THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

We haven’t made it public/official yet, but StatSpeak will be doing the same shortly.

Can you guys tell me what does Blez (SBnation) and Evan (MVN) offer you guys that you couldn’t do yourself? 

And, why would say statspeak and BtB not merge?  Maybe Baseball Analysts too?

As an MVNer, I can tell you what Evan provides: Links. The tagging system at MVN allows all your posts to be linked to on team pages and outside sites with syndication deals. MVN also give you a site template and some essentials so you don’t have to fuss with that yourself.

I’m not here to claim that MVN is the best out there, as it certainly has it’s downfalls, but it has it’s benefit’s that going independant can’t always provide. I do wish they gave you some sort of Ad revenue for putting MVN’s ads on your page, but that can be worked around by simply taking them off.

Well I obviously didn’t start StatSpeak, I was just invited around January. So for me, StatSpeak provided a strong readership and a chance to work with some of the bigger names in baseball analysis. StatSpeak and BtB probably couldn’t merge because one is part of SBNation and the other is MVN. The writers could all decide to pick one to go to (and I wouldn’t stand in the way of that happening), but the two actual blogs seem to be planted pretty firmly in their respective networks.

That said, I don’t know anything about SBNation or BtB behind the scenes.

I will reply with details later, because I don’t have the time now, but I actually LOVE being a part of SBNation, and I’m not usually one to do anything resembling “selling out”.  In fact, I held on to my own blog (skyking162) for a while after being asked to join SBN, and that was a mistake.  Not much money at all, at least for now, but this is mostly a hobby, and the exposure is the most valuable thing long term.

Advantages of SBNation:

- built in membership from anyone who joins another blog with a single click.
- traffic drivers from related posts, promoted posts in the banner, SBN team and player pages, etc.
- traffic drivers from content-sharing deals with Yahoo, CBS Sports, and some others.
- SEO optimization, built in team and tagging system
- full time tech support team that not only pushes out cool features like widgets, an easy and powerful story editor, and Twitter integration, but will take suggestions and fix any problems that arise
- legal photos from the AP and ready-to-go templates for inserting photos
- a group effort.  I work with my co-bloggers at BtB, exchange ideas with all baseball bloggers, and all bloggers in all sports.  I’m in contact with the SBN “suits” who know more about blogging and can make more connections than I could have imagined.
- Help getting collaboration deals with other blogs, websites, and traditional media outlets
- New media stuff in the future.  Two NFL bloggers were credentialed at the April draft, for example
- SBN corporate bought me lunch when I visited them in DC

A lot of the things that Sky talks about with SBN are also perks of being with MVN (although no one ever bought me lunch!) The big advantage in going with a network instead of solo is simple: branding.  People know to look for BtB or THT or StatSpeak.  Back when I had my own little blogspot blog, I could have built myself up in the same way, I suppose, but it would have taken a lot longer.

Imagine if all the folks who hang out around here had their own little feifdoms.  It would be hard to get around to seeing all of them.  Concentrate them in a few select places, encourage some collaboration and it’s better for everyone.  And from my perspective, I’m not going to make money doing this anyway (that’s not why I got started), why not at least go with a place that’s set up all the details for me?  Evan is very laid back and doesn’t micro-manage at all, so it feels like I have my own blog but someone’s done all the heavy lifting for me.  It’s nice.

If anyone out there is reading this and interested in really pursuing this Sabermetric blogging thing, I can highly recommend going the StatSpeak or BtB) route.  It worked great for me.

I’ve also heard the bad parts (at least about MVN), and it’s the same as BPro: that the equity is controlled by a small group, and that the revolving door of toilers that build the brand are left with almost nothing.  BPro at least is paying their writers per article, though who knows how proportionate that is.

Fangraphs on the other hand pays their articles from the outset, even prior to making a profit.  And David is very clearly the lead guy in R&D (i.e., Fangraphs can’t exist without him).  Of all the sites out there, Fangraphs has the best model in terms of “fairness” and making a profit.  THT is close behind.

