|
Monthly archives: June 2003
News on Players Whose Middlename Is Stacey
2003-06-30 12:28
Kevin Stacey Young, who has played for the Pirates since the days of Stargell, Tekulve, and Enrique Stacey Romo, has been released by Pittsburgh in the last year of his mammoth contract. Young's career closely mirrors that of former Buc Mike Stacey Easler, the prototypical late bloomer (well, this side of Minnie Stacey Minoso and Chico Stacey Walker). Easler was a recidivist minor-leaguer and part-timer until the Pirates gave him a full-time job in 1980 when he was 29 years of age. He responded with 21 HRs, a .338 batting average, a .396 on-base percentage, a .583 slugging average, and an OPS 68% better than the park-adjusted league average. Easler enjoyed a nice second half of a career and left us to wonder what kind of career the bastard son of Easler's and Lyman Stacey Bostock's would have. Young had a similar renaissance having three good to very good years from age 27 to 29 (1997-99). It culminated in a 1999 season in which Young batted .298, got on base 38.7% of the time, slugged .522, hit 26 home runs and stole 22 bases, and scored and drove in one hundred runs. The Pirates and Young then signed a new pact f or four years and $24 M. And then the bottom fell out. Young has averaged an OPS about 15% worse than the league average in the first three years of that contract. This season, he lost his starting job to Randall Stacey Simon and was batting only .202 with a .624 OPS. Kevin Stacey Young will probably resurface somewhere, probably Tampa, where some team will hope to recapture some of his past success. He just turned 34 two weeks ago and could have something left in the tank though I doubt it. In other news, Tsuyoshi Stacey Shinjo was oxymoronically sent down by the Mets in the middle of their doubleheader drubbing at the hands of the Yankees. Said the ever optimistic and highlighted Shinjo: "I know what I have to do down there. I will do my best to get the results, and I'll be back.'' Unfortunately, what he needs to do is learn how to hit and at least as well as the actor who played Tanaka "It's really going to be up to Timo, what he does with the opportunity and if he takes advantage of it" It only took them a half a season and two GMs, but then that's why they are the Mets. Meanwhile in other disaster areas, the Boston Stacey Red Sox are moving Byung-Hyun Stacey Kim from the rotation back to the bullpen. I think it's a mistake. Kim has been just 1-5 with the Saux but has a 3.56 ERA and opponents are batting just .214 against him. Besides with Casey Stacey Fossum out, Boston has no viable options for the rotation (Ryan Stacey Rupe anyone?). It seems that either Ramiro Stacey Mendoza, who is pitching terribly, or a player to be named later will replace Kim. This is brilliant logic: take innings away from the pitcher who is pitching well and hand them over to the one that's not. Theo Stacey Epstein's status as boy genius is slipping. The man knew enough to hire Bill Stecey James. Too bad he cannot follow James' tenets.
Permalink |
No comments.
Shouts Out
2003-06-30 10:13
I have added two new links on the left. One is Rich Lederer's Weekend Baseball Beat, which features an article on Rocco Baldelli and his real-deal-ness. As for me, Baldelli's name still reminds me of Dann Bilardello too much for me to expect more than his being the D-Rays rep on the All-Star squad this year. If you want me in-depth analysis read Rich's article. I have also added Wiltopia, a wiltopic look at pre-apocalyptic world (including baseball). Any site with this picture deserves a link:
Permalink |
No comments.
No longer Dennis
2003-06-30 09:51
Yesterday was my birthday. Any Monty Python fan worth his salt can figure out my age from the headline above. Some pretty good players born on June 29 include Harmon Killebrew, manager Wilbert "Uncle Robbie" Robinson, Bobby Veach, Pedro Guerrero, Dizzy Trout, Rick Honeycutt, Bob Shaw, and baseline Buc John Wehner. There's not really enough for a good 6-29 All-Star team but there are a couple of great name among the bunch: Farmer Steelman and She Donahue.
Permalink |
No comments.
Damonical Possession
2003-06-29 02:48
Johnny Damon got three hits yesterday in one inning as the Red Sox lambasted the Marlins for 14 runs in the first innings and 25 in total. Two Marlins pitchers (Carl Pavano and Miguel Tejera) both left without recording an out and allowed a combined 11 runs. Damon's three-hit (single, double, triple) first inning was only the second time ever that a major-leaguer accomplished the feat. My recent spate of odds making as regards hitting for the cycle has me in a probability state of mind. I wondered what the odds were in getting three hits in a row. Well, using last year's AL stats for an average batter, it's only about 1 in one hundred (1.3% based on hits-per-plate appearance cubed). However, not only did Damon get three straight hits: he did it in one inning. The odds for such a feat are a little more complicated. That Damon led off the inning makes it a bit easier. Also, the fact that the Marlins did not record an error prior to his third hit does, too (Errors per plate appearance are dicey at best since an error could be on a throw after a hit or on a play that extends an at-bat). So what we have is Johnny Damon leading off with a hit, eight teammates who record no more than two outs, Johnny Damon getting his second hit, eight teammates who again record no more than two total outs, and then Damon who gets his third hit. The odds in that are 0.000082% or 1,214,606.455 to 1. Given that there have been 179,277 games (through 2002) and let's say that the average game has nine full innings (i.e., ignore extra innings, unplayed bottom of the ninth, etc.), that means that there have been 32,269,86 such opportunities. Using the historical percentage for AL (0.000006%), the expected number of batters who collect three hits in an inning is 1.944105562. So they were due I guess.
Permalink |
No comments.
Season's Cycle (Keepin' It Real)
2003-06-27 11:13
Tangotiger of Baseball Primer fame has kindly helped out by posting my Cycle screed here. My thanks to him.
