Individual Poster Page

See copyright notice at the bottom of this page.

List of All Posters

Validating the Favorite Toy (June 9, 2003)

Posted 1:28 p.m., June 9, 2003 (#1) - Rally Monkey
  "Summing every 250+ HR player's chance equals 24.42. In actuality, before 2003, 17 men had reached both 250 and 500."

Considering Griffey, Rodriguez, Gonzalez, Thome, and Ramirez are still active, the favorite toy seems to be almost right on.

Validating the Favorite Toy (June 9, 2003)

Posted 3:48 p.m., June 9, 2003 (#4) - Rally Monkey
  It won't work for ordinary players because they will slip below replacement level before they get old (unless Dusty Baker likes them). A great player normally will at least be good enough to play when he's old.

I see it as more of a remaining plate appearance estimator, if it says you have 3.6 years left and are currently getting 500 PA per year, then that's 1800 plate appearances. They may more likely come over 5-6 years than 3-4, as older players tend not to be on the field as much.

Sheehan: Pitcher Workloads (June 19, 2003)

Posted 9:36 a.m., June 20, 2003 (#16) - Rally Monkey
  "So there is no reason to think that a pitcher of the same quality will need to throw more pitches to complete a game today than they did 20 or 30 years ago."

In other words, a specific pitcher who allows 8 hits, 3 walks, and 7 strikeouts per 9 innings in 1920 (if there was one) should be expected to throw about as many pitches per inning as someone in 2003 who has the same numbers. Is that what you are saying?

Sheehan says it was easier to complete games back when. True, for an average pitcher who might strike out 3.3 per 9 innings. For Bob Feller, who one year walked 153 and struck out 348, he had to be throwing many more pitches than pitchers of today. The only example I have for him is a 1 hitter where he walked 6 and struck out 6. That game was 136 pitches. Since Feller had many games with 10+ k's and some with 10+ walks, and completed most of his games, he was bound to have some incredible pitch counts.

Sheehan: Pitcher Workloads (June 19, 2003)

Posted 4:56 p.m., June 20, 2003 (#20) - Rally Monkey
  "But a pitcher of the same quality would also be expected to have the same number of hits walks and strikeouts per 9 innings in both eras."

This has nothing to do with pitch counts, but I disagree here. Two pitchers of the same quality should be expected to have the same k's, walks, hits only if they pitch in the same circumstance. The differences in level of competition, size of hitters, hitters approaches, ballparks, fielding ability will affect all the pitchers numbers. How many homeruns would Ramon Ortiz give up in the dead ball era? I'm sure it wouldn't be 40. How many K's per inning would Randy Johnson have in the 1930's, when hitters used heavier bats and many were more concerned about making contact than hitting for power? Probably less than he has now.

Sheehan: Pitcher Workloads (June 19, 2003)

Posted 7:51 p.m., June 20, 2003 (#22) - Rally Monkey
  I agree with what you say about Randy and Walter. We have no way of knowing how successful these guys would be in different eras. Only Dr. Emmett Brown has the means of findng out.

But assuming that pitchers with similar numbers in different eras are of similar ability, are you talking about absolute or relative numbers?

I would assume a pitcher with a 4.00 ERA in 1996 would be a much better pitcher than one in 1968. A pitcher who strikes out 6 per 9 innings would be a fireballer in 1920, but run of the mill in 2003.

If you are talking about ERA+, then its a reasonable assumption that 2 pitchers with a 120 ERA+ in different times are of similar ability, although it may not be right.

Koufax Pitch Counts (June 19, 2003)

Posted 1:20 p.m., June 19, 2003 (#1) - Rally Monkey
  Are the game by game pitch counts for Koufax available on the Retrosheet site?

Actual Pitch Log for Koufax, game-by-game (June 20, 2003)

Posted 11:03 a.m., June 20, 2003 (#1) - Rally Monkey
  Thanks, Tango!

Actual Pitch Log for Koufax, game-by-game (June 20, 2003)

Posted 12:36 p.m., June 20, 2003 (#2) - Rally Monkey
  He also had quite a few starts with very low pitch totals, many under 30. I wonder if he was hurt in some of those starts, just got hammered, or possibly just fell behind a few runs and was pinch hit for.

Today, if your pitcher was losing 3-0 in the second inning but not hurt or struggling, you leave him in there and hope he can keep you in the game. In the past, I think managers would have been more likely to use a pinch hitter.

Reliever Usage Pattern, 1999-2002 (June 24, 2003)

Posted 2:28 p.m., June 24, 2003 (#1) - Rally Monkey
  The pitchers with the top leverage index are the ones used as traditional closers. I was a little surprised Dotel wasn't higher, as he seems to get all the high leverage, non save opportunities.

