Just for fun, I figured I'd check the breakeven percentages for basestealing in 2009, and I came across a startling discovery, which I'll come to later.
When deciding whether to steal, one must weigh the risks against the rewards. If one steals successfully, there is a base gained, which is nice, but you still have to have some offense do something. If the runner is caught, then not only do you lose a baserunner, but you also lose an out. Further, there are situational issues at stake too. If you steal a base in front of a guy who is going to hit a home run, then you gain nothing except fantasy points. If you get caught stealing in front of a guy who is going to hit a home run, you lose a run. When the batter is a patient line drive hitter, stealing bases can be more advantageous. In general, though, you can look at a nifty little tool that Baseball Prospectus has on its website called the Run Expectancy Matrix. From this, you can determine the break-even percentages, defined as the percentage of stolen base attempts that need to be successful in order for the attempt to have been worthwhile. Here are the breakeven percentages for each scenario:
Stealing second, runner on first only
0 out: 70.1%
1 out: 73.3%
2 out: 69.4%
This is the most standard stolen base situation. Your leadoff guy reaches and is the only one on, often a speedy fellow. You want him to be successful about 3/4 of the time at least, and in 2009, that was actually a little more than enough. All about getting something going with a guy in scoring position.
Stealing second, runners on first and third
0 out: 76.6%
1 out: 79.2%
2 out: 92.8%
This is a much stricter standard than stealing with a runner on first only. Why is that? Well, there is a runner in scoring position. A base hit will yield a run, and even a flyout will with less than two outs. Further, one should figure that if you've gotten runners on first and third, you've been getting to the pitcher pretty effectively already. Holding onto precious outs would be more important now. Especially with 2 outs; if caught with 2 outs, you risk losing a chance for a dinky little single to score you a run.
Stealing third, runner on second only/runner on first and second:
0 out: 83.3%/76.9%
1 out: 67.8%/71.4%
2 out: 87.0%/87.3%
Having a runner on second with nobody out can come from either a double, a single/walk followed by a wild pitch, balk or steal, or an error throwing to first. In any event, it reflects that your opponents are having a tough time with pitching and/or defense, and you should not ruin that too early. With one out, though, it's a huge dropoff and I don't know why. Presumably a runner on 2nd with one out more often corresponds to a single/walk followed by a bunt or some other productive out, or suggests that the pitcher is a bit more adept at getting batters out, and the sac fly is probably not a bad way of trying to get a run across. Again, stealing with a RISP is not a good idea with two outs. Adding the runner on first makes this a bit more worwhile with nobody out though not as much so with nobody out, but is still a bad idea with 2 outs. It's still better to try to steal third with 1 out, for some reason.
Double steal, runners on first and second catcher throws to third (default)
0 out: 60.0%
1 out: 54.9%
2 out: 81.0%
Can you believe how much more valuable it is to have the guy behind you try to steal too? This doesn't factor in the weak possibility of a double play on a double steal attempt. But still, most players can achieve that kind of stolen base percentage, so the double steal is really not a bad idea. The tail runner doesn't appear to be as important since it always makes more sense to attempt to throw out the lead runner, particularly with nobody out. One has to think you try this more with a right-handed hitter who's not a big power guy up, like Russell Martin or Orlando Hudson.
Double steal, catcher throws to second
0 out: 45.4%
1 out: 54.9%
2 out: 81.0%
This is something that just won't happen unless the catcher screws up. But it could happen, and it helps to be successful here. It could also happen if the third baseman was caught completely off guard or is just really poor defensively, or if the catcher feels more comfortable with the second baseman backing up the shortstop, or if you know the tail runner is a lot slower or got a much worse jump. Still, this has to be a split-second decision, so don't expect your opponent's catcher to do that.
In any event, the double steal should be much more popular than it is. Baseball Prospectus looked at it a couple years ago, and many managers are more risk averse with this. One would assume it's because they want to make sure both runners are good basestealers, and most teams don't always have a pair of guys who can do that.
Showing posts with label Stats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stats. Show all posts
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Scouting Without Looking - Russell Martin
One of the biggest puzzles for the Dodgers this season, last night's walk-off walk notwithstanding, is what happened to Russell Martin offensively? Right now, he's hitting .198/.301/.247, compared to Brad Ausmus' .462/.500/.538. Granted, that could be part of his plan to go deeper into the season by making playing Ausmus look appealing, but the unavoidable fact is that Martin isn't hitting worth shit. Looking at his Fangraphs page, these are the numbers that stand out:
K%, HR/FB, IFFB%, FB%, CB%, ZSwing%, Swing%, OContact%, FStrike%
Based on those bits of information, here's what I would say:
To start off, Martin has been fooled a lot more, going for pitches out of the zone that he can't get, yet not going for good pitches in the zone. As a result, he's striking out more than he ever has (about 10% more of his ABs), and he's not getting the kind of hits he would want yet. A lot of that has to do with the fact that he's inviting pitchers to throw first pitch strikes more with his patient approach, and he should swing at that pitch down the pike on the first pitch, at least every so often to mix it up, especially when pitchers are throwing you a lot more first pitch strikes. He's 1 for 8 on balls in play that he's made contact with on the first pitch, but he's a career .316 hitter on those pitches.
Of course, part of that could just be a bad first month, but after the All-Star Break last year, he hit .260/.371/.336, relying heavily on his plate patience, and it would appear that pitchers are exploiting that now.
K%, HR/FB, IFFB%, FB%, CB%, ZSwing%, Swing%, OContact%, FStrike%
Based on those bits of information, here's what I would say:
To start off, Martin has been fooled a lot more, going for pitches out of the zone that he can't get, yet not going for good pitches in the zone. As a result, he's striking out more than he ever has (about 10% more of his ABs), and he's not getting the kind of hits he would want yet. A lot of that has to do with the fact that he's inviting pitchers to throw first pitch strikes more with his patient approach, and he should swing at that pitch down the pike on the first pitch, at least every so often to mix it up, especially when pitchers are throwing you a lot more first pitch strikes. He's 1 for 8 on balls in play that he's made contact with on the first pitch, but he's a career .316 hitter on those pitches.
Of course, part of that could just be a bad first month, but after the All-Star Break last year, he hit .260/.371/.336, relying heavily on his plate patience, and it would appear that pitchers are exploiting that now.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
No Surprise
Juan Pierre had his agent call Pierre and demand more playing time. From Gurnick
But let's remember, Pierre did not lose the starting job until after Spring Training. Why? Because Joe Torre made the decision, because he's the $4million manager and Colletti wanted to pass the buck and wash his hands of the situation. And Torre, the $4million manager, doesn't have to make a decision in February. He's not supposed to look at video or statistics or scouting reports in the offseason, he's supposed to see them in person. So naturally he based it off of Spring Training. But I'll give Torre some credit - he tried Kemp and Ethier in center field - if Pierre's arm was keeping him in left, why not see if the other guys can play center?
But seriously, the current regime is not going to make judgements based on reasonable assessments.
The better Pierre performed in the oppurtunities he had? An 8 year major league career will tell you the type of player Juan Pierre is. Signing him for 5 years was a horrendous disaster, and Colletti refuses to admit that he might have been a little bit shortsighted. And stupid. Ethier had a great year and then a weak September when injured. Dave Roberts was available - you could bring back a popular ex-Dodger who's a similar player, and you could bench him too. Kenny Lofton could have been re-signed - especially when you knew Jones was a free agent the next year. But Colletti chose Pierre for 5 years, and was completely surprised by a relatively informed fan base who could figure that batting average doesn't matter without walking or power, unless it's like .330 or someting.
General manager Ned Colletti said he received a call from Pierre's agent asking for clarification of his role and Colletti said he delivered a message that the better Pierre performed in the opportunities he had, the more playing time he was likely to earn.
But let's remember, Pierre did not lose the starting job until after Spring Training. Why? Because Joe Torre made the decision, because he's the $4million manager and Colletti wanted to pass the buck and wash his hands of the situation. And Torre, the $4million manager, doesn't have to make a decision in February. He's not supposed to look at video or statistics or scouting reports in the offseason, he's supposed to see them in person. So naturally he based it off of Spring Training. But I'll give Torre some credit - he tried Kemp and Ethier in center field - if Pierre's arm was keeping him in left, why not see if the other guys can play center?
But seriously, the current regime is not going to make judgements based on reasonable assessments.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
How Much Better is Nick Markakis than Andre Ethier?
Markakis the 7th overall pick in 2003 while Ethier was a 2nd round pick that year. Markakis is a more athletic outfielder with a bit more power, and he's also a year and a half younger.
Let's run some numbers:
Markakis
2003 minors (Age 19, A-): .283/.374/.395
2004 minors (Age 20, A): .299/.373/.470
2005 minors (Age 21, A+/AA): .310/.390/.504
2006 majors: .291/.351/.448 (106 OPS+), .268 EqA, 7.1 WARP3
2007 majors: .300/.362/.485 (121 OPS+), .284 EqA, 9.6 WARP3
Ethier
2003 minors (Age 21, A-/A): .296/.364/.389
2004 minors (Age 22, A+): .314/.379/.442
2005 minors (Age 23, AA): .317/.384/.492
2006 majors: .308./365/.477 (113 OPS+), .282 EqA, 3.5 WARP3
2007 majors: .284/.350/.452 (103 OPS+), .267 EqA, 5.0 WARP3
The folks at B-P give a lot of credence to Markakis' superior defense, though to be fair, Ethier played better defense in 2007 when he did not hit as well. Even then, though, that would lead one to compare Markakis' 2006 to Ethier's 2007, and Markakis comes out on top by a couple of wins. Markakis also could potentially play center, something Ethier doesn't have in his arsenal.
Markakis is better, and has the level of talent to be a franchise player, provided that Baltimore can afford him in 4 years. That doesn't mean Ethier's a bad player, but he's not they kind of player you would build your team around.
Let's run some numbers:
Markakis
2003 minors (Age 19, A-): .283/.374/.395
2004 minors (Age 20, A): .299/.373/.470
2005 minors (Age 21, A+/AA): .310/.390/.504
2006 majors: .291/.351/.448 (106 OPS+), .268 EqA, 7.1 WARP3
2007 majors: .300/.362/.485 (121 OPS+), .284 EqA, 9.6 WARP3
Ethier
2003 minors (Age 21, A-/A): .296/.364/.389
2004 minors (Age 22, A+): .314/.379/.442
2005 minors (Age 23, AA): .317/.384/.492
2006 majors: .308./365/.477 (113 OPS+), .282 EqA, 3.5 WARP3
2007 majors: .284/.350/.452 (103 OPS+), .267 EqA, 5.0 WARP3
The folks at B-P give a lot of credence to Markakis' superior defense, though to be fair, Ethier played better defense in 2007 when he did not hit as well. Even then, though, that would lead one to compare Markakis' 2006 to Ethier's 2007, and Markakis comes out on top by a couple of wins. Markakis also could potentially play center, something Ethier doesn't have in his arsenal.
