Statheads, help me out
by GoBabies!! on Aug 27, 2008 11:25 PM EDT
25 comments
Is there a stat that measures a batters performance based on situation?
i.e. If DeJesus in 5 AB's...
Reaches base safely with nobody on & nobody out in his 1st PA
Moves a runner from 2nd to 3rd w/ a GB to the right side w/ nobody out on his 2nd PA
Grounds out to 3rd w/ a runner on 3rd & 1 out in his 3rd PA (runner doesn't score)
Executes a scarifice bunt in his 4th AB
And grounds out to SS w/ a runner on 2nd w/ 1 out (runner doesn't advance) in his 5th...
His Situational Average (or whatever it is called if it already exists) would be .600
Does such a stat exist, and if it does, what is it referred to as?
Thank you, flame away
1 recs |
25 comments
Email
Print
Comments
If it did, it would suck
You just gave him the same credit, twice, for making an out as you did for not making an out.
This is the problem with so many common concepts in baseball. People simply do not understand that outs are your currency in baseball. You have 27 of them to spend, and what’s worse is that spending your first out of an inning decreases your run expectancy by a greater margin than spending the second or the third. There are very few instances where playing for just one run is the “right” thing to do. Like being tied or down one in the bottom of the ninth.
All of these innings where some of our compatriots here have gone bugnuts insane because we “only” scored one run? Most of them have included the pointless expenditure of an out.
I can see a benefit to a statistic which factored in productive outs based on the difference between their benefit in terms of run expectancy vs. a non-productive out; after all, the difference between “1 out, runner on third” and “1 out, runner still on second” is not insignificant. But someone’s going to have to do some serious programming to make that happen.
I do not know whether WPA takes productive outs into account.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 28, 2008 12:34 AM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I have to agree here
Productive outs are vastly overrated. And the horrible effect of an out on a team’s chances to score runs is underrated.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 28, 2008 12:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outs do hurt
Productive outs are vastly overrated
But a productive out hurts less than an unproductive out, no?
You just gave him the same credit, twice, for making an out as you did for not making an out.
I’m a little confused by this comment…
What got me thinking about it was the 4th (I think) inning last night. Runners, 2nd & 3rd, no out, no runs. NO Sac fly, no productive outs made, just outs that led to no runs. We have been GAWD AWFUL this year at recording ‘productive outs’ (and for the record, I HATE that term, but it’s kind of the vernacular of the times), I was simply wondering if there was a stat to quantify it.
by GoBabies!! on Aug 28, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's like I'm playing "Tempest" again!
OMG Banny. FWIW I am only crdtng u w/3 runs allwd bc of DDJ OMFG
by devil_fingers on Aug 28, 2008 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But a productive out hurts less than an unproductive out, no?
Not if you don’t score a run as a direct result of the productive out which you would not have scored otherwise.
You just gave him the same credit, twice, for making an out as you did for not making an out.I’m a little confused by this comment…
You said “.600” in five at-bats, which means three successes. One each for the two productive outs, and one for actually getting on base and not using up an out.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 29, 2008 4:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
See I disagree...
with…
Not if you don’t score a run as a direct result of the productive out which you would not have scored otherwise
Sort of…Having a team offense that can consistently move runners into scoring position constantly puts pressure on the opposing pitcher.
I agree, wholeheartedly that it would be optimal to never record an out, and drive in run after run with hit after hit, but since outs are going to be recorded anyway, I’d like a stat that records the productivity of a players AB’s OVERALL, not simply when they do not succeed. I think it would help managers like Trey that claim to value situational hitting, have a tangible number to see their playes success/fail rate at just that.
by GoBabies!! on Aug 29, 2008 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand how you can disagree with that.
If the out does not directly result in a run which would not have otherwise scored, it is merely an out. And if it is an out which the player voluntarily gave up (either by bunting or “hitting a grounder to the right side”), it becomes “a missed opportunity.”
On a tangent, sort of: If you had a lineup of 9 guys who had the ability to foul off every strike and ever swung at a ball, you would score infinite runs. Literally. Simply refusing to put the ball in play is the most certain method of winning the game, and is infinitely more effective than “situational hitting.” It is also boring as hell for the fans, and you’ll never find 2 guys (much less 9) who’ll do it because it means having a .000 batting average with 0 home runs (although… infinite RBIs!), but hey, that’s life.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 29, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that sort of stat
Is that it depends on the linup you are in as to how many chances you have. How fast or good the runners are that are on base. How good the arms were of the players throwing home, that sort of thing. So they would not be very valid. One of the reasons the Royals are not real good at situational hitting is thier lack of speed and/or really poor baserunning skills. Not the fault of the batters.
