Sunday, February 10, 2008

Tigers on the Run

A kind soul points out to me that Lee Panas over at Tiger Tales takes a look at the 2007 Tigers in terms of their baserunning. To augment his post I thought I'd offer the entire Tigers team in terms of the five baserunning metrics I created.

                     Opps  EqGAR   Opps  EqSBR   Opps  EqAAR   Opps  EqHAR   Opps  EqOAR   Opps  EqBRR
Curtis Granderson 43 0.6 28 4.1 60 -0.1 74 2.2 426 -0.6 631 6.2
Gary Sheffield 16 -0.2 28 0.7 41 0.6 44 2.3 249 1.5 378 4.9
Ryan Raburn 6 0.1 2 0.3 4 0.4 17 0.6 79 0.7 108 2.1
Omar Infante 11 0.2 5 0.3 13 -0.2 14 0.1 107 0.6 150 1.0
Cameron Maybin 2 -0.2 5 0.8 1 0.0 3 0.4 26 -0.1 37 1.0
Marcus Thames 5 0.0 3 -0.2 11 0.1 15 1.2 97 -0.4 131 0.7
Placido Polanco 25 -0.3 10 0.4 49 -1.9 67 1.3 423 1.3 574 0.6
Timoniel Perez 9 0.1 2 -0.1 5 0.1 10 0.2 58 0.1 84 0.3
Brandon Inge 24 0.7 11 0.4 35 0.1 37 -1.1 257 0.1 364 0.2
Ramon Santiago 4 0.4 4 0.3 5 0.1 8 -0.6 47 -0.2 68 0.0
Mike Maroth 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.0
Jeremy Bonderman 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 0.0 6 0.0
Brent Clevlen 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 0.0 7 0.0
Mike Hessman 2 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 4 -0.1 20 -0.1 27 -0.2
Neifi Perez 1 0.0 0 0.0 5 0.0 3 -0.1 30 -0.1 39 -0.2
Carlos Guillen 31 -0.5 22 -1.5 42 0.4 40 1.6 285 -0.4 420 -0.5
Craig Monroe 15 -0.6 3 -1.1 11 0.0 30 0.4 115 -0.4 174 -1.6
Magglio Ordonez 39 0.5 4 0.0 49 -1.1 58 -0.8 409 -0.8 559 -2.2
Sean Casey 19 -0.2 4 -0.7 34 0.2 24 -1.5 240 -0.1 321 -2.2
Ivan Rodriguez 23 0.1 4 -1.0 33 0.1 38 -0.9 245 -0.6 343 -2.3
Mike Rabelo 10 -0.5 1 -0.4 9 -0.1 9 -1.0 92 -0.3 121 -2.3

285 0.1 136 2.1 408 -1.2 495 4.1 3221 0.3 4545 5.4


Keep in mind that the data Lee shows is really a subset of the EqHAR (Equivalent Hit Advancement Runs) shown here but as Lee points out Gary Sheffield did well in 2007 as did Guillen, Palanco, and Monroe.

3 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:43 AM

    Thanks for posting this Dan. I actually did look at all four types of base running advancements at Tiger tales (not just HAR). Your method is more complete though. Mine is somewhere between your method and the Bill James Handbook method. Still, I was curious to see how our rankings compared. There are a couple of differences in the rankings but pretty good agreement overall.

    I also want to offer a belated congratulations for getting your work mentioned extensively in the NY Times. That's not only great for you but also for the whole saber community.

    Lee

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Lee. Yep, the rankings look pretty consistent. Because the sample sizes are pretty small the differences probably boil down to high impact plays in terms of base/out situation.

    ReplyDelete