A Couple Things That Annoy Me Pt. 1

With the very aggressive offseason that the Sox have had so far, the wonderful world of sports journalism is all over every move. Of course, this means they are making some pretty stupid arguments and I am starting to get pretty annoyed. I will explain these in a more-than-one-part series I call "Things That Annoy Me."

1.) Julio Lugo vs. Alex Gonzalez

One of the most annoying arguments is that pertaining to one Alex Gonzalez. Gonzalez is poplarly known as perhaps the best defensive shortstop in Red Sox history. So people are not inclined to let him go, particularly for a player like Lugo who makes his fair share of errors. The basic line of thought was nicely summed up by Jackie McMullen during an appearance on NESN. She expressed regret at letting such a "special player" walk, "what happened to last years emphasis on defense," she lamented. There are so many things wrong with this position, but I will break it down into two basic arguments. Firstly, does anyone really think Alex Gonzalez is a better ballplayer than Julio Lugo? No. Well, that is to say that no one who has any idea what's going on thinks that. If you want to question the money they are giveing him, that's one thing, but there's no question that Lugo is a vastly superior player to Gonzalez. Lugo is probably not even that much worse defensively than Gonzalez, has he undeniably has better range. Gonzalez is very steady handed, and rarely makes errors, but Lugo will get to more balls. However, understaning that requires abstraction away from things immediately visible, which most people, particularly those in the business of writing about sports, seem to have a difficult time with.

The second thing I have a problem with here is: when and where did this 'emphasis on defense' happen? I must have missed that. Let's look it over. The Sox had a pretty bad outfield defense, if by pretty bad I mean very bad. McMullen is clearly thinking about the infield defense when making this statement, which admittedly was very good, but you have to consider how it got that way. Mike Lowell was perhaps the best defensive third baseman in the league last year, but he was an accident. Unwanted baggage in the Beckett deal. The Sox took him on because Beckett was good enough to justify it, not because they particularly wanted him. Sure his defense was part of the reason that the deal was deemed worthwhile, but they hardly went out and acquired a glove in that deal. Kevin Youkillis was another accident. Remeber how he was a third baseman, and no one really knew how well he would adjust? They picked up J.T Snow as a defensive replacement becasue they were so unsure. The defensive replacement at first, by the way, goes back to Mientkiewicz in the Nomar deal, and is a practice that arguably wastes a valuable bench spot. Anyway, getting back to my point: he was moved to first out of necessity, and the Sox were lucky that he was good there. Loretta was acquired much more for his bat than his glove, and Pedroia is a good bet to be better in the field than Loretta was.

And finally, we get to the object of Jackie's affection: Alex Gonzalez. Does anyone remember last offseason? Gonzalez was far from the Red Sox first choice at the position, they found thamselves with a hole there late in the offseason and had to plug it. Hence Gonzalez. He was not heralded at the time, and signed a short deal for reasonable money. Let me tell you a secret about why this is the case; Gonzalez is not a particularly remarkable ballplayer. He is decent but he is not a standout. His acquisition was not an intentional move towards defense, it was making the best of a market that, quite frankly, didn't have a whole hell of a lot out there.

So putting it all together, I see no intentional trend towards defense there at all. It just sort of worked out that way. That's not a bad thing, but the point is that acquiring Lugo over Gonzalez is not a change of strategy. It is a move to get a better shortstop, and in fact the best shortstop available this year.

Parity

MLB has talked a lot aout the supposed 'parity' of baseball in recent years, the go-to stat: 7 teams have won the world series in the last 7 years. At first glance, this is an impressive number; no other of the big 4 sports have matched that run of new title holders. However, baseball is different than other sports. It is more random, in any given day a worse team is more likely to win than in other sports. This is reflected in the gruelling 162 game schedule, twice what any other league plays and 10 times the number comprising a football season. the longer season works out random fluctuations and, in the end, does a pretty good job of picking the best team. The playoffs, however, are short. Anything can happen in a 5 or 7 game series. At the most, a team plays 19 playoff games (with a 11-8 record). This is not enough to work out an average. Noone is worried if thoeir team is in last place after 19 games, and noone is particularly excited if their team starts 11-8 (granted, there are many games to go, but if the first 19 games were a reliable predictor of the rest of the season, this dismissal would not be justified). So if we do not pick the best team based on the first 19 games, why should we base our choice on the last 19?

Now, even if we accept that the amount of turnover among the best teams in the league will tell us much about parity (a complete analysis of this issue would have to also include turnover amung the worst teams, and the difference in records between these extremes), we would be much better off looking at season record than playoff results. So, here are the top 5 teams by wins over the last 7 years (from ESPN.com):

2006 - (WS: STL)
NYY-97
NYM-97
MIN-96
DET-95
OAK-93

2005 (WS: CWS)
STL-100
CWS-99
NYY-95
BOS-95
ANA-95

2004 (WS: BOS)
STL-105
NYY-101
BOS-98
ATL-96
LAD-93

2003 (WS: FLA)
NYY-101
ATL-101
SFG-100
OAK-96
BOS-95

2002 (WS: ANA)
NYY-103
OAK-103
ATL-101
ARI-98
STL-97

2001 (WS: ARI)
SEA-116
OAK-102
NYY-95
HOU-93
STL-93

2000 (WS: NYY)
SFG-97
STL-95
ATL-95
CWS-95
NYM-94

(I wish Blogger had a better spreadsheet option)

I included the World Series winners each year to demonstrate my point about the randomness of the playoffs. Notice that not once in the last seven years has the World series winner been the winningest team in the league. In fact, in the last seven years, only twice has the WS champion even been in the top 5! Indeed, the playoffs are a very poor indicator of the best teams. Only 8 teams even make the playoffs. It is really remarkable that those 6th-8th teams are responsible for 5 of 7 titles - much worse at picking out the best teams than one would expect even from simple randomness. (What can or should be done about this is another issue entirely. Perhaps it would be best to change the format somehow - lengthen series? play a round-robin round? Even if these were viable options, nothing will be done since this would appear to reduce the parity, as shown below.)

Getting to the meat of the analysis, we can see that 6 different teams have occupied the 9 (ties included) possible spots as the winningest team in the game. This is not too bad, but looking at the top five totals, only 14 teams have occupied the 35 potential spots. The big winners are the Yanks with 6 appearances in the top 5, St. Louis with 5, Oakland and Atlanta with 4, and Boston with 3. These five teams alone count for 22 appearances, almost 2/3 of the possible spots. In a field of 30 teams, this does not seem to represent a great degree of parity to me.

It is kind of hard to know what this really means without the full analysis I mentioned above, and a complete comparison to the same results for the NFL, NBA and NHL, while also balancing for the number teams in the league (i.e. this analysis would appear to signify more 'parity' in a smaller league, as teams are more likely to appear in the top 5 by law of averages). This, of course, is more work than I am willing to do, as I am not paid for this. However, it can at least be said that the annual turnover among the best teams in the league is significantly less than the 7-in-7 championship story implies.

Barry Bonds: The Ultimate Moneyball Pickup?

On of the stories this offseason that seems not to be getting too much attention is the free agency of one Barry Bonds. As the offseason wears on, and the apparent lack of interest from MLB teams continues, Bonds may become one of the best cheap pickups in baseball. Cheap, I say in terms of $/runs created; it is unlikely that he will ever be cheap in a general sense.

Let me put it this way: One of the best hitters ever, very likely the best since Ted Willimas retired 46 years ago, is available but noone seems to care. In these simplified terms this is very surprising, especially considering the FA market we have seen so far this fall. If Bonds slips below the $10M per year mark, he would be an unbeleivable value.

I do not mean to say there aren't concearns about signing Bonds. He is not much of a clubhouse presence cough*STERIODS*cough, he would bring a lot of bad publicity to whomever signs him cough*STERIODS*cough, and he could probably not be counted on to play a full season cough*STEROIDS*cough. But he will hit. And he is closing in on this record that will have fans pooring through the gates. So it is not implausible to say that a small market team in need of some fans could ride the wave through the bad publicity of even associating with the man (if it's a short term deal) and come out better in the end. And on a large market intense media team (say NY and Boston) the added press would not change how things operate in principle (hell, it's not like the yanks havn't dealt with known juicers before), in fact it might even be that Bonds, who is clearly used ot the attention, would take some pressure off of his teamates. This could be valuable in markets where the press can be crushing to more sensitive or conscientious players. And his injury concerns will be reduced if he signs with a team the has an opening at DH.

In the end though, it will be those ungodly numbers he put up at the beginning of the century that will get him a job. He simply needs to find a general manager and ownership that cares mostly about winning, and recognizes the value of signing such a hitter for what will likely be a very cheap deal. I can think of a few teams that might fit the mould, but we will see if anything happens. It may very well be that Bonds has alienated himself from the game enough that not even the Billy Beans and George Steinbrenners of the world would touch him with a 10 foot pole (that is to say, 1 year contract).

Personally, I would not mind to see Bonds disappear without getting a chance to catch Hank Aaron. This would avoid much controversy and a potential PR disaster for the game. I bet Bud Selig agrees and I would not be surprised if he is strongly pressuring teams to stay away from the slugger, thus forcing a de facto retirement with a mere 734 hrs. This may, in fact, be one of the main reasons for the silence on the Bonds front.

