In case you missed it Rany Jazayerli wrote the Hope and Faith piece on the Royals (no subscription required) and then "discussed" it with Will Carroll on BP Radio. Great stuff.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Royals Win!
In case you missed it Rany Jazayerli wrote the Hope and Faith piece on the Royals (no subscription required) and then "discussed" it with Will Carroll on BP Radio. Great stuff.
Double Steals and Contentment
Today my column on Baseball Prospectus (subscription required) is a sort of part II building on last week's offering (no subscription required) and delves a bit more deeply into the double steal and discusses both the limits of play by play event codes like those found in Retrosheet and double steal attempts from a Win Expectancy (WX) standpoint. The thumbnail version of the discussion on the underlying strategy (in the article I also discuss individual manager's use of the double steal and the runners who were most prolific in this regard) can be summarized in the following table that includes data from 1970 through 2006 and excluding 1999. The table shows the base situation, number of outs, successes, double steal attempts, the percentage of attempts that were successful (defined as both runners being safe but not necessarily awarded stolen bases) and the average break even percentage for such attempts. The break even rates were calculated using a model where the most likely costly failure was used in the calculation which involves the lead runner being thrown out and other runners advancing.
Attempts with two outs are not included for reasons discussed in the article related to the incompleteness of the scoring system. Considering only attempts with runners on first and second it appears that managers generally do pretty well in their decision making process and are successful 66% of the time with a break even percentage of 64%.
However, with runners on first and third the overall success rate is under 31% while the break even percentage is over twice that indicating that delayed double steals are very risky and typically not a good idea. However, it should be remembered that the definition of a successful delayed double steal also typically includes the scenario where the runner on second is put out with the runner on third scoring. When those are included the success rate rises to 41.2%. To determine whether the strategy is then a good idea we would also need to recalibrate the break even model to where successes of these types were also included. Doing so, however, would actually raise the break even rate. For example, with runners at the corners with nobody out in a tie game in the top of 5th inning, the visiting team has a 58% chance of winning in a run environment of 5.0 runs per game. If the double steal fails with the runner on third getting thrown out at the plate with the runner on first advancing, that probability shrinks to 48%. If the attempt is successful under the model used in the table above (both runners advancing) the probability shoots up to 65% but if the play is successful with the runner on third scoring and the runner on second being thrown out the probability raises to just 59%. In the former case the break even percentage would be 60% while in the latter it is 93%. This is so since the loss of the trail runner and the additional out will always lower the offensive team's probability of winning. Keep in mind that your mileage will vary depending on the inning, score, and run environment but the general rule will hold for all such scenarios.
Of course some percentage of these attempts are also not able to be teased out of the play by play data since the runner on third may retreat to the bag while the runner on second is charged with a caught stealing. There is no way to differentiate between that scenario and one where the runner on third is simply a spectator in normal stolen base attempt by the runner on first. In order to do so the codes would have to reflect which runners were breaking with the pitch. That is one of the limitations we have to live with at present. My guess is that if successes and failures in that scenario were able to be found, they would generally cancel each other out - but that's just a guess.
The situation with runners on second and third and the bases loaded are more interesting since unsuccessful attempts are characterized by one or more runners being caught stealing while other runners advance. With runners on second and third that means that either the runner on second was thrown out at third and the runner on third scored or the runner was caught at the plate and the runner on second advanced. But here successful attempts would not include delayed steals and so the overall success rate of just 9% and the extreme rarity of the play is evidence that it is a poor percentage play.
Base Outs Succ Att Percent Avg BE
12x 0 643 1127 57.1 0.587
12x 1 1595 2258 70.6 0.667
1x3 0 21 70 30.0 0.728
1x3 1 147 478 30.8 0.590
x23 0 2 4 50.0 0.717
x23 1 2 51 3.9 0.633
123 0 0 5 0.0 0.544
123 1 5 39 12.8 0.524
Total 2415 4032 59.9 0.635
Attempts with two outs are not included for reasons discussed in the article related to the incompleteness of the scoring system. Considering only attempts with runners on first and second it appears that managers generally do pretty well in their decision making process and are successful 66% of the time with a break even percentage of 64%.
However, with runners on first and third the overall success rate is under 31% while the break even percentage is over twice that indicating that delayed double steals are very risky and typically not a good idea. However, it should be remembered that the definition of a successful delayed double steal also typically includes the scenario where the runner on second is put out with the runner on third scoring. When those are included the success rate rises to 41.2%. To determine whether the strategy is then a good idea we would also need to recalibrate the break even model to where successes of these types were also included. Doing so, however, would actually raise the break even rate. For example, with runners at the corners with nobody out in a tie game in the top of 5th inning, the visiting team has a 58% chance of winning in a run environment of 5.0 runs per game. If the double steal fails with the runner on third getting thrown out at the plate with the runner on first advancing, that probability shrinks to 48%. If the attempt is successful under the model used in the table above (both runners advancing) the probability shoots up to 65% but if the play is successful with the runner on third scoring and the runner on second being thrown out the probability raises to just 59%. In the former case the break even percentage would be 60% while in the latter it is 93%. This is so since the loss of the trail runner and the additional out will always lower the offensive team's probability of winning. Keep in mind that your mileage will vary depending on the inning, score, and run environment but the general rule will hold for all such scenarios.
Of course some percentage of these attempts are also not able to be teased out of the play by play data since the runner on third may retreat to the bag while the runner on second is charged with a caught stealing. There is no way to differentiate between that scenario and one where the runner on third is simply a spectator in normal stolen base attempt by the runner on first. In order to do so the codes would have to reflect which runners were breaking with the pitch. That is one of the limitations we have to live with at present. My guess is that if successes and failures in that scenario were able to be found, they would generally cancel each other out - but that's just a guess.
The situation with runners on second and third and the bases loaded are more interesting since unsuccessful attempts are characterized by one or more runners being caught stealing while other runners advance. With runners on second and third that means that either the runner on second was thrown out at third and the runner on third scored or the runner was caught at the plate and the runner on second advanced. But here successful attempts would not include delayed steals and so the overall success rate of just 9% and the extreme rarity of the play is evidence that it is a poor percentage play.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Spring Blossoms
With less than a week to go before the season gets underway there are plenty of rookies and prospects who have made their mark this spring. Baseball America tracks these with its' daily Prospect Report email for subscribers (and you know you should really subscribe). In today's email we saw the following players who are doing very well along with their results from yesterday:
A few notes: James Loney is in a battle for the fourth outfield spot now that Jason Repko has been injury while Alberto Callaspo set for utility role with Brian Barden battling for a final roster spot with the D'Backs. Josh Hamilton most of you know and there's no way he's not making the club and Alex Gordon is one his way to Rookie of the Year. The brash Travis Buck is a long shot to make the opening day roster and will likely start in triple A. Ryan Roberts was reassigned to the minor league camp last week and the same will likely be the case for Felix Pie although struggles by either Jacque Jones or Matt Murton could see him in centerfield at Wrigley before long. The same cannot be said of Delmon Young who will play right field on opening day and probably hit second in the lineup with Elijah Dukes as the fourth outfielder. With the performance of Sammy Sosa Jason Botts is likely headed for Oklahoma City once again.
And the pitchers...
And more notes...Despite some mysterious head and neck pain Matt Garza is making a case for the Twins to go with youth in the rotation. Josh Sharpless is still in the running for one of the final two bullpen vacancies. Mike Pelfrey has locked down the number five spot in the rotation while Matt Albers is still in a battle for the fifth spot in Houston along with a cast of several. Finally, Joakim Soria, the rule 5 pick from Mexico, will make the Royals in the bullpen. Could be one of the nicest surprises of the 2007 season.
ORG LVL PLAYERS AB R H BI
LAD SPR Loney, James RF ............. 4 2 3 0 .444 - 2B (5)
ARI SPR Callaspo, Alberto SS ........ 2 1 1 0 .440 - 2B (3)
ARI SPR Barden, Brian 2B ............ 4 0 1 0 .409
CIN SPR Hamilton, Josh LF ........... 5 0 1 0 .404 - 3B (2)
KC SPR Gordon, Alex 3B ............. 2 0 1 1 .391
OAK SPR Buck, Travis RF ............. 5 1 3 1 .391
TOR SPR Roberts, Ryan SS ............ 1 1 1 0 .391 - 2B (3)
CHC SPR Pie, Felix CF ............... 1 0 1 0 .352
TB SPR Young, Delmon RF ............ 5 1 3 2 .345 - 2B (3)
TB SPR Dukes, Elijah CF ............ 4 1 2 0 .327
TEX SPR Botts, Jason DH ............. 5 1 2 0 .324
A few notes: James Loney is in a battle for the fourth outfield spot now that Jason Repko has been injury while Alberto Callaspo set for utility role with Brian Barden battling for a final roster spot with the D'Backs. Josh Hamilton most of you know and there's no way he's not making the club and Alex Gordon is one his way to Rookie of the Year. The brash Travis Buck is a long shot to make the opening day roster and will likely start in triple A. Ryan Roberts was reassigned to the minor league camp last week and the same will likely be the case for Felix Pie although struggles by either Jacque Jones or Matt Murton could see him in centerfield at Wrigley before long. The same cannot be said of Delmon Young who will play right field on opening day and probably hit second in the lineup with Elijah Dukes as the fourth outfielder. With the performance of Sammy Sosa Jason Botts is likely headed for Oklahoma City once again.
