would actually go on to best his 2013 average the next season, hitting .332, but that was over just 49 games so it was less impressive. Hid did, however manage to hit for the cycle in 2014, which made him just the third player in MLB history to nab a cycle in both leagues.
But his body was done. Cuddyer was not yet consciously aware that his career was over, so he kept looking for work after his Rockies contract expired. But his subconscious was clearly in the know, because it made him sign with the Mets. The Kings of Queens gave Cuddyer his first taste of the World Series, but even that wasn’t enough to offset the fact that he was playing for the Mets, and Cuddyer called it a career the following winter.
Michael Brent Cuddyer toiled for 15 seasons in the majors, the vast majority with the Minnesota Twins. Despite his World Series appearance and batting title with other teams, he goes into the Hypothetical Hall with the Twins logo on his cap, honoring his .272/.343/.451 slash with the club. He was also inducted into the Twins Hall of Fame, no doubt in honor of his place in the Twins record books, which includes 10th all time in strikeouts (805) and 9th in GIDP (140).
Chances of making the Hall: Worse than the Twins chances of moving back into the Humphrey Dome.
Chances of leaving the ballot this year: 100%
submitted by https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/why-mlb-teams-might-start-changing-how-they-value-high-contact-hitters/ Is a high-average renaissance coming in baseball? By Matt Snyder
"Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" was published in 2003. Michael Lewis' book was then turned into a movie that was released in 2011. And yet, in 2021, there are still so many people out there with the misconception that playing "Moneyball" was about a specific stat ("Moneyball is on-base percentage!" the ignorant will cry out) or even some sort of "sabermetrics" revolution to make people hate the stats they long held near and dear in favor of "newfangled" stuff.
I'll pause for laughter.
No, it's actually about finding market inefficiencies. That is, what skillsets are other teams undervaluing and how can we acquire players -- mostly cheaply -- to exploit this for our gain. There have been several iterations since the initial movement from average to OBP and slugging. Defense is certainly up there, a combination of shifting/positioning and getting undervalued defensive players. Things have obviously been done on the pitching side, such as shortening the game with super bullpens and using openers, among other things.
In light of where things are headed right now in baseball, I'm wondering if we're coming full circle very soon with what type of hitter is undervalued.
That is to say, while the initial "Moneyball" movement set baseball on a path, where average was less important than the other two main rate stats (meaning more emphasis was put on drawing walks -- and, in related matters, working deep counts -- and hitting for power). In the process, we have seen a great shift toward the so-called Three True Outcomes (home runs, walks, strikeouts).
As a result, who got left a bit behind? The high-average, high-contact hitters, possibly with low power.
I said I'm wondering if we're about to come full circle because not only do I believe there's a chance at a market inefficiency in there, I also think the forces of the game are swinging toward this type of hitter being undervalued.
Strikeouts continue to rise. More and more, it seems like whichever team each game hits "the big home run" is the one that goes on to win. Here are the lowest batting averages in MLB since World War I:
1968: .237 1967: .242 1972: .244 2020: .245 If we're wondering about the small sample or want to blame the pandemic, the 2019 average was .252 and the league hit .248 in 2018.
If some of those years above jumped out, it's for good reason. After 1967-68, the pitcher's mound was lowered. After 1972, the American League added the DH.
Meanwhile, in 2020, strikeouts per team game actually dropped -- to the second-most all-time -- from 2019, but 2020 marked the first year it wasn't a new strikeouts per game record since 2007.
It's gotten to the point that it isn't just a small subset fans or curmudgeon broadcasters whining. Many baseball fans acknowledge the game needs more on-field action. At this point, pretty open-minded and even-keel people are discussing that something has to change. Home runs are great. Walks were far too long an underappreciated part of the game. Big strikeouts are excellent to watch. It's just that we should have more than those things along with groundballs and fly balls going right at nearly perfectly positioned defenders.
On one hand, the pitchers and defense are very good. On another, maybe the shift in philosophy left too many different types of hitters behind. Maybe things should tilt back a bit the other way?
After stepping down from his perch as Cubs president, Theo Epstein took a job with the commissioner's office and said something along these lines (emphasis mine).
"As the game evolves, we all have an interest in ensuring the changes we see on the field make the game as entertaining and action-packed as possible for the fans, while preserving all that makes baseball so special. I look forward to working with interested parties throughout the industry to help us collectively navigate toward the very best version of our game."
