While I was home this weekend, I spent a few hours reading Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game Is Wrong (Paperback), and while I no longer watch baseball (major exceptions being the All-Star Game, the World Series, and the College World series when there are colleges I like involved), I will certainly never look at the game the same way again. The way they break things down and analyze what we consider to be truisms is pretty fascinating, and I learned a good bit in just a few hours. They make a persuasive case that all the stats you have relied on from box scores for years really skew the way you look at what is really important in the game.
The clearest exampled was the chapter on the value of stolen bases- long story short, if you are not successful stealing bases 63% of the time or better, you are costing your team runs. While we all thought Ricky Henderson was a huge assest, with his 76% success rate, he was barely adding any value. Granted, there are things you can not quantify, such as pitcher distraction, etc., and the authors fully acknowledge that, it was rather eye-opening.
At any rate, worth a read if any of you are so inclined. One of the authors is none other than Nate Silver from FiveThirtyEight (writing for Baseball Prospectus is his day job), which is why I picked up the book in the first place.
PS- Before rabid baseball fans come here to tell me I should watch it more and that I am really missing out, as a lifelong Pirates fan, a team poised to set the major league record for futility as they lose they post their 16th or 17th consecutive losing season, I am fully aware what I am missing. Not much.
Napoleon
Matt Y. a year of 2 ago did an interesting post on how a study found that it generally cost a football team to punt instead of going for it on 4th down. Really eye opening.
Punchy
Holy Carp! A baseball thread! Booyah.
Favorite sport. So much to analyze, so much stateegery, plus speed, agility, arrogance, egos, etc. Now I’m forced to buy your damn book. Unless you can share it. If you send it to me, I’ll read it in a week and send it back. I’m serious.
As for the stolen bases stat, bah. Do they factor in the number of times the mere threat of a stealing leads to a pitcher pick-off error, or catcher overthrowing 2 and the runner advancing? What about the hit and run to stay out of the DP? I think the stat that means the most (just personal opinion) is hits with RISP with 2 outs. All about the Clutch Hit.
Anonymous Jim
As a long time Pirates fan myself, I am glad to see Steelers training camp open.
Elvis Elvisberg
It’s no accident that a guy who works on fighting stupid conventional wisdom in sports is now doing the same thing in politics. Both fields are largely dominated by folk wisdom, among practitioners and journalists alike.
Numbers and facts are welcome to objective observers, and resisted mightily by those on the inside.
BTW, some guy went to Ft. Leavenworth to give a presentation about Moneyball recently. That’s good to hear. Not every institution values results over peer pressure.
Elvis Elvisberg
There’s no such thing as a clutch hitter.
Ed in NJ
You are so right. The silliest stats are those that someone place more importance on hits/runs scored in late innings or with 2 outs.
As a Yankee fan, I’ve lived through a couple of years of denigrating Alex Rodriguez’s accomplishments because he has the audacity to hit home runs in the early innings of games, as if you get score more points for clutchiness.
As for stats, I look at OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging) for hitters and WHIP (walks + hits to innings pitched). Batting average, RBIs, ERA and wins are vastly inferior ways to evaluate players.
The Grand Panjandrum
I enjoy baseball quite a bit but don’t follow it like I once did. That is more a function of not having a lot of free time to do much other than be a pain in the ass commenter on this and a couple of other blogs.
Attending a MLB game is a very expensive and time consuming prospect. AAA (or any minor league) baseball is a far more satisfying family outing, not to mention that a family of four can actually have a great time for about 50-60 bucks. We went to a Rockies game (while on a little road trip to Denver last summer) and it cost us 200+ dollars for all four of us. An exorbitant fee in order to watch roided up prima donnas scratch their nuts in my opinion.
Thanks for the tip on Nate’s book. I’ll pick up a copy right away.
My favorite baseball book is Take Time for Paradise by late baseball commissioner Bart Giamatti. The book is as much about this country and her people as it is about baseball. Prior to taking over the helm of MLB, Giamatti had been a Professor of Renaissance Literature and President of Yale University. His sublime prose makes it as much a fine piece of literature as it is an homage to the American people and our National pastime.
rob
I don’t go very often; But watching a Dayton Dragon (Single A) games is WAY more fun for me than going to a Reds game.
The parking is easy, every seat is good. I can hear the players talking on the field. The players act like they are glad to be there and appreciate the fans.
I must not be the only one. The Dragons have sold out for 8 straight seasons.
Sarcastro
Did they compare modern base-stealing with other eras like the 70s/80s with runner-friendly artificial turf prevalent or the dead-ball era when 25 homers would win you the slugging title?
I love base-stealing. I love bunts and sacrifice hits. I love strategy and speed. I loved Engel Stadium’s 471 foot pull to dead center. And I no longer watch baseball because it’s all juiced balls in tiny little parks.
Gus
I feel for you Pirates fans. Look to the Twins and the Rays, though. There really is hope…if your front office isn’t a bunch of shitheads.
