THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I just want to point out that this is pretty standard analysis.  This is how the run expectancy (RE) chart, wOBA, and leverage index (LI) are all tied in.

You might see these things are three separate, almost unreleated topics, but they are actually very closely linked.  The RE chart is the core of everything that happens in baseball.

If you already knew all this stuff, then great.  If you didn’t know, but were able to follow along, and now are on board, then great.

If you didn’t know this stuff, and didn’t really follow it, then you are missing out on something important.  Take the time to re-read this post until the light bulb goes on.

One of my favorite Posnanski posts ever.  What a great way of exploring, and proving, his point - while only using back-of-baseball-card stats.  I never even would have thought of that - like you, I would have broke out the RE chart to try to go from there (and quite frankly, maybe gotten stuck at that point).

If it’s better for Ludwick to have stopped at first, then it doesn’t matter.  Because then they just would have walked Pujols.

That is: if Pujols on first and Ludwick on second is better than Pujols at bat and Ludwick on first, the other team will see to it that that happens.  And, therefore, if both teams are smart, Ludwick didn’t cost the team anything, except that he risked being thrown out at second.

Of course, if the Cardinals knew that the Reds would be too dumb to walk Pujols with Ludwick on first, then it makes sense.  But it’s dangerous to assume the other team is dumber than you.

But it’s dangerous to assume the other team is dumber than you.

Is it too cliche at this point to make a Dusty Baker joke?

I assume we’d also want to take ‘splits’ into account.

If it’s better for Ludwick to have stopped at first, then it doesn’t matter.  Because then they just would have walked Pujols

1. When I think of “Ludwick”, I think of “Ludwig” from Naked Gun, which really can be considered a baseball movie.  I didn’t check, but there’s probably more baseball action in that movie than Field of Dreams.

2. Right, exactly.  No one walks Pujols with runner on 1B and 2B open.  That must mean its preferable to the defense to have Pujols batting and keeping Ludwick at 1B if they could.

It’s interesting how an answer can become clearer when you look at a situation from the opposing team’s perspective, as Phil does in #3 and Tango does in #6.2. 

In basketball, if my team is _up_ 3 in the waning seconds, I don’t know if it’s the right play to foul and give 2 FT instead of a chance at a 3-pointer.  But if my team is _down_ by 3, I definitely do NOT want the other team fouling me.

Hiz: right, that’s one of MGL’s laws. Not sure if it’s law #7289 or #3428.  Anyway, he says the same thing, like “if you don’t know if the play is the correct one to make or not, how would you call it if it was the exact opposite?” Your opinion should therefore be the opposite of that.

For example, should you pull your goalie with 3 minutes to go?  Maybe you can rationalize it as a yes.  What does the defense think?  They might be thinking “my god, please, yes, pull your goalie”.  If they think that, then you know it’s a bad call to pull your goalie with 3 minutes to go.

How about with 30 seconds to go?  Well, the defense is likely begging you not to pull your goalie.  They know that with only 30 seconds, the offense can control the puck, and the defense won’t take over.  So, if the defense doesn’t want it, the offense should definitely want it.

This kind of thinking works wonders, not only in baseball, but in many situations.

Right, whenever I hear a TV commentator bemoan the fact that the base runner on first went to second (via a steal or stretching a single into a double) with a great hitter on deck, because the defense will now walk the great hitter and “therefore that takes the bat out of his hands,” as Phil pointed out, I always think, “Well if that is the case, then they should walk the great hitter with the runner on first,” which they won’t of course.

That automatically tells you that taking second with the great hitter batting next is a GOOD thing for the offense, even if it definitely takes the bat out of his hands.

The funny (sad) thing is that if you asked all 30 managers whether with the game on the line and a runner on first and Pujols on deck if they would take second base if it were offered to them (if they are the offensive manager of course) knowing that Pujols would be walked, at least one of them, maybe even 10, would say, “No I would not take the offer.”

Your question to them should then be, “Then why don’t you tell your pitcher to balk the runner to second in that situation?”

Now, in reality, since the runner either attempting a steal or trying to stretch a single into a double, presumably runs the risk of being thrown out, the fact that the next batter, a great hitter, will be IBB’d, changes the BE point of the attempted base advancement.  So it might be correct that you are much less likely to steal or take the extra base in a hit with the great hitter on deck.  But, there are other reasons besides the fact that the great hitter is going to be IBB’d.  In general you are much more likely to take second (the BE point is lower), especially with 2 outs, with a weak hitter than a power hitter, even if IBB’s were not allowed.

And BTW, there are times when it is correct to try and make your opponent do something wrong, the assumption being that he is dumber than you.  For example, there are 2 outs and your #7 batter is on first in the NL, early in the game.  If you know that the opposing manager is likely to (incorrectly) IBB your #8 hitter after a successful steal, the BE point for that steal is less than if he does not (IBB the batter).

Just a simple question. (Not that I think it matters in this case since it is so clear cut, but I am curious anyway.)

In this type of analysis typically you simply consider what happens NOW, i.e. in this inning. Either player A in base/out state X or player B in base/out state Y.

But in fact doing the IBB or not will affect who bats when in the next inning and in fact for the whole game.

I am guessing (without knowing the lineup in detail) that with the IBB in this situation the cardinals will on average have weaker hitters hitting next inning. OTOH the average number of plate appearences for at least Pujols (and possibly also Halliday) should increase.

Which is stonger and does it even matter?

Yes, it matters.  That is why you typically don’t want to walk the #8 batter in the NL to pitch to the pitcher with a runner on 2nd base (or 3rd) and 2 outs.  If you do that, it increases the RE for the next inning.  (With 2nd and 3rd, it is often correct to walk the #8 hitter, despite the fact that you raise the RE for the next inning.)

So, yes, whether to IBB a batter or not depends not only on how it affects the WE for that inning, but for subsequent (mainly the next one) innings as well.