FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. not along = let alone?

    Nice article though, at least until the editing-clusterf*#ck that is the final paragraph. :D

    Comment by kris — May 3, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

  2. Ugh, awful.


    Comment by R.J. Anderson — May 3, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

  3. Scarborough Green? Sounds like an Irish pirate.

    Comment by KingKirkpatrick — May 3, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

  4. I was gonna go with racehorse but yours works too.

    Comment by Dane — May 4, 2009 @ 12:09 am

  5. A tremendous performance no doubt. As Crawford has matured his basestealing has grown increasingly biased toward right handers. In 07, 08 and 09 he has stolen 77 bases on righthanders and only 9 on lefthanders. In fact, in that time period he’s only attempted 13 steals against lefthanders.

    Comment by dbuff — May 4, 2009 @ 1:17 am

  6. Not really related to the feat discussed here, but rather baserunning philosophy in general. Aggressive managers such as Mike Scioscia and Ozzie Guillen put runners in motion often to “put pressure on the defense.” Has anybody ever broken this down? Presumably, the effect would show itself in the BAbip difference, controlling for the hitter at the plate (hit-and-runs are more likely to be called with high-contact hitters, for example). Does anybody know if this has been studied before?

    Comment by Kevin S. — May 4, 2009 @ 1:32 am

  7. Yea it has, by John Dewan I think. No clue where it is on the net though.

    Comment by dan — May 4, 2009 @ 1:44 am

  8. Do you remember his conclusion?

    Comment by Kevin S. — May 4, 2009 @ 1:48 am

  9. Wouldn’t it make more sense that visiting players would get more steals because they’re guaranteed a 9th inning of batting?

    Comment by Kyle — May 4, 2009 @ 3:11 am

  10. the study found zero “pressure” effect. pitchers did not pitch less successfully nor did defenses defend less successfully in the face of base stealers or “small ball” tactics.

    Comment by fanOFdefenseAGAIN — May 4, 2009 @ 7:40 am

  11. That seems like a rather shocking conclusion, considering you’re creating huge gaps in the defense.

    Theoretically, you’re probably giving the hitter an extra 10? feet as the first baseman holds the hitter on. You’re also giving him an extra 10-15 feet? as the covering MI, pretty much gives up whatever range he has to the side he’s running away from (2nd basemen covering second gives up any range he has towards first base)

    The only way I can explain zero net change, is the batters crumbling under the pressure to hit the ball to the hole created by the covering defender. I suppose there’s a very real possibility that the hitter would hit substantially worse while trying to pick a spot, than if he was just hitting.

    I’m still not buying it though, and if I wasn’t lazy I’d definitely look to see what the variables are.

    Comment by kris — May 4, 2009 @ 11:07 am

  12. I believe the hit and run is employed primarily to reduce the probability of a double play on a ground ball hit with a runner on 1st, and not to increase the probability of a hit per se. With a right handed hitter, and therefore the second baseman probably covering the bag, it also increases the probability of the runner advancing to third on a ground ball to the right side. For these reasons it’s not normally used with 2 men out, which would be the case if it were used to increase the chances of a hit. With a ground ball pitcher and a contact hitter it can be a smart play.

    Comment by dbuff — May 4, 2009 @ 11:39 am

  13. I thought that’s where they held the eponymous fair.

    Comment by TomG — May 4, 2009 @ 4:25 pm

  14. I expect the probability of the base runner is caught stealing if no contact is made with two outs would usually outweigh the increased probability of a hit. Especially if the hit and run is not guaranteeing a run. If he has CC’s speed than he could score on a double/triple/hr.

    Comment by Kmoney — May 5, 2009 @ 6:33 am

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.250 Powered by WordPress