Furcal

[Tim]

Okay, so if having Furcal on first helps Giles so much, he obviously must have much better splits with runners on base, right? Well, not so much. His OPS actually goes down with runners on base.

 

None on: .296/.353/.482/.835 (328 ABs)

Runners on: .285/.379/.434/.813 (249 ABs)

 

But that's all runners on all bases. Surely, the at bats he had with a runner on first would be more indicative of the effect Furcal would have, right? Again, not so much.

 

On First: .278/.355/.361/.716 (108 ABs)

 

Now, I recognize that not all of those 108 at bats with a runner on first were with Furcal. But surely, enough of them were that if having Furcal on first base actually helped Giles, it would show up in the numbers.

 

It actually looks like Furcal on first base hurts Marcus quite a bit.

 

But don't let data get in the way of a good theory.

 

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

[CubfaninCA]

Okay, so if having Furcal on first helps Giles so much, he obviously must have much better splits with runners on base, right? Well, not so much. His OPS actually goes down with runners on base.

 

None on: .296/.353/.482/.835 (328 ABs)

Runners on: .285/.379/.434/.813 (249 ABs)

 

But that's all runners on all bases. Surely, the at bats he had with a runner on first would be more indicative of the effect Furcal would have, right? Again, not so much.

 

On First: .278/.355/.361/.716 (108 ABs)

 

Now, I recognize that not all of those 108 at bats with a runner on first were with Furcal. But surely, enough of them were that if having Furcal on first base actually helped Giles, it would show up in the numbers.

 

It actually looks like Furcal on first base hurts Marcus quite a bit.

 

But don't let data get in the way of a good theory.

 

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

 

No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story.

[Tim]

Okay, so if having Furcal on first helps Giles so much, he obviously must have much better splits with runners on base, right? Well, not so much. His OPS actually goes down with runners on base.

 

None on: .296/.353/.482/.835 (328 ABs)

Runners on: .285/.379/.434/.813 (249 ABs)

 

But that's all runners on all bases. Surely, the at bats he had with a runner on first would be more indicative of the effect Furcal would have, right? Again, not so much.

 

On First: .278/.355/.361/.716 (108 ABs)

 

Now, I recognize that not all of those 108 at bats with a runner on first were with Furcal. But surely, enough of them were that if having Furcal on first base actually helped Giles, it would show up in the numbers.

 

It actually looks like Furcal on first base hurts Marcus quite a bit.

 

But don't let data get in the way of a good theory.

 

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

 

No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story.

What other story is possible in the face of those facts? You cannot possibly still maintain that Giles was helped by the presence of Furcal on the bases, can you?

[CubfaninCA]

Okay, so if having Furcal on first helps Giles so much, he obviously must have much better splits with runners on base, right? Well, not so much. His OPS actually goes down with runners on base.

 

None on: .296/.353/.482/.835 (328 ABs)

Runners on: .285/.379/.434/.813 (249 ABs)

 

But that's all runners on all bases. Surely, the at bats he had with a runner on first would be more indicative of the effect Furcal would have, right? Again, not so much.

 

On First: .278/.355/.361/.716 (108 ABs)

 

Now, I recognize that not all of those 108 at bats with a runner on first were with Furcal. But surely, enough of them were that if having Furcal on first base actually helped Giles, it would show up in the numbers.

 

It actually looks like Furcal on first base hurts Marcus quite a bit.

 

But don't let data get in the way of a good theory.

 

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

 

No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story.

What other story is possible in the face of those facts? You cannot possibly still maintain that Giles was helped by the presence of Furcal on the bases, can you?

 

Don't certain guys hit certain pitchers better than others?? Doesn't substance = looking @ all the factors. Maybe Giles hits better in these 100some appearances w/out Furcal on. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe these pitcher's bare down more though. Maybe these pitcher's are guys Giles has more trouble with?? Maybe I'm just needling you on your use of substance cause you look up a few stats and think you have all the substance. :o

[Tim]

Okay, so if having Furcal on first helps Giles so much, he obviously must have much better splits with runners on base, right? Well, not so much. His OPS actually goes down with runners on base.

 

None on: .296/.353/.482/.835 (328 ABs)

Runners on: .285/.379/.434/.813 (249 ABs)

 

But that's all runners on all bases. Surely, the at bats he had with a runner on first would be more indicative of the effect Furcal would have, right? Again, not so much.

