The rebuild thread.

[Elktonnick]

OBP is the most important factor. But, having no power whatsoever drives down run scoring ability. The sox have the 15th OBP in the game, they're the median for the most part. That being said, the delta between them and the #24 team is .007, ie not a difference for the most part. The Red Sox, OTOH had the 25th SLG in baseball and the worst in the AL. The delta between them and the median team (Houston) is 0.02, which is a bit more significant. The delta between them and the 29th team (Atlanta) is .003, ie not significant at all. So they're only signiciantly better than the bottom 6 teams in OBP and barely better than the worst team in the game in SLG. Put that together and they have the 23rd OPS in baseball, and only 0.010 above the 27th worst team in baseball. Makes sense that theyre the #26 team in baseball in R.

 

The above does not alter the basic falsity of your original premise ie " getting on base directly correlates to runs." The plain English of that statement is not true. Higher OBP in all and every case by itself does not lead to more runs scored as the basic fact that the O's and Red Sox have the same OBP yet the O's not only scored more runs than the Red Sox did but won more games. The facts are the facts. Now there are numerous reasons why the O's scored more runs and won more ball games then did the Red Sox, none of which had anything to do with OBP. The rest of your statistical analysis is rather meaningless to the end result now isn't it. It only serves to obscure the embarassing truth the higher OBP does not always lead to more runs being scored.

 

In any event I believe the Red Sox will be modifying their philosophical approach to hitting because of the increased number of power arms coming out of the bullpen next year. As a result we will see less reliance on driving up pitch count.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Elktonnick

[jacksonianmarch]

The OBP wasn't significantly better than the #24 team in baseball. Their R scored were the #26 in baseball. I'd say that's a close correlation

[Elktonnick]

It is an illusory correlation reflecting your myside bias. Your original statement was not true. Get over it. The point is that teams will be changing their approaches to hitting next year for two reasons. One is the increase in average velocity by pitchers throughout the majors because of the increased number of power arms in the bullpen. The second is the increased number of shifts. Ron Darling and Cal Rypken alluded to this during today's KC Detroit game. What worked in the past won't necessarily work in the future. Edited September 22, 2014 by Elktonnick

[jacksonianmarch]

If there is a correlation with higher velocity pens, why has the ERA of the pen been EXACTLY the same for the past 2 seasons (3.59)? And why would 2012 have been only slightly higher (3.67)? The biggest change has been in the starters. 2012- 4.19, 2013-4.01, 2014- 3.84. But you can continue to cling to your idea, which is not supported by evidence. I do know of a certain guy who comes down chimneys on Christmas, though, if you like fairy tales

[Elktonnick]

In love it when a saber geek has been proven wrong they come up with silly over statements. I never said or claimed there was a correlation with anything you did. What I said was there has been a reported increase in velocity in the majors and we are seeing more teams with power arms in the bull pens. As this trend is likely to continue, i.e. more teams with stronger bull pens, teams will adjust to this new reality. Even your data if true, shows that pens have a better ERA then do starters which if continued over a long term certainly argues against using pitch counts to drive starters from the game. Why would it be smart baseball to do so if a team only faces a bull pen with a lower ERA then the starters. That's what your above data suggests not mine. I guess you didn't read or understand the meaning of your own data. Now who believes in the guy who comes down chimneys.

 

BTW I've got to go and feed the reindeer:)

Edited September 22, 2014 by Elktonnick

[seabeachfred]

One fact stands out like a sore thumb my friends and that is the fact that our hitters have been hitting behind the count continuously this season and prime example No. 1 has been Mike Napoli. What has happened to him is that he winds up swinging at a pitch outside the one for strike three or takes one down the middle for an out. I've seen that ample times with him and with Bogaerts, I saw it with Drew, though he stunk no matter what was pitched to him and when. It infected Pedroia this season. He took to many first pitches down the cock that I thought the bat was temporarily nailed to his shoulder. Ditto for Gomes before he was sent away and it was chronic with Middlebrooks and I think that pretty much did him in this season.

