Opening Day Lineup

[Siehbiscuit]

Our conversation got me thinking and doing some math. I wondered what the threshold would be for preferring speed over OBP. I thought about it this way:

 

Take Hypothetical Player A, who has a very good .380 on base percentage. Let's say he's reasonably competent on the base paths, and that the speed he has allows him to score 50% of the time. This means that out of 600 plate appearances Player A will be on base 228 times and will score a run 114. Not bad at all, the on base machine gets the job done.

 

Now take Hypothetical Player B, with an average .325 on base percentage. Let's say Player B is a pretty darn fast runner, however, and that his speed helps him to score 60% of the time, ten percent more than the high on base guy. In 600 plate appearances Player B gets on base 195 times. His skill-set doesn't include the high on OBP of Player A, but he does have that 10% more scoring per time on the base paths due to the skill-set he does have. Player B scores a run 117 times, three more runs per 600 plate appearance than the On-Base guy.

 

These numbers seem to indicate that the difference need not be Billy Hamilton to Mathew LeCroy in order for speed to be preferable over OBP when the ultimate objective is to score runs.

 

Here is where I COMPLETELY disagree with you. The dude that gets on at a .380 clip controls very little of what the hitters behind him do. This guy could be John Kruk or John Olerud, but you have to get your teammates the opportunity to drive you in. Top of the order guys, have a job to do. One see several pitches and ultimately finda way to get on base. Once on base, try to advance without getting out. Seems pretty simple, but in your EXTREME example your comparing Ben Revere to a Kruk/Olerud-type. Revere definitely has his advantages leading off or batting in the two hole, but so do Olerud and Kruk. They may not run as well, but they also had far more XBH and were on 2nd base to start with A LOT more than Revere would ever be.

 

Your scenario is kinda ridiculous to put it nicely. The math works, but the logic doesn't. Even Scott Hatteburg batted 2nd for the A's at times. Speed is great if that's your team's philosophy. If it isn't, like the A's (who frown at stealing bases) or the Yankees, who play for the 3-run homer, it doesn't matter.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Here is where I COMPLETELY disagree with you. The dude that gets on at a .380 clip controls very little of what the hitters behind him do. This guy could be John Kruk or John Olerud, but you have to get your teammates the opportunity to drive you in. Top of the order guys, have a job to do. One see several pitches and ultimately finda way to get on base. Once on base, try to advance without getting out. Seems pretty simple, but in your EXTREME example your comparing Ben Revere to a Kruk/Olerud-type. Revere definitely has his advantages leading off or batting in the two hole, but so do Olerud and Kruk. They may not run as well, but they also had far more XBH and were on 2nd base to start with A LOT more than Revere would ever be.

 

Your scenario is kinda ridiculous to put it nicely. The math works, but the logic doesn't. Even Scott Hatteburg batted 2nd for the A's at times. Speed is great if that's your team's philosophy. If it isn't, like the A's (who frown at stealing bases) or the Yankees, who play for the 3-run homer, it doesn't matter.

 

You're choosing to argue against a hypothetical that was intentionally extreme in its nature. It was to illustrate the fact that comments like "IMO OBP is the ONLY quality to be considered when constructing a lineup" are ridiculous. Is OBP incredibly important? Yes. My purpose with the hypothetical was just to make my idea plainly clear by pushing out the averages to the point where that philosophy cost a team actual runs.

 

My subsequent discussion of Guzman and Mientkiewicz was a fact based example of the same type of scenario, in which SPEED likely played a noteworthy role in actual runs being scored by different types of players. Is my example perfect? No. I say as much in the posts. I mention that subsequent hitters impact the likelihood of scoring more than the SPEED of the player on base. To outright ignore SPEED as a factor, however, is to ignore something that clearly impacts the amount of runs being scored.

 

Just because ideas like moneyball have taught us that teams historically have greatly overpaid for a difficult-to-quantify quality like SPEED doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered, or that it doesn't exist, or that it can't sometimes, in certain lineups, in regards to certain types of players, be more important than things like OBP.

 

You're coming in to the conversation a little bit late to be expected to have read all of it though, much less to have paused your conventional SABR wisdom enough to ask yourself whether or not SPEED may exist in a statistical grey area, and whether or not it may actually impact games in a way that it is difficult to quantify.

[Willihammer]

These numbers seem to indicate that the difference need not be Billy Hamilton to Mathew LeCroy in order for speed to be preferable over OBP when the ultimate objective is to score runs.

