THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I looked on Fangraphs and ESPN and Estes does throw a changeup about 12-15% of the time.  I just didn’t recall seeing him throw one last night, especially when it would have been appropriate (like in the AB versus Kemp with the game still tied in the 5th).

But looking at the stats, he definitely has been an awful pitcher other than in 1997.  Why would a (competent) team want to bring back a 35 year old pitcher who has had multiple injuries and who was terrible for many years before (and during) those injuries?

My guess is that he was cheap, the scouts saw him throw, and they said, “Wow, he can still throw 90, has a decent curve and change, and has a lot of pitching experience and can help our young pitchers.” I’ll reserve judgment here on whether that is a smart thing for a team to do in the Padres situation.

Last year the Padres were 5th in the NL (and relatively close to 2nd) in OPS with RISP, but 14th overall.  Difference of .068.

This year they are 10th with RISP (and relatively close to 13th), and 14th overall.  Difference of .029.

Not having as good luck as last year, combined with the unfathomably bad season of Greene and their catchers, explain the large offensive dropoff.

On the pitching side, the relievers’ ERA have gone from 3.01 to 4.40.  Young has been hurt and when healthy, couldn’t duplicate his ridiculous luck of 2007.  Peavy had been hurt (his losing ~8 starts might have cost SD 15-20 runs alone?).

I can’t blame Black much at all.  There were some injuries, bad luck (or more accurately, good luck not continuing), and some impossible-to-foresee horrific performances.

If anything, Towers deserves the blame for not recognizing that his relievers, Young, and offense were mirages in 2007.

I don’t know what the papers or blogs in San Diego think of him, but to the rest of the baseball world, San Diego is pretty much off the map, off the radar.

If he was managing over such a disappointing team in New York or something, I’m sure there would be calls to fire him.

Among pitchers with at least 500 IP since 2002 (167 pitchers), Shawn Estes has the 3rd worst league/park-adjusted ERA in MLB.

Among pitchers with at least 500 IP, from the ages of 29 to 35, born since 1918 (Bob Feller), there are 489 pitchers.  Shawn Estes has the 3rd worst adjusted ERA.  The two guys ahead of him stopped pitching at ages 32 and 33 respectively, meaning that the MLB teams at the time had the good sense not to keep giving them a job.

Now, if there is a particular “toolsy” reason to bring in Estes, that’s another matter of course.  All the data shows is the sheer mountain of evidence you need to overcome.

And I think the Chan Ho Park experiment this year, an Estes-like figure, means that there will always be some team willing to roll the dice.

Well, they were already out of it, many other younger and more promising pitchers (Germano, Banks) had already failed, and most of the other guys at AAA who aren’t absolutely horrible (Geer, LeBlanc) are pitching also. 

Not much of a reason to pitch him, but given the lack of other options I can’t complain too much.  At least the service time clocks on some of the younger guys aren’t ticking yet.

Also maybe there were 40-man roster considerations?

I don’t know if the Adrian Gonzalez thing is all that damnable.  Managers are hesitant to pinch-hit for their best hitters, even if it’s an unfavorable matchup.  And Gonzalez’s career marks against LHP aren’t *awful*, and he was good against them in 2006 and above average last year.  It’s not like any situation San Diego faces this year is high leverage, so you might as well let him hit and see if he reclaims that success.

I have been following the Padres since my birth (I attended the 84 playoffs as a 6 month old) and have been blogging about the team going on a year now. I have a few responses.

First of all, the national media largely ignores the team. Sportswriters in other towns make trade suggestions that treat the Padres like their personal farm team, ready to fill in holes for big market teams when called upon. Peavy for Lowell? I wouldn’t base any opinion on what the national media says about the team.

The first reason we probably haven’t heard much rumbling about Black on the national level is because the team doesn’t play along with the soap opera.

As for reason number 1, I’m not sure why you never hear criticism of the Padres. If you’ve ever listened to sports talk radio in this city, the Padres “discussions” consist of non-stop whining.

The whining (usually in an annoying tone) is rarely backed with research or evidence. They claim Petco’s insane park effects as merely “in the players heads” among other outrageous ideas. Those clowns practically ran Milton Bradley out of town.

Most of the bellyaching lands in the direction of team CEO Sandy Alderson, probably for the same reasons Paul DePodesta got it in LA. On air, Alderson even wondered why the city is so hostile to the Padres (this was said last year) after the team’s most successful 4 year run in franchise history.

As for reasons 2 and 3, they probably make some sense. Black does look the part.

Black’s biggest downfall is his in game strategy. Besides seemingly not recognizing Gonzalez’s struggles against lefties, Black has some weird predilection for batting the second baseman second in the lineup, regardless of who it is or his hitting ability.

Stemming from this, he bunts more than one would expect from a Padres hire (and more than Bochy even) since he backs himself into a corner with player like Luis Rodriguez in the two hole.

Seemingly out of nowhere Black implemented a strategy of sending slow, clunky players to imminent death on the basepaths. He called it “aggressiveness”, made it seem like being aggressive with slow players somehow made them faster. This seems to have been fixed, however.

Most importantly, Black might not be getting a free pass from his superiors. Anderson commented recently that there is a rift between the FO’s philosophy and some of the coaches, and they will evaluate and announce personnel changes after the season.

Estes threw some changeups in the 3rd and 4th innings yesterday, but didn’t use it much before that.

Kemp: FB, FB (single)
Martin: FB, FB, Chg, FB (line out)
Ramirez: FB, FB, FB, FB (line out)
Ethier: FB, FB (ground out)
---
Garciaparra: FB, FB (line out)
Blake: FB, Crv, FB, FB, FB (double)
DeWitt: FB, Cut, Crv, Crv, FB (ground out)
Berroa: Crv, Crv, FB, FB, FB (ground out)
---
Kershaw: FB, FB, Crv (strikeout)
Kemp: FB, Chg, FB, Chg (fly out)
Martin: Chg, FB, Cut, Chg, FB (single)
Ramirez: FB (single)
Ethier: Crv, Chg, FB (ground out)
---
Garciaparra: FB, Chg, Chg (home run)
Blake: Crv, FB, Crv, FB, FB, Chg, Chg, FB (walk)
DeWitt: Cut, Crv, FB, FB, FB, FB (walk)
Berroa: FB, FB, Crv, FB (ground out)
Kershaw: FB, FB, FB, Cut (strikeout)
Kemp: Crv, Crv, FB, FB, FB, FB (single)
Martin: Cut, FB, FB, FB, FB (walk)

That’s a total of 53 fastballs, 13 curveballs, 10 changeups, and 5 cutters on the night for Estes.

10 (change ups) out of 81 pitches is around his average for the year, I think.  I guess I was not paying too much attention, which I wasn’t actually.  I also did not know he had a cutter.  Nonetheless, something about him makes him a lousy pitcher.

There are all kinds of replacement pitchers (or better) available for league min salary or thereabouts.  Using a pitcher that was terrible 5-10 years ago (he probably is .25 runs worse than replacement now) and is 35 years old can never be justified in my book.  Once a bad pitcher (or batter) reaches his thirties and is rightfully out of baseball, he should be gone for good.  As I said, there are plenty of young players to take a shot on.

And people seem to think that a team that is out of contention early does not need to try and win.  That is not true.  It cost them money for every loss and they owe it to their fans to put the best product out there (without sacrificing the future of course).

Black Hawk, I agree with that (about Gonzalez). To pinch hit for a batter, he has to really be bad against the pitcher, considering the pinch hitter penalty.

I can’t blame Black much at all.  There were some injuries, bad luck (or more accurately, good luck not continuing), and some impossible-to-foresee horrific performances.

If anything, Towers deserves the blame for not recognizing that his relievers, Young, and offense were mirages in 2007.

I disagree. Based on all the players projections - not their 2007 “lucky seasons” - I had the Padres at 85 wins and so did most of the other analysts (around that win total).

Now, I am not saying that it is Black’s “fault” (I have no idea whose “fault” it is).  But I am pretty sure that the Padres have dramatically underachieved given each player’s projection, even considering the injuries to Greene, Peavy, and Young (and whoever else).

When I do my THT article, I will see exactly how much each team over or underperformed based on each player’s playing time and their pre-season projection.  I suspect that the Padres will be at the top of the underperforming list by a wide margin.

Melvin, you cannot evaluate a manager, sabermetrically, from the sheer number of sac bunts he has attempted, or completed (SH).  The “sabermetric” concept that it is rarely correct to attempt a sac is dead and buried. If you haven’t yet, read the chapter on sac bunting in “The Book.”

