Aggression on the basepaths

by Moose Tacos on Nov 8, 2007 6:54 PM EST Comment 6 comments

Much has been made of Hillman's desire to make things happen on the basepaths. Most of us are skeptical, because efforts to score based on baserunning are generally inconsequential compared to those based on, you know, being good at hitting.

But, I ran across this study today and thought I would share it with all the naysayers: http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/11/runners_relucta.php

The long and short of it is that runners are too conservative in taking the extra base. So there is statistical support for an attempt to "make things happen on the basepaths," in the context of advancing an extra base on hits to the outfield.

The basic point is that success rates on such attempts are way higher than the break even point, which suggests that runners should be trying to advance more often.

There's going to be a follow-up article that will look at the actual effect this has on the number of runs scored.

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is the kind of aggressiveness I like

"Taking the extra base" always felt like it had a better risk/reward than attempting stolen bases (for most players), hit-and-run, sacrifice bunts and other small ball strategies.

I think that baseball over the last 20-30 years has evolved in such a way that professional players are focusing much more on hitting than anything else. I think defensive skills particulary in the outfield have deteriorated and outfield arms definitely have gotten worse. I've heard many managers and coaches say that young players don't play long toss anymore (or at least not enough). So a smart team would take advantage of this and try taking the extra base more, testing the weak arms of may outfielders.

I am glad that Hillman is going to work on better base running skills. I just hope there is a lot of "taking the extra" base and not so much attempted base stealing.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 8, 2007 4:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

this is weird ...

We've been agreeing way too often lately. I think if I'm going to maintain my sanity you need to viciously attack something I say, and soon.

by Moose Tacos on Nov 8, 2007 4:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I reject you and your world view

You're welcome.

I probably disagree with you.

by NYRoyal on Nov 8, 2007 4:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Putting Runners In

Motion distracts the batter and often obligates him to swing a bad pitch. The net effect is usually a sacrifice at best. Just as a hitter gains BA when the infield comes in for a play at the plate, I think a hitter's average would have to go down when forced to swing with a runner going, even with the defense moving. Are there any statistics on this?

Being a fan is irrational, but what is the alternative?

by philofthenorth on Nov 9, 2007 12:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

The counterargument is that it also distracts the pitcher or makes him more worried about holding the runner on. Also, in theory the hit-and-run should only be used with hitters who have good bat control and can get the ball on the ground, preferably the opposite way.

But I don't think I've ever seen statistics on the hit-and-run.

by Moose Tacos on Nov 9, 2007 8:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

if anyone is curious

Here is part two:

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/11/runners_relucta_1.php

It's a lot less substantial, but the guess he comes up with is 30-40 runs. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in that number because the author was forced to make an assumption that might not look anything like reality.

by Moose Tacos on Nov 9, 2007 8:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs