Beyond the Box Score: FanPosts

The "30 parks on a budget" challenge

2009-11-07T03:18:15Z

The World Series is over. You're looking at another off-season of trying to figure out if your team should sign some middle-of-the-road middle infielder who won't bring the pennant next year either. And because you can only do that for about 15 minutes before crying, you need something to do that can keep your mind on baseball, so that you don't have to resort to *gasp!* watching the NFL, NBA, NHL, EPL (go Everton!), WWE, or SCOTUS. (Tonight on Monday Night Litigation, it's Sotomayor vs. Alito. Justice will prevail!)

No, let's do something baseball-related. Let's plan a baseball road-trip, the best baseball road trip ever. And let's do it on a budget.

Your mission is simple: In 2010, you will (in your imagination) travel to all 30 MLB parks, see 30 games, and you will figure out how you would do it at the lowest possible cost. At least in theory. (It's a free country, so if you actually want to do this in real life, you can... but the point is that it's a fun mental exercise.) Using the real 2010 MLB schedule, and some other web-based resources, you will put together an itinerary that would allow you to meet your goal. The person who can do it in the lowest amount of cash will win a cookie and bragging rights. (Note: no actual cookie will be awarded.)

I will tell you, this "game" is horribly addictive. Worse than Farmville. You won't think so at first, but it is.

Intrigued? The rules are below...

The goal: Using the real 2010 MLB schedule, you will create a tour that will take you to a regular season game at all 30 MLB parks. Obviously, you'll see all 30 teams at least once. The visiting teams are unimportant and if you end up seeing the same visiting team three or four times during the season... well, you'll just get to know that team a lot better. You just have to follow...

A few general rules:

You are a total loser and have no friends anywhere in the USA. It's tempting to say "Well, when I get to Chicago, I'll just bunk out with my old college roommate who lives near Wrigley and walk down to the game. And when I get to Phoenix for the D'Backs game, I'll just barge in on my aunt who lives out there. Even though I never talk to my aunt." That's not the point. And you should send your aunt a holiday card.
You now own a car. Congratulations if this is your first car. It's a red one. You may or may not end up using it.
You get one freebie city, and it's the MLB city which you are sitting closest to right now. If you live in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, or Los Angeles/Anaheim/California/whatever the Angels are calling themselves these days, read on. In that city, you do not have to stay in a hotel or pay for food. You can stay in mom's basement and eat her home cooking. In other words, what you're doing already.

Getting started: You may start your tour at any point in the MLB schedule, but you have to be able to say, "I'll start at the Team A/Team B game on this date." You can take as long as you want, although, as you'll see in a moment, it behooves you to be faster. However, you must either start and end your trip in the MLB city that is geographically closest to you. This is for those who live in eastern Montana. You can magically start the trip in Minneapolis without having to factor in the trip from Montana to Minnesota.

If your closest MLB city is a two-team city (see the four above), your first game must be for one of the teams in your city (so either Mets/Yankees, Cubs/White Sox, Angels/Dodgers, or A's/Giants... and let's not pretend that Oakland is a separate city) and the last game must be the other of those teams. Your pick as to which is which, but for the last game, you have to treat it like you are on the road and book a hotel, etc. This is because in the course of the month to month and a half that you were away, your friends and family members realized how much they hated you all along and will not help you out at all when you get back.

Getting there, part one (city to city): The biggest issue in a trip like this (and maybe the whole point) is getting from city to city. You have a few options.

You can drive your own car around the country for all or part of the trip. If you do that, you have to live by a few rules. First off, your car has to find its way back home, so if you're starting in Atlanta and you use the car to go to Tampa for your stop there but then catch a flight to the next part of your trip, you eventually need to come back to Tampa and drive the car back to Atlanta. However, for each day that you leave your car in your non-home city, it's $10 for parking/car storage. Also, your car can not magically follow you, and since you have no friends, you can't just have Larry drive the car to the next city to meet you there. Even if you did have a friend named Larry, he wouldn't like you that much.
Your car gets 30 mpg (city or highway) and gas costs $2.40 per gallon. Yes, I know gas prices vary widely across the country. But we need a standard to make things fair. So, each mile costs you eight cents to drive. All distances will be measured by the Mapquest door-to-door road distance. If you want to turn it to "shortest distance," that's fine. Then again, "quickest route" might help you in other situations. We'll pretend that you won't get lost. Somewhere out there, my wife just snickered.
You could rent a car. You have to find a published rate at one of the major rental companies in the city you'll be in and tack that on to your running toll, plus pay the 8 cents per mile in gas. If it's a one-way rental (you'll rent the car in Boston and drop it off in Philly, you have to get a quote based on that.)
You could take the bus/train. If you can find a company that runs a regular route between those cities (no personal charters!), then you can take to the roads that way. However, you have to abide by the schedule that they set. So, if their bus/train pulls into the station at 4:00 am... think about that for a minute... do you really want to be at a bus station at 4:00 am. You have to be at the bus station 30 minutes before the bus leaves.
You could fly. Again, you have to find a published rate on a flight, but you have to abide by their schedule. If you are flying, you have to be to the airport an hour and a half before the flight is scheduled to depart. The flight can be on any airline. And you have to use the full price of the ticket after adding in fees and charges. They all have to list that now.
Some folks might want to fly to a "secondary airport" because sometimes the prices are cheaper. (For example, flying into Canton/Akron "airport" and then driving to Cleveland.) That's fine, but factor in the rental car/bus to Cleveland. Hey, it might save you a few bucks and this is a competition of doing this in the least amount of cash.
As much as I love William Shatner, no, you may not use Priceline and say "well, I'll just get a flight for $25." You have to go for the pre-published rates. You can, however, use any of the major travel sites to help you do your research and fly whatever airline will get you there the cheapest. And no, you can't use frequent flyer miles. This is also cheating.

Getting there, part two (within the city): Once you are in the city, you have a few options for getting around. You will need to book a hotel, as you have no friends. You may select any hotel you like anywhere you like, again so long as the rate is published. Obviously, this will go toward the final tab for the trip.

If you're driving into town in your own car (or renting a car, most likely at the airport), you can drive right to the hotel door and park in their parking lot. However, some hotels have parking fees. Choose carefully. Hostels are fine... if you like waking up in a room full of European tourists who speak about as much English as you speak of Portuguese. Depending on the age and gender composition of that group and your own preferences on the subject... well... there might be kids reading this.
if your hotel has a free shuttle from the airport to their front door, bully for you!
No shuttle? At the airport, you can usually get one of those "hotel vans" to take you where you're going. Nothing like a 12-passenger van that smells like a diesel leak and has you crammed in nice and tight. Those come with a cost though too, but you can shop around on those.
Taxis are $2.00 per mile. Again, the Mapquest door-to-door distance rules. Never insult the barber before the haircut, but stiffing the cabbie the tip after the ride is optional.
Walking is free, but you can only walk 4 miles total per day, and you walk at 4 mph.
Now, not only do you have to get to the hotel, you also have to get to the ballpark and possibly back. Public transportation is allowed. You need to factor in the cost to ride it, but if you can show a route that goes from your hotel to the ballpark and back (you can also use it from the airport/bus station), that's fine. Again, you are at the mercy of their time-table. Also, if you need to walk to the stop/station, you have to deduct that from your four mile walking allowance.

The reason that you're doing this, the games: You must attend 30 games. And that means that you'll need a ticket to get in. You're welcome to pick the cheap seats (this is after all about doing things on the cheap), but really, if you ever actually do this, it means you have way too much money to burn. Spring for some good seats!

Remember that some teams price different types of games differently. For example, some teams are cheaper on the weeknights in May than the Saturday in July.

You must list the 30 games that you'll be attending, and they must be actual games that are scheduled to be played. Don't worry about rain (or if you're touring the North in April, snow). Again, it's your choice as to when you would start. However, you can't go home. Once you start, you have to complete all 30 games before setting foot back at your front door. So none of this "I'd hit Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, and Colorado" then fly home to Kansas City for a few days and eat free food, and then head out again..." What you're really doing is buying yourself an extra day of free accommodations because you know you'll need an off-day on the road. That's cheating. You can stop through along the way, but no lingering.

Other costs: For every day that you are on the road, add $25 in per diem/food expenses. This applies even if you don't go to see any games. You still gotta eat. (And yes, someone out there is saying, "But I can live on five dollar footlongs." I say to you man does not live on bread and cold cuts alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of Joe Morg..." I think I'd better stop there before I get smote.

I'll assume that you have no baggage costs on planes. Ever since airlines started charging per checked bag, everyone pulls their roll-aboards onto the plane and gate checks them, which slows down boarding by about ten minutes per flight. Not that I'm bitter. I'll assume you're living out of your carry on. And that you brought at least 30 pairs of clean underwear. Or that you found a random laundromat on an off-day.

The time element: This could get fun. Not only are you competing against your wallet, you have to actually make this a believable itinerary. So, if your flight lands at 6:55 in Pittsburgh, and first pitch is at 7:05, you're not going to make that game, so don't try to pretend that you will. You are not magic. There are several time restrictions in this exercise by which you must abide.

As previously mentioned, any time you are taking mass transit of some sort, you must abide by their published time table. Most public transportation systems have on their website the ability to get door to door times for any trip. Your walking speed is 4 mph.
If you are in a car of some sort, the Mapquest "time to travel" will rule all questions of how long it will take to get there. This includes taxis.
For any airplane flight, you must be able to make it to the airport an hour and a half before the slated departure time. In happy news, we'll pretend that none of your flights will be delayed and will all land exactly when they say they will. Isn't that a hlarious sentence? For a bus or train, you need a half hour of cushion.
You will also be "stuck" at the airport for 15 minutes after a flight lands if you are taking public transportation or hailing a taxi, and 30 minutes for car rentals and hotel shuttles (free or paid.)
You can't check into a hotel before 3:00, but you should do so before going to the game. An itinerary item that says "2:38-3:00 Screw around in area near hotel" is fine if you just need to kill time. For a 7:00 night game, that should be fine. But for a 1:00 day game, this could be more interesting, because you must also check out by noon. If you're catching a flight after the game, you can check your bag at the hotel for $5.00, but you have to go back to retrieve it and pay the costs associated with getting back to the hotel.
You must be at the ballpark 30 minutes before the start of the game. Why? You're doing a tour of ballparks! You want to be able to spend some time walking around the park and taking the obligatory "This is me next to the sign that says Welcome to ~~Enron Field~~ Minute Maid Park" picture, right? Earlier is fine.
American League games last 4 hours from first pitch time (this includes the time to get out of the stadium, back to the parking lot/train station/bus stop). National League games are 3.5 hours long. Interleague games go by home park. Some of them might go extra innings, but we can't plan for that now.
You must get 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep every day. No sleeping on the plane. Or on the bus. (Trust me on the bus.) Only at the hotel. You can pick your hours either by preference or around your travel plans. You must also allow one hour after wake up time before you can check out of the hotel. You need a shower. (Trust me on the shower.)

That's a lot of rules. If there are disputes, post them in the comments. I'll be happy to rule on them/clarify them.

So what should this look like? Let me give you a sample of what I have in mind.

April 5th, 2010

Time	Event	Distance	Cost	Link
	Per Diem		$25.00
7:11 - 8:08 am	Belmont and Sheffield to MDW (red and orange lines)		$2.25	link
8:15 am	Arrive MDW
9:45 am - 2:29 pm	MDW to HOU, Delta 1567/879 (connect in ATL)		$118.20	link
2:44 pm - 3:04 pm	Hobby Airport to Howard Johnson Express Inn via taxi	14.07 mi	$28.14	link
3:04 pm	Check into HJ Express		$48.37
6:01 - 6:25 pm	Houston Metro Routes 36, 121 to Minute Maid Field	0.61 mi walk	$1.25	link
6:35 - 10:35 pm	Giants at Astros, 7:05 pm first pitch	--	$7.00	link
10:35 pm - 10:59 pm	Houston Metro Routes 121, 36 to HJ Express	0.61 mi walk	$1.25
11:00 pm - 7:00 pm	Sleep

Belmont and Sheffield is near where I used to live in Chicago so I'm using that as my starting place. Let's say I'm starting out from there and going to Houston for my first game of the trip. (Why Houston? Why not?) I've accounted for my transportation and lodging and put together a realistic time frame, plus accounted for all my expenses.

I didn't do a thorough job researching this. I could probably find a cheaper way to get to the hotel than taxi, and maybe there's a bus route that would have gotten me there cheaper than the flight. I also should really have put up the page that had the price quote for the hotel, but I closed that window.

Now, I'm in Houston with no car and 29 more parks to see. But I did get to see Opening Day in Minute Maid Field. Probably Tim Lincecum vs. Roy Oswalt. And in doing so, I spent a couple hundred bucks. Could I have done it cheaper? Probably. Can you?

If you do accept the challenge, post it here as a FanPost or link it off your own blog or something. I'd love to see if anyone can actually put one of these together, and if there are several, who can do it cheapest.

World Series Simulation, Game #6

2009-11-04T15:53:14Z

I used my simulator to simulate 100000 baseball games between the Phillies and Yankees using what to the best of my knowledge will be close to today's starting lineups. The simulator outputs a win probability for each team, along with the average total runs scored, a distribution matrix of all the final scores and how often they occurred, and an averaged box score tally of all games combined. You may find it strange that there are so many one run games listed as the most likely score, and that the home team is always favored to win in the top couple of scores. This is due to basic math and the way that baseball rules play out of having the home team bat last. Here is a great article explaining this phenomenon.

Today's Results... (Last simulation ran on Monday at 930PM)

Visitors	Home	Pitching Matchup	Favorite	Vegas Win Prob	Simulator Win Prob	AccuScore
PHI	NYA	P.Martinez vs A.Pettitte	NYA	64.97%	64.66%	61%

Skinny: Simulator Fun Facts... Vegas and my simulator are in almost perfect agreement on the Yankees win probability. Once again the key for the Phillies will be to silence the heart of the Yankees order as much as possible. Not an easy thing to do. AccuScore has come in with the lowest win probability of the three for the Yankees. Meanwhile, the Vegas line has moved up to 65.87% since the opening lines came out.

