The Revere Experiment: Range vs Arm

[Guest USAFChief]

Regarding the size of the field making a difference in the value of a fielder's range, look at the extremes.

 

1. Left field is a 3 x 3 foot square. Revere has no advantage over Willingham here because Willingham can get to any ball hit to left field in the same amount of time as Revere. Neither has to move.

 

2. Move the left-field fence out to six hundred feet. Willingham never gets off the bench because there will be two or three inside the park homers a game with him out there. Revere and other speedsters become much more valuable because he/they can cover the larger area in less time... perhaps only two or three inside the park homers a week.

 

The cop whose beat is a couple of blocks can easily walk it. The highway patrolman is completely ineffective without a car.

The size of the OF is irrelevant, unless they were much, much smaller (so small that no ball in the air could ever hit the ground in right field with Revere playing there). Since that isn't the case, what matters is the size of the "circle" that defines Revere's range for a given fly ball. That "circle" will obviously be bigger or smaller depending on the velocity and trajectory of the given fly ball, but in no case does that circle extend past the OF fence or the stands along the RF line for ANY given fly ball. Thus, in effect, Revere's "range" (the size of the circle) is smaller than right field. Thus, Revere will get to exactly as many balls in right field as he would in left, because the "circle" isn't bigger than left or right field. It's the same size. Revere has exactly the same range in left as right.

[Curt]

in no case does that circle extend past the OF fence or the stands along the RF line for ANY given fly ball

Right, the important point is where the fence is. As you have pointed out, that is the limiting factor. It is what defines the range to be covered. As the range increases (i.e. the fence is moved back), speed becomes more relevant and useful. If the field was symmetrical, there would be no difference (assuming the center fielder has equal range going left and right as he is another limiting factor in the range to be covered). Target Field is not symmetric. Left field is larger than right field. How often it becomes an issue is debatable but the fact that speed helps cover more area faster is not debatable, logically. This is why speed is always prized in center field as, in all parks, the fences are furthest in center field, meaning there is more area to be covered there.

[snepp]

Bump, still waiting on that "years upon years of proven data."

[John Bonnes]

FYI, I asked Parker, who has access to the detailed batted ball data about this left field vs right field thing. He says that over the last five years, slightly more balls have been hit to left side of the field versus the right side of the field. However, that includes the infield, too. It might be that in the outfield, it is more even or could favor right field. Either could make sense to me.

 

What I'm gathering is that the argument that I've myself have touted - that there are more balls hit to left field than right field - probably isn't valid. At the very least, it doesn't seem significant. BTW, Revere has not played over 300 inning in right field this year and UZR credits him for saving 7 runs over an average right fielder. That would translate to 27 runs over a 150 games. He certainly seems to be having plenty of impact there.

[Brock Beauchamp]

FYI, I asked Parker, who has access to the detailed batted ball data about this left field vs right field thing. He says that over the last five years, slightly more balls have been hit to left side of the field versus the right side of the field. However, that includes the infield, too. It might be that in the outfield, it is more even or could favor right field. Either could make sense to me.

 

What I'm gathering is that the argument that I've myself have touted - that there are more balls hit to left field than right field - probably isn't valid. At the very least, it doesn't seem significant. BTW, Revere has not played over 300 inning in right field this year and UZR credits him for saving 7 runs over an average right fielder. That would translate to 27 runs over a 150 games. He certainly seems to be having plenty of impact there.

He's going to have a positive impact anywhere on the field, I think. Pretty sure the guy could play second if you gave him an infielder's glove and a few reps. It's more of a "where does his arm do the least damage?"

 

To me, it makes sense to put him in left. But if more flyballs are going to right, that balances out a bit. How much? I have no idea and I think at that point, it falls under the "no longer care" category for me.

