It's Hall of Fame time. Can't miss this one.
As we all know, this year's ballot for the real voters is unlike any normal one: instead of being about which marginal guys deserve to be in, it's about dealing with the strategy of what to do with far more deserving players than the rules allow. There was a bit of this last year, but now it's getting silly.
So. Some sorting is in order. Last year I had nine easy choices: Bonds, Clemens, Biggio, Piazza, Schilling, McGwire, Raines, Trammell, and Bagwell, all of whom are back this year. Then I had three bubble guys, and said I would have voted for Palmiero for strategic reasons.
That's not going to work this time, because the nine easy ones all return, joined by Maddux, Mussina, Thomas, and Glavine. So that's thirteen guys who, to me, are obvious HOFers. There's also Jeff Kent, who for now I'll say joins the bubbles, with Palmiero, Sosa, and Edgar Martinez (and McGriff, although last year I concluded that he was a stretch).
What do we do with it?
There's no good solution. One way to go after it would be to forget strategic issues and just pick the best ten. Another way, and I think the way to go, is to worry mostly about ballot strategy.
There are really, I think, three issues. One is to support guys who are in danger of falling off the ballot: that would be, I think, Palimiero, Sosa, McGwire, and Kent. I've said in the past that I think Palmiero and McGwire are over my line; I haven't really decided on Sosa or, now, Kent.
The second is to support the guys who are relatively undervalued by HOF votes. For me, that's McGwire, Trammell, Bonds, Clemens, Raines, and maybe Piazza and Schilling -- all (to me) clear, easy, HOFers, but all having trouble with the voters.
The third is to put guys over the top in order to help clear the gridlock. Who is going to be right around the line this year? Biggio, I think, is the only obvious one. I'm guessing that Maddux makes it easily, and that the other three new ones fall short, although maybe the Hurt comes close.
Unfortunately, as you may have noticed, strategies two and three conflict with each other.
Still, I think that organizes things enough. Drop Maddux, who gets in anyway. Drop Bagwell -- he's not going to make it this year, but he's in the safe zone. And then drop...I don't know, Mussina, I guess, on the theory that he's less likely to make it this year than Glavine.
And, reluctantly, drop the bubble guys. Maybe I'd feel differently if I had a real ballot...I'm awfully tempted to include Palmiero, Sosa, Kent, and maybe even Edgar just to make sure they all stay on the ballot, although I suspect that Kent and Martinez are relatively safe.
So that gets me: McGwire, Trammell, Bonds, Clemens, Raines, Piazza, Schilling, Glavine, Biggio, Thomas.
And one main point: if you think that McGwire (or Palmiero or Sosa) is a clear HOFer, then you really should find room for them on your ballot this year.
Note too that at least as far as leaving Maddux off is concerned, this would be strategic voting which depends on other voters following different logic. As far as I'm aware (and I've seen Hank Schulman's ballot, but otherwise I missed most of the debates while I've been on vacation), no one is thinking of leaving Maddux off for strategic reasons, but if I was a real voter I'd be paying closer attention and, if I thought Maddux was going to have a close call for induction this time, switch to him (over, I suppose, Glavine).
By the way, leaving Maddux off is not intended as a comment on his surgical enhancement.
Update (OK, not technically an update since I hadn't posted yet, but I don't feel like going back and editing): it seems that I was probably correct on Maddux, but that McGwire is probably safe.
Oh, also, might as well link to Joe Sheehan on the HOF electorate. I hadn't really thought about the demographic issues he raises...my general sense is that the HOF has been pretty happy using the BBWAA, and that they're unlikely to change -- instead, what they'll do, as they've always done, is resort to ad hoc rules changes and special committees (and both) to rectify problems that arise, which (as Bill James pointed out) for the BBWAA basically means any interruption of a steady flow of new inductions. But Sheehan makes some good points about why the current system may not prove stable over time.
Obviously, I'm skipping the part where I argue about why the 13 easy picks are actually clear HOFers, and why the bubble guys are bubble guys, and why the rest shouldn't be in. I've argued all of this in the past except for the new guys, so my apologies for skipping it (if you really want to know, click the link above to last year's post, and work back from there). Anyway, my basic view is that I prefer a fairly generous HOF size, and I really don't think any of these guys are close calls at all; better to focus on the more interesting stuff.
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label baseball. Show all posts
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Saturday, December 7, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
I know there's a lot going on in baseball, but just Giants today, folks.
I was okay with Lincecum. I was happy with Hudson. But I'm really not happy at all with bringing Ryan Vogelsong back.
To begin with: he was awful in 2013. He was just fine in 2012, and quite good in 2011. So we're talking about a pitcher who will be 36 next year and, really, has very little chance of being better than league average.
Granted: a low-priced league-average starting pitcher isn't a bad idea.
Take a team with four solid starters and a hole, and adding a cheap starter -- even one with a low ceiling -- makes a lot of sense.
But the Giants aren't that team. They're counting on a bounce-back season for Cain (seems likely), a bounce-back season from Hudson (somewhat less likely, but he needs less of a bounce-back), and a bounce-back season for Lincecum (really not all that likely).And that's just to get all of them to league-average.
To put it another way: the biggest problem with the Giants last year wasn't that they forgot to have a real left fielder; it was the starting pitching. And Sabean's plan is pretty much to hope that it was just an off year for everyone. Or two years, in some cases.
Or, to put it yet another way...Bumgarner and Cain could be quite good, but the other three spots now all have basically a league-average ceiling. Oh, you can make a case for Hudson to do better than that. But it's hard to see. And what's really easy for me to imagine is Vogelson puttering along, doing just well enough that he stays in the rotation despite actually hurting the team.
I don't know...Vogelsong was a great fairy tale. A terrific story. But hoping that it repeats itself? It's really pushing things.
I was okay with Lincecum. I was happy with Hudson. But I'm really not happy at all with bringing Ryan Vogelsong back.
To begin with: he was awful in 2013. He was just fine in 2012, and quite good in 2011. So we're talking about a pitcher who will be 36 next year and, really, has very little chance of being better than league average.
Granted: a low-priced league-average starting pitcher isn't a bad idea.
Take a team with four solid starters and a hole, and adding a cheap starter -- even one with a low ceiling -- makes a lot of sense.
But the Giants aren't that team. They're counting on a bounce-back season for Cain (seems likely), a bounce-back season from Hudson (somewhat less likely, but he needs less of a bounce-back), and a bounce-back season for Lincecum (really not all that likely).And that's just to get all of them to league-average.
To put it another way: the biggest problem with the Giants last year wasn't that they forgot to have a real left fielder; it was the starting pitching. And Sabean's plan is pretty much to hope that it was just an off year for everyone. Or two years, in some cases.
Or, to put it yet another way...Bumgarner and Cain could be quite good, but the other three spots now all have basically a league-average ceiling. Oh, you can make a case for Hudson to do better than that. But it's hard to see. And what's really easy for me to imagine is Vogelson puttering along, doing just well enough that he stays in the rotation despite actually hurting the team.
I don't know...Vogelsong was a great fairy tale. A terrific story. But hoping that it repeats itself? It's really pushing things.
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
I sort of think I must be overreacting to this one, but I'm just very pleased with the Tim Hudson signing. The 38 and 39 year old seasons of a fringe-HOF type pitcher who has aged pretty well? Yeah, I'll take that. Sure, he could easily go south, but the odds of 50-55 league-average starts over the two years seem reasonable high to me. There were a couple of guys out there I was worried fit the Sabean profile who I was a lot less confident in, so I'm smiling about this. Given that I'm also a Freak optimist at this point, I'm happy with Sabean. Of course, he hasn't dealt with the 1B/LF hole yet.
Hudson has really had bad luck with money over his career. I mean, for a player at his level, over the same years; obviously, if you're a HOF-level pitcher, you're going to be lucky financially if you debut in 1999 and not 1979 or 1959. Still, he's just shy of $100M total salaries going into the $25M over the next two years he'll get from the Giants. Doesn't that seem below par for a guy with his career? His #1 most-similar at baseball-reference is Kevin Brown (debut 1989), and he's running just about even with Brown's salary take through their 39 year old seasons (assuming we can count on Hudson pulling in the money on the contract he just signed). He's behind Andy Pettitte, too, and behind Mike Mussina. Age here means a lot, but Hudson hasn't benefited from it. I mean, Roy Oswalt has made $97M so far, and he's younger than Hudson and not even remotely as good. Mark Buehrle, too. And then there's Hudson's old A's teammate, but we don't want to talk about him, do we?