 

The run values vary year to year and team to team. Overall, these are the average run values for 2012, per fangraphs:

 

[TABLE=width: 896]

[TD=width: 64]Season[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]wOBA[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]wOBAScale[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]wBB[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]wHBP[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]w1B[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]w2B[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]w3B[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]wHR[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]runSB[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]runCS[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]R/PA[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]R/W[/TD]

[TD=width: 64]cFIP[/TD]

[TD=align: right]2012[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.315[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1.245[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.691[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.722[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.884[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1.257[/TD]

[TD=align: right]1.593[/TD]

[TD=align: right]2.058[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.2[/TD]

[TD=align: right]-0.398[/TD]

[TD=align: right]0.114[/TD]

[TD=align: right]9.544[/TD]

[TD=align: right]3.095[/TD]

[/TABLE]

 

Obviously this doesn't count taking extra bases, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. Safe to say that those things are all probably comparable to SBs in their run values though.

 

So, if you take player A: a lousy baserunner who costs his team 7.5 runs in caught stealing and baserunning blunders; and player B who steals 50 bases and is caught only 5 times, and who produces 8 additional runs via 1st to 3rd, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. (totaling +16 net runs). Assume both play on the same, perfectly league average 2012 team. Player A will need to draw 34 additional walks to equal player B's run value, a difference of .056 OBP. Or, he could hit 17 home runs, a difference of .028 in OBP.

 

edit: Error. Only 11 HRs with a weighted run value 23.5 runs. A difference of .018 OBP instead of .028.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

The run values vary year to year and team to team. Overall, these are the average run values for 2012, per fangraphs:

 

 

 

Obviously this doesn't count taking extra bases, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. Safe to say that those things are all probably comparable to SBs in their run values though.

 

So, if you take player A: a lousy baserunner who costs his team 7.5 runs in caught stealing and baserunning blunders; and player B who steals 50 bases and is caught only 5 times, and who produces 8 additional runs via 1st to 3rd, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. (totaling +16 net runs). Assume both play on the same, perfectly league average 2012 team. Player A will need to draw 34 additional walks to equal player B's run value, a difference of .056 OBP. Or, he could hit 17 home runs, a difference of .028 in OBP.

 

I hesitate to "characterize" your analysis, because it would be a translation on my part of YOUR MATH into MY ENGLISH and would include subjective terms like "substantial", "significant" and "obviously".

 

I appreciate the seriousness with which you approach a legitimate question.

[TheLeviathan]

It was to illustrate the fact that comments like "IMO OBP is the ONLY quality to be considered when constructing a lineup" are ridiculous.

 

This is an unfair and inaccurate account of this discussion. That quote was only made after two attempts to say OBP > speed, speed comes into the equation when OBP is roughly equal. You resisted that characterization and spun it into the extreme position you later characterized this way:

 

It's funny to me when people just want OBP in the 2-spot, because the ultimate goal is to score runs. If a high On-Base guy doesn't come around to score, what is the value in having them on base in the first place?

 

The fact is, that guy not coming around has more to do with the subsequent hitters than it does with the baserunner themselves. As a rule, it's far better to construct the top of your lineup by loading it with guys that are good at not making outs. If they happen to bring speed to the table that's a bonus and a potential tie-breaker in close analysis, but by no means should it treated in the manner you have tried to illustrate.

[diehardtwinsfan]

You're choosing to argue against a hypothetical that was intentionally extreme in its nature. It was to illustrate the fact that comments like "IMO OBP is the ONLY quality to be considered when constructing a lineup" are ridiculous. Is OBP incredibly important? Yes. My purpose with the hypothetical was just to make my idea plainly clear by pushing out the averages to the point where that philosophy cost a team actual runs.

 

My subsequent discussion of Guzman and Mientkiewicz was a fact based example of the same type of scenario, in which SPEED likely played a noteworthy role in actual runs being scored by different types of players. Is my example perfect? No. I say as much in the posts. I mention that subsequent hitters impact the likelihood of scoring more than the SPEED of the player on base. To outright ignore SPEED as a factor, however, is to ignore something that clearly impacts the amount of runs being scored.

 

Just because ideas like moneyball have taught us that teams historically have greatly overpaid for a difficult-to-quantify quality like SPEED doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered, or that it doesn't exist, or that it can't sometimes, in certain lineups, in regards to certain types of players, be more important than things like OBP.

 

You're coming in to the conversation a little bit late to be expected to have read all of it though, much less to have paused your conventional SABR wisdom enough to ask yourself whether or not SPEED may exist in a statistical grey area, and whether or not it may actually impact games in a way that it is difficult to quantify.

 

I think the problem I have with what you've been saying (and what others have commented as well), is that speed didn't "likely" play a noteworthy role. You've largely cut out the most obvious role, namely in what the person behind them does, by cherry picking a few guys to make your point.

