Who validates the numbers that go into the statistical databases?

Sure. When you count 6 and 4 left on base, you are adding up the number of runners who were on base when the inning ended.

That's a kind of team stat. But the box score records a stat on a per player basis. Take for instance a lead-off single followed by three strikeouts. Each of batters 2 through 4 left a runner on base. So at the end of the inning, 1 runner is left on base, but the box will show 3 failures to score the runner.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Sure. When you count 6 and 4 left on base, you are adding up the number of runners who were on base when the inning ended.

That's a kind of team stat. But the box score records a stat on a per player basis. Take for instance a lead-off single followed by three strikeouts. Each of batters 2 through 4 left a runner on base. So at the end of the inning, 1 runner is left on base, but the box will show 3 failures to score the runner.

You know it! Try running some automated stat programs by ending an inning where not all LOB runners are captured. IT WILL DRIVE YOU NUTS trying to backtrack and find that "missing" end of inning LOB runner.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Sure. When you count 6 and 4 left on base, you are adding up the number of runners who were on base when the inning ended.

That's a kind of team stat. But the box score records a stat on a per player basis. Take for instance a lead-off single followed by three strikeouts. Each of batters 2 through 4 left a runner on base. So at the end of the inning, 1 runner is left on base, but the box will show 3 failures to score the runner.

To tell the truth, I’ve never in all my years heard LOBs defined in that manner. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but where do I find it defined?

I’ll have to go back and check to see if that’s what they’ve done. To be honest, it seems like a pretty worthless stat to me if used that way, but then again, since it isn’t my stat, someone must think it has some value.

Well, I checked, and if its that an LOB is credited to a batter, as in he left a runner on base, the numbers are just as far off the other way.

I don’t know what the answer is, but I’d sure like to know where that definition is. Post it if you can.

Thanx!

If you're looking at Gameday box score, you'll see that they also list Team LOB as 6 for Cleveland, and 4 For KC. It's the last entry for each team under "Batting".

I went through the Summary of the game, and got 12 and 8 as the number of batters who left a runner on base, using the following criterion.

I don't have a source for this, but basically if a batter ends his plate appearance without an official at bat, or if he gets a hit, then no runners are charged to his LOB total. Otherwise, any runners who were on base that did not score are counted against him as LOB.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
If you're looking at Gameday box score, you'll see that they also list Team LOB as 6 for Cleveland, and 4 For KC. It's the last entry for each team under "Batting".

I went through the Summary of the game, and got 12 and 8 as the number of batters who left a runner on base, using the following criterion.

I don't have a source for this, but basically if a batter ends his plate appearance without an official at bat, or if he gets a hit, then no runners are charged to his LOB total. Otherwise, any runners who were on base that did not score are counted against him as LOB.

OK, I found that. Thanx.

I was given this definition by someone on another board.

LOB - "Runners Left on Base" - When a player bats with at least one runner on base, he is charged with one (or more) runners left on base when his plate appearance is over, unless one of the following events occurs: he reaches base safely without another runner being put out as the direct result of his plate appearance; his batted ball results in a runner's scoring, even if he or another runner is put out on the play.Another way of putting it: At the end of a plate appearance resulting in an out created by his contact, a batter is charged with an LOB for each runner occupying a base at the conclusion of that plate appearance. This includes the batter himself, should he occupy a base.
http://www.ootpdevelopments.co...cs_and_abbreviations

I sure don’t mean to make light of any stat, but in all my years, I’ve never once seen or heard of anyone looking at LOBs that way. Now it may be that everyone but me just KNOWS about individual LOBs, but don’t talk much about them because they’re so intuitive and part of the fabric of the game, but I’m the 1st to admit to total iggerince!

Now I’ll have to try to find some kind of application of that particular metric so I can see if I can make any sense out of it.

Well, that defintion isn't very clear either, but it seems to be the same idea. The second sentence sems to imply that a strikeout victim couldn't by definition leave any runners on base, but I suspect that is just not-so-careful writing.

Anyway the utility, IMO, is related to the RBI stat, which by itself is not very useful. When we see that a player has no RBIs during a game, it could mean that he had a rough day at the plate, or it could mean that nobody got on base before him, and his only opportunity for a RBI was to hit a home run.

The individual LOB stat tells us how many opportunities a player had to get RBIs, excluding solo HRs.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
Well, that defintion isn't very clear either, but it seems to be the same idea. The second sentence sems to imply that a strikeout victim couldn't by definition leave any runners on base, but I suspect that is just not-so-careful writing.

Anyway the utility, IMO, is related to the RBI stat, which by itself is not very useful. When we see that a player has no RBIs during a game, it could mean that he had a rough day at the plate, or it could mean that nobody got on base before him, and his only opportunity for a RBI was to hit a home run.

The individual LOB stat tells us how many opportunities a player had to get RBIs, excluding solo HRs.

Yeah, there sure does seem to be a whole lot of “wiggle room” on this particular stat, doesn’t there?

There’s a smoky cloud that hangs over RBIs, but that can really be said about just about any stat that isn’t totally black and white. To me, for exactly what you pointed out, i.e. RBIs being extremely opportunity dependent, have a great deal to do with where in the lineup a player is, or really where he is relative to players who have high OBPs.

I’ve never been impressed with a guy who gets 100 RBIs, when the 3 guys ahead of him seem to be on base all the time. To me, that means just about anyone capable of making it to the level being played, is capable of getting a lot of RBIs if put into that spot. So, when one weighs this “individual LOB’ stat, its really the opposite of an RBI. Any at bat is an RBI opportunity. Any at bat with 1 runner on is an opportunity for 2 RBIs, with 2 runners on, 3, etc.. Now if that’s all there was to it, I could see it, but when all the “ifs” and “buts” are taken into account, it becomes so murky, I honestly don’t think its worth the time to try to explain it.

Over the years I’ve found that any metric that takes more than 10 or 15 seconds to explain, isn’t one that anyone other than the numbers geeks even want to hear about, and this one seems to fall into that mold.

quote:

Yeah, there sure does seem to be a whole lot of “wiggle room” on this particular stat, doesn’t there?

My guess is that there is a very precise definition, because the computer needs to know which algorithm to use. I just don't know the defintion.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:
My guess is that there is a very precise definition, because the computer needs to know which algorithm to use. I just don't know the defintion.

I’m sure your right because that’s precisely why my program didn’t agree with whatever it is they used.

I don’t care what definition they use. I just know that unless and until it becomes general knowledge, that stat is worthless to the masses because it has no meaning. Others may well use it and think its cool, but I won’t ever use a metric I can’t fully explain.