Permalink |
No comments.
Season's Cycle
2003-06-27 08:57
Brad Wilkerson's sequential cycle got me to thinking about the odds of sequential cycles (single, double, triple, and home run in order) and cycles in general. After going over the probabilities, Wilkerson's feat seems even more remarkable to me. In the world of probabilities, a four-at-bat, sequential cycle is the rarest feat. Why? It's all probability-probability is our friend. Hitting a sequential cycle in 4 at-bats is like rolling a die and getting 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order, except that the die would have to be a bit odd-sided since the probability of hitting a single or of not getting a hit at all are much higher than getting a triple or home run. Historically, the odds of getting a hit are not great. Here are the odds for each type of hit based on total plate appearances across major-league history (TPA= AB + BB + HBP + SF + SH): Single: 17.10% Today doubles and home runs are more plentiful and singles and triples are rarer than the historical average (Actually a league has not recorded a single or triple percentage as high as the average since the mid-Forties). So unlike a die, on which the odds of getting a one are the same as the odds of getting any other number, the odds are much, much higher of not getting a hit and, then if a hit is made, of collecting a single. To calculate the odds of getting a sequential cycle in four at-bats would be the same as with dice except instead of using 1-to-6 as the odds, you would insert the odds above (for a historical average). So whereas a 1-2-3-4 roll would be 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 * 1/6 or about 0.00077 (7.7 * 10^4) , the odds of a sequential cycle would be 17.10%* 3.83%*0.88%*1.60% or about 0.00000092 (9.2 * 10^7). Given that there have been 179277 games in major league history each with two teams of nine batters, the expected number of 4-at-bat, sequential cycles in major-league history is just 2.97. The previous sequential cycler was Jose Valentin in 2000, but he did it in a 5-at-bat game. The odds of a 5-at-bat, sequential cycle go up somewhat. The at-bat that was not part of the sequential cycle would have to be before or after the other four hits, and it wouldn't matter what he did in that plate appearance. Using the die example, there are two scenarios X-1-2-3-4 or 1-2-3-4-X (where X is the mystery at-bat). Therefore the odds increase two-fold. There have been thirteen sequential cycles according to Baseball-Almanac.com including Wilkerson's:
I don't think even Retrosheet can help us determine if that 2.97 expected value is in the ballpark or not. We are left with old Sporting News microfilm. I think I'll pass for now. Next in the cycle food chain, you have the four at-bat, not-necessarily-sequential variety. Let's revisit the die: Let's assume that we throw a one first (to limit the results). To complete a cycle in 4 tries, here are the possibilities: 1-2-3-4 If my fancy ciphering works, that's six. Now, consider that given that there are four ways to start that run (1, 2, 3, or 4), there are 24 possibilities (4 * 6 or 4!-four factorial-if you prefer). That means the odds of a four-at-bat cycle historically are 0.0022% which translates into 59.68 expected cycles all-time, if all games were based on 4 at-bats. But they're not X-1-2-3-4 So each 4-at-bat combination now propagates to five 5-AB combinations or that hitting for the cycle in 5 plate appearances is five times as likely then in four. This means that there 120 combinations that can result in a cycle (i.e., five times the 24 from 4-ABs or 5!) A six-at-bat game is 25 times more likely to result in a cycle than a 4-AB game since there are two "free" throws. Here are the resulting 6-AB combinations from just the first 5-AB combination above: X- X-1-2-3-4 Therefore, there are five 6-AB combinations for every 5-AB one and 25 for every 4-AB one. That means that there are 600 combinations in a 6-AB game that can result in a cycle (5 * 5 * 4!). Also, I should mention that the odds of each combination do not change because the odds of getting anything in the "free" throw are 1. If you throw the die, you have to get something. Such a certainty is assigned the highest probability, one. So one times the combination percentage is still the original percentage. So what does this all mean, if anything? It means that we can take the probability of hitting a single, double, triple, and home run for each league year and using the number of games, determine the expected occurrences of a cycle. Then we can see how they compare with the actual totals. At the risk of overkill, I now list the odds of hitting for the cycle and the expected total of cycles per league and year based on 4-, 5-, and 6-plate-apperance at-bats. Also, I include an "Avg Exp" column which calculates the expected number of cycles based on the actual average of plate appearances per game (usually around 4.25). Lastly, I list the actual times a batter hit for the cycle for each league-year. (Note that I could only find NL and AL data. Data based on Baseball-Almanac.com's cycle data): [Unfortunately, the new and improved Blogger ate the table.]
Permalink |
No comments.
First, you'll notice that the
2003-06-26 14:53
First, you'll notice that the odds are best in the Thirties but that the expected values were highest in the last decade or so. That's because of all of the extra teams, and therefore games, that are playing today. More games mean more possibilities to hit for the cycle. Also, you'll note that the actual cycle totals more closely match 5-plate-appearance expectations that 4-PA or the Avg. expected. There could be a few reasons for this. First that the players who hit for the cycle have better odds to hit a single, double, triple, or home run. Second that the odds to get a hit increase after a player gets a hit, i.e., the theory of the hot bat. Third that players who hit for the cycle do so in high-scoring and therefore high-plate-appearance games, thereby bettering their odds. And lastly, players that are hitting for the cycle are able to better their odds by focusing on their goals. An interesting study could be conducted by studying the batting records for players who are one hit away from the cycle. Do they raise their own odds? Or is it just the luck that comes from playing in a high-scoring game? My personal opinion is that there is an element of luck but that players can be streaky and can help themselves focus and achieve a goal such as hitting for the cycle. The higher-than-expected actual totals throughout history indicate to me that something more than dumb luck and a couple extra at-bats in an odd game are at work.
