Filter posts by...
Media
Monday, June 23, 2008
I love the Mike and Mad Dog line…
Contact: Mike Gimbel
Phone: 610-381-4090
Email:
End the Blacklisting of Barry Bonds!
Press Release
Rosie Bonds and Mike Gimbel to speak at the Baseball Heritage Museum to call for public protest against the blacklisting of Barry Bonds.
The Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) will be holding its annual national conference in Cleveland from June 26-29th, 2008. At the last minute, with assistance from SABR, a forum calling for public protest of the blacklisting of Barry Bonds, has been scheduled for Friday, June 27th at 5 PM at the Baseball Heritage Museum, located at 530 Euclid Avenue in Cleveland.
Read More
Monday, June 16, 2008
The details.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Great job by Canada’s (Toronto’s) Globe and Mail in praising NBC over Canada’s CBC. The ice-level reporting was pretty good. The NFL usually saves this for some hot chick to talk to players about how they feel. MLB sometimes gets a headset talk with the manager every now and then. The story of the playoffs was really Zetterberg and Fleury, and NBC was all over it. Great job on them (and Versus) in terms of the focus on selling the game.
As for Tiger Woods:
I don’t really care. Let’s talk about the Dodgers. … I don’t think anybody really watches hockey any more.
Does he not realize that the NHL ($3billion) draws 50% the revenue of MLB ($6billion)? Two years ago, the PGA drew $1billion. In 2007, prize money, in total was 257 million$, which is less than one-fifth of the prize money (salaries) of NHL players. Tiger does the classic arrogant thing that if he’s not interested, then how can most other people be interested? Not only arrogant, but an ignoramous to boot. And mostly, I hate Tiger for making me side with Mike Milbury:
Milbury: “You know what? I’m gonna change the name now. It’s gonna be Tiger Wuss. Here’s a guy that took about three months to get over a simple arthroscopic surgery. You look at [Pens forward] Ryan Malone. His face exploded with a slap shot last night — he’s back out in 10 minutes!
“Keep your yap shut, Tiger, or I’ll send a couple of wingers down there — [Pens forward] Gary Roberts — to tidy you up a little bit, meat head.”
Pierre McGuire: “I’ll just say this: Tiger Woods doesn’t usually have a bogey, but this was a triple bogey.”
McKenzie: “Unfortunately, [Woods] epitomizes what a lot of Americans feel about hockey: They don’t give it a chance, they don’t get it, they’re not wired correctly — and to those Americans that do get it, Mike Milbury, thank you very much.”
James Duthie: “I’ll say this to Tiger: Nobody watches golf any more either! Except when you’re playing, then everybody watches it.”
Thursday, May 29, 2008
By , 09:38 PM
Bob Brenley, former player, former catcher (supposedly one of the “smartest” players on the field), former manager, long time analyst and announcer:
Bottom of the seventh in Cub game, 1 out with runners on 1st and 3rd, Lee hits a dribbler between the pitcher and the third baseman. No reason to think it is going to be a base hit, but obviously it is not going to be a DP. Soriano holds at 3rd and the pitcher throws to first as he is supposed to, of course (that is his only play).
Brenley calmly says, “Soriano held at third as he is supposed to. The only time he is supposed to run is on an obvious double play ball. You don’t want to get thrown out at home in that situation.”
Huh? Is that what he taught his players when he was manager? Is that what his coaches and managers taught him when he played? And I have never played the game, right?
In case anyone does not know what I am talking about, you go on any ground ball because there is always a chance that you will make it at home, since it is a tag play, and if you get thrown out, there are runners on 1st and 2nd and 2 out, which is not a whole lot different than 2nd and 3rd with 2 out (.567 RE to .433). Not to mention that the Cubs were down by 1 run, which makes it even more imperative to try and score the run before 2 outs.
Anyway, the break even point, in RE, is 9%. IOW, if you go on the ground ball and they throw home, you only need to be safe 9% of the time and the RE is exactly the same as if you stay at third and the runner gets thrown out at first. And of course, some of the time on a dribbler like that, they will not throw home and will go to first anyway. So when they do throw home, the BE point is going to be even less than that. Throw in the fact that you are down by a run in the 7th inning, and the BE point is even less than that!
And you think managers know what they are doing on complex issues? They can’t even get a basic play right that a Little League coach would or at least should know!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
By , 11:29 PM
Joe Sheehan analyzes this question. I think it is premium content, but you don’t need to read the article.
