THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Came down to service time for me. Kershaw’s closer to arbitration than Strasburg is, Strasburg won’t even be eligible for free agency until 4 years from now, so signing him wouldn’t have been a priority for me yet.

I should have been clearer: you don’t care about service time.

You are signing a pitcher for 100MM$ for 4 years…

And the $100 million doesn’t really matter either.

I would still pay Kershaw over the other 3, but it’s a virtual tie between Strasburg and Kershaw. Kershaw wins because of a longer MLB track record.

Ken: right.  That’s why I was hoping that if I said 100MM$ for 4 years, that this means that we’re talking about free agents.

I wanted to put the number out there to make it clear that you will be paying him 100MM$.  Otherwise, I may get some voters who say: “If he remains healthy...”

Well, saying “100MM$” implies that you are paying him for his actual estimated performance.

Interesting on the divide between Kershaw/Felix and “others”.

Also interesting that Darvish is below Strasburg, as I figured if health is a concern between Strasburg/Kershaw, then it should also be a concern with Strasburg/Darvish. 

I guess the uncertainty of Japan -> MLB is a larger concern than the health issue.

Maybe next week I’ll do Yu, Gio, Bumgarner, Moore, and another pitcher or two.

Pineda, Cueto… man, lots of good young pitchers, aren’t there?

It’s close for me, but it comes down to Strasburg and King Felix.

Strasburg (10-11): 11.4 K/9, 1.9 BB/9, 0.98 WHIP, 2.54 ERA, 1.87 FIP, 2.14 xFIP, 2.37 tERA, 8 WAR/200 IP

Felix (10 Cy young): 8.4 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 1.06 WHIP, 2.27 ERA, 3.04 FIP, 3.14 xFIP, 2.93 tERA, 5 WAR/200 IP

So Strasburg would have to pitch at a 1.3 WAR (2.4 WAR/200 IP) pace until he reaches 200 IP to reach Felix. So even with an unlikely huge regression (2.4 WAR/200 IP, slightly above average), Strasburg would still be at King Felix’s level. Strasburg would also have to pitch at a 4.04 FIP level to tie with Felix which is unlikely unless Strasburg starts losing control.

I’ll gamble on health and take the best pitcher in Strasburg.  I can see I’m in the vast minority though.

I went with Felix, ‘cause I’m going to get more of his peak years. The other two either end during their 27th year, or as in the case of Darvish, have a cultural adjustment & league adjustment to live through first. Seriously, I’m unsure about that. Felix seemed like the most sure bet.

1. Kershaw
2. Felix
3. Strasburg
4. Darvish.

Kershaw gets the nod over fellow Cy Young winner for being slightly younger and left handed.  Though you can probably make a good argument that Kershaw’s been facing easier competition than Felix by virtue of being in the NL and specifically in the NL west. 

Darvish is last for me until he shows what he can do with MLB hitters.  Scouting reports are one thing; facing actual MLB hitters another.

Strasburg probably has more potential than any but I can’t rank him above the proven accomplishments of the two guys ahead of him right now.  And that’s despite being a Nats fan

Wow, Kershaw and Felix separated by 1 vote after 179 ballots.

The same questions is now (not coincidentally I’d wager) on Joe Posnanski’s blog.  We’ll see whether his readers produce different results.

It’s so close, but I voted for Kershaw. The difference is minuscule, IMO.

I know that Kershaw is probably the better bet, but I had to go Strasburg. Such potential.

Poz’s blogspot is blocked at the office.  What’s the current results?

7 for Darvish, 473 for Felix, 383 for Kershaw, 107 for Strasburg

Strasburg, there is no contest.

There is no reason to think Strasburg has more chances to get injured than Kershaw/Yu/Felix. It could happen to any of the 4.

Why is being left handed commonly considered an edge for starters?  RHP faced ~52% same handed batters, LHP faced ~29% same handed batters in 2011.  As long as the main opponent isn’t LHB heavy and a LOOGY is on the roster, I don’t see the advantage to being LHP as a starter.

Just throwing some numbers out there ...
RHP -> 52% same hand x 95 platoon + 48% oppo x 110 platoon = 102.2
LHP -> 29% same hand x 90 platoon + 71% oppo x 105 platoon = 100.65

Is there that big of a difference in platoon advantage with elite pitchers?

I love responses like this:

“Strasburg, there is no contest.”

The commenter says it as if it’s obvious, even though he has the support of only 10% of the community.

Poz’s poll:

http://www.google.com/reviews/polls/display/-5304570140156278484/blogger_template/result

[1] Felix - Long MLB track record of elite skill.
[2] Kershaw - Medium MLB track record of elite skill.
[3] Strasburg - Short MLB track record of elite skill.
[4] Yu - No MLB track record.

Scouting data helps Strasburg, but really those top three all have dominant stuff.  Admittedly I am under-informed about Yu.

For me, the largest gap is between Strasburg & Yu.

Matt Moore, please.  Out of these choices, gimme the established version in Kershaw.

Kershaw only because he is slightly younger than Felix and I think might have a little more upside left than Felix.  While Felix is great, I think we might have seen his best performance level in 2010.

Tango:

There is no contest in numbers. If Strasburg hadn’t had TJ surgery, he’d have over 70% of the vote. So, people are voting fearing Strasburg elbow or shoulder are going to explode.

My question is:

Is there any evidence that suggests Strasburg is more likely to be injured the next 4 years than Felix, Kershaw or Darvish?

If there is I’d vote Kershaw. If not, Strasburg is miles ahead of the rest of the pack.

Alvaro: you are just making stuff up.  Stras has never finished on top in these polls I do, pre-MLB, pre-surgery, post-surgery.  Whether it was Felix or Verlander or whomever, someone always finished on top.

And it’s ridiculous to think he’s “miles ahead”.  Again, just making stuff up.

Just stop talking like that already.  There’s a million places if you want to talk like that.  This isn’t one of them.  Get used to it.

I think the more tempered angle Alvaro is trying to take is that Strasburg’s upside is staggering. His 2012 campaign may be the most anticipated of any ballplayer in the last few decades. Yet, intelligent baseball fans inhabit these pages, and we certainly know that 90 IP of 1.8 FIP and a boatload of raw talent still doesn’t always guarantee success at the very highest level of the game. Plus of course, the surgery. While there’s immense skill, there’s also a good deal of uncertainty. And in a poll like this when Kershaw and Felix are undisputed studs, it’s hard to pass that up.

#23 Jason

Matt Moore is established? He’s maybe every other adjective you can think of besides established.

@28 Put your bifocals on and read it again.

Alvaro does have a valid question. Can any of the injury-analysis guys answer this:

Is an elite starting pitcher more likely to end up on the DL for big chunks of time if they’ve already been on the DL or is landing on the DL like coin flips, i.e. independent?

My *impression* is that landing on the DL increases your chances of getting injured again and that certainly influences my judgment of Stras.

And though that’s purely impressionistic, it’s rooted in the idea that mechanics, body-type, physiology and other immutable factors contribute to injury.

I agree that the injury forecast question is not only valid, but extremely valid.

Comparing to Poz’s readers, they are about the same on Kershaw and Yu.  The difference is that you guys are 45/15 on Felix/Strasburg, while Poz’s readers are 50/10.

Overall though, not that much difference.

Mettle, 30.  In general I agree with you, but isn’t there some reason to believe that TJS is an actual cure, and should not predict a higher than normal injury rate in the future?  It would be hard to get the data in useful form, not to mention questions such as how to treat TJS in HS college or the minors.

I agree somewhat with Alvaro that there is a bias against Strasburg on account of his injury.  CAIRO FIP projections have Strasburg on top: 

Strasburg: 2.60
Kershaw: 2.86
Darvish: 2.99
Felix: 3.18

And if you were to consider scouting in those projections, Strasburg’s lead would be greater (I don’t think is controversial to say he has the best stuff in the game currently). 

Now I think its reasonable to bump Felix a little bit due to the difference in leagues (I don’t think CAIRO adjust for AL/NL), and also project him to have more innings per start - but assuming equal injury risk to all, Strasburg should either be first or a close second. 

Of course we don’t know how past injuries increase odds of future injuries, nor do we know how they affect future performance.  Depending on how you think about that, you can make the case for Strasburg being the worst I suppose.

Setting contracts aside, would the Dodgers fans give up Kershaw even-up for Strasburg? (Probably 90% would prefer Kershaw?) Would the Nationals fans give up Strasburg even-up for Kershaw? (Probably 80% would prefer Strasburg?) Just making stuff up.

I think you have to have a belief that Strasburg is more prone to injury than Kershaw.  Whether that belief is actually tied to reality is another matter.  But, this is the 2nd time I’ve had Strasburg head-to-head with Kershaw, and Kershaw always has at least a 2:1 advantage over Strasburg.

(And when I do Felix v Kershaw, Felix is either close to equal or ahead.)

To the extent that the Crowd’s opinion means anything at all, your prior must be that St. Strasburg is more likely to pitch fewer innings than Kershaw.

This reminds me of Gretzky v Lemieux.  Even if you can make the case that on talent alone Lemieux is ahead of Gretzky (and you can make a reasonable case there), the fact that Gretzky was far more durable is a huge point in his favor.

