The Baseball Graphs Blog
Saturday, April 19, 2008
14 Pitches
The Phillies' Eric Bruntlett just had a tense 14-pitch at bat against Oliver Perez, including a foul ball that was almost a home run. I decided to experiment creating pictures of at bats from MLB's Gameday, and here's what that one looked like -- at least on a computer (stupid major league blackout).
By the way, Bruntlett walked.
Friday, April 18, 2008
The Colbert Bump
This post is a little old, but it concerns one of my favorite TV shows, The Colbert Report. The authors prove that the "Colbert Bump" actually does exist, and they even break their findings into types of bumps. I really like how they take a "spaghetti chart" of lines and mold it into a graph that brings out the basic story. This is something more graphic artists should try to do.Have you seen Muckety?
Since I haven't posted anything here in a while, I figured we all could use a good non-baseball but good-graphic post. Have you seen Muckety? It's an online news source that specializes in stories and the relationships between people in the stories. Check out the relationships between all the players in the recent McCain Girls video.This is a seriously good use of graphics for information. And now you know how Andy Samberg is related to Arianna Huffington.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Comments Turned Off
Just wanted you to know that I’ve turned the comments off for the Baseball Graphs blog ... which seems silly, since I have only posted a couple of times here in the past year. However, something or someone has been pounding the database, and we had to be taken off the tubes. I don’t know that comments are the problem, but I’m turning them off to be safe.
Hopefully, I’ll be able to turn them back on soon.
Friday, January 04, 2008
New Historical Win Shares File
Hello! I haven’t been by in a while, and I feel just sick about it. Hopefully, if you like my work, you’ve been reading my stuff at The Hardball Times. Keep on checking out THT, cause I’m not going to pick up things here for a while.
But I did want to let everyone know that I’ve updated the historical Win Shares file to include 2007 Win Shares. You can download this zipped file from ftp://ftp.baseballgraphs.com/winshares.
I’ve changed the format this year. There are now just two .csv files, which you can import into Access. If you want to import them into Excel, you’ll have to chop them up a bit cause they’re just too dang long. The first file contains all the detailed Win Shares info for every player from the past to the present. The second file contains “expected Win Shares” info for every player and year since 1900. You can use this second file to create your own “Win Shares Above Replacement” data.
Win Shares suffers from a lack of “Loss Shares.” This sounds like it might not be a big problem, but it is. It’s the difference between accruing 10 Win Shares in 40 games or an entire season. 40 games is a lot more impressive. The expected Win Shares data helps you get over this hurdle.
Expected Win Shares are the number of Win Shares an average player would have accrued, given that specific player’s times at bat, innings in the field and batters faced from the mound. It’s based on specific averages from each league and year. So if Hank Aaron had 29 Win Shares and 17 expected Win Shares in 1955 (he did), then you could say he was 12 Win Shares above average. Taking it a step further, you could even say he was 29-5 in 1955 (the year of my birth, by the way).
There’s a problem with the won/loss approach. Some players had such good years that they accrued more than twice as many expected Win Shares, so they would wind up with “negative” loss shares. So it’s not a perfect approach. But this info does allow you to get beyond the lack of Loss Shares.
The best approach is to calculate Win Shares Above Replacement Level, which is what we do at the Hardball Times. With this data in these files, you can now calculate your own replacement level. Here’s a link to some work I did about Win Shares replacement levels a couple of years ago. The replacement approach accomplishes the same thing as Loss Shares.
Anyway, have fun with the data. I took a lot of extra time this year to make sure I got all the IDs correct, but you may find a mistake or two. Or more. Please let me know if you do.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Ozzie Smith’s Fielding Win Shares
One of the more controversial aspects of Win Shares is the way in which it gives credit to fielders (and pitchers). In a nutshell, Bill James wasn’t sure enough of his system to let it really work. He put boundaries on the overall impact fielding could have for a team, and he also didn’t give fielders any negative fielding claim points.
As a result, it seems that Win Shares doesn’t truly value great fielders. It recognizes them, but doesn’t credit them with enough impact. To look at this a bit more closely, I thought we might use the case of Ozzie Smith.
Now, Win Shares certainly does recognize that Ozzie Smith was a great fielder. He racked up 139 fielding Win Shares in his career, which is the fourth-highest total ever (behind Rabbit Maranville, Bill Dahlen and Honus Wagner). But we can dig deeper than that, thanks to some research conducted by Chris Dial a few months ago.
Chris took Ozzie’s Zone Ratings for the years 1987 to 1996 (the second half of his career). Using the data, Dial estimates that Smith saved 156 runs over how an average shortstop would perform in the field. That’s a tremendous total for a fielder, particularly considering that this represented the “decline phase” of Ozzie’s career.
How can we use this to evaluate Win Shares? Well, let’s first take a specific year, 1988. No reason; just a good year. Dial estimates that Smith saved 23 runs more than the average shortstop in 1988. Let’s translate.
In Win Shares, an average shortstop who played every inning of every game would accrue six fielding Win Shares. In 1988, Smith was credited with eight Win Shares, two more than average. Is two enough of an edge for the Wizard of Ahs?
As a general rule, ten runs saved adds a win to the team. Smith saved 23 runs, or contributed 2.3 wins more than the average shortstop. Each win equals three Win Shares, so Smith actually contributed 7 Win Shares above average. Add back the six Win Shares of the average fielder and you can see that Ozzie should have been credited with 13 fielding Win Shares, not eight. He was shortchanged five Win Shares.
Win Shares provided a great public service by including the impact of fielding, something that only a few other statistics do. But for the Ozzie Smiths, Rabbit Maranvilles and Adam Everetts, it didn’t get it right.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Gary Moore Responds
The author of “Playing with the Enemy” read my recent review and was nice enough to respond in an e-mail. With his permission, I’m reprinting his message here. Although this letter didn’t change my viewpoint, I really appreciate the fact that Gary is open enough to have a dialog like this.
Dave,
First of all, let me thank you for your interest in my dad’s story. “Playing with the Enemy” clearly states it is a story “based upon true events.” It is not nor was it ever intended to be a strict historical footnoted style non-fiction biography that accounts for every facet of my dad’s life. It is a story of character, persistence, and an essay on what a man can do with a second chance in life—wrapped up in my dad’s life experiences.
Because my dad was not a historical figure and never made it far in professional baseball, there are few records or written accounts to rely on. There is the possibility my dad played a bit more baseball after leaving Greenville, because it was a long time before he finally made it back to Sesser. That period of his life is a complete blank slate. But at the end of the day, “Playing with the Enemy” is a son’s interpretation of his father’s life. As I said, it is a character study and snapshot of small-town baseball and a look at a few family members of that were part of what has been dubbed our Greatest Generation.
My dad never told me specifically who the pitcher was in “Playing with the Enemy,” or if he did, I did not recognize the name. It has been over 23 years ago that the conversation took place. As I tell it in the book, I witnessed a meeting between my dad and Elroy “Roy” Face at Wrigley Field in the early 60’s. I was quite young then, but it was obvious they knew each other well.
It would be like you taking your son to PacBell Park and Barry Bonds running over to greet your father at the fence in front of you. But how did they know one another? I truly don’t know, but they must have played together somewhere or at the very least, met and nurtured a friendship. At the time, my dad drove a bread truck and had been out of baseball close to 15 years. How would a bread truck delivery man from a small town in Illinois know Roy? I don’t know.
