Follow Radical Baseball by Email. Enter your e-mail ID and click Submit button.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Follow Radical Baseball by e-mail.
Just below the description of the Radical Baseball blog there is a long rectangular box. Follow Radical Baseball by e-mail by entering your e-mail ID in that box and then click the Submit button button to the right.
Start The Count At 3-2.
http://calltothepen.com/2012/05/26/radical-baseball-start-the-count-at-3-2/
Yes, I've written about this here previously but now Radical Baseball is being unchained for a wider audience.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
Yes, I've written about this here previously but now Radical Baseball is being unchained for a wider audience.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Friday, May 25, 2012
WADJ: what about some other players?
WADJ: Wins Above Derek Jeter.
To see the data click the link. Thanks to Eric Weiss for the data on Williams, Schmidt, Mantle, Dickey, Berra and A-Rod. The Jeter breakdown is from a SABR-L post by Andrew Milner. Eric, how about starting your own blog? It would be great.
Odd that Derek Jeter is the only one of seven famous players who had no impact on his team's on field bottom line. The Yankee winning percentage is the same both with and without Jeter.
Mike Schmidt had the biggest impact: .078.
So what's the deal with Jeter?
To see the data click the link. Thanks to Eric Weiss for the data on Williams, Schmidt, Mantle, Dickey, Berra and A-Rod. The Jeter breakdown is from a SABR-L post by Andrew Milner. Eric, how about starting your own blog? It would be great.
Odd that Derek Jeter is the only one of seven famous players who had no impact on his team's on field bottom line. The Yankee winning percentage is the same both with and without Jeter.
Mike Schmidt had the biggest impact: .078.
So what's the deal with Jeter?
Pitcher may only be replaced by a player already in the game.
This would make the pitcher more of a regular player, not such a specialist. Anything to decrease the dominance of pitching, which is the single biggest problem with baseball. It causes almost all of the dead time.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
WADJ: Wins Above Derek Jeter
Recently a friend mentioned that the Yankee winning percentage with Derek Jeter playing was the same as without Derek Jeter playing. This prompted me to consider that there might be such a thing as Wins Above Derek Jeter: WADJ, pronounced the way it's spelled for the comic effect.
For the Yankees to improve they need to replace Jeter with a player who has WADJ.
Many years ago Bill Deane manually researched the runs allowed by the Yankees with and without Joe DiMaggio in center field: it was about the same.
The WADJ guy has also told me that the Yankee record in save situations in the 1950s was about the same as during the Mariano Rivera era. Between bookend relief specialists Joe Page (1949-1950) and Ryne Duren (1958-1960) Yankee manager Casey Stengel used a different pitcher the most in relief each season and none of them were household names.
June 5, 1963 in Baltimore Mickey Mantle broke his foot trying to catch a Brooks Robinson home run in a 4-3 Yankee win and did not play again until he pinch hit a home run against Baltimore at Yankee Stadium in an 11-10 win. During his absence and despite losing the first three games the Yankees record was 40-20 (.666). Before Mantle's injury the Yankees record was 27-18 (.600). For the season the Yankees were 104-58 (.642).
The Rivera anecdote just confirms that the closer role is vastly overrated. And maybe DiMaggio's defense is also overrated. But the main lesson is that baseball is way too dominated by pitching. Even great players can be marginalized.
For the Yankees to improve they need to replace Jeter with a player who has WADJ.
Many years ago Bill Deane manually researched the runs allowed by the Yankees with and without Joe DiMaggio in center field: it was about the same.
The WADJ guy has also told me that the Yankee record in save situations in the 1950s was about the same as during the Mariano Rivera era. Between bookend relief specialists Joe Page (1949-1950) and Ryne Duren (1958-1960) Yankee manager Casey Stengel used a different pitcher the most in relief each season and none of them were household names.
June 5, 1963 in Baltimore Mickey Mantle broke his foot trying to catch a Brooks Robinson home run in a 4-3 Yankee win and did not play again until he pinch hit a home run against Baltimore at Yankee Stadium in an 11-10 win. During his absence and despite losing the first three games the Yankees record was 40-20 (.666). Before Mantle's injury the Yankees record was 27-18 (.600). For the season the Yankees were 104-58 (.642).
The Rivera anecdote just confirms that the closer role is vastly overrated. And maybe DiMaggio's defense is also overrated. But the main lesson is that baseball is way too dominated by pitching. Even great players can be marginalized.
Born In The USA – 75%.
http://calltothepen.com/2012/05/23/radical-baseball-born-in-the-usa-75/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Is baseball being outsourced?
Click this link to see the data and chart, which show a trend that has reduced the percent of AL and NL players born in the USA from consistently above 92% from 1901 through 1959 to as low as 71% in 2006.
1923 through 1941 greater than 98%.
1934 was the high: 99.2%.
1960 was the first year below 90%: 88.7%.
1962 and 1963 back to 90% but never again.
1997 was the first year below 80%: 78.3%.
1997 78.27%
1998 78.93%
1999 78.51%
2000 77.10%
2001 74.96%
2002 73.98%
2003 74.37%
2004 72.53%
2005 72.51%
2006 71.26% low
2007 74.16%
2008 72.92%
2009 73.51%
2010 73.75%
2011 73.89%
All this should not be surprising. Just check out your local baseball fields and you'll generally see them empty. I won't go into why but it's clear that we don't play enough to produce enough MLB quality players.
It's great that baseball is played in enough other countries for more foreign born players to participate at the highest level but it's still a bit disconcerting that Americans are becoming more indifferent to what has traditionally been described as our national pastime.
1923 through 1941 greater than 98%.
1934 was the high: 99.2%.
1960 was the first year below 90%: 88.7%.
1962 and 1963 back to 90% but never again.
1997 was the first year below 80%: 78.3%.
1997 78.27%
1998 78.93%
1999 78.51%
2000 77.10%
2001 74.96%
2002 73.98%
2003 74.37%
2004 72.53%
2005 72.51%
2006 71.26% low
2007 74.16%
2008 72.92%
2009 73.51%
2010 73.75%
2011 73.89%
All this should not be surprising. Just check out your local baseball fields and you'll generally see them empty. I won't go into why but it's clear that we don't play enough to produce enough MLB quality players.
It's great that baseball is played in enough other countries for more foreign born players to participate at the highest level but it's still a bit disconcerting that Americans are becoming more indifferent to what has traditionally been described as our national pastime.
Fans Are Too Far Away.
http://calltothepen.com/2012/05/19/radical-baseball-fans-are-too-far-away/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Most days between first and last game.
Click the link to see the list.
Someone asked who had the most time between first and last game. The list contains the 50 players with the most days. Source: Lahman database.
Someone asked who had the most time between first and last game. The list contains the 50 players with the most days. Source: Lahman database.
Catcher? We Don’t Need No Stinking Catcher!
http://calltothepen.com/2012/05/12/radical-baseball-catcher-we-dont-need-no-stinking-catcher/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
baseball-reference.com math: confusing, convoluted, elitist.
Radical Baseball: The Art Of WAR 2.0, 2.1, … May 9th, 2012
You really need to read about WAR 2.0 for yourself. There’s a lot to it and Sean Forman and his staff at baseball-reference.com are to be commended for making a real attempt to explain WAR to it’s subscribers.
___________________________________________________________
But I have some suggestions.
1. Parenthesis. Many equations seem to lack parenthesis that would make them correct.
2. One equal sign per equation.
3. No greater than sign in an equation.
4. Define terms in each document.
5. Explain everything.
There's a tendency to explain relatively easy stuff at 5mph and then the complex stuff at 100 mph. Leaving the reader with that "what the heck?" feeling.
WAR 2.01: Renaming ndWAR to afWAR Posted by admin on May 4, 2012
The change from oWAR and dWAR to ndWAR and dWAR is confusing folks, so I'm making an additional change.
dWAR was confusing to begin with since I think it dealt with fielding. Defense to me is fielding and pitching. Why isn't it fWAR, f for fielding?
ndWAR, I guess is non-defense WAR?
afWAR => Average-Fielding-WAR.
This is a definite "Say what?". What's with the greater than sign? And what the heck is to the right of that? Are those dashes? Subtraction signs? And what does fielding have to do with what very recently had been oWAR, offensive Wins Above Replacement?
afWAR = batting + baserunning + DP's + replacement + position
I'm guessing that the word position means that players are compared to other players at their same position but I still don't see the fielding in the term Average-Fielding.
afWAR + dWAR does not equal WAR as you'll be double counting the position adjustment.
Too bad, just when my common sense might have kicked in. Argh!
_______________________________________________________
Baseball-Reference.com WAR Explained
an equation should explain what we are doing here.
Players Runs over Replacement = Player_runs - ReplPlayer_runs = (Player_runs - AvgPlayer_runs) + (AvgPlayer_runs - ReplPlayer_runs)
This gives us runs above replacement (RAR).
An equation might explain it but not that equation. Why are there two equal signs?
Pythagorean win-loss records
I happen to know this one but a link or simple explanation should be included. Same with PythagenPat. Come on, give the average fan a fighting chance.
Data Coverage: This link is useful except the headings disappear as you page down and baseball-reference didn't even have the sense to repeat them at the bottom, which would have helped somewhat. Those helpful popup definitions that are elsewhere on baseball-reference.com are missing here.
________________________________________________
wRAA For Position Player WAR Explained
we also exclude IBB's from the count of BB's. Our view (and those of the creators of these stats) is that SH and IBB's are managerial decisions, and in general the best way to handle these is to exclude them from the rate stat (wOBA)
I don't get excluding IBB. The team derives the same benefit as a regular BB but it's a minor point.
wOBA = (0.70 x uBB + 0.73 x HBP + 0.89 x 1B +1.27 x 2B +1.61 x 3B + 2.07 x HR +0.25 x SB + 0.50 x CS) / (AB+BB-IBB+HBP+SF)
Two things about this mess:
1. Shouldn't there be parenthesis around each two items multiplied?
2. Wouldn't the whole thing be more readable if items were placed on a separate line?
wOBA =
((0.70 x uBB) +
(0.73 x HBP) +
(0.89 x 1B) +
(1.27 x 2B) +
(1.61 x 3B) +
(2.07 x HR) +
(0.25 x SB) +
(0.50 x CS))
/ (AB+BB-IBB+HBP+SF)
There. Much better. And why exactly are stolen bases (SB) and caught stealing (CS) included in weighted On Base Average (wOBA)?
There's too much that's too confusing here but one more item deserves mention: wRAAA. What the heck is that and where did it come from? It suddenly appeared in:
Top 30 Seasonal Increases from wRAAA to wRAA_adv
There's no mention of wRAAA prior, nor of wRAA_adv for that matter.
You see the problems. Even if an average fan tries to learn this stuff it quickly becomes overwhelming. It does not need to be this confusing, convoluted and elitist. Fix it.
You really need to read about WAR 2.0 for yourself. There’s a lot to it and Sean Forman and his staff at baseball-reference.com are to be commended for making a real attempt to explain WAR to it’s subscribers.
___________________________________________________________
But I have some suggestions.
