THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

The link didnt work.

Why dont you want faster outfielders that can cover more ground in a big park?

If outfield a can cover 30 feet and outfielder b can cover 50 feet, if my outfield is bigger than 30 feet, dont I want outfielder b ?

Link: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/07/26/sports/padres/ze34b3eea7c83c1378825748d00575e7d.txt

If outfield a can cover 30 feet and outfielder b can cover 50 feet, if my outfield is bigger than 30 feet, dont I want outfielder b ?

What if no one can catch a ball more outside of a 50 foot radius around where a typical outfielder plays?  What difference would it make how good or fast that outfielder is, beyond that 50 foot readius?  (I guess having a fast outfielder would help since he might get to the hit a little quicker and save some doubles and triples.)

You can’t “reason” this thing out.  That is the problem.  If you try to, you can easily draw conclusions that are not correct.

I basically divided all LF, CF, RF, into small, med, and large, according to square feet.  And then I looked at the difference in UZR between bad, average, and good outfielders and slow, med, and fast outfielders.  I could find no difference in the “difference” between fast and slow, or good and bad OFs’ UZRs in any type of field.

IOW, if this ubiquitous “theory” were true, in a small OF section the difference in UZR between a good and bad (or fast and slow) OF would be smaller than in a large outfield section. I found nothing like that.  In fact, I found the opposite, although I hesitated to draw the conclusion that a fast/good outfielder was an asset in a small OF section, but that certainly could be the case.

As I said, extra room beyond a certain point could be a waste as NO outfielder might be able to get to balls in that area. In a small OF section, maybe a bad/slow OF’er covers 80% and a fast/good OF covers 90%.

That is why we look at the data!

Thanks. That research on fast OFs being rendered insignificant in larger ballparks is very informative and counter-intuitive. However, I disagree with the assertion that teams should not target fly ball pitchers for larger ballparks. HRs are the only part of the TTOs that can be changed by something other than the pitcher. If a flyball pitcher comes to a larger ballpark in which his HR numbers are decreased, he becomes more valuable. You can find two pitchers with similar FIPs, but very different peripherals. Of course, we know which of two pitchers with similar K/BB numbers but different GB/FB numbers we would prefer if we had the choice. But if you can acquire a pitcher and limit his weaknesses, doesn’t this increase his value? This is under the assumption that a flyball pitcher will benefit from a greater decrease in homeruns than a groundball pitcher by virtue of having given up a greater amount of flyballs.

Imagine an outfield infinitely long so that there can be no home runs at all (Though I suppose there can be inside the park ones). This would eliminate a whole true outcome. A flyball, however, would have a far better chance of dropping for a hit. The homerun, of course, is guaranteed a run, but the average probability of making an out has decreased.

In the long run, which one saves more runs?

Im confused on the UZR on small versus large parks.
Doesnt UZR have a park factor? Can you look at the impact of the size of the park on UZR, when it is already a component of UZR?

Didn’t you take a number, adjust it for park factor (which includes the park size), and then analyze it by park size (which you’ve already adjusted for)?

What if no one can catch a ball more outside of a 50 foot radius around where a typical outfielder plays?  What difference would it make how good or fast that outfielder is, beyond that 50 foot readius?  (I guess having a fast outfielder would help since he might get to the hit a little quicker and save some doubles and triples.)

Your parenthetical is huge, I would think.  Even if there is a “catching radius” that doesn’t vary from park to park - meaning there are diminishing returns to having fast fielders as park size increases - the area outside the “catching radius” where in-play hits can roll increases as park size increases.  I can’t believe that fast OF aren’t at a premium in the larger parks because of this in order to cut down on base advancement.  Getting to balls is only half of the equation here.

DQ, I did the comparisons with no park adjustments, since I was comparing different types of fielders in the same parks.  I don’t need or want park adjustments since I don’t care what the baseline is.

If slow/bad fielders are 10 runs per 150 games worse than fast/good ones in Fenway, and the same in LF in Yankee Stadium, then that suggests that there is no advantage or disadvantage to a good or bad fielder in a big or small outfield.  Does not matter what the park factor is in either park.  I could do the same thing with parks factors and that probably would not matter either.

