Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
The New York Post says that Carl Pavano will accept an assingment to the minors, and that Dan Haren is on the Yankees' radar. In the News, Anthony McCarron, has the latest on Godzilla Matsui. Oh, and Steve Lombardi has the scoop on the latest Yankee gear.
By the way, it was no surprise that Marvin Miller was not elected to the Hall of Fame last week. But it was pathetic. And it's been nice to read all of the support Miller has received ever since the snub was announced.
I wouldn't trade Hughes or Kennedy for Haren. I'm willing to give up a premium package for Santana, a genuine blue-chip stud. But Haren's a good pitcher who's had one great year, and I wouldn't trade any of the prize prospects for him.
The same goes for the money as for the player package. Haren may be "cost-controlled," but not nearly as much as Hughes or Kennedy.
If you're going to overpay, overpay for the very best.
That's not a "release plan," it's a "contract." They don't have any freaking choice but to pay him.
Meanwhile, the Yankees DFA'd Bronson Kiheimahanaomauiakeo Sardinha. Not much of a ballplayer. Hall of Fame name.
When adjusting, Babe's OPS+ is WAY higher then Bonds, because the league average was much lower in 1925. Relative to his peers, Babe was WAY better. But if his peers were crappier pitchers and fielders then in 2000 (and all White to boot), Babe's OPS of 1.000 was much easier to get then Bonds' OPS of 1.000 (assuming that Bonds faced better pitching and fielding).
Of course, this doesn't account for ballparks and other factors, but still.... IMHO, comparing leagues in different eras can be misleading because it 'assumes' that the players of each era are equally talented.
I can not find where EQA has any adjustments relative to league or park, but is adjusted by team wins! Team WINS! So if Tony Womack plays on the Yanks, and they have a team .600 WPCT, Tony's EQA is increased by 8.5%. Does this make sense?
Conversely, if Miggy Cabrera's team has a .400 WPCT, his EQA is DECREASED by 8%
So Tony(EQA)= .240, adjusted = .260
Cabrera(EQA)= .350, adjusted = .323
Difference....... .110 .............. = .063
Is this a VALID adjustment what-so-ever????
While I do respect these sabermetric stats, there does appear to be many problems, ESPECIALLY if different stats are taken from MLB vs BR vs BP (or anyone else that has their hands in the stats soup).
MLB REALLY needs to standardize the sabermetric stats, so we at least have a single system where the stats are relative to themselves.
And PARK FACTOR is all screwed up.
Unless there are PHYSICAL changes to a park, shouldn't the PF be static? Why should batting in the Stadium be different in 2006 then in 2000?
IMHO, Park Factor be calculated on some formula involving 1) amount of foul territory, 2) depth of outfield walls, 3) Vision factors (domes, sun, etc) 4) AstroTurf
5)?? (can you think of anything else?)
In 1940, the Stadium had a 96 PF.
In 1945, the Stadium had a 105 PF.
Make any sense to you?
Not be me. Due to the random nature of baseball, more runs just happened to be scored in 1945.
That's a 9% difference. That's a LOT of difference when calculating + stats (or ANY stat that uses PF)
In 1949, the PF was 100. In 2001, the PF was 100.
Make sense? Do you know how much bigger ther park was in 1949?
Anyone think there may have been fewer HRs and more doubles turned into flyouts in 1949?
To me, PF is totally BOGUS in the way it is calcualted. A park has a certain geometry that either hurts or helps (or is 'neutral') hitters. That 'factor' should NOT change unless the geometry is changed.
Of course, my issues are ONLY with Stats that are 'adjusted'. But these are just the Stats we rely on more... aren't they?
PF is based on the runs scored by the home and visiting team that season, so it is a historical stat, not a static metric. Thus, one has to look at PF over the long term, to see how a stadium plays relative to the league in general.
It's like a HR hitter, if a guy slugs 50, 50, 50, 50, 35, and 50 HRs, the HR stat is not screwed up just because one year doesn't seem to "fit." So too, in most seasons Yankee Stadium has played as a pitchers park, but not every season.
As for OPS+, it can only measure performance relative to the league in an empirical manner. Until some type of "White Only" factor can be determined with a high degree of accuracy, it simply will be up to us to debate subjectively whether or not Babe's excellence relative to his crappy all white peers should be discounted more or less than Bonds chemically enhanced performance relative to his athletically superior and racially diverse peers.
Obviously if Lou Gehrig 1932 were transplanted via time warp in 2007, he probably would not be able to compete with even mediocre players. But so what? No one serious assumes that players from different eras were equally good/talented/athletic; they only argue that players in different eras were as good or better (or worse) against their own competition. Moreover, we might even suspect that the great players in any era, if they lived their whole life in the current context--with modern diet and exercise regiments, sports medicine, tougher competition, etc., they would be bigger and stronger, and better. In other words, Gehrig 2007, if he had been born in 1975 or so, would simply be a better than player that Lou Gehrig 1932. Similar, take Bonds 2005 and transport him into the 1930s, take away modern workouts, sports medicine, and, er, enhancements, and he would be a lesser athlete. He probably would still have enough native talent to dominate his competition, but would not be able to compete his 2007 version.
You seem to have a fascination with proving that Bonds is a great player, in fact one of the greatest (if not the greatest) of all time. Does anyone actually dispute this?
There may be any number of reasons a park factor may change over time. One huge factor might be the work of the grounds crew, which we can't measure directly at all. Or perhaps the winds change slightly because someone put up a building across the street, or LaGuardia changed its air traffic patterns. Differences in the overall offensive environment of the game might play better in one park than another.
Instead of trying to figure out what the park effect should be given the physical characteristics, it makes much more sense just to measure what the park effect is.
5 and 7 OK... agreed. Here is what I've found and some conclusions.
PF in OPS+ is basically used to try and neutralize stats between players in the AL or NL ONLY. I confess this is somewhat esoteric, as there is not usually more then a 1 or 2% difference in Average League PF between the 2 leagues. Keep in mind, in computing Team OBP and Team SLG, NL Pitchers numbers are NOT considered.
Since PF is basic a product of runs scored and runs allowed, home and away, if we IGNOR Interleague games, the AVERAGE PF of the ENTIRE NL or the ENTIRE AL should be 1.0000. Correct? While individual stadium PF will vary, NOT counting Interleague, PF does NOT effect a League Average, as it will always be 1.
So... it's only relevance comes into play in InterLeague games only? And... I agree, while run scoring is somewhat random on a day to day basic, over the year and multiple teams and games, it the best method we have.
My question is: What other STATs take into account PF?
If this sort of thing can be done, why doesn't it happen more often to avoid losing a guy you need to stash in miL thru waivers?
9 Good questions--don't know the answer.
Please, Cashman, don't sign any mediocre middle relievers. The kids will be fine. And above all, don't sign someone like Mahay just because he happens to pitch with his left arm. A good righty > a mediocre lefty any day.
Pavano...if it's the end of his contract, he doesn't have to clear waivers. He's a free agent, and can sign with any team.
The Yankees are probably assuming that no one else wants to sign Pavano. Probably a good assumption. He had TJ surgery. Realistically, it takes a pitcher 18 months to fully come back from TJ surgery. With Pavano, it could be longer. If he ever comes back.
Pavano is probably thinking the same thing. The Post article said that he needs some place to rehab his arm. Signing a minor league contract would give him that.
Is Jeremy Affeldt any better? Lots of walks. Is there any FA RPs worth getting?
Pavano's not at the end of his contract; it's got one more year. But they released him, which doesn't require any waivers. What it means is that he's a free agent, but the Yankees still have to pay him. He could sign with another team for minimum salary, and the Yankees would have to pay him the rest.
Karstens (the long man)
Kennedy/Mussina (loser of SP audition in ST)
Is that really such a terrible bullpen? Chances are, at least one or two of the kids will stick, and the others can be replaced by Alan Horne or Humberto Sanchez mid-season.
