Bill Stoneman...Idiot!
JC
disappointed by the General Managers of both teams. Kevin Malone is a
unquestionably a big idiot and I realized Bill Stoneman is even worse that
he's a penny-pincher who makes pointless deals. I am officially counting
them both out for the playoffs. What a shame.
I was really disappointed in the Edmonds for Bottenfield/Kennedy deal when
it happened. I knew Bottenfield was not going to even come close to the
season previously with the Cards. Kennedy was just a prosect with potential
(he turned out decently). But Edmonds had a superstar season and made the
all-star team. Edmonds I guess wanted to be traded but I felt he could've
gotten more. Stoneman got ripped in this deal (he must have though
Bottenfield would win 16 games this year).
Now he trades Bottenfield (only one of two non-rookie pitchers in their
rotation, if Belcher does come back he'll suck like usual or get injured
again) for Gant? Bottenfield has been bad but he keeps the Angels in most
games. Gant is a 35 year old player who's a defensive liability thus can
only DH (occasional power but easy to strike out). The Angels needed badly
to trade for a pitcher instead they traded away one with no pitcher in
return. Hmmm, this deal makes a lot of sense.
If he was smart he should have went after a Neagle, Arrojo or even a
Trachsel. He has prospects to trade away. He has to realize that the
Angels aren't the same as the Expos. He doesn't have to maintain a 20
million dollar payroll. It's okay to trade prospects for a veteran. Why
doesn't somebody tell him this?
It pisses me off when he says "I think our young pitchers can do it...I have
the utmost confidence in them". Those pitchers are okay if you are the
Expos but not in Anaheim. If you are shooting for the playoffs you have to
have some veteran pitching especially if you are competing against teams
that have aces. Does the Angels think they are the White Sox or something?
Stoneman doesn't have any guts to pull the trigger on a deal or sign a big
name player. With him we'll lose our good players when their contracts are
up and never get a big name player. His only goal is to "keep payroll
down!". Kevin Malone throws money at the wrong people and Stoneman doesn't
throw money at all and relys on the farm system for everything. It's really
hard to build a playoff caliber team like that anymore.
We might as well rename the team to the Anaheim Expos. I guess that's what
you expect from a stonehead.
Nelson Lu
>Now he trades Bottenfield (only one of two non-rookie pitchers in their
>rotation, if Belcher does come back he'll suck like usual or get injured
>again) for Gant? Bottenfield has been bad but he keeps the Angels in most
>games. Gant is a 35 year old player who's a defensive liability thus can
>only DH (occasional power but easy to strike out). The Angels needed badly
>to trade for a pitcher instead they traded away one with no pitcher in
>return. Hmmm, this deal makes a lot of sense.
You're being self-contradictory; if Bottenfield "has been bad" then he is not
an asset to the Angels, no matter how you cut it -- if he's worse than the
"rookie pitchers," what rational reason is there to pitch him instead of them?
The Bottenfield/Gant deal doesn't hurt the team; it doesn't help the team
significantly, but this is not one transaction on Bottenfield that Stoneman
made his mistake on.
>If he was smart he should have went after a Neagle, Arrojo or even a
>Trachsel. He has prospects to trade away. He has to realize that the
>Angels aren't the same as the Expos. He doesn't have to maintain a 20
>million dollar payroll. It's okay to trade prospects for a veteran. Why
>doesn't somebody tell him this?
Neagle would have helped the team. Arrojo *might* have helped the team, but
there is no evidence to support an assertion that acquiring Trachsel would have
helped. Is Trachsel better than the Angels' own young pitchers?
>It pisses me off when he says "I think our young pitchers can do it...I have
>the utmost confidence in them". Those pitchers are okay if you are the
>Expos but not in Anaheim. If you are shooting for the playoffs you have to
>have some veteran pitching especially if you are competing against teams
>that have aces. Does the Angels think they are the White Sox or something?
Why must you have veteran pitching? Or are you just parroting mediots?
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
===============================================================================
GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
===============================================================================
Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
fr...@nospam.thankyou
wrote:
>As a fan of LA baseball teams (Angels & Dodgers) I've been really
>disappointed by the General Managers of both teams. Kevin Malone is a
>unquestionably a big idiot and I realized Bill Stoneman is even worse that
>he's a penny-pincher who makes pointless deals. I am officially counting
>them both out for the playoffs. What a shame.
>
Getting rid of Bottenfield was fine, we gave up a bad player to fill a
hole. It is illogical to look at the Bottenfield/Gant trade as an
extention of the Edmonds trade. Jimmy is gone. Stoneman has to look
at what he can do now. No one is going to sit back and say; "This
guy was traded for Edmonds, so he must be good". The Edmonds trade
was not a good trade, but holding Bottenfield would have been bad for
the team. Better to fill a hole by trading a player who isn't helping
the team than to keep him in an attempt to defend the Edmonds deal.
Trading Bottenfield actually took a great deal of courage in one
respect, as it forces the boys in Anaheim to admit that the Edmonds
trade was bad.
The young pitchers are a great story on this team, I don't want to see
them trade one of them. We are lurking this year, but if we hold
these young arms, we will be in a much better position in the future.
I would like the team to take a long term view with these prospects.
Frank
David Peng
> Bottenfield has been bad but he keeps the Angels in most
> games. Gant is a 35 year old player who's a defensive liability
> thus can only DH (occasional power but easy to strike out).
> The Angels needed badly to trade for a pitcher instead they
> traded away one with no pitcher in return. Hmmm, this deal
> makes a lot of sense.
It *does* make sense, though not a whole lot. Bottenfield, as you say, as
been bad, and what's the point of keeping a bad pitcher? Gant's not great,
but he's better than anyone else the Angels have from the right side.
> If he was smart he should have went after a Neagle, Arrojo or
> even a Trachsel. He has prospects to trade away. He has to realize
> that the Angels aren't the same as the Expos. He doesn't have to
> maintain a 20 million dollar payroll. It's okay to trade prospects for
> a veteran. Why doesn't somebody tell him this?
Because it's not necessarily a good thing, and he DOESN'T have prospects to
trade. Who would you have given for Neagle? Packages that include Washburn
and Cooper? Ortiz and Etherton? The Angel system isn't deep enough to
allow big trades.
> Those pitchers are okay if you are the Expos but not in Anaheim.
> If you are shooting for the playoffs you have to have some
> veteran pitching especially if you are competing against teams
> that have aces.
Aces like Freddy Garcia and Tim Hudson? I guess you're the one guy gripping
for Belcher to come back.
--
d.
ANGELZ ROOL!@#$!!
/sportznutz.com/mlb/ana
AKC
JC <http://www.spamcop.com> wrote in message
news:#eMl5f4#$GA.203@cpmsnbbsa09...
> As a fan of LA baseball teams (Angels & Dodgers) I've been really
> disappointed by the General Managers of both teams. Kevin Malone is a
> unquestionably a big idiot and I realized Bill Stoneman is even worse that
> he's a penny-pincher who makes pointless deals. I am officially counting
> them both out for the playoffs. What a shame.
There is NO WAY that you can say that Stoneman is even close to Kevin Malone
in horrible GMing, no one is.
>
> I was really disappointed in the Edmonds for Bottenfield/Kennedy deal when
> it happened. I knew Bottenfield was not going to even come close to the
> season previously with the Cards. Kennedy was just a prosect with
potential
> (he turned out decently). But Edmonds had a superstar season and made the
> all-star team. Edmonds I guess wanted to be traded but I felt he could've
> gotten more. Stoneman got ripped in this deal (he must have though
> Bottenfield would win 16 games this year).
>
> Now he trades Bottenfield (only one of two non-rookie pitchers in their
> rotation, if Belcher does come back he'll suck like usual or get injured
> again) for Gant? Bottenfield has been bad but he keeps the Angels in most
> games. Gant is a 35 year old player who's a defensive liability thus can
> only DH (occasional power but easy to strike out). The Angels needed
badly
> to trade for a pitcher instead they traded away one with no pitcher in
> return. Hmmm, this deal makes a lot of sense.
>
> If he was smart he should have went after a Neagle, Arrojo or even a
> Trachsel. He has prospects to trade away. He has to realize that the
> Angels aren't the same as the Expos. He doesn't have to maintain a 20
> million dollar payroll. It's okay to trade prospects for a veteran. Why
> doesn't somebody tell him this?
>
> It pisses me off when he says "I think our young pitchers can do it...I
have
> the utmost confidence in them". Those pitchers are okay if you are the
> Expos but not in Anaheim. If you are shooting for the playoffs you have
to
> have some veteran pitching especially if you are competing against teams
> that have aces. Does the Angels think they are the White Sox or
something?
>
AKC
JC <http://www.spamcop.com> wrote in message
news:#eMl5f4#$GA.203@cpmsnbbsa09...
> As a fan of LA baseball teams (Angels & Dodgers) I've been really
> disappointed by the General Managers of both teams. Kevin Malone is a
> unquestionably a big idiot and I realized Bill Stoneman is even worse that
> he's a penny-pincher who makes pointless deals. I am officially counting
> them both out for the playoffs. What a shame.
>
> it happened. I knew Bottenfield was not going to even come close to the
> season previously with the Cards. Kennedy was just a prosect with
potential
> (he turned out decently). But Edmonds had a superstar season and made the
> all-star team. Edmonds I guess wanted to be traded but I felt he could've
> gotten more. Stoneman got ripped in this deal (he must have though
> Bottenfield would win 16 games this year).
>
> Now he trades Bottenfield (only one of two non-rookie pitchers in their
> rotation, if Belcher does come back he'll suck like usual or get injured
> again) for Gant? Bottenfield has been bad but he keeps the Angels in most
> games. Gant is a 35 year old player who's a defensive liability thus can
> only DH (occasional power but easy to strike out). The Angels needed
badly
> to trade for a pitcher instead they traded away one with no pitcher in
> return. Hmmm, this deal makes a lot of sense.
>
> If he was smart he should have went after a Neagle, Arrojo or even a
> Trachsel. He has prospects to trade away. He has to realize that the
> Angels aren't the same as the Expos. He doesn't have to maintain a 20
> million dollar payroll. It's okay to trade prospects for a veteran. Why
> doesn't somebody tell him this?
We don't have any prospects. There are no prospects to trade away. Not any
that anybody wants, and the ones we have that people want are way to
important to this year and future years.
>
> It pisses me off when he says "I think our young pitchers can do it...I
have
> the utmost confidence in them". Those pitchers are okay if you are the
> Expos but not in Anaheim.
It pisses me off when you complain that they need veteran pitchers, even if
they are horrible pitchers.
> If you are shooting for the playoffs you have to
> have some veteran pitching especially if you are competing against teams
> that have aces. Does the Angels think they are the White Sox or
something?
>
> Stoneman doesn't have any guts to pull the trigger on a deal or sign a big
> name player. With him we'll lose our good players when their contracts
are
> up and never get a big name player. His only goal is to "keep payroll
> down!". Kevin Malone throws money at the wrong people and Stoneman
doesn't
> throw money at all and relys on the farm system for everything. It's
really
> hard to build a playoff caliber team like that anymore.
Really? Then how do the White Sox do it?
>
> We might as well rename the team to the Anaheim Expos. I guess that's
what
> you expect from a stonehead.
You are a clueless moron.
>
>
AKC
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote in message
news:3986e885...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com...
> >disappointed by the General Managers of both teams. Kevin Malone is a
> >unquestionably a big idiot and I realized Bill Stoneman is even worse
that
> >he's a penny-pincher who makes pointless deals. I am officially counting
> >them both out for the playoffs. What a shame.
> >
>
> hole. It is illogical to look at the Bottenfield/Gant trade as an
> extention of the Edmonds trade. Jimmy is gone. Stoneman has to look
> at what he can do now. No one is going to sit back and say; "This
> guy was traded for Edmonds, so he must be good". The Edmonds trade
> was not a good trade, but holding Bottenfield would have been bad for
> the team. Better to fill a hole by trading a player who isn't helping
> the team than to keep him in an attempt to defend the Edmonds deal.
>
> Trading Bottenfield actually took a great deal of courage in one
> respect, as it forces the boys in Anaheim to admit that the Edmonds
> trade was bad.
I still don't say it was bad, given the circumstances. It wasn't good, we
didn't "win" the trade, but we still have a good young 2B, and Bottenfield
is stuck in the worst season of his life. If he had a mediocre season by
his own standards, he'd still be here.
>
> The young pitchers are a great story on this team, I don't want to see
> them trade one of them. We are lurking this year, but if we hold
> these young arms, we will be in a much better position in the future.
> I would like the team to take a long term view with these prospects.
I absolutely agree. We were supposed to finish last, and I thought we might
given the strength of the division. The fact that we are even battling for
the Wild Card slot is a big bonus to me, but I still have to be pretty
please with a simple .500 plus record, a good rotation coming back next
year, and some great development from Troy Glaus and break out year from
Erstad.
>
> Frank
>
JC
any
> that anybody wants, and the ones we have that people want are way to
> important to this year and future years.
Do you think the players that the Diamondbacks gave away for Schilling were
any good? Daal is having the worst year of his life, Lee has become a bust
and the two minor leaguers have potential in the future but aren't much.
Two years ago even Randy Johnson was acquired for 4 prospects, who weren't
touted much.
> > It pisses me off when he says "I think our young pitchers can do it...I
> have
> > the utmost confidence in them". Those pitchers are okay if you are the
> > Expos but not in Anaheim.