Besides this ridiculous proposition:
Randolph isn’t a very good tactical manager, and it was his inability to manage a high-maintenance bullpen last year that cost the Mets games not in September, when no one was pitching well, but in May, June, and July, when some better choices in-game could have put the division away.
(It is ridiculous because, one, he or anyone else has no idea how good or bad Willie was at managing his bullpen, two, what does that even mean, three, he offers no evidence to support that claim, and I doubt there is any, and four, how many wins can a good or bad “managing” of a bullpen in “may, June, and July” be worth? .5 wins? 1 win? 1.5 wins? “Put the division away?” Please!)
Anyway, you don’t have to read the article, because I can tell you with some confidence, that despite my constant criticism of managers’ tactical strategies, we have no idea how much an over or under-achieving team is due to the manager. No idea. In case I am not being clear, I mean no idea. And I think we (analysts) should stop pretending that we do. Let’s leave that to the fans and the sports shock jocks.
One way I like to look at things like managers, chemistry, and other intangibles that we like to relate to a team or player under or over-performing is this: Let’s say that all managers were exactly equal in terms of their ability to have any influence on players and teams. Actually let’s assume that they had zero influence. What would a season look like in terms of players and teams over and under-performing? I think most of you know where I am going with this. Each season would pretty much look like it does now. Some teams (and players) will over-perform, others will under-perform. Some by a lot and some by a little or not at all. This is guaranteed (at least on the average) .
In fact, each year, on the average, 1-2 teams would win or lose almost 15 games more than they should given their talent, another 1-2 will do 10 games better or worse, etc. That is guaranteed (again, on the average). Guaranteed. And that is with a manager having exactly zero influence on the way the players perform, given their talent. In fact, that is without anything having any influence, positive or negative, on the players’ or team’s performance above or below their true talent.
So if that is the case in our hypothetical league with no manager influence whatsoever, how can we have any idea whether a manager deserves credit or blame for a team’s over or under-performance? We can’t. It’s that simple. One of these days, someone will quantify to some extent a manager’s contribution to a team’s WE from his in-game strategy decisions. That might turn out to be plus or minus 1-3 wins a year. And one of these years, someone might even give us some idea as to a manager’s influence on his team’s general performance (due to his leadership, etc.) given their talent, as long as we have maybe 10 years of manager data to work with, per manager. And even that is going to be sketchy.
Other than that, and at the risk of repeating myself too many times, we have no idea whether, if, or by how much any manager influences his team’s performance, and you will never catch me writing an article trying to figure out if some manager should be fired or not. Unless I get paid to write articles. Then you might catch me writing just about anything.
Friday, May 23, 2008
By , 10:48 PM
In the Phillies, Astros game today, the Phillies were down 1 run with 2 outs and runners on second and third in the top of the 9th. Victorino, a lefty, was at the plate, and Valverde, the Stros closer, was on the mound. The count went to 3-0 and then 3-1 and then Victorino popped out on the 3-2 count. The 3-0 and 3-1 pitches were 92 and 93 mph fastballs right down the middle (the 3-1 pitch was about knee high, middle of the plate). Valverde can throw up to 97. It looked like Victorino was taking on 3-0 and 3-1 (we can’t be sure), and in fact, the announcers casually remarked that “he was taking on 3-0 and 3-1,” as if that were the most natural thing in the world.
At least one of the announcers played ball professionally, I assume. Now, maybe it is correct to take the 3-0 pitch (I am not even sure about that), but surely it can’t be correct to take the 3-1 pitch in that situation! Don’t baseball players, managers, coaches, and announcers (former players) know that?
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Would most magazines exist if they didn’t make lists like this one?
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Why would the NY Times possibly accept this sentence in their newspaper:
Of course, it is not clear that burying Red Sox artifacts in the Bronx will have an adverse effect on the Yankees.
They’re kidding right? Somebody wants to believe in superstitions, fine. But, for a newspaper (the NY TIMES!) to make a wishy-washy statement like something is not clear if spitting on a sidewalk will have an adverse affect on 25 human beings? And, to add to that preposterous statement, they followed that up with:
Ortiz had a poor start this season, but he has raised his average 180 points and hit nine home runs since the jersey was unearthed.
I thought Ortiz had such an intangible clutch quality about him that he is able to overcome the pressure in the air that befalls most mortals. But, now he appears to be such a weak-kneed child that somebody removing a pin from a voodoo doll is enough to make him return to his superhuman powers.
The NY effing Times? Oh, how the mighty have fallen.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Why, why, why would the NHL Network (channel 401 on Cablevision, NJ) broadcast the tape-delayed live broadcast of a game (GREAT!), but will feature a scroll bar at the bottom telling you the final score of the game? I’ve got to now force myself to not let my eyes wander.
