Anti-SABR Poster Boys: 1988 Dodgers

[EdgarDiazRocks]

Well, since y?all went and put the category up I thought I would put up one of my favorite teams and series broke down, mainly because they are so Anti-?Moneyball?

 

1988 Dodgers

W L

94 67

 

RS RA

628 544

 

Expected Win % .565

 

Actual Win % .584

 

1988 Dodgers Batting

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

5431 628 1346 99 587 437 947 .248 .305 .352

 

Worse, if you remove MVP Kirk Gibson the rest of the team looks like this . . .

 

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

4889 522 1189 74 511 363 827 .243 .296 .337

 

Mike Marshall and his .277/.314/.445, 20HR, and 24/93 BB/K rate becomes your star.

 

And certainly no starter is as bad as Shortstop Alfredo Griffin with a .199/.259/.253 line.

 

Now the first reaction on how this pathetic .obp team scored so many runs is likely to be, well they scored a lot on the road, "Chavez Ravine kills offensive numbers.? Sadly that?s wrong. The Dodgers hit better at homethan on the road than at home and scored about the same.

 

Home

RS AVG/OBP/SLG

316 .258/.310/.357

 

Road

RS AVG/OBP/SLG

312 .238/.300/.347

 

So how did they score more than they should have been expected to?

 

Using BP?s, ?Translated? stats their numbers are a little more respectable

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

5193 724 1409 161 685 458 948 .271 .335 .420

 

But I find the ?translated numbers a little interesting, especially concerning Kirk Gibson.

 

Actual

Gibson:

AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

542 106 157 28 25 76 73 120 .290 .377 .483

 

Translated:

Gibson:

AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

517 119 158 26 37 89 75 121 .306 .402 .574

 

So Gibson has near 30 less AB?s, scores more and has 12 more homers while not adding but one hit and losing 2 Doubles?

 

Also curious is that ?Translated? Steve Sax (yes, THAT Steve Sax) becomes a star.

 

Actual

Sax

AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

632 70 175 19 5 57 45 51 .277 .325 .343

 

Translated

Sax

AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

604 78 186 24 9 64 48 52 .308 .360 .406

 

Sax was in the prime of his career and had two average seasons at 27 & 28 surrounded by two outstanding seasons at 26 and 29, I?ll accept that he was deflated by Chavez rather than just inconsistent, like say Steve Sax the rest of his career.

 

So that gives them three players above average (Marshall?s numbers are for the most part are unchanged by translation)

 

But how can ?translated? numbers result in actual runs? This team scored more runs than expected with their obp, even translated.

 

It appears they were even more Anti-SABR.

 

They were ?clutch?

 

Situation AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

None On 3225 55 773 55 55 226 572 .240 .292 .339

Men On 2206 573 573 44 532 211 375 .260 .324 .371

RISP 1251 509 329 23 472 162 221 .263 .341 .375

Bases Loaded 95 105 35 2 99 6 17 .368 .375 .547

 

Raising your obp by 49 points and your slg by 36 points with RISP can?t be ignored, especially since the numbers jump even with just men on first, and while you can ?small sample? the bases loaded line all you want, those are still impressive numbers.

 

Every time I bring the Dodgers up, somebody rightly points out their outstanding pitching. And indeed it was stellar.

 

IP H ER BB SO GDP ROE ERA

1463.1 1291 482 473 1029 99 84 2.96

 

And as a comparison to the hitting numbers, here is how they did situational.

 

Situation AB R HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

None On 3244 53 53 53 222 616 .237 .288 .328

Men On 2196 491 31 462 251 413 .238 .314 .325

RISP 1263 448 16 420 192 259 .237 .332 .330

Bases Loaded 105 85 2 81 5 22 .267 .283 .381

 

Opponents were considerably less ?clutch?.

 

And to beat the odds again, the pitchers were less effective a Chavez than on the road.

 

Home

IP H ER BB SO ERA

736 688 256 246 509 3.13

 

Road

IP H ER BB SO ERA

727.1 603 226 227 520 2.80

 

Indeed their pitching staff was good, and they had three dominant starters in Orel Hershiser, John Tudor, Tim Belcher and Tim Leary and their bullpen was just as solid, not that they got a lot of work.

 

Starters

IP H ER BB SO ERA

1030 932 369 333 684 3.22

 

Relievers

IP H ER BB SO ERA

433 359 113 140 345 2.35

 

Of course taking the Chavez factor into the ?translation? they do lose their elite numbers.