 

If you want to address the role of speed in scoring runs, I would strongly suggest you do some research based off of stuff I've seen John Bonnes post reguarly... namely run expectancy. There's some pretty good numbers out about the average run expectancy in various situations (i.e. a runner on 1st with 2 outs will score X percent of the time). With enough sample size (and it would take years of fast runners in various lineups with league average, year by year, and team by team comparrisons), you might be able to conclude that fast runners can out perform that system by a specific margin, which can be extrapolated to a season, but that type of research is going to take A LOT of time.

 

I don't think anyone on this forum doubts that speed plays a role in scoring runs. The question at hand has to do with how much of a role it plays. I think it's safe to say that not making outs behind the said runner is more often than not, more important than the speed of a runner on the basepaths. That is the assumption that you are challenging, and I don't think you've proven your point.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

I think the problem I have with what you've been saying (and what others have commented as well), is that speed didn't "likely" play a noteworthy role. You've largely cut out the most obvious role, namely in what the person behind them does, by cherry picking a few guys to make your point.

 

If you want to address the role of speed in scoring runs, I would strongly suggest you do some research based off of stuff I've seen John Bonnes post reguarly... namely run expectancy. There's some pretty good numbers out about the average run expectancy in various situations (i.e. a runner on 1st with 2 outs will score X percent of the time). With enough sample size (and it would take years of fast runners in various lineups with league average, year by year, and team by team comparrisons), you might be able to conclude that fast runners can out perform that system by a specific margin, which can be extrapolated to a season, but that type of research is going to take A LOT of time.

 

I don't think anyonPe on this forum doubts that speed plays a role in scoring runs. The question at hand has to do with how much of a role it plays. I think it's safe to say that not making outs behind the said runner is more often than not, more important than the speed of a runner on the basepaths. That is the assumption that you are challenging, and I don't think you've proven your point.

 

Completely incorrect characterization. I don't think I should keep responding to these posts, because it us a constant process of tearing down straw man arguments. I am not at all challenging the assumption that not making outs behind a runner and in general OBP are much more contributing factors. I have said as much many times over. If I have done a poor job of illustrating that the effect of SPEED on runs scored, is under-represented in statistical analysis, so be it. The arguments agai my contention continually involve representations of me claiming that I think SPEED is more important than not making outs. I have never made such a claim. I have clearly stated the opposite of such a claim.

 

I feel like I should stop responding to posts that include these types of misrepresentations, despite how fun it may be to marvel at their obliviousness to their transgression.

[stringer bell]

While I'm not totally averse to Mauer hitting second, I don't think it is as simple a proposition as OBP. Gardy seldom hits and runs with Mauer and he does like to put runners in motion. Traditionally, the best hitter in the lineup hits third and Mauer is the best hitter, despite not being much of a home run threat. I'm not sure if Dozier would be up to hitting second, but I don't doubt that Gardenhire will try it.

[Oxtung]

...[mis]representations of me claiming that I think SPEED is more important than not making outs.

 

Of course you're making that claim. If one has a lower OBP then one is making more outs...

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Of course you're making that claim. If one has a lower OBP then one is making more outs...

 

No. Making that claim would be for me to say that SPEED always trumps OBP. I never said anything close to that. In case anybody was ever confused about the point I was trying to make, I repeatedly explained with caveats that I believe OBP and not making outs is more important than SPEED overall. To say that because SPEED equals more actual runs sometimes despite a somewhat lower OBP IS NOT to say "SPEED is preferable to not making outs".

 

To just ignore the many times I have clearly stated my view that OBP is ultimately a larger contributing factor than SPEED is strange, and seems to suggest you are just trying to make me "seem wrong" instead of approaching the subject in a good faith effort to interact regarding this subject. Intellectual honesty is a quality that people who might disagree on a subject rely on in order to operate by fair standards in the arena of ideas. I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill.

[Oxtung]

No. Making that claim would be for me to say that SPEED always trumps OBP. I never said anything close to that. In case anybody was ever confused about the point I was trying to make, I repeatedly explained with caveats that I believe OBP and not making outs is more important than SPEED overall. To say that because SPEED equals more actual runs sometimes despite a somewhat lower OBP IS NOT to say "SPEED is preferable to not making outs".

 

To just ignore the many times I have clearly stated my view that OBP is ultimately a larger contributing factor than SPEED is strange, and seems to suggest you are just trying to make me "seem wrong" instead of approaching the subject in a good faith effort to interact regarding this subject. Intellectual honesty is a quality that people who might disagree on a subject rely on in order to operate by fair standards in the arena of ideas. I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill.

 

Of course you're claiming that at some point speed is more important than outs. It is the fundamental pedestal upon which your whole argument stands. If a player has a lower OBP then he is making more outs. Now maybe his speed can make up for that in the real world. Hypothetically it is possible. But you haven't shown that to be the case. There in lies your problem.

