More on hitting and the running game (long)
Doug Drinen
OK, as promised, some further numbers on the effects of
stolen base attempts on hitting. To recap: Ron Johnson
posted a study from the 1987 Great American Baseball Stat
Book which found that BA and SLG were way down and OBP
slightly up in plate appearances during which a stolen base
attempt occurred. A couple of people then pointed out that
this could be a result of the fact that managers are more
likely to steal when low-BA, low-SLG hitters are at the
plate.
So here's what I did: I computed the same numbers as the
original study for each league-season from 1980-1987.
Then, I computed a weighted average of all the hitters that
had a PA in which an SBA took place. For example, in the
1980 AL, there were 1933 PAs with an SBA. Dwayne Murphy had
94 of them, U.L. Washington had 37, Al Oliver 36, and so on.
So I computed the "typical" SBA hitter as follows:
BA = (94/1933)*(Murphy BA) + (37/1933)*(Washington BA) + ...
and likewise for OBP and SLG.
I honestly did not know what I was going to find. The
results turned out to be interesting for their lack of
interestingness. They essentially say that the conclusion
of the previously-cited study *is* valid, because the
"typical" hitter at the plate during an SBA was dead-on
average.
For example, here is the data for the 1980 AL:
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.270 0.336 0.399
League average hitter: 0.269 0.331 0.399
SIT PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSA 85211 76303 20640 3443 538 1823 6936 0.271 0.332 0.401
SBA 1933 1585 318 46 15 21 285 0.201 0.319 0.288
NSA = no steal attempt
SBA = stolen base attempted
It's similar for all the other seasons -- the typical SBA
hitter was the same as or slightly better than average.
BA and SLG are always down. OBP is sometimes up and
sometimes down.
Just for fun, I also kept track of which hitters were
getting the most PAs with SBA, and I've listed the top 10
for each season, along with their overall numbers and their
numbers with SBA. Here is a fun example: in 1985, the
Yankee lineup went Ricky, Ken Griffey, Mattingly (I'm assuming).
Griffey and Mattingly went a combined 3-for-48 when there was a
stolen base attempted. OTOH, SBA PAs accounted for nearly
20% of Mattingly's walks, but only constituted 5% of his
total PAs. Here are the complete numbers -- the first line
is the total for the season, the second is the total with an
SBA.
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mattingly D NYA 36 727 652 211 48 3 35 56 0.324 0.371 0.567
36 23 2 0 0 0 10 0.087 0.361 0.087
Griffey K NYA 34 487 438 120 28 4 10 41 0.274 0.331 0.425
34 25 1 0 0 0 8 0.040 0.265 0.040
Lots of interesting stuff to be found below. Get to it :-)
Doug
1980 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy D OAK 94 702 573 157 18 2 13 102 0.274 0.384 0.380
94 67 18 3 1 0 22 0.269 0.449 0.343
Washington U KCA 37 613 548 150 16 11 6 53 0.274 0.337 0.376
37 31 7 0 0 0 6 0.226 0.351 0.226
Oliver A TEX 36 709 656 209 43 3 19 39 0.319 0.357 0.480
36 27 6 2 1 0 7 0.222 0.361 0.370
Dauer R BAL 34 618 557 158 32 0 2 46 0.284 0.338 0.352
34 30 6 1 0 0 3 0.200 0.294 0.233
McRae H KCA 33 532 489 145 39 5 14 29 0.297 0.342 0.483
33 27 6 1 0 1 4 0.222 0.303 0.370
Orta J CLE 33 564 481 140 18 3 10 71 0.291 0.379 0.403
33 22 7 0 1 0 10 0.318 0.515 0.409
Yount R MIL 32 647 611 179 49 10 23 26 0.293 0.321 0.519
32 29 8 0 0 0 2 0.276 0.323 0.276
Thomas G MIL 29 697 628 150 26 3 38 58 0.239 0.303 0.471
29 26 4 0 0 0 2 0.154 0.207 0.154
Hargrove M CLE 25 720 589 179 22 2 11 111 0.304 0.415 0.404
25 20 5 0 0 0 5 0.250 0.400 0.250
Manning R CLE 24 555 471 110 17 4 3 63 0.234 0.321 0.306
24 18 4 0 1 0 3 0.222 0.333 0.333
NSA 85211 76303 20640 3443 538 1823 6936 0.271 0.332 0.401
SBA 1933 1585 318 46 15 21 285 0.201 0.319 0.288
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.270 0.336 0.399
League average hitter: 0.269 0.331 0.399
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott R MON 86 655 567 127 13 13 0 70 0.224 0.307 0.293
86 59 16 1 1 0 19 0.271 0.450 0.322
Foli T PIT 76 540 495 131 22 0 3 19 0.265 0.296 0.327
76 58 10 1 0 0 7 0.172 0.265 0.190
Mumphrey J SDN 53 622 564 168 24 3 4 49 0.298 0.352 0.372
53 41 8 2 0 0 10 0.195 0.340 0.244
Winfield D SDN 47 643 558 154 25 6 20 79 0.276 0.365 0.450
47 36 8 0 1 0 9 0.222 0.362 0.278
Hernandez K SLN 46 690 595 191 39 8 16 86 0.321 0.408 0.494
46 36 5 1 0 0 8 0.139 0.283 0.167
Smith O SDN 45 712 609 140 18 5 0 71 0.230 0.313 0.276
45 36 12 1 0 0 6 0.333 0.429 0.361
Rose P PHI 43 735 655 185 42 1 1 66 0.282 0.352 0.354
43 36 11 1 0 0 6 0.306 0.405 0.333
Dawson A MON 42 638 577 178 41 7 17 44 0.308 0.358 0.492
42 34 7 1 0 0 5 0.206 0.286 0.235
Cabell E HOU 38 636 603 167 23 8 2 26 0.277 0.306 0.352
38 32 8 0 0 0 6 0.250 0.368 0.250
Concepcion D CIN 37 668 622 162 31 8 5 37 0.260 0.300 0.360
37 31 6 1 0 0 6 0.194 0.324 0.226
NSA 71688 64362 16828 2808 509 1221 5605 0.261 0.321 0.378
SBA 2354 1910 358 48 14 22 364 0.187 0.313 0.262
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.267 0.329 0.384
League average hitter: 0.259 0.320 0.374
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy D OAK 55 477 390 98 10 3 15 73 0.251 0.369 0.408
55 40 10 0 1 1 14 0.250 0.436 0.375
Orta J CLE 31 370 338 92 14 3 5 21 0.272 0.312 0.376
31 25 4 0 0 0 6 0.160 0.323 0.160
Dauer R BAL 30 404 369 97 27 0 4 27 0.263 0.317 0.369
30 25 7 2 0 0 4 0.280 0.367 0.360
Manning R CLE 26 404 360 88 15 3 4 40 0.244 0.318 0.336
26 22 5 0 0 0 4 0.227 0.346 0.227
Bernazard T CHA 25 450 384 106 14 4 6 54 0.276 0.367 0.380
25 19 2 0 0 0 6 0.105 0.320 0.105
Burleson R CAL 23 490 430 126 17 1 5 42 0.293 0.357 0.372
23 21 5 1 0 0 2 0.238 0.304 0.286
Squires M CHA 21 334 294 78 9 0 0 22 0.265 0.312 0.296
21 16 5 1 0 0 1 0.313 0.353 0.375
Aikens W KCA 20 419 349 93 16 0 17 62 0.266 0.377 0.458
20 18 6 2 0 1 1 0.333 0.400 0.611
Randle L SEA 19 300 273 63 9 1 4 17 0.231 0.276 0.315
19 16 4 0 0 0 1 0.250 0.278 0.250
White F KCA 18 390 364 91 17 1 9 19 0.250 0.285 0.376
18 16 1 0 0 0 2 0.063 0.167 0.063
NSA 55594 49756 12810 2083 299 1046 4576 0.257 0.321 0.374
SBA 1273 1057 206 36 6 16 185 0.195 0.313 0.286
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.256 0.322 0.369
League average hitter: 0.256 0.321 0.373
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1981 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott R MON 56 402 336 69 9 3 0 50 0.205 0.308 0.250
56 42 11 0 1 0 9 0.262 0.392 0.310
Cabell E SFN 40 413 396 101 20 1 2 10 0.255 0.274 0.326
40 38 7 1 0 0 0 0.184 0.184 0.211
Jones R SDN 37 451 397 99 34 1 4 43 0.249 0.318 0.370
37 29 5 0 0 2 7 0.172 0.324 0.379
Foli T PIT 35 351 316 78 12 2 0 17 0.247 0.285 0.297
35 24 4 1 0 0 4 0.167 0.300 0.208
Rose P PHI 33 484 431 140 18 5 0 46 0.325 0.391 0.390
33 26 5 0 0 0 7 0.192 0.364 0.192
Griffey K CIN 31 442 396 123 21 6 2 39 0.311 0.370 0.409
31 22 5 2 0 0 9 0.227 0.452 0.318
Hernandez K SLN 31 444 376 115 27 4 8 61 0.306 0.401 0.463
31 21 8 2 0 1 10 0.381 0.581 0.619
Landreaux K LAN 29 420 390 98 16 4 7 25 0.251 0.297 0.367
29 25 4 1 0 0 4 0.160 0.276 0.200
Carter G MON 24 419 374 94 20 2 16 35 0.251 0.313 0.444
24 19 2 1 0 0 5 0.105 0.292 0.158
Dawson A MON 24 441 394 119 21 3 24 35 0.302 0.365 0.553
24 19 3 2 0 0 3 0.158 0.292 0.263
NSA 47531 42431 10912 1838 343 705 3893 0.257 0.320 0.367
SBA 1482 1223 229 43 11 14 214 0.187 0.307 0.275
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.258 0.321 0.368
League average hitter: 0.255 0.319 0.364
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy D OAK 90 660 543 129 15 1 27 94 0.238 0.349 0.418
90 69 16 0 0 4 18 0.232 0.386 0.406
Bernazard T CHA 59 630 540 138 25 9 11 67 0.256 0.337 0.396
59 44 9 3 0 1 9 0.205 0.340 0.341
Harrah T CLE 41 708 602 183 29 4 25 84 0.304 0.398 0.490
41 26 6 1 0 0 11 0.231 0.488 0.269
Brett G KCA 38 629 552 166 32 9 21 71 0.301 0.378 0.505
38 30 11 2 2 0 8 0.367 0.500 0.567
Yount R MIL 38 704 635 210 46 12 29 54 0.331 0.379 0.578
38 34 12 2 0 0 3 0.353 0.395 0.412
Castillo M SEA 33 541 506 130 29 1 3 22 0.257 0.286 0.336
33 31 7 3 0 0 1 0.226 0.250 0.323
Bell B TEX 27 614 537 159 27 2 13 70 0.296 0.376 0.426
27 23 3 1 0 0 4 0.130 0.259 0.174
Washington U KCA 25 487 437 125 19 3 10 38 0.286 0.338 0.412
25 22 6 0 0 0 3 0.273 0.360 0.273
Mulliniks R TOR 25 353 311 76 25 0 4 37 0.244 0.326 0.363
25 18 2 1 0 0 6 0.111 0.333 0.167
Evans D BOS 23 727 609 178 37 7 32 112 0.292 0.402 0.534
23 15 1 0 0 0 8 0.067 0.391 0.067
NSA 85117 76340 20270 3441 514 2058 7041 0.266 0.328 0.405
SBA 1882 1546 296 52 5 22 297 0.191 0.321 0.274
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.264 0.331 0.405
