Shortly after my previous post, I flipped over to MLB.com, where they have neatly packaged in a separate link a list of all the players included in the Mitchell report.
Don't bother reading the report. MLB.com is reporting what you really want to know.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Selig, Mitchell and the Media
It's hard to understand exactly why Selig commissioned the Mitchell report. It doesn't, all by itself, "clean up" the game. It also does not produce much new information about whether baseball players (as a group) are using performance enhancing substances. I knew it. You knew it. And Bud Selig knew it.
Still, did McGwire and Bonds hit all those home runs because they bulked up, or because they stopped swinging at balls out of the strike zone?
I think Selig needed the report so he can put pressure on the union. Selig, by himself, can't do that. However, if he gets a report from a respected statesman, who holds a press conference, the media can jack it up to the Nth degree and the public can finally confirm their worst fears about doping and the baseball record books.
Now we have a 400 page report, available for download on MLB.com, where we can all see the proof of what's been happening. In case you don't download it yourself, don't worry...this is made for media stuff. They'll be all over it for weeks...interpreting, and probably misinterpreting.
It's nothing more than a media play engineered by Selig to make the union move on a testing policy. Why else would Mitchell name the players? In his press conference, he said he didn't think the players should be prosecuted for past conduct, unless Selig found a particular situation to be egregious. So why not just tell Selig and Fehr the names on the sly, and leave it out of the report? The new names are not integral to understanding the history of the problem, the investigation or the recommendations.
I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 journalists began their review of the report by hunting for player names. How many started by looking at the recommendations section? The names should draw attention away from the fact Selig and the owners did not push hard enough for substance controls before they did.
In his press conference, Mitchell said he hoped everyone would focus on the recommendations more than the player names. The best way to ensure that was to leave the players names out of the document.
The real downside is that I can no longer remain hopeful that some of the Royals will begin using performance enhancing substances.
Still, did McGwire and Bonds hit all those home runs because they bulked up, or because they stopped swinging at balls out of the strike zone?
I think Selig needed the report so he can put pressure on the union. Selig, by himself, can't do that. However, if he gets a report from a respected statesman, who holds a press conference, the media can jack it up to the Nth degree and the public can finally confirm their worst fears about doping and the baseball record books.
Now we have a 400 page report, available for download on MLB.com, where we can all see the proof of what's been happening. In case you don't download it yourself, don't worry...this is made for media stuff. They'll be all over it for weeks...interpreting, and probably misinterpreting.
It's nothing more than a media play engineered by Selig to make the union move on a testing policy. Why else would Mitchell name the players? In his press conference, he said he didn't think the players should be prosecuted for past conduct, unless Selig found a particular situation to be egregious. So why not just tell Selig and Fehr the names on the sly, and leave it out of the report? The new names are not integral to understanding the history of the problem, the investigation or the recommendations.
I guarantee you that 9 out of 10 journalists began their review of the report by hunting for player names. How many started by looking at the recommendations section? The names should draw attention away from the fact Selig and the owners did not push hard enough for substance controls before they did.
In his press conference, Mitchell said he hoped everyone would focus on the recommendations more than the player names. The best way to ensure that was to leave the players names out of the document.
The real downside is that I can no longer remain hopeful that some of the Royals will begin using performance enhancing substances.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Tigers 2008 Batting Lineup
In 2007, the Tigers most often used this lineup:
Granderson (8)
Polanco (4)
Sheffield (dh)
Ordonez (9)
Guillen (6)
Rodriguez (2)
Casey (3)
Monroe (7)
Inge (5)
The Tigers scored 5.47 runs per game last year with that lineup, with due allowance for shuffling in the 7-9 spots and the Sheffield injury. That was good for second in the AL.
The new Tigers lineup will look something like this, having eliminated the weak 7-9 hitters:
Granderson (8)
Renteria (6)
Cabrera (5)
Ordonez (9)
Sheffield (dh)
Guillen (3)
Polanco (4)
Rodriguez (2)
Jones (7)
I plugged in these two lineups into the lineup optimizer at Baseball Musings.com. The '07 lineup is predicted at 5.56 rpg, which is pretty close to the actual 5.47 figure, particularly when you take into account that that particular lineup was used in only 25 of 162 games.
The projected '08 lineup? 6.168 rpg, an increase far in excess of a half run a game.
It translates to nearly 1,000 runs scored. What does that mean when translated to wins? If the pitching staff gives up exactly the same number of runs as last year (797), the Tigers are predicted to win 98 games, a full nine game improvement. That would have won the AL Central this year. In fact, it would have given them the best record in baseball!
Granderson (8)
Polanco (4)
Sheffield (dh)
Ordonez (9)
Guillen (6)
Rodriguez (2)
Casey (3)
Monroe (7)
Inge (5)
The Tigers scored 5.47 runs per game last year with that lineup, with due allowance for shuffling in the 7-9 spots and the Sheffield injury. That was good for second in the AL.
The new Tigers lineup will look something like this, having eliminated the weak 7-9 hitters:
Granderson (8)
Renteria (6)
Cabrera (5)
Ordonez (9)
Sheffield (dh)
Guillen (3)
Polanco (4)
Rodriguez (2)
Jones (7)
I plugged in these two lineups into the lineup optimizer at Baseball Musings.com. The '07 lineup is predicted at 5.56 rpg, which is pretty close to the actual 5.47 figure, particularly when you take into account that that particular lineup was used in only 25 of 162 games.
The projected '08 lineup? 6.168 rpg, an increase far in excess of a half run a game.
It translates to nearly 1,000 runs scored. What does that mean when translated to wins? If the pitching staff gives up exactly the same number of runs as last year (797), the Tigers are predicted to win 98 games, a full nine game improvement. That would have won the AL Central this year. In fact, it would have given them the best record in baseball!
Monday, December 03, 2007
Marvin Miller and the Hall of Fame
For once I agree with something Donald Fehr said:
I'm not crazy about putting non-players in the Hall of Fame, but since that's already been established, I think Miller ought to be in. (Anyone who cares deeply about baseball should read Miller's book "A Whole Different Ballgame" but copies are scarce.)
It would be somewhat strange, however, to elect both Bowie Kuhn and Marvin Miller on the same ballot, since they were at each other's throats. You'll notice that if you read Miller's book, or Kuhn's for that matter. But Kuhn has already died before getting the glory. In fact, everyone elected today, other than Dick Williams, has already died.
The aging Miller ought to be elected while he can enjoy the moment.
"It was very disappointing to learn this morning that, once again, Marvin Miller was not elected to the Hall of Fame. Over the entire scope of the last half of the 20th century, no other individual had as much influence on the game of baseball as did Marvin Miller."
I'm not crazy about putting non-players in the Hall of Fame, but since that's already been established, I think Miller ought to be in. (Anyone who cares deeply about baseball should read Miller's book "A Whole Different Ballgame" but copies are scarce.)
It would be somewhat strange, however, to elect both Bowie Kuhn and Marvin Miller on the same ballot, since they were at each other's throats. You'll notice that if you read Miller's book, or Kuhn's for that matter. But Kuhn has already died before getting the glory. In fact, everyone elected today, other than Dick Williams, has already died.
The aging Miller ought to be elected while he can enjoy the moment.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Ode to the Yankees and Red Sox
Thou pinstripes breed contempt,
Thou foster-child of Beelzebub and Succubus:
Elysian history attests to power,
But a false tale made sweet by time
For the legend is haunted by thy payroll.
Deification via the dollar?
What god are ye? What grace have ye?
Mere mortals are thou, by George.
Though winning is the goal, you grieve
Your farm, and must pluck the fruit of smaller trees.
North, the patriots claim long-suffering sacrifice
To what green altar? What monster?
Paling to the house that Ruth hath built.
Bogged in thou fens, lusting for respect,
It hath returned, on the wings of legal tender.
Care not the Southies, the Bluebloods,
Who be desolate at their cores. Wicked,
Until glory is restoreth for decades-long pain.
Reward they that spend? That bid the most?
Thou shalt return to woe, lest you robbeth a Twin.
Thou foster-child of Beelzebub and Succubus:
Elysian history attests to power,
But a false tale made sweet by time
For the legend is haunted by thy payroll.
Deification via the dollar?
What god are ye? What grace have ye?
Mere mortals are thou, by George.
Though winning is the goal, you grieve
Your farm, and must pluck the fruit of smaller trees.
North, the patriots claim long-suffering sacrifice
To what green altar? What monster?
Paling to the house that Ruth hath built.
Bogged in thou fens, lusting for respect,
It hath returned, on the wings of legal tender.
Care not the Southies, the Bluebloods,
Who be desolate at their cores. Wicked,
Until glory is restoreth for decades-long pain.
Reward they that spend? That bid the most?
Thou shalt return to woe, lest you robbeth a Twin.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Girardi's Coaching Staff
Joe Girardi is a good guy, but he doesn't exactly have a lot of managerial experience. Sure he won the manager of the year, and he managed to win 78 games with an overachieving Marlins team. Still, that's only 78 games -- about 20 games below expectations in New York.
Granted, Girardi has a lot more talent to work with now. Is it his kind of talent? What I mean is, Girardi squeezed everything out of a Marlins team with an average age under 26. His experience is primarily with motivating young players. The oldest position player on the team with more than 100 at bats was Joe Borchard at 30, and he didn't even have 150 ABs. Next in line? Backup outfielder Alfredo Amezaga at age 28.
Last year the Yankees' average age was nearly 31. Cano and Cabrera are young. All the other position players are at least 30. Not only does Girardi not have a lot of experience generally, his meager experience was with a completely different kind of team in a completely different kind of market. Is the theory that the Yankees are getting old, and they want Girardi around for the young players?
I'm not knocking the hiring of Girardi, but I expected an experienced coaching staff to surround him. Here's who he has instead:
1st Base Coach: Tony Pena -- has managerial experience (if you count the Royals), and is the incumbent. So I guess this is where the experience is for Girardi. Question: What is a catcher doing coaching runners at first base? He stole 80 bases in 18 seasons (and was caught 63 times). I think Pena makes a better bench coach. Wonder if he can still throw from his knees.
3rd Base Coach: Bobby Meacham -- coached for Girardi in Florida, and is a Yankee, having spent all of his 6 seasons with New York. He was a very good baserunner and an average infielder, so he's not such a bad choice. I might swap out Pena and Meacham, though. Meacham would be helpful for steals. Pena, as a former manager, might be more suited to the dignified third base spot (or the aforementioned bench coach).
Hitting Coach: Kevin Long -- another incumbent who seems to be competent, since the Yankees hitters are not too shabby. I'm not convinced A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Matsui and Posada need a hitting coach at this point, much less one who never played in the majors. Where's the credibility? Maybe Mattingly was really coaching the hitters.
Pitching Coach: Dave Eiland -- I don't know a lot about his coaching experience, but he wasn't much of a pitcher. He started 70 games in the majors -- basically a little more than two seasons' worth as a 5th or spot starter. His ERA was basically about 25% worse than the league for his career. Of course there are lots of pitching coaches without distinguished playing records, but they don't coach the Yankees and work for an inexperienced manager. Let's face it, Girardi is the real pitching coach here. Eiland pitched 373 innings. Girardi caught pitchers for about 10,000 innings.
Bullpen Coach: Mike Harkey -- a failed prospect from the Cubs system but coached for Girardi in Florida. Harkey had lots of potential as a starting pitcher, but could never stay healthy. He pitched for 8 years and had a grand total of 27 relief appearances. What's he doing coaching a bullpen? (I can hear Harry Caray's voice slurring Mike Harkey's name even as I type this).
Bench Coach: Rob Thomson -- First of all, why do teams need a bench coach? I understood it when a grizzled vet like Don Zimmer with 60 years of baseball experience was whispering in the manager's ear. But Rob Thomson? He didn't even play in the majors. Is this the guy who is going to coach when Girardi gets thrown out of games? When I first saw this I was hoping it was former Giant second baseman Robby Thompson, but alas...
I might be wrong -- sorta hope I am -- but I don't think this coaching team is going to last long.
Granted, Girardi has a lot more talent to work with now. Is it his kind of talent? What I mean is, Girardi squeezed everything out of a Marlins team with an average age under 26. His experience is primarily with motivating young players. The oldest position player on the team with more than 100 at bats was Joe Borchard at 30, and he didn't even have 150 ABs. Next in line? Backup outfielder Alfredo Amezaga at age 28.
Last year the Yankees' average age was nearly 31. Cano and Cabrera are young. All the other position players are at least 30. Not only does Girardi not have a lot of experience generally, his meager experience was with a completely different kind of team in a completely different kind of market. Is the theory that the Yankees are getting old, and they want Girardi around for the young players?
I'm not knocking the hiring of Girardi, but I expected an experienced coaching staff to surround him. Here's who he has instead:
1st Base Coach: Tony Pena -- has managerial experience (if you count the Royals), and is the incumbent. So I guess this is where the experience is for Girardi. Question: What is a catcher doing coaching runners at first base? He stole 80 bases in 18 seasons (and was caught 63 times). I think Pena makes a better bench coach. Wonder if he can still throw from his knees.
3rd Base Coach: Bobby Meacham -- coached for Girardi in Florida, and is a Yankee, having spent all of his 6 seasons with New York. He was a very good baserunner and an average infielder, so he's not such a bad choice. I might swap out Pena and Meacham, though. Meacham would be helpful for steals. Pena, as a former manager, might be more suited to the dignified third base spot (or the aforementioned bench coach).
Hitting Coach: Kevin Long -- another incumbent who seems to be competent, since the Yankees hitters are not too shabby. I'm not convinced A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Matsui and Posada need a hitting coach at this point, much less one who never played in the majors. Where's the credibility? Maybe Mattingly was really coaching the hitters.
Pitching Coach: Dave Eiland -- I don't know a lot about his coaching experience, but he wasn't much of a pitcher. He started 70 games in the majors -- basically a little more than two seasons' worth as a 5th or spot starter. His ERA was basically about 25% worse than the league for his career. Of course there are lots of pitching coaches without distinguished playing records, but they don't coach the Yankees and work for an inexperienced manager. Let's face it, Girardi is the real pitching coach here. Eiland pitched 373 innings. Girardi caught pitchers for about 10,000 innings.
Bullpen Coach: Mike Harkey -- a failed prospect from the Cubs system but coached for Girardi in Florida. Harkey had lots of potential as a starting pitcher, but could never stay healthy. He pitched for 8 years and had a grand total of 27 relief appearances. What's he doing coaching a bullpen? (I can hear Harry Caray's voice slurring Mike Harkey's name even as I type this).
Bench Coach: Rob Thomson -- First of all, why do teams need a bench coach? I understood it when a grizzled vet like Don Zimmer with 60 years of baseball experience was whispering in the manager's ear. But Rob Thomson? He didn't even play in the majors. Is this the guy who is going to coach when Girardi gets thrown out of games? When I first saw this I was hoping it was former Giant second baseman Robby Thompson, but alas...
I might be wrong -- sorta hope I am -- but I don't think this coaching team is going to last long.
That's Not Wright!
Rollins won the NL MVP, with favorite Matt Holliday and Prince Fielder trailing.
Where, pray tell, were the two best players in the National League: David Wright and Albert Pujols.
If someone further down the list had to win it, I guess I can accept that it is Rollins. He's an exciting player and good for the game. I still think his teammate Utley had a better year, even with a missing month.
Where, pray tell, were the two best players in the National League: David Wright and Albert Pujols.
If someone further down the list had to win it, I guess I can accept that it is Rollins. He's an exciting player and good for the game. I still think his teammate Utley had a better year, even with a missing month.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Chris Berman
Why does Chris Berman wish us all a very happy Thanksgiving? Does he think I care whether he wishes me a nice Thanksgiving? Have I been waiting all year just to get his best wishes?
National TV anchors are so full of themselves.
I hope Chris Berman has a very happy Thanksgiving too. Looks like he has a head start.
National TV anchors are so full of themselves.
I hope Chris Berman has a very happy Thanksgiving too. Looks like he has a head start.
Analyzing the Angels-White Sox Trade
Sox get Orlando Cabrera (SS)
Angels get Jon Garland (SP)
First the players.
Cabrera
Cabrera finished in my own Gold Glove standings at short. Interestingly, I gave the Gold Glove to Juan Uribe, the man who Cabrera will replace. Of course, Cabrera brings a lot more to the plate than Uribe, since Uribe is essentially a replacement-level hitter. There's no question this is an upgrade at SS for the Sox.
Did the Angels get equivalent value? Let's not forget that Cabrera is 33 years old...not exactly his prime. Cabrera's best year was 2001 with Montreal at age 26, and his second best year was 2003. Last year was his third best year, but the pattern for shortstops normally does not include a lot of upside at age 33. On the other hand, Cabrera improved every year he was with the Angels and exceeded his projections by about 25%.
