SBNation.com User Blog: Valatan

What happens if the Marlins sign Albert Pujols

Valatan — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:20:59 -0000

What happens if the Marlins sign Albert Pujols

An interesting and informative article on how next season would play out in this scenario.

Game Six Celebration thread

Valatan — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 04:57:31 -0000

On to Game seven we go! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I have to work at 7 am tomorrow, and I"m just uncontrollably giggling.

I know that that most of you have seen this, but those of you that haven't, should.

Valatan — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 01:17:09 -0000

I know that that most of you have seen this, but those of you that haven't, should.

Overflow Vengance

Valatan — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:06:53 -0000

It's the Pirates... the PIRATES. Do this.

Overflow II: Overflow harder

Valatan — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:21:00 -0000

Get those pond scum.

Extra innings overflow #3: Position players pitching to relief pitchers

Valatan — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 02:29:00 -0000

Yes, that's where we're at now.

Extra innings overflow #2: Cards. vs. Mets

Valatan — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 01:24:08 -0000

15th inning overflow of luck.

Come on. First and Third. Bottom of the 15th inning. Two out.

Mets v. Cardinals overflow thread

Valatan — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 23:45:39 -0000

Old thread was over a thousand comments. That's just silly. Fill this one up.

Steroids and role models

Valatan — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:11:32 -0000

I've been thinking more and more on the steroids issue in the aftermath of the McGwire signing, and the subsequent cavalcade of nonsense that followed. Something hasn't quite seemed right about the whole thing. In fact, a lot of the self-righteousness in the steroid age has been confusing, at best, to me. i think I've finally figured out why. Follow me after the jump if you dare.

I think the thing that has bothered me is how much attention has been given to the steroid issue, and how little of the arguments actually hold up if you consider them in a broader perspective. I'm not necessarily talking here about the people who are discussing competitive balance. I understand these arguments somewhat, at least. Sports, as a product, are about competitive balance. If you do something illegal to enhance your performance, (or gamble on the sport), you are endangering the competitive balance of the game. I can at least understand the argument that harsh penalties are necessary to prevent this. If the steroid arguments stopped here, I would be completely fine with it. But the thing is, this argument is typically the tip of the iceberg.

It seems that the harshest rhetoric about steroids seems to relate to various forms of morality--"it's illegal!", 'what a horrible example for kids!', or 'what a dishonour to players past!'. To me, these arguments are disingenous, at best. And the reason why? We routinely ignore OTHER illegal and immoral behaviour on the part of players. In particular, several players are either convicted of or have public record incidents of spousal abuse. Yet, there is very little controversy surrounding these players. You don't see people protesting Phillies games and throwing taunts at Brett Myers. Nor does Julio Lugo receive any abuse about this, either. It is just silently accepted by fans.

And the thing is, it is very easy to understand how players can fall for steroids--you're in a career where you have, at best a 20 year shelf life, and realistically, more like 5-10. Everything is super-competitive, and you are at constant threat of being discarded. It's very human to want to get every edge that you can, and you see others around you using it and succeeding, While it is not commendable to fall into this temptation, it's hardly incomprehensible, either.

Now, contrast the above with hitting your spouse, sometimes in repeated incidents. While THAT is a problem as old as time, too, it's not exactly like it's a completely understandable one. It is an entirely reprehensible one. Yet, when players do it, it is noticed on a small scale, and shuffled under the rug. It was not even discussed; in the recent Elijah Dukes thread here, for example.

In the end, baseball is baseball and morality is morality. But if we are going to direct moralistic arguments at baseball players, I would suggest that we keep a focus on things that are really important, and things that affect only baseball. When a player says 'yeah I did steroids, I don't think it helped me as much as people claim, but I was worried about being hurt and I made a bad decision.' and STILL gets condemned, it bothers me that you don't even have to force players who did far, far worse to say ANYTHING in public about it.

And that's about all of my opinion on that.

