That's one of the more amazing posts I've ever seen.

They've also got a damn good pitching staff. Ask the Rangers about hitting the crap out of the ball.

Now, teams with merely mediocre, rather than horribly bad, pitching are able to win the World Series by having an outstanding offense, of course; see this year's Phillies.

The Rays are doing to the Sox what I thought the Angels would do -- refuse to chase the nibbling pitches and pound the living snot out of the strikes. So, frankly, I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner. But living in SW Fla, I'm happy to see it now.

The Rays won 97 regular season games (3rd in the majors). How did they manage that?

Given a that rated slightly pitcher friendly (11th best for pitching, .955 park factor) they were:
13th in slugging,
10th in OBP,
10th in OPS,
10th in Home Runs,
13th in Runs Scored
(and, it goes without saying) considerably behind the Red Sox in every single one of those categories.

They were also
3rd in ERA,
3rd in BAA,
2nd in OBP against,
5th in OPS against.

But, hey, if you find the data in an still-incomplete seven game series confirms your prejudices (in which they've given up 8, 2, 1 and 4 runs in 4 games, good for a 3.75 ERA even with that crooked number, by the way), I say run with it.

"They Rays win by hitting the long ball."

Whatever.

GWO: I imagine Cameron is talking only about the playoffs.

The Rays won 97 regular season games (3rd in the majors). How did they manage that?
...

But, hey, if you find the data in an still-incomplete seven game series confirms your prejudices (in which they've given up 8, 2, 1 and 4 runs in 4 games, good for a 3.75 ERA even with that crooked number, by the way), I say run with it.

"They Rays win by hitting the long ball."

Whatever.

What is it that you think this article is saying? Now, I think the author makes it tough on himself by not being clear when he says things like

Want to know the best way to get to the World Series? Hit the ball really, really far.

but I think he's definitely talking about their postseason performance.

“Pitching wins championships.” “The difference between good teams and great teams are the little things.” These are most charitably interpreted as claims about how to win in the postseason, and there's definitely a larger emphasis this time of year on small ball, speed, and the 'little things.' His point is not that the Rays are a team with huge power, but that they're winning because they're hitting a lot of home runs in the series they've played, and that, they are.

Edit: Too late.

Now, teams with merely mediocre, rather than horribly bad, pitching are able to win the World Series by having an outstanding offense, of course; see this year's Phillies.

Phillies 2008
NL Rank in OPS+: 6
NL Rank in ERA+: 3

but I think he's definitely talking about their postseason performance.

So his point is

"So far, in this series, the Rays have hit a lot of homeruns, and that'll win you a lot of games."
Well, gee. D'ya think? That's really insightful.

And I'm not the one who generalised this.

If you’ve ever watched a baseball game with the sound on, you’ve heard one of these cliches mentioned, and probably have heard them a few thousand times. Well, the Tampa Bay Rays are trying to make sure you know that they’re total and utter crap.

Really? An offensive explosion in a 4-game series is evidence that "playing team baseball" is "total and utter crap".

Four freaking games? Despite the 162 game evidence that hitting the bejesus out of the ball is not, on the whole, what's brought the Rays success this year. Strewth.

G.W.O.:

An offensive explosion in a 4-game series certainly is evidence that “Hitting behind the runner, making productive outs, and playing team baseball are the keys to winning.” is utter crap, yeah. The Rays haven't been doing much of those things, and yet they still win. Why? 'Cause they're hitting a bunch of home runs.

Yeah, 'home runs -> winning' is not exactly revolutionary, but if we're to take the platitudes Cameron is talking about seriously, 'home runs -> winning' falsifies them.

Is it just me, or does anyone else read this and get the impression that Cameron had a chip on his shoulder when he wrote it? Maybe it's because one of the more famous posts of his that was linked here was a rip at BPro, his posts in the JJ Putz for MVP thread last summer, and his (possibly imagined by me) view that anyone who doesn't use xFIP to evaluate pitchers is stuck back in the Cap Anson Era that I perceive him as an angry yopung man of sabermetrics and it colors my impression of him.

Wally:

Yeah, that I do get. The biggest problem I have with this article is that it seems to be preaching to the choir, at best. He's right, sure, but not a lot of people reading this article are going to be interested in changing their views from 'home runs are selfish' to 'small-ball doesn't matter that much'.

The Rays didn't have Longoria all year, Upton played with an injury that sapped most of his home run power and Floyd also missed half the season. The team is more powerful now than they were during the season; it's not just a fluke.

considerably behind the Red Sox in every single one of those categories.

EXCEPT HOME RUNS. 180 > 173.

"They Rays win by hitting the long ball."

Whatever.

In this series so far they have averaged a little more than 4 runs per game via the long ball, or close to 6 runs per game by HR in their 3 wins. A 3.75 ERA isn't out of the ordinary in the playoffs; I think 4 R/G by HR is.

A 3.75 ERA isn't out of the ordinary in the playoffs; I think 4 R/G by HR is.

So what Cameron is saying is the key to postseason success is doing something out of the ordinary?