[Curt]

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

 

This article by Dan Levitt for BaseballThinkFactory.org is over ten years old and uses data from the Retrosheet files of 1980-1983. He includes both putouts and hits fielded by position. For our interests, here is the outfield breakdown:

 

[TABLE]

[TD=width: 59]Position[/TD]

[TD=width: 17][/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Outs[/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Pct[/TD]

[TD=width: 19][/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Hits[/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Pct[/TD]

[TD=width: 19][/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Total[/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Pct[/TD]

LF

[/TD]

32,604

31.0%

38,592

36.7%

71,196

33.8%

CF

41,471

39.4%

34,430

32.7%

75,901

36.1%

RF

31,102

29.6%

32,210

30.6%

[TD]63,312

30.1%

[/TABLE]

 

In the data he uses, there are more outs recorded by left fielders than right fielders and an even higher percentage of hits fielded by left fielders than right fielders.

[Brock Beauchamp]

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

 

This article by Dan Levitt for BaseballThinkFactory.org is over ten years old and uses data from the Retrosheet files of 1980-1983. He includes both putouts and hits fielded by position. For our interests, here is the outfield breakdown:

 

[TABLE]

Position

[TD=width: 17][/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Outs[/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Pct[/TD]

[TD=width: 19][/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Hits[/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Pct[/TD]

[TD=width: 19][/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Total[/TD]

[TD=width: 59]Pct[/TD]

LF

[/TD]

32,604

31.0%

38,592

36.7%

71,196

33.8%

CF

41,471

39.4%

34,430

32.7%

75,901

36.1%

RF

31,102

29.6%

32,210

30.6%

[TD]63,312

30.1%

[/TABLE]

 

In the data he uses, there are more outs recorded by left fielders than right fielders and an even higher percentage of hits fielded by left fielders than right fielders.

 

Okay, now I'm completely ****ing confused.

[Oxtung]

Good find on that data Curt.

[CDog]

Okay, now I'm completely ****ing confused.

Assuming the cited data sources are accurate (or close to it), doesn't Curt's latest data simply indicate that over time batted balls have shifted slightly from left field to right field? Note that "Curt's" most recent data is fairly old, while the others are more current.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Assuming the cited data sources are accurate (or close to it), doesn't Curt's latest data simply indicate that over time batted balls have shifted slightly from left field to right field? Note that "Curt's" most recent data is fairly old, while the others are more current.

Possibly, but why the change? It's an intriguing notion... Have specialized pitchers really had that much of an impact on where balls are hit? It's the only reasoning I could think to cause it. Or maybe more right-handed players are learning to bat left-handed at a young age. Dunno.

[CDog]

Possibly, but why the change? It's an intriguing notion... Have specialized pitchers really had that much of an impact on where balls are hit? It's the only reasoning I could think to cause it. Or maybe more right-handed players are learning to bat left-handed at a young age. Dunno.

More at-bats going the other way maybe (and with more players being right-handed, that would shift things that way)? Don't know either.

[Curt]

Assuming the cited data sources are accurate (or close to it), doesn't Curt's latest data simply indicate that over time batted balls have shifted slightly from left field to right field? Note that "Curt's" most recent data is fairly old, while the others are more current.

In an earlier post, I stated that, using 2012 YTD data, 70% of plate appearances were against right-handed pitchers and 53% were by right-handed hitters.

 

I just checked the data for 1982 and the split by pitching hand was 70%-30% just like 2012 but the split by batting-hand was 60%-40%.

 

[TABLE]

[TD=width: 99][/TD]

[TD=width: 43][/TD]

[TD=width: 50]1982[/TD]

[TD=width: 50]2012[/TD]

LH Batter

[/TD]

40%

47%

RH Batter

60%

53%

LH Pitcher

30%

30%

RH Pitcher

[TD]70%

70%

[/TABLE]

 

This might go a ways in explaining a shift. I'm a little shocked at the difficulty in finding recent data.

[Oxtung]

No, snepp and Curt's data are showing 2 different things. Snepp's data only shows putouts and assists (and errors but those are almost nonexistent in a sample that large) i.e. only where the outs where made. His data shows that more outs come each season from RF than LF. To me this implies that there are more flyballs to RF than LF. Curt's data on the other hand is ALL times an outfielder touches a ball. This includes balls where an out isn't recorded like base hits.

