From: C.Thomas.Eyford.III@dartmouth.edu (C. Thomas Eyford III)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: The value of speed (was Re: bonds in atlanta in 1993)
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:33:10 GMT
 <1992Nov3.054025.27904@cs.cornell.edu> 
 <1992Nov3.132806.10669@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Nov3.170357.1234@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov3.170357.1234@cs.cornell.edu>
tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:

> In article <1992Nov3.132806.10669@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> C.Thomas.Eyford.III@dartmouth.edu (C. Thomas Eyford III) writes:
> >
> >You certainly have picked an extreme example; there aren't too many
> >players in the majors who will have 300 non-playable balls in a season.
> 
> I believe we were talking about Justice and Bonds.  And they come
> close to that 300/700 ratio.

300/700 works out to a 42.9% chance of hitting an unplayable ball. 
Dave Justice had a 32.1% chance; Bonds a 38.0% chance.  Over 700 plate
appearances, that works out to 224 for Justice, 266 for Bonds.  I'd say
Bonds might be in the ballpark, but Justice is nowhere close.  And
Bonds has one of the best such ratios in the NL, it only goes down from
there.

> > Moreover, I don't care how many extra-base hits a player gets during
> >the season, the vast majority of his hits are going to be singles
> >(unless you are Rob Deer).  Singles don't drive in runners from first.
> 
> Vast majority?  Hardly.  Majority, yes.  But not by all that much.
> The point remains.  The more frequently the batter at the plate hits
> HRs or walks, the less valuable basestealing is.  Bonds and Justice
> hit a *lot* of HRs, and draw a *lot* of BBs.  Therefore stealing when
> Bonds is at the plate and Justice is on deck makes less sense than in
> practically any other situation!

I was speaking in terms of playable balls, since those are the ones we
are concerned with.  Bonds hit a double or a triple only 37.4% of his
non-homer hits, Justice only 22.7%.  I'd call that a vast majority. 
Over total hits (including HR) those numbers increase to 49.7% and
34.8%, but that's still hitting a single for every extra-base hit in
Bonds's case to hitting 2 singles for every extra-base hit in
Justice's.  I'd still call that a vast majority.  I also wouldn't call
18 HR a *lot* of HR, nor 80 BB a *lot* of walks.  Granted, Bonds does
walk a lot, but he's not hitting right behind the leadoff batter,
either.  Why not steal him with Pendleton or Blauser at the plate?

> Now the "average" break-even point for basestealers lies somewhere
> between a 60% and 70% success rate.  (Note that managers won't permit
> baserunners with lower success rates to steal at all.)  Nixon was
> successful in ~70% of his attempts.  Given that Bonds and Justice are
> some of the *least* valuable batters to steal in front of, I don't
> think that a 70% chance of success justifies running.
> 
> Clearer now?

No, because I don't agree that Justice is so bad to run in front of. 
Least valuable with respect to whom?  Again, Bonds I might have to
agree with.  But Justice?  You are really overrating his power and his
walks.

Look at it this way.  Let's say Nixon is on first base with Bonds (the
worst hitter on the team to run in front of) at the plate.  You send
Nixon; he succeeds 70% of the time.  Of those times that Bonds does get
a hit after a steal attempt, he hits an extra-base hit 50% of the time,
and a single the other 50% of the time.  If Nixon were to always stay
on first, he would score 50% of the time (each extra-base hit would
score him).  With Nixon running, it is a different story.  He is on
second base 70% of the time, and off the basepaths entirely the other
30%.  However, he now scores 100% of the time on a hit when he is still
on the basepaths (all hits score him), and furthermore, even half the
time Bonds would hit a single when Nixon had gotten caught, meaning
only 15% of the time has Nixon's CS specifically cost them a run (the
other times he would have ended up on second, possibly third if it was
a deep hit).  To tally percentages:

Nixon (or Blauser) staying put: Scores 50% of the time after a Bonds
hit
Nixon stealing second:          Scores 70% of the time after a Bonds
hit

[just as a little aside, Blauser's SB success rate is around 50% - he
gets no better for trying to steal second.]

