There is virtually no merit to this blog entry whatsoever, and I am being kind to the author. Don't bother reading it, just thank me for saving you the time.

This is the kind of brilliant analysis you get from a wannabe comedian.

Let's see, Scott Hatteberg is hitting 307/403/470 this year, which B-R calls 7.17 RC/27. Not a good year to pick on the guy. Using 26 outs per game, that would be 1119 runs in a 162 game season, which I think is a record. It could probably cure leprosy too.

Actually, Hatteberg is an ABOVE average baserunner. He takes the extra base and/or does not get thrown out taking the extra base MORE than the average baserunner. His total baserunning lwts for 03-06 was +3. That is 3 runs ABOVE average. That is for ALL players, not just first basemen, catchers, or DH's. That kind of blows this idiot's silly theory out of the water, does it not?

Over on the "Braves Acquired Teixeira" thread, I noted that Teixeira had an OPS+ well above the median for regular 1B this year -- and also that Hatteberg was right about at that median. A 9-man lineup consisting entirely of middling offensive first basemen would be a pretty awesome lineup, as noted by DCA ...

again, i fail to understand editorial control around here. can't there be a "Your Take" section where random blogs are submitted and controlled, that is separate from the news thread? by virtue of the "cream rises to the top" phenomenon, popular and intelligent blogs can move up to the newsblog when they become truly newsworthy. not everything on the internet is worth linking to. i really think the newsblog should take that principle to heart.

I'm wondering why this is so bad, MGL. It at least transcends the "Would I Prefer Reading This Over Bill Plaschke" standard and thus makes Nico better than a significant percentage of working journalistic hacks out there in the LA metro area.

And I don't get the nastiness some people are exhibiting. Disagree with it -- fine, but I very much doubt Nico is an "idiot".

but I very much doubt Nico is an "idiot".

Well, he uses everything except facts to make his point.

Oh, he is probably not an idiot, but it is bad because it has no merit whatsoever. If you are willing to put your opinions, analysis, or what have you, on the internet for all the world to see, then you better have thick skin especially if you what you write is garbage. This is garbage because it is all wrong, from top to bottom. I am not lobbying that it should not be linked to, although it probably shouldn't because there really is little value in linking to an attempt at analysis which is childish and erroneous. If I write something that is complete garbage and put it out there for all the world to see, I would hope that someone would call it for what it is, if for nothing else to set the record straight for those who read it who are not very informed and also to save some people some time. If I wrote about something that I knew litte or nothing about (or was completely incompetent in terms of understanding, analyzing, or explaining the subject material) then I might write something that was garbage. I tend not to do that though. It is a free country and a free internet though. He can write whatever he wants. But, as I said, if you don't know what the heck you are talking about, which this person does not as far as this blog entry is concerned, then expect to be called out and rightfully so.

Well, he uses everything except facts to make his point.

How is that different than any of Plaschke, Simers, Lupica, Mariotti, Jenkins, BASN, and untold numbers of other columns linked here every day?

Actually, I take that back - BASN uses lots of facts. They just show an utter lack of logic.

Well, he uses everything except facts to make his point.

How is that different than any of Plaschke, Simers, Lupica, Mariotti, Jenkins, BASN, and untold numbers of other columns linked here every day?

I never said he shouldn't be linked, or that it's different, but it's hard to have a good analysis without facts when facts are readily available.

Not to mention that the analysis itself has gaping holes in it.

I never said he shouldn't be linked, or that it's different, but it's hard to have a good analysis without facts when facts are readily available.

Not to mention that the analysis itself has gaping holes in it.

I'm not saying that you are wrong. It just seems as if we have had a ton of "why is this even linked here" posts lately, as if anything that isn't at least 95% statistically sound analysis doesn't deserve to make it onto BTF. I think that pointing out bad analysis and submitting it to the rigor, if you will, of BTF isn't a bad idea, especially as the readership of BTF doesn't all date from pre-registration days.

Plus, BASN stuff is funny.

I know there are a bunch of other issues with the article, but wouldn't BB, 1B, BB score runs even with slow runners a lot of the time?

I know there are a bunch of other issues with the article, but wouldn't BB, 1B, BB score runs even with slow runners a lot of the time?

Of course. Bases loaded? They could score in any number of ways. The article may as well say "3B, BB, BB" doesn't score anyone if the next three guys pop up or strike out." That may be true in a given inning, but over a bigger sample size, distributions aren't going to occur in the worst possible way all the time.

The article implies that 1B, steal second, grounder to the right side (runner advances to third), sac fly is going to happen because the mixed hitter profiles are going to ensure the better outcome distribution. Instead, you are as likely to get K, BB, steal second, grounder to right side (runner advances), groundout, inning over. Or 2B from good SLG bad OBP guy, out, out, out, inning over. Except everyone remembers bunt hit, steal, grounder to the right, sac fly as being "smart baseball." I'm looking at you Hawk Harrelson. It isn't memorable when it turns out bunt out, groundout, flyout.

Super off-the-cuff number-crunching...

The Devil Rays have a .334 OBP and a .432 SLG. They've scored 4.66 rpg.
The Indians have a .346 OBP and a .436 SLG. They've scored 5.21 rpg.

Offhand, it looks like (roughly) 12 points of OBP, given (approximately) a .430 SLG, is worth roughly half a run per game. Which would imply that a team of Hattebergs would score around one run more per game than the Indians. That'd put them at 6.21 runs scored per game, which would give them more than 1000 runs scored for the season. Feel free to dock the team 100 runs for baserunning (which seems a bit much), and you STILL end up with a top offensive team.

Yeah, I'd hate to have my shortstop, second baseman, catcher, bench, et al. hitting like Scott Hatteberg...