1. Parenthesis. Many equations seem to lack parenthesis that would make them correct.
2. One equal sign per equation.
3. No greater than sign in an equation.
4. Define terms in each document.
5. Explain everything.
There's a tendency to explain relatively easy stuff at 5mph and then the complex stuff at 100 mph. Leaving the reader with that "what the heck?" feeling.
WAR 2.01: Renaming ndWAR to afWAR Posted by admin on May 4, 2012
The change from oWAR and dWAR to ndWAR and dWAR is confusing folks, so I'm making an additional change.
dWAR was confusing to begin with since I think it dealt with fielding. Defense to me is fielding and pitching. Why isn't it fWAR, f for fielding?
ndWAR, I guess is non-defense WAR?
afWAR => Average-Fielding-WAR.
This is a definite "Say what?". What's with the greater than sign? And what the heck is to the right of that? Are those dashes? Subtraction signs? And what does fielding have to do with what very recently had been oWAR, offensive Wins Above Replacement?
afWAR = batting + baserunning + DP's + replacement + position
I'm guessing that the word position means that players are compared to other players at their same position but I still don't see the fielding in the term Average-Fielding.
afWAR + dWAR does not equal WAR as you'll be double counting the position adjustment.
Too bad, just when my common sense might have kicked in. Argh!
_______________________________________________________
Baseball-Reference.com WAR Explained
an equation should explain what we are doing here.
Players Runs over Replacement = Player_runs - ReplPlayer_runs = (Player_runs - AvgPlayer_runs) + (AvgPlayer_runs - ReplPlayer_runs)
This gives us runs above replacement (RAR).
An equation might explain it but not that equation. Why are there two equal signs?
Pythagorean win-loss records
I happen to know this one but a link or simple explanation should be included. Same with PythagenPat. Come on, give the average fan a fighting chance.
Data Coverage: This link is useful except the headings disappear as you page down and baseball-reference didn't even have the sense to repeat them at the bottom, which would have helped somewhat. Those helpful popup definitions that are elsewhere on baseball-reference.com are missing here.
________________________________________________
wRAA For Position Player WAR Explained
we also exclude IBB's from the count of BB's. Our view (and those of the creators of these stats) is that SH and IBB's are managerial decisions, and in general the best way to handle these is to exclude them from the rate stat (wOBA)
I don't get excluding IBB. The team derives the same benefit as a regular BB but it's a minor point.
wOBA = (0.70 x uBB + 0.73 x HBP + 0.89 x 1B +1.27 x 2B +1.61 x 3B + 2.07 x HR +0.25 x SB + 0.50 x CS) / (AB+BB-IBB+HBP+SF)
Two things about this mess:
1. Shouldn't there be parenthesis around each two items multiplied?
2. Wouldn't the whole thing be more readable if items were placed on a separate line?
wOBA =
((0.70 x uBB) +
(0.73 x HBP) +
(0.89 x 1B) +
(1.27 x 2B) +
(1.61 x 3B) +
(2.07 x HR) +
(0.25 x SB) +
(0.50 x CS))
/ (AB+BB-IBB+HBP+SF)
There. Much better. And why exactly are stolen bases (SB) and caught stealing (CS) included in weighted On Base Average (wOBA)?
There's too much that's too confusing here but one more item deserves mention: wRAAA. What the heck is that and where did it come from? It suddenly appeared in:
Top 30 Seasonal Increases from wRAAA to wRAA_adv
There's no mention of wRAAA prior, nor of wRAA_adv for that matter.
You see the problems. Even if an average fan tries to learn this stuff it quickly becomes overwhelming. It does not need to be this confusing, convoluted and elitist. Fix it.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Fewer fastballs but faster. Why?
I was fiddling with fangraphs.com. I noticed that it does not provide definitions if you let the cursor hover over an abreviation as is done at baseball-reference.com. So I'm guessing about terms.
I noticed that the percent of pitches that are fastballs from 2002 through 2011 has steadilly declined from 64.4% to 57.8% even though the velocity of fast balls has increased from 89.9 miles per hour (mph) to 91.5.
So far in 2012: 57.1% fastballs at 91.3 mph.
Why would pitchers throw fewer fastballs, especially when they could throw them faster?
Sliders have increased, curves declined:
2002 12.1% 81.9 mph 11.2% 76.4 mph
2011 14.6% 83.4 mph 9.4% 76.7 mph (curves had dropped to 8.3% in 2008)
To see data and graph, click link.
Bagwell got a break in 1994
Wally Fish
Jeff Bagwell was having one of the greatest offensive seasons ever, was
just shy of a 60 HR pace & would likely have finished with over 160 RBI
EXCEPT he broke his hand right before the strike hit. Had the season played
out Bagwell would have missed the rest of the season and by extension
probably would not have won the NL MVP
The Art of WAR 2.0, 2.1, …
http://calltothepen.com/2012/05/09/radical-baseball-war-2-0-2-1/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links to those articles here.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Pitch Counts
Click link to read my 2008 research.
Tom Tango developed a pitch count estimator for seasons when pitches were not counted.
I have used these equations to produce spreadsheets. The data was derived from the Lahman database using Microsoft Access. It is based on AL & NL pitcher season from 1903 through 2007.
Tom Tango developed a pitch count estimator for seasons when pitches were not counted.
I have used these equations to produce spreadsheets. The data was derived from the Lahman database using Microsoft Access. It is based on AL & NL pitcher season from 1903 through 2007.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
WAR 2.0: WAR Upgraded on Baseball-Reference.com
http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/2012/05/war-upgraded-on-baseball-reference-com/
Holy cow, I would have completely missed this if a friend hadn't casually mentioned it yesterday afternoon.
See comment 3:
Dr. Doom Says:
May 4th, 2012 at 11:34 am
I'm also intrigued that Matt Kemp now led Ryan Braun by only .1 WAR last year... that's a HUGE difference from what the old calculation did... which I believe had them separated by 2.5 WAR.
I wonder how it will impact a couple of things I've written about recently:
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 Willie Mays and NL CF WAR Fielding Runs 1951-1968
SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2012 War On WAR.
Next time you hear someone on TV mention WAR ask yourself whether that person has any idea what the heck he/she is talking about.
Baseball-Reference made a change later in the day:
WAR 2.01: Renaming ndWAR to afWAR
Yeah, right. I'll make a point to remember that next time ndWAR comes up.
Holy cow, I would have completely missed this if a friend hadn't casually mentioned it yesterday afternoon.
See comment 3:
Dr. Doom Says:
May 4th, 2012 at 11:34 am
I'm also intrigued that Matt Kemp now led Ryan Braun by only .1 WAR last year... that's a HUGE difference from what the old calculation did... which I believe had them separated by 2.5 WAR.
I wonder how it will impact a couple of things I've written about recently:
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2012 Willie Mays and NL CF WAR Fielding Runs 1951-1968
SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2012 War On WAR.
Next time you hear someone on TV mention WAR ask yourself whether that person has any idea what the heck he/she is talking about.
Baseball-Reference made a change later in the day:
WAR 2.01: Renaming ndWAR to afWAR
Yeah, right. I'll make a point to remember that next time ndWAR comes up.
Mariano Rivera, who will want you in 2013?
This is my third consecutive post about Mariano Rivera and I hope it's the last for a long while. I don't want Rivera's departure to turn into a soap opera or worse.
The latest news is that Rivera announced that he intends to come back from his torn ACL and pitch in 2013 ... at the age of 43.
Rivera was born November 29, 1969. He will reach 43 this year. After the 2012 MLB season Rivera will be a free agent. Even though injured Rivera will receive $15,000,000 for the 2012 season. Do you think the Yankees will offer Rivera another $15,000,000 to attempt his comeback in 2013? They'd be nuts to make that offer and I'm guessing that Yankee GM Brian Cashman is already squirming at the prospect.
At the time of Rivera's injury the Yankees were 13-11. Do you think that they will do worse without him? My guess is that the Yankees will not miss Rivera at all. Not that he doesn't do his job well but his job, as stated multiple times here, is not that significant.
Rivera's Yankee teammates, especially Alex Rodriguez, have already expressed their feelings that they will miss Rivera but I think that is based more on emotion than analysis. In addition to Rivera's closer role being vastly overrated the Yankees have two other relief pitchers who can capably fill that silly role: David Robertson and Rafael Soriano.
For some perspective: in 2011 Yankee pitchers threw 1,458 innings. Rivera threw 61. That's 4.2%. Come on, how much impact can possibly be exerted in 4.2% of innings? CC Sabathia led the team with 237 innings, 16.3%.
Mariano Rivera was paid $245,901.64 per inning in 2011. There is no justification for that expense. Mariano Rivera has led a charmed baseball life earning that kind of money for so long and he should enjoy the fruits of his labor but the Yankees should spend that $15,000,000 in 2013 on a player who can have much more of an impact.
Mariano Rivera was paid $10,000,000 each season from 2003 through 2007 and $15,000,000 each season from 2008 through 2012. Career to date for 18 seasons: $144,441,825. For 1,220 innings. Enough already.
The latest news is that Rivera announced that he intends to come back from his torn ACL and pitch in 2013 ... at the age of 43.
Rivera was born November 29, 1969. He will reach 43 this year. After the 2012 MLB season Rivera will be a free agent. Even though injured Rivera will receive $15,000,000 for the 2012 season. Do you think the Yankees will offer Rivera another $15,000,000 to attempt his comeback in 2013? They'd be nuts to make that offer and I'm guessing that Yankee GM Brian Cashman is already squirming at the prospect.
At the time of Rivera's injury the Yankees were 13-11. Do you think that they will do worse without him? My guess is that the Yankees will not miss Rivera at all. Not that he doesn't do his job well but his job, as stated multiple times here, is not that significant.
Rivera's Yankee teammates, especially Alex Rodriguez, have already expressed their feelings that they will miss Rivera but I think that is based more on emotion than analysis. In addition to Rivera's closer role being vastly overrated the Yankees have two other relief pitchers who can capably fill that silly role: David Robertson and Rafael Soriano.
For some perspective: in 2011 Yankee pitchers threw 1,458 innings. Rivera threw 61. That's 4.2%. Come on, how much impact can possibly be exerted in 4.2% of innings? CC Sabathia led the team with 237 innings, 16.3%.
Mariano Rivera was paid $245,901.64 per inning in 2011. There is no justification for that expense. Mariano Rivera has led a charmed baseball life earning that kind of money for so long and he should enjoy the fruits of his labor but the Yankees should spend that $15,000,000 in 2013 on a player who can have much more of an impact.
Mariano Rivera was paid $10,000,000 each season from 2003 through 2007 and $15,000,000 each season from 2008 through 2012. Career to date for 18 seasons: $144,441,825. For 1,220 innings. Enough already.
Mariano Rivera, The Last Closer.
http://calltothepen.com/2012/05/05/radical-baseball-mariano-rivera-the-last-closer/#comments
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, where I am a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Mariano Rivera was not wearing baseball shoes when injured.
Prior to last night's Yankee loss in Kansas City Yankee one inning relief ace Mariano Rivera injured himself trying to a shag fly ball near the outfield wall. Shag is the baseball term for casually chasing flies in practice. Supposedly Rivera had been doing this for many years and enjoyed it as part of his training regimen.
Rivera suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), which is a very serious injury, and for the 42 year old Rivera it is likely to end his pitching career.
