Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Giants will win the west, maybe
If you read Joe Posnanski’s post: Optimism from a Royals Season Ticket Holder, you’d know that Joe took the baton from Bill Vaughn who used to choose the Kansas City Athletics to win the pennant each year, as a joke. Joe was columnist of the Kansas City Star from 1996 until his last season in 2009, and he (mostly) jokingly picked the hometown Royals to win the AL Central each year. And in all seriousness, it’s really not all that far fetched. It’s not like it’s the AL East. Joe brilliantly analogizes himself to Jon Stewart who (mostly) jokingly delivers political news nightly.
It’s the day after St. Patty’s Day, March 18th 2010. Last night, many people got hammered off of Guinness pints and Jameson shots, and from time to time mixing them with Bailey’s for an Irish Car Bomb – which can be equally explosive to an actual car bomb for those with a weak stomach – all culminating in passing out while still wearing work clothes. Many of those who did that likely remember less of last night than they remember of most nights and ultimately feel worthless at work today. Not me (this year).
Anyway, on this March 18th 2010 the Giants are 11-6 thus far this spring despite the various concerns throughout camp*. As a Giants blogger who tries to give his honest opinion and analysis about signings, projections, front office moves, etc; I’ve been pretty brutal on what the Giants did this off-season and what they’ve done over the past several years, i.e. the Sabean years. As a Giants fan, it would appear appropriate to take Joe’s tradition from Kansas City to San Francisco. After all, the NL West – like the AL Central – is not the AL East. The NL West is typically competitive but it’s no powerhouse. Teams with flaws can dodge and ditch their way into October, and often do. For example, the 2007 Arizona Diamondbacks gave up 732 runs, scored only 712 – that’s right they scored fewer runs than they gave up – and won 90 games before ultimately getting swept in the NLCS. And who were they swept by? ‘Twas another NL West team, the Cinderella Rockies.
*Renteria’s surgically repaired elbow, Sanchez’ knee and shoulder, DeRosa’s surgically repaired wrist, Huff’s defense, Lincecum’s velocity, Bumgarner’s velocity, who will be the fifth starter, can Rowand lead off, will the Giants actually (and moronically) get rid of Fred Lewis, will the Giants actually (and equally moronically) keep Velez in the place of Fred Lewis, etc.
But I agree with Joe, that there should be hope in baseball each spring. But before we get into that, let’s review 2009
The Good (or exceptional): The Giants (unlike the Royals) weren’t bad in all facets of the game. They pitched exceptionally well, the bullpen and starters included. Tim Lincecum won his 2nd straight Cy Young. Matt Cain emerged as a capable budding #1 starter. Randy Johnson pitched about as well as a man of his age could be expected to before going down with an injury in July, thankfully shortly after (and not before*) winning his 300th big league game. Barry Zito managed to gain a few inches back on his fastball, pitch capably all season and superbly in the second half. Jonathon Sanchez continued to make us scratch our heads throughout the first half. He struck out a ton of batters but never seemed to compete, minimize damage or avoid walking every other batter. Then suddenly, after a demotion to the pen, he threw the first no-no since The Count’s in ’76 and propelled himself to an outstanding 2nd half. The only real problem area was the 5th spot in the rotation. The Big Sadowski and Joe Martinez had a couple of good outings but were mostly pummeled all said and done. The Giants got little to nothing every 5th day it seemed. The pen with Wilson, Affeldt, Romo, Medders, Miller, Howry and a late push from Dan Runzler pitched brilliantly all season.
*I can’t imagine having to watch Johnson hobble his way to 300 wins. I’m glad he notched the final few with grace and not as some relieving left-handed specialist – only resembling himself in competitiveness, mullet and height. A worse thought would be imagining him sustaining a career ending injury before 300. Given his history of back injuries and surgeries, such a thing wasn’t completely out of the realm of possibilities. And were it an arm injury? I could have seen him come back in the ilk of Billy Wagner throwing (opposite) right handed to notch the hallowed 300.
The Bad (pitiful, innocuous, impotent …no word really does it): The Giants (like the bad news bears) were particularly bad in one facet of the game: hitting (or lack there of). They were actually historically bad when it comes to runs scored versus runs against. In the NL, they were 13th in runs, 13th in doubles, 15th in home runs, 14th in total bases and dead last in OBP and OPS. They featured hitters not known for their ability to get on base at the top of the lineup in Velez and Rowand. They featured a right fielder that hit 2 dingers all season long and couldn’t hit left handed pitching to save his life – despite his ability to routinely do so throughout his career – in Randy Winn. They featured a cleanup hitter (who runs slower than a booger rolling down a sap covered tree) that never met a pitch he didn’t like and walked 13 times (only 10 of which were unintentional) in 491 at bats and made 372 (easy) outs in 520 total plate appearances, or 71.5% of the time. Yes, staggering. Reminiscent of Pedro Feliz, isn’t it? They plopped Edgar Renteria in the 2 hole for most of the season, the results of which were obviously dreadful – sans that home run against Betancourt of the Rockies. Other positions, or more specifically second base, were a revolving door of impossibly easy outs courtesy Frandsen, Burriss and Downs. When they finally started to play small(er) ball, they couldn’t bunt. The only truly bright spot was the emergence of the Kung-Fu Panda, and a bright spot it was. They got that right as Panda hit .330, 25 home runs and ranked 9th in the NL in wOBA (weighted on base average). He electrified the fans and gave them (me) a reason to be truly excited to watch every day, not just when Lincecum was on the bump.
The Ugly: The Giants were flirting with the wild card down the stretch last year and remarkably had trimmed down the Dodgers division lead considerably. Everyone knew they could pitch, everyone knew they couldn’t hit. Giants’ fans pleaded and prayed for a power bat, poised to see post season baseball once again. So the Giants went out and traded one of their better young left-handed pitchers, Scott Barnes, to acquire one of the hottest hitters at that time in the AL, Stanford Alum Ryan Garko. Garko never got his bat going and Bochy relatively quickly banished him to the bench. He then was non-tendered during the winter, ensuring the Giants had given up a quality young pitcher for ~100 lack-luster, non-impactful at bats. The Giants also traded prized pitching prospect Tim Alderson* for Freddy Sanchez. Sanchez was having knee issues and didn’t play immediately after his acquisition. To make matters worse, he hurt his shoulder at some point once he actually started playing and was a non-factor down the stretch. The two deadline deals were deadline duds.
*As it turned out, Alderson didn’t look much like the young pitcher that dominated at High-A in 2008. His strikeout rates went down, walks went up and he is looking more and more like a major league reliever at best and certainly not a solid major league starter.
As the offseason began and winter meetings commenced, the talk was: which of the free-agent sluggers would the Giants sign and not if they would acquire one. The Giants attempted to remedy the offense by adding a couple of players instead of a single expensive one. They added the solid utility player Mark DeRosa who would also be coming off of surgery. The other major acquisition was adding Aubrey Huff after Adam Laroche mistakenly misread the market and passed on the Giants’ offer. Before that, the Giants whiffed on Nick Johnson who probably took less money to play with the Yankees, which seems to be a recurring theme with players such as Beltre and Scutaro who also took less money to play for the other biggest franchise in baseball. Huff is coming off of one of if not his worst major league seasons. He’s an aging slugger with a ‘track record for driving in runs’ and seemingly a complete and utter inability to play first base. On top of that, they paid Uribe a few million to be a utility guy and out of nowhere re-upped Bengie Molina for $4.5 MM guaranteed (with incentives!) despite having Buster Posey ready to take over the job for peanuts. This isn’t the type of offseason that’s likely to instill confidence in fans (and me).
BUT, and like the Royals, the Giants too have many of the pieces. In fact, they (mainly) have roughly the same pieces.
Joe on Royals:
They had the best pitcher in the American League in 2009, Zack Greinke, and he’s just 26. They have a brilliant young closer in Joakim Soria, and he turns 26 in May. They have an almost 24-year old first baseman, Billy Butler, who hit 50 doubles and 20 homers last year.
Me on Giants:
They had the best pitcher in the National League in 2009, Tim Lincecum, and he’s just 25. They have a brilliant (well, good) young closer in Brian Wilson, and he turned 28 in March. They have an almost 24-year old third baseman (and he belongs at first), Pablo Sandoval, who hit 44 doubles and 25 homers last year.
Both teams also have terribly inadequate and foolish GM’s. They have a lot more in common than I would ever have imagined if not for Joe's blog. The real difference in KC and SF? The drop off in Kansas City after their stars and solid players such as David DeJesus is steep, specifically in terms of pitching.
The Giants got Freddy Sanchez last July to provide some offense and a steady presence at second base, which has been a wasteland since the departures of greatness that was Kent and quite good when healthy in Durham. They think his knee will heal fine and his shoulder will be ready sometime in April. They think he will provide solid defense at second, hit for doubles power and anchor the number 2 spot in the lineup.
The Giants signed Aubrey Huff to bat cleanup and provide power. They think his power will somewhat return and he will rebound from his atrocious 2009 stats. They think he’ll provide protection for Sandoval and drive him in enough to approach 100 RBI. They think he’ll play adequate first base and will likely look to sub him out for Ishikawa (or Posey) when they have a lead.