League average hitter: 0.264 0.328 0.402
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1982 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hernandez K SLN 56 694 579 173 33 6 7 100 0.299 0.397 0.413
56 43 8 3 0 1 10 0.186 0.321 0.326
Ray J PIT 56 702 647 182 30 7 7 36 0.281 0.318 0.382
56 48 8 1 1 0 7 0.167 0.268 0.229
Rose P PHI 49 718 634 172 25 4 3 66 0.271 0.345 0.338
49 38 17 0 1 0 9 0.447 0.551 0.500
Bailor B NYN 42 404 376 104 14 1 0 20 0.277 0.313 0.319
42 37 9 2 1 0 4 0.243 0.310 0.351
Oliver A MON 41 687 617 204 43 2 22 61 0.331 0.392 0.514
41 35 8 0 0 3 6 0.229 0.341 0.486
Landreaux K LAN 41 518 461 131 23 7 7 39 0.284 0.341 0.410
41 30 5 1 0 0 10 0.167 0.366 0.200
Murphy D ATL 37 698 598 168 23 2 36 93 0.281 0.378 0.507
37 31 2 1 0 1 6 0.065 0.216 0.194
Hubbard G ATL 36 618 532 132 25 1 9 59 0.248 0.324 0.350
36 25 8 0 0 1 7 0.320 0.469 0.440
Knight R HOU 35 676 609 179 36 6 6 48 0.294 0.344 0.402
35 28 5 1 0 1 6 0.179 0.314 0.321
Baker D LAN 35 640 570 171 19 1 23 56 0.300 0.361 0.458
35 32 10 1 0 1 2 0.313 0.371 0.438
NSA 71802 64367 16721 2761 433 1273 5646 0.260 0.320 0.375
SBA 2288 1896 364 62 12 26 318 0.192 0.305 0.278
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.263 0.326 0.380
League average hitter: 0.258 0.319 0.373
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fisk C CHA 53 545 488 141 26 4 26 46 0.289 0.355 0.518
53 41 10 2 0 2 9 0.244 0.385 0.439
Washington U KCA 48 604 547 129 19 6 5 48 0.236 0.298 0.320
48 37 4 1 0 0 8 0.108 0.267 0.135
Davis M OAK 43 484 443 122 24 4 8 27 0.275 0.322 0.402
43 39 6 1 0 0 4 0.154 0.233 0.179
Bernazard T SEA 40 606 533 141 34 3 8 55 0.265 0.332 0.385
40 33 5 2 0 0 5 0.152 0.263 0.212
Brett G KCA 34 525 464 144 38 2 25 57 0.310 0.385 0.563
34 27 6 4 0 1 7 0.222 0.382 0.481
Bell B TEX 33 678 618 171 35 3 14 50 0.277 0.332 0.411
33 28 9 0 0 1 4 0.321 0.394 0.429
Mulliniks R TOR 33 427 364 100 34 3 10 57 0.275 0.373 0.467
33 22 2 1 0 0 11 0.091 0.394 0.136
Almon B OAK 30 495 451 120 29 1 4 26 0.266 0.302 0.361
30 24 6 1 0 0 5 0.250 0.367 0.292
Herndon L DET 29 658 603 182 28 9 20 46 0.302 0.351 0.478
29 24 4 0 1 1 5 0.167 0.310 0.375
Harrah T CLE 26 615 526 140 23 1 9 75 0.266 0.363 0.365
26 22 2 0 0 0 4 0.091 0.231 0.091
NSA 84698 76201 20376 3654 540 1884 6782 0.267 0.328 0.404
SBA 1990 1620 286 56 9 19 312 0.177 0.307 0.257
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.267 0.329 0.398
League average hitter: 0.266 0.328 0.401
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Little B MON 44 411 350 91 15 3 1 50 0.260 0.352 0.329
44 34 6 2 0 0 9 0.176 0.349 0.235
Brooks H NYN 44 624 586 147 18 4 5 24 0.251 0.284 0.321
44 39 14 2 0 0 5 0.359 0.432 0.410
Garner P HOU 40 644 567 135 24 2 14 63 0.238 0.317 0.362
40 30 3 1 0 0 9 0.100 0.300 0.133
Knight R HOU 39 567 507 154 36 4 9 42 0.304 0.355 0.444
39 31 6 2 1 0 7 0.194 0.333 0.323
Baker D LAN 38 616 531 138 25 1 15 72 0.260 0.346 0.395
38 27 7 1 0 1 11 0.259 0.474 0.407
Smith O SLN 38 626 552 134 30 6 3 64 0.243 0.321 0.335
38 30 7 2 1 0 7 0.233 0.395 0.367
Bonilla J SDN 37 617 556 132 17 4 4 50 0.237 0.301 0.304
37 28 7 2 0 0 9 0.250 0.432 0.321
Murphy D ATL 37 687 589 178 24 4 36 90 0.302 0.393 0.540
37 30 8 0 0 5 7 0.267 0.405 0.767
Wiggins A SDN 36 585 503 139 20 2 0 65 0.276 0.360 0.324
36 28 5 1 0 0 6 0.179 0.324 0.214
Concepcion D CIN 35 593 528 123 22 0 1 56 0.233 0.303 0.280
35 31 7 1 0 0 3 0.226 0.286 0.258
NSA 71542 63797 16402 2686 468 1372 6044 0.257 0.322 0.378
SBA 2360 1920 379 67 16 26 380 0.197 0.326 0.290
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.259 0.328 0.379
League average hitter: 0.255 0.322 0.376
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moseby L TOR 64 688 592 166 28 15 18 78 0.280 0.368 0.470
64 50 4 1 0 1 12 0.080 0.281 0.160
Murphy D OAK 48 647 559 143 18 2 33 74 0.256 0.342 0.472
48 40 6 1 0 1 7 0.150 0.292 0.250
Upshaw W TOR 44 635 569 158 31 9 19 55 0.278 0.345 0.464
44 32 9 1 0 1 11 0.281 0.455 0.406
Sheridan P KCA 39 531 481 136 24 4 8 41 0.283 0.338 0.399
39 33 11 3 0 1 6 0.333 0.436 0.515
Franco J CLE 38 718 658 188 22 5 3 43 0.286 0.331 0.348
38 32 12 1 0 0 5 0.375 0.474 0.406
Bernazard T CLE 30 497 439 97 15 4 2 43 0.221 0.290 0.287
30 24 3 0 0 0 5 0.125 0.300 0.125
Parrish L DET 29 629 578 137 16 2 33 41 0.237 0.287 0.443
29 24 6 0 0 1 5 0.250 0.379 0.375
Lansford C OAK 26 651 597 179 31 5 14 40 0.300 0.342 0.439
26 21 6 1 0 0 3 0.286 0.346 0.333
Collins D TOR 26 492 441 136 24 15 2 33 0.308 0.366 0.444
26 24 8 1 1 0 1 0.333 0.346 0.458
Carew R CAL 24 378 329 97 8 1 3 40 0.295 0.367 0.353
24 18 6 0 0 0 6 0.333 0.500 0.333
NSA 85035 76446 20223 3389 525 1954 6863 0.265 0.326 0.399
SBA 1807 1464 316 54 9 26 308 0.216 0.353 0.318
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.265 0.330 0.398
League average hitter: 0.264 0.326 0.398
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gwynn T SDN 65 675 606 213 21 10 5 59 0.351 0.410 0.444
65 50 21 2 1 0 13 0.420 0.540 0.500
Sandberg R CHN 50 700 636 200 36 19 19 52 0.314 0.367 0.520
50 41 14 3 0 1 9 0.341 0.460 0.488
Hernandez K NYN 48 657 550 171 31 0 15 97 0.311 0.409 0.449
48 37 8 2 0 1 10 0.216 0.375 0.351
Matthews G CHN 39 608 491 143 21 2 14 103 0.291 0.410 0.428
39 30 9 1 0 1 9 0.300 0.462 0.433
Schmidt M PHI 37 632 528 146 23 3 36 92 0.277 0.383 0.536
37 28 9 3 1 2 9 0.321 0.486 0.714
Hayes V PHI 35 622 561 164 27 6 16 59 0.292 0.359 0.447
35 25 7 0 0 0 10 0.280 0.486 0.280
Herr T SLN 33 622 558 154 23 2 4 49 0.276 0.335 0.346
33 24 7 0 0 0 7 0.292 0.438 0.292
Murphy D ATL 31 691 607 176 32 8 36 79 0.290 0.372 0.547
31 26 6 0 1 1 5 0.231 0.355 0.423
Garvey S SDN 30 653 617 175 27 2 8 24 0.284 0.307 0.373
30 26 11 3 0 0 4 0.423 0.500 0.538
Ramirez R ATL 30 629 591 157 22 4 2 26 0.266 0.295 0.327
30 26 3 1 1 0 4 0.115 0.233 0.231
NSA 71515 64154 16433 2710 437 1248 5779 0.256 0.318 0.370
SBA 2181 1765 409 60 14 30 370 0.232 0.362 0.333
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.263 0.328 0.382
League average hitter: 0.255 0.319 0.369
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett G KCA 46 665 550 184 38 5 30 103 0.335 0.436 0.585
46 32 8 3 0 0 13 0.250 0.457 0.344
Franco J CLE 45 703 636 183 33 4 6 54 0.288 0.343 0.381
45 37 9 0 0 0 8 0.243 0.378 0.243
Mattingly D NYA 36 727 652 211 48 3 35 56 0.324 0.371 0.567
36 23 2 0 0 0 10 0.087 0.361 0.087
Griffey K NYA 34 487 438 120 28 4 10 41 0.274 0.331 0.425
34 25 1 0 0 0 8 0.040 0.265 0.040
Carew R CAL 34 518 443 124 17 3 2 64 0.280 0.371 0.345
34 26 7 2 0 0 7 0.269 0.424 0.346
Smith L KCA 33 498 448 115 23 4 6 41 0.257 0.321 0.366
33 26 4 0 2 0 7 0.154 0.333 0.308
Mulliniks R TOR 32 427 366 108 26 1 10 55 0.295 0.383 0.454
32 20 7 3 0 0 12 0.350 0.594 0.500
Bradley P SEA 32 714 641 192 33 8 26 55 0.300 0.365 0.498
32 27 8 1 0 2 3 0.296 0.387 0.556
Lacy L BAL 29 540 492 144 22 4 9 39 0.293 0.343 0.409
29 21 7 1 0 0 8 0.333 0.517 0.381
Barfield J TOR 28 612 539 156 34 9 27 66 0.289 0.369 0.536
28 26 6 4 0 1 2 0.231 0.286 0.500
NSA 84463 75689 19867 3503 522 2154 7103 0.262 0.327 0.408
SBA 1984 1568 315 59 6 24 362 0.201 0.350 0.292
[note: these don't match the numbers cited in the original study. This
is because the original was done by hand (!) and the author was only able
to account for ~98% of all SBAs]
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.266 0.335 0.409
League average hitter: 0.261 0.327 0.406
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
McGee W SLN 72 652 612 216 26 18 10 34 0.353 0.384 0.503
72 63 24 2 3 0 8 0.381 0.451 0.508
Herr T SLN 67 696 596 180 38 3 8 80 0.302 0.379 0.416
67 49 18 1 0 0 15 0.367 0.493 0.388
Moreland K CHN 57 667 587 180 30 3 14 68 0.307 0.374 0.440
57 46 15 4 0 0 8 0.326 0.404 0.413
Law V MON 56 621 519 138 30 6 10 86 0.266 0.369 0.405
56 38 7 1 0 1 17 0.184 0.436 0.289
Hernandez K NYN 54 682 593 183 34 4 10 77 0.309 0.384 0.430
54 41 13 0 0 3 13 0.317 0.481 0.537
Rose P CIN 40 500 405 107 12 2 2 86 0.264 0.395 0.319
40 27 5 1 0 0 12 0.185 0.450 0.222
Sandberg R CHN 36 673 609 186 31 6 26 57 0.305 0.364 0.504
36 28 8 1 0 0 6 0.286 0.389 0.321
Trillo M SFN 36 505 451 101 16 2 3 40 0.224 0.287 0.288
36 28 7 1 1 0 6 0.250 0.382 0.357
Pendleton T SLN 35 602 559 134 16 3 5 37 0.240 0.285 0.306
35 29 4 0 0 0 5 0.138 0.257 0.138
Ray J PIT 35 652 594 163 33 3 7 46 0.274 0.325 0.375
35 32 8 1 0 1 3 0.250 0.314 0.375
NSA 71764 64138 16219 2803 422 1398 6002 0.253 0.317 0.375
SBA 2094 1680 377 58 15 26 371 0.224 0.363 0.323
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.261 0.331 0.385
League average hitter: 0.252 0.319 0.374
