How the IBB search came out.

[scorekeeper]

The 1st IBB of the season came in the 4th inning of a game. 4 runs had already been scored in the inning and the score was 5-3 with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, and a batter, 4th spot, who had doubled and popped out against that pitcher up. All 3 runners eventually scored.

The 2nd IBB came in the bottom of the 8th inning, with the score 4-3, runners on 3nd and 3rd with 1 out. The next batter was the #2 batter in the lineup. He’d grounded out 3 times and singled against the previous pitchers. He hit another ground ball F6 tried for a force at the plate but didn’t get it, and the ball was thrown away, allowing the game winning run to score.

The next was in a game we had just gone ahead 4-3 in the top of the 4th. There were 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. The batter was our best hitter and leadoff man. He’d grounded out and reached on an error. The next batter tripled and all 3 runs scored.

The next was the bottom of the 4th, we were ahead 3-1 with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out with our best hitter up again. The next batter grounded out driving in a run. The next batter walked, and the next went out on a really great play by the shortstop diving for a smashed liner.

The next was a tie game in the bottom of the 4th and 2 outs, a runner on 3rd, with our best hitter up yet again. The next batter doubled driving in both runners.

The next, we were down 3-2 in the bottom of the 2nd with 2 outs and runner on 1st, and their best hitter who was eventually drafted batting. The next batter who was also drafted, sent our F8 to the wall to make a catch to end the inning.

The last one was a playoff elimination game. We were down 11-3 and they had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs in to top of the 4th. The batter had Kd and singled previously in the game, was their #4 hitter in the lineup, and the batter who came up has a ‘ship to a mid-level D1 school, and had already doubled and tripled earlier. He flew out to left to end the inning.

So, there’d only been 7 of them all season and only 4 were our pitchers, and each of the ones on our batters were failures. Of the 4 our pitchers gave up, two were failures and led directly to losses. One of the others succeeded in a game and situation that had no real meaning, and the other came in a game that for all intents and purposed was lost anyway.

So what the verdict? Well, 7 instances isn’t something I’d want to bet my house on one way or the other, but I honestly can’t see how in all but 2 of the cases nothing much worse could really have happened by not issuing the IBB. But, that’s in the eyes of the beholder I guess, and it was fun taking a look.

[CircleChange11]

That data is pretty much congruent with my feelings on the IBB based on my personal experience. The "good" IBB's are the ones where 1B is open and 1-out and it creates force play situations everywhere.

I suppose if one has enough confidence in their pitcher to "pitch around" the batter, that would be a better choice. Anyway, the D is already is a tough spot and they're simply looking for something that can get them out of the inning without any more runs scoring, realizing that with 2nd and 3rd, a BIP likely scores one run, even if the batter makes an out, a hit likely scores em both.

It's an "all-in" situation when you don't have many chips left. You're looking to give up zero runs (from that point on), and when it fails you end up giving up 2-3 runs ... which is about the same damage you might have encountered that you'd have if the batter did the same thing without the IBB.

In many of the "1B open" IBBs, you're looking for a ground ball on the next batter. What happens after that could be as much luck as skill.

I admit I have NO idea what % of the time an IBB leading to either an inning-ending DP or a force out at home with the next batter making the 3rd out would be considered "good" or "worth the risk".

--------------------------------------------------------------

The 1st IBB of the season came in the 4th inning of a game. 4 runs had already been scored in the inning and the score was 5-3 with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, and a batter, 4th spot, who had doubled and popped out against that pitcher up. All 3 runners eventually scored.

What did the batter immediately following the IBB do?

The 2nd IBB came in the bottom of the 8th inning, with the score 4-3, runners on 3nd and 3rd with 1 out. The next batter was the #2 batter in the lineup. He’d grounded out 3 times and singled against the previous pitchers. He hit another ground ball F6 tried for a force at the plate but didn’t get it, and the ball was thrown away, allowing the game winning run to score.

Why not go for the 6-4-3, inning over?

The next was in a game we had just gone ahead 4-3 in the top of the 4th. There were 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. The batter was our best hitter and leadoff man. He’d grounded out and reached on an error. The next batter tripled and all 3 runs scored.

I'm not one of those guys that uses the immediate result to determine good or bad, but this seems like a dumb IBB ... even if the next batter grounds out. With runners on 1st and 2nd, there are force outs at all 3 non-plate bases (could get an out almost anywhere, and without even needing tomake a throw). These would be the instances where a non-IBB walk following a non-necessary IBB to load the bases would be "justice".

The next was the bottom of the 4th, we were ahead 3-1 with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out with our best hitter up again. The next batter grounded out driving in a run. The next batter walked, and the next went out on a really great play by the shortstop diving for a smashed liner.

1B open and got the ground ball.

The next was a tie game in the bottom of the 4th and 2 outs, a runner on 3rd, with our best hitter up yet again. The next batter doubled driving in both runners.

To me, this is probably one of those 50/50 or 40/60 situations. If the next guy grounds out you look like a genius. If the would-be-IBB'd batter drives in the run then "you shoulda walked" him. It happens when coaches place too much emphasis on small sample data or instances that are really vibrant in their memory.

I also think that sometimes coaches just like to be involved in the action. "Making something happen" so to speak.

The next, we were down 3-2 in the bottom of the 2nd with 2 outs and runner on 1st, and their best hitter who was eventually drafted batting. The next batter who was also drafted, sent our F8 to the wall to make a catch to end the inning.

