Johnny Damon, Detroit
Posted: March 15th, 2010 | Filed under: Baseball | 61 Comments »
March 15, 2010
Player of the Day: Johnny Damon, Detroit
I’m going to admit to you, right up front, that this doesn’t have a lot to do with Johnny Damon. But I am falling behind on my ill-advised Player of the Day plan, and so this will have to count. It was while watching Johnny Damon hit a home run in Lakeland that I came up with this idea to really break down the 2009 season. What follows is really and truly a technological miracle … and by that I mean that it is miraculous that someone as inept as I am was able to figure out a way to do this.*
*A couple of weeks ago, I installed a new toilet in our basement bathroom. I did this because … at some point I decided that I HAD to do it. I could not let that toilet beat me. Now, I have a toilet installed in the basement, and it works, and I’m overly proud of this achievement, and I have absolutely no doubt that at some point it will cause a basement flood that will cost me thousands of dollars. No doubt. If I had any sense at all, I would call someone and have them come over and fix that thing immediately. But I will not call anyone because that is admitting defeat, and I cannot admit defeat, not yet, not until I see the leak. I must admit I had no idea I had this ridiculous stubbornness gene in me. You learn a lot about yourself in fatherhood.
I cannot begin to describe to you the ridiculous pains I went through to get these rather pointless statistics. I worked and worked and worked the Excel Worksheet — this spreadsheet now looks like something you would see in a really bad inventors workshop. You can see exposed wires and duct tape everywhere. Why does this column feed to that thing? What were you trying to do with that number? I feel quite certain that people with a facility for numbers and spreadsheets could have done the following work in about 3.2 minutes. I feel quite certain that somebody else had already FIGURED these numbers and if only I had tried I could have found the numbers on the Internet. But I decided that I had to do it myself, and it took me two days of trial and error and more error and another trial and another error and a stupid mistake and I have to start all over and … ugh. Hell, doubleheaders set me back three hours.
But I did it, and I’m pretty sure the following numbers are accurate or, anyway, close enough that I’m really not interested in hearing complaints.
Periodically, I’ll try to throw in some Johnny Damon and Detroit comments to keep the thing honest.
* * *
OK, so, the other day I reprinted Bill’s stat about how in the 2009 season: the team that got the most hits won 80.3% of the time. And it was while watching Johnny Damon hit in a spring training game against the Yankees, that I wondered if there was a way to break down other statistics. For instance, how often in 2009 did a team win when they hit the most home runs? How often did they win when they hit into the fewest double plays? How often did they win when they got the most men on base?
It was at that point that Damon hit a long home run — carried long by a howling Lakeland wind — and I thought: Hey, that’s a sign. Well, no, actually I didn’t think that. First, I thought how Damon, no matter how many years go by since his years in Kansas City, no matter how many teams he plays for or how much fame he gains, always goes out of his way to talk with me. During the World Series, he made a specific reference to me* during his press conference. There is no greater meaning to that — it’s not like Damon’s general friendliness to me has anything to do with how good a player or teammate he is — but I think about it. I like people who do not forget where they came from. I like people who connect to their past. I think most of us like people like that.
*I don’t know if you happened to watch the Big 12 Championship Game Saturday night … I was watching it in Fort Myers, and to be honest with you I was kind of nodding off. Not sleeping, you know, just kind of dozing. When all of a sudden I heard Brent Musburger say: “Joe Posnanski, one of the great sportswriters in America …”
I snapped awake. Wait. What? Wait, BRENT MUSBURGER said what? Huh? Wait, Brent Musburger is talking about me? It was this odd moment … hell, I’ve been watching Brent Musburger on TV since, well, frankly as far back as I can remember. I have mentioned here before — Musburger has been such a big part of my life as a sports fan that frankly he has crossed beyond that point of “Is he or isn’t he good?” He’s bigger than such questions. He’s the voice. To hear him just blurt out my name Brent Musburger! — well, it was a bit like this Mel Brooks bit about Cary Grant:
Second, I started to battle an Excel spreadsheet in order to get some answers. Finally, I was able to make it work … and Bill’s numbers about hits are (of course) exactly right.
More Hits than opponent: 1766 wins, 433 losses, .803 winning percentage. (Also: 231 ties).
So what about Times on Base? Well, it turns out, if you get more people on base you actually win quite a bit more often even than when you get more hits.
More Times on Base: 1880 wins, 393 losses, .827 winning percentage (Also: 157 ties).