They signed Mark DeRosa to provide a somewhat more patient approach in the lineup and a little power. They think he’ll be able to move around the diamond as needed but log most innings in left field. They think his wrist will heal up nicely reverting him back to his 2007, 2008 and first half 2009 form.
The Giants think Matt Cain will at least pitch as well as 2009 and possibly take another step forward to becoming a true number 1 starter providing the Giants with one of the best 1-2 punches in baseball.
The Giants think Renteria will rebound this season after cleaning up the elbow which was ailing him all of 2009. They think he’ll play solid but not spectacular defense but provide some offense at a primarily defensive position, much like he had done in his years with the Braves and Marlins.
The Giants think Zito will continue to pitch at his 2009 level (though they assuredly realize he’ll never be the guy they thought they were getting when they paid him $126 MM). They think Sanchez will pitch like he did after his no-hitter and perhaps take another step towards greatness.
The Giants think Bumgarner will step into the fifth spot in the rotation and provide a solid effort throughout the season and avoid the automatic loss that was the fifth’s turn in 2009. They think 2010 will be just one season to get his feet wet before turning into the number 1 starter they drafted in 2007.
And somewhere in there, sometime in 2010, Posey will fit into the equation somehow. It seems more and more likely he’ll start the season on the 25 man roster to play some first and catch. They think Molina might provide some mentoring and show him how to handle the fireball staff the Giants boast and the rigors of catching every day.
The Giants think Lincecum will be Lincecum, Wilson will be Wilson, and Panda will take another step into offensive superstardom.
There are so many keys to the season for each and every team. Health is usually an obvious one. It’s important that multiple guys have good seasons and put up the numbers they have on the back of their baseball card. But you have to pick one. For me, it’s Nate Schierholtz. Nate shows tremendous power in batting practice but has yet to show it in games at the big league level. Right field is a quite important position as you need not only a good defender but someone to provide some offense, and at AT&T it's even more important. Schierholtz has a strong and accurate arm he showed off on several occasions in 2009. He’s shown the ability to play the tricky right field corner at AT&T very well. His defense is there. His key is to improve his patience and learn how to apply his power against big league pitching. Nate has shown he can be a pretty good hitter but with obvious flaws. Mainly, like all of the lefties on the farm for the Giants it seems, is the down and in breaking ball. Bowker has the hole. Ishikawa has the hole. Schierholtz has the hole. And it's not a small hole, it's more of a gaping hole. It’s quite remarkable (and extremely disappointing). As a Giants fan, it's ... more than a little frustrating. You know it's a problem when Schierholtz has swung at pitches that actually ended up hitting him.
There’s an article up on the Giants’ new hitting coach (Bam Bam) Muelens on how he intends to improve the Giants hitters. Frankly, I like his approach. Rather than work mostly on their flaws, he wants them to focus on their strengths. In 2009, I found myself perplexed beyond words. It seemed to me in one at bat a player would swing at the first lousy pitch and ground out softly. In the next at bat, he’d look at a hanging curve or grooved fastball right down the middle. Some people have said the Indians’ top catching prospect (Carlos Santana) is such a good hitter because he’s selectively aggressive. He’s patient but when he sees something he likes, regardless of count, he hammers it. The Giants were more or less the exact opposite in 2009. They rarely smashed mistakes and often made easy outs on pitchers pitches.
If this is Bam Bam’s plan, and it’s even mildly successful, I’ll be thrilled. I like what I am hearing from the players in regards to him and I like what he’s saying. I like his positive approach and reinforcement. I like that he can speak 5 languages, relate to each player and that he tries to approach each player with a different set of drills and things to work on that works for the individual player. Muelens apparently transformed John Bowker into the type of patient hitter that walks often or more than he strikes out in AAA and if he can duplicate that success in San Fran this year, we’re going to be in for a treat. No pun intended.
It’s still mid-march and the games are still quite meaningless. But the Giants have some brilliant pieces and if everything goes more or less how they are hoping it will this season, we may well see some post season baseball. And it certainly doesn’t hurt that the Dodgers are busy spending all of their cash on legal fees rather than baseball players.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
100% Joe Posnanski links
It's been nearly two weeks since I've posted anything. Why? Well, I've been very busy and by the time I get home at night, I just haven't felt much like writing. I've also been reading far less of the baseball stuff the various baseball blogs, ESPN.com, MLB.com, mlbtraderumors, FanGraphs and the like have to offer each day. But the one blog I always manage to check (along with Neyer's Sweetspot) is Joe Posnanski's blog. I've heard people say on more than one occasion he's likely the greatest American sportswriter ... and each day I read something new from him I find nothing to dispute that. What's more? Joe, unlike so many of America's sportswriters, embraces sabermetrics. Isn't that something?
With that ... a triple dip of Joe Posnanski:
If you think its tough to be a Giants fan, you're right. Well, at least it's been pretty rough recently. It's worse for Pirates fans. But, it may just be worse for Royals fans ...Doyle's law (for 25th Hour fans); no Murphy's Law really does apply when the Royals lion mascot Sluggerrr hits a man in the eye with a hot dog. What's the worst result that could happen from a team mascot hitting a fan in the eye with a harmless hot dog? Well, read this (on the Royals taking losing to a new level) to find out ... I don't recommend reading it in an area designated for quiet (like I did).
All Giants fans should read this from Joe Posnanski on Pedro Feliz.
And this also from (you guessed it) Joe, which leads me to my next post...
With that ... a triple dip of Joe Posnanski:
If you think its tough to be a Giants fan, you're right. Well, at least it's been pretty rough recently. It's worse for Pirates fans. But, it may just be worse for Royals fans ...
All Giants fans should read this from Joe Posnanski on Pedro Feliz.
And this also from (you guessed it) Joe, which leads me to my next post...
Friday, March 5, 2010
Neyer Happ(ily) sets the record straight
There’s been a ton of talk this offseason about J.A. Happ’s ‘lucky’ 2009 rookie season. In short, the sum of Happ’s peripheral stats in 2009 aren’t the making of a sustainable sub-3 ERA beyond his rookie year. He walked too many, struck out too few, but was lucky enough to strand a majority.
Luckily, Neyer comes to Happ’s defense. His point? With the internet, anyone can say anything about a ball player. I’m guilty of pointing out that the Giants’ very own lefty set-up man, Jeremy Affeldt, also had a quite ‘lucky’ 2009. But Neyer does point out some interesting aspects of Happ’s craft that bode well for his future. He describes his tall lengthy frame and how he’s deceptive, making his mediocre fastball appear to be plus. Additionally, Neyer points out his significantly higher strikeout ratio in the minor leagues.
Neyer’s “big finish:”
“I don’t suppose I should speak for my colleagues, so I’ll just tell you this: J.A. Happ, lucky or not, awes me. He’s one of the most brilliant athletes on the planet, doing something that’s incredibly rare and difficult. And that’s all true whether Happ is the new Mark Redman or the new Tom Glavine.”
Neyer indicates it may be implied that people like he “don’t respect the talents of people like J.A. Happ.” I myself was once a very successful pitcher. I threw a perfect game in little league. I was Santa Clara County Juco Pitcher of the Year as a freshman at DeAnza College. I was recruited by Kansas, San Jose State and Santa Clara University. Before I tore my labrum, I was pretty darn good, but certainly not J.A. Happ good, or in all likelihood even rookie ball good. The majority of players that (just) make it to the minor leagues were probably the very best players in their high schools, towns, counties and even states in some cases. Each one of them is incredibly talented. And do you know what they get for it (at least initially)? Long muggy bus rides through Middle America and a $20 (soon to be $25) per diem, or just enough to get 3 sloppy fast food meals a day worthy of – well, no one.
In other cases, such as that of Mark Prior, a player is one of the very best players in his entire country but gets hurt and dissolves into our distant memories. Avoiding that takes quite a bit of luck – there’s that word again.
Happ not only braved the minors but differentiated himself enough to warrant a promotion to the big leagues and pitched well enough, no less, to receive considerable Rookie of the Year consideration. So, ya, Happ has earned a whole lot of credit. I’m glad Neyer wanted to (and did) set the record straight.
And for those who are wondering, Glavine made himself a (Hall of Fame) career of seasons in which the sum of his peripherals didn’t indicate sub-3 ERA’s or greatness. But the sum of his numerous great seasons (and overall longevity) has his ticket to Cooperstown all but punched. As for Happ? Only time (and perhaps a little luck) will determine his legacy. But, Neyer’s right, if he never threw another pitch in the big leagues he’d still be “one of the most brilliant athletes on the planet…”
Given all the time us “nerds” spend toiling over numbers and determining a player was lucky and won’t improve upon or even equal a successful season, it’s nice to see someone put it into perspective.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
RBI (Ridiculously Bad Indicator)
Giants beat writer Andrew Baggarly reminisced with Felipe Alou recently. They specifically talked about the regrets Alou had during his player days and those as the manager of the Giants. If you’d like to read about that, check out his blog (Extra Baggs) here. Towards the end, Baggarly says…
-----
I’m left with a lot of memories of that ’04 team, which was my first on the Giants beat. Mostly, I look back and wonder how the Giants managed to win 91 games with that roster.