I know someone else here (Rally?) said that the MLB.com games have a somewhat similar problem, in that you can tell how much broadcast time is left in the game (because of the scroll bar), and therefore, likely precludes certain outcomes if you are nearing the end of the scroll bar.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Some sobering thoughts from Buzz Bizzinger following his meltdown on HBO v Deadspin. Sober being the key word, as his HBO appearance sounded exactly what a drunk would sound like in a bar. (I quite enjoyed and appreciated that he at least decided to lay down his arms, as it’s not necessary to continue to use your weapon, especially since it doesn’t have any bullets in it.)
All these are just mediums, be it a bar, the ballpark, a two-way phone call, a sports radio show, a TV show, a newspaper, reader’s letters to editor, a magazine, a book, an online blog, online discussion forum, or online comments area. Someone has an opinion, it’s going to be heard. We’re not going to moderate (with an editor) each of these mediums necessarily, are we? Those that are moderated, certainly they have a better percentage of quality. But, they don’t have the volume of quality. At the same time, they certainly don’t have the volume of crap either.
Certainly the biggest volume of crap is at a bar, but we’re not going to call all bar patrons drunk blowhards that need to be muzzled are we? The next biggest volume of crap is at a ballpark, but we’re not going to forbid fans from going to a game, are we?
The difference is the posterity of the opinion: no one remembers any opinion uttered in a bar. But, for eternity, someone’s ramblings will be forever immortalized on the web. Such is the value and the curse of the web.
As for Deadspin itself, it’s the sports equivalent of TMZ and In Touch. It is what it is. But, Leitch’s recaps in The Hardball Times are quite entertaining.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
By , 10:13 PM
From Rob Neyer, who is lately (maybe for a long while) just as obsessed (and misguided) as almost everyone else about short-term recent performance:
So is Cliff Lee for real? I think all we can say is that he’s really healthy. He’s going to give up a higher batting average on balls in play, and some reasonable percentage of the fly balls he gives up will fly over the fence. So no, he probably doesn’t wind up winning the Cy Young Award. But I’ll bet he’s better than average. And considering how well C.C. Sabathia’s pitched in his last two starts, suddenly the Indians would seem to have the best rotation in the majors.
So Cliff Lee, 31 years old, is better than average, because he has pitched well to 128 batters after having pitched mediocrely, at best, to 3047 batters over the last 4 years? I think not, and I will take up Neyer on that bet (he offered this time, although obviously not literally).
Here are Lee’s last 4 years’ NERC, keeping in mind that a league average pitcher, and full-time starter, within his league, is defined as 4.00:
04 4.87
05 3.84
06 4.45
07 4.93
That is a fairly sucky pitcher who, based on his 128 batters faced so far this year, is a now an ever-so-slightly less sucky pitcher! He is NOT better than a league average pitcher, nor he is a league average pitcher. (Warning: of course, I don’t KNOW what he is for sure, but my estimate, since it is based on science, is a heck of a lot better than Neyer’s, which is based on nothing, but a distorted and misinformed view of what 5 outings of good pitching following 4 years of poor pitching, means.)
Again, I ask, for any of these, “Is he for real?” questions, that someone simply look at all players in history of about the same age and circumstances, who have had X prior stats, followed by Y (presumably really good or really bad) stats for a short period of time (whatever you want) and then see how they all did in ANY future time period you want (the more, the larger the sample of course). Oh, you mean researchers have already done that (see Tango’s, my, and probably others’ “banner years” study)? And the answer is that they performed at around the usual Marcel projection? So why are these writers trying to answer the silly, “Is he for real?” question and coming up with equally silly answers? It is a combination of ignorance, they have to write something, and it has to be something that their audience likes (otherwise they are out of a job). However, it doesn’t matter much if what they write is true or not. They don’t get graded on the truth.
How about we all just say in unison, come on now, everyone together, “They will ALL likely (our best estimate) perform somewhere in between their past weighted performance and the ‘breakout’ (or collapse) period you are citing, MUCH closer to whichever is the largest sample!”
Then we can all get on with our lives.
Anyway, I am not done with Neyer.
So, now Sabathia is part of a great rotation, considering the way he performed in his last TWO starts?”
I guess before those two starts, when everyone was calling for Sabathia’s head, and wondering whether he was hiding an injury, the Indians’ staff was NOT great. But now it is. Considering Sabathia’s last 2 starts. Maybe we better wait until his (or Westbrook’s or Carmona’s) next start or two. Because if they pitch badly, then we are not so sure if the Indians have a great staff, right? I am just following Neyer’s logic and that of every other sports writer in the world.
