Team WAR and team wins

So, the first time I did this, I made a little mistake. But I'm no quitter. I inadvertently only included postional player WAR the first time around, but now I've fixed it. But after fixing it, everything I said previously still pretty much stands. Keep reading:

----
Rob Neyer answered some questions today for Camden Chat. It's all good stuff, and I just happened to file something for the Hardball Times on the Orioles before I read this. But something in particular piqued my interest:

Camden Chat: Newer statistics, particularly Wins Above Replacement, cause a number of disagreements on our site. What are the cracks in the WAR metrics that would allow a team to substantially outperform (in the win column) their total WAR over the course of a season?

Rob Neyer: Do they? I've actually never seen team WAR compared to team wins. Just off the top of my head, WAR doesn't account for baserunning (except for steals). Nor does it account for luck. And that's the big one. The vast majority of fans simply don't understand the degree to which luck impacts wins and losses, even over the course of 162 games.

As luck would have it, I was doing the equivalent of artist doodling a few weeks ago, otherwise known as screwing around with baseball stats and excel. Well, I did something that relates exactly to Camden Chat's question: what are the cracks in the WAR metrics that would allow a team to substantially outperform (in the win column) their total WAR over the course of a season?

You can check out what I did below  for the 2010 season (I'll also add it to my box.net tool on the right hand side, so you can get your hands on the actual spreadsheet). Basically, I looked at win and loss records, run differentials, pythagorean wins and losses and ... WAR. I grabbed each teams WAR from FanGraphs, figured out what replacement was (basically 81 wins minus the average team WAR, which ends up being 45*), then added their team WAR plus replacement to find out how many wins their WAR totals would have predicted. I then calculated the delta between their WAR and actual number of wins -- this is essentially the question Camden Chat was asking.

*Note that the first time I did this a replacement level team would win 60.79 games. That's too many, and I knew this. But I forged on. Now that it's 45, I'm very comfortable I've done this right -- until someone tells me I'm wrong, of course.

If you take a look, you'll find that the Diamondbacks really underperformed in the win column versus their WAR total. That is no shocker to me, as their bullpen was truly atrocious and that will cost you a ton of games. Another team that posted an excellent WAR but turned in a rough season was the Brewers. I'm thinking their additions of Shaun Marcum and Zack Greinke may push them to the top of the pile in 2011. Finally, the Phillies were the team that were the "luckiest." I don't know what the implications are of that, but Rob mentioned base running and they've been excellent each season in that. Davey Lopes was one of the most efficient base runners around, and he's modeled the Phillies after himself. Unfortunately for them, he's gone next season.

Something I noticed after getting it right was the Rays. They are technically the second "luckiest" team. I think this jives with the fact that base running (non-stealing bases gained and lost) isn't accounted into the WAR caclulation. I know for a fact that Carl Crawford is a dream in that particular category, and I do believe the Rays were known for it in general. Oddly, it was this very thing that cost them big time against the Rangers when they were bumped in the first round.

I never really knew what to make of what I created, but here it is for your pleasure. I personally think it might give us some insight into which teams might be closer to contention. Also, I think it certainly shows which teams know there way around the bags. That said, draw your own conclusions.

Sources: FanGraphs for WAR

The difference between Ehire Adrianza and Jose Iglesias

Prospects may or may not interest the average baseball or Giants fan. That being said, the recent shortstop adventures of the Giants might make this a bit interesting. I mean, the Giants have been ancient at the position for a long while now.

They started the trend in 2005 when they signed Omar Vizquel who was 38. He was pretty excellent as far as near-40 shortstops go, though. He was worth 2.7 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in 2005, 3.7 in 2006 and 2.1 in 2007. He even won a gold glove in each of his first two campaigns (deserving or not, but at least more so than Derek Jeter’s 2010 honor).

But by the time 2008 came around, the jig was very much up. He got the bulk of the playing time, but his .550 OPS left something to be desired. Ivan Ochoa and Brian Bocock saw some playing time too, but their offensive abilities actually made Vizquel look like Alan Trammell.