Either way, it's an interesting question. I think it also forces one to really think about the steroids issue if you frame it this way: "How would I feel if my team signed Bonds?" If you won't admit you'd be a little excited to see him hit, either you possess great integrity to the game, or you are lying. After all, we all know Bonds juiced, but none of us know who did and did not elsewhere in baseball. By many accounts, it is very plausible that your favorite slugger, who you hold above the likes of Bonds, was sticking needles in himslf too. And he did not put up the numbers Bonds did. I guess that's the point: who knows? Look for an interesting conclusion to this one.

I Feel Like I'm Taking Crazy Pills!

Without even explaining what this post is about I think most of you can figure it out. The free agent market has gone totally nuts. Let me start by saying that I realize that baseball is awash in revenue sharing money and that free agents were bound to get contracts that, by the standards of the past few years, were totally outrageous. However, that didn't prepare me for the stupidity of some of the GMs in major league baseball. This leads me to my new conclusion, one that I should have come to long ago: never, ever, under any circumstances underestimate the stupidity and poor reasoning abilities of GMs and owners.

Let's take apart the two biggest signings so far, one bad and the other nothing less than excrable, and I will explain exactly what is so tremendously idiotic about them. First the bad. The Cubs signed Alfonso Soriano for $136 million over 8 years. This is not the dumbest move I have ever seen but it is pretty dumb. Keith Law put it best: "So, let me get this straight: The team that finished last in the National League in OBP in 2006 (and, not coincidentally, second-to-last in runs scored) with a .319 team mark just signed a left fielder with a .320 career OBP and a .337 OBP in 2006 (both figures exclude intentional walks) to replace a guy with a .365 OBP in 2006." The thing is, Soriano might be worth that much money for a team like the Yankees, Red Sox, White Sox, etc. Teams that already have high OBPs. However, the Cubs were the worst possible suitor for Soriano in that he just adds to their weaknesses. In addition, they signed him for 8 years! That is an insanely long contract for a guy who counts on his quick bat and speed as important facets of his game. He'll be 38 in the last year of his contract. While some might say that this is okay since players are increasingly playing better for longer, I just don't see a guy with Soriano's strengths (bat speed, foot speed) and weaknesses (poor pitch selection, hands of stone) as a player who will continue to play well as he approaches his middle age years.

Next let's tackle a signing that I think is one of the worst I have seen in years: Juan Pierre's. Once again, a very good breakdown of why this is so terrible is available in Keith Law's blog entry about it. Juan Pierre was a prime contributor to the Cubs OBP woes last year, so he obviously won't help the Dodgers in that category. In addition, they have three good young players (Andre Ethier, Matt Kemp and James Loney) who will most likely be able to perform at the level that Pierre does for much less money. I don't mean this is stupid because down the road they will regret having this contract when they have good young players to take Pierre's place. Rather, I mean that all three young players, right now, are about as good as Juan Pierre. Thus, the Dodger's brain trust has taken what would have been a cheap up and coming outfield and turned it into a low-OBP incredibly overpaid outfield. Stupid, stupid, stupid, and that is the last word on that.

My Plans for the Sox Offseason Pt. 2

The Outfield:

The defense has been the major problem for the Sox here. If the right deal has come along, Manny is gone. In this case, the first step is to slide Crisp to left and WMP to center (believe it or not Pena is actually a pretty good CFer). Signing JD Drew seems a reasonable, and also likely, way to fill the hole in RF. We can expect Coco and Wily Mo to hit a bit better than they did last year as they are fully healed from their injuries and as Pena continues to develop. Drew should be a considerable step up from Trot, in terms of offense and defense. The issue with him is injuries; he has missed significant time in his career. However, the only time he missed in the last tree years was the result of a pitch that hit him in the wrist. I think it is a gamble the Sox will take. So this outfield has done a bit of the work in replacing Manny’s production. Regardless, it is a huge step up in defense, which should save some runs.

The Infield:

The other major trade the Sox should look into is Mike Lowell. First base is the place to make up most of Manny’ offense and I think the best way to open that spot is to ship Lowell and move Youks back to third. As with Manny, the right trade has to come along, and I believe the target should be pitching, but as noted a hole has been opened at 1b, which should not be ignored. I think we can/have to assume Pedroia is ready to start full time at second. He should play better D than Loretta, but will not likely match his offense.

So, we have 1b and SS left. As mentioned, I think the Sox should target a slugging first baseman. There may be some possibilities. As a minimum baseline, Pat Burrell is likely available pretty cheap if the Sox are willing to take on his salary. He has not been a first baseman most of his career, but he played 58 games there in 2000 and was apparently decent. This is not to say that they should settle for him. It might be possible with the haul from Manny and Lowell to get someone better. There has been rumor that Mark Teixeira might be available. I don’t know how reasonable this is, but he would be a huge addition This would be something for the FO to get creative about, it would probably require a 3 team deal, as Texas is most likely looking for pitching. Anyway, assuming Burrell is the most likely solution (of those I am discussing), I still think that along with Drew, he can make up much of the hole Manny has left in the offense. As for SS, this all depends on what they can get in trades. It is not likely that they will match Gonzalez’s defense there, but there is a good chance they can upgrade offense from the position. If they can get someone like Wood from Anaheim, it might be worth just plugging him in and hoping for the best. If no good short stops are available, they are stuck with the FA market. In this case, I think it kind of depends on who is set to fill 1b. I am not particularly high on Lugo, but if they can’t get much more offense from first than Burrell he might be a good option. If, on the other hand, they can swing a guy like Teixeira, it makes more sense to sign a defensive specialist, like Counsell, on a one year deal if possible.

The lineup:

So what do we have after all of these moves?

1B Burrell?/Teixeira?
2B Pedroia
3B Youks
SS ? Lugo? Counsell?
RF Drew
CF Pena
LF Crisp
C Varitek, Barajas

And how is that likely to stack up to last year?

Pos D O
1B - +
2B + -
3B - +
SS - +
RF + +
CF + +
LF + -
C + =

Overall, I think this is about even with last year’s lineup. The offense will probably not be as good, but I don’t think by as much as some might. The defense overall should be better; a bit worse in the infield but substantially better in the outfield. Another reason A Teixiera acquisition would be so nice is that he’s so young. He could go into the core group of Youks, Crisp, Pena, Pedroia, Papelbon, Matsuzaka, Beckett, Lester, who along with Papi and whoever comes up (Kotteras? Bowden? Ellsbury?) to make this a very competitive team for 5 or 6 years to come. It’s this core, as mentioned, that makes Manny more appealing to trade.

Adding it all up:

So how could this team stack up?

Defense +
Offense –
Rotation ++ (and if Clemens, one more +)
Bullpen +

I think this would be a better team than the 2006 version. It is debatable overall, but the improvements in the rotation and defense are clear.

What if it doesn’t all come together:

I guess the better question might be “what about when it doesn’t come together.” It sounds as though the Sox are likely to sign Drew (so says Olney), but other than that there is no reason to believe any of the specifics I have talked about will come together. It doesn’t seem that there is as much interest in Lugo as had been anticipated, so he might be worth signing if they can get him for 8 M or less per year.

Other than that, the biggest question is whether Manny will be traded. If the right deal isn’t available, though, the Sox have some options. Crisp and Pens could be moved, and it is not impossible to hold onto these two along with Drew in a big outfield rotation. Possible, I say, but not likely. If one has to go, I would rather hang onto Wily Mo because he seems to have an interesting skill set, and potential to blossom into a top notch slugger. Again, this is contingent on what deals are available for each player, though.

Lowell also doesn’t have to go, but certainly one of the Manny/Crisp/Pena/Lowell gang will need to be swapped if simply for the bullpen’s sake. The bullpen problems are too deep to be fixed in the FA market. The positional flexibility of Youks/Lowell and Crisp/Pena seem to open many options for how this could resolve itself.

There is also the possibility that they will pull of something no one has thought of yet. Theo recently made a comment about how they have gotten away from their skill in finding undervalued players. If he intends to get back to this, we may see some acquisitions in the Bellhorn/Millar/Ortiz mould. It should be an interesting offseason to say the least.

P.S. Sorry for the lack of references and links through this series. This is all stuff I’ve been mulling over the last month with random readings and TV interviews scattered through that time. I am still without a good enough connection to look around and find all of the stuff I’ve read. I'll get back to the hard analysis you have come to expect before long.

My Plans for the Sox Offseason Pt. 1

My first step would have been a strong bid on Mastuzaka. Now, I was too slow to call for that one. As I sadi in my last post, he will be a huge addition and will fill an imporatn hole in the staring rotation. With Matsuzaka on board, we can start looking at how to fill some other holes.

Needs (in no particular order):
Outfield defense
Shortstop
Bullpen help
Closer
6^th starter?
Backup catcher

Assets:
Manny/Crisp/Wily Mo Pena
Lowell
$$ - the salary cap is up to $148 M and the Sox can top that this year without penalty, and the Matsuzaka post shows they are ready to throw some around.