And the pitchers...
ORG LVL PLAYERS IP H R ER BB SO ERA
MIN SPR Garza, Matt ................ 3.0 4 1 1 1 3 1.50
PIT SPR Sharpless, Josh ............ 1.0 2 1 1 1 1 2.08
NYM SPR Pelfrey, Mike (L, 1-1) ...... 5.0 6 4 4 1 2 2.84
HOU SPR Albers, Matt ............... 2.0 0 0 0 1 0 3.21
KC SPR Soria, Joakim .............. 1.0 2 2 2 0 2 3.60
And more notes...Despite some mysterious head and neck pain Matt Garza is making a case for the Twins to go with youth in the rotation. Josh Sharpless is still in the running for one of the final two bullpen vacancies. Mike Pelfrey has locked down the number five spot in the rotation while Matt Albers is still in a battle for the fifth spot in Houston along with a cast of several. Finally, Joakim Soria, the rule 5 pick from Mexico, will make the Royals in the bullpen. Could be one of the nicest surprises of the 2007 season.
Rome
Here's an interesting little article on the HBO series titled "Rome". I was drawn to it since on my recent trip to Seattle I was able to catch a few episodes in the hotel and ironically was thinking pretty much the same thing as this author as I recalled my impressions of the excellent book on Cicero that I read awhile back. The shows were very well done with a little bit of soap opera thrown in and certainly well acted and seemed to take pains to try and be culturally accurrate.
Particularly, I found this passge to ring true to what I read previoulsy.
Particularly, I found this passge to ring true to what I read previoulsy.
Finally, there is religion. Rome is saturated with it — there are prayers and oaths, offerings made to deities known and unknown, and religious processions and priestly orders. A pagan world, in other words, is not one in which we control the gods, as trendy leftists suppose, but in which we are ever at risk of offending some god for failure to make the right offering or sacrifice. Moreover, these gods rarely provide a guide to conduct or right behavior — they are inscrutable.
Scheduling Nightmares
A nice article by Alan Schwarz on the problem with scheduling in today's environment that includes interleague play. I touched on this topic briefly in my first BP column of the new year (centered on my New Year's wishes) when I said:
Too Much of a Good Thing. The novelty of interleague play, which began in 1997, has begun to wear off. While Major League Baseball touts the fact that attendance at interleague games is 13% greater than at other games, an excellent piece in SABR's Outside the Lines summer newsletter more correctly puts that figure at 5% after making adjustments for the time of year when interleague games are played and the fact that most games take place on the weekends.
My wish is that interleague play would be cut back from the average of 15 to 17 games per team played in recent years to something more like nine (or fewer for the NL Central) and further restrict those to one alternating "natural rivalry" (itself a problematic concept for many teams) with two other series, one home and one away, thrown in the mix. This would not only lessen the need for teams to adjust their rosters for play in the other league but also help to minimize the contact between the leagues--a strength of the game when it comes to All-Star and World Series time.
And while we're at it, we may as well rebalance the schedule a little. While I've been a fan of the unbalanced schedule, agreeing with the logical necessity of intra-divisional play being primary if you're going to have divisions and the fact that it is necessary if you're going to keep interleague play, the current system is a little out of whack. Teams often play 19 games against opponents in their own division but just six against opponents in other divisions. While this allows teams who are behind in the division the opportunity to take matters into their own hands, it's not so good for fans who see the same set of teams week in and week out. Yes there are complexities to the schedule, but playing a few less games against division rivals and the reintroduction of the four-game weekend series and the occasional doubleheader in conjunction with a reduction of interleague games would likely free up enough of the schedule to play other league rivals nine to 11 times per season. Barring radical realignment and the demise of interleague play, this is probably about the best we can hope for.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
The Family That Couldn't Sleep
In the introduction to the 2006 edition of The Best American Science and Nature Writing, editor and physicist Brian Greene (author of the excellent book Fabric of the Cosmos among others) has this to say about the genre of popular science writing:
I purchased this book for my wife, the erstwhile nurse, for Christmas after hearing an interview with Max on NPR's Science Friday. After she finished and recommended the book, it sat on my night stand amongst the collection of books that are either in the queue or in various stages of completion. After finally finishing Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin and Diamond Dollars by Vince Gennaro (I told myself I wouldn't start another until those were complete and I'll write more about the latter in the future) I picked it up and found it even more interesting than I had first imagined.
In short Max tells the story of the research that led to the discovery of prions (pronounced "pree"-on by most but "pry-on" by the British) and their role (such as the state of current research can figure out) in a variety of neurological diseases in humans and other species from the kuru of the Fore people of Papua New Guinea to scrapie in sheep, mad cow disease or BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cows and CWD (chronic wasting disease) in deer, to GSS (Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker) to CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob) and finally to FFI (fatal familial insomnia) which forms the core of the story around which the book is written.
Prion diseases, so the theory goes, are infectious bits of protein that are abnormally structured and cause other proteins with which they come in contact with to fold incorrectly as well through a process akin to crystallization. They are especially fascinating since they appear to be the only kind of disease that takes three distinct forms. Some are inheritable like FFI (termed genetic), others are infectious like Mad Cow, and others (although Max admits in the Afterword that he doesn't really believe this is possible) are accidental (termed sporadic) as is the case with CJD. Prion diseases are also important because they're akin, although not the same much to the disappointment of researchers, to diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's where defective proteins play a role. Beyond the obvious benefit of helping those who suffer from prion diseases, the hope is that understanding even those diseases that effect relatively few (BSE has killed less than 200 people worldwide despite widespread fear that it would kill millions) will lead to breakthroughs in these diseases that do affect millions.
Just as in Greene's description of what the best popular science writers do, Max humanizes this complex and still not well understood field through the use of two very human stories. The first centers on an Italian family (one of 40 such families in the world where a child of a person with FFI has a 50% chance of contracting the disease) whose various branches have likely suffered from FFI since at least 1765. It was then that, ironically enough, a Venetian doctor probably contracted FFI, a disease which typically strikes around 50 years of age and causes its sufferers to sweat profusely, their pupils to contract to pinpricks, as they eventually to lose sleep to the point where they often hallucinate and eventually die of exhaustion. In the end their brains, especially that part that controls autonomic (not under conscious control) impulses like sweating and sleep, are almost entirely eaten away as misfolded proteins ravage the brain. Max traces the disease to the present day recounting the lives and deaths of many of the family members and the family's struggle to come to grips with the implications of their disease in the modern world where research holds out some hope of progress. Having some understanding that the disease is brought on by stress, most of the family had lived under the unspoken rule that, as in the words of one family member, "the best way to prevent the disease was not to mention it." Much of that has changed thouhh and now the family has even created an association to raise money and reach out to other FFI families.
Interspersed with this often heart wrenching account is the story of the scientists who first encountered the prion disease kuru in humans (spread through the funerary feasts of the tribe where body parts of dead relatives were consumed) after "first contact" with the Fore people in Papua New Guinea in the 1940s. The most interesting character in this vein of the story is Carlton Gajdusek, the scientist with pedophillic tendencies who worked among the Fore tribe and who received a Nobel Prize for his work on prions. Max then chronicles the various lines of research and accompanying animosity in the scientific community as well as perhaps the most polarizing figure, Stanley Prusiner, who also won a Nobel Prize and coined the word "prion". This part of the account takes on the air of a mystery while discussing the various approaches and theories that came and went in the years since kuru was discovered. From that perspective the book appears to be fair in its attribution of the contributions made not only by Gajdusek and Prusiner but many others as well who often did not receive the credit due them. And most importantly Max is up front in acknowledging what we don't know and gives the reader a sense of the uncertainty, hence the mystery, still to be solved. That may not always be satisfying since we love our stories to have endings, but is intellectually honest and I think that's all we can ask of any writer.
Woven into both these stories are a good deal of the political and social history of the kuru epidemic, scrapie in sheep going back to the late 1700s, Mad Cow in England in the 1980s and 1990s, and finally CWD and the hint of Mad Cow in America in the present even detailing the conspiracy theories of the "Creutzfeldt Jakobins", as Max calls them, who believe there is a massive cover up underway. In the end, Max is hard on the British and American governments and uses the infectious transmission of prions as an object lesson in the dangers of human arrogance.
An excellent book and one that exemplifies what is best in popular science writing.
Like master chefs, the best science writers pare away all but the most succulent material, trimming details essential to the researcher that would be only a distraction to the reader. And by carefully crafting narrative and using expository devices that showcase the drama of scientific exploration and discovery, popular works can maintain a high level of scientific integrity while making difficult and technical subjects not only accessible but moving and compelling. Good science writing can humanize the abstraction of scientific research by establishing visceral, meaningful connections to questions and issues we care about and by humanizing the scientific process itself. In Einstein's words, scientific research consists of "years of anxious searching in the dark for a truth one feels but cannot find, until a final emergence into the light." A reader who is led to envisage this search, I believe, will start to bridge the gulf between the science and the humanities. The best science writing can have that effect.Never were truer words spoken than when applied to the book The Family That Couldn't Sleep: A Medical Mystery by D.T. Max.
I purchased this book for my wife, the erstwhile nurse, for Christmas after hearing an interview with Max on NPR's Science Friday. After she finished and recommended the book, it sat on my night stand amongst the collection of books that are either in the queue or in various stages of completion. After finally finishing Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin and Diamond Dollars by Vince Gennaro (I told myself I wouldn't start another until those were complete and I'll write more about the latter in the future) I picked it up and found it even more interesting than I had first imagined.
