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.

Luck and the Playoffs

One of the basic viewpoints with roots in the statistical analysis movement that is attributed to Billy Beane in Moneyball is the idea that the playoffs represent too small of a sample size to mean anything real. That is, playoff performance is decided mostly by luck. All one can do is build a team capable of making the playoffs with two or three quality front end starters to run out in the 5 or 7 game series.

It is a common notion, on the other hand, that teams willing to play 'small-ball,' that is teams that bunt, steal, play hit and run and so forth are better playoff contenders. Now, we all know that statistical analysts have shown how these kinds of plays are not really worth it. They are low percentage plays that, in general, cost more than they produce. As a result of this, views like that above of 'small ball' teams are often met with disdain from the statistical community.

However, I am not so certain that these two views are not reconcilable, if not even complementary.

What it comes down to is this: If playoff results are determined by luck, why is it advantageous to play towards the high percentages? These plays certainly work out better in the long run, but it is not clear that they lend any real advantage over the course of the 10-17 games one will play on the way to a title. All of the teams in the playoffs are good baseball teams. So, by the small sample size argument, either your team is hot, and they win, or it isn't and they don't. Longer term trends or probabilities are irrelevant.

It follows, then, that if you are depending on luck to get you to the WS, why not push your luck? If you steal and hit and run, the percentages are against you, but as I said, that is irrelevant. The important fact is that if you steal and hit and run your potential payoff is bigger. So, if you are lucky and everything works out, you come out in the best position possible.

Look at Dave Roberts's stolen base in game 4 (you know which game 4). If he had been caught, they most certainly would have lost that game. But if he had not stolen that base, they also most likely would have lost anyway. Just one example, to be sure, but it serves to illustrate my point. The extra risk taken brought extra reward, and the extra reward in this case was the difference maker between a win and a loss; between a playoff exit and an historic World Series win.

So it seems that there is good reason to think that much of the sabremetric wisdom can be thrown to the wind in a short series. After all, statistical analysts do not even purport to be saying anything about very small samples. The traditional risk/reward payoff is thrown off balance, and it may very well make sense to err farther to the side of greater risk than would be wise over the course of a full season.

If this is the case, the traditional view of 'smallball' teams as good playoff teams does not contradict results given by sabremetric analysis. In fact, I even think that the view should be seen as complementary.

Introduction

My friend Jesse and I have spent much of our work days this summer sending our thoughts on baseball back and forth by email. So we decided, to hell with it, let's start a blog. So here it is. At worst, it will remain a domain for our personal discussions, at best it will be insightful and interesting to the thoughtful fan.

This blog is written by one Red Sox fan and one Yankees fan, as I'm sure will be obvious before too long. However, we do not intend to make this the crux of the blog. We are both baseball fans first, so Sox/Yanks hoopla should not reach obnoxious levels.

Comments are welcome, but we will moderate them and retain the right to reject anything that we don't think adds to the discussion. Well, I guess that's it for intodructions, now to get Jesse a blogger account and get things rolling . . .