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.
Insightful baseball analysis for the casual crowd, Moneyball masses and you, the Third and King crew
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
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:
----
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.
----
"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.
----
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.
Monday, January 24, 2011
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.
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.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Jeff Suppan is no Joe Posnanski
Today, the Giants signed Jeff Suppan to a minor league deal with an invite to Spring Training. My first thought was this: oh, the Giants must need a new batting practice pitcher! I guess not.
He’ll be paid $1 million if he ever finds his way onto the Giants. And if he doesn’t make the roster coming out of camp in March, he can opt out. Presumably, this means the 40-man roster. The Giants, assuming some semblance of a replacement starter is observed in him, would simply drop him off in Triple-A Fresno until they need him (and hopefully they never will).
Imagine for a second you were collecting baseball writers. You already have Joe Posnanski, Bill James, Rob Neyer, Joe Sheehan and Jayson Stark. But you want a little just-in-case insurance, you know, just in case. Maybe, along the way, one of them gets writers block, or maybe one breaks both hands and can’t type. You already have Murray Chass lined up in the stable, and a couple others like him. Then, in an effort to beef up your complete and utter lack of depth, you hire on the Bleacher Report. This is essentially what the Giants have done.
He’ll be paid $1 million if he ever finds his way onto the Giants. And if he doesn’t make the roster coming out of camp in March, he can opt out. Presumably, this means the 40-man roster. The Giants, assuming some semblance of a replacement starter is observed in him, would simply drop him off in Triple-A Fresno until they need him (and hopefully they never will).
Imagine for a second you were collecting baseball writers. You already have Joe Posnanski, Bill James, Rob Neyer, Joe Sheehan and Jayson Stark. But you want a little just-in-case insurance, you know, just in case. Maybe, along the way, one of them gets writers block, or maybe one breaks both hands and can’t type. You already have Murray Chass lined up in the stable, and a couple others like him. Then, in an effort to beef up your complete and utter lack of depth, you hire on the Bleacher Report. This is essentially what the Giants have done.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Cody Ross and the Giants' arbitration eligibles
The Giants settled on contacts for four of the six players they have that are arbitration eligible today, and are optimistic the remaining two won't go to a hearing. I wanted to break them down a bit here, and provide a few thoughts.
Just as a quick primer: the market value for a win* is about $5 million dollars in the current market, which is up quite a bit from 2009 and 2010. Also, it’s worth noting that players who are arbitration eligible – this is for players who have more than three years of MLB service, but fewer than six -- typically get 40 percent of their free agent value in year one, 60 percent in year two and 80 percent in year three. A lucky few players are awarded Super Two status – this is for only those in the top 17 percent of players with at least two but less than three years of MLB service, who also accumulated at least 86 days in the previous season -- which means they go to arbitration one year earlier and thus get to go through four years of arbitration. Giants fans should recall that Tim Lincecum was the benefactor (and the Giants the victim) of this caveat last season.
*Whenever I say a “win” in terms of a player’s value, what I mean is a Win above Replacement, or 1.0 WAR. A replacement player should not be mistaken with a league average player. A replacement player is a four-A type player, one that can easily be plugged in at a position at league minimum cost, usually plucked from the minor league system, waivers, or perhaps via trade for a minimum cost if depth is an issue. An average player is above replacement.
NOTE: Instead of just choosing to go with either Baseball-reference or Fangraphs, I’ve chosen to take each player’s WAR from each site and give each a weight of 50 percent; this is in the hopes to come up with a decent idea of their consensus value.
Just as a quick primer: the market value for a win* is about $5 million dollars in the current market, which is up quite a bit from 2009 and 2010. Also, it’s worth noting that players who are arbitration eligible – this is for players who have more than three years of MLB service, but fewer than six -- typically get 40 percent of their free agent value in year one, 60 percent in year two and 80 percent in year three. A lucky few players are awarded Super Two status – this is for only those in the top 17 percent of players with at least two but less than three years of MLB service, who also accumulated at least 86 days in the previous season -- which means they go to arbitration one year earlier and thus get to go through four years of arbitration. Giants fans should recall that Tim Lincecum was the benefactor (and the Giants the victim) of this caveat last season.
*Whenever I say a “win” in terms of a player’s value, what I mean is a Win above Replacement, or 1.0 WAR. A replacement player should not be mistaken with a league average player. A replacement player is a four-A type player, one that can easily be plugged in at a position at league minimum cost, usually plucked from the minor league system, waivers, or perhaps via trade for a minimum cost if depth is an issue. An average player is above replacement.
NOTE: Instead of just choosing to go with either Baseball-reference or Fangraphs, I’ve chosen to take each player’s WAR from each site and give each a weight of 50 percent; this is in the hopes to come up with a decent idea of their consensus value.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Profiling Francisco Peguero
Here's another intriguing Giants prospect: Francisco Peguero. He, like Surkamp who I recently profiled, isn't exactly a top MLB prospect. But as far as Giants prospects go, he's one of the position players with the most upside. The Giants signed him in August of 2005 as a non-drafted free agent (international signing), and he's been stewing in their system ever since. They placed him on the 40-man roster prior to this years Rule V draft.
They've brought him along slowly. He played two seasons in the Dominican Summer League before coming to the states. In 2008, he split half his time in A short-season ball (Salem-Keizer) and the full-season Sally League. In 2009, he spent most of the first two months in extended spring training with a sports hernia but played about another half season in the Sally League, before being promoted to A-Advanced for the Cal League playoffs and starring in the championship-clinching game alongside Eric Surkamp, winning playoff MVP honors.
In 2010, he lead the California League (A+) with 16 triples, and finished second in stolen bags with 40; he does, however, need to clean up that skill set as his efficiency (64.5%) leaves something to be desired. Using Fangraphs' speed factor, we find that he was the fourth fastest player in the Cal league. His batting average of .329 was also fourth best, and considering he's a center fielder, his .488 slugging percentage and .159 isolated power were very good.
They've brought him along slowly. He played two seasons in the Dominican Summer League before coming to the states. In 2008, he split half his time in A short-season ball (Salem-Keizer) and the full-season Sally League. In 2009, he spent most of the first two months in extended spring training with a sports hernia but played about another half season in the Sally League, before being promoted to A-Advanced for the Cal League playoffs and starring in the championship-clinching game alongside Eric Surkamp, winning playoff MVP honors.
In 2010, he lead the California League (A+) with 16 triples, and finished second in stolen bags with 40; he does, however, need to clean up that skill set as his efficiency (64.5%) leaves something to be desired. Using Fangraphs' speed factor, we find that he was the fourth fastest player in the Cal league. His batting average of .329 was also fourth best, and considering he's a center fielder, his .488 slugging percentage and .159 isolated power were very good.
Surkamp to sink or swim in 2011
First off, as far as prospects go: it’s very important not to get too hung up on where a player is ranked on each list. Usually, the top two or three guys fall into at least a similar order on most lists. For example, every list coming out will have Brandon Belt -- here's a video of him hitting -- atop the heap for the Giants. But beyond that, there’s very little consensus in terms of placing each player in the exact same order.
There’s no doubt that some part of the ebb and flow of prospects lists is due to the biases of the pupils that produce them. A prospect maven that has been burned (completely wrong) on a certain type of prospect over and over again, i.e. multiple players with the same skill set, is likely to be more cautious with their ranking in the future, and certainly more apprehensive in giving them solid projections in the future. It’s very similar to what behavioral economists have observed in the stock market, that financial markets are often inefficient because consumers make biased decisions, often based on their personal experience in the market.
With that, I want to talk about Eric Surkamp. Here’s a guy that’s sure to stir up some debate. Back in early November, I threw a quick list of 10 together, and although I think I struck out by missing a few prospects worth mentioning, I'm pleased I placed Surkamp 10th. He’s cracked most lists at this point, but no one is yet sure where to place him. Baseball America placed him 19th last season in their 2010 Prospect Handbook, and their Top 10 Prospects list for 2011 will be available January 26. Fangraphs had one too few spots for him to rank on their Top 10 list. John Sickel’s placed him 12th on his list of the Top 20 Giants Prospects, calling him an "intriguing finesse lefty." And Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus had this to say about him: Surkamp “…has a plus curve ball and good change…” and “[he’s] not a future All-Star, but [he likely] is a future big leaguer, and likely a back-end rotation starter at that.”