>
> It pisses me off when you complain that they need veteran pitchers, even
if
> they are horrible pitchers.
When was the last time you saw a team go to the World Series with 4 rookie
starting pitchers pitchers and a guy like Ken Hill as your only veteran,
yuck?
> > If you are shooting for the playoffs you have to
> > have some veteran pitching especially if you are competing against teams
> > that have aces. Does the Angels think they are the White Sox or
> something?
> >
> > Stoneman doesn't have any guts to pull the trigger on a deal or sign a
big
> > name player. With him we'll lose our good players when their contracts
> are
> > up and never get a big name player. His only goal is to "keep payroll
> > down!". Kevin Malone throws money at the wrong people and Stoneman
> doesn't
> > throw money at all and relys on the farm system for everything. It's
> really
> > hard to build a playoff caliber team like that anymore.
>
> Really? Then how do the White Sox do it?
Teams like the White Sox don't come around very often. In fact there hasn't
been one since the Expos of the strike-shortened season. Don't expect the
White Sox to repeat this year's success. I really doubt they can beat the
Yankees in the playoffs with their pitching staff.
Even the White Sox pulled the trigger on a deal that actually improved their
team. They got one of the best defensive catchers in the league, who's also
hitting for power this year and Baines who I'll take over Gant
> > We might as well rename the team to the Anaheim Expos. I guess that's
> what
> > you expect from a stonehead.
>
> You are a clueless moron.
Angels have been in pennant race after pennant race but no cigar. Why?
They never trade for a worthwhile pitcher or two to shore up their staff.
Don't expect this year to be any different.
JC
"David Peng" <blac...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
news:96515756...@news2.bigplanet.com...
> JC <http://www.spamcop.com> wrote:
>
> > Bottenfield has been bad but he keeps the Angels in most
> > games. Gant is a 35 year old player who's a defensive liability
> > thus can only DH (occasional power but easy to strike out).
> > The Angels needed badly to trade for a pitcher instead they
> > traded away one with no pitcher in return. Hmmm, this deal
> > makes a lot of sense.
>
> been bad, and what's the point of keeping a bad pitcher? Gant's not
great,
> but he's better than anyone else the Angels have from the right side.
>
> > even a Trachsel. He has prospects to trade away. He has to realize
> > that the Angels aren't the same as the Expos. He doesn't have to
> > maintain a 20 million dollar payroll. It's okay to trade prospects for
> > a veteran. Why doesn't somebody tell him this?
>
to
> trade. Who would you have given for Neagle? Packages that include
Washburn
> and Cooper? Ortiz and Etherton? The Angel system isn't deep enough to
> allow big trades.
>
> > veteran pitching especially if you are competing against teams
> > that have aces.
>
gripping
> for Belcher to come back.
>
I have to disagree with you on this.
Tim Hudson is 12-3 with an ERA of 4.35 and has 113 SOs (ERA would be much
better if he didn't take a beating from the Angels a couple of week ago). I
think you can consider him an ace (he also made the all-star team). 4/5 of
their starters have ERA under 4.5
Jaime Moyer and Aaron Sele of the M's have a record combined on 23-9 with
ERA under 4.5 I have to consider that pretty good.
Now let's look at the Angels. Cooper 4-5 with ERA of 5.05. Ken Hill 5-6
ERA 6.56. Schoeneweis 5-5 with ERA of 5.13. Etherton has been pretty good
but it's early to call him an ace or rely on him to do well for the rest of
the season. I don't know who the 5th pitcher is now but he's probably
similar to Cooper. I don't know when of if Washburn's coming back. The
Angels pitching staff is clearly worse than of the A's and M's and has no
workhorse(s) they can give the ball to and know they got a chance.
JC
> The young pitchers are a great story on this team, I don't want to see
> them trade one of them. We are lurking this year, but if we hold
> these young arms, we will be in a much better position in the future.
> I would like the team to take a long term view with these prospects.
>
Trading Edmonds for Bottenfield and Kennedy wasn't as bad as the the trades
the Dodgers have been making in the past 10 years so I guess we should leave
it at that then. Stoneman is stupid but not as stupid as some.
If you want to look in the long term and build the club around young players
that's cool. But it can take years and there is no guarantee any of the
pitchers will pitch well consistently in the bigs. I guess giving up this
season and shooting for a better one next isn't bad. But I'd like to see
the Angels go to the playoffs for once and the Dodgers win a game in the
playoffs. Anything can happen and the White Sox are a living example.
JC
> There is NO WAY that you can say that Stoneman is even close to Kevin
Malone
> in horrible GMing, no one is.
>
>
Stoneman is bad but me compairing him to Malone is unfair I guess. Malone's
the one who traded Charles Johnson and Cedeno for Hundley and Rojas (yuck).
Signed Carlos Perez for 3 years at 6 mil per(yuck yuck), old fart Devon
White to a 3 year contract and paid Kevin Brown 15 mil a season till he
turns 42.
I agree that nobody can possibly be worse than him.
JC
baseball this season in Percival who's blown 8 save opportunities in 33
chances (the M's for once has a better closer). That's a 75% save rate.
I'd rather give the ball to Hasegawa or Petkovsek than Percival.
Percival once was a dominating closer but it looks like he's washed up.
"JC" <http://www.spamcop.com> wrote in message
news:OXJc1WC$$GA.358@cpmsnbbsa07...
David Peng
> Tim Hudson is 12-3 with an ERA of 4.35 and has 113 SOs
> (ERA would be much better if he didn't take a beating from
> the Angels a couple of week ago). I think you can consider
> him an ace (he also made the all-star team). 4/5 of
> their starters have ERA under 4.5
You missed my sarcasm. Hudson IS an ace, but he certainly wouldn't
considered a "veteran" by any stretch of the imagination. While not
aces, either would you consider the likes of Garcia or Mulder or half the
White Sox pitching staff "veteran", yet teams do just fine without that
experience.
I'm not going to sit here and say that the Edmonds trade was some genius
move, but getting rid of Bottenfield cannot be construed as a negative if
the return is bolstering the DH position. I honestly don't care how
"veteran" a guy is, if he sucks, he's not going to help the team win and
there's no reason to keep him around.
David Peng
> Do you think the players that the Diamondbacks gave away for
> Schilling were any good? Daal is having the worst year of
> his life, Lee has become a bust and the two minor leaguers
> have potential in the future but aren't much.
Daal is having the worst year of his life after two very fine seasons,
and he's still young; the chances of him rebounding are pretty decent.
Lee, as unproductive as he has been, is still very young and is
considered to be a better "prospect" than anyone in the Angel high
minors.
> Two years ago even Randy Johnson was acquired for 4 prospects,
> who weren't touted much.
Two of those prospects were Halama and Garcia. They're pretty touted
now, aren't they.
> When was the last time you saw a team go to the World Series
> with 4 rookie starting pitchers pitchers and a guy like Ken Hill
> as your only veteran
What makes you think this is the season they're going? I'm looking at
NEXT season and beyond, with the young staff, Glaus, Erstad, and Kennedy
improving with age.
> Teams like the White Sox don't come around very often.
The Marlins are doing it right now. Seattle's doing it right now. Every
couple of seasons, a team does it and everyone wonders how, but it
happens ALL THE TIME. Teams bite the bullet, rebuild, collect arms, and
three years later everyone's pointing at them as the "surprise" team of
the season.
fr...@nospam.thankyou
wrote:
>>
>> The young pitchers are a great story on this team, I don't want to see
>> them trade one of them. We are lurking this year, but if we hold
>> these young arms, we will be in a much better position in the future.
>> I would like the team to take a long term view with these prospects.
>>
>> Frank
>
>Trading Edmonds for Bottenfield and Kennedy wasn't as bad as the the trades
>the Dodgers have been making in the past 10 years so I guess we should leave
>it at that then. Stoneman is stupid but not as stupid as some.
>
?? If we are going to compare our trades to those of the Dodgers, then
we will always look good. Didn't the Dodgers trade away Pedro Martinez
for Delino DeShields?
>If you want to look in the long term and build the club around young players
>that's cool. But it can take years and there is no guarantee any of the
>pitchers will pitch well consistently in the bigs. I guess giving up this
>season and shooting for a better one next isn't bad. But I'd like to see
>the Angels go to the playoffs for once and the Dodgers win a game in the
>playoffs. Anything can happen and the White Sox are a living example.
>
I don't think we are giving up this season. Gant does fill a hole in
the lineup, at least a little. A solid starter will likely cost us
three prospects and this price is too high.
There's no guarantee on free agents either. Good pitching teams
normally must build solidly from their own prospects and mix in one or
two free agents. This team has already won more games than most of us
expected. I support dumping Bottenfield. He didn't help us win any
more than one of the untested rookies. While last season I was
begging the Angels to make a trade, I think this season they did the
right thing.
Some here have lamented the loss of a veteran pitcher, leaving the
rotation with only one veteran for leadership. While I am all for
player leadership, I doubt that a pitcher battling his own demons can
offer the younger hurlers much counsel.
BTW, I really don't want to start the leadership debate again.
Frank
Nelson Lu
>Do you think the players that the Diamondbacks gave away for Schilling were
>any good? Daal is having the worst year of his life, Lee has become a bust
I'm not aware that 1 1/2 bad seasons is enough for a young player to be labeled
a bust. Based on that standard, Garret Anderson should have been labeled a
bust about 3 years ago.
>and the two minor leaguers have potential in the future but aren't much.
>Two years ago even Randy Johnson was acquired for 4 prospects, who weren't
>touted much.
Perhaps because you didn't bother finding out who they were. They're now all
fairly important elements in Seattle's success.
>When was the last time you saw a team go to the World Series with 4 rookie
>starting pitchers pitchers and a guy like Ken Hill as your only veteran,
>yuck?
They weren't "rookies," but that sounds like the Atlanta Braves' first World
Series team in their current run -- and they weren't rookies only because the
Braves had been so atrocious in the previous years, forcing them to the majors
faster than they otherwise would have.
Nelson Lu
>Trading Edmonds for Bottenfield and Kennedy wasn't as bad as the the trades
>the Dodgers have been making in the past 10 years so I guess we should leave
>it at that then. Stoneman is stupid but not as stupid as some.
Which Dodger trade was worse than the Edmonds trade?
Nelson Lu
>Stoneman is bad but me compairing him to Malone is unfair I guess. Malone's
>the one who traded Charles Johnson and Cedeno for Hundley and Rojas (yuck).
Is that supposed to be an example of a bad deal? It looks like that it's an
excellent deal.
JC
Reyes for Jeff Shaw. Two deals that eventually sent Charles Johnson and
Roger Cedeno for Mel Rojas and Todd Hundley. John Wetteland for Eric Davis.
4 prospects for the worst pitcher in all the whole world Carlos Perez and
Mark Grudz.
Those are just a few that come in mind. The Dodgers like the Angels never
make good deals.
> Which Dodger trade was worse than the Edmonds trade?
>
JC
"Nelson Lu" <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:8m8mn6$1d3$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <u$up5bC$$GA.307@cpmsnbbsa07>, JC <http://www.spamcop.com>
wrote:
>
> >Stoneman is bad but me compairing him to Malone is unfair I guess.
Malone's
> >the one who traded Charles Johnson and Cedeno for Hundley and Rojas
(yuck).
>
> Is that supposed to be an example of a bad deal? It looks like that it's
an
> excellent deal.
>
Hmm. Rojas was making 5 mil a season when the Dodgers traded for him. The
Dodgers eventually ate his whole salary and sent him to the Tigers for
nothing. Todd Hundley is one of the worst defensive catchers in all of
baseball and it doesn't help that he's just an average hitter. He also
makes 4.5 mil per season.
Charles Johnson is one of the best defensive catchers in all of baseball and
is having a career year in hitting. Roger Cedeno isn't a great hitter but
has great speed, and doesn't make 5 mil per season.
Obviously the Dodgers lost.
Nelson Lu
>Hmm. Rojas was making 5 mil a season when the Dodgers traded for him. The
>Dodgers eventually ate his whole salary and sent him to the Tigers for
>nothing. Todd Hundley is one of the worst defensive catchers in all of
>baseball and it doesn't help that he's just an average hitter. He also
>makes 4.5 mil per season.
Hundley is "just an average hitter"? Do you live in an alternate reality?
>
>Charles Johnson is one of the best defensive catchers in all of baseball and
>is having a career year in hitting. Roger Cedeno isn't a great hitter but
>has great speed, and doesn't make 5 mil per season.
Johnson's "career year in hitting" is singificantly worse than an average
Hundley season, and he's overrated defensively -- there is no evidence that
he's better than Hundley at calling a game, and these days, the throwing arm of
a catcher isn't as important as it used to be.
And speed is becoming fairly irrelevant, too, particularly if you don't hit
well enough to get on base in the first place. You can't steal first base.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
Nelson Lu
>Of course Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields. Paul Konerko and Dennis
>Reyes for Jeff Shaw. Two deals that eventually sent Charles Johnson and
>Roger Cedeno for Mel Rojas and Todd Hundley. John Wetteland for Eric Davis.
>4 prospects for the worst pitcher in all the whole world Carlos Perez and
>Mark Grudz.
Except for Pedro for DeShields, none of these are as bad as the Edmonds deal.
The Shaw deal is pretty bad -- but it doesn't involve dealing one of the best
players at his position. The Johnson/Cedeno for Rojas/Hundley deal is a *good*
deal for the Dodgers.