Markakis is better, and has the level of talent to be a franchise player, provided that Baltimore can afford him in 4 years. That doesn't mean Ethier's a bad player, but he's not they kind of player you would build your team around.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Dodgers Year in Review 2007 - Pitching
For the starting rotation, you can categorize the pitchers in the following (ERA for that particular role):
Good Starters (518.3 IP, 85 GS)
Brad Penny (3.03 ERA) - helped most by allowing very few home runs (only 9), although his other peripheral stats (135K and 73BB in 208 IP) don't shine that much. Penny may very well regress a bit next year, but he has been more efficient, which may help that homer rate.
Derek Lowe (3.90 ERA)- tough luck year for Lowe, who went 12-14 with a 3.88 ERA, a weird record for a 118 ERA+. Lowe's sinker was sinking, his k rate was decent too. The big story was that he got injured for the first time in his career this year, and he might be getting a bit old.
Chad Billingsley (3.38 ERA) - in his age 22 season, Billingsley put up a 138 ERA+ in 147 innings. His three true outcome numbers all seemed to worsen a bit when he was put in the starter role, although his K rate remained good, and could reasonably be expected to improve in 2008.
Banged-up Starters (156.3 IP, 30 GS)
Jason Schmidt (6.31 ERA) - shoulder problems ended his season early, and affected his performance horribly. It is unclear what he will do in 2008.
Hong-Chi Kuo (6.75 ERA) - or Guo, to some people. Flashes of brilliance and a really awesome bat flip cannot change the fact that this Taiwanese lefthander is a constant injury risk with a history of elbow problems.
Randy Wolf (4.73 ERA) - sadly he came back from injury only to be injured again. When he was starting, though, he was generally good until he started to get hurt, as one can ascertain from his 94K in 102 IP. Nice curve, though.
Forgettable (242.3 IP, 47 GS)
Brett Tomko (5.56 ERA) - finally got released. He started 15 games for the Dodgers, and posted a 79 ERA+. Good riddance, although we'll miss his paintings.
Mark Hendrickson (6.13 ERA) - slightly better than Tomko. And taller. And left handed. But still, Hendrickson sucked and started 15 games.
Esteban Loaiza (8.34 ERA) - we bail out Billy Beane and pick him up off waivers. He really sucked and should go to the bullpen if he's even on the team. Big waste of money by Ned.
David Wells (5.12 ERA) - fat fat fatty. Nothing special as a pitcher, but made us all laugh by bunting his way on base.
Eric Stults (5.68 ERA) - an option down in AAA, but not one you would really depend on regularly.
Essentially, the Dodgers had 3 good starters and a lot of bad ones. If Kuroda can put up at least a 4.5 ERA and Schmidt can make 20 healthy starts, the rotation should be quite solid.
Bullpen
Didn't know you were here
Derek Lowe um yeah, he's a starter
Yhency Brazoban - the new dreifort
Hong-Chi Kuo - he should be a starter, when he's healthy
Eric Hull - not bad in a brief stint
Jon Meloan - didn't impress in the majors in a brief stint, but he's still young
Eric Stults - not really impressive here, but didn't do much out of the pen
Blah
Brett Tomko - Tomko sucked out of the pen too. He was decent in this role last year, but his failure here forced Colletti to release him.
Roberto Hernandez - what the hell? The dude is 40 and bad.
A List
Saito - awesome, awesome, awesome. Will make you believe closers matter again.
Broxton - A great pitcher at the back of the pen, and will be a great closer himself someday.
Billingsley - earned a promotion by being lights out in the pen
A-/B+ List
Beimel - Beimel continued to be a great piece to have in the bullpen, useful against lefthanders or righthanders, as a lefty relief pitcher should be.
Proctor - not bad, I'll admit. While I don't think he was worth Betemit, he still makes the bullpen a lot deeper.
Hendrickson - surprisingly effective as a reliever, including a K/BB over 4. As long as he doesn't insist on starting, he should be good.
Seanez - a surprise this year, pitching quite effectively at age 38 or so.
Houlton - not bad, but don't expect him to be a regular reliever.
Tsao - were it not for the injury, would be in the A list. Retired 24 straight batters or something and was phenomenal to start the season.
Good Starters (518.3 IP, 85 GS)
Brad Penny (3.03 ERA) - helped most by allowing very few home runs (only 9), although his other peripheral stats (135K and 73BB in 208 IP) don't shine that much. Penny may very well regress a bit next year, but he has been more efficient, which may help that homer rate.
Derek Lowe (3.90 ERA)- tough luck year for Lowe, who went 12-14 with a 3.88 ERA, a weird record for a 118 ERA+. Lowe's sinker was sinking, his k rate was decent too. The big story was that he got injured for the first time in his career this year, and he might be getting a bit old.
Chad Billingsley (3.38 ERA) - in his age 22 season, Billingsley put up a 138 ERA+ in 147 innings. His three true outcome numbers all seemed to worsen a bit when he was put in the starter role, although his K rate remained good, and could reasonably be expected to improve in 2008.
Banged-up Starters (156.3 IP, 30 GS)
Jason Schmidt (6.31 ERA) - shoulder problems ended his season early, and affected his performance horribly. It is unclear what he will do in 2008.
Hong-Chi Kuo (6.75 ERA) - or Guo, to some people. Flashes of brilliance and a really awesome bat flip cannot change the fact that this Taiwanese lefthander is a constant injury risk with a history of elbow problems.
Randy Wolf (4.73 ERA) - sadly he came back from injury only to be injured again. When he was starting, though, he was generally good until he started to get hurt, as one can ascertain from his 94K in 102 IP. Nice curve, though.
Forgettable (242.3 IP, 47 GS)
Brett Tomko (5.56 ERA) - finally got released. He started 15 games for the Dodgers, and posted a 79 ERA+. Good riddance, although we'll miss his paintings.
Mark Hendrickson (6.13 ERA) - slightly better than Tomko. And taller. And left handed. But still, Hendrickson sucked and started 15 games.
Esteban Loaiza (8.34 ERA) - we bail out Billy Beane and pick him up off waivers. He really sucked and should go to the bullpen if he's even on the team. Big waste of money by Ned.
David Wells (5.12 ERA) - fat fat fatty. Nothing special as a pitcher, but made us all laugh by bunting his way on base.
Eric Stults (5.68 ERA) - an option down in AAA, but not one you would really depend on regularly.
Essentially, the Dodgers had 3 good starters and a lot of bad ones. If Kuroda can put up at least a 4.5 ERA and Schmidt can make 20 healthy starts, the rotation should be quite solid.
Bullpen
Didn't know you were here
Derek Lowe um yeah, he's a starter
Yhency Brazoban - the new dreifort
Hong-Chi Kuo - he should be a starter, when he's healthy
Eric Hull - not bad in a brief stint
Jon Meloan - didn't impress in the majors in a brief stint, but he's still young
Eric Stults - not really impressive here, but didn't do much out of the pen
Blah
Brett Tomko - Tomko sucked out of the pen too. He was decent in this role last year, but his failure here forced Colletti to release him.
Roberto Hernandez - what the hell? The dude is 40 and bad.
A List
Saito - awesome, awesome, awesome. Will make you believe closers matter again.
Broxton - A great pitcher at the back of the pen, and will be a great closer himself someday.
Billingsley - earned a promotion by being lights out in the pen
A-/B+ List
Beimel - Beimel continued to be a great piece to have in the bullpen, useful against lefthanders or righthanders, as a lefty relief pitcher should be.
Proctor - not bad, I'll admit. While I don't think he was worth Betemit, he still makes the bullpen a lot deeper.
Hendrickson - surprisingly effective as a reliever, including a K/BB over 4. As long as he doesn't insist on starting, he should be good.
Seanez - a surprise this year, pitching quite effectively at age 38 or so.
Houlton - not bad, but don't expect him to be a regular reliever.
Tsao - were it not for the injury, would be in the A list. Retired 24 straight batters or something and was phenomenal to start the season.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Fan Bases and Winning Games
Seem like they're one and the same, right? If you win, people will come, right? Well yeah, but that's not the biggest reason.
Looking at the NL for the last 4 seasons, the biggest determinant of attendance was team payroll - if a team spent a certain amount of money, so many fans would come. Now, of course, this may actually be a faulty cause and effect; it might be that teams know their market and get what their attendance will afford. But still, take a look at this:
Regression Analysis: Att versus W, Pay
The regression equation is
Att = 199189 + 10498 W + 0.0222 Pay
Predictor - P
Constant - 0.608
W - 0.050
Pay - 0.000
S = 374825 R-Sq = 70.5% R-Sq(adj) = 69.5%
That is a very tidy regression. That is also a very low P-value for pay, indicating that we are very very sure that payroll affects attendance. Wins would appear to have some impact as well on atendance, but not entirely.
But this is more telling:
Regression Analysis: W versus Pay, RD
The regression equation is
W = 81.2 - 0.000000 Pay + 0.0969 RD
Predictor - P
Constant - 0.000
Pay - 0.975
RD - 0.000
S = 4.02786 R-Sq = 84.0% R-Sq(adj) = 83.5%
Taking into account the effect of payroll on run differential, there is some effect, so you are going to run into some multicollinearity, but still, the R-squared value is 20.7%.
It's really hard to define a model that actually tells you what you want to know, but my intuition seems to support the following: payroll is for putting fans in the seats, not winning ballgames. The Yankees have a $200,000,000 payroll, sure, but they're wasting money on guys like Carl Pavano in all that. Having good drafting and scouting helps. Being able to sign free agents is nice, but there are few free agents that are really worth what they might cost.
It is with that in mind that I ask whether one can really be sure if Matt Kemp is better than someone like Torii Hunter or Andruw Jones. He's certainly better than Juan Pierre.
Looking at the NL for the last 4 seasons, the biggest determinant of attendance was team payroll - if a team spent a certain amount of money, so many fans would come. Now, of course, this may actually be a faulty cause and effect; it might be that teams know their market and get what their attendance will afford. But still, take a look at this:
Regression Analysis: Att versus W, Pay
The regression equation is
Att = 199189 + 10498 W + 0.0222 Pay
Predictor - P
Constant - 0.608
W - 0.050
Pay - 0.000
S = 374825 R-Sq = 70.5% R-Sq(adj) = 69.5%
That is a very tidy regression. That is also a very low P-value for pay, indicating that we are very very sure that payroll affects attendance. Wins would appear to have some impact as well on atendance, but not entirely.
But this is more telling:
Regression Analysis: W versus Pay, RD
The regression equation is
W = 81.2 - 0.000000 Pay + 0.0969 RD
Predictor - P
Constant - 0.000
Pay - 0.975
RD - 0.000
S = 4.02786 R-Sq = 84.0% R-Sq(adj) = 83.5%
Taking into account the effect of payroll on run differential, there is some effect, so you are going to run into some multicollinearity, but still, the R-squared value is 20.7%.
