Still a lot left to do

thewupk said:
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-SSS. 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 playoffsOutside of the Royals and Giants?. Ignoring that trend is just silly.There is no trend. 25 years is a trend.

Why focus on one component of a teams offense and not look at everything else? I never said I did. Your attributing things to me that I didn't say to make your case.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 wellI have said this many times, some in this thread. Good teams make the playoffsTrue. And most (All but a handful) have been league average or better with HR power.. And there are several ways to be good without hitting a lot of homersAnd several ways to be good but not make the post season and the law of averages..

That's not to say the Braves shouldn't try to better themselves by acquiring home run hittersNo question. But doing that and ignoring other aspects of the players is just foolish. Have never suggested they shouldMatt Kemp is a possible example of this.I haven't mentioned Kemp as a pro or con for my position.
Click to expand...

Again, you appear to be arguing that HR power or lack there-of isn't related to those teams who have historically gotten into the post season yet provide no evidence that it isn't.
 
are home runs more strongly correlated to making the playoffs than defense, pitching or obp. anyone know?
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Again, you appear to be arguing that HR power or lack there-of isn't related to those teams who have historically gotten into the post season yet provide no evidence that it isn't.
Click to expand...

It's more than the Royals or Giants.

Indians this year were 10th in homers in the AL. Yet they were 6th in SLG thanks to being 2nd in doubles and 6th in triples. They were also 4th in OBP and 1st in defense (UZR).

2015 Cards were also built this way. 11th in homers. 6th in OBP and 5th in defense.

Royals and Cards in 2014 both had low homerun totals.

Rays, Dodgers, and Cards were low homerun teams in 2013 that made the playoffs.

The thing that most of these teams have in common is generally great team OBP and great team defense. As with anything there are some exceptions. Seems each year there is generally 2-3 teams out of 10 now that while low in homers have great OBP and team defense that make the playoffs.

And yes going back to the steroid era for data is pretty pointless in this era of baseball. Things have changed.
 
nsacpi said:
are home runs more strongly correlated to making the playoffs than defense, pitching or obp. anyone know?
Click to expand...

Not sure. But I do know team WAR (that somehow combines power, defense, pitching, and obp) highly correlates to making the playoffs more than any individual area. To me it would seem more important to try and get better players regardless of where their value comes from.
 
In regards to defense and using UZR. Playoff team ranks this year

NL
Cubs 1st
Giants 2nd
Dodgers 3rd
Nats 7th
Mets 8th

AL
Indians 1st
Red Sox 4th
Jays 5th
Rangers 7th
O's 11th
 
thewupk said:
Not sure. But I do know team WAR (that somehow combines power, defense, pitching, and obp) highly correlates to making the playoffs more than any individual area. To me it would seem more important to try and get better players regardless of where their value comes from.
Click to expand...

I think that is probably true to a point.

I think that if you have a team that projects as a 130 HR total team and you have the chance to add a 3 WAR 3B who only hits 10 HR but plays superb defense and has excellent base running skills or you can add a 2 WAR 3B who will hit you 35 HR, plays passable defense but is slow and a station to station runner then you are likely better off adding the power since the 130 HR suggests that you have some players at other positions who already derive their value from non power areas. In that case, the 2 WAR guy gets your total team power up to 165 which should be in the neighborhood of league average while the 3 WAR guy doesn't.

I think the right mix of the lineup helps make it go and having a relatively powerful lineup is part of that.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think that is probably true to a point.

I think that if you have a team that projects as a 130 HR total team and you have the chance to add a 3 WAR 3B who only hits 10 HR but plays superb defense and has excellent base running skills or you can add a 2 WAR 3B who will hit you 35 HR, plays passable defense but is slow and a station to station runner then you are likely better off adding the power since the 130 HR suggests that you have some players at other positions who already derive their value from non power areas. In that case, the 2 WAR guy gets your total team power up to 165 which should be in the neighborhood of league average while the 3 WAR guy doesn't.

I think the right mix of the lineup helps make it go and having a relatively powerful lineup is part of that.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. The 3 WAR player is better and would help the team more in the win/loss column even if marginally.
 
Forever Fredi said:
Further proof Showalter is amazing.
Click to expand...

The O's rode the long ball and lights out bullpen and maybe a little bit of luck (21-16 in 1 run games, attribute some of that to a great bullpen). If the O's want to make it to the WS they should replace Showalter for obvious reasons.
 
thewupk said:
I would disagree. The 3 WAR player is better and would help the team more in the win/loss column even if marginally.
Click to expand...

This is where I start to disagree with sabermetrics. Here's an exaggerated example regarding only walks to show what I mean:

Walks are obviously good. More walks lead to more offense, which leads to more WAR. But how valuable is a walk if everyone around you walks and nobody ever drives anyone in?

Walks are assigned a certain positive value based on things like hits, doubles, and HRs happening all around them. Take away the HRs being hit behind the guys that take the walks, and suddenly walks are worth less than we assume.

It all boils down to balance, and is why Kemp had more of an impact on the Braves offense than his numbers suggest (and it has nothing to do with protecting Freeman).

Adding a 2 WAR power hitter to a lineup full of 2 WAR walkers will provide a much larger offensive boost than adding another 2 WAR walker to the same lineup. All walks are not created equal, and that's what sabermetrics fails to capture. A walk in front of Barry Bonds is far more valuable than a walk in front of the pitcher, but according to WAR they are equal in value.
 
Enscheff said:
A walk in front of Barry Bonds is far more valuable than a walk in front of the pitcher, but according to WAR they are equal in value.
Click to expand...

It's a perceived value change. As it's the player behind them(Bonds and the pitcher) that influences that not the walk itself. And there have been plenty of low homeurn teams with high OBP that score a lot of runs. Just as there are a ton of high homeruns teams that have poor walk rates that don't score many runs. You are right that balance is important and WRC+ captures that perfectly.
 
thewupk said:
It's a perceived value change. As it's the player behind them(Bonds and the pitcher) that influences that not the walk itself. And there have been plenty of low homeurn teams with high OBP that score a lot of runs. Just as there are a ton of high homeruns teams that have poor walk rates that don't score many runs. You are right that balance is important and WRC+ captures that perfectly.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to really like this measure.
 
Your exaggerated example is a guy who walks while everyone around him also walks. Well, that team is going to score a crap ton of runs if no one ever gets out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top