Permalink |
No comments.
Le Carrousel du Brad Brad
2003-06-25 11:46
Le Carrousel du BradBrad Wilkerson hit for the cycle yesterday in Montreal's 6-4 win over Pittsburgh. Not only did Wilkerson collect the four different hits needed for a cycle, he did it by amassing the hits in sequential order-first single, then double, then triple, and finally home run. ESPN reports that this the first sequential cycle "since the Chicago White Sox's Jose Valentin did it in five at-bats against Baltimore on Apr. 27, 2000." Wilkerson did it in a four-at-bat game. I wondered what the odds were of a player hitting for a sequential cycle in a four-AB game. Using the NL 2002 averages, the likelihood is about 0.000088% or about 1 in 1,133,946. Given the number of games played in the NL in 2002, the expected occurrences of a sequential cycle were 0.02054 or about one every fifty years (I orginally said 5, sorry). Wilkerson's odds given his 2003 stats were slightly better. The probability was about 0.00026%or about 1 in 388,592. Given that he has played 65 games the expected number of sequential cycles is a tiny fraction (0.00016727). Using a 162-game schedule, one expect Wilkerson to play about 2399 seasons before he recorded a sequential cycle. Well, how about that! Go ahead and smile, Brad:
Permalink |
No comments.
The 500-500 Club
2003-06-25 00:15
Barry Bonds founded the 500 home run/500 stolen base club yesterday. Actually, he joined the 633-500 club, but 500-500 sounds nicer. However, he still trails Rickey Henderson in total home runs and stolen bases. Here are the all-time leaders:
What is cool about Bonds is how evenly distributed the dingers and steals are. Here are the most evenly distributed players (two-to-one or less with either one) with at least 500 combined steals/homers:
So who will join Bonds in the new club in the near future? It doesn't look promising. Here are the players under 32 years old who have at least 300 combined steals and taters:
The best bets appear to be the youngest, A-Rod and Andruw Jones, but they have already stopped stealing. Guerrero is behind them but given his 2002 steal total may be the best bet. He would still need 10 years as a 30-40 man to do it. Other than that, Mondesi appears to be the only one with the proper distribution of steals and homers and he is still stealing bases, but he would need to be a 30-30 man until he was 40 to break into the club. My prediction is that unless baseball has a severe shift back to the pre-1993 high-scoring days, it will be hard for a player to get the requisite steals. Bonds is lucky in that he played in both eras. He has not had a 30-steal season since 1997 at the age of 32.
Permalink |
No comments.
Juan Weigh Station, II
2003-06-24 22:29
Lee Sinins reports that "According to the Rangers radio broadcasters, Juan Gonzalez's agent says he's not going to accept the trade."
Permalink |
No comments.
Juan Weigh Station
2003-06-24 20:38
Lee Sinins and ESPN report that Juan Gonzalez has been traded from the Rangers to the Expos. With his no-trade contract he has 72 hours to approve or veto the trade. There is not yet any information about what the Rangers received in return. How long do you think it will take Bud Selig to give him to his friends in Boston?
Permalink |
No comments.
Koppett Dead
2003-06-23 12:34
79-year-old, Hall-of-Fame sports writer Leonard Koppett died Sunday from an apparent heart attack.
Permalink |
No comments.
Everybody Seems So Happy To-Joe-Morgan-Chat-Day-It's a Sunshine Joe Morgan Chat Day!
2003-06-23 00:38
Sir, you have tasted two whole worms; you have hissed all my mystery lectures and... been caught fighting a liar in the quad... You will leave by the next town drain. Sun: sunrise and sunset, or at least I've heard tell. In the Northeast this spring we've had nary a sunny day let alone a daily peek at the orb that Shakespeare said, like foolery, "shines everywhere." And now our summer is at risk of being swallowed up by the same perpetual maelstrom. It's been so bad that attendance is down at major-league parks even from the established post-strike lows. It's become de rigueur to play in a steady drizzle and to mention that a ballgame is official at the end of the fifth inning. Playing in the rain is such a glorious trend that the Yankees were accused the other day of canceling a game with the Devil Rays not because of excessive rainfall but rather because of excessive Jeff Weaver in the impinging Met series. This baseball season has been so much like a Scandinavian winter-that is, an eternal, or at least six-month-long, night-that it has me pining away for the fjords. No, it's not good-Norwegian wood. Usually a summer breeze makes me feel fine as long as it's blowing through the jasmine of my mind, whatever that means. However, a summer breeze today is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. And speaking of things oxymoronic, no one fits the bill better than good ole Joe Morgan. Morgan, as a player, was the epitome of everything sabermetric: a power-hitting middle-infielder who got on base and stole bases at a high percentage. As an analyst, however, he's a sabermetrician's nightmare, foregoing everything but batting average, RBI, and pitching wins to evaluate a player. Worse yet, his spurious logic and inability to answer a direct question make him the Reverend Spooner of baseball analysts. Spooner, an albino scholar, rose to Warden (basically president) of New College in Oxford but is better known for lending his name to Webster's for the term spoonerism, "the transposition of usually initial sounds in a pair of words." Even though many of the spoonerisms attributed directly to Spooner are now viewed as apocryphal, the body of quotes as a whole seems to have had an enduring effect on Joe. They too range from the sublime to the ridiculous. Witness: "The Lord is a shoving leopard" (i.e., "loving shepherd"-sublime). So does Joe in this chat session experience many tips of the slung, er, slips of the tongue, along with his usual spoonerismic baseball analysis. It's a dunshine say! Enjoy! The Thud (i.e., The Good)Doris - Virginia: Why do you call Barry Bonds by his first name when you refer to other players by their last name?
I don't do it intentionally though..