 

To me this shows one possibly two things. First there are probably more ground balls hit to left field than to right and probably more catch-able flyballs to right than to left. But there is a second possibility. This could also show that there are more line drives hit to left field that aren't outs. Perhaps the balls are hit harder and are getting into the gaps more often in LF than RF.

[CDog]

In an earlier post, I stated that, using 2012 YTD data, 70% of plate appearances were against right-handed pitchers and 53% were by right-handed hitters.

 

I just checked the data for 1982 and the split by pitching hand was 70%-30% just like 2012 but the split by batting-hand was 60%-40%.

 

[TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 43]

[TD=width: 50]1982

[/TD]

[TD=width: 50]2012

[/TD]

LH Batter

[/TD]

40%

47%

RH Batter

60%

53%

LH Pitcher

30%

30%

RH Pitcher

[TD]70%

70%

[/TABLE]

 

This might go a ways in explaining a shift. I'm a little shocked at the difficulty in finding recent data.

That makes sense, too. I know I looked fairly breifly once and got annoyed/frustrated/lazy at it (data) not being readily available like I wanted so I quit. Thanks for finding the stuff you have. It's interesting, too, to try and piece together partial bits of information.

[Brock Beauchamp]

In an earlier post, I stated that, using 2012 YTD data, 70% of plate appearances were against right-handed pitchers and 53% were by right-handed hitters.

 

I just checked the data for 1982 and the split by pitching hand was 70%-30% just like 2012 but the split by batting-hand was 60%-40%.

 

[TABLE]

[/TD]

[TD=width: 43]

[TD=width: 50]1982[/TD]

[TD=width: 50]2012[/TD]

LH Batter

[/TD]

40%

47%

RH Batter

60%

53%

LH Pitcher

30%

30%

RH Pitcher

[TD]70%

70%

[/TABLE]

 

This might go a ways in explaining a shift. I'm a little shocked at the difficulty in finding recent data.

Ah, I always suspected that the right-left batter split has been closing in recent decades but I had never seen data to support it until now.

[asmus_ndsu]

You can also think of this stat... How many timed have players with a "great arm" airmailed a throw to third or home into the duggout causing even more extra bases?

[Steve Lein]

You guys realize that "Total Chances" and "Putouts" aren't everything that goes into attempting to calculate "Range", right? The data provided for this is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that more "balls in play" are hit to left field - Range also comes into play on hits. Take for example about a week ago when Willingham wasn't able to cut the ball off on a liner and it reached the wall, allowing the runners to advance another base. Revere cuts that off and holds them back. More ground balls get hit down the left field line for hits (which is a long run to prevent a double for a LF), more grounders go through the hole between 3B and SS for hits (while this usually doesn't require the LF to move much, Revere's speed (e.g.: range) gets him to that ball faster), more line drive hits go to left field where the OF has to run them down, more doubles are hit to the LF gap. Range doesn't just count for outs, it counts for every ball that's hit out there. I do not lack any confidence in saying this, and the "pull percentage" data I provided earlier is pretty definitive in demonstrating that more balls get to a left-fielder than they do the right.

 

But, you want some data? Check out this page (its for the 2009 season, others are very similar): http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&year=2009&lg=MLB#hitlo

 

Simple addition clearly shows more balls are hit to LF.

 

For fun and your benefit however, I did some of my own number crunching based on what is on that page:

 

Give me the benefit of the doubt for not giving all the numbers used in these calculations, but I'm very confident in my math and statistics (in the academic, not baseball sense) background. This is for data on balls hit to the OF only, thus it also doesn't include such things as ground ball hits, which would skew the data to LF further.

 

Based on percentages of Balls hit data on that page, approximately 16,000 balls were hit to strictly LF in 2009.

In that same year, approximately 14,000 balls were hit to strictly RF.

