The myth of the balanced lineup

[JAD]

5) A single + a stolen base = double

A single and a stolen base does not equal a double.

Just pointing out that both of them end up with a runner at 2nd base.....we had a girl on our high school team two years ago who was fast as lightning - she is now playing for Mercer. She would bunt, and everyone in the stadium knew she was bunting, and her OBP was still .900+. Next pitch she would steal 2nd, next pitch steal 3rd. If the #2 batter then put the ball in play on the ground it was an automatic run.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

Just pointing out that both of them end up with a runner at 2nd base.....we had a girl on our high school team two years ago who was fast as lighting - she is now playing for Mercer. She would bunt, and everyone in the stadium knew she was bunting, and her OBP was still .900+. Next pitch she would steal 2nd, next pitch steal 3rd. If the #2 batter then put the ball in play on the ground it was an automatic run.

Makes sense. Run expectancy doesn't care how you got to the base, just which base and how many outs.

 

[GunnerShotgun]

But a single doesn't guarantee that you would score that runner from second base, for example. A straight double does guarantee that run with a runner on second. Take it to the extreme and a single plus two stolen bases is not the same as a straight triple.

I am not saying that stolen bases are not valuable just that they are not equal to hits. When calculating your linear weights you need to take that into account.

I am specifically speaking to run expectancy.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

But a single doesn't guarantee that you would score that runner from second base, for example. A straight double does guarantee that run with a runner on second. Take it to the extreme and a single plus two stolen bases is not the same as a straight triple.

I am not saying that stolen bases are not valuable just that they are not equal to hits. When calculating your linear weights you need to take that into account.

I am specifically speaking to run expectancy.

Run expectancy doesn't care how you got there, only that you're there. A no-outs walk and 2 balks equals a no-out triple for RE: no outs, runner on third RE was 1.656 in the NCAA in 2014. RE is based strictly on the base/out state at that time.

 

[SoCal_Dad]

Run expectancy doesn't care how you got there, only that you're there. A no-outs walk and 2 balks equals a no-out triple for RE: no outs, runner on third RE was 1.656 in the NCAA in 2014. RE is based strictly on the base/out state at that time.

You're talking about different RE's - GS is talking about the RE of different types of hits (i.e. doubles drive in more runs than singles), which occurs before the states in your tables.

 

[29dad]

I have nothing interesting to add. Just a comment that I hope this thread lasts forever. I really love this stuff.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

You're talking about different RE's - GS is talking about the RE of different types of hits (i.e. doubles drive in more runs than singles), which occurs before the states in your tables.

I see what you're saying. It's not just a terminology issue: offensive events are assigned run values that are dependent on the change in base/out states. Run expectancy is the result of a static situation (the base/out state) when the game is not in motion (between batters or even between pitches). Run values are the differences in run expectancies when the base/out state changes. Again to MLB:
For 1999-2002
none on, no outs RE is 0.555 runs per inning
1B, no outs RE is 0.953 runs per inning

The difference between states is 0.398 runs per inning - this is the run value of a none on, no out single, walk, HBP, or error. The event that causes the change in states is assigned the run value, but what that event is doesn't matter in this case. That changes for different base/out states, obviously. Would you be surprised to learn that the run value of a double is greater with a runner on 1st than with a runner on 2nd?

 

[CoreSoftball20]

And also why they're doing it wrong. They've cherry picked a stat (PA/game or PA/season) and used it to justify going half way to being statistically sound. And they've done it in such a way as to put their best hitter in a spot where he bats the most often with 2 outs/none on and least often with no outs.!

Obviously we disagree. I would always want my better hitters getting a significant number of more at bats in a season in MLB.

 

[BuckeyeGuy]

Obviously we disagree. I would always want my better hitters getting a significant number of more at bats in a season in MLB.

And you would put your better hitter (whomever you put 3rd) in a position to do less damage than otherwise. I'm just telling you what the results of the statistical analysis determined, not expressing an opinion. #3 comes up with 0 outs 28% of his PA's, while #2 does it 33% of the time and #5 35%. #3 comes up with 2 outs 37% of the time, #2 only 26% of the time and #5 33%.

Take all that, factor in the run expectancies of each base/out state, and it's pretty clear that the better hitter should bat #2, and that #5 should be a better hitter than #3. Is the difference huge? No. Should the lineup be adjusted based on situations, history, availability? Yes. Even Bill James said so. But this is a starting point, and a guide. #3 is not as important as we thought.

 

[TorontoCFE]

The problem with sabermetrics is the same problem with my field, economics.

Too much generalities and assumptions need to be used for everyone to buy in.

If a game is on the line, there is no way to know whether you should be sending up your best hitter (however you define it), the
batter with the best record against that pitcher or the hottest batter over the last X games.

Change any factor in the equation and you get different answers.