As far as who bats #2 in the order, I have shown time and time again, that without simming a batting order, or at the very least doing a Markov sim of a particular batting order, you cannot figure out in your head a good or bad order.  One, it is too complicated, and two, batting orders just don’t make much difference.

For example, numerous times analysts have complained about a poor OBP but fast guy batting leadoff (which many managers like to do, right?), yet when I run it through a sim, it is just fine or even optimal.  Probably one of the mistakes that analysts (and some fans like your self) make when criticizing or “analyzing” lineups in your head is not putting enough weight on or adequately considering running the bases (speed) and other nuances that go into a batting order.

As far as “running his slow guys into outs,” without seeing the data, I have no comment or opinion.

Tango, are you talking about Park Chan Ho for the Dodgers or the other Korean on San Diego Baek?

http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=430657

Baek is OK.  About what you would have expected, especially coming from the AL to the NL (where a replacement pitcher in the AL becomes a not so terrible pitcher in the NL).

Park seems to be much better in relief than he was a starter and might even have had some kind of resergence from what I have seen of him this year.

I don’t see any reason to blame a manager for a team underachieving against preseason projections.

I don’t either, which I said about 3 times already in this thread, unless you are just agreeing with that sentiment.  I also said very clearly and explicitly that I am not talking necessarily about pre-season projections since the manager has little control over player moves and injuries.  I am talking about team expectations based on the actual playing time of the players (and their pre-season projections).

However, without any other knowledge, if you are going to give credit or blame to a manager, what else can you use but how well the team does as compared to the player projections?

re:  how to give credit or blame to a manager…

I think based on his in-game decisions (like the post on here about Pinella a couple days ago).  Bullpen usage - for example, I’ve heard (have not verified) that Bob Melvin was very good at using his top relievers in high-leverage in situations last year (which is why they exceeded their pythagorean projection by so much).

Bunting, intentional walks, etc. - stuff like that.  Other random stuff:

- not overusing the bullpen
- knowing when to pinch-hit
- recognizing platoon splits

I for one have a hard time blaming the manager for players’ performances.  If you’re going to blame him for Greene’s crappy season (not saying you are), then you have to give him credit for Gerut’s.

And then there are the intangibles (I know, we don’t like talking to them).  The mood of the clubhouse, how he deals with the media.  Those are worth SOMETHING.  Probably very little, but something.

I would like to see managers rated, like players are, in terms of WPA - by taking the situations (I guess just intentional walk and bunting) that he has control of.

So if the win probability for his team is .47 in a given situation, he orders an intentional walk, and the new win probability is .46, he gets a -.01.

Has something like that ever been done?

"I don’t either, which I said about 3 times already in this thread, unless you are just agreeing with that sentiment.”

I know you said that, but you also made a thread astounded that Bud Black isn’t criticized more, questioning why he’s not been fired, and yet you don’t really have a meaningful criticism of him other than that his team underachieved (yes I know you mean that specific players underachieved and not that the team hit the under on their projected win total) for one season.

“However, without any other knowledge, if you are going to give credit or blame to a manager, what else can you use but how well the team does as compared to the player projections?”

If I own the Padres and the only knowledge I have about Bud Black is that the Padres underachieved in 2008, then I may be inclined to fire him.  I have no reason to think that piece of information is particularly valuable, but I agree that it’s not of literally 0 value. 

If I’m the owner of the Padres and the only knowledge I have about Bud Black is that the Padres underachieved and that I enjoy the 15 minutes a week I spend talking to him, well then I’m probably not going to fire him.

JBH, I agree with you 100%.

I know you said that, but you also made a thread astounded that Bud Black isn’t criticized more, questioning why he’s not been fired, and yet you don’t really have a meaningful criticism of him other than that his team underachieved (yes I know you mean that specific players underachieved and not that the team hit the under on their projected win total) for one season.

Strictly from the perspective of the way managers are traditionally evaluated.

If it were me (who was the GM or owner), whether a team under or overperformed would have little to do with whether I kept or fired a manager.

An outsider discussing whether a manager should or should not be fired is not very productive anyway.  In the real world, you have to have intimate knowledge of his philosophies, relationship with the players, etc.

Jon, on my “to do list.” Would be a very difficult and complex project.  The methodology would be tough to set up and you would have to make a lot of judgment calls I would think.  But it might yield some fascinating results.  If anyone every wants to take something like this on, I could help them set it up.  You would need to use a PBP database, of course, like retrosheet.