mlb garbage: dispelling nonsense from columnists

2010-03-28T22:51:00.004-04:00

2010 Predictions, because someone has to be wrong

AL East
1st - Rays - They could screw this season up, finish 3rd, lose 3-5 major leaguers, and be just as competitive next season with their army of prospects coming up.
2nd - Yankees (wildcard) - I see regression all over the place. No way can Rivera, Posada, Jeter, and A-Rod ALL put up 2009 seasons on 2010 bodies; which is what it'd take to win the division. Vasquez's AL numbers won't equal his NL ones, but at least they're finally starting Hughes.
3rd - Red Sox - This division is a complete crap shoot, three 94+ win teams is possible. A downturn in corner power and a possible mid-season Beckett contract controversy may leave this team looking in from the outside.
4th - Orioles - 20-30 wins later we have the bottom of the division. Lots of intriguing prospects here, but still not ready to take a run at the mountain.
5th - Blue Jays - RIP Blue Jays for the next few years, will anyone in Toronto be watching by the time you turn it around?

AL Central
1st - Twins - they were || to messing up and putting Liriano in the 'pen. Thome looks great buried in that lineup.
2nd - Tigers - if like 5 things bounce their way, they can win the division.
3rd - White Sox - how can a team appraise pitchers pretty well but hitters so stupidly? I love their bullpen.
4th - Kansas City - If only some intrepid intern could clean this roster up, it'd be a decent squad.
5th - Indians - Do they fire Shapiro this season? It'd be too bad, but maybe it's time.

AL West
1st - Mariners - I suspect most sources will say Texas will win this division, and they very well might. However once Bedard comes back the Mariners have possibly the best Top 3 rotation in baseball, and a deceptively solid lineup. Record vs. the rest of the division will be key in the AL West.
2nd - Rangers - Best lineup this side of Yankeetown. If Harden ever throws 200 innings again, he'd be playoff-bound. And will Feliz's bullpen explosion last year translate to the rotation?
3rd - Athletics - will be much improved from last year's forgotten season, but still not close enough to contention again.
4th - Angels - If everything goes well for them, this pick will look ridiculous. But I see regression in the outfield, Pineiro != Lackey, and a bullpen controversy in the making with Fuentes.

NL East
1st - Phillies - Ho hum, to the playoffs we go. Halladay maybe has the best season since Pedro? Wait scratch that, best season since Greinke in '09??
2nd - Bravos (wild card) - I'm fawning over that lineup, and if Hudson bounces back the rotation will be pretty nice.
3rd - Marlins - Already 1 year behind their "win WS every 6 years" pattern, will need Hanley to get back on track in order to contend for the playoffs.
4th - Mets - they definitely win the "most boring roster" award; it looks like a fantasy team that someone stopped paying attention to 1.5 months into the season.
5th - Nationals - my bet on Strasburg call up - June 1st.

NL Central
1st - Cardinals - least competitive division award goes to...
2nd - Cubs - their core is rapidly aging
3rd - Reds - I'm uber-high on this team in 2011-2013, especially if they get rid of Baker first
4th - Brewers - I will give them all kinds of Kellys and Westmorelands for just one fat Fielder
5th - Astros - zzzzzzzzz
6th - Pirates - get a fresh look at tomorrow's contender trade deadline-acquisitions, today!

NL West
1st - Rockies - This lineup won't be half-bad, even at sea-level.
2nd - Dodgers - If someone looks to dump an ace starter this season, Dodgers need to pounce like whoa.
3rd - Giants - for every intriguing young hitter/Lincecum, there's a smelly Rowand or Zito gumming up the works.
4th - Diamondbacks - if they had a full year from Webb, maybe a different story.
5th - Padres - Adrian's gonna get bored this year.

2009-12-18T00:56:00.004-05:00

So I won't be making any more posts about baseball, but here's a chart of monthly global temperatures since I've been born.

2009-11-22T14:38:00.009-05:00

Playoff Opportunities(?)

Mr. Zimbalist at the WSJ is one of a sizeable number of mainstream writers who, in the wake of the Yankees 2009 championship, have recently argued against payroll as the source of New York's advantage. By extension they also argue against the need for a salary cap-like system in MLB, something the other major American sports all possess. Instead, these writers argue alternatively that low market teams pocket revenue money, that other teams outspend too, or in the case of Zimbalist, that parity exists already. In the case of the WSJ piece, in addition to a couple bailout/Geithner jokes we get this gem of Yankee justification -- since 2004 twenty of the thirty MLB teams have made the playoffs! Hurray for parity!

He's right, technically speaking. Nine of the fourteen AL teams (64%) and 11 of the 16 NL teams (69%) made the playoffs in the past six years. Here's the list if you're curious:

AL: Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Twins, Oakland, Indians, Tigers, Rays, White Sox

NL: Dodgers, Mets, Cardinals, Braves, Phillies, Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks

That actually seems pretty good ... in isolation. Here's the NL parse:

Dodgers - 4/6

Cardinals - 4/6
Phillies - 3/6
Astros - 2/6
Braves - 2/6
Cubs - 2/6
Padres - 2/6
Rockies - 2/6
Brewers - 1/6
Diamondbacks - 1/6
Mets - 1/6
Wild Card spread: West (3), Central (3)

The picture here is pretty rosy. Eleven teams have made the playoffs the last 6 years, and the spread is fairly even. I'm actually a little surprised that no NL East team has won the Wild Card the last six seasons since it's considered the most competitive division in the NL; the teams must cancel each other out via divisional play. All this aside, none of these teams have to contend with the Yankee leviathan until the World Series (besides the yearly interleague drubbing); so it's a little disingenuous to use the NL as evidence of parity if the argument is about the Yankees.

Let's turn our attention to the American League.

Yankees - 5/6
Red Sox - 5/6
Angels - 5/6
Twins - 3/6
White Sox - 2/6
Tigers - 1/6
Indians - 1/6
Athletics - 1/6
Rays - 1/6
Wild Card split: East 5/6, Central 1/6

So, three teams in the American League (the Red Sox, Angels and Yankees) have won 15 of the 18 postseason slots available to them (83% -- they can't win the Central). The only AL parity that actually exists is in the AL Central, where four teams have made the playoffs from that division the last six years. Oh, and guess which are the top three AL teams by average payroll during that period too?

Let's expand our sample size a little further and see if Zimbalist's contention works better on a larger timeline (I doubt it). Here's the AL picture in the wild card era, the past fifteen years.

Yankees - 14/15
Red Sox - 9/15
Angels - 6/15
Indians - 6/15
Athletics - 6/15
Twins - 5/15
Mariners - 4/15
White Sox - 3/15
Rangers - 3/15
Baltimore - 2/15
Tigers - 1/15
Rays - 1/15
Wild Cards: East 11/15, Central 1/15, West 3/15

Now I know that playoff appearances is kind of a silly metric for examining parity (something like winning percentage or run differential is superior without even wading very deep into the sabermetric pool) , but come on. Look at the top spot (and to a lesser extent the Wild Card breakdown). Seems fair to me! How any self-respecting journalist can use playoff appearances to argue that baseball has parity with a straight face is beyond me.

2009-11-16T11:35:00.012-05:00

Double Edged Plate

Watching the world series I developed the impression that Yankee pitchers were more effective at keeping the ball on the outer and inner edges of the plate than the Phillies pitchers were. I investigated with pitch f/x data. First, I defined my 2 "edges" of the plate. The pitch f/x strikezone stretches from about -0.8 ft to 0.8 ft in their coordinate system, so I defined the right edge (inside for righthanded batters) as -1.5 ft to -0.5 ft and the left edge as 0.5 ft to 1.5 ft (inside for lefthanded batters). During the entire series Yankee pitchers hit these edges with 55% of pitches to the Phillies 48%, suggesting that yes, the Yankees were more adept at keeping the ball near but not over the plate. To see if these percents are important, I then graphed opponent on base percent against percent of balls thrown to the edges for each game of the series.

As shown above, there was literally no correlation between hitting these edges and the offensive production of the opposing team in this series. This somewhat surprised me but then again I'm not taking into anything like count, type of pitch, stuff, so maybe it shouldn't have. Looking at the edge data however did reveal at least one pretty clear signal. In the series the Yankees pitchers hit the right edge 242 times and the left edge 245 times (out of 889 total), whereas the Phillies hit the right edge 272 times but left edge only 157 times (out of 886 total). The Phillies were much less balanced, as it seems they were trying to keep the ball away from the lefty power on the Yankees. The only game where the Phillies were balanced was game 1 where Cliff Lee hit the right edge 27 times and the left 31 times, which of course was an excellently pitched game.

So was balance actually important in the series? First, I defined balance as the difference between right and left edges hit divided by total edges hit (the smaller the number the better the balance). Then I plotted this against opponent on base percentage in the series. The results are below.

Now there is a correlation, albeit a weak one. The point which appears to be somewhat of an outlier in the top left is the Yankee pitchers in game 1, which was probably due to Sabathia having great balance and then a small sample size of Yankee relievers giving up a ton of baserunners. If we just look at the Phillies pitchers for the series, balance appears to be very important indeed.

In any case, this correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is interesting to see how Phillies pitchers mostly pounded one side of the plate after game 1. Theoretically this just doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me, as it allows the Yankee lefties to sit on the outside corner (Damon's 2 out single off Lidge in game 4 and Matsui's 2 run single off Pedro in game 6 both come to mind).

If anyone wants to investigate the data further, I uploaded it here (note: my if statements are in open office format, not microsoft)

2009-11-14T13:16:00.003-05:00

Game Full of Vacuum and Air Look the Same?

The argument goes like this:

Delving deeper, from The Book we see the leadoff hitter receives roughly 4.80 PAs per game and the 5th hitter only receives 4.34. Over 150 games, that means that the leadoff hitter receives roughly 70 more plate appearances. Over these 70 plate appearances, the amount of runs gained by switching a player from the #5 spot to the #1 spot who is 20 points of wOBA better is roughly one run. This may be erased by properly leveraging an on-base threat at the top of the lineup, but it certainly will not end up being significant to the point of a win or likely not even half a win.

I have a difficult time fully believing it. I haven't read the details of the simulations but it seems to me like we're looking at the situation in at least somewhat of a vacuum. I can think of several effects that make it important for a good hitter to be batting at the top of a lineup (in addition to having the most atbats).

Puts starter in stretch: It's tougher physically to pitch from the stretch, the more time a pitcher spends doing this during a game, the better for the opposing team.
Starter has to deal with baserunners: It's tougher mentally to pitch with a runner at first since there's simply more to think about, any amount of focus that is taken away from the hitter at the plate has to be positive for the opposing team. In the case of a big stolen base threat at first they're also going to draw more pickoff throws and possibly more fastballs/pitchouts to the batter at the plate.
More pitches (short term): A pitcher who just threw 15 pitches to get out the 1 and 2 hitters is going to more tired while facing the middle of the order than one who got them out with 8 pitches.
More pitches (long term): Having the guys who see the most pitches bat the most often is going to get the opposing starter's pitch count up faster and get them out of the game. Also, the more pitches the opposing team sees, the better to time them.

I don't think any of these effects is huge (since the difference between a good/bad obp and pitches/plate appearance are both only about 15%), but they must make the lineup order somewhat more important than just considering total number of atbats it will produce, so some quantifiable effect is being missed in the fangraphs analysis. Anecdotally, Ricky Henderson having a 10 pitch atbat to lead off the game and then robbing the pitcher's attention has got to put that team in a much better position to win the game than someone making a quick out. I would like to find out how much of a difference this really all makes.

2009-11-06T14:23:00.007-05:00

Monetary Realignment

As the only major American sport to fully embrace the free market (the largely ineffective luxury tax aside), a frequent discussion topic regarding MLB is payroll disparity. Both between the high and the low (think Red Sox/Mets vs. Pirates/Marlins) and the high and the absurdly high (Yankees vs. Everyone Else). While a salary cap is the ultimate solution, there is no sign that Selig would embrace such a measure; nor that there are even many owners behind it. The Yankees give enough in revenue sharing to cover the bills of the low-market teams; the high markets get the salary flexibility to generally compete against New York; and there is far too much interest in short-term TV/revenue gains to make MLB worry about the systemic damage near-zero competitiveness will do to 1/3+ of its franchises over time.

So here's another avenue I pursued as a weekday diversion. What if we realigned MLB based partly on money? First, a look at the numbers:

Avg Team Payroll, last twelve years (2009-1998, date of last MLB expansion)

NYC Yankees $151,877,338.67
BOS Red Sox $107,635,951.92
NYC Mets $100,632,173.50
LA Dodgers $93,413,092.08
ATL Braves $88,513,588.33
CHI Cubs $84,316,535.75
SEA Mariners $81,486,898.17
LA Angels $81,007,832.50
STL Cardinals $77,536,459.17
TEX Rangers $73,998,363.33
SF Giants $73,004,887.67
HOU Astros $72,274,090.17
PHI Phillies $71,805,386.50
BLT Orioles $71,582,849.17
CHI White Sox $69,609,277.67
AZ Diamondbacks $69,236,991.33
DET Tigers $68,282,048.00
CLE Indians $65,302,489.83
TOR Blue Jays $64,658,291.42
CO Rockies $59,318,811.50
CIN Reds $53,961,987.08
SD Padres $52,990,266.83
MIL Brewers $50,342,928.67
OAK Athletics $47,262,457.58
MN Twins $45,407,544.83
KC Royals $43,619,569.42
WSH Nationals $40,843,305.50
PIT Pirates $39,368,957.42
TB Rays $38,703,228.50
FL Marlins $33,454,107.75

Avg Payroll, last 6 years (2009-2004)

NYC Yankees $197,888,942.83
BOS Red Sox $128,177,616.17
NYC Mets $116,908,463.33
LA Angels $107,318,109.17
CHI Cubs $104,140,432.83
LA Dodgers $100,307,640.00
SEA Mariners $96,710,247.00
PHI Phillies $96,286,106.50
CHI White Sox $94,845,138.67
ATL Braves $92,196,560.00
DET Tigers $91,081,262.67
STL Cardinals $88,623,819.67
HOU Astros $87,402,221.83
SF Giants $85,284,181.83
TOR Blue Jays $71,321,083.33
BLT Orioles $70,995,994.67
CIN Reds $64,333,087.83
AZ Diamondbacks $63,930,177.67
TEX Rangers $63,889,646.33
MN Twins $61,139,756.33
OAK Athletics $61,123,095.67
SD Padres $60,682,365.00
MIL Brewers $59,523,027.83
CLE Indians $59,012,633.17
CO Rockies $58,852,277.83
KC Royals $54,610,888.83
WSH Nationals $50,926,416.67
PIT Pirates $42,166,549.17
TB Rays $37,651,805.33
FL Marlins $34,450,479.33

*Keep in mind the Nationals moved in 2005 from Montreal to DC.
* Payroll Source: USA Today

I examined both the 12- and 6-year period to check if any team(s) jumped up or down the list more recently. So, we can pretty clearly see where most of our 30 teams stand. There's still 4 in the middle that I'll get to momentarily. For now we have...

Pulled Up By Their Bootstraps: Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, Cubs, Dodgers, Mariners, Phillies, White Sox, Braves, Cardinals, Astros, Giants

Too Lazy To "Better" Themselves: Marlins, Rays, Pirates, Nats, Royals, Rockies, Indians, Brewers, Padres, Athletics, Twins, Diamondbacks, Reds

This leaves 4 teams that could sort of go either way: the Blue Jays, Orioles, Rangers and Tigers. The Tigers have started spending a lot more money recently, so I'm inclined to promote them to the big show. While the Rangers have recently lowered their payroll some, this is mostly due to their owner's recent financial struggles; and considering their history and his habit of spending, I'm putting them up too. So that means the Blue Jays and Orioles join the unwashed masses.

This leaves 15 teams in each conference, already an improvement on the currently lopsided AL/NL. I personally think the "3 division winners + 1 wild card" system is a bit sloppy on MLB's part, so let's try to refine that too. I'll put forward two alignment proposals: a 2-division per league method and a 4-division per league method. Please note that both suggestions involve expansion, but since it's been over 10 years and MLB's had big financial gains in recent years, baseball is ready for some more franchises!

Two Divisions per League Realignment:

When it comes to this alignment, I tried to preserve two notions. First, I didn't want to lump direct regional rivals together, mostly for scheduling reasons as a 2-division league unevenly tilts towards the eastern part of the country somewhat if based on region. Second, since we aren't lumping teams together based on distance, I was able to preserve most of the "classic" local rivalries; and with only one or two exceptions NL and AL teams stayed together. Last, to balance it out let's add two new teams; please welcome the New Jersey Trumps and the Portland Proles (locations based on geography/revenue estimate).

The Haves League

The Adam Smith Division
NYC Yankees
BOS Red Sox
LA Angels
DET Tigers
CHI White Sox
TEX Rangers
SEA Mariners
**NJ Trumps

The Herbert Hoover Division
NYC Mets
PHI Phillies
LA Dodgers
SF Giants
CHI Cubs
HOU Astros
ATL Braves
STL Cardinals

The Have-Nots League

The Karl Marx Division
CLE Indians
BLT Orioles
MN Twins
TOR Blue Jays
KC Royals
TB Rays
WSH Nationals
PIT Pirates

The FDR Division
CIN Reds
AZ Diamondbacks
SD Padres
MIL Brewers
CO Rockies
FL Marlins
OAK Athletics
**Portland Proles

Thus baseball can finally have a balanced schedule. It would be 14 games against every division rival (98 games) and 8 games against every non-division league opponent (64), and we'll do away with the interleague nonsense (which is even more useless if we realign based on payroll since all the major cities now share the same league). Interleague Exhibitions are for spring training in my opinion.

For the playoffs, we can either have the top 2 teams from each division go to the playoffs, or the division winners + 2 wild cards (even if the WCs come from the same division). With a 32-team league, I'd even explore sending 6 teams to the playoffs and give the division winners first round byes.

Four Divisions per League Realignment:

With this alignment, I much more tightly grouped it by region; I preserved most of the classical rivalries but the old AL/NL distinction fades away. This alignment emphasizes divisional play the most, and is definitely inspired by the NFL's setup. Under this alignment scheme we add 2 teams, but in different cities to balance the divisional geography/revenue potential. Here we bring in the Mexico City Aztecs and the Indianapolis Mannings to our baseball family.

The Haves League

The Citibank Division (HL East)
NYC Yankees
NYC Mets
BOS Red Sox
PHI Phillies

The Ford Division (HL Central)
CHI White Sox
CHI Cubs
DET Tigers
STL Cardinals

The Haliburton Division (HL South)
TEX Rangers
HOU Astros
ATL Braves
**Mexico City Aztecs

The Microsoft Division (HL West)
LA Dodgers
LA Angels
SF Giants
SEA Mariners

The Have-Nots League

The Joe the Plumber Division (HN East)
TOR Blue Jays
CLE Indians
CIN Reds
PIT Pirates

The Union Division (HN Central)
MN Twins
MIL Brewers
KC Royals
**Indianapolis Mannings

The Wire Division (HN South)
BLT Orioles
WSH Nationals
TB Rays
FL Marlins

The Cesar Chavez Division (HN West)
SD Padres
OAK Athletics
AZ Diamondbacks
CO Rockies

Using this setup we can still use a balanced schedule that is superior to the current one. Let's say 22 games against every division rival (66 games), and 8 games against the other 12 league opponents (96 games). That isn't too many more division games than MLB already has, and once again the interleague monkey wrench isn't necessary. This definitely balkanizes the league somewhat with so many inter-city divisional rivalries, but I feel that strong local rivalries are one of baseball's greatest strengths; especially since MLB's season is so long.

For the playoffs, you can just simply have the 4 division winners go to FOXtober. If you wanted to expand the playoffs with the new 32-team league, again, just add 2 WCs and the top two division winners get byes.

---------

Both setups have their charms, I think I might slightly skew towards endorsing the 4-division format method, because I could see lots of those divisions being really tight and exciting year-long races; while a 2-division format is just a little more impersonal (although probably more balanced schedule-wise).

Now, whichever alignment we "use," there are two other points to examine. We'd need a provision where if a team starts spending or not-spending money over a few years (say there's an ownership change), then the league is allowed promote the biggest spender and demote the new cheapskate. Secondly, as far as the World Series is concerned, we'll inevitably end up with a big market team facing a small market team. Is this fair?

Well for one, this is somewhat already the case, half of the World Series matchups the past decade pitted a big-market team against a low-budget one (2008, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2001). Furthermore, with its current insistence on avoiding the DH, the NL has already essentially become the "inferior" league over the past 15-20 years, as first the better hitters and then the balance of the better pitchers have been transported to the American League. Plus with either realignment since there's no interleague, which teams are truly superior is more hidden as there are no matchups during the season to judge by. So will anyone really notice much of a functional difference?

There are some other benefits as well. It ingrains the common storyline of "underdog vs. favorite," that runs rampant through the American sports landscape. Plus, since a 7-game series is inherently more random than a 162-game season, the low-money team is going to win a disproportionate share of championships. This not only helps boost the perception/illusion of baseball parity in the minds of the fans/media (as the MLB's current playoff system already does), but by giving this "50-50" chance of winning a title to the low-market teams, the Have-Not league will become more competitive relative to itself, much more so than in today's game. With teams like the Pirates only being outspent by $20-40 million instead of $100-150 million, suddenly every team has a greater chance of divisional competitiveness and championship dreams. Perception of opportunity leads to hope, hope leads to ticket sales.

As for whichever unfortunate SOBs get stuck in the same division as the Yankees, those teams are already used to trying to keep up with their lavish rival, and will still be playing on a more equal footing than teams with a fraction of the payroll. Then again ... we could always just create a salary cap/floor that floats as a percentage of league revenues, but that'd be toooooooo easy...

2009-10-17T19:53:00.004-04:00

Chasing Manny

While there are multiple reasons for the Red Sox's stumbles during the 2009 season (starter injuries, significant decline from some veterans, fatigued bullpen, arguable game-to-game mismanagement, etc.), my personal theory is that the Red Sox have not suitably replaced the dominant lineup presence provided by Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz during most of the Epstein Era. Obviously this is no mean feat -- there are few 1-2 hitter combinations like that in history -- and if the goal is "just" to be a playoff team 8 out of every 10 years then the Red Sox are doing fairly well.

However, in many respects the expectations for a team with the salary and acumen of the Red Sox is to be a more significant playoff threat -- if not a routine title-contender. If so, the offense needs to be more imposing to succeed. Assuming that (1) JBay can maintain his career-best 2009 numbers for the next 3-5 years and (2) The Yankees or Mets don't cut in line to sign him first, keeping him is a major piece of the hitting puzzle. A full season from V-Mart (which also lets the Sox rest Tek's wobbly body more often, keeping him fresher) will also help cover some offensive vulnerabilities. The problem with these two players though is they're both in the nebulous 31 years-old range, still in their prime, but close to the age where many (but not all) ballplayers start to decline (esp. catchers). While the Sox are much stronger financially than almost all of their MLB compatriots, if the only real opponents these days are the Angels and Yankees, they can't risk long-term albatross contracts for short-term gain.

What I feel the Sox need is an uber-bat, capable of hitting 40+ homers with the extra thrust of Fenway behind him. The problem is that our outfield is occupied already; presuming we regain JBay, Drew is here through 2011 and still productive, and while Ellsbury isn't a homer-threat there really aren't any CFs who are. Unless the Red Sox are convinced Papi has had it, they won't risk carrying two defensively-useless leviathans either. This means someone who can at least serviceably play the infield (sorry old man Thome or Delgado).

Here's a list of possible suspects (I'm ignoring players who are under long-term deals or who are highly unlikely to be moved), with the benefits and hazards of each:

Matt Holliday (2007-2009: 0.400+ average OBP, hits the 40 2B range)
- He is more likely a fall-back option if another team steals Bay from the Red Sox. He's still young enough (29), a free agent this year, and he hits righty with power and patience. There are a number of alarm bells however. His power has dipped the past two seasons, it was Coors-inflated to begin with, and his brief stay in the AL was a bit of a roller-coaster. If we sign JBay, I doubt we'd take Holliday as a first-baseman, but if we lose Jason this is the quickest fall-back option.

- Desire meter: 2.5/5 Heath Ledger Resurrections
- Ease-of-Acquisition meter: 4/5 Dumb McCarver Comments

Ryan Howard (one of only two players to average 35+ homers 2007-2009)
- Howard is a free agent in 2011. Crazy power, decent patience, used to playing in media-heavy markets. Even if he doesn't ever reach his 2006 line again, he's still a major force and is only 29 despite being stuck in the minors for 100 years. He does face inferior NL pitching which must be factored in, and he already plays for a franchise capable of a few big contracts who have greater means to re-sign him.

- Desire meter: 3.5/5 Heath Ledger Resurrections
- Ease-of-Acquisition meter: 1/5 Dumb McCarver Comments

Carlos Pena (2007-2009 averages: 37 HRs, 0.934 OPS)
- Pena is the prototypical prospect who figured it out "late" in his career. He's gone from an average power hitter with nothing else to offer to one of the best mashers in the league, raising his homer total while generally increasing his contact and patience. He's already proved himself in the AL East as well. While a free agent after 2010, he'll be 33 after signing, making him more of a short-term than long-term solution.

- Desire meter: 2/5 Heath Ledgers
- EoA meter: 3.5/5 Dumb McCarvers

Adam Dunn (one of only two players to average 35+ homers 2007-2009)
- Full disclosure - I've been a fan of Dunn for a really long time. Routinely exorciated by dumb commentators for his K-rate, Dunn quietly put together one of the best performances of 2009, and you could set your watch to his 40ish homer rate (@29 he already has 5 seasons of 40 or more, in 2009 he "slipped" to 38). All this despite playing on the horrible Nationals (and before them the almost-as-horrible Reds). Oh, and don't even get me started on his OBP numbers. He's a free agent in 2010 (and will only turn 30 then), and perhaps the Nats will seek a trade if the ownership group wants to throw in the towel on next season. He's not a good defensive first baseman or OF, and maybe even a poor one ... but I think the bat makes up for it.

- Desire meter: 4.5/5 Heath Ledgers
- EoA meter: 3.5/5 Dumb McCarvers

Prince Fielder (2007-2009: 43 HRs, 33 2Bs, 0.968 OPS)
- In my eyes this is practically the dream acquisition, a young player with uber-power and good patience. Obviously the biggest problem is that he is under Brewer control for a while still, and teams are often loathe to part with their cornerstones. But, if Milaukee decides that their playoff window has closed already (which it probably has), this is the kind of trade that could revitalize their farm system. It'd obviously mean no more Buchholz (plus more), but still, he's the best available young, impact bat (Braun is better but recently signed through 2015).

- Desire meter: 5/5 Heath Ledgers
- EoA meter: 2/5 Dumb McCarvers

Adrian Gonzalez (SLG and OPS has increased every year 2007-2009)
- This is the next-best youth option besides Prince Fielder. Ad-Gon is still only 27, has missed only three games total in 3 seasons, and puts up strong numbers for one of the worst teams and in one of the worst hitter parks (if all his games were on the road he would be on pace to hit over 50 homers in 2009). The Red Sox pushed hard on the Padres at the deadline to acquire him, and he must still be on their radar screens. The usual NL-hitter caveat applies, and unfortunately the Padres have him under control through 2011 if ... they so choose.

- Desire meter: 5/5 Heath Ledgers
- EoA meter: 3/5 Dumb McCarvers

Albert Pujols (Hall of Fame numbers, arguably one of the best all-around players in MLB history)
- Pujols I say? Impossible you say! Maybe I say. Almost surprisingly, Lord Albert is a free agent in 2011 (assuming St. Louis exercises the 2010 option), and while the Cardinals adore him, there is the chance with every free agent that he will switch teams. Provided he didn't Almonte the MLB, he'll still only be 31 when his contract expires. And while the Yankees have infinite money, TexMex is their first baseman for a long time, and they have to figure that Jeter and/or A-Rod will end up DHing someday. This puts Boston in a prime position to scoop up Pujols, and if he is interested in chasing the recordbook, an AL-team who could use a short-term 1B and a long-term DH who's park caters to righy hitters and is a perennial playoff contender could be the perfect fit.

- Desire meter: 100000/5 Heath Ledgers
- EoA meter: 2.5/5 Dumb McCarvers

The wild card in this is David "Papi!!!!!!!" Ortiz, who's batspeed decline is uber-documented. If he can regain his stroke, a lot of the offensive problems happily go away. I doubt though that we'll ever see the old Ortiz again, making the search for his offensive replacement even more important. There really aren't many options in the 2009 FA class (in fact, being able to hold onto Bay is our #1 priority); so much of our lineup is going to look like this past season's unless a trade is made (and for the love of god ... Pedroia 1st, Drew 2nd, Youk 3rd, JBay 4th, VMart 5th plz). If we have the money and the willingness to part with prospects, there are gettable players available, and maybe (emphasis on the maybe) a hall of famer or two. The next year or so is going to be really interesting in Sox-land, as virtually everyone but Youk, Pedroia and Lester is a free agent of some sort by 2009-2011.

2009-09-06T04:00:00.003-04:00

Research Idea

I feel like players who move from the AL to NL midseason enjoy an irregular level of success (this feeling biased by Holliday/Lugo/Smoltz/Penny from this year). My idea is that playing against tougher competition for half a season makes you better through practice (if true this would have large implications, like players could get better if they practiced harder). I don't have any idea how to measure this though (as in what would the control be here?), how to measure specifically this (as in how to isolate the league change effect), or how to normalize for sample bias since you'd think players that other teams are interested in would be somewhat undervalued (ie unlucky) so far that season.

2009-08-31T02:57:00.016-04:00

A Penny Saved Is 1 Too Many

Reading fangraphs usually produces a catharsis from bad baseball reporting such that no writing occurs on this blog. You can therefore imagine my horror the morning of August 27th when over my cup of coffee I clicked to fangraphs only to discover an abortion of a post ripping the Red Sox for releasing Bradley Wayne Penny. The jist here is that the Red Sox overreacted to a recent stretch of bad pitching and made a quick hook, overall Penny has been unlucky on balls in play and "ZIPS projects a 4.44 FIP from Penny going forward" so they should have held onto him.

