value of doubles

[brett]

I have been seeing that relative to a single, a double is worth about 1.5 (and a little change), a triple 2.2 and a home run 3.0.

Or per base a single being worth 1
2B: .75 (slightly more)
3B: 0.67
HR: 0.75

Now first of all, I've read people saying that a problem of OPS+ is that it doesn't weight home runs as much as it should. I don't understand that. A home run gets you 4 bases in your slugging percentage, but its real value is less than 4 times the value of a single, and a hair less than twice the value of a double. If anything, doesn't OPS+ underrate singles a lot, and doubles a little? If not, please explain what's wrong with my numbers.

Next:
If we take away the value of a single from each one we get:

2B: 0.5
3B: 1.2
HR: 2.0

or divided by the number of extra bases:

2B: 0.5
3B: 0.6
HR: 0.67

Now I am wondering how in the heck a triple can be worth more than twice as much more than a single than a double is.

A double has most of the RBI ability of a triple. Don't guys score from first on triples most of the time? If they did so all of the time then a double would have as much RBI value as a triple.

And a double puts you into position to be batted in almost as easily as a triple. If batters scored from second on doubles all the time then it would nearly have the run scoring value of a triple.

HOW does a triple end up with not just MORE but MORE THAN TWICE the added value of a double if a double drives in most of what a triple does and if a a player scores from second nearly as easily as from third (and at least half as easily). I assume that doubles score fewer guys from first, and fewer guys score from second on singles than is commonly assumed. Nevertheless, getting to second seems vastly more valuable than being on first. A triple just does not seem to give THAT much more than a double.


Anyway, my real question was going to be this. Assuming that the triple value is due to the underlined assumption in the paragraph above, then wouldn't the value of doubles and stolen bases be a lot higher for a fast baserunner who can score from second 80+% of the time on singles?

ISN'T A STEAL of second by a fast runner worth a lot more than a steal of second by a guy who only scores 40% of the time from second on a single?

Granted getting a slower runner off of first is an advantage, and a CS of a fast runner costs more, but to put a number on it, what would the value of a double be compared to singles, triples, home runs IF batters scored from second on singles 100% of the time?

[Second Base Coach]

A steal of second by a runner on first (when there is only a runner on first) actually hurts the hitter. As we have seen, batting average sinks like a stone once there is a runner on second rather than just a runner on first.

So in an effort to cause trouble, I say the linear weights value of a straight steal of second base might have to be lowered because of the harm it does to the batter at the plate.

(another reason why I don't like linear weights)

I wonder what the saber guys have to say about that... not my opinion of linear weights, but how the positive of the runner will likely lead to the lower production by the hitter, (as he is now lured by some overpowering desire to suddenly ground out to second base and otherwise try to make a productive out.)

[brett]

A steal of second by a runner on first (when there is only a runner on first) actually hurts the hitter. As we have seen, batting average sinks like a stone once there is a runner on second rather than just a runner on first.

So in an effort to cause trouble, I say the linear weights value of a straight steal of second base might have to be lowered because of the harm it does to the batter at the plate.

(another reason why I don't like linear weights)

I think linear weights would already account for this. I think its based on actual scoring rate changes AFTER an event happens so its even possible that the low relative value of a double or steal in linear weights is DUE to a decrease in productivity of the hitter.

[SABR Matt]

I do not understand your question.

The basic linear weight value of events:

1B) 0.47
2B) 0.78
3B) 1.08
HR) 1.40

Ratio'ed with the single:

1B) 1
2B) 1.66
3B) 2.30
HR) 2.98

Essentially 5/3, 7/3, 9/3

Seems reasonable to me. What is your problem with this?

[brett]

I do not understand your question.

The basic linear weight value of events:

1B) 0.47
2B) 0.78
3B) 1.08
HR) 1.40

Ratio'ed with the single:

1B) 1
2B) 1.66
3B) 2.30
HR) 2.98

Essentially 5/3, 7/3, 9/3

Seems reasonable to me. What is your problem with this?

My question is:

Why is a triple worth as much more than a double as a double is worth more than a single?

IF runners scored from second on singles 100% and if doubles scored runners from first 100%, then can you tell me how much a double would be worth.