It's really hard to define a model that actually tells you what you want to know, but my intuition seems to support the following: payroll is for putting fans in the seats, not winning ballgames. The Yankees have a $200,000,000 payroll, sure, but they're wasting money on guys like Carl Pavano in all that. Having good drafting and scouting helps. Being able to sign free agents is nice, but there are few free agents that are really worth what they might cost.
It is with that in mind that I ask whether one can really be sure if Matt Kemp is better than someone like Torii Hunter or Andruw Jones. He's certainly better than Juan Pierre.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
2007 PrOPS
PrOPS estimates what players' batting lines should be based on batted ball types etc. Available at the Hardball Times, and developed by JC Bradbury.
Players with expected and actual lines:
Russell Martin .283/.367/.455 .293/.374/.469
James Loney .300/.350/.501 .331/.381/.538
Jeff Kent .288/.364/.478 .302/.375/.500
Nomar Garciaparra .286/.330/.403 .283/.328/.371
Rafael Furcal .278/.339/.376 .270/.335/.355
Andre Ethier .281/.350/.436 .284/.350/.452
Juan Pierre .293/.328/.358 .293/.331/.353
Luis Gonzalez .289/.368/.455 .278/.359/.433
Matt Kemp .261/.297/.430 .342/.373/.521
Andy LaRoche .257/.391/.363 .226/.365/.312
Delwyn Young .299/.332/.545 .382/.417/.647
Tony Abreu .267/.308/.366 .271/.309/.404
Chin-Lung Hu .261/.258/.527 .241/.241/.517
Glaring discrepencies:
Matt Kemp
Delywn Young
Andy LaRoche
LaRoche gets credit for his patience and PrOPS figures he should have hit the ball successfully more often given the batted ball types. Delwyn Young looks to be good, but not as much as he showed. Matt Kemp looks like he was the recipient of a ton of lucky singles. A ton. If this is accurate for predicting performance, it might not be a bad idea to trade Kemp with his value high, assuming of course he doesn't improve his patience or power or something like that.
Players with expected and actual lines:
Russell Martin .283/.367/.455 .293/.374/.469
James Loney .300/.350/.501 .331/.381/.538
Jeff Kent .288/.364/.478 .302/.375/.500
Nomar Garciaparra .286/.330/.403 .283/.328/.371
Rafael Furcal .278/.339/.376 .270/.335/.355
Andre Ethier .281/.350/.436 .284/.350/.452
Juan Pierre .293/.328/.358 .293/.331/.353
Luis Gonzalez .289/.368/.455 .278/.359/.433
Matt Kemp .261/.297/.430 .342/.373/.521
Andy LaRoche .257/.391/.363 .226/.365/.312
Delwyn Young .299/.332/.545 .382/.417/.647
Tony Abreu .267/.308/.366 .271/.309/.404
Chin-Lung Hu .261/.258/.527 .241/.241/.517
Glaring discrepencies:
Matt Kemp
Delywn Young
Andy LaRoche
LaRoche gets credit for his patience and PrOPS figures he should have hit the ball successfully more often given the batted ball types. Delwyn Young looks to be good, but not as much as he showed. Matt Kemp looks like he was the recipient of a ton of lucky singles. A ton. If this is accurate for predicting performance, it might not be a bad idea to trade Kemp with his value high, assuming of course he doesn't improve his patience or power or something like that.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
What went wrong
MSNBC, the TV network that brought you Don Imus, has more dumbasses to spew out garbage. Here is Michael Ventre:
The Dodgers have been out of the NL wild card race for some time now, even though they have yet to make it official. It’s like knowing that somebody is quitting a job soon, because they’ve been packing up their belongings, taking three-hour lunches and generally slacking off. All that’s missing is the memo.
As a matter of fact, they were in the race until their rotation collapsed after Randy Wolf joined the esteemed group of veterans on the Disabled List, they traded a useful young power hitter for a 30 year old middle reliever and were then forced to rely on Shea Hillenbrand as an everyday third baseman, a position at which no other team in baseball would even think of playing him because of his demonstrated inability.
This “geezer-punk” assemblage has lost five in a row at a time when the San Diego Padres, making a run at the division title, have won seven straight. The Dodgers just suffered their first-ever four-game sweep by the Rockets at Coors Field. So naturally, the already cranky tricenarians and quadragenarians who creak around the clubhouse in search of their lost youth are becoming more cantankerous by the minute.
They lost like 12 in a row last year. Streaks happen in baseball over a 162 game season, especially when you have to rely on Esteban Loaiza and David Wells in your rotation. Besides, doesn't this just suggest that the veterans are assholes?
Most of the responsibility for winning has been entrusted to kids who haven’t yet learned how to win. In the context of a competitive division that includes the likes of the Diamondbacks, Padres and Rockies, that’s almost like conceding defeat in spring training.
This is among the goddamn stupidest things I've read. For two reasons:
1) The Dodgers' minor league system is very good. As a matter of fact, the Dodgers won the AA championship in 2005 with many of these players.
2) "Knowing how to win" is a worthless empty bullshit phrase used by reporters who don't know a goddamned thing about baseball. It's easy to know how to win: you score more runs than the other team! End of story!
3) The Diamondbacks have been winning with a bunch of young kids, quite successfully. Randy Johnson started 10 games for them. And even then, they have given up more runs than they've scored, and they should really have a losing record.
These players know how to play baseball. They would not have been drafted if they didn't. You are a worthless human being.
The Dodgers received some early love from pundits as division winners on the basis of their starters. But they’ve been spotty, the bullpen has faltered, and the sticks have been wildly erratic. It isn’t one statistical category that has caused the team’s downfall, but rather those “things you don’t see in the box scores,” especially team chemistry. More often than not, these have been dead men walking.
Nice. Claim that whatever is going on cannot be measured, therefore bringing you into the realm of the irrational where you cannot be disproven.
Now call me a stupid kid, because I'm a senior in college on scholarship double majoring in Math and Economics, but there are statistical reasons for the Dodgers' problems:
Slugging percentage: .404 (14th of 16 in the NL)
Caught Stealing: 47 (most in NL!)
HR: 121 (15th of 16 in the NL)
Walks: 492 (12th of 16 in the NL)
Last year, as a team, the Dodgers were 3rd in the NL in walks, ending the year with 601. The odds of the Dodgers racking up 109 walks in 7 games are, well, 0. But even with the same power problems and virtually the same team batting average, they at least slugged .432 as a team. Let's look at some other problems
Rafael Furcal 2006: .300/.369/.445 (good numbers)
Rafael Furcal 2007: .270/.333/.355 (bad numbers!)
Nomar 2006: .303/.367/.505 (good 3-hitter numbers)
Nomar 2007: .284/.329/.372 (bad 8-hitter numbers)
So in addition to $20 million worth of payroll playing worse than the previous year, the Dodgers were dead men not walking. Hahaha. I'm a writer now too!
The recent dustups caused by Lowe and Kent, as well as a recent complaint by Gonzalez that he can “see the handwriting on the wall” and therefore doesn’t expect to be back next season, and some anonymous chatter that manager Grady Little has lost his players, only underlines the reality that tension exists.
Luis Gonzalez was signed to be a stopgap veteran because Matt Kemp was believed by management to need some seasoning in the minors. It was apparent by May that Gonzalez was not necessary on the Dodgers.
The McCourts have gone the cheapie route, and in doing so, they’ve created a team with no real identity and a hazy future.
This is incredibly stupid. The Dodgers have the 2nd highest payroll in the NL, behind the Mets. Also, the Cleveland Indians have a $61 million payroll, and they just clinched a playoff spot today. As for an identity, how about their all-star catcher Russell Martin? Ever heard of him? Dumbass.
It wouldn’t be so bad if such an approach bore fruit, but it hasn’t. The Angels have worked kids like Howie Kendrick, Reggie Willits, Casey Kotchman and Maicer Izturis into their plans, but they’ve managed to amass a giant lead over second-place Seattle in the AL West. They did that by building a superior pitching staff, and by making sure that the veterans who are at the heart of the lineup – Orlando Cabrera, Vladimir Guerrero, Garret Anderson, Gary Matthews, Jr. – are all at or near their primes. The Dodgers, conversely, populate their roster with fantasy league scraps.
This is also hilarious. The Angels pitching success has been due to young pitchers through their farm system. Bartolo Colon had one good year in Anaheim. Further, Anaheim took some time to be successful - they've basically been rebuilding since 2004, after they followed their WS title with a losing season. Orlando Cabrera is an average hitter, as is Matthews. You can see some numbers here, like the ages of players on their pitching staff, many of whom came up through their farm system.
And again, it takes time for a farm system to develop. The Dodgers did not have a good system or good drafts until 2002 turned things around. It wasn't until last year that those players came up into the majors, because White drafts high school and junior college players. Further, these players have several years before reaching their physical peak, so there is that to consider as well.
The coming weeks will tell a lot about the direction of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Right now they’re going down. That’s clear. But will Kent stick around next year (he has that option)? If he does, will the Dodgers get him some experienced help so he can realistically go after that elusive World Series ring? Or will it be more of “Daddy Day Care”?
Jeff Kent is not anyone the Dodgers desperately need. He is far more of a drain on the Dodgers defensively than Nomar was in Boston. He makes stupid baserunning mistakes, and can't run that well either. Kent is really best suited to being a 1b/dh right now, and if he wants a title, he should go to the Yankees. The Dodgers' young players are not as good as they will be, but they need to play regularly, and getting players like Kent out of the way will go a long way in helping that.
The Dodgers have been out of the NL wild card race for some time now, even though they have yet to make it official. It’s like knowing that somebody is quitting a job soon, because they’ve been packing up their belongings, taking three-hour lunches and generally slacking off. All that’s missing is the memo.
As a matter of fact, they were in the race until their rotation collapsed after Randy Wolf joined the esteemed group of veterans on the Disabled List, they traded a useful young power hitter for a 30 year old middle reliever and were then forced to rely on Shea Hillenbrand as an everyday third baseman, a position at which no other team in baseball would even think of playing him because of his demonstrated inability.
This “geezer-punk” assemblage has lost five in a row at a time when the San Diego Padres, making a run at the division title, have won seven straight. The Dodgers just suffered their first-ever four-game sweep by the Rockets at Coors Field. So naturally, the already cranky tricenarians and quadragenarians who creak around the clubhouse in search of their lost youth are becoming more cantankerous by the minute.
They lost like 12 in a row last year. Streaks happen in baseball over a 162 game season, especially when you have to rely on Esteban Loaiza and David Wells in your rotation. Besides, doesn't this just suggest that the veterans are assholes?
