byco42 said:

And, in every instance, walks help a team do that.

Click to expand...

There are also instances where walks could hurt a team. If there wasn't there would never be an intentional walk.

brewer229 said:

There are also instances where walks could hurt a team. If there wasn't there would never be an intentional walk.

Click to expand...

When ever you add base-runners, run expectancy rises. Bolded are the deltas in typical IBB situations. An an IBB can also hurt the defensive team, too.

Empty 0.461 0.243 0.095
1 _ _ 0.831 0.489 0.214
_ 2 _ 1.068 0.644 0.305
1 2 _ 1.373 0.908 0.343
_ _ 3 1.426 0.865 0.413
1 _ 3 1.798 1.140 0.471
_ 2 3 1.920 1.352 0.570
1 2 3 2.282 1.520 0.736

jdeb said:

In my previous posts I agreed to the fact that he has work to do in regards to working the game. You sorted the the list via CERA which is fine but opposite to what I was pointing out about his defensive side of the game.

I was listening to MLB on XM recently and his name was mentioned as one of the better defensive catchers in the AL and should be looked as one to watch in 2016.

I am happy with him as our starting catcher and look forward to watching his growth in 2016.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Actually I listed cERA and dWAR. Not putting a lot of stock in dWAR, and I almost posted the fangraphs link that Rebbiv did as well but thought it redundant.

Only reason I posted them is because I had never heard anyone describe him as one of the top in the A.L. (or anywhere) and figured maybe it was from something Dan Dickerson or Mario Impemba/Rod Allan might have said, but then they're paid to say things like that. I knew the stats didn't support it.

byco42 said:

When ever you add base-runners, run expectancy rises. Bolded are the deltas in typical IBB situations. An an IBB can also hurt the defensive team, too.

Empty 0.461 0.243 0.095
1 _ _ 0.831 0.489 0.214
_ 2 _ 1.068 0.644 0.305
1 2 _ 1.373 0.908 0.343
_ _ 3 1.426 0.865 0.413
1 _ 3 1.798 1.140 0.471
_ 2 3 1.920 1.352 0.570
1 2 3 2.282 1.520 0.736

Click to expand...

So you're saying in an interleague game, 2 outs, runner on third and Iggy at bat, if he walks and brings up Justin Verlander, you expect us to have a better chance at scoring runs that inning than if Iggy were to swing the bat?

1) Two outs runner at 3rd with Iggy batting
2) Two outs runner on 1st and 3rd and Verlander batting.

If you had you choice of the above what would you choose?

brewer229 said:

So you're saying in an interleague game, 2 outs, runner on third and Iggy at bat, if he walks and brings up Justin Verlander, you expect us to have a better chance at scoring runs that inning than if Iggy were to swing the bat?

1) Two outs runner at 3rd with Iggy batting
2) Two outs runner on 1st and 3rd and Verlander batting.

If you had you choice of the above what would you choose?

Click to expand...

What if it was the 9th inning down 3-0? PH for JV. So the IBB would be the better option because you need 3 to tie.

Lol.

Also I've seen pitchers throw 4 balls and the next guy comes up and he throws a WP. :cheers:

Mitchrapp said:

What if it was the 9th inning down 3-0? PH for JV. So the IBB would be the better option because you need 3 to tie.

Lol.

Also I've seen pitchers throw 4 balls and the next guy comes up and he throws a WP. :cheers:

Click to expand...

Exactly. Every situation is different. Making blanket statements that a walk always increases the probability of scoring that inning is foolish.

It makes the assumption every situation is the same and every player is the same. Which anyone can tell you is not the case.

I'm willing to bet that the leadoff hitter taking a leadoff walk scores at a higher percentage than then #5 or #6 hitter taking a leadoff walk.

If everything equals out it wouldn't matter who played the game or what order they batted in.

brewer229 said:

Exactly. Every situation is different. Making blanket statements that a walk always increases the probability of scoring that inning is foolish.

It makes the assumption every situation is the same and every player is the same. Which anyone can tell you is not the case.

I'm willing to bet that the leadoff hitter taking a leadoff walk scores at a higher percentage than then #5 or #6 hitter taking a leadoff walk.

