• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. Texas Wahoo said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 9:36 am

   Shouldn’t you include his sacrifice fly when using his RBI per plate appearance in deciding whether to pitch to him. That would drop it to 2.4 RBI.

2. dick said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 9:45 am

   Hell, didn’t he start 6 for 6 with 4 HRs and 20RBIs or something? He has been slumping lately.

3. Orangechip said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am

   It will always be RBI’s and never be RsBI’s no matter what all the ESPN announcers say.

4. Jeff Sims said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 10:20 am

   Small sample size. No way you should walk him with the bases loaded.

5. BatesHorn said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am

   goddamn my beer addled brain. At some point in the last decade, when Barry Bonds was just pounding the ball like HJ in Boys Club in Thailand, Baseball Prospectus did a math run on this very question (As Tony LaRussa was getting lotsa genius accolades for walking Barry with the bases loaded).

   And I have zippy recollection of what they determined, but to me, prior events do not affect future outcomes. He’s got a .446 obp as of today, so you’ve got a better than 50% chance of getting him out.

6. ME said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 10:34 am

   I hate to say it but if the guy is ever tagged for steroids I won’t be surprised. Great clutch hitter…but maybe too good to be true.

7. Rusty Shackelford said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 10:48 am

   Right or wrong, I think he has already been convicted in a court of public opinion for being on steroids. But it should be pointed out that there are a TON of guys who used steroids and never made it to the majors. Dude is ridiculously talented either way.

8. BatesHorn said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 10:56 am

   I do not believe Pujols has ever been accused of doing steriods. All assertations have been of the Lance Armstrong Variety: “Well, everyone else was doing it, so he must be as well”.

   He’s usually pretty upfront with a “I’ll pee anytime, anywhere” attitude

   Which, oddly enough, I happen to share…

9. BrickHorn said:

   August 6th, 2009 at 11:15 am

   I’d actually be surprised if Albert’s juicing.

10. kenneth said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am

    I remember a few years back when Astros shortstop Julio Lugo had a home run in the opener. After a few minutes of numbers crunching on my K-Pro, I deduced that, at that rate, Lugo would hit 162 dingers for the year!

11. Chooky said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am

    That was damn funny, kenneth.

12. E said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    snore

13. Phenomenal Smith said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 12:04 pm

    Right or wrong, I think he has already been convicted in a court of public opinion for being on steroids.

    Really? I haven’t noticed an “Albert is juicing” movement at all.

    Regardless, you have to pitch to him with the bases loaded because he’ll regress to the mean. Further, he’s flirting with the triple crown – stay tuned to that.

14. Nuke LaLoosh said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    or just plant one in his ear hole, much more effective than a walk.

15. BrickHorn said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    He’s got a .446 obp as of today, so you’ve got a better than 50% chance of getting him out.

    Okay, so let’s apply Albert’s overall numbers to this situation. Assume that a single with bases loaded will score 1-2 runs, each about half the time. So, the expected runs from a single are 1.5. The same is probably true of a double (maybe a little conservative) at 2.5. A triple scores 3 runs, and a homer scores 4.

    With those assumptions, you can expect 0.9 runs per at-bat (not plate appearance – I don’t have the patience to run down his sac fly numbers, which would actually improve his numbers in this case). In sum, it’s close to a wash to walk to him versus pitching to him. And this analysis ignores the situational pitching. With bases loaded, the batter will see more hitter’s pitches.

16. mm said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Brick
    You are not taking into consideration the positive value of an out to the pitching team.
    Ie, if you end up walking Albert, you still have to pitch to the next guy with the bases loaded. I suspect it is that fact that makes it pretty clear that walking him is a poor decision.

17. LonghornScott said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    But doesn’t that analysis leave out the impact of getting an out? It’s not just that you would allow zero runs, it’s that you would decrease the probability of allowing runs from future batters in the inning. I don’t think there is ever realistically a situation where it’s statistically advantageous to walk in a run.

18. BrickHorn said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    You are not taking into consideration the positive value of an out to the pitching team.
    Ie, if you end up walking Albert, you still have to pitch to the next guy with the bases loaded. I suspect it is that fact that makes it pretty clear that walking him is a poor decision.

    That’s a good point. That makes it pretty clear based on Pujols’ season-wide statistics. I wonder what the analysis would say using only his situational statistics – i.e. can you expect less than 1.5 runs from the next batter (or batters, depending on number of outs) in the Cardinals’ line-up?

19. Pancho Claus said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

    Regression to the mean is a long-run phenomenon. It has nothing to do with an individual at bat. Look at the splits… if the pitcher is pitching well and typically pitches well against Pujols, pitch him. If the pitcher is Brad Lidge, have him plunk the big fella.

20. BrickHorn said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Regression to the mean is a long-run phenomenon.

    Also, it doesn’t imply that his situational numbers will regress to his overall numbers.

    Look at the splits… if the pitcher is pitching well and typically pitches well against Pujols, pitch him. If the pitcher is Brad Lidge, have him plunk the big fella.

    Also a fair point.

21. eric said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    I think you’d have to pitch to him just considering that Holliday is protecting him, and he’s been hitting much better than Albert lately overall.