Garland
You might argue that the Angels don't need the pitching. Lackey is a perennial Cy Young contender, and Escobar has been terrific the last two years. Toss in Jared Weaver and you've got a pretty good top 3. Joe Saunders was promising, and if Ervin Santana can get back on track, the Angles are in good shape. Don't forget, though, Escobar will be 32 next year, so he's no sure bet. Then again, he's had his two best years in 06-07.
Garland is a pretty good hedge against Escobar's downside risk, as Garland is only 28. Garland basically wore out his welcome in Chicago this year, with some atrocious starts. Looking at his final numbers, though, he wasn't too shabby overall. Garland was not as valuable as Escobar, but nearly as valuable as Cabera, and with less mileage on him.
Take away his three really bad starts (game scores below 10, all of which were among the worst all time), and he posted an ERA of 3.31 (not 4.23), gave up only 14 homers in 200 IP (his lowest rate ever) and and a WHIP of 1.20 (not 1.33). Good numbers. In fact, Garland was every bit as good in 07 as 06. It's hard to know if he can return to his 2005 form, but as is, he's a good #3.
This trade certainly benefits both teams in terms of getting a good player and filling a need. The outcome hinges, then, on whether the Angels can adequately fill the SS spot and whether the White Sox can fill Garland's spot in the rotation.
Replacing Cabrera
The Angels have three choices: Maicer Izturis, Erick Aybar and Brandon Wood. Izturis has played a lot of third, where he really can't hold up against other AL third basemen because of his bat and only average defense. He's a good value as a utility man, but isn't the answer to Cabrera.
Aybar is a prospect, more dazzling with the glove than the bat, and only 23 years old. He split time in 2006 between AAA and the Angels, and wasn't ready for prime time. In '07, he got fewer than 200 at bats, and did not impress. He was shaky at SS, and bad at the plate, showing neither patience nor power. He was basically replacement level, which is quite a setback for his 23rd year.
Brandon Wood doesn't seem ready either. Wood is one of the most highly touted players in the minors...drafted 9th overall in 2003. His power numbers in 2005 and 2006 led many to conclude he was destined for 3b. Then he only got 33 ABs for the Angels this year, and didn't hit a lick. He was pretty strong at Triple A, with 23 homers in 430+ ABs.
Wood will compete for the starting job in training camp. I'm guessing he won't quite be read, but will get the starting nod anyway, with Izturis filling in. Aybar looks like he's on the outside looking in. By mid-year, I suspect Wood will have the job for big league job for good.
Replacing Garland
Chicago better start from the ground up. Contreras and Vazquez are getting old, leaving only Buehrle with experience and a track record. Danks had a rough rookie year, but always transitions slowly to a new level. His morale could not have been good with this team. He could be a solid pitcher. Who is left? Gavin Floyd? Charlie Haeger, the knuckleballer? I'm trying to come up with another name. Jack Egbert (he was great in Birmingham, but is he ready to jump from Double A)?
I can see trading Garland and rebuilding, but don't you need young arms in the system to rebuild? I guess the White Sox will be buying -- not a good strategy at the prices charged by average pitchers these days. Other than Egbert, I don't see it.
Verdict
Any downside for the Angels will be remedied by mid-year. The White Sox will benefit at SS, but not enough to make up for the horrid pitching. And down the road, Garland will certainly be more valuable and successful in LA than Cabrera in Chicago.
Angels get Jon Garland (SP)
First the players.
Cabrera
Cabrera finished in my own Gold Glove standings at short. Interestingly, I gave the Gold Glove to Juan Uribe, the man who Cabrera will replace. Of course, Cabrera brings a lot more to the plate than Uribe, since Uribe is essentially a replacement-level hitter. There's no question this is an upgrade at SS for the Sox.
Did the Angels get equivalent value? Let's not forget that Cabrera is 33 years old...not exactly his prime. Cabrera's best year was 2001 with Montreal at age 26, and his second best year was 2003. Last year was his third best year, but the pattern for shortstops normally does not include a lot of upside at age 33. On the other hand, Cabrera improved every year he was with the Angels and exceeded his projections by about 25%.
Garland
You might argue that the Angels don't need the pitching. Lackey is a perennial Cy Young contender, and Escobar has been terrific the last two years. Toss in Jared Weaver and you've got a pretty good top 3. Joe Saunders was promising, and if Ervin Santana can get back on track, the Angles are in good shape. Don't forget, though, Escobar will be 32 next year, so he's no sure bet. Then again, he's had his two best years in 06-07.
Garland is a pretty good hedge against Escobar's downside risk, as Garland is only 28. Garland basically wore out his welcome in Chicago this year, with some atrocious starts. Looking at his final numbers, though, he wasn't too shabby overall. Garland was not as valuable as Escobar, but nearly as valuable as Cabera, and with less mileage on him.
Take away his three really bad starts (game scores below 10, all of which were among the worst all time), and he posted an ERA of 3.31 (not 4.23), gave up only 14 homers in 200 IP (his lowest rate ever) and and a WHIP of 1.20 (not 1.33). Good numbers. In fact, Garland was every bit as good in 07 as 06. It's hard to know if he can return to his 2005 form, but as is, he's a good #3.
This trade certainly benefits both teams in terms of getting a good player and filling a need. The outcome hinges, then, on whether the Angels can adequately fill the SS spot and whether the White Sox can fill Garland's spot in the rotation.
Replacing Cabrera
The Angels have three choices: Maicer Izturis, Erick Aybar and Brandon Wood. Izturis has played a lot of third, where he really can't hold up against other AL third basemen because of his bat and only average defense. He's a good value as a utility man, but isn't the answer to Cabrera.
Aybar is a prospect, more dazzling with the glove than the bat, and only 23 years old. He split time in 2006 between AAA and the Angels, and wasn't ready for prime time. In '07, he got fewer than 200 at bats, and did not impress. He was shaky at SS, and bad at the plate, showing neither patience nor power. He was basically replacement level, which is quite a setback for his 23rd year.
Brandon Wood doesn't seem ready either. Wood is one of the most highly touted players in the minors...drafted 9th overall in 2003. His power numbers in 2005 and 2006 led many to conclude he was destined for 3b. Then he only got 33 ABs for the Angels this year, and didn't hit a lick. He was pretty strong at Triple A, with 23 homers in 430+ ABs.
Wood will compete for the starting job in training camp. I'm guessing he won't quite be read, but will get the starting nod anyway, with Izturis filling in. Aybar looks like he's on the outside looking in. By mid-year, I suspect Wood will have the job for big league job for good.
Replacing Garland
Chicago better start from the ground up. Contreras and Vazquez are getting old, leaving only Buehrle with experience and a track record. Danks had a rough rookie year, but always transitions slowly to a new level. His morale could not have been good with this team. He could be a solid pitcher. Who is left? Gavin Floyd? Charlie Haeger, the knuckleballer? I'm trying to come up with another name. Jack Egbert (he was great in Birmingham, but is he ready to jump from Double A)?
I can see trading Garland and rebuilding, but don't you need young arms in the system to rebuild? I guess the White Sox will be buying -- not a good strategy at the prices charged by average pitchers these days. Other than Egbert, I don't see it.
Verdict
Any downside for the Angels will be remedied by mid-year. The White Sox will benefit at SS, but not enough to make up for the horrid pitching. And down the road, Garland will certainly be more valuable and successful in LA than Cabrera in Chicago.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Instant Replay
Why does baseball need to change anything? It had the most successful year in its long history. People love it for its quirks, including missed calls.
As approved by the general managers, it would only apply to home run calls: fair or foul, fan interference or not, etc. If the.re was public outrage about home run calls during the year, I could see the compulsion to take action. I don't think that outrage exists.
The worst calls I saw this year were on catchers' throws to second base, and outfielders' throws to home. Those are not part of the proposed instant replay -- nor should they be.
The real danger is the slippery slope. If we start here, how many years are we away from having the computer call balls and strikes? This seems to have happened in the NFL, as the reviewable plays morph. They are now reviewing everything in the last two minutes of each half. I'm tired of the delays. I'm actually tired of having all the controversies resolved by a ref sticking his head under a hood.
In baseball will they review everything in the 8th and 9th innings? That would be ridiculous.
No one inning is more important than any other. Will it slow the game down? Will the umps run off the field into the dugout to check out the replays? If the ball is called foul, does the batter stand at home plate awaiting the decision? And if the ump says home run, does the batter then start running. Blah.
Tennis has the system down. It is a challenge system. The player simply signals to the umpire he/she wants to challenge. It takes about 10 seconds for the computer to make the line call, and the umpire has it on a screen in the umpiring chair. It is also shown to the fans. Play resumes immediately. Seamless.
I see no way to make it seamless in baseball.
As approved by the general managers, it would only apply to home run calls: fair or foul, fan interference or not, etc. If the.re was public outrage about home run calls during the year, I could see the compulsion to take action. I don't think that outrage exists.
The worst calls I saw this year were on catchers' throws to second base, and outfielders' throws to home. Those are not part of the proposed instant replay -- nor should they be.
The real danger is the slippery slope. If we start here, how many years are we away from having the computer call balls and strikes? This seems to have happened in the NFL, as the reviewable plays morph. They are now reviewing everything in the last two minutes of each half. I'm tired of the delays. I'm actually tired of having all the controversies resolved by a ref sticking his head under a hood.
In baseball will they review everything in the 8th and 9th innings? That would be ridiculous.
No one inning is more important than any other. Will it slow the game down? Will the umps run off the field into the dugout to check out the replays? If the ball is called foul, does the batter stand at home plate awaiting the decision? And if the ump says home run, does the batter then start running. Blah.
Tennis has the system down. It is a challenge system. The player simply signals to the umpire he/she wants to challenge. It takes about 10 seconds for the computer to make the line call, and the umpire has it on a screen in the umpiring chair. It is also shown to the fans. Play resumes immediately. Seamless.
I see no way to make it seamless in baseball.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Predict-A-Matic Results
Let's see how the Predict-A-Matic did with the World Series:
The Predict-A-Matic did not foresee a sweep. Actually, the likelihood of a sweep was 13%. However, two of the games were one-run victories, including game 4, where it thought Colorado had the best chance. I'd give the Predict-A-Matic a "B-" in this category.
The Ortiz assumption was good, but Ellsbury hit first, not second, in the Colorado games. The Rockies changed their lineup more significantly in the Colorado games, as explained below.
Beckett did have a strong outing, going 7 innings and allowing one run on 6 hits. He struck out 9 hitters. As predicted, Francis did not make it 6 innings (he went only 4) and the 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs came true. He walked three instead of two.
No system will predict a 13-1 blowout, but the system did give the Rockies the least chance of winning this game. Overall, I'd give the Predict-A-Matic an "A" on this game.
Schilling did not pitch 6 innings (5 1/3), and he was better than predicted, giving up only 1 run. He had 2 walks instead of one, but the strikeouts were as rpedicted. Jimenez did not make it out of the fivth inning. He walked five and struck out only 2. However he only gave up two runs.
Boston won the game by one, but it was a low scoring affair. The Predict-A-Matic gets a "C" on this game. Maybe even a "C-".
Dice-K didn't make it out of the sixth. He gave up 2 runs on three hits. He walked three and struck out five. Fogg did not make it out of the third inning, walking 2 and striking out two. He gave up 6 earned runs, which did not surprise the Predict-A-Matic.
It was a high scoring affair. Colorado had a chance after scoring three in the seventh, but Boston pulled away.
Note: Colorado altered its lineup, putting Matsui in the leadoff spot, Tulowitzki second and Sullivan eighth. Boston, as predicted, kept Ortiz in the lineup, but Ellsbury hit first instead of second. Plugging the actual lineup into the Predict-A-Matic would not have significantly changed the prediction, except that Colorado's chances of winning dropped to 40%.
The Predict-A-Matic was pretty weak on the pitching results, but pretty good on the game results: "C+".
Lester was much better than expected. He did walk three (and struck out only three), but he gave up no runs. Cook's prediction was almost perfect, except he gave up no walks.
Colorado lost 4-3, instead of winning 5-4, but as I mentioned, Boston was almost even money to win it. Even though it picked the wrong winner in a close contest, I still think the Predict-A-Matic did pretty well. Also, the bad Lester grade is offset by the excellent good Cook grade. I'll give game 4 a "B".
Note: More lineup changes for Colorado, where Spilborghs hit sixth and Hawpe was pushed to seventh. This would have made little difference. Lester's chances of having a horrible game decreased, but since he gave up no runs, it does not matter.
This obviously never happened.
***
The Beckett MVP award was based on him pitching two games, which did not happen. However, Mike Lowell won the actual MVP award! I think Papelbon deserved it more, but nevertheless, the Predict-A-Matic pegged that one. Also Taveras did kill Colorado at the plate, but so did some other Rockies. Matsui was weak. Until their home runs, Hawpe and Atkins were weak. Predict-A-Matic gets a "B" here.
The Predict-a-Matic unfortunately predicts a Boston championship, 4 games to 1. It predicts that Colorado wins game 4. Colorado also has a good shot in game 3, so it could go 6 games.
The Predict-A-Matic did not foresee a sweep. Actually, the likelihood of a sweep was 13%. However, two of the games were one-run victories, including game 4, where it thought Colorado had the best chance. I'd give the Predict-A-Matic a "B-" in this category.
Some notes. I have assumed the same lineups in games 1 and 2. In games 3 and 4, I put Ortiz at first and hit Ellsbury in the 2d spot. In game 5, Youkilis gets the start at 1b and hits in Ortiz' spot (3rd).
The Ortiz assumption was good, but Ellsbury hit first, not second, in the Colorado games. The Rockies changed their lineup more significantly in the Colorado games, as explained below.
Game 1: Beckett has a strong outing, striking out 6 and allowing only 2 runs on 6 hits in about 6 2/3 innings. There's about a 1/3 chance Beckett will strike out at least 9 batters. Francis fails to make it through 6 innings, and gives up at least 4 runs, with about a 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs. Neither pitcher walks a significant number of batters (Beckett 1; Francis 2)
Boston wins by a score of something like 7-4. I give Colorado a 25% chance of winning this one.
Beckett did have a strong outing, going 7 innings and allowing one run on 6 hits. He struck out 9 hitters. As predicted, Francis did not make it 6 innings (he went only 4) and the 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs came true. He walked three instead of two.
No system will predict a 13-1 blowout, but the system did give the Rockies the least chance of winning this game. Overall, I'd give the Predict-A-Matic an "A" on this game.
Game 2: Schilling goes about 6 innings and gives up 3 runs, with a walk and 4 strikeouts. Theres a 1/3 chance he gives up 4 runs or more. Jimenez also gives up 3, but does not make it out of the 5th inning, walking three and striking out 4. There's a 1/4 chance he gives up 5 runs or more.
Boston wins by a score of 6-4 or 6-5. I give Colorado a 30% chance of winning this one.
Schilling did not pitch 6 innings (5 1/3), and he was better than predicted, giving up only 1 run. He had 2 walks instead of one, but the strikeouts were as rpedicted. Jimenez did not make it out of the fivth inning. He walked five and struck out only 2. However he only gave up two runs.
Boston won the game by one, but it was a low scoring affair. The Predict-A-Matic gets a "C" on this game. Maybe even a "C-".
Game 3: Matsuzaka goes 6 and gives up 3 runs on 6 hits, but there's a 40% chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of 5 runs or more. He walks 3 and strikes out 7. Fogg goes a little more than 5 innings, walking 3 and striking out 3. He gives up at least 3 runs, but there's a 50/50 chance of more than that, and a better than 1/4 chance he'll give up more than 5 runs.
Boston wins in a high scoring affair 6-5 or 7-5. I give Colorado a 45% chance of winning this one. This could be the game that results in a 6 game series instead of a 5 game series.
Dice-K didn't make it out of the sixth. He gave up 2 runs on three hits. He walked three and struck out five. Fogg did not make it out of the third inning, walking 2 and striking out two. He gave up 6 earned runs, which did not surprise the Predict-A-Matic.
It was a high scoring affair. Colorado had a chance after scoring three in the seventh, but Boston pulled away.
Note: Colorado altered its lineup, putting Matsui in the leadoff spot, Tulowitzki second and Sullivan eighth. Boston, as predicted, kept Ortiz in the lineup, but Ellsbury hit first instead of second. Plugging the actual lineup into the Predict-A-Matic would not have significantly changed the prediction, except that Colorado's chances of winning dropped to 40%.
The Predict-A-Matic was pretty weak on the pitching results, but pretty good on the game results: "C+".
