Filter posts by...
Awards
Monday, January 09, 2012
There’s three numbers here: the 1st (to left of name) is how much they actually got, the 2nd one is how much was predicted by Jay Chris Jaffe, and the third is how many they got last year.
Players with ! jumped over 10 points from last year.
Actual Name Predicted 2011
86 Barry Larkin 82 62 !
67 Jack Morris 65 54 !
56 Jeff Bagwell 54 42 !
51 Lee Smith 52 45
49 Tim Raines 52 38 !
37 Edgar Martinez 39 33
37 Alan Trammell 32 24 !
23 Larry Walker 27 20
20 Mark McGwire 24 20
24 Fred McGriff 24 18
15 Dale Murphy 19 13
18 Don Mattingly 18 14
13 Rafael Palmeiro 15 11
10 Bernie Williams 12 XX
The BBWAA also provided links to their members’ articles.
Sounds like Repoz and this person need to meet.
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Fun read.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
By the incomparable Repoz.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
His guys and explanations:
Larkin, Trammell
Raines,Walker
Edgar, Bagwell, McGwire, Murphy
He went for seven of the top eight in WAR on the ballot, swapping out Palmeiro for Dale Murphy. He shamelessly considers Murphy his pet project, and I don’t mind that. He’s got that Saberhagen / Guidry / Cone, high peak, short career to him. And his rejection of Palmeiro:
He compiled huge numbers (3,020 hits, 569 homers) in a huge numbers era, but in my opinion he was never a great player — he only twice finished in the Top 10 in WAR, and never higher than fifth.
It’s interesting if you compare Palmeiro to Raines, and sort them by highest WAR. Best WAR: 7.5 for one, and 7.4 for the other. 2nd highest WAR: 6.8 for one, and 6.2 for the other. Third-highest: 6.0 for both. 4th highest: 5.5 and 5.7. It’s at that point that Palmeiro loses it.
Poz has basically drawn the line in the sand that a “high WAR” player needs at least 5 WAR. Raines has six of those, and Palmeiro has four. Dale Murphy also has six of those (and his drop to his 7th highest WAR season is a doozy: only 2.9 WAR).
Alan Trammell has 7, Barry Larkin has 7, Edgar has 9, Bagwell has 9, McGwire has 7. That seems to be his line. If you have at least 6 seasons of at least 5.0 WAR, you’re a great candidate for the Hall. If you have at most 4, then, eh.
Which is fine. But look at Larry Walker: 4 seasons of at least 5 WAR, just like Palmeiro. Four seasons of 4.0 to 4.9 WAR… just like Palmeiro. Another six seasons of 2.0 to 3.9 WAR… just like Palmeiro. Three seasons of 1.0 to 1.9 WAR… just like Palmeiro.
If you add up all those 17 seasons, Larry Walker has 67 WAR and Palmeiro has 66. The main difference is that Larry Walker did all that with over 3000 fewer plate appearances. In every one of those 17 seasons, Palmeiro was a full-time player, where he had at least 600 PA every season, except for the 1994 reduced-season (where his 492 plate appearances was done in 111 of his team’s 112 games). Larry Walker on the other hand exceeded 600 PA only one season (though we should make a similar allowance for 1994).
That therefore seems to be the Poz implicit rule:
- at least six seasons of 5 WAR (I’ll call that the Guy Lafleur rule)
- or at least eight seasons of 4 WAR, but done in limited playing time (awesome when actually on the field)
It’s a good implicit rule of thumb.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
I’ll put my money on 750 random Posnanski readers who choose to vote over 600 BBWAA writers:
86% 645 Barry Larkin
84% 629 Tim Raines
81% 605 Jeff Bagwell
61% 459 Alan Trammell
57% 430 Edgar Martinez
57% 427 Mark McGwire
28% 214 Larry Walker
22% 171 Rafael Palmeiro
21% 162 Dale Murphy
19% 147 Fred McGriff
19% 144 Jack Morris
16% 124 Lee Smith
15% 113 Bernie Williams
14% 105 Don Mattingly
2% 17 Juan Gonzalez
1% 11 Brad Radke
1% 9 Tim Salmon
1% 8 Rubin Sierra
1% 8 Tony Womack
0% 6 Terry Mulholland
0% 5 Javy Lopez
0% 4 Vinny Castilla
0% 3 Brian Jordan
0% 2 Bill Mueller
0% 1 Eric Young
0% 0 Jeromy Burnitz
0% 0 Phil Nevin
Monday, December 12, 2011
After how many years would you put someone in the Hall of Fame? Ken Dryden for example played seven full seasons (plus an 8th year in the playoffs). He retired at his peak. He’s in the Hall of Fame. He was 1st or 2nd team all-star six times.
