|
I Like Stats
I do...really. Scott Carmichael knows
what I'm talking about. There's nothing like numbers to analyze
that make sports as great as it is. Numerical benchmarks are thrown
around more often than Derek Byrd homeruns in this league. For example,
Jeff Morrison doesn't want to just hit well, he wants to hit .400.
Scott Carmichael doesn't want to just hit a lot of homeruns, he
wants to hit 50. Terry doesn't want a lot of 3-baggers...he
just wants 3. The purpose of this little column though is
not to tell you what numbers people are shooting for and/or what
numbers will likely be broken soon (or already HAVE been broken).
The purpose of this column ,as trivial as it seems, is for me to
get across some statistics that you might not be aware of. Comparison
stats, or what stats would be if some game or gameday had not occured.
Stuff like that.
My first subject is my very own teammate
Clint Wattenberg. Now, Clint was one huge success story last season
when he turned a complete 180 with his pitching, going from a candidate
for "Worst Pitcher" in 1999 to a Cy Young candidate in
2000. Some people thought it might have been a fluke though, mainly
because Clint does not possess overpowering speed or some devastasting
breaking ball. Or a breaking ball period for that matter.
Clint owes all his success to accuracy and timing. Thanks to that,
he left Monday with yet another very impressive season from the
mound. His ERA was 2.34 and his opponent's average was .256. Still,
when Clint and I would discuss his pitching success, he would in
one way or another always bring up his very first gameday of 2001,
where he basically sucked ass (5.3 IP, 10 ERs, 9 BBs, etc). He would
always say, "well, I wonder what my numbers would be if that
gameday never occured." For Clint's sake, and for all you out
there, I decided to find out. The results were pretty impressive,
to say the least. The following table is what Clint's final 2001
pitching numbers would be if he never played on opening day (which
he wasn't supposed to be at anyway):
|
IP
|
H
|
R
|
SO
|
BB
|
HR
|
BF
|
K/4
|
Oavg
|
ERA
|
W
|
L
|
|
|
22
|
15
|
6
|
24
|
8
|
5
|
79
|
4.36
|
.190
|
1.09
|
4
|
0
|
While we're on the subject of Clint and his success
from the mound, let's compare his two seasons from 1998 and 1999
with his two seasons from 2000 and 2001. Just for a little perspective.
|
Yr.
|
IP
|
H
|
R
|
SO
|
BB
|
HR
|
BF
|
K/4
|
Oavg
|
ERA
|
W
|
L
|
|
98+99
|
48.3
|
91
|
63
|
53
|
17
|
32
|
239
|
4.39
|
.381
|
5.21
|
9
|
8
|
|
00+01
|
53.3
|
47
|
27
|
45
|
28
|
13
|
205
|
3.38
|
.229
|
2.03
|
8
|
4
|
Ironically, as he ERA plummets, so does his K/4
ratio. Clint's walks have been up over the years, but that is deceiving
since in 1998 and 1999, very few walks were "taken" compared
to today, when it's newsworthy if someone rejects a walk. Trust
me, the improved accuracy is somewhat noticable.
--
Jeff Morrison has been steadily improving with his
bat. He made leaps and bounds in terms of progress in 2000 over
his 1999 numbers, and he's doing the same this season over his 2000
numbers. To compare:
|
Yr.
|
AB
|
R
|
H
|
BI
|
2B
|
HR
|
SO
|
BB
|
Slg
|
Ob
|
Avg
|
Rat
|
|
2000
|
122
|
29
|
42
|
17
|
7
|
8
|
33
|
24
|
.598
|
.452
|
.344
|
29.63
|
|
2001
|
130
|
35
|
48
|
32
|
4
|
15
|
34
|
15
|
.746
|
.434
|
.369
|
35.71
|
Some of these numbers may seem similar, but the
point to get across is the power numbers, an area many believe Jeff
has no grasp of. Despite still being known as "that spray hitter",
and despite being relegated to even more assumptions of the like
since Casey is known as the big "power guy" on Wiffolution
51, Jeff is quietly putting up some big power numbers himself, all
the while increasing his batting average and reducing his strikeout
ratio. Not an easy task.
--
Derek Byrd is a similar story. Here are his '99,
'00, and '01 (current) offensive stats projected to what they would
be in each season, if he finished with 201 AB's, his career high,
done in 2000. Then I included his projected 2002 numbers, if he
improves at his average rate of improvement.
|
Yr.
|
AB
|
R
|
H
|
BI
|
2B
|
HR
|
SO
|
BB
|
Slg
|
Ob
|
Avg
|
Rat
|
|
1999
|
201
|
27
|
30
|
15
|
0
|
8
|
72
|
19
|
.269
|
.223
|
.149
|
13.28
|
|
2000
|
201
|
35
|
41
|
31
|
4
|
15
|
64
|
25
|
.448
|
.292
|
.204
|
21.54
|
|
2001
|
201
|
44
|
53
|
54
|
8
|
31
|
63
|
19
|
.766
|
.327
|
.264
|
32.30
|
|
2002
|
201
|
53
|
65
|
74
|
12
|
43
|
58
|
21
|
1.025
|
.387
|
.323
|
41.81
|
Future MVP? These averages are a little skewed,
which you might be thinking when you notice that Derek, upon "average"
improvement, will have only 10 singles in 2002, but it's tough when
the guy increases his hits (projected) by 12 from 2000 to 2001 and
his homeruns by 16. The point is that you hopefully get where I'm
going with this. I think the gradual progression here is slightly
obvious. The only stat to not grow (other than strikeouts) is walks,
which is forgivable. There is a lesson hidden in these numbers,
really only needing to be heeded by the rookies. Keep playing, and
sooner or later, you'll start playing better. No excuses for his
pitching numbers though, which would serve as just a blatant contradiction
to what I just said.
--
At one point this season, Terry Creighton's ERA
was sitting at a cool 7.11. That was his total after the May 6th
gameday. I don't know what the hell he's done since that date, but
since May 20th, here are his pitching numbers, under the pitching
numbers he had from between opening day and May 6th:
|
Part
|
IP
|
H
|
R
|
SO
|
BB
|
HR
|
BF
|
K/4
|
Oavg
|
ERA
|
W
|
L
|
|
3.24 - 5.6
|
18
|
37
|
32
|
20
|
13
|
16
|
90
|
4.44
|
.411
|
7.11
|
4
|
3
|
|
5.20 - 6.24
|
13
|
12
|
6
|
18
|
2
|
3
|
51
|
5.54
|
.235
|
1.85
|
3
|
1
|
Those two walks he's had since May 20th...each came
in a separate inning, and in both of those innings, he also gave
up a homerun. Coinkidink? Perhaps. How long will he be able to keep
these numbers up? Like I know. This could be a revelation for him,
where he found out some flaw in his delivery or something and fixed
it, or it could be just a month-long hot streak. In any event, it's
only more proof that baseball (and it's younger cousin wiffleball,
when played like baseball) is a game of ups and downs.
I think that's good enough for now, considering
I'm tired as hay. Nothing groundbreaking in this column (at least
compared to others, but I thought you might like to check out some
numbers you might not be able to see elsewhere or numbers next to
other numbers to give you a little more appreciation to what's going
on in the inner workings out here in Chico, CA. Yeah. In other words,
I don't have anything that might resemble a life. At least you guys
benefit a little bit.
|
