Runner only on Second Base, batting average drops

[Second Base Coach]

Here is something to look up on your own.

Pick ten players who played recently, and head over to baseball reference, go to career splits and then scroll down to the "Bases Occupied" table.

I noticed that almost all of the players I have looked up so far have a drop in their batting average when they were hitting with just a runner on second base.

I have not done a serious study on this, as I just noticed this after looking up about ten players. It caught my eye, and I wonder if this is true because of some sort of distraction factor (or something else).

Or perhaps it is just coincidence on my part, as I just picked the "right" guys and this showed up. So if you wish, YOU do it, make sure BR has the data for the player in question, and see if, more often than not, the random player you choose takes a hit in batting average when just considering those plate appearances with only a runner on second base, and no other runners.

If this happens to you too, thoughts?

[Second Base Coach]

So far the only guy who does not take a hit (or stays close anyway) is Ichiro. He hits .370 with a .501 OBP and this row is by far his best split.

Again, I am just looking up random players... like Johnny Lemaster, who took a hit like Fred Lynn, Steve Garvey, Pete Rose, etc.

It's probably nothing...

[fonda1119]

I just picked 10 random, well-known ballplayers. The first number is career BA, the second number is career BA with a runner on 2nd. Interesting observation. I don't think the runner on second being a distraction is the main cause. I think the main reason is that a pitcher won't give a hitter as good a pitch to hit if he has first base open.

Edgar Renteria .289 to .275
Adrian Gonzalez .279 to .287
Johnny Damon .289 to .247
Jason Varitek .262 to .235
Rafael Furcal .284 to .286
Jermaine Dye .277 to .247
Placido Polanco .303 to .265
Freddy Sanchez .302 to .256
Chipper Jones .310 to .282
Adam Dunn .248 to .189

[SABR Matt]

You know...you can look at whole leagues.

Check out 2009 AL for example...

Overall averages: .264/.335/.427
Runner at second: .244/.365/.380

Looks like the batting average goes way down with a man on second because pitchers are being more careful and pitching around guys (walks go way up, Ks go down a bit, power goes down a bit, average goes down). The good hitters get walked (and so do not contribute to BA as much) and the bad hitters feel compelled to swing at borderline pitches too often.

[SavoyBG]

Here is something to look up on your own.

Pick ten players who played recently, and head over to baseball reference, go to career splits and then scroll down to the "Bases Occupied" table.

I noticed that almost all of the players I have looked up so far have a drop in their batting average when they were hitting with just a runner on second base.

I have not done a serious study on this, as I just noticed this after looking up about ten players. It caught my eye, and I wonder if this is true because of some sort of distraction factor (or something else).

Or perhaps it is just coincidence on my part, as I just picked the "right" guys and this showed up. So if you wish, YOU do it, make sure BR has the data for the player in question, and see if, more often than not, the random player you choose takes a hit in batting average when just considering those plate appearances with only a runner on second base, and no other runners.

If this happens to you too, thoughts?

DUH!!!

I can't believe that nobody answered this correctly yet. I guess none of you have ever played the game much. The main reason that a player's batting average will be a little less with a runner on 2B only is because when you come up with a runner on 2B AND NO OUTS you try and hit a ground ball to the right side. If it gets through for a hit, that's great, but if it doesn't, you are advancing the runner to 3B with one out. Now, this may not really be a great strategy when analyzed numerically, but it is the normal strategy of all teams playing major league baseball in most cases. Obviously you are not trying to move the runner to 3B if it's the 9th inning and you are down by 4 runs.

I bet if you can check a player's batting average with a runner on 2B only with no outs, and the same situation with one out or two outs, there will be a difference.

There's also the fact that the infielders are not playing at a shorter depth for the double play, and would never be playing in with a runner on 2B only. Some of the time you have a runner on 3B only, or 2B and 3B, or bases loaded, the infield is in, so that will increase the bater's batting average by a lot. With a runner on 1B on, if he's being held on that will increase his average some because the 1Bman can't cover as much ground. A runner on 2B only is the one time that there is a runner or runners on base where the infield does not have to change their position much, if at all. The only change may be the 2B and/or SS being a little closer to 2B to keep the runner from getting a humongous lead.

The "distraction" theory is ludicrous, as the batter would have the same distraction with a runner on 2B as he would if there were other runners also at 1B and/or 3B.

[SABR Matt]

That's true for weaker hitters Savoy...not all hitters. They're finding BA drops for even studly hitters. A-Rod doesn't try to ground out to second when there's an RBI out there for him. :) The BA drop is partially the faux-sacrifice groundout thing and partially the more selective pitching style IMHO.

[SavoyBG]

You know...you can look at whole leagues.

Check out 2009 AL for example...

Overall averages: .264/.335/.427
Runner at second: .244/.365/.380

Looks like the batting average goes way down with a man on second because pitchers are being more careful and pitching around guys (walks go way up, Ks go down a bit, power goes down a bit, average goes down). The good hitters get walked (and so do not contribute to BA as much) and the bad hitters feel compelled to swing at borderline pitches too often.

The main reason that the SLG% goes down is not because batters are being pitched around, it's because batters are trying to hit a groundball to the right side, so even if they get a base hit that way, it's gonna be a single almost all of the time.

[SABR Matt]

As for the power drop, you are probably right that guys trying to hit it to right and using their pepper swing to get more control of the ball trajectory would reduce the ISO Power. I still think pitchers change their strategy with guys in scoring position.

[SavoyBG]

That's true for weaker hitters Savoy...not all hitters. They're finding BA drops for even studly hitters. A-Rod doesn't try to ground out to second when there's an RBI out there for him. :) The BA drop is partially the faux-sacrifice groundout thing and partially the more selective pitching style IMHO.


A-Rod and (almost) every other major league hitter tries to hit to the right side with a runner on 2B and no outs, especially early in the game, or in any kind of close score.

Check out your play by play data for batters who are batting with a runner on 2B and no outs. I guarantee there are loads more 4-3 plays in those situations, along with some 3U and some 3-1.

[SavoyBG]

As for the power drop, you are probably right that guys trying to hit it to right and using their pepper swing to get more control of the ball trajectory would reduce the ISO Power.


That's one of the reasons why the hit and run is a losing strategy. Batters lose a lot of their power because they are trying to put a particular pitch in play to the right side when the hit and run is on, rather than waiting for the pitch that they can really drive, and/or pull (Rhers).



I still think pitchers change their strategy with guys in scoring position.

Sure they do, but first is not always open when there are guys in scoring position, and a different strategy is not necessarily going to be more effective in stopping the hitter.

[SABR Matt]

Except we've seen evidence that it does...Tom Glavine has a high career strand rate and his splits with runners on base change in exactly the same way that this runner at second split does...the Ks go down, the walks go way up, the ISO Power goes down, the BABIP goes down.

[SavoyBG]

Except we've seen evidence that it does...Tom Glavine has a high career strand rate and his splits with runners on base change in exactly the same way that this runner at second split does...the Ks go down, the walks go way up, the ISO Power goes down, the BABIP goes down.


It'll be effective for some guys and not effective for other guys, and for most it won't matter. And there's the windup/stretch thing which will make a big difference with certain pitchers.

[fonda1119]

DUH!!!

I can't believe that nobody answered this correctly yet. I guess none of you have ever played the game much. The main reason that a player's batting average will be a little less with a runner on 2B only is because when you come up with a runner on 2B AND NO OUTS you try and hit a ground ball to the right side. If it gets through for a hit, that's great, but if it doesn't, you are advancing the runner to 3B with one out. Now, this may not really be a great strategy when analyzed numerically, but it is the normal strategy of all teams playing major league baseball in most cases. Obviously you are not trying to move the runner to 3B if it's the 9th inning and you are down by 4 runs.

I bet if you can check a player's batting average with a runner on 2B only with no outs, and the same situation with one out or two outs, there will be a difference.

There's also the fact that the infielders are not playing at a shorter depth for the double play, and would never be playing in with a runner on 2B only. Some of the time you have a runner on 3B only, or 2B and 3B, or bases loaded, the infield is in, so that will increase the bater's batting average by a lot. With a runner on 1B on, if he's being held on that will increase his average some because the 1Bman can't cover as much ground. A runner on 2B only is the one time that there is a runner or runners on base where the infield does not have to change their position much, if at all. The only change may be the 2B and/or SS being a little closer to 2B to keep the runner from getting a humongous lead.