But at the end it is not intended as what you called a “heavy hint” that it is Face. In fact, the book specifically says that Gene never saw Ray Laws again. The Face mention is as it states, memories of a young son who is trying to piece together his fathers past.
As recounted in the book, I found out about much of my father’s history in one very long single conversation the night before he died (and a lot more interviewing people who knew and played with him). I wish I had taken notes that night, but it never occurred to me it would be one of our last conversations.
I spoke to dozens of people who confirmed most aspects of my dad’s saga, but the Roy Face/Gene Moore connection remains a mystery and is not even an aspect of the story. It is a recollection mentioned at the end of the story.
I hope that helps clarify things a bit, and I am grateful you took time to read and comment on “Playing with the Enemy.” I deeply appreciate it.
Gary
PS- By the way, Publishers Weekly, the standard of the publishing industry this week awarded Playing with the Enemy with a “Starred Review.”
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Playing with the Enemy
I just finished reading Playing with the Enemy, which seems to have created a mini-sensation, at least judging by the number of superlative reviews it has received at Amazon. Playing with the Enemy is an emotional and remarkable story about a young baseball player who was evidently quite talented but lost his chance to play in the majors after serving in World War Two. It’s a tale of heroics, lost ways, self-sacrifice and redemption. In other words, it’s tailor-made for a sap like me.
Before continuing, I should tell you that Field of Dreams brought tears to my eyes. Heck, so did the book Shoeless Joe. So does It’s a Wonderful Life. Still. So I’m a sucker for stories like this. And Playing with the Enemy desperately wants you to know that it’s a story like this.
Check out the subtitle: A Baseball Prodigy (like prodigal son? sob...), a World at War (bluebirds over white cliffs of Dover? choke...), and a Field of Broken Dreams (Sob!!). Plus, a ribbon on the front declares that Playing with the Enemy will soon be a major motion picture! Has Kevin Costner signed up yet?
There is a plethora of recommendations in the front ("a passion play...") as well as acknowledgements (in which the author expresses his undying gratitude and love to anyone he’s ever known), a foreword (by baseball “legend” Jim Morris) and an introduction (by someone I haven’t heard of). Yes, the publisher wants you to know just what it is you’ve opened, even if you would prefer to find out for yourself. This is the sort of publicity usually reserved for bestsellers, not newly published books.
As you can probably tell, I’m not only a sap, I’m a cynic, too. So I began the book expecting to be disappointed. I must say, though, that the story is terrific. It starts with a son finding out that his father has a hidden secret, and there’s a dark reason his Dad never attended any of his baseball games. It has to do with the Dad’s lost opportunity and the bitterness he still carries inside him. I don’t want to give away much of the plot, but I will say it concerns the war erupting at the wrong time, guarding Germans in a prison camp, playing ball with them, getting a chance to play in the minor leagues, a terrible career-ending injury and a second chance in which the hero rubs shoulders with future major leaguers.
I don’t think I’ve given too much away, because the manner in which these events unfold is the point of the book. The author/son admits upfront that he’s not a writer, and it shows. His doesn’t really have an ear for dialog, his descriptions are mostly flat (though he manages a few good ones) and he likes to hammer home points (how many times can one man be told he would have been a major league star?). But his pacing is good, and the story carries you along. And, yes, I did tear up at a point or two.
In the end, however, you’re left with a question: is the story true? If so, how true is it? The writer is coy on the subject; he created composites for most of his characters and he freely admits that the story is based on only his remembrance of his father’s story (two decades ago) as well as conversations with other acquaintances. Nowhere, however, does he explain how much of the story is true or isn’t, or what he found in his research. In fact, it doesn’t appear that he did much research at all.
Near the end of the book, he drops a heavy hint that his Dad played in the war and in the minors with Roy Face. But he couldn’t have: Face never served in the war nor did he play in the minors when his Dad did. In fact, there is no record of a Gene Moore having played minor league ball in Greenville, Mississippi in the Cotton States League in 1949. The only facts the author presents that can be verified appear to be false.
This is a real shame. The power of this story lies in its truth; if made up, it’s just an overwrought story. The details should have been researched more thoroughly (with so many baseball resources available today, there’s no excuse not to) and the author should have been more upfront regarding which portions of the story were verified as legitimate and which were embellished.
So if you read Playing with the Enemy, enjoy the ride and take a hankie, but take it with a grain of salt.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Seaver, Ryan and Palmer
Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer all pitched around the same time with great success and all three have been inducted into the Hall of Fame. Yet they had very different pitching styles. Here’s a quick review based on the Fangraphs graphics (a blogger’s best friend):
First off, take a look at their strikeout rates. Ryan, of course, was the greatest strikeout pitcher of all time. Seaver was also excellent but Palmer wasn’t even an average strikeout pitcher for most of his career:
You might also notice that Seaver and Palmer followed typical “aging” patterns. For instance, Seaver lost a lot of of zip when he turned 35, his second season with the Reds. Ryan, however, remained an elite strikeout pitcher his entire career. Next, here’s a graph of their respective walk rates. This graph may be a bit hard to read, but it shows that Ryan was a wild dude while Seaver had extraordinary control. Palmer was better than average:
Different aging patterns. Ryan’s control improved as he aged; Seaver’s deteriorated until he renewed his control at age 40. Palmer’s pattern looks pretty random. Here are their home run rates. All three had home run rates significantly below average. That would be expected with Ryan and Seaver because strikeout pitchers give up less hits in general. However, Palmer’s HR rate was also very low until he turned 35--a key to his success.
A little later, I’ll graph two other important aspects of their success: Batting Average on Balls in Play, and runner left on base.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
McGwire and the Hall
I’m pretty sick and tired of reading about McGwire and the Hall vote (and I’ll bet Ripken and Gwynn are tired of it, too). McGwire did break the law (though a relatively minor one; and not against the law in many other countries) and he did something that he knew stood against MLB policy. I don’t hold these issues against him very much, however, because he did so in an environment that didn’t reinforce its policies at all. In fact, several MLB teams made amphetamines freely available; that is, they encouraged this sort of illegal behavior. Shoot, any thinking person should have known that McGwire and Sosa were taking steroids. Those who were expected to enforce those policies, or report the truth, looked the other way. Given those circumstances, I would have voted him in.
The McGwire backlash, it seems to me, has been in direct proportion to the extreme hype he received in 1998. The BBWAA members feel betrayed. Since they built him up, they feel obligated to bring him down. I find this aspect of the whole affair sordid and unseemly.
But I was glancing through Bill James’s Historical Baseball Abstract (the newer one) and came across a comment in the Robin Yount section that seems relevant, concerning his holdout in the spring of 1978.
Almost all scandals, I think, result not from the invention of new evils, but from the imposition of new ethical standards. Same thing with Yount; he wasn’t backing away from baseball; he was just putting the bit in his teeth, accepting new responsibilities. In the biographies of men and nations, success often arrives in a mask of failure.
Perhaps this is worth noting. Perhaps the McGwire Hall of Fame scandal isn’t really about McGwire. It’s about a new standard of ethics being applied to baseball, by writers, fans, management and, hopefully, players. Baseball has a patina of innocence to it, one that doesn’t exist in basketball or football. Obviously, it’s important to the general public that baseball remain that way. What we’re observing is the imposition of a new ethical standard, to make sure baseball maintains its innocent glow.
