[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book
is Finally Written!

Read Excerpts & Reviews
E-Book available
as Amazon Kindle or
at iTunes for $9.99.

Hardcopy available at Amazon
SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
Shop Amazon & Support This Blog
RECENT FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 Marcels
Apr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref

Advanced

Tangotiger Blog

A blog about baseball, hockey, life, and whatever else there is.

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Root Runs

​I posted on Twitter something that is common knowledge among the saber folk, the 10:1 runs:wins relationship.

What is somewhat common knowledge is the relationship of bases and outs to Runs scored. Bill James taught us that with Runs Created, as a function of OBP to SLG.

What might be less common knowledge is how wOBA fits into this. wOBA is scaled to OBP and is proportional to SLG. And therefore, wOBA squared is proportional to runs scored.

However, when we talk about individual players, we really prefer to report in terms of wOBA and not wOBA squared. That’s because, at least for hitters, their impact to a team follows a linear approach, not a squared approach. This is why Linear Weights, not (the basic version of) Runs Created is preferred. And this is why a Runs Created approach that goes through a “theoretical team approach” is preferred. In other words, we can apply the Runs Created concept, but with about 8/9ths of it being linear. I hope that made sense.

So, if we want to know about how talented a team of batters is, we’d average their wOBA, not their wOBA squared (aka Runs). At the individual game level, it gets even worse, because that squared approach will really make larger the impact than it is. In other words, there’s a certain level of “running up the score” because of the way baseball is built.

And so, I thought: why don’t we take the square root of the runs scored and runs allowed? And then take the difference? And wouldn’t you know it: it’s (slightly) better than taking the actual difference in runs scored. I looked at the 660 team-seasons since 1998: 371 teams were closer to their actual W/L record following the Square Root of Runs (Root Runs) approach, while 289 teams were closer using the straight Run Differential approach. That’s 56% to 44%, which is fairly resounding as far as these things go.

The one place I’d be a bit worried, but not too much, is how it relates to pitchers. Pitcher interact with themselves. And so, you DO want a Runs (or wOBA squared) approach. However, adding that up at the game level probably hurts more than it helps. In other words, things get exaggerated at the game level and so, it might still work out going with a wOBA (or Root Runs) approach.

Anything more, and that’s for aspiring saberists to tackle. Actually, the veteran saberists should as well. This is not as obvious as it looks.

Latest...

COMMENTS

Nov 23 14:15
Layered wOBAcon

Nov 22 22:15
Cy Young Predictor 2024

Oct 28 17:25
Layered Hit Probability breakdown

Oct 15 13:42
Binomial fun: Best-of-3-all-home is equivalent to traditional Best-of-X where X is

Oct 14 14:31
NaiveWAR and VictoryShares

Oct 02 21:23
Component Run Values: TTO and BIP

Oct 02 11:06
FRV v DRS

Sep 28 22:34
Runs Above Average

Sep 16 16:46
Skenes v Webb: Illustrating Replacement Level in WAR

Sep 16 16:43
Sacrifice Steal Attempt

Sep 09 14:47
Can Wheeler win the Cy Young in 2024?

Sep 08 13:39
Small choices, big implications, in WAR

Sep 07 09:00
Why does Baseball Reference love Erick Fedde?

Sep 03 19:42
Re-Leveraging Aaron Judge

Aug 24 14:10
Science of baseball in 1957

THREADS

June 13, 2020
Root Runs