The Trouble with Oakland (thx, Fangraphs)
by catfish hunter on Oct 19, 2009 6:31 AM PDT
70 comments
Looking forward to Spring Training, but that's a ways off, so of course, always looking for something of interest to keep occupied while teams I could care less about vie for the golden ticket. Fangraphs is always interesting, especially when it's talking about our A's -
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-problem-with-oakland/
Sure wish we had Ethier back instead of the forgettable memories of Mr. Bradley (I digress), but it's an interesting look at the draft(s) and comparisons between ours, and those of the Rockies and Devil Rays...
0 recs |
70 comments
Email
Print
Comments
wow...
I did not realize how bad the ’03 draft was.
The scouting director’s head should’ve rolled for that one.
"just a beating heart ... plasma that we'll put into our uniform." - Billy Beane
by athleticsBB4life on Oct 19, 2009 7:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Every team has a stinker once in a while
The Rockies, who he praised so effusively, picked #2 overall in 2006 and spent it on Greg Reynolds.
That draft looks like an utter bust at this point.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 19, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's convenient how quickly people act like the only Milton Bradley we got...
…was the disgruntled one who only played in 19 games in 2007 and not the one who did a pretty good job here in 2006 and was the only one to really produce in the ALCS.
Yes, Ethier has turned into a very solid player, but that’s the way it goes sometimes. Bradley was intended to help immediately while Ethier’s potential was more down the line, though most people probably didn’t see him getting to be this good. Both sides of the trade did all right in some ways, though Bradley’s typical flameout was disappointing after how much he seemed to feel like he’d found a home here after his first season.
I don’t even want to think about Antonio Perez.
Drafting has been pretty hit-or-miss for the A’s but is it really that much different for most teams? Colorado’s retention over the last few years is probably more the exception to the norm. In the early 2000s the A’s were in positions to trade some of their minor leaguers and fringe players for people to try to get over the hump in playoff pushes, but over the last few years it’s been the reverse of that as they’ve tried to restock the system through drafting and trades of people like Swisher, Haren, Blanton and even Street-to-Holliday. So far it looks like they’ve done a pretty good job of that, landing people like Carter, Cardenas and Wallace while drafting Cahill, Anderson and Mazzaro and Doolittle, among others.
When you’re good, you run the risk of depleting the system for immediate help toward winning that title. When you’re not so good, you’re the one trading an established player in the hope of getting some people who will bring a positive return within a few years. We can clearly see the A’s on both sides of that over the past decade.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Oct 19, 2009 8:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ya I don't have a great problem with trading Ethier even in hindsight. He's good, but if you
count defense, he’s not any better than Sweeney. The 2006 team wasn’t great, but it did get that first round monkey off our backs….and I really liked Milton that year. Signing him long term was never an option given his injury track record, no matter how much he liked it in Oakland at first.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 19, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brett was drafted by Arizona, no?
by bobnothing on Oct 19, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"drafting and trades"
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 19, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Nonetheless, it’s pretty hard to make the case that the A’s 2006-2008 drafts have been poorly conducted. They’ve gotten a lot of pretty good prospects out of them.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 19, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I put him in the wrong category
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Oct 19, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont want Ethier AT ALL
Give me an ALCS appearance anytime.
So sick of loser-mentality fans, you have to give up talent to get you over the line and thats what we did. Eithiers nothing special, he cant hit ANYWHERE other than LA for some reason and he’s a boring corner OF who are a dime a dozen, it would hurt more if he played 3B or SS.
by PL78 on Oct 19, 2009 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, it felt so good to get to the ALCS after 4 straight losses in the DS.
Too bad I can’t forget what happened in that ALCS.
Warriors, Stupidest franchise in the league.
I told Randolph that Bill Russell would tell him to keep that ball in play and start the break.
RANDOLPH: "I know. But sometimes, you gotta let ‘em know."
(MT)
by kenntoe on Oct 21, 2009 10:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A surprisingly uninformative look at the A's draft record
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 19, 2009 8:21 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs
That's exactly what I was thinking.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 19, 2009 8:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
That sounds like a really terrible book blurb.
“A surprisingly uninformative look at the A’s draft record.” — grover
“Pedestrian and jejune.” — RRS
“GYMNASTICS” — mikev
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Oct 19, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I said this on that thread, too, but
why would you look at a team that had a whole bunch of quantity draft picks but no quality and then complain that they’ve turned them into a whole bunch of quantity major leaguers but no quality?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 19, 2009 9:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I love
the smackdown courtesy of ANers, in the comments to that post.
by colin on Oct 19, 2009 10:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
AN brings the ruckus to the blogs
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Oct 19, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1 and rec'ed
if you brung it, you’d know you brung it
BK: This guy is on fire, he is really smokin'.
