A perfect example of something just made up

Sorry for the lack of post, loyal readers. I have been really busy at work lately, as have other prominent baseball bloggers. Just wanted to add this quick gem by Amy Nelson from ESPN.com's comparison of Carl Crawford and Jose Reyes, to determine who is the best base stealer in the game.

In stating her case for Crawford she states the following:

Crawford has the speed, the quickness and the instincts. He's also is in a league that doesn't emphasize the stolen base as much as the NL, which certainly helps put his totals below that of players like Reyes and Pierre

.
That is something you will hear broadcaster and other journalist comment on time to time; the big difference between AL style ball verses NL style ball. I tend to think this is way overblown. Granted, the difference may have been more pronounced several decades ago, but now with free agency players very often switch leagues. Also managers switch a lot and they would bring their styles of play with them right?

I haven't done a ton of research on this and apparently Amy Nelson hasn't either. I don't quite know what she means by the "emphasize the stolen base" but I would nearly guarantee that she didn't know the the average AL team in 2007 had 97 stolen bases with a 73% success rate. The average NL team stole 98 bases with a 74% success rate (an average AL team has had more stolen bases in a season than the average NL team in four of the last eight seasons). Just maybe Amy thought that 1 base and 1 % difference last season was enough of a factor to limit Crawford stolen base output. Or maybe this is how baseball myths get passed around ?


PS:I know the whole DH and pitcher thing is a obvious and very real difference. But what about the general hyperbole you will hear that the AL is the power hitting league and the NL is the base stealing league. This is something I have heard old retired ball players ramble on about during broadcast. While only twice in the last eight seasons has the average NL team out homered the average AL team (including 169 to 161 last season) the differences are often explained simply by the DH. You will hear some exaggerate as if the NL style is more pure and wholesome baseball while the AL is the lazy, wait for the three run homer league. Not exactly true. Little things like this annoy me way more than the average person probably ......

Curious Sox

The White Sox have reportedly signed Octavio Dotel to a 2 year, $11 million contract. Earlier in the off season the White Sox also signed Scott Linebrink to a 4 year, $19 million contract, and obtained Nick Swisher in a trade with the Oakland A's. The White Sox generally received good reviews for the Swisher trade, but these reliever signings are curious at best. It is this lack of consistency that makes me wonder if the White Sox have a serious plan for getting back into contention or if Kenny Williams and Ozzie are making player personnel decisions by playing a drunken game of Rock-Paper-Scissors (how else do you explain the Erstad signing last year?).

Let me explain. The White Sox were very bad last year. Gave up up 839 runs. Only scored 693 while finishing 24 games behind Cleveland. They only had a .318 OBP as a team and their best hitter,Thome, will be 38 years old next year. Yes a very bad year. The picture I am trying to paint is that the White Sox appear no where close to competing with the teams ahead of them in their division with out some major changes. As an organization the White Sox really have two choices. Either they need to do a major overhaul this off season to try to catch up to the teams ahead of them, or build for the future. A jump from 72 wins to 75 wins is sort of like kissing your sister don't you think? Since this seasons FA market was relatively weak it didn't appear the Sox would be able to bridge the gap in talent with their division rivals. This is where I agree with the Swisher trade. He is young, gets on base (100 walks, .381 OPB last year) and is cost controlled for the next few years. That move makes sense, for you can see Swisher being part of the solution a few years down the road due to his age and the fact that he addresses a major team weakness. This is where the reliever signings seem to make a little less sense.

I know the bullpen was awful last year, their relievers posted a collective 5.47 ERA. That's ugly. But both the new guys have some red flags. Linebrink's K rate has dropped from 8.89 in 2004 to 6.40 last season. And he is going to the big boy league. Signing him for 4 years is pretty silly. Dotel still seems to have his stuff (41 k's in 30.2 innings) but has only pitched 63.2 innings the last three seasons. I could see taking a chance on him for one year but two years is questionable to me. I actually think these guys will marginally improve the White Sox bullpen next season. But considering how bad the bullpen they had last year, it wouldn't take all that much to actually do that. Back to my broader point of, WHY? The White Sox have a lot of major flaws as a team and are probably a couple season's away from being back in contention unless they quickly bring in a handful of high impact players. These guys just ain't going to make a significant impact short term. And they won't have any impact long term due to age, injuries, or just poor performance. I think this is a classic example of a GM making a move just for the sake of making a move(Sort of like the Royal's signing Tomko yesterday).

