The article is much better than that blurb implies.

A good piece indeed.

On a recent morning, Beane took note of a website that attempted to calculate how many runs the A's could score with every possible lineup combination.

David Pinto's lineup analysis? Weird... the answers you get from it usually are quite unorthodox. I wonder how much stock Beane puts into it (or if he's talking about another website).

"The two statistics that are the greatest determining factors in whether you win games," Beane said, "are team ERA and on-base percentage."

I always thought runs scored and runs against usually did a fine job there. ;)

"When we're in a close game, and somebody capable of stealing 30, 40, 50, 60 bases gets on base late in the game, that's tough to defense. The speed of the player will keep the defense moving. It will keep the pitcher in a split-second of indecision or loss of concentration.

It also affects the hitter's concentration, Ned.

I don’t make half an evaluation of a player simply based on statistics.

This is a good article, but I'm still puzzled by this statement. It seems vaguely Yogi Berra like (I don't make 50% of the decision based 100% on statistics) but I can't tell if I'm misreading it

If Stoneman was using OPS in the 80s, why is he ignoring statistical analysis now? Why did he give Sarge Lite $50 million - because he takes nice routes to the ball?

Also, I kind of hope Plaschke writes a response to this article, just so he can give out more ridiculous compliments to Colletti and Juan "Intangible" Pierre, the out machine.

This is a good article, but I'm still puzzled by this statement. It seems vaguely Yogi Berra like (I don't make 50% of the decision based 100% on statistics) but I can't tell if I'm misreading it

I think it's just an awkwardly-stated way of saying that things other than statistics, such as clarity and hue, form more than half of his opinion on any given player; i.e. he uses statistics like Bordeaux vintners use Malbec, and he sees Oakland as Argentina.

the last line of the article bothers me. comparing brock, someone who played in a stronger pitchers era, to pierre, someone who's played in an offense heavy era, based on just OBP is silly. Brock was the more valuable player due to the lower run scoring totals and the fact that his OBP was above average (and he had VERY few season with a sub-100 OPS+) compared to the league. Pierre's OBP, while on a career scale (read: before decline) etter than Brock by .007, is only .002 better than the league average across the same time by .002. Brock ended up .013 better than the league over his career.

that being said, Pierre is probably overvillified, and would be a perfectly acceptable signing for something like 5-6m a year. he's had a league average OBP across his career and despite getting caught a lot, he's still around the "adds value" point for stolen bases. of course, he's had 2 bad years in a row now, and if he loses even some of his speed, he becomes not very useful at all.

Brock was the more valuable player due to the lower run scoring totals and the fact that his OBP was above average (and he had VERY few season with a sub-100 OPS+) compared to the league.

Well, that and the fact that Brock actually had a pretty decent amount of power, while Pierre has none. Brock's career SLG was 20 points above average, usually a lot better than that in his younger days. Pierre's career SLG is 67 points below average--in his best season, he was 20 points below average. (On the other hand, Pierre is probably a much more valuable defender than Brock ever was.)

If Stoneman was using OPS in the 80s, why is he ignoring statistical analysis now?

Because he's not.

Because he's not.

Matthews? Hillenbrand?

Stoneman was using OPS in the 80s

If he was, it was called SLOB...which, in some distorted way, might explain the signing of Bartolo Colon.

I wonder how much stock Beane puts into it (or if he's talking about another website).

Since he specified an A's website, I'm guessing he's talking about my article here, where I provided the code that David Pinto took and used for his lineup analysis tool.

But I don't think he puts any stock into it at all. I don't put any stock in it at all. It was just a fun exercise.

Since he specified an A's website, I'm guessing he's talking about my article here, where I provided the code that David Pinto took and used for his lineup analysis tool.

Indeed. Pinto even cites that exact article. My apologies.

I always thought it was a fun way of looking at the lineup. I also do think you can put some stock into it. I think it helps you get a fresh look at who can (A) get on (B) knock 'em in (C) do A & B in conjunction. Even if Beane doesn't trot out Bradley, Swisher, and Chavez in the first, it's still interesting to look at and think about.

(Thanks, by the way, setting that up. Pinto's 'Lineup Analysis' has killed plenty of my free time with your infernal device, nearly as much as the Oracle of Baseball.)

Having Colleti as the GM of the dodgers makes me extraordinarily happy.

of course, he's had 2 bad years in a row now

He had over 200 hits last year. That's bad year? Even if they were 200 singles, it's still pretty good, especially since he can run.

"Even if they were 200 singles, it's still pretty good, especially since he can run."

He also made 532 outs. And got thrown out stealing 20 times.

The Cardinals counted on Brock to hit .300, score 100 runs and steal 50 bases every year.

Juan Pierre can do all that.

He's done it once in his career.

"As Pierre enters his seventh full season, the statistics from his first six are essentially similar to the numbers Brock put up in his first six."

Except that Brock hit for more power, was a better base stealer and better hitter relative to his era. Brock's worst OPS+ in that span was 92, if Pierre had an OPS+ of 92 he'd be having a very good season for Juan Pierre standards.

He also made 532 outs. And got thrown out stealing 20 times.

He had a lot of PA's. If he got 70 more hits, would that have made his year acceptable in your eyes?