Bonds, by the way, has earned the right to be referred to by just "Barry". So if Joe says "Barry", any baseball fan worth his salt should know the player in question. (By the way, nods to the Sunshine Boys and the Stones...Fred and Barney for the above references.)] Justin (Boston, MA): Joe, what do you think about Hampton's near no-hitter after pitching brilliantly in Seattle, is he back?
Besides right before these two very good starts, he had to leave due to a groin injury after pitching one and two-thirds innings and allowing three unearned runs. This was the last outing in a string of six in which he had not pitched more than 6 innings or allowed fewer than 3 runs. They were preceded by three strong outings (April 24 to May 6).] Egad (i.e., The Bad)Lars (Int'l Falls, MN): While I still like the overall makeup of the Twins, I really think they lack a bigtime run producer in the middle of their lineup; do you feel GM Terry Ryan will pull the trigger on a deal to acquire help, or will he just stand pat and play the season out and take his chances with what he has?
They don't have the ABs for the players they have so unless they restructure the team, I don't see them acquiring a power hitter. Besides, their biggest problem is the starting rotation. It's 21st in ERA in the majors and beyond youngsters Johan Santana (only 3 starts) and Kyle Lohse, they have been a mess. The Twins would improve greatly by sticking Santana in the rotation and cutting Kenny Rogers loose.] Joe Vallee (Woodbury, New Jersey): Hi Joe, What was it like coming back to Philly this week? Although you were there for only a short time, I'm sure you have some good memories of the World Series year in 1983. Can the Phils get consistent, or is this team hopeless?
I disagree with your assessment by the way. They have been consistent, consistently bad. Their pitching has been pretty good, but I don't think it's been that dominant. I originally thought that the offense was being affected by the new-stadium construction. I still think that has some bearing, but the Phils have hit much better at home than on the road. Basically, the entire lineup is struggling and has gone from a highly touted offensive unit to just plain offensive. Bell has been awful. Rollins doesn't seem the same player that was a phenom a few years ago. Pat Burrell is struggling. It seems that Phils only upgrade may be in center fielder where Marlon Byrd has yet to establish himself (and may be competing with the Yanks for center fielders-yikes!). Byrd has not been great at the bat, but I would prefer that the Phils let him develop for a year or two before Wendell Magee-ing him perhaps with Ricky Otero-eaters. I think the Phils would be wise to cut bait on the overrated Rollins and pick up some decent prospects before everyone realizes that he's a bust. Take David Bell and move him to second base where he started. Take Placido Polanco and move him to short where he started. And give third base to Tyler Houston until Chase Utley is ready (but then again has already been moved to second in Scranton because of Bell). Or just give Tomas Perez the shortstop job. Maybe both of those scenarios are a bit too fantastical to actually happen, but Jim Rollins will not be worth the arbitration numbers he gets this offseason. The sub-moronic Phils fans who were raised on the offensive output of Larry Bowa, Ivan DeJesus, Steve Jeltz, and Kevin Stocker at short think J-Roll actually is a viable offensive player. Rollins is 15th in OPS (.701) out of the 23 major-league shortstops who currently qualify for the batting title. He's 14th in on-base (.314) and is the Phils leadoff hitter. Mercy! Sam (Ypsilanti, MI): Joe, I'm a big fan! In your column about the AL West, you note that the A's "Big 3" have been more vunerable than in the past. But look at their ERAs - Hudson 3.08, Mulder 3.26, and Zito 2.92. Struggling? These three are what is holding this team to a good record! Zito's 7-5 record overshadows that he is 1st in the AL in BAA (.197). What gives?
Look, the Big Three and still the Big Three. Their strikeout ratios are all down but besides that there are no possible complaints.] Jeremy (Portland, OR): Hey Joe, It seems like the Reds have been getting into more than their fair share of Brawls recently. Is it just bad luck, or are they over reacting? It looks to me like some of them are a little eager to fight, but I've never had a Major League fastball coming at my head. Of course, you don't see Larkin or Griffey charging the mound.
By the way, the Reds are fourth in the majors in home runs and tied for third in hit batsmen. They are also first in strikeouts by a huge margin (73 more than swing-happy Milwaukee). Maybe it's just frustration. Bobby N. (Bloomington,MN): Do you think that Roger Clemens has a chance to be the first 100% player in the Hall of Fame or do you think he will be around the Nolan Ryan percentage?
A) There were a greater number of deserving players to choose from in the past (no excuse for 5% of the voting populace leaving Babe Ruth off the ballot in the first year of voting). So percentages for lay-up type players are getting higher. B) Nolan Ryan received 99% of the vote, the highest percentage ever (I think he was fractionally ahead of Seaver), and was not nearly the pitcher Clemens is, Advil commercials notwithstanding. C) This is at least 5 years away. Who knows what may happen in the intervening years. D) There will be at least one Boston writer who holds a grudge. E) Ryan receiving 99% of the vote shows you how incompetent the voters are. So your guess is as good as mine. Jerry, Seattle, WA: Joe, I love your analysis. Is race still as big of an issue in baseball as Gary Sheffield made it seem when he said that Sammy Sosa was being unfairly ripped because of his skin color?
By the same token, Gary has the right to speak his mind if that is what he feels. We have the right to discount it, if that is how we feel.
Thanks, Mike Brady. Now please answer the question. My opinion? Yes, race is still an issue. Ask Willie Randolph and Chris Chambliss. Or better yet ask John Rocker and Todd Jones. But does race have anything to do with Sammy Sosa corking his bat and getting punished for it. My opinion? Not a thing.] Chuck (Chicago): Good morning, Mr. Morgan! I wanted to hear your opinion in regards to who you feel should be the starting pitchers for the All-Star game. Esteban Loaiza has the best ERA by nearly an entire point in the AL, but I don't even hear him being considered. And is Kevin Brown a lock for the NL? Which two pitchers ought to face each other at U.S. Cellular Field?
