A couple of days ago I received "The Bill James Handbook" in the mail (from ACTA Sports). For those of you who are unfamiliar with the handbook, it's 95% stats with a little commentary thrown in. Earlier, I posted what the handbook had projected for the 2010 Angels, but here are a few other things I found interesting:
Team Efficiency Summary
The most efficient team in baseball is usually the Los Angeles Angels - anyway it was in 2009, and it was in 2008, and it has been in other years. The Angels do little things so well that they are consistently able to grind five or ten more wins a year out of their team than what one would think was available. We don't really understand how they do it, to be frank, but since they do it every year, we know it's not luck (emphasis mine). Saying that they "do the little things well" is just a way of covering for the fact that we don't actually know how they do it.
Finally, someone (Bill James) has the balls to write that the unquantifiable success the Angels have had over the past few seasons is not because of luck. Although James doesn't write what he thinks is the actual reason for the added wins, taking that first step away from calling it luck is satisfying.
| Eff Wins |
Act Wins | Overall Eff | |
| Angels | 90 | 97 | 107 |
| Mariners | 81 | 85 | 106 |
| Tigers | 81 | 85 | 106 |
| Astros | 70 | 74 | 106 |
Fielding Bible Awards
The Handbook lists their version of Gold Glove winners for each defensive position. There were no Angels listed at the top of any position rankings, but a couple were ranked within the top 5.
1B - Albert Pujols (Kendry Morales #7)
2B - Aaron Hill (Howie Kendrick #11, Maicer Izturis #17)
3B - Ryan Zimmerman (Chone Figgins #3)
SS - Jack Wilson (Erick Aybar #12)
LF - Carl Crawford (Juan Rivera #4)
CF - Franklin Gutierrez (Torii Hunter #9)
RF - Ichiro Suzuki (none)
C - Yadier Molina (Jeff Matis #7, Mike Napoli #16)
P - Mark Buehrle (none)
Nothing too surprising here. Having not seen Zimmerman play much, I'll just have to take their word for it that he was better than Figgins at 3B (Adrian Beltre was ranked #2), but in the next section of the handbook, they list the "runs saved" and "plus/minus" leaders and Figgins is at the top of both categories at third.
Runs Saved and Plus/Minus Leaders
Runs saved and plus/minus leaders are two more metrics to evaluate a player's defense. Plus/minus is measured by how often fielders turn grounders and flyballs into outs, while runs saved adds in arms, double plays, CERA and other defensive traits. The handbook lists the leaders for each position for the last 3 years, but below are the leaders for the 2009 season:
Runs Saved
1B - Albert Pujols 12 (Kendry Morales 6) Worst - Adam Dunn -18
2B - Ian Kinsler 23 (Howie Kendrick 7, Maicer Izturis 6) Worst - Alexi Casilla -12
3B - Chone Figgins 31 (Ryan Zimmerman was #2 with 22 runs saved) Worst - Mike Lowell -18
SS - Jack Wilson 27 (no Angel listed) Worst - Orlando Cabrera -33
LF - Carl Crawford 24 (Juan Rivera 23) Worst - Chris Coghlan -16
CF - Franklin Gutierrez 31 (no Angel listed) Worst - Dexter Fowler -14
RF - Hunter Pence 19 (no Angel listed) Worst - Jose Guillen -17
C - Rob Johnson 8 (Jeff Mathis 4) Worst - Victor Martinez -12
P - Mark Buehrle 11 (no Angel listed) Worst - Brad Penny -7
Plus/Minus
1B - Albert Pujols +14 (Kendry Morales +9) Worst - Adam Dunn -24
2B - Ian Kinsler +24 (Howie Kendrick +5) Worst - Alberto Callaspo -19
3B - Chone Figgins +40 (#2 Ryan Zimmerman +28) Worst - Mike Lowell -23
SS - Jack Wilson +32 (no Angel listed) Worst - Orlando Cabrera -40
LF - Carl Crawford +32 (Juan Rivera #2 with +26) Worst - Ryan Bruan -31
CF - Franklin Gutierrez +43 (no Angel listed) Worst - Vernon Wells -30
RF - Ichiro Suzuki +21 (Bobby Abreu -18) Worst - Jermaine Dye -28
C - Not compiled
P - Mark Buerhle +9 (no Angel listed) Worst - Derek Lowe -7
The two things that stand out the most to me were how good both Figgins and Rivera were in 2009. Figgins saved 9 more runs than any other 3B, while Rivera was rated just slightly behind the most highly touted Carl Crawford. By the way, free agent left fielder Matt Holliday ranked #3, and Jason Bay finished in the bottom 5 of the 3-year rating. Bay's lack of range was probably aided by playing in front of the Monster in Boston as he was not in the bottom 5 in 2009. If the Angels are considering signing either of these two players, the smart choice would be Holliday and moving Rivera to RF.