You’re right that none of us ever made a penny, Brad or otherwise, from StatSpeak.  Most people seem to use MVN as a resume builder.  The rest are hobbyists like me.

It’s only been a little more than a year since Fangraphs started posting articles, isn’t it?  I seem to recall it’s early days when it was pretty much just stats.  I’d be interested if an informal history of these sites posted somewhere.  Heck, I could try to write it myself once I figure out all the details.  For instance:

1.) Beyond the Boxscore goes back to May of ‘05 and (I believe) that this is the first article.

2.) Before this site was around, a lot of the commenters and Tom and MGL hung out at a fanhome site.

3.) BPro’s been around since 1998 or so and was an offshoot of some of the rsbb posters.

4.) I’m not sure about Statspeak, but I think that Repoz started linking to it at BTF about a year ago.

5.) Baseball Think Factory was an offshoot of the old Big Bad Baseball Annuals and went live in the spring of ‘01.

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head.  Some may not be interested in this, but I dig stuff like this.

The StatSpeak archives go back to June 2005, when David Gassko wrote the blog, along with Robbie Bonfire and Benjamin Kabak (I didn’t know either existed until I really looked into the archives).  I think that was the time that MVN was basically absorbing/acquiring a bunch of blogs.  I’m not sure if MVN created StatSpeak or if it was pre-existing.  The blog lay fallow from about November 2006 to March 2007, when I was hired (along with Matt Souders and Sean Smith).

I used to post at BaseballBoards.net (along with Voros, MGL, David Smyth, Patriot, and a few others).  That became Fanhome, which became Scout.com.  Our problem with Fanhome was that they would not archive, and so, Patriot and I had to save all the threads ourselves.

Around that time, I used to post at Baseball Primer, and I had my own blog there, which I have archived here:
http://tangotiger.net/archives/

Two years later, in conjunction with the release of The Book, I started my own blog here, along with mgl.

Every now and then, I’ll write at Hardball Times, and every year for their annual.

Our problem with Fanhome was that they would not archive, and so, Patriot and I had to save all the threads ourselves.

That’s why you guys moved on!  I used to frequent some Boardhost boards for boards on another interest of mine and they had the same problem.  I used to see you on occasion, at Baseball Fever as well, Tom.  There were a couple of baseball history buffs that I used to interact with there, but I didn’t really feel like adding another site to my rotation.

I first started posting around 1996, on AOL’s baseball board.  It was a pretty good site for a while, but I had to look elsewhere when I left AOL for better ISP.  It’s hard to remember what happened after that, I wish I kept better track.  I read Prospectus pretty much every day, but my interaction was limited to the emails I sent that they paid attention to.  I think I started reading baseballprimer from about day 1.  Certainly I remember posting there for the 2002 season, because of the Angels, but I clearly remember the Jeremy Giami trade’s epic thread so primer couldn’t have been around very long without me.  I started posting a few things on my comcast site sometime after that, then started the Angel blog in late 2005 (good thing that is archived or I’d never remember).

I tried Statspeak for a little while.  They mentioned something vague about sharing ad revenue at the start, but I never saw any, and I see from Pizza’s post above that I didn’t miss out on anything.  I had to leave because the need to come up with a topic on a somewhat regular basis felt like work to me.  This is a hobby, so I have to enjoy what I’m doing.

I do what I want, and every know and then I’ll come up with something and feel the need to write about it.  It could be 2-3 days between inspirations, or 2-3 months.  With a schedule like that, I pretty much have to do it on my own.

Although I started reading Bill james around 1985 I didn’t really look for much sabermetric stuff online when I first had acces to the net in 1996.  I stumbled upon one of the BPro guy’s personal page and read some stuff about the Red Sox on USENET, but that was about it.  One day in ‘01, I was thinking about adapting the Kevin Bacon game to baseball and thought that Mike Morgan might be the center of the baseball universe.  (He may be someday, but right now it is Warren Spahn.) I joined SABR around that time and did a presentation about Morgan.  Jim Furtado saw it and had me write it up for Baseball Primer.  The rest is history.  I’ll occasionally write an article for THT, but my main focus has been writing for SABR’s BioProject.  It’s different research than most here do, but it matches better with my strengths.