Let’s hope it takes.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Cal Ripken’s WSAA
Please forgive me, but I’m a Cal Ripken cynic. I don’t know why the record for consecutive games played is so important. Durability is nice, yes, but Ripken’s consecutive games played streak was obviously engineered; his managers wrote his name in the lineup regardless of how he felt, or how well he was playing at the time. It wasn’t a question of performance.
I don’t mean to denigrate the guy on his big day, but I do want to point out that his Hall of Fame credentials, without that consecutive-game streak halo, might be a bit more debatable than you’ve been hearing lately.
I’m not going to go into a long, winding statistical explanation of why I think so. I did one thing: I calculated Win Shares Above Average (WSAA) for his career. There are two basic reasons I think this is a good approach:
- While Win Shares may be flawed, they at least do all the things I would try to do on my own: they adjust for league and park, they include fielding prowess, and they consider the player’s position. They also attempt to truly quantify a player’s concrete contribution to his team’s wins.
- When evaluating a player for the Hall, I think a comparison to an average player is appropriate. I could compare him to a “replacement player,” but why should someone be elected to the Hall based on that? I prefer a higher standard, and I think average is appropriate.
So I concocted a quick and dirty way to calculate Win Shares Above Average based on games played (works for everyday players only; and assumes players played entire games). Babe Ruth, of course, is first in WSAA, followed by Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds and Honus Wagner. Cal Ripken is 136th, tied with Scott Rolen. Now, Scott Rolen may well deserve to be inducted into the Hall. But I’ll bet a lot more people will debate his candidacy than have debated Ripken’s.
I understand that Ripken meant something special to people. But if you’re like me, and you don’t get all that excited about a consecutive-games record, you may feel a little less overwhelmed by his Hall qualifications.
Ripken did have several great MVP-type years. Here’s a chart of his Runs Created per Game each year, as provided by Fangraphs:
While Ripken had three or four great years, many of his seasons were in the average range. For comparison: here’s a graph of Derek Jeter’s Runs Created Per Game:
Jeter, a certain Hall of Famer who currently ranks 124th in WSAA, has sustained excellence throughout most of his career.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Tony Gwynn’s Strikeout Rate
If everything goes as expected tomorrow, Tony Gwynn will be voted into the Hall of Fame. There is really no doubt about his baseball credentials; he is tied for 49th most career Win Shares (398), he was one of the greatest pure hitters in the history of the game and a very, very good fielder to boot.
While looking through his graphs at Fangraphs, I stumbled upon this beauty: Gwynn’s strikeout rate compared to the major league average:
Gwynn had a tremendously low strikeout rate throughout his career. Just as interesting, however, is what happened to the major league rate at the same time. It trended steadily up. As I’m sure you remember, these were the days of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa. Everyone was swinging harder, trying to hit the ball over the fence. But not Tony Gwynn. He resisted the trend and still wound up in the Hall of Fame.
It’s easy to see why those who vilify McGwire and Sosa today would root for Gwynn. He was his own type of player. While I sometimes scratch my head at the Hall of Fame voting results, there’s no denying that Gwynn belongs. Congratulations, in advance.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Historical Graphs at Fangraphs
On this site, I’ve posted a lot of graphs about teams and how they performed season-to-season. I’ve been asked by folks to put together player graphs, but I never got around to it. I’m happy to report that David Appelman, the manager of Fangraphs, has. In fact, he has created player graphs for every player in major league history.
There’s enough here to read forever. I particularly like the pages that include all of a player’s graphs on one page. For instance, check out:
- How Ralph Garr’s heady years of 1971-1974 were driven by his BABIP (which is generally a function of speed and hitting line drives). He didn’t strikeout a lot and he put the ball in play, but as he lost his speed his performance declined.
- Stan Musial’s BB/K ratio is so remarkable that it’s off the graph in most years. Musial was one of the ultimate well-rounded batters, like DiMaggio and Williams. Take a particular look at his BABIP, which remained above average nearly his entire career. The guy was a line drive machine.
- One of my personal favorite ballplayers, Tommie Agee, was an average hitter overall. But he had three good years from 1969 to 1971 by keeping his strikeout rate in check, increasing his walks and just plain hitting the ball on the nose more often.
- Taking a look at pitchers, Ernie Shore was Babe Ruth’s partner, a fine pitcher for the Red Sox in the mid-teens. His best years were his first four years, including 1915, when he finished third in the AL in ERA. As you can see from his graphs, that year was particularly boosted by his high percentage of men left on base. Shore didn’t walk batters; he also didn’t allow many home runs, though that wasn’t as important back then. BABIP was, and you can see that Shore had a good BABIP in his glory years.
- To see something really remarkable, check out Whitey Ford’s graphs. Ford had a great ERA nearly every year of his career, but most of his other stats were around average. His strikeout rate, in particular, was mediocre. However, he sustained a remarkable ratio of men left on base--something we consider random today. Many of the great early pitchers had very good LOB% graphs (Christy Mathewson is another example) which tells you a lot about how pitchers pitched in the old days.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The San Diego Padres Trade Tree
Andy has produced a new type of graphic I hadn’t seen before: one that traces every trade in the Padres’ history. It’s a great concept, though it’s too bad the entire graphic can’t fit onto a screen and maintain its readability. Definitely one way that paper still beats computer.
Here’s a very small version of the graphic. Click on it to view the big version.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Things to Learn
On the Hardball Times site, I publish a regular column entitled “Ten Things I Didn’t Know Last Week.” At least, it’s regular during the season.
Anyway, the original inspiration for that column was the BBC’s ten things list. And now, the BBC has posted its list of 100 Things We Didn’t Know Last Year. There’s nothing about baseball on the list—not even about cricket. But it’s a great read, nevertheless.
- Donald Rumsfeld was both the youngest and oldest Secretary of Defense in US history.
- The costume of the Lion in the Wizard of Oz was made from real lions.
- My favorite: thinking about your muscles can make you stronger.
You also might want to know if you think more like a man or a woman. I graded exactly even between the two; I evidently have an androgynous brain!
And now you know way too much about me.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
New Graphics
I’m “reading” John Burnson’s newest book, The Graphical Player. I say reading, but I’m really reading graphs and charts--hundreds and hundreds of graphs representing game logs, age, skill level and lots of other things for major league players. It’s fascinating stuff, and John has included some unique and excellent graphs in his appendix, highlighting things like the depth of each team’s minor league system. I highly recommend it.
Speaking of great graphs, have you seen this display by USA Today? It’s a crazy good, superb representation of how coaches voted for college football teams. Roll your mouse over the teams on the left to see how they were ranked by different coaches. Sensational concept and execution.
Finally, David Pinto has released his 2006 fielding graphs. This is also a crazy good thing. Given the state of baseball fielding stats, I tend to think that these graphs are the best way to show fans just how good and/or bad specific fielders are. They’re intuitive and relevant. For instance, here’s a graph of Mike Cameron’s range last year on flyballs:
Lots of interesting things here. First off, notice how center fielders have less predicted out on balls that are directly over second base, and more balls to the right and, especially, to the left of second? I didn’t know that. Also, Cameron was better going to his left than his right last year, perhaps because he was shading that way. Great stuff. I could spend days just poring over these graphs, plus the Graphical Player graphs. Graphs aren’t quotable, so you don’t tend to hear about them in blogs. But they’re insightful and just plain fun.