Ballpark Effects
The handbook looks at each teams' ballpark's effect on hitting using indices that "are calculated in a way that neutralizes the effect of a team's makeup and isolates the effects of the park...a park with an index of exactly 100 is neutral and be said to have no effect on that particular stat. An index above 100 means the ballpark favors that statistic. For example, if a park has a home run index of 120, it was 20% easier to hit home runs in that park then the rest of the parks in that team's league."
Angel Stadium of Anaheim had a home run index of 123; 116 for left-handed hitters and 129 for right-handed hitters. The 123 rating ranked 2nd behind Yankee Stadium as the easiest park in the majors to hit a home run in (Cincinnati was the easiest in the NL with a 119). The hardest park in the AL to hit one out of was Progressive Field in Cleveland with a rating of 67. What's strange with the Angels high rating was that it is out of character with the park's 3-year average. Angel Stadium has been almost neutral over the last three years with a rating of 101. It'd be interesting to see someone figure out what happened to the stadium to cause such a large increase, especially if the calculations are supposed to isolate the park effects regardless of the team makeup, and there were no dimensional changes made to the ballpark.
There's much more covered within the handbook and all of it is very interesting, especially if you're into numbers. Also, it's very handy to have the stats within one book for quick reference while watching the game or answering a trivia question.
0 recs | 53 comments
Great Post
You know it’s really only one line but its funny how satisfying it is to have the team finally acknowledged
Also, watching the Nats play on a fairly consistent basis (all i can say is that its better than driving up to Baltimore to watch baseball) Zimmerman is legit. It really isn’t all that debatable that he’s the best defensive 3B in the game right now.
HaloFanInDC - November 6, 2009
And the fact
that the one line comes from the Highest Deity of the Sabrekingdom may finally force the Sheehan’s and Neyer’s of the world to actually consider something besides luck to explain this team’s success.
dmhead - November 6, 2009
+1
Agree 100% on Zim. The guy’s the truth. I just wish the rest of the Nats defense was anywhere near serviceable…might give me a reason to go to more Nats games rather than just waiting for the Halos to come to DC or Charm City every year. Hey, I’m allowed to have a NL girlfriend on the side… :)
It's A Trap! - November 6, 2009
Lived in DC in 2008...
went to plenty of Nats games because it was so cheap and easy! Caught Zim post-injury and even then I was impressed.
A little bit of me roots for the Nats. I think with some decent pitching then can finally have a decent year.
BryanHarvey'sMoustache - November 6, 2009
Hogwash
You can be lucky for a day or a few but you cant be lucky over the course of a year, or longer as have the Angels. This is the reason I laugh at all these numbers and stats that have come into existence with SABR. Sure there are some that help tell stories but do I really need this to tell me Victor Martinez was the worst or that Ian Kinsler was the best at their prospective positions. By the way the the reason why Kinsler ended up on top is because of Washington and his ability to make infielders better.
Bottom line is the “luck” is a product of the Angels forcing the issue and making bad defense teams play defense.
Angel Aviator - November 7, 2009
Great post, WiHF
I’m actually quite surprised with Chone’s high ratings. Also, out of curiousity, how much is the book?
Figgi4life - November 6, 2009 via mobile
It's $23.95
Click on the ACTA Sports link in the beginning of the post for more information.
WiHaloFan - November 6, 2009
Buy it at Amazon.com
It costs less than $17.00 including shipping that way. This is at least the third year in a row that I bought my Bill James Handbook at Amazon.com.