Trading Manny:

Now, I had never been a fan of the idea of trading Manny, but I have recently warmed up to the idea. Manny is one of the best hitters ever, and it has been great to see him hit for the Sox. However there are a few things that have made the idea of a trade more palatable. As the time remaining on his contract shortens and the free agent market inflates, it seems that he might be more appealing to other teams. As such the Sox can likely get a better deal for him now than in the past. Secondly, whether he has or will rescind his latest trade demand, it’s pretty clear that he will not resign here. We will only be missing 2 years of his career – he won't be finishing his career here, so it’s not like we are unloading a career Red Sock. The Red Sox outfield defense is potentially atrocious. It seems unlikely that they can carry Manny, Ortiz and WMP. One will probably be gone by the start of next season, and I like Crisp and Wily Mo as parts of the core of young players the Sox have piled up recently. There is an appeal, as a fan, to the idea of watching the same group play together for the next 5 years or so; something I have yet to really get a chance to see as a young fan. And finally, the positional hole opened by the Sox will likely be easier to fill than some of the holes they are currently looking at in the bullpen and SS. As a result of these conditions, I think the team can get better next year if Manny is traded. I also think Lowell should be moved, but both cases are contingent on the right deal coming along. Between the two, the Sox should acquire pitching first, a slugging 1b second, and lastly a short stop/short stop prospect (that is in order of priority, I don't think they can get all of this).

Pitching:

The addition of Matsuzaka is a huge improvement in the starting rotation. Check the last post for my opinion of him as a pitcher. Papelbon’s move from the bullpen should also help, and I think we can expect Beckett to pitch somewhat better than he did last year. Just from these improvements, the rotation is much better than it was last year. The only sort of question mark is Wakefield, who is coming off an injury. It might make sense for the Sox to find a sort of 5.5 starter to spell him or bump him to the bullpen if he struggles (really more for the sake of the bullpen than the rotation - see below). Of course there is also the question of Clemens. Based on little more than rumors I have heard, it sounds like, if he comes back next year, the Sox are likely the team. In this case, I think the best idea would be to let him start less often, say once a week, rather than starting him up in June like he has done. He would still throw fewer innings than a regular starter, and hopefully stay fresh for the pennant run. This would also fill the sort of 5.5 starer role, giving the other old guys (Wake and Schilling) a rest, maybe help Papelbon stretch his outings out, and help Matsuzaka adapt to pitching more frequently. Gammons has mentioned the possibility of the Sox using a 6 man rotation at times for these reasons, and I think this is a reasonable way getting the intended effect. Clemens is not essential, but if he is a possibility, I would do it in a blink. Think how monsterous that rotation could be:

Schilling
Matsuzaka
Beckett
Papelbon
Wakefield
Clemens/6^th starter-swingman?

If Clemens signs on, that’s a good bet for the best rotation in the league. Even without him this is I think a very good rotation. Apparently the Sox have talked to a couple of Japanese free agents like Tomo Okha who could fill a similar role and help Mats get used to America. That seems a reasonable move, and as long as the 5.5/6th starter can pitch reasonably above replacement level, the rotation can be viewed as a strength for this team next year.

Bullpen:

This is a tough one. I think it really depends on who they can get in trades. Speier seemed to be the only genuinely appealing FA but he is off the market now, and the Sox have reportedly already talked to him. Otherwise, a closer is necessary. Perhaps Lidge or Baez? In any case, I think it might make sense to take a flier on Dotel and hope he has come back from his surgery. If Wakefield is pushed to the pen, he would eat innings, which is very valuable. Even if it’s not Wake, there should be a swingman who can pitch a lot of innings out of the pen and spot start (as mentioned above). We do still have Timlin, Delcarmen and Tavarez coming back, who should all be decent. I don’t think it’s really worth depending on Hansen, he would be better off starting at AAA. That is, unless he lights it up in spring training. The bottom line is that I am not really sure what can be done about the bullpen. The Sox have struggled in this dept the last few years, and I won't pretend to have any solutions. Basically, in my plan the bullpen will be patched up mostly with the best returns possible for Manny and Lowell.

In part 2:
I will look at the lineup, and how it can be changed, specifically to fill the hole left by a trade of Manny, as well as some contingency plans. Then I will add it all up and hopefully you will agree that it would be an improved Red Sox team.

Triumphant Return

Well, I missed the excitement of the playoffs, but I am returning barely too late to comment on the Matsuzaka posting. I will say up front that I am very excited about Matsuzaka. Every projection I have seen would make him a legitimate ace. It seems Boras’s claims that he will be a top 10 pitcher might be uncharacteristically accurate. The Sox have apparently been scouting him for some time, and agree. He will almost certainly be the best pitcher available this year, and has a chance of being the best by a long shot. However, there has been much discussion of the huge amount of money in the posting fee (ESPN is reporting $51 M, but apparently a Red Sox email quotes $42 M). People want to conflate this fee with his presumed salary and they are already calling him the ‘$100 M man.’ Fox Sports has gone so far as to pronounce the Sox “the new Evil Empire.” Obviously I find this endlessly annoying, but I know it should be expected.

Firstly, we have to realize that it is a mistake to conflate salary with the posting fee. The fee does not count towards the salary cap, and it is not drawn out; it is a one time cost. Many people have expressed surprise that the Red Sox, who had recently showed such fiscal conservatism by letting Damon and Pedro walk, would open their checkbooks like they did for Matsuzaka. The difference is simple. The organization has long avoided contracts that would saddle them down in the future as players decline. This, however, is a one time cost; a single check for money that we all know is there. And Matsuzaka is only 26, a very rare commodity to be able to come by. Further, the luxury tax cap has been sort of the working limit for the Sox (Henry publicly appologized after toppong it a couple years ago). Since the posting fee does not count towards this cap, it will not limit their ability to pay other players this winter. In fact, I expect a quite busy off season. But there are several more reasons that this makes sense.

It should not be forgotten that this signing does not cost the Sox a draft pick, as signing an A graded MLB FA would. There are also the issues of investment. The Sox investment works on two levels. The first is the straight-forward investment towards selling caps and broadcasting games in Japan. The second is the investment in Asian players. According to Gammons on ESPNews Tues night, Theo is convinced that 30-40% of the best players in the world will be coming out of Asia, and he has plans to get into this player market by opening academies in Thailand and China. A high profile Asian star could be helpful in attracting players from the area. So it stands to reason that this $51 M is coming from at least 3 or 4 different (presumably somewhat independent) budgets: MLB roster, marketing, and player development, as well as likely some sort of ‘rainy day fund’ to be tapped in the rare instance that, say a 26 year old potential ace is suddenly available. When looked at this way, the number does not seem quite as huge.

It will make even more sense if we look at how it might break down. It is likely that Mats will pitch like a pitcher worth $15-16 M per year. If the Sox think they can sign him for $10-11 M, due to the exclusive negotiation, then posting is immediately worth the balance of (assuming a 4 year deal) $20 M. Perhaps they figure it’s worth another %10 since it doesn’t count towards the cap: $22 M total. I saw it posted in SOSH (sorry, I can't find the link - far too many long threads to look through) that an economist estimated that the Sox will make ~$3.3 M per year in Japan due to Mastuzaka (seems a conservative estimate especially given the marketing creativity the Sox FO has shown). I will use this number simply because it is the only concrete estimate I have see. If 3.3M is right, he is worth a $13.2 M investment for marketing, for a total of $35.2 M. Say, for the sake of even numbers, the draft pick they can retain is worth $0.8 M, for $36 M total. His value as a symbol and spokesman could be about $5 M for attracting Asian players. On top of this it is not a stretch to think that due to the rarity of acquiring such a package is worth another $10 M from a rainy day fund (or JWH’s pocket) to make absolutely sure it happens. Now this doesn’t prove anything, because I’ve completely made most of these numbers up. But it does seem likely that the FO broke the post down in a similar way. I don’t think any of these numbers are unreasonable, (some are even quite conservative) and as such they make the $51 M total make a bit more sense.

All of these values are somewhat contingent on his performance, but I think this may be overstated. Certainly, if he is a total bust, he will attract little attention and thus money and players from Asia. However, the chances for this are sufficiently slim that it’s worth the risk. The important point is that Matsuzaka does not need to be one of the best pitchers in the game for most of these investments to pan out. Consider Hideki Matsui. He is a legitimate #5 hitter (on most teams), for sure, but he is no superstar. That is, he is no superstar in terms of skills in MLB, but he is treated as a superstar in Japan. The Yankees are very well known and followed closely by many in Japan, largely because of Matsui’s presence. And he’s maybe the 4^th best hitter on the team! My point is that, in order to be valuable for marketing and player development in Asia, Matsuzaka doesn’t need to perform above the level of, maybe, a legitimate #2 starter. I think he is very likely to exceed that level of success. My point is not that there is no risk in the signing; there certainly is some, and maybe more than most FA signings. My point is that the cries of “he has never thrown a pitch in MLB!” are exaggerating this risk. Further, as several recent FA signings have shown, it may well be better to take a risk with a big upside than a guaranteed mediocrity.

And the final point: It’s just money. Players are worth much more than money. This is relevant because of implications of this signing with regard to the draft and to player development. Players can be can be used on their own right (you can fill a hole in your lineup from within), they can be turned in to other players (via trade), and if necessary, they can be sold for money. Money can only get you free agents. Free agents are very restricted in quantity, they can only be acquired during the offseason, and they are usually quite expensive. Trades, however, can be made anytime (theoretically, this is ignoring trade deadline complications), and many more players are available by trade at any time than are by free agency. The point is that players are a more flexible asset and thus more valuable from a team building standpoint than their strict salary value might indicate.

All in all this is a very good move by the Sox in my mind. They needed a boost in their rotation, and he was clearly the best available. I am very excited to see him pitch. And according to Will Carroll’s latest account, he does throw the gyroball. Oh joy.

Coming up soon is my 2 part explanation of what I think would be an ideal off season for the Sox. After all, you asked my opinion just by visiting the sight.

Hiatus

I regret to inform you, my loyal readership, that I will not be posting much in the next couple of months. I will be disappearing into the wiles of the western US without the ability to incite the structured movements of electrons that are necessary to disseminate my wit and illuminate your day.

It's on the Galdstoner until I get back. I hear he's got a couple good ones in the works.

Have fun all. I will return.

Stuck on Ortiz

David Ortiz set a new AL record last night with his 32nd road home run. I found this interesting; the Red Sox are famously better at Fenway, especially as an offense. Bizzare angles and loud fans push the offense to a new level, which in turn gives guys like Ortiz more lineup support. However, Fenway also has a large right field that his homers must escape. So as far as Ortiz's home run total, there are two competeing factors that come into play at home. To start untangling this issue, let's look at his splits (via MLB.com):

Ortiz: AB; Avg; TB; HR; SLG; OBP
Home: 259; .293; 157; 21; .606; .410
Road: 287; .279; 190; 32; .662; .404

To get some idea as to the effects Fenway's right field has on Ortiz, I will first compare home run rates. At home, Ortiz hits a homer every 12.3 ABs. On the road he improves to one every 8.97 ABs. This is a large enough difference to be significant. If we assume that this difference is caused only by the size of Fenway, we can divide his 259 road ABs by his 8.97 road HR rate for an estimate of possible home HRs. If we do this, we get 28 HRs at home, 7 more than his real number. Adding 7 to his season total would put him at 60, 1 short of the AL record.

But it certainly can't be that simple. In fact, the splits show that Ortiz is a better hitter at home than on the road. The only numbers that are better on the road are HR and SLG. But these are related. To eliminate this, I will assume those 7 HR he missed at home turned into doubles due to the dimensions of the park (a conservative estimate - many were probably outs). If we convert these doubles into home runs, he gains 14 total bases at home. This would give him a slugging percentage of .660, almost exactly the same as his road total. So, in general Ortiz is a better hitter at home, better average, better on-base, similar slugging. Many Sox have attributed this to the rabid fan support, and there is certainly a comfort factor as there is for any team at home.

I have shown that if he homered at his road rate while at home, he would have 60 HR so far this year. But he is a better hitter at home. So it might not be unreasonable to expect that, if Fenway had a league average right field, he might have hit more than the estimated 28 at home. If not for Fenway's dimensions, we may be looking at the AL home run record holder.

51!

Well, David Ortiz won't be topping Roger Maris as I had previously hoped, but he has set a new Red Sox record with 51 homeruns. It is really remarkable that only one Red Sox slugger has hit 50 in a year before, as a franchise with such a long history and a practice of stockpiling sluggers.

We are also given pause with this feat to consider Ortiz's place in history. As a one dimensional player with a body type that does not historically age well (Cecil Fielder and Mo Vaughn say hi), it is an interesting question as to whether he can keep it up long enough to be a hall of famer. Personally, I see him entering Jim Rice land. Jim Rice was dominant; undeniably one of the best hitters in the league for several years. But he retired at 36, apparently yet to have accumulated the career numbers to make it in to the Hall. Now, I think he belongs, and I know the Galdstoner agrees. But the point is he was a hotly contested candidate for the Hall, and I think the debate surrounding his candidacy is likely to be repeated with Ortiz.

It's not that I don't think Ortiz has several more good years, and even a few great ones, in front of him. It's just that I would be shocked if he achieves the year in, year out consistency and the longevity of a no-doubt Hall of Famer, say, Manny Ramirez.

Let's take the Jim Rice analogy and run with it, as they are quite similar players. Here are their career lines:

Player; HR; Avg; OBP; SLG
Rice; 382; .298; .352; .502
Ortiz; 228; .282; .372; .547

Rice has the edge on batting average, but Ortiz has the edge in OBP and slugging. We should keep in mind, though, that we are catching Ortiz at his peak, and these number will likely suffer some in his decline. That said, I think that if Ortiz retires with numbers that are for all intents and purposes identical to Rice, he gets in. His clutch performance, particularly the 2004 playoffs, and his popularity and subsequent value as an ambassador for MLB give him an edge that Rice lacked, at least in my mind (add another column to the stats labeled: 'walk off hits in a historic playoff and world series win'). More practically, I think he needs to hit 400 homeruns to make a truly convincing case to the electorate, that is without dealing a significant hit to his other numbers. For the record, Rice had 213 after his 7th full season.

So that's my assessment; 172 homeruns lie on David Ortiz's road to the Hall. I, for one, think he can do it.

Come Rejoice!

Peter Gammons is back!

The world is surely a better place with him in it.

Should they stay or should they go?

Recently, much has been made of the difference in performance between prospects that the Red Sox have traded away and those they've kept. The numbers are noteworthy. Here are some of the most notable prospects whom the Sox dealt in the last few years:

Freddy Sanchez: (BA/OBP/SLG/EqA) .340/.376/.472/.285

Hanley Ramirez: .288/.354/.459/.285

Andy Marte: .236/.293/.431/.241

Anibal Sanchez: (ERA/WHIP/IP): 2.96/1.16/94.3

Cla Merideth: 0.66/.069/40.7

A pretty impressive bunch it seems. The only one struggling is Marte, but noone doubts that he will find it and he will be a star. For comparison, here are some of the prospects the Sox have been breaking in this year:

Pedroia: .122/.173/.204/.067

Lester: 4.76/1.65/81.3

Hansen: 5.71/1.56/43.7

Delcarmen: 4.93/1.54/49.3

Gabbard: 3.13/1.65/23.0

Papelbon: 0.92/0.78/68.3

Certainly not as impressive (with the notable exception of Papelbon). There are several factors that are probably behind this. I am not convinced that it is entirely scouting failures by the Sox. First off, many of these represent quite small samples, so it could be mostly an issue of chance. Further, many Sox prospects were forced into their roles by injury/ineffectiveness of those above them. The team did not plan on depending so heavily on Delcarmen, or playing Pedroia at the beginning of the year. So they may not be quite as ready as others. Another interesting idea is that Fenway is probably not a very easy place to break in. There is a tremendous amount of fan pressure on top of the pressure involved in trying to make it at that level. It is probably that much harder to rebound from poor performances, as opposed to San Diego or Florida or Cleveland or Pittsburg, where the other prospects have landed. There has also been criticism of the Sox pitching coach Dave Wallace, due to the fact that so many pitchers have done much better other places than they have for the Sox (i.e. Clement, Arroyo, Beckett, the entire bullpen this year). Since most of the prospects I mentioned are pitchers, there may be something to this.

The final, and likely most important fact is that most of the guys who were traded landed in the NL. We all know how the NL is doing these days. On his blog, Seth Mnoonkin shows some interesting stats:

"Pitcher 1: 7-0, 2.82 ERA, 1 save, 8.91 K/9, and a batting average against hovering around .200 in 8 starts and 14 relief appearances over 63.2 innings.

Pitcher 2: 7-2, 2.89 ERA, 5.48 K/9, and a .208 batting average against in 14 starts over 87.1 innings."

Very similar numbers. More K's for #1, but that's the only striking difference. "If you haven't guessed by now," Mnoonkin explains, "pitcher 1 is an amalgam of Josh Beckett (4-0, 2.83, .165 BAA), Jon Lester (3-0, 2.45 ERA, .241 BAA), Craig Hansen (1-0, 4.50 ERA, .250 BAA in 6 appearances), and Manny Delcarmen (1 save, 2.57 ERA, .231 BAA in 8 appearances) versus the National League. Pitcher 2 is Anibal Sanchez. (Sanchez, in his two AL starts, was 1-0 with a 6.30 ERA and a .326 BAA.)" So it would seem that, with the same competition, the performances are quite comparable (I know Beckett isn't one of the prospects discussed, but he is young and part of the 'long term plan' and he has struggled this year).

In the end, though, it is important to keep in mind that the first few months of a player's career cannot be seen as indicative of the rest of it. I'm sure all of these guys will pull their game together and have fine careers and we'll all be glad the Sox held onto them (well, not the Galdstoner).

Good Baseball Books

Now, I do not consider myself to be a very well read man, in fact I often find long passages of text quite difficult to get through unless they are very entertaining, or captivatingly informative. However, I recently purchased Bill James's New Historical Baseball Abstract, and I must say it is one of the best books I own. It has everything, great anecdotes, great use of statistics and great analysis of the use of statistics. You can read it cover to cover, or you can use it as top notch bathroom reading. You can find emphatic agreement or rabid disagreement. As I said, it has everything.

Now, I would not normally post on such a small issue, but we have been encouraging reader input with only mild results. So I ask you, the reader (ya you, that one guy who visits from time to time) what your favorite baseball books are. Baseball is a fundamentally poetic game, and there are many great literary works devoted to the subject. As far as single passages, you can't beat A. Bartlett Giamatti's The Green Fields of the Mind. That is an incontrovertible fact; not open to discussion. Books, however, are a different matter.

