Baseball: January 2009 Archives

Of the 132 team who have made the play-offs in the last twenty years, none of them have done it without at least one left-handed hitter.  In fact, of those 132 teams, only 2 teams have had just one left-hander as the average number of lefties on a play-off team has been about 5.  There have only been seven teams (out of 40) who have had less than 4 left-handed batters make it to the World Series.  Why do I bring this up?  As of right now, the Angels do not have a left-handed batter on their major league roster.  I found this out a couple weeks ago while I was looking into Angels' split stats and noticed that the only two lefty bats last season are now gone (Garret Anderson and Casey Kotchman).  Earlier this week, I read Orange County Register's Earl Bloom's blog post about this subject here: Who's Left? Angels Seem Unbalanced.  This put me on a quest to find out if there's any significance to lefty/righty/switch hitters on play-off teams.  I've mentioned before that I'm not a mathemagician (yes, that's spelled right...inside joke) when it comes to analyzing stats, all I have that is useful towards the accurate analysis is common-sense.  I get that if A=B and B=C, then A=C.  But I also get that More Money = Better Player and Better Players = More Wins, but More Money ≠ More Wins (see Yankees).  I went back over the last twenty seasons and listed the amount of left-handed and switch hitting players (min 50 AB) each play-off team had on their rosters.  I also listed the league rank each team had for On Base Plus Slugging (OPS) against both left and right-handed pitchers.

• On average, the play-off team with the worst OPS against right-handed pitching won the World Series.
  
  I have no idea why this is, but the winning teams OPS rank was an average of 10.05 during the regular season against right-handed pitchers.  The teams who lost in the WS had an average rank of 9.50, while all play-off teams had an average rank of 9.47.  Another thing I found interesting was the teams who lost in the league division series had the best OPS average ranking (9.18) against right-handed pitchers of all play-off teams.  In other words, the team who did the worst against right-handed pitchers did better in the play-offs.
   
• The team who won the WS had the best average OPS ranking against left-handed pitchers of any play-off team.
  
  The eventual WS winner averaged a 9.65 regular season ranking against southpaws, while the losers had an average ranking of 10.90.  All of the play-off teams had an average rank of 10.58. 
  
  So combined with the findings above, the eventual World Series winner was the best play-off team against left-handed pitching and the worst play-off team against right-handed pitching.  I find this very unusual considering a team has roughly 3 times more plate appearances against right-handed pitching then they do against left-handed pitchers, yet the play-off team who does worse against righties goes further and wins more championships.
   
• Teams who won the WS had the lowest average number of left-handed hitters and the highest average number of switch-hitters (min 50 AB during the regular season) than the other play-off teams.
  
  World Series winners averaged 4.50 left-handed hitters and 2.95 switch-hitters compared to 5.10 lefty and 2.60 switch-hitters for the team who lost.  This is consistent with the division series too, as the team who won also had a lower average number of left-handed hitters and more switch-hitters.  However, in 2008, the two teams with the most left-handed hitters faced each other in the Series (Tampa Bay had 10 and Philadelphia was tied with Boston with 7 lefties).

This study doesn't take in to account any teams' pitching stats.  So it's very possible a weak hitting team with lights-out pitching can win the World Series.  An example of this is the 1995 Atlanta Braves who won the World Series after leading the major leagues with a team ERA of 3.44, and in spite of finishing 21st in the major leagues in runs scored (the Braves beat the Cleveland Indians in the World Series even though the Indians scored almost 200 more runs than the Braves during the regular season).  What does this mean for the Angels and their lack of left-handed hitting?  I don't think it means anything.  Although the Angels lack a lefty hitter, they do have 7 switch-hitters who saw time on their major league roster last season.  Of those 7, four saw at least 290 at-bats, with Kendry Morales looking to get significantly more playing time in 2009.  Also in the Angels favor is the signing of Brian Fuentes.  Fuentes was the best left-handed free agent reliever available, able to shutdown either left-handed or right-handed hitters.  The way I see it, if the typical World Series winner is the best team against left-handed pitchers, having the best left-handed pitching would be the way to win.  Especially if you're a team like the Angels who don't look to be one of the top hitting clubs.

The other day I was going through some boxes of books, looking for some of my old Bill James Abstracts.  While digging through the boxes, I found This Time Let's Not Eat The Bones, a "best of" the Bill James Abstracts without the numbers.  Although this book, and the books it references, are over 20 years old, the theories James proposes and the conclusions he come to with are just as relevant today.  I found some interesting stuff -- for example, I found on of my old paycheck stubs that had been used as a bookmark.  The stub was dated 5-21-89 and showed that I was making more in 1989 than I am in 2009.  Depressing.  Anyway, I also found:

• Strikeouts, Effects On Runs Scored
  
  "Strikeouts have a negligible effect on runs scored; the belief that a strikeout is an especially negative out because it freezes base runners in essentially baseles insofar as it applies to major league baseball...The reason for this is that while strikeouts don't advance runners, they also don't lead to double plays.  When a ball is put in play but an our results, the negative side effects (the runs lost because of double plays) balance the positive side-effects (that extra runs can result because of base runners' advancement)."
  
  "A study on pages 288-89 of the 1986 Baseball Abstract suggested that there was a loss of about one run for a team for each hundred strikeouts (as contrasted to other outs).  That means, as a frame of reference, that Dave Kingman probably cost his team in his career about eight runs by his strikeouots, if he is compared to a player of the same batting average and other batting statistics but who struck out only a normal amount."
  
  I thought this was interesting because lately there have been comments made about Adam Dunn and his excessive amount of strike outs.  When comparing Kingman and Dunn the only consistent hitting trait they have is power.  Kingman's career OBP is a meager .302, while having 6 seasons with an OBP of under .300.  I doubt if Kingman played today, he'd last 16 season as he did in the 70's and 80's.  I wish I had the actual formula that James uses to calculate the effect of strikeouts, but just by going on his written comments, Dunn's strikeout rate costs his team about 2 runs a season.  Which I think is greatly offset by the fact he gets on base almost 40% of the time.  I'm not advocating the Angels go out and sign Dunn, but I am one who feels his hitting ability is under-valued.
   
• Free Agent, Impact On Team Signing
  
  "A study on pages 244-46 of the 1986 Baseball Abstract examined the impact if signing or losing a major league free agent on the clubs fortunes.  After drawing up a list of the major free agent movements of the years 1974-84, I tracked what happened to four teams: the team which lost the player, the team which signed him, the team whose record over the previous two years was most similar to the team which lost him, and the team with the record most similar to the team which signed him."
  "The study showed that the teams signing free agents gained no advantage at all in the first year following, but gained a small advantage over a period of years - a matter of two or three games a year.  The teams losing free agents were essentially unaffected by the loss unless they sustained a series of free agent losses, in which case they were usually devastated by the losses."
  
  I wonder if this study were run today if the results would be the same as teams are more aware of player's abilities based on advanced statistics (the Moneyball effect) and how this would effect which free agents to sign.  What I mean is, let's go back to Dave Kingman and his free agency.  In 1984, the Oakland Athletics signed Kingman to a free agent contract which paid him $850,000.  This, coming after a season in 1983 with the Mets that saw him hit 13 HR while batting .198 and an OBP of .265.  Kingman lasted three seasons in Oakland, hitting exactly 100 HR and driving in a little over 300 runs, but would he have been given an opportunity if he were playing in this era of OBP-importance?  And if not, how would that effect the study?  This might be something to look into a bit more and it might be about the right time of year to fill with a "study".
   
• The Amateur Draft
  
  I thought this was interesting because the Angels have picked up a few extra draft picks in this year's draft due to losing K-Rod, Teixeira and Garland, and the loss of their 33rd pick with the signing of Brian Fuentes.  Basically, the Angels have about 5 picks in the top 50.  What can they expect to get with those picks?  Here's what Bill James wrote regarding the amateur draft:
  
  "What is the chance that a number one draft pick will turn out to be a superstar?  The draft usually produces one superstar somewhere among the top fifty picks.  The chance of getting that player with a number one draft pick is about one in eighteen.  The chance of getting a superstar with a number ten draft pick is about one in thirty.  The chance of getting a superstar with a number 50 pick is about one in 130.  What is the chance of getting a star player?  With the first pick, about one in five.  With the tenth pick, about one in nine.  With the fiftieth pick, about one in sixty.  What is the chance of getting at least a good ballplayer?  With the first pick, a little better than 50 percent.  With the tenth pick, about 1 in 3.  With the fiftieth pick, about 7 percent."
  
  The Angels do not have a top 10 pick next draft, their first picks will be back-to-back at 25 and 26 thanks to the two New York ball clubs.  With 5 picks in the top fifty, the Angels can expect to have at least a 30% chance of getting one player who is "good" (if I figured it out right), and a 5 in 130 chance of landing a superstar.  In my opinion, based on this information, too much importance is given to the loss or gain of a draft pick.  It's almost like someone giving you a lottery ticket and hoping to win at least something, something that makes an impact.  Something that's more likely not to pay off.  While I understand the financial benefits of drafting and developing a star player, I think I'd rather sign Brian Fuentes than hope the 33rd pick has an impact on the team.  A pick that has a little better than 1 on 60 chance of becoming a star player.

Angels' GM Tony Reagins has stated that the club is not persuing free agent hitters Manny Ramirez, Adam Dunn or Pat Burrell.  It sounds like the team is going to head into the 2009 season with the offense it has today, with the only free agent acquisition being relief pitcher Brian Fuentes.

There are many places to read about possible Angels trades, and many of them have the same trade talks involving the same players.  I wanted to look at a few players that haven't been mentioned on the Angels' trade radar, or have been mentioned, but not to the extent of Jake Peavy.  Be warned however, as I'm sometimes stumped by deals teams are able to pull off and I have no idea what it takes to make real-life trades...so please let me know if I'm way off base or if you have a better deal. 

My thoughts on the state of the Angels' roster are the Angels' batting order is predominately right-handed.  Although they do have 7 switch-hitters on their major league roster, they have no left-handed hitters.  So if I were the Angels GM I'd be looking to acquire a left-handed or switch-hitting corner OF or corner infielder, and/or a #5 starter.  Here are the players I'd be kicking the tires on...in no particular order:

Orioles
Aubrey Huff ($8M - 2009) - In 2008, Huff had his best season since 2003 when he hit 32 HR and batted .304 primarily being used as the Orioles DH.  Huff is 32-years old and in the walk year of his contract which calls for a reasonable salary of $8M.  An average defender at third and first base, Huff also is capable of playing RF, but is below average in the outfield.  Proposed deal:  Dustin Moseley for Aubrey Huff and cash.

Cubs
Rich Harden ($7M - 2009) - The Cubs have been rumored to covet Chone Figgins.  Why not deal Figgins, who is also in his walk year, for the oft-injured Harden?  Harden could fill the #5 rotation spot vacated by the departure of Jon Garland, while trading Figgins would open up third base for Brandon Wood.  Proposed deal: Chone Figgins for Rich Harden.

Astros
Lance Berkman ($29M - 2010 NTC) - Berkman would be my primary trade target as he'd fill the hole left by Mark Teixeira.  Although Berkman is 4 years older than Teixeira, he hits for more power (career slugging pct of .560 vs .541), gets on base more often (OBP .413 vs .378), and he can steal a base (18 last season).  Plus, Berkman is a very good fielding first baseman.  It's unclear if the Astros are in a rebuilding mode or if they think they can compete in 2009.  Last season they made a deadline deal for Randy Wolf while they were 12 games behind (and tied for last in the NL Central), so it's hard to figure out what they're doing.  If the Astros would deal Berkman, and he'd be willing to waive his no trade clause, I'd propose:  Brandon Wood, Jeff Mathis and Nick Adenhart for Lance Berkman.

Yankees
Johnny Damon ($13M - 2009) - The pluses for Damon are he bats left-handed, he has the ability got on base (OBP .375 in 2008), can lead-off in the event Figgins is dealt, can play a slightly above average leftfield, and is in his walk year.  If the Angels don't re-sign him after 2009, which they probably wouldn't, there's the opportunity of gaining 2 draft picks when he signs elsewhere.  The negative thing about Damon is his age as he turned 35 last month.  Proposed deal: Justin Speier for Johnny Damon.

Nick Swisher ($21M - 2011) - To me, Nick Swisher is "Adam Dunn-lite".  You can expect Swisher to hit about half as many HR as Dunn, get on base around the same rate, and have almost the same batting average.  Swisher is a switch-hitter who can adequately play all 3 outfield positions and first base.  Proposed deal: Two mid-grade prospects for Nick Swisher.

Rockies
Todd Helton ($52.3M - 2011 NTC) - I'm going out on a limb with this one, as Helton had season ending back surgery during 2008 and prior to that, his season wasn't anything to be too thrilled with.  Although Helton's days of hitting 30+ home runs are gone, he does get on base at a good rate and plays an above average defensive first base (pre-surgery).  However, Helton will turn 36 during the 2009 season, will earn an average of over $17M the next 3 years and has a full no trade clause.  Proposed deal:  Gary Matthew Jr. (if he'd waive his no trade clause) for Todd Helton; or Justin Speier for Todd Helton and cash.

Pirates
Adam LaRoche (Arbitration Eligible) - Left-handed hitting LaRoche is an above average defender at first base with a career OPS+ of 114.  LaRoche made $5M last season and will probably see an increase for 2009 after arbitration causing the salary-cutting Pirates to look to deal.  The Pirate minor league system ranks near the bottom and they may be willing to take a couple mid-level prospects in exchange for LaRoche.  Proposed deal:  Tyler Chatwood and Jose Perez for Adam LaRoche.

Cardinals
Rick Ankiel (Arbitration Eligible) - Ankiel, who is his walk year entering 2009, can play all three outfield positions, although he doesn't play them very well.  His 2008 season was hampered by to what was believed to be an abdominal strain, but was diagnosed as a sports hernia ending his season in early September.  The Cardinals were rumored to be willing to deal Ankiel for some pitching from the Braves or Yankees earlier this off-season.  Proposed deal: Dustin Moseley for Rick Ankiel.

These players, as I wrote above, are way off the Angels' radar.  But that was the point of this article.  I was looking at players who were possibly available, at a reasonable cost in players, prospects, or salary and could help the club.  Let me know what you think, or if you have any thoughts on possible other players who might be available.