CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com

Baseball Prospectus home
  
  
Click here to log in Click here for forgotten password Click here to subscribe

<< Previous Article
The Stats Go Marching ... (06/13)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Skewed Left: Bring Bac... (05/30)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Skewed Left: Preparing... (06/20)
Next Article >>
In A Pickle: What the ... (06/13)

June 13, 2013

Skewed Left

Bayes and the Hit By Pitch

by Zachary Levine

the archives are now free.

All Baseball Prospectus Premium and Fantasy articles more than a year old are now free as a thank you to the entire Internet for making our work possible.

Not a subscriber? Get exclusive content like this delivered hot to your inbox every weekday. Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get instant access to the best baseball content on the web.

Subscribe for $4.95 per month
Recurring subscription - cancel anytime.


a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Purchase a $39.95 gift subscription
a 33% savings over the monthly price!

Already a subscriber? Click here and use the blue login bar to log in.

When home plate umpire Clint Fagan made the decision not to eject Zack Greinke for hitting Miguel Montero with a pitch, and a subsequent decision to eject Ian Kennedy for hitting Greinke with a pitch, he was answering a couple of probability questions that umpires and eventually Major League Baseball will have to face.

It’s not a question of whether the hit by pitch was intentional or not. You’re never able to answer that question. The probability that the act was intentional from the point of view of the umpire/disciplinarian is never 0, even on the most innocuous-looking play, and it’s pretty much never unless Cole Hamels is just begging for a suspension.

After a beaning occurs, an umpire and then the MLB office are forced then to determine how likely it was that tat beaning was intentional. And there is where they have run into trouble historically. It is my view that the umpires tend to be too beholden to their own warnings and may even be trying to legislate to some unwritten rules.

The second belief we’ll get to later, but as to the first, remember, it is perfectly within an umpire’s rights to eject a player with no warning. In fact, the previous pitcher tossed for a hit batsman, Jason Hammel, was ejected with no warning in the episode I documented semi-seriously here. Inversely, just because there has been a warning doesn’t mean there has to be an ejection. In fact, the inning after the brawl on Tuesday night, Mark Ellis was hit by a pitch with no consequence.

The ejection, surprisingly, did not follow the beaning after and immediately after the warning. But at what point in this dance do you think the plunkings escalated to the point of ejection?

Top 5: Cody Ross hit by a pitch
Bottom 6: Yasiel Puig hit by a pitch in the face
Top 7 (first batter): Miguel Montero hit by a pitch in the back
Bottom 7: Zack Greinke hit by a pitch in the shoulder

Sam Miller laid out the uncertainty of such situations in his piece Wednesday. I would argue that the probability that Greinke was throwing at Montero after two inside pitches and one firmly in the back was slightly lower than the probability that Kennedy meant to hit Greinke, but both rose above what has been considered ejection-level in the past.

But the umpires never really know the true probability. The true probability is either 0 or 1. It has to be—each party was either throwing at the other or wasn’t. Yet from the point of view of an observer, the probability is somewhere in between, and that’s where Bayesian statistics comes into play.

In an event that’s impossible to observe with certainty, probabilities from that point of view can be affected by other information you know about the event.

The example we learned in an introductory statistics class was of a blurry person you observe in the distance. To say that any specific person has a 50 percent chance of being a male is ridiculous in the traditional sense. Either he is or she isn’t. Yet from the point of view of the distant observer, there is a 50 percent chance that the person is a male until the observer realizes that the person is wearing long pants.

If 80 percent of men and only 50 percent of women in this neighborhood wear pants, then the probability of this person being a man given that the person is wearing pants is:

Probability(Male|Pants) = ______________P (Pants|Male) * P (Male)_____________
P (Pants|Male) * P (Male) + P (Pants|Female) * P (Female)

= .80*.5/(.80*.5+.50*.5)
= ~61.5%

In looking for examples of this in baseball, I found a 2012 post by Patriot at Walk Like a Sabermetrician in which he determined the probability that Ubaldo Jimenez’s plunking of Troy Tulowitzki in a spring training game was intentional after the two feuded through the media.

Probability(Intent|HBP) = ______________P (HBP|Intent) * P (Intent)________________
P (HBP|Intent) * P (Intent) + P (HBP|No intent) * P (No intent)

Not that umpires would ever be doing these calculations in their head, but Bayes’ theorem is a good way to think about the problem. Since most pitchers have fairly similar chances of hitting a guy when they’re not aiming for flesh, what changes is that initial figure. The likelier it was going into an at-bat that there would be a plunking, the higher the chance it was intentional in retrospect.

It’s important not to let what actually happened cloud your judgment. Of course, when it turns out that the person down the street was a man, you’re going to say it looked like a man all along. But when you were first looking at him, there was only a 61.5 percent chance.