Game 10 Overflow Thread #2

Valatan — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 21:07:05 -0000

Three run lead. Hold 'em! A series win agains the cubbies would be a sweet tiebreaker to have this season

World Series Game 2 Open Thread

Valatan — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:05:41 -0000

There's no thread up, and the broadcast started here in Austin, so I thought I'd throw something up. I've mostly been super excited about this world series, and I do love this matchup of young players that have been ignored by the national media all year.

That being said, there is no player that I'd rather see get completely shelled in a big game than Brett Meyers. Of course, it would have the added bonus of tying up the series, so that we increase our chances of gettng seven full games of quality baseball in this seven game series.

Game 144 Overflow #1

Valatan — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:01:19 -0000

Albert came on and brings the noise.

Word is still out re: girls rocking them boyz. 3-3 tie.

Game 104 Open Thread overflow II: The Threadening

Valatan — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:41:51 -0000

2-3 Cardinals in the 8th. Can they hold on? Take my hand, and we'll make it, I swear.

I guess.

Game 104 Open Thread, 24 July 2008

Valatan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 21:42:34 -0000


Sheets	Col. Wellsie
10-3, 2.88	8-4, 4.22

It only seems like yesterday when Ben Sheets was the big hero for the US Olympic team in 2000. Now he's the big stud starter looking for a big payday at the end of the season. I was hoping to see Colby get his chance to go to Beijing and make a statement. Ah well.

Much has been said about Wellemeyer's struggles as of late. But he's shown a bit of improvement in his last couple of starts (he at least went 6+ IP both times, which, as stated in the below main post, is an underappreciated factor in bullpen effectiveness), but his strikeout and walk rates still don't seem to have gotten back to what they were before his elbow went. In his win against the Padres, he had 3 BB to 2 K, while giving up five runs.

Hopefully he's relearning his control and his focus, because he's going to need everything he's got against Ben Sheets, who seems to be making a Cy bid in his walk year. No one on the Cardinals current roster has a very spectacular history against Sheets beyond Pujols (26 for 66, 4 HR 10 RBI, 1.66 OPS), and Brendan Ryan in limited at bats.

Hopefully they can stay within reach, get some chances against that somewhat weak bullpen, and avoid the sweep. I'm still mad that we didn't get a chance against Gagné last night (who was warming in the pen when the game ended).

C + C's shutout factory

Valatan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:58:00 -0000

So, that was a lovely game to pick for my lone trip to Busch Stadium this year. CC Sabathia certainly looked incredible last night, painting his corners and changing speeds and just looking nasty. I know that people will complain that the Cardinals didn't make him work enough, but I just don't buy that argument. Sabathia was just throwing strikes, and throwing them hard, and throwing them on the corners. Taking pitches against him wold have done little but generate a bunch of 1-2 counts. Now, they generated a bunch of 1-2 counts anyway, but at least they did it trying to put the ball in play. As it was, when Ryan got that hit in the sixth, it felt almost like a home run in the bottom of the ninth or something.

The thing that last night makes me truly question, however, is the wisdom of having Wellemeyer and Looper back to back in the rotation. At least after Wellsie's injury, neither one of those guys really seems able to consistently go for six innings (though Wellemeyer has a two game 6.1 IP streak going, so I guess he can prove me wrong tonight). La Russa kind of saved the bullpen for today by riding Izzy and Jíminez for two innings a piece, but that option won't always be available, and these five inning starts are murder on the bullpen.

If you don't believe me on this, I cite the following: Look at the top five teams in the majors in IP from the rotation, it will be the Angels, Jays, White Sox, Red Sox, and A's. Now, look at the top five in bullpen ERA. The answer will be the Phils, Jays, Dodgers, White Sox, and A's. Three out of the five of the first list are present on the second list. Same thing happens if you look at the bottom five. Some might say that it's park effects--starters in hitters parks get into trouble, and throw fewer innings, while relievers just get shelled in hitters parks. But I'm not completely convinced, especially since the SkyDome isn't exactly pitcher-friendly.

