Beyond the Box Score

No Pepper

2009-12-18T21:34:08Z

Texas Leaguer's PITCHf/x tool is something you should add to your bookmarks right now. My jaw dropped at the spray charts.

Hey, check it out! Erik Manning is writing for the world-wide leader! Just for fun, I'll pick nits and say that even with all the home runs, Bonds was actually better in '04 than he was in '01

Jim Caple on the guys who lobby the HOF voters. Yes Lederer is in there.

Connie Mack + Vin Scully = all of baseball history. They both made their debuts in Washington, oddly enough.

Erik Hahmann turns the tables on Carson Cistulli. Read at least to the answer about the Royals.

Jonah Goldwater says Jason Bay is acting like a drunk guy in a game theory experiment. Or maybe he's acting like the sober guy? In any event, it's bad.

Derek Jeter is the best leadoff hitter in baseball. Let Patriot count the ways...

Seattle "JackZ" Another Customer, Allegedly Swaps Silva for Bradley

2009-12-18T18:01:32Z

More photos » by Charles Rex Arbogast - AP

Chicago Cubs right fielder Milton Bradley reacts after he tossed the ball into the bleachers after he caught a fly ball hit by Minnesota Twins' Joe Mauer for the second out of the eighth inning of an interleague baseball game, Friday, June 12, 2009 at Wrigley Field in Chicago, This should not happen in his new home of Seattle, as Ichiro or Gutierrez will just end catching the ball before it hits the stands anyway. (AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast)

Browse more photos »

(Note: Aha, see what I did there with the title? Aren't I grand with the humor? Speaking of humor...)

Here's the relevant source regarding what I'm talking about.

I'm going to skip the charade of whipping out the TVC and giving you a nice introduction about Milton Bradley, Carlos Silva, and how Seattle GM Jack Zduriencik has turned around the situation with the Mariners. Instead, I'll say this.

This is a straight-up robbery. There's no reason for such a tragedy to happen. Silva was the largest remaining noose on the Seattle Mariners' collective necks, the sole remaining byproduct from the Dark Ages of Bill Bavasi. Bradley was a positive offensive player (.345 wOBA) in the corners last year. He was a 1 WAR player last year in one of his worst offensive seasons in recent times. Silva struck out 10 batters and walked 11 in 30 innings last season (he also hit three batters). Before that, he was average at best (4.64 FIP for Seattle in 2008, though coupled with a poor defense, it turned into a 6.46 ERA), and horrendous at worst (5.76 FIP in 2006 for Minnesota, when he allowed almost two HR/9).

Silva hasn't pitched well since arriving in Seattle, one of the better pitcher's parks in baseball. He's now moving to Chicago, a hitter's haven in comparison. Bradley is now moving to Seattle, to a fanbase that actually respects his offensive skillset. There is no rumored additional parts to this trade. It's a simple one-for-one, and I think it made everyone outside Seattle cringe a little. I know I did.

Would You Non-Tender Matt Capps?

2009-12-18T17:03:59Z

More photos » by Gene J. Puskar - AP

Get used to seeing Capps in a different uniform.

Browse more photos »

Think fast. The deadline to tender unsigned players a contract is approaching. A key member of your bullpen is coming off a down season. What will you do?

If you're Pittsburgh Pirates GM Neil Huntington, such decisions are part of your job.

If you're talking about the Matt Capps of '07 or '08, that would be very, very difficult to replace. He's probably not somebody we non-tender. The second half of '08 and into '09 ... it's not that hard to replace a reliever with a 5.00 or 6.00 ERA.

With Matt Capps, it seemed to come down to marketability. Seems that the market was impacted by some news leaks.

In that event, Huntington was asked, why was Capps not traded before that, given that the team surely had its internal valuations on him well before the past week or so: "We were working on it, and we had multiple conversations that disappeared when the media report came out.

Huntington was more explicit in his reasoning during a recent MLB.com chat:

The decision to not tender Matt Capps was a difficult decision. While it is obvious Matt's 2009 performance was not his best, we did feel there were indicators that he would have a better season in 2010. The arbitration process aggressively rewards saves, home runs and wins while not always properly accounting for the metrics behind those numbers. Despite wanting to retain Matt and making an aggressive offer that we believed would be at or near his free-agent value prior to the tender deadline, we felt that the risk of an arbitration award at a substantially higher amount was not a good business decision for us. We may be right or wrong on Matt's free-agent value (and his 2010 performance), and we may be right or wrong on the performance of the pitcher(s) and/or player(s) we re-allocate the money toward, but we felt that it was the right move for us. Obviously, we would have preferred to get something of value in trade for Matt, but given his track record beginning in the second half of 2008, his trade value was limited throughout the summer and again this offseason. We wish the best for Matt and are certainly open to retaining him if we are able to find a common ground with his agent.

Emphasis my own. Note Huntington avoids putting blame on the media this time around. At least directly.

I think they made a mistake, and Capps will be valued relief pitcher somewhere in 2010. Why am I so confident that a pitcher the Pirates had no use for is in line for a good job with another club? First, the list of teams in on Capps is quite long. Second, he's not pitching any better or worse now than he was a couple years ago.

PITCHf/x Indicates Little Has Changed

I realize Capps gave up far more walks and home runs than expected in 2009. Results are results. But what is reasonable to expect going forward? I'm not going to project Capps' 2010 line, but I am going to show you that, beneath the surface, the later vintage Capps (using Huntington's parameters) was just as effective as the earlier version.

PITCHf/x gives us pitch-by-pitch data on what the pitcher threw, how fast it went, where it went and what the batter did with it. Further, within Gameday (which includes the PITCHf/x data), we also get batted ball types and a lot more. PITCHf/x started in 2007, but wasn't in every big league park until 2008. Pittsburgh's system came on line in September 2007. This leaves some holes in the data, so keep that in mind. For the most part, I'm not all that interested in the individual pitches. But my analysis starts there and rolls-up into the top line.

The Basics: Capps is, essentially, a three-pitch guy. Fastball, slider and change-up. He throws mostly four-seam fastballs, but also throws a two-seamer. As noted earlier, he also has a cutter.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'll go with three pitches, lumping fastballs together and cutters with sliders:

Fastball: 92 mph; Slider: 85; Change-up: 87

Nothing earth shattering, a fairly typical arsenal featuring reasonable, but not spectacular, power.

Now that we know what he's got, let's split it up. Huntington alluded to a second half decline in 2008. Capps was out of action for a few weeks after the All Star Break, so we can conveniently split his PITCHf/x data (which starts in 2007, and is incomplete for that year) into "before" and "after", and line-up close enough in terms of sample sizes.

Most of these stats are somewhat self-explanatory, but I'll run them down just in case ... strikes are pitches in a two foot wide zone, based on each hitter's own top/bottom zones. Whiffs are misses per swings, chases are swings out of the zone, watches are takes in it, B:CS are umpire calls, GB/LD/FB/PU are Gameday stringer assigned batted ball types, HR/F+L is simply homers per flies+liners, rv100 are run values vs MLB average (2007-2009) per 100 pitches (negative values being better for pitchers), rv100E is the same thing but using batted ball types instead of actual hits/outs - takes away some fielding and park luck, along with contact quality unfortunatly. Neither rv stat I use is park adjusted at the moment, and AL/NL are not separated so apply a mental penalty to NL pitchers.

	Before (742)	After (1025)
Strikes	.584	.590
Whiffs	.167	.189
Chase	.317	.312
Watch	.337	.352
B:CS	1.8:1	1.7:1
GB	30%	42%
LD	21%	17%
FB	40%	34%
PU	9%	7%
HR/F+L	6%	8%
SLGCON	.506	.581
rv100	-1.23	0.24
rv100E	-0.27	-0.56

One could argue Capps was a better pitcher, with poorer luck, in the supposed down swing of the "After" period.

In case you're wondering, fastball velocity was 93.5 "before" and 94.1 "after". I also split Capps' data into 2009 only and 2007/2008. In that case, the sample sizes were nearly identical, as were the performances.

Where To?

The latest news, as of this writing, is about Capps narrowing down the field of suitors:

[R]ighty reliever Matt Capps' agent, who found himself fielding multiple suitors, said Capps will narrow the list to the five most-serious.

By "serious" I'm assuming multi-year offers and opportunities to close. So far, the Nationals are on the list. Given my own loyalties, I would not be displeased with Capps working set-up innings for the Cubs for the next two years, if the price is right.

Yankees Upgrade DH, Replace Matsui with Johnson

2009-12-18T15:43:37Z

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Browse more photos »

Yesterday, the Yankees came to an agreement on a one-year deal with an injury-prone position player turned designated hitter. No, they didn't steal Hideki Matsui Dodgers-Furcal style. Rather, they added another offensive force to their lineup in the form of OBP machine Nick Johnson, coming to an agreement to bring the former Yankee prospect back to the Bronx on for a reported $5.5M.

