Question about Runs Scored

[sbrylski]

Do they have anything at all to do with the individual player? Besides maybe speed, it seems like runs pretty much depends on your OBP and how well the guys behind you hit. So if the only thing it depends on is OBP, why have it? Maybe if you hit more doubles you'll score more runs, but then that is kind of your slugging percentage, and the major factor in scoring runs are they abilities of the players behind you. A guy could have a .400 OBP and hit 50 doubles, but depending on the playing batting behind him, he could score anywhere from 0 to 250 runs.

 

Is this a pretty useless stat (and if so, why do publications use it as a prominent stat), or am I overlooking something?

[rluzinski]

Is this a pretty useless stat (and if so, why do publications use it as a prominent stat), or am I overlooking something?

 

Just so I understand, you are suggesting that OBP is a useless stat? Not exactly the correct forum to suggest that, but here goes:

 

Teams score by getting runners on base and then advancing those runners to home (or by hitting a HR and advancing yourself). OBP is the "getting on base" part. The more base runners, the more opportunities to score. Second, the higher a team's OBP is, the more team plate appearances they have and the more opportunites to score, once again. OBP adds base runners and prevents outs. Outs are the currency of baseball.

 

Besides maybe speed, it seems like runs pretty much depends on your OBP and how well the guys behind you hit. So if the only thing it depends on is OBP, why have it?

 

Without "it" there would be no opportunities to score at all.

[brettac1]

He's saying that individual "runs" is a meaningless statistic. That's the way I took it, anyhow.

[rluzinski]

He's saying that individual "runs" is a meaningless statistic. That's the way I took it, anyhow.

 

Ahhh, that makes alot more sense. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Runs and RBIs don't tell very much about the player, correct.

[sbrylski]

Yes, yes...I meant why have runs when OBP should cover the aspect. Sorry for the confusion. OBP is probably my favorite stat when looking at players.

 

But I was looking at milwaukeebrewers.com and they had a picture of Weeks and the caption had his average, home runs, and runs scored. I thought, "Runs scored? Who cares?" and came running here.

 

And RBI's are pretty much a function of your average with RISP (clutch hitting) and number of opportunities...

 

Thanks though.

 

One more question, how do you view "clutch hitting"? I would say that it is the difference between your average without RISP and with RISP. Would you agree? Or would you call it simply their average with RISP? Chad Moeller can be a clutch player for his ability by hitting .270 with RISP, but for Jenkins that would be considered the opposite of clutch. I suppose its all relative.

[rluzinski]

It's definitely relative to the player's normal production, but I've never seen evidence that certain players consistantly perform better in clutch situations. I mean, aren't they doing a diservice to their team by not always performaing at that level?

[whizkid]

I mean, aren't they doing a diservice to their team by not always performaing at that level?

 

I'm not going to argue the clutch argument(there's too many problems defining clutch situations, defining consistency, agreeing on the significance of differences), but I often see a statement like this associated with the argument and it bothers me. Essentially if some players were clutch, why wouldn't they try harder all the time.

 

That presumes that player's reactions to various situations are at the conscious level and totally controllable by the player. Players are human and the concept of the subconcious mind and the idea that hormone levels, adrenaline for example, control human reactions to situations are well established and these aren't certainly fully under a player's control.

 

So I don't think a statement like that adds anything to the debate, but I see it often.

[rluzinski]

So I don't think a statement like that adds anything to the debate, but I see it often

 

I would counter that to list a bunch of possible sources of an ability no one has ever proven even exists isn't much of an argument either. For lack of existing evidence, the burden of proof is on the individual attempting to advance their theory, not the other way around.

 

The media advances the notion of particular players being clutch hitters because it's an appealing concept, not because there's any real proof of it's existence.

[endaround]

Keep in mind Mr. Playoffs Derek Jeter was actually far worse in the playoffs than the regular season until recently.

[whizkid]

I'll try again though I thought it was pretty clear.

 

I didn't take a position one way or the other on the existence of clutch and I didn't offer possible sources in support of it. The only stand I took on clutch is that I think it's a difficult statistical problem.