Yetijuice - November 6, 2009
"$16.29 & eligible for free shipping with Amazon Prime"
I was in a rush this morning and could only provide an approximate price on Amazon.com for the Bill James Handbook 2010. I just researched it and found that the exact Amazon.com price is $16.29.
Yetijuice - November 6, 2009
Uneducated guess
Over the past couple years we didn’t have as much power. 173 HR in 2009, 159 in 2008 and 123 in 2007. IMO, guys like Morales and Rivera mashing like crazy in a known neutral park could have been the cause for the spike in numbers. That and possible more day games than usual.
halofan4life - November 6, 2009
That's what I thought too, but
it says it’s “supposed to isolate the park effects regardless of the team makeup”. Not sure how they accomplish that.
WiHaloFan - November 6, 2009
Well,
We all know that the boy flies out of there during day games. Maybe it’s time to dig and see how many day games we had at home this year in comparison to the two previous years.
halofan4life - November 6, 2009
El Nino?
I surprised some saber-guy hasn’t done a study on the effects of weather (barometric pressure, wind speed, etc) on things.
Other than dimensional changes, what other variables are there that could change a ballparks numbers (if in fact the numbers are isolated regardless of team makeup)?
WiHaloFan - November 6, 2009
This, in essence, is why I try to ignore sabremetrics.
The number of variables that can have a material impact on the results of baseball are legion. Nearly all are discarded or ignored as “noise” as long as enough elements more easily quantified can be assembled into some relationship with actual past events. When the assemblage of data fails to fit the real world, either the real world is excused as an outlier, or the model get a new epicycle.
Stirrups - November 6, 2009
But you can say that about almost any science.
Yes, the number of variables needed to describe real-word scenarios is very, very large. But that doesn’t mean we should ignore physics or atmospheric science because there are still better models to build.
The sins among the sabremetric community often transpire in the interpretation of the data, when folks get lazy and submit to the “new wisdom”, which is often already the old wisdom.
Turks Teeth - November 6, 2009
short RF wall...
From a purely observational standpoint, I saw more homeruns glide over that short RF wall right by the foul pole this year than any other year.
BryanHarvey'sMoustache - November 6, 2009
About the same.
I wonder if global warming has had an effect? ;P
For real, though, it sure seemed as if the OC nights were not as cool this summer of 2009 as they have been in year’s past.
Downing Rules - November 6, 2009
Living just a couple of minutes away from the stadium,
essentially in the same atmospheric conditions, I can assure everyone that this past summer contained more evenings of warmer, dryer air.
Stirrups - November 6, 2009
There's a ton of noise in park factors
One season of data on a park is just 81 games, which is just too small a sample for events like home runs. Try browsing through a few years of this. You really have to look at a five-year average to get something stable. I wouldn’t attach any particular significance to the spike in home runs this year, it will go down next year.
Suboptimal - November 6, 2009
According to the link
Angel Stadium was second in HR park factor (Don’t know how to word that) with a 1.220 rating. Right behind Yankee Stadium and right in front of Arlington. WEIRD.
halofan4life - November 6, 2009
Now I have to buy myself a copy,
just so that I can cite, page and verse, that passage. We WILL be hearing from people again about this, and they WILL be in total denial. Only recently have a few over at AN started to consider that something must be amiss with their models. M’s fans remain in total denial, along with Rangers fans, BTB and, I would venture, possibly even some HH’ers (cardinalwraith, I am looking at you!)
Stirrups - November 6, 2009
Though I am a SABR-geek
I’ve long thought that there’s something we just don’t understand about the Angels do that consistently allows them to beat their Pythagorean record. When a team does that on such a consistent basis, there’s something more than luck involved. I just don’t know what it is.
Pythagorean record remains a useful, but imperfect tool, and the Angels are, admittedly, a pretty big hole in its theoretical integrity.
cardinalwraith - November 7, 2009
Fast base running.
I think the Angels get the most runs out of the men on base by having fast aggressive base runners and that go for it first to third mentality. I was shocked watching the World Series how slow the Phillies were running the bases. They may have beaten the Yankees in the close games if they had runners as fast as the Angels have.