While the move would initially seem to be a downgrade, given that Matsui showed a surge of power last season, it appears that the Yankees have further fortified an already terrifying lineup by adding one of the best on-base guys of the past decade, a guy with a career OBP of .402. Johnson, 31, was traded to the Expos in the deal that sent Javier Vazquez to New York before the 2004 season, and became one of the best first baseman in the game after the team moved to Washington for the 2005 season. Considering his offensive upside, youth, and cheaper price tag, it appears that the Yankees may have actually have been better off when Matsui signed with Los Angeles.

Injury questions have always been the issue with Johnson, but during the 2005 and 2006 seasons he managed to stay healthy for a total of 278 games, posting 1175 plate appearances. He posted wRC+ marks of 139 and 152, respectively, while playing plus defense at first base. The marks made him a star-level player, as he posted WARs of 4.6 in 2005 and 5.3 in 2006.

In 2007, the injury bug returned and he missed the entire 2007 season while playing only 38 games in 2008. But in 2009 he returned to post 574 plate appearances, posting a .426 OBP and a 130 wRC+. His power showed a major dip, his ISO dropped from .230 in 2006 to .114 in 2009, but that was likely partially a function of a low 6.2% HR/FB. He showed his regular patience at the plate, walking in nearly 18% of his plate appearances. UZR indicates that he's not quite the defender he once was, and the Fan's Scouting Reports seem to agree.

This makes for a good situation in New York, where Johnson should be able to stay healthier as he won't have to play the field, and the Yankees just landed another impact bat for a lineup that's loaded with them. Johnson is likely to see a slight increase in his power production next season (the new Yankee Staidium certainly shouldn't hurt) as he gets fully healthy and his numbers regress back to the mean, making him one of the better hitters in the game, and a solidly above average designated hitter if he can stay healthy.

While Matsui's power surge from 2009 was shocking not a function of the new Yankee Stadium (.462 SLG at home, .567 away), he seems likely for some regression as his 17.0% HR/FB ratio was unusually high, and hitters generally don't show major increases in power when they're 35, at least not since the end of the supposed Steroid Era.

Considering that Johnson is likely to be the better hitter next season, his projections are superior than Matsui's essentially across the board, it appears that the Yankees have made another great move, landing another high-upside hitter for just $5.5M, less than Matsui has reportedly agreed to go to the Angels for. It's the kind of financial hit that the Yankees can take if he gets hurt, and realistically if he's not playing the field then it wouldn't be surprising to see him get a similar number of plate appearances as last season.

With the additions that the Yankees have made this offseason, I'm not sure if there's a better offense in baseball. I wonder how pitchers feel about going against a lineup of Granderson, Jeter, Teixeira, Rodriguez, Cano, Posada, Johnson, Swisher and Cabrera/Gardner.

Did The Orioles Reach On Garrett Atkins?

2009-12-18T11:00:16Z

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Browse more photos »

In addition to Mike Gonzalez, the Orioles have reportedly inked corner infielder, Garrett Atkins, to a one-year deal believed to be in the neighborhood of $4 million dollars. Andy MacPhail is easily one of my favorite GM's after Andrew Freidman, but in a market that has multiple cheaper alternatives, I question the signing of Atkins at $4 million dollars.

It's no secret that Atkins's numbers have declined in each of the last four seasons. It's also not a secret The Rockies have been trying to ship him out of Colorado for quite some time before finally non-tendering him last weekend. After posting a career high wOBA of .410 in 2006, Atkins bottomed out last season and finished with a .291 wOBA. Accompanying that wOBA dip, is a dip in ISO. Once again, after a career high in 2006 of .228, Atkins' ISO was a dismal .116 in 2009. It's true, his HR/FB rate was down around three percent from his normal 10%, but for a player that just recently turned 30, a rapidly declining ISO is not a good sign.

His 2009 BABIP shows there is some regression due for Atkins, but that wouldn't explain all of the power outage. It might produce some more doubles, but hard to see it justifying the major collapse. The good news is Atkins does show a decent batting eye. He will collect a walk nearly 10% of the time while keeping the strikeouts around 15%. Defensively, he is on a rare upward UZR swing for a player headed into his thirties, but a sample size warning; he has played less than 1,000 innings in the field each of the last two seasons.

Much like the Gonzalez deal, the Orioles aren't taking a big risk here; however, is this move really necessary? We know Joshua Bell isn't ready, but I don't see the reason to pay Atkins $4 million dollars to be the stop gap; especially in this market. The going rate on a win in this early market seems to be around $3-3.5 million. Nick Johnson, a likely 2-win player, is about to sign a one-year deal worth around $6 million. For five or six potential wins, the Orioles have spent at least $19 million dollars on Atkins, Gonzalez and Kevin Millwood. That is not much over the market's current rate, still given their likely standing in the division, I don't see the need to pay sticker price in what is shaping up as a buyer's market.

If the Orioles really wanted a corner infielder who could impact them winning the pennant in 2010, this guy is a free agent and can be had for less than $4 million.

Attempting To Understand The Orioles Signing of Mike Gonzalez

2009-12-18T02:14:33Z

More photos » by Tom Mihalek - AP

Browse more photos »

Being a fan of the Rays, I'm used to Yankees and Red Sox being the top competitors in the division. Yet, the Baltimore Orioles are quietly becoming a team that is starting to scare me. Maybe not in the 2010 season, but come 2011 there could be a serious battle from first to fifth in the AL East.

The Orioles have a deal in place to acquire the services of Mike Gonzalez to become their closer. The deal is reportedly for two years and $12 million dollars with incentives that could push it to $16 million. Despite his type-A status, the Orioles first round pick is protected meaning they'll lose a second-round pick for him. While I'm some what confused by the signing, I don't think it is a bad deal.

I do like Mike Gonzalez, although the price tag still might be a bit high. Despite owning some above average seasons, Gonzalez has never crossed the $6 million WAR dollar value. His career high of 1.7 WAR occurred in 2004, and that was many pitches (and DL stints) ago. As is the case with a lot of pitchers, especially ones with injury histories, health is the key.

Between the years 2007-2008, Gonzalez pitched a combined 50.2 innings. He came back strong in 2009 to throw in a career-high 80 games, and racked up a career-high 74.1 innings (way to ease back those relievers Bobby!). His velocity was back to normal, and he struck out nearly 11 batters per nine innings. There isn't much fluke in his 2009 3.51 FIP; the mark falls just marginally lower than his 3.74 tRA and 3.70 xFIP. Talent isn't the question, but how will he respond to such a heavy work load the following year? Personally, I watched Grant Balfour and J.P. Howell seemingly run out of gas at the end of 2009 because of heavier than usual loads in 2008.

I don't follow the O's close enough to know exactly what the plan looks like. From the outside looking in, it seems they are trying hard to field a decent team in 2010, and an even better one in 2011. A few days ago, Dave Cameron talked about the marginal value of a win. For a team on the cusp of a playoff birth, slightly overpaying a Mike Gonzalez type is worth the risk if the potential reward is the difference between win number 93 and number 94. I think we can agree that Baltimore is not at that level. This is why I'm not sure the Orioles necessarily needed to make this kind of move right now.

Worth the Money?

2009-12-17T14:07:01Z

More photos » by Tom Mihalek - AP

Matt Holliday promises to buy Ryan Franklin a razor if the Cardinals pay him $128M. (AP Photo/Tom Mihalek)

Browse more photos »

Editor's note: Please welcome Steve to Beyond the Box Score. You can also find his writing about the Cardinals at Play a Hard Nine. -TBB

Inspired by Neyer's Monday piece on Matt Holliday, I thought now was an appropriate time to take a look at the developing LF market. The top 3 sluggers still available according to Rallys FA Tracker all play the position and have been linked to contracts of varying length/magnitude in recent days. With those rumors in mind I wanted to investigate how likely each player would be to produce surplus value on said contracts. In this particular case I turned to a simple simulation I developed.

Simulation Overview

I originally developed the simulation to look at one year roster construction, with the intent of gauging how likely certain team compositions would surpass various WAR totals; however, the same logic could be applied to looking at the length of a contract instead. I originally posted an article about the simulation at my other digs here. Give that a read if you want some of the details. The cliff notes version is that it's a simple Monte Carlo that takes wOBA and UZR/150 projections, generates a simulated wOBA and UZR/150 from a truncated normal distribution centered on the projections and given a user input SD, and then calculates RAA for offense and defense. After the fact I convert RAA to WAR based on simulated playing time numbers.

