The Myth Of The 9 Hattebergs
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 8:56 AM PDT
in News
176 comments
When the A’s unveiled the shocking news that a lineup of 9 Scott Hattebergs would outscore the 1927 Yankees, cure leprosy, feed the world’s homeless, and likely make Scott Hatteberg rather wealthy if not a bit tired, this was a revolutionary concept. Hatteberg was not a household name, and yet due to his above-average ability not to make outs he became the poster boy for an idea that was truly ground-breaking. And not really true.
For the purposes of this post, a “Scott Hatteberg” is a .280 hitter with a .374 OBP and .433 slugging percentage, which is what Hatteberg produced in the 2002 season Moneyball references to claim a lineup of 9 Hattebergs would have outscored every team in the league that year.
It’s a cute concept, but here are the problems, as I see it, with the premise—and with the A’s offense, even today:
- 9 Hattebergs will go station-to-station most of the time, meaning that in any inning in which you do not get an extra-base hit you need three successful at-bats, before three outs, in order to score. But wait, they can’t come in just any sequence, because while BB, BB, single will probably score a run, BB, single, BB won’t. You actually need three successful at-bats in which the last one is a hit, and if you do the math you’ll find that .280 hitters who make outs 62.6% of the time will get a lot of runners on base, and will leave a lot of runners on base, but will not score that many runs. Sound familiar?
Now make Hatteberg fast, with the same stats, and you’re in business, because through steals and first-to-third jaunts you significantly increase the chance of scoring with just two “non out” at-bats, which dramatically increases your chances of scoring (the odds of two BBs or hits in an inning are far more than the odds of three BBs or hits in an inning —approximately twice as good, if my computations are correct).
- If your lineup is full of base-stealers, what happens when Mark Buehrle and his terrific pick-off move are on the mound? If your lineup is full of HR hitters, what happens when Brandon Webb and his power-sinker are on the mound?
A lineup of 9 Hattebergs will excel against “Hatteberg-friendly” pitchers (pitchers with spotty command, etc.), but will struggle against all “Hatteberg-unfriendly” pitchers, because a lineup of 9 Hattebergs has no Plan B to turn to against a Carlos Silva, who throws a ton of strikes, or a Derek Lowe, who doesn’t give up a lot of hits or walks but also cannot shut down the running game. This would lead to the team scoring a ton of runs occasionally but also getting shut down far too often. Sound familiar?
See, when your lineup includes a high-average hitter, a power hitter, a good contact hitter, a base-stealer, a patient hitter, and so on, you have a variety of weapons against a variety of pitchers, something a lineup of 9 clones can never provide.
This brings to me the 2007 Oakland A’s, whose lineup is eerily close to 9 Hattebergs. They have a Hatteberg protégé (Johnson), a hitter having a very Hatteberg-like season (Nick Swisher), a hitter who is Hatteberg with power (Cust), hitter who is Hatteberg with average (Stewart), a hitter who has regressed into a poor man’s Hatteberg (Chavez), a hitter (Ellis) whose average and power remind one of…Hatteberg…
Obviously, one of the 2007 A’s problems is that they aren’t hitting .280 as a team, aren’t reaching base at a .374 clip, and aren’t slugging .433. But I think that even if they were, they would find that without speed, without balance, without versatility, they would do a lot of what they’re doing a lot of now: getting guys on and getting guys over--but not getting them in.
0 recs |
176 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Anti-Moneyball Rant
While I agree that the inability to hit with runners in scoring position is maddening, I think that you aren't attacking the true problem with this offense. After reviewing the stats the A's had appx 1500 plate appearance with the following OBP:
Kotsay .299
Crosby .278
Kendall .261
Scutaro..305
Chavez...306
The 1927 Yankees would be dragged down by these type performances. The DJs and Stewarts of the world just don't have the ability to pull the dregs of this team.
I think it is imperative for 08 that the A's find a replacement for Kotsay, Crosby and Scutaro. The A's are stuck with Chavez and hopefully everyone could recalibrate their expectations(7th hitter with some pop and good but not great defense). I would love to see Murphy get the Scutaro role. He is younger, cheaper and provides more upside.
by DKNJ on Aug 3, 2007 9:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I realize that the comparison isn't apt,
DKNJ, because these A's don't have sufficiently Hatteberg-esque stats. But my real thesis is the claim that if all the players were hitting .280, with .374 OBPs, and had Hatteberg's speed and power, they would still be far from the top in run production because of the station-to-station problem (the need for too many "non outs" in an inning), and the inability to adjust to a high percentage of opposing pitchers.
That's really my point--that an offense with some Hattebergs in it does BETTER with a Figgins getting on base only 1/3 of the time but being a far more productive baserunner than with yet another Hatteberg protege "knowing the strike zone" and singling a fair (but not exceptional) amount of the time.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that is your point, you don't make it well
Because you put the "sabermetricians" on the defensive by making light of them by saying they have cute concepts.
You could have said, "While a 9 Hatteberg Offense would beat the 27 Yanks, perhaps, an 8 Hatteberg Offense with a Figgins at the top would beat them by even more".
This wouldn't start a flaming thread though and a straw man battle between two sides that don't really disagree but need something to do during a lame duck season.
Lame indeed.
by The Hypocrite on Aug 3, 2007 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chavez
Can we convince the Dodgers or Padres that Chavez just needs a change of scenery?
by Colorado Fan on Aug 3, 2007 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Send Chavez
to Chavez Ravine!!
by oaklandSMASH on Aug 3, 2007 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
great post
I agree, the A’s need more then "clone" players. Look at the Halos, I know we don’t want to, they are built really well. They have speed, guys who can handle the bat, and a power hitter who can take any pitch out (see last night). Once again the A’s can not get runners in from third with less then two outs, because they have the same "type" of player coming to the plate every time. Unlike some, I honestly believe the certain hitters are made for hitting people in, the last year proves the to be true, we have NONE of them. Swisher could be one if he was not busy trying to hit it out of the yard every at bat. Oh well, at least the serve beer at the games, I will have that to look forward to this weekend..
by Tankbark on Aug 3, 2007 9:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
They have a good farm system,
unlike us.
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They can scare us with the possibility of A-Rod
not like us
by oaklandSMASH on Aug 3, 2007 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The myth of the myth of the 9 Hattebergs
This is essentially the same post you made a couple of days ago. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. (And the rhetorical trick of suggesting that Stewart and Cust, two of the most dissimilar hitters I can imagine, are both just like Hatteberg, adds a level of absurdity to it.)
The problem with our offense has nothing to do with the type of hitters we have. It's actually much simpler than that. Our best hitters, whether they're the walks/strikeout/HRs types (Swisher, Cust, and when he's healthy Chavez), the high-average power-deprived types that you seem to covet (Stewart and Piazza), or something in between (Buck, Ellis) are merely decent. At best a little above average for their positions.
Meanwhile, our production from SS (a combined .219/.280/.340) catcher (combined .225/.276/.292), CF (.231/.299/.319) when Kotsay's there , and 3B when Scutaro (.240/.305/.341) is there would make both Bill James and Joe Morgan sick.
Five or six good-but-not-great hitters, plus three or four terrible ones is going to add up to terrible. No amount of magical clutchness is going to change that, nor is moving the runners. And pointing the finger at Cust and Swisher, who have been our most productive hitters by any standard, is liable to make things worse.
Just face it: a preference for speed over power, for Ichiro over Adam Dunn, is purely aesthetic.
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 9:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Honestly, I don't think you could have
missed my main points any more. If we had lots of speed but no power, I'd prefer power. I realize the "stat wonks" will never accept that a worse player that provides more balance and versatility can be more useful than a better player that provides more of what you already have, but that's why games aren't won and lost on paper.
Just curious, which player do you think would help this current A's lineup more if inserted the rest of the way:
Figgins, hitting .280 with a .333 OBP and 2 HRs, or Trot Nixon, hitting .260 with a .360 OBP and 5 HRs?
It's not a trick question; I'm just curious.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Call me a "stat wonk" if it makes you feel better
but I don't accept what you're saying because there's no real evidence that it's true (and plenty that it isn't).
To answer your question: the short answer is that, yes, strictly as a hitter in this lineup, I would take Nixon over Figgins (based on career numbers, or your hypotheticals) in a heartbeat. The longer answer is that there are several caveats unrelated to your point that might make me prefer Figgins as a complete player:
- Nixon is really a platoon player with huge L/R splits for his career.
- Figgins has a lot of defensive versatility (though he doesn't play any position particularly well), which certainly has value, especially on a team with chronically injured players at 3B and CF. I would love to have him instead of Scutaro.
- Nixon's power, which is a lot of his value, seems to be evaporating in the last couple of years.
And incidentally, calling Figgins "Scott Hatteberg with speed" would be a more apt comparison than some of the other ones you made.
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 10:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let me give the Cliff's Notes version
of my post:
- I am not suggesting that the current A's lineup is similar to a lineup of 9 2002 Hattebergs.
- I am suggesting that independent of the greater problem of not having enough hitting talent, the current A's lineup also lacks a range of talents--which could help to offset the talent deficiency.
- I am suggesting that a lineup of 9 Hattebergs would in fact be too dependent on having three successful ABs to score in an inning.
- I am suggesting that the A's organizational philosophy has the flaw of being designed apparently to score a fair number of runs but is designed, in fact, to leave a lot of runners on base (for reasons outlined in bullets 2 & 3).
- I am suggesting that Scott Hatteberg, if cloned enough, could cure leprosy.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Understood
But I still disagree, and believe your preference for speedy types is mostly aesthetic. Which is understandable; I probably wouldn't especially want to watch a lineup of 9 Hattebergs either.
If we want to be less reliant on long rallies to score runs, more power would be a greater help than more speed. To my eyes, Stewart and Piazza are walking advertisements for just how overrated batting average still is. The .300 averages are nice, but are offset by inadequate power for LF/DH, and I'd rather have Cust in there every day, strikeouts and all. Your eyes apparently see otherwise.
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'd like to see
Stewart, and Swisher and Cust, and Runny McSpeedster. I think Johnson is the epitome of redundancy, and that Swisher is the 1Bman the A's need, replaced by an OF who is a true lead-off hitter.
Give me a guy who turns singles into doubles, and goes first-to-third like clockwork, to balance the Stewarts and Custs, and I'm a happy man. Now we can beat more pitchers more consistently more ways, and our LOBs go down--because more of them get converted to runs.
Example of my frustration: We dealt a valuable commodity--a good starting pitcher--in Lilly and acquired a slow, patient, part-time player. For Lilly, we could have gotten a part-time player who was complementary, not redundant, with what we have ad nauseum. But we don't go after guys with speed if they lack the "requisite" knowledge of the strike zone, patience, etc. Except Payton--whom I think the A's miss, low OBP and all.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nico, I found the perfect player for you...
forget nine 2002 Hattebergs. How about cloning nine of this guy and putting that team on the field:
Hits Runs 2B 3B HR RBI SB AVG OBP SLG
133 67 21 7 16 61 27 .308 .371 .500
Your perfect combination of speed and power!!! Now, that team would outscore the 1927 Yanks, no doubt.
by FoolshGame22 on Aug 3, 2007 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming that's Byrnes
You'll have the catcher diving into the bullpen to catch foul balls.
by JediLeroy on Aug 3, 2007 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming that's Byrnes
You'll have the catcher taking circuitous routes to catch fastballs right down the middle.
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but, still catch them...
you see, or maybe you don't, Byrnes' Zone Rating has been better than Kotsay's the last two years. In other words, he's a better defender.
by FoolshGame22 on Aug 3, 2007 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
remember, if you get too Runny, then you have ...
... Nacho Runs.
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's
Nico...I like Figgins a lot more than Nixon. His SBs and overall baserunning give him a ton of value. To be fair though Figgins is probably one of the top 3 baserunners in the game(nice cherry picking for the argument). I see your overall point, but the A's would get a much better return by just getting rid of the garbage.
by DKNJ on Aug 3, 2007 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I chose Figgins because historically
he ISN'T a cherry-picking choice--over his career he has often not gotten on base that much and he doesn't have great power. (In 2006, he hit .267/.336/.376 for an OPS of .712).
This year he is hitting .335--who knew? Probably not 29 other teams who could have signed him pretty cheap--but historically one of his problems was that he was a great baserunner...when he got on base.
And I think he'd have a been a PERFECT fit for the A's, who need at least one guy like him in the lineup and who could use a guy capable of filling in at 3B and CF...
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem
is that you are comparing figgins in his best year against a washed up nixon. I guess my question to you is would you rather have Corey Patterson or Dave Dejesus.
by DKNJ on Aug 3, 2007 10:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I gave them hypothetical stats,
rather than say "2007 version," so that it would be fair. Juan Pierre might be the best example in that his OBP and slugging are putrid, but his speed is superlative.
Yeah, THAT'S the guy I should have used. Pierre. My bad, since Figgins is having a career year. If the A's could have Hatteberg or Pierre, who would help them score runs better within the context of this current A's lineup?
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rickey
Let's end this argument by bringing back Rickey Henderson.
by AlBowe on Aug 3, 2007 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better yet
Bring back nine Rickeys!
by iglew on Aug 3, 2007 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like speed, I like Ichiro!
Juan Pierre sucks. Speed is pointless if a player doesn't use it well. Unlike Ichiro, Juan Pierre makes a very large amount of outs. Compare Pierre's CS and GIDP with Ichiro's.
Over his career, Pierre has made 3473 outs in 4992 PAs, an average of 0.6957 outs per PA. Scott Hatteberg has made 3129 outs in 4714 PAs, an average of 0.66376 outs per PA. Pierre's career OPS+ is 84, Hatteberg's 101. This means that adjusted for park, Hatteberg's career OPS is 27% better than Pierre's. Despite this, he makes fewer outs per PA than Pierre.
For comparison, Ichiro! has made 3159 outs in 4926 PAs, an average of 0.641 outs per PA. Ichiro's career OPS+ is 120.
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with everything said here
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your last sentence is so misinformed
it's absurd. You can't state it in absolute terms like that. Ichiro is a much better lead off hitter than Adam Dunn. Put both Dunn and Ichiro in the A's and they score a lot more runs. There needs to be balance in an offense. You can't just throw out 9 Adam Dunns or 9 Jack Custs and expect to score runs. You will when a home run is hit, but won't other than that very often. There needs to be someone who can run the bases and all power and no speed will leave you with a poor offense, albeit probably better than the current A's offense. And besides, Cust and Dunn struggle at the corner outfield positions. I don't even want to imagine them trying to play center.
The preference for speed, at certain positions, is NOT purely aesthetic, it is the preference for an offense that scores runs. Curtis Granderson, for example, is a great hitter, in part, because of the stress his running puts on defenses. I don't see Jack Cust leading the league in triples any time soon.
by IndianaAsfan on Aug 3, 2007 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Granderson is a great hitter because he gets
on base a lot. Juan Pierre has a lot of speed, maybe we can get him on the A's cause he's so good at baseball!
by Dusty Baker on Aug 3, 2007 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
<trades jack cust
for scott podsednik>
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everything you say makes sense
until one actually starts thinking critically.
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 1:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
purely aesthetic
Some say they prefer speed over power, but would you choose the wind over the rainbow? For there can be no rainbow if there is not both rain and sun.
by iglew on Aug 3, 2007 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is that another crazy quote from Ichiro?
by Elvez on Aug 3, 2007 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ichiro! vs. Dunn
There was a discussion about the relative value of Ichiro's performance last season vs. Dunn's performance last season on BBTF recently.
The conclusion was that based on linear weights adjusted for park, combined with baserunning and defense, Ichiro! was clearly the better player. See posts 15, 22 & 40.
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but if i'm picking someone just on their offense,
it's Dunn every time.
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The conclusion was that
using park adjusted linear weights, even without taking into account defense and baserunning, Ichiro! was better.
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i suppose park effects nullify
advantages Dunn has with the bat overall.
still, Ichiro's a one of a kind player who can manage a .380-.400 BABIP fairly consistently. I'd like to see a comparison between someone like Placido Polanco and Dunn, or something similar.
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reading that seemed to indicate
that Ichiro is better just on offense. Plus, he's having a much better year this year than last year. I'd take Ichiro for offense.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"...would outscore the 1929 Yankees"
Sorry to be pedantic, but I think you mean the 1927 Yankees? The A's, in fact, outscored the Yanks in 1929, and some consider it to be the greatest offesive team in history. But most effete, eastern, Yankofiles still think the '27 Yanks were the greatest team ever all around. Not Sports Illustrated though:
http://dynamic.si.cnn.com/si_online/...
This is important, and should be better known around here.
by Filthyslurve on Aug 3, 2007 10:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I did mean 1927 and meant to correct it,
but forgot. The depression, great Yankees hitting team--easy to mix up if you equate the Yankees to depression, as I do.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats right baby...
and the greatest MLB dynasty of all time would be the Athletics of the 1970's, as many have said.
Add to that the facts that had Finley not dismantled the team, Boston and their 1975 season would not have happened (although, who cares, they lost anyway) and without Jackson and Hunter, the Yankees of 1977 & 78 wouldnt have happened (then we would not be subjected to this Bronx is Burning crap)
by tdwclark on Aug 3, 2007 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
useful to note
that the A's never actually "unveiled" the speculation... rather their revolutionary concept was revealed by Michael Lewis. It's funny because at that time it really was a myth, in the sense that it was a philosophy nearly completely ignored and /or denied by the insiders of baseball. It really was a key aspect of the building of what I think was a truly great club, at a budget price. With the publishing of the book, it became something that everyone but Joe Morgan had to pay attention to, and it also became the Achilles heel for the last generation of great A's teams- one which barely failed to achieve "immortality" in the playoffs.
by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 10:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thing is, if your Hattebergesque players
are Uber-Hatties, like Giambi, rather than Hatty-wannabies, like Johnson...here's a shock...You'll do better!
But if you take it to the extreme, and believe that a lineup of guys who all hit .280/.374/.433, with no speed on the bases (and I mean this far beyond "basestealing"), would lead the league in runs scored...I'm not buying.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hatteberg,
despite poor speed, was (and apparently still is) a very good baserunner at things like going from first to third on a single, and tagging from first to second on deep fly balls.
And, to be clear, I don't really believe that a team of 9 Hattebergs would lead the league in runs scored. And I doubt that Beane or DePodesta thought that either, regardless of what Michael Lewis said. But they would be better than you seem to think.
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i recall one game
not sure what year (maybe 2002?),,, I was at a game at the Coliseum against the Red Sox, and I was sitting next to a BoSox fan. When they announced the starting lineups, Hatteberg was hitting first for the A's. I turned to him, knowing he would remember Hat from his days as a catcher in Boston, and said "Did you ever think you'd see Scott Hatteberg hitting lead-off?" It was such a bizarre concept to him he just shook his head and laughingly wheezed out an emphatic "No!"
Batting him leadoff was a truly extreme example of the Hat experiment, but the truth is Hatteberg was a great OB guy, and a heads up, though not speedy, baserunner in his days with the A's.
by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right. And I'm not suggesting otherwise
It's not Hatteberg's fault that he can't go first to third on some basehits that Mike Cameron can speed to third on--Hatty maximizes what he has by being a smart baserunner, but has physical limitations. And a lineup with only players who had this limitation would suffer a station-to-station syndrome that you get with, say...Swisher, Cust, Johnson, Chavez, Kielty...lots of baserunners, lots of LOB...
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not arguing at all...
Nor do I agree with the Nine Hattys concept, though as a statistical model it was obviously a very useful measuring device for a poor team to glean some slight advantage.
by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
just like currently they use
Youkoulis (sp?)at leadoff...frickin red sox...if they win again, i will never watch baseball of any sort ever again
by tdwclark on Aug 3, 2007 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
Sooner or later the rest of the league would A) catch on and inflate the market price of these players, or B) the stats they put up will eventually take their payroll out of the organizations range...actually both did happen. "The book" was outdated the second it hit the news stands....besides the idea of the book is different from the example the book gives to explain that idea.
by Tankbark on Aug 3, 2007 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not sure
the book was outdated the second it hit the stands. You're certainly right that ultimately baseball would have been unable to ignore emerging measuring concepts, but as far as I know, few or none had stat guys on the payroll before the book was published. I think BB might have been a few more years ahead of the competition in this regard had the book not been published when it was.
But as BB will now point out, the point is moot. The Moneyball philosophy must ever change. It now becomes a question of figuring out what is the current (relief pitching?), and what will be the next (girl's softball pitchers?) undervalued commodity.
by Brian in 317 on Aug 3, 2007 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Next time the A's have a good season
we need to have Joe Morgan write a book about it. Or at least dictate a book to someone who can write.
by scromulus on Aug 3, 2007 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or "sign it" to someone who can speak eloquently
so they can dictate it to someone who can write.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This year it's over-ripened minor leage players
A la Travis Buck, Andrew Brown, etc
by GusanoQuemador on Aug 3, 2007 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
.433 isn't great...
but does that equate to a guy who hits basically nothing but singles?
by NicksDreamy on Aug 3, 2007 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
thank you
I've always been annoyed by the "nine Hattebergs" idea. Why would one want nine of any player, no matter how great? Baseball is a team sport and requires players with a diverse set of skills.
by OaklandSi on Aug 3, 2007 10:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Who do you pitch around?
No one! This is true for the hypothetical 9 2002 Hattebergs and the current line-up. When the opposition asks "who do we not let beat us?" the follow-up is probably silence or laughter. There is no challenging top or middle of the order that "softens" pitcher up for the bottom of the order. How is this for a line-up with a "a range of talents"
R. Henderson
Lansford
Canseco
Parker
D. Henderson
McGwire
Steinbach
Phillips
Weiss
By the time the pitcher get to 7-8-9 he feels like he has walked through a mine field.
by NoeValley on Aug 3, 2007 11:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
<drool>
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nah
Those guys are too old even for the Giants.
Except for Rickey.
by ArakSOT on Aug 3, 2007 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Though Carney is currently
healthier than Chavy, and Weiss could outhit Croz today.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
man, that was an awesome club
and thinking about losing TWICE in those three years just kills me. That club should have been another 3-time winner...god, I hate baseball. God, I want this team to win again!!!!!
by tdwclark on Aug 3, 2007 1:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The LaRussa myth
Even he couldn't screw up the '89 series. George Will, and others in the media, annointed him a genius. Recently, post ASG, the Boston Globe's Bob Ryan flamed TLR on ESPN's The Sports Reporters. He asked how baseball made it through the first 80 years of the 20th century without TLR's "genius." He did not just cite his not pinch hitting Puljos.
by NoeValley on Aug 3, 2007 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speed
Interesting post, Nico. A few thoughts:
- At times there's a need for speed. Consider Dave Roberts stealing second and coming around with the tying run for the Sox in 2004. Pure friggin' speed. I know that that's perhaps the exception to the rule, and there's a difference between a truly elite speedster and a guy who's "pretty good" at it, but the point is worth making.
- I'm sure someone has done this, so can anyone point me there: has anyone tried to quantify the effect that having an elite base stealer on has on a pitcher's performance? On the one hand, you have batter's giving up strikes by swinging at balls to "protect" the runner (I can't say that this one has ever made a lot of sense to me from a statistical standpoint), so that will likely improve the pitcher's stats. However, it's hard not to believe, having watched pitchers deal with Rickey or Coleman or Brock, that their heads aren't getting messed with in a serious way, and in a way that diminishes their ability to pitch. And of course there's the occasional wrongly called pitch-out to add to the hitter's count. So, anyone have any data on this issue?
- I like Nico's point about a certain diversity being necessary. Once you get a good control pitcher, then you really need some guys who can confidently whack the ball without having controlled the count. Orlando Cepeda and Vlad come to mind.
Good dialogue going on. Thanks.
by DiegoSegui on Aug 3, 2007 11:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't think "pitcher disruptedness"
has ever been quantified, and I don't know that it's quantifiable. Along with the variables you mention, there's also throwing more fastballs to give the catcher a better chance at the basestealer, and varying how long the pitcher stays set to throw off the runner's timing--but which also can throw off the pitcher's rhythm and concentration. Personally, I think it's significant but I'd be hard-pressed to prove it!
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
I'm not a stats guy, but some things that would be really interesting to look at:
-first rank runners based on either flat speed (easier done in football than baseball) or %bases stolen (w/ minimum attempts)
-correlate the fast or good base stealers w/ pitcher's BAA, walks allowed, ERA, inherited runners scored, etc
I also agree that having a speedy guy on base certainly disrupts the pitcher's rhythm and causes him to be more wild and hittable
by faninphilly on Aug 3, 2007 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
a little of subject, but relevant.
(Full disclosure: I'm an Angel fan/ Cal Bear with fondness and respect for the East Bay and the A's. So, no, I don't come to disrepect nor criticize. In fact, I wish the A's were having a better season. At the end of the day, win or lose, it's just baseball. Besides, I got over junior high a long time ago. Some people, I'm sorry to see, never did.)
How I wish the Angels sports blog were anywhere near the one you guys run. I try using it, but really it's painful to read such idiocy.
Here's an example, if you dare. I won't blame you, if you don't. Such 'incisive' commentary.
http://www.halosheaven.com/story/200...
What a sorry scene. But I always have been curious: Are the SB Nation blogs owned individually or by one person/entity?
Any response from the people in charge here would be greatly appreciated.
Whoever allowed that person who runs HH did a great disservice to Angel fans everywhere. Or maybe they thought someone choosing someone whose insight into baseball runs the gamut from A to B would be a cruel joke on us. If so, that's messed up.
Shouldn't their have been some sort of prerequisite for running a SN blog(in this case HH)? Maybe an IQ higher than the A's Team ERA?
The blog and it's posters are as good as Ruben Sierra was with the A's (i.e. it's really lame). Surely, we deserve better.
Anyway, hope you enjoy the rest of the series and season.
by calangel on Aug 3, 2007 11:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
One thing I like about AN
is that I think we tend to respect opposing fans--I really like having fans such as you come talk on AN, just as I like hearing from Graham, Deanna, Goose et al from Lookout Landing.
I'm not an expert on all things SB Nation, but I believe all the blogs are owned by one entity (Blez' group) and individually run kind of like a "franshise" is owned by a bigger corporation and individually run by the local franchisee.
Sadly, I believe the prerequisite for running a SN blog is only the A's average with RISP, so it's a pretty low standard. But Blez could answer all your queries far better than I can, so hopefully he'll pipe in at some point...
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you *just missed* a great neologism
... if only you'd mistyped "fanchise" ...
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a stat I want to throw out
without comment, i.e., I'm not suggesting any particular significance or insignificance, I think just it's interesting:
The 2007 A's batting average with RISP is .239. The 2007 A's on base percentage with RISP is .351.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 12:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
wow
I thought it was much lower--I guess it just seems that way when you fail to score the run form third with no outs.
by Tankbark on Aug 3, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they've either gotten better at RISP
or worse at getting on base
by OaklandSi on Aug 3, 2007 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
scratch that
I misread what you wrote. Somehow I thought the lower number was the A's hitting RISP in 2006, while the higher number was their hitting RISP in 2007.
by OaklandSi on Aug 3, 2007 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nine hattebergs
could do the new york times crossword puzzle in under a minute.
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 12:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nine hattebergs
could take Chuck Norris
by faninphilly on Aug 3, 2007 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
nine hattebergs
drinking 1 bottle of wine each would leave me with the last 3 bottles in the case
by NoeValley on Aug 3, 2007 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
which day?
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm on board...
and I hate to admit it, but the balance thing sounds more like LAA and BOS and their philosophy. The whole patience at the plate thing is obviously backfiring, especially when opposing pitchers know the game plan of the A's. They are throwing first pitch strikes and the A's keep taking, thereby many, many times getting into pitchers counts rather than the Moneyballesque/Hatteberesque hitters counts. The organization has failed to adjust...and this is above all a game of adjustments. No one illustrates this more than Chavez: 3-4 seasons agao, he was solid at waiting for his pitch (a la Giambi), and if he got it (or a mistake) he would drive it, either opposite field ot otherwise. Then opposing pitchers began making the adjustment of starting him off with a called 1st strike, or pitching something he would either swing and miss at, or pop-up, ground out, etc. (something he couldnt handle). Chavez failed to re-adjust and now he looks utterly lost almost every AB...no plan whatsoever and one of the most easily pitched guys in the league.
by tdwclark on Aug 3, 2007 12:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
the balance also helps
avoid hitting in to double plays, if this is correct, LAA has hit into 88 double plays, while we have 104. THe A's have 16 more, 32 outs made while losing 16 extra at bats. A philosophy that is built around not wasting outs and getting as many AB as it can, is losing those AB because of the double plays. The homers are ther, not as many, no one is on, but the doubles are not there (197 vs. 217) the long ball we have them on, but they produce more runs...back-to-back doubles score a run, better yet with LAA runner on first and second, a double is hit they score two runs, we might get Pizza home, but Cust falls over himself rounding third :)
by Tankbark on Aug 3, 2007 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LAA and Boston
have diametrically opposed offensive philosophies.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
The best lineups in the AL hands down are DET and LAA, they both can score runs in diffrent ways, BOS can be shut down. With LAA and DET you have to worry about more then one aspect of their game.
by Tankbark on Aug 3, 2007 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is getting ridiculous
the yankees have a bunch of patient a's/red sox type hitters, yet have scored the most runs in baseball this year, even if you think they can be shut down and the angels can't.
there have been some yankees and red sox teams over the last few years that have scored an obscene number of runs, no way can the angels offense be compared to either one.
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only nerds mesaure offense in terms of runs
I like real baseball people measure it in multiple ways to score and heart, which Oakland of course has none of.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 3, 2007 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is objectively false
Runs scored:
NYY
DET
PHI
CLE
BOS
LAA
OPS
NYY
PHI
DET
BOS
FLA
(LAA 12th)
Oh, and the A's are respectively 23rd and 23rd.
by PaulThomas on Aug 3, 2007 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hence the new strategy
It's harder to pitch to Chavvy when he's in the dugout.
by colin on Aug 3, 2007 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's also harder
But not much.
by oblique on Aug 3, 2007 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
A lineup of nine 2002 Hattebergs would score a ton of runs. They would leave a ton of guys on base, but all great offensive teams leave a ton of guys on base.
But Nico is right that some types of batters can help teams more than other types--even if they're of the same overall talent level. This is mostly true in terms of power and batting average--not speed.
To use an extreme example, adding a low-OBP slugger to a team that hits .200/.400/.200 will add a lot more than a similarly talented .200/.500/.200 hitter.
The studies I've seen have shown this effect to be very small in real life conditions. The A's lineup isn't actually all that unbalanced as it is.
by Danny on Aug 3, 2007 1:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that
Nico's mind is not amenable to being changed on these matters.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 1:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I suspect that your mind
is not amenable to being changed about my mind being changed. Etc...
Seems to me the A's need to do one of two things: Either spend a lot more money to add guys like Thome and keep guys like Giambi, rather than finding "poor man's" versions of them, or they need to adjust their philosophy to create balance and versatility to compensate for their lack of star-power.
As is, the A's offense is always among the league leaders in DPs and LOB, is not able to score very many runs consistently, and is always billed by management as "underperforming right now". It's not underperforming; it's flawed.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
personal preference
DPs can be helped with more fly ball hitters, but both (LOB more than DP) are byproducts of offense. As others have stated in this thread, the A's need guys at SS, CF, and (while Chavvy is hurt) 3B who can hit the ball hard.
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These things have known answers
that are freely available if you are interested. Many of the things you say have been completely refuted.
No one thinks the A's have a good lineup.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we *do* have a guy like Thome ...
... whose bad back causes him to miss a lot of time and thereby provide relatively low return on his contract.
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
He seems to be satified repeating platitudes rather than learning from posters here or studies done elsewhere.
by Danny on Aug 3, 2007 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nico can speak for himself
but I'd enjoy learning from the studies. Are there any you can link to?
by iglew on Aug 3, 2007 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Studies
There has been a lot of work on the value of stolen bases and baserunning in general. Here are a few: BP Basics, Value of Speed, Station to Station ball, and
Then there's the studies on
by Danny on Aug 3, 2007 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whoops
Then there are studies on Lineup Construction, Balanced Lineups (and again and again, ).
In other words, it's not really a big mystery how many runs Chone Figgins would add to the lineup instead of Hatteberg.
by Danny on Aug 3, 2007 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks, Danny
by iglew on Aug 3, 2007 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do GIDP affect the threshold at which SB% has
a net positive effect for an offense? My understanding (and I may be totally wrong) is that a team has to have a success rate of at least 70% for stealing bases to be worthwhile. However, if your team is setting records for GIDP (a la 2006) would the threshold for SB% having an overall positive effect on the offense not be a bit lower, and wouldn't it be worth trying a bit more even if it means getting caught a bit more? Is there anyone more statistically inclined than myself who can speak to this topic?
by scromulus on Aug 3, 2007 2:00 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I would guess that the 70% stat
is non-specific, i.e. an overall average. But since you shouldn't send guys randomly--you should be more inclined to send them with a DP hitter up or with two out and a singles hitter up--the threshhold might get lowered by each legimiate consideration.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BB WAS ON ESPN RADIO AND SAYS CHAVY TO THE DL
by Hawk on Aug 3, 2007 2:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
HOW WILL WE BE ABLE TO TELL?
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is this BB guy, I won't believe it until I
see a diary from OaklandA23.
by theblackpearl on Aug 3, 2007 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
?? not like he has been in there lately anyway
by Hawk on Aug 3, 2007 2:46 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lets hope Barton, but u know Furmaniak is it
or maybe Flores??
by Hawk on Aug 3, 2007 2:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe BoCro goes 60 day DL and
both Barton and Furmaniak get the nod w/ Chavy to the DL as well
by Hawk on Aug 3, 2007 2:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What about Petit?
Isn't he a third baseman and BB likes him, no?
by A'sfansince1970 on Aug 3, 2007 2:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Press Release
by alamedagirl on Aug 3, 2007 2:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm pulling for Lou Merloni
basically just because I like saying "Lou Merloni."
by PaulThomas on Aug 3, 2007 2:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice write up Nico
A long time ago when I first discovered Bill James in his classic series of Baseball Abstracts he posed the question, who was more valuable to their teams, Pete Rose, or Mike Schmidt? To me the answer was simple or so I thought, clearly Pete Rose, .300 plus hitter, speed, etc. After all, in my opinion, what was Mike Schmidt but a guy who hit a lot of HR's but struck out a lot (I hate guys who strike out a lot) with an average that barely topping .250. In fact, if my memory is correct James centered on one year where Rose hit .340 or so, and Schmidt .240 or so with 40 HR's.
James concluded that Schmidt was far more valuable to the Phils than Rose was to the Reds, not because one team was better but that his production is more meaningful than just a BA. As in all things Bill James his arguments were so persuasive that I came away agreeing with him, that is essentially your question in this piece. I'll take the '27 Yankees.
by china bob on Aug 3, 2007 2:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think,
moreso than debating lineup preferences and the merits of Scott Hatteberg, we should be pointing out that Billy Beane ultimately put together a bad lineup that was also injury prone, and then on top of that stuck with the likes of Crosby and Kendall and Kotsay for far too long, while also doing stupid things like seeing if Piazza could catch and not DLing Chavez forever.
I don't know why people are so averse to admitting it, but Billy Beane did a resoundingly bad job with this season. That doesn't mean he's a bad GM, or not a great GM, or that we can't recover and be good next year. It just means he did a bad job.
The question is, will Beane learn from his mistakes, or will Bobby Crosby be back out there getting yet another chance to prove he can hit or will Mark Kotsay be out there for God knows why come 2008?
by walk off bunt on Aug 3, 2007 3:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
bad job, based on the RESULTS
but we CAN all admit he took a lot of risks by depending on injury prone players and a few players of questionable talent (and some who fit into both categories, like kotsay and crosby).
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but Beane is considered
a genius based on his RESULTS. If he is going to be crowned with laurels when his decisions turn out well, he should also be criticized when they don't turn out so well.
If his gambles on Kotsay and Crosby had worked, he would be hailed as a brilliant genius, regardless of the fact that relying on them was extremely risky.
If Chavez had become the MVP caliber player we all wish that he had, Beane is a genius.
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
beane may be considered a genius
by some based on RESULTS, but maybe he is considered a genius by others based on PROCESS?
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure
In that case, what makes him different from any other genius GM? What makes his PROCESS better than John Schuerholz's? Or Terry Ryan's? Or Theo Epstein's? Aesthetics?
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's not so different than them
They are all great GMs based on process.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not just aesthetes -- aesthetics
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
who is saying those are bad GMs?
in fact, even if we declare GMs to be geniuses based on RESULTS, how does that "make him different from any other genius GM" like scheurholz, ryan, and epstein??
have beane's teams had any more success than those three GMs that i'm not aware of for some reason?
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
IMO, it doesn't make him any different or better
But how often do you see Terry Ryan called a genius? Or the Angels FO?
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i thought this article on Catfish Stew
was a particularly good explanation for Piazza's extended DL stint.
http://catfishstew.baseballtoaster.c...
Basically, the time spent on the DL should allow him to qualify as a catcher when he hits free agency, giving him at least type B status and us a supplemental pick for him when he leaves.
I'm starting to think that, because of their apparent policy against signing at above slot prices and the new CBA rules, the A's will go after more type B free agent players and try to load up on draft picks in their budget range, hoping that abundance will offset the top picks other teams sign.
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow.
That's genius -- genius of Beane (if true) and genius of Arneson to figger it out (even if not true).
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's what i thought
surprised it didn't really make the rounds here.
if that month of frustration nets a draft pick, i can understand the move.
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
beane a genius?
impossible
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 3:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also genius of Arneson
to figure out the new CBA rules.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting article
it does make some sense, and the only plausible explanation for Piazza not being brought back earlier other than the fact it was obvious BB gave up on this season long before he admitted it.
by china bob on Aug 3, 2007 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would giving up on a season
make you not play your players?
Even playing along with this notion (which I find bizarre to begin with), the move still doesn't make sense. It's not like you save money when a guy's on the DL.
Beane kept Piazza on the DL so that he could give Cust playing time. And, I suppose, so that Piazza would qualify as a C.
by PaulThomas on Aug 3, 2007 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, genius
But wouldn't it be simpler to just have Piazza catch? Since Kendall sucked anyways.
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He couldn't because Piazza literally can't throw
Which was as apparent then as it is now, meaning the whole thing was a charade, "genius" or not.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if this game of charades gets us a pick
i'm playing that game.
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"3 syllables...
...Sounds like...a pie, no...ok, you're eating something...not dessert, dinner...round...Pizza! Sounds like "pizza"...Baseball player...
PIAZZA!!!
That was fun.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If he could catch, he would've.
But he couldn't, so he didn't.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 3, 2007 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe if Piazza was fast enough ...
... to run the ball to 2B to catch basestealers.
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe if Piazza was fast enough ...
... to run the ball to 2B to catch basestealers.I
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Professional Takers not Professional Hitters
The problem with too many of the A's hitters is that they are passive rather than aggressive hitters and don’t develop good bat control. They are good at waiting for the right pitch to hit rather than swinging at the pitcher's pitch. However, this present lot is poor at doing something productive with that pitch. They are amateur hitters.
How many times this year have the A's had:
A runner on 2nd and no outs that never gets moved.
A runner on 3rd and no outs/one out that does not score.
To add insult to injury, often the hitter's non productive swings occur when they are ahead in the count via their patient approach.
When the A's need a sacrifice fly, a ground ball to the right side or simply to make contact and hit a routine ground ball to score a run, they often strike out, pop out, hit shallow fly balls or weak ground ball to the pitcher, 1st or 3rd base. Even the broadcasters are laud every occasion of an A’s "productive out" because it is so rare. Good or even average teams score runs with outs and the A's do not make contact or have the bat control to drive in those runs. Routine hitting would net the A’s 1-2 more runs a game, often the difference when a team has a good pitching staff.
by scarr1 on Aug 3, 2007 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The A's are 4th in the AL is sac flies
Productive outs are basically worthless.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
more accurate
is "meaningless" not worthless.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sacrifice flies are important
Without them, sacrifice frogs would starve.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about sacrificial lambs?
How many of those do the A's have? Let's see... Kotsay, Crosby, Kennedy, ...
by Wolverine on Aug 3, 2007 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they can get the guy to third with
a sac fly, but then the next 2 strike out, so he is left at 3rd. The A;s just can't get 2 productive outs in a row.
by theblackpearl on Aug 3, 2007 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 productive outs in a row
accounts for a miniscule percentage of runs scored league wide. Sure, it is nice when it happens, but it is not an important part of any team's offense.
If you're a lh batter with a runner on second and no outs and you get an outside pitch, you should try to take it to left for a base hit instead of rolling over an grounding it to the right to advance the runner.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but if you are a lh with a runner on 3rd, and
1 out, because the previous hitter hit a drive to the wall for a sac fly, you might want to try to hit it to the right side, instead of swinging out of your shoes and walking back to the dugout after a strikeout.
by theblackpearl on Aug 3, 2007 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure
my real point is that that phenomenon is trivially small part of the A's offensive struggles. A much much much bigger problem is is too few productive hits.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not going to look it up, but guess that
something that simple would have netted the A's 25 extra runs this year.
by theblackpearl on Aug 3, 2007 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
25 extra runs is about 3 wins
optimistically.
by rfloh on Aug 3, 2007 11:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A sacrifice fly
is a fly out that scores a run. You don't get credited with one for advancing a runner to third (unlike sac bunts).
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think a perfect example of the problem
was when Swisher (twice I think in the same game) took a called third strike, up in the zone around the outside corner, with a runner at third and one out, and then argued the call. That was a time not to take, and argue the injustice because it might have been touch outside; it was a time to send the pitch to LF for a sac fly, protecting the plate and getting the run home at the same time.
It's not always a bad thing to expand the strike zone--guys like Payton, and Pudge (who's a bit extreme for my taste), and even Ichiro demonstrate this. I won't mention Vlad because he's not human.
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Might want to run some numbers before you type
1.5 runs more per game and the A's would have 630 runs, putting them right in front of the yankees as the best offense in baseball. There's no way in hell if the A's players were "Routine hitting" regularly that they'd be the best offense in baseball. Its an stupid notion.
But oh my god, the broadcasters say it, it must be true. Its not that broadcasters like Joe Morgan, Steve Philips, and Dusty Baker (Hey wait, what the hell?!?) are routinely criticized for being idiots (www.firejoemorgan.com) because they go with one anecdotal piece of evidence they like to see instead of actual numbers like the A's are 9th this year in MLB in sac flies to support their claims.
by Dusty Baker on Aug 3, 2007 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a number for ya, Dusty:
170 is not a pitch count!!!
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Esteban wants to know
if it's a speed limit.
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've noticed
that lots of people just have no idea of how small the difference is between the best and worst teams, or of the capacity of one player to change that. They make these grandiose claims like:
- The manager's batting order is going to cost us 15 wins this year!
- The centerfielder saves 1-2 runs per game with his defense (compared to other major league centerfielders)!
- The catcher's game-calling takes more than a run off the team's ERA!
and now
- better "fundamentals" would have this team scoring 1-2 more runs per game!
In reality, 150 runs(or 15 wins) is about the difference between Barry Bonds at his peak, and Marco Scutaro. On a team level, it's the difference between the Yankees' offense and the Royals'. And there's a reason you don't see teams paying their defense-first CF or their manager $25 million/year. (Excepting you, of course Dusty. You're worth your weight in gold.)
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but when you are in the middle like the A's, not
at the bottom like the Royals, those 15 wins are the difference between golf, and playoffs.
by theblackpearl on Aug 3, 2007 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way to miss the point completely
Yes, 15 wins is HUGE. For any team.
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the point was that
Bonds should be our utility infielder next year.
by mikeA on Aug 3, 2007 4:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
so you're saying
if bonds signs with the royals next year, we should see if they'll let us trade scutaro for him?
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
with this A's lineup ...
... shouldn't it be "The Thwing and Myth Of The 9 Hattebergth"?
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 4:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The main cog we're missing in the lineup is the
complete hitter.
We have enough skilled 'half' hitters, but none of them are really the full package. We have guys that are tough to strike out (Kotsay, Stewart, Scoot to some extent) and guys that have decent-good power (Cust, Chavvy, Buck, Swisher) but we don't have anyone who is above average in both categories (Vlad, Sheff, Carlos Lee). Those are the guys who are tough to pitch to in RISP situations and make up for 1 or 2 holes in a lineup.
Truth is, guys like that are usually expensive, and you don't need one of those guys if you have good pitching, good defense, and a balanced lineup. But we can't suffer bad hitters like Kendall (thank goodness that's over), Crosby, and (maybe) Kotsay and expect to compete.
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 4:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
usually expensive, or ...
... injury-prone and temperamental.
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we're talking about Sheff and not Bradley, right?
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don't know about 9 hattebergs
but right now i'd be happy with just one playing for the A's. .306/.402/.871 looks better than pretty much the entire lineup of the current A's.
the only player with a better OPS is Cust, and nobody has a better average or OB%.
by cvdoug on Aug 3, 2007 4:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
But those would be 9 NL Hattebergs, not AL
Hattebergs.
by theblackpearl on Aug 3, 2007 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I had a whole long rebuttal lined up here
but I accidentally deleted it, so I'll confine myself to a few key points.
1st-- Hatteberg is as bad an example of "the current problem" as you could possibly choose. Know why? Because he is a great two-strike hitter and adept at fouling pitches off. He's not a Cust, who will (most of the time) ultimately lose if you throw enough strikes to him and don't groove a pitch. If anything, the A's need to be MORE like Hatteberg and my new poster boy for "bat control," Placido Polanco.
2nd-- the difference between the .807 OPS Hatty put up in '02 and the A's current .733 is roughly the difference between this year's New York Yankees and Houston Astros. This massive differential utterly dwarfs any putative impacts of "lineup diversity." The A's can't score runs because they can't hit. This is not brain surgery here.
3rd-- Speed doesn't work like the SLG/OBP tradeoff where having a mixture of both is somewhat better than having a massive weighting to one or the other. With speed, there are actually increasing returns to scale, as your base stealers never find themselves stuck behind slowfooted types. If speed is overvalued in the marketplace (and it is), buying just a little of it will not make your team disproportionately better, the way buying just a little power would make a team which is all about OBP better.
4th-- It's useful to have a diverse bench so that when the time comes, you can select the player who most fits the situation (whether you need a pinch-runner, power, a guy to get on base, or whatever). But having a diverse lineup is far less useful because you can't ever select the situation. You may hope that a fast guy gets on base instead of a power hitter, but there's no way to stop the reverse from happening. (Caveat: to some extent this is not true of the first inning.)
In a given game, a diverse lineup may well be better than a lineup heavy in, say, power hitters, because Derek Lowe is on the mound. Over a season, though, you're better off just maximizing your offensive potential.
by PaulThomas on Aug 3, 2007 4:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Looking at your last paragraph,
the question then becomes, are the majority of the league's pitchers composed of "the norm" or "the sum of all the exceptions"? Hmm...<ponders>...
by Nico on Aug 3, 2007 4:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sure, most guys have ERAs over 4.50
by rebus on Aug 3, 2007 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Speaking of aggressive baserunning
(and Adam Dunn), here is a play I'd love to see. Brandon Phillips was on first, with Adam Dunn at the plate and the defense overshifted, with no one covering third:
by andeux on Aug 3, 2007 5:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ichiro would've hit a triple
by xbhaskarx on Aug 3, 2007 5:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now, if only the A's had some hitters
who were actually powerful enough to put the shift on...
by PaulThomas on Aug 3, 2007 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kendall would've found a way to GIDP
by monkeyball on Aug 3, 2007 6:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Myth of 9 Hattebergs...(2007 version)
9 of this year's hattebergs would dominate the league! I know, I know, its the national league, but still, The Pickin' Machine is raging down in Cinci:
.306/.408/.469....I'd even put hatteberg in LF if he could hit like that in Oakland.
by SwisherSweet on Aug 3, 2007 8:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
as long as the 9 Hattebergs...
played all their games in Cinci, you'd be right:
AVG OBP SLG OPS
Home: .382 .457 .604 1.061
Away: .227 .348 .341 .689
If they played all their games away, not so much. Can you say "park advantage?"
by FoolshGame22 on Aug 4, 2007 12:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a good entry...
...without disrespect to Nico, I did not like this post one bit. I hate to sound like a "Moneyball Beater" (I actually, in fact, did not like a lot of the book and felt it was exaggerated), but OBP was, and continues to be, the best indicator of offense success. The differences between the fastest runners and slowest is not nearly as grand as the differences between the best and worse OBP guys. I remember hearing about a study that indicated that simply batting players 1-9 in order of their OBP would achieve the greatest output for an offense. NO STATISTIC, IS MORE IMPORTANT TO OBP IN OFFENSIVE PRODUCTION. Power (slugging %) I believe came in second in the study, but even that was 4 times less important than OBP.
Sure it would be nice if the Dan Johnson and Jack Cust could run a 4.2 40yrd dash, but they can't. Power hitters with speed are rare and expensive. Perhaps Soriano and Bonds in his prime are the only recent examples of top notch in steals and power.
And the bottom line is that even to this day, fast guys get way too much money. Juan Pierre (perhaps sabrmetricly the least valuable position player in baseball) got 45 million dollars for one reason: he's fast. He can't hit for power, he cant throw, he can't get on base, but he's fast so he got paid long term. I would hate to see the A's do shit like that.
I think the dumbest line of all was this:
"Now make Hatteberg fast, with the same stats, and you’re in business, because through steals and first-to-third jaunts you significantly increase the chance of scoring with just two "non out" at-bats"
Yeah, and Hatteberg would probably be making 15 million dollars a year playing outfield or something in Boston, never having the chance to come to Oakland...
by Travis Buck Nuckin on Aug 4, 2007 1:16 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.