Smitten with their recent success regarding prehistoric middle infielders, the Giants jumped on Edgar Renteria as if he were the greatest thing since sliced bread. He got two years, $18 million. The results were mixed – which is a new development. Up until about, oh, the World Series, Rent was the butt of many jokes – that happens when you’re worth less than half a win (0.3) the first year of your ill-advised contract and are injured the majority of the following season. But when Renteria took Cliff Lee just over the wall in Texas (not to mention C.J. Wilson in San Francisco): Boom! Sabean had instant validation.

Baseball, my fiancé and I

What you are about to read was inspired by a post from The Common Man of The Platoon Advantage. After reading the post and watching the xtranormal clip, my fiancé said:

Wait, is this about you? He sounds exactly like you.

----
Often times, I’ll ask my fiancé what her day looks like in the morning before I leave for work. When she’s done telling me, it strikes me that her day sounds more like that of a taxi driver. She goes to what seems like eight different places each day, most of which aren’t exactly a stones throw away. Rather, they are multiple cities away. And here’s the thing: it’s not like she gets to drive there, drop a drunken couple off, and then quickly pick up another. No. Inside those destinations, she’s training, studying, learning, and working – providing therapy for those that need it most. Also, she’s not paid.

What, you say? I’ll tell you. She’s not paid because my fiancé is training to be a doctor of clinical psychology. If you didn’t know or have not heard, becoming a doctor is hard work. It involves taking courses, writing and defending a dissertation, getting too little sleep, and giving up 40-plus hours of your week for little or no monetary compensation. In her case, it also involves playing Play-Doh with children while they talk about their feelings. Adults* too (minus the Play-Doh).

*I wish Jose Canseco would do some therapy. It could help him immensely.

Guess what, though? She loves it. More importantly, the people get better. They get better because she has the time to listen and care. I take great pride in being attached to someone who genuinely wants to make this planet a better place.

The most important note of the Giants' offseason?

The San Francisco Giants' Fanfest was held yesterday, and it looked an awful lot like the 3 month reunion of the World Series parade. So soon? I guess so. The traffic that the event ultimately saw has the Giants considering making this a two day event next season, whether or not they defend their World Series title.

But the most interesting piece of information to come out over the weekend was perhaps something that came out the day before, Friday's Media Day. In fact, it may (or may not be) the most important piece of information to come out regarding the Giants this offseason: in addition to dedicating this offseason to improving his physical condition -- an endeavor that it at least appears he has been quite successful in --Pablo Sandoval claims he has worked some with one Barry Bonds to improve his plate discipline.

In that sentence, the word "some" becomes the key. To what extent Pablo has sought guidance from Bonds is unknown. What's more, it's not all that clear how much of ones plate discipline (or complete lack there of) can be improved by the tutoring of another, even if the teacher happens to be the Greek God of plate discipline.

Matt Cain: still not just lucky

First off, let’s clarify. I like FIP and xFIP, and think they are wonderful tools that perhaps don’t tell us what actually happened on the field, but how well most pitchers pitched and how well they will in the future.

Secondly, I don’t want anyone to get the impression I think Cain is great. It’s pretty clear I don’t think he’s lucky. Tim Lincecum and Felix Hernandez and Roy Halladay are great. Matt Cain is very good. There’s a lot of room to debate that, but neither party will truly win until we’ve seen what 2011, 2012 and 2013 look like for Cain. But anyway, what he’s not is Joe Blanton.

Dave Cameron provided a dissenting opinion and great analysis over at Fangraphs on the subject after my original post. Here’s what he did:

Below are 10 pitchers who, from 2002 to 2007, had the lowest HR/FB rates in baseball, who have thrown a similar number of innings to Cain, and have thrown at least 100 total innings in the last three seasons. The first section is their 2002-2007 IP and HR/FB rate, with the second section being their 2008-2010 IP and HR/FB rate.

 —CLIP—

Group: 11,351 IP, 8.6% HR/FB – 4,202 IP, 9.9% HR/FB

The league average HR/FB rate is uaually around 10.6%. As a group, the ten best big time home run suppressors from 2002 to 2007 were only marginally better than average at that same skill from 2008 to 2010. Sabathia and Zito bucked the trend and actually lowered their HR/FB rates over the last three seasons. So it’s certainly possible Cain could continue to post low HR/FB rates going forward. After all, he does pitch in a pretty good pitcher’s park and his career HR/FB rate is better than any of the pitchers in this sample, so maybe there is something to David Pinto’s theory about how his fastball moves.

Matt Cain ignores xFIP, again and again

Matt Cain is pretty darn good, I mean, right?

Bill at Crashburn Alley doesn't think so. He recently said Cain "... may be one of the most overrated pitchers in baseball (though you can’t fault him for pitching to the strengths of his home ballpark)..." Is this true? It wasn't just Crashburn Alley that brought about this post; Cain's worth is bandied about constantly, at least in my experience.

If we're to simply look at his FIP and xFIP, a lot of people would say Cain has been lucky. Really lucky. Boy, he's been lucky with that home rune rate, it must be because he pitches at AT&T. Boy, he's been lucky with his batting average on balls in play (BABiP). It must be because of spacious AT&T.

Cain made his debut in 2005, but his first full season didn't come until 2006, when he'd throw 190.2 innings. He'd arrived. All said and done, he posted a 3.5 WAR (Wins Above Replacement) and finished with a 4.15 ERA and 13 wins. His FIP (fielding independent pitching) was 3.96 but his xFIP (adjusted FIP that pushes the home run per fly ball (HR/FB) rate to league average) was just 4.54. Perhaps it was just beginners luck.

The end of an era and the end of a beginning

I began reading Rob Neyer’s SweetSpot at some unknown and arbitrary point in 2009, and that’s where this story begins.

Prior to that, I thought wins were a good measure of the worth of a starting pitcher, saves of closer, RBI of a hitter, and Gold Gloves of a fielder. My baseball world was about to rocked, forever and ultimately for the better.

Shortly thereafter, I began emailing each of my brothers constantly about baseball, mostly the Giants, as something inside me was brewing. I also started reading Fangraphs, and spending more time on Baseball-reference. I’d always loved baseball, but the ball of passion that lay in my chest was stagnant in growth and used for the most part only during the season. But as I say, a storm was coming.

Is the Giants' offseason uninspired for a reason?

Over the past three or so months, I’ve come across a lot of Giants fan backlash when one of two things was said: either they were lucky to win the World Series in 2010, or that their likelihood of repeating next season is remote. Why is that?

Bill from The Platoon Advantage recently tweeted that he also finds Giants fans especially touchy these days. I agree. And what we decided, in 140 characters or less, was that this is mostly typical for a fan base that’s just won a championship. I’d also like to add that, just maybe, waiting 52 years for that right may exacerbate or extend this typicality.

I’d like to first say that I’m not going to spend a great deal of time discussing whether or not they were lucky to win in 2010. But what I will say is that they were lucky to win to a degree. That’s always the case. You need to stay healthy. You need to play well at the right time, i.e. to get hot. And it helps, when at certain times during a game, series and season, the ball falls your way. The best team doesn’t always win, though they often do. But you can also say they often don’t. If you don’t agree with that, you unfortunately don’t understand baseball.

