Run Element Ratio
In the 1988 Baseball Abstract, Bill James introduced the concept of "run element ratio" when discussing Rickey Henderson in the Player Ratings and Comments section. Run element ratio divides the parts of secondary average into that which is valuable early in the inning, valuable for scoring runs (walks and stolen bases) and that which is valuable late in the inning, or valuable for driving in runs (power). The formula is (SB+BB)/(TB-H). If a player is over 1.00, then generally speaking you want him up early in the inning. If he is under 1.00, then he is more valuable later in the inning. Vince Coleman's career run element ratio is 4.4, meaning that he has little use except as a leadoff man; Don Mattingly's is .38, meaning that he is much more valuable later in the inning. With the foregoing in mind, I thought it would be interesting to examine the run element ratio leaders and laggards for the 2006 season. TOP 20 1. Joey Gathright 3.05 2. Jason Kendall 2.46 3. Willy Taveras 2.09 4. Dave Roberts 2.00 5. Brad Ausmus 2.00 6. Scott Podsednik 1.96 7. Felipe Lopez 1.89 8. Luis Castillo 1.88 9. Chone Figgins 1.77 10. Bobby Abreu 1.71 11. Nick Punto 1.68 12. Ryan Freel 1.62 13. Kenny Lofton 1.60 14. Brady Clark 1.53 15. Omar Vizquel 1.48 16. David Eckstein 1.46 17. Ichiro Suzuki 1.45 18. Brian Giles 1.40 19. Jamey Carroll 1.38 20. Craig Counsell 1.35 The number one mission for any leadoff hitter is to get on base. As James points out in another essay (entitled "The Lineup") in the same Abstract, "The largest determination of how many runs are likely to be scored in an inning is whether or not the lead-off man reaches base. If the lead-off man reaches base, the number of runs that will probably be scored in an inning is about three times as high as if the lead-off man is put out." Players with high OBP and high run element ratios are ideal leadoff hitters, especially if they also run the bases well. Brad Ausmus, for example, doesn't have a high OBP (.308) and isn't as fast as he was earlier in his career. Therefore, he is an outlier and would not be a good fit at the top of a lineup. In the Cory Snyder comments, James lists the players with the lowest run element ratios. Well-known names include Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Jim Rice, Harold Baines, Will Clark, and Joe Carter. "These are all players who are much better at finishing trouble than at starting it." BOTTOM 20 1. Miguel Olivo .145 2. Juan Uribe .147 3. Jeff Francoeur .195 4. Johnny Estrada .220 5. Joe Crede .231 6. Shea Hillenbrand .239 7. Bengie Molina .253 8. Robinson Cano .261 9. Kenji Johjima .284 10. Pedro Feliz .306 11. Craig Monroe .317 12. A.J. Pierzynski .319 13. Aramis Ramirez .325 14. Ben Broussard .333 15. Juan Rivera .344 16. Angel Berroa .362 17. Matt Holliday .363 18. Ty Wigginton .364 19. Rich Aurilia .385 20. Jacque Jones .386 James concedes that "there are two types of players who are awkward to position properly in the an offense. Those are 1) players who have no speed but still have high run element ratios, like Mike Scioscia and Mike LaValliere; and 2) players who have extremely low run element ratios. A player like Scioscia is difficult to position offensively because he is much more valuable early in the inning than late in the inning, but managers are reluctant to use him early in the inning because of his lack of speed." As it relates to lineup construction, James counters the conventional wisdom that was popular back then and, for the most part, today. One of the things that I have found, just in the last year, is that one problem in the design of an offense is the use of players with extremely low run element ratios in the four and five spots, who often lead off the second inning, leading to extremely few runs scored in the second inning. If you look at the list above, you'll see that many of these players, who are the least suited in baseball to lead off an inning, usually bat in the spot where they often lead off the second inning. I think you should try to avoid that. James says Andre Dawson (whose run element ratio was .246) "wasn't anything like the Most Valuable Player in the National League. If you drive in runs but don't do anything to carry on the offense, that's going to show up in the RBI count of the next two or three players." Later on, James points out, "An RBI man helps the offense in one way but hurts it in the other; a player who sets the table helps the offense in both ways. That is why the St. Louis Cardinal offense works so well - an offense of eight leadoff men, or eight guys with high run element ratios, is a perfectly workable offense, because so long as people keep getting on base, runs are going to keep