MLB Top 32

Rick, you actually got me thinking.

Go into your databases and see if you can pull out this stat...

Take the number of total times a player reaches base (walks, hits, fielder's choices, HBP, etc...) and what percentage of the time do they cross home plate after reaching base? I will even allow you to use home runs because they have reached base, they just don't have to stop.

Lets say Ichiro reaches base 260 times a season and scores 110 runs. How does that stack up with a great OBP guy like Youk from Boston or a Ted Simmons from way back in day?

I honestly don't know how this will turn out, but I am thinking we will see guys like Jeter, Ichiro and others who are great on the bases seem a little more valuable.

 

I understand all of that perfectly well.

What you don't understand is that none of that justifies your statement that you have to have comparably sized samples to make it work.

If you had said that we had an insufficient sample to be confident, that'd be fine. We could easily look at more data, if you wanted. But what you said is that you can't compare samples that aren't of similar size, which is wrong. You can have a small but adequate sample that takes you to a conclusion with 95% confidence, and another, much larger, sample that takes you to 98% confidence, and both are large enough to be acceptable and comparable.

 

Well, you finally said something that at least fits into the theory.

But I doubt we have anything that's within the parameters you describe. That was my point from the very beginning before you went into your version of the four corners.

Do we have a sample with 95% or 98% confidence? I doubt it. Do we have two samples close enough to compare? I doubt it.

How many times were there 3rd-no outs in the eighth inning? I doubt there were very many. That is the point.

 

Rick, if you have the ability to pull it up, I would appreciate it.

The phrase "creating runs" really struck me, because as a pitcher, I really could care less about the Youker at first, but an Ichiro or a Tim Raines type runner, that would put me on edge.

 

I'd be interested too, but I don't see how that can be done without the extreme variable of who is batting behind each hitter -- aside from the differences in the quality of team (Ichiro vs. Jeter), you have their placement in the lineup, whereby Jeter is going to have Teixeira and A-Rod driving him in while A-Rod and Teixeira would be relying on the bottom of the order to get them home.

 

In other words, situations. We have some who disregard those.

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/wpa.shtml

OK, I found this. My shift starts in about 5 min., so I honestly have no idea which side of the argument, if any, this lands on.

I did find one piece that should be stressed:

Note that in this case all of the credit goes to the batter and all of the blame goes to the pitcher.

 

Percentage of times scoring after reaching base for a few players...


Ichiro 38.03%
Bagwell 39.47%
Jeter 41.89%
Ruth 41.99%
Foli 38.02%
Pujols 41.06%

 

We see from this list that it helps a great deal to be on a team with other good hitters, which one would expect, that Pujols is a really good hitter, which we knew, and most of all, that the differences in that list are not large, like four percent. If you reach base 300 times a year, a very high figure, that would equal 12 runs difference between Ichiro and Ruth -- and Lou Gehrig likely a lot to do with that.
Wait. I forgot. Are we counting home runs as reaching base on that list? I'm starting to lose details on this thread. If so, we also learn that home runs remain the most efficient means of scoring. Another known fact.

 

When I get a chance (tomorrow) I will do plate appearances and runs scored. That might be a little more telling.

Tim Foli really suprised me.