First of all, the Red Sox front office does not do anything hastily, if anything their thoughtfulness usually results in hanging on too long (and sometimes way too freaking long) based on past success. And secondably, I am having some difficulty locating this "recent poor stretch of results", not because Penny hasn't been terrible lately (he has, with a 5.93 era in July and a 8.31 eyesore in August), but because he really hasn't been good at any time this year to start with. His one "good" stretch in June consisted of him facing 3 NL East teams and not throwing a single pitch in the 7th (now I'll admit his 6 shutout innings against the Yankees was notable even in 55 degree weather, but that being his one scoreless start of the year kind of makes this a total outlier. additionally one must remember that I jinxed this game by betting my entire centsports balance against Penny).

Let's also look at another measure of luck beyond simply webthumbing to FIP and calling it a day, that being situational pitching stats. The relevant (available) split is OPS with bases empty/runners on/runners in scoring position. Penny this year is sporting a quite remarkable .888/.771/.681, lopping 200 points of OPS off the opposition whenever he feels like it, evidently. A little research reveals that he has been up to this trick before. My common sense alarm screams that Penny is pretty crappy and really lucky, but my scientific sense wonders whether he actually has this certain ability to up his game in tight spots. If this clutch ability is really possible (and any list that labels Jeff Suppan as clutch and Johan Santana as not, as the leverage index suggests, is probably suspect), then pitchers should be able to demonstrate the same ability year after year.

So are those clutch pitchers from 2005-2007 still being clutch this year (and yes obviously I find it funny that 9 of the 10 unclutch starters are currently playing while only half of the clutch ones are still in the majors despite the un-clutch group averaging an older age at 32 to 35 or 32.5 without Moyer and Wakefield)? Penny certainly is, as illustrated above, Jake Peavy shows a strong reverse split (.603/.734/.941) as does Chris Carpenter (.539/.646/.674), Jeff Suppan is still better from the stretch (.984/.813/.877), and Jason Marquis shows no split (.684/.694/.754). Johan Santana, meanwhile, is now clutch (.752/.592/.566). From this sample it appears, as David Appelman and many others have already reported, there isn't any such thing as clutch pitching.

That's a nice tight conclusion, but the cynic in me wonders if something else is going on here. Penny clearly shouldn't be able to suddenly pitch better than 100%, but what if the rest of the time he's only giving 80%? After all, one has to be pretty lazy to go from this to this while being paid tens of millions to perform physically, so perhaps Penny just doesn't care until runners get close to scoring? I can't think of any easy way to test this, so I am just going to have to assume it's right. In my defense, I wouldn't exactly be the first one to question Penny's work ethic.

In short, Brad Penny is neither unlucky this year or "quality major league pitcher." If he's been unlucky on balls in play, he has made up for it with lucky "clutch" pitching. He's earned his 5.61 this year just like he earned his 6.28 last year. The best things I can say about him is that he doesn't walk too many, and he might actually try when there's a runner on third... have at him MLB!

2009-04-10T11:14:00.003-04:00

2009 Predictions – Now with twice the incompetence!

AL East – Toughest division in baseball only getting tougher.
1. Yankees. Pains me to do it, but there’s just too much talent here. How are people actually predicting that they’ll miss the playoffs?
2. Red Sox (WC). Is anybody else scared by how critical the large father is to this season? And hopefully Lester is immune to the Verducci effect.
3. Rays. Dream season last year, so a step back seems pretty likely. Still, it’s unfortunate that one of the 4-5 best teams (possibly best 3) teams in the majors will miss the playoffs because all 3 are in the same division.
4. Blue Jays. Careful Jays, you’re getting closer to O’s territory than Sox/Yankees. Watch out next year.
5. Orioles. The AL East is going to be really scary once the Orioles start to become relevant again (not that far off).

AL Central – would all give the Jays a run for their money in the East.
1. White Sox. Why am I picking all the teams I dislike the most to win their divisions?
2. Indians. Search for the real Travis Hafner continues.
3. Tigers. Who wants to trade for Verlander?
4. Royals. That’s right, the Royals ride the coattails of sir Greinke to a non-last-place finish, meaning…
5. Twins. Mauer injury torpedoes the season.

AL West – No longer the Angels’ division for the taking
1. Oakland. Significantly improved offense, and the perpetual crop of promising young pitchers. Of course, having made the prediction, they’ll probably deal Holliday at the deadline.
2. Angels. Too many injuries to their top pitchers. Tough to win the division with 3-4 #5 pitchers.
3. Rangers. Can we give them some pitchers, just for one season, just for fun?
4. Mariners. King Felix counting the days until he can get the heck outta dodge.

NL East – Can the Mets collapse for a third year in a row?
1. Mets. It just has to happen this year, right? Still, that rotation is scary (and not in a good way).
2. Phillies (WC). The Hamels elbow situation is enough for me to bump them down.
3. Marlins. This team can hit a little bit. Watch out with Hanley in the middle of the order.
4. Braves. Top of the rotation is solid. Rest of the staff and lineup, well, not so much.
5. Nationals. Over/under on average IP per outing for starters: 3 1/3 (chicks dig the long ball). Would dominate at AAA.

NL Central – I suppose somebody has to win.
1. Cubs. Seriously, Gritz? I suppose if this year is finally the year Big Z’s arm falls off, then they don’t win, but I don’t see it otherwise.
2. Cardinals. If Ludwick follows up on last year hitting behind Pujols, this team can score some runs. Then again, they do have a Molina…
3. Reds. Promising young pitchers and hitters + Dusty Baker = EPIC FAIL.
4. Brewers. Had their shot, and it’s gone. Where is Fielder going to end up after 2010, and who’s going to be stuck with a Giambi contract?
5. Pirates. Picking both the Royals AND the Pirates to not finish last? I oughta check my meds.
6. Astros. Cornering the market on players who were good in 2001. And they have Darin Esrstad.

NL West – See NL Central comment
1. Dodgers. Chad Billingsley is going to become much more widely known really soon.
2. D’backs. Maybe Webb is much more fragile than he looks?
3. Giants. Attack of the over-the-hill lefty starters.
4. Padres. Remember when I picked them to win the division last year? That was fun. Both Peavy and Oswalt could be dealt midseason – who wants to win the World Series?

AL Wild Card: Red Sox, but neck-and-neck between Sox and Yanks.
NL Wild Card: Phillies (coin flip between Phillies and Mets, depending on the how many starts Hamels makes).
AL Cy Young: Sabathia.
NL Cy Young: Santana. Should have had it last year.
AL MVP: Longoria (outside the box pick).
NL MVP: Pujols (please?).

Postseason:
AL: Yanks over Chi-Sox, Red Sox over A’s. Yankees over Red Sox.
NL: Dodgers over Mets, Phillies over Cubs. Dodgers over Phillies.
WS: Yankees over Dodgers.

2009-04-06T02:21:00.001-04:00

Predictions....They're Gritztastically Unerring!

AL East: Is it going to be a 2-team or 3-team race this season?

1st: Yankees - Money > Skill
2nd: Red Sox - All your pitching are belong to us. I liked this team better when it had power hitters.
3rd: Rays - I'm really interested in seeing how Burrell responds to DHing and switching leagues.
4th: Blue Jays - Remember when Toronto had a good roster? They're just a Roy Halladay away from being the O's at this point.
5th: Orioles: Some good hitters, but that rotation is spelt U-G-L-Y.

AL Central: Some can hit, some can pitch, none can really do both.

1st: White Sox - It pains me, but they're the most solid of the bunch. Love that bullpen on paper.
2nd: Indians - This team would rock the socks .... of the NL.
3rd: Tigers - Remember when everyone thought they'd win the Series last year?
4th: Twins - Mauer is cratering fast.
5th: Royals - The best last-place team.

AL West: Does Oakland unseat the Angels this year or next year?

1st: A's - This year. Might still trade Holliday mid-season!
2nd: Angels - I'd pick them for first but a rotation with this many injuries already is in deep trouble.
3rd: Rangers - If I was one of their awesome hitters I'd be so annoyed at the lousy starters
4th: Mariners - Zzzz.

NL East: Four of these teams could probably win divisions in the NL Central or West.

1st: Philies - better pitching depth will carry them to the end, will need to add offense
2nd: Mets - Fixed innings 8 and 9, but who besides Santana can handle 1-7?
3rd: Marlins - How many years until the Yankees give Hanley The Big Account and I have to stop liking him?
4th: Braves - This team needs to get out of the NL East.
5th: Nationals - most competitive they've been in a while.

NL Central: Why are there still 6 teams in this division but 4 in the AL West!?

1st: Reds - I know, it's bold. But this team has an intriguing mix of hitting and pitching.
2nd: Cubs - Harden might have the best 125 inning season in history against these weak NL lineups.
3rd: Cardinals - Chris Carpenter is an uber wildcard, this team could possibly win the division.
4th: Brewers - Not as sexy as they used to be.
5th: Pirates - Moving on uppppp ... to the second floor cellar.
6th: Astros - Does whichever contender make the trade for Oswalt win the World Series this year?

NL West: Barry Bonds is still looking for work!

1st: Dodgers - Almost didn't pick them, but taking Pierre and Jones out of the starting lineup makes that team a lot more competitive.
2nd: Diamondbacks - best top 3 rotation in MLB? If LA gets serious injuries AZ will take the title.
3rd: Giants - Lincecum and Lincecum and pray for Lincecum.
4th: Padres - Mr. Towers, I'd trade Buchholz and change for Peavy any day of the year. Call me.

AL Wild Card - Boston, but it's a coin-flip between them and the Yankees weighted against Ortiz's HR total.
NL Wild Card - I guess the Mets? Or Cubs. Why do we care about the NL again?
AL MVP - TeixMeix
NL MVP - Wright
AL Cy - C.C. "this left arm will self-destruct in 1.5 years" Sabathia
NL Cy - Lincecum

2008-11-18T02:32:00.001-05:00

How Many MVPs for Pujols?

Through 8 seasons and age 28 he's got 2, so it's reasonable that he could finish with several, or second all-time to Bonds. But I think he could pretty easily already be tied with Bonds for the record of 7.

2001: With 0 mlb at bats previously, Pujols finished behind Bonds, Sosa, and Gonzalez in the voting. Bonds and Sosa were both cheating badly. Gonzalez was either cheating or had one of the most flukey years of the 90s. Now it's conceivable that even without the drugs Bonds would have still outperformed Pujols, but Bonds is always at a disadvantage in awards voting due to his personality. This wasn't one of the years Pujols clearly got jobbed, but he certainly would have had a good shot at it given a clean playing field.

2002: He only finished behind Bonds, so I'm giving him an honorable MVP.

2003: Only behind Bonds again, another honorable MVP.

2004: Pujols was third behind Bonds and Beltre (who put up one of the most flukey years ever). Without Bonds the vote would have been extremely close, Pujols outhit Beltre (in a better hitting environment), while Beltre had more fielding value. Another year he could have easily won it.

2005: Barely won it this year, narrowly edging out Andruw Jones' career year. Given the performances on the field though, Pujols should have won this in a landslide.

2006: Pujols outperformed Howard in every important offensive category but for some reason finished 2 in the MVP for the 3rd time. Honorable MVP the third.

2007: An injury influenced somewhat off year kept him from running away with the award in June but he was still in the conversation at years' end. He was 9th in the voting, but would have been a better choice than the winner, JRoll. Out of the candidates I'd say only Hanley Ramirez and Wright clearly deserved it over him.

2008: MVP the second.

So that's 5 theoretical MVPs in his first 8 seasons, with 2 close calls and a top 5 finish in the other years. With so many years of consistent greatness, it's a possibility that his typical MVP type performance doesn't get as much attention as it should. Given the last several years of voting it seems Pujols has been handicapped by past levels of excellence. I hope this stops because it's a travesty not recognizing fully exactly what Prince Albert is accomplishing so far.

2008-10-10T18:20:00.003-04:00

2008 Guessing Game Follow-up

AL East
1. (3) Tampa Bay Rays: What? Even as the biggest Rays optimist on this blog I only had them at 3rd and predicted the most value coming from their hitters. Their lineup was actually pretty mediocre (9th in the league in runs scored, 7th in OPS) but the pitching and defense took an unbelievable step forward (2nd in WHIP, 3rd in OPS against.) Being 29-18 in 1-run games also helped.
2. (1) Boston Red Sox - WC: Another year, another Pythagorean underperformance. Only by 2 games this year but it cost them the division. They addressed a key issue going forward by replacing Manny with the underrated (younger) Bay. And with the best run differential in the tougher league, they just might be heading for their 3rd title under Epstein’s Reign.
3. (2) New York Yankees: I called them missing the playoffs. Booyahhhhh.
4. (4) Toronto Blue Jays: Their Pythagorean record says that in a kinder world they could have made the playoffs. Would Halladay have gotten serious Cy Young consideration then? Eh. Probably not.
5. (5) Baltimore Orioles: Baltimore. You were bad this year. But without the decent hitting you could have been historically bad. What were you thinking?

AL Central
1. (5) Chicago White Sox: Heh heh, um. I guess I was a little off. Thanks for Game 163 though, those are always fun. Oh and stay classy Ozzie.
2. (3) Minnesota Twins: 3rd in the league in runs scored? Huh. Their lineup wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.
3. (2 - WC) Cleveland Indians: Power outage at the V-Mart. Carmona regression. Sabathia traded. Betancourt and Hafner missing, presumed dead.
4. (4) Kansas City Royals: They crawled out of the basement but I thought the team would be better than it was. Greinke keeps making progress but the lineup was awful. I have a bad feeling that even when they make progress they’ll be the Blue Jays of this division.
5. (1) Detroit Tigers: The polar opposite of the Rays this year. High expectations but their pitching and defense imploded.

AL West
1. (1) LA Angels: Dear Angels. Please don’t ever change. Hugs & Kisses, Red Sox Nation.
2. (4) Texas Rangers: So close to allowing 1000 runs. So close.
3. (3) Oakland Athletics: OH MY GOD IT’S A FIRE....sale.
4. (2) Seattle Mariners: Remember how Ben had them winning the division and then they said “Yeah right bitch!” and lost 101 games?

NL East
1. (3) Philadelphia Phillies: Lidge’s outstanding year and Moyer’s extremely old (also good) year are two things I did not expect.
2. (1) New York Mets: This was not a bad team. It was just slightly less good than it needed to be.
3. (4) Florida Marlins: How crazy is it that the Marlins final record would have won the NL West?
4. (2) Atlanta Braves: This pitching needs to get better in a hurry if they’re going to start their climb back to the top.
5. (5) Washington Nationals: Now if only the clowns in congress could bail out this lost franchise amiright??

NL Central
1. (1) Chicago Cubs: Even when the team was on autopilot it won games. Writing this after their Division Series sweep makes me wonder how many other teams were like this one: built for the long haul of the regular season but pretty flawed in the playoffs.
2. (2) Milwaukee Brewers - WC: I predicted that the Crew’s pitching would be their weak point. Including Sabathia’s post-trade domination, the staff finished 5th in OPS-against and 4th in WHIP, ranks that seem alright for a wild card squad. The lineups OBP ranked 10th and 7th in runs scored.
3. (5) Houston Astros: Bad teams get streaky too. With a little luck and some vintage Oswalt they got sports-writers to inject some fake excitement into an already exciting NL wild-card race.
4. (4) St. Louis Cardinals: I called it right but they were a better team than I thought. A rain-out kept the Astros a game up on them. Also, Pujols is the MVP.
5. (3) Cincinnati Reds: Bruce needs time to adjust. Bailey has looked awful. Volquez and Votto had good years though.
6. (6) Pittsburgh Pirates: This team was bad at everything.

NL West
1. (1) LA Dodgers: I bet Torre gets Manager of the Year for winning 84 games in baseball’s weakest division.
2. (2) Arizona Diamondbacks: Terrible offense, but a really good pitching staff (2nd best WHIP in the NL, 3rd in OPS-against.)
3. (3) Colorado Rockies: Ok, a lot of regression this year.
4. (5) San Francisco Giants: Fred Lewis, Randy Winn, Bengie Molina and Tim Lincecum pulled the Giants out of the basement. To be fair though, it was a very deep basement.
5. (4) San Diego Padres: They narrowly missed the playoffs last year only to narrowly miss a 100-loss season this year. At least they’re consistently a game away from something.

2008-09-26T23:23:00.002-04:00

Basestealing in the '08 AL Playoffs

Something to pay attention to during the '08 SoxRayTwinAngSoxtober is baserunning/basestealing. In a playoff atmosphere managers/fans/media are much more focused on the play-by-play of a game than they may be in the regular season. Furthermore, all of these teams have some decent basestealers.

(Steals, Steal %)
Red Sox: Ellsbury (49, 82%), Coco (20, 83%), Pedroia (20, 95%)
D-Rays: Upton (44, 73%), Crawford (25, 78%), Bartlett (20, 77%)
Angels: Figgins (32, 71%), Hunter (19, 79%)
Twins: Gomez (32, 74%), Span (17, 71%)
Ozzie Sox: O. Cabrera (19, 76%)

Now, let's look at the team's respective catchers to see if we have any wizards or goats amongst us.

(PB, CS/SBOpp, CSteal %)
Red Sox: TekMoney (4, 16/70, 23%)
D-Rays: Navarro (6, 28/73, 38%)
Angels: Napoli (7, 11/63, 18%) [500+ fewer innings than the rest, mostly due to injury]
Twins: Mauer (4, 28/77, 36%)
Ozzie Sox: Pierzynski (5, 21/112, 19%)

I'm going to spare Kevin "Nation Wishes I Was Shoppach/Bard/Mirabelli/Mxlpxl" Cash and his Sisyphian grappling with Wakefield's knuckler to the side for this post. The league average CS% for this season is around 27%.

So, assuming that the playoff matchups are going to be Red Sox-Angels and Rays-CentralDiv winner, is there anything to keep in mind watching these games? While Napoli didn't get to log a full season, he's going to be facing one of the best baserunning teams in the league, and he seems to be one of the weaker catchers in our sample when it comes to throwing out base-thiefs. A.J. Jerkwad for the ChiSox is going to face a similar problem if his team holds the division and faces the fleet Devil Rays. The league clearly knows that both catchers struggle with the long-throw, because both are run-against a lot more than their brethren (Napoli would have 111 attempts if he had Pierzynski's innings). So I would anticipate one of the narratives during the ALDS (if the faster team ends up winning) being related to some sort of barrage of base-running. Varitek is a fairly pedestrian base-thrower, but the Angels aren't nearly as crazy on the base-paths as they used to be.

Conversely, Mauer and Navarro are above-average at throwing out would-be stealers (as comparison, keep in mind that I-Rod's basethrowing is not overrated, his career percentage is almost 47%!). That said, neither the Twins or the White Sox are as aggressive on the basepaths as one might have guessed, so Navarro may not have too many opportunities to flash his arm. However, one interesting ALDS matchup would be the Rays vs. Mauer, and if the Twins end up winning a close game (or losing one, for that matter), it might very well rest on a flick of their prized possession's wrist.

In terms of passed balls, they're fairly infrequent, but if any occur during a playoff game it will be greatly magnified. Napoli appears in the greatest danger of falling victim (he would have almost twice as many passed balls as his peers if he faced a similar inning-load), and of course the estimable Mr. Cash will have a similar quandary thanks to his batterymate.

Last, are there any juicy "speed vs. vigilance" storylines to wax poetic about? If Mauer faces the Red Sox or Rays, or if Navarro faces Boston in the ALCS, we could see some very close calls ripe for Sportscenter showings and instant replay debates.

2008-08-21T00:07:00.001-04:00

If Olney this was his first offense...

Sometimes Buster forgets his place and actually tries to think: "If the Reds are serious about reconstruction, here's the first thing they should do: Reconstruct the ballpark. Blow out the first 10 rows of seats in left and right field and make the place play bigger, for the benefit of pitching. As currently constructed, Great American Ball Park is as conducive to winning as Coors Field was in the 1990s, before the humidor."

I'll actually just refer to one of my first blogs, where I pointed out that the Rockies always did well at altitude. I assume he didn't see the blog since he doesn't have internet access, because if he did he would probably know that the Rockies career home winning percentage is 0.548, while on the road it is 0.392. Clearly the detrimental affects of playing at altitude are in the inability to adapt to playing at lower altitude.

The Reds are a completely different situation from the Rockies, as dimensions shouldn't affect play on the road. And why would a smaller park at home only hurt the Reds? Balls fly out of Philly and they've done fine in the new park. Does Petco park make the Padres automatic winners because it's impossible to hit a homer there? Doesn't seem like it. The Reds need better players (and probably better managing), they don't need to hit less home runs.

2008-06-25T02:50:00.003-04:00

Optimal Baserunning

I've seen a few stories lately on how the Red Sox are stealing a lot of bases at a high success rate this season. So far, led by Ellsbury, they're stealing at a pretty amazing 84% rate. Considering the breakeven point for hurting your team in the runs department is around 65% (this is the percent the defense is trying to keep the running team below), that looks pretty good. But I was wondering what is an optimal number for a team success rate? I can't seem to find this information anywhere, so I'm going to make it up. Let's assume there is a flat distribution of stolen base opportunities, ie the same amount of situations where a baserunner will be safe 0% of the time, 25% of the time, 50%, 100% and all points in between. The distribution is probably normal around the break even point in real life but flat is much easier to work with. Runners on base should be trying to go any time a steal gives their team an edge so they should be running in all situations where the anticipated success rate is >=65%. If the distribution of opportunities is flat, then a team which runs the bases perfectly will on average steal successfully (.35/2)+.65=83% of the time.

I can't say whether the goal this season was to steal around 85% or whether it's just because the Red Sox suddenly have some guys who can run but are still relatively conservative (compared to other teams), but to me it looks like right now the Red Sox are taking the optimal advantage of the opposing teams' defenses. In a league where most other teams are stealing at the equilibrium rate where the net value added is 0 (in other words trying to steal as often below the breakeven point as above it), the Red Sox result looks like a pretty huge edge. It will be interesting to see if A. other teams start copying their optimally conservative/aggressive approach and/or B. if opposing defenses ever adjust to the fact that the Red Sox have been robbing them blind.

2008-05-08T01:33:00.002-04:00

Fire Bland of the Red Sox Blogging World

There are a lot of good blogs following specific baseball teams out there, but Fire Brand of the American League isn’t one of them (despite being endorsed by the suggestionable Peter Gammons). Sure I read them and asked them to link to my blog at one point, but that was mostly because at the time identifying some sort of brain function along with Red Sox talk was exciting. Now that I've been around the internet and seen actual good writing I see it’s just kind of organized blandness frosted with half-ass research, as if there weren’t enough internet tubes being filled with Red Sox game recaps, bone-headed opinions, and general blather already. In what might (almost certainly will not) become a regular feature here on mlb garbage, I’m going to mlog (tube speak for meta-blog) their current front page blentries

Let’s see, meta recap of drunk mother who committed murder. Nothing to see there. Poll question about pitchers and ERAs (who has studied up on their1930s baseball cards???)…overplayed Old School clip…description of Kevin Cash that includes the word “dynamic”…game recap from Wakefield’s brilliant start because most people reading this blog probably had no idea that happened…insightful game 3 preview where Shawn says he thinks the Red Sox winning (and losing?) streak will continue if Buchholz allows 3 or less runs...I notice that the word analyze is in the blog tagline...let’s see moving on...some queer podcast shit (too long; didn’t listen) about Matsuzaka not officially qualifying for the incredibly subjective term “ace” (because he walks too many guys when he’s sick I assume)…

ah here we go, the first attempt at analysis in 6 posts, a blentry entitled “I’m fed up with Julio Lugo.” Of course this is a post most casual Sox fans could have filled in ala mad libs last May, but watch for the fun and exciting twist…Shawn actually was intending to write a Lugo-defending article, the irony! Basically the challenge was for him to build a statistical case for Lugo being a good player, but what he found was that Lugo sucks. Let me set one thing straight (and I hear the counter from politicians, business people, news people, and other idiots all the time), you can’t make stats lie. Stats are information. Information cannot be a lie, or else it is bad information, which really isn’t information at all. What you can do however is analyze stats ignorantly, which is apparently what Evan set out to do in this entry in order to spark a debate on whether Lugo is in fact good or bad (because the tubes aren’t filled enough with debates on whether we landed on the moon or not).

Now to confirm what any Fenway drunkard would yell at me, I probably would have used information from Lugo’s entire career (or at least the last few years), but Evan somehow manages to fuck up this trivial exercise by only looking at his stats from a month this season. Ok fine we’ll analyze him stupidly. Evan says that Lugo’s average is good (useless non-statement since even though batting average is information on how often Lugo has reached safely on a ball put in play so far this season, it tells us virtually nothing about how good of a baseball player he is) and he had a bad night last night (ok....), but he doesn’t walk much (conclusion is correct by accident but sample size is not ripe for conclusion-making) or hit for power. Well lucky for Evan Lugo hasn’t hit any wind-aided pop-ups over the monster or inside the park homers so far this year so his conclusions are the same as would be reached from looking at more relevant information. He even throws in some anecdotal information about Lugo striking out to show us his scouting prowess.

On to the fielding: Evan looks at fielding percentage (tells us little to nothing about his fielding ability), assists per nine innings (tells us how many ground balls Red Sox pitchers induce), and range factor (gives a rough estimate of how many balls Lugo reaches, perhaps the one statistic he has provided that tells us anything about Lugo’s baseball ability). Of course range factor has always been pretty much the only thing you could use to defend Lugo, but he’s not covering as much ground as he used to. So he sucks, we already knew that. On the flip side if he had 5 more bloop hits this year he wouldn't suck (according to Evan). This column has been a complete waste of Peter Gammons’ time, and that’s not easy to do.

Then he suggests Lugo replacements. He defends Lowrie by saying he’s been impressive so far (based on his few weeks of fill-in starts and not his 1000 atbat minor league sample), then he talks about other short stops in such a stupid way that my blood pressure is actually rising just by reading it. For instance, he says the following about Furcal: “The only danger sign? Lugo career line: .288/.336/.342. Furcal: .287/.352/.412.” Is he saying these lines are similar? Because they’re not, at all. Getting out my calculator (by which I mean my brain because this is so friggin easy), I can tell you that Furcal has about 85 points of OPS on Lugo here. 85 points of OPS. That is not similar. That's a big whopping, slap me in the face, are you kidding omg wtf lol wut you're doing it wrong difference. It is almost exactly the difference in career OPS between Ken Griffey Jr. and Geoff Jenkins. It’s also the difference between David Ortiz and Shawn Green. Plus, Furcal has played in pitchers’ parks his entire career. PLUS (I mean...what?) those are not even Lugo’s numbers! I looked them up and Lugo’s numbers are .271/.334/.393, but I didn’t even have to look them up, because I actually follow the Red Sox and have an idea of how good Red Sox players are. Even Lugo’s not bad enough to slug .342 over his career. Who slugs .342? Luis Castillo has 24 homers in 13 seasons (and has only reached 20 doubles twice) and he has slugged .356. I’ve had enough of this post.

Moving on up…a poll on the future of Justin Masterson, as if anyone reading this blog has any clue on Masterson’s ability or proper treatment of pitching prospects…another trivia question about Fenway continuing the trivial nature of this website…same Will Ferrell clip because it’s lucky (excuse me I just dropped a couple IQ points)…and a wrapup of a heartbreaking Red Sox loss (because everyone wants to read about that again). Goat of the Game: Paps. Uhhh I’m not sportsologist but two infield rollers, an infield chopper, and a catchable broken bat flair makes the pitcher the goat? Now that’s what I call analysis! If we really are going to harp on Papelbon’s performance (and it was noteable that he only reached 96 mph once) doesn’t that make Francona the goat for using him back to back days with 4 run and 3 run leads in the ninth Sunday and Monday?). Anyway enough of this. Don’t worry Sox Nation, Shawn’s gut feeling says Beckett isn’t giving up more than 4 runs tomorrow because pitching against Verlander will make him pumped (more pumped then when he went against Roy Halladay I hope).

2008-04-24T14:00:00.002-04:00

Clay Buchholz Pitch F/X Data

This is ultimately an exercise in an untrained eye having too much data to play with and drawing some uninformed conclusions. So with that out of the way, we’re off. The following plots show some of the pitch f/x data for Clay Buchholz’s first four starts of 2008. The gamelogs for these games can be found here. Most would agree that of the four starts, he had two pretty good ones (the two Fenway starts) and two mediocre-at-best starts (@TOR, @NYA). I’ve used symbols accordingly (filled symbols for good, crosses/hatches for bad). Colors correspond to date. Also, when looking at these plots, remember that the pitch tracking systems in place at various parks may have some inconsistencies in the calibration, so with this small sample size, it is possible that some outliers may not be statistically significant due to systematic errors in the measurement system. For an explanation of the pitch f/x data and system, here is a good place to start.
This plot shows vertical break (relative to a pitch with no spin) vs. pitch speed. The pitch type assignments are mine. This plot shows the separation between pitch types very well. Overall, it appears that Buchholz does better when he’s throwing harder, at least for his curveball and fastball (especially for his fastball). I guess that’s not too surprising. His curveball is interesting; he has had better success (apparently) when throwing it harder and with slightly less vertical break. What this plot doesn’t show you is where these pitches are located. Taken abstractly, it would seem to me that a slightly slower curve with more break would be better, but if those pitches are going into the dirt while the harder, smaller-breaking curves are dropping in for strikes, then obviously you’ll do better with the latter case – we’ve seen what happens when Beckett can and can’t throw his curve for strikes, so it’s probably not all that different here. The changeup is interesting – it almost looks like he’s throwing two distinct types of changeup, as the small separate cluster indicates. Those may be pitches that Buchholz is having trouble throwing (as John has suggested), though we really can’t assess that from this plot.
This plot is similar to the previous plot, but shows horizontal break rather than vertical break. These plots are from the catchers’ point of view; positive horizontal break is to the catcher’s right. It’s pretty clear that Buchholz struggles when his fastball has too much negative horizontal break (in on right handed hitters). Not sure why this would be unless he’s throwing it too much over the middle of the plate and letting it come too far in on righties. He appears to have more success when his fastball is essentially straight (while a straight fastball isn’t necessarily a good thing, it appears to be a good thing for Buchholz, relatively speaking). His curve has a very interesting spread in horizontal break. There are sort of two clusters, one around 0 to +5, and one from 0 to -8 or so. According to John, Kevin Cash calls Buchholz’s harder curveball a slider, but that doesn’t appear to make sense from this plot; the harder curve balls break in on right handed hitters, which is the opposite of what a slider should do. Regardless, Buchholz appears to struggle when his curve does that (bear in mind that I’m oversimplifying to a large extent here by extrapolating from the fact that his April 16 start was “bad” to calling the results of all curveballs thrown in that start “bad”. There is obviously more to the story, but we’d need to get much more sophisticated in making plots like this to get into it at that level). Another potential point here is that his changeup is (apparently) almost completely absent from the cluster for the April 16 start. This begs the question as to whether that second cluster of “curveballs” aren’t actually “changeups” thrown slower and with less horizontal break. If so, this only appears to have happened in what was Buchholz's worst start, and might be one indicator of why it went so badly. I’m somewhat confused by these plots, enough so to wonder if I’ve mis-classified the pitches in this plot, as the breaks seem to be opposite what might be expected from typical curves and changes. I can’t really distinguish the clusters as well in this plot; what is really needed is a way to classify pitches by type in the pfx-z vs. speed plot and then plot pitch types by color in the pfx-x vs. speed plot. Stay tuned.
Lastly, a plot of release point from the catcher’s perspective. The only obvious outlier is the April 16 start at Yankee Stadium. The interesting correlation is that in Buchholz’s worst start, his release point was apparently inconsistent with his other starts, appearing to be more of a ¾ release than his more normal over-the-top. This is the only game for which I can find pitch F/X data for Buchholz at Yankee Stadium, so we have to consider that there might be some bias to these results, given that there is such a systematic offset. However, this bears watching for his next start in the Bronx, to see if his release point is consistent with other starts (in other words, to see if the difference in release points between that start and other starts is real, or if it’s a calibration problem with the tracking system at Yankee Stadium). Again, stay tuned, but it’s potentially an interesting observation that his worst results (only 2 strikeouts) may have come in a game where his release point was off. Disregard the three outliers in the lower left; this is probably garbage data. Buchholz does not throw sidearm.

