D-Backs like style of Angels?

[DWKB]

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/diamondbacks/03cactus/0307dbacks0307.html


I don't know if this article is serious or is it's a fluff piece filled with cliche's ( it's probably both).

But reagrdless, it's completely mislead in it's analysis (if you wanna call it that) on what the "Angel's winning ways" are.

The only difference between the starting 9 in 2002 vs 2001 was the DH (Fullmer replaced Palmeiro).

They had 7 of their 9 starters increase their OPS lst year with only Molina and Glaus not topping 2001.

Several increasing their OPS over 100 points.

The Angels struck out an American League-low 805 times in 2002, a testament to their commitment to making contact instead of trying to hit every pitch out of the park

ANA lowered their Ks by over 200 from 2001 without changin a single player. They only hit 6 less HRs from 2001 so it certainly doesn't look like they were trading power for contact. Their AVG went up over 20 points from .261 to .282.

The Angels were third in the AL with 117 steals. Center fielder Darin Erstad hit only 10 homers but led the team with 23 steals.

Thier SB% (not mentioned for some reason) was less than 70% (117SB/ 51CS) and most likely cost them runs. TOR with only 71 SB and 18 CS probably got more from their running game last year than ANA did ( SB% of almost 80%).

The Diamondbacks mirrored the Angels' style in the bottom of the fourth Thursday when Junior Spivey was hit by a pitch, stole second, moved to third on a fly to right by Gonzalez and scored on Danny Bautista's groundout.

This, obviously, isn't "the Angel's style". ANA didn't play "small ball" last year like so many think. They had the big innings, just with 2Bs instead of HRs. The sequence described used up 2 outs to score a run, you don't score 5.25 runs/game with this strategy (just to let you know we led the NL with a little over 5 runs/game)

ANA also won with having most of these players have incredible defense in 2002 that combined with their pitchers only allowed less than 4 runs/game ( we gave up 4.16 runs/game).

This doesn't even get into ANA playoff performance where they increased their OPS by 14%, their SLG% by 18% and their HR/game by 60%(!).

 

[RLakin]

My Favorite Part

Brenly said he'll let his team become more aggressive on the basepaths as spring progresses.

Gee, good thing he's not the manager, because, if he was, he could actually put a steal sign on every once and awhile.

 

[schillingfan]

We have two different points of view expressed in the last two posts. RLakin expressing that the D-Backs should steal more and DWKB presumably arguing he should steal less since, he said the increase in steals by the Angels "probably cost them runs".

I've seen Baseballprospectus express that opinion before, on account of their beliefs that outs are precious commodities, but OTOH I think that the leadoff runner stealing second is a huge advantage in trying to score runs. Just last night the Yankees scored a run by going walk, steal, ground out, ground out. One run and no hits. One baserunner.

I'd like to see the concrete proof that advancing to second by steal (or parenthetically the next hitter giving himself up advancing the runner) actually costs runs.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
We have two different points of view expressed in the last two posts. RLakin expressing that the D-Backs should steal more and DWKB presumably arguing he should steal less since, he said the increase in steals by the Angels "probably cost them runs".

I've seen Baseballprospectus express that opinion before, on account of their beliefs that outs are precious commodities, but OTOH I think that the leadoff runner stealing second is a huge advantage in trying to score runs. Just last night the Yankees scored a run by going walk, steal, ground out, ground out. One run and no hits. One baserunner.

I'd like to see the concrete proof that advancing to second by steal (or parenthetically the next hitter giving himself up advancing the runner) actually costs runs.

Well with anything, the run environment determines the needed success rate of SBs to be "worthwhile". Nobody is claiming there is an absolute rule that says SBs aren't worth it ( they were in the late 60's), just that they aren't worth in it this era of baseball (or in the 1930's).

Basically what you can do for "concrete proof" is take the PBP data and set up a Run Estimation table and see what the average amount of runs scored in situation 1:

Runner on 1st with x number of outs
to
Runner on 2nd with x number of outs

to get the "run" value of a SB

Then see what the average amount of runs scored in situation 2:

Runner on 1st with x number of outs
to
No runners on with x+1 number of outs

to get the "cost" of a CS

The Break Even point is when the amount of SBs cancels out the amount of CS.

This has already been done by a gentleman named Mitchel Lichtman.

http://pub162.ezboard.com/fbaseballfrm8.showMessage?topicID=153.topic

The SB "run value" pretty much stays the same (around .17 runs) but the cost goes all over the place from -.258 runs (4.5 R/g) to -.628 (15.6 R/g).

So working the numbers for TOR and ANA with a 4.9 R/g (which is not always true) environment you get:

TOR:
71(.163) - 18(.272) = 6.7 Runs added by the running game.

ANA:
117(.163) - 51(.272) = 5.2 Runs added by the running game.

It's actually worse than that though since teams score more than 4.9 R/g.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by schillingfan
We have two different points of view expressed in the last two posts. RLakin expressing that the D-Backs should steal more and DWKB presumably arguing he should steal less since, he said the increase in steals by the Angels "probably cost them runs".

I think DWKB was just clarifying a misconception as exemplified by this article.
As for me, I was not advocating anything other than that the manager should stop talking about "letting" players do things and start "making" them steal if he thinks that's what this team needs to do.
Again this spring I've heard Brenly talk about being more aggressive and playing more small ball, but it never happens. It was supposed to be this way in the playoffs last year, but Tony Womack never left first (the few times he was there) and Brenly wasn't any more aggressive than he has ever been during his 2 years as manager.
Except in extreme cases, Brenly believes in leaving those types of decisions up to the individuals (like Womack), but unfortunately he doesn't seem to grasp the concept that sometimes the individual doesn't see things as clearly as the manager, and, consequently, often errors on the side of passivity.
For this reason I would say Brenly being labeled as an "aggressive" manager is another misnomer by the media. Brenly is no more aggressive than his predecessor, but, unlike Buck, he believes in the hit and run more than the straight steal.
Look at Womack’s decline in SBs over the past 2 years if you don’t believe this.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

After everything that Brenly has said the last couple of springs, I take anything he says with a grain of salt. But then that's not too different than any other manager. No since tipping your hand before the season even starts. Sometimes this cat and mosue game can come back to haunt you though. Especially if your players read the newspapers.