44FAN - November 6, 2009
I agree … the agressive baserunning element is immeasurable and certainly contributes to Angel victories and exceeding expectations.
Downing Rules - November 6, 2009
Doesnt that comment about the Angels question this books validity?
A BIG BOOKS OF STATS and they still cant figure out how the Angels score runs??? Seems ridiculous.
BryanHarvey'sMoustache - November 6, 2009
It is not bad science to learn new questions that need to be answered.
Stirrups - November 6, 2009
The question is not how they score runs, the question is why their runs scored consistently lead to more wins than expected.
BTLove - November 7, 2009
exactly
and the first step is understanding that not all runs are equal.
A basehit in the bottom of the 9th with a guy on 2nd base in a tie game drives in a bigger run than a double with two men on in the bottom of the 6th in a 12-2 blowout.
Rev Halofan - November 7, 2009
I think you just described Sammy Sosa's career didnt you?
Angel Aviator - November 7, 2009
Stirrups: agreed
Still not confident that despite the growing acceptance of higher-order stats most people are, at their core, emotional rather than mathematical beings. Fan = short for fanatic, no?
fordprefect - November 6, 2009
Figgins's defense.
A lot of people are eager to let Figgy walk… But how many are discoutibg his fantastic defense at third base? He’s been a force at the hot corner and nobody else we have for 3B (Wood?) is nearly to that level.
AlanFalcon - November 6, 2009 via mobile
Agreed. We won a few extra games due entirely to his glove work
The defense alone justifies a $10 mil per price tag for Figgins. He’s worth that.
However, I don’t think this is a zero sum game: it’s no coincidence that the defensive metrics give Figgins credit for so many plays while also showing that Aybar was only average at short. How many balls did Figgins glove on the run in front of Aybar and gun to first? A lot. Remove Figgins from the equation, and many of those +’s be racked up revert to Aybar. Undoubtadly we’ll give up more runs, but not the 31 more indicated above.
Wood has less range, but he’s fundamentally sound and will likely get much better as he gains experience. We have to play him or trade him. Unless we can turn him into Halladay, $10+ mil is better spent on Lackey or big bat.
rghan - November 6, 2009
I read a quote from Aybar where he joked that Figgy’s range means he gets fewer ground balls, but that it’s okay because it let’s him cover more ground “the other way” which I agree with. Ge was pretty good at snagging or at least stopping ground balls slowly up the middle, and there is a much smaller hole at short when he has to cover the bag or play at double play depth.
I also have less faith in Wood than 90% of the people here, but I really hope to be proved wrong there.
AlanFalcon - November 6, 2009 via mobile
That makes sense
Pre ALCS, I read a post that made the same comment about U-Haul.
That U-Haul covers so much ground at first, he makes the rest of the infield better, because it freed up Cano to stay closer to 2nd, and cascaded over to Jeter and A-Roid.
red floyd - November 6, 2009
i can see this because Cano has ridiculous range...
BryanHarvey'sMoustache - November 7, 2009
I'd like to see more analysis of these network effects.
If Aybar has to cover more territory due to Figgins’ absence, how is the right side of our infield impacted?
Turks Teeth - November 6, 2009
Do you really think Lackey is worth the money?
I’ve yet to see Halos fans really talking about this yet. I don’t see it, frankly. He’s a high-threes career pitcher, with two seasons worth of injuries. This isn’t an elite pitcher
-he’s a A-/B+ pitcher with some question marks that any team that gets him is going to seriously overpay for.Turks Teeth - November 6, 2009
What's the alternative?
You remove him from the rotation, and who’s going to replace him? The FA front line pitching market sucks this year – the guys with the most upside are scary, both because they are huge injury risks and because, even if healthy, they would need to be coddled with tight pitch counts. The latter wouldn’t be a huge deal, except none of them are especially efficient, and we do not want to stack up the burden on a bullpen with a lot of question marks.
While we have some back of the rotation candidates in the upper minors, we’re not (and should not) rely on Reckling or Walden in 2010, and the old standbys of Moseley and Loux are coming off of injuries and may not be back at all. You could sign Chapman, but counting on him to step up at the mlb level in 2010 would be foolhardy.
