CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
See you've changed Sabathia's age to 29. Not trying to be a pain but... he's not 29 either, he's 30. Bunch of others are wrong too. Burnett is 34, Mitre 30, etc.
Sabathia isn't 28. Seems a little counter intuitive that the pitcher's forecast are so optimistic, but I suppose it could be the yanks' players in particular and not a faulty model.
Sorry if the system was already explained, I must have missed it, but are the rating thresholds for each injury level different (i.e. a player with a X% chance of missing one or more days might get a yellow, but the same X% chance of missing 15 or more days would get him a red). I would hope it's relative to league average risk level at each injury degree because otherwise it would seem tough to imagine what a position player would look like who could rate as green for missing 1 or more day.
What happens when I
have an actual question,
but can't write haikus?
second the url change. can't get fantasy content at the office.
Well they might not, since All rotations are susceptible to injury, but the Twins might be in particular because theirs includes Francisco Liriano, Carl Pavano, Scott Baker, and Kevin Slowey, each of whom have been limited by injuries to varying degrees over the past several seasons.
But who knows, maybe they do win it this year because Despite losing more big-league players than they added this offseason, the Twins still appear to be the most well-rounded club in the division, with a solid rotation and lineup, and possibly its bullpen as well.
Young talent is never a given to improve. The Justin Upton was supposed to improve.
Except they only retained Lilly, and the addition of Garland is more than offset by the downgrades from Martin to Barajas, and Furcal to Uribe.
I agree that the odds of the Padres winning MORE games than last year seem slight, but the players they brought in almost make up for the loss of Adrian, and they restocked their farm system. That's a pretty good off season.
This one time, I played in a fantasy baseball league named "A-Rod in my Pujols".
Not trying to be a jerk or anything, but are these the real projections that will match what we'll be getting once the depth charts are released? Or do these contain the same bugs that caused the delay in the first place, and we're only seeing them because "A version of this story originally appeared on ESPN Insider"?
It's his FRAA. His PA and ISO are well in line with the rest of the list.
He's got that covered at 1412 PA, but his career BA of .257 would be the lowest on the list above by 14 points.
Enjoyed this. First chart shows Adam Wainwright with nearly 100 career home runs though.
Oh this is torture. The URL for the spreadsheet includes the words "baseball" and "fantasy" which means it's blocked here at the office--criminal, I know!
I'd go to a North Jersey event, if it were closer to me than the NYC event (which won't be easy, as I live in Hoboken).
Also is the average weighted by pitches or pitcher?
Mike, which pitch types are you including in "fastballs"? Ben mentions cutters in the article, but what about two-seamers, sinkers, etc. Why not just use four seamers?
Good stuff Ben. I already had these charts laying around, so I figure I'd share them here with anyone who's interested:
I know I do.. just finished the crossword puzzle
But a 20 year old SS defensive whiz at Double A doesn't fit your "most conditions" stipulation.
Was going to post this, but was beaten to the punch. Can we necessarily conclude that if bullpen usage hadn't changed, the numbers would have been what they are?
Sir Sidney Ponson...
It's one thing for writers to not vote for guys like Raffy or McGwire, but phrases like "restricted list" are completely infuriating. Major League Baseball doesn't say that steroid users--even today, let alone before it was even against the rules in McGwire's case--are ineligible for Hall of Fame inclusion, so what right do the writers have to completely dismiss them without even considering their cases?
Thanks to all for the explanations. Boy is that frustrating to hear, as both a Yankee fan (from whom the Angels received the comp pick used to select Trout) and a NJ resident.
I understood that you recognized a double standard, but where your point is lost on me is when you seem to be pushing for people to question Alomar's legitimacy instead of not questioning Bagwell's (to eliminate said double standard). My point about the Grimsleys and Jeremy Giambi's still stands.
Interesting read. What about players on the DL, would those count as duty days (assuming he is still traveling with the team)? And for that matter, what about guys rehabbing at the team's facilities in, say, Arizona? Or minor league rehab assignments?
Not all the benefits of PED's will show up in home run or strikeout numbers (see Grimsley, Jeremy Giambi, Brian Roberts, etc).
This is exactly what my first paragraph was arguing against. You can't say that PEDs didn't show up in these guys' HR or K numbers just because that didn't have a ton. Who's to say they wouldn't have had even LESS than they already did if not for PEDs. Conversely, I can't say they definitely would have, as there is NO way of knowing.
The rest of your post is just you taking stabs at the dark. What evidence is there that Bagwell juiced? He looks bigger than he used to be? Not nearly good enough. Your logic condemns everyone who played during the era as a user without having ANY evidence whatsoever.
My point is home runs don't indicate who took what, and Alomar's career was SMACK in the middle of the worst of the controversy, so whose to say he wasn't a user also? And nobody is mentioning it.
I don't think anyone is saying "He definitely did not use PEDs." We can't say that with any certainty. Nobody is mentioning it at all, however, in light of the fact that there is not a single bit of reasonable evidence to do so. NONE. You seem to take exception to this for some reason, and I can't figure out why anybody would be in favor of MORE slanderous, baseless finger pointing from the media than there already is (see: Bagwell).
Didn't really follow the pre-draft coverage, so I'm just curious.. did all these raves about Trout's tools, baseball aptitude, approach, exist prior to the draft? With the possible exception of approach, they don't seem like things that could drastically change over the course of a year. So what dropped him to 25th overall pick?
Echoing what mrdan said, I was talking about your McGwire to Lofton comparison, not Mark to Raffy.
I know this wasn't your main point, but I hate the "Player X (in this case, Grimsley) took PEDs and player X was not very good, so PEDs don't really enhance performance?" argument. I don't think anyone from the camp that believes PEDs really do enhance performance believe that it is a magic become-awesome-at-baseball-drug. A bodybuilder on steroids isn't going to be any better at hitting a baseball than he would be clean. But if you take a guy who is already good at hitting a baseball far, and make him stronger and less likely to be fatigued day to day, that's a clear advantage. And just because Grimsley stunk, doesn't mean we can say he wasn't better off using PEDs.
On to your point about Alomar... The fact that nobody is "talking" (as you put it, I'd probably phrase it another way: irresponsibly insinuating made-up narratives) about Alomar using is a GOOD thing, because there's no reason to believe he did. Even the awful look-at-these-before-and-after-pictures "proof" doesn't apply to Alomar. I'd hope the reason behind finger pointing would be reasonable, public evidence and not big home run numbers or hunches.
And his "one trick" (which is actually two tricks: getting on base and hitting for power) is the very best trick to have.
Rephrasing your argument: "So if someone is the very best at something that is a very important aspect of offense, are they equal to someone else who was not even close to the very best at something that is much less valuable?"
Comparing parity of the NFL to MLB based solely on payroll structures and revenue streams is a fool's errand.
The sports are so incredibly different in so many other ways: MLB's season consists of roughly 10 times as many game (meaning we can be far more confident in a teams W/L record approximating their talent level), the difference in impact and timing of top draft picks, the scheduling, etc.
The Yanks got by last year with 344 replacement level innings from Burnett and Vazquez, and just 129 innings of Pettitte. If Burnett regresses back to the mean, all they need to do is replace Pettitte and Vazquez's 286.1 IP with below average, above replacement level innings (which doesn't seem like too tall of a task) they'll be markedly better than last year.
The Jays allowed more runs last year than the Yanks in a less hitter friendly home park, and have lost 195.1 innings of 3.8 WAR performance from Marcum. But the Yankees simply don't have enough starting pitching.
Nevermind, my plan was to win the Twitter contest all along.
any kind of standby list we can get on?
dang, why so few tickets? any options at all for those of us who missed out?
Who's old? The "Core 4" are the only ones on the wrong side of 35. And the Yankees already dealt with limited production from the 3 of them last year. Their bullpen, catcher(s), outfield, and right side of the infield are all young or just ever so slightly past qualifying as such.
The Phillies are older, but no one seems to expect "significant drop-offs" from them...
Finishes fourth? They were a 96 win team (by 3rd Order Wins) last year, they're retaining pretty much everyone except a few rentals and Vazquez (but thats really addition by subtraction). Not signing the top FA pitcher doesn't make a team 12 wins worse.
Man, as over hyped as Yankees/Red Sox games are, the mere mention of Pettitte facing Ortiz, up 2 with 2 on draws up quite a bit of tension and really makes me miss baseball.
Here's hoping we get to see that matchup again next year.
can't the answer be that FIP does both, depending on how it is used? As an ERA predictor, it acts like Matt describes--ignores noise and skill. As a representation of specific skills, it acts like Tango describes-- just observed results.
If you want to know the pitcher's true talent level inside that observed result, then clearly you have to do something to FIP in order to use it for that.
Matt isn't trying to find a pitcher's true FIP talent. He's trying to find a pitcher's true ERA talent, and these articles are about the adjustments made to SIERA that may allow it to be used for that.
just making sure i'm parsing this right. i'd appreciate if you could tell me if i have any of the following wrong.
if babip on line drives is not persistent, thats saying it's not a skill pitcher's have control over. What about line drive rates in general, are those persistent? If we see two pitchers, pitcher A with an above average line drive rate, but normal babip on LD, and pitcher B with average line drive rates but above average babip on LD, who would we expect more regression from, pitcher B?
The Braves rotation will stand the test of time much, much better. People aren't going to remember that they were only slightly better in the 3 years leading up to their season(s) together. They'll remember that 3 of them were (or I assume they will be) Hall of Famers, pitching together around their peak.
off the top of your head, would Paredes/Melancon have cracked the Yankees top 20?
Also FWIW, the three sets of data starting at 1976 and ending at 1978 show a similar variance as 2006-2008 (heck, they're even right next to each other in the table), but jumps back down to a more expected level in 1979, so at the very least, this kind of shift (for this amount of time anyway) isn't unprecedented.
On the one hand, if you remove Fenway from the equation (which certainly qualifies as "quirky", which is what we're looking for in stadiums built since Camden) the correlation jumps to 0.26, but on the other hand there are only 7 data points that qualify as "Not built since Camden" which might be too small to mean anything. For example, Having the word "Stadium" in the name of your stadium has 6 qualifying data points and a strong negative correlation of 0.42, but I'm pretty sure the fact is irrelevant.
Cano had a better batting line than Longo and plays 2b rather than 3b. All of Longoria's advantage in terms of fWAR, bWAR, WARP2, etc basically comes entirely from advanced defensive statistics. There's also things built in there like quantitative positional and park adjustments. I think it's progress that the voters seem to have a better sense of what numbers matter on offense and are now at least thinking of these things (defense, position, and park) albeit probably less qualitatively. Because to be honest, the sabre community probably doesn't have the best possible handle on these things at the moment either.
I just have trouble seeing the reasoning behind saying that Cy Young awards go to the best pitcher independent of his team, and MVP awards go to the player with the best story line completely intertwined with his team. So far the "reasons" offered have been "Because that's the Cy Young" or "That's the MVP", but WHY is that the MVP? Why is this assumption made? If there is no reasoning behind it other than "that's the way it is" than why argue for it as if there were?
Then why give Felix the Cy Young? I don't understand why people hate pitcher-wins but love guys on playoff teams at the same time. Shouldn't we hate them both? Or love them both? I wouldn't agree with you if you loved them both, but I'd at least understand you.
This was not my intention, and I don't think I have.
He explicitly denies the use of wins as even remotely credible, but the team you play for is OK. However, I feel they are both invalid for the exact same reasons.
He also explicitly said he'd prefer the MVP to come from a playoff team, my counter was that for Pujols' team to be a playoff team, all else equal, he'd have to have the best player season ever. I think that is an unfair standard to hold over poor Albert.
That's a pretty arbitrary line though. For you, Wins are a distinguishing factor if two pitchers are similar in VORP, but to a BBWAA voter, Wins might be distinguishing enough between the best and 4th best pitcher in the league (a stance he'd surely get blasted for). I personally believe it to be much more logically consistent to never introduce team based contexts into individual awards.
