Had too much of Stephen A. Smith? Try Stephen C. Smith!

Rough averages last year seasons:

Anaheim: .337 OBP, .425 SLG, 808 runs
Oakland: .336 OBP, .427 SLG, 787 runs

so, ok, his basic facts are correct. (always gotta check these things)

One reason for the 21 run difference:

Ana 130 SB/yr, 71% success rate
Oak 47 SB/yr, 71% success rate

Does an additional 83 SB at 71% success = 21 more runs? My guess is not quite.

ok, carry on.

Um, try "rough averages last THREE seasons"

There's a good point buried beneath all the junk stats.

The Angels have put together good offenses by focusing more on batting average and speed than the average team. There's a lot of ways to build a winning baseball team. That's very true, and useful to point out.

But my god, is there a lot of crap around that. TPA/R?? TPA/R????

I agree that a P.O. is better than a K. But a BB is better than a P.O.

Unless of course the score is tied late in the game (or extra innings); then I'll take the Sac Fly over the BB any day of the week.

Yeah and the world champs had a #2 hitter with 177 Ks. So what's his point?

Repoz just likes to post this stuff to get us all riled.

I don't mean to toot my own horn or anything, but I did write an article about this earlier in the year, focusing on all teams, not just the Angels.

And then, there's always Larry's Productive Outs diatribe.

Mikael is right that there is a good point buried under all the junk. Too bad there's SO much junk!

I thought prior to 2003 the A's themselves tended to
EXCEED their Runs Created (et. al) estimates by
quite a bit...

Repoz just likes to post this stuff to get us all riled.

...only because Lupica had nothing to say today...)

Ranking Offensive Events:

HR
3B
2B
1B
BB
SB
PO
Non PO Out
DP
TP

I'm fairly certain we can agree on this order. So, if I know the batter is going to K, hit a popup or produce a 6-4-3; then by all means - go for the Productive Out.

I thought that given two teams with the same OBP and SLG, the higher batting average team would score more runs?

So tell us something new.

This explains why the Angels are more efficient at generating runs than the A’s, even though the two teams’ OBP and SLG have been virtually identical over the last three years.

Buried in the article is the observation that the Angels have soundly beaten the A's in BA over these years, ranking 2nd in the AL compared to the A's who ranked 11th.

Judging by the Moneyball philosophy, SLG wouldn't be the only thing that's expensive -- BA is too. I'm sure that the A's would have preferred to have BA a greater component of their OBA, but there is certainly a cost to that.

Another thing about the Angels is that they seem to go first-to-third on singles a lot. Of course, I'm normally watching the Cubs, so my concept of "a lot" might be off.

Now that I've actually read the article, I can trash it for real. Because it's terrible.

It turns out that the Angels and A's have been virtually deadlocked when it comes to OBP, despite their vastly different philosophies.

He overlooks that just because the Angels play small ball doesn't mean their players aren't good at the "moneyball" style. Last I checked, they didn't cut every man on the roster and stock them up with guys who can bunt, and good teams tend to be good at OBP naturally.

Even though the Angels and A's are virtually deadlocked over the last three years in OBP and SLG, we find the Angels take far fewer walks than the A's. So where do the Angels make it up?
In that oldest of basic hitting statistics, the batting average:
....................................................
We finally have our answer, and it's as old as the game itself.
.....................................................................................
Those who believe in Moneyball will argue that the point is being missed, that it's all about trying to generate offense on a small-market budget.


And your thinking is just as old. Steve, if you're going to trash "moneyball" it would be a good idea to get a good understanding of it first.

The Angels found that by embracing the Productive Outs philosophy, they're able to advance and score those runners the A's leave behind.

Where can I get left on base totals? Because I'm interested to see if this is actually true, or just more nonsense from Steve.

Just as on-base percentage long ago was an obtuse statistic, so the same is now with Productive Out percentage.

Steve hath decreed it, so it must be so. Does Steve realize that half of the top 10 teams in PO% were terrible? And that the team that was the best at it won the WS?

I thought that given two teams with the same OBP and SLG, the higher batting average team would score more runs?