Steve, yes, it is probably true that you want faster fielders to chase down hits in a larger park, and to be honest, I did not look at that.  But to also be honest, I don’t think it is going to make all that much difference.  I don’t think it is worth worrying about, as opposed to just getting the best players you can on offense and defense (and baserunning) combined, regardless of your ballpark.

My overall point was that if you try and tailor your players to your ballpark, you are pretty much wasting valuable time and energy and you are going to be prone to making big mistakes.  That is especially true of the average GM who is not very good at evaluating player total worth in the first place (there is not a GM in baseball who knows how to combine offense, defense, and baserunning to find a player’s total worth - at least by himself) .  For example, let’s say you play in a big park like Petco (not that it is gigantic or anything - it isn’t - part of the reason why it is a pitcher’s park is the altitude and cool night air) and all you can think about is acquiring players who are fast and good defensively.  You are going to end up with players who are probably of less value overall than players you eschew.

Get the best overall players, period, and then worry, as an afterthought, or bonus, or the icing on the cake, if you will, about certain kinds of players to fit to your ballpark.  Use it as a tie-breaker, like clutchness, or clubhouse chemistry, or veteran leadership, or character.

And stop blaming your failures on your park and vowing to tailor your team to your park even MORE next year. You are just going to make MORE mistakes in doing so.

I agree 100% with that, it really is silly to look at it above and beyond looking at whatever advanced defensive metric you use and then giving a tiebreaker bonus to speed.

What about hitters?  Some parks clearly favour hitters of a particular handedness.  Doesn’t that mean that the Yankees should pay a premium on left-handed hitters and the Red Sox on right-handed hitters?

>> That is why we look at the data

Steve, yes, it is probably true that you want faster fielders to chase down hits in a larger park, and to be honest, I did not look at that.  But to also be honest, I don’t think it is going to make all that much difference.  I don’t think it is worth worrying about,

I’m confused. If the impact between fast and slow fielders might be their ability to run down doubles and turn them into singles, why dont we look at that?

It looks like there can be a 70 2b difference between teams defensively - say 50 runs. Is this difference accounted for in UZR? Should it be? Is it due to ballpark size? Is it the difference between fast and slow fielders in a big park?

DQ, UZR does NOT include that (running down hits and seeing whether they are singles, doubles, or triples).

I did some work a few weeks ago that looked at the difference between fast and slow outfielders in terms of that. I think I came up with plus or minus 3 runs a year or so (you would add this to UZR), depending on the speed of the outfielder.  That isn’t insignificant but it isn’t earth shattering either.

Now, on top of that, we want to see if that gap is smaller or larger depending on the size of the park.  Well, if the overall (in all parks) gap between the fastest and slowest outfielders is only 6 runs, I am afraid that the park is just not going to make a difference of more than a run, if that much.

We are not talking about playing in a phone booth versus playing on a 10-acre field.  The difference between a small and large section of an OF is just not all that large, especially if we don’t include Fenway LF.  When you add to that the fact that most hits are either guaranteed singles, doubles, or triples (and triples are rare anyway), no matter who is playing the OF, you really are going to be left with very few potential differences among fields.  Very few.  I can guarantee that.

The difference between a single and double is 0.30 runs.  If we are talking about say turning 10 singles into 10 doubles, that’s 3 runs.  And turning 10 singles into 10 doubles is quite a bit I would think.

It makes a difference in the way that having 40 SB and 10 CS makes a difference: it’s noticeable, but when you add it up, you wonder, “is that all there is to it?” Kinda like dating a supermodel.

DePodesta said earlier this year on his blog, “The fact of the matter is that despite the dimensions of the ballpark, fly balls go to die in Petco, which is also why defense in CF may not be quite as important as it would initially appear.”

Scott Hairston has also been quoted in the papers as saying it’s easier to play the outfield in PetCo.

I don’t think they’re likely focusing all that much on superior fielders or speedy guys.  They have built a team that relies very little on speed and have actually traded away or allowed to leave players that had speed as one of their primary attributes.

Alderson has said repeatedly on the radio that the most important thing they can do is get on base and the next most important is to hit for power.

Also, the team has been better or even offensively than defensively two of the last three years when looking at OPS+ and ERA+.

One article extolling the virtues of team speed, pitching and defense doesn’t mean that this is the philosophy of the organization.