The trade market has some interesting names – Halladay leads the pack, of course, but Vasquez, Harang and Lowe might be available. Maybe Cain too. But all of those names depend on our trading partner valuing what we’ve got in the upper minors, and not finding a better deal elsewhere. I don’t think the Halos are going to break into their rookie-league prospect piggy bank, nor should they.
Bottom line is, we don’t appear to have a lot of options in securing high end pitching. Even if we’re just paying Lackey $85 – $100 mil to be a bridge to the future, it’s a bridge I think we need to give us the best possible opportunity to return to the postseason (thereby recouping much of the investment).
rghan - November 7, 2009
Trades are a serious alternative.
And our chips are not just in the minors, which are shallow at the upper-end, but on the field. Rivera, Izturis, Napoli could all be on the table.
And you don’t make bad economic decisions because your back is to the wall one year. Next year, Beckett, Lee, Halliday and a lot of other reasonable arms are on the market. Yet you want to lock up nearly one fifth salary for 7-8 years on a player who has missed at least a month of the season for the past two years, and who has only had one elite seasonal performance in his career (2007)?
That feels desperate. We’ll regret it later. And we could easily put all of our eggs into that basket only to see the Sox or the Yanks cheerfully overbid and leave us with fewer options, as the alternatives dry up when we’re in some month-long bidding war.
Turks Teeth - November 7, 2009
Wouldn't call it desperate.
I’d call it an investment. Most of a team’s marginal revenue, and therefore profit that can be reinvested in the team, comes from playoff appearances. The odds of us making it to the playoffs in 2010 and securing that marginal revenue increase dramatically with a guy like Lackey at the front of the rotation, both because he’s substantially better than the alternatives and because his presence has a very positive ripple effect on the pitching depth we have available. We saw that last year and the year before even when he took the first month off due to forearm stiffness. Plus, once you’re in the playoffs, he’s clearly the guy you hand the ball to.
It’s true that paying him on the back-end of any contract is scary. However, when you think about the potential playoff revenue that’s at stake in just 2010 and 2011, then it makes sense to better ensure success in the near term at the expense of sunk costs in the long term. With just two additional playoff appearances, you can cover the likely cost of his contract.
That’s why I still shrug at the Gary Matthew’s contract. He was very good when we needed him most, in the early days of 2007, and helped us to avoid the disaster that was April, May and June of 2006. I firmly believe that he was instrumental in getting us to the playoffs that year, helping to secure something like $35 mil of extra revenue. That recouped much of his contract, and certainly helped Arte open his wallet the following December to Torii Hunter.
Just my sense of things. Of course, counter examples of massive pitcher contracts backfiring with disastrous results abound, so this could very easily go either way. I just think it would be a tragedy if we miss out on returning to the playoffs in 2010 or 2011 by one or two games because we don’t have enough pitching. That will have a long-term negative effect on the team’s financial health that is comparable to the cost of Lackey’s contract.
And by the way, the rumor mill has the Halos’ FO sharing your feelings about the need to resign Figgins. Again, I’d certainly like to see him back in Halos’ red, just not at the expense of Big John.
rghan - November 8, 2009
So the point is, Figgins is clearly worth big money, but probably more so to another club than to us.
rghan - November 6, 2009
Do you have that much faith in Wood?
I just haven’t seen the return since that one great year in a hitter’s park, in a hitter’s league, in a season of fairly mediocre pitching for the Cal League. I’m not saying he didn’t hit well that year…I saw him play…but I also saw the pitchers throw, and they were serving him some nice meals.
I expect a line something like this if Wood gets a full season at 3B next year: .230 avg .310 obp .440 slg
Do you think that’s unfair? And do you think it’s worth letting go of the first player in nearly a decade that walked 100+ times for the Angels?
Turks Teeth - November 6, 2009
we just signed Abreu to take the BBs
in order to have a minimum wage RH power at 3B.
While it is a lessening of D in 2010 it is not like he is out there barehanded or cannot develop any better.
Figgy is going to cost between $25 and $30 million for the next three seasons. Wood will cost $1.5 million for the same period of time. If we re-sign Lackey for $20 million a season, the next 3 years will give us Wood and Lackey for $20.5 M instead of Figgy and no Lackey for $8M. Wood strikes me as common sense at this point.
