2009 MLB Thread

[dave from knoxville]

The typical NL pitcher allows approximately 1.3 baserunners (hits or walks) per inning. Dan Haren has pitched 161 innings; the average pitcher with this number of innings pitched would have allowed 193 runners to reach base; Haren has allowed 143.

There's another way to think of this; let's calculate the number of innings pitched associated with the average pitcher who has allowed 143 baserunners, as Haren has. This is a simple calculation, 143/1.3 = approximately 110 innings pitched. The average pitcher with 110 innings pitched will have allowed 143 baserunners. To get to Haren's level, that pitcher would then have to throw 51 consecutive perfect innings. I refer to this as "innings above average".

By comparison, the next top 9 NL pitchers in this regard are Lincecum, 35; Carpenter, 31; Javier Vasquez, 29; Josh Johnson, 22; Joel Piniero, 19; Ryan Franklin, 14; Matt Cain, 13; Randy Wolf, 13; and Rafael Soriano, 13.

Since this is the stat most fully controlled by pitchers I have always felt it should be the most important ones. ERA is a close second, but it's heavily influenced by bone-headed coaching moves like allowing Gary Sheffield to occasionally play in the field. Dopes. Sports-writing experts are more impressed by wins. Dopes.

Just wondering, what's wrong with just using WHIP?

I did not do a good job of explaining this, apparently.

How about this; among all current pitchers in the majors, here's a ranking by best WHIP

M. Bowden   BOS
J. Manship   MIN
J. Nunez   CHW
N. Feliz   TEX
J. Marshall   OAK
M. Atkins   CHC
J. Gray   OAK
M. Adams   SD
J. Nathan   MIN
M. Guerrier   MIN
R. Franklin   STL
D. Haren   ARI
D. O'Day   TEX
D. Wheeler   TB
M. Rivera   NYY
K. Mickolio   BAL
R. Ramirez   CIN
A. Bailey   OAK
T. Miller   STL
R. Soriano   ATL
M. Daley   COL
J. Frasor   TOR
A. Guzman   CHC
C. Carpenter   STL
H. Street   COL
J. Broxton   LA
J. Fogg   COL
A. Aceves   NYY
D. Fister   SEA
F. Ni   DET
C. Vargas   MIL
D. Meyer   FLA
T. LINCECUM

Here's the current ranking by Innings Above Average (for Whip)

D. Haren   ARI   SP
T. Lincecum   SF   SP
J. Vazquez   ATL   SP
R. Halladay   TOR   SP
C. Carpenter   STL   SP
J. Johnson   FLA   SP
J. Washburn   DET   SP
J. Beckett   BOS   SP
C. Sabathia   NYY   SP
J. Pineiro   STL   SP
Z. Greinke   KC   SP
M. Cain   SF   SP
J. Verlander   DET   SP
M. Buehrle   CHW   SP
S. Baker   MIN   SP
R. Wolf   LA   SP
F. Hernandez   SEA   SP
E. Jackson   DET   SP
M. Guerrier   MIN   RP
T. Lilly   CHC   SP
J. Santana   NYM   SP
J. Happ   PHI   SP
A. Bailey   OAK   RP
R. Oswalt   HOU   SP

Which list is a better indicator of quality pitchers?

Here's a clue; again, this includes all pitchers in both leagues

Pitcher   Rank by WHIP   Rank by IAA
M. Bowden   BOS, 1, 184
J. Manship   MIN, 2, 209
J. Nunez   CHW, 3, 210
N. Feliz   TEX, 4, 113
J. Marshall   OAK, 5, 199


Who would you rather have on your team, the WHIP leaders (Bowden, Manship, Nunez, Feliz, and Marshall) or the IAA leaders (Haren, Lincecum, Vazquez, Halladay, and Carpenter?)

OK, I would love to have a player named MANSHIP on my team, admittedly.

[dave from knoxville]

This approach allows for the creation of other interesting stats as well; in both leagues to date, the average pitcher allows one home run every 8.5 innings; who's the toughest pitchers to hit home runs off of? Just throw together an Innings-above-average-(HR). That's IAA-HR = Innings - HR*8.5. Here's your top 10.