So, remember the small sample size caveat. Stay tuned for more – once I figure out how to plot pitch types by colors, we’ll be able to do a lot more, especially with the pfx-x vs. speed plots. What else do people see here?

2008-04-11T16:18:00.002-04:00

The Mets go 2-3 against division rivals but they move up 2 spots in the ESPN power rankings because an outfielder with no ability to get on base, hit for average, or hit for power had a hot week?

"Angel Pagan is a nice fit in the second spot in the batting order, hitting behind Jose Reyes."

I suppose he does fit nicely at the top with his fellow out machine who also doesn't steal bases anymore either.

2008-04-08T20:28:00.000-04:00

Greinke's awesome. Deal with it.

2008-03-29T14:30:00.008-04:00

All the '08 Predictions You Can Handle

Featuring MLB Garbage experts Pete, John, Ben, Dave along with "competing" sources Sports Illustrated, ESPN.com, CBS.sportsline.com, Baseball Prospectus, and Diamond Mind (ESPN and CBS aggregate standings based on power rankings).

*wildcard
^tie for AL wildcard (beckett wins 1 game playoff ldo)
#tie for NL wildcard

In conclusion, I think we can all agree that the Orioles and Giants will finish last.

P.S. What was Diamond Mind smoking when it simulated the NL Central?

2008-03-27T21:31:00.003-04:00

My "Eh, good enough." 2008 Predictions

AL East
1. Boston Red Sox: Probably another slugfest to the finish but they’re built for it. Expecting big years from both Mannys (Delcarmen and Ramirez.)
2. New York Yankees: The aging position players continue their decline. One or more of the young pitchers goes down. Morgan Ensberg hits like 15 home runs in a week in August just to make me nervous. This may be wishful thinking, but they miss the playoffs.
3. Tampa Bay Rays: Speaking of wishful thinking. I wanted to make this call weeks ago. Now it seems like Kazmir may be more injured than we thought, Longoria is starting the season in AAA so they can control him another year and Troy Percival is still bad. But the defense is better, the lineup is still good, and Kazmir/Shields/Garza seems like a pretty sweet top of the rotation.
4. Toronto Blue Jays: David Eckstein’s weak bat joins their already mediocre lineup and his terrible glove scampers behind a bunch of ground-ball pitchers. On the bright side John Gibbons will finally complete his mission to totally explode A.J. Burnett’s arm.
5. Baltimore Orioles: This is not a prediction. It is a future yet to be.

AL Central
1. Detroit Tigers: The back-end of the rotation and most of the bullpen makes me wonder. Then I remember the lineup.
2. Cleveland Indians (WC): Carmona could have a fine 2008. It’s just not likely. I don’t see them taking the division. But. The image of Lofton holding at third might be a little less painful when they edge the Wild Card like I think they will.
3. Minnesota Twins: Ugh. I wanted to pick the Royals here. I really did. But their non-Livan pitching is pretty good. They’ll probably rest easy in third.
4. Kansas City Royals: Big year for Greinke. Gordon starts stepping up. Jose Guillen probably doesn’t add much. Japanese reliever Yasuhiko Yabuta throws baseballs. Maybe this call will be wrong and I’ll be pleasantly surprised. How soon is now?
5. Chicago White Sox: Nah. I don’t think so.

AL West
1. LA Angels: Recipe: A pile of young pitchers. A pile of speedy but not very good hitters. A pinch of Vlad. Mix vigorously in a weak division. Dispense into a playoff spot. Division Series Exit.
(Note: I wrote this before Escobar went down but I stand by it. Swapping the O-Cab for Garland's league-average durabilityness is looking even smarter now.)
2. Seattle Mariners: Every year it’s the same thing. I’ll predict a mixed bag for King Felix to stay on the safe side. Bedard helps but they’re just not making the playoffs.
3. Oakland Athletics: I had this great joke about Nick Swisher but then they traded him.
4. Texas Rangers: Saltyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!

NL East
1. New York Mets: (1) Wow this team is old. (2) Infield pop-ups are not exciting. (3) Wright was the MVP. (4) Zero depth. (5) None of this matters because of Santana.
2. Atlanta Braves: In the wild card hunt but they’ll fall short. Good lineup though.
3. Philadelphia Phillies: Hear that Rollins? Just mail your hardware to David Wright. The interblogs have spoken!
4. Florida Marlins: Maybe people will start noticing Hanley now that he’s the only reason to watch this team.
5. Washington Nationals: Welcome to Nationals Park, now presenting the Outfield of Broken Dreams.

NL Central
1. Chicago Cubs: Cash dollars!
2. Milwaukee Brewers: A whole year of Braun will be sweet. But pitching is important too and there are way too issues there.
3. Cincinnati Reds: Bruce and Bailey need some more time. Luckily in this division you start competing whenever you feel like it.
4. St. Louis Cardinals: Ugh. Just start Pujols’ surgery now.
5. Houston Astros: The most hilarious “win now” team of this decade. They won’t even compete in the garbage division.
6. Pittsburgh Pirates: I tried to name as many Pirates as I could but I fell asleep.

NL West
1. LA Dodgers: If Juan Pierre becomes an incredibly expensive pinch runner. If Kemp and Ethier play. If Andruw bounces back. If Kuroda has a great MLB debut and if Saito stays completely awesome.
The credit will still go to Torre.
Ugh.

2. Arizona Diamondbacks (WC): Billy Beane sold high on Haren. He is not a co-ace. But he’s still a big upgrade on Livan Hernandez and a good enough 1-2 punch with Webb. Progress from their young lineup and a breakout year from one or more should earn them the Wild Card.
3. Colorado Rockies: Some regression, but so much of this team is young and only getting better.
4. San Diego Padres: I like them so I hate this pick. In such a tight division race they’re the ones left behind.
5. San Francisco Giants: This lineup is a sabermetric night-terror.

2008-03-26T14:53:00.002-04:00

I need to blog more. Here are my division picks...

AL East:

1. Red Sox - Going to be a tight race yet again. The Red Sox owners should really capitalize on their product market, they don't do enough of that!

2. Yankees - ALCS III: The Reckoning comin' atch ya! Fox is happy, baseball fans mourn.

3. Blue Jays - Halladay prevented me from putting them 4th, but I really wanted to!

4. D-Rays - Closer to almost-missing-the-playoffs than some may think.

5. Orioles - Stop screwing around and sign Markakis long-term.

AL Central:

1. Tigers - Cabrera a beast, Willis a mediocrity. Offense is scary, the bullpen injuries are a tragedy.

2. Indians - My boys from Cleveland didn't supplement their rotation like they desperately needed to. People who pick 'em first believe in Carmona, those who pick second don't.

3. Twins - I really, really, really wanted to pick the Royals third. Offense is a little better on paper than I thought. People forget how deep the 'pen is.

4. Royals - Will the real Zack Greinke please stand up? Gordon and Butler and pray for Beltran?

5. White Sox - hahahahahahaha.

AL West:

1. Mariners - Stop the Mariners bandwagon, I want to get off. How can the same team that developed King Felix and lunged for Bedard sign Silva and Vidro? Choose a side Seattle, we're at war (is that joke stale already? ... yes).

2. Angels - I'm already pumped up over the prospect of reading all those articles about how Hunter brings a whole new kind of energy to a perennial playoff contender.

3. Athletics - Whenever Cust is in the outfield can we play circus music over the PA? Finishing third isn't a tribute to Beane, but a recognition of how awful the Rangers will pitch.

4. Rangers - Let's put the Rangers, Orioles, D-Rays, White Sox, and Nationals in their own division and not e-vite them to any of our parties. What's the pool on Bradley's trade date?

NL East:

1. Mets - Santana 1, NL 0

2. Braves - Best lineup no one talks about. Pitching will be adequate for a wild card berth.

3. Phillies - Maybe they'll try Howard as closer this season.

4. Marlins - A's-Marlins World Series 2011!

5. Nationals - We can rebuild them, we have the technology.

NL Central:

1. Cubs - I know I shouldn't be, but I'm excited about seeing Wood close this year. Dempster must feel like he just got dumped after paying his girlfriend's way through grad school.

2. Brewers - If your ace's shoulder is unreliable, get more rotation depth! Love the lineup.

3. Cardinals - Pitching is pretty mediocre, but this is the Bad League we're talking about.

4. Reds - Should be third but Baker is good for -5 wins. I'd love to see Adam Dunn in a Braves uniform.

5. Pirates - They don't even get e-vited to my "don't e-vite" division! Likely 5th, but I needed a "risky pick" for the MLB Garbage water cooler.

6. Astros - Trade Berkman and Oswalt and rebuild around Pence.

NL West:

1. Dodgers - One of these years when I pick them it'll be right. Let the younglings play already.

2. Rockies - If they had made the grab for Bedard this would've been a very productive season.

3. Padres - How can a team go from incredibly exciting to incredibly stale in only 5 months?

4. D-Backs - If they can add a couple pieces to the offense they can win the division in 2009 and hold it for a while.

5. Giants - *sound of toilet flushing*

2008-03-26T07:19:00.001-04:00

Behold Another Ensemble Member!
(this one perturbed by brilliance)

I usually say what I want to happen so this year I’m just going to say what will actually happen.

AL East
1. Yankees: Barely the second best run differential in baseball last year and they should be better this year with the lineup returning and the young pitching taking over.

2. Red Sox: Still marginally the best team in baseball I think but I can’t see Francona putting any effort into trying to win the division when a playoff spot shouldn’t be in jeopardy.

3. Blue Jays: Probably closer to the Rays then the Red Sox, but good enough to contend in almost every other division.

4. Rays: Man what if they still had a healthy Baldelli and Hamilton? At least they’re going in the right direction finally. Third place or bust in 2009?

5. Orioles: Last.

AL Central
1. Tigers: Whether they’ll be an elite team depends on health of pitching. Either way they should at least mash their way to the top of this division.

2. Indians: Still having enough room for Cliff Lee in the rotation tells me way too much rests on Carmona’s success. Probably 85-90 wins here, not enough for a playoff spot.

3. Royals: What’s that, the Royals finishing in 3^rd? Oh yes, the Twins are that bad…

4. Twins: Santana would be pretty important on any team, on the Twins he was everything.

5. White Sox: They could be really, really bad for a really, really long time.

AL West
1. Angels: Out of habit.

2. Mariners: But 1^st if they make a move for a good starter or run producer at some point.

3. Rangers: Hitting’s getting better, pitching not as much.

4. Athletics: If anyone over 25 plays well then they’re getting traded anyway, so last this year.

NL East
1. Mets: With Santana, this isn’t even going to be close.

2. Braves: Would have won the division with any luck last year, and that was with lots of minor league caliber guys giving them starts and without Teixeira and Mike Gonzalez. I think the wild card is do-able.

3. Phillies: The pitching still stinks. The division has gotten better and will leave them behind.

4. Marlins: Health of the starting rotation is very key because they’re offense just got traded.

5. Nationals: This pitching staff is all different kinds of terrible.

NL Central
1. Cubs: Their spending spree has propelled them right past the Brewers’ slow rebuilding process.

2. Brewers: So many possibilities with so many question marks. I think what’s important is that there still isn’t enough pitching depth either way.

3. Reds: Based on run differential they should have finished in third last year, and not much has changed.

4. Cardinals: I would understand the pitcher batting 8^th if he was Rick Ankiel… or cleanup in this case.

5. Astros: Berkman and Oswalt must go now.

6. Pirates: Still dead, check back next year.

NL West (Starting random number generator…now)
1. Dodgers: As long as everyone plays nice, and someone gets a hit with RISP.

2. Rockies: Didn’t have the 3^rd best run differential in baseball by complete accident.

3. Diamondbacks: Unless Haren brought a replacement luckbox they’re not gonna duplicate all the close game wins.

4. Padres: They had their chance, Hoffman blew it. Twice.

5. Giants: Worst offense since the 2004 Diamondbacks, might not score 600 runs.

2008-03-25T17:38:00.001-04:00

Pete's 2008 Take-it-to-the-bank Predictions

AL East
1. Boston Red Sox: Jacoby returns to Earth, but Dice-K gets the wildness out of his system in Japan (please?). The lack of Curt Schilling until at least July adds an automatic 1-2 wins. Oh, and contract up, Manny!

2. New York Yankees* (WC): I know, real original right? But honestly, is there any way the Sox and Yanks don’t finish 1-2 for the first time in like forever? They’ll have to find some new objects of Suzyn Waldman’s affection, but dream as we might, Sterling and Waldman are still here to stay. Not here to stay, however, is Roger Clemens, lost in a quagmire of hearings about his B-12 use. Fellow juice guy Giambi is in his last year – enjoy it while it lasts, folks.

3. Toronto Blue Jays: They’re saying Vernon Wells is back swinging the bat with a vengeance. I sure hope so – it’s not like they’re paying him well or anything. I don’t the Jays are paying him to get out-VORP’d (yes that’s a word) by Juan Pierre. The other reason to watch the Jays this year is their new shortstop – oh yes, the king of grit and scrap himself, one David Eckstein. Welcome to the AL East, big guy. Also, look for another big year in Fenway from famed sox-killer and Fu Manchu wearer Greg Zaun.

4. Tampa Bay ~~Devil~~ Rays: They finished three games behind the Orioles last year, and that’s going to change this year. The Orioles just keep getting worse, and the Rays show at least some signs of life. One of these years, the crazy ridiculous group of power arms the Rays have in their system is going to make it to the majors, and then look out, Blue Jays: the Rays are a-comin’. The only sad part is that it looks like we may never see another healthy season from the Rhode Island Rocket, Rocco Baldelli.

5: Baltimore Orioles: This year, the O’s finally reap the rewards of the chaos they have sown. The smart thing is to tear it all down and start over, but that was true 5 years ago too. Honestly, can we just drop all pretense and turn Camden Yards into a second home park for the Sox already?

AL Central
1. Detroit Tigers: The Tigers and Indians will probably battle this one out. In the end, I say the Tigers take it with their ability to bludgeon all comers into submission. They scored 867 runs last year, the Yankees 968. Anybody else think that those numbers might end up a bit closer this year? Ordonez likely comes back to Earth, and maybe Granderson too a bit, but with Renteria effectively replacing Sean Casey and Miguel Cabrera replacing Brandon Inge, the rest of the AL better look out. If this is the year Bonderman finally puts it together (he’s still only 25 – remember when he was getting pounded like 5 years ago?) for a full season, this team is going to be scary.

2. Cleveland Indians: A few question marks here. They had by all accounts a great year last year, despite carrying some serious dead weight in Travis Hafner (and I’ll be honest, that was a sentence I never expected to write). Hafner will probably have something of a bounce-back year (but he better be careful, or he’s going to lose the title of best DH in the central to Billy Butler of KC sooner rather than later), but the real questions are in the rotation. Does anybody honestly expect a similar year out of Carmona? He had a pretty low batting average allowed on balls in play, walks a lot of guys, and doesn’t strike out enough guys. Expect a bit of a regression, which keeps them behind the Tigers but in the hunt for the wild card (but do you really see them edging out the Yankees for the last playoff spot? I don’t).

3. Minnesota Twins: The Twins are in something of a confused situation. They’re clearly (or are they?) aware that they’re not in the hunt this year, as they really don’t have much of a shot of catching the Tigers and Indians. This led to the trade of the great Santana and letting Torii "Mr. Intangibles" Hunter leave to sign a ridiculous contract with the Angels to be their second overrated free-agent center field import in two years. However, the Twins have not at all committed to the youth movement, bringing in guys like Adam Everett and Mike Lamb. Does not compute. What does compute is no better than a 3rd place finish.

4. Kansas City Royals: Can we all agree to just give Alex Gordon a mulligan on last year? And to let Travis Buck face Hideki Okajima as much as possible? And to let Gil Meche keep whatever deal he’s signed with Satan? Oh, and I guess we can start the Billy “the next Travis Hafner” Butler watch now. Also, keep an eye on the Greinke Cy Young watch!

5. Chicago White Sox: It hurts me to put them below the Royals. Well, no, it doesn’t really. It actually gives me great pleasure. Not just because their announcers are terrible (“You can put it on the board, YES!!!!”), but because their team is particularly offensive too. But seriously, how much more ignorant of their own mediocrity can they get? Baseball Prospectus had them cold last year for a 72 win season. They hit the mark dead-on, but only by outperforming their expected record by 5 wins. Apparently they haven’t learned their lesson, as they’re confident about the inaccuracy of the doom-and-gloom projections once again this year. To quote the immortal Baseball Prospectus, “It’s fine to have confidence, but it’s also important to recognize when those confident words represent little more than empty promises”.

AL West
1. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim: They could pretty much cruise to the division title- nobody else in the division should present much of a challenge. Do we get to see another disappointing year from the new expensive free agent center fielder for the Angels? Even better, do we get to see the immortal Gary Matthews Jr. get paid $10M to underperform in a corner outfield role? He’s a weak hitter as a CF – he’s just a black hole as a corner outfield. Good luck with all THAT. But hey, don’t worry – the Angels lost in the postseason (mostly) because of their lack of some heavy lumber in the lineup. Torii hunter will solve all that, right? Oh, and Vlad’s another year older. See you in October (?).

2. Seattle Mariners: Monster years out of Bedard and King Felix. After that, well, better luck next year. Seriously, they dealt their one exciting young player (Adam Jones) to get Bedard, and then we have, uh… I guess Ichiro is fun to watch – he should pick up hit number 3,000 (between Japan and MLB) this year, if you’re into that sort of thing. And there is always J.J. Putz – can he actually blow the save in the All Star Game this time? Stay tuned!

3. Texas Rangers: Quick, name me 10 people off the Rangers roster, GO. Now, I guess it isn’t necessarily a damning fact that I can’t name their roster, but when I look it up and still can’t figure out half of it, then it’s time to worry. I guess they have a pretty good (if overrated) middle infield combination in Young and Kinsler, and a potentially decent catcher (at least with the stick) in Saltalamacchia, and the expectation of another mediocre year from Hank Blalock, but from there, I got nothin’, folks, which may beg the question as to why I’m picking them to not finish last. Good question.

4. Oakland Athletics: Rebuilding year in Oakland, yadda yadda yadda. The rotation is full of question marks (when does Harden make his annual trip to the DL?), as is the lineup (when does Chavez make his return from the DL?). But no worries, the return of a washed-up Keith Foulke will be the difference, making sure they finish the year in the basement.

NL East
1. New York Mets: Man do I not want to pick them to finish first. But I just don’t see it. Their rotation was held together last year with toothpicks and Elmer’s glue, and it still took an epic collapse in the last few weeks for them not to finish first in the division. They will probably get a bit more out of Pedro this year, not to mention the massive upgrade they’ll get as the great Santana runs roughshod over the NL this year. Bad luck for Jake Peavy – the competition for the NL Cy Young award just got a lot tougher. And they still have those guys on the left side of the infield, even if Reyes is perpetually overrated.

2. Philadelphia Phillies: Another team I don’t want to pick to do well, but they’ll probably end up right up there with the Mets. Who plays third for the Phillies, anyway? Must feel pretty inadequate when trying to live up with Rollins, Utley, and Howard. And oh yeah, they brought in Brad Lidge, allowing them to move the wife-beater back to the rotation. Despite the negative press, Lidge has pitched very well the past few years. But that bandbox in Philly is not going to help his tendency towards the big fly.

3. Atlanta Braves: Sooner or later, they’ll make it back. But will it be on Bobby Cox’s watch? It won’t be the same watching the Braves without his trademark bench rocking, or the ever-present possibility of an ejection. But not to worry, they could always promote this guy, and the entertainment factor wouldn’t be affected in the least. What did you expect, some comments about the players? I’ll leave that to John. But hey, was that a Mike Hampton sighting in spring training this year?

4. Florida Marlins: Another year, another MVP award stolen from Hanley Ramirez. I guess you could argue for David Wright, especially if you factor in defense, but how does Hanley keep getting ignored? Anyway, so the Marlins traded away their entire non-Hanely offense, so things could get ugly in South Florida this year. The Marlins seem to have an inexhaustible supply of young pitching, but they can’t seem to keep any of them on the field. But, if things keep to the typical schedule, they’re due for another WS title in 2009, so they better get cracking.

5. Washington Nationals: Do I spy a controversy at first base? In one corner, Dmitri “The Meat Hook” Young, in the other, Nick “Giant” Johnson. It’s a nice problem to have, but beyond that, they’ve got Ryan Zimmerman, the perpetual question of whether Wily Mo Peña finally figures “it” out, and not much else. I guess they probably have some pitchers too. Oh, and they apparently have a totally sweet new home park.

NL Central
1. Milwaukee Brewers: Man, do I really have to say anything about the NL Central and West? I do? OK fine. I’ll be honest, I flipped a mental coin between the Brew crew and Cubs, and it came up in favor of beer. There are a bunch of young players to be excited about in Milwaukee (Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Yvonni Gallardo), but with Prince Fielder not expected to age well (to put it charitably), the window for this team isn’t particularly wide. I guess I’m allowed a cliché or two, so I’ll just say that the future is now for this team, particularly if they get more than the expected 80-100 innings out of Ben Sheets.

2. Chicago Cubs: I guess that Soriano signing wasn’t a complete bust after all. Check back in 6 years and we’ll re-assess. Big Carlos Zambrano is another year older, with another year of a ridiculously heavy workload under his belt (2nd in pitcher abuse points last year, 2nd in 2006, 2nd in 2005 (just ahead of Prior), 3rd in 2004, etc.). Somehow he keeps on handling it, year after year, continually proving himself to be the anti-Wood and Prior. Is this the year his arm finally falls off? The Cubs had better hope not.

3. St. Louis Cardinals: I seriously considered picking them fourth, just so I could talk about the Reds sooner. When your top hitter and pitcher are both dealing with serious elbow injuries, you know that something’s rotten on the planet Wormulon. Phat Albert is apparently going to try and play with a bad elbow injury which might require surgery at some point, dropping him from the consensus top rated fantasy first baseman down to third or fourth. And Chris Carpenter is still not recovered from his elbow surgery last year. Hopefully Rick Ankiel stocked up on HGH before getting outed, because this team is going to be hurting for offense (and defense and pitching). In more positive news, La Russa has staid off the stupid juice so far this spring.

4. Cincinatti Reds: Ohboyohboyohboyohboyohboy! I have been waiting for this for the whole post. So, realizing that they were going nowhere after last season, the Reds somehow thought that the best solution would be to bring in a manager who commands “instant respect”. I suppose I can’t really speak Dusty Baker’s command of respect, but I can speak to his fundamental lack of understanding about the way to win baseball games. I have a hard time respecting anybody who thinks that walks are overrated because all they do is “clog up the bases” for the people who can run. He also thinks that the late 90’s Yankees were great not because they drew a lot of walks, but because they hit well – according to Dusty, they didn’t win by walking across the plate, but by hitting across it. This is of course neglecting the fact that those Yankees teams were famous for working the count, taking lots of pitches, and putting tons of guys on. And it’s been proven a number of times that the more guys you have on base, the more runs you score, and the more games you win. But this seemingly simple bit of baseball logic is apparently lost on Dusty, as he doesn’t like guys up there taking pitches – he wants them hacking. Did you hear that? It was the sound of Adam Dunn’s career going over a cliff. Oh, and Dusty is a great handler of young talent, particularly young pitching talent (see Prior, Mark and Wood, Kerry). Let’s see how that works out for Homer Bailey. My only regret is not living somewhere where I can see more Reds games, because the theater is going to be fantastic, coming soon to a ballpark near you.

5. Houston Astros: OK, Biggio is finally retired. Right? Can we move on now? Wait, oh my god there he is! Get back in your hole! You don’t play here anymore! Shoo! OK, sorry about that. Seriously, the Astros have essentially wasted the last few years, held hostage by the inability to cut ties with Biggio as he strung it out a year and a half too long in his attempt to reach 3,000 hits. The Astros are going nowhere this year and for the foreseeable future, as Oswalt and Berkman just get older and a little worse each year. But hey, at least they have the option of moving on now, even if they choose not to take it…

6. Pittsburgh Pirates: I’ll be honest, when I first drew up my predictions, the numbers weren’t coming out right, and I couldn’t figure out why. And then I realized I forgot about the Pirates. How is it fair that the NL Central has six teams, and the AL West only four? If they could relocate to the AL West, they could finish in fifth rather than sixth. Don’t tell them it’s still only good enough for last place. And what ever happened to Jason Bay?

NL West
1. San Diego Padres: I keep picking them to win the division, and they keep disappointing. Sooner or later, you would think that their great pitching combined with their cavernous park would work to their advantage and let them win this thing. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they finished in first or in fourth (didn’t we say that last year too?). Peavy will make his annual run for the Cy Young, and Hoffman gets the chance to blow a few more big saves. On offense, the loss of Milton Bradley to a torn ACL suffered while wrestling with his own first base coach hurts. Adrian Gonzalez will likely have a good year (how’s that for analysis?), but after that the well runs pretty dry. Why am I picking them first, again? Tradition!

2. Arizona D’backs* (WC) : They outperformed their expected record based on run differential last year by a wide margin. So you might expect them to regress this year. But they weren’t content to sit on their laurels after winning the division last year. Staying aggressive, they traded for the latest Oakland salary dump in Dan Haren. Haren’s flyball tendencies will not play well in Phoenix, but the move to the junior circuit will help. It says here that adding Haren will help offset some of the “regress to the mean” phenomenon, keeping the snakes at or near the top of the division.

3. Los Angeles Dodgers: Despite their possession of lots of great young talent at a multitude of positions, Dodgers management is doing its best to avoid letting them play. Ned Colletti seems addicted to mediocre but expensive veteran players (Luis Gonzalez, Nomar Garciaparra, Juan Pierre), which hurts the team in a number of ways: financially, performance, and player development, as these players cost more, perform worse, and impede the progress of the younguns. The Dodgers are in a great position, but are doing their best to fold a great hand. The duo of Colletti and Torre (not exactly known for his ability to nurture young players) is in a perfect position to do so.

4. Colorado Rockies: But they made the World Series last year! How can they finish fourth? Well, as I said above, it’s entirely possible that they finish first. I for one just don’t see it. They got a lot of unexpected contributions from young players last year (see Ubaldo Jimenez, who really had no right succeeding in the majors when he was so bad in triple A), and let’s face it, how often do you see a winning streak as improbable as that? And I’ll be honest, religion will only get you so far.

5. San Francisco Giants: They’re old, incompetent, run by an incompetent GM, and they cut ties with their only attraction over the winter. At this writing, the original juice guy is still unsigned, but it’s abundantly clear that he is no longer welcome in left field in San Fran. He can take his nonexistent range, media circus, and still lethal bat somewhere else, thank you very much. Oh, and how is that Barry Zito contract working out? The Giants really need to blow this whole thing up and start over, but show no signs of realizing it. Better luck next year.

2008-02-15T18:22:00.006-05:00

Junk Drawer Garbage

I like cbs.sportsline.com. They have a bunch of good sportswriters and they genuinely cover a nice range of topics/players. But I might have to reassess my opinion of them when this puddle of brain leakage care of NaterB makes it to the main baseball page. I can almost understand why people running these things prefer baseball insiders to outsiders, and writers who know nothing about baseball to non-writers who know the game. But why would you feature someone who both can't write and has the baseball knowledge of a casual Joe Morgan fan? On with it:

Boston - They won the division and the Pennant last year. So why mess with success? They only got rid of guys like Eric Gagne and Matt Clement, that didn't perform for them last year. So their only real addition of back-up 1B Sean Casey should be enough to keep 'em on top.

I seem to remember them winning something in addition to the division and pennant last year. Probably my imagination. Let me try to follow the rest, the Red Sox had success last year so no reason to try to improve...except they dropped some dead weight (more like didn't re-sign some dead weight)...and the addition of Sean Casey will be what's responsible for keeping them on top? Sounds like a plan I guess.

N.Y. Yankees - After their bismal start last year, the Yanks came on strong towards the end. The major thing that the Yankess did was dismiss a lot of the distractions and controversies. Joe Torre is gone, and the media has stopped the nonsense about Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. It will be interesting to see hwo the new managercan handle all the talent and egos on this team. Another key to look out for is the injuries to some of their aging players. Still, no way they don't wind up either 1 or 2 in this division.