The question of how likely it was that Greinke was throwing at Montero is one that had to be answered while Montero was on his way to the batter’s box. Sure, it looks obvious now that he’d throw at the next guy to set foot in there, but look at what the announcers had to say as Montero actually was stepping to the plate, and throughout that at-bat.

Leading up to Greinke hitting Montero

Vin Scully on KCAL: Nothing at first, nothing after the first two were inside

Steve Berthiaume: Nothing at first, “Greinke having issues locating” after the first two were inside

Leading up to Kennedy hitting Greinke

Scully: Nothing

Berthiaume: Nothing (sideline reporter was doing most of the talking)

Not a “here we go” or a “this ought to be interesting.” Nobody even mentioned it.

This was not the sort of foresight that accompanied what I considered the year’s most obvious intentional plunking (i.e. the probability of intent closest to 1). Here’s the transcript from both broadcasts of the Pirates-Mets game on May 11, the day after Jordany Valdespin admired a home run.

WPIX (NY) feed

Gary Cohen: Valdespin raised some hackles last night when he hit a home run in the ninth inning and with the Mets far behind in the game, paused, admired and flipped the bat, which led to even more conversation today about how do you legislate about that kind of thing if you’re Terry Collins, and Terry has basically said ‘I throw up my hands; I can’t do anything about it.’

Ron Darling: Yeah, daily they have talks with Jordany and what did Terry say, he said ‘he’s a player with flair and sometimes that flair’s going to get him in trouble.’

Cohen: McKenry setting up inside and (HBP happens here) that’s exactly what happens. You flip your bat on a home run and you can expect at some point, you’re going to have that happen.

Root Sports (PIT) feed

Greg Brown: And now Jordany Valdespin. There’s a story today in New York that he stared at that long home run he hit last night in the ninth inning off Jose Contreras. Manager Terry Collins was asked about it. He said ‘I don’t know about now, but 15 years ago, he’d probably get hit today’ in response to this showing him up with the big upper deck home run. Jordany Valdespin. (HBP happens) And look at that. How about that.

To take a highly non-scientific stab at calculating the probability that this was intentional, I reached out to three people who were at the game and employed by neither team. I asked what they would have said if asked what the chance of a HBP was while Valdespin was walking to the plate against Bryan Morris as a pinch-hitter.

They averaged 80 percent, which is right in line with the television dialogue from both sides and Collins’ quotes. So let’s go with that; it’s not like we’ll ever get a better number, and these are all estimates anyway, with true probabilities impossible to know.

How about the chances that he would hit him if he weren’t trying? Morris is so new in the majors that I’d trust the league figure before I’d trust his small sample size, and plate appearances end with a hit batsman with probability 0.0085. That’s a little high, since some of those are intentional, so let’s call it 0.008, and let’s call the probability that he hits him if he is intending to hit him 90 percent. (Shawn Estes was the outlier, but throwing behind a guy should probably be lumped in here too because that can be deemed ejection-worthy.)

Anyway, in the Morris-Valdespin incident, the probability that Morris was throwing intentionally at Valdespin from the point of view of our three observers was:

Probability(Intent|HBP) = ______________P (HBP|Intent) * P (Intent)________________
P (HBP|Intent) * P (Intent) + P (HBP|No intent) * P (No intent)

= .90*.80/(.90*.80 + .008*.20)

= .72/.7216

= a 99.8% chance that Morris was throwing at Valdespin intentionally.

Yet in the Pirates/Mets case, there was no suspension or even much talk of one. Everybody seemed happy. But even if the Pirates felt vindicated and the Mets were sort of cool with it too, you’re still not allowed to throw a baseball at a batter intentionally.

This leads to a bigger question that can play in to what happened in Los Angeles. Is it possible that instead of determining intent, the umpires are actually trying to codify some unwritten rules?

Was Joe West in the Pirates-Mets game lenient because baseball code says he deserved it? And how much did “don’t throw at the head” play into why Greinke was allowed to stay and Kennedy had to go, or was it just the warning?

When you go back and look at the suspensions that have occurred in the last five years, very few have resulted from unwritten rules violations compared to how often we actually hear about said unwritten rules. Here are all the suspensions, pulled from an MLB document, that were for throwing at a batter before the punishments came down for Dodgers-Diamondbacks.

