Reaction and Range by Rick Swanson on Baseball Almanac

Reaction and Range by Rick Swanson

Tom Verducci of Sports illustrated wrote the following, "The keys to information, if you want to make it available for mass consumption, is to have it be revelatory and simple." Reaction and Range has both of these ingredients, Time of the play, divided by the distanced ranged, is simple to compute, and the variable that you get, measures the defensive worth of one player versus another.

Was there really one play that could have reversed the Boston Red Sox curse in that fateful game seven with the New York Yankees in 2003? Lifetime Red Sox fan Rick Swanson was there that night, and proposes a new statistic that helps explain why the curse remains.

"Find a truly original idea. It is the only way I will ever distinguish myself. It is the only way I will ever matter. "- John Nash in A Beautiful Mind (2001)

How the new defensive statistic Reaction and Range was really started

In the eighth inning of Game Seven with Boston and New York, Pedro Martínez struck out Alfonso Soriano to start the inning. At that time I rose from my seat in the upper deck in Yankee Stadium and saluted the crowd, with a raised hand, and fingers extended, and said "five outs to go." How many fans woke up that day without any tickets, but asked the owner of the team, by instant messenger if they could go, and the reply was, "how many tickets do you want." That is what happened to me on that day, and now, in 5 outs the dream would be complete. Derek Jeter was up next, and he hit a drive to deep right center. When it left the bat, it seemed like a harmless fly ball. As I had smuggled my mini DVCamera into the ballpark, and was taking my own footage of every pitch, (so I could bring back a souvenir of Boston celebrating winning the pennant, and sending it to the owner the next day.) The on-screen clock showed that it took 3.6 seconds from when the ball and bat met, until it went by Trot Nixon's futile lunge.

As the days and weeks followed, I couldn't stop thinking, if only Nixon had caught that ball there would have been two outs, and nobody on base, and surely the curse would have been broken. Baseball has so many statistics that give historians a reference of what happened in crucial games, but there really isn't anything that shows when a fielder, had poor reaction , and showed little range in making a play. That is when I came up with a new statistic for the game. Reaction and Range, R/R. If you think about it every play a fielder makes is determined by his reaction to the ball being hit, and the range that he makes to reach the ball.

If you made Reaction and Range into a formula, it would be: A play by the defense is proportional to the reaction time, divided by the range distance. Time/Distance. In Nixon's case he had 3.6 seconds to range 20 feet from where he was positioned before the pitch. His R/R that will go down as the first R/R number ever recorded was a very poor -.180. It doesn't help change the outcome of the game, but the real reason Boston lost, was not because Grady Little left in Pedro too long, but because Nixon did not have any reaction and range on Jeter's hit.

I have taken this idea and sent it to many that are truly inside the game. I have generated responses from Theo Epstein, Jed Hoyer, and Bill James of the Red Sox. I have heard from Tom Verducci, Alan Schwarz, John Sickels, Phil Birnbaum, Jim Callis, Dinn Mann, David Pinto, Mark Simon and Ken Heard, who is chairman of the Science committee at SABR. Last month, Heard had my theory published in the SABR newsletter called "Rising Fastball." Dinn Mann of MLBAM has forwarded this statistic to Bob Bowman at MLB, they plan on putting six cameras in every park, so that defense could be more defined. It is my hope that someday baseball will recognize a statistic for defense, called Reaction and Range.

Each player would have different R/R numbers at each position, but each position would be able to compare players at the same position. A shortstop might range 40 feet for a ground ball in 2.4 seconds for a R/R of +.060, if he makes the play and -.060 if he misses it. A third baseman might dive 10 feet in .5 seconds for a R/R number of .050. Graphs could be kept of every player for a season. the numbers in blue would be those that were made, and in red those that were missed. Plays of the week could be ranked with a degree of difficulty determined by their R/R number.

