Options
Chances of scoring on a single, and the creation of runs...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
...............0 out.......1 out.........2 outs
1B.............38%..........25%..........12%
That is the odds of scoring on a single in each of the out states(from 1974-1990). A walk has the same chance.
Anyone care to guess the chance of scoring on a HR in each of those states
.
Of course, there is also the other side of the hitting coin...the chance of driving in or moving up a runner. Those figures later.
But there is often a backlash against HR hitters as if they are doing something wrong. Fans often say, "well a lot of HR's are hit when the game doesn't matter anymore." I got news for those fans, a LOT OF SINGLES are also hit in those same situations.
A guy who can hit HR and get on base often is GOLD. So Mike Schmidt would hit .269, hit 38 HR, and walk 120 times. Somehow people would feel more comfortable with a Bill Buckner type hitting .306 with 8 home runs(20 walks). Or Tony Gwynn type hitting .340(in the non live ball era) with 7 HR(45 walks).
Even though that .300 average looks like some benchmark, it only equates to an extra 17 hits in a 550 at bat season, compared to a .269 hitter. Well, with Schmidt walking at least 70 more times than both those types of hitters, I think that completely wipes out(and then some on Buckner) the value of those extra 17 hits for Buckner, and extra 38 for Gwynn.
Oh yeah, and those extra 32 HR's(and often 40 more) that are RUNS IN THE BANK as opposed to small chances to score runs
.
I just want people to see a little more clearly the real creation of scoring runs, and not some archaic flawed logic.
Wade Boggs, now there is a spray hitter that also got on base and could be counted with the big boys...it's too bad a good chunk of that was purely Fenway related.
1B.............38%..........25%..........12%
That is the odds of scoring on a single in each of the out states(from 1974-1990). A walk has the same chance.
Anyone care to guess the chance of scoring on a HR in each of those states
.Of course, there is also the other side of the hitting coin...the chance of driving in or moving up a runner. Those figures later.
But there is often a backlash against HR hitters as if they are doing something wrong. Fans often say, "well a lot of HR's are hit when the game doesn't matter anymore." I got news for those fans, a LOT OF SINGLES are also hit in those same situations.
A guy who can hit HR and get on base often is GOLD. So Mike Schmidt would hit .269, hit 38 HR, and walk 120 times. Somehow people would feel more comfortable with a Bill Buckner type hitting .306 with 8 home runs(20 walks). Or Tony Gwynn type hitting .340(in the non live ball era) with 7 HR(45 walks).
Even though that .300 average looks like some benchmark, it only equates to an extra 17 hits in a 550 at bat season, compared to a .269 hitter. Well, with Schmidt walking at least 70 more times than both those types of hitters, I think that completely wipes out(and then some on Buckner) the value of those extra 17 hits for Buckner, and extra 38 for Gwynn.
Oh yeah, and those extra 32 HR's(and often 40 more) that are RUNS IN THE BANK as opposed to small chances to score runs
.I just want people to see a little more clearly the real creation of scoring runs, and not some archaic flawed logic.
Wade Boggs, now there is a spray hitter that also got on base and could be counted with the big boys...it's too bad a good chunk of that was purely Fenway related.
0
Comments
<< <i>I just want people to see a little more clearly the real creation of scoring runs, and not some archaic flawed logic. >>
While others believe manipulating numbers is flawed logic as well
There is no manipulation of numbers at all. It is baseball reality of what actually occurs, how often, and its worth...if it hurts a hero of yours, or shatters some of your perceived realities, then by all means go on and believe what you will. It is laid out in the most elementary way on the worth of those two types of hitters, if it isn't understood, then move on I guess.
I'm going to go into my back yard and rub some blueberries on my chest to ward off the evil spirits...or maybe head to the south pole and shake Atlas's hand...quickly though as I don't want ot cause an earthquake.
Stown, I am still waiting to play baseball with you...you shot your mouth before about me saying I was some guy who had no ability...this of course was because you were dwarfed in the stuff like this...and you had to sooth your feelings. I understand why you did it, but I would like to play like I offered before. We can meet in St. Louis so there is mutual expense(as opposed to you wanting me to front the expense like before...this was because you didn't really wnt to play). Heck, I haven't been playing for a couple of seasons now, and I will still give a game.
http://sportsfansnews.com/author/andy-fischer/
You really need to lay off that extra cup of coffee because you're becoming just a tad irritable.
If someone disagrees with your analysis, then they are simple minded morons with flawed opinions.
Remember, you are expressing your OPINIONS based upon numbers that you subjectively weigh. That, my friend, is a fact
In regards to our game, my oustanding offer has been sitting on the table the entire time. Feel free to take me up on it any day you want.
Morgoth, in terms of deciding which player was best in the past, the measurement of what they did is extremely precise and accurate. In terms of future predictors, it is a bit different...but the best predictor of future performance is PAST performance. That is past performance that isn't due to randomness or luck factor. If you are trying to predict that Rick Helling would win 20 games again...because he won 20, then you are using the wrong performance measure.
If you are using the correct performance measurement, then you could have actually predicted how well Rick Helling would have done after his 20 win season. This holds true for a lot of guys. Absolutely, there will be a few guys who contradict something for various reasons.