There’s no doubt that some part of the ebb and flow of prospects lists is due to the biases of the pupils that produce them. A prospect maven that has been burned (completely wrong) on a certain type of prospect over and over again, i.e. multiple players with the same skill set, is likely to be more cautious with their ranking in the future, and certainly more apprehensive in giving them solid projections in the future. It’s very similar to what behavioral economists have observed in the stock market, that financial markets are often inefficient because consumers make biased decisions, often based on their personal experience in the market.
With that, I want to talk about Eric Surkamp. Here’s a guy that’s sure to stir up some debate. Back in early November, I threw a quick list of 10 together, and although I think I struck out by missing a few prospects worth mentioning, I'm pleased I placed Surkamp 10th. He’s cracked most lists at this point, but no one is yet sure where to place him. Baseball America placed him 19th last season in their 2010 Prospect Handbook, and their Top 10 Prospects list for 2011 will be available January 26. Fangraphs had one too few spots for him to rank on their Top 10 list. John Sickel’s placed him 12th on his list of the Top 20 Giants Prospects, calling him an "intriguing finesse lefty." And Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus had this to say about him: Surkamp “…has a plus curve ball and good change…” and “[he’s] not a future All-Star, but [he likely] is a future big leaguer, and likely a back-end rotation starter at that.”
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
How Sabean and the Giants go to WAR
Just over a week ago, Chris Quick at Bay City Ball put together a nice post on the Sabean Years. It was pretty interesting, and certainly worth reading through. In a nutshell, Chris was taking a look at how Brian Sabean has constructed his rosters over his tenure, beginning in 1997. The idea was simply to group them in three year intervals -- he used groups of 3 years apiece, starting with 21-23, 24-27, and so forth, going up to 42+ -- and compare each age group by Wins Above Replacement (WAR).
I probably don't have to tell you that it was no great revelation that Sabean's rosters were shaped as such that they were leaning heavily on older players. His best group was those players aged 33-35. If you didn't know the Giants, and you didn't have an idea how Sabean prefers to operate, this maybe would have come as a surprise. But, assuming you're a Giants fan, which many of my readers are, I don't think it's a stretch to say this conclusion was expected. The performances of Stan Javier, Ellis Burks, Ray Durham, Randy Winn, and most recently Aubrey Huff have really paid off for Sabean -- let's hope Andres Torres continues this wonderful trend in 2011, his age 33 season.
To illustrate that this type of roster construction isn't typical, that it is in fact unique to Sabes, I'm going to show you some WAR Grids (created by Joshua Marciel) from Fangraphs. WAR Grids are the latest tool at Fangraphs, officially introduced today by David Appleman.
I probably don't have to tell you that it was no great revelation that Sabean's rosters were shaped as such that they were leaning heavily on older players. His best group was those players aged 33-35. If you didn't know the Giants, and you didn't have an idea how Sabean prefers to operate, this maybe would have come as a surprise. But, assuming you're a Giants fan, which many of my readers are, I don't think it's a stretch to say this conclusion was expected. The performances of Stan Javier, Ellis Burks, Ray Durham, Randy Winn, and most recently Aubrey Huff have really paid off for Sabean -- let's hope Andres Torres continues this wonderful trend in 2011, his age 33 season.
To illustrate that this type of roster construction isn't typical, that it is in fact unique to Sabes, I'm going to show you some WAR Grids (created by Joshua Marciel) from Fangraphs. WAR Grids are the latest tool at Fangraphs, officially introduced today by David Appleman.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Giants will be challenged to repeat in 2011
Dan Szymborski has an article -- San Francisco Giants' repeat problems -- for Insider’s on ESPN.com. Within it, he explains the difficulty the Giants now stand to face in their pursuit to repeat as World Champions. And he’s absolutely right. Let me explain.
Nowhere in his article does he say they won’t be good, quite the contrary. Especially not when he says “[the] rotation is elite…” Or when he explains the Giants’ Brandon Belt is “… almost certainly one of the two best 1B prospects in baseball…” Nonetheless, it will be an uphill battle – and here’s why, using his four main reasons to prompt my thoughts.
Nowhere in his article does he say they won’t be good, quite the contrary. Especially not when he says “[the] rotation is elite…” Or when he explains the Giants’ Brandon Belt is “… almost certainly one of the two best 1B prospects in baseball…” Nonetheless, it will be an uphill battle – and here’s why, using his four main reasons to prompt my thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)