Just the opposite, I think. A team with the higher BA but same SLG would have a lower ISO, which hurts worse than the gain from a single over a walk.

Except a single is more valuable than a walk when there are runners on base.

Having butted heads with him for years in the past, I have no use for Stephen Smith.

I'll always maintain that his first article for Baseball America was a copy/paste of a long-running argument we had about pitch counts on r.s.b.calif-angels. (In his article, he actually agreed with me, reversing his position on pitch counts not mattering. I was please to see that.)

It's nice to see that he's still trying to catch up on the sabermetric thinking he mocked so often in the past.

embracing the Productive Outs philosophy

This just sounds crazy to me. Who would embrace an offensive philosophy predicated on the notion of making outs?

Yeah, productive outs are better than non-productive outs, but I'd guess that much of the time a productive out does not result from a conscious decision by the batter to attempt to make a productive out (I mean, sac bunts notwithstanding). If you hit a slow topper to short and the runner on 1st reaches 2nd, it's a productive out, but it's an accidental productive out.

A team that consciously attempted to create a lot of productive outs would likely have a hard time succeeding. It's not like Don Baylor was ever hoisting the trophy, and he was king of the intentional productive out.

Left-on-base data

Oakland 1274
Anaheim 1133

Having butted heads with him for years in the past, I have no use for Stephen Smith.

I'll always maintain that his first article for Baseball America was a copy/paste of a long-running argument we had about pitch counts on r.s.b.calif-angels. (In his article, he actually agreed with me, reversing his position on pitch counts not mattering. I was please to see that.)

It's nice to see that he's still trying to catch up on the sabermetric thinking he mocked so often in the past.

His article sounded like a "my team is better than yours" diatribe to me, considering he focused soley on the A's, and you've confirmed it.

A team that consciously attempted to create a lot of productive outs would likely have a hard time succeeding. It's not like Don Baylor was ever hoisting the trophy, and he was king of the intentional productive out.

He was king of forcing the square peg into the round hole. He had a painfully slow, strikeout-prone offense, and insisted on running things like he was Gene Mauch managing the 1985 Cardinals.

One thing about the Angels of recent years is that they tend to have a lot of quick guys. They were well-suited skills-wise to this approach.

Having butted heads with him for years in the past, I have no use for Stephen Smith.

Come on, David, those were good times. Will we ever forget Justin Baughman?

I somehow missed his BA article where he came around on pitch counts, or I just don't remember it.

Despite our numerous disagreements, I never actually disliked the guy.

Lawa, thanks for the LOB numbers, where did you get that from?

I was wondering if the A's left men on base at a lower rate, but they don't, so there goes that thought.

Except a single is more valuable than a walk when there are runners on base.

Right. That's the gain of a single over a walk I'm talking about.

But if your SLG is .500, and your BA rises from .250 to .300, your ISO (or bases beyond 1B) declines from .250 to .200. You hit less doubles, triples and home runs.

I haven't done the math in a while, but giving up those XBH's hurts worse than gaining the singles over the walks.

The Bill James Handbook has LOB data on pages 6 & 7.

Two more tidbits:
SH + Sac Flies: Oak 67, Ana 97

OK, the article has some questionable points that can be argued by many but let's at least get the numbers right, here is the K's chart:

TEAM 2002 2003 2004 3-YR AVG RANK
Angels 12.7% 13.7% 14.8% 13.8% 1st
A's 14.8% 14.4% 15.0% 15.7% 5th
Blue Jays 14.9% 14.5% 15.4% 17.6% 13th
Devil R 15.3% 14.5% 15.5% 16.7% 11th
Indians 15.8% 14.8% 15.6% 16.4% 8th
Mariners 16.0% 14.9% 15.6% 16.0% 7th
Orioles 16.3% 15.7% 16.4% 15.2% 2nd
Rangers 16.4% 16.2% 16.6% 17.0% 12th
Red Sox 16.7% 16.2% 16.6% 15.9% 6th
Royals 17.5% 16.6% 17.2% 15.6% 3rd
Tigers 17.6% 16.7% 17.5% 17.9% 14th
Twins 18.0% 17.0% 17.6% 16.5% 9th
White Sox 18.3% 17.2% 18.2% 15.6% 4th
Yankees 18.4% 18.1% 18.3% 16.7% 10th

I did not even start to look at the numbers for their accuracy but this was so obvious, I could not help it. The NYY had a K rate of over 18% over the 3 years, not 16.7% which put them last. Every team's 3 yr average (except the Angels) is either better or worse than any single year, pretty neat feat for an average! Looking at the list, I find it dubious that the teams, listed in alphabetical order have a pattern shown where every team gets worse as you go down the list, this is impossible to believe. I am sure there are many incorrect statements based on bad calculations.