Why does even Percival get 23% of his time in low leverage situations? There are times when you just need to get a guy some work. It would be nice to see him used more, like Sutter was, but in Percival's case he just might not be able to handle it.

Reliever Usage Pattern, 1999-2002 (June 24, 2003)

Posted 3:38 p.m., June 24, 2003 (#3) - Rally Monkey
  Was Sutter in the 15-20% range?

SABR 301- Win Probability Added (June 26, 2003)

Posted 11:06 a.m., July 1, 2003 (#3) - Rally Monkey
  "Wouldn't it make more sense, when trying to assign absolute wins, to compare every player to the worst possible players (100% SO for hitters). Only a team of perfectly bad hitters could manage to lose every single game."

For Win Shares, James is not comparing batters to a replacement level, and also not to players who strike out 100%. He's somewhere in between, assuming that a team that scores 50% of average and gives up 150% of average will be just bad enough to lose all the time.

When you talk about perfectly bad hitters, then we have to get into negative win shares. Lets say you add Bonds to this team. He gets walked every time, and should get credit for this. After he's walked, the next 3 guys strike out and Bonds is stranded. The team still scores zero runs, so the whiffers have to have negative win shares to offset Bonds' positive performance.

"What if, to measure Bonds' absolute wins, one computed the expected wins with him in the lineup (actual, pythagorean, whatever), and then subsituting in a .000 OPS guy in his spot. That would give his absolute wins, no? "

That would give you the total of his wins and the negative wins a .000 hitter would have.

At the other end, it really doesn't matter if the hitter gets all walks, all homers, etc. Its still perfect. This team would never win a game, though, because the game (or inning) would never end. Somebody had to point this out to the Red Sox last Friday.

Bonderman and Age 20 (June 26, 2003)

Posted 1:21 p.m., June 27, 2003 (#4) - Rally Monkey
  As far as increasing the sample size, I would look at pitchers in the age range of 18-21 instead of just 20 year olds.

UZR inter-positional linear correlations (July 6, 2003)

Posted 8:32 a.m., July 7, 2003 (#4) - Rally Monkey (homepage)
  Here's some data for outfielders who switched teams. Not a big sample, but there isn't a lot of correlation between year 1 and year 2.

What value firemen? (July 6, 2003)

Posted 12:28 p.m., July 7, 2003 (#6) - Rally Monkey
  "He is implying that the considerations of psychology and having well-defined roles are more important than he (we?) thought..."

It may be that pitchers in well defined roles will pitch better than those who have no idea when they are going to be called in. Some teams (like the Angels) just seem to come up with good relievers whenever they need them. It could be a lot of things, from talent evaluation, defensive support, and knowing how much to have them throw in the bullpen.

The whole idea of a closer coming in to pitch the 8th inning when its close, and letting a someone else pitch the 9th with a 3 run lead has been overdone. On average, the highest leverage situations happen in the 9th inning. If this wasn't the case Troy Percival would not have the highest leverage index in baseball. In some rare cases Percival might be better used in the 8th or earlier, but I don't think the benefit outweighs the benefits of having your players used to their roles.

If Percival is not being used optimally, in his case I don't think its a question of when but how much. Fingers threw 100+ innings every year. Gossage was usually around 80-100. Percival is more like 50-60. Scioscia doesn't use him in tie games. It hurt yesterday, as he went with Schoeneweis the Unhappy instead of Percival, who was warming up just in case the Angels took a lead in the top of the 9th.

Ruane - Cost of outs, and speed (July 9, 2003)

Posted 11:27 a.m., July 10, 2003 (#3) - Rally Monkey
  I seem to recall a study showing the chances of turning a ground ball into a DP depended about as much on the lead runner as the batter, If this is the case the extra out should be partially charged to both.

Exactly How Full of S is OPS? (August 6, 2003)

Posted 3:20 p.m., August 6, 2003 (#2) - Rally Monkey
  That's what's wrong with the Angels. Should have kept Palmeiro.

Advances in Sabermetrics (August 18, 2003)

Posted 10:09 a.m., August 19, 2003 (#6) - Rally Monkey (homepage)
  I'd put reliever's leverage index up there. Before, we understood that a stopper's innings might have greater impact, but just how much more?

I don't think there's anything new about regression to the mean or sample size. For example, in spring 1984, did anyone mention Butch Davis (see above link) along with Dawson and Murphy as one of the best outfielders in baseball? If not, then there was understanding of small sample size.

Advances in Sabermetrics (August 18, 2003)

Posted 3:14 p.m., August 19, 2003 (#13) - Rally Monkey
  I agree that the best guess would be less than .380. How much regression is correct? That's a tougher question to answer.