T. Lincecum SF 120.96769570011
J. Pineiro STL 112.389746416759
Z. Greinke KC 106.445644983462
C. Kershaw LA 93.3897464167585
C. Lee PHI 90.7794928335171
U. Jimenez COL 89.9235942668137
D. Lowe ATL 81.8235942668137
J. Johnson FLA 75.8794928335171
C. Carpenter STL 70.545644983462
C. Billingsley LA 63.9794928335171

And these guys should make you lip your chops if your team is scheduled against them

J. Moyer PHI -64.3851157662624
R. Harden CHC -67.9630650496141
J. Saunders ANA -68.329217199559
D. Bush MIL -72.3969128996692
T. Cahill OAK -79.9512679162073
B. Myers PHI -81.6748621830209
G. Olson SEA -86.9189636163175
J. Guthrie BAL -95.9953693495039
B. Looper MIL -110.1394707828
J. Geer SD -127.895369349504

This Geer kid has allowed 27 homers in only 103 innings; that's one every 3.8 innings, bless his heart.


Something else I haven't mentioned, but that appeals to my math-sense; these sorts of stats are always zero-sum; the sum of all player's values in these categories is always equal zero.

[jbissell]

Who would you rather have on your team, the WHIP leaders (Bowden, Manship, Nunez, Feliz, and Marshall) or the IAA leaders (Haren, Lincecum, Vazquez, Halladay, and Carpenter?)

Shouldn't there be some sort of inning/appearance threshold?  It's not like a guy who pitches 10 innings all season without giving up a run "wins" the ERA title.  Of that top 5 in WHIP that you listed, Feliz has the most innings - 8.2.  The other 4 have combined for 7 or 8.  Wouldn't you say that's way too small of a sample size to be relevent?

[dave from knoxville]

Who would you rather have on your team, the WHIP leaders (Bowden, Manship, Nunez, Feliz, and Marshall) or the IAA leaders (Haren, Lincecum, Vazquez, Halladay, and Carpenter?)

Shouldn't there be some sort of inning/appearance threshold?  It's not like a guy who pitches 10 innings all season without giving up a run "wins" the ERA title.  Of that top 5 in WHIP that you listed, Feliz has the most innings - 8.2.  The other 4 have combined for 7 or 8.  Wouldn't you say that's way too small of a sample size to be relevent?

In fact, EVERY sample size is too small to be relevent; that's why the imposition of a totally arbitrary innings or at bats limit doesn't hold up. Imagine that players must have to have 350 at bats to qualify for a batting title (I don't know the exact number.) Who was the more effective hitter, the guy who batted .400 in 345 at bats, or the guy who batted .340 in 500 at bats? If these are 2 different guys at the end of the season, the .340 hitter gets the batting title because he exceeded the minimum number of at bats; but if these were 2 snapshots of the same guy in the same season, after he went 138 for 345 to get to .400, he would have to follow it with 32 for 155 (a .206 average) to wind up at 170 for 500, and there would be countless articles about how badly the guy fell off in the last third of the season despite winning the batting title. Assuming a league batting average of .270, the 138 for 345 guy is 45 hits ahead of "average performance"; the 170 for 500 guy is only 35 hits ahead of the average performance. How can he be considered better?

Here's another thing to consider; if you hold your nose and consider a player's single season of 170 for 500 to be a random sample, rules for confidence intervals determine that the (95%) margin of error associated with this performance is E = 1.96*sqrt(170*330/500^3) = app .042; that's right, the margin of error associated with a 340 batting average is 42 POINTS! That means that at best you can claim his ability on a global scale is anywhere between .298 and .382. Similarly, the 138 for 345 guy can reasonably be assumed to have a batting average anywhere between .348 and .452. There's a gulf between these guys, but there's no statistically significant difference between them, in the sense of "adequate sample size". In fact, with approximately 600 - 650 at bats, there's no significant difference between .320, .330, .340, and .350.

One thing that always gets me, particularly as the allstar break approaches is the significance sports announcers give to batting average. At that point, regular players will typically have around 300 at bats, and you will hear how this player has a very respectable .290 batting average, while another is experiencing a disappointing .260. But in real terms, which you hardly ever hear about, that's a grand total of 9 hits difference. Spread over about 90 games (the all-star break's typically after the half), that means "very respectable" is getting about 1 additional hit every 9-10 games. And since nearly half of all base hits occur in innings during which no runs are scored, it really means about 1 MEANINGFUL hit every 15-18 games.

They also like to whine about things like "He's only got 5 hits in his last 30 at bats" This is consistent for a player whose batting average is anywhere between .036 and .298. In other words, it's meaningless. This is why I frequently listen to Night People and the like while watching baseball with the sound turned down.

Too much response to a simple question?

[jbissell]

Who would you rather have on your team, the WHIP leaders (Bowden, Manship, Nunez, Feliz, and Marshall) or the IAA leaders (Haren, Lincecum, Vazquez, Halladay, and Carpenter?)