I can understand why Kenny Williams and other GM's sometimes feel pressure to make moves like this. The White Sox have a lot of money, and the pen was really bad last year. To the fans, media, and sometimes even the owner, it wouldn't look very acceptable to sit on your hands and do nothing. It's clear something needed to be done and this way he can say he is trying to make the team better. It is a very difficult for the GM to sell the notion that doing nothing may be the best course of action, especially when he has a lot of cash to throw around, as the White Sox do. But it is also the GM's job to have a bit more perspective than the fans, media, and yes even the owner. Considering the current state of the White Sox roster, these two reliever deals are just pointless; not enough to help now or in the future. Maybe Kenny Williams likes to kiss his sister.

Nit-picking the AP

I was reading this article about Miguel Cabrera avoiding arbitration and signing a one year $11.3 million dollar contract, when this excerpt caught my eye.

Cabrera, one of the game's top sluggers, joins an imposing lineup that includes Magglio Ordonez, Gary Sheffield, Carlos Guillen, Ivan Rodriguez, Curtis Granderson and Placido Polanco. The Tigers also acquired shortstop Edgar Renteria, a five-time All-Star, in a trade with Atlanta this offseason.

Do you notice something WRONG about this statement, cause I sure do. The Tigers do have an impressive line up, no doubt. But when compiling the list of such hitters that do make the Tigers have such an impressive line up you just wouldn't mention a hitter who was one of the worst hitters in the league last year. He was the kind of bad where if you were to just pretend his OBP was his batting average, that batting average, would only be the 27th best in the league. That's pretty bad. Of course I hope you all know I am talking about Ivan Rodriguez. His inclusion in this list of impressive hitters is head scratching at best.

It is this kind of laziness by the AP and other professional writers that irks me. I mean, yes Pudge used to be a pretty darn good hitter, especially considering his position. But he hasn't even been above OPS+ 100 since 2004. It's not like his decline as a hitter happened over night. It's like the AP just said to themselves, "hey the guy is popular, a fan favorite, cool nick name, I even seem to remember him winning a MVP some time ago; he must be good !" It 's this kind of shoddiness that I simply think there is no excuse for. I know its easy to nit pick, but to any one who's been paying attention the last three years, that's a pretty big blunder.

Cherry picking.

I was just reading over Jason Stark's ESPN blog and I came across this passage that immediately struck me as kind of odd.

Incidentally, thanks to all the loyal readers who pointed out an error in the column in which I ran through my Hall of Fame ballot and made a stirring case for Tim Raines. I wrote that Raines and Barry Bonds were the only players in history with 500 stolen bases, 150 homers and an on-base percentage of .375 or better. I got close to 50 e-mails from readers pointing out that I left out Rickey Henderson and Joe Morgan. You're right. The reason I left them out was that I also left out the other qualifier -- a career batting average of .290 or better. Morgan hit .271 lifetime. Rickey batted .279. Another near-miss: Paul Molitor, who had a .369 OBP but made it in the three other categories.

Stark's initial premise is a classic example of stat cherry picking. Those sets of numbers are just so random it doesn't tell us much about if the player is good. Its a common trick you will see sports writers try to pull from time to time. When making a insightful comment about player X, they will pick what ever numbers they can in any category until they can make player X look unique. Then they can go on to cleverly declare that player x good because he meets this arbitrary set of criteria. There are actually a lot of really good reasons to vote for Tim Rains. I am glad to see Stark did indeed support Raines for the Hall and he did make other good points. I just think something like this is kind of pointless and adds little to the argument.

Random number of the day: Career OPS+ 207 ... How is this for cherry picking? I was just randomly surfing around baseball reference (I love that site) when I saw this. It just looked kind of funny to see a number as big as 207 next to OPS+. Pretty incredible that through out his career he doubled up his peers in OPS. His stat line is a fun one to look over sometime when you have a chance ... just amazing.

Busy Weekend

Posting might be a little slow this weekend. Due to this happening in my work life, management decided to give us a project for the weekend. So I am a little busy but I will try to have something interesting to say tomorrow. C-Dubb still waiting for a reply! Or did I convince you? ........

C-dubb thinks I am Clutch

Earlier in my Perceptions post, my good friend from high school, C-Dubb and I had the following exchange.

