June 2008 - Posts

• Fun with the 1970 Orioles

  Posted Jun 08 2008, 12:32 PM by radio silence

  The 1970 Orioles won the World Series, and they ran through the American League, averaging 4.89 runs per game. They won 108 games with great seasons from Frank Robinson (.306/.398/.520; 50 extra base hits) and Boog Powell (.297/.412/.549; 35 HR), and they also received key seasons from CF Paul Blair (.267/.344/.438, 18 HR, 24 SB), 3B Brooks Robinson (.276/.335/.429; 31 2B), and OF Merv Rettenmund (.322/.394/.544, 18 HR and 13 SB off the bench). Of course, an exceptional season from Jim Palmer (305 IP, 2.71 ERA) and above average seasons from Mike Cuellar (297.7 IP, 3.48 ERA) and Dave McNally (296 IP, 3.22 ERA) helped to keep opponents from scoring many runs (the trio started over 70% of the team's games, and completed almost half of their starts).

  So, the big question is, how did Earl Weaver line up his 1970 Orioles? That's what I'm interested in -- what I want to know, and what I want to begin to test, is the extent to which line up order matters. After watching the ups and downs of 1/3 of a Brewers season in 2008, I become more and more convinced each day that the slumps and hot streaks of a team mean that a manager could run a different batting order every day without hurting the team's chance of winning. Now, Ned Yost is a bad candidate for this type of test in 2008; he certainly has not switched his line up very much. Yost's main line up (Weeks, Cameron, Braun, Fielder, Hart, Hall, Hardy, Pitcher, Kendall) appeared in 10 games, and his next popular line up (Weeks, Cameron, Braun, Fielder, Hart, Branyan, Hardy, Kendall, Pitcher) has already appeared in 5 games. To provide some perspective, his two most popular line ups in 2007 appeared in 9 games and 7 games, respectively, over the course of the entire season. We're just over 1/3 into this season, and Yost's main line up has already surpassed the most steady line up of 2007, and his next favorite line up is not far from surpassing it as well.

  The conclusion for the 2008 Brewers thus far is that Yost is much more steadfast with his batting orders, something fans begged for in 2007. By some standards (i.e., Tony LaRussa), his 2007 batting orders were as sound as statues; he used 109 total batting orders in 2007 (compared with 148 for LaRussa and 125 for Piniella). Thus far, in 2008, Yost has only used 31 total batting orders.

  So, with most of the 2008 Brewers' line up underachieving, producing below league average OBP and below career-average SLG, I decided to pick the first really good team that popped into my mind. Of course it was an Earl Weaver ballclub, and of course it was the 1970 Orioles. The 2008 Brewers are hardly receiving any Frank Robinson or Boog Powell performances, let alone secondary performances like those of Brooks Robinson, Blair, and Rettenmund.

  For the next couple of paragraphs, we will enjoy the spoils of a productive offense together.

  Now, if I had the services of Powell, Blair, Rettenmund, both Robinsons, as well as Davey Johnson and Buford, I would probably sit back and watch everything unfold. Which is pretty much what Weaver did. With such a productive offense, though, we might also assume that this would be the perfect example of an offense that could be switched around at will, and yield masterful results.

  Using the Line-Up Analysis tool at Baseball Musings, the machine came up with these top line ups:

  4.855 RS/G: Buford, Powell, B. Robinson, F. Robinson, Blair, Pitcher, Johnson, Hendricks, Belanger

  4.855 RS/G: Buford, Powell, Blair, F. Robinson, B. Robinson, Pitcher, Johnson, Hendricks, Belanger

  4.850 RS/G: Buford, Powell, Hendricks, F. Robinson, Blair, Pitcher, Johnson, B. Robinson, Belanger

  4.849 RS/G: Buford, F. Robinson, B. Robinson, Powell, Blair, Pitcher, Johnson, Hendricks, Belanger

  4.848 RS/G: Buford, Powell, Johnson, F. Robinson, Blair, Pitcher, Hendricks, B. Robinson, Belanger

  vs. Earl Weaver's top line ups:

  15 games: Buford, Belanger, Robinson, Powell, Blair, Robinson, Johnson, Hendricks, Pitcher

  13 games: Buford, Belanger, Robinson, Powell, Blair, Robinson, Johnson, Etchebarren, Pitcher

  6 games: Buford, Blair, Powell, Robinson, Robinson, Johnson, Hendricks, Belanger, Pitcher

  5 games: Rettenmund, Belanger, Robinson, Powell, Blair, Robinson, Johnson, Etchebarren, Pitcher

  5 games: Buford, Blair, Powell, Robinson, Hendricks, Robinson, Johnson, Belanger, Pitcher

  Of course, the fact that Weaver's Orioles averaged 4.88 RS/G without a single one of Weaver's most popular batting orders matched by the machine's top line ups proves what most people already know: Earl Weaver is smarter than a baseball computer. Although I do hold the fact that Weaver did not bat the pitcher 6th against him.

  But there is an interesting trend in at least a couple of Weaver's line ups: he batted Belanger second. In fact, he batted Belanger second for 53 games in 1970. This is a trait that the Line-Up Analysis machine saved for the lowest-scoring offensive combinations that the 1970s Orioles could have used.

