Next: Matt Maloney
From: Dan Szymborski on 12 Jun 2007 17:28
In article <1181680733.225714.133480(a)j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> On Jun 12, 4:02 am, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 10:14 am, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:07:12 +0800, "C'Pi" <nos...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >Of course in any single at bat it would be nice if Dunn didn't strike out.
> > > >But you have to take all of his at bats as a whole.
> > > Why's that? At any given time that Dunn (or anybody else for that
> > > matter) steps to the plate, the results of past plate appearances have
> > > absolutely no effect on what's going to happen during his current
> > > plate appearances. Doesn't matter if he's just struck out ten times in
> > > a row, he has the same opportunity on his next plate appearance that
> > > he has on any other.
> > > >If ensuring that Dunn
> > > >put wood on the ball instead of striking out meant that Dunn would end up
> > > >hitting less home runs and taking less walks, would you still be in favor of
> > > >changing the way he makes an out? Would hitting the ball for an out instead
> > > >of striking out make up for the loss of home runs and walks?
> > > That isn't the point.
> > > If you stand there and watch strike three go by, you're guaranteed of
> > > one and only one result for that plate appearance, a K.
> > > If you swing and miss, same thing.
> > > If you actually hit the ball, which is what the game's all about, you
> > > could make an out...or you could get a single, double, triple, home
> > > run, reach base on a fielding error, or depending on the situation,
> > > hit a sacrifice fly (no such thing as a productive out, eh?) or
> > > otherwise contribute to the team scoring.
> > > >Personally I
> > > >think the statistics are wrong. They seem to show that in the long run it
> > > >wouldn't really matter how Dunn makes an out.
> > > The winning run for the Indians last night scored on a fielder's
> > > choice grounder off the bat of Hafner. Gee, I wonder how many runs
> > > they score on that play if Hafner strikes out instead?
> > A more important question I have, is that ignoring how "infrequent"
> > this happens, accorrding to those who post here, what it the "stat"
> > the Bill James can come up with to give a "value" to THIS at-bat by
> > Hafner????
> First, have you read anything written by Bill James? I really
> doubt it.
Ron, I think your effort is wasted on this doofus.
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is
not a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
From: Ron Johnson on 12 Jun 2007 17:36
On Jun 12, 4:38 pm, Ron Johnson <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
> That said, here's how the inning looks by win probability
(Sorry -- did this by run probability added -- as I said,
couldn't lay my hands on my WPA stuff)
For those interested in this type of analysis, see Tom
Ruane's article at:
Does the same type of analysis for every game from 1960
to 2004. (Obviously reporting the totals only)
From: John Kasupski on 12 Jun 2007 17:45
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:38:53 -0700, Ron Johnson
>WPA does the same type of analysis but deals
>with the probability of winning rather than
>with runs. Hafner's productive out will
>do slightly less well in this type of
>analysis because he changed a first and
>third, one out, down by two in the 7th to
>one down, runner on first, two out.
Ron, not to be insulting but I don't know what game you're referring
to there. The one I was referring to in the post that the other guys
replied to was Saturday's game, in which Hafner's 11th-inning
run-scoring fielder's choice groundout turned bases loaded, one out,
tie game into first and third, two out, up by a run:
- J. Barfield singled to left
- M. Rouse sacrificed to first, Barfield to second
- G. Sizemore walked
- C. Blake hit by pitch, J. Barfield to third, G. Sizemore to second
- T. Hafner grounded into fielder's choice, J. Barfield scored, G.
Sizemore to third, C. Blake out at second
- V. Martinez singled to center, G. Sizemore scored, T. Hafner to
- F. Gutierrez flied to center
I don't know if that changes the WPA value of that groundout or not,
but it sure seems that it should, since it directly produced the
game-winning run for his team.
In a game reconstructed with a Martinez out following Hafner's
groundout, the Indians still win, on Hafner's groundout.