At far as his chances of getting to the real HOF, it seems pretty unlikely; his HOF Monitor number is a very unimpressive 59. His chances (assuming no sabermetric revolution) basically depend on a revival that get him at least to 250 wins from his current 205 (plausible!). 300 doesn't appear possible; he would probably have to stay a rotation starter until he's 45 or 46, and he sure doesn't appear to have the stuff to do that. If he does get to 250, though, and maybe tacks on some impressive postseason stuff...well, then he's going to have a lot of sabermetric support, and he'll be a bubble guy.
I think he'll be fun to root for.
Hudson has really had bad luck with money over his career. I mean, for a player at his level, over the same years; obviously, if you're a HOF-level pitcher, you're going to be lucky financially if you debut in 1999 and not 1979 or 1959. Still, he's just shy of $100M total salaries going into the $25M over the next two years he'll get from the Giants. Doesn't that seem below par for a guy with his career? His #1 most-similar at baseball-reference is Kevin Brown (debut 1989), and he's running just about even with Brown's salary take through their 39 year old seasons (assuming we can count on Hudson pulling in the money on the contract he just signed). He's behind Andy Pettitte, too, and behind Mike Mussina. Age here means a lot, but Hudson hasn't benefited from it. I mean, Roy Oswalt has made $97M so far, and he's younger than Hudson and not even remotely as good. Mark Buehrle, too. And then there's Hudson's old A's teammate, but we don't want to talk about him, do we?
At far as his chances of getting to the real HOF, it seems pretty unlikely; his HOF Monitor number is a very unimpressive 59. His chances (assuming no sabermetric revolution) basically depend on a revival that get him at least to 250 wins from his current 205 (plausible!). 300 doesn't appear possible; he would probably have to stay a rotation starter until he's 45 or 46, and he sure doesn't appear to have the stuff to do that. If he does get to 250, though, and maybe tacks on some impressive postseason stuff...well, then he's going to have a lot of sabermetric support, and he'll be a bubble guy.
I think he'll be fun to root for.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
Haven't done one of these for a while, and I know exactly why: I've really lost interest in the postseason awards.
I'm not really sure why. I'm certainly not any less of a baseball fan than I used to be. I'm just as interested as ever in the HOF, which one would think would be similar. But the postseason awards? If one of the Giants has a shot at it, I'll root for him, and otherwise...well, I'll notice them. I might read a couple of items. That's about it.
I used to vote at the Internet Baseball Awards (I used to vote back when they were conducted over USENET, actually). I don't, any more. Don't even check to see who won most years.
So what is it? Is it associated with age? Anyone else lose interest in the postseason awards as they got older? I mean, I'm not that old. Anyone find themselves more interested now than they used to be?
My best guess is that -- and you're going to think this is silly -- a big part of it for me might have to do with how they changed the way the awards rolled out. Not that the new style is worse. Just that it's different, and that lost some of the fun of it for me. I mean, part of the reason that the postseason awards "count" is because we all believe in them, even those of us who believe in them as a thing to knock down. And one reason I think I believe in them was because they always showed up on the same schedule, slowly, after the World Series. Once they started messing with the schedule, and lately with the rest of the presentation, it just changed it for me. Yes, it's silly.
There are other possibilities. For years, I was involved in regular baseball conversation (usenet, and then I was on one or another mailing list for a long time)...I don't really have an ongoing baseball conversation to capture my attention about whatever's going on. But it's not as if those conversations aren't available to me, or that I don't remain interested in other baseball topics.
Or, who knows, plenty of possibilities. I am curious about whether it's me that's changed or the awards. Who knows: maybe I'll wind up totally into them next year. But for now, not so much.
I'm not really sure why. I'm certainly not any less of a baseball fan than I used to be. I'm just as interested as ever in the HOF, which one would think would be similar. But the postseason awards? If one of the Giants has a shot at it, I'll root for him, and otherwise...well, I'll notice them. I might read a couple of items. That's about it.
I used to vote at the Internet Baseball Awards (I used to vote back when they were conducted over USENET, actually). I don't, any more. Don't even check to see who won most years.
So what is it? Is it associated with age? Anyone else lose interest in the postseason awards as they got older? I mean, I'm not that old. Anyone find themselves more interested now than they used to be?
My best guess is that -- and you're going to think this is silly -- a big part of it for me might have to do with how they changed the way the awards rolled out. Not that the new style is worse. Just that it's different, and that lost some of the fun of it for me. I mean, part of the reason that the postseason awards "count" is because we all believe in them, even those of us who believe in them as a thing to knock down. And one reason I think I believe in them was because they always showed up on the same schedule, slowly, after the World Series. Once they started messing with the schedule, and lately with the rest of the presentation, it just changed it for me. Yes, it's silly.
There are other possibilities. For years, I was involved in regular baseball conversation (usenet, and then I was on one or another mailing list for a long time)...I don't really have an ongoing baseball conversation to capture my attention about whatever's going on. But it's not as if those conversations aren't available to me, or that I don't remain interested in other baseball topics.
Or, who knows, plenty of possibilities. I am curious about whether it's me that's changed or the awards. Who knows: maybe I'll wind up totally into them next year. But for now, not so much.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
So, Tim Lincecum, two years, $35M.
Here's what I think. It all comes down to one thing: is Tim Lincecum likely to be a reasonable rotation starter for the next two years?
If you think so, then...well, yes, he's overpriced, but it's better to spend $17M on a $10M starting pitcher than to spend $10M and give 20+ starts to a guy who shouldn't be on the roster. Sabean was looking at three open rotation spots; there's absolutely no guarantee that he could have filled all three with guys you want to take the ball 33 times each at any price. At any rate, if he's a league-average starter than $35M/2 years is high, but not outrageous; there will be much worse contracts for pitchers this winter.
On the other hand, if you don't want him to make 66 starts over the next two years, regardless of price, then it's a bad signing.
It's really that simple.
So do the Giants want Tim Lincecum to be a rotation starter in 2014 and 2015? It's not clear, from the number. He's coming off a year with a 76 ERA+, and before that he was at 68 ERA+. That's not good enough, so the question is whether he'll be better. And I think there's a reasonable case for it. His K/9 is still a very solid 8.8; his unsustainable BB rate spike from 2012 disappeared in 2013. He didn't exactly do clearly better in the second half of the season, but there's at least a plausible case to be made that there was improvement.
It's probably worth noting that he's been extremely durable; of course, that may not last as he gets older, and is only worth anything if he's better than he has been.
Is it wishful thinking to think he could build on what success he had in 2013? Maybe!
There's also a part of this that really does go past the stats. The Giants are in an excellent position to see beyond the numbers. There are risks at that kind of scouting, but there are opportunities as well, and I think it's reasonable to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt on that kind of thing, especially with pitchers.
If they gave him the money because they thought it would sell tickets, it's a mistake. There's no way a mediocre Tim Lincecum is going to sell more than a few season tickets at this point, and he certainly won't help specific game sales if he slumps from the beginning of the season. And at any rate, it's not even close to worth risking a postseason appearance over.
But if they think he's a league-average pitcher over the next two years, and that given their position it's probably a good idea to overspend for a league-average pitcher right now, then it's a reasonable move. As long as they're right about him bouncing back just a bit more.
Here's what I think. It all comes down to one thing: is Tim Lincecum likely to be a reasonable rotation starter for the next two years?
If you think so, then...well, yes, he's overpriced, but it's better to spend $17M on a $10M starting pitcher than to spend $10M and give 20+ starts to a guy who shouldn't be on the roster. Sabean was looking at three open rotation spots; there's absolutely no guarantee that he could have filled all three with guys you want to take the ball 33 times each at any price. At any rate, if he's a league-average starter than $35M/2 years is high, but not outrageous; there will be much worse contracts for pitchers this winter.
On the other hand, if you don't want him to make 66 starts over the next two years, regardless of price, then it's a bad signing.
It's really that simple.
So do the Giants want Tim Lincecum to be a rotation starter in 2014 and 2015? It's not clear, from the number. He's coming off a year with a 76 ERA+, and before that he was at 68 ERA+. That's not good enough, so the question is whether he'll be better. And I think there's a reasonable case for it. His K/9 is still a very solid 8.8; his unsustainable BB rate spike from 2012 disappeared in 2013. He didn't exactly do clearly better in the second half of the season, but there's at least a plausible case to be made that there was improvement.
It's probably worth noting that he's been extremely durable; of course, that may not last as he gets older, and is only worth anything if he's better than he has been.
Is it wishful thinking to think he could build on what success he had in 2013? Maybe!
There's also a part of this that really does go past the stats. The Giants are in an excellent position to see beyond the numbers. There are risks at that kind of scouting, but there are opportunities as well, and I think it's reasonable to give the Giants the benefit of the doubt on that kind of thing, especially with pitchers.
