Does speed kill?

[endaround]

Hardball times just finished a two part series on whether having speed on first affects the pitcher enough to give an advatnage to the hitter. Link to the second part:

 

 

www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/base-stealer-intangibles-part-2/

 

Lots of math there, but the bottom line is that most of the benefit can be attribuited to having any man on first forcing non optimal defensive positioning. That over a season having a true spped threat dancing on first estiamtes to be worth about 1.5 runs over a season.

[Blazer25]

Quote:

---

I found (not surprisingly) that a lot more ground balls get through the infield; most of them are due to the first baseman having to hold the runner on, but a significant number are also due to the middle infielders playing for the double play when there are fewer than two outs. This effect has to be accounted for when trying see if the best base stealers have a disruptive effect on the pitcher.

---

 

 

I totally disagree with the bold statement...positioning of the fielders has absolutely nothing to do with the "mentality" of a pitcher with a runner on base.

 

These are the kind of statistical analyses that make me cringe...you cannot statistically prove or disprove the mental effect on a pitcher with a speedy runner on first.

 

Things that do happen to pitchers with runners on 1st base:

 

1. Pitching from the stretch- Quicker delivery, rushing, can cause occasional loss of velocity and sometimes results in flatter pitches due to changes in mechanics. (Nomo is an extreme example)

 

2. Tendency to throw more FB in certain counts: Smart catchers and managers are going to change their pitch selection in running counts, resulting in more FB to hit.

 

3. More pickoff attempts at 1b- more attempts= more chances for errors.

 

 

Add to those facts that pitchers, managers and fielders have to be actively "concentrating" on speedy runners and you have a distinct advantage. I find it hard to argue that it is only "perceived" no matter what any stats may say.

[bsglorydays]

you cannot statistically prove or disprove the mental effect on a pitcher with a speedy runner on first.

 

Exactly right, Blazer. Ask a pitcher if having Carl Crawford, Podsednik, Pierre, etc on 1st base is different than having Damian Miller leading off over there. I guarantee they handle the known base stealers differently than the guys that run like they are carrying refridgerators on their backs.

[endaround]

You can say that it makes a differencce. Except there is nothing there to show that it does. A man on 1B makes a big difference. A basestealer on 1B vs anyone else makes a small difference. Just because there is a bunch of activity doesn't mean it does anything. A rooster crowing might think he makes the sun rise.

[rluzinski]

These are the kind of statistical analyses that make me cringe...you cannot statistically prove or disprove the mental effect on a pitcher with a speedy runner on first.

 

It makes me cringe when someone doesn't invest the time to properly analyze a study, yet sees it fit to criticize it's findings. What the author is attempting to do is see if the top base stealers give an advantage to a batter beyond what he already get's from the defense being shifted. Even having Geoff Jenkins at first is an advantage to the batter. You need to account for that (among many other things) before you can draw any meaningful conclusions on the effects a base stealer has on the game.

 

While there's a posibility that the author's methodology could be flawed or he made a mistake somewhere, he went to great lengths to try and adjust for everything he could think of. After reading it carefully once, I certainly didn't find anything that screams, "bad study." I can't imagine you did anything more than glance at it and not like the findings. Not exactly objective criticism.

[colbyjack]

I'm with Blazer, you can't prove statistically the mental effect a proven base-stealer has on a pitcher. I read the story, and some of the results were interesting, and I also agree that any runner at 1B is going to help the hitter. But you can't just discredit the notions Blazer brought up and assume he didn't properly analyze the study because he didn't agree with it.

[mothershipconnection]

I can't see anything affecting the "mentality" of a pitcher nearly as much as a great hitter at the plate or even on deck. So while there may be some effect, I can't imagine Pierre on first making a guy shaky to nearly the extent of Pujols in the box or on deck circle.

Further, I think that the simple "threat" of reaching the next base or scoring on a hit has to "shake" the guy, which seems to give validity to the theory that any baserunner affects pitching, though it's likely due largely to defensive positioning as mentioned.