In short Max tells the story of the research that led to the discovery of prions (pronounced "pree"-on by most but "pry-on" by the British) and their role (such as the state of current research can figure out) in a variety of neurological diseases in humans and other species from the kuru of the Fore people of Papua New Guinea to scrapie in sheep, mad cow disease or BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in cows and CWD (chronic wasting disease) in deer, to GSS (Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker) to CJD (Creutzfeldt-Jakob) and finally to FFI (fatal familial insomnia) which forms the core of the story around which the book is written.
Prion diseases, so the theory goes, are infectious bits of protein that are abnormally structured and cause other proteins with which they come in contact with to fold incorrectly as well through a process akin to crystallization. They are especially fascinating since they appear to be the only kind of disease that takes three distinct forms. Some are inheritable like FFI (termed genetic), others are infectious like Mad Cow, and others (although Max admits in the Afterword that he doesn't really believe this is possible) are accidental (termed sporadic) as is the case with CJD. Prion diseases are also important because they're akin, although not the same much to the disappointment of researchers, to diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Huntington's where defective proteins play a role. Beyond the obvious benefit of helping those who suffer from prion diseases, the hope is that understanding even those diseases that effect relatively few (BSE has killed less than 200 people worldwide despite widespread fear that it would kill millions) will lead to breakthroughs in these diseases that do affect millions.
Just as in Greene's description of what the best popular science writers do, Max humanizes this complex and still not well understood field through the use of two very human stories. The first centers on an Italian family (one of 40 such families in the world where a child of a person with FFI has a 50% chance of contracting the disease) whose various branches have likely suffered from FFI since at least 1765. It was then that, ironically enough, a Venetian doctor probably contracted FFI, a disease which typically strikes around 50 years of age and causes its sufferers to sweat profusely, their pupils to contract to pinpricks, as they eventually to lose sleep to the point where they often hallucinate and eventually die of exhaustion. In the end their brains, especially that part that controls autonomic (not under conscious control) impulses like sweating and sleep, are almost entirely eaten away as misfolded proteins ravage the brain. Max traces the disease to the present day recounting the lives and deaths of many of the family members and the family's struggle to come to grips with the implications of their disease in the modern world where research holds out some hope of progress. Having some understanding that the disease is brought on by stress, most of the family had lived under the unspoken rule that, as in the words of one family member, "the best way to prevent the disease was not to mention it." Much of that has changed thouhh and now the family has even created an association to raise money and reach out to other FFI families.
Interspersed with this often heart wrenching account is the story of the scientists who first encountered the prion disease kuru in humans (spread through the funerary feasts of the tribe where body parts of dead relatives were consumed) after "first contact" with the Fore people in Papua New Guinea in the 1940s. The most interesting character in this vein of the story is Carlton Gajdusek, the scientist with pedophillic tendencies who worked among the Fore tribe and who received a Nobel Prize for his work on prions. Max then chronicles the various lines of research and accompanying animosity in the scientific community as well as perhaps the most polarizing figure, Stanley Prusiner, who also won a Nobel Prize and coined the word "prion". This part of the account takes on the air of a mystery while discussing the various approaches and theories that came and went in the years since kuru was discovered. From that perspective the book appears to be fair in its attribution of the contributions made not only by Gajdusek and Prusiner but many others as well who often did not receive the credit due them. And most importantly Max is up front in acknowledging what we don't know and gives the reader a sense of the uncertainty, hence the mystery, still to be solved. That may not always be satisfying since we love our stories to have endings, but is intellectually honest and I think that's all we can ask of any writer.
Woven into both these stories are a good deal of the political and social history of the kuru epidemic, scrapie in sheep going back to the late 1700s, Mad Cow in England in the 1980s and 1990s, and finally CWD and the hint of Mad Cow in America in the present even detailing the conspiracy theories of the "Creutzfeldt Jakobins", as Max calls them, who believe there is a massive cover up underway. In the end, Max is hard on the British and American governments and uses the infectious transmission of prions as an object lesson in the dangers of human arrogance.
An excellent book and one that exemplifies what is best in popular science writing.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
38 Pitches
Interesting interview of Curt Schilling by Alex Belth on SI.com today where he talks about his blog, 38 Pitches, and other things. Hitting close to home was the following exchange...
SI.com: Are you familiar with the statistical-minded Internet sites like Baseball Prospectus?
Schilling: Yeah, I love those guys. I don't always agree with them but I think those are some incredibly smart guys. I've actually worked in the past with some guys there on statistical stuff I do for preparation. Will Carroll is the guy I've exchanged some information with.
SI.com: Do you think that Internet-based baseball analysts and writers should be available for BBWAA awards and Hall of Fame voting?
Schilling: Oh, it'll come full-circle at some point. Why wouldn't it? They already have a much larger impact than the Murray Chass' of the world would like to believe. I mean, you've got guys who are putting out what I know to be legitimately valuable statistical information and its relevance to a game in a win or a loss at Baseball Prospectus. Then you have guys that I'm not too fond of, like Murray Chass, who says, "What is VORP and who cares?" It was a stupid article. The only thing it did was show his ignorance to me in modern day baseball. Because those numbers do matter, those numbers do have value. Do they have value to me in getting a player out? No. But I would tell you that there are a lot of front offices that use those numbers for a lot of important decision making
It Takes Two
My column today on Baseball Prospectus revolved around the double steal and tackling questions like how often it's been employed, how successfully, and whether that tracks with what is optimum from a strategic perspective. While there are some issues with the underlying play by play data that make it difficult to count all such attempts, we can get pretty close. One of the tables I left out of that article was the career numbers for the current crop of managers. The following table lists the 30 managers from 2006 and their career numbers on double steals.
Note: A successful double steal is one in which both runners are credited with a stolen base or neither runner is put out.
In this current crop of managers Mike Scioscia is by far the leader in terms of success and in 2006 was 13 for 13. Both Mike Hargrove and Willie Randolph have called for 8 or more per season and Tony LaRussa is close at 7.8. Lou Pinella wasn't included in this list since he didn't manage in 2006 but historically he is 111 for 160 in his 18 years for a .694 percentage and averaging 8.9 attempts per season. Cubs fans should expect a few double steals in 2006. Let's just hope they come with a few wins as well.
Note: A successful double steal is one in which both runners are credited with a stolen base or neither runner is put out.
Name Years Succ Att Pct Att/Yr
Ken Macha 4 5 5 1.000 1.3
Terry Francona 6 12 13 0.923 2.2
Mike Scioscia 7 43 48 0.896 6.9
Willie Randolph 2 14 16 0.875 8.0
Charlie Manuel 5 15 18 0.833 3.6
Joe Girardi 1 5 6 0.833 6.0
Sam Perlozzo 2 9 11 0.818 5.5
Ned Yost 4 8 10 0.800 2.5
Jerry Narron 4 20 26 0.769 6.5
Bob Melvin 4 19 25 0.760 6.3
Jim Tracy 6 15 20 0.750 3.3
Phil Garner 13 24 32 0.750 2.5
Tony LaRussa 28 160 219 0.731 7.8
Grady Little 3 5 7 0.714 2.3
Ron Gardenhire 5 22 31 0.710 6.2
Mike Hargrove 14 87 124 0.702 8.9
Felipe Alou 13 56 80 0.700 6.2
Joe Torre 24 111 165 0.673 6.9
Buddy Bell 8 39 58 0.672 7.3
Bruce Bochy 11 51 76 0.671 6.9
Jim Leyland 14 67 101 0.663 7.2
Bobby Cox 24 61 92 0.663 3.8
Clint Hurdle 5 9 14 0.643 2.8
Ozzie Guillen 3 7 11 0.636 3.7
Buck Showalter 10 18 29 0.621 2.9
Dusty Baker 13 27 45 0.600 3.5
John Gibbons 3 7 12 0.583 4.0
Eric Wedge 4 9 17 0.529 4.3
Frank Robinson 16 46 92 0.500 5.8
Joe Maddon 2 3 6 0.500 3.0
In this current crop of managers Mike Scioscia is by far the leader in terms of success and in 2006 was 13 for 13. Both Mike Hargrove and Willie Randolph have called for 8 or more per season and Tony LaRussa is close at 7.8. Lou Pinella wasn't included in this list since he didn't manage in 2006 but historically he is 111 for 160 in his 18 years for a .694 percentage and averaging 8.9 attempts per season. Cubs fans should expect a few double steals in 2006. Let's just hope they come with a few wins as well.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Coachers by Year
Last week Neal Williams and I published two articles on Baseball Analaysts related to quantifying third base coaching here and here. In those articles we showed the results for 2006 as well as the aggregates for all coaches from 2000 through 2006. In the interest of full disclosure here are the results for all individual coach seasons from 2000 through 2006 ordered by the Ratio of the "coach influenced" Rate to the "non-coach influenced" Rate. So Tom Foley, under this version of the measure, recorded the top two seasons.
There was some discussion of the "smell test" and how it related to "Waving" Wendall Kim and so here are his seasons chronologically.
In 2003 and 2004 he performed about the same (and negatively) but in 2003 the team in non-coach opportunities performed even more poorly. The same holds true for his 2000 season with the Red Sox. This points to the fact that perhaps we should be weighting the coach opportunities differently from the non-coach and as pointed out by MGL perhaps all advancements to home plate should be considered coach opportunities.
