Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Friday, March 31, 2006 |
Pickoff Moves, Lunchtime Edition
Another Cactus League Pitch For The Dodgers
The Arizona Republic seems to think -- with some justification -- that the Dodgers and Indians would be a great fit for the Cactus League. In fact, they suggest that Baltimore and Cincinnati might also be interested, considering they're nearing the end of their respective leases. Cleveland maybe not so much, since they're probably closer to Florida, but the Dodgers, well... It's an operation requiring dynamite.Roster Notes
- "Tim Salmon appears to be a lock to make the team" says the Times, and who am I to disagree?
No matter what happens this weekend, Salmon said this has been "without a doubt" his most satisfying spring ever. After months of grueling rehabilitation, Salmon has shown good bat speed and power, and he has run the bases well. And almost every at-bat in Tempe Diablo Stadium has been greeted with a rousing ovation.
Salmon has already said he would retire rather than wear another team's uniform....
"I don't think I can put into a short sentence all the emotions, but I feel really good about what's been accomplished," Salmon said. "It has surpassed anything I could have imagined. I came in trying not to embarrass myself, and I wound up giving them a tough decision to make."
- Garret Anderson may have to stay behind at extended spring training to get in more at bats to get going. "'It's not just my foot — the fact I haven't played much is a factor,' Anderson said."
- The Angels are thinking about making a play for recently released guys Michael Tucker and Lenny Harris?
- The Angels also reassigned Joe Saunders and Greg Jones following Thursday's game.
- Jose Cruz got a concussion fielding a ball on Tuesday, but is expected to be ready for the regular season.
The Cluephone's A-Ringin' For You, Mike
Christ, not productive outs again. Somebody wake me when this is shown to have a positive correlation to run scoring. Zzzzz.Angels Opening Weekend To Be Televised
A "good faith" gesture from Fox? Or just more hot air?Pastel Excites Frank
They made fun of Dan Evans for wearing pink shirts, and now Frank's mesmerized by the new pastel color scheme at Dodger Stadium. It looks good enough, anyway, but if your team's excitement comes from redecorating, well, maybe it's time to find a new vocation.
Comments:
Must say that from the photos I've seen Dodger Stadium does look terrific. Nice facelift.
Can't you wait a while before you drain all hope from the Dodgers' season Rob? I'm no McCourt fan, but it's been a pretty steady drumbeat of negativity on here.
Can't you wait a while before you drain all hope from the Dodgers' season Rob? I'm no McCourt fan, but it's been a pretty steady drumbeat of negativity on here.
# posted by 
: 3/31/2006 02:59:00 PM
: 3/31/2006 02:59:00 PM
Rob - maybe I am wrong, but Dodger fans by and large seem to tow the company line ... Names off Uniforms? "It is the name on the front that we pay to see" I heard over and over from fans as if they had gone to a education camp in some gulag... New seats? "Tradition" they chant, as if auditioning for Fiddler on the Roof...
Meanwhile Angel fans argue about the anme, argue about the anti-stat management, still argue about the monkey...
So I am not shocked at the scolding of your analytically critical nature.
At least that is how it seems...
Meanwhile Angel fans argue about the anme, argue about the anti-stat management, still argue about the monkey...
So I am not shocked at the scolding of your analytically critical nature.
At least that is how it seems...
# posted by : 3/31/2006 04:25:00 PM
: 3/31/2006 04:25:00 PM
Why should productive outs have to be correlated to runs? Why not wins in close games (a productive out is pointless in a blowout, it is theoretically supposed to improve the chance of one run).
Why should productive outs have to be correlated to runs?
Because the object of the game is to score runs, and this is the yardstick against which all strategies must ultimately be measured. Period.
Because the object of the game is to score runs, and this is the yardstick against which all strategies must ultimately be measured. Period.
Rob, not new here. Been reading your blog for more than a year and in general find it very entertaining. I just don't wwant another season of failure, no matter how bad it would make McCourt look.
# posted by : 3/31/2006 08:38:00 PM
: 3/31/2006 08:38:00 PM
... and the way you do that is by outscoring the opposition. Read The Fantastic Words:
POP doesn't work for one-run games, either. Teams that win one-run games have a .348 POP compared to the .303 of their opponents, a .045 difference. But again, the OBP difference dwarfs it: .373 to .277. And perhaps most shocking of all, the rate of productive outs per opportunity for teams that win one-run games is .218, the rate for teams that lose is .219. That's right -- the team that makes a higher rate of productive outs is slightly more likely to lose.
When anybody -- anybody! -- shows a correlation between productive outs and runs scored, I'll be impressed. In the meantime, fooey.
POP doesn't work for one-run games, either. Teams that win one-run games have a .348 POP compared to the .303 of their opponents, a .045 difference. But again, the OBP difference dwarfs it: .373 to .277. And perhaps most shocking of all, the rate of productive outs per opportunity for teams that win one-run games is .218, the rate for teams that lose is .219. That's right -- the team that makes a higher rate of productive outs is slightly more likely to lose.
When anybody -- anybody! -- shows a correlation between productive outs and runs scored, I'll be impressed. In the meantime, fooey.
All I was trying to say was that there is no reason the productive outs should ever be correlated to runs. The reason you would USE a productive out is because you have a difficult time scoring one run, and you need one run really badly in the inning you are in (within 1 run late, within 2 runs in the 7th or something like that). A better look at correlating it to runs is to first see if a productive out actually works (does it increase the chances of picking up a single run). Productive outs should never have more than a minimal effect on the total number of runs scored in a season whether you think they work or not.
