2004 DIPS stats

[Crapshoot]

http://www.futilityinfielder.com/dips04.html

Jay did some good work. For people who dont know DIPS, its a fairly nice introduction.

[QuikSand]

Nice summary of the topic. Regrettably the "split" on this issue will continue. Rather than actually read something like this, and make an attempt to understand what it claims, the naysayers will just say "numbers aren't everything -- that guy has a filthy slider!" or somesuch, and try to end the debate on that note.

[Suicane75]

Or perhaps they just hate seing their favorite TEAM game reduced to mathematics and bitch fests about 1 SS having better numbers than another SS so he must be a better player and yadda yadda yadda.

Or maybe I just miss the days of 2 hole hitters who could bunt and leadoff hitters who could steal bases and 7 hole hitter who couldn't really hit but who could call a game masterfully from behind the plate instead of teams stocking 1 thru 8 with 400lb bench press guys who can hit 30 HR's from 2B.

Or maybe i'm just a nostalgic malcontent who misses his youth.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Nice summary of the topic. Regrettably the "split" on this issue will continue. Rather than actually read something like this, and make an attempt to understand what it claims, the naysayers will just say "numbers aren't everything -- that guy has a filthy slider!" or somesuch, and try to end the debate on that note.

Right on the money...

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Or perhaps they just hate seing their favorite TEAM game reduced to mathematics and bitch fests about 1 SS having better numbers than another SS so he must be a better player and yadda yadda yadda.

Or maybe I just miss the days of 2 hole hitters who could bunt and leadoff hitters who could steal bases and 7 hole hitter who couldn't really hit but who could call a game masterfully from behind the plate instead of teams stocking 1 thru 8 with 400lb bench press guys who can hit 30 HR's from 2B.

Or maybe i'm just a nostalgic malcontent who misses his youth.

You know, I hate this attitude, especially from older fans. Its a presumption that those of us who take a numeric approach aren't as good fans, and so forth. We do this because we care to know, and we're generally smarter and more open to new ideas about how we define value. As for the bitch fests- where on earth have you been ? Arguing about players is a staple about baseball -50 years ago they were arguing about Mantle vs Mays, 10 years ago Bonds vs Griffey. As for the bunter, I see no value in something that makes my team lose. The calling the game masterfully arguement has been debunked again and again- have a look at Woolner's study. Maybe its just me, but I prefer to hold my beliefs to some sort of standard, as opposed to dogged belief in something that has been shown to be an inefficitive or less efficient way of baseball. Hey, if you like bunters, more power to you- just don't argue that it makes the player "better" in any way.

[Samdari]

I am very statistically oriented, and I still think the guy is full of crap. Good pitchers get batters to hit the ball weakly, bad pitchers get hit hard. I could be convinced otherwise, but in none of the links is are the stats leading to such a conclusion presented. He simply states that the rate of hits per-ball-in-play is small, and therefore has no effect on who is a good pitcher, and expects us to accept that and move on. Missing, or perhaps simply not linked, is a breakdown (over more than two years please) of the ERA's, records, etc. of pitchers with good/average/bad hits per ball in play, etc.

Basically, believing in DIPS requires that one believe the presumption that pitchers do not differ greatly in their ability to get batters out on balls in play. Nowhere do I see any research/analysis sufficient to make that consclusion.

[Suicane75]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

You know, I hate this attitude, especially from older fans. Its a presumption that those of us who take a numeric approach aren't as good fans, and so forth. We do this because we care to know, and we're generally smarter and more open to new ideas about how we define value. As for the bitch fests- where on earth have you been ? Arguing about players is a staple about baseball -50 years ago they were arguing about Mantle vs Mays, 10 years ago Bonds vs Griffey. As for the bunter, I see no value in something that makes my team lose. The calling the game masterfully arguement has been debunked again and again- have a look at Woolner's study. Maybe its just me, but I prefer to hold my beliefs to some sort of standard, as opposed to dogged belief in something that has been shown to be an inefficitive or less efficient way of baseball. Hey, if you like bunters, more power to you- just don't argue that it makes the player "better" in any way.