If everything equals out it wouldn't matter who played the game or what order they batted in.

Click to expand...

Even if the probability of scoring goes down after a walk, walks generally forces the pitcher to throw more pitches than he otherwise had to, which could knock out the starter or thin the bullpen in a typical 3-7 game series. Walks are a positive, maybe not the best outcome, but a positive nonetheless. But its all apples and oranges at the end of the day.

brewer229 said:

Exactly. Every situation is different. Making blanket statements that a walk always increases the probability of scoring that inning is foolish.

It makes the assumption every situation is the same and every player is the same. Which anyone can tell you is not the case.

I'm willing to bet that the leadoff hitter taking a leadoff walk scores at a higher percentage than then #5 or #6 hitter taking a leadoff walk.

If everything equals out it wouldn't matter who played the game or what order they batted in.

Click to expand...

Was there a blanket statement? And even if there was, how often will there scenario happen for an AL team? There are no guarantees with anything. I think everyone agrees with that.

Mitchrapp said:

Was there a blanket statement? And even if there was, how often will there scenario happen for an AL team? There are no guarantees with anything. I think everyone agrees with that.

Click to expand...

There was mention on how a walk always increases run probability. So I laid out a scenario where it most likely would not.

The scenario was an extreme one, but still a likely one when watching all games. The data posted was for all teams not just the tigers. So I'm sure at least one NL team runs into the scenario early in the game almost daily.

I do think everyone realizes there are no gauarntees.

brewer229 said:

There was mention on how a walk always increases run probability. So I laid out a scenario where it most likely would not.

Click to expand...

Adding a base-runner without an out being made always increases run expectancy. It does not account for the ability of the next hitter, whether it's Mike Trout or Eddie Gaedel. It's a results-based statistic that renews every season. Your rare exception (since 1% of all PAs for all hitters is bases loaded with two out) is included in these metrics. So is every other PA in the season.

The number of pitchers who had 50+ PA last season is 41. Your exception is so rare it barely figures into the metric.

byco42 said:

Adding a base-runner without an out being made always increases run expectancy. It does not account for the ability of the next hitter, whether it's Mike Trout or Eddie Gaedel.

Click to expand...

that's why you can't say it "always increases run expectancy"

tomdalton22 said:

that's why you can't say it "always increases run expectancy"

Click to expand...

Exactly

A double play can score a run with a man on third and no outs... a line out could cause a triple play. Are ground balls better than line drives? Apples and oranges, fellas.

byco42 said:

Adding a base-runner without an out being made always increases run expectancy. It does not account for the ability of the next hitter, whether it's Mike Trout or Eddie Gaedel. It's a results-based statistic that renews every season. Your rare exception (since 1% of all PAs for all hitters is bases loaded with two out) is included in these metrics. So is every other PA in the season.

The number of pitchers who had 50+ PA last season is 41. Your exception is so rare it barely figures into the metric.

Click to expand...

Why does it matter how many pitchers had 50+ PA? Wouldn't the total number of PA by pitchers matter. If a pitchers gets 1 PA that's still 1 more PA by a pitcher than a position player.

Yes the example was extreme, but was used to show the greatest difference between quality of hitters. Tigers may be more likely to score with a guy on 3rd and 1 out with Victor at the plate than they would be with 1 out guy on 1st and 3rd and Castellanos at bat.

You shown the greatest flaw in those metrics. It looks at everything in a vacuum, not in terms of actual game play.

Yes over the course of the 2,430 games a year an average appears, but those averages are just that, averages. There can be wide range of actual results at both ends that get you to that middle of the road average.

Also I don't think I mentioned bases loaded two outs.

brewer229 said:

Why does it matter how many pitchers had 50+ PA? Wouldn't the total number of PA by pitchers matter. If a pitchers gets 1 PA that's still 1 more PA by a pitcher than a position player.

Yes the example was extreme, but was used to show the greatest difference between quality of hitters. Tigers may be more likely to score with a guy on 3rd and 1 out with Victor at the plate than they would be with 1 out guy on 1st and 3rd and Castellanos at bat.

You shown the greatest flaw in those metrics. It looks at everything in a vacuum, not in terms of actual game play.