Go Royals!
by BabyBlues on Aug 29, 2008 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't it important to recognize when/if an out increases the team's run scoring potential?
It very rarely does. That’s the problem with your whole “productive out” analysis.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 29, 2008 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
BEcause
If a team is constantly able to put runners in better scoring position, it constantly puts pressure on the opposing pitcher, theoretically leading to higher pitch counts & better hitting counts, because in stressful situations, he will be trying to paint corners and elevate/pitch down more often, leading to more balls (assuming we have a lineup that can take a pitch every now & again).
This table, (Found here http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/not-so-sweet-surrender/) lays out the odds of scoring based on where your runners are/how many outs in an inning…
Using play-by-play data one can calculate on average how often and how many runs were scored after each of the 24 possible base/out combinations. For example, in the period 1999-2002 the run expectancy for a team with a runner on first and nobody out was 0.953 runs with a scoring probability of 0.437. In other words teams averaged about a run once this situation obtained with a 44% chance of scoring one or more runs. The entire scoring probability table is shown below.
There are several situations in which a ‘productive out’ increases your odds of scoring.
Again, I feel like I’m being painted into a corner that I do not belong in. I am not an advocate of the sac bunt in early innings. I am not a ‘small ball’ connoisseur. I according to the argument of NY & Jon it is always bad to make an out. No shit. I agree, but since you are going to make an out 70-75% of the time, if 1/2 of those outs are (and again this is such a misnomer) productive out it absolutely HAS to increase your odds of scoring.
I rarely advocate AB’s that are an ‘attempt’ to make an out in order to advance a runner. Sac Fly is a notable exception. If a RH batter for example, hits with a runner on 2nd, nobody out, I WANT hitters that are looking for 2 things. Early in the count, or ahead in the count, they better be sitting on a pitch they can drive, but if they fall behind in the count, they’d better be looking opposite field all the way, and change their approach accordingly. I’m not looking for guys to step in that situation & on the 1st pitch hit a dribbler to 2B.
As I’ve thought about it more, it is a really hard statistic to quantify, for the example I just laid out. If, in that situation, a hitter gets a 2-0 Cock high fastball and laces it right at the LF, it isn’t ‘productive’ but it was the better scoring chance, so I may have just answered my own question…
seriously, I hate the quote system on this site…sorry
by GoBabies!! on Aug 29, 2008 11:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I according to the argument of NY & Jon it is always bad to make an out. No shit. I agree, but since you are going to make an out 70-75% of the time, if 1/2 of those outs are (and again this is such a misnomer) productive out it absolutely HAS to increase your odds of scoring.
I didn’t say that all outs are bad and that no out is productive. One could create a fairly complicated metric which gives a batter credit for an out which actually increases run total expectancy (and also gives negative points for out which decrease run expectancy). The above metric your proposed does not do that. It would need to, in my opinion.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 29, 2008 11:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True
I knew there was a simply flaw in my initial post, and that is exactly it. Like I said though, given that there is more than one ‘positive’ outcome from each PA, some of which are negative (as in the example I gave in my last post) (wow, this makes no sense at all if not read with Yogi Berra eyes), it would take a complicated formula, and I’m not that devoted to figure it out for free (or smart probably, though I do enjoy typing things in ())
by GoBabies!! on Aug 30, 2008 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One problem with giving batters credit for productive outs
While it would capture batters who do good things like wisely shortening up with 2 strikes with a runner on second and nobody out and making sure that he at least move the runner over, it would also capture a lot of crap. My point is that a lot of batters who are fortunate enough to have a lot of runners on base when they come up would just make the outs that they would otherwise make with the bases empty. While the metric would record this as a “productive out,” in reality it would often just be a batter making one of his regular outs, but was fortunate enough to come up in a situation where the out was somewhat positive.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 30, 2008 12:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weeellll...
obviously, I agree with your basis here, but if the metric truly took into account all factors in run expectancy, that “false benefit” would be balanced out by “false detriments.” For instance, a batter “unfortunate” enough to lead off the inning increases total run expectancy by about .400 with a single, but if he comes up with a runner on first and nobody out and singles, he increases it by a full run. So I’d say the negative impact, in a “statistical significance” sense, probably balances out in the end.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 30, 2008 3:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps
that "false benefit" would be balanced out by "false detriments."