Crap, i didn't mean it come off that way, and it wasn't my intention, and I certainly dont think i'm a better or worse fan than you or anyone else.
I just don't see the fun in what number analyzing has become, for me personaly. I probably should of just kept my mouth shut.

As for the bunting thing and the calling a game thing, I suppose I would like to see some hard facts regarding your responses to them and their worth. I can sort of understand your stance in regards to todays game, but 20 years ago manufacturing runs was a key part to baseball, which is what i was lamenting.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Crap, i didn't mean it come off that way, and it wasn't my intention, and I certainly dont think i'm a better or worse fan than you or anyone else.
I just don't see the fun in what number analyzing has become, for me personaly. I probably should of just kept my mouth shut.

As for the bunting thing and the calling a game thing, I suppose I would like to see some hard facts regarding your responses to them and their worth. I can sort of understand your stance in regards to todays game, but 20 years ago manufacturing runs was a key part to baseball, which is what i was lamenting.

Sorry then- I may have mistaken what you said as well. I was responding to what I usually hear there as well- my bad.

As for the bunting thing, look at any expected run matrix. If you're in the 9th inning of a game and only need 1 run, then bunting makes sense, assuming its successful, because it increases the probability of 1 run scored- but in general terms, unless the pitcher is at bat, it reduces the total run expectation. With the C thing- if you go to the BP site and search for Woolner- Catcher study, you should find it. you can google it as well/

[SirFozzie]

The biggest dips are..

Ok, I got nothing.

[Suicane75]

Crap. i will do that as I am genuinely interested in that postion.

I'm a little lost with your bunting theory though. Say my 2 hole hitter is a .250 hitter, but an excellent bunter, the odds of him getting a bunt down before 2 strikes are much higher than 25%. Of course theres all kinds of variable such as wether the baserunner is on 1st or 2nd base, 1 out or 2, and so on and so on.

As for the rest of my tirade, i'm just bemoaning a time that's passed that I enjoyed better than todays product, thats all, everyone is different.

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Basically, believing in DIPS requires that one believe the presumption that pitchers do not differ greatly in their ability to get batters out on balls in play. Nowhere do I see any research/analysis sufficient to make that consclusion.

Then you haven't read the research.

The research doesn't say that pitchers have no effect. It's just that the effect is very limited and doesn't tend to have a high correllation from season to season.

Basically, as much as pitchers want to control where and how hitters hit the ball, they don't have a whole lot of say in the matter. Certainly not nearly as much as they do in regards to strikeout, walk, and home run rates.

People have tried to question it and done numerous studies, and the closest they've come to putting a real dent in it is Tom Tippett's study which found that some pitchers do show the ability to depress hits, but to the tune of a few hits per season over league average. And that, simply due to luck (or randomness or physics, however you want to look at it), it is very likely that a particularly good pitcher one season will not be particularly good the next.

[Ksyrup]

I understand the sentiment for the "good 'ole days." Basically, what those who make those comments are lamenting is the style of play that they enjoyed. Whether or not that style of play is the most efficient in terms of producing runs is an entirely different matter. Station-to-station baserunning and waiting for the 3-run HR is not as exciting to some as stealing, bunting, etc. - even if it could be conclusively proven to be inefficient compared to another way of scoring runs.

Take football for example - if someone did a study that proved, by statistical analysis, that the most efficient way to score points in football was to throw 50-yard bombs every play, on the theory that X number would result in a catch/penalty, and that running the ball was not as efficient a way to score, and teams began adopting that as a their game plan, then we might have more efficient scoring teams, but boring as hell games - a lot of incompletions, games that dragged on for hours, a crapload of punts, and a few big plays a game. Some would argue that the current style is more enjoyable to watch, even if teams aren't maximizing their scoring opportunities.