 

As for intellectual honesty I think you need to do some thinking on the subject. No where in my post was I claiming anything you haven't said. I in no way misrepresented your idea. I am a bit offended by your rant to be honest because intellectual honesty and social goodwill is something I strive for in ever interaction I have.

[DaveW]

OBP, Speed? Who gives a crap! It's all about laying down that bunt in the #2 spot, every body who isn't a pleb knows that!

[jokin]

OBP, Speed? Who gives a crap! It's all about laying down that bunt in the #2 spot, every body who isn't a pleb knows that!

 

It's SPEED

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Of course you're claiming that at some point speed is more important than outs. It is the fundamental pedestal upon which your whole argument stands. If a player has a lower OBP then he is making more outs. Now maybe his speed can make up for that in the real world. Hypothetically it is possible. But you haven't shown that to be the case. There in lies your problem.

 

As for intellectual honesty I think you need to do some thinking on the subject. No where in my post was I claiming anything you haven't said. I in no way misrepresented your idea. I am a bit offended by your rant to be honest because intellectual honesty and social goodwill is something I strive for in ever interaction I have.

 

You seem to be taking offense to this statement: "I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill."

 

Unless you count yourself amongst those who have misrepresented my statements in the manner I described, I don't understand why you would take the comments as offensive. Would you not agree that my characterization of people who create a strawman argument out of my perspective aren't displaying the type of intellectual honesty and social goodwill that you always strive for?

 

 

I clearly stated that I do not think SPEED is MORE IMPORTANT than making outs. You, seemingly simulteanously ignoring and responding to that statement at the same time, chimed in with "You are absolutely making that claim." It seems to me pretty obvious that you were directly accusing me of making an argument that I didn't make. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were truly trying to say, but it would seem that I accurately received your communication. I understand hat I made a generalized comment about intellectual dishonesty in a post that directly quoted and addressed you. I did count you among those building strawman arguments. I then was careful to be very general in my comments criticizing it. I'm assuming you DO indeed count yourself amongst people who have handled the argument in that manner, otherwise you would not have flat the criticism was directed toward you.

 

Overall, I did not intend to be insulting in any way beyond general message board banter. Since you are claiming that I was, I will take that in good faith and offer my apology.

 

This thread is really silly at this point, and I'm doubting whether all the attention this thread has gotten is good for business on this site. It is just semantic arguments about the argument at this point, and I am probably more guilty than anybody for continually responding and perpetuating it. I will really try hard to only respond to non-semantic conversations at this point, or to directly answer questions that are asked of me.

[Guest USAFChief]

It's SPEED

Well played sir.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Well played sir.

 

 

Yes, SPEED. I just like it to look more like OBP looks in the threads, and I was amused by putting it in all caps. I wondered how long it would be before the caps drove somebody crazy. Careful now, don't get too mad...

[Oxtung]

You seem to be taking offense to this statement: "I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill."

 

Unless you count yourself amongst those who have misrepresented my statements in the manner I described, I don't understand why you would take the comments as offensive. Would you not agree that my characterization of people who create a strawman argument out of my perspective aren't displaying the type of intellectual honesty and social goodwill that you always strive for?

 

 

I clearly stated that I do not think SPEED is MORE IMPORTANT than making outs. You, seemingly simulteanously ignoring and responding to that statement at the same time, chimed in with "You are absolutely making that claim." It seems to me pretty obvious that you were directly accusing me of making an argument that I didn't make. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were truly trying to say, but it would seem that I accurately received your communication. I understand hat I made a generalized comment about intellectual dishonesty in a post that directly quoted and addressed you. I did count you among those building strawman arguments. I then was careful to be very general in my comments criticizing it. I'm assuming you DO indeed count yourself amongst people who have handled the argument in that manner, otherwise you would not have flat the criticism was directed toward you.

 

Overall, I did not intend to be insulting in any way beyond general message board banter. Since you are claiming that I was, I will take that in good faith and offer my apology.

 

This thread is really silly at this point, and I'm doubting whether all the attention this thread has gotten is good for business on this site. It is just semantic arguments about the argument at this point, and I am probably more guilty than anybody for continually responding and perpetuating it. I will really try hard to only respond to non-semantic conversations at this point, or to directly answer questions that are asked of me.

 

You made your rant after directly quoting me. So I took that as directed towards me. If that was not the case then I apologize for coming back as strongly as I did. Please be more careful in the future as to identifying who the subject of your writings are. Perhaps you could have begun the opening of that paragraph with something like, "This is not directed at you Oxtung but to the .....".

 

Moving on.