Top 100 Most Likely Scores
1	NYA 4-3
2	NYA 3-2
3	NYA 5-4
4	NYA 6-5
5	NYA 2-1
6	PHI 4-3
7	NYA 4-2
8	PHI 3-2
9	PHI 5-4
10	NYA 5-3
11	NYA 3-1
12	NYA 4-1
13	NYA 5-2
14	NYA 7-6
15	NYA 6-2
16	NYA 6-4
17	NYA 6-3
18	NYA 5-1
19	PHI 4-2
20	PHI 5-3
21	PHI 2-1
22	NYA 3-0
23	NYA 7-2
24	PHI 6-5
25	PHI 6-4
26	NYA 7-1
27	NYA 4-0
28	NYA 7-3
29	PHI 5-2
30	NYA 7-4
31	PHI 3-1
32	PHI 6-3
33	NYA 6-1
34	NYA 7-5
35	NYA 8-3
36	PHI 4-1
37	NYA 8-7
38	NYA 1-0
39	NYA 2-0
40	PHI 7-4
41	NYA 5-0
42	PHI 7-5
43	PHI 7-6
44	NYA 8-4
45	PHI 6-2
46	NYA 6-0
47	NYA 8-2
48	NYA 8-1
49	NYA 9-3
50	PHI 7-3
51	PHI 5-1
52	NYA 8-5
53	NYA 8-6
54	NYA 9-2
55	PHI 2-0
56	PHI 8-6
57	NYA 9-4
58	PHI 8-4
59	NYA 9-8
60	PHI 8-3
61	NYA 7-0
62	NYA 10-2
63	NYA 9-1
64	PHI 6-1
65	PHI 8-5
66	PHI 4-0
67	PHI 8-7
68	NYA 9-5
69	NYA 8-0
70	PHI 7-2
71	NYA 10-4
72	PHI 3-0
73	NYA 10-3
74	PHI 1-0
75	PHI 8-2
76	NYA 9-6
77	PHI 7-1
78	NYA 10-1
79	NYA 10-5
80	NYA 9-0
81	PHI 9-8
82	PHI 9-4
83	PHI 5-0
84	NYA 11-3
85	NYA 11-5
86	PHI 9-5
87	PHI 8-1
88	PHI 9-2
89	PHI 9-3
90	NYA 11-2
91	NYA 11-1
92	PHI 9-6
93	NYA 9-7
94	NYA 10-6
95	NYA 11-4
96	PHI 10-3
97	PHI 9-7
98	PHI 6-0
99	NYA 10-9
100	PHI 10-5

Game Pitching Results
Pitcher	IP	SO	BB	HR	WHIP	FIP
P.Martinez	6.4	3.994	2.521	1.17	1.465	5.524
A.Pettitte	7.0	5.164	2.746	0.78	1.255	4.360

Note: Keep in mind I did this simulation before knowing the actual starting lineups, so some of the players I used may not be starting. Many of the "Players Most Likely To" stats depend on having the correct lineup. The lineups I used are listed below. Chances are you won't see a big difference in win probability from having the lineup order slightly off. Picking the correct starters is more important, especially if one of the better players is taking the day off. But you still won't see a big change in win probability if the starter and backup are interchangeable.

Simulation Lineups
	Name	wOBA	Name	wOBA
1	J.Rollins	.2986	D.Jeter	.3301
2	S.Victorino	.2937	J.Damon	.3450
3	C.Utley	.3195	M.Teixeira	.3843
4	R.Howard	.3124	A.Rodriguez	.3837
5	J.Werth	.3282	H.Matsui	.3533
6	R.Ibanez	.3052	J.Posada	.3590
7	B.Francisco	.2921	N.Swisher	.3454
8	P.Feliz	.2810	R.Cano	.3233
9	C.Ruiz	.2821	B.Gardner	.3003

JT20 Dynasty League

2009-11-04T01:08:59Z

I have started started a free fun dynasty league in which each person takes control of a MLB roster & minor league system, drafts, signing free agents....

If this sounds interesting to you, go check out the league message board & league rules and sign up. There is no prize for the winner for each season, it is all just for fun, so join!

http://jt20.proboards.com/

thought people here would be interested sign up soon!

New Look

2009-11-03T13:28:48Z

As part of SB Nation's visual refresh, Beyond the Box Score has a new look. Some widgets have moved around, but nothing should be too hard to find.

Like all upgrades, things may not work perfectly at first. If you encounter any issues, please let us know so the coders can address the problem. Thanks for reading.

Exploring Hit f/x, Albeit Badly

2009-10-30T19:16:07Z

This summer, Major League Baseball revealed its newest statistical plaything, hit f/x, which records the speed of batted balls. This technological toy may not exactly revolutionize the way the game is played, but it does add a critical variable to a hitter’s value – how hard he can hit. Now teams can determine which batters truly hit the stuffing out of the ball.

Strangely, this hit-tracker data seems to go against conventional baseball wisdom. Hit-tracker results have recently revealed that players with lower batting averages actually hit the ball harder than those with high batting averages. Does that mean that to achieve a high degree of success, a hitter needs to hit the ball softer that he otherwise would? Looking beyond the numbers, we discover that this conundrum is an issue of logic.

It is generally accepted in the literary world that plot and character vary inversely; rarely do we find a book with an in-depth plot and intricately developed characters. Similarly, in the world of baseball, speed varies inversely with power; there are exceptions, but it is unusual for a power-hitter to steal 20 bases in a season, or for a lanky speed-demon to hit 30 homers.

A substantial percentage of the batters with batting averages over .300 in the 2009 season had around 15-18 infield hits. There were outliers, of course, but the trend stuck for the most part. Let’s take a look at how some of baseball’s top hitters (in terms of batting average) might have fared without that extra bit of speed. Obviously this is not completely indicative of how they actually would have done, but it’s an interesting experiment.

A table:

	# of Infield Hits	Batting Average	Batting Average Minus Percentage of Infield Hits
Ichiro Suzuki	50	.352	.273
Jacoby Ellsbury	26	.301	.259
Pablo Sandoval	16	.330	.302
Denard Span	23	.311	.271
Jason Bartlett	15	.320	.290
David Wright	13	.307	.283
Scott Podsednik	27	.304	.254
Skip Schumaker	13	.303	.278
Hanley Ramirez	17	.342	.312
Nyjer Morgan	15	.307	.275
Derek Jeter	22	.334	.299
Erick Aybar	16	.312	.280

Notice that this trend only serves to prove the importance of speed in the batting averages of players who have an abundance of it. David Wright and Pablo Sandoval still retain high batting averages despite when we subtract a portion of their speed.

Because power-hitters tend to be physically larger and thus slower than other hitters, they don’t beat out as many groundballs as quicker hitters, decreasing their batting average by approximately 17/550, or almost .031. For example, Wladimir Balentien, formerly of the Seattle Mariners, had the fastest average batted ball speed during April 2009 (according to Matthew Carruth of Lookout Landing http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2009/6/6/901100/mariner-hitters-batted-ball-speeds), but a paltry average. Ichiro, on the other hand, had the lowest average batted ball speed but his usual high average during that stretch.

In reality, batters that hit the ball hard often aren’t quick enough to reach first base on a weakly hit ground ball, knocking a significant amount off their average.

Contact rates actually player a larger role in this issue than does speed. Players, like the aforementioned Balentien, who swing for the fences all the time usually have low contact rates. And you’re certainly not going to get a hit if the ball doesn’t leave the catcher’s mitt. Here I generalize quite a bit – not all power hitters are free-swingers, but those that do see that batting averages drop quite a bit despite hitting for power and a high hit f/x value.

What does this mean? Honestly, I don’t know. Infield hits are flawed because in using them to make a point, one must assume that the official made the right call (error vs. hit). Plenty of power hitters are disciplined.

Any thoughts? I'm really not sure what to take from this.

Ricky Nolasco: 4 WAR or 1 WAR?

2009-10-28T17:57:20Z

This is a question I asked on my own blog, but I thought it'd get decent play here, and it addresses an interesting about pitcher WAR. Also, I have author privilege here, but I haven't written a damn useful thing on BtB for some time now, so I'd like to contribute.

Now as most readers here know, there are two great places to find WAR for any player. One of them is FanGraphs, the other is Rally's historical WAR database. One of them is fast and constantly updated, the other goes is comprehensive throughout baseball history (hence the "historical" part). The two databases measure positions players in essentially the same fashion. Some of the inputs and rates are different, but you aren't generally going to see a stark contrast in any one player; most differences are going to be due to different inputs (UZR for FanGraphs vs. TotalZone for Rally's database, for example).

Pitcher WAR is also performed in a similar fashion, but pitcher runs are determined in a very different fashion. FanGraphs uses FIP, a defense-independent component statistic that everyone here knows about and needs no further explanation. Rally's database uses a pitcher's actual runs allowed and takes a prorated value for defensive runs based on the balls in play the pitcher allows. Now, both versions in general reach similar conclusions, as most pitchers face around average luck and timing and the two values end up similar. A difference of 1 WAR would not preclude me from using one or the other; it simply becomes a matter of taste/preference for the method.

Then comes the interesting case of Ricky Nolasco's 2009 season.

Here's the relevant information:

2009 Nolasco FIP/0.92: 3.64

2009 Nolasco tRA (StatCorner): 3.94

2009 Nolasco RA: 5.40

Here's how I did the calculations and what I got as a result. From Marlin Maniac:

I did both calculations using park factors provided by Patriot. For defense-independent statistics WAR, I averaged tRA from StatCorner and FanGraphs, then averaged that value with FIP/0.92 and stuck into Pythagenpat. If you checked out my MVP article, you saw a list of WAR for pitchers calculated using that; that list contains all pitchers with more than 4.0 WAR. Using that method of evaluation, I had Ricky at 3.8 WAR for the season, a very good total. I then calculated WAR using Rally's method, using team bUZR from FanGraphs as my defensive metric. Using that total, I got Ricky totaling 0.8 WAR on the season.

The difference between the two is a staggering 3 WAR. If you'd prefer, just use the FanGraphs total of 4.2 WAR instead for the component statistic, it's not particularly relevant. The key here is that the difference is huge, and it brings up my question:

Strictly in terms of production, was Ricky Nolasco a 4 WAR pitcher or a 1 WAR pitcher this season?

Presumably, both measures are defense-independent, though they are calculated in different ways. Rally gives credit/debit to the pitcher for his context/timing, while the linear weights models are context independent. If all we wanted to know was production, which one would be a better option? Based on how we treat hitters, my initial presumption would be to lean towards the context-neutral method, but pitchers should have a lot more control over their environment than hitters do. Should a different method be used that's somewhere in between either of these options?

This is not to be taken as an indictment against either methodology, I'm just interested in everyone's opinion on the topic. Vote and discuss accordingly.

Poll

What was Ricky Nolasco's production level this season?

Apparently I can't do park adjustments

2009-10-23T21:10:41Z

I know people have various different methods of doing park adjustments, but I cannot for the life of me figure them out. I attempted to reconcile various different numbers from 2008 on FanGraphs, when they published their park factors for the '08 season, to no success.

So I humbly posit this simple question to my fine colleagues here in hopes of an answer (and no ridicule, I hope). I have the following inputs:

Runs above Average (from wOBA) for a player, unadjusted for park context; Park factor adjusting runs from neutral league context to specific park; League runs/PA rate

I ask you how to calculate the park-neutral Runs above Average. My latest attempt to figure this out has come out as follows:

RAA (neutral) =(RAA (unadj) + (Leagure R/PA - (League R/PA*Park factor))) / Park Factor

With this equation, I seem to get wonky results the higher the unadj. runs above average gets (similar the lower it gets). Also, calculations with a negative RAA (unadj.) using this equation don't make intuitive sense to me, though they do correct in the general direction. Am I missing something, or am I just not hitting my calculator buttons right?

Which tells us more: The last 7 at bats or 7 at bats against this pitcher?

2009-10-21T17:15:53Z

Suppose that a batter is 5-for-7 over the course of his last seven plate appearances. Pretty good two-game stretch, eh? Now, suppose that another player has a career 5-for-7 mark against the day's starter, going back a few years. (You could substitute "the reliever who was just brought in" if you like.) Which is the more meaningful, the last seven PA's chronologically, or those seven PA's against the pitcher?

The proper answer to this is "Who cares? Seven plate appearances isn't enough of a sample to tell us much of anything." Let's leave that aside for a moment. Let's enter the magical world inhabited by magical gnomes, Joe Morgan, and more MLB managers than I care to mention. Let's pretend that you can actually draw serious inferences about future performance from seven plate app... I almost got through that with a straight face.

The bigger question is which is the better source of information: performance in the recent past against a different set of pitchers or performance against this specific pitcher over an array of years, given an equal number of plate apperances in each case. I suppose it's an empirical question and one that I haven't really seen a study of directly. I've seen a few things that lead me to believe that neither is a particularly good predictor, and so the "winner" between those two would be the winner of the "tallest grasshopper" award.

I don't care so much about which really is the better predictor right now. What amazes me is that managers, I presume in the absence of systematic study, have very clearly made up their minds. Consider how often you see managers make strategic personnel decisions (whether pinch hitting or moving someone around in a lineup or starting a guy who's normally on the bench) because "he has had success against Smith in the past." It's rare-er to see a manager do something like move a player up in the lineup because he's had a couple of good days in a row. (It does happen... just not as much.) Managers seem to value pitcher vs. hitter matchup stats. Now, if the reason that our batter had such great success against Smith is that Smith is a right-handed fastball guy and our batter eats those guys for breakfast, then that's fine. Of course, the problem is that over 7 PA's, anyone can get lucky against anyone, and to interpret that as anything meaningful is just silly.

But if it's just a matter of not understanding small sample sizes, we should see a great deal more re-shuffling of lineups based on recent performance. Managers seem to know, whether explicitly or intuitively, that the last seven PA's don't tell you too much about a player and so there's no need to change your strategy based on that. Why is it that managers understand small sample sizes in one situation, but not in another? There has to be another force at work.

I think there's something special in the manager's mind when it's batter vs. pitcher, and I think it's something that's a systematic error in thought across a lot of what passes for baseball analysis in the public sphere, something I like to call the virtus fallacy. Virtus is a Latin word which is hard to translate properly. It is the immediate predecessor of the English word "virtue", but in Latin, there's an added dimension. Consider that the Latin word for man is vir. Virtus was a mixture of courage, power, and honor that a Roman male citizen strove for. It was a characteristic that was "demonstrated" by some noteworthy act, often athletic or military. It might even be best translated as "manliness." The fact that you did well showed that you had virtus and if you lost, well... you just weren't the virtus kind of guy.

Following this logic, if a batter goes 5-for-7 against a pitcher, it must be because the batter is more of a man than the pitcher. And while it might be silly to believe that a plate appearance from five years ago when both pitcher and batter were five years younger in body and skill level would have a bearing on what's about to happen here, people generally assume that virtue is unchanging. If you were more virtuous five years ago, you're probably still the better man today. So, I should pinch hit you in this key situation. If a batter is 5-for-7 over his last few at bats, he probably did it against four different pitchers, so there's no chance for him to "prove" that he is more virtuous than any of those pitchers. He might be (and probably is) a good player or maybe he just had a good couple of days. But he's not proven that he's better than a specific other man.

So, the next time you see a manager base a key decision clearly on batter vs. pitcher matchup data (and make a hilarious strategic blunder), it might not be evidence that he is statistically challenged. Well, it is... just not in the way that you think. He's shown in the past by what he doesn't do that he doesn't make decisions based on micro sample sizes. It's just that his threshhold for accepting a "big enough to be relevant" sample size goes way down when the information is framed as a measure of who is somehow a "better man."

How Efficient and Effective Were the Rockies in 2009?

2009-10-16T03:04:57Z

This story was originally posted on Purple Row (where I write a weekly column called Purple Row Academy) and represents an update of sorts to articles that I wrote back in May on the concept of marginal wins. This community probably understands this pretty well, so treat it as a refresher if you will.

