# FanGraphs Baseball

Comment by Samg — February 1, 2009 @ 11:32 pm

2. That can’t really be added right now since we don’t calculate boLI. Maybe someday.

Comment by David Appelman — February 2, 2009 @ 12:11 am

3. What RE table are you using to calculate the stat? RE for each individual year, by league, or an accumulation of years?

Comment by Peter Jensen — October 20, 2010 @ 7:59 am

4. Here’s a question that has bothered me for a while regarding RE24.

If there is a runner on second with two outs, according to “The Book”, you have an RE of 0.325. If the batter hits a single, scoring the runner, the new RE is 0.216.

RE24 would have a pretty glaring flaw if there isn’t something to account for the runner scoring, thus reducing the RE according to base/out states. I would hate to think such a useful statistic could be so easily flummoxed.

Comment by Ian A. — December 1, 2011 @ 8:40 pm

5. Answered my own question by emailing the authors of “The Book”

“Yes, you have to add 1 for each run.

http://www.tangotiger.net/lwbymob.htm

Tom”

Comment by Ian A. — December 5, 2011 @ 7:34 pm

6. I love the RE24 stat but have a problem with the way runs are credited. Why does the value of the run(s) scored on a given play go entirely to the batter? If the leadoff hitter singles, steals second, steals third, and then scores on a weak groundball to second, why does the value of the run go to the batter? It should be split between the two because the run could not have scored without each player doing their part.

Comment by Ken Williams — May 15, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

7. The RE is already high with the runner on 3rd. The batter only gets the difference between that and 1, or really, 1-RE(before ground out). Does that make sense?

Comment by zacksf — September 29, 2012 @ 9:52 pm

8. So does RE24 have the same “units” as RBI (and runs)

Is it fair to say that:
wOBA is a more sophisticated version of on base percentage (or OPS),
and
RE24 is a more sophisticated version of RBI or perhaps RBI+runs?

Comment by zacksf — September 29, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

9. So then the batter is credited with: (1-.325) + .216 .
The first term for the run scored, the second term for creating the additional runner (himself). Is that correct?

Comment by zacksf — September 30, 2012 @ 1:12 am

10. Here is a more specific response, though the numbers are guessed.

Inning begins: Re=.5
Batter singles: Re=.9 (+.4 credit)
steals 2nd: Re=1.1 (+.2 credit)
steals 3rd: Re=1.4 (+.3 credit)
ground ball
to 2nd, run
scores, 1 out Re=.3 (-.1 credit, calculated as 1.4-0.3 + 1)

So even with the +1 credit the 2nd batter has a net negative RE credit for adding the out and dropping the RE by 1.1.

Comment by zacksf — September 30, 2012 @ 1:26 am

11. So the leadoff hitter gets a +.9 in the above example, the 2nd batter, who got the RBI, actually gets a -0.1 (negative) in this case. I believe it would have been positive had it been a runner on 3rd and 1 out.

Comment by zacksf — September 30, 2012 @ 1:30 am

12. Hmmm, looking at the example below, you can see I left one thing out in the comment above.

Comment by zacksf — September 30, 2012 @ 1:31 am

13. Are you okay with the existing idea in baseball that a batter does not get an RBI for a run scoring on a double play? Even though “the run could not have scored without each player doing their part?”

Baseball has long understood that a particular batter’s outcome can be so bad that he didn’t really help, despite the run scoring. This is the same sort of thing, except a little more precise and distinguishing between different situations more.

Comment by John Thacker — October 5, 2012 @ 9:06 am

14. Yeah, so it’s the ‘runs expected’. You score the one run you have (you’ve banked it) plus you’re expected to score another 0.216 runs.

Comment by CJ — October 5, 2012 @ 9:44 am

15. What I’d like to know is there any metric to acount for a baserunner doing a good job of moving up?

For example:

Runner on 1st, 1 out. RE = 0.51

Batter hits a single, good baserunner moves to 3rd.
Runners on 1st & 3rd. RE = 1.15, batter “earns” 0.64

Batter hits a single, slow runner only moves to 2nd.
Runners on 1st & 2nd. RE = 0.90, batter “earns” 0.39

So there’s a 0.25 run difference there. There’s a ton of problems to consider here; whether or not the runner moves up obviously depends on how the ball is fielded, the read the runner gets, the speed of the runner, and how and where the ball was hit. I can imagine that with a large enough sample that we could assume the effects of the hitter and fielder even out and that there is an average rate at which a runner should make it from 1st to 3rd. Given all that, would individual players be in situations like that enough that making adjustments would be informative, i.e. would a good runner have enough opportunities to take an extra base that the sample size for his opportunities would be big enough?

Also, if the runner gets thrown out at 3rd as above,
Runner on 1st, 2 outs. RE = 0.22, batter “loses” 0.29

You get a swing of 0.93 there if the runner is safe at 3rd instead of out.

I’m not sure how I feel about that, because like any other statistic we just have to hope that those events even out in the end and I think it’s a complex event involving the fielder and runner that there’s likely not a solid way to make easy and objective measurements.

That’s using 2012 expectancies from BR.

Comment by Jason — August 10, 2013 @ 9:32 pm

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: `<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> `