Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sabermetric Book

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The starting value for the next half inning is what I used for my win expectancy table.

    Comment


    • #47
      My copy arrived in the mail at home, and I can't read it, 'cause I'm stuck here at summer school.
      "Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit him is a communist."

      - Alvin Dark

      Comment


      • #48
        Just finished reading Tom's book. Fantastic stuff man.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Lou Diamond
          Just finished reading Tom's book. Fantastic stuff man.
          Cool, thanks!
          Author of THE BOOK -- Playing The Percentages In Baseball

          Comment


          • #50
            Yeah Tom...if you flushed out the LOBs with the team's WE after the inning completes...you would get a perfect .500 when totalled up I suspect.

            Comment


            • #51
              Tom, aren't you involved with the NHL too ?

              Comment


              • #52
                Yes, I do some work as a subcontractor for some teams. I can't really say any more than that.
                Author of THE BOOK -- Playing The Percentages In Baseball

                Comment


                • #53
                  Here's a question for you, Tango.

                  I'm not completey finished with the book, but I just wanted to make a point about the RE tables.

                  I don't recall you saying this specifically, but the data, as well as common sense would seem to suggest it. It stands to reason that there are times when the overall RE would lessen, but the likelihood of scoring, period, would increase.

                  For example, in the sac bunt chapter, there is a lot of talk about the 1 out, runner on second state as having a lower RE than the runner on 1st with no out state. Isn't it possible though, that the likelihood of scoring in general increases with runner at 2nd and 1 out, though the likelihood of scoring MULTIPLE runs decreases?

                  In fact, isn't this kind of the subtext of the whole high and low offensive environment issue? When it is less likely, in general, to score multiple runs (to string together numerous favorable offensive events) strategies that may help to scratch out runs (at the expense of potential big innings) become better choices.

                  My intuition would lead me to believe that such a phenomenon should exist in certain situations. I think that, in fact, that has to do with why sometimes the RE expectancies in two states, relative to eachother, seem counterintuitive. How about the rate at which we can expect that specific runner to score? Would it be different from the overall tables sometimes?
                  THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                  In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by digglahhh
                    Here's a question for you, Tango.

                    I'm not completey finished with the book, but I just wanted to make a point about the RE tables.

                    I don't recall you saying this specifically, but the data, as well as common sense would seem to suggest it. It stands to reason that there are times when the overall RE would lessen, but the likelihood of scoring, period, would increase.

                    For example, in the sac bunt chapter, there is a lot of talk about the 1 out, runner on second state as having a lower RE than the runner on 1st with no out state. Isn't it possible though, that the likelihood of scoring in general increases with runner at 2nd and 1 out, though the likelihood of scoring MULTIPLE runs decreases?

                    In fact, isn't this kind of the subtext of the whole high and low offensive environment issue? When it is less likely, in general, to score multiple runs (to string together numerous favorable offensive events) strategies that may help to scratch out runs (at the expense of potential big innings) become better choices.

                    My intuition would lead me to believe that such a phenomenon should exist in certain situations. I think that, in fact, that has to do with why sometimes the RE expectancies in two states, relative to eachother, seem counterintuitive. How about the rate at which we can expect that specific runner to score? Would it be different from the overall tables sometimes?
                    I had similar thoughts, digglahhh. The bunt that moves the runner from first to second and gives up an out is trading guaranteed baserunner advancement for the POTENTIAL that the baserunner will advance. If you have confidence in the ability of the next hitter to get that single...it might still be worth it.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      BP did an article on this a few years back and they showed the % of scoring just one run by base/out situation. If I recall correctly it still didn't look like a good play but I think it was a simple study. One that didn't factor in other variables like errors and runner advancement through other means.


                      There will always be situations and scenarios in which averages will not apply. That one should do the opposite of what the RE tells you to do.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        What you want, ALWAYS, is win expectancy (WE). And you want the win expectancy based on the exact context you are in.

                        Run expectancy (RE) does a good job in standing-in for WE in most situations. It's in the late and close games where you should forget about RE and concentrate on WE. However, WE is based on RE. So, properly manipulating RE will get you WE.

                        I do provide the "chance of scoring" in Tables 8 and 9 I believe. You can see for yourself how often you will score 0,1,2,3,4,5 runs from any base-out state. You can bump them up or down based on whatever your current context is.

                        In short, establish the chances of winning given the context, and use the average-based RE/WE tables as a starting point.

                        So, I'm not really sure what the issue is.
                        Author of THE BOOK -- Playing The Percentages In Baseball

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          There's no issue. I was just making an observation.

                          According to table 8:

                          1B, 0 out- you will go scoreless 55.7% of the time.

                          2B, 1 out- you will go scoreless 58.6% of the time.

                          So right there, it looks like the bunt is a bad idea, even when trying to get only one run and accepting the one run despite downplaying the potential for a big inning.

                          It is interesting to note though, that the likelihood of scoring 1 run is almost 6% higher in the runner on 2nd, 1 out case than the runner on first, 0 out case.

                          The RE difference is big, almost .23 between the two states. But the likelihood of scoring itself shifts only 3% between the two. Taking into consideration your players due up and so on and so forth, that 3% can possibly disappear. So, if you are "playing for one," say in extra innings. The bunt could be a good play, depending on the players involved.

                          I know that you talk about this and, again, I give you credit for reminding the reader that the percentages increase and decrease based upon the quality of the players involved.

                          A good thing to take from these tables is that, seeing as how you have to attempt things that may often be bad percentage plays just for their threat to remain credible, one can select the spots in which they "hurt you the least" to attempt them.
                          THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT COME WITH A SCORECARD

                          In the avy: AZ - Doe or Die

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by digglahhh
                            There's no issue. I was just making an observation.

                            According to table 8:

                            1B, 0 out- you will go scoreless 55.7% of the time.

                            2B, 1 out- you will go scoreless 58.6% of the time.

                            So right there, it looks like the bunt is a bad idea, even when trying to get only one run and accepting the one run despite downplaying the potential for a big inning.

                            It is interesting to note though, that the likelihood of scoring 1 run is almost 6% higher in the runner on 2nd, 1 out case than the runner on first, 0 out case.

                            The RE difference is big, almost .23 between the two states. But the likelihood of scoring itself shifts only 3% between the two. Taking into consideration your players due up and so on and so forth, that 3% can possibly disappear. So, if you are "playing for one," say in extra innings. The bunt could be a good play, depending on the players involved.

                            I know that you talk about this and, again, I give you credit for reminding the reader that the percentages increase and decrease based upon the quality of the players involved.

                            A good thing to take from these tables is that, seeing as how you have to attempt things that may often be bad percentage plays just for their threat to remain credible, one can select the spots in which they "hurt you the least" to attempt them.
                            The missing element in the book is context.

                            In an average situation, it's a bad idea to bunt. If the batter you're bunting with is...say..Yuniesky Betancourt, and the next man up is ICHIRO...it's probably a very GOOD idea.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Pages 253-257 shows the RE from a weak and strong batter at the plate.

                              Page 260-261 deals with the on-deck hitter, with the statement "sac more often with a low-walk, low-OBP hitter on deck".

                              The Book goes on to discuss the speed and proficiency of the batter as well as the speed of the baserunner, the count, the pitcher bunting, close and late games.

                              Which element is missing?
                              Author of THE BOOK -- Playing The Percentages In Baseball

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Yeah I know Tango...I was referring to the basic tables this discussion was talking about...not the whole big sac bunt chapter.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X