He had recently sort of lamented his own role in shaping the game, too. Via The Athletic:
"There are some threats to it because of the way the game is evolving," Epstein said. "I take some responsibility for that. Executives like me who have spent a lot of time using analytics and other measures to try to optimize individual and team performance have unwittingly had a negative impact on the aesthetic value of the game and the entertainment value of the game in some respects."
The hunch here is Epstein will have commissioner Rob Manfred's ear pretty strongly in the next few years. We've also already seen Manfred discussing things like either banning or limiting the shift along with something to curtail strikeouts, such as lowering and/or moving back the mound.
Zeroing in on the possibility of shifts going away, and low-strikeout guys become even more valuable. It doesn't take an Epstein-savvy front office member to figure out the chances of finding a hole without the defense perfectly crafted to a spray chart increase.
Further, after seeing so many strikeouts in huge spots with runners on base over the past several years, I can't help but think that even if a hitter that sits something like .230/.340/.500 can be valuable, evening that out with a high-average contact hitter to keep the line moving at times would be beneficial in creating a more well-rounded lineup.
The poster boy here is D.J. LeMahieu. Believe it or not, Epstein actually inherited him with the Cubs, but traded him away his first offseason with Tyler Colvin for Ian Stewart and Casey Weathers. Stewart looked like the high-walk, high-power guy teams coveted at the time (important update: He wasn't). Despite winning a batting title, winning three Gold Gloves and making two All-Star teams, LeMahieu only got a two-year, $24 million deal with the Yankees after the 2018 season as mostly an afterthought in a huge offseason. He went on to finish fourth in AL MVP voting. Then he finished third last season, leading the majors with a .364 average while also pacing the AL in OBP, OPS and OPS+.
Finally heavily sought after, LeMahieu got six years and $90 million to stay with the Yankees this offseason. Yes, he's developed his power, but he only struck out 90 times in 655 plate appearances in 2019 and 21 times in 195 plate appearances in 2020.
With everything conspiring in this direction anyway, I think LeMahieu is starting a wave.
Here are some others (in a non-exhaustive list) who could become increasingly valuable moving forward into the next decade of baseball evolution.
Tommy La Stella - A broken leg cost La Stella half the 2019 season in what looked like his career year. He already had 16 homers, yet had still only struck out 28 times in 321 plate appearances. Last year, he had the lowest strikeout percentage in baseball while hitting .281 with a .370 OBP.
Ketel Marte - Pay too much attention to the loss of power in just 45 games last year at your peril. He still hit .287 and was tough to strikeout. I'm not expecting a full bounce-back to MVP-caliber levels of 2019, but his bat-on-ball skills have pretty steadily improved for five years straight.
David Fletcher - He's improved all three years in all three rate stats and sports a career .292 average with just 123 strikeouts in 1,190 plate appearances. He also ranks near the very bottom of the league in stuff like barrel percentage, exit velocity and hard-hit percentage. Sending some conventional 2019 people running for the hills is a good trait for someone to have when looking for market inefficiency, right?
Jeff McNeil - Why pick between McNeil and a Pete Alonso type when you have both? McNeil in 248 career games is a .319 hitter with only 123 strikeouts in 1,024 plate appearances. Like Fletcher, his "batted ball profile" leaves a lot to be desired, too.
Trea Turner - We've seen former Turner teammates Bryce Harper and Anthony Rendon strike it very rich in free agency while his current teammate Juan Soto rightfully will garner a ton more attention here in the short term. Just don't forget about Trea. His strikeout percentages aren't excessive -- remember, as a leadoff man he takes tons of plate appearances -- and he's a career .296 hitter. He makes consistent contact, has some power and can fly.
Kevin Newman - Newman had a dreadful 2020 season, but it was only 45 games in the middle of a pandemic. I'm not going to harp on that when we've got 130 games of a .308 hitter in 2019 who only struck out 62 times in 531 plate appearances. Don't sleep on him.
Jean Segura - Segura became a different hitter in 2020. His strikeout percentage jumped from 11.8 to 20.7. Along with it went his previously high average. But he walked a lot more and his OBP went up. It was weird. Regardless, keep in mind what a fluky season 2020 was. Segura was in the top five percent of toughest hitters to strikeout in 2018 and 2019 while topping a .300 average 2016-18. He's 30. I have faith in him being productive with a good average and lower strikeout rate in 2021. And hey, maybe he'll even keep walking. I never said it was bad.