I’m sure often it would. But if you’re talking about a guy on one of baseball’s best offenses, as compared to a guy on one of baseball’s worst offenses, the former is going to get a disproportionate false benefit while the latter is going to get a disproportionate false detriment. It’s kind of like RBI’s. This kind of stat would have a great deal to do with the guys ahead of you. If they are on base, you’re going to do better with the stat/metric than if those guys don’t get on base very often. My overall point is that if we’re trying to isolate and measure the variable of players intentionally (as opposed to accidentally) making productive outs to help his team, I don’t think this kind of metric would reliably do that.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 30, 2008 3:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure it would.
You’d just have to correct for context, is all. Easier said than done, of course.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 30, 2008 3:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Know what?
I take that back. This is one situation where I think you cannot correct for context. I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out a way one would even do it, but any attempt to do so merely pushes us back toward simply giving people credit for grounding out to 2B.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 30, 2008 4:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(For the record)
The only outs which increase total run expectancy are (a) one which somehow moves a runner from 1st to 3rd using the first out of the inning, which is itself so exceedingly rare as to make it irrelevant, and (b) an RBI sac fly with one out and a runner on third, or runners on first and third (all other permutations of an RBI sac fly, including ALL permutations with nobody out, actually decrease total run expectancy).
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 30, 2008 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sorry
I wasn’t trying to paint you in a corner or anything like that. You asked a legitimate, honest question and I answered it — perhaps in more of a “teaching” mode than a simple answer mode.
In other words, you’re not being a doofus or anything. :)
There is one important thing to remember, though: that table you pasted is the odds of scoring one run. There’s a different table for total run expectancy:
As you can see, a “productive out” moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd using the first out of the inning increases your chance of scoring one run by around .03, but decreases the number of runs you may expect to score by .02. In some situations, that tradeoff is actually a no-brainer, and it’s beneficial; in others, not so much. Of course, this is only a strategic decision when the manager decides to sacrifice or the hitter decides to make a concerted effort to hit a ground ball to the right side, knowing that doing so vastly increases the odds of making an out.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 30, 2008 3:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
God, I need an editor at 3:30am.
As you can see, a "productive out" moving a runner from 2nd to 3rd using the first out of the inning increases your chance of scoring one run by around 3 percent, but decreases the number of runs you may expect to score by .2 runs.
Corrected and clarified.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 30, 2008 3:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great point
There are situations where the likelihood of scoring one run is important (late game, tied or down by one run). But in most situations, what is most important is how many runs are likely to be scored in a given situation. Some outs can help increase your chances of scoring one run. But outs don’t so much help you increase the number of runs you’re likely to score.
One other thing is worth mentioning. When you’re talking about the potential use of a specific strategy in a specific situation, you have to look at more than just the run expectancy tables. For instance, if you’re talking about sac bunting a runner over in a late inning situation where you’re just looking to score one run, in some of those situations it increases your chance of scoring a run. But you also have to take into account that the sac bunt itself may fail. A bad bunt can lead to the lead runner being thrown out. A bad bunt can lead to a double play. A foul bunt with two strikes is a strikeout. On the other hand, an attempted sac bunt can lead to a bunt single, or an error. So there are lots of things to take into account. BP in one of their books looked at this and took all of these variables into account. Without going into details, they found that this kind of sac bunt only helped in very limited circumstances.
This is just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.
by NYRoyal on Aug 30, 2008 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Specifically
they found that even in the bottom of the 9th inning with the game tied or down by one, it’s still only worth doing if the move advances a runner from second to third, or runners from first and second to second and third — and even THEN, it still depends heavily on the abilities of the batters due up. For the vast majority of major leaguers who get paid to HIT baseballs, you’re better off just swinging away. A look at the table gobabies posted makes this mind-numbingly clear.
Sarcasm™. It's the new gravy.
by jonfmorse on Aug 30, 2008 3:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
first off
u could probably create something ot the effect you want using splits
second, i would guess that the number of times these “productive outs” occur relative to normal ones is fairly small and have very high variance, i.e. would really give any type of meaningful statistic.
third, what jonmorse said
by ZeppelinDZ on Aug 28, 2008 10:04 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
suppose to say
wouldn’t give a good stat…. god i suck at typing
by ZeppelinDZ on Aug 28, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