The "distraction" theory is ludicrous, as the batter would have the same distraction with a runner on 2B as he would if there were other runners also at 1B and/or 3B.

The problem with the "pull to the ball to the right side" answer is that it only accounts for 0-out situations. With 0 outs then, yes, definitely, that's why Avg would drop. But we also have to account for 1-out and 2-out situations. And, let's face it, there are way more instances with a runner on 2nd and 1- or 2-outs than just 0-outs.

So how do we account for an Avg drop with 1-out or 2-outs and a runner 2nd? Well, in these situations the pitcher is pitching around the hitter with a base open while the batter is trying to drive in that run. I think batters are susceptible to swinging at worse pitches in order to try to slap a single somewhere to get that RBI.

[brett]

DUH!!!

I can't believe that nobody answered this correctly yet.


I still think that a lot of it comes from pitchers working around guys and being willing to give up semi-intentional walks.

Take a look at Mike Schmidt.

He goes .267/.380/.527 in ALL situations.

Runner on second ONLY he goes .234/.402/.483

All situations
Total bases per hit: 2.064
Walks per plate appearance: 0.150

Second ONLY
Total bases per hit: 2.064
Walks per plate appearance: 0.211
DROP in BA: 12.3%

He had exactly the same rate of total bases per hit in those situations as in others but walked more. He walked about 6% more and lost about 10% off his slugging% which is actually a slight improvement in production given a neutral situation.

Morgan
All situations
Total bases per hit: 1.58
Walks per plate appearance: 0.165

Second ONLY
Total bases per hit: 1.51
Walks per plate appearance: 0.206
DROP IN BA: 16.2%

Compared to Schmidt, Morgan had a much bigger drop in BA, lost a small amount of total bases per hit AND gained significantly fewer walks per plate appearance.

Now I'll point out that this is the situation in which a single has the most added value over a walk. I would really like to be able to see splits for guys with a runner on second ONLY AND with 2 outs. In that situation, a single is worth something like 2.2 times as much as a walk.

Then you take Bonds

Bonds
All situations
Total bases per hit: 2.04
Walks per plate appearance: 0.203

Second ONLY
Total bases per hit: 1.92
Walks per plate appearance: 0.425
DROP IN BA: 1.7%

Bonds did seem to lose a small amount of power, but probably more in his early years. Virtually no drop in BA despite being walked almost half the time.

Discuss!

[SABR Matt]

Simple (possibly too simple) deduction is what led me to the pitching strategy change. I've seen what happens to certain pitching lines when they pitch with guys on base, especially runners in scoring position...and it looks similar to this particular split for batters. BTW, if you look at LEFT HANDED batters, they generally still have this split...which runs counter to Savoy's answer, because a lefty will be FAVORED to pull the ball to the right side and should hit the ball HARDER in this situation...not less hard.

[SavoyBG]

The problem with the "pull to the ball to the right side" answer is that it only accounts for 0-out situations. With 0 outs then, yes, definitely, that's why Avg would drop. But we also have to account for 1-out and 2-out situations. And, let's face it, there are way more instances with a runner on 2nd and 1- or 2-outs than just 0-outs.

So how do we account for an Avg drop with 1-out or 2-outs and a runner 2nd? Well, in these situations the pitcher is pitching around the hitter with a base open while the batter is trying to drive in that run. I think batters are susceptible to swinging at worse pitches in order to try to slap a single somewhere to get that RBI.


Who says that the average drops with one out or two outs? The entire difference could just be that the average drops a lot with no outs, so that when you look at "2B only" without knowing the number of outs, it creates an illusion that batters hit for lower averages with 2B only no matter how many outs there are.

[SavoyBG]

Tom Glavine has a high career strand rate and his splits with runners on base change in exactly the same way that this runner at second split does...the Ks go down, the walks go way up, the ISO Power goes down, the BABIP goes down.


A good example as to why DERA is fatally flawed for old timers where we have no play by play data.

[brett]

Simple (possibly too simple) deduction is what led me to the pitching strategy change. I've seen what happens to certain pitching lines when they pitch with guys on base, especially runners in scoring position...and it looks similar to this particular split for batters. BTW, if you look at LEFT HANDED batters, they generally still have this split...which runs counter to Savoy's answer, because a lefty will be FAVORED to pull the ball to the right side and should hit the ball HARDER in this situation...not less hard.

Yes, that's why I wanted to see Schmidt versus Morgan and Bonds. Both Morgan and Bonds hit with less power and Schmidt with more.

How do outfielders tend to play with runner on second and less than 2 outs? I think people overestimate the rate of scoring from second on a single.

[SABR Matt]

A good example as to why DERA is fatally flawed for old timers where we have no play by play data.

I would not call that a "fatal" flaw. It's a potential minor bias...there's a big difference in magnitude between the absolutely fatal flaw inherent in using ERA and failing to account for defensive contexts and the potentially nagging flaw of missing situational pitching patterns such as those displayed by Glavine.

[SABR Matt]

BTW...from my observation of Ichiro, the reason he hits better with a man on second is because the infield defense shifts to cover second and third and Ichiro has an insanely honed ability to make the ball go in the general direction he wants it to, so he's more able to aim for the holes the defensive shifts cause. Either they play the second baseman close to the bag, opening up the right side for Ichiro to smoke grounders through...or they play the shortstop close to the bag at second and the third baseman closer to the line than usual, opening a huge hole on the left side...either way, they're not going to be able to defend against Ichiro.

[SavoyBG]

I would not call that a "fatal" flaw. It's a potential minor bias...there's a big difference in magnitude between the absolutely fatal flaw inherent in using ERA and failing to account for defensive contexts and the potentially nagging flaw of missing situational pitching patterns such as those displayed by Glavine.


At least in the former we are measuring "what really happened" rather than what we are guessing "should have happened."

Your system may be better for measuring position players, but for measuring pitchers it's based on a lot of conjecture.

[SABR Matt]

A lot of very well founded, historically supported, well-researched "conjecture" if that's what you mean.

You need to educate yourself on the magnitude of contextual biases vs. the magnitude of potential biases with DIPS-framework systems. ERA doesn't measure "what really happened" either...that's just a fake security blanket for you. It measures run scoring, but it doesn't tell you HOW...it doesn't tell you how much of the damage was pitching and how much was defense. So you're not getting a true picture of what REALLY happened. Your continued efforts to make it soud like defense neutral pitching metrics are some speculative "what should have happened" malarkey will fail in the face of logic...it's not about what SHOULD have happened...it's about what DID happen and WHY it happened. DIPS is an attempt to credit the pitchers for what they contributed to run prevention and credit the fielders for what THEY contributed. An attempt to take the run scoring that did happen and EXPLAIN it. ERA is blind to WHY...no scientist should be satisfied with that.

[SavoyBG]

A lot of very well founded, historically supported, well-researched "conjecture" if that's what you mean.

You need to educate yourself on the magnitude of contextual biases vs. the magnitude of potential biases with DIPS-framework systems. ERA doesn't measure "what really happened" either...that's just a fake security blanket for you. It measures run scoring, but it doesn't tell you HOW...it doesn't tell you how much of the damage was pitching and how much was defense. So you're not getting a true picture of what REALLY happened. Your continued efforts to make it soud like defense neutral pitching metrics are some speculative "what should have happened" malarkey will fail in the face of logic...it's not about what SHOULD have happened...it's about what DID happen and WHY it happened. DIPS is an attempt to credit the pitchers for what they contributed to run prevention and credit the fielders for what THEY contributed. An attempt to take the run scoring that did happen and EXPLAIN it. ERA is blind to WHY...no scientist should be satisfied with that.

As long as the games are decided by runs rather than by baserunners allowed, I'm more interested in ERA than in DIPS.

[SABR Matt]

As long as you remain closed to new ideas, you will never gain new insight.

[Ubiquitous]

As long as the games are decided by runs rather than by baserunners allowed, I'm more interested in ERA than in DIPS.

So why look at earned runs and why bother with individual pitchers? If you want to see how an individual pitcher is going to impact a game then you want to look at the things he can do to impact the game.

[SavoyBG]

As long as you remain closed to new ideas, you will never gain new insight.

I'm not closed to new ideas at all. DIPS was a new idea a while back. I looked into it, deceided that it didn't work well, and rejected it.

Based on DIPS, a pitcher that gives up 8 hits and 7 walks and pitches a 9 inning shutout, did not do a good job.

Based on DIPS, a pitcher who struck out 19, walked one, and allowed 4 doubles and two singles and 4 earned runs in 9 innings, did a great job.