See, I might use actual words to describe the Yankees' start last year, I guess that's how I differ from a featured blogger at "superstar" level. Glad to see the Yankees dismissed Mr. Distraction Joe Torre. Honestly I don't know how they ever functioned with him around. And Now that writers will no longer be on A-Rod's case (since he finally won that elusive 3rd MVP award presumably) and there are no other distraction s in Yankees camp NaterB confidently proclaims that the Yankees will finish in one of the two places they've finished every year since 1992. Also props to only 4 typos in one small paragraph Nater.

Toronto - Typically when teams trade big men it's always going to be a toss-up. As long as Scott Rolen remains healthy, the combonation of Roloen and David Eckstein has a lot more upside than the loss of Troy Glaus. This will help them edge ever closer to the Red Sox and Yankees, but they've still got a long way to go.

Times phrase "big men" has been used to describe NBA centers....429,412.3. Times "big men" has been used to describe important pieces of MLB teams....1. It's always a toss up too didn't you know? By this reasoning: Albert Pujols for Alex Gordon....Toss Up, Ian Kinsler for Johan Santana....Toss Up, Bengie Molina for Alex Rodriguez....Toss Up. Also did you know that when you combone some very injured veteran guy named Roloen and a no-hit, no-field, no carnival rides for you gnome you get more upside than a 0.858 career OPS monster who's younger than both of them? Not sure what "ever closer" means here, since the Blue Jays finished ahead of the Red Sox in 2006 and took a big step back last year.

Tampa Bay - The Rays have made some changes... new park, new design... even got rid of the "devil." Troy Percival, Matt Garza, Cliff Floyd are nice pickups in an attempt to get the "devil off their shoulder." In the end these will be the same sub-par expansion team that they have been in the past. They just can't compete with the top of this division.

Matt Garza is a nice pickup. Cliff Floyd and Troy Percival have sent Andrew Friedman gift baskets for giving them major league contracts. I can just picture how pleased with himself Nater must have been after making the "Devil" joke. So pleased that he had to use it again one sentence later.

Baltimore - Minor league prospects are a major part of baseball, especially if a team is looking for longevity. The Diamondbacks and Rockies playing in the NL Championship last year was perfect proof of this. Now the O's have jumped on the band wagon and gave up Erik Bedard Miguel Tejada to do it... I just don't think its a recipe for success in the AL because of the offensive mindset. So either the O's are making the riskiest move in recent baseball history or they've officially gone into "rebuild" status.

Number of major league players to play in the NLCS last year: 50. Number of minor leaguers: 0. I don't know who this guy with 4 names is, but if his trade led to a rules change in baseball then he must have been damn good. I don't even know how to make fun of the rest of this paragraph, it's quite simply the dumbest thing I've ever read about baseball and I want to punch that stolen child off his shoulder because of it.

Cleveland - For the most part Cleveland stood firm and didn't make a lot of player movements. Outside of adding Japanese pitcher Masahide Kobayashi (I keep thinking of "The Usual Suspects" when I read his name) to their lineup which should bolster their pitching. If C.C. Sabathia can have a repeat year this will be one of the best pitching teams in the AL. They won't be the surprise team they were last year.

Number of times Masahide's been compared to hot dog eating champ: 4,211. Number of times compared to lawyer from the Usual Suspects: not as many. Hot dog one is still funnier. Interesting that he thinks the key to the Indians' pitching staff is the established Sabathia repeating a career line and not Carmona repeating a line grossly out of line with his career stats. In what way will the Indians not surprise in 2007 like in 2008? They won't blow a 3-1 lead in the ALCS? They won't be playoff contenders? I'm confused.

Detroit : In an attempt to keep up with Cleveland the Tigers have finally wrestled Dontrelle Willis away from the Marlins. I expect great things out of him, despite his down year last year. They've also added Edgar Renteria to their lineup while only giving up Sean Casey and Omar Infante. They'll be nipping at the heels of the Indians this year.

As we move from the simple dash to the space/colon combo Nater writes the one Tigers 2008 blurb in existence that doesn't mention Miguel Cabrera. But pinch hitter Sean Casey gets mentioned for the 2nd time in his 2008 AL predictions.

Chi. White Sox - Their off-season pick-ups of Scott Linebrink, Orlando Cabrera, Octavio Dotel, Nick Swisher, and Carlos Quentin should rocket them past the Twins this year. Many of these players are role players, so despite picking up some solid players the losses of Scott Podsednik and Darin Erstad will hurt.

Back to the dashes now. I'm starting to get tired of trades being referred to as "pick-ups" as if the Rays (no Devil lawlz!1!) didn't give up a good player for Garza and the White Sox picked O-Cab from a stylish hand-shake tree. The second sentence here is neither correct factually or grammatically but does put the words "Erstad" and "hurt" pretty close together so I'll give him partial credit.

Minnesota - Probably the biggest losers in the off season moves this team is going to be a shell of it's mediocre performance from last year. They lost house-hold players Johan Santana, Torii Hunter, and Carlos Silva. They had a few nice pick-ups, but without the masterful pitching of Santana this team is in trouble, especially when you consider that Livan Hernandez is now a starter in the AL (I can only imagine how much is 4.25 carreer ERA in the NL will explode now that he's in the AL). Their losses far outweight their gains and they'll take a big step backwards this year.

Shell of mediocre = better/worse than mediocre?

Also, Carlos Silva is only a household name in the Silva household.

Also the accuracy of "They had a few nice pick-ups" depends heavily on how many people Delmon Young is.

Kansas City - Picking up role players and guys in the twilight of their carreers is not a way to pull yourselves out of the cellar in the AL. I like the pick up of Jose Guillen. Alberto Callaspo and Brett Tomko will have positive roles for the team, but are not going to make a significant difference for this team. I'm curious to see how the pick-up of Japanese relief pitcherYasuhiko Yabuta works out for them. They didn't lose an incredible amount, but Jason LaRue, Mike Sweeney and Emil Brown were all consistent players.

Picking up role players and guys in the twilight of their carreers is bad, but he likes the pickups of Brett Tomko (carreer disappointment), Alberto Callaspo (carreer .552 OPS), Jose Guillen (carreer malcontent), and he's cautiously optimistic about Yabuta? Did the Royals even have any other additions last offseason? As for the losses, Jason LaRue slugged .272 in 66 games last year, Mike Sweeney doesn't come up in an espn.com player search for "Sweeney", and Emil Brown slugged .347. I think they'll survive.

L.A. Angels - They won the division in a landslide last year, and they did a nice job with the few off-season moves they made (similar to most teams at the top of their divisions). They got a great pick-up in Torii Hunter, and Jon Garland will prove to be a solid innings eater to add to their already loaded r. They lost Orlando Cabrera, but I think its more than compensated for by Hunter. They will win the division, but not quite as handily because of the off-season moves that Seattle made.

[x] Loss of SS compensated by second overpaid CF on the team.
[x] Nater is a non-bias Halos fan.
[x] Fewer than 7 missing letters in word "rotation."

Seattle - They did a nice job this offseason with the free agency market by picking up Carlos Silva, Brad Wilkerson, and Erik Bedard. All three of these guys will be instant impact players to go alongside Ichiro. They lost Ben Broussard, Jose Guillen, but they'll be much more consistent and solid than last year. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

That's two mentions each for Carlos Silva and Jose Guillen now but still no Miguel Cabrera sightings.
[x] Erik Bedard was a free agent.
[x] checkboxes.
[x] Seattle blurb mentioned Felix Hernandez.

Texas - They lost Freddy Guzman and Brad Wilkerson, and took some risks to replace them by signing Jason Jennings, Eddie Guardado, Kazuo Fukumori and Milton Bradley. They're going to be in the middle of the pack in the AL, but won't be able to effectively challenge the Mariners or the Angels.

They'll be in the middle of the pack (i.e. not a contender) BUT they won't be able to challenge the Angels for first...or the Mariners for 2nd (2nd place NOT middle of the pack in a division of 4 teams). Freddy Guzman is a tough loss though, he slugged nearly 500 points over his carreer mark last year.

Oakland - If it weren't for the horrible off-season moves by the A's, the Rangers would have this spot. As usual, the A's are known for paying a little and expecting a lot, and their off-season moves showed just that. They picked up a lot of nobody's and prospects in an attempt to replace Jeff DaVanon, Dan Haren, Mark Kotsay, and Nick Swisher. This off-season is going to come back and bite them in the end.

You are a dumbshit. That is all.

One more thing, Jeff DaVanon has twice had a lower slugging than on base.

2008-02-11T23:15:00.000-05:00

Best of the Rest?

Neyer recently offered his take on it, with "the rest" of course referring to the National League which only had 3 representatives in the top 10 for win shares last year (with 1 of them, Miguel Cabrera, jumping ship soon after). David Wright was his answer for the best player in the NL in 2007. And by using the vague, qualitative word "best" he prevented anyone from proving him incorrect.

I hardly ever discuss who should win the standard seasonal awards because they themselves are so arbitrary and inexact, but at least with MVP there is somewhat of a working definition in place. The MVP each year is basically the most productive player on any winning (preferably playoff) team with players missing significant stretches of the season automatically eliminated. Also bonus points for September contributions. For what it's worth I would have voted for David Wright for MVP last year under these guidelines and think he would have gotten more support if his personality was more selfish.

But the best player in the NL last year? How can one even define such a thing. I know what Neyer was thinking, he was thinking Wright was a top 10 offensive producer, produced the most down the stretch, and also played great defense at third base (playing defense makes you more of a baseball player don't you know). Then he confused himself by forgetting most solid doesn't equal best. I for one don't live in la la land where Sir Albert Pujols isn't the best player in the National League. Was he the most productive player last year....no. But the guy was injured. A guy playing on one leg with one functioning arm with an OPS 997 has to be the best, right? I guess not though if someone helped their team more than Pujols did.

Did Neyer mean the most productive guy? Well no, then he would have said OPS-leader Chipper Jones. But does most productive mean the best stats or the most at-bats, because David Wright only was better than Chipper Jones last year because he was able to walk to the plate about 75 times more. For one I find it hard to vote against guys with the best stats, I don't think you should give awards for showing up to work, you should get them for succeeding. Under those rules Geovany Soto clearly was the best player in the NL last year, with a nod to Josh Phelps. That's silly though I know, those guys hardly played at all. If we add a reasonable minimum at-bat number of 500, then Chase Utley was the best. But look how many stars are in the Phillies lineup, shouldn't best at least be most important to their team? Then hooray the answer is Barry Bonds.

What's my point for Neyer? Stop bragging about David Wright leaving a message on your answering machine and start writing about stuff that's quantitative (ie worthwhile). What kind of sports nerd doesn't use math in their arguments? A smarmy one whose opinions are now self-proclaimed gospel, that's what kind.

2008-01-24T23:08:00.000-05:00

Rob Neyer Please Stop Using the Word Wangdoodle.

I’m starting to have always agreed with Sabes on Neyer. He’s smug, not funny and sounds more and more like a writer that people with blogs should make fun of. Especially when he writes things like this:

Top Ten Individual Seasons in Baseball History

8. Pedro Martinez, 1999

In a year in which American League pitchers combined for a 4.86 ERA, Martinez posted a 2.07 ERA that was nearly a run-and-a-half lower than the No. 2 man on the list. He also won 23 of 27 regular-season decisions before chucking 17 scoreless innings in the playoffs.

Now I should start by saying that 1999, in context of league and period, was an amazing season of Pedro’s. It is easily one of the best of all time and definitely deserves a spot on any Top Ten list of this sort. Also he was an absolute demon in the playoffs. Like, he could have legally changed his name to “Baal, Devourer of Outs” and I would say, “Obviously.”

But if you’re going to make a list that only features one of Pedro’s great seasons, how could you possibly ignore 2000? It was better in so many ways:

	1999	2000
ERA	2.07	1.74
ERA+	243	291 (2^nd all-time)
WHIP	0.923	0.737 (1^st all-time)
Innings Pitched	213	217
Won-Loss	23-4	18-6

Neyer is obviously getting distracted by Pedro 1999’s sexy Won-Loss record, and his playoff appearances, two things that he should know are faulty and team-dependent measures of a pitcher. 2000 Pedro never even got a chance at playoff heroics, since his team finished 2 games back on the 87-win, “Worst Team of the Yankee Dynasty.”

2007-11-10T03:01:00.000-05:00

Fire Rob Neyer

Not for the largely opinionated nature of his blogs while trying to assume the air of a smarmy, objective observer. Not because his predictions are wrong so much either. But because of him making broad conclusions based on some stat his readers haven't seen (which obviously must make him right).

Rob on Maddux's Gold Glove:
"For example, the voters love to vote for the guy who won last year. Greg Maddux has now won his 17th, despite giving up an immense number of stolen bases. Granted, that was a team-wide issue; Chris Young gave up 44 steals without a single runner being caught. But Maddux has always given up a lot of steals, because he doesn't want to bother with holding runners close. I'm sure that's a defensible tactic, but I'm also sure that should disqualify a pitcher from being considered the best fielder."

I'm now going to attempt the impossible and argue that Maddux deserved to win the gold glove despite not having any individual pitcher attempted steal/caught stealing stats at my disposal. First of all, I don't consider controlling the running game to be part of fielding your position. The very fact that you can't quantify how much a pitcher himself determines the steals against makes it a useless argument. But really, even if Maddux was horrible at controlling the running game, that's only about 1 single turned double by the opponent per start, hardly a big problem for run prevention.

Having watched Maddux for years I already know he is awesome at fielding, but here's the math to prove it for 2007:

Total fielding chances as a pitcher MLB leaders:
Webb: 75
Maddux: 71
Hudson: 70
Carmona: 64

Pitching leaders in this stat tend to be sinkerballers since pitchers have more of an opportunity to field grounders. So here are their G/B ratios:

Webb: 3.34
Maddux: 2.15
Hudson: 2.76
Carmona: 3.28

The only guy with more total chances than Maddux is a sick groundball machine while Maddux gets the least grounders of the group.

Now take into account how many total balls were hit in play against them (rudimentary estimate here using total batters faced - strikeouts - walks)
Webb: 709
Maddux: 701
Hudson: 740
Carmona: 681

Now take into account how many errors they made:
Webb: 5!!!
Maddux: 1 (His first since 2003)
Hudson: 0
Carmona: 2

In summary, Maddux allows less balls in play than the competition, and less grounders of the balls in play, and he still almost leads all of baseball in how many balls he got to, and of the balls he got to he made only 1 error while Webb made 5.

I don't know how this gold glove selection could be any more of a given. He's the Dominic Hasek of pitching. He is 1st or 2nd in the NL in range factor for pitchers every year since 2001 (ESPN doesn't go back any further), and he should probably keep getting the gold glove every year until he's in a wheel chair.

As good as he is now though, his stats are really something to see from earlier in his career. First consider that since 2001 the most total chances for any pitcher was 84 by Livan Hernandez in 2004, a fluky year. In his prime maddux had 95 chances in 2000, 91 in 1999, 99 in 1998, 109 in 1996, and 93 in 1990, all of those years having pitched less innings than Hernandez did in 2004. Maddux's career high was 109 in 1996 (1 error that year). he could win the award on reputation alone but he actually still clearly deserves it.

Now I may never write about gold gloves again. Of all the poorly voted on baseball awards, gold gloves are by far the worst. I've found that the best fielders at each position are only chosen for the award about 10% of the time, which is only slightly better than picking AL and NL regulars out of a hat.

2007-10-29T19:17:00.000-04:00

Alex Rodriguez: Future Member of the Hall of Compiled Baseball Statistics

This is well-worn territory but hey, A-Rod might be leaving his Yankee Mystique behind so take it away Buster Olney!

He is one of the greatest players in history at compiling statistics, the greatest ever at compiling wealth, and his next employer will have to buy into that.

Compiling statistics. A-Rod's not a great player who gets meaningful baseball hits! Those 156 RBI this year?

SCIENCE FACT: Not a single one helped the Yankees win a single game.

And remember how every time he hit one of his 54 home runs he would make a cash register noise? And then like, bring out a table and actually set up one of those old timey adding machines with the crank and put on a plastic visor and smoke a big cigar and throw monopoly money in the air and go on for like 20 minutes so he never rounded the bases or anything? REMEMBER?

He should be more like Ted Williams and lead his team to...what? Ted Williams never won a World Series? Oh.

I...I guess he wasn't that great then. Because GREAT PLAYERS FIND A WAY.

If A-Rod was truly great then he would have found a way to make these teams,

ERA+ AL Rank
2007 Yankees 96 Tied for 10th
2006 Yankees 99 9th
2005 Yankees 98 7th
2004 Yankees 96 9th

more like these teams,

ERA+ AL Rank
1996 Yankees 109 Tied for 3rd
1998 Yankees 117 1st
1999 Yankees 108 2nd
2000 Yankees 107 3rd

2007-10-28T22:16:00.000-04:00

Odds and Ends

Brief regular season summary (pre-season rankings in parentheses):

AL East
1. Red Sox (2): Despite the worst regular (Lugo) getting the second most atbats, the worst pitcher (Tavarez) throwing 134 innings, one of the best pitchers (Papelbon) only throwing 58, and the team underperforming their expected win total (from run differential) by 7, the 2007 Red Sox still tied for the best record in all of baseball. Some things went wrong, but most things went right, as they finished with the best run differential since the 2001 Mariners. In my opinion Boston is in position to play on a different level from the rest of MLB in the next couple years. *Remembers saying the same thing about the A’s 3 years ago*, scratch that, they were a fluke.

2. Yankees (1): After an up and down year with more roster shuffling than was anticipated, the Yankees actually finished 2 wins ahead of BP’s preseason prediction. Much like the Red Sox, lately they’ve had the knack of quickly picking out the young guys who will be immediately productive and letting the rest go. This has kept them afloat despite about 10 disaster contracts clogging the team. There’s a lot of talent, they’ll still be one of the top 10 (at least) teams next year, but there is enough disorganization to keep them chasing the Red Sox for a while.

3. Blue Jays (3): The pitching staff really came together for the Blue Jays in 2007, even after losing B.J. Ryan for the year and beyond. They allowed 50 less runs than 2006, which would have been great except for the fact that the offense got cold and scored 50 as well. They’ve now had a positive run differential of 50 for 3 straight years, as any gain they make seems to always be offset by some other loss. It’s a shame because in the National League they might have made the playoffs each of those years. The Red Sox and Yankees are setting a breakneck pace and don’t seem to want to let up so I don’t see much hope for Toronto.

4. Orioles (4): Wow that was a bad year. In November last offseason Mike Flanagan set out to improve upon a 2006 bullpen that finished 29^th in baseball with a 5.25 ERA. He signed Jaime Walker, Chad Bradford, and Danys Baez for a combined $42 million. The result was that their 2007 bullpen finished 29^th in baseball again, but this time with a 5.71 ERA. On the one hand I could say Bradford and Walker pitched decently and Baez was clearly injured all year so it wasn’t his fault, but on the other hand I’ll just say if you have a shitty team don’t spend money on the bullpen!!! This team is going nowhere until management changes.

5. Devil Rays (5): This would be the only team to finish behind the Orioles in bullpen ERA, with a remarkable 6.16. And this was with a somewhat capable closer. It’s not all bad in Tampa though, as they now actually have not one but 2 good starting pitchers and several young productive hitters with more soon to contribute. They’re a lot better than they were a couple years ago, but so is the rest of the division. Special 2007 MLB Garbage award goes to Jeff Ridgway, for compiling a 2007 ERA of 189.00 in 3 appearances.

AL Central
1. Indians (4): Who saw this one coming? Well, pretty much anyone who watched baseball in 2006, which evidently I must not have. Anyway lots of things went wrong for the 2007 Indians and it didn’t matter because Carmona came from nowhere to be a dominant starter alongside C.C. There’s plenty of young returning talent for 2008 so it’s a pretty safe bet that they’ll even improve on their run differential from this year.

2. Tigers (2): It’s pretty much a given in baseball that when you pitch way above your head one year, you can expect a lot of injuries and drop-off the next year. The Tigers actually improved significantly on offense thanks to Magglio’s video game season and Granderson’s emergence. The pitching though gave up a staggering 125 more runs. They are a very good young team and more reinforcements are coming, so I expect a return to the playoffs within the next year or 2.

3. Twins (1): Minnesota clearly didn’t take “Offense 101” and they continue to be their own worst enemy by giving tons of at bats to players who wouldn’t make most teams’ rosters. The only guy who gets on base (Mauer) can’t stay on the field so the only guy who slugs (Morneau) has no one to drive in. You’d think a team blessed with so many amazing pitchers would at least notice what nearly every other team in baseball has and improve their on base skills. They just seem very set in their ways of defense first, which is pretty silly considering the strikeout potential on their team. I don’t know if I’d recommend this for any one else, but they really should trade a couple starters for some offense immediately or else their pitching is just going to be a waste until they start losing guys to free agency.

4. White Sox (3): Seeing them fail so miserably this year with nearly the same roster as the 2005 world champions almost makes that whole ridiculous playoff streak bearable, but not quite. I really want to see Guillen and Williams pummel this team into the basement for multiple seasons, then maybe people will say, “Wait, were the White Sox just dumb lucky that year?” The answer is yes, incredibly, absurdly, and unjustly lucky.

5. Royals (5): Hooray for the best Royals team since 2003! They’ve got some good starters (Meche and Greinke and Bannister sort of), some good relievers (Soria, Greinke, Gobble, and Riske), and not much hitting. Most unfortunately they only have one Greinke, and he can’t fix both the bullpen and the rotation at the same time so perhaps just maybe they might want to keep him a starter where he can contribute more innings? Just a thought. They could finish 4^th in 2008 pretty easily, and only light years behind the Twins.

AL West
1. Angels (2): They prove once again that the most flashy way to score runs is through dumb luck. Trust me no amount of aggressive (bad) baserunning can score the 6^th amount of runs in baseball with only the 14^th best OPS. They won’t repeat the offense next year. They will make the playoffs however, thanks to their pitching which never seems to slow down year to year. This could be a team that adds a lot in the offseason and turns from very good to great.

2. Mariners (4): I had no idea how annoying Mariners fans were before this year. Now I list them right up there with fans of any team. This team was pretty annoying as well, but I think what they proved is that if everyone on the team is only kind of crappy, and no one is absolutely horrible, then the overall sum of the parts isn’t as bad as you might once have thought it would be. Batista, Washburn, Weaver, Beltre, Sexson, Putz, Johjima, Broussard, Ibanez, Guillen, Ichiro, and Vidro are all getting older and most are pretty average. This team looks a lot like the Giants did a couple years ago before the bottom dropped out. Except they don’t have a Bonds to prop them up, so they might just fall even harder.

3. Athletics (1): Looks like Beane’s shit doesn’t work in the regular season anymore either. Just kidding, this team would have been a playoff contender if not for a stunning parade of injuries that made you think something must be in the water. They need to do that thing again where they draft 3 number 1 starters. Or the players they have could just stop getting hurt. Since that probably won’t happen we may see a dismantling happen soon. Not a total dismantling, just a Billy Beane style dismantling where he actually increases the talent level exponentially while everyone else screams “you traded Mulder and Hudson??? You monster!” And then some random weirdness happens causing the A’s not to win the World Series.

4. Rangers (3): The Rangers really suck at everything. Don’t be fooled by the respectable run differential, they have little to no upside. They rival the Pirates for the least talented roster in baseball. Now that Teixeira is gone the only reason to talk about them is Ian Kinsler, who might be one of the better hitters in the AL pretty soon.

NL East
1. Phillies (3): Jimmy Rollins: 1, sabesin2001: 0. Rollins backed up his pre-season boast with a career year, Pat Burrel had his best half of baseball ever in the second half, Howard had a strong year, Rowand had a career year, and Utley was an MVP candidate when he was playing. All that offense didn’t really offset the bad pitching, but the Mets were so underwhelming that it was enough to squeak into the playoffs just to get destroyed by a better Rockies team. They’re going to have to keep hitting a ton if they want a repeat as division champs.

2. Mets (1): When baseball players get old and die, they either go to heaven or they go to the Mets. Sure it is fun to endlessly replay late 90s allstar games, but at some point you need to let go and move on. Without uber-talent David Wright propping up the discheveled group of has-beens and never will bes then it’d be an easy call to blow it all up, but as is Minaya will probably keep buying up whoever he wants and the Mets will stay competitive, in the way that Michael Jordan was competitive in his 3^rd un-retirement.

3. Braves (2): Second best run differential in the National League gets them 3^rd place in their own division. Hmmm what was going on here? There was quite a bit of bad luck but there was even more bad starting pitching. Many other years J.S. would have acquired an arm late in the year and pushed them into the playoffs, but with most of the good arms in baseball signed up at the moment for multi-year deals instead they added Teixeira, who unfortunately didn’t throw any nasty curveballs (though he did pretty much everything else). With as talented a lineup in all of baseball, the Braves really need to add some pitching.

4. Nationals (5): Perhaps thanks to their very good manager, the Nationals outperformed all pre-season predictions. They’re still not much to look at though. Not much pitching, and not much hitting. Without Ryan Zimmerman the lineup is downright pathetic. If they keep re-signing guys like Dmitri Young then expect more of the same for the next 5 years.

5. Marlins (4): When it rains, it pours. Three of their projected starters were injured for almost the whole year, and the supposed ace was terrible. And people were worried about the closer in spring training… Since the hitting is decent, this historically up and down team could return to be competitive next year if the health improves.

NL Central
1. Cubs (3): Sort of the NL equivalent of the Blue Jays, the Cubs never seem to be able to get characteristic years out of more than half their roster at any one time. It didn’t matter though because 85 wins got them the division in 2007. Perhaps getting destroyed by an inferior Diamondbacks team will motivate them to spend even more money this offseason?

2. Brewers (1): Stocked with young studs all over their roster in the bullpen, rotation, and lineup, it’s pretty hard not to imagine the Brewers a perennial playoff threat for a while. The “failures” of 2007 came thanks to some pretty bad managing and some even worse pitching by the back end of their rotation. Adding a solid pitcher could really push the Brewers into the elite of teams for next year.

3. Cardinals (2): I’m sure I’ll miss something, but here goes anyway. What went wrong for the 2007 Cardinals: Josh Hancock died in a substance-induced car accident, Tony La Russa was caught asleep and drunk in his car, Chris Carpenter missed the entire year after his opening night start, Braden Looper to the rotation experiment went very badly, Anthony Reyes (2006 World Series hero) fell off the planet and was sent to the minors, mid-season hopeful Mark Mulder showed that he was still very much injured and ineffective to boot, Kip Wells was awful, late addition Mike Maroth was as bad as the guys he was replacing, the 2^nd base Aaron Miles/Adam Kennedy was punch-less/injured the whole year, Eckstein missed a third of the season, Pujols didn’t miss many games but had the second lowest slugging percent of his career due to injury, Rolen missed a third of the year and slugged under .400 when he did play, Scott Spiezio (pinch-hitter extraordinaire and clubhouse glue) missed half the year due to rehab, Chris Duncan (the Cardinals best outfield hitter for most of the year) gave himself a hernia in a weight lifting competition with his brother (who received the same injury), Jim Edmonds missed a third of the season recovering from surgeries and only slugged .403 when he played, Juan Encarnacion had his left orbital bone shattered and eye permanently damaged by a foul ball while standing in the one deck circle and that was after missing half the year already with a knee injury, Preston Wilson only had 64 atbats due to knee surgery, and the one bright spot Rick Ankiel (who hit way too many of his homers for the AAA team) was de-railed by HGH allegations at a time when he was one of the hottest hitters in baseball. That all spelled a -50 run differential and 3^rd place finish. They’re not getting any younger and might not get all that much healthier so I’d say they are in trouble for next year as well.

4. Astros (4): Hunter Pence looks pretty special, everyone else looks kind of old or really bad. I don’t know why the Astros have such a problem with moving on, but keeping Biggio on their team for at least 3 too many years typifies the Houston Astros experience. The 2008 Astros get my “not a contender” stamp of disapproval.

5. Reds (5): Keep an eye on Edwin Encarnacion. And also watch for when Dusty Baker first calls out Adam “the franchise” Dunn for striking out too much.

6. Pirates (6): Really bad. Why sign Matt Moris? Moving on…

NL West
1. Diamondbacks (3): You know how I know this was all luck? Because in 2008 the Diamondbacks will probably be even better than this year and they won’t even sniff the playoffs. I do expect they will dominate the division once all the young talent starts producing, but I don’t expect the overrated bullpen to keep at it in the short term.

2. Rockies (4): Talk about coming together at the last minute possible. The Rockies received no respect all season despite playing very well, especially against good teams, but that all changed with an absurd September run to make the playoffs. Better yet, the additional revenue generated from that run and the subsequent postseason victories might be enough to keep a lot of their young players away from free agency in the future. All the sudden this division is getting pretty competitive.

3. Padres (1): They spent almost the whole year in a very good position to make the playoffs, but it all came crashing down the last month or so. It started with the Chris Young injury, and ended with the Milton Bradley incident. This was one of the strangest divisions I’ve ever seen as the Padres were the best team in the NL for a lot of the year and finished 3^rd, the division winners were outscored on the year, and the 2^nd place finisher Rockies were buried in 4^th place for most of the year, but at the same time always had one of the best run differentials in the NL. As has been true for a while, the Padres’ hopes for next year rest mostly on the shoulders of Jake Peavy.

4. Dodgers (2): Another team that should have finished ahead of the Diamonbacks, the 2007 Dodgers were the worst team in baseball at situational hitting. It was perhaps due to the youngness of many of their hitters, or more likely just a luck thing. Someone has to be the least lucky each year afterall. On the one hand you have to like the Dodgers’ young hitters like Matt Kemp, James Loney, and Andre Ethier. On the other hand none of those guys scream superstar, and there is not that much pitching here anymore. The Dodgers might be getting passed while standing still in this division, or they could still be contenders if they catch some breaks next year or acquire some help (like A-Rod for instance) in the offseason.

5. Giants (5): I’m just going to go with my pre-season prediction here “They pay Zito $100 million and finish last. Barry Bonds breaks the most hallowed record in baseball and everyone boos. What a year…”

2007-10-18T01:14:00.000-04:00

Returning to the Fold (Part III)

Runs were down slightly in 2007, here’s a look at some of baseball’s most talented pitchers who looked worse than they are in 2006 (Part I and Part II). Most of them improved which accounted for some of the run prevention this year.