Yes over the course of the 2,430 games a year an average appears, but those averages are just that, averages. There can be wide range of actual results at both ends that get you to that middle of the road average.

Also I don't think I mentioned bases loaded two outs.

Click to expand...

RE is not speculative. It is calculated from actual game play. It changes from year to year, but it is based on the aggregate run production of all games in a given season.

Link

Perhaps this link can clarify what you are trying to convey. Notice that half the NL teams were below league average in RE24, which simply means how it performed in scoring runners from every base-out situation. It does not mean that RE decreased when the Braves (last in team RE24) were batting any more than it did when a pitcher was at the plate. It all factors into the metrics and the metrics apply to all teams.

You are correct in saying that different players have different outcomes, but they are measured against the league and not in a vacuum and the aggregate metrics all prove that RE increases as runners are added to the bases and the outs remain the same.

And Castellanos had a high RE24 than did Victor.

There are two things being presented in this thread. Run Expectancy (RE) and probability.

Run Expectancy [SIZE=-1]presents the average number of runs that scored, from that base/out state, to the end of that inning.Walks will always increase the Run Expectancy.

Probability [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]presents the chance that a run will score at some point in the inning, from each base/out state. The only base/out states that a walk produces a less probability, is man on 3rd with 1 out or a man on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. And that probability is less than a 2% drop. That is it. Otherwise, a walk always increases the probability.

The results are based on all real game day data, with real game base/out states.

The probability of heads coming up on a coin flip is 50%. You could flip a coin 10 times and have it come up heads only 4 times, yet the next coin toss still has the same probability. Hence the importance of sample size.
[/SIZE]

Rebbiv said:

There are two things being presented in this thread. Run Expectancy (RE) and probability.

Run Expectancy [SIZE=-1]presents the average number of runs that scored, from that base/out state, to the end of that inning.Walks will always increase the Run Expectancy.

Probability [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]presents the chance that a run will score at some point in the inning, from each base/out state. The only base/out states that a walk produces a less probability, is man on 3rd with 1 out or a man on 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. And that probability is less than a 2% drop. That is it. Otherwise, a walk always increases the probability.

The results are based on all real game day data, with real game base/out states.

The probability of heads coming up on a coin flip is 50%. You could flip a coin 10 times and have it come up heads only 4 times, yet the next coin toss still has the same probability. Hence the importance of sample size.
[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

What I have been saying all along.

byco42 said:

What I have been saying all along.

Click to expand...

I realize that. I was hoping maybe to explain it better for those that maybe still confused.

so RE is a stat based on the past data that has no in game relevance due to individual circumstances.

tomdalton22 said:

so RE is a stat based on the past data that has no in game relevance due to individual circumstances.

Click to expand...

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

The data is from 1950-2010.

There are three different tables

Table 1 = Run Expectancy

Table 2 = Probability

Table 3 = % of Plate Appearances with that Game State


Each are based on what happened throughout MLB, regardless of who was at bat next. Man on 3rd, 1 out. Whenever this game state existed during 1993-2010 the RE is .989 (almost a full run) with a 67.5% chance of scoring at least one run. It occurred in 0.9% of all plate appearances.

Now if a walk occurred next, the game stat then changes man on 1st and 3rd, 1 out. Now all the occurrences of this game state is looked at and the results are 1.211 RE (almost 1/3 run more than previous game state), 65.2 chance of scoring at least 1 run (2.2% reduction), with the occurrence being 1.2% of all plate appearances (0.3% increase).

Now, just because a game state is 1st and 3rd, with 1 out, in does not distinguish how the runner got on 1st. Or even how the runner got to 3rd.

We could do mental gymnastics from now till the end of time to come with all the variables. It obviously does make a difference if the next batter is Miguel Cabrera or James McCann. But it also matters if Rajai Davis is on 1st or Victor Martinez. What if it is Rajai Davis and he steals 2nd base? Now it is 2nd and 3rd, with 1 out. Now if the base is empty, odds are the next batter if they are remotely any good, gets walked, setting up a force at any base. Again, mental gymnastics.

We can go on and on. The Run Expectancy and probability is based on what historically happened, regardless of who was batting next. You can infer any outcome you wish.