Peter Gammons likes the way Evan Longoria holds his bat.
No. I'm not dead.
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The End of a Frustrating Season
There are two things that piss me off about the Braves this year...
1. There's a mathematical equation that uses runs scored and runs allowed to determine an "Expected Won/Loss Record". Baseball statisticians call it the "Pythagorean Record".
The equation is simple: Runs scored [squared] / (Runs scored [squared] + runs allowed [squared])
Normally, the Pythagorean record pretty closely approximates what the actual record is. In fact, right now, 19 of the 30 teams have actual records within 3 games +/- of their Pythagorean record.
The Braves, right now, when comparing the actual record to Pythagorean record are the most underperforming team in the NL.
If the standings were determined by Pythagorean record alone, the Braves would be leading the NL East and have the second best record in the NL (1.5 GB the Padres).
The reasons for the disparity are many. Some say a large disparity between Pythagorean record and actual record is due to managing, a great/terrible record in close games, an oddly large number of blowout games (with a lot of them won or lost but not both), or just plain luck. This year, the Arizona Diamondbacks' Pythagorean record is 73-79. Their actual record is 85-67. That's basically the difference between last place and first place in their division. The biggest reason? The Diamondbacks are an absurd 32-18 in one run games. The Braves are just 17-24 in one-run games.
The Braves are scoring plenty of runs, and they're allowing few enough to win their division and make the playoffs. They're just not scoring or allowing runs in the right places. And that's frustrating.
2. The imbalanced interleague schedule has totally screwed the Braves.
The Braves went 4-11 in interleague play, the worst record in the National League.
Compare the current aggregate winning percentages of the teams the Braves played in Interleague play to those of their divisional and wild card rivals:
Braves (Boston twice, Detroit, Cleveland, Minnesota): 426-332, .562%
Mets (Yankees twice, Detroit, Minnesota, Oakland): 405-353, .534%
Dodgers (Angels twice, Toronto twice, Tampa Bay): 393-363, .520%
Phillies (Toronto, Kansas City, White Sox, Detroit, Cleveland): 378-377, .501%
San Diego (Seattle twice, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Boston): 377-377, .500%
Colorado (Kansas City, Baltimore, Boston, Tampa Bay, Yankees, Toronto): 445-461, .491%
Arizona (Baltimore twice, Yankees, Boston, Tampa Bay): 368-387, .487%
Milwaukee (Minnesota twice, Texas, Detroit, Kansas City): 366-389, .485%
Cubs (White Sox twice, Texas, Seattle): 280-323, .464%
Those winning percentages might not seem so different upon first glance, so here's a better way to look at it. Consider the current aggregate winning percentages of each team's opponents in interleague play to a team that approximates that record, and see who you'd rather play. Below are the closest equivalent of a team (based upon its current winning percentage) . For example, the Cubs opponents' winning percentage is .464, which is roughly equivalent to the current won/loss record of the Texas Rangers. Look at the equivalents below, and you tell me who had it rough:
Braves, .562 - closest equivalent is the Yankees
Mets, .534 - Mariners
Dodgers, .520 - Cubs/Brewers
Phillies, .501 - Blue Jays
Padres, .500 - Blue Jays
Rockies, .491 - Twins
D-Backs, .487 - A's
Brewers, .485 - A's
Cubs, .464 - Rangers
If you eliminate the results of all interleague games from all NL teams, and the Braves would be currently tied with the Phillies, and 1.5 games behind the Mets. The Braves would be just 2 games back in the loss column from the Wild Card.
The imbalanced interleague schedule absolutely screwed the Atlanta Braves.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Things I always wanted to write down for posterity
I have been far too busy/lazy over the last few months and I know I've missed a few brief posts about sports related things... I'll put it behind the fold because it's all dated now.
