On the Subjects of "Luck" and The Los Angeles Angels
The luckiest team in baseball. That's what they call us, "they" being Sabermetricians in general, and especially our immediate rivals here in the AL West. Every year the specifics change, but the refrain remains the same. Last year we were "lucky" because Joe Saunders played over his head and our record was better than the numbers said it should be. This year we're lucky because our whole offense is having a "career year." Our team BABIP is too high, etc.
So are "they" right? Just how lucky have we been? Let's explore those questions a little.
On one level, they are absolutely correct. We are fantastically lucky to have Arte Moreno as an owner. He spends money, his main goal is winning and putting butts in the seats. He keeps his nose out of day to day operations, but isn't too busy to interact with the fans. Of the thirty owners in baseball right now, he just might be the best, and we lucked into him, pure and simple.
If that's what they meant, then most of us Angels fans probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But that's not what they mean. Their thinking runs more toward our players' performance on the field. Posts like this are common:
so far,
Kendry Morales
Chone Figgins
Maitzer Izturis
Juan Rivera
Torii Hunter
Mike Napoli
Eric Aybarare all having career years this year so far, all of them. Thats not really a young group of players either… this has to slow down
Is this person correct? I would argue he is not.
Kendry Morales- Kowbell is 26 and has never in his career been given a real shot at the major league level. He tore apart A+ and AA at 22 and hit well in AAA at 23. He struggled his first 200 or so PA in the majors, but that could be expected from a 23-year old rookie. Additionally, his poor numbers were largely a result of poor luck-it's not as if his plate discipline was bad or he lacked power. The next two seasons were an exhibition in positional roadblocking. The Angels had a young first baseman already, and had no real reason to let Morales go. So he sat in AAA and put up numbers largely similar to those he is putting up right now while making brief jaunts to the MLB where he mostly sat on the bench. It should also be noted that the numbers being put up right now aren't very far off the mark of what was projected 4 years ago by Clay Davenport based on Morales production in the Cuban League from ages 18-20.
With all that in mind, can putting up these numbers in his first full season in the majors really be called a "career season?"
Chone Figgins- A career season for Figgins? At first glance, his .815 OPS is significantly above his career average of .750. Then again, Figgins has done this before- he put up remarkably similar numbers in 2007. His batting average is high, but not really that much higher than it was in his 2004 and 2005 campaigns. The real story is in Figgins' walk and K numbers.
Figgins has been an interesting study in player improvement. Every year his walk rate has increased, from 7.8% in 2004 to 12.4% now. His pitch selection is vastly improved over where he was. He tends to hit a lot of line drives. The big question is where you put his power and hitting ability. As one looks at his career, his ISO has hovered around .105 for essentially his whole career except for last year when it dipped to .042. His speed rating for last season was also much lower 5.6 as opposed to its usual level around 7.5-8.
From this we can make the conclusion that Figgins was probably playing injured much of last year. A leg injury would explain the lack of driving power as well as his lessened speed. So, given correct readings of Figgins plate discipline and power, is he really playing above his head? No, he is not. He appears to be only due to his poor season last year.
Maicer Izturis- Mighty Mouse has indeed been good this year, but it's not like we don't have a precedent for this. In 2006 and 2007, at ages 25 and 26, he put up OPS of .770 and .750. His current OPS of .787 seems out of place only if you average those seasons with his abysmal 2008 campaign OPS of .691, and his first 325 PAs that he collected during partial age 23 and 24 seasons. So is this season really outside of Izturis true ability level when you consider that he is currently in his prime at 28 and therefore expected to put up his best seasons? No.
Juan Rivera- Once again, we simply turn back the clock and look at his past few seasons. Juan Rivera is a guy who could never get playing time, while ironically being a person who NEEDS regular playing time to produce. When he finally got that playing time in 2006, during his age 27 season, he did not disappoint. Then he suffered one of the horrifying freak accidents that occasionally happen to players, and had his shin snapped in half during winter league. He spent the next two seasons recovering. Even then, when one looks at his base numbers from 2008, his power and walk rate, he was actually pretty close to his 2006 level. His essential features as a player were still there, he just hadn't gotten his swing back yet. Once one understands this, it comes as little surprise that his 2009 numbers are almost identical at this stage to his 2006 level.
Torii Hunter- Legitimately having a career year.
