OBP+E a better Statistic than OBP?

[Greenmonsters]

IME, it seems that some players consistently ROE (reach on error) much more than others. Usually these players also are among the BA leaders and I have concluded that the ROEs often are a product of speed, forcing the defense to hurry, or consistently hard hit balls that challenge fielders. Definitely errors by rule, but when its the same players that lead their teams (rec, school, TB, or college) in ROE season after season, it suggests to me that these players "force" those errors or are just consistently lucky. Either way, these players end up on base more than their BA or OBP indicates, which is productive to a team's offensive output. For that reason, I used to track conventional OBP but actually put more credence in a variation, OBP+E, that included ROE. IMO, the ROE impact declines as the level of play increases, but I don't believe it disappears entirely, even at the college level.

Just my thoughts and experience. Agree? Disagree?

 

[mike s]

I definately agree that some players either through hitting hard or agressive base running "force" the defense to make an error. I have always paid attention to who gets on base or advances however they do it. I let the player know that yes you got on or in on an error but you made it happen, good job.

 

[JoeKC]

Agreed. Our stats bear this out every season. I also believe having runners on base adds to the pressure that results in errors. The young lady that leads our team in ROE typically bats 3rd in the lineup, and routinely has some speed on the bases ahead of her. That combination of pressure on the defense is very effective.

 

[sportinus]

I am not sure my stats back up your statement I will look this weekend. The fact that you scored it an error means it should of been an out. Your formula seems to imply that you count on batters to consistently make the other team have errors, and I cannot buy into that theory. Perhaps you are scoring errors to harshly, isn't it reasonable effort/ability to make the play? 3rd base playing up, a screamer hit to them which they can only react and get a glove on it but do not make a clean play, I would score that as a hit, not an error. The science of scoring is an inexact science I have seen a batter take a full cut and hit an 5 foot dribbler which the catcher throws them out but the runner advanced so score it as a sac bunt. definitely not how I would score it.

Errors come down to our perception of the play. Our expectation of ordinary effort are all over the spectrum. My expectation in REC was lower then my expectation of TB and of course all related spectators assume if you get on base it was a hit. As a side not one game a player hit the ball 4 times to 3rd base and each time the lead runner was forced. After the game the parents came up to me beaming saying how did you like that coach she went 4 for 4. I just replied it was unbelievable.

 

[CoogansBluff]

IME, it seems that some players consistently ROE (reach on error) much more than others.

You make a good point about the declining impact of ROE as skill/age advances. I do value OBA+ROE much more in, say, 10U than 16U. ...

I'm not sure whether your statement above would stand up to science. The theory makes sense that some hitters draw more errors than others, but the random nature of our world rarely gets enough credit for explaining things. If we keep stats for a team over 50 games, there's no doubt that somebody is going to have 6 ROE and another will have 2 ROE, and it's natural to explain it in our heads as ''that girl hits the ball hard, or she's fast and puts pressure on the defense, so she earned those 10.'' But it's a small sample of ROE, and it might just be luck. Or it might not. The best evidence that one player is better at ''drawing errors'' than another is to compare them season to season.

 

[JoeKC]

I am not sure my stats back up your statement I will look this weekend. The fact that you scored it an error means it should of been an out. Your formula seems to imply that you count on batters to consistently make the other team have errors, and I cannot buy into that theory. Perhaps you are scoring errors to harshly, isn't it reasonable effort/ability to make the play? 3rd base playing up, a screamer hit to them which they can only react and get a glove on it but do not make a clean play, I would score that as a hit, not an error. The science of scoring is an inexact science I have seen a batter take a full cut and hit an 5 foot dribbler which the catcher throws them out but the runner advanced so score it as a sac bunt. definitely not how I would score it.

Errors come down to our perception of the play. Our expectation of ordinary effort are all over the spectrum. My expectation in REC was lower then my expectation of TB and of course all related spectators assume if you get on base it was a hit. As a side not one game a player hit the ball 4 times to 3rd base and each time the lead runner was forced. After the game the parents came up to me beaming saying how did you like that coach she went 4 for 4. I just replied it was unbelievable.

Agreed. The best definition to determine a hit or error in my opinion is "reasonable effort by an average player at the level of competition in question”. The latter stipulation allows for the differences between rec or "A" ball, and 8u vs 18u. It's still open to some interpretation, but does give needed latitude. I too have had conversations with players and parents in this area. Mostly when a hit to the outfield is misplayed allowing for extra bases. "Homeruns" that started out as routine singles/doubles are always "interesting" post-game discussion topics.

 

[Greenmonsters]

You make a good point about the declining impact of ROE as skill/age advances. I do value OBA+ROE much more in, say, 10U than 16U. ...

I'm not sure whether your statement above would stand up to science. The theory makes sense that some hitters draw more errors than others, but the random nature of our world rarely gets enough credit for explaining things. If we keep stats for a team over 50 games, there's no doubt that somebody is going to have 6 ROE and another will have 2 ROE, and it's natural to explain it in our heads as ''that girl hits the ball hard, or she's fast and puts pressure on the defense, so she earned those 10.'' But it's a small sample of ROE, and it might just be luck. Or it might not. The best evidence that one player is better at ''drawing errors'' than another is to compare them season to season.

Absolutely, about the sample size needing to be large. But when its the same players that lead their school and TB teams each year, it's noteworthy IMO.

 

[MsDinosaur]

I am not sure my stats back up your statement I will look this weekend. The fact that you scored it an error means it should of been an out. Your formula seems to imply that you count on batters to consistently make the other team have errors, and I cannot buy into that theory. Perhaps you are scoring errors to harshly, isn't it reasonable effort/ability to make the play? 3rd base playing up, a screamer hit to them which they can only react and get a glove on it but do not make a clean play, I would score that as a hit, not an error. The science of scoring is an inexact science I have seen a batter take a full cut and hit an 5 foot dribbler which the catcher throws them out but the runner advanced so score it as a sac bunt. definitely not how I would score it.

Errors come down to our perception of the play. Our expectation of ordinary effort are all over the spectrum. My expectation in REC was lower then my expectation of TB and of course all related spectators assume if you get on base it was a hit. As a side not one game a player hit the ball 4 times to 3rd base and each time the lead runner was forced. After the game the parents came up to me beaming saying how did you like that coach she went 4 for 4. I just replied it was unbelievable.

I don't do the scorebook, but in the one day of play DD has had so far, I saw her reach first twice where I would have called it ROE. Both were hard grounders. One back to the pitcher that bounced off her glove and one that bounced around in the second baseman's glove and got dropped. I just kinda figure if the ball didn't get through to the grass and DD reaches first, it must be an error.

 

[Country Boy]

My oldest DD was a slapper and bunter extraordinaire. And she was super fast. She drew more bad throws than everyone else on the team combined. IF's would hurry to field the ball and then rush their throw resulting in the ROE. DD never got the benefit of the doubt from DW, the scorekeeper. But I knew.

I would agree with the OBP+E better reflecting her value. But for most, it would be a moot argument.

 

[Sweet Lou]

Just my thoughts and experience. Agree? Disagree?

I agree.

In fact Baseball Prospectus had a decent article on players ability to ROE at the MLB level a few years back and found some who some were consistantly better at it than others. Not surpisingly the players that were better at it had a lot in common. They tended to be fast, tended to make a lot of contact and tended to hit a higher percentage of ground ball if I rememeber the details of the article correctly. If I still subscribed to BP I'd try and dig it up for you but I let that lapse a year or so ago.