My opinion? Loaiza and Brown if they are available. Joe, at least say Halladay and Brown/Chacon-they lead their leagues in wins, your main pitcher-evaluation criterion. (By the way, Loaiza is not nearly a whole point ahead in ERA in the AL. Pedro (Yes, Doris, that's his first name) is just 36 points behind.)] Rob (Augusta, GA): Hello, Mr. Morgan! I was wondering, with the Braves sudden emphasis on hitting and just enough pitching, do you think the team is ready to win a five game series, and two seven series, like in 1995, and not just do well in the regular season? Being a huge Braves fan, this question preoccupies my mind from April until October.
When they had Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, etc. they only won 1 championship. I think it is time to try it another way. I like their chances as long as Sheffield stays healthy.
1991: 2nd in runs in the NL; 3rd in ERA. That's a pretty impressive run for a pitching staff. Their offense was also very good until around 1999 except for the one-year dive in 1995, the year they won it all. So is it time to "try it another way"? I'd say no. Clearly having a nonpareil staff led to their 12-year run. That said, being among the bottom feeders in offense did not lead to postseason success. The answer? How about balance? Continually being among the league leaders in offense and defense seems to have created their great run. I cannot believe that being a subpar staff this year will help keep the run going. By the way, Joe, as far as "When they had Glavine, Maddux, Smoltz, etc.", they still have Maddux and Smoltz on the team. I just figured I'd let you know.] Rob (Toronto): How bout we get some Blue Jay questions in here! Will they be able to contend with the BoSox and the Yankees over the long haul? Also what are your thoughts on Vernon Wells and do you think he will be an All-STar?
How's this for a prediction: unless Bud Selig cedes another star player, preferably a pitcher, to the Red Sox, they will fall out of contention after the All-Star break and be replaced by the Blue Jays as the Yankees' nemeses. Unless the Red Sox are better than the Blue Jays, then it won't happen. Oh, and Leon is getting laaaarrrrger.] CBeatty (Denver): Joe, Why doesn't MLB bring games to inner cities to help rouse more you youth interest? MLB brings games to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Japan, etc., why not D.C., New Orleans, etc?
Next, CBeatty, have you ever heard of the Bronx? The Yankees play there and it's pretty inner-city. And San Juan is not exactly Beverly Hills. However, baseball is a business and unfortunately the inner-cities are not where the money is for the most part. Besides New Orleans has a minor-league team, and DC is under Peter Angelos' protective thumb.] David (Myrtle Beach, SC): Joe, why are the Marlins so Mediocre? It isn't like they don't have any talent. To me they should be contending, not rebuilding.
The Marlins have been rebuilding since 1997. Baseball allowed Wayne Huzinga to sign a ridiculous contract with the stadium group that he also owned. They allowed him to build and then destroy a championship team. They then allowed him to sell the team and keep the stadium deal. Then they let the execrable Jeffrey Loria buy the team. Long story short, the team has very little cash and even less brains. Why are they mediocre? Because that's how mediocre teams perform. They were mediocre last year and they basically downgraded their entire outfield over the last 12 months. The Marlins have had Juan Encarnacion, Juan Pierre, and Todd Hollandsworth as the outfield for most of the year. Is that the "talent" Joe speaks of? Basically, their offense is Mike Lowell, Derek Lee, and Alex Gonzalez, whose OPS is up 50% and slugging up nearly 100% and who is the leading candidate for steroid abuse this side of Carl Everett. Their pitching has been good but could have been great if Jeff Torborg hadn't destroyed the young arms. With Josh Beckett returning, Dontrelle Willis and Mark Redman dominating, and Miguel Cabrera's ascension, they could surprise some people in the second half. Unfortunately, Mike Lowell will be traded before that. Money you know.] The Boggly (i.e., The Ugly)
Dave, New Jersey: Hi Joe! Regarding "Hat-gate" (Clemens in the HOF as a Yankee); Why shouldn't Rocket go in as a Yankee? Everytime he plays in Fenway he gets no respect/love from the fans (partly because he is a Yankee, but more so)...even his wife and family get verbally abused at these games. The Boston fans don't like him, why should he honor that town and club by wearing their hat? Shouldn't it come down to what town he (and his family) was happiest playing in? His best memories? Everyone needs to remember Boston didn't want him anymore. Yet, the Yankees traded a favorite (Wells, at the time a great pitcher too, still is) to get him, showing they wanted him.
The real point here is there has been a rule or a criteria established. Therefore the HOF will make that decision, with input from Roger. But this is all 5-6 years away. A lot can happen between now and then. It shouldn't have been brought up at this time.
However, I think the word you were searching for was "misconception" (mis-Concepcion?). (The rest I'm OK with.)] Carolyn (Vienna, VA): How aware are players and former players of Larry Doby? Seems like everyone talks about Jackie Robinson but rarely about Mr. Doby.
Look, people like firsts. It did help get Doby in the Hall perhaps belatedly, what else can be done? By the way, Doby was not "the second African American in the major leagues". He was the fourth, after the Walker brothers and Jackie Robinson.] Jeff from Newton, MA: On the topic of GM's and Billy Beane's new found fame (Moneyball): Who will be running the ball clubs of tomorrow? Will it be the Chairman of the Board type Owner(Steinbrenner), the all-knowing, stat watching GM (Beane, Epstein), or the ex-ballplayer Manager who understands the intangables (B. Valentine, J. Torre, M. Scioscia)? Can they work together?