 

That's 2,000 more balls hit to Left Fielders than Right Fielders in one season.

 

This may not sound like that big of a difference to you, but also keep in mind, this does NOT include any data for balls hit "toward CF", which is significantly more than LF and RF combined (by about 20,000 total ). It's taking into account only the "strictly LF" and "strictly RF" thirds of the OF. If you cut the OF in half and apply pull %'s to the CF data, the gap between total number of balls hit "toward LF" and "Toward RF" gets about 3 times bigger.

 

So, if we take the number 6,000 as the arbitrary figure, we can divide that by the total number of games played in the MLB each year: 2,430, and we get: 2.47. So Basically, two and a half more balls per game are hit toward Left Fielders than Right Fielders. Thus, I think "Range" in LF compared to RF can make a pretty big difference in a lot of games.

 

But in retrospect, this very clearly shows why CF is the most important OF position by far.

[Steve Lein]

By the way, this conversation is awesome q;)

 

and I see a lot of guys got some data together while I was crunching mine.

[Guest USAFChief]

You guys realize that "Total Chances" and "Putouts" aren't everything that goes into attempting to calculate "Range", right? The data provided for this is interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that more "balls in play" are hit to left field - Range also comes into play on hits. Take for example about a week ago when Willingham wasn't able to cut the ball off on a liner and it reached the wall, allowing the runners to advance another base. Revere cuts that off and holds them back. More ground balls get hit down the left field line for hits (which is a long run to prevent a double for a LF), more grounders go through the hole between 3B and SS for hits (while this usually doesn't require the LF to move much, Revere's speed (e.g.: range) gets him to that ball faster), more line drive hits go to left field where the OF has to run them down, more doubles are hit to the LF gap. Range doesn't just count for outs, it counts for every ball that's hit out there. I do not lack any confidence in saying this, and the "pull percentage" data I provided earlier is pretty definitive in demonstrating that more balls get to a left-fielder than they do the right.

 

But, you want some data? Check out this page (its for the 2009 season, others are very similar): http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&year=2009&lg=MLB#hitlo

 

Simple addition clearly shows more balls are hit to LF.

 

For fun and your benefit however, I did some of my own number crunching based on what is on that page:

 

Give me the benefit of the doubt for not giving all the numbers used in these calculations, but I'm very confident in my math and statistics (in the academic, not baseball sense) background. This is for data on balls hit to the OF only, thus it also doesn't include such things as ground ball hits, which would skew the data to LF further.

 

Based on percentages of Balls hit data on that page, approximately 16,000 balls were hit to strictly LF in 2009.

In that same year, approximately 14,000 balls were hit to strictly RF.

 

That's 2,000 more balls hit to Left Fielders than Right Fielders in one season.

 

This may not sound like that big of a difference to you, but also keep in mind, this does NOT include any data for balls hit "toward CF", which is significantly more than LF and RF combined (by about 20,000 total ). It's taking into account only the "strictly LF" and "strictly RF" thirds of the OF. If you cut the OF in half and apply pull %'s to the CF data, the gap between total number of balls hit "toward LF" and "Toward RF" gets about 3 times bigger.

 

So, if we take the number 6,000 as the arbitrary figure, we can divide that by the total number of games played in the MLB each year: 2,430, and we get: 2.47. So Basically, two and a half more balls per game are hit toward Left Fielders than Right Fielders. Thus, I think "Range" in LF compared to RF can make a pretty big difference in a lot of games.

 

But in retrospect, this very clearly shows why CF is the most important OF position by far.

Sorry...I'm going to need to see the math.

 

Because when I look at your source, all I see that could possibly be relavent is "hit location." Am I missing something? "Hit location" doesn't cover all the necessary data.

[Curt]

Here is what I see on that Baseball-Reference page...

