Same to you!

If you take it further though it could have been on that same catch that the batter closed his eyes and swung randomly and got incredibly lucky on a great pitch. That's why it is better to judge the result.

We should take it a step further and not even look at the result of a pitch. Just look at position and velocity and determine what is good and bad. Then do the same for batters in how good they swung. Ignore strikes and balls and hits and home runs as neither can control 100% of the pitching matchup. Or we could just watch darts.

I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.

If he strikes out it was, by definition, a good pitch.

I was thinking about this concept the other day after watching several hitters swing at balls in the dirt on a 3-2 count. The pitcher gets credit for a strikeout based on the result of the batter's action, not the actual location of the pitch itself. The strikeout exists only because the batter was fooled into swinging at ball 4. So did the pitcher throw a good pitch or a bad pitch? I'm not talking about something a few inches off the plate where the batter has to protect...but rather way out of the zone where I'm assuming the pitcher was not trying to throw (considering there was a 3-ball count). Should that pitch be judged differently (by advanced metrics) than one that is actually in the zone that the batter swings and misses? There is probably already some kind of metric for that type of thing.

That's old school thinking.

You are assuming that with two strikes, they're trying to throw it in the zone. If I was pitching to Javy Baez with two strikes, you couldn't pay me to throw a pitch in the zone. Even if it was a full count, I would still throw a breaking ball in the dirt.

You are assuming that with two strikes, they're trying to throw it in the zone. If I was pitching to Javy Baez with two strikes, you couldn't pay me to throw a pitch in the zone. Even if it was a full count, I would still throw a breaking ball in the dirt.

You can't control if the batter swings.

You can't control if the batter swings.

If he strikes out it was, by definition, a good pitch.

FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

That's good. But I do know what I'm talking about. Game Score has been an off debated topic on this board for years. I'm not new to the concept or the argument in favor of it.

JORR says you and I use kid gloves with each other. What do you think, you dumb Caller Bob?

FWIW, I disagree with what RPB is saying (for the most part). But I'm at least willing to listen to his argument rather than throwing my hands up and saying "nope! dumbest statistic ever made!" without really even knowing what I'm talking about.

A ball put in play has a 30% chance of being a hit. A strikeout has a 0% chance of being a hit, and a strikeout victim has a 0.1% chance of reaching base. Someone like JORR would be a huge fan of Game Score, as he knows strikeouts are terrible for hitters.

What is it that you disagree with?

Basically, it boils down to whether you think a pitcher striking someone out is a better performance than getting a ground out (or flyout deep to the wall)

There's no difference between a strikeout and any other after the out has been recorded.

I'm all for judging the means rather than the ends if it makes sense. I'm not Rick.

However, I think it has to be balanced. I disagree that weak contact isn't something a pitcher should be lauded for. Otherwise, Maddux's entire existence is a sham, as is Kyle Hendricks' success.

There is a ton of randomness in baseball, which makes it a sport that requires huge sample size to make it something that we can draw conclusions about. But this particular subject is not one that can be parsed, IMO. If you get a guy out, you did what you're supposed to. There are so many possible outcomes, that I find it futile to try to determine which "means" is "best." Over a large enough sample size, if someone has stats that indicate he is a dominant pitcher, there really shouldn't be a debate regarding how he got those outs. He did what he was supposed to do, within his control.

I'm willing to listen, though. It's entirely possible that I don't understand Gamescore.

There's no difference between a bloop single and a rocket one bounce to RF but one is more impressive, imo

Maybe. But Matty Alou was more effective than many guys who had more power. Consistency is important in baseball. Jamie Moyer was a better pitcher than Kerry Wood.

Jamie Moyer was a better pitcher than Kerry Wood.