Mike Fast tackles the Hit and Run

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713

More free content from my new favorite baseball analyst.

The O's are at a 3.2% H&R rate from '03-'11. LA Angels are #1 at 6.4%

Baserunner advancement is another obvious consequence of the hit-and-run play. Extra runners caught stealing roughly balanced out the reduction in double plays, leaving about the same number of outs and runners on base on average whether or not a hit-and-run was attempted. However, the runner from first base had a better chance of moving up to second or third base on a hit-and-run play. The drop in extra-base hits that accompanied the hit-and-run slightly decreased the runners? chance of scoring from first base as a result of that plate appearance.

Thus, the advantage for attempting a hit-and-run play during 2003-2011 appears to be about .061 runs on average.

Across nine seasons, a handful of teams have managed to add a total of 30 runs or more by using the hit-and-run play. The average team has added about two runs per season on hit-and-run plays.

This research shows the hit and run is a net gain in runs scored when used early in the count (before 2-1) with hitters not in the 4th or 5th lineup position.

However, 2 runs per season? Is that gain really worth the effort in practicing, coaching, going over signs? Maybe for a team lacking power hitters with speed the gain is more pronounced. But at the end of the day I still prefer a 3 run homer.

This research shows the hit and run is a net gain in runs scored when used early in the count (before 2-1) with hitters not in the 4th or 5th lineup position.

However, 2 runs per season? Is that gain really worth the effort in practicing, coaching, going over signs? Maybe for a team lacking power hitters with speed the gain is more pronounced. But at the end of the day I still prefer a 3 run homer.

Much better payoff teaching your catcher how to properly frame pitches.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15713

More free content from my new favorite baseball analyst.

The O's are at a 3.2% H&R rate from '03-'11. LA Angels are #1 at 6.4%

Unless I missed it, I don't see where this article separates hit-and-run from run-and-hit. They are very different strategies and it seems to me the article is not distinguishing them. It rather seems to gloss over it as a possible insignificant nuance. It's true that Earl Weaver was adamently against the hit-and-run for the reasons noted but the second part of that (not mentioned in the article) was that he was in favor of using the the run-and-hit strategy with good base runners. I suspect separating the two makes the numbers look quite a bit different.

One thing I've noticed between DT and BS. DT ran the hit-and-run more frequently while BS seems to execute the run-and-hit. I think it's improved our baserunning effectiveness.

Unless I missed it, I don't see where this article separates hit-and-run from run-and-hit. They are very different strategies and it seems to me the article is not distinguishing them. It rather seems to gloss over it as a possible insignificant nuance. It's true that Earl Weaver was adamently against the hit-and-run for the reasons noted but the second part of that (not mentioned in the article) was that he was in favor of using the the run-and-hit strategy with good base runners. I suspect separating the two makes the numbers look quite a bit different.

One thing I've noticed between DT and BS. DT ran the hit-and-run more frequently while BS seems to execute the run-and-hit. I think it's improved our baserunning effectiveness.

I've always been kind of iffy on it... what is the run-and-hit?

I've always been kind of iffy on it... what is the run-and-hit?

The run and hit is when it's basically a straight steal and the batter is not obligated to swing at the pitch. The batter swings if it's a good pitch to hit. If not the base stealer is on his own.

The hit and run implies the batter will swing (even when it's not a good pitch to hit) and try and make contact to protect the runner from being thrown out. For example, some managers will play the hit and run to prevent a double play of a slow runner, thereby exposing the runner to being thrown out and/or causing the batter to swing at a poor pitch. That's what Weaver didn't like

The run and hit is when it's basically a straight steal and the batter is not obligated to swing at the pitch. The batter swings if it's a good pitch to hit. If not the base stealer is on his own.

The hit and run implies the batter will swing (even when it's not a good pitch to hit) and try and make contact to protect the runner from being thrown out. For example, some managers will play the hit and run to prevent a double play of a slow runner, thereby exposing the runner to being thrown out and/or causing the batter to swing at a poor pitch. That's what Weaver didn't like

Ok, as opposed to a straight steal where the batter would take even a strike. I thought that was it but wasn't sure.

Ok, as opposed to a straight steal where the batter would take even a strike. I thought that was it but wasn't sure.

People have different opinions about some of the nuances, but that's basically it imo. The runner will be looking for signs of contact (3rd base coach, sound of the bat on the ball etc.) in the run and hit situation versus the straight steal.

People have different opinions about some of the nuances, but that's basically it imo. The runner will be looking for signs of contact (3rd base coach, sound of the bat on the ball etc.) in the run and hit situation versus the straight steal.

"I'm stealing this base unless the batter hits it."

"I'm stealing this base unless the batter hits it."

Right. On the hit and run, the runner will be more hesitant, waiting longer for the pitch to be deleivered and typically looking in at the batter.

Unless I missed it, I don't see where this article separates hit-and-run from run-and-hit. They are very different strategies and it seems to me the article is not distinguishing them. It rather seems to gloss over it as a possible insignificant nuance. It's true that Earl Weaver was adamently against the hit-and-run for the reasons noted but the second part of that (not mentioned in the article) was that he was in favor of using the the run-and-hit strategy with good base runners. I suspect separating the two makes the numbers look quite a bit different.

One thing I've noticed between DT and BS. DT ran the hit-and-run more frequently while BS seems to execute the run-and-hit. I think it's improved our baserunning effectiveness.

The beginning of the article talks about the difficulty in defining a hit and run, mostly how its hard to figure out when a hit and run occured. The data is relying on the in game "stringers" to properly identify and document the play.

I think he mentions an estimated 10% margin for error. However looking at data over a long time span would hopefully iron out the discrepancies.

The beginning of the article talks about the difficulty in defining a hit and run, mostly how its hard to figure out when a hit and run occured. The data is relying on the in game "stringers" to properly identify and document the play.

I think he mentions an estimated 10% margin for error. However looking at data over a long time span would hopefully iron out the discrepancies.

Right, the definition incorporates both "hit and run" and "run and hit" strategies into a central category. The 10% error rate has nothing to do with separating the plays. He does do a good job of defining what it is in the study and I give him credit for that. That said, I'll assume he inadvertantly mischaracterized Weaver's position. That's hard to understand as Weaver was always pretty clear to clarify the difference between the two plays and his disdain for the first but not the second.

I just have a problem with the definition and think the two plays need to be be separated. Obviously, that's not so easy to do. If he couldn't do that I'd have taken the article better if he quoted Weaver in full context and at least commented on the significance of the two plays. As Can of Corn said, I really haven't seen too much if any studies on this, so it was interesting to see something.