Genius! Ha Ha Ha. The coach will likely remember this instance well, and repeat the practice.

The last one was a playoff elimination game. We were down 11-3 and they had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs in to top of the 4th. The batter had Kd and singled previously in the game, was their #4 hitter in the lineup, and the batter who came up has a ‘ship to a mid-level D1 school, and had already doubled and tripled earlier. He flew out to left to end the inning.

Well, you simply HAVE TO keep that game at 11-3. 11-3 is withn reach, 13-3 is insurmountable. *grin*

This seems like one of those situations where your choice is to get to decide whether you'd rather be knocked out by right hook or a left hook. Yippee.

So what the verdict? Well, 7 instances isn’t something I’d want to bet my house on one way or the other, but I honestly can’t see how in all but 2 of the cases nothing much worse could really have happened by not issuing the IBB. But, that’s in the eyes of the beholder I guess, and it was fun taking a look.

We could also look at situations where there were 2nd and 3rd 1-out and NO IBB ... and see what results happened. Again, I'm not a big fan of using singular results to determine good or bad move, so when the teams pitched to the batter and the batter drove in runs I wouldn't categorize them as "shoulda walked em" situations, although I know quite a few coaches would.

[scorekeeper]

That data is pretty much congruent with my feelings on the IBB based on my personal experience….

I really had no idea what had actually taken place, but now that I at least have some real data to go on, I will take the plunge and risk the vitriol of others, even though I don’t mean any insult to anyone or to say that any one person is mistaken in what they believe.

I wish more people had the ability to at least look at what happened like I did because it may just be that what people believe is “smart” baseball, may just not be worth the risk.

What did the batter immediately following the IBB do?

Line drive single to center, 2 RBIs.

Why not go for the 6-4-3, inning over?

As I remember the play, the infield was in and the ball was slowly hit. In retrospect, the SMART play would have been to give up 1 run and get the out at 1st. When the ball got hit, it was a real circus, with 4 runners running, and 5 infielders trying to get into the correct position. I think you know what happens in those situations. Inexperienced players will almost always bite off more than they should, and make a mistake. But that’s how they learn what their limits are!

We could also look at situations where there were 2nd and 3rd 1-out and NO IBB ... and see what results happened. Again, I'm not a big fan of using singular results to determine good or bad move, so when the teams pitched to the batter and the batter drove in runs I wouldn't categorize them as "shoulda walked em" situations, although I know quite a few coaches would.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but before I pontificate too much, I like to have more than an old man’s memory to go on. Here’s the trouble. I have the capacity to look at situations to some degree, but how many people below the ML/MiL level can do that? I wish everyone could, but the truth is, I doubt they’d allow the facts to sway them one way or the other. Not that people are stupid, but its unimaginably difficult to get someone to change their mind about something they’ve believed and been doing for decades.

[mudvnine]

The 1st IBB of the season came in the 4th inning of a game. 4 runs had already been scored in the inning and the score was 5-3 with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 1 out, and a batter, 4th spot, who had doubled and popped out against that pitcher up. All 3 runners eventually scored.

Need a little more info to determine success or not with the IBB, but the situation for implementing was correct.

The 2nd IBB came in the bottom of the 8th inning, with the score 4-3, runners on 3nd and 3rd with 1 out. The next batter was the #2 batter in the lineup. He’d grounded out 3 times and singled against the previous pitchers. He hit another ground ball F6 tried for a force at the plate but didn’t get it, and the ball was thrown away, allowing the game winning run to score.

This is a successful IBB, fielder simply made an error. The desired play happened, the player just failed to execute.

The next was in a game we had just gone ahead 4-3 in the top of the 4th. There were 2 outs and runners on 1st and 2nd. The batter was our best hitter and leadoff man. He’d grounded out and reached on an error. The next batter tripled and all 3 runs scored.

Incorrect time for an IBB, not an advantage gain defensively....so that's just dumb.

The next was the bottom of the 4th, we were ahead 3-1 with runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out with our best hitter up again. The next batter grounded out driving in a run. The next batter walked, and the next went out on a really great play by the shortstop diving for a smashed liner.

Sounds like the IBB was correctly called, but a fielder once again made the wrong decision with the ball. The run should have never scored, unless it was a failed DP attempt (batter/runner safe at 1st).

The next was a tie game in the bottom of the 4th and 2 outs, a runner on 3rd, with our best hitter up yet again. The next batter doubled driving in both runners.

Now that's just dumb. IBB should never be called with two outs (especially so early in a game) simply to "pitch around" a hitter.

The next, we were down 3-2 in the bottom of the 2nd with 2 outs and runner on 1st, and their best hitter who was eventually drafted batting. The next batter who was also drafted, sent our F8 to the wall to make a catch to end the inning.

Worked out OK, but it should never have been called....again, way too early in a close game and especially not with two outs. NEVER put a runner in scoring position with two outs.

Another, "now that's just dumb".....

The last one was a playoff elimination game. We were down 11-3 and they had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs in to top of the 4th. The batter had Kd and singled previously in the game, was their #4 hitter in the lineup, and the batter who came up has a ‘ship to a mid-level D1 school, and had already doubled and tripled earlier. He flew out to left to end the inning.

Another, ""now that's just dumb".....

There's two outs for Pete's sake, you're down by 8....why put more RBIs on the base paths when a GB gets you an out at 1st to end the inning?