Anyway, I think what I am trying to say here is that I think the best trade we can make to shore up the bullpen is a trade for a starting pitcher. We would remove Looper and his five inning starts from the rotation, which will filter down to the entire bullpen, allowing La Russa to reduce their workload and to establish clearer roles. I have always thought that rotation stability was the key to La Russa's surprising bullpen finds. Perhaps this season to find out whether or not this theory is accurate.

All Star Game Overflow 3

Valatan — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:19:13 -0000

How long does this game have to go before it's declared a tie, with a decisive game seven of the world series to be played in Kaufmann Stadium/PNC Park? Will Ludwick throw the 17th inning?

3-3, 15th inning, Scott Kazmir on the mound.

Number of games won in a 162 game season versus the probability of winning that many games, with the assumption that the team in question has a 50% chance of winning any given game.

Valatan — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:05:09 -0000

Number of games won in a 162 game season versus the probability of winning that many games, with the assumption that the team in question has a 50% chance of winning any given game.

Game 79 Overflow III

Valatan — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 04:21:32 -0000

Does it seem like this game will never end? 6-6, 8th inning.

Game 77 Overflow thread II: the fall of Papelbonistan

Valatan — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:24:01 -0000

So, Adam Kennedy is the hero against Jonathon Papelbon. Tied score in the tenth.

Game 62 Open Thread #2

Valatan — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 01:21:53 -0000

This is the craziest game ever. let's hope that they can complete the comeback from 8-1.

8-6 Nats in the seventh.

Game 60 Rain Delay thread

Valatan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:31:09 -0000

So, we're in a rain delay. Let's hope they get this in, and the bats stay alive. I'd hate to see a steal of home not count. 5-0 Cardinals, top of fifth, two on for the cards, no out

Great USS Mariner post on segregation in baseball

Valatan — Sat, 17 May 2008 23:50:42 -0000

Great USS Mariner post on segregation in baseball

People have probably seen this, but it is truly fantastic. One of the funniest things I've read in ages

Game 45 Overflow Thread II: Electric Boogaloo

Valatan — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:39:47 -0000

tied game going into the 10th. Let's not run into any more stupid outs on the basepaths, please

On restraint (or... save the heart attack for when the zombie space aliens attack!)

Valatan — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:49:14 -0000

Before this season began, people were debating whether this team would win 60 games or whether it would hold on and break even at 82. Almost no one expected that the pitching would hold up to the extent that it has, and virtually every surprise that we've had this season has been an overwhelmingly positive one: Wellemeyer cutting down on the BBs, while maintaining the strikeouts; Izturis getting on base; Lohse being able to go deep in games right off of the bat; even Skippy has been far superior offensively to anything we could have hoped for. So far, the only really serious bad surprise we've had is that Troy Glaus has been having trouble getting his power going, but the team around him has been able to at least pick up the slack*.

The point is, however, that the team is playing very well: far better than anyone could have predicted--virtually no one would have picked the cardinals to open the season by winning each of their first four series, yet here we are, in that very position. Not only that, however, but the team is really competing in every game we play in. They are clawing back from deficits, even after seeing the bullpen cough up leads and fall behind.

So, why the hypercriticality? I'm seeing harsh criticism fall on any and all players who don't live up to a Pujolsian standard of performance. It seems like anyone who falls short on a particular play gets invective thrown at them, despite the overall performance that they might have had on that particular day, even. This is a really long season, and this team has been playing very well to date, and doing so in a very entertaining, encouraging, and engaging manner. It really doesn't make much sense to me to get all that bent out of shape over particular in game decisions at this point, considering how long the season is going to go.