[SavoyBG]

So why look at earned runs and why bother with individual pitchers? If you want to see how an individual pitcher is going to impact a game then you want to look at the things he can do to impact the game.


I don't want to know what he "can do" to impact a future game. I want to know what he "did do" in a game that is already over.

I'm only interested in measuring value, not in forecasting future talent, since I have little interest in current players.

As for individual pitchers, I have always said that wins and losses should not be given to individual pitchers. Teams win and lose games, not individual pitchers. One of the dumbest things that you ever hear people say is "the pitcher helped his own cause."

[SABR Matt]

I'm not closed to new ideas at all. DIPS was a new idea a while back. I looked into it, deceided that it didn't work well, and rejected it.

Based on DIPS, a pitcher that gives up 8 hits and 7 walks and pitches a 9 inning shutout, did not do a good job.

Based on DIPS, a pitcher who struck out 19, walked one, and allowed 4 doubles and two singles and 4 earned runs in 9 innings, did a great job.

And I believe both conclusions are CORRECT. The pitcher who allowed 15 baserunners in 9 innings and did not allow an earned run got DAMNED lucky. The pitcher who allowed 7 baserunners, some of which found some gaps and must have been tightly clustered together in one bad inning...I'll take that every time. Just because the first guy happened to allow zero runs in that particular outing doesn't mean it was through his own actions that the runs were prevented.

[Second Base Coach]

Good thoughts here, but I reject the hit the ball to the right side idea. The guys I looked up weren't punch and judy hitters. They were RBI men. If almost every batting average I see goes down, then what do we have, a conspiracy on behalf of all the batters out there to sacrifice themselves for the sake of one base?

I would believe it if this were 1909, instead of 2009.

I am betting the conspiracy runs deeper than that and the take two and go to right crowd is only part of the equation.

I am guessing the open base is causing a decline in strikes from the pitchers. So walks will go up, and those who do swing, will be breaking Ted Williams' first rule of hitting, that of course is getting a good pitch to hit.

I really believe this is true with one out or any other time the fielding team is looking to set up a double play.

And for the one person who is wondering, yeah I played the game and I still watch it too. But that does not make me an expert, no more than any notion that because I do pay attention more than some one else, that other guy is clueless.

[SavoyBG]

Good thoughts here, but I reject the hit the ball to the right side idea. The guys I looked up weren't punch and judy hitters. They were RBI men. If almost every batting average I see goes down, then what do we have, a conspiracy on behalf of all the batters out there to sacrifice themselves for the sake of one base?



I guess you've never actually played the game?

It's not a conspiracy, it's what you were taught to do all through your career. If you come up with a battter on 2B and no outs, you try to give yourself up to move that runner to 3B. I'm not saying that I agree with that strategy, I am saying that IT IS the strategy that is employed in that situation, almost all of the time.

[leewileyfan]

I'm not closed to new ideas at all. DIPS was a new idea a while back. I looked into it, deceided that it didn't work well, and rejected it.

Based on DIPS, a pitcher that gives up 8 hits and 7 walks and pitches a 9 inning shutout, did not do a good job.

Suppose said pitcher K'd 19 and induced 4 GDP in getting his shutout? Would those numbers affect your evaluation of his outing?

CG shutout pitchers do not lose any games.


Based on DIPS, a pitcher who struck out 19, walked one, and allowed 4 doubles and two singles and 4 earned runs in 9 innings, did a great job.

In an historic 135 year 4.5 run scoring average season, a guy allowing 4.00 earned runs [won't charge him with more because there's not ebough offense in your model & you didn't allow for uneraned runs], will win .566 of his decisions. A team of .566 pitchers will win 91 of 162 games and be contenders.

Not too shabby.

[leewileyfan]

One of the dumbest things that you ever hear people say is "the pitcher helped his own cause."

Well, a pitcher who fields his position like an added infielder; one who has learned how to bunt effectively when called to do so; OR, that rare guy who just plain adds a halfway decent bat to the lineup can help his own cause in several ways, especially in tight games.

[SavoyBG]

Well, a pitcher who fields his position like an added infielder; one who has learned how to bunt effectively when called to do so; OR, that rare guy who just plain adds a halfway decent bat to the lineup can help his own cause in several ways, especially in tight games.

The point is that it's NOT his "own cause," it's the "team's cause," and it's the same cause that every player on the team has.

[SABR Matt]

Thank you for making my point FOR me Savoy...very sporting of you.

You're correct...it's not the pitcher's cause (run prevention)...it's the TEAM'S cause...there are 8 other guys out there who are impacting the opposing score card.

[SavoyBG]

Thank you for making my point FOR me Savoy...very sporting of you.

You're correct...it's not the pitcher's cause (run prevention)...it's the TEAM'S cause...there are 8 other guys out there who are impacting the opposing score card.


I was referring to when a pitcher gets a hit to help his team score and the announcers invariably say that he "helped his own cause."

[leewileyfan]

Sometimes a certain folklore enters the language of a sport rich in tradition, myth and folklore; and if one isn't too verbally restrictive, it can be enriching, especially if taken with a grain of salt.

We have DH in the game today because guys like Johnson, Ferrell, Walters, Hutchinson, and a slew of others have vanished, like the dinosaur.

We can be glad in the absence of nastier lingo that prevailed 70 years ago and more about dumb pitchers who couldn't hit the floor with their hat because they were too indolent or pampered with their pitching to make respectable plate appearances.

It was out of respect for the pitchers who did do more in contributing to the team effort that the expression arose; and it originated from the playing field, not the print medium. Players apprecated a guy "who helped the cause." As much language does, it became "his" own cause, 'cause the W appeared after pitchers' names in the box score.

[SABR Matt]

I was referring to when a pitcher gets a hit to help his team score and the announcers invariably say that he "helped his own cause."

Yes I know...but your point is equally true of team defense as well...the fact that you find this an inconvenient truth is endlessly hilarious to me.

[leewileyfan]

Going back to the thread topic about a perceived batting drop in the instance of a sole runner on 2B, there is the added element of batter distraction.

A batter from either side of the plate will always have a runner on 2B within his peripheral view, magnified by the pitcher's physical tics in response to a RISP, the movements of the defending 2B and/or SS in feigning the runner from taking too big a lead, and the batter's own awareness that first base is open.

The mere fact that 1B is open adds another small layer to the psychology of hitter vs. pitcher. The hitter may well expect that he may not get much that's good to swing at [and thus be overly watchful at the plate].

[brett]

Going back to the thread topic about an observed drop in the instance of a sole runner on 2B, there is the added element of batter distraction.

A batter from either side of the plate will always have a runner on 2B within his peripheral view, magnified by the pitcher's physical tics in response to a RISP, the movements of the defending 2B and/or SS in feigning the runner from taking too big a lead, and the batter's own awareness that first base is open.

The mere fact that 1B is open adds another small layer to the psychology of hitter vs. pitcher. The hitter may well expect that he may not get much that's good to swing at [and thus be overly watchful at the plate].

Don't you think that one of the middle infielders is going to be out of position though? I think that with a runner just on first, BA rises.

[leewileyfan]

Don't you think that one of the middle infielders is going to be out of position though? I think that with a runner just on first, BA rises.

However, the thread topic focuses very specifically on a perceived batting drop-off with a solitary runner on 2B.

Another distraction I failed to mention is that of the runner himself, his antics in taking a lead and/or reacting to fielders, perhaps even the distraction of his trying to steal catcher's signs.

[Second Base Coach]

I guess you've never actually played the game?

It's not a conspiracy, it's what you were taught to do all through your career. If you come up with a battter on 2B and no outs, you try to give yourself up to move that runner to 3B. I'm not saying that I agree with that strategy, I am saying that IT IS the strategy that is employed in that situation, almost all of the time.

I thought small was dead. I heard it died right around the time contracts were tied to RBI...

[Second Base Coach]

I was referring to when a pitcher gets a hit to help his team score and the announcers invariably say that he "helped his own cause."

He did. His contract it tied to Wins. Not sabermetric wins, but won-loss records, old school wins.

So he is helpin' HIS cause. I don't think you hear that phrase from announcers very much. Just in a pitcher's contract year.

[Second Base Coach]

Going back to the thread topic about a perceived batting drop in the instance of a sole runner on 2B, there is the added element of batter distraction.

A batter from either side of the plate will always have a runner on 2B within his peripheral view, magnified by the pitcher's physical tics in response to a RISP, the movements of the defending 2B and/or SS in feigning the runner from taking too big a lead, and the batter's own awareness that first base is open.