Most of the responsibility for winning has been entrusted to kids who haven’t yet learned how to win. In the context of a competitive division that includes the likes of the Diamondbacks, Padres and Rockies, that’s almost like conceding defeat in spring training.
This is among the goddamn stupidest things I've read. For two reasons:
1) The Dodgers' minor league system is very good. As a matter of fact, the Dodgers won the AA championship in 2005 with many of these players.
2) "Knowing how to win" is a worthless empty bullshit phrase used by reporters who don't know a goddamned thing about baseball. It's easy to know how to win: you score more runs than the other team! End of story!
3) The Diamondbacks have been winning with a bunch of young kids, quite successfully. Randy Johnson started 10 games for them. And even then, they have given up more runs than they've scored, and they should really have a losing record.
These players know how to play baseball. They would not have been drafted if they didn't. You are a worthless human being.
The Dodgers received some early love from pundits as division winners on the basis of their starters. But they’ve been spotty, the bullpen has faltered, and the sticks have been wildly erratic. It isn’t one statistical category that has caused the team’s downfall, but rather those “things you don’t see in the box scores,” especially team chemistry. More often than not, these have been dead men walking.
Nice. Claim that whatever is going on cannot be measured, therefore bringing you into the realm of the irrational where you cannot be disproven.
Now call me a stupid kid, because I'm a senior in college on scholarship double majoring in Math and Economics, but there are statistical reasons for the Dodgers' problems:
Slugging percentage: .404 (14th of 16 in the NL)
Caught Stealing: 47 (most in NL!)
HR: 121 (15th of 16 in the NL)
Walks: 492 (12th of 16 in the NL)
Last year, as a team, the Dodgers were 3rd in the NL in walks, ending the year with 601. The odds of the Dodgers racking up 109 walks in 7 games are, well, 0. But even with the same power problems and virtually the same team batting average, they at least slugged .432 as a team. Let's look at some other problems
Rafael Furcal 2006: .300/.369/.445 (good numbers)
Rafael Furcal 2007: .270/.333/.355 (bad numbers!)
Nomar 2006: .303/.367/.505 (good 3-hitter numbers)
Nomar 2007: .284/.329/.372 (bad 8-hitter numbers)
So in addition to $20 million worth of payroll playing worse than the previous year, the Dodgers were dead men not walking. Hahaha. I'm a writer now too!
The recent dustups caused by Lowe and Kent, as well as a recent complaint by Gonzalez that he can “see the handwriting on the wall” and therefore doesn’t expect to be back next season, and some anonymous chatter that manager Grady Little has lost his players, only underlines the reality that tension exists.
Luis Gonzalez was signed to be a stopgap veteran because Matt Kemp was believed by management to need some seasoning in the minors. It was apparent by May that Gonzalez was not necessary on the Dodgers.
The McCourts have gone the cheapie route, and in doing so, they’ve created a team with no real identity and a hazy future.
This is incredibly stupid. The Dodgers have the 2nd highest payroll in the NL, behind the Mets. Also, the Cleveland Indians have a $61 million payroll, and they just clinched a playoff spot today. As for an identity, how about their all-star catcher Russell Martin? Ever heard of him? Dumbass.
It wouldn’t be so bad if such an approach bore fruit, but it hasn’t. The Angels have worked kids like Howie Kendrick, Reggie Willits, Casey Kotchman and Maicer Izturis into their plans, but they’ve managed to amass a giant lead over second-place Seattle in the AL West. They did that by building a superior pitching staff, and by making sure that the veterans who are at the heart of the lineup – Orlando Cabrera, Vladimir Guerrero, Garret Anderson, Gary Matthews, Jr. – are all at or near their primes. The Dodgers, conversely, populate their roster with fantasy league scraps.
This is also hilarious. The Angels pitching success has been due to young pitchers through their farm system. Bartolo Colon had one good year in Anaheim. Further, Anaheim took some time to be successful - they've basically been rebuilding since 2004, after they followed their WS title with a losing season. Orlando Cabrera is an average hitter, as is Matthews. You can see some numbers here, like the ages of players on their pitching staff, many of whom came up through their farm system.
And again, it takes time for a farm system to develop. The Dodgers did not have a good system or good drafts until 2002 turned things around. It wasn't until last year that those players came up into the majors, because White drafts high school and junior college players. Further, these players have several years before reaching their physical peak, so there is that to consider as well.
The coming weeks will tell a lot about the direction of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Right now they’re going down. That’s clear. But will Kent stick around next year (he has that option)? If he does, will the Dodgers get him some experienced help so he can realistically go after that elusive World Series ring? Or will it be more of “Daddy Day Care”?
Jeff Kent is not anyone the Dodgers desperately need. He is far more of a drain on the Dodgers defensively than Nomar was in Boston. He makes stupid baserunning mistakes, and can't run that well either. Kent is really best suited to being a 1b/dh right now, and if he wants a title, he should go to the Yankees. The Dodgers' young players are not as good as they will be, but they need to play regularly, and getting players like Kent out of the way will go a long way in helping that.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Regulars
September has come, and the Dodgers should really consider themselves out of the playoff race, but they won't. Whatever, but let's see. Here are the 6 guys who made up the offense the most ranked by their WARP3:
Russell Martin
raw: .298/.378/.474, 119 OPS+, 21 SB, 7 CS, 17 HR
EQA: .291
RF: 8.38 (1st of 17)
RATE2: 110
Warp3: 9.7
Rafael Furcal
Raw: .279/.346/.367, 85 OPS+, 16 SB, 6 CS, 5 HR
EQA: .252
RF: 5.00 (2nd of 25 qualifiers)
RATE2: 118
Warp3: 8.0
Jeff Kent
raw: .295/.371/.498, 122 OPS+, 1 SB, 2 CS, 17 HR
EQA: .291
RF: 4.67 (19 of 22)
Rate2: 93
Warp3: 6.2
Andre Ethier
raw: .288/.354/.450, 107 OPS+, 0 SB, 4 CS, 10 HR
EQA: .272
RF: 2.12 (10 of 20)
Rate2: 121/106 LF/RF
Warp3: 5.7
Luis Gonzalez
raw: .276/.355/.425, 101 OPS+, 6 SB, 2 CS, 12 HR
EQA: .270
RF: 1.73 (16 of 19)
Rate2: 98
Warp3: 4.2
Juan Pierre
raw: .291/.323/.348, 74 OPS+, 53 SB, 11 CS, 0 HR
EQA: .247
RF: 2.30 (15th of 16 qualifiers)
Rate2: 91
Warp3: 3.3
Some thoughts
1) Next year, Kemp should get the regular gig in right field and Gonzalez should be gone. This puts Ethier in Left Field, where his advantage over Gonzalez will drastically improve the overall outfield defense.
2) Juan Pierre needs to end his streak.
3) Furcal is too good defensively given his bat this year. Granted the ankle injury took his power off, but to only have 5 HR now when he had 15 on the year last year hurts.
4) Kent's defense gets worse all the time, but he's still the best overall hitter on the team among regulars, at least until Matt Kemp is a regular.
5) Ethier should not steal bases. He might be better suited as a 5 or 6 hitter for that reason.
Russell Martin
raw: .298/.378/.474, 119 OPS+, 21 SB, 7 CS, 17 HR
EQA: .291
RF: 8.38 (1st of 17)
RATE2: 110
Warp3: 9.7
Rafael Furcal
Raw: .279/.346/.367, 85 OPS+, 16 SB, 6 CS, 5 HR
EQA: .252
RF: 5.00 (2nd of 25 qualifiers)
RATE2: 118
Warp3: 8.0
Jeff Kent
raw: .295/.371/.498, 122 OPS+, 1 SB, 2 CS, 17 HR
EQA: .291
RF: 4.67 (19 of 22)
Rate2: 93
Warp3: 6.2
Andre Ethier
raw: .288/.354/.450, 107 OPS+, 0 SB, 4 CS, 10 HR
EQA: .272
RF: 2.12 (10 of 20)
Rate2: 121/106 LF/RF
Warp3: 5.7
Luis Gonzalez
raw: .276/.355/.425, 101 OPS+, 6 SB, 2 CS, 12 HR
EQA: .270
RF: 1.73 (16 of 19)
Rate2: 98
Warp3: 4.2
Juan Pierre
raw: .291/.323/.348, 74 OPS+, 53 SB, 11 CS, 0 HR
EQA: .247
RF: 2.30 (15th of 16 qualifiers)
Rate2: 91
Warp3: 3.3
Some thoughts
1) Next year, Kemp should get the regular gig in right field and Gonzalez should be gone. This puts Ethier in Left Field, where his advantage over Gonzalez will drastically improve the overall outfield defense.
2) Juan Pierre needs to end his streak.
3) Furcal is too good defensively given his bat this year. Granted the ankle injury took his power off, but to only have 5 HR now when he had 15 on the year last year hurts.
4) Kent's defense gets worse all the time, but he's still the best overall hitter on the team among regulars, at least until Matt Kemp is a regular.
5) Ethier should not steal bases. He might be better suited as a 5 or 6 hitter for that reason.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Current Dodger team by WARP3
Rotation
Penny - 8.9
Lowe - 8.4
Wolf - 5.9
Billinsgley - 3.3
Kuo - 1.5
Bullpen
Saito - 6.2
Broxton - 2.9
Seanez - 2.9
Beimel - 2.1
Hendrickson - 1.8
Tomko - 1.1
Starting Lineup
Martin - 7.1
Furcal - 5.3
Gonzalez - 4.3
Kent - 3.1
Ethier - 3.4
Pierre - 2.3
Betemit - 2.1
Nomar - .4
Bench
Abreu - 1.4
Kemp - 1.1
Saenz - 0.8
Loney - 0.3
Lieberthal - 0.3
Anderson - -0.1
Penny - 8.9
Lowe - 8.4
Wolf - 5.9
Billinsgley - 3.3
Kuo - 1.5
Bullpen
Saito - 6.2
Broxton - 2.9
Seanez - 2.9
Beimel - 2.1
Hendrickson - 1.8
Tomko - 1.1
Starting Lineup
Martin - 7.1
Furcal - 5.3
Gonzalez - 4.3
Kent - 3.1
Ethier - 3.4
Pierre - 2.3
Betemit - 2.1
Nomar - .4
Bench
Abreu - 1.4
Kemp - 1.1
Saenz - 0.8
Loney - 0.3
Lieberthal - 0.3
Anderson - -0.1
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Me vs Stark, part 3
Jayson Stark on Underrated Players
What could be worse than the overrated list? Probably the underrated list. Let’s see what we have here.
No. 1 -- Roy Oswalt
Let’s look here:
Oswalt career ERA+: 141
Santana career ERA+: 143
Pretty good comparison, there, but here’s where we see a difference.