That’s pretty good — get on base more often, you win about 83% of the time. Now, by my calculations, Washington lost 24 times in 2009 when the Nationals had more men on base. I cannot tell if this is hopeful sign or a discouraging sign. There are a lot of things I can’t tell about the Nationals. I can also tell you that the Nationals lost a game to Atlanta when they got 23 men on base, a very difficult thing to do. What’s even more amazing … they lost the game 6-5. To score five runs with 23 men on base is a pretty tough trick — teams will, on average, score a run for ever three or four runners they get on.
But the Minnesota Twins lost a game with 25 men on base (although at least they lost 14-13). The Marlins twice lost game — once to Arizona and once to Chicago — with 24 men on base.
I believe I mentioned this before: The White Sox got 16 men on base in a 1-0 loss to Seattle. But that’s not even close to a record. In 2001, the San Francisco Giants got 20 men on base in 18 innings against seven Arizona pitchers, and did not score.
More Home Runs: 1250 wins, 414 losses, .751 winning percentage (Also: 766 ties).
Seven teams — including Houston twice — lost when hitting five home runs in a game. Since 1954, the most home runs hit in a loss is seven — and it was done twice by the Detroit Tigers. In 2004, the Tigers hit six home runs off of Boston’s Tim Wakefield and another off Mike Timlin, but Wakefield got the win and Timlin got a hold. In 1995, the Tigers hit seven home runs off Chicago four pitchers — including Rob Dibble — but lost 14-12.
Fewest Left on Base: 951 wins, 1322 losses, .418 winning percentage (Also: 157 ties).
I guess this shouldn’t be too surprising … after all, leaving men on base means that you are GETTING people on base. But when I ran these numbers, I was surprised. I was really surprised. Maybe it’s because we have it jammed down our throats that you can’t win when you are leaving players on base. You have to take advantage of your opportunities!
But what this stat tells me is that scoring runs more about creating opportunities than cashing in on them — I think this takes us back to the whole RBI discussion. The RBI is a tempting stat to love because it feels tangible and heroic — to score runs, you usually need to someone to drive ‘em in. But what the numbers consistently seem to show is that if you create enough opportunities, SOMEONE is going to drive in those runs.
And if you don’t create as many or more opportunities as your opponent — no player and no team is consistently clutch enough to make up for that gap. Not over a long season. My evolving theory about baseball is like my evolving theory about life. Sure, there are heroics in baseball and in life. But you can’t count on ‘em. You’re better off banging on a lot of doors.
Five teams in 2009 left 17 men on base — that was the most in a game. Four of those teams won.
Fewer Grounded Into Double Plays: 884 wins, 673 losses, .568 winning percentage (Also: 873 ties).
Probably doesn’t mean much except to reiterate, perhaps, that outs are precious.
More Total Bases: 1926 wins, 347 losses, .847 winning percentage (Also: 157 ties).
In 2009, total bases was a better indicator of victory than times on base. Every team with 32 or more total bases won except those unlucky Minnesota Twins in their 14-13 loss to Oakland.
I ran a few more semi-advanced stats to see which one best predicted victory. I was surprised with the answer:
Teams that had more Runs Created: 2064 wins, 366 losses, .849 winning percentage.
Teams that had more Base Runs: 2071 wins, 359 losses, .852 winning percentage.
Teams with more Super Total Bases (total bases + walks + hit by pitch + stolen bases): 1994 wins, 332 losses, .857 winning percentage (Also: 104 ties).
And teams with the higher OPS: 2094 wins, 335 losses, ..862 winning percentage.
Yep, that surprised me. OPS won? I think it’s pretty well accepted among people who understand such things that OPS is a badly flawed statistic because it gives too much credit to slugging percentage and because you are not supposed to add fractions with different denominators and other stuff that, to be honest, goes a bit over my head. But unless I figured it wrong*, OPS was the strongest indicator of wins and losses I could find without inventing my own version of OPS**.
*A good possibility.
**You don’t care about this, but I created a version of OPS where on-base percentage stays the same but to make the denominators the same, I made a Super Slugging Percentage based on plate appearances. So my Slugging Percentage, which a million other people have fooled around with, is simply: “(Total Bases + walks + HBP + sacrifice flies)/Plate Appearances.” Then I multiplied OBP by SLG, and voila.
Anyway, teams with the better Super OPS won 87.1% of the time.