C-Dubb said...

Wouldnt you agree that the best teams make it to the playoffs? Wouldn't you also agree that most teams that make the playoffs have above average pitching? Wouldnt you also agree that there is more pressure to perform in the playoffs (i.e. you lose and you are done; you are in more of a national spotlight)? Doesn't it make sense then that postseason numbers may drop some from the regular season? Lets see a comparison between the average player's regular season vs postseason to see if Jeter truly is "clutch"!

Don Evans said...

C-dubb, Good to see you are reading my blog !!! haha I do agree with your points ( if you read my comment a couple above yours) that in the postseason the pitching is generally better so it is impressive that Jeter's batting line is basically the same as his regular season. I am not saying clutch performances don't exist. I will def give you that a player doing something great like pitching a shutout in a post season could be considered clutch, if you want to think of it in that terms. Where this discussion irks me is where you will often hear fans or the media give Jeter or others that mythical Clutch God label that he raises his game to another level when the chips are on the line. its just not true. There have been many studies, that you could easily look, up that show that consistently performing better in "clutch" situations is not a skill that a player is capable of repeating like other skills such as hitting for power, plate discipline, even running speed. Those things are skills. Performing well in clutch situations is not. Its mostly a product of what we seem to remember the easiest(big time performances stick out in our minds more,we place more significance to them) For ever post season serious where Jeter was a clutch beast, there are also series where he stunk up the joint. Same for all players. its a product of statistical fluctuation, not players having a magical ability to play better than there natural level of ability because the calender says October rather then May.

I would like to comment a little more on this topic because it is quite interesting. I would like to start off that I am open minded about this. I have no incentive to believe that the "clutch god" does or does not exist. I am sort of taking the luster off Jeter's clutchy shine, and even C-dubb knows how much I like the Yankees. We spoke on the phone after this exchange, and while he definitely understood my position I think he and I still had different views on the subject. And that's OK. Healthy debate and intelligent discussion only enhance the flow of good ideas about the subject, and that is good for both parties involved, no matter the outcome. I just want to know the truth when it comes to clutch. I would just like to say a few more things on the subject and give C-dubb and others a chance to offer their thoughts. This could be considered more of a discussion of psychology than baseball (keep in mind I know NOTHING about psychology). How's this for a theory C-dubb. I suspect from your playing days in high school, or even now, that it sure feels like some players are clutch and some are not. That some kids just got too nervous in big situations and were sure to choke. And I believe that. I think at most lower levels of sports, that the situation maybe can influence player performance. I have ZERO proof to this theory but it sounds logical to me. Maybe at lower levels of athletics some kids do thrive from the the spotlight of the big lights, while others wilt when the pressure is on. However we are talking about the elite of the elite. This is an excerpt from an article by Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus that you really, really, really need to read on the subject of the clutch player.

All major-league players have a demonstrated ability to perform under pressure. They've proven that by rising to the top of an enormous pyramid of players, tens of thousands of them, all trying to be one of the top 0.1% that gets to call themselves "major leaguers." Within this group of elite, who have proven themselves to be the best in the world at their jobs, there is no discernable change in their abilities when runners are on base, or when the game is tied in extra innings, or when candy and costumes and pumpkins decorate the local GigaMart. The guys who are good enough to be in the majors are all capable of succeeding and failing in these situations, and they're as likely to do one or the other in the clutch as they are at any other time. Over the course of a game, a month, a season or a career, there is virtually no evidence that any player or group of players possesses an ability to outperform his established level of ability in clutch situations, however defined.

I totally agree. The players that can't play to the best of their ability, no matter the situation, are weeded out of professional baseball well before you or I are paying $100 dollars a seat to watch them.The article also links to some statistical studies that are worth checking out too. Interesting stuff. I must say I am sold to the idea that there is no such thing as a clutch hitter. To me , when it passes the common sense test and the stats seem to back it up, thats pretty convincing. I really think the idea of clutch is more a product of the mind than a reality. Not trying to sound snobbish about that, but I just don't get the argument for the other side. C-Dubb brought up Josh Beckett as an example of clutchiness. He and his 1.73 ERA in 72.2 innings, including slaying down the mighty Yankees in 2003. Sounds like stuff of legend. Me? I think he is just a statistical outlier. I would be willing to bet his performance in next 72.2 innings in the playoffs even out closer to his career norms. That regress toward the mean kind of stuff. Sounds boring I know. Calling Josh Beckett a human outlier won't sell nearly as many papers as Josh Bechett the brash, gusty, bad ass World Series Hero

C-dubb and others, looking forward to your response.