If two players have similar VORP, there are plenty of things left to consider about the individual without resorting to "well, who had a better supporting cast?" their performances in clutch situations, pitchers they faced, hell even the dreaded unquantifiable intangibles like clubhouse personality and leadership and whatnot. They might not be repeatable skills or their impact may be overblown, but at least they can be credited solely to the guy being considered for the vote.
But why are pitcher-wins bad? Because they're accredited to the pitcher despite being largely out of his control, no? So then why is being on a contender good? It's probably even more out of a players control than garnering a win.
You want Pujols to be worth an additional 5 wins so that his team would contend for a playoff spot before he is worthy of an MVP vote?? All else being equal, it would have required Pujols to put up the best season by a player in over 100 years (arguably ever) just for the Cards to have forced a 163rd game against the Reds.
I see no difference in voting for a pitcher with a lot of wins and voting for a player on a playoff team. In either case, a player is rewarded for the efforts of his teammates, rather than his own. I suppose the difference comes from an interpretation of the names of the awards and the assumption one makes that "Valuable" is decidedly not context-free. Ironically, this is probably the same mistake most pitcher-wins proponents make in that they equate pitcher-wins with team-wins.
If context is fine for the MVP award, but not the Cy Young, does this mean you'd have CC ahead of Felix on your MVP ballot, but not your Cy Young?
Who is to say the 'Valuable' is in reference to the team he plays for? Miggy is a very valuable ballplayer whose talents weren't properly utilized by his team this year.
It's like saying that it's ridiculous to not give the award named after the all-time leader in wins to the pitcher who lead the league in wins.
What's in a name?
I have a problem with this. The more "interesting narrative" you mentioned doesn't seem like it'll go away anytime soon. Yet it is the exact same principle that people are (finally) turning away from in the Cy Young voting: that players should be awarded/discredited based on the players around them.
(I'm totally OK with the rest of your post saying that it's a close call between the two--I just don't see why the narrative should play any part at all)
Objective analysis works to a certain extent before it's no longer objective (your own example of favoring Wilson's VORP over Soria's WXRL - Why? That is largely a subjective preference.) So I'd ask you what you believe to be the purpose of X of the Year Awards? To crown an absolute indisputable king of position X? Probably not. We know the two are close enough in terms of numbers, so I have no problem choosing the player that was actually relevant.
There's a separate league adjustment which basically just penalizes NL teams. The Phillies probably finished where they did because this league adjustment is too big (for some people's tastes) and not because of matchup adjustments.
I understand that players switching teams should wash out, but if there existed certain roster management tendencies (not sure what they'd be off the top of my head) of teams that outperform or under perform couldn't that create a bias?
I'm quite happy with the current system.
Maybe a fifth umpire in the review booth and a few less off days in the postseason?
Atlanta was no Goliath.
As a Cablevision subscriber, I can confirm your theory of needing to be emotionally invested early. After missing out on the first two games, this Series seemed doomed to be a dud from my perspective.
Most pitcher's fare worse after multiple turns through a lineup, but definitely seems like their could be a selection bias for the inverse. The pool of pitcher's that struggle early is bound to be filled with plenty of pitcher's who just struggle in general, and it would make sense then that they'd continue to struggle.
It's just Austin Kearns though. Berkman for his career is just slightly worse than Kearns against LH, and as recently as '08 and '09, he was better. Even giving Kearns the advantage, Berkman's D at 1st (vs. Swisher's) and Swisher's D in RF (vs. Kearns') could at least arguably make up for that.
Kearns probably should have come in the game when Teix went down, but I don't think it's worth getting upset over keeping him on the bench for a CJ Wilson start, considering Wilson's penchant for walking batters and above average ability to strike guys out. Kearns K's a ton and Berkman can still work a walk.
Well, I'd be a little reluctant to simply take his SIERA and say that's his true ERA talent. It all depends on what you look at. For example, BIS data has his LD% down by a half a percent this year, whereas pitch fx data has his LD% up by almost 3 percent. I can't tell you which one is more correct.
But his BABIP on GB has actually gone down 10 points this year, while his BABIP on LD has shot up 40 points. Seems plausible that he's getting hit harder and more often this year.
He also stranded a ton of runners last year and is much closer to his career level this year. He's also been a tad better (luckier?) with his HR/FB.
I'm not entirely sure if he is or isn't capable of matching his SIERA, but is "he's done it in the past" the only argument that he is? He also has a lot more years in the past striking out less than 6 per nine than he has striking out more than 7.
From a logical point of view, yeah obviously he could be both (Surely you understood my implication that I believe he's not, for more reasons than just the one I gave, no?). But in writing up a matchup it's not really appropriate to label the lesser of the two as one of the best while not acknowledging his opponent's superiority--in fact, Bumgarner's writeup is largely negative.
Arod was at most, what, 3 strides off of third base by the time Cruz got to the ball in fairly shallow right? A strong, accurate throw wasn't even necessary; a 5-hopper beats him to the bag.
Blanton one of the best 4th starters in baseball? He's not even the best 4th starter pitching tonight.
I was watching at a bar and one guy I was with (admittedly a former astros fan and therefor unabashed berkman-believer) swore it hit the pole, while another was certain it was foul. I am completely undecided. I could watch that replay 100 more times and still not be able to form an opinion. I was hoping that at least that would make for 'inconclusive' evidence and the call would hold.
And so ends The Legend of Eric Hinske.
looks like someone forgot to close the html tag when bud's comment was deleted. There, that should do it.
I read the quote this morning in the story and don't remember it reading much different than that. It still sounds bad.
I thought the strike zone was pretty consistent (but off) all night. Pitches off the plate outside were getting called strikes and pitches inside but over the plate were getting called balls. This especially applied to lefties, but after the first 8-10 bad calls, I was fine with the consistency.
That's the default way of looking at it. In my eyes it's the Yankees asking the manager who led them to a historic postseason collapse in '04 and first round exits every year after to be the richest person with at his job. The reality is a combination of the two, but everyone seems to focus on the keyword: "insult" which I simply can't follow.
Were they supposed to keep giving him raises forever, regardless of recent performance solely on the basis of his success during a time when he was managing something like 5 future Hall of Famers in their peak years?
I say this not to deride what Torre did for the Yankees, I just wished he had taken what I believed to be a decent offer. It might have been a "token" offer, but if Torre said yes, the Yanks would be on the hook for a token 5 million.
Torre was offered a contract by the Yankees that he really could not accept, one which called for a pay cut.
One which would have kept him the highest paid manager in the game. I never understood the media's angle that the Yankees low-balled Torre.
But if the Phillies and Giants win game 162, then the Phils are guaranteed to face a team that has already burned its number one starter (and possibly number two also, if the Braves lose their 163rd game, and they face the NL West Wild Card).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding how this is supposed to work, but I don't think the projections ARE saying this is a level of production 10% of the players should reach, but IS saying this is a level that this particular player is projected as having a 10% chance of being worse than and and 90% chance of being better than.
Ok, so if every single player has a 10% chance of being worse than his 10th percentile, why shouldn't we expect 10% of all players to hit that mark?
I'm not entirely sure if the content of the forthcoming tweets would warrant it, but it might be nice to have a twitter feed somewhere on the main page as well. many employers block twitter.
So what's the (seven percent) solution?
Your criteria for picking Longoria:
1) being there
2) consistently excellent in all phases
3) battling for best record
4) tough division
5) leads in WARP
I concede guts to Longo, but Cano has played in a few more games, has been the better hitter--though I'll concede baserunning, and for the sake of argument I'll give you defense too (even though Cano has a positional advantage)--numbers 3 and 4 also apply to Cano, Cano ties Longo in WARP1, and is right behind him in WARP3.
I'm not necessarily pushing for Cano to win MVP (though I think he'd make a fine choice), but just curious that you have him at number 5 and Longoria at number 1, when, based on your criteria, Cano is probably the same, if not better.
I want to see someone have a 4 homer game with 10 rbis, off of a grand slam, 3 run shot, 2 run shot, and a solo home run. No one has ever done this according to my cursory glance, though Mark Whiten came close. Replacing the solo shot with a second 2 run shot.
Ok thanks a lot. I was confused by "the season after". I thought I had remembered from Will's Teachings, that the effects of a wrist injury can often extend into the next season. I was imagining a player who was injured late in season Y, and was feeling the effect on his numbers in season Y+1, rather than being injured and realizing the effects in the same season, Y, and then rebounding in Y+1.
Oh man, forgive me if I'm missing the obvious here, but I'm still not getting it...
For the season that was "hampered" by the injury PECOTA expected them to slug .427, but they instead slugged .439, correct? Why would these players, dealing with injuries (that PECOTA doesn't know about) which are widely accepted to lower power numbers, slug higher than PECOTA thought they would?
If PECOTA didn't know about these power-sapping injuries, why did it predict a larger power-sap than what actually occurred?
I'm confused. Wrist injuries hamper power numbers. Old-PECOTA didn't know about injuries. Shouldn't their old-PECOTA projected numbers therefor be higher than their actual numbers?
Excellent article. I do, however, say this about all articles which give me another reason to love Brett Gardner.
I vehemently disagree with the very premise of this article:
But this past Monday, Wells came close to achieving something rare: making me incredibly angry
just having a bit of fun tango, I'm a fan of both you and BP, and pretentiousness to be honest.
the bible? sorry, what are you referring too?
"deadly accurate" is almost as pretentious as writing a book and titling it "The Book".
Echoing the K% sentiment, it's really a shame that we don't see more of it so that we may become more familiar with its context. Just about everyone knows that if your K/9 is approaching 9 or above, you're doing fantastic, but what's the gold standard for K%? 20%? 22%? I know K/9's context is inherently more understandable, but given the advantages of K% I think more exposure will help.
if they can't count on [Pettitte], they don't have another starter with an above-.500 SNWP
Hughesy just barely sneaks in.
Poor gods. They will never live amongst the Matt Wieters.*
reading BP's definition of the stats, I don't get any indication that they are park adjusted. SIERA states that the park effects are eliminated by virtue of the fact that it is based only on strikeout, walk , and ground ball rates. But the glaring error there is that strikeout and walk rates are still affected by park.
I remember a good amount of whining about the Yankees advantage in regards to the schedule. Mike Scioscia, in particular, had a lot of beef with if, if I recall correctly.
Am I correct in thinking that none of the numbers used in the table are park adjusted?
Being that closers are (hopefully) being used in higher leverage situations, where they are more likely to encounter a pinch-running-base-stealing-specialist, I would certainly expect them to give up a higher percentage of stolen bases. It would be interesting to learn how much these pinch runners inflate the differences between closers and non.
Your comment is much more heavily reliant on hindsight analysis (the Braves not being able to score many runs), than Eric's article. He only briefly commented on the actual results of the series, and instead focused on Cox's view at the time of the decision and what it means from here on out.
I'd like to see pitching statistics like SIERA or FIP adjusted for quality of hitters, where the quality of hitters is some stat like TAv or wOBA that is also adjusted for quality of pitchers faced, where quality of pitchers is some stat like SIERA or FIP, adjusted of course by TAv or wOBA......
what was all that 1 in a million talk?
There is no Pete Rose as a player/Pete Rose as a Manager. Only Pete Rose as a man.
But don't complain when the things that matter most to you are price, sleekness, and longevity, and the single number of "TV goodness" directed you instead to buy an expensive bulky TV that will burn out in a year because it has the best picture quality, latest features, and energy savings.
I would say the integrity of any minor league playoffs is dwarfed by the needs (wishes?) of a Major League club.
One terrible move that goes under the radar is the Morrow vs League trade of the Brandon's. I understood the logic of wanting to shore up your bullpen and try to win this year, but I think you have to see Morrow as the more valuable asset going forward and at least capable of putting up similar numbers to league in the bullpen this year.
Get a grip.
What happens to Granderson? If they sign Crawford, they'll get nothing in return for him. If they trade him first, they'll have to pay through the nose for Crawford.
I personally don't see why the Yankees are players for Crawford.
loved the format Kevin. I know you're not crazy about comps, but reading this (and never having seen him pitch), A.J. Burnett came to my mind. Body, repertoire, inconsistency, control. Even if that's a bad comp, just curious about Miller's ceiling.. if he puts up numbers similar to AJ are scouts happy or disappointed?
People are hilarious.
The thing about dimaggio's streak is that every year every single player has the opportunity to break it. Whereas the pool of players that will pitch long enough to even sniff Cy Young's records is much, much more shallow.
That being said, dimaggio's streak remains unrivaled, which highlights how impressive it is.
what is this i don't even..
This goes along with my comment above that suggested PECOTA may just not be distinguishing teams who are likely to under/over perform their expected wins, as I believe bullpen strength has been shown to be a common factor in teams who are able to consistently outperform expectations.
Also, I'm wondering if there is a bias in the "sabermetric usage" ratings. If the picks were all current or former BP staff, its possible teams that they knew PECOTA liked would get higher ratings, which could inflate the correlation.
First of all, excellent article Matt.
One thing I'd be interested in though: How do the results change if Actual Wins are replaced by Third Order Wins (or Pythagorean Wins or something similar) in the above table? Just curious to see if Pecota is overrating a team's overall ability, or if the problem lies in Pecota not being able to distinguish teams that, for one reason or another, are more likely to under-perform their expected win %
Also, is it possible to do a pitch f/x comparison to see what kinds of pitches that Jeter used to hit for solid contact and is now making weak contact on?
Thought this was interesting, so I did some quick and dirty research via my website:
He's hitting off speed pitches on the ground at about the same rate as he did last year (in 2009, 60%, 61%, and 66% of changeups, sliders, and curveballs he put into play were groundballs, 61, 65, and 65 in 2010.)
On fastballs however, Jeter's contact rates vary a little more so.
He is hitting ground balls on 65% of fastballs he puts in play this year, compared to 54% last year.
So the short and simple answer to your question would be: fastballs.
Bobby Abreu and Hideki Matsui aren't the right comparables for Derek Jeter, imo. Looking at the contracts given to Mo and Po, you can't expect Jeter to take a 2yr deal, or anything less than 8 figures per year.
I still say the absolute minimum Jeter will be asking for is what Posada got. Theoretically, the Yanks could hardball him since he is also dependent on them (as Adam Hobson mentioned above) but I just don't see it happening with Derek-flippin-Jeter.
I can't imagine Jeter accepting less than what the yanks gave Posada. At least the same number of years, and probably slightly higher AAV. I went 4 yrs @ 18 per, partly based on wishful thinking that they don't give him 5 years.
thanks for clearing that up
"I don't think the Yankees will start Jesus Montero's clock right now or deprive him of everyday playing time"
I thought September callups don't qualify as ML service time? and aren't the minor league seasons just about wrapping up anyway?
What do you attribute the success of all the Yanks' minor league pitchers to? Good scouting/spending coming to fruition? Exceptional organizational coaching? Planetary alignment?
another explanation for his increased performance against righties this year would have to be the quality of the RHP he is facing, no? He basically never starts against a quality RHP, but he'll often stay in the game to face a middle relief guy after starting against a lefty.
Not to agree or disagree with Joe (I'll echo others in that a strongly opinionated column, regardless of how it aligns with my own opinions, is certainly missed in these parts), but we don't really know what Bonds' asking price was, do we? He was arrogant by Joe's own admission and I don't think he would have agreed to Delgado's penny contract. It's quite possible Bonds is just as much to blame as the industry.
I'll pick Mussina over Schilling any day. IMHO, I believe the boundaries for a hall of famer lie somewhere between them, with Mussina just making the mark and Schilling just missing it. Admittedly though, it depends on how much the postseason matters for the guys with votes that count.
fwiw.. some stats from my site:
he's seeing a lot less four-seam fastballs this year (just 31.3%) than in 2009 (50.3%). Which, if he's coming to expect off-speed, may or may not be the reason he's whiffing so much more on the fastball. When he swings at four seamers from RHP this year, he whiffs 30.7% of the time, compared to just 17.2% last year.
Rather than attributing the results to the clubs having extra knowledge on how players will age, isn't it more likely that resigned players are more highly coveted players to begin with, and thus end up aging better? Isn't it well noted that elite players age better?
Instead of, or maybe along with, controlling for age, you could control for WARP in the years leading up to free agency.
Great work though.
Assuming a replacement-level, um, replacement in the pen.. I'd think it would be important to note that everyone moves up one spot in the pecking order and will now find themselves in higher leverage situations than they would normally be in, had nathan not gotten injured, no?
Re: the Q of the day... off the top of my head, I'd think Phil Hughes deserved a mention.
AL West is really going to be interesting, I think. Site 1 and 2 thinks Seattle is going to lose 2-3 more games than last year, and Heater thinks the angels are going to win 94 games.
On a related note, (as far as sabermetrics becoming more accessible to the masses) MLB 2k10 the video game tracks WPA as you play through the game. After big events, a little chart called "Pepsi's Win Probability" pops up and shows the change.
i enjoy the tiers, but would like them even more if they were ordered by how much you like each guy in them, and i definitely appreciate all the calls for feedback.
any chance at all we can get the players at least roughly ranked within the tiers?
Agreed, the OPS figures relative to the RS numbers for the Yankees don't make much sense. Quick example: take the Twins. I'd think that the Yankees 11 point OBP advantage along with their 12 point SLG advantage would lead to more than just 42 extra runs.
+1 for the princess bride reference
A netbook can do all of these things, all at the same time, all for at least $200 less.
user interface is subjective, a list of features is not. My analogy wins.
At the risk of going off topic...
It's really a matter of choice and control, which Mac just doesn't offer. They control every aspect of the user experience and the user sits back and enjoys being spoon fed. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it makes your analogy pretty darn confusing, and I especially took issue with your 'the rest of the world...' line. Mac users are the ones that are happy with what they are given, the rest of us want more!
oh, and lack of flash support certainly is a failure.
It. Can't. Multitask. It is going to be the most useless device in the world. I know the app store is great, but I can put just about every piece of software ever written on my netbook, and I can run a bunch of them all at once.
Which is why I applaud Will so very much for the analogy. People who buy iPad's instead of netbooks are, generally, the people who are stuck on batting average and rbi's and only have a slight idea that more advanced things exist, but don't really care about looking into those things because when they're shootin the shit with their intellectually equal friends they can still hold their own in a conversation by pointing out "that guy didn't even drive in 100 runs last year, bro".
Fantasy baseball should work in theory, but even in there, where statistics are so prevalent, I'd say well over the majority are content in picking whoever espn tells them to pick, or the highest player on still left on the pre-ranked board when it's their turn.
Personally, what got me into BP was the announcers. I grew tired of McCarver and Morgan, and as a Yankee fan, Michael Kay's nightly obsession of comparing Jeter favorably to Arod at all costs. Then I found FireJoeMorgan.com, and I don't see how the most hardcore iPad consumer could not be entertained by their writing. That site introduced me to BP, THT, and Moneyball. And I was eager to read all of them, so that I might be better equipped to mock announcers like these guys. Of course FJM is no more, but the takeaway is this: fantasy-as-a-gateway doesn't quite work because people have to have a very strong interest level to begin with. They have to want to play, and they have to want to excel. But if you have something like a FJM split (say, 90% entertainment, 10% stats) you can create that interest to begin with. /rant.
>>Pitchers who see a large increase in workload are more likely to continue to be successful than those who don’t.
*Cautions against the glaring selection bias in this argument.*
Came to this thread hoping Will had a comment on this. Guess I'll wait for a full write up, if he has time in between THRs.
What is the success rate based on? Because besides injury, there's also general ineffectiveness to watch out for among Verducci pitchers. Hamels may have been an example of this, along with Verlander, off the top of my head.
Just like one stat doesn't tell the whole story for every player, the Verducci Effect is not the end-all-be-all theory on injuries. It's just one more thing to keep in mind when projecting young pitchers.
Because you're right, and everrrryone else is wrong!
Are you? It's probably no worse than a 50/50 chance.
same with zack greinke
I bet if any other team gave Winn a one year $2M deal it would have been described as a thrifty risk or something of that nature. When the Yankees do it, it's "if anyone can afford to blow $2 million finding out, it's the Yankees."
I don't see why failing to sign the likes of Teixeira, LaPorta, Alvarez, etc. is viewed as a positive. Unless the players had beyond ridiculous demands/non-financial reasons for not signing, I'd chalk it up as a failure. They might have an eye for good talent, but if they don't value it enough to sign them, then it's very likely they just made a few lucky picks.
I was going to say this also. This and Joe Sheehan.
in your scenario would the MVP be eligible for the hank aaron/cy young awards?
Vaughn only DHed twice in his MVP year, Thomas DHed a total of 17 times during his two MVP campaigns, and Yount 17 times. Juan is the only one who even comes close to being considered 'a DH winning something' and even he only had 32 games at DH.
The last time a reliever won a Cy Young was 2003 (Gagne), and the last time a reliever won the MVP was 1992 (Eckersley).
When was the last time a DH won anything? Do they need an award of their own?
haha i'm so glad some one did this. though i'm not surprised it came out a bit high, since once all the lower numbers were taken, for most people there was no where to go but up.
taken from your chat: "At that point you're just drawing lines between different colored pills."
I'm really fighting to grasp your argument here. different colored pills can have drastically different effects, why do you insist that the effects don't matter and only the virtue of them all being pills does. why on earth does it matter if cyanide has clinical applications?? anabolic steroids have both short and long term effects that just can't sensibly be compared to getting rid of a headache before a game with an advil.
...he said it was hypocritical to distinguish between the two.
>>Athletes using medicine to heal their bodies is a given, and steroids and HGH are just that.
they aren't JUST that. Do you personally know anyone who has used these substances? They are an extreme shortcut. They build lean mass and allow your muscles to repair themselves at a much faster rate. They are a completely different animal than cortisone, and all I'm saying is that they need to be treated as such.
I hope you can forgive me about my 'decade late outrage' as I was 10 at the time mcgwire hit all those home runs. But truth is, I don't think I mentioned anywhere in my comments that he is immoral or that i was outraged. but let's not pretend he is as innocent as joe dimaggio and his coffee.
they are drugs... that was my point. you can drive while taking some drugs and not others, you can play baseball while taking some steroids and not others. see what i did there? so let's stop quibbling over semantics.
My main point is simply that you can't simply cluster all drugs/steroids/whatever together and say that they are all the same and should either all be banned or all be allowed.
coffee provides a nice short term boost in energy and needs no laws regulating its usage.
the effects of anabolic steroids and hgh et al are NOT comparable to the effects of caffeine, which is what was being conferred in this article. Don't read any further into my argument than that.
for the same reason I can operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of advil, prozac, or most of the other drugs mentioned by mr. goldman, but not alcohol which is legitimately classified as a DRUG. I'll admit to not being a doctor, but from what I understand, cortisone is an anti-inflammatory, and not an anabolic steroid. when you classify them like that instead of the broader 'steroid', the line isn't so arbitrary after all.
what kind of steroids? testosterone boosting steroids? how old was she at the time of prescription? what were the dosages like? did her usage span over an entire decade? these details matter..
clearly your mind is just as much made up.
just because a prescription is easily attainable, doesn't make it legal. bribing/tricking/faking a doctor into giving you a prescription for a substance that is illegal without one is still illegal. unless you're saying that most athletes have a legitimate claim to such a prescription, which is clearly doubtful.
the 'anabolic steroids are no different than (coffee|cigarettes|greenies|aspirin|cortisone|anti-inflammatories|cocaine|etc)' argument is much sillier and less thought out (and "dubious") to me than Harold Reynolds'. Sure, they may be similar categorically, especially when YOU are the one ARBITRARILY categorizing them, and therefor it seems like a random line has been drawn, but this is ridiculously underestimating the effects of an anabolic steroid. I don't want to get into a tirade on these effects, but it definitely should not be stated on a reputable baseball website that steroid usage is comparable to DiMaggio's affinity for coffee and cigs.
15.25 million, because everything lower than this was already said.
agreed. i know it's the article is for a bunch of stat heads who are looking for a tech job, but the nerd convention is getting out of control.
"You must be able to receive college credit for your internship."
Absolutely no way around this?
Wow, honestly thought Joe must have had something else lined up. PEV get this man a contract. You are Bill Smith, and he is your Joe Mauer. The fan base needs this!
hahaha.. was not expecting that, but it honestly made my day.
Good point. This isn't a terrible trade value wise, imo, but the timeline doesn't make any sense for the braves. Hence, Joe's article above.
Saw Arodys in Staten Island this past July. Sad to see him go, I was super impressed. We'll see how it plays out if the yanks offer javy arb at the end of the year, but as much as i appreciate the help to this years club, it puts a sizeable dent in the future.
and who the hell is going to play LF if they insist at staying at 200mil?
How come so many baseball players don't look like bodybuilders (not the roided-out-of-their-mind-kind, I'm just talking well built and well defined. Lots of the bigger players aren't defined at all, lots of smaller players look almost puny, and lots of them have guts)?
Is lean muscle mass not as beneficial to baseball players as one might think it would be? Why?
Or are they in better shape than I'm giving them credit for?
2010 Boston Red Sox - the best starting rotation ever?!? Their ace is *maybe* one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball today. That makes pretty much any rotation with one of the top 20 pitchers in baseball ever better than this year's sawx.
And can any team that can stay with the mariners and angels?!? The mariners have made some nice additions, but I still see an 85 win team replacing their 3b at basically a wash, adding maybe 5 wins with cliff lee and another 2 or 3 with milton bradley. All the angels have done is swap vlad for matsui and lose lackey and figgins.
The numbers and symbols we use to refer to the idea they represent are human constructs, but not the math itself. 2+2=5 only if we have redefined the symbol "5" to refer to the idea that is currently referred to by the symbol "4".
Except when a millenia or century is referred to, it is basically always in reference to the period of time since year 1 (e.g. the 21st century). No one refers to this as the 201st decade because the term 'decade' is used differently in language, so it doesn't have to follow the same standard. It is overwhelmingly common convention to refer to a decade as a period starting from the last year ending in 0 until the next year ending in 9; 96-05 doesn't satisfy this criteria, so it would make much less sense to do a team of the decade every year.
d'oh. figured I was missing something obvious. thanks.
I'm confused by this example. How does this help the pirates? they lose their high draft pick for a C grade prospect from the Yankees. The Yankees are then left with Gonzalez, their same low round pick (which may or may not be better than a C grade prospect), and less 1 prospect.
Thoroughly enjoyed the article, but must slightly disagree. I believe you're saying that even if the best offer the Jays get for halladay only puts them minimally better off than 2 low round compensation picks, they should take it because it's better than nothing. But it largely depends on the goals of the Blue Jays.
If they don't feel they'll be competitive for the playoffs with the prospects netted for halladay, then maybe their goal for the next few years is just to win as many games as possible. there is no reason to accept the trade then unless the prospects provide more wins than halladay will provide in 2010, which as you say, isn't likely going to happen.
There might also be an interest for a small interest team to devalue prospects and overvalue veterans. If the blue jays hang on to halladay and some contender misses the playoffs by a game or two, I'm sure the jays will gloat, "probably should have made a better offer for halladay, huh?" there is no tangible value in doing this, but may work to their advantage in the future, an aspect missing in the otherwise apt ultimatum game analogy.
This also only represents baseball interests. There are various economic interests that, while you may disagree with, are factors when running a baseball team. Sure the Jays might be better off getting something rather than nothing for halladay, but if that something discourages enough Ed's from Scarborough, then maybe it's not worth doing.
the last time drew played center more than 10 times in a season, he was 10 years younger.
most flexible group of position players? the team with ortiz, vmart, youk, lowell, varitek, and jd drew? youk is the only flexible player in there and all he can play is (albeit quite adeptly) 1st and 3rd.
Where do you see such a projection? Matsui would be an everyday DH guy, not an outfielder, and Hinske was just a joke.
I remember KG ranting and raving about the Giants system this time last year. Particularly the guys in San Jose.
I've always felt that Sterling belonged on TV, and Kay on the radio. Because Sterling isn't too bad if you're actually watching the game yourself and can plainly see that the "deep fly to left" is landing 50 feet short/foul. Kay, on the other hand is good at describing the game, but less enjoyable to listen to otherwise.
-- ARod's sanctimonious attitude after misleading the public for years about his 'roid use.
What's been so bad about Arod's attitude? Say what you want about him, after the admission, he pretty much shut up about himself and always talked about the team.
-- Texeira's "I am so glad I joined the best team money could buy" line (I am paraphrasing) -- especially if you are an Oriole fan.
Why wouldn't he be happy with his choice? He's making a ton of money, is embraced by the fans under a huge spotlight, and he just won a world championship. This is a ridiculous statement.
-- A system that is functionally the equivalent of letting me, as Little League coach, get the first five picks in the league before anyone else gets a pick in round one
No. It's not. Not at all.
I disregard comments at MLB.com because I expect them to be ill-conceived. But when I read them here, I can only shake my head and realize, we've still a longggggggg way to go.
60/(19*60) > 7/(162+5+7+7)
so those 60 minutes are a more sizeable chunk, proportionately, than even a full 7 game Series. I care about baseball about 1000x more than football, but the Super Bowl can hardly be called absurd.
Been a while since physics, but f=ma is way too simple for a pitcher's body and delivery. the rotation (torque) involved alone makes f=ma just about useless. Momentum would be a better formula to drive across the basic point. Which, without googling, I think is dependent on just mass and velocity.
He doesn't have a right to 2nd base, so he may as well not even be on it. The tag is just as good as touching 1st.
McCarver said something along the lines of "You don't often see Jeter make a bad play... That was a bad play." I don't know what praise you're talking about.
I argue that in a world where baseball has instant replay, Howard would have known that he didn't catch it and wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be worried about what the umps thought he did, because he'd know the truth would be revealed.
Aceves didn't get up til the bottom of the 8th, after the Yanks already went to Mo. The only possible explanation would be, as you said, to get some work in.
Werth getting picked off was, in my opinion, the turning point in the game. Burnett was even more dominant if judged only after that point (3.2 IP 5K 0BB 1H), and the first Yankee batter following that play tied the game, and the Yanks never looked back.
I'm not sure if this justifies Girardi and makes him look smart, or just gets him off the hook. I do feel that Joe S, with all due respect, can be a little overly critical of Joe G.
Molina only has 6PA in 4 games, provides better defense over the 5-7 innings he's in the game, and lets Jorge bat in potentially higher leverage situations than he would have. The trade off is having Matsui batting immediately behind the "table setters" instead of Posada. But, if it's the lower portion of the lineup that gets on base in a crucial moment in the game, you have a Jorge Posada at bat in the 9th hole (and thus, not the standard 9th hole hitter). I kinda think of it as the way BP in the past advocated a "relief ace" who comes in when the game is on the line in the 7th, rather than get 3 easy outs in the 9th, except for pinch hitting catchers.
I don't think it's necessarily the right thing to do, but I think the negative impact is a lot smaller than some at BP and the rest of the media would have you believe.
I don't know, Hairston is a much better hitter than Gardner and even the platoon split slightly favors Hairston over Gardner against righties (.697 OPS vs .690). Plus, Gardner is their only worthwhile pinch runner, so starting him negates his value there.
Now, as for Hinske, I don't have much to say. Maybe Girardi wanted the better outfield D with Burnett pitching? Maybe he was thinking Hinske would also provide more value coming off the bench? I don't know.
But as for resting Swisher and starting Hairston over Gardner, there's not a ton to complain about, really.
Yankee fans are (probably) no worse proportionately than any other team's fans. Since there are so many Yankee fans, there are a lot more idiots too. My advice would be to stop listening to NY sports radio call in shows.
It's been this way for years.
Obvious sarcasm is obvious.
1st homer allowed at home for the yanks this postseason. Perhaps that was the info you heard?
Touche, sorta. They were very middle of the pack when it comes to swinging at balls out of the strike zone, which means they take a higher percentage of strikes.
Why is A.J. Burnett and the Phillies a mismatch? They don't take a ton of pitches or walk very much, which could potentially minimize his greatest weakness. And he's very tough on lefties. Only 63 homers in 3102 career ABs versus lefties. Which is a sliver better than CC, and a ton better than pettitte. His OPS against lefties is also better than Pettitte's, but worse than CC's. (I know, I know, there's probably a bit of sample selection bias in there).
Or is there something else you had in mind when you called it a mismatch, besides the Phillies' lefty leaning lineup?
Yes. That's what this is saying. I'd suspect this has a lot to do with pitch f/x's approximations of the top and bottom of the strike zone. Keep in mind though, that the exact percentages aren't extremely important. We just wanted to see the differences between the home team and away team.
When the Home Team is Pitching:
Pitches inside standard strike zone: 76.1% Called Strikes
Pitches within 2.5 inches of the strike zone: 63.1%
Incorrect Calls / All Calls Made: 14.95%
When the Away Team is Pitching:
Pitches inside standard strike zone: 76.1% Called Strikes
Pitches within 2.5 inches of the strike zone: 62.7%
Incorrect Calls / All Calls Made = 14.48%
Inside the strike zone, umps are identical for home/away. Home teams get a small increase in called strikes for pitches near the strike zone.
If you can get me a list of AL/NL umpires, I can try to answer this for you.
For the 2nd part of your comment, what exactly do you mean by calling their zone?
Just out of curiousity, how large (in inches) did you extend the strike zone? I did a couple of queries of my own and to get the same 64% for Jeff Nelson, I had to extend it 2.5 inches in all directions. So I was just wondering if this was close to your number.
Here's a few additional notes:
Within the standard strike zone, I get Nelson calling strikes on 77.54% of called pitches
Within the 2.5 inch-larger-in-all-directions strike zone, I get Nelson at a 64.31% rate.
So, a pitch within 2.5 inches of the strike zone has a 13.23% chance of being called a strike by Jeff Nelson. This is basically exactly in line with the league average (13.21%). This is because the rest of the league is better at calling pitches 2.5 inches or less outside of the strike zone a ball, but Nelson is above average at calling pitches in the zone a strike.
So perhaps Nelson's zone isn't much bigger than average?
Gotcha, I was wondering about the bias you mention, but I guess you got that under control.
You could probably do the inverse of this -- Called Balls within a smaller portion of the strike zone -- and then compare the 2 percentages. The larger the difference between the 2, the more inconsistent (and therefor lousier) the umpire.
>>>From there, the number of called strikes in that inflated zone was measured in relation to the total number of called pitches—balls and called strikes. The higher the percentages in a certain game, the larger the strike zone. For all umpires with at least 10 games behind the plate, the league-average rate of called strikes out of called pitches with these parameters was 63.1 percent.
Maybe it's just me, but this was very confusing. At first, it sounds like you are saying you did:
(called strikes within just the enlarged portion of the zone)
(all called pitches)
But that number clearly wouldn't be 63 percent. I guess what you did was:
(called strikes within the entire enlarged strikezone)
(all called pitches within the entire enlarged strikezone)
Is that correct?
That doesn't seem to necessarily indicated a larger strike zone...
Justification: He is not a good baseball pitcher.
Well, that's kinda Joe's point. Umpires are human, and human's are imperfect. I don't think he's trying to personally offend the umpires, just note that better alternatives exist, and it's about time MLB starts using them.
Playing baseball well in the postseason is not a skill above and beyond playing baseball well.
Idk.. I'm not saying there is a huge, huge difference like the msm will have you believe, but players are under quite a lot of pressure during the post season and they frequently admit, they feel the pressure a lot more during october than the regular season.
I'm not saying look at one bad series and infer "that guy will always choke under pressure", but players are human, and pressure situations affect all humans differently. I would certainly say playing baseball well in the postseason is a skill above being a good ball player, in that you have to deal with a lot more stress just to be able to perform at your normal talent level.
Think about a job interview. Is it not a skill to perform as well in a job interview as any other social situation (where there is significantly less pressure)?
Not to bring out the "nerd in your mother's basement" jokes, but I don't see how a non-player could make that assertion, and it just seems overly contrarian.
You guys keep coming up with smart things to do with the data, and I'll be happy to provide it for you...
93mph four seam fastballs have a standard deviation of 1.0430751511069. Slightly lower than all four seam fastballs.
93mph four seam fastballs in yankee stadium have a standard deviation of 0.67294768464909
93mph four seam fastballs in yankee staidum in July have..
an average differential of 7.385380215115
and a standard deviation of 0.63721546624815
This seems to suggest that ballpark conditions/readings have a much greater affect than even initial velocity.
Here are some more results for whoever is interested...
93mph four seam fastballs in yankee stadium NOT thrown by yankee pitchers (pretty varied selection) in July have a standard deviation of 0.68488780933421
93mph four seam fastballs in yankee stadium thrown by yankee pitchers (less varied) in July have a standard deviation of 0.5856633384538
93mph four seam fastballs in yankee stadium thrown by AJ Burnett in July had...
an average differential of: 7.3551402582186
and a standard deviation of: 0.6333758957836
I get changeups losing an average of 7.70% of their velocity during flight. For fastballs it's 8.19%
I guess that's the common wisdom on changeups, but we're looking at the difference between the initial and final speeds so I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.
Std Dev: 1.0277088013003
any pitch. here are the results by pitch type.
Std dev: 1.1188817658541
Four Seam Fastballs:
Std dev: 1.0996826668938
Two Seam Fastballs:
Std dev: 1.1574558342025
Std dev: 1.0359419356376
Spin definitely has more effect than I thought. I'm not sure if I did the correlation right, but I'm getting a correlation coefficient of: 0.543864 between speed differential and spin_rate. which is pretty strong.
Four seamers lose more velocity from start to finish on average than two seamers and much more than curves/sliders.
My guess would be that most of the variations can be explained by air conditions and margin of error of the start/end speed readings. I can't see spin counting for a huge difference. Well, spin itself probably affects the start/end speed a decent amount. But I don't think one pitcher could put significantly more spin on his pitches to make a ball slow down more than another pitcher.
To test the effects of spin we can look at gameday's spin_rate field. We should also see different (start_speed - end_speed) numbers for fastballs, or pitches with less spin, and curveballs/sliders, pitches with more spin. I'll run some queries and post back when I'm done.
FWIW, I queried my 2009 database (shameless plug: which powers my - unfinished but still functional - pitch f/x tool), and got:
start_speed - end_speed
STD Dev: 1.2660683173865
So, clearly it's not exactly initial - 7 = end. but it's pretty close. speaking (very) roughly, for 90% of MLB pitches this year it was something like: initial - (7 +/- 2) = end.
Doesn't seem to make a huge difference to me. I did enjoy Tim McCarver's total astonishment during last night's broadcast that pitches slow down during flight. Obviously they wouldn't just keep going forever if there wasn't a catcher/backstop.
At the time it happened, yes. But why ignore the results, if they are there for us to observe like in the case with Holliday (in Punto's case we can only postulate and look at expectancies). The fact that the Cards lost the game necessarily makes Holliday's error more costly. It shouldn't have been more costly than Punto's because Franklin should have been able to recover easily enough, but it absolutely was. Their Win Expectancy is 1 if he makes that catch, not so with Punto.
Holliday's play denied the Cards a 100% WE and the end result was 0% WE, Punto's play denied the Twins a 60% WE and the end result was also 0.
Basically, my point is that Punto's play in isolation may have had a larger numberical difference in win expectancy, but going from roughly 60% (if punto stayed at third) to 33.2% is less important than going from 1 (if holliday makes the catch) to 86.9%, especially when the end result is a loss.
damn, beat me to it.
Punto's baserunning gaffe greatly decreased the chances of the twins scoring a run in the 8th inning of game 3 in a series in which his team was down 2-0 and highly over-matched as far as postseason matchups are concerned.
If Holliday makes the catch he could/should/has to make, the game is over immediately and the Cards even the series at 1. I guess your point comes in the fact that even with his error, the cards were still set up favorably--runner on 1st with two outs. But can you really just ignore the aftermath? Fact of the matter is that they ended up losing a game that was all but over. It wasn't all holliday's fault that they lost, but he pretty easily had it in his power to give his team a win.
according to wikipedia (which is obviously never, ever wrong): "The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive)." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade)
also: "The 2000s is the decade that started on January 1, 2000 and will end on December 31, 2009. It is the current decade." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-2009)
Leaving us with ttomae's solid argument that shows that at the very least it is far from a lock and very much dependent on what happens in the rest of 2009.
I'm not going to argue with you either way because it is obviously very close (and pointless, imaginary, etc.) and two opposing fans will never concede to their rival.
"Torre isn't slowing down at age 69 and admits that changing coasts last year re-energized him after being fired by the Yankees following the 2007 season"
apparently "rejecting the games most lucrative contracts for a manager" = "being fired".
say it with me.. "correlation"
so, both the sox and yankees benefited from the cozy dimensions of the field? explain what's so unreasonable about that?
can you take ellsbury out of the equation and find the team's eqbrr? because joe did give him credit, and I imagine his prowess inflates that number a ton.
there's no other place for me to say this, so I'll do it here. lol @ whoever asked the Zito/Soriano question in Marc's chat today under my name, because it certainly wasn't actually me. In fact, I called out the guy who always asks the question in Christina's chat yesterday (which is why I assume, he chose to ask under my name).
>Thus, that would suggest that a player should definitely swing 3-0 in situations where a home run is important, such as the home team in an extra inning game or with runners on base.
Correlation, not causation. He is swinging at only a pitch he absolutely loves, which is why he is likely to hit a home run. You can't then say that everyone should be swinging at 3-0 pitches because they'll hit 0.059 hr/pa. At most you can suggest to give the batter the green light to go for a hr if he likes the pitch, but that seems pretty obvious.
I'm no scout, but I got to see Arodis Vizcaino (milb.com and bp spell it arodys, but the si yanks gameday program/scoreboard/website spell it arodis) pitch on tuesday. For the first 5 innings, he was amazing. IIRC, 1 (blooper of a) hit, 1 BB, 0R and a coupla Ks. He sat at 92/93 and the Renegades could not TOUCH his off speed stuff. the he lost his command and walked a few guys but still left the game with a 1 hitter and 0 runs.
Kevin, I've heard you call him the yanks' best prospect (not named jesus or austin), so I was just wondering what kind of ceiling he has? I was awfully impressed by his stuff especially considering his age.
how is his trade record poor?
and who is joe torre's "jason"?
it was just a fucking question. if you don't want to know the answer don't read the comments. I was simply trying to see how much his awful defense was hurting his prospect status. being the #38 prospect at 19 with no glove is pretty damn impressive. fuck off.
Obviously I care. Though I must have forgotten the rule where you can never ever pretend or imagine anything. And it certainly wouldn't help us further gauge how much his poor defense is hurting his elite prospect status, and how much value will be lost if he can't become a passable catcher and has to move to first/dh. You're right. Horribly pointless question on my part. They may as well cancel my subscription on me.
If he was even an average defensive catcher, how high in the rankings would he be? top 15? if he was a great defensive catcher?
"I appreciate the content, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather read media criticism from BP than hear Buster Olney say stupid things like this: One scout mentioned this week that Fenway has a knack for making average hitters into above-average hitters."
Well yanno... He can hit high fastballs. And one analyst once told me that there's some payoff for that. Provided you play in Fenway park, of course.
Honestly, this is such garbage. It's at the point where half the things I read on here are of the "why should I believe anything you say" variety? Pitch F/x exists. Show me that hitters that are apt at hitting high fastballs are rewarded better at Fenway than they are elsewhere.
"Well, he ties his cleats with a double knot. And on Tuesdays, this is a huge benefit playing in night games. Trust Me. I'm Buster F-ing Olney."
I'm at the end of my rope with these espn articles. I want to quit you, BP, but I just can't...
true. plus the nationals took 2 out of 3 from the yankees. It's hard to argue that the yanks are better than them.
considering how short the article was, I think he should have used to the extra room to explain a few things. I have a terrible feeling that he didn't explain how he came to the conclusion that a "successful steal was worth .027 wins" in 1968 out of fear of certain judges hatin' on his number heavy approach. But I definitely feel that this was something he could have touched on. I hate when analysts say 'doing this adds x many runs, while this subtracts x wins' without saying why or how they came to such a number. Even if it's just a "Based on win expectancy charts with a runner on 2nd [...] we see that a sb was worth .027 wins". Without a basic explanation, .027 has much less meaning than it could.
"So basically your argument boils down to this: your ethics leads you to believe that athletes should not supplement their natural anabolic steroid levels, because there is a perception that this gives them an unfair advantage.
But this was Richard's point: taking vitamins (or any other legal supplements) also amounts to increasing natural levels."
My ethics had nothing to do with the argument at this point. You're mixing up comments. All I said at first was that the ability to recover is an advantage, and was achievable via steroids.
Richard's response was that vitamins were the same as steroids except for legality. My following points were that there are more differences between vitamins and anabolic steroids than legal issues. As in: effect. You can't just ignore the degree to which something works, not to mention the ill effects to health, as most illegal steroids are much easier to abuse than a vitamin pack.
airsteve: (steroid users recover faster and stay healthy.) The same effect can be achieved by taking a day off.
you: welllll, ya knowwww, pitchers take 3 or 4 days off!
earlier in this thread
me: if you take steroids, you're forcing others to choose between their future health and maintaining their competive edge. (which is an unfair choice to force on someone).
you: wellll, ya knowwwww, football players sacrifice their future health by playing football!
Haven't been to Citi yet. Hope to go soon.
+1, it's a magnificent stadium, I was extremely (and somewhat surprisingly) impressed.
Look, I'm sorry if I'm getting a little too offensive but some of your posts are really pissing me off. You keep replying with these technically correct statements that have little or nothing to do with the point the original poster was trying to convey. Did you really think someone with a BP subscription didn't know that pitchers take three to four days off between starts? you didn't disprove or discredit anything he said, you just restated it in a fuller and more encompassing way that everyone else could already infer anyway. It's a waste of time, please stop.
I don't see how you can call laws arbitrary. They don't pull them out of a friggen hat. imperfect? yes. but NOT arbitrary.
I was railing against anabolic steroids, and richard comes in and says, "they're not so bad! Vitamins are the same thing." That is absurd.
good day sir.
Not at all. It just suggests that there is more in play in making such laws besides things being harmful. I don't know exactly what those things are, perhaps some combination of lobbyists, public demand, economic factors, etc. Whether you agree or not with those things is one thing, but 'arbitrary' is definitely not the right word to describe laws.
I guess its somewhat less offensive, as greed is not as big of a role as desperation. It's still by no means ok, as they are cheating other honest borderline players.
His analogy is completelyyyyyy flawed for so many reasons, that's why I didn't even bother to answer. It makes no mention of the pill having any side effects, the general public's view of those who take such pills (which is something steroid users blatantly ignore, and I haven't seen anyone mention this), the legality/firm's policy of the pill, the person taking the pill's complete lack of knowledge of doing something wrong.
Also a big point is this: Steroid apologists like to say that there isn't a big gain to taking steroids, and in the next breath they claim that the players have a huge incentive to because of the difference it makes in salary. I grant that they are probably talking about perceived differences rather than actual, but lets face it, these guys are already making millions of dollars. Breaking the law/harming themselves/cheating/etc. looks a lot worse when you're already plenty rich and looking for more, than a simple office worker who may be eeking by.
Besides all that: his analogy had nothing to do with what I brought up. He tried to make steroids seem like it was an evaluation of risk of getting in trouble and reward, while completely ignoring the moral aspect. (Yes, Llarry Amrose, obviously I realize 'whether or not you can live with it' may be considered part of the risk side of the equation. I only separated it because joheimburger made no mention of it whatsoever, and made risk out to be completely about getting caught. Thanks for your input. This is why I tend to favor thinking in terms of cost/benefit rather than risk/reward).
Listen. Lose the exclamation points if you want to be taken seriously. Second, don't attack me and call my post laughable because you, my friend are the one that is clearly dead wrong.
Bet you didn't know that steroids (including Vitamin D) are completely different than anabolic steroids, which I had hoped people would be wise enough to realize were the kinds I was talking about. Richard's statement that the ONLY difference between steroids and vitamins is that steroids are arbitrarily illegal is flat out, completely, entirely, 100% wrong. Why would anyone use illegal (I better be crystal clear this time: anabolic) steroids if Vitamin D worked just as well. Vitamins can give you a competitive edge. But any player can attain that same edge without doing anything against the rules (and therefore by some people's definition, immoral) or harmful to their health. The same can't be said of (anabolic) steroids.
Jesus. I'd love to see what it's like to carry out a full conversation with some of you people. Were I convinced that doing so is even possible.
do me a favor and look up the word "analogy". Honestly, wtf did that have to do with anything?
Mel Hall should be made out to be a million times worse of a man than Sosa.
Where do you draw the line? Why even WATCH baseball when you can be out volunteering to help feed the homeless or take care of the abused? Isn't that a lot more important than seeing who wins a silly game? In the time you took to read these comments and type up this post you could have made a meal to feed a starving kid or two.
When a steroids story breaks its a very big deal for a relatively short period of time. Then, people go back to their lives, which for some includes worrying about the sick and hungry. Saying that we can only pay attention to the most important things in life is just impractical.
>>I'm just arguing about how people devote so much time to an issue that is so amorphous that even if we somehow knew who all did what, it has little consequence in the grand scheme of things... and even within baseball, there _are_ bigger issues than steroids.
Pretty silly to devote so much of your time telling people that devoting so much of their time talking about steroids is wrong.
You missed my point entirely, and I'm tired of needing to spoon feed you every argument. football players sacrificing their health merely by playing the game is not the same thing as sacrificing their health by taking steroids. I'm done responding to you in this thread. You clearly just don't get it.
Call me an idealist, but lump me into the category who still cares about "how you play the game (life)". Frankly, all the people who are coming to the conclusion "let's face it, we're all immoral assholes!" are getting to be sickening. No body is perfect, but there are those out there trying to do the right thing, right?
I don't understand the question.. who isn't against steroids? I realize there are those who question whether or not using them is moral/immoral, or performance enhancing or not, or even cheating or not. Those are the people I'm arguing with (primarily out of work-day-induced-boredom mind you). But how many people out there are actually for steroids?
Just because I'm rallying against steroids doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite for not rallying against all types of cheating. I dislike them all.
apologies then. it's just that "Players shouldn't cheat. But they do." didn't read to me as "Cheating is not acceptable."
Controlling how much people take doesn't seem at all feasible. And if you allow them to use at all, some people are going to abuse and sacrifice future health for present success. And as someone else put it (excellently) in this thread, this forces clean players to choose between keeping their health but losing a competitive edge and sacrificing their health but gaining a comptetitive edge. This is an entirely unfair choice to force upon such players.
I'm not saying its *fact*. But Come On. You HONESTLY don't believe he used? I didn't mean to sound so harsh, but this need for definitive facts is just as bad as the blind accusations. At least now that Sosa tested positive, we won't have to put up with those who were in denial over his use anymore.
>>"It's cheating" - Yes, taking steroids is cheating. Players shouldn't cheat. But they do. They take steroids. They scuff baseballs. They use too much pine tar and cork their bats. Teams steal signs, and grounds crews probably elevate the pitcher's mound more to more than the legal height of ten inches. What's more, many of us cheat in real life, on our taxes, our spouses, or to get ahead at work, the consequences of which are far more severe than impacting a game.
All those things are wrong and shouldn't be done. Its not fair to the guys not taking steroids, or using legal bats, or paying their taxes, or the faithful spouse, or the honest guy who doesn't get the promotion. So its the honest one's fault for not cheating? please.
Oh, shut up. McGwire used steroids.
Sure I don't KNOW for sure, but if you're going to get this ridiculously technical, so can I. I can say that you don't KNOW that Arod or Sosa took. Maybe the tests were wrong and Arod was lying when he admitted it. I must have missed the part where there was video footage of him producing his own steroids in his private lab and then injecting them into his body. (Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?)
>>Your missing the point here, Joe. When someone posts a list of big boppers who took steroids and says "Be a believer," they may as well be flat-out yelling, "See! See! Steroids do make you hit home runs!"
I wasn't the one who made that list. Nor would I. But you can't make his argument for him. All I'm saying is that PEDs are, most likely, not a misnomer.
>>The enormous list of mediocre-to-awful players who were "named" serves two purposes. First, it undercuts those who would be naive enough to give us the Roids = Homers argument. Second, it reminds us that there is a wide distribution of talent levels of players who took PEDs. Whether it's a perfectly normal or random distribution, I'm not sure, but there certainly seems to be enough mediocrity to make that likely.
Your first purpose is exactly what my analogy aimed to disprove. Listing steroid users who stink doesn't discredit the opinion that steroids enhance performance in the same way that listing bad pitchers who throw 95+ doesn't discredit the opinion that throwing 95+ helps some pitchers be successful.
>>The point being that a laundry list of no-names and scrubs proves exactly as much as a one that includes only sluggers: Doodley-Squat.
contradicted by your previous statement: "It almost kinda sorta seems like taking steroids *doesn't* guarantee a player will bash his way into copious crushed clouts. I may have to rethink this thing."
You can't make a list and infer that steroids don't enhance performance and then later say that your list proves nothing.
Also: Just because they stink doesn't mean they didn't receive a benefit from steroids. I wouldn't expect myself to become Albert Pujols if I took steroids. We'll never know how bad those guys would have been were they 100% clean. PLEASEEEEEE address this. I'd love to hear it.
>>Besides, neither myself nor BP is trying to "convince" you of anything. You are free to generate your opinions, even as your cheerful dismissal of a complete lack of proof to back them up is a bit disconcerting.
MY COMPLETE LACK OF PROOF? Are you kidding? Can we please get off this need for "proof". Your side doesn't have any, my side doesn't have any, it's not possible to have any at this point in time. I'm not out to prove anything. I'm guessing what the most logical answer is. It seems pretty obvious that muscles being able to recover faster is an advantage. With a bunch of big time home run hitters being busted for steroids, and home runs being something where (among many other factors) strength is important, and steroids increase strength, it seems pretty logical that a user's performance will go up. I can't prove it, I know. But I have _some_ evidence to base my guess off of, whereas ALL that you have is: "Oh yeah? PROVE IT!"
Dude. Vitamins are not the same thing as steroids. You can talk about drugs, alcohol, and tobacco all day and its not going to make your ridiculous statement any more credulous.
That and only 3 of their guys have been healthy enough to accumulate 50 ip
to (1): I agree we can't isolate the effects. I'm not trying to say that they definitely help. I'm arguing against those claiming they don't.
(2) generally, if its against the law and/or rules and people are doing it anyway, its bad. There is a point to be made though about how and why things are made to be against the law/rules.
(3) I would rather watch a game than talk about it too. But if I read a post about steroids, and see people blindly defending the user, I'm going to say something.
>>>I truly believe that if I (or you or anyone else) was presented with a situation where I believed that the rewards of doing something that was against the rules/law (or both depending on the time period under question) so outweighed the risks (in this case: getting caught by either a law enforcement agency or MLB - I'd hope you'd admit some players saw this as more or less 0%), the individual would do whatever it was without thinking twice.
This would be to ignore morality entirely. Not everything is risk/reward evaluation. Personally speaking, I evaluate the risks, the rewards, and question whether or not I can live with what I've done at the end of the day. I'm not trying to sound holier than thou, but I honestly think I wouldn't use steroids. I hit the gym everyday and am getting moderate gains, while knowing full well that there's a great big awesome shortcut available. Granted the incentive isn't as large for me, but when I see my results (even though they aren't as great as they could be) I am extremely proud and therefor happy.
I certainly won't let someone off the hook because they did something where the reward outweighed the risks. Cheating on your spouse is ok if they'll never find out about it? Literally stealing candy from a baby? Of course not. These things are immoral. Immoral people do them. To a much lesser extent, immoral people defend them.
I love baseball too. I think anyone who pays $40 a year to read about it does. PEDs DO suck. I don't find the game to be tarnished to the point where I can't watch it, either. I think people who talk about steroids too much should shut up as well. We're in total agreement.
But what has this got to do with comparing steroids to multi-vitamins? I'm not trying to villify anyone, I just expect (foolishly) people to act rationally. Steroids are not illegal for "arbitrary" reasons. And it takes a wholeeee lot of vitamins before they become harmful/abused.
WRONG. That wasn't Joe D's point. His point was that SINCE not everyone who took steroids hit like Barry Bonds, it is evidence to suggest steroids do nothing. My common sense counter argument was that not everyone who throws 95 pitches like CC Sabathia. That doesn't mean that there is evidence that throwing 95 doesn't help. (I'll see if you can trace the analogy back to steroid usage on your own, but if you need help, just ask!)
>>>The only real difference between a PED and a vitamin supplement is one is arbitrarily illegal and the other is arbitrarily legal.
WOW. That's it? That's the ONLY difference huh? Barry Bonds is no worse than a Flintstone's kid! HGH, Winstrol, Centrum Silver - they're the same thing! Absurd.
I won't continue arguing with someone this (intentionally)ignorant. But I would like to know: why? Why are you so hell bent in defending PED's and their users?
What a pointless response. How about stating why you think its not very convincing. Right now, I'm not sure anyone can say more than "could very well be". So if you're waiting for an argument that says: "100% definitely..." keep waiting. In the mean time, give common sense a try.
Let's just say for the sake of argument it does nothing to enhance performance. There's still the whole issue of recovering from injury much much faster, and just muscle recovery in general. Imagine being at the top of your game every night and never feeling sore (at least relative to non users). For some, this is a big advantage. For others, it just shows that the top of their game wasn't very high to begin with.
Yes, there are those who took and sucked. But where would they be had they not taken? Perhaps even suckier? Impossible to prove, but my guess would be yes.
I AM SO BLEEPIN SICK OF THIS. Ok, this is BP and there's not a ton of objective data on it, and the msm all says it does make you hit homers, so obviously we must be contrarians just for the sake of it. I get all that. But just think about it for one second. I can give you a list of some of the best pitchers in baseball and say look all these guys throw 95+ mph. Then I could say look at this long list of guys who stink and also throw 95+ mph! OBVIOUSLY THROWING 95 MPH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SUCCESS RIGHT!?
No. All it shows is that baseball is a funny game. Some guys can throw 95 and stink, some guys can take steroids and not hit home runs. But for some, it could very well be that their immmense success comes from the fact that they do throw 95 and not 90, or that they do take steroids as opposed to not.
All I ever hear from your side are two basic arguments: "There's no proof that it did!" and "Player X took them and he couldn't hit home runs!" Those are horribly unconvincing for any rational person, but if that's good enough for you feel free to enjoy your naivety.
Sox are 8-0 against the yanks, but the race is still very close with the Yanks just 2 games back. Imagine if the series had gone the other way. Boston would be 14 (!!) games behind NY.
One can't draw a walk on a line drive...
He also spent a lot of words explaining how Cecil's expected era sh/w/c/ould be in the upper 3's.
I read "From this piece I have no idea if Cecil's HR/9 rate is actually at all similar to the expected 0.8 based on his groundball rate." and wondered if there was a previous reference to Brett Cecil in your comment that I missed.
well, tracking attendance figures in the major leagues lead to some pretty awesome developments such as the nonlinear marginal values of a win. no offense, but just because you only come here to read about players doesn't make it any less a site about the entire sport of baseball.
She as well as all the contestants have been given an opportunity. It's called Prospectus Idol. The others are clearly doing much better than her, and are far more deserving of future opportunities.
I agree with most of what you say, but I can't help feeling like BP is being cheated by the article appearing on ESPN Insider. As simplistic as it is to say the yanks bullpen has been poor ergo joba belongs in the bullpen, I can't believe I'm reading a BP article trashing a team's (in this case, starting) pitching without mention of park effect. Unless SNLVAR and Fair Run Average are park adjusted which I don't think they are, this is an unfair way to argue the staff's ineffectiveness.
Perhaps this is a better way to rank than traditional methods, but it still can't get around the biggest downfall of most player rankings. If you draft based on VOFP rankings, how does this ensure balance? you could end up with all homer, runs, and rbi guys and end up with far too few sbs and a low avg. Unless I'm misunderstanding the concept...?
Best Article of the week. easy thumbs up.
I kind of missed the part where the title connects with the article.. How did you show us how to use names? and how can one ever use dumb luck?
groundballs sneak past the defense more often than flies. groundball pitchers, by definition, generate more groundballs than flyball pitchers. it's a generalization, but reasonable enough to conclude that groundball pitchers will have higher babips...
I don't quite understand BP's decision to make the theme "Basics". The readers and voters are all BP readers so a basic article of OBP is absolutely not needed. I much rather enjoyed introductory articles on subjects at least a little more complicated.
Besides which, I'm not even convinced by your article that OBP is king. why isn't slugging %? if the Shawons all hit home runs and the Rickeys all walk, than the shawons score a minimum of 12 runs a game, while the rickeys could score 0. that is a thought experiment. a scatter plot and regression analysis of WHIP isn't. if we are too assume equal slg, than you should show that the same difference in slugging while assuming equal obp results in less expected runs if you want to convince me obp is king.
one question i've always had about babip was why it includes foul outs.. because it's easier that way or because it gives us better information to include them? to me, it seems that a player who plays in a home park with expansive foul territory, or just tends to foul off a higher percentage of pitches in general and therefor pops out in foul territory more, will have an artificially low babip because if those balls "in play" weren't converted for outs, they wouldn't be hits either. so it assumes that two players with equal babips (and for the sake of argument, equal line drive %, speed, etc.) but an unequal # of foul outs have been equally lucky/unlucky.
since you've made your case in exchange for a vote to other readers in these comments, i'd love to hear some thoughts or analysis on this in turn for my vote..
i see what you did there
apparently joe sheehan hasn't written enough "it's only May 6th" articles...
because no matter how scientifically enhanced a player may be, he's still going to have to be strong mentally. Emotion is a huge part of the game, and your example of robots will never match that.
Honestly, I don't know what the number is. But I do know that it's not 1 game. I shouldn't have to say I was wrong about a projection after 1 game has been played. It's not nearly enough information to determine a talent level. And we still haven't settled the uneven schedule issue
honestly, at this point, finding out an answer to this is why I'm still going..
>>But I'm not saying that projection is incorrect right now. There is still a chance that the Marlins finish with a 72-90 record. However, what I'm saying is that after an 11-3 start, that projection is now less likely than a 77 and 85 record., if you still believe the Marlins to posses .444 talent.
Be it an 11-3 start or a 1-0 start, you still think that the projection is no longer the most likely projection. After one game, that is absurd.
What will Ryan Doumit be capable of upon his return from the DL?
>>The 72 is rounded at the END of the projection, not on a game-by-game basis.
I know that. I know all about expected values, please, thank you. I was making a point that you can't arbitrarily cut the season into pieces and expect a .444 over each piece. Adam is expecting a .444 over the next 148 for the marlins. But if i cut the next 148 into 148 pieces, it doesn't work as shown above.
BP's projection was made within a certain context (i.e. 162 games to be played). One game of actual play doesn't change that, and you can't take the projection out of that context (if we are to assume it was a valid projection as you suggest). The Marlins have been getting pretty lucky with their wins so far. Let's assume that they are a .444 talent team over the next 148, like you say. That luck is still likely to catch up with them and they may start losing games they should have won.
"The 11-3 start is new information that was not available to BP when they made their original projection; they would likely come out with a different number if they did the PECOTA projections again using today's records as given."
The 1-0 start was new information too. You honestly think that BP's projection could not have possibly accounted for a 1-0 start??? because that's what you are signing up too.
BP thinks this is a team capable of winning only 72 games out of 162. Period. That they are on pace for more than that right now doesn't mean that BP MUST change its mind about its original projection.
I keep dodging the question because its irrelevant. A win in april has nothing to do with july, obviously. But BP's projection was over a 162 schedule (based on a solitary number representing SoS.) You can't just split it into arbitrary sections and say they will be a .444 team in both sections. Otherwise, I could cut the season into 162 1-game sections and say that for each game I expect .444 wins, which rounds to 0, which means a .444 projection = 0-162.
A .444 projection doesn't anticipate an 11-3 start, or a 3-11 start, or any start. It anticipates a 72-90 finish. Again I ask you: Do you honestly believe projecting a .444 finish is equivalent to saying "They will definitely lose their first game."? Because your methodology is to take what they have already done, and then use the projection for the unplayed games. So a 72-90 projection is said to be incorrect if a team wins their first game. That is nuts. My method involves granting that BP's projection doesn't care how many games they win early on, only that they are only a good enough team to end the season with 72 wins.
Your method only works for coin flips, where the odds are STATIC. The odds of winning any given baseball game are not static, therefor, you cannot remove a .444 projection over 162 out of its context (i.e. the next 148 games).
First of all, I don't see what good bringing up chien-ming wang does, considering we're already working with real world situations. I could just as easily bring up CC last year, who had a 7.88 ERA over his first 32 innings, and then a 1.95 over his next 221. Does this mean he was just off in his first 32 innings and that his true talent level when he is on is a 1.95 era? He's good, but most people would agree, probably not that good. Pitcher's are a whole different animal, lets stick to teams.
Read Joe's article today about strength of schedule. It's REAL simple. The SoS PECOTA used to make the .444 projection is very different from the SoS the Marlins have had so far. Pure and simple man. End of discussion....
But if you are willing to accept a projection, and than ONE game into the season, reject it...that strikes me as a little silly, no?
Yikes. Just Yikes. Where to start?
Phrases like "The last-place Tampa Bay Rays" are purposely intended to be as misleading as possible in order to prove your point, and you know that. They are in last place now but (as you can determine by reading Joe's article) that means almost nothing. The only clearly weak teams the Yanks have played are the Orioles and Royals.
Joe's point wasn't: "Teams off to hot starts always regress because of strength of schedule." It was more along the lines of: "DON'T TRY TO FIGURE ANYTHING OUT JUST QUITE YET."
Honestly, citing Pythag records this early in the season?? That just shows as much gross ignorance as the media types concluding that the Marlins are the "real deal" despite the fact that you managed to sneak some disguised statistical analysis in there.
The Yanks have one pitcher, Chien-Ming Wang, who is responsible for 23% of their runs allowed. This is obviously not a trend that will continue and is almost exclusively the reason for the ugly Pyth record. It doesn't at all show their ability to prevent runs as an organization.
Playing your game, I could say, the yanks have played 9 road games and 6 home games so far, have the game's best player on their DL, and can shave off over a run a game by replacing Wang with Hughes!! But again, it's too early to worry about any of these things.
I understand the difference between dependent and independent events just fine, and I know a thing or two about probability, trust me. The key here is to realize that these are BASEBALL GAMES, not coin flips. Each and every flip of a quarter has the same exact odds, and therefor if in the first 14 flips there were 11 heads, we could expect there to be more than 50 heads at the end of 100 flips. But that's dealing with a static, known probability.
The odds of winning a given baseball game in a 162 are certainly not static, and obviously not known. So, you can either accept BP's projection of .444 or reject it. But, if you accept it at first, under your methodology, you must then view it as incorrect after they start the season 1-0. Does this seem reasonable to you? Do you think that to project a team to go .444 is equivalent to saying "they will definitely lose their first game?" (or for that matter "they will never have a stretch of 11-3 over 14?") And again, if the first game of the season can make you think the projection was wrong to begin with, then why think that it will be right over the next 161?
Or even on the last day of the season...are you going to abandon the projection if the Marlins are 71-90 with 1 left to play? My basic point is: if you think the projection is accurate, then you think it's accurate. The projection is over 162 games. you can't say well it was wrong over the first x, but it will be right over the next 162-x!
The reason for the low projection to begin with was the Marlins facing the toughest schedule out of any team in the majors. So far, they've had one of the easiest. Is it so hard to imagine that they'd play better than their final projection over an easy part of the schedule and worse than it over the harder part?
I'm pretty sure if the Marlins finish with 72 wins, BP will have correctly "predicted" their win percentage. I beg you to understand that I'm not using the word "predict" too literally. You knew that, right? Ok.
Now. BP expects the Marlins to have a .444 win percentage. The argument here is how their record so far affects that projection. Do they finish the season that much over .444? or do they play worse than .444 for the rest of the year and hit the projection? (assuming the projection was correct to begin with).
Since the projection would have been proven wrong after the Marlins won game 1, I submit that BP's projection remains unaffected by the hot start and that they will regress towards their projection.
But my point is that BP sees them as a .444 team at the end of 162. So you can't split the season at any arbitrary point (e.g. what has happened so far in real life) and say "they'll go .444 the rest of the way."
It was a final projection, so (if you accept it as correct) you have to expect the Marlins to play worse than .444 from here on out in order to hit the projection.
If you think the 11-3 start indicates that the projection WASN'T correct to begin with, then why believe that it will be correct over the course of the rest of the season??
Your methodology almost makes it IMPOSSIBLE to ever correctly predict a season. Suppose the Marlins were 1-0 (not 11-3). And you use your methodology to determine they will go .444 the rest of the 161 games. That's 71.55 wins. For a total of 73. So because they won their first game rather than lost it they won't be a .444 team at the end of the season? Conversely, a team projected to end with a winning record couldn't lose their first game, otherwise your method would again show the projection to be wrong.
Prior outcomes don't determine future outcomes, nor change probabilities.
Correct. But was BP projecting that in any given game the Marlins have a .444 chance of winning? OR that at the end of 162 games they will finish with a .444 win percentage? Obviously a team's chance of winning any given game isn't static, therefore, I'd say the latter is correct. It doesn't matter what the Marlins do in the first 2 weeks (especially playing against the Marlins), BP sees them as a .444 team at the end of the season.
..the whole point to the article was that save opportunities can't be predicted accurately by looking at a specific team and seeing how good they or are how likely they are to play in close games. I especially don't see how a hitter's ballpark would be a good thing when targeting a closer.
It seems intuitive though, that certain kinds of pitchers will yield different kinds of grounders. So not only must you look through the noise of the entire rest of the infield's fielding in the single sample, but also must consider whether the pitching staff is inclined to give up dribblers or sharply hit no-doubt-about-em base hits.
Not sure if this is true, as a pitcher's BABIP probably fluctuates more than a team's infield.
agreed. and it's not like they'd be throwing anywhere near max velocity.
And I'd even throw in a spare corner outfielder to boot.
The Mets have one of those?
even when comparing pitches thrown on 4 days rest to pitches thrown on 5 days rest.. it seems that more of the pitches thrown on 5 days rest will be by a larger proportion of back of the rotation pitchers. I'm very interested in the data that would result in comparing pitchers against _themselves_ but as mentioned before, small sample size or not, there seems to be bias in all of these numbers (not just the short rest column).
D'oh. subjective* is what I meant.
"SP Daisuke Matsuzaka: Anyone thinking that the Sox overpaid now? He's only getting better."
"He's only getting better" is an interesting analysis considering his *90th* percentile PECOTA projection still has his ERA increasing (to 3.26), while his weighted mean puts it at 4.45. His walks shot up last year, his K's were down, and he was extremely lucky. But he did have a good WBC....
Is it just me or is BP flirting a lot more with objective analysis then it used to?
So now the consensus at BP is: if a team beats another team in a single game of baseball, then the winning team is clearly the superior team, and the losing team will have to make drastic changes in order to "compete"?
