Buy The Book
Tell ‘em you heard it from Tango. What follows below is the actual posting.
============================================
“The Baltimore Orioles are looking to hire a Baseball Analytics intern to work in our Baseball Operations Department. This individual will report to the Assistant Scouting Director and the Coordinator of Baseball Analytics.
Great stuff on the promotion/relegation system versus USA/Canada system.
If we look to Europe, though, we might see a better approach. To understand it, let’s consider the arguments of Frederich Hayek, who argued that a centrally planned economy can’t work as well as a free market one because the central planner could never have enough information to make adequate decisions. OK, but what does this have to do with sports?
Essentially, North American sports leagues use central planners to determine the location of sports teams. In contrast, European sports leagues rely on the market.
...
If these owners were ever successful, then essentially American owners would be exporting central planning to a market-oriented industry in Europe.
Jeff Luhnow, the new Astros GM, is a great, smart guy who is all about using all available resources to build and maintain a successful franchise. As well, he is very fan friendly, as you can see from this chat.
Astros fans should be very excited.
When asked in the chat about web sites he frequents, this blog was mentioned along with BP and THT, so we know that he has great taste in baseball blogs!
So says Bob Gibson:
Too much is made of camaraderie and chemistry and all that stuff. I don’t need a teammate that I love. Give me one who can play.
Unfortunately, most of the rules are not playing rule changes. Those that are:
increases punishments for slow-moving hitters and pitchers, raising pace-of-game fines up to $10,000 each for the sixth violation and beyond.
That’s pretty much it. Possible changes in the replay rule to be expanded. No word on the “double-to-out” (or vice versa) if the ball is hit near the top of the wall has been clarified or not.
The rest of the rule changes have nothing to do with the actual game of baseball, but with the business of baseball, like not allowing changes to uniform numbers, unless advised well in advance. So, a guy gets traded, and wants to keep his number, and “buy out” his younger teammates’ number? Well, there’s going to be a time lag there. Players appealing scoring plays to the official scorer? Now, there’s a protocol to follow. Inter-league games limited to a maximum of 20 (I guess to ensure it’s AL v NL, and not American Conference v National Conference, like the other sports have, which is 20% to 25% of their games between conferences).
I would have loved to see something done about the mid-inning relief change, something as simple as any mid-inning relief change starts the batter at 2-0. Or, if you want to make it more progressive, make the first one at 1-0, the second at 2-0, and all subsequent mid-inning changes in the game at 3-0.
MLB really moves at a glacial pace in terms of game-changes, but is very fast in terms of business-changes.
The Astros blogs are looking into Jeff’s past, and they like what they see.
This is a fictionalized account, like Law & Order, but for sabremetrics.
{tchungh tchungh}
Friedman: Matt, we both know you are one of the best young pitchers in baseball, just behind Kershaw and Strasburg. So, we want to give you a long-term deal.
Moore: After 2 starts? Cool.
F: Now, as you know in baseball, for the first three years, we don’t have to give you much more than the league minimum. For example, Jonathan Papelbon earned close to 1.5MM$ for the first three years before he was arbitration-eligible.
M: Hmmm… right, and since he went year-to-year, I’d have to give you a discount, right?
F: Right, I’m thinking 20%? So, how about we give you, today, a guaranteed 1.2MM$ deal for 3 years… even if you don’t pitch at all!
M: That sounds good. How about a fourth year?
F: Well, your first arbitration eligible year, if you were pitching as good as Verlander, Felix, JJ, and Weaver, that would cost us 3.5MM$ to 4MM$.
M: Right, but I guess I have to give you a discount right? Especially since I might not even be pitching?
F: Exactly. I’m thinking, I dunno, 30%? So, how about I give you, today, 2.8MM$ for that year. There’s a decent chance your arm will even be blown by then.
M: Ok, so that’s 4 years for 4MM$, guaranteed? We’re on a roll. How about a fifth year?
F: In that case, the second-year of arbitration eligibility for that gang of four was around 7.5MM$ to 8MM$.
M: I know the drill. 40% discount right? Good chance I won’t be pitching?
F: You’re getting good at this. So, that’s about 5MM$. We’re at a guaranteed 9MM$ for 5 years.
M: And my last arbitration year? Since the gang of 4 gets 13-15MM$ for that sixth year, I can give you 50% off, so just guarantee me 7MM$ for that year and we’ve got a deal.
F: Well, I don’t want to guarantee that one. How about we do a team option?