The mere fact that 1B is open adds another small layer to the psychology of hitter vs. pitcher. The hitter may well expect that he may not get much that's good to swing at [and thus be overly watchful at the plate].

The other posters seem to think that batters can block all of that out. I think there is something to it. The runner is moving, one of the middle infielders is moving, the pitcher keeps turning his head that way. All this before he throws a pitch which may be more off the plate than the batter would usually expect.

Back when I played I was very focused on the pitcher because hitting was the worst part of my game. I was very worried I would strike out because of all the balls I would see off the plate. Add to this was the fact that I was doing my best to ground out to the second baseman, rather than try to get a base hit like I had been trained to do all through school. Now the coach WANTS me to make an out. How annoying.

[SABR Matt]

The "fielder near second base is distracting" postulate would have more legs if EVERY time there was a runner at second, the batter suffered. It's not true though...with runners at first AND second, the split does not go down. Nor does it go down with the bases loaded or with runners at second and third.

[Second Base Coach]

The "fielder near second base is distracting" postulate would have more legs if EVERY time there was a runner at second, the batter suffered. It's not true though...with runners at first AND second, the split does not go down. Nor does it go down with the bases loaded or with runners at second and third.

Where's the guy on second base going to go if there is a runner on third?

Reminds me of the old Brooklyn Dodgers story, when they were terrible... one fan is keeping track of the game, fan number two asks...

How are the Bums doing?

They have three men on base...

Which base?

Oh but I digress.. I suppose the pitcher goes back to throwing strikes with runners on first and second.

That about covers it, except for more accusations that I never played the game, or at least never batted with runners in scoring position against a pitcher who knew enough to pitch around me with first base open while playing for a manager who wanted me to take two and go to right.

[SABR Matt]

JDD...if you were correct that the fielder being near the second base bag distracted the hitter (not to mention the runner at second himself)...it would still be reflected in the statistics for other situations with runners at second...I'm not saying you're wrong to include that as one possible minor factor, but I think, based on the statistical evidence, that the two factors that dominate are pitching strategies changing with an open base and weaker hitters trying to push the ball to right.

[brett]

However, the thread topic focuses very specifically on a perceived batting drop-off with a solitary runner on 2B.

Another distraction I failed to mention is that of the runner himself, his antics in taking a lead and/or reacting to fielders, perhaps even the distraction of his trying to steal catcher's signs.

I was giving that as another example, as I know that one of the middle infielders has to at least be able to get to second with a runner on first.

I am pretty sure that at least one of the middle infielders will be playing more up-the middle with a runner on second only. Typically I think it will be the shortstop, but I'm asking people who are more observant of actual baseball.

[SavoyBG]

Going back to the thread topic about a perceived batting drop in the instance of a sole runner on 2B, there is the added element of batter distraction.

A batter from either side of the plate will always have a runner on 2B within his peripheral view, magnified by the pitcher's physical tics in response to a RISP, the movements of the defending 2B and/or SS in feigning the runner from taking too big a lead, and the batter's own awareness that first base is open.

The mere fact that 1B is open adds another small layer to the psychology of hitter vs. pitcher. The hitter may well expect that he may not get much that's good to swing at [and thus be overly watchful at the plate].

If the runner on 2B is a distrcation then he would be a distraction no matter whether or not there were other runners on too, and since in those other situations the batters do not hit for lower averages, I thinbk you are wrong here.

[brett]

Anyway, here are two testable hypotheses.

1) Pitchers work (do not work) faster with a runner on second only.
2) Pitchers throw/don't throw more pitches to a batter on average with a runner on second only.

My basic feeling is that when pitchers are "willing" to walk a batter ultimately, that they will pitch around him, unless they get ahead in the count at which point they will pitch to him with an advantage.

Furthermore, this particular situation is one in which a single provides more than the normal relative value versus a walk. Some high walk hitters like Joe Morgan did not hit well in those situations, while others like Bonds DID. (This is one of the reasons why I've dropped Morgan down to the lower teens among major league position players-he hit relatively poorly for average in situations when a hit was worth much more than a walk).

Another couple of questions:

1) Does the outfield tend to play differently with a runner on second only? Its certainly not automatic that a runner scores from second on a single. I'd guess that the outfield would play fairly deep so that they could cut off singles in position to make a good throw.

2) Do pitchers ALWAYS use the stretch with a runner on second?

3) Oh yea, I forgot this one: If a player sacrifices with a runner on second, and is successful, he gets NO at bat, but if they make a play on the baserunner, EVEN IF IT IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, he gets a FC usually.

[SavoyBG]

3) Oh yea, I forgot this one: If a player sacrifices with a runner on second, and is successful, he gets NO at bat, but if they make a play on the baserunner, EVEN IF IT IS NOT SUCCESSFUL, he gets a FC usually.


No, if they throw to 3B and the runner is safe it's a SAC and a FC, the FC is thrown in to explian why the batter was safe at 1B. It's only a straight FC if the runner is out at 3B, or if he would have been out but an error was made.

[SavoyBG]

but I think, based on the statistical evidence, that the two factors that dominate are pitching strategies changing with an open base and weaker hitters trying to push the ball to right.

Should be easy enough to figure out which factor is bigger. You have the play by play data. Just see what batters hit in these situations:

Runner on 2B only - no outs
Runner on 2B only - one out
Runner on 2B only - two outs

If there's not much change in the three then the pitching strategies are the main reason. If batters hit much lower in the first scenario than in the other two, then the main reason is batters trying to make an out to advance the runner.

[SABR Matt]

Yep...that would be the reasonable test...I have no rebuilt my PBP database yet, but that would indeed be the way to test this question.

[leewileyfan]

If the runner on 2B is a distrcation then he would be a distraction no matter whether or not there were other runners on too, and since in those other situations the batters do not hit for lower averages, I thinbk you are wrong here.

Not to the same degree as a sole runner on 2B, and for a variety of reasons:

1. runners on 1B & 2B and less than two out introduces the situation of a force at any base, the potential for a DP [even a TP], and the whole bag of considerations not present with a sole runner on 2B.

2. runners on 2B & 3B invite an IBB, especially with less than two out and even with two out if the hitters either on deck or on the bench are weaker than the hitter stepping to the plate.

3. bases loaded is like Bethlehem, with no room in the inn and no place to put the hitter.

In these situations, the runner on 2B is not the sole advancement challenge to the hitter, nor is he the sole determinant of hitting strategies and their consequences. He becomes part of a crowd.

There is a distinct difference. And to anticipate a challenge, yes, I've played the game .... a whole lot.

[SavoyBG]

Not to the same degree as a sole runner on 2B, and for a variety of reasons:

1. runners on 1B & 2B and less than two out introduces the situation of a force at any base, the potential for a DP [even a TP], and the whole bag of considerations not present with a sole runner on 2B.

A force at any base would make the batter have a LOWER average as the defense will occasionally pick up an out at 2B or 3B when they can't make a play on the batter. But batters do not have a lower average with first and second than they do with second only, so you are wrong again.



2. runners on 2B & 3B invite an IBB, especially with less than two out and even with two out if the hitters either on deck or on the bench are weaker than the hitter stepping to the plate.

Negating your points is like shooting fish in a barrel. An intentional walk has no bearing on batting average.



3. bases loaded is like Bethlehem, with no room in the inn and no place to put the hitter.


Like I said, the runner on 2B being a distraction means nothing as to why batters hit worse with a runner on second only then they dod with runners on first and second, second and third, or bases loaded. If the runner on second was distracting the batter, he would be distracting the batter the same whether he was only runner...or not.

[leewileyfan]

A force at any base would make the batter have a LOWER average as the defense will occasionally pick up an out at 2B or 3B when they can't make a play on the batter. But batters do not have a lower average with first and second than they do with second only, so you are wrong again.

First, your attention to the subject at hand drifts off into unsupported argumentation having no immediate relevance to the thread topic:

1. We are discussing a perceived drop in batting performance with a sole runner on 2b.

2. Relative to that specific condition, I offered a distraction factor which is immediately familiar [and real to anyone who has played baseball.

3. While the challenges to a hitter and his BA and/or BABIP via ease of force plays are obvious, they are irrelevant to the unique distractions posed by a sole runner on 2B: You have drifted into your own snug tangent and pronounced some sort of forensic victory. [Not].