So, there’d only been 7 of them all season and only 4 were our pitchers, and each of the ones on our batters were failures. Of the 4 our pitchers gave up, two were failures and led directly to losses. One of the others succeeded in a game and situation that had no real meaning, and the other came in a game that for all intents and purposed was lost anyway.

So what the verdict? Well, 7 instances isn’t something I’d want to bet my house on one way or the other, but I honestly can’t see how in all but 2 of the cases nothing much worse could really have happened by not issuing the IBB. But, that’s in the eyes of the beholder I guess, and it was fun taking a look.

The verdict? Out of seven, only three were correctly called for.

Of the three that were implemented correctly, on two of them, the desired results happened, but the fielder(s) handling the ball failed to execute properly. So while in the scorebook they didn't appear to work, the desired situation happened on the field....so I would say, the IBB "worked" in those two situations. The third where all three "eventually scored" needs more information as to their "success"...what did the batter after the IBB do?

The other four "IBBs" were incorrectly called, so whether they "worked" or not is meaningless.....as their implementation in the described situations was, "just dumb".

[scorekeeper]

…The verdict? Out of seven, only three were correctly called for.

Of the three that were implemented correctly, on two of them, the desired results happened, but the fielder(s) handling the ball failed to execute properly. So while in the scorebook they didn't appear to work, the desired situation happened on the field....so I would say, the IBB "worked" in those two situations. The third where all three "eventually scored" needs more information as to their "success"...what did the batter after the IBB do?

The other four "IBBs" were incorrectly called, so whether they "worked" or not is meaningless.....as their implementation in the described situations was, "just dumb".

Well, it sure looks as though there’s definitely something amiss in the whole thing, doesn’t there. You’re calling the decisions made by some pretty fair coaches dumb, which is ok ‘casue I often say the same thing to myself. But you’re making my point for me, that at best calling for an IBB is an extremely subjective thing to do, and it seems that just as often as it works, it fails.

Unfortunately, not enough folks keep records with enough detail to actually establish meaningful tables that can be looked toward to help make decisions, like they have for the ML. Maybe one day we’ll have that, but until then, its just gonna have to be a lot of guesswork.

[mudvnine]

Well, it sure looks as though there’s definitely something amiss in the whole thing, doesn’t there. You’re calling the decisions made by some pretty fair coaches dumb, which is ok ‘casue I often say the same thing to myself. But you’re making my point for me, that at best calling for an IBB is an extremely subjective thing to do, and it seems that just as often as it works, it fails.

Unfortunately, not enough folks keep records with enough detail to actually establish meaningful tables that can be looked toward to help make decisions, like they have for the ML. Maybe one day we’ll have that, but until then, its just gonna have to be a lot of guesswork.

I still don't believe you understand the "intention" of the "intentional base on balls". It's done to put that defense in a more advantageous position than they were before the walk. It should be executed to create some type of force play, or combination of force plays, that IF properly executed, will prevent a run from scoring in a close game.

What the hitter following the IBB does is relatively insignificant, as theoretically, any hitter, at any time, could come up and poke a base hit through, even the kid hitting .125, so that's not really the point. The point is, should the next hitter hit the ball onto the ground, will we be in a better defensive position to prevent a run from scoring by walking the previous batter AND executing properly....not whether or not the hitter is better or worse than the previous one.

Interestingly enough, this past season, we didn't issue a single IBB.....although in hindsight, I wish I had in one instance, but that was not because the situation warranted it, but rather to "pitch around the stud" of the other team with one out, but that would have gone against my personal beliefs, so we pitch to him. Now this freshman kid would have been a varsity starter at our school, but the school he was at is a perennial powerhouse....this year they were CIF champs, so he stayed down.

Top of 7th of a tied game (they had trounced us 11-1 in our first meeting), with one out, in steps the man-child to the batter's box, we go right after him with our #2 pitcher and get....Foul, Strike (looking), Foul, the 0-2 CB that was supposed to be "in the dirt", found waaaay too much of the outside third of the plate, and left the park in RC field for a Homerun.....crap!!

We had a chance in the bottom of the 7th, but a base running error cost us dearly. First hitter (Ball, Ball, Ball, Strike (looking), Strike (swinging), Single).....second hitter (Ball, Sacrifice Bunt, [X Xxxxxx advances to Second].....third hitter (X Xxxxxx replaces X Xxxxxx on offense, Ball, Single, [X Xxxxxx Picked Off at Second]), dammit!!!.....fourth hitter (Strike (swinging), Ball, Ball, Fly out)....game over.

Couple more grey hairs in the head, and we move on to prepare for our next game......

[scorekeeper]

Because of this discussion, I was going to see what I could do to quantify how batters were doing relative to runners on base and in what bases they were on. But as I thought about it, I seemed to remember having done something similar this past year when I got the ability to track that data. Unfortunately, I forgot to “turn it on”, so it would run as part of the stat “package”. So, FWIW, here’s at least RBIs relative to runners.

I’ll check around some more to see what else I may have already done and forgot about. Comments are always welcome, even if they aren’t very complimentary.

checkrbis.pdf

[mudvnine]

Because of this discussion, I was going to see what I could do to quantify how batters were doing relative to runners on base and in what bases they were on. But as I thought about it, I seemed to remember having done something similar this past year when I got the ability to track that data. Unfortunately, I forgot to “turn it on”, so it would run as part of the stat “package”. So, FWIW, here’s at least RBIs relative to runners.