It appears clear to me from viewing the moving images several times that Rivera was wearing running shoes, not baseball shoes. This may have caused or contributed to the injury and as such that injury could have been prevented.
I jogged for many years and I wore running shoes when I did because they are great for straight ahead simple running. They do not, however, provide support for lateral movements, which are typical in sports like baseball, football or basketball. Rivera should have known this. Certainly the Yankees should have known this.
I still engage in some softball activity with three friends on Sunday mornings: infield practice and batting practice, which involves running in the outfield when others are batting. I would never wear running shoes for those baseball activities. NEVER. I wear high cut baseball shoes. ALWAYS.
Both Rivera and the Yankees should have been aware of the recent torn ACL injuries suffered in recent days by two much younger NBA players:
- Derek Rose (born October 4, 1988) of the Chicago Bulls
- Iman Shumpert (born June 26, 1990) of the New York Knicks.
Shagging flies in the outfield is a very different activity from jogging in a straight line. It is apparent that Rivera was attempting to change direction slightly as he approached the wall chasing a fly ball when his right leg gave out causing him to collapse.
Would baseball shoes have prevented Rivera's injury? Who knows? Baseball shoes would have made that injury less likely. That's something that the Yankees and other teams need to consider.
Rivera suffered a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), which is a very serious injury, and for the 42 year old Rivera it is likely to end his pitching career.
It appears clear to me from viewing the moving images several times that Rivera was wearing running shoes, not baseball shoes. This may have caused or contributed to the injury and as such that injury could have been prevented.
I jogged for many years and I wore running shoes when I did because they are great for straight ahead simple running. They do not, however, provide support for lateral movements, which are typical in sports like baseball, football or basketball. Rivera should have known this. Certainly the Yankees should have known this.
I still engage in some softball activity with three friends on Sunday mornings: infield practice and batting practice, which involves running in the outfield when others are batting. I would never wear running shoes for those baseball activities. NEVER. I wear high cut baseball shoes. ALWAYS.
Both Rivera and the Yankees should have been aware of the recent torn ACL injuries suffered in recent days by two much younger NBA players:
- Derek Rose (born October 4, 1988) of the Chicago Bulls
- Iman Shumpert (born June 26, 1990) of the New York Knicks.
Shagging flies in the outfield is a very different activity from jogging in a straight line. It is apparent that Rivera was attempting to change direction slightly as he approached the wall chasing a fly ball when his right leg gave out causing him to collapse.
Would baseball shoes have prevented Rivera's injury? Who knows? Baseball shoes would have made that injury less likely. That's something that the Yankees and other teams need to consider.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Most Boring Pitchers
http://calltothepen.com/2012/05/02/radical-baseball-most-boring-pitchers/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
wOBA v. OPS+
To see data click link.
My layman's first take. Top 30 batting seasons.
I used the Lahman database to derive wOBA (weighted On Base Average) with fixed values and wOBAScale with different values for each season through 2010. I used seasons with at least 500 PA. Some concessions had to be made to the DBMS (database management system) I was using as null values negate a calculation: SF and IBB were omitted.
I copied OPS+ (On Base Plus Slugging adjusted for parks and era) leaders from http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_plus_season.shtml
The summary tab has seasons sorted by:
wOBAScale
wOBA
OPS
OPS+
The top ten seasons match exactly between wOBA and OPS for seasons 1903-2010:
Bonds
Bonds
Ruth
Bonds
Ruth
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Williams
And they are very close with OPS+:
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Ruth
Ruth
Ruth
Williams
Williams
Bonds
Ruth
wOBAScale is generally the same seasons among the top 30 (especially if you overlook those from the 1800s). However, the order is changed and Ruth takes the top three:
Ruth
Ruth
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Bonds
Ruth
Ruth
Bonds
My layman's first take. Top 30 batting seasons.
I used the Lahman database to derive wOBA (weighted On Base Average) with fixed values and wOBAScale with different values for each season through 2010. I used seasons with at least 500 PA. Some concessions had to be made to the DBMS (database management system) I was using as null values negate a calculation: SF and IBB were omitted.
I copied OPS+ (On Base Plus Slugging adjusted for parks and era) leaders from http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/onbase_plus_slugging_plus_season.shtml
The summary tab has seasons sorted by:
wOBAScale
wOBA
OPS
OPS+
The top ten seasons match exactly between wOBA and OPS for seasons 1903-2010:
Bonds
Bonds
Ruth
Bonds
Ruth
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Williams
And they are very close with OPS+:
Bonds
Bonds
Bonds
Ruth
Ruth
Ruth
Williams
Williams
Bonds
Ruth
wOBAScale is generally the same seasons among the top 30 (especially if you overlook those from the 1800s). However, the order is changed and Ruth takes the top three:
Ruth
Ruth
Ruth
Williams
Bonds
Bonds
Ruth
Ruth
Bonds
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Is Walking Hitting?
Click this link.
I'm catching up on my reading: "The Book" circa 2007. I noticed something interesting.
Weighted On Base Average (wOBA) has Non Intentional Bases on Balls (NIBB) , Hit By Pitch (HBP) and even Reached Base On Error (RBOE) but it does not have Intentional Bases on Balls (IBB).
I find this curious. The batter receives no credit for an IBB. Why not? Doesn't the team get the same benefit as a NIBB? The IBB is considered a non event, similar to what I described in the thing I wrote January 21, 2009 unaware of the mysteries of wOBA, much as I remain today.
We can dig up Babe Ruth's remains, place it in the batters box and eventually the Babe will get credit for yet another walk.
I was born the year the Babe died and still he reaches from the grave.
I'm catching up on my reading: "The Book" circa 2007. I noticed something interesting.
Weighted On Base Average (wOBA) has Non Intentional Bases on Balls (NIBB) , Hit By Pitch (HBP) and even Reached Base On Error (RBOE) but it does not have Intentional Bases on Balls (IBB).
I find this curious. The batter receives no credit for an IBB. Why not? Doesn't the team get the same benefit as a NIBB? The IBB is considered a non event, similar to what I described in the thing I wrote January 21, 2009 unaware of the mysteries of wOBA, much as I remain today.
We can dig up Babe Ruth's remains, place it in the batters box and eventually the Babe will get credit for yet another walk.
I was born the year the Babe died and still he reaches from the grave.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
A-Rod: where's the love?
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2011 Derek Jeter v. Álex Rodríguez
Jeter is about to become the first player to get his 3,000th hit as a Yankee ... Jeter is getting more attention from media and fans here in New York than teammate Álex Rodríguez got for hitting his 500th home run as a Yankee. More than Rodríguez got for hitting his 600th home run as a Yankee ... it's pretty obvious that Álex Rodríguez is a much better player than Derek Jeter ... I love Jeter but all this 3,000 hit thing has got to tone down. It's not that big a deal. Let's pay more attention to Rodríguez.
THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011 Derek Jeter v. the big boys.
_______________________________________________________
Earlier this season Alex Rodriguez passed Ken Griffey, Jr. for fifth place on the career home run list and is currently 27 behind Willie Mays.
A couple of days ago Rodriguez passed Mays for tenth place on the RBI list. 48 more RBI will move Rodriguez past Eddie Murray, Jimmie Foxx, Ty Cobb and Stan Musial into sixth place. 93 more RBI will move Rodriguez past Lou Gehrig and Barry Bonds into fourth place. 96 more RBI will give Rodriguez 2,000. Hank Aaron leads with 2,297.
Rodriguez is number 14 on the list for Runs scored. Scoring another 50 runs will move Rodriguez past Craig Biggio, Mel Ott, Tris Speaker and Lou Gehrig into tenth place.
So by the end of the 2012 season Alex Rodriguez should be #4 in home runs, #6 in RBI and #10 in Runs.
Derek Jeter's claim to offensive fame is that he gets on base, runs the bases well and scores. Jeter is #17 in Runs (1,785) 53 behind Rodriguez and unlikely to ever catch him, especially considering that Jeter is 13 months older than Rodriguez:
Jeter born: June 26, 1974
Rodriguez born: July 27, 1975
BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
Jeter .314 .383 .450 .834 118
Rodriguez .294 .390 .548 .937 144
Rodriguez even has a higher OBP than Jeter and his SLG is almost 100 points higher.
Even on the Hits list Jeter is #19 (3,125) and Rodriguez #48 (2,795). Rodriguez will probably get his 3,000th hit during the 2013 season. Rodriguez may get his 700th home run during the 2014 season.
So where's the love, even from Yankee fans? If not affection then how about some respect? Is it his personality? What has he said or done with the Yankees, for whom he has played his most games, that may have offended Yankee fans? Nothing that I know of.
Is it his steroid use before he joined the Yankees? Hasn't that stuff gotten stale yet?
Yankee fans, show some class and treat Alex Rodriguez the way he deserves to be treated: like an all time great baseball player who hustles at least much as Derek Jeter.
Jeter is about to become the first player to get his 3,000th hit as a Yankee ... Jeter is getting more attention from media and fans here in New York than teammate Álex Rodríguez got for hitting his 500th home run as a Yankee. More than Rodríguez got for hitting his 600th home run as a Yankee ... it's pretty obvious that Álex Rodríguez is a much better player than Derek Jeter ... I love Jeter but all this 3,000 hit thing has got to tone down. It's not that big a deal. Let's pay more attention to Rodríguez.
THURSDAY, JULY 7, 2011 Derek Jeter v. the big boys.
_______________________________________________________
Earlier this season Alex Rodriguez passed Ken Griffey, Jr. for fifth place on the career home run list and is currently 27 behind Willie Mays.
A couple of days ago Rodriguez passed Mays for tenth place on the RBI list. 48 more RBI will move Rodriguez past Eddie Murray, Jimmie Foxx, Ty Cobb and Stan Musial into sixth place. 93 more RBI will move Rodriguez past Lou Gehrig and Barry Bonds into fourth place. 96 more RBI will give Rodriguez 2,000. Hank Aaron leads with 2,297.
Rodriguez is number 14 on the list for Runs scored. Scoring another 50 runs will move Rodriguez past Craig Biggio, Mel Ott, Tris Speaker and Lou Gehrig into tenth place.
So by the end of the 2012 season Alex Rodriguez should be #4 in home runs, #6 in RBI and #10 in Runs.
Derek Jeter's claim to offensive fame is that he gets on base, runs the bases well and scores. Jeter is #17 in Runs (1,785) 53 behind Rodriguez and unlikely to ever catch him, especially considering that Jeter is 13 months older than Rodriguez:
Jeter born: June 26, 1974
Rodriguez born: July 27, 1975
BA OBP SLG OPS OPS+
Jeter .314 .383 .450 .834 118
Rodriguez .294 .390 .548 .937 144
Rodriguez even has a higher OBP than Jeter and his SLG is almost 100 points higher.
Even on the Hits list Jeter is #19 (3,125) and Rodriguez #48 (2,795). Rodriguez will probably get his 3,000th hit during the 2013 season. Rodriguez may get his 700th home run during the 2014 season.
So where's the love, even from Yankee fans? If not affection then how about some respect? Is it his personality? What has he said or done with the Yankees, for whom he has played his most games, that may have offended Yankee fans? Nothing that I know of.