AKC
> >
> > The young pitchers are a great story on this team, I don't want to see
> > them trade one of them. We are lurking this year, but if we hold
> > these young arms, we will be in a much better position in the future.
> > I would like the team to take a long term view with these prospects.
> >
> > Frank
>
trades
> the Dodgers have been making in the past 10 years so I guess we should
leave
> it at that then. Stoneman is stupid but not as stupid as some.
No one here cares about the Dodgers. They've made bad trades cause they've
been a among the poorest organizations in baseball that last 2 or 3 years.
>
> If you want to look in the long term and build the club around young
players
> that's cool. But it can take years and there is no guarantee any of the
> pitchers will pitch well consistently in the bigs.
What do you mean it can take years? Based on what we've got at the big
league level now, I am finding it hard to believe that it is going to take
more than 2 years max., if done properly.
> I guess giving up this
> season and shooting for a better one next isn't bad. But I'd like to see
> the Angels go to the playoffs for once and the Dodgers win a game in the
> playoffs. Anything can happen and the White Sox are a living example.
The White Sox have been building their team from within for several years.
They are surprise, but not a HUGE surprise. Again, no one cares about the
ridiculous Dodgers. I'd like to see them languishing in the middle of the
division, cause that is what they deserve.
>
>
AKC
> In article <uJte1bC$$GA.56@cpmsnbbsa07>, JC <http://www.spamcop.com>
wrote:
>
> >Trading Edmonds for Bottenfield and Kennedy wasn't as bad as the the
trades
> >the Dodgers have been making in the past 10 years so I guess we should
leave
> >it at that then. Stoneman is stupid but not as stupid as some.
>
Pedro Martinez, Paul Konerko and Dennys Reyes for Jeff Shaw. I don't see how
you can continue to claim the Edmonds trade is that horrible when consider
all of the factors at the time of the trade. This team is rebuidling, not
contending.
>
> "SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
> evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>
AKC
position.
Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:8m9l32$9b5$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
> In article <uh5LAIJ$$GA.233@cpmsnbbsa07>, JC <http://www.spamcop.com>
wrote:
> >Of course Pedro Martinez for Delino DeShields. Paul Konerko and Dennis
> >Reyes for Jeff Shaw. Two deals that eventually sent Charles Johnson and
> >Roger Cedeno for Mel Rojas and Todd Hundley. John Wetteland for Eric
Davis.
> >4 prospects for the worst pitcher in all the whole world Carlos Perez and
> >Mark Grudz.
>
> Except for Pedro for DeShields, none of these are as bad as the Edmonds
deal.
> The Shaw deal is pretty bad -- but it doesn't involve dealing one of the
best
> players at his position. The Johnson/Cedeno for Rojas/Hundley deal is a
*good*
> deal for the Dodgers.
>
AKC
>
> "David Peng" <blac...@bigplanet.com> wrote in message
> news:96515756...@news2.bigplanet.com...
> > JC <http://www.spamcop.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Bottenfield has been bad but he keeps the Angels in most
> > > games. Gant is a 35 year old player who's a defensive liability
> > > thus can only DH (occasional power but easy to strike out).
> > > The Angels needed badly to trade for a pitcher instead they
> better if he didn't take a beating from the Angels a couple of week ago).
I
> think you can consider him an ace (he also made the all-star team). 4/5
of
> their starters have ERA under 4.5
>
> ERA under 4.5 I have to consider that pretty good.
>
> Now let's look at the Angels. Cooper 4-5 with ERA of 5.05. Ken Hill 5-6
> ERA 6.56. Schoeneweis 5-5 with ERA of 5.13. Etherton has been pretty
good
> but it's early to call him an ace or rely on him to do well for the rest
of
> the season. I don't know who the 5th pitcher is now but he's probably
> similar to Cooper. I don't know when of if Washburn's coming back. The
> Angels pitching staff is clearly worse than of the A's and M's and has no
> workhorse(s) they can give the ball to and know they got a chance.
It's just a tad worse than the A's, and if the Washburn comes back pitching
like he was, it'll be better than the A's. Look at the team E.R.A.'s for
the answer.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/statistics?stat=teampit&league=al
>
>
>
>
>
>
AKC
> In article <u$up5bC$$GA.307@cpmsnbbsa07>, JC <http://www.spamcop.com>
wrote:
>
> >Stoneman is bad but me compairing him to Malone is unfair I guess.
Malone's
> >the one who traded Charles Johnson and Cedeno for Hundley and Rojas
(yuck).
>
> Is that supposed to be an example of a bad deal? It looks like that it's
an
> excellent deal.
I'd think that CJ is better than Hundley, given the defensive value there,
and this year, he's probably right there in offense. Cedeno was an
excellent young player and Rojas was a broken pitcher. That's not a good
deal.
AKC
> > We don't have any prospects. There are no prospects to trade away. Not
> any
> > that anybody wants, and the ones we have that people want are way to
> > important to this year and future years.
>
were
> any good?
Unequivocally YES!!
Daal is having the worst year of his life,
So the Phillies got him for less than he is worth!?
Lee has become a bust
He's not a bust. He's barely 25. Did Erstad become a bust last year and
suddenly re-emerge from nowhere? Erstad had talent and no he's producing.
Lee's got talent, and he's going to be a good player.
> and the two minor leaguers have potential in the future but aren't much.
The two minor leaguers are two excellent pitchers. Anybody can use two
excellent pitchers, either in the bull pen or in the rotation, and it's
certainly more valuable than "not much."
> Two years ago even Randy Johnson was acquired for 4 prospects, who weren't
> touted much.
Huh? Freddy Garcia and Carlos Guillen were certainly highly touted
prospects. Halama was considered to have potential. The problem with you
is that you have no clue.
>
> > > It pisses me off when he says "I think our young pitchers can do
it...I
> > have
> > > the utmost confidence in them". Those pitchers are okay if you are
the
> > > Expos but not in Anaheim.
> >
> > It pisses me off when you complain that they need veteran pitchers, even
> if
> > they are horrible pitchers.
>
> When was the last time you saw a team go to the World Series with 4 rookie
> starting pitchers pitchers and a guy like Ken Hill as your only veteran,
> yuck?
I don't know, but we don't have 4 rookie pitchers. Washburn isn't a Rookie,
he's a very effective pitcher.
>
> > > If you are shooting for the playoffs you have to
> > > have some veteran pitching especially if you are competing against
teams
> > > that have aces. Does the Angels think they are the White Sox or
> > something?
> > >
> > > Stoneman doesn't have any guts to pull the trigger on a deal or sign a
> big
> > > name player. With him we'll lose our good players when their
contracts
> > are
> > > up and never get a big name player. His only goal is to "keep payroll
> > > down!". Kevin Malone throws money at the wrong people and Stoneman
> > doesn't
> > > throw money at all and relys on the farm system for everything. It's
> > really
> > > hard to build a playoff caliber team like that anymore.
> >
> > Really? Then how do the White Sox do it?
>
> Teams like the White Sox don't come around very often. In fact there
hasn't
> been one since the Expos of the strike-shortened season. Don't expect the
> White Sox to repeat this year's success. I really doubt they can beat the
> Yankees in the playoffs with their pitching staff.
Actually, I will expect them to repeat this year's success, cause they've
got amazing talent in their system.
David Peng
[concerning Roger Cedeno]
> And speed is becoming fairly irrelevant, too, particularly if
> you don't hit well enough to get on base in the first place.
> You can't steal first base.
Cedeno didn't have to -- he had an OBP in the neighborhood of .400, and
has defensive value in centerfield. The loss of Cedeno followed by the
acquisition of White and subsequently the string of White/Hollandsworth/
Santangelo/Tom Goodwin centerfielders makes that trade a lot worse than
it should have been.
You're overstating your argument. It wasn't a particularly good trade at
the time, and in retrospect, it still isn't.
Nelson Lu
AKC <aaro...@fmsn.com> wrote:
>You don't know that Konerko won't become one of the best players at his
>position.
No, I don't; however, he hasn't become one yet, and it doesn't appear likely
that he will. He might have become one of the best players at 3B, but that's
not where the White Sox are playing him. As good as his bat might be, it's not
likely to be good enough to be a top 1B.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
Nelson Lu
AKC <aaro...@fmsn.com> wrote:
>Pedro Martinez, Paul Konerko and Dennys Reyes for Jeff Shaw. I don't see how
>you can continue to claim the Edmonds trade is that horrible when consider
>all of the factors at the time of the trade. This team is rebuidling, not
>contending.
If the team is rebuilding, then it has no business getting Bottenfield; it
should have tried to get more future value than Kennedy for Edmonds.
Essentially, the trade made no sense from any standpoint.
Nelson Lu
David Peng <blac...@bigplanet.com.NOSPAM> wrote:
>n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU says...
>[concerning Roger Cedeno]
>> And speed is becoming fairly irrelevant, too, particularly if
>> you don't hit well enough to get on base in the first place.
>> You can't steal first base.
>
>Cedeno didn't have to -- he had an OBP in the neighborhood of .400, and
>has defensive value in centerfield. The loss of Cedeno followed by the
>acquisition of White and subsequently the string of White/Hollandsworth/
>Santangelo/Tom Goodwin centerfielders makes that trade a lot worse than
>it should have been.
Cedeno's had exactly one season of "OBP in the neighborhood of .400" -- last
year. His OBPs in the previous three seasons were .326, .362, and .317. This
year it's fallen back to .365, which is probably where you can more reasonably
expect his OBP to be. Given his lack of power, that's not good enough for an
outfielder.
>You're overstating your argument. It wasn't a particularly good trade at
>the time, and in retrospect, it still isn't.
It looks to me that Hundley's back to his offensive self. If this continues,
it will turn out to be an excllent deal for the Dodgers regardless of what
Cedeno (or Johnson, for that matter) does the next few years; a healthy and
productive Hundley is more valuable than both of them, even having good years,
combined.
Ron Johnson
>In article <ehIpzWC$$GA.318@cpmsnbbsa07>, JC <http://www.spamcop.com> wrote:
>
>>Do you think the players that the Diamondbacks gave away for Schilling were
>>any good? Daal is having the worst year of his life, Lee has become a bust
>
>I'm not aware that 1 1/2 bad seasons is enough for a young player to be labeled
>a bust. Based on that standard, Garret Anderson should have been labeled a
>bust about 3 years ago.
More to the point though is that even if you conclude that the Angels
could have offered more than Lee and Daal, nobody's opinion but the
Phillies GM matters on this point.
I think he over-valued Lee, but I don't see what the Angels could have
offered that the Phillies would have liked better than Lee.
>>and the two minor leaguers have potential in the future but aren't much.
>>Two years ago even Randy Johnson was acquired for 4 prospects, who weren't
>>touted much.
>
>Perhaps because you didn't bother finding out who they were. They're now all
>fairly important elements in Seattle's success.
>
>>When was the last time you saw a team go to the World Series with 4 rookie
>>starting pitchers pitchers and a guy like Ken Hill as your only veteran,
>>yuck?
>
>They weren't "rookies," but that sounds like the Atlanta Braves' first World
>Series team in their current run -- and they weren't rookies only because the
>Braves had been so atrocious in the previous years, forcing them to the majors
>faster than they otherwise would have.
How about the 1985 Royals. The ages of their rotation starters
(by ERA) 21, 28, 23, 22, 28. The rotation had a combined 4 games of
playoff experience.
Bobby Ojeda was the only member of the 1986 Mets rotation with
playoff experience.
--
RNJ
AKC
> In article <2XZh5.3190$0W4.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> AKC <aaro...@fmsn.com> wrote:
>
> >Pedro Martinez, Paul Konerko and Dennys Reyes for Jeff Shaw. I don't see
how
> >you can continue to claim the Edmonds trade is that horrible when
consider
> >all of the factors at the time of the trade. This team is rebuidling,
not
> >contending.
>
> If the team is rebuilding, then it has no business getting Bottenfield; it
> should have tried to get more future value than Kennedy for Edmonds.
I agree, and I never said that it was a good trade, but only that it wasn't
as bad as you say. In getting Bottenfield, I thought we might be able to
pick up essentially the same guys we might get for Edmonds, plus Kennedy at
the deadline. If Bottenfield would have pitched to his career numbers, we
might have had a good shot at it.
>
> Essentially, the trade made no sense from any standpoint.
I'll go along with that.
>
> "SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
> evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>In article <#Hf3NIJ$$GA.367@cpmsnbbsa07>, JC <http://www.spamcop.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm. Rojas was making 5 mil a season when the Dodgers traded for him. The
>>Dodgers eventually ate his whole salary and sent him to the Tigers for
>>nothing. Todd Hundley is one of the worst defensive catchers in all of
>>baseball and it doesn't help that he's just an average hitter. He also
>>makes 4.5 mil per season.
>
>Hundley is "just an average hitter"? Do you live in an alternate reality?
>>
Nelson,
I don't know what reality JC is living in, but I live in a world where
Hundley never hit above 280 in ten years in the majors. (A lifetime
241 hitter) He is having a career year. We can tell that its a
career year because at age 31, he is close to the end of his career.
Excluding the blip on his radar of 2000, he is a lifetime 235 hitter.
He is a very bad defensive catcher. He has some power, but except for
this year this power has come at the too high price of bad average and
including this year, terrible defensive play. Thusfar, his LA Dodger
BA is a stellar 241. I suspect that it is too easy to forget the last
year in the thin air of a 207 ba.
I hope Hundley is not, as you say, back to his offensive self. If
this is the case, then we should expect to see his batting average
fall about 80 points.