A common theme for Purple Row Academy this entire year has been looking at ways to quantify a player's value to a team, especially through the Wins Above Replacement (WAR) stat used notably by FanGraphs. For those who don't understand what WAR is or how it is calculated, here's a crash course from previous PR Academy sessions:

Position Players

Pitchers

By looking at the sum for a team of each player on that team's value, one can attempt to measure both how efficient and how effective that team was. But WAR is by definition an individual statistic and judging efficiency by WAR alone would be only the sum of individuals. This is problematic because seldom in baseball does the sum of the individual players' successes accurately measure the team's performance.

A metric measuring team performance to compare to the individual performance calculated by WAR is therefore what we require. What can we use to measure how well and how efficiently the team performed? There's always the simple end of season payroll vs. number of wins linear comparison to figure out MLB payroll efficiency using 3 year averages from 2006 to 2008, which I did a few months back.

But that is assuming that all wins are equal. As any economist worth their salt will tell you, this is patently false. In light of that, I'll go back a little farther back in PR Academy sessions to the concept of Marginal Wins.

If I had to explain this concept in two sentences, I'd say that MP and MW are basically setting a floor (minimum possible outcome) for both payroll (in 2009, $11.2 million--which happens with 25 players on the active roster plus 3 on the DL making the minimum of $400k) and wins (30% of all games, or 48.6 wins, which all but one team has accomplished since the implementation of the amateur draft in 1965). The farther the team reaches from this minimum plateau of wins, the more difficult (not to mention important and expensive) each incremental, or marginal, win becomes.

Marginal Payroll and Marginal Wins

The creator of the system, BP's Doug Pappas, explains that "the Marginal Payroll/Marginal Wins (MP/MW) system evaluates the efficiency of a club's front office by comparing its payroll and record to the performance it could expect to attain by fielding a roster of replacement-level players, all of whom are paid the major league minimum salary" (basically Wins Over Replacement Team). The formula is:

(club payroll - (28 x major league minimum) / ((winning percentage - .300) x 162)

The first half of the equation measures the club's marginal payroll and the second measures the marginal wins. The lower the number, the more efficiently the club spent its cash. Comparing this number to the club's actual winning percentage provides another way to evaluate teams. As Pappas explains:

Low MP/MW, good record: Efficient ballclub (2003 Marlins, Athletics)
Low MP/MW, bad record: Not spending enough to compete (2003 Devil Rays)
High MP/MW, good record: Spending its way to the top (2003 Yankees)
High MP/MW, bad record: Poorly-run club (2003 Mets, Rangers)

Since a team's payroll fluctuates throughout the year and I use Opening Day Payroll (ODP) to calculate MP/MW, this metric is probably best used to evaluate the efficiency of the front office's offseason moves and as a gauge for a team's expectations going into the year.

To emphasize the inequity of wins, this is what I said back then:

Though it can be (and has been) done by a small payroll team, going from 60 to 80 wins in MLB is an insignificant accomplishment on a macro level because those teams still miss the playoffs. In moving from 80 to 90 wins, however, a team goes from an also-ran to a bona fide playoff contender. After all, 68 of 78 teams (87%) in the last ten years that crossed the 90 win threshold made the playoffs, making these marginal wins much more important and therefore expensive.

For example, the average value of a marginal win in 2008 was about $2.7 million, but the value of a win getting you from 89-90 wins was worth almost $6 million.

It isn't a simple concept by any means, but I've found that MP/MW or WORT has produced some excellent results. I'll show how the Rockies did by this metric after the jump.

Rockies Historical MP/MW Performance

Using the formula above and FanGraphs WAR data, I've already crunched some numbers for the Rockies as to their efficiency from 2002-2008 (which is as far back as FanGraphs WAR data goes back). That analysis is here:

Given that data, I'll break down the Rockies' 2009 season in a similar fashion.

Rockies Historical Dollar Win Values

The Efficiency of the 2009 Colorado Rockies

Opening Day Payroll: $75,201,000

This season marked the highest ODP on record for the Rockies as a franchise, eclipsing the mark set in 2001 of $71,541,334. This was largely due to the arbitration raises given to six players. With an eye toward next year, the Rockies' ODP for 2010 looks to be higher due to the fact that they have 13 potential arbitration cases coming up this offseason (though they'll likely only have 10 returning to the team).

W-L Record: 92-70

This of course also marks a franchise record, besting the 90-73 mark of the 2007 team. This team was the best compensated Rockies team, and as their record bore out, the best performing team as well.

Linear Payroll Efficiency: $817,402

This number was found simply by dividing the Rockies' ODP by their win total. While this number is higher than other seasons in past years, this doesn't take into account the fact that ODPs have risen dramatically since the franchise's inception. For example, the Rockies won 67 games in 1993 with an ODP of $8,829,000 (LPE of $131,776). This is yet another reason that efficiency should be judged on the basis of marginal wins.

Marginal Payroll:

Formula: ((ODP) - (28 * League Minimum) = (($75,201,000 - (28 * 400,000) = $64,001,000

Again, this represents the amount that the Rockies spent above MLB's price floor ($11.2 million). This year's total is second most in team history to 2001's $65,941,334.

Marginal Wins:

Formula: ((Winning % - .300) * (# of games played)) = (.568 - .300) * (162) = 43.4 MW

This number represents the amount of wins the Rockies produced about the floor set by Pappas of 30% of games won (48.6). This total is the most in franchise history, defeating 2007's 41.1 MW total.

Marginal Payroll / Marginal Wins:

$64,001,000 / 43.4 = $1,464,677

This number represents how much money the Rockies spent per marginal win this year. It ranks below 2007 ($1,065,304) and a number of other years in which the Rockies had a much lower MP. With the salary growth in MLB so explosive these last two decades and considering that the cost of a marginal win in 2008 was $2.7 million, the Rockies' MP / MW number is really quite good. Last year, that number would have been fifth in MLB.

Team Hitting WAR: 18.7

Note that the above number includes hitting by pitchers, who "contributed" a total of -3.7 hitting WAR. That's why they're paid to pitch and not hit. Of course, it also includes Garrett Atkins (-0.5), who owes the Rockies $2.1 million for his "performance" in 2009. Courtesy of FanGraphs, here's a list of the Rockies' contributors to hitting WAR by player.

What is notable is that the Rockies had six players performing at least at a league average (about 2.0 WAR) level in 2009, the highest FanGraphs has measured (in 2008 we only had 3 such players), but had no superduperstar (Tulo's 5.5 WAR is great, but only ties him for 14th in MLB among hitters and 28th for all players). This makes sense, since a major strength of this team was its depth.

Historically, the Rockies' 18.7 hitting WAR puts them well behind 2007 (22.4 WAR) but bests every other season in the FanGraphs era.

Team Pitching WAR: 23.6

With this total, the Rockies tied the Red Sox for the best pitching from a WAR standpoint in 2009. It goes without saying, but this was the greatest pitching staff the Rockies have ever assembled. Here's the final list of 2009 Rockies pitching WAR contributors.

Of note is that all five members of the Rockies starting rotation posted at least league average performances (that's for any pitcher). Those five by themselves contributed 18.9 WAR! Ubaldo Jimenez's 5.7 WAR season is also by far the greatest Rockies pitching season ever, besting Aaron Cook's 4.7 last year. In addition to the starters' second place in MLB finish in pitching runs above average, the bullpen was sixth in MLB in PRAA.

The challenge next year will be maintaining both this high level of performance and the remarkable health this year of the entire roster.

Total WAR: 42.3

A good measure of a team's efficiency at the end of the year involves comparing its WAR totals to its MP / MW totals. If a team's marginal wins total exceeds its WAR total, then the performance of the team as a whole was greater than that of the sum of its parts.

In the case of the 2009 Rockies, this was certainly the case as Colorado finished with 1.1 more MW than their WAR data would have suggested.

Total Dollar Value of Player Production:

Here is Dave Cameron of Fangraphs on Dollar Win Value:

90 free agents signed major league contracts last winter, ranging from Alex’s Rodriguez $275 million deal to Josh Towers' $400,000 contract with the Rockies. The sum of those 90 contracts paid out $396 million in 2008. To figure out what the average cost per win of a 2007 free agent was, though, we need to know how many wins that group was worth.

To calculate this, I did a three year weighted average of their win values, then multiplied that value by .95 to factor in aging and estimate what teams considered a player’s true talent win rate for 2008. In total, I came up with 88 wins, or $4.5 million per win. That’s what major league teams were paying for a marginal win last winter, so for 2008, that’s a players dollar per win value as listed on the site. I re-did this for all years going back to 2002, and the dollars per win for each are as follows:

2002 - $2.6m / win
2003 - $2.8m / win
2004 - $3.1m / win
2005 - $3.4m / win
2006 - $3.7m / win
2007 - $4.1m / win
2008 - $4.5m / win

In other words, Cameron is showing that a free agent, on the whole, cost $4.5 million per WAR as of 2008--whereas an average marginal win in that year cost only $2.7 million. This fact serves to show that looking for marginal wins on the free agent market is an inefficient proposition. It is more efficient to build from within and to get lots of production from young cost-controlled players, as the Rockies have done.

Generally though, this reflection of value is based not on the actual cost of a MW but on the market cost of a MW. As I explained a few months ago:

Due to the nature of the calculation (each WAR in the dollar value calculation being equal to the market cost per MW, which was higher than the average cost per MW), the Rockies are consistently receiving a higher "dollar value" from their roster than their ODP may suggest. However, if this "dollar value" concept would be adjusted to reflect merely the average cost per MW each year (in other words, taking into account all players instead of just free agents), then the "dollar value" numbers would often be below a team's ODP--especially if that team rates low on the MP/MW formula.

According to the "dollar value" concept as FanGraphs has it ($4.5 million per WAR), the Rockies as a collection of individuals produced $190,350,000 of value. Hitters were responsible for $84.15 million while pitchers contributed $106.2 million ($85.05 million of which came from the starting rotation). When the whole team is considered ($4.5 million per MW), the value produced is $195,300,000--again, the whole equaling more than the sum of its parts.

This valuation is assuming that the Rockies had built their team entirely of free agents, which is obviously not the case. Using my "home brew" calculation of $2.7 million per MW (a reflection of all marginal wins, not just FA MW), the Rockies as individuals produced a more realistic $114,245,023 of value. As a team, the Rockies produced $117,215,934. This shows that compared to their ODP in 2009, Colorado had surplus value of $42,014,934--a number which would certainly rank very highly in MLB this year (if I had the time I would prove it), though behind the 2007 squad in terms of efficiency.

Effectiveness

Of course, the Rockies were far from the most efficient team in MLB this year. That title belongs once again to the Florida Marlins, who had a MP/MW ratio in 2009 of $667,552 per MW. But the Marlins were not the most effective team in baseball, as they did not parlay their excellent marginal wins ratio into a playoff berth (and the revenue that comes with it).

My definition of MLB effectiveness gives a heavy weight to playoff appearances and championships. For that reason, I'd argue that the Rockies this year were the most effective club in baseball (with the possible exception of the World Series winner, as long as it isn't the Yankees). And for what it's worth, any of the four teams still alive that win the championship will have done so inefficiently.

The Rockies have created among the highest marginal win totals in MLB despite having a lower-half payroll (18th) and securing a playoff berth. What is remarkable is that the Rockies can say this for the second time in three years. Rockies fans are lucky to be following a smart organization that seems primed to continue their success in the near future.

Twitter WAR: Fred McGriff, Tim Raines, and other Hall of Fame issues

2009-10-15T14:54:00Z

I don't really have any analysis to provide, but here's a compilation of the careers of some Hall of Fame candidates I've been discussing on Twitter with @jasoncollette, @tommy_bennett, @Marc_Normandin, @jonahkeri, and others.

Quick summary: I'm not as sold on Rock Raines as some others (who might be a bit homerish), I like Edgar more than most, Albert Belle deserved more consideration, Jeff Bagwell should be a lock, Larry Walker is confusing for everyone, and Jason Collette sticks his fingers in his ears when people point out that Fred McGriff isn't Hall of Fame worthy.

Based on all that, here's a convoluted WAR graph based on baseballprojection.com data. (Click for a huge version.)

McGriff is obviously better than Baines and Galarraga, falls in Belle's ballpark (depending how you value quality vs. quantity), and is worse than the rest -- we probably need some more comparisons for him.

Walker holds his own and appears to very much be Raines' equal. (Rally's stats really like his baserunning and fielding skills in addition to the big bat.)

Albert Belle certainly was a stud, but his peak is definitely too short for serious consideration, and I'm saying that as someone who ignores longevity more than most.

What do you notice? Feel free to add any bits of information you think support or damn a player's candidacy in the comments. Or links to good articles others have written on these topics. Or suggest other players worth throwing in the discussion.

A Question on Context-Adjusted Defense

2009-10-15T05:43:59Z

Because I'm bored and because I love tinkering around with old systems, I thought I'd try and recreate Charlie Saeger's "Context-Adjusted Defense." It's a system that really isn't necessary because we have PBP systems, obviously, but I thought it'd be fun to try it out and maybe even compare it toUZR/PMR/Plus-Minus, etc.

Unfortunately, I've already hit a wall. Does anyone understand how to apply Saeger's "position rates"?

(((AB.rhb - HR.rhb - SO.rhb) * posRate) / (AB.tm - HR.tm - SO.tm)) / lgAVG

What the heck is the posRate? It is the "position rate," a measure of how much more likely a right-handed batter is to hit a ball to that position. Each affected position has a different rate:

1b

0.25

2b

0.50

3b

4.00

ss

2.00

lf

0.70

rf

1.30

A right-handed batter is four times as likely to hit a ball to the third baseman than a left-handed batter, and twice as likely to hit a ball to the shortstop than a left-handed batter. This sounds like a big difference, and it is, but teams don't vary much on the number of right-handed batters they face.

I don't know how to reach Mr. Saeger, and the only other person I've seen use them, DSG, hasn't gotten back to me on it yet. Chances are this is really simple and I'm overlooking something terribly obvious, but I figure it'd be worth a shot to see if someone here can enlighten me!

Thanks in advance.

Is there ANY fair return for Evan Longoria in a trade?

2009-10-13T12:43:55Z

Hey, BtB. I posted this comment last week in response to some silly questions from ma main man 50 Cent, and I'll excerpt it below because I wanted to ask this community this question: can any MLB team put together any trade package that is equal to the projected net value of Evan Longoria, a 7 WAR/season player under contract for a maximum of $50 million over the next seven years (until 2016). Projected net value here means a player's projected worth in dollars in the future (WAR an all that) minus the salaries he's under contract or expected to receive. Anyways, here's what I wrote on Lookout Landing. Maybe it will help get the conversation going. I'm particularly interested to hear people's opinions on how much of such a trade could be made up of prospects valued by the BtB/Victor Wang style minor leaguer value calculator

As Dave Cameron said,
[From 2009-2014], Longoria will make $21 million, and then the Rays will have two more options that would keep him in TB at $11 million per year for 2015 and 2016. Crazy. He’s going to be paid like a league average back-end starting pitcher through a potential Hall-Of-Fame prime. Agents, this is the template of what not to do with your best client going forward.
Let’s estimate that Longoria is a hall-of-fame caliber player – let’s say 5 wins a year on average, although he’ll probably be even better.

I’m bad at this, but.. Assuming a somewhat low 1.07 per year salary inflation.
…………………………………………………………………..5 wins……….
2002 – $2.6m / win 2009: $4.5m/win…………$22.5m……..
2003 – $2.8m / win 2010: $4.8 m/ win………..$24m…………
2004 – $3.1m / win 2011: $5.1 m/ win……….$25.5m……….
2005 – $3.4m / win 2012: $5.5 m/ win………..$27.5m………
2006 – $3.7m / win 2013: $5.9 m/ win………..$29.5m…….
2007 – $4.1m / win 2014: $6.3 m/ win………..31.8m………
2008 – $4.5m / win 2015: $6.7 m/ win…………33.5………..
……………………………..2016: $7.1 m/win…………..35.5………….

If Longoria played at a five win level, he’d be paid 50 million for services rendered worth 229.5 million, or about be worth on average about $32.8m per year) – and worth 275.2 millon at 6 war per year, and 321.4 million if he played at a 7 WAR per year level.

Let’s go with At 5 WAR/y, he’s a $180 million dollar value. What can we trade for him?
Two years of Felix, as a 5 WAR pitcher, will probably be worth about $22.5m + $24.0m = $46.5
46.5 minus 20m Salary = 26.5m in total value
Three years of Gutz, as a 4 WAR player, = $61.6 million
61.6 million minus, say, 11.6 million = 50 million

26.5m + 50 m = $76.5 million.

That means that The net value of Felix and Gutierrez, our two most valuable players, is only about 40% of what Longoria is worth. Using one of those fancy Beyond of the Boxscore or Victor Wang prospect calculators, I’m not sure if we could find $105 million in value if we mailed them our top ten prospects as well. There might be literally nothing the mariners could practically trade the rays of equal value as Longoria.

1 Albert Pujols > 2 Casey Blakes (Or, All Wins Are Not Created Equal)

2009-10-13T01:20:31Z

I'm a big believer in WAR, but something about it has been nagging at my brain for a while. The WAR leaderboard tells us that Albert Pujols was worth 8.4 WAR ($38 million) in 2009, and that Casey Blake was worth 4.3 WAR ($19.2 million). So let's say you're John Mozeliak. The devil comes to you and offers you the following proposal: In 2010, you can replace Albert Pujols with Casey Blake and his identically skilled twin, Blake Casey. Under the terms of the deal, Pujols and Blake (and Blake's twin) will perform exactly as they did in 2009. The combined salary of Casey Blake and Blake Casey will be the same as Pujols' salary. Which do you choose?

Even without accounting for fan reaction, the answer seems obvious: Pujols. For one thing, he only takes up one position and one roster spot, allowing you more roster and lineup flexibility. The Blake twins may provide the same total WAR as Pujols, but this value is mitigated by the loss of potential WAR from other spots. Having that value concentrated in one player allows you to add another player to your lineup; provided you have another above-replacement-level player available, who wouldn't prefer that? In essence, the comparison here isn't so much 1 Pujols vs. 2 Casey Blakes as it is Pujols and say, Skip Schumaker vs. the 2 Blakes.

An even larger problem is that of scarcity. Think of a major league player as a diamond (the gem, not the infield), and WAR as the carat count of the diamond. All else being equal, a 1-carat diamond will always be worth much more than twice a 0.5-carat diamond. Why? Because the relationship between carat count and rarity is non-linear. It is exponentially harder to find a 1-carat diamond than it is to find a 0.5-carat diamond. Thus, a 1-carat diamond is worth exponentially more than a 0.5-carat diamond.

Similarly, an 8-WAR player is much, much rarer than a 4-WAR player:

The preceding graph is compiled from FanGraphs WAR data (position players and pitchers) for the past 3 seasons. The exponential relationship is clear. Over the last 3 seasons, there have been an average of 4 8+ WAR players and over 68 4+ WAR players per season. In these seasons, an 8-WAR player has been about 8.5 times harder to find than a 4-WAR player. 4-WAR players are (comparatively, anyway) a dime a dozen.

Shouldn't the 8-WAR player be much more valuable than two 4-WAR players, then? I'm not arguing that Pujols is worth 8.5 Blakes, but certainly he's worth more than 2 Blakes, based on the scarcity of his skill set.

There are (at least) two ways of resolving this. The first would be to make an exponentially-scaled WAR, or an alternative WAR to dollars conversion that incorporates this relationship. I don't want to replace the current, linear model, which does a good job of measuring the market value of a given performance. What I would like is a market-independent valuation that can be used to figure out what portion of MLB's salary resources a player's performance should command in a perfectly rational, performance-based economy (yeah, I know, that'll never happen, but still...).

The other solution would be to find a way to compare 1 player to 2 players (or 3 players; or 2 players to 3 players, etc.) that accounts for the added value of performance being concentrated in fewer players. In other words, we'd need a scale that could convert the combined performance of a number of players into an equivalent, 1-player value. This would be a particularly useful tool for evaluating multi-player trades.

Has anyone worked on anything like this already? Does anyone have ideas for how to do so? Am I crazy, or missing some key element? If you disagree, please enlighten me; I'd be interested in hearing any arguments for the Blake twins. Thanks for reading.

Poll

Which would you rather have?

1 Albert Pujols

79 votes

2 Casey Blakes

6 votes

85 votes | Poll has closed

College SABER courses?

2009-10-12T04:15:25Z

Any one here know of any colleges that offer sabermetric course or anything of that sort? Preferably around the state of Oklahoma? If not any tips on courses to take to help with sabermetrics? Thank you

Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you Thank you

Another NL MVP Discussion

2009-10-02T19:22:06Z

Before everyone jumps on me here, I am well aware that this is a numbers based group and we are supposed to look "beyond the boxscore" which I do every day in evaluating talent on the baseball field.

That being said, we know that the BBWAA often gets it wrong in voting for MVP, CY and ROY. Lots of intangibles come into play. Whether those intangibles can be quantified or not, players win awards because of them. Jimmy Rollins MVP a few years ago is a great example, as is Terry Pendleton's a while back.

I'm a big Troy Tulowitzki fan. I dont think he is worthy of top 10 MVP consideration this year based on his numbers, but he will probably get a lot of attention.

Pujols is going to be the winner, if not unanimous this year, but given the leadership, superior defense,and big offensive contribution to a team lacking in big offense (not to mention the fact that his team is playoff bound again), where does Tulo finish in the voting?

Does he have a chance to land in the top 5, or even the top 3? Top 10? What do you think? If you were building a team, would there be many guys in front of Tulo you would start building your team around?

Thoughts?

Top Ten Total Runs Contributed seasons since 2003

2009-10-02T11:06:14Z

10.) David Wright (177; 2007)
7a.) Chase Utley (178; 2006)
7b.) Albert Pujols (178; 2003)
7c.) Alex Rodriguez (178; 2007)
4a.) Todd Helton (179; 2004)
4b.) Adrian Beltre (179; 2004)
4c.) Albert Pujols (179; 2009)
3.) Alex Rodriguez (181; 2003)
2.) Barry Bonds (184; 2004)
1.) Chase Utley (192; 2008)

What does this show? Chase Utley is a freaking beast. A lot of his total runs come from the positional adjustment factor which has ranged between 26 and 31 runs since 2005, when he first started contributing on a regular basis. His 192 Total Runs last season was mind-boggling. Hell, it was 21 runs more than Pujols generated last season. And, of those 21, a grand total of 20 runs came from the positional adjustment difference between the two which still shows Utley was the better straight-up player last season.