 

Translated:

IP H ER BB SO ERA

1576.3 1456 631 511 1175 3.60

 

Hershiser begins to look a little more human giving up 12 more HR and having his era ?jump? to 2.75

 

 

Also the team has a defensive reputation unlike many others. Small problem: They weren?t that good.

 

At least according to the BP numbers.

 

The Shortstop combo of Dave Anderson and Alfredo Griffin had RAA?s of 13 and 9, respectively.

 

Mike Scioscia was stellar with a 17 rating.

 

But the rest of the team?

 

Combined the 1B had a -2, Sax was Sax and logged a -14 and even with Pedro Guerrero departing at the trade deadline (for another pitcher for a team with plenty oddly, John Tudor) the 3B put up a whopping -22 collectively.

 

The outfield fared a little better with Gibson collecting a +6 in right, the CF collective coming out even, but the LH was a hole with Marshall coming in at -7 and his backup Mike Davis no better at -5.

 

So Pitching and Pitching got them through the regular season?

 

Was the competition weak?

 

Actually, the NL West 19 1988 had the 102 loss Atlanta Braves and 5 teams over .500

 

Los Angeles Dodgers 162 94 67 .584 - 628 544

Cincinnati Reds 161 87 74 .540 7.0 641 596

San Diego Padres 161 83 78 .516 11.0 594 583

San Francisco Giants 162 83 79 .512 11.5 670 626

Houston Astros 162 82 80 .506 12.5 617 631

Atlanta Braves 160 54 106 .338 39.5 555 741

 

So yes, pitching got them to the post season.

 

But it?s hard to ignore that RS scored line and the over-expected win total.

 

 

But winning the West was one thing, did this little team that could knock off two great teams? Did they enough to win a series against the far superior Mets?

 

The Mets had a 10-1 record against the Dodgers in the regular season, sweeping them in Chavez Ravine and outscoring the Dodgers 49-18 in those games.

 

They cruised to the post season

 

New York Mets 160 100 60 .625 - 703 532

Pittsburgh Pirates 160 85 75 .531 15.0 651 616

Montreal Expos 163 81 81 .500 20.0 628 592

Chicago Cubs 163 77 85 .475 24.0 660 694

St. Louis Cardinals 162 76 86 .469 25.0 578 633

Philadelphia Phillies 162 65 96 .404 35.5 597 734

 

Note that they didn?t even need all their 162 games to get 100 wins, 2 contests were never rescheduled.

 

They had. If anything a better pitching staff . . .

 

IP H ER BB SO GDP ROE ERA

1439 1253 465 404 1100 96 72 2.91

 

 

Situation AB R HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

None On 3244 53 53 53 222 616 .237 .288 .328

Men On 2196 491 31 462 251 413 .238 .314 .325

RISP 1263 448 16 420 192 259 .237 .332 .330

Bases Loaded 105 85 2 81 5 22 .267 .283 .381

 

 

Their Starters went 5 deep.

 

David Cone was as good as or better than Hershiser . . .

 

David Cone:

IP H ER BB SO GDP ROE ERA

231.1 178 57 80 213 11 9 2.22

 

Orel Hershiser

IP H ER BB SO GDP ROE ERA

267 208 73 73 178 18 15 2.26

 

And Doc Godden, Ron Darling Sid Fernandez and Bob Ojeda behind him all had era?s of 3.25 or lower.

 

The bullpen trio of Terry Leach, Roger McDowell and Randy Myers, augmented by Rick Aguilera returning from injury and whoever was the odd man out of the rotation (Leach as it turned out) looked as solid as anything.

 

Starters

IP H ER BB SO ERA

1097 939 362 293 863 2.97

 

Relievers

IP H ER BB SO ERA

342 314 103 111 237 2.35

 

Translation catches up to them as much as it does the Dodgers, no more, no less

 

Translated:

IP H ER BB SO ERA

1550 1420 625 424 1231 3.63

 

So add to these two equally titan pitching staffs the Mets, solid balanced offense.

 

1988 NY Mets

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

5408 703 1387 152 659 544 842 .256 .325 .396

 

And to further illustrate the Dodgers odd situational splits . . . .

 

Situation AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

None On 3105 82 796 82 82 247 463 .256 .316 .396

Men On 2303 621 591 70 577 297 379 .257 .337 .396

RISP 1391 528 333 35 486 212 251 .239 .331 .358

Bases Loaded 93 84 24 3 81 7 20 .258 .277 .419

 

 

They walked more, made better contact had better power, scored more runs. And they didn?t have their whole offense tied up in one player.