Game 4: Lester goes a little more than 5 innings, striking out 5 and walking 3, while giving up 3 runs. There's a 1/3 chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of giving up 5 runs or more. Cook goes 6 innings, gives up 7 hits and 3 runs. He walks 2 and strikes out 2. His chances of giving up 4 runs or more are about the same as Lester's.
Colorado wins 5-4 in a tight contest. Boston has a 45% chance of winning this one.
Lester was much better than expected. He did walk three (and struck out only three), but he gave up no runs. Cook's prediction was almost perfect, except he gave up no walks.
Colorado lost 4-3, instead of winning 5-4, but as I mentioned, Boston was almost even money to win it. Even though it picked the wrong winner in a close contest, I still think the Predict-A-Matic did pretty well. Also, the bad Lester grade is offset by the excellent good Cook grade. I'll give game 4 a "B".
Note: More lineup changes for Colorado, where Spilborghs hit sixth and Hawpe was pushed to seventh. This would have made little difference. Lester's chances of having a horrible game decreased, but since he gave up no runs, it does not matter.
Game 5: Beckett repeats his game 1 performance, but is slightly better, with a few more strikeouts. Francis improves his game 1 performance (helped by Ortiz' absence), but not enough to win the contest.
Boston wins 4-3 or 5-4. Colorado has a 40% chance of winning this game.
This obviously never happened.
***
Beckett wins the MVP, though Mike Lowell will also play a big part. Taveras and Matsui kill Colorado at the plate. Atkins will be better than expected.
The Beckett MVP award was based on him pitching two games, which did not happen. However, Mike Lowell won the actual MVP award! I think Papelbon deserved it more, but nevertheless, the Predict-A-Matic pegged that one. Also Taveras did kill Colorado at the plate, but so did some other Rockies. Matsui was weak. Until their home runs, Hawpe and Atkins were weak. Predict-A-Matic gets a "B" here.
World Series MVP
I don't think there's any question that Jonathan Papelbon should be the World Series MVP. The other plausible choice is Mike Lowell.
For a short series like this, it isn't enough to just look at stats. You need to measure when those stats took place, particularly when there is a 13-1 blowout game like game 1. Contributing after the game is out of reach isn't worth much. Contributing while the game is on the line is key.
That's what Win Probability Added measures. Fangraphs keeps track of this stuff. If you add the WPA from the games in which they appear, Papelbon leads the Red Sox, followed by Lowell. That means not only that Papelbon pitched well, and Lowell hit well, but that they did so at key times during games. As you know from other posts, a save is not an indicator of the pressure of the situation. Saves are sometimes available without much pressure.
However, Papelbon's contributions in the Series were at key times, particularly in games 2 and 4.
For a short series like this, it isn't enough to just look at stats. You need to measure when those stats took place, particularly when there is a 13-1 blowout game like game 1. Contributing after the game is out of reach isn't worth much. Contributing while the game is on the line is key.
That's what Win Probability Added measures. Fangraphs keeps track of this stuff. If you add the WPA from the games in which they appear, Papelbon leads the Red Sox, followed by Lowell. That means not only that Papelbon pitched well, and Lowell hit well, but that they did so at key times during games. As you know from other posts, a save is not an indicator of the pressure of the situation. Saves are sometimes available without much pressure.
However, Papelbon's contributions in the Series were at key times, particularly in games 2 and 4.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
McCarver's Keys to Success
How are these "keys to success"?:
1. Red Sox want to close it out and sweep the Series; and
2. Rockies must win tonight.
1. Red Sox want to close it out and sweep the Series; and
2. Rockies must win tonight.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
World Series Prediction
The Predict-a-Matic unfortunately predicts a Boston championship, 4 games to 1. It predicts that Colorado wins game 4. Colorado also has a good shot in game 3, so it could go 6 games.
Some notes. I have assumed the same lineups in games 1 and 2. In games 3 and 4, I put Ortiz at first and hit Ellsbury in the 2d spot. In game 5, Youkilis gets the start at 1b and hits in Ortiz' spot (3rd).
Game 1: Beckett has a strong outing, striking out 6 and allowing only 2 runs on 6 hits in about 6 2/3 innings. There's about a 1/3 chance Beckett will strike out at least 9 batters. Francis fails to make it through 6 innings, and gives up at least 4 runs, with about a 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs. Neither pitcher walks a significant number of batters (Beckett 1; Francis 2)
Boston wins by a score of something like 7-4. I give Colorado a 25% chance of winning this one.
Game 2: Schilling goes about 6 innings and gives up 3 runs, with a walk and 4 strikeouts. Theres a 1/3 chance he gives up 4 runs or more. Jimenez also gives up 3, but does not make it out of the 5th inning, walking three and striking out 4. There's a 1/4 chance he gives up 5 runs or more.
Boston wins by a score of 6-4 or 6-5. I give Colorado a 30% chance of winning this one.
Game 3: Matsuzaka goes 6 and gives up 3 runs on 6 hits, but there's a 40% chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of 5 runs or more. He walks 3 and strikes out 7. Fogg goes a little more than 5 innings, walking 3 and striking out 3. He gives up at least 3 runs, but there's a 50/50 chance of more than that, and a better than 1/4 chance he'll give up more than 5 runs.
Boston wins in a high scoring affair 6-5 or 7-5. I give Colorado a 45% chance of winning this one. This could be the game that results in a 6 game series instead of a 5 game series.
Game 4: Lester goes a little more than 5 innings, striking out 5 and walking 3, while giving up 3 runs. There's a 1/3 chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of giving up 5 runs or more. Cook goes 6 innings, gives up 7 hits and 3 runs. He walks 2 and strikes out 2. His chances of giving up 4 runs or more are about the same as Lester's.
Colorado wins 5-4 in a tight contest. Boston has a 45% chance of winning this one.
Game 5: Beckett repeats his game 1 performance, but is slightly better, with a few more strikeouts. Francis improves his game 1 performance (helped by Ortiz' absence), but not enough to win the contest.
Boston wins 4-3 or 5-4. Colorado has a 40% chance of winning this game.
Game 6 (maybe): With all the same lineups and back in Boston, the Predict-a-Matic won't stray far from game 2. Boston scores a few more runs, though, so Colorado gets a 33% chance of winning this one, if it gets that far.
***
Beckett wins the MVP, though Mike Lowell will also play a big part. Taveras and Matsui kill Colorado at the plate. Atkins will be better than expected.
Some notes. I have assumed the same lineups in games 1 and 2. In games 3 and 4, I put Ortiz at first and hit Ellsbury in the 2d spot. In game 5, Youkilis gets the start at 1b and hits in Ortiz' spot (3rd).
Game 1: Beckett has a strong outing, striking out 6 and allowing only 2 runs on 6 hits in about 6 2/3 innings. There's about a 1/3 chance Beckett will strike out at least 9 batters. Francis fails to make it through 6 innings, and gives up at least 4 runs, with about a 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs. Neither pitcher walks a significant number of batters (Beckett 1; Francis 2)
Boston wins by a score of something like 7-4. I give Colorado a 25% chance of winning this one.
Game 2: Schilling goes about 6 innings and gives up 3 runs, with a walk and 4 strikeouts. Theres a 1/3 chance he gives up 4 runs or more. Jimenez also gives up 3, but does not make it out of the 5th inning, walking three and striking out 4. There's a 1/4 chance he gives up 5 runs or more.
Boston wins by a score of 6-4 or 6-5. I give Colorado a 30% chance of winning this one.
Game 3: Matsuzaka goes 6 and gives up 3 runs on 6 hits, but there's a 40% chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of 5 runs or more. He walks 3 and strikes out 7. Fogg goes a little more than 5 innings, walking 3 and striking out 3. He gives up at least 3 runs, but there's a 50/50 chance of more than that, and a better than 1/4 chance he'll give up more than 5 runs.
Boston wins in a high scoring affair 6-5 or 7-5. I give Colorado a 45% chance of winning this one. This could be the game that results in a 6 game series instead of a 5 game series.
Game 4: Lester goes a little more than 5 innings, striking out 5 and walking 3, while giving up 3 runs. There's a 1/3 chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of giving up 5 runs or more. Cook goes 6 innings, gives up 7 hits and 3 runs. He walks 2 and strikes out 2. His chances of giving up 4 runs or more are about the same as Lester's.
Colorado wins 5-4 in a tight contest. Boston has a 45% chance of winning this one.
Game 5: Beckett repeats his game 1 performance, but is slightly better, with a few more strikeouts. Francis improves his game 1 performance (helped by Ortiz' absence), but not enough to win the contest.
Boston wins 4-3 or 5-4. Colorado has a 40% chance of winning this game.
Game 6 (maybe): With all the same lineups and back in Boston, the Predict-a-Matic won't stray far from game 2. Boston scores a few more runs, though, so Colorado gets a 33% chance of winning this one, if it gets that far.
***
Beckett wins the MVP, though Mike Lowell will also play a big part. Taveras and Matsui kill Colorado at the plate. Atkins will be better than expected.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
ALCS Game 7, 5th Inning
Cleveland ought to be tied right now, and if the game ends up a one-run victory for Boston, it will be a travesty.
In real time, Lofton appeared to me to be out at second trying to stretch for the double. But I'm watching from a distant camera, from the perspective of home plate. The ump is behind the play (the outfield side). That's the better angle, and he shouldn't have missed it.
What fooled us the first time is the glove hitting the bag...we thought it hit Lofton. From behind, that's clearly not true.
Plus, the umps are supposed to be better than me, even though it was bang bang.
There was no argument from either Lofton or Wedge, however, so if they don't care, why should we?
In real time, Lofton appeared to me to be out at second trying to stretch for the double. But I'm watching from a distant camera, from the perspective of home plate. The ump is behind the play (the outfield side). That's the better angle, and he shouldn't have missed it.
What fooled us the first time is the glove hitting the bag...we thought it hit Lofton. From behind, that's clearly not true.
Plus, the umps are supposed to be better than me, even though it was bang bang.
There was no argument from either Lofton or Wedge, however, so if they don't care, why should we?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Going to a game 7
Oh, you Indian fans, you better watch Major League 2 if you want to see your Indians win the pennant. You also better have Wild Thing going in game 7. "Forget about the curve ball Ricky, give him the heater."
Cast of Major League 2
Charlie Sheen ... Rick 'Wild Thing' Vaughn
Tom Berenger ... Jake Taylor
Corbin Bernsen ... Roger Dorn
Dennis Haysber ... Pedro Cerrano
James Gammon ... Lou Brown
Omar Epps ... Willie Mays Hayes
Eric Bruskotter ... Rube Baker
Takaaki Ishibashi... Isuro Tanaka
Alison Doody ... Rebecca Flannery
Michelle Burke ... Nikki Reese
David Keith ... Jack Parkman
Bob Uecker ... Harry Doyle
Steve Yeager ... Coach 'Duke' Temple
Anything can happen with a one-game playoff but the big "Mo" seems to be on Red Sox side. Can the Red Sox do anything easy? Don't be suprised if the Indians counter with El Presidente up early out of bullpen if the Sox jump on Westbrook.
Parting quote from Major League 2.
Harry Doyle-"Parkman leads the league in most offensive categories, including most nose hairs."
Cast of Major League 2
Charlie Sheen ... Rick 'Wild Thing' Vaughn
Tom Berenger ... Jake Taylor
Corbin Bernsen ... Roger Dorn
Dennis Haysber ... Pedro Cerrano
James Gammon ... Lou Brown
Omar Epps ... Willie Mays Hayes
Eric Bruskotter ... Rube Baker
Takaaki Ishibashi... Isuro Tanaka
Alison Doody ... Rebecca Flannery
Michelle Burke ... Nikki Reese
David Keith ... Jack Parkman
Bob Uecker ... Harry Doyle
Steve Yeager ... Coach 'Duke' Temple
Anything can happen with a one-game playoff but the big "Mo" seems to be on Red Sox side. Can the Red Sox do anything easy? Don't be suprised if the Indians counter with El Presidente up early out of bullpen if the Sox jump on Westbrook.
Parting quote from Major League 2.
Harry Doyle-"Parkman leads the league in most offensive categories, including most nose hairs."
Ken Rosenthal vs. Craig Sager
Tale of the tape for Fox's sideline reporter and TBS' sideline reporter:
It's not that I like Craig Sager. It's that I cannot figure out who is doing the auditioning at Fox. Ken Rosenthal is literally reading scripts from the sidelines, and he has nothing interesting to add. You get the impression they write his material before the game, and then go to him every couple of innings so he can read the prompter. What is the point? Why do something like that?
The same reason local news reporters go "live" at 11:00 from their t.v. studio parking lot about stories that happened at 4:00. Because we want to pretend something is happening, even when it isn't.
Sure Craig Sager interviews old ladies and celebrities from the stands, but at least the whole thing is not rehearsed. At least he is real.
Category KR CS
Human or robot Robot Human
Looks comfortable? No Yes
Interesting comments? No No
Easygoing style? No Yes
Appears intelligent? Yes No
Can improvise? No Yes
Complexion Normal Orange
Clothing Wall St. Zoot suit
Activities in 1970s GI Joe TBS reporter
Activities in 1980s Beating off TBS reporter
Activities in 1990s Chess club TBS reporter
It's not that I like Craig Sager. It's that I cannot figure out who is doing the auditioning at Fox. Ken Rosenthal is literally reading scripts from the sidelines, and he has nothing interesting to add. You get the impression they write his material before the game, and then go to him every couple of innings so he can read the prompter. What is the point? Why do something like that?
The same reason local news reporters go "live" at 11:00 from their t.v. studio parking lot about stories that happened at 4:00. Because we want to pretend something is happening, even when it isn't.
Sure Craig Sager interviews old ladies and celebrities from the stands, but at least the whole thing is not rehearsed. At least he is real.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Beckett in Game 5
Why on Earth is Francona sending Beckett out to pitch the 8th inning? Here are the facts:
1. Beckett has already thrown 96 pitches.
2. Boston leads 7-1.
3. Beckett sat on the bench for 20 minutes while Boston was at bat.
4. Boston has the best setup man in the AL in Okajima.
5. Boston has one of the best closers in MLB in Papelbon.
6. Beckett will not pitch Game 7, no matter what.
Only #6 would be an excuse to run Beckett back out there, but what about injury? Becket has been known to stiffen up, particularly his back. Why send your best player out to the mound when his arm is cold and at least somewhat fatigued, when you have a six run lead and a great bullpen?
Could it be that this is a game that does not fit the paradigm of setup man in the 8th and closer in the 9th because no one can get the save, and therefore like most MLB managers, Francona is just lost?
1. Beckett has already thrown 96 pitches.
2. Boston leads 7-1.
3. Beckett sat on the bench for 20 minutes while Boston was at bat.
4. Boston has the best setup man in the AL in Okajima.
5. Boston has one of the best closers in MLB in Papelbon.
6. Beckett will not pitch Game 7, no matter what.
Only #6 would be an excuse to run Beckett back out there, but what about injury? Becket has been known to stiffen up, particularly his back. Why send your best player out to the mound when his arm is cold and at least somewhat fatigued, when you have a six run lead and a great bullpen?
Could it be that this is a game that does not fit the paradigm of setup man in the 8th and closer in the 9th because no one can get the save, and therefore like most MLB managers, Francona is just lost?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Fox Cutaways
Cleveland wins game 4 to take a 3-1 lead. The players and fans are celebrating. The Red Sox are downcast. An exciting moment
Fox cuts away to Mark Shapiro, the Cleveland GM, celebrating, kissing his wife, hugging some other people. Then a quick shot of the Indians celebrating. Then back to more Shapiro.
Just like Fox. Give the props to the corporate guy sitting behind a bullet (ball) proof shield.
Fox cuts away to Mark Shapiro, the Cleveland GM, celebrating, kissing his wife, hugging some other people. Then a quick shot of the Indians celebrating. Then back to more Shapiro.
Just like Fox. Give the props to the corporate guy sitting behind a bullet (ball) proof shield.
AL Gold Gloves: Pitchers
I really, really don't care whether a pitcher gets a gold glove. They don't play enough defense to register on the Win Shares scale, except in hundreths of a decimal point. Only a few register Fielding Runs Above Average.
Fausto Carmona has 3 FRAA, as does Jake Westbrook. Chien-Ming Wang has 3. Pettitte has 2. Halladay and Litsch have 2. Jamie Shields has 2. Steve Trachsel has 2.
That's slim pickens.
Of those, Pettitte ranks the highest in Win Shares, followed by Wang and Carmona. There's no way to choose among them.
Pettitte will win the actual award. I'm okay with that.
Iron glove? Who knows? Kevin Millwood and Jeremy Bonderman are godawful at getting off the mount. I'll give it to Millwood. A former Brave should know better.
Fausto Carmona has 3 FRAA, as does Jake Westbrook. Chien-Ming Wang has 3. Pettitte has 2. Halladay and Litsch have 2. Jamie Shields has 2. Steve Trachsel has 2.
That's slim pickens.
Of those, Pettitte ranks the highest in Win Shares, followed by Wang and Carmona. There's no way to choose among them.
Pettitte will win the actual award. I'm okay with that.
Iron glove? Who knows? Kevin Millwood and Jeremy Bonderman are godawful at getting off the mount. I'll give it to Millwood. A former Brave should know better.
AL Gold Gloves: Outfield
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates for the outfield. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9).
Unlike the real voting process, I like to give the three gold gloves to three different outfield positions.
Not many left fielders to choose from, and a couple of surprises. Teahen is a contender in right field, after a move from third base. Hard to trust Win Shares when Markakis is rated the same as Ichiro.
My guess is that Gary Matthews, Curtis Granderson and Torii Hunter win, though Suzuki may get the nod over Matthews.
Coco Crisp easily gets my Gold Glove in center. No one is close. In left, my only choices are Willits and Payton, and Willits is clearly better. Right is tight, between Rios and Teahen.
I'll resolve right field with the composite method (described in the NL Catcher's post), using 2.6 as the average fielding win shares for an outfielder.
Mark Teahen gets it. I guarantee you he won't win the real award (nor will Willits). Crisp at least has a shot.
Iron gloves to Jose Guillen in right field and Raul Ibanez in left field. You'd think Suzuki would be gobbling it up in center with those two statues flanking him. Jerry Owens (he plays for the White Sox), gets it in center field.
Unlike the real voting process, I like to give the three gold gloves to three different outfield positions.
Outfield FWS FWAA
Crisp 8.5 2.6
Wells 6.4 -0.2
Granderson 6.3 2.0
Matthews 5.4 0.5
Cabrera 4.9 1.4
Rios 4.9 0.3
Teahen 4.0 1.3
Willits 3.5 1.0
Suzuki 3.3 1.5
Markakis 3.3 0.9
Cuddyer 3.1 0.3
Payton 2.8 0.7
Not many left fielders to choose from, and a couple of surprises. Teahen is a contender in right field, after a move from third base. Hard to trust Win Shares when Markakis is rated the same as Ichiro.
My guess is that Gary Matthews, Curtis Granderson and Torii Hunter win, though Suzuki may get the nod over Matthews.
Coco Crisp easily gets my Gold Glove in center. No one is close. In left, my only choices are Willits and Payton, and Willits is clearly better. Right is tight, between Rios and Teahen.
I'll resolve right field with the composite method (described in the NL Catcher's post), using 2.6 as the average fielding win shares for an outfielder.
Mark Teahen gets it. I guarantee you he won't win the real award (nor will Willits). Crisp at least has a shot.
Iron gloves to Jose Guillen in right field and Raul Ibanez in left field. You'd think Suzuki would be gobbling it up in center with those two statues flanking him. Jerry Owens (he plays for the White Sox), gets it in center field.
AL Gold Gloves: Shortstops
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at shortstop. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
This is an interesting list. Cabrera will win, because of his superior hitting stats.
Peralta is a surprise. Cleveland has never liked his defense, but tolerated him because of his bat. Here, he shows up as a solid 2d or 3d in gold glove merit.
My gold glove to Juan Uribe, a small bright spot on the southside of Chicago.
Iron glove is difficult. Win Shares has Lugo ranked 6th. BP has him as one of the worst in the league. Visually, I'd side more with BP. Fortunately for Julio, his replacement in Tampa, Brendan Harris, fares poorly -- very poorly -- in both systems. Think Josh Wilson is better than Harris? Nope, he just plays less.
Shortstop FWS FWAA
Uribe 9.3 1.5
Cabrera 9.2 1.4
Peralta 8.4 1.6
Pena 8.4 1.4
This is an interesting list. Cabrera will win, because of his superior hitting stats.
Peralta is a surprise. Cleveland has never liked his defense, but tolerated him because of his bat. Here, he shows up as a solid 2d or 3d in gold glove merit.
My gold glove to Juan Uribe, a small bright spot on the southside of Chicago.
Iron glove is difficult. Win Shares has Lugo ranked 6th. BP has him as one of the worst in the league. Visually, I'd side more with BP. Fortunately for Julio, his replacement in Tampa, Brendan Harris, fares poorly -- very poorly -- in both systems. Think Josh Wilson is better than Harris? Nope, he just plays less.
AL Gold Gloves: Third Base
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at third base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
Lots of disagreement between WS and BP on this one. WS likes Punto, Gordon and Blake. BP thinks they were about average. But, BP thinks nearly all the third basemen are about average.
This is a contest between Lowell and Inge. Lowell has the reputation and will win it.
Using the composite score method (see the NL Catcher's gold glove post), based on an average third baseman achieving 2.0 fielding win shares, Lowell has a very (very) slight edge over Inge. I like it whent he unknowns win. My Gold Glove goes to Inge.
The iron glove goes to....hold your hat....
Eric Chavez! Can that be true? The former gold glove winner? To say this wasn't his year is an understatement.
Third base FWS FWAA
Lowell 6.0 1.4
Inge 4.7 1.8
Punto 4.6 0.0
Gordon 4.1 -0.3
Blake 3.8 0.4
A-Rod 3.7 0.4
Lots of disagreement between WS and BP on this one. WS likes Punto, Gordon and Blake. BP thinks they were about average. But, BP thinks nearly all the third basemen are about average.
This is a contest between Lowell and Inge. Lowell has the reputation and will win it.
Using the composite score method (see the NL Catcher's gold glove post), based on an average third baseman achieving 2.0 fielding win shares, Lowell has a very (very) slight edge over Inge. I like it whent he unknowns win. My Gold Glove goes to Inge.
The iron glove goes to....hold your hat....
Eric Chavez! Can that be true? The former gold glove winner? To say this wasn't his year is an understatement.
AL Gold Gloves: Second Base
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at second base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
I think Polanco will win the real award, since he committed no errors. What's amazing is that he doesn't fare particularly well in either system. He may have made no errors, but Win Shares and BP think his range is less than optimal.
I give it to Ellis, with Cano second. Another easy call.
Iron Glove to Danny Richar, who is evidence of just how bad the White Sox are. Can't hit. Can't field. Luis Castillo could have earned it, but I felt sorry for him because he was hurt.
Second base FWS FWAA
Ellis 8.5 2.5
Cano 6.8 2.3
Hill 7.5 0.3
Pedroia 7.1 0.6
Polanco 5.5 1.6
I think Polanco will win the real award, since he committed no errors. What's amazing is that he doesn't fare particularly well in either system. He may have made no errors, but Win Shares and BP think his range is less than optimal.
I give it to Ellis, with Cano second. Another easy call.
Iron Glove to Danny Richar, who is evidence of just how bad the White Sox are. Can't hit. Can't field. Luis Castillo could have earned it, but I felt sorry for him because he was hurt.
AL Gold Gloves: First Base
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at first base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
I don't trust WS in this case, because Matt Stairs was tied with Overbay and Millar in fielding win shares.
I expect Youkilis to win it, and he should. I'll give Pena the second spot in a nudge over Casey Kotchman.
Iron Glove is a tough call, as there are a lot of bad part time first basemen. Surprisingly, Mark Teixeira was bad, but he only played part of the year for Texas. I'll give it to Garko, the worst regular by quite a margin. If Teixeira had stayed with Texas, and played at the same level, he would have earned the Iron Glove. That's strange, because he has a good defensive reputation.
First base FWS FWAA
Youkilis 2.8 1.5
Pena 2.3 1.2
Kotchman 2.3 1.1
Sexson 2.0 .7
Millar 1.8 .9
Overbay 1.8 .9
I don't trust WS in this case, because Matt Stairs was tied with Overbay and Millar in fielding win shares.
I expect Youkilis to win it, and he should. I'll give Pena the second spot in a nudge over Casey Kotchman.
Iron Glove is a tough call, as there are a lot of bad part time first basemen. Surprisingly, Mark Teixeira was bad, but he only played part of the year for Texas. I'll give it to Garko, the worst regular by quite a margin. If Teixeira had stayed with Texas, and played at the same level, he would have earned the Iron Glove. That's strange, because he has a good defensive reputation.
AL Gold Gloves: Catcher
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at catcher. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
I expect I-Rod or Varitek to win it. There's no question it ought to go to Kenji Johjima.
Iron glove to Gregg Zaun.
Catcher FWS FWAA
Johjima 10.1 1.9
Mauer 8.9 1.1
V.Martinez 8.9 0.0
I-Rod 7.2 1.1
Varitek 7.2 1.0
I expect I-Rod or Varitek to win it. There's no question it ought to go to Kenji Johjima.
Iron glove to Gregg Zaun.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Closers = Wimpy
I've ranted about closers before, from the perspective of the manager who uses them only when they get their money stat, regardless of whether they could have been used earlier in a more crucial situation. It makes no sense to use a closer just so they can generate a stat. Unless you are the closer, since the save stat is what gets you the big contract.
Closers are viewed (by managers, fans, themselves) as the studs of the bullpen. Is it really that studly if you can't pitch more than two innings?
Francona pulled Papelbon after 33 pitches (not counting the three intentional walk pitches). Perhaps the rationale is that you have to use relievers more often; however, tomorrow is a day off. Why use the yet-to-be-effective Gagne?
Interestingly, Papelbon threw more than 30 pitches in a game only once this year. He averaged 15 pitches per appearance. But...he appeared on consecutive days only 8 times in 59 appearances! He is certainly being handled with kid gloves.
In 1974, Mike Marshall threw more than 200 innings. In relief! We don't have a reliable pitch count for Marshall that year, but he faced 857 batters. That's more than Papelbon has faced in his three year MLB career...and if Papelbon faces the same number next year as this year, he'll will have faced the number of batters in his career that Marshall did in 1974 alone.
And that year was only a little flukey for Marshall. From '71 to '76 he threw: 111, 116, 179, 209, 109 and 99 innings. Not a single game started. He got a lot of saves (for the time), but I bet he was used whenever the Dodgers and Expos really needed an out, regardless of whether he would get a save. In fact, he made 40 appearances in the 7th inning or earlier.
Final Marshall stat from 1974: he pitched on no rest 53 times that year. As mentioned above, the figure for Papelbon this year was 8.
Closers are viewed (by managers, fans, themselves) as the studs of the bullpen. Is it really that studly if you can't pitch more than two innings?
Francona pulled Papelbon after 33 pitches (not counting the three intentional walk pitches). Perhaps the rationale is that you have to use relievers more often; however, tomorrow is a day off. Why use the yet-to-be-effective Gagne?
Interestingly, Papelbon threw more than 30 pitches in a game only once this year. He averaged 15 pitches per appearance. But...he appeared on consecutive days only 8 times in 59 appearances! He is certainly being handled with kid gloves.
In 1974, Mike Marshall threw more than 200 innings. In relief! We don't have a reliable pitch count for Marshall that year, but he faced 857 batters. That's more than Papelbon has faced in his three year MLB career...and if Papelbon faces the same number next year as this year, he'll will have faced the number of batters in his career that Marshall did in 1974 alone.
And that year was only a little flukey for Marshall. From '71 to '76 he threw: 111, 116, 179, 209, 109 and 99 innings. Not a single game started. He got a lot of saves (for the time), but I bet he was used whenever the Dodgers and Expos really needed an out, regardless of whether he would get a save. In fact, he made 40 appearances in the 7th inning or earlier.
Final Marshall stat from 1974: he pitched on no rest 53 times that year. As mentioned above, the figure for Papelbon this year was 8.
Weird Batting Routines
From the team that brought you the obsessive-compulsive (and downright annoying) batting routine of Nomar Garciaparra:
1. Kevin Youkilis -- I don't recall having seen anyone dance in the box before. He moves his hands and his butt in opposite directions without moving his feet. This, by the way, is the way white guys dance even at clubs. He reminds me of that dancing baby that was one of the early "stars" of the World Wide Web.
2. Julio Lugo -- Money says someone told him to visualize hitting the baseball. After he adjusts his left sleeve, watch his eyes. Looks at the bat, then the pitcher, then the bat, then the pitcher, as if he is visualizing the ball making contact. Then he gets a creepy look on his face, like he is about to beat his wife.
1. Kevin Youkilis -- I don't recall having seen anyone dance in the box before. He moves his hands and his butt in opposite directions without moving his feet. This, by the way, is the way white guys dance even at clubs. He reminds me of that dancing baby that was one of the early "stars" of the World Wide Web.
2. Julio Lugo -- Money says someone told him to visualize hitting the baseball. After he adjusts his left sleeve, watch his eyes. Looks at the bat, then the pitcher, then the bat, then the pitcher, as if he is visualizing the ball making contact. Then he gets a creepy look on his face, like he is about to beat his wife.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Watchability
On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being highest), here is how interested I am in watching each of the players on the Diamondbacks hit or pitch (respectively).
I'm surprised it's that even. I expected the Rockies to be way ahead.
D-backs hitting averages 2.18. Rockies hitting averages 2.67. D-backs pitching averages 3.13. Rockies pitching averages 2.40.
So basically I want to watch the Rockies at bats against D-backs pitching, but not the other way around. It's also worth noting that the D-backs get a boost from Hudson and Randy Johnson, neither of whom are playing in the NLCS.
D-Backs Rating Rockies Rating
Snyder 1 Torrealba 2
Jackson 2 Helton 3
Hudson 3 Matsui 3
Reynolds 3 Atkins 4
Drew 3 Tulowitzki 4
Byrnes 3 Holliday 5
Young 5 Taveras 3
Quentin 1 Hawpe 4
Tracy 1 Spilborghs 3
Clark 3 Carroll 1
Montero 1 Iannetta 1
Hairston 1 Baker 1
Callaspo 1 Sullivan 2
Upton 5 Stewart 3
Ojeda 1 Smith 1
Salazar 1
Cirillo 2
Webb 5 Francis 4
Davis 3 Jimenez 4
Hernandez 3 Fogg 3
Owings 4 Cook 3
Johnson 5 Hirsh 3
Petit 2 Lopez 1
Valverde 4 Morales 1
Pena 4 Dessens 1
Lyon 1 Fuentes 2
Slaten 1 Corpas 4
Cruz 4 Affeldt 2
Nippert 3 Hawkins 2
Wickman 2 Julio 3
Herges 1
Speier 2
Totals 77 76
I'm surprised it's that even. I expected the Rockies to be way ahead.
D-backs hitting averages 2.18. Rockies hitting averages 2.67. D-backs pitching averages 3.13. Rockies pitching averages 2.40.
So basically I want to watch the Rockies at bats against D-backs pitching, but not the other way around. It's also worth noting that the D-backs get a boost from Hudson and Randy Johnson, neither of whom are playing in the NLCS.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Nominee for Quote of the Year
Bob Brenly about Doug Davis' drive to center field in game 2 of the NLCS, despite the lifetime .070 batting average`: "I apologize Doug Davis. You can rake!"
(Note, this is the only nominee so far that I actually think is a good comment. It's funny. The others are funny only if you don't mind hearing commentators get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to state the obvious.)
(Note, this is the only nominee so far that I actually think is a good comment. It's funny. The others are funny only if you don't mind hearing commentators get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to state the obvious.)
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Hurdle as Tactician
Clint Hurdle makes a lot of questionable moves. One of them was pulling Jeff Francis and allowing Matt Herges to face Chris Young.
In Hurdle's favor: Francis has already thrown a full game. Plus, traditional wisdom says you want a right handed pitcher facing the right handed batter.
Against Hurdle: Francis is a much better pitcher than Herges. He's a Cy Young candidate. Herges is a journeyman.
More importantly, check the stats Clint! Chris Young does not hit lefties well, and his power numbers are much better against righties. He hit home runs against lefties half as often as he hit homers against righties.
Hurdle got away with it because Young only walked, and Drew then flied out. I'm not sure how many of these Hurdle can get away with in the postseason, though.
In Hurdle's favor: Francis has already thrown a full game. Plus, traditional wisdom says you want a right handed pitcher facing the right handed batter.
Against Hurdle: Francis is a much better pitcher than Herges. He's a Cy Young candidate. Herges is a journeyman.
More importantly, check the stats Clint! Chris Young does not hit lefties well, and his power numbers are much better against righties. He hit home runs against lefties half as often as he hit homers against righties.
Hurdle got away with it because Young only walked, and Drew then flied out. I'm not sure how many of these Hurdle can get away with in the postseason, though.