Sid Bream
Sorry I broke your heart with my blazing speed, big man.
crack
Sarcastro:
That analysis is based on the value of an out vs. the value of a base. So the dead ball would have an effect, but the ease of stealing a base wouldn’t, that would be baked into the %.
Also large parks would make outs even more valuable thus lessening the value of a stolen base relative to an out. A 471 foot fence would decrease home runs but it would make the outfield hard to cover. Coors Field has this problem, they made the fences deep but it left a huge outfield.
I like steals. I love suicide squeezes. I appreciate sac flies. I hate sac bunts, what is enjoyable about bunting a guy from 1st to 2nd? Why give up the out? If you bunt a guy 1st->2nd then 2nd->3rd you’ve just taken away the sac fly. I hate sac bunts.
Andrew
If you like that book, you should really check out The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball. Think of what you just read as Baseball 101 for serious analysts and The Book as baseball 301.
Tax Analyst
Well, a lot depends on the team that’s doing the running. Do they have problems putting together big innings? If so then base-stealing and other “action” options; hit & run, taking the extra-base as a base runner (going from 1st to 3rd on singles or trying to hustle singles in the gap or down the line into doubles) are important ways to try and manufacture runs. The Angels are a good example of a team that uses aggressive base-running to good advantage. The Dodgers are an example of a team that is somewhat forced to try and steal runs because they lack consistent power throughout their lineup. On the other side of the coin the Red Sox have plenty of power they also have a couple fellows with 30+ steals this season, I believe. What does it all mean? It means it nice to have a balance; to be able to score runs in different ways, depending on the type of game you’re involved in. If you can’t, well, it can be a struggle to be over .500 (see Dodgers).
As far as the “63%” statistic John noted, yes, that’s really not a good base-stealing percentage. I’d say anything under 80% is an “iffy” proposition…otherwise you are giving up too many outs on the basepaths, taking the bat out of hitter’s hands with men on base and going through the fat part of your order fewer times. The same goes for aggressive base-running…be aggressive, yes, but be smart. You want those 3-4-5-6 hitters to get that extra at bat in the game…at least on most teams.
That’s my inflated 2 cents worth for the morning…gotta class to teach in…uh…4 minutes…later
Craigo
I’ve been looking for more material on this ever since I read Moneyball. Thanks for the tip. (And as a fellow Pirates fan, I feel your pain. But hey, we won last night.)
I’m waiting for someone to take a similar approach to football, which will be much harder. Football Outsiders tries, but too many of their stats just feel like number-crunching for its own sake – exactly the sort of thing Bill James warned against.
Speaking of football, will you be heading up to Latrobe anytime soon John? I’m taking my parents today. In fact, I should be leaving now.
Progressive Libertarian
In Moneyball, they knock the steal on much the same statistical basis. The problem is that the stats only count completed steal attempts (either positive or negative). What the numbers are missing in this particular situation is so significant that it renders the statistical “appraisal” fairly useless.
Naturally, pitcher distraction is a factor. But a solid base-stealer will actually alter both the pitches thrown and the configuration of the defense in many instances.
One assumes that a pitcher/catcher’s default pitching selection is the one optimally designed to get a batter out. If a team is concerned about a base stealer, however, it will deviate from this optimal strategy. The most obvious example of this is the pitch-out, in which the pitcher intentionally wastes a pitch and provides the batter with a more favorable count. However, a pitcher is also likely to throw more fastballs and less low offspeed pitches when there is a threat at first base. Again, this is a deviation from the pitcher’s optimal pitching strategy and provides an advantage to the batter.
With two outs, the configuration of the defense will shift with a base-stealer on first as either the second baseman will shade in towards second to cover a possible steal. Again, this is a shift from the optimal fielding strategy vis-a-vis the batter and is thus another benefit of base-stealing. With less than two outs there is not likely to be a perceptible difference as the infield will generally be playing at double play depth regardless of who is standing on first base.
If as a result of any of this, the batter gets a better pitch to hit or knocks the ball through an expanded hole in the infield, the baserunner gets no credit for his “threat” to steal. Indeed, the result actually weighs AGAINST the steal statistically because it counts as batting production in a non-steal world. Same deal if the runner is actually stealing and the batter hits a ground ball to the area vacated by the second baseman. This textbook “hit-and-run” play can occur organically if the batter simply swings away while the runner is in motion. This can be the difference between a double play and having runners at first and third, but the steal-in-progress does not show up in box score and thus the hit is (erroneously) counted as offensive production in the sit-around-on-your-ass-at-first-base category.
I’m not sure how you would actually quantify the positive effects of base-stealing (I’d be interested to hear any ideas), but the current statistical analyses have little value.
Eural Joiner
I’m not a big fan of the sport in general but one of the cable channels (Science? Discover?) regularly runs a little program on “sabermetrics” that sounds like the same thing so catch it if you can. I teach a high school history class and it worked well one year as an introduction to the Enlightenment – the kids responded to the sports side of things and it really emphasizes the increasing quantification and statistical analysis of the sport. They even have r and d groups placing computer chips in the turf and player’s shoes to develop more complete stats on what works and what doesn’t!
