Why is it, when speaking of the Ms, EVERY conversation is about gaining here, there and everywhere. While examining the competition, every conversation is focused on losses, as if the other teams aren't going to do anything to stay competitive?
If you're going to give all the reasons why LA (with lots of money to spend) is going to be talent-gutted, then a reasonable analysis would include the same amount of pessimism about the Ms. Joh is gone, (offensive loss at catcher), Branyan is unsigned, Beltre is unsigned, Wilson hit under .600, Saunders was a disaster. DH is empty *OR* the aging and declining Griffey is returning.
The problem is not the analytical methods. The problem is using one set of metrics to use on the home team, and another to use on the competition. After 2007, I didn't hear ANYONE noting pitching OPS was significantly worse than hitting OPS. What I heard was, "If you look at these particulars, our surplus over pythag was REAL and (assumed to be) sustainable.
Hey, I understand that it's a tricky thing to figure out what is sustainable and what is transient. And an effort should be made to figure those things out. But, what I see is the Mariner analysts looking *ONLY* for reasons to promote success in 2010 for the Ms -- and reasons *ONLY* to promote failure for the competition. That isn't analysis. That's homerism shrouded in mathematics.
========
All that said -- I find the hit/pitch OPS argument compelling. (Then again, I recently pegged the 2009 team as an 80-win team -- the median from a half dozen different angles). And I could REALLY see that becoming a useful pythag-check for EVERY team. (Angels posted .792 team OPS -- .350/.441 -- with a pitching OPS of .769 -- .338/.432).
The team BABIP is high, (.322). So, yeah, I understand the skepticism of repeating. But, SOME players run high BABIPs -- Ichiro is one of them -- for reasons that are repeatable. The Angels put together a team that is aggregately fast. So, what about some individuals?
Here's a BABIP chart for the 2009 Angels - Career and 2009 BABIP shown
Player --- Career -2009
Napoli --- .299 - .321 (a tad high)
Morales - .302 - .329 (a tad high)
Kendrick - .351 - .338 (a tad low)
Aybar ---- .318 - .338 (a tad high)
Figgins --- .341 - .356 (a tad high) - did .391 in 2007
Rivera ---- .287 - .281 (a tad low)
Hunter --- .301 - .330 (a tad high) - steadily better w/ Angels
Abreu ---- .347 - .338 (a tad low)
Vlad G. -- .319 - .313 (a tad low)
Izturis --- .298 - .313 (a tad high)
Matthews .298 - .313 (a tad high)
You know what *I* see looking at that list? I see a team that LOOKS for guys with good BABIP numbers. I also see a team that DEVELOPS plus BABIP numbers. If .330 and up is the "questionable" area for BABIP, who was there? Kendrick, (below his career avg), Aybar, who has a career .318, Figgins, who is a .341 BABIP guy for his career, and Abreu, who was also UNDER his career BABIP.
=========
The logic train derails when one begins to use EXCELLENCE in a particular area of production as an indication of some form of incompetence.
I specifically remember Matt dismissing the Angels strength at SS after the 2007 season, giving reasons why Aybar and Izturis were both likely going to swoon. Instead, the Angels had TWO shortstops hitting over .775.
The 2009 Angel team had *TEN* (10) players post OPS+ figures of 100 or greater. Seattle had 5. Yet, I'm supposed to believe that the team with the 10 100 OPS+ guys is the one in trouble?!? You can't make the WS with more than 2 guys under 80 OPS+. They don't have any under 100!!! In truth, the only thing that prevented them from winning 100 in 2009 was their defense was sub-par.
The Angels have a young catcher who hits .800. They've got a young 1B who hit .900. They've got a young 2B who hit .778. They've got TWO young SS who both hit over .775. They've got a 30-year-old LF, who just finally got healthy for enough to play 130 games, and he hit .810. So, the PROBLEM is they have 3-potential Hall of Fame guys in the OF and DH, that might not be sticking around. Who is older Ichiro or Abreu? Oh, wait they were BOTH 35. Hunter and Vlad are both younger. Hunter, is of course, the same age as Branyan, (but has actually played full seasons without getting hurt before).
Add new comment
1