M: How’s that going to work?
F: Well, I will give you 1MM$ right now, if you give me the option of paying you at price higher than you expected. So, if we exercise the option, we’ll pay you 8MM$, plus the 1MM$ guarantee. If we don’t exercise the option, you keep that 1MM$.
M: Hmmm… that only makes sense if there’s an 75% chance that you will exercise, right? 75% of 8MM, plus the 1MM is 7MM. Sounds a bit low, but I’ll take it.
F: Let’s keep going. How about the first two years of free agency? You know the big guys gets 20-25MM$ a year. You give me a 60% discount on the first year and 70% discount on the second. So, guaranteed, that would be 15MM$ for the two years total. But, I like team options.
M: Ok, I think I can do this one. You give me 4MM$, and I’ll give you two team options. For each one, you pay me 8MM$ if you exercise the options.
F: That sounds good. If we don’t exercise, you get 4MM$. If we do exercise, you get the 4MM plus another 16MM for a total of 20MM$. Since you said those years are worth 15MM$, that sounds fair.
M: Right. If there’s a 68.75% chance of you exercising, then it’s fair. That’s .6875 of 16MM, plus the 4MM, that gives us 15MM. Ok, Andrew, I’ve had enough of this!
F: Me too. Let’s tally it up. Ok, the first 5 years, that was guaranteed for 9MM$. Then the three team options are going to cost me 1 + 2 + 2 for 5MM$. That’s 14MM$ guaranteed total for the 5 years. The 3 team options, if exercised, will give you 7 + 8 + 8 = 23MM$. Add that to the 14MM$ guaranteed, and you can earn 37MM$.
M: Done.
As an assumption of fact, I would say that if Albert Pujols was 42 years old, and some team offered him a 3 year, 60MM$ deal, and the Cardinals offered him 1 year, 10MM$, then no fan will begrudge him in taking the better deal. That’s because Pujols will have outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan.
As an assumption of fact, I would say that if Albert Pujols signed the 10 year, 220MM$ deal with the Cardinals today, and then got injured, and ended up being a shadow of the player he was within two years, the Cardinals fan would lament the albatross of a contract. That’s because Pujols will have outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan.
The Cardinals fan is not hurt because Pujols left a huge deal, only to take an even huger deal. The Cardinals fan is not hurt because of Pujols apparent hypocrisy of being a Cardinals-for-life.
No. The Cardinals fan is hurt because they know that Pujols still has plenty of joy to give, and as long as he has that joy to give, the Cardinals fan is the one who feels entitled to it, regardless of what Pujols wants. Pujols has not yet outlived his usefulness to the Cardinals fan. And when he does, it’s the fan, not Pujols, that has to make the first cut of the umbilical cord. The fan wants to come to grips with it first.
Pedro Martinez was traded after winning his Cy Young. Expos fans came to grips with it quickly enough, because, we knew that he was going to go eventually.
It doesn’t matter if Pujols pulled an in-your-face Lebron, or if Pujols was traded for the current day Gretzky-deal of three big-time prospects and a 100MM$. The fans had banked on their player, claimed an ownership on another human being, and they are going to express that disappointment to another human being, be it directly onto the player, or onto the owner who let him get away.
It’s an irrational despondency.
But, as has been pointed out to me, sports itself is irrational. Pujols made, and will make, his millions based on people simply watching him do something. They don’t get any direct value of a product or service. All they can do is live in the moment, of channeling their energies onto something they see, and hope for an outcome that is what they want.
Sports is not art, that touches you on a deep level. Sports requires a visceral reaction, that depends on you first making a stake as to what you expect. You can’t just watch a soccer match for the first time in your life, and start cheering as if something has affected you. You need context, you need a setup, you need to know the extent of what a person can accomplish. And then, when that thing happens, when that outcome matches or exceeds your expectation, you cheer. I was a moderate soccer fan, but watching Zidane against Italy and Brazil provoked an irrational reaction in me. Had I not been a soccer fan at all, Zidane’s stellar performance would have meant nothing at all.
The sports fan is expressiong irrational despondency when “his” (as if he owns him) star player leaves. He can feel whatever he wants to feel, because that’s how he has invested his energies, and that’s how the superstar player gets paid, by, if not preying, at least tapping, into those energies. But, despondency does not have to lead to hate or disgust or long-term depression.
Just grieve, and, eventually, move on:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
The Cardinals lost one of the best players of all-time, but after getting two World Series out of it. Edmonton lost an even better player, and got more Stanley Cups. And both players left their towns with a championship won in their last season.
