Next: Matt Maloney
From: Ron Johnson on 12 Jun 2007 19:10
On Jun 12, 5:45 pm, John Kasupski <kc2...(a)wzrd.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:38:53 -0700, Ron Johnson
> <john...(a)ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
> >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
You're not being insulting. Always a danger of talking
past each other. Huh, Hafner gets two groundout
RBI in the same game. Stopped looking when
I found his groundout RBI in the 7th.
And both are *probably* moot. IE given the same
following events, the Indians almost certainly
score 1 in the 7th and two in the 11th. (Sizemore
has to be a huge favorite to score on a single
to center with two out -- luck that Sizemore's
the one carrying the mail)
Not that the RBI in the 11th isn't *huge*
> 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:
Kind of surprising that the infield wasn't in. Any
comments about that during the game? Easy to understand why
it wasn't in the 7th -- with Hafner and Martinez
coming up and a two run lead a run for an out
isn't a terrible bargain. In the 1th though if you
don't get the DP. ...
It's *generally* correct to play for the DP. All
bets are off in the 11th though. A big inning is no big
deal compared to the cost of that first run. (And yes,
that does mean that a bunt late/close is a good play
*provided* the player is a good bunter)
> - 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.
According to what I can find from Christopher Shea's win
expectancy finder, the Indians had about a 76% chance
of winning when Hafner came to the plate. And about
an 82% chance of winning after his RBI groundout.
A K by contrast would have dropped the chances to about
54% and a DP to about 35%. In other words, a huge
No surprise. A big inning is of substantially less
importance in extra innings than it is overall.
By contrast, Hafner's earlier groundout RBI
The Indians started his AB with about a 25%
chance of winning and after his AB had about
a 24% chance of winning (suggesting that
the run for out bargain was a good one)
But had Hafner struck out, their chance of winning
would have dropped to about 16%, and after a
DP their chance of winning would have been down
to about 10%.
For those interested, Shea's got an interactive
win probability finder at:
> 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).
I don't disagree with any of this, and WPA would catch
the nuances you mention.
But the groundout shouldn't have produced the go-ahead run.
Either the Reds thought they could turn two and were wrong
(happens) or somebody screwed up. (Of course, Hafner's not
a bad bet to produce a deep fly to right, for which
there's no down-side. I suppose Barfield could leave early,
but the flyball out was still a positive -- negated by
a base-running error)
And if they *did* turn two, Martinez's subsequent single
comes next inning. Can't ignore that in discussing the
value of an out on a ball in play versus a K.
From: RJA on 12 Jun 2007 19:18
<coachrose13(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> On Jun 10, 10:55 am, "RJA" <r...(a)nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>> <coachros...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > On Jun 8, 9:23 am, David Short <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Kevin McClave wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:54:04 -0700, coachros...(a)hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> OK, I'll be stupid and bite on this one. What part (or parts) about
>> >> >> "traditional wisdom that is wrong? Not making contact with the
>> >> >> ball?
>> >> >> Bunting? Hitting and running? Stealing? Throwing to the right base?
>> >> >> Lefty against Right? Fundamentals? Hell, if you could always count
>> >> >> on
>> >> >> a three run homer, the game would be easy to play, and you wouldnt
>> >> >> have to teach it at all.
>> >> > If you'd put your own biases aside and "listen" you would certainly
>> >> > learn
>> >> > something from the "statheads" here. What you think you know, in a
>> >> > number
>> >> > of cases, has been shown to not be true.
>> >> And what is FAR more frustrating, several of the straw men you have
>> >> set
>> >> up to show the limits of numeric inquiry are things that most of these
>> >> folks are painfully aware of. It's almost as if you are trying to pick
>> >> a
>> >> fight or something, but not quite sure how to go about it.
>> > Not trying to pick a fight, never have. In the very beginning, I tried
>> > to state an OPINION of mine that I thought Adam Dunn's offensive
>> > talents could best be utilized by batting him in the 6 hole. From that
>> > spot, his positives (long ball threat, RBI man, drawing a lot of BB's)
>> > could help his team, while his negatives(not making contact very
>> > often, going for long stretches of being inconsistant offensively) ,
>> > would not hurt his team as much as if he were batting higher in the
>> > lineup. At this point, I was introduced to Bill James and his theries,
>> > and how not hittng the ball is not such a bad deal, and how I am so
>> > terribly wrong in my thinking. Of course, I cant be proven wrong, as
>> > Dunn seldom bats in the six hole, anyway!
>> Why would you want to bat someone who gets on base a good amount 6th
>> of Gonzalez, Ross and the pitcher?
> Well, let me see. Gonzalez, who regardless of what others say here,
> has been productive this year for Cincinnati, would bat in the 7 hole,
> Ross, or whoever you want to catch, would bat 8th, and the pitcher
> would bat 9th. So, yes, Id still say, take Dunn's 215 strikeouts, and
> bat him the the 6 hole.
Then you're still sadly mistaken. It's pretty clear that I'm not a huge
Dunn fan, he sucks with 2 strikes, sucks in the field and is a dumb
baserunner. But he DOES get on base and you have to find a way to take
advantage of that with your run producers knocking him in, not wasting him
on Gonzalez, Ross and the pitcher all of which who would strike out more
than 100 times in a season. In fact, Ross would strike out about 200 times
in a full year at this pace and so would a pitcher. So really, you're
arguing against your own argument.
From: RJA on 12 Jun 2007 19:35
"Kevin McClave" <kmcclave(a)SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:29:01 -0400, Dan Szymborski
> <dan(a)baseballprimer.com> wrote:
>>In article <466df460$0$30655$4c368faf(a)roadrunner.com>,
>>> "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 25
>>> 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).