A rough estimate of baserunners on base
(H+BB+HBP-HR):

Oak 2005
Ana 1964

I think Mommy had a solid point about one of the main reasons the Angels have scored more runs than the A's despite similar OBP/SLG: SB. The A's have a decently high SB success rate, but so do the Angels who steal a lot more often.

The other, more basic, reason that the Angels have scored more runs is that they've hit a higher percentage of their home runs with runners on base. Over the past 3 years, Anaheim has hit 47% of their HR with runners on, while Oakland has hit 43%. If Anaheim had hit their HR with the same break down as Oakland, they'd have hit 20 fewer HR with runners on the past 3 years. I think that goes a long way toward explaining their scoring 21 more runs than the A's over the past 3 years.

I did not even start to look at the numbers for their accuracy but this was so obvious, I could not help it.

Excellent find!

A's 14.8% 14.4% 15.0%... 15.7% 5th

What?

Royals 17.5% 16.6% 17.2%... 15.6% 3rd

Que?

Twins 18.0% 17.0% 17.6%... 16.5% 9th
White Sox 18.3% 17.2% 18.2%... 15.6% 4th
Yankees 18.4% 18.1% 18.3%... 16.7% 10th

Must be that 'new math'.

I haven't done the math in a while, but giving up those XBH's hurts worse than gaining the singles over the walks.

I remember Tango looking at this once, and finding some kind of break-even point where the higher AVG was actually better (presuming the same OPS) ... okay, totally wrong (it's near the bottom).

Come on, David, those were good times. Will we ever forget Justin Baughman?

I think even Justin Baughman's forgotten Justin Baughman.

Despite our numerous disagreements, I never actually disliked the guy.

I did, but then, things really did get personal (and pretty vicious) between the two of us, to the point where he wouldn't respond directly to my posts, and I'd be writing 200 word replies that essentially boiled down to, \"#### off!"

I don't think it's really men on base and left on base -- it's men in scoring position and batted in from scoring position.

The Angels were third in the league in at bats with RISP and third in BA with RISP. Only the Red Sox combined those two stats more effectively.

Stolen bases helped, and so did lineup construction (particularly good OBP's from the end of the order and strong BA's from several spots in the middle of the order).

That is true, I had forgotten that he did stop replying to everyone at some point.

This just sounds crazy to me. Who would embrace an offensive philosophy predicated on the notion of making outs?

I'm sorry for raising my voice but THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PHILOSOPHY IS PREDICATED ON!! The philosophy is predicated on the same things most offensive philosophies are based on, getting runners on, getting them around, and getting them in. This method simply relies more on putting the ball in play more often, especially with runners on base, which will ideally lead to a hit, but in the event that it leads to an out, will lead to something not quite as negative a strikeout that does nothing (excpet avoid the double play, which hasn't been a problem for the Angels over the last few years).

No one is trying to make an out (aside from sacrifices). They're just trying to make contact in such a way that an out will not be as painful as it would otherwise.

Of course, what he fails to mention is that the notion of productive outs that move runners from first to second and from second to third is entirely negated when the same philosophy produces an @ssload of outs at the plate through the use of the contact play.

I've gotta think that the Angels had more runners cut down at the plate than any team in the majors this season, but that's just a wild guess from having watched them all season. And with Guillen, Vlad, and the incredibly sliding Frankie, Angels fans probably witnessed in total more outs at the plate than any other fans this season.

And this seems as good a thread as any to say to SoCal folks, I'm gonna be home in about a month for a few weeks if any of the SoCal Primates want to get together for a beer or two.

