Hit or Myth: Too Many Runners Left On

by Shore on Oct 6, 2006 1:28 PM EDT in News

Rollins singles...
Victorino moves him over...
Utley Doubles...
Howard gets walked...
Conine fouls out...
Burrell whiffs, inning over.

"We left runner on AGAIN! We always do that! THAT is what's wrong with this team!"

A refrain heard, in some format - voice, email, message board post - on an almost constant basis in the Delaware Valley.

But is it true?

The Phillies led the league in runs scored, with 865. They also led the league in Baseunners (Hits+BB+HBP+CI-CS-DP), with 2099 - 84 more than the 2nd place team, almost 200 more than the average team. Thus, they "stranded" 1234 runners, ALSO the highest total in the league.

Those 1234 stranded runners represent 58.8% of their baserunners. How does that number compare to the rest of the league?

TEAM	Baserunners	Stranded	% Stranded
Pittsburgh	1835	1144	62.30%
San Diego	1912	1181	61.80%
Houston	1908	1173	61.50%
Cincinnati	1941	1192	61.40%
Washington	1920	1174	61.10%
Milwaukee	1816	1086	59.80%
Arizona	1911	1138	59.50%
LA Dodgers	2015	1195	59.30%
St. Louis	1915	1134	59.20%
Florida	1858	1100	59.20%
Chicago Cubs	1751	1035	59.10%
Philadelphia	2099	1234	58.80%
San Francisco	1803	1057	58.60%
Colorado	1957	1144	58.50%
NY Mets	1929	1095	56.80%
Atlanta	1923	1074	55.90%

Average	1906	1135	59.50%

The Phillies were actually quite efficient, stranding runners at the 5th-lowest rate in the National League. 11 teams, including 3 of the 4 playoff teams, stranded runners more frequently.

There's not a lot of difference between the 9 teams from Milwaukee to Colorado... had the Phillies failed at the rate the Brewers did, it would have cost them 21 runs, or 2 wins, and had they gained enough efficiency to catch Colorado, they'd have gained 7 runs, or maybe one win.

The outliers, though, are interesting... Had the Phillies stranded runners as often as the Pirates, they'd have lost 75 runs, or 7-8 wins. There would have been no wildcard chase. On the other hand, had they been as efficient as the Braves, they'd have gained 62 runs (6 wins) and, again, no race - they're in.

I suspect "outliers" are not repeatable, and that we can expect an uptick in scoring from the Pirates next year, and a bit of a dip from both the Mets and Braves (yes!), but I've got a lot more work to do to support that conclusion.

Conclusion: MYTH!

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

but... but...

I watch the games! And I saw them do it so many times! And... and... BURRELL SUCKS!

Nice work. My little corollary to this, which I dug up a few weeks but don't think I ever posted, was that with the bases loaded, the Phils were about as bad as observation indicated--but, amazingly, their pitchers were even stingier with the sacks drunk than the hitters were inept at getting guys in. The final season numbers:

Phillies (170 AB): .229/.273/.388/.661
Opponents (142 AB): .218/.244/.345/.589

by dajafi on Oct 6, 2006 2:06 PM EDT 0 recs

Rankings

Runners On Min. 200 PA-97 total players
24th Utley-.314 340 PA 10 most; 81 RBI
33rd Rollins-.302 256 PA 51 most; 68 RBI
54th Howard-.287 (29 HR;)378 PA 2nd most; 120 RBI
72nd Burrell-.269 307 PA 16 most; 80 RBI
76th Rowand-.266 208 PA 92 most; 38 RBI

Problem wasn't so much as runners on it was runners in scoring position. You are more lucky to score with runners in scoring position then with runners on.

Phils have the 5th most runs, but they also have the 13th ranked BA. Alot of that is because they SO 338 times in 1459 AB led by Howard and Burrell. Howard had 25 more PA then Burrell and Howard has 13 more K's. The problem is Howard has 83 RBI and Burrell has 53.