22. Phenomenal Smith said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    Also, it doesn’t imply that his situational numbers will regress to his overall numbers.

    You wrote: “opposing managers would be crazy to keep pitching to Pujols with the bases loaded.”

    That’s just crazy talk. To me, you’re saying that one should expect Pujols to average 2.67 RBI per bases loaded plate appearance. But, we all know 2.67 isn’t the real mean. If you’re basing an pitcher/hitter confrontation on that. Over a statistically significant sample size, Pujols won’t average that so don’t use those numbers to evaluate what you do.

    Also, I think it’s been proven that there are no clutch hitters. Hitters hit what they hit.

    Look at the splits

    Splits are way overused – especially specific pitcher v. specific hitter. Rarely enough numbers to base you decision.

23. Vasherized said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    It’s also worth pointing out that over on Atomic Teeth, Albert Pujols gets as much coverage as any actual players on the Missouri Tiger football team, past or present.

    While Phenomenal may not have access to Huckleberry’s tricked out abacus, he knows of what he speaks.

24. BrickHorn said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Over a statistically significant sample size, Pujols won’t average that so don’t use those numbers to evaluate what you do.

    And what will he average? Something between 0.9 and 2.67. Certainly not 0.9, because a pitcher is likely to throw more strikes with 3 men on.

    Over his career, Pujols has hit .414 in 124 plate appearances (99 ABs) with bases loaded. He hit 11 HRs, 9 doubles and had 136 RBIs. So, that’s good for 1.37 runs per AB or 1.1 run per plate appearance. 1.37 runs per AB is significantly higher than his runs per AB over all at-bats this season (0.9).

    So, no, he will likely not regress to the mean represented by his comprehensive stats. He may regress to his career-long situational mean, although he could also drive the career mean for this particular situation upward. He’s certainly done that this season.

25. Ozzie Smith said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Pujols is obviously taking HGH or steroids. He is huge. Mexican don’t get that big from eating tacos.

26. Art Vandelay said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    Sorry Brick, when a skinny NBA forward (Rashard Lewis) gets suspended for 10 games for elevated testosterone… then I’ll bet my left nad that Pujols is eating Count HGH for breakfast every morning.

27. Pancho Claus said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    I disagree that Phenomenal knows what he’s talking about.

    Yes, splits are based on limited information. But it IS information. And for a division game, for a starting pitcher or closer, you might be basing splits on dozens of plate appearances. The binomial standard error isn’t that big. And it doesn’t take big differences in splits when someone is batting .300 to determine if you’re better off pitching to Pujols or the next guy, or bringing in another pitcher.

    Again, see below.
    [img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2008/writers/albert_chen/10/10/chen.lidge/pujols-lidge-ap2.jpg[/img}

28. Pancho Claus said:

    August 6th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    

29. jinx said:

    August 7th, 2009 at 5:04 am

    I’ve always thought that he does steroids. I also have a theory that ESPN waits for extremely slow points in the sporting season to release a few more names on the infamous list.

30. Pancho Claus said:

    August 7th, 2009 at 6:36 am

    Allow me to clarify why I don’t think Phenomenal knows what he’s talking about. Some statisticians (specifically, those who teach undergrads) poo-poo using short run estimates to make decisions because they have a low correlation with long-run probabilities.

    In some cases, they are right – a pitcher’s splits against a batter might simply be due to luck, statistical anomolies, or previous situational contstraints that are not relevant to the particular situation (e.g., stats accumulated before a pitcher develops another good pitch).

    In others, they are wrong. Some batters will tell you they pick up the ball really well against some pitchers, can better anticipate the pitch that’s coming, are in a guy’s head, or just hit that pitcher’s particluar arsenal of pitches well. I believe them. It doesn’t work out all the time, but neither does counting cards… and we know how that turns out.

    Anyway, what I think I would do is look at the difference between splits between Pujols and whoever is behind him, then multiply that by the slugging pct to figure out whether I think it’s a safer bet to walk in the run. I think that calculation usually dictates that you pitch to the guy.

31. Phenomenal Smith said:

    August 7th, 2009 at 7:00 am

    I might not know what I’m talking about. The only point I was trying to make is that basing a decision on pitching to Pujols with the bases loaded on his 2009 performance is not wise.

    In short, I’m a sample size devotee and have read every Baseball Prospectus cover to cover. Just enough data to make me dangerous, perhaps.

32. BrickHorn said:

    August 7th, 2009 at 7:05 am

    The only point I was trying to make is that basing a decision on pitching to Pujols with the bases loaded on his 2009 performance is not wise.

    That is a fair point. It doesn’t diminish what he’s doing this year, even if his numbers are distorted by the lens of a minimal data set. As college football fans, we’ve learned to celebrate statistically insignificant results.

33. BatesHorn said:

    August 7th, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Brick, there is no question that Pujols is putting up numbers at a rate and age for a right handed hitter not seen since possibly Jimmy Foxx.

34. BatesHorn said:

    August 7th, 2009 at 10:15 am

    SINCE. SINCE. SINCE.

Leave a Reply