If they gave him the money because they thought it would sell tickets, it's a mistake. There's no way a mediocre Tim Lincecum is going to sell more than a few season tickets at this point, and he certainly won't help specific game sales if he slumps from the beginning of the season. And at any rate, it's not even close to worth risking a postseason appearance over.
But if they think he's a league-average pitcher over the next two years, and that given their position it's probably a good idea to overspend for a league-average pitcher right now, then it's a reasonable move. As long as they're right about him bouncing back just a bit more.
Friday, October 18, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
Of course I've known that the Dodgers have not reached the World Series since 1988. I mean, everyone knows that. And I knew that it's been a while, of course. But the time gets away from you (or at least from me)...I hadn't quite realized how long it's been.
What I realized just now is that they're getting real, real, close to the gap the Giants had between 1962 and 1989.
Fine, Dodgers fans; I'm quite aware that there are differences involved, beginning with the outcomes of 1962 and 1988. I'm aware that the Dodgers never went through anything similar to what the Giants did in 1972-1985. I'm aware that the 1989 World Series was less than a complete triumph.
Still, I'm also aware -- that's an understatement -- that not only have the Giants won the World Series in 2010 and 2012, but also that the Giants have been to the World Series four times since 1988.
Hey: I was born after that 1962 series, and while I do remember 1971 and the Hall of Famers, I mostly grew up with the embarrassment of a franchise they were after that, until Will Clark and all showed up. While the Dodgers were winning often, and good the rest of the time. So I'll still take my enjoyment where I can.
Nothing to add, other than that the Cardinals are really quite a team and quite an organization.
What I realized just now is that they're getting real, real, close to the gap the Giants had between 1962 and 1989.
Fine, Dodgers fans; I'm quite aware that there are differences involved, beginning with the outcomes of 1962 and 1988. I'm aware that the Dodgers never went through anything similar to what the Giants did in 1972-1985. I'm aware that the 1989 World Series was less than a complete triumph.
Still, I'm also aware -- that's an understatement -- that not only have the Giants won the World Series in 2010 and 2012, but also that the Giants have been to the World Series four times since 1988.
Hey: I was born after that 1962 series, and while I do remember 1971 and the Hall of Famers, I mostly grew up with the embarrassment of a franchise they were after that, until Will Clark and all showed up. While the Dodgers were winning often, and good the rest of the time. So I'll still take my enjoyment where I can.
Nothing to add, other than that the Cardinals are really quite a team and quite an organization.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
Joe Sheehan: "If a team scores eight runs to go up 8-0, is the next half-inning governed by "pitching to the score" or "shutdown inning"?"
Actually, what I'd like to see is some SDCN (never mind, you don't want to know) run the numbers for what happens in the inning before a pitcher's team scores, and try to get away with peddling it to radio and TV broadcasters as an important ability. You would need some good jargon; if the inning after one's team scores is a shutdown inning, what is the inning before that? An empty plate inning? I can't think of a good one, but I do think that pitchers who do well in those innings have excellent anticipatory skills; they're one step ahead. I promise: pitchers with better results in those innings (shutup innings?) do better than other pitchers, and their teams win more games. So it must be important!
(Last year I pretty much just listened to the regular Giants radio team all through October. Not that they can't be sabermetrically challenged at times; Jon Miller is fairly obsessed with results with runners in scoring position. But still, a whole lot better than most network guys).
Actually, what I'd like to see is some SDCN (never mind, you don't want to know) run the numbers for what happens in the inning before a pitcher's team scores, and try to get away with peddling it to radio and TV broadcasters as an important ability. You would need some good jargon; if the inning after one's team scores is a shutdown inning, what is the inning before that? An empty plate inning? I can't think of a good one, but I do think that pitchers who do well in those innings have excellent anticipatory skills; they're one step ahead. I promise: pitchers with better results in those innings (shutup innings?) do better than other pitchers, and their teams win more games. So it must be important!
(Last year I pretty much just listened to the regular Giants radio team all through October. Not that they can't be sabermetrically challenged at times; Jon Miller is fairly obsessed with results with runners in scoring position. But still, a whole lot better than most network guys).
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
Back to playoff structure again; I can't help it.
I just flipped on the Orioles/Rays game when it got to the 15th inning...it's now the 16th. I have to admit: this is a great game between two division rivals competing for the same playoff spot, right near the end of the season. That's not bad.
And in my preferred system, this game would be irrelevant, assuming all else equal (which we absolutely cannot, but what else are we going to do?).
Assuming that the Tigers were in the AL East, they would have a lock on second place. But they and the Red Sox would be still be fighting for the division pennant, with Detroit down 3 1/2 games. Over in the AL West, and assuming Cleveland was in the East, Oakland would be locked into first while the Royals and Rangers fought for the second slot and a slot to play the Red Sox (or the Tigers). Now, that prize would be a bigger one than the WC slots that several teams are fighting over now, since there's no coin flip game to advance to the LDS round, although the LDS round itself would be less valuable to get into (since the division winners would have some sort of very large advantage, probably needing to win one fewer game to advance).
Here on the second-to-last weekend, there are three head-to-head series between teams directly competing for a playoff spot: KC/Tex, Orioles/Rays, and Reds/Pirates. That's not great, but it's OK. After the weekend, we'll have Rays/Yankees (although that may no longer be two contenders)...but that's it. That stinks! Then next weekend, there's Pirates/Reds again, and again, that's all. So while this week has been pretty good, the final week of the season really stinks for head-to-head showdowns.
Yes, there's some luck involved obviously, but only some. The nature of WCs is that any team can compete against any other (same-league, in this case) team. If you restrict competition to divisions, and play in-division at the end, then the chances of getting head-to-head games is much larger.
There's another thing. With in-division competition, as opposed to WCs, the result will be better rivalries rivalries because the same teams every year are competing. Not only that, but it makes for more sensible regular seasons; fans know right away which teams are competing for which spots.
Oh well. We're now in the top of the 18th in the Orioles/Rays game, and I think I'll wrap this up. It may not be the perfect system, but it's working very well right this minute.
I just flipped on the Orioles/Rays game when it got to the 15th inning...it's now the 16th. I have to admit: this is a great game between two division rivals competing for the same playoff spot, right near the end of the season. That's not bad.
And in my preferred system, this game would be irrelevant, assuming all else equal (which we absolutely cannot, but what else are we going to do?).
Assuming that the Tigers were in the AL East, they would have a lock on second place. But they and the Red Sox would be still be fighting for the division pennant, with Detroit down 3 1/2 games. Over in the AL West, and assuming Cleveland was in the East, Oakland would be locked into first while the Royals and Rangers fought for the second slot and a slot to play the Red Sox (or the Tigers). Now, that prize would be a bigger one than the WC slots that several teams are fighting over now, since there's no coin flip game to advance to the LDS round, although the LDS round itself would be less valuable to get into (since the division winners would have some sort of very large advantage, probably needing to win one fewer game to advance).
Here on the second-to-last weekend, there are three head-to-head series between teams directly competing for a playoff spot: KC/Tex, Orioles/Rays, and Reds/Pirates. That's not great, but it's OK. After the weekend, we'll have Rays/Yankees (although that may no longer be two contenders)...but that's it. That stinks! Then next weekend, there's Pirates/Reds again, and again, that's all. So while this week has been pretty good, the final week of the season really stinks for head-to-head showdowns.
Yes, there's some luck involved obviously, but only some. The nature of WCs is that any team can compete against any other (same-league, in this case) team. If you restrict competition to divisions, and play in-division at the end, then the chances of getting head-to-head games is much larger.
There's another thing. With in-division competition, as opposed to WCs, the result will be better rivalries rivalries because the same teams every year are competing. Not only that, but it makes for more sensible regular seasons; fans know right away which teams are competing for which spots.
Oh well. We're now in the top of the 18th in the Orioles/Rays game, and I think I'll wrap this up. It may not be the perfect system, but it's working very well right this minute.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Q Day 8: A Baseball Question
What happened to the Giants this year? Is there hope of them turning it around next year?Fine; I'll do a baseball one to close out, and then I'll try to go back to comments on the original post to do short hits on a few.
What happened to the Giants? That's easy. As of today, they have 47 starts from pitchers with ERA+ higher than 80, and 103 starts from pitchers with ERA+ under 80. That's not the whole story, but it's most of it. I'm not going to look it up, but I'd say that if you get over 100 starts from terrible starting pitchers, you're not going to win very often.
Can they turn it around? Sure. Matt Cain had a 5 ERA in the first half; he's at 2.65 since the break. It's very realistic to expect 30 starts above 100 ERA+ next year.