PS: Please read that article too because Joe is much more elegant about the subject than I am. Its a quick, easy read, unlike my blog.

PPS: despite me proclaiming my position about clutch, I am open to new ideas.

Silva's laughing all the way to the bank ......

I just came across the Tiger's signing Nate Robertson to a three year $21.25 million dollar contract. Lets compare him to the Carlos Silva free agent signing from this off season and see how the deal looks.

Contract details

Robertson
Yr 2008/Salary $4.25 million/Age 30
Yr 2009/Salary $7 million/Age 31
Yr 2010/Salary $10 million. Age 32

Silva
I couldn't find a detailed breakdown of his yearly salaries, but his new deal will average $12 million over the next 4 years. He will be 32 years old when the contract expires.

Recent performance

Robertson
Yr 2005/IP 196.7/ERA+ 95/WHIP 1.358/WARP3 3.2
Yr 2006/IP 208.7/ERA+ 119/ WHIP 1.308/WARP3 5.7
Yr 2007/ IP 177.7/ERA+ 96/WHIP 1.475/WARP3 4.2

Silva
Yr 2005/IP 188.3/ERA+ 129/WHIP 1.173/WARP3 5.1
Yr 2006/IP 180.3/ERA+ 75/WHIP 1.542/WARP3 1.4
YR 2007/IP 202.0/ERA+ 103/WHIP 1.312/WARP3 5.7

Both guys have been fairly durable and seen quite a bit of fluctuation in their performances. Silva had a real stinker in 2006 but last season he was slightly but clearly was better than Robertson.

Going forward

2008 Robertson Projections
Bill James - IP 180/ERA 4.40
CHONE - IP 188/ERA 4.40
Marcel - IP 170/ERA 4.50
ZIPS - IP 186/ERA 4.45

2008 Silva Projections
Bill James - IP 199/ ERA 4.61
CHONE - IP 193/ ERA 4.48
Marcel - IP 177/ ERA 4.68
ZIPS - IP 190/ 4.83

Park Factor

I feel I must quickly mention park factor. I was thinking that Comerica Park would be a much friendly place for pitchers but when I looked at the park factor it slightly favored hitters with a factor of 1.051 last season. On the other hand the Metrodome was the 3rd friendliest pitchers park with a factor of .867(Silva's new home, Safeco Field, was still a pitchers park at .948 but not nearly as friendly). The Metrodome was slightly friendlier to pitchers 2006 as well, .963 to .980 respectively. However in 2005 Comerica helped pitchers more, .959 to 1.019 for the Metrodome. Not quite sure what to make of these numbers but I did learn that Comerica doesn't help pitchers nearly as much as I thought it did, at least according to these stats.

Final thoughts

I must admit I am a little dizzy from all these numbers. What does it all mean? Well I am not really sure. The last three years they have been fairly durable but inconsistent. Some of the best projections we have available for next year have them as pretty close as well. The Mariners simply paid too much for what I think Silva is going to give them. I think the Silva deal stinks. I know it is not particularly instructive to compare anything to the least common denominator, but you would have a very tough time arguing Silva is worth an average of 5 million more a year than Robertson. Sure, Robertson is no star, but he will give you innings and be around league average. Not a bad deal for the Tigers, for that's about as much as $7 million per year will get you these days ..........

This and That

I have always thought that players stood too close to a batter at the plate, while waiting in the general vicinity the on deck circle. This is a sad reason why it can be very dangerous. Just think how big a story it would be if it was a superstar player hurt in this manner. I don't think there needs to be any kind of new rule (or new found after the fact enforcement of the rule if it does exist) to prohibit on deck batters from creeping too close. Common sense should hopefully make sure something as awful as this doesn't happen again. [When I played baseball in high school, one of my friends was hitting in the batting cage and he fouled a ball up and off of his own face!! It left a pretty decent welt on his cheek. It was such an odd angle for a foul ball. Has anyone else ever heard or seen that happen?]

