Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Explore the concept not the semantics
Still a lot left to do
- Thread starter Horsehide Harry
- Start date
Explore the concept not the semantics
It's hard to do when someone can't grasp the concept.
Good teams generally have good offenses. Good offenses generally have average or better power from the OF positions. Someone being able to toss out an example or two of that not being the case does not disprove the concept as a whole, and I assume they do it just to be argumentative.
What makes more sense? To model your team after 90% of the playoff teams, or model it after the few teams that won despite a lack of power? While it's true you can become wealthy without going to school, don't you think it's wise to follow the path 99% of wealthy people took and go to college?
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Exactly
What are you talking about? I've essentially said exactly this multiple times. Of course I get the concept.
My issue only comes in when Horsehide continues to basically agree that there shouldn't be a focus on a specific number of HR right before he says we need to be league average or better...essentially focusing on a specific number of HR. It's not semantics; you either think we have to be league average or better, or you don't.
The point is you don't need a set amount of homeruns or be league average or better to get into the playoffs. Nobody is saying homeruns aren't good. They are instant offense and the best way to improve an offense. With that being said I feel you should take it as a case by case and player by player basis. An example would be Matt Kemp 2016 and Martin Prado 2012.
I would much rather have Prado's season than Kemp's even with Kemp having 20 more homeruns. Prado was easily the better player of the two in those given seasons. And that's what you have to look at. Adding homeruns just to add them to get to a certain number is pointless without looking at everything else.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm trying to figure out if there is a precise way to express the discussion that is swirling about home runs and winning. I think we all agree more home runs is a good thing. I would guess if you did some sort of estimate of # of home runs to probability of making the playoffs you would have a smooth upward curve. Teams that hit 120 home runs have a better chance than those who hit 100. And teams that hit 140 have a better chance than those who hit 120. And so on. What seems to be the issue here is the belief that the relationship between making the playoffs and number of home runs is in some way non-linear. That there is some sort of kink in the curve around the league average in home runs. I'm not sure if I'm accurately summarizing the point that Horsehide Harry is trying to make. But that's my take on it. He seems to believe if you are below average in home runs there is more benefit to adding home runs than if you are already above average.
I'm sure there is some sort of correlation. I feel actual runs scored would be better. And position player WAR would be even better than that.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I chose league average in HR as an easy marker. The actual data point might be 5% above league average or 7%. But I chose to say league average or better.
Again, I am saying that there is a correlation between hitting HR at a team average of league average or better and making the post season. The data shows this.
Runs scored is probably a better gauge of a "good" offense but isn't really the point. You might have a good offense, power or not, and still miss the post season.
And adding up individual WAR per position isn't the point either. After all WAR may have a component of power, defense, speed, whatever. You may have a very good WAR team and still miss the post season.
The actual historical data says that a team usually bordering on almost always needs to be at least league average or better at hitting HR to make the postseason. That has nothing to do with runs scored or WAR outside of the likelihood that those HR are a component of a team that scores runs or has a good team WAR.
History says that you can score a lot of runs or have a good team WAR but if HR production at a rate of at least league average or better is not part of those things then you are unlikely to make the postseason. Those few teams that are exceptions to that are teams that generally play in pitching parks and divisions where HR production is retarded by park effects.
So, if you build a team without power then you are essentially saying that you are going to beat the odds and overcome history. There is no way around that.
Again, I am saying that there is a correlation between hitting HR at a team average of league average or better and making the post season. The data shows this.
Runs scored is probably a better gauge of a "good" offense but isn't really the point. You might have a good offense, power or not, and still miss the post season.
And adding up individual WAR per position isn't the point either. After all WAR may have a component of power, defense, speed, whatever. You may have a very good WAR team and still miss the post season.
The actual historical data says that a team usually bordering on almost always needs to be at least league average or better at hitting HR to make the postseason. That has nothing to do with runs scored or WAR outside of the likelihood that those HR are a component of a team that scores runs or has a good team WAR.
History says that you can score a lot of runs or have a good team WAR but if HR production at a rate of at least league average or better is not part of those things then you are unlikely to make the postseason. Those few teams that are exceptions to that are teams that generally play in pitching parks and divisions where HR production is retarded by park effects.
So, if you build a team without power then you are essentially saying that you are going to beat the odds and overcome history. There is no way around that.
I think it's a little more subtle than that. A high contact team that hits 0 HRs would probably benefit greatly from a player like Kemp. A team full of Kemps would likely benefit very little from adding another Kemp vs adding a player with a .360+ OBP to bat in front of all the Kemps.
At the end of the day, good OFers typically have good power. Good teams typically have good OFers. Therefore, good teams typically have OFers with power. And if someone quotes the Giants, who play in (one of) the hardest park to hit a HR, they are simply demonstrating a lack of understanding about the issue.
It all comes down to the same point: if most teams with little power on the OF rarely win, why would you willingly model your roster around having no power in the OF while hoping to be one of the few exceptions?