By the way, I was a little disappointed in David’s execution of his graphics (though beggars can’t be choosers. David does this for free!). The two lines are only differentiated by color, which makes them hard to read for those who are even somewhat color-blind. What’s worse, he used red as one of his colors, when red-green color blindness is the most common type. Secondly, there is no perspective on these graphs. David’s 2004 graphs showed a typical variance in each vector, which helped tremendously. On this graph, for instance, you can see that Cameron is good, but you don’t know how good.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Towers’ Trade Record
Geoff Young has a great post at Ducksnorts, including a Win Shares Balance Sheet of general manager Kevin Towers’ trades. I assumed Towers would look good in an analysis like this, but I didn’t know he would look this good:
* positive win shares: 46 trades (average gain, 17.5)
* no difference: 3 trades
* negative win shares: 40 trades (average loss, 8.65)
I also would have guessed that his big trade with the Braves (netting Ryan Klesko, among others) would have ranked first, but it’s second to his acquisition of Phil Nevin earlier in 1999. I had completely forgotten Nevin played for the Angels.
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Racism
I’m not the biggest Malcolm Gladwell fan in the world, but I think his remarks about racism in this blog entry are extremely thoughtful and articulate. Racism is a deeply important subject; Gladwell’s distinction between latent racism, which we all possess to some degree (and should be cognizant of), and outright hurtful racism, which everyone should minimize within themselves, adds an important perspective to the subject.
Having said that, I do think the potential public impact of certain remarks also needs to be taken into account. Michael Irvin’s comments about Tony Romo’s heritage may not have been racist by Gladwell’s criteria, but there are people who will be influenced by his remarks because they are so specific. That’s why it’s important to speak against them. On the other hand, I don’t think Michael Richards’ outburst (using a terribly offensive word) will generate a stronger racial bias in whites. It was fundamentally an emotional outburst--not a reasoned racist thought.
By the way, baseball recently provided a great case study in how latent racism can be harmful. Consider the recent case of the Holiday Day Look Again Player Awards, in which 28 of the 30 nominees were white. The criterion: overlooked players who put their team first.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Baseball Economics
There has been an excellent thread about baseball financial economics over at The Book Blog. Scroll down the comments to see some terrific dialogue about why teams spend as much money on free agents as they do.
My basic contribution is that I think most team owners aren’t as motivated by year-to-year profitability as they are by long-term franchise value appreciation. And the two don’t track together as tightly as you might think.
One reason they don’t track tightly together is that demand for baseball teams seems to be outstripping supply such that the average value of a major league franchise has increased roughly 10% in the recent past (see Tango’s comments in the thread). And I believe teams are motivated to spend most of their year-to-year revenue on players to enhance the value of their franchise as much as possible.
As J.C. has pointed out, this flies in the face of good economic reasoning, because players will be signed at salaries that outstrip the marginal impact they have on revenue. But when owners only see cash going out when they buy a team and cash returning when they sell it, year-to-year profitability and marginal revenue means less to them. After all, most teams aren’t publicly traded, nor do they pay out dividends.
Put another way, owners are indeed motivated by profit. But profit to an owner occurs when the franchise is sold, not in annual dividends. If you think of a baseball team as a piece of art that is bought and sold and generates little profit in between, you’re probably close to the mindset of an owner.
As Phil Birnbaum points out in the comments, ego is certainly involved too. What owner wants to be associated with a losing team? And Guy makes an excellent point that spending most of a team’s incremental revenue on players is probably in the best long-term interest of major league teams because it stifles potential competition from other leagues. In other words, players aren’t likely to jump ship to another league if their income is maximal.
The strength of the player’s union is definitely a factor, too. The most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement included a settlement for collusion between owners in 2002. One gets the impression that anything owners do to keep salaries under control will get very close scrutiny from a lot of lawyers.
Anyway, given all of these factors, how should we judge these most recent contracts? By asking ourselves how much these deals will (or won’t) enhance the value of the team in question. I guess I’d look at a few things:
- How is the “brand” value of the franchise doing? Example: the Cubs have been eclipsed in Chicago by the White Sox; their brand value is lagging.
- Will a targeted player improve the franchise’s brand value? For instance, will Alfonso Soriano pique interest in the Cubs and will he improve their chances of winning? (Winning games is the best way to improve the standing of your club).
- How’s your current supply of players and how well positioned are you to contend next year? If you’re not ready to contend, spending a ton of money on an uber free agent probably isn’t worth it.
- What’s the current price of free agents, and what’s your assumption about future player salary inflation? If you think inflation will be high, you’ll be more willing to sign a long-term contract.
Anyway, that’s my thinking as it stands right now. I’m sure I’ll learn more and change my mind as I learn more from my fellow posters.
If you’re interested in this stuff, here’s an article about a Billy Beane lecture to T. Rowe Price.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Updated Win Shares
I’ve updated the Win Shares files in the baseball graphs FTP section. The files now include all historical Win Shares, including 2006. There are three Excel spreadsheets:
- Win Shares by team
- Win Shares by player per season
- Win Shares by player per team per season
The data covers two Excel sheets, which makes it hard to look at all the data at once. So I’ve also included a CSV file with all player/team/seasons broken out. This file can be imported into Access.
You can download the files at ftp://ftp.baseballgraphs.com/winshares
These files are provided as a public service. If you have questions or see problems with the data (which wouldn’t surprise me at all), leave a comment.
Update (11:22 CST): Found a couple of mistakes (incorrect player labels). Corrected.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Inexplicable
Ryan Howard and Justin Morneau were crowned the Most Valuable Players in their respective leagues. Neither choice was particularly insightful, but neither choice was terrible, either. I would have voted for Carlos Beltran in the National League, with Howard probably third on my ballot behind Albert Pujols. Still, if you want to vote for a guy who hits 58 home runs, I won’t complain.
The choice of Morneau is less defensible, but not horrible. Good buddy Aaron Gleeman makes the case that Morneau wasn’t even the most valuable player on his own team, but once you accept that baseball writers simply aren’t going to choose a pitcher for MVP (unless he’s a lights-out reliever), the choice of Morneau over Mauer becomes defensible. Not right, mind you, just defensible. After all, the guy did lead his team in batting WPA by a good margin. As JP says, While Morneau’s selection was a head scratcher, it wasn’t even in the top five greatest injustices (according to Win Shares) in the past twenty years.
But something truly inexplicable and horrendous happened yesterday; the sort of thing that makes you throw up your hands in disgust. Word is that the Dodgers are about to sign Juan Pierre to a five-year deal worth $44 million--just about $9 million a year. I know that this is the year of outrageously paid free agents, but this signing is just terrible no matter what other players are receiving.
I know a lot of people feel differently, but I actually understand the outrageous Soriano contract of $17 million a year for eight years. I mean, it’s clearly outrageous, but I understand the underlying economics that led to it. The Pierre deal is different. It’s the result of not understanding what makes baseball players and teams successful.
Juan Pierre is at best an average defender in center field, he has no power and here is a graph of his career walk rate (courtesy of Fangraphs):
He was two Win Shares Above Bench last year, and one the year before. Even if you apply my Net Wins Shares Value findings (which you shouldn’t, at least not without a lot of other considerations), Pierre is worth $4 million a year, at most.
Salary inflation results in outrageous salaries for really good players, but it doesn’t justify bad judgement.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Tribune Company is for Sale
Reports are that the Cubs signed Alfonso Soriano to an outrageous contract: $136 million for eight years, or $17 million a year. The dollars are amazing, but the it’s the length of this contract that astounds me. Soriano will be 38 when his contract is up, and the years from 33 years old through 38 years old will represent enormous risk for the Tribune Company, or more likely someone else.