Actually, I think Erstad tries to make outs on purpose.

That out-at-the-plate thing is interesting. I bet it's true, too. I really wish we had an accurate count of how many times an Angel was thrown out on the stupid ####### damned contact play.

And with Guillen, Vlad, and the incredibly sliding Frankie, Angels fans probably witnessed in total more outs at the plate than any other fans this season.

Ah, you have not seen the antics of Dale Sveum.

Ah, you have not seen the antics of Dale Sveum.

Quality does not equal quantity though. If such a thing is 'quality'.

"Moneyball" is now a fad, as teams like the Blue Jays, Red Sox and Dodgers have hired away personnel from the A's front office.

This is kind of a tangential question, but who did the Red Sox hire away from Oakland besides not Billy Beane?

This is kind of a tangential question, but who did the Red Sox hire away from Oakland besides not Billy Beane?

Let's not let facts get in the way of valuing Darren Erstad's fly outs.

This is kind of a tangential question, but who did the Red Sox hire away from Oakland besides not Billy Beane?

Johnny Damon.

Ah, you have not seen the antics of Dale Sveum.

Best line ever about Dale Sveum, from "The Sports Guy":

If this guy was a school crossing guard, little kids would be getting pancaked by SUVs like Tony Mandarich in his prime.

This is kind of a tangential question, but who did the Red Sox hire away from Oakland besides not Billy Beane?

Damon, Foulke, and McCarty?

Didn't a Moneyball team beat the Angels in the playoffs, as well as having a better record?

I was wrong? There's a first.

Rough averages last year seasons:

Anaheim: .337 OBP, .425 SLG, 808 runs
Oakland: .336 OBP, .427 SLG, 787 runs

so, ok, his basic facts are correct. (always gotta check these things)

Does anyone have park factors for each of these team's parks for the last 3 years?

Didn't a Moneyball team beat the Angels in the playoffs, as well as having a better record?

But they had a lot of money, so it doesn't count.

Didn't a Moneyball team beat the Angels in the playoffs, as well as having a better record?

What is it with people pointing out the obvious that Stephen C Smith missed? Steve doesn't care about the Red Sox, they're not a division rival. Unless the Angels relocate to the AL East, it seems Steve will save his flawed reasoning for the A's.

Damon, Foulke, and McCarty?

How about the front office, you clever rogues?

Does anyone have park factors for each of these team's parks for the last 3 years?

Or I'll put it another way - isn't Oakland massively skewed in favor pitchers? What about Anaheim?

More nits to pick:

Productive outs don't matter to Boston because they rank first in OBP and SLG -- which they paid for with an exorbitant payroll.

Writing from an Oakland fan's perspective:

OBP and SLG don't matter to Anaheim because they rank first in PO% -- which they paid for with an exhorbitant payroll.

Who knows, maybe one day A's batters will carry around their own little notebooks.

Don't they? Or am I remembering something from Moneyball that wasn't there?

Who knows, maybe one day A's batters will carry around their own little notebooks.

Don't they? Or am I remembering something from Moneyball that wasn't there?

Wait... Angels players carry notebooks? I guess that's why they got swept by a Moneyball team, they were bogged down by their binders which were surely filled to the brim after a season's worth of info.

Wait... Angels players carry notebooks?

Didn't RTFA, I see.

Didn't RTFA, I see.

I did. I was just joking around.

The thing about R/PA is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Its so dumb that each and every one of us is slightly dumber, just for having read it.

Unless Bud changed the rules, the team with the most runs still wins. Scoring 3 runs with 6 PA while your opponent uses 9 PA, you are still tied.

Runs per out is the ratio to use, and since every team gets 27 outs (home wins and extra innings aside), runs is all you need to see who has the most efficient offense.

Productive outs can make a difference. If you have 2 otherwise evenly matched teams, the one that makes better use of outs can win the extra game they need to get in the playoffs.

If you are outgunned by your opponents, it won't help much at all. Its a nice extra to have, but if one team fights with tanks and bombers while the other fights with bows and swords, nobody will care that team 2 had better combat boots.