scoring. But an offense that strings together several people with low run element ratios is not workable." The Detroit Tigers may have been a bit one-dimensional last year. And I don't mean pitching. I'm talking about the type of offensive players. The lineup was filled with low run element ratios in basically every spot. Craig Monroe .317 Magglio Ordonez .434 Brandon Inge .439 Ivan Rodriguez .453 Chris Shelton .486 Placido Polanco .563 Curtis Granderson .698 Sean Casey .717 Carlos Guillen .843 The Tigers were third in the AL in HR but second-to-last in BB. The team was 12th in OBP, 11th in SB, and last in SB%. Sure, DET was fifth in runs scored but perhaps the club could have been even more productive by changing out a "run producer" for a set-the-table type offensive player. There is more than one way to skin a cat or score runs to be more specific. Walks are always good, but they are generally more valuable at the beginning rather than later in an inning. Hits, on the other hand, are usually worth more with runners on than with nobody on base. Having the proper balance and knowing when to emphasize one over the other are two ways of getting the most out of a team's offense. [Update: The Run Element Ratios for all players with at least 400 plate appearances are listed in the comments below.] |
Comments
Very interesting topic - is there a source where you can find this statistic for all current players?
Posted by: Stephen Raymond at January 3, 2007 6:34 AM
Interesting discussion. But perhaps pitchers are more willing to walk a guy with 2 out than with nobody out, so the "walks" data is potentially skewed or over-rated.
Nobody wants the lead-off guy to get on, but how many times does a pitcher get behind in the count with 2 out and nobody on and walk the guy rather than groove a pitch that might end up in the seats?
Similarly, if I was a pitcher and I was going to give up a homer, I'd rather give it up to a guy leading off an inning than later in the inning with guys on base.
Intuitively, pitchers would seem to challenge hitters more with nobody out. So it would be harder as a batter to draw a walk opening an inning.
Some guys draw a lot of walks, but a walk with 2 outs and nobody on isn't nearly as likely to produce a run as a walk leading off an inning.
There should be a way to "weight" the stats so walks early in an inning count more than those late in an inning.
Posted by: john engler at January 3, 2007 7:15 AM
i'd be interested in seeing Barry Bonds' ratios throughout his career - there was a lot of talk (especially after Kent left) that he should bat 1 or 2, what with the amount of walks he was taking those yars. Always seemed like a good idea to me, but curious if the ratio says whether it was or not.
Go Giants! Barry hits .295/.465/.580 with 30 dingers, and the other Barry wins 17. Giants win 89 and the West
Posted by: SF Fan at January 3, 2007 9:39 AM
Joe Carter may not have been a good run element ratio guy, but he wasn't stupid. One year in Cleveland he bunted 6 times and got 6 hits for his trouble. I look on a team being behind by more than a run, late in the game and leading off as an appropriate time for a slugger to do this. I don't have any info if those were the times he did it, but I often thought that sluggers with some speed ought to consider bunting in such situations. The 3B isn't going to stand 35 feet away with Carter up.
Posted by: William Austad at January 3, 2007 6:45 PM
Speaking of sluggers laying one down, bunting always seems to enter the conversation when teams shift their entire infield over to counter a left-handed pull hitter, ie. The Bonds/Williams Shift. Williams and Bonds, for whatever reason, usually seemed to just ignore the shift. When you OPS 1.400, I can understand the "I don't get paid to bunt" philosophy, but I always wondered if they wouldn't be better off just taking the guaranteed single in most situations.
Statistically speaking, handing out the automatic IBB is one of the more ill-advised maneuvers made by major league managers, and it stands to reason that voluntarily allowing a base hit would be equally detrimental. If nothing else, occasionally laying a bunt down the third base line sends a message to the opposing team that they can't always stack up fielders on the right side.
Posted by: leno40 at January 3, 2007 9:03 PM
I like this, especially you putting the whole Tigers' lineup at the end...any chance you could post up a few more lineups from last year?
Posted by: Peter at January 6, 2007 11:12 AM
As requested, here is a list of players (sorted by team and ascending from low to high Run Element Ratio) with 400 or more plate appearances last year:
Posted by: Rich Lederer at January 6, 2007 6:05 PM