The Baseball Graphs Blog

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.

Posted by Studes on 12/30 at 08:36 AM
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.

Posted by Studes on 12/12 at 01:39 PM
Graphs and GraphicsPermalink
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.

Posted by Studes on 12/05 at 07:41 PM
Win SharesPermalink
Sunday, December 03, 2006


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.

Posted by Studes on 12/03 at 02:10 PM
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:

If someone is considering a purchase of your team, they will value a strong “brand” in the community as well as a good stable of players locked into low salaries (relative to the market salary of players, and adjusted for inflation) for more than just the short term.  They will hate bad players locked into relatively high salaries for a long term.

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.

Posted by Studes on 12/02 at 03:08 PM