4. The topic at hand is: Given the situation of a sole runner on 2B with fewer than 2 outs, a situation one might presume favors the hitter [IBB strategy or pitch around to set up DP ... good for OB%; OR getting and opportunity to move a runner along with very little chance of a double play]; why, is there an "apparent" slump in hitting performance in that specific situation?

I haven't checked to see how real this perception is; but some have indicated here that it looks real enough to them.


Negating your points is like shooting fish in a barrel. An intentional walk has no bearing on batting average.

You make no points. Your "DUH" greeting to this thread surprises me only in how long it took you to add more attitude than substance to the discussion.

How many fish have you shot in how many barrels to date this year? Is that considered sportsmanlike?


Like I said, the runner on 2B being a distraction means nothing as to why batters hit worse with a runner on second only then they dod with runners on first and second, second and third, or bases loaded. If the runner on second was distracting the batter, he would be distracting the batter the same whether he was only runner...or not.

Yeah, we know what you said. I can say I am descended from Bedouin royalty and recently won 30 games in the Sahara Desert Winter League. I doubt many here would be wowed by that, either.

[SABR Matt]

1) We are discussing an ACTUAL drop in batting average, not a perceived drop...it's a drop and it's very real.

2) Why is a runner at second base with no other baserunners more distracting to the batter than a runner at second base with other baserunners present? Until you make that case fully and persuade us it has merit, your distraction factor won't hold water. That doesn't mean you aren't right, but you need to make your case in rebuttal to the stated counterpoint that with runners at second base AND other bases, batting performance doesn't drop, and in some cases it actually goes up.

[SavoyBG]

I think, based on the statistical evidence, that the two factors that dominate are pitching strategies changing with an open base and weaker hitters trying to push the ball to right.


If the pitchers changing their strategy because of an open base was the cause of this then we'd see the same drop in batting averages with runners on 2B and 3B as we do with a runner on 2B only.

I say this is caused almost entirely because of the no out situation where the batter is trying to advance the runner. If we can get the spilts with a runner on 2B with each out situation, we'll know the answer.

[Tango Tiger]

All this excludes bases empty situations.

The HR rate drops by 20-30% in these base/out states:

2b, 0 outs
3b, less than 2 outs
2b/3b, 1,2 outs

The BABIP is lowest for these states for each of these outs:
at 0 outs: 2b, and it's not even close
at 1 out: 2b, and it's not even close
at 2 outs: 1b/2b, followed closely by 2b and bases loaded

It's clear that with 2b and 0 outs something is happening. However, we can go through all 24 states and something is happening in each of them. That's called situational hitting and situational pitching.

For example, with runner on 1b and 2b open, and less than 2 outs, BABIP shoots up. In the less than 2 outs category, the highest BABIP is with runner on 1B only, followed closely by runners on 1B/3B. Clearly, having the runner at 1B means there's a hole on the right side. In The Book, we showed how LHH take the most advantage of this situation, as you would expect for pull hitters to take advantage of the hole.

[Second Base Coach]

All this excludes bases empty situations.

The HR rate drops by 20-30% in these base/out states:

2b, 0 outs
3b, less than 2 outs
2b/3b, 1,2 outs

The BABIP is lowest for these states for each of these outs:
at 0 outs: 2b, and it's not even close
at 1 out: 2b, and it's not even close
at 2 outs: 1b/2b, followed closely by 2b and bases loaded

It's clear that with 2b and 0 outs something is happening. However, we can go through all 24 states and something is happening in each of them. That's called situational hitting and situational pitching.

A little vague, but at least civil. It makes sense that if it is a little harder on the hitter to concentrate, and if that hitter is in many cases just trying to hit the ball to the right side, then his batting average will likely go down, especially if the batter sees fewer strikes as the pitcher has a base to work with.

Thank you everyone for your input. As the original observer, I think I have my answer.

[brett]

If the pitchers changing their strategy because of an open base was the cause of this then we'd see the same drop in batting averages with runners on 2B and 3B as we do with a runner on 2B only.


I think we know that with a runner on third, BA rises because some outs get transformed into sacs and the infield plays in.

I think that we should be able to compare
a) second base only
b) third base only
c) second and third only

besides, why would someone hit behind a runner on second with no one on third, and not do it with someone on third?

[brett]

All this excludes bases empty situations.

The HR rate drops by 20-30% in these base/out states:

2b, 0 outs


And the walk rate goes way up right? Doesn't this just suggest that power hitters get pitched around?

We run into an issue of how much of the drop is due to individual hitters hitting with a lower average, and how much is due to lesser batters being allowed to hit in certain situations.



The BABIP is lowest for these states for each of these outs:
at 0 outs: 2b, and it's not even close
at 1 out: 2b, and it's not even close
at 2 outs: 1b/2b, followed closely by 2b and bases loaded


All situations where the defense will guard against the hit at the expense of extra bases?

[Second Base Coach]

I think we know that with a runner on third, BA rises because some outs get transformed into sacs and the infield plays in.

I think that we should be able to compare
a) second base only
b) third base only
c) second and third only

besides, why would someone hit behind a runner on second with no one on third, and not do it with someone on third?

He would not have to if the infield was in... and how do we define hitting behind a runner on third? He running vector does not cross the path of a batted ball.

[SavoyBG]

All this excludes bases empty situations.

The HR rate drops by 20-30% in these base/out states:

2b, 0 outs
3b, less than 2 outs
2b/3b, 1,2 outs

The BABIP is lowest for these states for each of these outs:
at 0 outs: 2b, and it's not even close
at 1 out: 2b, and it's not even close
at 2 outs: 1b/2b, followed closely by 2b and bases loaded



Tom, can you post the actual Batting averages (not BIBIP) numbers for each of these?

Runner on 2B - no outs
Runner on 2B - one out
Runner on 2B - two outs

If you don't have this info, then I guess that BIBIP would be interesting too.

[leewileyfan]

Wish I could find the more specific ophthalmalogical article I had read about two years ago; but his Japanese study provides a bit ofscience to support my distraction points with a sole runner on 2B:


Title;Visual Search Strategies of baseball batters during the preparatory phase of batting.
Author;KATO TAKAAKI(Keio Univ., Graduate School of Media and Governance, JPN) FUKUDA TADAHIKO(Keio Univ., Faculty of Enviromental Information, JPN)
Journal Title;Japanese Journal of Ergonomics
Journal Code:S0258A
ISSN:0549-4974
VOL.38;NO.6;PAGE.333-340(2002)
Figure&Table&Reference;
Pub. Country;Japan
Language;Japanese
Abstract;The purpose of this study was to examine differences in the visual search strategies hetween expert and novice batters during the sequential phases of the pitcher's motion under the field condition. In particular, we focused on how they utilize peripheral vision properties to pick up visual information. Members of college baseball team (expert group) and ordinary college students (novice group) participated in this experiment. The subjects stood in an actual batter's box, viewed 10 types of pitches thrown by real pitcher, and their eye movements were measured. Eye movements of subjects during the preparatory phase of batting, during which a batter should gather visual information from the motion of the pitcher, were analyzed. The distribution of experts' viewing points was smaller than that of novices. In particular, experts set their visual pivot on the pitching arm and utilized peripheral vision to pick up important movement information for batting such as movements of the pitcher's arm or his whole body. Therefore, experts used a systematic visual search strategy, utilizing peripheral vision properties to evaluate visually the pitcher's motion efficiently and anticipate the ball's trajectory. (author abst.)

The key point of the article is narrowed focus; but the major ophthalmic consideration is periphery.

My point is that peripheral vision of the batter will focus on the pitcher and his mechanics, while his narrowed field of peripheral vision will scan an arc narrowed to the goings-on around the runner on 2B and the defenders trying to contain him.

That peripheral field will not include runners on 1B or 3B but will be entirely focused @ the mound and 2B peripheries; and that is the topic of the thread.

[SavoyBG]

That peripheral field will not include runners on 1B or 3B but will be entirely focused @ the mound and 2B peripheries; and that is the topic of the thread.

Look, when there is a runner on 2B only, with no other runners, batters hit for a much lower batting average than they do when there is a runner on 2B along with other runners.

How many times to we have to tell you this?

Your theory can't be correct, otherwise ANY TIME there was a runner on 2B they would be distracted and continue to hit for a lower average......but they don't.

[brett]

The best way to get a gauge if we don't have league wide totals available would be to take a near average pitcher with a long career (say Jack Morris or Dave Stewart:D). Well they are probably close enough.