I took the 2b rate (divided by balls in play) for the NL in 2007 and 2004 - the defensive average (think DER) were .071 with a stdev of .0052 for 2007 and .069 with a stdev of .0065 for 2004. With an average of 4348 balls in play for 2007 and 4285 for 2004, I get 22.7 2bs in 2007 and 27.7 for 2004. The difference between the best teams and worst come out to 74 in 2007 and 117 in 2004. I usually think of one stdev the break between good and bad, which would be 45 to 55 doubles.

So I get a difference of say 70 doubles - if they should be singles that would be 21 runs (bigger if outs)- I tried to park effect 2004 (the last year I have the park data for), and my spread got to be bigger. If the pitchers have no (virtually no) impact on hit balls, then I am looking at either defense or luck.

Am I missing something here?

70 doubles divide by 3 outfielders… that’s 23, or 7 runs.  You still have to contend with park and pitcher effects…

There are huge park effects with respect to whether batted balls are singles or doubles (or triples) and yes, the luck factor is large as well.  Without quantifying the luck aspect you can do that exercise all day long and it won’t mean anything.

In any case, we are not talking about defense in general being able to “control” the difference between doubles and singles, we are talking about the difference between fast and slow (or good and bad) fielders in small and large parks.  Two completely different, though related, things.  The difference between slow and fast fielders could be 20 runs with respect to doubles and triples rates whereas the impact of a fast and slow fielder in a small or large park could be 1 run.  Or it could be 20/5.  Or whatever.  As I said, I am 99% certain that it (leveraging speed in a large or small park) won’t make a difference of more than 1-2 runs, if that much.

Richard I wasn’t so much criticizing the Padres, as I was this whole (silly) concept that EVERYONE seems to accept like Lemmings or blind sheep (if I can use 2 bad analogies), that you somehow need fast or good defensive players in a large park and that you can minimize the “damage” caused by poor outfielders in a small park.  I have railed on this before.

This:

Alderson has said repeatedly on the radio that the most important thing they can do is get on base and the next most important is to hit for power.

is also a stupid thing to say, although I realize he has to tailor his comments to his audience.

How about, “What we focus on is players who have the highest linear weights (or OPS, or VORP, or WAR, or EQA, or wOBA) projection on offense, defense, and baserunning combined. I don’t care whether they have power or not, get on base or not, strike out a lot or not, scratch their balls at the plate, or pick their nose on the bench. Period. End of story.”

Many years ago when I did stats for our summer league, we had a wide variety of parks, from 320ft all the way around to no fences at all. This stuff is not on computer (stuffed in a filing cabinet) but I did do a breakdown of batted ball locations by park, and tabulated results.

Large fields allowed fewer balls in the outfield gaps. If the ball did get thru, it was more likely to be a triple. Small parks allowed more balls to get thru the gaps, but mostly for doubles.

Same as playing the infield in - the closer he fielder is to home plate, the quicker the ball can get thru the gaps. Therefor, I would think that you’d need a quicker fielder to cut off the balls in a small park. In a large park, there’s more time to cut the ball off.

As for fb/gb pitchers - in a large park, with low HRs, I don’t think it would matter much which type of pitcher you used. It would seem that a fb pitcher would do better in a large home park than a smaller one, but for the GM in a large park, he should be able to do as well with either type. In a small park, you would want to avoid the flyballs.

Therefore, I would think that you’d need a quicker fielder to cut off the balls in a small park. In a large park, there’s more time to cut the ball off.

Good point. That may cancel out the fact that balls that go to the wall are further away.  Plus, as you say, in a larger park, outfielders have to play further back, so they are already closer to the wall.

In another thread that Tango actually linked to, I showed some data that suggested that indeed high HR/fly ball pitchers benefited from pitching in low HR parks and ditto for all other combinations.  That is conventional wisdom of course, which in this case, appears to be correct.  For hitters, there did not appear to be much advantage one way or another, at least in terms of their HR rates.

You are 99% certain because ......
There are not a lot of topics in baseball analysis I am 99% certain on.
That’s an incredibly high % of certainty.

You are 99% certain because ......
There are not a lot of topics in baseball analysis I am 99% certain on.
That’s an incredibly high % of certainty.

There are plenty of things I am 99% certain about in baseball.  There are plenty of things I am 100% certain about.

For this though, I’ll revise to 88%.

In any case, whatever number a person, including myself, attaches to their certainty (about anything), you can usually deduct about 10-20%.