The Cubs are indeed owned by the Tribune Company, which is up for sale. The latest I’ve heard is that observers are unsure if the Tribune Company will split up its businesses or sell them altogether, but the Trib, and the Cubs, are most definitely for sale.
This may be the most amazing thing of all. A company on the block is committing itself to long-term contracts on a riotous scale. I’ve been involved in several mergers and acquisitions, and I’m struck by two things:
- Companies don’t commit themselves to long-term contracts when they are up for sale. They assume buyers don’t want to take on long-term risk.
- If they do sign long-term commitments, they usually have an accepted bid and are going through due diligence with a buyer, in which case they touch base with the buyer before making the commitment.
Which leads me to believe one of two things is happening here:
- The Tribune Company has a strong prospective buyer for the Cubs, or...
- The Cubs are worth more with Alfonso Soriano and Aramis Ramirez under long-term contracts than with cash in the balance sheet.
In the end, I believe the Tribune Company thinks that signing Soriano and Ramirez will increase the value of the Cubs (and the Tribune Company). Otherwise, you wouldn’t see these deals happening on the North Side. As outrageous as they seem, these contracts may actually be good for business. And if that’s true, it puts these outrageous free agent salaries in an entirely different perspective.
UPDATE: Maury Brown has an article covering this precise topic in today’s Baseball Prospectus. Maury essentially thinks that the Trib just doesn’t care as much about saving money as they used to, since they won’t own the Cubs in the future. I think he’s misreading the situation. My guess is that the value of the Cubs is probably uppermost in the minds of Trib executives.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Holy Cow, Sean Forman
Have you seen the newest feature at Baseball Reference? Box Scores for every game during the Retrosheet Era. This is truly amazing.
You could find boxscores on the Retrosheet site in the past, but Sean (the proprietor of Baseball Reference) has added several remarkable twists. In particular, he has added popup windows (click on any red text) that adds amazing context to the stats and the play-by-play. For example, this is an all-time favorite game of mine; click on Jimmy Qualls’s three at bats. Grrr....
Friday, October 20, 2006
Dang
When I saw that catch by Endy Chavez, I figured it was fate. I mean, I know I’m supposed to be a baseball analyst and all, but I’m a fan first and foremost. Well, from a WPA viewpoint that catch was the second-biggest play of the game, behind Molina’s home run. But back to the fan thing: what a great start by Oliver Perez. With Perez in a groove and Chavez channeling Tommie Agee, I really believed the Mets would win, right up to the Molina homer. Then I changed.
Even when the Mets loaded the bases in the ninth, I wasn’t there. My analytic mind had taken over, knowing that their WPA with the bases loaded, two out and two runs behind was only 17%. Yes, the catch made me a fan, but the home run turned me back into a geek.
It’s ironic, I think, that the Mets’ flaw in this series was their offense, not really their inury-racked starters. I’m personally hoping they move Heilman to the rotation next year, a role in which one floating changeup might not hurt as much.
Ah, I’m rambling incoherently. I’m in shock. I’m depressed. It’s 5:00 a.m. and I can’t sleep. For a more literate and coherent Mets’ requiem, I recommend Jessica’s blog entry. Maybe I’ll go back to bed, or maybe I’ll just get back to work on the THT Annual. Either way, I won’t feel quite the same as I did a few hours ago. There will be a little bit less to look forward to.
Following Jessica’s lead, let me be the second to congratulate the Mets’ on their 2007 World Series victory.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
WPA Curiosities
I logged today’s A’s-Twins game in my WPA spreadsheet and found some curious things. Frank Thomas was voted the Game MVP (rightfully, in my opinion), but he actually finished third on the A’s in WPA, behind Zito and Street. Thomas’s home runs occurred in less critical situations: the second inning, when the LI was just 0.89, and in the ninth with the A’s up 2-1 (LI of 0.70), so the WPA of each home run was just under .10 in both cases.
There were several bigger hits in the game, including Scutaro’s double in the second (.103) and Jason Bartlett’s double in the eighth with none out and the Twins down by a run (.166). Also, the flyball that Milton Bradley lost in the Metrodome roof was worth .166 WPA, too. Those were the two biggest plays of the game.
So Frank Thomas, who homered for two of the A’s three runs, didn’t lead the team in WPA and didn’t even have the biggest hits of the game. Go figure.
Monday, October 02, 2006
WPA Usage
Nate Silver has introduced a new stat at Baseball Prospectus called Secret Sauce. It combines those elements Nate and Dayn Perry found have the most impact on postseason success: fielding, strikeouts and bullpen. It’s an interesting stat, but I found it disconcerting that Nate used WXRL (closer only) for his bullpen measurement.
WXRL is Baseball Prospectus’s version of WPA. As always, care should be taken when interpreting WPA and I don’t think Nate gets it quite right. In this case, WXRL includes both the performance of the ace and the number of close situations he was brought into. Closers have no impact on the criticality of their appearances—that is totally up to the manager. I don’t understand why Nate would include it.
Now, Nate might say that WXRL came out well in his regression analysis, but that wouldn’t be a good response. Even though a variable may work well in a regression analysis, that’s not a good reason to include it in a formula. There needs to be a logical rationale for why it should be included. I don’t see the logic behind using WXRL.
On another note, the Wall Street Journal ran an article last Friday (by Sam Walker, who mentioned our site in his book Fantasyland) that ranked the clutchiness of all postseason plays. Guess what they found to be the biggest clutch hit? Tony Womacks’ game-tying double against Mariano Rivera in the bottom of the ninth, Game Seven, 2001. The one before Luis Gonzalez’s game-winning hit. Yes, that was deemed even clutchier than Bill Mazeroski’s home run against the Yankees in 1960.
It’s an interesting read, and Walker is to commended for using WPA as the baseline for his analysis. Unfortunately, he included several other elements in his analysis. Actually, the elements (quality of the pitcher, impact on probability of winning the series and not just the game) were good, but the approach was kludgy.
Oh well. Still an interesting read. Here’s the link, though I think you need to be a subscriber to read it. Hat tip, JP.
Monday, September 25, 2006
The Win Expectancy Contraption
The Crawfish Boxes made an image of my WPA spreadsheet, which they call the “Win Expectancy Contraption.” Here’s what it looks like to them:
I think that’s pretty awesome, though WPA has nothing to do with OPS, RC, WARP, JAWS, EqA or any of the other esoteric sabermetric stats cited.
I found the WPA Contraption via a link in this post, which argues that a runner on third with two out vs. a runner on second with two out (in the ninth inning) is worth more than WPA allows. WPA says that there is a difference of 2% win probability between the two situations, and the author thinks that is low (though he doesn’t say what he thinks the difference should be). Actually, he thinks it’s “bullshit.”
I’m torn in these types of situations. On the one hand, it always kind of bugs me when people refuse to be open to statistical frameworks like WPA. The poster basically feels WPA is wrong in this case because it doesn’t jibe with his intuition. On the other hand, WPA isn’t perfect. It’s a model of reality. It could be off in specific situations.
So I looked at Chris Shea’s Win Expectancy Finder to see what the difference has actually been in real games. Of course, there’s a wide variance in the three time periods (1979-1990, 1991-1998 and 2000-2004). In fact, WPA was lower with a man on third than a man on second from 2000-2004. But, on average, the difference has been about 4%, or twice as high as my spreadsheet show.