Just to get things started, a few of my favorite books: Obviously, I loved Moneyball, it's a very good book, though it's not the Bible (no one thinks it is, and I wish some people would get over this). I also enjoyed Roger Kahn's The Head Game, a very interesting history of Major League pitchers and pitching. Another book that I read in my youth and enjoyed was October 1964 by David Halberstam, an account of the fall of the Yankee's dynasty and rise of the Cardinals (no Red Sox bias, I swear). Just two off the top of my head.

We here at Nosebleed Baseball view one of our main goals as encouraging the reader to think. So I guess this will be the first test of our success. Please, write in and recommend your favorite books.

The Best Crop Of Rookie Pitchers In My Lifetime

This year has seen the debut of by far the best group of rookie pitchers in my lifetime. Granted, I have only been around since 1984 but this year's rookie class is inarguably incredible. While the statistics help illustrate just how great this class is — I will get to that in a moment — my anecdotal knowledge of these guys is just as impressive. Watching Verlander, Zumaya, Weaver, Liriano, Johnson, Broxton, Papelbon, and others pitch is amazing. It is a truly thrilling experience to watch talented players succeed right from the start.

To me, the most impressive aspect of this year's rookie pitchers is that they are excellent regardless of what metric is used to measure them. Not only are they statistically brilliant, but they also have all the attributes that scouts love: poise, attitude, stuff, etc. In addition, they are deep and diverse.

They are deep. Some years you have two, three, or even four guys who have good years. This year there are fifteen rookie pitchers with VORPs over 20 and that doesn't include some of the players who were called up later in the season but have excelled in the limited time they have been in the majors.

They are diverse. Many guys have electric stuff (Papelbon, Liriano, Zumaya, Broxton, etc.). Others have good but not great stuff but make up for it with poise and command (Verlander, Weaver, etc.). There are great starters and great relievers. Some guys started the season in the big leagues while others had to adjust to mid-season. There are several guys who, while they haven't performed exceptionally, have played important roles for their teams after being brought up to the majors earlier than their clubs would have liked due to injuries or payroll concerns (Jon Lester and Cole Hamels stand out in this regard). In addition, there are, undoubtably, a number of rookie pitchers who will take a season or more to adjust to the level of talent in the majors but who, in the long run, will be excellent pitchers in their own right (Scott Olson, Matt Cain, Taylor Buchholz, etc.).

In both leagues, there are rookies in the top five in ERA (Josh Johnson in the NL and Justin Verlander in the AL) and, if they had pitched enough innings to qualify (excluding relievers), there would be three more in the top ten in the AL (Jered Weaver, Franicisco Liriano, and Jeremy Sowers) and two more in the top ten in the NL (Chad Billingsley and Anibal Sanchez, who recently pitched a no-hiter). On top of that long list of prominent starters, you could make a case that rookies make up four of the best relievers in the American League (Jonathan Papelbon, Joel Zumaya, Adam Wainwright, and Bobby Jenks, a rookie in name only given his late seaon and post-season exploits last year) and two of the best relievers in the National League (Cla Meredith and Jonathan Broxton).

I will inevitably leave some players who deserve to be mentioned out of this post due to a combination of my relative lack of knowledge of the National League, the sheer number of rookies who have been impact players this season, and the fact that I am an idiot. With that in mind, I want to list some other rookie pitchers who have had good seasons this year: John Maine, Clay Hensley, Chuck James, and Manny Delcarmen.

What does this all add up to? Well, I think there are two related points to be made regarding this historically great group of rookie pitchers. First of all, before we stake our bets for the future on these guys it is important to remember that many, if not most, of these guys will have neither long nor particularly impressive careers due to injuries, mental/makeup issues, and being unable to cope with the adjustments that hitters across the league will inevitably make over the coming seasons. Secondly, with that in mind, let's seize the day. This is a great time to be a baseball fan and we should make our best efforts to enjoy these great rookies while we can.

Hooray Red Sox (sour grapes edition)

Well, I am very happy that the Sox managed to bounce back and take two out of three from the White Sox. Not that I think it really puts them back into the race, but I just don't like the White Sox, and it knocked them down some in the standings. (Also, it helped to get some revenge for last years playoff sweep) Mostly though, I don't like Ozzie Guillen. I understand that he is a 'colorful character' and provides many good sound bites for the media. The problem is that I think he regularly takes it too far. He calls out players publicly far too often, even for ridiculous things like failing to throw at an opposing hitter. Along the same lines, I didn't like the way he treated Frank Thomas, a career White Sox and probably the best hitter of the '90's. I also recall the end of last season when they faced the fading Indians, he was mocking their mascot by pretending to choke himself. Really, that's beyond the realm of reasonable.

He gets way too much credit for his team's success, just because he is so loud that he attracts all of the attention. If you look at the rotation he had last year, and the lineup he has this year, it should be clear where the credit belongs. Ya, the players. And Kenny Williams, who brought them there. The Galdstoner and I agreed last year, as his popularity grew, that Ozzie's fall will be fast and very very ugly when it comes. Sure, everything is fine when you are winning. But this team will fail at some time. And rest assured, when it does, Ozzie will say and do all the wrong things and he will be booed off the team by a fanbase suddenly wise to his absurd behavior.

Anyway, the sox have an upcoming series with the Twins. I say start all the young guys. Let Minnesota take the series and give experience to the guys who'll help next year. It will help keep the White Sox out of the playoffs and continue what they started this week.

So now, in my mind, the only remaining series that matters is the Yankees series. Again, they are not getting back in the race, but they need a little revenge for that last series. It would also be a shame to let a two month collapse by the Sox taint an otherwise totally even head-to-head record over the last 4 years. So the season may be over, but that doesn't mean there is nothing to play for.

Travis Hafner Is A Mediocre Baseball Player

He's so average he has never played on an all star team, or won a major award (even a silver slugger!). The Galdstoner and I have spent some time looking into his stats, so I present a comparison of Hafner to several other perennial MVP candidates over the last three years. (all from baseball prospectus).

EqA 2004; 2005; 2006
Hafner: .326; .332; .349
Manny: .316; .318; .342
Ortiz: .309; .324; .325
Arod: .300; .338; .293
Guerrero .323; .323; .309
Pujols: .342; .344; .349
Bonds .456; .340; .334

EqA is a rate stat, so to include # of PA's, we'll look at BRAA:

BRAA (Batting Runs Above Average)
Hafner: 45; 50; 59 => 154
Manny: 44; 45; 51 => 140
Ortiz: 39; 54; 45 => 138
Arod: 32; 67; 22 => 121
Guerrero 51; 45; 34 => 130
Pujols: 69; 70; 57 => 196
Bonds: 128; 5; 34 => 167

The only one there who has been consistently better is Pujols. But he is in the other league, so they are in competition for nothing other than endorsement deals. So, here are ESPN's listings of his AL ranks this year:

Ranks 2nd in AL in HR (42)	Ranks 2nd in AL in RBI (117)
Ranks 3rd in AL in R (100)	Ranks 2nd in AL in BB (100)
Ranks 2nd in AL in OBP (.439)	Ranks 1st in AL in SLG (.659)
Ranks 1st in AL in OPS (1.097)

Ya, he is clearly not one of the two or three best DH/1B's so as to make the AS team. Or get some sort of award. Maybe they should have the non-Sox or Yankees set of awards. Though, that would undermine the Sox/Yanks centrism that the Galdstoner and I are fighting so hard to perpetuate.

Rob Neyer Does My Job For Me

I was just about to start compiling statistics about Chien Ming Wang in order to write a post about how bizarre his statistics are. However, I decided to look at espn.com before I did so and look what I found (insider only again). This is a good read, as is consistently the case with Neyer (one of my favorite writers on espn).

I am really divided as to whether I reach the same conclusion. Will Wang fall back to earth and become an average/below average pitcher with one great pitch? A big part of me seems to say yes. On the other hand, a big part of me (you might call it my heart) wants to go the other way and come to the conclusion that Wang is just a statistical anomaly. Basically the decision comes down to a couple of factors.

1) how much weight should I give to history? What Wang is doing, successfully pitching for more than one season with the combination of an incredibly low strike out rate and a very high but by no means extreme groundball rate, is unprecedented. If I rely on history as a guide, Wang will either become more of a strikeout pitcher (relatively speaking) or he will suffer the predicted inflation in his ERA that his raw statistics predict.

2) (This is really more like 1a) Is Wang an entirely new type of pitcher? There are certain characteristics that Wang possesses that separate him from other pitchers with power sinkers and low strikeout rates. These his velocity, which appears to be of a higher order than those that have come before him and the fact that he is right handed. Once again, this really comes down to whether it is plausible to believe that a new type of pitcher could arise after 100+ years of professional baseball.

3) Given the small sample size, what do I make of his statistics? Wang's BABIP, tells us that he has been lucky (BABIP has been shown to be a statistic that is heavily influenced by luck on a year to year basis) both last year and this year since his BABIP in those years is, not including his start today, .270 and .282, respectively, well below the league average. In addition, his home runs per nine innings, both last year and this year, are extremely low, 0.70 and 0.53 (this leads the major leageus), respectively, which would help ameliorate the effect on his ERA that a jump in BABIP would be likely to cause. Now, how do we interpret these statistics? Defense appears to have very little to do with his low BABIP since last year he posted a lower than average BABIP while the Yankees allowed an above average BABIP while this year he has again allowed a below average BABIP while the Yankees have also allowed a below average BABIP. When do we start looking at these two stats as a trend rather than an anomaly? I don't know for sure but if he has similar statistics for all of next year it may make sense to look at this as something other than a fluke or lucky occurrence.

These are the three main factors in deciding whether one thinks that Wang will suffer a decline due his historically low strikeout rate. I have a gut instinct that he won't suffer such a decline (due to another reason that I will discuss in a moment), but, either way, it will be fascinating to watch.

Before I conclude, I want take a moment and discuss a possibility that will render this decision/discussion moot: how much will Wang improve over time? I think that it is highly likely that we will see a rise in Wang's strikeout rate due to an improvement in his secondary stuff and greater utilization of his not-to-shabby four seam fastball. Right now, Wang throws between 70 and 100 percent sinkers from game to game. Hitters know it is coming and still can't hit it because it breaks so late and is thrown so hard (his sinker sits at about 95-97 not infrequently touching 98 or 99). With this in mind, I don't see why a four seamer that looks the same as the sinker for 56-58 feet couldn't be the strikeout pitch he is missing. Combine those two pitches with his B/B+ change and more confidence and experience using his nascent splitter and you have a pretty nasty four pitch arsenal that could lead to dramatic increases in his strikeout rate. Will any of this happen? As I Yankee fan I hope so but I would love to get Theo and others' point of view on this so I have a sense of what a more objective fan thinks of this situation.

I Think the Red Sox Have Ebola

I earlier blamed this on The Galdstoner. While I am not yet ready to notify the authorities, I will still not retract that statement until given proof. Anyway, regardless of who is to blame, the result is obvious. I present to you the Red Sox starting lineup from last night:

Crisp CF
Cora SS
Loretta DH
Youkilis LF
Hinske RF
Lowell 3B
Lopez C
Pena 1B
Pedroia 2B

Gabbard SP

That's right! Loretta and Youkilis are the new Ortiz and Manny. Oh, I recall those heady days when Tom Brunansky, Jack Clark, and Ellis Burks held down the middle of the order.

A grand total of 4 regulars starting the game. Four. And two are out of position. Three others in there are backups for the injured backups (Carlos Pena, Lopez and the fact that Hinske is in RF)! The sad thing is that the offense has been the only reliable part of this team. That is not to mention that Gabbard should be like 8th or 9th on the depth chart for starting pitchers. Kyle Snyder, who I guess is #7 if Gabbard is 8 or 9 (where does Jason Johnson fit in? David Pauley? - Christ.), started the day before and tonight they are starting a minor leaguer that they just picked up, called Mike Burns. Oh joy.

Well, Varitek and Nixon are supposed to be coming back this weekend, which probably won't help much, since there's no reason to expect that they'll come back playing very well (right away at least). Wakefield should also be back soon, and that should help. Who knows about Manny and Ortiz (maybe it's the taurine in his Vitamin Water throwing his heartbeat off).

But the point is teams just don't collapse like this. And I'm not even talking about playing poorly, I mean physically collapse. These are the Pawtucket Red Sox right now letting the East slip away, not the Boston Red Sox. In fact, if Trot and Tek go on rehab assignments this week, then the Pawsox will be fielding almost as many Red Sox regulars as the Bosox did last night.

And Yankee fans complained when Matsui and Sheffield went down. HA!

I Really hope Ortiz Hits 62

But it's looking less and less like he will. His current pace is 58.569 (aka 58).

Maybe he can get in a groove and rattle off like 6 in a week sometime soon. Certainly possible; but it would help to have Manny back in the lineup. He'll top Jimmie Foxx's Red Sox record of 50 from 1938, which is no small accomplishment (It's pretty incredible that that one has held up so long).

But still, the AL record would be nice. It seems to be the last hope that something great can come out of this Sox season.

Comeback Player of the Year

It seems now that I am constantly bombarded by adds (and very annoying ones at that - "Rip city baby!") urging me to vote for the Comeback Player of the Year. Now, I find this an interesting idea for an award but, as usual, I am skeptical about how it is defined. There is no formal definition of the specific criteria with which we should vote on MLB.com, other than "those baseball players who have re-emerged as stars on the baseball field." Conveniently, our choices are narrowed down for us, so we don't have to do too much thinking.

The thing that I have to wonder about is what constitutes a comeback? Certainly many players may be hurt for a season, but does it count as a comeback (or, I guess a big or impressive comeback) if everyone expects it? It seems that the nominees have been chosen mostly based on difference between stats this year and last, but I think there should be more consideration than that. Age and length of time struggling/injured should be considered, and I think other special considerations should be made. For instance, Mike Mussina was not nominated, as his revival this year is perhaps not a drastic as some nominees. However, if he can sustain this level of play for a couple more years, it might push him over the cusp and into The Hall. So, in a certain sense it is more significant than most listed.

As far as age, I am not even certain how best to handle this. On one hand you have a guy like Carlos Beltran, who is now 29 and in his prime. I don't think anyone expected his struggles over the last two years to continue. I think the same can be said for Edgar Renteria, and to a lesser extent Scott Rolen. Estrada and Soriano are more extreme examples. This is only Estrada's 3rd full year in the Majors, does the fact that the 2nd one wasn't very good really count as a comeback? Same with Soriano. He is only 26, and his previous career high in innings pitched was 53. Again, not so much a comeback to star level as a recovery after a setback in development.

On the other hand is Curt Schilling. At 39 as a pitcher, his comeback is quite impressive; there was no reason to really be certain he could come back to his career level. However, he has stated his intentions to retire at the end of next year. So as good of a comeback as he has staged this year, it will only be a two year comeback. That's not really a true career revival, it's really just a moderate career extension. So I think the best balance has to be somewhere in between these extremes.

There are also a few nominees, such as Corey Patterson, Joe Borowski, Johnny Estrada, and Rafael Soriano to whom attribution of the term 'star' is something of a stretch (admittedly to varying degrees). I have stated objections to Estrada and Soriano already. But Patterson, well, he was never very good; he just hit 24 homeruns in 2004. Other than that not much there, he's never even matched league average OBP. Borowski is borderline, but he has never been consistently good. He's really only had two good years before this in an 11 year career.

Magglio Ordonez has had an impressive comeback in terms of at-bats after two shortened seasons, but his numbers this year are still well below his career average. In fact, his batting average and on base percentage were better in both 2004 and 2005 than they are this year. He slugged better in 2004 than this year and not much worse in 2005. It's good to see him back on the diamond, but he has hardly returned to star form.

So it seems to me there are only three real comebacks among the candidates: Nomar, Jim Thome, and Frank Thomas. All of these guys had more than one bad year, and have improved their stats significantly this season. They are also all old enough that a comeback could not be expected, but young enough that they can still really revive their careers (OK, Thomas is 38, but he says he wants to play until he's 42 and I for one think he can). They all were, and are, genuine stars.

I don't think I'm really straying too far from the common thinking; I'm sure all of these guys will finish near the top in voting even if they don't win. I just wish MLB would be a little more clear in their definition of comeback, or a little more thoughtful in their selection of nominees. I like the idea of rewarding great comebacks that revive great careers, I just don't think it should be thrown around too lightly. And I'm concerned MLB is doing just that.

Coco or Youks?

One of the interesting storylines in the Red Sox this season has been the question of whether Kevin Youkilis of Coco Crisp should be hitting leadoff. The bottom line of this debate is this: do you want high OBP or speed at the top of the order? Well, it is most certainly not that simple, but it is clear that each is advantageous in its own way. The goal of the leadoff hitter is to score runs. Players who get on base often will score more runs because, well, they are there more often to be driven in. Speedy players, on the other hand are more likely to score because the put themselves in position better. Not only do they steal bases, but they are more likely to take the extra base on any given play, say 1st to 3rd on a single or scoring on a sac fly. In particular, I find this debate interesting (not only because it is a single instantiation of the more general debate) because both players appear to be in the Sox's long term plans, and as such it is not just a debate for this year.

So, how do we balance speed with OBP? Well, I am no math wizard, and I am supposed to be working right now, so I will go with a rather simple test. Basically, I will see how many runs each player scores per plate appearance. This can be broken down into two rates, OBP and percentage of times on base in which the player scores (I will call it RSPOB or Runs Scored per On Base appearance - because I have not seen an abbreviation for this stat and because inventing one makes me feel important and original). These should correspond to the -presumed- relative strengths of Youks and Coco, respectively.

OPB is easy enough to find. So far this season Youks is OBPing .386, and Coco .322. RSPOB takes some jury-rigging, but it is still simple. Coco has 92 hits and 26 walks, for 118 times on base with 51 runs scored giving an RSPOB of .432, Youk's line reads: 139; 74; 213; 86; .404. SO we see that there is indeed statistical evidence for the common logic. Youks does get on base more often (duh), and Coco is more likely to score when on base.

Putting these stats together, we see that Youks has scored more runs per plate appearance; .155 to .138. However, this is clearly a stat dependent on those hitting behind. So far, Youks has hit leadoff most of the year, with Loretta, Manny and Ortiz following (an average SLG of .548) with Coco in the 8 hole with Gonzales, Youk, and Loretta following (an average SLG of .417). And even when Coco slipped into the leadoff spot Youk only dropped down to the 5-6 spot with guys like Lowell and the tactical nuclear weapon known as Wily Mo Pena following him. So Youkilis clearly has the advantage here. How much this has contributed to his RSPOB is tough to say. Rather than try to pry this out of the stats I have, I will compare their stats in the leadoff spot to those out of the leadoff spot.

Unfortunately, Coco has sucked when batting leadoff (.289 OBP). I will assume this is not a real trend (which I have no justification for doing, but I like Coco, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), and ignore it by comparing leadoff RSPOBs and leaving OBP at their respective season marks. Batting leadoff, Coco has gotten on base 57 times and scored 25 runs for an RSPOB of .439, Youks has 158; 65; .411. And out of the leadoff spot Coco is at 61; 26; .426 and Youks 55; 21; .381.

When compared this way, two things become apparent. First, even if Coco were OBPing at his season average of .322 in the leadoff spot (and Youk at his full season avg of .386), he would not score runs at the rate Youk has in the leadoff spot (.158 R/PA vs .141). This is even the case if Coco OBPed at his career best rate .345 from last year (.151 R/PA). So it seems Youk should be batting leadoff given the current middle of the Sox's order.

But there is another wrinkle too. Notice that Youk's RSPOB benefits much more from the leadoff spot than Coco's. Coco's RSPOB rises 13 points, while Youk's rises a full 30 points. This make sense; mashers like Manny and Ortiz will drive just about anyone in, while guys like Gonzalez need the speed in front of them. As others have put it: Coco's speed is wasted in front of Manny and Ortiz.

So if Youk hits leadoff, not only do the Sox get runs more often from the leadoff spot (who also gets more at bats), but they do so without sacrificing nearly as much run scoring potential farther down the lineup as they gain up top. It is not merely a matter of shifting the run scoring potential up in the lineup, but there actually would appear to be a net gain in runs scored per at bat.

This may change, though, if Coco picks up his game, or if Manny finds his way to another team, or any number of hypotheticals. . . But for now, vote Youks for leadoff hitter on the Boston Red Sox.

Bob Ryan… Better Than Dan Shaughnessy

OK, I hate to admit it but Bob Ryan actually wrote a good column for the first time in awhile. However, before we talk about it, I have to make everyone aware that I consider Dan Shaughnessy the spawn of Satan. Whereas I will tolerate Ryan even though I dislike his brand of obnoxious television journalism, Shaughnessy fills me with a burning passion to, in the words of Hannibal Lector, "[eat] his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti." That's right, Dan Shaughnessy may, someday soon, drive me to cannibalism with his terrible, self-aggrandizing, and personally vindictive columns.

Now, on to the column. Although some might suggest that I picked this because it criticizes the so-called Red Sox Nation, this is not the case. In this instance, I believe that his criticisms of Red Sox fans apply equally to Yankee fans. To me, the most salient point that he makes in this article is to point out how me-centric fans have become. If you listen to sports talk radio, especially local stations like WEEI or WFAN as opposed to national ones like ESPN Radio or Sporting News Radio, you'll see what he means. About every fourth caller seems to be of the opinion that if their team loses that there must be a) a specific person to blame for said loss and b) that said person has injured the caller first and their team second. As Ryan so astutely points out, fans have come to take each negative result for their team as a personal slight. This is not only a ridiculously self-centered point of view, it also takes away from everyone's enjoyment of the game by creating a noxious and poisonous atmosphere. It turns the idea of fandom and rooting on its head.

We are fans because we love the sport and our team. I wouldn't root for the Yankees if I didn't love baseball. Granted, there are teams that I casually root for because of where I grew up, regardless of what sport they play. However, you won't find me calling up a radio station to complain about the New York Rangers because I am only a casual fan and I don't even like hockey that much.

I guess, when it comes down to it, I decided to write about this article because I think the point of view Ryan expresses in this column is at the core of why I enjoy my friendship with Theo so much (right next to the highly viscous molten material that makes up the mantle of our friendship). We both love baseball first and our respective teams second. It's okay to be upset when your team loses. It's not okay to act as if your team, which you love and are devoted to has dealt you a personal insult through their performance (unless Trot Nixon jogs out to right field holding a sign that reads "We Hate Theo Von HoHenHeim" and then refuses to drop the sign resulting in a two base throwing error because Trot was forced to throw the ball with his glove hand).

Keith Law is a Cool Dude

Not that this has that much to do with this post.

OK, I have now emailed Keith Law at his email address over at baseballthinkfactory.org, since he didn't answer my question about EqA vs. wOBA during his webchat (once again, insider only, sorry) this afternoon (although he did post my suggestion that, apropos of his recommendation of "Chronicle of a Death Foretold," he should read "Song of Solomon" by Toni Morrison). However, I also found this article on baseballprospectus.com.

To sum it up since it is pretty complicated they say that this stat is superior to others (not specifically wOBA) because it more accurately estimates the number of runs created by a given hitter than any other statistic over the history of baseball. Thus, it is accurate now and it is also more accurate over long periods of time. For example, it is not only more accurate than other similarly accurate statistics for data from 2005, it is also more accurate for data from seasons that occured a long time ago, say 1894. They say that they convert this to an average so that the non-sabremetrically inclined fan can feel comfortable with it since it looks like a batting average, but, to me, this just obscures what is so usefull about this statistic: the fact that it is an incredibly accurate way to describe how many runs a hitter produced by himself, independently of the performance of others on his team.

Head and Shoulders Above

I was looking through MLB.com's stats page when I found this incredible fact.

Since 1900, 19 of the top 22 single season OBP marks belong to 3 men. I bet you know who they are: Ruth (7 appearances), Williams (8), and Bonds (4). This, to me, is a fantastic indicator of how incredible these guys where at hitting. Think about it, 106 years and only three men can match the top 19 seasons these guys put together. One of these men was John McGraw in 1900 (#14), so he barely snuck under the wire in terms of timing, the others were Mantle in 1957(#10) and Rogers Hornsby in 1924 (#17), and they were no slouches.

Anyway, the point is this: The top 9 OBP seasons since 1900 and 19 of the top 22 all belong to the same 3 hitters!

(It is not surprising that these three are also on top of the career OBP list: Williams (.482!), followed by Ruth (.469) and then Bonds (.443). Gehrig is a close 4th at .442 and then there's a big drop to #5, a tie between Jimmie Foxx and Frank Thomas (.425).)

No other major hitting stat is dominated in this way: 14 men occupy the top 22 spots in single season batting average since 1900, 14 in the top 22 HR, 19 in hits, 13 in RBIs, 12 in walks, 13 in stolen bases, 13 in runs, 12 in slugging percentage. None of these is even close.

It just incredible how far above everyone else these three men were in their ability to get on base. It's like they were playing another game. I mean, I don't even know what else to say, those numbers are just ridiculous.

Manny Being Manny

It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Bonds would be on my list of the best 3-4 hitter combinations of the recent past twice since he is, even ignoring the steroids and assuming that he would have followed his natural career arc, the best player of his generation and, arguably, the best left-fielder of all time (remember I said arguably, as in, one could make a case that this is so regardless of whether I hold this opinion or not). However, I assume that some will be surprised by the fact that Manny is on the list twice.

This is totally understandable due to his public perception (as shaped by the media) and seeming immaturity. Understandable? Yes. Sad and disappointing? Yes. The fact is, based upon any and all statistical measures, Manny Ramirez is one of the great hitters of all time and, arguably, the best right-handed hitter of his generation.

Why doesn't he get his due respect and accolades? I think that you have to point your finger at the media. There is another famous player who played for the Red Sox who was one of the great hitters of his generation and, indeed, all time. This player was an average to poor defender, just like Manny. This player had a very difficult relationship with the press just like Manny. This player was a true student of hitting with a very cerebral approach that he brought to every at-bat, just like Manny. Who is the player in question? Ted Williams.

Now, I don't know how Teddy Ballgame was treated by the media in his time but, rest assured, unless I am totally off base, he wasn't ridiculed and turned into a buffoon in the eyes of the average fan. Hopefully, when all is said and done the brilliance of Manny's career will lead to the recognition he so obviously deserves. Maybe then the media and the public at large will be able to analyze and appreciate his approach to hitting. Maybe then the phrase "that's just Manny being Manny" can finally be the compliment that it should be.

EqA vs. wOBA: a Challenge to Our Readers

I have so far encountered two different rate stats that attempt to capture the whole of a hitter's offensive contribution. One is the fairly common EqA (equivalent average), and the other is wOBA (weighted on-base average) used by Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin in The Book.

You can find a description of EqA here. The raw equation is as follows:

(H+TB+1.5*(BB+HBP+SB)+SH+SF) divided by (AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF+CS+SB)

Baseball Prospectus describes it as "A measure of total offensive value per out." This raw score is then scaled to league difficulty and scaled such that .260 is average.

wOBA, as described by Tango et al. is a rate stat with every hitting event weighted by the number of runs actually produced above the expected average (in a particular situation) by a particular play. Constructed this way, the equation looks like this:

(.72*NIBB+.75*HBP+.90*1B+.92*RBOE+1.24*2B+1.56*3B+1.95*HR)/AB

Now, for some reason EqA has taken off, but no one seems to use wOBA. Perhaps there are some proprietary issues I am missing, but I am still not sure why this is the case.

Some of my thoughts on the issue:

There is no real account of the weighting in EqA. BB, HBP and SB get 2/3 of hits and TB, but this is not explained and seems like a very rough number. Whereas the weighting scale on wOBA is well explained, and seems very right-headed, if complex and subtle.

