Lookout Landing

Not really that similar.

2006 Silva had an insanely high HR rate. 2008 Silva just plain sucks.

They are fairly similar.

2006: LD: 22.2%, GB: 43.6%, FB 34.2%
2008: LD: 21.8%, GB: 44%, FB 34.2%

WHIP the same, WPA the same, and decently similar on a lot of the other core stats. Virtually identical on ERA. 2006 Silva gave up a shit ton of home runs, but otherwise they seem like roughly the same player.

Though, whatever. He sucks.

CapSea - August 4, 2008 reply

Yeah I was referring to the LD, GB, and FB rates

So much for the splitter.

I read this as 'spitter'.

And my mirth was increased exponentially. And I’m sorry for lowering the quality of this conversation to the gutter. Now I’m off to do some metric homework before the game starts, these stats you reference are no longer Greek to me, but not by much.

dpseadv - August 4, 2008 reply

And even when you adjust for the HR/FB%

He was still really bad in 2006. Not as bad as he appeared but still bad, and better than he is now but not by all that much.

His babip is quite high this year which pretty much offsets the bad luck he had with homeruns in 2006 anyways. Adjusting his babip to league average this year would probably yield similar numbers to his HR adjusted 2006. His LD/GB/FB are nearly identical, his BB rate is identical, his K rate is actually a little bit higher this year….same pitcher really, just bad luck in a different way (or bad defense).

After the near misses of Pavano, Schmidt, and Zito

we were bound to eventually get bit.

katal - August 4, 2008 reply

This team is so dumb.

It's fun to look at the list of terrible pitching investments over the last few years and check off how many of them we tried to make

Jeff Sullivan - August 4, 2008 reply

Seattle rotation:

1. Felix
2. Barry Zito
3. Jason Schmidt
4. Carl Pavano
5. Kei Igawa

At least we’d be closer to SAS.

dbroncos31 - August 4, 2008 reply

Yeah, with that rotation, he'd make one hell of a middle reliever

You know...

... the Twins are proof positive that you don’t HAVE to be part of the Billy Beane School of General Managing to be successful. Nor do you have to write huge checks, You just have to avoid being a dumbass and overpaying for marginal talent on the FA market, and the Twins do a good job of that, plus they are excellent at the scouting end of things.

I’d be pretty happy if our next GM could demonstrate this ability and transmit it to the rest of the front office staff.

Well there's no reason why you HAVE to follow the Moneyball model to be successful -

the main theme of the book wasn’t “value sabr” and “OBP OBP OBP!!!!!” as much as was simply “think outside the box and try to find inefficiencies in the way the market works.” The Twins do it by scouting extremely well and not putting any black holes on the field, whereas the A’s come to the same end result through much more analytical means.

Also, no Liriano =(. I want to watch him destroy us AND it would help in the Race for Strasburg.

Well, to wit, like Oakland they don't have much of a choice

They play in a bad-fit dome stadium (though they’re getting a new park soon) and have only so much money to spend. They don’t throw money at expensive veterans because they don’t have the money.

But those two teams have kind of proven that it's better to not spend money at all then to spend it stupidly

unless you are the Yankees and have unlimited money

Sure

So, basically, the M's are rich and stupid?

This explains some things.

Could be worse - they could be poor and stupid

A fool and his money are soon parted.

eknpdx - August 4, 2008 reply

Hi, Kansas City!

Same result

AZSEAfan - August 4, 2008 reply

Isn't Carl Pohlad still the richest owner in baseball?

G_ - August 4, 2008 reply

Richest != spends most on team

EC

Great theory but you forgot about the Fat Manatee Livan Hernandez.

AZSEAfan - August 4, 2008 reply

Uh...

The Twins are spending 5 million on a one year deal for their Fat Manatee. We’re spending 48 million over 4 for ours. Oh, and theirs is pitching better. Advantage: Twins.

I still can't tell if the Twins success is based more in scouting or player development

the two are related, but still quite distinct.

I’ll give their scouts credit for Ben Revere, their 1st rounder in ‘07 that was roundly panned. He’s done amazingly well.