Good God, no one mentioned park effects at all on this waste of space? I have to believe the A's look much better once you consider that with regards to OBP and SLG and BA.

Wouldn't park factors be based a great deal on who pitches there? i.e. if Oswalt and Clemens are pitching in 2/5 of your games, you shouldn't be surprised if your "bandbox" stadium plays as a pitcher's park.

Of course, Oakland's pitchers had down years (for them) but how were they compared to league average?

Good God, no one mentioned park effects at all on this waste of space? I have to believe the A's look much better once you consider that with regards to OBP and SLG and BA.

Well, #45 mentioned park effects.

For the last 3 years, Oaklands are 101,93,104 while Anaheim is at 99,93,97, so the Angels are the ones playing in more of a pitchers park.

I'm not sure park factors are relevant to the discussion. If team A plays in Dodger stadium, and team B plays in Coors, and they have the same OBP and SA, then team A has the better hitters, but both teams should be expected to score the same amount of runs.

Whichever team does the little things better should have a little edge in runs scored.

Wouldn't park factors be based a great deal on who pitches there? i.e. if Oswalt and Clemens are pitching in 2/5 of your games, you shouldn't be surprised if your "bandbox" stadium plays as a pitcher's park.

I'm pretty sure the way they work is by comparing, for example, total runs in A's games at home (both teams) to total runs in A's games on the road. So basically, you're evaluating the same players over the course of the season (subject to the imbalance in scheduling). You could have a situation where just by the quirk of the schedule, the top three starters pitch an inordinate amount of their games at home (or on the road). That would skew the sample, but I think most people, while they might use single year park factors, believe that multi-year park factors are a heck of a lot better.

A's hitters haven't had to face three of the league's best starters for the last few years, either.

fwiw

ballpark effects

Yes, but if Clemens make 20 starts at home and only 13 away (as he did) park factor wont account for that. One reason 1-year park factors aren't very useful.

Yes, but if Clemens make 20 starts at home and only 13 away (as he did) park factor wont account for that. One reason 1-year park factors aren't very useful.

Welllllllll since ole' Steve spewing his crap based on 3 year averages, a 3 year average of park factors wouldn't be out of the question, would it?

A's hitters haven't had to face three of the league's best starters for the last few years, either.

The also didn't get to face the worst closer in the history of baseball, Octovio Dotel.

The also didn't get to face the worst closer in the history of baseball, Octovio Dotel.

But Dotel was only there for part of the season. Meanwhile A's batters got to feast on Bartolo Colon all season long.

The also didn't get to face the worst closer in the history of baseball, Octovio Dotel.

LaTroy Hawkins says thank you.

Speaking of closers and Angels, ESPN.com is reporting the Tigers signed Percival for 2/12.

Didn't they just pick up Urbina's option for 1/4?

They did. Urbina's now on the block.

If you have 2 otherwise evenly matched teams, the one that makes better use of outs can win the extra game they need to get in the playoffs.


It's not limited to just better use of outs, but includes better use of "everything". It's having the inning go walk, walk, walk, HR, K, K, K rather than HR, walk, K, walk, K, walk, K. Or having the inning go single, SB2, single, K, K, K rather than single, single, SB2, K, K, K. Or having a runner stay on first instead of being caught stealing right before the next guy goes yard. Or maybe even having a guy caught stealing, then having the next guy hit a grounder to short which might have been a tailor-made DP ball - only to have the SS, with no option to take the easier throw, end up throwing the ball away at first.

These are probably not functions of the relative skills of the players involved. Some of them may result from the relative skills of the "managers" involved, to be sure (lineup), but many of them are just the result of variations in timing and sequencing of events, AKA "luck".

-- MWE

What about speed, notwithstanding stolen bases and percentages? Chone Figgins, for example, is much more likely to score from 2nd on a single or from 1st on a double than, say, Eric Chavez.

I don't have any more evidence than a hunch here, but it would seem that the Angels are a significantly faster team than the A's. That plus the extra SBs at the same rate could go a lot further in explaining the run differential than the PO theory.

"Stolen bases helped, and so did lineup construction (particularly good OBP's from the end of the order and strong BA's from several spots in the middle of the order). "

I always thought the Angels had one of the worst lineup constructions (other than having a rightie/leftie/rightie throughout.)