[1992casey]

I have no problem with most of what blazer said, but I have trouble with the apparent motivation for the post. He based his message on this statement:

All the statement says is that the guy conducting the study is trying to do what he's supposed to: eliminate or neutralize all factors involved except for the one he's studying.

[rluzinski]

But you can't just discredit the notions Blazer brought up and assume he didn't properly analyze the study because he didn't agree with it.

 

I discounted them because his comments showed a lack of understanding of the study. In part one of his study, the author states:

 

Quote:

---

If the base stealer at first base is really bothering the pitcher, it should show up in the performance of the batters who come to the plate with the base stealer on first base. So, it's natural to compare how batters perform when a good base stealer is on first to how batters fare in generic situations.

---

 

The first two points Blazer brought up (loss of velocity and changing type of pitch thrown) are only relevant if they cause the pitcher to perform worse in getting the batter out. That's exactly what the study is trying to measure.

 

His third point (more pickoff attempts causing an error) is valid but insignificant. It is very rare that a pickoff attept results in a throwing error.

 

His last comment (managers and fielders have to be actively "concentrating" on speedy runners) would also be picked up by the study if it has the effect of having a pitcher perform worse.

 

I'm with Blazer, you can't prove statistically the mental effect a proven base-stealer has on a pitcher.

 

This "mental effect" is only relevant if it hurts the pitcher's job of preventing runs. I'm not saying this study's findings are conclusive or undebatable, but any criticism of it is invalid if the person criticising it doesn't grasp the author's methodology in the first place.

 

There's a discussion of the two articles (Part 1 and 2) at the Baseball Think Factory:

 

LINK

 

It contains some very well thought-out comments and criticisms of the article (includuing the guy who created UZR, MGL, who thinks the study was fatally flawed). His and others' criticisms stem from perceived flaws in the the study's methodology, not disagreement in it's findings. That's the correct way to challenge the findings.

[Blazer25]

Quote:

---

While there's a posibility that the author's methodology could be flawed or he made a mistake somewhere, he went to great lengths to try and adjust for everything he could think of. After reading it carefully once, I certainly didn't find anything that screams, "bad study." I can't imagine you did anything more than glance at it and not like the findings. Not exactly objective criticism.

---

 

Here we go with the condescension again....Do you think I'm some kind of uneducated hick?

 

I have never accused you of needing climb out from behind your computer screen and experience the game...I think I deserve the same kind of respect.

 

How 'bout this Rluz...there is no study around that will get you into a pitcher's head and tell you how it affects him to have Carl Crawford at 1st base.

 

No need to study methodology, no need to pull out the ole slide rule, no reason to examine the findings...just because someone crunches number and spits out a conclusion does not make the study right.

 

You're honestly convinced there is a study that can predict how a pitcher THINKS or FEELS?

 

Just because I find different (non-stat) means to discredit studies doesn't make me wrong. I just have a different filter that I look at things through. You look at all things from a statistical filter. I use my baseball background and some stats (I love the ops stat for advanced players- college and older).

 

But because you don't have experience with my type of filter, you discredit me and my conclusions...which I find very distasteful.

 

I know this is going to be hard to hear Rluz...but everything on a baseball diamond can not be quantified by stats...no matter what all that fancy book learnin' tells you.

 

Then again...I'm jus a dum ole jock...don't mind me

[endaround]

The point is, if how the pitcher thinks or feels doesn't effect the results, who cares? The study isn't trying to answer if pitcher's extra sweat makes gripping the ball more difficult and so he has trouble throwing. All it asks, are there any noticeable effects of basestealers vs non basestealers, and there is no evidence of any.

[Blazer25]

End,

 

You don't think a pitcher's mentality has any effect on his performance?

 

I showed 3 ways in which the pitchers performance will be directly influenced by a speedy baserunner...

 

What the hitter does with each pitch is a seperate issue...you can't study the two together...which is why I see the study as flawed.

 

Once the ball leaves the pitchers hand, the study of the effects of the runner are over...now it becomes a study of the hitter.