 

Personally I think this is one of the most interesting discussions this board has had in quite a while. It is by far more interesting than the retread rants about Butera or how many pitchers should be carried to start the season. This is a new conversation that hasn't been rehashed to death recently. Let me try and get back to the core of your argument. Hit the reset button if you will.

 

If we think of OBP/SPEED as a bar graph I think it might help conceptualize your argument. On one end we have a player who's OBP is 1.000 but he can't move. On the other end we have a player whose OBP is .000 but he is The Flash fast. Obviously both these players are going to go scoreless. In the middle of the graph we have a player with average OBP and average speed. As you work from the edges towards this middle point the number of runs scored will increase. The unknown question here is where will the most runs be scored. Your arguing that the most runs will be scored somewhere slightly on the "speed" side of the equation. Is this a fair representation of your contention?

 

 

 

---

OBP..............................Average............................Speed

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

You made your rant after directly quoting me. So I took that as directed towards me. If that was not the case then I apologize for coming back as strongly as I did. Please be more careful in the future as to identifying who the subject of your writings are. Perhaps you could have begun the opening of that paragraph with something like, "This is not directed at you Oxtung but to the .....".

 

Moving on.

 

Personally I think this is one of the most interesting discussions this board has had in quite a while. It is by far more interesting than the retread rants about Butera or how many pitchers should be carried to start the season. This is a new conversation that hasn't been rehashed to death recently. Let me try and get back to the core of your argument. Hit the reset button if you will.

 

If we think of OBP/SPEED as a bar graph I think it might help conceptualize your argument. On one end we have a player who's OBP is 1.000 but he can't move. On the other end we have a player whose OBP is .000 but he is The Flash fast. Obviously both these players are going to go scoreless. In the middle of the graph we have a player with average OBP and average speed. As you work from the edges towards this middle point the number of runs scored will increase. The unknown question here is where will the most runs be scored. Your arguing that the most runs will be scored somewhere slightly on the "speed" side of the equation. Is this a fair representation of your contention?

 

 

 

---

OBP..............................Average............................Speed

 

I appreciate the reasonable attempt to visualize my perspective. No, my view isn't even as " on the side of SPEED" as your assessment of my place on the average line would be.

 

 

My argument hasn't even at all been to try to say that SPEED is in any way a more "contributing factor" to runs being scored on average, in general, or on balance.

 

Somebody said that they were ever told why SPEED needs to be a consideration of a potential number 2 hitter's skill-set.

 

I was just saying, simply, that some players posses SPEED that is enough of a contributing factor that it makes up for their deservedness to bat in a more advantageous place order than another player who has a higher OBP. This was a contrasting view to the idea that OBP trumps all, and that the tops of lineups should be constructed strictly based on OBP as the determining factor. People have responded and said things along the lines of, "of course speed is a factor, but only a tiny bit at the margins. Only in the case of an OBP tie. Only as a thrown in additional bonus. Only in comparisons such as billy hamilton to Matthew LeCroy".

 

 

And my response, and my argument at its core has simply been, "I don't know guys, I bet it's a decent bit more important than statistics have been able to accurately quantify yet."

 

 

The substance hitting the proverbial fan that ensued contained so many ridiculous characterizations of my viewpoint (see Fro's responses, etc.) that nobody but a select few people kept track of the initial gist of my perspective. Even now, you present a bar graph that is in assumption of a perspective I do not have. I guess that's my fault for not communicating my respective well enough, though I feel I ave stated my perspective very clearly many times over. I wonder if everything I have written, which I admit is a lot, has been read by everybody who has participated in the conversation.

 

 

Regarding your graph. Your bar graph assumes that all increase in SPEED is necessarily a decrease in OBP and vice versa. It isn't necessarily a 1:1 ratio, and in fact there is not likely a constant ratio that would apply effectively.

 

I think Willihammer started to approach a relevant analysis, but he hasn't been back around to characterize what he feels his numbers imply. I wish he would, and I would encourage him to continue to refine the type of approach he is taking toward illuminating a statistical grey area.

[Oxtung]

My argument hasn't even at all been to try to say that SPEED is in any way a more "contributing factor" to runs being scored on average, in general, or on balance.

 

And my response, and my argument at its core has simply been, "I don't know guys, I bet [speed is] a decent bit more important than statistics have been able to accurately quantify yet."

 

 

Regarding your graph. Your bar graph assumes that all increase in SPEED is necessarily a decrease in OBP and vice versa. It isn't necessarily a 1:1 ratio, and in fact there is not likely a constant ratio that would apply effectively.

 

Let me assure you I have read this entire thread. While I might get caught up in the more recent comments it is not out of an intention to purposefully be deceitful or to "win" an argument. It is more because that is the way the human brain works. It prioritizes recent events over previous events. This is why I wanted to to just break from the previous line of thoughts and get back to what your original statements were. I believe there is a possibility you are onto something with speed. Or SPEED if you prefer .

