More nerdy Moneyball

Someone on the board made a comment about Jeremy Brown. For those not in the know, Brown was a fat college catcher no one wanted to draft and Billy Beane ended up taking around the 2nd round of the 2002 draft. He felt Brown's on base skills were undervalued because of his physical appearance as opposed to his actual production.

Its funny noticing how Jeremy Brown hasn't quite panned out

He did decent in his call ups. Not great, but they were small sample sizes. The point of the book wasn't that teams should draft fat college players or only get players with good OBP, but to look for deficiencies in the market and find those stats/players that were undervalued. The A's couldn't afford to waste pics on High Schoolers with high risk/high reward potential because of the signing bonus and time invested. They needed guys they could be more sure about that weren't seen to have as much potential (college players). They played against a higher level of competition and had stats you could study far deeper than that of a High School player. But for a long time scouts frowned upon taking college players (at least with high picks) because they felt it was easier to mold High School players into the type of player they wanted them to be. Billy Beane's point was that you can't totally reinvent anyone's swing and expect them to be a great player: they are who they are. They took a shot on Jeremy Brown because he was waaaaaaaaaaaaay undervalued and would be cheap to draft. In the same draft they got Nick Swisher and Joe Blanton.

Anyway, he probably didn't mean anything by the original comment other than it's been interesting to see how Brown has done since the book came out. It stinks that personal problems has forced him to leave the game, but them's the breaks.

I'm a nerd...

As if blogging wasn't nerdy enough, I also post on baseball message boards. Someone made a post about Moneyball, and I decided to respond (long and boringly) to one guy. I'll put the excerpts of his post in bold.


-While most of Sabermetric concepts are undoubtedly applicable longitudinally, and over the course of a 162 game season, when you get inside of a short series, I personally don't feel the concepts translate universally. In fact, and I'm not sure if it's in the book or Beane was just quoted as saying it once, but he has said that he can almost guarantee a playoff birth, but he can't promise anything once the team gets there.

They mention it in the book, with Beane saying that luck and pitching pretty much takes over in a short series (ie: the playoffs). In fact, even though his A's lost the series that year, they had a higher runs scored average than during their regular season. The problem was their pitching gave up way more runs than their season average. The actually mathematically quantified the importance of luck during games (a bad hop, a botched play, a ball falling just out of glove's reach, etc). Over the course of a 162 games, luck will balance itself out. Look at last year's Yankees for an example. Started off with a horrible record, yet they were scoring a ton more runs than they gave up. The reason was they were losing a bunch of 1 and 2 run games in large part due to their shoddy bullpen and bad luck. Eventually they went on a tear because the pendulum swung back the other way. For a look at the opposite, check out the O's being in first place back in 2005 (forgive me if I got the year wrong) being in first place for half the season. Their run differential was almost 1-1 with them giving up nearly as many runs as they scored. This eventually came back to bite them on the butts. Same thing happened to the Nationals that year. Last year's Diamonbacks are the rare exception to the case. There usually isn't enough time for this phenomenon to take place during the playoffs.

-Also, it is a misnomer that Batting Average should be replaced by OBP... When was the last time you saw someone score from second on a walk? OPS does somewhat fill this void, though.

The book actually proves the value of OBP over OPS when looking at it mathematically. OPS inaccurately assumes that OBP and Slugging % are on equal footing and therefore can be mashed together. This assumption is wrong. If you have a 1.000 OBP, the maximum amount of runs you can score is infinite because you never make any outs. You're ALWAYS on base. Your maximum run total with a 1.000 slugging % is not infinite because your highest SLG % is 4.000. The book makes the case that judging on this analysis, the argument can be made that OBP is 3 times more valuable than SLG % when evaluating a player's offensive prowess.

As a batter, other than maybe a homer, getting on base is the most important thing you can do because you're not making an out. Billy Beane didn't like "speedsters" because if you're not stealing bases successfully 70% or higher, then you're being a detriment to your team. A low budget team like the A's can't afford to make unnecessary outs because they don't have the money to buy talent to cover up their mistakes (like the Yankees). It's why they hated the sacrifice bunt, because even though you're moving a player over one base you're creating an out when you could be trying to draw a walk or even get a hit.

Either way, I don't know why I typed all of that. No one's reading this. So let me just say: I invented childhood obesity to thin out the population and create hilarity. Success.