 

[TABLE]

[TD=width: 86][/TD]

[TD=width: 71]Hits – HR[/TD]

[TD=width: 57]Pct[/TD]

[TD=width: 16][/TD]

[TD=width: 71]PO[/TD]

[TD=width: 57]Pct[/TD]

[TD=width: 16][/TD]

[TD=width: 71]Total[/TD]

[TD=width: 57]Pct[/TD]

Left

10,221

26.6%

[/TD]

9,449

29.7%

19,670

28.0%

Center

20,125

52.3%

12,541

39.4%

32,666

46.5%

Right

8,113

21.1%

9,810

30.8%

[TD]17,923

25.5%

[/TABLE]

 

 

The "Hits - HR" include, as far as I can tell, infield hits. There doesn't seem to be a separation out of infield/outfield data by left/center/right. Infield hits make up 12 percent of all the "Hits - HR".

 

I did not include outfielder assists or errors. Assists do not reflect a ball hit somewher and errors could be throwing errors. The numbers are small for each anyway.

 

What is consistent here with the 1980-83 data I quoted earlier is that the percentage of hits to left field is significantly higher than the percentage of putouts by left-fielders in both sets of data.

 

There is much more hit activity to center field in the Baseball-Reference (2009) data (52.3%) than in the 1980-83 data (32.7%). This may be due to differences in definition and collection. The 1980-83 data was explained by the author as defined by the fielder who fielded the ball. Not sure about the 2009 data but I wonder if it is by zone rather than fielder (that would indicate left and right-fielders fielding a lot of hits in the center-field zone).

[anthonyq77]

I don't see why people were so down on Revere earlier this year. Yes his arm was a bit of an issue last year and yes his time in the majors up until that point hadn't shown his hitting ability, but when you look at his minor league stats he hit.326 for his career in the minors. Why would you not expect that to continue into MLB? Sure some drop off could be expected and we see that in his OBP. However as has been said, this year his arm is rated as average his range is way above average and he is now starting to hit to his potential. If he adds a bit of muscle to up his slugging pct a little and can take a few more walks I see no reason that he can't hold off the younger guys and man CF for 5-8 years or more. He is going to be hard to unseat at any OF position. Sure I hope that someone like Benson, Hicks etc. can come up and force his way into Revere's position. I guess i will just wait and see because if Revere continues to develop even a little I see little chance that those guys can take his place.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't see why people were so down on Revere earlier this year. Yes his arm was a bit of an issue last year and yes his time in the majors up until that point hadn't shown his hitting ability, but when you look at his minor league stats he hit.326 for his career in the minors. Why would you not expect that to continue into MLB? Sure some drop off could be expected and we see that in his OBP. However as has been said, this year his arm is rated as average his range is way above average and he is now starting to hit to his potential. If he adds a bit of muscle to up his slugging pct a little and can take a few more walks I see no reason that he can't hold off the younger guys and man CF for 5-8 years or more. He is going to be hard to unseat at any OF position. Sure I hope that someone like Benson, Hicks etc. can come up and force his way into Revere's position. I guess i will just wait and see because if Revere continues to develop even a little I see little chance that those guys can take his place.

Aaron Hicks has been a better prospect than Revere almost every step of their MiLB careers. Benson was a better prospect until he went completely off the rails this season.

 

I'm not bashing Ben here, he might be a fine player. But Hicks is still a much better prospect and Benson might get there, too. Revere never OPSed higher than .740 in the upper minors. That's not exactly the type of production that makes you stop the presses.

[Steve Lein]

Sorry...I'm going to need to see the math.

 

Because when I look at your source, all I see that could possibly be relavent is "hit location." Am I missing something? "Hit location" doesn't cover all the necessary data.

Hit Location is the right section. This is the only data I could find that quantified in any useful way where a batted ball was hit, so I used it. If I can be directed to a better database, I'd like to see it. But I still don't expect my numbers would change much either way.

 

But since my numbers aren't exact above, I'll get into a limited data set of specifics for you.