The problem comes in because while Howard had a .256 BA he also had a .423 OBP while Burrell had a .222 BA and a .376 OBP. The real problem comes in because pitchers were pitching around Howard to pitch to Burrell. In that position Burrell's .722 (92 best) has to be alot better then that. Compared to Rollins 1.0004, Howards .942, Utley's .871, Burrell needs to do a way better job. I am not trashing Burrell on this post. I am just posting facts. The 5th hitter is the most important position in THIS lineup. If indeed Burrell is here he has to do a better job. You all have to agree on that.

I would also like to point out that the Phillies did strand runners, most in the league. % reason or not, they left alot of runners on base. They as a team have to do a better job. If they are getting that many runners on base, then there should be no reason they should drive in more. Of coarse, if they had better pitching, the runs scored should have been plenty.

by Philsin06 on Oct 6, 2006 4:45 PM EDT 0 recs

PhilsIn06...

You just don't get it.

I don't know if it's intentional, or if it's simply over your head. Either way, it's beyond frustrating, and brings down the level of conversation on the entire board.

The best offense in the league, every year, will strand a lot of runners. Sometimes the most, sometimes 2nd, maybe even third. But they will ALWAYS strand a lot of runners. Because they will HAVE a lot of runners. You simply CANNOT say "% or not, they left a lot of runners on base. They as a team have to do a better job." It makes no sense... they score MORE of their runners than MOST teams in the league. MORE. They do a BETTER job of scoring runners who get on base.

You continually post lists of irrelavent, disjointed numbers in a poorly disguised attempt to blame the season on Pat Burrell. We all understand that you don't like him, or want him here. It's enough.

"Yet the still mightly few, back him up" - Philsin06

by Shore on Oct 6, 2006 5:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

great post

The funny thing is that unless you're hitting homers or sac flies every single time you have runners on, then the only way you can knock a runner in is by getting a base hit which ends up putting another runner on base. And then that guy will get stranded. So even if you were awesome at hitting with runners on (as if that were a skill that actually exists, which it isn't) then you'd still ended up stranding about the same number of runners total.

Another way of looking at it: it doesn't make sense to separate out batting with runners on base or runners in scoring position from your overall numbers. Your overall numbers are all that matters. Think about it this way.

You have two teams, Team A and Team B. Both teams have identical overall offensive stats. (I know BA isn't a good stat, but we'll just use it here to make things easier to visualize.) Both teams hit .300 overall. Let's also assume that they each bat half the time without RISP and half the time with RISP.

Team A hits .350 with RISP. Team B hits .250 with RISP. Who scores more runs in the end?

The answer is that they'll each score about the same number of runs. That's because if they each have the same overall stats (.300), then that necessarily means that Team A hits worse when you don't have RISP - Team A hits .250 without RISP and Team B hits .350 without RISP.

This means that Team A will knock in more runs when they have RISP. But they'll get fewer RISP in the first place because they won't hit well with the bases empty or a runner on first! Meanwhile, Team B will strand a lot of their RISP. But since they'll hit so well without RISP, they'll get a lot more runners into scoring position in the first place. So the total number of runs scored in the end will be equal.

This is really just simple conceptual math. Any intelligent person should be able to understand it just by thinking about it for a little while.

by taco pal on Oct 6, 2006 7:11 PM EDT up 0 recs

Good post

And the same to Shore.

If I never hear anyone say "The Phillies leave too many runners on base" ever again it'll be far too soon.

by phatj on Oct 6, 2006 10:47 PM EDT up 0 recs

Maybe its me but I'm still not gettting it...

A single with no one on base scores no one but a single with runners at second and third drives in two runs, so how are they the same? Isn't a hit that drives in runs better than one that does not? I understand that a player with a higher average with no one on base and a lower average with runners on base will be the same average overall, i.e. the outs/hits will even out in his season total, but won't the RBI's be higher for the hitter who hits well with runners in scoring position since his hits will drive in more runs?

Another thought, doesn't the fact that runners are in scoring position change how a pitchers pitches? I was under the impression that was easier to hit with runners on base since a pitcher cannot afford to give up as many walks with runners on. This means the pitcher should be more likely to throw strikes, no?