Should Taveras Lead Off in the NLCS
Willy Taveras has not been part of the Rockies' playoff run, but with a healed quad, he's back in the lineup. He's the starter, so I guess that's okay.
But should he hit 1st (his traditional spot), or 8th so as to not disrupt the lineup the Rockies have been using?
With tonight's lineup, the Baseball Musings Lineup Analyzer says the Rockies would average 5.417 runs per game. All the best lineups have Helton as the leadoff batter.
Switching Matsui to the leadoff spot, Tulowitzki to the second spot, and putting Taveras 7th (where Sullivan and Spilborghs have been hitting during the Rockies run), you get 5.395.
Is .022 runs meaningful? Not in a 7 game series. So Taveras is hitting first.
Should Spilborghs be playing, and hitting 7th instead? The lineup analyzer says 5.508. That's .095. Still not meaningful in a 7 game series, but when you consider that Taveras has not been part of the recent Rockies' successes, I'd go with Ryan over Willy.
But should he hit 1st (his traditional spot), or 8th so as to not disrupt the lineup the Rockies have been using?
With tonight's lineup, the Baseball Musings Lineup Analyzer says the Rockies would average 5.417 runs per game. All the best lineups have Helton as the leadoff batter.
Switching Matsui to the leadoff spot, Tulowitzki to the second spot, and putting Taveras 7th (where Sullivan and Spilborghs have been hitting during the Rockies run), you get 5.395.
Is .022 runs meaningful? Not in a 7 game series. So Taveras is hitting first.
Should Spilborghs be playing, and hitting 7th instead? The lineup analyzer says 5.508. That's .095. Still not meaningful in a 7 game series, but when you consider that Taveras has not been part of the recent Rockies' successes, I'd go with Ryan over Willy.
Underappreciated Brandon Webb
Maybe I'm sensitive about this because I'm a Webb fan, but I'm watching the TBS telecast at the start of the NLCS game 1, and Caray, Brenly and Gwynn are saying things like "we'll see if his sinker is working," "we'll know right away if he has his good stuff" and "he hasn't pitched well against the Rockies the last two years."
Someone who only watches playoff baseball, and doesn't watch every game, may not know who Brandon Webb is. The commentators are painting a picture that sometimes Webb is off so we've got to watch carefully to see if the good pitcher shows up, or the bad. Sometimes his sinker doesn't work? Sure, but not very often.
It isn't enough to say he won the Cy Young last year. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that if Peavy hadn't been lights out all year, Webb would probably win the Cy Young this year too. It wouldn't surprise me if hitters in the National League would rather face any other pitcher. As Derrek Lee said, "Hitting his sinker is like hitting a bowling ball."
Over the last two years, he is quite simply the best pitcher in the National League. Period.
Someone who only watches playoff baseball, and doesn't watch every game, may not know who Brandon Webb is. The commentators are painting a picture that sometimes Webb is off so we've got to watch carefully to see if the good pitcher shows up, or the bad. Sometimes his sinker doesn't work? Sure, but not very often.
It isn't enough to say he won the Cy Young last year. Perhaps it's worth mentioning that if Peavy hadn't been lights out all year, Webb would probably win the Cy Young this year too. It wouldn't surprise me if hitters in the National League would rather face any other pitcher. As Derrek Lee said, "Hitting his sinker is like hitting a bowling ball."
Over the last two years, he is quite simply the best pitcher in the National League. Period.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
A-Rod Opting Out?
Scott Boras hinted today that Rodriguez may not return to the Yankees. If not, he'll be seeking about $30 million a year from another team. I hope it is the Angels.
On the one hand, why should anyone make that much money playing baseball? On that same hand, why does A-Rod need that much money? I'm not suggesting he play for free, or even for $1 million, but $30 million? How about $15 million? That will feed the family.
On the other hand, Boras thinks Andruw Jones is worth $20 mil a year, and if that's true, A-Rod's definitely worth $30 mil.
Like the five year deal he wants for Jones, Boras has grand visions of a long-term deal for A-Rod. He wants 10 years. Boras said he expects A-Rod will play until he is 46. That's a ridiculous statement. A-Rod may play that long, but who can possibly predict that any human being will perform his or her profession at a top level for the next 15 years? You can count on two hands the MLB players who were talented enough to contribute meaningfully to their teams after age 43.
Boras believes it is justified, in part, because A-Rod wants to play somewhere for a long time...the rest of his career That doesn't mean he needs a 10 year guaranteed contract. Can't he sign a five year contract with a team, then a two year contract with the same team, then another two year contract with same team and so on? It's not like A-Rod doesn't have the choice to stay with the same team if he really wants to. He could have done that with the Mariners and Rangers, and now the Yankees.
Boras did make one good point: A-Rod is likely to challenge for the all-time HR record, and that will bring people to the ballpark.
I tell you, though, I liked it better when players were excited about setting records because of the achievement and the historical significance. Now, they seem to view all-time records as revenue generators. If that keeps up, eventually no one will care about the records.
On the one hand, why should anyone make that much money playing baseball? On that same hand, why does A-Rod need that much money? I'm not suggesting he play for free, or even for $1 million, but $30 million? How about $15 million? That will feed the family.
On the other hand, Boras thinks Andruw Jones is worth $20 mil a year, and if that's true, A-Rod's definitely worth $30 mil.
Like the five year deal he wants for Jones, Boras has grand visions of a long-term deal for A-Rod. He wants 10 years. Boras said he expects A-Rod will play until he is 46. That's a ridiculous statement. A-Rod may play that long, but who can possibly predict that any human being will perform his or her profession at a top level for the next 15 years? You can count on two hands the MLB players who were talented enough to contribute meaningfully to their teams after age 43.
Boras believes it is justified, in part, because A-Rod wants to play somewhere for a long time...the rest of his career That doesn't mean he needs a 10 year guaranteed contract. Can't he sign a five year contract with a team, then a two year contract with the same team, then another two year contract with same team and so on? It's not like A-Rod doesn't have the choice to stay with the same team if he really wants to. He could have done that with the Mariners and Rangers, and now the Yankees.
Boras did make one good point: A-Rod is likely to challenge for the all-time HR record, and that will bring people to the ballpark.
I tell you, though, I liked it better when players were excited about setting records because of the achievement and the historical significance. Now, they seem to view all-time records as revenue generators. If that keeps up, eventually no one will care about the records.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Saturday, October 06, 2007
The Curious Incident of the Snakes in the Night-time
How does Arizona do it? If you know about Bill James' so-called Pythagorean Theorem, you know that if you square a team's runs scored, and divide it by the square of their runs scored + the square of their runs allowed, you get their winning percentage. The formula usually is within 2 or 3 wins of the actual number, and more often than not is dead-on or 1 win off. The formula improves if you use an exponent of 1.83.
There's also Pythagenport, which is the same thing except it uses a custom exponent based on the league run scoring during that particular year. The custom exponent in the 2007 NL is 1.895.
The Diamondbacks scored only 712 runs this year, and gave up 732. You don't need the exponents to figure out this should equate to a record below .500. To be exact, .4869, or 79 wins. The D-backs actually won 90 games.
You could just say that Pythagenport doesn't work. But it does. The standard error is about three wins, not 11. The formula only breaks down in seasons where total runs per game is less than 4 or greater than 30. This year it was 9.42 in the NL.
So what explains this? It could be a weird distribution of runs. For instance, if the D-backs got blown out in several games, their runs allowed would be disproportionately high.
I searched the D-backs games for games they lost by more than 5 runs. There were 21 such games. Without looking at every other team, it's hard to know if that's a lot. But we also have to see how many games the D-backs won by more than 5 runs, as an offset. There were 15 such games. The runs scored and runs allowed in those 36 games were: 183-247, which would be a .362 winning percentage. That's a pretty bad record in extreme games.
Computing Pythagenport without those runs, you get a winning percentage of .541, which over a 162 game season is 88 wins. That's within the Pythagenport standard error for the D-backs actual wins (90).
So the 36 extreme games, particularly the losses, seem to explain the discrepancy. We need to compare it to a couple of other teams, though, to find out whether every team has the same number of extreme games.
I'm going to use the Cardinals, who outperformed their Pythagenport by 7 games. They had 31 extreme games on the loss side, and 15 on the win side. Their RS and RA for those games: 218-364. No wonder Walt Jockety left the Cards. That's a Pythagenport of .275.
Computing Pythagenport without those runs, you get a winning percentage of .541 (same as the D-Backs), which over a 162 game season is 88 wins. The Cards actually won 78, so the error is actually worse if you subtract the extreme games.
That tells me that the extreme game distribution doesn't explain everything for the D-Backs. It's a mystery. However, the large number of extreme games with the Cards and D-backs may simply throw Pythagenport into disarray.
I want to run the same numbers with a team whose record is nailed by Pythagenport. I'll use the Dodgers, who scored 735 and allowed 727, for a predicted and actual record of 82-80.
They had only 14 extreme games on the loss side, and 17 on the win side. That's pretty balanced. Their RS and RA for those games: 195-177. That's a Pythagenport of .546.
Computing Pythagenport for the Dodgers without those runs, you get a winning percentage of .491, or 80 wins, which is only two off the predicted and actual wins. That's within the Pythagenport standard error.
Without running all the teams, I can't say anything definitively, but it is pretty clear that lots of extreme games, especially if there is disparity in the wins and losses in those games, throws off Pythagenport significantly.
(Oh, and if you are wondering about the title of the post, this is a good book).
There's also Pythagenport, which is the same thing except it uses a custom exponent based on the league run scoring during that particular year. The custom exponent in the 2007 NL is 1.895.
The Diamondbacks scored only 712 runs this year, and gave up 732. You don't need the exponents to figure out this should equate to a record below .500. To be exact, .4869, or 79 wins. The D-backs actually won 90 games.
You could just say that Pythagenport doesn't work. But it does. The standard error is about three wins, not 11. The formula only breaks down in seasons where total runs per game is less than 4 or greater than 30. This year it was 9.42 in the NL.
So what explains this? It could be a weird distribution of runs. For instance, if the D-backs got blown out in several games, their runs allowed would be disproportionately high.
I searched the D-backs games for games they lost by more than 5 runs. There were 21 such games. Without looking at every other team, it's hard to know if that's a lot. But we also have to see how many games the D-backs won by more than 5 runs, as an offset. There were 15 such games. The runs scored and runs allowed in those 36 games were: 183-247, which would be a .362 winning percentage. That's a pretty bad record in extreme games.
Computing Pythagenport without those runs, you get a winning percentage of .541, which over a 162 game season is 88 wins. That's within the Pythagenport standard error for the D-backs actual wins (90).
So the 36 extreme games, particularly the losses, seem to explain the discrepancy. We need to compare it to a couple of other teams, though, to find out whether every team has the same number of extreme games.
I'm going to use the Cardinals, who outperformed their Pythagenport by 7 games. They had 31 extreme games on the loss side, and 15 on the win side. Their RS and RA for those games: 218-364. No wonder Walt Jockety left the Cards. That's a Pythagenport of .275.
Computing Pythagenport without those runs, you get a winning percentage of .541 (same as the D-Backs), which over a 162 game season is 88 wins. The Cards actually won 78, so the error is actually worse if you subtract the extreme games.
That tells me that the extreme game distribution doesn't explain everything for the D-Backs. It's a mystery. However, the large number of extreme games with the Cards and D-backs may simply throw Pythagenport into disarray.
I want to run the same numbers with a team whose record is nailed by Pythagenport. I'll use the Dodgers, who scored 735 and allowed 727, for a predicted and actual record of 82-80.
They had only 14 extreme games on the loss side, and 17 on the win side. That's pretty balanced. Their RS and RA for those games: 195-177. That's a Pythagenport of .546.
Computing Pythagenport for the Dodgers without those runs, you get a winning percentage of .491, or 80 wins, which is only two off the predicted and actual wins. That's within the Pythagenport standard error.
Without running all the teams, I can't say anything definitively, but it is pretty clear that lots of extreme games, especially if there is disparity in the wins and losses in those games, throws off Pythagenport significantly.
(Oh, and if you are wondering about the title of the post, this is a good book).
Iron Man
Like a clairvoyant, I gave the left field "iron glove" to Pat Burrell. As if proving me right was more important than winning a spot in the NLCS, Burrell just misplayed a Kaz Matsui liner into a triple, allowing the Rockies to take a 1-0 lead.
What makes him a bad outfielder? Slow. Takes the wrong angle. Not agile. Looks uncomfortable.
It could have been worse. The misplay brought up Tulowitzki, who would have been followed by Holliday, Helton, Atkins and Hawpe. Yikes!
Burrell has the bat, but I'm not sure you can afford to have that bad a fielder out there with Moyer on the mound.
What makes him a bad outfielder? Slow. Takes the wrong angle. Not agile. Looks uncomfortable.
It could have been worse. The misplay brought up Tulowitzki, who would have been followed by Holliday, Helton, Atkins and Hawpe. Yikes!
Burrell has the bat, but I'm not sure you can afford to have that bad a fielder out there with Moyer on the mound.
AL ROY
The candidates are bunched together in the AL, much more than in the NL. The hitting candidates are Pedroia, Brendan Harris, Travis Buck, Akinori Iwamura and Reggie Willits. Jacoby Ellsbury was good, but only had 127 plate appearances.
The pitching candidates are Jeremy Guthrie, Dice-K, Brian Bannister, Hideki Okajima, Joakim Soria and Rafael Perez.
I really don't know who will win this in real life. Dice-K and Okajima had problems down the stretch. My guess is it will be Pedroia or Bannister, probably the former.
For my ROY, to compare apples to apples, I'll first try to determine who was the best position player, and then who was the best pitcher. Then let them compete for the title.
Well that was easy. Pedroia is clearly the best position player. Now the pitchers:
Pretty hard for a reliever to come out ahead. They just don't amass enough innings. Soria comes close to the best of this group, though.
I'm a little put off by allowing Guthrie to win the category, since this is actually the fourth year he has pitched in the big leagues, and he's 28 years old. Even Dice-K, with all the Japanese pitching under his belt, is only 26.
I'll move forward with Pedroia, Dice-K and Bannister. Pedroia easily wins the win shares analysis. The pitchers have the edge in WARP. Here's the August/September analysis, and the key opponents analysis (Yankees/Blue Jays for Pedroia and Dice-K; Indians and Tigers for Bannister, although it wasn't really a race in his case).
Pedroia had an .831 OPS in August in September, but most of that was August. He was very ordinary in September. He had a poor OPS (.691) against the Yankees and Blue Jays.
Matsuzaka was worse down the stretch, with a 3-4 record, and a 5.93 ERA. Quite simply, he got tired. And although he was 5-2 against the Yankees and Blue Jays, it was luck that got him those wins. His ERA was 5.66.
Bannister is a different case, since he had no pennant race pressure. He nevertheless faded, with a 4.57 ERA, despite going 5-3. He did manage to go 3-1 with a 1.76 ERA against the two best clubs in his division, though.
So far I have not resorted to Win Expectancy to resolve these issues, but since I'm not able to pick among these three, that will be my tiebreaker. Win Probability Added (WPA) looks at each event the hitter or pitcher participated in and determines whether his action improved his team's chances of winning, or hurt it. You net the negatives against the positives.
Pedroia's WPA was 0.73 wins.
Dice-K's WPA was 1.68 wins.
Bannister's WPA was 0.59 wins.
I'm giving the ROY to Dice-K, even though I don't like giving the ROY to a guy who has been pitching in Japan since 1999, totally wore out at the end of the season and pitched poorly against his team's chief rivals. If I think of Japan as Triple A, it makes it a little easier.
Pedroia finishes second, Bannister third, Willits fourth and Guthrie fifth.
The pitching candidates are Jeremy Guthrie, Dice-K, Brian Bannister, Hideki Okajima, Joakim Soria and Rafael Perez.
I really don't know who will win this in real life. Dice-K and Okajima had problems down the stretch. My guess is it will be Pedroia or Bannister, probably the former.
For my ROY, to compare apples to apples, I'll first try to determine who was the best position player, and then who was the best pitcher. Then let them compete for the title.
Player WS WARP
Pedroia 19 5.7
Harris 13 2.6
Buck 10 3.1
Iwamura 13 3.2
Willits 15 4.2
Well that was easy. Pedroia is clearly the best position player. Now the pitchers:
Player WS WARP
Guthrie 13 5.0
Dice-K 12 6.2
Bannister 13 5.8
Okajima 10 3.7
Soria 11 4.6
Perez 8 2.6
Pretty hard for a reliever to come out ahead. They just don't amass enough innings. Soria comes close to the best of this group, though.
I'm a little put off by allowing Guthrie to win the category, since this is actually the fourth year he has pitched in the big leagues, and he's 28 years old. Even Dice-K, with all the Japanese pitching under his belt, is only 26.
