Bill James is still the best. He has a new article up on his site (It’s a pay site, $3 bucks a month, and you should be going there), it’s not about baseball, per se, it’s sort of about himself, and his relationship to statistics. In fact, it’s the text of a speech he made to a group of statisticians. In the piece, he writes something that should be mailed to Brian Sabean:
…. Baseball teams play 162 games a year. I just realized last week that, sometime in the last 20 years, baseball experts have fallen into the habit of saying that a baseball team has about 50 games a year that you are just going to lose no matter what, 50 games a year that you’re going to win, and it is the other 62 games that determine what kind of season you’re going to have. This is not ancient knowledge; this is a fairly new one. A more inane analysis would be difficult to conceive of. First of all, baseball teams do not play one hundred non-competitive games a year, or anything remotely like that. Baseball teams play about forty non-competitive games in a season, more or less; I would be surprised if any team in the history of major league baseball ever had a hundred games in the season that were just wins or losses, and which the losing team never had a chance to win after the fourth or fifth inning. The outcome of most baseball games could be reversed by changing a very small number of events within the game.
But setting that aside, this relatively new cliché assumes that it is the outcome of the most competitive games that decides whether a team has a great season or a poor season. In reality, the opposite is true. The more competitive a game is, the more likely it is that the game will be won by the weaker team. If the Royals play the Yankees and the score of the game is 12 to 1, it is extremely likely that the Yankees won. If the score is 4 to 3, it’s pretty much a tossup. The reasons why this is true will be intuitively obvious to those of you who work with statistics for a living. It is the non-competitive games—the blowouts—that play the largest role in determining what kind of season a team has. Misinformation about baseball continues to propagate, and will continue to propagate forever more, without regard to the fact that there is now a community of researchers that studies these things.
In reference to the Giants, this Giants team, the pitching-dependent, offensively challenged team we’ve been ranting and raving about for the last two and a half seasons, these paragraphs explain what we’ve been experiencing. It’s like a light in a dark closet.
Of course we’re frustrated, being in nail-biters game after game, week after week. It’s because we can sense that something’s not right. There’s something about a team that wins by being perfect that fails to inspire confidence. Of course it doesn’t. As James explains so clearly, it shouldn’t. Winning teams dominate. Winning teams consistently win big. Winning teams are not built upon winning one-run games. Winning teams don’t win because they always win the close ones. They win because they blow teams out. Close games are far too often decided by one single mistake, on missed play, one error, one walk, just like Monday’s game. Teams dancing along that fine line are simply far too dependent upon luck to win enough of the time to be a real contender. And we can see that, even though the Giants are winning right now, they are not really a contending team.
“The more competitive a game is, the more likely it is that the game will be won by the weaker team.”
Great teams blow you out, and it’s the games in which they don’t that you have a chance against them. The Giants are not a great team. They have great pitching. They are one dimensional. They rely on making your offense look as bad on this day as theirs is regularly. That is no way to win a championship. It simply isn’t. You cannot bet on being able to hold down a great offensive team game after game after game. Eventually, a great offense is gonna get you, and if that great offense has some pitching, well, then you’re in real trouble.
Look at these eight games with the Padres. These two teams are exactly the same. So you get eight games of one-run baseball, each team doing everything it can to prevent the other team from running away with the game, tons of bunts, lots of runners left in scoring position. Eight games of let’s see who blinks first. Each team is playing the same way, so, on the surface, the games seem exciting.
But, in fact, they are anything but. They are frustrating. They are exasperating. They are, to me, anyway. Going back and forth between the Giants/Padres and the Yankees/Red Sox games is illuminating. Those Yankee games are exciting. Those games feature game-winning home runs, (something so rare as to have become pretty much a once a year event in San Francisco) and when a pitcher strikes out a guy with men on base, it’s an actual accomplishment. When you watch the Giants bat with men on, the exact opposite is true, it’s an accomplishment when the Giants get the runner home.
Don’t be fooled. Look closely at what’s happening with this team. They are gonna tease you all season long, but, in the end, it will take a miracle for them to make the playoffs. They simply do not have enough hitting to get it done, no matter how many shutouts they throw.
UPDATE: Really!?! 32 total bases, 6 home runs, and 8 walks allowed? Wow.
On a lighter note… Sportscenter ran a statistic regarding John Lester this morning after the Boston highlights. Lester, at 46-18 (.719), has the highest winning percentage of any pitcher with at least 100 starts in Major League history.
Lincecum is sitting there with 98 career starts at 45-17 (.726). I wonder if they will run a similar piece if Lincecum doesn’t lose in his next two starts.
It would be interesting to see Lincecum’s W-L record with Lester’s run support over the last few years. He dominates Lester is just about every pitching category but wins and losses.
Another demonstration of Sabean’s incompetency in assembling a post-season team, even when he has “once in a generation players” like Bonds and now Lincecum.
Getting It. And Telling It.
There are still guys who know what they’re talking about in media. Not many. And they are holdovers from 40 years ago. This guy’s one of them. And even though he writes a general sports column for the general laid-back, Bay Area demographic, he is quite capable of writing an opinion, even when it does not curry favor with the asshats in the SF Giants front office. Of course this rankles the sycophantic season-ticket buyers too from time to time, but he simply just does not give a shit.
Anyway; this from his paysite column on Thursday; unfortunately which was not included in his normal Tuesday column at the the Examiner:
And it has nothing to do with metrics or stats. It comes from being around the game a long time at that level. Rah-rah works in youth ball. And truly bad seeds can have a deleterious effect, but those guys are rarely around for more than a season or two. Rah-Rah-Yippy-Skippy-Huzzah-Hooray is marketing. Surprisingly enough, he thinks highly of Baer; mostly for his role behind the scenes when the team was purchased from Bob Lurie.
Here are some more quotes from the May 19 column:
Something that Sabean has been noted for since he took over. Sabean’s explanation at the time was that Kent’s power offset Snow’s lack of it. Of course after non-tendering Kent, he never replaced him and went with 3 more seasons with Snow followed by Lance Niekro, Ryan Klesko, Shea Hillenbrand, Rich Aurilia, Travis Ishikawa, and now, Aubrey Huff.
You may be struck, as was I, by the fact, that with the possible exception of Ishikawa and Huff, their 5 predecessors wheezed through the end stages of their career holding down 1b for the Giants. It is no coincidence that the Giants have missed the playoffs in each of those years and are likely to miss the post season again, residing once again in third place while running out an awesome 3-12 record against division rivals in the first six weeks of the season.
As for bringing up Buster Posey and sticking him at 1b, here’s his take:
Aaron Rowand is not Kenny Lofton, or even Darren Lewis for that matter when it comes to playing CF.
Anyways, here’s the paragraph that separates this guy from the bums who write for the Chronicle and Bay Area News Group now:
Well the Giants ownership group has. Being rich doesn’t make you smart. Sometimes it just makes you a fucking vainglorious buffoon.
Again this all ties back in to the familiar conversation we have about run differential and how playoff teams generally need to score ~750 runs. Take a look at the baseball standings for the past ten years and look at the playoff teams run differentials. Apart from the odd anomaly the teams with the best run differentials nearly always reach the playoffs. Now compare the teams with the best run differentials to the teams that lead the league in runs scored. Surprised by what you see? You shouldn’t be unless your name is Brian Sabean.
Yep, there’s a reason run differential is so meaningful in every sport – be it basketball, football or baseball. Good teams outscore their opponents by a lot, they don’t win some huge proportion of close games.
Great quote on this topic from Paul DePodesta’s (currently working in Padres’ front office) blog post today:
“While one run games can often go either way, the best teams usually win a majority of games decided by at least five runs”
He then goes on to talk about the fact that he’s ok with the fact that the Padres are 7-7 in one run games, since it means their record isn’t inflated by a lucky streak. Reading his blog posts (which I’ve been doing for the last year) is almost enough to make me a Padres fan. Plus he responds to smart comments from his readers, especially about minor league prospects!
http://itmightbedangerous.blogspot.com/2010/05/at-quarter-mark-well-almost.html
sorry to take this off topic but……holy fuck
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/extrabaggs/2010/05/19/freddy-sanchez-acknowledges-impatience-bochys-lineup-thoughts-downs-still-has-a-role/
“I had a big shoulder surgery,” Sanchez said. “I think the recovery was six months to a year. I’m almost at the five-month date. So I feel I’m ahead of schedule.”
The Giants originally estimated that Sanchez would be out 10 weeks after surgery in December. Sanchez said he had his labrum repaired, his sub-scapular cartilage fixed, his AC joint shaved down and the entire capsule tightened. After making conservative progress, including camp games in Arizona where he had to swing two-handed, he’s back to getting full extension and releasing his top hand.
someone needs to explain to me again why sabean should still have a job, and why this org continues to lie to the fans about everything.
sanchez is not anywhere near 100 percent. if the estimates were 6 months to a year for full recuperation, the chances of his getting reinjured are extremely high.
he played a whole 5.5 games combined in a and aaa….thats supposed to be like spring training?
and they are gonna bat him in the 3 spot….THE 3 SPOT!@!!@@@@@@@@!!!!!!!!
cant wait to watch tonites train wreck
if im the opposing pitcher, im am pitching freddy high and tight all nite…no way is he gonna get around on pitches
I am familiar with that surgery–up close and personal. Sanchez is putting a good spin on it. Its a fucking year before you’re 100 percent. When you shave the AC joint, that is considered a major rebuild, even if it is done arthroscopically. While its possible he could re-tear, particularly the cartilage, the biggest problem is range of motion and muscle strength. You can resume throwing, but there is no way this kid is at even close to 100 percent.
If that fucking cunt from the Merc had thought to talk to Sanchez before he started smearing him in at least two of his blogs that I am aware of, the fans and followers would know what the facts were. Dissemblance and diversion and excuses. This organization is so full of horseshit and gunsmoke, nothing can be taken at face value again. What a bunch of fucking lying conniving motherfuckers, and then throwing this guy under the bus in the process. Fuck these cunts. They don’t deserve shit.
That “little” disclosure is mind-boggling.
Sabean has truly lost his mind.
ya…truly bothers me that baggs allowed himself to be used to give out the org line that sanchez was either lazy or unwilling to play with a little pain
by all rights, he shoulda been out for the year…as should derosa
not angry at sanchez…he didnt force sabean to hand him the keys to the bank
sabean does not do “due diligence” …never has
hey look…with sanchez in the 3 spot, the team scored an entire run
meanwhile, the snakes were hitting our pitching like it was bp….which it was
wellemeyer is a joke
boy…saving all that caishe not resiging penny is working out great
They rely on making your offense look as bad on this day as theirs is regularly
That about says it all and it is fucking profound in its simplicity and directness. New Giants Motto. “Watch Us try to make the other guy stink up the joint worse than us! — Magic Inside!!
“Magic Inside in-fucking-deed!” I guess if your idea of magic is watching two double-amputees race each other in a potato sack race wearing blindfolds next to a cliff. Its like who the fuck gives a shit.
When the best you can look forward to is Lincecum making the others guys look as bad as Clem Kadiddlehopper makes the Giants look, that isn’t baseball; it is fucking outdoor root canal therapy. They fucking need to change their slogan to “Unwatchable Inside”
Pass.
I’ve recently decided the new motto should be: “Giants Baseball – It’s Torture Inside!!”
Help me here Trantor. Re: your post on the previous thread, I love Bill James as much as the next guy, but according to the stats over at http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cansejo01.shtml Jose Canseco had 462 lifetime home runs, and Ruben Sierra had 306.
***
Hey Uncle Joe;
Don’t you remember AAA stats tell us nothing?
.222 in AAA tells me something, though.
I think I need to dig up the Bill James article where he goes through age differences and proves that even a 1 year age advantage for a very young player can double the expected lifetime performance of a player.
My favorite Bill James article of all time was his comparison of Ruben Sierra vs. Jose Canseco. At the time that Baseball Abstract came out, I didn’t really know who Sierra was. James compared the stats of the two, and based on Sierra’s performance with a 1 year age advantage, predicted Sierra would out-homer Canseco lifetime. A lot happened since that prediction, but the irony of the Canseco-Sierra trade, not to mention that Sierra did indeed out homer Canseco brings out the power of James’ early predictions. It was outlandish when he wrote it, but turned out accurate.
Maybe I can send that 1988/89 article to Neukom….
You are right, I had thought so, but checked and accidentally swapped the 2B and HR columns.
Canseco way outperformed Sierra on HRs. my bad. But Neukom should still read that article!
This has been noticed in other sports as well. A couple of NFL seasons ago, Football Outsiders (who I think write the most interesting articles on football analysis) did a statistical analysis that proved this point is true even for football. The record of a team in the regular and post season had strong correlations not with how many close games they won in with the teams they were competitive with, but rather how badly they blew out bad teams.
It’s also why playoffs are so frustrating for football fans. Once you get two teams that are in the same tier (or even close) it just doesn’t take much to swing the game to the weaker tam.
Of course, with football, even the smart, hardcore fans I know refuse to believe any of the analysis done by FO, simply because the sample sizes in the season are so small, that it’s easy for them just to go by “gut feel”, and find exceptions to make up rules with.