 

On First: .278/.355/.361/.716 (108 ABs)

 

Now, I recognize that not all of those 108 at bats with a runner on first were with Furcal. But surely, enough of them were that if having Furcal on first base actually helped Giles, it would show up in the numbers.

 

It actually looks like Furcal on first base hurts Marcus quite a bit.

 

But don't let data get in the way of a good theory.

 

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

 

No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story.

What other story is possible in the face of those facts? You cannot possibly still maintain that Giles was helped by the presence of Furcal on the bases, can you?

 

Don't certain guys hit certain pitchers better than others?? Doesn't substance = looking @ all the factors. Maybe Giles hits better in these 100some appearances w/out Furcal on. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe these pitcher's bare down more though. Maybe these pitcher's are guys Giles has more trouble with?? Maybe I'm just needling you on your use of substance cause you look up a few stats and think you have all the substance. :o

I might buy that argument if the stats were even close, but they're not. Giles is basically horrible with a runner on first base and Furcal is the logical person to have represented the bulk of those 108 men on first.

 

I've also done this for people batting after Juan Pierre and came to the same conclusion. As well as other speedy leadoff guys. It just doesn't help the people that bat after them.

 

It is a myth that the speedy basestealer distracts the pitcher and helps the following hitters. If you don't believe me, I suggest spending some time with ESPN's splits data and microsoft Excel some evening.

[cubfan75]

Is it possible the idea of having that baserunner steal second can cause a negative effect of the hitter behind him. For iinstance, if Furcal is on Giles may be more likely to take a pitch or two to see if Furcal can take second. This can put the hitter in more 0-1 and 0-2 counts, thus lowering his effectiveness. Also, many people say you get one good pitch to hit in an at-bat most times, those pitches seen by Giles to let Furcal steal may have been his pitch to drive.

[CubfaninCA]

Okay, so if having Furcal on first helps Giles so much, he obviously must have much better splits with runners on base, right? Well, not so much. His OPS actually goes down with runners on base.

 

None on: .296/.353/.482/.835 (328 ABs)

Runners on: .285/.379/.434/.813 (249 ABs)

 

But that's all runners on all bases. Surely, the at bats he had with a runner on first would be more indicative of the effect Furcal would have, right? Again, not so much.

 

On First: .278/.355/.361/.716 (108 ABs)

 

Now, I recognize that not all of those 108 at bats with a runner on first were with Furcal. But surely, enough of them were that if having Furcal on first base actually helped Giles, it would show up in the numbers.

 

It actually looks like Furcal on first base hurts Marcus quite a bit.

 

But don't let data get in the way of a good theory.

 

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

 

No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story.

What other story is possible in the face of those facts? You cannot possibly still maintain that Giles was helped by the presence of Furcal on the bases, can you?

 

Don't certain guys hit certain pitchers better than others?? Doesn't substance = looking @ all the factors. Maybe Giles hits better in these 100some appearances w/out Furcal on. Maybe he doesn't. Maybe these pitcher's bare down more though. Maybe these pitcher's are guys Giles has more trouble with?? Maybe I'm just needling you on your use of substance cause you look up a few stats and think you have all the substance. :o

I might buy that argument if the stats were even close, but they're not. Giles is basically horrible with a runner on first base and Furcal is the logical person to have represented the bulk of those 108 men on first.

 

I've also done this for people batting after Juan Pierre and came to the same conclusion. As well as other speedy leadoff guys. It just doesn't help the people that bat after them.

 

It is a myth that the speedy basestealer distracts the pitcher and helps the following hitters. If you don't believe me, I suggest spending some time with ESPN's splits data and microsoft Excel some evening.

 

Hmm maybe pitchers do bare down more. I'd like to see more than a year of Furcal and Giles together though. They played together for a while now.

 

I may look into this some evening. Wish my computer @ work was faster. :(

[Guest]

I can't find it for the life of me right now, but I know I've seen a study that looked into how having a speedy guy on base impacts the current AB. I'm pretty sure that it was found that having a speedster on does seem to help, but with two (somewhat related) caveats: The guy on base needs to be a huge threat to steal (such as Vince Coleman or Rickey Henderson) to have any measureable impact, and even then the ultimate benefit was pretty darn small. (Something like a few hits over the course of a season, I think.)