[Suicane75]

Not just the style of play, but the need for that style of play. Back then you could not afford to play for the 3 run HR as much as you can now because there were a ton less people able to produce it. I would never argue that station to station, bunting, stealing is the way to play todays game because why employ 5 Olive Oyls if you can get 5 Plutos, which leads to steroids/ballparks/strikezones etc.. which is a another argument. Im not arguing for or against DIPS as much as i'm arguing against the single players worth in a team game. And thats a different argument than the "Is Jeter a better player than Tejada" argument, which i have never had or never will have a problem with people debating or using numbers for.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Crap. i will do that as I am genuinely interested in that postion.

I'm a little lost with your bunting theory though. Say my 2 hole hitter is a .250 hitter, but an excellent bunter, the odds of him getting a bunt down before 2 strikes are much higher than 25%. Of course theres all kinds of variable such as wether the baserunner is on 1st or 2nd base, 1 out or 2, and so on and so on.

As for the rest of my tirade, i'm just bemoaning a time that's passed that I enjoyed better than todays product, thats all, everyone is different.

Sure. Essentialy, the crux of the arguement against bunting is that while it may increase the probability of scoring 1 run (and that too depending on the circumstance), it actually decreases the run expectancy of a situation.

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

That's the data from 1999-2002 for the expected runs scored in a given situation. as you can see, the expected runs (assuming a succesful bunt) of going from 1st with no outs to 2nd with 1 outs is a decrease, as well as 1st with 1 out to 2nd with 2 outs. A successful sacrifice bunt, by definition, lowers the total expected runs. Of course, this assumes an average hitter- if you have Neifi Perez up there, perhaps bunting (and taking the sure thing ) is a safe bet. However, the point is that you're probably fairly likely to move the runner over anyway (your average GB will - most bunters aren't exactly power hitters, but likely hit singles anyway), why not try to get a hit, with a greater upside and no real downside ?
The matrix doesnt show the value of bunting in a close game in the 8th or 9th inning, when its far more reasonable to play for just 1 run- that being said, the problem is when managers do this in the 4th and stunt potential.

[Crapshoot]

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902score.html

More stuff.

[CraigSca]

Oddly, I just saw a study last week that showed the only beneficial time to ever really bunt is with men on 1st and 2nd and nobody out. Otherwise, you're shooting yourself in the foot, even when trying to score only ONE run. Now, it's killing me that I didn't bookmark the research.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Oddly, I just saw a study last week that showed the only beneficial time to ever really bunt is with men on 1st and 2nd and nobody out. Otherwise, you're shooting yourself in the foot, even when trying to score only ONE run. Now, it's killing me that I didn't bookmark the research.

Craig- was it a BP study or Tango and/or Primer ?

[Maple Leafs]

How did I know, before even opening the link, that Schoeneweiss would show up on the "higher ERA than dERA" list?

Good old JP...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Oddly, I just saw a study last week that showed the only beneficial time to ever really bunt is with men on 1st and 2nd and nobody out. Otherwise, you're shooting yourself in the foot, even when trying to score only ONE run. Now, it's killing me that I didn't bookmark the research.

I think that, on average, this is correct. However, I think you have to have mitigating factors here. What if, with a man on first and no out, the guy at the plate is a .220 hitter against Leftys and a great bunter, the guy on deck is great singles hitter (but little extra base pop), and the guy in the hole is a big strikeout guy.

I can't imagine that would keep the same run-scoring probabilities by the first hitter swinging away as bunting. The lack of mitigating factors the only thing that bothers me on this type of analysis. You can't treat every hitter like he's ".260 Joe Average" when making managerial decisions.

[CentralMassHokie]

I think more interesting than the run expectency chart is that win expectency chart. I'll try to go dig it up, but it basically shows the win expectency that arises from certain situations.