I'll move forward with Pedroia, Dice-K and Bannister. Pedroia easily wins the win shares analysis. The pitchers have the edge in WARP. Here's the August/September analysis, and the key opponents analysis (Yankees/Blue Jays for Pedroia and Dice-K; Indians and Tigers for Bannister, although it wasn't really a race in his case).
Pedroia had an .831 OPS in August in September, but most of that was August. He was very ordinary in September. He had a poor OPS (.691) against the Yankees and Blue Jays.
Matsuzaka was worse down the stretch, with a 3-4 record, and a 5.93 ERA. Quite simply, he got tired. And although he was 5-2 against the Yankees and Blue Jays, it was luck that got him those wins. His ERA was 5.66.
Bannister is a different case, since he had no pennant race pressure. He nevertheless faded, with a 4.57 ERA, despite going 5-3. He did manage to go 3-1 with a 1.76 ERA against the two best clubs in his division, though.
So far I have not resorted to Win Expectancy to resolve these issues, but since I'm not able to pick among these three, that will be my tiebreaker. Win Probability Added (WPA) looks at each event the hitter or pitcher participated in and determines whether his action improved his team's chances of winning, or hurt it. You net the negatives against the positives.
Pedroia's WPA was 0.73 wins.
Dice-K's WPA was 1.68 wins.
Bannister's WPA was 0.59 wins.
I'm giving the ROY to Dice-K, even though I don't like giving the ROY to a guy who has been pitching in Japan since 1999, totally wore out at the end of the season and pitched poorly against his team's chief rivals. If I think of Japan as Triple A, it makes it a little easier.
Pedroia finishes second, Bannister third, Willits fourth and Guthrie fifth.
Manny and Andy
1. I don't like the Red Sox, but I like Manny Ramirez. He is, quite simply, one of the best right handed hitters in the history of major league baseball.
So when Scioscia (who I've liked since I was a kid) intentionally walked Ortiz to face Manny, I felt a little sorry for Manny. I thought "Has it come to this? Manny is now someone a pitcher is willing to face?"
For a second I thought maybe Scioscia should walk him too and face Lowell instead. But I guess you can't put a guy on third, and maybe Manny is on the downswing.
I'm looking forward to seeing the tape measure on Manny's shot. It literally disappeared into the night.
2. I don't like the Yankees either. They bore me, despite the great hitting. The uniforms, the over-coverage of the media, the huge payroll. Snore.
I do, however, like Andy Pettitte. He looks like an old-style Yankee. I'd like to see a close up b&w film photo of just Pettitte's face, and stick it next to old timers like Enos Slaughter, or Hank Bauer or Moose Skowron. Something in the Charles Conlon style. He'd fit right in, especially if he had his cap on and that glare he gets when he lowers the bill to stare in at the hitter. It's just cool.
So when Scioscia (who I've liked since I was a kid) intentionally walked Ortiz to face Manny, I felt a little sorry for Manny. I thought "Has it come to this? Manny is now someone a pitcher is willing to face?"
For a second I thought maybe Scioscia should walk him too and face Lowell instead. But I guess you can't put a guy on third, and maybe Manny is on the downswing.
I'm looking forward to seeing the tape measure on Manny's shot. It literally disappeared into the night.
2. I don't like the Yankees either. They bore me, despite the great hitting. The uniforms, the over-coverage of the media, the huge payroll. Snore.
I do, however, like Andy Pettitte. He looks like an old-style Yankee. I'd like to see a close up b&w film photo of just Pettitte's face, and stick it next to old timers like Enos Slaughter, or Hank Bauer or Moose Skowron. Something in the Charles Conlon style. He'd fit right in, especially if he had his cap on and that glare he gets when he lowers the bill to stare in at the hitter. It's just cool.
Friday, October 05, 2007
AL Cy Young
I'll measure the AL Cy Young candidates by VORP and WARP (both from BP) and Win Shares. The latter two take into account hitting ability, which is less relevant in the AL awards.
But first, some traditional stats used in the Cy Young evaluation:
Only Beckett and Sabathia appear among the top 10 in all three of these categories, which means they will likely garner the majority of the Cy Young votes. Both are in the playoffs. I expect the vote to be close, but Beckett to win it for the big market Red Sox.
Lackey, Sabathia and Carmona are neck and neck in both systems. Sabathia is slightly ahead of Carmona, and they play on the same team. I'm going to do the same thing I did with the NL ROY analysis in deciding between Ryan Braun and Troy Tulowitzki. I'm going to look at their numbers in August and September, and how they fared against their chief rivals the Tigers and Twins.
In August/September, Carmona went 6-3, with a 2.68 ERA, striking out 6.4 hitters per nine innings and allowing 10.1 baserunners per nine innings. Sabathia was 6-1, with a 2.87 ERA, striking out 8.3 hitters per nine and allowing 11.1 baserunners per nine. Hard to distinguish between them. Carmona had the better September, though, so I'm giving him the edge.
Against the Tigers and Twins, Carmona was 5-2, with a 2.40 ERA, striking out 5.7 hitters per nine and allowing 9.6 baserunners per nine. Sabathia was 7-2, with a 3.30 ERA, striking out 7.0 hitters per nine and allowing 10.7 baserunners per nine. Despite the record, Carmona has the edge here, particularly since Carmona fared much better against the Tigers, who were the real competition.
I'm frankly, shocked by this, but Carmona is ahead. I'm going to look at two other things: BP's "Luck" stat, and quality of batters faced.
Carmona's Luck was 3.84. Sabathia's Luck was 7.50. Higher means more lucky. Edge: Carmona.
Carmona faced opponents with an average OPS of .747. Sabathia faced opponents with an average OPS of .738. Interestingly, among AL pitchers with at least 150 IP, Sabathia faced the easiest opponents, and Carmona the third easiest. (Halladay faced the toughest competition, at .775). Edge: Carmona.
All signs point to Fausto Carmona, so he's my Cy Young winner, with Sabathia a very close second. I'm surprised.
Lackey gets the third spot. Beckett and Santana battle for the next spot, but Beckett comes in 4th because he carried the staff to the postseason. Santana edges Haren for the fifth spot.
But first, some traditional stats used in the Cy Young evaluation:
Pitcher Wins ERA SO
Beckett 20 3.27 194
Carmona 19 3.06 137
Lackey 19 3.01 179
Sabathia 19 3.21 209
Wang 19 3.70 104
Escobar 18 3.40 160
Verlander 18 3.66 183
Haren 15 3.07 192
Bedard 13 3.16 221
Santana 15 3.33 235
Only Beckett and Sabathia appear among the top 10 in all three of these categories, which means they will likely garner the majority of the Cy Young votes. Both are in the playoffs. I expect the vote to be close, but Beckett to win it for the big market Red Sox.
Pitcher VORP WARP WS
Sabathia 65.2 9.3 24
Carmona 64.0 9.5 22
Lackey 60.7 9.3 22
Beckett 58.6 8.3 19
Santana 57.7 9.3 18
Haren 56.4 7.7 19
Bedard 54.9 7.8 19
Escobar 49.9 7.8 18
Wang 48.5 7.2 16
Verlander 45.9 6.6 16
Lackey, Sabathia and Carmona are neck and neck in both systems. Sabathia is slightly ahead of Carmona, and they play on the same team. I'm going to do the same thing I did with the NL ROY analysis in deciding between Ryan Braun and Troy Tulowitzki. I'm going to look at their numbers in August and September, and how they fared against their chief rivals the Tigers and Twins.
In August/September, Carmona went 6-3, with a 2.68 ERA, striking out 6.4 hitters per nine innings and allowing 10.1 baserunners per nine innings. Sabathia was 6-1, with a 2.87 ERA, striking out 8.3 hitters per nine and allowing 11.1 baserunners per nine. Hard to distinguish between them. Carmona had the better September, though, so I'm giving him the edge.
Against the Tigers and Twins, Carmona was 5-2, with a 2.40 ERA, striking out 5.7 hitters per nine and allowing 9.6 baserunners per nine. Sabathia was 7-2, with a 3.30 ERA, striking out 7.0 hitters per nine and allowing 10.7 baserunners per nine. Despite the record, Carmona has the edge here, particularly since Carmona fared much better against the Tigers, who were the real competition.
I'm frankly, shocked by this, but Carmona is ahead. I'm going to look at two other things: BP's "Luck" stat, and quality of batters faced.
Carmona's Luck was 3.84. Sabathia's Luck was 7.50. Higher means more lucky. Edge: Carmona.
Carmona faced opponents with an average OPS of .747. Sabathia faced opponents with an average OPS of .738. Interestingly, among AL pitchers with at least 150 IP, Sabathia faced the easiest opponents, and Carmona the third easiest. (Halladay faced the toughest competition, at .775). Edge: Carmona.
All signs point to Fausto Carmona, so he's my Cy Young winner, with Sabathia a very close second. I'm surprised.
Lackey gets the third spot. Beckett and Santana battle for the next spot, but Beckett comes in 4th because he carried the staff to the postseason. Santana edges Haren for the fifth spot.
AL MVP
I'll start with the AL awards with the AL MVP, since it is the easiest of the awards. A-Rod is going to win it, and should. This is really just to figure out who else had an MVP-type season.
Here are their Win Shares and their WARP1 scores from Baseball Prospectus, along with a few other candidates.
*Source: The Hardball Times
**Source: Baseball Prospectus
The first thing to notice is that I've included some pitchers on this list: Sabathia, Carmona and Lackey. That should nicely foreshadow the AL Cy Young.
The biggest disagreements between WS and WARP are with the middle infielders of the Yankees. WS puts Jeter slightly ahead. WARP puts Cano significantly ahead.
My pick is A-Rod of course, but here's a table with the composite scores, which I described in my NL Catcher's post, assuming the replacement WS for a player is 5.
Unlike the NL list, there are no rookies here.
So Ordonez finishes second, clustered with the surprising Carlos Pena (comeback player of the year) and Ichiro. Granderson sneaks into the 5th spot. Sabathia is 8th -- the same position as Peavy finished in the NL MVP rankings.
Here are their Win Shares and their WARP1 scores from Baseball Prospectus, along with a few other candidates.
Player WS* WARP**
A-Rod 39 11.0
Posada 26 8.2
Jeter 24 6.2
Cano 21 9.0
Ordonez 36 9.2
Granderson 26 9.9
Polanco 23 8.2
Ortiz 29 8.2
Lowell 24 7.1
Suzuki 33 8.9
Putz 18 8.8
Guerrero 31 6.1
O.Cabrera 25 6.2
Lackey 22 9.3
Martinez 31 7.3
Sizemore 31 6.8
Sabathia 24 9.3
Carmona 22 9.5
B. Roberts 24 7.0
Pena 30 10.0
*Source: The Hardball Times
**Source: Baseball Prospectus
The first thing to notice is that I've included some pitchers on this list: Sabathia, Carmona and Lackey. That should nicely foreshadow the AL Cy Young.
The biggest disagreements between WS and WARP are with the middle infielders of the Yankees. WS puts Jeter slightly ahead. WARP puts Cano significantly ahead.
My pick is A-Rod of course, but here's a table with the composite scores, which I described in my NL Catcher's post, assuming the replacement WS for a player is 5.
Unlike the NL list, there are no rookies here.
Player Composite
A-Rod 67.0
Ordonez 58.6
Pena 55.0
Suzuki 54.7
Granderson 50.7
Ortiz 48.6
Martinez 47.9
Sabathia 46.9
Sizemore 46.4
Posada 45.6
Carmona 45.5
Lackey 44.9
Guerrero 44.3
Cano 43.0
Polanco 42.6
B. Roberts 40.0
Jeter 37.6
So Ordonez finishes second, clustered with the surprising Carlos Pena (comeback player of the year) and Ichiro. Granderson sneaks into the 5th spot. Sabathia is 8th -- the same position as Peavy finished in the NL MVP rankings.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Patient Hitters
Alfonso Soriano has all the talent in the world, but is not a patient hitter. In 617 plate appearances this year, Soriano faced a 3-0 or 3-1 count a measly 23 times, or 3.7%. He had a two strike count in 4 times as many plate appearances as he had a three ball count.
Chris Young, of the D-backs, has a similar reputation. In 624 plate appearances, he faced a 3-0 or 3-1 count only 40 times, or 6.4%. Even so, he faced a two strike count in 2.5 times as many plate appearances as he had a three ball count.
These are the leadoff hitters in the Cubs-Diamondbacks series. I questioned Soriano leading off in an earlier post, and using the lineup optimizer at Baseball Musings, determined that Mark DeRosa ought to be leading off, and Soriano ought to be hitting 4th or 6th.
Mark DeRosa, who has a good but not great OBP, had 574 plate appearances, and faced a 3-0 or 3-1 count 42 times, or 7.3%. Not that much better than Young, but quite a bit better than Soriano. His two strike to three ball ratio was about 2.0.
For comparison, let's try a few well-known patient hitters: David Ortiz, Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds (because he's a freak). The second number is the number of 3-0 and 3-1 counts. The third number is the percentage of plate appearances. The fourth number is the ratio of two strike counts to three ball counts.
Chris Young, of the D-backs, has a similar reputation. In 624 plate appearances, he faced a 3-0 or 3-1 count only 40 times, or 6.4%. Even so, he faced a two strike count in 2.5 times as many plate appearances as he had a three ball count.
These are the leadoff hitters in the Cubs-Diamondbacks series. I questioned Soriano leading off in an earlier post, and using the lineup optimizer at Baseball Musings, determined that Mark DeRosa ought to be leading off, and Soriano ought to be hitting 4th or 6th.
Mark DeRosa, who has a good but not great OBP, had 574 plate appearances, and faced a 3-0 or 3-1 count 42 times, or 7.3%. Not that much better than Young, but quite a bit better than Soriano. His two strike to three ball ratio was about 2.0.
For comparison, let's try a few well-known patient hitters: David Ortiz, Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds (because he's a freak). The second number is the number of 3-0 and 3-1 counts. The third number is the percentage of plate appearances. The fourth number is the ratio of two strike counts to three ball counts.
Ortiz: 667 PAs; 88; 13.1%; 1.44
Pujols: 679 PAs; 103; 15.1%; 1.51
Bonds: 477 PAs; 106; 22.2%; 0.93
Ted Lilly
Ted Lilly looked pretty shaky in the first inning of Game 2. That's not surprising, because Lilly tends to get better as his pitch count goes up. Check this out:
But he's not quite out of the woods yet:
He'll be pitching in the second inning with a lead, so if he holds form, he's got a little cushion for a bad inning in the second.
Pitch Ct Avg. OPS
1-25 .264 .805
26-50 .249 .723
51-75 .244 .691
76-100 .205 .587
But he's not quite out of the woods yet:
Inning Avg. OPS
1 .260 .765
2 .286 .866
3 .237 .729
4 .191 .574
He'll be pitching in the second inning with a lead, so if he holds form, he's got a little cushion for a bad inning in the second.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
NL Cy Young
I'll measure the NL Cy Young candidates by VORP and WARP (both from BP) and Win Shares. The latter two take into account hitting ability, so that could be important for a pitcher like Zambrano.
But first, some traditional stats used in the Cy Young evaluation:
What's clear from this list is that Peavy will be hard to beat. If you lead the league in wins, ERA and strikeouts, you are going to win the award. Of course, raw stats don't take into account park factors, and wins don't take into account run support. Based on the above, though, I'm going to eliminate the very unlucky Matt Cain. By BP's numbers, Cain was the most unlucky pitcher in baseball. His 7 wins should have been 14.
Harang, Hamels, Francis and Perez were among the 10 luckiest pitchers in the league, but I'll let them stay because they are high on a couple of leaderboards, and two of them will be a factor in the playoffs.
Guess there's no surprise that Peavy wins all these categories too. He's my Cy Young.
That doesn't make for very interesting analysis, though, so I need to choose positions two through five to make this interesting.
Webb seems to be the clear #2. Not a bad follow-up performance for a Cy Young year last year.
Penny is probably #3. He's a little behind Oswalt and Hudson in WARP, but significantly ahead of them in VORP and WS.
#4 goes to Tim Hudson, who easily had his best year as a Brave and has regained "ace" status.
Oswalt gets the fifth spot, buried in Houston. You could make the argument he had a better year than Hudson, but when we are talking about finishing 4th and 5th, it doesn't really matter. The edge goes to Hudson for keeping his team in contention.
