Still a lot left to do

[nsacpi]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. But history says being below league average in HR is not a good recipe for success. If there were a "bunch" of teams that "just missed" league average but made the playoffs and went on to win the WS then the data would show that.

I do think that a lot of HR even if it is below league average is probably OK if league average is inflated for some reason. I would point to Cleveland from this year as an example. They had 185 HR but were still below the league average of 197. Like you, I would find it hard to believe that 185 HR isn't enough.

I'm wondering if home run power is special in this regard. If you looked at team defense (there are various metrics to choose from), would they show defense as having the same effect on probability of making the post season. Or ability to get on base. Do the OBP rankings also stratify in the same way as HR rankings for playoff and non-playoff teams.

The point I'm driving at is, if statistically team defense and team OBP have similar effects as team HRs on a team's chances of making the playoffs then you have to be willing to accept tradeoffs among those attributes and not be as single minded in trying to be above average in home runs.

 

[thewupk]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. But history says being below league average in HR is not a good recipe for success. If there were a "bunch" of teams that "just missed" league average but made the playoffs and went on to win the WS then the data would show that.

I do think that a lot of HR even if it is below league average is probably OK if league average is inflated for some reason. I would point to Cleveland from this year as an example. They had 185 HR but were still below the league average of 197. Like you, I would find it hard to believe that 185 HR isn't enough.

This year homeruns have been inflated by a large amount. 2nd most homers of any season in baseball. While the runs per game did increase quite a bit from last season it still didn't come close to any season in the steroid era. To me that says that homeruns weren't nearly important to runs scored as it has been in years past.

Of all 10 playoff teams this year here is their rank in homeruns and then runs scored.

O's 1st - 12th
Blue Jays 4th - 9th
Mets 5th - 25th
Rangers 7th - 7th
Red Sox 9th - 1st
Nats 11th - 8th
Cubs 13th - 3rd
Dodgers 17th - 14th
Indians 18th - 5th
Giants 28th - 19th

Homeruns are just a component of offense. Like everything else in the game you would like to see balance. The Mets for example did not have balance offensively. They were 5th in homeruns but had a ****ty offense overall. The Cubs and Indians were pretty average on homeruns but had excellent offenses. It is easier to have a good offense if you are good at hitting homeruns though but I don't think it should be the sole focus.

 

[nsacpi]

This year homeruns have been inflated by a large amount. 2nd most homers of any season in baseball. While the runs per game did increase quite a bit from last season it still didn't come close to any season in the steroid era. To me that says that homeruns weren't nearly important to runs scored as it has been in years past.

Of all 10 playoff teams this year here is their rank in homeruns and then runs scored.

O's 1st - 12th
Blue Jays 4th - 9th
Mets 5th - 25th
Rangers 7th - 7th
Red Sox 9th - 1st
Nats 11th - 8th
Cubs 13th - 3rd
Dodgers 17th - 14th
Indians 18th - 5th
Giants 28th - 19th

Homeruns are just a component of offense. Like everything else in the game you would like to see balance. The Mets for example did not have balance offensively. They were 5th in homeruns but had a ****ty offense overall. The Cubs and Indians were pretty average on homeruns but had excellent offenses. It is easier to have a good offense if you are good at hitting homeruns though but I don't think it should be the sole focus.

Park effects also need to be taken into account in looking at these numbers. There is the obvious pitcher vs hitter park distinction. But also some parks are known for suppressing home runs more than overall offense and vice versa.

Having said that I'm surprised in looking at the numbers you posted at how weak the relationship is between home runs and runs scored in that sample of teams.

 

[thewupk]

Park effects also need to be taken into account in looking at these numbers. There is the obvious pitcher vs hitter park distinction. But also some parks are known for suppressing home runs more than overall offense and vice versa.

Having said that I'm surprised in looking at the numbers you posted at how weak the relationship is between home runs and runs scored in that sample of teams.

That's why I just like to look at team WRC+ for how good a team is offensively. But yeah this year may be a fluke in regards to homers vs runs scored. As I said homers were off the charts but runs scored didn't really take the jump you might expect. We will have to wait to see if it's just a fluke or some kind of trend. It came out of nowhere so it's likely a fluke.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

That's why I just like to look at team WRC+ for how good a team is offensively. But yeah this year may be a fluke in regards to homers vs runs scored. As I said homers were off the charts but runs scored didn't really take the jump you might expect. We will have to wait to see if it's just a fluke or some kind of trend. It came out of nowhere so it's likely a fluke.

