Jump to content

Baseball Savant Infield Outs above average explained


Tony-OH

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Philip said:

If Martin was -5,  and Iglesias is +12, is it possible to translate that, at least approximately, into wins? 

 

For me personally, I find the "wins" metric to be a flawwed. Even WAR doesn't really mean you will win "x" amount of games more or less. This is why defensive metrics have traditionally used runs saved, but I've never been convinced that it very accurately depicts actual runs saved.

I believe OAA is just a way to see whether players are better or worse then average compared to their peers. I like the percentile metric to give you an idea where they stand against their peers, however it doesn't necessarily tell you  how much a 9th percentile SS hurts you vs a 60th percentile SS.

I also like using the success rate added to see the real impact. If they have a -5% success rate added, that means they would get 5% less outs than an average fielder at his position. Over 100 chances that's 5 outs.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tony-OH

Fair enough, so that means that Martin is bad, but we don’t know how much his badness cost us.

 I’m actually surprised at how disappointed I am to learn that Martin was one of the worst. 

Did they do historical rankings?? I was always a huge fan of buddy Bell and of course Adrian Beltre is never to be replaced, and we had a couple of pretty good guys too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Philip said:

If Martin was -5,  and Iglesias is +12, is it possible to translate that, at least approximately, into wins? 

 

I will give you a different answer than Tony, but it’s based on theory more than actual game observations.   

First, you need to recognize that Iglesias played a lot more games than Martin.    He played 1169 innings at short compared to Martin’s 785, about 50% more innings.    So if you assumed Martin’s time was increased to Iglesias’ level, his -5 becomes -7 or -8.    Let’s be generous and call it -7.    That makes the difference between Iglesias and Martin 19 outs.

Calculations done for other defensive metrics show that on average one out equates to .6 runs.    That average is calculated by running some math on every base/out state, and looking at the frequency of how often they occur, and doing a weighted average.    In other words, making a tough play with the bases loaded and two outs has a different impact on runs scored than making that same play with two out and nobody on base.    But when you look at the weighted average of all situations, the impact of making vs. failing to make an out is roughly .6 runs.    So, 19 outs equals 11-12 runs.

Finally, as a general rule, 10 runs greater or fewer over a season leads to one more or fewer win.    Again, that’s an average.    Depending on exactly when those runs were prevented or allowed, the impact could be much greater.    But applying that average, the difference between Iglesias and Martin should lead to about one extra win.    Obviously, the reality could be different depending on the game situations when these plays occur.    There are times where one play decides the outcome of the game, and other times where the play has no influence on the outcome whatsoever.    

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frobby said:

I will give you a different answer than Tony, but it’s based on theory more than actual game observations.   

First, you need to recognize that Iglesias played a lot more games than Martin.    He played 1169 innings at short compared to Martin’s 785, about 50% more innings.    So if you assumed Martin’s time was increased to Iglesias’ level, his -5 becomes -7 or -8.    Let’s be generous and call it -7.    That makes the difference between Iglesias and Martin 19 outs.

Calculations done for other defensive metrics show that on average one out equates to .6 runs.    That average is calculated by running some math on every base/out state, and looking at the frequency of how often they occur, and doing a weighted average.    In other words, making a tough play with the bases loaded and two outs has a different impact on runs scored than making that same play with two out and nobody on base.    But when you look at the weighted average of all situations, the impact of making vs. failing to make an out is roughly .6 runs.    So, 19 outs equals 11-12 runs.

Finally, as a general rule, 10 runs greater or fewer over a season leads to one more or fewer win.    Again, that’s an average.    Depending on exactly when those runs were prevented or allowed, the impact could be much greater.    But applying that average, the difference between Iglesias and Martin should lead to about one extra win.    Obviously, the reality could be different depending on the game situations when these plays occur.    There are times where one play decides the outcome of the game, and other times where the play has no influence on the outcome whatsoever.    

I'm not a mathematician, so I can't back my opinion up on this, but .6 runs per out seems extremely high to me.  My common sense tells me that there isn't an average of 1.8 runs scored every half inning, even with juiced up balls.  Again, I have no training or experience in this field at all, but it just looks way off to my simple mind.  Can you explain this to me in terms that I can understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Number5 said:

I'm not a mathematician, so I can't back my opinion up on this, but .6 runs per out seems extremely high to me.  My common sense tells me that there isn't an average of 1.8 runs scored every half inning, even with juiced up balls.  Again, I have no training or experience in this field at all, but it just looks way off to my simple mind.  Can you explain this to me in terms that I can understand?

How much would scoring increase if it was four outs per inning? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't either but I bet it would be significant.

Stuff like this I like to just assume that the guys that like crunching numbers did it correctly or the other guys that like crunching numbers would have corrected them.