 

As to my bar graph you're absolutely right that it is not useful in this case as it implies a 1:1 relationship between speed:OBP. That was not my intention. Call it a brain fart.

 

Less try a less rigid representation. You believe that if a player is fast enough he can create more runs than someone with a higher OBP. You don't know where that speed to OBP ratio is however.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

You believe that if a player is fast enough he can create more runs than someone with a higher OBP. You don't know where that speed to OBP ratio is however.

 

Correct. It's kind of funny because I might have actually said this a dozen times by now. Yes, that is what I'm saying and I appreciate your approach to this most recent part of the conversation.

 

I'm not really onto something, it's been known by managers and observers for years. I think people fall in love with quantifiable stats like OBP and OPS, and sometimes ignore contributing factors that aren't as easily quantified.

 

I really wish WilliHammer would expand and tweak his analysis, and also comment on how his numbers sit within the context of this conversation.

[TheLeviathan]

I think people fall in love with quantifiable stats like OBP and OPS, and sometimes ignore contributing factors that aren't as easily quantified.

 

I think many of us find that love not as strong as you do in fact. Particularly with our Twins.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

I think many of us find that love not as strong as you do in fact. Particularly with our Twins.

 

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I really don't understand the intended meaning of your last post. Would you care to clarify?

[Badsmerf]

Bluesky.... first off, I appreciate your outside the box thinking. Second, my ****ing god are your posts impossible to read. Not only do you post a documentary with every post, use a (forced?) complex vocabulary, but you do a poor job of clearly defining your argument. Also, does it feel weird that this idea is basically being destroyed by anyone that posts in this thread? I'm not trying to be a jerk, just frustrated in 4 pages of this thread that you've been arguing a hypothetical trend that has no support other than cherry picked stats between two players and a made-up scenario that conveniently shows you to be right. lol. You have to understand why you are getting nowhere with this... right?

 

I think I can agree with you, like many others that have argued against you. Speed will make a difference between 2 players if the separation is large enough. However, you're attempting to see where speed can make up for lack of OBP. Unfortunately for this idea, the only quantifiable stat for speed is SB, unless you want to start clocking guys on the basepaths. It is an impossible argument. It is, however, a valid point IMO. What is the threshold, how do you measure it? This is your problem. I will never, nor will most, accept made-up percentages and numbers to give proof to something.

 

I don't think you're completely wrong, just that you are ignoring obvious factors that contribute to runs being scored far more.

[TheLeviathan]

Sorry if I'm being obtuse, but I really don't understand the intended meaning of your last post. Would you care to clarify?

 

My point was that the Twins, Gardy in particular, tends to go with some very old conventions rather than relying on OPS and OBP. The "play second-bat second" is obviously exaggerated, but there have been times where he has batted inferior players (see: Mike Redmond) in the same position as far superior players on the basis of nothing more than position. Carlos Gomez got quite a few ABs in the leadoff role based solely on his speed as well. If your point was that a team is overlooking speed in favor of OBP, the Twins are not a good example. (This coming from a guy who has long railed on the Twins for their ineffective use of team speed BTW)

 

The issue with your suggestion isn't that speed can aid in run scoring, I think we can most all agree it can. But your hypothetical doesn't prove it, especially with how narrow you have it defined and how shallow your examples are. If there are two guys, one with a .340 OBP and one with a .355 OBP and Mr. .340 is MUCH faster, I think most people can get behind the idea of him batting second. But the far better general rule is to load your lineup in order of guys who make the least number of outs. I think the confusion in this thread is that you seemed to be taking issue with that. (And at times I think it's clear your language was doing precisely that)

[Willihammer]

Unfortunately for this idea, the only quantifiable stat for speed is SB, unless you want to start clocking guys on the basepaths. It is an impossible argument. It is, however, a valid point IMO. What is the threshold, how do you measure it? This is your problem. I will never, nor will most, accept made-up percentages and numbers to give proof to something.

Firstly, there are a lot more stats that indirectly measure speed than SB. For one, baseball-reference has a baserunning section on a player's "More Stats" tab.

 

Secondly, I think we can get a crude measure of strong baserunning, or SPEED and I will attempt to do this by looking at two players who hit in front of similar lineups (in an attempt to control for that very important variable).

 

Enter: Mike Trout and Austin Jackson. Both were leadoff hitters for lineups that were very strong 1-5 last year. Behind Jackson, hit Dirks/Santiago, Cabrera, Fielder, and Young. Behind Trout was Aybar, Pujols, Hunter, and Morales. More or less an equivalent 2-4, I think we can agree. Maybe even a slight edge to the Tigers.