Regarding Johnson, he too is having a career year at 294. Contrary to
your post, this is significantly higher than an average Hundley
season. At least I consider 50 points significant. Nonetheless, the
two are essentially identical in lifetime ba; H241, J245, OBP: H 325,
J, 329. Slugging goes to Hundley with 451 vs Johnson's 427.
If Johnson is a better defensive catcher in terms of tossing out
basestealers, fewer passed balls, fewer errors, then the nod has to go
to him. The concept of handling a pitching staff is problematic.
We can't find statistical evidence of how good a catcher is at
handling a pitching staff. There is no real way to test it as we
can't properly conduct the comparative statics. We could look at some
pairwise comparisons of two catchers splitting time with one staff,
but outside of this, there is no way to get enough evidence to satisfy
you. So we are left with flipping a coin, or using that phrase that
is so evil in your lexicon, 'professional judgement'.
Having said this, handling the staff is but one of the many defensive
duties that falls on a catcher.
Over his catching career, Hundley has averaged one pb for every 15
games and one error for every 14 games. Hundley is a terrible
defensive catcher. Johnson has averaged one pb for every 30 games and
one error for every 26 games, much better numbers.
Honestly, I am surprised that you try to make a case for Hundley. If
he can somehow magically continue this year, then by all means, the
Dodgers should ride with him. But this is only one year, and the
previous 10 years tell a different story.
Frank
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>I don't know what reality JC is living in, but I live in a world where
>Hundley never hit above 280 in ten years in the majors. (A lifetime
>241 hitter) He is having a career year. We can tell that its a
Hundley's BA is pretty irrelevant. BA doesn't correlate well with run scoring
at all. (Of course, I thought we covered this already in all our discussions
about Garret Anderson and Gary DiSarcina. Apparently not.)
And perhaps he is having a career year. So what? Previous to '98, he had
three straight season pretty much as the undisputable #2 hitter as a catcher,
behind Mike Piazza, and his '99 was above average for a catcher.
>career year because at age 31, he is close to the end of his career.
>Excluding the blip on his radar of 2000, he is a lifetime 235 hitter.
Again, irrelevant; Hundley, '95 and later, had always had a lot of power and
drew plenty of walks. He didn't hit in '94, and he hit even worse before, but
that's 6 years in the past.
>He is a very bad defensive catcher. He has some power, but except for
>this year this power has come at the too high price of bad average and
Except for the last two seasons, one of which was one in which he was
recovering from a very serious injury, Hundley's not been below average at
getting on base since '94; that's pretty much all that's relevant; a "bad
average" is meaningless.
>I hope Hundley is not, as you say, back to his offensive self. If
>this is the case, then we should expect to see his batting average
>fall about 80 points.
I can live with a .380/.520 catcher any day; that's a typical Hundley season.
>Regarding Johnson, he too is having a career year at 294. Contrary to
>your post, this is significantly higher than an average Hundley
>season. At least I consider 50 points significant. Nonetheless, the
Batting average is irrelevant.
Johnson has never had power anywhere close to Hundley's, and he didn't draw
walks; that made him a significantly worse hitter than Hundley.
>Honestly, I am surprised that you try to make a case for Hundley. If
>he can somehow magically continue this year, then by all means, the
>Dodgers should ride with him. But this is only one year, and the
>previous 10 years tell a different story.
The previous 5 years tell that Johnson can't hit, his flukish '00
notwithstanding. They also told that Hundley can. Again, BA is pretty useless
in the evaluation of players -- they correlate fairly poorly with run scoring,
and they tell you nothing about a player's contribution once you have OBP and
SLG, which are just as easily accessible and much more useful in the evaluation
of players.
Putting them side-by-side and comparing their OPS (OBP + SLG), you get:
Johnson Hundley
'95 .761 .868
'96 .650 .906
'97 .801 .943
'98 .670 .537
'99 .753 .731
'00 .941 1.093
There is pretty much no comparison on who's the vastly superior hitter. I
seriously doubt that the defensive difference, if it actually exists, makes up
for it. Catchers' defensive reputations are pretty much media creation with
little evidence to back up their actual impact on performance.
Of course, as you pointed out, Hundley's PB rate is significantly higher -- so
what? We're talking about the difference of about 5 PBs a year, which is at
most worth 7-8 bases. Even when you add in stolen bases, you're talking about
at most 30 more; Hundley makes up for those pretty easily offensively. It'd be
like saying that John Mabry makes up for his offensive gap with Mark McGwire
based on Mabry's superior speed. Of course Mabry is vastly faster than
McGwire -- and it'd still not make any dent on his gap with McGwire. The gap
between Johnson and Hundley isn't as big, but it is large enough that there is
no way that the PBs and the SBs make up for them, and there is no evidence that
Hundley's defense costs the team any more than those accountable dimensions.
Johnson's career season is not particularly better than an average Hundley
season; that should say enough about the difference between the two's offensive
abilities.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
fr...@nospam.thankyou
As someone else in this thread posted, you overstate your claim. I
noted that through their careers, Hundley's slg averages 24 points
higher. The obp is close, with Johnson getting a slight edge (4
points). This is not an insignificant difference, yet 'vastly
superior'? No chance.
You dismiss defensive skills, yet in every measurable defensive
display, Johnson is 'vastly superior' with Hundley nearly twice as
likely to make an error or let a ball roll to the fence. Thus if we
can dismiss defensive skills so easily, then Hundley gets the nod,
but even then there is not an overwhelming difference.
I know you don't like to discuss things that can't be measured, but we
must also entertain the idea of who handles a pitching staff better.
Management judgement comes into play here.
All in all, I still don't see how you can say that Hundley is the
clear choice between the two. Frankly I suspect that we would notice
little difference between the two in the end. Hundley will help a
bit more on offense, but hurt more on defense. I am not ready to
dismiss defense as quickly as you.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
I'm sorry, but there was one other point that I wanted to make and
forgot in the last post.
You seem to want to dismiss Johnson's current year as being atypical.
I agree, but the same can be said of Hundley. If we do this, then the
obp and slg become:
Johnson
slg 410 obp 324 for 734
Hundley
slg 428 obp 316 for 734
So if we believe 2000 is atypical, then Johnson starts to compare even
more favorably.
In Hundley's defense, his numbers have risen over time whereas
Johnson's have been more constant. Having said this, they are both
getting up there for catchers, so any interest in trend must be
tempered by the concern that they are close to the end of their
careers.
Frank
David Peng
> Cedeno's had exactly one season of "OBP in the neighborhood of .400" --
> last year. His OBPs in the previous three seasons were .326, .362, and
.317.
> This year it's fallen back to .365, which is probably where you can more
> reasonably expect his OBP to be. Given his lack of power, that's not
> good enough for an outfielder.
His previous seasons before 1999 were rift with inconsistent playing time
due to stupid managers. 1999 was his first opportunity to get more than 125
at-bats without the threat of being sent to Albuquerque hanging over his
head. After a horrific April this season, he bounced back and was on his
way to having another 1999 before breaking bones in his hand sliding into
second.
> It looks to me that Hundley's back to his offensive self. If this
> continues, it will turn out to be an excllent deal for the Dodgers
> regardless of what Cedeno (or Johnson, for that matter) does the
> next few years; a healthy and productive Hundley is more valuable
> than both of them, even having good years, combined.
Only if you ignore the context within which the trade was made. The trade
took a solid centerfielder off the Dodger roster, and the
White/Hollandsworth/Santangelo/Goodwin monstrosity will continue to hurt the
team. Hundley does look good offensively, but it still cost the Dodgers an
ugly 1999. Also, while controlling the running game isn't the factor it
once was, I have to believe that a catcher who is as extreme as Hundley in
his inability to throw runners is going to have an impact on the game that
is not insignificant.
Sekhar Narayanaswami
In article <3989bddf...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>,
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote: (regarding CJ & TH's OPS ignoring Y2K totals)
>
>Johnson
>
>slg 410 obp 324 for 734
>
>Hundley
>
>slg 428 obp 316 for 734
>
Hundley's OPS is actually 744 given the above numbers. May not be
significant, but at least they don't look identical.
Sekhar
--
R. Sekhar Narayanaswami UC Berkeley
r...@eecs.berkeley.edu http://kabuki.eecs.berkeley.edu/~rsn
(510) 642-7165
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>As someone else in this thread posted, you overstate your claim. I
>noted that through their careers, Hundley's slg averages 24 points
>higher. The obp is close, with Johnson getting a slight edge (4
>points). This is not an insignificant difference, yet 'vastly
>superior'? No chance.
Sure, if you want to get into Hundley's pre-'95 history, he only averages 24
points higher -- and I would contend that such an exercise is useless.
Whatever happened to Hundley in '95, he hasn't been the same hitter since.
>
>You dismiss defensive skills, yet in every measurable defensive
>display, Johnson is 'vastly superior' with Hundley nearly twice as
>likely to make an error or let a ball roll to the fence. Thus if we
>can dismiss defensive skills so easily, then Hundley gets the nod,
>but even then there is not an overwhelming difference.
And catcher errors and passed balls are such rare events that even if someone
commits them at twice of the rate of any other given catcher, it still makes
very little difference.
>clear choice between the two. Frankly I suspect that we would notice
>little difference between the two in the end. Hundley will help a
>bit more on offense, but hurt more on defense. I am not ready to
>dismiss defense as quickly as you.
The thing is, I never said that defense is unimportant; I only said that there
is no evidence that Johnson is *that* much better defensively. It's like
claiming that Christie Todd Whitman is more moral sexually than Hillary Rodham
Clinton -- it might be true, and it quite possibly is true, but without
evidence, you can't argue that she is that much more moral and would make a
better leader because of it.
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>I'm sorry, but there was one other point that I wanted to make and
>forgot in the last post.
>
>You seem to want to dismiss Johnson's current year as being atypical.
>I agree, but the same can be said of Hundley. If we do this, then the
>obp and slg become:
>
>Johnson
>
>slg 410 obp 324 for 734
>
>Hundley
>
>slg 428 obp 316 for 734
Again, this includes 4 years prior to '95, which I believe to be fairly
irrelevant to an assessment of the current-day Hundley.
Nelson Lu
David Peng <blac...@bigplanet.com> wrote:
>Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Cedeno's had exactly one season of "OBP in the neighborhood of .400" --
>> last year. His OBPs in the previous three seasons were .326, .362, and
>.317.
>> This year it's fallen back to .365, which is probably where you can more
>> reasonably expect his OBP to be. Given his lack of power, that's not
>> good enough for an outfielder.
>
>His previous seasons before 1999 were rift with inconsistent playing time
>due to stupid managers. 1999 was his first opportunity to get more than 125
>at-bats without the threat of being sent to Albuquerque hanging over his
>head. After a horrific April this season, he bounced back and was on his
>way to having another 1999 before breaking bones in his hand sliding into
>second.
That's speculation; it happens to be my opinion, and not an unjustified one,
I don't think, that .365/.393 is not far off from what Cedeno should reasonbly
be considered to be doing. FWIW, STATS gave Cedeno a .360/.366 projection.
>
>> It looks to me that Hundley's back to his offensive self. If this
>> continues, it will turn out to be an excllent deal for the Dodgers
>> regardless of what Cedeno (or Johnson, for that matter) does the
>> next few years; a healthy and productive Hundley is more valuable
>> than both of them, even having good years, combined.
>
>Only if you ignore the context within which the trade was made. The trade
>took a solid centerfielder off the Dodger roster, and the
>White/Hollandsworth/Santangelo/Goodwin monstrosity will continue to hurt the
Was it really a "monstrosity" before they traded for Goodwin? White was
.337/.407 last year; Hollandsworth was .345/.448 last year; Santangelo was
.406/.386 last year. The STATS projections for the trio were .316/.409,
.326/.425, and .335/.335. None of them should have reasonably be expected to
be a lot worse than Cedeno.
>team. Hundley does look good offensively, but it still cost the Dodgers an
>ugly 1999. Also, while controlling the running game isn't the factor it
>once was, I have to believe that a catcher who is as extreme as Hundley in
>his inability to throw runners is going to have an impact on the game that
>is not insignificant.
And even then, his '99 net stolen bases were only 75. That's not worth much
these days.
John Strelow
Nelson Lu wrote in message <8md6k5$h1r$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
>So exactly how much better is Johnson over Hundley? How many runs is it
worth?
>Show your work.
I'll play, even though I'm not making the argument.
Johnson & Hundley, career per 1458 innings (162 9-innings games).
A E PCT PB SB CS
TH 78 13 .988 12 164 40
CJ 89 6 .995 6 81 30
ESPN doesn't list the SB/CS numbers before 2000. I do not understand why
this is, and quite frankly the above projections (based on this year's
numbers only) look absurd.
But we'll get back to that. How to possibly deal with what we have? What
is a passed ball worth? Probably as much as a stolen base. Meaning the 6
PB difference between Hundley and Johnson adds up to almost 2 runs.
How bad are the errors? They're probably worth a base each. I don't see
catcher's making too many 2-base errors. Let's say they're about as much as
a walk. You're still around two runs.
Let's pretend the stolen base numbers above mean something. Hundley would
have allowed 25.2 runs, and Johnson 6.3. Those 19 runs would mean
something.
But.
Hundley's been hurt, and catchers are never going to catch as many innings
as I've represented above.
Does anyone have the SB/CS data for these guys going before this year? I
don't know if my analysis here means anything, but I do think it would be
interesting to see.