[endaround]

I'm not saying it can or can't. I'm saying that there is no evidence it does. There is evidence that having a player on 1b has a sizable effect. And part of that effect is forcing the pitcher to go from the strech. But there is no noticble difference on how he pitches if that player is an an average major leaguer of Juan Pierre.

 

If the pitcher thows more fastballs, you'd expect that to effect how the next hitter hits. But again nothing there.

 

As to errors, there just are too few to say anything.

 

Now there are holes in the study, ie "does having to constantly deal with basestealers lead to shorter outings?" isn't addressed. But we are dealing with players who have been playing baseball of some form for easily 15-20 years in the most part and if they couldn't handle the pressure chances are they wouldn't have been in the major leagues.

[rluzinski]

Here we go with the condescension again....Do you think I'm some kind of uneducated hick?

 

You didn't understand (or even read?) the study, yet dismissed it because you didn't agree with it's findings. If that's condescending of me to point that out and take you to task for it, so be it.

 

You don't think a pitcher's mentality has any effect on his performance?

 

That exactly what the study was trying to find; any possible effects in the pitcher's performance. He found little if none. That doesn't make him necessarily correct but your criticism of his study simply doesn't make sense.

[danzig6767]

Does the study account for game situation?Say Crawford is on first and the Drays are losing 6-1 in the 5th inning,i'm sure a stolen base isn't that much of a concern to the pitcher.

 

What if though it's say a 3-3 game in the 8th inning vs the Red Sox and Crawford is on first,a stolen base is a much bigger concern for that Sox pitcher.

 

I have no clue if those situations would effect any study on this,but i would assume the pitcher would treat the situations differently.Just taking a bulk number of at bats doesn't account for the importance of the stolen base.Many times when a base stealer is on base,their team is losing by enough where risking a steal isn't worthwhile or that much of a concern to the pitcher.

[Blazer25]

Here are some specific criticisms for you....

 

 

Quote:

---

Most ground balls are pulled, and so we would expect left-handed batters to have an advantage over righties in runner-on-first situations

---

 

Or really? Most ground balls are pulled...that's good science.

 

Quote:

---

We see the "double-play" effect, whereby the second baseman and shortstop field slightly fewer grounders when there is a runner on first.

---

 

I couldn't get the chart to copy but...I guess 1% is enough evidence of "effect"....

 

 

In addition...K's and BB's go down with speedy runners at 1b (more FB in the zone anyone?) as do HR's (you mean guys aren't swinging for the fence with a speedy runner at 1b...wow what a shock!http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif )

 

I read so many assumptions of these type in this study that I can not possibly accept any conclusions it drew.

 

Not to mention...you can't explain a pitchers mentality with a study!!!

 

Also it takes no accout on game situations...which most studies have a hard time with...

 

Baseball is a game played in real-time not in a spreadsheet...

 

Edit:Sp

[RobertR]

I'm going to review the study myself before I have too many comments, but a few thoughts.

 

1. Can a pitcher make it to the big leagues if he falls apart mentally whenever a basestealer gets on base? I think the obvious answer to that is no. Therefore, I'd suggest that we're looking at more subtle forms of effects. That doesn't mean they're not real, but I doubt you'll be able to say "A great basestealer increases offense by 50%." To me, a 5% increase is significant. If the Brewers could improve their offense by 5%, they're definite wild card contenders. Considering the fact that there really aren't that many players that are true basestealing threats, probably 1 or 2 per team, I think you can see why you're not going to see clearcut answers.

 

2. Defensive positioning and throwing from the stretch obviously has some impact. You have to be real slow for the defense not to try to hold the runner on. Even catchers get held on in the NL when there's a threat that the pitcher will bunt him over. You can argue over what the impact is, but it does exist and benefits a lot of hitters regardless of the speed of the runner on first.

 

3. Hitters are human beings too. Some hitters probably consider the runner at first a distraction. Hitters will sometimes swing at a pitch that isn't good to hit in an effort to protect the baserunner. I think it's just as much a mistake to say that "all hitters love to bat with a basestealing threat on first" as it is to say "all pitchers get rattled with a basestealing threat on first".