 

Basically I took the Total Number of Balls hit to LF ("Pulled-RHB" & "OppFld-LHB") and RF ("OppFld-RHB" & "Pulled-LHB"), and created percentages in relation to the Total numbers as the following: 22.5% to LF, 57.1% to CF, 20.4% to RF. I then applied these percentages to the "To Outfield" category.

 

22.5% of 71730 is 16132 balls to LF

20.4% of 71730 is 14665 balls to RF

 

That difference checks in at 1467, so I embellished a little above q;)

 

Adding CF into the equation using the same ratios as above (16132/30797=52.4% to LF) to split it in 2, with the 40932 more balls unaccounted for, you end up with:

 

.524*40932=21448+16132=37580

.476*40932=19484+14665=34149

 

And the difference checks in at 3431 more balls "toward LF" than "toward RF", which is a more modest 1.412 more-balls-to-LF-than-RF-per-game-ratio, but that still means theres more to LF than RF.

 

I like the data others have provided showing the differences as time has gone on, and if you look at this same data I used for the 1988 season, the embellished numbers above are spot on, so it has definitely shifted...but not yet really even close to a point where you can say RF is more common.

 

But seriously, don't you remember Little League? There's a reason your coaches put your teams worst player in RF, because it was the least likely spot for a ball to get hit...

[anthonyq77]

Aaron Hicks has been a better prospect than Revere almost every step of their MiLB careers. Benson was a better prospect until he went completely off the rails this season.

 

I'm not bashing Ben here, he might be a fine player. But Hicks is still a much better prospect and Benson might get there, too. Revere never OPSed higher than .740 in the upper minors. That's not exactly the type of production that makes you stop the presses.

"Prospects" sure. But Revere was a better player at every step in the minors, there is something to be said for that. He has shown what he can do every step of the way. Players like Benson and Hicks are still talked about as toolsy of having upside. they haven't shown it yet. thats what i meant by taking "a wait and see" approach.

[diehardtwinsfan]

not to state the obvious here, but why in the world are we debating statistics pulled from seaons in the 80s? We've already seen a huge trend progressing towards more LH hitters from the 80s to today... to this simple minded idiot, that would mean that there's going to be more hits to right than what there were in the 80s or 90s... We should be able to pull this data from 2011, which would tell us whether or not Revere and his range belong in left or in right.

[scottz]

I knew I was slacking in my attention to twinsdaily, but this one really got away from me - 6 pages of replies before I got to it!

 

I will reply as one of the vocal dissents on Revere's arm, and I will stick with my assertion that his arm is awful. A noodle, if you will. Even if you won't, I will. I am impressed with what has been done to offset this though, from my subjective viewing. I don't think his arm is any better than last year, but it appears (again, subjective) that he is getting rid of the ball as quickly as he possibly can. Additionally, the infielders (particularly the 2Bers) appear to be hustling out farther and faster than on balls hit to Revere last year to take the cut. The result, I think, has been positive.

 

Stats are always fun, too. I won't define all the 5 baserunning situations that go into these, but they are easily discovered (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reverbe01-field.shtml).

Revere (2010-2012)

(CF) 145 opportunities, 57 holds (40.1%)

league average 2010-2012 45.4%

(RF) 63 opportunities, 29 holds (46.0%)

league average 2010-2012 46.2%.

(LF) 21 opportunities, 12 holds (57.1%)

league average 2010-2012 63.7%

 

For comparison,

Span (2008-2012)

(CF) 539 opportunities, 221 holds (41.0%)

league average 2008-2012 45.6%

(RF) 128 opportunities, 64 holds (50.0%)

league average 2008-2012 47.1%.

(LF) 70 opportunities, 47 holds (67.1%)

league average 2008-2012 63.9%

 

Items of note:

1) Both Span and Revere register as below average in holding runners from centerfield in their careers.

2) Span is above average at both corner positions, while Revere remains below average. (Though for 2012, Revere is better than the 2010-2012 league average at 48.2%.)

3) Span has 12 "Kills" in his career. That is, he as made 12 direct throw-outs of a runner trying to advance. Revere has 0.

