23 thoughts on “Strand Leaders: The best when you’re in a mess”

1. Hartvig February 10, 2012 at 1:29 am

   Who would have thought Mike Myers would rank so high. I assume that there were a number of 1 batter appearances involved in his case.

   Reply ↓
2. CursedClevelander February 10, 2012 at 1:57 am

   He doesn’t qualify because of the IP per G qualifier, but Ricardo Rincon was historically good with Inherited Runners. He inherited 422 in his career, and has a career IS% of 18.96 (or, to say it another way, a career Strand Rate of 81.06).

   From what I can see, no one else is particularly close to him. The only pitchers with over 100 IR and a better IS% are Frank Francisco (18.06%), Brian Wilson (17.65%) and Jesse Carlson (17%), but none of them have anywhere near Rincon’s 422 IR (they have 144, 119 and 100, respectively).

   Reply ↓
3. Doug February 10, 2012 at 3:11 am

   Surprised Frank Francisco shows so well here, and allowed ed only 1 IR to score last year. It seemed a lot worse, as evidenced by his 4 blown saves in only 21 opportunities in 2011.

   Reply ↓
4. Dr. Remulak February 10, 2012 at 7:12 am

   Old school relievers on the “most inherited runners — career” list, indicative of an era when closers would pitch 1 2/3, 2 1/3, etc. for the save. Now most simply come in at the start of the ninth.

   Reply ↓
5. kzuke February 10, 2012 at 8:05 am

   Is there a way to weigh the inherited runners by the base that they’re on? Should a runner that scores from third with zero outs count as the same as a runner that scores from first with two outs?

   Reply ↓
   1. John Autin Post authorFebruary 10, 2012 at 10:15 am

      That’s a good idea, and I wish that data were easily available. However, it is captured by the measures Win Probability Added (WPA) and Adjusted Leverage Index (aLI).

      I included WPA in the tables, but I now think I should have used WPA/aLI.

      Reply ↓
      1. topper009 February 10, 2012 at 11:03 am

         an inherited runner that scores is credited to the previous pitcher, but is the WPA deduction given to the current pitcher? Seems inconsistent?

         Reply ↓
         1. John Autin Post authorFebruary 10, 2012 at 11:10 am

            Topper, it’s consistent with WPA.

            In the same vein, an inherited runner that scores is charged to the previous pitcher, but the (potential) Blown Save is charged to the reliever.

            Reply ↓
            1. topper009 February 10, 2012 at 11:41 am

               Not sure about that, in game 2 of the World Series this year, Arthur Rhodes came in to face 1 hitter and allowed a SF for -0.07 WPA. Since it was earned to the previous pitcher Rhodes should have a WPA of 0 for the game correct? But instead he has the 0.07 from the SF.
            2. John Autin Post authorFebruary 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm

               Topper — That’s how WPA works. Whatever happens while the pitcher was on the mound goes on the pitcher’s WPA record, whether it’s “fair” or not.

               If a pitcher comes in with no outs in the 9th, bases loaded and his team up by 1 run, and all 3 runners randomly decide to abandon their bases and go into the dugout, and are thus declared out, with no action at all by the pitcher — he still gets credited with (a) 1 IP (by regular baseball rules), (b) a save (ditto), and (c) a huge positive WPA (by WPA rules).

               But maybe I’m misunderstanding your question?
6. deal February 10, 2012 at 8:23 am

   How does Carlos Marmol rank so high? Feels like everytime the cubs are on TV he is blowing up. Is this just a case of a guy that can pitch well in the 8th and can’t in the 9th or is he a guy that was really good 3 years ago and just hasn’t pitched well recently. Or are my eyes deceiveing me and I am falling for the small sample size dilemma?

   Reply ↓
   1. John Autin Post authorFebruary 10, 2012 at 10:17 am

      Marmol had a bad 2011, but his career strikeout rate is so high — 4th highest ever among pitchers with at least 300 IP — that it would be almost impossible for him not to have a good strand rate.

      Reply ↓
   2. topper009 February 10, 2012 at 12:01 pm

      This doesn’t count runners he allowed to reach himself who then scored. Don’t worry, Marmol still sucks, the Cubs will continue to blow late leads and the sun will rise tomorrow.