Rich Harden:
2006: 46 2/3 IP, 1.22 WHIP, .191 BAA, 4.24 ERA
2007: 25 2/3 IP, 1.13 WHIP, .202 BAA, 2.45 ERA

That makes 72 innings pitched in 2 seasons, which followed a 128 IP injury-plagued 2005. The time is coming to make a decision on Harden’s future. I think he should have some kind of exploratory surgery, but if the doctors keep saying there’s nothing seriously wrong, he should probably be put in the bullpen starting next year. It’s really unfortunate since he’s only 25 and could be the best pitcher in baseball starting, but he’s almost worthless doing little more than taking up a roster spot.

Zack Greinke:
2005: 183 IP, 1.56 WHIP, .309 BAA, 5.80 ERA
2007: 122 IP, 1.30 WHIP, .265 BAA, 3.69 ERA

Despite being moved between bullpen and starter by a confused Royals team, Greinke finished extremely strong. Still only 23, it shows a lot about his ability that he was able to be so productive after missing almost all of 2006 (and that after a terrible 2005). If it weren’t for his somewhat puzzling past he’d be one of the best bets going forward among under 25 pitchers, but as is he’s still a pitcher to build around.

Josh Beckett:
2006: 204 2/3 IP, 1.29 WHIP, .245 BAA, 5.01 ERA
2007: 200 2/3 IP, 1.14 WHIP, .245 BAA, 3.27 ERA

No surprise here. Beckett carried the Red Sox pitching staff in 2007. Adding to the fact that he’s still only 27, he’s never been overworked due to his blister problems. Beckett for Hanley could be the biggest trade of the 00s for both teams involved.

Ben Sheets:
2006: 106 IP , 1.09 WHIP, .259 BAA, 3.82 ERA
2007: 141 1/3 IP, 1.24 WHIP, .253 BAA, 3.82 ERA

As reflected in his first good W-L record, Sheets finally pitched for a team that could score runs in 2007. Unfortunately his extremely strange injury history continued this year, which was the 2^nd biggest reason the Brewers missed the playoffs (the first being Capuano’s injury/poor performance). Sheets’ K rate also dropped significantly in 2007, but most of that was from early in the year when he wasn’t 100%. When he’s healthy he’s one of the most reliable pitchers in the NL. Whether he’ll be healthy next year though is anyone’s guess. Since it always seems to be something new, hopefully he’s running out of body parts to injure.

Tim Hudson:
2006: 218 1/3 IP, 1.44 WHIP, .273 BAA, 4.86 ERA
2007: 224 1/3 IP, 1.22 WHIP, .261 BAA, 3.33 ERA

The Braves finally got the advertised version of Tim Hudson in 2007. Entering his early 30s with declining performance, he was starting to become a question mark, but this year puts him back among baseball’s best. If only the Braves had some other guys who could pitch.

Jake Peavy:
2006: 202 1/3 IP, 1.23 WHIP, .242 BAA, 4.09 ERA
2007: 223 1/3 IP, 1.06 WHIP, .208 BAA, 2.54 ERA

As good as those numbers look, subtract out his ill-advised start on 3 days rest in early September and the one game playoff stinker and his ERA goes down to 2.07. It’s unfortunate how the season ended for him but Peavy dragged the Padres towards the playoffs for almost the entire year. His violent motion makes him an iffier proposition going forward, but right now there might not be anyone better on a pitching mound.

Felix Hernandez:
2006: 191 IP , 1.34 WHIP, .262 BAA, 4.52 ERA
2007: 190 1/3 IP, 1.38 WHIP, .281 BAA, 3.92 ERA

Once again somewhat of a mixed bag here, but not at all surprising for a 21 year old. Like the Royals have done with Greinke, the Mariners have tried to simplify King Felix’s pitching arsenal, so it’s still a work in progress. As is, he’d be a very valuable pitcher for any team. Considering the fact that he’s much very likely to improve greatly makes him continue to be one of the most prized possessions in baseball.

2007-10-17T19:37:00.000-04:00

Leadoff Walks, Homers, Multiple Run Innings, and Stuff

If you're reading this you already know about the great Tim McCarver related debate on lead-off homers versus walks leading to multiple run innings. Conventional baseball wisdom says that base-runners create lots of runs while home runs clear the bases and kill rallies, whereas an unreferenced supposedly large data set says the opposite. A third opinion from "common sense" agrees with said reference, which is that immediately scoring a run to start an inning leads to more runs than just a walk because hey you've already scored a run, so less work to do now. And the slightly more (less?) thoughtful response to common sense says that only what the batters after the first one do matter for scoring 2+ runs, so doesn't matter if the first run is on a homer or a walk and advancement. In conclusion of all those ideas are wrong.

First realize there are two separate questions in this one issue. The first is given a lead-off walk or homer, in which scenario is your team more likely to score 2+ runs? Who the hell knows is the answer. It depends on whether the opposing pitcher is a ground ball or flyball pitcher, how he is pitching that day, whether he is going to be replaced by a better pitcher in one of those cases but not the other, how fast the base-runner is, how good his fielders are, what the score is, whether the manager likes to hit/steal, or not, how much worse the pitcher performs from the stretch, what part of the lineup is coming up behind, whether the runner on first is held on or not, whether the infielders have strong arms (whether they improve out efficiency with the possibility of a fielder's choice at 2nd) and on and on and on. To be safe, you'd probably need 10 years of data from every team out there to average out all of these variables (or 15 minutes and a Fortran compiler, but "the game's played on the field dammit, not a computer" some old crotchety baseball man said (I assume). Personally I'd like to see 100 years of data, but there aren't 100 years of data on modern baseball, so I think that we just need to think a little more, methinks.

Assuming an appropriate sample size, the overall question of what should happen on average is simple:

In case 1 (lead-off homer), that run has already scored safely.

In case 2 (lead-off walk), that runner can still make an out at some point irrespective of what the ensuing batters do.

So given the exact same sequence of hits/outs/walks/etc after both the home run and the walk respectively, you will make more outs on average with just the walk because sometimes he will occasionally be caught stealing, picked off, called for interference, etc etc. And trust me, more outs mean less runs despite what managers think. Only in the hypothetical dull baseball game where all base-runners advanced mono-base-edly and could not make outs would the answer really would be "doesn't matter".

(Note: Yes I know not all the variables listed have 0 weighting on runs scored, but the possibility of making an out on the bases hinders runs much more than anything else listed.)

2007-10-10T16:27:00.000-04:00

LOB and Runs Scored

Amazingly, it's very hard to track down team LOB stats. I couldn't find it on either ESPN or Baseball Reference. Fortunately, some USA Today Fantasy Baseball page had it.

Top 10 Teams in LOB:

1. Phillies - 1295
2. Red Sox - 1291
3. Athletics -1258
4. Rockies - 1251
5. Yankees - 1249
6. Indians - 1215
7. Braves - 1205
8. Dodgers - 1200
9. Mets - 1196
10. Marlins - 1192

(Source: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al/07team2.htm, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/07team2.htm)

Top 10 Teams in Runs:

1. Yankees - 968
2. Phillies - 892
3. Tigers - 887
4. Red Sox - 867
5. Rockies - 860
6. Angels - 822
7. Rangers - 816
8. Indians - 811
9. Braves - 810
10. Mets - 804

Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/aggregate?statType=batting&group=9

So 6 of the 10 teams are at the top of both categories. While it's not directly correlative (and only using 1 year is somewhat sloppy data gathering, but I have class in 10 minutes!), there's some sort of relationship between leaving lots on base and scoring lots of runs. It's really just common sense if one thinks about it, I suppose.

Just remember that next time your local broadcaster laments the team's LOB that day.

2007-10-07T13:27:00.000-04:00

Rob and Me

I don't know why I email columnists, they never respond with anything worthwhile. Ok so he stopped reading at the word vendetta. Good, that means he read all my data-oriented arguments and the vast majority of my email, right? No response to that whatsoever aside from accusing me of a (data) bias, thanks Rob? And what does the sentence "I was just doing my job, however poorly" mean? So I can totally fuck up at work and then say "nah it's ok guys, I was doing my job, just poorly." I understand that most ESPN baseball analysts do their jobs extremely poorly, but I didn't know it was so outwardly accepted over there.

Me:
Rob I didn't understand this piece when you wrote it, but I figured I would wait until the end of the season and be just as opportunistic when Beckett both reached 200 innings and pitched effectively: http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2869659

The thing is you don't have to be a doctor, or know anything about blister problems to look at this situation more correctly. All you had to do was look at Beckett's career innings to see that he increased them every year from 2002 to 2006. Is that the mark of someone who is an injury risk? Clearly you can get better at dealing with blisters as a pitcher, since Beckett has. And to say Beckett wasn't effective last year seems pretty shortsighted to me, for someone who I would assume shouldn't be head over heals in love with era. We both know giving up a lot of homers doesn't make you a bad pitcher (Santana this year). And we both know that stats like k/9 and BAA are more important than era. Or they are at least a better indication of "stuff", which you were getting at with Beckett, implying that he has to "preserve" his finger by not throwing curve balls as well. Well in his ineffective 2006 Beckett allowed a BAA of .245 (ahead of lackey, sabathia, smoltz, halladay), and a k/9 better than oswalt or verlander. His stuff was definitely good last year, as it has always been. And he sure as heck didn't look like he was trying to prevent himself from getting blisters, judging by the high 90s fastball and wicked curve he featured in nearly every one of his starts last year. I think a much more sane and objective look at his 2006 season would conclude that his pitch selection was too predictable, his changeup was poor for most of the year, and his uninspiring superficial stats like era could have largely been because of sample size.

I can't begin to imagine what personal vendetta you have against Josh Beckett, but at least in this piece it made you look quite foolish. Not only does Beckett and the Red Sox staff have his blister problems under control, but we should look at Beckett as a one of a kind mid 20s fireballer, as he hasn't thrown nearly the innings that similarly gifted pitchers have in the past by his age. The Red Sox should be very happy that his shoulder and arm have been artificially under-stressed to this point, and there's no reason that I can see (either in his career peripheral stats or arbitrary belief that him getting a cut is related to his past blister problems) for him not to remain a top MLB pitcher for many years to come.

Rob:
When you accuse me of having a "personal vendetta" you make me stop reading, because that's just silly. And your attribution of bias suggests that you're the one with the agenda. I was just doing my job, however poorly.

Cheers,

rob

2007-09-27T18:15:00.000-04:00

What Baseball Players (Don't) Know About Baseball, Part II

SI Players Poll: "Which individual hitting statistic is the most meaningful?"

Runs Batted In: 41%
On-base percentage: 19%
Batting average: 13%
On-base plus slugging: 11%
Runs: 6%

So in a landslide, MLB players would rather have Julio Lugo (73 RBI) at the plate instead of Derek Jeter (71), Ichiro Suzuki (68), Barry Bonds (66), or Alfonso Soriano (65).

(These people voting are the guys who will be managing your favorite team in 20 years.)

2007-09-03T12:37:00.000-04:00

Thanks for the (Results Based) Analysis

This is why so many baseball fans watch the game but have no clue what’s happening or why it’s happening. It’s not because of clueless announcers talking about the need for the hit and run, or even the constant use of irrelevant stats, it’s this article. Well ok not just that article in particular, but having been a baseball fan for 15 years I’ve essentially read that article 10,000 times already, except maybe never with the cancer twist before.

The piece in question starts to turn south at the title “Lester limits damage by showing will.” Now it might only be because the Red Sox haven’t had a left handed pitching prospect in about 50 years but let me say I’m a big Jon Lester fan. And by big I mean probably the biggest. I’ve seen 2 of his AA starts, about 10 of his AAA starts, and every one of his 22 major league starts (most of them multiple times). Out of all of those, if I had to pick the worst one, it would definitely be the latest performance in question.

So why are we reading an article about him using his will to limit the damage and “getting out of it”? It’s because he only allowed 2 earned runs in 6 innings, and got the win next to his name. Now I’m not saying had I wrote the article I would have entitled it “Jon Lester Really Sucked Out There and We All Hope the Cancer Comes Back.” Instead I probably would have the written equivalent baseball-speak “Lester Uneven in Return to the Majors (And Buchholz Fans Secretly Hope the Cancer Comes Back)”.

I would never want a negative article written about one of the home team’s players in the home team’s newspaper, it should be all support, all the time. The rival town’s papers will push them down, don’t also let it happen from within. The problem is the incessant assigning of responsibility to the player for everything that happens on the baseball diamond. There is no room in these baseball writer’s minds for the inherent variance in the game. In other words there’s no room for any statistical knowledge in a head filled with old timey baseball clichés. There’s no logic to a ball being smashed right at the third baseman, or a few feet to the left or right, so in one case the guy is a hero and in the other he choked. On TV we watch replay after replay of a batter being jammed to hit a bloop single but do they ever replay the perfect swing that resulted in a lineout to the center fielder, no way, why would you replay “failure”?

On to the garbage:
Control is lacking, but he’s aggressive in return

What does that mean? How can a pitcher be aggressive aside from throwing strikes or throwing pitches at people’s heads? Lester threw 90 pitches and only 50 of them strikes, and not a single ball at someone’s head.

The emotional return to the Red Sox was all well and good for Jon Lester, but the cancer-beating lefthander needed some tweaks after six inconsistent starts. So the Red Sox sent him down to Double A Portland for a start, and he returned yesterday afternoon with something the big club hadn't seen before. The emotional return to the Red Sox was all well and good for Jon Lester, but the cancer-beating lefthander needed some tweaks after six inconsistent starts. So the Red Sox sent him down to Double A Portland for a start, and he returned yesterday afternoon with something the big club hadn't seen before.

That’s not even what happened, the Red Sox chose Tavarez over Lester in his last start because the White Sox hit better against lefties than righties and he went to AA instead of AAA because it was Buchholz’s schedule day to pitch. And Lester doesn’t just need some tweaks, he needs a lot of them. His regression in AAA stats in his second year is the ultimate red flag for a supposed pitching prospect with plus stuff and his major league performance his very consistently left a lot to be desired. Also he's a great guy, a great example of how disease doesn't discriminate, and optimistically faced the terrible treatment without asking "why me?" but did Lester beat cancer or did years of medical research, highly paid doctors, and his pre-existing sound health beat it? I guess a lesser, or poorer man, would have laid down and died?

"You could tell from his bullpen before the game that he had a different mind-set and was very aggressive," said catcher Kevin Cash. "As far as his overall tempo, it was just night and day compared to what I've seen in the past."

Did his own catcher even watch the game? Seeing as how he immediately fell behind the free-swinging Tike Redman 3-0 to start the game and then walked him, I sure hope he enters his next start with an entirely different mindset. Anyone watching definitely noticed the difference in tempo, i.e. Lester took much less time between pitches than he normally does, but if anything all that did was make him rush his delivery. Faster doesn’t exactly equal better in pitching. He consistently missed with pitches way high and away to righties, whereas he traditionally pulls pitches down and in to righties, throwing unnaturally way across his body.

But Lester nonetheless gave a strong outing, earning the win in a 3-2 Red Sox victory with six innings of escape artistry.

Yes because Lester artistically got a rocket down the line in the first, which would have been a double or triple if not for the leadoff and then artistically coaxed Tejada into hitting a bullet to right field for the final out of the inning. In his one big chance to really pitch well under pressure (after he loaded the bases with walks and a single with no one out in the 4^th), he hurriedly fell behind Mora by trying to overthrow two fastballs. Then with the count 2-0 he threw 2 BP fastballs right down the middle which Mora watched with a dreamy disinterest. Then on 2-2 he threw the same pitch he always does when he’s in trouble, a cutter, which surprised Mora (for some reason) enough that he hit a soft liner. Had the liner been a 2 run single Lester probably would not have made it out of that inning, and the outing would have been labeled another clunker.

"It's all on me," Lester said. "It's not like I'm just going out there giving up hits, which I can swallow. If I'm going out there and getting whacked around a little bit and getting the bases loaded, that's a little easier to take than walking the bases loaded.

Even Lester himself even knows he can’t keep walking guys like he does. He knows main flaw in his pitching is his erratic delivery, and I hold out hope that he can get it under control in the next few seasons.

"He's young and sometimes doesn't command the way he will," said manager Terry Francona. "He can get himself into some spots. But as we've seen so many times, he can get himself out of them, too. His will to pitch and compete is really really exceptional for a young pitcher."

Most pitchers, especially young pitchers, don’t even try to compete, it’s really a shame. Clay Buchholz for instance didn’t pitch out of one jam in his start, really disappointing.

Although Lester's day ended earlier than he would have liked, it was a positive development, building on his stint in the minors. Lester made one start for Portland, allowing one run over six innings and concentrating on his delivery.

Um I don’t know about that, he looked pretty terrible in that AA outing as well, walking 4 hitters and getting help from a runner being throw out at home.

It's a given that whenever a pitcher struggles but doesn't give up many runs for whatever reason, it's labeled as a gutty or gritty outing. What’s truly unfair is when the opposite happens as did with Lester, when a starter pitches very well in a big start but due to circumstances outside of his control he gives up several runs and gets the loss. All you can do as a pitcher is execute as many pitches as possible and let the bounces decide whether you were gritty or gutless.

2007-09-02T19:30:00.000-04:00

This Debate Ended 12 Years Ago and the Wild Card Won

After a final week of August stacked with excellent match-ups between division contenders, there are still writers complaining that the races to October aren’t as exciting as in the good old days. This latest bit of garbage comes from the incomparable(ly old) Murray Chass of the New York Times.

The complaint? The Yankees are involved in 2 races: the wild card race that they have a pretty good shot of taking, and a far less likely but what the hell who knows division race against the Red Sox. If you are a Yankee fan this seems like a great thing because as Chass concedes,

“Anything can happen once a team reaches October (There’s only one October,” Major League Baseball tells us incessantly.)”

That last part seems like an innocent shot at Fox’s latest attempt to sloganeer baseball to death. But you should know something about this man. You see, Murray Chass actually believes in two Octobers. One he calls “October Prime.” An October where the Yankees make the post-season and all is right with the world. The other? “Nega-October.” A blackened hell-scape where the Yankees are banished to a non-playoff limbo, while an 8-armed, dead-eyed madman he calls The Octo-Clops ascends from the abyss to raze cities and kidnap orphans.

Anyway. Chass complains that in all likelihood Boston and New York are both making the post-season this year. As of today Baseball Prospectus’ handy post-season odds page puts their playoff chances at 99% and 71% respectively. If you are a fan of either team you can relax (or do whatever the Red Sox fan equivalent of relaxing is.) So what’s the problem?

Apparently the Wild Card is since most of the article is a baffling indictment of it. Like me you’d read this and say, “We’ve been living with the Wild Card since 1995! All of a sudden it’s a problem because an arbitrarily defined Yankee ‘surge’ won’t knock the Red Sox out of the playoffs?” Well you’d have a point.

Unfortunately, Murray Chass has a New York Times column and a rudimentary grasp of the mimeograph.

Even though Chass acknowledges that Wild Card teams are plenty capable of post-season success, he continues:

Not that there’s anything wrong with a second-place team emerging on top, especially when that team may have a better record than some other division champion, and not that there’s anything wrong with keeping teams in contention deeper into the season than they would otherwise be. And not that there’s anything wrong with putting more people in the parks in September and creating more revenue for more teams and increasing the television ratings.

All of those reasons are why Commissioner Bud Selig loves the wild card, which was created by necessity when the leagues went to three divisions. But Selig the baseball fan would have to acknowledge that the wild card detracts from the division races.

“Not that there’s anything wrong with a second-place team emerging on top” and “deeper into the season than they would otherwise be” drip with condescension, and the second part is just flat out obnoxious. THE WILD CARD HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 13 SEASONS THESE TEAMS ARE EXACTLY WHERE THEY SHOULD BE.

Also, cynically bringing up revenue and TV ratings, and appealing to Selig “as a baseball fan” to make the Wild Card seem like a coarse money-making scheme by a commissioner who doesn’t care about the sanctity of the game is ridiculous. Yes. It is factually correct that Wild Card era baseball has seen a significant boost in September attendance since the format was instituted (around 30% according to BP’s recent “It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over” book.) But a real fan of the sport would be excited about increased interest in baseball and hell, just the extra number of games it creates.

The Wild Card, by definition, adds a competitive element to September. Even if it might seem to the misguided older fan that it has taken something away by altering the traditional “winner take all” division race, it has created a new cross-division race that can be just as exciting.

If Murray Chass can brace himself for a second, there is a whole world of baseball outside of Boston and New York and hacky attempts to force a “Ghost of 1978” narrative on the season. The National League right now is a picture of parity, with no 2^nd place team trailing by more than 4 games, one division in a tie, and the Wild Card race pretty much a toss-up between any decent non-Central team. The Wild Card brings hope and success to a wider net of teams, and resultantly a wider net of followers. That seems pretty exciting to me, the baseball fan.

2007-08-26T22:00:00.000-04:00

What Baseball Players (Don't) Know About Baseball

SI players poll: "Which pitching statistic is the most meaningful"

Earned Run Average: 33%
WHIP: 18%
Wins: 13%
Inherited Runners Scored: 6%
Innings Pitched: 6%

46% of starters chose ERA while relievers' top choice was WHIP (23.5%)

You really have to wonder why the worlds' sports leader keeps making their top analysts former players, and also why baseball organizations value minor or major league experience so much.

Personally if I was running an organization competing in such a complex sport I'd pick college educated statisticians, game theorists, and math majors to make up the general management team, rather than a bunch of guys who spent their teens and 20s fielding grounders, shagging fly balls, taking BP, lifting weights, and drinking. I can see why it's such a difficult choice though.

.........................

Minor league flameouts can handle the player development. Hitting grounders with fungo bats is all they are good for.

2007-08-10T19:23:00.000-04:00

Baseball Players, “Consistently” “Inconsistent”

It’s often said by analysts that part of a player’s value is his consistency. This usually results in laughter by statheads. While this might just be because saying someone is consistent doesn’t say anything about their ability, I think a couple other things are going on here as well.

An example of a player often referred to as consistent is Tony Gwynn. Looking at his stats though, he had as wild of swings in AVG as every major league hitter is subjected to, because the stat is a result of a lot of other factors, with a players ability not having a huge part in it. In terms of Gwynn’s batting averages, he went .329, .370, .313, .336, .309, .317, .317, .358, .394 in one stretch. They were basically all good years, so in that way he was consistent. Hitting .317 two years in a row is a statistical oddity, not a reflection of how consistent he was. Now what if he was on average, 50 points of a worse hitter? Then the stretch would be .279, .320, .263, .286, .259, .267, .267, .308, .344. All of the sudden it looks like he went from below average (.263) to batting title worth (.344), a huge difference. But in fact each of those sequences of numbers have the exact same variance (or lack of consistency). I think one reason why good players are also viewed as “consistent” is because they usually supply some baseline of production (in Gwynn’s case it was a baseline of .310 and then fluctuations higher), so they don’t have “bad” years.

I feel like in baseball lifer lingo good has come to mean consistent and often vice versa as well. No one would call a guy who hits between .200 and .275 every year consistent though, he would just be described as bad. But that’s the thing, stats like average have a high amount of variance nomatter whether you are good or bad, no one can really be consistent with such a stat. It’s not a reflection of them the hitter, it’s a reflection of other random stuff that the hitter doesn’t control.

People understand home runs, and getting hits. Since they are no abstract stats, they believe hitters have control of doing those things. But people are also used to hitters having good years, and bad years, and the same for pitchers. Beckett had a bad year last year, he’s having a good year this year. Right? That’s why when someone actually is good every year it stands out and makes it seem like that guy is in more control somehow, and thus must be better. What is happening though is that everyone is looking at the wrong stats to begin with, looking for consistency where there can’t be any.

In terms of the consistent performance of having a 95 mph fastball and an 85 mph curve ball and the ability to throw both for strikes, perhaps Beckett has always been a good pitcher. Last year he was 10^th in the AL in batting average against at .245. This year he is 9^th in the AL at .238. The difference in the two years is how many balls went over the fence and maybe choices of pitch sequence. He is the same pitcher though in terms of stuff. Does Beckett exactly control what a hitter is expecting, or whether he gives up homers, or line drive singles, or line outs? Not as much. What he definitely does have control over is this ability to throw his nasty pitches. This is a consistency he can control through practice and good training, etc. Those feats are reflected in his BAA, which has virtually never wavered in his career. For me what I find important for a pitcher to be consistent about is his ability to continue to be a flamethrower every year who throws strikes. As soon as he shows up to spring training throwing 90 mph instead, then I could see a label of inconsistent being appropriate. Though it is also possible he could morph into a new kind of pitcher who is also productive in his own way.

Take a pitcher who could actually be a poster boy for inconsistency, Estaban Loaiza. His BAA has fluctuated all over the place in his career, as a result of his stuff being excellent some years and terrible other years. I think there are ways for baseball players to be inconsistent to their detriment, but it’s not something you would notice by just looking at stats that have a high level of variance in of themselves.

2007-08-08T19:39:00.000-04:00

Closers

Jonathan Papelbon is a real good pitcher (career WHIP/Kp9 of 0.98/10.58 in minors and 1.08/9.71 in majors). But how much does it really help you when he only pitches the ninth inning with a 1-3 run lead and hardly ever on back to back days?

Well considering only Suzuki, Guerrero, Rodriguez, Byrnes, Ordonez, Pujols, Wright, Sizemore, Cabrera, Ramirez, Reyes , Martinez, Utley, Roberts, Granderson, Cabrera, Martin, Duncan, Jeter, Lee, Peralta, Rollins, Holliday, Fielder, Gonzalez, Rowand, Penny, Pena, Haren, Ortiz, Renteria, Mauer, Posada, Thome, Polanco, Ramirez, Rios, Bonds, Beltran, Figgins, Hart, Lee, Young, Sheffield, Francoeur, Morneau, Willingham, Johnson, Buehrle, Howard, Hunter, Soriano, Hawpe, Upton, Kent, Peavy, Youkilis, Berkman, Hudson, Konerko, Beltre, Dunn, Hill, Crawford, Guillen, Jones, Sabathia, Zambrano, Uggla, Bedard, Lackey, Santana, Escobar, Griffey Jr., Cameron, Lowell, Young, Braun, Helton, Webb, Crisp, Young, DeJesus, Pedroia, Young, Carmona, Matthews Jr., Pence, Hardy , Vazquez, Cuddyer, Ramirez, Teixeira, Swisher, Burrell, Church, Furcal, Zimmerman, Hudson, Tulowitzki, Harang, Jones, Kearns, Harris, Hamels, Kotchman, Snyder, Sanchez, Matsui, Bay, Beckett, Francis, Guillen, Putz, DeRosa, Teahen, Markakis, Cano, Garko, Oswalt, Drew, Stewart, Victorino, Wells, Nady, Betancourt, Inge, McCann, Phillips, Delgado, Wang, Matsuzaka, Guthrie, Isringhausen, Maine, Smoltz, Varitek, Johjima, Lofton, Ellis, Belliard, Halladay, Willits, Winn, Hafner, Iguchi, Pena, Cook, Ethier, Gordon, LaRoche, Abreu, Giles, Jenks, Wagner, Young, Atkins, Jenkins, Meche, Okajima, Kinsler, Blanton, Cust, Verlander, Greene, Millar, Gonzalez, Giles, Garciaparra, Feliz, Theriot, Hatteberg, Glaus, Gorzelanny, Lilly, Saito, Taveras, Wainwright, Bannister, Hall, Sheets, Blake, Gaudin, Davis, Lowe, Hernandez, Lopez, Rodriguez, Bard, Bartlett, Bautista, Damon, Garland, Hamilton, Lopez, Nathan, Wilson, Capps, Lamb, Loretta, Hernandez, Franklin, Hernandez, Ibanez, Marcum, Rolen, Pena, Harris, Gonzalez, Iwamura, Pettitte, Pierzynski, Lyon, Molina, Guzman, James, Easley, Roberts, Weathers, Encarnacio, Rodriguez, Thomas, Laird, Bell, Snell, Accardo, Barfield, Loney, Shields, Valverde, Vidro, Washburn, Matsui, Castillo, Scott, Batista, Byrd, Cabrera, Corpas, Diaz, Grudzielanic, Guerrier, Mora, Napoli, Tejada, Lowry, Perez, Vizquel, Neshek, Betancourt, Hill, Mackowiak, Sexson, Green, Kazmir, Sosa, Buck, Hoffman, Wakefield, Boone, Schneider, Wilkerson, Billingsley, Cordero, Floyd, Jackson, Janssen, Patterson, Ruiz, Tracy, Johnson, German, Cordero, Benoit, Bonderman, Broxton, Estrada, Kubel, and Lugo have more Win Shares than him, I'd say not all that valuable actually.

Don't listen to me though, just read this avalanche of common sense.

2007-08-07T12:29:00.000-04:00

Open Letter to the Phillie Phanatics

I figured if some blog about a ship influenced the pitching style of Felix Hernandez then I thought maybe my letter here to Curt Schilling and Terry Francona might git 'er dun as well.

Curt, your stuff is terrible. And this isn't a recent development, it started in your late 30s, just around the time when you tried to eliminate us from the '04 players by pitching with no ankle. You gave up 121 hits in 93 1/3 innings in '05. In your big comeback year in '06 you gave up 220 hits in 204 innings. And this year 118 hits in 101 innings. This year opponents are batting .300 off your fastball. Three hundred. Everyone is a good hitter when you throw any pitch besides the split. Josh Beckett has a good fastball, opponents bat .250 off it. You don't have one anymore. Unless you change your style you will continue to get hit.

After mowing down minor leaguers and proclaiming how amazing your shoulder felt (as you struggled to hit 90 on the gun), you returned last night and gave up a crucial home run to Maicer Izturis. Who? I know what you mean. You probably didn't spend more than 5 minutes going over the guy with a .388 slugging with Tek beforehand. You probably thought "I'll just throw strikes and let him get himself out." That might work if you had good stuff. Keep in mind however that you don't have good stuff, you have crap. You have the leftovers from over 3000 career innings. And when facing a team with 6 guys in the lineup who swing at everything, it might be a good idea to throw one in the dirt every once in a while. Since you'll never risk actually walking a guy then I suggest you retire effective immediately and let Buchholz perform better in your place.