And those stats you threw up are a little better. If I understand it correctly, in one run games, both teams succeed in productive outs at about the same rate (.218 vs. .219 is small enough to say they are the same), but that the team that has more opportunities is able to, therefore, have more productive outs. Of course, a productive out opportunity is based on OBP (if no one is on base, you can't have a POO...that's a great abbreviation, by the way). My issue with throwing the OBP comparison in there is that no logical person ever said that POPs are the be all and end all to win games.
My only point is that you need to be careful when claiming conclusions from stats. The idea behind POP is not to put up a ton of runs, it is to win close games. Therefore, if you are going to rip on something that someone says from a statistical standpoint, make sure you do it properly.
And no, the object of the game is not to score runs it is to win. Scoring more runs than your opponent in a game is how you win. Look at the scores of the 1960s World Series if you need to see a place where a team was severely outscored and still won the whole thing (small datasets notwithstanding).
And those stats you threw up are a little better. If I understand it correctly, in one run games, both teams succeed in productive outs at about the same rate (.218 vs. .219 is small enough to say they are the same), but that the team that has more opportunities is able to, therefore, have more productive outs. Of course, a productive out opportunity is based on OBP (if no one is on base, you can't have a POO...that's a great abbreviation, by the way). My issue with throwing the OBP comparison in there is that no logical person ever said that POPs are the be all and end all to win games.
My only point is that you need to be careful when claiming conclusions from stats. The idea behind POP is not to put up a ton of runs, it is to win close games. Therefore, if you are going to rip on something that someone says from a statistical standpoint, make sure you do it properly.
And no, the object of the game is not to score runs it is to win. Scoring more runs than your opponent in a game is how you win. Look at the scores of the 1960s World Series if you need to see a place where a team was severely outscored and still won the whole thing (small datasets notwithstanding).
Josh --
My issue with throwing the OBP comparison in there is that no logical person ever said that POPs are the be all and end all to win games.
Then show it correlates strongly to runs scored. I mean, seriously, how can you be saying that the object of the game isn't to outscore the opposition? How? I defy you to show me a team that has won a game with zero runs scored! Moreover, It's a well-established fact that teams that outscore their opposition win, and that there is a direct relationship between the number of runs scored and allowed, and the number of wins. This is the basis for Bill James' Pythagorean win percentage, which has a pretty useful predictive ability.
My issue with throwing the OBP comparison in there is that no logical person ever said that POPs are the be all and end all to win games.
Then show it correlates strongly to runs scored. I mean, seriously, how can you be saying that the object of the game isn't to outscore the opposition? How? I defy you to show me a team that has won a game with zero runs scored! Moreover, It's a well-established fact that teams that outscore their opposition win, and that there is a direct relationship between the number of runs scored and allowed, and the number of wins. This is the basis for Bill James' Pythagorean win percentage, which has a pretty useful predictive ability.
Even if you say "well, bunts are more important in close games", that's bunk. If you use a win expectancy finder (like the one here: http://www.walkoffbalk.com/ ) it shows the probability of winning games based on 21 years of actual games. Plugging in any close-and-late situation and comparing the win% before a bunt and after a bunt almost universally shows that a bunt hurts your chances to win. The only place where it doesn't is bottom of ninth, down by one, no outs, runners at first and second.
# posted by : 3/31/2006 10:57:00 PM
: 3/31/2006 10:57:00 PM
I didn't say you don't need runs to win games. I was saying that the goal of the game to win and that runs are the means to that end. There is a HUGE difference between scoring 5 runs per game on average and scoring one run in a single game in a single situation. The entire idea of using averages is that it will be close to the true mean (the actual average runs the team should have picked up) with large enough data sets. But the idea of using productive outs can not be quantified in averages. It is such a small quantity that it has very little bearing on runs per game over 162 games. My entire point is that it is obvious that productive outs aren't going to correlate runs scored over a season. They matter on a game-by-game basis. You are missing the trees for the forest.
And anonymous, I wasn't trying to say that productive outs are necessarily a great stat or something teams should try to do it (there are certainly some situations where it makes sense, though). Bunts ARE more important in close games even if not as successful as you would want them to be. Why? Because bunts are completely worthless in blowouts and they have SOME meaning in close games.
Let's put it this way, Game 7 of teh World Series, tied, bottom of the 9th, less than two outs. Vlad is up. Do you bunt? Hell no. Instead, Juan Pierre is up. Do you bunt? I would call for it every time. What if it is 1 out and instead of bunting, the guy gets walked and Bengie Molina is up? So now it is 1st and 3rd with 1 out and a ground ball is an easy double play (of course, Bengie's clutchiness would never allow him to GIDP there). Guess what, the walk hurt more than the bunt.
And anonymous, I wasn't trying to say that productive outs are necessarily a great stat or something teams should try to do it (there are certainly some situations where it makes sense, though). Bunts ARE more important in close games even if not as successful as you would want them to be. Why? Because bunts are completely worthless in blowouts and they have SOME meaning in close games.
Let's put it this way, Game 7 of teh World Series, tied, bottom of the 9th, less than two outs. Vlad is up. Do you bunt? Hell no. Instead, Juan Pierre is up. Do you bunt? I would call for it every time. What if it is 1 out and instead of bunting, the guy gets walked and Bengie Molina is up? So now it is 1st and 3rd with 1 out and a ground ball is an easy double play (of course, Bengie's clutchiness would never allow him to GIDP there). Guess what, the walk hurt more than the bunt.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.