[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.

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Statcast Lab: No Nulls Update

Back in 2016, we noticed that about 10% of batted balls had no tracking.  If the lack of tracking was random, it would mean it is unbiased (*).  But, most of the reasons we weren't tracking was for biased reasons: high popups or sharp grounders.  And so if you looked at data like launch angles, having a bunch of low anglers or high anglers missing would lead to wrong conclusions, both at the player and at the league level.  So, we implemented a stopgap reasonable solution: no nulls.  Every untracked batted ball was given a speed and angle based on whether (a) the cause was biased or unbiased, (b) the stringer marked it as a GB, LD, FB, PU and (c) the actual outcome, single, double, triple, HR, error, out.  We were going to enhance that process based on (d) who caught or fielded the ball and even more exciting (e) look at how the players moved to determine where the ball landed.  (We tracked the players 98% of the time.  It's the ball that was at 90%.) We only did a-c because it satisfied the immediate need, and working on d-e was pushed back in favor of other higher priority items.

(*) Not totally unbiased.  For example, we have no tracking in London Games, but London Games had tons of scoring.  So, we lack tracking for unbiased reasons, but based on outcomes, the lack of tracking ends up biasing the data.  Technically.  But, it's only two games.

Now we're in 2020 and the returns on Hawkeye testing in 2019 showed that the lack of tracking was low, and it was mostly unbiased.  So, we decided for 2020 to not introduce the no-null solution.  If we track it, we report it.  If we don't track it, then we don't.  This is the same solution we have always had for pitch tracking.  It makes as much sense for pitch tracking as it does for 2020 hit tracking: low frequency and unbiased.

Since we've done that, we are revisiting the handling of 2015-2019.  To be consistent with 2020, any lack of tracking in 2015-19 for unbiased reasons won't have the no-null solution implemented.  And so, what will be left is that the no-nulls solution (i.e., fill-in data generated) will apply only for the 2015-19 data for untracked for biased reasons.  

We're figuring out how to present this on Savant, so, stay tuned for how we'll handle it.

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

July 26, 2020
Statcast Lab: No Nulls Update