This team has serious problems with depth and health, and if it is going to last through the season performing at a high level, this means that the players are going to have to get rotated in and out of the lineup pretty frequently. There isn't a clear set of three ideal starting outfielders, and Glaus probably isn't at 100%, and is going to need days off, regardless of who we have to spell him on his days off. Two of the three of Izturis, Miles and Kennedy have to be in the starting lineup on any given day, at least until Ryan is off of the DL. Rico Washington will be back in Memphis when Ryan is off of the DL. Why get bent out of shape regarding these things, which are either constraints of the current roster (and hence, probably unchangeable until Julyish) or are temporary fixes with preordained endpoints and solutions?

Being critical is fine, and being unhappy with decisions is also fine. But, I can't really see why there is much reason to get seethingly upset at the Cardinals, or even at particular players, at this point in time. The team is playing beautifully (loss yesterday or no). Let's just enjoy this for now, and at least see if the pitching falls off of the wheels to start marching down to New Busch with pitchforks and torches.

Believe me, the benefits your pets will feel from the decrease yelling will make this attitude worthwhile.

*Franklin's struggles are a bit of a surprise, too, but they were predicted by more than a few people.

Believe me, the benefits your pets will feel from the decrease yelling will make this attitude worthwhile.

*Franklin's struggles are a bit of a surprise, too, but they were predicted by more than a few people.

Game 13 Overflow Thread

Valatan — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:00:05 -0000

Well, at least Lincecum is gone. Let's get those bats going.

World Series Game 1 Open Thread

Valatan — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 18:37:08 -0000


Francis	Beckett
17-9, 4.22	20-7, 3.27

On the Tony La Russa signing, my reaction is a decided 'meh.' I've gotten pretty used to him, and he has shown the ability to adapt last year, but then again, Winston Churchill said, "Americans always do what's right, but only after they've tried everything else." Still, that's better than a lot of the other organizations that try to push the same failed formulae year after year. As for the team's prospects in the intermediate and long term, there might be reason for despair, but there's also reason for hope:

Although there are a lot of spare parts that cant' be relied on to produce again, it's reasonable to believe that one of Carpenter, Rolen, Mulder, or Edmonds will be able to produce for next year. It's also reasonable to assume that a shrewd GM will be able to move one of our spare parts (Duncan, either Brady Anderson or Yadi, Reyes, etc.) for a youngish shortstop or starting pitcher that will be able to produce over the long term. It's even possible that the team might be able to stay moderately in contention in a horrible NL Central with a few mid-level acquisitions like Tom Glavine, and by bolstering the infield defense. Things aren't spectacular, and dreams of 2004 are pretty much dead. But I still have more hope for this team than I ever did circa 1993.

However, I am going to take this opportunity to announce my retirement from front page posting at Viva El Birdos. In my efforts to become Dr. Valatan, Ph.D., it has become clear that I simply don't have the time to regularly make posts that are of the quality and insight level of what I would like to give to the community, and still expect to not be living in Texas by year's end. Also, it is becoming clearer that the interests of both the team's development perspective, and this community is becoming more slanted toward an evaluation of minor league talent, and I lack the knowledge base and interest on the minors that many others around here readily demonstrate.

I appreciate the kindness that the community has shown me in my time here, and I want to thank larry for giving me the time and space to post here. It has been a treat, covering this team through a world series win and through numerous Jason Marquis and Kip Wells starts. It's not a complete goodbye--I'll still be sticking around as a substitute poster, and certainly in the comment threads, but for now, see you guys later.

Why the "Tigers in 3" commentary was over the top, and why Sox in 4 would be...

Valatan — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:43:44 -0000

A lot of talk has gone into the discussion regarding how random chance affects team's success (or lack thereof) in the playoffs. I thought that I'd dedicate today to showing how much it actually is a factor. My analysis is a bit crude, but it has the advantage of using pretty simple mathematical rules, and showing off results that are easy enough to understand. Just to review a bit of that high school math, if I flip a coin, half of the time, I get heads, and the other half of the time, I get tails. That means that I have a .5 chance of either result.

Now, each successive throw does not depend on the previous throw. So, if I flip a coin again, after getting heads, I have half a chance of heads or tails. Same thing if I get tails. That means, if I flip a coin twice, I have a .25 chance of getting heads twice, a .5 chance of getting heads once and tails once, and a .25 chance of getting tails twice.