As for the rest...well, say that either The Freak or a high-priced replacement gets one rotation spot, and will keep it, if healthy, barring total disaster. That's still more likely to be better than worse. Zito will be gone, and Vogelsong, if he returns, will be more likely to lose his spot if he's this bad again. Yes, it's always possible to get worse, but those two have been so awful that it really isn't likely. I don't see any particular reason to expect a collapse out of Bumgarner...the one place where a downturn wouldn't be a surprise is the Gaudin slot, but it's not as if he was that great, or started that many.
Granted -- they aren't going to get the same level of performance out of RF next year. Or, most likely, 2B. But the rest of the lineup has every possibility of being as good or better.
Basically, this doesn't smell to me like a team that's peaked and is heading down; it smells like a team that had a collective terrible year, partially through luck of the draw, and partially from a few poor decisions involving trusting too much in the WS winning players. Of course, youneverknow, and it's not all that hard to imagine a few poor decisions and a few bad breaks and the next five years in last place. But mostly, that's not what I see right now.
Friday, September 13, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
I continue to believe that the current double wild card system is better than the previous single wild card system (although still not as good as the system I'd like to see). But the confusion that people have about this is pretty obvious in what I've seen a lot of: claims that this season has been evidence in favor of the new system. It isn't!
The big advantage of the two WC system over the old single WC is that it restores meaningful division races. In the 1995-2011 system, there was no significant advantage to winning a division vs. being the WC; now, the division title is far better than one of the WCs.
But that doesn't happen to apply this year. In four divisions, the lead is six games or more; the division winner has it won, and the rest are either out of it or scrambling for a WC. The double WC does not help in those cases. In the AL West, the A's are 3 1/2 games up on the Rangers, who lead the WC chase. Without the second WC, the A's would close to locked into a playoff spot (5 1/2 up over Tampa Bay); with it, they have a pretty serious risk of dropping from division winner to WC.
To finish up the AL...there are currently six teams (not counting the A's) competing for the two WCs, with Texas up two games, the Rays in the second spot, and then the other four within 2 1/2 games. Without a second spot, would the Royals, 4 1/2 behind the Rangers, still be as interested? Sure -- indeed, since each WC slot is worth only half of what the old WC was worth, Royals fans and fans of the other three trailing teams might find the old system just as exciting as the new one right now. Rangers fans are right in the middle -- looking up is more exciting (they could win a division!), but looking down is less so (they hardly have a WC slot wrapped up, but it's far more secure than it would be in the old days).
That's the American League. Over in the Senior Circuit, none of it makes any difference to the teams in the East and West. What about the three contenders in the Central? The new system probably makes September a little less exciting for those teams. Instead of three teams playing for two spots, we have three teams playing for three spots, one of which is much better than the other two. If all three stay close, it's probably a mild net loss. If one breaks away into first, then it's a clear net loss, as the two-team competition for two WC spots will be dull. On the other hand, if the top two separate themselves, then the current system really helps.
(OK, I suppose I should mention: it's not really locked. The Nats have a very slim shot that they wouldn't under the old system; on top of that, the DBacks are done now, but they stayed mildly alive longer because of the increased shot of a WC).
I'll also add: it's hard to tell how things shake out under my system because it would involve some realignment (into four divisions) and a different schedule. If we ignore the schedule, however, what happens is that a few teams drop out of contention, but the Red Sox, Braves, and Dodgers probably have a much more exciting season -- but also are rewarded much better in the postseason for what they did in the regular season. Oh, and there's a much better chance of contenders for the same spot playing against each other in the last few weeks.
In fact, I should probably highlight this, although it's not just about the 2WC system: Despite all the teams in the running, this weekend there's only one series between contenders for the same spot, with the Rangers playing the A's. That's pathetic.
None of this proves anything. All systems have advantages and disadvantages; the fall of the cards in any particular year can turn out any which way. It's just very strange to me that people (and, sorry, I haven't saved any cites, but I've seen multiple examples) would claim that this year is particularly good for the 2WC system.
The big advantage of the two WC system over the old single WC is that it restores meaningful division races. In the 1995-2011 system, there was no significant advantage to winning a division vs. being the WC; now, the division title is far better than one of the WCs.
But that doesn't happen to apply this year. In four divisions, the lead is six games or more; the division winner has it won, and the rest are either out of it or scrambling for a WC. The double WC does not help in those cases. In the AL West, the A's are 3 1/2 games up on the Rangers, who lead the WC chase. Without the second WC, the A's would close to locked into a playoff spot (5 1/2 up over Tampa Bay); with it, they have a pretty serious risk of dropping from division winner to WC.
To finish up the AL...there are currently six teams (not counting the A's) competing for the two WCs, with Texas up two games, the Rays in the second spot, and then the other four within 2 1/2 games. Without a second spot, would the Royals, 4 1/2 behind the Rangers, still be as interested? Sure -- indeed, since each WC slot is worth only half of what the old WC was worth, Royals fans and fans of the other three trailing teams might find the old system just as exciting as the new one right now. Rangers fans are right in the middle -- looking up is more exciting (they could win a division!), but looking down is less so (they hardly have a WC slot wrapped up, but it's far more secure than it would be in the old days).
That's the American League. Over in the Senior Circuit, none of it makes any difference to the teams in the East and West. What about the three contenders in the Central? The new system probably makes September a little less exciting for those teams. Instead of three teams playing for two spots, we have three teams playing for three spots, one of which is much better than the other two. If all three stay close, it's probably a mild net loss. If one breaks away into first, then it's a clear net loss, as the two-team competition for two WC spots will be dull. On the other hand, if the top two separate themselves, then the current system really helps.
(OK, I suppose I should mention: it's not really locked. The Nats have a very slim shot that they wouldn't under the old system; on top of that, the DBacks are done now, but they stayed mildly alive longer because of the increased shot of a WC).
I'll also add: it's hard to tell how things shake out under my system because it would involve some realignment (into four divisions) and a different schedule. If we ignore the schedule, however, what happens is that a few teams drop out of contention, but the Red Sox, Braves, and Dodgers probably have a much more exciting season -- but also are rewarded much better in the postseason for what they did in the regular season. Oh, and there's a much better chance of contenders for the same spot playing against each other in the last few weeks.
In fact, I should probably highlight this, although it's not just about the 2WC system: Despite all the teams in the running, this weekend there's only one series between contenders for the same spot, with the Rangers playing the A's. That's pathetic.
None of this proves anything. All systems have advantages and disadvantages; the fall of the cards in any particular year can turn out any which way. It's just very strange to me that people (and, sorry, I haven't saved any cites, but I've seen multiple examples) would claim that this year is particularly good for the 2WC system.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
Wow -- Yusmeiro Petit, one batter away from being perfect.
Credit to Brian Sabean; he's done an excellent job for years in finding guys like this. After all, Vogelsong, Gaudin, and Petit are all in the rotation right now, and all are multiple castoffs.
Granted: there's no particular reason to believe that Petit is going to be anything in the long run, or even in the medium run. But, hey -- that's three good starts. Maybe he's found something...youneverknow.
Not that I'm exactly hoping for Vogelsong, Gaudin, and Petit to all be in the rotation next year (presumably with Cain and Bumgarner, I guess). Still....much better to have multiple guys competing for those slots than to just plug in any of them.
At any rate, I don't have much to say about it really...I missed the first several innings tonight because I was watching a movie (Some Like It Hot, with the youngest daughter; very fun, of course), and then I checked the score, but didn't turn the broadcast on until the bottom of the 6th. At which point I realized what was going on, and of course stuck with the game until the end.
The Giants of course haven't had a lot of no-hitters, and at least the San Francisco Giants haven't had any obscure pitcher no-hitters; I suppose Jonathan Sanchez is the most obscure of the set, and he had ~120 starts for them and 140 GS overall, so that's not exactly obscure. In fact, Sanchez may be the most obscure guy in franchise history to throw one. There's no one even remotely likely Petit. There's no Dallas Braden or Mike Warren, even (really bad luck to pitch a no-hitter for the A's, apparently).
Anyway, not much more to say about this. Hey, any fun to be had this season has to be enjoyed, right?
Credit to Brian Sabean; he's done an excellent job for years in finding guys like this. After all, Vogelsong, Gaudin, and Petit are all in the rotation right now, and all are multiple castoffs.
Granted: there's no particular reason to believe that Petit is going to be anything in the long run, or even in the medium run. But, hey -- that's three good starts. Maybe he's found something...youneverknow.
Not that I'm exactly hoping for Vogelsong, Gaudin, and Petit to all be in the rotation next year (presumably with Cain and Bumgarner, I guess). Still....much better to have multiple guys competing for those slots than to just plug in any of them.
At any rate, I don't have much to say about it really...I missed the first several innings tonight because I was watching a movie (Some Like It Hot, with the youngest daughter; very fun, of course), and then I checked the score, but didn't turn the broadcast on until the bottom of the 6th. At which point I realized what was going on, and of course stuck with the game until the end.