In a game reconstructed with a Hafner strikeout instead of the
fielder's choice grounder, the Reds still lose if Martinez singles
afterward, but there's no guarantee of that. To assume that Martinez
would still have followed with an RBI single if Hafner had struck out
assumes (smong other things) that the pitch selection to Martinez
would have been the same after Hafner's K. I'm not sure that's valid
to assume since:
(a) Martinez would then have been batting with the bases loaded
instead of first-and-third (i.e. a walk to Martinez would have forced
in the go-ahead run for The Tribe)
(b) The game would have still been tied; Instead of being mentally
deflated by having allowed the go-ahead run to score, Santos is pumped
because of having just punched out Hafner with the sacks drunk to get
the second out of the inning.
I realize that this last is a human factor that stats probably can't
quantify, but it affects the outcome of the situation nevertheless.
I also realize that the effect could go either way - perhaps after
fanning Hafner, Santos would have gotten Martinez out...or perhaps
striking out Hafner would have made Santos too big for his own
britches and he'd have served up a three-run dinger to Martinez.
At any rate, the ball was put into play, and the game-winning run
crossed the plate on that play, which would not have happened on a
strikeout (unless the third strike got away from Ross).
John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY
Reds Fan Since The 1960's
From: RJA on 12 Jun 2007 19:05
"Dan Szymborski" <dan(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote in message
> In article <466df460$0$30655$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>,
> rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com says...
>> "Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
>> > On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 18:12:54 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com>
>> > wrote:
>> I agree, and I pointed that out, but I don't think they're this bad. I
>> would, however, be interested in those numbers throwing out hitters under
>> years old who have the tendency to skew those averages due to their
>> in the league. Dunn is supposed to be peaking at this age.
> There's no age-related split - younger players don't have a bigger
> dropoff on pitcher's counts than older players (this came up a couple of
> years ago someplace I don't remember).
I find that hard to believe. How can we find the under 25 numbers for 2007?
> MLB Averages, 2007:
> After 0-2: 175/208/256
> After 1-2: 186/239/285
> After 2-2: 202/305/316
> After 3-2: 225/467/371
> Dan Szymborski
> "A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is
> not a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
> - Robert Schumann
From: RJA on 12 Jun 2007 19:08
"Kevin McClave" <kmcclaveSPAM(a)SUCKStwcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:22:39 -0400, "RJA" <rja(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>>As you can see below, he's already as bad as it gets with 2 strikes. When
>>something is terrible and can't get any worse, you can either continue to
>>what you're doing (and be a fool), or you can try to make an adjustment.
>>I'm for the latter.
> I copied and pasted below the 2007 MLB averages Dan provided for a side by
> side look with the numbers Rich posted. Clipped the % of out as K number
> Rich originally provided and added OPS:
>>Count : avg/obp/slg (OPS)
> MLB Avg After 0-2: 175/208/256 (.464)
> Adam Dunn After 0-2 : .204/.246/.426 (.672)
> MLB Avg After 1-2: 186/239/285 (.524)
> Adam Dun After 1-2 : .125/.195/.250 (.445)
> MLB Avg After 2-2: 202/305/316 (.621)
> Adam Dunn After 2-2 : .129/.250/.194 (.444)
> MLB Avg After 3-2: 225/467/371 (.838)
> Adam Dunn After 3-2 : .172/.500/.345 (.845)
> So he does worse than average after 1-2 and 2-2, better than average after
> 0-2 and 3-2.
Seemingly, but those numbers count pitchers, both AL and NL. I don't
consider that relevant and it's probably also putting him ahead of the pack
on 3-2 counts.
> Looks like the main thing missing for a clearer picture would be
> opportunities in each situation. Obviously if Dunn had three times as many
> 0-2 counts than 2-2 counts it looks different than if it is the other way
I'm kinda burned out on this thread so feel free to look those up. I think
it's pretty clear that he needs to make a 2-strike adjustment and I'm not
sure what else there is to say.