Subject: Re: Braves Pitching UpdateDIR
From: grabiner@math.harvard.edu (David Grabiner)
Organization: /etc/organization
Nntp-Posting-Host: boucher.harvard.edu
In-reply-to: drw3l@delmarva.evsc.Virginia.EDU's message of Fri, 16 Apr 1993 16:19:23 GMT
Lines: 41

In article <C5L40C.9LC@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, David Robert Walker writes:

> In article <8994@blue.cis.pitt.edu> traven@pitt.edu (Neal Traven) writes:

>>One also has to separate offense into batting and baserunning, with the
>>split probably somewhere around 49.5% and 0.5%.

> I'd give baserunning a little more credit than that, maybe 45-5, or
> even 40-10. Give a team of Roberto Alomar and a team of John Oleruds
> identical batting stats (which wouldn't be that unreasonable), and
> even if you don't let Roberto steal a single base, they'll score a lot
> more than the Oleruds by going first-to-third more often. (No offense,
> Gordon).

I wouldn't give baserunning that much value.

The above effect is clear, but there are other effects as well.  If
Olerud hits a double, any runner on first will score; if Alomar legs an
extra base onto a hit in the gap, the runner on first may need to hold
at third.  Thus Olerud's doubles have more advancement value than
Alomar's.  (Of course, Alomar is more likely to score after hitting a
double.)

Another reason not to give too much extra value to baserunning is that
the runs created formulas work for very fast and very slow teams.  No
team in the 1950's ran much, but some teams certainly had faster players
than others.  Still, the current runs created formulas work just as well
in the 1950's for all teams.  

Bill James gives the 1955-1958 Senators as an example.  They used Harmon
Killebrew regularly as a pinch runner, and in 1957, stole 13 bases with
38 times caught stealing.  Yet they scored slightly more runs than
predicted by Runs Created.



--
David Grabiner, grabiner@zariski.harvard.edu
"We are sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary."
"Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again."
Disclaimer: I speak for no one and no one speaks for me.