I understand from a stastical point of view all runs, hits, whatever stat we're talking about are equal, but doesn't context matter? Isn't a HR that takes the lead or gives you a win more valueable than one that cuts the opposition lead from say several runs to one (or more if runners are on) less? Am I missing something here?

xats

by xatsman on Oct 9, 2006 10:47 AM EDT up 0 recs

let me explain

I think you might be missing my point, xatsman. Let me try to explain further. (My original comment was more about team hitting statistics, but it works for individuals too.)

Take two players, Player A and Player B. Both players have identical hitting stats overall, but Player A is better with RISP. That necessarily means that Player B is better without RISP. This is just algebra.

You're right that Player A will most probably get more RBIs than Player B - but this is only true if they both hit with RISP a comparable number of times. Player B could theoretically be worse with RISP and still get more RBIs if he comes up to bat a lot more often if he gets a lot more opportunities to hit with RISP.

But how does one get opportunities to hit with RISP? Only if someone ahead of you got into RISP in the first place. Innings always start without RISP, so somebody has do something good without RISP before anyone can even get a chance to hit with RISP.

In other words, what I'm saying is that creating RISP hitting opportunities is just as important as exploiting them. We tend to only notice the guys who knock in the runs, but you can't knock runs in if there are no runners (unless you just hit homers every time up which is impossible). The guys who get rallies started are just as important as the guys who put the exclamation points on those rallies.

If someone has the same overall hitting numbers but is worse with runners on, then mathematically that means he's better with the bases empty. That makes him just as important, because even if he isn't good at knocking runs in, he's better at giving other guys more opportunities to knock runs in.

by taco pal on Oct 9, 2006 11:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Can you isolate a player's hitting stats at all?

I'm with you on the getting on base to set up players for RISP is important. My take on this is I am more interested in the OBP of the first two hitters (and the eight hole hitter) in the line up then I am in the rest of the line up. To relate it to a player, if Phillies minor league OF Bourn were getting on base more than he currently has shown he can in the minors I'd be much more enthuastic about him than I currently am. Let me state that I don't think Bourn is terrible at getting on base, he's just average at it, and I think hte lead off hitter should be great at getting on base.

My question is do you see any way of measuring how good a player is at driving in runs by isolating any part of players stats or do you just look at a players overall stats, i.e. homeruns, rbi, etc., etc.? I take it if you don't agree, you find discussions of clutch hitting a waste time since that clutch is a meaningless concept stastically?

xats

by xatsman on Oct 10, 2006 10:02 AM EDT up 0 recs

Random thoughts in response

Not answering for anyone else, jsut adding my $0.02.

I think OBP is important everywhere, because:

The "top" of the lineup is only guaranteed to be the "top" in the 1st inning. After that, you're as likely to have your 5-hole hitter leading off an inning as not (or very close to as likely...)
OBP should be re-named to "Not Out Percent". Every time you get on, it's another baserunner, another potential run, and it hasn't cost an out. Plus, it means more batters for the opposining pitcher to face, more pitches, and greater chance of reaching the "middle guys" in the bullpen... almost always a good thing.

In terms of 'isolating' run-driving in ability, I think most stat-heads think in terms of the 2 components of offense - getting on base, and driving in runs; the twist is that "driving in runs" isn't so much RBI as it is the ability to put yourself and others closer to home plate (hits, extra-base hits, etc.). The actual RBI itself is fairly meaningless, statistically, as it's more a function of where you bat in the lineup, and how well other people have done their job. As an example: leadoff hitter Rollins walks, Victorino forces Rollins, Utley doubles Victorino to 3B. Howard hits a sac fly, scoring Shane-O, moving Utley to 3B. Conine pops out. Now, the most "valuable" plays in that inning were Rollins' walk, and Utley's double. Yet, counting-stat-wise, Victorino gets the Run Scored, and Howard gets the RBI. The stat-head approach is to discount the counting stats, and value the components, because in the long run, walks and doubles are going to lead to more runs than groundouts and flyouts that have positive, almost coincidental, side effects.

Additionally, stats have been developed to include context, and apply value to things like sac flies in close games, etc.... stats like WPA are the kind of 'counting' stat that actually measure what each person did to make his team more likely to win a game.