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randolph W NYA 43 601 492 136 15 2 5 94 0.276 0.393 0.346
43 37 11 0 0 0 5 0.297 0.372 0.297
Fletcher S TEX 37 594 530 159 34 5 3 47 0.300 0.360 0.400
37 32 9 0 0 0 1 0.281 0.303 0.281
Franco J CLE 28 635 598 183 30 5 10 32 0.306 0.339 0.423
28 26 7 0 1 0 2 0.269 0.321 0.346
Bradley P SEA 28 614 526 163 27 4 12 77 0.310 0.405 0.445
28 21 3 0 0 0 7 0.143 0.357 0.143
Carter J CLE 27 709 663 200 36 9 29 32 0.302 0.335 0.514
27 24 8 1 0 2 3 0.333 0.407 0.625
Moses J SEA 26 442 399 102 16 3 3 34 0.256 0.311 0.333
26 21 4 0 0 0 4 0.190 0.320 0.190
Trammell A DET 26 653 574 159 33 7 21 59 0.277 0.347 0.469
26 18 6 0 0 2 7 0.333 0.520 0.667
Smith L KCA 24 568 508 146 25 7 8 46 0.287 0.357 0.411
24 19 5 1 0 0 4 0.263 0.417 0.316
Lacy L BAL 24 537 491 141 18 0 11 37 0.287 0.334 0.391
24 20 3 0 0 1 4 0.150 0.292 0.300
Brett G KCA 24 529 441 128 28 4 16 80 0.290 0.401 0.481
24 15 4 0 0 0 8 0.267 0.500 0.267
NSA 84862 75737 19884 3464 457 2260 7363 0.263 0.329 0.410
SBA 1983 1639 353 56 11 30 304 0.215 0.337 0.318
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.265 0.335 0.409
League average hitter: 0.262 0.330 0.408
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1986 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawson A MON 47 546 496 141 32 2 20 37 0.284 0.338 0.478
47 37 12 4 0 0 9 0.324 0.457 0.432
Smith O SLN 43 609 514 144 19 4 0 79 0.280 0.376 0.333
43 28 7 0 0 0 12 0.250 0.463 0.250
Sandberg R CHN 42 682 627 178 28 5 14 46 0.284 0.330 0.411
42 33 10 1 1 1 9 0.303 0.452 0.485
Herr T SLN 41 647 559 141 30 4 2 73 0.252 0.342 0.331
41 31 4 0 0 0 8 0.129 0.341 0.129
Webster M MON 40 645 576 167 31 13 8 57 0.290 0.355 0.431
40 31 5 0 0 0 8 0.161 0.350 0.161
McGee W SLN 40 539 497 127 22 7 7 37 0.256 0.306 0.370
40 32 8 1 1 1 8 0.250 0.400 0.438
Bell B CIN 39 655 568 158 29 3 20 73 0.278 0.362 0.445
39 28 6 2 1 0 7 0.214 0.333 0.357
Ray J PIT 37 648 579 174 33 0 7 58 0.301 0.363 0.394
37 26 7 4 0 0 9 0.269 0.459 0.423
Schmidt M PHI 35 657 552 160 29 1 37 89 0.290 0.390 0.547
35 27 7 1 0 2 7 0.259 0.429 0.519
Pendleton T SLN 34 626 578 138 26 5 1 34 0.239 0.279 0.306
34 32 7 1 1 0 2 0.219 0.265 0.313
NSA 71562 63814 16237 2922 377 1493 6118 0.254 0.320 0.382
SBA 2428 1916 406 69 10 30 442 0.212 0.358 0.305
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.259 0.329 0.388
League average hitter: 0.253 0.322 0.380
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987 - a
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley P SEA 58 701 603 179 38 10 14 84 0.297 0.387 0.463
58 48 9 2 0 0 10 0.188 0.328 0.229
Seitzer K KCA 51 725 641 207 33 8 15 80 0.323 0.399 0.470
51 39 8 0 1 0 12 0.205 0.392 0.256
Yount R MIL 50 723 635 198 25 9 21 76 0.312 0.384 0.479
50 43 17 7 0 2 7 0.395 0.480 0.698
Tabler P CLE 36 618 553 170 34 3 11 51 0.307 0.369 0.439
36 31 10 0 0 1 5 0.323 0.417 0.419
Moseby L TOR 36 670 592 167 27 4 26 70 0.282 0.358 0.473
36 26 5 1 0 1 10 0.192 0.417 0.346
Fletcher S TEX 35 668 588 169 28 4 5 61 0.287 0.358 0.374
35 28 9 0 1 0 6 0.321 0.441 0.393
Canseco J OAK 34 691 630 162 35 3 31 50 0.257 0.310 0.470
34 30 4 0 1 1 4 0.133 0.235 0.300
Moses J SEA 32 433 390 96 16 4 3 29 0.246 0.301 0.331
32 24 1 0 0 0 5 0.042 0.200 0.042
Randolph W NYA 30 543 449 137 24 2 7 82 0.305 0.411 0.414
30 20 3 0 1 0 7 0.150 0.400 0.250
Puckett K MIN 30 668 624 207 32 5 28 32 0.332 0.367 0.534
30 28 5 1 0 0 1 0.179 0.200 0.214
NSA 85097 75970 20242 3598 443 2599 7429 0.266 0.333 0.428
SBA 2288 1849 378 69 18 35 383 0.204 0.340 0.318
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.271 0.340 0.431
League average hitter: 0.265 0.333 0.425
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987 - n
--------
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith O SLN 80 706 600 182 40 4 0 89 0.303 0.392 0.383
80 61 16 4 0 0 15 0.262 0.397 0.328
Doran B HOU 47 719 625 177 23 3 16 82 0.283 0.365 0.406
47 40 9 0 0 0 7 0.225 0.340 0.225
Herr T SLN 43 597 510 134 29 0 2 68 0.263 0.346 0.331
43 31 9 2 0 0 11 0.290 0.465 0.355
Murphy D ATL 40 693 566 167 27 1 44 115 0.295 0.417 0.580
40 28 7 2 0 0 12 0.250 0.475 0.321
Martinez C SDN 39 525 447 122 21 2 15 70 0.273 0.372 0.430
39 26 4 1 0 0 13 0.154 0.436 0.192
Clark J SLN 38 558 419 120 23 1 35 136 0.286 0.459 0.597
38 20 6 2 0 2 18 0.300 0.632 0.700
Parker D CIN 38 647 589 149 28 0 26 44 0.253 0.311 0.433
38 31 9 2 0 2 6 0.290 0.421 0.548
Hayes V PHI 36 681 556 154 36 5 21 121 0.277 0.404 0.473
36 24 8 4 0 1 12 0.333 0.556 0.625
Van Slyke A PIT 35 630 564 165 36 11 21 56 0.293 0.359 0.507
35 31 6 1 1 1 4 0.194 0.286 0.387
Wallach T MON 35 644 593 177 42 4 26 37 0.298 0.343 0.514
35 32 9 3 0 1 2 0.281 0.314 0.469
NSA 72182 64427 16872 3053 423 1789 6150 0.262 0.327 0.406
SBA 2324 1849 403 73 12 35 427 0.218 0.362 0.327
Profile of an SBA hitter: 0.269 0.340 0.414
League average hitter: 0.261 0.328 0.404
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cordial Boy!
> OK, as promised, some further numbers on the effects of
> stolen base attempts on hitting.
What on earth is this crap? Your "study" doesn't tell us anything
about whether a particular stolen base attempt has any impact on a
particular ab. As such, it has nothing whatsoever to do with
reality.
Take this crap out of here. Academic attempts to milk the pure joy
out of baseball are best restricted to r.s.bb.analysis or pinned up
next to last year's Sear's catalogue on the shithouse wall.
cordially, in spite of it all,
rm
Charles Saeger
right direction -- a matched/weighted study.
I downloaded Tom Ruane's base-out situational data, and I've been
playing with it. Here's my concern:
AAvg. ASlug. AOBP
GDP Situation: .299 .441 .346
If he steals 2nd: .262 .383 .335
If he's CS 2nd: .253 .384 .319
The latter two lines aren't really the results after a SB/CS, and
that's the point. Rather, they're the total results in what a
theoretical situation would be -- say, after a SB would include runner
on 2nd only, none/one out. Also, these are adjusted data -- SF are
counted as AB, Safe on Errors are counted as hits, IBB are excluded.
If he steals 2nd, 1st base is now open. Remember in Weaver on
Strategy, when Earl Weaver tells why he was pissed off that Reggie
Jackson stole 2nd without his say-so? That's right, the pitcher just
walked Lee May, whom Weaver wanted hitting.
Much of the changes after a SB attempt are due to the change in
situation, not due to the SB attempt itself. Batting average drops --
not just because of the SB attempt, but because the first baseman no
longer needs to play close to the bag to hold the runner. Walks rise,
not just because of the SB attempt, but because there's now usually a
runner on 2nd base and 1st base open. Of course, the drop in batting
average is much higher than this would suggest, and even with these
smaller drops, this is an argument against the SB itself.
Cordial Boy!
> I'm snipping what Doug posted. It's fascinating, and it's going in the
> right direction -- a matched/weighted study.
If it's going in the right direction it must be going to r.s.bb.a,
right?
> I downloaded Tom Ruane's base-out situational data, and I've been
> playing with it. Here's my concern:
> AAvg. ASlug. AOBP
> GDP Situation: .299 .441 .346
> If he steals 2nd: .262 .383 .335
> If he's CS 2nd: .253 .384 .319
Why don't you take your analysis which is irrelevant to baseball
over to the group r.s.bb.analysis which is for postings that are
irrelevant to baseball?
Why not just _do_ it? Are you too stupid to understand that this
garbage is in the wrong group? Or are you just so selfish that you
don't care that you are posting to the wrong group? Or do you just
hate the sport and its fans so much that you just have to post here
so that you can piss people off?
"Hi! My name is Charles Saeger! I hate sport and my head is jammed
so far up my ass that I can't see! But I can still enjoy "baseball"
because I am a touch typist and I have all the data memorized!"
"Hi! My name is Charles Saeger!"
Go on, bugger off. GET OUT OF HERE. This is the wrong group.
cordially, as always,
rm
John R. Mayne
Doug Drinen wrote:
>
> OK, as promised, some further numbers on the effects of
> stolen base attempts on hitting. [and a lot more]
Rather than adding to Doug's excellent post, let me ask two more
questions:
1. Following up on Mr. Saeger's post, is there a difference between
BA/OBP/Slg when there is a successful SB, rather than an unsuccessful
SBA, (CS)?
2. Is this sufficient evidence that our general opinion on the
break-even point for SBs early in the game (usually 66%, but I
back-of-the-envelope calculate at 71% in today's high-offense game) is
way too low?