Yes, I occasionally post to Fever.  I used to post alot more, but I find these days that I’m repeating myself alot over there, so I’m staying away more.  I also stay away mostly from Primer because the atmosphere has shifted greatly from what it was in 2002/03.

I started posting at BaseballBoards in the summer of 2000, which I believe was around a year after some of the Tango/MGL/David Smyth/Voros crowd had started there.  There were also some other good posters, many of whose names I don’t recall anymore that I’ve lost track of--I don’t know whether they go by different handles, post at different sites, have a life, etc.  By no means a comprehensive list, but I recall warren, Hobbes, Sibelius, Riverfront,

There were also some good threads that got lost in cyberspace, either between screwups in the archives prior to them all getting erased, me or Tango neglecting to save a particular discussion, etc.  Nothing earth-shattering, but some good discussions.  Just as an example, I remember a thread from one of the “lost” posters I alluded to above, warren I think, about a pennants-added metric in the vein of Wolverton’s.  I don’t think I ever saved that one, and if I did I’ve never found it.

Of course, for me it was good that some of those threads got lost, because I was a jackass at the time (yes, yes, I know...it’s a hanging curveball).  One interesting thing about reading some of the old stuff is how people’s perspectives change--I know a couple of the posters (myself included) did complete 180s on the peak/career debate over the course of the last almost decade (dang...)

When I saved the old threads, I tried to find the oldest posts from each of the major contributors out of curiosity.  That doesn’t mean I was successful in doing so (and I’m pretty sure I wasn’t), but these were the earliest I had saved. The first post I found from Tango was this:

Tim Raines or Tony Gwynn for the Hall of Fame?

Raines had about a 390 OBA, 430 SLG, 1548 Runs, 964 RBIs, and 2344 Runs Produced. Gwynn? 390 OBA, 460 SLG, 1361 Runs, 1104 RBIs, and 2332 Runs Produced. Remarkably close no?
Tim Raines is also the second greatest leadoff hitter of all time. If he can’t get in, then you pretty much close the door on all future leadoff hitters, unless they perform somewhere between Raines’ level and Rickey’s level.

From MGL:

This is sort of the “put your money where your mouth is Manager Think.”

I’ll start out with our ol’ favorite, Mr. Baylor of the mighty Cubs, truly one of the worst run franchises of the 90’s and now aughts.

In the first game of today’s (Saturday’s) DH with the Mets, Baylor elects to sacrifice bunt with a runner on first down by a run (3-2) in the top of the seventh.

As has been mentioned numerous times in this forum, the sacrifice bunt, in general, is one of the most costly strategies a manager can employ. On average a team reduces it’s scoring potential by a whopping .22 runs when sb-ing a runner from first! It’s only use is when a team needs to score exactly 1 run, like a tied game in the 9th. Even then, it’s close.

Now, let’s not post a message every time a manager elects to SB (maybe we should), but...what is a manager thinking when he is the road team in the 7th and down by a run? Is he hoping for a tie and then a rainout?

In the same game, in the sixth, with the Cubs down 1-0, Baylor shows off his mental acuity once again by issuing an IBB to Ventura with a runner on third and 1 out, with Pratt due up next. Run value with a runner on third and 1 out is .90. Run value with a runner on 1st and third and 1 out is 1.17. So Baylor cost his team another .27 runs! Double plays just aren’t that common to be issuing IBB’s with 1 out and then pitching to a pretty good hitter (Pratt).

I’m sure this wasn’t his first post as it references an early “manager think” thread.

David Smyth:

The consensus seems to be that Ivan Rodriguez was sabermetrically unworthy of the MVP award. His case is nice for analysis because he had so many strengths but only one real weakness: he hardly ever walked. I got to wondering why the MVP voters don’t seem to care about walks when they’re evaluating a good hitter. If Rey Ordonez were to start walking 100 times a year I’m sure they would notice and compliment the improvement.