Santana: 9.54 K/9, .220 Opp. BA,
Oswalt’s career: 7.49 K/9, .253 Opp BA
Santana is a much more consistent strikeout pitcher than Oswalt, which means that people hit the ball much less against him. It’s also worth noting that Oswalt is 2 years older than Santana.
Wins don’t mean anything. Steve Traschel won 15 games last year and sucked, and Randy Johnson won more games last year with an ERA of 5 than in 2004 with an ERA of 2.60, because run support gives pitchers wins. The run support happened to be unevenly distributed in such a way that Roy Oswalt was in line for a win more than Clemens. You’ll notice that Clemens had more no-decisions than Oswalt, and also that Oswalt had more losses than Clemens – basically everytime he didn’t have an excellent start.
What the hell does this prove? First of all, Oswalt was hardly a low-profile unrecognized pitcher. He was in the World Series in 2005, and if people don’t recognize him from that, it’s probably because FOX is so bad at broadcasting baseball that people would rather not watch the World Series. But the point is that Oswalt was recognized as the NLCS MVP, and he was also an All-Star in 2005 and 2006. I don’t think he can legitimately claim anonymity. But really, you don’t determine popularity by asking someone whether they think someone is popular, unless you’re a retard.
Case dismissed based on poor evidence. I would have said something about leading the NL in ERA and K/BB in 2006, or how he’s pitched over 220 innings each of the last 3 seasons, or how he threw 8 shutouts in 2005, or something that is a useful statistic.
No. 2 -- Trevor Hoffman
Good idea.
What could be worse than the overrated list? Probably the underrated list. Let’s see what we have here.
No. 1 -- Roy Oswalt
Could somebody please explain why this guy isn't considered the National League's Johan Santana?
Let’s look here:
Oswalt career ERA+: 141
Santana career ERA+: 143
Pretty good comparison, there, but here’s where we see a difference.
Santana: 9.54 K/9, .220 Opp. BA,
Oswalt’s career: 7.49 K/9, .253 Opp BA
Santana is a much more consistent strikeout pitcher than Oswalt, which means that people hit the ball much less against him. It’s also worth noting that Oswalt is 2 years older than Santana.
Oswalt is a two-time 20-game winner. He leads all active right-handers not named Pedro Martinez in winning percentage (104-50, .675). And he's the only active pitcher who can say he has never -- never -- had a season in which his winning percentage was worse than .625 or his ERA was higher than 3.50. Yet not only has he never won a Cy Young Award -- he's finished in the top three only once. Ridiculous, isn't it?
Wins don’t mean anything. Steve Traschel won 15 games last year and sucked, and Randy Johnson won more games last year with an ERA of 5 than in 2004 with an ERA of 2.60, because run support gives pitchers wins. The run support happened to be unevenly distributed in such a way that Roy Oswalt was in line for a win more than Clemens. You’ll notice that Clemens had more no-decisions than Oswalt, and also that Oswalt had more losses than Clemens – basically everytime he didn’t have an excellent start.
A couple of years ago, I asked his catcher, Brad Ausmus, how many people -- if I polled 10,000 Americans -- would have any idea Roy Oswalt was (at the time) coming off back-to-back 20-win seasons.
"That would depend," Ausmus chuckled, "on whether anyone on our team was among the 10,000 Americans."
OK, I retorted, suppose nobody on the Astros was among the 10,000 Americans?
"Oh," Ausmus said. "Then none."
What the hell does this prove? First of all, Oswalt was hardly a low-profile unrecognized pitcher. He was in the World Series in 2005, and if people don’t recognize him from that, it’s probably because FOX is so bad at broadcasting baseball that people would rather not watch the World Series. But the point is that Oswalt was recognized as the NLCS MVP, and he was also an All-Star in 2005 and 2006. I don’t think he can legitimately claim anonymity. But really, you don’t determine popularity by asking someone whether they think someone is popular, unless you’re a retard.
Your honor, and members of the all-underrated jury, we rest our case.
Case dismissed based on poor evidence. I would have said something about leading the NL in ERA and K/BB in 2006, or how he’s pitched over 220 innings each of the last 3 seasons, or how he threw 8 shutouts in 2005, or something that is a useful statistic.
No. 2 -- Trevor Hoffman
It's always fascinating how one month -- October -- can twist the perceptions of
players in every conceivable direction. So we're going to toss all postseason
stats into the dumpster and compare only the regular-season careers of two great
closers.
Good idea.
Closer A and Closer B have both had long, distinguished careers. Closer B is
considered a cinch Hall of Famer. Closer A still has folks debating whether he's
Cooperstown-worthy or not.
Wait, you caught me off guard at first. Didn’t you say we weren’t talking about careers now? Well, I guess you get to just ramble on whatever the hell you want, so we are now.
Yet Closer A has converted 89.5 percent of his lifetime save opportunities, struck out 9.8 hitters per nine innings in his career and held those poor opposing hitters to a .207 batting average and .264 on-base percentage.
So Closer A beats Closer B in every one of these categories. Closer B's figures: 87.9 percent, 8.0 strikeouts per 9 IP, .214 average, .270 on-base. Why, then, would anyone think that Closer A might not have Hall credentials as worthy as Closer B?
Easy question. Because Closer B is Mariano Rivera, the Greatest Postseason Closer Who Ever Lived (34 saves, 0.80 ERA).
Closer A, on the other hand, is Hoffman, who once went eight years between postseason save opportunities through no fault of his own.
All right, you used some somewhat useful statistics. They seem similar enough, though Hoffman has a higher career K/9. The reason people think more of Rivera than Hoffman is far simpler – Mariano looks more legitimate on the radar gun. When you throw a mid-90s cutter that breaks more bats than anything, you’ve got good stuff. Hoffman throws a Greg Maddux fastball and
a 72 mile an hour changeup. He's had some success, with that stuff, but it must also be remembered that he plays in a huger park with worse hitters facing him.
Now obviously, I'd have to be a major goofball to argue Hoffman has a better Hall case than Rivera. But that doesn't mean Hoffman hasn't been criminally underrated. Here's the best way to put their careers in perspective:
Mariano Rivera has a career ERA+ of 195, and Hoffman’s is 149.
They have basically the same number of blown saves in their careers -- 58 for Hoffman, 57 for Rivera -- except Hoffman has had 70 more opportunities.
In other words, Rivera would have to go two seasons without blowing a single save just to say he had the same save-conversion percentage as Trevor Hoffman. So can we please give this man his due already?
Well part of the save percentage thing is because Rivera spent more time as a setup man to John Wetteland. When you’re a setup man, you don’t get saves, you get holds, but if you screw up, you get a blown save.
But if you want to talk about what’s going on right now, Rivera’s in a funk and the Yankees are sucking so much they don’t get to him, but Hoffman looks like his stuff his getting weaker. In the interest of full disclosure, I hate Trevor Hoffman, and everytime I see him pitch I really think he’s going to blow it. He gets by on way too much luck, it seems sometimes.
No. 3 -- Hanley Ramirez
We liked playing that Player A versus Player B game so much, let's try it again.
Yay.
Player A is a National League shortstop. He is averaging a .303 batting average, 129 runs scored, 76 extra-base hits and 52 stolen bases per 162 games in his career. Player B is also an NL shortstop. He's averaging .288, 114 runs, 60 extra-base hits and 61 steals per 162 games.
Steals numbers but no stolen base percentage? At all?
Player A is 23. So is Player B. So which one would you start your team with? If
I didn't tell you the names, I'm betting you'd take Player A, right? But now
let's reverse that. Let's say I had never shown you those numbers. And then I
asked if you'd rather have Ramirez (aka Player A) or Jose Reyes
(Player B). Then what?
Well then I would say shame on you for a poor comparison. You have two 23 year old players. You are comparing one player’s performance starting at age 22 and one starting at age 20. Do you really not see anything wrong with this? To be fair, you should either include Ramirez’s minor league numbers and adjust them down to estimate what he would have been in the majors, or just disregard Reyes from 2003-2005. Then you could compare Reyes and Ramirez in 2006, and see then that Reyes was marginally better (OPS+ of 118 vs 116, SB% of 79% vs 77%).
Admit it. You'd take Reyes. Heck, to be honest, I'd probably take Reyes myself. But does anybody who doesn't own a teal cap know Ramirez's numbers are actually better? Dubious. Which sums up his underratedness just about perfectly.
The people who think Ramirez’s numbers are better are the ones who don’t understand player development, or are intellectually dishonest and want to throw together a list. Besides, why would you want to mark someone as underrated when they’re already a well talked about player – Ramirez won the NL Rookie of the Year award last year! You could talk about how the Red Sox thought Alex Gonzalez would be better than him, maybe, but that might not be so happy for some people.
No. 4 -- Jake Peavy
Is there a more fun pitcher to watch in the entire National League than Peavy?
If there is, he's at least on a list that's shorter than Tim Kurkjian. Well, of
course it is.
I could make a list that’s shorter than Tim, even if he’s a 3 foot midget. But hey, he’s good. Unless, of course, you think hitting home runs is fun to watch, or you like crazy antics. Then Jose Lima, who gave Juan Pierre his first big league homer, is definitely your guy.
Since 2004, if we compare the Padres' strikeout machine to all NL starting pitchers with as many innings pitched as he has, he tops the whole league in strikeouts, strikeout ratio, WHIP and ERA. And if you enjoy swinging and missing, Jake Peavy is your man. The only NL starter who has induced that with greater frequency than Peavy (27.3 percent), according to our friends at Inside Edge, is the Phillies' Cole Hamels (27.9).
Yeah, he’s a good strikeout pitcher. He led the league in strikeouts one year, and he led the league in ERA one year, but still no Cy Young. But his ERA crept over 4 last year, so you could ignore him then.
Yet Peavy is probably only about the 15th-most-talked-about pitcher in his own time zone. And anybody with that kind of greatness-to-pub ratio is a lock to make a list like this.
A bit of hyperbole there, but true enough. And forget his time zone; West Coast Pitchers will easily slip under the East Coast radar.
No. 5 -- C.C. Sabathia
You know what might be the biggest upset of the year? That Sabathia didn't get
one vote in our recent "Which Pitchers Would You Pay to Watch?" poll. Heck, I'd
pay to watch him.
Was it one of those online polls? Was it something where you could check multiple boxes, or did you have to pick just one? If I could pick just one, I’d pick Santana. But seriously, those kinds of polls are pretty useless because they suffer from voluntary response bias. But of course, you already knew that.
He's already the first left-handed pitcher since Andy Pettitte to start his career with six straight seasons of double-digit wins.
He has won more games (88) than any active pitcher under 27. And the Elias Sports Bureau reports he's just the fifth pitcher to debut in the last quarter-century and reach 1,000 strikeouts before turning 27. (The others: Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, Pedro Martinez and Kerry Wood.)