--JRM
Chris Cathcart
<ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Here we have another attempt by Mr. Maynard to inflict a
punishment upon
>people who he deems to have behaved incorrect. Whether he knows
it or not,
>his invective laden piles of insults are an attempt to "punish"
those who
>don't post what he likes and drive them from this newsgroup. Of
course, the
>simple fact that no one else here has ever (a) lauded, assisted
or supported
>his efforts or (b) found anything wrong with the "offending"
posts is quite
>lost upon him. So everyone just ignores his rants and chalks
him up as a
>complete bozo. Which he probably is.
Probably?
>And yet again he resorts to invective and insults,
demonstrating your utter
>irrelevancy to anything that goes on in this newsgroup. He is
like the
>obnoxious guy at a party that nobody likes who decides that if
he just yells
>a lot and uses profanity then he'll start to get the attention
he craves. Its
>really kind of pathetic how he parades around here.
Kind of?
All you need for proof of what a complete fucking idiot and
total failure Maynard is, just ask him who he claims is the
greatest hitter of all time, and what criterion he is basing
that on.
Chris
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Aaron Pound
> Why not just _do_ it? Are you too stupid to understand that this
> garbage is in the wrong group? Or are you just so selfish that you
> don't care that you are posting to the wrong group? Or do you just
> hate the sport and its fans so much that you just have to post here
> so that you can piss people off?
Here we have another attempt by Mr. Maynard to inflict a punishment upon
people who he deems to have behaved incorrect. Whether he knows it or not,
his invective laden piles of insults are an attempt to "punish" those who
don't post what he likes and drive them from this newsgroup. Of course, the
simple fact that no one else here has ever (a) lauded, assisted or supported
his efforts or (b) found anything wrong with the "offending" posts is quite
lost upon him. So everyone just ignores his rants and chalks him up as a
complete bozo. Which he probably is.
> "Hi! My name is Charles Saeger! I hate sport and my head is jammed
> so far up my ass that I can't see! But I can still enjoy "baseball"
> because I am a touch typist and I have all the data memorized!"
And yet again he resorts to invective and insults, demonstrating your utter
irrelevancy to anything that goes on in this newsgroup. He is like the
obnoxious guy at a party that nobody likes who decides that if he just yells
a lot and uses profanity then he'll start to get the attention he craves. Its
really kind of pathetic how he parades around here.
> "Hi! My name is Charles Saeger!"
>
> Go on, bugger off. GET OUT OF HERE. This is the wrong group.
>
> cordially, as always,
Hardly. In fact, I have never in the past five years I've been paying
attention to this newsgroup, seen a "cordial" or even a polite post from Mr.
Maynard.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Cordial Boy!
> Doug Drinen wrote:
>>
>> OK, as promised, some further numbers on the effects of
>> stolen base attempts on hitting. [and a lot more]
> Rather than adding to Doug's excellent post, let me ask two more
> questions:
> 1. Following up on Mr. Saeger's post, is there a difference between
> BA/OBP/Slg when there is a successful SB, rather than an unsuccessful
> SBA, (CS)?
Which successful stolen base are we talking about? Which
unsuccessful one? And given that these two bases only exist in
statland why are you posting about them here?
Why are you polluting a group for sport fans with academic bullshit
of interest only to stat fans?
Hm? Why are you polluting a group for sport fans with academic
bullshit of interest only to stat fans?
You have your own group. This silliness, which has absolutely no
bearing on how the game is played, belongs in r.s.bb.a.
Why don't you go there and stop giving r.s.bb. a bad name?
cordially, even with imbeciles like John Mayne,
rm
Cordial Boy!
> "Cordial Boy!" wrote:
> Here we have another attempt by Mr. Maynard to inflict a punishment upon
> people who he deems to have behaved incorrect.
Nonsense. Postings on the analysis of baseball belong to r.s.bb.a.
by definition. What I "deem" is irrelevant.
> Whether he knows it or not, his invective laden piles of insults
> are an attempt to "punish" those who don't post what he likes and
> drive them from this newsgroup.
Of course I want to drive them from the group. Real sport fans go
elsewhere when they see stat fan bullshit posted here.
> Of course, the simple fact that no one else here has ever (a)
> lauded, assisted or supported his efforts or (b) found anything
> wrong with the "offending" posts is quite lost upon him.
Nonsense. r.s.bb.a. was created by stat fans for stat fans and in
doing so they more than "lauded, assisted or supported" my efforts
to clean the silly academic shit out of r.s.bb.
What you refuse to face is the fact that I am _right_. Postings on
analysis belong to r.s.bb.a. not r.s.bb. The silly academic shit
which has absolutely nothing to do with baseball has absolutely
nothing of interest to offer baseball fans. So stop trying to
hi-jack this group. You have your own. Go there.
And when someone points out that pathetic little pukes like Charles
Saeger who hate baseball belong elsewhere think about the point
being made rather than simply attacking the person making the point.
Once again, Charles Saeger hates baseball because it is a sport and
he doesn't have a fucking clue what a sport is. So he tries turning
baseball into something he can understand so that he can pretend
that he is one of the boys - a "sport fan."
But it doesn't work. Saeger's pathetic postings are transparently
the contributions of a hopeless, aesthetically crippled little
philistine in way over his head. We ask the pathetic little Saeger
to take his brown-stained world-view out of here.
R.s.bb.a. is where baseball "fans" who hate sport should be posting.
And if you were to follow him over there you wouldn't have to worry
about what I have to say because I am not allowed to post to that
group.
So put up or shut up.
cordially, even to imbeciles,
rm
Cordial Boy!
> All you need for proof of what a complete fucking idiot and
> total failure Maynard is, just ask him who he claims is the
> greatest hitter of all time, and what criterion he is basing
> that on.
Ok. Pete Rose was the greatest hitter, by definition. He had the
greatest number of hits.
I never said that Rose was the most efficient hitter or even the
"best" hitter. Who is the most efficient of all time? That
question is impossible to answer accurately because the players all
faced different pitchers. But that doesn't stop morons like _you_
from trying to anwer that question, does it?
So who's the "fucking idiot?"
cordially, as always,
rm
TomCrow
"Cordial Boy!" wrote:
> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr...@myremarq.com.invalid> trolls:
> > All you need for proof of what a complete fucking idiot and
> > total failure Maynard is, just ask him who he claims is the
> > greatest hitter of all time, and what criterion he is basing
> > that on.
>
> Ok. Pete Rose was the greatest hitter, by definition. He had the
> greatest number of hits.
Ok. By definition the greatest pitcher is the one who has thrown the
greatest number of pitches. I'm not sure if many would agree with this
definiton.
Ironically, the "greatest winning pitcher" is the same guy as the
"greatest losing pitcher".
Cordial Boy!
> "Cordial Boy!" wrote:
>> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr...@myremarq.com.invalid> trolls:
>> > All you need for proof of what a complete fucking idiot and
>> > total failure Maynard is, just ask him who he claims is the
>> > greatest hitter of all time, and what criterion he is basing
>> > that on.
>>
>> Ok. Pete Rose was the greatest hitter, by definition. He had the
>> greatest number of hits.
> Ok. By definition the greatest pitcher is the one who has thrown the
> greatest number of pitches. I'm not sure if many would agree with this
> definiton.
Nonsense. I never said that Rose was the greatest hitter because he
faced the greatest number of pitches.
> Ironically, the "greatest winning pitcher" is the same guy as the
> "greatest losing pitcher".
Nothing ironic about that for those of us who understand the game.
G'nite Gladys,
cordially, as always,
rm
TomCrow
"Cordial Boy!" wrote:
> TomCrow <tom...@isn.net> trolls:
>
> > "Cordial Boy!" wrote:
>
> >> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr...@myremarq.com.invalid> trolls:
> >> > All you need for proof of what a complete fucking idiot and
> >> > total failure Maynard is, just ask him who he claims is the
> >> > greatest hitter of all time, and what criterion he is basing
> >> > that on.
> >>
> >> Ok. Pete Rose was the greatest hitter, by definition. He had the
> >> greatest number of hits.
>
> > Ok. By definition the greatest pitcher is the one who has thrown the
> > greatest number of pitches. I'm not sure if many would agree with this
> > definiton.
>
> Nonsense. I never said that Rose was the greatest hitter because he
> faced the greatest number of pitches.
I didn't say you did. Using your definition applied to pitching is, "the
greatest Pitcher is the one who has thrown or achieved the most pitches".
>
>
> > Ironically, the "greatest winning pitcher" is the same guy as the
> > "greatest losing pitcher".
>
> Nothing ironic about that for those of us who understand the game.
Nope. You have to understand something to see it as ironic. Try it sometime.
Cordial Boy!
>> > Ok. By definition the greatest pitcher is the one who has thrown the
>> > greatest number of pitches. I'm not sure if many would agree with this
>> > definiton.
>>
>> Nonsense. I never said that Rose was the greatest hitter because he
>> faced the greatest number of pitches.
> I didn't say you did. Using your definition applied to pitching is, "the
> greatest Pitcher is the one who has thrown or achieved the most pitches".
No. You're stupid. The analogy would be the pitcher who compiled
the greatest number of outs.
Killfile time. Bye bye moron.
cordially, as always,
rm
Kyle
wrote:
So how come they refer to them as "pitchers" instead of "out-getters"?
Kyle, he who means well
The Shane Andrews of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Cordial Boy!
> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr...@myremarq.com.invalid> wrote:
>>All you need for proof of what a complete fucking idiot and
>>total failure Maynard is, just ask him who he claims is the
>>greatest hitter of all time, and what criterion he is basing
>>that on.
> How would he have an opinion? The guy hates baseball, sport and
> all.
How on earth would you know whether I hated sport? You don't even
know what sport is, for gawd's sake.
> He doesn't watch baseball games.
I watched the Jays preseason game on the tube yesterday. But this
is hockey season. That's the sport I'm interested in the most right
now. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, hockey, like basketball
and football, doesn't lend itself so easily to anal-ysis.
No reliable data.
cordially, as always,
rm
Cordial Boy!
> Roger has to be about 60, and he still can't read. This is in
> spite of Canada's wonderful education system. If this is his
> response to valuable government dollars, I sure as hell hope the
> government didn't teach him toilet training.
I criticize you because you post to the wrong group and don't know a
thing about sport. You criticize me because I criticize you.
Clearly toilet-training is the issue in your house, not mine.
> How could Roger understand a game he doesn't watch?
Exactly. That's why I would never be stupid enough to rank players
like Cobb or Ruth because I didn't watch them play.
cordially, even to Saeger,
rm
Samson
Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> OK, as promised, some further numbers on the effects of
> stolen base attempts on hitting. To recap: Ron Johnson
> posted a study from the 1987 Great American Baseball Stat
> Book which found that BA and SLG were way down and OBP
> slightly up in plate appearances during which a stolen base
> attempt occurred. A couple of people then pointed out that
> this could be a result of the fact that managers are more
> likely to steal when low-BA, low-SLG hitters are at the
> plate.
> Lots of interesting stuff to be found below. Get to it :-)
Oh, I thought I'd decipher the mystery of the 80's Cardinals,
but I got tired...I just did the SBPA totals for the guys
who made the lists.
PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA/ OBP/ SLG
697 530 138 21 6 5 156 .260/.421/.351
Conclusion: When a runner was stealing, players for the
1980s St. Louis Cardinals showed a tendency to turn
into Max Bishop. I think you're right that they weren't
Max Bishop to begin with, and that the SBAs had something
to do with the transformation -- (but this once again raises
the question of how Max Bishop became Max Bishop...)