Here's the link: http://www.tangotiger.net/welist.html

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think that, on average, this is correct. However, I think you have to have mitigating factors here. What if, with a man on first and no out, the guy at the plate is a .220 hitter against Leftys and a great bunter, the guy on deck is great singles hitter (but little extra base pop), and the guy in the hole is a big strikeout guy.

I can't imagine that would keep the same run-scoring probabilities by the first hitter swinging away as bunting. The lack of mitigating factors the only thing that bothers me on this type of analysis. You can't treat every hitter like he's ".260 Joe Average" when making managerial decisions.

Well, of course not. And any manager who did should be fired.

But managers who waste outs by bunting in the 2nd and 3rd innings of games should also be fired.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

Then you haven't read the research.

The rest of my post indicated that what was included/linked in that article was not research which supports that conclusions. Do you have links which have that research, including the stats, the methodology, i.e. more than "we studied this number, and came up with this average" and then draw conclusions based on the averages.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CentralMassHokie

Well, of course not. And any manager who did should be fired.

But managers who waste outs by bunting in the 2nd and 3rd innings of games should also be fired.

I don't think there's any reason to bunt that early unless you are facing Randy Johnson with Curt Schilling on your end and a bad offense. Still, this looks to be a bit of a strawman as it seems people are using this type of information to justify not bunting later in the game (6th inning on).

Are you really saying that all this research was done to show to managers that they shouldn't bunt in the first three innings? Seems a little excessive if that's the goal.

[Suicane75]

Im with Arles here, the cold hard numbers don't reflect game situations, players at bat or on base, the pitcher, the inning, etc..

To say that bunting doesnt have an accumulative positive is one thing, to argue against it as a blanket statement is another thing.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Samdari

The rest of my post indicated that what was included/linked in that article was not research which supports that conclusions. Do you have links which have that research, including the stats, the methodology, i.e. more than "we studied this number, and came up with this average" and then draw conclusions based on the averages.

Try the very first link from the article above. There are some weird formatting issues there for me, but the content ought to be a useful walk-through.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/..._2002-01-25_0/

There are plenty more, but McCracken is, in my judgment at least, pretty adept at backing off where the data does not support his claims.

If you are not seeing any evidence that the DIPS theory is supported by data, then you simply are not looking.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

How did I know, before even opening the link, that Schoeneweiss would show up on the "higher ERA than dERA" list?

Good old JP...

Take a look at Schoeneweis's fundamental stats from the 2003 season, where he was moved to a nearly-exclusive relief role. He actually looked like a creditable better-than-replacement pitcher in that capacity.

I still think Toronto overpaid for him (based on my understanding of the contract) but I do believe Schoeneweis has the chance to be a solid reliever, with the capacity to occasionally fill in as a swingman/long relief utility pitcher. I do not judge him to be a complete washout, as many seem to.

[CraigSca]

The study I'm referring to was not from BP or Primer - I'm thinking it was a link from the daily SABR digest. The study was performed by a math professor at a university in Texas (from what I recall). Sorry for being very vague...

[CentralMassHokie]

Originally Posted by Suicane75

Im with Arles here, the cold hard numbers don't reflect game situations, players at bat or on base, the pitcher, the inning, etc..

To say that bunting doesnt have an accumulative positive is one thing, to argue against it as a blanket statement is another thing.

It's very hard to come up with a situation where it would be worthwhile for a non-pitcher to bunt early in a game.

Obviously, I'm being slightly facetious when I say any manager who would bunt in the 3rd inning should be fired. But, managers who continue to play this style of baseball will likely cost their team runs over the course of the season.

It's like managers who think the speedster with the .300 OBP should bat in front of the big run producers on a team just because he's fast. A small decision in the grand scheme of things, but one that has a likely accumulative effect of costing his team runs.

[CraigSca]

The point of the study that I referred to questioned the typical manager's penchant for bunting the winning run over from first with no one out. There was no mention of the pitcher being the batter. Obviously, one has to take that into account, but as an overall "winning" strategy, it's actually a loser.