I’ll check around some more to see what else I may have already done and forgot about. Comments are always welcome, even if they aren’t very complimentary.

checkrbis.pdf

Interesting chart(s), that I think have some useful potential, but "thinking out loud".....shouldn't those "opportunities" be weighted? IOWs, a hitter that had 10 runners on 3rd base, has a better "opportunity" than a hitter that had his 10 runners on 1st base. No?

Maybe that's already taken into consideration in one of the sheets, but if it was, I failed to decipher it....

[scorekeeper]

I still don't believe you understand the "intention" of the "intentional base on balls". It's done to put that defense in a more advantageous position than they were before the walk. It should be executed to create some type of force play, or combination of force plays, that IF properly executed, will prevent a run from scoring in a close game.

Oh trust me. I completely understand the “intention” of an IBB. What you can’t believe is, I honestly don’t believe winning a game at any level below the ML is important enough to warrant it, compared to how important I believe it is for the players to get as much exposure as possible to the “gut checking” situations that people feel require them. It just a difference in philosophical perspective. No big deal.

What the hitter following the IBB does is relatively insignificant, as theoretically, any hitter, at any time, could come up and poke a base hit through, even the kid hitting .125, so that's not really the point. The point is, should the next hitter hit the ball onto the ground, will we be in a better defensive position to prevent a run from scoring by walking the previous batter AND executing properly....not whether or not the hitter is better or worse than the previous one.

In my mind, this is very much like sacrifice bunting, or even stealing bases. Its all about linear weights, which we don’t have at the HS level, so we tend to go by what they are for the ML, and its all about the odds of scoring a run in a particular situation, weighed against the value of a possible out. Its why the odd show a runner on 1st with no outs is more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with 1 out. There’s a lot more to it than that, but in the end a decision has to be made whether its worth giving up that out, or even risking it. The chances of getting an out with the bases loaded and 1 out is higher than if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. The trouble is, the chances of scoring a run also go up, so one has to try to figure out which one is worth taking the chance on.

What it seems like in a an odd way, isn’t so much that its good training for the players, as much as it is for the manager. Since so much goes into the decision, it ends up becoming very much a skill. But I posit that if there were a button one could press to spit out the odds for any given situation, it wouldn’t be a much needed developmental skill, so using it at levels below the ML would be moot. Thing is though, that ain’t never gonna happen in anyone’s lifetime that’s reading this, so its safe to assume it’s a practice that will continue no matter what one’s philosophical beliefs.

[scorekeeper]

Interesting chart(s), that I think have some useful potential, but "thinking out loud".....shouldn't those "opportunities" be weighted? IOWs, a hitter that had 10 runners on 3rd base, has a better "opportunity" than a hitter that had his 10 runners on 1st base. No?

Maybe that's already taken into consideration in one of the sheets, but if it was, I failed to decipher it....

Not quite sure I’m following you, but its sure sounding a lot like you’re thinking linear weights whether you realize it or not. Trouble is, I have no way to develop a linear weight chart for HS because as far as I know, I’m the only one with anything close to enough data to do it, and therefore it wouldn’t exactly be much of a chart. It would be ok for our team, but for no one else’s.

However, because I’m an equal opportunity whacko, I’m more than willing to entertain factors that allow me to weigh the different states. FI, if its believed a batter should get an RBI 3 times as often if there’s a runner on 3 than a runner on 1st, and twice as often if there’s a runner on 2nd than 1st, that can be arranged. But I’d have no idea how to make that determination.

But keep in mind that those things are basically talking about RBIs and MRUs which are very different concepts.

[real green]

But I posit that if there were a button one could press to spit out the odds for any given situation, it wouldn’t be a much needed developmental skill, so using it at levels below the ML would be moot. Thing is though, that ain’t never gonna happen in anyone’s lifetime that’s reading this, so its safe to assume it’s a practice that will continue no matter what one’s philosophical beliefs.

It may be closer than you think. How tough would it be to add to game changer or i score the matrix needed to produce situational options corelated with odds of success? It could even be corelated to the players current stats given the scenario. Interesting!

[mudvnine]

Oh trust me. I completely understand the “intention” of an IBB. What you can’t believe is, I honestly don’t believe winning a game at any level below the ML is important enough to warrant it, compared to how important I believe it is for the players to get as much exposure as possible to the “gut checking” situations that people feel require them. It just a difference in philosophical perspective. No big deal.

So are you stating that only the pitchers should be exposed to "gut checking"....what about the infielders?

Sounds like in two of the situations you listed above, the infielder(s) failed the "gut check" placed upon them, by making an error, and/or not throwing to the correct base for the given situation.

And I can't think of a more "gut checking" situation for a pitcher than having to throw strikes after just having an IBB load the bases....regardless of the outs.

In my mind, this is very much like sacrifice bunting, or even stealing bases. Its all about linear weights, which we don’t have at the HS level, so we tend to go by what they are for the ML, and its all about the odds of scoring a run in a particular situation, weighed against the value of a possible out. Its why the odd show a runner on 1st with no outs is more likely to score than a runner on 2nd with 1 out. There’s a lot more to it than that, but in the end a decision has to be made whether its worth giving up that out, or even risking it. The chances of getting an out with the bases loaded and 1 out is higher than if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out. The trouble is, the chances of scoring a run also go up, so one has to try to figure out which one is worth taking the chance on.

I think you'd have to clarify the last sentence. Shouldn't it be, "the chances of scoring an [additional] run also go up"?