Inputs and Assumptions

The age old saying of garbage in garbage out applies to most (all?) simulations, and this one is no different. That being said, this section on the inputs affects the results section way more than the underlying simulation itself. I used CHONE projections for wOBA (calculated off of the 2008 figures published by Tango here) and my own for UZR/150 (available here). For offensive aging I used MGLs newly published aging study (available in its entirety here). As you'll see in the results I used two different aging curves for comparison sake, the traditional delta method applied to 1995-2008, and the delta method applied using JC's playing time restrictions (10 years in the league and 5000 career PA). For defensive aging I leveraged Jeff's previous work. I also ran excursions based on varying playing time/injury assumptions. Each player has a perfect health (PH) run with constituted 625 PA and 115 DGs, and they have an injury run (INJ) that has a 10% chance of losing half a season to injury for each simulation run. If you want to throw stones, now would be the appropriate time...

Results

All of the following charts are the WAR CDFs based on the respective simulation outputs. We'll go in order of increasing contract magnitude, which means leading off we have Johnny Damon, who is rumored to be looking for something in the neighborhood of 3/39M. All of the charts have WAR along the x-axis and ~~probability of achieving at least that WAR~~ on the the y-axis (the more interesting number in this case is 1-p however, as that will be equal to the probability of surplus value). [UPDATE as Justin points out I botched the words here hard core. It is actually the probability that the player will accumulate less than the corresponding WAR. Words on the CDF]

via img32.imageshack.us

I only used one aging curve for Damon as out in the years we're dealing with the difference would be minimal. From the look of these charts 3/39 is a BAD deal (~1% chance of having surplus value) and even 3/30 is only a slightly better idea (~15-20% chance of having surplus value).

Batting second in our lineup of LFers is Jason Bay, rumored to be looking at a 4/60M deal from the Mets

via img682.imageshack.us

Not a pretty picture, with only a ~2% chance of having surplus value. However, there are those out there that think that Bay's defensive number have been hurt by the Monster and/or aren't as bad as they seem. With that in mind, I replaced my projections (-9.5 UZR/150) with those from CHONE (-4) and reran the simulation. Here are the results.

via img706.imageshack.us

While I wouldn't call it a good deal, it would be a little more palatable with a 15-20% chance of having surplus value. Now what happens if we slow the aging curve by using the JC-like aging curve with the better defense assumption (a best case combination).

via img706.imageshack.us

This pushes Bay to a ~25-35% chance of having surplus value. Still not a good deal, but it's the best we'll get with this set of input parameters.

Now on to the biggest money deal, Matt Holliday. When I started this analysis I was working under the 8/128M deal that had been floated around (and referenced in the Neyer article). A smaller 5/80M would only be better for the signing team. First the standard delta method

via img24.imageshack.us

This is a bit shocking to me. I wouldn't have thought that Holliday would have such a good chance to have surplus value (~50-80%), and the JC aging curve only makes it more likely (80-95%).

A lot of his value over the 8 years is tied to his defense, especially relative to the other players we saw, but there is probably enough disagreement about his defensive value to run another experiment. Also of note, the linear decrease I used to age defense never had him "fall off a cliff" over the eight years. With that in mind I altered the aging factor on defense to be less linear over the course of the deal, and reran using the standard delta method. Here's the chart

via img24.imageshack.us

So we're now at 30-50% chance of surplus which is more in line with my gut (not that my gut is worth anything). Even with this more pessimistic (realistic?) prediction, he still offers a better chance to have surplus value than the other two options presented.

Conclusions

If I were a team in need of a LFer (and clearly my favorite team is) I would prefer to snag Matt Holliday at the newly reported 5/80M over either of the other two options. Bay becomes an interesting option only if you are inclined to disagree with UZR (or think Fenway affects UZR), and Damon just isn't very interesting to me at all.

After going through the process on these three guys, I think I like the methodology, but there could be some tweaks on the input side. I know I could do better with aging defense. I mentioned earlier that it was truncated normal, and in that arena I need to be very careful about the upper and lower limits (especially wOBA). Either way, do ya'll think that graphs like these are worthwhile to look at or is are there too many variables to mess with to get a clear picture? I'm all ears (which is an ironic statement considering how long winded my first post here was)

Want to help me plan my baseball class? Topics and Links needed.

2009-12-17T13:33:57Z

I teach at a small university, and this spring I'm going to be teaching a class on baseball. Here's the description I submitted this fall:

Course Title: The Science of Baseball

Description: Perhaps no other sport relies as much on tradition, hearsay, and loud opinion as baseball. But what is gained (or lost) when these claims are examined using a scientific approach? How do hitters watch the ball when it moves faster than human eyes can track? Do clutch hitters exist? Do steroids really help performance, and if not (or even if so) should they be banned? Why does a MLB bench player earn 10 times more money than a teacher? We will discuss these and other questions in light of studies from the exercise physiology, psychology, economics, and "sabermetrics" literature.

So, it's not a "sabermetric" class per se. But a big part of what we're going to do will be sabermetrics.

Given that next semester starts in a month and, beyond this description, I basically haven't started prepping the class, it's time to start putting together a battle plan. And I thought this might be where you folks could help.

More below the jump.

Background on the course

This class is being offered as part of our general education program. Each student at our university must take a 2-credit colloquium during their freshman year. Typically, these classes are based on professors' pet interests. This year, in addition to my baseball class, there's a class on the Twilight Saga, the works of C.S. Lewis, mankind's sense of invulnerability, etc.

Classes are small (15-20 students, max) and are designed to be discussion-oriented (lectures should be minimal). My class filled up quickly (popular, though admittedly not as popular as the Twilight class...but then, I doubt any class in campus history has been), so I can hopefully anticipate that most people took the class because they like baseball...though some might have taken it because it fits their schedule. However, I can assume very little in the way of basic math skills, much less background in sabermetric concepts.

Grades will be determined by a) a research paper, which can be either a novel study that a student does, or a review paper on a specific topic, b) "entry slip" writing assignments responding to each day's assigned readings, and c) participation in the class discussions.

Goals

My primary goal in the class is to have students practice using a scientific approach to advance their understanding of something (in this case, baseball). And, in my mind, that comes down to using logic and data as the basis for forming opinions, rather than other "approaches." It sounds simple, but this is a remarkably underdeveloped skill among many students entering (and even leaving!) college. A secondary goal is to get students up to date in modern research about baseball. I don't need them to be researchers, but they should be able to read Hardball Times or FanGraphs, for example, and understand what's going on. As a tertiary goal, this course designed is to permit me to play around with baseball all semester while simultaneously having a legitimate claim that I'm doing "work." :)

How you can help (should you be inclined to do so)

I have assigned two books (Bridging the Statistical Gap by Seidman & the Physics of Baseball by Adair), and we are definitely going to work through major parts of those books to start the semester. However, I would also like to generate a large list of topics from which students can choose so that we can target the class to their specific interests. Furthermore, for each topic, I'd like to get together a set of good readings--be they book chapters, journal articles, or online articles--that address the topic, ideally from several different angles (or in ways that come to different conclusions).

I've started this below. I've spent time on it, but it's still preliminary. I'd very much like suggestions for additional topics, as well as and especially links to good articles on topics. I'd especially like a) links to groundbreaking original articles (methods papers, etc) that are a cornerstone of our understanding of specific topics, and b) links to especially good, readable, and influential articles summarizing findings on specific topics (i.e. good review papers). Recent applied stuff might also be interesting to provide methods-in-practice examples, but for the most part, I want to go after the original, influential papers. As long as they're readable.

If this list turns out to be a resource that folks find useful, I may turn it into a small website of its own. Many thanks in advance!

NOTE/UPDATE: If the topic list is too large/intimidating to work through in entirety, please think about your "pet" interests and then focus on those items as you look skim through the bigger list. Not everyone can be an expert on everything!

Potential topic list

Baseball physics, biology, and psychology

How can we describe the different pitches that are thrown?

Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, excerpts from each pitch type.
I'd love to include some good pitchf/x stuff here, but I haven't kept up. Any nice, current primers? John Walsh had a good one early on at THT. Anything more recent?
Hardball Times 2009 by Fast (cliff lee turnaround; good example piece)

Why do breaking pitches break?

Physics of Basball by Adair, chapters 1,2,3,4

How do hitters make contact with a baseball (neuroscience-wise)? What happens when the ball hits the bat (physics)?

Psychology of Baseball by Stadler, chapter 1,2
Physics of Baseball by Adair, chapters 1,2,3,5,6

How do fielders track down fly balls?

Psychology of Baseball by Stadler, chapter x.
Physics of Baseball by Adair, chapter 7.

Myth, or Reality?

Do players go through hot & cold streaks?

Psychology of Baseball by Stadler, chapter 5 & 6
The Book by Tango et al, chapters 1 & 2
Cameron: http://ussmariner.com/2007/08/20/projecting-future-performance/

How valuable are batter/pitcher matchup numbers? And other small sample size questions.

The Book by Tango et al, chapters 1, 3
Baseball Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 9-2
Bridging the Statistical Gap by Seidman, chapter 4
Regression by Studeman: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/but-i-regress/
Regression by Wyers:http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-one-about-sample-size/ and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/content/article/whats-past-is-prologue/ and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/why-does-pujols-regress-to-the-mean/

Do clutch hitters exist?

The Book by Tango et al, chapters 1,4
Baseball Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 1-2
Bridging the Statistical Gap by Seidman, chapter 6

How did steroids affect the on-field game of baseball? Did they?

Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 9-1.
The Baseball Economist by Bradbury, chapter 9

Fielding isn't really that important, is it?

Moneyball by Lewis, chapter 6 (the thing about Damon vs. Long)
Tango: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/tom_ay_to_tom_ah_to_j_ee_ter_pol_ah_nco/
Cameron: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/morgan-dunn
Brackenthebox: http://www.vivaelbirdos.com/2009/12/9/1192894/a-run-scored-vs-a-run-saved

Are scouts being replaced by statistics?

Moneyball by Lewis, chapter 2 (draft board discussions)
Baseball Between the Numbers by BPro, "extra innings" by Perry
The Baseball economist by Bradbury, chapter 11
Something on the Fan Scouting Report, maybe my thing: http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/10/player-value-part-3b-comparing-of.html
Perry: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2250

Do umpire strike zones really vary all that much?

Could use some help here. I know there's been stuff on this, I just haven't kept up on it.

Speed guys add as much value with their legs as power guys do with their bats, right?

Anyone have a good article on this? Ideally using something like Dan Fox's EqBRR? I think John Walsh might have done some speed stuff at some point along with his arms stuff...? I don't want to just do SB's, it's gotta be all baserunning.

Players today just aren't as good as players in the past.

Between the Numbers by BPro (Silver's article has flawed methods, but good discussion)
THT Annual 2008(?) by Gassko (All-time pitcher rankings, adjusted for era difficulty)
Dan Fox: http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2007/08/ankiel-and-bressler.html and http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5813 (subscription wall)

Evaluating Value

Why can't we just judge hitters on AVG/HR/RBI?

Baseball Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 1-1
Bridging the Statistical Gap by Seidman, chapter 1
Posnanski: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/11/20/batting-average-home-runs-rbis/
Posnanski: http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/03/09/statheads-and-true-wins/
Moneyball by Lewis, chapter 6
BLee from RR: http://www.redreporter.com/story/2007/7/13/0523/81591
Cameron: The Joy of wOBA: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-joy-of-woba/
Perry: Measuring offense: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2562&mode=print&nocache=1199295193

Why can't we just judge pitchers by W/L record, ERA, or save totals?

Bridging the Statistical Gap by Seidman, chapters 2, 3, 8
McCracken: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=878
MGL DIPS Revisited: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2004-02-29_0/
Wyers on DIPS: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/moving-past-dips/ and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/a-second-look-at-situational-pitching/

How can we assess a player's fielding?

My crap: http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/10/player-value-part-3a-fielding.html and http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/10/player-value-part-3b-comparing-of.html and http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2007/11/player-value-part-3c-fielding-catchers.html
Fielding Bible by Dewan and James, "chapters" 2 & 3 (Everett vs. Jeter, overview of plus/minus)
MGL's UZR series: http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-14_0/ and http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/lichtman_2003-03-21_0/
Hardball Times Annual 2009, TZ article by Smith
Smith on Total Zone: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/total_zone.shtml
Shane Jensen & SAFE: http://stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~stjensen/research/safe.html
THT Annual 2008 by Tango ( WOWY Jeter)

How can we best estimate a players impact on scoring runs? Winning?

Tango: OPS isn't good enough: http://www.tangotiger.net/archives/artOPS1.shtml and http://www.tangotiger.net/archives/artOPS2.shtml
Patriot: Audacity of OPS: http://walksaber.blogspot.com/2007/08/audacity-of-ops.html
Run Estimators by Patriot: http://gosu02.tripod.com/id104.html and http://gosu02.tripod.com/id108.html and http://gosu02.tripod.com/id16.html and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/bases-and-outs-ad-nauseum/
Run Estimation by Wyers: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-are-little-runs-made-of/ and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/has-mauer-hit-better-than-teixiera-part-one/ and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-accurately-can-we-estimate-a-hitters-runs-part-2/ and http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/what-are-little-runs-made-of/ and Hardball Times 2010 Annual
Baselines by Patriot: http://gosu02.tripod.com/id77.html
Replacement level by Wyers: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/replacement-level-again/
Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 5-1 (replacement level)
Cameron: Replacement player - http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/2009-replacement-level-right-field
Dave Cameron's Win Value Series: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/glossary/#winvalues
My crap on player value: http://www.basement-dwellers.com/search/label/player%20value
Jong's SABR 101 series: http://fanhuddle.com/statistics/
Studes on WPA: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-one-about-win-probability/
Tango on WPA/LI: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/unleveraging_win_probability
Patriot Talent vs. Value: http://gosu02.tripod.com/id11.html

Judging trades and free agent signings: how much money is that player worth, dollar-wise?

Something on Runs to Wins to $, perhaps by Tango?
Cameron: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/win-values-explained-part-six
Wang in By the Numbers: http://www.philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-11.pdf
Wang: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-bright-side-of-losing-santana/
Wang: Hardball times 2009 Annual
Diamond Dollars by Gennaro, chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8

How much does home park matter? How can we deal with that problem?

Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 8-2
Patriot: http://gosu02.tripod.com/id103.html
HitTracker: http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/home-run-park-factor-a-new-approach/
boobs: http://www.redreporter.com/story/2007/7/12/3244/40014 (I'm not sure I can assign an article by a guy named boobs, but hey, it's a decent overview of basic concepts)
Tango (additive vs. multiplicative): http://www.tangotiger.net/parks.html

How can we evaluate managers?

MGL in Hardball Times 2009 Annual
Gassko in Hardball Times 2008 Annual

How should we decide end-of-season awards? Hall of fame?

Not sure on articles (recommendations?). Discussion would likely involve context-neutral vs. context-sensitive statistics, average vs. replacement baselines, and for hall of fame, peak vs. accumulated value. This might end up being a good way to pitch the player value discussions rather than a topic in and of themselves.

Game strategy

When is sacrifice bunting a good idea?

Baseball Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 4-2. (selected as a contrast to...)
The Book by Tango et al, chapter 1, 9
Red Menace: http://www.redreporter.com/story/2007/7/14/16325/3787 (readable, less depth)

Can we really just use win expectancy to answer our baseball strategy questions?

The Book by Tango et al, chapter 10 (bluffing in baseball)
Any other good game theory articles, especially ones not about sac bunting?

How can we best use our relievers?

The Book by Tango et al, chapter 8
Baseball Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 2-2

What is the best way to make out a lineup?

Baseball Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 1-3
The Book by Tango et al, chapter 5

Team-level analysis and front office strategy

This part could definitely use expansion, both in topics and article.

How can we best estimate team winning percentages?

Patriot on pythagenpat: http://gosu02.tripod.com/id69.html
Intro to the power rankings (incomplete): http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/5/27/889905/btb-power-rankings-through-tuesday

Should cities build stadiums for their local sports teams?

Baseball Between the Numbers, chapter 6-2
Anyone know a good original economics paper on this? I think I remember reading something by Zimbalist, but haven't found it yet.

How do teams make money?

Diamond Dollars by Gennaro, chapters 2 & 3
Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 6-1

Do teams cycle?

Between the Numbers by BPro, chapter 8-3
Anything else on this issue?

How do players age?

I'm thinking about using the Bradbury article & the Birnbaum/Tango responses as a way to discuss sampling bias.

General summaries of sabermetric ideas

Dan Fox's sabermetrics 101 post: http://danagonistes.blogspot.com/2004/04/sabermetrics-101.html
Grabiner Sabermetric Manifesto: http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/manifesto.html

Thanks to pur own Michael Jong and his glossary for directly or indirectly providing some of the links on this page. Others were cobbled together from internet searches and my own recollections of important articles.

No Pepper

2009-12-16T22:37:41Z

When I read Geoff Young, I find myself knowing less after I'm done that I knew when I started. And now he tells me that's the whole point? Oh, brother, now I'm really confused. The punchline:

The downside to this type of skepticism is that people often think you are a complete nutjob. Worse, they may be right.

I remain skeptical.