 

[DWKB]

Another thing to consider when comparing the Angels to the DBacks is this:


ANA:

Age      OPS      %PT
>25     .803     .117
26-29   .738     .608
30-34   .825     .275
<35     .000     .000

ARI:

Age      OPS      %PT
>25     .543     .018
26-29   .800     .257
30-34   .769     .480
<35     .745     .245

The majority of ANA was in their prime last year (26-29) allowing for such an increase accross the board like they had. To think that our team can just "change it's style" at whim is silly at best.

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by schillingfan
(emphasis added) We have two different points of view expressed in the last two posts. RLakin expressing that the D-Backs should steal more and DWKB presumably arguing he should steal less since, he said the increase in steals by the Angels "probably cost them runs".

I've seen Baseballprospectus express that opinion before, on account of their beliefs that outs are precious commodities, but OTOH I think that the leadoff runner stealing second is a huge advantage in trying to score runs. Just last night the Yankees scored a run by going walk, steal, ground out, ground out. One run and no hits. One baserunner.

I'd like to see the concrete proof that advancing to second by steal (or parenthetically the next hitter giving himself up advancing the runner) actually costs runs.

Did the Yankees concede the 3rd out?

In other words what did the next hitter do? There's about a 30% chance he got a base hit, making those productive outs irrelevant.

I know in the example DWKB quoted:

The Diamondbacks mirrored the Angels' style in the bottom of the fourth Thursday when Junior Spivey was hit by a pitch, stole second, moved to third on a fly to right by Gonzalez and scored on Danny Bautista's groundout.

the next hitter singled. (I was listening on MLB.com's internet broadcast).

Thus if Gonzo & Danny struck out, there's a good chance that singled would have scored that "Angels' style" run anyway.

I'll assert that this happens all the time. We don't notice because announcers are too busy talking about those wonderful "runs that scored without benefit of a basehit" all the while the next hitter connects on a double to make it all irrelevant.

On the other hand, who knows if those stolen bases prevented DP's?

But juggling back to the first hand, how many times do caught stealings (with the loss of outs, & a runner) cost a big inning?

That's what makes these calculations pretty difficult.

I hope that's "concrete proof" (an example) of why I think "little things" can are overrated--because the visible benefits often overstate what would have happened anyway. Similarly their costs are invisible--you don't see the hard hit double that would have resulted if Gonzo wasn't trying to be such a team player by hitting a weak grounder to 2nd, and thus you don't see the inning continuing to turn because he saved an out.

(However, I also believe that there is benefit in the team unity generated by the rituals of everyone congratulating the hitter on the "productive out" even if the numbers don't support it, because it might help done the road.)

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by DWKB
Another thing to consider when comparing the Angels to the DBacks is this:


ANA:

Age      OPS      %PT
>25     .803     .117
26-29   .738     .608
30-34   .825     .275
<35     .000     .000

ARI:

Age      OPS      %PT
>25     .543     .018
26-29   .800     .257
30-34   .769     .480
<35     .745     .245

The majority of ANA was in their prime last year (26-29) allowing for such an increase accross the board like they had. To think that our team can just "change it's style" at whim is silly at best.

Wait, I was looking at the Angels going into last year because my sister likes them. The conventional (Baseball Prospectus) wisdom was that there were several players who had an up & down pattern.

Going back in time; most recent being 2001, 2000, etc. here are some numbers:

Salmon OPS: 748, 945, 862, 943
Erstad OPS: 691, 951, 683, 839
Glaus OPS: 898, 1008, 781

It wasn't obvious to anyone that all three of these guys would come through with "up seasons." Nor was it obvious that Scott Spiezio & Brad Fulmer could carry the load at 1B/DH (especially compared to Mo Vaughn).

Fulmer OPS: 771, 898, 785

The answers in 2002 were Salmon 883, Erstad 779, Glaus 805, Fulmer 888 (so Glaus had a "down" season?)

What I'm trying to say is yeah, in retrospect, the Angels made the breakthrough because they took chances on home-grown prospects. However at the time they looked like they were corporate welfare cheapskates cashing revenue-sharing checks in the "small market" of Anaheim.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by unc84steve
What I'm trying to say is yeah, in retrospect, the Angels made the breakthrough because they took chances on home-grown prospects. However at the time they looked like they were corporate welfare cheapskates cashing revenue-sharing checks in the "small market" of Anaheim.

That last comment sounded like that sneering baseballprospectus attitude that one seens when they post their round table discussions.

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by schillingfan
That last comment sounded like that sneering baseballprospectus attitude that one seens when they post their round table discussions.

Yup, I learned about such stuff in Baseball Prospectus. Sure they are usually arrogant about their opinions.

But almost always Baseball Prospectus provides facts too. When they question the Angels handling of their young pitchers, they cite how many pitchers bounce among 3 levels in a year & joke that "their seasonal summaries look like bad Priceline itineraries."

"Baseball Prospectus" as a whole probably shares my view that baseball has a lot of luck. I picked the Angels last; so did most people. I was rooting for them to get lucky & was pleasantly surprised. I don't think Anaheim was particularly skillful except in dumping Mo Vaughn. I don't care for the rally monkey. I was more shocked that Disney didn't make a movie out of it.