See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.
List of All Posters
How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment
September 17, 2002 - Paul B
It's really all about what you're interested in studying, isn't it? Base Runs seems to work better in a single-game context than the other major methods of run evaluation and the methodology is adaptable to unusual run environments (e.g. Tango's example in part one of a softball team that scores 20 runs per game).
If you're interested in working with seasons or groups of seasons involving actual major league teams, I'm still inclined to go with a model that more accurately estimates those situations--even if those models lack the theoretical grounding of Base Runs. If the method I'm using correlates strongly with the environment I'm trying to study (e.g. if it closely estimates the 1987 St. Louis Cardinals actual runs scored) to what degree does it matter which technique I use? To some extent, I feel like I'm being told I'll have a better pasta sauce if I take the extra time to stew some fresh tomatoes; that may be true, but for almost every real situation, your sauce will taste just fine if you use a can. Or am I just less bothered by back-of-the-envelope calculations than other people are?
To echo Arvid's question: if I'm studying actual MLB teams from the past thirty years, is Base Runs designed to provide new information? If I'm Billy Beane, does Base Runs tell me anything that's useful in putting my team together that contradicts LW or RC or XR or EQR or any of the myriad of other run estimators we already have? Does it say that Eric Chavez contributes less than we thought, or that John Mabry contributes more? Or is Base Runs more useful in letting me know why we only scored 8 runs on that day when we got six doubles and two home runs or that we need to run more when we face Pedro?
How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment
September 17, 2002 - Paul B
But not all these things have to be applied by GMs. My audience is myself, and people who think like me. Maybe there's not many people out there like that, that's fine.
At the risk of being overly reductive, if a model like this doesn't have a use for baseball management then I'm not sure what the point of the research is.
I don't mean to sell BaseRuns short, because I suspect it does have a use for management. As a method that accurately models how runs are scored in single games (or innings, if you take the method in that direction), BR could help with strategic questions concerning lineup selection or how to efficiently run your offense against a top notch pitcher.
It's fine if BaseRuns doesn't have a practical application beyond the single game environment, or if it's primary utiity is in studying non-standard MLB environments (e.g., high school ball), or if it's mainly designed to answer theoretical rather than practical questions. But most of these articles have focused on theoretical underpinnings, so I'm curious if you have a sense of how using BaseRuns should change the approaches we've all been using. And I apologize if this is a point you feel you've hammered home in your previous articles, because if it is I'm not sure I've understood it.
How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment
September 17, 2002 - Paul B
Patriot, you’re doing a marvelous job of attacking arguments that aren’t being made. Nobody here has suggested that outliers don’t exist, or that it’s a bad idea to measure them. The question, to my mind, is whether BaseRuns improvement in measuring outliers is sufficient to justify replacing existing estimators when measuring typical examples within the controlled set of major league baseball teams, or whether (as Arvid argues) it should be used as a complementary technique to those we already have.
Tango frequently mentions that when he is introduced to a new concept, he does his best to beat up on the concept to make sure it holds up. Do you object to the posters on Primer subjecting Tango’s methods to the same scrutiny? I realize that the folks over at FanHome have been examining BaseRuns for a while now, but simply saying “trust me, we’ve done the due diligence” isn’t sufficient.
And making a brash statement such as “Runs Created is dead” invites controversy. I haven’t seen anybody here defend runs created--in fact, my impression is that most of the people at Primer don’t even use runs created for their estimator--but you can hardly claim to be surprised to meet some challenges when you throw down a gauntlet like that.
How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment
September 17, 2002 - Paul B
Until now, there have been no real reactions to it outside of the FanHome board. It's not like some secret club that you can't get in on. Now all of a sudden, the biggest step forward in RC methods is being questioned by people who ignored it for a year or two. That's a little annoying; where were you before?
