The "Ask Al" Thread

[Bruiser Chong 0]

All of your baseball-related questions for Al should go here.

 

That is, assuming Al chooses to endorse this thread.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Al what do you think of the face of the franchise on ESPN.COM?

 

 

[razazteca 0]

Chris Young of Arizona stole home in a game against the Braves my question is this a lost art?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Was it a straight steal of home, or a double steal?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Al what do you think of the face of the franchise on ESPN.COM?

It's fairly pointless. If you want to find the face of a franchise, just look at the pocket schedule or media guide. It's not even as fun as debating Hall of Fame candidates.

 

Chris Young of Arizona stole home in a game against the Braves my question is this a lost art?

Of course, and has been for forty years. Speed guys just aren't as valuable as power guys at the plate. In addition, stealing home really requires a lapse on the part of the defense and they're less prone to that.

[razazteca 0]

Was it a straight steal of home, or a double steal?

It was the double of course the catcher saw the base runner steal 2B with Young stealing home at the same time.

[Brett Favre 0]

The delayed steal and stealing 2nd as soon as you draw a walk is also a lost art.

 

Can you make a case for Pedro Martinez being the best pitcher ever? With his numbers, although in a shorter period of times than most, in an era where runs are scored more often, smaller parks, and a lower mound, I think you can make a case.

[Broward83 0]

Why have the Astros been such a 2nd half team for the past few seasons?

[bob_barron 0]

In my sports almanac they divide single season records from 1900-1949 and 1950-present.

 

Why is that, and what changed in the game? And how come a lot of these records set during the first half of the century are so unattainable?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

In my sports almanac they divide single season records from 1900-1949 and 1950-present.

 

Why is that, and what changed in the game? And how come a lot of these records set during the first half of the century are so unattainable?

I'll come back to the previous queries in a bit. I find the 1950 mark a curious distinction. I have never seen any reference book use that point myself. There are generally three breaking points considered proper in baseball records. 1893, when the pitching mound was moved back ten feet, 1901, the modern game, and 1920, the beginning of the lively ball era.

 

As for records, baseball was not as organized as it was today. Baseball had its stars but the bottom of the league was much worse. Many talented players would play in the unorganized minors, or perhaps in the Pacific Coast League. The sport of course was not integrated. As time passes, teams evolve to compete and the sport becomes more difficult to dominate. The disappearance of extremes in performance is often a sign the sport is getting stronger, not weaker.

[bob_barron 0]

It's the ESPN Sports Almanac. It's 1901-49 and 1950 to present. It just bugs me seeing all these insane records (191 RBIs!, .420 BA+) etc and knowing no one has even come remotely close to getting that.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

The D'Bags have been ridiculously overachieving, according to their Pythagorean record. Is there any chance that they regress down the stretch, or does this overwhelming vanilla team have things pretty much locked up?

[JHawk 0]

In my sports almanac they divide single season records from 1900-1949 and 1950-present.

 

Why is that, and what changed in the game? And how come a lot of these records set during the first half of the century are so unattainable?

I'll come back to the previous queries in a bit. I find the 1950 mark a curious distinction. I have never seen any reference book use that point myself. There are generally three breaking points considered proper in baseball records. 1893, when the pitching mound was moved back ten feet, 1901, the modern game, and 1920, the beginning of the lively ball era.

 

As for records, baseball was not as organized as it was today. Baseball had its stars but the bottom of the league was much worse. Many talented players would play in the unorganized minors, or perhaps in the Pacific Coast League. The sport of course was not integrated. As time passes, teams evolve to compete and the sport becomes more difficult to dominate. The disappearance of extremes in performance is often a sign the sport is getting stronger, not weaker.

And as far as pitching records go, in the days of five man rotations and pitching specialists, pitchers simply don't pitch enough to set some of those records.

[vivalaultra 0]

Why am I so damn good-looking?

 

Also, do you agree with the argument that stolen bases are actually detrimental or, at most, barely even helpful to a team and that guys like Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines and modern players like Juan Pierre and Scott Podsednik would be better of staying put or at least not running unless it was a 'Dave Roberts 2004 ALCS Game 3' type steal?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Why am I so damn good-looking?

 

Also, do you agree with the argument that stolen bases are actually detrimental or, at most, barely even helpful to a team and that guys like Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines and modern players like Juan Pierre and Scott Podsednik would be better of staying put or at least not running unless it was a 'Dave Roberts 2004 ALCS Game 3' type steal?