The answer has to be that they think a good hitter is contributing better in his at-bats than in his walks. Rodriguez had 199 hits, 35 homers, and 24 bases on balls. If he had walked 100 times and hit the same way when not walking, he would have had 174 hits, 31 homers, and the 100 walks. The voters apparently like the first combination better. What they’re overlooking, of course, is that the high walk way would also have resulted in 51 fewer outs. The reason they overlook this is that outs are not already computed on the stat line.

A base on balls has an OPS score of 1000 (1.000 OBP + 0 SLG). When not walking, Pudge’s OPS was only 890. Is there a point where a batter is so good that we should’t want him to draw walks? Babe Ruth in a good year might hit .350 and slug .750 . His OPS, therefore, would be 1100 when not walking, which is higher than the 1000 walk OPS. But the problem is that at these levels OPS gives a distorted picture, because it undervalues on-base percentage. A more precise analysis would probably show that an OPS of 1000 all from OBP is better than Ruth’s 1100.

So the answer is no. No batter is so good that he should intentionally avoid drawing walks.

I know that this was my first post there:

MGL,

I looked at their OW% formula in the glossary and it says nothing of park adjustment. In the 1986 Abstract, James park adjusts by using the team average runs and runs allowed per game. ESPN uses league average, so it’s not park adjusted.

If OPS was park adjusted, ARod would definitely jump past Nomar as there is only a 9 point difference between them.

Very cool!

Responding to what Rally brought up, but not to him directly, BtB doesn’t expect any type of posting schedule.  We’d love it if people showed up with brilliant analysis every Tuesday evening, but most people just post when they have something interesting to say.  And when we get stuck, we have a pretty active email list with guys like Dan, Harry, and Justin tossing around ideas (and harassing RJ—although maybe that’s just me.) If people wanted something to do on a regular basis, like Justin’s weekly power rankings or a daily links post, that’s cool, too.  I can help anyone develop a role that suits them.

My origins: started reading Neyer in 2000ish, was around Primer and FanHome a bit, although mostly as a lurker, started my blog (skyking162) in early 2004ish, read BPro since 2002ish, read THT from the start, joined BtB in September of 2008.  Hired by ESPN to revamp their baseball coverage in early 2012

Sorry to hear about that Sky.  Looks like you’ll get your dream job just before the Mayan calendar runs out.

Yeah, but the 2012 season on ESPN will be awesome.  And the Cubs will win the World Series.  After all, the world will be ending…

To add to the history recounting, THT started in the spring of 2004.  The key guys were Aaron Gleeman, Matthew Namee, Vinay Kumar and me.  Aaron and Matthew did the content, Vinay and I did the technical stuff.  We also self-published our first book that year.

Most of us had “met” on Primer.

Tango, I take issue with your opinion that David’s model is “fairer” than THT’s.  David pays a set rate per article, we have a complete profit-sharing scheme.  If David makes more, he keeps the diff.  If THT makes more, we all share. How is David’s model fairer?

I’m not at all dissing David’s approach, just your characterization of fair.

The Fangraphs’ model may be fairer or nicer to authors given a certain definition of those words, but it also requires David A. to take on greater risk.  Is it worth spending what David’s spending on daily content (probably not public knowledge) based on his current revenue (plus the BIS stats cost)?  I’m guessing not, but there’s definitely huge potential for other FG features down the road other than viewing stats and reading the blogs.  Plus the equity in the brand/website.

I wrote (plus I added the bolding here)

Of all the sites out there, Fangraphs has the best model in terms of “fairness” and making a profit.  THT is close behind.

Dave wrote:

If David makes more, he keeps the diff.  If THT makes more, we all share. How is David’s model fairer? I’m not at all dissing David’s approach, just your characterization of fair.

The key word in my statement is “and”.  If it was purely a question of fairness, then obviously THT is the best model, because of its profit-sharing method.