Higher SOPS: 2,114 wins, 314 losses, .871 winning percentage
OK, more stats coming, but I just had another thought about Johnny Damon. You know, he only once finished in the Top 5 in batting average — and that was in Kansas City, 10 years ago, when no one except me and a few Royals fans were paying attention. That was long before his Idiot days and his hair days. Damon has only led the league in runs scored once (that same year) and in stolen bases once (that same year). His .355 lifetime on-base percentage is good but hardly legendary. He has never hit 25 home runs in a season. He has only made two All-Star teams. His arm tends to be the punch-line to many baseball jokes.
And still, there’s a pretty decent chance, if Johnny Damon stays healthy for another four or five years, that he will get 3,000 hits in his career. He will 100 triples. He will hit 500 doubles. He will steal 400 bases. He will hit 250 homers.
Do you know how many players have made that stat bouillabaisse? Take a minute. Think about it: 3,000 hits, 500 doubles, 100 triples, 250 homers, 400 stolen bases. Paul Molitor? Willie Mays? Rickey Henderson? Craig Biggio?
Here you go: Nobody. As in: Nobody.
I know, you can create a stat line that will separate any layer: Who is the only player in baseball history to get more than 800 hits while hitting only one home run? You betcha: Duane Kuiper! But my point is that Johnny Damon, who has not put up many jaw-dropping seasons in his career, can collect a series of numbers unlike any in baseball history. And on top of that, he looks to be on pace to finish somewhere in the Top 20 all-time in runs scored. And he will pass 1,000 RBIs this season.
And you know why? Because he has been unsinkable. Because he has played 140-plus games every year since 1996, because his average is usually somewhere close to .300, because he battles pitchers for long at-bats, because he runs the bases hard and intelligently year after year, because even with that weak arm he tends to play a solid corner outfield, because he often will take the media questions which allows his teammates to avoid all that stuff. He’s always there. And teams are happy to have him there.
Of course, it also could end quickly for Damon. He’s 36. He has taken a beating. You never know what will happen with players in their late 30s. But Bill James recently did a fascinating study on players who got the absolute most out of their careers and out of their talent. He did not do active players … But I suspect that no matter how the rest of his career turns out, nobody of his generation has gotten more out of his talent and his body than Johnny Damon.
OK, a few more team victory stats. Here are three core stats that we use here all the time BA/OBP/SLG
Higher Batting Average: 1963 wins, 434 losses, .819 winning percentage. (Also: 33 ties)
Higher On-Base Percentage: 2003 wins, 395 losses, .835 winning percentage. (Also: 32 ties)
Higher Slugging Percentage: 2,016 wins, 393 losses, .837 winning percentage (Also: 21 ties).
What does any of this mean? Probably not much that we don’t already know. To win, you need to get on base. To win, you need to move runners around bases. To win, you need to prevent the other team from doing the same. No deep insights there.
But the beautiful thing about baseball is even if you do the right things — even if you have MORE hits than your opponent and get on base MORE times than your opponent and hit MORE home runs than your opponent … you still might lose. In fact, in 2009 teams that outhit their opponent AND got on base more often AND hit more home runs still lost 33 times. Colorado did it and lost four times, the Yankees and Rays did it and lost three. There are still mysteries in this game.
In fact, teams that had more RBIs lost 15 times in 2009. The San Diego Padres lost three times with more RBIs. And another 90 times, the winning and losing team had the same number of RBIs.
But, it should be noted that the team that had the most runs scored finished 2,430-0.
Loading ...
We were *this* close to offering Johnny a 5-yr incentive laden deal. Circle me Bert
One of those Astros games was early in the season. Those five homers resulted in five RBI.
As far as the assertion “… that no matter how the rest of his career turns out, nobody of his generation has gotten more out of his talent and his body than Johnny Damon.”
What about Bobby Abreu?
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by leonwolf: They should fire everyone at @ESPN and replace them with @JPosnanski. http://bit.ly/aGBZ65...
Joe,
I assume you meant duct tape, not “duck tape” (as Duck Tape is a brand of duct tape, but you didn’t capitalize it, so I can only assume you meant the generic version.)
There. Now it’s out of the way, and nobody else has to bring it up!
The flaws with OPS disappear when you deal with a big enough sample. When dealing with individual players it’s pretty nonsensical, but over the team average is correlates rather well with runs scored.
Player OPS isn’t a good indication of runs scored since they can’t drive themselves in, but team OPS works out pretty well because teams *do* drive themselves in.
That’s my explanation at least. People with a better understanding surely to follow and point out the flaws.
Joe,
Where did you get the data to plug into the spreadsheet?