I'll guess .367 is the true ability for Johnny Walker and .344 for Little J. I don't know if the amount of regression I used is correct, but its what I use to come up with next year stats in my APBA league:

Full time players: 2/3 prior ability + 1/3 current season
150-400 PA: 4/5 prior + 1/5 current
50-150 PA: 9/10 prior + 1/10 current
under 50 PA: use prior stats.

In this case I sub the league average for prior ability, since its unknown.

Throw in an age adjustment, and this has come up with realistic player progressions since 1991.

Pitchers, MVP, Quality of opposing hitters (September 19, 2003)

Posted 8:55 a.m., September 30, 2003 (#10) - Rally Monkey
  I don't completely trust looking at opposing hitter's OPS to determine a pitchers level of competition because of platoon issues. For example, a lefty facing the Red Sox would look like he's getting a break by not having to face Trot Nixon and his 950? OPS, instead facing Gabe Kotter. If they left Nixon in, the pitcher would acctually be the one getting a break, since Trot can't hit lefties.

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 3:16 p.m., October 2, 2003 (#10) - Rally Monkey
  Robert, are you able to break down the Expos's park factor by games in Montreal and in Puerto Rico?

2003 Park Factors (October 1, 2003)

Posted 3:18 p.m., October 2, 2003 (#11) - Rally Monkey
  Are the Rockies still playing with soggy baseballs? That's the lowest park factor for them I've ever seen.

Player Game Percentages, World Series (October 8, 2003)

Posted 3:27 p.m., October 9, 2003 (#1) - Rally Monkey
  I'm shocked that Spiezio's G6 homer didn't make the top 10 plays of the series. Interesting link, though.

Pitcher's Hitting Performance When NOT Bunting (November 18, 2003)

Posted 10:20 a.m., November 25, 2003 (#7) - Rally Monkey
  So when is this book coming out? I'm looking forward to listening MGL take on Jim Rome.

Marcel, The Monkey, Forecasting System (December 1, 2003)

Posted 11:38 a.m., December 3, 2003 (#25) - Rally Monkey
  Would you give the same age adjustment to a player going from age 25 to 26 as you would for a player going 20 to 21? Is there any reason to think the younger players are making bigger gains from year to year?

Marcel, The Monkey, Forecasting System (December 1, 2003)

Posted 5:11 p.m., December 4, 2003 (#30) - Rally Monkey
  Marcel from friends is also the monkey actor who plays me on the Angel's scoreboard.

Sports-Wired.Com - Minor League Stats (December 11, 2003)

Posted 3:34 p.m., December 12, 2003 (#2) - Rally Monkey
  For complete stats, try Baseball America. You have to do look at each team individually though. USA Today has less detailed stats, but at least you can get a full league at a time.

Banner Years and Reverse Banner Years for a Player's BB rate (December 14, 2003)

Posted 10:46 a.m., December 15, 2003 (#7) - Rally Monkey
  Just curious, are you looking at total walk rate or removing intentional walks?

UZR 2003 Previews (December 18, 2003)

Posted 11:04 a.m., December 19, 2003 (#31) - Rally Monkey
  "Moving Erstad to 1b seems like the best way to remove all value he has as a baseball player."

I pretty much agree. The reason they are considering this, though, is because of his injuries which may prevent him from being able to play the OF anymore. If he's able to run I'm sure he'll be in CF.

True Talent Fielding Level, 1999-2003
Adjusted by Difficulty of Position, and
Extracted to All Positions (December 23, 2003)

Posted 3:41 p.m., January 12, 2004 (#12) - Rally Monkey
  I'm real skeptical. Its just a completely different skill set. My guess would be more like +7 for him at first.

Of course, the +32 by Erstad in center may be completely a thing of the past, and his injury won't allow him to play that way anymore. That's what Stoneman seems to think. I'd have to be a doctor to say if he's right or wrong about it.

True Talent Fielding Level, 1999-2003
Adjusted by Difficulty of Position, and
Extracted to All Positions (December 23, 2003)

Posted 3:17 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#40) - Rally Monkey
  Erstad played some 1B early in his career because they already had 3 good outfielders, including a gold glove CF (Edmonds). He was the one to move to first not because it was the best use of onfield talent, but because he volunteered. The others were already fulltime players, while Erstad was trying to establish himself.

A player trying to break into a lineup at the beginning of his career will be open to things that a guy who's already driven in 100 runs won't. When the question was asked of who will move to 1st, Erstad's response was "I'll do it. Anything to help the team" Jim Edmond's response was "Why can't Salmon do it?"

True Talent Fielding Level, 1999-2003
Adjusted by Difficulty of Position, and
Extracted to All Positions (December 23, 2003)

Posted 4:16 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#46) - Rally Monkey
  "In 1999 I guess they decided that getting Mo Vaughn off the field entirely was more important that playing Erstad in the outfield."