Name TM SBPA PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA OBP SLG
> Hernandez SLN 46 690 595 191 39 8 16 86 0.321 0.408 0.494
> 46 36 5 1 0 0 8 0.139 0.283 0.167
> Hernandez SLN 31 444 376 115 27 4 8 61 0.306 0.401 0.463
> 31 21 8 2 0 1 10 0.381 0.581 0.619
> Hernandez SLN 56 694 579 173 33 6 7 100 0.299 0.397 0.413
> 56 43 8 3 0 1 10 0.186 0.321 0.326
> Smith O SLN 38 626 552 134 30 6 3 64 0.243 0.321 0.335
> 38 30 7 2 1 0 7 0.233 0.395 0.367
> Herr T SLN 33 622 558 154 23 2 4 49 0.276 0.335 0.346
> 33 24 7 0 0 0 7 0.292 0.438 0.292
> McGee W SLN 72 652 612 216 26 18 10 34 0.353 0.384 0.503
> 72 63 24 2 3 0 8 0.381 0.451 0.508
> Herr T SLN 67 696 596 180 38 3 8 80 0.302 0.379 0.416
> 67 49 18 1 0 0 15 0.367 0.493 0.388
> Pendleton SLN 35 602 559 134 16 3 5 37 0.240 0.285 0.306
> 35 29 4 0 0 0 5 0.138 0.257 0.138
> Smith O SLN 43 609 514 144 19 4 0 79 0.280 0.376 0.333
> 43 28 7 0 0 0 12 0.250 0.463 0.250
> Herr T SLN 41 647 559 141 30 4 2 73 0.252 0.342 0.331
> 41 31 4 0 0 0 8 0.129 0.341 0.129
> McGee W SLN 40 539 497 127 22 7 7 37 0.256 0.306 0.370
> 40 32 8 1 1 1 8 0.250 0.400 0.438
>Pendleton T SLN 34 626 578 138 26 5 1 34 0.239 0.279 0.306
> 34 32 7 1 1 0 2 0.219 0.265 0.313
>Smith O SLN 80 706 600 182 40 4 0 89 0.303 0.392 0.383
> 80 61 16 4 0 0 15 0.262 0.397 0.328
> Herr T SLN 43 597 510 134 29 0 2 68 0.263 0.346 0.331
> 43 31 9 2 0 0 11 0.290 0.465 0.355
Clark J SLN 38 558 419 120 23 1 35 136 0.286 0.459 0.597
> 38 20 6 2 0 2 18 0.300 0.632 0.700
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
jmac_66
>
> In article <21f561d1...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com>,
> Chris Cathcart <cathcacr...@myremarq.com.invalid> wrote:
> >All you need for proof of what a complete fucking idiot and
> >total failure Maynard is, just ask him who he claims is the
> >greatest hitter of all time, and what criterion he is basing
> >that on.
>
> doesn't watch baseball games. It's sad, but as he bashes the stats and
> all, the only way he knows anything about baseball is by someone posting
> stats here and then having his mommy load them into a spreadsheet for him.
How many of you think (like I do) that the "notes from a rival scout"
items (or whatever the hell they were called) were actually written
entirely by the SI staff?
It gives the patina of respectability to the opinions
LyfordIII
(Cordial Boy!) writes:
>>> > Ok. By definition the greatest pitcher is the one who has thrown the
>>> > greatest number of pitches. I'm not sure if many would agree with this
>>> > definiton.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. I never said that Rose was the greatest hitter because he
>>> faced the greatest number of pitches.
>
>> I didn't say you did. Using your definition applied to pitching is, "the
>> greatest Pitcher is the one who has thrown or achieved the most pitches".
>
>No. You're stupid. The analogy would be the pitcher who compiled
>the greatest number of outs.
I see. So the pitcher that compiles the greatest number of outs
is the greatest pitcher, and the hitter that compiles the greatest
number of outs is the greatest hitter.
No contradiction there, is there?
Cordial Boy!
> I see. So the pitcher that compiles the greatest number of outs
> is the greatest pitcher, and the hitter that compiles the greatest
> number of outs is the greatest hitter.
> No contradiction there, is there?
Actually the greatest hitter is the hitter who has the greatest
number of outs while the greatest pitcher is the one who allows the
greatest number of hits.
No contradiction there, either, is there?
G'nite Wilma,
cordially, as always,
rm
TomCrow
"Cordial Boy!" wrote:
You don't have to see to believe do you? What is history for? What is
language for? This is not an empirical argument I hope. It sounds like
it and if it is, you're in trouble Roger. I don't have to rank Idi Amin
compared to Jimmy Carter by experience but I take on faith the FACTS I
hear about them I deem to be true. By your logic you believe everything
you see. Hard to be objective eh?
don malcolm
> In article <38DCC4A7...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu>,
> Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > OK, as promised, some further numbers on the effects of
> > stolen base attempts on hitting. To recap: Ron Johnson
> > posted a study from the 1987 Great American Baseball Stat
> > Book which found that BA and SLG were way down and OBP
> > slightly up in plate appearances during which a stolen base
> > attempt occurred. A couple of people then pointed out that
> > this could be a result of the fact that managers are more
> > likely to steal when low-BA, low-SLG hitters are at the
> > plate.
> [...]
> > Lots of interesting stuff to be found below. Get to it :-)
>
> Oh, I thought I'd decipher the mystery of the 80's Cardinals,
> but I got tired...I just did the SBPA totals for the guys
> who made the lists.
>
> PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB BA/ OBP/ SLG
> 697 530 138 21 6 5 156 .260/.421/.351
>
> Conclusion: When a runner was stealing, players for the
> 1980s St. Louis Cardinals showed a tendency to turn
> into Max Bishop. I think you're right that they weren't
> Max Bishop to begin with, and that the SBAs had something
> to do with the transformation -- (but this once again raises
> the question of how Max Bishop became Max Bishop...)
What Doug could do, of course, is to break the SBA data down
by team over these years. The Cards may well have been the best
at hitting in these situations, but it's possible that they were
good at it in good years (1981, 1982, 1985, 1987) and not-so-good
at it in the other years (1980, 1983, 1984, 1986).
It's also possible that teams with higher numbers of SBAs hit
better in those situations than teams with lower numbers of SBAs.
When you take the yearly data, aggregate it, and present it in
a modified form of "seasonal notation" ("660 plate appearances"
instead of "162 games"), it becomes clear that *all* players turn
into Max Bishop when they bat in SBA situations:
AB H D T HR BB BA OBP SLG
80-87 mlb NSA 604 158 27 4 15 56 .262 .324 .393
80-87 mlb SBA 550 112 19 4 8 110 .204 .337 .297
Actually, that walking percentage (BBP) is "only" 16.7%--well
under Bishop's lifetime average. But it's almost double the
BBP in PAs without stolen base attempts.
Based on this, one comparison Doug might want to dig out
of the Retrosheet data is a look at run scoring in innings
where there are men on first with none or one out; is there
any difference in the runs per inning average for those
innings in which there's a stolen base attempt and those
in which there isn't?
I was also going to note that SBA plate appearances comprise
only 2.6% of all plate appearances, but that's not really
an appropriate way to define how often SBA situations really
occur. The best estimate I have available at the moment is
that runners on first only situations comprise about 18%
of all plate appearances. With the Retrosheet data in hand
and time permitting, Doug could determine how many of those
"first only" situations occur with none or one out; we'd
then know how many SBA PAs there are relative to the "most
likely SBA situation." If we assume for the moment that
0-1-2 out "man on first only" situations are divided
equally, that means that the estimated SBA PA/most likely
SBA situation ratio is 2.6 into 12, or just under 22%.
IOW, managers use the SB in just a little more than once
in every five possible SBA situations (approximately).
Wes Volkenant
Cordial Boy! <sta...@home.com> wrote in message
news:cL7D4.71187$Hq3.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Charles Saeger <rasputi...@visi.com> trolls:
> > I'm snipping what Doug posted. It's fascinating, and it's going in the
> > right direction -- a matched/weighted study.
>
> If it's going in the right direction it must be going to r.s.bb.a,
> right?
>
> > I downloaded Tom Ruane's base-out situational data, and I've been
> > playing with it. Here's my concern:
>
> > AAvg. ASlug. AOBP
> > GDP Situation: .299 .441 .346
> > If he steals 2nd: .262 .383 .335
> > If he's CS 2nd: .253 .384 .319
>
> Why don't you take your analysis which is irrelevant to baseball
> over to the group r.s.bb.analysis which is for postings that are
> irrelevant to baseball?
Mr. Maynard, please. Quit trying to dictate what should or shouldn't be
posted here, and let each reader decide for themselves whether or not to
read and consider the merits of the posting.
Doug Drinen's work is interesting and worth reading.
It is indeed statistical analysis, and could easily have merited being
posted at the r.s.bb.analysis group as well. As one regular reader of this
group, I enjoy getting both analysis and "real" baseball talk offered to me.
>
> Why not just _do_ it? Are you too stupid to understand that this
> garbage is in the wrong group? Or are you just so selfish that you
> don't care that you are posting to the wrong group? Or do you just
> hate the sport and its fans so much that you just have to post here
> so that you can piss people off?
Other than yourself, I can't see where anyone else is "pissed off" by having
the chance to read more than one viewpoint on a topic, and the opportunity
to see baseball from a variety of points of view. Thank goodness baseball
is still a beautiful game to watch and enjoy. But also thank goodness it is
a sport that is easily quantified in statistics, and gives many of us a
chance to think about in terms beyond the simpler joys of watching a McGwire
fly ball sail over the fence, an Ordonez diving stab to his right, a
Stewart's swipe of second base, or a blazing fastball from Pedro Martinez.
>
> "Hi! My name is Charles Saeger! I hate sport and my head is jammed
> so far up my ass that I can't see! But I can still enjoy "baseball"
> because I am a touch typist and I have all the data memorized!"
>
> "Hi! My name is Charles Saeger!"
>
> Go on, bugger off. GET OUT OF HERE. This is the wrong group.
This won't go anyplace because I'm just another in a long line asking you to
stop using these invectives against other people, and to quit trying to tell
other people what to do, just because it doesn't conform to your
narrow-minded standard of what should or shouldn't be put here. But please
quit telling others to "Bugger Off." No one has elected you newsgroup
moderator to have such authority.
Cordially,
Wes Volkenant
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
Cordial Boy!
> No, I criticise Maynard for fun.
Gawd, yours must be a truly boring life.
> I like reading his semi-coherent babble back. I love his
> ramblings about sport -- something about which he knows nothing.
How would you know this?
> Do you know what I like? I like the fact that I grate on his
> nerves.
Nah. RStLoup grates on my nerves. Mr. and Mrs. Jones grate on my
nerves. Sometimes The Nieporent is absolutely unbearable. But
getting mad at you would be like getting mad at a spreadsheet...
you're completely devoid of personality.
cordially, as always,
rm
Cordial Boy!
> Other than yourself, I can't see where anyone else is "pissed off"
> by having the chance to read more than one viewpoint on a topic,
> and the opportunity to see baseball from a variety of points of
> view.
No, sport fans see the stat fan crap and say to themselves "oh stat
fans pollute this avenue as well...guess I'll have to look elsewhere
for sport fan conversation...
> Thank goodness baseball is still a beautiful game to watch
> and enjoy. But also thank goodness it is a sport that is easily
> quantified in statistics, and gives many of us a chance to think
> about in terms beyond the simpler joys of watching a McGwire fly
> ball sail over the fence, an Ordonez diving stab to his right, a
> Stewart's swipe of second base, or a blazing fastball from Pedro
> Martinez.
This is the arrogance that is particularly grating. You believe
that people who don't employ statistical analysis appreciate and
understand the game at a "simpler" level.
Har.
This is because without stats this "simpler" level of appreciation
would be all that would be available to you because you don't
understand the game at a fundamental level.
G'nite Irene,
cordially, as always,
rm
Doug Drinen
> Much of the changes after a SB attempt are due to the change in
> situation, not due to the SB attempt itself. Batting average drops --
> not just because of the SB attempt, but because the first baseman no
> longer needs to play close to the bag to hold the runner. Walks rise,
> not just because of the SB attempt, but because there's now usually a
> runner on 2nd base and 1st base open.