If the difference in base-stealing is very large, CJ could possibly make up
the offensive difference that exists (Hundley's 240/325/451 over Johnson's
245/329/427). The difference between them, offensively, is not much over
the course of a season. Over 500 AB, the difference using only OBP & SLG is
about 3 runs.
Johnson almost certainly makes up those 3 runs with his defense, with the
passed balls and errors alone. I doubt seeing the stolen base data would
sway this in Hundley's direction.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
John Strelow
Nelson Lu wrote in message <8mddc9$jfe$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
>Yes -- assuming that Hundley can reasonably expected to be a .325/.451
hitter,
>which I don't think is reasonable; again, he hasn't been the same hitter
since
>'94, and if you average '95-'99 (which includes his horrendous '98 and his
>bad-for-him '98) you get .351/.494 -- and that doesn't count this year.
>
>That's a much greater gap for Johnson to overcome.
Perhaps. In evaluating the pair in the grand scheme of things, Hundley
would certainly have the higher peak value. I don't think Johnson makes up
about 15 runs with his defense, though he might. In terms of career value,
I would rate Johnson slightly higher.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
John Strelow
AKC wrote in message ...
>PB almost certainly have to be more valuable than a stolen base.
Why? In terms of run expectation, stealing second or third and taking them
on a passed ball are identical.
Of course, you are more likely to score via passed ball than stolen base,
and you can reach 1st by a passed ball.
I doubt those events are common enough to make a PB _that_ much more than an
SB.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
R J Conroy
might ?!?!?! be better defensively ? what stats are you measuring this by
? to say he might be better defensively is like saying McGwire might hit
more home runs than Orlando Palmiero No matter what you consider stat wise
or anything else, Johnson is considered one of the best defensive catchers
in the game, a statements noone would make about Hundley.
ter leader because of it.
>
> "SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
> evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>
Nelson Lu
R J Conroy <rjco...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>might ?!?!?! be better defensively ? what stats are you measuring this by
>? to say he might be better defensively is like saying McGwire might hit
>more home runs than Orlando Palmiero No matter what you consider stat wise
>or anything else, Johnson is considered one of the best defensive catchers
>in the game, a statements noone would make about Hundley.
So exactly how much better is Johnson over Hundley? How many runs is it worth?
Show your work.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
Nelson Lu
John Strelow <jstr...@spamblock.ucla.edu> wrote:
Yes -- assuming that Hundley can reasonably expected to be a .325/.451 hitter,
which I don't think is reasonable; again, he hasn't been the same hitter since
'94, and if you average '95-'99 (which includes his horrendous '98 and his
bad-for-him '98) you get .351/.494 -- and that doesn't count this year.
That's a much greater gap for Johnson to overcome.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
AKC
Rodham
> Clinton -- it might be true, and it quite possibly is true, but without
> evidence, you can't argue that she is that much more moral and would make
a
> better leader because of it.
That's a ridiculous analogy, morality is extremely subjective. OBP% is not.
>
> "SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
> evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>
AKC
John Strelow <jstr...@spamblock.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:8mdcb7$323$1...@carroll.library.ucla.edu...
>
> Nelson Lu wrote in message <8md6k5$h1r$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
>
> >So exactly how much better is Johnson over Hundley? How many runs is it
> worth?
> >Show your work.
>
>
>
>
> A E PCT PB SB CS
> TH 78 13 .988 12 164 40
> CJ 89 6 .995 6 81 30
>
> ESPN doesn't list the SB/CS numbers before 2000. I do not understand why
> this is, and quite frankly the above projections (based on this year's
> numbers only) look absurd.
>
> But we'll get back to that. How to possibly deal with what we have? What
> is a passed ball worth? Probably as much as a stolen base. Meaning the 6
> PB difference between Hundley and Johnson adds up to almost 2 runs.
PB almost certainly have to be more valuable than a stolen base.
>
> How bad are the errors? They're probably worth a base each. I don't see
> catcher's making too many 2-base errors.
The vast majority of the time, an error is one base for anybody.
> Let's say they're about as much as
> a walk. You're still around two runs.
>
> Let's pretend the stolen base numbers above mean something. Hundley would
> have allowed 25.2 runs, and Johnson 6.3. Those 19 runs would mean
> something.
>
> But.
>
> Hundley's been hurt, and catchers are never going to catch as many innings
> as I've represented above.
>
> Does anyone have the SB/CS data for these guys going before this year? I
> don't know if my analysis here means anything, but I do think it would be
> interesting to see.
Try here:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/
This is an incredibly useful site.
>
> If the difference in base-stealing is very large, CJ could possibly make
up
> the offensive difference that exists (Hundley's 240/325/451 over Johnson's
> 245/329/427). The difference between them, offensively, is not much over
> the course of a season. Over 500 AB, the difference using only OBP & SLG
is
> about 3 runs.
>
> Johnson almost certainly makes up those 3 runs with his defense, with the
> passed balls and errors alone. I doubt seeing the stolen base data would
> sway this in Hundley's direction.
>
>
>
>
>
> John Strelow
> jstr...@ucla.edu
>
>
Nelson Lu
AKC <aaro...@fmsn.com> wrote:
>
>Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
>news:8mct7a$dp6$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
>> The thing is, I never said that defense is unimportant; I only said that
>there
>> is no evidence that Johnson is *that* much better defensively. It's like
>> claiming that Christie Todd Whitman is more moral sexually than Hillary
>Rodham
>> Clinton -- it might be true, and it quite possibly is true, but without
>> evidence, you can't argue that she is that much more moral and would make
>a
>> better leader because of it.
>
>That's a ridiculous analogy, morality is extremely subjective. OBP% is not.
But we're not talking about OBP here, are we? We're talking about Johnson's
and Hundley's defense. You're welcome to put on an objective case (as John
Strelow did) on the matter, but otherwise it's just as subjective as judging
Clinton's or Whitman's morals.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>
>The thing is, I never said that defense is unimportant; I only said that there
>is no evidence that Johnson is *that* much better defensively. It's like
>claiming that Christie Todd Whitman is more moral sexually than Hillary Rodham
>Clinton -- it might be true, and it quite possibly is true, but without
>evidence, you can't argue that she is that much more moral and would make a
>better leader because of it.
>
Uh, okay, if you say so. Been glued to the convention coverage
lately?
You need to try to come up with a better analogy than northeastern
politics. Give me a baseball analogy.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
<jstr...@spamblock.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>AKC wrote in message ...
>
>>PB almost certainly have to be more valuable than a stolen base.
>
>
>Why? In terms of run expectation, stealing second or third and taking them
>on a passed ball are identical.
>
>Of course, you are more likely to score via passed ball than stolen base,
>and you can reach 1st by a passed ball.
>
>I doubt those events are common enough to make a PB _that_ much more than an
>SB.
>
>
>
>John Strelow
>jstr...@ucla.edu
>
>
>
John,
I like your posts here. I agree with AKC that a pb will on average
be more valuable than a stolen base. Besides the situations you
mentioned, where a strikeout victim can reach first, and where a
runner on third can score, you also must pay attention to multiple
runners.
A stolen base normally advances one runner. With a pb, every runner
on board advances. Thus a pb should receive more weight than a stolen
base.
Frank
SFSmuggler
organization. He hired Scioscia, which is the main reason why this team is
where it is. And, from what I understand the farm system is in better shape
than it's been in years. The reason for the success of the Yankees and the
Indians in past seasons is the fact that they had good prospects to trade when
they made their playoff runs in the 90's. In a few years, the Angels will be
in position to have a solid team along with prospects to trade to get key
players for that playoff run.
What I'd like to see him do in the coming offseason is to not resign Hill or
Belcher. We don't need any over the hillstiffs. From what I understand they
make close to 10 million between the two of them. I'd love for the Angels to
throw that money to a solid Veteran Starter who can provide some leadership in
the rotation. And I'd like the SS position addressed - Defensively, whether
it's Disar or a free agent. This team has been playing some of the worse
defense in years past. Defense wins games.
Nelson Lu
SFSmuggler <sfsmu...@aol.com> wrote:
>it's Disar or a free agent. This team has been playing some of the worse
>defense in years past. Defense wins games.
Then I suppose that's why this team is the worst team that the Angels had "in
years past"?
Defense is important, but it's only about 10% of the game. As you might have
noticed, neither Oakland nor Seattle has an impressive defensive squad, and
both are higher than the Angels in the standings.
SFSmuggler
years past"?
Defense is important, but it's only about 10% of the game. As you might have
noticed, neither Oakland nor Seattle has an impressive defensive squad, and
both are higher than the Angels in the standings.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)>>
I remember a game in San Diego where one of the Padres lays down a bunt with
two outs bases loaded and Levine doesn't pick up the ball. Game over Angels
lose. There are several games where the Angels lose because they didn't play
good defense because, the Angels have been in several one run games this year.
This is just me, but in a one run game, a run scored on an error is like a solo
shot, same difference. If the Angels played better defense, this team is a
couple of games better in the standings.
Nelson Lu
SFSmuggler <sfsmu...@aol.com> wrote:
>I remember a game in San Diego where one of the Padres lays down a bunt with
>two outs bases loaded and Levine doesn't pick up the ball. Game over Angels
>lose. There are several games where the Angels lose because they didn't play
>good defense because, the Angels have been in several one run games this year.
And they would have won them if they played better *offense*. All this shows
is that your memory is selective.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
fr...@nospam.thankyou
><Nelson post>
>Defense is important, but it's only about 10% of the game. As you might have
>noticed, neither Oakland nor Seattle has an impressive defensive squad, and
>both are higher than the Angels in the standings.
>
Nelson, I have never seen stronger evidence of the unimportance of
defense than this statement. I am convinced. This statement smacks
of the very anecdotal 'evidence' you normally scream about here.
>
><Smuggler post>
>I remember a game in San Diego where one of the Padres lays down a bunt with
>two outs bases loaded and Levine doesn't pick up the ball. Game over Angels
>lose. There are several games where the Angels lose because they didn't play
>good defense because, the Angels have been in several one run games this year.
>This is just me, but in a one run game, a run scored on an error is like a solo
>shot, same difference. If the Angels played better defense, this team is a
>couple of games better in the standings.
I remember one error made by a ss, Sheets maybe. He turned a lady's
face into jello when he rocketed a fastball 10 feet over Mo's head
into about the sixth row behind the visiting dugout. The medics
worked on her for 20 minutes before they carried her off. She wasn't
paying attention to the game. With our shortstops, sitting where she
was, you really need to pay attention to the game. Her face seemed to
explode when the ball hit her. There was blood everywhere. It
completely put me off my nachos.
Off the top of my head, there are a few games we lost on errors.
The Levine error mentioned in this thread
The Mo Vaughn error on the pop fly behind fb.
Because baseball is path dependent and strategy is very fluid, it's
difficult to estimate what would have happened on errors that didn't
end the game, as did the two mentioned.
Having said this, we could measure the margin of every loss and claim
that every game lost by fewer runs than unearned runs scored by the
opposition was lost due to defense.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>In article <20000804212021...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
>SFSmuggler <sfsmu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I remember a game in San Diego where one of the Padres lays down a bunt with
>>two outs bases loaded and Levine doesn't pick up the ball. Game over Angels
>>lose. There are several games where the Angels lose because they didn't play
>>good defense because, the Angels have been in several one run games this year.
>
>And they would have won them if they played better *offense*. All this shows
>is that your memory is selective.
>
>"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
>evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>===============================================================================
>GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
>===============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
You want them to score better offense? You think they lost that game
because of their offense? Do you really want to ignore defense this
much? You should have checked the team record before making the
comment to Smuggler. I did. Consider this:
They lost that game after scoring five runs. Five runs would have
turned 20 of our losses into victories. It would have turned 14 of
our victories into losses. All of a sudden, our team gains six games
in the standings.
If we scored five runs every game we would have lost some that we
have won, but won more that we have actually lost. If we split the
five run ties, this puts our record at 61 - 49 an improvement of four
games and a 555 record. If we win the ties, then scoring five runs a
game would make our record 69 - 41 for .627, the best record in
baseball.
Even with the death of little ball, five runs is sufficient. Matching
opponents yields a 59 - 49 record for Seattle, 60 - 48 for Oakland,
and 49 - 58 for Texas.
The team played fine offense in San Diego. Five runs shows this.
Levine bobbled the ball and the game is over. I will take five runs
of offense every game and be a happy Angels fan. Five runs would
improve our record at the expense of each of our divisional opponents
as well as the rest of the league. Because of the slight effect our
five runs per game would have on other teams, five runs puts us at the
top of the AL West and second in the AL behind Chicago.
Its easy to say that for every loss of this type more offense would
have solved the problem. This ignores reality. This allows you to
sit back and say that in a similar game with an 11 - 10 finish, that
the team should have scored 12.
Five runs is enough. Our offense gave us five runs that day and our
defense couldn't make them stand up.
Frank
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>You want them to score better offense? You think they lost that game
>because of their offense? Do you really want to ignore defense this
By default, every game lost is lost because of offense -- and defense (+
pitching). It is silly to argue that a game is lost because of defense -- for
every game that is supposed lost because of defense, you can always win it by
scoring even more runs.
>Five runs is enough. Our offense gave us five runs that day and our
>defense couldn't make them stand up.
Given that five runs is below average in the AL -- last year, the AL average
was 5.17 runs per game per team -- five runs is not enough.