[dupree]

I have read bill james' books on Saber metrics and it has proven to work many times in the past and will be what is a staple of the future. BUT that being said I'd like to see our hitters start hitting strikes instead of taking them on the 1st pitch just to drive up pitch counts. WMB, Napoli, & Peddy are power hitters not finesse hitters who hit to the gaps. If the ball is in there let them swing away.

When I was playing college ball and high school ball the coaches told me that I needed to wait on my pitch and drive the ball. When I stepped into the box if they were going to throw heat I was swinging. They would get mad and say no no no you a need to wait and see his pitches so you know what he has for future games against that certain pitcher. Needless to say that didn't work with me, if it was anywhere close I was swinging, especially if it was heat. Saber of driving up pitch counts has trickled down to the lower levels is my point. Bill James is a very smart man and his genius is used all over baseball but still I would like to see a change of mindset and let the guys swing earlier in the count. A starter will be taken out just as quick when the score is 5-0 in the 3rd inning with 65 pitches thrown. Instead of a 1-0 game with 105 pitches thrown in the 6th inning. I'd rather drive up runs than pitch counts and the only way to do that is swing the bat.

[Elktonnick]

I have read bill james' books on Saber metrics and it has proven to work many times in the past and will be what is a staple of the future. BUT that being said I'd like to see our hitters start hitting strikes instead of taking them on the 1st pitch just to drive up pitch counts. WMB, Napoli, & Peddy are power hitters not finesse hitters who hit to the gaps. If the ball is in there let them swing away.

When I was playing college ball and high school ball the coaches told me that I needed to wait on my pitch and drive the ball. When I stepped into the box if they were going to throw heat I was swinging. They would get mad and say no no no you a need to wait and see his pitches so you know what he has for future games against that certain pitcher. Needless to say that didn't work with me, if it was anywhere close I was swinging, especially if it was heat. Saber of driving up pitch counts has trickled down to the lower levels is my point. Bill James is a very smart man and his genius is used all over baseball but still I would like to see a change of mindset and let the guys swing earlier in the count. A starter will be taken out just as quick when the score is 5-0 in the 3rd inning with 65 pitches thrown. Instead of a 1-0 game with 105 pitches thrown in the 6th inning. I'd rather drive up runs than pitch counts and the only way to do that is swing the bat.

 

I am not saying Sabermetrics doesn't work or doesn't have value because it does. I too have his book and others also. But sabermetrics is tool. Correlation and causality are two different things. (Too many confuse the two.) Regarding OBP it is theoretically possible for a team with a 500 OBP to lose to a team that gets only one hit and one baserunner. The big lesson of sabermetrics is that baseball changes. Teams that can adjust to those changes have the competitive advantage.

[Elktonnick]

One fact stands out like a sore thumb my friends and that is the fact that our hitters have been hitting behind the count continuously this season and prime example No. 1 has been Mike Napoli. What has happened to him is that he winds up swinging at a pitch outside the one for strike three or takes one down the middle for an out. I've seen that ample times with him and with Bogaerts, I saw it with Drew, though he stunk no matter what was pitched to him and when. It infected Pedroia this season. He took to many first pitches down the cock that I thought the bat was temporarily nailed to his shoulder. Ditto for Gomes before he was sent away and it was chronic with Middlebrooks and I think that pretty much did him in this season.

 

Fred I too saw the same thing all year which is why I argue for them to rethink their hitting approach. As I said elsewhere, I think we saw that with Middlebrooks yesterday who swung early in the count on virtually every at bat. Certainly both Cespedes and Castillo are swinging early. I doubt the Red Sox will be changing their approach to hitting any time soon.

[Elktonnick]

BTW After yesterday's game the Red Sox have an OBP of 314, Baltimore 313 Kansas City 312 and Seattle 301. While Texas the team with the worst record in the AL has a 315 OBP. Minn has a 323 OBP Clearly OBP is not an indicator of success on the diamond. Anyone who says otherwise simply is denying the statistical truth.