The Giants of course haven't had a lot of no-hitters, and at least the San Francisco Giants haven't had any obscure pitcher no-hitters; I suppose Jonathan Sanchez is the most obscure of the set, and he had ~120 starts for them and 140 GS overall, so that's not exactly obscure. In fact, Sanchez may be the most obscure guy in franchise history to throw one. There's no one even remotely likely Petit. There's no Dallas Braden or Mike Warren, even (really bad luck to pitch a no-hitter for the A's, apparently).
Anyway, not much more to say about this. Hey, any fun to be had this season has to be enjoyed, right?
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
I was thinking for writing this on time (that is, Friday), but wound up letting it go...until now, when I just looked at the pitching matchup for tomorrow. And really: why is Zito starting?
No, really. Why is Zito starting? For that matter, why is Zito on this team?
Seriously. We're talking about a very, very, very, bad starting pitcher. You want to see his ERA+ with the Giants? From 2007 through this week, in order: 99, 85, 105, 94, 60, 85, 58. Yes: he's had 23 starts this year despite zero expectation that he would be any good and then zero positive results.
So it took them however many starts to remove him from the rotation, but finally they did...and they he came back! And apparently is just going to stay there. Despite that there's no way that he has less chance of being a positive contributor to the next Giants winning team than...well, he may have less chance than Russ Davis.
Tomorrow will be Zito's 163rd start for the Giants in seasons in which he didn't reach a 100 ERA+. That's got to be historically very rare, no? I poked around Giants history a bit and found only one guy to top it; Woody had 178 starts in seasons where he fell short of 100 ERA+. But four of those seasons were over 90, and he mixed in a couple of very nice seasons...it wasn't nearly as bad.
Look, I know that there are injuries, and I know that Fresno wasn't stocked with guys who look like they'll make it, but I don't care; they're better off taking a shot at Machi or Rosario or Kontos turning out to be a hidden future starter.
I have nothing against Barry Zito as a person. And I certainly get the sense that he's tried his hardest over the last seven years. It's not his fault that the Giants offered him a terrible contract. And of course I'll always appreciate his start against the Cardinals in the LCS last year. However, there's just no reason for him to be on the active roster, much less starting games. And there hasn't been for years.
No, really. Why is Zito starting? For that matter, why is Zito on this team?
Seriously. We're talking about a very, very, very, bad starting pitcher. You want to see his ERA+ with the Giants? From 2007 through this week, in order: 99, 85, 105, 94, 60, 85, 58. Yes: he's had 23 starts this year despite zero expectation that he would be any good and then zero positive results.
So it took them however many starts to remove him from the rotation, but finally they did...and they he came back! And apparently is just going to stay there. Despite that there's no way that he has less chance of being a positive contributor to the next Giants winning team than...well, he may have less chance than Russ Davis.
Tomorrow will be Zito's 163rd start for the Giants in seasons in which he didn't reach a 100 ERA+. That's got to be historically very rare, no? I poked around Giants history a bit and found only one guy to top it; Woody had 178 starts in seasons where he fell short of 100 ERA+. But four of those seasons were over 90, and he mixed in a couple of very nice seasons...it wasn't nearly as bad.
Look, I know that there are injuries, and I know that Fresno wasn't stocked with guys who look like they'll make it, but I don't care; they're better off taking a shot at Machi or Rosario or Kontos turning out to be a hidden future starter.
I have nothing against Barry Zito as a person. And I certainly get the sense that he's tried his hardest over the last seven years. It's not his fault that the Giants offered him a terrible contract. And of course I'll always appreciate his start against the Cardinals in the LCS last year. However, there's just no reason for him to be on the active roster, much less starting games. And there hasn't been for years.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
I was going to argue with Jonathan Chait over the question of why college football is popular when minor league sports are not, but Scott Lemieux beat me to it and basically nailed it.
Chait:
[I]f college sports would work just as well if it’s turned into a minor league, why aren’t minor-league sports popular? I can’t think of a single example anywhere in the world of a minor-league sport that even approaches the popularity of the major-league version.Lemieux:
The reason college athletics is the sole exception is that it’s college athletics, and not a minor-league sport. The top 500 college players could drop out and form their own league, but, like the NBA Developmental League, nobody would watch it, even if the quality of play was higher than college football.
I find the idea that Chait (or any non-trivial number of fans) will stop caring about Michigan football if players are compensated more fairly implausible in the extreme. For example, did people stop caring about Olympic hockey when (non-Soviet bloc) professionals were allowed to play? Not hardly—the tournaments became so popular even Americans were willing to watch hockey in large numbers. Similarly, fans in Ann Arbor and Tuscaloosa and Eugene and Gainesville will continue to watch NCAA football in large numbers even if players are permitted to make money when jerseys with their numbers are sold to fans.Yeah, that has to be right.
College football has three things going for it over minor league baseball (and hockey, and I suppose the NBA Developmental League for that matter).
1. College football preceded major league football; minor league baseball basically developed after major league baseball, or at best along with hit. Minor league baseball was never the biggest event.
2. College football has meaningful games in which they contest for a championship, which is the entire point of the teams and the game (well, they have problems with it, but still). Minor league baseball is dedicated to developing players for the parent team; the pennant race, and for that matter the games themselves, is largely incidental to that.
3. And then there's the schedule. Thanks to the cartel in both major league and college football, the colleges get a window almost entirely to themselves, without competition.
I'm looking around and I can't find attendance figures for the old Pacific Coast League, but basically that one meets Chait's challenge of a minor league that approached the popularity of the major league version. Of course, the PCL was shielded from competition by geography, in those pre-TV days. But that's just a different version of how college is shielded from competition.
And you know what? A ton of people watch minor league baseball. The PCL last year averaged just shy of 6000 a game, despite all those disadvantages. No, that's nowhere near MLB, but it's still overall league attendance of 6.7 million, which is actually quite a lot of people...for one of two top-level minor leagues, with plenty more below that.
Now, that's obviously nothing like elite college football. But imagine two reforms. On the one hand, imagine that the PCL went amateur -- the players maybe would get room and board, and let's say they also get education vouchers, but otherwise they don't get paid. On the other hand, imagine that the PCL was a free minor league -- players were under the control of the teams, and teams really put the pennant race first. I don't really know how a top-level independent minor league would do, but I'm pretty confident that it would help more than the amateur thing.
The real way to imagine it is if the old nineteenth century American Association had somehow managed to survive as a free, top-level minor league.Or perhaps if the American League had failed to reach parity with the National League, but was successful enough to make a go of it. Is it hard to imagine such a league having real fan loyalties, and enough of a following to have a solid national TV deal -- and very solid local TV deals?
Now, while I'm totally on Scott's side of the college football argument, I don't really have a dog in that fight. What I do care about is that I'd love to see the baseball minor leagues freed. I grew up in AAA Phoenix, and I've lived for years now in AA San Antonio, and I think it's just awful that we're not allowed to participate in meaningful baseball leagues, with access (unlike today's independent leagues) to the very best players who aren't quite good enough for MLB.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
From John Shea, in an item on Bonds/A Rod:
By contrast -- Hank Aaron himself was a class act throughout the Bonds record chase. Despite all kinds of pressure from reporters to be a jerk...well, the reporters didn't see it that way, but the reporters were jerks and wanted Aaron to lead the parade. He didn't.
But back to commish-for-life Selig: he's a disgrace, and has always been a disgrace. And as long as he's commissioner, the integrity of the game is, alas, in a lot worse shape than it should be.
And we've lost several seasons of getting to watch some of the greatest players ever.
Just terrible.
Both are despised by a commissioner who believes Hank Aaron's homers are sacred.Yup. The commissioner of baseball not only actively plays favorites, but basically has an active vendetta against anyone who threatens the record (well, now, ex-record) of his favorite.
By contrast -- Hank Aaron himself was a class act throughout the Bonds record chase. Despite all kinds of pressure from reporters to be a jerk...well, the reporters didn't see it that way, but the reporters were jerks and wanted Aaron to lead the parade. He didn't.
But back to commish-for-life Selig: he's a disgrace, and has always been a disgrace. And as long as he's commissioner, the integrity of the game is, alas, in a lot worse shape than it should be.
And we've lost several seasons of getting to watch some of the greatest players ever.
Just terrible.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
If it were up to me, Alex Rodriguez would be playing baseball.
But since he's almost certainly not going going to be for a while...
There's every chance now that he may fall short of Willie Mays after all. It turns out? 660 is hard. Really hard.
For a long time after Mays and Aaron, no one really threatened to reach their neighborhood.
Mike Schmidt actually had a shot at it...he had 530 after his age 37 season, with a most recent three years of 33, 37, 35. Coming off a 142 OPS+. If he had averaged 25 a year through age 42, that gets him to 645...but in fact, he only had a year plus remaining, and 18 HRs.