But they seem to do better in taking guys with meh stuff and getting them to the majors – Perkins, Slowey, Blackburn… Everyone talked about Santana and Liriano (who scouts must have seen in other orgs), but I just find it amazing that they’re actually able to get value from their so-so SP prospects. Do THAT and you get to skip the bidding wars for crappy mid-rotation slop, and you can actually succeed despite a small payroll.

Anyway, I’d love to read a book on the Twins philosophy in the draft or their player devel. system. It’s great to talk about ‘market inefficiencies’ or ‘think outside the box’ or what have you. I keep thinking the real money to be made is in doing obvious things better – 1: pitcher attrition and 2: player development. Those aren’t ‘outside the box’ – they’re core activities. And it would seem that half of baseball sucks at them. THAT’S the inefficiency.

But it's the same general idea though - figure out what is being done poorly, and do it better than everyone else

it’s not as if no one thought of analysis before the A’s – they just do it much better than anyone else

I'm not convinced that the A's do it better than anyone else

And, at least to me, it’s a totally different idea. The idea that poor teams have to ‘discover’ a commodity or skill that’s undervalued… no, they don’t. That’s ONE way to do it, and the A’s do some facets of that quite well. It’s just not the only path to success, even for small market teams. Indeed, the twins seem to succeed using the exact opposite template/strategy. I’d like to hear about how they implement that.

I’d also say that ‘Moneyball’ was certainly trying to come up with something more profound, or more specific, than ‘Figure out what’s being done poorly, and do it better.’

I disagree - I've always felt like Moneyball was encouraging you to think for yourself

rather than promote a specific strategy, if that makes sense. I think my opinion of that book is influenced by the rest of Lewis’ work though, like this fascinating piece on the Texas Tech coach Mike Leach (well, if you’re into football offenses at all I found it fascinating)

I love Mike Leach

But again, the premise or take-away from Moneyball gets more amorphous every month.
Now we’re down to ‘do things better’ or ‘think for yourself?’ Can I get a ‘believe in yourself’ or perhaps an ‘aim high?’

I think the other side caricutures the book as ‘draft fat dudes’ or something equally ridiculous, but it’s equally odd to claim that the ONLY thing the book was trying to say is that you should do good things.
The A’s way of doing things was couched as being diametrically opposed to the way the Twins (seem to) do things. Maybe that’s not true, but in any event, I’d love to hear about what the Twins look for or how they develop players.
Basically, the overall point is that much of what the Twins seem to do with regards to the draft seems like the exact sorts of things that Moneyball argued were overvalued and out-of-step.
You can argue that Moneyball wasn’t actually advocating any form of analysis, or philosophy or strategy, but that obviously guts it. I would still argue that if you want to replicate the success of the A’s then their model offers you better odds. But I like that the Twins offer a counterexample, even if it’s still shrouded in mystery.

Yeah, I totally agree about the Twins - I just prefer to think that Lewis is advocating something simpler

beyond just statistical analysis as a potential path to success in baseball

Perhaps, but I still feel that this weakens the book

The A’s did things because they believed that they could uncover undervalued talent. I think the book took a lot of time explaining WHY statistical analysis can get you to undervalued players – that is, they weren’t making a claim that the result is all that matters, and that the A’s could’ve drafted players based on what day of the week they were born and arrived at the same place. Lewis, or perhaps the A’s org, made specific claims about what kinds of processes were more likely to be successful, and specific claims about data-poor activities like scouting.
He was advocating the use of data. Maybe not OBP specifically, but using measurement to guide you to the truth. This isn’t to say that the Twins do not have computers or calculators, but they seem to trust other, less data-intensive processes. Or maybe they don’t, I don’t really know. I’d like to know.

"If everybody is thinking the same, then somebody isn't thinking." Patton.

Was how I encapsulated the A’s strategy. And metrics was their template for a team strategy that allowed them to wash through players, and grab the nuggets that other teams just didn’t value. A niche market that fit their budget . Now I’m seeing other teams trying to emulate this, without understanding the concept, and making a mess. But this is the opinion of somebody that has the slightest grasp of metrics, and is viewing the whole situation from far away. Did I mention I have trouble balancing my checkbook?

dpseadv - August 4, 2008 reply

Yeah, it's not that do it better... so much as they actually do it (unlike many others)

I've read this many times, and I still don't get it.

The quote?