Date

Plunker

Plunkee

Suspension

Reason for HBP

6/11/2013

George Kontos

Andrew McCutchen

3 games

Retribution

4/26/2013

Jonathan Sanchez

Allen Craig

6 games

Frustration

4/9/2013

Carlos Carrasco

Kevin Youkilis

7 games

Frustration

8/23/2012

Scott Diamond

Josh Hamilton

6 games

Retribution

5/6/2012

Cole Hamels

Bryce Harper

5 games

Intimidation

4/14/2012

Jeanmar Gomez

Mike Moustakas

5 games

Retribution

4/1/2012

Ubaldo Jimenez

Troy Tulowitzki

5 games

Comments

7/31/2011

Jered Weaver

Alex Avila

6 games

Unwritten rule*

7/29/2011

Carlos Carrasco

Billy Butler

6 games

Frustration/rule*

7/8/2011

Kevin Gregg

David Ortiz

4 games

Frustration

6/5/2011

Jason Marquis

Justin Upton

5 games

Retribution

6/5/2011

Esmerling Vasquez

Danny Espinosa

5 games

Retribution

4/12/2011

Aneury Rodriguez

Gaby Sanchez

3 games

Retribution

9/26/2010

Alfredo Simon

Jose Bautista

3 games

Retribution

9/1/2010

Doug Slaten

Gaby Sanchez

3 games

Retribution

9/1/2010

Chris Volstad

Nyjer Morgan

6 games

Unwritten rule**

7/21/2010

Clayton Kershaw

Aaron Rowand

5 games

Retribution

7/17/2010

Jonny Venters

Prince Fielder

4 games

No idea

10/2/2009

Jeremy Bonderman

Delmon Young

3 games

Retribution

8/11/2009

Rick Porcello

Kevin Youkilis

5 games

Retribution

8/5/2009

Brad Thompson

David Wright

3 games

Retribution

7/27/2009

Burke Badenhop

Orlando Hudson

3 games

Retribution

7/25/2009

Winston Abreu

Jack Hannahan

3 games

Retribution

6/4/2009

A.J. Burnett

Nelson Cruz

6 games

Retribution

4/12/2009

Josh Beckett

Bobby Abreu

6 games

Unwritten rule***

*Showing up pitcher after a home run
**Stealing in a blowout
***Stepping out of the box late

I would clearly put Tuesday’s episode into the retribution category, but it’s not without some attachment to the game’s unwritten rules. Was the umpire saying that by the unwritten rules of the game, Greinke was allowed a free shot for Puig’s facial?

Most pitcher plunking suspensions like we’ll undoubtedly see from Tuesday’s action stem from a battle of “he started it,” where at some point an umpire has to put an end to it. It just seems like sometimes the umpires are ignoring probability, while being overly controlled by the system of warnings and trying to enforce some rules that aren’t really there when they do it.

Zachary Levine is an author of Baseball Prospectus. 
Click here to see Zachary's other articles. You can contact Zachary by clicking here

10 comments have been left for this article. (Click to hide comments)

BP Comment Quick Links

rofldude

So, in general, the probability of a PA ending in a HBP is .008. Does this imply that pitchers for the most part put the ball where they want, give or take a few inches?

Jun 13, 2013 04:48 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Zachary Levine
BP staff

I'm not sure I would say it with such precision as a few inches, but in general, they're pretty accurate and probably don't pitch inside as much as they used to unless they're trying to. (Anecdotal, not researched)

Jun 13, 2013 05:45 AM
 
BP staff member Zachary Levine
BP staff

As an appendix and a way to take some of the math out of the body of the text: If you thought the probability when the batter was walking to the plate was less than 80 percent, here are some other applications of Bayes’ theorem.

- If it’s a 20% prior: .90*.20/(.90*.20 + .008*.80) = 96.6% chance he was throwing at him given that the batter was hit.

- If it’s a 50% prior: .90*.50/(.90*.50 + .008*.50) = 99.1% chance he was throwing at him given that the batter was hit.

(Remember a 50% prior is extraordinarily high; think about what circumstances there would have to be to take even money odds that the next batter specifically would be plunked)

Jun 13, 2013 05:42 AM
 
Bryan Cole

Something about that seems high, doesn't it? Even if you think there's only a 1% prior, you get .90*.01/(.90*.01 + .008*.99) = 53.2% chance he was throwing at him given that the batter was hit.

So, basically, for ANY hit batter, you can argue that there was intent?

Jun 13, 2013 08:10 AM
rating: 0
 
BP staff member Zachary Levine
BP staff

That's a good point. Is 1% really high though for a chance that a guy is being thrown at? I'd have to know a lot when a guy is walking to the plate even to think there's a 1% chance he's being thrown at. 1% of plate appearances is more than one every other game. I don't think there are nearly that many with intent to bean a guy, so there must be something exceptional about that PA, and then to see him do it would raise suspicion.