For your daily dose of contrariness, Greg Fertel thinks Brett Garner is more valuable than Jason Bay, even without considering contracts. Oho! Doth my UZR deceive me?

Forecasters, start your engines. The game is afoot for the title of "most accurate." I'm sticking with my tea leaves, thank you very much.

Though it's Insider-only, Tom Haberstroh uses PITCHf/x to rank the game's nastiest pitches. Top three: Lincecum's change of speed (2009 vintage), Mo's cutter, Sabathia's slider (2008).

The logical fallacy of the day is the "all else equal" fallacy. Regression analyses are particularly susceptible to this type of mistake. Ceteris paribus, this is my favorite logical fallacy.

Barton, Ka'aihue Could Be Cheap 1B Options

2009-12-16T18:00:30Z

More photos » by Ben Margot - AP

Browse more photos »

Editor's note: Please welcome Satchel Price to Beyond the Box Score. He comes to us having written for MLB Daily Dish. He'll be contributing regularly, so please make him feel at home. -TBB

Note: This piece was written before the trade sending Brett Wallace to Toronto for Michael Taylor. It's less likely that the Athletics deal Barton now that they dealt away arguably the best 1B/DH prospect in their organization, but they do still need to find playing time for Barton, Fox, Carter and possibly Doolittle, and ideally Fox wouldn't be playing third base everyday.

Even in these depressed economic times, we’ve still seen solid contributors, but not star players, get pretty significant money on the free agent market. When guys like Placido Polanco and Brandon Lyon are getting three-year deals worth $5-6M guaranteed per season, then it becomes quite clear that there are still numerous opportunities for teams to find potential bargains, especially on the trade market.

While neither of the players that I’m about to mention has been openly discussed as being available in trade, presumably each of them could be pried for a reasonable price given that they don’t have established roles on their MLB teams and have competition for their positions going forward. Both players still have trade value, and each one was once a highly regarded prospect and has shown the ability to excel in the upper levels of the minors and/or in the majors. Given the circumstances, it seems likely that they could be dealt for the right price.

We’ll start the off with first baseman Daric Barton of the Oakland Athletics. A top prospect since being a part of the package that landed Mark Mulder in St. Louis, Barton hasn't quite taken hold of the first base job in Oakland as expected. He’s flashed the ability to get on base at a high clip with good gap power and played above-average defense, but he did not impress during an extended stint with the club in 2008.

Barton's biggest flaw has always been a lack of power for someone on his side of the defensive spectrum, but he makes up for it with excellent contact skills and a very developed, patient approach at the plate. Barton, 24, was given the everyday job in Oakland in 2008 and struggled, posting a .226/.327/.348 line (85 wRC+) in 523 plate appearances, but he still posted a strong walk rate, and was pretty unlucky with balls in play and HR/FB rate. He rebounded well in 2009, with a .261/.386/.458 line in 313 plate appearances with AAA Sacramento, and an improved .269/.372/.413 line (112 wRC+) in 192 plate appearances in Oakland.

While it would be unsurprising to see Barton as Oakland’s first baseman on Opening Day 2010, it seems clear that Oakland doesn’t expect him to hold that position long term, considering that top prospects Brett Wallace, Chris Carter and Sean Doolittle all project as first baseman. Currently, Wallace is working at third base, and the latter two are attempting to make transitions to the outfield. Most scouts don’t believe that Wallace and Carter are capable of being adequate defensively anywhere but first base and their bats are essentially ready for the majors, so presumably each will get playing time in Oakland in 2010. Wallace and Carter could play their current respective positions of third base and left field, with Barton at first base, but each would be major liabilities defensively and Oakland likely doesn’t want consistently poor defense behind a young pitching staff.

Considering that the Athletics need to find playing time for Barton, Wallace, Carter, the recently added Jake Fox, and outfielders Ryan Sweeney, Scott Hairston, Aaron Cunningham, Rajai Davis and Travis Buck between six positions (1B, 3B, OF, DH), I would inquire on Barton if I were a GM and I had a hole at first base. I'm not saying that the A's should shop Barton because he'll never be helpful to them, but it's not clear how he fits into their long-term plans and he's a guy that they would presumably consider moving. If Oakland is willing to deal Barton in order to get playing time for more highly touted young players (and they're not exactly a contender in 2010 anyway) Barton could be a great fit for a bunch of teams. He's not the 40-homer masher that you ideally want at first base, but he could definitely be a nice addition for someone with a hole there.

While Barton is likely to be an everyday first baseman in 2010, Kila Ka’aihue of the Kansas City Royals can’t say the same thing for himself. Ka’aihue is a first baseman from a mold similar to that of Barton: very good on-base skills, decent but unimpressive gap power, little value on the basepaths, and solid defense at first base.

Ka’aihue’s best skill is his approach as a hitter, he’s exceptionally patient with a consistent track record of huge walk rates. It seemed that he was in line to share first base and designated hitter duties with Billy Butler for the 2009 season, but GM Dayton Moore preferred to trade for Mike Jacobs from the Florida Marlins, a first baseman with much more power than Ka’aihue but essentially no other skills otherwise. Moore obviously couldn’t help but be tantalized by Jacobs’ combination of poor defense and low walk rates, the same traits that landed Jose Guillen, Willie Bloomquist, Yuniesky Betancourt, Miguel Olivo and others on the same roster of misfits.

While giving up Leo Nunez and about $3M in salary to land Jacobs was a bad move in its own right, blocking Ka’aihue made the move that much worse. In 2008, the season before the Jacobs deal, Ka'aihue posted a .314/.463/.624 line in 376 PA in AA, with a 21.8% walk rate, and a .316/.439/.640 line in 114 PA in AAA, with a 17.4% walk rate.

Clearly, Ka'aihue was ready to get at-bats at the major league level, but the Royals chose to overpay in talent for a power threat that doesn't get on base and can't play defense. Jacobs would post a .305 wOBA and a -0.7 WAR on the season, reinforcing the poor evaluations within Kansas City's front office.

Turning 26 in March, Ka'aihue definitely deserves an everyday shot somewhere, whether that's with the Royals or somewhere else, like Cleveland, San Francisco, Atlanta, or New York. While he wasn't able to repeat his impressive power production and contact ability in AAA in 2009, he still had an impressive eye, with 102 walk and 85 strikeouts in 555 PA, a very impressive 18.8% walk rate and a decent ISO of .181, although that’s far below the .300+ ISO’s he previously posted in the upper minors.

Considering that the Royals essentially have two MLB-ready guys that are only playable at first base or designated hitter, Ka’aihue and Billy Butler, along with two other talented hitters without a clear position in Josh Fields and Alberto Callaspo (assuming that Getz is the everyday second baseman), it seems that Ka’aihue would be readily available if Moore received the right offer.

Numerous reports have already come out regarded potential trades for Callaspo, and it seems clear that the team is prepared to give everyday at-bats to Butler, Getz and possibly Fields, which doesn’t leave much room for Ka’aihue considering his lack of defensive versatility.

Each of these two first baseman haven’t gotten as much hype as other prospects who had more power potential, the ultimate trait of first base prospects, but they have some solid upside and logically should be relatively available. Considering that Adam LaRoche is reportedly looking for a three-year deal worth $31.5M and is essentially a good player for one half of each season, Nick Johnson is still Nick Johnson and that means injury questions galore, and the other options, guys like Jacobs, Ryan Garko, Hank Blalock, Garrett Atkins, Russell Branyan and Chad Tracy, are just flat-out underwhelming, it seems like looking at cheaper alternatives like Barton and Ka’aihue should be pretty popular this winter.

No Pepper

2009-12-15T21:38:44Z

The big news is the three-team trade that will send Roy Halladay to Philadelphia and Cliff Lee to Seattle. Phuture Phillies has a comprehensive look at the deal.

Pitchers & Poets successfully uses the phrase "psycho-transactional chasm" in connection with the trade.

It wouldn't be December without Rich Lederer beating the drum for Bert Blyleven's enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. He reminds us that Bert only has three more shots at Cooperstown.

Larry at Wezen-Ball points us to one of the best new reasons to become a SABR member (discounted memberships available for those younger than 30): access to The Sporting News archives dating back to 1886 [sic].

Blue Jays Trade Michael Taylor to Athletics for Brett Wallace

2009-12-15T19:43:45Z

Michael Taylor will turn 24 on Saturday. Yesterday, he was part of a package sent to the Toronto Blue Jays in exchange for starting pitcher Roy Halladay. Hopefully none of his family or friends went out and bought Blue Jays gear for his celebration, because Taylor is no longer with organization. Instead, he will wear the green and gold of Oakland next season as Toronto swapped him out with "third" baseman Brett Wallace.

Turnaround deals like this involving Billy Beane invoke memories of Moneyball scenes from the past with him edging on Omar Minaya to land some fat third baseman named Youkilis before flipping him to Oakland. Either this swap had been discussed before hand or Toronto worked at rapid pace while Halladay went suit-shopping for his introductory press conference.

As mentioned, Taylor is currently 23 and formerly a Stanford attendee who stands around 6'6" and weighs 250 pounds. Baseball America describes him as "A physical specimen", which is a kind way of saying he sticks out in a crowd of normal folk. The most endearing skill Taylor possesses is his power. In 128 Triple-A plate appearances - small sample, indeed - Taylor's ISO was .209; in 363 Double-A plate appearances it was .236 and even before then, in High-A it was .230. The man has the ability to crush baseballs. Defensively he has a good arm but, like his offensive game, the finer things need developing.

By comparison, the 6'1", 245 pound Wallace is small. Not many things human can make Wallace look small, but Taylor is one of them. Wallace's position is listed at third base, but that seems rather unlikely to be the case. Wallace is supposedly more polished at the plate than Taylor, but I'm not sure how much of that is true. Wallace spent most of last season in Triple-A and had a .203 ISO once joining the Cardinals. Scouts seem to like his plate approach more than Taylor's, but their walk and strikeout rates suggest Taylor does more of the former and less of the latter.

The Jays definitely need some positional players. The question is whether Wallace is a better fit than Taylor, and honestly I'm not sure. If they think Wallace can play an okay third, then fine, but otherwise their roster already holds a DH (Adam Lind) a center fielder who shouldn't play center (Vernon Wells), a corner outfielder (Travis Snider), and a first baseman (Lyle Overbay) and while Taylor would be restricted to the other corner, Wallace should probably only play first.

One thing you can throw out the window about the new Jays front office is any doubts about their willingness to pull the trigger.

Kenny Williams Strikes Again, Trades for Juan Pierre

2009-12-15T18:34:02Z

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Los Angeles Dodgers' Juan Pierre struggles to punch a 90 MPH fastball past the pitcher in the seventh inning of a baseball game against the Colorado Rockies in Denver on Monday, May 25, 2009. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

Browse more photos »

Remember when Juan Pierre used to be good? I do. As a Marlins fan, I remember him being an amazing asset to our 2003 World Series team. He was fast, covered a lot of ground in center field, and consistently hit .300 or better.

I was right and wrong back then. Pierre was never a great hitter, though his baserunning and the fact that he had a solid OBP around .360-.370 kept him around the league average when he was with the Marlins. He did cover ground in center field, but he had one of the worst arms in baseball, and he still does. Overall, back in the day, he had seasons of 4.3 and 3.6 WAR for the Marlins before dipping below average in 2005. He had a fine season for the Cubs in 2006, though he did not hit at all for them. Then he signed with the Dodgers and bottomed out, offensively and defensively.

What's the point? Well, Pierre doesn't project for much this season, even after a "renaissance" season filling in for Manny Ramirez. But Chicago White Sox GM Kenny Williams seems to think that this is the Pierre is still in his 2006 form, maybe even his 2009 form, when the reality is that Pierre is probably still the man he was in 2007 and 2008.

It's really simple. Pierre hasn't had a BABIP over .330 since 2004. He put up a BABIP of .331 this season. When we check out his BABIP on batted balls (courtesy of Baseball-Reference) you see that he posted very high averages on grounders and fly balls compared to his career numbers, which more closely match the league averages for 2009. In particular, Pierre's fly ball BABIP was close to .100 better than both his career value and the 2009 average. We often say that faster players can expect better BABIP numbers, but we can safely suggest that, no matter how fast you run, you cannot outrun a fly ball play. To be fair, Pierre also posted career lows in terms of line drive BABIP, down to .574 from his career .704 average. Those two may indeed even themselves out; according to B-R, Pierre has hit almost the same number of fly balls and line drives over his career. Still, this leaves us with the difference between his career .239 BABIP on ground balls versus a .286 BABIP from 2009. I'd hedge my bet on a return to the .239 BABIP.

The rest of Pierre's offensive skillset remains the same. I don't think the BtB reader needs to be reminded that no-power, no-patience speedsters have very little offensive value. The brunt of Pierre's worth would have to come from his defense, and he is not exactly Ichiro in that respect.

(Funny side note on Ichiro. Clearly, he is the best player with Pierre's limited skillset. Ichiro's best offensive season, likely the offensive limit for players of this type, was 2004, when he posted a .378 wOBA according to FanGraphs and was worth 35 runs better than average. Suzuki's worst offensive seasons were in 2005 and 2008, when he posted BABIP's of .316 and .334 and wOBA's of .336 and .339 respectively. If we look at his second worst season, 2008, it compares quite well with Pierre's 2009, which according to wOBA was his second best season. Just thought it was an interesting comparison. Carry on.)

Pierre has a noodle of an arm. Over his career, he's been worth -44 runs on defense with his arm alone. This was part of the reason he was moved from center field, where he regularly posted -6 to -8 runs a season with his arm, to left field. Pierre still covers decent ground in the outfield, but that question really depends on where Pierre will be played. If he is kept in left field, he could remain a positive for the White Sox in the field. BtB's own Jeff Zimmerman projects Pierre at +3 runs / 150. Sean Smith has his own projection of +6 runs in the time that it would take for Pierre to rack up 502 at-bats. This is the most likely occurrence, as I believe Pierre will be pegged to move to left field, bumping Carlos Quentin to the DH spot.

Giving Pierre a projected wOBA (as more or less projected by the Fans and Bill James, it would seem) of .311, with a league average of .330, makes Pierre worth around -9.5 runs offensively in 600 PA. If that passes as 150 games (which I doubt he would get to), the modest Zimmerman projection of +3 runs in that time period yields 6.6 Runs Above Replacement, or 0.7 WAR. And that's if Pierre plays 150 games. Considering that Pierre is still owed $10M this season and $8.5M the next and, well, you figure out what's wrong with giving up anything for the privilege of his play.

The 2010 Hall of Fame Ballot, Graphically

2009-12-15T12:00:40Z

The induction class for the 2009 Hall of Fame will be announced on January 6th. While Erik already looked at the most attractive new candiates for the Hall of Fame, I thought I'd take a tour through most of the rest of the ballot. Like Erik, I'll be using a mainstay graphical tool here at BtB, the WAR graph. The Excel template I threw together to make these figures can be found here.

In all graphs, we're plotting Rally's WAR for individual seasons ranked best to worst. The "HoF Zone" is a range that spans from the average Hall of Famer (specific to either pitchers or hitters) down to the 20th percentile Hall of Famer. Thanks to Sky Kalkman (the inventor), Jeff Zimmerman, Tom Tango, and Dave Studeman for driving the development of this graphical approach.

Let's start with pitchers, because there aren't as many on the ballot and the story is pretty straightforward.

There is absolutely no excuse for Blyleven to not receive unanimous support for the Hall. But you knew that.

Kevin Appier is the surprise to me, though. He's gotten very little attention in his first year of eligibility, but his 10 best seasons seem extremely worth of hall of fame consideration. In fact, his peak three years rate as above-average compared to hall of fame pitchers. He deserves consideration.

Jack Morris is the guy who will probably get a lot more attention than Appier. He's close, but at best, he's in the 15th percentile or so of Hall of Famers. Given all of the other eligible candidates who were much better that this, I tend to think that this isn't good enough.

Pat Hentgen had one really nice season. Lee Smith was a closer...I'm not sure if this is the best way to evaluate a closer, but it certainly doesn't make him impressive. Mike Jackson's line, not shown, is similar to Smith's.

Position players are below the jump

There are a lot of position players on this year's ballot, as is typical. I've opted to break them down into three sets of five. Here are the top five, to my eye.

This graph is admittedly kind of a mess. But the key point I'd emphasize isthat all five players are more or less in or above the Hall of Fame zone throughout most of their careers, meaning that their seasons rank very favorably with other already-inducted Hall of Fame players. There's enough criss-crossing that I wouldn't argue with any ranking of these players. I tend to put the most value on the top-10 seasons, and up-weight the top-5 seasons relative to others. So, for what it's worth, I'd put them: Alomar, Trammell, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire. But Alomar could just as easily be ranked last of the five.

Barry Larkin was my favorite player growing up, and so I've spent some time arguing his very strong case elsewhere. The only guy among these five that I think one could have a legitimate issue with is Mark McGwire, and it's entirely dependent on how you weight the steroid issue. To me, the steroid issue is one to focus on moving forward (prevention and abolition). But given all the uncertainty regarding how much of an effect performance enhancing drugs actually have on performance, and the fact that we probably still do not know a major fraction of the players who actively made use of the drugs, my preference is to not factor it into decision making...except perhaps as a tiebreaker.

Here are the next five:

Given all the hoopla surrounding his candidacy, I actually expected Tim Raines to look better than he does. I still think he's a good candidate and deserving of induction, but he's a below-average hall of famer. That's not a bad thing.

The other four--Murphy, Mattingly, Parker, and Dawson--are interesting in that they all peaked well, but fell off badly once you get past their five or so best seasons. My feeling is that Mattingly didn't peak high enough, and Parker fell away too quickly to deserve induction. Dawson and Murphy are borderline cases. Murphy had the better peak, posting above-hall of fame average numbers over his best three seasons. Dawson had better longevity. As I write this, I'd probably give Murphy the nod and not Dawson, but tomorrow I might go the other way, whereas two days later I might say neither or both should get in. I really don't know.

Here are five of the remaining hitters. Others, like Todd Ziele and Eric Karros, aren't shown as there's just no case to be had.

Ellis Burks looks a lot like Pat Hentgen--one really spectacular season, while the rest of his career is squarely in the Hall of Very Good. Robin Ventura hasn't gotten much attention, but he's basically skirting the 20th percentile of Hall of Famer's at the bottom of the HoF Zone. I'd probably say that he's very close, and better than some guys already in the hall...but that he's wouldn't quite get my vote. Baines played forever thanks to the DH, but was never a good enough player at his best to warrant consideration (yes, the DH hurts him here). Finally, Ray Lankford and Andres Gallaraga serve as nice examples of players that aren't really candidates for the Hall of Fame, but nevertheless had fine careers and should be celebrated.

Maybe I'm a big hall kind of guy, but my ballot would look like this: Blyleven, Alomar, Trammell, Larkin, Martinez, McGwire, Raines, Appier, Murphy. In that order. And maybe Dawson too.

Reward Retrospective: The 2007 National League MVP

2009-12-15T00:15:19Z

In our previous Reward Retrospective article, Erik Manning discussed the last time the NL Cy Young award was as close as it turned out. Today, I wanted to talk about another race in another year that was fairly close, though perhaps not involving the right players.

But first, I wanted to point out something of interest to me. The Baseball-Reference Play Index may be one of the coolest tools on the net if you're a baseball nerd like me. If you're like me and are too lazy/lack the computing power to tinker around merrily with a Retrosheet database, the Play Index is made just for you. One of the cool functionalities of the PI is the ability to make lists of individual player seasons using various criteria of your choice. This allows you to make up your own "clubs," if you will.

For example, everyone knows about the 40-40 club, consisting of the four players who have hit forty home runs and stolen forty bases in one season. But do you know about the other 40-40 club, consisting of players with over 40 doubles and 40 steals in a season. There are 30 such players in the time between 1901 and 2009. I figured this isn't exclusive enough. How about the 50-50 club, comprising of the two players who had over 50 doubles and 50 steals in a season.

The two player seasons were Tris Speaker's 1912 season and Craig Biggio's 1998 season. According to Rally's Historical WAR database, Speaker was worth 11 WAR that season, an impressive season indeed. Biggio's 1998? Worth 6.6 WAR, according to the database. No small feat, but no 11-win one either.

What's the point? Well, even though these seasons are the only ones in the illustrious 50-50 club, the two are not created equal. Which brings us to another illustrious club that consists of only one member, the 2007 season of Jimmy Rollins.

The 2007 NL MVP

First, here is the award voting for the top ten recipients, as it went down that season.

			Voting Results
Rank		Tm	Vote Pts	1st Place	Share
1	Jimmy Rollins	PHI	353.0	16.0	79%
2	Matt Holliday	COL	336.0	11.0	75%
3	Prince Fielder	MIL	284.0	5.0	63%
4	David Wright	NYM	182.0	0.0	41%
5	Ryan Howard	PHI	112.0	0.0	25%
6	Chipper Jones	ATL	107.0	0.0	24%
7	Jake Peavy	SDP	97.0	0.0	22%
8	Chase Utley	PHI	89.0	0.0	20%
9	Albert Pujols	STL	50.0	0.0	11%
10	Hanley Ramirez	FLA	49.0	0.0	11%

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 12/14/2009.

The votes were fairly close that year. Rollins snuck past Matt Holliday by less than 20 points in total. As usual, let's take a look using our typical nerdy value measurement, WAR, to see if this order holds any water. First, we'll take a look at values from Rally's Historical WAR database.

Rank	Player	Batting	Bsr	Defense	PosAdj	RepAdj	WAR
1	Jimmy Rollins	16	7	11	8	19	6.1
2	Matt Holliday	45	2	15	-8	18	7.2
3	Prince Fielder	44	-3	-11	-10	18	3.8
4	David Wright	49	5	3	2	18	7.7
5	Ryan Howard	26	-3	-5	-9	17	2.6
6	Chipper Jones	56	0	6	1	15	7.8
7	Jake Peavy	--	--	--	--	--	6.2
8	Chase Utley	37	3	8	3	15	6.6
9	Albert Pujols	51	-2	25	-10	18	8.3
10	Hanley Ramirez	41	4	-14	7	18	5.6

To be fair, I also included FanGraphs WAR data for your perusal. The baserunning column in the following table only includes non-steal baserunning, from Baseball Prospectus' Equivalent Baserunning Runs (EqBRR).

Rank	Player	Batting	Bsr	Defense	PosAdj	RepAdj	WAR
1	Jimmy Rollins	28.6	3.4	6.6	7.5	25.9	7.2
2	Matt Holliday	49.9	3.4	14.2	-7.4	23.8	8.4
3	Prince Fielder	49.0	-1.4	-8.8	-12.3	22.7	5.0
4	David Wright	55.5	0.4	4.9	2.5	23.7	8.8
5	Ryan Howard	33.5	-5.0	0.2	-11.1	21.6	3.9
6	Chipper Jones	52.0	0.4	-1.4	1.4	20.0	7.3
7	Jake Peavy	--	--	--	--	--	6.1
8	Chase Utley	44.2	1.8	15.7	1.9	20.4	8.5
9	Albert Pujols	49.3	0.5	18.8	-12.2	22.6	7.9
10	Hanley Ramirez	49.7	0.3	-19.2	7.0	23.5	6.2

Obviously, both these tables contain slight differences between each other, one of which being the difference in replacement adjustment. Each has its own leaders at the top of the list, though the bottom seems to be more or less agreed upon. One thing that we can assuredly tell from both tables is that Rollins made off like a bandit in this MVP race.

In both lists, Rollins ends up 7th in Rally's WAR and 6th in "FanGraphs/EqBRR WAR". ahead of only Hanley Ramirez, Prince Fielder, and Ryan Howard in Rally's estimates and also ahead of Jake Peavy in FanGraph's work. For the sake of ease of comparison, let's eschew Peavy from the argument and compare only position players, since replacement level for pitchers is more widely in debate. Among the nine position players in the list, Rollins ranks last in offensive runs, more than outstripped by everyone other than Howard, who still held a healthy lead in offensive runs.

Rollins was the best baserunner among these players, not surprisingly, and his total defensive contribution when including position was good to lead or be very close to the lead (depending on defensive system) for all nine position players as well, with only Albert Pujols and Chase Utley close to competing. However, these margins were on the order of a combined ten runs above average at most, not nearly enough to compensate the difference between Rollins' 16-28 runs above average and Holliday's 50 runs.

So why did he win?

Unlike many MVP races, the taint of the "RBI leader" is not affecting this one; Rollins only had 94 RBIs that season, less than every competitor on the list other than Ramirez and Peavy. And sure, while Rollins' reputation with the glove was always good, it's doubtful that it could have been so valuable to BBWAA voters; it's more likely that they pretty much nabbed him as the best or among the best defenders in the game that year.

So what made the difference? It clearly could not be the high quality of his bat. As you saw, Rollins had the lowest offensive runs above average total among all the players, and even using a more traditional batting line would agree with that assessment. That season, Rollins batted .296/.344/.531, good for a .875 OPS that was significantly lower than the OPS of each other position player considered. The next lowest OPS was Ramirez's .943.

Ah, but perhaps rather than a rate, a certain set of counting stats was the reason for Rollins' victory. And that's where the illustrious 30-20-30-30 club comes in. Rollins became the only player in the history of the game to hit at least 30 doubles, 20 triples, 30 home runs, and steal 30 bags. He also became the fourth player in the 20-20-20-20 club of 20 of each of those counting stats. The other four seasons were Willie Mays' 1957, Frank Schulte's 1911, and Curtis Granderson's 2007. Of course, the fact that all of these players made this list says nothing about the individual performance of their seasons. Mays' 1957 was worth 57 runs above average according to Rally's database, far and away blowing out Rollins' 16 runs.