Is it his steroid use before he joined the Yankees? Hasn't that stuff gotten stale yet?
Yankee fans, show some class and treat Alex Rodriguez the way he deserves to be treated: like an all time great baseball player who hustles at least much as Derek Jeter.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Jeff Bagwell: single season OPS+
From baseball-reference.com ad hoc query:
- 1903 to 2011
- played 75% of games at 1B
- OPS+ >=150
- qualified for league batting title
- sorted by greatest Adjusted OPS+
Bagwell has the third highest but it is in 1994 when he played only 110 games.
191 seasons made the list.
Bagwell has seasons ranked: 3, 35, 67, 97, 121, 172.
Willie McCovey, who is just behind Bagwell in career OPS+, also has six: 5 (his MVP season in which he played 149 games with 623 PA), 28, 50, 92, 119, 175. And they called him Stretch, I guess because of his defense.
Eleven first basemen with at least five seasons and career OPS+:
Lou Gehrig 12 178
Jimmie Foxx 9 163
Johnny Mize 9 158
Albert Pujols 7 169
Hank Greenberg 6 158
Willie McCovey 6 147
Mark McGwire 6 162
Jeff Bagwell 6 149
Eddie Murray 5 129
Fred McGriff 5 134
George Sisler 5 124
Bagwell comes out very high, behind the big boys, but solidly among Hall of Famers. And Bagwell stole more bases (202) than any of these first basemen except Sisler (375).
Too bad he played in Houston and did not hit well in the MLB playoffs and had his best season in strike shortened 1994.
- 1903 to 2011
- played 75% of games at 1B
- OPS+ >=150
- qualified for league batting title
- sorted by greatest Adjusted OPS+
Bagwell has the third highest but it is in 1994 when he played only 110 games.
191 seasons made the list.
Bagwell has seasons ranked: 3, 35, 67, 97, 121, 172.
Willie McCovey, who is just behind Bagwell in career OPS+, also has six: 5 (his MVP season in which he played 149 games with 623 PA), 28, 50, 92, 119, 175. And they called him Stretch, I guess because of his defense.
Eleven first basemen with at least five seasons and career OPS+:
Lou Gehrig 12 178
Jimmie Foxx 9 163
Johnny Mize 9 158
Albert Pujols 7 169
Hank Greenberg 6 158
Willie McCovey 6 147
Mark McGwire 6 162
Jeff Bagwell 6 149
Eddie Murray 5 129
Fred McGriff 5 134
George Sisler 5 124
Bagwell comes out very high, behind the big boys, but solidly among Hall of Famers. And Bagwell stole more bases (202) than any of these first basemen except Sisler (375).
Too bad he played in Houston and did not hit well in the MLB playoffs and had his best season in strike shortened 1994.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Start The Closer. Let The Starter Close.
http://calltothepen.com/2012/04/28/radical-baseball-start-the-closer/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Jeff Bagwell among first basemen.
From baseball-reference.com ad hoc query:
Click that link to view a report generated by baseball-reference.com. The criteria:
- seasons 1880 to 2012
- played 75% of games at 1B
- OPS+ at least 120
- at least 5000 plate appearances (PA)
- sorted by greatest Adjusted OPS+
45 players met the criteria, including the recently deceased Bill "Moose" Skowron.
Yesterday I was discussing with some friends Jeff Bagwell whom I never thought of as an all time great when he was playing. When I look at Bagwell's numbers he does appear among the top first basemen, especially among National League (NL) first basemen. Part of my attitude is that Bagwell hit so poorly in the playoffs. He hit well in only 2 of 7 series, not counting two series in which he had only 3 PA. In his only WS Bagwell batted .125: one single in 8 at bats (AB).
Since I d not trust defensive numbers, especially for the ultimate offensive position, I used OPS+. Bagwell is number 9 with 149, a shade above Willie McCovey (10) with whom we had compared Bagwell.
Someone had mentioned that we should not consider Johnny Mize, that Bagwell had twice as many PA, maybe 1.5 as many when challenged.
Mize 7,370
Bagwell 9,431
Mize is number 6.
The same guy did not like Roger Connor who is number 8 and had 8,847 PA.
If I drop those annoying Base on Balls (BB) and look at what they did in their AB, i.e., what was the slugging average (SLG)?
Bagwell remains number 9. Mize remains number 6. Oddly, McCovey drops to 14 in SLG. Who thought McCovey picked up brownie points for BB? Connor plummets to 27. I did not expect that, especially considering that when Babe Ruth set the career record for home runs it was Connor's record that the Babe broke: 138.
Still, Bagwell does not have much black ink, leading his league. Most of Bagwell's black ink came in the strike shortened 1994 season when he played only 110 games, 479 PA, 400 AB. Bagwell led NL: Runs, RBI, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Total Bases (TB). 1994 was Bagwell's only MVP season. Other NL black ink other than games played (1992, 1996, 1997, 1999):
1996 48 2B
1999 143 Runs, 149 BB
2000 152 Runs
Among the 45 first basemen with OPS+ at least 120 Bagwell was 8th in stolen bases (SB): 202. Not 300 as some one had suggested. Frank Chance stole 403. The careers of the seven ahead of Bagwell in SB all ended before 1931.
Bottom line: the only NL first basemen ahead of Bagwell in OPS+:
2. Dan Brouther
3. Albert Pujols
6. MIze
8. Connor
Jeff Bagwell is a Hall of Famer, I guess. But I'm still not enthusiastic.
Click that link to view a report generated by baseball-reference.com. The criteria:
- seasons 1880 to 2012
- played 75% of games at 1B
- OPS+ at least 120
- at least 5000 plate appearances (PA)
- sorted by greatest Adjusted OPS+
45 players met the criteria, including the recently deceased Bill "Moose" Skowron.
Yesterday I was discussing with some friends Jeff Bagwell whom I never thought of as an all time great when he was playing. When I look at Bagwell's numbers he does appear among the top first basemen, especially among National League (NL) first basemen. Part of my attitude is that Bagwell hit so poorly in the playoffs. He hit well in only 2 of 7 series, not counting two series in which he had only 3 PA. In his only WS Bagwell batted .125: one single in 8 at bats (AB).
Since I d not trust defensive numbers, especially for the ultimate offensive position, I used OPS+. Bagwell is number 9 with 149, a shade above Willie McCovey (10) with whom we had compared Bagwell.
Someone had mentioned that we should not consider Johnny Mize, that Bagwell had twice as many PA, maybe 1.5 as many when challenged.
Mize 7,370
Bagwell 9,431
Mize is number 6.
The same guy did not like Roger Connor who is number 8 and had 8,847 PA.
If I drop those annoying Base on Balls (BB) and look at what they did in their AB, i.e., what was the slugging average (SLG)?
Bagwell remains number 9. Mize remains number 6. Oddly, McCovey drops to 14 in SLG. Who thought McCovey picked up brownie points for BB? Connor plummets to 27. I did not expect that, especially considering that when Babe Ruth set the career record for home runs it was Connor's record that the Babe broke: 138.
Still, Bagwell does not have much black ink, leading his league. Most of Bagwell's black ink came in the strike shortened 1994 season when he played only 110 games, 479 PA, 400 AB. Bagwell led NL: Runs, RBI, SLG, OPS, OPS+, Total Bases (TB). 1994 was Bagwell's only MVP season. Other NL black ink other than games played (1992, 1996, 1997, 1999):
1996 48 2B
1999 143 Runs, 149 BB
2000 152 Runs
Among the 45 first basemen with OPS+ at least 120 Bagwell was 8th in stolen bases (SB): 202. Not 300 as some one had suggested. Frank Chance stole 403. The careers of the seven ahead of Bagwell in SB all ended before 1931.
Bottom line: the only NL first basemen ahead of Bagwell in OPS+:
2. Dan Brouther
3. Albert Pujols
6. MIze
8. Connor
Jeff Bagwell is a Hall of Famer, I guess. But I'm still not enthusiastic.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Willie Mays and NL CF WAR Fielding Runs 1951-1968
NL CF WAR (Wins Above Replacement) Fielding Runs 1951-1968
Click the link above to view a matrix with the leaders from baseball-reference.com based on 50% of games in center field (CF) and qualified for BA title. Maybe I should have used more than 50% but I've already run the numbers year by year and don't want to do it again. It produces some anomalies.
Three prior seasons:
In 1948:
Ashburn 4
Lockman 4
Jeffcoat 2
In 1949:
Snider 10
Thomson 8
Ashburn 6
In 1950:
Thomson 8
Ashburn 4
Pafko 4
In addition to 1948 when he was 21 Richie Ashburn of the 1950 NL pennant winning Phillies led NL CF in 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1957. What happened in 1954? Willie Mays got out of the U.S. Army and rejoined his New York Giants; Mays played 34 games in 1952 and none in 1953.
In 1953 Ashburn had 19 Fielding Runs above a replacement CF and 18 in 1954. Mays had 21 in 1954.
In 1955 at age 28 second baseman Eddie Miksis played his only season in CF. He led the NL with 12. Mays was second with 7, then Ashburn and Snider 6. Miksis played 75 games in CF (7 Fielding Runs), 42 RF (3 Fielding Runs), 18 3B (3 Fielding Runs). His Range Factor (RF) per nine innings at 3B (4.18) was considerably higher than in CF (2.59) or RF (2.14). The real question: why did Mays plummet from 21 to 7?
1956: Ashburn 16, Mays 13.
1957: Ashburn 2, Virdon 13, Ken Boyer 12, Mays 4.
In 1961 Hank Aaron is listed as the CF leader with 23 (Mays third with 14). Aaron played 83 games in CF (9 Fielding Runs) and 78 in his normal right filed (RF) (15 Fielding Runs), plus 2 at 3B. That's 163 in a 154 game season (NL went to 162 in 1962; AL in 1961). So, there must be some overlap. Aaron's play in RF elevated his overall numbers and he happened to barely qualify as a CF. Mays had 14.
In 1963 the Phillies had two CF qualify: Don Demeter and Tony Gonzalez.
Mays continued to dominate CF through 1968 when he was 37 and tied for the NL lead at 2 with Felipe Alou. Mays per year Fielding Runs (FR) and rank among NL CF:
year FR rank
1954 21 1
1955 7 2
1956 13 2
1957 4 4
1958 15 1
1959 4 2
1960 14 1
1961 14 3
1962 20 1
1963 12 2
1964 17 2
1965 15 2
1966 18 1
1967 2 3
1968 2 1
Notice the up down pattern 1954-1959 for Mays. Why?
_______________________________________________
War On WAR. April 14th, 2012 by Kenneth Matinale
Click the link above to view a matrix with the leaders from baseball-reference.com based on 50% of games in center field (CF) and qualified for BA title. Maybe I should have used more than 50% but I've already run the numbers year by year and don't want to do it again. It produces some anomalies.
Three prior seasons:
In 1948:
Ashburn 4
Lockman 4
Jeffcoat 2
In 1949:
Snider 10
Thomson 8
Ashburn 6
In 1950:
Thomson 8
Ashburn 4
Pafko 4
In addition to 1948 when he was 21 Richie Ashburn of the 1950 NL pennant winning Phillies led NL CF in 1951, 1952, 1953, 1956, 1957. What happened in 1954? Willie Mays got out of the U.S. Army and rejoined his New York Giants; Mays played 34 games in 1952 and none in 1953.
