2022
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2208.03492
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pitching strategy evaluation via stratified analysis using propensity score

Abstract: Recent measurement technologies enable us to analyze baseball at higher levels. There are, however, still many unclear points around the pitching strategy. The two elements make it difficult to measure the effect of pitching strategy. First, most public datasets do not include location data where the catcher demands a ball, which is essential information to obtain the battery's intent. Second, there are many confounders associated with pitching/batting results when evaluating pitching strategy. We here clarify… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 24 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even if we obtain the batting ability when changing the strategy in the above approach, in real-world baseball data, there should be biases in the data with and without changing the strategy. In sports studies, to investigate the causal effect of some plays or timeouts in many sports, propensity score matching or other approaches were used in the previous work (Fujii et al, 2022;Gibbs, Elmore, & Fosdick, 2020;Nakahara et al, 2022b;Toumi & Lopez, 2019;Vock & Vock, 2018;Yam & Lopez, 2019). Such extension to reduce the biases of data in our setting would also be future work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even if we obtain the batting ability when changing the strategy in the above approach, in real-world baseball data, there should be biases in the data with and without changing the strategy. In sports studies, to investigate the causal effect of some plays or timeouts in many sports, propensity score matching or other approaches were used in the previous work (Fujii et al, 2022;Gibbs, Elmore, & Fosdick, 2020;Nakahara et al, 2022b;Toumi & Lopez, 2019;Vock & Vock, 2018;Yam & Lopez, 2019). Such extension to reduce the biases of data in our setting would also be future work.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%