[Bellhorn04]

BTW After yesterday's game the Red Sox have an OBP of 314, Baltimore 313 Kansas City 312 and Seattle 301. While Texas the team with the worst record in the AL has a 315 OBP. Minn has a 323 OBP Clearly OBP is not an indicator of success on the diamond. Anyone who says otherwise simply is denying the statistical truth.

 

OTOH to argue that there isn't a general correlation between OBP and runs scored is also to deny the statistical truth.

[Elktonnick]

Never said that there wasn't some relationship between the two. Remember Jacksonianmarch made two claims that I disagreed with; The first was driving up pitch counts and the second was "OBP is the most important factor." The data simply doesn't support either premise.

 

BTW Bill James did make the following point: "The largest variable determining how many runs a team will score is how many times they get their leadoff man on base."

That is not the same as OBP for the team as a whole. I suspect many conflate the two.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Elktonnick

[seabeachfred]

OTOH to argue that there isn't a general correlation between OBP and runs scored is also to deny the statistical truth.

 

Only if you have batters who have ability to get those runners home------like Bogaerts NOT!!!!!!!!

[Spitball]

BTW After yesterday's game the Red Sox have an OBP of 314, Baltimore 313 Kansas City 312 and Seattle 301.

 

Team ERAs: Boston-4.01, Baltimore-3.44, Kansas City-3.51, Seattle-3.18

 

While Texas the team with the worst record in the AL has a 315 OBP. Minn has a 323 OBP

 

Team ERAs: Texas-4.56, Minnesota-4.63

 

Clearly OBP is not an indicator of success on the diamond. Anyone who says otherwise simply is denying the statistical truth.

 

Besides, I believe the argument was about OBP and runs scored and not about team success.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Spitball

[Elktonnick]

Besides, I believe the argument was about OBP and runs scored and not about team success.

 

Not exactly It was about this statement: "Driving pitch counts up and getting on base directly correlate to runs."

 

And like I wrote this years AL stats don't support that premise . Baltimore is 11th in OBP yet 6th in runs scored, Boston 9th in OBP yet 15th and last in runs scored, for example.

 

My point is that the Red Sox philosophy of driving up pitch counts and their over emphasis on OBP has to change. This is especially noticeable in WMB's case who was striking out on pitches out of the zone after taking strikes one and two which were usually right down the middle. Furthermore I believe we will see the Sox change that philosophy as evidenced by their signings of Cespedes and Castillo who are free swingers.

[Spitball]

Not exactly It was about this statement: "Driving pitch counts up and getting on base directly correlate to runs."

 

And like I wrote this years AL stats don't support that premise . Baltimore is 11th in OBP yet 6th in runs scored, Boston 9th in OBP yet 15th and last in runs scored, for example.

 

I think you know that two teams don't prove much. Statistics don't give an absolute answer but a pretty clear indication of future probability. It is like studying horse a racing form. You can look for indicators that will greatly improve your chances of successful betting...but there are no absolutes.

 

My point is that the Red Sox philosophy of driving up pitch counts and their over emphasis on OBP has to change.

 

Can you prove this???

 

This is especially noticeable in WMB's case who was striking out on pitches out of the zone after taking strikes one and two which were usually right down the middle.

 

You don't know that Middlebrooks and his failures are about a team-wide philosophy. Please explain why members of the team like Brock Holt and Mookie Betts are doing so well. How do they succeed in the system while Middlebrooks fails?

 

Furthermore I believe we will see the Sox change that philosophy as evidenced by their signings of Cespedes and Castillo who are free swingers.