Um, that’s nice, but he also started younger too. He was thrown into the rotation in 2001, and never pitched in relief in the majors. Johan Santana was pitching at least some of his games out of the bullpen until he was 24 (the next year he won a Cy Young award). In fact, that’s about the only reason for such numbers with such an arbitrary statistic. Besides, Jake Peavy will do that later this year. Wait till Hammels has been around a while, too. I’d also count on Felix Hernandez doing it.
But the real reason C.C. is on this list -- aside from that snub in the pay-to-watch survey -- is simple: He's only getting better. He's striking out more hitters (9.05 per 9 IP) than he ever has. And he's walking fewer hitters (1.6 per 9 IP) than he ever has. And that's what aces -- especially underrated aces -- are made of.
You forgot to make that point with Peavy. Also, getting better is not what aces are made of so much as it's what players that haven't reached their prime are made of. You also forgot that
Hoffman is over the hill. Further, you're using small sample size data again talking about the current season. Talk about the previous season too, or else you'll use really bad data.
So yes, you are retarded.
No. 6 -- Carl Crawford
Joining the Devil Rays isn't exactly the same thing as joining the witness protection program. But it's close enough in Crawford's case.
Has anybody noticed that this guy has become the first player since Rogers
Hornsby to increase his batting average and home run totals five years in a row?
Has anybody noticed that the only other players since 1900 to match his 2006 numbers in batting average (.305), stolen bases (58) and home runs (18) were Rickey Henderson and Joe Morgan? Has anybody noticed he's on pace to become the only player besides Ty Cobb to reach 1,000 hits, 300 steals and 100 triples before he even turns 28?
Yeah, actually, people who pay attention to baseball, particularly fantasy players. People that steal bases are widely pursued in the fantasy game, and he hits for average and even a bit of power too. It also makes sense that a guy who starts in the major leagues really young is going to have higher totals in his counting stats, and that young players will improve until their prime.
Yeah, didn't think so (outside of those 29 general managers who would love
to trade for him). Well, we sure did blow his cover, didn't we?
ESPN - If you're dumber than we are, it's news to you.
No. 7 -- Placido Polanco
Polanco and his double-play partner in Detroit, Carlos Guillen, probably both should have made this team. But if I'd included everybody who deserved to make it, we would've blown a hole in cyberspace.
If by “blown a hole in cyberspace” you mean “pick someone who’s a much better baseball player” you would be correct.
So why Polanco? Because, when I was mulling over this list and brought up Polanco's name, one scout's instant reply was: "He should be your captain."
This is why you drive me insane. You go by scouts’ OPINIONS to determine who is underrated. DON’T YOU SEE HOW STUPID THIS IS?!
Players like Placido Polanco operate so far below the radar screen, you need a submarine to keep track of them. But since he arrived in Detroit on June 10, 2005, and got his chance to play every day, he has struck out less (only 49 times) than any player in baseball who has been to the plate as often as he has. And the only AL players with higher batting averages than his (.317) since then are Derek Jeter, Joe Mauer, Victor Martinez and Vladimir Guerrero. Ever heard of them?
Yes, but let’s see what else they do with those batting averages, with the magical EQA stat, and for simplicity’s sake I’ll just pull down 2006 numbers.
Jeter: .343 BA, .308 EqA
Mauer: .347 BA, .314 EqA
Martinez: .316 BA, .293 EQA
Vlad: .329 BA, .306 EqA
Polanco: .295 BA, .234 EqA
This rather clearly shows that Placido Polanco was not nearly as good as the other 4 guys listed there. Just like Juan Pierre isn’t as good as Albert Pujols. Striking out less means little, except that your batting average can rise a little bit because you have more balls in play.
The best way to describe Polanco, though, isn't with any number. It's with that word, "winner." He's one of those "glue" players. He glues your team together with all those little things he does. And the 2006-07 Tigers are a walking testimonial to that. Then again, so is his inclusion on this prestigious list.
The best way to describe that last paragraph, though, isn’t with any assumption of intelligence on the part of the author. It’s with that word “retarded.” It’s one of those “empty” paragraphs. Doing all the little things is nice, but they are just that, little things. Winning is all about scoring more runs than the other guy. The guys who do the big things are the guys that really get you there, anyway. Polanco did help by playing good defense at second base, which is important to a staff of pitchers that pitches to contact, but it's absolute BS that he's underrated, particularly as he's ahead of Brian Roberts in the all-star voting.
No. 8 -- Kevin Youkilis
When a guy has been a star in "Moneyball," and then becomes an everyday player
for the Red Sox, you wouldn't think it would even be possible for him to be a
candidate for an all-underrated anything team. So for Youkilis to make this
squad, it might have to rank as the greatest achievement in his whole career.
I’m not sure how much hype Moneyball is worth, but the Red Sox are a bunch of media whores.
But in case you haven't been paying attention, this fellow has turned into much more than just "The Greek God of Walks." The only AL first baseman outslugging him is Justin Morneau. Nobody beats him in OPS, batting average, runs scored or multihit games. And one AL executive wanted to make sure we noticed what an underrated defender he is -- so now that he mentions it, Youkilis hasn't made an error at first since last July.
His patience at the plate alone is a great asset – he could be quite useful still with just a .260 average or so if his OBP will end up at .360-.370. Nice that he hasn’t made an error, although it’s worth noting that he seems to get to balls pretty well too, thus a Rate2 of over 100. The problem with the other stuff you’re citing is that they’re statistics from May, which are useless. Wait until after you can drop your OPS by .100 in a week.
Nevertheless, he still gets overshadowed by just about every position player around him, and by half the other first basemen in the league. And you'd be amazed how often "overshadowed" translates to "underrated" when you're writing columns like this one.
True enough, but it’s not even the league – it’s his own team. In All-Star balloting, Youkilis is not even on the ballot, because David Ortiz goes in at first base in such situations. He also won’t get the RBI opportunities because he was the leadoff man (now he’s the 2 hitter behind Julio Lugo, who should be a 9 hitter for the Royals).
No. 9 -- Joe Nathan
What Johan Santana is to the front end of Twins games, Nathan is to the back end. Since the day he arrived in Minnesota in 2004, he's been kind of the Mariano Rivera of the Great Lakes. But has anybody caught on to that -- except the hitters?
Everyone who plays fantasy, especially people in a 5x5 Roto league, know that Nathan is really really good.
Nathan has converted 92 percent of his save opportunities (blowing just 11 saves in 143 chances). He has punched out nearly two hitters (301 altogether) for every one who has gotten a hit (155). And his WHIP (.97 baserunners per inning) beats any closer's in his league since then.
True enough. Wow, this guy is a hell of a lot better than Trevor Hoffman, and he doesn't have as many years going back to make himself look better. Maybe he should be moved up and Hoffman dropped.
I was tempted to put his side-wheeling set-up man, Pat Neshek, on this team instead. But Joe Nathan is one of the most unpublicized, unhittable, totally dependable closers on earth. And nobody knows it. But with any luck, they do now.
Yeah, people still think Trevor Hoffman is more overrated, like you, dumbass. Hoffman, who Superdumbass Phil Garner used over Billy Wagner in the allstar game because of his reputation, resulting in the NL losing the game. Gee, lefty who throws 100 or righty that throws 88?
No. 10 -- Travis Hafner
Hafner's Indians compadre, Grady Sizemore, would have been awarded this final roster spot if he hadn't fouled up his underratedness by making the cover of Sports Illustrated. And even Hafner was a borderline call, just because his nickname(Pronk) has gotten so much attention.
Borderline? Getting attention does not make you overrated, it’s how good people perceive you to be. You’re a retard, Jayson Stark.
Yeah, America has heard of him. Yeah, America knows he can thump a little. But most of America still hasn't comprehended how good he is. Heck, I rated him the third-most underrated DH of all time in the book.
Um, ok.
Who owns the best on-base percentage (.420) and OPS (1.019) in the whole American League since 2004? The Pronkster. Who's the only hitter besides Albert Pujols to have a .300 batting average, .400 on-base percentage, .500 slugging percentage and 100 RBIs in each of the last three seasons? The Pronkster.
Yeah, he’s had the highest OPS+ in the AL the last few years running. Turns out he’s really good.
So what am I saying? That this fellow is a masher in the same stratosphere as Pujols, David Ortiz, Vlad Guerrero and Manny Ramirez. Except they hog all the "SportsCenter" time, while Hafner just monopolizes the All-Nickname Team. And that, ladies and gentlemen, may be the ultimate prescription for underratedness.
Yes, so that’s why he’s freaking 10th on this list? That’s reason to put this guy on the top! The
Dude also has never been named to an All-Star team. EVER!
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
As of today, suggested all-star ballots
Now what makes an all-star? It seems that each year, it should reward those who are doing well, although it's really a popularity contest. Nonetheless, let's see what this would look like if it were for those who did well. The fans get to vote, and that impacts which position players start.