>>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
> I copied these in to a reply to Rich's post last night, but didn't say
> thanks for the info, Dan. So, thanks for the info, Dan.
> Is there anything to be learned from the fact that he does better than
> average on both 0-2 counts and on 3-2 counts?
Not yet. Pitchers should not be included.
> I assume it is just mainly
> small sample size, but it seems if there is any consistency to that
> trend over his career, it might be an indication of *something* though I
> don't know what exactly. My knee jerk thought would be that he does
> better than average in the more extreme "payoff" situations (one more
> strike and you're out on 0-2, a strike or a ball and the at bat is
> finished at 3-2). Of course, 1-2 and 2-2 are also potential "payoff"
> situations if a strike is called or swung on and missed. Just seems like
> there might be something suggested there, though...
I don't think so. Keep in mind that 0-2 and after 0-2 are two different
things. The ones we have posted here are the "after" results. It just
means that at one point in the at bat, he was down 0-2. What it does show
is that all the numbers happen after 2 strikes.
From: John Kasupski on 12 Jun 2007 21:01
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:10:04 -0700, Ron Johnson
>You're not being insulting. Always a danger of talking
>past each other. Huh, Hafner gets two groundout
>RBI in the same game. Stopped looking when
>I found his groundout RBI in the 7th.
Ah, yes, we were in the same game, but different innings.
>Kind of surprising that the infield wasn't in. Any
>comments about that during the game? Easy to understand why
>it wasn't in the 7th -- with Hafner and Martinez
>coming up and a two run lead a run for an out
>isn't a terrible bargain. In the 1th though if you
>don't get the DP. ...
I'm a ham radio operator...generally leave the sound on the TV turned
down so I can hear my radios, and thus don't know if the announcers
were wondering about this or not. With a two-run lead in the 7th, I
think I'd trade the run for two outs. Tied in the 11th, I would not,
but apparently Narron doesn't think the way I do (no big surprise),
and they didn't get the DP, and it cost 'em the game.
>It's *generally* correct to play for the DP. All
>bets are off in the 11th though. A big inning is no big
>deal compared to the cost of that first run. (And yes,
>that does mean that a bunt late/close is a good play
>*provided* the player is a good bunter)
I'm not as anti-bunt as some of the other guys in here. Some guys seem
to eschew bunting under any circumstances. To my way of thinking, it's
playing for one run, but yeah, it's the 11th inning. Wedge bunted
Rouse to move Barfield to second. He played for one run and ended up
getting two - usually you get one if you get any.
I do agree that I could kick the screen when I see them get the
leadoff man on in the first inning and the next guy bunts, though.
>According to what I can find from Christopher Shea's win
>expectancy finder, the Indians had about a 76% chance
>of winning when Hafner came to the plate. And about
>an 82% chance of winning after his RBI groundout.
>A K by contrast would have dropped the chances to about
>54% and a DP to about 35%. In other words, a huge
Yep, that's a 28% swing between their chances of winning after the
grounder and their chances of winning after a K. Maybe I'm partial in
the context of this discussion, but I like that number in terms of its
agreement with reality.
>No surprise. A big inning is of substantially less
>importance in extra innings than it is overall.
Especially when with the Reds' bullpen, there's no such thing as a
safe lead anyway.
>By contrast, Hafner's earlier groundout RBI
>The Indians started his AB with about a 25%
>chance of winning and after his AB had about
>a 24% chance of winning (suggesting that
>the run for out bargain was a good one)
>But had Hafner struck out, their chance of winning
>would have dropped to about 16%, and after a
>DP their chance of winning would have been down
>to about 10%.
>I don't disagree with any of this, and WPA would catch
>the nuances you mention.
>But the groundout shouldn't have produced the go-ahead run.
>Either the Reds thought they could turn two and were wrong
>(happens) or somebody screwed up. (Of course, Hafner's not
>a bad bet to produce a deep fly to right, for which
>there's no down-side. I suppose Barfield could leave early,
>but the flyball out was still a positive -- negated by
>a base-running error)
Somebody told me once that with the infield in you can mentally tack a
hundred points onto the batter's BA to approximate his chances of
getting a hit against the drawn-in infield as opposed to his chances
against the infield at normal or DP depth. If that's true, Hafner
finished the game at .264, so you're making him into a .364 hitter (or
better before the two groundouts) by pulling in the infielders...which
doesn't seem like such a good idea, especially in the 7th (as you
said, in the 11th all bets are off).
>And if they *did* turn two, Martinez's subsequent single
>comes next inning. Can't ignore that in discussing the
>value of an out on a ball in play versus a K.
Well, all other things being equal, but that wouldn't have been the
case because Hatteberg pinch-hit for Santos leading off the bottom of
the 11th. There would definitely have been a different pitcher on the
hill for the Reds to pitch to Martinez if it had gone into the 12th.
John D, Kasupski, Tonawanda, NY
Reds Fan Since The 1960's
From: John Kasupski on 12 Jun 2007 21:12
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:01:02 -0400, John Kasupski <kc2hmz(a)wzrd.com>
>I'm not as anti-bunt as some of the other guys in here. Some guys seem
>to eschew bunting under any circumstances. To my way of thinking, it's
>playing for one run, but yeah, it's the 11th inning. Wedge bunted
>Rouse to move Barfield to second. He played for one run and ended up
>getting two - usually you get one if you get any.
OMG, look at tonight's game. Fielder's choice grounder by Gonzalez,
followed by a Ross bunt, with the Reds scoring a run on each play.