 

The A's have always adhered to the OPS theory, yet they have signed Cespedes and traded for the likes of Jose Gullion. Again, you need a larger sample size to prove your point.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Spitball

[Elktonnick]

Act think you know that two teams don't prove much. Statistics don't give an absolute answer but a pretty clear indication of future probability. It is like studying horse a racing form. You can look for indicators that will greatly improve your chances of successful betting...but there are no absolutes

 

Actually they do, they prove that there isn't a direct correlation. Direct correlation means that an increase in one variable results in an increase in another variable. You see we weren't talking probability nor were we talking about positive correlation. If you look at the entire stats for the entire American league you will see that an increase to the variable OBP did not result in an increase in the variable Runs scored in numerous cases. The Boston Baltimore example is but one of many. I never said there wasn't some relationship between OBP and increased run production just not the direct correlation nor is it the most important factor as alleged. BTW as I said it is theoretically possible (I admit not probable) for a team to have an OBP of 500 in a game and not score a single run. We saw a less spectacular version of that happen all year with the Red Sox when they out hit their opponents only to lose. The Sox were 9th in OBP yet 15 th in runs scored. Hence no direct correlation bewteen increased OBP and runs for Boston this year now was there?

 

Regarding the second point one can't prove what hasn't happened yet.

 

The third point , Middlebrooks is a product of the Red Sox system. Holt isn't. Both Holt and Betts swing for the entire field. WMB doesn't that's why Betts and Holt are successful hitting with two strikes and WMB isn't. Again to suggest that working the pitch count is a successful strategy for every hitter is flat out bad baseball. WMB has started to swing earlier in the count BTW if you saw Sundays game.

 

Your reference to the A's is meaningless since I am talking about the Red Sox. not the A's who have to work with different restrictions and a different environment than do the Red Sox. I believe as do others that the Red Sox will modify their over emphasis on driving up pitch count in part due to the limitations and strengths of their current ballplayers which was my original point.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Elktonnick

[Spitball]

Act think you know that two teams don't prove much. Statistics don't give an absolute answer but a pretty clear indication of future probability. It is like studying horse a racing form. You can look for indicators that will greatly improve your chances of successful betting...but there are no absolutes

 

Actually they do, they prove that there isn't a direct correlation. Direct correlation means that an increase in one variable results in an increase in another variable. You see we weren't talking probability nor were we talking about positive correlation. If you look at the entire stats for the entire American league you will see that an increase to the variable OBP did not result in an increase in the variable Runs scored in numerous cases. The Boston Baltimore example is but one of many. I never said there wasn't some relationship between OBP and increased run production just not the direct correlation nor is it the most important factor as alleged. BTW as I said it is theoretically possible (I admit not probable) for a team to have an OBP of 500 in a game and not score a single run. We saw a less spectacular version of that happen all year with the Red Sox when they out hit their opponents only to lose. The Sox were 9th in OBP yet 15 th in runs scored. Hence no direct correlation bewteen increased OBP and runs for Boston this year now was there?

 

Regarding the second point one can't prove what hasn't happened yet.

 

The third point , Middlebrooks is a product of the Red Sox system. Holt isn't. Both Holt and Betts swing for the entire field. WMB doesn't that's why Betts and Holt are successful hitting with two strikes and WMB isn't. Again to suggest that working the pitch count is a successful strategy for every hitter is flat out bad baseball. WMB has started to swing earlier in the count BTW if you saw Sundays game.

 

Your reference to the A's is meaningless since I am talking about the Red Sox. not the A's who have to work with different restrictions and a different environment than do the Red Sox. I believe as do others that the Red Sox will modify their over emphasis on driving up pitch count in part due to the limitations and strengths of their current ballplayers which was my original point.

 

You have not really made your case so much as repeated your opinion. Throw out Baltimore and St. Louis as outliers and the top OBP and the top run scorers in mlb are lumped together. The top ten scoring teams run from .331 to .319. The middle ten scoring teams run from .318 to .300. The bottom ten run scoring teams run from .319 to .292.

 

Obviously, it is better to reach base more and not make an out. But, there are clearly other important factors to scoring runs. Slugging percentage is important. Line-up balance is important where a team's OBP can be skewed by a couple of on-base specialists(see the 2013 Cincinnati Reds). Luck, good and bad, can also come into play (see the 2014 Orioles and Cardinals).

