An archive of StatSpeak from its days on MVN
April 20, 2007
First of all, my apologies on the long hiatus since my last post.
Filed under Uncategorized
Matt, you’re also going to have some significant park effects here, I believe. Some suggested reading: http://baseballpsychologist.blogspot.com/2007/03/runner-tagging-from-third-heres-throw.html
the value of reaching only second,
So what is this value?
One more question about this: subtract the average final run expectency from the run expectency of runners at the corners
How do you get the “final” run expectancy.
Any run expectency can be found for any base/out state through the use of Markov chains…suggested reading:
That’s how I’ve done run expectencies for my database.
For the simple runner at first and a single is hit, the value of first and second and no one out is roughly 0.9 (it varies by run-scoring environment), wheras the value of first and third and no one out is roughly 1.25, for example.
That’s the kind of value difference I’d like to be able to “see”…but there are a lot of complicating factors.
Pizza Cutter: I wonder if it might be a good idea for you to hold “classes”…IOW, write articles explaining some of your prefered statistical methods. I consider myself a skilled statistician, but 99% of the tests you use I’ve never heard of.
Not a bad idea. I teach college stats in one of my day jobs… it’s something of a natural outgrowth. I think I can handle that!
Matt — great idea …. I’d like that
I’m not saying I know everything…far from it…but if your methods are unfamiliar to me and my 3 semesters of college statistics and six years of sabermetric experience, then chances are, you’re losing every single other person who might read this thread as well. Social scientists have invented a gazillion really nifty and useful statistical methods that aren’t covered in your typical college stats classes…which is a big reason why you were recruited for this blog…teach us a thing or two, would ya?
There are three major reason why the baserunning rates would differ:
1 – Parks. The closer the OF is playing, the less chance you’ll have to take the extra base. As well, turf parks force the fielders to play a bit farther. As we know, parks changed considerably in the last 40 years.
2 – Run Environment. The higher the run environment, the larger the cost of the out. However, the value of the base does not rise to the same proportion. So, with the breakeven point higher for SB and for baserunning/taking extra base, it will be less likely that a runner will try for the extra base.
3 – Actual players. The Vince Colemans and Willie Wilsons do not fill our league like they used to. It could very well be that this era is filled with guys who simply don’t have the speed to take the extra base.
If you were to create a chart like this:
for say a group of speedsters today (Crawford, Pierre, Ichiro, etc), and compare it to speedsters of yesteryear (Raines, Rickey, Coleman, Wilson), might they be the same? Maybe. But, you might have a disproportionate number of those speedsters back then.
In any case, all three are plausible.
Good comments Tango…nice to see you dropping by here. That’s a good sign for this blog.
The parks are a good point…but I have no idea how I would account for that problem in the pre-PBP era. perhaps a correlation between average wall-distance and bulk baserunning?
As for the idea that the speedsters of today are just…slower…than the speedsters of yesteryear…it’s possible, but I doubt it. Vince Coleman was fast…Ichiro is much much faster. He just doesn’t steal as often because he’s a perfectionist and only runs when he knows he’s got it stolen.
Something I’ve thought about doing is checking to see whether ground balls actually go through the infield more often in some parks (turf effect). In the outfield, you may want to account for the fact that some players don’t have a lot of ground that they have to cover, while others do. Somewhere out there, someone calculated the square footage of each major league ballpark. Perhaps that could be a start?
I wrote something on taking the extra base and park effects here: http://baseballpsychologist.blogspot.com/2007/03/runner-tagging-from-third-heres-throw.html
I haven’t tried to tackle multiple runners yet (or more specifically trailing runners) because of the problems you mentioned. More recent PBP codes include when the runner took the next base on the throw but you still have the problem where a runner was thrown out by the defense decoying the trailing runner and allowing the lead runner to score. Not sure that should really count against the lead runner (or at least not as much).
As for what affects advancement percentage, parks are certainly a part of it and I’ve calculated hit advancement park factors by field. I’m not in a place to get at them at the moment but I wrote a little about it at http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5380. For example Fenway Park was .87, .99, .98 left to right and Yankee Stadium was 1.06, 1.02, and .98.
My sense is that run environment is the smallest of the three factors.
If that’s true…then why is there sucha a strong and obvious correlation between 1st to 3rd advancement percentage and league RS/G? If you go to the article I linke3d…you’ll see a couple of graphs that make it VERY clear that run scoring environment is a BIG factor.
As for the idea that the speedsters of today are just
Has anyone looked at it this way? We’ve got Height/weights (roughly) for players (at least what they were listed at). It seems like most of the speedsters were skinny guys (relatively) built like Olympic sprinters. With the shift to the power-based offense, it seems like a more muscular (I hesitate to say fatter) build is in. Does body size (perhaps using body-mass index… which is weight/height-squared, a standard measurement used in medicine) correlate with speed/baserunning measures?
Barry Bonds continued to be very fast even when he bulked up. I don’t think weight can really be used to discount the speed of modern players. I’m not terribly convinced that it’s really that much bulkier and slower today despite the increase in power. I think the increase in power is leading to a more conservative approach, and I’m not necessarily saying I think Tango is wrong, because he could easily be right…I’d just like to see some strong supporting evidence before I am totally convinced.
“I think the increase in power is leading to a more conservative approach”
Right, that’s my point #2.
Well, that’s why it was just my sense I didn’t see the url embedded in the response but it certainly appears run environment is a factor here. It’ll be interesting to see if the rate continues to decline if run scoring continues to stay fairly constant.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.