"Yet the still mightly few, back him up" - Philsin06

by Shore on Oct 10, 2006 10:26 AM EDT up 0 recs

Great post

Shane,

Good post, succint and to the point. You're explination was good and help me understand the difference between the counting versus the meaningful stats.

I agree with pretty much everything you said and I would just add I like slugging percentage in that it shows how much you're hitting, unlike batting average which simply shows how often you're hitting. I think the best stat is SLG + OBP because that gives you a great thumbnail view of how a hitter is doing--its the hitting version of WHIP.

xats

by xatsman on Oct 10, 2006 10:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

Mythbusters

Shore - great article.

Will this be part of a mythbusters series of articles? It would be a great idea to test out the perceived strenghts and weaknesses of the team in a "Mythbusters" (one of my favorite shows) format.

by PhoenixPhilly on Oct 6, 2006 6:03 PM EDT 0 recs

Thanks, PhoenixPhilly

Yes, that was my intent... to start a "Hit or Myth" series.

Fielding ideas for the next one as of... now.

"Yet the still mightly few, back him up" - Philsin06

by Shore on Oct 6, 2006 6:24 PM EDT up 0 recs

Need more runs!

I understand that a player isn't going to succeed every chance with a runner in scoring position, but the Phils allowed it to happen way too often. This offense finished #1 in runs, but if they improve on situational hitting they would have become a prolific offense and scored more and therefore secured a playoff spot. Need more runs!

by Carson on Oct 7, 2006 8:00 AM EDT 0 recs

Well, actually....

"I understand that a player isn't going to succeed every chance with a runner in scoring position, but the Phils allowed it to happen way too often. "

They didn't allow it to happen way too often. Only 4 teams in the league allowed it to happen LESS often... they were the 5th-best team in the league in knocking in their own baserunners. 5th-best, out of 16.

The point of this article, if I didn't make it clear enough yet - is that the record shows that the Phillies did NOT do a poor job of scoring their baserunners; in fact, they did a VERY GOOD job. Despite the constant belly-aching by fans and media both, they were very good at converting baserunners into runs, AND very good at getting those runners in the first place. Which is how you lead the league in runs scored.

"Yet the still mightly few, back him up" - Philsin06

by Shore on Oct 7, 2006 10:08 AM EDT up 0 recs

Thank you!

Shore,

Thanks for this article! I loved it. It was crystal clear and to the point.

It's astonishing, though, that some folks cannot read this and understand - or maybe "will not" is more accurate.

On the methodology, though. Is there some way to work "runners reaching base on error" into the "baserunners" count? I don't think it would make much difference, overall, and I don't know that the data is available, but I did note that this piece seems to be excluded.

"Luck is the residue of design." -- Branch Rickey

by logos on Oct 7, 2006 9:43 AM EDT 0 recs

Thanks, Logos

I didn't have the "Reached on Error" numbers handy... I'll look around, and if/when I find them, I'll post an update. Good idea!

"Yet the still mightly few, back him up" - Philsin06

by Shore on Oct 7, 2006 9:57 AM EDT up 0 recs

Reach on Error

I haven't found actual "Reached on Error" data yet - the closest I've found is Opponents Fielding, which includes each team's opponents' error count... a decent approximation, but certainly not exact. For example, a bad throw by a catcher on a SB attempt counts as an error, but it's not a "reached on error".

Regardless, adding in these numbers - which vary from 85 times for the Reds to 129 times for the Cubs - does very little to the overall order. Each team strands about 2% more runners; the extremes are the same - Atlanta and New York stranded very few, Pittsburgh very many, and no one else moved more than a slot or two. Colorado 'fell' 2 spots, making the Phillies the 4th-best team at driving in their runners, with the new data.

If I can locate the actual values, I'll update the table.

"Yet the still mightly few, back him up" - Philsin06

by Shore on Oct 9, 2006 2:34 PM EDT up 0 recs

Great job Shore...

A myth busters series is a very fun idea...this was a good first one since we did hear this endlessly this season from fans, media, the coaches etc.

I would suggest we send this to the Phillies cc'ing the media heads and see if it has any effect...I doubt it will, but at least they cannot claim to be ignorant on the subject again...