  Of course, the more important trend is probably the fact that Buford's .406 OBP was placed in the lead-off spot 128 times, which leads me to wonder if that is the most important trend of any line up: get a lead off hitter that gets on base 40% of the time, and then bat Frank Robinson and Boog Powell third and fourth. I suppose then it would not matter if you have Belanger batting second; after all, Robinson and Powell are going to slug that ball all over Memorial Stadium, so you could probably bat the pitcher second after Buford and have a better than average chance at winning.

  Weaver rightfully left his club alone in 1970, using his three most popular line ups in 34 games alone (a trait that 2008 Yost could be very proud of), but the fact of the matter is, his actions are only right because his offense was so productive.

  Which leads me to believe, after slogging through this long post, that my initial thoughts were wrong -- perhaps you don't mess around with a very productive offense.

  But what happens when you don't have a productive offense? What happens when 7 of your 9 regulars do not get on base at the league average?

  My main conclusion is that although Yost is trying his absolute best to put forth a Weaver-esque hands-off performance, he probably should meddle a lot more with our underperforming line up. So long as Ryan Braun is making outs almost 68% of the time, and Prince Fielder is SLG under .500, our beloved Brewers offense could use any possible spark -- and that includes a hands-on, busy body manager that fiddles with everything.

  With 3 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Randy Johnson vs. Nolan Ryan

  Posted Jun 04 2008, 10:50 AM by radio silence

  I had the pleasure of watching Randy Johnson pass Roger Clemens on the All-Time strike-out list last night, which means the Big Unit is second only to Nolan Ryan. This is certainly exclusive company -- Johnson passed great streak out pitchers to reach second, and now everybody else sits behind him and Ryan.

  So, I got to thinking: how do Nolan and Randy compare?

  First, the strike outs:

  Ryan: 5714 K

  Johnson: 4680 K

   Here we can appreciate the magnitude of Ryan's number -- that high K total will probably never be surpassed, and for that reason Ryan will always be remembered as the most prolific strike out pitcher.

  However, when we compare the careers of Johnson and Ryan, we can frame the strike outs in a different way -- Ryan started pitching in the big leagues at the age of 19, and he accumulated 493 K before he reached 25. Johnson, on the other hand, made his first MLB appearance at the age of 24, and did not rack up big innings until he turned 25.

  The result? While Ryan is certainly the more prolific strike out pitcher, Johnson actually struck out more batters per IP than Ryan, which suggests that the Big Unit might actually be a better strike out pitcher than Nolan Ryan:

  Ryan: 5714 K, 5386 IP; 9.55 K/9 IP

  Johnson: 4680 K, 3913.3 IP; 10.76 K/9 IP

  Stated simply, if Ryan pitched the IP of Johnson, his career average suggests he would have 4152 strike outs. If Johnson pitched the IP of Ryan, on the other hand, his career average suggests he would have 6439 strike outs. Now, obviously there are reasons to suspect that had their careers progressed differently, their average strike outs might have been different, but this exercise should exhibit just how good Randy Johnson is at striking batters out.

   Even beyond simple strike outs, and the rate of strike outs, Johnson separates himself from Ryan because of his control. Although he is the most prolific strike out pitcher, Ryan failed to exhibit good control of his pitches, and had a rather mediocre K/BB ratio, reflecting his control:

  Ryan: 5714 K/2795 BB

  Johnson: 4680 K/1437 BB

  For a pitcher that has the most strike outs ever, Ryan's K/BB is indicative of his control problems: he barely struck out 2 batters per every walk (2.04 K/BB). Johnson, on the other hand, struck out over 3 batters per walk (3.26 K/BB). In short, Johnson's control has been much better than Ryan's.

  But, you ask, even though Johnson had better control, wasn't Ryan unhittable? Well, that's certainly true. But, Johnson has not been much more hittable than Ryan:

  Ryan: 3923 H, 5386 IP; 6.56 H/9 IP

  Johnson: 3124 H, 3913.3 IP; 7.18 H/9 IP

  Basically, over the course of 2 CG, Johnson is likely to allow one more hit than Ryan. Not bad!

  I think the quality of Johnson as a pitcher can be found in his overall numbers:

  Ryan (111 ERA+): 3.19 ERA, 324-292, 807 G, 773 GS, 222 CG, 61 SHO (career 3.56 lgERA)

  Johnson (138 ERA+): 3.23 ERA, 288-152, 576 G, 566 GS, 98 CG, 37 SHO (career 4.46 lgERA)

  It is clear that Ryan pitched through some poor offensive eras, and although he cannot be blamed for pitching when he did, it is clear that Johnson has pitched his great career in a more difficult era for pitchers. Evidence of this can probably be found in the difference between the league ERAs of their careers; for Ryan, the league ERA throughout his career averaged out to 3.56; Johnson pitched in an era where the league average ERA was almost a full run higher.

  Thus, although Ryan's 3.19 ERA is a good ERA, it is not as significant as Johnson's 3.23 ERA, which stands almost 1.25 runs lower than the league average. In an era not known for pitching complete games, Johnson has completed roughly 17% of his career starts, versus Ryan's solid 28%; however, probably indicative of their different eras, Johnson completed better than a third of his career CG, whereas only 27% of Ryan's CG were SHO.

  In light of these numbers, I think we should celebrate the career of Randy Johnson more. He's easily one of the best pitchers to pitch through the 90s and deep into the 2000s, if not the best, and although he will always be known as a great pitcher, second to the strike out kind, I think we should regard Johnson as an exceptional strike out pitcher.

  Ryan is certainly the most prolific strike out pitcher of all time; but Johnson just might be the greatest.

  With 1 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link