Face
The pitcher almost always hits the ball on the ground. Ergo, an easy double-play. The sac puts the guy on 2nd, keeps it at 1 out, and doesn’t require the pitcher to run very far/fast.
This is why you almost never see a sac bunt in the AL.
Tax Analyst
Progressive Libertarian – Good point about the pitch selection. Yes, a base stealing threat will bring the next hitter more fastballs, less off-space stuff, fewer pitches in the low-end or below the strike zone, as well as making the pitcher work from the stretch and perhaps also rushing his delivery to the plate. All things that can immensely benefit the batter.
Sometimes the threat of a steal does more than actually attempting it.
Tax Analyst
duh…that’s what I meant.
Bubba
As Elvis wrote above,
“It’s no accident that a guy who works on fighting stupid conventional wisdom in sports is now doing the same thing in politics. Both fields are largely dominated by folk wisdom, among practitioners and journalists alike.”
Just in this thread you can see much on how conventional wisdom still drives much of the discussion. I’ve been reading Baseball Prospectus (and other more “serious” stat analysis sites) for many years now, and I can assure you that pitcher distraction, keeping out of the DP, etc., are all well considered in most analyses. So “Baseball Between the Numbers” was actually a ho-hum read since there was so much “duh” in there. In fact, part of me hopes that their books, etc., don’t succeed because I’m able to clean up in my fantasy baseball leagues because of their analysis. God, but I love baseball.
In any case, I’m so happy to see Nate putting his excellent regression techniques to play in the political polling system.
Bubba
As I was writing that, I realized that there might be some kind of parallel between baseball and liberalism. You’ve got billionaire owners (or corporations) that are generally played by the media as victims of a strong players union. You’ve got multi-millionaire players who are generally villified, but who now have entered into the “celebrity class”, which feeds the media beast. In fact, that media beast obtains a lot of ad revenue, which is paid for by lower/middle class Americans.
Those lower/middle class fans who are slowly getting priced out of baseball games by wealthy owner boxes. Case in point: the new Mets and Yankee stadiums have many fewer seats, yet the revenue streams are expected to increase because the new seats will be much more expensive. Also, there is heightened security to prevent fans from “upgrading” by moving into pricier seats after games start. In addition, the stadia get tax breaks, public financing, and require substantial infrastructure improvements, while the actual tangible benefits are felt by the billionaire owners.
Somewhere in this story there must be something interesting about how this is affecting (or not affecting) Latin America. For example, numerous Dominicans are currently playing MLB, yet the country remains very poor. Is there an angle about taking natural resources from 3rd world countries?
There’s an interesting series of parallels in there that somebody has probably written a book about. I find I have to ignore the business of baseball to remain a fan.
Andrew
Progressive Libertarian,
There have been studies that try to quantify pitcher distraction and basically found it nill. The pitcher performs just about as well with any runner on first base versus a known base stealing threat.
The steal is a useful tool. If you read The Book, they have charts for when it is most useful. The standard thinking is that you need to be safe 75% of the time for it to be worthwhile, but this is not the case. In certain came conditions, being safe 50% of the time is adequate.
People don’t really seem to understand what Moneyball is about. Sure it’s about using statistics, but it’s more than that. Every statistic is either poorly or greatly correlated to success. The key to what the A’s where doing was find statistics that were correlated highly with success, but were not valued by the other teams. At the time that stat was OBP. Now OBP is fairly or overvalued. If you’ve noticed the A’s now are building teams with great defensive players, as defense is undervalued by the other teams.
lethargytartare
there’s a problematic assumption underlying the assertion that sabermetrics et al are somehow informative and predictive:
that contests between baseball players are determined by the laws of probability.
They’re not.
Vlad
“The clearest exampled was the chapter on the value of stolen bases- long story short, if you are not successful stealing bases 63% of the time or better, you are costing your team runs. While we all thought Ricky Henderson was a huge assest, with his 76% success rate, he was barely adding any value.”
Yes and no.
The break-even point isn’t static – it fluctuates with league run environment (i.e. it’s lower for Dodger Stadium in the late ’60s, and higher for Coors Field in the early ’00s).
Also, Henderson WAS a huge asset. It’s just that most of that value was coming from his power, OBP, and defense. And your SB% is off a bit – for his career, Rickey had 1406 SB in 1741 attempts, for a SB% of 80.8%. As such, his running was always helpful (if overrated).
If you like nu-skool baseball discussion, you might want to check out http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org . It’s pretty keen.
Vlad
Oh, and if you’re interested in run expectancy matrices and such, I learned a good deal from this book.
Andrew
lethargytartare,
Sure there is skill involved, so it’s not 100% probability. But there is A LOT of probability involved. How many times have you seen a week hit ball drop into a hole, or a screaming line drive go right into a glove. Over a large enough sample we can say with a high degree of certainty that things will regress to the mean. This gives us the ability to make predictions on a large scale. I can’t tell you what anyone will do in one at bat, but I can tell you with confidence intervals what they will do over a course of a season.