 

So, as a starting point, take RS%: the percentage of times a runner reaches base and scores. Trout had the edge, 44% to 40%.

 

What might explain the difference then, if the hitters hitting behind Trout and Jackson were equally productive?

 

Trout and Jackson made about the same number of outs on the bases (22 to 23), but Trout got on base 22 more times. So, they were picked off, thrown out, or caught stealing at almost the exact same rate. So its not baserunning blunders that separated them.

 

Next we can try to solve for positive contributions. Jackson stole 12 bases in 292 opportunities. Trout stole 49 bases in 246 opportunities.

 

Two other things we can look at are 1^stS2 and 1^stS3 - the number of times a runner reached 2nd and 3rd base (or home) respectively, when a single is hit.

 

The Tigers hit 43 singles when Jackson was standing on 1st base. Of these, Jackson reached 2nd base 28 times, and reached 3rd base or scored, 15 times.

 

But consider this:

 

The Angels hit 45 singles hit when Trout was standing on 1st. Of these, Trout reached 2nd base 17 times. But 28 times he ran all the way to third or home. He actually took the extra base(s) more often than not.

 

And that, I believe, accounts for that 4% variance in scoring efficiency. Over the course of 600 PAs, with a constant OBP of .399, that's 10 runs. A full win, separating a player with very good speed, and one with elite speed.

[LaBombo]

Secondly, I think we can get a crude measure of strong baserunning, or SPEED and I will attempt to do this by looking at two players who hit in front of similar lineups (in an attempt to control for that very important variable).

 

First off, excellent work on the Trout/Jackson comparison. It's hard to eliminate all the external variables in a small sample comparison of two players, but it seems like you came as close as possible to that ideal. And a fun read to boot.

 

Second, don't think it's been mentioned yet, but in addition to Willihammer's helpful mention of the BRef info, there's also the FanGraph Ultimate Baserunning stat. It's the mirror image of Zone Rating for fielders, taking into account where batted balls go and how well a given baserunner produces relative to the situations they create.

 

It includes things like first to second vs. first to third, staying out of the DP and advancing on tags, and other important factors. It cares not one whit about stolen bases, triples, or other traditional counting stat measures of speed. As an aside, it's figured into Fangraph's WAR ratings, which I didn't realize until this thread.

 

In the case of Trout vs. Jackson, Hammer's excellent analysis corroborates UBR, or the other way around. Jackson has a nice UBR of 1.2 in 2012, which is just a hair below what the definition page categorizes as "above average". Trout scores a 5.0, halfway between "great" and "excellent".

 

Not citing UBR as comprehensive by any means, but it seems useful, including even its definition/mission statement. It doesn't seek to define speed, because speed is a tool, not a skill. A heady player with good situational awareness and average speed can equal or even outperform a SPEEDy one on the basepaths. They can tag or take the extra base more often, get the split-second jump that prevents the double play, and above all, not get thrown out on an unforced advance.

[Kwak]

Talk about hijacking a thread... . "Traditionalists" (which include Gardenhire) often spoke about "bat control" for a #2 hitter--the ability to hit a ball in a certain direction, etc. Other skills under that heading include: patience (taking a pitch or two to allow a SB as well as trying to build a "favorable count"), hitting ground balls behind the runner, fouling-off pitches to extend a PA (and frustrate a pitcher), and bunting (as a sacrifice and for a hit). Part of "The Twins Way" is "productive outs". Speed (which is actually easily measured with a stopwatch) and OBP are both oversimplified for use as a sole criteria for position in a lineup. The above sentences start to define why the Twins like guys like Carroll--they do things that aren't easily included in a stat sheet. Example: the stolen base; not only does it take speed to steal (and some clever skills by the stealer to know when to go), but also a willingness by his manager to "greenlight him", and (oh yes) his teammate at bat to not hit the ball.

 

There was a post comparing Trout and Jackson that make it appear as if Jackson was some slug on the bases as opposed to the Tigers preference to not risk out-on-the-bases in order to provide more RBI opportunities to the two guys that are very highly paid to do exactly that. There are other factors that those that get compiled on stat sheets when it comes to player evaluations.

[Ultima Ratio]

So now, after this lengthy though informative digression, who should be batting second for the Twins when OBP, SPEED, SB%, UBR, and SCRAPINESS and all other relevant considerations are summed in some master formula?

 

I conclude that given the options, one J. Mauer should bat second.

[Badsmerf]

Firstly, there are a lot more stats that indirectly measure speed than SB. For one, baseball-reference has a baserunning section on a player's "More Stats" tab.

 

Secondly, I think we can get a crude measure of strong baserunning, or SPEED and I will attempt to do this by looking at two players who hit in front of similar lineups (in an attempt to control for that very important variable).