An IBB with runners on 2nd and 3rd doesn't change the "chances" of those runners scoring, unless the hitter coming to the plate after the IBB is a better hitter than the one that was just walked.....other than that, there's no change, in fact, as you stated, "chances of getting an out with the bases loaded and 1 out is higher than if there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out".

What it seems like in a an odd way, isn’t so much that its good training for the players, as much as it is for the manager. Since so much goes into the decision, it ends up becoming very much a skill. But I posit that if there were a button one could press to spit out the odds for any given situation, it wouldn’t be a much needed developmental skill, so using it at levels below the ML would be moot. Thing is though, that ain’t never gonna happen in anyone’s lifetime that’s reading this, so its safe to assume it’s a practice that will continue no matter what one’s philosophical beliefs.

Other than it changes the situation, and they must learn to recognize where their play is now.

Believe me, I've been in games where the fielder failed to recognize/realize/remember that the IBB just changed what he should do with the ball, and made the play as if it was the original, before the IBB situation.

Would have been really nice if he would have "learned" or "developed the skill", to know what to do with the ball as the situations in the games continually change.

[scorekeeper]

It may be closer than you think. How tough would it be to add to game changer or i score the matrix needed to produce situational options corelated with odds of success? It could even be corelated to the players current stats given the scenario. Interesting!

I don’t know about those passé applications, but I already have it ready to go, as soon as anyone can come up with the numbers.

[scorekeeper]

So are you stating that …

OK Mud, I’ve had enough. You and I don’t have the same philosophy about what we’re talking about, but now it seems as though you’re trying to embarrass me almost out of spitefulness. You go right on thinking the way you want, and I’ll go right on thinking the way I do. Its not worth getting angry over something that neither of us has the data to back up what they believe.

[mudvnine]

Not quite sure I’m following you, but its sure sounding a lot like you’re thinking linear weights whether you realize it or not. Trouble is, I have no way to develop a linear weight chart for HS because as far as I know, I’m the only one with anything close to enough data to do it, and therefore it wouldn’t exactly be much of a chart. It would be ok for our team, but for no one else’s.

However, because I’m an equal opportunity whacko, I’m more than willing to entertain factors that allow me to weigh the different states. FI, if its believed a batter should get an RBI 3 times as often if there’s a runner on 3 than a runner on 1st, and twice as often if there’s a runner on 2nd than 1st, that can be arranged. But I’d have no idea how to make that determination.

But keep in mind that those things are basically talking about RBIs and MRUs which are very different concepts.

I'm not sure what I'm talking about technically, but here's what I'm thinking that maybe you can figure out what I mean....

When a hitter is at the plate with a runner on 3rd, he can do several things to be credited for an RBI, that the hitter with only a runner on 1st cannot.

For instance....

• Long, deep fly for an out....RBI with a runner on third, nothing with a runner on 1st
• GB out to the 2nd baseman playing in his "normal" position....RBI with a runner on third, nothing (with the exception of a potential DP) with a runner on 1st.
• Single to LF....RBI with a runner on third, nothing with a runner on 1st
• Etc., etc....

So I don't know if it's a "3 times" thing, but it is theoretically easier to earn an RBI the closer the runner is to the plate, so it only make sense (to me), that the guy that can get the ones in that are further from the plate, should get a little more credit than the guy that gets all of his with his guys standing on 3rd.

IOWs, maybe not all RBIs are created equal....as I said, "just thinking out loud".

[mudvnine]

OK Mud, I’ve had enough. You and I don’t have the same philosophy about what we’re talking about, but now it seems as though you’re trying to embarrass me almost out of spitefulness. You go right on thinking the way you want, and I’ll go right on thinking the way I do. Its not worth getting angry over something that neither of us has the data to back up what they believe.

OK SK, that's fine, we have different philosophies....I ask a question to confirm that I understand yours and I'm doing it "out of spitefulness"; kinda silly, and incorrect, but if that's how you want to step out of the conversation...so be it.

While there's nothing more to discuss here with regards to the IBB, but I hope we can still talk about the differences(?) in RBIs and the charts you were working on, either here or maybe in a new thread....I think you may be on to something there.


Peace,
mud -

[scorekeeper]

I'm not sure what I'm talking about technically, but here's what I'm thinking that maybe you can figure out what I mean....

When a hitter is at the plate with a runner on 3rd, he can do several things to be credited for an RBI, that the hitter with only a runner on 1st cannot.

For instance....

• Long, deep fly for an out....RBI with a runner on third, nothing with a runner on 1st
• GB out to the 2nd baseman playing in his "normal" position....RBI with a runner on third, nothing (with the exception of a potential DP) with a runner on 1st.
• Single to LF....RBI with a runner on third, nothing with a runner on 1st
• Etc., etc....

So I don't know if it's a "3 times" thing, but it is theoretically easier to earn an RBI the closer the runner is to the plate, so it only make sense (to me), that the guy that can get the ones in that are further from the plate, should get a little more credit than the guy that gets all of his with his guys standing on 3rd.

IOWs, maybe not all RBIs are created equal....as I said, "just thinking out loud".

When I began tracking what I call “MRUs”, it was because I saw something inherently wrong with RBIs, and just for the reasons you’ve noted. Also, when one thinks about it, the major reason the #4 hitter in a lineup gets so many RBIs, is because of the players immediately ahead of him, not necessarily his batting prowess. In today’s game, its pretty unusual to see a Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle batting 4th, with a .340+ BA or even anything like it at the ML level, let alone the lower levels. So to me, an RBI isn’t really indicative of a batter’s skill, as much as where he’s placed in the lineup. That’s one reason why I like MRUs so much. When I look at them, nothing concerns me other than did he do his job, with his job being defined as moving any lead runner closer to scoring.