As we can see on this thread, the rotting stench of "too many strikeouts" once more has reared its head so perhaps an myth busting analysis of that could be next (with some existing data from philliesphans) OR

One I would love to see is the impact of a manager's decisions (pulling starters, PH choices, inserting relievers, double switches etc.) on wins during a season...

I realize this is very difficult, but this is another endless refrain I am sick of. My brain and gut tell me this is a myth and that players performance determines most of the win/loss record for teams, but I do not know how to go about proving it...the Manuel-haters state he cost them 5-6 games this year, but of course have no evidence to prove that claim either...

P.S. This has nothing to do with defending Manuel who I think is mediocre and simply the latest in a long line of bad Phillies management decisions, but more to do with analyzing the manager's role on a team and impact of that role.

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 7, 2006 11:27 AM EDT 0 recs

"manager's decision"

VfK, always good to see you here. And I usually know it's you even before reading to the end, from the graf-ending ellipses... ;)

I'm with you that a quantitative evaluation of managerial decisions would be fantastic, but I'm not sure how you even structure such a study. You can go by outcomes, I guess--whether the team wins or loses--and work backwards. Maybe there's a way to do it with WPA. But the problem, it seems to me, would be that in every case, you'd have to posit that there's a "right decision" based on many different criteria (e.g. career matchup numbers, platoon splits for various players involved in the decision, maybe even how the guy has been playing recently, and the same for all the other possible choices)--and then check to see how often Manuel, or whatever manager you're evaluating, made that right decision. That's a hell of a lot of work, and you'd still never be sure that you captured all the variables.

To me, a very rough measure of managerial effectiveness, at least as an in-game tactician, is record in one-run games and extra-inning games. In both cases, IIRC, the Phils have under-performed their overall record since Charlie took over, so you can make an in-game case against him accordingly. But then, of course, you have to ponder the less easily quantifiable stuff, like his "clubhouse skills"... it's just really freakin' hard, is my long-winded point. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

by dajafi on Oct 7, 2006 3:16 PM EDT up 0 recs

Thanks Dajafi...

for the compliment, I am glad this place exists and has thrived...

I agree it is very difficult to do, but figured there are a lot of smart people on here and that someone might have a way...

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 7, 2006 8:53 PM EDT up 0 recs

Salut

Nice work again, Shore.

Look, the Phillies are certainly a (deeply) flawed team, but problems with the offense at this point (outside of 3rd base and the Rowand/Victorino dilemma) are mostly nitpicking.

by WholeCamels on Oct 7, 2006 7:05 PM EDT 0 recs

re

thank you, thank you, thank you

http://hugetinymistake.wordpress.com/

by pacino on Oct 7, 2006 9:56 PM EDT 0 recs

Re: Hit or Myth: Too Many Runners Left On

Excellent analysis, Shore.

When you focus on one team, it's easy for fans to dwell on perceived flaws and weaknesses. Now we can see without question, that our "biggest weakness" was actually a strength in 06.

Also wanted to say great job to all of the contribute to this blog. The articles are always excellent!

by Phight On on Oct 9, 2006 12:41 AM EDT 0 recs

I don't know what's better

The analysis or the name. Wait, definitely, definitely the analysis.

Seriously, kick-ass stuff. Why am I not shocked that the Pirates were horrible at getting runners home?

Can't wait for Episode 2.

by DanT on Oct 9, 2006 10:14 AM EDT 0 recs

Did Philsin06 get banned?

I saw a thread posted on philaphans by a poster named PhillyRocks absolutely bashing this blog...sounded sort of like 06 to me and he said he got banned because he said Soriano was better than Burrell...just a heads up to the community.

http://www.philaphans.com/forums/showthread.php?s=c9e4c5bf466dcc5fd3618d1658910c33&threadid=4678 8

My apologies to 06 if this is a case of mistaken identity.

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 9, 2006 7:45 PM EDT 0 recs

Yes he was...

I banned Philsin06. I don't want to ban anybody, but his posts were constantly a detriment to the talk we want to have here. I love opposing points of view as long as they are well thought out and comprehendible. However, his posts were bordering on trolling and taking discussion way off topic. He was warned and his it appeared that his only contribution here was to cause trouble and not to discuss or add anything of substance.