1. Hawks' draft. I liked it a lot. If they couldn't trade the pick for a superstar (and now I kind of wonder whether Amare was ever an option), and I don't think they'll be able to make any trades until the ownership situation is resolved, then they had to get the best two players they could. Assuming (and Billy Knight and others told us this) that the Hawks had to get a frontcourt player and a point guard with their two picks, I think they did as well as they could have. Horford and Law are a good pair, and I think Horford has a shot to be very good. Some might've argued that Conley has more upside than Horford. Perhaps. But had the Hawks picked Conley instead of Horford (and assume Memphis took Horford and the rest of the draft went to form), the best available PF/C would've been Sean Williams (talented, but major question marks and a huge reach at 11) or Jason Smith (not as talented as Williams, and an even bigger reach), and the only other frontcourt player drafted in the first round was Tiago Splitter. Basically, had the Hawks grabbed the PG first and hoped that a PF fell to them, they would've been bit in the ass (forced to reach or draft for an unneeded position). So the draft was good for the Hawks. I'm not sure they'll be great next year, but they will be better, and if they can find some money to extend Smith, the next yea they could be very good. ADDED: I forgot to mention it... yes, my analysis of the Hawks' draft is subject to attack from this angle - what if Law had gotten drafted earlier. My view is that there were a couple of other PGs available who wouldn't have been a terrible dropoff from Law (namely Belinelli and Crittendon). Also, I thought it not so likely that Law would've been drafted earlier. Perhaps if the Hawks had taken Conley, they could've gotten lucky by having someone else take Law earlier and had Spencer Hawes or Joakim Noah dropped, but I think that would've taken a lot of prayer (from memory, I don't recall Law being ahead of either of those guys on any mock draft).
2. I am oddly disturbed by the visage of Jerome Jurenovich on the Braves' post-game show. I remember his bodiless voice reading the sports highlights :19 after the hour on Headline News, way back in the day before ESPNews and the internet and constant tickers. When I needed sports news in my early teens, he provided it. And now that I see him, it's kind of like the Wizard of Oz.
3. Like I wrote in the Teixeira post, I read Baseball Between the Numbers, by the editors of Baseball Prospectus, and I recommend it highly. It's heavy math, but very much worth it. I should've been writing posts nightly on what interested me as I read it. Now I'm having trouble pointing to the right spots. The chapter on usage of relievers was fascinating to me - recalled Michael Lewis' article (can't find the direct link) on punting in ESPN the magazine from last December. Basically, it seems like every manager uses relievers inefficiently - and one just wonders when someone will actually challenge conventional wisdom and try something different. Chapter 6-2 is probably my favorite chapter of all, because I've always had an odd interest in stadia. If you don't mind challenging your brain in a sports book, read this.
4. I'm no die hard follower, but I will say that the doping scandals didn't prevent me from paying that much attention to the Tour de France this year. I watched parts of probably 5 stages (all in the mountains and on the Champs Elysees) and the whole of the final time trial - which was awesome. My personal feeling on doping is that its deplorable, but as long as usage/testing/prevention across the board (as in, if they're going to stop it, they stop everyone and if they can't they're not only stopping some) and that the competition is relatively close, I don't know if I can tell the difference. I'm a dilettante at it, so what do I care. I watch for some of the action and the interest in the way the racers exert themselves, but I probably watch more for the views and the crowds. And speaking of the crowds, on the last day in the Pyrenees, did anyone else see the dude in the last few km dressed in a massive penis costume? Hilarious drunkenness on those slopes. I need to go there some summer.
5. I love the current Braves' lineup. Love it. And for once, the Braves will be the annoying team to face late in the season in important games. You know... that team that fouls off a ton of pitches and works counts deep. Guys like Kelly Johnson, Matt Diaz, Willie Harris. And Chipper is having one hell of a year.
6. Not old, but I think Eric Byrnes' contract extension was insane. $10M a year for a 31 year old guy who is pretty much an average major leaguer over his career, and has a career year this late. Bad idea. And worse... if Eric Byrnes is worth $10M, every other decent outfielder free agent is going to get paid. Bad news for the Braves.
7. I watched a good part of the MLS match between Toronto and the Galaxy the other day. Toronto's fans are so damn cool it makes me terribly jealous. They're not very good right now, but if I had to guess what team will end up the best franchise in the league in a decade, it's them. And in my own personal battle of trying to choose an MLS team to follow/halfway support, Toronto took the lead from Houston.
8. I don't have much to say about it, but the Wimbledon mens' singles final was incredible. A special match. Federer is such a beast. And as much as I hate Nadal's fashion sense, he's a really good player.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Why I Like The Braves Adding Mark Teixeira
1. On Baseball Reference, the player most similar to Mark Teixeira at his current age is... Fred McGriff. And McGriff's next few years of OPS+: 157, 147, 165.
