I agree. I have seen a few times already where Berkman has made plays ranging far to his right that Biggio could have made. In addition, he has made some laser-like throws across the diamond. It is a skill that has been missing (unfortunately) the past few years. His foot work around the bag is the only drawback I have seen and it has been minimal. For example, I think he should have saved Ensberg an error 2 or 3 games ago. In actuality, he may have but the umpire got the call wrong. Had he displayed better footwork, he probably would have gotten the out call. It is a minimal concern, because it will only get better as he becomes more familiar. All that being said, did anyone catch Berkman downing a swallowful of sunflower seeds or some sort of nuts while holding a runner on Monday or Tuesday night?
A couple of years ago Soriano had the same thing. He would try to stretch out all of his singles into doubles. When he got caught before reaching 2nd, his batting average was not effected, but his OBP for getting to 1st base was erased. He did that so many times that his batting average was higher than his OBP. He didn't get many walks at that time either.
Statistically over the last few years, he has been one of the better third basemen defensively. He'll get better and get back to form as the season moves on. I think we forget that third basemen generally will get more errors than the average player because their throws are so far and because they have the least time to get it off since they are so far away from first.
OBP does not take total bases into it's calculation. it's basically how many times you reached 1st base divided by your total plate appearance. trying for 2nd and getting caught is irrelevant. his batting avg, on the hand, would go up regardless if he got caught or not at 2nd.
OBP is the most VITAL of all individual offensive statistics... read Moneyball if you need the full explanation. But, basically, its the likelihood that this certain player makes an out per every time he steps to the plate... if a team has a OBP of 1.000, they will score an infinite amount of runs because nobody will ever get out (whereas if a team has a slugging percentage of 1.000, it doesn't mean the same thing). And for the amount of crap that Ausmus takes, he's got the second highest OBP on the team... and he's been a consistent batter ever since the second half of last year, onwards. Also, I know people will come back with OPS as a more vital stat... which in many ways is true (if player x as a higher OPS than player y... yes, player x is the better batter)... but it's a flawed stat in the fact that it gives equal weight to OBP and Slugging, which is not the case (According to Paul Depodesta's model, he found OBP to be worth at least 3 times more than slugging in the runs created factor).
I know people rave about Moneyball and all that statistical modelling, but I look at the bottom line and the only number that counts, which is how many World Series have the A's been to since Beane came on board. And that number is 0.
Making the World Series becomes more of a crapshoot once you make the playoffs... ask the NY Yankees and St. Louis Cardinal, specifically (hell, even ask the Astros). But, you can't argue with their success... in the tougher AL.... of making the playoffs and being in the position to win those elimination games. Moneyball yields wins in the field, and MOST of their drafted prospects (who weren't big-dollar guys) are turning up in the big leagues (a rareity amongst most teams). People think its philosophy only applies (or could work) for the cheap teams who can't afford anybody... but this is simply not true. Its more about how to be "effecient with your money... no matter how much you spend" instead of how to win by spending no money.
Soriano has never had an OBP lower than his average. The ONLY way for it to happen is to have more sacrifice hits (bunts and flies) than you do walks and HBPs. When you are thrown out at 2nd trying to stretch a single into a double, you still get credit for a single. If you bat 10 times and get thrown out trying to stretch a single into a double 10 times, your batting average is 1.000 and your OBP is 1.000 and your slugging percentage is 1.000.
You could also point to the things he admittedly devalued - namely defense & baserunning - as their ultimate downfall in the playoffs: Little Giambi not sliding at home, Long dropping a flyball, about a dozen other situations. "My **** doesn't work in the playoffs" being the most famous Beane quote on the subject. Their success came from having young, cheap, homegrown talent: Zito, Hudson, Mulder, Tejada, Giambi, etc..., not from some magical revolutionary philosophy (which it wasn't, and Beane would be the first to admit it). Look back at the "Moneyball Draft" from '02, you're going to say with a straight face that that draft was more successful than "most teams"? They had 7 1st round & sandwich picks and came away with Nick Swisher & Joe Blanton - good players, definitely - and nothing else.
First of all, way to early to say these two guys are "nothing else"... Swisher is coming of a 21 HR 74 RBI season, and Blanton led the A's in ERA as a rookie. (and Brown, McCurdy, and Fritz are still ready to play in the organization). Secondly, you're right... it isn't some 100% fool-proof method, but you can't argue that other teams have wasted a ton of money on players (both drafted, and older)... where if they had been using more analysis earlier on, a lot of mistakes wouldn't have been made. EDIT: n/m... just re-read your post... I now know you were referring to the others as "nothing else".
Baseball teams have been using statistical methods of player evaluation for a long, long time. The Astros, under Tal Smith in the 70's, were one of the first teams to have a dedicated "stat guy" in the front office. Branch Rickey was a strong proponent of statsitical analysis in the early to mid 1900's. But nobody wrote a book about all that, so a lot of people think Beane & the A's were some sort of pioneers. Bollocks.
exactly. i'm fine with statistical analysis. but there's a devotion to it with Moneyball that is almost cultish...to the exclusion of good scouting. as if a bunch of stat geeks in a room are far more valuable than good scouts. sorry...i don't buy that. baseball is far too intricate for that. guess how i feel about the rockets' new gm.
It's not Beane & other baseball guys driving this "revolution": it's keyboard warriors, the clowns at Baseball Prospectus et al, a few authors, etc.... Bill James called their thinking "childish" recently, and he's dead-on. I think much of the criticism of "Moneyball" the book is from people who either didn't read it or didn't understand what Beane was really doing. I think much of the cult-like (as you said) deification of Beane comes from people who either didn't read the book or didn't understand what Beane was really doing.
i agree. that's well said. beane gets deified or demonized, however you want to see it. i think i'm guilty of it to some degree...because i use his name to group those that take the cultish approach.
Actually, I think OPS is considered the most important because it not only measure how often you get on base, but how far you get on the bases. Which is more desirable: A player with an OBP of .400, but only gets on via walks A player with an OBP of .400, but hits a ton of doubles
You can turn that example around by asking which is better, a player with an OPS of .800 (OBP of .400 and SLG of .400) or a player with an OPS of .800 (OBP of .200 and SLG of .600). In my example, I take the guy that gets on at a .400 clip.
Yes, if you're comparing guys that get on at the same clip...but one only get singles and walks and another hits doubles and HRs..sure. You want that one. But if that's the case, you wouldn't need the stats for those 2 guys in particular. It'd be pretty obvious to compare them as players. In most cases, a guy will sacrifice some OBP in order to go for more power. Which is why the argument will come up
