Dan Plesac rethinks lifelong stance. Shifts weight to other leg. Resumes yammering.
Barring some sort of nuclear science analysis, the obvious way to look at it is to say this. The midpoint between the two is .787. If the hitters are above .787 versus these pitchers, then good hitting beats good pitching. If they are below .787, then it is the other way around.
Naturally, there is only one way to find out – monotonous work! There is no easy way to do this. I did it with the least amount of pain possible, but it still requires looking at each player and his stats against each pitcher. That’s 400 potential match-ups.
It’s also true that it represents 1,753 plate appearances. That’s a healthy number and goes a long ways toward eliminating any sample-size issues. It’s roughly equivalent to three seasons for a player if he went to the plate every time against the same pitcher.
...The point here is not so much whether 2.16% could just as easily be -2.16%, it’s about whether or not good pitching beats good hitting. As I said already, this doesn’t prove it one way or the other. It’s just a study. But, in lieu of any other objective evidence known to man, one would say the adage is false.
In theory, I would have the top-20 hitters versus the top-20 pitchers every year. That would tend to prove it one way or the other. But, it’s also a month of work and that’s not going to happen. Therefore, I am going to try to determine another way to evaluate it. I have an idea.