What would you consider the top five greatest games in Red Sox history. My list would be as follows 1. October 1, 1967, Jim Lonborg beat the Twins, and there was pandemonium on the field. 2. Carlton Fisk and Bernie Carbo, Game 6 in 1975. 3. Bill Buckner, need I say more. 4. Bucky, ditto. 5. Game 7 in the Bronx last year. How many fans of the Red Sox can say they were at all of those games? I can, that is why I call myself the World's Greatest Living Red Sox Fan. Of course some people say I am really the curse. Really I am just a fan, that always wanted to think of a new statistic, "for the good of the game."

Rick Swanson welcomes your input, your comments, your kudos and / or your criticism. Contact and share with him your opinion on this new statistic.

Baseball stats guru Bill James was shown the Reaction and Range stat and commented, "It's an interesting thought. You may be too far ahead of your time with this one..." James was referring to the stat and a machine that could be used to test the R/R stat for fielders discussed below:

Super Fungo Machine

With all the emphasis now being put on finding better defense in baseball, I like to think outside the batters box. Take the game between the Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Devil Rays on August 4, 2004. There was a play where Gabe Kapler ran 75 feet into foul ground, but ended up having the ball tip off his glove. This turned out to be a key play in the game, as that batter ended up scoring on Aubrey Huff's grand slam, as Boston lost 5-4.

Is it possible to use that miss as a learning tool to increase the range of Kapler in the future? The way all sports today have become digitalized and micro-managed, there must be a better way to improve defense in baseball. Swimmers and sprinters watch tapes, and images that help refine their stroke, to shave nano-seconds off their time. Why can't fielders use the same devices to increase their range on chasing down fly balls. What if instead of the traditional coach hitting fungos to the outfield a new device is created that helps a fielder increase the area they cover in the field. This Super Fungo Machine (SFM), would be like a bazooka with baseballs.

Each fielder would take their position and the SFM would simulate the sound of the bat and ball meeting , and then send a ball like a missile to areas of the field. You could control the velocity of each hit, the trajectory of the ball and the distance where it lands. A fielder would have a circumference around them and the SFM would place balls at the limits of each player, trying to increase the fielding circumference of that player.

One of the key components of the SFM would be the fielder would not know where each ball was going, and would have to react to the sound as well as the direction of the ball. The idea is that players need to be taught to react as fast as they can in the proper direction, and not to lose any speed in trying to run down batted balls.

In the traditional way of hitting fungos to outfielders, players can see how coaches are positioned and they tend to cheat in that direction before balls are hit in the air. With the SFM, players would increase their initial reaction, because the machine would be designed not to give away which direction each ball is sent to. An example of the machine would be, hitting to a spot 75 feet to the left of a fielder, and landing in 5.5 seconds after hearing contact. Then each fielder would have to master this type of hit so they could reach that ball 95% of the time. The machine would then try to stretch out each fielders outer limits, by putting the ball 80 feet away in 5.5 seconds, always trying to extend how far a player can range.

The SFM would also have a digital camera attached so each play could then be watched, and baseball players, like the swimmers and sprinters, could see where they can shave off their reaction and range time of reaching balls. Video is used in batting and pitching, but very little is used in increasing how much ground a fielder can cover. The SFM would also be a tool for scouts to give measurable numbers to all players so that ultimately you would have players at each position, that were able to cover more ground than others, and instead of it being a subjectively speculated, which players cover the most ground, teams will have documented proof of which players actually do cover the most area at their position.

Source: Rick Swanson (2004).

Discuss why this would or would not work on Baseball Fever. Could it be improved upon? Are there other variables that are missing or is it perfect? Share your opinions in the SABRMetrics forum where Rick Swanson (the creator) can comment.

Follow @BaseballAlmanac

Tweet #TwitterStories

Tweet to @BaseballAlmanac

Copyright © 2000-2013. All Rights Reserved by Baseball-Almanac. Privacy Policy.Design by Geisler Young. Web hosting by Hosting 4 Less.
Part of the Baseball Almanac family: 755 Home Runs | Baseball Box Scores | Baseball Fever | Football Almanac | Pigskin Fever | Today in Baseball History.