The Return of The INCREDIBLE BONDS!

Out in the barren valleys of San Francisco, a lone, hulking figure roams the waste lands. He is forever searching for the cure to his disorder. Unfortunately for him, his dual personality refuses his cries for change and continues to feed off of that which made him: steroids. His name? THE INCREDIBLE BONDS!


Inside San Francisco's Happy Rainbow Liberachi Memorial Hospital:

Doctor: Alright, how are you feeling today?

Cancer patient: I'm fuckin' dyin', man!

Doctor: That probably sucks. Here, this steroids should help treat your whatever...canker sores, right?

Patient: Cancer, asshat!

Doctor: Right, right.

Suddenly, a rumbling is heard and the hot pink hospital shakes.

Doctor: Oh my, is that another one of California's famous hurricane's?

Patient: You mean earthquake. God, you're horrible.

Through the wall bursts a giant mass of 40-some odd years of steroids in the making named the Incredible Bonds!



Incredible Bonds: BONDS SMASH! WANT MUSCLE JUICE! STAB INTO BONDS POOP MACHINE!

Doctor: It appears this beast wishes to rape us!

Patient: No wonder I'm dying. I bet I have a treatable form of cancer too...

Female Voice: BARRY! PLEASE SNAP OUT OF IT!

The door opens as the former mistress of the Incredible Bonds enters the room.



Kimberly Bell: Please don't do it, Barry! I know you can fight this horrible monster known as Bonds and cure yourself of this burden.

Incredible Bonds: BOOBIES?

Kim: Damn, I knew he wouldn't be able to listen to me. That's why I brought in a few friends who have gone through the same inflictions.



Mark McGwire: Hello, Barry. Look, I'm not here to talk about the past. I won't say I know where you're coming from or what you're going through because that's in the past. I can't tell you I understand the unquenchable thirst for Winstrol or Deca Durbin. That's the past. I can't explain the awkwardness I experienced when teammates shot my butt up with steroids. This isn't about the past.

Kim: Okay, you're useless. Maybe this guy can help.




Sammy Sosa: Yo no puedo pretender hablar Inglés.

Kim: Looks like I have no choice but to call in the abomination...



Jose Canseco: CANSECO SMASH! NEED SMASH JUICE TO GROW MORE MULLET!

Kim: I don't understand, I thought he stopped taking steroids.

Sosa: He did, m'lady. However, his intellect was never what one would call "stellar".

Kim: Wait, I thought you spoke only Spanish?

Sosa: Que?

Derek Jeter: worst fielding SS?

If you don't know the story, a group decided to do a study on defense in baseball and came to the conclusion that Derek Jeter was the worst fielding short stop in the major leagues.

Disclaimer: there aren't many Jeter fans out there that can compete with how great I think he is overall (does that sentence even make sense? fuck it). As a kid, Don Mattingly was my favorite player and since he retired Jeter has been #1. THAT SAID...I think as a fielder he's middle of the pack and anyone who points to his Gold Gloves needs to seriously rethink about whether or not they actually know anything about the sport. It's a joke. If you make a name for yourself as being good at that position you can live off that for years. I think it was 2005 when A-Rod probably was the best defensive 3rd baseman in the game and Eric Chavez still won based on rep. Now, on the flip side, as big as I am into stats and discovering new ways to evaluate players, equations trying to value defense is usually a very inexact science. From what I've read, most "stat nerds" agree that you can get a general idea of how well a defensive player someone is, but it's tough to get any type of exact value. It's so tough to take into issue all of the variables (range, ground ball ratio, type of turf/grass/field, fly balls, defensive alignment, etc) that to try and rank players is kinda foolish. And to say you're a nerd if you like deep stats and never watch the game, well...that's what old scouts said when giving Kevin Youkilis the thumbs down. Hey, I'm no fan of the guy, but he can flat out play. These are the same people who believe in clutch, sacrifice bunts, manufacturing runs, and "clogging the basepaths" (as if getting on base is bad, no matter how fat you are). Anyway, back on tangent for my thoughts: Derek Jeter was overrated when he won the Gold Gloves, but probably unfairly bashed in the study.

Um, overstating things a bit?

Bill Madden writes for the New York Daily News. Like most columnists there, he says stupid things. His latest headline killed more of my brain cells than a life time of drinking ever will.