4) Span has 8 other assists that resulted in a throw-out of a runner trying to advance. Revere has 5.

5) Therefore versus Span, runners have been thrown out trying to advance 20 times (by Span or cut-off men) in 737 opportunities (2.7%). Versus Revere, runners have been thrown out trying to advance 5 times (by cut-off men) in 229 opportunities (2.2%).

 

None of this tells us if runners are actually taking advantage of Revere's weak arm and running more against him than against Span or anyone else. I'm not sure there are data readily available there for that, short of going through everyone's stats and calculating the number of opportunities per game. But carrying the Span/Revere data forward, Span has played in the outfield in 533 career games while Revere has played 166 in the outfield.

 

Span's 737 opportunities over 533 career OF games = 1.383 opportunities per game * 162 games/yr = 224.0 opportunities/season. A 2.7% "kill" rate (via himself or cut-off man) means 6 outs per year.

Revere's 229 opportunities over 166 career OF games = 1.380 opportunities per game * 162 games/yr = 223.6 opportunities/season. A 2.2% "kill" rate (via cut-off man alone) means 4.9 outs per year.

 

One out difference over a season of baseball. Given that there is likely some error in the tracking of the data, that seems an amount that would be lost in the noise of the data. So Ben Revere has a noodle arm, but it sure doesn't seem to matter much.

 

Forgive me for the data mashing, my wife and kids are out of town and this is the most uninterrupted thought I've had about baseball all season. I got carried away. I would love any comments about this "analysis" though - I was just winging this as I went.

 

scottz

[scottz]

It occurred to me that the question isn't necessarily "are runners directly getting thrown out?", but instead "how often are runners advancing?"

 

So using the same data as above, Span has 332 total holds in 737 opportunities (45.0% hold rate, 55.0% advance rate) while Revere has 98 total holds in 229 opportunities (42.8% hold, 57.2 advance). Again projecting out using their respective opportunities/season rates:

 

Span's 224.0 opportunities/season and hold/advance rates results in runners holding 100.8 times and advancing 123.2 times.

Revere's 223.6 opportunities/season and hold/advance rates results in runners holding 95.7 times and advancing 127.9 times.

 

So over the course of a year, runners will advance on Revere roughly 5 more times than they will advance on Span. Depending on the game situation and which type of advance scenario is occurring, that could be very significant, but statistically, it still seems rather small.

[Brock Beauchamp]

"Prospects" sure. But Revere was a better player at every step in the minors, there is something to be said for that. He has shown what he can do every step of the way. Players like Benson and Hicks are still talked about as toolsy of having upside. they haven't shown it yet. thats what i meant by taking "a wait and see" approach.

That's just it, Revere wasn't a better player. That's my point. Revere spent most of his time in the minors OPSing just a little over .700 with stellar defense. Hicks has spent most of his time in the minors OPSing a little over .800 with, yes, stellar defense. Both players are the same age at each step of the minors. Even being labelled as a "toolsy guy with upside", Hicks has still been a vastly superior hitter to Revere while the defense is probably close to a wash.

 

Again, not knocking Revere, as he's really played well for the Twins. But I fully expect Hicks to be a better player in the near future, as he's consistently been a better player than Revere was in the minors.

[Guest USAFChief]

We've now gone 6 pages, plus time on BYTO, plus other threads here, and IMO we still haven't been able to difinatively nail down whether or not more balls are hit in the air to RF or LF.

 

Seems sort of odd in this day and age, no? Are we just looking in the wrong places? Don't have access to the data? Or isn't it out there?

[Riverbrian]

I knew I was slacking in my attention to twinsdaily, but this one really got away from me - 6 pages of replies before I got to it!

 

I will reply as one of the vocal dissents on Revere's arm, and I will stick with my assertion that his arm is awful. A noodle, if you will. Even if you won't, I will. I am impressed with what has been done to offset this though, from my subjective viewing. I don't think his arm is any better than last year, but it appears (again, subjective) that he is getting rid of the ball as quickly as he possibly can. Additionally, the infielders (particularly the 2Bers) appear to be hustling out farther and faster than on balls hit to Revere last year to take the cut. The result, I think, has been positive.