Rev Halofan - November 6, 2009
"We just signed Abreu to take the BBs"
Do you really think we only need one on-base guy on this team?
You, like me, have been watching this team a long time. I can’t believe you would really like to go back to the time of Hatcher’s hackers 1.0. Rev was dreaming when he wrote this, forgive him if it goes astray.
And I don’t want Lackey for $20 million a year. That sounds like a terrible idea.
Turks Teeth - November 7, 2009
As a hitter....
Figgins is nothing special. His OPS among other 3B is right in the middle rank-wise.
His defense is exceptional. His speed is notable but he’s on the wrong side of 30 to keep citing that as a feature. I think this is probably his best year. It’s unrealistic to expect he’ll keep a .400 OBP for the next 5 years when he has zero power to intimidate pitchers into pitching around him.
He’s good but not great and he’s replaceable. I’m not positive Wood is the guy who can do that but it’s worth giving him a shot. If he flops you go buy Brandon Inge or Ryan Zimmerman or something.
Nashdiesel - November 6, 2009
He's had zero power for seven years.
Yet his on-base skills keep getting better. Abreu and Jeter don’t maintain high OBPs because pitchers are intimidated by their power. They take walks because they take lots of pitches, foul off hittable pitches, then earn singles and doubles when they put the ball in play.
Inge just had surgery on both knees after hitting .230 for the season. And buy Ryan Zimmerman? He’s signed (and coveted) by the Nats through 2013, and will be getting 12 and 14M in the final years of his contract.
Turks Teeth - November 7, 2009
You just described an almost league average hitter (according to OPS)
I’d take that as the performance floor from Wood out of the nine hole in his first year. He’ll get better as he hits his prime. With his athleticism, he’ll also get better in the field.
The Halos have made it a point in recent years to build line-ups that withstand the stress of breaking in one new position player a year. Last year, it didn’t seem like it because of Morales’ breakout, but that lineup was constructed in such a way that the big Cuban’s contributions were almost a bonus.
I’m not devaluing Figgins at all, and as a fan would love to see him wearing Halos red next year. I just think the Halos team, as presently constructed, could better leverage the ~$20 mil they have left to spend in other areas.
rghan - November 7, 2009
Which is why evaluating a player by OPS is not smart.
And nearly universally cautioned against by the sabermetric community. Especially OPS biased to intermittent, isolated power. Is that really the way we’re evaluating players these days, or is it just convenient to this debate?
Turks Teeth - November 7, 2009
a non-sabremetric way to evaluate players:
Don’t give $9 million a year for three years to the guy who batted .100 in the playoffs.
Rev Halofan - November 7, 2009
Being not so smart, apparently, let me see if I can wrap my mind around your argument.
You believe the Halos should commit half or more of their remaining resources (and probably 5 years) to an almost 32-year-old player, when there is a widely-acknowledged worthwhile replacement in the wings, instead of going whole-heartedly after the frontline pitcher for whom there is no in-house or FA replacement?
And you’re assuming this works because you can guarantee another club will give you a frontline starter for some combination of Napoli, Izturis, Rivera, Wood, Conger, Bourjos and Reckling?
Is this the position you’re arguing?
rghan - November 7, 2009
ANGEL STADIUM HR POWER IS DUE
to more day games.
Rev Halofan - November 6, 2009
Only 1 more day game in 2009 compared to 2008.
22 home day games in 2008 versus 23 in 2009.
Downing Rules - November 6, 2009
I thought they added incorrectly, but ... there were a lot more Angel HR's at Anaheim in 2009.
64 Angel HRS at Anaheim in 2008 (Angels and opponents)
90 Angel HRS at Anaheim in 2009 (Angels and opponents)
The big games in 2009:
8/10 TB 4hrs
7/27 CLE 4hrs
7/24 MIN 3hrs
6/13 SD 5hrs
Source:
2009 Angels Game Logs @ Baseball-Reference.com
&
2008 Angels Game Logs @ Baseball-Reference.com
I cannot find a simple way to determine how many visitor HR’s were hit at Angel Stadium in 2008/2009.
Downing Rules - November 6, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Halos Heaven to post a comment.