That's when the real chances began, right after he retired.
Mark McGwire's monster full seasons were at ages 34 and 35. The next year was a half-season, 321 PAs, but he didn't tail off at all: 32 HRs, 203 OPS+. That gave him 554 HRs. Any kind of normal career tail-off would have pushed him close to 70 HRs, maybe more. Instead, only more year, more injuries, done.
Sammy Sosa probably wasn't good enough to get to more than 700, but 660 was well within his reach. His last Cubs year he had 35 HRs, age 35, to get to 574. Then a bad year with the Orioles, retirement, a comeback year with the Rangers, and that's it. He managed 21 HRs in that comeback year, giving him 609 through age 38...to get to 660, all it would have taken is to play in that retirement year and get 20, and then hang on a few years as a part timer. Didn't happen.
Ken Griffey finished with 630. He retired during his 40 year old season, and certainly played as long as he could -- even given a normal come down from his early peak, it's unlikely he could have played into his 40s. But of course his story is all about the injuries -- he only reached 500 PAs three times after age 30.
Did Jim Thome really ever have a chance? He ended up with 612, so we're talking about finding another 48 HRs. I sort of think he maxed out...sure, there were some injuries in there, but not all that many. He was 41 in his final season; he probably could have hung on a while longer if he got lucky, but he wasn't going to get more than 15 in a season any more, and even that is stretching it.
A Rod? If he's only going to miss this season, he'll still make it easily. But if he misses this year and next, who knows? He needs 13. He had 18 last year, at age 36, playing hurt. If he comes back reasonably healthy in 2015...well, he probably only has to hold a job for two seasons, maybe one. The 2010-2012 version was certainly able to do that, but there's really no way of guessing what two years off would do. Presumably, Aaron and Bonds are out of his reach...Ruth? Possible. But, again, possible he doesn't have 13 HRs remaining.
And then there's Albert Pujols. If he's done for the year, he's at 492 through age 33. That's plenty of time to get there -- guys as good as him can play through age 42, so if he averages only 20 a year for 10 years, no problem. But maybe he has five seasons remaining. Too early to count him out, but he sure is reminding everyone how hard 660 is.
That's not even thinking about the other flame-outs...Albert Belle was on pace, and so was, actually, Andruw Jones...I don't think Mo Vaughn was, but he wasn't that far off. I suppose you could also go back and talk about Mantle. Manny Ramirez was certainly on his way, with 527 through age 36.
No real point here, other than what Mays, Aaron, Ruth, and Bonds did was probably even more amazing then people realize.
But since he's almost certainly not going going to be for a while...
There's every chance now that he may fall short of Willie Mays after all. It turns out? 660 is hard. Really hard.
For a long time after Mays and Aaron, no one really threatened to reach their neighborhood.
Mike Schmidt actually had a shot at it...he had 530 after his age 37 season, with a most recent three years of 33, 37, 35. Coming off a 142 OPS+. If he had averaged 25 a year through age 42, that gets him to 645...but in fact, he only had a year plus remaining, and 18 HRs.
That's when the real chances began, right after he retired.
Mark McGwire's monster full seasons were at ages 34 and 35. The next year was a half-season, 321 PAs, but he didn't tail off at all: 32 HRs, 203 OPS+. That gave him 554 HRs. Any kind of normal career tail-off would have pushed him close to 70 HRs, maybe more. Instead, only more year, more injuries, done.
Sammy Sosa probably wasn't good enough to get to more than 700, but 660 was well within his reach. His last Cubs year he had 35 HRs, age 35, to get to 574. Then a bad year with the Orioles, retirement, a comeback year with the Rangers, and that's it. He managed 21 HRs in that comeback year, giving him 609 through age 38...to get to 660, all it would have taken is to play in that retirement year and get 20, and then hang on a few years as a part timer. Didn't happen.
Ken Griffey finished with 630. He retired during his 40 year old season, and certainly played as long as he could -- even given a normal come down from his early peak, it's unlikely he could have played into his 40s. But of course his story is all about the injuries -- he only reached 500 PAs three times after age 30.
Did Jim Thome really ever have a chance? He ended up with 612, so we're talking about finding another 48 HRs. I sort of think he maxed out...sure, there were some injuries in there, but not all that many. He was 41 in his final season; he probably could have hung on a while longer if he got lucky, but he wasn't going to get more than 15 in a season any more, and even that is stretching it.
A Rod? If he's only going to miss this season, he'll still make it easily. But if he misses this year and next, who knows? He needs 13. He had 18 last year, at age 36, playing hurt. If he comes back reasonably healthy in 2015...well, he probably only has to hold a job for two seasons, maybe one. The 2010-2012 version was certainly able to do that, but there's really no way of guessing what two years off would do. Presumably, Aaron and Bonds are out of his reach...Ruth? Possible. But, again, possible he doesn't have 13 HRs remaining.
And then there's Albert Pujols. If he's done for the year, he's at 492 through age 33. That's plenty of time to get there -- guys as good as him can play through age 42, so if he averages only 20 a year for 10 years, no problem. But maybe he has five seasons remaining. Too early to count him out, but he sure is reminding everyone how hard 660 is.
That's not even thinking about the other flame-outs...Albert Belle was on pace, and so was, actually, Andruw Jones...I don't think Mo Vaughn was, but he wasn't that far off. I suppose you could also go back and talk about Mantle. Manny Ramirez was certainly on his way, with 527 through age 36.
No real point here, other than what Mays, Aaron, Ruth, and Bonds did was probably even more amazing then people realize.
Saturday, July 27, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
Here's the thing: as Bill James said long ago, and as I've often repeated, the worst thing you can do after a championship season is to try to keep the exact same team together. For one thing, it means you're pretending that there are no weaknesses on the team, which is never true. For another, almost all champions get there in part because they have guys who were at least a bit over their heads, and they're going to come down to earth. It's just a terrible idea.
And lo and behold, there you are: twice Sabean tried to keep the exact same team, and twice it ended with a terrible year.
Now, some of it is just how it goes. Keeping Matt Cain and expecting him to be at least fairly good was reasonable. Lincecum? It wasn't nuts to hope for a bounce-back season, although it was an obvious problem spot coming in. And Bumgarner has been OK.
But Vogelsong's collapse isn't really a surprise. He wasn't actually all that good last year -- ERA+ was 105. Yes, that undersells him a bit because it excludes four excellent postseason starts...on the other hand, he was 34, and of course had no history of sustained success.
Which leaves...Zito. Postseason heroics notwithstanding, we're talking about a guy who turned in an 85 ERA+ at age 34, and that was a comeback year. Of course he was bad this year; it would have been a shocker if he was any good.
Did Sabean even know that last year's champs were a great hit, mediocre pitch team? Who knows? China Basin has been playing as an extreme pitcher's park, and you just never know what Sabean picks up on and what he doesn't.
What it comes down to is that the team started the year with two seemingly reliable, although not star, starters; two major question marks; and one guy with little hope of being close to league average. And very little in the way of Plans B, C, and D; there was Chad Gaudin, and then...what?
Now, I don't know what options were available, but they just shouldn't have gone into the season expecting league-average results from that rotation.
And lo and behold, there you are: twice Sabean tried to keep the exact same team, and twice it ended with a terrible year.
Now, some of it is just how it goes. Keeping Matt Cain and expecting him to be at least fairly good was reasonable. Lincecum? It wasn't nuts to hope for a bounce-back season, although it was an obvious problem spot coming in. And Bumgarner has been OK.
But Vogelsong's collapse isn't really a surprise. He wasn't actually all that good last year -- ERA+ was 105. Yes, that undersells him a bit because it excludes four excellent postseason starts...on the other hand, he was 34, and of course had no history of sustained success.
Which leaves...Zito. Postseason heroics notwithstanding, we're talking about a guy who turned in an 85 ERA+ at age 34, and that was a comeback year. Of course he was bad this year; it would have been a shocker if he was any good.
Did Sabean even know that last year's champs were a great hit, mediocre pitch team? Who knows? China Basin has been playing as an extreme pitcher's park, and you just never know what Sabean picks up on and what he doesn't.
What it comes down to is that the team started the year with two seemingly reliable, although not star, starters; two major question marks; and one guy with little hope of being close to league average. And very little in the way of Plans B, C, and D; there was Chad Gaudin, and then...what?
Now, I don't know what options were available, but they just shouldn't have gone into the season expecting league-average results from that rotation.
Saturday, July 20, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
Did you all happen to read Abby Rapoport's essay on fantasy sports over at the Prospect this week? It was about the differences between being a regular sports fan -- a fan of a team -- and a fantasy player. And mostly, it was very nice. In particular, I think she's great on the differences between a team fan and a fantasy fan.
