Comments on: Highest ratios of runs scored to times on base http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Lawrence Azrin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-118518 Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:01:17 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-118518 #31/ Brent Says: "With regard to Leach in 1909, I suspect what we might find, were the information readily available, is that Fred Clarke (the Pirates #3 hitter) and/or Honus Wagner (#4 hitter) had a freakishly high BA with runners in scoring position that year..."

Brent, (yes I know I am replying well after this discussion wound down), thanks for the BOP info; that's probably as good an explanation as any...

]]>
By: Brent http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117612 Thu, 02 Jun 2011 18:57:19 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117612 With regard to Leach in 1909, I suspect what we might find, were the information readily available, is that Fred Clarke (the Pirates #3 hitter) and/or Honus Wagner (#4 hitter) had a freakishly high BA with runners in scoring position that year. That would be a reasonable explanation for Leach's (who was the #2 hitter, at least if the WS box scores reflect where the players batted all year) very high run scored vs. times on base %.

]]>
By: Hartvig http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117479 Thu, 02 Jun 2011 01:17:53 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117479 I thought this might be another quirky list that Rob Deer would make since almost all of his hits were for extra bases & he often scored himself by hitting a home run. Unfortunately he walked a little too often & almost always hit in the bottom of the order so the best he could do were a couple of seasons around 45%

]]>
By: Richard Chester http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117385 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:07:58 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117385 @27

John: Thanks for the acknowledgment.

]]>
By: stan cook http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117371 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:05:36 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117371 It would seem like lead off hitters would do better here because they bat with no outs more often. Kaz is quite a surprise to me. As I recall he mostly batted second behind Taveras and ahead of Holliday and Helton.

Have you done this for careers?

]]>
By: John Autin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117363 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:43:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117363 @25 -- Giving credit where it's due, it was loyal reader Richard Chester who found the reference to crowds behind a rope in the Forbes Field outfield and ground-rule triples:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11353#comment-116979

]]>
By: Lawrence Azrin http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117355 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:30:27 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117355 @25/ "Doug Says: @17... Back to Leach ... you can surmise all you want about why he scored so many runs in 1909, but you can't discount that it might have included a good measure of luck - he just wasn't left on base as often as would usually happen... ...And, in this particular year, Leach scored 24 more runs than in any other year of his career, even with stats that look remarkably similar to his other better years. "

Yes, Doug, I agree with you, it could just be "one of these things", i.e., a random fluke occurence. Still, it is rather mind-boggling that Leach's runs scored total ranks _5th_ in the deadball-era, behind four of the greatest single seasons in that era (Cobb 1911, 15/ Speaker 1912/ E. Collins 1912). Leach's 1909 season was very good adjusted for context, but not even close to the level of the other four seasons I mentioned, and not even close being the best NL performance that year.

Speaking of Rogers Hornsby, who was mentioned a few posts back, compare his offensive totals for 1924 and 1925, and tell me why he had nearly fifty more RBI in 1925 - it should be fairly close, if not better in 1924... I admit I did not look up the #1/ #2 Cardinals batters for those years, and situational splits for ROB are not available.

]]>
By: Doug http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117277 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:02:32 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117277 @17.

Actually, yes, Lawrence, it could have been a fluke in the sense that Wilson had only that one year where he mashed triples - his triples totals for his 6 seasons in Pittsburgh were 7, 12, 13, 12, 36, 14. Yes, it was the peak year of his career, but it was only a touch better than the year before when he had only 12. Also, he almost certainly wouldn't have had those 36 triples in 1912 anywhere except Pittsburgh.

There was a post yesterday or the day before where John explained that the dimensions in Forbes Field in those days were highly conducive to doubles and, especially, triples, much more so than other parks. He even found a reference to a local rule in Pittsburgh for ground-rule triples, employed when there was a big crowd (such as for double-headers) and the overflow fans stood in the outfield behind a rope, with balls bouncing beyond the rope going for triples.

Back to Leach ... you can surmise all you want about why he scored so many runs in 1909, but you can't discount that it might have included a good measure of luck - he just wasn't left on base as often as would usually happen. Looking at his numbers for that year, he scored far more runs than any of his teammates on a powerhouse club that won 110 games. And, in this particular year, Leach scored 24 more runs than in any other year of his career, even with stats that look remarkably similar to his other better years. For example, Leach's 1908 numbers are virtually identical if not a touch better than 1909, but he scored 33 fewer runs in 1908.

]]>
By: Hartvig http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117270 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 03:06:31 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117270 Steve @ 23 Very much so. Generally, if your successful in less than about two-thirds of your stolen base attempts you are costing your team runs so that means an out from being caught stealing has about twice the impact as a successful stolen base.

]]>
By: Steve http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/11380/comment-page-1#comment-117254 Wed, 01 Jun 2011 01:17:47 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/?p=11380#comment-117254 Is a caught stealing a bigger negative than a successful steal is a positive?It often seems so.

]]>