I have to admit the recent mini-debates on ESPN.com comparing certain players head to head has been pretty entertaining. (As usual the Neyer part was my favorite) Better than a lot of the fluff ESPN.com has on there. I know they weren't an extensive analysis by any means but the chats were engaging reading I thought. Even though I know it means nothing, the fan side of me was pretty glad to see Joba win out over Buchholz, if only for The Pride of the Yankees. I am looking forward to seeing both young men pitch this upcoming season. Even though the odds of this happening are just about zero, the chance that Hughes and Joba could be potential 1-2 punch, a la Maddux and Glavine or some duo like that, for the next ten years in the Bronx has me very excited. Certainly the best young pitchers the Yankees have had since I've been old enough to know any better. But if they don't pan out, at least they still have this guy.

I found this after being referred by Neyer. I particularly found the "All star baseball" graphs to be pretty interesting. Once I started blogging, I have made a point to seek out more "amateurs" sports writing and there is certainly a wealth of excellent reading out there. I almost wonder why any serious baseball fan would want to read the work of most of the "professional" writers other than to mock and ridicule them. (I know this isn't nice, and it's a disservice to the good writers, but in my opinion there is no excuse for some of the garbage the bad writers put out)

Perceptions

They are a powerful thing. Often times they trump reality. Here is a great example. I am from this town called Morristown, in upstate NY. Tiny little town. About 2,500 people. I graduated public high school with 18 classmates. We didn't have a traffic light. I used to live on a small highway across from a gas station and it did a fair amount of business because the next closest gas station was about five miles away. Sometimes when you tried to pull out of my driveway, you had to wait like, oh sometimes as long as a whole minute, before you would be able to pull out onto the road. My parents and other older people would occasionally utter comments like "the traffic has gotten so bad around here," when we had to wait for a few cars to pass by before we could be on our way. I recall this obscure fact as I sat on 405 North bound at approximately 6 o'clock PM. Talk about bad traffic. For miles all you see is tiny headlights inching their way along. All this got me thinking that perceptions are all relative. For my old little dinky town, waiting a minute or so just to pull out of your driveway really was bad traffic - to us. But in reality, it was fine. It's Seattle traffic that stinks.

Perceptions are very prevalent in sports as well. Not to beat a dead horse but I still can't quite wrap my mind around the vast differences of opinions when it comes to certain players and their qualifications for the Hall of Fame. I read an article like this, and to me its crystal clear, that Jim Rice just isn't a Hall of Fame player. He's just not - at least yet. He's a virtual lock to make it next year, and many, many, many sports writers passionately campaign that yes, he IS a Hall of Fame player. How can these two camps,those for and against Rice, look at the same player's career, and apparently see two very different things? Perceptions. A co-worker of mine signed one of my previous post with something along the lines of "I saw Jim Rice break a bat on a check swing, that's a HOF'er to me." He admitted he was half kidding to me, and this may seem silly, but I can't help but think that may be part of the answer. If enough stories of how scary, intimidating, fearsome, and check swing'in bat break'in strong Jim Rice was inundate the public consciousness, I think the perception that Jim Rice was a Hall of Fame player really starts to ring true with some people. I just wish the writers entrusted to be the gate keepers for something as sacred as the Baseball Hall of Fame would use a little more due diligence.

Let me get this out of the way, I LOVE Derek Jeter. Fantastic ballplayer, a legitimate future Hall of Fame player. But I get sick of the label Mr. Clutch (and for that matter, Mr. November). You can't seem to get through a broadcast of a Yankees game in October without hearing some broadcaster gushing over Jeter like an adolescent with a high school crush. You will hear about how much he "knows how to win" and how much he "steps up" his game in the playoffs. You've heard this yes? I don't think any one would argue with that perception. The reality? Jeter's career regular season batting line looks like this(BA/OBP/Slug); .317/.388/.462. He has 495 at bats in the post season and that batting line looks like this:309/.377/.469.He's the same guy on a Tuesday night game in June against the Devil Rays, than he is the bottom of the ninth of game 7 of the World Series. Hey just saying ................

Same thing this weekend, watching the NFL playoffs with Tom Brady. I don't know how many times I heard "He knows how to win." Last I checked Tom Brady has been a starter in the NFL for six seasons before this year. His team won the Superbowl in half of them with Brady awarded the Superbowl MVP twice. Impressive no doubt. But what about 2002, 2005 and 2006 when his teams did not win the Superbowl? Did he suffer from some sort of rare amnesia during those seasons and -GASP- actually forget how to win? Of course he didn't. My 15 year old sister knows how to win in the NFL, and she can't even throw a football. YOU OUTSCORE THE OTHER TEAM. I know I am being a bit too literal here, but isn't it enough to just say the guy is a great football player? However the perception remains that Tom Brady "knows how to win", and win or lose this year I don't think that is going away.

