Stats I'd like to see

[Frayed Knot]

Now that this age of baseball is drowning in stats there's still a few I'd like to see but haven't.
Maybe they're out there but I haven't looked in the right places. Either that of it's one of those things Elias has but will only tell you if you pay them.



- What pct of innings (half-innings really) are scoreless?
ML games have averaged around 9 runs/game in recent years or about 1 run per two half-innings. But the fact that runs are often scored in multiples means that more than half of the time a team fails to score during each "up" ... but what portion?
This sort of came up the other day when someone flashed a stat (I think while Pelfrey was pitching) about how he was just under the league average for 'shut-down innings', counted as pitching a scoreless inning after your team scores. I believe the lg average was close to 75% and the implication was that this 'shut-down' number was some sort of "clutchness" stat for pitchers, that those with the built-in gene were better at tossing scoreless innings when they really, really wanted to. I suspect the 'shut-down' inning pct is in fact right around where all scoreless innings are but of course they didn't show that part meaning that by seeking to inform us they're really just further muddling the situation.




- How many 9th inning saves result is a "perfect" inning?
IOW, in those cases where a reliever is used in the now-standard "closer situation" [9th (or extra) inning, ahead by 1, 2, or 3 runs and comes in at the beginning of the inning with bases empty and 3 outs to get] how often does he not just save the game but do so with a 3-up/3-down inning?
I mean if we (and by we I mean those in the sport and the media) are going to put so much emphasis on saves and the need for a designated closer, it would be nice to know how their guy is faring as compared to the universe of closers.
As it is, it's bad enough that the pct of all saves that are blown is rarely discussed (I think it's near 20%) and I suspect the number of perfect ones is lower than most fans think (I'd bet under 50%) - something which likely contributes to fans thinking their guy is specifically a high-wire act.

[Guest Edgy DC]

This probably exists, but I'd like to see runs scored by inherited runners proportionaltely shared among the pitchers who combined to allow those runners around the bases. Heck, rather than unearned runs, I'd like to see runs that partially involved an error scored in part against the pitcher and in part against the fielder.

This probably exists too, I'd like to see what perecentage of games featuring the winning team scoring more in one inning than the losing team scores in nine. If that number is impressive enough, it may serve as a meaningful warning against one-run strategies.

Lastly, and this probably exists as well, but I'd like to see a stat showing just how awesome this forum is.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Well, I can tell you this: from the first game the Mets played in 1962, through yesterday's game, and including post-season games (a total of 7,823 games) the Mets have played a total of 140,871 half innings. In 104,233 of those innings, the team at bat failed to score. That's just a shade under 74 per cent of the time.

Let me see what I can find out about the second question...

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy DC wrote: This probably exists too, I'd like to see what perecentage of games featuring the winning team scoring more in one inning than the losing team scores in nine. If that number is impressive enough, it may serve as a meaningful warning against one-run strategies.

I've actually seen that one although I don't have the specifics in front of me. IIRC it was around 2/3 of the time that the winning team scored as many or more runs in one inning than the losing team did in the whole game. And, yeah, it was presented as a kind of counter-argument to 'little-ball' although I'm not really sure it does that all that well.

For one thing, the as many part of the clause guarantees every time the losing club is held to 0 or 1 run it applies, and virtually every time they score 2 runs it works also (the winner would have to put up a 'picket fence' at least 3 separate '1 and only 1' run innings for it not to).
Take all that as a whole and I think it's less a pro- 'big inning' message than it is one that tells you that you win a lot if you hardly let the other guys score.

What you really want to do is take out the 'as many' portion and also see how it still applies once you subtract the shut-outs and near shut-outs.
I suspect it'll be less definitive then.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'd like to abolish some stats. Wins and saves, for example.

[seawolf17]

Edgy DC wrote: Lastly, and this probably exists as well, but I'd like to see a stat showing just how awesome this forum is.

I would point to the number of vaguely CF-looking children running around Latvian playgrounds as all you need to know.

[Willets Point]

I think I'm holding down the CPF Awesome Rating. Sorry.

[Ceetar]

Stat's I'd like to see: What the result is immediately following a coaching visit to the mound?

It'd be interesting to see how much value this provides. Is it a waste of time beyond allowing some guys to warm up in relief? I feel like Warthen is crap, always comes out too late to "settle a pitcher down" or share a scouting report. And then yesterday his brilliant insight led to yet anotehr 3-run home run to LaRoche on the next pitch. I'm curious if stats back up my "he sucks" philosophy.

[Frayed Knot]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Well, I can tell you this: from the first game the Mets played in 1962, through yesterday's game, and including post-season games (a total of 7,823 games) the Mets have played a total of 140,871 half innings. In 104,233 of those innings, the team at bat failed to score. That's just a shade under 74 per cent of the time.

That "shade under 74%" mark was just about where the TV crew claimed the lg avg "shut-down" stat was -- IOW, little or no different (as I expected) from scoreless innings as a whole assuming these two samples are within normal range.

