Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Baseball season, kids! That was summer in the air this afternoon! Feel the excitement! Catch the taste!

I am far more energized by the prospect than a man of my years and dignity ought to be, and there's a real danger of me hurting myself. I can't quite figure out why - it's certainly not this year's edition of the hometown team. Here at the Box we've been sorting out some sort of semi-organized Division of Labour, with something resembling a plan. I myself have undertaken to produce, for your viewing pleasure, a piece to appear every Monday that will (or will not, depending on how the mood strikes me) look at the week ahead (or the week behind, or the infield fly rule, or whatever.)

So eager am (let's see how long this lasts - I am older than dirt, after all) - that our inaugural installment appears now, a day early!

I do have an ulterior motive. I find myself suddenly beavering away at no less than three unrelated Large Pieces of Research/Investigations/Bits of Gossip (as well as poking around the edges of the next installments of the Lobby of Numbers.) There's a piece of research I did on the Use of the Relief Ace, which basically simply needs to be converted from spreadsheet to text - it was really just an exercise in assembling information. Just a bunch of formatting, and it's done. There is to be, at long last, another edition of The Year in Review - we'll be going over 1951 this time (which means I'm getting uncomfortably close to a period when I was actually walking the earth. Was I actually walking during the 1950s? I may have been, near the end, there.)

And, finally, the topic closest to my heart, and the one that brings me forth to call on you today.

One-Run Games. What else?

See, I'm doing this study on One-Run Games, covering the period from the Dawn of Time to the present day. And something came up. It seems quite natural to me that there would be a relationship between the number of runs being scored per game and the number of one-run games in a season. So I'd like to track that relationship and present it in a form even I can grasp at a glance - in other words, a graphic.

My ambition here is savagely constrained by my somewhat limited Excel skills - I can barely manage the production of one kind of graph, a line graph like the ones I have utilized from time to time. Such a thing should actually be sufficient to suit my purpose.

But here's where it gets complicated. The relationship between scoring and one-run games is likely to be an inverse relationship - as one rises, the other falls. The graphic won't show two lines moving together in harmony, which is what the actual import ought to be.

Well, that's addressed easily enough. We track the the number of runs per game along with the number of games decided by more than one run. It's the same principle, and while it does seem a bit ass-backward, it'll get the job done and convey the point. But there's still a problem: one of my lines is moving between a range of, oh 3.5 to 7.0 - while the other line is moving in percentages of 1 - from maybe .45. to .80

Like this, which is pretty darn useless, if you ask me:



So here's my solution. I will set a baseline for each of the numbers I'm tracking. I'll use the historical average of runs per game since 1893 (4.7) and the historical percentage of games decided by more than one run (it's .696 - since the dawn of time, just over 30% of all baseball games have been one run games.) So 4.7 and .696 are my two baselines, each represents 1.00, and my yearly figures for both categories are presented as a percentage of that baseline figure. And that gives us:



Now this, I hope, is useful - you can see the actual movement between the two sets of numbers (which during this period aren't linked nearly as closely as one might expect, but more anon.)

Anyway, my question to one and all - does all this make sense? Can it be followed by anyone not caught up in whatever madness now possesses me? Is there another way? One within my limited skill set?

Now, as for the week ahead..

PLAY BALL!


TDIB Monday: The Week Ahead | 11 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Dewey - Sunday, April 04 2010 @ 07:26 PM EDT (#213075) #
Magpie, don't panic.  This is known elsewhere as a mid-life crisis.  But you'll be O.K.; and we get to wrestle with your data tables.  And I can hardly wait to see your 1951.  I was there!  And with attitude, dude.  Don't  fuss, now.  You'll be O.K.
dan gordon - Sunday, April 04 2010 @ 08:40 PM EDT (#213082) #

I would have just taken the bottom line from your first chart, the "pct 2+ run games" and multipled the data by say, 6.  That would give you a line that would be roughly at the same level on the chart as the ave runs per game line.

Interesting to see the relationship in a graph.  Thanks for taking the time to do it.  Of course, intellectually, you know the relationship has to exist.  The fewer the runs being scored, the more likely a game will be a 1-run game.  The percentage of basketball games decided by 1 point would be very very small, whereas the percentage of soccer games decided by 1 goal would be very very high, particularly if you take out tied games.