(OBP/SLG/Runs/RBIs)
Eckstein .339/.332/92/35
Erstad .346/.400/79/69
Vlad .391.598/124/126
Garrett .343/.446/57/75
Glaus .355/.575/47/42
Guillen .352/.497/88/104
DaVanon .372/.418/41/34
Bengie .313/.404/36/54
Kennedy .351/.406/70/48

(Obviously I am ignoring Figgins who had the second most at bats, but was used in several spots in the line-up.)

[Most Angels had above average OBP despite what the article implies.]
Strange that your number 3 hitter scores more runs than your number 1 (and everybody else in the league.) That is due to his OBP, but wouldn't he have scored even more runs if he had Glaus [for the few months he played] and Guillen batting imeadiately behind him?
DaVanon also had a high OPB and a lot of Runs scored for only having 285 at bats. Shouldn't he have batted second? (Assuming that you didn't believe in the PO theory.)
Guillen gets more RBIs because he slugs and is batting behind Glaus who gets on base (and in scoring position) more than the top 2 in the order even in a down year.

Also, didn't Bill James in one of his abstracts suggest that a compact lineup will score more runs than one which the OBP/SLG is more distributed?

But's that's exactly it! High OBP teams strive to send more players to the plate because they makes outs at a slower rate! The ratio of runs to plate appearances is irrelevant.

Actually, it's not OBA that wrecks the argument for TPA/R in this particular article; he is, after all, comparing teams with roughly equivalent OBAs.

Aggressive baserunning, however, pretty much kills it as a valid metric.

If two teams -- let's call them, oh, team A and team O -- have the same OBA, but team A is more aggressive on the basepaths, it's all but certain that team O will have more PA simply by virtue of not running into outs, even if the two teams play exactly the same number of innings.

Same thing applies to SB: the Angels stole 83 more bases, but they also subtracted ~25 PA from their hitters by getting caught. Those 8.1 innings didn't just disappear, so why does the article ignore them?

If you want a rate measure for whatever reason, Runs/Inning (= 3 * Runs/Out) is the metric you're looking for. 'course, the Angels probably don't do as well in that, which kind of ruins the conclusion of the article, and you'd hate to use data that did that. . .

but nobody could lower the IQ of those reading it quicker than a certainly lady

Apparently, you read a lot of Jeanne's posts.

The problem with embracing the productive outs philosophy is that productive outs are not something a hitter should actually strive for. He, of course, should be striving to get on base.

It would be like a defense lawyer who embraces the "mistrial philosophy" instead of a "not guilty philosophy." It's clearly not what you were hoping for, but hey, it could have been worse.

Or, let's see, a plumber fixing a toilet embracing a "no more leaks philosphy" instead of a "functional toilet philosophy."

It would be like a defense lawyer who embraces the "mistrial philosophy" instead of a "not guilty philosophy." It's clearly not what you were hoping for, but hey, it could have been worse.

Denny Crane.

Denny Crane.

Denny Crane.

The problem with productive outs, though, is that, in most cases, they measure mistakes not intent. You have men on base, except in sacrifice bunts, isn't your intent always to get a hit? If you happen to hit a ball to the right side getting your man to third, that's a nice bonus, but that shouldn't be what you strive for, especially now, in the days where everyone and their mother can hit 15 HRs.

Again, you only have 27 outs to play with -- why would you ever try to give one away, regardless of its productivity?

Hmmm... 8 minutes too late.

The problem with productive outs, though, is that, in most cases, they measure mistakes not intent.

Which is why bad teams are 'good' at it. Miguel Cairo led the league in POP. Was it that he was a good bunter/sacrifice fly hitter, or that he is Miguel Cairo and he stinks? Anyone not legally blind knows Neifi Perez is absolutely horrible, but he was 11th in POP. But since 7th ranked Adam Everett plays on the Astros and hits 273, he's getting productive outs.

Actively trying for productive outs and qualifying them is a crock. No one should strive to get out, and everyone would hope that if they do get out they at least advance a runner. It's common freaking sense, but then again this is baseball.