What does this have to do with baseball, do you ask? Well, I can take the number of games a team won and lost in the regular season and convert into their probability of winning another game. One can do the same with a given matchup. We can then run the math through the logic of a five or seven game series--if you get to three or four wins, the series ends, but otherwise, you keep on playing. We can then take all of this, and generate the probabilities that teams with a given regular season record, independent of matchup, or anything else, will win or lose a playoff series. The results for two .500 teams are shown below:

Obviously, neither team has an edge--both have a 50% chance of winning either a five or seven game series. Also note that in one out of four runs of this sort of problem, you will get a series sweep in a five game series, and even in a four game series, there is a 12.5% chance that the end result will be a series sweep by one of the two teams. Also note that there is an equal chance that the winner wins by two games or wins by one game. Now, let's look at the same table, but applied to the matchup of the 2006 Cardinals and the 2006 Tigers:

Note that, for all the pre-series discussion regarding the absurd dominance of the Tigers over the Cardinals, before you even factor in regular season injuries to the Cardinals, or the absence of jason Marquis, you still have a 42% chance that the Cardinals would win the series against the Tigers. The probability of a Detroit sweep was only 8%--one fifth as likely as a Cardinals win.

Similarly, perhaps we shouldn't have been quite as heartbroken about the 2004 Cardinals:

The Cards win probability was only at 54%, based on regular season record. Still, it was kind of hard to expect an actual sweep. But it's still pretty crazy to see how little nine extra wins in the standings actually buys you. So, that brings us to the rockies and the indians, assuming the latter hold on, and keep Manny cheering as his team loses:

This looks like a pretty fun series. The teams are pretty easily matched. Looking at that, I'll take the Rockies in seven.

Reflections, odds and ends.

Valatan — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:07:24 -0000

I guess everybody's heard the news about La Russa. Sounds like the guy wants to stay, but is leaving himself a clean slate unless management wants to start with a clean slate next year. Maybe he's waiting to see if the new GM is going to try and construct a winning ballclub, and he's trying to go over the top with the guys on the roster that he obviously has a connexion with. Barring the extremely unlikely prospect of adding Santana or A-Rod to the roster, I don't see how it's possible, but I'm not one of the guys on the field trying to slog through a hundred and sixty-two games, either.

In other news, yesterday was a very good day for cardinals prospects playing down in the Arizona Fall League: Jarrett Hoffpauir went two for two with a run and two RBI, Jason Motte threw an inning and a third scoreless and picked up the win, and Joe Mather went three for five with a stolen base. Considering the rebuilding that the team is going through, it's good to hear that the prospects are at least making some noise in a competitive league.

I'm looking forward to tonight's pitching matchup in the former BOB. I'll have a game thread up later tonight. It's a beautiful day here in Texas for the first time in ages (though I'm sure that it'll get stupidly hot soon enough this afternoon), and I need to go bike in to work. Maybe an actual playoff game going on today will get the sports media to stop talking about the Yankees.

Rockies v. Phillies/Angels vs. Boxos game thread: 3 October, 2007

Valatan — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:48:07 -0000

Update [2007-10-3 16:18:18 by Valatan]::Walt Jocketty is no longer the Cardinals' GM. Diary here


Francis	Hamels
17-9, 4.22	15-5, 3.39

GAME TIME 2:00 CDT

So here's a matchup of the two young dueling aces for today. Looking at that Jeff Francis mug shot always freaks me out, as he looks a whole lot like my little brother. The Rockies have won the VEB poll pretty decisively, so I guess there's not a whole lot to say other than 'let's go, rockies.'

