Comments on: Players reaching base in the most games in 2010 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 By: Cheese Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:07:17 +0000 With reference to Williams 1949:

5 of the 6 games he failed to reach base happened in June (Jun.2,3,7,26,30)
The other happened the 4th-to-last game of the season

Bonds 2004:

Failed to get a walk in only 26 of 147 games (24/145 subtracting the 1PA appearances)

By: BSK Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:41:21 +0000 JA-

Great point. I guess there is no general "right" answer, as much as I'd like there to be. Again, these ruminations started when I was about 12. Bombo might be the more valuable one if teams averaged 20 runs a game while in most other circumstances, Angelo would be.

What would be ideal is to run the query taking into account every reasonable base/out/score scenario. So Bombo might be more valuable in a season where teams average an absurdly high amount of runs, but that environment might only come up in .1% of season and, as such, his value would be impacted accordingly. But if there was a way to simulate every situation and say, "In X% of scenarios, approach Y was better and by Z amount and in A% of scenarios, approach B was better and by C amount." Am I making sense?

By: John Autin Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:29:34 +0000 @59, BSK -- You may well be right about that specific comparison. But within the theme, there is clearly some level of production at which it makes a big difference.

Consider two batters getting 4 PAs every game. Angelo goes 1 for 4 with a HR every game, while Bombo hits 4 HRs in one game and goes oh-fer the other three games.

I'm pretty sure Angelo is much more valuable, because the incremental value of Bombo's 3rd and 4th HRs is very small. No matter how many runs you score in one game, you can only get one win.

By: Andy Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:10:51 +0000 JA (btw I am very excited that my nickname for you has caught on!)
I didn't consider any of that stuff but rather took a WPA approach similar to your method, or rather to kds' corrected method. I'd think averaged over lots of games, it's a fairly good method.

By: John Autin Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:03:38 +0000 "I always wondered whether it was better to go 1-4 with a guaranteed HR every game or 4-4 with 4 singles."

I'll be interested to see Andy's approach. The question can't be addressed without making some assumptions about the surrounding context -- the caliber of the rest of the lineup, the overall offensive level of the competition, and your team's run-prevention ability, to name a few.

To cite an extreme example: If the other 8 men in your lineup all hit like Dean Chance, then I believe you'd much rather have the HR (assuming our singles hitter doesn't steal 2nd & 3rd base every time). As the quality of the lineup goes up, the value of the singles hitter goes up relative to that of the HR hitter.

By: BSK Fri, 01 Apr 2011 17:00:48 +0000 JA-

I don't think that WPA is a good measure. WPA tells us what did happen. A guy could post an extremely high WPA or an extremely low WPA outing with a 2-4 performance. It doesn't tell us the value of a general WPA... only of that specific player's circumstance. I suppose with a large enough sample, we may be able to generalize, but I still don't know.

Are we sure there is even a difference between the two? It's not like we're comparing HRs hit in bases-loaded situations in close games to HRs hit in bases-empty situations in blowouts. It's like we're comparing HRs hit on Tuesdays to HRs hit on Thursdays.

I highly doubt there is any quantifiable difference between going 1-4 every day and 2-4 every other day. Not in any way that we can generalize.

By: John Autin Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:38:53 +0000 To those who've been following the issue that I "studied" @44, a question:

Is looking at WPA (whether average, mean, or whatever) a good way of looking at this question? Or would it be better to look at raw Runs & RBI?

By: John Autin Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:35:48 +0000 Kds -- Thanks for catching my error. The moral of the story: Quick-and-dirty studies conducted after one's bedtime tend to come out even dirtier than intended.

(Or, if you prefer The Sports Guy's line: "The moral of the story, as always: I'm an idiot.")

By: BSK Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:24:33 +0000 "I figured as much" is in response to realizing you don't have a financial incentive in my investment...

By: BSK Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:24:07 +0000 Andy-

I figured as much. I had actually intended to subscribe a while back and then got caught up in things. I've been meaning to cancel my ESPN Insider subscription anyway (if only to make them STOP sending me 'The Mag') and I can just put that money towards the PI.

Again, if I get fired from spending too much time on it, I'm insisting that BR hire me.