Shouldn't there be some sort of inning/appearance threshold?  It's not like a guy who pitches 10 innings all season without giving up a run "wins" the ERA title.  Of that top 5 in WHIP that you listed, Feliz has the most innings - 8.2.  The other 4 have combined for 7 or 8.  Wouldn't you say that's way too small of a sample size to be relevent?

In fact, EVERY sample size is too small to be relevent; that's why the imposition of a totally arbitrary innings or at bats limit doesn't hold up. Imagine that players must have to have 350 at bats to qualify for a batting title (I don't know the exact number.) Who was the more effective hitter, the guy who batted .400 in 345 at bats, or the guy who batted .340 in 500 at bats? If these are 2 different guys at the end of the season, the .340 hitter gets the batting title because he exceeded the minimum number of at bats; but if these were 2 snapshots of the same guy in the same season, after he went 138 for 345 to get to .400, he would have to follow it with 32 for 155 (a .206 average) to wind up at 170 for 500, and there would be countless articles about how badly the guy fell off in the last third of the season despite winning the batting title. Assuming a league batting average of .270, the 138 for 345 guy is 45 hits ahead of "average performance"; the 170 for 500 guy is only 35 hits ahead of the average performance. How can he be considered better?

Here's another thing to consider; if you hold your nose and consider a player's single season of 170 for 500 to be a random sample, rules for confidence intervals determine that the (95%) margin of error associated with this performance is E = 1.96*sqrt(170*330/500^3) = app .042; that's right, the margin of error associated with a 340 batting average is 42 POINTS! That means that at best you can claim his ability on a global scale is anywhere between .298 and .382. Similarly, the 138 for 345 guy can reasonably be assumed to have a batting average anywhere between .348 and .452. There's a gulf between these guys, but there's no statistically significant difference between them, in the sense of "adequate sample size". In fact, with approximately 600 - 650 at bats, there's no significant difference between .320, .330, .340, and .350.

One thing that always gets me, particularly as the allstar break approaches is the significance sports announcers give to batting average. At that point, regular players will typically have around 300 at bats, and you will hear how this player has a very respectable .290 batting average, while another is experiencing a disappointing .260. But in real terms, which you hardly ever hear about, that's a grand total of 9 hits difference. Spread over about 90 games (the all-star break's typically after the half), that means "very respectable" is getting about 1 additional hit every 9-10 games. And since nearly half of all base hits occur in innings during which no runs are scored, it really means about 1 MEANINGFUL hit every 15-18 games.

They also like to whine about things like "He's only got 5 hits in his last 30 at bats" This is consistent for a player whose batting average is anywhere between .036 and .298. In other words, it's meaningless. This is why I frequently listen to Night People and the like while watching baseball with the sound turned down.

Too much response to a simple question?

No, seemed like a fair rebuttal and I can't really counter with anything because most of that stuff is way over my head.

I guess when it comes down to it, I admire all of these finely tuned statistics but they really don't add anything to my enjoyment of the game.  They just make my head hurt.

[hugman]

I'm going to watch Carpenter pitch and (hopefully) the Redbirds rake tonight at Dodger Stadium.  Pray I don't get my hat sliced, cholo-style.

[scratchbomb]

I'm going to watch Carpenter pitch and (hopefully) the Redbirds rake tonight at Dodger Stadium.  Pray I don't get my hat sliced, cholo-style.

Is that a problem out in Chavez Ravine? I always thought there were enough out-of-towners in LA for fans of The Other Team to be okay out there.

[hugman]

I'm going to watch Carpenter pitch and (hopefully) the Redbirds rake tonight at Dodger Stadium.  Pray I don't get my hat sliced, cholo-style.

Is that a problem out in Chavez Ravine? I always thought there were enough out-of-towners in LA for fans of The Other Team to be okay out there.

It happened to some Cardinal fan during the playoffs once.  I've never really had a problem, but that's because I have manners.  I will be especially reserved tonight as it'll be just my wife and I.

[nec13]

Watch your back, hugman.

[dave from knoxville]

I have this constantly changing formula that I use to assess the value of fantasy players to date. It uses the "classic four" categories of BA, HR, RBI, and SB. The current formula is RATING = .122*HITS - .0329*AT BATS + .167*HOME RUNS + .0714*RUNS BATTED IN + .143*STOLEN BASES - 3.50. At bats are negative, because of your player goes to the plate and completes an at bat without a hit, your batting average drops. The big negative constant at the end has to do with linear equations and y-intercepts. If you had only three players in your league, and the home run totals were 10, 9, and 8, with corresponding points of 3, 2, and 1 awarded, the appropriate formula to predict points would be RATING = HOME RUNS - 7, so that if you plug in 10 home runs you get 3 points, 9 homers gives you 2 points, and so on. These constants are almost always negative in "counting" categories, and almost always negative in "ratio" categories. The rating is called "ROTN points" because our Fantasy League, now in year 26, is ROTisserie of Nashville.