Terry, picture this, down 3-2 to the Angels in the 7th, runner on 2nd for them, no outs. Despite having seen Curt Schilling dominate in the mid 90s with the Phillies, the evidence is mounting that he's A. Old, and B. Out of gas. Merely 10 pitches after all viewers have realized both A. and B. you decide to act! Here are your choices out of the pen: flamethrower Delcarmen, set up guy and one of the best closers ever Gagne, a man with an ERA just over 1 Okajima, one of the best closers in baseball Papelbon, mop up man Snyder, mop up man Timlin, or the worst pitcher on the team Tavarez. Now if we wanted to win this game instead of worrying about having one of our 3 setup guys pitch an inning while we are trailing, then the answer would clearly be one of the good pitchers. But that wasn't the question. Since you went with Tavarez, I'm almost certain the question you asked yourself was "how could I most reduce the Red Sox's chances of winning this game tonight, right now?"

Terry, it's not easy to win baseball games. We'll be lucky to be in as good of a position to win as we were Monday night in either game 2 or game 3 of the series. Even if we did play 2 more close games however, you still don't have to go with the absolute worst option just because you want to save your best option for this perfect scenario you are so sure will happen the very next night. If you weren't watching the game Tavarez let the inherited runner score and almost many more. Had it remained a 1 run game you could have bunted the tying and go-ahead runs over in the 8th, and the tying run would have scored. FYI. Good managers try to win games. You are not a good manager. Please let David Ortiz make all the decisions from now on.

2007-07-11T03:04:00.000-04:00

Dave Sort of Live-Blogs the All-Star Game

(And with MLBGarbage processing time it reaches you in just 6 hours!)

Catching Up @ 9:21 pm:

- Only one inning of Peavy because of a standard issue Ichiro single? LaRussa!

- The best part about the All-Star Game is rooting for the American League while actually hoping all of the Yankees play terribly.

- Annnnnd, Jeter grounded into a double-play! Score one for me.

- Reyes. I can feel his energy through the TV. Bring me some dead batteries. Maybe if I hold them near the TV his smile will bring them to life.

Like Lazarus (if he was batteries.)

9:27: Joe Buck is talking about how Chase Utley represents a change towards stronger offensive 2^nd basemen. “Even catchers are expected to hit more,” he says. So…maybe hitters are stronger across the board these days? The conditioning, the medicine, better focus on the strike zone, taking more walks, wider talent pool etc.?

9:34: Dan Haren. AL ERA leader or indie rock frontman? Seriously I’m pretty sure he opened for Wolf Parade last year.

9:37: $90-100 million for 5 years??!? Ichiro? PECOTA can be kind of conservative but it projects he’ll average like 3.2 extra wins a year during that period. Even accounting for the kind of international interest and revenue the dude brings in that is batshit insane money for ages 34-38 of a guy known for tons of singles and speed. But I guess he does plan to pitch eventually…

9:51: Take that NY Post! The Pepsi Clutch Report says A-Rod is plenty clutch! Also they say Pepsi is “the walk-off thirst homer you need for those close and late beverage situations!”

10:04: What was that? Sorry I dozed off a little during Joe Buck and Tim McCarver’s incredibly well-worn “everybody juiced their brains out for the past 10 years…but I guess we’ll never really know…but they definitely did” routine.

10:08: Ha. “Battle of Thermopylae II.” You still got it McCarver. I just like to imagine him fumbling over note-cards after Joe Buck layed up that 300 joke. “What?? I know those letters but they don’t make any sense like that!” A college intern starts pointing to objects to help him sound it out.

“Therm…(but forget the “ometer”)…mop…um…mop? Yeah it’s for cleaning…listen it’s…yes, it’s really called a mop…no, stop saying thermopeter!...ok, just, focus…thermop…then pole…then ee! Ther-mop-pole-ee! (claps all around)”

10:11: Jesus…how much coke does Eric Byrnes do? All of it? Oh ok.

10:13: Wow. Forget what I said about Ichiro. First inside the park homer in ASG History? Give that man $40 million a year!

10:28: Big Daddy Craw goes deep! Crawman Jones! Hot Carl!

(Wait scratch that last one.)

10:47: I get it, Saito’s good. Also did McCarver said something like, “Saito…37 years old…1^st ASG appearance…he’s been waiting for this for a long time!” Um. He’s only played 1 full season in the U.S. I mean, maybe back in Japan he was dreaming about being a part of the 2 ½ hour advertising orgy Fox has turned the game into. But I don’t know that and neither does McCarver. For all we know he’s profoundly depressed that he’s involved in something that kicked off with a Taco Bell giveaway.

11:04: First NL strikeout. This is actually pretty surprising, even considering the AL’s offensive powerhouse-ness. Peavy, Hamels and Young are 1^st-3^rd in the NL in K/9 among pitchers with at least 100 innings pitched. But whatever. Miniscule sample size exhibition game.

11:08: Hey remember when Pudge Rodriguez started the All Star Game even though Victor Martinez (along with most other AL catchers) was the better choice and then Martinez hit a 2-run dinger? I’m just saying.

11:32: Ugh. A-Rod vs. Varitek! The brawl that led the Red Sox to a World Series win! Why didn’t Fox show their standard montage set to Rage Against the Machine?

11:46: Thanks a lot Soriano (and to a lesser extent Putz.) I was just sprucing up the jokes, yawning off another year of AL dominance and getting ready to go to sleep.

11:57: What did I say K-Rod?? I’ve got work tomorrow! I’d call you BB-Rod if it didn’t sound like a new dish at Arby’s.

12:05: Ichiro as MVP? That’s cool. Wait he still doesn’t speak English? Roll him back to $20 million a year.

2007-07-07T09:59:00.000-04:00

Regression to the Mean Is the Number One Thing

Hey, remember after the first few weeks or month of the season, where you couldn't blow your nose on the Internet without finding an article about how offense was down in MLB this year? That all the steroid scrutiny and controversy was resulting in hitters coming back to earth? Does anyone want to know why we aren't seeing those articles anymore?

Because offense is almost back to its 2006 level!

Runs/game in 2006 .... 4.85
Runs/game in 2007 .... 4.70

And how about team batting stats?

AVG/OBP/SLG in 2006 .... .269 / .336 / .423 / .768
AVG/OBP/SLG in 2007 .... .264 / .332 / .415 / .748

Home Run numbers are a little down from last year, but not by much (roughly, 0.13 HRs a game), but I have a feeling those may float back up by the end of the year, as pitching staffs thin and more marginal prospects get called up to fill roster space.

2007-07-06T19:19:00.000-04:00

Downfall of Pitching

On XM today they were discussing how pitchers don't pitch as many innings anymore and don't have control of the inside corner and whatever, same stuff that's always discussed. Then one of the "pitching experts" said "we'll never see lots of complete games again and here's why", and I'm thinking yes! someone's finally going to talk some sense into the hosts but instead he went on this long diatribe about how kids today have lower standards so they will only perform up to the standards set for them. His example to prove this arbitrary and curmudgeonly statement was that you can go through high school now getting 63s and 65s on tests and get a free ride to Harvard.

What??? It's never been more competitive academically to get into schools than it is now, for one thing. For another thing, WHAT??? again.

All baseball players are better now. I don't care what grandpa says, players have much more muscle, throw harder, field better, have better mechanics, take atbats more seriously, pitch more strategically, practice infinitely more, etc. etc. Players are much more talented as well, as the baseball playing population has increased at a higher rate than the rate of expansion of teams. The best teams from the 90s and 00s would destroy the best teams from other decades PERIOD.

Now hitters have been able to take advantage of improvements in training much more than pitchers. Since the human shoulder was not designed to throw overhand, there is a limit as to how much you can practice pitching. There is also no way of reproducing having an allstar hitter standing in the box against you in practice, but for hitters than can hit against pitching machines that make better pitches than real humans.

Thankfully knowledge of pitch counts has been assimilated quickly so now all pitching coaches keep track of them to make sure pitchers don't get overworked. It's been shown empirically that around pitch 110 every further pitch puts you at increasingly high risk for an injury or reduced performance. Sure, we could let everyone throw 200 every night, but most pitchers would quickly need surgery. The ones that remained would be the physical freaks. This is how "natural" selection of pitchers used to work, only the guys who could throw a lot remained through the process. Not necessarily the best, just the ones that could throw the most. I'm glad I didn't watch baseball back then, when so many talented pitchers were burnt out for no reason other than ignorance.

Further, pitchers do not get injured more now. They just report injuries more, because if they didn't the injury would be reported in terms of reduced K/9, more hits allowed, etc anyway. With the talent of hitters and the quality of their equipment, it's impossible to get away with diminished stuff now, any muscle pull compromises your team and costs people millions of dollars.

I hate hearing people talk about how pitchers today need to "man up" and "finish what they started." Pitching quality has never been better, not even close, and everyone with half a brain is doing all they can to keep the best quality on the field. For the first time in baseball history the quality over quantity is being preferred, and in response general opinion is that pitchers are being "babied", or that pitching is "diluted." This couldn't be farther from the truth.

That said, hitters have more of an advantage now than they've had for a long time, so the mound should probably be raised again to tone down offense somewhat. It would speed up games and also would help pitchers stay on the mound longer, which seems to be what everyone whats.

2007-07-03T02:18:00.000-04:00

Andy Pettitte Really Stinks

I know what you’re saying, you’re saying “Pettitte has the lowest ERA of any Yankee starter this year, he doesn’t stink, he’s actually one of the few guys on their team contributing.” (or you're saying "worst blog title ever.").

That is you might be saying the former if you were any one of the numerous baseball writers lauding Pettitte for his season so far. Instead if you’re reading this that means you know me, which also means you know that if you quote me ERA #’s I’ll probably put my hands on my ears and scream “la la la laaa laa Russ Ortiz* laa”.

If I try to make Pettitte look good this year (and a child is listening) I can say that he has the 17^th best ERA in the AL, he’s pitched the 12^th most innings, and he’s been keeping that hole on his chin relatively clean. He’s also had a pretty notable career so far mostly because of the teams he's been a cog in.

If I try to make him look bad it’s much easier. His WHIP is 50^th among AL starters, his K/9 is 75^th, and his K/BB is 56^th. You might be saying, well he’s a ground ball pitcher so his G/F is what keeps him successful despite the awful peripherals. That’s fine, he is a ground ball pitcher, but his G/F isn’t even as good as that of Julian Tavarez. In fact Julian is perhaps the most comparable pitcher to Pettitte in the entire AL. If it wasn't for Julian's lower stamina they might be the same person.

I haven’t seen many arguments for Julian getting a spot in the Allstar game though while I have seen a few for Pettitte like this one where Dayn Perry says he’d pick Pettitte over Josh Beckett.

I know this is really simple, boring stuff, but people are still getting paid to write it so I might as well take the time to contradict it. Really the problem is Pettitte’s K-rate. He’s getting older and his stuff isn’t aging well. His K/9 right now is the lowest it has ever been in his career while his G/F is pretty comparable to everything since 1999 (around the time when he began to lose his dominating cut fastball). Moving to the NL when he did kept his stats respectable but the AL will continue to make reality harsh for him.

Despite his recent trend of stinking he still seems to have many fans who through the art of revisionist history have assigned him a clutch coefficient of nearly Derek Jeterian levels (you know Jeter, the man made of pure clutch who eats clutch for breakfast and ups his OPS from a pedestrian .853 in the regular season to a both superhuman and gritty .863 in the post season?) . Well the facts say Pettite's similarly as clutch, or in this case nonclutch (3.81 ERA in regular season, 4.08 ERA in post season).

*I mention Russ Ortiz because he is my poster child for outperforming your peripherals. The D-Backs learned the hard lesson that past ERA doesn’t predict future ERA when he took $27 million of their borrowed money for zero on field contribution. Don't feel too bad D-Backs, most of baseball was fooled.

2007-07-01T02:07:00.000-04:00

2006 Relief Aces

A while ago I decided to look at the top relief pitchers in baseball last year. This blurb doesn't seek to introduce any novel ideas about quantifying relief pitching, but merely examines who I think were the best relief pitchers last season.

I used some initial criteria to separate the wheat from the chaff of literally hundreds of MLB relief pitchers in '06. First, the relief pitcher must have some staying power, so at least 60 innings pitched. Second of all, their WHIP for the season must be at or below 1.25. Anyone who doesn't know WHIP at this point should know that WHIP basically shows how many baserunners you are giving up every inning, and in my opinion 1.25 is around where the "good" pitchers emerge.

What I am not counting are stats often thrown about to measure a reliever's performance, like saves, ERA or (shudder) holds (which is like a save except you weren't the last pitcher). These stats are either highly dependent on how your teammates perform, or they can unfairly reward bad pitching. A closer can enter the game with a 3-run lead, give up two runs, load the bases and get the same "save" that someone who enters and racks up 3 strikeouts does. Or even more maddening (if you believe saves carry psychological heft), a closer could give up the lead ("blow the save"), but then his team scores extra runs, and he gets a win! Lastly, ERA can be deceptive if a reliever has a couple awful outings but mostly good ones, since they traditionally pitch much less than a starter.

Anyway, after looking at 60 IP and 1.25 WHIP, this leaves us with 35 individuals who satisfied both of these goals. However, I'm not trying to measure "good" relief pitchers, I'm looking for our "relief aces." Players that can repeatedly stonewall an opponent's batters; normally in situations where the game is still close and the mental stakes are (theoretically) high.

So, we need a second metric. I picked three other stats that indicate good pitching. Walks allowed (BB), Home Runs allowed (HR), and their "K/9" rate (which represents their average strikeouts if they pitched a nine-inning game). Importantly, I (somewhat arbitrarily) decided that to be a "relief ace" you need to meet at least TWO of these thresholds:

10 HR or less
20 BBs or less
K/9 of at least 8

When this is calculated, we have 23 "relief aces." Here they are, and the fact that the names won't surprise you suggests that the metric is relatively accurate. I believe they are ranked by WHIP:

J. Papelbon - 3 HR, 13 BB, 9.88 K/9
J. Nathan - 3 HR, 16 BB, 12.51 K/9
B.J. Ryan - 3 HR, 20 BB, 10.70 K/9
T. Saito - 3 HR, 23 BB, 12.29 K/9
J.J. Putz - 4 HR, 13 BB, 11.95 K/9
M. Rivera - 3 HR, 11 BB, 6.6 K/9
T. Hoffman - 6 HR, 13 BB, 7.14 K/9
S. Shields - 8 HR, 24 BB, 8.6 K/9
R. Soriano - 6 HR, 21 BB, 9.75 K/9
H. Street - 4 HR, 13 BB, 8.53

K-Rod - 6 HR, 28 BB, 12.08
B. Wagner - 7 HR, 21 BB, 11.7
B. Howry - 8 HR, 17 BB, 8.34
A. Wainwright - 6 HR, 22 BB, 8.64
D. Wheeler - 5 HR, 24 BB, 8.58
C. Bradford - 1 HR, 13 BB, 6.53
B. Fuentes - 8 HR, 26 BB, 10.06
J. Zumaya - 6 HR, 42 BB, 10.48
F. Rodney - 6 HR, 34 BB, 8.16
S. Linebrink - 9 HR, 22 BB, 8.09
L. Vizcaino - 8 HR, 29 BB, 9.92
J. Broxton - 7 HR, 33 BB, 11.44
J. Peralta - 10 HR, 17 BB, 6.96

What some MSM baseball writers would take from this ... lots of relievers have names with a J in it!

Also, please note that Cla Meredith and Pat Neshek would probably be on this list, but they fell short of the innings requirement.

As a final note, only 6 pitchers in 2006 meet all my thresholds (60+ IPs, 1.25 or less WHIP, 10 HRs or less, 20 BBs or less, 8+ K/9). So these were the best of the best in 2006:

J. Papelbon - 3 HR, 13 BB, 9.88 K/9
J. Nathan - 3 HR, 16 BB, 12.51 K/9
B.J. Ryan - 3 HR, 20 BB, 10.70 K/9
J.J. Putz - 4 HR, 13 BB, 11.95 K/9
H. Street - 4 HR, 13 BB, 8.53
B. Howry - 8 HR, 17 BB, 8.34

The J conspiracy continues...

2007-06-23T15:49:00.000-04:00

Returning to the Fold (Part II)

A continuing look at the pitchers featured in Part I.

Rich Harden:
Current Stats: 20 IP, 0.95 WHIP, .191 BAA, 1.35 ERA

On April 15^th, after pitching 6 shutout innings against the Yankees, Harden called for the trainer in the top of the 7^th. He took a few practice pitches and then said he was ok to continue. He proceeded to give up a double to A-Rod and then asked out of the game with shoulder tightness. His quote after the game: “It's not too serious, I'm not concerned.” After 2 weeks of scratched throwing sessions, he visited Dr. Lewis Yocum and was advised to rest for 10 days. On May 12^th, he threw for the first time since the injury and “felt great.” On May 19^th, his shoulder “didn’t feel right” while throwing in the outfield and was shut down again. He finally got back on a mound on June 12^th, then an inning rehab assignment June 20^th, and a scoreless inning for the Mets out of the bullpen on June 22^nd, more than two months after the original injury. It will probably be July 15^th at least until he starts another game, 3 months of injury time for something he originally felt was not too serious.

Project Harden consisted of an effort to combine Nolan Ryan’s fastball, Trevor Hoffman’s changeup, and Roger Clemens’ splitter, but Billy Beane’s henchmen are now kicking themselves for putting it on all Nomar Garciaparra’s body.

Zack Greinke:
Current Stats: 59 2/3 IP, 1.54 WHIP, .312 BAA, 5.13 ERA

Not exactly what was planned for this season, as Greinke has been relegated to the bullpen until further notice. He’s had good success relieving: 23 2/3 IP, 6 BB, 27 K, but it still seems like a long road ahead towards being a consistent starter. The best thing might be a move to another team who will give him the innings.

Josh Beckett:
Current Stats: 83 IP, 1.07 WHIP, .224 BAA, 3.14 ERA

That’s more like it! The Red Sox are getting exactly what they traded for now. It was only a matter of time.

Ben Sheets:
Current Stats: 96 IP, 1.17 WHIP, .246 BAA, 3.19 ERA

Sheets is back this year, and finally has a winning team to lead. His stats are solid as a rock and he might just get some Cy Young award votes this year if the Jake Peavy train ever slows down.

Tim Hudson:
Current Stats: 105 IP, 1.15 WHIP, .242 BAA, 3.43 ERA

Ok so numbers do lie sometimes. Huddy’s been brutal the last month or so and is now complaining of shoulder soreness. We’re going on year 3 now that he’s had injury problems, and he’s not getting any younger, so his days as an elite pitcher may be behind him. He should be effective the rest of the year even at 90%, but the Braves probably need more than that to be a playoff threat.

Jake Peavy:
Current Stats: 100 IP, 1.02 WHIP, .204 BAA, 1.98 ERA

Oh my! He’s a healthy version of Rich Harden! I consider Peavy the crown jewel of baseball pitchers right now, especially since he’s only 25. Think about the Jake Peavy for Mike Lowell trade rumors from last winter and how ridiculous they were. Who knows how long Peavy can stay on top of the baseball world with that violent delivery of his, but for now it looks like he’s arrived.

Felix Hernandez:
Current Stats: 63 IP, 1.46 WHIP, .292 BAA, 4.00 ERA.

Some pitchers make it look easy when they are rolling. King Felix makes it look completely effortless. I’d say the jury’s still out on this year since he has said that he didn’t feel healthy after coming off the DL until his last start (8 shutout innings against the Pirates). He’s not missing much in his arsenal, but it does seem like his control in the strike zone is still developing. If it is, then it’s probably because he was able to get away with throwing pitches right down the middle for most of his minor league career. He’s still as likely as anyone in baseball to go on a crazy pitching run of dominance. As of this moment, he’s just over 21 years old and has 321 K’s in 338 major league innings. He’s not making the immediate impact that Dwight Gooden did, but Gooden had chosen cocaine over baseball by age 24, so hopefully the early/middle part of his career will go much better for Hernandez.

Just a reminder of why he’s named King, his career minor league stats:
306 IP, 246 H, 363 K, pitching against guys 3-4 years older than him at every level.

2007-06-19T22:03:00.000-04:00

Now for something different, a guest article by Dave Y. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did:

The Wrong Way to Win?

If it wasn’t for the title “Things Going Right for Red Sox, but for All the Wrong Reasons”, I would have no idea what this article is actually trying to say. Joe Lapointe, who may be functionally illiterate, starts the piece with a rambling half-story about Varitek ribbing Tavarez in the clubhouse. Just when you think this might be another sappy story about clubhouse chemistry winning ballgames, Lapointe makes a sub-Livejournal transition that goes,

“The day before, Tavárez retired a batter by fielding a grounder on the first-base line and intentionally rolling a throw to first base as if bowling…People are hearing the Red Sox loudly and clearly this season while watching them succeed in somewhat unorthodox ways.”

Ok. So. Their eccentric 5^th starter for now/resident Spider-Man villain look-alike (Vulture!) made a weird play to get one out in one game. That’s not really how I’d sum up their season so far but ok. I’m on board Lapointe. Tavarez is nuts. Where are we going? The ice cream shoppe?

“They beat the Giants, 9-5, on Sunday behind the knuckleball pitcher Tim Wakefield and a home run and three runs batted in from Manny Ramírez...But there is something counterintuitive about these 2007 Red Sox, who play in a hitters’ ballpark and are generally thought of as a power team.”

What?? You just pointed out that Manny “Power-Hit” Ramirez powerfully powered a bunch of power-balls across the plate yesterday! Then immediately followed it by saying that they’re not so good with the power.

His other points in the article are just as self-defeating and pointless:
Manny and Ortiz haven’t hit that many homers yet.
But the Sox have had consistent hitting from Youkilis, Pedroia and Lowell.
But they haven’t from Lugo, Drew or Crisp.
But Drew perked up this weekend.

Also something about Lowell being old and being such a veteran that he can pretend to run because rookies sometimes forget how their legs work being so young and all.

Picking apart a NY Times sports articles is a little bit of a fish in a barrel move, but this has to be the laziest of the crop of lazy articles about the Red Sox offense I’ve been seeing lately. Of course you would expect more runs out of this lineup. After the past couple weeks they’ve dropped to 5^th in the A.L. in runs scored. But their rock-solid pitching staff (2^nd in the AL in ERA, OPS-against and WHIP only to Oakland) has kept runs scored against them low. Low enough for the best run differential in the AL and the 2^nd best in all of baseball behind the Padres. These facts, as far as I know, are some of the most obviously right reasons a team would be winning a lot of games. If you score more runs than you allow, then you will win baseball games.

Staying on top despite the grossly below-expectation production from Drew, Crisp and Lugo, and while waiting for Ortiz and Manny to crank up their homer machines, is a good sign for the team. A couple of power hitters getting streaky all at once and carrying a mediocre team is not.

He mercifully stops stringing words and concludes by explaining how the DH rule will affect the Sox’s upcoming interleague road-trip (in case you’re not really sure what baseball is but say, your cat sat on the computer and this article showed up.)

He asks Red Sox Manager Terry Francona "what he will do to solve this problem?"

Francona audibly gasped and turned white as a sheet.
“…um…what? Heh…I don’t……wha…….…Papi…?”
He looked around for some help, any help! But he found no solace from his terrified squadron. There was no way out. No way out…but down! He darted for the press room window screaming “NOOOOOOOOOOO!” Through shattered glass he fell swiftly, dramatically, to his death.

(Ok so it actually just ended with Francona saying he hadn’t really thought about the lineup but he’d figure it out at some point and Lapointe snidely replied with a “we should all be so lucky.”)

2007-06-19T21:57:00.000-04:00

We’re Back!

What better way to return to blogging than to rip on the team that made stupid ball popular, the 2005 White Sox. Looking at their team struggling this year I couldn’t help but notice how many of the same players remain from the World Series winning luck machine. Here’s the majority of the two rosters, with stats for players who are now different. (Podsednik remains but has been injured, while Crede is out for year now but had contributed for most of the season up until this point). The stats for hitters are career AVG/OBP/SLG and career ERA/WHIP/OBA for pitchers.

Position	2005	2007
1B	Konerko	-
2B	Iguchi	-
SS	Uribe	-
3B	Crede	-
LF	Podsednik (.275/.342/.379)	Mackowiak (.259/.332/.406)
CF	Rowand (.284/.342/.453)	Erstad (.285/.340/.413)
RF	Dye	-
C	Pierzynski	-
DH	Everett (.271/.341/.462)	Thome (.282/.410/.564)
SP	Buehrle	-
SP	Garcia (4.07/1.30/.254)	Vazquez (4.35/1.27/.259)
SP	Contreras	-
SP	Garland	-
SP	Hernandez (4.13/1.26/.241)	Danks (4.34/1.55/.280)
CL	Hermanson (4.21/1.36/.263)	Jenks (3.36/1.30/.238)
RP	Cotts (4.55/1.44/.244)	Thornton (4.46/1.54/.248)
RP	Politte (4.40/1.37/.252)	MacDougal (3.93/1.46/.261)
RP	Marte (3.16/1.27/.224)	Logan (6.91/1.65/.278)

The only player on here who is way past their prime is Erstad, so I think for most of these guys you would expect something like their career line everything else taken equal. Going down the list of changes, Podsednik/Mackowiak is a wash, Rowand is better than Erstad, Thome is better than Everett, Garcia/Vazquez is a wash, Hernandez is better than Danks, Jenks is better than Hermanson, Cotts/Thornton is a wash, Politte/MacDougal is a wash, and Marte is much better than Logan.

The main point I’m trying to make is that taking both of these teams in a vacuum separately, you would expect both to be decent ~.500 teams. In reality one of them overproduced to create an expected Win-Loss of 91-71 and beat that by pure luck alone by 8 wins to finish 99-63, and followed that up with an obscene playoff rampage.

Now if they really had some kind of superior strategy or heart then with the same manager and players they should be able to reproduce it year after year. Maybe not win 99 again, but at least they wouldn’t be sitting at 29-37 in fourth place right now if it were true. What we need to remember though is that while the 2005 Sox weren’t running into outs and giving away other outs through bunting, nearly all of their positional players were outslugging their career averages and their starting pitching was anomalously healthy, leading to absolutely gaudy numbers from 5 journeymen relievers in the pen.

There’s nothing that annoys me more than a team that’s lauded for all the wrong reasons while they continually shoot themselves in the foot in an apparent effort to cancel out all of the good fortune they keep receiving. At least I don’t think anyone of us will have to watch them back in the playoffs anytime soon.

2007-05-13T00:09:00.000-04:00

Run Differential, the Neyer Way

Here's the garbage. Here's the garbage man:

"NFaleris (5/11/2007 at 4:28 PM)

I think the bigger issue is that run differential is better used as an analytical tool (e.g. for isolating "luck") than as a predictive tool. Not only will blowouts (like the A's and Rangers yesterday) affect the predictive capacity, it will have an ABSURD effect this early in the season. While I agree with most of what you write, Rob, it's a little silly to think the run differential after the 24th game of the season would tell us the Cubs would be a potential team to beat -- which is essentially what you say above."

(temp link, look for "Run differential Matters" Rob Neyer May 11th, 2007)

To add to NFaleris's great comment, the Blue Jays had a +23 on that date as well, and were 13-12. Now they're 15-21 with a minus 20 differential. Run differential is analytical to see how a team is performing, not necessarily predictive without a huge sample (but then again what isn't predictive after a huge sample?). That's what I was getting at back in "The Illusions of April." I should probably email that blog to Rob again, I don't think he read it too closely.

Personally if I try to predict a hitter's future performance, I look at OBP - AVG, and SLG. If the guy has OBP - AVG at 0.07 or higher I predict good things, same for SLG over .500. For pitchers I look at K/BB only. About 3/1 ratio and higher I predict good things. This baseline is pretty much based empirically on Webb's past performance, since he's the most extreme contact pitcher who is actually good, and that's about what his K/BB is generally. I think the same stats are good predictors for teams, but also record in 1 run games is relevant since a team with a very good 1 run game record will most likely fall off their pace and vice versa. In this way you can avoid the skewed data of run differential where a couple blowups from fringe pitchers can impact it.

Caveat: Some weird things happen when players get old. Old hitters often increase their walk rate as their bats slow and they foul more pitches off instead of putting them in play. This brings up their OBP - AVG. Since higher OBP helps their team it's still not a bad predictor of "good things." But on the flip side, as great pitchers age, they can maintain a high K/BB as they lose effectiveness. I hypothesize that this is because "stuff" degrades before control, so a guy could continue throwing strikes as his stuff gets worse, leading to more hits and runs scored against. That's not a "good thing", but anecdotally it only seems to happen to the great ones who refuse to paint the corners even as their stuff diminishes, since they've never pitched that way before. See Schilling (2005) who seems to have adapted or Johnson (2006-) to see what I'm hypothesizing about.

2007-05-12T01:35:00.000-04:00

True MLB Garbage

This guy. And has the nerve to say the Red Sox don't need Clemens. Reminds me of Mike Lansing clamoring for more playing time back in the days of his Robinson Cano esque OBP.

On the other side of the spectrum, I'm starting to be convinced for the first time in 3 years that Johan Santana isn't the best pitcher in MLB. I think Jake Peavy is really giving him a run for the informal title.

2007-04-17T01:01:00.000-04:00

It’s True Because it’s Science!

I was very interested to read about this "mathematician who applies math to real-life situations." Imagine that, applying math to the real world. Such a novel idea almost makes me forget that the field of applied mathematics already exists. Anyway Bruce Bukiet's results in this study are silly enough to confirm there are flaws inherent to the projection. I can just use some simple baseball truths to dispute his conclusion that the Yankees should be projected to win 110 games this year and “dominate baseball.”

Truth 1: There haven’t been any truly dominant baseball teams in the last 5 years, and since the Yankees didn’t acquire too many former MVPs last offseason to stash on the bench, there is no reason to think their flawed roster will suddenly be dominant. From 2002 until now, only one team has won 105 games, and that was the 2004 Cardinals. Parity is up (comprehensive statistical analysis not shown) which means there are less easy teams to play and there are no flawless teams who you would expect to dominate.

Truth 2: It is indeed silly to try to exactly who will be injured when, but projecting everyone to stay healthy is silly as well. At the very least one should average how many games a player has played per year when trying to project a future season from that player. Red Sox management didn’t say “who knows if Pedro will get hurt, let’s sign him up for 5 years.” No, they did the best projection they could based on medical history. I could come up with a statistical study saying the Cubs will win 90 games this year, but how relevant would a projection be that assumes Mark Prior starts 35 games and posts a 2.00 ERA? Just because an entirely healthy Yankees roster producing at 100% could win 110 games (no probably not), doesn’t mean they are likely to this year.

