An Old Bill James Book

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.