Fish

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Speed has no factor on home runs, and home runs are a huge part of scoring. If Juan Pierre gets on via a base hit and then steals 2nd and 3rd base and Derrek Lee hits a home run, it really didn't matter that Juan Pierre stole those bases, because he would have scored if he was just standing on 1b...

 

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc...

 

Can you prove this? Look at each time Pierre has been on base and see what the results are. It shouldn't be that hard since he's only been on base 8 times this year.

 

probably not the best example since he's scored 6 runs in those 8 times on base. thus lending credibility that something about Pierre being on base makes the batters better / pitcher worse.

 

interestingly, Pierre has not scored a single run after any of the 23 times he did not reach base. (sorry, I just was reading the game thread)

 

Jacque Jones has scored 3 of the 4 times he's been on base, is his speed that much a nuisance? The pitcher may just not be very good(as evidenced by giving up hits to Pierre and his compatriots), or he's less effective from the stretch(true of many pitchers). I'd give both of those more credence than Pierre's speed distracting the pitcher to the point of being noticeably worse.

 

EDIT: But all of this is getting away from the original point that I was making, that Pierre hasn't been good thus far.

 

easy there. I was just pointing out a that there is an anomoly in the evidence you used, and that evidence lead to a flawed argument.

 

as for the part I bolded, simply by saying this, it leads me to believe you are trying to say something more than your original point described in your edit. there's some ax grinding going on here.

 

Using runs to point out an inconsistency is flawed, just because Pierre scored doesn't mean all the hitters around him were more successful than they normally are without him on base.

 

I think you took the bolded the wrong way. I was saying that a pitcher who gives up multiple hits may just not be very good, and that's the main reason for the multiple hits instead of influence from the runner, speedy or not. And again, I'm not the one who took the discussion this direction. I merely pointed out that Pierre hasn't been good thus far, and others are resorting to his baserunning influence to justify that he has been successful.

[XZero771679666304]

I merely pointed out that Pierre hasn't been good thus far, and others are resorting to his baserunning influence to justify that he has been successful.

 

I for one wasn't trying to say Pierre has been successful, just that there is something to the notion that speedy baserunners can influence the pitcher's performance. You can argue about degrees, but I think it is common sense that something that distracts and divides your focus will likely impact your performance negatively. And clearly a speedy guy will be more of a distraction than a slow guy. It is simple logic.

 

But of course OBP is far more important than the speed consideration.

[BigbadB]

An argument can be made that the pitcher becomes more focused on the hitter because there are runners on base, also.

 

But, once there is a runner on base, the defense has to make adjustments, which opens up more holes for the hitter, so some things are out of the pitcher's control once there is a runner on base.

[XZero771679666304]

An argument can be made that the pitcher becomes more focused on the hitter because there are runners on base, also.

 

But, once there is a runner on base, the defense has to make adjustments, which opens up more holes for the hitter, so some things are out of the pitcher's control once there is a runner on base.

 

True, but that depends on the pitcher. When you see a pitcher throwing to first between every pitch or speeding up his delivery, they simply cannot be pitching as effectively as they would be with no one on. And with few exceptions, that is what you see when base stealers get on.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I merely pointed out that Pierre hasn't been good thus far, and others are resorting to his baserunning influence to justify that he has been successful.

 

I for one wasn't trying to say Pierre has been successful, just that there is something to the notion that speedy baserunners can influence the pitcher's performance. You can argue about degrees, but I think it is common sense that something that distracts and divides your focus will likely impact your performance negatively. And clearly a speedy guy will be more of a distraction than a slow guy. It is simple logic.

 

But of course OBP is far more important than the speed consideration.

 

No, I agree, I wasn't referring to your post in the above quote.

[katway]

Speed has no factor on home runs, and home runs are a huge part of scoring. If Juan Pierre gets on via a base hit and then steals 2nd and 3rd base and Derrek Lee hits a home run, it really didn't matter that Juan Pierre stole those bases, because he would have scored if he was just standing on 1b...

 

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc...

 

Can you prove this? Look at each time Pierre has been on base and see what the results are. It shouldn't be that hard since he's only been on base 8 times this year.

 

Can you disprove it? Can anyone realistically say that pitchers and players on defense are not more concerned when a speedy guy like Pierre is on first base compared to slower players like Ramirez? No one is saying Pierre is always a distraction that improves the hitters behind him, but merely pointing out that his speed can make a difference (relative to other players) when he is on base. In other words, his speed can be a positive factor for those hitting behind him.