The decisions, like usual for the Angels, were not made by baseball men but by the fates. The plan was for Mo to play 1st, and the outfielders to rotate between OF and DH. Mo sprained his ankle in his first inning as an Angel while trying to catch a foul pop near the dugout, he was forced to DH for most of the year. Erstad played 1st when Mo couldn't, and OF the rest of the time. Salmon and Edmonds missed a lot of time as well, so an initial surplus of OF's quickly became a scramble for capable players.

"Assuming he's healthy, how long would you think Erstad needs to play SS to be better than Jeter? better than the average SS? Would he ever be an average SS?"

You guys do realize Erstad would be the first lefty throwing shorstop since, I don't know, a real long time ago?

True Talent Fielding Level, 1999-2003
Adjusted by Difficulty of Position, and
Extracted to All Positions (December 23, 2003)

Posted 4:33 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#50) - Rally Monkey
  10) handedness (1b>cf=rf=lf>c>3b=2b=ss)

Not entirely sure about this. Outfield should be neutral. Catcher should be less of a disadvantage than infield, although its been 20 years since the last left catcher.

Does UZR show a lefty 1st baseman having an advantage, as conventional wisdom would claim? This might be tough to answer. A righthanded 1B might play there only because he can't play anywhere else, while a Keith Hernandez type might have played 3rd if he was right handed. Damn selective sampling. Its everywhere.

True Talent Fielding Level, 1999-2003
Adjusted by Difficulty of Position, and
Extracted to All Positions (December 23, 2003)

Posted 7:07 p.m., January 13, 2004 (#55) - Rally Monkey
  Going by your ratings, which seem reasonable, Jeter would be best off in the outfield. More time to react to the ball, greater need for his above average speed. He'd do less damage at 3rd base, if only because fewer balls are hit there, but his poor first step makes him a bad match for that position.

The Base on Balls (December 24, 2003)

Posted 12:49 p.m., December 24, 2003 (#1) - Rally Monkey
  Great stuff. Tango, do you believe in past lives?

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 8:36 p.m., December 28, 2003 (#8) - Rally Monkey
  Jamie Brown pitched part of the year for Buffalo and finished with Pawtucket, making 13 starts in 31 total games. His record was 8-5, 2.95 ERA, 113 IP, 85 H, 22 BB, 65 K. He'll be 27 next year. In 2002 he pitched in AA Akron, 9-5, 2.78, 104-98-17-72.

John Sickels didn't mention him in his prospect book last year. His strikeout rates are a little low for my tastes.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 1:28 p.m., December 29, 2003 (#18) - Rally Monkey
  I've started an APBA simulation using projected 2004 stats for the AL. The Tigers look to be really bad again, with the biggest additions being Fernando Vina and Rondell White. The first try through a quick season the Tigers had about 60 wins. It seems pretty hard to put together a worse team while using professional talent and playing the best guys available to you. To do what the Tigers did last year takes bottom level talent AND some major bad luck.

I wonder though, how would the 2003 Tigers have done if they played at AAA? I know in Kevin Witt and Carlos Pena they have 1B/DH's who have recently put up .550-.600 SA's in AAA. Dmitri Young might put up Pujolian numbers if he faced AAA pitchers all the time.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 1:33 p.m., December 29, 2003 (#19) - Rally Monkey
  MGL, I see Inge on your Tiger minor league team at -11/500. He's got 840 big league at bats over the last 3 years. What's his projection based on big league stats?

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 4:19 p.m., December 29, 2003 (#22) - Rally Monkey
  Zips has Inge at a .645 OPS, which would be a career high by a mile. There really is no excuse for him. Detroit had Michael Rivera in 2002 and gave him about a month and a half before getting rid of him for the crime of hitting like Inge. The difference, though, is that Rivera has hit well in the minors, and might be a productive player if someone gives him 840 AB to adjust to the majors.

They could have kept Robert Fick behind the plate. His defense was bad but not bad enough to justify giving up 30-40 runs offensively at the position.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 4:22 p.m., December 29, 2003 (#24) - Rally Monkey
  From the AA/AAA adjustments-

It looks like, on average, a AAA player will lose 20% of his value relative to the league, while a AA player will lose 25%. Did you look at AA players going straight to the majors or start with AA players to AAA and then add the AAA adjustment?

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 11:08 p.m., December 29, 2003 (#29) - Rally Monkey
  "I know of no evidence that suggests that hitters have to get "used to" the major leagues."

I didn't mean to suggest that they did, although I don't dismiss it so easily. I have no idea if players need that, but in any case Rivera deserves a chance. He hit .310/.373/.502 in AAA last year while San Diego gave the majority of their playing time to Gary Bennett, who happens to be what Brandon Inge will be when he's 32.