Here's the top 40 as of today.

Rank, Name, Team, AB, H, BA, HR, RBI, SB, ROTN points
1 A. Pujols STL 412 134 0.325 38 104 11 14.6
2 C. Crawford TB 464 148 0.319 12 58 54 13.1
3 H. Ramirez FLA 427 152 0.356 18 82 22 13
4 M. Reynolds ARI 431 122 0.283 37 81 21 12.1
5 P. Fielder MIL 424 131 0.309 30 105 2 11.3
6 R. Braun MIL 453 143 0.316 26 86 10 10.9
7 M. Kemp LA 440 137 0.311 17 76 25 10.5
8 J. Mauer MIN 353 133 0.377 22 73 2 10.2
9 B. Abreu ANA 410 127 0.31 11 79 25 9.5
10 J. Morneau MIN 441 132 0.299 28 94 0 9.4
11 M. Holliday STL 431 138 0.32 16 76 14 9.2
12 J. Ellsbury BOS 451 134 0.297 6 37 53 9.2
13 M. Cabrera DET 436 144 0.33 24 70 2 9
14 C. Utley PHI 412 121 0.294 24 76 13 9
15 M. Teixeira NYY 449 128 0.285 30 86 2 8.7
16 D. Jeter NYY 473 153 0.323 15 53 20 8.7
17 I. Suzuki SEA 486 175 0.36 7 34 23 8.7
18 R. Howard PHI 439 118 0.269 30 91 5 8.6
19 A. Hill TOR 504 145 0.288 28 80 4 8.5
20 A. Dunn WAS 400 114 0.285 31 86 0 8.5
21 J. Bartlett TB 351 120 0.342 11 56 21 8.4
22 J. Upton ARI 392 118 0.301 20 66 16 8.3
23 R. Zimmerman WAS 453 138 0.305 24 78 1 8.1
24 R. Ibanez PHI 360 105 0.292 27 78 4 8.1
25 P. Sandoval SF 421 139 0.33 18 69 4 8.1
26 D. Wright NYM 426 138 0.324 8 55 24 8
27 E. Longoria TB 416 116 0.279 24 88 5 7.9
28 K. Morales ANA 401 122 0.304 25 76 1 7.9
29 C. Lee HOU 444 139 0.313 19 74 3 7.7
30 J. Bay BOS 390 101 0.259 25 83 11 7.6
31 I. Kinsler TEX 402 100 0.249 25 66 23 7.6
32 C. Figgins ANA 446 139 0.312 3 43 37 7.6
33 A. Gonzalez SD 409 114 0.279 32 72 1 7.5
34 A. Ethier LA 441 124 0.281 24 80 5 7.5
35 M. Young TEX 457 145 0.317 20 55 7 7.4
36 A. Lind TOR 444 131 0.295 24 74 1 7.3
37 R. Cano NYY 471 151 0.321 18 60 4 7.2
38 T. Hunter ANA 291 89 0.306 17 67 13 7.2
39 T. Tulowitzki COL 392 108 0.276 23 63 15 7.2
40 N. Cruz TEX 342 92 0.269 25 58 17 7.2

Here's the bottom 20 (almost exclusively NL pitchers)

Rank, Name, Team, AB, H, BA, HR, RBI, SB, ROTN points
839 L. Hernandez NYM 39 5 0.128 0 0 0 -4.2
840 J. Happ PHI 32 3 0.094 0 0 0 -4.2
841 C. Kershaw LA 38 4 0.105 0 1 0 -4.2
842 B. Nelson MIL 21 0 0 0 0 0 -4.2
843 T. Wellemeyer STL 37 4 0.108 0 0 0 -4.3
844 D. Hernandez ATL 85 12 0.141 1 6 0 -4.3
845 J. Smith HOU 25 0 0 0 1 0 -4.3
846 R. Dempster CHC 41 3 0.073 0 3 0 -4.3
847 B. Arroyo CIN 42 5 0.119 0 0 0 -4.3
848 C. Gaudin NYY 28 1 0.036 0 0 0 -4.3
849 J. Sanchez SF 28 1 0.036 0 0 0 -4.3
850 P. Maholm PIT 45 3 0.067 1 2 0 -4.3
851 T. Lilly CHC 40 3 0.075 0 2 0 -4.3
852 E. Bruntlett PHI 85 11 0.129 0 6 1 -4.4
853 W. Rodriguez HOU 44 4 0.091 0 1 0 -4.4
854 T. Pena KC 51 5 0.098 0 2 0 -4.5
855 B. Moehler HOU 32 1 0.031 0 0 0 -4.5
856 J. Blanton PHI 36 2 0.056 0 0 0 -4.5
857 J. Garland ARI 51 5 0.098 0 0 0 -4.6
858 R. Ohlendorf PIT 46 3 0.065 0 0 0 -4.7

[scratchbomb]

I'm going to watch Carpenter pitch and (hopefully) the Redbirds rake tonight at Dodger Stadium.  Pray I don't get my hat sliced, cholo-style.