Montreal lost an entire team. The Expos gave Montreal a lifetime of memories, as did Pujols give to the Cardinals fans. That should be enough.
Irrational despondency can lead to rational grief.
High school football player celebrates early, gets flagged for taunting, nullifying the touchdown. But, everyone agrees: the rule is the rule is the rule. George Orwell couldn’t have predicted this state of affairs actually becoming reality.
How about we apply this to baseball. That Kirk Gibson fist pump? HR rendered obsolete. Carlton Fisk jumping up and down, waving his hands, only to finally hold them up in triumph? That’s an out. Dave Henderson doing his piroutte? Back to the dugout. Prince Fielder calling his teammates over so he can use them as bowling pins? Another out.
And why not. If the rule is the rule is the rule, then these players are going to learn… the hard way… that you don’t celebrate until after you score, and you do so in a respectful manner.
I love Dirk Hayhurst. Great insight, wonderful writing. Which stands in direct contrast to his latest blog post:
But there is more to victory then payroll size, production, and the quantifiable. There is the metaphysical, the emotional, and the delicate art of producing good team chemistry.
...
The great teams know how to manipulate this formula to the advantage of the players, and the proper mix can allow a spreadsheet laughing stock to triumph over a payroll powerhouse.
Yes, I agree with Dirk. Let’s call this the Willie Ballgame theory. Willie Bloomquist, every year, defines replacement level. He’s lucky to get a job when he does (though this year, he seems to have upped the ante). But a player that is a replacement level has very very limited MLB shelf life remaining. If you are a replacement level player today, and you are already in your mid 20s, you have a year or two left. But Willie Ballgame busts that trend. Rather than aging, letting his physical drop result in decreased production, he maintains the same level of production every year. Craig Counsell, John McDonald, to name a few, are other players (not necessarily replacement-level in the case of Counsell for his career), who maintain the same level of talent every year.
And, if you want to argue that the reason for that, that the reason that these guys can buck their forecasts and produce above expectation, is that there’s some intangible aspect to them, I can totally buy it.
And, if you want to argue that there’s some players who go the other way, who simply don’t learn, don’t try enough, and who are out of baseball far earlier than they should, that they always perform below expectation because there’s some intangible aspect to them, I can totally buy that too.
Indeed, if this is something real, then it would be a tremendous benefit to know that, to be able to identify such players. Indeed, it’s very possible a seasoned scout can look at two 20-yr old ballplayers, who put up the same production numbers, and come out with a far different evaluation because he can establish that one player is much more likely to adapt, while the other is more likely to die (metaphorically). I can certainly accept this premise.
By the time he was 30 years old, Counsell had come to bat a total of 961 times, albeit with a 4.5 WAR (average of 3.3 WAR per 700 PA). So, two things:
1. Why was he not given the chance earlier
2. Given that he was already 30 years old, and nowhere to go but down, the likelihood is we could expect out of him is another 7-8 wins for his career. But, he got another 16 wins, according to Fangraphs, and 15 wins according to Baseball-Reference.
And so, I was eager to hear from the insights of Dirk Hayhurst, as someone who was in the lion’s den, and could shed light here. Maybe provide evidence, even anecdotal. Some insight.
Instead, he presented his summary opinion with no evidence. It was disappointing to say the least that someone in the position to possibly know about how team chemistry affects a team, and perhaps know how to identify players that contributes to team chemistry, gave us nothing of the sort. And instead, he relied on the tried-but-true arguments from the mainstream media.
You can do better than that Dirk.
Baseball is more fun on the sports page, than the business page.
I could end up being wrong, but I have a feeling that Bobby V may be the first manager we will see that actually uses correct sabermetric principles. I think that the only reason Boston would hire such a controversial manager is for that reason - they finally found a manager who is astute and progressive enough not to think that he knows everything about baseball and is willing to throw away half of what he thinks he knows. I have a feeling that he is going to work very closely with James, Tippett, and the rest of the Sox’ sabermetric department, and that we will see (or not see) things that we have never seen on a baseball field, other than fake noses and glasses…
As I linked to the other day, the Cardinals are one of the teams that qualifies for the lottery pick. The qualification is to either have a low-revenue team or a small-market team. Revenue is easy enough to calculate, and the Cardinals are comfortably in the top-half there (not bottom 10 as required). That implies they are considered a small-market team. We see from this old Zumsteg article that the Cards are 7th smallest in terms of “MSA”. But what we really care about is the size of the population times the affinity for that product or service. That’s the true market. Keith Woolner came up with one such method, and the Cards came out to an obvious non-small-market team.
