Things I Believe, Part I
Bucs Dugout is now probably widely read enough, and the conversations here are detailed enough, that it might be helpful to make a list of some principles that underpin the arguments I make. I'll probably write these pieces when I think about them and post a couple more in addition to this one, in installments of five or so (not to keep you hanging, but because I have a limited amount of time to write each day and because I want to give myself a forum in case I forget things). I'll eventually put these in the sidebar. I'm not necessarily trying to educate anyone in any broad sense, just to produce a little primer about what's going on here that will hopefully be helpful to newcomers. Many of the veterans (and probably many of the newcomers) will find this stuff blindingly obvious, and I don't mean to patronize anyone. I'm going to skip over some things that used to be controversial but that I think most people here agree about at least understand the positions on, such as the reasons why OPS is a better statistic than batting average, but I'd recommend the Baseball Prospectus Basics columns for many of those sorts of things.
1. The Pirates need to build from the inside. Yes--in the past ten years or so, the Pirates' ownership has been guilty of greediness. But, to echo some of the arguments made by commenters in this thread, the team's main problem is that they've never produced a core of young players good enough for their greediness to matter much (except in the case of the Aramis Ramirez trade, when their thriftiness hurt the franchise a great deal). Even given an ownership not as greedy as the team was under Kevin McClatchy, the Pirates will never spend as much as the Mets or Yankees. They can't adopt the strategies of teams who attempt to purchase their core players rather than developing them, because other teams have more money and always will, at least until there's a massive change in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Besides, by the time most players hit free agency, they have passed their peaks anyway. The one saving grace for teams like the Pirates is that players can be paid well under market value for the first six years of their careers. So the Pirates must develop a core of star players who they can then control for many years. Until they do that, gripes that they're not spending enough on veterans don't hold much water. Any failure on the part of management to spend on amateurs will be fair game.
2. With some exceptions, moves should be judged based on how they looked at the time they were made. Baseball players' career paths are uncertain. There are no sure things, only good gambles and bad gambles. Unless a general manager or team establishes a pattern of consistently seeing things other GM's and fans don't, moves should be judged on whether they represented a good gamble or a bad gamble at the time. Many good gambles over time will produce good results. Anyone who plays poker understands this--you can play a hand perfectly and still be beaten, and that doesn't make you a bad poker player. Similarly, you can play a hand terribly and win big. That doesn't make you good.
3. When interpreted properly, minor league stats matter. Bill James has shown that adjusted stats from the high minors correlate well with big league performance, and thus they should be considered in determining what a player is worth and whether he should get playing time. They must be used properly, however: obviously, the quality of baseball at AAA is lower than in the majors. Also, many AAA ballparks are extreme environments that benefit hitters. Other factors include strike zone control (if a batter puts up impressive numbers with poor strike zone control in the minors, those numbers might not translate well in the majors--think Brad Eldred), age (a 28-year-old putting up great numbers in the minors is less likely to continue to improve than a 22-year-old in the same league), level (the higher the minor league level, the more the numbers tell us), experience (is the player repeating the level?) and tools. Generally speaking, though, minor league numbers are important and should not be dismissed. If a player consistently posts unimpressive numbers in the minors, he probably won't do much in the majors.
4. Defense affects pitching. A pitcher has a fair amount of control over what opposing batters do: he can strike batters out or allow walks or homers. None of those outcomes involve the defense (except in rare cases). He can also affect his fate by producing particular distributions of grounders, fly balls, and line drives (generally, pitchers who generate lots of grounders will have an easier time, all other things being equal). On balls in play, though, the pitcher is partially at the mercy of his defense. If that defense is excellent, his results will generally be better; if it is atrocious, as the Pirates' often has been the past few years, his results will be worse. Recent Pirates defenses have ranked among the worst in baseball at converting batted balls into outs, and the Pirates' pitching has looked worse than it is as a result. For more, see here.