Ignoring the fact that a teams pitching has a major influence on whether you are going to the playoffs or not. A teams WAR (regardless of where they are in the homerun list) correlates way more to a teams playoff chances. The reason you see a lot of teams with high WAR also hitting a lot of homers is because homers are good. They help....a lot. But there are others way to get there. The reason why it's not as common is because it is harder to build that type of team. Not impossible and it depends on what your team is currently working with. Teams like the Giants and Indians this year do exist. Just like the Royals and Cards existed last year. All 4 of those teams btw were/are excellent defensively.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I never said differently. I said it's way harder to go that way. The fact that the Giants and Indians (185 team HR, but still short of league average) made it means it can be done. But, over 25 years it is relatively rare. Now, if teams start doing it on a routine basis, maybe you can say that it's not rare. I believe that trends can change. But usually it is some external factor that changes trends like turf going out of style and taking the stolen base and the slap double with it as primary weapons.
I have said all along that it CAN be done. It's just not easy to do, especially if your home park isn't tilted to it. Since it is so unusual, it's is easy to see that building to try to win that way is a sub-optimal approach.
You build your team by getting the best players available and making the best upgrades possible. Having a team full of players that hit homeruns is usually a great way of having a of great position players and it is the most common. However that is not a requirement and I think that should be pretty clear at this point too. Again, I easily trade a Matt Kemp for what Prado gave the team in 2012 even if that meant losing 20+ homers on the teams total. Prado was a superior player that year. Homeruns are great but you have to look at more than just that. OBP, defense, power...all those things matter for your position players. If you are defecient in one area you have to make it up in the other two. I wish there was a stat you could look at that combines all of those.
Should be noted that while the Royals were next to last in homers in the AL last year. They were 8th in SLG due to being 3rd in doubles and 4th in triples.
This is pretty poor statistical analysis, honestly. I just don't get why you continue to focus on HR as some kind of primary determining factor.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I use it as a marker not a focus.
If a team has poor HR power, it's unlikely they will win enough to make the post season no matter what else they do. History shows that.
Now, the opposite (a team with exceptional HR power making the post season) isn't necessarily true either.
If you look at a team and it appears they have good team HR power, at least for me, means that team passes a gate. Then I look at other factors behind that such as other offensive capabilities, pitching, defense, etc.
Excluding teams who don't have good team HR power sometimes means you miss a team that will ultimately make the post season. But it doesn't happen often.
It's nothing more than a marker but it is a good one.
Ignoring it is equivalent to saying winning in football with defense and the kicking game alone wins games about 5% of the time therefore I'm going to build my team around the kicking game and defense and not concern myself with great running backs, QB's or receivers. Just because you can do it that way and it does work sometimes, doesn't mean it's the way you should do it.
That's a horrible analogy. That's basically saying offense is all about homeruns. You can have a league average or better offense without being league average or better at homeruns.
Well again, it's just poor analysis. I could just as easily point out the correlation with teams with above average pitching and playoff appearances.
Newsflash: Playoff teams generally pitch and/or hit well. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
blueagleace1
Playing the Waiting Game
Out of the 5 NL teams that made the playoffs, how many of those five were among the league leaders in OF home runs?
*I'm truly asking, not being a smart$$$
Maybe the Mets and Gnats??
http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=of&stats=bat&lg=nl&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=4,d
Ranks for OF Homers
Cubs: 2nd
Mets: 3rd
Nationals: 7th
Dodgers: 11th
Giants: 13th
For AL teams
O's: 1st
Red Sox: 6th
Rangers: 8th
Blue Jays: 10th
Indians: 12th
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I really don't know how many times you want me to say it: I am not talking about being league average or better on offense.
I am talking about the correlation of HR hit and making it to the post season.
You are arguing a point I have never argued and are taking me to task for not agreeing with you.
A good offense is good. YES.
A good offense with HR power is also good. YES.
Now that we have that out of the way, I invite you to go find all the teams who made the post season over the last 25 years who did not have a team homerun total of at least league average or better and explain why building the Braves like those teams is a better idea than building the Braves like all the other teams who made the post season by having a team WITH a HR total greater or equal to league average.
The evidence and data clearly shows that teams who hit HR at a rate of league average or better play in the post season far, far more often than those who do not.
That's all I am saying. That's it. Nothing else. Nope. Nothing about individual players, team offense, WAR totals, the composition of the moon, nothing else.
Why should I go back 25 years into an era of the game that no longer exists? In todays game you absolutely don't need to be league average or better at homeruns to make the playoffs. As there have been several examples of teams with good obp, league average power as a whole (doubles, triples, etc), and defense to make the playoffs. Ignoring that trend is just silly.
Why focus on one component of a teams offense and not look at everything else? There are plenty of teams that hit a ton of homeruns that don't sniff the playoffs because that's the only thing they do well. Good teams make the playoffs. And there are several ways to be good without hitting a lot of homers.
That's not to say the Braves shouldn't try to better themselves by acquiring home run hitters. But doing that and ignoring other aspects of the players is just foolish. Matt Kemp is a possible example of this.