I hear ya, but that just seems way too high to me.  Seems like .6 runs would be closer to the number for the entire half inning, not one out.  That would be 5.4 runs per team per game by simple math ( 9 X .6.)  I'm sure the formula that whoever came up with .6 runs per out came up with is far more complex than that.  I've found in life that there are times that more complex isn't always better.  It would be nice to at least be given a reasonable explanation of how they arrived at the number and a reason that the actual number of runs scored versus outs made would be an incorrect way to do it.  Again, I'm no mathematician, but I do like to be able to at least have something make some kind of sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2020 at 11:08 AM, Number5 said:

I'm not a mathematician, so I can't back my opinion up on this, but .6 runs per out seems extremely high to me.  My common sense tells me that there isn't an average of 1.8 runs scored every half inning, even with juiced up balls.  Again, I have no training or experience in this field at all, but it just looks way off to my simple mind.  Can you explain this to me in terms that I can understand?

I know it seems counterintuitive, since there are 27 outs in a game and only 4-5 runs scored on average, so that seems like more like .2 runs per out.   

But have a look at this base-out matrix, which shows the expected number of runs scored in an inning depending on which bases are occupied and how many outs there are.   This matrix is based on actual game data, not theory.   https://www.google.com/amp/s/thebaseballscholar.com/2017/08/14/sabermetrics-101-re24/amp/

Let’s take the simplest example, the leadoff batter.    If he grounds out (so now it’s bases empty, one out), the expected runs in the inning are .243.    If he’s safe at first (so runner on first, nobody out), the expected runs are .831.    So, the increase in expected runs between making that play or not is .590.     

There are other situations on the chart where the differential is higher or lower than that.    On the high side, let’s say you’ve got runners on 1st and 2nd and one out.    Make a play there to record an out and hold the runners, and the expected runs are only .343.    Fail to make that play and so it’s bases loaded and only one out, and the expected runs increase to 1.520.

Anyway, someone did a weighted average of all these scenarios and came up with .6 for an average.    If I remember correctly.   
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was curious how much of baseball OAA might hint is fielding, so spreadsheeted the last 3 years for which Savant has published both IF and OF.

The Astros were 1st at +71

The Orioles were 30th at -103

So 174 outs at the estimated 0.6 runs/out gives 104 runs, suggesting ~35 runs/season defensive difference between the best and worst teams.

Across the 3-years, the Astros outscored their opponents by 739 runs and the Orioles were outscored by 620.  104/1359 gives 7.5%, leaving 92.5% for batting, pitching and catcher defense.

The Astros especially lorded over the AL here - Brewers, Reds, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Braves and Rockies were the next six.  Angels got AL second place at +31, and the third place AL finishers were down at +17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, OrioleDog said:

I was curious how much of baseball OAA might hint is fielding, so spreadsheeted the last 3 years for which Savant has published both IF and OF.

The Astros were 1st at +71

The Orioles were 30th at -103

So 174 outs at the estimated 0.6 runs/out gives 104 runs, suggesting ~35 runs/season defensive difference between the best and worst teams.

Across the 3-years, the Astros outscored their opponents by 739 runs and the Orioles were outscored by 620.  104/1359 gives 7.5%, leaving 92.5% for batting, pitching and catcher defense.

The Astros especially lorded over the AL here - Brewers, Reds, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Braves and Rockies were the next six.  Angels got AL second place at +31, and the third place AL finishers were down at +17.