5. Fix the big stuff before you sweat the small stuff. Before a team can contend, it needs talent. Until it has a sufficient core of talent, it can't contend, and thus more detailed problems don't really matter much. If the Pirates were to trade Jack Wilson, for example, it would open a gaping hole at shortstop. Because the Pirates are not terribly close to contending, though, it would not matter if the Pirates didn't get a shortstop back. Their best route would be to take the best talent available. They could always pursue a cheap free agent or use an internal option, painful though that might be in the short term. If the goal is contention, the Pirates must first assemble a core of talent good enough to make it to the playoffs. Once that's done, they can mold that core into a team. This is the plan that Tampa Bay pursued: until 2007, they looked to add talent even if that meant logjams in some areas and defenders playing out of position. With the trade of Delmon Young for Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett and other moves in the 2007-2008 offseason, they molded that talent into a real team. See here for more information.
0 recs |
19 comments
Comments
What He Said!!
Way to go Chazz. You totally stuck the dismount.
Hope DK (and NH) read this.
I will try to keep the 5 Charlie Points in mind at all times.
One question for extra credit on Charlie Point 4. A lot of fans hereabout have recommended over the years that the PBC plug into the starting lineup known bad fielders on the theory that good hitting outweighs bad fielding. I remember this strongly with Craig Wilson for one, It’s still going on, most recently yesterday with the suggestion the PBC go after free agent no-fielding Juan Rivera (who looks like he’ll resign with the Angels, btw). Are there any stats or analysis on how much hitting does it take to make up for Charlie Point 4?
Final word to PBC and its fans. As Hans & Franz (almost) said — read this now and believe it later. It’s the Gospel according to Charlie.
by WstCstBucco on
Dec 19, 2008 12:38 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
It isn't just good fielders/bad fielders
The team including Bay and Nady last year had a position by position lack of range, which reflects that they were all barely adequate to downright slow for their positions, which reflects a general lack of athletic ability, compared to other teams. They don’t really have to make upgrades all over the field, but they do have to get a couple of guys who can contribute on offense and really run in the middle of the field.
by Arnold Rothstein on
Dec 19, 2008 11:47 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
apples/oranges
Better hitting would have no effect whatsoever on lousy ERAs, but terrible defense would. Better hitting would serve only to provide a few extra “wins” to pitchers with bad peripherals, thus leading uninformed fans to think said pitchers were better than they are, and therefore overrate them.
by bucdaddy on
Dec 21, 2008 8:40 AM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks Charlie
I’ve picked up a lot of this stuff around the board, but I’m still fairly new to the deeper levels of baseball. Keep ’em coming.
charity standing orders
by BadMaafala on
Dec 19, 2008 8:57 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Nice job
This could serve as a set of principles for Pirate fans who don’t just want “a nice little team,” to use Billy Beane’s phrase. DL spent six years trying to build a nice little team that could just make a run at .500 if everything went right. I want to see a team built to contend, not to be “competitive,” which is a term I see a lot. I’ve been trying to think up some short, pithy phrase to convey this idea, but haven’t come up with anything yet.
by WTM on
Dec 19, 2008 9:23 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Chicken or the egg: Which Came First?
I enjoyed your article and agree with your first two principles but I am having trouble understanding that Snell, Duke, and Gorzo had bad years because of our defense. If their poor performance is a direct result of our defense then shouldn’t Maholm have suffeered the same fate? I am wondering if it is possible that Snell, Duke, and Gorzo pitched so poorly that they caused the BAHIP to be low rather than vice-versa?
by Illinois Pirate Fan on
Dec 19, 2008 10:17 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
That's not exactly it.
Snell and Gorzo didn’t have bad years because of our defense. Snell and Gorzo had bad years on their own merits, and then those bad years became worse years because of our defense.
And no, it didn’t necessarily affect Maholm the same way. If a batter can hit .250 in April and .300 in June, he can just as easily field well in one starter’s games and poorly in another’s.
by Vlad on
Dec 19, 2008 12:48 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
go read that again
A pitcher has a fair amount of control over what opposing batters do: he can strike batters out or allow walks or homers. None of those outcomes involve the defense
pittsburgh pirates pitchers (hr/9 bb/9 k/9)
1.1 / 4.1 / 6.0
ian snell
1.0 / 4.9 / 7.4
tom gorzelanny
1.7 / 6.0 / 5.7
paul maholm (hr/9 bb/9 k/9)
0.9 / 2.7 / 6.1
now which of those numbers stick out for maholm? walks. when he gave up hits there weren’t as many guys on base because he walked half as many guys as those two.
by johnnycuff on
Dec 19, 2008 12:56 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think the bigeest part of the argument regarding the defense involves the development of young pitchers, the theory being that if they’re going to learn to throw first pitch strikes, they have to know that good things are possible if they throw over the middle of the plate.
by Arnold Rothstein on
Dec 19, 2008 2:05 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right On!
