THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book is Finally Written!
An in-depth analysis of: The sacrifice bunt, batter/pitcher matchups, the intentional base on balls, optimizing a batting lineup, hot and cold streaks, clutch performance, platooning strategies, and much more.
Read Excerpts & Customer Reviews

Buy The Book from Amazon


SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
MOST RECENT ARTICLES
MAIL : You ask | We say

Advanced


THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

<< Back to main

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Runs, Runners Driven In, by Lineup Slot

By Tangotiger, 10:26 PM

From 1993-2008.

Runs_scored is runs scored.
Runners_driven_in is the number of runners driven in (excludes the batter himself on HR).
Runs_participated_in is the previous two numbers added.

That last column is very Linear Weights-ish.


SabermetricsRBI
#1    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/11 (Wed) @ 08:59

And here are the overall totals:

RUNS_SCORED RUNNERS_DRIVEN_IN RUNS_PARTICIPATED_IN EVENT_CD
0.273 0.223 0.496 1B
0.426 0.432 0.858 2B
0.602 0.639 1.242 3B
1.000 0.596 1.596 HR
0.001 0.000 0.001 SO
0.012 0.026 0.038 OTHER
0.253 0.021 0.274 BB_HBP


#2    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/11 (Wed) @ 10:27

That last column is the reason that R+RBI-HR does a decent job in describing a player’s offensive performance.  It correlates pretty nicely with Linear Weights. 

There are a few other pieces of data that allows you to make some inferences.  For example, 27% of the time you hit a single, the batter eventually scores, but it’s 25% if reaching by walk (or hit batter).  Reason?  Walk are non-random, and are issued disproportionately with two walks, when they do less damage.

Triples score .64 runners, while HR score .60 runners.  Reason?  HR are non-random, and are issued disproportionately with bases empty, when they do less damage.


#3    david smyth      (see all posts) 2009/02/11 (Wed) @ 12:57

One thing which should be kept in mind by those who say RP overvalues power and undervalues BB, is that not all RBI are the same.

Here are the approx number of bases the average runner who was driven in advanced on an RBI event (data from 1985 season):

BB or FO, 1.07
GO, 1.20
1B, 1.56
2B, 2.07
3B, 2.25
HR, 2.35


#4    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/11 (Wed) @ 14:27

David, perhaps I should be clearer.  RPI undervalues walks with respect to the batter’s contributions in generating a run.  And similarly, RPI overvalues HR with respect to the batter’s contributions in generating a run.

If you want to argue that you want to give the HR more weight based on the number of bases he moves the runners over, that’s fine.  That’ll tell you exactly what it is that you are asking it to tell you.

It will not tell you any better about his contributions to generating the run.


#5    dave smyth      (see all posts) 2009/02/11 (Wed) @ 20:04

Sure Tango, my post was poorly worded. I simply was saying that, if you look at your RP values for the HR and BB, it is as you say. But if you additionally adjust those values for the greater value of an RBI on a HR compared to an RBI on a BB, the ratio will get even more lopsided, and properly so.

Which means that if you want RC, then use RC. If you want to use R and RBI, then don’t try to make it into RC with an awkward series of adjustments.

So, I think we’re in agreement.


#6    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/11 (Wed) @ 22:29

I updated the main file to include whether it was a DH park or not.

I also put the totals overall here:
http://tangotiger.net/retrosheet/reports/runs_rbi_by_lineup_tot.html


#7    SirKodiak      (see all posts) 2009/02/13 (Fri) @ 17:19

Tango,

Is OTHER just what didn’t fit in the rest of the categories (outs, etc.)?


#8    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/13 (Fri) @ 17:50

Right.


#9    Guy      (see all posts) 2009/02/13 (Fri) @ 19:09

I’m surprised that BBs (.25) lead to a run nearly as often as 1Bs (.27).  Last year, 38% of BBs came with 2 outs, vs. 30% of singles; 28% of BBs came with zero outs, vs. 36% of singles.  I would have expected that to result in a lot more runs scored after a single.  Is there an offsetting factor?


#10    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2009/02/13 (Fri) @ 19:30

No, that sounds about right.  Use the following as the chance of scoring by outs: 39% (0 outs), 26% (1 out), 13% (2 outs), and see if your numbers match.


#11    Guy      (see all posts) 2009/02/13 (Fri) @ 21:40

Yup, that works.


Page 1 of 1 pages


Name (required)
E-Mail (optional; WILL be published)
Website (optional)

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 03 23:03
Danks or Garza?  ToMAYto, ToMAHto?

Feb 03 22:02
Susan G. Komen

Feb 03 20:18
Aasif Mavi and The Daily Show

Feb 03 20:06
Werth: How long can a non-CF stay in CF?

Feb 03 19:54
Illusion of numbers

Feb 03 18:02
Knowing enough about numbers to be dangerous

Feb 03 16:36
Who’s evaluating the 2011 forecasts this year?

Feb 03 13:47
Are relievers being used optimally, compared to 1980?

Feb 03 13:00
Casey Kotchman line

Feb 03 12:11
ULTIMATE BASEBALL THE GAME