RCheli, great minds think alike ... and so do ours.

Apparently, you read a lot of Jeanne's posts.

She's turned into quite the lightening rod, but she practically throws herself in front of the bolts. The recent satisfying beat-down on her comments about the value of first basemen is a good example.

Anyone not legally blind knows Neifi Perez is absolutely horrible, but he was 11th in POP.

No one should strive to get out

Neifarious might be the exception to this logic... he probably should try for the productive out, because he's getting out anyway!

Neifarious might be the exception to this logic... he probably should try for the productive out, because he's getting out anyway!

Good point. Maybe I should have gone with career year Rod Barajas or Dan Wilson.

The recent satisfying beat-down on her comments about the value of first basemen is a good example.

Didn't we have the same exact debate five years ago when Erstad moved from first base to the outfield? Good Lord. And I can't believe DiSarcina came up again.

Didn't we have the same exact debate five years ago when Erstad moved from first base to the outfield?

That's why I don't post much there anymore. And that's why you're not there at all.

David Pinto chimes in.

It seems to me that the Angels philosophy will be that it's okay to swing at bad pitches if you advance a runner. If that's true, it's wrong. There are very few batters who can be successful in the long term doing that (Ichrio, Puckett and Gwynn come to mind), but most players will be more like Alfonso Soriano, who just expands the strike zone and end up striking out more. And as Mr. Smith wrote, you can't make a productive out with a strikeout.

Cont from last post....

The ultimate question, of course, is what kind of players do you want on offense? I'm pretty sure that OAK, because of their sabermetric leanings, knows the answer to this, as it is not too difficult a question, if you have some sabermetric knowledge. Notwithstanding salary and things like that, you want the players who have the highest run contribution. It's as simple as that. I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with "productive outs" per se. It has to do with a player's linear weights projection (including SB/CS projections) and his baserunning ability (speed and smarts). I doubt that OAK uses OBA or even OPS. Why would any team that knows what linear wieghts is (or some equivalent metric) use OPS? They also know that all things being equal, a fast/good baserunner player is better than a slow/poor baserunner. It is not that they eschew baserunning or speed, of course. If you are simply looking for the most productive players you can find, given the money you have to spend, etc., sometimes you will end up with fast teams, slow teams, powerful teams, balanced teams, etc., etc. You don't go "looking" for one kind of team or player or another. You simply look for the best players overall, which includes batting (as measured by linear weights or something equivalent) and baserunning. Baserunning can of course be important. Players like Beltran, Guzman, and even Jeter, can add 10 runs or more per year to their value. Players like Giambi, Piazza, Castilla, and Posada can substract that. So you can easily have 15 to 20 run swings between players, just on baserunning alone. That is enormous. I'm pretty sure teams like OAK know that.

So what happens if we look at OAK and ANA from the above prespective? First, foreget about their OPS. Let's look at their 2004 non-park adjusted lwts:

OAK batting runs = 28.0 SB/CS = -3.0 OPS = .776
ANA batting runs = 16.0 SB/CS = +5.6 OPS = .770

So OAK was expected to score 25 runs more than the AL average, or 837 runs, and ANA 21.6 more, or 834.

OAK came up 44 runs short and ANA 2 runs long.

Let's see how their baserunning played into the numbers. Unfortunately, I don't have the 04 baserunning lwts yet, but what if we use the 04 projections?

OAK players, using their 04 baserunning and GDP lwts 2004 projections proprated by the amount of playing time in 04, were a total of 1.9 and ANA players were a total of 6.2.

So now OAK underperformed by 46 runs and ANA underperformed by 4 runs.

IF we look at their hitting with RISP, we might get some further insight, but I have written enough and have to go to dinner...

My "last post" (another long one) got lost in cyberspace apparently...

She's turned into quite the lightening rod, but she practically throws herself in front of the bolts. The recent satisfying beat-down on her comments about the value of first basemen is a good example.

Yeesh. You know, when I first started posting on Usenet, I didn't know much, but I think I absorbed a fair amount from reading and paying attention. That people bother to participate for years and apparently learn nothing, that's just amazing.