Morris allowed the following:

ALL: .247
-2-: .231
--3: .266
-23: .254

Effect of -2-: -.16
Effect of --3: +19
Combined effects: +.03
Effect of -23: +.07

The question posed by Savoy is "why don't we see a drop with runners on second AND third?"

I suggest it is because the runner on third raises average somewhat by turning some flies into sacs, and possibly bringing the infield in.

We get a .266-.247 or 19 point boost by having the runner only on third.

We have a .247-.231 or 16 point drop with a runner only on second.

If we add the +19 for a runner on third (assuming that that is due to sacs and positioning), and subtract 16 for the runner on second, we would see a net +3 for runners on second and third, but we see a net +7.

NOW the greatest rate for IBB's (and all walks by far) is -23. If pitching around people was the cause of the drop in BA with -2- then we should see it even more with -23 but we don't.

Basically, if the -2- cut was due to
a) pitching around, we would expect the -23 BA to be lower than -2- and --3 effects combined.

b) distraction, we would expect the -23 effect to be equal to -2- and --3 combined.

c) batter approach, then we would expect -23 to be greater than -2- and --3 effects combined which is the case for Morris.

Next I decided to look at Catfish Hunter.

Overall: .231
-2-: .209
--3: .286
-23: .264

Effect of -2-: -.22
Effect of --3: +55
Combined effects: +.33
Effect of -23: +33

In this case, we see the net effect to be equal to the -23 effect again despite the fact that walks and IBB are WAY UP in -23, more than 250% higher than in -2-. It can't be the pitching-around effect.

Stewart
Overall: .251
-2-: .231
--3: .266
-23: .273

Effect of -2-: -.20
Effect of --3: +15
Combined effects: -.05
Effect of -23: +22

Here we get a HUGE difference. I don't know how anyone can say that Stewart did not pitch much worse with -23 (or possibly that Hunter pitched terribly with --3). Its interesting that these 3 guys can be so different.

[leewileyfan]

Look, when there is a runner on 2B only, with no other runners, batters hit for a much lower batting average than they do when there is a runner on 2B along with other runners.

What is your point? Can't you read?


How many times to we have to tell you this?

I needed to be told only once. The starter of the thread had observed the slump with a sole runner on 2B; and everything I've posted here has posited some rational reasons that may very well help explain that apparent hitting anomaly.

All you have done is provided duh; or suggestions that others haven't played much ball; shot fish in barrels; generally meandered off topic; and been rather snotty in the whole process.

The initial poster cited what he had observed via a small random selection of batters. SABR Matt has now confirmed the observation of scientific fact. I am interested in the whys and wherefores.


Your theory can't be correct, otherwise ANY TIME there was a runner on 2B they would be distracted and continue to hit for a lower average......but they don't.

Your reading skills need a brushing up:

1. It is not my theory. It is fact that peripheral vision plays a large part in hitting, moreso than straight on direct contact between eye and baseball;

2. It is a question of focus. A sole runner on 2B is both the lone offensive threat of the moment; is naturally within the limited peripheral field; is the sole teammate distraction/consideration for the hitter in run production.

3. When you add runners on base, you take the topic off-thread and enter a realm of situational hitting not the immediate topic.

4. If you'd stay focused on something other than your own cleverness, you might contribute something to the topic, other than insights into your considerable attitude.

[SavoyBG]

Basically, if the -2- cut was due to
a) pitching around, we would expect the -23 BA to be lower than -2- and --3 effects combined.

b) distraction, we would expect the -23 effect to be equal to -2- and --3 combined.

c) batter approach, then we would expect -23 to be greater than -2- and --3 effects combined which is the case for Morris.



Good work Brett, these numbers indicate that I am correct about the batter's approach causing most of this, but if we can get the entire numbers for each base out situation we can tell for sure.

[538280]

As long as the games are decided by runs rather than by baserunners allowed, I'm more interested in ERA than in DIPS.

Allowing runs is a team effort, between the pichers and the fielders. What DIPS does is tries to isolate the portion of allowing runs that is the responsibility of the pitchers alone, taking out the contributions of the fielders. Why don't you want to know what individual players do to affect the game's outcome? By closing yourself to DIPS you'll always be looking at the pitcher along with the fielders who are behind him. It's just like the limitation of runs scored and RBI, they are dependent on what a batter comes up to, well ERA is dependent on what is behind a fielder Why look at that when you know the batter's own offensive events contributed?

[SABR Matt]

If the pitchers changing their strategy because of an open base was the cause of this then we'd see the same drop in batting averages with runners on 2B and 3B as we do with a runner on 2B only.

I say this is caused almost entirely because of the no out situation where the batter is trying to advance the runner. If we can get the spilts with a runner on 2B with each out situation, we'll know the answer.

With runners at second and third, the batter is trying to advance runners too. Every game I've ever watched, they talk about the need to hit the ball to the right side or get it deep into the outfield in BOTH of those situations.

[brett]

All of these players were affected SIMILARLY by -2- (Ryan does very well here) but Ryan and Hunter gave up 2 to 3 times the boost in -03 situations, but oddly Ryan (and Morris) were by FAR the least affected by -23 situations. Any insights?


Ryan
Overall: .204
-2-: .184
--3: .250
-23: .210

Effect of -2-: -.020
Effect of --3: +046
Combined effects: +026
Effect of -23: +004

Morris
ALL: .247
-2-: .231
--3: .266
-23: .254

Effect of -2-: -.016
Effect of --3: +.019
Combined effects: +.003
Effect of -23: +.007

Catfish Hunter
Overall: .231
-2-: .209
--3: .286
-23: .264

Effect of -2-: -.022
Effect of --3: +.055
Combined effects: +.033
Effect of -23: +.033

Stewart
Overall: .251
-2-: .231
--3: .266
-23: .273

Effect of -2-: -.020
Effect of --3: +.015
Combined effects: -.005
Effect of -23: +.022

[brett]

Seaver
Overall: .226
-2-: .206
--3: .228
-23: .189

Effect of -2-: -.020
Effect of --3: +.002
Combined effects: -.018
Effect of -23: -.037

And here we have Seaver who actually improved in -23 situations by a large amount and was the least negatively affected in --3 situations by far. Unfortunately this prevents us from concluding that its not batter distraction or pitching around effect because here the greatest walk/IBB situation now produces more drop-off than the combined effects of the other two situations.

The one constant seems to be -2- situations. -23 and -03 seem to vary rather wildly.

Clemens
Overall: .229
-2-: .201
--3: .218
-23: .219

Effect of -2-: -.028
Effect of --3: -.011
Combined effects: -.039
Effect of -23: -.010

With Clemens we get something similar to Seaver, only we get IMPROVEMENT in all 3 situations.

It looks to me that Ryan might have had typical splits with runners in various positions-typical of a more average starter, but that other great pitchers actually had better than typical splits in those situations.

Pedro
Overall: .213
-2-: .197
--3: .205
-23: .243

Effect of -2-: -.016 (less than normal)
Effect of --3: -.008 (rare in being a reduction)
Combined effects: -.024
Effect of -23: +.30 poor? granted now we are getting fairly small samle sizes.

[SavoyBG]

Allowing runs is a team effort, between the pichers and the fielders. What DIPS does is tries to isolate the portion of allowing runs that is the responsibility of the pitchers alone, taking out the contributions of the fielders. Why don't you want to know what individual players do to affect the game's outcome? By closing yourself to DIPS you'll always be looking at the pitcher along with the fielders who are behind him. It's just like the limitation of runs scored and RBI, they are dependent on what a batter comes up to, well ERA is dependent on what is behind a fielder Why look at that when you know the batter's own offensive events contributed?

There are systems that isolate the portion of runs allowed that go to the fielders without using DIPS, like win shares. I don't have a problem with the part of DIPS that assigns the fielders part of the credit/blame for runs allowed and runs prevented. I have a problem with the part of DIPS that says that....

A - Pitchers have little or no control over balls in play, and that all they really control is walks, strikeouts, home runs and HBP. I've been involved in too many thousands of games on the field where a pitcher is just leaving the ball in the middle of the plate and batters are hitting hard line drives all day, and balls to the gap where no fielder has any chance of catching them. Maybe with major league pitchers the differences are not as large on this, but it's there. And by only looking at "batting average" on balls in play, rather than "SLG%" on balls in play, you are even more limited than looking at just runs and RBIs for batters.

B - ERA is the closest to perfect stat that we have, when adjusted for parks and league averages (ERA+). The game is about preventing runs, not about preventing baserunners. DIPS takes away ERA and just assumes that there are no "situations" like the one that we are discussing in this thread, and that every event is of equal value at all times.