KenKo: Oh yeah, Bill? What's he smokin'?
by jlanning17 on Oct 20, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regarding the Bradley/Ethier deal
Everyone makes it seem like Bradley was the fuel driving our car to playoffs in 2006. Maybe I’m just forgetting a few key moments but anyone remember that little guy, Frank Thomas?
Anyways, Bradley appeared in 96 games, amassed 405 PA with an OPS+ of 114 and a WAR of 2.7. Very good numbers, but personally I think he gets a little too much credit for that playoff run.
Now, to contradict everything I just said, if I were Beane, I would have still done the deal. Look at that team’s outfield without Bradley:
Kielty, Payton, Swisher, Bocachica got a cup of coffee and I had no idea we even had Doug Clark. Not exactly a contender’s outfield, I’ll say i that way. Given that the A’s had several other OF prospects on the farm, the move was justifiable, defensible, you name it. I would have pulled the trigger as well. I’d just like to see The Big Hurt get a little more love for that 06 campaign.
Not just athletes, Athletics.
by Wiers103 on Oct 19, 2009 11:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
To me the key is that no one saw Ethier as a 30HR player
Had Beane assessed Ethier as such he might not have made that trade, but all indicators were that he would be a “nice hitter” — maybe .270/.340, 20HR — with meh defense, not a “premier slugger.” And I won’t be stunned if he soon regresses into what he was supposed to be.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 19, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...in the AL yeah
"The A's get some action but they do not score..." -Glen Kuiper
"Anyone who calls themselves the Angels Angels should have to start over and ride the short bus." -timmeh from McCovey Chronicles
by Cheezombie on Oct 19, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
that’s the killer right there; missed on the assessment of Ethier, and, I guess, not being able to crystal-ball Milton’s subsequent eruption the next season to the point of practically giving him away..
Ethier looking like what Milton coulda / shoulda been, without all the funk (and, I don’t mean funk that’s good to your earhole like T.O.P….)
Hindsight, but yeah, Big Hurt was as much a reason for the success as Bradley, and, being in Chicago, I’ve had enough of the Milton “my mom’s coming to my rescue” Bradley show….
Go PHILLIES!
"I saw a curveball, that’s about it," Rangers’ manager Ron Washington said. "You can’t take anything away from the kid; he went seven innings, but it wasn’t any shutout stuff." - Ron Washington on Gio's performance and the 7 k's.
by catfish hunter on Oct 19, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: give away
We had Bradley traded for Leo Nunez before he hurt himself in his one game back to the club. Leo Nunez ain’t Ethier, but we could have turned him into something useful (then again, the Royals turned him into Mike Jacobs. Trust the process).
by swatnick on Oct 20, 2009 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Bradley actually nixed that trade because he didn't want to play for the Royals
And getting a team Mike Jacobs is nothing to be proud of!
by DeJay on Oct 21, 2009 8:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn't nix it
but he pretended to be injured so he (I don’t recall) either failed his physical or didn’t bother showing up for it.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 21, 2009 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm...
It was a good 3 weeks until Bradley played for the Pads after reinjuring himself with the A’s, so if he were really faking, he was extremely committed. I don’t remember it ever being reported that he nixed the trade. And I think a non-DMGM could have gotten more for a cost-controlled reliever with Nunez’s track record.
by swatnick on Oct 21, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They dont let you look at the author's columns by title
I dont have the time to run through them all, but I bet if you did you’d find out this guy has a giant case of joemorganism flowing through his keyboard.
by PL78 on Oct 19, 2009 5:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No, actually, R.J. is usually a good analyst
On the other hand, he writes so many articles that he’s bound to produce the occasional stinker.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 19, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Milton Bradley was a total bust
Bradley played less than 100 regular season games his first year. His impact was small during the season. He had some sort of water problem in the dugout during the post-season, although he did hit well. Basically, he was poison to the chemistry of the team, which barely tolerated him. And he was out the following year. Would the A’s have made the playoffs without him? Yes.
By the way, I still have a Milton Bradley bobble head from an A’s promotion. I’m sure if I had my medical buddies do a scan of the head, it would come out way, way abnormal.
The analysis isn’t very good in Fangraphs, but you don’t need to be sophisticated to realize that Beane has had real trouble drafting high impact players since 2000. He’s drafted low in the order during much of that time, but still. He’s not finding the gems.