      Reply ↓
7. PhilM February 10, 2012 at 8:57 am

   Great to see Billy Pierce on the all-time strand list, who was John Smoltz before there was a John Smoltz — but only for two years. I always wondered if he could have had an Eckersley-type career and a HOF ticket if the “closer” mentality had appeared in the 60s.

   Reply ↓
8. Tmckelv February 10, 2012 at 9:34 am

   You mention Mariano Rivera’s average career strand rate. I think over the years his overall use (like most closers) has been starting the 9th inning unless there was a real mess in the 8th inning.

   Is there a statistic for inherited runners stranded that takes base-out situations into consideration (I guess like a relief pitcher’s equivalent to RE24).

   Reply ↓
   1. Tmckelv February 10, 2012 at 11:03 am

      Sorry, I see by question about base-out situation was asked earlier. I must have missed it.

      Reply ↓
9. Christopher February 10, 2012 at 9:51 am

   I misunderstood the topic! I was expecting a table of batters who left runners stranded and I was eager to see just how far up the chart Jayson Werth placed!

   Reply ↓
10. Dr. Remulak February 10, 2012 at 10:31 am

    Brian Wilson career WHIP >1.30 yet #1 in strand rate. Pretty impressive with runners on base. Fear the beard.

    Reply ↓
11. John Autin Post authorFebruary 10, 2012 at 10:51 am

    By the way, I didn’t say so explicitly, but the reason I used a threshold of 0.9 IP per game for most of the tables was to exclude “LOOGies” (lefty one-out guys). It’s a lot easier to be credited with stranding a baserunner if you only have to face one or two batters. Too bad there’s no way to count only those instances in which the reliever finished the inning.

    Reply ↓
    1. Daniel February 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm

       B-R defines IS% as follows:
       > IS% — Inherited Score Percentage
       > Percentage of runners on base when pitcher entered the game who subsequently scored.
       > These runners show up in the previous pitcher’s ERA.

       So I don’t see that it would be easier for a LOOGY to get credit for stranding a baserunner, although I agree it’s a bit more random.
       Unless you think that LOOGYs are more likely to come in with 2 outs than other relievers?

       Reply ↓
       1. John Autin Post authorFebruary 10, 2012 at 1:40 pm

          Daniel — I believe the B-R explanation is simply incomplete. The inherited runner scoring is charged only to the account of the pitcher who is in the game at the time the run scores. It works exactly like the accounting for blown saves.

          Say a pitcher inherits a baserunner, then leaves the game with that runner still on base. That runner can no longer go on his “Inherited-Scored” record. For I.S. purposes, that runner is now the responsibility of the new pitcher.

          Take game 2 of last year’s WS, which Topper cited in comment #17. Arthur Rhodes came in with 2 on and no outs. He retired the only batter he faced, on a sac fly, with the other runner moving up to 3rd.

          Rhodes then departed and was replaced by Lance Lynn, who allowed another sac fly.

          Rhodes is credited with inheriting 2 runners and allowing 1 to score — even though 2nd runner that he inherited also scored, eventually.

          That’s a perfect example of why it’s easier for a LOOGY to be credited with “stranding” a runner — i.e., he often is not expected to finish the inning.

          http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLN/SLN201110200.shtml

          Reply ↓
          1. Daniel February 10, 2012 at 4:52 pm

             Hmm, you’re right. The wording “subsequently” made me think it was deliberate, but I guess not.

             I took a look at one more game to check:
             http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYA/NYA201109212.shtml
             Cesar Ramos came in with 2 runners on, issued an intentional walk, and then left, with 2 IR but 0 IS!

             Reply ↓
       2. John Autin Post authorFebruary 10, 2012 at 1:45 pm

          At the same time, I’m sure that LOOGYs are significantly more likely to come in with 2 outs than other relievers — because their usage is targeted to specific hitters, while most relievers are targeted to specific innings (and thus usually start the inning). But that’s not the main reason I chose to exclude them from the lists.

          Reply ↓