Final thought: I should not have included Oliver Perez on this list. When I typed the list before looking at the leaderboards, he wasn't on it. However, it was impossible to ignore a guy who is 9th in ERA, 10th in wins, 10th in strikeouts and 2d in strikeouts per 9 innings. The raw stats were deceiving, as VORP, WARP and WS show him to be clearly inferior. He probably should have been something like 11-10 with a 4.50 ERA, but got lucky.
But first, some traditional stats used in the Cy Young evaluation:
Pitcher Wins ERA SO
Peavy 19 2.54 240
Webb 18 3.01 194
Penny 16 3.03 135
Oswalt 14 3.18 154
Hudson 16 3.33 132
Smoltz 14 3.11 197
Harang 16 3.73 218
Hamels 15 3.39 177
Cain 7 3.65 163
Lilly 15 3.83 174
Zambrano 18 3.95 177
Francis 17 4.22 165
Maine 15 3.91 180
O.Perez 15 3.56 174
What's clear from this list is that Peavy will be hard to beat. If you lead the league in wins, ERA and strikeouts, you are going to win the award. Of course, raw stats don't take into account park factors, and wins don't take into account run support. Based on the above, though, I'm going to eliminate the very unlucky Matt Cain. By BP's numbers, Cain was the most unlucky pitcher in baseball. His 7 wins should have been 14.
Harang, Hamels, Francis and Perez were among the 10 luckiest pitchers in the league, but I'll let them stay because they are high on a couple of leaderboards, and two of them will be a factor in the playoffs.
Pitcher VORP WARP WS
Peavy 77.0 10.6 23
Webb 66.1 8.7 22
Penny 61.7 7.9 21
Oswalt 59.8 8.1 18
Hudson 59.7 8.2 19
Smoltz 56.7 6.9 16
Harang 53.8 7.0 17
Hamels 48.8 6.1 15
Lilly 46.7 5.7 14
Zambrano 43.5 7.2 16
Francis 42.7 5.5 14
Maine 33.3 5.2 11
O.Perez 24.0 3.9 11
Guess there's no surprise that Peavy wins all these categories too. He's my Cy Young.
That doesn't make for very interesting analysis, though, so I need to choose positions two through five to make this interesting.
Webb seems to be the clear #2. Not a bad follow-up performance for a Cy Young year last year.
Penny is probably #3. He's a little behind Oswalt and Hudson in WARP, but significantly ahead of them in VORP and WS.
#4 goes to Tim Hudson, who easily had his best year as a Brave and has regained "ace" status.
Oswalt gets the fifth spot, buried in Houston. You could make the argument he had a better year than Hudson, but when we are talking about finishing 4th and 5th, it doesn't really matter. The edge goes to Hudson for keeping his team in contention.
Final thought: I should not have included Oliver Perez on this list. When I typed the list before looking at the leaderboards, he wasn't on it. However, it was impossible to ignore a guy who is 9th in ERA, 10th in wins, 10th in strikeouts and 2d in strikeouts per 9 innings. The raw stats were deceiving, as VORP, WARP and WS show him to be clearly inferior. He probably should have been something like 11-10 with a 4.50 ERA, but got lucky.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Scott Boras
Does anyone want to make an argument that Boras is good for the game of baseball? I'm sure he's good for his players, and for his bank account. But is he good for the game?
Andruw Jones is the case in point. Andruw wants to spend his career in Atlanta. Atlanta would like to have Andruw Jones. Nevertheless, the day after the regular season ended, the Braves said they would not resign him. Why? Because Boras whispered in Andruw's year, so Andruw thinks he can get a 5 year deal worth $20 million a year.
That's right. $100 million for Jones, who (if you didn't notice) hit .222 this year and had an OPS of .724. In case you don't keep up with these things, Jack Wilson, the Pirates no-name shortstop, had an OPS of 790, which was about league average.
Okay, so maybe Jones had a bad year and he'll bounce back. Or maybe not. He's going to be 30 next year. He's at the back end of his prime...or if this year is evidence, on the downswing. Yet Boras has him thinking a team wants him until age 35 as one of the highest paid players in the league.
Who would you rather have on the roster from 2008-2012, Jones or Teixeira? Teixeira is 27 years old, and his OPS was .973 for the year; 1.019 if you count only his time with the Braves.
What's sad is some mid-market team will mortgage the the next five years and sign Jones. That's what Boras is counting on.
Andruw Jones is the case in point. Andruw wants to spend his career in Atlanta. Atlanta would like to have Andruw Jones. Nevertheless, the day after the regular season ended, the Braves said they would not resign him. Why? Because Boras whispered in Andruw's year, so Andruw thinks he can get a 5 year deal worth $20 million a year.
That's right. $100 million for Jones, who (if you didn't notice) hit .222 this year and had an OPS of .724. In case you don't keep up with these things, Jack Wilson, the Pirates no-name shortstop, had an OPS of 790, which was about league average.
Okay, so maybe Jones had a bad year and he'll bounce back. Or maybe not. He's going to be 30 next year. He's at the back end of his prime...or if this year is evidence, on the downswing. Yet Boras has him thinking a team wants him until age 35 as one of the highest paid players in the league.
Who would you rather have on the roster from 2008-2012, Jones or Teixeira? Teixeira is 27 years old, and his OPS was .973 for the year; 1.019 if you count only his time with the Braves.
What's sad is some mid-market team will mortgage the the next five years and sign Jones. That's what Boras is counting on.
NL ROY
This is a two horse race: Braun and Tulowitzki. We can give a nod to Lincecum, or Gallardo, but Braun and Tulowitzki are every day players on teams that were in contention. Maybe I should pay more attention to James Loney, but he doesn't really have a shot, does he?
Expect Braun to win it, followed by Tulowitzki and Chris Young. Chris Young, while holding a large amount of potential, should not finish higher than the five guys named above. Thirty-two homers is great, but a .295 OBA and .762 OPS is not.
Win Shares
Tulowitzki earned 25 win shares, and a ton of that came with his glove. He was the best defensive player in all of baseball, at any position. His offensive winning percentage was .668
Braun earned 22 win shares. His offensive winning percentage was .816. For all the talk of him playing only a portion of the season, he still had 492 PAs. Tulowitzki had 682. If Braun had 682 PAs, he'd be headed for 30 win shares.
Advantage: Braun
WARP
Tulowitzki earned 8.3 in WARP, a top 10 performance in the league. Again, he saved more runs at his position than any other player at any position.
Braun earned 4.4 in WARP. If Braun had 682 PAs, he'd be headed for a 6.1. BP thinks he cost his team a ton of runs playing third. In fact, he cost his team almost as many runs (20) as Tulowitzki saved his team (23) when compared to an average player at their respective positions.
Advantage: Tulowitzki
VORP
This one doesn't take into account defense. Tulowitzki gets a 37.8. Braun a 57.2, in fewer plate appearances.
Advantage: Braun, of course, since a big part of Tulowitzki's case is defense.
Sept/Oct OPS
Again, no defense involved, but I want to see who did a better job of helping his team make the postseason.
Tulowitzki put up an OPS of .910. Braun put up a .998.
Advantage: None. A .910 at short is at least as good as, and maybe better, than a .998 at third base. Nothing to sneeze at either way.
OPS vs. Main Rivals
Tulowitzki had a .646 OPS against the D-Backs, and a .653 against the Padres.
Braun put up a 1.071 OPS against the Cubs, and a 1.044 against the Cardinals.
Advantage: Braun
***
When I started this post, I was prepared to give Tulowitzki the ROY award because he plays a key defensive position, and plays it incredibly well. However, the last stat...how each player fared against the division rival clubs, sealed it for Braun in my mind. Although the Brewers didn't make the post-season, Braun certainly did more than his share against the rival Cubs and Cards. The Rockies had to carry Troy during those key games.
NL ROY = Ryan Braun, with Tulowitzki second, Gallardo third* and Lincecum and Loney tied for fourth.
*Interestingly, Gallardo has a higher WARP score than Braun!
Expect Braun to win it, followed by Tulowitzki and Chris Young. Chris Young, while holding a large amount of potential, should not finish higher than the five guys named above. Thirty-two homers is great, but a .295 OBA and .762 OPS is not.
Win Shares
Tulowitzki earned 25 win shares, and a ton of that came with his glove. He was the best defensive player in all of baseball, at any position. His offensive winning percentage was .668
Braun earned 22 win shares. His offensive winning percentage was .816. For all the talk of him playing only a portion of the season, he still had 492 PAs. Tulowitzki had 682. If Braun had 682 PAs, he'd be headed for 30 win shares.
Advantage: Braun
WARP
Tulowitzki earned 8.3 in WARP, a top 10 performance in the league. Again, he saved more runs at his position than any other player at any position.
Braun earned 4.4 in WARP. If Braun had 682 PAs, he'd be headed for a 6.1. BP thinks he cost his team a ton of runs playing third. In fact, he cost his team almost as many runs (20) as Tulowitzki saved his team (23) when compared to an average player at their respective positions.
Advantage: Tulowitzki
VORP
This one doesn't take into account defense. Tulowitzki gets a 37.8. Braun a 57.2, in fewer plate appearances.
Advantage: Braun, of course, since a big part of Tulowitzki's case is defense.
Sept/Oct OPS
Again, no defense involved, but I want to see who did a better job of helping his team make the postseason.
Tulowitzki put up an OPS of .910. Braun put up a .998.
Advantage: None. A .910 at short is at least as good as, and maybe better, than a .998 at third base. Nothing to sneeze at either way.
OPS vs. Main Rivals
Tulowitzki had a .646 OPS against the D-Backs, and a .653 against the Padres.
Braun put up a 1.071 OPS against the Cubs, and a 1.044 against the Cardinals.
Advantage: Braun
***
When I started this post, I was prepared to give Tulowitzki the ROY award because he plays a key defensive position, and plays it incredibly well. However, the last stat...how each player fared against the division rival clubs, sealed it for Braun in my mind. Although the Brewers didn't make the post-season, Braun certainly did more than his share against the rival Cubs and Cards. The Rockies had to carry Troy during those key games.
NL ROY = Ryan Braun, with Tulowitzki second, Gallardo third* and Lincecum and Loney tied for fourth.
*Interestingly, Gallardo has a higher WARP score than Braun!
NL MVP
As I posted two weeks ago, I had been more or less assuming that the NL MVP is David Wright. But with Prince Fielder getting hot exactly when the Brewers needed him, and the Mets collapse, I thought I should take a closer look.
Let's look at their Win Shares and their WARP1 scores from Baseball Prospectus, along with a few other candidates.
*Source: The Hardball Times
**Source: Baseball Prospectus
The heavy hitting first basemen suffer, in part, because of their poor defense. The same with Hanley Ramirez. Almost everyone else on the list is an average or better defender, even the overweight Cabrera and over aged Jones at third.
Pujos, frankly, is a shocker. The common perception is that he had a down year. Apparently not. He's right there with the best. I don't believe for a second that Pujols has a shot at the MVP, because the Cards swooned. Too bad, because Pujols finally found a year when Bonds isn't in the running and he still won't win it.
Holliday is obscure, and the voters will over-discount his numbers b/c he plays in Colorado. The WS and WARP numbers take into account park effects, so Holliday's numbers are his "real" numbers. I don't expect that kind of detailed analysis from the voters, however.
Wright is fruit of the poisoned Mets tree. My money is on Rollins, edging out Fielder. How about that Chase Utley, though. Give him his missing month, and this is an easy call.
My pick remains Wright. He didn't collapse, and he had a great year.
Here's a table with a composite score, which I described in my NL Catcher's post, assuming the replacement WS for a player is 5.
Note, there's only one rookie on this list.
Peavy finishes 8th.
Let's look at their Win Shares and their WARP1 scores from Baseball Prospectus, along with a few other candidates.
Player WS* WARP**
Wright 34 11.2
Beltran 27 8.0
J.Reyes 24 7.5
Utley 28 9.6
Howard 26 6.4
Rollins 28 9.4
Rowand 23 8.0
Holliday 30 10.1
Tulowitzki 25 8.3
Helton 24 8.6
Fielder 28 6.9
Pujols 32 11.3
R.Martin 24 8.0
C.Jones 26 7.3
Cabrera 30 9.1
H.Ramirez 29 8.7
Byrnes 26 6.8
A.Gonzalez 27 8.0
Peavy 23 10.6
Webb 22 8.7
*Source: The Hardball Times
**Source: Baseball Prospectus
The heavy hitting first basemen suffer, in part, because of their poor defense. The same with Hanley Ramirez. Almost everyone else on the list is an average or better defender, even the overweight Cabrera and over aged Jones at third.
Pujos, frankly, is a shocker. The common perception is that he had a down year. Apparently not. He's right there with the best. I don't believe for a second that Pujols has a shot at the MVP, because the Cards swooned. Too bad, because Pujols finally found a year when Bonds isn't in the running and he still won't win it.
Holliday is obscure, and the voters will over-discount his numbers b/c he plays in Colorado. The WS and WARP numbers take into account park effects, so Holliday's numbers are his "real" numbers. I don't expect that kind of detailed analysis from the voters, however.
Wright is fruit of the poisoned Mets tree. My money is on Rollins, edging out Fielder. How about that Chase Utley, though. Give him his missing month, and this is an easy call.
My pick remains Wright. He didn't collapse, and he had a great year.
Here's a table with a composite score, which I described in my NL Catcher's post, assuming the replacement WS for a player is 5.
Note, there's only one rookie on this list.
Player Composite
Wright 62.6
Pujols 60.9
Holliday 55.3
Cabrera 52.3
Utley 51.8
Rollins 51.2
H.Ramirez 50.1
Peavy 49.8
Beltran 46.0
A.Gonzalez 46.0
Tulowitzki 45.2
Helton 44.8
Fielder 43.7
Webb 43.1
Martin 43.0
C.Jones 42.9
Rowand 42.0
J.Reyes 41.5
Byrnes 41.4
Howard 40.2
Peavy finishes 8th.
NL Gold Gloves: Pitcher
Pitchers don't actually play enough defense to register on the Win Shares scale, except in hundreths of a decimal point. Only a few register Fielding Runs Above Average.
It probably isn't worth a table, but the contest is between Greg Maddux and Aaron Cook. Cook leads in Win Shares and was one of only two pitchers I could find with higher than a 0.1 FRAA. The other was Greg Maddux, with a whopping 0.5, more than twice as good as Cook. Maddux ranks 19th in Fielding WS, but considering they are measured in hundreths, it carries less weight than Fielding Runs Above Average.
My gold glove goes to Maddux, and I expect the writers to give it to him also. Cook finishes second.
Honorable mentions to Ben Sheets, Brandon Webb, Doug Davis and Derek Lowe the only four other pitchers in the Fielding WS top 20 and with a positive FRAA.
Iron glove? Who knows? Matt Morris is pretty bad. So is Tim Lincecum, probably because of the way he finishes on the mound. I'll give it to Morris, since he has had an awful year and I like piling on.
It probably isn't worth a table, but the contest is between Greg Maddux and Aaron Cook. Cook leads in Win Shares and was one of only two pitchers I could find with higher than a 0.1 FRAA. The other was Greg Maddux, with a whopping 0.5, more than twice as good as Cook. Maddux ranks 19th in Fielding WS, but considering they are measured in hundreths, it carries less weight than Fielding Runs Above Average.
My gold glove goes to Maddux, and I expect the writers to give it to him also. Cook finishes second.
Honorable mentions to Ben Sheets, Brandon Webb, Doug Davis and Derek Lowe the only four other pitchers in the Fielding WS top 20 and with a positive FRAA.
Iron glove? Who knows? Matt Morris is pretty bad. So is Tim Lincecum, probably because of the way he finishes on the mound. I'll give it to Morris, since he has had an awful year and I like piling on.
NL Gold Gloves: Outfield
Here are the NL Gold Glove candidates for the outfield. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9).
Unlike the real voting process, I like to give the three gold gloves to three different outfield positions.
Like Reyes, Beltran's numbers dropped significantly in the past 9 days. That will hurt him in the vote, and almost guarantees Andruw Jones a win. Francoeur has a good reputation too, but voters might be reluctant to approve two Braves. I see Cameron and Byrnes getting the other two spots.
It's a tough call, given the huge disagreements between the two systems. I saw Andruw play a lot, and there's no visible sign that his range is decreasing. I'll return to my composite method (described in the NL Catcher's post), using 2.6 as the average fielding win shares for an outfielder.
Beltran and Jacque Jones tie in centerfield. Because of Beltran's fielding collapse during the pennant race, Jacque Jones gets the center field gold glove. Byrnes gets it in left, edging Soriano. Francouer is an easy choice in right.
Iron gloves to Nate McLouth in center field, Josh Willingham in right field and Pat Burrell in left field. Imagine being a worse left fielder than Adam Dunn!
Unlike the real voting process, I like to give the three gold gloves to three different outfield positions.