In 1953 Ashburn had 19 Fielding Runs above a replacement CF and 18 in 1954. Mays had 21 in 1954.
In 1955 at age 28 second baseman Eddie Miksis played his only season in CF. He led the NL with 12. Mays was second with 7, then Ashburn and Snider 6. Miksis played 75 games in CF (7 Fielding Runs), 42 RF (3 Fielding Runs), 18 3B (3 Fielding Runs). His Range Factor (RF) per nine innings at 3B (4.18) was considerably higher than in CF (2.59) or RF (2.14). The real question: why did Mays plummet from 21 to 7?
1956: Ashburn 16, Mays 13.
1957: Ashburn 2, Virdon 13, Ken Boyer 12, Mays 4.
In 1961 Hank Aaron is listed as the CF leader with 23 (Mays third with 14). Aaron played 83 games in CF (9 Fielding Runs) and 78 in his normal right filed (RF) (15 Fielding Runs), plus 2 at 3B. That's 163 in a 154 game season (NL went to 162 in 1962; AL in 1961). So, there must be some overlap. Aaron's play in RF elevated his overall numbers and he happened to barely qualify as a CF. Mays had 14.
In 1963 the Phillies had two CF qualify: Don Demeter and Tony Gonzalez.
Mays continued to dominate CF through 1968 when he was 37 and tied for the NL lead at 2 with Felipe Alou. Mays per year Fielding Runs (FR) and rank among NL CF:
year FR rank
1954 21 1
1955 7 2
1956 13 2
1957 4 4
1958 15 1
1959 4 2
1960 14 1
1961 14 3
1962 20 1
1963 12 2
1964 17 2
1965 15 2
1966 18 1
1967 2 3
1968 2 1
Notice the up down pattern 1954-1959 for Mays. Why?
_______________________________________________
War On WAR. April 14th, 2012 by Kenneth Matinale
Then there’s Defensive Wins Above Replacement (dWAR).
I recently heard Brian Kenny on his MLB network Clubhouse Confidential TV program (apparently only an off season program) describe multiple defensive metrics that come to opposing conclusions about Yankee center fielder (CF) Curtis Granderson.
Here’s an historical puzzle for me – Willie Mays dWAR, Plate Appearances (PA) and home park:
1954 2.1 641 NY Polo Grounds
1955 0.7 670 NY Polo Grounds
1956 1.3 651 NY Polo Grounds
1957 0.6 669 NY Polo Grounds
1958 1.7 685 SF Seals Stadium
1959 0.4 649 SF Seals Stadium
1955 0.7 670 NY Polo Grounds
1956 1.3 651 NY Polo Grounds
1957 0.6 669 NY Polo Grounds
1958 1.7 685 SF Seals Stadium
1959 0.4 649 SF Seals Stadium
During his physical prime the pattern for Mays is up, down, up, down, up, down. Why? PA suggest that he was not injured in these seasons.
Starting in 1960 Candlestick Park was Willie’s home park.
1960-1966 (age 35) dWAR for Willie Mays is between 1.3 (1963) and 2.0 (1962).
Did the fielding of Willie Mays improve with age? How likely is that? Stuff like this make me suspicious of fielding stats.
Here’s an interesting link:
Year-by-Year Top-Ten Leaders & Records for Defensive WAR
Request to baseball-reference.com: include the player’s position.
There’s a pretty cool matrix. Number one in 2011: Yankee left fielder (LF) Brett Gardner (3.2), a CF playing out of position. Compared to other LF Garner should look a lot better. This introduces another bias: position.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
WHIP Is For Wimps
http://calltothepen.com/2012/04/25/radical-baseball-whip-is-for-wimps/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
I ask again: Is Jeter Juiced?
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2011 Is Jeter juiced?
June 26 Derek Jeter will be 38 years old. His performance in 2011 and so far in 2012 is unprecedented for a shortstop in his late 30s since 1950.
Through 16 games in 2012 Jeter has 30 hits including five doubles and four home runs. Thirteen RBI in those 16 games while batting leadoff.
Batting average .411
OBP .436
SLG .644
OPS 1.080
June 26 Derek Jeter will be 38 years old. His performance in 2011 and so far in 2012 is unprecedented for a shortstop in his late 30s since 1950.
Through 16 games in 2012 Jeter has 30 hits including five doubles and four home runs. Thirteen RBI in those 16 games while batting leadoff.
Batting average .411
OBP .436
SLG .644
OPS 1.080
What the heck?
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Designated Fielder!
http://calltothepen.com/2012/04/21/radical-baseball-designated-fielder/
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
_____________________________________
Finally, maybe, after first suggesting a DF six years ago the idea may finally get some traction because I've re-introduced it in on the Call to the Pen blog. Fellow Call to the Pen staff writer Joe Soriano tweeted this morning: "now THIS is radical and ingenious".
If I knew what to do with twitter I'd reply there but twitter remains a mystery, although I post my Radical Baseball blog titles on twitter with a link to them here.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Designated Hitter: the actual rules
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/batter_6.jsp
6.10
Any League may elect to use the Designated Hitter Rule.
(a) In the event of inter-league competition between clubs of Leagues using the Designated Hitter Rule and clubs of Leagues not using the Designated Hitter Rule, the rule will be used as follows:
1. In World Series or exhibition games, the rule will be used or not used as is the practice of the home team.
2. In All-Star games, the rule will only be used if both teams and both Leagues so agree.
__________________________________________
The rest of 6.10 describes the rule during the game. It occurs to me that in American Conference parks that the two managers could reach a gentleman's agreement not to use the DH in a particular game. It's use is not mandatory.
If Yankee manage Joe Girardi decided not to use a DH in this afternoon's game at Fenway Park, that would be allowed. Girardi, of course, would not do that unilaterally. However, if Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine decided to do the same, then they could play the game with no DH.
I winder if the reverse could work. If two National Conference managers wanted to both use the DH, what would the umpires decide? Since the so called National League did not "elect to use the Designated Hitter Rule" the umps would probably tell the managers that it was not allowed. But if common sense prevailed and the interpretation was that the two conferences were part of one Major League, then it might work.
Hey, this beats whining about it.
6.10
Any League may elect to use the Designated Hitter Rule.
(a) In the event of inter-league competition between clubs of Leagues using the Designated Hitter Rule and clubs of Leagues not using the Designated Hitter Rule, the rule will be used as follows:
1. In World Series or exhibition games, the rule will be used or not used as is the practice of the home team.
2. In All-Star games, the rule will only be used if both teams and both Leagues so agree.
__________________________________________
The rest of 6.10 describes the rule during the game. It occurs to me that in American Conference parks that the two managers could reach a gentleman's agreement not to use the DH in a particular game. It's use is not mandatory.
If Yankee manage Joe Girardi decided not to use a DH in this afternoon's game at Fenway Park, that would be allowed. Girardi, of course, would not do that unilaterally. However, if Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine decided to do the same, then they could play the game with no DH.
I winder if the reverse could work. If two National Conference managers wanted to both use the DH, what would the umpires decide? Since the so called National League did not "elect to use the Designated Hitter Rule" the umps would probably tell the managers that it was not allowed. But if common sense prevailed and the interpretation was that the two conferences were part of one Major League, then it might work.
Hey, this beats whining about it.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Start the count at 3-2. And limit the batter to three swings maximum.
THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008 Start at bats with the count 3-2
Another great idea from slow pitch softball.
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2010 3-2 count.
Start the count at 3-2. And limit the batter to three swings maximum.
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2010 Start the count at 3-2: a refinement.
I'll bet that 3-2 plate appearances are at least FIVE minutes long. That's nuts. The idea is to put the ball in play, not jerk around. Baseball is a game of batting, fielding and base running. Pitching dominated MLB is a perversion.
__________________________________________
This morning on MLB network Sean Casey was running his mouth about some guy having a great plate appearance (PA) against the Mets because it went eleven pitches ... and the guy got a hit. Naturally, when they showed the PA they ran it at warp speed, not real time with all the MLB jerking around between pitches. Anyone know the actual time?
Eleven pitches is obscene. I almost always favor the batter but in my start the count at 3-2 rule the batter has the responsibility to put the ball in play. Three strikes and your out. Catchy phrase, huh?
Another great idea from slow pitch softball.
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2010 3-2 count.
Start the count at 3-2. And limit the batter to three swings maximum.
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2010 Start the count at 3-2: a refinement.
I'll bet that 3-2 plate appearances are at least FIVE minutes long. That's nuts. The idea is to put the ball in play, not jerk around. Baseball is a game of batting, fielding and base running. Pitching dominated MLB is a perversion.
__________________________________________
This morning on MLB network Sean Casey was running his mouth about some guy having a great plate appearance (PA) against the Mets because it went eleven pitches ... and the guy got a hit. Naturally, when they showed the PA they ran it at warp speed, not real time with all the MLB jerking around between pitches. Anyone know the actual time?
Eleven pitches is obscene. I almost always favor the batter but in my start the count at 3-2 rule the batter has the responsibility to put the ball in play. Three strikes and your out. Catchy phrase, huh?
Most Boring Batters
Most Boring Batters
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Jackie Robinson day: enough already!
Am I the only one completely turned off by what MLB has turned into an annual celebration of its own silliness? Is MLB the only organization that insists on reminding everyone of a very bad policy that it had for many years but that it ended many years ago?
Jack Roosevelt Robinson is properly recognized as an American pioneer and hero for becoming the first modern black person to play MLB and to have done so under difficult circumstances. His personality and character contribute to his stature. That first game was the Dodger season opener and was played in Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, NY on Tuesday, April 15, 1947; attendance: 26,623, time of the game: 2:20. Dodgers won 5-3. Robinson was 0 for 3 and played first base.
If one objective of MLB is to educate people, including its own players, about the past it seems that there are significant failures. During last night's ESPN game of the week Angel outfielder Torri Hunter was featured in a studio statement in which he said that if it were not for Jackie Robinson he, Hunter, would not be in MLB today. Torri Hunter is 36 years old. He's not a kid but a 16 year veteran. Is his grasp of history so flimsy that he thinks that MLB could have remained racially segregated all these years?
Does Torri Hunter and do other MLB players know about Earl Lloyd:
Lloyd was one of three African-Americans to enter the NBA at the same time. It was only because of the order in which the teams' season openers fell that Lloyd was the first to actually play in a game in the NBA. The date was October 31, 1950, one day ahead of Cooper of the Boston Celtics and four days before Nat "Sweetwater" Clifton of the New York Knicks.
Do MLB players realize that President Harry Truman started the integration of the armed forces in 1947 and that it was completed under President Dwight Eisenhower?
Do they know about the two Supreme Court cases (1954-1955) Mrs. Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS that started the integration of public schools?
Do MLB players even know that Larry Doby became the second in MLB and the first black player in the American League on Saturday, July 5, 1947 in Comiskey Park Chicago; attendance: 14,655, time of game: 2:28? That's less than three months after Robinson broke in.
The point is that somebody would have been the first somewhere between 1947 and 2012, probably much closer to 1947.