Truth 3: Hitting is 5-10% more important than pitching but you’re not going to win 110 games without strong starting pitching. The Yankees have a dynamic enough lineup where you could say they have enough hitting to win 110, but let’s look at the rotations of the last few 105 game winners to see what Pavano et al. have to live up to.

2004 Cardinals:
Jason Marquis: 32 starts, 201 1/3 innings
Matt Morris: 32 starts, 202 innings
Jeff Suppan: 31 starts, 188 innings
Woody Williams: 31 starts, 189 2/3 innings
Chris Carpenter: 28 starts, 182 innings

2001 Mariners:
Freddy Garcia: 34 starts, 238 2/3 innings
Jaime Moyer: 33 starts, 209 2/3 innings
Aaron Sele: 33 starts, 215 innings
Paul Abbott: 27 starts, 163 innings
John Halama: 17 starts, 110 1/3 innings (including relief)
Joel Pineiro: 11 starts, 75 1/3 innings (including relief)

1998 Braves:
Greg Maddux: 34 starts, 251 innings
Tom Glavine: 33 starts, 229 1/3 innings
Denny Neagle: 31 starts, 210 1/3 innings
Kevin Millwood: 31 starts, 174 1/3 innings
John Smoltz: 26 starts, 167 2/3 innings

1998 Yankees:
Andy Pettitte: 32 starts, 216 1/3 innings
David Cone: 31 starts, 207 2/3 innings
David Wells: 30 starts, 214 1/3 innings
Hideki Irabu: 28 starts, 173 innings
Orlando Hernandez: 21 starts, 141 innings

Just for kicks I’ll also include data from the first 114 games played by the star-crossed 1994 Expos who were on pace to win 105 games before the strike doomed them:
Ken Hill: 23 starts, 154 2/3 innings (on pace for 220 ip)
Pedro Martinez: 23 starts, 144 2/3 innings (on pace for 205 ip)
Jeff Fassero: 21 starts, 138 2/3 innings (on pace for 197)
Kirk Rueter: 20 starts, 92 1/3 innings
Butch Henry: 15 starts, 107 1/3 innings (including relief)

Regardless of raw performance (which actually does vary somewhat among all these pitchers), what is consistent here for the juggernaut teams are rotations that pitch lots and lots of innings. The simplest way to have a rotation shoulder a lot of innings is to keep the original 5 starters healthy, because it’s not easy to find replacement starters who will also give you 7+ innings every time out. In other words, you need most all your pitchers healthy to have a dominant year. This is accomplished generally by getting really lucky because no one has yet figured out how to keep starters healthy. The trickle down effect is known however; when you have 3 or more starters throwing 200+ innings then it greatly lessens the workload on the bullpen, which helps the quality relievers stay healthy.

To quantify, here are the percentages of these teams’ games starter by the core 5 starters (or in the case of the Mariners, the core 6, as both Halama and Pineiro supplied quality starts as a tag team).

2004 Cardinals: 95%
2001 Mariners: 96%
1998 Braves: 96%
1998 Yankees: 88%
1994 Expos: 89%

Let’s consider the Yankees theoretical best case rotation for this year:
Mike Mussina: 2 starts, 6 innings, currently on DL
Chien-Ming Wang: 0 starts, 0 innings, currently on DL
Carl Pavano: 2 starts, 11 1/3 innings, currently on DL
Andy Pettite: 3 starts, 17 innings
Kei Igawa: 2 starts, 10 1/3 innings

So far they’ve started 81% of the Yankees’ games but that number will go down even farther soon. I’ll go ahead and ruin the ending for you, Pettite might throw 200 innings, but no one else on this list will be close. Also checking the roster depth charts quickly, it’s evident that the Yankees don’t have a boatload of quality starters and relievers at in the waiting as replacements.

Conclusion: The Yankees are as flawed as they were last year when the majority of baseball analysts predicted them to dominate baseball and win the World Series, while I wrote this instead. At this point to win 110 games, they’d have to go 105-46 the rest of the season (nearly a 0.700 win percentage) which absolutely won’t happen considering the state of their pitching and that there are at least 8 other possible 90 win teams in the AL. The Yankees will probably slug their way to 95 wins, but 110 is completely out of the question. Tell your statistics to shut up math guy!

Update: I did some more research on Bruce Bukiet and turns out he uses the Markov Chain method of statistical prediction, interestingly enough one of the very same methods implemented by my advisor here at MIT to model hurricane tracks. This works for hurricanes because they don’t “know” what has happened to them in the past, whereas a baseball player’s body and mind does. For instance, I once saw a study (reference missing) which simulated a baseball season in which every hitter was given a 27% chance of getting a hit every time at bat. At the end of the year there were many hitters in this simulation who had 0.320+ batting averages and even some well above that. So why don’t we in practice see many (if any?) career .270 hitters suddenly win batting titles due to the fluctuations in the final results of a series of somewhat random events? One effect is that hitters inevitably eventually slump, get frustrated, and over that time don’t produce as well as they should. It’s the same reason that many very skilled poker players don’t maximize their win rate. A bad week can make anyone play a little worse. Another effect is that a very hot hitter will be pitched to differently (or not pitched to altogether), making it more difficult to maintain his average. Both these, and probably many more effects, make regression to the mean happen in baseball faster than it statistically should. This is why I don’t think Markov Chains should be used when trying to predict the activities of individual humans. I like a PECOTA method much better, since it uses raw data produced by humans, not simulated data produced by logic boxes. I also can’t seem to find what kind of injury projections he includes, if any, so I’m not changing the wording of my “Truth 2” paragraph.

2007-04-08T16:17:00.000-04:00

Last Year's One Run Anomalies

Statistics suggest that as a rule, over the course of the season teams will go .500 in games decided by one run. Every year however there are some teams that (either due to luck or perhaps an absurdly bad/good bullpen) tend to dramatically overperform or underperform in that category. For example, the Washington Nationals in their first year led their division for almost half a season, and this was largely due to a ridiculously fortunate record in one-run games. As the season progressed, their numbers regressed to the mean (ending at 30-31 in 1-R games) and they returned to the bottom of the division.

So, here are teams that last year in 2006 had a record well above or below .500 in one-run situations. While not a guarantee, keep an eye on them because they may very well win more or less if their 2007 1-R outcomes come back to earth.

Overperformers:

Toronto 20-10 (0.667)
Boston 29-20 (0.592)
Minnesota 20-11 (0.645)
Oakland 32-22 (0.593)
NY Mets 31-16 (0.66)

Underperformers:

Cleveland 18-26 (0.409)
Kanasa City 14-24 (0.368)
Texas 17-26 (0.395)
Atlanta 19-33 (0.365)

Where these results might be felt the most this season is in the NL East. Both the Braves and the Mets had two of the biggest 1-R disparities last season. If both come back to the mean this season, and considering the Phillies were right around 0.500 last year, we may have quite the divisional race on our hands. The 1-R factor may also come into play in the AL wild card race this season, where many potential playoff teams had aberrational 1-R records.

2007-04-05T22:06:00.000-04:00

Returning to the Fold (Part I)

A funny thing about the last couple years in MLB was that many of the very best pitchers were either inactive or too ineffective to be considered the ace of their team. All of these guys fit that description and I hope very much that their strong first starts are a sign that they'll be able to return to their peak performance level over the full 2007 season. All of them are very young (except Hudson who is 31) so they still have time to rise to the top and stay there for the foreseeable future. Hopefully I'll be writing a similar blurb for Francisco Liriano after his first start of 2008.

Rich Harden:
Coming Back From: Missing most of last year after an injury-plagued 2005.
Aspires to Be: John Smoltz.
First Start: 7 ip, 3 h, 0 er, 7 k
Best Sign: Looks and feels healthy.

Zack Greinke:
Coming Back From: Uncertain circumstances, but he only pitched a couple times out of the pen last year after getting hammered all 2005. It was only the inept team behind him that hid how amazing he was for it being his first year in 2004.
Aspires to Be: Bret Saberhagen.
First Start: 7 ip, 8 h, 1 er, 7 k
Best Sign: Didn’t give up 10 runs. And he’s still only 23.

Josh Beckett:
Coming Back From: Disappointing first 200 ip year. He's already been at the top in the NL. Now he just needs to figure out how to do it in the AL.
Aspires to Be: Curt Schilling.
First Start: 5 ip, 2 h, 1 er, 5 k
Best Sign: Has finally admitted some willingness to adapt.

Ben Sheets:
Coming Back From: Two straight injury-filled years.
Aspires to Be: Darryl Kile with a better fastball.
First Start: 9 ip, 2 h, 1 er, 3 k
Best Sign: His extremely efficient, Roy Halladay-esque first outing.

Jake Peavy:
Coming Back From: Less effective 2006 season (see earlier post).
Aspires to Be: Kevin Brown circa 1998.
First Start: 6 ip, 3 h, 0 er, 6 k
Best Sign: Getting ahead of hitters and seems to be completely healthy.

Tim Hudson:
Coming Back From: A bad 2006 which followed an unimpressive 2005.
Aspires to Be: Tim Hudson circa 2000.
First Start: 7 ip, 2 h, 1 er, 5 k
Best Sign: Movement on pitches seems to be back.

Felix Hernandez:
Coming Back From: A disappointing first full season (disappointing in that he didn’t win the AL Cy Young at age 20).
Aspires to Be: Dwight Gooden or Pedro Martinez with more stamina.
First Start: 8 ip, 3 h, 0 er, 12 k
Best Sign: Has come back with stronger determination and physique. His stuff belongs in some league a level above MLB. Despite being brought along slowly given his minor league domination, he's still only 20 years old entering his third MLB year.

2007-03-26T13:51:00.000-04:00

Math Lesson

I don't know how long this link will work, but if you go there and click on "Video: Seeing Joel Zumaya's fastball up close," you'll see 2 things, an equation for velocity and some really sweet looking tattoos for a smoke-throwing reliever. The equation presented is velocity = speed / time. Speed divided by time gives you the units distance divided by time squared, namely acceleration, not velocity.

2007-03-24T20:20:00.000-04:00

Whatchu Talkin 'Bout Mnookin?

Hot off the presses, some stinking mlb garbage from Seth Mnookin. Basically the point of his blog is to say hey, based on some seemingly sober projections of both Papelbon and Tavarez this year, maybe Papelbon actually is more valuable as a reliever. Actually some of the theory behind it is plausible to the point of intrigue. He kind of stumbles backside first into showing how VORP can be used somewhat as measure of reliever use efficiency. But he doesn't run with this and examine how Papelbon could be more useful as a roving relief ace than a starter. Instead he ineffectively throws some stats at us that he obviously doesn't understand and then concludes with some contradictory and befuddling final statements. Or as my bee said "It's a barrage of half-baked "statistical" "analysis" finishing with him saying that none of that matters and it's a good move because poor widdle papelbon might cry more if he were a starter."

My basic criticism of this is his ignorant usage of PECOTA. First he tries to predict Tavarez's starting success based on his PECOTA 2007 relief Won-Loss and ERA, two quantities that tell us very little about what we should expect from him as a starter. Quoting us the Won-Loss record says absolutely nothing. Also it's been shown statistically that one should expect about a 1 run differential in ERA between starting and relieving. A reliever should on average expect about a 1 run increase in their ERA. Suddenly Tavarez goes from solid back of the rotation starter to disaster. This is a major point when considering the ramifications of Papelbon closing this year. If the Red Sox had 5 ace starters and then Papelbon, well at that point him closing seems slightly sane. But like any major league team, they need all the quality arms in their rotation that they can get. Plenty of teams would thank their lucky stars to have Papelbon start for them, and are shaking their heads over the Red Sox refusing the opportunity.

He then follows that up by quoting Papelbon's PECOTA verbatim and doesn't even think twice about why the predictions are so conservative with him. Now I've just shown that even at 10-6 with a 4 ERA Papelbon will still be a drastic improvement over Tavarez, but really the reason the projection is so conservative is that it is based on a database of thousands of 1 or 2-pitch relievers who were forced into starting by their team due to lack of better options. Most young relief pitches (who PECOTA is comparing Papelbon to) don't have the stamina, experience, or pitch selection to be above average starters. Papelbon is really a starter who briefly worked as a reliever, but PECOTA doesn't know everything about him. It knows he did well in the minors, but he was old for almost every level he pitched at, which significantly undervalues you nomatter how good your stats are. Based on predictable learning curves for late teen, early 20s minor leaguers, being old for your level usually results in very low expectations by any reasonable projection tool. PECOTA sees him as a 4A starter turned reliever who is now being forced into the rotation, I don't blame it for being conservative. Those type pitchers tend to fail. See Leonard DiNardo.

Two other incorrect things he has sprinkled this irrelevant piece with are "There's undoubtedly a big psychological boost that comes with having a lights-out flamethrower set to slam shut the door at the end of the game" and "Borowski looked like an elite reliever last year." Referring to the former, I'm not sure how psychologically sound a team would be which had an excellent closer but no leads to protect. Oh wait I do know the psychological state of a team like that, I saw the Pirates play last year. It's a team so disinterested that teammates call each other out for not focusing on defense. I do understand what was meant to be his point, but I don't think our first order of business should be making Francona's late inning job easier, it should be having our best pitchers pitch the most innings possible so we can most effectively crush our opponents. Referring to the latter statement, Borowski had a 1.94 K/BB ratio last year. For reference, here are what some legitimate elite relievers had for K/BB last year: B.J. Ryan - 4.30, Mariano Rivera - 5.00, our boy Papelbon - 5.77, Joe Nathan - 5.94, J.J. Putz - 8.00, Pat Neshek - 8.83. Joe Borowski did not look like an elite reliever last year. His 3.75 ERA in a huge ballpark in the National League didn't even make him look that way. Honestly if Mnooken can't see this, why is he writing about baseball in the first place?

I can't say I really understand the confusing argument he transitions to towards the end of his blog, but suffice to say thinking that Red Sox Nation will be complacent with 4-5 inning below average starts from Julian Tavarez next year shows how out of touch he is on the issue.

2007-03-22T16:31:00.000-04:00

Who Wants to Boycott the Red Sox With Me?

This is pretty much the worst news I could have heard today. Putting Papelbon back in as closer costs this team 5 wins at least this year, continues the organization's 20 year stretch of complete mismanagement of young organizational pitching talent, and plays roulette with the health of the best young arm on the Red Sox. Not being able to see through the ignorant naysayers to the real value of Papelbon really calls into question the intelligence of this organization. Even without taking into account how many fewer games over the next however many years we'll win, it's just common sense that if a pitcher has prepared all offseason and spring to start, you don't switch him out of the spot with 2 weeks to go before the season starts. This move offends me as both a Red Sox and baseball fan. It's absolutely unbelievable how reactionary and arbitrary the decision making has been in the last couple years under Epstein/Francona.

I don't care how good they are this year. This team could have been great. And this year could have established a core group of 4 starters to dominate the AL for the next 5 years. Now I guess I'll have to watch Tavarez suck every 5 days. Because of course also remember that apparently Lester's going to be wasting bullets on AAA nobodies for the foreseeable future.

Updated AL East standings:
1. New York Yankees: Unless Mussina is moved to long man.

2007-03-20T00:52:00.000-04:00

Preseason Cheat Sheet Straight from Bud Selig’s Desk

AL East
1. Boston Red Sox: Too sexy for 2nd place.
2. NY Yankees: Sorry, keeping a couple random prospects doesn’t make your team young again. 3. Toronto Blue Jays: They just never are going to make it are they.
4. Baltimore Orioles: Couple bright spots keep them out of last.
5. Tampa Bay Devil Rays: Only team with more young talented hitters than the D-Backs. If they had the Marlin’s luck they’d probably win the World Series this year. But they don’t, and they won’t.

AL Central
1. Minnesota Twins: The Tigers are primed for a drop-off, and the Twins will have just enough to pull it out.
2. Detroit Tigers: Offseason moves keep them from dropping off too much.
3. Chicago White Sox: How did so many innings-eaters and all or nothing hitters get on one team?
4. Cleveland Indians: The top of their roster could compete with any team, but the bottom is pretty awful.
5. Kansas City Royals: Teahen, Greinke, and pray for Alex Gordon.

AL West
1. Oakland: It’s going to be a close race again this year but Crosby, Chavez, and Harden will finally lead the way instead of holding them back.
2. Anaheim Angels: Lots of good pitching, not a bat to be found.
3. Texas Rangers: This team bores me. C’mon Teixeira win an MVP already.
4. Seattle: Sorry Felix, you’re destined to be the Kevin Garnett of baseball.

NL East
1. NY Mets: They’ve got that competitive spirit that wins games! Also money. Lots and lots of money.
2. Atlanta: Still teetering between playoff threat and complete collapse.
3. Philadelphia Phillies: To Jimmy Rollins, you ain’t winning squat this year. Have you looked at your pitching staff?
4. Florida Marlins: Not far from the Phillies, but will regress some.
5. Washington Nationals: Very far from the Marlins. Oh my the pitching is bad.

NL Central
1. Milwaukee Brewers: My craziest prediction ever. This is the year, the Brew Crew’s taking it.
2. St. Louis Cardinals: Remind me of the Braves in a lot of ways, they will struggle to make the playoffs.
3. Chicago Cubs: Hard to gauge this team, so many new, shiny, expensive players must mean more wins right?
4. Houston Astros: Stop pretending! You’re not contenders any more, and you’re not really that close.
5. Cincinnati Reds: Ditto, except you were never contenders.
6. Pittsburgh Pirates: What’s tougher than being a Pirates fan?

NL West
1. San Diego Padres: Picked ‘em in a close call last year and they won so I’m doing it again this year. Peavy will bounce back.
2. Los Angeles Dodgers: Red Sox west misses the playoffs this year.
3. Arizona Diamondbacks: They will own this division in due time.
4. Colorado Rockies: They’ve got more young talent than you think.
5. San Francisco Giants: They pay Zito $100 million and finish last. Barry Bonds breaks the most hallowed record in baseball and everyone boos. What a year…

2007-03-18T17:29:00.000-04:00

Ben's Preseason Predictions

Somehow I feel like they aren't much different from last year, but I'd have to check.

AL East

1. Boston Red Sox - this is it. If this team doesn't unseat the Yankees, I think the Braves streak is in serious jeopardy. If Pineiro can serviceabley close, the bullpen will be a lot more solid than the deluge of criticism suggests.
2. NY Yankees - Unfortunately their ability to assemble any lineup they want hides most of their pitching woes. Cano and Wang come back to earth.
3. Toronto Blue Jays - keep tryin' J.P. Ricciardi. Very close to wild-card range here, maybe give them another year of tweaking.
4. Tampa Bay Devil Rays - contraction please.
5. Baltimore Orioles - when you sign Traschel to replace Benson, you've got plenty of problems.

AL Central

1. Cleveland Indians - I'm just going to keep picking them until their run differential pans out the way it should. Only Foulke is able to screw over two teams in a matter of months.
2. Chicago White Sox - If Konerko/Dye/Thome didn't exist this team is a laughing-stock.
3. Detroit Tigers - Please let Zumaya close, you'll pick up wins!
4. Minnesota Twins - Pass a collection plate every game to raise money for Santana's extension.
5. Kansas City Royals - I love the '80s!

AL West

1. Oakland - Harden and Haren and pray for .... no elbow catastrophes?
2. Anaheim Angels - man that's a bad lineup with a chewy Guerrero center.
3. Texas - I feel like they've missed their opportunity to take it to the next level with their current core. If Gagne's close to who he was, they could have an interesting season.
4. Seattle - Let's hope year two of his reign is kinder to King Felix.

NL East

1. Atlanta - their lineup is competitive with the Mets despite half the press, and their pitching is probably deeper.
2. NY Mets - Pedro's going to be a reliever in a year or two.
3. Philadelphia Phillies - Close but perennially short.
4. Florida Marlins - They'll be breathing heat down the rest of the division's neck all year.
5. Washington Nationals - cherry trees?

NL Central

1. St. Louis Cardinals - book it.
2. Chicago Cubs - that's a lot of money they spent to possibly miss the playoffs.
3. Milaukee Brewers - if Sheets is finally healthy.
4. Houston Astros - Losing Pettite and possibly Clemens in one offseason is going to hurt.
5. Cincinnati Reds - I actually forgot them when I first did my list, I guess that sums it up.
6. Pittsburgh Pirates - whoa, Jason Bay's already 28.

NL West

1. Los Angeles Dodgers - in the largest pitching-friendly division, they have the most of it.
2. San Diego Padres - if only their lineup was a little deeper.
3. Arizona Diamondbacks - if this team keeps Webb, they could be somebody in a couple years
4. San Francisco Giants - they should've been rebuilding 3 years ago.
5. Colorado Rockies - sigh.

2007-03-14T23:47:00.000-04:00

The 2007 AL East Division Winning Boston Red Sox.

Last March I correctly surmised that the Yankees would win the division once again barring a lot of major injuries. They did win, and they even won taking into account some big injuries. I also thought the Blue Jays would easily win 90 games, with the Red Sox right in between the Yankees and them in a close race. The Jays only won 87, but things played out generally how I expected save for the Red Sox “collapse” late in the season, with collapse in quotes since it was more a regression to their expected win-loss than a result of some external unluckiness. The key thing to take from how the season played out though was how closely matched the top three in the AL East were, so close that the performance level from a few select players were enough to drive the Red Sox and Blue Jays out of the race.

Conversely for 2007 I think the Red Sox are so well positioned in the AL East that it would take a massively disappointing season-long underperformance or an avalanche of injuries to prevent them from winning the division. In fact as much as I think expecting playoff success is faulty, anything less than a trip to the ALCS would really be a disappointment as well. I’m not going to go player by player trying to project their baseline 2007 performance level because for one, it is tedious and takes a while, two, I did that last year and now it is plainly recorded how far off I was on Beckett’s performance, and three, I don’t think it’s necessary.

The lineup is stacked up and down with above average expectations, along with a middle of the order in Ortiz, Manny, and Drew which, if/when healthy, is the best in baseball. I think they’re even the best if Drew does his normal “80% effort is good enough for me” thing. The sole lineup spot where minimal production is expected would be out of Dustin Pedroia. As powerful as the offense will be, the starting pitching is definitely the strength of the team. No other team in the majors has 4 possible ace type pitchers, who if nothing else will get you into the 7th inning most nights. That’s not even counting the innings eater Wakefield or the talented Lester who would both be 2-3 starters on many other teams. I look at a rotation like this (and don’t tell me Papelbon is a question mark as a starter because there has never been an inkling of reason to suggest he shouldn't excel as a MLB starter immediately) and just wonder where the losses are going to come from. It’s the kind of rotation that could string together long winning streaks over and over.

This leaves out the bullpen, which is sooooo bad that the doomsdayers are saying it could rival the epic bullpen collapse of 2003. You know, that 2003 bullpen which was so horrible, so ineffective, that the team only won 95 games and brought a 3 run lead into the 8th inning of the 7th game of the ALCS. Ninety-five wins with a comparable lineup on paper to the 2007 version and an inferior starting rotation, and a bullpen that was obviously worse than anything that could happen this year. Think about the 2007 bullpen this way: it’s the same group of pitchers from last year except minus an average sometime-contributor Keith Foulke and minus Jonathan Papelbon. The bullpen was pretty good last year as a result of the dominating closer, by which I reason the bullpen this year is also 1 good closer away from being good. And there is no way anyone in management will allow 5 blown saves a month with a team this talented. Either someone will emerge or someone will be acquired. The closer is the easiest “important” position to fill on a team, and there are always plenty of bad teams in June and July willing to part with relievers enjoying career years. I haven’t been this sure the Red Sox would win the division since 2004, when they somehow ended up missing the division by 3 games, but hey they did win 98 and the World Series.

But why am I so excited about winning the division that I wrote a blog on it? It’s because in a game like baseball winning over a full season is much more representative of a team’s ability and also much more in the spirit of the game. Having 2 dominating starters steamroll through October is not in the spirit of the team game of baseball, as effective as it is in the playoffs. I would love the Red Sox beating the Yankees in the regular season as much as I loved them beating them in the playoffs since it would mean so much.

If it happened this year, it would also accomplish the task at hand in stopping the Yankees division winning streak at 9 consecutive years, leaving them well short of my beloved Braves 14 year streak, and would make the Braves streak pretty much untouchable for all intents and purposes. I say that because to win the division over 5 years in a row you need both a very strong group of young players all reaching star or superstar status at the major league level (which is a rare and largely luck-based proposition), and you need nearly unlimited resources to fill in all the holes that come up. The Yankees had Jeter, Williams, Rivera, Posada, and to a lesser extent others leading the way from the mid 90s to the mid 00s along with Steinbrenner’s bank account. The Braves had Glavine, Smoltz, Jones, Jones, and others leading the way for over a decade along with Ted Turner’s bank account.

There are few owners out there who will spend with no regrets (I can list them on one hand), and for a team to win a division every year for 14 years again will take one of these major market teams developing a superstar core group of players themselves to build around. It is just not that likely to happen again anytime soon, to the tune of 14 straight years at least. Of course the Yankees could pull off number 15 in this streak if Steinbrenner is able to keep bringing enough new players in to hold the division as the old stalwarts slowly breakdown. Translation: someone needs to beat them to keep the Braves record safe, and soon.

My Red Sox expectation for 2007: 100-62 record, 6 games ahead of the Yankees, 10 games ahead of the Blue Jays. ALCS playoff exit.

2007-02-25T23:58:00.000-05:00

Jake Peavy’s Off Year

If I had to pick one thing that prevents the casual fan from truly understanding baseball, I would say it’s the continued existence of the stat BA (batting average). Coming in second place would be the continued prevalence of ERA as an important stat. In a fairly recent espn.com pole OPS was actually cited very highly in a list of most looked at baseball statistics, a refreshing development indeed. However, for pitching stats, ERA was still listed as the one looked at most for evaluating a pitcher’s performance. Earned Run Average is a more indicative stat than Batting Average (assuming an appropriate sample size for both), but it’s still pretty poor. It’s especially not good because people judge pitcher’s solely on that stat, labeling them a bust or success based on their final ERA.

Beyond all of the luck involved, pitchers can even (to some extent) fake their ERA, which can’t be said for BA. For instance, among average starters, ERA is tied somewhat to innings pitched. A pitcher averaging less innings due to a strong bullpen/arm concerns/etc can achieve a lower ERA by not having to go through the same lineup as many times, whereas the horse of the staff may end up giving up a substantial number of 7th or 8th inning runs. That’s one of the reasons Jaret Wright can keep his ERA below 6, he’s never allowed to face hitters a 4th time. Conversely Curt Schilling, a guy whose job description includes eating up innings to save the bullpen, over the last 3 years has allowed a 717 OPS in his first 90 pitches but allowed a 829 OPS from pitches 91 to 135. His ERA takes a hit for working those extra innings. His strikeouts per 100 batters faced (a better indicator of pitching ability) stays very constant however, at 23K (per 100 BA) over his first 90 pitchers and actually rising to 25K (per 100 BA) over his final pitches.

The point of all this is that really a few mistakes or misadventures during the year can really affect one’s ERA severely, while other indicators like SO/9, WHIP, etc. more precisely set the bar for one’s expected pitching production. Those are the stats to look at together to form a complete picture of a pitcher’s ability. A stat like 3 run home runs allowed will greatly affect ERA while not affecting WHIP nearly as much. Further, a guy allowing a lot of home runs one year will not necessarily be so home run prone the next year, unless many other of his stats also reflect the fact that he’s getting hit hard often.

These considerations should mean everything for people drafting for fantasy leagues when it comes to ranking Jake Peavy. His ERA of 4.09 last year stands out after finishing at 2.27 and 2.88 in 2004 and 2005 respectively. As does his Won-Loss in 2006 (11-14) compared to 15-6 in 2004 and 13-7 in 2005. Look at K/9 through those three years though: 9.36, 9.58, 9.56. And BB/9: 2.87, 2.22, 2.76. And WHIP: 1.20, 1.04, 1.23. If anything, the main difference between 2006 from the other years was that he was allowing more balls hit in play to be hits, and more runners who reached base ended up scoring, 2 factors that aren’t necessarily greatly a reflection of a pitcher’s ability. Even after getting hit a little harder than you would expect in 2006, Peavy still finished 1st in MLB in K/9 (in front of Johan Santana and Carlos Zambrano) and 16th in WHIP, above many other aces. Barring unforeseen arm troubles I would expect him to be right near the top of all MLB pitching stats in 2007, with an ERA in the mid 2s in the NL West. It will be seen as a great bounce-back season by many, but actually will merely be a statistical regression to the mean of excellent ability.

2007-02-20T00:21:00.000-05:00

The Oriole Way

As much as I want to keep things interesting and say the Royals or Pirates are the worst pitching staff in baseball, Alex is sure right that the Nationals have the worst. The key for the former two is that they are both very likely to be noticeably better than last year, while the Nationals are very likely to be just as bad. This is not to say that the Royals’ future is bright enough where shades may be required, but they certainly have added a bunch of league average starters who qualify as giant upgrades to their collection of 2006 stiffs. And if Greinke has truly found what he was looking for, then their collective ERA will be safely towards the middle. The Pirates for one are young and moderately talented, and two are in a weak hitting division in a weak hitting league, so their raw numbers at least will not be too ugly. As for the Mariners, King Felix is going to be so ridiculously good so soon that everyone will forget about his “massively” disappointing first full year (at age 20) where he only threw 191 innings allowing a .262 BAA, striking out 176 and tossing in 2 CG and a SHO.

So far in this discussion though the darkhorse for worst staff is missing. You guessed right, it’s that team nestled safely out of last place just above the Devil Rays, and just below respectability, your 2007 4th place Baltimore Orioles. Now before you start filling my inbox with dreams of Erik Bedard’s MVP season, Leo Mazzoni, and magic pixie dust, I will concede that the Orioles’ starting staff does have some talent. One problem is that the AL East is murder on pitching staffs. Another problem is that most of the talent is still very rare. Conlusion: they very well could rival some of the bottom-dwelling Nationals’ pitching stats. I was kidding by the way, my inbox isn’t filling up anytime soon nomatter how bad I trash the O’s. For this discussion, I’m going to break up the probable Orioles starters into the “talent”, the garbage, and the rest.

