The Nats were blanked for the first time this season on Jackie Robinson Day across MLB. Mark (From Pittsburgh) & Al discuss the 2-0 defeat, where the Pirates scored both of their runs in the bottom of the 1st. (04:20) CJ Abrams reached base four times in
According to the Red Wings’ broadcasters the Nats are working on their challenges. At this stage “Winning challenges” is much ado about nothing. As a recent article in FanGraphs (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-early-nerdy-look-at-the-challenge-system/ ) points out the ABS Challenge System is much more complicated than simply winning a challenge. The article is worth a read, but here are some excerpts:
“Runs, not flipped calls, are the end goal of the challenge system. You could win 20 challenges in an 0-0 count with two outs and the bases empty and still help your team less than winning a single challenge in a 3-2 count with a runner on third and one out. I’m quite confident that this is the right way to think about it. Tom Tango’s extensive overview of the challenge system uses the same methodology. It’s what I came up with prior to consulting other folks at the site, and it’s also what they came up with before they talked to me. That’s a good sign that runs are the correct currency for challenge value.
“If players are behaving optimally, you’d expect to see a lot more challenges in the highest-value bucket. And great news: That’s exactly what’s going on so far. Batters challenge more frequently, even with a lower accuracy rate, in more important situations. They’re less accurate in those important situations, which is rational. They’re less accurate because they’re challenging more. And they’re challenging more because the value of succeeding is quite high.
“We already know that catchers do better than batters overall. They challenge more low-importance pitches than batters and succeed at a higher rate. They also challenge more frequently when winning a challenge is more valuable, despite it coming with a lower success rate. They still aren’t perfect, of course – again, calling balls and strikes is very hard.
“We Don’t Know Who’s Good Yet
It’s going to take a while to figure out who’s actually good at challenging. There aren’t that many observations, and not every observation has equal value because of the differing run values for different challenges. Winning the most challenges isn’t inherently great. Neither is having the best challenge winning percentage. Teams also seem to be changing their behavior on the fly. It’s going to take a long time to weed out the best from the worst with so much variance. To make matters even more complicated, there’s definitely value in not challenging at times.”
Those of you who found the math in the FanGraphs article confusing here’s Tom Tango’s explanation in chart form:
According to the Red Wings’ broadcasters the Nats are working on their challenges. At this stage “Winning challenges” is much ado about nothing. As a recent article in FanGraphs (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/an-early-nerdy-look-at-the-challenge-system/ ) points out the ABS Challenge System is much more complicated than simply winning a challenge. The article is worth a read, but here are some excerpts:
“Runs, not flipped calls, are the end goal of the challenge system. You could win 20 challenges in an 0-0 count with two outs and the bases empty and still help your team less than winning a single challenge in a 3-2 count with a runner on third and one out. I’m quite confident that this is the right way to think about it. Tom Tango’s extensive overview of the challenge system uses the same methodology. It’s what I came up with prior to consulting other folks at the site, and it’s also what they came up with before they talked to me. That’s a good sign that runs are the correct currency for challenge value.
“If players are behaving optimally, you’d expect to see a lot more challenges in the highest-value bucket. And great news: That’s exactly what’s going on so far. Batters challenge more frequently, even with a lower accuracy rate, in more important situations. They’re less accurate in those important situations, which is rational. They’re less accurate because they’re challenging more. And they’re challenging more because the value of succeeding is quite high.
“We already know that catchers do better than batters overall. They challenge more low-importance pitches than batters and succeed at a higher rate. They also challenge more frequently when winning a challenge is more valuable, despite it coming with a lower success rate. They still aren’t perfect, of course – again, calling balls and strikes is very hard.
“We Don’t Know Who’s Good Yet
It’s going to take a while to figure out who’s actually good at challenging. There aren’t that many observations, and not every observation has equal value because of the differing run values for different challenges. Winning the most challenges isn’t inherently great. Neither is having the best challenge winning percentage. Teams also seem to be changing their behavior on the fly. It’s going to take a long time to weed out the best from the worst with so much variance. To make matters even more complicated, there’s definitely value in not challenging at times.”
Those of you who found the math in the FanGraphs article confusing here’s Tom Tango’s explanation in chart form:
https://tangotiger.com/index.php