My recollection is that when this Jackie Robinson Day started in 2004 only a few players wore number 42, Robinson's number. I'm pretty sure only a couple of years ago when other Yankees were wearing 42, Yankee captain Derek Jeter was wearing his usual number 2. Yesterday I did see not any player on any team wearing a number other than 42.
Ironically, Torri Hunter got the number thing right in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Robinson_Day
"This is supposed to be an honor," Minnesota Twins outfielder Torii Hunter told USA Today, "and just a handful of guys wearing the number. Now you've got entire teams doing it. I think we're killing the meaning. It should be special wearing Jackie's number, not just because it looks cool."
Did it become mandatory or is there simply so much peer pressure and pressure to conform that the players just mindlessly go along?
Shouldn't Robinson Cano, who is named after Jackie, be allowed to wear his regular number: 24?
Yesterday afternoon while I was watching the Knicks lose to Miami at the Garden I also had the Red Sox game on my second TV. They were interviewing Ralph Branca of all people and he was wearing a Red Sox uniform. I thought: what the heck? Branca had his best season in 1947 winning 21 and he is one of the few surviving teammates of Robinson from that first game. He's also Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine's father-in-law. Branca did a good interview and was not too sappy about Jackie. He also maintained the dignity he has displayed all these years about throwing the pitch to Bobby Thomson, which Thomson hit in the bottom of the ninth to win the 1951 NL pennant. Thomson to his continued discredit maintained to his dieing day that he could not recall if he knew what pitch was coming despite the fact that his Giants had been systematically "stealing" opposing team's signs for months. Branca snorted at that.
Every MLB game had announcers, including former players, going on and on about Jackie Robinson beyond all proportion to the matter. Yes, Jackie Robinson did something special but integration would have happened with or without Jackie Robinson. The poor man could have been spared his personal grief and the rest of us can now be spared foolish over emphasis.
Chalk up another mess for MLB commissioner Bud Wonder Boy Selig. Way to go Buddy boy!
Jack Roosevelt Robinson is properly recognized as an American pioneer and hero for becoming the first modern black person to play MLB and to have done so under difficult circumstances. His personality and character contribute to his stature. That first game was the Dodger season opener and was played in Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, NY on Tuesday, April 15, 1947; attendance: 26,623, time of the game: 2:20. Dodgers won 5-3. Robinson was 0 for 3 and played first base.
If one objective of MLB is to educate people, including its own players, about the past it seems that there are significant failures. During last night's ESPN game of the week Angel outfielder Torri Hunter was featured in a studio statement in which he said that if it were not for Jackie Robinson he, Hunter, would not be in MLB today. Torri Hunter is 36 years old. He's not a kid but a 16 year veteran. Is his grasp of history so flimsy that he thinks that MLB could have remained racially segregated all these years?
Does Torri Hunter and do other MLB players know about Earl Lloyd:
Lloyd was one of three African-Americans to enter the NBA at the same time. It was only because of the order in which the teams' season openers fell that Lloyd was the first to actually play in a game in the NBA. The date was October 31, 1950, one day ahead of Cooper of the Boston Celtics and four days before Nat "Sweetwater" Clifton of the New York Knicks.
Do MLB players realize that President Harry Truman started the integration of the armed forces in 1947 and that it was completed under President Dwight Eisenhower?
Do they know about the two Supreme Court cases (1954-1955) Mrs. Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, KS that started the integration of public schools?
Do MLB players even know that Larry Doby became the second in MLB and the first black player in the American League on Saturday, July 5, 1947 in Comiskey Park Chicago; attendance: 14,655, time of game: 2:28? That's less than three months after Robinson broke in.
The point is that somebody would have been the first somewhere between 1947 and 2012, probably much closer to 1947.
My recollection is that when this Jackie Robinson Day started in 2004 only a few players wore number 42, Robinson's number. I'm pretty sure only a couple of years ago when other Yankees were wearing 42, Yankee captain Derek Jeter was wearing his usual number 2. Yesterday I did see not any player on any team wearing a number other than 42.
Ironically, Torri Hunter got the number thing right in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Robinson_Day
"This is supposed to be an honor," Minnesota Twins outfielder Torii Hunter told USA Today, "and just a handful of guys wearing the number. Now you've got entire teams doing it. I think we're killing the meaning. It should be special wearing Jackie's number, not just because it looks cool."
Did it become mandatory or is there simply so much peer pressure and pressure to conform that the players just mindlessly go along?
Shouldn't Robinson Cano, who is named after Jackie, be allowed to wear his regular number: 24?
Yesterday afternoon while I was watching the Knicks lose to Miami at the Garden I also had the Red Sox game on my second TV. They were interviewing Ralph Branca of all people and he was wearing a Red Sox uniform. I thought: what the heck? Branca had his best season in 1947 winning 21 and he is one of the few surviving teammates of Robinson from that first game. He's also Red Sox manager Bobby Valentine's father-in-law. Branca did a good interview and was not too sappy about Jackie. He also maintained the dignity he has displayed all these years about throwing the pitch to Bobby Thomson, which Thomson hit in the bottom of the ninth to win the 1951 NL pennant. Thomson to his continued discredit maintained to his dieing day that he could not recall if he knew what pitch was coming despite the fact that his Giants had been systematically "stealing" opposing team's signs for months. Branca snorted at that.
Every MLB game had announcers, including former players, going on and on about Jackie Robinson beyond all proportion to the matter. Yes, Jackie Robinson did something special but integration would have happened with or without Jackie Robinson. The poor man could have been spared his personal grief and the rest of us can now be spared foolish over emphasis.
Chalk up another mess for MLB commissioner Bud Wonder Boy Selig. Way to go Buddy boy!
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Protected and Moral: when do players cross the line?
The answer is probably what we'd expect: about the age of 13 when kids enter high school. We want to protect younger kids and the types of suggestions I've made over the years make sense even for change resistant baseball minds.
That also applies to our sense of morality. Acts of baseball vengeance and vigilantism, which many easily advocate as part of baseball protocol, are generally not taught to younger kids. Why not? If it's OK for a pitcher to drill an opposing batter for even an off field, off season statement as recently happened when Ubaldo Jiménez hit his former Colorado teammate Troy Tulowitzki, why not teach that to kids? But most of us do not. When does such despicable cowardly behavior become not just accepted but often advocated?
Here are examples of some safety measures that would be dismissed for adults, especially MLB players, but might be acceptable for kids even though adults have not yet had the common sense to adopt them even to protect their own children, probably because of the fear of ridicule
SATURDAY, JULY 5, 2008 Everyone should wear catcher's gear.
... infielders, certainly the pitchers need this protection ... Yes, including the face mask. If they do not start wearing this gear, pitchers will need the screen that is used in front of the pitcher during batting practice.
TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2009 Getting hit with the ball.
This morning on ESPN radio I actually hear Mike Greenberg say something semi-intelligent about the pitcher getting hit in the head: MAYBE the pitcher should wear a helmet. Wow! MAYBE! He even referred to kids pitching in youth leagues. It never occurred to him that players should wear catcher's gear, especially kids but this shows a smidgen of progress, which is very unusual for baseball management, fans and media.
I am ready to extend my punishment for hitting batters other than in the head. If a batter is hit flush below the head the pitcher is ejected and suspended.
First offense, one week.
Second offense, one month.
Third offense, three months.
Fourth offense, one calendar year.
See, that wasn't so difficult. Punishment is the key. Currently, the punishment 99% of the time is that the batter gets first base. Big deal.
Here is some of the traditional crap that I do not want to hear:
- it's part of the game
- pitchers need to pitch inside
- pitchers do not throw at the batter's head
- it's up to the batter to get out of the way.
What is this ancient Rome? Enough already. And, no, the balance will not tip to the batter, not until batting averages top .500.
SUNDAY, MAY 29, 2011 Eliminate the catcher, outlaw the collisions or properly equip the fielders.
______________________________________________
SUNDAY, MAY 29, 2011 Eliminate the catcher, outlaw the collisions or properly equip the fielders.
______________________________________________
Instead of trying to get kids to be like MLB players we need to treat MLB players with the same respect and care that we treat kids. Protect them properly and demand moral conduct. Do not accept behavior that we would be ashamed to teach them when they were kids.
War On WAR.
War On WAR.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Friday, April 13, 2012
MLB Depraved And Indifferent.
MLB Depraved And Indifferent.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
Click the link above to read my most recent article written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Two fielding gloves/mitts at once.
As far as I know there's nothing in the rules that prohibit a fielder from wearing a glove/mitt on each hand.
There are obvious benefits, such as never having to backhand a ball. Before you dismiss this with "how will the player" throw, calm down and think it through. Baseball people are instinctively negative about any change, which is one reason baseball is stuck in the mud.
Watch how former MLB pitcher Jim Abbott, who had no right hand, switched the glove from his stump to his hand and off again to throw when he fielded a batted ball. For two handed players it would be much easier. Just drop the glove/mitt off your throwing hand when you know that you will need to. Just drop it. On the ground. You can pick it up later. Pretty simple, right?
So how come nobody thought of it before?
There are obvious benefits, such as never having to backhand a ball. Before you dismiss this with "how will the player" throw, calm down and think it through. Baseball people are instinctively negative about any change, which is one reason baseball is stuck in the mud.
Watch how former MLB pitcher Jim Abbott, who had no right hand, switched the glove from his stump to his hand and off again to throw when he fielded a batted ball. For two handed players it would be much easier. Just drop the glove/mitt off your throwing hand when you know that you will need to. Just drop it. On the ground. You can pick it up later. Pretty simple, right?
So how come nobody thought of it before?
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Biggest (bigger) Blown Save.
"Five Infielders: how often this millennium?"
That's the title of one of my posts yesterday. I received a private message from a friend, which dealt, not with the main topic, but with a brief aside that contained this: "the most notorious blown save in baseball history: Rivera blowing both the save and game seven, 2001 WS."
He suggested Ralph Branca 1951. (No time to explain in detail. Maybe a future post on how neither Brooklyn Dodger fans nor the Dodger rivalry with the New York Giants were all that they were cracked up to be.)
I responded: "not even a post season game ... not even close".
However, upon reflection my choice of the word notorious was probably ill advised. Biggest was what I was groping for.
There is a larger issue. What is bigger and more important: blowing the regular season pennant, especially under the old do or die format with no tournament, or blowing game seven of the World Series (MLB finals now)?
In 1951 was a save awarded as we now know it and, if so, what was the definition? Just curious.
There is also a difference in circumstance. Branca entered with a two run lead, runners on second and third, one out, Bobby Thomson coming up (struggling rookie Willie Mays on deck). Rivera had already pitched a scoreless eighth and had a 2-1 lead. Part of what makes Branca's blown save look worse is that the Dodgers were up 4-1 entering the bottom of the ninth and one run was already in when Branca made his ill fated entrance.
Bobby Thomson homered off Branca to win the pennant. Click Thomson's name to see his home run log. Thomson hit 32 homers in 1951, the final two off Branca two days apart (both in a best of three game play-in series) and another one month earlier. August 8, 1951 Thomson had also homered off starter Don Newcombe who was being relieved and Thomson hit two of his first three homers off the other Dodger starter warming up, Carl Erskine, who supposedly had just bounced a curve when Dodger manager Chuck Dressen asked the bullpen coach how Branca and Erskine looked.