Michael Tucker? Dustan Mohr? Deivi Cruz? Neifi Perez? Herges closing for half a season?
How did this team contend to the final day?*
Oh yeah. Must be that guy who drew 232 walks and had a 1.422 OPS. (And yes, we have every reason to believe Barry Bonds used massive amounts of artificial enhancements that season. But so did a lot of other players and none of them drew 232 walks.)
Bonds’ 2004 season still remains the most impactful I’ve ever seen, or ever will. Without him. That isn’t a .500 team. No way.
As it turned out, the Giants soon discovered what life would be like without an elite-level Bonds – and how many massive deficiencies and fissures in the organization that he covered up for all those years.
-----
*PaapFly: I recall that final day. I also vividly recall the grand slam by Steve Finley. It sticks out nearly as much as that which I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to block out of the 2002 World Series. What I recall the most about the final day of the 2004 season was when the Astros final (and winning) score became official and Bonds was pulled from the game, grabbed his famous black (maple) Sam bats, and reluctantly walked down the tunnel. Bonds knew his chance at a ring was slipping, and so did I and every other Giants fan watching. They’d failed to close the ’02 series against Anaheim despite the 5 run lead in game 6. They’d failed to get past the wild card Marlins (who were bound for their own ring) in 2003. That particular series ended painfully and dramatically with J.T. Snow being thrown out at the plate attempting to score from 2nd on a single, successfully running over Pudge Rodriguez, but his effort was in vain when Pudge clutched the leather red-stitched ball in his hand with the grip of a Boa Constrictor. And they’d failed again (with finality) in 2004. Why finality? We now know that Bonds’ chance wasn’t just slipping by, rather it had irrevocably passed him by.
I recently wrote an article on the issue of parity (or lack there of) in baseball. Using my method, the Giants managed to fall in an area of neutrality, but how? They were neither particularly good at allocating money and playing beyond the limitations of their payroll (such as the Twins and A’s), nor terribly inefficient such as the Mets and Orioles. I posited two reasons: 1) Moneyball (or adequate statistical analysis) wasn’t necessarily implemented widely throughout baseball until the early 2000’s and 2) they had this guy named BARRY BONDS. It seems to me that Baggarly is subscribing to at least a similar theory.
I’d like to get back to Bonds’ historic 2004 season and hopefully provide the verifiable evidence why the popular (and romanticized) statistic, the RBI, is not particularly useful at evaluating the best hitters around. Is it the worst statistic of all time? No, probably not. The problem with it is that it tells us very little, and as I’ve said over and over again, it’s a counting statistic. Accumulating RBI is (almost) completely dictated on opportunity, and thus, if one player is getting a sizable surplus of opportunity in relation to another, it becomes completely unfair (silly, stupid, moronic) to compare the two. I recently heard an argument from a Yankees fan (Libertyboynyc) of the Bronx Brass Tacks blog that J.D. Drew has been a horrible signing because he “…hasn’t batted in a 70th run in three seasons…” among other things. I don’t intend to get into Drew’s statistics. But let’s go down the path of looking at two players who accumulated 101 RBI over a full season of AB’s to determine why such an (attempted) justification to denigrate – which is Libertyboynyc’s favorite word – Drew’s abilities is plainly incorrect.
As you can see, Ruben Sierra accumulated 101 RBI’s in 692 plate appearances (PA’s) and Barry Bonds ended the season with 101 in 617 PA’s. But what else did they do? Bonds more than doubled his HR’s (45 to 22), Bonds struck out fewer times than he went deep (45 HR to 41 K’s), Bonds hit .362 to Sierra’s average of .233. When it gets really interesting is when you see the OBP/SLG/OPS and wOBA. Bonds more than doubled his OBP (.609 to .288); Bonds more than doubled his SLG (.812 to .390) and thus obviously more than doubled his OPS (.678 to 1.422). Sierra’s wOBA was well below average at .296 when Bonds’ was unfathomably high at .538, this when an excellent hitter will have a wOBA around .400. Bonds drew 232 walks that season. You read that right, 232. The 2009 entire Giants roster collectively walked 392 times and Bengie Molina has walked exactly 184 times in his 12 major league seasons. This is a drastic example, yes. But history is riddled with such (albeit less extreme) examples.
So ya, when someone tells me how important knocking in runners and hitting in the clutch is, I can only really scratch my head. There’s so much data out there for us to look through. Why would anyone in their right mind ever limit themselves to RBI? It’s about the last statistic I’d ever care to look at, if at all. The logical and easy answer (I guess) is because it’s been drilled into the fans heads, and fans are clingy. All this seems simple and straightforward to me, you know, considering I myself in the not too distant past would’ve happily and confidently expressed my reverence of a player like Ryan Howard for his ability to drive in runs, or Bengie Molina for that matter. But that veil of ignorance has been lifted.
It’s truly possible to enjoy the game in every way that you always have. There’s no danger of unraveling the mystique and beauty of the game by embracing something new. After all, the only thing in life that’s constant is change. And if along the way you find new found respect for players like Tim Raines and Alan Trammel, well that’s just sweet justice. And if along the way you manage to determine that a number of questionable Hall of Fame inductees just happen to be Yankees, well that’s ok too.
Not convinced? See this material: Joe Posnanski on batting average, HR and RBI and Keith Law on RBI
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Little Mac betrays Big Mac, becoming the literal Bash Brother
Mark McGwire’s little brother, Jay McGwire, has written a Jose Canseco-esque book that chronicles the Mac brothers’ steroid use throughout the mid 1990’s. Wow. Jay was a body builder who obviously not only had the means to obtain steroids, but also the word of mouth if not direct education of how to use them. Quite frankly, I’m shocked this information wasn’t brought to light before. Not that Jay was scribing a book, but that Mac’s brother was a serious body builder. While everyone just knew McGwire was an obvious user, I think the knowledge that his little brother was winning body building competitions in California probably would have given some evidence or indication of what McGwire was doing, extremely circumstantial (evidence) of course. I’m sure there’s been other players with body builders for brothers, but probably not players that were shattering homerun records that had stood for over 30 years and whom weighed in at 260 pounds.
Jay apparently details the unique substances (steroids) they used during that time, as well as in what quantities. Jay also corroborates that Mark initially used them for health purposes, but vehemently denies that he didn’t also or at least eventually use them for strength.
LaRussa and McGwire also say they don’t plan to read the book. LaRussa said: “What’s the point? It’s stuff that’s already been gone over a bunch of times. I don’t know what it’s going to change.” I think he’s probably telling the truth. They probably won’t read the book. But, given LaRussa’s access to an advanced copy, that’s not to say he hasn’t already read the book. And it’s my opinion that it’s not stuff that’s “already been gone over a bunch…” What have we gone over? As far as I know, this is the first time intimate knowledge of what McGwire was using has been available.
Apparently, Mark McGwire said the word “sad” about 7 times during the media session where he answered questions. I wholeheartedly agree. This is sad. The whole situation is sad. It’s sad that the athletes don’t understand just how forgiving American people can be. If McGwire told the truth in the first place, the book wouldn’t be so damning. It’s also sad that his brother has betrayed him. Truth or not, I can’t imagine in a million years doing such a thing to a sibling, no matter what fiscal benefit I might claim by doing so. I’m deeply saddened that this is one of the ways that the ‘truth’ is coming out. I certainly wouldn’t have preferred to get confirmation this way, not that I needed confirmation. Anyone with any common sense has to know that McGwire was a heavy user, and the sole purpose was for strength. Weighing 260 pounds when your natural weight is probably about 200 to 220 pounds isn’t particularly healthy.
I doubt that I will be the only one that has similar feelings about this. I actually and finally have found reason to feel sorry for Mark. Not because people will know what he actually did. It’s because his brother has betrayed him. Mark obviously has deep regret and reluctance to speak candidly about the past. He probably has a great deal of shame regarding his use, the Maris family, the 1998 HR chase charade and the fact that he took so long to admit it. He probably also feels a great deal of shame about not coming completely clean, because for some reason he feels he can’t. Or maybe, because Mark has denied it for so long, he to some degree believes that he was using it for health reasons and it really didn’t help him. I can’t say. All that I know is that this is a sad day for the McGwire’s, for baseball and really (not to be too melodramatic) for mankind. Why? Because at this point it appears to me that one brother is betraying another over two things: money and a game. The money, the lies, this is not what baseball should be about. Baseball should be about going out in the beautiful sunshine and throwing a ball around in the grass and dirt. It should be about making diving catches, hitting triples, double-switches, head-first slides, hit streaks, ball caps, bubble gum, seeds, hot dogs, legends…the list goes on, but it most importantly should be about fun. That’s how Willie played it. Spring training, exhibition, it didn’t matter, he always played it with grace and bravado, like it was fun. Why? Mays said, “That’s the onliest way I know.”
I did see one sliver of silver lining in all of this, however. According to reports, Jay will devote a large portion of the book to the personal battles he fought which were a result of his steroid use. He says that he had deep depression, suicidal thoughts and a plethora of health issues deriving from steroid use. This included fatty tumors in his nipples, elevated liver enzymes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. That’s something that absolutely needs to be told to the athletes of tomorrow so they understand the repercussions of steroid use. That part of the book will be a far cry from that of Canseco’s iterations. Canseco rather fervently endorsed the use of steroids, essentially saying that in the right doses and combinations, they were extremely healthy and beneficial to not only the body but the mind for self confidence. I share Jay’s take on steroids, not Jose’s.
The next chapter in all this, in my opinion, actually began not after the Little Mac news hit the press, but yesterday. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that a rugby player had tested positive for the use of HGH (human-growth hormone) via a blood test. MLB released a statement that it was considering testing players in the Minor Leagues for human-growth hormone. The MLB Players Association released the following statement:
--
Human growth hormone is banned under our Joint Drug Program. Discipline has been imposed against players who have been found to have used HGH. We do not test currently for HGH, because no scientifically validated urine test exists. Our program calls for immediate and automatic implementation of urine testing for HGH once a scientifically validated test is available.
The Joint Program, negotiated several times with the Commissioner's Office, does not call for blood testing of players. Blood testing raises serious issues not associated with urine testing. Nonetheless, the Association has previously said that if a scientifically validated blood test for HGH was available, we would consider it.
This week, a British rugby player was suspended as a result of a reported positive blood test for HGH. This development warrants investigation and scrutiny; we already have conferred with our experts on this matter, and with the Commissioner's Office, and we immediately began gathering additional information. However, a report of a single uncontested positive does not scientifically validate a drug test. As press reports have suggested, there remains substantial debate in the testing community about the scientific validity of blood testing for HGH. And, as we understand it, even those who vouch for the scientific validity of this test acknowledge that it can detect use only 18-36 hours prior to collection.
Putting these important issues aside, inherent in blood testing of athletes are concerns of health, safety, fairness and competition not associated with urine testing. We have conferred initially with the Commissioner's Office about this reported positive test, as we do regarding any development in this area. We look forward to continuing to jointly explore all questions associated with this testing -- its scientific validity, its effectiveness in deterring use, its availability and the significant complications associated with blood testing, among others.
The Association agrees with the Commissioner's Office that HGH use in baseball is not to be tolerated. We intend to act without delay to ascertain whether our Program can be improved as it relates to HGH. In so doing, however, we will not compromise the commitment to fairness on which our Program always has been premised.
--
Obviously, the Players Association is probably going to do everything it can to protect its players. If they wanted to do what was best for the sport, they’d do everything they can to determine if the test is valid, and implement it as immediately as is possible. Obviously, that won’t happen. This is a wonderful opportunity for both MLB and the Players Association to make amends and prove that they have changed, and they do support a clean game of baseball. But when their statement is riddled with words like “scrutiny,” and that blood testing “raises serious issues,” and “significant complications,” but they “would consider it,” but only after they determine “its effectiveness in deterring use,” and there remains “substantial debate” in the testing community towards an HGH blood test, well I just don’t get that warm fuzzy feeling they are going to go into this without clawing and screaming the entire way. That’s no matter how valid this particular test may prove. Why is that? The players are using them. I (we) don’t know whom is using HGH, but rest assured they are. It’s almost laughable that in the outset of the statement the PA says, “Discipline has been imposed against players who have been found to have used HGH.” And how exactly is anyone to find that a player has used HGH when no testing is being done? Prior to 2003 an unknown (and likely very large) number of ball players were using the other performance enhancers knowing there was no consequence and absolutely no possibility of being caught. That very same thing is happening now with HGH. No test, no problem.
I feel like I’ve been waiting forever to hear that an HGH test was available. It seems to me an integral and imperative step in actually cleaning up the game of baseball. I sincerely hope the test is valid, MLB will immediately implement a test and the PA will abide by it. Until that actually happens though, I’m going to be exceedingly pessimistic.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
What they're working with
We (baseball nerds) all know that Lincecum, Greinke and many other pitchers are phenomenal at their craft. That is why they start on opening day and are most often aptly called the ‘Ace.’ The question we answer with this is who. We often also address the why. Why is Lincecum so good? He strikes out a ton of batters, doesn’t give up many home runs, he has ridiculous hair. Wait, that doesn’t belong here. I think a question that we probably don’t ask very often is how. How does Tim Lincecum dominate hitters? Well, I would like to set out to determine how he, Greinke, Halladay and a host of other Ace’s outsmart, over power and decimate opposing hitters. It’s pretty easy for me to explain how Lincecum does it, but that’s because I get to watch him pitch every fifth day. Others (the east coast, for example) don’t get that opportunity. Likewise, I don’t often get to watch Roy Halladay or Zack Greinke pitch and thus don’t have a real understanding of how they use their golden arms to dismantle batting orders. I simply want to see what each of them is working with.
I only looked at data for 2009 so I apologize. It would probably be more useful to look at data over a longer period of time in order to get a larger sample size and capture some players that were either injured in 2009 or had off years. Johan Santana, Brandon Webb and Ben Sheets quickly come to mind. I didn’t, but you’re welcome to go look for yourself at FanGraphs. I also didn’t look at relievers. Strangely enough, what got me started with all this madness was thinking about how often Mariano Rivera throws his cutter (about 90% of the time) and how dominant that pitch (and he) is.
I looked at “Pitch Type Linear Weights” on FanGraphs to determine who had the best of each pitch type in 2009. The information on FanGraphs uses linear weights by count and event and segments the data by pitch type, essentially determining how many runs above or below average each pitch type is for each player. I chose to use the cumulative values rather than the values per 100 pitches. I then made a list of the top 5 for each pitch, and added all of their pitch type values to determine the total cumulative value of their repertoire. Clayton Kershaw had the best fastball at 30 cumulative runs above average. The young Athletic Brett Anderson had the best slider at 22.2 runs above average. The best cutter (reminder, for starting pitchers, sorry Rivera) went to Bay Area local kid Scott Feldman of the Rangers with 25.9. The best curve went to Wandy Rodriguez with 23.9. The best change-up went to the Freak with a staggering 35 runs above average and the best splitter went to Dan Haren with 9 runs above average.
Nearly every single pitcher (Ace) I would have expected to see on such a list showed up. The top 5 pitches by pitch had top starter’s Lincecum, Greinke, Cain, Carpenter, Kershaw, Anderson, Wainwright, Haren, Halladay, Sabathia, King Felix, Hamels, Zambrano and Braden Looper. What the hell? Looper has a pretty decent splitter and everything else he throws up there is garbage. Moving on…there were a few exceptions. A few pitchers didn’t quite make it to the top 5 of each pitch such as Justin Verlander, Josh Johnson, Ubaldo Jimenez, John Lackey, Cliff Lee, Josh Becket and Jon Lester. This information did seem to support the fact that dominating pitchers typically have at least 1 stellar pitch they can consistently go to. In some cases, they have 2 or more outstanding pitches. On top of their bread and butter, they also almost always have a total of at least 3 above average pitches.
Tim Lincecum:* The Freak works with 4 above average pitches. His fastball is well above average, his slider is slightly above average and his curve is above average as well. What sets him apart is his change-up. Lincecum’s change-up was 35 runs above average in 2009 which is virtually unparalleled. It allows him to post a split in which he’s nearly if not as effective versus left handed hitters and strikes them out with even greater frequency than righties. It is often that change-up that will make or break a right handed pitcher at the major league level to neutralize left handed hitters. In Lincecum's case, a lack of that pitch wouldn't break him, but I do think it's the pitch that makes him. It’s his bread and butter.
*I'll obviously spend a little more time commenting on his repertoire. I'm a Giants fan, and he's my guy.
Zack Greinke: Zack Attack works 4 pitches. His curve is slightly above average and his change-up slightly below. What sets him apart is that he while can throw each of those pitches to keep hitters honest, his slider and fastball (ranked 3rd and 4th best) are quite brilliant. While few pitchers are capable of throwing 1 extremely dominant pitch, Greinke has 2.
Chris Carpenter: Carpenter has a very similar repertoire to Greinke. His fastball is excellent and so is his slider (though neither quite as good as Greinke). However, Carpenter also carries a well above average curveball which really gives him 3 excellent pitches. His change-up, while not great, is workable at slightly below average.
Javier Vasquez: Vasquez uses a well above average change and fastball. Additionally, his curveball is top notch and he has an above average slide-piece. Not bad. Four above average pitches and a dominant (top 3) curve.
Dan Haren: Haren is unique in that most of what he throws is hard. His 2009 splitter was tops. In addition to it, though, he also had the second best cutter and a well above average heater. His soft(er) pitch is a curveball that is also slightly above average.
C.C. Sabathia: C.C. uses the second best change-up, a well above average heater and above average slider. Oh, and he’s left handed which never hurts.
Felix Hernandez: The King works with an excellent fastball (4th best), a solid well above average change and above average curve and slider, he’s another 4 pitch pitcher.
Justin Verlander: Verlander has a stupendous fastball (which just misses the top 5 list), above average curve and change as well as a below average slider.