Still...
For one thing, I think she doesn't sufficiently appreciate how much roto and fantasy sports has brought baseball fans. Bill James, and the success of the Abstracts, basically preceded roto, but basically the explosion of information, as much as it was technically enabled by the internet, has always been all about fantasy. Not just raw information, either. Fantasy created a market for sabermetrics, or at least a market that could sustain more than just one brilliant writer. One might even argue that it was fantasy that created real-life teams eventually adopting advanced analysis over the last twenty years. Sure, there was always an incentive for someone to innovate. But it must have helped that there were all those people around who were demonstrating, year in and year out, that some of the old myths weren't true. If I'm right about that, then roto has made the game on the field better.
I think she really missed the right context on this. For Rapoport, fantasy sports are something that basically trace back to roto, and Daniel Okrent. And that's definitely true...in a sense.
But it's only part of the story.
In once sense, fantasy reaches back before Okrent to APBA, Strat, and the other replay games. I played APBA before I played roto, and playing some kind of replay game has been a big part of the way kids were baseball fans for...well, I think it goes back to the 1930s or 1940s, and could be earlier. Tabletop games can have drafts that could be very similar to fantasy drafts, and play out those fantasy seasons. Of course, it's not exactly the same thing, but the idea of being a manager or general manager of real players is a pretty large overlap.
But the other piece of the context that Rapoport ignores is perhaps even more basic: gambling. One way to look at the emergence of fantasy sports is simply as part of the long, long, long story of gambling on sports. And as such, we can remember that for all our nostalgia about growing up as a fan of a team, there have always been rabid sports fans whose allegiance and rooting interest has been on where their money was.
I recognize the behavior Rapoport talks about -- flipping from game to game, only interested in watching "my" players...but after some 25 years of roto (yeah, that's still what I play, 1988 book rules), I'm not nearly as rabid as I once was. Which certainly doesn't help my Blue Sox. Our season's trade deadline was today, and while I tell myself I was busy with an unusually busy work week, what with Senate reform and all, the truth is that twenty years ago I would have found the time to put together a bunch of trade offers. On the other hand, I've always played AL-only roto, leaving me free (at least before the curse of interleague play) to stay a "normal" fan in the National League while being, basically, a Blue Sox fan in the Junior Circuit.
Which also gets to the idea that there are, of course, lots of different kinds of fantasy players. I had two teams at the same time exactly one year, long ago, and I didn't like it at all. But plenty of people are happy playing in several leagues. I can sort of imagine what that's like, but mostly it just seems very different to me, and, for me, a lot less fun. Also, league cultures certainly differ. My league isn't really much for the trash talk and the posturing. Not really sure why, but there just doesn't seem to be much.
At any rate...I've had the good fortune now to know what a roto title feels like and to know what it's like when my team wins the World Series. They're both fun! But very different. When the Blue Sox do well, for me it is exactly like a gambling win; it's like playing a poker hand well or hitting a winning exacta. When the Giants win...well, I don't wear Blue Sox shirts and don't have Blue Sox mugs and, of course, there are no fellow Blue Sox fans to celebrate with. (OK, I do have a Blue Sox that that my wife made me. It's awesome. Then again, I don't even know how many Giants hats I own).
At any rate, my main point here is that fantasy baseball is far more in keeping with the history of baseball fandom than Rapoport lets on; it's just continuous with traditions a bit different from the tradition of team loyalty.
And now, having listened to the Giants beating the DBacks and also having checked how all my Blue Sox players have done tonight (dropped a point, still in second place), I think I'm done here for now.
Still...
For one thing, I think she doesn't sufficiently appreciate how much roto and fantasy sports has brought baseball fans. Bill James, and the success of the Abstracts, basically preceded roto, but basically the explosion of information, as much as it was technically enabled by the internet, has always been all about fantasy. Not just raw information, either. Fantasy created a market for sabermetrics, or at least a market that could sustain more than just one brilliant writer. One might even argue that it was fantasy that created real-life teams eventually adopting advanced analysis over the last twenty years. Sure, there was always an incentive for someone to innovate. But it must have helped that there were all those people around who were demonstrating, year in and year out, that some of the old myths weren't true. If I'm right about that, then roto has made the game on the field better.
I think she really missed the right context on this. For Rapoport, fantasy sports are something that basically trace back to roto, and Daniel Okrent. And that's definitely true...in a sense.
But it's only part of the story.
In once sense, fantasy reaches back before Okrent to APBA, Strat, and the other replay games. I played APBA before I played roto, and playing some kind of replay game has been a big part of the way kids were baseball fans for...well, I think it goes back to the 1930s or 1940s, and could be earlier. Tabletop games can have drafts that could be very similar to fantasy drafts, and play out those fantasy seasons. Of course, it's not exactly the same thing, but the idea of being a manager or general manager of real players is a pretty large overlap.
But the other piece of the context that Rapoport ignores is perhaps even more basic: gambling. One way to look at the emergence of fantasy sports is simply as part of the long, long, long story of gambling on sports. And as such, we can remember that for all our nostalgia about growing up as a fan of a team, there have always been rabid sports fans whose allegiance and rooting interest has been on where their money was.
I recognize the behavior Rapoport talks about -- flipping from game to game, only interested in watching "my" players...but after some 25 years of roto (yeah, that's still what I play, 1988 book rules), I'm not nearly as rabid as I once was. Which certainly doesn't help my Blue Sox. Our season's trade deadline was today, and while I tell myself I was busy with an unusually busy work week, what with Senate reform and all, the truth is that twenty years ago I would have found the time to put together a bunch of trade offers. On the other hand, I've always played AL-only roto, leaving me free (at least before the curse of interleague play) to stay a "normal" fan in the National League while being, basically, a Blue Sox fan in the Junior Circuit.
Which also gets to the idea that there are, of course, lots of different kinds of fantasy players. I had two teams at the same time exactly one year, long ago, and I didn't like it at all. But plenty of people are happy playing in several leagues. I can sort of imagine what that's like, but mostly it just seems very different to me, and, for me, a lot less fun. Also, league cultures certainly differ. My league isn't really much for the trash talk and the posturing. Not really sure why, but there just doesn't seem to be much.
At any rate...I've had the good fortune now to know what a roto title feels like and to know what it's like when my team wins the World Series. They're both fun! But very different. When the Blue Sox do well, for me it is exactly like a gambling win; it's like playing a poker hand well or hitting a winning exacta. When the Giants win...well, I don't wear Blue Sox shirts and don't have Blue Sox mugs and, of course, there are no fellow Blue Sox fans to celebrate with. (OK, I do have a Blue Sox that that my wife made me. It's awesome. Then again, I don't even know how many Giants hats I own).
At any rate, my main point here is that fantasy baseball is far more in keeping with the history of baseball fandom than Rapoport lets on; it's just continuous with traditions a bit different from the tradition of team loyalty.
And now, having listened to the Giants beating the DBacks and also having checked how all my Blue Sox players have done tonight (dropped a point, still in second place), I think I'm done here for now.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
It wasn't enough to do a whole cranky blogging thing about, but the NYT Sunday Review thing of people doing a column hooked to their new book -- which has made for quite a few very useless Sunday Review items -- seems to have leaked over onto the sports pages. In this case, this past Sunday, Tom Clavin, who has a book coming out on the DiMaggio brothers, was given the opportunity to argue for Dom DiMaggio as a HOFer. It's full of the cherry picking you expect from this sort of thing:
Look, Dom DiMaggio was a pretty good player. And he lost his prime -- his age 26, 27, and 28 seasons -- to the war.
That said...there are certain players who get a reputation for being underrated, and there's nothing you can do to shake it. Dom DiMaggio is an excellent example.
Here's the thing: he's not the most deserving Red Sox CF to not be in the Hall. You would think he'd have to manage that, at least, to really merit consideration, no?
Let's try this with OPS+, best ten seasons -- something that works well for the guy with only 10 seasons:
Dom D 123 121 113 110 110 108 107 105 104 102
Reggie S 168 162 155 150 143 142 137 129 127 127
Fred L 176 162 142 137 133 132 130 129 118 117
Ellis B 163 149 139 137 132 128 128 122 114 113
DiMaggio does have a couple edges over the others. He was much healthier -- I used a fairly low PA cutoff to include seasons, and if I had used 500 then he loses the 110 season but the others lose more. And he was in CF for 1338 of his 1373 defensive games, while the others all moved to corner positions, and eventually to DH or 1B. Reggie Smith had a bit over 800 games in CF; Ellis Burks had 1061; Fred Lynn, however, had almost 1600.