On the other hand, there has only been a difference of 2% this year, according to Baseball Prospectus. And there are significant sample size problems with the “real life” data. For instance, the WE Finder found that, in the seventh inning, a man on second was actually worth 1% more than a man on third from 1979-2004. Just imagine how Crawfish Boxes would react with that data!
So the WPA contraption might be a bit off, or it might not be. I don’t know what Crawfish Boxes would consider the right number, but I think we can safely say it’s between 2% and 4%. That’s assuming Crawfish Boxes won’t object to actual outcomes…
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Bill James and Warren Buffett
I’ve always thought of Bill James as baseball’s Warren Buffett. The similarities between the two are remarkable:
- Both were viewed as outsiders in their field (Buffett in investing, James in baseball).
- Both lived and worked in the Great Plains of America (James in Kansas and Buffett in Nebraska).
- Both brought new, breakthrough ideas of value in their fields.
- Both were extremely good with numbers, but their true genius lay in their new insights and their expressions of them.
- Both wrote annual reports (James’s Abstracts, Buffett’s Annual Reports) that were highly anticipated by their fans and investors.
- Both are known for their brilliant, incisive and sometimes sarcastic analysis.
- They both have somewhat idiosyncratic personalities.
- They are/have been married to a woman named Susie.
- Their heirs won’t inherit a lot of money.
Warren Buffett taught us to value American Express and Geico, Bill James taught us to value Ken Phelps and Tim Raines. Pennants have been won on the ideas of James, billions have been made on the investment strategies of Buffet. And I’m a big fan of both.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Congratulations, Alex and Emily
Alex Belth finally proposed to his long-time girlfriend Emily this weekend. Alex is one of the very best guys among Internet baseball writers, and it sure sounds like he and Emily have a tremendous relationship. She’s got a mean swing, too.
Congratulations, Alex and Emily. May your marriage be as wonderful and awe-inspring as mine has been.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Five Years Later
“I don’t tear up nearly as much as I used to,” said the Rev. Stuart Hoke, an Episcopal priest at St. Paul’s Chapel, across the street from the World Trade Center site. Asked by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about the last time he did, Mr. Hoke replied: “Yesterday.”
Monday, September 04, 2006
Managerial Strategy
It’s hard to get a handle on managerial strategy. Bill James has written pages and pages of managerial review, much of it very well done, but his impact in this area has been less significant than in others. I don’t think the fault is James’s; I think it’s just a tough subject.
For instance, Ducksnorts (Geoff Young’s very fine Padres’ blog) has this insightful entry about Bochy’s game management in yesterday’s win over the Reds (and Jerry Narron’s poor performance). This sort of detail is difficult to quantify or pick up in a boxscore. You have to watch the game and think along with the managers, as Geoff did in his post.
MGL takes a good stab at identifying the things he sees as the most frequent managerial errors in The Book Blog. His comments, as well as the following comments, are also thought-provoking.
As Guy points out in one of the last comments, the more sophisticated analyses, particularly ones that hinge on game theory, seem to find that overall managerial strategies are pretty much on target. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of clunkers out there; just that it’s hard to find them through quantitative analysis.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Beauty of Tennis
I used to follow lots of sports, not just baseball. I was a football fan for many years, and I was a particularly avid pro basketball fan during the Bird/Magic years. Those were probably the most enjoyable years I’ve ever had as a sports fan in general.
As time has passed, I’ve given up most of those sports to concentrate on baseball, with one exception: tennis. I played recreational tennis for many years before hurting my back, and I’ve loved to watch tennis as long as I can remember. In my eyes, the most thrilling tennis player ever was John McEnroe in his prime.
Which brings me to last night’s US Open match between Andre Agassi and Marcos Baghdatis. Baghdatis is a really good young player. He played tremendous tennis in the Australian Open, making it to the finals against Roger Federer, and he has a real presence and joy of playing. But last night’s Agassi-loving crowd seemed to psych him out early and Agassi was on, winning the first two sets. It was a great display of tennis by an old guy with a bad back (hey, sounds familiar!). Baghdatis showed that he is also a true champion, however, winning the next two sets (the second after being down 4-0) and forcing a fifth set.
What a fifth set it was. The two traded serve games, with Agassi looking older and older with each game (his back was obviously bothering him). I thought Baghdatis had the momentum. But then he started experiencing severe leg cramps and in one of the last games of the set, could barely stand. Because the rules didn’t permit medical treatment during the game, he continued to bravely play a dramatic game with about eight different deuce points (or ties) before finally losing the game. Agassi seemed to find a second wind at this point, Baghdatis was still bothered by the cramps, and Andre took the last set. After the match was over, Agassi was in such pain that he couldn’t make it off the court.
Why do I mention all this on my baseball blog? I dunno, except to say that it was one of the most thrilling sports events I have watched, particularly considering that it was only the second round of the Open. And if you haven’t read David Foster Wallace’s article about tennis and Roger Federer from the August 20 New York Times magazine, well, you really should. It’s one of the best pieces about a sport and a player I have read.
Here’s a great quote from the article:
Beauty is not the goal of competitive sports, but high-level sports are a prime venue for the expression of human beauty. The relation is roughly that of courage to war.
So, here’s a baseball question for you: what are the best examples of beauty you can think of in major league baseball?
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Greg Maddux’s Great Game
I wrote about Greg Maddux’s 330th win yesterday in today’s THT Daily. My brother, who has been following the Dodgers closely for approximately 80 gajillion years, sent me the following e-mail with a great description of Maddux’s performance:
Maddux’ performance yesterday was far better than anyone has expressed. In addition to what you mentioned, consider:
1. The Dodger bullpen was in shock after the long extra inning game the night before, so Maddux averaged something like 10 pitches an inning and rescued the entire pitching staff.
2. Maddux singled home the first run of the game with two out and took second on the throw on what should have been a close play.
3. Maddux started two double plays, one on a spectacular stab.
4. Maddux squeezed home a run!
5. In the bottom of the 7th, Maddux made an amazing play that even Vin Scully didn’t really fully appreciate. With two out and men on (I forget exactly), the batter lined sharply to Nomar, who seemed likely to glove it for the final out. I relaxed, Scott relaxed, and I’m sure that Vinny relaxed. But not Maddux! When the ball skipped off Garciaparra’s glove, Normar picked it up but was too far from first to beat the runner. BUT MADDUX WAS THERE! Maddux had run hard to cover first even though it seemed obvious to everyone that Nomar would catch it.
6. When Maddux walked off the field after this play, over 30,000 Angelos rose and gave him a standing ovation. If you’re from New York or Boston or Chicago or St. Louis, you won’t understand how important this last point is, but having lived in LA for 36 years, I can tell you that it was huge. We don’t do things like that. Maddux has revitalized the fans to the point where cheers break out without the organ helping us (sort of like they do in the East). From that point of view, he’s replaced Eric Gagne as the adopted hero of the fans, and I think you’ll see that this new level of support will help the team substantially.
Monday, August 21, 2006
WPA in Wins and Losses
One of the theories of win-based stats going around is that only contributions in wins should count toward a player’s wins, and vice versa for losses. Andy takes a look at WPA in Yankee wins and losses in his most recent Yankee WPA Rundown blog and finds some interesting things.