I think these concerns are taken care of by the data I posted in the
"Batting average when runner steals a base" thread. I fine-tuned that
data a little, adding one more category, and totalled it up for both
leagues for the whole period 80-87.
I didn't keep track of the quality of hitters appearing in these
situations, but in light of the data posted earlier in this thread, it's
reasonable to assume that that is not an issue.
Here are the categories:
sb - These are the totals of hitters in PAs where 2nd
base was successfully stolen (but not as part of
a double steal).
2nd - These are the totals of hitters in PAs where 2nd
base is occupied, but 1st is not, *except* those
counted in the "sb" line above.
Comparing these two takes into account the fact that 1st base is open
and 2nd is occupied after the successful steal.
cs - These are the totals of hitters in PAs where a
runner on first was caught stealing 2nd during the
PA.
fse - Totals of all hitters in PAs where 1st and 2nd were
both emtpy, except those counted in the "cs" line.
Comparing these two takes into account whatever effects having 1st and 2nd
both open has on a PA (which, as you'll see, is very little).
tot - Total for all PAs over the period.
Situation BA OBP SLG
----------------------------------
sb .216 .360 .314
2nd .255 .374 .380
cs .219 .335 .327
fse .256 .316 .387
tot .258 .325 .388
Doug
Rick Jones
wrote:
>Charles Saeger <rasp...@visi.com> trolls:
>> No, I criticise Maynard for fun.
>
>Gawd, yours must be a truly boring life.
>
>> I like reading his semi-coherent babble back. I love his
>> ramblings about sport -- something about which he knows nothing.
>
>How would you know this?
Because you provide ample evidence of your ignorance on a daily basis.
Cordial Boy!
> Charles Saeger wrote:
>
>> Much of the changes after a SB attempt are due to the change in
>> situation, not due to the SB attempt itself. Batting average drops --
>> not just because of the SB attempt, but because the first baseman no
>> longer needs to play close to the bag to hold the runner. Walks rise,
>> not just because of the SB attempt, but because there's now usually a
>> runner on 2nd base and 1st base open.
> I think these concerns are taken care of by the data I posted in the
> "Batting average when runner steals a base" thread. I fine-tuned that
> data a little, adding one more category, and totalled it up for both
> leagues for the whole period 80-87.
Because your study generalizes to many variables it is useless to a
manager wondering what he should do in any individual situation.
And it is useless to an individual wondering whether the manager
made the right decision. As such, it is irrelevant to the game
itself, and amounts to yet another silly academic abstraction. Post
your silliness to r.s.bb.a.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ted Frank
but I suspect a large portion of them are.
--
"I don't have to accept their tenants. I was trying to convince those
college students to accept my tenants."
-- George W. Bush, landlord to the nation
Ted Frank
Aaron Pound <ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Here we have another attempt by Mr. Maynard to inflict a punishment upon
>people who he deems to have behaved incorrect.
And he succeeds, because people follow up, and he then successfully
hijacks the thread into a discussion of Maynard. I assure you his
quest for attention is the sole reason he engages in these discussions;
there's nothing intellectually honest about it.
Just kill-file him. It's not that hard. The hard part is separating
the wheat from the chaff when half the traffic in this group is
follow-ups to his nonsense.
Basil T
lyfo...@aol.com (LyfordIII) wrote:
> In article <Z7sD4.75336$Hq3.1...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
sta...@home.com
> (Cordial Boy!) writes:
>
> >>> > Ok. By definition the greatest pitcher is the one who has thrown
the
> >>> > greatest number of pitches. I'm not sure if many would agree
with this
> >>> > definiton.
> >>>
> >>> Nonsense. I never said that Rose was the greatest hitter because
he
> >>> faced the greatest number of pitches.
> >
> >> I didn't say you did. Using your definition applied to pitching is,
"the
> >> greatest Pitcher is the one who has thrown or achieved the most
pitches".
> >
> >No. You're stupid. The analogy would be the pitcher who compiled
> >the greatest number of outs.
>
> is the greatest pitcher, and the hitter that compiles the greatest
> number of outs is the greatest hitter.
>
> No contradiction there, is there?
Why????????????????????? Ugh.
No offense, but _this_ (not stathead posts) is why people are turned off
by rsbb. As Ted Frank said earlier in this thread, half of the posts on
this group are responses to Maynard. It seems half the other posts are
responses from Maynard. I don't even lurk here much anymore. Baseball
Boards is ultra-unintelligent, but at least it's not a sparring session
with a troll.
On the other hand, if it's fun or worthwhile for you, by all means
continue. But, please, please, don't discuss his definition of greatest
hitter. It's so limited and literal that there's no room to discuss it
anyway; he doesn't care what it means or whether it makes sense. He only
cares that people fall for it and challenge him on it. You're better off
arguing grammar with a slug.
Basil T
--
"And when Alexander saw the breadth of
his domain, he wept for there were no
more worlds to conquer. Benefits of a
classical education." -Hans from "Die Hard"
don malcolm
> Could all those walks be a function of IBBs? Certainly not all of them,
> but I suspect a large portion of them are.
I doubt it, but this shows that despite the so-called "saturation
of data" available to us, we still don't have ready access to all
of what we need to determine how the process works.
To address this, someone ought to be able to isolate IBBs in the
80-87 Retrosheet data and see how many of them occur in SBA PAs.
IBBs account for ~7.5% of all walks, but we don't have a breakdown
of IBBs by batting order position. That would be one clue, but
my suspicion is that IBBs cluster mostly in the #3 and #4 BOPs,
with another blip in the #8 slot (due to pitchers batting in the NL).
The reason I doubt that IBBs are the cause is due to the fact that,
at least at present, a little less than half of all stolen bases are
swiped by the #1-#2 slots. Given that the #3-#4 hitters are considered
to be the best hitters on your team, it doesn't make a lot of sense to
walk the #2-#3 hitters, because you'd be setting up a big inning for
the opposition by doing so. Keep in mind that there are about
three times as many SBs as there are IBBs.
I think what happens is that batters take more pitches in an SBA
plate appearance, and that enough steals occur on a 2-ball count
to simply bring up the odds of a walk. If the pitch that the SBA
occurs on is a ball in those cases, it's now a 3-ball count; the data
published in BBBA98 showed that if a batter gets to a 3-ball
count, his OBP is well over .500.
According to that same data in BBBA98, just under 31% of all
plate appearances are "late count"--five or more pitches. It'd be
interesting to see what that percentage is for SBA PAs. 73% of
all walks occur in "late count" situations, and the BBP in "late
count" situations is a Max Bishop-like 21.5%. That 16.7% we're
looking at for SBA PAs looks like its primary cause is from a
systematic increase in the number of pitches during these plate
appearances.
Cordial Boy!
> And he succeeds, because people follow up, and he then
> successfully hijacks the thread into a discussion of Maynard. I
> assure you his quest for attention is the sole reason he engages
> in these discussions; there's nothing intellectually honest about
> it.
Perhaps if you knew something about baseball you would know that my
call for the removal of stat fans due to their hatred of sport is a
legitimate enterprise.
> Just kill-file him. It's not that hard.
First of all, if "it's not that hard" how come you haven't killfiled
me? You respond to my posts all the time.
And more importantly, why don't you just post statistical
discussions to the group that was designed for them? I assure you,
neither myself, nor any other sport fan, is allowed to post to that
group so you may anal-eyes each other to your heart's content in
r.s.bb.a w/o any interference from any of us.
But face it guys - being called a full-fledged stat fan by myself is
a badge of honour. It's an acknowledgement that you've made it.
Unlike pseudo stat fans, like yourself, the stat fan can shove his
head up his own ass unaided and that is no mean feat, from what I've
been told...
The most irritating stat fan currently trolling, aka, The Head
Tatian, is Charles Saeger with Probee RStLoup a close second. The
most irritating pseudo stat fan and current holder of The Nieporent
Award for the most egregious waste of space is the killfiled Rick
Jones.
cordially, as always,
rm
Dale Hicks
>
> Other than yourself, I can't see where anyone else is "pissed off" by having
> the chance to read more than one viewpoint on a topic, and the opportunity
> to see baseball from a variety of points of view.
While Roger's normally just making an ass of himself, I think he
was right on this thread simply due to the pointless posting of
tables. If you want to talk stats, fine, but if the stats are
five pages worth, post a pointer to another ng, and summarize.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Ted Frank
precipitously with the number of throws to first base. Does
anyone else remember reading this?
Kimberly Murphy-Smith
Well said. I normally don't agree with Maynard, either, but he's
right on target with this one. The article that started this thread
is EXACTLY what r.s.bb.a is for, and really should have gone there
with a short summary posting here to alert interested parties who may
not know about r.s.bb.a.
Kimberly Murphy-Smith -- kamu...@ix.netcom.com
http://members.aol.com/kimmurphy
AOL IM: kimmurphy ICQ: 32992711
Try out my new zine, THE HOT CORNER!
http://members.aol.com/hczine
POWER STAR Archives has moved! http://psarchives.webjump.com
Chris Dial
>Some time in the last week, I read that batting averages drop
>precipitously with the number of throws to first base. Does
>anyone else remember reading this?
Ron Johnson quoted data out of the 1994 STATS Scoreboard, and how SLG
drops after 2+ throws to first. No OBP data was available (to us).
Chris Dial
Lev Polinsky
: Ted Frank wrote:
:> Could all those walks be a function of IBBs? Certainly not all of them,
:> but I suspect a large portion of them are.
: I doubt it, but this shows that despite the so-called "saturation
: of data" available to us, we still don't have ready access to all
: of what we need to determine how the process works.
I'm still looking for pitch-by-pitch play by play to look at how counts
affect our value of SBs. Note that, if the average SB occurs in a
pitcher's count, the numbers Doug came up with are making the SB attempt
look like a much worse thing than it actually is. IOW, if managers
consistently steal thrice as often on, say, 2-strike counts, then you have
correlation but actually backwards causation. I don't see any reason why
this would have to be the case, but it seems like an important thing to
check.
Like I said, I'd be happy to do the tabulating, but I can't seem to find
pitch-by-pitch stuff anywhere.
--
--Lev poli...@fas.harvard.edu http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~polinsky
http://www.totk.com My column: http://www.topofthekey.com/31col-main.html
Make $10! https://secure.paypal.com/refer/pal=polinsky%40fas.harvard.edu
Read my epinions! http://www.epinions.com/user-lpolinsky?public=yes
Cordial Boy!
> I'm still looking for pitch-by-pitch play by play to look at how counts
> affect our value of SBs. Note that, if the average SB occurs in a
> pitcher's count, the numbers Doug came up with are making the SB attempt
> look like a much worse thing than it actually is.
Which stolen base was that? Oh, the "average" one. Is that the
average stolen base by Rickey or the average stolen base by Olerud?
> IOW, if managers consistently steal thrice as often on, say,
> 2-strike counts, then you have correlation but actually backwards
> causation.
Managers don't "consistently" do anthing because in every situation
they see far far far far far far more variables than any of you
morons will ever be able to quantify.
Hi! I'm a statfan! I'm really fucking dumb. Here's an example of
how dumb I am. I'll add together the stolen base records of Rickey
Henderson and John Olerud, calculate my averages, and then citing
these percentages I'll tell John when to steal and Rickey when to
hold up!
And I'll openly mock any manager who ignores my calculations because
my calculations are objective!
Hi! I'm a stat fan. Is my back ever sore! Am I ever fucking dumb!
Go on. Get out of here you despicable little shits. You are
ruining the sport because you hate it.
cordially, as always,
rm
don malcolm
Thanks, Chris--I couldn't find Ron's post. That discussion can
be found on pp. 80-81. The data used was from 1993 only. Batting
average declined thirteen points from no throws to first (.287)
to two or more (.274). SLG dropped more: thirty-four points (.429 to
.395).