My take is that if everybody is competing, or functioning, in generally the same way, then it’s just monkey see monkey do. That’s the way it’s been done around here, that’s the way were going to keep doing it so don’t ask questions. Then somebody steps out of the box, and sets the system on its ear. In hindsight those moments often look simple, at the time they happen they can be huge. Like Alexander the Great, or Elvis. And I probably think I’m being insightful when I’m actually being a complete moron. I’m not talking again until I finish a couple beers and regain my confidence.

dpseadv - August 4, 2008 reply

Tits and Washburn this series? Oh joy.

BrianL - August 4, 2008 reply

Think of Strasburg, be more joyful.

Kirsten Schlewitz - August 4, 2008 reply

There's a joyful pic in that series somewhere.

I just don’t think we see it often.

This one seemed a little more appropriate for some reason.

BrianL - August 4, 2008 reply

It has occurred to me that there is a possibility the Oakland A's

might end up with a worse win/loss record than the Mariners by the end of the season. They have been on a hell of a losing streak lately.

I highly doubt it.

BrianL - August 4, 2008 reply

I know but would'nt that be weird if that actually happened. It's not probable but still possible.

Kirsten Schlewitz - August 4, 2008 reply

I'm not a stats person but it seems extremely, extremely unlikely.

That would be very weird

but it’s really not gonna happen – the M’s would have to finish somewhere near .500 probably and that ain’t happenin

Uh, no

Nobody on earth predicted the Mariners to have the season they have been having either.

But it happened. it could happen to the A’s.

They're 11.5 games ahead of us with 50-ish left to play

There’s no way. We would have to go on one hell of an uncharacteristic winning streak for it to even be possible.

No, they'd just need to stay in the tank

They overachieved for the first half of the season, and then they traded Blanton and Harden. It’s not totally crazy.

A little bit crazy, sure, but there’s a possibility. There’s probably a 2% chance the A’s go 14-38, but if they do, the M’s only need to go 25-26 to overtake ‘em. Yeah, OK, that’s still a bit crazy…

I thought they underachieved for the first half

Their record was well below their pythag for a while there and still is despite the losing streak. Trading Harden and Blanton made them worse but not bad enough to go 14-38…

The Nationals couldn't go 14-38

Shut up

If anyone can do it, they can

True.

The As have played like a roughly .516 team but are under .500 in reality. They likely will not keep up a .516 talent pace but the loss of Harden and Blanton do not make them even close to a .400 talent team.

But how have they played like a .516 team?

Their pitching staff has given up nearly 100 runs fewer than league average. Two of their better starters are now gone, and three remaining starters are all in line for some regression.

They’re not a .400 true-talent team, but they’re probably closer to that right now than they are to .516.

We’ll see what their record ends up at post-Blanton trade.

I thought true talent level was already regressed

Because their run differential says they’ve played like a .527 team while their true record is a .482 team.

So assuming that the .516 figure is already regressed, that’s an 84 win team. For them to drop to .400 they would have to be a 65 win team post-Harden/Blanton, that’s -19 wins. That’s a lot of wins above replacement level for two guys, as good as they are, I don’t think it’s anywhere close to that.

IMO they’re probably around a .500 team now.

They also added Sean Gallagher

who’s at least equivalent to Joe Blanton and perhaps better than him.

That's fair.

But Greg Smith and Duchscherer seem like they’re in for some serious regression. Eveland to a degree.
I’m still not sure you can look at the staff as it stands and say that they’re a true talent 3.9 R/G team – I’m struggling to think of them as 4.5.

And yes, yes, defense matters. But right now, Jack Cust is middle-of-the-pack in RZR as a LF. He’s also made more OOZ plays per inning than Matt Holliday (but not as many as Carlos Lee… buhh?). They’re good, but I still don’t think Billy Beane could’ve reasonably expected run prevention like they’ve put up.

Kirsten Schlewitz - August 5, 2008 reply

Chance that the As finish in last?

.0003%.

Thanks, I was curious what you all thought of this.

I appreciate your responses. Seems to me the Mariners are doing a little better getting some wins against tough teams while the A’s have traded away their team and seem to be headed down the slippery slope.

This was definitely worthy of a front page headline

Giambi shaves his moustache

Erg

Link