For instance, Mariano Rivera would rack it up in that sort of system, because he mostly enters games when the Yankees are ahead. The other interesting finding is that Derek Jeter stands out as someone who contributes a lot in both Yankee wins and losses. Fun stuff.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Projecting Players
I was on vacation in Massachusetts the last two weeks. Enjoyed it very much, thanks. While browsing books at the Harvard Coop bookstore, I saw The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Statistics and decided to buy a copy. Yes, I browse the mathematics section at bookstores.
I talk about statistics a lot on this blog, but I last took a statistics class over twenty years ago. I’m pretty sure that I’ve forgotten everything I learned over twenty years ago, so I decided to buy the book to make sure I know what I’m talking about here. I actually enjoyed reading the book and I’d recommend it for those who’d like to remember what they’ve forgotten from their old stats class.
And I realized that much of the book, particularly the part called Inferential Statistics, is exactly what baseball analysts are doing when they try to project player performances.
There was recently a five-part Projection Roundtable at the Hardball Times that focused on the current state of the art. I don’t know about you, but much of that discussion was over my head; I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about projections because I find the current state of baseball so fascinating.
But player projections are the most important task facing ballclubs, so I might start paying a bit more attention to the subject. Along those lines, let me present the following, very simple, Player Projection Framework. I’ll call it the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Player Projections.
Let’s say you want to know how many stars there are in the sky. The problem is that you can’t count them all at once; you can only look at one small portion of the sky at a time, and it would take an eternity to take in the entire sky. So you can never truly know how many stars there really are in the sky.
It’s the same thing with a baseball player. A baseball player has what Tangotiger calls a “true talent” level. When you look at a part of the sky, you’re only counting the stars in a sample of the total sky. With a ballplayer, when you look at a season of 600 plate appearances, you’re only looking at a sample of his true talent level. In both cases, the absolute truth can’t be directly measured.
This is a pretty common thing in statistics. Statisticians are always talking about samples, sample distributions and sampling distribution of the mean. There’s also this really important concept called the Central Limit Theorem that says that the larger the sample size, the more the sample results will follow a normal probability distribution. Which means you can consider the results of a player’s seasons to be normally distributed. See? I did read the book.
Anyway, the basic process, for both baseball and the sky, is to estimate the larger population (true talent level or total stars in the sky) based on the samples you have, and then estimate the likely outcome (and potential range of outcomes) for the next “sample” (or, piece of the sky or season). And that’s the overview of the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Player Projections.
Here are some specific steps:
- Estimate a player’s true talent level.
- Take all the previous stats you have on a player. The more, the better.
- Adjust those stats for any bias in the data. For instance, adjust the stats from the minor leagues, crazy ballparks, playing time against lefties and righties, etc. etc.
- Regress your results to the mean of a comparable group of players. You can just use all major league players, or you can choose a subset of players based on things like age, weight, or something else. The more stats you have, the less you have to regress to a larger population.
- You can do this for a player, or for each one of a player’s component stats (singles, doubles, home runs, strikeouts, etc.).
- The result will be a player’s “true talent level.”
- Estimate changes to the player’s true talent level next year, based on age, injury or something else altogether (perhaps even “artificial enhancements")
- Thinking of next year as a sample of the true talent level, calculate the most likely outcome as well as the potential range of outcome (perhaps expressed as one standard deviation).
- The range of outcome will depend on playing time assumptions. It would be useful to express different ranges based on different amounts of playing time.
- At this stage, it would also be nice to add in potential loss of playing time due to injury risk. You could base this on the player’s history or by a comparison with similar players.
I’m sure one of those fancy-pants sabermetricians will come along and correct me, but I think this is a pretty good framework for how to project player performances. Some of the keys are how well you correct any bias in the original stats, your regression method, the population to which you regress, whether you do this for components or for overall players and how you estimate ongoing changes to the player’s true talent level. At this stage, a breakthrough in any of those areas (not to mention the injury risk) would pretty much guarantee you a seat at the next Projection Roundtable.
Friday, August 04, 2006
More Organizational Trees
In my latest Ten Things article on The Hardball Times, I noted that Will Young has built a pretty cool organizational tree that shows how each member of the Minnesota Twins’ roster had been acquired. And I wondered if there were any more trees like that.
Maybe there weren’t at the time, but a couple of guys have built them for their favorite teams. Ben Kabak posted one for the Yankees on his blog and a reader named Greg Sullivan created one for the Red Sox. Greg doesn’t have his own blog (there are still people without their own blog?) but he sent it to me and I thought I’d make it available for you here.
An organizational tree is an insightful way to look at a roster. But wouldn’t you know that the first two (after Will’s) would be for the Red Sox and Yankees?
Top Months So Far
Sox Watch went back to the Fangraphs WPA totals and calculated who has had the biggest WPA months so far. David Ortiz’s July was second best to Albert Pujols’s April. Pujols’s July was third-best, which surprised me a little bit given his time on the DL. Chase Utley’s July is fourth.
Here’s the top ten list:
1 Albert Pujols April 3.115 2 David Ortiz July 2.351 3 Albert Pujols July 2.144 4 Chase Utley July 1.929 5 Ryan Zimmerman July 1.869 6 Jason Schmidt May 1.864 7 Jermaine Dye July 1.808 8 David Ortiz June 1.802 9 Ryan Howard May 1.797 10 Jason Bay May 1.794Jason Schmidt?
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
The first players from Each Country
In a recent SABR-L discussion, home run king David Vincent listed the first persons to play major league ball from a specific country of birth. The list was inspired by the Indians’ Tom Mastny, who was born in Indonesia—the first major leaguer born in that country.
No, I never heard of Dodecanese Island.
USA 05/04/1871 Many players England 05/05/1871 George Hall, Harry Wright Ireland 05/05/1871 Andy Leonard Cuba 05/09/1871 Steve Bellan Netherlands 05/18/1871 Rynie Wolters Germany 05/20/1871 George Heubel France 04/26/1875 Larry Ressler Canada 09/15/1875 Tom Smith Scotland 05/20/1878 Jim McCormick Australia 04/26/1884 Joe Quinn Austria-Hungary 04/22/1885 Amos Cross Sweden 09/23/1885 Charlie Hallstrom Norway 09/08/1894 John Anderson Wales 07/06/1896 Ted Lewis Russia 08/20/1897 Jake Gettman Colombia 4/23/1902 Louis Castro Switzerland 8/3/1902 Otto Hess Denmark 8/11/1911 Olaf Henriksen Spain 5/16/1913 Al Cabrera Atlantic Ocean 4/17/1914 Ed Porray China 7/1/1914 Harry Kingman Finland 8/28/1921 John Michaelson Poland 9/19/1929 Henry Peploski Italy 4/18/1932 Lou Polli Mexico 9/8/1933 Mel Almada Venezuela 4/23/1939 Alex Carrasquel Czechoslovakia 9/22/1940 Elmer Valo Puerto Rico 4/15/1942 Hi Bithorn Dodecanese Island 9/23/1943 Al Campanis Austria 4/21/1949 Kurt Krieger Panama 4/20/1955 Humberto Robinson Canal Zone 4/19/1956 Pat Scantlebury Dominican Republi 9/23/1956 Ozzie Virgil Bahamas 4/16/1957 Andre Rodgers Virgin Islands 5/26/1959 Joe Christopher Japan 9/1/1964 Masanori Murakami American Samoa 9/16/1968 Tony Solaita West Germany 8/2/1975 Rob Belloir Nicaragua 9/14/1976 Dennis Martinez Jamaica 4/10/1981 Chili Davis Honduras 7/8/1987 Gerald Young Curacao 8/23/1989 Hensley Meulens British Honduras 7/5/1991 Chito Martinez Afghanistan 5/2/1993 Jeff Bronkey South Korea 4/8/1994 Chan Ho Park Singapore 4/18/1996 Robin Jennings Philippines 5/26/1996 Bobby Chouinard South Vietnam 7/13/1996 Danny Graves Belgium 8/25/1996 Brian Lesher Aruba 9/3/1996 Gene Kingsale Taiwan 9/14/2002 Chin-Feng Chen Indonesia 7/30/2006 Tom Mastny
Monday, July 17, 2006
Second-Half Surges and more Win Stats
JC has an interesting post on his blog, using PrOPS to predict which offenses are most likely to improve, decline or stay the same in the second half. Biggest surges expected from the A’s, Devil Rays, Phillies, Reds and Orioles. Interesting list.