I'm sick of Joe's belligerency on this issue. At least someone finally told him after over a month that Beane did not actually write Moneyball. If Joe actually had read the book, he would know that its underlying theme is that there are certain things like heart and talent that were not being measured by the scouting system. Beane himself is a walking cautionary tale. When he was a player, scouts took a look at the way he ran, his physique, his measurable talents and said that he was a can't-miss prospect. The fact that he had no plate discipline, had glaring holes in his game, and did not especially want to play minor-league baseball could all be overlooked. Meanwhile, a minor-league teammate of Beane's, Lenny Dykstra, was all drive and desire but no one expected much from him. Beane is smart enough to learn from his own career that scouts don't have all the answers. There are different ways to evaluate players and different ways to mine good players with limited funds. He developed an approach (based on on-base percentage and signing college players, i.e., low-risk players) and stuck to it. The first thing that Beane did when preparing for the draft with his staff was to weed out the players that would not adapt well to minor-league life for various reasons. "Heart" entered into that equation and then they looked at the remaining players based on A) the scouting report and B) the player's stats (horrors!). "I prefer a person who knows the game but uses stats to reinforce his evaluations." What, like you, Joe? You don't even accept on-base percentage and ERA. Joe uses stats like a drunk uses a street light to prop himself up. Sabermetricians use stats to form opinions. Look, Jimmy Rollins may look like the ideal leadoff man when you watch him warm up or even in the odd game, but when you see that he gets on base only 31% of the time you realize that he is not the man to whom you want to devote the most at-bats on your team. There is a place for all types of baseball ideologies. The places for the outmoded ones are Milwaukee, the commissioner's office, and the analyst's chair evidently. They laughed at Branch Rickey for investing all that money in a minor-league system, too. Oh, and that Noah guy was a nut building an ark (whatever that is) is the desert.] Utek (LA): Hi Joe. You say that Albert Pujols is the best young hitter in the majors, because he "attacks the ball". I'm not sure what you mean by this. Lots of hitters---particularly young hitters--- are aggressive and swing hard without putting up Pujols' numbers. Please explain. Thanks.
Besides how does one "swing the ball"? Oh, and Pujols may be the best young hitter, whatever that means, but it's because of his knowledge of and ability to control the strike zone (26 K's and 30 BBs this year). Nelson (DC): Can a legitimate argument be made that Clemens' biggest career accomplishment on Friday was not that he got 300 wins but instead that he recorded his 4,000th strikeout?
By the way, I prefer the 4000 Ks.] Jeff: Polson, MT: Joe - Great to read your article about the M's and finally hear somebody extolling the virtues of the team and Gil Meche. As I look at their lineup and pitching, I see only one area that really needs an upgrade, Jeff Cirillo's offensive numbers (his defense has been great). If you were Pat Gillick, would you go after someone like Mike Lowell or would you sit tight? If such a trade were possible, what do you think the M's would have to give up (young pitching, pay part of Cirillo's salary)?
Chris Rochester NY: Hi Joe If you were the Red Sox would you rather have Urbina or Armando B.
"Benetiz, when he is one..."-one what? A choice? By the way, the Red Sox lost Urbina in the offseason because, they claim, they could not afford him.] nassau, Bahamas: Why is it that we haven't seem a player elected into the Hall OF Fame with 100% voting, and do you think Bonds could be that first player?
Bonds have five MVPs and Roger Clemens has 6 Cy Young's. If Mays, Aaron and Ruth weren't 100 percent, I don't' see how anyone else could be.
You don't'''''' see how Bonds could get 100%? Well, it's simple the writers vote for him. Bonds is possibly the best player since Ruth, if any writer leaves him off his Hall ballot, the moron should be barred from voting again. It's not as if the voters of today should be meant to perpetuate the mistakes of men who failed to elect Cy Young in the first go-round.]
Look people change. As years go by, their opinions change and sometimes contradict earlier beliefs. But this was one day!]
I really enjoy doing these chats. To Doris in Virginia, I promise to call Sammy Sosa, Sammy this week and Roberto Alomar, Roberto - to add to Barry. Thanks for all the great questions and we'll talk again next week!
Just don't put words in his mouth, especially his own.]
Permalink |
No comments.
Come on, Freddy--Everyone into the Poo-el
2003-06-15 00:24
I will be on vacation this week and will probably be unable to post anything. In the interim, please enjoy some of the wonderful blogs on the left-hand column below or dig into my archives. That is, unless Blogger has ingested them again. I'll see you in a week.
Permalink |
No comments.