The basic point I am trying to make is that perceptions can be really hard to overcome.

But you want reality?

Jim Rice was as good as this guy. Jeter's post season OPS is only 2 points higher than Choke-ROD. And Tom Brady? I guess he actually does know how to win.

Rainy Day Thoughts

Out here in Seattle, and you may not believe this, we have received a significant amount of rain. I have lived here nearly a year and there definitely have been several lengthy rainy streaks. That being said, the reputation Seattle has as being a super rainy place to live is a bit overrated. I have read that NY and Miami get more annual rainfall than Seattle, and I can attest, being from NY, that it really can rain pretty aggressively there too. Many locals have even admitted to me the rainy reputation is purposely overblown to try to keep people from moving here. But I digress ............


In another thing that may surprise you, Hank Steinbrenner has offered more thoughts publicly on the Yankees personnel strategy. I suppose you could view his comments one of two ways. You could say that his announcement that the Yankees are out the running (well Hank said the offer is being rescinded,but after A-ROD do we really believe that) for Santana would pressure the Twins to hurry up and accept the offer because it's not going to get any better. Alternatively publicly announcing you are no longer in the bidding for Santana makes it better for the Red Sox because they no longer have to play their hand against the Yankees. I think we all know what the Yankees "baseball people" wish Hank would do ...... However I must admit if my Daddy just handed me the reigns to a billion dollar baseball team, I would probably say some pretty crazy things to.


EDIT: Just as I was about to finish up this post, I came across a flip flop by Haughty Hank once again. It's really hard to know what to believe at this point. While I am a HUGE Yankees fan, I do think Hank's constant desire to be in the news getting to be a little old. But I might as well get used to it, and it could be worse. At least he wants to win (more than I can say for the owner of this team). I just wish he would let the people who best know how to build a winning ball club do all the heavy lifting.


I simply thought this article made Tiger's GM Dave Dombrowski look like a "pretty good guy". I always think it is interesting to read about how GM's handle the people side of baseball operations; baseball players aren't just an excel sheet of statistics (I am a sabermetrics guy but I don't think the soft stuff can totally be ignored). His stance of trying to accommodate Inge to a trade as long as they can help the team is pretty classy. However caring about the soft stuff too much,like picking up the option on a player because he is important for "chemistry" or a huge fan favorite, can really hurt you. Especially when that fan favorite cost you 13 million and he is a 35 year old catcher who hasn't had an OPS+ above 100 since 2004. I may be overlooking something, but to me this is one of the silliest moves of the off season. Dombrowski has forgotten more about baseball than I will probably ever know, but I can't still can't think of any reason why he thought it was a good idea to pick up Pudge's option for that much money.

The Indians will now be playing at Progressive Field; albeit with the same regressive mascot.

Challenge Trade

It seems apparent Scott Rolen will soon be officially removed from the La Russa family Christmas card mailing list. On Saturday night foxsports.com reported the St. Louis Cardinals agreed to send disgruntled third baseman Scott Rolen to the Toronto Blue Jays for their third baseman, Troy Glaus. The deal is pending a physical for both players on Monday. For St. Louis to agree to the deal, Glaus had to accept his 2009 player option, bringing the total remaining value of his contract to 24.5 million over two years. Besides the fact that both these players are former all stars, there is an interesting back story to this trade as well.

Despite the fact Rolen has three years and 33 million left on his contract it became increasingly clear that he was on his way out of St. Louis because of the very public bitter feud between him and Tony La Russa. Also Rolen has a long injury history. He hasn't played more than 142 games since 2003 and only played in 112 last year. Glaus lost significant time due to injuries last season as well, playing only 115 games. He had season ending surgery in September to repair a nerve problem in his left foot. Glaus has also been tied to purchasing HGH in 2003 and 2004. So who comes out ahead in this deal ?

Lets take a look at each players past 3 season's to see if we can find any trends.