News flash: The Indians staff is roughly the SAME staff it was before the season started, the same staff it is now, and the same staff it will be (assuming no major injuries) in a month from now, no matter how any of their pitchers pitch between now and then!
The sad part is that Neyer knows this stuff (I think), but he still writes the same crap that everyone else does.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
There’s usually one or two good articles in BE Press, but this issue has alot of interesting topics, from alot of familiar names. I’m starting with the Turocy paper, but I encourage everyone to pick a different one, and report back with a mini-review.
I have this theory that it takes at least one generation for social progress to be achieved, as it takes at least that long for the ignorant and the biased to die. So, peace in the mideast? Not for at least 20 years (if ever). End of racism in America? Not for at least 20 years (if ever). End of separation talk in Quebec? Not for at least 20 years. The progress of sabermetrics?
Otherwise everything is nonsense, starting with Swisher over Soriano. That’s reminiscent of when some goofs actually blurted that during their primes, Mark Grace was a better first baseman to have on a team than Frank Thomas. What’s next, Pamela Anderson over Meryl Streep? Soriano is more valuable than Swisher, who is a good player. Soriano might not be a chemistry guy, cheerleader or jokester, but he’s a better player.
Marcel has Soriano forecast with a wOBA(*) of .360, and Swisher with .357. Fans think that Soriano and Swisher are both roughly equal as fielders (slight edge to Sori). UZR thinks they are roughly equal as outfielders (slight edge to Swisher). You are talking about two roughly equal players. And even if wOBA is too fancy, Soriano’s Runs Participated In (RPI, or R+RBI-HR) based on Marcel is 133 in 581 PA, while Swisher is 137 in 597. Pro-rated, that’s the exact same thing.
Looks like we’ve got to wait 20 years for this kind of crap to not being written. If ever.
(*) If you don’t understand wOBA, treat it exactly like OBP, with a SLG of about 25% higher than OBP.
Monday, April 28, 2008
A new hero of mine? Gregg looks at the yappers… all of them. Everytime a yapper predicted something, he wrote it down… and then looked to see what happened. Imagine: accountability! If you yap a forecast, it is incumbent on you to look at the results. If you don’t, you’re a yapper. If you do, you are a straight arrow, a straight shooter. So, Gregg looks at literally over a hundred forecasts to see how they did. Here’s one:
Read More
Saturday, April 26, 2008
By , 09:22 PM
ESPN.com’s Jerry Crasnick writes:
Maybe it’s due to maturity. Maybe it’s because they’re being more patient at the plate. But whatever the reason, the D-backs now have one of the most powerful lineups in all of baseball.
The correct quote should be:
Maybe it’s due to maturity. Maybe it’s because they’re being more patient at the plate. But whatever the reason, the D-backs have had, with 13% of the season played, one of the most powerful lineups in all of baseball. But, as we all know, almost anything can happen in 20 games or so. If we look at the career stats for all of their players, we can easily see that they have been hitting over their heads, and will likely have one of the least powerful lineups in all of baseball, for the remainder of the season, although even that will likely be disguised by the fact that they play half their games in the one of the best hitter’s park in the NL.
I have not read the article itself. Irresponsible me.
Read More
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Who makes your skin crawl more?
Jim Gray is the last guy you want at your bachelor party. There’s a time and place for everything, and on an occasion deemed to celebrate the best players of the century, that’s not the time to pick one guy out, and go and look into someone’s closet looking for a gotcha moment.
Tom Farrey is ESPN’s answer to Lou Dobbs. I’m sure these two guys, put in the exact same conditions and walking in the exact same shoes as Tejada, would have behaved differently, because, gosh-darn it, they are superior human beings to Miguel.
Straighten me out.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
By , 07:04 PM
I vaguely recall hearing the name on BTF or somewhere like that. He has a sports blog. Here is the link to the blog as well as the thread I am writing about. The blog article or entry or whatever you want to call it is the usual BS about bunting or not bunting with player A at bat and the score x and y in inning z. The batter usually does something bad and then someone complains that he should not have been bunting. Of course, the complainer has NO idea whether it was “correct” or not to attempt a sac bunt in that particular situation, but he definitely has an “opinion” on it.