[srbin84]

I don't think statheads value anything that can't be measured.

[Productive Outs]

I don't think old-timers value anything they can't see with their own eyes.

[srbin84]

Well, I'm not old, I just evaluate things based on a combination of stats and what I see on the field. Only going by one is stupid.

[Guest]

Speed has no factor on home runs, and home runs are a huge part of scoring. If Juan Pierre gets on via a base hit and then steals 2nd and 3rd base and Derrek Lee hits a home run, it really didn't matter that Juan Pierre stole those bases, because he would have scored if he was just standing on 1b...

 

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc...

 

Can you prove this? Look at each time Pierre has been on base and see what the results are. It shouldn't be that hard since he's only been on base 8 times this year.

 

Can you disprove it? Can anyone realistically say that pitchers and players on defense are not more concerned when a speedy guy like Pierre is on first base compared to slower players like Ramirez? No one is saying Pierre is always a distraction that improves the hitters behind him, but merely pointing out that his speed can make a difference (relative to other players) when he is on base. In other words, his speed can be a positive factor for those hitting behind him.

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

This has been studied and quantified. At best the "disruptive" effect amounts to no more than a couple runs a season for even the most prolific of base stealers. That's about the same value derived by talking 5-6 walks.

[srbin84]

Speed has no factor on home runs, and home runs are a huge part of scoring. If Juan Pierre gets on via a base hit and then steals 2nd and 3rd base and Derrek Lee hits a home run, it really didn't matter that Juan Pierre stole those bases, because he would have scored if he was just standing on 1b...

 

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc...

 

Can you prove this? Look at each time Pierre has been on base and see what the results are. It shouldn't be that hard since he's only been on base 8 times this year.

 

Can you disprove it? Can anyone realistically say that pitchers and players on defense are not more concerned when a speedy guy like Pierre is on first base compared to slower players like Ramirez? No one is saying Pierre is always a distraction that improves the hitters behind him, but merely pointing out that his speed can make a difference (relative to other players) when he is on base. In other words, his speed can be a positive factor for those hitting behind him.

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

This has been studied and quantified. At best the "disruptive" effect amounts to no more than a couple runs a season for even the most prolific of base stealers. That's about the same value derived by talking 5-6 walks.

 

Wouldn't that equate to about .010 of OBP. That seems significant.

[Guest]

This has been studied and quantified. At best the "disruptive" effect amounts to no more than a couple runs a season for even the most prolific of base stealers. That's about the same value derived by talking 5-6 walks.

 

Wouldn't that equate to about .010 of OBP. That seems significant.

More like 6-7 points of OBP over a full season of 700+ PA. It's better than nothing, of course, but it's also far less important than other aspects of offensive performance.

[BigbadB]

I don't think statheads value anything that can't be measured.

 

I don't think comments like this are welcome here. You don't know anything about what I value or don't value, and you don't know anything about what other people who rely heavily on stats value or don't value.

 

So, rather than toss insults at your leisure, how about sticking to defending your own point of view.

[katway]

Speed has no factor on home runs, and home runs are a huge part of scoring. If Juan Pierre gets on via a base hit and then steals 2nd and 3rd base and Derrek Lee hits a home run, it really didn't matter that Juan Pierre stole those bases, because he would have scored if he was just standing on 1b...

 

Not entirely true. Pierre clearly distracts pitchers when he is on base. The less focussed a pitcher is on the hitter, the better the hitter's chances of getting a pitch he can hit, including homeruns. Those stolen bases may have affected the pitcher, the pitches that are thrown (don't want to throw a slider in the dirt with Pierre on third), etc...

 

Can you prove this? Look at each time Pierre has been on base and see what the results are. It shouldn't be that hard since he's only been on base 8 times this year.

 

Can you disprove it? Can anyone realistically say that pitchers and players on defense are not more concerned when a speedy guy like Pierre is on first base compared to slower players like Ramirez? No one is saying Pierre is always a distraction that improves the hitters behind him, but merely pointing out that his speed can make a difference (relative to other players) when he is on base. In other words, his speed can be a positive factor for those hitting behind him.

 

Part 1

 

Part 2

 

This has been studied and quantified. At best the "disruptive" effect amounts to no more than a couple runs a season for even the most prolific of base stealers. That's about the same value derived by talking 5-6 walks.

 

Author of the piece admits 11% increase in batting average. Thanks for proving the point that Pierre can be disruptive and thereby help the hitters who follow him by increasing their batting average. essentially a .300 hitter becomes a .333 hitter with a fast guy on base.

