Diamondbacks Bullpen

[stu]

You remind me of my stockbroker. He is always able to telll me what the market did after it does it. This is not much help for planning the future. If a fast runner leads to improved performance behind him, the rates of the second hitter with a man on 1b should remain the same. That Law had a bad year should not influence it if your theory is right. I guess the theory is that if everyone has a good year, they will have a good year.

I don't understand the other link. If you are saying Coleman hit behind Smith that year, he only had 89 ab's, not enought to form any conclusion and I don't feel like going to retrosheet to disprove an unstated theory.

I will note that the fact you have to go back 20+ years to find examples does not speak well even for anecdotal evidence.

[Dangerfield]

I could go on and on, on it. I could actually show Uggla this year, and Iguchi year before.. I could tell you how, sizemore in St Louis, batted second, and primary job was to get some guy over to third. Campaneris same deal with another team. I could go on and on about the stolen base and the body punches of small ball....baserunning/stealing....but like I said, its me Joe Morgan and Whitey.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

[levski]

And then, this one time, at band camp...

[/random post in dangerfield mode]

[stu]

I quoted The Book before that their comprehensive study found that fast (based on taking the extra base on hits) disruptive (based on steal attempts per opportunity) had a negative impact on batters. Batters lose between 10-14 wOBA (weighted on base average-sort of a complex OPS with 330 being around average) point with a fast disruputive runner on. Some examples:

With Ricky Henderson batters lost 26 points over their normal overall average. Added to the normal 14 points a batter usually adds for a man on first you have a net loss of around 40 points. Dave Roberts was minus 37, Tony Womack minus 18, Soriano minus 60 (all not including the loss of the normal advanatge). Reggie Sanders, Carlos Beltran, Brian Lee Hunter, Roger Cedano, Rafael Furcal and Johnny Damon were the only net positives out of 21 runners so identified.

[shoewizard]

Dang Stu, thats good stuff. Remind me never to haggle with you over defensive metrics

Seriously, I agree with you on this. However I do wonder if part of the reason that the players batting behind those base stealers wOBA is lower is because of a greater tendency to hit a groundball out attempting to "advance the runner". It seems likely on those types of teams that utilize the stolen base much more, are more likely to have the hitters behind him just trying to make contact.

Of course that would lower wOBA, and it is highly doubtful whatever nominal "linear weight" gain there might be between an out that advances a runner vs. an out that does not, could be made up for by the extra base advanced by the runner.

Net Negative.

Stolen bases are a useful weapon when used at the right time, judiciously. It takes a wise manager and smart players to recognize those moments. The element of surprise is always paramount to the in game management, and game theory.

It is the overuse of this weapon that renders it useless.

[stu]

Those are good points. It is difficult to isolate single factors in baseball and I think sabr types get carried away with their own research. I know Bill James did when he started and he has admitted as much in his "Fog" article.

I especially agree that too many teams put a "contact" punch and Judy hitter in the second hole. This should be the spot for one of your best hitters, not one of your worst. Successful teams are beginning to recognize this.

Just because the disruptive base runner doesn't work on the average doesn't mean, it is not a good strategy depending on your personnel. In the old days most hitter did not want to hit behind a base stealer. It was distracting for them. IIRC, Ted Williams told the guys who got on first to just stand there and not bother him.

I don't see Byrnes as being a great base stealer of the Morgan, Wills ilk and his OBP last year would disqualify him from leading off IMO. His lifetime OBP is not that bad. I'd like better from the lead off guy and more patience, but we don't have great options.

[shoewizard]

I honestly think that if Orlando Hudson is truly capable of reproducing last years OBP, I'd give him the job.

His OBP last year was .354, and was of course a career high. His previous high was .341, and for his career he is .335. So it may be optimistic, but it does appear that he reached a new level last year.
He is a better bet to reach that again than his "Marcels" or whatever would indicate.

I would give him a couple of months in the leadoff spot, and if he is over .350, I would just leave him there.

He is not a big base stealer, but he is fast, and can motor around the bases when Drew and Jackson and Tracy and Quentin , and Byrnes and Hairston, and all of them are hitting all their doubles. I think that makes him a good "Compromise"

[EvilJuan]

[dirtygary]

[levski]

[Counsell]

I agree with Shoewizard. There is no simple answer.

If the basestealing player batting in front has the main goal of stealing bases - like Henderson or Brock - then that player will hurt the next hitter's production. The same result is obtained when the 2nd hitter's goal is to move runners, rather than hit for power.

On the other hand, if the player batting in front is an excellent base-stealer BUT steals only judiciously, and who actually has a goal of trying to cause good pitches to be thrown to the hitter behind him, then he will obviously help the 2nd hitter.

And then there are all kinds of "in-between" situations. What makes it especially difficult in choosing past statistical examples, is that we really don't know for sure what was in the mind-set of the given players or their managers.

[Dangerfield]

since, I'm eminently qualified, on this, I'll play the role of Whitey. My questioner and soon executioner will be a guy named D.
D: Why did all your teams like to run. Why did you target players, that could run? And furthermore, isn't running, like pissing wind, and is in fact not the reason your teams were so successful scoring? When you it even out, weren't you actually taking away as many runs as you were creating?

W: That's alot of questions, what was the first one again?

D: Small ball sucks balls doesn't it?

W: You talking about my wife...pal....

D: No, I mean, sabremetrically speaking, stealing bases, hit and running, is actually more of a hindrance to an offense, than say a walk and homer? In fact, a speedy runner on first actually causes most players average to drop doesn't it. DOESN'T IT?

W: Sabremetric? What does getting gas in Europe have to do with baserunning?

D: Listen, its liters in Europe, not gallons.

W: Stop, I'm from Oklahoma, and we speak Okie, you say anything else about gal-ons and suck balls and its on...