I do agree with the point G.W.O. is making here. The Rays didn't get to the playoffs (the hard part) by outslugging everyone. That they have turned on the power during the postseason is obviously great for them, and would be welcomed by any team, but it is not what put the team in position to win a championship. Moreover, banging out 4 runs per game on home runs is great if you can do it, but considering most teams won't be able to pull that off, then winning through hit and runs, productive outs and the like may not be "utter crap."

NM, I thought that Cameron may have had a certain article from Baseball Between The Numbers in mind when he wrote this.

Also, one time Cameron said Robinson Cano sucks. He's a meathead.

That's one of the more amazing posts I've ever seen.

Really? It reminds me of early internet statheadism. Indignation expressed at old baseball cliches. A paean to power hitting. A startling lack of nuance. I half expected to find something about Roberto Petagine in there.

“Hitting behind the runner, making productive outs, and playing team baseball are the keys to winning.”

This is a sort of statement that I think everyone understands to be hyperbole. Even the person who's saying it. There isn't a single baseball man on Earth that would prefer for Upton/Longoria/Pena to start bunting runners over instead of pasting the ball all over the field.

There isn't a single baseball man on Earth that would prefer for Upton/Longoria/Pena to start bunting runners over instead of pasting the ball all over the field.

I bet the Red Sox baseball men would.

By the way...

The Rays are doing to the Sox what I thought the Angels would do -- refuse to chase the nibbling pitches and pound the living snot out of the strikes.

The nibbling only really applies to Daisuke, and he's the one who DIDN'T get pounded.

I didn't realize how patient the Rays are, 2nd in the league after the Red Sox (who everyone knows take enough pitches to make games last 5 hours). I would have thought the Yankees would have more. Impressive for such a young team.

Red Sox walked 20 more times, Rays hit 7 more homers. The biggest difference, offensively, is that the Red Sox had a higher average, .280-.260, and 69 more doubles. A lot of that is due to the ballpark, though the strikeouts are a factor as well (1224-1068).

biff--
well, yeah, you're right about Game 1. maybe he's just tougher to read. but in game 2 (at least from my nosebleed seats) the Rays stayed away from Beckett's junk and crushed the rest. With Lester they just hit good pitches, I thought. And Wakefield didn't last long, but at least they didn't chase the unreachable stuff. And they laid off the misses from Delcarmen.

Well, yeah, but remember, the Rays faced the O's a bunch of times early in the season, when at least a few members of Baltimore's Opening Day rotation hadn't yet been shut down/released/converted into position players.

... so of the 15 wins Tampa had over Baltimore, beginning last April, many were relatively lower-scoring, 5-2 Ws. And although O's pitchers did have a 6.75 ERA against the Rays, had those defeats occurred later in the season, Tampa could well have ranked higher in OPS+, BB, and especially home runs...

This is a sort of statement that I think everyone understands to be hyperbole.

Maybe. But it was only a few years ago when Olney was positing that that the key to winning in the postseason was productive outs. It was just a couple weeks ago that Jerry Manueal was stating that it's the little guys that win post-season MVP awards because they do the little things. When I pointed out the silliness of that (the little guys win it when they hit 420 with a couple HRs), Kevin chimed in with how the power game is shut down in the playoffs and contact hitters take over (or words to that effect). It's a widely held belief.

The other purpose Cameron's article might serve is in counter-acting some of the mythology that may come later. Remember the Angels in 2002 and lot of folks claiming this showed that putting the ball in play, hitting behind the runner, etc. were keys to postseason success -- they inspired Olney's "study" if I remember right. Now, that is the Angels' philosophy and it had a lot to do with them getting to the postseason -- but in the postseason that year (especially the ALCS and WS), they turned into the 27 Yankees and were pounding out HR all over the place. Maybe they would have won it anyway with their "normal" offensive performance (though it hasn't served them too well in subsequent postseasons I don't think) but it had nothing to do with them winning the Series that year.

And there have been studies showing that the value of offenive events declines in the playoffs -- except HR. Because of better pitching, it's harder to string together hits. It's not substantially harder (relatively speaking) to hit HR and, given the lower-scoring environment, they're more valuable.

But sure, there's plenty of tautology here. The team that wins a series is, generally, the team that scores more while giving up fewer. When not, it's the team that came up with the timely hits. Getting hot with the HR at the right time improves your team's chances of winning in either of those ways.

And it's also valid criticism to note that the Rays aren't built to hit a LOT of HR. Neither were the Angels. The Red Sox kinda are but due to Ortiz's injury and other matters, it hasn't worked out that way. Therefore it's wrong to suggest this can be part of a plan for playoff success which could be inferred from Cameron's article ... it just kinda happens.

Remember the Angels in 2002 and lot of folks claiming this showed that putting the ball in play, hitting behind the runner, etc. were keys to postseason success

But as you suggest, the solution to ridiculous over-generalisation is not to make an equally ridiculous counter-over-generalisation[0]. It's no more sensible, scientific, sabremetric or smart to say "The Rays prove homers get you to the series" than it is to say "The Angels prove that taking the extra base gets you to the World Series." But at least the Angels played that way in the regular season, too.

([0] see also "Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game Is Wrong").