Did you know the Diamondbacks hit the fewest singles in the National League? If my math is right, here's the list:

St Louis 1102

Atlanta 1035

Chicago 1018

Los Angeles 1018

San Fran 1010

NY 1007

Pittsburgh 966

Rocky Mtn God Squad  964

The Capitol Gang  964

Houston 959

San Diego 945

Cincinnati 871

Philadelphia 866

Florida 859

Milwaukee 841

Arizona 831 

We knew our OBP was low, especially after park adjustments, but this sort of caught my eye. Dead last in singles. In a weak league featuring three or four clubs deemed 'major league' by little more than name.  Why are we last?  What's the significance?

I decided to take OBP (essentially H+BB+HBP/ AB+BB+HBP) and extract out extra base hits, so instead of asking the question, "How often does a team reach base?", I'm asking "How often does a team reach first base?". Now, stop yelling. I know that hitting a double or homer is technically "reaching" first base too -but OBP already captures that. I'm trying to understand something more specific here, than how often a team reaches "any base" safely.

Here's the above list after adding in walks and HBP - how often teams reached (and stopped, essentially, at) first base: 

Toasted Ravioli 1721

Chicago 1704

Atlanta 1695

Shea It Aint So 1665

Hollywood  1604

Colorado 1591

Washington 1565

Philly 1519

Pet Co Boys 1516

Golden Gate 1510

Pittsburgh 1499

Brennamans 1481 (combined)

Miami 1471

Arizona 1467

Houston 1460

Laverne & Shirley 1460

Pretty similar. Philly jumped up several places, and we snuck ahead of Houston and Laverne's Brewers, who hit 60 more home runs than us. IOW, we're basically in the playoffs if we had Babe Ruth ;-)

More seriously, what this tells us in a more compelling way than OBP does, is that, after park adjustments, we are just off the chart miserable at reaching first base. Surely our youngsters' footspeed converted some potential singles into doubles, but it should also be noted that speedy Arizona ranks 13th in NL doubles, and is below league average in extra base hits.

The base we have the most trouble reaching is not second, or third or even home (ie "Runs"). The base we have the most trouble with (relative to the league) and from which, most of our offensive woes spread, is first.

I guess this interests me because, beyond the results themselves, scrbi and I (and many others) have been batting around the notion that this team's hitting philosophy is wrong. Young guys, driving the ball in the air when they hit it, striking out a ton - not "adjusting to the situation", as scrbi likes to say. Maybe there's something to that. Currently, we fly out and whiff as much as anyone and hit the fewest singles. Maybe we swing too hard too often, and should be looking to serve the ball instead, even if that compromises some of our power numbers.

I decided to drill this extraction of XBHs from OBP down to the player level, to ask how often players reached (and stopped at, or were satisfied with) first base. Here's those percentages for Dbacks with 200+ ABs, plus Adam Dunn. As you're reading the list, think in terms of the hitter's approach (philosophy) as well as talent. Who's trying to reach first base here?

Dunn .326

Ojeda .303

Jackson .298

Hudson .281

Upton .257

Snyder .254

Tracy .228

Reynolds .226

Drew .221

CY .214

Byrnes .183

....and some reserves

Clark .289

Burke .273

Montero .224

Romero .172

Haren .152

Drew's an outlier, I suppose, yet he still swings hard, pops up frequently (less so since June), and hardly ever walks. Tony Clark and Burke's numbers also surprised me, in that I dont perceive either as a philosophical "on base" guy. But the rest of the list, I think, is a decent representation of who's able (talent) and willing (philosophy) to reach (and stop at) first base. And it doesnt seem like age or experience has too much to do with it.  Further, this propensity or "ability" may not have quite as much to do with talent as I had previously assumed.

Comments welcome as always

One aspect of pitcher value that shoe and I didnt get into in our recent Cy Young discussion is the notion of schedule strength. I became aware of this back in 2006 when Webby and Chris Carpenter sported similar big ticket stats coming down the stretch; I dont remember the exact numbers (so I'll make them up here), but it turned out Carpenter enjoyed an astonishly easy schedule through no fault of his own - something like 3 of 30 starts were against teams over .500. Each time I redefined comparative schedule "strength", Webb came out looking better and better.