 

4. I hope that the study is adjusted for which hand a pitcher throws with. Whatever the size of the effect is, I can't imagine it being equal for lefties and righties.

 

5. If you're going to single out exceptional basestealers, shouldn't you also try to account for pitchers with exceptional, average, or subpar moves to first?

 

6. Pitchers are human beings and they don't all react the same way. Some actually have been accused of bearing down and concentrating more with a man on first.

 

7. The catcher matters too. How do you account for Henry Blanco vs. Mike Piazza behind the plate in the study?

 

8. Game situation matters. Remember Davey Lopes getting into a hissy fit over Rickey Henderson stealing a base when the Padres were up by like 5 after 7 innings? If the game isn't particularly close and one run is not that significant, then any mental effect of speed should be minimized.

 

9. The hitter matters. I doubt Juan Pierre will make Neifi Perez any better of a hitter. Nor do I imagine Ichiro would make Pujols or Bonds any better than they already are.

 

I can't imagine that you can take all those variables into account and come up with a really significant sample size. The standard deviation of a study like this one, that can't possibly account for all the variables, probably engulfs the size of the effect. I'll go read the study, but although I tend to agree with the basic assumption "The effect is probably small among players that are the best in the world physically and mentally" I'm skeptical that this study actually proves it.

 

Robert

[rluzinski]

Baseball is a game played in real-time not in a spreadsheet...

 

Wow, and I had the nerve to claim your criticism of the study wasn't objective.

[RobertR]

I looked over the study and, as I suspected, the standard deviation is such that it's impossible to say with any precision what the effect of "disruption" is. The author suggests that the effect for an elite basestealer is 5 or less runs per year simply due to disruption. I'm willing to buy that, but I'd argue that 5 runs is not insignificant.

 

Half a win or a win caused by the mere presence of a "disruptor" on first base has value. The value of a win is something like $2 million on the FA market. So, Furcal may not have been quite as overpaid as we initially suspected.

 

Robert

[Blazer25]

Quote:

---

Wow, and I had the nerve to claim your criticism of the study wasn't objective.

---

 

 

You're right it's impossible to be objective unless you quote some stats...I forgothttp://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/eyes.gif

[nsimps]

The study is horribly flawed from the beginning when he starts by trying to "fix" his selection bias. How can you claim that a control is needed to remedy the possible bias due to difference in situations by measuring it agianst other situations that may or may not be the same?

[bigredrobbo]

Surely the lack of a "control" situation - with the same pitcher pitching to the same hitter, in the same game situation, but with different guys at 1st base, make this an impossible intangible to calculate.

[RobertR]

Quote:

---

Surely the lack of a "control" situation - with the same pitcher pitching to the same hitter, in the same game situation, but with different guys at 1st base, make this an impossible intangible to calculate.

---

 

I think that's exactly right. Or certainly, it makes it impossible to calculate with the degree of precision necessary to say that it's worth "point something" a game.

 

The fact that "disruption" isn't worth 20 or 30 runs a year should be obvious just by looking at simple run creation formulas vs. the actual runs scored. You don't need a complicated study to prove that. The mistake isn't necessarily the conclusion, but it's trying to quantify it to 1% accuracy given all the other variables that play a part.

 

Robert

[rluzinski]

You're right it's impossible to be objective unless you quote some stats...I forgot

 

You freely admit a bias against statistical analysis of baseball. You couldn't possibly be objective in your critisism of this study as a result. It has nothing to do with using data to support an argument.

 

How can you claim that a control is needed to remedy the possible bias due to difference in situations by measuring it agianst other situations that may or may not be the same?

 

Because, like all just about all statistical models, you have to make assumptions and simplifications. In your world, where everything has to be exactly the same and aggregate stats can never be used, you would never be able to study anything.

 

As for this study, I'm sure the author will try to improve his model in subsequent studies. Rarely is someone going to get it completely right the first try.

[mothershipconnection]

Or really? Most ground balls are pulled...that's good science.

I'm not gonna dig into it, but I'm guessing that dude, being a stat nerd, had data to back this up, or more likely was referencing data well-known in the stat nerd community.