 

Strawberry

AVG OBP SLG HR

.269 .366 .545 39

 

McReynolds

AVG OBP SLG HR

.288 .336 .496 27

 

Johnson

AVG OBP SLG HR

.230 .343 .422 24

 

Add in ?Mookstra?, OBP machine Wally Backman (.388) , Rookie sensation Gregg Jefferies and declining veterans Keith Hernandez and Gary Carter and one can see why they had dominated the Dodgers up to now.

 

?Translated?, they only get better

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

5146 812 1435 237 783 564 845 .279 .354 .478

 

All three of the ?stars? get better, Straw gets 54 HR, McReynolds gets a .359 obp and HoJo raises to .251/.372/.521

 

Their defense was pretty neutral across the board with the notable exception of the ancient Gary Carter pulling a -9 behind the plate.

 

How could they lose?

 

They first two games went exactly the opposite way you would expect, Gooden beat Hershiser, Belcher beat Cone.

 

It was obvious that the Mets were pitching around Gibson and in Game 2 Marshall came through with three singles, a run and two RBI, both RBI came with two outs and runners in scoring position. Clutch?

 

Game three Lasorda brought back the bulldog on three days rest. Good luck with that. Orel pitched well considering, but the Mets pounded the bullpen. Mets win 8-4 and look like they?re rolling.

 

Game 4 the Dodgers win 5-4 in 12 with ?Cy? Hershiser coming on to get the final out and the save. Gee, I wonder why his career was so short?

 

The winning blast came off Gibson?s bat with two outs in the top of the 12th.

 

Gibson was wearing down fast, but he again lifted the team in Game 5 with a three run shot to give the Dodgers a 3-2 series lead heading back to LA. Oddly, Orel didn?t pitch.

 

The Mets easily win Game 6 behind a Cone complete game and a Kevin McReynolds hitting display.

 

So for game 7 Lasorda of course turns to Hershiser who has pitched in Games 1, 3 and 4.

 

He shuts the Mets out. Strawberry/McReynolds/Hernadez/Carter: 0-14

 

Only problem? Gibson is out. He manages only one AB.

 

So the Dodgers win and outscore the Mets 31-27, but how?

 

Dodgers:

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

243 31 52 3 30 25 54 .214 .290 .288

 

Mets

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

240 27 58 5 27 28 42 .242 .330 .363

 

In the limited sample, the Mets offense out-performed the Dodgers as expected, but scored less.

 

Kirk Gibson?

AB R H HR RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG

26 3 4 2 6 3(2ibb) 6 .154 .233 .385

 

The splits reveal nothing useful.

 

Strawberry, McReynolds, Jefferies and Hernandez all had great numbers.

 

So were the Dodgers lucky? Were the Mets out-managed? HoJo did sit out game 7 but he has a lifetime .205/.271/.318 line against Hershiser so that is understandable.

 

But the bottom line is clear. Even without their performance in the World Series against the mighty A?s without Gibson, save one swing, the team fights the stats at every turn, and keeps winning.

[rluzinski]

Interesting read. Iooked at how many runs they SHOULD have scored, based on their stats:

 

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a345/rluzinski/dodgers.gif

 

According to simple Runs Created, they scored 8% more than they should have; linear weights puts that at 14% more. The reason is obvious, their outstanding performance with runners in scoring position. While I would be more inclinded to attribute their success in those situations to mostly dumb luck (take a sample of a population enough times and you'll get all sorts of averages) it would be interesting to see their "clutch" numbers as a team before and after 1988. My gut tells me their would be no coorelation.

 

Using the "runs created" expected runs of 584, the pythagorean predicts a .532 winning %, or only 85 wins. I'm sure this isn't the only team to "fluke" their way to the playoffs but the fact that they actually won it all makes it very amazing. They pretty much did better than expected in everything http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

You wouldn't know their record in 1 run games, would you?

[brettac1]

You wouldn't know their record in 1 run games, would you?

 

Per Retrosheet's gamelog, they were 28-28.

[rluzinski]

Per Retrosheet's gamelog, they were 28-28.

 

There goes that theory.

[brettac1]

I really don't know much about this team, I was 4 years old at the time. It seems that they really had some amazing pitching, but my extent of knowledge on that team is the fist-pump that I still attempt to recreate every once in a while and get chills when seeing. Yes, there is warm blood in my veins, EDR.