Of course, STATS' study doesn't break out those plate appearances
where there are both throws to first base *and* steal attempts.
Chris's reference to the STATS 1994 Scoreboard was fortuitous
in another sense; on pp. 142-43 of that volume, STATS provided
us with a listing of stolen base attempts by count. Just under
26% of all steal attempts occur on the first pitch, and just
over 50% occur on either the first or second pitch (source:
1993 season data).
What makes these pitches different is that they are always taken
for a strike or a ball, as is needed to execute a stolen base
attempt. Since on the standard 0-0 count just under 25% of the
pitches thrown are either fouled or put into play, there's clearly
a different mix of balls and strikes which enter into the matter
than in non-SBA at bats.
To understand the dynamics of this SBA data, it will require
someone to break it down by count However, what we want to know
is the count *after* the SB attempt. And keep in mind that the
simple act of not putting the first pitch in play reduces
batting average:
First pitch .333
All others .256
MLB total 1997 .267
Also, the later in the count a batter's at-bat goes, the lower
his batting average:
Early count .331
Mid count .243
Late count .224
(soufce: BBBA 98)
Batting average in SB attempts dips a bit lower than these
data points for mid- and late-count plate apperances, but
not precipitously so (.216). We need to see figures similar
to the BBBA 98 "by count" numbers (including OBP and SLG)
for SB attempts before we can determine the precise impact
of SBA's on hitting. For example, it'd be very interesting
indeed if SLG was depressed even in hitter's counts, or
if SLG is simply bottoming out when there's a pitcher's
count.
Doug Drinen
>
> Ted Frank wrote:
>
> > Could all those walks be a function of IBBs? Certainly not all of them,
> > but I suspect a large portion of them are.
>
> I doubt it, but this shows that despite the so-called "saturation
> of data" available to us, we still don't have ready access to all
> of what we need to determine how the process works.
>
> 80-87 Retrosheet data and see how many of them occur in SBA PAs.
The IBB rate is very slightly up in the SBA PAs. I just checked a few
random years.
NSA SBA
Year LG IBB% IBB%
---------------------
1981 NL 12.1 12.3
1986 NL 12.0 15.6
1984 AL 7.8 9.1
1987 AL 6.4 8.4
IBB% = IBB / TBB
Doug
Ira K Blum
in the conversation, ignore it. Don't read it. I've been practicing
this on this conversation (with the exception of a few articles today).
Usenet is very simple. Don't want to read a message, don't. The pain
about Roger is that he wants to tell everyone else what to read or not to
read. Ignore him and the thread if you aren't interested.
Ira
"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote in message
news:01bf982c$648e65e0$62f84cd8@celeron...
> Wes Volkenant <wes...@minn.net> wrote in article
<VKDD4.102$75....@ptah.visi.com>...
> >
> > Other than yourself, I can't see where anyone else is "pissed off" by
having
> > the chance to read more than one viewpoint on a topic, and the
opportunity
> > to see baseball from a variety of points of view.
>
> While Roger's normally just making an ass of himself, I think he
> was right on this thread simply due to the pointless posting of
> tables. If you want to talk stats, fine, but if the stats are
> five pages worth, post a pointer to another ng, and summarize.
>
> --
> Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Cordial Boy!
> The IBB rate is very slightly up in the SBA PAs. I just checked a few
> random years.
That's great guys. But this is a group for baseball. Why don't you
show a little bit of respect for the grand old game and take this
irrelevant silliness elsewhere. Your SBA's and IBB's and whatever
have absolutely ZERO impact on the way the game is played and always
will be played. Your SBA's and IBB's contribute absolutely nothing
to knowledge about the sport itself.
Take it out of here. r.s.bb.a. is the place for this garbage.
less cordially than usual,
rm
Cordial Boy!
> I think the prevaling attitude is simple. If you aren't interested
> in the conversation, ignore it. Don't read it. I've been practicing
> this on this conversation (with the exception of a few articles today).
> Usenet is very simple. Don't want to read a message, don't. The pain
> about Roger is that he wants to tell everyone else what to read or not to
> read.
Yes Usenet is very simple. It's divided into groups so that
conversations about one thing don't impose on conversations about
other things. In this case a group has been set aside for sport
fans and another group has been set aside for stat fans. Roger
promises he will not read or comment on stat fan postings that are
irrelevant to baseball if they are posted to the proper group.
That's right. Usenet is very simple. It's called Netiquette.
cordially, as always,
rm
Paul Wenthold
> news:01bf982c$648e65e0$62f84cd8@celeron...
> > Wes Volkenant <wes...@minn.net> wrote in article
> <VKDD4.102$75....@ptah.visi.com>...
> > >
> > > Other than yourself, I can't see where anyone else is "pissed off" by
> having
> > > the chance to read more than one viewpoint on a topic, and the
> opportunity
> > > to see baseball from a variety of points of view.
> >
> > While Roger's normally just making an ass of himself, I think he
> > was right on this thread simply due to the pointless posting of
> > tables. If you want to talk stats, fine, but if the stats are
> > five pages worth, post a pointer to another ng, and summarize.
> >
I read this newsgroup every day, pretty much constantly
(it's in the background with my other stuff). I did
not see a post with 5 pages of stats. Why? Because
I ignored it. It's not hard to do. All are capable
of doing the same.
paul
Cordial Boy!
> I read this newsgroup every day, pretty much constantly
> (it's in the background with my other stuff). I did
> not see a post with 5 pages of stats. Why? Because
> I ignored it. It's not hard to do. All are capable
> of doing the same.
If it was posted to the appropriate group you wouldn't have to
ignore it. You wouldn't have to download it either. And you
wouldn't have to be reminded constantly about what some people are
doing to the game of baseball.
Those who are posting the irrelevant postings know that the postings
are irrelevant to this group but they don't care. They don't care
about r.s.bb or r.s.bb.a or its readers. They don't care about
baseball either. If and when the sport dies they'll simply look for
alternate sources of cheap abundant data and happily suck that well
dry as well...
cordially, as always,
rm
don malcolm
> don malcolm wrote:
> >
> > Ted Frank wrote:
> >
> > > Could all those walks be a function of IBBs? Certainly not all of them,
> > > but I suspect a large portion of them are.
> >
> > I doubt it, but this shows that despite the so-called "saturation
> > of data" available to us, we still don't have ready access to all
> > of what we need to determine how the process works.
> >
> > To address this, someone ought to be able to isolate IBBs in the
> > 80-87 Retrosheet data and see how many of them occur in SBA PAs.
>
> The IBB rate is very slightly up in the SBA PAs. I just checked a few
> random years.
>
> NSA SBA
> Year LG IBB% IBB%
> ---------------------
> 1981 NL 12.1 12.3
> 1986 NL 12.0 15.6
> 1984 AL 7.8 9.1
> 1987 AL 6.4 8.4
>
> IBB% = IBB / TBB
Thanks, Doug. This shows that there's something in Ted's
surmise, but that it's only a small part of what happens
to OBP as a result of stolen base attempts.
An interesting sidelight stems from the fact that the
IBB rates in the two leagues are so different. This has
been a consistent phenomenon, and it predates the creation
of the DH, as the following chart demonstrates:
IBB% by League (by decade)
Dec AL NL
----------------------
50s .064 .109
60s .085 .126
70s .084 .123
80s .076 .126
90s .076 .103
(50s data: 1955-59; 90s data: 1990-97)
For those who are interested, IBB data was not kept until
1955--possibly another landmark date in the Cordial One's
attempt to be the plug-ugly version of Edward Gibbon.
(I can just imagine the opening line of this ersatz
"Decline and Fall of Baseball": "If only the boat that
carried Henry Chadwick from England to America had sunk...")
But I digress. It's interesting to note that the offensive
explosion is evidently causing the NL to reach historical
lows in IBBs. I don't have the 1998-99 data handy, but
the 1997 average was .082, which is virtually indistinguishable
from the characteristic AL IBB percentages.
There's some other SB attempt/opportunity data available
in the 1993 STATS Scoreboard book that I'm going to transcribe
into more usable form a bit later on and add to the data points
we have for this. BTW, has anyone else who has a complete set
of the Scoreboard book noticed how much better the 1992-93
books were in terms of the range of studies covered? The
book started to become increasingly rote in 1994 (the second
and last year of their association with Harper) and really
started to nosedive the next year, when it reverted to the
in-house publishing program. The other big problem is their
propensity to use only a year's worth of data in the majority
of their studies, even when they have a lot more to work
with.
Ira K Blum
I'm sorry. I thought that this group was named rec.sport.baseball, not
rec.sportfans.baseball
Way back in the mid 80's when I joined this group it was full of discussions
about baseball and baseball statistics. In more than a decade it hasn't
changed much. For all your whining and moaning about the destruction of the
purity of sport in this group, the content has not changed. if you want a
group for fans of sport I suggest starting one. call it
alt.fans.of.sport.baseball.
I'm tired of reading rec.sport.baseball.Roger.maynards.whining.
Ira
Ira K Blum
In fact, the post below has no content pertaining to
baseball. I suggest that you move your complaint to alt.flame
or alt.complaint or alt.shut.the.fuck.up.
6hours and 40 minutes until my first live rotissery draft. 20 years as
a baseball fan and I've never done this before. any advice from the
non-Cordial?
Ira
"Cordial Boy!" <sta...@home.com> wrote in message
news:QL4E4.84094$Hq3.2...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Cordial Boy!
> I'm sorry. I thought that this group was named rec.sport.baseball, not
> rec.sportfans.baseball
Yeah it is rec.sport.baseball. That's why stat fan postings don't
belong here.
> Way back in the mid 80's when I joined this group it was full of
> discussions about baseball and baseball statistics. In more than
> a decade it hasn't changed much.
Nonsense. Seven or eight years ago a separate group for stat fans
was created by stat fans. And the reason it was created was so that
stat fans could post their silliness with out interfering with
others and without being interfered with.
The name of that group is r.s.bb.a.
> For all your whining and moaning about the destruction of the
> purity of sport in this group, the content has not changed. if
> you want a group for fans of sport I suggest starting one. call
> it alt.fans.of.sport.baseball.
No need to create a third group when two groups exist already.
You can't win this argument. A group was created specifically for
stat fans and it is a moderated group so as to exclude sport fans.
Instead of bitching about our complaints all you have to do is start
posting to the appropriate group.
cordially, as always,
rm
Patrick G. Bridges
and to keep track of how much you've spent on hitting vs. how much
you've spent on pitching. Easy to lose track of that at times, and end
up with more of one or the other than you wanted.
--
*** Patrick G. Bridges bri...@cs.arizona.edu ***
*** #include <std/disclaimer.h> ***
Ivan Weiss
> If it was posted to the appropriate group you wouldn't have to
> ignore it. You wouldn't have to download it either. And you
> wouldn't have to be reminded constantly about what some people are
> doing to the game of baseball.
>
> Those who are posting the irrelevant postings know that the postings
> are irrelevant to this group but they don't care. They don't care
> about r.s.bb or r.s.bb.a or its readers. They don't care about
> baseball either. If and when the sport dies they'll simply look for
> alternate sources of cheap abundant data and happily suck that well
> dry as well...
The game is bigger than that, Roger. The game will endure even this.
Ivan Weiss RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining
Vashon WA to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.
-- Ambrose Bierce: The Devil's Dictionary
Cordial Boy!
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Cordial Boy! wrote:
>> If it was posted to the appropriate group you wouldn't have to
>> ignore it. You wouldn't have to download it either. And you
>> wouldn't have to be reminded constantly about what some people are
>> doing to the game of baseball.