BTW, if we put 9 Hatteberg's (using his current 2007 batting projection) in a really good baseball sim against an average RH pitcher in an average park, they score 6.0 runs a game or 972 runs per season. Versus an average LH starter, they score only 5.3 runs a game. Now that is assuming he is a slightly above average baserunner, which he is according to his baserunning lwts over the last 4 years. Let's say that we make him dirt slow, like a Benji Molina, Posada, or Piazza. Now they only score 5.5 rpg versus a RHP and 4.9 versus a LHP, quite a difference (surprised me). If we make him slow, but not quite as slow as the slowest in the leagues, they score 5.6 and 4.9, respectively. If he is an average baserunner, 5.8 and 5.0. That is about what we would expect from baserunning. The difference between the best and worst baserunners is around 10 runs per season. Less than what most people would think.

Of course, a lineup of 9 Hattebergs would really consist of ...

roughly average hitters at 1B, LF, RF and DH
good hitters at 2B, 3B and CF
excellent hitters at C and SS

Or to put it another way, if you had a lineup of 8 Hattebergs and needed a 1B, you could do a lot better than Hatteberg. If the rest of your lineup is not as good as 8 Hattebergs, bragging about how good 9 Hattebergs would be seems odd. And a picky person might point out that the A's haven't had a whole lot of C, 2B and SS who hit like Hatteberg on a consistent basis.

But more importantly, a team that averaged Hatteberg's numbers would have to have a lineup substantially better than 9 Hattebergs or the greatest bench in MLB history. The bench is gonna get, what, 1000-1200 PA a year usually. So to have a lineup that produces like 9 Hattebergs, you're gonna need 13-15 of them.

Barring this great bench, that means you need a lineup substantially better than 9 Hattebergs to top 950-1000 runs ... and such a lineup is likely to feature a 1B much better than Hatteberg.

I think Nico, like many A's fans, is simply frustrated at the team's poor clutch hitting and would like to see someone drive in runs, even if their RC/27 were lower than the team average:

According to B-Pro, the leaders in RS-EQR:

Red Sox -39
Devil Rays -36
Athletics -31
Mets -22
Orioles -21
Phillies -20
Marlins -19

Royals +38
Pirates +23
Mariners +22
Padres +21
Giants +14
White Sox +12

While his facts are wrong, the A's do "look" like they constantly get people on base and fail to run the bases aggressively, hit in the clutch, or hit with any power. Rather than take solace in the fact that the A's are at least getting men on in the first place, Nico's ready to jettison the Hatteberg plan and go with 9 Jay Paytons. Not rigorous analysis, but I can understand, and share, the frustration.

Red Sox -39
Devil Rays -36
Athletics -31
Mets -22
Orioles -21
Phillies -20
Marlins -19

Royals +38
Pirates +23
Mariners +22
Padres +21
Giants +14
White Sox +12

Seems to me that the first list is dominated by good offensive teams, while the second list is dominated by bad offensive teams. Does EQR begin to fail out towards the ends of the bell curves? (Not, of course, that this explains the A's, being a genuinely bad-to-mediocre offensive team that is also failing to score runs at the expected pace...)

The Red Sox have been decidedly "unclutch" with scoring runs, so that list does not surprise me at all.

I think when he said BB, 1B, BB would not score a run, he wasn't implying that they came conecutively, but that they were the only three successful at-bats in the inning.

I think his one interesting hypothesis (and it can't be called anything more than that, since he didn't do any research) is that a line-up without diversity--even if the lineup is full of good hitters--can have a tendancy to get completely shut down more often than a line-up with different types of hitters. And I think that makes sense.

I think his one interesting hypothesis (and it can't be called anything more than that, since he didn't do any research) is that a line-up without diversity--even if the lineup is full of good hitters--can have a tendancy to get completely shut down more often than a line-up with different types of hitters. And I think that makes sens

I tested a similar hypothesis using standard deviation in RS and RA, and found that while it affects record as compared to pythag record, it is not that big an effect overall. As far as how that affects RS, it would be balanced by getting tons of runs as well.

I looked for differences between pythag records and actual records and comparing it to standard deviation in RS and RA per game. The effect was small, but there. I don't have the skill to give a number, but I'd estimate that it wouldn't account for more than a few games a year, even given extreme cases.

The article implies that 1B, steal second, grounder to the right side (runner advances to third), sac fly is going to happen because

No matter who your team is or what situation they're in (other than a 10+ run blowout), I can't imagine a sequence more likely to arouse a game broadcaster.

Off-topic a bit, I know that Hatteberg used to catch for Boston. Is he physically prevented from doing this for the A's?

Are the forums broken?

They are for me.

me too.

DTM answered a little too quickly. I smell a werewolf!

Off-topic a bit, I know that Hatteberg used to catch for Boston. Is he physically prevented from doing this for the A's?

Yes, for a couple of reasons.
1) The Reds probably would get upset.
2) He had shoulder surgery way back and simply can't throw. When he was with the A's other teams stole bases by just taking off for second, and then the pitcher would throw to Hatteberg, who could never, ever, get the ball to second in time for an out.

DTM answered a little too quickly. I smell a werewolf!

You seemed a little too eager to make that accusation. I smell a werewolf!

As usual, Walt gets to the heart of the matter. The problem with the 9 Hatteberg plan isn't that 370/430 is insufficient for a team. It's that finding Hattebergish hitters who can play SS/2B/CF is very difficult.

Of course, it's pretty easy to read the comments in the book as a way of illustrating that Hatteberg, who might have been considered quite marginal as a player, has some value.

You seemed a little too eager to make that accusation. I smell a werewolf!

THAT'S WEREWOLF TALK