I like WRC+. That one makes a lot of sense.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I'm wondering if home run power is special in this regard. If you looked at team defense (there are various metrics to choose from), would they show defense as having the same effect on probability of making the post season. Or ability to get on base. Do the OBP rankings also stratify in the same way as HR rankings for playoff and non-playoff teams.

The point I'm driving at is, if statistically team defense and team OBP have similar effects as team HRs on a team's chances of making the playoffs then you have to be willing to accept tradeoffs among those attributes and not be as single minded in trying to be above average in home runs.

To me, if the data supports that, it's not saying you can compromise on HR power. It's saying you have to have HR power as well as be good at OBP and defense.

I think the idea of really excellent defense being a pathway to being good without HR power isn't likely supported. Without doing a bunch of work, I would say that the fact that teams like the Giants and KC who won the WS with below league average power (in actuality KC wasn't far below league average) is more attributable to pitching and parks than necessarily work with the glove. Of course, work with the glove has something to say about good pitching...

 

[smootness]

Basically, just put a good field on the team. That often means having a good offense, which itself often means hitting HR.

But just put together a good team, however you do it. Focusing on any one area and ignoring others is not likely a good idea.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

This year homeruns have been inflated by a large amount. 2nd most homers of any season in baseball. While the runs per game did increase quite a bit from last season it still didn't come close to any season in the steroid era. To me that says that homeruns weren't nearly important to runs scored as it has been in years past.

Of all 10 playoff teams this year here is their rank in homeruns and then runs scored.

O's 1st - 12th
Blue Jays 4th - 9th
Mets 5th - 25th
Rangers 7th - 7th
Red Sox 9th - 1st
Nats 11th - 8th
Cubs 13th - 3rd
Dodgers 17th - 14th
Indians 18th - 5th
Giants 28th - 19th

Homeruns are just a component of offense. Like everything else in the game you would like to see balance. The Mets for example did not have balance offensively. They were 5th in homeruns but had a ****ty offense overall. The Cubs and Indians were pretty average on homeruns but had excellent offenses. It is easier to have a good offense if you are good at hitting homeruns though but I don't think it should be the sole focus.

1. As I said, HR power is a Marker that I look at. It isn't the end all.
2. You've ranked the teams as for all of baseball. I am referring to how the teams rank based against league average. Saying the Nats, Cubs and Dodgers are 11, 13 and 17 in baseball isn't quite the same as saying they were 4, 5 and 8 in the NL and of the 5 teams to make it into the playoffs all but the Giants were above league average. In the AL, all but Cleveland were above AL league average and Cleveland had 185.
3. While HR may not have a straight line effect on scoring the most runs, it obviously has a lot to do with winning or else 25 years worth of data would not be the way it is. Take the Mets for example. They won a lot of games by stinking it up at little ball but hitting the three run HR at timely opportunities. That didn't get them far when they made the playoffs, but they did make the playoffs.
4. I agree you want to see balance. But a big part of that balance is having a team with league average or better HR power. It can't be, nor should it be the sole focus. But it can't be ignored simply because we don't like the results.

 

[smootness]

1. As I said, HR power is a Marker that I look at. It isn't the end all.

2. You've ranked the teams as for all of baseball. I am referring to how the teams rank based against league average. Saying the Nats, Cubs and Dodgers are 11, 13 and 17 in baseball isn't quite the same as saying they were 4, 5 and 8 in the NL and of the 5 teams to make it into the playoffs all but the Giants were above league average. In the AL, all but Cleveland were above AL league average and Cleveland had 185.

3. While HR may not have a straight line effect on scoring the most runs, it obviously has a lot to do with winning or else 25 years worth of data would not be the way it is. Take the Mets for example. They won a lot of games by stinking it up at little ball but hitting the three run HR at timely opportunities. That didn't get them far when they made the playoffs, but they did make the playoffs.

4. I agree you want to see balance. But a big part of that balance is having a team with league average or better HR power. It can't be, nor should it be the sole focus. But it can't be ignored simply because we don't like the results.

Who ignored it?

I think everyone is basically on the same page, it's just that you continue to focus on HR totals and power.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Basically, just put a good field on the team. That often means having a good offense, which itself often means hitting HR.

But just put together a good team, however you do it. Focusing on any one area and ignoring others is not likely a good idea.