But that doesn’t do much to resolve the issue of trying to measure a batter’s success at getting RBIs, which are viewed by most as “DRIVING IN RUNS”, which they really aren’t. An RBI represents only being the final reason a run scores, defined by strict criteria. Meanwhile the guy who gets on and is then replaced by a pinch runner gets absolutely no credit, nor does the guy who moves him over with a bunt, or to 3rd with a grounder or a fly. But that next guy who hits a swinging bunt that can’t be played gets an RBI and is looked up to as the “hero”.

BAWRISP drives me nuts for the same reason. It’s as though it’s a skill that can be practiced aside from just batting. But again, I digress. Getting back to the question at hand, just to get an idea, let’s say this factor needs to be based on how close a runner is to scoring. IOW, a runner on 3rd is the easiest runner to drive in, and a batter the hardest. So maybe Total Bases measured a slightly different way could be somehow used. And of course the number of outs affect things as well, so we might not want to forget them.

FI, runner on 3rd and no outs should be the easiest RBI, and 2 outs and no one on should be the most difficult. But here’s where my problems with RBIs vs MRUs come into great conflict. As a fan and a player, I really don’t give a darn whether or not the batter gets credit for an RBI if a run scores because of something he did in his PA. I’m just happy to see the run. However, ruminating does give me an idea.

Its not the RBI but the situation that has to be valued. IOW, when a batter comes up, the likelihood he’s going to get an RBI needs to be computed prior to his at bat being over.

Let’s assign an RBI value to the AB of 4 if the run he gets credit for an RBI is him, 3 if it’s a runner on 1st, 2 a runner on 2nd, and 1 a runner on 3rd. Then how about we multiply that by something representing the number of outs, say a 1 for no outs and a 2 for 1 out and a 3 for two outs. Let’s test that.

Runner on 2nd with 1 out at the time the batter comes to the plate. He does something to drive that run in and be credited with an RBI, so the calculation becomes, 2*2, and that’s what he’s credited with for the AB.

Now let’s say it’s the same situation but the batter hits a HR. now its 2*2 for the 1st RBI, but also 4*2 for himself, for a total of 12 for the AB. And if there were 2 outs instead of 1, it would be (2*3)+(4*3) for 18 points, or if there were no outs, (2*1)+(4*1), or 6 points total.

The factors are likely much more “harsh” than a REAL Sabermatician would use, but without any history about what’s taken place, there’s really little choice. I suppose cutting each of them in half would be a better approximation of their true worth, but in any case, I’d say we have the basis of a plan.

Now here’s a fly in the ointment, at least for me. I don’t store each PA separately. I store an aggregate of what each player has done for a game. FI, if the entire lineup bats 4 times in a game, that’s 36 PAs and would be 36 individual records. While the game is underway, that’s what I have, but when I store that information, there would only be 9 records, 1 for each player.

What I’d have to do is compute that RBI# before I put all the records together. Its doable, but it is a real technical problem.

So am I on the right track?

[mudvnine]

When I began tracking what I call “MRUs”, it was because I saw something inherently wrong with RBIs, and just for the reasons you’ve noted. Also, when one thinks about it, the major reason the #4 hitter in a lineup gets so many RBIs, is because of the players immediately ahead of him, not necessarily his batting prowess. In today’s game, its pretty unusual to see a Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle batting 4th, with a .340+ BA or even anything like it at the ML level, let alone the lower levels. So to me, an RBI isn’t really indicative of a batter’s skill, as much as where he’s placed in the lineup. That’s one reason why I like MRUs so much. When I look at them, nothing concerns me other than did he do his job, with his job being defined as moving any lead runner closer to scoring.

But that doesn’t do much to resolve the issue of trying to measure a batter’s success at getting RBIs, which are viewed by most as “DRIVING IN RUNS”, which they really aren’t. An RBI represents only being the final reason a run scores, defined by strict criteria. Meanwhile the guy who gets on and is then replaced by a pinch runner gets absolutely no credit, nor does the guy who moves him over with a bunt, or to 3rd with a grounder or a fly. But that next guy who hits a swinging bunt that can’t be played gets an RBI and is looked up to as the “hero”.

BAWRISP drives me nuts for the same reason. It’s as though it’s a skill that can be practiced aside from just batting. But again, I digress. Getting back to the question at hand, just to get an idea, let’s say this factor needs to be based on how close a runner is to scoring. IOW, a runner on 3rd is the easiest runner to drive in, and a batter the hardest. So maybe Total Bases measured a slightly different way could be somehow used. And of course the number of outs affect things as well, so we might not want to forget them.

FI, runner on 3rd and no outs should be the easiest RBI, and 2 outs and no one on should be the most difficult. But here’s where my problems with RBIs vs MRUs come into great conflict. As a fan and a player, I really don’t give a darn whether or not the batter gets credit for an RBI if a run scores because of something he did in his PA. I’m just happy to see the run. However, ruminating does give me an idea.

Its not the RBI but the situation that has to be valued. IOW, when a batter comes up, the likelihood he’s going to get an RBI needs to be computed prior to his at bat being over.

