All of this is according to the data provided on the website. There was a “bang” on 4.7% of fastballs 27.9% of breaking pitches 26.8% of changeups
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
If we look at each individual PA, it is assumed that the Astros cheated in that PA if there was at least 1 bang. It is assumed they didn’t cheat if there was a breaking pitch or changeup thrown and there was not a bang in the PA. It is unknown if there were only fastballs thrown
Prikaži ovu nit -
We can use that because in PA that there was a scheme in place for, the bang isnt the only information they got. A pitch without a bang could be assumed to be a FB. So it’s possible they were cheating in PA with only fastballs thrown but we don’t know one way or the other
Prikaži ovu nit -
In the data provided, there was 2,164 PA. They did cheat in 29% of them, didn’t cheat in 46% of them, and it is unknown for the other 25%. You could disagree with my methodology, it’s more of a rough estimate, but if you define cheating in the way I did this is what you get
Prikaži ovu nit -
Then it makes sense to look at those numbers where they did and didn’t cheat. Slash lines in PA where they did cheat: .245/.319/.422, 18.6% K, 9.6% BB in 629 PA where they didn’t cheat: .259/.333/.429, 24.4% K, 9.2% BB in 995 PA
Prikaži ovu nit -
however, this doesn’t mean the Astros cheating didn’t help them. there are major confounding variables here, like the hitters that cheated more and pitchers they cheated against
Prikaži ovu nit -
their best hitter that year, Jose Altuve, only had a bang for 24 pitches (2.8% of pitches) while lesser hitters like Jake Marisnick, Tyler White, and JD davis got a bang for upwards of 20% of pitches. it also makes sense that they wouldn’t need as much help against worse pitchers
Prikaži ovu nit -
you can also break this down further by individual hitter but run the risk of small sample size. this is for the 5 hitters who each had 100 “bangs” in recorded data...
Prikaži ovu nit -
Marwin cheat: .143/.203/.254 in 69 PA no cheat: .362/.450/.681 in 81 PA Springer cheat: .241/.400/.379 in 76 PA no cheat: .185/.265/.413 in 105 PA Beltran cheat: .200/.263/.300 in 76 PA no cheat: .176/.219/.206 in 73 PA ...
Prikaži ovu nit -
Bregman cheat: .310/.357/.563 in 81 PA no cheat: .231/.346/.464 in 81 PA Yuli cheat: .328/.388/.541 in 68 PA no cheat: .238/.279/.413 in 68 PA
Prikaži ovu nit -
you may also be wondering why these lines seem pretty low. that is because in the PA we cannot say they did or didn’t cheat in (PA with only fastballs and no bangs) the team hit .308/.332/.536. which makes sense bc they’re all FB. so we are removing a strong subset of their PA
Prikaži ovu nit -
You can also look pitch by pitch but it is again influenced by hitter and pitcher Swing rate on Brk, bang: 39.3% Brk, no bang: 42.5% Ch, bang: 41.5% Ch, no bang: 47.4% Swing and miss per swing on Brk, bang: 16.3% Brk, no bang, 28.9% Ch, bang: 18.6% Ch, no bang: 21.3%
Prikaži ovu nit -
It’s pretty evident that they started this scheme in for real on 5/28. Before then, they never had 10 bangs in a game with data. After, they had 10 bangs in ALL but 4 Home games with data. in Home games < May 28: .260/.324/.456, 18% K in H games >= May 28: .289/.348/.481, 16% K
Prikaži ovu nit -
that’s where I’ll end this thread. nothing here proves definitively that they benefited or didn’t benefit by using the trash cans due to a lot of confounding variables. they’re all just data points. thanks for reading
Prikaži ovu nit -
actually one more thing to add: it doesn’t matter if this scheme helped them or not. cheating is cheating whether it actually works or not
Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.