Mike Napoli- Napoli is another guy who, for one reason or another, hasn't been able to put a full season together. He's had other guys in front of him, he's been injured, all kinds of things. Still, to say that Napoli is having a career year is to ignore that his OPS was nearly 80 points higher last year, and that he too is still evolving as a hitter. BABIP is higher, but that's probably because he's striking out less and getting a little less lucky with more homers being doubles off the wall rather than over the fence. His core number of XBH was 30 last year in 274 PA, and is 29 this year in 289 PA. Not a whole lot of difference there. Career year? No.
Erick Aybar- First off, the guy is 25 with a whole 2 partial seasons under his belt prior to this season. His minor league average for seasons ages 18 to 22 was .312. This is not a guy who came out of nowhere and is suddenly hitting .300. This is a top prospect who was always projected as a good hitter at SS, and continues to show improvement in his core numbers with more walks, less Ks, and better contact. Admittedly, he's been on fire the last month, but there's nothing wrong with being streaky. It's possible that his numbers will drop as the season wears on, but it's also entirely possible that they won't. Bottom line is that at this stage of the game to say he's having a career year is simply laughable.
So after going through item by item, we find one legitimate career season, unexpected and totally unpredictable. Beyond those hitters our team also features Bobby Abreu, who is having pretty much the sort of season one would expect, Vladimir Guerrero, who is having a horrific season by his standards, and Howie Kendrick, who has spent most of the season to date completely imploding but has lately set himself firmly on the comeback trail. There is also our supporting-cast types who have done nothing special. Luck-wise on the offensive front we've about broken even.
But if this was pretty much how you could have expected it to go down at the beginning of the season, why were so many people bagging on us as a team when the season began? The projection systems were unanimous in pegging us as an 85 win team, after all. And that was before Vlad blew up and the pitching tanked. We're on pace to score around 890 runs on the season, and our upper order projection was only 816. Obviously they completely underestimated us.
You might notice that quite a few of our hitters had down 2008 seasons. Since projection systems tend to weight the most recent season as most important they completely undershot many of our players. The other part is that many of our players don't have consistent track records which would make them easier to predict. They are either too young or have been injured in the past. And if one looks around, there were a number of people who were pointing out that our offense's upside was being underestimated. But the whole point of people using projection systems is to get a ballpark answer and work from there. If it was so obvious we were better than projected, why are so many people surprised?
It comes down to expectations. The Angels have had chronic offensive issues of one type or another since 2003. They've been able to stave it off and put up good numbers a few times, but the impression has stuck--Angel offenses aren't supposed to be able to do this, "this" being to have most of their offense remain healthy and produce at the level they are capable of producing at.
In 2003, half the offense went down with injuries post-break. In 2004, we got absolutely devastated by injuries to Glaus, Salmon, GA, B-Mo, Erstad and others. 2005, Steve Finley sucked balls, D-Mac was hurt, GA was hurt, Cabrera was awful, and Rivera and Kotch didn't show up until late in the season. 2006, Kotch goes down, D-Mac goes down, Figgins sucks, Mathis sucks, Kendrick doesn't arrive till the end of the season. 2007--Rivera goes down for the count in January, Figgins is out for the first two months, Kendrick is in and out of the lineup--and this was a GOOD year. 2008's problems have already been documented above.
The Angels have had so much crappy luck with their offense that it created the expectation of continued suckitude. This year is different not because we are suddenly incredibly lucky, but because, for ONCE, we actually got some things to break the other way on the offensive side. The truth is that offensively over the past few years we've had some of the crappiest luck imaginable, to the point that just breaking even appears lucky. In one area this is particularly true: Our offensive prospects.
It has been pointed out on occasion that the Angels have had a relative lack of breakout offensive prospects over the last decade. Our opponents fans have taken this as providence--clearly, they argue, our prospects were never that good in the first place, and therefore any current Angel prospects would have to significantly outperform their predecessors' numbers or be judged to have the same low ceiling.
It affected us too though, to the point where Erick Aybar suddenly figuring out how to hit has left us a little mystified--but it shouldn't. Aybar was a great offensive shortstop in the minors. In retrospect it makes sense. At 22 Aybar was probably called up a bit early from AAA, where he was having a poor (by his standards) half-season. He spent most of the next season and a half sitting on the bench, collecting a mere 250 PA. Small wonder then that he would struggle in his first season getting a majority of the ML ABs at his position.