Joe,
The “Fewest Men Left on Base” stat isn’t telling you what you think it is. Consider that a team that has 8 base runners and scores 7 of them is counted the same by this stat as a team that had 1 base runner who didn’t score. Testing the “importance of driving runners in” hypothesis would be better served looking at the percentage of of runners stranded rather than the raw number.
Now that he’s left New York, I get to appreciate Johnny Damon again. There were some wonderful t-shirts when he left Boston: “Looks like Jesus/Throws like Mary/Acts like Judas” … “No Hair/No Beard/No Soul” and they were a little harsh, particularly for a guy who (I understand) is religious.
He’d be much more appreciated if he put up more of those stats in a single place. 500 hits in KC, 450 in Boston, 400 in New York. No wonder no one’s noticed what kinds of player he’s been — that’s a recipe for having the most passionate fans ignore you (in KC) and then hate you (in Boston and New York).
“But, it should be noted that the team that had the most runs scored finished 2,430-0.”
Ooooh, I see what you did there.
I heard Brent Musberger say your name, and it kind of startled me, too. He’s right about your stature as a sportswriter. Way to go, Joe!
I wouldn’t ask you to run another calc, given all that time spent already, but I wonder what the percentage is with wOBA? (what I generally use in place of OPS)
i wonder what pitching stats say for team winning percentages. you know, team with the most k’s, least bb’s, most bb’s
Love the stat about guys left on base.
In fact, as I watch and go to games this year I will make an effort to offer friends to bet 20 bucks that the team with the most guys left on base will win. Fun bet.
Hey, I uploaded that Mel Brooks clip! Glad to see it on one of my favorite sports blogs!
Johnny Carson ruled.
Didn’t the Tigers sign Damon for almost exactly what Granderson would be making? I would say that makes about as much sense as the Jets dropping Thomas Jones for 5.5 mil to sign LT for 5 mil.
Oh? They did what?
I had two plays Saturday in Chicago. I had 45 minutes between to get something to eat and watch a little KU vs KSU. I was a pizzeria a mile away from Wrigley, stuffing my face, when Musburger mentioned your name, and told the story from you great piece of Bill Self. I was really happy for you. It was pretty cool. As bad as Knight is as a color guy (Saturday was the first time I heard them paired together) the fact that the two of the legends of sports of the past four decades were talking about your piece of writing is pretty cool.
What’s the winning percentage of the team that throws the fewest pitches? That seems like it could be analogous to time of possession in football.
“In 2001, the San Francisco Giants got 20 men on base in 18 innings against seven Arizona pitchers, and did not score.”
I was at this game, and stayed till the end. Livan Hernandez vs. Curt Schilling, I think. It was cool because the park was still new then and attracting a lot of new fans (or dot-com yuppie scum, if you will). But by the end it was just the old Candlestick holdouts.
Actually, it looks like <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SFN/SFN200105290.shtml"Reynoso versus Estes.
Whoops; I didn’t intend those broken tags. My bad.
Better?
What? Musburger UNDERstated something? “One of the great sportswriters”? C’mon Brent, you’re better than that.
One other interesting metric I’d like to see is the winning percentage of teams with a higher pitches per plate appearance.
Joe, I too heard Brent Musburger mention you during the game. I had already read your great piece on Bill Self, so I recognized what he was saying. Unfortunately he didn’t relate it nearly as well as you did in your article.
But having him recount the story nearly word for word shows just how great he (and the rest of us) know you are!
Mike @17. Damon signed for one year. Granderson was still signed for this year and the next two years, maxing at $10 mil in 2012. Also, Leyland didn’t know what to do with Granderson. He was a speedy CF who struck out all the time, didn’t get on base well, and hit a lot of HRs. But the Tigers had no traditional leadoff hitter (i.e. can get on base and has speed), so Granderson took that role (and did it poorly). As such, he wasn’t particularly useful to the Tigers as they were constructed last year and will be constructed this year. They need a table setter in front of Miguel Cabrera, and Damon serves that purpose.
Most importantly, after this season the Tigers have $67 million in salary coming off the books from just 6 players (Magglio, Bonderman, Dontrelle, Nate Robertson, Damon and Inge). In 2012, Carlos Guillen’s $13M salary comes off the books as well. They have only two players locked up long term, Verlander and Cabrera, and thus they will be bringing along some rookies this year, and spending on free agents next year. They will be revamping their entire team, and Curtis Granderson was a part of that only because of his trade value. They didn’t like his strikeouts, low OBP, and inability to hit lefties, so he’s gone.