We can also use a simple method I have here, that calculates the “base attendance” for each team (attendance you’d expect if the team played .500). It’s based on its past attendance. Theoretically, we can derive an “affinity index” by comparing the attendance to its population size, so that we can do what Woolner does: multiply the affinity index by the population index. In any case, I have the Cards as the 8th largest baseball market.
So, it’s quite surprising that:
a. the CBA has been negotiated to allow the Cards to be considered a small market
b. the other teams not griping about this
One interesting one in comparing Woolner’s to my list is the Diamondbacks. Arizona has attracted plenty of people to their park, but Woolner considers them a very small market. Since Zumsteg has them at just below-average in market size, Woolner must have given them a below-average affinity index in order to get them as a small-market.
In any case, I would have hoped that something more than simply population size would have been used, and given the creativity MLB and MLBPA have shown in other facets, it’s odd that it was left as it was. I’m all in favor of the sniff test, and the Cardinals as a small market is not one that passes that test.
Rangers, Mets, Lotte Marines, and now his fourth team, the Redsox. A compilation of reactions can be found here.
***
Anyway, I found this story:
“Ichiro is a mathematical genius,’’ he told me. “Because of that, he can read the angles of the field better than everyone else. When he runs to a spot in right field to make a catch, and the ball is there, waiting for him, it’s because he can see the angles better than anyone. I was in an elevator with him once. It was about a 40-floor hotel. He looked at the right side of the elevator, the even numbers, and added them up in his head in, like, two seconds.’’
There’s a little trick I like to play. It looks mighty impressive, even if it’s not. I can divide any number by 7, and get the answer to six decimal places. The trick is that the sequence after the decimal is always of the pattern 142857, and it loops back. So, 1/7 is .142857 and repeats. For 2/7, you start with the second smallest digit, and follow the same pattern: .285714. 3/7 starts with 4 (the third smallest digit), so you get .428571. And so on.
Even remembering the 6-digit sequence is easy enough. Double 7 (14), double that (28), double that and add 1 (57). So, once you have that 142857 sequence, you can divide any number by 7. Cute, right?
***
We know about adding all the numbers in sequence starting from 1, which is just n*(n+1)/2. The (n+1)/2 is simply the average of a sequence from 1 to n. And n is the count of numbers from 1 to n.
The Ichiro trick limits us to just the even numbers. In that case, instead of “n” in the above equation, we have “n/2”. That gives us the count. And instead of “n+1” over 2, it’s “n+2” over 2, which is the average between the maximum number and 2. So, we have n/2 * (n+2)/2.
We can further expand that to (n/2 * n/2) + n/2.
For odd numbers, it’s even easier (where n is the largest even number). The count remains at n/2, and the average is n-1 (to get your max odd number) plus 1, divided by 2, or n/2. So, simply n/2 squared.
To recap: adding up the odd numbers is n/2 squared. Adding up the even numbers is n/2 squared, plus n/2.
Therefore, adding up 1 through 40 is: 40*41/2 = 820
Limiting to odd numbers: 40/2 squared = 400
And to even numbers: 40/2 squared + 40/2 = 420
So, next time you see Bobby V in an elevator, you’ll know how to break the ice.
***
Are there little numeric “tricks” that you guys enjoy doing? I’d love to hear them.
I don’t see it. All the players care about is that a fair share of the pie goes to the players. They don’t care if it’s big market or small market.
So, the problem is the splitting of revenue between large and small market. The small market is going to demand more from the large market. The players aren’t going to care. Why would the large market teams lockout the players? To beg the players to allow them to give more money to small market teams?
I do agree that it’s never about “competitive balance”. That’s just something that people say so the media can dutifully repeat it.
Great stuff from Matt generally speaking, and with a couple of little good nuggets too. Love these kinds of articles.
As for Matt’s conclusion: I think it was not about getting rid of the tax, but reshaping it so that it was more equitably distributed (i.e., not hitting a bunch of relievers). Someone had a good article on it a week or two ago that I linked to, showing the huge bias against relievers.
Murray channels his inner-FJM to go after Bobby V. Fun, if kind of pointless. Welcome to the blogging world Murray… you fit right in.