There are a slew of comments after the blog entry discussing (mostly fan speak) the sac bunt in general and that particular attempt. I have a bug about sac bunt discussions. The bug is mostly about the fact that many people think that conventional sabermetric wisdom is that a sac bunt is almost always wrong, especially early in a game, because the RE or WE charts indicate that it is, based on the runners advancing and the batter making out (which only happens around 60 some odd % of the time when a bunt is attempted). Whether that is in fact conventional sabermetric wisdom, I don’t know, but it ain’t wisdom, cause it’s wrong. Anyway, I wrote a lengthy post, basically summarizing the sac bunt chapter in The Book. I honestly thought that I was doing a valuables service to this guy and his blog community. Below I will print Justice’s response to my long post, and my response to that, which I am assuming will not make it onto the blog. You can also read my long post about the sac bunt here if you want to, rather than going to his blog.
Read More
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
A blog dedicated to the MLB Blackout policy.
(Hat tip: Studes)
Friday, March 28, 2008
Great SI issue this week, with the draft class of 2005 on the cover. You guys already know how much we love Tulowitzki’s fielding, as well as his clutch play last year. I really enjoyed the article on him by Verducci. Here’s a few quotes:
A pitch from mild-mannered Rockies lefthander Jeff Francis had hit Upton with the Diamondbacks trailing 5-1, a runner on second and no outs in the seventh inning. Upton was slow to take his base, and his body language made clear he thought he’d been plunked on purpose. Tulowitzki directed Upton to quietly haul a certain body part of his as well as the rest of himself to first.
“Why would we hit you?” Tulowitzki barked. “You’re a .200 hitter! We want you in the box! Shut up and go to the bag!”
During BP before Game 2, Upton approached Tulowitzki behind the cage and asked, “Do you have a problem with me?”
“No,” Tulowitzki recalls saying. “It’s just that if I got hit in that situation, I’m going to be happy getting on first. I understand it might not feel great, but it’s a team game and that’s the way you play.”
...
Tulowitzki awoke on the morning of June 7, 2005, convinced he was headed to Seattle. The Mariners held the third selection. “A couple of minutes before the draft,” he says, “they’d called me and said, ‘You’re our guy.’ “
At home in Sunnyvale, Calif., Tulowitzki was hosting a draft party to which he had invited family, friends, coaches, “anybody in my life who had helped me in the game of baseball,” he says. “Anybody who took me to any games or threw me any balls.”
His phone rang. It was the Mariners, saying that they needed a catcher—during the ‘05 season they would use seven—and were choosing Jeff Clement. A 6’ 1”, 210-pound lefthanded hitter, Clement was second alltime in home runs for USC (46), behind McGwire. Baseball America rated him the 12th-most-talented player in the draft.
...
“Totally my call,” Ricciardi says. “Right now we made the wrong choice. I’ve been in [talent] evaluation my whole life. It happens. When we were in Oakland, we took [Ariel] Prieto over [Todd] Helton. Romero hasn’t come as fast as the other guys, but it’s really only his third year. We still like him.”
Last winter Tulowitzki took a vacation to Las Vegas with his friend Romero. Like Prieto and Helton—or Sam Bowie and Michael Jordan—they will always be connected. “Tulo,” Romero told him, “the fans in the minors are all over me. They say, ‘We should have picked Tulowitzki!’ “
...
“After what happened [in ‘05],” says one American League G.M., “I’m really convinced you should never let positional needs influence you. Just take the best player.”
...
“C’mon, throw it!” the kid in the Rockies jersey says.
“O.K., but just one more,” Tulowitzki replies. “I’ve got to go do my ab work.”
The kid is four years old. It’s Jackson Holliday, son of Rockies leftfielder Matt Holliday. Matt, Jackson and Troy are playing with a rag-style ball and a tiny foam bat on a plush patch of grass underneath an old cottonwood tree. Two things are noteworthy about this bit of playtime. One, Tulowitzki seems to be having even more fun than the ferociously swinging Jackson. Two, Jackson’s Rockies jersey does not say holliday on the back. It says tulowitzki.
If they knew about his UZR and Clutchiness, as well as how he is the most underpaid asset in MLB, they’d erect a statue for him already.
By the way, I heard the exact same Holliday story 20 years ago. Tom Brunansky said something like “Can you believe that I’m in MLB, and I’m not even my own kid’s favorite ballplayer?”. Kirby Puckett was.
I’m with Pinto. Similar to his experience, I’m always asked about the name “TangoTiger” in any professional setting. No one’s going to remember my real name, but everyone remembers “TangoTiger”. And, as David notes, “sabermetrician” is a conversation starter.
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >
from Amazon
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 57 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date