Roy Halladay: Halladay has one of the elite cutters in the league and a well above average curve. His fastball is solidly above average and his change is just about average. He is the artist of the bunch.
Clayton Kershaw: Kershaw is a very rare player in that he has a blazing fastball from the left side. He’s an Ace in the making. His fastball was 30 runs above average, tops in 2009. He also uses his above average curve and slider along with a below average change-up that has room for improvement.
The following is the list of the very best total 2009 repertoires for MLB, the AL and NL, as well as the results of the Cy Young vote:
MLB NL AL
1- Lincecum (55.1) 1- Lincecum (55.1) 1- Greinke (45.8)
2- Carpentar (49.6) 2- Carpenter (49.6) 2- Sabathia (37.2)
3- Greinke (45.8) 3- Vasquez (43.6) 3- Hernandez (36.1)
4- Vasquez (43.6) 4- Haren (38.2) 4- Verlander (30.6)
5- Haren (38.2) 5- Kershaw (38) 5- Halladay (29.5)
6- Kershaw (38)
7- Sabathia (37.2)
8- J. Johnson (36.4)
9- Hernandez (36.1)
10- Jimenez (34.9)
Cy Young Vote NL AL
1- Lincecum 1- Greinke
2- Carpenter 2- Hernandez
3- Wainwright 3- Verlander
4- Vasquez 4- Sabathia
5- Haren 5- Halladay
As you can see, if you wanted to select the top 5 vote getters in the AL and NL for Cy Young, you could have done so by analyzing their repertoire and ranking them top to bottom. 9 of the 10 players ended up on both lists, and the two Cy Young winners were the AL pitcher and NL pitcher with the best repertoires in their respective leagues. Tim Lincecum had the best overall repertoire and best overall pitch in the major leagues in 2009.
The next time you are checking out a game in which one of these dazzling starters is toeing the rubber, perhaps you can reflect back on this and have a slightly better understanding of just how they are working hitters successfully. Although, keep in mind that pitchers often reinvent themselves and often times they will have varying success with a particular pitch year to year. For example, in 2008 Tim Lincecum’s most dominating pitch was his 2-seam fastball. It wasn’t until mid-season that Lincecum truly began to harness his outstanding change-up in 2008. The two pitches essentially flip-flopped; his change-up became his #1 pitch and his heater #2 in 2009.
I only looked at data for 2009 so I apologize. It would probably be more useful to look at data over a longer period of time in order to get a larger sample size and capture some players that were either injured in 2009 or had off years. Johan Santana, Brandon Webb and Ben Sheets quickly come to mind. I didn’t, but you’re welcome to go look for yourself at FanGraphs. I also didn’t look at relievers. Strangely enough, what got me started with all this madness was thinking about how often Mariano Rivera throws his cutter (about 90% of the time) and how dominant that pitch (and he) is.
I looked at “Pitch Type Linear Weights” on FanGraphs to determine who had the best of each pitch type in 2009. The information on FanGraphs uses linear weights by count and event and segments the data by pitch type, essentially determining how many runs above or below average each pitch type is for each player. I chose to use the cumulative values rather than the values per 100 pitches. I then made a list of the top 5 for each pitch, and added all of their pitch type values to determine the total cumulative value of their repertoire. Clayton Kershaw had the best fastball at 30 cumulative runs above average. The young Athletic Brett Anderson had the best slider at 22.2 runs above average. The best cutter (reminder, for starting pitchers, sorry Rivera) went to Bay Area local kid Scott Feldman of the Rangers with 25.9. The best curve went to Wandy Rodriguez with 23.9. The best change-up went to the Freak with a staggering 35 runs above average and the best splitter went to Dan Haren with 9 runs above average.
Nearly every single pitcher (Ace) I would have expected to see on such a list showed up. The top 5 pitches by pitch had top starter’s Lincecum, Greinke, Cain, Carpenter, Kershaw, Anderson, Wainwright, Haren, Halladay, Sabathia, King Felix, Hamels, Zambrano and Braden Looper. What the hell? Looper has a pretty decent splitter and everything else he throws up there is garbage. Moving on…there were a few exceptions. A few pitchers didn’t quite make it to the top 5 of each pitch such as Justin Verlander, Josh Johnson, Ubaldo Jimenez, John Lackey, Cliff Lee, Josh Becket and Jon Lester. This information did seem to support the fact that dominating pitchers typically have at least 1 stellar pitch they can consistently go to. In some cases, they have 2 or more outstanding pitches. On top of their bread and butter, they also almost always have a total of at least 3 above average pitches.
Tim Lincecum:* The Freak works with 4 above average pitches. His fastball is well above average, his slider is slightly above average and his curve is above average as well. What sets him apart is his change-up. Lincecum’s change-up was 35 runs above average in 2009 which is virtually unparalleled. It allows him to post a split in which he’s nearly if not as effective versus left handed hitters and strikes them out with even greater frequency than righties. It is often that change-up that will make or break a right handed pitcher at the major league level to neutralize left handed hitters. In Lincecum's case, a lack of that pitch wouldn't break him, but I do think it's the pitch that makes him. It’s his bread and butter.
*I'll obviously spend a little more time commenting on his repertoire. I'm a Giants fan, and he's my guy.
Zack Greinke: Zack Attack works 4 pitches. His curve is slightly above average and his change-up slightly below. What sets him apart is that he while can throw each of those pitches to keep hitters honest, his slider and fastball (ranked 3rd and 4th best) are quite brilliant. While few pitchers are capable of throwing 1 extremely dominant pitch, Greinke has 2.
Chris Carpenter: Carpenter has a very similar repertoire to Greinke. His fastball is excellent and so is his slider (though neither quite as good as Greinke). However, Carpenter also carries a well above average curveball which really gives him 3 excellent pitches. His change-up, while not great, is workable at slightly below average.
Javier Vasquez: Vasquez uses a well above average change and fastball. Additionally, his curveball is top notch and he has an above average slide-piece. Not bad. Four above average pitches and a dominant (top 3) curve.
Dan Haren: Haren is unique in that most of what he throws is hard. His 2009 splitter was tops. In addition to it, though, he also had the second best cutter and a well above average heater. His soft(er) pitch is a curveball that is also slightly above average.
C.C. Sabathia: C.C. uses the second best change-up, a well above average heater and above average slider. Oh, and he’s left handed which never hurts.
Felix Hernandez: The King works with an excellent fastball (4th best), a solid well above average change and above average curve and slider, he’s another 4 pitch pitcher.
Justin Verlander: Verlander has a stupendous fastball (which just misses the top 5 list), above average curve and change as well as a below average slider.
Roy Halladay: Halladay has one of the elite cutters in the league and a well above average curve. His fastball is solidly above average and his change is just about average. He is the artist of the bunch.
Clayton Kershaw: Kershaw is a very rare player in that he has a blazing fastball from the left side. He’s an Ace in the making. His fastball was 30 runs above average, tops in 2009. He also uses his above average curve and slider along with a below average change-up that has room for improvement.
The following is the list of the very best total 2009 repertoires for MLB, the AL and NL, as well as the results of the Cy Young vote:
MLB NL AL
1- Lincecum (55.1) 1- Lincecum (55.1) 1- Greinke (45.8)
2- Carpentar (49.6) 2- Carpenter (49.6) 2- Sabathia (37.2)
3- Greinke (45.8) 3- Vasquez (43.6) 3- Hernandez (36.1)
4- Vasquez (43.6) 4- Haren (38.2) 4- Verlander (30.6)
5- Haren (38.2) 5- Kershaw (38) 5- Halladay (29.5)
6- Kershaw (38)
7- Sabathia (37.2)
8- J. Johnson (36.4)
9- Hernandez (36.1)
10- Jimenez (34.9)
Cy Young Vote NL AL
1- Lincecum 1- Greinke
2- Carpenter 2- Hernandez
3- Wainwright 3- Verlander
4- Vasquez 4- Sabathia
5- Haren 5- Halladay
As you can see, if you wanted to select the top 5 vote getters in the AL and NL for Cy Young, you could have done so by analyzing their repertoire and ranking them top to bottom. 9 of the 10 players ended up on both lists, and the two Cy Young winners were the AL pitcher and NL pitcher with the best repertoires in their respective leagues. Tim Lincecum had the best overall repertoire and best overall pitch in the major leagues in 2009.
The next time you are checking out a game in which one of these dazzling starters is toeing the rubber, perhaps you can reflect back on this and have a slightly better understanding of just how they are working hitters successfully. Although, keep in mind that pitchers often reinvent themselves and often times they will have varying success with a particular pitch year to year. For example, in 2008 Tim Lincecum’s most dominating pitch was his 2-seam fastball. It wasn’t until mid-season that Lincecum truly began to harness his outstanding change-up in 2008. The two pitches essentially flip-flopped; his change-up became his #1 pitch and his heater #2 in 2009.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Parity (or lack there of) and the best and worst of the last 1.5 decade
I long ago began putting together a spreadsheet by which I was determined to prove the disparity that exists within MLB. I’m not exactly sure that’s what the end result was, but none the less what I did find was interesting. Also, it no doubt solidified my previous belief that the Oakland A’s have been one of the greatest run franchises for a while now, and the Orioles one of the worst. My ultimate discovery provides some proof that there does exist a pretty vast chasm between the rich and the poor in Major League Baseball. More so than that though, it pretty conclusively shows that money does buy wins, just not absolutely.

I took all of the standings over the last 15 seasons (1995-2009) and all of the payrolls for each team over the 15 seasons. I was absolutely shocked to see that the Yankees had spent the most. Of course, I am being incredibly facetious. So the Yankees spent the most (~$145 mil per season) and the Florida Marlins spent the least (~$34 mil per season) and there were 28 other teams in between. I then simply added up all the money each team had spent and divided that number by 15 (for number of seasons) to determine each team’s average $ spent per season and ranked them accordingly. After that, I took all of the wins for each team (The Yankees had won the most – big surprise – and the Royals had won the least), divided those by 15 and ranked each team according to wins per season. The Yankees averaged over 96 wins per season over this period of time and the Royals, a measly 68 wins, or just 6 wins more per season than was needed to average 100 losses per season . Phew, that was a close one. That is more or less the extent of the data that I took a look at. But this is where it started to get interesting.
If money meant everything and every team who spent the most always had the most wins, you would expect that every single team would fall in line with their average payroll and average number of wins. Of course, we know that’s simply not true. Some teams have terrible GM’s. The Mariners had Bill Bavasi at the helm for several years, for example, while others have exceptional GM’s. Billy Beane – the obvious choice – of the Oakland A’s is regarded as one of the very best. I’ll also note that Tampa Bay has an exceptional (acting) GM in Andrew Friedman, unfortunately, he’s only been at it for a few years and thus his genius won’t quite be reflected in the results. Any who, once I had ranked each team by their wins and payrolls; I simply subtracted their win rank from their payroll rank to see whether they were positive or negative (+/-). What do I mean by positive or negative? Well, I wanted to see which teams had leap-frogged the ranks. Meaning, which teams had won more games than the field despite having spent less and thus won more games than expected were money the only factor in acquiring wins (ceteris paribus, if you will).
Within the MLB, 17 of 30 teams (57%) fell within 3 teams (10%) plus or minus of where they should have been. 22 of 30 teams (81.25%) fell within just 5 teams (17%) of where they should have been. So there definitely seemed, to me at least, that there was a correlation between money spent and wins. The 8 teams that were essentially outliers and didn’t fall within 5 teams (17%) of where they should have were the 4 best teams and 4 worst teams in MLB, as follows:
Best Worst
1. Oakland Athletics (+15) 1. Baltimore Orioles (-15)
2. Cleveland Indians (+12) 2. Chicago Cubs (-13)
3. Florida Marlins (+9) 3. New York Mets (-10)
4. Minnesota Twins (+8) 4. Detroit Tigers (-9)
As I said, the results of my playing around more or less affirmed what we already know. The A’s were brilliant for a period of time, despite their being extremely poor and the Orioles have been really bad for a really long time despite having a somewhat substantial purse to work from. I will provide some defense for Baltimore. Baltimore has had the unfortunate problem of having to play against the Yankees and Red Sox, year in year out. This could not have helped their ability to win a lot of games when each of their two foes were outspending them and by ever increasing dollars. The same can be said for the Jays who have played relatively well over the last decade and a half, nearly sneaking into the playoffs a few times and rarely laying in the cellar, and yet not once actually making it to the postseason.
I then thought it would make sense to look at each league, especially because over this period of time there’s an apparent talent gap. The AL is widely believed to be the better league by some amount and the results of the All-Star Game have definitely supported this. In the AL, 8 of the 14 teams (57%) were within 2 teams (14%) of where they should be based on payroll. 11 of the 14 teams (79%) were within 3 teams (21%) of where they should be based on payroll. In the NL, 10 of 16 teams (62.5%) were within 2 teams (12.5%) of where they should be based on payroll and 13 (81.25%) were within 3 teams (18.75%) of where they should be based on payroll. This is how they stacked up by league:
NL Best NL Worst
1. Florida Marlins (+5) 1. New York Mets (-5)
2. St. Louis Cardinals (+3) 2. Chicago Cubs (-5)
3. Houston Astros (+3) 3. Colorado Rockies (-3)
AL Best AL Worst
1. Oakland A’s (+6) 1. Baltimore Orioles (-6)
2. Cleveland Indians (+5) 2. Detroit Tigers (-3)
3. Minnesota Twins (+3) 3. Seattle Mariners (-3)
Lastly, I stacked all 30 teams by win rank and then highlighted the 4 teams that improved on their $ expected rank the most, and also the 4 teams that did much poor than their $ expected win rank (i.e. my previous best and worst list). The best teams had an average win rank of 13, which is just slightly better than the middle of the pack. The worst teams had an average win rank of 21, which is just slightly below the bottom third of the all teams. And the rest? They conveniently equaled 15, an exactly average team. Weird.
Sadly, between the best very best of these teams that managed to perform despite their fiscal handicap, on average they were just slightly better than the middle of the pack and they only have two World Series’ between them, the Florida Marlins the proud owners of both. Luckily and on the plus side, the poor teams that aren’t capitalizing on their fiscal advantage have zero titles between them.
My conclusion in all of this is that money absolutely seems to be playing a huge role in determining how many wins a team has. On the other hand, this ‘study’ definitely exposed both the worst franchises in allocating money and the very best. Also, it would probably be nice to hear for some fans (such as those of the Pirates, Royals, Rangers and Blue Jays to name a few) that it’s not all their franchises fault that they can’t get to the promise land. With that, I would like to crown my team of this 1.5 decade. The honor goes to the Oakland A’s for the extraordinary work Billy Beane did in the early 2000’s. And my goat of the last 1.5 decade is the Orioles. At least they can say they had to play the Bronx Bombers and the Sox in the AL East, right?
Epilogue:
I want to mention that using my method, the Yankees and Red Sox basically had no shot at being considered the best franchises. The Yankee’s, for example, could only wish to have gotten a neutral (0) plus or minus rating which they did. To this, in the spirit of SNL’s impersonation (Fred Armisen) of Joy Behar on “The View,” I say "So what? Who cares?” The Yankees and the Red Sox play with every advantage each season, knowing full well they have a shot at winning the title. They have the money to sign free agents. They have the money for deadline deals. And, they have the money to cover up their mistakes. It was time, even in this trivial endeavor, to give the smaller guys the advantage.
Finally, why did the Giants do fairly well despite having “kick the tires” Sabean in the front office during the duration of this 1.5 decade? For one, Sabean had Barry Bonds. Perhaps you should read this post on FanGraphs on Bonds’ splits to grasp just how good he was. He was incredible and had no equal. Two, Sabean was using roughly the same information the rest of the franchises were using for a good portion of this 1.5 decade. Prior to the Moneyball revolution, Sabean would have and did fair just fine. He was always good at picking up some useful pitching and flipping, or more accurately dumping, his stud pitching prospects prior to them being exposed as duds. If you were to put a greater weight on the last several years you would see his true talent level start to expose itself. As Bonds aged (as well as the rest of the Giants’ rosters) and teams began using statistical analysis more, the Giants began to lose more and more games. This, because Sabean has been one of the slowest adapters in this era where more information that has ever been available is suddenly readily available, and yet, to date he seems all but content to just ignore it.It’s abundantly clear that doing so is a grievous mistake.

I took all of the standings over the last 15 seasons (1995-2009) and all of the payrolls for each team over the 15 seasons. I was absolutely shocked to see that the Yankees had spent the most. Of course, I am being incredibly facetious. So the Yankees spent the most (~$145 mil per season) and the Florida Marlins spent the least (~$34 mil per season) and there were 28 other teams in between. I then simply added up all the money each team had spent and divided that number by 15 (for number of seasons) to determine each team’s average $ spent per season and ranked them accordingly. After that, I took all of the wins for each team (The Yankees had won the most – big surprise – and the Royals had won the least), divided those by 15 and ranked each team according to wins per season. The Yankees averaged over 96 wins per season over this period of time and the Royals, a measly 68 wins, or just 6 wins more per season than was needed to average 100 losses per season . Phew, that was a close one. That is more or less the extent of the data that I took a look at. But this is where it started to get interesting.
If money meant everything and every team who spent the most always had the most wins, you would expect that every single team would fall in line with their average payroll and average number of wins. Of course, we know that’s simply not true. Some teams have terrible GM’s. The Mariners had Bill Bavasi at the helm for several years, for example, while others have exceptional GM’s. Billy Beane – the obvious choice – of the Oakland A’s is regarded as one of the very best. I’ll also note that Tampa Bay has an exceptional (acting) GM in Andrew Friedman, unfortunately, he’s only been at it for a few years and thus his genius won’t quite be reflected in the results. Any who, once I had ranked each team by their wins and payrolls; I simply subtracted their win rank from their payroll rank to see whether they were positive or negative (+/-). What do I mean by positive or negative? Well, I wanted to see which teams had leap-frogged the ranks. Meaning, which teams had won more games than the field despite having spent less and thus won more games than expected were money the only factor in acquiring wins (ceteris paribus, if you will).