Games played
Glaus 2005: 149
Rolen 2005: 56

Glaus 2006: 153
Rolen 2006: 141

Glaus 2007: 115
Rolen 2007: 112

Both players have had trouble staying in the lineup through out their careers including last season. Their health is a huge question mark for both sides in this trade. As of this post the players had yet to take their physicals.

OPS+
Glaus 2005: 126
Rolen 2005: 84

Glaus 2006: 122
Rolen 2006: 126

Glaus 2007: 120
Rolen 2007: 89

Rolen has slumped through injury ridden seasons two of the last three years. I think if he were healthy he would still put up good numbers. He performed well in 2006 and at 32 years old it would be unusual for him to fall completely off the cliff like this. Again health is the wild card here. Also Glaus looks a bit better here when you consider he's played in the much more difficult AL East the last two seasons but Rolen has put up his numbers in AAAA ball (Re: NL Central).

WARP3
Glaus 2005: 5.7
Rolen 2005: 2.7

Glaus 2006: 8.4
Rolen 2006: 10.0

Glaus 2007: 5.8
Rolen 2007: 5.7

Interesting to note that Rolen has virtually the same WARP3 in 2007 despite the fact that Glaus was much better with the bat. This is because of Rolen's big advantage with the glove.

FRAR
Glaus 2005: 2
Rolen 2005: 16

Glaus 2006: 23
Rolen 2006: 33

Glaus 2007: 12
Rolen 2007: 25

Outlook for 2008

Bill James gives a 2008 projection for Rolen of 127 games played and an .842 OPS. For Glaus he predicts 145 games with an .851 OPS. Baseball Think Factory ZIPS projections gives us 134 games played and an .819 OPS for Glaus, while it yields 106 games and an .728 OPS for Rolen. I personally am sort of wary of projections. No one should make the mistake of taking them too literally but I do think they are a useful tool to put some science to what is most likely to happen next year.

I think the Cardinals come out ahead in this deal. I just think that Rolen's balky shoulder is more of a concern than Glaus's foot injury. Rolen power has really been sapped two of the last three years and when he did play last year he looked really bad. When Glaus was able to play he swung the bat pretty well. With the injury uncertainty for both players, having Glaus under contract for two seasons rather than the three years left on Rolen's deal, helps the Cardinals decrease their risk of additional playing time lost. The Cardinals did remarkably well considering they were in a low leveraged position to make a deal. It was very public knowledge that it was in the best interest of the Cardinals and Rolen to part ways. Combine that with Rolen's recent performance it appeared the Cardinals were going to have to sell very low. The Cardinals must be happy they were able to get a player as solid as Troy Glaus in this deal, albeit he has health issues of his own.

EDIT: For another in depth analysis of the trade, check out Travis Nelson at Boy of Summer.

.... but can he grow a sweet stash ?

My co-workers must have been sick of hearing about my new blog by the end of the day. I was like a 5 year old on Christmas morning showing all his relatives the new toy he just ferociously unwrapped. I showed it to literally any one who would listen. Friends who used to play and enjoy watching baseball. Friends who didn't like baseball and wouldn't even know what an RBI was. One buddy expressed his disdain for ERA+ and suggested Gossage was a HOF'er simply because of his bad ass facial hair. But mostly everyone was receptive and I thank them for that. I also received a lot of valuable feedback and some interesting (and random) topics suggestions for future post.

Speaking of sweet facial hair, one friend brought up Catfish Hunter, apparently just to test my knowledge of the player. I have to admit I didn't know much. Besides his bristly upper lip and funky nickname, I didn't know much about the quality of his playing career. So just who was Jim "Catfish" Hunter ?

Anecdotally Awesome

A quick read through of his Wikipedia page reveals some interesting tid bits:

• only the 4th (and last) American League pitcher to win 20 games in a season for 5 consecutive seasons (1971-1975).


• Held Thurman Munson plus Hall of Famers Hank Aaron, Orlando Cepeda, Harmon Killebrew, Mickey Mantle, Brooks Robinson, Frank Robinson, and Carl Yastrzemski to a .211 collective batting average (107-for-506)


• Music legend Bob Dylan penned an ode to him with "Catfish" (which was unreleased until 1991 and ironically Hunter hated the song)

I hadn't nary a clue about any of the above and began to get more curious on exactly how good he was when evaluated by some of the more advanced metrics.

Gone Fish'in

To try to determine how good Hall of Famer Catfish really was, we need to dig deeper. Lets compare him to pitcher A.