For Mets, Brian Schneider might be biggest catch of the offseason

It's funny too, because he even writes later on in the piece (of crap):

...it was no secret Schneider had actually been Minaya's third choice - behind free agents Jorge Posada and Yorvit Torrealba - to replace Paul Lo Duca...

So, the third best option for a replacement catcher might be a bigger acquisition than JOHAN FUCKIN' SANTANA?!?

In revisiting the Schneider deal (which also brought outfielder Ryan Church to the Mets), Minaya noted the other day: "We're a team that is going to win with pitching, speed and defense. That's our formula and, as such, we felt going into the offseason we had to address catching from a defensive standpoint rather than on offense. Paulie gave us more on offense than Schneider's gonna give us, but Schneider has a reputation for working really well with pitchers and with so much emphasis on our pitching that's going to be important for us."

I have no beef with Scheider, even though he apparently (judging by his 77 OPS+ and .326 OBP) can't hit the ball out of the infield during batting practice. I'm sure he's a swell handler of pitchers (even though you heard jack shit about this guy until he came to NY). However...HE DOES NOT COMPARE TO THE BEST PITCHER IN MAJOR LEAGUE BUTT FUDGIN' BASEBALL!!! OMFGLMAOBBQSAUCEDRAGONFART!

Talk about trying to turn a frown upside down.

Sleeper Pick Part 2

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....Whahuhfuck? Oh, sorry for just now getting to this. And no, that wasn't a pun on the subject title; it's a stab at my tardiness in getting this second parter out there. Either way I'm very lame. Let's get to the AL predictions. First up: why the Red Sox won't repeat. A somewhat bold prediction I came up with before Curt Schilling formed linguine in his right shoulder, but that's neither here nor there. While I'm sold on the fact that Josh Beckett eats his Wheaties for the playoffs, I need to see him string together consecutive successful seasons before I give him the "cock ring of unquestioned ace" that everyone else seems to be bestowing upon him. Some may say that's unfair because before 2006 he had a tendency to come down with injuries (finger blisters). Sorry, but you can't be the uber-ace of the galaxy if you're constantly on the bench. In 2006 he had an ERA+ of 95 (if you don't know, an ERA+ of 100 is considered average, meaning Mista Blista was 5% worse than league average). HOWEVER, last year he posted a robust 145 ERA+ with a 1.141 WHIP and averaged nearly 5Ks (4.85) for every walk. He credits it to figuring out better ways to pitch instead of just "throwing". I think he'll be much more in line with his 2007 stats than his 2006, but we'll see. What he'll really need is for the rest of the rotation to step up and for Dice-K to improve on his rookie season (108 ERA+ with a 1.324 WHIP and 2.5Ks for every walk). Clay Buchholz won't be giving you 200 innings this year, neither will Jon Lester, and Wakefield is just a league average pitcher. They're potentially losing for a whole season a 122 ERA+, 1.245 WHIP, and 4.4K's per walk in Schilling (not to mention between 150-200 innings). If he doesn't get surgery and comes back after the All-Star break, I expect mediocrity out of him in the same vein of 2005. The bullpen should be fine with Paps in the back end and Okajima setting up for him. The lineup features a Manny and Ortiz combo that is approaching their decline due to age and injuries, a Mike Lowell who figures to come back down to Earth, BUT should be fine nonetheless with improved play from Dustin Pedroia and the inclusion of Jacoby Ellsbury. This team is one more prolonged injury to the starting rotation away from going back to 2006 form (though I doubt it will happen).

So who will win the AL? I've fought over this decision, and while I'm not entirely sold on it I'm going with the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim with Sacramento and special guest appearance from San Diego. I think their rotation is deep enough to go the distance with a cast featuring John Lackey (151 ERA+, 1.21 WHIP, 3.4K per walk), Kelvim Escobar (134/1.267/2.42), Jered Weaver (117/1.385/2.5), Jon Garland (112/1.325/1.7), and Joe Saunders (103/1.529/2). I see Weaver doing better than last year, three guys who can potentially give you 200+ innings (Lackey, Escobar, and Garland), and a back end of a rotation that gives you above league average pitching. Joe Saunders doesn't have a long enough track record in the majors to make predictions, and Garland has to do something about his K/BB ratio, but they give you a good enough chance to win. With their always solid-to-great bullpen (anchored by K-Rod), they probably have the most pitching depth. Most of these guys have good track records with their health, with the worst case scenario being the once promising Ervin Santana having to step in for injury relief (note: he's 24, young enough to turn things around). I have issues with their hack away approach at the plate, but last year they were a more patient team with Chone Figgins posting a career best OBP (.393) and Reggie Willits bursting onto the scene. Signing Torii Hunter will give you some pop, but he has a total lack of patience at the plate (never had an OBP over .337...blech!). Their offense is well-balanced and deep enough, especially in the outfield, to withstand a few injuries. So, with that said, I felt they were arguably the best team in the AL. Take your ace cock ring and shove it, Beckett.