Year Team Name Opp OA EqHAR Rate Opp OA EqHAR Rate Ratio
2006 TBA Tom Foley 163 1 5.3 1.15 313 12 -6.6 0.80 1.44
2003 TBA Tom Foley 225 6 6.0 1.14 378 12 -8.4 0.80 1.42
2004 PIT John Russell 200 5 1.5 1.04 347 8 -9.2 0.74 1.41
2000 BOS Wendell Kim 229 6 -2.0 0.96 306 13 -10.1 0.69 1.38
2000 TBA Billy Hatcher 194 3 0.5 1.01 285 12 -6.8 0.75 1.36
2001 TBA Billy Hatcher 193 3 4.6 1.10 288 9 -5.5 0.82 1.34
2003 PHI John Vukovich 245 2 2.7 1.05 381 13 -8.1 0.80 1.31
2001 TOR Terry Bevington 202 4 0.4 1.01 239 5 -5.3 0.77 1.31
2003 SFN Gene Glynn 208 4 2.2 1.05 371 8 -6.7 0.82 1.29
2002 BOS Michael Cubbage 217 6 2.0 1.05 316 9 -5.2 0.82 1.28
2005 PHI Bill Dancy 265 10 -4.4 0.93 408 12 -10.1 0.74 1.24
2005 HOU Doug Mansolino 188 5 -3.3 0.93 383 12 -8.7 0.75 1.24
2001 DET Lance Parish 189 5 0.9 1.02 243 8 -3.7 0.84 1.22
2003 HOU Gene Lamont 224 5 2.2 1.05 386 13 -6.3 0.86 1.22
2004 OAK Ron Washington 262 7 -1.0 0.98 366 6 -6.3 0.81 1.22
2005 TOR Brian Butterfield 233 2 7.1 1.15 389 11 -1.5 0.95 1.21
2000 OAK Ron Washington 271 7 -1.3 0.97 293 10 -5.7 0.81 1.21
2001 ATL Ned Yost 208 7 3.1 1.07 244 11 -2.7 0.89 1.20
2000 NYN Cookie Rojas 221 5 -0.2 1.00 268 9 -4.6 0.83 1.20
2004 PHI John Vukovich 245 10 -1.9 0.96 348 9 -6.9 0.80 1.20
2006 PHI Bill Dancy 262 5 7.8 1.15 329 5 -1.2 0.96 1.20
2003 BOS Michael Cubbage 277 6 2.7 1.04 390 6 -5.9 0.87 1.20
2004 SEA Dave Myers 253 6 -1.2 0.98 396 6 -7.2 0.82 1.20
2006 BAL Tom Trebelhorn 296 3 0.3 1.01 400 8 -6.1 0.84 1.20
2004 DET Juan Samuel 230 5 5.0 1.10 344 8 -2.4 0.92 1.19
2002 SEA Dave Myers 217 3 1.8 1.05 318 10 -4.0 0.88 1.19
2002 SFN Sonny Jackson 173 6 -4.9 0.86 301 11 -7.0 0.73 1.19
2002 ARI Eddie Rodriquez 243 6 -0.4 0.99 266 11 -4.0 0.84 1.18
2002 BAL Tom Trebelhorn 146 4 2.4 1.10 249 11 -1.6 0.94 1.18
2000 SLN Jose Oquendo 242 6 6.3 1.13 250 5 -0.8 0.96 1.17
2002 MON Manny Acta 188 3 5.1 1.12 249 11 -1.0 0.95 1.17
2005 SDN Rob Picciolo 234 5 -1.6 0.97 370 12 -6.2 0.83 1.17
2004 NYN Bobby Floyd 173 5 -2.7 0.93 316 8 -6.0 0.81 1.15
2004 BOS Dale Sveum 295 8 -8.6 0.86 409 8 -11.2 0.75 1.15
2000 PIT Jack Lind 211 2 4.7 1.10 273 10 -0.9 0.96 1.14
2001 FLO Fredi Gonzalez 172 2 2.5 1.07 278 5 -2.0 0.94 1.14
2005 MIN Al Newman 219 5 1.2 1.03 392 8 -3.6 0.90 1.14
2000 TEX Jerry Narron 271 2 10.9 1.18 322 4 1.2 1.04 1.13
2004 HOU Gene Lamont 217 5 1.4 1.03 398 12 -3.6 0.91 1.13
2006 SFN Gene Glynn 220 3 -2.2 0.95 346 6 -4.7 0.84 1.13
2005 CLE Joel Skinner 213 2 6.8 1.15 365 9 0.7 1.02 1.13
2000 CHN Gene Glynn 253 9 -6.3 0.89 230 5 -4.9 0.79 1.12
2004 ARI Al Pedrique 223 2 5.3 1.11 308 4 -0.3 0.99 1.12
2001 BOS Gene Lamont 188 7 -6.3 0.84 291 11 -6.6 0.75 1.12
2002 MIN Al Newman 211 6 0.0 1.00 267 8 -2.9 0.89 1.12
2003 DET Juan Samuel 197 4 2.3 1.06 249 7 -1.0 0.95 1.11
2002 TOR Carlos Tosca 214 4 0.5 1.01 324 7 -2.7 0.91 1.11
2001 COL Rich Donnelly 248 5 7.3 1.13 249 7 0.5 1.02 1.10
2001 CIN Ron Oester 189 5 -0.3 0.99 263 14 -2.5 0.90 1.10
2003 MON Manny Acta 238 5 1.3 1.03 332 9 -2.5 0.93 1.10
2002 CLE Joel Skinner 200 4 -0.4 0.99 252 8 -2.2 0.90 1.10
2000 NYA Willie Randolph 271 6 -0.4 0.99 287 6 -2.2 0.90 1.10
2003 CHN Wendell Kim 198 7 -6.1 0.85 339 13 -6.7 0.78 1.10
2003 FLO Ozzie Guillen 186 5 2.7 1.07 374 10 -0.9 0.98 1.09
2006 CLE Jeff Datz 274 5 -0.7 0.99 400 7 -3.4 0.91 1.09
2006 SDN Glenn Hoffman 231 4 -0.2 1.00 348 7 -3.2 0.91 1.09
2002 LAN Glenn Hoffman 199 5 3.2 1.08 258 8 -0.1 0.99 1.09
2001 ANA Ron Roenicke 237 1 7.7 1.15 253 8 1.2 1.06 1.09
2006 TOR Brian Butterfield 237 6 -0.4 0.99 387 9 -2.9 0.92 1.08
2004 TEX Steve Smith 230 3 3.7 1.08 339 6 0.0 1.00 1.08
2000 ARI Brian Butterfield 268 7 2.2 1.04 246 9 -0.9 0.96 1.08
2000 HOU Mike Cubbage 244 7 -1.3 0.97 310 8 -2.8 0.91 1.08
2000 TOR Terry Bevington 237 8 -3.8 0.92 305 6 -3.9 0.86 1.08
2006 NYN Manny Acta 228 3 2.3 1.05 293 4 -0.6 0.98 1.07
2000 CLE Jim Riggleamn 270 7 -2.0 0.96 308 11 -3.5 0.90 1.07
2002 MIL Gary Allenson 169 10 -4.2 0.86 269 13 -5.0 0.81 1.07
2005 NYN Manny Acta 196 2 4.2 1.11 300 8 1.0 1.04 1.07
2000 SDN Tim Flannery 221 6 5.2 1.12 209 4 1.0 1.05 1.07
2004 CLE Joel Skinner 259 7 6.7 1.11 383 8 1.8 1.05 1.06
2005 PIT John Russell 228 7 -1.5 0.97 408 10 -3.8 0.91 1.06
2001 CLE Joel Skinner 206 8 0.3 1.01 308 7 -1.8 0.95 1.06
2001 SEA Dave Myers 254 3 7.5 1.14 347 10 3.0 1.07 1.06
2003 SEA Dave Myers 262 4 -0.4 0.99 402 9 -2.5 0.94 1.06
2006 MIL Dale Sveum 214 5 0.3 1.01 329 11 -1.7 0.95 1.06
2006 ANA Dino Ebel 238 3 10.3 1.19 373 9 5.2 1.13 1.06
2003 NYN Matt Galante 197 6 1.5 1.04 324 7 -0.3 0.99 1.06
2006 CHA Joey Cora 234 9 -7.7 0.86 404 9 -7.5 0.81 1.05
2006 COL Mike Gallego 247 3 1.5 1.03 359 12 -0.8 0.98 1.05
2001 CHA Gary Pettis 175 6 -1.0 0.97 241 6 -1.7 0.93 1.05
2006 OAK Ron Washington 245 7 -4.9 0.89 372 10 -6.0 0.85 1.04
2005 BAL Tom Trebelhorn 205 7 -2.6 0.94 356 7 -3.3 0.91 1.04
2006 WAS Tony Beasley 239 6 1.5 1.03 314 9 -0.3 0.99 1.04
2001 OAK Ron Washington 241 7 2.7 1.05 250 4 0.4 1.02 1.04
2003 MIL Rich Donnelly 194 9 -6.1 0.87 330 8 -5.8 0.83 1.04
2003 LAN Glenn Hoffman 236 6 -2.1 0.96 278 4 -2.2 0.92 1.04
2004 BAL Tom Trebelhorn 263 7 0.7 1.01 434 13 -0.9 0.98 1.04
2003 ATL Fredi Gonzalez 244 6 1.2 1.02 415 8 -0.4 0.99 1.04
2000 ATL Ned Yost 211 8 -4.8 0.90 278 10 -3.3 0.87 1.04
2004 ANA Ron Roenicke 258 7 1.0 1.02 408 12 -0.3 0.99 1.03
2005 OAK Ron Washington 275 2 8.7 1.15 376 2 4.9 1.12 1.03
2002 DET Doug Mansolino 209 8 3.3 1.08 213 6 1.1 1.06 1.03
2002 SDN Tim Flannery 238 8 -1.6 0.96 236 9 -1.2 0.94 1.03
2001 SDN Tim Flannery 224 4 2.9 1.06 265 7 1.0 1.04 1.02
2001 NYA Willie Randolph 216 1 4.7 1.11 227 6 1.7 1.08 1.02
2002 CHN Gene Glynn 204 6 -5.5 0.85 244 7 -3.4 0.84 1.02
2006 KCA Luis Silverio 237 4 2.0 1.04 400 13 0.7 1.02 1.02
2004 CHA Rafael Santana 202 4 3.3 1.08 361 8 2.3 1.06 1.02
2002 NYA Willie Randolph 243 3 4.1 1.10 283 11 2.0 1.08 1.02
2005 DET Juan Samuel 199 2 0.0 1.00 383 8 -0.6 0.98 1.02
