Baseball Prospectus and the Angels.
In Matt Welch’s excellent fan post “Ha Ha Baseball Prospectus” he shows how the Angels have once again out performed the predictions made by that illustrious organization. The comments that follow his fanpost almost unanimously agree that the BP folks either have their heads up their collective asses or that at the very least they’re missing something important in their prediction models. The theory is that the Angels are doing something particularly well that their models both don’t recognize or undervalue and as a result have outperformed the model by a significant amount for the 6th (?) consecutive year.
Although I have no original work to present to you today, I do have a link to a BP article on this very topic. Much to his credit, the author recognizes the Angels achievement and admits that it’s likely that there is something missing in the model. I highly recommend reading the comments that follow because there are many excellent suggestions as to what that may be and even one that I think may actually be the culprit...
Good points by both of you. Our managerial stats aren't in a state that allows a lazy bastard like me the luxury of a casual research effort, but to the extent that I can answer any questions using combined 2005-2008 data:
1. There's a negative correlation between relievers used and actual winning percentage (-.39) and a similar one for Pythag (-.36)
2. There's a negative correlation between positional sac hits (-.15) and winning pct or Pythag.
3. There's virtually no correlation between blown quality starts and actual or projected record (.05)
4. There's a surprisingly solid correlation (0.5) between runners moving with the pitch and actual winning percentage. It's slightly less (.43) with projected winning percentage, and at least somewhat visible (.20) between runners moving and pythagorean differential, though the latter nearly disappears if you remove the Angels from the set.
Turning to the 2009 Bill James Handbook, which I have within easy reach, and looking over Scioscia's record, he's never lead the league in lineup platoon advantage, but his teams have tended to be above average in that regard, with 63% having the advantage at the start of the game over the course of his career. His teams have never led the league in sac hits or reliever usage, either.
Where he's consistently led his peers is in two categories that mesh with what I was discussing above: stolen base attempts and runners moving with the pitch. Given that and #4 above, I'd say it's worth earmarking the topic of baserunning success and its link with overperformance for further study.
I made this a new fan post rather than a comment to the original because I didn’t want this excellent BP article on our beloved Halo’s to go unnoticed… Although the original BP article is a month old I had completely missed it in my scouring of the internet for all things Angels related... Apologies if this article had already been pointed out, I was very excited to read it.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
1 recs |
28 comments
Comments
if you can't beat 'em
bow down and be their #1 worshipper
by Rev Halofan on Oct 12, 2009 1:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very interesting
And very cool. I think its not too hard to suggest from this that Scioscia and his system are actually making a real, substantive impact on Wins and Losses at the major league level. It almost makes you feel like someone should write a book on it…
by Spird on Oct 12, 2009 1:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If GA wasn't so lazy
he would have written that book
Aybar is a nowhere man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
by princeton11loveshalos on Oct 12, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Doesn't matter...
Buster Olney is already calling it for the Yankees
(Shocked & Surprised)
God needed a starter. RIP #34
by 3rd Echelon on Oct 12, 2009 1:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
All 8 analysts on the ESPN page are calling it for NY
…and in other news, the sun rises in the east and the French are surly and lacking personal hygiene
I see red people
by The Limey on Oct 12, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true...
Steve Phillips called us in 7 baby! Woot! 7 against 1 haha!
First we had a Salmon and now we have a Trout, let's see the same results.
by angelskid2210 on Oct 12, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He's got Yankees in 7 on this page...
…link
I see red people
by The Limey on Oct 12, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ahh what a little bitch!
He finally could’ve gotten some respect from us but now he is even more of a flip flopping little douchebag!
First we had a Salmon and now we have a Trout, let's see the same results.
by angelskid2210 on Oct 12, 2009 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
forget ESPN
we dnt need em haha…they wrong half the time anyways….they werent on our side to begin with and we swept their beloved sox soo why have em change now?
by Angels_48 on Oct 12, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah those East coast girls,
we should be thanking them because it is only motivation for us!!
First we had a Salmon and now we have a Trout, let's see the same results.
by angelskid2210 on Oct 12, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is true...
…the French ARE surly and DO lack personaly hygeine
I see red people
by The Limey on Oct 12, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no yeahh dude
i saw him pick us in 7 then i checked again abd he changed his mind i guess haha
by Angels_48 on Oct 12, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The day i give a shit what grown ass men named Buster Olney and Trey Wingo think..
is the day i start rooting for the Yankees / Sox
What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.
by clover_black on Oct 12, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
didn't Olney say we would lose
oh well
Aybar is a nowhere man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
by princeton11loveshalos on Oct 12, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly.
What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.
by clover_black on Oct 12, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry i meant in the ALDS
guess he was wrong
Aybar is a nowhere man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
by princeton11loveshalos on Oct 12, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I don't understand...
Is where are the MSM members standing up for the Angels?
Why is goddamn Buster Olney such a Yankee tool? Because he grew up a fuckin’ Dodgers fan?
Gordon Edes, worked for LAT for many years, now a Red Sox tool?
Where are our MSM tools?
I guess the Angels are an acquired taste of an elite few.
by davidbrad65 on Oct 12, 2009 1:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Angels MSM = Halos Heaven
don’t call evolution a revolution! The elite has arrived.
by Rev Halofan on Oct 12, 2009 2:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's why I feel like I'm finally home
With the elite Angels intelligentsia.
Thanks Rev.
by davidbrad65 on Oct 12, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's the safe pick
They don’t want to look ridiculous if they pick the Angels and they are wrong. If they all pick the Yankees and are wrong, well, everyone else did or the Yankees were statistically the better team or the Yankees are historically the better team. There are way more excuses to pick the Yankees.
Ultimately, it’s a meaningless question and one that meaningless talking heads love to ask and answer as a substitute for real journalism.
Captain, there are doubt's...
by Match Day 5 on Oct 12, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Phillips has both sides covered
Before the playoffs started, he had the Angels beating Skanks in ALCS. He was the only “expert” to do so.
Now, quivering before the all-powerful A-Rod, he is retreating to “safer” ground.
Interesting though, 10 of the 24 ESPN “experts” picked Angels over Red Sox, which is a pretty reasonable approximation of what the series looked like from the start, a tossup.
by davidbrad65 on Oct 12, 2009 2:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually hadn't seen this BP article until today either. It does tell me something
I was curious about though, that we are an unbelievable +34.5 vs. 3rd order wins the past 3 years. The previous high over a 3 year span appears to be the 2002-2004 Twins at +27.4.
#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!
by TheOptimist on Oct 12, 2009 5:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Trying to get the conversation back on track...
Funny how its only recently that teams have started to consistently outperform the model? Coincidence? I think not…
I like the thought that there’s a correlation between wins and runners moving with the pitch. The Angels have lead the leage in this along with stolen base attempts, which could just be busted hit and runs.
If you have speed, and you hit and run often, if the contact is missed or the pitch is unhittable, you may still get the steal. The hit and run also pulls one of the middle infielders out of his optimum fielding position, opening up a hole for the hitter and keeps your HDP down.
Another thing that speed does for you is increases the number of balls your fielders can get to. Look at Figgy’s UZR compared to the other third basemen in the league.
by Jietoh on Oct 13, 2009 7:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not just recently.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Angels’ record vs BP’s prediction for the past 6 years:
12,10, +8, +8, +12, +16
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on Oct 13, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
GOOD POINT
Consider SB #s are inflated (as well as some CS#s) because of busted Hit-and Run plays. Would the manager really fess up for the sake of statistical accuracy? Oh hell no.
by Rev Halofan on Oct 13, 2009 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
its funny how
ESPN and TBS wanted the Angels and Dodgers to lose haha…they really dnt like the west coast……and we didnt get any air time on the locker celebration yesterday afternoon they went directly to freaking Seinfield any one here think that if the Red Sox would have swept us they would have stayed on? i didnt see the dodger postgame thing so idk if they got air time for thier locker celebration
by Angels_48 on Oct 12, 2009 5:47 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