And the calculations that you did that supposedly showed that five runs is
enough for the Angels to win a lot of games are highly tortured. It only
happens because of the Angels' above average pitching staff (which is,
conveniently for you, running a 4.87 ERA); if the Angels had a worse pitching
staff, five runs per game would not get them anywhere.
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>You want them to score better offense? You think they lost that game
>because of their offense? Do you really want to ignore defense this
Based on that kind of reasoning, every game lost is lost because of offense --
and defense (+ pitching). It is silly to argue that a game is lost because of
defense -- for every game that is supposed lost because of defense, you can
always win it by scoring even more runs.
>Five runs is enough. Our offense gave us five runs that day and our
>defense couldn't make them stand up.
Given that five runs is below average in the AL -- last year, the AL average
was 5.17 runs per game per team -- five runs is not enough.
And the calculations that you did that supposedly showed that five runs is
enough for the Angels to win a lot of games are highly tortured. It only
happens because of the Angels' above average pitching staff (which is,
conveniently for you, running a 4.87 ERA); if the Angels had a worse pitching
staff, five runs per game would not get them anywhere.
Again, explain how Oakland and Seattle have better records than the Angels
despite having, no matter how you evaluate it, much worse defense. If "defense
wins games," then the Angels should have a better record than they do. You
can't win by getting 8 great defensive players who can't hit, but that's what
the original poster would like us to believe. It's much easier to find good
teams that hit well but don't defend well than vice versa.
John Strelow
fr...@nospam.thankyou wrote in message
<398a6a10....@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
> A stolen base normally advances one runner. With a pb, every runner
>on board advances. Thus a pb should receive more weight than a stolen
>base.
These are all good points. I was using the Palmer linear weights before;
they rank a stolen base at .3 runs, a walk at .33, and a single at .47.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that a PB is worth as much as .4
runs, which I think is generous. Given that the difference between Johnson
and Hunley is less than 7 PB in a season, we're only talking 3 runs.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
SFSmuggler
defense. This will help them win games and also help the pitching staff.
Glaus with 20+ errors and basically the SS position. Come on! Look at teams
like San Francisco and Atlanta. They don't beat themselves. They play great
defense.
And, folks this is baseball, not over-the-line. Offense is great, but
championships are won with pitching and defense. If you guys don't think
defense is important, I'll guarantee I can find 30 people that will agree with
my opinions of the importance of defense - they're called MAJOR LEAGUE
MANAGERS!!!!!!!
Nelson Lu
SFSmuggler <sfsmu...@aol.com> wrote:
>The point I was trying to make is the fact that this team needs to play better
>defense. This will help them win games and also help the pitching staff.
>Glaus with 20+ errors and basically the SS position. Come on! Look at teams
>like San Francisco and Atlanta. They don't beat themselves. They play great
>defense.
And the Yankees and the Mariners and the Red Sox clearly don't. What's your
point?
>And, folks this is baseball, not over-the-line. Offense is great, but
>championships are won with pitching and defense. If you guys don't think
>defense is important, I'll guarantee I can find 30 people that will agree with
>my opinions of the importance of defense - they're called MAJOR LEAGUE
>MANAGERS!!!!!!!
I guess that's why Bobby Cox lived with (and loved) Jeff Blauser for years at
shortstop, wasn't it? Or how Joe Torre has lived with Chuck Knoblauch? Or
how Art Howe with Ben Grieve, Matt Stairs, and Jason Giambi?
fr...@nospam.thankyou
BTW,
Do you have anything for negative valued behavior, such as a strikeout
vs. a ground or flyout? Nelson states that there is no difference
between a s/o and other types of outs. I would claim that moving a
runner can give a marginal advantage to an out involving a hit ball.
It may be small, but intuitively there seems to be a logical
relationship.
Of course since this gives an opportunity for a dp, the door can swing
both ways.
Frank
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>Do you have anything for negative valued behavior, such as a strikeout
>vs. a ground or flyout? Nelson states that there is no difference
>between a s/o and other types of outs. I would claim that moving a
>runner can give a marginal advantage to an out involving a hit ball.
>It may be small, but intuitively there seems to be a logical
>relationship.
I never said that there is "no difference."
What I did say, however, is that the difference is minute. In Bill James'
newly revised RC formula, he counts a strikeout as -.03 of a base in the SLG
component of RC -- essentially negligible.
>Of course since this gives an opportunity for a dp, the door can swing
>both ways.
Precisely. At times you prefer a strike out over another out. (Strikeouts
also have the even smaller marginal benefit of forcing the pitcher to throw
more pitches, on average.)
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>In article <398baed2...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>,
> <fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>
>>You want them to score better offense? You think they lost that game
>>because of their offense? Do you really want to ignore defense this
>
>Based on that kind of reasoning, every game lost is lost because of offense --
>and defense (+ pitching). It is silly to argue that a game is lost because of
>defense -- for every game that is supposed lost because of defense, you can
>always win it by scoring even more runs.
>
Unfortunately in the bottom of the 9th on the road booting the ball
ends the game. No more opportunities to score runs. Most games are
lost because of a combination of offense, defense and pitching.
Your logic is flawed. Using it, there would be no reason to run any
defensive drills. Teams would completely concentrate on offense
during practice.
You can always argue that a team should score more runs. This is
easy. How many is enough? Had we been arguing about a 2-1 loss, I
could see your point. Not unlike Johnson's experiences during a
stretch last season where he lost three straight while allowing on
four runs over the three games. In this instance, the Angels offense
showed up. You can't hang this loss on them.
>>Five runs is enough. Our offense gave us five runs that day and our
>>defense couldn't make them stand up.
>
>Given that five runs is below average in the AL -- last year, the AL average
>was 5.17 runs per game per team -- five runs is not enough.
My discussion is about this year and this team. Last year is
meaningless. The rest of the league is meaningless.
Look at the Angels record. Five runs each game improves their record.
For the Angels, five runs is clearly enough. Reread my post, double
check my numbers, five runs puts us top in the AL West and second in
the AL. Five runs is enough.
>
>And the calculations that you did that supposedly showed that five runs is
>enough for the Angels to win a lot of games are highly tortured. It only
>happens because of the Angels' above average pitching staff (which is,
>conveniently for you, running a 4.87 ERA); if the Angels had a worse pitching
>staff, five runs per game would not get them anywhere.
I am talking about the Angels. The team ERA is somewhat irrelevant,
as I clearly stated five runs as the number of runs per game, the
mean, mode and median, five runs each game. Now even if they only
averaged five runs per game, they could have a higher ERA and still
win because of issues of distribution.
Tortured. I simply looked at the team record. If we could change
nothing but giving them five runs each game, the team record would
improve. It's a simple issue.
>
>Again, explain how Oakland and Seattle have better records than the Angels
>despite having, no matter how you evaluate it, much worse defense. If "defense
>wins games," then the Angels should have a better record than they do. You
>can't win by getting 8 great defensive players who can't hit, but that's what
>the original poster would like us to believe. It's much easier to find good
>teams that hit well but don't defend well than vice versa.
>
I never said defense wins games. In football, defense wins games. In
baseball a bad defense can cost a team a game, but a good defense
can't score more. I don't know why you quoted the three words. If
your intent is to imply that you are quoting me, then you have made a
mistake. I only entered this fray because of your claim that they
should have just scored more runs. That day their offense was fine,
good enough indeed to put them at the top of the division if they were
to repeat it every game. Strategy is fluid and a game is path
dependent. The error was made on the last play of the game, the team
didn't have a chance to score more.
Elsewhere I commented on your link between defense and Oakland and
Seattle. This is anecdotal, the type of reasoning you normally scream
about. How is their starting pitching vs bullpen? How many unearned
runs have they scored? Are you saying that since you can find two
teams who have better record and poorer defense, that defense doesn't
matter? Illogical, if so.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>In article <398c80c7...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>,
> <fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>
>>Do you have anything for negative valued behavior, such as a strikeout
>>vs. a ground or flyout? Nelson states that there is no difference
>>between a s/o and other types of outs. I would claim that moving a
>>runner can give a marginal advantage to an out involving a hit ball.
>>It may be small, but intuitively there seems to be a logical
>>relationship.
>
>I never said that there is "no difference."
>
>What I did say, however, is that the difference is minute. In Bill James'
>newly revised RC formula, he counts a strikeout as -.03 of a base in the SLG
>component of RC -- essentially negligible.
>
>>Of course since this gives an opportunity for a dp, the door can swing
>>both ways.
>
>Precisely. At times you prefer a strike out over another out. (Strikeouts
>also have the even smaller marginal benefit of forcing the pitcher to throw
>more pitches, on average.)
>
>"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
>evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>===============================================================================
>GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
>===============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you. What I clearly recall is you
saying that ther is no evidence that a s/o is worse than any other
type of out. I interpreted this as meaning there is no difference.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>The point I was trying to make is the fact that this team needs to play better
>defense. This will help them win games and also help the pitching staff.
>Glaus with 20+ errors and basically the SS position. Come on! Look at teams
>like San Francisco and Atlanta. They don't beat themselves. They play great
>defense.
>
>And, folks this is baseball, not over-the-line. Offense is great, but
>championships are won with pitching and defense. If you guys don't think
>defense is important, I'll guarantee I can find 30 people that will agree with
>my opinions of the importance of defense - they're called MAJOR LEAGUE
>MANAGERS!!!!!!!
You see, now I must step away from your position. Championships are
won with defense in football, not baseball.
I do feel that the team scored sufficiently in San Diego and would
have won that game save for an error, but we will never know.
Your position is nostalgic, but perhaps not completely accurate.
Suppose Glaus never improves his defense. Suppose he simply repeats
this season for the next 10 - 12 years. First of all, he will have
500 hr, about 1200 rbi and will have to be considered one of the best
3b ever. As an Angels fan, I would love to see it. If it were to
happen, it would probably be with another team, because there's no way
the Angels would dare to hold on to that kind of quality.
I agree that defense is important, more than Nelson thinks, but unlike
other pro sports (particularly football), offense is more important
than defense. Teams runs defensive drills, and they try to get the
players to think when they are out there, but the majority of time is
spent on offense. Troy can make three errors and wipe them out with
one swing.
Frank
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>Your logic is flawed. Using it, there would be no reason to run any
>defensive drills. Teams would completely concentrate on offense
>during practice.
Strawman. I never said that defensive is irrelevant, merely that it's not as
important as offense.
>
>My discussion is about this year and this team. Last year is
>meaningless. The rest of the league is meaningless.
It's not meaningless given that you are claiming that that number of runs is
sufficient. A below average offense is almost never "sufficient."
>Look at the Angels record. Five runs each game improves their record.
Point? Of course improving offense improves their record.
>Elsewhere I commented on your link between defense and Oakland and
>Seattle. This is anecdotal, the type of reasoning you normally scream
>about. How is their starting pitching vs bullpen? How many unearned
>runs have they scored? Are you saying that since you can find two
>teams who have better record and poorer defense, that defense doesn't
>matter? Illogical, if so.
Where did I say that "defense doesn't matter"? What I have been saying is that
offense is more important. Essentially, if you have two players who are
fairly close offensively, you start to worry about which one plays better
defense. When there is a big offensive gap, the lesser offensive player can
be as good defensively as he can and still be worse than the greater offensive
player.
The other poster's assertion is that the Angels should look at defense first
in their offseason quest for improvement. I am saying that's the wrong
priority.
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>Sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you. What I clearly recall is you
>saying that ther is no evidence that a s/o is worse than any other
>type of out. I interpreted this as meaning there is no difference.
What I have been saying is that there is no evidence that a strikeout is
*significantly* worse than any other type of out. I never said that it is not
worse.
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>In article <398c4f3...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>,
> <fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>
>The other poster's assertion is that the Angels should look at defense first
>in their offseason quest for improvement. I am saying that's the wrong
>priority.
>
On this you and I agree, as you might see with one of my responses to
another one of his posts.
Frank
David Peng
> That's speculation; it happens to be my opinion, and not an
> unjustified one, I don't think, that .365/.393 is not far off
> from what Cedeno should reasonbly be considered to be doing.
> FWIW, STATS gave Cedeno a .360/.366 projection.
Of course it's speculation. .360/.366 wouldn't be too far off, but at
the same time the projections take into consideration performances before
1999. IMO, 1999 carries far more weight than his MLB time previous to
last season.
> Was it really a "monstrosity" before they traded for Goodwin?
> White was .337/.407 last year; Hollandsworth was .345/.448 last
> year; Santangelo was .406/.386 last year. The STATS projections
> for the trio were .316/.409, .326/.425, and .335/.335. None of
> them should have reasonably be expected to be a lot worse than Cedeno.
Hollandsworth's performance game in limited at-bats, so it was reasonable
for him to perform far worse than the projections indicated. White's old
and getting older. Santangelo's pretty limited in what he can
contribute. As you say, perhaps it was reasonable to expect them to
approach Cedeno's performance, but it's not unreasonable to expect him to
substantially outperform the trio as well, ne?
> And even then, his '99 net stolen bases were only 75. That's not
> worth much these days.
But they're worth much more than the trio the Dodgers have had to use,
especially when you consider Cedeno's youth, on-base skills and defense.
Couple that with his salary, and I think it's pretty clear the Dodgers
were foolish to let him get away.
--
d.
ANGELZ ROOL!@#$!!
/sportznutz.com/mlb/ana
David Peng
> Because baseball is path dependent and strategy is very fluid,
> it's difficult to estimate what would have happened on errors
> that didn't end the game, as did the two mentioned.