Bobby Orr won the best defenseman award in 8 of his 9 full seasons. He’s not only in the Hall of Fame, but considered one of the 4 best players of all time. His last full-season was at the age of 27.
Guy Lafleur had a fairly long career, but only six of those seasons were of high-caliber (all as 1st-team all-star), with the rest of his career being a very good, but not great, kind of player. I think if he retired after his last great season, he’s still have made the Hall of Fame.
After how many years would Gretzky have been enshrined? Five?
And so we have Sidney Crosby, who has a chance to have concussion knock him out permanently from the NHL. Including the playoffs, he’s played almost five full seasons. How much more does he need to do? Six? Seven? (Ovechkin, his peer, has played nearly 7 full seasons including playoffs. Is he in right now?)
How many Pedro, RJ, Clemens, or Maddux years would you need? Do you need the filler seasons? What about Doc and Pujols? Allegations aside, are the 4 Bonds years enough (ala Gretzky)?
A very good case for Raines. It’s the kind of article you can read out loud, hear on the radio, and someone on the fence should be sold. Someone against Raines would be able to reconsider that position.
But, yeah, if he doesn’t get in this year, we’re going to have to wait, as the “new girl in school” is going to get all the attention in the coming years (Clemens, RJ, Maddux, Pedro, Glavine, Smoltz, Schilling… and that’s just the pitchers).
Monday, November 21, 2011
Here are the points awarded by the BBWAA for the AL MVP, along with the IBA points (indexed so that the sum of IBA = sum of BBWAA):
BBWAA IBA Player
280 223 Justin Verlander
242 245 Jacoby Ellsbury
231 296 Jose Bautista
215 170 Curtis Granderson
193 187 Miguel Cabrera
112 76 Robinson Cano
105 81 Adrian Gonzalez
96 17 Michael Young
48 70 Dustin Pedroia
27 33 Evan Longoria
25 39 Ian Kinsler
13 20 Alex Avila
11 6 Paul Konerko
10 25 CC Sabathia
9 21 Adrian Beltre
7 11 Ben Zobrist
7 4 Victor Martinez
7 5 James Shields
5 3 Mark Teixeira
4 6 Asdrubal Cabrera
3 20 Alex Gordon
1 10 Josh Hamilton
1 0 David Robertson
0 24 Mike Napoli
0 13 Jered Weaver
0 45 Split among 73 others
Overall, we see pretty strong agreement. The BBWAA liked Verlander more than the IBA, and the IBA preferred Bautista more than the BBWAA. Given that you have 28 BBWAA voters, and you have over 600 IBA voters, it seems to me that picking out 28 random of 600 IBA voters would give you what the BBWAA did occasionally.
The other big standout is that the BBWAA really liked Michael Young, while Mike Napoli was completely shutout by the BBWAA. That one is probably the biggest standout.