 

Then again, it's been a while since I read the article, and as I said I can't remember where I found it. While looking this afternoon, however, I found a few semi-related and interesting articles regarding how speed supposedly puts pressure on the defense. Interesting reads if you have some time to kill.

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/levitt/articles/speedscores.htm

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/levitt/articles/speedscoresanderrors.htm

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ichiro.htm

[Tim]

I can't find it for the life of me right now, but I know I've seen a study that looked into how having a speedy guy on base impacts the current AB. I'm pretty sure that it was found that having a speedster on does seem to help, but with two (somewhat related) caveats: The guy on base needs to be a huge threat to steal (such as Vince Coleman or Rickey Henderson) to have any measureable impact, and even then the ultimate benefit was pretty darn small. (Something like a few hits over the course of a season, I think.)

 

Then again, it's been a while since I read the article, and as I said I can't remember where I found it. While looking this afternoon, however, I found a few semi-related and interesting articles regarding how speed supposedly puts pressure on the defense. Interesting reads if you have some time to kill.

 

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/levitt/articles/speedscores.htm

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/btf/scholars/levitt/articles/speedscoresanderrors.htm

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/ichiro.htm

Mark posted the link here back in spring 2004, I think. But I recall not agreeing with parts of the methodology. Even taking their methodology without question I thought the study showed that speed on the bases does so little for the hitter to basically completely rule it out as a legitimate factor when compared with putting good talent in the lineup overall.

[CubfaninCA]

Is it possible the idea of having that baserunner steal second can cause a negative effect of the hitter behind him. For iinstance, if Furcal is on Giles may be more likely to take a pitch or two to see if Furcal can take second. This can put the hitter in more 0-1 and 0-2 counts, thus lowering his effectiveness. Also, many people say you get one good pitch to hit in an at-bat most times, those pitches seen by Giles to let Furcal steal may have been his pitch to drive.

 

Well, I think some weight has to be given to Furcal being a switch hitter & Giles being a righty. Furcal ops is about the same against righties and lefties over the past 4 years. Giles ops was about the same this year, but there was a 80 point gap in ops from 02-04. Not surprising, Giles hit lefties better.

[CubfaninCA]

Ok, just looked up Giles numbers from 2002-2004 w/ men on first.

 

In 271 at bats his batting average is .358.

 

Perhaps this year's a fluke?

[Backtobanks]

Furcal, at the price he is going to command, doesn't excite me. I think that Cedeno might be able to produce Furcal's number within a year or two for one-twentieth the cost. Signing Nomar for a low-base salary with incentives and moving Cedeno to 2B (trade Walker) would be my first choice. By 2007 or 2008, Cedeno becomes the SS.

[BigbadB]

Many players typically do hit lefties better than righties if they are righties themselves.

 

One thing that hasn't been discussed with this runner on base discussion is the use of the hit and run. Obviously, you don't hit and run if there are no runners on base. The hit and run is a pretty useful tool to get fielders out of position so that balls can poke through for hits. This should be an extra bonus for the hitter with runners on base. Not so for Giles based on his numbers with runners on 1st.

 

The problem here is that you are assuming that Furcal's speed has a positive effect, when in fact stats prove otherwise.

 

I like Furcal a lot. I think his speed does give a team better chances at scoring runs. He can score from first on a double, he can steal 2nd and score on a single. However, each time he gets caught stealing or attempting to get an extra base, he in fact hurts the teams chances. Overall, I'd say that he's a plus factor.

 

I also believe that OBP should be counted against the hitter for GIDP and caught stealing. The stolen base is an unforced error. The GIDP made two outs with one swing rather than just 1. If you take this into consideration, Neifi had an even worse OBP and Juan Pierre's looks much worse.

[Guest]

Mark posted the link here back in spring 2004, I think. But I recall not agreeing with parts of the methodology. Even taking their methodology without question I thought the study showed that speed on the bases does so little for the hitter to basically completely rule it out as a legitimate factor when compared with putting good talent in the lineup overall.

This is starting to annoy me. After checking with Charlie Pavitt's Statistical Baseball Research Bibliogrophy I'm 99% positive the article was Rob Wood's piece from a 1991 issue of SABR's BTN. Problem is their online archives only go back to the fall of 1998, so I'm sure I didn't get it directly from there. I tried using the site search here but couldn't find Mark's link, either. (I'm assuming it was posted by Mark Peel and not Mark Kanges, though I did wade through all sixteen pages of the latter's "Need for Speed" thread.) I hate it when this happens. :x

 

Other than that, though, I'm pretty sure we're thinking of the same article as my recollecctions from it more or less mirror yours.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Anonymous

[CubfaninCA]

Many players typically do hit lefties better than righties if they are righties themselves.

