Craig wrote an interesting piece on the slowest runners around. It's a good read and the kinds of things that sabermetrics should be about, but often is not.
The question there is for Tango, not for Craig, right?
Yes.
Craig's piece is a fun read and that's enough for me. But I think it's essentially doing what sabermetrics was doing 25 years ago - trying to figure out something that would actually be quite easy to answer if the actual data were not being withheld.
It's a little like who the biggest players are. It's easy enough to measure. If you want to know who the slowest players are, line 'em up, have them run, and time them. The teams know exactly how fast their players are. They're not sharing the details with the rest of us (and why would they, really), so things like Speed Scores are necessary to try to figure it out. The same way Bill James used to peer at box scores to try to figure out which pitchers were easy to run on..
Craig's piece is a fun read and that's enough for me. But I think it's essentially doing what sabermetrics was doing 25 years ago - trying to figure out something that would actually be quite easy to answer if the actual data were not being withheld.
It's a little like who the biggest players are. It's easy enough to measure. If you want to know who the slowest players are, line 'em up, have them run, and time them. The teams know exactly how fast their players are. They're not sharing the details with the rest of us (and why would they, really), so things like Speed Scores are necessary to try to figure it out. The same way Bill James used to peer at box scores to try to figure out which pitchers were easy to run on..
No, Magpie, the data is not being "withheld". There is no cabal. :)
We don't have the data. No one collects stopwatch times on major leaguers - advance scouts might do so from time to time on rookies, for example, but otherwise we just don't know. Part of what I am suggesting here is, why not?
The Fans' Scouting Report is one attempt at trying to get to the core of the players... their tools and skills. Their batting stats are the manifestation of those tools and skills (and smarts and luck).
In order to try to cut through all the noise of samples, it is extremely important to know the tools and skills of the players. If for example we have two players, each with 20 SB and 5 CS, and 100 times on first base, it would be hard for you to tell which one is the better or faster basestealer.
But, if I tell you that one guy has a speed score of 85 (on a scale of 0 to 100, where average is 50, and 1 SD = 20), and the other is a 60, then you have a different mean to regress these two players to.
Where absent this information you would have to regress these two players the same way, now, you don't. The 20/5 guy gets regressed to the performance level of "85" speedsters, which could very well be 22/3, meaning that the 20/5 guy might actually be better than his stats shows.
The other 20/5 guy gets regressed to other players at the "60" level, which could be 15/6, and therefore, this 20/5 guy is *likely* (though not certainly) a worse runner than his stats shows.
If we had more information, about his baserunning intelligence (somelike like Tim Raines, maybe?), that would also go into the equation.
The entire reason to get the tools and skills data is so that we have a more representative population to which we want to regress the performance of our players.
Yuniesky Betancourt, he of only 50 games in MLB, regardless of what UZR, PMR, Fielding Bible, etc, thinks, is almost certainly one of the best fielding players in all of baseball. We know this, because the fans think this, and the fans generally do a good job in capturing this.
I've read professional scouting reports on Betancourt, and let me tell you something: the scouts are severely overworked, as some of them didn't think he was all that hot. Same with Francoeur, where a scout said his arm wasn't all that hot.
As I've said many times: the pinnacle of sabermetrics is the convergence of scouting observations and performance results.
Grade school question
If a Bengie Molina leaves first base travelling at 16 kilometres per hour, and, at the same time, a Russ Adams leaves home plate travelling at 28 kilometres per hour, at what point would the two objects collide?
Tempted as I am to say that Russ can't hit a ball that far so the point is academic, the answer is a little less than halfway down the third base line, assuming Bengie had a reasonable lead and Russ is in the left-side batter's box.
Gerry's velocities translate to 14.6 ft/s for Ben and 25.5 ft/s for Russ. Making the rather large assumption that both run at constant speed, Russ with catch Ben one third of the way to 3rd base. It will take 8.2 seconds for them to get there.
Wasn't there a team that used to put up the 1b running time of the players? Partially as an effort to shame them into running out routine ground outs and pop ups.