I will not get into who deserved to win the award, though certainly Chase Utley, David Wright, Albert Pujols, and Matt Holliday were in the running. However, I can say that Rollins' 2007 season, while great and certainly one of the best of his career, should not get any more credit than it deserves because it placed him in a certain exclusive "club." Ultimately, the job of position players at the plate is not to hit a certain number of doubles, triples, or home runs, and it is not to steal a certain number of bases, but rather to contribute runs. No matter how pretty a 30-20-30-30 club sounds (and even saying it doesn't sound that good), if it does not contribute more runs than a standard 40 HR, 1.000+ OPS season, then it is not more valuable despite its novelty.

No Pepper

2009-12-14T22:40:15Z

An interesting take on Mark Teixeira's effective use of an uppercut swing, by Jonas Fester. I think the reason guys like Teixeira and Howard get away with it is because of how quick their wrists are.

Wezen-Ball looks back at one of the iconic baseball card series, the Donruss Diamond Kings. I loved my Darren Daulton 1993 Diamond King card as much as a boy can love anything. Find it, and all the others, here.

David Appelman has unveiled wRC+ on Fangraphs. It's lean, it's mean, and it includes baserunning and park adjustments. Here's the career leaderboard. Did you know Mario Mendoza ranks below Eddie Cicotte?

DanUpBaby at VEB has another excellent dramatization, this time about the non-tenders. Let's just say it features Charon, the ferryman of the River Styx.

This BBTF discussion features a link to a fascinating article that drills down into offensive distribution to see the effect on the Pythagorean expectation. You can also find other links on the same topic in the comments at BBTF. Even if the territory has been trod before, I found it interesting nonetheless.

Blue Jays Acquire...John Buck.

2009-12-14T22:15:08Z

More photos » by Ed Zurga - AP

Browse more photos »

The Blue Jays finally made their move. Oh I don't mean the rumored earth shattering blockbuster that involves two of the Major Leagues top 10 pitchers in Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay. I mean signing John Buck to a one-year deal worth $2 million dollars.

Less than a day after being non-tendered by the Royals, Buck will likely be the backstop on most days for the Toronto squad. Buck was non-tendered in part to the Royals signing of Jason Kendall, who was given a $3 million dollar annual salary from the Royals over two years. Why the older, more expensive Kendall over Buck? That's just Dayton Moore.

Buck isn't an offensive dynamo, but has flashed some power (.171 career ISO). He did have a .332 wOBA during limited action in 2009 (202 PA) mostly due to his power. Overall, he compares well with the recent group of catchers, who have signed for two-year deals at a greater guranteed paycheck.

Defensively, I haven't heard much about Buck being a butcher behind the plate and his ~26% caught stealing percentage is just below Kendall's 27%. Of course he isn't as gritty, or as veteran-ny as Kendall, so that probably justifies the $4 million more in guaranteed money as well as the six-year difference in age. Just proof that the hopes for a replacement level team in Kansas City is still alive.

No Pepper

2009-12-13T16:04:40Z

MGL joins the aging fray with a 20 page PDF. He tries many different methods, including correcting for survivor bias by using "phantom" seasons. If you just want the punch line, he comes down on the peak age at 27-28 side.

Tim Dierkes has a list of the most interesting non-tenders. I was entirely unaware that anyone called Mike MacDougal "Mac the Ninth," but I find it very amusing. (Thanks to Jesse Spector.)

The love letters to non-tendered players are streaming in. Here's R.J. on Gabe Gross, WHYGAVS on Matt Capps, McCovey Chronicles on Ryan Garko, and Lookout Landing on Ryan Langerhans. Just read the last paragraph of Jeff's Langerhans post.

Russell's paradox as applied to the speed of Rickey Henderson. We can be certain that no one steals more bases than Rickey.

BONUS: Rich Lederer unveils the Baseball Analysts podcast.

Grudge Match: Burnett vs. Lackey

2009-12-12T11:00:29Z

More photos » by Jae C. Hong - AP

John Lackey recently compared himself favorably to A.J. Burnett. The comparison is closer than you might think. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Browse more photos »

From the "Yeah, and I'd Like a Pony" files, John Lackey has said he would like to receive a deal that exceeds A.J. Burnett's in both yearly salary and length. Last offseason, Burnett signed a five-year, $82.5MM deal with the Yankees, which pays him a cool $16.5MM per year. Exceeding that deal would almost certainly put Lackey into the rarefied $100 million air currently occupied only by C.C. Sabathia, Johan Santana, and Barry Zito.

Many laughed when they heard what Lackey was asking for. But then I looked at the numbers, and that's when the comparison began to seem apt.

Burnett is nearly two years older than Lackey, so when Burnett signed his contract he was about nine months older than Lackey would be at a comparable time. Give a slight advantage to Lackey on that count.

Next, the numbers. I have compared their careers up to the offseason in which they sought the big deal. Here are the results:

	IP	K	BB	IBB	HBP	HR	FIP
Burnett	1376.3	1278	568	23	60	122	3.81
Lackey	1501	1201	441	19	73	151	3.90

Lackey has pitched more innings, but Burnett had a slightly better FIP. Some of this is attributable to their home stadiums. While Lackey has toiled in the approximately neutral stadium in Anaheim, Burnett enjoyed the wide open spaces in Florida, and to a lesser extent, Toronto. But often career numbers can be misleading--they overinclude data that aren't particularly relevant to the comparison at hand. So what about a weighted average (5-4-3, natch) of the three seasons leading up to the deal?

	IP	K	BB	IBB	HBP	HR	FIP
Burnett	181.3	184	68	2	10	19	3.78
Lackey	184	146	46	1	10	20	3.94

Burnett starts to distance himself from Lackey a little bit. Neither was the paragon of perfect health, although Burnett was likely helped by his 224 inning campaign in 2008 and durability that it showed. Burnett struck out and walked more batters. Another advantage Burnett has over Lackey is his ratio of ground balls to fly balls, with the latter besting the former by a margin of 1.55-1.21 for their careers.

Other than those minor differences, however, these pitchers are very similar. Should Lackey get more money than Burnett? No, I don't think so. But you never get what you don't ask for, so Lackey (or perhaps more accurately, his agent, Steve Hilliard) made a wise comparison and then tacked on a little bit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Lackey earn more than $15MM per year, and if he could be had at that price for fewer than five years, I think it'd be a bargain.

The Yankees have met with Lackey and appear unlikely to pursue him. However, given the paucity of front-line starters on the free agent market, he could go to the first team to get frustrated with the Roy Halladay whale hunt.

Royals Sign Jason Kendall To Two Year Contract; Seriously.

2009-12-12T01:40:30Z

More photos » by Morry Gash - AP

Browse more photos »

At this point you have to just assume that the joke is on us. I keep thinking that one day after announcing a terrible move that Dayton Moore is going to move aside and Ashton Kutcher is gonna jump out and say "PUNK'D." Moore's latest prank was giving Jason Kendall a two-year deal that could pay him over $6 million dollars.

One day a GM Manifesto will be released with a list of some of Moore's more ridiculous moves and at the bottom it will read "Do not try this at home." I think he may actually be toying with the theory of fielding a replacement level team just to see if all our WAR estimates were right. For all the good that David DeJesus, Alberto Callaspo, Billy Butler, Joakim Soria and Zack Grienke bring, Moore tries to balance that with Kyle Farnsworth, Bruce Chen, Jamey Wright, Horacio Ramirez, Jose Guillen, Willie Bloomquist, Yuniesky Betancourt, and now Kendall.

Back in the day, you would've been hard pressed to find a more productive offensive catcher than Jason Kendall. In four of his first five seasons, Kendall posted wOBA's over .370. In 1998, his wOBA was .396 and, in just under half a season in 1999, he posted a Mauer-esque .420 wOBA. As recently as 2004, he posted above average offensive numbers, but has done little since. Since leaving the Steel City, he has posted the following wOBA's: .305, .321, .272, .293, .290. He has also failed to post a slugging percentage of over .342 over the same period. For his career, less than 2% of the flyballs he's hit have left the yard.

Being a savvy veteran and having a good reputation have magically earned him over 500 plate appearances in each of those seasons. His latest contract indicates that trend will continue. Moore keeps repeating that all these moves are part of "the Process." Either he just overheard Andrew Freidman use the phrase before, or Moore's process just flat out sucks. After this latest stroke of genius, I'm pretty sure it's the latter.

I often wonder, how is this the same man that re-signed Zack Grienke to a fantastic contract extension last season? I guess that serves as the ultimate example that even a broken clock get's it right twice a day. Actually, Royals fans just wish they had the broken clock instead.