SB Nation User Blog: t7rick

Concerning OBP and run scoring

t7rick — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:55:47 -0000

Ok,

I started out looking for stats concerning LOB for teams in the past ten years and I could not find an easy way on Baseball-Reference and I didn’t want to work a lot harder than that. So I decided to use some of the stats readily available to me on the before motioned site and perhaps, draw some interesting inferences from those stats.

Here is what I compiled

	Year	Runs	R. Rank	Baserunners	Ratio (hits/walks)	OBP	OBP Rank	% baserunners scored
STL*	2008	135	4th	417	1.90	0.374	2nd	32.4
PHL	2007	892	1st	2199	2.43	0.354	T-1st	40.6
PHL	2006	865	1st	2244	2.58	0.347	2nd	38.5
CIN	2005	820	1st	2064	2.38	0.339	T-2nd	39.7
STL	2004	855	1st	2092	2.82	0.344	4th	40.9
ATL	2003	909	1st	2153	2.95	0.349	2nd	42.2
ARI	2002	819	1st	2114	2.29	0.346	1st	38.7
COL	2001	923	1st	2174	3.25	0.354	1st	42.5
COL	2000	968	1st	2265	2.77	0.362	T-1st	42.7
ARI	1999	908	1st	2154	2.66	0.345	6th	42.2
HOU	1998	874	1st	2199	2.54	0.351	2nd	39.7
				ST.DEV.	0.29		ST.DEV	1.6
				Average	2.67		Average	40.8

Hopefully that fits on the screen.

Moving on. It seems that I constantly hear complaining/agonizing that we are leaving too many people on base. I wanted to put some numbers together to get a better idea about our situation. The above numbers have flaws. There are many variables, slg% etc. that I did not take into account; however there are some trends that I feel would give away why we are seeing so many men left on. It would also be very helpful to see how many men these teams left on but like I said I cant find it. The record of the teams is also relevant but you can look that up easily, and for the most part I think they are playoff teams with a few exceptions.

As you can see a high OBP usually = leading the league in runs. However, our Cardinals are in 4th and they are a long way off the pace of teams like the Cubs. With the exception of the 2004 cardinals and the 1999 d-backs (two teams that won over 100 games) a high OBP is necessary to score a lot of runs. This is common sense, but why aren’t WE scoring the runs.

Our ratio of hits to walks is very low compared to the other teams that have had high OBP. Out of the other nine teams on this list, the range of on STDEV for that ratio is from 2.38-2.96 and we are at 1.90. I know that this conclusion has been reached before on the message boards but I just wanted to see it in the numbers. We just aren’t getting enough hits. The walks are fine, but if no one can get a hit, a walk amounts to nothing. I know that some people have said that in their book, a walk=a base hit, but when it comes to getting a run across the plate, walks don’t do much with a man on second.

The trend however, is that an OBP that ranks 1st or 2nd in the league is usually accompanied, over the course of the year with a better hit/walk ratio. I think the cardinals will begin to find that ratio as the season progresses and the sample size increases. It will manifest itself in clutch hits, as well as a decrease in the amount of walks taken. I base that on my feeling that the team will hit better and the inevitability that out OBP will not stay at .374 but will decrease towards the league average. This will decrease the number of men that get on but increase the % of the runners who do get on that score. (last column in the table)

There is also another way to look at it. If the punchless bats in our lineup, Izturis, Kennedy, Miles, and even Yadi to some extent don’t punish pitchers for putting people on base, then our walks will continuously go to the more dangerous hitters. This will allow opposing teams to take the bat out of the hands of the good hitters and get the outs where the threat of a hit is less. We would then have the MLB’s version of Hack a Shaq in Pitch around Pujols.

I don’t see that happening but it is up for you to debate. I just thought this was a fun little number crunching activity, you thoughts?

Love/Hate and the WWL

t7rick — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:50:12 -0000

I read this blog often and every once in a while a come across a comment or two condemning the World Wide Leader, for those unfamiliar, that’s ESPN. This is not a problem for me because I feel that most of the comments are either made in good humor or are warranted to some extent. Personally, I watch ESPN daily and I really enjoy Baseball Tonight, John Kruk in particular. He is light hearted and funny in an overreacting little brother type of way. However, recently, I am beginning to see more and more of the things that make ESPN annoying and in some ways, hurtful to the community of fans that we are all a part of.

ESPN eventually becomes a forum for over analyzation, not based on solid theory and idea formulation, but on over-hyped and sensationalist rhetoric. To people like us, people who choose to take our place in fandom a little more seriously (sometimes to a fault) this becomes annoying and sometimes downright unbearable. When a story is continuously covered only because of the negative aspects involved it begins to replace a joyous pastime with anger and hate.

The first thing that comes to mind is the Michael Vick situation (I know this has nothing to do with the Cardinals, but I am getting there, humor me). They had an entire forum in the city of Atlanta to discuss if what had happened was right or wrong. There may be some who disagree, but the opinion of a panel, and invariably the opinion of the audience, is not important because the law says he was wrong and the law takes over. I felt more angst toward the people that attended that forum than I do when I hear politicians trying to get themselves elected by beating down opponents or making promises we all know they will not be able to keep. (Both Parties do this). How does this help me? How does this help the community? How does this help the sport? To me this is not sports. This is not a pastime I choose to enjoy because it reminds me of the times when I used hit a ball off a tee and run around with a whole in the crotch of my shorts because my insanely powerful uppercut swing at the age of 6 ripped my hand-me-down shorts while producing a slow dribbler to the “pitcher” (only me?). This is the news, not sport.

I am not at all saying we need to sweep such matters under the rug. However, the need for ratings causes these negative, yet hot topic issues to be discussed ad nauseam. The Vick situation had to be taken care of, the steroids issue, something near and dear to all of our hearts here at VEB, had to be addressed. But how much do we need to know about Brian McNamee’s personal situation? E:60 ran a story tonight about Miguel Tejada. He lied about his age and misspelled his last name. Ok, that is wrong and Miguel needs to deal with the life he has woven for himself. But, was he bushwacked on national TV for the sake of “finding the truth though professional journalism” or was it because we knew the reaction would generate ratings for a TV show that most ESPN viewers don’t even care about? That is where ESPN turns me off. That is what put this little shindig in my head, and I felt like the most understanding and intelligent community to share it with is this one. VEB, where hard, cold STATS are everyday conversation. Where hot topic issues are generally discussed with class and dignity and people come to enjoy the team they love. So, VEB am I wrong? Do I need to take a chill pill? Or, am I one of many?

Basically, this is my odd way of saying thank you (really odd). For all that you guys do. For me, for us, and for Fandom. To me this is the new forum for constructive and interesting information. A place where I can learn and voice my opinion without the negativity and mindless coverage ratings enhancers. (I can also rant apparently) Keep up the good work. Appreciate the escape that is the 2008 Central division Champion St. Louis Cardinals (please).

Pwill.

Sidebar,

I also found this on ESPN.

Brian Barton (owned in 0.2 percent of ESPN leagues): With defensively challenged players such as Duncan and Ankiel in the outfield, Barton has been getting plenty of action as a late-inning replacement, which would explain why he has played in 15 games but has just 28 at-bats. Still, in that time, he's hitting .321. Unfortunately, he went 0-for-4 with three strikeouts Sunday, which doesn't bode well for his keeping up his nice stats to start the season.

Written by James Quintong, and riddled with inaccuracies.

I think Lboros gets to take this guys job because he obviously has no idea what he is talking about.

ESPN Fantasy League

t7rick — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:37:49 -0000

Hello All,

I know we set up many leagues from VEB before the season started, But I wanted to give two Lucky People the chance to join an NL only league with eight teams on ESPN. The two teams that I am trying to get managers for were computer drafted using ESPN's bigboard and the owners are washouts so if anyone is interested in a fantasy reclamation project and is going to activly participate, email me at t7rick at gmail dot com. The first response will get to choose which team he/she wants.

Thanks everybody.

MLB Video/Audio Q/A

t7rick — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:17:35 -0000

Hello girls and boys,

I know that this isn't worth a diary and that it has been done before to some extent, but I am trying to decide on what MLB package to purchase and I need some input from actual people who use the services.

I have a few questions that I am hoping you guys can answer.

1. IF the premium video package is purchased, can you get the audio feed on days when the video is in blackout?

2 Is the video feed reliable and what kind of connection will work with the premium (I have comcast high speed cable internet)?

3. Can you have the same user logged into the game from two different locations at the same time.

I will appreciate the info.

Begin in the Pen

t7rick — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:53:51 -0000

Should young potential starters begin in the pen?

I have hit on this subject in past posts, however, I wanted to get everyone's opinion on this particular subject.

It seems (although I don't have a lot of evidence) that having a young pitcher come out of the pen for a year or so may be able to help him as a starter. My reasoning is as follows.

Less immediate exposure. This method would allow the young pitcher to learn to pitch to big league hitters without being overexposed or pitching through the lineup multiple times.
Situational experience. It would allow the young pitcher to be put in tough situations, and allow him to understand how to adjust his mindset to that particular situation.
Dominate attitude. Success (which would be a prerequisite to moving into the rotation) would allow the young pitcher to trust his stuff and mold his attitude so that when starting, he will know the situation and be able to cope with it after he inevitably gets himself into a jam.

This is just some of the reasoning that I think that has attributed to Wainwrights' success. I think his early season struggles resulted mostly from his stamina, or lack thereof, hurting the effectiveness of his pitches. After mid-season, he put it all together. I really do believe that his dominant role in the bullpen, and then as closer, helped him to develop the mental fortitude necessary to the success he now enjoys. I only have one other case study and that is Johan Santana. He spent a significant time in the bullpen and was dominant there before his move to the rotation. (To be fair both pitchers I have talked about have awesome "stuff", especially Santana, and I do think that one would have to show dominance in the bullpen to be considered for the move into the rotation.)

I write this mainly because I wonder, is this a good system to use with young pitchers? Would it work to get Reyes his confidence and dominant form back? Would a year in the bullpen benefit him? What do you guys think?