All-OBP TEAMS
To the highest OBP at each position:
NL
2 - Russell Martin (.386)
3 - Todd Helton (.460)
4 - Kelly Johnson (.392)
5 - Chipper Jones (.392) - it should be noted that Mark Ellis and Chad Tracy are higher here, but neither have played as much, although it's borderline whether Chipper qualifies
6 - Jose Reyes (.398)
7 - Barry Bonds (.485)
8 - Carlos Beltran (.390)
9 - Brad Hawpe (.411)
AL
2 - Jorge Posada (.412)
3 - Jim Thome (.470) - although he's not on the ballot due to Konerko. Also deserving the ballot but not on is Kevin Youkilis
4 - Brian Roberts (.421)
5 - Mike Lowell (.391) - would be Iwamura but for injury
6 - Derek Jeter (.399)
7 - Nick Swisher (.425)
8 - Reggie Willits (.419)
9 - Vladimir Guerrero (.460)
The ALL-SB team
no regard to CS
NL
2 - Martin (8)
3 - Jeff Conine and Lance Berkman (3)
4 - Kaz Matsui and Brandon Phillips (9)
5 - David Wright (11)
6 - Jose Reyes (30)
7 - Alfonso Soriano (8)
8 - Juan Pierre (18)
9 - Shane Victorino (16)
AL
2 - Mike Napoli (4)
3 - Gary Sheffield (7)
4 - Brian Roberts (19)
5 - Nick Punto (11)
6 - Julio Lugo (17)
7 - Carl Crawford (12)
8 - Grady Sizemore (17)
9 - Bobby Abreu (8)
The All-HR team
NL
2 - Russell Martin and Michael Barrett (7)
3 - Prince Fielder (20)
4 - Dan Uggla (12)
5 - Aramis Ramirez (13)
6 - JJ Hardy (16)
7 - Adam Dunn (14)
8 - Eric Byrnes (9)
9 - Ken Griffey Jr (12)
AL
2 - Victor Martinez (12)
3 - Justin Morneau (14)
4 - Ian Kinsler (10)
5 - Alex Rodriguez (20)
6 - Jhonny Peralta (11)
7 - Craig Monroe (9)
8 - Torii Hunter (12)
9 - Magglio Ordonez (13)
The All-AVG team
NL
2 - Bengie Molina (.320)
3 - Derrek Lee (.357)
4 - Chase Utley (.304)
5 - Miguel Cabrera (.319)
6 - Edgar Renteria (.335)
7 - Matt Holiday (.345)
8 - Willy Tavares (.327)
9 - Tony Gwynn Jr (.320)
AL
2 - Jorge Posada (.360)
3 - Kevin Youkilis (.346)
4 - Luis Castillo (.337)
5 - Mike Lowell (.332)
6 - Orlando Cabrera (.329)
7 - Carl Crawford (.295)
8 - Ichiro Suzuki (.333)
9 - Magglio Ordonez (.362)
All-OBP TEAMS
To the highest OBP at each position:
NL
2 - Russell Martin (.386)
3 - Todd Helton (.460)
4 - Kelly Johnson (.392)
5 - Chipper Jones (.392) - it should be noted that Mark Ellis and Chad Tracy are higher here, but neither have played as much, although it's borderline whether Chipper qualifies
6 - Jose Reyes (.398)
7 - Barry Bonds (.485)
8 - Carlos Beltran (.390)
9 - Brad Hawpe (.411)
AL
2 - Jorge Posada (.412)
3 - Jim Thome (.470) - although he's not on the ballot due to Konerko. Also deserving the ballot but not on is Kevin Youkilis
4 - Brian Roberts (.421)
5 - Mike Lowell (.391) - would be Iwamura but for injury
6 - Derek Jeter (.399)
7 - Nick Swisher (.425)
8 - Reggie Willits (.419)
9 - Vladimir Guerrero (.460)
The ALL-SB team
no regard to CS
NL
2 - Martin (8)
3 - Jeff Conine and Lance Berkman (3)
4 - Kaz Matsui and Brandon Phillips (9)
5 - David Wright (11)
6 - Jose Reyes (30)
7 - Alfonso Soriano (8)
8 - Juan Pierre (18)
9 - Shane Victorino (16)
AL
2 - Mike Napoli (4)
3 - Gary Sheffield (7)
4 - Brian Roberts (19)
5 - Nick Punto (11)
6 - Julio Lugo (17)
7 - Carl Crawford (12)
8 - Grady Sizemore (17)
9 - Bobby Abreu (8)
The All-HR team
NL
2 - Russell Martin and Michael Barrett (7)
3 - Prince Fielder (20)
4 - Dan Uggla (12)
5 - Aramis Ramirez (13)
6 - JJ Hardy (16)
7 - Adam Dunn (14)
8 - Eric Byrnes (9)
9 - Ken Griffey Jr (12)
AL
2 - Victor Martinez (12)
3 - Justin Morneau (14)
4 - Ian Kinsler (10)
5 - Alex Rodriguez (20)
6 - Jhonny Peralta (11)
7 - Craig Monroe (9)
8 - Torii Hunter (12)
9 - Magglio Ordonez (13)
The All-AVG team
NL
2 - Bengie Molina (.320)
3 - Derrek Lee (.357)
4 - Chase Utley (.304)
5 - Miguel Cabrera (.319)
6 - Edgar Renteria (.335)
7 - Matt Holiday (.345)
8 - Willy Tavares (.327)
9 - Tony Gwynn Jr (.320)
AL
2 - Jorge Posada (.360)
3 - Kevin Youkilis (.346)
4 - Luis Castillo (.337)
5 - Mike Lowell (.332)
6 - Orlando Cabrera (.329)
7 - Carl Crawford (.295)
8 - Ichiro Suzuki (.333)
9 - Magglio Ordonez (.362)
Monday, June 4, 2007
May(ish) Report
Compare to April
Since then, Tsao got hurt, Brazoban came and got hurt, Kuo came up, went down, switched back to the rotation, Tomko got sent to the bullpen, Hendrickson got sent to the bullpen, LaRoche came up, Abreu came up, Laroche was sent down, Valdez was DFA'd and outrighted to AAA.
Overall Record
33-23
Record with 3 or fewer runs scored:
8-15
Record with 3 or fewer runs allowed:
22-3
Record with 3 0r fewer runs scored by both teams:
8-3
Record in 1 run games
13-4
Extra Innings Record
3-0
Double digit run games, allowed:
4, 1
Shutouts
4
Times Shut out
2
Wins
Average Game Score: 59.8
Minimum: 35
Median: 62
Maximum: 81
Average IP: 6.20
Average Runs Scored: 5.73
Average Runs Allowed: 2.52
Losses
Average Game Score: 38.3
Minimum: 11
Median: 37
Maximum: 66
Average IP: 5.30
Average Runs Scored: 2.57
Average Runs Allowed: 6.04
Pitchers by Mean Game Score
Penny (6 starts): 57.0
Tomko (8 starts): 43.1
Wolf (6 starts): 54.8
Lowe (6 starts): 53.3
Kuo (1 start): 47
Hendrickson (8 starts): 45.1
Tomko (8 starts): 43.1
Schmidt (3 starts): 39.7
For defensive records up until this point, see here.
Here are the Rate2 and FP stats by position:
POS_Rate2_FP
1 - 107 - .981
2 - 109 - .989
3 - 90 - .992
4 - 86 - .966
5 - 93 - .950
6 - 113 - .969
7 - 91 - .988
8 - 99 - .986
9 - 96 - .965
Since then, Tsao got hurt, Brazoban came and got hurt, Kuo came up, went down, switched back to the rotation, Tomko got sent to the bullpen, Hendrickson got sent to the bullpen, LaRoche came up, Abreu came up, Laroche was sent down, Valdez was DFA'd and outrighted to AAA.
Overall Record
33-23
Record with 3 or fewer runs scored:
8-15
Record with 3 or fewer runs allowed:
22-3
Record with 3 0r fewer runs scored by both teams:
8-3
Record in 1 run games
13-4
Extra Innings Record
3-0
Double digit run games, allowed:
4, 1
Shutouts
4
Times Shut out
2
Wins
Average Game Score: 59.8
Minimum: 35
Median: 62
Maximum: 81
Average IP: 6.20
Average Runs Scored: 5.73
Average Runs Allowed: 2.52
Losses
Average Game Score: 38.3
Minimum: 11
Median: 37
Maximum: 66
Average IP: 5.30
Average Runs Scored: 2.57
Average Runs Allowed: 6.04
Pitchers by Mean Game Score
Penny (6 starts): 57.0
Tomko (8 starts): 43.1
Wolf (6 starts): 54.8
Lowe (6 starts): 53.3
Kuo (1 start): 47
Hendrickson (8 starts): 45.1
Tomko (8 starts): 43.1
Schmidt (3 starts): 39.7
For defensive records up until this point, see here.
Here are the Rate2 and FP stats by position:
POS_Rate2_FP
1 - 107 - .981
2 - 109 - .989
3 - 90 - .992
4 - 86 - .966
5 - 93 - .950
6 - 113 - .969
7 - 91 - .988
8 - 99 - .986
9 - 96 - .965
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Juan Pierre Update
I don't know if anyone reads this, but I really should update this blog more often. I would probably do a lot better if I wasn't so aware that nobody read the darn thing (or if I sent the link to someone else).
But anyway . . .
Juan Pierre has been off to a horrendously slow start. Well, by his standards no. He's not going to be wrecking anyone's fantasy team in a 5x5 roto league. But he's a little under his average level of performance, and that makes him really really bad. Consider his line:
.277/.305/.314, 15 SB, 5 CS, 5 2B, 1 3B, 27 R, 10 RBI, 1 SF, 6 S, 203 TPA
You could look at it this way, and get a different picture
.277 BA, 15 SB, 27 R
And from a fantasy perspective he's ok, and he'd probably pick up the average a bit. But what is bogging the average down though? Pierre isn't good, but he has been better than this before. Well, look at fangraphs, and let's break down what he's been doing.
First of all, he's striking out more and walking less than normal; normally Pierre's strikeouts and walks are about even, but that ratio is about 2 to 1 this year. Pierre will usually walk in 5.8% of his PAs, but now it's only 4.2%. His strikeouts are at about 9.2% of plate appearances this year, compared with a career rate of just 6.2%. Also worth considering are that Pierre's fly ball rate is way up - this year it's at 32.5%, compared to a career rate of 21.9%! As we all know, Pierre doesn't hit those fly balls for home runs very often, so it doesn't help him that he's hitting so many; his ground balls are down to 47% from 56.4% career. Pierre is also not bunting his way on base nearly as much as he used to: only 17.7% of his bunts are becoming hits, down from 37.7%; this number was 42.9% last year!
So Pierre needs to hit more grounders, fewer popups, and bunt better in order to be successful. Striking out less would be nice.
But anyway . . .
Juan Pierre has been off to a horrendously slow start. Well, by his standards no. He's not going to be wrecking anyone's fantasy team in a 5x5 roto league. But he's a little under his average level of performance, and that makes him really really bad. Consider his line:
.277/.305/.314, 15 SB, 5 CS, 5 2B, 1 3B, 27 R, 10 RBI, 1 SF, 6 S, 203 TPA
You could look at it this way, and get a different picture
.277 BA, 15 SB, 27 R
And from a fantasy perspective he's ok, and he'd probably pick up the average a bit. But what is bogging the average down though? Pierre isn't good, but he has been better than this before. Well, look at fangraphs, and let's break down what he's been doing.
First of all, he's striking out more and walking less than normal; normally Pierre's strikeouts and walks are about even, but that ratio is about 2 to 1 this year. Pierre will usually walk in 5.8% of his PAs, but now it's only 4.2%. His strikeouts are at about 9.2% of plate appearances this year, compared with a career rate of just 6.2%. Also worth considering are that Pierre's fly ball rate is way up - this year it's at 32.5%, compared to a career rate of 21.9%! As we all know, Pierre doesn't hit those fly balls for home runs very often, so it doesn't help him that he's hitting so many; his ground balls are down to 47% from 56.4% career. Pierre is also not bunting his way on base nearly as much as he used to: only 17.7% of his bunts are becoming hits, down from 37.7%; this number was 42.9% last year!
So Pierre needs to hit more grounders, fewer popups, and bunt better in order to be successful. Striking out less would be nice.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
April Report
Time for a bunch of useless summary statistics, including tonight's game since the season started April 2.