 

One thing that hasn't been discussed with this runner on base discussion is the use of the hit and run. Obviously, you don't hit and run if there are no runners on base. The hit and run is a pretty useful tool to get fielders out of position so that balls can poke through for hits. This should be an extra bonus for the hitter with runners on base. Not so for Giles based on his numbers with runners on 1st.

 

The problem here is that you are assuming that Furcal's speed has a positive effect, when in fact stats prove otherwise.

 

I like Furcal a lot. I think his speed does give a team better chances at scoring runs. He can score from first on a double, he can steal 2nd and score on a single. However, each time he gets caught stealing or attempting to get an extra base, he in fact hurts the teams chances. Overall, I'd say that he's a plus factor.

 

I also believe that OBP should be counted against the hitter for GIDP and caught stealing. The stolen base is an unforced error. The GIDP made two outs with one swing rather than just 1. If you take this into consideration, Neifi had an even worse OBP and Juan Pierre's looks much worse.

 

Also, he's more likely to make it from 1st to 3rd on a single to rf, and then score on a shallow fly to the OF. Something like this become more beneficial in the playoffs when runs typically become harder to come by.

 

Giles had an ops of .941 w/ men on 1st from 2002 to 2004 also. I have no idea what 2002-2005 factors out to be, but looks like his numbers go up w/ someone on 1b.

[Guest]

Giles had an ops of .941 w/ men on 1st from 2002 to 2004 also. I have no idea what 2002-2005 factors out to be, but looks like his numbers go up w/ someone on 1b.

That's more or less true for all batters no matter who's on base. a better way to look at it would be to see if, say, Jose Canseco hit any better with Rickey Henderson on base as opposed to Mark McGwire.

[BigbadB]

Many players typically do hit lefties better than righties if they are righties themselves.

 

One thing that hasn't been discussed with this runner on base discussion is the use of the hit and run. Obviously, you don't hit and run if there are no runners on base. The hit and run is a pretty useful tool to get fielders out of position so that balls can poke through for hits. This should be an extra bonus for the hitter with runners on base. Not so for Giles based on his numbers with runners on 1st.

 

The problem here is that you are assuming that Furcal's speed has a positive effect, when in fact stats prove otherwise.

 

I like Furcal a lot. I think his speed does give a team better chances at scoring runs. He can score from first on a double, he can steal 2nd and score on a single. However, each time he gets caught stealing or attempting to get an extra base, he in fact hurts the teams chances. Overall, I'd say that he's a plus factor.

 

I also believe that OBP should be counted against the hitter for GIDP and caught stealing. The stolen base is an unforced error. The GIDP made two outs with one swing rather than just 1. If you take this into consideration, Neifi had an even worse OBP and Juan Pierre's looks much worse.

 

Also, he's more likely to make it from 1st to 3rd on a single to rf, and then score on a shallow fly to the OF. Something like this become more beneficial in the playoffs when runs typically become harder to come by.

 

Giles had an ops of .941 w/ men on 1st from 2002 to 2004 also. I have no idea what 2002-2005 factors out to be, but looks like his numbers go up w/ someone on 1b.

 

My point was that Giles should have a better AVG/OBP with a runner on 1st. That's a great situation to hit and run. It breaks up double plays and puts runners in scoring position on a hit. Giles should have a better AVG with a runner on 1st.

[NoDak]

Okay, so if having Furcal on first helps Giles so much, he obviously must have much better splits with runners on base, right? Well, not so much. His OPS actually goes down with runners on base.

 

None on: .296/.353/.482/.835 (328 ABs)

Runners on: .285/.379/.434/.813 (249 ABs)

 

But that's all runners on all bases. Surely, the at bats he had with a runner on first would be more indicative of the effect Furcal would have, right? Again, not so much.

 

On First: .278/.355/.361/.716 (108 ABs)

 

Now, I recognize that not all of those 108 at bats with a runner on first were with Furcal. But surely, enough of them were that if having Furcal on first base actually helped Giles, it would show up in the numbers.

 

It actually looks like Furcal on first base hurts Marcus quite a bit.

 

But don't let data get in the way of a good theory.