Lineups:

COL	PHI
Matsui, 2B	Rollins, SS
Tulowitzki, SS	Victorino, RF
Holliday, LF	Utley, 2B
Helton, 1B	Howard, 1B
Atkins, 3B	Rowand, CF
Hawpe RF	Burrell, LF
Spiborghs, CF	Helms, 3B
Torrealba, C	Ruiz, C
Francis, P	Hamels, P


Lackey	Beckett
19-9, 3.01	207, 3.27

GAME TIME 5:30 CDT

And later today, you get the matchup of two AL cy candidates. I really think that Boston is too well balanced to lose this series, but we'll see what happens. I am very curious to see what happens when JD Drew makes his postseason debut for the Red Sox.

My average on comments in play: very low.

Valatan — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:52:16 -0000

So, inspired by a discussion that we had on the site regarding Skip Schumaker in yesterday's thread, I decided to do a little bit of investigative work on a particular theory that I've been thinking about for a few days. One useful tool for evaluating pitchers in a slump has been Batting average on balls in play, which is given by the formula (H-HR)/(AB-HR-K). What this tells you is how hitters do when not factoring home runs and strikeouts into the equation. It has been shown that pitchers have very little control over what the BABIP they allow is. A pitcher that allows a low BABIP is essentially being very unlucky. A pitcher that allows a high BABIP is getting very unlucky. The expectation, then, is that these pitchers are the ones most ripe to revert to the mean.

Though it is somewhat counterintuitive, (it certainly was to Voros McCracken, who discovered this fact), it actually makes some sense--once the opposing player puts a bat on the ball, the pitcher's involvement in the play is over. Therefore, one would not expect the pitcher to be able to influence the outcome after the ball is put on the bat from year to year. The question, however, is whether or not this trend would apply to hitters, as well. In the game thread, in particular, it was applied to Skip Schumaker, with the argument that his 2007 BABIP was unsustainable, and that he was due to fall back to Earth.

The logical reason for a pitcher's BABIP being random, however, doesn't seem to jibe with a hitter's BABIP being random, however. A hitter's involvement in the play is not over after the bat is put on the ball--the guy has to get to first base. Therefore, you would expect the hitter to have some control over whether or not he actually reaches base. In particular, you would expect a fast player to be more able to reach first base before the opposing defense successfully makes a play. My counter-hypothesis, therefore, was that a high BABIP correlates with a fast player. Using stolen bases as a lazy proxy for speed, I took the seven leaders in post-WWII stolen bases, and looked at their career numbers to eliminate any small sample size issues. The result was the following table:

So far, so good. Every one of these guys had a BABIP that beat their batting average. Additionaly, the better the rate at which they stole bases, the more they beat their BABIP by, on average. Vince Coleman, with the highest SB rate, had a BABIP that beat his batting average by 50 points. High school statistics tell me that I would expect 40% of the variation in the differential between BABIP and AVG to be explainable by the rate at which a player steals bases. Looks like we might have something.

Not so fast, perhaps. I expanded the list to include a wide array of hall of famers, and a few other notable players. The table generated there is shown below.

All of a sudden, my theory looks a little less convincing. Jim Thome, the slowest player on the list (in terms of career SB, at least), also had a BABIP that outperformed his AVG by the greatest amount. Willie Mays, hardly a slowpoke, had a career BABIP that actually underperformed his career average. The amount of variation in the BABIP differential went from 40% to 25%.

Some of this is clearly explainable by the fact that stolen bases are probably not all that great of a proxy for actual speed, as being a successful base stealer is as dependent on being able to read the defense and leading off well as it is upon actually being able to run quickly. There is also the problem that some of these players (Griffey, I'm looking at you) started out much faster than they ended up, and career numbers probably mix together seasons where the player's style of play changed pretty significantly.

So, where does that leave things? The very fastest players can sustain a higher BABIP than their AVG would indicate. For slower players, however, it seems much more doubtful that they'd be able to do so. If I have some time later, perhaps it will be worth looking at some single season statistics and seeing if a clearer pattern can emerge. Or perhaps there is better data on player speed out there. Regardless, it's something to think about while waiting for the playoffs to begin.