The numbers seem... huge. One team (Mets) can attribute 77 extra runs in 100 games to baserunning; 16% of all runs they have scored are from running above average? Willie Taveras gains 44 runs, when he has only been on base 98 ties, and scored a total of 45 runs himself (and driven in 19)? How many runs would he have scored if he were a BAD baserunner... negative 10?? Yes, I know the extra/fewer outs are also factored in.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the units; could it be "bases" instead of runs?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the units; could it be "bases" instead of runs?

Yes. That is my recollection when I previously read about this measure.

I wonder why a triple penalty for being thrown out rather than the double penalty I think most of us would expect.

Another reason the Mets should try to acquire Randy Winn. I'm sure it will only take a cheese sandwich with extra horseradish, won't it?

Bautista at -19? Ouch.

When combined with his fielding, double ouch.

For example, a runner goes first to third on a single about 30 percent of the time.

It'd take forever to research this, but it'd be interesting to see if this percentage has changed much over the years.

And it'd also be interesting to see how certain specific players really performed. It was said many times about Joe Dimaggio that he "always" went from first to third on a single. Hyperbole aside, I wonder what his actual percentage might have been.

I'll guarantee one thing. I doubt if any players back in the day parlayed potential triples into doubles and singles the way they often do today, by standing at the plate admiring their hypothetical home runs. I'd love to see that wonderful little bit of baserunning added to a player's statistical line.

Ian Kinsler, Rangers +40

I wonder if lineup construction is factored into this. If Kinsler bats ahead of Hamilton and Bradley, one a lefty and one a switch-hitter (batting lefty two thirds of the time), and if those lefties hit a disproportionate number of their singles to right field (as lefties are wont to do), wouldn't that improve Kinsler's ability to go from first to third on a single?

I wonder if lineup construction is factored into this. If Kinsler bats ahead of Hamilton and Bradley, one a lefty and one a switch-hitter (batting lefty two thirds of the time), and if those lefties hit a disproportionate number of their singles to right field (as lefties are wont to do), wouldn't that improve Kinsler's ability to go from first to third on a single?

Yes, but in the ideal Ranger lineup construction, it goes Kinsler - Young - Hamilton - Bradley, so I'm not sure precisely how much difference that would make. In fact, I don't know that Kinsler has batted directly in front of either Hamilton or Bradley this season.

Kinsler is leadoff and Hamilton and Bradley bat third and fourth. If Kinsler gets on their is a pretty darn good chance these two are going to bat in the same inning.

Kinsler - Young - Hamilton - Bradley... In fact, I don't know that Kinsler has batted directly in front of either Hamilton or Bradley this season.

In cases where Kinsler singles and Young follows by making an out other than a groundout, then Kinsler will effectively be batting ahead of the lefties.

Okay looked at PI, Hamilton only hit one single with Kinsler on first base and it was a weak hit to third base.

Now then with Young hitting Kinsler was on first base 10 times. Kinsler went to third 8 times, 4 times the ball went to right, and once to deep center. The other 3 went to left.

Man on first and third Kinsler went to third once on a deep hit to center.

Bradley never hit a single with Kinsler on first and no runner in front of Kinsler.

Kinsler is +22 on stolen bases. So he needs to be +18 on the rest of the bases.

The numbers seem... huge. One team (Mets) can attribute 77 extra runs in 100 games to baserunning; 16% of all runs they have scored are from running above average?

As you mention, it probably is bases, not runs. But something to consider regarding the Mets. They are 4th in the NL in runs, 1 behind Pitt. They are third in OBP, but 11th in Slug. They're 11th in OPS with RISP. With runners on, they are 6th in OPS. They're 11th in HR. All of those numbers don't match up to being 4th in runs scored, so it makes sense they are getting a boost from running the bases.

Kinsler is leadoff and Hamilton and Bradley bat third and fourth. If Kinsler gets on their is a pretty darn good chance these two are going to bat in the same inning.

