From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: AL Rookie of Year Award?
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 92 16:54:09 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <joeb.718377962@cserver> joeb@cserver.plexus.com (Joe Brotz) writes:
>paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct5.030209.369@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1afvtkINN8hk@uwm.edu> paul@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Paul R Krueger) writes:
>IMO, it would be hard for anyone to produce any truly meaningful 
>statistics to measure the impact of a team's running game. Here are
>my observations of the running game's affect in a baseball game
>(obvious ones anyway):

Actually, most of these things can be measured; just not by the stats you
get in the papers (or even the McWeekly). Stats, Inc., should be able to do
it and you can bet that the other major league teams can. What you really
need is good play-by-play data.
 
>  1) the stolen base itself 
Easily measured.

>  2) getting an extra base on the hit-and-run
Count (extra bases on h&r singles) vs. (extra bases on non-h&r singles).
Easy to do with play-by-play data.

>  3) pressure on pitcher causing balks
Count whether there were more balks committed while pitching against the
Brewers than against the rest of the leage. Would have to normalize for
opportunities, but again, if you have the data this one's easy.

>  4) pressure on pitcher causing bad pitches (this one could  
>     have a HUGH impact, but how do you measure it?) 
If the Brewers' running game is causing extra pressure, then I'd expect to
see their batting average (and OBP) with runners on base go up significantly
more than league average. The McWeekly might give enough stats for this
one.

>  5) pressure on fielders causing errors (or just bad decisions)
Errors, again, should be easy to spot (using the same methodology as for
balks). Bad decisions, I'll admit, are tough.

>  6) avoiding double plays when the baserunner is in motion
With play-by-play data, just count ground balls with a runner on first.
Separate in to "runner moving" and "runner not moving" sets, then count
double plays. The problem here is small sample size - Pat Listach is less
likely to be doubled up than Greg Vaughn even if Listach isn't moving. By
the time you control for runner, the samples probably get pretty small.

>  7) extra pressure on the catcher (takes his mind off of calling
>     the game??)
This, again, is tough to measure.

>  8) putting infielders out of position when they have to cover
>     the attempted stolen base (turns an out into a hit).
With play-by-play data, you could observe this one directly, with the
reservation that it's a judgement call about whether the infielder "could
have gotten" the ball. You could probably take (grounders to the left of
second not fielded by the shortstop), divide into (SS covering) and (SS not
covering), and see what the difference in % of plays made is. There's almost
certainly an effect here, but I suspect it's very, very small.


>I'm sure there are other side affects. Through the year, Brewer fans
>have observed the positive affects that we've gotten in each of these
>areas, but it's pretty hard to say where we would have been without
>the aggressive running game.

Here's where the psychology of the observer comes in. It's human nature. See
something once, it's an exciting new play. See it three times, it's part of
the team's offensive arsenal. See it eight or ten times, it's a major
component of the team's success, something that they do "all the time."
Couple this with the fact that you very seldom see people getting caught
stealing or thrown out trying to take the extra base on a hit, and voila!
The triumph of "observation" over measurement. 

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

An object never serves the same function as its image - or its name.
	- Rene Magritte