Following are the rWAR (Rally via Baseball-Reference), fWAR (Fangraphs), and WARP (though I would call it pWAR, Baseball Prospectus) for the top 16 starting pitchers in the AL IBA, including IBA points:
fWAR rWAR WARP IBA Pitcher
7.0 8.6 6.7 5980 Verlander
7.1 6.9 4.4 2929 CC
5.6 6.6 5.5 2726 Weaver
4.9 6.1 3.8 1421 Shields
6.4 4.0 4.5 587 Haren
5.9 5.0 4.2 405 Wilson
5.5 4.7 2.8 202 Felix
4.3 6.2 3.6 158 Beckett
4.7 3.7 4.0 148 Price
5.6 5.7 3.9 76 Fister
2.9 5.9 2.5 69 Romero
3.5 5.0 2.7 40 Gio
3.7 4.8 2.4 32 Lester
1.4 4.2 1.6 31 Hellickson
4.9 4.1 3.9 27 Masterson
4.7 3.7 3.3 23 McCarthy
I then standardized those numbers, so I can get something I can compare. I forced the mean for the three WAR systems to 4.65 for those pitchers. And I used a logarithmic function to convert the IBA points into a “presumed” WAR. To do that, I did .636 times LN(IBA points) + 1.26. I get this:
fWAR rWAR WARP ln(IBA) Pitcher
6.8 7.9 7.6 6.8 Verlander
6.9 6.2 5.3 6.3 CC
5.4 5.9 6.4 6.3 Weaver
4.7 5.4 4.7 5.9 Shields
6.2 3.3 5.4 5.3 Haren
5.7 4.3 5.1 5.1 Wilson
5.3 4.0 3.7 4.6 Felix
4.1 5.5 4.5 4.5 Beckett
4.5 3.0 4.9 4.4 Price
5.4 5.0 4.8 4.0 Fister
2.7 5.2 3.4 4.0 Romero
3.3 4.3 3.6 3.6 Gio
3.5 4.1 3.3 3.5 Lester
1.2 3.5 2.5 3.4 Hellickson
4.7 3.4 4.8 3.4 Masterson
4.5 3.0 4.2 3.3 McCarthy
In all 4 cases, the mean is 4.65 WAR. The standard deviation for the first three were kept as-is (i.e., I did not modify the slope), while the standard deviation for the presumed WAR for IBA was forced to 1.14. That 1.14 was figured after I took the simple average of the three WAR systems, and I then did the standard deviation of those 16 figures.
Anyway, now that everything is standardized, the presumed WAR according to the IBA voters could be calculated as follows:
= 0.38 * rWAR
+ 0.26 * WARP
+ 0.25 * fWAR
+ 0.54
r=0.87
This means that rWAR is the preferred metric of choice among the three, by about a 1.5 to 1 preference, over each of the other two.
The biggest divergent opinions can be seen between Shields and Fister. fWAR has Fister comfortably ahead, WARP had him barely ahead, while rWAR had a Shields somewhat ahead. Pretty much, they’d be considered even according to the three WAR. They came in at an average WAR of 5.0. But, the IBA results gave Shields a presume 5.9 WAR and Fister a presumed 4.0 WAR.
Clearly, the IBA voters did not buy into the sabermetrics story here.
We can also see that with Masterson and Hellickson. According to fWAR, Masterson was 3.5 wins ahead, while WARP had him 2.3 wins ahead. rWAR had Hellickson barely ahead. IBA had them virtually tied.
System after system, you see the IBA voters reject their results. For fWAR followers, Fister should have had a higher showing, while Shields and Weaver should have been weaker. For rWAR followers, Beckett should have had a higher showing, while Haren, Price, and Wilson should have been weaker. For WARP followers… hmmm… the exact opposite of rWAR.
***
My bet (though untested at this point) is that I think we’d probably be able to create a stronger r than 0.87, if we simply relied on the traditional stats, and not focus on the saber stats. IBA voters simply like to interpret stats their way, and not the WAR way. Shields’ CG for example probably vaults him.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
This vote really required no human voting.
- Kershaw finished slightly ahead of Doc in ERA (7 points) and ahead of Doc in wins (2 more wins, 1 fewer loss).
- Doc finished slightly ahead of Lee in ERA (5 points) and ahead of Lee in wins (2 more wins, 2 fewer losses).
- Lee finished way ahead of the other four contenders in ERA (Lincecum, Hamels, Cain, Kennedy)
So, this explains ERA being the #1 determinant.
- With those 4 guys after Cliff Lee so close in ERA (2.74 to 2.88), and so close in IP (216 to 222), a W/L list gives us: Kennedy (21-4), Hamels (14-9), Lincecum (13-14), Cain (12-11). Apparently, 13-14 is more impressive than 12-11.