Matt Not at Bat
2003-06-14 02:17
Matt Williams decided to call it a career today just a few weeks after being released by the Diamondbacks. My first reaction to this was to find his place in history. It's the bookkeeper in me, just like the main character's inclination for rearranging his record collection by chronological, alphabetical, or autobiographical order in High Fidelity, I must characterize and then file away a retired ballplayer. My view of Williams is that he was a good ballplayer overall and a great one at time, but not great enough all-around to become a Hall-of-Famer. But what if my assessment was too rash? Let's peruse his stats and see. Williams did record 378 home runs and 1218 RBI. He was an All-Star five times and won four Gorld Gloves at third. His career OPS is .807, 13% better than the adjusted league average. He earned 238 Win Shares through 2002 (tied for 359th all-time). That's all pretty good, but is it Hall of Fame material. Well, he falls a bit short in the Bill James Hall standards (from Baseball-Reference.com): Black Ink: Batting - 8 (Average HOFer ~ 27) That's not too encouraging, but how does he compare to other third basemen who are not yet in the Hall of Fame? Is he the best available? Wade Boggs has an OPS that is 30% better than average, he was a 12-time All-Star, and led his league in average 5 times, on-base 6 times, OPS twice, etc. Boggs is clearly a better candidate than Williams, but he's not yet eligible. What about those eligible? Graig Nettles was 10% better than the league average in OPS and had more home runs. Ron Santo was 25% better, was a 9-time All-Star, and 5-time Gold Glover. Darrell Evans had an OPS 19% better than league average, and had nearly 4- more career home runs. Paul Molitor, who was more a third baseman defensively than anything else, had an OPS 22% better than the league average and a 7-time All-Star. Old-time Cubbie third sacker Stan Hack was 19% better than the league average OPS. Ken Boyer's OPS was 16% better than league average, he was a league MVP, a 7-time All-Star, and a 5-time Gold Glove winner. Sal Bando was 18% better than the league average OPS. All of those players are listed in the top thirteen third baseman in Bill James listing of the best ever in his revised Historical Baseball Abstract. Matt Williams comes in 23rd. But a player that good has to at least be the best of his era, right? Well, switching to Win Shares, we find that Williams' 238 total is behind contemporaries part-time third baseman Edgar Martinez (277), Bobby Bonilla (267), Robin Ventura (256), Tim Wallach (248), and Ken Caminiti (242). Williams does not have any batters similar who are enshrined in Cooperstown. One other thing that jumps out at you when you read his stats, through age 28 his most similar batter was the greatest third baseman of all, Michael Jack Schmidt. So why didn't Williams become Mike Schmidt? Here are both players number through age 28, the year in which Schmidt was most similar to Williams.
Now here they are over the rest of their careers:
After looking at him that way, I am prepared to say that Williams is no John F., er, Mike Schmidt. Not now and not when he was 28. He had a lot of similar stats at age 28: games, at-bats, home runs, RBI, batting average, and maybe even slugging. But where they are different, they are markedly different: stolen bases, runs, walks, on-base, and OPS. Schmidt was a much more diversified player. Williams at 28 closely mirrored the slugger in Schmidt, but couldn't come close to Schmidt as an on-base and baserunning machine. At the age of 29, Williams loses potentially his best season to injury (1.046 OPS through 76 games). His post-30 career is still a slight improvement. His OBP, batting average, runs, and RBI rise and his strikeouts fall. But compared to Schmidt, he's not even in the same ballpark. Schmidt's OPS is nearly 100 points higher than Williams and he doubles a number of Williams' stats. So what is the legacy of Matt Williams? He was a very good ballplayer, just like ex-teammate Will Clark. They will both probably be passed over when the dangling chads of the Hall of Fame votes are added up.
Permalink |
No comments.
How will 4000 Go Into 300? II
2003-06-13 23:52
So on the fourth try Roger Clemens gets his 300th win. It wasn't pretty. Clemens threw a lot of pitches and had to get out of a few jams, but there were a lot of positives, too. Here are some notes from the game: - Clemens recorded his first six outs as strikeouts (though he allowed a Jim Edmonds homer and a Scotty Rolen double).
Permalink |
No comments.
How will 4000 Go Into 300?
2003-06-13 21:06
Roger Clemens just became the third man to reach 4000 strikeouts...officially. Clemens' 4K K actually came three innings earlier against Edgar Renetaria in the second inning of the Yankees-Cards game, but since there has been a steady downpour throughout there was some doubt if the game would go far enough for the feat to become official. Well, Roger, who started the night four strikeouts short of 4000, just finished off the Cardinals in the fifth with a Yankee lead (3-2), thereby making the game official. Clemens is actually at 4006. He trails just Steve Carlton (4136) and Nolan Ryan (5714) in all-time strikeout leaders. Next on tap is win 300 and now that the game is regulation, it's his to lose. By the way, here's the rule involved: 4.10 So if the Cardinals even the score and the game is called at the end of inning, it will be scored a tie game. There will be no winner but the stats count and the game must be replayed in its entirety. It happens rarely but did occur last year in a game between Atlanta and San Fran (if memory serves).
Permalink |
No comments.
Zoning Out? II
2003-06-13 10:20
Leonard Koppett completes his two-part series on the strike zone at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer online. Koppett has a similar tale to tell about the fall of the strike zone that I spelled out. However, he finds that the ceding of the outside strike to the pitcher occurred in the Sixties whereas I saw it happening in the mid-Eighties. PoTAto/POtato. Koppett also expresses a dsitrust of the QuesTec system though he does not refer to it by name: Sandy Alderson, who supervises the umpires, is striving for a uniform strike zone, using television and computer technology to define it. In the end, Koppett blames the lack of strike zone consistency to the influx of umpires in the expansion era. It's an interesting idea that poor umpiring could be the byproduct of expansion. Most of all, I am uncouraged to hear another intelligent voice questioning the QuesTec. It seems that the sabermetric world is happily goose-stepping along with this ill-conceived notion even though it comes from the office of Bud. Wha'appened?
Permalink |
No comments.
Flat-Headed Phillips Screwed
2003-06-12 14:31
Jayson Stark reports that Steve Phillips has been fired as the GM of the Mets and be replaced by Jim Duquette on an interim basis. The Mets will announce the change at a 4 PM news conference.
Permalink |
No comments.
Zoning Out?