Within the MLB, 17 of 30 teams (57%) fell within 3 teams (10%) plus or minus of where they should have been. 22 of 30 teams (81.25%) fell within just 5 teams (17%) of where they should have been. So there definitely seemed, to me at least, that there was a correlation between money spent and wins. The 8 teams that were essentially outliers and didn’t fall within 5 teams (17%) of where they should have were the 4 best teams and 4 worst teams in MLB, as follows:
Best Worst
1. Oakland Athletics (+15) 1. Baltimore Orioles (-15)
2. Cleveland Indians (+12) 2. Chicago Cubs (-13)
3. Florida Marlins (+9) 3. New York Mets (-10)
4. Minnesota Twins (+8) 4. Detroit Tigers (-9)
As I said, the results of my playing around more or less affirmed what we already know. The A’s were brilliant for a period of time, despite their being extremely poor and the Orioles have been really bad for a really long time despite having a somewhat substantial purse to work from. I will provide some defense for Baltimore. Baltimore has had the unfortunate problem of having to play against the Yankees and Red Sox, year in year out. This could not have helped their ability to win a lot of games when each of their two foes were outspending them and by ever increasing dollars. The same can be said for the Jays who have played relatively well over the last decade and a half, nearly sneaking into the playoffs a few times and rarely laying in the cellar, and yet not once actually making it to the postseason.
I then thought it would make sense to look at each league, especially because over this period of time there’s an apparent talent gap. The AL is widely believed to be the better league by some amount and the results of the All-Star Game have definitely supported this. In the AL, 8 of the 14 teams (57%) were within 2 teams (14%) of where they should be based on payroll. 11 of the 14 teams (79%) were within 3 teams (21%) of where they should be based on payroll. In the NL, 10 of 16 teams (62.5%) were within 2 teams (12.5%) of where they should be based on payroll and 13 (81.25%) were within 3 teams (18.75%) of where they should be based on payroll. This is how they stacked up by league:
NL Best NL Worst
1. Florida Marlins (+5) 1. New York Mets (-5)
2. St. Louis Cardinals (+3) 2. Chicago Cubs (-5)
3. Houston Astros (+3) 3. Colorado Rockies (-3)
AL Best AL Worst
1. Oakland A’s (+6) 1. Baltimore Orioles (-6)
2. Cleveland Indians (+5) 2. Detroit Tigers (-3)
3. Minnesota Twins (+3) 3. Seattle Mariners (-3)
Lastly, I stacked all 30 teams by win rank and then highlighted the 4 teams that improved on their $ expected rank the most, and also the 4 teams that did much poor than their $ expected win rank (i.e. my previous best and worst list). The best teams had an average win rank of 13, which is just slightly better than the middle of the pack. The worst teams had an average win rank of 21, which is just slightly below the bottom third of the all teams. And the rest? They conveniently equaled 15, an exactly average team. Weird.
Sadly, between the best very best of these teams that managed to perform despite their fiscal handicap, on average they were just slightly better than the middle of the pack and they only have two World Series’ between them, the Florida Marlins the proud owners of both. Luckily and on the plus side, the poor teams that aren’t capitalizing on their fiscal advantage have zero titles between them.
My conclusion in all of this is that money absolutely seems to be playing a huge role in determining how many wins a team has. On the other hand, this ‘study’ definitely exposed both the worst franchises in allocating money and the very best. Also, it would probably be nice to hear for some fans (such as those of the Pirates, Royals, Rangers and Blue Jays to name a few) that it’s not all their franchises fault that they can’t get to the promise land. With that, I would like to crown my team of this 1.5 decade. The honor goes to the Oakland A’s for the extraordinary work Billy Beane did in the early 2000’s. And my goat of the last 1.5 decade is the Orioles. At least they can say they had to play the Bronx Bombers and the Sox in the AL East, right?
Epilogue:
I want to mention that using my method, the Yankees and Red Sox basically had no shot at being considered the best franchises. The Yankee’s, for example, could only wish to have gotten a neutral (0) plus or minus rating which they did. To this, in the spirit of SNL’s impersonation (Fred Armisen) of Joy Behar on “The View,” I say "So what? Who cares?” The Yankees and the Red Sox play with every advantage each season, knowing full well they have a shot at winning the title. They have the money to sign free agents. They have the money for deadline deals. And, they have the money to cover up their mistakes. It was time, even in this trivial endeavor, to give the smaller guys the advantage.
Finally, why did the Giants do fairly well despite having “kick the tires” Sabean in the front office during the duration of this 1.5 decade? For one, Sabean had Barry Bonds. Perhaps you should read this post on FanGraphs on Bonds’ splits to grasp just how good he was. He was incredible and had no equal. Two, Sabean was using roughly the same information the rest of the franchises were using for a good portion of this 1.5 decade. Prior to the Moneyball revolution, Sabean would have and did fair just fine. He was always good at picking up some useful pitching and flipping, or more accurately dumping, his stud pitching prospects prior to them being exposed as duds. If you were to put a greater weight on the last several years you would see his true talent level start to expose itself. As Bonds aged (as well as the rest of the Giants’ rosters) and teams began using statistical analysis more, the Giants began to lose more and more games. This, because Sabean has been one of the slowest adapters in this era where more information that has ever been available is suddenly readily available, and yet, to date he seems all but content to just ignore it.It’s abundantly clear that doing so is a grievous mistake.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Read this...
As usual, a steady diet of Neyer, Posnanski and FanGraphs:
But first, don't miss my Chase Utley post just prior to this links post.
Neyer: Giants’ Posey ticketed for AAA
Neyer: Santana not conceding to Halladay (yet) - - Halladay is Lincecum’s biggest threat at becoming a 3-peat Cy Young Award winner.
Posnanski: Baseball predictions in February!
Posnanski: Frank Thomas
R.J Anderson (FanGraphs): Giants’ Jigsaw Pieces
Dave Allen (FanGraphs): Joey Votto’s Opposite-Field Power and Amazing Fly-Ball BABIP and the opposite = You Call That a Spray-Chart Split? and Aaron Hill Folllow-Up
But first, don't miss my Chase Utley post just prior to this links post.
Neyer: Giants’ Posey ticketed for AAA
Neyer: Santana not conceding to Halladay (yet) - - Halladay is Lincecum’s biggest threat at becoming a 3-peat Cy Young Award winner.
Posnanski: Baseball predictions in February!
Posnanski: Frank Thomas
R.J Anderson (FanGraphs): Giants’ Jigsaw Pieces
Dave Allen (FanGraphs): Joey Votto’s Opposite-Field Power and Amazing Fly-Ball BABIP and the opposite = You Call That a Spray-Chart Split? and Aaron Hill Folllow-Up
Utley still chasing gold glove, among other things
While its seems most of the media has latched onto Ryan Howard and believes it is he who makes the Phillies’ ALesque offense go while he racks up the sexier homeruns and RBI’s, it is actually Utley who is most responsible. We’ve clearly debunked the belief that the RBI is an excellent barometer for offensive production. Even so, Howard has Chase to thank for the obscenely large number of them he’s accumulated hitting behind him. Utley does so many things well that when you put them together he is quite obviously one of the best players in baseball, and has been so for several years. Utley runs well and competently. Not only is he an extremely efficient base stealer (evidenced by his 23 for 23 in 2009), but he’s an excellent base runner in general. He makes good decisions and takes bases when he can and when it’s truly worth it rather than recklessly like many fleet footed players. He hits for average, he hits for power and gets on base often. Since 2005, he’s posted OPS’ over .900 in each season and wOBA’s of .392, .389, .420, .391 and .402. When you couple that with his defense and base running acumen he’s simply a tremendous player and well on his way to becoming one of the greatest second baggers of all-time, joining Sandberg, Alomar, Kent and of course, Joe Morgan. I don’t mean to say that he’s done enough already, far from it. But like I said, he’s “well on his way.” His biggest obstacle will be how long he can sustain his current excellence, and how many (just) good seasons he can have after that. Let’s compare his WAR’s (Wins Above Replacement) since 2005 to that of another player you may have heard of:
Utley: 7.4, 6.8, 8.0, 8.1 and 7.6.
Pujols: 7.8, 7.7, 7.8, 9.0 and 8.5
As you can see, very few players are in his company in terms of providing such tremendous overall value to their team. He actually posted a higher WAR than Pujols in 2007; who is obviously most often regarded as the best player in baseball. If you add their WAR’s, Utley has less than 1 Win fewer than Pujols since 2005. What’s more, Utley also bested the WAR of the 2007 Senior Circuit’s Most Valuable Player award winner, Jimmie Rollins, who posted a 6.7 WAR to Utley’s 8.0 in that season. He is quite honestly an offensive machine. To further emphasize the value gap between Utley and Howard, digest this. Since 2005, Ryan Howard has tallied a total WAR of 21.6 to Utley’s 37.9. So, to put a number on it, Utley has been 175% the player that Howard has. I do believe he is underrated offensively but nowhere near as much so as he is defensively. After all, a good portion of his WAR is derived from his work with the leather.