Voting explains the top 6 picks in order (Kershaw, Doc, Lee, Kennedy, Hamels, Lincecum) as well as the 8th pick (Cain), with Gallardo sneaking into the 7th spot.
I didn’t really need the #3 tie-breaker, other than to exclude Cueto (156 IP) and Vogelsong (180 IP) from consideration of the top 8.
It’s kind of sad really, that a (very simple) computer program could have just picked the Cy Young ballot, when we have 32 human voters tasked with interpreting the performances beyond the numbers. If the human voters really don’t have any additional insight, why is it that we need them?
(Answer: because BBWAA loves to do this as much as Gary Bettman loves the spotlight of giving out the Stanley Cup.)
***
This reminds me when I did that football pool when I was in college, where you rank winners from 14 to 1, and you get points based on where you rank them. While my friends sweated every week to figure out the order, spending up to an hour, I simply went with Vegas and called it a day. I went into the last week in 2nd place out of 22. (I would have actually tied for 1st when the season ended, but there was some… well, some shenanigans, and I ended up in 2nd place.)
Really, I figured: what is it that I as a single human being know more than the collective wisdom? I had no insight to add, that was really value-added. It’s hard for a person to recognize that he has nothing of value to add, but that’s how you move on in life.
***
Back to the insight in 2011 Cy Young: rWAR had Halladay a bit ahead of Kershaw and Lee. Some combination of park, fielding, and R/ER distinction is what would pushed Halladay ahead.
That’s insight. Rather than rely on the simple computer program that the BBWAA implicitly used (ERA, W/L, IP), a more sophisticated computer program (rWAR) told us something different.
Kennedy, Hamels, Lincecum finished 4, 5, 7, with RA Dickey sneaking into the 6th spot. Given Dickey’s relatively unimpressive ERA+, I can only presume that the Mets fielders were terrible. That too, is insight (as rWAR sees it anyway). Gallardo finished #32 in rWAR, even though his ERA+ was almost a match to Dickey.
So, that’s one place where we can learn (or at least rWAR to try to explain to us), by comparing Dickey to Gallardo. Both had virtually the same number of IP, and walks. Dickey gave up 9 fewer HR, but 18 more non-HR hits. Their ERA+ was very similar (113 to 111). Gallardo had 73 more strikeouts. But Dickey, somehow, ended up with 2.3 more WAR.
We don’t necessarily have to believe that rWAR has a good construction, but it gives us something to talk about, to learn.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Verlander and Weaver had the same ERA, but was better in W/L, K and K-BB differential.
Since Shields beat Weaver K and K-BB differential, then Verlander’s victory was based disproportionately on W/L. And since Weaver beat Shields in ERA, then his #2 placement is based disproportionately on ERA.
As for Shields, well, he pitched 12 more innings than CC, and gave up one less earned run. Their K and BB numbers are very similar, while CC gave up much fewer HR and had a way better W/L record. CC did give up a ton more singles (or rather, he was on the mound when a ton more singles were hit).
So, it was Shields’ complete games and lack of singles against CC’s lack of HR and W/L record.
Friday, September 30, 2011
I gave Poz some unsolicited advice, and he really got into the spirit of what I was trying to say:
Anyway, Tom Tango has a little different take on the MVP. His feeling is that if you put everyone from 2011 into a draft, the No. 1 player selected should be the MVP. Now, we’re talking about a real draft here—not a fantasy league draft. I suspect many readers here have played Strat-o-Matic or APBA baseball or something like that. So imagine every season from 2011 was available in card form. But include all you want—leadership, hustle, whatever qualities you want. You can’t game the system—can’t start Justin Verlander more times than he started, can’t put just Jose Bautista in center field, can’t do any of that stuff. You only have their 2011 season. Who would you take first in the draft? Who would you build your team around.