Overall Record
16-11
Record with 3 or fewer runs scored:
4-8
Record with 3 or fewer runs allowed:
11-1
Record with 3 0r fewer runs scored by both teams:
4-1
Record in 1 run games
6-3
Extra Innings Record
2-0
Double digit run games, allowed:
2, 0
Shutouts
1
Times Shut out
0
Wins
Average Game Score: 58.8
Minimum: 36
Median: 61.5
Maximum: 76
Average IP: 6.15
Average Runs Scored: 5.81
Average Runs Allowed: 2.25
Losses
Average Game Score: 37.7
Minimum: 20
Median: 45
Maximum: 50
Average IP: 5.24
Average Runs Scored: 2.73
Average Runs Allowed: 6
Pitchers by Mean Game Score
Hendrickson (2 starts): 58.5
Penny (6 starts): 57.5
Tomko (4 starts): 51.5
Wolf (6 starts): 49.7
Lowe (6 starts): 45
Schmidt (3 starts): 39.7
Overall Record
16-11
Record with 3 or fewer runs scored:
4-8
Record with 3 or fewer runs allowed:
11-1
Record with 3 0r fewer runs scored by both teams:
4-1
Record in 1 run games
6-3
Extra Innings Record
2-0
Double digit run games, allowed:
2, 0
Shutouts
1
Times Shut out
0
Wins
Average Game Score: 58.8
Minimum: 36
Median: 61.5
Maximum: 76
Average IP: 6.15
Average Runs Scored: 5.81
Average Runs Allowed: 2.25
Losses
Average Game Score: 37.7
Minimum: 20
Median: 45
Maximum: 50
Average IP: 5.24
Average Runs Scored: 2.73
Average Runs Allowed: 6
Pitchers by Mean Game Score
Hendrickson (2 starts): 58.5
Penny (6 starts): 57.5
Tomko (4 starts): 51.5
Wolf (6 starts): 49.7
Lowe (6 starts): 45
Schmidt (3 starts): 39.7
Sunday, April 29, 2007
What's with Gil Meche?
Gil Meche was signed for 5 years, $55 million by Dayton Moore last year, and everyone thought that was stupid. They're not wrong yet, but Meche has shown noticeable improvement.
Out of his first 6 starts, 5 have been "quality starts" (at least 6 IP, 3 ER or less). More to the point, he's 2-1 with a 2.18 ERA, although it should be noted that he's surrendered 6 unearned runs (compared to only 10 earned runs). So that looks really really good.
So what is different about Gil Meche?
Out of his first 6 starts, 5 have been "quality starts" (at least 6 IP, 3 ER or less). More to the point, he's 2-1 with a 2.18 ERA, although it should be noted that he's surrendered 6 unearned runs (compared to only 10 earned runs). So that looks really really good.
So what is different about Gil Meche?
- He may prove to be more durable as a starter, because thus far he has 15.19 pitches per inning, down from 17.32 career, so it's not unthinkable to consider that he could continue to go deep into games. At that, he has not thrown more than 111 pitches.
- Meche's K/9 rate is no different from his career rate, but his BB/9 is currently 1.96, compared to 3.91 career. That's half of the walks he usually allows.
- Meche has a career GO/AO (ground out/air out ratio) of .96; this year it's 2.1. This is an extroardinary change to being a groundball pitcher, and if he can sustain that, he'll reduce the number of balls hit hard against him, and thus his opponent's slugging average. As it stands, opponents are batting a staggering .283/.324/.390, compared to .261/.339/.427. Even with a ridiculous .283 opponent's average (which should drop off quite a bit) which is well above average, he's letting fewer people on base, and they are not hitting the ball nearly as hard. This would certainly correspond to his drop in home run rate, as that's now down to 1 every 10.25 innings from about 1 every 8.
- His H/9 is actually up this year, so it is not unthinkable to think that he could improve a bit.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Team Stats as of 4/21/07
The Dodgers are in first place and have the best record in MLB, so I figured I'd see how they stack against other teams in team pitching and hitting categories. What could be said to be fueling their particular success?
So I'll use the following for the team over all, and also splits for starters and bullpen.
ERA
WHIP
K/9
K/BB
HR rate
Additionally, I'll also look at IP/GS and an adjusted save percentage of (SV+HLD)/(SVO+HLD), since if you blow the lead in a hold situation it's called a blown save.
On the offensive end, I'll look at ranks in runs scored, runs batted in, BA/OBP/SLG, and splits with RISP.
So here it is:
DODGERS TEAM PITCHING STATS
Starters:
ERA: 3.29 (6th)
WHIP: 1.42 (17th)
K/9: 6.42 (13th)
K/BB: 1.80 (18th)
IP/HR: 15.95 (tied for 3rd)
IP/start: 5.6 innings
Relievers:
ERA: 2.32 (3rd)
WHIP: 1.05 (2nd)
K/9: 7.95 (9th)
K/BB: 3.20 (1st)
IP/HR: 18.1 (7th)
adjusted SV%: 92%
Whole Team:
ERA: 2.94 (4th)
WHIP: 1.29 (12th)
K/9: 7.02 (9th)
K/BB: 2.17 (7th)
IP/HR: 16.7 (3rd)
NOW THE HITTERS
OVERALL
.271/.337/.390 (5th/10th/15th), 9 HR (25th), 84 R (3rd), 80 RBI (3rd)
RISP
.297/.380/.439 (5th/7th/10th), 73 R (2nd), 69 RBI (1st, tie)
Nobody out
.289/.360/.416 (7th/3rd/13th), 22 R (4th, tie), 22 RBI (3rd)
1 out
.301/.359/.440 (3rd/5th/5th), 35 R (2nd, tie), 34 RBI (2nd)
2 out
.216/.283/.304 (26th/26th/28th), 27 R (15th), 24 RBI (17th)
RISP, 2 Out
.226/.333/.387 (17th/17th/14th)
So I'll use the following for the team over all, and also splits for starters and bullpen.
ERA
WHIP
K/9
K/BB
HR rate
Additionally, I'll also look at IP/GS and an adjusted save percentage of (SV+HLD)/(SVO+HLD), since if you blow the lead in a hold situation it's called a blown save.
On the offensive end, I'll look at ranks in runs scored, runs batted in, BA/OBP/SLG, and splits with RISP.
So here it is:
DODGERS TEAM PITCHING STATS
Starters:
ERA: 3.29 (6th)
WHIP: 1.42 (17th)
K/9: 6.42 (13th)
K/BB: 1.80 (18th)
IP/HR: 15.95 (tied for 3rd)
IP/start: 5.6 innings
Relievers:
ERA: 2.32 (3rd)
WHIP: 1.05 (2nd)
K/9: 7.95 (9th)
K/BB: 3.20 (1st)
IP/HR: 18.1 (7th)
adjusted SV%: 92%
Whole Team:
ERA: 2.94 (4th)
WHIP: 1.29 (12th)
K/9: 7.02 (9th)
K/BB: 2.17 (7th)
IP/HR: 16.7 (3rd)
NOW THE HITTERS
OVERALL
.271/.337/.390 (5th/10th/15th), 9 HR (25th), 84 R (3rd), 80 RBI (3rd)
RISP
.297/.380/.439 (5th/7th/10th), 73 R (2nd), 69 RBI (1st, tie)
Nobody out
.289/.360/.416 (7th/3rd/13th), 22 R (4th, tie), 22 RBI (3rd)
1 out
.301/.359/.440 (3rd/5th/5th), 35 R (2nd, tie), 34 RBI (2nd)
2 out
.216/.283/.304 (26th/26th/28th), 27 R (15th), 24 RBI (17th)
RISP, 2 Out
.226/.333/.387 (17th/17th/14th)
Monday, February 26, 2007
Plate Discipline
This is a virtue that stat geeks will extol constantly. There are a few things to look at in this:
1) Walk rate
2) Strikeout to walk rate
3) Pitches per plate appearance
The first two are easy to look at. Walk rate can demonstrate how much a player will take walks, but this is a function of multiple variables, namely: his eyesight, his judgement of the strike zone, and the amount of fear a pitcher has for him. Strikeout to walk can be useful in estimating the player's overall OBP; a player with a lot of strikeouts will not hit for high average, and so the number of walks may be outweighted by the low batting average that results. For example, Adam Dunn. On the other hand, a player who does not strike out yet still walks a lot demonstrates excellent patience (few swinging K's) and excellent knowledge of the strike zone (few times caught looking), and a great example of this is Jackie Robinson.
Now pitches per plate appearance is one of those stats that is not very well-known or advertised, but this is something one can think through. The more pitches a pitcher has to go through, the shorter he will last, even if he gets everyone out. After all, when a pitcher is removed before the 6th inning, that is when the worst relief pitchers have to come out of the bullpen. What was often the case with Brad Penny was that he would have good outings, but batters would foul off so many pitches that he would hit 100 pitches in the 4th and 5th innings. Hitting foul balls is a skill that is perhaps too underappreciated, but a player that can hit a foul ball can exhaust a pitcher easily.
Either way, here's the Dodgers' starting line, complete with P/PA for the past 6 seasons. Stop now and guess who will have the highest number here.
Ok, here.
MLB average P/PA in2006: 3.76
The Dodgers lineup will be below average next year in taking pitches, although that could change once the injury bug bites. Nomar will not stay healthy all year, though so that number will get a little higher. Still, the Dodgers look to be losing many battles of pitch counts if they do not get on base more than the other team.
I was impressed though, to see Betemit with the best P/PA, despite not having a really high isolated patience (OBP-BA). Nonetheless, he can be a pest for the opposition if nothing else.
1) Walk rate
2) Strikeout to walk rate
3) Pitches per plate appearance
The first two are easy to look at. Walk rate can demonstrate how much a player will take walks, but this is a function of multiple variables, namely: his eyesight, his judgement of the strike zone, and the amount of fear a pitcher has for him. Strikeout to walk can be useful in estimating the player's overall OBP; a player with a lot of strikeouts will not hit for high average, and so the number of walks may be outweighted by the low batting average that results. For example, Adam Dunn. On the other hand, a player who does not strike out yet still walks a lot demonstrates excellent patience (few swinging K's) and excellent knowledge of the strike zone (few times caught looking), and a great example of this is Jackie Robinson.
Now pitches per plate appearance is one of those stats that is not very well-known or advertised, but this is something one can think through. The more pitches a pitcher has to go through, the shorter he will last, even if he gets everyone out. After all, when a pitcher is removed before the 6th inning, that is when the worst relief pitchers have to come out of the bullpen. What was often the case with Brad Penny was that he would have good outings, but batters would foul off so many pitches that he would hit 100 pitches in the 4th and 5th innings. Hitting foul balls is a skill that is perhaps too underappreciated, but a player that can hit a foul ball can exhaust a pitcher easily.
Either way, here's the Dodgers' starting line, complete with P/PA for the past 6 seasons. Stop now and guess who will have the highest number here.
Ok, here.
| |||||||||||||||||
The Dodgers lineup will be below average next year in taking pitches, although that could change once the injury bug bites. Nomar will not stay healthy all year, though so that number will get a little higher. Still, the Dodgers look to be losing many battles of pitch counts if they do not get on base more than the other team.
I was impressed though, to see Betemit with the best P/PA, despite not having a really high isolated patience (OBP-BA). Nonetheless, he can be a pest for the opposition if nothing else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)