I was amused by this:
Earlier in the season, McRae said, “He’s not a typical manager. He does weird and goofy things. . . . I’m not saying he’s right or wrong. He’s a different type manager and it’s our job to adjust to what he’s doing.”
Felipe Alou was once asked who he hated managing against, and he said Bobby V. He said it’s not because he was the best or the worst, but because he was so unconventional, that it was hard to manage against him. So, I found it amusing to read Brian McRae say practically the same thing that Alou said.
Jeff Passan is reporting:
The draft pools start this season with the Houston Astros – who pick No. 1 overall – set to receive $11.5 million to spend in the first 10 rounds. They end with the New York Yankees having a $4.5 million budget over 10 rounds
Does it make sense?
Check out the WAR for players (through age 29) drafted in the June draft, for 1965-1999, for the top 300 picks, grouped by “order”, where order=1 is the 1st, 31st, 61st, etc picks:
WAR order
100% 1
72% 2
64% 3
59% 4
67% 5
60% 6
64% 7
48% 8
74% 9
70% 10
38% 11
47% 12
54% 13
44% 14
32% 15
69% 16
46% 17
40% 18
69% 19
62% 20
23% 21
46% 22
44% 23
38% 24
56% 25
46% 26
32% 27
37% 28
45% 29
56% 30
I indexed it relative to order=1. As you can see, if you are slotted to pick 2nd through around 10th, you get 64% of the value of picking 1st (with not much difference between picking 2nd through 10th). Picking 11th through 30th gets you 46% of picking 1st.
MLB is giving the first team to pick 11.5MM$ to play with, while the 30th place team is getting 4.5MM$ (or 39% of the first team). That seems pretty reasonable.
Presumably MLB has a sliding scale for each spot. In my case, I have spots 11 through 30 to be at 46%. Presumably, MLB has those spots at something like 53% down to 39% (so that they too will come out to average my 46%).
Using the above data, this is my recommended pool money for each slot (note that things get a bit complicated with the extra lottery picks that I have not modeled here; but, someone can take my above chart, and work it out):
WAR Tango pick
100% 100% 1
72% 72% 2
64% 70% 3
59% 68% 4
67% 66% 5
60% 64% 6
64% 62% 7
48% 60% 8
74% 58% 9
70% 57% 10
38% 56% 11
47% 55% 12
54% 54% 13
44% 53% 14
32% 52% 15
69% 51% 16
46% 50% 17
40% 49% 18
69% 48% 19
62% 47% 20
23% 46% 21
46% 45% 22
44% 44% 23
38% 43% 24
56% 42% 25
46% 41% 26
32% 40% 27
37% 39% 28
45% 38% 29
56% 37% 30
If MLB ends up having a scale anything close to what I’m proposing, then hats off to whoever at MLB worked it out. You did a great job!
You can certainly make the case.
I’m wondering how many inter-league games we need so that we can treat everything as one league and two conferences, like the NHL, NBA, and NFL do, with one award winner for the league. Those leagues have 20%-25% of inter-conference games.
MLB, currently, has 11% inter-league games. If they bump it up to 30 games from 18, to put it at 18.5% inter-league games, can we FINALLY treat it as 18.5% inter-conference games, and doing away with the two league designations? And, finally, allowing Halladay and Verlander to compete for the same award?
Interesting stuff all-around, especially the compensation system.
Great job by tigerdog1 in not only giving us the highlights, but also the impact. This is what blogging is all about.
Feb 11 17:51
Clutch analogy
Feb 11 16:48
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data? And what about outliers?
Feb 11 15:58
MGL: Today on Clubhouse Confidential
Feb 11 11:54
Who is Jeremy Lin?
Feb 11 10:29
Dwight Evans
Feb 11 02:12
Performance through the ages
Feb 10 23:01
For Your Soul
Feb 10 21:07
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter
Feb 10 18:32
Moneyball at Villanova
Feb 10 17:00
Psst… wanna intern in Canada?
THREADS
February 11, 2012
Clutch analogy
February 11, 2012
Who is Jeremy Lin?
February 10, 2012
Jose Molina
February 10, 2012
Reader Mail of the Day: Why do we need X years of fielding data? And what about outliers?
February 10, 2012
Performance through the ages
February 10, 2012
Hero of the month: Brittney Baxter
February 10, 2012
Win expectancy charts used in football… in 1983!
February 10, 2012
Dwight Evans
February 09, 2012
Psst… wanna intern in Canada?
February 08, 2012
Moneyball at Villanova
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 2 of 320 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date