[cjbucks]

An argument can be made that the pitcher becomes more focused on the hitter because there are runners on base, also.

 

But, once there is a runner on base, the defense has to make adjustments, which opens up more holes for the hitter, so some things are out of the pitcher's control once there is a runner on base.

 

Unless of course you are Big Z and the opposing pitcher is tearing up the basepaths. :wink:

[frostwyrm]

After 8 games Pierre has put up .235/.257/.324. Pitchers can produce that. If these numbers are acceptable from a leadoff man then any good and speedy pitcher is worth at least $20 million per year.

[frostwyrm]

So Pierre goes 0 for 9 in two games (Cubs went 1-1) and has 5 good games (Cubs went 4-1) and that equals a terrible start? He's a big part of the Cubs early success regardless of what his current OBP/OPS is.

 

He's 4 of 24 with a walk since opening day.

 

Then which of these are classified as bad games:

 

1 for 4 2 runs 2 SB

 

1 for 4 1 run

 

1 for 4 1 RBI

 

1 for 3 1 BB

 

If all of a player's numbers other than runs and SB suck then the player sucks. Period.

[Guest]

Author of the piece admits 11% increase in batting average. Thanks for proving the point that Pierre can be disruptive and thereby help the hitters who follow him by increasing their batting average. essentially a .300 hitter becomes a .333 hitter with a fast guy on base.

You need to read the second article. That number wasn't adjusted for some important factors; defensive alignment, the jump in batter performance with any runner on first, the relative quality of pitchers with runners on vs. with the bases empty, etc. The real benefit is much smaller, somewhere in the order of 0-3 runs per season.

[katway]

Author of the piece admits 11% increase in batting average. Thanks for proving the point that Pierre can be disruptive and thereby help the hitters who follow him by increasing their batting average. essentially a .300 hitter becomes a .333 hitter with a fast guy on base.

You need to read the second article. That number wasn't adjusted for some important factors; defensive alignment, the jump in batter performance with any runner on first, the relative quality of pitchers with runners on vs. with the bases empty, etc. The real benefit is much smaller, somewhere in the order of 0-3 runs per season.

 

The author's numbers are extremely flawed since he compares a select few players that are known as base stealers compared to an overall group that also includes those same base stealers and other leaser known base stealers. It should make a seperate comparison of good base stealers versus poor base stealers. He is cherry picking numbers to try to support his argument when the basis of comparison is flawed.

[Guest]

Author of the piece admits 11% increase in batting average. Thanks for proving the point that Pierre can be disruptive and thereby help the hitters who follow him by increasing their batting average. essentially a .300 hitter becomes a .333 hitter with a fast guy on base.

You need to read the second article. That number wasn't adjusted for some important factors; defensive alignment, the jump in batter performance with any runner on first, the relative quality of pitchers with runners on vs. with the bases empty, etc. The real benefit is much smaller, somewhere in the order of 0-3 runs per season.

 

The author's numbers are extremely flawed since he compares a select few players that are known as base stealers compared to an overall group that also includes those same base stealers and other leaser known base stealers. It should make a seperate comparison of good base stealers versus poor base stealers. He is cherry picking numbers to try to support his argument when the basis of comparison is flawed.

The overlap between the group of all runners and first base and the ones considered stealers is negligible. (About 3% of the 100,000+ sample size.) Removing the stealers from the overall group would have had no significant imapct on the outcome. The results are also verified by his independent method of adjusting for defensive shifts and pitcher quality. (Though that method showed a slightly larger disruptive effect.)

Edited April 14, 2006 by Anonymous

[katway]

Author of the piece admits 11% increase in batting average. Thanks for proving the point that Pierre can be disruptive and thereby help the hitters who follow him by increasing their batting average. essentially a .300 hitter becomes a .333 hitter with a fast guy on base.

You need to read the second article. That number wasn't adjusted for some important factors; defensive alignment, the jump in batter performance with any runner on first, the relative quality of pitchers with runners on vs. with the bases empty, etc. The real benefit is much smaller, somewhere in the order of 0-3 runs per season.

 

The author's numbers are extremely flawed since he compares a select few players that are known as base stealers compared to an overall group that also includes those same base stealers and other leaser known base stealers. It should make a seperate comparison of good base stealers versus poor base stealers. He is cherry picking numbers to try to support his argument when the basis of comparison is flawed.

The overlap between the group of all runners and first base and the ones considered stealers is negligible. (About 3% of the 100,000+ sample size.) Removing the stealers from the overall group would have had no significant imapct on the outcome. The results are also verified by his independent method of adjusting for defensive shits and pitcher quality. (Though that method showed a slightly larger disruptive effect.)