I really hate the Hawkins signing.
I think Horne is slated at a SP next year (Moose gone, maybe Pettitte gone). They might not want him in the BP. Sanchez MIGHT be ready, depending on how he heals from his TJS. Edwar needs another pitch. He's either good or gets creamed. And you forgot Veras?
Hopefully, he'll turn out better than the last Hawkins the Yankees signed--Andy.
He ended up having season-ending shoulder surgery. Which may explain why he never hit that well, for the Yankees or the Braves.
As far as MLB standardizing the "SABR stats" MLB didn't develop them, so why should they standardize their definitions. I'm not aware of any department within MLB that is responsible for standardizing statistical definitions, and if there were one, they'd probably screw everything up.
But who's next? The Yanks still have to add A-Rod and Mo to the roster.
As for OPS+, I don't share your skepticism (beyond the park adjustment component). With era and league adjustments, all you are trying to do is compare a player to his peers. So, while Babe Ruth's generation might not have had as many athletes, it's also true that the players didn't have the same amenities to maximize their talent (e.g., weight training, not having to have off season jobs, charter air travel, etc.). Also, while the Babe faced a limited talent pool, it's also true that there was less competition from other sports as well as fewer jobs available. Because the number of variables in each era is so large, I think it's much better to compare players in different eras based on how they performed relative to their peers.
There's no proof yet that Dorf, Edwar, etc. are ready for the major leagues. The best relief arms (Melancon, Cox, Sanchez) might not even pitch this year. Signing Hawkins is just covering your ass.
Any longer than 1 year and it'd be bad. But it's not.
4.11 ERA, 66 IP, 67 H, 6 HR, 19 BB, 40 K.
That's pretty sweet for way below market value.
League average last year was a 4.47 ERA.
If it was a long-term deal, I'd agree that Hawkins should be passed over, but I think he will be useful. I like him better than Viz anyway, but in a perfect world, the Yankees would shed Farns and go with Viz and Hawkins as the veteran component in a bullpen of young set-up men.
25 Matt Guerrier 72.040 A
26 C.J. Wilson 70.732 B
27 Luis Vizcaino 70.201 B
But the Yankees have too many veteran players who are approaching their DH days. If they can get a good return on one of them, I can't get too upset.
I'm also not sure Matsui would agree to go anywhere. He's been equivocal in his public statements, but that might just be Japanese reticence. He's proved he can be tough when it comes down to business.
I'd move him in the right deal. But am I the only one that wouldn't settle for a relief pitcher not named Street?
"GreenBeret7 - go back to rooting for the sox. How dare you question Jeter. Jeter was playing on one knee for most of the season and playoffs last year.
Oh, you are so knowledgeable sitting in front of your computer, stuffing your face with poptarts, and typing with your pudgy fingers venom against the greatest player of our lifetime. Knock it off."
The OPS+ formula for a Players is:
OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP(adjusted) + SLG/lgSLG(adjusted) - 1)
Does this mean that Ortiz's OPS+ is adjusted by the exact same factors as ARod's (or for that matter, any Player in the AL)?
If Ortiz has a higher OPS because Fenway is generous, how does that (OPS+) formula equal one players OPS to anothers?
Am I missing something?
In the OPS+ formula above, if in the SAME Year, ARod and Ortiz have the same OBP and same SLG, don't they both have the same OPS+?
Year, INN, ERA+, WHIP
2002, 80, 210, .097
2003, 77, 243, 1.09
2004, 82, 167, 1.05
2005, 56, 113, 1.46
2006, 60, 102, 1.46
2007, 65, 140, 1.23
His age and creeping WHIP are worrisome, but overall his performance has ben pretty solid for a reliever. Maybe they squeeze one more year of 1.2 WHIP and 120 or 130 ERA+--that's not so bad.