2005 SLN Jose Oquendo 247 3 4.3 1.08 383 7 2.2 1.06 1.02
2005 MIL Rich Donnelly 205 6 -0.8 0.98 337 12 -1.2 0.97 1.02
2002 SLN Jose Oquendo 217 4 5.6 1.16 266 6 3.2 1.14 1.02
2003 BAL Tom Trebelhorn 234 2 5.9 1.12 401 7 4.5 1.11 1.02
2005 ARI Carlos Tosca 223 3 -0.4 0.99 313 5 -0.6 0.98 1.01
2005 SFN Gene Glynn 229 3 1.0 1.02 342 7 0.4 1.01 1.01
2004 TBA Tom Foley 230 4 -1.2 0.98 304 6 -0.9 0.97 1.01
2004 MIN Al Newman 208 3 3.7 1.08 350 7 2.3 1.08 1.01
2006 BOS DeMarlo Hale 248 5 -7.6 0.86 424 8 -7.6 0.85 1.01
2003 TOR Brian Butterfield 231 2 -0.1 1.00 425 11 -0.5 0.99 1.01
2005 NYA Luis Sojo 315 7 -3.0 0.95 347 8 -1.4 0.95 1.00
2005 TEX Steve Smith 201 2 1.9 1.04 330 6 1.3 1.04 1.00
2000 CHA Bryan Little 264 4 7.5 1.14 298 5 4.6 1.14 1.00
2002 TEX Steve Smith 213 4 0.3 1.01 272 6 0.1 1.01 1.00
2000 SFN Sonny Jackson 228 6 -2.1 0.95 318 8 -1.8 0.95 1.00
2003 COL Sandy Alomar 228 4 6.5 1.13 344 7 5.3 1.13 1.00
2002 FLO Ozzie Guillen 159 5 -1.4 0.95 258 9 -1.2 0.96 0.99
2002 CIN Tim Foli 169 6 0.5 1.01 212 8 0.5 1.02 0.99
2005 WAS Dave Huppert 240 4 -0.7 0.99 318 7 -0.2 1.00 0.99
2002 ANA Ron Roenicke 280 7 0.0 1.00 314 5 0.3 1.01 0.99
2003 NYA Willie Randolph 246 10 -1.0 0.98 392 10 -0.3 0.99 0.99
2000 MON Pete MacKanin 201 5 0.4 1.01 228 8 0.5 1.02 0.99
2001 SLN Jose Oquendo 210 6 9.1 1.19 241 7 4.2 1.21 0.98
2004 SLN Jose Oquendo 236 2 6.5 1.13 375 8 5.1 1.14 0.98
2000 CIN Ron Oester 218 6 -0.7 0.98 308 6 0.1 1.00 0.98
2004 FLO Jeff Cox 194 6 0.8 1.02 353 9 1.4 1.04 0.98
2005 KCA Luis Silverio 212 5 3.7 1.08 387 6 3.8 1.10 0.98
2002 CHA Gary Pettis 204 8 -2.1 0.94 268 8 -0.7 0.97 0.98
2004 ATL Fredi Gonzalez 222 4 1.5 1.03 375 5 1.9 1.06 0.97
2006 SEA Carlos Garcia 226 6 -1.5 0.97 377 13 -0.2 1.00 0.97
2005 CHA Tim Raines 204 9 2.9 1.06 335 7 3.2 1.10 0.97
2000 PHI John Vukovich 233 7 -2.1 0.96 260 7 -0.2 0.99 0.97
2002 TBA Tom Foley 205 5 -2.0 0.95 276 6 -0.2 0.99 0.96
2004 SDN Rob Picciolo 253 4 4.4 1.09 416 8 5.2 1.13 0.96
2005 TBA Tom Foley 233 4 5.8 1.13 338 7 7.6 1.18 0.96
2003 ARI Eddie Rodriquez 232 5 -5.6 0.88 348 5 -2.7 0.92 0.96
2000 COL Rich Donnelly 296 5 6.7 1.12 315 4 6.0 1.17 0.96
2006 SLN Jose Oquendo 230 5 -1.1 0.98 375 9 1.0 1.03 0.95
2005 CIN Mark Berry 227 5 0.2 1.01 306 5 1.8 1.06 0.95
2001 BAL Tom Trebelhorn 179 9 -0.2 1.00 261 5 1.4 1.05 0.95
2001 CHN Gene Glynn 217 3 -2.0 0.96 268 5 0.2 1.01 0.95
2006 ARI Carlos Tosca 275 6 0.5 1.01 332 5 2.0 1.07 0.95
2006 DET Gene Lamont 240 5 5.0 1.10 362 3 5.5 1.16 0.95
2005 COL Mike Gallego 241 5 -0.2 1.00 369 7 2.3 1.06 0.94
2003 CLE Joel Skinner 209 6 2.2 1.05 342 9 4.2 1.12 0.94
2000 MIN Ron Gardenhire 274 7 -2.9 0.95 256 6 0.3 1.01 0.94
2006 NYA Larry Bowa 289 5 -4.1 0.93 410 3 -0.2 1.00 0.94
2006 PIT Jeff Cox 230 3 -1.2 0.98 399 2 1.8 1.04 0.93
2003 KCA John Mizerock 249 4 0.3 1.01 432 8 3.4 1.08 0.93
2002 HOU Gene Lamont 234 6 -0.5 0.99 293 10 1.8 1.06 0.93
2004 LAN Glenn Hoffman 211 4 4.1 1.09 321 3 4.5 1.17 0.93
2001 LAN Glenn Hoffman 199 6 -4.4 0.89 219 8 -0.9 0.96 0.92
2002 PIT Trent Jewett 173 4 1.3 1.04 248 4 2.7 1.13 0.92
2004 COL Sandy Alomar 259 7 5.2 1.09 339 8 7.3 1.19 0.92
2006 LAN Rich Donnelly 260 9 -6.0 0.90 370 10 -1.0 0.97 0.92
2000 KCA Rich Dauer 300 6 -0.6 0.99 332 6 2.6 1.08 0.92
2005 LAN Glenn Hoffman 244 9 -9.5 0.79 339 12 -4.8 0.86 0.92
2006 CIN Mark Berry 217 5 -0.8 0.98 315 4 2.4 1.08 0.91
2005 SEA Jeff Newman 207 4 2.7 1.07 359 3 6.1 1.17 0.91
2003 TEX Steve Smith 204 7 -1.6 0.96 346 7 2.1 1.06 0.91
2006 HOU Doug Mansolino 214 1 5.6 1.11 344 1 7.6 1.23 0.91
2006 TEX Steve Smith 234 5 -2.5 0.95 410 9 2.5 1.06 0.90
2001 PHI John Vukovich 225 9 -3.6 0.92 236 5 0.5 1.02 0.90
2001 MIN Ron Gardenhire 237 9 2.6 1.05 223 7 4.0 1.17 0.90
2000 FLO Fredi Gonzalez 191 4 1.6 1.04 241 4 3.9 1.16 0.90
2003 CIN Tim Foli 218 7 -1.7 0.96 290 7 2.4 1.07 0.90
2004 KCA John Mizerock 229 6 -1.3 0.97 358 5 2.9 1.09 0.90
2004 CHN Wendell Kim 197 7 -6.5 0.83 335 8 -2.8 0.93 0.89
2001 MON Jeff Cox 202 6 -2.6 0.93 221 4 0.9 1.04 0.89
2005 FLO Jeff Cox 221 8 -7.1 0.84 411 7 -2.9 0.94 0.89
2003 PIT John Russell 244 7 -1.5 0.97 341 6 3.1 1.09 0.89
2001 PIT Trent Jewett 181 6 1.2 1.03 206 6 3.5 1.16 0.89
2006 ATL Fredi Gonzalez 231 6 -3.3 0.94 362 6 2.5 1.06 0.89
2006 MIN Scott Ullger 222 3 0.5 1.01 452 8 6.6 1.14 0.88
2005 ANA Ron Roenicke 271 7 0.1 1.00 355 5 4.5 1.13 0.88
2005 BOS Dale Sveum 280 5 -12.6 0.77 463 7 -5.7 0.88 0.87
2003 OAK Ron Washington 227 8 -1.1 0.98 345 5 5.3 1.12 0.87
2000 MIL Chris Speier 216 7 1.3 1.03 242 2 4.4 1.19 0.86
2003 CHA Rafael Santana 206 4 -2.6 0.95 356 4 3.7 1.10 0.86
2002 OAK Ron Washington 209 7 -1.2 0.97 270 3 2.5 1.12 0.86
2001 NYN John Sterns 206 10 -7.0 0.85 253 10 -0.4 0.98 0.86
2004 MON Manny Acta 182 4 2.4 1.07 321 5 7.5 1.24 0.86
2001 KCA Rich Dauer 211 6 -1.9 0.96 269 5 3.3 1.12 0.86
2001 MIL Gary Allenson 197 8 -8.4 0.76 241 6 -3.0 0.89 0.85
2004 TOR Brian Butterfield 226 7 -2.7 0.94 380 5 3.8 1.11 0.85
2001 SFN Sonny Jackson 200 8 -9.6 0.77 277 5 -3.1 0.91 0.85
2006 FLO Bobby Meacham 199 4 2.3 1.05 359 5 8.3 1.24 0.84
2003 SDN Rob Picciolo 217 2 1.2 1.03 377 4 7.8 1.22 0.84
2000 SEA Larry Bowa 206 5 -4.6 0.89 289 6 2.3 1.07 0.83
2005 ATL Fredi Gonzalez 189 3 0.2 1.00 334 4 8.0 1.21 0.83
2002 KCA Rich Dauer 199 8 2.7 1.06 260 5 6.8 1.28 0.83
2003 MIN Al Newman 251 10 -3.4 0.93 375 5 5.3 1.13 0.83
2002 COL Rich Donnelly 201 7 3.0 1.08 260 8 6.7 1.31 0.82
2002 PHI John Vukovich 182 5 -2.5 0.93 266 7 3.2 1.14 0.82
2003 ANA Ron Roenicke 234 8 -2.4 0.95 363 1 6.1 1.17 0.82
2004 CIN Mark Berry 240 8 -10.3 0.78 290 8 -1.1 0.96 0.81
2001 ARI Chris Speier 216 4 -0.1 1.00 239 5 5.7 1.24 0.80
2000 DET Doug Mansolino 256 4 2.0 1.04 320 1 9.7 1.30 0.80
2001 TEX Jerry Narron 223 6 -3.2 0.93 289 8 5.3 1.17 0.79
2000 LAN Glenn Hoffman 221 8 -4.6 0.90 256 5 4.0 1.14 0.79
2002 NYN Matt Galante 193 4 -3.0 0.93 254 10 5.3 1.18 0.79
