Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

How are Runs Really Created - Second Installment

August 25, 2002 - Chris Dial (e-mail)

Tango, trust me, it's not yawning -- it's digesting. I am thoroughly enjoying the work.

Sheehan: Pitcher Workloads (June 19, 2003)

Posted 10:54 p.m., June 19, 2003 (#13) - Chris Dial
  Part of the flaw, unless I missed an explanation, is that in 1993, the league got juiced. Then again in 1994.

These raw numbers don't mean much to me. What is the change *relative to the league* at these positions. Heck, the league ISO and SLG has gone up more than these positions have.

I looked it up - I'm right:
as a function of league average (2B Slg/Lge SLG)*100

Yes, it is better to subtract the group in qquestion, but that's too much work for this.

2B SLG pretty much has always been 93. 2B ISO has *dropped* by 10% from the earlier part of the century (the last century) - it averaged 88 from 03-48 and 75 from 53-03. SS SLG - 88-90 SS ISO - 72, but has fluctuated from 50 to 100 (in 1908). C SLG ~94 since 1938. C ISO - jumped into the 90s in 1953, and has stayed up there.

Stat Avg SD
2B slg 93 3.0
2B iso 81 7.8
SS slg 89 4.7
SS iso 75 11.2
C slg 92 3.8
C iso 88 8.1

And only the K rate has increased. The BB rate in Joe's article is pretty close to constant. Adding the two means little.

So, whether or not pitchers have to work harder, I don't know, but Joe's dataset doesn't appear to say anything like that *at all*.

Sheehan: Pitcher Workloads (June 19, 2003)

Posted 10:59 p.m., June 19, 2003 (#14) - Chris Dial
  My data
Year 2b slg 2B ISO SS SLG SS ISO C SLG C ISO
1903 95 94 93 91 87 83
1908 98 91 100 101 87 78
1913 99 88 89 80 89 81
1918 91 85 92 80 84 72
1923 97 93 87 70 89 81
1928 94 86 85 71 88 80
1933 94 87 91 83 91 80
1938 92 83 86 71 95 90
1943 95 86 91 75 91 78
1948 92 82 92 81 89 86
1953 92 78 89 75 94 92
1958 88 71 86 73 96 98
1963 90 73 87 68 97 96
1968 91 69 82 61 92 86
1973 92 74 77 50 95 94
1978 88 69 86 60 95 97
1983 93 76 88 82 95 95
1988 90 73 90 74 94 92
1993 92 78 88 68 97 100
1998 93 78 88 73 93 89
2003 96 85 95 87 98 97

Obviously the 2003 data may be skewed by sample size.

Evaluating Catchers (October 22, 2003)

Posted 1:49 p.m., October 27, 2003 (#17) - Chris Dial
  Really great stuff, Tango. I think it takes teh work Keith and I did to the next step - if catchers aren't lowering ERA, where is their value? ANd your work here is great.

UZR, 2000-2003 (December 21, 2003)

Posted 2:15 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#6) - Chris Dial
  Absent is Austin Kearns. How about a run-down of his scores? IMO, he's going to rival Erstad defesively.

I'm glad to see that people can understand that the difference btween the best SS and the worst is as much as the difference in the bats. Okay, after ARod. And moreso around the diamond - Bonds excluded.

UZR, 2000-2003, Adjusted by Difficulty of Position (December 21, 2003)

Posted 2:30 p.m., December 23, 2003 (#29) - Chris Dial (homepage)
  I don't have more granular data, but when I developed my defensive system off raw ZR numbers (not pbp), I discussed the weightings with Dale Stephenson, and I have those weightings:

SS/2B: (0.9895*plays made*0.75) + (0.0105*pm*1.06)

1B: (0.86*pm*0.75)+(0.125*pm*1.06)+(0.015*pm*1.37)

3B: (0.84*pm*0.75)+(0.158*pm*1.06)+(0.002*pm*1.37)

LF: [(0.76*pm*0.75)+(0.213*pm*1.06)+(0.026*pm*1.37)]*pitf + A*0.59

CF: [(0.76*pm*0.75)+(0.183*pm*1.06)+(0.057*pm*1.37)]*pitf + A*0.59

RF: [(0.76*pm*0.76)+(0.18*pm*1.06)+(0.06*pm*1.37)]*pitf + A*0.59

This comes from the defensive average/defensive runs by Sherri Nichols and the Baseball Workshop.

Tango's off-the-cuff guess of 90% and 70% is correct with respect to the difference - ~20%. It's actually 98.7 versus 76%

Try your analysis with these breakdowns.

BABIP and Speed (January 7, 2004)

Posted 11:50 p.m., January 8, 2004 (#14) - Chris Dial
  Yes, it's been pretty well known that RH pull GB hitters ROE the most, for some time. Not sure the date of that article, but Ron Johnson has mentioned similar stuff (from Tom Ruane, I think).

I don't believe ROE is a skill. If errors are defined uniformly, it can't be.

ROE's will also have less baserunner advancement than a regular hit.

I like "separate", but given the present alternatives, I prefer them in "outs" as opposed to "reached base". The player didn't do anything that created the error (as the rulebook defines errors). Meares ROEd. Isn't that at the Metrodome? Isn't much of that park factors? I certainly couldn't look at the data you ran, Tango, without an adjustment for parks (which can be found in the STATS books). The PF for errors will combine both the field and the home scorer (as some are kooks, but still most errors are correct). I looked - the Metrodome actually has a PF of 92 for infield errors. That's surprising.

Any reason you chose 200 PAs a season for 4 seasons? I think I would have set the cutoff a bit higher.

BABIP and Speed (January 7, 2004)

Posted 8:26 a.m., January 9, 2004 (#19) - Chris Dial
  What is the average value of a hit? I'm going with "more than a single". So I'll stick with ROE is less than a regular hit.

And while I'm no statistician, ROE distribution matters if it is going to be called a skill (or whatever). If it is a skill or trait, then the numbers should have some predictability year-to-year. Do they?

And I don't think the player deserves the "credit". The player in question hit a routine GB - why does he get *any* credit for another player not making his play? The critical aspect to this the definition of an error.

If using 100 PAs would work as well, run the numbers that way and let's see what happens. I think you'll find a wider rate distribution.

BABIP and Speed (January 7, 2004)

Posted 9:26 p.m., January 9, 2004 (#25) - Chris Dial
  Tango,
*do* we get persistencyt? That's my question. Does Pat Meares get 12 ROE, 0, 0, 10 ROE to get 22 in 4 years? That's not (to me) persistency *for an individual*. Thus it isn't an individual's skill.

If ther eis persistency, please show it - you showed Meares had the widest range - does he every year fall in teh + region? To this point, that hasn't been demonstrated here.

Baseball Graphs - FIP and DER (January 24, 2004)

Posted 10:52 a.m., January 26, 2004 (#4) - Chris Dial
  It's the gloves.

Baseball Graphs - FIP and DER (January 24, 2004)

Posted 3:59 p.m., January 29, 2004 (#12) - Chris Dial
  So, it's the gloves?