This basically says 'Steal Nixon.'  And this is the percentages with
Bonds at the plate, admittedly the worst player to steal in front of. 
Shall I calculate percentages for Blauser, Pendleton, or Justice?

You may argue that this only takes into account what happens when Bonds
does get a hit.  Well, in a way, it does only do that.  However, Bonds
is going to make outs at a .540 clip.  Over the course of a 700 PA
season, this works out to about 378 outs.  Even splitting them evenly
between flyouts, lineouts and groundouts (A GROSS exaggeration of
lineout totals), that still leaves 126 ground balls, easy pickings for
a double play.  Even with 126 walks, that works out to a dead-even
split, good/bad.  Essentially it renders the non-hit part of the
argument irrelevant, and you are left with the above.

> >> Again, why are strikeouts relevant at all?  And what is the difference
> >> between a single and a walk for a leadoff hitter?
> >
> >Granted, they are the same.  Now tell me what the difference is between
> >a walk/stolen base and a double.  You may say that the double is a sure
> >thing, but then there are the singles with runners thrown out at
> >second, etc.
> 
> Huh?  You are beating a straw man with a weak argument.  I never said
> anything about comparing a walk/stolen base with a double.  (Though
> since even the leadoff hitter *sometimes* comes up with men on base, I
> *do* prefer the double.)  I was comparing a walk to a single.  And for
> leadoff hitters, they are the same.

Well then, I would prefer the single to the walk, for the very same
reason.  I made that statement because you were saying that slugging
percentage is a good measure of a leadoff hitter (at least you
mentioned it as a reason to choose Blauser over Nixon).  If you add
those stolen bases as part of Nixon's total bases (which, for a leadoff
hitter, they should - bases are bases), Nixon now slugs .465 to
Blauser's .482.  Not much difference anymore - it accounts for only 11
total bases over a course of 650 at-bats.  Furthermore you're wasting
Blauser's power by not having someone in front of him - he's going to
hit solo shots all season.
 
> >Pitching around a hitter does nothing to his BA, unless he is foolish
> >enough to swing at bad pitches.
> 
> Well, yes.  That is what happens.  Even the most disciplined hitter
> will occasionally swing at bad pitches.

I forgot to insert 'a *lot*' in front of 'bad pitches'.  At most you'll
see a drop of a few points.  Basically nothing.
 
> Basically what I'm saying is that I would rather have
> Blauser/Pendleton leading off than Nixon/Blauser.  And if I'm going to
> choose between Nixon and Bream/Hunter to bat sixth, I'll take Bream,
> thank you.  *IF* the Braves sign Bonds, the idea of having a speedy
> guy at the top of the lineup no longer makes any sense at all.  The
> best strategy then is to maximize the OBP in front of the big bats,
> not worry about whether they are on first or second.

I'd put Bream 6th too - Nixon is nobody's number 6 hitter.  But Blauser
is nobody's leadoff hitter, either.  Basically, it's a waste of his
power.  Put him number two, with Pendleton hitting 3rd; now you have a
guy with speed with two guys hitting behind him that are extremely good
at hitting playable balls - perfect men to run in front of.   Chances
are those guys will bring him in before Bonds and Justice even reach
the plate.  Thirdly, your argument is Nixon vs. Blauser on base when
Bonds and Justice are up - with a lineup of Nixon/Blauser/Pendleton,
you'll see a lot more of Nixon on first with Pendleton and Blauser
hitting.  Basically Gant, Bonds and Justice will be bringing in Blauser
and Pendleton anyway - and even if Nixon is on first, he can sit there
just as well as Blauser can (though even in these cases I think it's
stupid not to send the runner).
 
> I would think this is obvious, but I guess not...
> 
> -Valentine


RL: Tom Eyford                        E-mail: eyford@mac.dartmouth.edu

"So, you'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll
try to kill each other like civilized people?"  
                                      -- Westley, _The Princess Bride_  
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball