CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
There was a lot of discussion on SNY during Harvey's recent starts (particularly, IIRC, his 8/11 start against Colorado) that he had decided to start dialing back a bit and pitching more to contact so that he could last later into games. That CO start is particularly out of line with vintage Harvey--8 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=IP" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('IP'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">IP</span></a>, 0 R, 4 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=H" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('H'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">H</span></a>, and only 4 K. So that could be a big reason his velocity is down across the board in August. The change in pitch selection is a little more worrisome though.
It's probably not right to expect a strict platoon in CF between Lagares and Nieuwenhuis. Granderson played CF last night in Cespedes's debut, and Collins said after the game that Cespedes will probably also see time in CF. Lagares will mostly just start against lefties.
Another way to do it is to foul off a ton of pitches, until the pitcher eventually misses. I don't know of anyone who keeps track of it, but reverse-engineering the numbers from Fangraphs, Bonifacio appears to be fouling off 42.9% of the pitches he swings at, which ranks him 18th in the majors (behind a weird list topped by Reddick, Braun, DeJesus, Dee Gordon, and Jeter). This is in line with Bonifacio's last two years (44.1% and 40%), so yeah, this is probably driven mostly by pitchers throwing more balls. One has to imagine they'll stop doing that.
Is it just me or is "If Ian Kinsler got $75 million... then Cano is obviously going to get at least $100 million" exactly the type of nonsense this website was established to argue against? How exactly is a 4-6 win player worth 33% more than a 4-7 win player?
For what it's worth, when I was running the numbers for my Fangraphs piece in January (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/were-going-streaking-again/), I tried looking at pitchers using a few different stats (xFIP was the most defense-independent) and found the same null result as you. I thought I'd find something, at least with relievers, but, well... nope. Nice work though, and nice point about the wins, too.
While Reyes does have something of an injury history, my guess would be that CHIPPER overstates his injury risk. Last year's thyroid issues were a freak occurrence, and his hamstring troubles the year before that were at least partially exacerbated by mismanagement on the part of the Mets. From '05 to '08 he played in 161, 153, 160, and 159 games.
This is not to say that Reyes carries no injury risk, but simply that a data-driven approach would likely not consider these additional factors that might mitigate the risk somewhat. Moreover, I imagine CHIPPER doesn't include the half-season of healthy baseball he's played so far (79 of 81 games). An 85% chance he misses 30 games this year seems extremely high, particularly since at this point, he would have to miss over 35% of the remainder of the season.
Are you still using a linear model for expected wins? IIRC, last time I and a few other people suggested a logarithmic model, to account for the diminishing returns of dollars tacked onto larger payrolls. Any thoughts on that?
I think this depends on what the purpose of this stat is. If it is to attempt to objectively determine the smartest or best GM in baseball, then you're probably right. Of course, if that's the case, then it would almost make sense to remove any actual results, since they include a good amount of luck.
It seems to me that the purpose of the exercise is to identify the GMs who have contributed the greatest possible (quantifiable) value to their franchises. And while it is the case that a GM may or may not be intentionally setting out to finish in the bottom of the standings, it is nearly indisputable that a team that receives the number 1 draft pick has obtained greater added value than the team that receives the number 15 draft pick.
Including draft pick value goes along with a long-held principal among analysts that it is better to rebuild than to tread water.
I'm not sure it's accurate to say the loophole picks "proved that as true free agents these players were worth eight to ten times what they were signing for." There's a decent argument to be made that the values of those players were inflated because of scarcity.
With teams competing at that point to sign only a few players, signing them became something of a zero-sum proposition. If no players were subject to the draft, yes it would almost certainly inflate bonuses from where they are, especially at the upper end of the range of talent. But as good as Stephen Strasburg is, I'm not sure he would get an 80-100 million dollar contract. Though he might well get the 50 million Boras was looking for.
However, as you point out, the issue is in later rounds. And lower down on the totem pole, where the talent distribution is flatter, I suspect players would become much more fungible. Teams might be less likely to bust their budget for the equivalent of a number 200 pick if they can easily turn their attention to a number 201 pick.
I believe it was Charley Finley who originally proposed that free agency involve no multi-year contracts, such that every year the market would be flooded and prices would be reduced. I suspect the same principal would be at play here.
Wouldn't it make a bit more sense to regress the team's winning percentage in a log function? Just as the marginal value of a win is nonlinear, the marginal cost of those wins would likely be similarly nonlinear. Running it in excel from 2002-08, I get xW=162*(0.0812*LN(Payroll) - 0.9716). Granted that doesn't make any adjustments for year over year changes in the league payroll structure. But by this method, going from a 20M payroll to a 30M payroll nets about 5 additional expected wins, an increase from 90M to 100M nets another 1.4 wins, and going from 200M to 210M nets only 0.6 wins:
I'd say the critical game in that month was the last game of the season, in which Tom Glavine gave up 7 runs before the Mets even came to bat. Let's not forget that the starting pitchers fell apart in 2007 as well. And we can blame Minaya for putting together a team in which Jorge Sosa made 14 starts, and Brian Lawrence made 6. Mets relievers had a 5.91 RA in September '07, but the starters were almost as bad, at 5.51. The starters also averaged less than 5.3 innings per start.
When I look bat at 2007 I blame a lot of players and factors, but Billy Wagner, while on the list, isn't close to the top.
I'm pretty sure it's not Wagner's fault that the next best reliever on the team in 2008 was Luis Ayala. And I'm pretty sure that is Omar Minaya's fault. It's also Omar Minaya's fault that the 2010 and 2011 Mets will still have Luis Castillo and Oliver Perez. It's also Omar Minaya's fault for thinking Perez was the great pitcher he's shown flashes of the last few years, and not the terrible one he's shown more. It's also Minaya's fault for mistaking Pelfrey's luck-induced dominance in 2008 for genuine improvement, and for thinking that John Maine could be a steady presence when he was coming off of shoulder surgery. It's also Minaya's fault for dealing Ramon Castro (Omir Santos!) and downgrading from Church to Franceour, because he hired a manager who apparently prefers players who are bad at baseball.
Joe, I'm really not sure what your main point is here, but among the various options I can detect--fans shouldn't cheer a guy coming back from injury, Billy Wagner is the reason the Mets fell apart in '07 and '07, or Omar Minaya is a secret good GM--none of them hold up.
Could it be something to do with HR rates? Extreme FB and GB pitchers might both have HR rates that PECOTA would expect to regress more than they actually would. Extreme FB guys are better than one would expect at preventing HR (see Cliff Lee).
Also, Wandy's a guy who has always shown great peripherals aside from his struggles with gopheritis.
Kevin Youkilis gave up and went home?
I took a look at every 300-game winner who has started his career since 1950 (only 10 players, I know, but hear me out). Those pitchers accounted for 70 pitcher seasons in which they were under 30--using the standard July 1 cutoff) and threw at least 100 innings. Of those 70 seasons, 68 of them involved a HR/9 rate below 1. That's 97%. Don Sutton had a HR rate of 1.3 in his age 25 season, and Johnson had a HR rate of 1.1 in his age 26 season, only his second full season in the majors. Phil Niekro, who didn't throw 100 innings until his age 28 season, posted HR rates of 0.4 and 0.6 to finish out his twenties.
Johnson may demonstrate that control can come late, but he, like the other 300-game winners, always displayed an ability to keep the ball in the yard, year after year. It seems the ability to repeatedly post a HR rate below 1 HR per 9 IP
Here are the number of times pitchers on your list have posted HR rates under 1 in their, and number of seasons in which they have pitched 100 or more innings. Again, all of this is before the age of 30:
Harang - 1 season out of 4
Hudson - 6/7
Lee - 2/4
Lowe - 3/3
Perez - 0/6, 2009: 1.2 HR/9 (I'm a Mets fan, but this one's pretty laughable)
Wang - 3/3, 2009: 1.9 HR/9
Hudson and Lowe are interesting, Lowe because he started so late and Hudson because health issues are the main culprit at this point. If Wang can undo his total implosion, he's a reasonable bet to get back on the list too. But the other pitchers haven't shown the kind of consistent performance that any of the 300-game winners showed in their 20s.
Some other notables include:
Andy Pettite (7/7)
Roy Halladay (6/7)
Roy Oswalt (6/7)
CC Sabathia (8/8, 2009 HR/9: 0.6)
Johan Santana (6/7)
Carlos Zambrano (7/7, 2009 HR/9: 0.6)
Of course, consistently showing the ability to prevent HR doesn't mean a player will have a high win total. Shawn Estes went 6/6 and Mike Hampton was 6 for his first 6 as well. But HR prevention does seem to be a requisite for a high win total. Something to keep in mind.
Manuel has been saying he's likely to bat Beltran 5th most of the time, with Delgado clean-up. I'd rather see them go Beltran-Wright-Delgado, but it sounds like they're going Wright-Delgado-Beltran.
A pretty minor thing, but Alex Cora will likely get the bulk of the time subbing in for Luis Castillo, not Argenis Reyes. It is, in fact, the reason the Mets brought in Cora in the first place.
I would guess it\'s probably Castillo-55, Cora-30, Reyes-10, Anderson-5.