I talk a lot about win-based statistics on this site, so I should point out one in development by Bradford Doolittle. He calls it Wins Added and it appears to be informed by Chris Dial’s work at Baseball Think Factory. Here’s a link to his All-Star break leaderboard and he explains his system in this post. Brad admits that his system is still under development, but the basics seem solid to me.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
My new shirt
There’s a new Yankee weblog focusing on WPA results. It looks like he’ll have some interesting analyses and presentations of WPA stats, so be sure to check it out.
I don’t know if you read the First Inning site, but I think it is the most interesting minor league statistics site, by far. It features detailed stats for all minor league players, including splits and projections, as well as organizational rankings and much more. To top it off, they’ve added batted ball charts for every minor league batter, showing where each batter’s batted balls have fallen and how they’ve fared. Here’s one for Cincinnati prospect Jay Bruce:
Last tip: there’s a site that will “calculate" your name if you were to play on the Brazilian soccer team. Mine is Studemisco. What’s yours?
Monday, July 10, 2006
Tracking Home Runs
If you watch tonight’s Home Run Derby, you might want to follow along at Hit Tracker. At Hit Tracker, they plan to use their patented technology to measure the distance of every home run. True, ESPN will reportedly use “laser technology” to do the same thing, but Hit Tracker also calculates the speed of the home run off the bat, and measures home runs based on where it would have landed if it hadn’t hit the stands.
Actually, it may be most interesting to see where ESPN and Hit Tracker disagree, and why. The science of home run distancing really isn’t much of a science at all. At least, not yet.
Meanwhile, back in Win Probability Added land, Alan Schwarz wrote a weekend article for the New York Times (subscription required) using WPA to review some of the All-Star selections. It’s a nice effort, though I think Alan has it wrong when he says that “Good players on excellent teams tend to have higher W.P.A.’s because they usually participate in more victories.” I’m pretty sure that good players on excellent teams are handicapped because they have less chance to impact a game if their team is ahead most of the time.
Players who might do particularly well in WPA are those who do well in high-leverage situations. In other words, good players who play in a lot of close games will tend to have higher WPA’s, just as top relievers in high-leverage situations will have higher WPA’s than top relievers in low-leverage situations.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
I’m a Spiderman
Yup, I took the Superhero quiz, and here are my results:You are Spider-Man
|
You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility.  |
Monday, June 26, 2006
Top Twin Plays
Will Young makes great use of Win Probability Added in this post, in which he lists the top ten Minnesota Twins plays of the year so far. For instance, here’s his description of the top play of the year:
Justin Morneau’s game-winning single off Mariano Rivera on April 15. The Twins found themselves with a great scoring opportunity as Joe Mauer singled to give the Twins runners on second and third base with nobody out while trailing by a run. Unfortunately, RonDL White and Torii Hunter failed to even plate the tying run before Justin Morneau’s flair landed just past the outstretched arm of Robinson Cano. I was down in New Orleans at the time unable to watch the game, but it was so exciting that I received phone calls from both my mother and my friend Dan out of the blue. The mere fact that these two people, fairly passive Twins fans for the most part, were so affected by this hit demonstrates the aura that still surrounds the Yankees. WPA change: .837
Monday, June 19, 2006
Nothing Up His Sleeve
The Mets’ David Wright hit a line drive to Baltimore’s Ed Rogers yesterday. Rogers short-hopped the ball, and it actually went up his sleeve --you can see it bulging out of the back of his uniform here…
Rogers pawed at it for a second or two, trying to get the ball out…
It finally flipped out, Rogers threw it back to the infield and Wright wound up with the most bizarre single I’ve seen in a while. Poor Jose Reyes (who scored from third on the play) didn’t know what to do.
You can view the video from this page (click on video link marked “Rogers loses ball).
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Major League Jerk
This news is a little old, but it must be said. The Dodgers’ Odalis Perez is a jerk, as chronicled in this article:
He stopped his O’s 45’s program, in which he bought 45 tickets for inner-city school children to attend his starts, after losing his starting job. He said he would not reinstate the program now that he is starting again because he felt he never got enough credit from the club or the public for his charitable contributions.
Yeah, charity work is all about getting credit.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Minor League Organization Reports
Wow. The newest great minor league site on the Internet is First Inning, just got better. Already, First Inning includes career and current stats for all minor leaguers, as well as splits, game logs, news, team prospect lists and major league projections. Now, they’ve added major league organization reports to the site, in which you can see the daily results of each minor league organization’s prospects in one handy page.
I love it. Congratulations, First Inning, and thanks.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Congrats to Will
Long-time friend of Baseball Graphs, Will Carroll, has won an award from SABR for research excellence. The award is for his book The Juice, which is an examination of steroids, HGH and lots of other nasty things that baseball players take.
Will championed Baseball Graphs back in the day when I was still producing graphs in Excel. He even asked me to contribute to his first book Saving the Pitcher. And the feeling is mutual—I read Will’s column when he was sending it out in email format, before he started posting at Baseball Prospectus. In fact, his column was one of the top two or three reasons I decided to subscribe to BPro.
Will used the Internet to craft a new angle in baseball reporting: injuries, the players who get them and the professionals who treat them. He likes to say wild and crazy things, but he also manages to provide a lot of super information on a timely basis. This award for outstanding research is a new notch in his arrow, or feather in his cap, or arrow in his quiver. Something like that.
Whatever it is, it is well-deserved. Congratulations, Will.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Steroids and Grimsley
I posted a graphical “analysis” (I use the word lightly) of Jason Grimsley’s career at fangraphs. After posting the analysis, I also found a bit more information that I subsequently posted at Hardball Times…
I just looked up Jason Grimsley in Bill James/Rob Neyer’s Guide to Pitchers and found two different Scouting Notebook pitch selection notes:
1995: 1. Fastball (86-88) 2. Slider 3. Split-Fingered Fastball
2001/2003: 1. Fastball (mid-90’s) 2. Sinker 3. Split-Fingered Fastball (occasional)Rob Neyer also noted that Grimsley’s primary pitch in 2002/2003 was a sinker in the low 90’s. It would appear the speed gun is a much better indicator of which pitchers have taken steroids/HGH (and when) than strikeout rates.
But for the real story of ‘roids in baseball, you should read Named for Hank’s scandalous investigation at Batter’s Box. Remember, people, these allegations were inevitable. Baseball should do what it can to address the issues of players using illegal drugs, but the issues will never, ever go away.