Of course my objection to DIPS comes when people use it to rate old timeers in the pre play by play days. If modern pitchers are rated using DIPS based on the run value of each event, that's a different story, but it just doesn't work for old timers. Too many assumptions have to be made, and we'll never know if some star pitcher from the 1910s was like Glavine with runners on base, or not. I'd rather know "what happened" than what "should have happened."

[SavoyBG]

With runners at second and third, the batter is trying to advance runners too. Every game I've ever watched, they talk about the need to hit the ball to the right side or get it deep into the outfield in BOTH of those situations.

A little different though, as the corners will almost always be in, so a groundball to the firstbaseman will not score the runner, and the infield may be in at times, and it's also more advantagious to try for the base hit that will score two runs, or at least score one run AND move the trail runner up.

[Tango Tiger]

Here are the per PA (excluding IBB, SH) numbers for 1999-2002, but I generated it with an old source of data. I should rerun it at some point. Treat it as 99% accurate.

The sum of all events (single through out) will total to 1.000 at each base out state.

The state "10" means runner on 1b, 0 outs. The second digit is the out. The first digit is:4=1b,2b; 5=1b,3b; 6=2b,3b; 7=BL; 8=empty.

I also included the IBB and SH, so those numbers represent the "ratio" of IBB to PAs that exclude IBB and SH.



States FreqPA Single Double Triple HR Walk HBP Error Xfrnc OthSafe K Out IBB Sac
10 144360 0.199 0.043 0.006 0.022 0.059 0.005 0.014 0.000 0.003 0.113 0.536 0.000 0.119
11 163428 0.194 0.043 0.006 0.024 0.062 0.005 0.014 0.000 0.002 0.117 0.534 0.000 0.020
12 164723 0.172 0.040 0.006 0.023 0.071 0.005 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.135 0.538 0.000 -
20 47110 0.167 0.038 0.007 0.016 0.086 0.006 0.012 0.000 0.003 0.148 0.517 0.005 0.082
21 87176 0.154 0.039 0.007 0.019 0.102 0.005 0.013 0.000 0.002 0.155 0.506 0.044 0.001
22 105101 0.150 0.035 0.007 0.019 0.113 0.005 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.157 0.503 0.069 -
30 9696 0.166 0.041 0.010 0.015 0.090 0.006 0.011 0.000 0.004 0.152 0.506 0.008 0.001
31 30008 0.178 0.043 0.008 0.017 0.096 0.007 0.013 0.000 0.010 0.142 0.485 0.031 0.014
32 42866 0.151 0.037 0.007 0.018 0.118 0.006 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.153 0.498 0.034 -
40 34698 0.187 0.040 0.006 0.021 0.062 0.006 0.015 0.000 0.004 0.130 0.530 0.000 0.134
41 64547 0.172 0.043 0.006 0.022 0.066 0.005 0.015 0.000 0.003 0.134 0.535 0.000 0.011
42 84007 0.154 0.037 0.007 0.019 0.078 0.005 0.011 0.000 0.001 0.153 0.536 0.001 -
50 14865 0.192 0.042 0.005 0.021 0.055 0.007 0.017 0.000 0.008 0.116 0.537 0.010 0.017
51 30126 0.191 0.042 0.006 0.022 0.056 0.006 0.017 0.000 0.009 0.117 0.534 0.011 0.016
52 38519 0.164 0.039 0.008 0.021 0.075 0.006 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.142 0.534 0.004 -
60 8856 0.168 0.041 0.008 0.018 0.078 0.006 0.013 - 0.007 0.158 0.503 0.058 0.002
61 23371 0.169 0.038 0.007 0.015 0.088 0.007 0.014 0.000 0.010 0.161 0.491 0.270 0.006
62 24330 0.147 0.035 0.007 0.016 0.112 0.007 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.171 0.493 0.141 -
70 8693 0.179 0.041 0.006 0.023 0.056 0.007 0.017 0.000 0.004 0.129 0.538 - 0.000
71 22846 0.175 0.041 0.007 0.021 0.053 0.006 0.018 0.000 0.005 0.136 0.537 - 0.004
72 27122 0.158 0.038 0.007 0.020 0.072 0.005 0.012 0.000 0.001 0.157 0.530 - -
80 640586 0.169 0.041 0.006 0.022 0.075 0.004 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.134 0.537 - -
81 458135 0.165 0.039 0.006 0.020 0.079 0.005 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.144 0.532 0.000 -
82 363238 0.160 0.039 0.006 0.020 0.086 0.005 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.152 0.521 0.000 -

[brett]

There are systems that isolate the portion of runs allowed that go to the fielders without using DIPS, like win shares. I don't have a problem with the part of DIPS that assigns the fielders part of the credit/blame for runs allowed and runs prevented. I have a problem with the part of DIPS that says that....

A - Pitchers have little or no control over balls in play, and that all they really control is walks, strikeouts, home runs and HBP. I've been involved in too many thousands of games on the field where a pitcher is just leaving the ball in the middle of the plate and batters are hitting hard line drives all day, and balls to the gap where no fielder has any chance of catching them. Maybe with major league pitchers the differences are not as large on this, but it's there. And by only looking at "batting average" on balls in play, rather than "SLG%" on balls in play, you are even more limited than looking at just runs and RBIs for batters.

B - ERA is the closest to perfect stat that we have, when adjusted for parks and league averages (ERA+). The game is about preventing runs, not about preventing baserunners. DIPS takes away ERA and just assumes that there are no "situations" like the one that we are discussing in this thread, and that every event is of equal value at all times.

Of course my objection to DIPS comes when people use it to rate old timeers in the pre play by play days. If modern pitchers are rated using DIPS based on the run value of each event, that's a different story, but it just doesn't work for old timers. Too many assumptions have to be made, and we'll never know if some star pitcher from the 1910s was like Glavine with runners on base, or not. I'd rather know "what happened" than what "should have happened."

My main problem with DIPS is that I believe that pitchers all vary in how they pitch with runners on base and with different numbers of outs and with different game situations.

I believe some pitchers will string hits together because of this.

I may be wrong on this but I also think that DIPS assumes that if a pitcher gives up a few hits in succession there is NO reason to believe that he will continue to do so in the immediate future ie the same inning or game. Again, maybe I'm wrong about this but it seems to assume that a guy with certain rates of Ks, BBs, etc only has statistical variations because of random chance. I have certainly seen pitchers throwing in the first inning and said "this guy doesn't have it today".

[538280]

A - Pitchers have little or no control over balls in play, and that all they really control is walks, strikeouts, home runs and HBP. I've been involved in too many thousands of games on the field where a pitcher is just leaving the ball in the middle of the plate and batters are hitting hard line drives all day, and balls to the gap where no fielder has any chance of catching them. Maybe with major league pitchers the differences are not as large on this, but it's there. And by only looking at "batting average" on balls in play, rather than "SLG%" on balls in play, you are even more limited than looking at just runs and RBIs for batters.

I agree with you on this, but to me this is really a part of DIPS. DIPS stands for Defense Independent Pitching Stats, it's really about just trying to evaluate pitchers on their own, stripping out the influence of the fielders. An example that I like to use is Mariano Rivera. Rivera throws his cutter and while he frequently strikes batters out with it one of the main reasons for throwing the pitch is that it often induces weak contact from batters. Especially from ground ball pitchers I see that they often do induce weak contact. What I think is most appropriate and I believe though I'm not sure Matt's PCA does this is compare a pitcher's BABIP with the team's BABIP. This way you can adjust for the quality of fielders behind a pitcher but still account for the pitcher's ability to prevent hits on balls in play if there is such an ability.

I also agree with what you mean by SLG against a pitcher, I think that when the data is avaiable the doubles and triples given up by a pitcher should be taken into account. I would imagine that this is not equal among pitchers at all just like home runs allowed is not.


B - ERA is the closest to perfect stat that we have, when adjusted for parks and league averages (ERA+). The game is about preventing runs, not about preventing baserunners. DIPS takes away ERA and just assumes that there are no "situations" like the one that we are discussing in this thread, and that every event is of equal value at all times.