It seems to me that if people are interested in radar gun numbers (and they clearly are) then some would also be interested in time up the 1b line and that would be a useful thing to put in a corner of a scoreboard.
It seems to me that if people are interested in radar gun numbers (and they clearly are) then some would also be interested in time up the 1b line and that would be a useful thing to put in a corner of a scoreboard.
A good way of measuring a player's straight line speed is to have them all run a 40 yard dash like the NFL uses in their rookie combine. This maybe a bit senseless for a baseball team but the results would be interesting.
I notice that Mike Jacobs made the list for lowest speed scores last year (100+AB).
It surprised me last night to see that he stole second and third base in a game against the Padres. Now I'm wondering if I should be really surprised, whether he has some legit legs (and those speed scores aren't indicative of them), or he was just delighted to exploit the handicap of Piazza being behind the dish and a lefty on the mound in Chris Young.
Stealing second and third consecutively usually requires a good speedster. I hadn't known Jacobs had it in him and now I really wonder.
It surprised me last night to see that he stole second and third base in a game against the Padres. Now I'm wondering if I should be really surprised, whether he has some legit legs (and those speed scores aren't indicative of them), or he was just delighted to exploit the handicap of Piazza being behind the dish and a lefty on the mound in Chris Young.
Stealing second and third consecutively usually requires a good speedster. I hadn't known Jacobs had it in him and now I really wonder.
There is some explanation in this story:
After walking to lead off the second inning Wednesday, Jacobs went on a hit-and-run with Willingham hitting.I'll still find it funny if those are the only swiped bags he makes all year.When the ball wasn't put in play, Jacobs ended up beating catcher Mike Piazza's throw for his first career stolen base. During that inning, Jacobs then stole third base when he wasn't being held close and Vinny Castilla was playing back at third.
Jacobs' second steal was a heads-up play because the Padres gave him so much room.
Anyone with a Tivo/PVR can conpare how fast the players are with a stopwatch from home. With the advent of the PVR-type technology, there should be quite a few people able to do this (my internet and radio are woefully inadequate though). In the past, one would have to prepare to time on every pitch, which is far too much work to expect it to be done by a casual fan. But now? just rewind and times plays during commmercials. The key is to select the times during a game when you can be reasonably sure that a player is running hard to first, and time it from contact to first base. Repeat the measurements whenever made possible by the game situation and camera angle. Timing inaccuracies wouldn't matter too much in the long haul.
When could someone be reasonably sure that a player is running hard? I propose the following situations where almost all players will run hard:
When could someone be reasonably sure that a player is running hard? I propose the following situations where almost all players will run hard:
- Potential double play grounders. Most players run hard to avoid them, and the cameras always show the play at the bag.
- Tough infield plays, like in the SS-3B hole. Potential cheap hit = players run hard.
- Possible doubles/triples (Molina the other day springs to mind). Problem: cameras may not show the first base arrival.
- Plus others where it is "obvious" to the observer that a player was running hard and the time would reflect an attempt at top speed.
Just read the article.
There are slower runners than Bengie Molina? Yikes. I like Bengie - he's looking like a great acquisition, especially when a left-handed pitcher tries to throw him a changeup - but, boy, is he slow.
There are slower runners than Bengie Molina? Yikes. I like Bengie - he's looking like a great acquisition, especially when a left-handed pitcher tries to throw him a changeup - but, boy, is he slow.
No one collects stopwatch times on major leaguers - advance scouts might do so from time to time on rookies, for example, but otherwise we just don't know. Part of what I am suggesting here is, why not?
I find that really interesting, because I made an earlier post after that Adams bunt (where Molina was thrown out at third) stating that I felt the entire idea to bunt in that situation was a mistake because Gibbons should know the kind of speed he has in Molina. Magpie replied that there was a difference between knowing how slow Molina is and knowing it. I kind of agreed at the time that there must be some mental adjustment/learning curve when managing those types of players, but at the same time I was still thinking "well surely they time these guys and therefore know it will take them approx. x amount of seconds to get there." Now that you mention it, if they actually took the time to calculate this they might have had enough of a red flag to avoid making a mistake like trying to bunt over a guy who runs like he's wearing cement shoes.