 

The analysis is still supportive of my conclusion that a base stealer can disrupt a pitcher's focus on the following batter. Batting average is a much better measure of this effect than runs scored. Runs scored also takes into account that base stealers get caught stealing, thereby reducing the overall number of runs scored. I'm not talking about runs scored... I'm talking about distracting the pitcher.

 

In any event, the analysis is nevertheless flawed as a theoretical matter because the author is comparing a barrel of apples (base stealers) to a mixed barrel of oranges (non-base stealers) and apples (base stealers). The assumption that this error has only a 3% negligible effect is incorrect because it assumes, ipso facto, that the other 97% of runners are non-base stealers. Without doing a statistical analysis, I'd venture to say that more than 3% of baseball players are capable base stealers.

[Guest]

The overlap between the group of all runners and first base and the ones considered stealers is negligible. (About 3% of the 100,000+ sample size.) Removing the stealers from the overall group would have had no significant imapct on the outcome. The results are also verified by his independent method of adjusting for defensive shifts and pitcher quality. (Though that method showed a slightly larger disruptive effect.)

 

The analysis is still supportive of my conclusion that a base stealer can disrupt a pitcher's focus on the following batter. Batting average is a much better measure of this effect than runs scored. Runs scored also takes into account that base stealers get caught stealing, thereby reducing the overall number of runs scored. I'm not talking about runs scored... I'm talking about distracting the pitcher.

That's 0-3 runs as measured by an offense estimation metric, not by the number of runners crossing the plate.

[FergieJ31]

Author of the piece admits 11% increase in batting average. Thanks for proving the point that Pierre can be disruptive and thereby help the hitters who follow him by increasing their batting average. essentially a .300 hitter becomes a .333 hitter with a fast guy on base.

You need to read the second article. That number wasn't adjusted for some important factors; defensive alignment, the jump in batter performance with any runner on first, the relative quality of pitchers with runners on vs. with the bases empty, etc. The real benefit is much smaller, somewhere in the order of 0-3 runs per season.

 

The author's numbers are extremely flawed since he compares a select few players that are known as base stealers compared to an overall group that also includes those same base stealers and other leaser known base stealers. It should make a seperate comparison of good base stealers versus poor base stealers. He is cherry picking numbers to try to support his argument when the basis of comparison is flawed.

The overlap between the group of all runners and first base and the ones considered stealers is negligible. (About 3% of the 100,000+ sample size.) Removing the stealers from the overall group would have had no significant imapct on the outcome. The results are also verified by his independent method of adjusting for defensive shits and pitcher quality. (Though that method showed a slightly larger disruptive effect.)

 

The analysis is still supportive of my conclusion that a base stealer can disrupt a pitcher's focus on the following batter. Batting average is a much better measure of this effect than runs scored. Runs scored also takes into account that base stealers get caught stealing, thereby reducing the overall number of runs scored. I'm not talking about runs scored... I'm talking about distracting the pitcher.

 

In any event, the analysis is nevertheless flawed as a theoretical matter because the author is comparing a barrel of apples (base stealers) to a mixed barrel of oranges (non-base stealers) and apples (base stealers). The assumption that this error has only a 3% negligible effect is incorrect because it assumes, ipso facto, that the other 97% of runners are non-base stealers. Without doing a statistical analysis, I'd venture to say that more than 3% of baseball players are capable base stealers.

 

I agree with katway - I'm less than convinced by that Hardball Times analysis.

 

In Part 2, the author used a "complicated" (author's word) method, which I found difficult to follow, and whose statistical significance seems suspect at any rate, and a 2nd "simpler" method of separating out a golden group of annointed basestealers against a control group of ALL players. Why separate out the fastest runners? The fact is, a pitcher must pay attention to MOST runners on first -- all but the SLOWEST guys in the league would logically disrupt the pitcher to some degree. But all but the slowest guys will also force a change in defensive alignment (1B holding the runner).

 

The 2nd method is a specious argument IMO, inherently biased in favor of the null hypothesis that a speedy guy on first does not disrupt the pitcher. The disruption effect is extremely difficult to isolate statistically because defensive alignment changes are so positively correlated.

 

Also, I didn't see the author use any data involving errant pickoff attempts, which give speedy runners one or two extra bases - did I miss that?

 

I really think you need to watch the games to see the disruption effect and hear from ex-professional pitchers (anyone?) - I believe it's a real effect.