I was watching the Yankees-Angels game today and one thought that was on my mind was that the A’s are three to four offensive players short of having a reasonable chance of competing against either of these teams. Since the A’s don’t have money for talent via free agency (Abreu would have certainly been a better pickup than Holiday, though) they have to get it from their farm system. I don’t see that happening for another two to three years at least.
by rovingralph on Oct 19, 2009 6:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, they barely tolerated him.
I guess that’s why Bradley, Swisher, and Scutaro made up their own HR celebration.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 19, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoy the fact that Scutaro is now part of it
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Oct 20, 2009 1:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He kinda weaseled his way into it
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 20, 2009 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was that day where Bradley and Swisher were doing it like normal,
and then Scutaro kinda stood awkwardly to the side, half-assing it. You know that if Swisher saw Marco he would have absolutely invited him into the circle, but Scutaro just super-awkwardly sat in the back.
Good times.
Lay down, black gives way to blue.
Lay down, I'll remember you.
by danmerqury on Oct 20, 2009 8:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
First of all, it’s not so clear about the playoffs. The 2006 A’s finished four games ahead of the Angels. Fangraphs had him at 2.7 WAR. The precision of WAR doesn’t matter—without him, it at least would have been close.
And total bust? 96 games of .361 wOBA hitting is not a bust, in any meaning of the word. To argue that his value to the team was somehow negated because of being a “poison to the chemistry of the team” is ridiculous, and is entirely Fire Joe Morgan-worthy.
Lay down, black gives way to blue.
Lay down, I'll remember you.
by danmerqury on Oct 19, 2009 10:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But presumably the difference is not
Milton Bradley’s 2.7 WAR, but the difference between Milton’s 2.7 and whatever we’d have gotten out of whoever took those ABs instead. I’m not sure who that would have been (Kielty? Ethier?) but it was probably better than the 0.0 WAR of an actual “replacement player”.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 21, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kielty against righthanders was pretty damn horrible
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if he was below replacement in that scenario.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 21, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I assume he would have been platooned with someone.
Possibly Ethier.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 22, 2009 12:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would have been
either some other acquisition, since they felt like they needed an OF, hence the trade, or absent an acquisition some combination of Dan Johnson (moving Swisher to the OF), Kielty, and Ethier. So presumably they would have started the year with DJ, and then called up Ethier when they sent DJ down. Ethier hit well that year although his defense is a lot worse, so the total of those guys would probably not have been a whole lot less than the actual value of (milton+actual 2006 milton replacements.) Probably no more than 1 win, maybe less.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Oct 21, 2009 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Matt Holliday 2009: 5.6 WAR
Bobby Abreu 2009: 2.6 WAR
Oh, and Holliday underperformed and Abreu overperformed expectations. The Bradley trade was probably the trade that was met with the most optimism since I’ve been at AN. And rightly so. The A’s traded about their 5th best prospect (think Brown or Desme) for a guy who had proven to be a very good hitter when healthy who was a plus defender to boot.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Oct 20, 2009 2:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
relative to Abreu it was (Holliday-Cgon-Street-Smith-~3MM+(midseason trade value or draft picks), which sum is < Abreu. Also, Holliday didn’t underperform expectations.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Oct 20, 2009 8:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we had to trade players for holliday and pay him a ton of money
while we could have signed abreau as a FA. and how much did the angels pay him this year?
BK: This guy is on fire, he is really smokin'.
KenKo: Oh yeah, Bill? What's he smokin'?
by jlanning17 on Oct 20, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Never trade for a head case
There are guys you just don’t want in a clubhouse, no way, no how. Bradley is a negative no matter where he goes.
The best those people at Fangraphs can say is that WAR has a correlation of .81, which translates into an r2 of .64 which ain’t worth much. WAR is a very fuzzy statistic based on regression analysis. The world is full of false correlations. If you believe in the value of WAR, I have a bridge in NY I’d like to sell you.
by rovingralph on Oct 20, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
WAR is a very fuzzy statistic based on regression analysis.
It is not based on regression analysis.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Oct 20, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't the coefficients in the
FIP and wOBA formulas based on past data over the whole league?
If so, that’s a sort of regression. The players’ scores are not themselves regressed, but the decision on how to weight their various component counting stats is dependent on regression. Right?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 21, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fip is, since it's an artificial/arbitrary number (wasn't thinking about pitchers, and ideally you would't use fip for war)
wOBA isn’t a regression. The run values are either based on simulations or past data, yes (I’m not sure which it is… (simulations and real data give pretty much the exact same answer.) The relative values of the outcomes are different in different run environments, so I the wOBAs now in use are probably sim-based with some run environment assumed, or it might be based on the 1980-2000 run environment or something like that.) But in either case it just calculates the average change in run expectancy of each outcome, based on that data; there are no variables being compared, just adding and dividing stuff… Regression would be a much more blunt instrument.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
by mikeA on Oct 21, 2009 8:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The coefficients are from past data.
