Super-lwts previews - Baserunning (December 23, 2003)
Best baserunners in 2003? Hinske, Beltran and.... Pujols? MGL, I would absoltutely need to see the break out with Pujols. Specifically, who was the batter who got the hit when he was on base, and everthing. (Maybe Pujols gets alot of hit and runs?)
And, incredibly, the Queen Of England makes a post at Fanhome.
--posted by TangoTiger at 07:16 PM EDT
Posted 8:48 p.m.,
December 23, 2003
(#1) -
KJOK(e-mail)
Pujols is an agressive runner, so I'd guess that he was thrown out on the bases more than average, but yet more than makes up for that by taking the extra base?
It's certainly not due to hit and runs, as Edmonds usually batted behind him, and even LaRussa was smart enough not to use the hit and run with Edmonds at the plate...
Posted 11:44 p.m.,
December 23, 2003
(#2) -
MGL
Hey, all I am reporting is a simple sample result. As we all know it is subject to a multitude of sample errors, including hit and runs, who was batting behind him, what kind of hits they happened to have gotten, etc. Keep in mind that a whole season is like 150 baserunnng opps or something like that.
Remember also that we regress not only according to sample size, but we rregress towards the average of a similar player (i.e., a population from which this player came). There would be nothing wrong with regressing this Pujol's sample +6 to the average baserunning lwts of a "power hitter who is not fast but not that slow" or something like that.
Plus, if Pujols is indeed considered an overly agressive baserunner, as Kjok says, that would explain a lot. As we've said many time, we think that the average baserunner is way too passive (a typcial risk aversive strategy). If even a not-very-fast baserunner would just be more aggressive, I think they would show much better baserunning lwts. That may be at least partially what happened with Pujols (in addition to just being lucky with this metric).
Remember that you assume that every metric that "appears" to be wrong IS wrong. There would be no poin in having the metric then! Wasn't it Bill James who said that any good metric (that wasn't measuring something that was obvious to the naked eye) HAS TO have x number of surprises, but more than y?
Response like that of the Q of E on Fanhome are just plain stupid. Why would he even read the list when he already knew who should or shouldn't be on it?
And the funny thing about "criticizing" the baserunning lwts, is that it is one of the most straightforward metrics there are. It is what it is. Sure there as sample errors as discussed above and in the original post, but all it does is count a player's extra bases on other player's hits and their times thrown out on other player's hits, adjust for opportunities and compare it to the average player. That's it. Couldn't get any simpler or more "error-proof."
Posted 11:47 p.m.,
December 23, 2003
(#3) -
MGL
My typing is terrible today (my back is killing me). The 4th paragraph above should read:
Remember that you cannot assume that every metric that "appears" to be wrong IS wrong. There would be no point in having the metric then! Wasn't it Bill James who said that any good metric (that wasn't measuring something that was obvious to the naked eye) HAS TO have at least x number of surprises, but no more than y?
Posted 9:48 a.m.,
December 24, 2003
(#4) -
tangotiger
MGL: why not present the intermediate data, so that we can try to make sense of it? There might be a systematic bias, say that Edmonds moves ALL his runners over more than average. This is another one of those "matchup" type things, like I did with the catcher/pitcher.
In any case, what I'd like to see is:
runnerid,batterid,startbase,startouts,finalbase,gridLocationHit,GBorFB,1BorXBH,n
For Pujols, and league average.
Posted 9:55 a.m.,
December 24, 2003
(#5) -
MGL
Tango, I'll add it to the ever-growing lists of things to do! :)