You stat is the larger sample coming as it does from nearly half a century of data although does come from a traditionally lower scoring/good pitching team and also across eras that had lower scoring as a whole.
Theirs comes presumably from just this year but combines all teams' games not just one.

[Guest Edgy DC]

That would be fun, especially if you could rank pitching coaches and catchers based on the OPS of the first batter following a mound conference, relative to that batter's total rating.

[ashie62]

What is the Percentage of balls fouled off by the batter on a 3-2 count. That has to be way up there.

[batmagadanleadoff]

The stat I'd really like to see ... the stat I've been yearning for for years ... is the stat that measures, for each batter, the average speed of his batted balls, and how much time it takes the batted ball to arrive at its destination. I think that this is the most important stat in determining a batter's efficacy. If I could only have one stat by which to gauge a batter's worth, this is the one I'd want. I'd prefer this stat over OBP, HR's ... anything. Because the faster it gets there, the less time a fielder has to field it. Obviously. You'd need to measure time, as well as speed. A ball that travels 350 feet should be an easy out if it takes 5 or 6 seconds to get there (a lot of arc on that one), while a 350 foot batted ball that gets to where it's going in 1.5 seconds is a line drive with little arc, and likelier to fall in for a hit. Of course, at some point, a ball is hit far enough that it doesn't matter how much arc it has. No fielder is going to catch a 450 foot blast no matter how long it takes the ball to travel the 450 feet. (Although issues of arc and loft might matter depending on the height of the outfield fence)

So that's the stat I want.

OE -- Time, Speed, Distance of Batted Balls.

[batmagadanleadoff]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The stat I'd really like to see ... the stat I've been yearning for for years ... is the stat that measures, for each batter, the average speed of his batted balls, and how much time it takes the batted ball to arrive at its destination. I think that this is the most important stat in determining a batter's efficacy. If I could only have one stat by which to gauge a batter's worth, this is the one I'd want. I'd prefer this stat over OBP, HR's ... anything. Because the faster it gets there, the less time a fielder has to field it. Obviously. You'd need to measure time, as well as speed. A ball that travels 350 feet should be an easy out if it takes 5 or 6 seconds to get there (a lot of arc on that one), while a 350 foot batted ball that gets to where it's going in 1.5 seconds is a line drive with little arc, and likelier to fall in for a hit. Of course, at some point, a ball is hit far enough that it doesn't matter how much arc it has. No fielder is going to catch a 450 foot blast no matter how long it takes the ball to travel the 450 feet. (Although issues of arc and loft might matter depending on the height of the outfield fence) So that's the stat I want. OE -- Time, Speed, Distance of Batted Balls.

One other point to make about this stat: I'd guess that there is a powerfully strong positive correlation between a batter's success and the time/speed/distance of his batted balls. But a batter would be able to compensate for lower time/speed/distance measures by exerting more control over the batted balls.... in other words, by aiming or placing his hits. I've always suspected that very few batters can exert the kind of control over their batted balls that would be needed to compensate for the fact that they ain't hitting it as hard as they should be hitting it in order to be an effective hitter.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Now for Frayed Knot's second question.

From 1969 (when the save became an official stat) through the end of the 2009 season, the Mets played 3,085 regular season games in which a pitcher was credited with a save.

In 561 of those games, the guy who got the save was the only pitcher for his team in the final inning and faced exactly three batters and gave up zero hits, walks, or hit batters. It's possible that in some of those games a batter reached on an error and was erased by a CS or a pickoff or a double play, so the 561 may be a little off. But the margin of error shouldn't skew the percentage by much.

Number of times this has happened, by year:
1969 1
1970 5
1971 4
1972 5
1973 6
1974 2
1975 2
1976 6
1977 5
1978 6
1979 8
1980 5
1981 4
1982 3
1983 7
1984 5
1985 6
1986 6
1987 5
1988 2
1989 6
1990 10
1991 11
1992 19
1993 15
1994 17
1995 14
1996 21
1997 27
1998 19
1999 20
2000 27
2001 31
2002 27
2003 23
2004 29
2005 26
2006 24
2007 30
2008 36
2009 33


Pitchers who did this the most frequently (both games for and against the Mets are counted)
Franco John 74
Benitez Armando 56
Wagner Billy 50
Looper Braden 20
Hoffman Trevor 16
Rodriguez Francisco 12
McGraw Tug 11
McDowell Roger 10
Orosco Jesse 9
Rivera Mariano 8
Myers Randy 7
Ayala Luis 7
Worrell Todd 7
Smoltz John 7
Gagne Eric 7
Smith Lee 6
Beck Rod 6
Borowski Joe 6
Lidge Brad 6
Allen Neil 5
Isringhausen Jason 5
Jones Doug 5
Cordero Chad 5

[Zvon]

^ Totally amazin' info.

[Guest metsguyinmichigan]

The percentage of times really bad things happen when they're wearing the black jersey. Like yesterday, for example.

I know Trachsel was wearing black when they clinched in 2006, but I can't think of too many other good things happening. The grand slam single, maybe?

On the other hand, I think they were wearing black when Kenny Rogers became Kenny Bleeping Rogers, when Niese was hurt last year.....