2004 SFN Gene Glynn 263 12 -7.2 0.87 397 2 4.2 1.11 0.78
2006 CHN Chris Speier 199 6 -2.9 0.94 350 3 7.2 1.22 0.77
2001 HOU Matt Galante 202 9 -7.3 0.83 275 9 2.3 1.08 0.77
2005 CHN Chris Speier 229 5 -2.9 0.94 327 5 6.8 1.23 0.77
2004 NYA Luis Sojo 243 9 -3.2 0.93 371 4 7.2 1.22 0.76
2000 ANA Ron Roenicke 258 10 -3.6 0.94 284 3 6.5 1.24 0.76
2000 BAL Sam Perlozzo 254 5 -4.0 0.92 275 3 6.3 1.22 0.75
2003 SLN Jose Oquendo 234 7 -4.8 0.90 377 7 8.3 1.22 0.74
2004 MIL Rich Donnelly 190 7 -8.8 0.79 315 3 2.1 1.07 0.73
2002 ATL Ned Yost 171 6 -6.7 0.79 275 3 6.1 1.23 0.65
There was some discussion of the "smell test" and how it related to "Waving" Wendall Kim and so here are his seasons chronologically.
Year Team Name Opp OA EqHAR Rate Opp OA EqHAR Rate Ratio
2004 CHN Wendell Kim 197 7 -6.5 0.83 335 8 -2.8 0.93 0.89
2003 CHN Wendell Kim 198 7 -6.1 0.85 339 13 -6.7 0.78 1.10
2000 BOS Wendell Kim 229 6 -2.0 0.96 306 13 -10.1 0.69 1.38
In 2003 and 2004 he performed about the same (and negatively) but in 2003 the team in non-coach opportunities performed even more poorly. The same holds true for his 2000 season with the Red Sox. This points to the fact that perhaps we should be weighting the coach opportunities differently from the non-coach and as pointed out by MGL perhaps all advancements to home plate should be considered coach opportunities.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Team Running - Atlanta Braves
Today we'll take a quick look at the baserunning of the Atlanta Braves. From a team perspective they ranked 27th in the majors at -12.23 theoretical runs and 24th when EqSBR is taken out of the picture at -4.10. Overall they scored poorly in all four categories. Marcus Giles did well overall at +3.17 runs and Andruw Jones was at +2.34 runs. Chipper Jones did fairly poorly at -0.74 but it was Brian McCann that really dragged them down at -4.37 runs. Adam LaRoche was also at -1.39. In any case, it doesn't appear they'll improve appreciably in 2007 with the loss of Giles and much of the lineup being same.
Equivalent Stolen Base Runs
Year Name Team SB PO CS EqSBR
2006 Chipper Jones ATL 6 0 1 0.53
2006 Scott Thorman ATL 1 0 0 0.27
2006 Brian McCann ATL 2 0 0 0.25
2006 Andruw Jones ATL 5 0 1 0.19
2006 Todd Pratt ATL 1 0 0 0.15
2006 Marcus Giles ATL 10 1 5 -0.47
2006 Adam LaRoche ATL 0 0 2 -0.48
2006 Wilson Betemit ATL 1 0 1 -0.54
2006 Edgar Renteria ATL 17 0 6 -0.60
2006 Matt Diaz ATL 5 0 5 -0.88
2006 Ryan Langerhans ATL 0 0 2 -1.08
2006 Willy Aybar ATL 0 0 2 -1.08
2006 Pete Orr ATL 2 0 4 -1.38
2006 Jeff Francoeur ATL 1 1 6 -3.01
Equivalent Hit Advancement Runs
Year Name Team Opp OA ExHAR EqHAR HARate
2006 Ryan Langerhans ATL 27 0 6.83 1.69 125
2006 Andruw Jones ATL 35 0 4.74 1.34 128
2006 Marcus Giles ATL 54 0 9.40 1.31 114
2006 Jeff Francoeur ATL 38 1 3.69 1.31 135
2006 Chipper Jones ATL 37 0 7.86 0.58 107
2006 Pete Orr ATL 10 0 1.06 0.58 154
2006 Edgar Renteria ATL 48 1 7.27 0.57 108
2006 Wilson Betemit ATL 12 0 3.97 0.54 114
2006 Tony Pena ATL 5 0 0.15 0.16 204
2006 Jason Shiell ATL 1 0 0.02 -0.02 0
2006 Horacio Ramirez ATL 1 0 0.03 -0.03 0
2006 Jorge Sosa ATL 1 0 0.08 -0.08 0
2006 Brayan Pena ATL 4 0 0.88 -0.14 84
2006 Todd Pratt ATL 6 0 1.24 -0.49 60
2006 John Smoltz ATL 5 0 0.58 -0.50 14
2006 Willy Aybar ATL 17 1 1.26 -0.80 37
2006 Brian Jordan ATL 8 1 1.22 -0.92 25
2006 Tim Hudson ATL 4 0 1.01 -1.01 0
2006 Adam LaRoche ATL 45 0 8.93 -1.06 88
2006 Martin Prado ATL 3 1 0.10 -1.15 -1078
2006 Scott Thorman ATL 6 1 0.72 -1.17 -63
2006 John Thomson ATL 3 0 1.26 -1.26 0
2006 Matt Diaz ATL 22 1 5.17 -1.60 69
2006 Brian McCann ATL 34 1 7.60 -4.16 45
Equivalent Ground Advancement Runs
Year Name Team Opp ExGAR EqGAR GARate
2006 Ryan Langerhans ATL 39 4.02 1.29 1.32
2006 Marcus Giles ATL 40 4.05 1.25 1.31
2006 Jeff Francoeur ATL 22 1.63 0.72 1.44
2006 Matt Diaz ATL 20 1.33 0.65 1.49
2006 Pete Orr ATL 13 1.37 0.36 1.26
2006 Brayan Pena ATL 6 0.43 0.21 1.50
2006 Andruw Jones ATL 27 2.86 0.17 1.06
2006 Tim Hudson ATL 2 0.22 0.09 1.41
2006 Wilson Betemit ATL 12 0.50 0.05 1.10
2006 Tony Pena ATL 6 0.48 0.03 1.05
2006 Martin Prado ATL 2 0.07 0.02 1.34
2006 Brian Jordan ATL 2 0.02 -0.02 0.00
2006 Chuck James ATL 2 0.29 -0.02 0.93
2006 John Thomson ATL 1 0.02 -0.02 0.00
2006 John Smoltz ATL 3 0.20 -0.04 0.78
2006 Scott Thorman ATL 9 0.73 -0.09 0.87
2006 Willy Aybar ATL 9 0.58 -0.22 0.63
2006 Todd Pratt ATL 11 0.77 -0.30 0.60
2006 Edgar Renteria ATL 30 1.81 -0.47 0.74
2006 Brian McCann ATL 26 1.13 -0.55 0.51
2006 Adam LaRoche ATL 26 1.76 -0.63 0.64
2006 Chipper Jones ATL 18 1.01 -0.98 0.03
Equivalent Air Advancement Runs
Year Name Team Opps ExAAR EqAAR AARate
2006 Marcus Giles ATL 43 4.69 1.08 1.23
2006 Adam LaRoche ATL 22 2.27 0.78 1.34
2006 Andruw Jones ATL 26 2.85 0.64 1.22
2006 Pete Orr ATL 8 0.37 0.43 2.16
2006 Todd Pratt ATL 5 0.44 0.22 1.51
2006 Brayan Pena ATL 1 0.46 0.20 1.44
2006 Brian Jordan ATL 3 0.15 0.12 1.85
2006 Jeff Francoeur ATL 19 3.83 0.12 1.03
2006 Brian McCann ATL 25 2.68 0.10 1.04
2006 Chuck James ATL 1 0.27 0.08 1.29
2006 Willy Aybar ATL 9 0.67 0.08 1.11
2006 Tony Pena ATL 4 -0.03 0.03 0.00
2006 John Smoltz ATL 4 -0.01 0.01 0.00
2006 John Thomson ATL 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
2006 Jorge Sosa ATL 3 0.01 -0.01 0.00
2006 Tim Hudson ATL 1 0.02 -0.02 0.00
2006 Scott Thorman ATL 2 0.37 -0.02 0.94
2006 Jason Shiell ATL 1 0.03 -0.03 0.00
2006 Wilson Betemit ATL 7 0.13 -0.03 0.79
2006 Martin Prado ATL 4 0.21 -0.45 -1.14
2006 Edgar Renteria ATL 39 2.86 -0.50 0.83
2006 Ryan Langerhans ATL 7 0.57 -0.57 0.00
2006 Matt Diaz ATL 13 0.94 -0.68 0.28
2006 Chipper Jones ATL 17 1.23 -0.87 0.29
Chat Transcript 03/16
The transcript from today's chat at BP is now available. Thanks everyone for participating.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Images of Spring
Just some spring training pictures today...
