post game moneyball reflection

(picture of the lower deck after RFK started clearing out yesterday)
Before and during the breaks of yesterday’s game I was reading Moneyball . While these days I’m mostly doing qualitative research, my MA degree focused on statistical analysis and game theory, so let’s just say this number-crunching approach to baseball has its appeal to me.
So with Moneyball sensibilities, here’s my explanation for why we lost yesterday’s game. Or, perhaps more accurately, why I’d expect us to usually loose if we played that same game a million times with the same lineup: Nick Johnson’s absence.
Nick is the Nats #1 hitter when it comes to On Base Percentage, which Moneyball does a compelling job of stressing as a key ingredient in game wins. Let’s adopt one of the formulas mentioned in the book: judge strength by 3*On Base Percentage + Slugging Average (and divide the whole thing by 4 for the sake of neatness). Using that, the Nats’ lineup for the game yielded an average of .334 versus the Phillies’ .338. If Nick was in the mix instead of Church, the Nats would have been at .355.
I know it’s popular to think that with the Nationals’ problem of men left on base we need stronger hitters. Actually, we have respectable slugger stats, and we had better slugger stats in our lineup yesterday than the Phillies (.442 vs .338). What we need, if the ideas discussed in Moneyball are correct, is to work on getting on base, and it sure would help that stat if Nick could return quickly to the lineup.







