You wrote this article a year or so ago and I found
it incredibly interesting at the time. As I was watching the Cubans play
in the World Baseball Classic tournament I couldn't help but think back to this research and
wanted to get your impressions.
The rest of this article is restricted to Baseball Prospectus Subscribers.
Not a subscriber?
Click here for more information on Baseball Prospectus subscriptions or use the buttons to the right to subscribe and get access to the best baseball content on the web.
I like your articles looking at the Hall of Fame ballot each year, but
I disagree with some of your methods. It isn't the JAWS score but that
you use the average of all HOFers, dropping the worst
ones. Players who meet these standards are obviously in, the
standards that need to be met are those of the borderline guys.
BP staffers reach into the mailbag to talk King Felix, WXRL usage, Hit List construction and more.
The Angels have a better record than the A's, a better record for the
week against better opponents, and a better run differential for the
season, yet you list the A's higher and have them going up. I know I am
biased for the Angels but how do you explain your ranking without
Keith Woolner, Steven Goldman, Jonah Keri and Neil deMause reach into the mailbag to address questions on using stats, pitching performances, stadium financing, and local broadcasters.
I was wondering something
MLVr. I always see players plugged into a
lague average team whenever it is used, but can you plug Player X into
a current team (say, put Lyle Overbay in the place
of Kevin Millar in the Red
Sox order) and still have the results work? It seems like it would
no problem, but I just wanted to make sure there was no reason that
alluded me as to why it may not work.
Jay Jaffe, Keith Woolner, James Click and Jonah Keri reach into the mailbag and address win expectancies, the stathead revolution, the running game, gambling, and...scrabble? Plus, a reader known only as "J.S." offers Steven Goldman (if that is his real name) some more conspiracy fuel for the fire.
What do the D.C. Expos, surprising seasons and infield singles have in common? Just the readers' interest.
As a longtime D.C.-area resident, I seriously doubt deMause's breakdown of the fan base. deMause claims that D.C. is the 'region's entertainment hub' and 50% of the dollars spent at the D.C. ballpark would otherwise be spent in D.C. Very doubtful. Ask a Virginian who holds Redskins season tickets how often they otherwise spend money in Prince Georges County. This answer is never. Because of the uniqueness of D.C.'s location, the 'bowling alley effect' in this case is negligible--probably less than 5%. Money spent by VA/MD/WV surburbanites at the D.C. ballpark is truly money that would not go to D.C.
Dipping into the BP Mailbag, Jason Karegeannes has more on being a Questec operator; Clay Davenport delves into RFK's park factors; a D'backs fan suggests another reason for the team's struggles; and Chris Kahrl's inbox is stuffed with TA thoughts.
Excellent columns on sacrificing. One question though. In the situation where the team is looking for just one run, and there is a runner on 2nd with no outs. If I were the opposing manager, and the other team succesfully sacrificed the runner to third, depending on the next batters, I might give batter two an intentional walk and hope for a double play to get out of the inning. Does this response by the opposing manager change the effectiveness of the strategy?
You make an excellent point. Running the numbers assuming that a GIDP is possible after a sacrifice of the man to third, the breakeven levels now read:
(Instead of the .351/.436/.619 line from the article.) Obviously this reduces the number of players who should be sacrificing from "everyone except Bonds" to simply the vast majority. I will definitely include this correction in future adjustments to the equations. Thanks for pointing out the shortfall.