 

I'll rephrase the statement I have a problem with as If there were such a thing as clutch, wouldn't a player being doing a disservice to his team by not performing at the same level in all situations? Others have previously followed up a statistical argument concerning clutch expressing the same idea as If there were such a thing as clutch, why wouldn't a player try harder all the time, not just in clutch situtations?

 

I'm saying that IMO that attempt at a logical argument doesn't work. Human responses to given situations are partly conscious, partly subconscious and partly physiological so a player, if there were such a thing as clutch, wouldn't have full control over his responses in non-clutch situations. The difference in performance, if there were such a thing as clutch, would be the result of a difference in everything that controls a player's(or any human's) reactions to different situations.

 

Bottom line is, I'm suggesting people debating the clutch issue, stick to the statistical argument or come up with a more logical logical argument.

[rluzinski]

To be honest, I think any kind of speculation on anecdotal evidence is next to worthless. I only made the statement to illustrate that there are valid logical arguments to counter the "of course there's clutch players" rational.

[Blazer25]

Quote:

---

To be honest, I think any kind of speculation on anecdotal evidence is next to worthless

---

 

It must be hard to live life like that...

 

I've never seen 10 million dollars...but I know it exsists.

[rluzinski]

It must be hard to live life like that...

 

Not at all. Having a background in Mechanical Engineering (and the corresponding science-centric education) has taught me how useless anecdotal evidence is. My background has taught me the importance of using elements of the scientific method in formulating opinons that I deem valid enough to share in a public forum. I learned long ago (well, I'm only 29, but you get the point) that opinions derived from personal observation are often completely wrong.

 

I've never seen 10 million dollars...but I know it exsists.

 

That seems more like a start to a philisophical conversation than a scientific one. It has nothing to do with my above comment, IMO.

[huntsvillefan]

Do they have anything at all to do with the individual player?

 

The simple answer is yes. Anecdotal though this may be, some guys simply run the bases a lot better than others and are consequently easier to bring home once they get on. Of course runs scored are also a reflection of the batting line up behind the player and how they perform.

Base running (& stealing) seems to be a lot like Defense, the number of variables involved seems to make it almost impossible to come up with a decent metric for performance comparison or even relative importance (compared to other skills).

Until someone comes up with something better, looking at runs scored in conjunction with OBP & PA is about the only way of evaluating a base runner you haven't seen on a regular basis. (Remember to discount homeruns)

Just how significant the skill of base-running is in the grand scheme of things is also anyone's guess. I think the data required is going to be too hard to gather, but it would be interesting to see if someone could even design a satisfactory 'thought experiment'

[rluzinski]

Just how significant the skill of base-running is in the grand scheme of things is also anyone's guess. I think the data required is going to be too hard to gather, but it would be interesting to see if someone could even design a satisfactory 'thought experiment'

 

Dan Fox has done some decent work to try and quantify base running. It's certainly a decent start:

 

"Circle the Wagons: Running the Bases"

 

Part I

 

Part II

 

Part III

[huntsvillefan]

Thanks, I'd want to read it a few more times and let it sink in, but on first reading its certainly a far better yardstick than runs scored. Its actually one of the more persuasive stat articles I've read recently and I'll be looking out for more by the same author.

[rluzinski]

It was buried in the article, but here's the link to Dan Fox's blog. Pay particular attention to the right-hand sidebar.

 

If you want to get into sabermetrics, read that entire blog and everything at tangotiger.net and hardballtimes.com

[huntsvillefan]

I've read a fair bit of tangotiger and enjoyed him and I like the dialogue that is generated by hardball times - the fact that you get responses to the theories.

I think the amazing thing is how much information is readily available now compared to even 10 years ago. I was genuinely surprized that Fox could readily access the data he needed for that study. I'm still pretty suspicious of the Math in the final section that translates into games won and lost (even though it feels a very reasonable number to me). In that it feels to me that there are too many approximations bundled together to produce meaningful final numbers.

But he has produced a stat that I'd love to have in front of me as I watched players over the course of a season.