I discovered baseball during my early teens. It all started when a dismally poor team in 1981 (the Atlanta Braves) started their 1982 season with a 13-0 record. Back then the Braves and the cable station TBS were both owned by Ted Turner. I subsequently spent the spring and summer of 1982 listening to baseball from the patient broadcasters that became the voice of the team. I may not recognize the voices of the individual players, but the voices of the broadcasters are forever etched in memory.
Though along with just listening to the games, those broadcasters (Ernie Johnson Sr., Pete Van Wieren, and Skip Caray) didn’t just call the game, they educated me to the nuances of the game. Eventually, I grew to understand the subtleties of the balk rule and the infield fly rule, and more importantly why they existed. They have all passed now, but I will always remember them fondly.
As I read more, I also came to discover the mathematical portion of the game. I read through Moneyball, articles from Rob Neyer, and references to Bill James. All giants in the field of sabermetrics.
The basics: batting average
We’ll start small. I’ll simplify it and ignore other external factors for now. We’ll ignore details like the inning, score, defensive positioning, and runners on base. Let’s just talk about the duel between pitcher and batter. The basic measure of the effectiveness of a batter is their batting average; this is just a simple quotient:
Batting average = hits / (hits + outs)
While drawing a walk does help offensively, it doesn’t contribute at all to your batting average; it doesn’t change the number of hits or outs. For instance, the higher the batting average, the more effectively that batter hits. Major league baseball players will typically hover between .200 and .350. Anyone who approaches .400 batting average is considered walk-on-water good. And yes, if you’re paying attention, that means you can fail seven of ten at bats and still be considered a good batter.
A batter does not get unlimited pitches to swing at. Four pitches outside of the strike zone and you get a free base (walk); three strikes (different forms) and you are out. The pitch count is the tracking of balls and strikes for that particular at bat. Foul balls count as a strike until you get two; subsequent foul balls do not incur additional strikes (unless you’re bunting).
The nuances of the pitch count
Here are some stats from 2015-2017 for the American League on pitch count. On average, a hitter will bat around .256; that’s getting one hit in about every four at bats. However, there are twelve different pitch counts, and success rates vary per pitch count:
| Ball/Strike | 0 balls | 1 ball | 2 balls | 3 balls |
| 0 strikes | .345 | .344 | .350 | .407 |
| 1 strike | .324 | .332 | .344 | .363 |
| 2 strikes | .157 | .166 | .186 | .211 |
If you watch the game carefully, it makes sense. When the batter has the count to their advantage or disadvantage, it’s said to be ahead or behind on the count respectively. What may surprise you is the degree to which the count affects the batter’s effectiveness:
- On a 3-0 count (ball-strike), the pitcher wants to avoid a walk, so they’re considerably more likely to throw a strike (which will be easier hit). The batter’s average generally improves by 150 points.
- On an 0-2 count (ball-strike), the batter wants to avoid a strikeout, so they’re considerably more likely to swing at anything close to the strike zone. The batter’s average generally drops by 100 points.
- In fact, a batter is 2.6 times more likely to get a hit with a 3-0 count than with an 0-2 count.
Exceptional pitchers will get ahead in the count to decrease the effectiveness of the batter. Exceptional batters will practice plate discipline and force the pitcher to make more pitches to get through the at bat (and thus force the pitcher to exit earlier).
Of course, there are no guarantees in baseball. A batter may hit a 3-0 pitch and ground into a double play, or they may hit an 0-2 pitch out of the park for a grand slam.
Imagine this hypothetical…
In baseball, each time a batter steps in the batter’s box, the count is empty (no balls, no strikes); it is a clean slate. Next, the pitcher and batter then duel as they resolve the at bat. Now, let’s propose a rule change (call it Rule X):
- Player A: Starts with a 3-0 count the moment they step into the batter’s box.
- Player B: Starts with an 0-2 count the moment they step into the batter’s box.
Keep in mind that the pitch count does not guarantee a favorable or unfavorable outcome. However, Player A is 2.6 times more likely to get a hit than Player B. We agree that this rule is unfair, right?
Let’s say that Player A happens to ground into a double play and Player B happens to hit a grand slam; this is completely within the realm of possibility. Here’s the interesting observation:
The above rule change (Rule X) does not cease being unfair because a couple of batters defied the odds.
One single counterexample does not disprove that something is not generally unfair.
Apply the statistic to racial disparities
In the US, the black population is roughly 12.5%. This means that they should make up about one of every eight in every profession; they do not. At this rate, we should’ve had about five or six black presidents and twenty-three women presidents. Have we had that? How about millionaires? No, not even close.
In fact, the Voting Rights Act established in 1965 was effectively gutted in the Shelby County v. Holder decision by the Supreme Court. They rationalized that we no longer need the protection for voting rights, since obviously we have addressed racism. WTF?! How did they come to that conclusion? Well, the United States elected a black president. That disproves racism. They basically concluded that since you’re not wet from the rain at this precise moment, we will never again need umbrellas. It doesn’t take into account that it may not rain today nor that the reason you’re dry is thanks to the umbrella. I’ll now remind you again of the above observation:
One single counterexample does not disprove that something is not generally unfair.
To suggest that racism is a thing of the past simply because we elected Obama as president or Oprah made her millions, is nonsense. They simply defied the odds; they were the figurative batters who happened to hit the 0-2 pitch for a grand slam. Just because counterexamples exist doesn’t mean that it doesn’t remain statistically unfair.
Some black voters passed the voting literacy tests in order to vote; those tests were still ruled unconstitutional. Racism doesn’t need to absolutely prohibit to be effective; it only needs to impede.