It doesn't have to do this. I have seen DIPS formulas which adjust the hits allowed by a pitcher based on their BABIP and then use a sort of runs created formula to determine expected runs allowed. The best type of DIPS formula I would think would be to adjust the hits a pitcher allowed based on their BABIP compared to their team's, and then try to determine expected runs allowed from that with a Linear Weights type formula. Perhaps the doubles and triples against a pitcher shouldn't be adjusted either. Another issue I have is that the performance of pitchers with runners on base is consistently different from their performance with no men on, this should be taken into account, I don't see it as just random chance how a pitcher does for example with RISP and with no one on. Just look at the way pitchers pitch in those situations, from the stretch vs. the wind-up. it is entirely conceiveable that some pitchers adapt better to the stretch and thus really are better pitchers in that time, it's not just random chance.

[STLCards2]

A - Pitchers have little or no control over balls in play, and that all they really control is walks, strikeouts, home runs and HBP.

B - ERA is the closest to perfect stat that we have, when adjusted for parks and league averages (ERA+). The game is about preventing runs, not about preventing baserunners. DIPS takes away ERA and just assumes that there are no "situations" like the one that we are discussing in this thread, and that every event is of equal value at all times.

."

A. Very few people still actually believe this very strict, initial interpretation. The key word is "little". If you mean "little" in terms of the net difference between good BABIP pitchers (-10 hits vs. mates) against a poor BABIP pitcher (+10 hits vs. mates) in relation to the total number of BIP, then it is a "little" number. If you are talking about the significance in run prevention (-10 hits equals about 7 runs), then it is certainly no little difference. The truth is, BABIP prevention by a pitcher is not impossible or unlikely as much as it is much less predictable/repeatable compared to K, BB, HR, and much less "real" than the average fan would assume.

Over a long career, a great BABIP vs. a poor BABIP guy (that has the other tools to stay in The majors) can equal a difference of 100 runs prevented between the two.

B. ERA is a great stat if: the pitcher has pitched long enough, park factors are included, league averages are considered, defense is taken into account, and the pitcher's leveraging is considered. ERA+ takes in the park factors (albeit not extremely accurately), and compares to league. Most pitchers in the modern era don't have enough leveraging problems/advantages to worry about changing their overall ERA+ too much. You can hand select tenured pitchers who have enough PA's to make ERA+ valid. The biggest missing ingredient of ERA+ is the defensive component. Once you fix that issue (assuming a pitcher has a long enough career), his ERA+ should be pretty accurate if you are into casual rankings. If you want a hardcore system like Matt's PCA, ERA+ will not due.

[STLCards2]

Check out Palmer and Glavine's numbers with bases loaded:


---------- BABIP w/BE------BABIP w/123------difference---- PA's----HR all.
Palmer ----- .250----------- .225---------------.025-------- 213------0

Glavine------.283 --------- . 269--------------- .014---------428-----2

Are these numbers special?

If so, are we dealing with small sample size or some unique skill?

[leewileyfan]

Pitcher-Batter Dynamics: Runner on 2B

Looking into the batting drop-off when there is a solitary runner on;
and that runner is on 2B, I checked out 15 pitchers with long careers
and reviewed their respective career splits for all situations where
a single runner occupied 2B vs. those situations where a runner also
occupied a base other than 2B as well.

I omitted bases loaded situations to be consistent with other posters
in the thread, and in recognition of the fact that with loaded bases,
there’s just no place to put the hitter or to pitch around him.

The numbers following each pitcher’s name are his opponents’ career
batting averages and OB% against him.

I then isolated each 2B condition by AB, H and BA individually. Since
instances with 2B only being occupied far outnumber the others, I
add the others for a cumulative comparison of decent, comparable
sample size.

I’ll let the numbers speak for themselves.

Ryan: Pitcher: .204/.307

Situation……AB………..H………BA……..OB%

x-2-x………1,703………313…… .184…… .332
1-2-x………1,322………282……. .213…… .356
x-2-3……… 376………. 79……. .210…… .336

Other 2B…..1,698………361…… .213











Clemens: .229/.294

x-2-x………1,547………311…… .201…… .307
1-2-x………1,083………208……. .213…… .192
x-2-3……… 292………. 64……. .219…… .336

Other 2B…. 1,375………272……. .198

R. Johnson: .221/.297

x-2-x………1,218………254…… .209…… .312
1-2-x……… 871………191……. .219…… .305
x-2-3……… 255………. 56……. .220…… .343

Other 2B…. 1,126…….247…… .219

Glavine: .257/.319

x-2-x………1,158………292…… .252…… .391
1-2-x………1,081………256……. .237…… .312
x-2-3………...203 ….…. 49…….241…… .488

Other 2B…. 1,284…….. .305… .238

Blyleven: .248/.301

x-2-x………1,515………361…… .238…… .329
1-2-x………1,039………253……. .244…… .301
x-2-3………...244 ….…. 55……. .225…… .348

Other 2B…. 1,283…….. .308…… .240

Koufax: .205/.275

x-2-x………...560………102…… .182…… .293
1-2-x………...537………118……. .220…… .292
x-2-3……….....98 ….…. 18……. .184…… .328

Other 2B…. ...635…….. .136…… .214

P. Martinez: .213/.275

x-2-x………...801………158…… .197…… .197
1-2-x………...553………..95……. .172…… .220
x-2-3………...152 ….…. 37……. .243…… .347

Other 2B…. .705…….. .132…… .187

P. Niekro: .241/.311

x-2-x………1,738………400…… .230…… .343
1-2-x………1,221………294…… .241…… .301
x-2-3………...341 ….. 80……. .235…… .388

Other 2B…. 1,562…….374…… .239

Santana: .223/.280

x-2-x…………462……….90…… .195…… .285
1-2-x…………343……….64…… .187…… .254
x-2-3………....73 …..23……. .315…… .376

Other 2B……..416 …… 87 .209……

Buehrle: .268/.312

x-2-x…………546……...146…… .267…… .336
1-2-x…………421………107… .254…… .301
x-2-3………..129 ….….31……. .240…… .325

Other 2B…. …570…….. 138…….242

M. Rivera: .212/.264

x-2-x…………337…….....60…… .206…… .315
1-2-x…………288……….67… .233…… .278
x-2-3………......76 …..13……. .171…… .363

Other 2B…. …364…….. 80…… .220……

Smoltz: .236/.292

x-2-x…………980……...210…… .214…… .341
1-2-x…………758……...178…. .235…… .276
x-2-3………....198 …..52……. .263…… .383

Other 2B…. …956…….. 230…… .241……

Osteen: .263/.313

x-2-x…………929……...254…… .280…… .358
1-2-x…………806……...186…. .231…… .259
x-2-3………....153 …..43……. .281…… .423

Other 2B…. 981 … 238…… .248……

Donovan: .257/.300

x-2-x…………582……...137…… .235…… .303
1-2-x…………432……...115…. .266…… .299
x-2-3………....95 ….….23……. .242…… .375

Other 2B…. 527 ……..138…… .262……

D. Lowe: .258/.313


x-2-x…………688……...166…… .240…… .336
1-2-x…………475……...124…. .261…… .318
x-2-3………....166 ….….49…… .295…… .388

Other 2B…. …641 ……..173…… .270……

[brett]

For Ryan, you've got a compuatational error for OB% in "other" situations combined.

The data is interesting. It may take a while to fully analyze it.

Clemens 12x also can't be right for OB% because its lower than BA or his overall BA allowed in "other".

I'm only nitpicking because its really interesting data.

Some initial notes:

1) x23 will always be artificially inflated because of the possibility of sacrifice flies.

2) 12x will always be artificially low because of force outs, and pitchers/weak hitters tending to sac bunt.

3) Rivera, manages to defy the x23 high sacrifice effect. Is it because he's so good at preventing sac flies? Do other groundball pitchers show this trend?

4) I can tell you right now that the -2- dropoff seems most pronounced in high K pitchers, while the lower k guys on the list do not get batters to produce much lower BA's in -2- That strongly suggests to me that high K pitchers DO pitch to the corners to try to get ahead and then walk guys if they are unsuccessful.

[leewileyfan]

Thanks, brett. I didn't include OB% for Other 2B, so have removed misleading typos. Those aggregate sums columns were intended to be AB, H and BA. I did not include OB% for the grand "other" totals, just the isolated incidents.

However, you raise an interesting point. Later on this evening, if I get a chance, I'll add in OB% to the Other 2B summed totals.

[leewileyfan]

Reviewing data, I found one error, the OB% posted for Phil Niekro in the x-2-3 situation, entered as .349, which should have been .388. That has been edited and bolded in original post.

Rather than calculate OB% for the Other 2B as an entity, anyone interested in doing so can use the AB and OB% for 1-2-x and x-2-3, weigh them and take the weighted average.