FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Friday, October 20, 2006

Quick Takes and Clogging

A couple quick hitters on a Friday morning:

  • Found this interesting article on the Rockies Jeff Francis from earlier this season. I liked this quote from Francis when explaining the "hop" on a good fastball.

    "My second-year mechanics professor found out I was a ball player, and asked me to do a presentation with another softball player in the class," Francis recalls. "We read The Physics of Baseball, and one chapter was about the ball's flight toward the plate. The ball rising [is] an optical illusion. Normally, the ball drops a certain amount in the quarter-second or so that it's in the air on its regular flight towards home plate. If the right backspin is obtained, the air can hold it up just a bit longer on the way to home plate, dropping a certain fraction of the regular distance. Since the eye is so used to seeing it drop the regular amount, the ball gives the illusion of rising on the way towards the batter."


    This was interesting since I noticed that Tim McCarver said on the Game 1 broadcast that the four seam fastball rises. He didn't qualify the statement although I suppose its possible that he knows it doesn't actually rise but still, alot of folks don't.


  • For the next day or two ESPN.com is running a special where you can view the Inside Edge information. For example, here is the breakdown for Aaron Cook. It's interesting since it gives you a feel for how a pitcher works left-handed versus right-handed hitters and how the pitch selection differs. In Cook's case he uses his slider twice as much against right-handed hitters than against lefties where he instead relies on his changeup. Of course in his case he's throwing his sinker 82% of the time against both and trying to stay on the outside corner down.


  • My column on Baseball Prospectus this week used the now infamous Dusty Baker quote as as the introduction into investigating "base clogging" as discussed in a previous post. The results confirm Tom Tango's quick discussion on his blog that a good baserunner is probably only are held up by lead runners to the tune of 1 base per season.

    The following table shows some of the results that I didn't include in the column for space reasons. Essentially what it shows is how often runners advance in each of three categories of plays broken down by whether or not there was a lead runner on in front of the runner of interest. I calculated the values for each season since 2000 to see if there were any trends but as you can see overall the data are remarkably consistent.

    As you can see runners do indeed advance to third more frequently when on first when the batter singles and there is no runner on second but only by a small amount. Same goes for a runner on second when a batter singles as they score more often but again only be a few percentage points. The interesting thing is that when a runner is on first and the batter doubles, having a lead runner on seems to increase the liklihood that the runner will score. There are probably one or more other factors to consider but I don't have any real favorites at this point. I also did some checking with fast and slow runners and as expected the gaps widen but not by as much as one might think.


  • Batter Doubles with a Runner on First
    Lead? Opp To2nd To3rd Scores OA To2nd To3rd Scores OA
    2000 TRUE 934 479 424 31 51.3% 45.4% 3.3%
    2000 FALSE 1986 1079 845 62 54.3% 42.5% 3.1%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2001 TRUE 853 421 400 32 49.4% 46.9% 3.8%
    2001 FALSE 1866 1012 805 52 54.2% 43.1% 2.8%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2002 TRUE 827 461 341 25 55.7% 41.2% 3.0%
    2002 FALSE 1745 985 699 61 56.4% 40.1% 3.5%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2003 TRUE 817 414 386 17 50.7% 47.2% 2.1%
    2003 FALSE 1923 1033 823 69 53.7% 42.8% 3.6%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2004 TRUE 902 478 401 23 53.0% 44.5% 2.5%
    2004 FALSE 1932 1057 819 57 54.7% 42.4% 3.0%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2005 TRUE 852 445 379 28 52.2% 44.5% 3.3%
    2005 FALSE 1937 1071 804 62 55.3% 41.5% 3.2%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TOTAL TRUE 5185 2698 2331 156 52.0% 45.0% 3.0%
    FALSE 11389 6237 4795 363 54.8% 42.1% 3.2%


    Batter Singles with a Runner on First
    2000 TRUE 2924 1950 859 39 78 66.7% 29.4% 1.3% 2.7%
    2000 FALSE 6937 4779 2041 59 59 68.9% 29.4% 0.9% 0.9%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2001 TRUE 2601 1771 732 36 60 68.1% 28.1% 1.4% 2.3%
    2001 FALSE 6463 4505 1830 56 71 69.7% 28.3% 0.9% 1.1%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2002 TRUE 2749 1876 772 33 68 68.2% 28.1% 1.2% 2.5%
    2002 FALSE 6502 4521 1849 58 75 69.5% 28.4% 0.9% 1.2%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2003 TRUE 2771 1951 712 42 66 70.4% 25.7% 1.5% 2.4%
    2003 FALSE 6719 4752 1861 43 64 70.7% 27.7% 0.6% 1.0%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2004 TRUE 2753 1889 758 43 63 68.6% 27.5% 1.6% 2.3%
    2004 FALSE 6745 4777 1839 58 70 70.8% 27.3% 0.9% 1.0%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2005 TRUE 2719 1949 673 39 58 71.7% 24.8% 1.4% 2.1%
    2005 FALSE 6794 4828 1859 49 58 71.1% 27.4% 0.7% 0.9%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TOTAL TRUE 16517 11386 4506 232 393 68.9% 27.3% 1.4% 2.4%
    FALSE 40160 28162 11279 323 397 70.1% 28.1% 0.8% 1.0%


    Batter Singles Second with a Runner on Second
    2000 TRUE 1366 494 813 36 36.2% 59.5% 2.6%
    2000 FALSE 4445 1461 2792 145 32.9% 62.8% 3.3%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2001 TRUE 1249 457 739 40 36.6% 59.2% 3.2%
    2001 FALSE 4240 1442 2587 156 34.0% 61.0% 3.7%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2002 TRUE 1259 491 709 40 39.0% 56.3% 3.2%
    2002 FALSE 4335 1475 2655 150 34.0% 61.2% 3.5%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2003 TRUE 1268 460 747 44 36.3% 58.9% 3.5%
    2003 FALSE 4337 1499 2627 155 34.6% 60.6% 3.6%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2004 TRUE 1292 546 694 39 42.3% 53.7% 3.0%
    2004 FALSE 4240 1469 2590 144 34.6% 61.1% 3.4%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2005 TRUE 1243 487 703 38 39.2% 56.6% 3.1%
    2005 FALSE 4335 1578 2557 145 36.4% 59.0% 3.3%
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    TOTAL TRUE 7677 2935 4405 237 38.2% 57.4% 3.1%
    FALSE 25932 8924 15808 895 34.4% 61.0% 3.5%

    No comments: