Post by: Arky Vaughan on October 26, 2006, 02:53:35 pm
Total Bases .666Here's the same statistics correlate with runs scored:
Extra Bases .654
Home Runs .608
Hits + Walks .421
Hits .352
Walks .210
Doubles .149
Total Bases .746This sample size is small (280), is confined to the big RBI men and does not take into account opportunities.
Hits + Walks .719
Extra Bases .649
Home Runs .523
Hits .499
Walks .433
Doubles .288
Post by: Alkie on October 26, 2006, 04:24:11 pm
League rank in runs scored to league rank in standings - .614
League rank in fewest opponents runs to rank in standings - .691
Pitching and defense correlate more with WINS than offense. Shocking.
Post by: Froback on October 26, 2006, 04:55:33 pm
I am going to limit it to 3 areas that seem big in both cats: Total Bases, Hits+Walks and Extra base hits (HRs left out because somewhat redundant in all these), and I will list 3 year ave (04-06), pro-rated to 162 games in ()s.
Total Bases:
Soriano:327.3 (345.8)
Lee:316 (322.6)
Dunn:297 (300)
Wells:290.3 (317.8)
Hits+Walks:
Dunn: 250 (252.7)
Lee: 233.3 (238.2)
Soriano:217.7 (230)
Wells:216.7 (237.2)
Extra Base Hits:
Soriano: 78 (82.4)
Dunn: 73.7 (74.4)
Lee: 72 (73.7)
Wells: 65.7 (71.9)
Games played:
Dunn: 160.3
Lee: 158.7
Soriano: 153.3
Wells: 148 (04 only 134)
Just to give some local perspective here is Berkman, pro-rated:
TB:323.3
H+W:289.7
XBH:75.2
This leads me to believe that Lee would be just as good as Berkman at driving in runs, but not nearly as good at scoring them (thus Berkman #3 and Lee #4), but the best overall guy to get is Soriano.
That being said, Wells gives the best defense (by far) of those listed, but I am a little surprised he didn't stack up better in he Run Scoring indicator of H+W.
Dunn looks like he might be best suited in the 2-hole, not the 4 hole, even with all that power. He looks like he sets the table more than he drives it in (again based on Arky's comparisson numbers).
Just more food for thought!
Post by: Lefty on October 26, 2006, 05:28:14 pm
Quote:
Dunn looks like he might be best suited in the 2-hole, not the 4 hole, even with all that power.
That's exactly where he's put up his best numbers.
Post by: Gizzmonic on October 26, 2006, 05:41:27 pm
Can we get into that "ideal #2 hitter" question again? That's fun!
Post by: Froback on October 26, 2006, 06:23:50 pm
Post by: Ankh on October 26, 2006, 06:48:17 pm
Quote:
Pitching and defense correlate more with WINS than offense. Shocking.
Uhh, this is basic Sabremetrics, as can be seen from the so-called "Pythagorean" Theorem.
A team that scores an average of 2 runs per game, but allows only 1 run per game will have a winning percentage of .800. The team that averages 6 runs per game, but allows 5 runs per game will have a winning percentage of .590.
Any sabremetrician worth his salt would sacrifice "runs scored" for an equivalent decrease in "runs allowed".
Post by: pravata on October 26, 2006, 06:52:05 pm
Quote:
Any sabremetrician worth his salt would sacrifice "runs scored" for an equivalent decrease in "runs allowed".
Then they should especially appreciate Adam Everett.
Post by: Alkie on October 26, 2006, 07:14:41 pm
Quote:Quote:
Pitching and defense correlate more with WINS than offense. Shocking.
Uhh, this is basic Sabremetrics, as can be seen from the so-called "Pythagorean" Theorem.
A team that scores an average of 2 runs per game, but allows only 1 run per game will have a winning percentage of .800. The team that averages 6 runs per game, but allows 5 runs per game will have a winning percentage of .590.
Any sabremetrician worth his salt would sacrifice "runs scored" for an equivalent decrease in "runs allowed".
For some reason, you're telling me this as if *I* was surprised by it. I've been saying this as long as you people have known me.
Post by: Foghorn on October 26, 2006, 07:33:11 pm
Quote:Quote:
Pitching and defense correlate more with WINS than offense. Shocking.
Uhh, this is basic Sabremetrics, as can be seen from the so-called "Pythagorean" Theorem.
A team that scores an average of 2 runs per game, but allows only 1 run per game will have a winning percentage of .800. The team that averages 6 runs per game, but allows 5 runs per game will have a winning percentage of .590.
Any sabremetrician worth his salt would sacrifice "runs scored" for an equivalent decrease in "runs allowed".
In example #1 the team scores twice as many runs as it allows. In example #2 the teams scores 20% more runs than it allows. Given that, of course the prefernce is to have a 2 to 1 ratio.
You want to maximize that ratio between runs scored and runs allowed. Not the absolute difference between runs scored and runs allowed.
Post by: Ankh on October 26, 2006, 07:45:44 pm
Quote:
You want to maximize that ratio between runs scored and runs allowed. Not the absolute difference between runs scored and runs allowed.
Preaching to the choir, man.
that's why you'd be willing to sacrifice offense for equivalent defense - it improves the ratio every time.
Post by: Foghorn on October 27, 2006, 02:38:42 am
Quote:Quote:
You want to maximize that ratio between runs scored and runs allowed. Not the absolute difference between runs scored and runs allowed.
Preaching to the choir, man.
that's why you'd be willing to sacrifice offense for equivalent defense - it improves the ratio every time.
No it doesn't.
Say you score (on average) 3 runs a game. You allow 5 runs a game.
Your pythagorean winning % is 26.4%.
You have 2 options:
(A) score 1 more run per game while keeping runs allowed constant
or
(B) score the same number of runs but allow one less per game.
You are saying that option B is always better, and in this case it is not. In this case the winning % is better if you add 1 run of offense rather than subtracting 1 run allowed.
OPtion A--score 4 runs a game and allow 5--win % of 39%
Option B--score 3 runs and allow 4 --win % of 36%
Post by: VirtualBob on October 27, 2006, 11:00:36 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
You want to maximize that ratio between runs scored and runs allowed. Not the absolute difference between runs scored and runs allowed.
Preaching to the choir, man.
that's why you'd be willing to sacrifice offense for equivalent defense - it improves the ratio every time.
No it doesn't.
Say you score (on average) 3 runs a game. You allow 5 runs a game.
Your pythagorean winning % is 26.4%.
You have 2 options:
(A) score 1 more run per game while keeping runs allowed constant
or
(B) score the same number of runs but allow one less per game.
You are saying that option B is always better, and in this case it is not. In this case the winning % is better if you add 1 run of offense rather than subtracting 1 run allowed.
OPtion A--score 4 runs a game and allow 5--win % of 39%
Option B--score 3 runs and allow 4 --win % of 36%
All of which illustrates the foolishness of blindly applying statistical formulae. By this reasoning, good teams (i.e. those that win, which typically involves scoring more runs than the opponents) always need to sacrifice hitting to improve pitching if they want to get better, while bad teams always need to do the reverse. An unlikely conclusion.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on October 27, 2006, 11:01:15 am
Quote:
This leads me to believe that Lee would be just as good as Berkman at driving in runs, but not nearly as good at scoring them (thus Berkman #3 and Lee #4), but the best overall guy to get is Soriano.
That being said, Wells gives the best defense (by far) of those listed, but I am a little surprised he didn't stack up better in he Run Scoring indicator of H+W.
Dunn looks like he might be best suited in the 2-hole, not the 4 hole, even with all that power. He looks like he sets the table more than he drives it in (again based on Arky's comparisson numbers).
Just more food for thought!
Careful there. It's one thing to indicate which stats have the highest correlation. It's another thing to apply them to individuals without adjusting for rates and opportunities.
Post by: MusicMan on October 27, 2006, 11:25:10 am
Post by: Bench on October 27, 2006, 11:29:57 am
Quote:
In other words, if you're a shitty team, adding bats will do wonders to pull you towards .500, but pitching and defense will put you over the top.
A little defense would have gone a long way in the Tigers' World Series bid so far.
Do AL pitchers have designated fielders as well?
Post by: VirtualBob on October 27, 2006, 11:30:41 am
Quote:
In other words, if you're a shitty team, adding bats will do wonders to pull you towards .500, but pitching and defense will put you over the top.
Not quite. The statistical formula argues that you ALWAYS need to trade a run of pitching/defense prevention for a run of offense cure until you reach .500 (assuming, of course, that you are attempting to get a little more than a run in return through shrewd dealingt) at which point you immediately need to reverse all those trades (again attempting to give slightly less than you get) if you want to continue to move up the ladder. It is never a good move to give up offense for defense if you are below .500 and never a good idea to give up defense for offense if you are above .500 (always eliminating cases where the other guy is an idiot who gives you substantially more in return than you are offering.)
Foolishness. Pitching & defense builds winners and neither Pythagorus nor (apparently) his modern acolytes ever saw a baseball game.
Post by: Froback on October 27, 2006, 11:56:25 am
Quote:
Careful there. It's one thing to indicate which stats have the highest correlation. It's another thing to apply them to individuals without adjusting for rates and opportunities.
Oh, I know that. But I have to admit, I was pretty surprised by how each guy rated in those categories. It certainly gives you a different way to look at the players since we don't get to see many of them play regularly.
Post by: Ankh on October 27, 2006, 12:20:28 pm
Quote:
No it doesn't.
Damn. Good point.
So here's the master strategy - when building a team from scratch, find as many hitters as possible, and trade them for pitching and defense as soon as they're established.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on October 27, 2006, 12:22:24 pm
Quote:
Not quite. The statistical formula argues that you ALWAYS need to trade a run of pitching/defense prevention for a run of offense cure until you reach .500 (assuming, of course, that you are attempting to get a little more than a run in return through shrewd dealingt) at which point you immediately need to reverse all those trades (again attempting to give slightly less than you get) if you want to continue to move up the ladder. It is never a good move to give up offense for defense if you are below .500 and never a good idea to give up defense for offense if you are above .500 (always eliminating cases where the other guy is an idiot who gives you substantially more in return than you are offering.)
Foolishness. Pitching & defense builds winners and neither Pythagorus nor (apparently) his modern acolytes ever saw a baseball game.
Actually, it doesn't break down quite like that. Using all team-seasons from 2002 to 2006 (150 team-seasons), I compared the following:
The difference between adding 10 runs on offense and subtracting 10 runs on defense. The break point was 70-92. In other words, if you were worse than 70-92, adding offense had the bigger gain. If you were better than 70-92, adding pitching had the bigger gain.
The difference between adding 50 runs on offense and subtracting 50 runs on defense. The break point was 75-87. In other words, if you were worse than 75-87, adding offense had the bigger gain. If you were better than 75-87, adding pitching had the bigger gain.
The difference between adding 100 runs on offense and subtracting 100 runs on defense. The break point was 74-88. In other words, if you were worse than 74-88, adding offense had the bigger gain. If you were better than 74-88, adding pitching had the bigger gain.
These results are somewhat quirky, given that the break point for a 50-run differential is higher than the break point for 100-run differential. But it stands to reason from these numbers that, as a general rule, except for teams that are significantly under .500, at least a dozen games or so, that giving up defense for offense is a losing proposition.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on October 27, 2006, 12:35:58 pm
Quote:
Foolishness. Pitching & defense builds winners and neither Pythagorus nor (apparently) his modern acolytes ever saw a baseball game.
Now that I look at it again, I don't think it's foolishness. The mistake I made in the previous post was to treat +10 runs on offense and -10 runs on defense as equivalent. Only they're not equivalent, because they represent different percentage differences in runs scored or runs allowed. For every single team from 2002 to 2006, a 10% increase in runs scored never resulted in a better winning percentage than a 10% decrease in runs allowed.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on October 27, 2006, 12:39:06 pm
Post by: VirtualBob on October 27, 2006, 12:40:42 pm
Quote:Quote:
Not quite. The statistical formula argues that you ALWAYS need to trade a run of pitching/defense prevention for a run of offense cure until you reach .500 (assuming, of course, that you are attempting to get a little more than a run in return through shrewd dealingt) at which point you immediately need to reverse all those trades (again attempting to give slightly less than you get) if you want to continue to move up the ladder. It is never a good move to give up offense for defense if you are below .500 and never a good idea to give up defense for offense if you are above .500 (always eliminating cases where the other guy is an idiot who gives you substantially more in return than you are offering.)
Foolishness. Pitching & defense builds winners and neither Pythagorus nor (apparently) his modern acolytes ever saw a baseball game.
Actually, it doesn't break down quite like that. Using all team-seasons from 2002 to 2006 (150 team-seasons), I compared the following:
The difference between adding 10 runs on offense and subtracting 10 runs on defense. The break point was 70-92. In other words, if you were worse than 70-92, adding offense had the bigger gain. If you were better than 70-92, adding pitching had the bigger gain.
The difference between adding 50 runs on offense and subtracting 50 runs on defense. The break point was 75-87. In other words, if you were worse than 75-87, adding offense had the bigger gain. If you were better than 75-87, adding pitching had the bigger gain.
The difference between adding 100 runs on offense and subtracting 100 runs on defense. The break point was 74-88. In other words, if you were worse than 74-88, adding offense had the bigger gain. If you were better than 74-88, adding pitching had the bigger gain.
These results are somewhat quicky, given that the break point for a 50-run differential is higher than the break point for 100-run differential. But it stands to reason from these numbers that, as a general rule, except for teams that are significantly under .500, at least a dozen games or so, that giving up defense for offense is a losing proposition.
This is probably a much better way of making my point than the lazy one I chose. You have actually looked at real performance rather than a simple ratio of runs scored to runs allowed. The original arguement was that since reducing 5:4 to 4:3 results in a better ratio and increasing 3:4 to 4:5 results in a better ratio, then ... well then nothing. Because it isn't (only) the ration at work. Your statistics based on actual performance make a cogent arguement that happens to confirm what most (many?) of us believe anyway. Pitching/defense is more important (generally). It also yields the not too surprising insight that truly terrible teams are likely so bad in both categories that they can get a quicker picker upper from offense.
Post by: Arky Vaughan on October 27, 2006, 12:44:23 pm
Quote:
It also yields the not too surprising insight that truly terrible teams are likely so bad in both categories that they can get a quicker picker upper from offense.
Basically, those teams are bad enough that anything helps.
Post by: Foghorn on October 27, 2006, 01:58:02 pm
Quote:
I also don't think it's foolishness for a team that has a choice to add 50 runs on offense or to subtract 50 runs on defense to choose the offensive improvement if the percentage impact is going to be greater than the defensive improvement.
This post, and the one above it, are excellent.
The pythag winning % is a ratio, so you have to look at %increase and % decrease, not overall increase/decrease.
What it shows should correspond with the Law of Diminishing Returns. If you have a team that can hit like crazy, but has shitty pitching, adding another big stick isn't going to do much for you.
If you've got 7 Ted Williams and an Adam Everett as your everyday players, and a staff of Wandy Rodriquez's, you're better off adding a Roger Clemens than an 8th Ted Williams.
And while this theoretical discussion is all well and good, baseball is a never as linear as some would like. And there's rarely a case where there exists 2 equal options (in terms of salary, trade prospects, etc...) one for adding 50 runs, one for subtracting 50 runs, for a team to choose between.
There's really only getting better or getting worse. And what you think you know today, you find out was 100% wrong tomorrow.
Post by: VirtualBob on October 27, 2006, 02:45:49 pm
Quote:Quote:
I also don't think it's foolishness for a team that has a choice to add 50 runs on offense or to subtract 50 runs on defense to choose the offensive improvement if the percentage impact is going to be greater than the defensive improvement.
This post, and the one above it, are excellent.
The pythag winning % is a ratio, so you have to look at %increase and % decrease, not overall increase/decrease.
What it shows should correspond with the Law of Diminishing Returns. If you have a team that can hit like crazy, but has shitty pitching, adding another big stick isn't going to do much for you.
If you've got 7 Ted Williams and an Adam Everett as your everyday players, and a staff of Wandy Rodriquez's, you're better off adding a Roger Clemens than an 8th Ted Williams.
And while this theoretical discussion is all well and good, baseball is a never as linear as some would like. And there's rarely a case where there exists 2 equal options (in terms of salary, trade prospects, etc...) one for adding 50 runs, one for subtracting 50 runs, for a team to choose between.
There's really only getting better or getting worse. And what you think you know today, you find out was 100% wrong tomorrow.
Once again, I agree. Strongly. But that is not what the original post was saying.