Let’s assign an RBI value to the AB of 4 if the run he gets credit for an RBI is him, 3 if it’s a runner on 1st, 2 a runner on 2nd, and 1 a runner on 3rd. Then how about we multiply that by something representing the number of outs, say a 1 for no outs and a 2 for 1 out and a 3 for two outs. Let’s test that.

Runner on 2nd with 1 out at the time the batter comes to the plate. He does something to drive that run in and be credited with an RBI, so the calculation becomes, 2*2, and that’s what he’s credited with for the AB.

Now let’s say it’s the same situation but the batter hits a HR. now its 2*2 for the 1st RBI, but also 4*2 for himself, for a total of 12 for the AB. And if there were 2 outs instead of 1, it would be (2*3)+(4*3) for 18 points, or if there were no outs, (2*1)+(4*1), or 6 points total.

The factors are likely much more “harsh” than a REAL Sabermatician would use, but without any history about what’s taken place, there’s really little choice. I suppose cutting each of them in half would be a better approximation of their true worth, but in any case, I’d say we have the basis of a plan.

Now here’s a fly in the ointment, at least for me. I don’t store each PA separately. I store an aggregate of what each player has done for a game. FI, if the entire lineup bats 4 times in a game, that’s 36 PAs and would be 36 individual records. While the game is underway, that’s what I have, but when I store that information, there would only be 9 records, 1 for each player.

What I’d have to do is compute that RBI# before I put all the records together. Its doable, but it is a real technical problem.

So am I on the right track?

Wow....YES!!! Not only on the right track for what I was thinking, but you're forging new tracks by including the outs, that I hadn't considered. Outstanding!!

I also agree with you that the actual numbers might be a little "harsh", and need a little tweaking, as I don't think a potential "16" value (didn't want to call it an "RBI") for a single AB would be well received with the typical baseball crowd, who are so used to everything relating to a singular starting point, single value, or single event for everything.

Can you imagine a guy having over a 1000 of whatever it is you finally call it for a season? "Barry Bonds had 1238 'PBIs' (Players Batted In?) for the 1993 season" for instance....I think it would freak out the baseball world, even if it is a better overall representation of what the player(s) actually accomplished when it comes to getting players to the plate.

[scorekeeper]

Wow....YES!!! Not only on the right track for what I was thinking, but you're forging new tracks by including the outs, that I hadn't considered. Outstanding!!

That’s why I get the big $$$.

I also agree with you that the actual numbers might be a little "harsh", and need a little tweaking, as I don't think a potential "16" value (didn't want to call it an "RBI") for a single AB would be well received with the typical baseball crowd, who are so used to everything relating to a singular starting point, single value, or single event for everything.

Can you imagine a guy having over a 1000 of whatever it is you finally call it for a season? "Barry Bonds had 1238 'PBIs' (Players Batted In?) for the 1993 season" for instance....I think it would freak out the baseball world, even if it is a better overall representation of what the player(s) actually accomplished when it comes to getting players to the plate.

I always start something like that with a number that isn’t confusing, even though it may not provide the most valid representation of what’s trying to be portrayed. As far as the computer goes, it wouldn’t care if the factors were 1, 0.1, or 0.000001, so the restriction would be on what people would find acceptable. Personally, I’ve found that most folks don’t do real well with numbers that have more than a 1 decimal precision. I used to do everything to 3 decimal places because many of the numbers were so close together, it took that 3rd decimal place to get a lot of separation. And that works very well with Saber folks and engineer types who work with small numbers all the time. But some dad who’s a cop doesn’t usually want to see that his kid’s 1st pitch strike percentage is 58.3186% when 58.3% gives him more than enough precision.

Do you have any values in mind?

[CircleChange11]

I always start something like that with a number that isn’t confusing, even though it may not provide the most valid representation of what’s trying to be portrayed. As far as the computer goes, it wouldn’t care if the factors were 1, 0.1, or 0.000001, so the restriction would be on what people would find acceptable. Personally, I’ve found that most folks don’t do real well with numbers that have more than a 1 decimal precision. I used to do everything to 3 decimal places because many of the numbers were so close together, it took that 3rd decimal place to get a lot of separation. And that works very well with Saber folks and engineer types who work with small numbers all the time. But some dad who’s a cop doesn’t usually want to see that his kid’s 1st pitch strike percentage is 58.3186% when 58.3% gives him more than enough precision.

Do you have any values in mind?

This is why new metrics are scaled to familiar metrics ... like FIP & ERA.

Many metrics especially the "small letter" (wOBA, xFIP) and "+" or "-" ones (ERA+, FIP-, etc) are put on a 0 to 100 scale where 50 is average or something like that. Things like wRC+ are scaled to where 100 would be an upper limit, and something like 75 would be average.

[scorekeeper]

This is why new metrics are scaled to familiar metrics ... like FIP & ERA.

Many metrics especially the "small letter" (wOBA, xFIP) and "+" or "-" ones (ERA+, FIP-, etc) are put on a 0 to 100 scale where 50 is average or something like that. Things like wRC+ are scaled to where 100 would be an upper limit, and something like 75 would be average.

They can do that because they have the linear weight tables to use to tell them what average would be. When you’re shooting totally in the dark, there’s no alternative to just choosing values that are simple to understand, or just take a guess at something that sounds good. The reality is, it really doesn’t matter, as long as everyone understands how the measuring stick is calibrated.

I'm finding out that in practice extracting the data is actually pretty simple, because its there, just not in an easily accessible format, and spread out all over the place. So all I've got to do is gather it up from the different places its hiding, apply the algorithm to it, format, and print it out.