The “Talent”
Erik Bedard: Far, far, far and away the ace of the staff, Bedard continued his sluggishly steady rise towards #2 starter status in 2006. His BAA, ERA, and WHIP were all solid and he got through 33 starts. He averaged under 6 IP a start both due to the Oriole’s careful usage of him and the couple of times where he got blown out early. His strong second half leads me to believe he’ll have further success in 2007. His Orioles jersey leads me to believe he’ll break his arm or regress in some other way very soon.

Adam Loewen: More talented because he throws left handed than because of the inherent nastiness of his stuff, Loewen had a semi-rough introduction to MLB hitting in 2006. He made 19 starts and a couple of relief appearances to finish with a 5.37 ERA in 112 IP. The hits per inning and strikeouts per inning are encouraging, but of course your hits per inning are always going to look nice when you manage to walk almost 5 per 9 innings. Maybe an Andy Pettite clone in 5 years, but not in 2007. He might have a lower ERA over a full season if he manages to quickly hone his control, but not by much.

The Garbage
Daniel Cabrera: That’s right Danny, you’re garbage! If everyone else is afraid to say it, I will. Always listed under the “talented, but wild” column, I’m just going to say this guy is not about to put it together anytime soon. I defy anyone to take a successful pitcher and find any MLB game in their career where they walked 6 in an inning, as Cabrera did on April 7th last year. All of his extensive work with Leo resulted in 104 walks in 148 innings and a 4.74 ERA, a notch below his 4.75 career mark. Those walks would have put him 2nd in baseball, if he had pitched enough innings to qualify. There just have not been that many pitchers who have suddenly found control after being so wild for so long. If he stays in the majors this year, he’s not going to have an ERA under 4.5.

Jaret Wright: Why does this guy get paid to pitch in the majors? It’s not quality (1.55 WHIP, .283 BAA, 4.49 ERA which was actually much lower than his career 5.07 ERA), and it’s certainly not quantity (barely over 5 IP per start). He won’t be any better in 2007, and in all likelihood he is due for another career ending injury very soon.

The Rest
Hayden Penn: Well, he could be talent, in that he is a good, young prospect and did very well in AAA recently. And he could also be garbage, since he’s made two brief trips to the show so far and given up more walks than strikeouts on both occasions. In his brief 2006 try, he gave up double the number of hits as innings and had a 15.10 ERA. No doubt he’s much better than this, but his stuff really is more suited to be a reliever. Now he’s most likely forced into starting given Kris Benson’s injury. I don’t think the results will be pretty.

For 2007 this is how I see standings for worst starting rotation ERA finishing up:
30th Nationals
29th Orioles
28th Royals (Barring heroic Greinke return)
27th Pirates

2007-02-12T18:52:00.000-05:00

Today, ESPN posted its article on predicting MLB's top rotation for 2007. Its choice of Boston seems OK to me; this time, there was no choice for worst rotation, unlike the previous hot stove articles. I've known what the worst rotation in baseball is for a few months, so here's a fine place to write about it!

First, let's take a look at the usual suspects -- Kansas City Royals, Seattle Mariners, Pittsburg Pirates and Tampa Bay Devil Rays -- and why they AREN'T the worst.

Kansas City: As questionable as the signing of Gil Meche may be, he's still young and has great potential. $11 million worth? Maybe not, but maybe so! Besides him, the Royals have some live arms (Zack Greinke, Jorge De La Rosa and Luke Hochevar) whom I've heard hype about at least once, and a few vets who were once decent (Odalis Perez, Scott Elarton).

Seattle Mariners: Overrated (or are they UNDERrated??) vets Miguel Batista and Jeff Weaver are joining, and even if people question their $8 million-or-so-a-year salaries, those are the same sorts of people who happily pay car loans for years at exorbitant interest rates, so what do they know? Regardless, these additions (plus untouchable 20-year-old Felix Hernandez) makes Seattle starters not-worst!

Pittsburg Pirates: It was a rough year for the Pirates, but a trio of promising young starters (Zach Duke, Ian Snell and Paul Maholm) all put in 30+ starts and got that first full year in the majors under their belts. The Pirates also dumped 6.60+ ERA guys Oliver Perez and Kip Wells, adding Tony Armas and Shawn Chacon.

Tampa Bay: Pretty close, but Scott Kazmir automatically makes this team at least one better than the worst. If he falters, at least the Devil Rays have a few guys who have at least have significant time in the majors, like Casey Fossum and Jae Seo.

So, while these teams may be in for a rough time, they all have bright, or at least a candle flame in a yawning abyss, spots. The one team that is doomed rotation-wise, though, is clear: the Washington Nationals.

Is it telling that three starters from last year (Livan Hernandez, Ramon Ortiz and the aforementioned Armas) have jumped ship? Or that the team dumped a bunch of other warm bodies in November? Or that the ace of the rotation is John Patterson, who made eight starts last year after getting wrecked by injuries? After him, there isn't even a mix of overrated veterans and promising-but-erratic prospects. The only guy I've even heard of is Billy Traber, a former Mets prospect who went to Cleveland as part of the Roberto Alomar deal back in the day. With him are the likes of Mike O'Conner (he went to George Washington in D.C., earning him a facebook fan group from that school and a special cheering section at RFK no doubt), Shawn Hill and Jason Bergmann, who may only be penciled in because they're just the guys who were starting at the end of the 2006 season (Hill made only six major league starts last year).

So, unless the young guys become Hudson/Mulder/Zito, the rotation is going to cause some to gouge their eyes out. At least they're all cheap (Patterson and the Nats went to arbitration Monday, though), and the rest of the team looks pretty promising. And with the Nationals finally having owners, it could be acceptable that the team is just treading water until the new ballpark opens. But without a doubt, our nation's capital is where to be to see the worst rotation in baseball in 2007.

2006-12-29T23:18:00.000-05:00

Hall of Fame Garbage

"Famers on the Fringe" is supposed to debate the credentials of guys with marginal chances of making the hall of fame. Instead a trend quickly emerges here. The people defending the respective player's merits use statistics to show how they were comparable to other guys already inducted (a laudable argument technique for this situation), while the people assigned to the other side of the argument all just end up saying "well I don't really think he makes it in because he wasn't great, just good", hardly citing any evidence to support it. I think that is probably because the easiest way to explain why a player shouldn't get into the hall of fame is by saying that he wasn't dominant enough at any time or dominant for an extended period of time, and the hall of fame requires you to be dominant. This makes sense to an extent, but the problem is that over the years really the most hard and fast statistical benchmarks for entrance have proven to be additive stats over a players' career. While being arbitrary and era-dependent, the stats are 500 home runs, 300 wins, 3,000 hits, and a .300 career average, among others. Many deserving relievers haven't yet gotten in and probably never will mostly because there are basically no stats that clearly show how good a reliever was over the long term. So to defend a guy like Palmiero, you might say his career stats are ....., which are close to what hall of fame inductees in the past achieved, but the desenters would say that he wasn't dominant enough.

Now to me, at some point I think dominance and career excellence have been confused. Once the "benchmarks" were set by consensus over years of voting different players in, the numbers became set in stone even as the times have changed. Nowadays guys can add up homer numbers near to 500 without ever being a whole lot better than other players of their generations. The key really is how good a player is, not the numbers he is able to add up over his career. This is for some reason more clear for pitchers, as voters realize that not many pitchers are going to be reaching 300 wins in the next 50 years. However with hitting for some reason the benchmark stats remain and voters lament the fact that a 500 homer guy is going to elected in despite never having a dominant season or series of seasons. In reality they are just failing to realize that those benchmarks were set because of guys being excellent over their entire careers (edit: to clarify I'm referring to pre-90s players here), which allowed them to reach the marks. Afterall, what single season achievement would ever get a player a guaranteed ticket to the hall? There isn't any. People still question Pedro Martinez's chances based on his pedestrian career win total and he has had several of the most dominant seasons ever pitched, even more dominant than the symbol of short term dominance, Sandy Koufax. Is there really an advantage to your team or otherwise by compiling more of your stats in a couple truly brilliant seasons as opposed to a career of excellent seasons? If it is really your career totals and the label of "dominant" that is being looked at, then clearly the couple brilliant seasons gives you more of a chance of hall admittance, which is just silly.

Hall of Fame hopefuls should always be compared to their peers in career stats, as opposed to the players which have already been inducted, and as opposed to looking at career totals and trying to determine who could be nebulously classified as "dominant" based on a few select seasons. Doing so will avoid an onslaught of very good, but not great hitters entering in the next 10 years from the offense heavy 1990s. The hall is supposed to just be the greatest of players, and great should refer to your standing in relation to the players of your time.

2006-11-29T13:39:00.000-05:00

Should the Red Sox really trade Manny Ramirez?

SEASON G AB R H 2B HR RBI AVG OBP SLG OPS

1999 Cle 147 522 131 174 34 44 165 .333 .442 .663 1.105
2000 Cle 118 439 92 154 34 38 122 .351 .457 .697 1.154
2001 Bos 142 529 93 162 33 41 125 .306 .405 .609 1.014
2002 Bos 120 436 84 152 31 33 107 .349 .450 .647 1.097
2003 Bos 154 569 117 185 36 37 104 .325 .427 .587 1.014
2004 Bos 152 568 108 175 44 43 130 .308 .397 .613 1.010
2005 Bos 152 554 112 162 30 45 144 .292 .388 .594 .982
2006 Bos 130 449 79 144 27 35 102 .321 .439 .619 1.058

'nuff said.

2006-11-23T01:48:00.000-05:00

What's the Opposite of Garbage?

Maybe this Keith Law guy is allllright. He's got two good articles back to back in November. The 5 year deal for Juan Pierre might be the worst contract in MLB since Russ Ortiz signed with Arizona. LA fans can only hope that the Dodgers similarly pull the plug on him within the next couple years, so the damage Pierre does to their hopes and dreams may be limited. In a way it might even be a worse move than the one that resulted in this. At least the Diamondbacks needed pitching, that they picked the worst possible option was really just stupidity. The Dodgers signing up Juan Pierre is downright malicious. Not only will he unfairly steal at bats from up and coming young players, he contributes essentially nothing offensively. If he reaches base he's as fun as anyone to watch, but the problem has always been his inability to steal first. I ask again, where will Nomar play next year??? Good for Pierre though, the money couldn't have gone to a harder working guy. As for Gary Matthews, he is still the same player the Braves cut in spring training two years ago, trust me. He just happens to be have just come off a fluke batting average year. Matthews will fit in just fine with the Los Angeles "Outmachine" Angels of Anaheim.

2006-11-21T23:20:00.000-05:00

Since Neyer Refuses to Acknowledge my Hate Mail

Note: Sorry if you don't have espn insider, but I'm working under the assumption that anyone reading this has access.

Here's the second to latest nugget from former respectable baseball analyst Rob Neyer. Incredible, he managed to decide that Pujols was a more deserving MVP than Howard. he really must have pulled an all night brain buster to finalize that treatise. I'm pretty sure anyone with an internet connection and 10 free seconds could figure that out. Let's see what's the most dumb MVP style stat I can find...average with risp. pujols: .397, howard: .256. I don't even know what stats if any those voters were looking at, because it just looks like home runs to me. Even if they bothered to glance a few centimeters to the right they would have see Pujols SLG%: .671, Howard .659. The list goes on and on: Pujols played in a very tough hitters park, Howard a home run haven, Pujols plays outstanding 1st base defense, Howard doesn't know what hand to put his glove on. Pujols nearly as many homers as strikeouts, Howard must get a bonus for each strikeout, or else I can't explain how he manages to swing and miss so often. If only Pujols hadn't played hurt for half the year he might have been good enough...

And Now the Coup de Grace for the Week. It's sad personally because back when I was a dumb kid growing up in a Yankee-centric area, there was little choice but to believe that Jeter was an all around godly baseball player incapable of failure in any aspect. Neyer was one of the guys who started to convince me that objective baseball analysis often leads to conclusions that are in startling contrast with accepted baseball views.

Here he is having drank the cool-aid and trying to back Jeter's MVP campaign 2006 (6 more years!!! without a world series that is). He really shoots himself in the foot though, he voids his own argument by bringing up Jeter's OPS rank (15th!....in the league!). MVP doesn't necessarily mean best hitter (it usually means best hitter on a good team, or sometimes godly pitcher), but if you are 15th in the league in one of the most important hitting stats, you do not deserve the MVP award nomatter what else you do. Sir Neyer, please save the runs created garbage until they start giving out a most valuable 1 or 2 hitter award. And also nice slight of hand, using the adjusted runs created stat that I can't even find on espn.com which uses baserunning (ie stolen bases, a really worthy statistic....gag) to judge your "true" runs created value. The basic runs created formulation has Ortiz just a few heads and shoulders higher than Jeter.

I'm pretty sure Jeter's steals were largely irrevelant to Yankees' power offense, unless it was Jeter's heads-up baserunning and fist pumps distracting the opposing Royals pitchers into throwing meatballs.
Honestly shouldn't even be worrying about splitting hairs since Jeter had a slugging percentage below .500 and hit 14 homers. Productive hitter, of course, MVP deserving player, no.

And finally the most laughable argument, Jeter's VORP. To make what's going on here even more blatantly obvious, say the Red Sox put David Ortiz at short stop...his VORP would be incredible! Does that make him more of an MVP candidate than when he sits in the dugout, only to emerge to win games with his bat? No, that's not the point of VORP. It's a good stat, but it doesn't work when a team plays a guy so completely substandard at defense at that position which is weak offensively in the rest of the league. Same with Miguel Cabrera playing third, or even worse Chipper Jones at third, or Bret Boone at 2nd back in the day. Those guys are as bad as it gets for their position, they're on the team because they can hit and they play those positions because it's their "natural position" meaning it would screw them or the team up if they were moved, not because they are good defenders and oh just happen to hit the crap out of the ball compared to the rest of the league at that position. Cabrera should be compared to outfielders, same with Chipper. Boone should have been compared to third basemen. And Jeter, I don't, whatever position it is these days where it is acceptable to only hit 14 homers in a murderers row lineup. 2nd base? Maybe the red sox should employ the yankees philosophy. They could just lay Ortiz down at short stop, giving him Jeter's range. He'd make more throwing errors on the balls that hit him and he picked up, but he would provide so much offense from that position that he'd be an mvp caliber player! That's just silly, you're thinking. But how much sillier is it for the Yankees to leave Jeter at shortstop when all they have is a hall of fame shortstop to replace him.

That's not even close to a full description of what went wrong in the AL MVP voting, but the other stuff is a little easier to see so it's kind of boring. If you don't see it, the MVP went to a 1st baseman with the 9th best OPS in the AL, who plays with bats behind one of the most valuable players in baseball, and who also has the best pitcher on the planet on his team to steal votes from him (speaking of which thank god the writers didn't come up with another Bartolo Colon to rob Santana of a trophy. It just goes to show you how good he is for every one of those knuckleheads to give him the 1st place vote.). Ortiz and Hafner were really much more important to their teams than anyone on playoff teams and so I think one of them should have won it. In my opinion David Ortiz was the MVP (to show that's not just Red Sox allegence, in 2005 I thought A-Rod was slightly more deserving), and Hafner gets the award for being the best hitter (his MVP case weakened due to injury).

2006-11-20T17:24:00.000-05:00

Let the Madness Begin

So far we've already seen the Cubs and Red Sox spend $280 million this offseason, and there's no reason to expect that the money won't keep flowing. I can't really criticize the whole sport for spending wildy, since there are a lot worse things to spend the money on than players, if the money's really there to spend.

What I can criticize are the acquisitions of some players that I don't think were the right moves, regardless of price.

The Reds at it again. Not to keep harping on Cincy, but what can I do when they keep giving me all this material? Gonzalez is a one trick pony who is not likely to age well. Why sign him up when you have a young guy in Brandon Phillips who is already a much better hitter and who can definitely play a good enough shortstop? The Mike Stanton move isn't really anything noteworthy, except for the idea of giving him a 2 year contract when he should be settling for spring training invites at this point.

Exhibit B. It's amazing how quickly teams can go from perennial losers to teams who consider themselves one player away from getting back to the world series. If the Tigers are really done after acquiring Sheffield and re-signing Casey, then the odds are squarely stacked against them sniffing the playoffs last year. As I blogged about early last season, the Tigers can attribute their 2006 success to every pitcher coming through and staying healthy, and the health of the middle of their lineup. The chances of Ordonez, Guillen, and Sheffield staying healthy for the majority of next year is 0, so the Tigers have better keep adding bats to that lineup, which along with the starting pitching is likely to regress somewhat. "Basically, the way I look at it, since the All-Star break we were looking for a bat," said manager Jim Leyland. "Since then we added Sean Casey and Gary Sheffield. That's impressive." No doubt Sheffield is a premium bat, but Sean Casey??? There are two things I know for sure about Sean Casey. One, he is one of the nicest guys in sports, and two, he slugged .408 as a Red (in a homer launching ballpark!). Expect a .250/.290/.375 line out of him next year, what he did once moving to Detroit.

Other Moves:

Dodgers sign Nomar for 2 Years: Thumbs Up, but where will he play?

Mets probably will sign Moises Alou: Shrugs shoulders, he probably won't be healthy to play much.

Angels sign Speier to 4 years: Thumbs up, but save some money for the lineup!

Rangers sign Catalanotto again for 3 years: Thumbs up, for the price.

Blue Jays sign Thomas for 2 years: Thumbs down, not what the team needed.

And just as I go to press, more madness comes in off the wire.

2006-11-15T14:43:00.000-05:00

Possible Red Sox offseason moves, GO!

John:
What would you guys think of J. D. Drew on the Red Sox? Part of me thinks the intense atmosphere might help him to get motivated (either that or destroy him). He's aloof, but not in a 100% aloof way like Manny, more like in a Nomar way where things affect him. I wouldn't even consider it, aside from the fact that when playing he'd immediately make our lineup top of the notch again and play a superb right field. Seeing him on the Braves, I'm fully convinced he has every one of Beltran's skills and is a better overall player, when he plays.

And what about Matsuzaka? I'm all for adding quality to the rotation but man, is it going to cost us. I'd probably prefer Zito or Schmidt. With Zito, at least we know he hardly ever misses a start.

And finally, thumbs up or thumbs down on Lugo over A-Gone for next year’s shortstop?

Ben:
Here are the last 3 years of Nixonmania and Drew .

Drew's actually had more ABs, which obviously isn't a perfect measure of health, but it seems like they both miss chunks of time. Drew is two years younger and .145 OPS points better. I don't see any other offensive upgrade option available. He has a bad reputation, but if he plays well when he plays it should be ok. Can the Red Sox afford $15 million a year though? Especially if these absurd reports about the Matsuzaka bidding are true? I guess we're anticipating ditching Manny and Schilling in a year or two.

I love Nixon, but his power dropoff is pretty frightening.

Lugo. If you want to win in the AL, you need offense at every position. Punch it.

I'd take Zito over Matsuzaka any day, you could possibly sign Zito and Schmidt for the amount it'll cost Matsuzaka.

John:
I just assumed Nixon was gone whether we like it or not. It seems like Drew is the only reasonable replacement to play the outfield. I don't know what to think about what we can afford. I wonder why we wouldn't go bid crazy on Zito and Schmidt instead?

Pete:
I feel like in a few years, we're all going to be looking back on the contracts from this year and last year like we look at the Manny, A-Rod, Jeter, etc. deals now. Aramis Ramirez gets 5 yrs/73M? Damn, son! That said, if we're serious about winning in the AL East, dem's the breaks, I'm afraid.

I would not be unhappy with Drew in right, but sorta nervous about the situation. But I agree, not a lot of better options available unless the sox come up with some off-the-wall trade. I like it especially because most people are saying the next "big bat" is one Carlos Lee, but their 3 year average OPS isn't pretty: Lee .865, Drew .947. Assuming Lee gets something approaching Ramirez money, and we can get Drew for less, I like it even more. They have similar AB/HR rates (18 for Lee, 19 for Drew), but the thing that worries me, as you guys are alluding to, is this: in the last 3 years, Drew has 1264 AB, Lee 1833. So we gotta figure out how to keep him on the damn field. But yeah, I guess I like it.

Matsuzaka - yeah, freaking expensive, but we know where Zito & Schmidt's numbers are gonna go after the next year or two (particularly Schmidt, moving from the NL to AL, and from Pac-Bell to Fenway). I guess Matsuzaka is more of an unknown, but I don't think his numbers will drop off like those other guys, so he could be a better long-term investment (particularly if you just consider his CONTRACT money, which would probably actually be less than Zito money - I forget where I read that, but at least one "expert" (...) was saying that...). I think the interesting thing with him is that the posting fee wouldn't count against the salary cap, so it's pretty much just a one-time investment, and it doesn't mess up our ability to spend money on other players, other than the fact that John Henry has to shell out more dough (it doesn't affect our long-term plans regarding the cap). I just have no idea what to make of the scouting on him - he works up in the strike zone so much and looks like he hangs a lot of breaking stuff. If people who know more than me think he'll be good, then I guess I like it, but...

Lugo... meh. Personally I'd love to bring A-Gon back for another year or two (but I guess he won't do a 1 year deal, so that's out anyway), because I'll take .250 out of the 9 hitter. And honestly, Lugo probably would be a bottom of the order guy anyway (OBP .348, OPS .753 over last 3 years). But this is just me being selfish because I love watching the guy play. If we've got the dough, let's tie it on.

Ben:
Having Wily Mo as a backup RF makes Drew's penchant for not playing more palatable for me. Also this year MLB is awash in cash, so it's basically impossible to figure out what a reasonable contract is these days. If A-Rod was a FA now instead of a few years ago I wouldn't have been surprised to see him get $30 million per.

Ben:
Sox as Evil Empire

John:
Blah blah blah, if the Red Sox were in a different division, they wouldn't have nearly the same payroll. It's like if one country nuked another and the first one nuked back, would everyone blame the second country for not being restrained??

Maybe he should write about Toronto spending too much money as well. Clearly the blue jays should wait until they have 10 top prospects all mature at the same time, then will they deserve to be contenders?

Ben:
That writer is generally incompetent I've found. He just pops up all the time in my fantasy sports main page.

But, while the Red Sox would probably spend less if they were in another division, they'd still have the wherewithal to bully many of the other teams if it came to a bidding war.

I think the bigger issue is that there are now quite a few "$100 mill" franchises, Texas, Anaheim, Chicago (2), NY (2), Seattle, Boston, Philly, Dodgers, etc. But after that there is a huge dropoff in what other teams can spend. I think the talk about MLB parity is a partly illusory, but I don't think I'll be able to write an article on that until Thanksgiving or winter break.

John:
I disagree. The Red Sox never bullied a team before the Yankees became an empire. Manny was pretty much the first big FA signing in Boston. It was mostly because no one wanted to come play in Boston, but it still led to them not being able to sign anyone. And then Manny was only signed in retaliation for Mussina. They bullied for Foulke because they needed someone like Rivera to beat the Yankees and I doubt they would make a move like that again in the near future. I just don't see why they would keep profits to a minimum if they didn't have to have a high payroll to be competitive. They already have the fan base, wouldn't it make sense to keep the payroll down? The Yankees are way below their revenue, but they're forcing other teams to use every penny to keep up.

I'd like to see that article about how parity is an illusion.

Ben:
Well, it's all relative. Team payrolls didn't spiral out of control (and the subsequent large gap in the rich and poor) until relatively recently, as the free agency system matured and MLB began taking in drastically more revenue. I agree with you that payrolls wouldn't be as high if the Yankees weren't constantly cracking a whip over the AL. But even if the Yankees weren't making a mockery of the MLB's salary structure, I'm pretty sure the Red Sox would still be right at the crest of the luxury tax threshold, even if that threshold was lower. And considering 2/3 of the teams in the league can't come _close_ to that level of salary, they're bullying powers surpass all but probably the NY squads. The Red Sox like to cry pauper, but they're one of the biggest power players in the league.

Specific examples that I'd argue is evidence of them able to make deals simply because the other team can't keep up on the same financial level, not just due to the Yankees:
Matzuaska - They obliterated all the other bids, which suggests to me the Sox have a lot more money to play with than they let on.
Millar
Beckett
Renteria
Damon
Foulke (you mentioned that one already)
A-Rod (not so much due to Texas, but the way the Sox tried to buy off the player's union)

I actually wouldn't use the Manny deal as an example because the Indians also offered him a ton of cash. My memory's not as a good as yours, so there might be other examples. I think that's enough to show that a case at least can be made, even if it isn't 100% persuasive.

John:
Agreed. I need an editor to put this email chain in blog form.

2006-11-15T00:23:00.000-05:00

The Real Reliever Bias

Just as I was thinking about commenting on how Trevor Hoffman got way too many Cy Young points (77 to Webb’s 103), I read this little number saying how egregious it is he didn’t just win the damn thing:

That’s an article which shows no knowledge of the relative value of relievers and is based on an idea that’s been dead for years (that relievers are unfairly punished in the awards department). The NL Cy Young race was wide open this year (I could strong cases for Zambrano, Webb, or Carpenter) but Hoffman did little separate himself even from his fellow relievers, much less the best starters in the NL. And for the record, this day in age it justifiably takes an unbelievable season from a reliever to make himself more valuable than the best starters in his league (see Greg Gagne, 2003).

I could do some serious statistical analysis here, or wait for baseball prospectus to do it for me, but I’ll do neither. Sure I don’t have the time, but it should still be an open and shut case even with some simple arguments. The case for Hoffman is that on the surface he had a damn good year: 65 games, 46 saves, 2.14 era. Perhaps years ago when relievers were going 3 innings a night and earning 0 respect despite pitching as many innings as starters, there was a starter bias, but it seems like more and more lately there is a developing closer (read: number of saves compiled) bias. Guys like Hoffman (the +35 year old version), Todd Jones, et. al racked up saves like grizzled veterans in 2006. And by “like grizzled veterans” I am alluding of course to the fact that they never pitch more than an inning at a time. Pitching one inning a few nights a week where there are no baserunners not your own is not very hard compared to what is asked from starters and a lot of middle relievers.

What is happening in baseball is smarter use of bullpen pitchers with more marginal stuff. Increasingly the real valuable work horses are hidden away as setup guys (either because of managerial wisdom or because of dumb luck by an organization in love with their lesser closer). A one inning bullpen pitcher of any worth won’t have an era north of 3.5 very often, requiring that one look beyond, way beyond, era when considering a reliever’s worth. You want guys with lower era’s than Hoffman, how about Saito (1 Cy Young point) or his teammate Cla Meredith. As for games pitched, 41 guys in the NL were in more than him, despite the low maintenance quality of his appearances. In fact Hoffman didn’t pitch longer than an inning in a single game this year or inherit a single baserunner from the pitcher before him. Bruce Bochy has finally achieved the optimal season for padding a reliever’s stats. And no fault to him, a guy with 4 reliable bullpen arms to work with should be able to assign each an inning. Hoffman is nothing if not one of the most consistent relievers baseball has ever seen, but that doesn’t really put him very high up on the Cy Young totem pole. Two guys, Billy Wagner (6 less saves, 10 more innings, nearly identical era, double the strikeouts) and Takashi Saito (every stat better except saves) received a total of 1 Cy Young point, despite being at least as deserving as Hoffman. Plenty of guys nearly as valuable received 0 votes among them.

Hoffman getting 77 votes for Cy Young this year is a reflection on the number of close games the Padres played, the very appropriate bullpen management employed by Bruce Bochy, the fact that Hoffman is well-known and set the save record this year, the lack of fellow NL relievers with impressive years this year, and especially because of the lack of NL starters with superb years in 2006. It is not a reflection of him having an especially valuable year as closer. Webb would be my choice as winner as well, but in lieu of the great talent exodus from the NL can’t we just start awarding 2 Cy Youngs to the AL instead of voting for a guy with 16 wins?

2006-10-30T00:29:00.000-05:00

This Offseason...

Is going to be absolutely crazy. With the new labor deal in place basically allowing the Mets, Red Sox, etc., and especially Yankees to keep buying up whatever they want and thus raising the prices for everyone else, there are going to be some crazy contracts handed out. And since even the cream of the crop this year (guys like Barry Zito and Jason Schmidt) have their flaws, many of these deals are not going to work out very well. Baseball is swimming in money at the moment (fox nielson ratings be damned) so I guess it's better to go to the teams/players than in the owner's pockets. What I've been thinking recently (during the playoffs) is that there are quite a lot of young, very talented pitchers out there, but most are signed up for several more years with teams that aren't very good. While it's encouraging to see low market teams sign up their stars, at the moment it's also keeping a lot of them out of the playoffs and the national stage. Especially in the NL, many of the best young pitchers are on poor teams (Zambrano, Sheets, Webb, Oswalt, Harang, Willis) which also means more money will be thrown around for slightly less talented, older guys who are available.

Close to home, I mainly hope the Red Sox don't add too many more Matt Clements this year. Honestly what I'd like to see happen is for the Red Sox to quickly add both Mark Mulder and Brad Lidge for maybe a couple years at some decent, but not crazy, amount of money. The only other way I see the FA pool working out for them would be if they went after Zito, Schmidt, Asian Import, etc. and ended up being outbid by the NY teams. If that happens then suddenly guys like Mulder could start being more expensive. I'm realistically thinking the Sox won't acquire any huge FA (unless big Stein drugs Cashman), so I really think they should either go very hard after the underrated talent early, or make some trades.

Because so many teams could add payroll this offseason, so many teams think they are within sight of a playoff berth next year, and there aren't all that many good FA out there, this will be a huge offseason for trades. I'm fully prepared to not recognize many teams at the start of next year (with the World Champion Cardinals at the top of that list). That's not exactly the way I like it, but hey I'll memorize the rosters in April. The team I hope I won't recognize is the Red Sox, because if I do, that probably also means I'm just looking at another 85 win team.

2006-10-12T14:26:00.000-04:00

Reds Update

More wise decision making by the Reds, firing their hitting coach after seeing the lineup struggle down the stretch. Blame it on the hitting coach, I'm sure it had nothing to do with trading two of their better hitters. In actuality, hitting was never the problem for the Reds, it was pitching. Well at least it wasn't a problem until Lopez and Kearns were traded for average relievers. I'm still trying to figure out why a team in contention would trade away significantly their strength in order to marginally upgrade a weakness.