Could these two offenses be more evenly matched? In one of his old Abstracts, Bill James wrote that if you have two players with the same OBP, take the one with the higher batting average. The reason is that hits do more damage than walks, and we that here. The two teams differ by just two points in OBP, but the Angels batting average is 15 points higher, and they outscored the Red Sox. Note, however, that Boston is more likely to get a long hit. Their isolated power (Slug-BA) comes in at .184 compared to .156 for LAnaheim. The Red Sox scored 331 runs on homers, second in the AL behind the Yankees. Note however, that due to their high OBP, both teams hit a high percentage of their home runs with men on base. Each team is scoring lots of runs quickly due to their combination of on-base and power, but Boston should be just a bit better at it.
over 2 years ago
Randy Booth
17 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Did you consider in your analysis
the lack of ability of the Sox to throw out runners? If it comes down to this, the advantage goes the other way, IMO! Thank God for Ellsbury because he at least brings some of that speed offense to our side, but is it enough?
Drugs already did that on the side
And came to the conclusion that it was very nearly a non-issue.
by Ben Buchanan on Oct 8, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions
"If it comes down to this"
Then the Angels deserve to win, because they’ve played better than we have.
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
Oops-ok here is the text...
First, it is not so clear in this day and age that the hit is actually more valuable than the walk. Since pitch counts are more strictly followed, walks have the advantage of driving up pitch counts and getting your offense into the other team’s (usually) weak pen. It would be interesting to have this carefully looked at-it certainly has been discussed.
The other point-I was going to do a fan post about this. The Angels high batting average is strange. I looked at a lot of data a few days ago. First, their team had by far the highest babip in the league at 322. No team was close. The Tribe came in at 308-and was the next highest team. During their monster run scoring months, their team babip was a crazy high @340. When their team had a lower bapip (~310-still high) they failed to score 5 runs a game. Here are some thoughts on this:
a)Some of this is not random. Bobby Abreu is one of those freaky career high bapip guys. He is always around 350. Thus, adding him should increase team bapip by 5-6 points alone.
b)On the other hand there are several weird aspects that point to fortune. At least 4 players had career high bapip years on their team (maybe 5-I can’t recall). Also-as a team, while they have had high bapip years, they have never been close to a 322 team. Last year they were theusual 300 that most teams are. The year before they were high-315, a decade high for their team. Assuming that the roster has not changed enough to cause such a hugh spike-say we average that and say they are a 307 team. Adding Abreu would make them a 313 team-far from 322 and in line with their bad run scoring months.
c)Strangely, however, they never had a bad bapip month. When they were 310 or so, they were not a potent offensive team, when they were above 320 they were.
My best guess is that a fair portion of the high batting average is not skill based. Don’t get me wrong-they are a good hitting team-but the addition of Abreu alone is not sufficient to cause a 22 point spike in bapip. I bet next year this number takes a nosedive back to closer to 300. As for their high OBP-the press likes to talk about the increased walks. It is true they did walk more. But just as important was the spike in batting average, which I think in part was due to fortune. The correlation with the high bapip months and their monster scoring during July and August is very strong, and when they dont have this crazy-high bapip (September) they are an average offense. Take from that what you will.
by Buzzy on Oct 8, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Their BABIP is .21 higher than the Sox'
Yet their LD% is only .1% higher.
Big difference.
by Ben Buchanan on Oct 8, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions
yes
there is nothing dramatic in their in play profile that would explain the spike.
I dunno
I’d like to have a high batting average against punks in play. It’d make dealing with certain HHers easier.
"It's just a tiny little nick, but it hurts when I get champagne in there."
- Jason Bay, on getting spiked scoring the winning run in ALDS Game Four.
My attempt at xBABIP fails.
I got .391. :/
@bs_uf15bosox9be The Original Gameday; Learn to use SB Nation
Good analysis.
The problem is the Sox tend to give up high babip this year with the shite defense.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
True
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Oct 8, 2009 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Cool post
And good answer by Buzzy. I’ve wondered that too, whether you want your guy’s OBP to be mostly AVG or BBs. I would have thought since BBs are more predictable, and AVG more random, James would have gone with the guy who draws walks. Sure a hit is better than a walk, but it’s also random-er, no?
by LorenzoStDuBois on Oct 8, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Hits are obviously better than walks because many hits go for more than one base and can advance runners more than one base. But you are right that high AVG is a less repeatable skill than high OBP. So when choosing a player into the future, you may want the guy with more walks (because hits can disappear with a poor BABIP year), but looking retrospectively I think hits are usually better.
Also: I think Buzzy makes a good point about pitch counts, but in the playoffs that is usually much less of a concern.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Kind of diagree
I think any time you’re evaluating baseball players, the presumption is that you’re doing so on a going-forward basis, unless you say otherwise. The whole idea of saying, “I would rather have this guy” seems to be assuming this. If you want to explain why such and such a player helped his team more (in the past), fine, but I don’t think that’s ever the assumed point of the discussion.
by LorenzoStDuBois on Oct 8, 2009 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions
The problem is that most people do not think going forward. They say, “Torii Hunter hit .299/.366 this year so that is his talent level for the playoffs.” But he was helped by a BABIP much higher than his career norms and that most likely will not continue, even for the playoffs this year. In general analysts do this constantly. But in reality a high AVG is very unsustainable. So when Bill James says, “A hit is better than a walk” (which is true), people might assume that you would rather have a guy like Torii Hunter because he hit almost .300, but in reality his “true talent” level for AVG is much lower than that.
"Ninety percent [of my salary] I'll spend on good times, women, and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I'll probably waste."
-Tug McGraw
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
- The Cardinals Hall of Fame can now be found at Bill Clinton’s library in Arkansas (Huh?)
- Will Bryce Harper start the season with the Nationals?
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