2003-06-11 11:39
 Last week I posted a couple of emails from Anthony McLean, who had cc'ed me on an open letter to the commissioner in support of the QuesTec Umpire Information System. At the end of the second email Anthony asked an intriguing question: Finally, for whatever reason(s), MLB umpires seem to cling to a divine ordination to apply "signature zones". Conventional reporting on this issue seems to accept the devolved/de facto horizontal zone like it was an immaculate conception. Clearly there were responsible umpires, and presumably causal events for twenty five years of ignoring the rule book. Still, I've yet to see an explanation as to how this came to pass, or why the MLB umps believed this was acceptable. Have you? I'd love to hear any sort of rationale, however weak. It was a difficult issue to get one's arms around given the dearth of information. There is no way other than anecdotally to determine if a pitch in a certain location would be considered a strike in 2003 or 1973 or 1953. First, there is the variance between umps and leagues, especially before the umpire pool was merged across leagues. Then there are rule changes over the years. The strike zone itself has been tweaked in 1950, 1963, 1969, 1988 (and there was de facto change for the two years preceding this change), 1996, and 2001 though the umpires have adhered to the varying strike zone rule in varying ways. So a waist-high fastball down the middle of the plate may be a strike at a given time according to the rules but not according to the umps. Besides there is no record of pitch location and the resulting ball-strike call. All that we have are statistics that are indirectly a result of strike zone definition, such as strikeouts, bases on balls (non-intentional), and perhaps hit batsman, home runs, hits, and the like. It was a pickle. I wrote Anthony to let him know that I was still puzzling and puzzing even though my puzzler was sore than I thought of something I hadn't before-more on that later. Anthony wrote back: Thanks... In pursuing this, I've had lotsa e-mail dialogs with everyone, from Murray Chass at the NY Times...to Dan Patrick at ESPN. Ah, a personal challenge: to outdo Dan Patrick! I initially thought of looking at data starting in the mid-Seventies, but after reading this article by the great Leonard Koppett, the first part in a series on the current strike zone war, I thought staking out a thorough archeological dig of the strike zone was in order. Where do we start? How about with the history of rules that have affected ball-strike calls, including of course the definitions of the strike zone. (Sources: MacMillan's Baseball Encyclopedia, 8th Edition; Baseball Library's Baseball Rules Chronology, and MLB's Historical Timeline of the Strike Zone. I had a more comprehensive source, possibly Bill James, on the development of pitching but I cannot find it just now.). I have broken them down by category:
You'll notice that aside from an odd DH rule or three, baseball has for the most part been just slightly tweaking its rules since early in the twentieth century. However, the redefinition of the strike zone every decade or so has been the one exception to the homeostasis in baseball rules, and it's more an issue today than ever. Just the fact that baseball had to assert that the rulebook would actually be followed is telling enough. Now, Let's assume a few things. First, that a number of the changes above such as changes to the strike zone, the pitching distance, the number of balls in a walk, etc., affect the statistical record in a discernable way. You just have to know where to look for it. If the umpires have been altering the strike zone, there should be some account of it in the statistical record. Maybe it won't be as sudden a change as a rule change, but it should be perceptible over time. Also, if de facto strike zones are adopted by umps in one league first, then there should be a perceptible difference between the leagues' statistical record. I made a table of strikeouts, walks (unintentional), hits batsmen, hits, and home runs per plate appearance per league per year since 1871. I also calculated the percentage change per league each year and the annual differences between the leagues. For the sake of brevity-like that's a concern for me-, I'll just post strikeouts and unintentional walks here (By the way, there are inaccuracies between the pitching and batting data for pre-1962 data. For instance, no strikeouts were record for batters for the first decade of the 1900s. I have chosen the larger of the two to cast the widest net. Also, for interleague era data, I have opted to list the batting data. Neither would give a complete picture.):
OK, so it appears that strike zone definition affects the statistical record much less than other rule changes or even changes in the size or quality of the player pool. The largest variance occurred in 1877 when home plate was moved to its current position though it was still square (K/PA increased 79.94%; BB/PA went up 50.33%). The foul strike caused huge increases in strikeouts in the NL in 1901 (59.38%) and the AL in 1903 (56.68%). The one-year switch to four strikes in 1887 caused a huge swing in strikeouts (NL: 1887 down 38.46% and 1888 up 37.29%; AA: 1887 down 35.37% and 42.87% in 1888). The largest change in walk occurrences happened in 1889 when the majors went to 4 balls per walk (65.98% in NL, 34.17% in AA), 1886 when it became 5 balls for a walk (49.65% in AA, 17.41% in NL), etc. But years like 1872 (65.98% increase in walks) and 1878 (48.95% increase in strikeouts), in which no rules changes were implemented but the quality of the play varied greatly, witnessed a great deal of variability in strikeout and walk calls. The years in which the strike zone was redefined produced various results: 1887: Baseball defined the a unified strike zone for the first time as batters were no longer able to call for a high or low pitch. However, it is difficult to say how much the strike zone changes affected the statistical record given that baseball was still monkeying with lots of rules at once. For example, only in 1887 four strikes were required for a strikeout, the first time that a hit batsman was given first base was 1887 (at least in the NL; the AA had established the rule in 1884), and in 1887 the pitcher's box was shrunk and the pitcher was required to keep his foot on the back line of the box (thereby moving the release point back at least a couple of feet). |
Doris, I wasn't aware of that. I call Mike Piazza, Mike. I call Ichiro, Ichiro! I wasn't really aware of that. But I'm not exactly sure you're right. I'm sure there are others. 
[Mike:"She's a nice girl. She's a Virginian." Sheez, and people say I'm too tough on the guy. Doris, you finkosaurus. Talk about minutiae! As long as we can tell to whom he's referring, who cares? "Ichiro? Is that Ichiro Smith? Oh dear!" 
[Mike:First, they are not the same team as last year: David Ortiz, their best pure power hitter, is gone. Add Torii Hunter's off first half and you get a dropoff from sixth to eighth in the majors in slugging. However, they have gone from 16th to ninth in on-base to compensate.
[Mike:From the Elaine Bennis School of Excessive Exclamation Points!!!!!!!!!!!]