2. Teixeira means Andruw Jones gets to move from a significantly underperforming cleanup hitter who makes a lot of outs early in the lineup into a kind-of underperforming 5th hitter who makes a lot of outs a little later in the lineup. Teixeira means Jeff Francoeur gets to move from a decent 5th or 6th hitter into a good 6th or 7th hitter. Teixeira means Brian McCann gets to move from a pretty good 5th or 6th hitter into very good 6th or 7th hitter. More on this in a second.
3. Teixeira will mean more wins to the Braves. How many more is up in the air, but he'll mean more. Assuming no improvement by Teixeira (a conservative assumption, since he'll be moving to a league with worse pitching and to a team with better players in the lineup - meaning better pitches to hit), he'd be worth, on his own, about 2 more wins to the Braves (his current WARP3 is 5.4, and a little more than a third of the season remains). Wait... let me adjust that. Teixeira's WARP3 is affected by the fact he's missed 27 games this year so far. If he's got 56 games left with Atlanta, and he'll only play 125 total, that might mean we're up to 2.5 wins - and that assumes no improvement. Second adjustment: the players Teixeira will be replacing aren't "replacement players". Those 2.5 wins I've mentioned only would be an improvement if the guy he's supplanting is a "replacement player". If the guy he's replacing is better than replacement (which would be, y'know, normal), then those 2.5 wins would shrink. Luckily (sort of) for the Braves, the guys who have played at first this season aren't even replacement level. Thorman's WARP1 is negative right now. Craig Wilson's was too. Franco was at 0 most of the year. Saltalamacchia was the only guy with a positive WARP number, but that wasn't even worth a single win. I think it's a safe assumption to make to say that the Braves' output at first was costing them wins rather than helping them get wins. I'd guess that by simply not playing Franco or Thorman, that's worth an additional half-win. That brings us to 3 wins. Now, as I wrote above, I think Teixeira will mean the other guys in the lineup will see better pitches, or get protected better, or have more opportunities to drive in runs (Teixeira's OBP is the highest of his career). This is the murkiest part of the equation, but if the addition of Teixeira will increase the win totals for 6 other players in the lineup by just a half-run each, that's 3 more wins (I'd bet that moving Andruw down the lineup is probably worth one by itself). I think these are conservative estimates, but my guess is that adding Teixeira is worth 6 more wins the rest of the way. If he improves on his performance this season, he's worth even more than that.
4. Using an estimate of 6 more wins by adding Teixeira to the Braves, here's what that's worth. Using the studies and numbers in the recommended book Baseball Between the Numbers, six additional wins are worth approximately $4.5 million (see Ch. 5-2, Table 5-2.1) for the regular season wins. That additional amount covers Teixeira's salary the rest of the year (about $3.5M). The real value, however, is in making the playoffs. A playoff appearance is worth approximately $30M to a franchise. If Teixeira's addition means the difference between making the playoffs and not, his addition would be worth $30M to the team. And if you look at Fig. 5-2.4 of that same chapter, you can see the logistic regression analysis for probability of making the playoffs. Based on the Braves' results thus far, they're on pace for about 85.5 wins. According to the regression analysis, that's equal to approximately a 10% chance of making the playoffs. Add 6 wins to the Braves, and that'd raise them to 91.5 wins. 91.5 wins is equal to a 75% chance of making the playoffs. That's a massive difference - and uses the biggest swing of the regression curve. Let's use a poker analogy: if you, by betting 1/8th the pot (the cost of adding Teixeira's salary is your bet, the pot is the potential added revenues of making the playoffs), you increase your chances of winning the hand by 65%, that's the smart play, isn't it? If Teixeira's worth only 3 wins more to the Braves, the probability of making the playoffs increases from 10% to about 40%. 4 wins = increase from 10% to 50%. 5 wins = increase from 10% to 63%. If Teixeira is worth more than 6 wins, the probability starts to approach a sure thing (7 more wins gets them above 85% probability of making the playoffs).
All this is just for this season - but if Teixeira helps the Braves make the playoffs (assuming they wouldn't without him), he just added $30M in revenue. And that would make an extension more palatable for him.
I think it's a good deal for the Braves to add Teixeira. And I'm starting to get fired up about this team. And if Dotel comes aboard too, damn.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Comparison
Dear Terrence Moore:If When Andruw Jones leaves the Braves, Torii Hunter cannot replace him.