This doesn’t necessarily make the choice any easier, but it does give the choice a lot more context. For instance, Curtis Granderson leads the American League in runs scored and RBIs. He’s having a fabulous year. BUT … if you took him first in the draft, could you count on him to lead the league in runs and RBIs for YOUR team with YOUR lineup around him? His on-base percentage is eighty points behind Bautista. His slugging percentage is almost 50 points behind. Would you take Granderson ahead of Bautista? I’m not saying that’s the wrong answer. Maybe because of defense you would. Maybe you think Granderson would hold up under pressure better. Maybe you think Bautista’s on-base percentage would drop since he has been intentionally walked a league-leading 24 times and that wouldn’t happen with your team.
Like I say, this doesn’t make the choice any easier, but I think it does remove some of the excess noise and give the choice clarity.
So, even things like having some sort of clutch skill, etc, would be included. It forces you, as an evaluator, to develop some sort of plan, some form of framework.
Basically, we all have our own smushing system, but the preference is for you to document and justify your smushing system so that it can be applied consistently and over a period of years.
Friday, September 23, 2011
David at ESPN:
Sure, we all know batting average and RBIs can be overrated, but if Kemp could somehow pull this off, it would be an awesome accomplishment. A fun accomplishment, one to be appreciated, not sabermetrically scorned.
Yes, if you treat it as a fun accomplishment, then who am I to ruin your fun? Because that’s exactly what a triple crown is: a fun accomplishment.
Scorn comes into play when you turn that fun accomplishment into something more real. The reality is that winning the triple crown is a byproduct. Matt Kemp has a WAR on Fangraphs of 8.2, whereas the next 5 best players are between 6.4 and 6.9. WAR at Baseball-Reference has him at 9.6, and then next 3 best are at 6.1 to 7.2. Matt Kemp is demolishing all non-pitchers in the National Conference.
Matt Kemp’s WAR is not only a fun accomplishment, but a real accomplishment, one to be appreciated and not ignorantly scorned.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
This comes straight from Rawlings:
To qualify for consideration for a particular position, a player must have played a minimum number of games at that position:
- A catcher must have played in at least half of his team’s games by his team’s 128th game (a minimum of 64 games);
- All infielders and outfielders must have played in at least 55% of his team’s games by his team’s 128th game (a minimum of 70 games);
- All infielders and position-specific outfielders must also have played in the field for at least 525 innings in those minimum 70 games;
- Outfielders with more than 55% of total games played but without 55% at one specific outfield position qualify at the specific outfield position where he played the most innings if he played a minimum of 75% of his total innings (a minimum of 475 innings at the specific outfield position);
- All pitchers must have pitched in at least 128 innings by his team’s 128th game
Lindsey Naber
Brand Manager, Baseball
Or words to that effect.
Great stuff from Jose Bautista:
The Cy Young Award is not given to the person whose season most resembles one of those by Cy Young. It’s just the best season.
Wonderful!
Taken literally, the Cy Young Award would have to go to the guy who embodies the spirit and talent level and skill toolset of Cy Young. After all, if you had a Tim Wakefield Award, wouldn’t that go to the best knuckleballer? So, the presumption is that you don’t take the actual name of the Award literally, as you debate what each single word means. The Hall of Fame is after all just a cool name. Would the Hall of Greats, or the Hall of Outstanding Performers really cut it? No, Hall of Fame is the name, and it’s just a name. The spirit of the Hall of Fame award is for outstanding lifetime achievement.
So, he zings those journalists:
This controversy could all be avoided, he said, if the voters would stop fretting about that word that he considers to be nothing more than part of the award’s name, not some vague idea to be debated endlessly.
“So, the MVP award should be whatever the guidelines are, and you follow that.”
Wonderful. So, instead of fretting endlessly by going to the dictionary and being beholden to the literal word of “valuable” (which is hardly clear cut anyway), you rely on the actual guidelines for the award. Of course, the guidelines themselves uses “value” in it, so, we’re back to the dictionary. In the CFL, they have the Schenley awards for Most Outstanding Players in various categories. These are, after all, individual awards.
The idea to link an individual award to the performance of other players on your team is ridiculous. And the idea that Jose Bautista would somehow impact his team more if the rest of his team was better is also silly. Unless of course what you care about in terms of impact is reaching the post-season. But, then we have to go back to the guidelines that specifically says that “The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier.”