That's my opinion. Yours may vary on how much you'd need to know to perceive 1% chance of intent (not 1% chance of beaning, which is about the league figure)

Jun 13, 2013 08:40 AM
 
Bryan Cole

I dunno, it seems to me like you'd also have to know a lot to think that there's a 99% chance that a very proud, hyperscrutinized, hypercompetitive pitcher fueled by testosterone and adrenaline, charged with enforcing any number of unwritten rules, doesn't have some real or perceived beef with a hitter.

I mean, obviously, that prior probability for an arbitrary batter/pitcher matchup should be below 1 percent because the actual HBP rate is only 0.85 percent. On the other hand, you have anecdotal evidence (e.g., Pedro Martinez's comments on hit batters from spring training) suggesting that pitchers throw at hitters more than you think. And if P(Hit|Intent) = 90%, 90% of 1% is not too far off from 0.85%.

Jun 13, 2013 10:14 AM
rating: 0
 
jdeich

You might consider the distance from the center of the strike zone, relative to the pitcher's historical distribution of pitches to batters of that handedness.

If a pitcher tends to pitch low and away to similar batters, and demonstrates excellent control, the chance that the HBP to the shoulder is intentional is higher. On the other hand, if Henry Rodriguez is on the mound, it's pretty clear there's no intention behind the location of any of his pitches.

Jun 13, 2013 07:52 AM
rating: 3
 
BP staff member Zachary Levine
BP staff

This is an excellent point too. And there are other factors. Like the count. The math would be a little different if it were the first pitch, where it would probably be more likely to signal intent, from if it were an 0-2 count.

This was definitely just a quick route to a single figure.

Jun 13, 2013 08:42 AM
 
Squirrelmetrix

Great follow-up to Sam's article. Bayes' Theorem at work! I remember the Kershaw game in 2010 because Torre was thrown out and Mattingly visited the mound two times and Kershaw had to be removed. Crazy.

Jun 13, 2013 22:38 PM
rating: 0
 
lopkhan00

"The true probability is either 0 or 1. It has to be—each party was either throwing at the other or wasn’t."

I would imagine scenarios where pitchers don't actually choose to hit a specific batter, but want to hit any batter, so they throw pitches more likely to hit batters without specifically targeting them. I.e., they want to get retribution while maintains plausible deniability, so they keep going inside until they successfully strike a batter.

I don't think that would qualify as 0 or 1 probability-wise, but would be dependent on how aggressively the pitcher was going about the task of getting his random victim.

Jun 15, 2013 07:24 AM
rating: 0
 
You must be a Premium subscriber to post a comment.
Not a subscriber? Sign up today!
<< Previous Article
The Stats Go Marching ... (06/13)
<< Previous Column
Premium Article Skewed Left: Bring Bac... (05/30)
Next Column >>
Premium Article Skewed Left: Preparing... (06/20)
Next Article >>
In A Pickle: What the ... (06/13)

RECENTLY AT BASEBALL PROSPECTUS
Premium Article The Prospectus Hit List: Friday, April 24
Premium Article Daisy Cutter: Carlos Rodon and the White Sox...
Eyewitness Accounts: April 24, 2015
Premium Article Rubbing Mud: Of Signals and Sausages
Raising Aces: Debut Ante: Raisel Iglesias
Painting the Black: No D In Desmond?
BP Bronx

MORE FROM JUNE 13, 2013
Premium Article Perfect Game Presents: NL Draft Wrap
Premium Article Painting the Black: An A's Minus
Premium Article What You Need to Know: Mets Magic Bests Mill...
Premium Article The Prospectus Hit List: Thursday, June 13
Fantasy Article Free Agent Watch: Week 11
Premium Article Daily Roundup: Around the League: June 13, 2...
Fantasy Article Bullpen Report: Buyers and Sellers

MORE BY ZACHARY LEVINE
2013-07-02 - Premium Article What You Need to Know: No Trouble with the C...
2013-06-27 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Searching for Baseball's Brando...
2013-06-20 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Preparing for Baseball's Most E...
2013-06-13 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Bayes and the Hit By Pitch
2013-06-05 - BP Unfiltered: The Best and Worst Days of th...
2013-06-04 - Premium Article What You Need to Know: Petite Outfield Behin...
2013-06-01 - BP Unfiltered: A Homer Announcer's Guide to ...
More...

MORE SKEWED LEFT
2013-07-11 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Planning the Best Baseball Road...
2013-06-27 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Searching for Baseball's Brando...
2013-06-20 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Preparing for Baseball's Most E...
2013-06-13 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Bayes and the Hit By Pitch
2013-05-30 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Bring Back the Hidden Ball Tric...
2013-05-28 - Premium Article Skewed Left: The Real Future Yankees
2013-05-22 - Premium Article Skewed Left: A Somewhat Happy 40th for the I...
More...

INCOMING ARTICLE LINKS
2014-08-14 - Premium Article Skewed Left: Where Have All The Suspensions ...