I never claimed to feel left out of a secret club. Look, Patriot, this is the way it works: a new technique is kicked around by the most hardcore of analysts--the kind of people who do a good job of keeping up with everything on r.s.bb and FanHome. At some point, the technique is considered sound enough to introduce to a larger public, where it makes it’s way to the forums frequented by more casual analytic types, the kind of people who understand why walk rates are important but who don’t spend a lot of time pouring over the Lahman database, like much of the readership at either of the BPs. If that audience responds well, the technique will probably continue toward the mainstream. Three or four years ago, even most statheads assumed that pitchers had substantial control over balls in play. Last year, Voros’s work was mentioned in The Village Voice, of all places.
You guys are quibbling over the NEED for such a method, which seems ludicrous to me. Did you guys question the need for Davenport's custom exponent method for estimating pythagorean W%.... We need methods that hold up theoretically, in all cases, so we can feel confident using our methods for all situations.
I don’t question the need for Davenport’s custom exponent, because as Davenport himself acknowledged, for most situations in actual MLB you’ll do just fine using 1.83 (or even 2), but that if your particular interest is in studying extreme examples, you need a custom exponent. If you’re trying to figure out if the Red Sox are underperforming this season given their runs scored and allowed, either the basic or complex exponent will help you to the same conclusion.
I don’t begrudge anybody who spends his or her time dealing with theoretical analysis, and I have no patience for the Bill Simmons types who make asinine claims about statheads ruining the game. But I’m not a hardcore analytic type myself, so my interest in any new techniques that come across in a forum like this is to ask what the applications are for my understanding of the game. In the early 1980’s, it was RC and LW that proved to me that all those managers who were valuing speed over obp were killing their offenses (yes, I now know that some of this goes back to Branch Rickey in 1954). More recently, DIPS has taught me that a pitcher can be “hit lucky”, and that a pitcher’s control of his environment is basically limited to his K, BB and HR rates. For a mainstream fan, those concepts were “revolutionary”.
I don’t debate that serious analysts need BaseRuns to better study unusual environments. What I’ve been trying to ask is if the more casual fan with an analytic bent (i.e., someone like me) needs BaseRuns to better understand the game he or she enjoys. If the answer is “not really”--just as the answer is “not really” to whether you need Davenport’s custom exponent--then that’s fine. If the answer is “it does a better job of estimating single game performance than other run estimators” then that’s fine, too.
And maybe I'm just a fool, but I am surprised that anyone would be put off by "RC is dead".
Arrogance puts me off. People claiming to have absolute answers to one great Truth put me off. As I said earlier, I don’t even use RC. But when somebody comes along and declares “the old ways are dead and the toy I use is the way of the future”--well, there’s plenty of hubris in that kind of declaration, and it begs for closer examination. I think I would have reacted in the same way if Tango had declared “OPS is dead”, and the flaws in OPS are even more obvious than those in RC (e.g. “this guy has a 1.010 OPS, so you’d be better off walking him every time”).
Now, I’ve found Tango’s tone to be far more modest in subsequent posts on this discussion, and consequently feel I am beginning to better understand the uses of BaseRuns. But shouting down the questions of somebody who doesn’t share your analytic devotion is the main reason stat-minded fans get such a bad rap. Asking questions is not an outrage at which to take offense.
How are Runs Really Created - Third Installment
September 18, 2002 - Paul B
I’ve found Tango’s tone to be far more modest in subsequent posts on this discussion
*** I must be getting old these last few hours. I'll try to be more "O'Reilly Factor" from time-to-time.
No, I only meant modest on a relative scale, where 0 is the amount of arrogance to be found in an average Tango article. For God's sake, there's never a need to turn on Fox News.
I've appreciated the introduction to BaseRuns (since I didn't know I was supposed to go hunt down the info on r.s.bb and FanHome). Thanks for the thorough research and response to posts.
Copyright notice
Comments on this page were made by person(s) with the same handle, in various comments areas, following Tangotiger © material, on Baseball Primer. All content on this page remain the sole copyright of the author of those comments.
If you are the author, and you wish to have these comments removed from this site, please send me an email (tangotiger@yahoo.com), along with (1) the URL of this page, and (2) a statement that you are in fact the author of all comments on this page, and I will promptly remove them.