February 06, 2006
Run for the Slugger
Balls, Sticks and Stuff looks at the affect Abreu stealing had on Jim Thome:
For example, from 2003 to 2005, Jim Thome had an OPS of .929, but in the 93 instances when Abreu was on second with first base open, Thome had an OPS of .954. Burrell benefited even more, his OPS increasing from .810 to 1.008 and his batting average from .249 to .291 in 104 instances.
Thome's increase in OPS, however, was mainly due to a large increase in on-base percentage (from .386 to .462) while his slugging percentage decreased (as did his batting average from .261 overall to .206 in our scenario). So in that regard, Abreu's tendency to run may have indeed taken the bat out of Thome's hands, but it looks like Burrell was able to come through, and not just with one on base, but often with two, since Thome was often walked.
Walking a slugger with first base open isn't a bad thing. It increases the run potential for the inning, and extends the offense for future innings (the top of the lineup is more likely to bat again). In the Phillies case, with two sluggers coming up next, it's tough to pitch around both.
Posted by David Pinto at
09:03 AM
|
Offense
|
TrackBack (0)
Aren't you over-attributing the increase in Thome's OPS to Abreu's stolen bases?
Wouldn't just the fact that we know that a runner is on base have some sort of impact on our anticipated outcome of Thome's plate appearance? It's reasonable to assume that Abreu is more likely to get on base against bad pitchers than he is against good ones. Therefore, the fact that Abreu was on base tells us something about the quality of the pitcher in that situation (more likely to be worse and/or more tired pitcher).
It would seem to me that what you want to compare is not:
(a) Thome's OPS with Abreu on Second vs
(b) Thome's overall OPS
but rather:
(a) Thome's OPS with Abreu on Second vs
(b) Thome's OPS with Abreu on First
no?
Aryeh
Good point.
Then there's the "distraction" idea. Do pitchers pitch worse if a basestealing threat is on first? Common baseball wisdom is that they do. How true is that? Are some pitchers more distractable than others? Some pitchers are notoriously uninterested in keeping runners close. Do they pitch better than those that try to keep a runner close?
John Walsh at The Hardball Times did the origninal work on this stuff, league-wide. You may want to go there and read his rationale for setting up the studies this way.