 

 

Not that I want to hone in on Al's thread, but steals can actually be very valuable. However, the risk associated with a steal often outweighs the reward. Generally, even guys like Rickey Henderson add little to their team's offensive output with their steals. I don't want to take the time to reproduce run expectancy tables, but basically run probability is very high with a runner on first base and no outs. It's slightly higher with a runner on second and no outs, but much, much worse with no one on and one out. Unless you are stealing at an 80% clip, it's usually damaging to your team.

 

It all depends on context, your team's offense, who's batting, etc.

[vivalaultra 0]

Yeah, I was reading an article by one of the BP.com guys that said that Rickey Henderson, he of the 1000 stolen bases, only added 5 total wins to his teams over his 25 years of playing through his basestealing and would've actually added more total wins if he would've never stolen a base. I find one of the harder topics to broach with people who aren't really into stats and stuff is that basestealing isn't as wonderful as it's made out to be. Next to the homerun, I think base stealing is the 'sexiest' play in baseball.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Worse signing: Jason Marquis or Adam Eaton?

[Vern Gagne 0]

Earl Weaver is considered one of the top managers of the last fifty years. Yet he only won one championship, why is that?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The delayed steal and stealing 2nd as soon as you draw a walk is also a lost art.

 

Can you make a case for Pedro Martinez being the best pitcher ever? With his numbers, although in a shorter period of times than most, in an era where runs are scored more often, smaller parks, and a lower mound, I think you can make a case.

You can make a case for Pedro being the best "peak" pitcher of all time. Right now Pedro's ERA relative to the league is the highest of any pitcher in baseball history. The only issue is how much importance you place on longevity.

 

Why have the Astros been such a 2nd half team for the past few seasons?

2004 they acquired a legit superstar at the deadline. Otherwise their pitching gets better midseason, and I'd say that is likely a product of finding which pitchers work and which don't get the job done. That's more speculation than hardcore analysis.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The D'Bags have been ridiculously overachieving, according to their Pythagorean record. Is there any chance that they regress down the stretch, or does this overwhelming vanilla team have things pretty much locked up?

Teams that overperform almost always regress. The question is whether they regress to the point where the Padres can make up 3.5 games. They could, but I don't get the sense that the Pads are that dominant.

 

Why am I so damn good-looking?

 

Also, do you agree with the argument that stolen bases are actually detrimental or, at most, barely even helpful to a team and that guys like Rickey Henderson and Tim Raines and modern players like Juan Pierre and Scott Podsednik would be better of staying put or at least not running unless it was a 'Dave Roberts 2004 ALCS Game 3' type steal?

They're not detrimental, but there is certainly a break even point where it helps or hurts your club, these days it stands around 75%. The higher the level of offense in a league, the higher the break-even percentage. And vice versa. Tim Raines is actually the highest percentage basestealer in baseball history (or was, depending on how Carlos Beltran finishes). That is enormously valuable. The big considerations are making sure that your runner is stealing bases at a high percentage, and that you're not playing a poor hitter for the sake of his speed, like Juan Pierre. A player like Tim Raines with a .385 career OBP and 84% stolen base percentage is a devastating offensive force.

 

Worse signing: Jason Marquis or Adam Eaton?

Eaton easily, because he sucks. I didn't think the Marquis signing was all that bad. If we scream fluke when a player like Gary Matthews has a great season, why not go the other way if a player like Marquis has an out of context bad season?

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

Did you graduate?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Earl Weaver is considered one of the top managers of the last fifty years. Yet he only won one championship, why is that?

Earl Weaver's standing among the great managers is due to his excellent career .583 winning percentage in the Majors, ninth of all time. Weaver's teams made the playoffs six times and won one world championship. Four of those times they won the American League pennant. So overall they were 5-5 in postseason series. Three of those postseason losses went the distance. So I don't think it's any great commentary on his managing skills other than some poor luck.

 

If there's a certain genius about Earl Weaver, it's getting the most out of his roster. Weaver in September would bat a bench hitter second on the road at shortstop, let him hit in the top of the first, and THEN put Mark Belanger in the game. You have to appreciate a manager who thinks outside the box to get the most out of his team on any given night.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Did you graduate?

Hehe yeah. I've currently got a dual bachelor's degree in History and Political Science. Haven't gotten a job with it yet, but I'm working on that.

[TheDevilAndGodAreRagingInsideMe 0]

Way to go. I have 3 more semesters.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

The D'Bags have been ridiculously overachieving, according to their Pythagorean record. Is there any chance that they regress down the stretch, or does this overwhelming vanilla team have things pretty much locked up?

Teams that overperform almost always regress. The question is whether they regress to the point where the Padres can make up 3.5 games. They could, but I don't get the sense that the Pads are that dominant.

 

I don't necesarily agree with this. While the general rule dictates that teams regress to their true talent level (i.e. pythagorean record), most good teams outperform their expected win-loss and most bad teams underperform. There are several reasons why this happens. Teams with strong bullpens generally do better than expected because they win close games at a higher than normal rate. Second, teams that rely on young players and good organizational depth (e.g. the Braves) can overperform because their run scoring isn't normally distributed. They have the ability to make themselves better during pockets of the season than their previous underlying statistics might suggest. Therefore run differential maybe significant in one portion of the season but not enough to balance their earlier performance.

 

The D'backs probably fall into that second category of team. Here's why I don't expect them to regress: The team is about 10 games over the pythagorean record right now. However, all those wins are banked alreay, so to speak. There is nothing in their current performance that would suggest they might start underperforming down the stretch. As long they play as an average to above average ballclub it won't necessarily matter that they have a better record than they should because they'd actually have to start underperforming to lose those "credited" wins.

[Guest Soriano's Torn Quad]

They'll get swept by the Brewers and sweep the Cubs. We just can't beat the likes of "Doug Davis" or "Conor Jackson."

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The D'Bags have been ridiculously overachieving, according to their Pythagorean record. Is there any chance that they regress down the stretch, or does this overwhelming vanilla team have things pretty much locked up?

Teams that overperform almost always regress. The question is whether they regress to the point where the Padres can make up 3.5 games. They could, but I don't get the sense that the Pads are that dominant.

 

I don't necesarily agree with this. While the general rule dictates that teams regress to their true talent level (i.e. pythagorean record), most good teams outperform their expected win-loss and most bad teams underperform. There are several reasons why this happens. Teams with strong bullpens generally do better than expected because they win close games at a higher than normal rate. Second, teams that rely on young players and good organizational depth (e.g. the Braves) can overperform because their run scoring isn't normally distributed. They have the ability to make themselves better during pockets of the season than their previous underlying statistics might suggest. Therefore run differential maybe significant in one portion of the season but not enough to balance their earlier performance.

 

The D'backs probably fall into that second category of team. Here's why I don't expect them to regress: The team is about 10 games over the pythagorean record right now. However, all those wins are banked alreay, so to speak. There is nothing in their current performance that would suggest they might start underperforming down the stretch. As long they play as an average to above average ballclub it won't necessarily matter that they have a better record than they should because they'd actually have to start underperforming to lose those "credited" wins.

Why are they classified as good teams or bad teams in the firs place? The only teams I've noted that were able to maintain the discrepancy year after year were the 1929-31 Philadelphia A's, and the 2001-05 New York Yankees. Both teams had lights out closers (Lefty Grove and Mariano Rivera). There are certainly good teams that underperform, but we don't take note of them because we generally ignore non-pennant winners.

 

As for regression, it should be understood that of course it doesn't change past performance. If the D'backs pythagorean record is .472, you would expect them to do that the rest of the season. You don't expect them to go under to level out the first four months. All I'll claim is that the pythagorean record is a better predictor of future success than the real win/loss record.

 

[Guest]

What do you think of this Vin Scully quote.

 

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination"

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

If Al went to the first Os Rangers game..I wanna know if he stayed the whole way through a 30-3 game or not.

 

 

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

What do you think of this Vin Scully quote.

 

"Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination"

Vin Scully was perhaps one of the most adept announcers at blending statistics into a game. That said, I'm not sure I understand the meaning behind it, though I've never been good at deciphering literature anyway.

 

If Al went to the first Os Rangers game..I wanna know if he stayed the whole way through a 30-3 game or not.

Absolutely. I drove 3 1/2 hours to get to Baltimore, I'm not about to leave during game one of a doubleheader. Besides, it was a rare historical event, rarer than a perfect game.