Rivera may have defensive problems that I don't know about. He only threw out 18% of runners last year (3-16, small sample size). Big deal. Bennett only threw out 19%. Game calling? Until I've seen otherwise its too small to quantify. Passed balls? Rivera had quite a few in Detroit, but he was sometimes catching a knuckleballer, Sparks. Dude deserves a fair shot.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 10:33 p.m., December 30, 2003 (#45) - Rally Monkey
  I've got some alternative MLE factors in case anyone is interested. Using the major and minor league EQA data from the Prospectus site, I matched players who played in both AAA and the majors. If a player had 25 PA in the majors and 390 in AAA, I prorated his EQR to 25 plate appearances. Then took the totals and figured runs per 26 outs. The minor leaguers were at 5.77 runs per game in AAA, only 3.58 in the majors, which means they were only 62% as effective.

There's a problem with selective sampling, as AAA players recalled are likely to have played over their heads, while Major leaguers demoted were likely to have sucked. Therefore I regressed 33% to the league average for both groups.

The end result is these factors for runs per game for AAA:

Int .764
PCL .711

example: Bobby Crosby AAA 7.28 RPG, Maj 5.17 (no park factors)

I repeated the process for players moving from AA to AAA, and high A to AA, then combined the factors to get an MLE factor for each league.

AA leagues:
EL .610
SL .676
TL .610

ex Miguel Cabrera A 9.19 Majors: 6.22

High A:
Cal .453
Car .534
Fla .568

Just in case anyone wants to see what Casey Kotchman might do in a sim jumping straight from A. I've got him around 4.3 RPG. Its not Palmeiro, but its not far from Spiezio. Pretty good for a 20 year old.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 8:45 a.m., December 31, 2003 (#47) - Rally Monkey
  If I was doing a forecast for Crosby, I'd use the regression and his 2002 totals. I never got that far with him, Cabrera, or Kotchman.

You say there's no need to regress what the players did in the majors. I would agree if I was only looking at callups where players could not be sent down, but here I'm looking at all players who played in both AAA and the majors for 1 year. This includes people like Brandon Phillips, who was (to quote you) bad and unlucky in the majors. So I think there needs to be some regression on major league stats, although I haven't looked in detail to see how many callups vs sendowns there were. Not to mention those shuttle-situations, where a player gets called up and sent down many times over the year to really confuse the issue.

03 MLE's - MGL (December 28, 2003)

Posted 8:55 a.m., December 31, 2003 (#48) - Rally Monkey
  I remember the 82% from the Bill James MLE's. I question that figure for two reasons:

1) I never his study that led to this figure, and suspect that he didn't consider selective sampling issues.

2) It was 20 years ago. Even if those numbers were right at the time, why should we assume that nothing has changed? I think there are a lot fewer really good hitters trapped in the minors, partially due to James making people pay a bit more attention to minor league stats. While Graham Koonce is good, he's no Kenny Phelps.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 3:27 p.m., January 2, 2004 (#19) - Rally Monkey
  I'm impressed. You aren't leaving any stones unturned to search for the right coefficients, at least the ones that you can get to.

The reductions are higher than most systems use for MLE's, but its no shock to me, as you can tell from the stuff I posted in the last thread, I think other's have been too high.

On the new and improved rates (s/(pa-bb-k-hr), etc, how much does this give you in accuracy? Its a lot easier to work with ratios based on PA. Is the improved accuracy worth the more complex calculations?

These ratios should be looked at every couple of years, in my opinion. Is there any reason to assume that the difficulty of moving from AAA to the majors is constant? Its going to fluctuate every now and then, due to the relative quality of pitching at any time and also the ballparks used at each level.

Also, why stop at AA? I realize that few players go from A to the majors, so you'd have to look at players going from A to AA. There are problems in using this approach to get MLE's, as the players going from A to AA will not be the same as the ones going from AA to the majors. Our estimates wouldn't be as good, but better than nothing. Who's the better player, the 22 year old with a .925 OPS in A or the 22 year old with an .850 OPS in AA? If I was running a team, I at least want a system that can give me a reasonable guess, like Clay Davenport's minor league EQA ratings.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 11:01 p.m., January 2, 2004 (#31) - Rally Monkey
  Come on David, you know these posts never really "end". Just use the last line MGL posts.

After reading through all this, I'd do my study a bit different (regress minor league stats more, major league less) but in any case MGL and I got to about the same place, although I don't have a database full of components and am just looking at the final results.

I've got a 26.5& reduction for AAA and a 37% for AA. MGL, do you have data for the lower minors? If so I wonder how close I'm getting for high A (Cal, FSL, Car). Right now I'm at 47% while regressing the A sample 70% to the league average and not touching the AA sample.

I'll look at low A soon.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 11:35 p.m., January 2, 2004 (#32) - Rally Monkey
  MLE's for low A players lose 56%.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 1:13 p.m., January 3, 2004 (#36) - Rally Monkey
  That's surprising that players will attempt much more steals in AAA than they will at AA. I wonder what would cause that?