After a while, all it does is sully up the discussion threads. It is a shame, because we want to show differing viewpoints (and to discredit them as well), but we also want this to stay as high quality as we can. Let me reiterate that we are not keeping opposing voices down. We just don't want those voices to overwhelm this site and bring down the discussion we have here.

by jonk on Oct 10, 2006 12:51 AM EDT up 0 recs

I understand Jonk...

No need to explain to me, I saw plenty of his act and agree he was here mostly to stir the pot and did not show much interest in really discussing issues, but more in just jamming his opinions down people's throats and then repeating it without evidence whenever challenged.

I also believe strongly in getting rid of people like that as soon as possible. Many argue trolls like him create more discussion and that is good, but I believe in quality over quantity and negative attacks/insults are not the type discussion that helps anyone IMO. I, for one, thank you for taking this action.

As his actions since show, I do not think we are going to miss him.

by Vote for Kalas on Oct 10, 2006 8:50 AM EDT up 0 recs

a long time coming

Just to reiterate, this decision wasn't taken lightly or quickly. The debate whether or not to ban 06 went on for probably six weeks at least. As jonk wrote, this wasn't about him disagreeing with us; hell, we disagree with each other. (For example, I think jonk has a man-crush on Wade.)

It was about him being so invincible in his ignorance, and arrogant in his dismissal of others' views, that his "contributions" made the conversation worse for everybody. His thus-far unique combination of stupid, obnoxious, and persistent was what decided this one.

by dajafi on Oct 10, 2006 1:04 PM EDT up 0 recs

Thanks guys!

It was getting really, really annoying. You couldn't even post a diary or a comment without coming back two hours later and seeing 40 comments, 30 of which were from him, all about how much Abreu (or Burrell) sucks and how none of us "watch the games" and such.

It's been much nicer being able to actually talk about the subjects in the stories.

by DanT on Oct 10, 2006 3:09 PM EDT up 0 recs

re: Did Philsin06 get banned?

That is him. He is also on the Phillies.com board (under username rebuildingphils) whining about supposedly being banned from this site

by HowardForeskin on Oct 9, 2006 8:10 PM EDT 0 recs

Charlie Manual - how good/bad is he?

Hi Shore,

A very enlightening column. I always appreciate when statistics and math can show a public fallacy.

One of the comments was how to calculate how many games Charlie won or lost for us. Now it's impossible to know how many he helped us win with his clubhouse demeanor, but seems to me that the Pythagorean theory is a good test to see how well a manager did. By my math (865 runs scored and 812 given up), the team should have won 86.1 games. They actually won 85, certainly within the margin of error.

So, bottom line is I think Charlie did an average job as a field manager, although I, like others, question specific moves.

By the way, I did the same thing for Detroit and everyone's favorite non Phillies manager - Leyland. They scored 822 and gave up 675. This calculates to 97 wins, and the team actually won 95. Again, in the margin of error, but not an indicator of an extraordinary improvement of what they should have done.

Question: does this make sense? Or am I off on the idea of Pythagorean theory as the indicator of a manager?

Thanks

by Lynx on Oct 11, 2006 9:12 PM EDT 0 recs

Thanks, Lynx

I definitely think the Pythagorean win estimates can help in the evaluation of a manager... for example, if a team "should" have won 90, and won only 86, there are dozens of possible reasons: bad luck, poor lineup design, a weak late-inning bullpen, bad managerial decisions, poor run distribution (score 10, then 1 then 1), etc. Certainly, a manager can help with some of those - most notably, the lineup construction, and bullpen roles and usage patterns. But, a weak pen overall is a GM failing, not a field manager, and can 'skew' the Pythag numbers, if an inordinate number of runners score in the late innings of close games.

One of the things Bill James' books used to have were manager profiles - this many SB attempts, that many Sacs, this many times with the platoon advantage, this many quick hooks, etc. They painted a pretty decent picture a manager's abilities, without boiling it down to a single number.

Anyway, thanks again, and I'll keep looking for some ways to evaluate game management.

by Shore on Oct 11, 2006 10:09 PM EDT up 0 recs