One final note on this subject for those who claim we are undeservedly fortunate--it wasn't very long ago that the Angels farm system was considered the best in baseball. Mike Napoli, Casey Kotchman, Dallas Macpherson, Jeff Mathis, Erick Aybar, Alberto Callaspo, Howie Kendrick, Brandon Wood, Kendry Morales, Sean Rodriguez--Some people appear to have convinced themselves that this entire group of young players, representing a whole half-decade's worth of top prospects, would be frittered away or flame out into sub-par major league role-players. Well, I'm sorry. Looks like you're just not that lucky.
This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.
15 recs |
75 comments
|
Comments
Dang sabermetricians
ain’t nuthin but a bunch of math nerds
Please get rid of Speier. "Yes, I suck."- Jose Guillen.
R.I.P. Nick Adenhart, Marquis Cooper, Steve McNair, and Frank Grimes, or Grimey, as he liked to be called
by JoseGuillenSux on Jul 26, 2009 11:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Shorter version: "Luck is the residue of design."
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
by Stirrups on Jul 26, 2009 11:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Further:
Unlucky Halos in 2009:
Guerrero
Lackey
Escobar
Santana
Arredondo
Moseley
Shields
Loux
Kendrick
Hunter
Rivera
and, of course, Nick Adenhart.
For the record, I would rather not suffer through all this “luck” that the envious, ignorant, whiners dump on us. Thank you very much.
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
by Stirrups on Jul 26, 2009 11:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't GMJ count as unlucky?
Or does he just suck? Or both??
Please get rid of Speier. "Yes, I suck."- Jose Guillen.
R.I.P. Nick Adenhart, Marquis Cooper, Steve McNair, and Frank Grimes, or Grimey, as he liked to be called
by JoseGuillenSux on Jul 26, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Finley came off +35 HRs with LAD, but boy he knows how to disappoint.
They want power, We want respect...
by SenorChuckles on Jul 27, 2009 12:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
And he messed up his shoulder running into the wall
I still think that’s part of the “Why did Finley suck so much” equation.
by Brew Angel on Jul 27, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Luck" is, in this context, a word fashioned by those who don't watch the sport
to describe the discrepancy between what the calculator said and what actually happened.
i.e., it’s bullshit 95% of the time.
when you’re “lucky” 6-7 seasons in a row, it’s time to rethink your bullshit system, and not just write off the actual outcomes as ‘aberrations.’ if you’re wrong that often, it’s not a fluke…it’s a blind spot.
by Caseys Kiss of Death on Jul 27, 2009 12:55 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
It's said that once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence and three times is a trend
A TRUE sabermetrician would seek to find answers, not just lazily refer to the Halos success as luck. You’re spot on, CKoD.
Also, I’ve said it before elsewhere – In sports, the greatest insult you can give another player/team is to say they didn’t earn the victory, they were “just lucky.” That’s why Angel fans tend to get a little pissy with statheads.
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
by johnnyangel101 on Jul 27, 2009 7:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Write us a bible Zu Long!
This is really the best fanpost all year so far. This issue of being called lucky has always been a pet peeve of mine since I began reading baseball blogs. Besides what you covered here, I think the wide use of “lucky” describing the Angels by Matthew Carruth Lookout Landing sabermetricians come in part from their general ignorance of the Angels organization and the philosophy of teaching Angels style baseball to young prospects in the minor leagues, and then bringing them up so when they reach the Major League level the whole team works as a unit. We have an owner that values the team and the players and does’nt sell off half the team mid season or other owners that just go out and buy the most expensive free agents available with the philosophy “we have the best team money can buy” and hope these players gel as a team.
Lastly and most importantly, you have to admit we are incredibly lucky to have Mike Scioscia as manager. He gets us and the team through the rough patches, makes sure there is the depth so there are capable players to fill the holes when injuries occur. Scioscia keeps the whole thing in balance, stable, and makes necessary changes that keeps the team coming out on the winning end of the stick more often than the teams of the fans that call the Angels lucky.
Mike Napoli speaks softly and carries a big stick.
by 44FAN on Jul 27, 2009 1:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think the term 'lucky' is just a euphemism...
…meaning we can’t measure it. In Carruth’s article on lucky teams on fangraphs, one of the commenters stated:
The Angels pop up as "lucky" every year in every permutation of this sort of study. Perhaps just actually going out and doing things to win the game in front of them actually works?
to which the our erudite friend from the Pacific North-West responded:
When somebody finds a way to quantify why that happens, then I will acknowledge this sort of opinion. Until then, I am going to treat it like any other fair coin landing heads seven out of ten times. (The Angels do not pop up as lucky every single year. Just a majority of the past ten or so)
Now, to me this is fairly enlightening. The ‘fair coin’ analogy assumes it is chance and that is his position – it must be luck, rather than trying to uncover reasons that might help prove or disprove the opposing view. Lazy analysis frankly. Rather than assuming luck he should be looking at what else correlates with this time-frame – what have the Angels done differently than the norm over the last 10 years or so and how can it be measured. Personally I’d start with The Soth and his approach to the game, and try and unpick it from there (if I wasn’t GA grade lazy of course). He acknowledges that something slightly unexpected is happening with a frequency that may warrant investigation, and then ignores it because it doens’t fit with his view of the world, discarding things that may be worthy of interest. He’s a member of the ‘Flat Earth Society’ masquerading as a member of the Illuminati.
Interestingly the two commenters after this exchange both come up with ideas around on the one hand speed and baserunning and on the other how the expected win/loss estimate is flawed since it assumes all runs are equal when we know that they are not (and that concept really complicates things for a pseudo-statistician).
As Churchill, among others, so eloquently put it – “He uses statistics as a drunk uses a lamp-post: for support rather than illumination”.
I think rspencer’s comment below – reminding us that sabermetrics is still at toddler stage – is a pertinent one. And, of course, like any proud parent, the sabremetricians have already labelled their toddler as the next surgeon / rocket-scientist while forgetting that their child still doesn’t know how to cross the road or wipe it’s own arse.
I see red people
by The Limey on Jul 27, 2009 4:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Completely agree.
I tend to fall somewhere in the middle of the stats debate in baseball; but as someone who has used statistics for something other than sabermetrics, it always amazes me at how vehemently and uncompromisingly some people defend their analysis. Statistics is an inexact science to begin with and most people in the scientific community are ready and willing to admit the shortcomings of their statistical measurements and attempt to correct for them. If many decades of fine tuning hasn’t created perfect statistical analysis and 100% accurate predictors in the professional community, I doubt SABR has reached perfection in its relatively short lifespan.
As others have said many times, if we are consistently ‘lucky’ and they are, therefore, consistently wrong, perhaps a review of the measure is in order.
By the way, I picked a wonderful topic for my first substantive HH post. Woo!
by Dr.Wily on Jul 27, 2009 7:12 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
superb summary
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer.
by Moondoggy on Jul 27, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Reply to 44Fan...
Completely agree with the comments on Scioscia. He has an ability to elicit generally good to better-than-expected performance from the players (yes, there are exceptions like Steve Finley, Esteban Yan, Edgardo Alphonso, etc. These exceptions for the most part are players well past their prime).
Among other things, he seems to stoke their confidence. I rarely see him chastise players for errors. Especially with base-running blunders, I have expected him at times to jump on the player when they return to the dugout. It almost never happens. It seems he has made a conscious decision to tolerate outs on the base-paths in exchange for elevated confidence and overall team agressiveness.
The truly awful outs on the basepaths drive me nuts, but I can’t argue with the overall results.
Scioscia’s management delivers victories even in tough times.
by sothball on Jul 27, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh man
And Hillenbrand and Mondesi! HAH!
by TheAntiSox on Jul 27, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
disaster carrasco anyone ?
Meet me @ the budweiser patio
by BigBangRobbDawgg on Aug 2, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Y'all have pretty much said it all already
All I can add is that it seems to me that the Angels don’t fit the Sabermetric statistical model because Scioscia’s style of play is so distinctive.
I don’t mean to badmouth SABR; I respect what they are trying to do. It’s just that their science is just barely out of its infancy, and baseball is an incredibly complex game. Instead of merely calling the Angels “lucky” for exceeding projections, then, they would be better off to start to figure out what it is about the team’s style of play that causes it consistently to exceed projections, and use that information to improve their model.
by rspencer on Jul 27, 2009 2:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
If I've said it once I've said it a thousand (or two) times
Every once in a great while, something magical comes along that can’t be explained by mathematical analysis. People try to explain it but they can’t. It defies the rules of logic.
It’s magic. Angel foes – get use to it.
Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.
by vladtheimpaler on Jul 27, 2009 3:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand
A loss or two will allow us to bring back our power boys (Juan, Torii, and Vlad) without the onus of bringing bad luck to the hot streak. Yes, the magic is all falling into place.
Angel Pitching, Angel Defense - get past that.
by vladtheimpaler on Jul 27, 2009 3:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Luck? Who needs that...
when we are paying off umpires and MLB teams to go in the tank whenever we play them. LOL
by MH252525 on Jul 27, 2009 6:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
4 division titles in 5 years IS NOT LUCK!
Hooters anyone?
by Chone's Chonies on Jul 27, 2009 7:25 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A .582 winning percentage is sensational
That translates into a 94 win season. (94.28 to be precise)
Maybe a team could get lucky and play .582 baseball for half-a-season, but It’s pretty difficult to sustain it for a full season. Let’s review each team and find out when they last posted a 94 win season. (source: baseball-reference.com)
Arizona: 2002
Atlanta: 2004
Baltimore: 1997
Boston: 2008
Chicago Cubs: 2008
Chicago White Sox: 2005
Cincinnati: 1999
Cleveland: 2007
Colorado: never
Detroit: 2006 (1st time they hit at least 94 wins since 1987)
Florida: never
Houston: 1998
Kansas City: 1980
LA Angels: 2008
LA Dodgers: 1988
Milwaukee: 1982
Minnesota: 2006
NY Mets: 2006
NY Yankees: 2007
Oakland: 2002
Philadelphia: 1993
Pittsburgh: 1992
San Diego: 1998
San Francisco: 2003
Seattle: 2001
St. Louis: 2005
Tampa Bay: 2008 (1st winning season since franchise started in 1998)
Texas: 1999
Toronto: 1993
Washington/Montreal: 1993
Many teams have failed to hit the 94-win/.580 winning percentage mark for the past 10 years.
So how long have the Angels been playing .582 baseball? Have they accomplished this over the last 100 games?
250 games?
500 games?
700 games?
Try 907 games.
Yes. For the past NINE HUNDRED games the Angels have been playing .582 baseball.
That’s luck? Is the sample size not large enough?
by XYZ123 on Jul 27, 2009 8:31 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs
I mentioned this in one of the many "Angels are soooo lucky" threads that have been floating around at LSB
That stat – .582 ball for 900+ games is remarkable and the key stat in this debate.
Nick Adenhart - 1986 - 2009 R.I.P.
by swiss mcgee on Jul 27, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude, I'm pretty sure it's .572, not .582
Not that that changes your essential point, which is worthy of recommendation, if not outright theft!
by mattwelch on Jul 30, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to double-check the numbers
2004: 92-70
2005: 95-67
2006: 89-73
2007: 94-68
2008: 100-62
-————————-
Total: 470-340 (.580) (810 games)
My original basis for the Angels long-term excellence was their performance over 2004-2008.
At the time of my original post, this season’s year-to-date performance (58-39) slightly enhanced the cumulative winning percentage up to .582.
by XYZ123 on Jul 31, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A-ha, I was thinking you meant since 2002, somehow
Cuz since then, we’re at .572. Sorry for miscomprehension.
by mattwelch on Jul 31, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calling someone lucky
is often the last refuge of the beaten and pathetic
Tell your statistics to shut up
by HaloDutch on Jul 27, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Don't know if you pulled
that quote out of your ass or if you stole it from someone else, but it is now the signature on my work email account. Very nice. BTW, I am giving you credit so…..
… feel free to lie to me.
by rmhalofan on Jul 28, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice post
Figgins is an All-Star. Period. Congrats, Figster!
by Figgi4life on Jul 27, 2009 9:37 AM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Original sin of the sabermetric "luck" usage
Was deciding that exceeding pythagorean/run differential expectations on winning percentage was the primary baseball definition of the word. It’s not, it shouldn’t be, and oh by the way we consistently lead or come close to leading baseball in exceeding run-differential expectations. This leads to a lot of dumb commentary and projections.
by mattwelch on Jul 27, 2009 10:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Spot on...
…there’s so much of this ‘statistical’ analysis that is oversimplified
1. All runs are not equal – a run scored in a tight game is more important than one issued by the mop in a blow-out
2. For a team game, it seems to me that most team projections (and post-hoc analyses of team performance) are based exclusively on a composite of individual performances. I seem to remember that playing as part of a team is about the greater good and occasionally sacrificing your personal goals for that of team. At lot of statistical analysis (in my brief exposure to it) fails to address this paradox
3. Defense and speed are both poorly quantified and assessed
4. Most projection seems to overly rely on past history. A player’s career is a parabola – improvement, plateau and decline – there seems to be an over-abundance of predicting decline and ‘regression’ (I hate that word) and a paucity of optimism for young players learning the game
I see red people
by The Limey on Jul 27, 2009 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All good points
But the first two are especially pertinent, because they are simply unarguable. A pitcher will be extremely cautious when his team is behind or has a small lead, but if it has a large lead he’ll be far more likely simply to challenge hitters, and less concerned with giving up solo homers. Also, no player is an island, each interacts with his teammates in ways that vary endlessly based upon the situation at hand.
by rspencer on Jul 27, 2009 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome!
That posting was extremely well thought out. I’m new, but so happy to find a place with intelligent baseball fans… I have so much to learn!
by #1Angelsfan on Jul 27, 2009 11:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
to be fair...
…we did have one bit of luck when Kendrick’s grounder bounced off 2nd base allowing us to tie that game in the bottom of the 9th and win in the 10th. IIRC it was after that game that all the “lucky” bs started.
by Fred Fredrix on Jul 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly.
That is “luck”. A journeyman pitcher having a good month and a half isn’t necessarily luck. It might be, but more likely hes just feeling good/focused/healthy… hell, whatever athletes feel when they get hot. I don’t have a clue what it is, and I’m not going to pretend they’re getting lucky just because I can’t explain it.
by dmhead on Jul 27, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But it was "luck" that Kendrick's RBI was even necessary to tie that game in the first place
Instant replay showed that a run scored for the twins shouldn’t have counted-another player was tagged out at third prior to the first player crossing home plate. Kendrick’s “good luck” was only important because “bad luck” had created the situation.
Such good luck and bad luck are common place in individual games but over the course of a whole season they will typically average out.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on Jul 27, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
SABR
The SA stands for Self-Aggrandizing, right?
Because that’s what these Bill James/Rob Neyer types seem to be most interested in…
by Zaius on Jul 27, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
It ain't James, it's the post-James generation
Bill James has been one of the biggest critics of analysts who rush prematurely toward scientific Certainty, especially regarding projections. He is as valuable a baseball writer as has lived among us the past 40 years, and lumping his name with idiots is about as dumb as predicting the Angels to win 85 games every year.
by mattwelch on Jul 27, 2009 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good Point
Blaming Bill James for this generation of Stat-Orthodoxers is like blaming Nietzche for the Beer Hall Putsch.
(ya like my end-run around Godwin there?)
by Rev Halofan on Jul 27, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope the whiners...errr....posters over at LSB and LL come take a gander at this thread
We know they won’t. The jealousy is so palpable at LSB and LL, it is amazing, and I love it.
Here’s a funny moment for you. There was a game thread at LSB for our game against Minny on Saturday since it was a FOX national game. During our explosive 4th inning, the posters kept mentioning the bloop hits…I think we had 2 or 3. Someone, I think 44FAN, IIRC, then came in and mentioned we have hit 2 HR’s during the same inning, lol. It’s as if they didn’t even happen.
Nick Adenhart - 1986 - 2009 R.I.P.
by swiss mcgee on Jul 27, 2009 3:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Let them keep thinking it's luck...
…stubborn refusal to accept the obvious is good for the Angels.
by sothball on Jul 27, 2009 4:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was not me...
Mike Napoli speaks softly and carries a big stick.
by 44FAN on Jul 27, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll have to go back there and look again
sorry for the confusion, I just didn’t want a good deed to go un-noticed :)
Nick Adenhart - 1986 - 2009 R.I.P.
by swiss mcgee on Jul 27, 2009 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
on second look it was
Figgi4Life who mentioned the 2 HR’s, the double, and 2 lined singles that inning
Nick Adenhart - 1986 - 2009 R.I.P.
by swiss mcgee on Jul 27, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LSB and LL
should institute an L-bomb rule similar to our F-bomb rule.
by rspencer on Jul 28, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
As much as I love K-Mo
I’m thinking this season for him is a fluke. I definitely think he can put up great numbers, but, stellar numbers like he’s been putting up this year? I don’t know……
As for Aybar, I will bet a lot of things that this will be his only season above .300.
But yes I would definitely say that this season hasn’t been lucky at all. This season is a result of a chemistry upgrade. I have no idea where it came from but I have noticed it a lot this year. Many players just seem like they’re having more fun and aren’t so serious all the team. They all get along very well and work very well together.
I don’t think there’s any other MLB team that could go through ALL those extremely unlucky times we’ve had this year and still put up at least a .500 season.
Best team around baby.
by TheAntiSox on Jul 27, 2009 5:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll take that bet...
…as Zu pointed out – he averaged .312 over 4 yrs in the minors.
Likewise with Kendry – he’s on an upward curve. I think it would be premature to assume his peaked after 1 full season of playing time.
I see red people
by The Limey on Jul 27, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well yes
But minor league pitching vs. major league pitching
by TheAntiSox on Jul 27, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Developmentally
Kendry is still young – I will be the overs on his numbers.
by Rev Halofan on Jul 27, 2009 6:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think Morales has even touched his maximum potential yet.
Mike Napoli speaks softly and carries a big stick.
by 44FAN on Jul 27, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Major league pitching
still needs to adjust to him. But I’m pretty optimistic (not Acuda-levels). I think we’ll see him cool off a bit and then step right back up to being the great hitter that he is now: provided he stays healthy and gets a consistent number of ABs. I agree with you; he hasn’t reached his maximum potential yet.
by Dr.Wily on Jul 28, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You think it's a fluke. That's fine.
I object to people pretending to KNOW it’s a fluke. Aybar and Morales are at a stage in their careers where calling ANYTHING a career season is ridiculous.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on Jul 27, 2009 7:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fucking awesome post
You get my July F-bomb, as a show of respect.
by rghan on Jul 27, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
+1
They want power, We want respect...
by SenorChuckles on Jul 27, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm agreeing with Senor Chuckles!!
"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you." - Woody Hayes
by johnnyangel101 on Jul 28, 2009 8:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brilliant post, Zu.
THIS… IS… ANAHEIM!!
by opiejeanne on Jul 27, 2009 10:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The funny part is that the evidence something is wrong with their numbers
is right in front of them. At the beginning of 2008, Nate Silver posted an article about which teams had most consistently over- and underperformed their PECOTA projections from 2003-2007 and the Angels not surprisingly came in second at +33, behind only the Braves. The Braves fell off pretty hard in 2008 going -14, but the Angels bested PECOTA by a 12 game margin. This gives the Angels a +45 mark against PECOTA overall, +50 for the past 5 years, an average of 10 games over their projection a season in that span. We’re also #1 in outperforming PECOTA, in case you hadn’t guessed already.
The really interesting thing though, is that during that 5 year span the Angels appear consistent, staying in a range of 8-12 wins over the projection. The only other team that has anything close to this kind of consistency is the Oakland A’s, whom PECOTA managed to predict perfectly 3 years in a row. Other teams that have significantly overperformed vs. PECOTA, like the White Sox (41) and the Cardinals (29), have tended to have big years where they surprised, then had years where they came down closer to norm. The Halos are the only team that has overperformed 5 straight years, much less done it at such a regular pace.
As of March 31, we were predicted to win 84 games this year, a number that even Baseball Prospectus has seen the need to revise upward. As of 7/24, we were predicted to win 90 games, a feat we will accomplish if we play .500 ball from here on out. I expect we’ll do a little better than that. If we use the ‘+10’ method of prediction, the Angels end up at 94 wins…exactly where our current winning percentage says we’ll end up. Food for thought, anyway.
#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!
by TheOptimist on Jul 28, 2009 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 4 recs
I give credit to Soth.
100%. He knows how to win games that other teams lose.
Let's do this for Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart, and Henry Pearson.
by AlanFalcon on Jul 30, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like how the 6-4-3 guy busts on White Sox fans for not being happy about their projection
talking about 2007 while totally ignoring how badly the White Sox blew up PECOTA in 2005 and 2008.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on Jul 30, 2009 7:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did they add 2 more teams
and nobody told me? There is 30 owners (thirty teams) in Major League Baseball not 32 (thirty-two) as you mention. Your thinking football I guess.
SABR = System Abusing Baseball Reality
Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee
by Angel Aviator on Aug 1, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, good catch.
Fixed it.
~Till the Halo burns out...
by Zu Long on Aug 1, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where the numbers come from
My hunch here is that this a non-issue. The reason is probably Mike Scioscia’s bullpen management. Perhaps more than any manager in baseball, Scioscia believes in pitchers filling roles. He likes to have three dependable back-end guys who can pitch the 7th, 8th, and 9th innings when the team is ahead by 3 runs or less. The Angels tend to win a lot of close games this way. Once the team has the lead, Shields and K-Rod (now Fuentes) come in to lock it down.
On the other hand, Scioscia usually keeps at least one guy around to pitch garbage time. When the game isn’t on the line, he would rather use stiffs like Carrasco, Bootcheck, O’Day, Rafael Rodriguez, and Loux than burn one of his dependable arms. As a consequence, big leads turn into smaller leads, and big deficits turn into enormous deficits. The Angels win the tight ones, but when they get blown out, they go for broke.
I think the huge disparity in quality between the back-end relief and the long relief pitchers in the bullpen is what messes up the projections. They’re not set up to handle higher-order effects like manager behavior. For example, the Angels have a +64 run differential at the moment, which corresponds to a record of 56-45 via Pythagoras. They’re 61-40, or 5 games better than projected. But maybe you remember the 17-3 loss to the White Sox on May 25. Santana gave up 7, then the junk arms in the bullpen coughed up 10 more before it was over. But suppose some better relief pitching had got Santana off the hook and kept it close. If that game had only been, say, a 4-3 loss, the Angels expected record jumps to 58-43. Add up some more games following that pattern and you get the idea. Numbers are just numbers, and “luck” is a word statisticians use for lack of a better one. in my perspective, the Angels anomaly tells me something insightful about the Angels, not something negative about sabermetrics in general.
by Suboptimal on Aug 1, 2009 3:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think what a lot of us are asking sabermetricians to do is stop being lazy.
They can’t explain our success with their current systems, so they call it luck instead of looking for a better explanation. Now there are teams that get lucky, but our consistency should have demonstrated by now that isn’t the answer in our case. The question we ask them to consider, and one which thus far they have continually dismissed out of hand, is what is actually going on?
#34 Forever
Plugging the upside since 2006.
Never give up, never surrender!
by TheOptimist on Aug 1, 2009 7:43 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's it, Optimist, in a nutshell
Suboptimal, you give a simple, incisive analysis of the Angels’ habit of exceeding the Pythagorean expectation, which with my fairly limited understanding of statistics seems to explain substantially why the Angels do it. And I would agree with your assertion that “the Angels anomaly tells me something insightful about the Angels, not something negative about sabermetrics in general.”
But your post does reveal to me something negative about those sabermetricians that call the Angels “lucky”. If you are able to devise a simple explanation for the Angels’ anomaly, then why can’t these sabermetricians make this effort? For them not to do so brings to mind another L-word: lazy. You had no trouble finding a better word for it than “luck”, after all.
And worse than this, it also suggests, coming as it does from ostensible scientists, a certain lack of ethics. When an ethical scientist finds data that do not fit his model, he blames it on his model, not on physical reality. If sabermetricians have not yet found a way to incorporate higher-order effects into their model, they should admit such when discussing the Angels’ anomaly, not simply disparage the Angels.
by rspencer on Aug 2, 2009 4:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Minnesota Twins pitcher Jesse Crain has the final word
“Look at their lineup. Everyone is close to hitting .300. They don’t just do that because they are lucky. They know how to hit.
“They’ve got those little guys like Izturis, who took a pitch the other way. I don’t think I’d change anything on that pitch. They are a tough team, and they showed why they are in first place and why they’re around every year.”
Don't call me Desmond
by highlandhalo on Aug 1, 2009 8:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I keep seeing this title in the sidebar
and I wanted to tell you again, if I didn’t before, how great your post is.
THIS… IS… ANAHEIM!!
by opiejeanne on Aug 3, 2009 2:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's a thought:
What if the actual thing that happens is that the Halos continue to win as many games as always, but the way that they do it in order to fit the Pythag model is they start to win more games by a shitload more runs? In other words, like what is happening right friggin’ now?
So maybe, instead of regressing to any mean, the Halos are progressing to their mean!
We don't have a Bullpen. We have a Cowpen. Before we get to call it a Bullpen these guys gotta grow a pair.
by Stirrups on Aug 3, 2009 8:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