Not my point at all. I am saying that focusing on improving HR power is imperative as part of the overall equation. "Putting a good team on the field" is a broad statement. If that means putting a bunch of 2-3 WAR guys at every position where they have no power and make up a lot of their value out of defense is unlikely to win you anything.

Power is a marker but a pretty clear one.

Do I think you can have a team full of sluggers hitting 25-30 HR apiece with a .280 OBP and horrible defense and striking out 200 times apiece? NO. I'm not saying that at all.

I am saying that putting a team of .330 OBP guys who have no power is unlikely to produce a winner no matter how good their defense.

What you want is a balance. By definition, league average in HR is a balance with other league teams.

 

[smootness]

Not my point at all. I am saying that focusing on improving HR power is imperative as part of the overall equation. "Putting a good team on the field" is a broad statement. If that means putting a bunch of 2-3 WAR guys at every position where they have no power and make up a lot of their value out of defense is unlikely to win you anything.

Power is a marker but a pretty clear one.

Do I think you can have a team full of sluggers hitting 25-30 HR apiece with a .280 OBP and horrible defense and striking out 200 times apiece? NO. I'm not saying that at all.

I am saying that putting a team of .330 OBP guys who have no power is unlikely to produce a winner no matter how good their defense.

What you want is a balance. By definition, league average in HR is a balance with other league teams.

I didn't intend that as a shot at you. I was just saying that as a general statement. Again, I think we're all basically in agreement.

I don't know anyone who suggested we'd be ok with a team full of guys who put up a .700 OPS.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I didn't intend that as a shot at you. I was just saying that as a general statement. Again, I think we're all basically in agreement.

I don't know anyone who suggested we'd be ok with a team full of guys who put up a .700 OPS.

No issues.

Thanks for the thoughtful dialog and response.

 

[thewupk]

1. As I said, HR power is a Marker that I look at. It isn't the end all.
2. You've ranked the teams as for all of baseball. I am referring to how the teams rank based against league average. Saying the Nats, Cubs and Dodgers are 11, 13 and 17 in baseball isn't quite the same as saying they were 4, 5 and 8 in the NL and of the 5 teams to make it into the playoffs all but the Giants were above league average. In the AL, all but Cleveland were above AL league average and Cleveland had 185.
3. While HR may not have a straight line effect on scoring the most runs, it obviously has a lot to do with winning or else 25 years worth of data would not be the way it is. Take the Mets for example. They won a lot of games by stinking it up at little ball but hitting the three run HR at timely opportunities. That didn't get them far when they made the playoffs, but they did make the playoffs.
4. I agree you want to see balance. But a big part of that balance is having a team with league average or better HR power. It can't be, nor should it be the sole focus. But it can't be ignored simply because we don't like the results.

I agree it can't be ignored. Increasing a teams homerun total is the fastest way to improve an offense IMO. With that being said I think you have to look at it on a team by team and player by player basis. If the Braves are a fledgling contender who are below average in the homerun dept I wouldn't necessarily be looking to upgrade my weakest offense position with a homerun hitter. I would look to upgrade that spot with the best player available at the right price. Now that may be someone who hits homeruns and it might not be.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I agree it can't be ignored. Increasing a teams homerun total is the fastest way to improve an offense IMO. With that being said I think you have to look at it on a team by team and player by player basis. If the Braves are a fledgling contender who are below average in the homerun dept I wouldn't necessarily be looking to upgrade my weakest offense position with a homerun hitter. I would look to upgrade that spot with the best player available at the right price. Now that may be someone who hits homeruns and it might not be.

Agreed.

However, for those who have pushed the type team to feature an outfield of Markakis, Inciarte and Mallex or Kemp, Inciarte, Mallex are ignoring the fact that to do that you would have to have way above average power out of other positions to make it work. A Markakis, Inciarte, Mallex outfield would likely project for no more than 30 HR. Assuming 160 as a decent league average number as a goal, that would mean you would need 130 out of 1B, C, 2B, SS, 3B and Bench. If you get 30 out of 1B (very reasonable to expect at this point I would say) then you need 100 out of the other positions. If you figure the Bench to contribute around 20 at most, that would mean the other positions would need to account for 80. If Albies is at 2B and Swanson at short, then you probably can exect 20 combined from those two. That means you need 30 each from starting 3B and starting C. That's shooting for 160 (league average this year was 177).