[scorekeeper]

Working on the metric.

Document1.pdf

[CircleChange11]

They can do that because they have the linear weight tables to use to tell them what average would be. When you’re shooting totally in the dark, there’s no alternative to just choosing values that are simple to understand, or just take a guess at something that sounds good. The reality is, it really doesn’t matter, as long as everyone understands how the measuring stick is calibrated.

I'm finding out that in practice extracting the data is actually pretty simple, because its there, just not in an easily accessible format, and spread out all over the place. So all I've got to do is gather it up from the different places its hiding, apply the algorithm to it, format, and print it out.

I agree. I'm definitely NOT criticizing anything you are doing.

You and are are very similar in that we are always looking for a way to organize data to tell us something we can use in a predictive sense or to evaluate. I would go absolutely crazy if I attempted to do the things you are doing, because I'd "never have enough data" to make it viable and I'd be laying in bed at 3 in the morning trying to think of a different approach or a better way or things of that nature.

Odds are good that I'd eventually become that guy that "writes math formulas on windows". *big grin*

Guys that are able to do lots of coll things with data are only able to do so because there was retrosheet that provided play by play data. When you only have boxscores and/or season stats, it becomes very difficult to come up with equally valid conclusions. This is illustrated by early Bill James and Palmer stuff. They laid some foundations for some very useful stuff, the incredibly useful stuff came about as a result of being able to use play-by-play data to obtain enough data for situations.

I admire your work. If you're up at 3 AM and need someone to talk to. Give me a shout, I'm probably available. Heh Heh.

[scorekeeper]

I agree. I'm definitely NOT criticizing anything you are doing.

Didn’t think you were. I just like to try to make sure those who aren’t as “savvy” about baseball metrics understand that there are reasons so many of the latest and greatest metrics aren’t even a pipedream to any level other than MLB.

You and are are very similar in that we are always looking for a way to organize data to tell us something we can use in a predictive sense or to evaluate. I would go absolutely crazy if I attempted to do the things you are doing, because I'd "never have enough data" to make it viable and I'd be laying in bed at 3 in the morning trying to think of a different approach or a better way or things of that nature.

ROTFLMAO! If you only knew how many times I’ve piled out of bed at 2 AM and spent the next 14 hours working on something, just because it bugged me, or gone through 6 years worth of scoresheets to grab some miniscule piece of data that no one but me could care about. It’s a real sickness.

Odds are good that I'd eventually become that guy that "writes math formulas on windows". *big grin*

I don’t write formulas. I go grab data and put it together until I see something that interests me.

Guys that are able to do lots of coll things with data are only able to do so because there was retrosheet that provided play by play data. When you only have boxscores and/or season stats, it becomes very difficult to come up with equally valid conclusions. This is illustrated by early Bill James and Palmer stuff. They laid some foundations for some very useful stuff, the incredibly useful stuff came about as a result of being able to use play-by-play data to obtain enough data for situations.

If you only knew how many times I’ve added fields, taken them away, moved them, and changed them over the years. It NEVER stops because they’re always something new to find, or something new someone else has found.

I admire your work. If you're up at 3 AM and need someone to talk to. Give me a shout, I'm probably available. Heh Heh.

You might just be surprised one day.

I’ve been beatin’ that RBI stuff around for a couple days now, and I’ve gotten it almost to the point where I feel comfortable with it. Trouble is, the closer I get to having something “decent”, I see other ways to look at it or other things to add that might make it “better”. Like I said, it never stops.

[scorekeeper]

OK sports fans, here’s a look at PBI’s as I see them, based on what we’ve been talking about. It takes a bit of getting used to, to figger out what’s goin’ on, but as you get familiar with the different elements, its really pretty simple.

pbi1.pdf

There’s a separate record for every at bat, indicated by WHICHATBAT. I look at them in sequence from the 1st to the last. The 1st thing I do for an at bat, is determine how many outs there were when it took place. That gives me the column OUTS.

Next I find out how many runners there were and where they were at. That gives me the column RUNNERS.

Then I run through a simple set of questions to determine how many points there were. 1st I look in the matrix of Runners Vs. Outs to get a value. Next I apply that value to one of the 5 possible ways to accumulate points.

The 1st is a HR. No matter what happens, a HR always generates at least 1 RBI, so the points it accumulates is pretty simple. POINTS = Value straight out of the Matrix determined by the # of outs.

The next possibility is that there is no one on and no HR is hit. That means the number of points will always be 0.

Next is if a runner is on 1st and there’s an RBI. That’s the value from the matrix added to the number of points already accumulated.

The same thing happens if a runner is on 2nd or 3rd and there’s an RBI. That would be the value from the matrix added to the number of points already accumulated.

That’s it for the at bat. The only difficult ones would be are like BPOS #7, the 2nd at bat. There was a HR hit with 1 out and a runner on 2nd. That’s 11 points for the HR and 5 for the runner on 2nd for a total of 16 points.

To be honest, as it sits, I still believe MRUs still give a better picture of how efficient an offense is at moving runners around the bases. That’s why I put MROs and MRUs on the report. To me, knowing that runners are being moved in 69& of the opportunities is a useful piece of information. Unless its the 1st game of the season, knowing that Joey did better at something in 1 game than Tommy is nice for awarding pieces of bubblegum, but I don’t know that it gives a lot of useful info to make other managing decisions.

We shall see what we shall see!