Jake Cronenworth - As a rookie last year, Cronenworth put together a season in which he would've struck out around 90 times in a full year while hitting .285. His minor-league and amateur profile has long shown someone with good contact skills capable of a higher average. He was never a top-100 prospect in the minors, but he now heads into territory where he can have an impact simply by being differently valuable than the 2010s prototype.
To be clear, this premise isn't even remotely saying teams should load up on only these types of players. The best lineups are the most well-rounded. Get you a few of these types to pair with some big boppers and things would be looking pretty damn nice. The conditions are ripe for a bit of a sea change in how hitters are valued in these next few years. Watch LeMahieu, La Stella and company for a guide while someone like Cronenworth carries the torch to the next generation.
submitted by The batting tips we want to show is a good hitter must ‘harvest their hay when it is ready to be cut.’ In baseball terms, you better get your hits when the ball-strike count is in your favor. When a batter gets to a count in their favor they had better put their best swing technique on the pitch. If a hitter is late and misses, takes a good pitch, or fouls the pitch off then they likely Batting average analysis, more than interesting statistics, a treasure chest of information to help hitters develop a positive plan for each plate appearance. If you think back to most any baseball game that you watched, professional or amateur, you can no doubt recall some hitters who had some terrible looking plate appearances. Bickel and Stotz (2003) recently looked carefully at the differences in batting averages for different pitch counts. Using Stanford University baseball data for a four-year time period, they calculated the batting average (AVG) and the slugging percentage (SLG) for different pitch counts. They showed that AVG and SLG both significantly 3. Somewhat surprisingly, batting averages don’t change much from a 0-0 pitch (.345) to 1-0 (.344) or 2-0 (.350), counts that would be more advantageous to the hitter. But averages skyrocket 57 points when going from 2-0 to 3-0, and even a 3-1 count is the second most advantageous (.363). 4. The pitch count should have a direct impact on each swing you take at the plate. Certain pitch counts favor the hitter and certain ones favor the pitcher. Just as the smart pitcher takes advantage of the times he is “ahead in the count,” the smart hitter understands when he has the advantage. In these situations, the hitter must capitalize. Of the 11 possible counts other than 0-0, the batter has an advantage over his initial expectations on only four of those counts: 1-0, 2-0, 3-0 and 3-1. The 2-1 pitch can be considered a "neutral" count for all practical purposes, and the 3-2 pitch, while producing a probable batting average of only .190, does have a .420 OBA expectation due to Every pitch counts in baseball, but the 1-1 pitch counts more than any other Mike Trout says he is unaware what his batting average is in different counts. Advertisement Batting splits by counts, a complete year end summary of how the top 10 hitters from the American and National Leagues fared in each of the 12 possible counts hitters can find themselves in. These particular stats have valuable information for coaches and hitters, as they show a definate seperation betweeen success and strugling, clearly defined by the pitch count. Batting Averages on Specific Counts; COUNT: BATTING AVERAGE : 0-2.118: 1-2.151: 2-2.169: 0-0.186: 3-2.192: 0-1.199: 3-0.267: 1-1.269: 2-1.290: 3-1.329: 2-0.342: 1-0.386
Sign in to make your opinion count. Sign in. 1 0. ... Basic Pitching Mechanics for Young Pitchers - Duration: ... Increase Batting Average with ZONE APPROACH ... Best Pitching Tips MLB The Show 17 Pitching Tutorial New viewer? Subscribe to me on YouTube for MLB The Show 17 Tips, News, Reviews, and Edited Gameplays h... Best batting average stats players MLB - Line Bar Chart Race 2011 - 2019 - Duration: 1:31. Data Race 203 views One of the first things you learn about swinging the bat is actually being able to hold it properly. It's one of the first determining factors in how long your bat will remain in the zone. Are you ... Sign in to make your opinion count. Sign in. 913 75. Don't like this video? Sign in to make your opinion count. ... The Top 3 Baseball Hitting Drills to Improve Batting Average! Breaking down BABIP, or Batting Average on Balls in Play. I explain how it differs from batters to pitchers (with a brief explainer of Batting Average vs Batting Average Against), and what the ... 3-time batting champion has a .308 career batting average.
