Prospectus Idol Entry

I think the writing style was fine. Sometimes statistics are kind of left hanging there like the discussion on Runs Created. The writing itself, though, was structured quite well and there wasn't much left to confusion.

There seemed to be a few assumptions sprinkled throughout that don't make sense... "While batting average and RBI are influenced by uncontrolled factors such as the opposing team’s pitching and defense" That one was a big red flag for me... How are RBI influenced by the opposing team's pitching and defense? "the statistic is an essential component for tracking offensive production" is a bit more of an assumption than the latter part of that sentence "monitoring the dynamics of a player’s swing." G/F tells relatively little about offensive production, just the form that the offensive production takes...

I kept waiting for the line "These numbers suggest Ortiz isn't squaring up on the ball and hitting it on the sweet spot like he used to." Also, I find it a bit problematic that Ortiz needs to bring his G/F to the 0.55-0.65 range... the difference between 0.45 and 0.55, over the course of a season, is around 15 line drives turning into groundballs... to paraphrase Bull Durham, the difference between a .260 and .300 hitter is 20 hits a year finding a hole. It also seems a bit counterintuitive for a slow runner like Ortiz to try to hit groundballs... the purpose, I think, is not that he should be hitting more groundballs but that he should be making more solid contact. Perhaps a comment about trying to hit the opposite way more might force pitchers to pitch him differently or stop teams from employing the shift as much.

I'm not convinced by your analysis. Your data, which are rather limited, don't actually show a direct correlation between G/F and HR%. Maybe I'm missing something here, but for each of your examples, the data show an opposite relation between G/F and HR%, but still not a very strong relation, especially considering the very small sample size.

Your writing quality is top-notch and given that, plus your entry piece, I'd really like to see what else you can do here.

Thumbs up.

I'm supposed to vote for someone who thinks 33 is "old age"?

Randomly picking three players doesn't make a very good statistical argument. Not only that, but comparing less than two months worth of 2009 with full season data is a bit sketchy.

I agree with Christina that this was an incomplete explanation. There are many batted ball types and it would have been nice to see which ones are more stable given about 150 PAs for Ortiz so far this year. The differences between hitters and pitchers controlling various statistics to differing degrees would have been nice to discuss, too, especially the idea that pitchers seem to control the percentage of outfield fly balls they yield, but hitters control more which ones leave the park.

The word “first” is missing in first sentence. Would BP pick up on such things and correct them? I assume so.

A bigger problem is the unconvincing math. To be a BP writer you have to have a better grasp on the relative value of statistics than this. However, Brittany scores points for getting us to look at G/F in terms of how squarely a player is hitting the ball – even if that point wasn’t intended.

Your best strength is your writing style. Yet, you lost a lot of what made your tone strong when you dealt with stats. Try not to sacrifice your tone for statistics, but still, make sure to drill down into the stats to analyze them and then present them properly to the reader. The reader should be left with the exact same conclusion that you have once you walk them from the data... we shouldn't be drawing completely different conclusions from the data you presented us. You will know your process is effective if instead of asking for clarification, we're suggesting avenues for further research or discussing the implications of what you presented.

I have to agree with Will - the writing style is good, but the content isn't. Those stats aren't good at all. Give me some more Cathwright!

Three things I enjoyed about this article:
1) It was written by a Spartan. Woo-woo!
2) It made a reference to Derek Jeter. No introductory sabermetric article is complete without mentioning how it relates to Derek Jeter, just to stir the pot.
3) (and most important) It made me think. It provided a pretty convincing argument for a counter-intuitive concept; namely, that if a player wants to hit more home runs, he may be better served by trying to focus on hitting the ball in the air less often, not more.

Hitters are at their best when they hit more line drives. A lower than normal G/F ratio is a symptom of not hitting enough line drives - when a hitter is locked in and hitting a high number of line drives, when he just misses the sweet spot, a good portion of those misses will be where he hits more towards the top of the ball, resulting in more grounders. This would demonstrate that you understand what causes what. Say something along these line and you get my vote. You didn't so you don't.

Too ambitious. Brittany's strengths are more like Perrotto's than Normandin's. It's clear she gets in over her head. Comparing Ortiz, Teixeira and Bartlett using G/F, etc. was a great idea but it failed in execution; the interpretations of the numbers are unconvincing, bordering on hand-waving.

My problem is not with the mathematics but with the reasoning. I think Brittany mistakes correlation for causation when she she says that David Ortiz should hit more grounders if he wants to hit more homers. His low GB/FB% and his low HR% are both symptoms of an underlying problem, aren't they? If so, it's a mistake to suppose that GB/FB% has any causal influence on his HR% - as much of a mistake as supposing that ice cream sales cause the murder rate to go up.

