Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

Neyer - Angels (August 15, 2003)

Posted 3:05 p.m., August 15, 2003 (#5) - Danny
  Finally, showing his 2003 numbers is unfair without the number of PAs. And, whether you look at EqA or superLWTS, you will quickly realize that Erstad is a slightly above average hitter over the last 3 years (about +6 runs).

I think this is the key area of dispute. Obviously, his 2000 season should not be completely ignored. But look at his offensive performance since 2000. In 2003, he has a .240 EqA (10.1 runs below average). In 2002, He had a .256 EqA (11.7 runs below average). I don't have his RAP for 2001, but his EqA was just .252.

It seems that using 2000-2002 puts Erstad's offense in the best possible light. If one were to use more or fewer years, his offense would look worse.

Neyer - Angels (August 15, 2003)

Posted 4:34 p.m., August 15, 2003 (#7) - Danny
  I'm pretty sure a 100 OPS+ is below average for a CF. This year the average CF has a .272 EqA. Last year, the average CF had a .270 EqA. The average player has a .260 EqA. Erstad seems to be a below average CF offensively.

I do not doubt his defensive prowess at all. I do, however, have problems seeing how he can be 40-50 runs better than average defensively per year when he makes just 3 plays per game. I'm sure this is just my own ignorance of defensive metrics. If you, or MGL, could offer a quick explanation, I'd be very appreciative. On second thought, I'm sure there's one somewhere on Primer already, if you could point me to that.

Neyer - Angels (August 15, 2003)

Posted 3:33 p.m., August 18, 2003 (#10) - Danny
  Thanks for the response, Tango. Is that .80 runs for each hit-to-out unique for CF, or is it universal?

Pankin - Walking Bonds - SABR presentation (August 17, 2003)

Posted 7:43 p.m., August 23, 2003 (#11) - Danny
  Tango,

I bit off topic, but if you get a chance I'd love to see the LI of relievers this year. Comparing Smoltz/Gagne/Foulke would be very interesting. Thanks.

CF Rankings (August 22, 2003)

Posted 7:28 p.m., August 23, 2003 (#11) - Danny
  It's interesting that the A's come in dead last.

1) They have one of the best defenses in baseball.

2) Singleton has been an average of 13 runs above average defensively over the last 3 years according to UZR.

3) Byrnes is 7th among all AL OF in defensive WIn Shares this year. Long is 5th, perhaps he's been ball-hogging.

4) Byrnes is 4th in the AL in Win Shares per 1000 innings, bheind Cameron, Beltran, and Erstad.

What gives?

CF Rankings (August 22, 2003)

Posted 7:30 p.m., August 23, 2003 (#12) - Danny
  Could it be that the large foul ground in Oakland allows the corner outfielders to catch a higher percentage of flyballs, regardless of who is in CF?

Fanhome's Dackle: World Series Odds (September 18, 2003)

Posted 10:23 a.m., September 18, 2003 (#3) - Danny
    As a Red Sox fan, I'm a little curious as to why the A's have almost twice as good a chance to win it all as the Sox. How exactly does one arrive at that determination? Ouija board? Magic eight ball? Please.

Yeah, it must be wrong if it shows the Red Sox behind the A's...

Standings
A's: 92-61
Sox: 88-63
M's: 87-65

Pythag Standings
M's: 92-60
A's: 92-61
Sox: 89-62

So the A's have a better record and a better Pythag record than the Sox, which means they should be more likely to win if they reach the postseason. Meanwhile, the Sox are just 1 1/2 games ahead of Seattle for the Wild Card. The Mariners have a better Pythag than the Sox, so passing them would not be a big surprise. Additionally, the A's have a chance at the division and the Wild card, whereas the Sox only have a chance at the Wild Card. The %s seem about right to me.

Fanhome's Dackle: World Series Odds (September 18, 2003)

Posted 3:37 p.m., September 19, 2003 (#23) - Danny
  Lame Attempt:

SFG
1-2 vs MIN (10 RS, 14 RA)
3-3 vs OAK (30 RS, 27 RA)
2-1 vs CHW (21 RS, 13 RA)
TotaL: 6-6 (61 RS, 54 RA)

ATL
2-1 vs OAK (18 RS, 12 RA)
1-2 vs SEA (5 RS, 5 RA)
Total: 3-3 (23 RS, 17 RA)

Interleague Play
SFG: 10-8
ATL: 10-5

OAK: 9-9
NYY: 13-5
BOS: 11-7
SEA: 10-8

Yes, Tango, I realize this does not even slightly resemble the study you requested.

Cities with best players (October 23, 2003)

Posted 12:57 p.m., October 27, 2003 (#37) - Danny
  Count me among those who think Steve Young is one of the 3 greatest quarterbacks ever. In terms of baseball:
Young:Grove::Marino:Spahn

David Pinto and fielding (November 10, 2003)

Posted 12:43 p.m., November 14, 2003 (#13) - Danny
  Pinto's system rates the A's 3B as below average. Chaves played all but 100 innings of 3B for the A's. UZR rates Chavez as 37 runs above average for 2000-20002.

What is the reason for the discrepancy?

Is it a matter of park adjustments? Did Chavez decline?

UZR, 2000-2003 (December 21, 2003)

Posted 12:20 p.m., December 22, 2003 (#3) - Danny
  Thanks, MGL.

The genius of Paul DePodesta (February 4, 2004)

Posted 11:09 p.m., February 5, 2004 (#18) - Danny
  I think it's possible that DePodesta really didn't know, at the time, that other people had used these methods. He then came up with his own run expectancy chart. His article and lecture were simply detailing his time in MLB, and his vision, so I don't see much of a problem with not citing previous work.

Wolverton - Wavin' Wendells - Outs on Base (March 12, 2004)

Posted 1:58 a.m., March 22, 2004 (#51) - Danny
  A perfect example of that is the OAK signing of Dye, who has turned out to be bust (and injured) of course. Hardly anyone ever discusses "at the time of the signing, what was Dye's short and long term projection (VORP or whatever)?"

Actually, I think the reason many people, including myself, think that was a bad signing is that Dye was signed the offseason after his terrible leg injury in the ALDS. Signing a player to a 3 year, $32M deal without having seen how he will recover from a serious leg injury seems like a mistake. Of course, no one could have predicted Dye being one of the worst players in MLB in 2003.

Anyone know what the 2003 Pecota projections were for those 4 pitchers?

Mantei: 47 IP, 47 K, 25 BB, 4.14 ERA
Oropesa: 42 IP, 32 K, 23 BB, 5.05 ERA
Villarreal: 80.7 IP, 58 K, 41 BB, 4.77 ERA
Valverde: No Projection

Was the Eric Chavez signing a good one? (March 22, 2004)

Posted 1:43 a.m., March 23, 2004 (#18) - Danny
  Chavez's Position Adjusted SLWTS

2001: 59 (4th in AL)
2002: 42 (T-6th)
2003: 43 (T-5th)

These were Chavez's age 23-25 seasons. Other than Pujols and A-Rod, what players project to be better than Chavez over the next 7 years? I can see an argument for Beltran, too.

Was the Eric Chavez signing a good one? (March 22, 2004)

Posted 7:29 a.m., March 23, 2004 (#22) - Danny
  Remember, the new deal doesn't start until 2005, so Chavez is signed for $71M over the next 7 years. Again, is there anyone that projects to be better than Chavez over that period, other than Pujols, A-Rod, and Beltran?