USA loses to Japan (So does Cuba). Netherlands beats Dominicans. This isn't a 162 game season. Oddities are bound to pop up.
did a BP reader really make this post?
1st paragraph: torn labrum caused cyst. not the other way around. ergo, steroids didn't cause the cyst.
2nd: spring training numbers? really??
3rd paragraph: curses? again, really?? The yanks have spent an awful lot of money, yes. but they have fielded an awful lot of good teams since their last WS win. and since when does 1 year constitute a "run of no playoffs". To ME it looks like the depth charts still put them in the postseason which really only means that we should expect them (along with the sox and rays) to be very competitive.
\"top of the green = almost a yellow\" (soria)? \"even this low yellow seems a little high to me\" (greinke)? your choice of color modifiers always confuses me.
I\'d also have to think that the cost of type a free agents is at least somewhat a function of your team\'s funds (and general success) in scouting. The A\'s aren\'t losing the same value as the Astro\'s were either of them to sign o-cab.
yeah, follow up to this...
kelvin was a top 11 last year. what happened for his stock to drop so low (especially considering several guys ahead of him-joba, kennedy, tabata, horne, and ramirez are no longer ranked as yankee prospects)?
PECOTA sure likes burnett next year...
Prove that it didn\'t. I know BP is all about objective data, but there is no reliable data on this stuff. You have to use subjectivity, and a little freakin common sense. We can do studies on Arod\'s 2001-2003 season and proclaim that he hit within a reasonable standard of home runs, but two things are wrong with this claim. we don\'t KNOW he started in 2001 and stopped in 2003. and we can\'t possibly know what he would have done without them. maybe instead of finishing slightly ahead of his projection he falls slightly short.
we know segui was a user...do we know the extent to which he used? sure, he only hit 139 hr in 15 seasons...but maybe that is significantly better than his clean talent level would have produced, we can never know. what we can know is that is helps players recover from injuries, and that barry bonds\' head tripled in size after using, and he went on to hit 73 home runs as a 36 year old. common sense. just because it doesn\'t magically provide every player who ever used to hit 50 bombs a year, doesn\'t mean it doesn\'t help them perform outside of their true talent. and it undeniably helps them play in games that they probably would have missed due to injury, which is an undeniable advantage over those who take their dl stints like men.
Here\'s an interesting question: Selig is mulling over what to do about ARod wrt the record books. Let\'s assume Arod surpasses 762, and let\'s assume that Selig denies him the record. What happens with his incentive based contract? He stands to earn some $25-$30 million as I understand it for breaking the HR record while under his current contract. If the official record books don\'t acknowledge him as the record holder, does he still receive the bonuses?
i count 2431 wins, 2429 losses on the depth charts
Bonds is a jerk and my personal hatred has nothing to do with his skin color. If we found out the Griffey juiced too I would have the same reaction as I did today when I found out ARod juiced, and the same reaction when I found out that Clemens/Pettitte were in the Mitchell Report: a deep depressing disappointment.
bonds (and his head) tripled in size after he started using and he made a ton of racist remarks while chasing babe ruth. The difference in size of pettitte, clemens, arod, etc is almost unnoticeable and for me personally that has a lot to do with it because it shows the extent of use. his trainer rotted in jail for him for how many years? he\'s is a bad guy and gets wayyyyyyy too much praise from BP. And you can shove any study that suggests steroids don\'t improve performance up your ass. because none of them are working with any reliable data whatsoever.
Can some one set something straight for me (and for all others whom I believe are misinformed)?
There were no penalties for testing positive for banned steroids in 2003 and prior. Since 1991 however, MLB\'s drug policy prohibited steroid use without a prescription. Considering this and the US illegality of steroids, if you ever took steroids (regardless of year) are you a cheater who broke the rules.
basically does no penalties = no rules?
clearly not elite? yankees? last several years?
i\'ll take 97 wins in 06 and 97 pyth wins in 07 as elite. call it over performing in 05 and 04, i\'ll still take 95 and 101 wins any day of the week. looking at 02 and 03 and i see a clearly elite team with over 100 wins both years. going back much further than that and the payroll issue approaches \"moot\".
perhaps you accidentally included the word \"several\" because that was the first year in a long time the yanks were clearly not elite. and even then it was primarily due to back loaded contracts and injuries (though, admittedly truly elite teams don\'t have excuses).
False. You misunderstood him to mean \"the reason Jeter\'s line was so low was because of the demanding position he plays.\" What he actually said was quite different. The reason Jeter\'s WARP was still relatively high is that he put up a .300/.363/.408 line at the most demanding position. Had he put up that same line at anyother position and he loses WARP points. Add in the fact that he\'s probably capable of a better line than that (lowered his K rate, better BB/K, and career relative low BABIP (granted he had a slight decline in LD%, but that and his career worst FB/HR% might be attributed to being hit in the wrist by a d-cab fastball).
you\'re still thinking of the other side of the coin. I agree, Dunn himself sells little tickets. But a fan seeing his team field a bunch of low cost scrubs is now going to be disgusted that his team failed to snatch up such a bargain (even if it wouldn\'t be the difference between playoffs and not). We\'re not talking about increasing attendance. We\'re taking about not decreasing attendance.
the point wasn\'t really \"adam dunn is so good he\'ll draw crowds all by himself.\" the point was the disappointment that would result from a fringe team not signing him would drive away fans. (losing any money that the team saved by not signing free agent x) because they would be wishing of competing with a slightly larger payroll instead of losing with a low cost team.
first of all, i didn\'t say it came as a shock. just something of interest that I would love to know the proper reasoning behind. second of all, hughes didn\'t get creamed in triple a. he had better k and bb rates than buchholz, and equal HR rates. they had the same big league results, same minor league peripherals, so i don\'t see why you have to raise an issue with my post. also, your reasoning has little to do with the likely explanation because buchholz\'s rate stats project only slightly above hughes; the real difference in vorp lies in the 164 (!?) innings for clay and only 84 for phil.
even the pitching doesn\'t look that great. outside of the high hopes for aj burnett (roughly 200 innings 3.80 era), cc\'s season will be his worst since his age 24 season, joba\'s line looks good but the yanks will need more than 120 innings of him, pettitte\'s is decent, but pecota absolutely hates wang and hughes (334th in VORP for hughes - whereas clay buccholz is rated 63rd??). the bullpen should be pretty sick though. rivera, ramirez, veras, and robertson all did well.
In my neck of the New Jersey woods (both in morris county where I live AND Hoboken where I go to school), it\'s only referred to as taylor ham. But we don\'t get all pissy if someone does call it pork roll.
Also: I largely disagree with your IHOP comment. IHOP should never be eaten at any time of the day in NJ, with the nearest diner no more than 5 minutes away from the closest IHOP.
But yeah, taylor ham scrambled eggs and cheese on rye, (grilled cheese style) with salt pepper and ketchup is definitely the way to go.
If you\'re not concerned with heart problems then a taylor ham cheeseburger is pretty damn amazing to. Most places will make em even if they\'re not on the menu.
And if you\'re in Manhattan, go to the street vendor at 53rd and 6th after 7:30PM for the best $6 lamb, beef, chicken, and rice platter imaginable.
if you include the $5 mil the yanks are giving to wang in the added, you have to include what he made last year in the lost (since they aren\'t paying him last years salary + 5 million). I think it was 4.1 mil, but i\'m not positive.
Did you read anything will wrote? The advantage the Yankees have this off season isn\'t that the economy doesn\'t affect them. They are lucky enough for this league wide wallet tightening to coincide with an off season where they have $85 million dollars to spend on next years club, along with damon/matsui coming off the books next year. If the yanks were to spend $400 million every off season for the next 5 years, it would be a problem. but they won\'t so it\'s not.
the only advantage big market teams have is the ability to stay competitive every year. but, in any given _single_ year, it\'s likely that multiple small market teams can be just as competitive.
The Yankees have 1 pick in the first 3 rounds of next years draft (28a, compensation for not signing their pick last year). By my calculations, the Brewers for example will have: their first round pick, whoever takes sheets\' first round pick, 2 first round sandwich picks for sheets/sabathia, their second round pick, and the yankees\' second round pick. 6 picks in the first 2 rounds for young players way below market price. just because they won\'t make as much money as sabathia, burnett, and teixiera, doesn\'t mean that in 4 years they\'ll be less valuable.
respectfully disagree. opportunity losses don\'t apply because if the talent is there (and with the yanks, it really isnt..), trades can always be made. yeah maybe it puts more pressure on jesus montero to stick at catcher, but if he doesn\'t and teix/arod are in the way, montero still retains his value as a trade chip.
also, you assume that the market isn\'t rational (and that your solution is rational, but you don\'t know that teix would take that deal as he may not be looking to maximize career dollars, but instead job security. PLUS, you don\'t know that 35/3 even maximizes career dollars for teix because you admit that the back end of this deal is bad for the yanks, so why would his age 31 deal be anything special), even though there is no evidence that it\'s not, or even shouldn\'t be.
so how bout them yanks? not offering arb to pettite or abreu. wonder what that\'s about.
pretty good idea. red sox would need to get more than vmart, but the right package could make that a perfect trade for both teams.
when was the last time the yankees got an everyday major leaguer for nothing... you can just as easily say that teams like the twins or a\'s expect the world from the yanks and won\'t give them anything until the yanks fork over half their farm system.
Hey Joe, in your last chat I wondered if melky, melancon, and humberto sanchez were enough to pry away swisher. how does that compare to what they ended up giving?
Yankees 6/150 11/21
Any interest in Swisher from the Yankees? They could use him in center if they don\'t sign teix, and I\'d assume he\'d come pretty cheap.
Perfect response. Exactly what I was going to say. Jody Gerut has returned to super-stardom but Cliff Lee is only one year deep towards establishing himself?
If you don\'t like Cliff Lee, then I\'d even choose Mike Mussina, who looked all but washed up last year, and came back to have a pretty decent year, over Baldelli. If Baldelli plays an above average, full season next year then by all means throw him the award. But I think ll cool j would agree with me that the real joke would have been calling 90 plate appearances a comeback.
I\'m surprised at BP\'s stance on this. Who are we to say who has more obstacles to overcome. That\'s as subjective as it gets. Just because Lee\'s problems may have been mechanical or mental (an aspect of a players game that may seem MSM, but I maintain it counts for way more than any here at BP give it credit for), instead of disease, didn\'t mean they weren\'t problems.
But that\'s besides the point. If BPers look at the MVP as objectively as possible, than comeback player should be looked at the same way. Look at the data. Baldelli hasn\'t even really made a comeback yet.
Lee jumped from a -9.3 VORP (worst on his team, 688th in the league/717 pitchers) to a 75. Best in the league. I know its the status quo at BP to disagree with every award given out ever by people other than themselves, but this is ridiculous. Lee is the clear objective winner.
If you disagree, than why is it that things like clubhouse leadership, chemistry, etc. are so strongly argued against when taking into consideration the MVP? because they and their effect on the outcome of baseball games are not quantifiable. Neither is adversity. Or is there a EqAdversity_Faced I\'m unaware of?
\"rather than the joke they gave out this year\"
what\'s wrong with Cliff Lee for comeback player of the year?? 2 years ago he was good, last year he was awful, and this year he was arguably the best player in the league... that\'s quite a comeback, practically by definition...
baldelli came back from a disease, which is great, but in baseball terms 90 PA of a .287 EqA.. isn\'t anywhere near lee\'s accomplishment...
Can you explain the numbers \"Movement in X (in.)\" in the Verlander link? The way I\'m reading it makes it seem like his fastball has a lot more movement than his cutter, and that they both come in on RHB... but that can\'t be, right?
...except they were even (rightly so) harsher on the mariners, so there goes that theory. Baseball isn\'t science. In science, you change the model because luck doesn\'t exist. If you really can\'t acknowledge the existence of luck in baseball, you may as well cancel your BP subscription now and save the money..
Got a DXL on Bobby Abreu?
...well if I had known Jenn Sterger was going to be there... gotta let us know something like that!