Dressen certainly knew about that homer two days before. What was he thinking? Did he consider walking Thomson putting the winning run on base? Thomson only needed a single to tie the game.
We could apply some linear weights thing to it but it's almost philosophical. Of these two, which is the bigger blown save? What do you think?
That's the title of one of my posts yesterday. I received a private message from a friend, which dealt, not with the main topic, but with a brief aside that contained this: "the most notorious blown save in baseball history: Rivera blowing both the save and game seven, 2001 WS."
He suggested Ralph Branca 1951. (No time to explain in detail. Maybe a future post on how neither Brooklyn Dodger fans nor the Dodger rivalry with the New York Giants were all that they were cracked up to be.)
I responded: "not even a post season game ... not even close".
However, upon reflection my choice of the word notorious was probably ill advised. Biggest was what I was groping for.
There is a larger issue. What is bigger and more important: blowing the regular season pennant, especially under the old do or die format with no tournament, or blowing game seven of the World Series (MLB finals now)?
In 1951 was a save awarded as we now know it and, if so, what was the definition? Just curious.
There is also a difference in circumstance. Branca entered with a two run lead, runners on second and third, one out, Bobby Thomson coming up (struggling rookie Willie Mays on deck). Rivera had already pitched a scoreless eighth and had a 2-1 lead. Part of what makes Branca's blown save look worse is that the Dodgers were up 4-1 entering the bottom of the ninth and one run was already in when Branca made his ill fated entrance.
Bobby Thomson homered off Branca to win the pennant. Click Thomson's name to see his home run log. Thomson hit 32 homers in 1951, the final two off Branca two days apart (both in a best of three game play-in series) and another one month earlier. August 8, 1951 Thomson had also homered off starter Don Newcombe who was being relieved and Thomson hit two of his first three homers off the other Dodger starter warming up, Carl Erskine, who supposedly had just bounced a curve when Dodger manager Chuck Dressen asked the bullpen coach how Branca and Erskine looked.
Dressen certainly knew about that homer two days before. What was he thinking? Did he consider walking Thomson putting the winning run on base? Thomson only needed a single to tie the game.
We could apply some linear weights thing to it but it's almost philosophical. Of these two, which is the bigger blown save? What do you think?
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Radical Baseball: An Introduction
Radical Baseball: now at calltothepen.com
Click the link above to read Radical Baseball: An Introduction.
This is the first article I have written exclusively at Call to the Pen, which has added me as a staff writer. I will publish two articles a week there, probably on Wednesday and Saturday. There will be links here to those articles.
I encourage you to regularly check Call to the Pen for all its content.
Five Infielders: how often this millennium?
In yesterday's first regular season Yankee game, on the third day of first regular season games on this continent, manager Joe Girardi used five infielders in a vain attempt to prevent Tampa from scoring the winning run in the bottom of the ninth.
Aside: Gee, I hate baseball when my team loses a game like that, the great Mariano Rivera retaining his ultimate cool but still blowing both the save and the game. It reminded me of the most notorious blown save in baseball history: Rivera blowing both the save and game seven, 2001 WS. Oh, the humanity!
I've mentioned the five infielders in at least two previous posts.
FRIDAY, JULY 1, 2011 2 outfielders, 5 infielders
The Yankees have just the right players to try 2 outfielders and 5 infielders when game conditions permit blah, blah, blah.
RF Swisher also plays first base. LF Gardner is a natural CF. Yanks could move left throwing Swisher to 1B, 1B Teixeira to 2B, spread Gardner and CF Granderson into the power alleys and move 2B Cano, who has a powerful arm, behind second base where he would make all plays at the bag.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2008 Defense as a Competetive Advantage.
My friend Eric Weiss has this suggestion: five infielders. Not just as a rare late game gamble but as an alignment for a ground ball pitcher. My implementaion would position the outfielder turned infielder behind second base. That player would handle all plays at second, allowing the shortstop and second baseman to play further from the bag.
__________________________________
Ryan commented: Joe maddon did the 5 infielder 2 outfielder shift vs the white so. In the 2008 alds
I think Terry Francona did it with Boston. The point today is how many times has it occurred this millennium?
Baseball is so stuck in its ways. Come on, come on! Try something, anything! Switch from zone to man-to-man. Press. Do something different before we all keel over from abject boredom.
Aside: Gee, I hate baseball when my team loses a game like that, the great Mariano Rivera retaining his ultimate cool but still blowing both the save and the game. It reminded me of the most notorious blown save in baseball history: Rivera blowing both the save and game seven, 2001 WS. Oh, the humanity!
I've mentioned the five infielders in at least two previous posts.
FRIDAY, JULY 1, 2011 2 outfielders, 5 infielders
The Yankees have just the right players to try 2 outfielders and 5 infielders when game conditions permit blah, blah, blah.
RF Swisher also plays first base. LF Gardner is a natural CF. Yanks could move left throwing Swisher to 1B, 1B Teixeira to 2B, spread Gardner and CF Granderson into the power alleys and move 2B Cano, who has a powerful arm, behind second base where he would make all plays at the bag.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 29, 2008 Defense as a Competetive Advantage.
My friend Eric Weiss has this suggestion: five infielders. Not just as a rare late game gamble but as an alignment for a ground ball pitcher. My implementaion would position the outfielder turned infielder behind second base. That player would handle all plays at second, allowing the shortstop and second baseman to play further from the bag.
__________________________________
Ryan commented: Joe maddon did the 5 infielder 2 outfielder shift vs the white so. In the 2008 alds
I think Terry Francona did it with Boston. The point today is how many times has it occurred this millennium?
Baseball is so stuck in its ways. Come on, come on! Try something, anything! Switch from zone to man-to-man. Press. Do something different before we all keel over from abject boredom.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Mets can't even schedule themselves properly.
Amid the confusion that is the slow motion opening of the 2012 MLB regular season, the New York Mets mis-managed their schedule in their final two games. OK, it may be more the fault of MLB and maybe Mets ownership was too distracted by their financial mess but the Mets broke camp in silly fashion.
Mets played Yanks Tuesday and Wednesday. First in Port St. Lucy Ricardo, the Mets training base, then in Tampa, where the Yankees train.
The Mets are scheduled to open in New York today, Thursday. The Yankees open in Tampa Friday.
Two problems:
1. Yanks had an off day, Mets did not
2. Yanks stay put, Mets traveled to New York.
Simply reversing the order of the games would have benefited the Mets and not harmed the Yankees. The Mets could have avoided that extra road trip to Tampa and broken camp at home and headed to New York. The Yanks had the luxury of the extra day to get back to Tampa and prepare to play the Rays for real Friday.
Or MLB could be less greedy and not squeeze every last dollar out of spring training by shamelessly mixing exhibition with regular season games beyond all reason.
Mets played Yanks Tuesday and Wednesday. First in Port St. Lucy Ricardo, the Mets training base, then in Tampa, where the Yankees train.
The Mets are scheduled to open in New York today, Thursday. The Yankees open in Tampa Friday.
Two problems:
1. Yanks had an off day, Mets did not
2. Yanks stay put, Mets traveled to New York.
Simply reversing the order of the games would have benefited the Mets and not harmed the Yankees. The Mets could have avoided that extra road trip to Tampa and broken camp at home and headed to New York. The Yanks had the luxury of the extra day to get back to Tampa and prepare to play the Rays for real Friday.
Or MLB could be less greedy and not squeeze every last dollar out of spring training by shamelessly mixing exhibition with regular season games beyond all reason.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Marlins: looking good but with randomness in center.
The Yankees just played two exhibition games in the new Miami
(formerly Florida) Marlins ballpark so I saw them on TV. OK, I
watched parts of them.
(formerly Florida) Marlins ballpark so I saw them on TV. OK, I
watched parts of them.
I really like the new Marlins uniforms. Elsewhere they might seem
garish but for Miami I think they will work very well. There are
multiple color schemes of course and last night's version conjured an
image of a team from Cuba. If that was an objective of the team
management, they have succeeded.
The ballpark is also striking, with a retractable roof and a very open
airy feel. However, in addition to the usual non-uniform,
non-symmetrical playing area the Marlins plunked down a big oval
something in left center that creates an odd shaped corner, all the
better to provide random outcomes.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Exhibition games: please make them stop!
I've already called for the end of exhibition games. This season it seemed that MLB network was televising games all day long, every day. That was charming at first, then boring, then irritating. Now it's driving me nuts. And that's with only occasionally watching as I channel surfed.
Making matters worse is the season starting later, even going against the Masters golf tournament. Good luck, MLB, if Tiger Woods is in contention in the final round Sunday. I miss the good old days when some games (not in Japan) were played in March. It's not that expect the games to actually be interesting. It's just that all these exhibition games are brutal.
Let's get started so that I can re-appreciate the NBA.
Making matters worse is the season starting later, even going against the Masters golf tournament. Good luck, MLB, if Tiger Woods is in contention in the final round Sunday. I miss the good old days when some games (not in Japan) were played in March. It's not that expect the games to actually be interesting. It's just that all these exhibition games are brutal.
Let's get started so that I can re-appreciate the NBA.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Has the season started?
I think I saw part of a regular season game last night and it may not have even been the first. Meanwhile those silly exhibition games continue unabated and unashamed. I recently suggested they be replaced by regular season games in warm weather . Ban all exhibition games.
After the depressingly silly 2011 tournament all this would be driving another stake into MLB, Inc. were it not for the slim hope of minor improvement from the new tournament format, rushed into place, perhaps because some in MLB, Inc. sense the impending doom foreshadowed by thousands of empty baseball fields throughout the land.
Our national pastime is being outsourced and no one seems to notice or care. Pass the hot dog ... or sushi.
After the depressingly silly 2011 tournament all this would be driving another stake into MLB, Inc. were it not for the slim hope of minor improvement from the new tournament format, rushed into place, perhaps because some in MLB, Inc. sense the impending doom foreshadowed by thousands of empty baseball fields throughout the land.
Our national pastime is being outsourced and no one seems to notice or care. Pass the hot dog ... or sushi.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Yanks in 30?
MSG network condenses New York Knicks games into 60 minute programs called the "Knicks in 60". They include part of the pre and post game talk, commercials and most of the 48 minutes of action.
Since NBA games have so much more action than MLB games I figure the YES network can produce "Yanks in 30".
Since NBA games have so much more action than MLB games I figure the YES network can produce "Yanks in 30".
Monday, March 26, 2012
Eliminate exhibition games. Just start regular season in FL & AZ.
Somebody please research whether MLB can make more money by starting the regular season in the minor league parks in which MLB teams play these unnecessary and incredibly boring exhibition games.
1. Teams can charge regular season prices.
2. Teams can televise all the games, let's say 20 games. Even the Yankees only have a few exhibition games on TV.
3. Teams will collect regular season TV revenue, which should make up for the fewer fans attending because the parks have fewer seats. Attendance at early season games can be low because of bad weather.
Some teams already have their warm weather exhibition parks configured like their MLB parks. See the Red Sox.
This would eliminate the persistent and increasing friction between starting the regular season earlier and adding games to the post season tournament. With all teams starting in warm weather locations, the regular season can be played pretty much any time.