There's no perfect or "right" way to look at this. No matter how you define "strength", some cutoffs will be arbitrary. That's why I encourage anyone interested to eyeball the gamelogs themselves and get a feel for each candidate's competition. The first time I looked at the 2008 CYA candidate game logs, for each pitcher I tallied the number of opposing teams I thought were "good". Nothing more scientific than that. The second time, I determined which opponents average more than 5 runs per game in which venues, and tallied how many starts each pitcher had in those run-rich circumstances. What became clear, via both methods, was that Johann Santana and Tim Lincecum have pitched against decidedly tougher lineups than have Ryan Dempster or Brandon Webb.

For example,Lincecum had two starts against the Cubs and three at Coors. Brandon started once in Denver and never faced the league's best team. Santana pitched at Philly three times, against the Cubs once and a home/away pair v the Yankees.

This doesnt say much about W/L record, unless one controls for opposing starters - and I havent done that. But I do think it speaks to run prevention (ie ERA, ERA+) rather forcefully, especially considering Lincecum and Santana rank 1-2  in ERA+ prior to this consideration. It just makes their effectiveness stand out even more, in my mind.

Will any of this influence the CYA vote? Of course not. That will come down to the usual stuff. Wins, ERA, Win%, strikeouts. What's hurting Lincecum politically, in concert with his latest flameout, is the emergence of Santana. Their ERAs are almost identical now. Team records (21-12) in their respective starts are identical. Johann's pitched a few more innings. All of a sudden, at least statistically, Tim Lincecum isnt as unique as he was a week or two ago, and the brightest, shiniest object left in the room, fair or not, seems to be Brandon Webb's 22 wins.

Do I think Brandon is "undeserving" of the Cy Young award. No, but there are three other guys (Lincecum, Santana, Dempster) who've pitched as well and maybe  better, who basically dont have the wins to "certify" that with voters. 

Brandon's been underrated his whole career, for several reasons. The home ballpark. The lousy teams. The market. His pitching style and personal demeanor. And all that stuff, those obstacles to recognition if you will, endear him to us all the more. Will any of those factors magically disappear if he wins a second CYA? I doubt it. But it will mark the end of an era - the era when Brandon was underappreciated in a cumulative, cosmic sense, that seemed unjust to those who've admired him all along.

My initial thought was that this would really hurt walk up sales, especially in a relatively low income metro area where most everyone drives. Then again, city busses are starting to brim with work commuters, despite the heat.  But will that modification translate to "mere" entertainments, like a baseball game?

Also, to what extent have gas prices stifled each Friday's summer exodus north from the valley, and might some of those folks be more inclined to make it out to an air conditioned weekend game (or perhaps a movie) in town, than guzzle up to the Rim and back?  

Both general observations and personal accounts of how gas prices may've influenced any recent entertainment choices are welcome.  

Has this Dbacks' season ticket giveaway raised any eyebrows around here? Like most of you, I'm delighted when disadvantaged folks get to enjoy games through the kindness or sacrifice of others, but a few wrinkles here strike me as curious.  

First, if priority consideration is given to current ST holders, how "disadvantaged" are they? We may likely be talking about people with deteriorating health or families who "lost" a breadwinner, so I dont mean to be flip or disrespectful towards their personal hardship in any way. I guess what I'm asking is, how disadvantaged are they in terms of attending lots of baseball games? Presumably, these are not proverbial newbies entering a stadium portal for the first time, awed by the sea of green, transported by the resonant crack of the bat. These folks, the priority folks, are regulars.  

Second, does anybody really neeeed season tickets? Besides shoewizard, I mean. Arent they more of an indulgent luxury than a need? I dont deny beneficiaries will enjoy the gift, up to a point, but if we're talking about people worried about paying the mortgage, or how to get to their next doctor's appointment, isnt gifting ST books pretty disconnected from their "need"? Tons of underprivileged kids in the valley grow up without ever attending a single game, yet the Dbacks are donating, not single games, but entire ST books, to stadium regulars.  

I get the part about doing something nice, something fun, above utilitarian "needs", for people in trouble. Honest, I do. But if a kid is sick and wants to go to Disneyland, do you send her eighty one times? Does she get utility out of that? At what point does it stop being about her and start being about the conspicuous largesse of her benefactors?

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this. We may get some real tear jerking stories that could change my mind, win me over. But right now, there's two things about the tone of this program I dont like. One is this perception that the Dbacks are fulfilling a genuine need. There are people with needs, certainly, and they will be receiving something of value over and over and over again, but how this rather ostentatious, recurring gift matches their need just isnt clicking with me. Second, is the perception that the Dbacks are providing this at considerable sacrifice. Per below, I've made 9 assumptions about the program that call this idea into question. I dont know if they're all true, but I believe they're reasonable. Feel free to challenge them.

Continue reading this post »