Perhaps the best catching prospects tend to stay in AA for a full year, but move quickly through AAA to the majors. AAA becomes the place for catchers who have major league bats but not the defensive skills, the Adam Melhuses and the Mike Riveras of the world. Major league teams seem to put more emphasis on defense over offense at catcher, perhaps more than is optimal.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 8:29 p.m., January 3, 2004 (#41) - Rally Monkey
  I'm using equivalent runs, for my samples, pretty much the same thing as runs created. I'm then looking at equivalent runs per out to get my rates, instead of per plate appearance. To me its a bit easier to work with because being a below average hitter will reduce the total of plate appearances, but I think essentially we are on the same scale here.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 2:49 a.m., January 4, 2004 (#47) - Rally Monkey (homepage)
  The guy who does the above site has strength of schedule and park ratings for college players. If I was running a team I'd want to rank the college hitters this way, although sample size and aluminum bats still make things less than reliable.

When it comes to ranking high school players, good luck. I can't see any way to come up with a strength of schedule adjustment that could tell me what the level of competition in Anchorage, Alaska is compared to Great Falls, Montana. Then your sample size is down to what, 25-30 games per year? The only way I can see using stats for high schoolers is this: If his stats don't blow you away, go look at someone else. There must be 5000 kids (wild guess) every year who hit .400 in high school.

Finding good high school players is best left to the scouts.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 7:42 p.m., January 4, 2004 (#53) - Rally Monkey
  We know that the average runs per game for the majors and AAA were about the same. We also know that AAA hitters are not as good as major league hitters. Yet they produce unadjusted numbers that are about the same as major league numbers. This means:

1) The pitching is inferior in AAA
2) The ballparks are easier to hit in at AAA
or
3) Some combination of the two.

Unless #2 is false, and the parks are equivalent, then the pitching MLE factors will not be the same as the hitting ones.

Bring up defense and it gets harrier, but that's no big deal if you are primarily concerned with K's, BB's, and homers.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 10:14 p.m., January 4, 2004 (#56) - Rally Monkey
  "Are you saying that if the parks are the same, then the hitting and pitching MLE's WILL be the same?"

Yes. Oh, and what AED said.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 3:46 p.m., January 5, 2004 (#60) - Rally Monkey
  I'm just saying that the effects of ballparks on the AAA and major league game is an unknown, so I'd want to recalculate the MLE factors for pitchers. If the pitcher and hitter factors are different, then we'd have a clue about what the ballparks are doing to the game.

SABR 201 - Issues with MLEs - Why I hate them (December 31, 2003)

Posted 6:36 p.m., January 5, 2004 (#64) - Rally Monkey
  Lyle Overbay MLE .285/.355/.441/.796
2003 .276/.365/.402/.767

Lets not forget this guy. There are many players who don't live up to their MLE's, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions from a sample of 3 who overachieved.

Where have you gone Tom Boswell? (January 7, 2004)

Posted 11:12 p.m., January 7, 2004 (#6) - Rally Monkey (homepage)
  I seem to recall somebody looking at this about the time the Royals traded for Roberto Hernandez, with the theory being that tough losses demoralize a team. I think it was a baseball prospectus study. I can't remember what the conclusion was.

Boswell's article is in the homepage link.

MLB Timeline - Best players by position (January 14, 2004)

Posted 4:11 p.m., January 14, 2004 (#5) - Rally Monkey
  Its about time Salmon got his due. I like the presentation, but one problem: Albert Pujols as third baseman.

Games played at 3rd:
2001: 55
2002: 41
2003: 0

He's more like the second best LF in baseball. Rolen, perhaps?

MGL's MLEs (January 22, 2004)

Posted 9:55 a.m., January 28, 2004 (#8) - Rally Monkey
  The Yankees might not like his glove, 22 errors in 86 games at 3rd. Other than that, I don't understand why his name isn't being mentioned in NY.

Clutch Hitters (January 27, 2004)

Posted 9:52 a.m., January 28, 2004 (#6) - Rally Monkey
  Garret Anderson, not a clutch hitter?

You learn something new every day.

The genius of Paul DePodesta (February 4, 2004)

Posted 3:45 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#25) - Rally Monkey
  Scouting and other info could be used to create player templates for regression.

Say Prince Fielder, he'd be regressed against big fat slow guys with lightning quick bats.

When I was doing my MLE's and adding in a regression to the mean feature, I asked myself why in the world anyone would regress Prince's stats the same way you would for a 150 lb no hit SS like Ozzie Smith Chavez.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 2:13 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#9) - Rally Monkey
  Take PSA and divide by 2, and you get a better measure of effective FG%.