Let’s get into some UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating). In 2005, Luis Castillo won the Rawlings Gold Glove (GG) with an 8.9 UZR. Utley posted a UZR of 17.8, tops for second basemen in MLB but had a lower overall fielding percentage (FP) than Castillo. In 2006, Orlando Hudson won the GG with a -1.3 UZR. Utley posted a UZR of 9.3, tops in the NL but had a lower overall FP than Hudson. In 2007, Hudson repeated as the GG winner with a 0.5 UZR. Utley posted a UZR of 15.7, tops in MLB but with a lower overall FP than Hudson. In 2008, Brandon Phillips won the GG with an 11.3 UZR. Utley posted a 20.2 (!!) UZR, tops in MLB but with a lower overall FP than Phillips. Seeing a pattern? In 2009, Hudson won yet another GG with a -3.3 UZR. Utley posted a 10.8 UZR, tops in the NL but with a lower overall FP than Hudson. Since 2005, Utley posted a total UZR of +73.8 to Phillips’ admirable 28.9, Hudson’s mediocre (at best) -1.0 and Luis Castillo’s -5.3. Utley has not only been the best second baseman over the duration of the last 5 seasons, but also he’s (very) arguably been the very best in each of them. And yet, he still has not a single golden mitt to show for it.
Getting back to the wood: Knocking him down doesn’t do a pitcher any good, either. I recall last season I went to a game, Phillies at Giants, in which Jonothan Sanchez was pitching. Sanchez wung one of his sneaky fastballs right at Utley’s head. Utley luckily was able to evade the malicious heater, albeit a seeming inadvertently thrown one. Unabashed, the sweet swinging lefty deposited one of the next offerings into the very same right field seats that Barry Bonds famously used to launch balls over, splashing them among the boats in McCovey Cove. While I already had complete and utter respect for the man, and of course wasn’t particularly pleased considering he’d done it against my Giants, he somehow suddenly deserved an ever greater level of reverence and perhaps awe. Just the other day I was reminded of Utley’s blast when John Miller* appeared on Comcast’s Chronicle Live and offered that being knocked down by a pitcher never perturbed Willie Mays. Mays faced some of the fiercest and fantastic flame-throwers in baseball history in Koufax, Gibson, Drysdale, Spahn, Ford and Seaver. Mays was knocked down countless times and while he never enjoyed it and made every attempt possible to get out of the way, he got right back up and kept swinging. Koufax is famously quoted as saying, “Pitching is the art of instilling fear.” Anyone who has pitched or truly understands baseball finds this statement infinitely true, but it seems attempting to do so was wasted on Willie and likely now is wasted on Utley. He stands right on top of the plate and though I can’t say definitively, I suspect that’s precisely where he stood after Sanchez knocked him down.
*John Miller recently had the honor of winning the Ford C. Frick (recognizing sustained excellence in baseball broadcasting) and will join his idols Russ Hodges and Lon Simmons (and Willie for that matter) in the National Baseball Hall of Fame. This came as no surprise to Giants fans who have long taken witness to his brilliance, whether in the most meaningful or meaningless of moments.
Since 2005 Utley has received MVP votes in each season and been in the top 10 in three of them, but never better than 7th. He’s been selected an All-Star in 4 seasons to go along with his four Silver Slugger awards as well. He has zero Gold Gloves to date. I’m not trying to say that he hasn’t received any respect, but it’s fairly apparent he isn’t yet placed in the company he deserves, i.e. the games elite. He’s not just better than players like Howard. Utley is better than virtually all of them, sans Pujols. He’s one player I’d absolutely love to see get his fair shake via the Gold Glove, MVP or both in the next 2-3 seasons. Unfortunately, as 2009 was Utley’s 30 year old season his peak has likely already occurred and he may already have missed his shot which quite saddens me. The days of players miraculously turning into much greater players beyond their mid-thirties is almost definitely isolated to the steroids era. It is also a bit unfortunate that Chase was just a tad of a late bloomer. His first full season of AB’s didn’t come until he was 26 years old. Morgan had his first full season of AB’s at the ripe age of 21, giving him at least about 5 more good seasons to pad his counting stats.
Utley may well one day be up for his shot to enter Cooperstown and his lack of hardware will certainly be a knock against him, but it’s at no fault to him. Given his later bloomer status and lack of hardware, the odds are probably against him, but I’ve always loved rooting for the underdog.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Lincecum, like (most) the rest of us, is risk averse
The following is a text message conversation I had with a buddy:
Tony: Do you know anything about Lincy’s signing that I don’t? I don’t get why he accepted it.
Rory: I think Lincecum wanted the security (at least some) all along. He wanted at least 2 years rather than maximizing his per season salary.
Tony: Why did he decline the 3 year deal then?
Rory: I think he would have won but now he has a guaranteed $23MM rather than guaranteed $13MM (or even $8MM if he’d lost). In year 3 and 4 of arbitration he can more maximize his salary via arbitration because he will have been around longer and the more arbitration years you go through the higher percentage of your free agent value you get. In two years (assuming he still is dominating) he can go year to year with the Giants at like $16-20MM a year. Or…He can sign a 3 or 4 or 5 year deal for a lot of money and buy out one or more free agency years. Or just bank the last two years in arbitration and sign a huge contract as a free agent. I thought the deal was fairly balanced…good for both parties.
Tony: Ok. But if he gets $16MM in year 3, that is the same as if he took that 3 year deal basically. And it would have been guaranteed, and then get wrapped up long term.
Rory: No. The 3 year deal (which was $47MM) would have been $10, $13, and $14MM. He wanted the security, but also to get higher annual values year 3 and 4 of arbitration.
Tony: Oh ok. That makes sense.
----
Shortly after this conversation I read Rob Neyer’s post about it where he took an excerpt from Tangotiger for the math. Long story short, we all agree. Lincecum took the deal because of the “high-risk unchartered waters” that Tango mentioned. For one, there’s no certainty Lincecum would have won his case. As Neyer said, he likely would have. But if everything that is likely always happened, people wouldn’t get disappointed nearly as often in life. And let’s face it, all of us get disappointed a fair amount in this crazy world. It’s also likely that Lincecum will continue to make 30-33 starts and pitch extremely well. But if he doesn’t because he’s hurt or any other factors we can’t imagine now, he’s considerably fattened his bank account.
It's probably safe to assume all of us believe and are strongly hoping that this young phenomenal Ace is going to continue to defy the critics (who are now very few) and his physical limitations given his stature for years to come. But with the outside chance something unforeseeable happens, he’s still going to be a very rich man compared to the rest of us. And with the way he’s pitched in his first 2.5 seasons, I believe he’s earned that.
----
Rory: http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogspot?blogname=sweetspot&id=2367
Rory: Read that. More or less what I was getting at with you via text.
Tony: Do you know anything about Lincy’s signing that I don’t? I don’t get why he accepted it.
Rory: I think Lincecum wanted the security (at least some) all along. He wanted at least 2 years rather than maximizing his per season salary.
Tony: Why did he decline the 3 year deal then?
Rory: I think he would have won but now he has a guaranteed $23MM rather than guaranteed $13MM (or even $8MM if he’d lost). In year 3 and 4 of arbitration he can more maximize his salary via arbitration because he will have been around longer and the more arbitration years you go through the higher percentage of your free agent value you get. In two years (assuming he still is dominating) he can go year to year with the Giants at like $16-20MM a year. Or…He can sign a 3 or 4 or 5 year deal for a lot of money and buy out one or more free agency years. Or just bank the last two years in arbitration and sign a huge contract as a free agent. I thought the deal was fairly balanced…good for both parties.
Tony: Ok. But if he gets $16MM in year 3, that is the same as if he took that 3 year deal basically. And it would have been guaranteed, and then get wrapped up long term.
Rory: No. The 3 year deal (which was $47MM) would have been $10, $13, and $14MM. He wanted the security, but also to get higher annual values year 3 and 4 of arbitration.
Tony: Oh ok. That makes sense.
----
Shortly after this conversation I read Rob Neyer’s post about it where he took an excerpt from Tangotiger for the math. Long story short, we all agree. Lincecum took the deal because of the “high-risk unchartered waters” that Tango mentioned. For one, there’s no certainty Lincecum would have won his case. As Neyer said, he likely would have. But if everything that is likely always happened, people wouldn’t get disappointed nearly as often in life. And let’s face it, all of us get disappointed a fair amount in this crazy world. It’s also likely that Lincecum will continue to make 30-33 starts and pitch extremely well. But if he doesn’t because he’s hurt or any other factors we can’t imagine now, he’s considerably fattened his bank account.
It's probably safe to assume all of us believe and are strongly hoping that this young phenomenal Ace is going to continue to defy the critics (who are now very few) and his physical limitations given his stature for years to come. But with the outside chance something unforeseeable happens, he’s still going to be a very rich man compared to the rest of us. And with the way he’s pitched in his first 2.5 seasons, I believe he’s earned that.
----
Rory: http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogspot?blogname=sweetspot&id=2367
Rory: Read that. More or less what I was getting at with you via text.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)