[seabeachfred]

You have not really made your case so much as repeated your opinion. Throw out Baltimore and St. Louis as outliers and the top OBP and the top run scorers in mlb are lumped together. The top ten scoring teams run from .331 to .319. The middle ten scoring teams run from .318 to .300. The bottom ten run scoring teams run from .319 to .292.

 

Obviously, it is better to reach base more and not make an out. But, there are clearly other important factors to scoring runs. Slugging percentage is important. Line-up balance is important where a team's OBP can be skewed by a couple of on-base specialists(see the 2013 Cincinnati Reds). Luck, good and bad, can also come into play (see the 2014 Orioles and Cardinals).

 

The most important aspect in scoring runs is to have people who don't choke up in the clutch drive them in----as Ortiz has for the past 12 years. We don't seem to have too many of them right now.

[curiousd]

RED SOX SET A NEW MLB RECORD FOR ONE OFFENSIVE STAT IN 2014

 

From on line preview of the rubber game in last series with Rays in 2014:

 

"Boston leads the Majors in 4.05 pitches per plate appearance, which would be the highest rate for any MLB team as far back as data exists (starting in 1988)."

 

Yeah, Hurrah, Go Sox.......best ever in driving up the pitch count!!!!!!

[Elktonnick]

You can't throw out so called outliers as inconvenient when your argument is direct correlation. The argument that I am refuting is driving up pitch count and OBP are the most important factors in runs scored. If you look at this year's AL data the three teams with the largest difference between Batting Average and OBP were Oakland, Tampa Bay, and Boston. They finished 3rd 14, and 15th in runs respectively. I could make the case statistically that Batting Average and Slugging percentage were more important then the number of walks a team got because that's what we are really talking about when we discuss OBP.

[Bellhorn04]

There's a reason why OPS is such a popular stat now. On Base + Slugging is what puts big runs on the board.

[a700hitter]

RED SOX SET A NEW MLB RECORD FOR ONE OFFENSIVE STAT IN 2014

 

From on line preview of the rubber game in last series with Rays in 2014:

 

"Boston leads the Majors in 4.05 pitches per plate appearance, which would be the highest rate for any MLB team as far back as data exists (starting in 1988)."

 

Yeah, Hurrah, Go Sox.......best ever in driving up the pitch count!!!!!!

And the data also shows that hitting with 2 strikes does not have a high probability of success. TeddyBallgame always preached getting a good pitch to hit and he rarely swung at the first pitch. He walked a lot in his day. I think he was second to Ruth when he retired. He also preached about getting into a good hitters count 2-0, 3-1. He knew that 1-2 or 0-2 put the hitter at a huge disadvantage. Driving up the pitch count is meaningless if the pitcher is consistently getting ahead of the hitters. Edited September 25, 2014 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

There's a reason why OPS is such a popular stat now. On Base + Slugging is what puts big runs on the board.

Bell, you are a great poster, and I think that you are about my age, so I have to ask whether you grew up under a rock when it comes to OBP. I undertand the punk ass kids thinking they invented OBP along with sex. LOL! But I can't understand how you think it is a new concept. My dad told me about it when I was a kid. Every great hitter that I ever heard talk about hitting stressed the importance of getting a good pitch to hit and taking their walks. GMs had basic math available to them in the 50's and 60's and they understood the importance of being a patient hitter. There just wasn't an obsession with OBP, because it is not the be all and end all in winning baseball. Sometimes the hitter needs to hack at a 3-1 pitch that is questionable if there are runners in scoring position with 2 out or when there is a man on third with 1 out and Joe McDoofus (AKA Bradley) is on deck and Steven Drew McDoofus is up after him. That would be winning smart baseball. Adding to your OBP there would be pointless. Situational baseball is still the best way to win games, but it doesn't build money stats and OBP has become a money stat rehgardless of production, I.e. Runs score and the popularly hated RBI. OBP has always been around as an important factor. It just wasn't cited as the bible. I laugh when people think that Billy Beane invented it. It is now an overdone statistic, because so much emphasis has been put on it that it is no longer a means to an end but rather the objective of a lot of players and GMs. The other thing that is ridiculously overdone is the shift. HOw's that working out for the genius Maddon this year.