I would like to see that excel.
9. Josh — see also “Sheffield, Gary”.
@Mark Daniel
Granderson career: .272/.344/.484
Damon career: .288/.355./.439
Granderson doesn’t get on quite as much as Damon, but it’s not like he’s Alfonso Soriano out there. Plus he plays a mean centerfield and has some serious pop. It’s true that the Tigers used Granderson as a piece to build for the future, but to claim that Damon was a better fit for the Tigers because of some deficiencies in Granderson’s game is just not really true.
I watched that 14-13 Twins loss against Oakland. It’s one of the worst games I’ve ever seen. The Twins blew a 12-2 lead and lost on a botched call at the plate on the final play that should’ve scored the tying run.
I’d hoped to never think of it again, and you brought the painful memories back, Joe. Thanks.
Yeah, I met Brent Musberger in 1982 in Memphis, Tennessee. I walkin’ down the street minding my own business, just walking on. Feelin’ good. I walk around the corner, a man walk up, hit me in my chest, right. I fall on the ground, right. And I look up and it’s Brent Musberger!! I said “Mr. Musberger!?” and he said “Ooops, I thought you were some body else.” Knocked the wind out of me, yes he did.
Why do i get the feeling that this whole entire article was written so you’d get to write the last line? And it still worked.
Dtro, it’s not completely true, you’re right. But Damon is signed for one year, not three. Damon doesn’t strike out as much as Granderson. Damon gets on base a little more often. And Damon can hit lefties.
Damon also won’t be the CF, Austin Jackson will be.
The real issue when it comes to Damon replacing Granderson is that Leyland was unable to find a leadoff man last year. He put Granderson there most of the time, but his profile (except for speed) was not that of a leadoff hitter. Toward the end of the season, he put Raburn at leadoff every now and then, which might have been better than Granderson (.359 OBP vs. .327), but Raburn also had a .533 SLG. I really don’t think Leyland knew who to put in the leadoff spot. Maybe that’s just Leyland being stubborn. I don’t know. But Damon can fill the leadoff (or #2) spot in the order, and that will be exactly where he belongs and Leyland will be happy about it.
The Damon signing made sense in that he’s a more traditional leadoff guy AND he’s signed for only one year.
Poz – Just heard your name dropped somewhere else this morning – radio interview with Jeff Garlin (Curb Your Enthusiasm.) I guess he appeared in some sports awards thing that you hosted. I think your full name might as well be “Joe Posnanski Great Sportswriter” cause I’ve been hearing that all over the place.
(Johnny Dare’s morning show, KQRC in case you were wondering)
So let’s start the discussion now.
Johnny Damon = HOF?
I enjoyed this article. As a life-long Tigers fan, I’m jazzed that he’s signed with the Tigers. I think this might be his only year as the Tigers have a lot of young talent at the Triple-A and Double-A level like Caspar Wells, Brennan Boesch among others. I sure like the way this guy plays the game, though. He has said in the media that he hopes to retire a Tiger. I hope he does but that doesn’t appear in the cards.
Glenn Ryan
Adds more credibility to all those hits by Rose.
Joe, please tell us you’re going to Augusta this year. Those are posts I want to read.
Thanks to nothing but blind, stupid luck I’m going to Augusta for the Tuesday practice rounds, which may or may not be Tiger’s first public round of golf since all that. Sheesh, what a day that will be…..
Thanks for putting in the time on these stats; Joe, much appreciated — these are fascinating.
In terms of: “… no matter how the rest of his career turns out, nobody of his generation has gotten more out of his talent and his body than Johnny Damon.”
I might want to bring up the case of Kevin Youkilis.
Does Johnny Damon have enough Pete-Rose determination, skill, and good health to get to 3,000 hits?
You were also mentioned on NPR this weekend, Joe. I assume on All Things Considered or Weekend Edition. Not in the morning. I was not awake in the mornings this weekend. It was a shock! But a natural-feeling one.
Nice one Bellwether!
Oh yeah, Cary Grant is The. Man. ..
Re: Damon in HOF
No, he’s been a good player, but the Hall of Fame is for extended periods of greatness, not extended periods of solid play.
Also, great article. I laughed at that last line. But I also am curious, what do the winning percentages look like for teams that lead in various pitching statistics. Strikeouts? Groundouts? GB/FB? K/BB? Ratio of Strikes thrown to balls thrown? First Pitch Strikes? Number of Pitchers used? Height of starting pitcher?