Excellent summary. I bow to you master!
The key is the ability to spot talent, pay for it, and then groom it. The previous management failed in all there areas. They could not discere who had talent and who did not. They would not pay for the talent (Maskos over Weiters), and then they did not groom it (see all of the players who did not improve much in the minors).
I see NH at least doing a much better job spotting talent and there appears to be a willingness to pay for it. How much better they will be at grooming it, we will see.
Branch Rickey had the approach that quantity will yield quality in the long run. With the caveat that there must be some talent in the quantity; this is what NH is doing. He is trying to fill up the organization with as many taleneted players as he can so that the law of averages will yield some quality. He inherited an organization with little talent.
by zogger on
Dec 19, 2008 10:19 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Rickey is the best model
Note that one of the reasons Rickey wanted quantity is that Rickey, probably the greatest talent evaluator of all time, knew that he himself didn’t know who would turn into a great player five years down the line. I’ve always thought that DL’s biggest problem was that he thought he could outsmart the system: that he could release or leave unprotected prospects that weren’t ideal to him, that he could somehow corner the market on relievers and make a killing in trades, that he could jump ten games by drafting a major league ready reliever. Rickey was smart enough to know that he had to outdumb the system in some respects, get a lot of hungry players together, and thereby build a little freedom to make moves when someone got old suddenly or didn’t pan out. There’s been some criticism of NH recently over the acquisition of two basically identical catchers in a few months, but it’s a Rickey-type move: you’re short a catcher, pick up a couple of catchers, see what happens.
by Arnold Rothstein on
Dec 19, 2008 12:00 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It really does take quantity
To build from within one has to spot a lot of talent, pay for a lot, and groom a lot of it. If you only have two pitchers who seem likely to make the majors, you are in trouble. At least one of them will get hurt, and it’s really hard to project who will be able to make the adjustments needed to succeed as a major leaguer. One of the most positive things that NH is doing is attempting to assemble a number of likely candidates. Progress has been made at shortstop, for example. There’s a reasonably good chance that one of Bixler, Cunningham, D’Arnaud, Friday, and Mercer will have some success in the majors, but it’s really hard to forecast which one or at what position. The good news is that players with talent are usually hard to miss once they get a ways up into the minors. Of course lots of players with talent don’t succed.
Viva Clemente!
by Roberto on
Dec 19, 2008 12:35 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
from your title
i thought you meant rickey henderson because it reminds me of this story:
24) To this day and dating back 25 years, before every game he plays, Henderson stands completely naked in front of a full length locker room mirror and says, "Ricky’s the best," for several minutes.
there are more. i also love the story about john olerud.
by johnnycuff on
Dec 19, 2008 1:01 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I had to wait a year and a half for this?
You know, when I first asked you to do this, I posted from my in-laws’ palatial lakeside place. I was kind of hoping for something before this…
Seriously, though, this is good. This community runs the risk of becoming an echo chamber. This is serious thought about baseball and the Pirates, but it isn’t mainstream. The past couple days have been a good illustration of that, with the discussion about the Bay trade on DK’s blog leading to discussions in the non-mainstream blogosphere, and Jack’s impassioned-if-not-altogether-sensible soliloquy today. I don’t agree with everything you write, but I wish everybody who follows the Pirates read it, and stuff like this is good for “everybody else.” It makes your work less exclusionary, which (mostly through no fault of your own) it can tend to be, sometimes.
by KPatrick on
Dec 20, 2008 12:11 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
Thanks, KPatrick. It’s hard to think too much on a day-to-day basis, about being “exclusionary,” because there just isn’t time and because my writing would be dreadfully boring (or even more boring?) if I had to explain every step of every argument. But I definitely do worry from time to time about how to be more inclusive.
by Charlie on
Dec 22, 2008 11:44 PM EST
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?
by azibuck on
Dec 21, 2008 1:24 AM EST
reply
actions
0 recs
“Yes, because the Nuttings were too cheap to pay for backup.”
— PBC Blog Poster
by WTM on
Dec 21, 2008 10:51 AM EST
up
reply
actions
1 recs