True. That being said, if Young is batting second with Kinsler at 1B, there is probably at LEAST a 40% chance that Kinsler is not at 1B when Hamilton bats (OBP + FC + DP + SB + CS). I'm not sure how meaningful having two lefty bats in the 3 and 4 spots is in that scenario. In fact, I would argue that it could depress the running rating of Kinsler because, when he is on 2B, singles are more than likely going to RF as opposed to LF (and conventional wisdom puts stronger arms in RF vs. LF).

With Kinsler on second and Hamilton hitting a single Kinsler scored 4 times in 4 instances. 2 balls hit to right, one to deep center, and other into center. Kinsler was on second all by himself with Young up 10 times. Kinsler scored 8 times. once to left field, 3 times to center, and 4 times to right.

So that is 26 situations and Kinsler "took" the extra base 21 times so that is +14 right there.

With Kinsler on first Young hit a double 4 times. Twice he scored so that is +1. Once to RF and the other to CF.

Young hit a double with a man on first and second and Kinsler only went to third on that. I don't know if that counts as an opp or not.

It'd take forever to research this, but it'd be interesting to see if this percentage has changed much over the years.

About a third of the way down this article:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know-last-week36/

Data courtesy of John Jarvis.

Anyway someone can convert these to runs added or lost?

Why is Escobar such a poor baserunner? He has good speed and he's an outstanding defensive SS, indicating to me that he has a quick first step. Surprising to say the least.

Anyway someone can convert these to runs added or lost?

Wouldn't that just involve dividing by four?

Yes, I suppose it would. So we're seeing the difference between the best baserunner and the worst baserunner as probably a little more than 2 wins (using these are prorated stats). That seems about right.

Wouldn't that just involve dividing by four?

I don't think it quite works that way. Wouldn't you have to use the Run Expectancy Matrix to compute the run value of each "extra" base?

Wouldn't that just involve dividing by four?

I think divising by about 4 is right. I maight have said (multiply by) .3, but sure.

it probably is bases

Definitely is. Says so in the exerpt:

it’s simply how many extra bases beyond average a player gains

I am also concerned about teh park effects tehre. Four of those top five have parks that I could consider conducive to going first to third or scoring from second.

Dan Fox studied this in a thoroughly convincing way in 2005, and published in THT. He found that the spread in a particular year between the best baserunners (not including stolen bases) and the worst was +15 and -15 bases.

Willy Taveras has gone 42-4 in SB/CS this year, so he'd be +10 baserunning and +34 base-stealing using the Dewan/James metric. That is plausible and consistent with Fox' study.

Yeah, but Billy Butler's not consistent w/Fox's study. Neither are the other slow guys, who don't try to steal many bases at all. Also, we're not even two-thirds of the way into the season. At this rate there will be a few guys who finish in the range of -25 to -30. Well outside Fox's range.

It looks like Billy Butler just shouldn't be a professional baseball player, what with his terrible fielding, running, and hitting....

Ballparks and number of outs definitely need to be accounted for in devising a metric of this nature.

Thanks for the link, Studes!

Yes, I suppose it would. So we're seeing the difference between the best baserunner and the worst baserunner as probably a little more than 2 wins (using these are prorated stats). That seems about right.

This doesn't feel quite right to me. The difference, over 162 games, between, say, Rickey Henderson and Boog Powell, is all of 2 wins?

Dan Fox studied this in a thoroughly convincing way in 2005, and published in THT. He found that the spread in a particular year between the best baserunners (not including stolen bases) and the worst was +15 and -15 bases.

Doesn't this suggest that the difference is only somewhere between 7.5 and 9 runs, or less than a single win? How can that be right?

Doesn't this suggest that the difference is only somewhere between 7.5 and 9 runs, or less than a single win? How can that be right?

Taking the extra base rarely matters greatly. Most great baserunners don't have that many opportunities to take the extra base (other than steals) because of players in front of them clogging the bases or batters behind them not getting hits. Tom Tippett looked at Ichiro years ago and the surprising thing wasn't so much how few extra bases he took but how few opportunities he had to take the extra base.

Near as I can tell, this is a counting stat so some chunk of the difference is due to differences in opportunities. I believe the Fox (and MGL and others) were based more on rates -- i.e. Taveras takes the extra base X% more of the time so if he gets an average number of opportunities, he's Y bases better than the average.