>
> Having said this, we could measure the margin of every loss
> and claim that every game lost by fewer runs than unearned runs
> scored by the opposition was lost due to defense.
OR you could say that it just wouldn't matter if the offense ran out and
put up 8 runs a game, or if the pitcher threw an otherwise perfect game.
What would have helped the Angels win that game in San Diego? Used a
better defensive pitcher?
For every example you can think of of the Halos losing a game because of
a bobble, I can come up with multiple examples of when they lost a game
because they couldn't come up with a key hit or a big out (hint: I can do
that with every loss). Annecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.
Look, I'm all for good defense. I love good defense, I enjoy watching
fielding practice more than batting practice, and I enjoy TAKING fielding
practice more than batting practice.
But this Angel team is *not* losing games just because of defense.
They're losing games because their closer wouldn't admit to injury and
kept blowing late leads. They're losing games because their third
baseman, shortstop, second basemen and catcher haven't contributed much
offensively as of late, and their first baseman has a serious platoon
split. They're losing games because their starters can't get into the
fifth without allowing 5 runs. The defense? It's in there somewhere,
one of a million reasons why a game could be lost.
They're losing games because they're not as good a team as they need to
be. That's pretty much always the case when teams lose, and that's the
case here.
AKC
> In article <Bgri5.8586$0W4.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> AKC <aaro...@fmsn.com> wrote:
> >
> >Nelson Lu <n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> >news:8mct7a$dp6$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU...
>
> >there
> >> is no evidence that Johnson is *that* much better defensively. It's
like
> >> claiming that Christie Todd Whitman is more moral sexually than Hillary
> >Rodham
> >> Clinton -- it might be true, and it quite possibly is true, but without
> >> evidence, you can't argue that she is that much more moral and would
make
> >a
> >> better leader because of it.
> >
not.
>
> But we're not talking about OBP here, are we? We're talking about
Johnson's
> and Hundley's defense. You're welcome to put on an objective case (as
John
> Strelow did) on the matter, but otherwise it's just as subjective as
judging
> Clinton's or Whitman's morals.
Regardless of our previous topic, your analogy was still not a good one.
You somehow managed to avoid that fact.
AKC
John Strelow <jstr...@spamblock.ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:8mdn3h$6bb$1...@carroll.library.ucla.edu...
>
> AKC wrote in message ...
>
> >PB almost certainly have to be more valuable than a stolen base.
>
>
> Why? In terms of run expectation, stealing second or third and taking
them
> on a passed ball are identical.
But I would say that more runners would be likely to safely advance on a
passed ball, than steal a base. Mo Vaughn for example.
>
> Of course, you are more likely to score via passed ball than stolen base,
> and you can reach 1st by a passed ball.
>
> I doubt those events are common enough to make a PB _that_ much more than
an
> SB.
I hadn't even thought of all that, it just adds more to the fact. I was
thinking more because even slow runners make it on passed balls.
>
>
>
> John Strelow
> jstr...@ucla.edu
>
>
>
>
AKC
> In article <20000804212021...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
> SFSmuggler <sfsmu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I remember a game in San Diego where one of the Padres lays down a bunt
with
> >two outs bases loaded and Levine doesn't pick up the ball. Game over
Angels
> >lose. There are several games where the Angels lose because they didn't
play
> >good defense because, the Angels have been in several one run games this
year.
>
> And they would have won them if they played better *offense*. All this
shows
> is that your memory is selective.
Or if Levine had struck the batter out. Between pitching and offense,
you've got 90% of the game.
AKC
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote in message
news:398baed2...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com...
> On 5 Aug 2000 01:34:27 GMT, n...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) wrote:
>
> >In article <20000804212021...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
> >SFSmuggler <sfsmu...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I remember a game in San Diego where one of the Padres lays down a bunt
with
> >>two outs bases loaded and Levine doesn't pick up the ball. Game over
Angels
> >>lose. There are several games where the Angels lose because they didn't
play
> >>good defense because, the Angels have been in several one run games this
year.
> >
> >And they would have won them if they played better *offense*. All this
shows
> >is that your memory is selective.
> >
> >evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>
>===========================================================================
====
> >GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
>
>===========================================================================
====
> >Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
>
>
> because of their offense? Do you really want to ignore defense this
> comment to Smuggler. I did. Consider this:
>
> They lost that game after scoring five runs. Five runs would have
> turned 20 of our losses into victories. It would have turned 14 of
> our victories into losses. All of a sudden, our team gains six games
> in the standings.
>
BUT, that game went extra innings, so they had more opportunity to score
runs.
> If we scored five runs every game we would have lost some that we
> have won, but won more that we have actually lost. If we split the
> five run ties, this puts our record at 61 - 49 an improvement of four
> games and a 555 record. If we win the ties, then scoring five runs a
> game would make our record 69 - 41 for .627, the best record in
> baseball.
>
> Even with the death of little ball, five runs is sufficient. Matching
> opponents yields a 59 - 49 record for Seattle, 60 - 48 for Oakland,
> and 49 - 58 for Texas.
>
> The team played fine offense in San Diego. Five runs shows this.
> Levine bobbled the ball and the game is over. I will take five runs
> of offense every game and be a happy Angels fan. Five runs would
> improve our record at the expense of each of our divisional opponents
> as well as the rest of the league. Because of the slight effect our
> five runs per game would have on other teams, five runs puts us at the
> top of the AL West and second in the AL behind Chicago.
>
> Its easy to say that for every loss of this type more offense would
> have solved the problem. This ignores reality. This allows you to
> sit back and say that in a similar game with an 11 - 10 finish, that
> the team should have scored 12.
>
> Five runs is enough. Our offense gave us five runs that day and our
> defense couldn't make them stand up.
>
> Frank
>
AKC
SFSmuggler <sfsmu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000805141006...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> The point I was trying to make is the fact that this team needs to play
better
> defense. This will help them win games and also help the pitching staff.
> Glaus with 20+ errors and basically the SS position.
The SS position has played well enough, and Glaus has many errors partly
because Mo is a poor 1B.
> Come on! Look at teams
> like San Francisco and Atlanta. They don't beat themselves. They play
great
> defense.
Look at the Mariners and A's, they have poor offense.
>
> And, folks this is baseball, not over-the-line. Offense is great, but
> championships are won with pitching and defense.
That's ridiculous. How can you criticize us for overlooking defense when
you are so quick to overlook offense? Championships are won with complete
teams. Last year the Angels pitched well, defended well, and sucked. Why?
Cause the couldn't score runs! Defense is the least of the worries. If
you've got strong pitching, good hitting and mediocre defense, you'll
probably have a pretty solid team. if you don't agree, check out the A's
and Mariners, or even the Yankees, whose SS and CFer are among the most
overrated defensive players in baseball.
>If you guys don't think
> defense is important,
Defense is about 10% of the game. That is how important we consider it.
fr...@nospam.thankyou
<blac...@bigplanet.com.NOSPAM> wrote:
>fr...@nospam.thankyou says...
>
>> Because baseball is path dependent and strategy is very fluid,
>> it's difficult to estimate what would have happened on errors
>> that didn't end the game, as did the two mentioned.
>>
>> Having said this, we could measure the margin of every loss
>> and claim that every game lost by fewer runs than unearned runs
>> scored by the opposition was lost due to defense.
>
>OR you could say that it just wouldn't matter if the offense ran out and
>put up 8 runs a game, or if the pitcher threw an otherwise perfect game.
>
>What would have helped the Angels win that game in San Diego? Used a
>better defensive pitcher?
>
>For every example you can think of of the Halos losing a game because of
>a bobble, I can come up with multiple examples of when they lost a game
>because they couldn't come up with a key hit or a big out (hint: I can do
>that with every loss). Annecdotal evidence doesn't count for much.
>
Far from anecdotal evidence, I showed that the offense that day was
strong enough to improve the team's record if applied to every game.
I claimed that because strategy is path dependent, there really is no
way to test for the impact of errors unless they end the game.
Nelson said that the failure that day could have just as easily been
offensive in nature. I indicated that the offense that day was
strong. We should get so much offense every game. It would improve
the team's record.
Frank
Nelson Lu
AKC <aaro...@fmsn.com> wrote:
>But I would say that more runners would be likely to safely advance on a
>passed ball, than steal a base. Mo Vaughn for example.
Uh, a stolen base, by definition, is a *stolen* base; it's not a *stolen base
attempt*.
"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>Nelson said that the failure that day could have just as easily been
>offensive in nature. I indicated that the offense that day was
>strong. We should get so much offense every game. It would improve
Except, as I've showed, five runs is not "strong" for an offense, no matter how
you tried to spin it. Of course if you score more runs you'll win more games
-- that doesn't mean that a certain level of offense is "sufficient."
If the Angels were scoring 3 runs a game, they'd lose a lot more games; they'd
get some of those games back if they were scoring 4 runs again. That doesn't
mean that 4 runs is "sufficient."
Ron Johnson
>In article <398c8f49...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>,
> <fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you. What I clearly recall is you
>>saying that ther is no evidence that a s/o is worse than any other
>>type of out. I interpreted this as meaning there is no difference.
>
>What I have been saying is that there is no evidence that a strikeout is
>*significantly* worse than any other type of out. I never said that it is not
>worse.
I'll say it though. On balance a strikeout is a tiny net positive
compared to other outs.
The detailed base/out info that I have is a few years old,
but it wouldn't be tough to get a more up to date one.
Still, using the info I have.
55% of all PAs come with nobody on. Clearly all outs are
equal. 33% of all PAs come with 2 out. Clearly all outs
are equal. That works out to 73% of all PAs where a
K can't be different than any other out.
Of the reamining cases, an out on a ball put in play
with runners on first are pretty likely to hurt more
than help.
It's only less than 2 outs and no runners on first when
a non K out is clearly likely to be better than a K.
That's just under 9% of all PAs.
But just because you make a non-K out doesn't mean the
baserunners can advance. Shallow fly balls, lineouts,
poputs and foulouts make up a hefty percentage of the
outs.
Not only that, but a certain portion of the baserunners
are cut down trying to take advantage of the potential
productive out.
Still, there's a different way to approach this. Get the Lahman
database and run regressions. I absolutely guarantee you that
strikeouts will come back as a positive (albeit a statistically
insignificant positive)
However if you include GIDPs, Ks come back as a statistically
insignificant negative. Another way of coming up with the same
basic conclusion. You don't get many opportunities to make productive
outs and one GIDP will do a whole lot more damage than a bunch of
productive outs can cover.
--
RNJ
fr...@nospam.thankyou
I am not sure why you don't get it. I looked at the actual games
played. If the team scored five runs each game, no more, no less,
they would have won more games than they have now.
As I have repeatedly stated, five runs each game puts us at the top in
the AL West and second in the AL. Five runs each game is, right now,
sufficient to get us there.
You say five runs is not strong for an offense. Yet we would be
second in the AL with five runs per game. This is not spin, as you
claim. This is simply looking at the games played.
You may be getting confused between average runs per game and actual
runs scored each game. I look at the outcome of each game had the
Angels scored five runs each game. The concept of average runs per
game is relatively meaningless for this purpose as it doesn't allow
any consideration of skewed distribution of scores.
I will say it again. If the Angels scored five runs in every game,
only the Chicago White Sox would have a better record in the league.
There is no spin there. Frankly I am disappointed that you would make
such an accusation.
While I sarcastically admire your implied goal here, I suspect that
second in the AL would indeed be sufficient. Of course, this is only
my judgement.
Frank
John Strelow
AKC wrote in message
<3Z3j5.19575$Z6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>I hadn't even thought of all that, it just adds more to the fact. I was
>thinking more because even slow runners make it on passed balls.
Do you mean that a SB is rarer, or harder to get? An event is not more
valuable in relation to how rare it is. Home runs happen much more often
than triples; triples are hard to get. HR are more valuable than 3B.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
John Strelow
AKC wrote in message ...
>The SS position has played well enough, and Glaus has many errors partly
>because Mo is a poor 1B.
Glaus makes errors on plays other 3B never see. I'm not going to hold that
against him.
Anyway, that's what I think. I thought I should look it up.
Troy ranks 12th in the AL at Fielding Percentage, but he's 3rd in DP, 6th in
Zone Rating (and there are a bunch of guys close together) and comfortably
1st in Range Factor. I don't think his errors are a problem.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
John Strelow
fr...@nospam.thankyou wrote in message
<398c4f3...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
>Unfortunately in the bottom of the 9th on the road booting the ball
>ends the game.
In the bottom of the 9th at home a home run can win the game.
>My discussion is about this year and this team. Last year is
>meaningless. The rest of the league is meaningless.
>Look at the Angels record. Five runs each game improves their record.
>For the Angels, five runs is clearly enough. Reread my post, double
>check my numbers, five runs puts us top in the AL West and second in
>the AL. Five runs is enough.
The Angels average 5.39 runs per game, the AL averages 5.37, and the Angels
allow 5.29. Five runs is not enough this day and age.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
John Strelow
fr...@nospam.thankyou wrote in message
<398cfd99...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
>You may be getting confused between average runs per game and actual
>runs scored each game. I look at the outcome of each game had the
>Angels scored five runs each game. The concept of average runs per
>game is relatively meaningless for this purpose as it doesn't allow
>any consideration of skewed distribution of scores.
>
>I will say it again. If the Angels scored five runs in every game,
>only the Chicago White Sox would have a better record in the league.
>There is no spin there. Frankly I am disappointed that you would make
>such an accusation.