I'll guess Kevin Garnett will rank at the top of MVP candidates this year.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 7:51 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#26) - Rally Monkey
  Patriot, I'm pretty sure the 5/10 QB is more valuable. If he's getting 10 yards every other attempt, he's getting first downs and holding onto the ball. The other QB has one big play, but in the meantime he's forcing his team to punt a few times and giving the opponent chances to score.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 10:43 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#29) - Rally Monkey
  The reason the 5/10 QB is more valuable is because pass attempts are not the context here. They are more analogous to at bats in baseball than outs. The 5/10 QB will be able to continue his drive, and make more pass (or run) plays than the other guy will, compared to his opponents scoring attempts.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 10:49 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#30) - Rally Monkey (homepage)
  I posted NBA win shares about 2 years ago on this site. I apologize for dropping the ball on the project, I've lost a lot of my interest in pro basketball in recent years. Anyway, today I finally felt motivated to get the page back up. The above link has an explanation of the system, I've made one change, subtracting 0.35 for each foul committed.

Tango, you have my blessing if you want to move this page into your library for better safekeeping.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 10:52 p.m., February 9, 2004 (#32) - Rally Monkey (homepage)
  And here are win shares for the current season, through games of last saturday.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 10:21 a.m., February 10, 2004 (#35) - Rally Monkey
  I agree with you Craig. From my observation, getting a guy like Larry Brown on the sideline has as much impact on defense as a huge shotblocking center.

Its in no way perfect, but I think my win shares does a decent job rewarding defenders. Only 5 players have more WS this year than Ben Wallace, and he doesn't score at all.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 10:53 a.m., February 10, 2004 (#37) - Rally Monkey
  Kevin,

Check out career win shares. I've got Russell ahead of Gervin, Pettit, and Baylor. Slightly behind Robertson, well behind Chamberlain. Russell would rank better if we had block and steal data for him, maybe around 16 per 82 games.

I can understand if you want to argue he was better than Wilt. (The never ending debate for basketball historians), but even with the data limitations, Russell looks pretty good by the numbers. I've done some preliminary work on playoff win shares, and Russell looks even better there, while most players drop off in playoff games.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 1:21 p.m., February 10, 2004 (#46) - Rally Monkey
  I never claimed to take these lists too seriously. I recognize the data limitations, I've already posted that Russell should be closer to 16 wins per 82 if he had his blocks and steal recorded, like the other centers (excluding Wilt) on this list.

Are you trying to tell me that you honestly think David Robinson is one of the 5 best players of all time?

I never tried to, you're the one who resorted the list.

To address the question of which one was better I'd need to do more work here. First of all, include Robinson's final season. The career list is only updated to 2002. I'd need to acknowledge that Olajuwon played longer past his prime, bringing his per game average down. I'd look at some measure of peak performance, maybe best 3 consecutive years. And of course playoff performance. Off the top of my head, Robinson lost more in the playoffs than most other star players. I'm not sure which of the two was actually better.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 7:15 p.m., February 10, 2004 (#49) - Rally Monkey
  RallyMonkey, hwo do you know how much Russells' WS should be adjusted if you don't have the blocks and steals data?

Dave Heeren in the 90-91 Basketball Abstract estimates Russell would have added 3 points to his tendex, Chamberlain 2. So I took his estimates and plugged it into the win share formula. I was going by memory before. I rechecked it and get 2-3 WS for Russell, 1-2 for Wilt.

Sure, there are plenty of limitations in basketball stats. Its annoying that, more than a decade after the first 'sabrmetric' basketball books, I still don't know who draws the most offensive fouls. But there's enough here that you can understand the players better by using stats than ignoring them. Especially if you understand where the greatest weaknesses are (defensive specialists).

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 9:06 a.m., February 11, 2004 (#56) - Rally Monkey
  Heeren's number is an estimate, who knows if its right but its better than assuming Russell didn't block any shots at all.

For Dennis Johnson, I saw him play the last few years of his career, and at that time I think he was no better than average. He didn't have the speed to keep up with quick PG's (especially Isiah) and if the Celtics played a team I was rooting for, I was happy any time Dennis took a 20 footer. It sure beat watching Bird, McHale, and Parish score their automatic points.

Still, Johnson was a great player early in his career. Win shares (I've updated the career page to 2002-03 and any technical changes) puts him at 6.6 per 82, over a 1000 game career. 5 is an average player who plays every minute of every game, by definition. That puts his career total in the top 100 all time. I don't think anyone but an extreme Celtic fan would put him in the top 50.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 1:53 p.m., February 11, 2004 (#64) - Rally Monkey
  What that means is there is no similar player to Bill Russell. I thought Pervis Ellison was, but not since 1986 at Louisville.