Is that a problem out in Chavez Ravine? I always thought there were enough out-of-towners in LA for fans of The Other Team to be okay out there.

It happened to some Cardinal fan during the playoffs once.  I've never really had a problem, but that's because I have manners.  I will be especially reserved tonight as it'll be just my wife and I.

Yikes. I didn't know cholos could swing playoff tickets. Seems a pricey way to stab people. Hope you have a safe outing.

Was that incident in the 2004 division series? Back then, I was working for a company that produced in-stadium programs, including the Dodgers. They gave us such a hard time all year, particularly with photos. They would send us the shittiest digital photos and get mad when we couldn't match the unis to DODGER BLUE. Blue's a really hard color to get right--it pretty much reflects every other nearby color. Particularly in shitty, shitty jpegs. We tried to explain this to them, but it never prevented the Dodgers from sending us crummy photos of Jose Lima in a red room, then bitching us out because we couldn't remove all of the red from his uniform.

They were also horrible about their playoff edition program, to the point where I really wanted them to flame out against the Cards. But I also hoped they'd win at least one game, thus forcing a 4-game series, so that all that pain-in-the-ass-ery wasn't for just one game's worth of programs.

It was a pretty great job, all things considered. Just some annoyances like that. But I didn't like the Dodgers before then, and I REALLY don't like them now.

[jbissell]

Here's the bottom 20 (almost exclusively NL pitchers)

I was going to ask how some of those pitchers could be on the bottom but then I realized that was specifically for hitting.

Do you guys count pitcher's hitting stats?

[dave from knoxville]

Here's the bottom 20 (almost exclusively NL pitchers)

I was going to ask how some of those pitchers could be on the bottom but then I realized that was specifically for hitting.

Do you guys count pitcher's hitting stats?

Nah, it was just too much work to extract them (this might appear twice.)

[hugman]

I'm going to watch Carpenter pitch and (hopefully) the Redbirds rake tonight at Dodger Stadium.  Pray I don't get my hat sliced, cholo-style.

Is that a problem out in Chavez Ravine? I always thought there were enough out-of-towners in LA for fans of The Other Team to be okay out there.

It happened to some Cardinal fan during the playoffs once.  I've never really had a problem, but that's because I have manners.  I will be especially reserved tonight as it'll be just my wife and I.

Yikes. I didn't know cholos could swing playoff tickets. Seems a pricey way to stab people. Hope you have a safe outing.

Was that incident in the 2004 division series? Back then, I was working for a company that produced in-stadium programs, including the Dodgers. They gave us such a hard time all year, particularly with photos. They would send us the shittiest digital photos and get mad when we couldn't match the unis to DODGER BLUE. Blue's a really hard color to get right--it pretty much reflects every other nearby color. Particularly in shitty, shitty jpegs. We tried to explain this to them, but it never prevented the Dodgers from sending us crummy photos of Jose Lima in a red room, then bitching us out because we couldn't remove all of the red from his uniform.

They were also horrible about their playoff edition program, to the point where I really wanted them to flame out against the Cards. But I also hoped they'd win at least one game, thus forcing a 4-game series, so that all that pain-in-the-ass-ery wasn't for just one game's worth of programs.

It was a pretty great job, all things considered. Just some annoyances like that. But I didn't like the Dodgers before then, and I REALLY don't like them now.

I think it was 2004. Cholos are making things happen out here.  You think low-riders are cheap, homie?  I ended up going with my friend. I can never keep my mouth shut when the Cardinals play the Dodgers.  I just can't take it when Dodger fans boo Albert Pujols for no reason whatsoever, like a large percentage of them do. Does this happen in other ballparks?  jbissell, do cubs fans boo Albert Pujols? because that I can understand. but dodger fans should just shut up and be glad they get to say they saw Albert Pujols play baseball.
Round two tomorrow.

[nec13]

I don't know why you wouldn't be excited about the Cubs. They're shaping up to be the best team in the National League.

What the hell was I thinking?