As you note, OAA doesn’t account for catcher defense.    It also doesn’t account for certain elements of outfield defense, i.e. cutting off balls in the gap/down the lines or throwing. Outfield OAA relates purely to how many balls get caught.    So, you can probably assume that the difference between the best and worst defensive teams is greater than 35 runs.   By Fangraphs’ reckoning, it’s more like 75 runs (about 15-20 of which is catcher framing).    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • Yeah the amenities are pretty outdated at the yard and they seem to do nothing year over year to improve them. The touchscreens have been banged on to death to the point they barely function, so you can't accurately fill out your order at the kiosks, and they don't have a way for the people behind the counter to ring you up at many of the food places. The sound is low to non-existent in certain sections of the club level, like around 218. Seems like there should be speakers that reach there but they might have been damaged by rain, etc. and they are too lazy to fix them. If you go to a game that's even slightly busy, you will wait forever to get into the bathroom, and the sink will be an absolute mess with no soap or paper towels. It's even worse on the club level where they have one sink that's right by the door. Nearby businesses don't care, either. The Hilton parking garage reeks of decay, pot and human waste. They don't turn on the air circulation fans, even if cars are waiting for an hour and a half to exit from P3, filling up the air with carbon monoxide. They only let you enter the stadium with one 20 oz bottle of water. It's so expensive to buy a drink or water in the stadium, but with all the salty food, 20 oz of water isn't enough, especially on a hot day. Vegetarian food options are poor to none, other than things like chips, fries, hot pretzels and the occasional pizza. Vida Taco is better, but at an inconvenient location for many seats. The doors on the club level are not accessible. They're anti-accessible. Big, heavy doors you have to go through to get to/from the escalators, and big, heavy doors to get to your seats, none of them automatic (or even with the option to be automatic with a button press). Makes it hard to carry food out to your seats even if not handicapped. The furniture in the lounges on the club level seem designed to allow as few people as possible to sit down. Not great when we have so many rain delays during the season. Should put more, smaller chairs in and allow more of the club level ticket holders to have a seat while waiting for thunderstorms to pass. They keep a lot of the entrance/exit gates closed except for playoff/sellout games, which means people have to slowly "mooooo" all the way down Eutaw St to get to parking. They are too cheap to staff all the gates, so they make people exit by the warehouse, even though it would be a lot more convenient for many fans to open all the gates. Taking Light Rail would be super convenient, except that if there's at least 20k fans in attendance, it's common to have to wait 90-120 minutes to be able to board a non-full train heading toward Glen Burnie. A few trains might come by, but they are already full, or fill up fast when folks walk up to the Convention Center stop to pre-empt the folks trying to board at Camden Station. None of the garages in the area are set up to require pre-payment on entry (reservation, or give them your card / digital payment at the entrance till). If they were, emptying out the garage would be very quick, as they wouldn't need to ticket anyone on the way out: if you can't get in without paying, you can always just leave without having to stop and scan your phone or put a ticket in the machine. They shut down the Sports Legends Museum at Camden Station in 2015 because the Maryland Stadium Authority was too greedy. That place was a fun distraction if you were in the area when a game wasn't about to start, like if you show up super early on Opening Day or a playoff day. Superbook's restaurant on Eutaw is a huge downgrade from Dempsey's in terms of menu and service quality. Dempsey's used to be well-staffed, you could reserve a table online, and they had all kinds of great selection for every diet. Superbook seems like just another bar serving the same swill that the rest of the park serves, with extremely minimal and low-quality food. For that matter, most of the food at the stadium is very low quality these days. A lot of things we used to love are made to a lower standard now if they are served at all. These are gripes about the stadium and the area that haven't changed my entire adult life. Going to an O's game requires one to tolerate many small inconveniences and several major inconveniences, any number of which could easily be fixed by the relevant authorities if they gave a damn about the people who pay to come see the team play. You would think a mid-market team would be able to afford to invest in the fan experience. You would think the city and partnering organizations like garages, the Stadium Authority and MTA would at least try to do their part to make the experience enjoyable and free of kinks. You would think they would put some thought into handling the "growing pains" of the fanbase due to recent renewed interest after the dark years. Instead, all we get is the same indifference and the same annoyances year in and year out. The whole area is overdue for a revamp. Not sure if $600 mil will get it done, but at least it's a start. Hopefully they can start to patch up some of the many holes in the fan experience. If you're not going to invest in Burnes, at least make it so paying customers have an easier, more enjoyable time getting to/from the stadium and having some food while we're there.
    • Elias has only been in rebuild mode with the O's so there's not much to speculate on there.  Houston, where he spent his formative years, doesn't seem to like to be on the hook for more than a couple of big long-term contracts at any given time.  I can see that as being Elias' choice as well, albeit with a lower overall cost - Houston runs a big payroll.  But it's all guesswork.  I really don't know. If Elias takes the 2025 payroll to $150 million it will creep up to $200 million or so by 2028 just from keeping the core together.  That's where I start to wonder about sustainability due to market size, economic forces, etc., etc., etc... If it were up to me, I would add a couple of free agents this offseason even if the contracts were longer than ideal and be conservative about extensions elsewhere until the prospects establish themselves a little better.  I think there's a competitive opportunity that the team is already into that's worth exploiting. I think ownership is very happy to have Elias on board and they're not inclined to force him to do anything.  I also think Rubenstein's demonstrated business prowess is great enough to assume that he has had plenty enough time to come to a mutual understanding with Elias as to goals.
    • We need a RH O’hearn…in addition to Westburg. At least 3 batters that will push up the pitch count and cause damage in the top 5 of the lineup.
    • Boy,  that Jackson Merrill is a good young player that is playing his best ball down the season stretch and in the playoffs.   He's only 21.  I guess some young guys are able to play up to the pressure.   Who could have guessed that?
    • I’m aware.   You are arguing something im Not.
    • What agreement? The agreement you are talking about happened as a result of the move.  The MASN agreement would not have existed if Angelos had gone to court to block the move.
    • I’m saying the Os had an agreement with MLB and that should have held up.  Been pretty clear about that. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...