This article, the second in a series, results from the joint efforts of Jonny German and Mike Green. It began with Mike's Hall watch series on shortstops and the search for more reliable objective measures of Barry Larkin's defence than were otherwise available. In the first piece, we attempted to evaluate Barry Larkin's efficiency in converting ground balls into outs. This time, we attempt the same thing for the double play ball, again using a play-by-play analysis.
We begin with a restatement of the basic information from Part 1 of the series.
The event file and hit diagram
The Retrosheet event file for Cincinnati's 1991 season contains a pitch by pitch and play by play account of every game of the season. Players, umpires, weather conditions and even noteworthy radio calls of unusual plays are recorded. It is a fabulous resource. Most importantly for us, it contains the location of every batted ball, using the Project Scoresheet Hit location diagram. The infield portion of the diagram is reproduced below; the full diagram can be seen here.
The events file records a play using the notation:"standard numerical account/hit location"
To understand the way it works, here are a couple of examples. If a hitter grounds out on a ball hit directly at the shortstop, the events file will record "63/G6". The first half "63" means that it is an ordinary 6-3 play, fielded by the shortstop who throws on to first for the putout. The second half "G6" means that it is a ground ball fielded in the "6" zone in the diagram above.
If the hitter grounds out to the shortstop on a ball up the middle on the shortstop side of the bag, the events file will record "63/G6M". If the hitter grounds out to the shortstop on a ball in the hole, the events file will record "63/G56". A ground single through the hole will be recorded as "S7/G56D".
The method and results
To evaluate Barry Larkin's double play efficiency, we counted ground balls in the various zones for the shortstop, second baseman, first baseman and pitcher with a runner on first and less than two out for Larkin, other Cincinnati shortstops and the opposition, and the number of such balls that were converted into double plays. We then calculated the number of total double plays that Larkin was involved in compared with the number that could be expected (using his opportunities and the opposition's conversion rate). Finally, we attempt to apportion credit or blame for the results among Larkin and the other Cincinnati infielders.
Larkin Other Cin. SS Opposn. SS Larkin's efficiency
Conversions 0 0 1
Opportunities 19 5 23
Conv. rate 0% 0% 4.3%
Larkin's performance 4.3% X 19 opps=1 expected (0 actual)= -1
Conversions 13 6 14
Opportunities 26 9 35
Conv. rate 50% 66.7% 40%
Larkin's performance 40% X 26 opps= 10 expected (13 actual)= 3
Conversions 12 6 15
Opportunities 26 13 30
Conv. rate 46.2% 46.2% 50%
Larkin's performance 50% x 26 opps= 13 expected (12 actual)= -1
Conversions 14 5 11
Opportunities 31 9 33
Conv. rate 45.2% 55.6% 33.3%
Larkin's performance 33.3% X 31 opps= 10 expected (14 actual)= 3
Conversions 6 3 7
Opportunities 10 12 20
Conv. rate 60.0% 25.0% 35%
Larkin's performance 35% x 10 opps= 4 expected (6 actual)= 2
total expected vs. actual 6-4-3 and 4-6-3 = 6
Conversions 4 1 0
Opportunities 24 6 19
Conv. rate 16.7% 16.7% 0%
Conversions 1 0 4
Opportunities 6 1 11
Conv. rate 16.6% 0% 36.4%
Total rate 16.6% 14.3 13.3%
Larkin's performance 13.3% X 30 opps= 4 expected (5 actual)= 1
Conversions 2 0 2
Opportunities 12 1 14
Conv. rate 16.7% 0% 14.3%
Larkin's performance 14.3% X 12 opps= 2 expected (2 actual)= 0
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20050201085447999