 

It could have been worse... Perhaps Furcal hits some pitcher's better than Giles??

Or perhaps you're really reaching to support a position without substance. After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

 

No. I just don't think stats tells the entire story.

 

OK, I'll throw my two cents worth in on this one.

 

It seems that some people want to argue from "incidental evidence." It is usually based on the fact that, during a season, all kinds of factors affect individual games and, while they may be minor, bizarre, instances, they may be the difference in a win/loss. And, after all, a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

 

Then there are others who say, "I want to put together the team that will do the best in the most situations." Even if there are some instances where this will hurt, the end result will be better than any other way.

 

I agree with Tim. He puts forth good evidence (not vague quotes from "lots of pitchers"). While there are instances where it would be valuable to have someone with Furcal's speed, it won't necessarily lead to more runs scored.

 

As for statements like "Well, some hitters hit some pitchers better than others" this is accounted for by "sample size." Simply put, the best sample is a "Sample of 1" but this doesn't give much information as we lack perspective (which may lead us to believe that ANY ONE OF Lenny Harris'---aka "the Fat DeLino"---pinch hits proves he is the best hitter in history). The more ABs included the greater the likelihood that it is a true measure of the player.

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Stats don't tell the entire story? How many years have they been keeping good track of baseball (not just box scores)? since stats inc. in the 80's?

 

that's 15+ years of data. i humbly submit that whatever phenomena exist in baseball has been captured in that period of time and can be far better explained with math (i.e. logic) than someone's biased POV (fans, managers, scouts, and GMs included).

 

look objectively at the problem. if there is an error in the "stats" side, it is either from lack of the necessary data (which i doubt) or incorrect application of statistical methods (not likely as human beings have been using these methods for many years in many aspects of life: engineering, economics, etc.).

Edited October 8, 2005 by Meat&PotatoesMan

[SeldomSeen]

Having Furcal around to lead off will keep Crusty from trying to put square peg Felix Pie into the round hole of the #1 spot in the batting order.

 

1. This may be the best reason given yet.

2. It's funny that we're comparing Furcal with Walker (because of various trade ideas, I know). Certainly from a value/$$$ perspective, there's not a huge difference, but I know this: Furcal is a damn site better than Neifi.

3. It seems like Walker is as good as gone, from various quotes. I'd bet (a small amount) we end up with something like Cedeno/Soriano MI, and Lofton in CF for a year. If Hoops' senario comes true, insert Wilkerson for Lofton. I'd love to have Livan, as he's the anti-Cub starter who goes deep into games and eats innings.

4. Does this still leave money for B. Giles???

[frostwyrm]

After all, it's more likely that a pitcher who has already allowed one guy to reach is going to be a hittable guy.

 

EXACTLY. If you just look at season averages with men on base you are ignoring the obvious fact that hits and walks are not evenly scattered. Pitchers tend to give them up in clusters.

[NoDak]

Stats don't tell the entire story? How many years have they been keeping good track of baseball (not just box scores)? since stats inc. in the 80's?

 

that's 15+ years of data. i humbly submit that whatever phenomena exist in baseball has been captured in that period of time and can be far better explained with math (i.e. logic) than someone's biased POV (fans, managers, scouts, and GMs included).

 

look objectively at the problem. if there is an error in the "stats" side, it is either from lack of the necessary data (which i doubt) or incorrect application of statistical methods (not likely as human beings have been using these methods for many years in many aspects of life: engineering, economics, etc.).

 

There is also good data pre-1980. retrosheet.com is trying to put together the score card of every major league game it can. While having the scorecard isn't as thorough as what stats inc. will come up with (I don't think you can get ZR from a scorecard) it will show how often a batter advanced a runner, how many bases the baserunner advanced, etc.

[JGalt73]

In terms of speed and taking the extra base, BP 2005 had a James Click piece looking at runs created by 'aggressive' baserunning. It looked at chances and success at taking extra bases with some attempt at control. The best of the bunch added 5-8 runs over the course of the season. Furcal was among the league leaders in 2004 (2nd with 5.0 'extra' runs), and 2002 (6th, with 5.3 'extra' runs). It doesn't go beyond the top 10.

 

Your most prolific "extra bases taken turned to runs" leaders for 1972-2004: 1) Robin Yount, 2) Rickey Henderson, 3) Ozzie Smith, 4) Ryne Sandberg.