Sammy Sosa playing right field in Surprise against the Angels.
Veterns Sosa and Kenny Lofton around the cage on one of the practice fields. Lofton won the homerun contest with 11.
The Royals braintrust taking in a B game at the Rangers camp on Sunday morning. Brian Bannister is on the hill.
An Alex Gonzalez (yes, that one) sighting in the B game. He also played in the A games over the weekend.
Eric Gagne taking pitcher's fielding practice at the Rangers camp.
The view from the press box at Electric Park in Tucson. Had a nice visit with Matt Bartlett of MLB.com who assisted in the scoring of the game.
Sammy Sosa playing right field in Surprise against the Angels.
Veterns Sosa and Kenny Lofton around the cage on one of the practice fields. Lofton won the homerun contest with 11.
The Royals braintrust taking in a B game at the Rangers camp on Sunday morning. Brian Bannister is on the hill.
An Alex Gonzalez (yes, that one) sighting in the B game. He also played in the A games over the weekend.
Eric Gagne taking pitcher's fielding practice at the Rangers camp.
The view from the press box at Electric Park in Tucson. Had a nice visit with Matt Bartlett of MLB.com who assisted in the scoring of the game.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Coachers
Today and tomorrow a two part article on quantifying the impact of third base coaches will run on Baseball Analysts. This is an offshoot of the work I've done on baserunning in the past. I was greatly assisted by Neal Williams of Rocky Mountain SABR.
The term "coachers" was the term originally applied to coaches, the term itself derived from the resemblence of coaches to stagecoach drivers.
Update: Part II is now available.
The term "coachers" was the term originally applied to coaches, the term itself derived from the resemblence of coaches to stagecoach drivers.
Update: Part II is now available.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
More on Leverage
Last week in my column on BP I took a look at the various aspects of Leverage (using Keith Woolner's definition) and broke it down by lineup position, inning, and score differential as well as taking a quick look at pinch hitting.
In that discussion I provided a table that broke down each of the high level events in 2006 by it's average WX value. Reader feedback prompted me to amend that table by breaking out sacrifice hits and flies on the Unfiltered site.
In addition, several readers have asked about the breakdown of Leverage by half inning. So here it is graphically broken down into two graphs for easier reading.
As you can see in innings one through eight the Leverage is lower in the bottom half of the inning than in the top. That's the case since the score is more likely to be tied at the beginning of each inning and in fact the average score differential in innings one through eight is lower in the top half than in the bottom half of each inning. In innings 9 and higher the situation is more interesting. In inning 9 the Leverage goes way up in the bottom half of the inning since when it is played the home team is typically not being blown out (and getting a runner or two on raises the Leverage dramatically since a single run can often win or tie the game) whereas the Leverage in the top half continues to decline in the ninth inning. In the 10th inning and beyond (aggregated in the second graph as "10") the Leverage for the bottom half of the inning remains higher despite the score differential actually being higher since a single run often allows the home team to win.
In that discussion I provided a table that broke down each of the high level events in 2006 by it's average WX value. Reader feedback prompted me to amend that table by breaking out sacrifice hits and flies on the Unfiltered site.
In addition, several readers have asked about the breakdown of Leverage by half inning. So here it is graphically broken down into two graphs for easier reading.
As you can see in innings one through eight the Leverage is lower in the bottom half of the inning than in the top. That's the case since the score is more likely to be tied at the beginning of each inning and in fact the average score differential in innings one through eight is lower in the top half than in the bottom half of each inning. In innings 9 and higher the situation is more interesting. In inning 9 the Leverage goes way up in the bottom half of the inning since when it is played the home team is typically not being blown out (and getting a runner or two on raises the Leverage dramatically since a single run can often win or tie the game) whereas the Leverage in the top half continues to decline in the ninth inning. In the 10th inning and beyond (aggregated in the second graph as "10") the Leverage for the bottom half of the inning remains higher despite the score differential actually being higher since a single run often allows the home team to win.
Spring Musings
As mentioned in my previous post I spent the weekend in the Valley of the Sun taking in both the warm weather and several spring training games and camps. An overview from the pure baseball side is now up on Baseball Prospectus (no subscription required).
Monday, March 12, 2007
Fergie
Last weekend I had the chance to make a quick trip to Spring Training sites in Arizona attending four games in three days. I'll have more to report on Baseball Prospectus and here but one of the interesting little diversions was found at Surprise Stadium on Saturday afternoon. About 45 minutes prior to game time a panel was held that included eight women who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. The league was in existence from 1943-1954 and was of course made famous by the 1992 film A League of Their Own. I didn't realize that at first the game they played was actually softball but that the rules were changed over time to make them identical to baseball. Too bad that trend didn't take hold.
In any case the ladies answered questions from the audience and each shared which teams they played for. For the most part the women were paid between $50 and $65 a week with $3.50 per day meal money, which many of them insisted was good money for the time.
In addition to the ladies, Fergie Jenkins, who lives in the area, was on the panel and alternated taking questions from the bevy of Cubs fans in attendance (the Cubs were playing the Royals that day).
Jenkins was asked the inevitable Ron Santo why isn't he in the Hall of Fame question and simply stated that the process is broken and that he would like to know the five members who didn't vote for him. In a conversation afterwards as I procured a signed baseball, he said he thought when Bruce Sutter was inducted, that it would have been fitting for Rich Gossage and Lee Smith to go in at the same time. He also talked about his charitable work a bit and when questioned about pitch counts was adamant that there is a causal link between the money pitchers make today and their use of the disabled list (he said he was on the DL once and only because of a ruptured achilles). He also said that in his final spring start of the year he would go 9 innings to ensure that he could do so once the season started. He completed 267 games in his career.
As Fergie was finishing out his career with the Cubs in 1982-83 I can recall tuning into as many of his starts as possible and scoring the games when I could (the game prior to the one where he recorded his 3,000th strikeout sticks in mind particularly). I was amazed by his control and his pitching patterns and even purchased his book on pitching written with David Fischer, Inside Pitching and tried to apply what I could to my high school pitching career such as it was. In any case it was a great pleasure meeting him.
In any case the ladies answered questions from the audience and each shared which teams they played for. For the most part the women were paid between $50 and $65 a week with $3.50 per day meal money, which many of them insisted was good money for the time.
In addition to the ladies, Fergie Jenkins, who lives in the area, was on the panel and alternated taking questions from the bevy of Cubs fans in attendance (the Cubs were playing the Royals that day).
Jenkins was asked the inevitable Ron Santo why isn't he in the Hall of Fame question and simply stated that the process is broken and that he would like to know the five members who didn't vote for him. In a conversation afterwards as I procured a signed baseball, he said he thought when Bruce Sutter was inducted, that it would have been fitting for Rich Gossage and Lee Smith to go in at the same time. He also talked about his charitable work a bit and when questioned about pitch counts was adamant that there is a causal link between the money pitchers make today and their use of the disabled list (he said he was on the DL once and only because of a ruptured achilles). He also said that in his final spring start of the year he would go 9 innings to ensure that he could do so once the season started. He completed 267 games in his career.