The BBWAA is brilliant in its confusion and ambiguity. They have horribly written guidelines for MVP, which causes the annual cycle of discussion among fans, and guarantees each baseball writer in the country one article that their newspapers are going to pay them 1000$ to write. (With 1000 writers, it’s a million-dollar idea!)
And they have NO guidelines whatsoever for the Cy Young award. It’s true! The only instructions the writers are given is the actual name on the plaque, which is Most Outstanding Pitcher. Basically, the voters are trusted with the supremely obvious that you are giving an individual award to the individual that deserves it the most. There’s no controversy about it, and no editor is going to pay them to write an article on the non-controversy.
I tip my hat to you, BBWAA overseers. George Orwell couldn’t have done it better.
And look! I don’t care a bit about this award, and you’ve got me writing at length about it. My head is about to explode at the circular irrationality of it all.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Would you pay Verlander 30MM$ for his performance for 2011? Would you for Bautista, Pedroia, and Jacoby? Yes? They’re all candidates.
Would you trade Verlander straight up for Granderson, if you were guaranteed their performances? Yes? They’re all candidates.
Forget the bullsh!t about the one game in 5. It’s irrelevant, since you guys agreed with me in the two above paragraphs. And I didn’t use a single number.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Poz says to he!! with Value in MVP, and instead says Productive.
I prefer the word Outstanding, because you get the cool acronym MOP. It has that Nick Choice Awards feel to it, where they give out surfboards, and slime the winners. Keeps things from getting too heated, too serious.
But, whatever. As Poz notes:
In 2003, Albert Pujols had one of the greatest seasons of the last 25 years. His basic numbers: .359, 51 doubles, 43 homers, 137 runs, 124 RBIs. He played left field and first base, and played them both exceedingly well. He was a phenomenon, though it went almost unnoticed because 2003 was right in the middle of the Barry Bonds’ absurdity tour. But my point is not about individual achievement. My point is that Albert Pujols in 2003 was about as good as a player has been … and the Cardinals finished third behind not-especially impressive Houston and Chicago teams. What could Pujols do to change that? Hit for an even higher average? Bang even more home runs? Come through in the clutch even more often?
And directly to the point: What does that have to do with whether or not he’s more valuable than another player who isn’t nearly as productive?
And that’s what it is, right there. Take away one HR, one single, one walk, one run scored, one RBI, but put him on a team that finishes in 1st place. Now, all of a sudden, he’s more “valuable” because his teammates are better? He does less, his teammates do more, and Pujols himself is now MORE valuable?
Monday, June 13, 2011
The first column is the number of Hall of Famers born in a particular decade. The second column is the number of players with at least 50 Wins Above Replacement (WAR) born in that decade.
We can see that through players born in 1941, we had 167 Hall of Famers, with 138 players with at least 50 WAR. That would imply that 50 WAR is kind of a strict standard. Of players born from 1942 to 1961, we have only 33 Hall of Famers (and counting), while 54 players had at least 50 WAR. This would imply that the voters have been pretty strict with their selection of players, really raising the standard.
Of players born in the single decade of 1962 to 1971, already 38 players have exceeded the 50 WAR threshhold. Given that the voters have only selected 33 of 54 “qualified-ish” players, and they might select a couple more, that would imply a rate of about 65% selected players. With 38 players in the “qualified-ish” camp, that would mean we might get 25 players in the Hall of Fame from players born 1962-1971. While that number is not unprecedented as we can see in the below chart, the current Hall of Fame balloting process is going to make it very difficult to elect anything close to that number. Even though the standards have been raised, as we can see by 1942-1961 players, it seems the standards are going to be raised yet again.
Basically, we’re at the point where there’s so many qualified players to choose from, the voters risk not voting in enough players because of the constraining process.
HOF WAR50 Birth Decade
14 14 1852 1861
9 14 1862 1871
12 15 1872 1881
19 16 1882 1891
27 10 1892 1901
27 18 1902 1911
20 15 1912 1921
18 14 1922 1931
21 22 1932 1941
17 32 1942 1951
16 22 1952 1961
-- 38 1962 1971
from Amazon
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 320 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date