Miscellanity on AstroTurf and my recent obsession with DIPS

A few minor musings that I’ve been tinkering with lately.  For years I’ve heard that AstroTurf is a “faster” surface, so a ball hit on the ground rolls faster, and presumably has more of a chance to go through for a base hit.  I guess rolling a ball across fuzzy cement is easier than rolling it across actual grass, but does that really translate into more grounders that get through the infield?  To check, I isolated all ground balls hit from 2003-2006 (Retrosheet, I love you.)  If the ball was fielded by an infielder (even if it went for an infield hit), I coded it as not going through the infield.  The fielder got there.  It’s not the grass or turf’s fault that he couldn’t make the throw.  If it was fielded by an outfielder, the ball clearly went through the infield.
I calculated a park effect of sorts for this particular event.  I compared how teams’ defenses did on the road at cutting balls off vs. those numbers at home, and then how their offenses did at punching the ball through at home and on the road.  To get my park effect, I took home % / road % for offense and defense separately and averaged the two results.  Like regular park effects, the results were actually pretty variable.  ICC was around .18, meaning that there was very little year-to-year consistency.  Not only that, but of the three stadia that still employ artificial turf (Tropicana Field, SkyDome… er, the Rogers Center, and the Metrodome) were generally in the middle of the pack.  Veterans Stadium also used turf in 2003, as did Stade Olympique in Montreal in 2003 and 2004, although the Expos were too busy playing in Puerto Rico half the time that year.
Artificial turf may actually make for a faster rolling ball, but teams probably solve that by playing back a bit and the strategy doesn’t seem to have any ill effects for balls rocketing through the infield on the ground.  In 1988, Bill James wrote, “Our idea of what makes a team good on artificial turf is not supported by any research.”  Seems like finding a bunch of ground ball hitting speed demons to take advantage of some sort of property of the turf isn’t such a good idea.  That property isn’t there.
Also, I’ve been a bit obsessed with DIPS lately and a thought occurred to me.  I’m now fairly convinced that there is a small amount of skill (small, but present) in a pitcher influencing what happens to the ball when it comes off the bat.  Perhaps the pitcher can place the ball in a particular spot to induce a ground ball that will go toward the third baseman.  Again, it might not be a great amount of influence, but maybe we can figure out some of what drives that skill.  What if we controlled for… well, control?  A pitcher who has good control doesn’t walk many batters.  I regressed BABIP on walk rate and saved the residuals.  (My data set was pitchers from 2003-2006 with a minimum of 50 IP.)  The ICC for the residuals is .209, which is a touch higher than I’d found previously.  But then again, I looked at the ICC for BABIP proper in this sample and it was .216.  So, controlling walk rate actually made things worse.  I tried with strikeout rate and that didn’t work either.
Back to the drawing board, I suppose.

Advertisements

3 Responses to Miscellanity on AstroTurf and my recent obsession with DIPS

  1. Kyle J says:

    Would be interesting to know if the percentage of ground balls that go for infield hits increases on turf. I.E., Does the fact that infielders play further back exactly offset the fact that the ball rolls faster on turf? (If the ball didn’t roll faster, presubably there’d be more infield hits since the infielders wouldn’t have as much time to make the throw to first.)

  2. Carlos Rubi says:

    A good piece of software to work with DICE is Baseball Mogul. You can play pitch-by-pitch, save the data and use specific pitches in specific locations and see the different outcomes — it’ll display all the pitchers’ peripherals, plus DICE.

  3. walt says:

    What about bunt singles and other non-intentional infield hit on Astroturf. It seems logical that it would be much more difficult to lay down bunts on astroturf compared a grass inflield. A bunt down the line would be much more difficult, because the ball will roll much further and quicker on Astroturf. Whereas, a bunt on a grass infield is (I assume) would be much more easy to control, because the ball dies in on the soft, rassy infield making it easier to place. You should check it out. Also check out pitcher sacrifrice hit rates in the dome. That might help.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: