Orange County Register: Number-crunching: Four 20-somethings help Angels make sense of all that data

[AngelsWin.com]

ANAHEIM – Have you seen “Moneyball”?That’s Jeremy Zoll’s go-to line when people ask what he does for a living. If the inquiring mind has seen the 2011 Brad Pitt film or read the 2003 Michael Lewis book, Zoll says his job is like that:...

View the full article

[ELEVEN]

We should get one of these kids to sit down for an interview. This is good stuff.

[Docwaukee]

would love to spend some a day with those guys.  

[Troll Daddy]

"In short, that’s strike-zone control, for both pitchers and hitters. The Angels want hitters who walked more than they struck out in college and pitchers who hardly walked anybody."

Trout

269 walks

489 K's

Bonds

2558 walks

1539 K's

Edited December 31, 2014 by Troll Daddy

[Stradling]

"In short, that’s strike-zone control, for both pitchers and hitters. The Angels want hitters who walked more than they struck out in college and pitchers who hardly walked anybody."

Trout

269 walks

489 K's

Bonds

2558 walks

1539 K's

You're right, Trout sucks.

[Troll Daddy]

You're right, Trout sucks.

Proving a point ... of course you don't get it but neither do I.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Thxs

[Stradling]

Proving a point ... of course you don't get it but neither do I.

Please don't put words in my mouth. Thxs

This coming from a guy who quoted me then still misquoted me in the same post.

[Stradling]

Oh and TD Bonds had more strike outs than walks his first three seasons as well, 292 K's to 171 walks.

[Docwaukee]

"In short, that’s strike-zone control, for both pitchers and hitters. The Angels want hitters who walked more than they struck out in college and pitchers who hardly walked anybody."

Trout

269 walks

489 K's

Bonds

2558 walks

1539 K's

 

Bonds first 3 full seasons (age 21-23)

65hr 165rbi

.258/.814

191bb

272k

15.5 WAR

 

Trout first 3 full seasons (age 20-22)

93hr, 291rbi

.311/.963

260bb

459k

27.5 WAR

[Troll Daddy]

My point wasn't comparing Trout vs Bonds but you guys just proved my point ... which was evaluating hitters early in their progress as ML players based on walks vs strikeouts. I'm not a big fan of saber metrics when it comes to young prospects.

 

Trout is still the best player in baseball ... you guys get so defensive lol

Edited December 31, 2014 by Troll Daddy

[Troll Daddy]

I did find the article a very interesting read. Glad to know the Angels have a team of Billy Beane's helping with the decision making on players.

[Docwaukee]

My point wasn't comparing Trout vs Bonds but you guys just proved my point ... which was evaluating hitters early in their progress as ML players based on walks vs strikeouts. I'm not a big fan of saber metrics when it comes to young prospects.

 

Trout is still the best player in baseball ... you guys get so defensive lol

your point wasn't comparing trout vs. bonds but you did without even so much as a qualifier.  

 

We are not defending Trout or sabermetrics.  

 

We are defending logic and reason.  

[Troll Daddy]

your point wasn't comparing trout vs. bonds but you did without even so much as a qualifier.  

 

We are not defending Trout or sabermetrics.  

 

We are defending logic and reason.  

 

I thought it was obvious ... didn't realize I needed a qualifer. Trout is the best player in baseball over the last three years. He strikesout more than he walks ... so evaluating a player base on walks vs strikeouts doesn't always hold water. Bonds vs Trout shows two different approaches is my point. Yes. I would like to see Trout strikeout less but I have no problem with his strikeouts vs walks ratio.

Edited December 31, 2014 by Troll Daddy

[OregonLAA]

Oh and TD Bonds had more strike outs than walks his first three seasons as well, 292 K's to 171 walks.

Steroids don't help though

[AngelsLakersFan]

Interesting stuff.

 

While I love players who walk more than they strikeout, and I think it is the quintessential offensive 'tool,' I believe that studies have shown that 'power' is what translates the best to the big leagues. The league as a whole has discovered that trading strikeouts for power is a net positive, so it's not so much about how much you strikeout as it is what you do when you don't.

 

Ghost Pujols is a good example. He would probably be better served if he changed his two strike approach and struck out a little more often. His weak contact with two strikes isn't earning him too many infield hits, and a whole lot of double plays. 

 

For minor league players and college hitters it's tough to tell what's really at play. Lesser infields and worse defenses turn a lot of outs into hits, and at that level truly elite hitters should be crushing mistakes more than working the count.

 

It is kind of an odd dichotomy. Being a great major league hitter requires discipline, patience and the ability to hit the ball hard. At the lower levels it is more about raw tools, and teams should be expecting players to improve in the more nuanced areas of the game as time goes on. Drafting a college pitcher with great command has worked out well before for the Angels but I'm not sure if it is as good of a long term strategy to focus on guys like that over guys with nasty stuff and a need to improve command.

 

tldr; Players are drafted on the assumption that they are going to improve, but players don't typically add significant velocity, power or speed beyond their college / early minors years. 

[Docwaukee]

Interesting stuff.

 

While I love players who walk more than they strikeout, and I think it is the quintessential offensive 'tool,' I believe that studies have shown that 'power' is what translates the best to the big leagues. The league as a whole has discovered that trading strikeouts for power is a net positive, so it's not so much about how much you strikeout as it is what you do when you don't.

 

Ghost Pujols is a good example. He would probably be better served if he changed his two strike approach and struck out a little more often. His weak contact with two strikes isn't earning him too many infield hits, and a whole lot of double plays. 

 

For minor league players and college hitters it's tough to tell what's really at play. Lesser infields and worse defenses turn a lot of outs into hits, and at that level truly elite hitters should be crushing mistakes more than working the count.

 

It is kind of an odd dichotomy. Being a great major league hitter requires discipline, patience and the ability to hit the ball hard. At the lower levels it is more about raw tools, and teams should be expecting players to improve in the more nuanced areas of the game as time goes on. Drafting a college pitcher with great command has worked out well before for the Angels but I'm not sure if it is as good of a long term strategy to focus on guys like that over guys with nasty stuff and a need to improve command.

 

tldr; Players are drafted on the assumption that they are going to improve, but players don't typically add significant velocity, power or speed beyond their college / early minors years. 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/katoh-forecasting-a-hitters-major-league-performance-with-minor-league-stats/

 

I posted this a couple of days ago and thought it was interesting.  relates to what you mentioned.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/katoh-forecasting-a-hitters-major-league-performance-with-minor-league-stats/

 

I posted this a couple of days ago and thought it was interesting.  relates to what you mentioned.  

 

Ah there you have it. Little correlation between walk rate in the low minors and major league success. Strong correlations for power and age compared to the league.

 

As statistically minded as I am I still have a huge problem with Billy Beane's idea in Moneyball, to fire all the scouts and just look at the spreadsheet. Even if the spreadsheet can tell us who really played best, it doesn't tell us all that much about who will be the best player ten years into the future. Observed performance is important, but most important is the 'why' behind the performance. Everyone has room for improvement and regression, and knowing where guys are likely to improve / regress is just as important as knowing how good they are today.

[ettin]

Remember guys its the rates they are interested in. K/9-BB/9 and vice versa for hitters.

[Docwaukee]

Ah there you have it. Little correlation between walk rate in the low minors and major league success. Strong correlations for power and age compared to the league.

 

As statistically minded as I am I still have a huge problem with Billy Beane's idea in Moneyball, to fire all the scouts and just look at the spreadsheet. Even if the spreadsheet can tell us who really played best, it doesn't tell us all that much about who will be the best player ten years into the future. Observed performance is important, but most important is the 'why' behind the performance. Everyone has room for improvement and regression, and knowing where guys are likely to improve / regress is just as important as knowing how good they are today.

 

 

the ultimate goal in all of this is to control as many variables as possible, but you can't control them all.  that thing between every players ears will always keep things interesting.  Because for every Chevy Clarke there will be David Eckstein.  For every ounce of raw data that is processed, dissected, and turned into useful information is a player who isn't able to make it work for them.  

 

There are a lot of things in baseball that should work in theory yet in the end they just don't.  See Josh Hamilton and Joe Blanton

And there are a lot of times where something just clicks and a guy takes off.  See Matt Shoemaker.

 

Baseball is a game of failure.  Using every ounce of available information at your disposal to fail a little less than you might otherwise is oddly how to succeed.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

the ultimate goal in all of this is to control as many variables as possible, but you can't control them all.  that thing between every players ears will always keep things interesting.  Because for every Chevy Clarke there will be David Eckstein.  For every ounce of raw data that is processed, dissected, and turned into useful information is a player who isn't able to make it work for them.  

 

There are a lot of things in baseball that should work in theory yet in the end they just don't.  See Josh Hamilton and Joe Blanton

And there are a lot of times where something just clicks and a guy takes off.  See Matt Shoemaker.

 

Baseball is a game of failure.  Using every ounce of available information at your disposal to fail a little less than you might otherwise is oddly how to succeed.  

 

Very true. When you start looking at component rate statistics the most striking thing is just how close so many players are and how so many names you wouldn't necessarily expect to see together end up together.

 

One thing I love about baseball is how it feels like a game that's 1/3 athleticism, 1/3 natural skill & talent, and 1/3 learned skill & practice. Every other major sport in this league feels weighted heavily toward the first two. Most of us never could have any hope of playing in the NBA, the NFL is potentially in reach for people willing to dedicate enough to the gym. Baseball has so many paths, and none necessarily more valuable than the others. Look at R. A. Dickey. One might say he was born with a negative level of natural talent, without the ligament in his arm that makes pitching possible. Meanwhile a guy like Mike Trout is what happens when you have everything. 

 

Players drafted based on athleticism and / or natural talent - which are most players - are simply the guys with the most potential. What ultimately puts it all together is the work ethic, determination and an understanding of the game.

[Docwaukee]

Very true. When you start looking at component rate statistics the most striking thing is just how close so many players are and how so many names you wouldn't necessarily expect to see together end up together.

 

One thing I love about baseball is how it feels like a game that's 1/3 athleticism, 1/3 natural skill & talent, and 1/3 learned skill & practice. Every other major sport in this league feels weighted heavily toward the first two. Most of us never could have any hope of playing in the NBA, the NFL is potentially in reach for people willing to dedicate enough to the gym. Baseball has so many paths, and none necessarily more valuable than the others. Look at R. A. Dickey. One might say he was born with a negative level of natural talent, without the ligament in his arm that makes pitching possible. Meanwhile a guy like Mike Trout is what happens when you have everything. 

 

Players drafted based on athleticism and / or natural talent - which are most players - are simply the guys with the most potential. What ultimately puts it all together is the work ethic, determination and an understanding of the game.

 

nice post.  I was actually going to use RA Dickey in my previous post and forgot.  He's a great example.  

 

Baseball isn't necessarily filled with guys that have any more baseline intelligence but the game is such where you can think your way into being a better player.  Sure there are components of that in other sports, but it's a much bigger part of the game in baseball.  

 

I think in game coaching has a larger effect in other sports though whereas with baseball I think the off the field coaching is more critical.  

 

It's so much more of a developmental game.  Guys come out of college and often succeed immediately in the NBA and NFL.  In baseball, that rarely happens.  There are so many more layers to the process that need to be accounted for and on top of it, the regular season is a marathon.  Whereas the playoffs are a very small proportion of the regular season.  

 

I love all the variables and the process of attempting to control them.  I love that an undrafted player can be a very good major league player and a #1 overall pick might not even get past AA with both of those scenarios being a fairly common occurrence.  

[Stradling]

Very true. When you start looking at component rate statistics the most striking thing is just how close so many players are and how so many names you wouldn't necessarily expect to see together end up together.

One thing I love about baseball is how it feels like a game that's 1/3 athleticism, 1/3 natural skill & talent, and 1/3 learned skill & practice. Every other major sport in this league feels weighted heavily toward the first two. Most of us never could have any hope of playing in the NBA, the NFL is potentially in reach for people willing to dedicate enough to the gym. Baseball has so many paths, and none necessarily more valuable than the others. Look at R. A. Dickey. One might say he was born with a negative level of natural talent, without the ligament in his arm that makes pitching possible. Meanwhile a guy like Mike Trout is what happens when you have everything.

Players drafted based on athleticism and / or natural talent - which are most players - are simply the guys with the most potential. What ultimately puts it all together is the work ethic, determination and an understanding of the game.

One of the best posts I've read on AW, truly a great post, ALF.

[ettin]

Whoa! The intelligence level of this thread just spiked to a 3.5 WPA.

[ten ocho recon scout]

Agreed, great post ALF. Id add that mental is a big piece too. Lots of guys like weaver, who dont have as good as stuff anymore but have a warrior mentality. Then theres guys like fill in the blank, ton of talent but between the ears theyve lost their edge

[Angel Oracle]

The last 1/3 of ALF's description of a typical MLB player is very important in MLB.

And thus if a team is mainly into sabremetrics, and not paying enough attention to that last 1/3, it might partly explain the near constant post-season failures in the new millennium of the A'th (one ALDS series win out of 7 post-season series plus the WC game collapse).

Edited January 4, 2015 by Angel Oracle