A Kemp, Inciarte, Markakis outfield costs you defensively BUT changes the dynamic offensively. Kemp himself would probably project for 30 HR, combined they may project to 55 or so.

The 2016 Braves were anemic with power for the first half. Even Freeman and Markakis were not hitting the long ball. When the team started hitting the long ball the whole dynamic of the offense changed and the teams started winning games.

From a standpoint of 2017, I think Markais hurts team construction because his lack of traditional power forces the FO to find his shortfall elsewhere. The same thing can be said of 3B and C with 2B as a possibility as well. If the Braves had AROD at short hitting 40 HR per year, that allows you to play a Markakis in RF without it hurting.

 

[nsacpi]

i think having mallex in left does leave uou with a power deficit in left...you can make up for it at other positions...or you can make up for it with the superior defense, baserunning and hopefully obp mallex would produce...the point is there are multiple ways to compensate for a power deficit at a particular position

 

[Horsehide Harry]

i think having mallex in left does leave uou with a power deficit in left...you can make up for it at other positions...or you can make up for it with the superior defense, baserunning and hopefully obp mallex would produce...the point is there are multiple ways to compensate for a power deficit at a particular position

But you can't make up for it with superior defense, baserunning and OBP unless you get the makeup power elsewhere. Again, history says that you go that route at your own peril. If you play Mallex in left, the defense, baserunning, OB are all nice and can't be ignored BUT those things don't cover for the lack of power, not unless you believe that 25+ years of history is just a SSS.

It's clear that you can hit a lot of HR and still not be good. But, it's equally clear that unless you are in a pitchers park, in a pitching division, not having league average HR power is a recipe for failure to make the playoffs. If you play both Mallex and Inciarte as starters in the OF (having Markakis there as well would be even worse), then it puts tremendous pressure on the front office to find power at the other positions that make up for the short comings.

 

[cajunrevenge]

Don't the Giants have multiple championships in the last few years with well below average power? If Gregor Blanco can be a staring corner outfielder for multiple championship teams I don't see why Mallex cant.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Don't the Giants have multiple championships in the last few years with well below average power? If Gregor Blanco can be a staring corner outfielder for multiple championship teams I don't see why Mallex cant.

Well, I guess if the Braves get to play in the Giants park for 81 games and get a bunch of other games against the Dodgers and Pads, then it will probably be alright...

I addressed the Giants and Royals as two of the very, very few exceptions.

 

[thewupk]

But you can't make up for it with superior defense, baserunning and OBP unless you get the makeup power elsewhere. Again, history says that you go that route at your own peril. If you play Mallex in left, the defense, baserunning, OB are all nice and can't be ignored BUT those things don't cover for the lack of power, not unless you believe that 25+ years of history is just a SSS.

It's clear that you can hit a lot of HR and still not be good. But, it's equally clear that unless you are in a pitchers park, in a pitching division, not having league average HR power is a recipe for failure to make the playoffs. If you play both Mallex and Inciarte as starters in the OF (having Markakis there as well would be even worse), then it puts tremendous pressure on the front office to find power at the other positions that make up for the short comings.

I would argue that if Mallex was a 400 OBP hitter with 50 steals, elite defense, and say 5-10 homers that he would make the team better than Kemp would right now with his 30+ homers and bad defense.

I'm not saying Mallex is that player. But a great OBP, baserunning, and defensive player is extremely valuable even if he doesn't have pop.

 

[smootness]

But you can't make up for it with superior defense, baserunning and OBP unless you get the makeup power elsewhere. Again, history says that you go that route at your own peril. If you play Mallex in left, the defense, baserunning, OB are all nice and can't be ignored BUT those things don't cover for the lack of power, not unless you believe that 25+ years of history is just a SSS.

It's clear that you can hit a lot of HR and still not be good. But, it's equally clear that unless you are in a pitchers park, in a pitching division, not having league average HR power is a recipe for failure to make the playoffs. If you play both Mallex and Inciarte as starters in the OF (having Markakis there as well would be even worse), then it puts tremendous pressure on the front office to find power at the other positions that make up for the short comings.

You can, it's just that not many teams have been able to do it, which means it is difficult. But it's certainly not impossible.

That's what I meant about statistics being constricting. If you look at the numbers and say, it's very hard to win without power so let's try to get some, that's fine. But if you look at the numbers and say, if we're not at this certain line on this one statistic then we can't win, I think you've missed it.