The right thing to say - and I think Richard made this point above - is that both GB/FB% and HR% are down and the cause is...well, that would have been a nice topic for the article.

Brittany writes very well. But

(whoops - hit submit accidentally)

But I'm not sure she has the analytical chops to write for BP.

On the other hand - just to make a point - I'm fairly certain even Will Carroll himself will admit he doesn't have the statistical 'chops' to write for BP. On the other hand he's an incredibly popular writer for the site and has wider fame that BP itself. He's also not the only one.

I think a lot of complaints could have been saved by including average of all players in table - perhaps a line in each rather than just a sentence or 2 in the article. Always keep in mind do not try to prove something with a handfull of players or ABs. Those help make the subject matter personal- something you are quite good at - but leaves the article in the 'tea leaf reading' category without the statistical backing of large amounts of data.

Another though - tag teaming? Some of these guys are deep statistically only and others are great writers - are you going to pair up mentors to their strengths or weaknesses?

Since BP is collaborative, maybe one week you should let them pick a regular BP author who can cover for their weakness on a collaborative piece?

The writing quality was very strong. The analysis had some holes, but I am giving a thumb up because I see tremendous upside. No matter how much someone knows stats, if they can't write and communicate them clearly, it doesn't matter. I guess the opposite is true but Brittany has demonstrated a solid understanding.

One thing that bothered me was making the connection between "fewer HR" to "fewer ground-ball outs" while neglecting to consider the possibility that the GO/AO ratio could have changed due to balls that used to be home runs becoming fly-ball outs. It's not to say that there isn't come correlation here, but ignoring what to me appears to be the most obvious explanation makes this appear to be "playing with numbers" instead of sound statistical analysis.

I will probably vote for you, even though I was predisposed to vote for you in the first place. 1) I'm sexist and feel that there aren't enough competent female sportswriters. 2) your writing style is solid, readable, and enjoyable. The fact that I don't necessarily agree with you doesn't mean that you're analysis is wrong.


Speaking of that analysis, you must be careful not to confuse cause and effect. The cause here is most blatantly Ortiz' wrist injury. It causes him to be just a hair slower with his bat speed making it easier to push a fastball past him. Also, when he can make fair contact with fastballs, since he's slower than he expects, he gets under them, producing more popups and fly balls and fewer home runs and line drives. This also causes pitchers to throw fewer breaking balls to him, which are also resulting in fewer groundouts. (since groundouts often happen because the batter is swinging ahead of the pitch.) Fewer breaking balls also means fewer hung breaking balls, which also means fewer line drives and homers.

Basically, it means that as Ortiz' wrist continues to heal, his swing will go back to where it was and by the end of the year, he will be hitting long balls again.

I don't have any significant problems with the article (which puts it in the top half of the submissions I've read so far), but I found it uninteresting.

I don't think she sold the numbers very well. I don't have any real reason to believe that this analysis matters.

Hey everyone, thanks for the comments and suggestions! There's been some really good constructive feedback on here, and hopefully I'll be able to come back next week and improve. In the meantime, keep 'em coming. And please vote to keep me in BP Idol!

I had several issues with this article:
1. "Naturally, Ortiz’s lower G/F should signify less line drives". I have never seen a correlation between G/F and line drive %, but I don't think this follows at all. I can imagine that some extreme flyball hitters tend to hit the ball with authority, and thus might also hit alot of line drives. I also can think of alot of "slap" hitters that hit tons of ground balls, but do not tend to hit lots of line drives. If you are going to make this sort of argument, some proof of this relationship would be helpful.

2. The entire paragraph on Teixeira. As some previous commenters have noted, a small sample size caveat would be useful. But in this case, even given that small sample size, you throw out the most recent week of data to make your point stronger. I am looking at his whole season (through the 24th), and Teixeira has a .951 OPS (.304 EqA), vs career averages of .920 (.305). he is hitting for somewhat more power, and hitting somewhat fewer line drives, than over his career, but I'm not seeing a problem here, other than some bad luck early in the season. On a related note, A-rod went 5-5 today without the benefit of a home run, so his BABIP is much less ridiculous now.

3. Broadly, I did not see a strong argument for the importance of G/F for determing offensive prowess. It, alogn with other data, helps provide an interesting picture of the shape of a player's production, but changes in G/F might portend drops in production, but I don't see that argument being made here. At the extremes, Carlos Pena and Ichiro have very different G/F rations, and differ greatly in contact ability, power, etc., but they both seem to be quite effective players, despite Pena's low BA or Ichiro's lack of power. Broadly, the rule of thumb seems to be that LDs are great, GBs are good if you have speed, and FBs are good if you have HR-type power. This analysis doesn't seem to add anything to that, and may even muddy the waters.