Torii Hunter is nearly two years older.
Andruw Jones has about twice as many career home runs.
Andruw Jones has 400 more RBI.
Andruw Jones has about 500 more hits.
Andruw Jones has 100 more doubles.
Andruw Jones has 25% more triples.
Andruw Jones has a better career OBP (.344 to .324)
Andruw Jones has a better career slugging percentage.
There is a stat called "Equivalent Average", which allows players to be compared without regard to differences in leagues, ballparks, etc. Andruw Jones has a better EqA than Torii Hunter whether adjusted for season or all-time. By significant margins.
There is another stat called "WARP3", which is a way to compare players based upon a formula incorporating a number of offensive statistics and accounting for positional importance, league strength, ballpark, pitching difficulty, and many other considerations. The net result is the number of "wins" a particular player would contribute above a replacement (read: barely a major leaguer) player at that position.
Andruw Jones has a career WARP3 exactly double Torii Hunter's career WARP3.
Simply looking at hitting, Andruw Jones is approximately TWICE as valuable to his team than Torii Hunter.
What about Defense?
Defensive statistics are a little murkier to wade through - errors, putouts and assists do not tell the whole story.
There is a stat called FRAR, which attempts to clean up the muck, and effectively is the number of runs saved having this particular player out there instead of a replacement player. There are two levels of this stat - FRAR1 and FRAR2.
Andruw Jones has saved approximately twice as many runs as Torii Hunter has in their respective careers.
So by objective statistics, basically Andruw Jones is twice as good a player at the plate as Torii Hunter. And Andruw Jones is twice as good a player in the field as Torii Hunter. And Andruw's almost 2 years younger.
Baseball-Reference uses statistics to compare players throughout history.
At his current age, Andruw Jones's closest comparison is Hall-of-Famer Frank Robinson.
At his current age, Torii Hunter's closest comparison is Jermaine Dye.
Of course, no comparison of players is complete without looking at salaries. Andruw makes a little less than $3 Million more than Hunter. Next year, both become free agents.
Torii Hunter should not be an option for the Braves unless Andruw Jones is asking for more than twice as much money than Hunter.
Also, Terrence, David Justice had better numbers throughout his career than Torii Hunter. Not quite as good as the rose-colored glasses view of Justice that Terrence Moore has, but still better than Torii Hunter.
And let the record show that I didn't bring race into the analysis here (someone else is welcome to do that).
Andruw Jones Stats
Torii Hunter Stats
Friday, May 18, 2007
Conspiracy!
Can a major sport publicly suspend a major superstar for transgressions discovered within (aka, not publicly exposed by a muckraker)?
There were always rumors of David Stern suspending Michael Jordan for the years when he tried playing baseball. Barry Bonds' 2005 season was filled with somewhat murky injuries and setbacks - he only played in 14 games - and that just so happened to coincide with the outbreak of the steroid use controversy.
What about Roger Clemens?
The rumors of his use are out there. There's circumstantial evidence that says he's used.
Could it be possible that Roger Clemens failed a drug test, perhaps multiple tests? If so, and only MLB knew about it, would they make it public? Or would they tell him to retire or face a 50 game suspension?
Here's why I ask: I've seen stories out there right now that say, if all goes well, Clemens' first start for the Yankees this year would be May 28th or 29th against Toronto. Note that date. The 29th is the Yankees' 50th game of the season. Exactly the number of games a player gets suspended for a first positive test for steroids. So if there are any setbacks, or if the rotation doesn't work right or something, they might push his first start back a game. No big deal, right? The timing seems very odd to me.
Naturally, it's hard to keep secrets like this. There's no reason why MLB would cover solely for Clemens (he's a star, but is he "beloved" any more than Bonds?). New York is probably the worst city to keep a secret from journalists. So, yeah, this is all drivel.
But if he starts game #51 for the Yankees, May 30th, tell me you wouldn't think that's a little interesting?
Of course, if he starts game #52 for the Yanks, he'll make his debut, which will already be hyped ridiculously, IN FENWAY PARK. In that case, ESPN will make sure all of us think that game is interesting, even though it really isn't.
Starting 3B for the Texas Rangers: Marilyn Manson
I know I'm a disturbed human being, but what's the first thing you thought when you read this headline?
I know I'm not the only one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