But no team ever has scored their average runs in every single game. I'm
not really sure what the point of your exercise is, and I certainly don't
understand how it helps your argument that defense is the key determinant
here.
You say: if the Angels scored 5 runs every single game, they would have the
2nd best record in every game.
I infer: if they scored less than 5 runs in a particular game, that means
the offense failed.
Therefore: the offense should be improved.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>I am not sure why you don't get it. I looked at the actual games
>played. If the team scored five runs each game, no more, no less,
>they would have won more games than they have now.
And I am not sure why you don't get that this is meaningless. Of course
scoring more runs means more wins!
If the Angels were scoring 3 runs a game, and then increase to 4, they would
win more games.
If the Angels were scoring 2 runs a game, and then increase to 3, they would
win more games.
If the Angels were scoring 1 run a game, and then increase to 2, they would
win more games.
None of this means that 4, 3, or 2 runs is "sufficient." It only means that
scoring more runs is good.
>As I have repeatedly stated, five runs each game puts us at the top in
>the AL West and second in the AL. Five runs each game is, right now,
>sufficient to get us there.
Only because the Angels have an above average pitching staff. If the Angels
have the Braves' pitching staff, they might be able to be in the top of the
AL West with their current level of offense. That doesn't mean that the
current level of offense is "sufficient." Essentially, you're crediting the
offense with what the pitchers do; that's absurd.
>
>You say five runs is not strong for an offense. Yet we would be
>second in the AL with five runs per game. This is not spin, as you
>claim. This is simply looking at the games played.
Do you realize that the Angels are actually scoring *more* than 5 runs a game?
They're averaging 5.37 runs a game. Scoring 5 runs a game would *decrease*
their offense.
Oh, you mean 5 and exactly 5 each game. How realistic. Using an impossible
model is nowhere to start an analysis.
>I will say it again. If the Angels scored five runs in every game,
>only the Chicago White Sox would have a better record in the league.
>There is no spin there. Frankly I am disappointed that you would make
>such an accusation.
This *is* spin; there is no way for any team to do this; you will score more
runs against poor pitchers than better pitchers, and to suggest that it is
possible at all in your model renders your model worthless. A team can't score
5 runs and then call off the dogs and be sure that they'll score another 5 the
next day, nor should they do that; you should always try to score as much as
you can.
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>Oh, you mean 5 and exactly 5 each game. How realistic. Using an impossible
>model is nowhere to start an analysis.
>
>>I will say it again. If the Angels scored five runs in every game,
>>only the Chicago White Sox would have a better record in the league.
>>There is no spin there. Frankly I am disappointed that you would make
>>such an accusation.
>
>This *is* spin; there is no way for any team to do this; you will score more
>runs against poor pitchers than better pitchers, and to suggest that it is
>possible at all in your model renders your model worthless. A team can't score
>5 runs and then call off the dogs and be sure that they'll score another 5 the
>next day, nor should they do that; you should always try to score as much as
>you can.
>
>"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
>evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>===============================================================================
>GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
>===============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Nelson, I really have to challenge your intellect on this. Let's go
over this together, once again.
I am not trying to start an analysis. You made a claim about a lack
of offense on a particular game. Let me see, its all coming back to
me now:
Someone here made a point about an error in San Diego and how it cost
us the game. You responded insultingly that the writer had selective
memory, claiming that all the example showed was that the offense that
day was insufficient. I looked it up, discovered that they team had
scored five runs that day and further looked at their record. Five
runs a game is enough to improve the team's record. Why is this so
difficult for you to get? You made a claim about a lack of offense.
I SHOWED that the offense they had that day would be enough to put
them at the top of their division, if repeated every game. The
offense showed up that day. At the end of that day, I suspect when
the coaches got together in Mike's office, they discussed the pitching
failures and the defensive failures more than any offensive failures.
Regarding the team being about to average five runs per game with zero
variance, I made no claims about the realism of them being able to do
this. I simply stated that the offense they offered that day would be
sufficient to improve their record. In other words, they should do so
well every day.
This misunderstanding about average is also dissappointing. When
performing a statistical analysis, one must look beyond mean.
Distribution is important, sometimes more important than mean. It is
possible, albeit unlikely, to lag in ERA, lag in average runs scored,
lag in average runs allowed, and still lose only one game out of 162.
In the final analysis the number of games won and lost is what counts,
not by how much scores vary. An eight to five loss looks the same on
the record as a six to five loss. The funny thing is that we are
likely going to see more issues of distribution in scores if the
pitching vs hitting relationships continue as they have. I suspect
that we will see a continued increase in variance in scoring over time
until something is done about the ridiculous offense we see.
BTW, I disagreed with just about everything else the original writer
posted. I mentioned that in another post, e.g. Glaus. Let him boot
the ball 40 times in a season, I don't care as long as he keeps his
first half h/r pace. He scores more runs with his bat than he allows
with his glove, a point on which I suspect you and I agree.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
<jstr...@spamblock.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>fr...@nospam.thankyou wrote in message
><398cfd99...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>...
>
>>You may be getting confused between average runs per game and actual
>>runs scored each game. I look at the outcome of each game had the
>>Angels scored five runs each game. The concept of average runs per
>>game is relatively meaningless for this purpose as it doesn't allow
>>any consideration of skewed distribution of scores.
>>
>>I will say it again. If the Angels scored five runs in every game,
>>only the Chicago White Sox would have a better record in the league.
>>There is no spin there. Frankly I am disappointed that you would make
>>such an accusation.
>
>
>But no team ever has scored their average runs in every single game. I'm
>not really sure what the point of your exercise is, and I certainly don't
>understand how it helps your argument that defense is the key determinant
>here.
>
>You say: if the Angels scored 5 runs every single game, they would have the
>2nd best record in every game.
>
>I infer: if they scored less than 5 runs in a particular game, that means
>the offense failed.
>
>Therefore: the offense should be improved.
>
Yes, less than five runs in a game would not be good. They got five
in the game in question. That is all I commented on. I would love to
see them improve their mean runs per game. I would equally like to
see them more consistent. Either of those will win us more games.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
<jstr...@spamblock.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>fr...@nospam.thankyou wrote in message
The average is not as important as the distribution. This is a
statement I have repeatedly made and commented on elsewhere.
Frank
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>I am not trying to start an analysis. You made a claim about a lack
>of offense on a particular game. Let me see, its all coming back to
>me now:
And I still say it's ridiculous to say that that game was lost because of
defense. It's lost because of defense *and* offense. 5 runs is not enough to
be considered a "strong" offense, no matter how you cut it.
>This misunderstanding about average is also dissappointing. When
>performing a statistical analysis, one must look beyond mean.
>Distribution is important, sometimes more important than mean. It is
And distribution is nearly uncontrollable, and therefore meaningless to discuss
when you're trying to improve a team, since you can't will yourself into
distributing the offense over a number of games.
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>Yes, less than five runs in a game would not be good. They got five
>in the game in question. That is all I commented on. I would love to
>see them improve their mean runs per game. I would equally like to
>see them more consistent. Either of those will win us more games.
Well, there is no evidence that "consistency" is controllable; again, you can't
expect to score 5 runs off of Pedro Martinez as easily as score 5 runs off Roy
Halladay. You can't say that once you've scored 5 runs off Halladay that your
job is done -- it's not. You have to score as much as you can off Halladay
just as you have to score as much as you can off Martinez
It's simply not possible to be "more consistent"; it's something that's outside
of their control entirely.
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>Yes, less than five runs in a game would not be good. They got five
>in the game in question. That is all I commented on. I would love to
>see them improve their mean runs per game. I would equally like to
>see them more consistent. Either of those will win us more games.
Well, there is no evidence that "consistency" is controllable; again, you can't
expect to score 5 runs off of Pedro Martinez as easily as score 5 runs off Roy
Halladay. You can't say that once you've scored 5 runs off Halladay that your
job is done -- it's not. You have to score as much as you can off Halladay
just as you have to score as much as you can off Martinez
It's simply not possible to be "more consistent"; it's something that's outside
of their control entirely. It's like saying, "I wish the Angels would win
every game by one and exactly one run." It's an useless exercise.
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>In article <398db42b...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>,
> <fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>
>>Yes, less than five runs in a game would not be good. They got five
>>in the game in question. That is all I commented on. I would love to
>>see them improve their mean runs per game. I would equally like to
>>see them more consistent. Either of those will win us more games.
>
>Well, there is no evidence that "consistency" is controllable; again, you can't
>expect to score 5 runs off of Pedro Martinez as easily as score 5 runs off Roy
>Halladay. You can't say that once you've scored 5 runs off Halladay that your
>job is done -- it's not. You have to score as much as you can off Halladay
>just as you have to score as much as you can off Martinez
>
>It's simply not possible to be "more consistent"; it's something that's outside
>of their control entirely.
>
>"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
>evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>===============================================================================
>GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
>===============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
>It's simply not possible to be "more consistent"; it's something that's outside
>of their control entirely.
I have to vehemently disagree with this statement. In the minors, a
player does two things. He learns the difference between good college
pitching and big league pitching and he develops a repeatable swing.
This is what consistency in hitting is all about.
It is obvious that the job of a hitter is much more difficult against
a strong pitcher like Pedro. We wouldn't expect the squad to perform
as well against Pedro as against Hallady. And you will find a pattern
here. But the issue is not entirely out of the hitters' control.
Find a hitter on a streak. Ask him why he can't do it all the time.
he will not be able to tell you. The job of a good hitting instructor
is to determine what the hitter on a streak is doing and get him to
repeat it.
Good discussion.
Frank
fr...@nospam.thankyou
>In article <398dadb...@news.rdc2.occa.home.com>,
> <fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>
>>I am not trying to start an analysis. You made a claim about a lack
>>of offense on a particular game. Let me see, its all coming back to
>>me now:
>
>And I still say it's ridiculous to say that that game was lost because of
>defense. It's lost because of defense *and* offense.
>
I do now and always have agreed with this statement. It was not what
you said originally.
>>This misunderstanding about average is also dissappointing. When
>>performing a statistical analysis, one must look beyond mean.
>>Distribution is important, sometimes more important than mean. It is
>
>And distribution is nearly uncontrollable, and therefore meaningless to discuss
>when you're trying to improve a team, since you can't will yourself into
>distributing the offense over a number of games.
>
>"SABREmetrics isn't about statistics, it is about the search for new
>evidence." - Bill James (thanks, Bill Reich)
>===============================================================================
>GO ANAHEIM ANGELS!
>===============================================================================
>Nelson Lu (n...@cs.stanford.edu)
Obviously you don't want to power down, although it does happen. Not
with hitting as much as base running and defense.
After a bad outing you try to determine what you did wrong and fix it.
This can't be done against a Pedro or Randy Johnson very well. But
not making mistakes against every day pitching promotes consistency.
Frank
Nelson Lu
<fr...@nospam.thankyou> wrote:
>I have to vehemently disagree with this statement. In the minors, a
>player does two things. He learns the difference between good college
>pitching and big league pitching and he develops a repeatable swing.
>This is what consistency in hitting is all about.
The swing is repeatable, but the result is not repeatable. Do you expect the
same swing to produce the same result off Pedro Martinez and Roy Halladay?
>
>It is obvious that the job of a hitter is much more difficult against
>a strong pitcher like Pedro. We wouldn't expect the squad to perform
>as well against Pedro as against Hallady. And you will find a pattern
>here. But the issue is not entirely out of the hitters' control.
It's not entirely out of the hitters' control, true, but it is not even close
to being completely in his control. If it is, we wouldn't need pitchers.
>Find a hitter on a streak. Ask him why he can't do it all the time.
>he will not be able to tell you. The job of a good hitting instructor
>is to determine what the hitter on a streak is doing and get him to
>repeat it.
There is no evidence to suggest that most streaks aren't simply a string of
random events.
But in any case, even if someone can be completely consistent -- consistently
as good at all times; then, since the pitchers he faces vary in quality, the
results will vary in the inverse of the pitchers' ability. Thus, it in fact
has to be expected, in that case, that the team will *not* score 5 times every
time out -- it will score about as many runs as Martinez' ERA when facing
Martinez and about as many runs as Halladay's ERA when facing Halladay,
adjusting up or down depending on the team's own offensive abilities. Thus,
your model is still flawed and an unreasonable starting point for discussion.
IOW, your claim that it is possible to be *consistent* is in fact an
advocacy for *inconsistency* -- performing better against better pitchers than
against worse pitchers. Which, again, is unrealistic.
Eramon1
>Someone here made a point about an error in San Diego and how it cost
>us the game. You responded insultingly that the writer had selective
>memory, claiming that all the example showed was that the offense that
>day was insufficient. I looked it up, discovered that they team had
>scored five runs that day and further looked at their record. Five
>runs a game is enough to improve the team's record. Why is this so
>difficult for you to get?
Here's the problem with that game, as I see it. Wasn't it already 5-5? So 5
runs *wouldn't* have been enough to win the game. If the error had led to the
tying run then maybe...but if it were the winning run then 5 runs of offense
wasn't enough, we'd have needed 6.
Another point would be the selective notice of defensive lapses. Errors or
botched plays occur at all different times during a game but of course a play
like this which happens right at the end will be brighter (or darker!) in the
memory. Probably an overall look at the team defense would be more useful than
focusing on a specific play.
Yes, defense is an important aspect. I don't know what percent it is of the
game. I'm not prepared to accept any number for that at this point. On the
other hand, are we sure that the Angels defense is bad?
-Eric Ramon
Portland, Oregon