Edited September 25, 2014 by a700hitter

[Elktonnick]

Well said. A higher OBP doesn't in and of itself mean a higher run production, end of story.

[jd98]

Count me as someone who thinks OBP is overrated now, and the Sox were way too willing to try to drive up pitch counts, just for the sake of driving up pitch counts. I was thinking early in the season that almost every Sox hitter seemed to go up to the plate with the intention of drawing a walk. That's not likely to work well when the other team knows that is what you're trying to do. At some point, you need to hit the ball. For an extreme example, a team that hits the ball 35% of the time (all types of hits) and never walks is going to score a whole lot more runs than a team that walks 35% of the time but never gets a hit, even though their OBP will be the same. The other teams have caught on to the Sox, and are getting ahead in the count. One stat that isn't debatable is that players hit much worse when down in the count.

[Spitball]

You can't throw out so called outliers as inconvenient when your argument is direct correlation. The argument that I am refuting is driving up pitch count and OBP are the most important factors in runs scored. If you look at this year's AL data the three teams with the largest difference between Batting Average and OBP were Oakland, Tampa Bay, and Boston. They finished 3rd 14, and 15th in runs respectively. I could make the case statistically that Batting Average and Slugging percentage were more important then the number of walks a team got because that's what we are really talking about when we discuss OBP.

 

The outliers don't prove anything one way or the other. Outliers happen in baseball for a variety of reasons and can be dismissed because they don't fit the general pattern indicated by larger sample sizes.

 

I do agree with Bellhorn that OPS is a more telling statistic for me. OBP tells us how often a player managed not to make an out while, and all non-outs are measured equally. SLG puts weighted value to each extra base that gives a success rate for reaching multiple bases. Together they give a telling statistic that measures not making an out with power. It isn't a perfect stat and there are more complicated formulas, but it is easy to figure and to use for comparison.

[Elktonnick]

See the original argument was over OBP not OPS nor OPS+ . Let me recap the original discussion once again. My original contention was that the Red Sox should de emphasize working the count and have hitters like Middlebrooks et al swing earlier in the count. Jacksonian countered with his contention about OBP and pitch count going as far as contending that " OBP is the most important factor." I believe that contention is not supported by the data.

 

"The outliers don't prove anything one way or the other. Outliers happen in baseball for a variety of reasons and can be dismissed because they don't fit the general pattern indicated by larger sample sizes. " Not to be rude, but that is a specious statement. And here is the reason.

 

The so called outliers are relevant and important because the original contention was there is "a direct correlation between OBP and Runs Scored". not it is probable that they would score more runs. If one gives examples where that statementnis not true they aren't outliers. It is fact that runs counter to the hypothesis. (An inconvenient truth so to speak) In this instance, it refutes the argument. Besides there isn't one so called outlier there are many. BTW Here is Bill James's observation "The largest variable determining how many runs a team will score is how many times they get their leadoff man on base." I think James himself wouldn't buy the contention that team OBP is the most important indicator of total runs scored, otherwise he wouldn't have written what he did.

 

In summation the argument wasn't about OPS or OPS+ which clearly are better indicators than OBP which in truth really means how many walks a player gets.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Elktonnick

[jopete19]

Pete Abraham said Cespedes took some infield at 3rd today, and looked surprisingly good. I would like this move, make room for my boy NAVA in the outfield. Your thoughts?

[a700hitter]

Pete Abraham said Cespedes took some infield at 3rd today, and looked surprisingly good. I would like this move, make room for my boy NAVA in the outfield. Your thoughts?

I like it. Third base is an open position. I thought Betts should be moved there since he is an IFer, but maybe he doesn't have a strong enough arm. Cespedes is a heart attack as a fly chaser, but he has a gun. Maybe third would be a good fit for him.