Craig, nice article on Gleeman's site. Its very similar to win shares, even though you are subtracting a replacement level and I subtract a 0 win level (as James did for his WS). In Basketball there's not much difference, 0.733 to 0.600, which seems intuitively correct since a replacement level team will win only 9-12 games in a season.

Aaron's Baseball Blog - Basketball (February 9, 2004)

Posted 7:21 p.m., February 12, 2004 (#68) - Rally Monkey
  My guess is some teams have access to superior stats. I think there was an article a while back about the Dallas Mavericks paying for stat service, probably to help them evaluate defense.

For the public, we don't know a thing we didn't know since the mid 70's. Turnovers forced would be a huge improvement on steals. Fouls drawn is a good suggestion. Shots altered, defensive breakdowns (how often do you force your man to take an off balance shot, vs drive for a layup), block shots recovered vs blocked shots out of bounds. All of this would help quite a bit.

Not all high scoring/low shooting % players are selfish, however. If that was the case the Sixers wouldn't miss Iverson when he's hurt. There is value in a player who can get his shot off without help, especially when the rest of the team is made up of extremely limited offensive players. There are high scorers who actually suck, but its better to identify them on a case by case basis, instead of focusing on low shooting percentages.

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

Posted 2:31 p.m., March 16, 2004 (#15) - Rally Monkey
  There are NO similar fielders to Vlad. That's what YOU fans say.

Interesting. If I had to pick the most similar, it would be his new OF teammate, Guillen. Decent speed, a few too many e's, great arm. I only rated the Angels from last year, though.

On the markov chain batting order, there is one that comes with the software for APBA baseball.

Optimizing a lineup is ususally not worth that much either. Occasionally it makes a big difference, but usually one reasonable linuep is within a couple of runs of another.

MGL, last summer you were arguing pretty strongly for optimizing lineups. What's changed?

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

Posted 5:15 p.m., March 18, 2004 (#26) - Rally Monkey
  Why is it better to have your best hitter in the cleanup spot as opposed to #3?

The number 3 hitter is least likely to lead off an inning. The ideal #3 hitter has a high slugging percentage but not one of your best OBP. I read this in one of the old baseball abstracts. Bill tried to optimize the lineup by getting a high OBP leading off innings 1 and 2. After 2 innings, its pretty hard to predict who leads off an inning. If your #3 leads off the second inning, then you probably don't have to worry about scoring runs.

Garret Anderson would be a good #3. Too bad the Angels plan on batting Vlad #3 and Garret #4. I wonder how many runs this will cost.

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

Posted 7:00 p.m., March 18, 2004 (#30) - Rally Monkey
  According to the APBA program, switching Vlad and GA is worth about .01 RPG. Switching Erstad to #9 and Kennedy to #2 is worth another .01

The optimal lineup shocked me. It adds .06 RPG, or 10 per year. Here it is along with my projected OBP for each player:

Glaus .381
Vlad .421
Salmon .360
GA .332
Kennedy .342
Guillen .328
Erstad .325
Molina .296
Eckstein .353

Makes me nostalgic for the days Brian Downing led off.

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

Posted 11:46 a.m., March 19, 2004 (#38) - Rally Monkey
  The lineup posted in #30 is .06 rpg better than the lineup they will probably use:

Eckstein
Erstad
Vlad
Anderson
Glaus
Salmon
Guillen
Molina
Eckstein

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

Posted 3:47 p.m., March 22, 2004 (#4) - Rally Monkey
  I think if you select just about any group of players based on top of the line accomplishments through age 25, and then look at the shape of their career you won't see a normal aging pattern with a peak at 27. The selective sampling will assure an early peak.

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

Posted 4:17 p.m., March 22, 2004 (#6) - Rally Monkey
  Rally Monkey, that's true but it also applies to Chavez. That fact that he's been so good thus far makes him more likely to be among those that peak early.

I agree. My point is the results of the comparison are what should have been expected.

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

Posted 10:54 a.m., March 23, 2004 (#24) - Rally Monkey
  Bonds playing at/near this level until he's 46? Hard to believe, even for him.

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

Posted 12:06 a.m., March 24, 2004 (#29) - Rally Monkey
  I checked the super lwts for Bonds' baserunning. He's at -3 the last 2 years, but +2 for his sb/cs. He's not costing the team much yet.

Where would he DH? Anaheim, maybe? I can't wait.

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

Posted 9:41 a.m., March 24, 2004 (#31) - Rally Monkey
  I'll go out on a limb here and predict Bonds' 2004 SB/CS runs: zero

Bonds said last year that after he got SB #500, he was done running, and he was true to his word. I think all of his SB last year came in April or May.

Sophomore Slumps? (March 23, 2004)

Posted 1:11 p.m., March 23, 2004 (#3) - Rally Monkey
  No mention of regression to the mean?

He didn't mention it by name, but I think he dealt with the concept.