It is weird that reaching a base on an error is included in wOBA, and at first glance even weirder that it is weighted higher than a single. But keep in mind, the number of bases is not specified - it includes 2 or 3 base errors. Certainly a RBOE is based on luck, but so is much of hitting (i.e. BABIP). The arbitrary nature of the error stat also should not be ignored. I am also not sure why IBB are taken out. Sure, that is a decision made by the opposing team, but it is a decision based on someting, and, more importantly, does represent a genuine contribution to the team.

EqA includes outs made and bases gained by baserunning (though it does not appear to includes outs from pickoffs), wOBA does not. This is an advantage for EqA, but it seems these could fairly easily be added into the wOBA equation.

EqA is adjusted for league difficulty. This is the only major advantage of EqA, but again, it is not insurmountable for wOBA. In The Book, Tango uses averages over a 3 year period (1999-2002). This could be changed so that averages came from the single relevant year, and then the resulting average could be scaled against league average.

So, as far as I can see, wOBA looks like it has a much stronger basis, but is perhaps not as well filled out as it could be. I think the run expectancy weighting is a very ingenious way to scale the relative importance of offensive plays, but wOBA could do very well to include baserunning and intentional base on balls and scale to league averages. It seems though, that people are quite content with EqA, as it is impossible to find wOBA stats on the web (at least as far as I can tell).

If anyone knows why wOBA is so ignored, or can direct us towards a wOBA database, please leave a comment.

Sean McAdams, Mindreader?

Check it out

It looks like someone over at ESPN reads Sons of Sam Horn. About a week ago, Theo emailed me a thread from SOSH about where Ortiz and Ramirez stand in the history of great and relatively long-lived 3-4 hitter combinations. This is an excellent question since they are obviously the best out there today (although the combination of Pujols and anyone, especially someone as productive as Jim Edmonds is when he's healthy is pretty close behind, in my opinion). This afternoon, I was checking the mlb page at espn.com, as I regularly do after I take my lunch, and, lo and behold, the featured article, written by Sean McAdams, states that not only are Ortiz and Manny the premier 3-4 hitter combination in baseball today, they should also be considered one of the best combos of all time.

Instead of answering the initial question of where Manny and Ortiz stand in the all time rankings, I was content to merely try to come up with what other duos should be thought of as great 3-4 hitter combos. In addition, instead of trying to think of great duos from every era, I decided to try to think of some of the best in since the early 90's. I made this decision since it seems like the kind of question that, to be answered well, needs to be answered by someone who has either memorized the baseball encyclopedia or intensely followed MLB on a day to day basis in the period in question. Luckily for me, we now have an all time list (sorry it is insider only), courtesy of Rob Neyer.

Now, on to my not even close to authoritative, not even thoroughly investigated, unranked list (if you want to look at their stats I would check out either baseballprospectus.com or baseball-reference.com):

Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome, Cleveland Indians, 1996-2000
Ken Griffey Junior and Alex Rodriguez, Seattle Mariners, 1996-1999 (this is sketchy since I think in some of those seasons ARod was hitting second and Griffey was hitting third)
Shawn Green and Carlos Delgado, Toronto Blue Jays, 1998-1999
Jeff Kent and Barry Bonds, San Francisco Giants, 1997-2002 (minus '99 when Bonds was injured)
Jeff Bagwell and Ken Caminiti, Houston Astros, 1994-1998 (when Caminiti was healthy he had great stats, doesn't have the overall compiled numbers but check out his OPS+, nothing to scoff at)
Barry Bonds and Bobby Bonilla, Pittsburg Pirates, 1988-1991 (this duo, ironically, suffers from the ridiculous, steroid aided number of the mid and late 90s. Check out they're respective OPS+ and then look at their numbers, this will give you a good perspective on how crazy the numbers from the latter part of that decade were. These guys were far and away the most feared duo in the NL at the time)

Out of these duos, only ARod and Griffey Jr. and Bonds and Kent are on the same level as Ortiz and Ramirez. This just shows you how great they really are.

The 'Business' of Baseball

One of the quotes that have become increasingly common from players switching teams goes something like this: "It's a business. I accept/understand that." In general, there is nothing wrong with that. Yes, Major League Baseball is a business; that is indeed true. But there is something in this quote that bothers me every time I see it. This line always seems to be presented as if the player is resigning himself to that truth, and not simply proclaiming it to be the current state of affairs. It's as if this is some sad truth that one needs to come to terms with after much soul searching (many of us accept/understand our own mortality). Granted, this may be coming from media presentation as much as the players themselves, but it is still a common undertone to the quote. There are two reasons that bother me, one is superficial, the other is a bit deeper. Let's start with the superficial.

When looked at this way, this line comes off as a dig against ownership. Again, there's nothing wrong with that. If players and ownership ever really get along, it will be a sure sign that one (or both) group(s) has collectively gotten very stupid and they are being screwed behind their backs. What I don't like about this is that players are probably more responsible for the salary problems that force many teams to unload popular players that they can't afford. If the MLBPA were not so militant and salaries were lower, perhaps Pedro and Johnny would still be on the Sox, perhaps Giambi would still be on the A's and Areu the Phils. So, really, its an issue of their own making.

Again, I don't think this is really a bad thing. The players are the draw, they are the product. They deserve their share. The money is there no matter what, so I'd rather see the players get their fair cut. Don't worry about the owners, they will do just fine no matter how much A-Rod is making. The reason I bring it up is that players seem unwilling to accept their own role in creating the economic system in which they work. They have not been thrown from a vacuum into the current landscape of Major League Baseball. They (or at least many of their colleagues) have played a major role in actively shaping it. So to say anything like "I have accepted it, time to move one . . ." is like humanity in general saying "well, we have accepted global warming, time to move on and live with it." Accepting the situation does nothing. If you have power over the situation (which the players do) and you have a problem with it, then do something about it. Otherwise, you are just passing the buck and complaining.

As for my deeper concern, it is this: most of the time players use this line it is largely irrelevant. The team has not traded/let a player go because they are a business, they did it because they are a baseball team. To illustrate this, I am going to pick on Kevin Millar. Now, his role on the 2004 Sox was undeniable. He was an important part of that team. But the Sox did not let him go because they are a money hungry business. They let him go because he is not a very good first baseman. He was not even the best first baseman on the team in 2005. He did not see it that way, though, and made a whole stink about loyalty and so forth . . . "it's a business."

Well yes, Kevin, it's a business, but more importantly it's a baseball team. If it were a gentlemans club, you could hang out with your good-time buddies (like Johnny Damon) all day, drink Jack Daniels, and not play baseball/play bad baseball. But it's not a club. It's not a bunch of guys put together to have fun; it's a bunch of guys put together to win baseball games. And in a competative market and division like Boston in the east, a baseball team simply cannot afford to have a starting first baseman like Kevin Millar. When a child gets cut from a high school team, they may have many reasons to complain and quite likely they will try all of them out at some point. However, you will not hear "it's a business," because it's not. It's a high school baseball team. This is the same thing. Both organizations are just trying to field the best team they can.

Further, it seems that the presentation of the FO as a business is intended to contrast with the baseball team. Again, I think this is a mischaracterization. An MLB team is necessarily both. They come part and parcel, and it is difficult to separate them.

The fact that MLB teams are also businesses admittedly cannot be completely ignored. Many players are let go, despite being good players, over contract issues. Here, we can turn to Pedro and Johnny Damon as examples (gee, I wonder if Theo is the Sox fan on the blog). Certainly Damon was the best center fielder on the market. He was not let go because he wasn't good enough. He was let go because in 4 years he may well not be good enough (or not the best option, anyway). This risk was not worth the long term commitment of making him the center fielder for 4 years. That is, there were better ways to fill that position. It doesn't make sense to tell someone, "OK, you can be our center fielder beyond your prime because you are good now." This is not a business issue, but a baseball issue. In four years this team will likely be better with someone else out there. If you are confident you can find that someone, then go do it.

There is also the possibility of reinvestment of the money demanded. Certainly this is a money issue, but still I think the money is not as central to the issue as many seem to think. The team line is roughly this: "we could have spent this $5/10/15 million on this one player, or on several players who would have filled more holes and made the team better all around." Sure. The anti-'business' objection is that, well, why not spend the money on all of them. However, reallocating the money does not preclude spending more. Even if you have $400 million, you should still get the most out of every $10 million you can for the good of the team. It's not necessarily an issue of spendthrift as it is allocation of resources. You can only have a certain number of players and you only have a certain number of ways to get them. That is a fact for every baseball team, not just MLB.

Now, I know it looks like I have an ax to grind on these former Sox who left the team with varying levels of animosity. But I assure you, it is not just that. These are simply convenient examples from the top of my head. Evey time I hear a player say someting like "it's a business," I roll my eyes and stop paying attention. Certainly, there are some poorly run organizations and some poorly exected deals by good organizations where this may be the case. It may well be that several moves are made purely as business decisions (another example is teams stocking young players to drive value up in anticipation of a sale of the team). But, in general I think it is foolish to view on field decisions as purely those of a business.

I am not intending to come down squarely on the side of owners. I just dislike this paticular characterization of the way teams do business. The 'business of baseball' line has become a go-to sound bite for players switching teams, and is thus often used when it really doesn't apply. Yes, it's a business. But more importantly, it is a baseball team. There is nothing wrong with it being both, the players just need to recognize this.