 

Stats are always fun, too. I won't define all the 5 baserunning situations that go into these, but they are easily discovered (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/reverbe01-field.shtml).

Revere (2010-2012)

(CF) 145 opportunities, 57 holds (40.1%)

league average 2010-2012 45.4%

(RF) 63 opportunities, 29 holds (46.0%)

league average 2010-2012 46.2%.

(LF) 21 opportunities, 12 holds (57.1%)

league average 2010-2012 63.7%

 

For comparison,

Span (2008-2012)

(CF) 539 opportunities, 221 holds (41.0%)

league average 2008-2012 45.6%

(RF) 128 opportunities, 64 holds (50.0%)

league average 2008-2012 47.1%.

(LF) 70 opportunities, 47 holds (67.1%)

league average 2008-2012 63.9%

 

Items of note:

1) Both Span and Revere register as below average in holding runners from centerfield in their careers.

2) Span is above average at both corner positions, while Revere remains below average. (Though for 2012, Revere is better than the 2010-2012 league average at 48.2%.)

3) Span has 12 "Kills" in his career. That is, he as made 12 direct throw-outs of a runner trying to advance. Revere has 0.

4) Span has 8 other assists that resulted in a throw-out of a runner trying to advance. Revere has 5.

5) Therefore versus Span, runners have been thrown out trying to advance 20 times (by Span or cut-off men) in 737 opportunities (2.7%). Versus Revere, runners have been thrown out trying to advance 5 times (by cut-off men) in 229 opportunities (2.2%).

 

None of this tells us if runners are actually taking advantage of Revere's weak arm and running more against him than against Span or anyone else. I'm not sure there are data readily available there for that, short of going through everyone's stats and calculating the number of opportunities per game. But carrying the Span/Revere data forward, Span has played in the outfield in 533 career games while Revere has played 166 in the outfield.

 

Span's 737 opportunities over 533 career OF games = 1.383 opportunities per game * 162 games/yr = 224.0 opportunities/season. A 2.7% "kill" rate (via himself or cut-off man) means 6 outs per year.

Revere's 229 opportunities over 166 career OF games = 1.380 opportunities per game * 162 games/yr = 223.6 opportunities/season. A 2.2% "kill" rate (via cut-off man alone) means 4.9 outs per year.

 

One out difference over a season of baseball. Given that there is likely some error in the tracking of the data, that seems an amount that would be lost in the noise of the data. So Ben Revere has a noodle arm, but it sure doesn't seem to matter much.

 

Forgive me for the data mashing, my wife and kids are out of town and this is the most uninterrupted thought I've had about baseball all season. I got carried away. I would love any comments about this "analysis" though - I was just winging this as I went.

 

scottz

Great post Scottz... You did a better job pointing out what I've been unsuccessfully trying to point out... Yes Ben's arm is weak in comparison but it isn't going to matter much.

 

Players advance extra bases based more... On where the ball is and where the outfielder is in relationship to the ball. If Ben gets to the ball quicker and can we assume he does cuz I don't have stats on that. If Ben gets to the ball quicker and gets it in quick... That is effective at holding the runner. Regardless of his noodle arm. If he has the Rock in his hands and is set to throw it. They will not attempt trying to pick up the extra base.

 

In a nutshell... Getting to the ball quicker is just as effective at preventing the extra base(even more so in my opinion). As the guy who gets to the ball slower and possesses the best cannon arm in the majors.

 

Just another way that his best in class speed helps.

 

I concede that his arm will come into play negatively on tag situations at times but we are talking about a few yards difference and very few outs over the course of a season.

 

However the range plays that he makes can help prevent big innings by getting to balls that others can't reach. It's an out made that can stop teams from stringing some stuff together and piling up multiple runs in an inning.

 

Take the range over arm strength every single time.