Those locations would love it as many more fans would vacation there to see regular season games, not those exhibition games featuring minor league players in split squad games designed to squeeze more money out of fans. Plus, the fans would sit closer to the action than many could in the large parks in the home cities.
Remember, some teams have started regular season games in Japan. So why not Florida and Arizona?
Some teams with warm weather homes could play in them: Miami, Tampa, Arizona, San Diego, LA, maybe Atlanta. Some can play indoors: Seattle, Toronto, Milwaukee, Houston. That reduces some of the congestion.
But don't the players need those games to prepare? No. Non-pitchers need them like a hole in the head. Pitchers just need to throw more and more pitches to build up their arm strength, something they can do on the sideline and pitching to teammates.
Eliminate exhibition games.
There's a concept that I associate with former star Pittsburgh Pirate pitcher Vern Law: if you're not playing to win, then don't keep score. MLB teams do not play to win exhibition games but they keep score and play with regular season rules except for maybe stopping after nine innings ... sometimes. MLB does not even have the sense to spice up the games by allowing flexibility and experimentation.
For instance, if a team leads after the top of the ninth, why not bat in the bottom of the ninth? Both teams could benefit. If Alex Rodriguez walks, why not let Yankee manager Joe Girardi ask for a do-over and let A-Rod bat again? Both teams might benefit as would the fans.
The fact that they don't do these common sense things is another reason to just start the regular season down there at the training sites.
1. Teams can charge regular season prices.
2. Teams can televise all the games, let's say 20 games. Even the Yankees only have a few exhibition games on TV.
3. Teams will collect regular season TV revenue, which should make up for the fewer fans attending because the parks have fewer seats. Attendance at early season games can be low because of bad weather.
Some teams already have their warm weather exhibition parks configured like their MLB parks. See the Red Sox.
This would eliminate the persistent and increasing friction between starting the regular season earlier and adding games to the post season tournament. With all teams starting in warm weather locations, the regular season can be played pretty much any time.
Those locations would love it as many more fans would vacation there to see regular season games, not those exhibition games featuring minor league players in split squad games designed to squeeze more money out of fans. Plus, the fans would sit closer to the action than many could in the large parks in the home cities.
Remember, some teams have started regular season games in Japan. So why not Florida and Arizona?
Some teams with warm weather homes could play in them: Miami, Tampa, Arizona, San Diego, LA, maybe Atlanta. Some can play indoors: Seattle, Toronto, Milwaukee, Houston. That reduces some of the congestion.
But don't the players need those games to prepare? No. Non-pitchers need them like a hole in the head. Pitchers just need to throw more and more pitches to build up their arm strength, something they can do on the sideline and pitching to teammates.
Eliminate exhibition games.
There's a concept that I associate with former star Pittsburgh Pirate pitcher Vern Law: if you're not playing to win, then don't keep score. MLB teams do not play to win exhibition games but they keep score and play with regular season rules except for maybe stopping after nine innings ... sometimes. MLB does not even have the sense to spice up the games by allowing flexibility and experimentation.
For instance, if a team leads after the top of the ninth, why not bat in the bottom of the ninth? Both teams could benefit. If Alex Rodriguez walks, why not let Yankee manager Joe Girardi ask for a do-over and let A-Rod bat again? Both teams might benefit as would the fans.
The fact that they don't do these common sense things is another reason to just start the regular season down there at the training sites.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Batting Average on Balls in Play: fun, games and common sense.
http://mlb.mlb.com/network/promotions/clubhouse_glossary.jsp
BABIP: Batting Average on Balls in Play ... (H - HR)/(AB - K - HR + SF)
How many of a player's balls in play go for hits. BABIP removes HR, BB, and K -- outcomes not impacted by defense -- from the player's average. It can serve as a rough estimate of a player's luck, and can help predict future performance. The league rate stays around .300 (it was .295 in 2011). A higher BABIP often means a player is on the right side of luck (hits are falling in) and will regress. A lower number often implies a player is on the wrong side of luck and will improve. The metric can be used mostly for pitchers, and somewhat for hitters.
____________________
On the MLB Network Clubhouse Confidential TV program I had not noticed BABIP used less forcefully for batters than for pitchers but maybe it was. BABIP seems to make the most sense for fielding, especially team fielding, but we'll leave that aside for now.
Because I have stressed the silliness of baseball being played in non-uniform playing areas from the first radical baseball post in 2006, BABIP has a fundamental flaw: home runs are not included.
Since almost all home runs in recent decades go over the fence, i.e., they are not inside the park home runs, they are hits that travel at least 300 feet on the fly and are therefore balls that are hit hard. To discount them is silly.
For players who keep the same real batting average (BA) in the same number of at bats (AB) from one season to the next an increase in home runs will decrease the player's BABIP: fewer hits in fewer AB. Conversely, an increase in strike outs (SO), which are also not counted, will increase the player's BABIP: same number of hits in fewer AB in BABIP.
In 2011 pitcher Justin Verlander had 250 SO in 969 plate appearances against him and 904 AB. Using the BABIP equation, the denominator is 904 - 250 - 24 + 3 = 633. BABIP numerator: 174 - 24 = 150. That's 150/633 = .237. Verlander 's career BABIP, including 2011, is .287. So the conventional wisdom is that Verlander was lucky and very unlikely to repeat.
I don't believe in luck over six months and several hundred AB: 633. I'm thinking that those 250 SO are an indication that Verlander was overpowering and that in many of the AB in which batters put the ball in play the ball was not hard hit, leading to more outs than Verlander usually gets on balls in play.
There is some indication that other factors are being addressed, like how many line drives were hit. Recently, MLB CC host Brian Kenny provided these numbers for 2011 BABIP:
- flies: .152
- grounders: .233
- liners: .707
Of course, there are no definitions and no numbers. What percent of balls in play are each?
Plus, flies omits home runs, all of which are hits. Home runs are omitted because the pitcher supposedly has no control over balls hit so far that his fielders cannot catch them. Say what? That would be silly if all parks had the same home run distances in all direction and the same wall heights, you know, like it should be, like NFL and NBA do it. Logically. But with those factors being random the pitcher should be held accountable for 300 foot fly balls.
What's the BABIP for 300 foot fly balls, including home runs of course?
And since BA is in disrepute generally, why is it used here? What about reach on error (ROE)? What about slugging (SLG)? What about adjusting for ball parks? Why not mush all that together and then come up with a number?
Sportvision is generating detailed data, which individual MLB teams are using in proprietary ways to evaluate performance. This supposedly includes trajectory and speed of batted balls. It seems to me what is needed is time and distance, which should be available in the videos. Time could be calculated from the number of frames between when the ball is hit and when the ball touches something. Distance must be in the system, perhaps from google earth images. Combine them and you can then better define terms.
We think we know what a line drive is. How about these:
1. liner to pitcher who drops it and throws out batter; probably a grounder
2. liner over an infielder that lands on the infield dirt; beats me
3. fly caught by an outfielder
Time and distance should provide a good idea of whether a ball shoud be caught and how hard it was hit.
And if you want to measure luck, why not just categorize all events. For instance a 400 foot rocket to center field that is caught should be considered a home run. In fact all flies over 380 feet should be home runs and home runs shorter than 380 feet should doubles. Heck they track every play, so why use a guesstimate like BABIP at all except for prior seasons that were not tracked? And for them use something better.
BABIP: Batting Average on Balls in Play ... (H - HR)/(AB - K - HR + SF)
How many of a player's balls in play go for hits. BABIP removes HR, BB, and K -- outcomes not impacted by defense -- from the player's average. It can serve as a rough estimate of a player's luck, and can help predict future performance. The league rate stays around .300 (it was .295 in 2011). A higher BABIP often means a player is on the right side of luck (hits are falling in) and will regress. A lower number often implies a player is on the wrong side of luck and will improve. The metric can be used mostly for pitchers, and somewhat for hitters.
____________________
On the MLB Network Clubhouse Confidential TV program I had not noticed BABIP used less forcefully for batters than for pitchers but maybe it was. BABIP seems to make the most sense for fielding, especially team fielding, but we'll leave that aside for now.
Because I have stressed the silliness of baseball being played in non-uniform playing areas from the first radical baseball post in 2006, BABIP has a fundamental flaw: home runs are not included.
Since almost all home runs in recent decades go over the fence, i.e., they are not inside the park home runs, they are hits that travel at least 300 feet on the fly and are therefore balls that are hit hard. To discount them is silly.
For players who keep the same real batting average (BA) in the same number of at bats (AB) from one season to the next an increase in home runs will decrease the player's BABIP: fewer hits in fewer AB. Conversely, an increase in strike outs (SO), which are also not counted, will increase the player's BABIP: same number of hits in fewer AB in BABIP.
In 2011 pitcher Justin Verlander had 250 SO in 969 plate appearances against him and 904 AB. Using the BABIP equation, the denominator is 904 - 250 - 24 + 3 = 633. BABIP numerator: 174 - 24 = 150. That's 150/633 = .237. Verlander 's career BABIP, including 2011, is .287. So the conventional wisdom is that Verlander was lucky and very unlikely to repeat.
I don't believe in luck over six months and several hundred AB: 633. I'm thinking that those 250 SO are an indication that Verlander was overpowering and that in many of the AB in which batters put the ball in play the ball was not hard hit, leading to more outs than Verlander usually gets on balls in play.
There is some indication that other factors are being addressed, like how many line drives were hit. Recently, MLB CC host Brian Kenny provided these numbers for 2011 BABIP:
- flies: .152
- grounders: .233
- liners: .707
Of course, there are no definitions and no numbers. What percent of balls in play are each?
Plus, flies omits home runs, all of which are hits. Home runs are omitted because the pitcher supposedly has no control over balls hit so far that his fielders cannot catch them. Say what? That would be silly if all parks had the same home run distances in all direction and the same wall heights, you know, like it should be, like NFL and NBA do it. Logically. But with those factors being random the pitcher should be held accountable for 300 foot fly balls.
What's the BABIP for 300 foot fly balls, including home runs of course?
And since BA is in disrepute generally, why is it used here? What about reach on error (ROE)? What about slugging (SLG)? What about adjusting for ball parks? Why not mush all that together and then come up with a number?
Sportvision is generating detailed data, which individual MLB teams are using in proprietary ways to evaluate performance. This supposedly includes trajectory and speed of batted balls. It seems to me what is needed is time and distance, which should be available in the videos. Time could be calculated from the number of frames between when the ball is hit and when the ball touches something. Distance must be in the system, perhaps from google earth images. Combine them and you can then better define terms.
We think we know what a line drive is. How about these:
1. liner to pitcher who drops it and throws out batter; probably a grounder
2. liner over an infielder that lands on the infield dirt; beats me
3. fly caught by an outfielder
Time and distance should provide a good idea of whether a ball shoud be caught and how hard it was hit.
And if you want to measure luck, why not just categorize all events. For instance a 400 foot rocket to center field that is caught should be considered a home run. In fact all flies over 380 feet should be home runs and home runs shorter than 380 feet should doubles. Heck they track every play, so why use a guesstimate like BABIP at all except for prior seasons that were not tracked? And for them use something better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)