 

Enter: Mike Trout and Austin Jackson. Both were leadoff hitters for lineups that were very strong 1-5 last year. Behind Jackson, hit Dirks/Santiago, Cabrera, Fielder, and Young. Behind Trout was Aybar, Pujols, Hunter, and Morales. More or less an equivalent 2-4, I think we can agree. Maybe even a slight edge to the Tigers.

 

So, as a starting point, take RS%: the percentage of times a runner reaches base and scores. Trout had the edge, 44% to 40%.

 

What might explain the difference then, if the hitters hitting behind Trout and Jackson were equally productive?

 

Trout and Jackson made about the same number of outs on the bases (22 to 23), but Trout got on base 22 more times. So, they were picked off, thrown out, or caught stealing at almost the exact same rate. So its not baserunning blunders that separated them.

 

Next we can try to solve for positive contributions. Jackson stole 12 bases in 292 opportunities. Trout stole 49 bases in 246 opportunities.

 

Two other things we can look at are 1^stS2 and 1^stS3 - the number of times a runner reached 2nd and 3rd base (or home) respectively, when a single is hit.

 

The Tigers hit 43 singles when Jackson was standing on 1st base. Of these, Jackson reached 2nd base 28 times, and reached 3rd base or scored, 15 times.

 

But consider this:

 

The Angels hit 45 singles hit when Trout was standing on 1st. Of these, Trout reached 2nd base 17 times. But 28 times he ran all the way to third or home. He actually took the extra base(s) more often than not.

 

And that, I believe, accounts for that 4% variance in scoring efficiency. Over the course of 600 PAs, with a constant OBP of .399, that's 10 runs. A full win, separating a player with very good speed, and one with elite speed.

You are going to have to do better than one player to player analysis that goes in your favor. Baseball has hundreds of players and has been played over a hundred years. You don't think that little 8.5% difference in SLUG had anything to do with Trout scoring 4% more? Ben Revere also scored about 39% of the time with much less offense behind him. I can see this is an ok example, but a 4% difference in a single season between any given 2 players can happen by luck alone.

 

Look, everybody gets it. Faster players will score more than slower ones. Some, are even better on the basepaths and will separate themselves from guys that are almost as fast. I'm not sure what your point is. Speed can be quantified to show value in some way?

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

You are going to have to do better than one player to player analysis that goes in your favor. Baseball has hundreds of players and has been played over a hundred years. You don't think that little 8.5% difference in SLUG had anything to do with Trout scoring 4% more? Ben Revere also scored about 39% of the time with much less offense behind him. I can see this is an ok example, but a 4% difference in a single season between any given 2 players can happen by luck alone.

 

Look, everybody gets it. Faster players will score more than slower ones. Some, are even better on the basepaths and will separate themselves from guys that are almost as fast. I'm not sure what your point is. Speed can be quantified to show value in some way?

 

 

You are going to have to do better than one player to player analysis that goes in your favor. Baseball has hundreds of players and has been played over a hundred years. You don't think that little 8.5% difference in SLUG had anything to do with Trout scoring 4% more? Ben Revere also scored about 39% of the time with much less offense behind him. I can see this is an ok example, but a 4% difference in a single season between any given 2 players can happen by luck alone.

 

 

No, everybody does not get it.

 

 

When wOBA values a stolen base with a .2 coefficient, and we consider that other similar "base running plays" might have similar weighted value (there are some debatable aspects within this statement as well), we can clearly see that in terms of pure runs from a historical perspective, SPEED has indeed been a significant contributing factor. As big a factor as it is shown to be within models like wOBA, one can wonder whether or not it might be even bigger if bases reached on error and avoiding a double play were to be factored in. I don't think wOBA counts errors yet, and an argument could be made that SPEED correlates. Do faster runners "cause" more bases reached on error? UBR and UZR for that matter have not been perfected yet, but I think it's easy to see where SPEED could make up for the pure run value of a certain amount of OBP, or any positive contributing offensive skill for that matter.

 

So.... If we agree that Willihammer has gotten us closer to quantifying the idea I am championing, does that mean Mauer should bat second? I respond with a very strong maybe. Now if we consider the rest of the lineup that this 2 hitter will be batting in, and the likely base running, hit and run, SB, bunting, and SCRAPPINESS philosophy that the manager of the team is likely to employ, it somewhat supports Mauer batting second and somewhat doesn't. Should Gardy neccessarily have this philosophy? Very probably no, but there are enough tangibles and grey areas within all of this that I am unwilling to just dismiss his approach because his lack of viewing OBP as he ultimate determining factor.

 

SPEED. If that rendering of the term takes hold, even to belittle the notion, I'll feel good about my contributions here....