stupid statistics
ESPN just ran a segment talking about how the Indians pitchers need to throw first-pitch strikes in order to get Red Sox hitters out. Here's the chart they put up:
Games 1&2 Games 3&4
first pitch strikes 57% 76%
avg. when ahead .350 .222
avg. even/behind .357 .232
Buster Olney, the designated talking head for the segment, then talked about how Indians pitchers in the first two games (who struggled) got behind early, leading to a .350 batting average, while starters in the next two games got ahead early by throwing strikes, and thus Red Sox batters hit only .232 when behind.
Uhhh, which producer signed off on this? Did no one notice that the Sox seemed to hit better when even or behind in the count, no matter who was pitching? Or, when you consider the small number of total at bats, the fact that the averages are basically identical no matter the count? Olney seemed to stumble a bit as he read the data--maybe he realized halfway through that the whole thing was bullshit?
Games 1&2 Games 3&4
first pitch strikes 57% 76%
avg. when ahead .350 .222
avg. even/behind .357 .232
Buster Olney, the designated talking head for the segment, then talked about how Indians pitchers in the first two games (who struggled) got behind early, leading to a .350 batting average, while starters in the next two games got ahead early by throwing strikes, and thus Red Sox batters hit only .232 when behind.
Uhhh, which producer signed off on this? Did no one notice that the Sox seemed to hit better when even or behind in the count, no matter who was pitching? Or, when you consider the small number of total at bats, the fact that the averages are basically identical no matter the count? Olney seemed to stumble a bit as he read the data--maybe he realized halfway through that the whole thing was bullshit?
posted by bc at 9:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home