However, I was talking about the best balance in terms of fairness and making a profit.  THT takes a more socialistic approach, while Fangraphs is a bit more like a venture-capital.

Plus I did say that THT was very close.

Thanks, Tango.  That’s interesting.  I wonder how you weight profit and fairness.  And whose profit?  The owner’s only?

Those are rhetorical questions, by the way. I don’t mean to hijack the thread onto something that was a throwaway comment.

I didn’t give it the amount of thought that your question deserves.

I had in mind the way BPro operates, where the brand of BPro was built off the sweat of its many contributors.  Those guys received little, or nothing, of the value of BPro.  At least, now they are paying their writers, 75-100$ an article (or whatever it is).  The bulk of the value of BPro is held among a few of them.

(I have a similar issue with PuckPro, where I see the same situation repeating.  I presume that most of the original guys there will walk away with little or nothing.)

Fangraphs pays off its writers, which is surprising, since they started doing that right away.  The brand of Fangraphs however, like b-r.com with Sean, is really built on the sweat of David.  The rest of the Fangraphs crew obviously have value, which David recognizes by paying them in cash.  So, it’s fair in that Fangraphs is not waiting for its value to increase first before paying off on the sweat of others.  And the profit potential is there.

For THT, the profits are distributed right away, unlike with Fangraphs which are, essentially put back into R&D (if there are even any profits; otherwise, David keeps dipping into his own pocket).  So, THT acts like a non-profit, while Fangraphs acts like a profit-maker, but clearly is in the early stages.

I like both models, both are close.

If for example, I were to approach Fangraphs, THT, and BPro, and saying “Here I am.  I’ll roll into your site everything I have done, and I will work on your site for the next 2 years”, I presume that I can get the best deal from Fangraphs, I’d get a decent deal from THT, and BPro would give me an unfavorable one.

Maybe I’m not a good example.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that THT doesn’t invest in R&D.  We don’t put all of our revenue into short-term payouts. We are out to maximize profits in the long run, same as all other sites, and that obviously requires ongoing investment in the site.

One more point (not that I don’t think about these sorts of issues all the time).  You say that THT is like a not-for-profit corporation, but I don’t see it that way.  To me, THT is definitely for profit, it’s just that our shareholders are our writers.

We make it easy by sharing profit instead of paying out dividends or some such thing.  We skip the entire equity mess. But it’s effectively the same thing.

I feel like I keep digging a hole with a shovel, and I have no idea how it got in my hands to begin with.

I’m making some general point.  I mean, if Fangraphs spends I dunno, 1000 hours into R&D a year, and THT spends 300, and BPro spends 100, that’s kinda where I’m going with it.

I said that THT is close behind Fangraphs in its business model, which is high praise!  BPro is the one I’m slapping around (no surprise, I suppose).

Hey, you’re the one who started comparing ownership and payment structures, not me. 

I spend a lot of time and energy on THT’s business model.  When you start comparing it or describing it in ways I don’t agree with (such as comparing it to a nonprofit corp.), of course I’m going to speak up.

You’re kind of all over the place with your comments. You started with “fairness and profit,” then went to how much you’d get from each site, then you talked hours of “R&D,” and finished with business model. Four different subjects, really.

Personally, I would avoid making the far-reaching statements you’re making.  From a narrow focus (such as, “more likely to create equity for owner"), the practices of websites can probably be ranked.  But from a broad view, such as “fairness and profit,” there are many approaches, all of merit in their own way.

I don’t disagree with you.

My post #9 was simply to compare/contrast Fangraphs to BPro.

As a throwaway line, I added that THT is close behind Fangraphs.  I could say ARod is close behind Pujols, and 60% of the people agree with me, while 40% would put it the other way around.  It’s close depending on perspective.

I have not come to any conclusions as to which model is better, other than what might be better from my individual perspective. Clearly, THT and BPro and Fangraphs and b-r.com are all successful to varying degrees, as their continued existence shows.