Orr v Lidstrom (or Bourque) is an even more stark example, but in that case, Orr’s talent really dwarfs the other two, but playing half a career is still enough to put the other two guys as Orr’s equals or just a bit better.

So, durability is a huge consideration.

Pedro v Mussina might be another one.  You can reasonably argue to preferring Mussina’s career to Pedro’s.

On side effect of the TJ-Strasburg will have his innings limited in 2012. I believe the number is 150.

I don’t necessarily think the crowds opinion means anything in regards to predicting injuries.  For performance, the crowd definitely has some truth, but risk of injury isn’t something we can see in the same way.  For those of us who don’t know anything about human anatomy the only information we have to go by is that he has been injured in the past. 

But we don’t know how much of a predictor past injury is.  And crowd sourcing (non doctors) doesn’t answer that question at all.  But, I guess a small percentage of your readers are doctors, so maybe the crowd has a tiny bit of truth..

From what I can recall, it seems like pitchers who develop elbow or shoulder problems due to “wear and tear” (UCL, rotator cuff, forearm tendons) tend to continue to get re-injured, whereas pitchers who have non-"wear and tear” related injuries such as breaking a wrist/hand/finger, and pulled muscles tend to heal and bounce back, with little occurrence of aggravating the prior injury.

According to Wikipedia, the best predictor of future Tommy John surgery is number of pitches thrown. Pitch type also makes a difference; pitchers who throw a slider (Kershaw does and Strasburg doesn’t according to FG) are more likely to need Tommy John surgery.

Based on a quick Google search, it seems that reinjury is common for TJ patients who try to “rush back” in the first year before they are fully recovered, but not after that. Since Strasburg will have had more than 18 months of recovery time by the start of spring training, I would guess that his risk of reinjury at this point is low.

In fact, since Kershaw may have undiagnosed wear and tear on his unreconstructed elbow, I’d say Kershaw is more likely to need future TJ surgery than Strasburg.

#39’s idea would seem to make sense in general, but with Tommy John surgery, you’re basically getting a brand new, unworn replacement ligament (rather than sitting around waiting for a worn-out body part to heal back up).

Strasburg pitched last year.

I’d rank them:

1. Strasburg
2. Hernandez
3. Kershaw
4. Darvish

My thinking is that the only downside with Strasburg is the injury risk.  Kershaw, for me, will have to duplicate the BB rate again to be moved above Hernandez.

#42

Yeah, he pitched last year, and he was lucky enough not to get reinjured. My understanding is that he’s gotten past the high-risk time period and should now be fully recovered; as far as I know, the fact that he rushed back last season (and luckily didn’t reinjure himself) doesn’t affect his odds of future reinjury from now on.

To me, the main reason to pick Kershaw over Strasburg is that Kershaw has pitched enough games to be a proven talent.

I imagine Strasburg will probably turn out to be at least as good as Kershaw (because so far he’s performed better than Kershaw), but we can’t know for sure. How much should Strasburg regress to the mean after just 92 innings of ridiculously good performance?

I don’t know why you say he was “rushed” back.  He performed as well as Kershaw did in his time back.  There’s no fixed timetable for coming back.  If they say the average is 11 months (for example), that would mean it could be 8-14 months, depending on the individual.

So, I reject the notion he was “rushed” back.

I have an unpublished TJS study (I need to get the thing finished) but it shows that one year (52 weeks) is a common minimum amount of time missed, although some pitchers take more time. The point where I am is proofing the list of weeks missed for errors, making sure I have the dates correct. There are a handful out of 250+ pitchers in the study.

Off hand I’d say less than 10% reinjured themselves during the recovery process (or just never recovered). Some had the surgery redone several years later, but I’m assuming they just wore out the new tendon the same as they did the first, and that it was not a result of rushing back.

Ok, sorry, maybe a bad word choice. My main point was that he’s past the high-risk period by now, even if he may have started pitching during a higher-risk period.

#47
Do you happen to know what percentage had more surgery a few years later? Or what percentage of uninjured players end up getting the surgery later in their career?

48 - those are some of the questions I do want to answer from the data, but I really haven’t looked at it since Sept.

What I did was compare the pitcher’s projection at the time he was injured to how he did over the next few years after coming back. Then I had a control group of non-TJS pitchers where I did the same comparisons, and see how much each group’s performance varied from their projections each year. The TJS pitchers had about 5% worse HR, BB & SO in y1 & y2, then exactly the same as non-TJS pitchers in y3 and beyond.

Part 2, which I didn’t finish yet, was doing a distribution of how many weeks it took pitchers to come back, how many never came back, had surgery later, etc.