I think its funny that the author called PO% an "obtuse statistic" in his conclusion.

"Moneyball" is now a fad, as teams like the Blue Jays, Red Sox and Dodgers have hired away personnel from the A's front office.

Not a front office person, but Terry Francona was the A's bench coach.

And this article takes a ridiculous tone about the Angels being a small market team. They were one of the most active teams in doling out money to free agents last year and have a $100M+ payroll. Their improvement in many of these categories is due to signing Guerrero, a relatively free swinger whose contributions to BA and SLG are greater than his contributions to OBP.

If all they are doing is matching up with the A's, Billy Beane is doing his job pretty well.

IF we look at their hitting with RISP, we might get some further insight, but I have written enough and have to go to dinner...

Thanks for the info, MGL. Looking simply at full-season RISP hitting is helpful:

OAK: 260/352/410
ANA: 278/343/440

Anecdotally, the A's seemed to work the count well and draw walks with men on base, but struggled at effectively putting the ball in play. The evidence supports this, and was even more pronounced with RISP and 2 out:

OAK: 239/353/370
ANA: 273/351/435

Of course, Oakland was better than Anaheim in both categories last year.

Ahhh Steven Smith sure is a character. In fact in the thread on the Angels message board where this 'concept' started he has yet to respond to a single post that disagrees with him.

He's also more famous to me as the man who will lable me with the title "the person who wants Scott Schoeneweis murdered" anytime I disagree with him and he bothers to reply to a criticism for once. :-\

He also is the auther of a very long thread called "Moneyball: Stathead Propoganda"

Assuming that players do not differ in their ability to hit better or worse with runners on scoring position than otherwise (which we think is the case), then indeed if ANA did hit better with RISP (as the OPS's listed by Padgett indicate), that may entirely or mostly explain the 44 run difference between the A's and Angels, rather than attribute it to some silly "productive out" phenomenon...

if players are so good at handling the bat that they can produce a "productive out" on demand, why don't they just go ahead and get a hit instead?

"The also didn't get to face the worst closer in the history of baseball, Octovio Dotel.

LaTroy Hawkins says thank you. "

The Blue Jays rotating krap of closers will make you bow in their krapiness.

ICW,

You didn't see my Merry Band of Relievers in 2004... I think we had to be the worst. I'll sum it up for you in two words: Todd Jones.

Your pal,
Larry

Using the Runs Created formula that adjusts for BA/RiSP and HR/RoB, Anaheim was projected to score 830 runs and scored 836 (6 runs over), Oakland was projected to score 822 runs and score 793 (29 below).

Boston, the only team with a lower POP than Oakland, didn't do much better, underscoring their 972 run projection by 23 runs. Are we onto something?

Nope.

The team with the highest POP in baseball, the Expos, underscored their projected runs by 25 runs. The Yankees, fifth-lowest in MLB, outscored their projection by 19 runs. Nine teams in the top half of POP underperformed their RC, Nine teams in the bottom half underperformed. The bottom half underperformed slightly worse -- 135 under to 111 under -- and there's a very slight positive correlation, .074

The Angels' offense clicked better than Oakland's. Their philosophy was a different one than Oakland's. But that doesn't mean that was the cause.

"Anaheim was projected to score 830 runs and scored 836 (6 runs over), Oakland was projected to score 822 runs and score 793 (29 below).
Boston, the only team with a lower POP than Oakland, didn't do much better, underscoring their 972 run projection by 23 runs. Are we onto something? Nope."

Not that I support Smith's thesis, but I think the issue of productive line-ups needs to be addressed. It seems obvious that the teams that score the most over their expected runs are the best constructed line-ups. Maybe the Expos lineup wasn't constructed properly.

I used to run simulations of different lineups through 162 game seasons. Is there a simpler tool to determine how productive a lineup is? Say if the Angels had a batting order of:
(OBP/SLG/Runs/RBIs)
Erstad .346/.400
DaVanon .372/.418
Vlad .391/.598
Glaus .355/.575
Guillen .352/.497
Garrett .343/.446
Kennedy .351/.406
Bengie .313/.404
Eckstein .339/.332
Would the gap of actual runs over the A's increase?