Outfield FWS FWAA
Beltran 6.6 0.7
J.Jones 6.6 0.7
A.Jones 7.5 -0.1
C.Young 6.8 -1.0
Cameron 6.1 -0.4
Byrnes 6.3 1.6
Soriano 5.9 1.8
Francoeur 5.5 0.9
Rowand 5.1 0.8
Kearns 4.3 1.4
Holliday 4.0 1.6
Like Reyes, Beltran's numbers dropped significantly in the past 9 days. That will hurt him in the vote, and almost guarantees Andruw Jones a win. Francoeur has a good reputation too, but voters might be reluctant to approve two Braves. I see Cameron and Byrnes getting the other two spots.
It's a tough call, given the huge disagreements between the two systems. I saw Andruw play a lot, and there's no visible sign that his range is decreasing. I'll return to my composite method (described in the NL Catcher's post), using 2.6 as the average fielding win shares for an outfielder.
Beltran and Jacque Jones tie in centerfield. Because of Beltran's fielding collapse during the pennant race, Jacque Jones gets the center field gold glove. Byrnes gets it in left, edging Soriano. Francouer is an easy choice in right.
Iron gloves to Nate McLouth in center field, Josh Willingham in right field and Pat Burrell in left field. Imagine being a worse left fielder than Adam Dunn!
NL Gold Gloves: Shortstop
Here are the NL Gold Glove candidates at shortstop. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
You won't find two stronger arms than the top 2 guys on this list, although #5 on the list can get a lot on the ball too. Kudos to Vizquel for even appearing on the candidates list at his age.
Unlike David Wright, Reyes' defense did cost the Mets in the stretch drive. He lost half of his FWAA in the last 9 days.
It would be wrong, but don't be surprised if Vizquel wins this as a sentimental (and perennial) favorite.
My gold glove goes to Troy Tulowitzki in a landslide, which became even more landslidier in the last 10 days. The guy isn't getting enough respect. How did Holliday get player of the game in the final against the Pads when Troy hit a single, two doubles and a triple? Hell, Holliday didn't even touch the plate! Plus, Holliday misplayed a ball in the outfield.
Iron glove goes to David Eckstein. His weak arm is beginning to cost the Cards.
Shortstop FWS FWAA
Tulowitzki 10.9 2.6
Furcal 7.5 1.8
Ja.Wilson 7.2 2.1
Vizquel 6.8 0.3
Reyes 6.3 0.6
Hardy 6.2 0.7
You won't find two stronger arms than the top 2 guys on this list, although #5 on the list can get a lot on the ball too. Kudos to Vizquel for even appearing on the candidates list at his age.
Unlike David Wright, Reyes' defense did cost the Mets in the stretch drive. He lost half of his FWAA in the last 9 days.
It would be wrong, but don't be surprised if Vizquel wins this as a sentimental (and perennial) favorite.
My gold glove goes to Troy Tulowitzki in a landslide, which became even more landslidier in the last 10 days. The guy isn't getting enough respect. How did Holliday get player of the game in the final against the Pads when Troy hit a single, two doubles and a triple? Hell, Holliday didn't even touch the plate! Plus, Holliday misplayed a ball in the outfield.
Iron glove goes to David Eckstein. His weak arm is beginning to cost the Cards.
NL Gold Gloves: Third Base
Here are the NL Gold Glove candidates at third base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
Zimmerman, Ramirez and Wright could each win this. Rolen departed too soon, as usual.
Zimmerman put on an incredible show in the last 10 days. He may be too obscure to win it. I bet Ramirez or Wright get the actual award. Wright's defense certainly was not the reason for the Mets collapse.
Easy call for me. Zimmerman gets the award. Ramirez finishes second (and that guy can flat out play third).
The iron glove goes to Kevin Kouzmanoff.
Third base FWS FWAA
Zimmerman 6.4 2.6
A.Ramirez 5.2 2.1
Feliz 4.9 1.3
Wright 5.1 1.2
Rolen 3.8 1.4
Zimmerman, Ramirez and Wright could each win this. Rolen departed too soon, as usual.
Zimmerman put on an incredible show in the last 10 days. He may be too obscure to win it. I bet Ramirez or Wright get the actual award. Wright's defense certainly was not the reason for the Mets collapse.
Easy call for me. Zimmerman gets the award. Ramirez finishes second (and that guy can flat out play third).
The iron glove goes to Kevin Kouzmanoff.
NL Gold Gloves: Second Base
Here are the NL Gold Glove candidates at second base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
Hudson is no surprise here. Phillips is a big surprise, as I've heard only negatives about his defense. Uggla drops out of contention, as does Kelly Johnson, who didn't play much. Matsui and Utley get added to the list.
I expect Hudson to win it.
Both systems agree that Phillips is the winner, and who am I to argue?
Iron glove to the combo of Chris Burke and Craig Biggio. If I can pick only one player, then it goes to Ray Durham, who has had one of the worst years in recent memory for a good player.
Second base FWS FWAA
Phillips 6.4 2.3
Hudson 6.2 1.8
Giles 5.9 1.2
DeRosa 5.3 0.0
Matsui 5.3 1.2
Uggla 4.5 1.1
Utley 4.7 0.9
Hudson is no surprise here. Phillips is a big surprise, as I've heard only negatives about his defense. Uggla drops out of contention, as does Kelly Johnson, who didn't play much. Matsui and Utley get added to the list.
I expect Hudson to win it.
Both systems agree that Phillips is the winner, and who am I to argue?
Iron glove to the combo of Chris Burke and Craig Biggio. If I can pick only one player, then it goes to Ray Durham, who has had one of the worst years in recent memory for a good player.
NL Gold Gloves: First Base
Here are the NL Gold Glove candidates at first base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
Delgado is a real surprise here. He's never been a defensive standout. Derrek Lee wins most years, and probably will again. Helton has made a big push in the last two weeks.
I expect Lee to win it again, though Helton may finish highly.
Using the composite score method (see the NL Catcher's gold glove post), based on an average first baseman achieving 0.7 fielding win shares, I'll give the Gold Glove to Pujols, because he scores highly in both systems and I'm tired of the same guy winning it all the time. Helton finishes second.
Iron Glove goes to Dmitri Young. C'mon, all you've got to do is look at him to know he's not going to field that ground ball six inches to his right.
First base FWS FWAA
D.Lee 3.2 1.3
A.Gonzalez 2.9 1.6
Delgado 2.5 1.4
Pujols 2.4 2.1
Helton 2.8 1.8
LaRoche 2.0 0.7
Delgado is a real surprise here. He's never been a defensive standout. Derrek Lee wins most years, and probably will again. Helton has made a big push in the last two weeks.
I expect Lee to win it again, though Helton may finish highly.
Using the composite score method (see the NL Catcher's gold glove post), based on an average first baseman achieving 0.7 fielding win shares, I'll give the Gold Glove to Pujols, because he scores highly in both systems and I'm tired of the same guy winning it all the time. Helton finishes second.
Iron Glove goes to Dmitri Young. C'mon, all you've got to do is look at him to know he's not going to field that ground ball six inches to his right.
NL Gold Gloves: Catcher
Here are the NL Gold Glove candidates at catcher. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
I haven't watched Snyder much, but Martin is the clear favorite based on name recognition and his bat (which shouldn't be part of the GG voting, but is). Molina is also a well-known defender.
In the last two weeks, Snyder rocketed ahead of Martin in Win Shares. Martin lost ground, and Snyder picked up a bunch. I didn't watch Snyder play, but he must have been awesome to gain that kind of ground in a couple of weeks.
I'll assume for this post that an average fielding catcher would earn about 2.5 fielding win shares. Subtracting 2.5 from their fielding win shares, I get FWSAA (fielding win shares above average). Then I multiply three times their FWAA in the BP system, because wins are worth three win shares in the win shares system. Adding the two together gives me a composite score of how they rank against average catchers.
By that measure, Molina edges out Snyder and gets my gold glove. I think this may be the voters' result too, because someone on LaRussa's club has to win something, right? Martin also has a chance to snag the real award.
I still give an Iron Glove to Jason Kendall, though I'm tempted to give one to Michael Barrett, who is below average and dropped the throw that would have kept the Padres hopes alive (assuming competent umpiring).
Catcher FWS FWAA
Snyder 9.5 1.2
Martin 8.6 1.1
Y.Molina 7.4 2.1
Ruiz 7.3 0.7
Ausmus 7.0 0.6
I haven't watched Snyder much, but Martin is the clear favorite based on name recognition and his bat (which shouldn't be part of the GG voting, but is). Molina is also a well-known defender.
In the last two weeks, Snyder rocketed ahead of Martin in Win Shares. Martin lost ground, and Snyder picked up a bunch. I didn't watch Snyder play, but he must have been awesome to gain that kind of ground in a couple of weeks.
I'll assume for this post that an average fielding catcher would earn about 2.5 fielding win shares. Subtracting 2.5 from their fielding win shares, I get FWSAA (fielding win shares above average). Then I multiply three times their FWAA in the BP system, because wins are worth three win shares in the win shares system. Adding the two together gives me a composite score of how they rank against average catchers.
By that measure, Molina edges out Snyder and gets my gold glove. I think this may be the voters' result too, because someone on LaRussa's club has to win something, right? Martin also has a chance to snag the real award.
I still give an Iron Glove to Jason Kendall, though I'm tempted to give one to Michael Barrett, who is below average and dropped the throw that would have kept the Padres hopes alive (assuming competent umpiring).
Matt Holliday's RBI Title
I'm a Matt Holliday fan. I'm not a Ryan Howard fan.
Yet, I don't understand how Holliday gets the RBI title by playing in the wild card play-in game. It isn't a playoff game, but it isn't really a regular season game either.
Holliday did not do anything to deserve an extra game. Howard is actually punished by the Phils winning the NL East title. If only the Phils had lost, there would have been a play-in game against the Mets, and we'd be able to compare Holliday's RBI total to Howard's on an apples-to-apples basis.
If Holliday had overtaken a player on a non-playoff team, perhaps we could call this extra game "earned" by Holliday's contribution to Rockies wins all season. But when his competition for the title is already in the playoffs, it makes no sense to give Holliday the title.
Yet, I don't understand how Holliday gets the RBI title by playing in the wild card play-in game. It isn't a playoff game, but it isn't really a regular season game either.
Holliday did not do anything to deserve an extra game. Howard is actually punished by the Phils winning the NL East title. If only the Phils had lost, there would have been a play-in game against the Mets, and we'd be able to compare Holliday's RBI total to Howard's on an apples-to-apples basis.
If Holliday had overtaken a player on a non-playoff team, perhaps we could call this extra game "earned" by Holliday's contribution to Rockies wins all season. But when his competition for the title is already in the playoffs, it makes no sense to give Holliday the title.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
This Is Our Country
My next comment is related to baseball only in the sense that I have to hear this guy's voice in 1 out of every 3 commercials when I'm watching baseball on ESPN:
I hate John Mellencamp
I hate John Mellencamp
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
San Diego Scuffling
Although I didn't intend my post about players who should no longer be in the league to have any relationship whatsoever to the San Diego meltdown, the list contains three -- yes three -- players who will be filling in for Milton Bradley.
Termel Sledge, Brady Clark and the recently acquired Jason Lane.
Termel Sledge, Brady Clark and the recently acquired Jason Lane.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Milton Bradley, again
I just watched in its entirety the Milton Bradley at bat in the 5th inning, and the confrontation in the 8th.
According to Bradley, when he approached the batter's box in the 8th, the home plate umpire (Runge) asked him if he flipped his bat at the ump after he struck out in the 5th. Bradley says he told the ump "No, why would I do that?" Bradley then asked the ump "Who told you that?" Runge told him that Mike Winters, the first base ump told Runge that Bradley flipped the bat at him.
I watched the end of the at bat in the 5th. It was a called strike. The ump and the catcher moved away. Bradley stood at home plate taking off his batting gloves. He was annoyed, but he wasn't talking to Runge or acting in an angry manner. I certainly didn't see him throw the bat. It is possible he tossed it after they went to commercial, but that would have been a good 20 seconds after the strikeout, and Runge was no longer even in the camera shot. It seems highly unlikely.
So after the conversation with Runge in the 8th, Bradley singled. When he reaches first, he turns to Winters and asks him a question. Bradley says the question was "Did you tell him I threw my bat? Why would you do that?" In the video, Winters is responding calmly. Bradley says Winters is telling him "You did throw the bat." Watching the video, I'm guessing Winters' tone was more along the lines of "That's what I saw...I thought you threw the bat at him." Bradley is clearly upset. Todd Helton is stoic.
As several pitches are made to Kouzamanoff, Bradley is still jawing as he takes his leads. Black comes out of the dugout to find out what's going on and to have a talk with Winters. Also, first base coach Bobby Meacham tells Black what's going on.
The game resumes, with Bradley taking his lead more quietly on the next pitch. On the following pitch, Bradley is jawing again, but not in a particularly boisterous manner. He's just talking. A fan yells "You suck ump." Bradley points to the fan, but says nothing. He and Winters continue to exchange dialogue, though Bradley is talking a lot more than Winters.
In the middle of taking his next lead, Winters says something to Bradley, and Bradley snaps. He rushes back to the first base bag -- not at Winters -- and tries to ask for time out. He looks like he wants a time out to figure out what Winters' problem is. Before he gets to the bag he turns and heads for Winters, who quickly throws him out of the game as Meacham tries to restrain him. Then Bud Black is there -- out of nowhere -- wrestling Bradley away, and eventually twisting/tackling him to the ground, where Bradley tore his ACL.
Bradley is hot tempered and probably over reacted to the whole thing. He has a chip on his shoulder.
But when I watched the video, it is clear Winters said something special to push Bradley over the edge. He was not in charging mode while he was taking his leads and jawing. Winters said something that pushed him. I'd love to hear what that was, either from Bobby Meacham or Todd Helton. Meacham commented today that if Winters had said the same thing to him, he would have charged him too. No word yet from Helton.
Nate Silver at BP argues that Helton has an ethical duty to step forward and report what he heard.
According to Bradley, when he approached the batter's box in the 8th, the home plate umpire (Runge) asked him if he flipped his bat at the ump after he struck out in the 5th. Bradley says he told the ump "No, why would I do that?" Bradley then asked the ump "Who told you that?" Runge told him that Mike Winters, the first base ump told Runge that Bradley flipped the bat at him.
I watched the end of the at bat in the 5th. It was a called strike. The ump and the catcher moved away. Bradley stood at home plate taking off his batting gloves. He was annoyed, but he wasn't talking to Runge or acting in an angry manner. I certainly didn't see him throw the bat. It is possible he tossed it after they went to commercial, but that would have been a good 20 seconds after the strikeout, and Runge was no longer even in the camera shot. It seems highly unlikely.
So after the conversation with Runge in the 8th, Bradley singled. When he reaches first, he turns to Winters and asks him a question. Bradley says the question was "Did you tell him I threw my bat? Why would you do that?" In the video, Winters is responding calmly. Bradley says Winters is telling him "You did throw the bat." Watching the video, I'm guessing Winters' tone was more along the lines of "That's what I saw...I thought you threw the bat at him." Bradley is clearly upset. Todd Helton is stoic.
As several pitches are made to Kouzamanoff, Bradley is still jawing as he takes his leads. Black comes out of the dugout to find out what's going on and to have a talk with Winters. Also, first base coach Bobby Meacham tells Black what's going on.
The game resumes, with Bradley taking his lead more quietly on the next pitch. On the following pitch, Bradley is jawing again, but not in a particularly boisterous manner. He's just talking. A fan yells "You suck ump." Bradley points to the fan, but says nothing. He and Winters continue to exchange dialogue, though Bradley is talking a lot more than Winters.
In the middle of taking his next lead, Winters says something to Bradley, and Bradley snaps. He rushes back to the first base bag -- not at Winters -- and tries to ask for time out. He looks like he wants a time out to figure out what Winters' problem is. Before he gets to the bag he turns and heads for Winters, who quickly throws him out of the game as Meacham tries to restrain him. Then Bud Black is there -- out of nowhere -- wrestling Bradley away, and eventually twisting/tackling him to the ground, where Bradley tore his ACL.
Bradley is hot tempered and probably over reacted to the whole thing. He has a chip on his shoulder.
But when I watched the video, it is clear Winters said something special to push Bradley over the edge. He was not in charging mode while he was taking his leads and jawing. Winters said something that pushed him. I'd love to hear what that was, either from Bobby Meacham or Todd Helton. Meacham commented today that if Winters had said the same thing to him, he would have charged him too. No word yet from Helton.
Nate Silver at BP argues that Helton has an ethical duty to step forward and report what he heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)