..."cock ring of unquestioned ace"...wtf? Cocaine's a helluva drug.

Sleeper Teams Part 1

Alright, in this series I'm going to expand on my very first post for this blog. In said post, I explained why I didn't think the Tigers (the sexy pick for champs in 07') wouldn't even make it back to the World Series. Hey, turns out I was right. Lets see if I really have some sort of amazing foresight or used up what little luck I had (most definitely the latter). That said, I'll start off with dissecting why the early favorites WON'T make it and which teams I think WILL be in the World Series this year:

In the NL, it's really a wide open race, and while the Mets may be the early favorite to come out on top because of the Santana steal, I'm not sold on the rest of their starting rotation. John Maine should be solid, and maybe Oliver Perez can continue to salvage his young career. But with El Duque and Pedro you have two huge health risks followed by little depth if they get injured. I even find their offense questionable, with the only sure things being Jose Reyes, David Wright, and Carlos Beltran (when he isn't being a head case). Delgado looked done last year, Luis Castillo often has a on-base percentage higher than his slugging (though obp is more valuable than slugging, having 24 career homers in 5479 career at bats is putrid), and Moises Alou can't seem to pick up a backpack without injuring himself. In the NL, this might be able to carry you if you have the pitching to back it up. Other than Billy, I'm not a fan of their bullpen.

No, I'm gonna go ahead and select the team I predicted was on the rise last year, the Arizona Diamondbacks. Except this year, instead of picking them to be a contender in the NL, I'm picking them to make the WS. Why? Pitching, my friends. These guys have it in spades. They probably have a few more believers now that they added Dan Haren in a trade with the A's to anchor the top of the rotation with Brandon Webb. They have a 1-2 punch to match a Padres team that did pretty much nothing to improve themselves. With the reliable Doug Davis, Micah Owings (who makes up for his pitching inefficiencies with his surprising offensive prowess), and a possibly healthy Randy Johnson, this team has a rotation good enough for the top of the NL. NO ONE has their pitching depth, but the Padres and Dodgers (their division rivals) can come close. They play in such a tough division that the NL champion Rockies aren't even my 3rd favorite team in their standings. The funny thing is two seasons ago this division was a joke. The D-Backs may've lost their closer, but they're overrated anyway. You can throw any above-average pitcher into a 9th innings with a lead and no one on base and they'll close enough games out for your team to be in fine shape. No, the problem is their offense not getting on base enough. Chris Young hit a bunch of dingers last year. Great. How about some doubles, guy? He had 3 more homers than doubles last year and a horrible OBP. It's not so much he doesn't walk enough is that it doesn't make up for his lack of hitting. When you're batting .237 for the year you better walk more than 43 times. Stop laughing, Stephen Drew; you're no better. They have some light in the dark in that Justin Upton will be an absolute monster once he puts everything together at the plate. However, he's still very young and may not be ready to break out this year. He has the tools and the sky is the limit. Eric Byrnes and Orlando Hudson also make up two very solid parts of the offense that contributed good OBPs last year. This is still a young offense that SHOULD improve this year and get on base more often. There's a reason their run differential was weak last year: if you can't get on base, YOU CAN'T SCORE! It's that simple. Reduce your number of outs any way you can: hit the ball, walk, get beaned in the head (maybe not the last thing), whatever you can do to get on base. If they learn how to do this better than they did last year, the D-Backs are a lock in the wide open NL.

Next time I'll delve into who I think in the AL will make it to the World Series. Here's a hint: It's not a team from the AL East.

EDIT: Steve Phillips just said on ESPN the Mets were the team to beat, thus proving my point that they're not as good as people think. How does he still have a job?