(A) OBP: 50/100=.500 SLG: 30/80=.375 OPS=.875
(B) OBP: 50/100=.500 SLG= 50/100=.500 OPS=1.000
So player B looks MUCH better then Player A, but his actual 'production' is NOT that much better. So the SLG part of OPS 'penalizes' a player for getting BBs.
The formula for OPS might be better if it was: OBP + SLG + (0.3(BB/AB+BB))
So Player A would be:
OBP: 50/100=.500 SLG: 30/80=.375 (0.3(20/100))=.060 OPS=.935
Not as Good as (A) OPS=1.000, but better then 0.875
So Hafners OPS+ is 6% higher while Ortiz's PF is almost 16% higher. However, half of a players OPS (AWAY Games) should NOT be adjusted, only the Half at Home. So that 16% becomes %8%... so that seems pretty close.
(from the link you gave me)
Using the formula:
PRO+ = 100 * ( OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)/BPF
would make more sense as the players PF is directly in the equation... although Hafners OPS+ should be closer to 15% higher then Ortiz's. However, half of a players OPS (AWAY Games) should NOT be adjusted, only the Half at Home.
"Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park."
Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)
ahhhhhh... I'm not sure but I THINK what he is doing is NOT using a players ACTUAL OBP but:
1) Calculating his Runs Created
2) Multiplying RC by (players) PF
3) BACKcalculating H, BB, HBP, TB needed to create the Adjusted RC.
4) Using these backcalculated number to create and adjusted OBP.
That's what I missed. I didn't get that the OBP and SLG numbers is his formula were not Actual, but adusted.
HOWEVER, all these adjustment factors, which we are applying to OBP and SLG are either RUNS (traditional method) or Runs Created (hibred method).
Does this mean we ASSUME that RUNS (or Runs Created) is directly relational to OBP and SLG? (I think not)
In the formula: = 100 * (OBP(adj)/lgOBP + SLG(slg)/lgSLG - 1)
Rather then adjusting OBP and SLG then way he does, how about using
Player OBP/((Park OBP + LgAvgOBP)/2) / LgAvg OBP) and
Player SLG/((Park SLG + LgAvgSLG)/2) / LgAvg SLG)
I think between all minorities, as well as international players, the pool of possible players is many times greater then in Ruth's day. Look at how many great non-white players we have now. How about modern vs 30's scouting practices?
My guess is you are correct that raw talents like Gehrig, Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby, Wagner and the best players of the past could compete today. But what about the average and poorer players? There were the pitchers pitching against these great guys, and fielding against them.
With all with know about the science of pitching today, could pitchers of the 30's really be as good as todays pitchers? Look at the glove the 'all White' players used in the 30's. Do you really believe defense was as good back then?
They had no MRIs or other diagnostic equiptment. How many guys played injured? We will never know, but I can't believe the overall level of play in the 30's was as good as it is today.
I know that the color line made a big difference. I believe the NFL and NBA alone make up for that difference. Add about 150 other sports (skateboarding is a big money deal, as is beach volleyball, surfing, skiing (etc), Jai Alai, and so forth. Add to that the great number of kids who just aren't into sports at all (a much higher percentage than in the 1880-1940 era.)
I think another factor is little league-instead of a bunch of kids getting 20 or more ABs playing other kids, nowadays you don't even have any place to play unless your on a LL (or similar) team, and there's no way you're getting half that many ABs. (not to mention the fun having been sucked right out of it by idiot parents.)
It's not really fair to take Babe Ruth of 1920 and think about how he'd fair in the modern game. You have to assume that he'd have adapted to the modern times. Similarly, if we transport Bonds back in time (assuming he was allowed to play) we'd have to wonder how healthy he would have stayed without his space age workouts (enhanced or not), thin handle/light weight bats, video technology and comfortable cross country travel.
I'm quite fond of Hideki, despite the fact that he drives me to distraction with his dribblers to second, and yet I'm really not that keen on keeping him. If he stays, great. If he goes, so long and thanks for all the fish.
He's an awfully solid player, though, and certainly someone who could help the team in a reduced role, so he better not be given away.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.