A double seems to have almost the drive-in potential of a triple, and a runner on second scores on a lot of things that would score someone from third.

Also, why do people say that OPS+ undervalues home runs when they are worth actually the least per base?

[AstrosFan]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...or-the-masses/

There's your answer on which components OPS underrates and overrates when compared to linear weights and why.

[brett]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...or-the-masses/

There's your answer on which components OPS underrates and overrates when compared to linear weights and why.

thank you. It looks to show that the problem with OPS+ is the double counting of the "first base" gained from a hit. d'you think that doubles are worth more for faster runners?

[AstrosFan]

On the 3B vs. 2B thing: Let's say you open up the inning with a triple. Any kind of hit scores you, something that could happen if you had doubled, but a lower percentage of the time. However, you could also score from third on a sac fly, sac bunt, fielder's choice, passed ball, wild pitch, error, etc. The odds of scoring on those after a double are virtually nil. It's not just the effect of a hit that matters.

[AstrosFan]

thank you. It looks to show that the problem with OPS+ is the double counting of the "first base" gained from a single. d'you think that doubles are worth more for faster runners?

Intuitively, yes, but I have no idea how I'd go about customizing the weights.

[Ubiquitous]

When Adam Dunn hits a double it is a deep double and he makes it to the base easily. When a fast runner hits a deep double he makes it to the bag even easier but he pulls up because he knows he'll either be out at third or it would be too close to call to make it worth the risk. When Adam Dunn hits a line drive to right that doesn't go bouncing around or shoot through the gap he gets a single. When a fast runner does it he gets a double a good chunk of the time. But in neither case is it likely that a runner on first is going to score and a certain amount of time the runner on second is not going to score regardless of the speed of the hitter.

Now then what happens after the hitter becomes a runner is important in terms of speed. A speedy runner on first is more beneficial to the next batter than a Adam Dunn type runner on second. Consequently the next batter and batters hits will be worth more when they have a speedy runner on in front of them.

It doesn't matter what the hit gets labeled as what matters what kind of hit it was and where it went. In otherwords double or single is meaningless. What matters is line drive through the gap in right or deep flyball off the wall so on and so on.

[brett]

It doesn't matter what the hit gets labeled as what matters what kind of hit it was and where it went. In otherwords double or single is meaningless. What matters is line drive through the gap in right or deep flyball off the wall so on and so on.

I get that in terms of driving in runs. Is Adam Dunn that slow by the way? I think a Deion Sanders is going to score from second on 90% of non-infield singles. I bet McGwire was about 40% at least in the late 90s.

[Ubiquitous]

Yes, but Deion and Mark didn't hit the non-single to drive themselves in. Somebody else did and it is their non-single hit that becomes more valuable or less valuable based on the runner. Beforehand Deion's double could have only moved the runner to third and Mark's could have scored the runner and it all depends on how each hitter hits the ball.

[Tango Tiger]

Brett, go read my Runs Created series on my site.

***

You will score from a double around 43% of the time. A double will about .34 runs to the runners on base.

You will score from a triple around 60% of the time. A triple will add about .42 runs to the runners on base.

All more-or-less.

Or, there is a .30 runs difference between a double and single, as there is between a triple and double. All more-or-less. There's no mystery here. If there is, you are looking at things the wrong way.

And whoever is saying that the HR is undervalued in OPS+, you should stop listening to those people.

[brett]

Brett, go read my Runs Created series on my site.

***

You will score from a double around 43% of the time. A double will about .34 runs to the runners on base.

You will score from a triple around 60% of the time. A triple will add about .42 runs to the runners on base.

All more-or-less.

Or, there is a .30 runs difference between a double and single, as there is between a triple and double. All more-or-less. There's no mystery here. If there is, you are looking at things the wrong way.

And whoever is saying that the HR is undervalued in OPS+, you should stop listening to those people.

What I'm asking then is since you score from a double around 43% what about a guy who runs a lot better than average and scores from second more like 55% of the time. Don't the value of his doubles go up in terms of probable run production? Or a McGwire who is held up at third on most singles. He might be under 30%. I know it depends on the number of outs.

Also as a side note, is there evidence that batters go more for hits, especially extra base hits with 2 outs, and walk less, K more, hit more doubles and home runs?