Both wOBA and FIP come from the same set of data. As TangoTiger explains in this article (go to the last table on the page), the coefficients used for the calculations of wOBA and FIP come from the data of all games played from 1974-1990. That’s a ridiculously large sample, somewhere in the neighborhood of 41,000+ games. More than enough so that the results are statistically significant.
The mechanics of FIP are better explained here, but essentially, the linear weights values used to calculate run expectancy for each event are where the coefficients come from for both wOBA and FIP. Neither are artificial/arbitrary.
Lay down, black gives way to blue.
Lay down, I'll remember you.
by danmerqury on Oct 21, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never meant to suggest they are arbitrary.
I just thought that using past data to establish the weights was exactly what “regression analysis” is, but perhaps I’m misunderstanding the latter term.
In any case, I don’t know why the other guy was using “regression analysis” as if it’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Oct 22, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel bad for people in The Iraq because they don't have maps.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 22, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, he's really not.
You think Texas didn’t like the 126 games of .999 OPS Bradley gave them in 2008? What matters is on-field production.
And yeah, like mikeA said, WAR isn’t fuzzy, and it’s not based on regression analysis. It’s just wOBA and UZR summed up, put on a wins scale.
Lay down, black gives way to blue.
Lay down, I'll remember you.
by danmerqury on Oct 20, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Texas let Bradley go after one year
They didn’t even finish above .500 that year. Milton Bradley is a cancer. No one keeps him. GMs look at his numbers and all that potential and they say, why not? Then after a year or less, they say, what was I thinking. In fantasy baseball, what matters is on-field production. In reality, baseball is about a lot more.
How do you go from OBA to wins? “To convert wOBA for a hitter into wins: (wOBA – .338) / 1.15 * 700 / 10.5 will give you wins above average. (The .338 is whatever the league average wOBA is, which is EXACTLY equal to whatever the league average OBP is; 1.15 is the relationship between wOBA and runs; 700 is the number of PA per 162 games; 10.5 is the relationship between runs and wins.”
Those coefficients are determined by ad hoc regression. WAR is just a fuzzy made up number. There is no way on earth to compute with any degree of certainty the exact number of wins an individual adds to a team. It’s just fantasy statistics. Reporting it to two significant digits is even more ridiculous.
In 1988, 1989, and 1990 the A’s went to the World Series and won once. A key player on those teams was Carney Lansford whose WAR stank in 1988 and 1990. Without him, they don’t get to the World Series in any of those years. WAR is just a fuzzy number designed for people who like to make too much of numbers.
by rovingralph on Oct 20, 2009 3:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, what?
So if you replaced Lansford with, say, Wade Boggs or Paul Molitor, they wouldn’t have gotten to the WS?
What are you even trying to say here?
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 20, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the Chewbacca Defense, WAR version
Just make up a bunch of irrelevant objections and hope people are confused enough to think the argument is a tie.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 20, 2009 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
IF CHEWBACCA LIVES ON ENDOR YOU MUST ACQUIT.
They call their best player "Kung Fu Panda" and they complain that people aren’t taking them or the game seriously enough? -Nick
by mikev on Oct 20, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Why was Carney Lansford a key player?
How is winning the game of baseball about anything but on the field production? I don’t believe it’s possible to will the ball over the outfield fence or inspire the umpire to declare that a strikeout is a triple (and even if it were, it would still count as on-field production).
Personally, baseball may mean a lot more than on-field production (and I have many cherished memories of the game both from winning and losing seasons), but last I checked winning is about scoring more than the other guy. In 1988 and 1990, Carney didn’t really do all that much to help the cause.
by eastbayexpat on Oct 20, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is the key point: Why?
You can make an argument based on r^2 values* and WAR if you want. But, you still need one more thing. You need something with a higher r^2 value. As of now, we’ve got a reasonable correlation, i.e. the best statistic we have, saying Carney was not that great.
Then we have you, rovingralph, telling Carney was a very good to great player. Why should we believe you over WAR? Do you have a higher r^2 correlation? Show me evidence that you have a better measure of skill than WAR.
On a side note what is the correlation to? Team WAR and team wins? WAR one year and the next year’s WAR?
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Oct 20, 2009 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Regression, shmegession
Look at the As record for 1988-1993 and plot wins versus the number of games Lansford played in each of those years. The correlation is 0.91. According to that regression Lansford is worth an extra 17.2 wins per 100 games played over that time period.