Stown, absolutely I would love to play. We can meet in St. Louis. What say you? Heck, I wouldn't even mind a simple game of catch...and burning a few into your glove
Whatever you say, skin. If you want to make up arguments and ficticious discussions as an excuse to showcase your superior intellect, go ahead.
By the way, the only time you will burn holes is if you douse the ball in gasoline and light it on fire.
<< <i>
Wade Boggs, now there is a spray hitter that also got on base and could be counted with the big boys...it's too bad a good chunk of that was purely Fenway related. >>
I'm not sure what bringing up Wade Boggs does to advance your argument here. Wade Boggs only had one season with significant home runs. I agree he was a spray hitter and got on base a lot, but he would be described as the same kind of hitter that Tony Gwynn was. If you're trying to say that Boggs' 1987 campaign was a great one because he hit for power and average and walked a lot and consequently scored a lot of runs, then I agree with you. But I think it's interesting to note that the following year his home run total went from 24 to 5 and yet his runs went up from 200 to 214. One could argue that the increase in runs was a direct result of an increase in singles, doubles, and walks.
On the other hand, you could argue that since Bogg's run totals between '83 and '89 were all within a close range (between 100 & 128) that the likelihood of Boggs scoring was directly related to hits and walks, which were also consistently within a close range, regardless of whether the hit was a single or a home run.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see how Boggs helps you establish that hitting home runs = a clear vision of how runs are scored.
Wade Boggs was brought up as a guy who could be ranked with the big hitters BECAUSE he hit for a conintually superbly high batting average AND he added a tremendous eye to produce a monsterous amount of walks...hence such a high on base portion to his hitting.
Also, please remember, that a guy can score more often than the expected runs if he has a bunch of good hitters behind him...BUT and this is an important BUT, that then becomes a measurement of how good the hitters behind him are, and NOT the batter in question. Basically, it measures the GM then. This is the area where people loose comprehension of what is being written.
Though Boggs recieved a tremendous boost from Fenway, as he was only a lifetime .300 hitter away from Fenway.
Bobafet, after reading some of Stown's bios and such, I am thinking he will have a hard time just getting past the catch that we warm up with. I'm not sure he could handle the 'heavy' balls coming into his glove.
If Wade Boggs reaches first base 100 times with one out, he would score appx 25 times based on the league average.
If George Brett reaches first base 100 times wiht one out, he would score appx 25 times bassed on the league average.
IF Bogg's next two hitters are Dwight Evans and Jim Rice, and Brett's were Buddy Biancalana and Darryl Motley(they weren't in reality), then Boggs will come across the plate far more than the expected league average, and a universe more than Brett.
So if you are looking at exactly how many times he scored, i.e the RUNS SCORED stat, then it becomes a measurement of how good the next two hitters are, as opposed to how good Boggs is. He may end up scoring 42% of the time instead of 25%.
The 25% figure represents a NEUTRAL environment. The 42% figure represents a figure that is being infected by some very big variables out of the ability of Boggs' control. When measuring players, you have to isolate their contribution, and NOT their teammates. If this is not done, then you will be the guy stuck paying Rick Helling millions because he won 20 games...only to find out that when he no longer has those variables in his favor, he is really a 12 game winner.
As our friend Jaxxr always points out, the speed of Boggs or Brett can also influence that figure, and that too is easily measured, and should also be given credit towards that player if it is his speed allowing him to score more often from second base on singles etc...
P.S. Bobafet, the initial reason why I offered to play Stown in baseball is that he proclaimed that I had no sports ability, and that all I did was study stats with no playing background. I offered to play to show that I do indeed have good ability, and I didn't care at all if a win or loss is a result...though reading his bios, i don't think he would fare too well, even though I probably am closer to old baseball age than he. I would be happy to meet up with a guy from these boards in the Chicago area, and play a good vigorous game of catch with them...as playing catch tells pretty much all you need to know in regards to baseball ability.
Skin,
I think you're taking a bit too literally the humor intended (obvious to me at least) by Stown's posts. Sure, there may be a bit of underlying sarcasm there, but sometimes you just seem a little too tightly wound for your own good. This is a sports talk forum, after all.
That said, carry on, fellas!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
just joking around
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>how exactly are you two going to play each other in baseball and determine a winner? you guys gonna hit the batting cages up at a convenient arcade and kiddie golf course somewhere? Is there going to be some arbitrary pitcher there to serve up some BP, and exactly who will determine whether or not a "ghost runner" would actually score, or be caught in a rundown, depending on the defensive "ghost players" that are manning the opponents outfield, based on their arm strength, tendency for throwing errors, wind speed, weather conditions........ You guys should probably start immediately to draft your own all-time ghost defensive group to help out when your playing defense and argue about who would be better.........
just joking around >>
DING! DING! DING! We have a winner
skin, sometimes you get such tunnel vision where you fail to see common sense.
Your analysis is mostly appreciated but the commentary is normally off base. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion, it doesn't make them a simple-minded moron, regardless of how many times you say it.
If you really have been reading up on my bio ( : snickers : ), I think you have just a tad too much free time on your hands. Perhaps use that time to quanify some of your statistical analysis. For example, why was your sample only from 74-90? Anyone that knows anything about math can see the inherent problem.
In the meantime, take a xanax and call me in the morning
Stown, yeah I was reading some of those bio's thread on this board...probably was a waste of time.
Stown, with 4,000+ posts I would reconsider who the guy with too much time on his hands is
16 full seasons of data for the question at hand is a heckuva nice sample size(especially since that is basically MIKE SCHMIDT'S entire career span!). When this was first looked at, that was all the data availalbe...since then it is from 1959 to present, and the value of the single and scoring, in relation to HR and scoring hasn't changed much at all.
However, from 1994 to present singles and walks score more often because the ease of the hitting environment...of course the ease of HR frequency went with it. So instead of comparing a .340 hitter to a 38 HR like in the tougher era to hit....it becomes more like comparing a .350(non power)hitter to a 50 HR(high walk) guy in the live ball era. Sorta like Ichiro to Bonds. Same thing.
<< <i>
<< <i>I just want people to see a little more clearly the real creation of scoring runs, and not some archaic flawed logic. >>
While others believe manipulating numbers is flawed logic as well
Figures can't lie, but liars configure
TheVon, you are right, hit 'em where they ain't...and I don't think there are many players in the seats or that can prevent walks
Did you guys read the initial post? I hope that is the case, as that would make sense of your posts.
<< <i>Ripublicaninmass, that is EXACTLY why I do this stuff...because people use figures incorrectly all the time to come to very faulty conclusions...most conclusions of which are very easily debunked.
TheVon, you are right, hit 'em where they ain't...and I don't think there are many players in the seats or that can prevent walks
Did you guys read the initial post? I hope that is the case, as that would make sense of your posts. >>
Skin, I'm confused . . . did you mean to pose your question to Volver? Volver is the one that wrote about hitting it where they ain't.
Also, which "initial post" are you referring to? The post that began this thread or another thread? I read your post and understood it, except for your point about Boggs which we've already discussed.
Good points made about HR value and batting averages, however it should be noted that all runs are NOT equal in situational importance, and a hitter's worth cant always be measured by runs produced, an easy to compile number, or runs created, a more complex calculation with some estimates involved.
The situation the run was scored or driven in is of the most importance. Runs produced in 12-1 blowouts are not very telling of a hitter's true value. Driving in runs after the pennant/divisional race is over, have a bit less impact for the team. It must be a tad easier to create a run when facing Randy Moffit rather than Randy Johnson. It might be harder to drive in Rick Dempsey from second base rather than Rick Henderson. These and many other situations cloud the value of a run, nevertheless, it is still the currency of game, without question.
I merely make the aforementioned comments to remind all, that there is no perfect, totally complete, or fully inclusive way to evalute a hitter.
<< <i>A .300 30 HR 30 SB guy is what Im looking for in most cases. >>
You are a moron and your logic is seriously flawed.
Jaxxr, all those points and situations you bring up have merit, though they can certainly be looked at...though the pennant races, , vs. a buster call up etc... would take a little mroe leg work. Peter Gammons noted the Eddie Murray pennant race greatness before, though I am hesitant to use stuff like that for a couple of reasons.
The main thing I can say about those is that who you face pretty much evens out between hitters.
The innings things occur in are not too hard to find, though those tend to even out over time as well. It is true that Arod does have slightly better numbers in games when the score is a 4+ run environment as opposed to closer.
Jaxxr, the absolute biggest thing I am interested in that you brought up is the Rick Dempsey - Rickey hederson example. Currently, the best evaluator(situational batter runs), does not take this into account, and I think it is a big flaw.
On top of that, the ballpark also affects that as well...and many people don't realize this.
For instance, it was harder to drive in a runner from first at memorial stadium, than it was at Wrigley Field...for the same reason why it was very hard to hit triples at memorial stadium. So in the situational batter runs, guys at memorial stadium are getting penalized for this because it is harder for the lead runners to score. They would also be getting penalized in traditional total RBI as a result too.
In Kansas City, it was very easy to score from first or second becaue of the field and park.
The best methods get you very close to where you want, and then from there it is a case by case basis to really dig into it...and to me that is some unexplored territory...among some of my other areas I feel are underexplored.
Perkdog, that 30 HR guy would have to have a nice OB% too, and not have a lot of CS, and then yes that is a player. Heck, Schmidt topped 20 steals a couple of times himself.
People don't realize how good Mike Schmidt was. When you take the level of competition into account, he is right there with a great from ANY era, yes any great. His greatness his masked by the environment he played in. On top of his offense he is probably the second best fielding thrid basemen ever, and some say a tie for first! He nearly outhomered some teams in '80, '81, and he had a lot more HR capable guys competing against, than Ruth had...a lot! I wonder how many teams he would have outhomered if it was a whites only league....hmmmm.
<< <i>
<< <i>A .300 30 HR 30 SB guy is what Im looking for in most cases. >>
You are a moron and your logic is seriously flawed.
Your right Stown, how silly of me. I MEANT to say a .300 40 HR 40 SB guy is what Im REALLY looking for in most cases.