Since 2005, Utley has produced 861 Total Runs. Over that same time period, Pujols has put up 848 Total Runs. I'm not saying Utley is the better player between the two but it's quite clear that Utley is a top five player in this league and quite possibly even top three. Utley is actually second, behind Pujols, in terms of Total Runs this season. He's a true monster. He's posted Runs Saved totals of 21, 15, 15, 34, and 13 since 2005. He's an amazing fielder at his position considering his ability at the plate. And he's not a lame on the basepaths either. He's posted Baserunning Runs totals of 3, 5, 3, 5, and 5 since 2005. He's an adequate and smart baserunner.

Just one of the ways to show how dominant Utley has been during his career.

One of the reasons I made this thread was to show some of the great seasons that were put up since 2003. Another reason was to show how absolutely brilliant Utley has been for the Phillies during his time there. In January of 2007, Utley signed a seven-year deal worth $85 million. It keeps him in Philadelphia until 2013. That's what you would call a smart investment. It pays Utley a meager $12.1 million per season with the Phillies through 2013. Since 2005, when Utley began this impressive run, he's been worth an average of $30.9 million per season. He's being underpaid by nearly $20 million per year. He's in the Pujols category when it comes to that.

One has to wonder how long it'll take people to recognize Utley as one of the top players in the game today. And, when I say that, I truly mean a top player. At the very least top five but possibly the best all-around player in the game. One could debate it and not truly be wrong. I used to say that Utley wasn't even the best second baseman in baseball but he is. And he is such by a wide, wide, wide margin. It's not even close. However, he now may be the best player in the game and not just the best second baseman in the game.

Time to recognize greatness. Both past and present.

How much do you think Matt Holliday is worth?

2009-10-01T06:27:22Z

Simple question but not so simple answer. In the four seasons where Matt Holliday has seen at least 600 plate appearances, he's been worth an average of $25.2 million. That's nothing to sneeze at. This isn't going to be a long post about it, just really a question about how much you think he's worth and two graphs to take a look at how much he has contributed over his career (since 2004).

So, how much is Matt Holliday worth ? You're getting a premier hitter who plays very good defense in left field and runs fairly well.

Help Needed!

2009-09-26T20:52:31Z

I was browsing through the Saberizing a Mac discussions and would like to do all these things on my PC. The thing is i had no idea what any of the talk was about. I was wondering if anyone could "dumb" the instructions down so maybe i could get into sabermetrics. Thank you very much.

Your FanPost must be at least 75 words long. Right now it's only 55 words long. If you just have a quote, link, video or photo you'd like to share with the community, try creating a FanShot instead.Your FanPost must be at least 75 words long. Right now it's only 55 words long. If you just have a quote, link, video or photo you'd like to share with the community, try creating a FanShot instead.Your FanPost must be at least 75 words long. Right now it's only 55 words long. If you just have a quote, link, video or photo you'd like to share with the community, try creating a FanShot instead.Your FanPost must be at least 75 words long. Right now it's only 55 words long. If you just have a quote, link, video or photo you'd like to share with the community, try creating a FanShot instead.

Chicks dig the long ball .. and so does the W/L column

2009-09-26T00:30:36Z

Lately, I have proceeded to do a multitude of research on various things regarding the great game of baseball. One of the things that I examined happened to be the impact of the home run on a team in terms of wins and losses. Why? Because I wanted to see how much impact home runs actually have on wins and losses for every team. I wanted to see if there was a direct correlation between them. The answer didn’t really shock me, per se, but the way that it stood out is what did the trick. Hell, the top four teams in the American League in home runs all have a winning record. Coincidence? Not really. And four of the top five teams in the National League in home runs have a winning record. Again, coincidence? Not entirely. There have been 4769 home runs in baseball this season to date (September 25th). With that said, are you ready to crunch some numbers?

The Arizona Diamondbacks, one of the worst teams in baseball this season, have hit 163 home runs this season. Of those 163, 55.8% (91) have come in their victories. Meanwhile, their pitching staff has given up just 29.2% (47) of their home runs during a victory. So, with one of the worst teams as a baseline for this analysis, let’s look at another epically bad team. The Washington Nationals are in the same boat. They have 144 home runs this season. Of those 144, 53.5% (77) have come in victories. At the same time, like the Diamondbacks, their pitching staff has cut down the home runs. In victories, the Nationals have allowed just 24.3% (41) of their home runs. So what is the summary here? Home runs matter, but not in the way you think.

Driving a ball over the fence obviously helps your chances at winning the game. However, the main factor here is that teams that can limit home runs hit against them have a far higher chance of winning a game than a team that gives up a home run. And it’s by an astronomical margin. It really is.

Exhibit A: New York Yankees
Wins: 87 Home Runs Allowed (97 games)
Losses: 88 Home Runs Allowed (56 games)
Analysis: The New York Yankees are allowing 0.90 home runs per game during a win. However, during a loss, they’re allowing 1.57 home runs per game. That’s nearly a 0.70 difference. That’s just something that you don’t see every day. Think it’s just the Yankees? Think again.

Exhibit B: Los Angeles Angels
Wins: 82 Home Runs Allowed (90 games)
Losses: 93 Home Runs Allowed (62 games)
Analysis: The Los Angeles Angels are allowing 0.91 home runs per game during a win. Exactly 0.01 more than the Yankees. And, like the Yankees, they’re allowing a higher rate during losses. The Angels are allowing 1.50 home runs per game during a loss. That’s nearly a 0.60 difference. It’s only 0.10 less than the Yankees but, at the same time, they’re in the same ballpark even though the balls are not.

Exhibit C: Boston Red Sox
Wins: 63 Home Runs Allowed (91 games)
Losses: 85 Home Runs Allowed (61 games)
Analysis: The Boston Red Sox are allowing 0.69 home runs per game during a victory. During a loss, they’re allowing 1.39 home runs per game. A difference, like the Yankees, of 0.70 between a victory and a loss.

So what does the data show? Well, it’s quite simple really. If your team is hitting at least one home run per game and not allowing at least one home run per game, then they’re going to be a team over .500. It’s as simple as that. Teams live and die by the home run but in different ways. Certain teams can jack them out. Certain teams can prevent them. Certain teams can do both. Either way, the data shows the same conclusion. A team will only go as far as the ball travels.

P.S.: First time I've ever made a graph on Photoshop. Felt weird. And if anyone wants the numbers for every team, let me know.

The red bar is for victories and the blue bar is for losses. In case people didn't realize that.

A question on strikeouts and home runs

2009-09-25T15:09:46Z

I've been reading and hearing a lot in the past few days about Mark Reynolds and his strikeouts being not a big deal, which I agree with (how could you not? The guy has a 131 OPS+ and 125 runs created, so it all must be working), but it does seem counter-intuitive to me to suggest that strikeouts for batters aren't important when they are important for pitchers.

The most compelling case I heard was that his strikeouts are a result of increased bat speed, which also led to more home runs (43), so asking him to cut down on his strikeouts would cut into his homers, and then he wouldn't be that good.

If you take a look at, for example, 2008 Bobby Abreu who hit only 20 home runs but struck out only 109 times while compiling a 120 OPS+ and creating 119.5 runs, it seems to me like while Reynolds is more valuable, he isn't that much more valuable. My question then is could there or is there a "break even" point between strikeouts and home runs - that is, could you say "as long as you hit X homers per plate appearance, you can strike out Y times per plate appearance"?

1b	0.25
2b	0.50
3b	4.00
ss	2.00
lf	0.70
rf	1.30