I don’t believe that number any more than I believe in WAR. Regression analysis can sometimes be useful. But in baseball it’s usually a stupid parlor trick. And that’s what WAR is. A stupid parlor trick.
Players win ball games. Teams win ball games. Numbers tell a part of the story, but they miss the essence. Otherwise you could just run a season on a laptop.
Would I rather have Carney Lansford over Paul Molitor at 3rd base? Yes, but only because Paul Molitor was really best as a DH. Would I rather have Carney Lansford over Wade Boggs? Without a doubt. I wouldn’t win in a fantasy game, but on a real field it would be a different story. Lansford was a leader.
Lots of guys put up numbers. You need those guys on a team. But without someone on the team to keep players focused, it just doesn’t happen. You can say the same thing about Paul O’Neill and the Yankees. There are players whose contributions are immense even if on paper they don’t look anywhere close to Hall of Famers.
Then there are guys who put up numbers, but who cares? They are head cases, dugout poison. Dick Allen. Dave Kingman. And dear old Milton Bradley.
by rovingralph on Oct 20, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
You think WAR is a parlor trick. Got it. Numbers don’t tell the whole story, but one’s eyes do. I guess we’ll have to disagree.
I can’t tell you who had the higher average between Kurt Suzuki and Ryan Sweeney or Adam Kennedy. And I watched almost all of their games. If I can’t tell something as simple as that, I doubt I could tell whether I’d rather have them or Kenji Johjima or Franklin Gutierrez or Jose Lopez. I simply haven’t seen the Mariners enough. The only reason I can tell you who had better seasons are their stats.
You think you can tell, not only who is better but who is more liked by their teammates? Who keeps their teammates focused? You must watch a ton more games than me.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Oct 20, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Morality doesn't really exist in baseball
Philanderers, racists, cheaters, and jerks alike, they’ve all been baseball champions and integral parts of championship teams.
If Pete Rose, Manny Ramirez, , and Roger Clemens can all lead their teams to victory in the World Series, it’s difficult for me to believe that being a “clubhouse poison” or having any other character flaw is really all that much of a limiting factor.
Conversely, the existence of players like Marco Scutaro (who I miss terribly) or his illustrious predecessor, Duane Kuiper, who remain World Series-less despite their upright standings and team first attitudes, chiefly because they just aren’t (weren’t) really all that good at baseball and add (added) strikingly little to their teams.
by eastbayexpat on Oct 20, 2009 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Morality doesn't exist I agree
But there are certain players who will suck a team dry emotionally. When they leave a team, everyone breathes a sigh of relief.
Pete Rose and Roger Clemens were players others wanted on their side. They were tough, incredibly fierce competitors with Hall of Fame talent.
A guy like Milton Bradley isn’t tough. He doesn’t have Hall of Fame talent. He’s one of the all-time head cases in MLB. He’s dead weight.
by rovingralph on Oct 21, 2009 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apparently you missed the 2006 season entirely
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Oct 21, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's only managed to win in 2006
because Bradley’s headcasiness was canceled out by Frank Thomas’s clubcancerousness.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
by Nick on Oct 21, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are we being trolled?
There’s no way that anyone could possibly break out this many platitudes all at once without some sort of prior plan. And I don’t recall ever having seen this guy before.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
by PaulThomas on Oct 20, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's fairly new and I'm not too impressed so far
Everyone knows I’m not as deep into certain stats as some people here are (and I’m not nearly as anti-stats like some think, I just pay more attention to different ones) but this guy’s pretty far out there.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
by Flashfire on Oct 21, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Man, I sure wish we hadn't...
done that Reggie for Don Baylor trade.
Boy, what were we thinking?
by sarchasmic on Oct 20, 2009 12:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sloppy analysis
1. Ignores the prospect trade market. Given that it’s an article about prospect evaluation, this is a critical oversight.
2. Ignores draft position (compares the A’s to Tampa bay for Christsake.) I’d imagine things would be different if we had had 8 top four draft positions since 1999. That’s right, since 1999 the Rays have had 4 #1 overall picks, 1 #2, 2 #3s and 1 #4. The A’s have had none.
In fact, the A’s havent had a top ten pick since 1999 when they took Barry Zito. The Rays have had 10 in the past 11 years. Even the rockies have had 7 top ten picks in the past 11 years.
It baffles me that people wonder why other teams have turned up more super stars in their drafts than the A’s.
3. Why is young player retention important? Seriously, why is that a criteria for good?
Given the high regard I have for RJ Anderson as a sabermetrician and a writer, I was surprised to see this article from him.
by eastbayexpat on Oct 20, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