D: Okay, so why did your teams base steal, and hit/run so much?

W: Well, it was just fun. Its a 162 game season, and all the baserunning/bunting/small ball would smooth out the production of the 3 run blast. You know the bats can go quiet for stretches, and teams can go flat, too. My teams did, but when we did, the guys still had the green light to go out and create as much havoc as possible. I just always figured in a simple kind of way, small ball builds team unity and fun, and keeps everyone in the game. When we showed up, teams that were rolling, or leading against us always knew, they were still in for a headache. If Hurdle ever gets the personnel to do it, watch out for the Rocks.
_________________
My wife is always trying to get rid of me. The other day she told me to put the garbage out. I said to her I already did. She told me to go and keep an eye on it

[shoewizard]

I actually enjoyed that, creative and funny, and yet still a somewhat Lucid point at the end. (I think the trick is to catch you in the mornings, LOL )

I get the part about it being fun, and keeping everyone involved, and trying to compensate when the offense is flat. Of course sometimes the offense goes flat as a result of ill advised risk taking that doesn't really work out.

If you don't have the personnel that can hit enough, I guess you have to try to make up for it somehow. But don't be misled by the apparent lack of a big homerun hitter or supposed cleanup hitter...

This team will probably set a franchise record for doubles and triples in 2007. (Last years 331 was the franchise doubles record, the triples record was 47 set in 2003)

I think they'll hit more total homers than last year, (160) and overall, the offense will better no matter what.

Green, Counsell, and Gonzo were just not good enough at the plate last year. Replacing them with Quentin, Drew and Young will boost offense alot whether they run or not.

[qudjy1]

I think tracy is going to be better this year as well with the bat. I have heard they are really concentrating on not being pull happy...

[stu]

Of course sometimes the offense goes flat as a result of ill advised risk taking that doesn't really work out.

This is a good point. I think it is somehwat related to OBP. The Hard Ball Times article on the Ozzie Cardinals made the point that they lead the league in OBP the years they were succesful. If you are going to get some more runners on you can be more agressive.

The article also made the point that the Cardinals did not take the extra that much. One thing that is overlooked in base running is the type of hit in front of the runner.

All singles are not created equal. A deep single by a pwoer hitter who has the outfield playing back is going to advance any runner who can beat Johnny Estrada in a 30 yard "dash". A a sharp liner that just drops in by a weak hitting shortstop is not going to advance even Ricky Henderson.

While those Cardinal teams were fast, they had a lot of punch and Judy hitters. This would another reason to try steals because a single by these type hitters might not get the guy to third.

[stu]

BTW, Bill James Handbook has Hudson as a plus 11 base runner. Byrnes as +10. These numbers do not take steals and cs into account.

[shoewizard]

While those Cardinal teams were fast, they had a lot of punch and Judy hitters. This would another reason to try steals because a single by these type hitters might not get the guy to third.

Thats more or less what I was getting at with my comment about doubles and triples.

Side note:

I remember Nick writing that the D backs were considering "rounding off" the corners at Chase field to allow for balls to carom out towards the fielders more, which would cut down on triples and doubles somewhat.

I wonder if they went ahead with that. Although the need may have exisited with the slower outfielders the team had last year, the personnell they have now is likely to benefit more than their oponents from previous Chase Field dimensions. .....as they will be faster and better able to dig those balls out of the corners than the visiting teams would, and also we would expect our faster younger players to be able to take advantage of the corners when hitting and running as well.

However, overall....anything they can do to make Chase field a more neutral run environment is probably going to be better. Less wear and tear on the pitching staff in the long run, allowing for them to be stronger down the stretch or in the playoffs.

One need only look at This page to see that teams that make it all the way to world series usually don't come from Hitters parks. There are exceptions, but not many. It took the total and utter dominance of RJ and Schilling in 2001 to get a team playing in a park like Chase Field to the World Series, and you can't count on that happening more than once a generation. The White sox got there playing in a hitters park too. But for the most part, over the last 20 years, the teams that make it to the Big Dance are coming from stadiums that are more or less neutral or pitcher friendly.

[stu]

Good point on the hitter/pitcher parks. A skewed hitters parks takes alot of the staff and carries over on the road as well. As shoe notes, Schilling and RJ ate innings on a high level no matter what the park in 2001, but there are not many of those pitchers around. With a hitters environment, you are going to your 10, 11 and 12 pitchers a lot and there are not many good ones of those either.

The problem with Chase is not the configuation (and shoe didn't say it was), but the altitude of Phoenix. I am pretty sure (I talked with some people while the park was being designed) that the park was meant to be neutral with some skewing to home runs in the bleachers, but I don't think the ultimate decison makers fully appreciated the effect of altitude.

To make Chase neutral, you reall need to configure it as a severe pitcher's park. The corners are a good idea. Other things are counter to attendance. More foul ground. Move back the fences. Fewer seats and further away from the action. I'm told the designers suggested these things for Coors (they knew it was going be arena ball baseball), but werer rejected.

[Dangerfield]

[foulpole]

[shoewizard]

Just to follow up with some data, Since 1995, (Post Strike) the accumultaive average pitching park factor for the 24 world series teams is 98.2. The mean is also 98

There are only 6 teams above 101

There are 15 teams below 99

As Stu points out, Altitude is a major factor at Chase Field as well. So is the Dryness.


BRING ON THE HUMIDOR

[foulpole]

[stu]

Estrada -12
Jackson -8
Counsel +7
Snyder -14
Tracy +3
LuGo+12
Davanon +4
Green -3
Quentin -3 (small sample one doubled off and one base running out which is trying to advance of a pb, wp of sac fly)
Drew +5

[foulpole]

[shoewizard]