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, September 23, 2008

The zero-level player

By Tangotiger, 11:50 AM

Here’s one thing everyone can try:


1. Go here: http://tangotiger.net/markov.html
2. Click CALCULATE
3. You’ll see this: 4.905 : Runs Scored per Game
AVG / OBP / SLG: 0.270 / 0.341 / 0.405
4. Take 8/9ths of that, which is 4.36
5. Click the BACK button, and change the value of AB, to something, and then click CALCULATE, and keep revising the value of AB until y ou get 4.36 runs scored. I’ll save you the trouble and tell you to put in AB=38.985. You get these results:
4.360 : Runs Scored per Game
AVG / OBP / SLG: 0.257 / 0.326 / 0.385

So, what did we just do? Well, we constructed a team of players that scores 4.36 runs per game. But, originally, we had a team of players that scored 4.905 runs per game, meaning that each one “created in isolation” 0.545 runs per game. 8 of those guys “creates” 4.360 runs per game.

Their OBP was .341. And if we take 8/9ths of that, and presume the 9th guy has a .000 OBP, the new average would be .303.

However, we just figured that for a team to score 4.36 runs per game, their OBP would need to be .326. In order to get that, you take 8/9th of .341, and 1/9th of .206.

What we have therefore is a guy with an OBP of .206 added to a team of 8 guys with an OBP of .341 to get you a team average of .326. And that team will score the same amount as 8/9ths of an average team.

In effect, the guy with the .206 OBP added “zero” runs. Indeed, all his positive contributions was undone by his negative contributions, as whatever he added with his hits and HR was wiped out by all his outs that undid all the good work by the other 8 players.

Now, go back to my link. Change the AB so that you get an OBP of .206. (Change AB=63.96). You will see a team of 9 such “zero-type” players scoring:
1.550 : Runs Scored per Game

So, by this process, a team of “zero-type” players will score 1.55 runs per game (roughly one-third of an average team). Such a team, given average fielding and average pitching, will win roughly 12-15% of the time.

Now, let’s try to be symmetrical about pitchers as well. In this illustration, the “zero-type” hitter has an OBP of .206 in a league of .341. The Odds Ratio method would say that the defense would have to have an OBP of .508 to be “equivalent”. That is, a team of hitters hitting .206 facing a team of pitchers allow .508 will result in a .341 OBP.

Go back to my Markov, and set the AB=23.56

You get: 14.733 : Runs Scored per Game

That number is 3 times the average.

(Nice symmetry right? The “zero-type” hitters are one-third of league average, while the “zero-type” pitchers are three times league average.)

The winning percentage for a team of zero-type hitters with zero-type pitchers is a bit less than 1% of games won.

#1          (see all posts) 2008/09/23 (Tue) @ 12:39

I don’t mean this to sound snotty or anything like that, but is there a practical purpose to this exercise? Or was this post inspire by some other discussion? I’m just wondering.


#2    Colin Wyers      (see all posts) 2008/09/23 (Tue) @ 12:43

It’s part of this discussion, nominally about catcher defense:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83475


#3    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2008/09/23 (Tue) @ 12:52

Sometimes you find yourself walking into the middle of a conversation, and this is one of those times…


#4    Colin Wyers      (see all posts) 2008/09/23 (Tue) @ 14:33

On Tango’s blog, middle of conversation walks into you!

(That works best if you read it with Yakov Smirnoff’s accent.)


#5    Bjorn      (see all posts) 2008/09/24 (Wed) @ 07:58

Before I read in the linked thread I would have belived that this was about how NL pitchers affect the total offensive output…

On the topic at hand, shouldn’t the only reason that the four infielders get a different number of ground ball opportunities be that balls that pass outside the 1B or 3B are more likely to be doubles? At least if we limit ourselves to bases empty situations?

On the other hand I am far from convinced that the current positioning of fielders in MLB is entirely optimal. Espesially not against each individual hitter.


#6    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2008/09/24 (Wed) @ 09:16

Actually, I didn’t link in that thread, and your instincts are correct that this was more akin to the impact of pitchers batting.

Feel free to continue your thoughts on positioning in an appropriate fielding thread elsewhere in this blog:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/weblog/category/Fielding/


#7    david smyth      (see all posts) 2008/09/24 (Wed) @ 10:42

I just looked over the thread linked to. SABR Matt makes a few good points. But good luck to him in trying to build an ‘absolute’ evaluation system. I doubt it can be done without breaking down at some point.

But, he says that he is doing it because he is trying to measure the wins on the field, untainted by the economic stuff that dictates a repl level focus. Well, than why not simply use a .500 baseline, according to the theory that teams have a 50% chance to win?


#8    Tangotiger      (see all posts) 2008/09/24 (Wed) @ 11:00

I think that the “absolute” mindset is a non-starter, and it pains me to see it continually being attempted.  It’s ok to try to, in the end, try to put it in those terms.  But, the starting point, to me, is always the marginal impact on a known environment.  Nothing has absolute value, be it in sports or life.  It’s all about leverage.  The total utility is the accumulation of the marginal utility.

http://tangotiger.net/scales.html


Page 1 of 1 pages


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

<< Back to main


Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 11 22:33
Clutch analogy

Feb 11 22:08
Who is Jeremy Lin?

Feb 11 20:11
Fighting leads to goals?

Feb 11 19:55
Why do players get crappy caps?

Feb 11 19:12
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter

Feb 11 17:59
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential

Feb 11 16:48
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data?  And what about outliers?

Feb 11 10:29
Dwight Evans

Feb 11 02:12
Performance through the ages

Feb 10 23:01
For Your Soul