Really, however, there's just no way that the defensive position adjustment is going to make up for the huge gap at the plate. I'll go ahead and give you baseball reference's one-number stat...I'd take small differences here with a huge grain of salt, but c'mon: DiMaggio 31.8, Smith 64.4, Lynn 49.9, Burks 49.5. Dom's best season scores out as a 5.1...he would have to average 6 wins a year for his three missing years, averaging a full game better than his actual best year, to get to where Lynn and Burks are. But it's worse: that 5 win season was 1942 -- a war year. Not the worst of it, but still, he's not competing against the best that year.
I mean, he's missing what could easily have been his prime years. Maybe he goes nuts and has a 9 win year if there's no war. Maybe this fielding system is shortchanging him. Maybe...but you just can't come anywhere close to a strong HOF case. I mean...I didn't even mention Red Sox CF Johnny Damon (56 WAR).
What I really would like to put together is a team of guys who don't rate the HOF, aren't in it, and yet have a significant cheering section for their candidacies.
1B Gil Hodges
2B ?
SS Marty Marion
3B Ken Keltner?
LF Tony Oliva (yeah, I'm moving him over)
CF Dom DiMaggio
RF Roger Maris
C Thurmond Munson
P Jack Morris
Does anyone really think that Keltner belongs? And I couldn't think of a 2B, or a proper LF, and Morris (alas) isn't going to last on this list for long. Beat my list!
During his 10 full seasons, he totaled 1,679 base hits, more than any other major leaguer in that time. The next four players — Enos Slaughter, Stan Musial, Ted Williams and Pee Wee Reese — are all in the Hall of Fame.If you need me to explain what's wrong with that, I'll instead tell you to pick up an old Baseball Abstract and learn from Bill James how to spot a phony argument. It goes on from there...testimony from teammates who thought he was great, more cherry picked stats.
Look, Dom DiMaggio was a pretty good player. And he lost his prime -- his age 26, 27, and 28 seasons -- to the war.
That said...there are certain players who get a reputation for being underrated, and there's nothing you can do to shake it. Dom DiMaggio is an excellent example.
Here's the thing: he's not the most deserving Red Sox CF to not be in the Hall. You would think he'd have to manage that, at least, to really merit consideration, no?
Let's try this with OPS+, best ten seasons -- something that works well for the guy with only 10 seasons:
Dom D 123 121 113 110 110 108 107 105 104 102
Reggie S 168 162 155 150 143 142 137 129 127 127
Fred L 176 162 142 137 133 132 130 129 118 117
Ellis B 163 149 139 137 132 128 128 122 114 113
DiMaggio does have a couple edges over the others. He was much healthier -- I used a fairly low PA cutoff to include seasons, and if I had used 500 then he loses the 110 season but the others lose more. And he was in CF for 1338 of his 1373 defensive games, while the others all moved to corner positions, and eventually to DH or 1B. Reggie Smith had a bit over 800 games in CF; Ellis Burks had 1061; Fred Lynn, however, had almost 1600.
Really, however, there's just no way that the defensive position adjustment is going to make up for the huge gap at the plate. I'll go ahead and give you baseball reference's one-number stat...I'd take small differences here with a huge grain of salt, but c'mon: DiMaggio 31.8, Smith 64.4, Lynn 49.9, Burks 49.5. Dom's best season scores out as a 5.1...he would have to average 6 wins a year for his three missing years, averaging a full game better than his actual best year, to get to where Lynn and Burks are. But it's worse: that 5 win season was 1942 -- a war year. Not the worst of it, but still, he's not competing against the best that year.
I mean, he's missing what could easily have been his prime years. Maybe he goes nuts and has a 9 win year if there's no war. Maybe this fielding system is shortchanging him. Maybe...but you just can't come anywhere close to a strong HOF case. I mean...I didn't even mention Red Sox CF Johnny Damon (56 WAR).
What I really would like to put together is a team of guys who don't rate the HOF, aren't in it, and yet have a significant cheering section for their candidacies.
1B Gil Hodges
2B ?
SS Marty Marion
3B Ken Keltner?
LF Tony Oliva (yeah, I'm moving him over)
CF Dom DiMaggio
RF Roger Maris
C Thurmond Munson
P Jack Morris
Does anyone really think that Keltner belongs? And I couldn't think of a 2B, or a proper LF, and Morris (alas) isn't going to last on this list for long. Beat my list!
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Read Stuff, You Should
Happy Birthday to David Boreanaz, 44. Totally impossible for me to get my mind around the idea that there are people who think of him as the guy from Bones; he still has a few more episodes as Angel, but not very many. Angel is my least favorite of the Whedon TV shows, but I am happy to see that Gunn is going to be on the Avengers show. Excellent.
Oh, I shouldn't forget the good stuff:
1. I only have a very plain blog, full of what are apparently technically called text-heavy pieces of content. Nevertheless, I agree with Chris Cillizza.
2. Sarah Kliff on the Senate actually confirming someone to head the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services.
3. Framing. No, not the public opinion kind; the baseball kind. Catchers, that is. Ben Lindbergh explains what a big deal it appears to be.
4. And Matt Yglesias on Star Trek -- including his best-of rankings. Only one quibble, really: I still think the torture episode of Next Generation is pretty awful. He underrates the Kirk series, but I'll give him that on changing tastes and standards over time. He nailed the movies, though. Maybe I'd put First Contact a bit higher, but no real complain there. I do think, on his main essay, that the quote that best captures the Star Trek idea is the cultural imperialism speech that Quark makes at one point about root beer and the Federation.
Oh, I shouldn't forget the good stuff:
1. I only have a very plain blog, full of what are apparently technically called text-heavy pieces of content. Nevertheless, I agree with Chris Cillizza.
2. Sarah Kliff on the Senate actually confirming someone to head the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services.
3. Framing. No, not the public opinion kind; the baseball kind. Catchers, that is. Ben Lindbergh explains what a big deal it appears to be.
4. And Matt Yglesias on Star Trek -- including his best-of rankings. Only one quibble, really: I still think the torture episode of Next Generation is pretty awful. He underrates the Kirk series, but I'll give him that on changing tastes and standards over time. He nailed the movies, though. Maybe I'd put First Contact a bit higher, but no real complain there. I do think, on his main essay, that the quote that best captures the Star Trek idea is the cultural imperialism speech that Quark makes at one point about root beer and the Federation.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Friday Baseball Post
I've been negligent about doing this, but I have to take note of the remarkable games last night (Posey 9th inning HR to win it despite a typically dominant Kershaw start) and tonight (Guillermo Quiroz 10th inning HR to win it)
1. When's the last time the Giants won a game in which they allowed a 7-run inning? Just generally, I wonder how many games a year anyone wins despite allowing a seven run inning.
2. Through these first two games of the series, the Giants have not yet retired the Dodgers cleanly 1-2-3 in any of the 19 innings. There were two 1-2-3 innings tonight thanks to a DP. And yet the Giants won both games -- and allowed only one run last night.
3. Revenge! I'm pretty sure I attended this series in LA in 1974: first game Dodgers scored three in the 8th to tie and then won it, 4-3, on a leadoff HR by Buckner off of Sosa in the 10th; second game Jimmy Wynn homered in the 9th to tie it and then Ferguson lead off the 10th with a HR off Sosa to win it, 3-2; third game the Dodgers got two in the 7th to tie and then Ken McMullen singled off Don McMahon to knock in Lopes and win it, 4-3. Well, put it this way: my memory is that I attended a series sweep in LA in which two of the games were walk-off HRs. If there was another one like this, I'm not sure I want to know about it. Granted, real revenge would have required being at the games tonight and last night, and who knows what will happen tomorrow, but I'll take it.
1. When's the last time the Giants won a game in which they allowed a 7-run inning? Just generally, I wonder how many games a year anyone wins despite allowing a seven run inning.
2. Through these first two games of the series, the Giants have not yet retired the Dodgers cleanly 1-2-3 in any of the 19 innings. There were two 1-2-3 innings tonight thanks to a DP. And yet the Giants won both games -- and allowed only one run last night.
3. Revenge! I'm pretty sure I attended this series in LA in 1974: first game Dodgers scored three in the 8th to tie and then won it, 4-3, on a leadoff HR by Buckner off of Sosa in the 10th; second game Jimmy Wynn homered in the 9th to tie it and then Ferguson lead off the 10th with a HR off Sosa to win it, 3-2; third game the Dodgers got two in the 7th to tie and then Ken McMullen singled off Don McMahon to knock in Lopes and win it, 4-3. Well, put it this way: my memory is that I attended a series sweep in LA in which two of the games were walk-off HRs. If there was another one like this, I'm not sure I want to know about it. Granted, real revenge would have required being at the games tonight and last night, and who knows what will happen tomorrow, but I'll take it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