As Fergie was finishing out his career with the Cubs in 1982-83 I can recall tuning into as many of his starts as possible and scoring the games when I could (the game prior to the one where he recorded his 3,000th strikeout sticks in mind particularly). I was amazed by his control and his pitching patterns and even purchased his book on pitching written with David Fischer, Inside Pitching and tried to apply what I could to my high school pitching career such as it was. In any case it was a great pleasure meeting him.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Team Running - Florida Marlins
Today we'll take a look at the Florida Marlins running game to compliment the Hope and Faith piece Christina Kahrl wrote for BP today.
From an overall perspective the Marlins finished 16th in baseball at -7.09 runs. When EqSBR is taken out of the equation they finish second behind the Angels at +8.88 runs since they finished dead last at -15.98 in EqSBR. As you can see from the table below the reason for their poor showing was the combination of Wes Helms, Dan Uggla, Reggie Abercrombie, Miguel Cabrera, and Alfredo Amezaga who accounted for -12.76 and recorded 37 stolen bases, 33 caught stealing, and were picked off 4 times for good measure.
On the other hand Hanley Ramirez (pictured left) placed second overall at +8.89 runs just behind Chone Figgins of the Angels. I've mentioned before that in the games I personally saw Ramirez play I saw hime twice stretch singles into doubles as outfielders lazily retrieved ground balls. Meanwhile Josh Willingham took the distinction as the worst baserunner of 2006 in The 2007 Bill James Handbook but in these metrics placed 659th out of 666 players at -4.72 runs. I published a critique of the James methodology in a column late last year. Essentially the James system doesn't take into account as much context as these metrics do by considering the fielder who fielded the ball and the number of outs as well as other baserunners. However, James does include some additional categories that I had not considered. Advancing on wild pitches and passed balls and perhaps even balks are categories that should be included in a total measure of baserunning. This is the flip side of the excellent work done by Sean Forman on catchers. They were omitted from the metrics I developed but will be included in the future. However, I'm a little hesitant to include advancing on defensive indifference. While it probably is correlated with speed and therefore baserunning, the value of advancing in those scenarios is so questionable, and the opportunities to do so coupled with the difficulty of judging when a runner is in such a situation add it up to my conclusion that including those occasions makes little sense.
From an overall perspective the Marlins finished 16th in baseball at -7.09 runs. When EqSBR is taken out of the equation they finish second behind the Angels at +8.88 runs since they finished dead last at -15.98 in EqSBR. As you can see from the table below the reason for their poor showing was the combination of Wes Helms, Dan Uggla, Reggie Abercrombie, Miguel Cabrera, and Alfredo Amezaga who accounted for -12.76 and recorded 37 stolen bases, 33 caught stealing, and were picked off 4 times for good measure.
On the other hand Hanley Ramirez (pictured left) placed second overall at +8.89 runs just behind Chone Figgins of the Angels. I've mentioned before that in the games I personally saw Ramirez play I saw hime twice stretch singles into doubles as outfielders lazily retrieved ground balls. Meanwhile Josh Willingham took the distinction as the worst baserunner of 2006 in The 2007 Bill James Handbook but in these metrics placed 659th out of 666 players at -4.72 runs. I published a critique of the James methodology in a column late last year. Essentially the James system doesn't take into account as much context as these metrics do by considering the fielder who fielded the ball and the number of outs as well as other baserunners. However, James does include some additional categories that I had not considered. Advancing on wild pitches and passed balls and perhaps even balks are categories that should be included in a total measure of baserunning. This is the flip side of the excellent work done by Sean Forman on catchers. They were omitted from the metrics I developed but will be included in the future. However, I'm a little hesitant to include advancing on defensive indifference. While it probably is correlated with speed and therefore baserunning, the value of advancing in those scenarios is so questionable, and the opportunities to do so coupled with the difficulty of judging when a runner is in such a situation add it up to my conclusion that including those occasions makes little sense.
Equivalent Stolen Base Runs
Name Team SB PO CS EqSBR
Hanley Ramirez FLO 51 0 15 1.45
Mike Jacobs FLO 3 0 0 0.53
Jeremy Hermida FLO 4 0 1 0.20
Robert Andino FLO 1 0 0 0.15
Jason Wood FLO 1 0 0 0.10
Cody Ross FLO 0 0 1 -0.24
Matt Treanor FLO 0 0 1 -0.24
Eric Reed FLO 3 1 1 -0.38
Chris Aguila FLO 1 0 1 -0.74
Anibal Sanchez FLO 0 1 0 -0.84
Joe Borchard FLO 0 0 2 -0.87
Miguel Olivo FLO 2 0 3 -1.04
Josh Willingham FLO 2 3 0 -1.31
Wes Helms FLO 0 0 4 -1.96
Dan Uggla FLO 6 1 6 -2.60
Reggie AbercrombieFLO 6 2 5 -2.69
Miguel Cabrera FLO 6 0 6 -2.70
Alfredo Amezaga FLO 19 1 12 -2.82
Equivalent Hit Advancement Runs
Name Team Opp OA ExHAR EqHAR HARate
Dan Uggla FLO 46 1 6.67 2.82 142
Hanley Ramirez FLO 50 0 8.74 2.78 132
Alfredo Amezaga FLO 22 0 5.08 2.08 141
Jeremy Hermida FLO 21 0 2.26 1.54 168
Reggie AbercrombieFLO 26 0 5.89 1.23 121
Eric Reed FLO 3 0 1.05 0.48 145
Scott Olsen FLO 1 0 0.32 0.46 242
Chris Aguila FLO 6 0 0.32 0.20 163
Brian Moehler FLO 1 0 0.02 -0.02 0
Sergio Mitre FLO 1 0 0.02 -0.02 0
Josh Johnson FLO 1 0 0.03 -0.03 0
Yusmeiro Petit FLO 1 0 0.03 -0.03 0
Miguel Olivo FLO 20 0 4.43 -0.03 99
Anibal Sanchez FLO 1 0 0.04 -0.04 0
Matt Cepicky FLO 1 0 0.05 -0.05 0
Dontrelle Willis FLO 9 0 0.56 -0.12 79
Joe Borchard FLO 15 0 1.00 -0.17 83
Miguel Cabrera FLO 75 1 15.22 -0.21 99
Matt Treanor FLO 6 0 0.65 -0.21 68
Wes Helms FLO 9 0 2.03 -0.27 86
Cody Ross FLO 16 1 2.14 -0.65 70
Mike Jacobs FLO 42 1 3.60 -0.75 79
Ricky Nolasco FLO 3 0 1.16 -1.16 0
Josh Willingham FLO 26 2 2.61 -2.61 0
Equivalent Ground Advancement Runs
Name Team Opp ExGAR EqGAR GARate
Hanley Ramirez FLO 44 5.06 3.08 1.61
Alfredo Amezaga FLO 35 2.08 0.87 1.42
Joe Borchard FLO 12 0.63 0.67 2.06
Miguel Cabrera FLO 28 1.68 0.46 1.27
Reggie AbercrombieFLO 18 1.14 0.29 1.26
Dontrelle Willis FLO 2 0.05 0.25 5.70
Matt Treanor FLO 12 1.32 0.21 1.16
Cody Ross FLO 10 0.49 0.12 1.24
Miguel Olivo FLO 35 2.73 0.08 1.03
Scott Olsen FLO 2 0.20 0.06 1.32
Paul Hoover FLO 1 0.01 -0.01 0.00
Anibal Sanchez FLO 1 0.01 -0.01 0.00
Jeremy Hermida FLO 18 0.95 -0.01 0.99
Jason Vargas FLO 1 0.02 -0.02 0.00
Jose Garcia FLO 1 0.03 -0.03 0.00
Dan Uggla FLO 25 1.43 -0.03 0.98
Ricky Nolasco FLO 2 0.05 -0.05 0.00
Chris Aguila FLO 3 0.32 -0.06 0.83
Mike Jacobs FLO 12 0.31 -0.08 0.73
Robert Andino FLO 1 0.13 -0.13 0.00
Eric Reed FLO 4 0.36 -0.17 0.52
Josh Willingham FLO 14 0.83 -0.48 0.42
Wes Helms FLO 16 1.35 -0.92 0.32
Equivalent Air Advancement Runs
Name Team Opps ExAAR EqAAR AARate
Hanley Ramirez FLO 26 4.08 1.57 1.38
Dan Uggla FLO 27 2.65 0.95 1.36
Cody Ross FLO 8 1.31 0.43 1.33
Miguel Olivo FLO 7 0.65 0.41 1.63
Mike Jacobs FLO 13 1.53 0.35 1.23
Anibal Sanchez FLO 1 0.54 0.20 1.38
Ricky Nolasco FLO 2 0.47 0.19 1.41
Chris Aguila FLO 3 0.60 0.15 1.24
Robert Andino FLO 2 -0.01 0.01 0.00
Dontrelle Willis FLO 2 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brian Moehler FLO 1 0.00 0.00 0.00
Josh Johnson FLO 1 0.01 -0.01 0.00
Alfredo Amezaga FLO 10 1.26 -0.06 0.96
Eric Reed FLO 2 0.08 -0.08 0.00
Joe Borchard FLO 8 1.44 -0.08 0.94
Miguel Cabrera FLO 42 4.12 -0.18 0.96
Reggie AbercrombieFLO 9 1.89 -0.18 0.91
Josh Willingham FLO 14 1.05 -0.31 0.70
Matt Treanor FLO 6 0.67 -0.67 0.00
Wes Helms FLO 14 1.33 -1.33 0.00
Jeremy Hermida FLO 14 2.50 -1.71 0.32
Kelly Shoppach CLE 5 0.49 -1.09 -1.21