[Benjamin Grimm]

If I remember correctly (and I'm not sure that I do) the Mets wore black for every postseason game they played in both 1999 and 2000.

[Zvon]

Still, the number of times they did wear black was outta control.
Was this Bobby Vs call?

[HahnSolo]

They also wore white for games 3 and 5 of the 2000 WS.

This year, at Citi, they are 6-1 in the black jerseys and caps. The only loss was yesterday.

I've been keeping a record of their home uni choices all year to track how often each is worn, and how they do in them. Primarily because I don't like the black, and really want to see how often they wear it. Was going to post results at the end of the season...maybe I'll post what I've got so far tomorrow.

[metirish]

Great thread, I love how a query like Frayed's generates so many questions , answers and thoughts.

[Centerfield]

Stats I'd like to See:

Longest Win Streaks of 2010:

1. New York Mets: 24*

*Denotes Active Streak

[G-Fafif]

metsguyinmichigan wrote: The percentage of times really bad things happen when they're wearing the black jersey. Like yesterday, for example. I know Trachsel was wearing black when they clinched in 2006, but I can't think of too many other good things happening. The grand slam single, maybe? On the other hand, I think they were wearing black when Kenny Rogers became Kenny Bleeping Rogers, when Niese was hurt last year.....

Robin Ventura wore black when Todd Pratt tackled hime between first and second on October 17, 1999. Pratt also wore black.

All the Mets wore black as the NLDS and NLCS were clinched in 2000. Let us not willfully skew our memories because we don't like a uniform color.

[G-Fafif]

Centerfield wrote: Stats I'd like to See: Longest Win Streaks of 2010: 1. New York Mets: 24* *Denotes Active Streak

ITA.

[Zvon]

Would most prefer blue or is it just a dislike of colored jerseys (with the pants being white or gray) in general?

[Guest themetfairy]

G-Fafif wrote: metsguyinmichigan wrote: The percentage of times really bad things happen when they're wearing the black jersey. Like yesterday, for example. I know Trachsel was wearing black when they clinched in 2006, but I can't think of too many other good things happening. The grand slam single, maybe? On the other hand, I think they were wearing black when Kenny Rogers became Kenny Bleeping Rogers, when Niese was hurt last year..... Robin Ventura wore black when Todd Pratt tackled hime between first and second on October 17, 1999. Pratt also wore black. All the Mets wore black as the NLDS and NLCS were clinched in 2000. Let us not willfully skew our memories because we don't like a uniform color.

I love you, man!

[Frayed Knot]

From 1969 (when the save became an official stat) through the end of the 2009 season, the Mets played 3,085 regular season games in which a pitcher was credited with a save. In 561 of those games, the guy who got the save was the only pitcher for his team in the final inning and faced exactly three batters and gave up zero hits, walks, or hit batters. It's possible that in some of those games a batter reached on an error and was erased by a CS or a pickoff or a double play, so the 561 may be a little off. But the margin of error shouldn't skew the percentage by much.

Even assuming that the 561 number is at least close (barring the few oddities you mentioned) the problem here is the denominator. Those 3,085 cases could include all kinds of one-out saves, three-inning blow-outs saves, and other assorted nonsense.

What I'm looking to find out (and it isn't something I expected you'd have - although someone must) is of those saves when a closer is brought into the game for the now standard 1-inning/fresh-inning close
- what pct of those saves are converted?
and
- what pct of those are saved in 1-2-3 fashion?

I mean we can all bitch and moan about the save rule all we want but it's not going away and it's not going to be redefined. Besides, the bigger problem is not that it exists but that it's both treated too seriously and that all saves are treated as if they're the same.
But while the idiots running baseball telecasts manage to come up with nonsense like what a batter's record is during day-game Wednesdays when it's at least 83 degrees while facing a lefty - and put that stuff up on a graphic as if they're telling you something meaningful - they manage to miss a ton of stuff that might actually inform us. Telling us how many saves a closer has is silly if you're not telling us what rate he's saving them at and how that compares to his peers. And, at the same time, complaining about how your closer makes you nervous with runners is just white noise when hardly anyone has any idea if their guy is better or worse than normal.


What I suspect is that the overall blown save pct of these one-inning attempts is lower than many fans expect (my guess is around 75%) while the 'perfect inning' portion is considerably lower (less than half) but I'd like to find out for sure.

[Centerfield]

G-Fafif wrote: Stats I'd like to See: Longest Win Streaks of 2010: 1. New York Mets: 24* *Denotes Active Streak ITA.

ITA?

I Train Acrobats?

It's Time Asshole?

Igloo Temperature Aroma?

[Guest Edgy DC]

Read up here if you're going to keep up with G-Fafif and his Generation Z lingo.

[Centerfield]

Thanks Edge.

T@YL.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Last night reminded me that while Mets pitching has been quite good this year, they seem to issue an extraordinary amount of runs after 2 outs, nobody on, at least as a percentage of their total runs allowed.

Who can figure this one out? My guess would be they are the worst in the league at this.