from Amazon
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Saves and innings
Dave Smith of Retrosheet posted some interesting data, which I simply aggregated as:
Filter posts by...
Leverage_Index
Friday, October 26, 2007
Productive Outs - Finally!
I was hoping somebody would do this. The sum of each event’s WPA/LI tells you exactly the impact of an event, without the effect of the leverage. If someone can move someone over, WPA/LI will capture it. And thankfully, Pizza was the one who took the plunge. Next time someone talks about “productive outs”, Pizza has the list as to who can do it. Hopefully, he can share a more extended list, with numbers.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Future Leverage Index
Josh Kalk checks in again. I’ll have to think about the “end of inning” scenario he brings up.
Friday, September 21, 2007
LEV v LI
Joe Sheehan’s turn to talk about Ned Yost, and echoes what has already been said. (If you want to talk about Ned Yost, go to that thread.) But, that’s not why I’m here. He talks about the “Leverage score” (LEV), and refers to this for Brewers. The correct Leverage Index (LI) are here. LEV is not LI, and no one should confuse the two, nor think that each has some advantage over the other. They don’t. LEV should not be used to discuss leverage of situations as Joe Sheehan is doing. Ever. This was discussed in…
Friday, April 27, 2007
When to bring in a reliever
There’s alot of good info in The Book on this. Here are a few more considerations that researchers can try to analyze:
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Mariners Play Boring Baseball
In the greatest feature column in America, a new thing we learn is that the Mariners have not been involved in any close game, according to Studes’ definition. This can be better expressed with Leverage Index. The average LI is 1.00. The Mariner hitters’ average LI is 0.71, their starters are 0.83, and their relievers are 0.31. Heck, their closer has an LI of 0.18!
All this of course is small sample sizitis. Eventually, the Mariners will be involved in some thrillers. The Yankees for example are playing in thrilling baseball games, with an LI of around 1.2
Monday, April 16, 2007
Early Season Leverage
There were some comments at BTF with people commenting on Leverage Index (LI) as it relates to Papelbon. At the bottom of that link, you will see various LI. His paLI is 2.41, and that’s determined on a PA-by-PA basis. His inLI is determined by the first batter he faces in each inning. His gmLI is determined by the first batter he faces in the game. exLI is the LI when he was pulled out. Anyway, the gmLI is at 2.74 and his paLI is at 2.41. Basically, he’s pulling a superman by reducing his own leverage. I highly recommend reading the three part series on Leverage, by clicking on ARTICLES at the top of this page. I actually go through the Papelbon case from last year.
As for Baseball Prospectus’ Leverage, Papelbon is at 1.41. Let’s see, he’s come into the game in the bottom of the 9th with a 3-run lead; the bottom of the 8th with 1 out 2 men on ahead by 1; top of the 8th, 1 out, 2 men on, ahead by 2. How that works out to below-average leverage (1.4) for a closer is a testament to the shortcoming of BP’s Leverage. I really wish BP would either stop using the word Leverage, or simply use my charts, and I will continue to knock anyone who uses (or worse, defends) BP’s Leverage or Drinen’s “P” as a proxy to “leverage” as the typical fan uses it.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Leverage Index for Tennis
Phil keeps unearthing the most fascinating studies on his blog, and the most recent is on tennis. The researcher of that paper even creates a Leverage Index for tennis, using the same process I detailed for baseball (though he doesn’t actually present the index itself). Extremely fascinating study.
I see no reason for the author to extend his thoughts to beyond tennis. He noted as much, yet I can’t think why he would even bring up anything beyond sports to begin with. As Phil notes, women have certain physical traits that they leverage in tennis. In the business world, it’s about leveraging other traits.
The interesting tidbit is that how in tennis the “average swing value”, for each point, is around .025 wins. In baseball, the average swing value for each PA is around .035 wins. So, if you miss a random score (point) in tennis, you’ll have missed less than if you miss a random PA in baseball. Of course, that is based on the quality of the players in the sample. If you restricted the tennis players to the top 32 or top 16, it wouldn’t work out the same. And the number of sets for women and men also play a role.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Blyleven Was Not Clutch
A few years ago, I posted Blyleven‘s record, vis-a-vis Leverage Index. I looked at each and every one of Blylven’s PA, starting from 1974. Unless he happened to be super-clutch in his first four years, this is what I found:
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The 2006 Winners of the Worst-Used Relievers of the Year
Congratulations Hector Carrasco! How did he achieve such a great accomplishment?
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Willie Randolph and Billy Wagner
Willie Randolph said this:
I’ve used him so many times to nail down an important win for us in non-save situations. He’s given our bullpen a sense of completeness that we didn’t have last year.
He’s talking about Wagner. Thanks to Fangraphs, we can look at this assertion. Breaking up his games into whether he got a save or blown save, and into games where he got neither:
Thursday, September 14, 2006
More Leverage Index
Studes always gives me at least one thing I didn’t know in the ten things he didn’t know. When it comes to Leverage Index, it’s an easy sell to me, even if I’m the salesman. It’s clear what it’s doing, it comes up with easily understandable measures. But, the problem with these “single-numbers” is that the reader has to work to understand what you did. That’s where Studes comes in. He does the work for you. For example:
Friday, September 01, 2006
Papelbon
Eric Van and Nate Silver both handle the Papelbon issue.
On that same SOSH thread as Eric, this is what I said:
Monday, August 14, 2006
When Fangraphs.com and Leverage Index Collide
http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=844&position=P
Mariano Rivera, on a PA-by-PA basis, has faced leverage of 2.00 this year. However, when he came into the game, the LI was 1.88. And, in each inning that he entered, he was at 1.91. He was pulled two times out of 52 games, and when he was pulled, the LI was 2.35.
When he’s on the mound, he advances the win probability by a total of +9.80 by getting outs, but allows the other team to gain on the Yanks a total of -7.01 by letting them get on base or moving over.
A superb implementation by Fangraphs.
You can read more about Leverage Index here:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/leverage_index/
Friday, July 14, 2006
Leverage Index, By Base/Out States
These numbers represent the leverage of the situation, looking only at the base/out states. For example, when the bases are empty and no outs, the leverage of the situation is 0.87, which is just a bit below average (of 1.00). With 2 outs, the LI is 0.39, meaning that very little damage can happen in that situation. I’ll call this the boLI.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Leverage Index
Discussing the latest research published on Leverage Index and crucial situations.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 5 of 342 pages « First < 3 4 5 6 7 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date