>>
>> Those who are posting the irrelevant postings know that the postings
>> are irrelevant to this group but they don't care. They don't care
>> about r.s.bb or r.s.bb.a or its readers. They don't care about
>> baseball either. If and when the sport dies they'll simply look for
>> alternate sources of cheap abundant data and happily suck that well
>> dry as well...
> The game is bigger than that, Roger. The game will endure even this.
The game will endure the celebration of the individual above all
else? I'm not so sure.
cordially, as always,
rm
Roger Moore
>An interesting sidelight stems from the fact that the
>IBB rates in the two leagues are so different. This has
>been a consistent phenomenon, and it predates the creation
>of the DH, as the following chart demonstrates:
>IBB% by League (by decade)
>Dec AL NL
>----------------------
>50s .064 .109
>60s .085 .126
>70s .084 .123
>80s .076 .126
>90s .076 .103
>(50s data: 1955-59; 90s data: 1990-97)
Bill James touches on this point in his book on managers. He suggests
that there were a number of strategies like the IBB, bunt, etc. that were
more common in the NL even pre-DH. His argument is that this is basically
a manager style issue. Branch Rickey followers were apparently much more
liberal with strategies like these, and they tended to cluster more in the
NL than in the AL because that's where Rickey spent his time. It's an
interesting theory, at least.
--
Raj (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)
Master of Meaningless Trivia (626) 585-0144
What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Ira K Blum
The big problem was keeping focused. plus I didn't realize that
alternate rounds went backward. this made me change my strategy.
Since I was near the front of the draft, I was able to draft two players
nearly back to back, so I would look for pairs of players to snag before
waiting for the next time it came around.
"Patrick G. Bridges" <bridge...@cs.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:smn1ni9...@pinyon.CS.Arizona.EDU...
Ira K Blum
> Ira K Blum <ib...@idworld.net> trolls:
>
> > I'm sorry. I thought that this group was named rec.sport.baseball, not
> > rec.sportfans.baseball
>
> Yeah it is rec.sport.baseball. That's why stat fan postings don't
> belong here.
>
Nor do complaints about content.
> Nonsense. Seven or eight years ago a separate group for stat fans
> was created by stat fans. And the reason it was created was so that
> stat fans could post their silliness with out interfering with
> others and without being interfered with.
>
> The name of that group is r.s.bb.a.
>
spell it out. its rec.sport.baseball.analysis. Posts about analysis of
baseball belong there. posts about baseball and by extention the
applications of analysis of baseball (called stats) belong here. Or are you
saying that by posting that Wade Boggs had a career OPS of .860 (probably
not true) that that post belongs in another newsgroup?
How is that different from saying he had a career batting average of .320?
(also probably not true)
> > For all your whining and moaning about the destruction of the
> > purity of sport in this group, the content has not changed. if
> > you want a group for fans of sport I suggest starting one. call
> > it alt.fans.of.sport.baseball.
>
> No need to create a third group when two groups exist already.
>
actually there are five groups under rec.sport.baseball:
rec.sport.baseball.college
rec.sport.baseball.analysis
rec.sport.baseball.data
rec.sport.baseball.fantasy
rec.sport.baseball.sportsfans
I suggest that you take all your original ideas over to the last one.
> You can't win this argument. A group was created specifically for
> stat fans and it is a moderated group so as to exclude sport fans.
> Instead of bitching about our complaints all you have to do is start
> posting to the appropriate group.
No. I can win this argument. Just because another newsgroup exists for
other information, does not mean that I can't post whatever I want here.
Including thoughtful responses to your idiocy.
Ira
Cordial Boy!
> "Cordial Boy!" <sta...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:NI8E4.84536$Hq3.2...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> Ira K Blum <ib...@idworld.net> trolls:
>>
>> > I'm sorry. I thought that this group was named rec.sport.baseball, not
>> > rec.sportfans.baseball
>>
>> Yeah it is rec.sport.baseball. That's why stat fan postings don't
>> belong here.
>>
> Nor do complaints about content.
Complaints about netiquette most certainly do belong here. And
posting material to an inappropriate group is a clear breach of
netiquette.
You can't win this argument. You're wrong. A special group was set
up by stat fans for stat fans and it was set up specifically to stop
sport fans from bitching.
cordially, as always,
rm
Aaron Pound
> Ira K Blum <ib...@idworld.net> trolls:
> > I think the prevaling attitude is simple. If you aren't interested
> > in the conversation, ignore it. Don't read it. I've been practicing
> > this on this conversation (with the exception of a few articles today).
>
> > Usenet is very simple. Don't want to read a message, don't. The pain
> > about Roger is that he wants to tell everyone else what to read or not to
> > read.
>
> Yes Usenet is very simple. It's divided into groups so that
> conversations about one thing don't impose on conversations about
> other things. In this case a group has been set aside for sport
> fans and another group has been set aside for stat fans. Roger
> promises he will not read or comment on stat fan postings that are
> irrelevant to baseball if they are posted to the proper group.
>
> That's right. Usenet is very simple. It's called Netiquette.
Ah, I see. Now, exactly where does it state that it is good Netiquette to (a)
insult people, (b) repeatedly tell people that you "shit" on them, (c) tell
people to "bugger off", (d) make up and use insulting nicknames for people, or
(e) attack people's intelligence?
You giving opinions concerning proper Netiquette is laughable. This is an
unmoderated newsgroup. Anything remotely related to the subject of the group is
appropriate to the group. Postings about baseball stats and manipulating those
stats are related to the topic of this group, because the topic states
"baseball". The topic is not "baseball topics as determined by Mr. Maynard",
which is how you appear to interpret it.
If you want content regulation go to a moderated newsgroup. Because all your
postings are just the irrelevant ravings of a person desperate for anyone at
the party to like him.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire
Chris Cathcart
<ajp...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>"Cordial Boy!" wrote:
> [...]
>If you want content regulation go to a moderated newsgroup.
Because all your
>postings are just the irrelevant ravings of a person desperate
for anyone at
>the party to like him.
But in Maynard's psychology, he doesn't want people here to like
him. If people began to like him, he would conclude that
something is wrong and that he'd have to change his demeanor so
that people will not like him as much anymore.
Which suggests that maybe we can toy around a bit with him,
given what a psychological nutcase he is. I say that we all
begin to compliment Maynard on his postings and show feelings of
respect and approval for him. Ever the contrarian, he would
find himself in a quandary. :-)
Chris
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
David Marc Nieporent
Charles Saeger <rasp...@visi.com> claimed:
>don malcolm <dmal...@backatcha.com> wrote:
>> BTW, has anyone else who has a complete set of the Scoreboard book
>> noticed how much better the 1992-93 books were in terms of the range of
>> studies covered? The book started to become increasingly rote in 1994
>> (the second and last year of their association with Harper) and really
>> started to nosedive the next year, when it reverted to the in-house
>> publishing program. The other big problem is their propensity to use
>> only a year's worth of data in the majority of their studies, even when
>> they have a lot more to work with.
>Yes. In fact, I don't have a complete set of Scoreboard books for that
>reason.
I'd agree with Don and Charles. I think I do have a complete set of the
books, and they're getting lamer and lamer. They wait until February to
publish them? Why? With the lack of originality in recent years, they're
basically nothing that couldn't be thrown together by anybody in this
newsgroup in a month or so. With all that data they have, they don't put
it to much use.
They used to do studies. Now they're either printing trivia or they're
printing leader boards for a bunch of less commonly discussed statistics,
from holds to baserunner kills to pitch counts to game scores. Nothing
insightful, and they throw in wastes of ink like their "defensive batting
averages" repeatedly.
Warning for those who didn't buy this year's: they've decided to change
their zone ratings. In the infield, they finally stopped doublecounting
double plays. In the outfield, they changed their zones. I don't know
whether that will show up anywhere besides this book, though, or whether
they'll bother to go back and adjust their old numbers for consistency.
>The STATS guys have become complacent, aside from John Sickels. They have
>not changed the format of any of their books in several years, despite
>some obviously-needed improvements. (I wrote STATS a year ago with
>improvements to the fielding section of the ML Handbook, a place where
>STATS is wasting much data/space. Ignored.) Actually, they did changed
>the Minor League Handbook, but not entirely for the better, omittimg much
>park data.
I guess we know what their target market is; the only thing they do is
tout their new and improved projections.
--
David M. Nieporent Roberto Petagine for the
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu Hall of Fame
3L - St. John's School of Law
Cordial Boy!
> Ah, I see. Now, exactly where does it state that it is good
> Netiquette to (a) insult people, (b) repeatedly tell people that
> you "shit" on them, (c) tell people to "bugger off", (d) make up
> and use insulting nicknames for people, or (e) attack people's
> intelligence?
Their repeated and blatant refusals to observe netiquette waives
their rights to be treated in a like manner. I certainly do not
have any duty to respect the "rights" of thse who have repeatedly
shown disregard for those rights in their treatment of others.
> You giving opinions concerning proper Netiquette is laughable.
Any expectation of respect for Netiquette from you is indeed
laughable.
> This is an unmoderated newsgroup.
For discussion related to the sport of baseball.
> Anything remotely related to the subject of the group is
> appropriate to the group.
Pro+ is unrelated to the sport of baseball. The evolution of
statistical measures designed to capture the efficiency levels of
players is unrelated to the sport of baseball. And it's a waste of
time besides. I can tell you far more about a player simply from
looking at a few of the "traditional" stats than you clowns will
ever be able to derive from your efficiency stats.
The evolution of efficiency statistics is not related to baseball
just because the data is baseball stats. The priniciples underlying
the methodologies used by stat fans are equally applicable in an
actuary's office and if a cheaper and more abundant source of data
is found elsewhere the so-called "interest" in baseball by the grey
little men will dissipate instantly.
cordially, as always,
rm
Aaron Pound
> Aaron Pound <ajp...@bellatlantic.net> trolls:
> > Ah, I see. Now, exactly where does it state that it is good
> > Netiquette to (a) insult people, (b) repeatedly tell people that
> > you "shit" on them, (c) tell people to "bugger off", (d) make up
> > and use insulting nicknames for people, or (e) attack people's
> > intelligence?
>
> Their repeated and blatant refusals to observe netiquette waives
> their rights to be treated in a like manner. I certainly do not
> have any duty to respect the "rights" of thse who have repeatedly
> shown disregard for those rights in their treatment of others.
Of course, you realize that this argument simply results in your not
being entitled to expect that anyone will observe proper Netiquette
towards you. If, as you argue, those breaches of of Netiquette you
complain about result in the offenders not being entitled to Netiquette,
then your repeated, persistent similar breaches of Netiquette result in
a similar disenfranchisement for you.
Which means that you are admitting that the volumes of derision and
disrespect that many people point towards you are entirely proper. And
you deserve them.
> > You giving opinions concerning proper Netiquette is laughable.
>
> Any expectation of respect for Netiquette from you is indeed
> laughable.
Contrary to your loudmouthed opining, politeness is necessary when
others are rude. If the response to rudeness is to be rude, then you are
not observing any kind of civilized behaviour, and are simply acting as
a barbarian.
> > This is an unmoderated newsgroup.
>
> For discussion related to the sport of baseball.
Yes, and derivative material is related to baseball. Baseball statistics
are derivative of baseball. Manipulation of those statistics is also
derivative of baseball. You may not like it, but thankfully, despite
your best efforts, you don't have censorship powers. Just very bad
Netiquette.
> > Anything remotely related to the subject of the group is
> > appropriate to the group.
>
> Pro+ is unrelated to the sport of baseball.
As I noted in a portion of my previous post that you conveniently
clipped, the topic of this newsgroup is not "Things About Baseball That
Mr. Maynard Likes". It is baseball in general. Open and unmoderated. If
you want focused, censored conversation, go to a moderated newsgroup.
Because all of your moaning about proper "Netiquette" has demonstrated
is that you don't know what politeness and courtesy are.
Aaron J. Pound, Esquire