Catfish: Career ERA + 104 with two seasons ERA+ above 140, three seasons above ERA+ 130 and his next best was two seasons of ERA+ 114. In 7 of his 15 seasons he actually had an ERA worse than league average

Pitcher A: Career ERA+ of 118 with two seasons ERA+ above 150, six seasons with ERA+ above 140, and a total of 14 seasons of ERA+ above 120. In only 4 of his 22 year major league career did he register an ERA worse than average.

Catfish: WARP3 of 71.5

Pitcher A: WARP3 of 146.1

Catfish: Runs above average (RAA) of -51 (that's right over the course of his career he was 51 runs worse than the average pitcher)

Pitcher A: RAA of 169

Catfish: 3449.3 innings pitched

Pitcher A: 4970.0 innings pitched

It seems very clear that pitcher A was vastly superior to Catfish Hunter. He pitched many more innings that were of much higher quality. In fact it's not even close. As mentioned earlier Catfish is a Hall of Fame member (though he barely squeaked in with 76.27% of the required 75% vote in 1987). While Hunter was very "famous" (even the most casual fan has heard of Catfish Hunter) the numbers show he is a border line Hall of Fame player at best. I personally would not have voted for him. His reputation, aided by the cool nickname, and intimidating glare certainly trumped his playing ability. While it would seem unfathomable that player A would not also have a bronze bust of him in Cooperstown NY, that is precisely the case.

Maybe Player A needed a cool mustache.

Hall of Fame

I am a little late to the party, but I must comment on the newest member of the hallway of really well known people; Goose Gossage. I have no problem with his induction. Sure there are more than a handful of better players eligible but not yet enshrined, but Gossage was demonstrably on par or better than than other relievers currently in the Hall such as Sutter and Fingers.

Goose: ERA+ 126 in 1809 1/3 innings

Fingers: ERA+ 119 in 1701 1/3 innings

Sutter: ERA+ 136 in 1042 1/3 innings

I think the standard for relievers should be really high and Gossage increases that standard.


I admit I don't know much about the newspaper business. But I assume if you are a writer for a major news paper you generally have to report the facts as they exist and you know .... like not make stuff up. Seems rational to me, however Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe must have fallen asleep in Journalism Ethics 101 ....

Rice hit for power in a day when power numbers were legit. He was the dominant slugger of his time, a man capable of inducing an intentional walkwhen the bases were loaded

.

Jim Rice amassed 9,058 plate appearances in the majors leagues. During those 9,058 plate appearances he was intentionally walked 77 times. That is fewer IBB than Ichiro with 115 (career high in homers of 15). Fewer than the immortal Ron Cey (117). That's fewer IBB than Bill Mazeroski (110)and his 84 OPS+. In fact Jim Rice's 77 IBB place him in a tie for 176th all time. It seems rather odd to me to mention IBB as an example of Rice's Hall worthiness. It's just not much to hang your hat on.

But it gets even better. Of Rice's 77 IBB, how many of those were induced with the bases loaded, because he was so "feared" ?


0


That's right folks. ZERO, ZILCH, NOT A SINGLE ONE.

Did I mention the Boston Globe is a fine newspaper?

First Post

I never thought I would do this. Actually start my own sports blog. I intend to write specifically about baseball but I may dabble in other sports. I have read sports blogs for years and finally the prodding from one of my friends convinced to start one. I'd like to keep this short and I will add more about me later in the "about me" section.

For starters I love baseball and have an extreme affection for the New York Yankees. I currently live in Seattle but grew up in Up State NY, and basically became hooked when the Yankees won the 1996 World Series.

This blogging stuff is new to me and I am not quite sure the exact format that will follow in the post to come. However I suspect I will be heavily influenced by several of the blogs I read on a daily basis ( at least until I get my feet wet or think of something better.) I think a fair amount of my post will copy one of the best sites on the web, http://www.firejoemorgan.com/, and comment on piss poor sports writing/broadcasting. Yes I know, unoriginal, and I can never be nearly as funny as them; but hey there's plenty of bad sports reporting to go around for all !!

I will also add my two cents about various current events in the world of sports. Some of my other influences are Rob Neyer, Keith Law, and Joe Posnanski to name a few. I tend to analyze the game from a sabermetric point of view. This turned out to be a bit lengthier than I wanted it to be but I just wanted to get my story out there .....