PDA

View Full Version : baseball philosophies


bigredrudy
04-26-2005, 03:32 PM
One of the more interesting things to follow this season is the competition between Ozzie's type of baseball-pitching, defense,sacrifice bunts and stolen bases versus on base percentage, slugging percentage and good pitching. It is generally accepted that Ozzie's way is old fashioned and has been proven statistically to be wrong. Teams that steal and sacrifice just don't score more runs than those who get on base. On base percentage is everything. On base percentage is the gospel that is accepted by most of the modern analysts. That is why no one is taking the White Sox seriously. Joe Sheehan called the White Sox a team of hackers and projected that the White Sox would soon fall back like the 03 Royals. I agree that teams with high on base percentage will score more runs than the White Sox but they most probably won't win the low scoring close games that this version of the White Sox has.Speed may not enable you to score a lot of runs but it is invaluable on defense and it does enable you to score a run when you really need it. Most people think that we really need Frank Thomas so we can raise our OBP. I don't agree. Thomas is not the one to score a run when you really need it. But only time will tell.

Palehose13
04-26-2005, 03:49 PM
To steal a Hawkism, "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it."

OBP is a great stat, but what do you think the outcome of this game would be:

Team A .229 OBP Team B .385 OBP

Team A (Sox) won the game 8-5 over Team B (Twins) on April 9th. IMO, the big difference was this:

Team A 3 LOB Team B 16 LOB

So...keep hitting 2 singles or a walk or two an inning, but they don't mean squat if they don't cross the plate!

Chicago83
04-26-2005, 04:03 PM
I would like to see how it was actually proven that On Base teams score more runs than small ball teams. Perhaps in this high scoring home run hitting era the On Base teams will score more primarily through the home run. But in the history of baseball is this true?

batmanZoSo
04-26-2005, 04:17 PM
To steal a Hawkism, "Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it."

OBP is a great stat, but what do you think the outcome of this game would be:

Team A .229 OBP Team B .385 OBP

Team A (Sox) won the game 8-5 over Team B (Twins) on April 9th. IMO, the big difference was this:

Team A 3 LOB Team B 16 LOB

So...keep hitting 2 singles or a walk or two an inning, but they don't mean squat if they don't cross the plate!

There you go.

And I'd like to add that our low on-base is going to be proven an aberration. Thomas alone will raise the team on-base .020 and don't forget the bad starts for the rest of the guys. We're probably an average on-base team at full strength, which is good enough with this pitching staff, speed and ability to manufacture runs. I'll believe this is a problem when I see it.

Ol' No. 2
04-26-2005, 04:24 PM
I would like to see how it was actually proven that On Base teams score more runs than small ball teams. Perhaps in this high scoring home run hitting era the On Base teams will score more primarily through the home run. But in the history of baseball is this true?It hasn't. Through the magic of computing power, anyone with a PC and a (very) little knowledge of statistics can run a regression analysis on winning percentage vs. a whole host of variables and determine which has the best correlation. However, baseball is way too complex for any single variable to have much predictive power, so all the individual variables have low correlations. The "best" correlation is not necessarily a "good" correlation. It's kind of a tallest midget contest.

Flight #24
04-26-2005, 04:26 PM
It hasn't. Through the magic of computing power, anyone with a PC and a (very) little knowledge of statistics can run a regression analysis on winning percentage vs. a whole host of variables and determine which has the best correlation. However, baseball is way too complex for any single variable to have much predictive power, so all the individual variables have low correlations. The "best" correlation is not necessarily a "good" correlation. It's kind of a tallest midget contest.

There's also the whole "correlation v. causation" aspect. In other words, just because OBP is correlated with scoring doesn't mean that it's the cause of scoring.

nebraskasox
04-26-2005, 04:33 PM
Maybe we need another stat that factors in LOB with OBP?

See the other thread on philospohy.

ondafarm
04-26-2005, 05:48 PM
It hasn't. Through the magic of computing power, anyone with a PC and a (very) little knowledge of statistics can run a regression analysis on winning percentage vs. a whole host of variables and determine which has the best correlation. However, baseball is way too complex for any single variable to have much predictive power, so all the individual variables have low correlations. The "best" correlation is not necessarily a "good" correlation. It's kind of a tallest midget contest.

For the past few years SBs have had a negative correlation with wins. The Rays have run quite a bit and don't win much. One factor that does correlate better than most is 'average pitches per at bat.' This is something that Frank has always helped with. The logic is that teams usually have their best pitchers starting and the sooner you wear them down and get to the bullpen, the more runs you score.

hold2dibber
04-26-2005, 05:51 PM
I would like to see how it was actually proven that On Base teams score more runs than small ball teams. Perhaps in this high scoring home run hitting era the On Base teams will score more primarily through the home run. But in the history of baseball is this true?

I believe that many statistical analysts have shown that OBP is the single most important factor in scoring runs. That is, the higher your team's OBP, the more runs they'll score (all other things being equal). This has nothing to do with whether home runs are better than small ball. With either approach, the higher the OBP the more runs you'll score.