Lisa Asks,
"(H)ow would you integrate this with outmaking stats, or would you?"
It kinda is an outmaking stat, it's just that the outs are buried a little deeper in the formula. You lead off the inning and ground out 6-3, you get an 0-for-4 instead of an 0-for-1. What I like, too, is it would measure the difference between strike outs, where no one advances, and a sac fly or bunt (known in some circles as "productive outs"), where a runner still advances. Matt has pointed out the absurdity of Jamesians who dismiss the importance of a hitter's strike outs, but hail it is the stat indicative of a pitchers expected success, this would address the impact (or lack there of) of strike outs v. other outs. It also differentiates between the value in a single and a walk.
Additionally it would give a batter credit for getting on base via an error. Why a guy getting on base thanks to an error reflects negatively on his reocord is beyond me. I'm sure that Ichiro and Rickey have gotten on base by way of an error far more times than Manny or Thome, and their records should reflect that positively, right?
But if you're looking for something a little more out-related, which is perfectly sensible, I'd like to see this:
(TB+SB+BB+HBP+Times reached by error)/(TPA-H-BB-HBP+GDP+SH+SF+CS-Times reached by error)
Basically, every base amassed divided by every out burned. Is it simplistic and blunt? Sure.
Bill on the hother hand is so disconsolate about his team's collapse, he can't even be bothered to mock me:
"I'd rather not think about it. They both killed the Angels this season."
Just for laughs...
While Ichiro actually underperformed against the Halos, Hafner absolutely owns Anaheim.
Remember when we were kids and we'd look at the stats after the first week of the season and think, "Wow! I magine if he'd do that for 162 games!" and then we'd do the quick 'n dirty math in our heads? Let's do that with Hafner's numbers against the Singing' Cowboy Nine...
High Five!
It kinda is an outmaking stat, it's just that the outs are buried a little deeper in the formula. You lead off the inning and ground out 6-3, you get an 0-for-4 instead of an 0-for-1. What I like, too, is it would measure the difference between strike outs, where no one advances, and a sac fly or bunt (known in some circles as "productive outs"), where a runner still advances. Matt has pointed out the absurdity of Jamesians who dismiss the importance of a hitter's strike outs, but hail it is the stat indicative of a pitchers expected success, this would address the impact (or lack there of) of strike outs v. other outs. It also differentiates between the value in a single and a walk.
Additionally it would give a batter credit for getting on base via an error. Why a guy getting on base thanks to an error reflects negatively on his reocord is beyond me. I'm sure that Ichiro and Rickey have gotten on base by way of an error far more times than Manny or Thome, and their records should reflect that positively, right?
But if you're looking for something a little more out-related, which is perfectly sensible, I'd like to see this:
(TB+SB+BB+HBP+Times reached by error)/(TPA-H-BB-HBP+GDP+SH+SF+CS-Times reached by error)
Basically, every base amassed divided by every out burned. Is it simplistic and blunt? Sure.
Bill on the hother hand is so disconsolate about his team's collapse, he can't even be bothered to mock me:
"I'd rather not think about it. They both killed the Angels this season."
Just for laughs...
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Ichiro - 20 93 18 34 3 0 1 5 40 8 8 2 2 .416 .430 .366
Hafner - 8 29 12 16 1 1 7 16 40 6 7 1 1 .611 1.379 .552
While Ichiro actually underperformed against the Halos, Hafner absolutely owns Anaheim.
Remember when we were kids and we'd look at the stats after the first week of the season and think, "Wow! I magine if he'd do that for 162 games!" and then we'd do the quick 'n dirty math in our heads? Let's do that with Hafner's numbers against the Singing' Cowboy Nine...
G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
Hafner -160 580 240 320 20 20 140 320 800 120 140 20 20 .611 1.379 .552
High Five!
2 Comments:
i REALLY like that formula. it's hard for me to believe that no one thought of it before. and so easy to understand that even I got it the first time!!!! i have never understood why Familius Statis Geekicus never wanted to integrate ALL elements of what happened on the bases with each at bat, or why a flyout that advanced a runner was counted the same as a K. I asked one of the geeks a year or so ago and got a long answer in stat which I was not really able to translate but which i think meant "cuz ida wanna."
it would be cool to have the next advance in formulas come from a banker instead of CPAs, math professors or computer geniuses. it would be MOST cool to have it come from a housewife, but you thought it up first...
lisa
by the way, some of us didn't do quick and dirty MATH in our heads. hehhehheh
by the way, i don't know whether you are a closet stat guy, but why don't you run sims to see how your formula works out?
lisa
Post a Comment
<< Home