Johnny Damon continues to be undervalued, and his off-the-field presence in NY’s clubhouse seemed a lot like David Cone’s – taking the heat off of everyone else by doing the interviews. Tough to replace that. Also pretty hard to replace a guy with the presence of mind to steal two bases at once …
Dtro and Mark Daniel;
I appreciate you guys continuing the first part of my post: Damon vs. Granderson. I’ll admit I thought Damon’s season last year was a little fluky
I notice no one is jumping to defense of the Jets braintrust however.
early in your post you mention — ‘teams will, on average, score a run for ever three or four runners they get on’
not sure if that was part of your spreadsheet or a ‘rule of thumb’ or where that statement comes from?
Many, many years ago when I played Strat-o-matic almost daily, I either learned or developed a rule of thumb that said adding the hits + walks and dividing that total by 2 should equal the number of runs scored…I know I used that to quickly evaluate pitchers…and occassionally I still check box scores and see that it is usually close…but did I crunch a bunch of numbers to verify that–NO did not…was just wondering who did?
@Pedant:
Actually, sounds like the original name for duct tape actually WAS “duck tape”, circa WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape
Circle me, Young Frankenstein!
(someone had to do it)
The last line reminds me of something I haven’t thought of in years. When I first moved to the Bay Area, reading either the SF Chron or the Examiner (the Sunday paper in those days), ca 1998 or 1999, I read an article on the A’s, who at the time were something like 55-53. You know how sports articles will sometimes end with a few italicized factoids? Well, the last one was “The A’s are 55-0 this year when outscoring their opponents.” Loved that one. Read it over and over again to look for a nuance I was missing, but no, that was it.
Only now do I realize the importance: R > RBI! Joe solved a 12 year mystery for me.
Winning % for teams with a higher payroll? Anyone?
[...] But Poz took the time to run the numbers: [...]
Michael in post #7, you were looking for data? Are you specifically looking for what Joe used or a good place to download data yourself?
Sean Lahman’s Baseball Archive (link below) has stats from 1871-2009.
http://baseball1.com/content/view/57/82/
I knew this “post a day” business was too good to be true…
Late to the party, I know, but shouldn’t the last line be “…the team that had the most runs scored finished 2,431-0″ to account for the Twins/Tigers play-in game? It’s counted as a regular season game everywhere I’ve looked.
I never got over how Damon blew off the Royals and then talked bad about the team, or how he dumped wife #1 and then belittled her in his book. I rooted against the Red Sox and the Yankees almost entirely because Damon played for them.
However, he has been a good player for a long period of time and obviously a valuable guy on some good teams. He was rumored to be a steroid guy, but he has not had significant injuries and has continued premium play after testing.
I found it strange that there was so little interest in him this year, particularly in the American League with the DH. It would have been a good move for the Royals to bring him back.
I remember about ten years ago hearing Kevin Seitzer speak about Damon. He said there was a school of thought that because Damon’s mechanics were so bad and he got by almost entirely on natural ability, he likely would deteriorate early as soon as age affected his natural ability. Obviously, that theory has not turn out to be true (again, possible steroid issue).
As to the HOF, I hope not, although if he achieves 3,000 hits and the line suggested by Joe, he will get in. I also always thought that since he was a quote machine for and well liked by the media (HOF voters), he would get the benefit of the doubt on the HOF.
Joe’s statistics are very interesting, but it occurred to me that a more interesting analysis might be to look only at close games, like games decided to 1 or 2 or 1, 2 or 3 runs.
I think Joe’s statistics are skewed by one sided games, where the winning team would almost always have better numbers on the statistics considered by Joe. I think it might be more valuable and insightful to see what is most determinative in close games.
“114: Random said at 1:55 pm on June 22nd, 2009:
Okay, all you superior mathematical minds and statistical geniuses — please explain to me your justification for adding two fractions with completely different denominators.
(Don’t let the percentage signs allow you to forget or gloss over the logical fallacy — OBP is a fraction with number of Plate Appearances as a denominator, while SLG is a fraction with number of At Bats as a denominator.)
How come nobody’s shouting from the rooftops for a redefinition of SLG, basing it on the player’s number of Plate Appearances? Or are they?”
Yes, it seems that they are after all. Well done.
[...] isn't a problem, though; it's just bad luck. Joe Posnanski ran the numbers on LOB% a couple of weeks ago, and the thing about leaving men on base is, it doesn't lose games. [...]