4. "G/F can be used to....protect against the statistically weakest batted ball, the infield fly.". Again, how? Infield flies don't have anything to do with groundballs. Using IF/F would seem to be a much clearer way of looking at one's tendency to hit infield flies than G/F. Alexei Ramirez, for instance, is hitting 50% GBs, but 36% of his FBs are infield flies (from THT), meaning that he is still hitting a very large number of infliend flies, despite his groundball tendencies. In contrast, Russell Branyon is hitting 34% groundballs, but only 9% of his FBs are infield flies, meaning that he actually has hit a much smaller number of infield flies than has Alexei Ramirez. Again, this is hardly statistical proof. But if you are arguing the opposite, what is the proof that G/F is actually associated with % of infield flies, and is this association meaningful, or is it merely a spurious result of those hitting more FBs hitting more infield flies along with all other types of FBs?

I have a few problems with this submission, covered for the most part by the previous commenters.

However, one comment I have not seen yet is questionsing whether this article covers the assigned topic. Is this about BP Basics? What is the BP Basic being introduced and explained to the new BP reader? I don't see one. Or, perhaps, it wasn't stated clearly enough for me to get it.

Other than some quotes from Ortiz and Maddon, there are no references to outside sources to support the statistical claims being made in regard to HR-percentage or efficiency as a product of finding a 'sweet spot' in GB/FB ratio. Is this new research, or is it a BP Basic?

"When David Ortiz connected for his first home run of the season, in the middle of a six-run fifth inning that powered the Red Sox to Wednesday’s win over Toronto, he told reporters in Boston that for the time in nearly 40 games he looked "like a real hitter." But if Big Papi is to keep poppin’ homers for the Sox, Ortiz may needs more than confidence: the solution could be to hit more ground balls."

I count at least two typos in that opening paragraph. Not professional.

This is also not a "Basics" article.

The sentence introducing G/F is extremely awkward; I think you meant 'ratio' and not 'rate'.

I also wonder how much of this is just a surrogate for line drive rate? It would have been useful to show something that GO/AO is showing you that line drive rate does not.

Overall, I was ready to love the topic... and didn't. The writing style suffered, but not to great effect.

Thank you BurrRutledge, because that was my first of many problems with this piece. I don't think it adequately explains ground/fly ratios, and that is a huge negative. I also think the theory that is espoused is far from proven and would just thoroughly confuse a BP beginner. I don't think it fits the criteria or makes any sense.

Does anybody really think that the answer to Ortiz woes this year is for him to hit more groundballs? It seems like the author truly believes this, and I'm not just unconvinced, but I think it is nearly ludicrous.

OK to read but lacks correlation found in a Freshman U Logic class...

I have to concur with the last few comments. Not only did Brittany fail to execute the assignment according to the directions, but what she did submit was poorly written and, at times, incoherent.

While I personally hope she moves on, as I think BP could benefit from a bit more traditional baseball writing, I cannot vote for this one.

I like this article.
This stat/theory also tears down the "Ks and homers are the only thing that matter" pitching theories.

I like Brittany's writing style, but this article grates on me. This article contains multiple errors which a basic grammar checker would have noted. I also note that this article demonstrates that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Overall, I'm left unimpressed despite liking her writing.

The FB/HR % decline makes me think Ortiz's power is now mere warning track power. I think it's tough to make this argument without at least thinking about PED effect here.

The thesis ("Ortiz may needs more than confidence: the solution could be to hit more ground balls.") is backwards.

Ortiz shouldn't try to hit more groundballs. He should try to fix his swing, and if he does, you'll see more groundballs as a side effect. I think that's her point for the final 90% of the column, but she tried to wrap it up too neatly in the intro.

Still, a strong column. I learned something, and it was well-written.

Interesting to read the comments - to me this was the weakest article by far, perhaps reflecting that this type of area won't be Brittany's strength.

Congrats on making the cut, Brittany. You have a great writing style, even if stats aren't your strength. I will probably be lambasted for making this suggestion as it has nothing to do with the writing contest, but I have to tell you that your photo is frightening to me. I am a woman, I believe there are many great female journalists worthy of a career in sports media, and I believe your gender can be an asset to you in this contest up to a point. However, looking like a 22-yr-old fresh from the beach who just applied 8 lbs. of makeup and is on her way to the club is probably not the image you want to project to this particular audience. Sorry if that sounds harsh; I just don't know any other way to say it, and there's no direct link to e-mail contestants privately.

RebSox, I'm sorry you feel that way as I in no way tried to give off a certain kind of image. I am 23 years old, and I am tan because I lived in Tampa for most of the year. Thank you for your kind words in regards to my writing style; I am making a sincere effort to improve my skills in using stats.

Brittany