I remember an interesting comment by Bill James in one of his early versions of the Abstract.  He mentioned the old saying that "good teams win the close games", and pointed out that the truth is just the opposite.  The good teams win the blowouts.  One run games are much more evenly divided.  If you think about it, of course it makes sense.  You get a really good team playing a weak team and you are going to get blowouts.  The talent just overwhelms them.  A 1 run game is more likely to be decided by random events or luck which could go either way.  It helps to know that when picking closers for baseball pools.  Some people will stay away from closers on weaker teams, but the weaker teams will win almost as many close games (where a save is needed) as good teams.  What they don't win are the blowouts, where there usually is no save.

JohnL - Sunday, April 04 2010 @ 09:46 PM EDT (#213085) #
Magpie:

It's pretty easy to do 2 scales in Excel. (Mind you, I'm working in Excel 2007, I don't remember if the steps in older versions were slightly different).

After creating your graph, right click on the data line that isn't reflected in the scale on the left (e.g, your percentage of 1 run games). Choose "Format Data Series", and then in the dialogue box select "Secondary Axis". Boom, you'll now have an appropriate axis to reflect the range for that series. You can format either axis as usual, and can move your legend around.

But then, look for "Axis Title". In Excel 2007, it's a drop-down under "Layout". You can then create your title in whatever format you want.  I did up a tiny, dummy excel sheet. I obviously didn't spend any time making it look good (or making the data meaningful, except to keep within the limits you'd mentioned):

Magpie - Sunday, April 04 2010 @ 10:18 PM EDT (#213088) #
Wow!

Now let's see if I can manage it!

JohnL - Sunday, April 04 2010 @ 10:24 PM EDT (#213090) #
Look forward to your next chart...
robertdudek - Monday, April 05 2010 @ 08:10 AM EDT (#213097) #
You can also convert the data to standard deviations above/below the mean and plot both sets on the same graph.
Gerry - Monday, April 05 2010 @ 02:08 PM EDT (#213113) #

John Lott in the National Post had a good story on Travis Snider last Saturday.

Back in January, Travis Snider and Dwayne Murphy sat down for a chat about the season of Snider's discontent. Before Murphy had a chance to broach the subject, Snider admitted he had acted like a jerk.

"The best thing was that he brought it up," recalled Murphy, the Toronto Blue Jays hitting coach. "I was going to get to it, but he brought it up. That was a big step for him. A lot of players will never 'fess up to the things they need to."

 

 

Gerry - Monday, April 05 2010 @ 02:11 PM EDT (#213114) #

Jeremy Sandler, also in the Post, makes the case for trading Aaron Hill.

But as a major league scouting director pointed out, the best trio of pitching prospects in team history -- Halladay, Chris Carpenter and Kelvim Escobar -- each took time becoming reliable big leaguers.

"There's a learning curve," he said. "So whenever those kids get there, it takes them two or three years to get their feet on the ground in the big leagues."

Assuming a best-case development scenario for each, and none of the inevitable setbacks or injuries, it will be 2013 at the earliest before they would be ready to compete for the division.

By then Hill will be 31 and either trending down or heading toward his next big contract.

John Northey - Monday, April 05 2010 @ 02:48 PM EDT (#213115) #
Hill should only be traded if the Jays got some (ie: more than one) A1 prospects back. Hitters ideally. Hill is signed to a very good contract with tons of team flexibility, is currently at an all-star level on defense and offense, and has shown he can play at 2B/3B and in a pinch SS. It should be a case where someone comes to AA and gives him a deal he cannot refuse (some team stocked in prospects but near contention with a big hole at 2B or 3B - does anyone fit that?)
Gerry - Monday, April 05 2010 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#213116) #
Is this the old Vernon, or a tease?
stevieboy22 - Monday, April 05 2010 @ 09:10 PM EDT (#213140) #

Hill should only be traded if the Jays got some (ie: more than one) A1 prospects back. Hitters ideally. Hill is signed to a very good contract with tons of team flexibility, is currently at an all-star level on defense and offense, and has shown he can play at 2B/3B and in a pinch SS. It should be a case where someone comes to AA and gives him a deal he cannot refuse (some team stocked in prospects but near contention with a big hole at 2B or 3B - does anyone fit that?)

This leads to a major problem with the Toronto sports market. Even if the Jays we're made an offer they would be stupid to reject, I can't see this market accepting it. We would never hear the end of "players just dont want to play in Toronto," or "Rogers isn't commited to winning." But I guess we already never hear the end of that.

I think Sandler makes an excellent point, if they Jays aren't going to be competitive for another 4 years, then trading Hill probably does make sense. But I don't agree with the premise pitchers need 3 years to land on their feet. And even if they do Romero/Litsch/Marcum/McGowan/Cecil/Rzepcynski/Richmond/Purcey/Hill are all well into that 3 year process.

TDIB Monday: The Week Ahead | 11 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.