Billy Wagner is deserving of Neyer's Wing of Amazing

I'm an avid reader of Rob Neyer's SweetSpot (and his writings in general), if you have not guessed it, and he recently came up with something pretty awesome, if not brilliant. Go figure. He only introduced the notion just over two weeks ago when he pondered that his fellow baseball writers might want to include Omar Vizquel in the Hall of Fame, when neither his statistics support his candidacy nor does he pass the "eyeball test:" the gut feeling factor. Not content to end the discussion at him simply not belonging, he supposed something else might do him justice. And this was all predicated on... well let me allow Rob to explain:

----
"The dirty little secret is that there's no such thing as "the writers' wing" or "the broadcasters' wing" of the  Hall of Fame. Those places don't exist. If you've been to Cooperstown and weren't paying attention, you would have seen absolutely no proof that the winners of the J.G. Taylor Spink Award (writers) or the Ford C. Frick Award (broadcasters) ever existed, because their names simply don't appear in the Hall of Fame, which is a big room covered with the plaques depicting all the men (and one woman) who are actually, you know, in the Hall of Fame.

There's no wing. There are a couple of plaques, one for each award, hanging on a wall just outside the Hall's research library. The Spink and Frick Award winners are not "enshinees" (i.e. Hall of Famers) but rather "honorees," which is a completely different thing.

The confusion is partly the Hall of Fame's fault, because for some years the Hall of Fame has allowed the honorees to give an acceptance speech the same afternoon as the enshrinees give theirs.

But the confusion is mostly our fault, and by "our" I mean my colleagues in the business and our employers. Obviously, it makes everyone happy to add "Hall of Fame" in front of "writer" or "broadcaster." It's gratifying to the ego, and it's gratifying to whoever's signing the checks.

It's just not true.

The "wings" are largely imaginary places, invented for everyone's convenience.

So why not imagine one more wing, for our convenience?

What I am proposing is a Wing of the Amazing, for players who really don't belong in the Hall of Fame because they weren't good enough, but did some things that do deserve to be celebrated. A few criteria:

• No one-game wonders. This leaves out Don Larsen.
• No freak shows. This leaves out Eddie Gaedel and Minnie Minoso (though one can make a pretty decent case for Minoso as an actual Hall of Famer.
• We're not talking about really good (or great) players who belong in the Hall of Fame, but have been overlooked. Lou Whitaker and Bobby Grich were both fantastic players and they belong in the Hall, but when you look at their careers do you think, Amazing? Probably not.
• These standards are inviolable until someone convinces me they're not.

Now, it seems to me that while Omar Vizquel might not be the best candidate for the Wing of the Amazing, he is a fine candidate."
----

Already off and running with his submittals, his second nominee was age-defying Jamie Moyer. And most recently, he argued Jim Abbott was the ideal candidate for the Wing of Amazing, of which I wholeheartedly agree.

Revisiting Zito's Contract

When decisions are made during times of desperation, the results are rarely pretty.

In the 2006 offseason, the Giants were determined to sign a big-time free agent bat. They offered deals upwards of $100 million to two players, but couldn’t coax either Carlos Lee or Alfonso Soriano to head to San Francisco. In hindsight, this ended up being a very good thing, in that neither Lee nor Soriano are particularly useful any longer, if at all; except that, having failed in their endeavor to sign them, the Giants pulled the trigger on another ill-advised deal: they signed Barry Zito.

There wasn’t really anything wrong with Zito as a Major League starter at the time, nor really is there now. The problem was this: they gave him the richest contract for a pitcher in baseball history, i.e. 7 years for a total of $126 million, and an option for an eighth season for another $18 million (or otherwise a $7 million buyout).

Zito was never an elite pitcher, despite wining the AL Cy Young award in 2002. His best season actually came in his first full campaign, when he finished with 5.0 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) in 2001. But that season he struck out 8.61 batters per nine innings. and he would never again approach that. He was always more of a finesse lefty, and one who walked his fair share of batters. As his fastball velocity slowly eroded, so did his value. After his 2002 Cy Young season, he never again posted a FIP (fielding independent pitching) beneath 4.00 (it was 3.87 in ’02). His WAR went from that 5.0 in 2001, to 4.4, to 4.3, to 3.2, to 3.0, and to 2.1 in 2006, his last season with the Athletics.

And then the Giants made him the richest pitcher in history, despite these obvious signs of his steady decline.