From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: The value of speed (was Re: bonds in atlanta in 1993)
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:27:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.173310.2402@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> C.Thomas.Eyford.III@dartmouth.edu (C. Thomas Eyford III) writes:
>
>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. 

Well, we have different definitions of "vast majority" then.

>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.

Justice did put up those numbers in only 484 AB.  Those 21 HR and 79
BB look a lot more impressive then.  He may not lead the league as a
HR/BB hitter, but Bonds *did* lead the league, and Justice is
certainly above average.

>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.

Okay...

>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).

No.  There are an awful lot of ground-rule doubles, ones where Nixon
might have to hold up until the ball falls, and suchlike.  He'll be
lucky if he scores on as many as 70% of the doubles.  But then many
of the x-base hits are HRs.

>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),

Again not true.  For Nixon, this figure *might* be as high as 80% of
all singles, but infield hits aren't uncommon.  And there's even an
occasional outfield single that won't score the runner.  (League
average on this is, I believe, around 50% so 80% would be pretty
good!)

>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

Figuring 50% 1B, 25% 2B, 25% 3B+HR I get 42% and 63%.

BUT you are ignoring *so* many important factors.  First, there *is* a
batter behind Bonds.  Justice.  While Justice isn't as good as Bonds,
he's a damned good hitter in his own right.  So what if Bonds' single
only moves Nixon to third?  Justice might easily bring them *both*
home.

Furthermore, you are ignoring the cost of the out.  If the only
penalty for being caught stealing were that the baserunner were
removed, a 50% success ratio would be just *fine*.  But that isn't the
only penalty.  You shorten the inning.  Specifically, you are planning
on shortening *THE* inning.  The one where your big bats are coming
up.  This is a rather serious price to pay.

I agree that NIXON is more likely to be scored by Bonds if he steals
second.  He *might* even be more likely to score overall if he
attempts the steal.  (The numbers are getting pretty close here.)  But
a CS has a truly devastating effect on an inning, and that will happen
almost 1/3 of the time Nixon is running.

I don't believe in taking the bat out of the hands of Pendleton, Bonds,
and Justice.  They are three of the top 20 hitters in the league!  Yet
every time Nixon got caught stealing, he would be doing this.

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

No.  A 50% success rate is dreadful even in front of *poor* batters.

>Shall I calculate percentages for Blauser, Pendleton, or Justice?

Please do, taking the other factors I mention into account.  After
all, we are trying to score the most runs.  We aren't interested
merely in maximizing Bonds' RBI totals.

Again, there *are* tools we might use to numerically analyze this.
But you far beyond what you can do with a back-of-envelope
calculation.  If you are interested, I can describe the methods that
might help.

Otherwise, be content with the simple argument:
1) Stealing in front of Justice is significantly less valuable than
league average.
2) Stealing in front of Bonds is *much* less valuable than league average.
3) The average break-even success rate is between 60% and 70%.  (Depends
on who you ask.  Most managers will run a player with a 60% success rate.
Most sabermetricians won't.)
4) Nixon steals at a 70% rate.

Conclusion: It wouldn't be worth stealing Nixon if Bonds and Justice
were due up.

Do you disagree with any of my premises?  Then how can you disagree
with the conclusion?  Follows by direct logic, IMHO.

>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).

No no no no no....  SLG is *far* less important than OBP for a leadoff
hitter.  But I'd rather have the extra base hit than the
hit-plus-successful-steal, all other things being equal.

The point being that if *I* were manager, had Nixon leading off, and
had Bonds and Justice in the #3/#4 slot, I would give Nixon a fairly
permanent stop sign (except in late innings of close games and
suchlike).  Now Nixon isn't stealing.  Yet Blauser will still be
hitting those 2B and HR, will occasionally drive in other runners with
them, and will therefore be a better leadoff hitter.  (He also has a
better OBP.)

>I forgot to insert 'a *lot*' in front of 'bad pitches'.  At most you'll
>see a drop of a few points.  Basically nothing.

My estimate is that a batter will generally lose ~20 points of batting
average, 30-40 points of SLG, and gain about 50 points of OBP.  I have
no support for these numbers, and they are essentially a rough guess.

>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.

Reasonable.  Except that I would prefer Bonds and Justice as high in
the lineup as possible.  I agree, *IF* Nixon is leading off, it makes
sense to bat Pendleton third.  But I'm not sure that is the best
lineup.

-Valentine



Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball