SB Nation User Blog: bgh

King's Ransom: Holliday's Similars

bgh — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:51:17 -0000

What was going to be a two-part look at giving a "King's Ransom" for a soon-to-be 30-year-old outfielder has been blown away by VEB's response to my initial King's Ransom: Are Left Fielders Worth It? Fanpost. What was meant as a cautionary tale for throwing contracts long in years and high in dollars at players who are entering their decline years by showcasing two free agent conquests still under contract with our division rivals, the Cubs and Astros, quickly exploded, and I saw the error of my ways. Matt Holliday is not Alfonso Soriano. But, it's much more than that. The two aren't even really all that similar types of players, despite the fact that they both play left field. In my opinion, Holliday is a bit more similar to El Caballo, but that doesn't say much, does it? The comparisons between Holliday, Lee, and Soriano aren't really all that apt (even if the duo's albatross contracts and Holliday's forthcoming deal might make the three all too similar come 2013, at least for the winner of the Holliday sweepstakes).

Baseball-Reference.com has "Similarity Scores" available for free on its wonderful website, and the founder explains the concept of the Sim Score like so:

Bill James introduced them nearly 15 years ago, and I lifted his methodology from his book The Politics of Glory (p. 86-106). To compare one player to another, start at 1000 points and then you subtract points based on the statistical differences of each player.

For batters, you subtract a point based on the following:

One point for each difference of 20 games played.

One point for each difference of 75 at bats.

One point for each difference of 10 runs scored.

One point for each difference of 15 hits.

One point for each difference of 5 doubles.

One point for each difference of 4 triples.

One point for each difference of 2 home runs.

One point for each difference of 10 RBI.

One point for each difference of 25 walks.

One point for each difference of 150 strikeouts.

One point for each difference of 20 stolen bases.

One point for each difference of .001 in batting average.

One point for each difference of .002 in slugging percentage.

There is also a positional adjustment involved, but I won't dally on that. (Baseball-Reference.com has everything you would want to know.) What I will point out is that there is a Career Sim Score, and that this score can then be broken down with a "career to age" function and then one showing players with similar career numbers from an age of your choosing to age 40. (So, you can't compare anyone to Barry Bonds, Julio Franco, or Roger Clemens, because, ya know, they played into their 40s.)

CAREER SIMILARS

Matt Holliday's Career Similars, starting with most similar, are as follows:

1) David Wright

2) Jason Bay

3) Hideki Matsui

4) Johnny Frederick

5) Miguel Cabrera

6) Chase Utley

7) Grady Sizemore

8) Lefty O'Doul

9) George Selkirk

10) Hank Leiber

First of all, let me just say, "Wow." Look at the Similars amongst Holliday's contemporaries. Wright, Bay, Matsui, Miggy, Utley, and Sizemore. That's quite a list. Of course, getting the production Wright's club is getting from him at third and Utley's from second, what with their defense and all, makes those two much more valuable, in my opinion, but, nonetheless, that's impressive company to be keeping for one's offensive production. If you doubt that Matt Holliday is worth a top dollar contract, this should give you cause to reassess your valuation of him. That said, it's not surprising that when we do a Career Sim, we get a fair number of contemporaries, roughly the same age, as these players have all been offensive forces through the primes of their respective careers. Lets look at Holliday's top comparables through Age 28 (the oldest sortable age for him) and then see how those Similars performed moving forward, from Age 30 through Age 36 (a ballpark for the length of Holliday's forthcoming contract).

SIMILARS THROUGH AGE 28

Here is the list of the top 10 players with offensive numbers most similar to Matt Holliday's through their Age 28 season:

1) Wally Berger

2) Lance Berkman

3) Magglio Ordonez

4) Chick Hafey

5) Dave Parker

6) Fred Lynn

7) Larry Walker

8) Tim Salmon

9) Bobby Abreu

10) Mike Sweeney

A very helpful feature on Baseball-Reference.com allows us to take this group of Similars and then compare their offensive cummulative production from, say, Age 30 (Holliday's 2010 seasonal age) to the end of their respective careers. But, for our purposes, I'm going to break the players down for each season of production from Age 30 on, since that is the age Holliday will be in the first year of his gigantic new contract.

RUNS CREATED

We will begin by looking at Runs Created, partly inspired by Michael Jong's wonderful post, "Runs Created: A First Step," over at Into Sabermetrics 101 (and further inspired by Baseball-Reference.com providing Runs Created on its "More Stats" page). I think it is a post worth reading for anyone, but especially for folks who are a little fuzzy, or, completely ignorant, as to "Runs Created" as a stat. It also has some must-read links to other pieces on Runs Created within the post itself. Jong describes "the advantage" of Runs Created as a stat:

Runs Created is derived from a fairly simple formula that is also dynamic rather than linear, which better reflects how baseball runs are scored, and it boasts low acceptable errors across the span of MLB talent and the course of a full season at the team level.

Jong also discusses the problems. An excerpt:

...the critical problem with RC: it is not an intuitive model on how baseball works, but rather a model that reflects the context and environment of a normal MLB season. In other words, RC does a fine job predicting "normal" major league teams, but struggles at the extremes because its basic formula is not actually grounded in baseball realism, but rather modeled based on MLB results.

The excerpts of the post which I have chosen by no means do the post or the stat justice. Let me repeat my recommendation that you read up on the stat, if it is new to you.

Here is a chart (thank you, Flim) showing the Runs Created for Holliday's top 10 Similars, beginning with their Age 30 and through their Age 36 seasons respectively. If the player is a currently active player who has not yet played a season, that is denoted by a question mark. If the player retired, or, did not play a season due to injury, there is a dash.

Player	Age 30	Age 31	Age 32	Age 33	Age 34	Age 35	Age 36
Wally Berger	91	57	73	48	7	-	-
Chick Hafey	83	90	12	-	37	-	-
Lance Berkman	144	115	137	96	?	?	?
Magglio Ordonez	33	48	96	152	96	72	?
Dave Parker	30	34	67	80	112	94	77
Hack Wilson	192	62	94	50	27	-	-
Fred Lynn	91	76	90	70	69	58	55
Mike Sweeney	71	81	34	32	16	36	?
Tim Salmon	69	128	73	98	96	20	-
Larry Walker	187	130	143	64	155	123	98

Now, here is a table (thank you, Braken) demonstrating the average Runs Created by Seasonal Age for the Top 10 Holliday Similars. A large grain of salt to consider is the fact that, as the top 10 ages, fewer of them contribute to the average. Some retired before Age 36 and others have not played their Age 36 Season just yet. So, that "average" is of three players.

A fitting graph, since skiing season is upon us (I think, but am not sure, because I'm from Iowa, where we don't really have hills, let alone mountains). Because the Age 36 average comes from three players, I'm certainly not using it as a basis to demand that the Cardinals give Holliday that seventh year because his production is certain to increase after Age 34 and 35 seasons which are worth nowhere near the $20MM salary he will command. Nonetheless, we'll take a look at the downward slope of offensive production after we take a glance at his Similars' OPS+ by seasonal age.

OPS+

Quite conveniently, Yahoo! Sports' Big League Stew blog just did a primer on OPS+ this week, when this Fanpost was half-done on my SBN Dashboard. I highly recommend reading this post, as I think it does a good job of exploring the OPS+ pros and cons (undervaluing OBP as compared to SLG, for example).

If you have access to baseball-reference.com, which automatically calculates OPS+, it gets rid of your need for OPS. OPS+ does share the core weakness of OPS — namely, it gives equal value to both OBP and SLG, though sabermetricians agree that, point by point, OBP is a more valuable stat than slugging.

But because OPS+ incorporates league average and park factors into the calculation, it makes comparing one player to another much easier, both for a single year and across leagues and different eras. For example, Mickey Mantle and Albert Pujols have the same career OPS+ (172) while Babe Ruth is the career leader with a whopping 207 mark.

I chose this excerpt because we all have access to Baseball-Reference, which already has OPS+ and Runs Created calculated. I'm just utilizing the ready-made stats that they have over at their wonderful site. I also included it because it shows how great Albert Pujols is, and how good Matt Holliday is as a hitter. However, even his 168 OPS+ during his torrid time as a Cardinal does not stack up to Albert Pujols's career average (El Hombre had an OPS+ 188 this season. Just give him $300MM already...)

Again, my plucking of this portion of the post in no way does it justice. If you need to butch up on OPS+, give it a read.

Here are the Top 10's OPS+ by Seasonable Age:

Player	Age 30	Age 31	Age 32	Age 33	Age 34	Age 35	Age 36
Wally Berger	131	140	128	107	118	-	-
Chick Hafey	121	122	150	-	112	-	-
Lance Berkman	163	130	159	139	?	?	?
Magglio Ordonez	114	113	112	166	129	109	?
Dave Parker	105	113	97	104	149	117	92
Hack Wilson	178	112	141	117	104	-	-
Fred Lynn	143	129	131	117	137	113	118
Mike Sweeney	117	127	102	88	97	106	?
Tim Salmon	119	135	98	133	122	67	-
Larry Walker	178	158	163	110	160	150	121

Most of the players had their best season at Age 30. (Look at Hack Wilson, for example.) The average of the group is 140 for their Age 30 season. Matt Holliday had an OPS+ of 139 for the 2009 season as a whole, and of 158 during his time playing with the birds on the bat adorning his chest. His career best is 151, during the magical '07 run into "Rocktober," but he has generally been in the 130s, often just below 140. In fact, he'll probably be right around his Top 10 Similars Age 30 seasonal average in his Age 30 season. Here is how the Top 10's OPS+ has averaged through their Age 36 seasons. (The large grain of salt mentioned before the Runs Created graph against applies.)

The average of the Top 10 (or, Top 3, by the Age 36 season) is above average throughout, but not so far above average as to merit Mark Teixeira money, no matter how slickly the stats roll off of Scott Boras's allegedly forked tongue. Would you want to pay $40MM for two years of a 110 OPS+? I would not, but, the Top 10's decline doesn't necessarily mean that Holliday's will be so precipitous.

PAYING TOP DOLLAR FOR THE DECLINE YEARS

Not surprisingly, the trend in offensive production--whether we look at Runs Created or OPS+--is a downward one. Whether a MLB player's peak is at Age 29 or Age 27, that late-20s peak is inevitably followed by a decline as the player's career heads into the seasons of his thirties. The question is whether the rate of decline is more analogous to the slope of a central Iowa "hill" or the Grand Canyon. For the vast majority of MLB players, the decline phase of one's career, sans PEDs, is in his thirties. While the sample size for the above Top 10 analysis is tiny, it is fairly representative of what happens to the offensive production of the MLB player population as a whole when they leave their twenties and age into their mid-thirties. That said, J.C. Bradbury, who has looked far more extensively into this than I ever will, states the following:

Age is often used as a reason to chastise GMs for picking up players past their prime. Though old players may not be what they once were, the evidence indicates they can still be valuable. According to my estimates, a hitter who has a .900 OPS at his peak would be expected to post around an .850 OPS at 35...

Matt Holliday's 2009 OPS? .909. So, how does that 6-year deal sound to you folks now?

Note: I'm also going to look at the big contract outfielders from the last fifteen years or so to give this a contemporary view, as well, that takes into account (hopefully) the advancements of the 21st century. That will be Part III...

Poll

How many years should the Cardinals be willing to give Matt Holliday in a contract?

Jeff Pearlman Thinks Of Hair Clumps When He Thinks Of The Thief McGwire

bgh — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:38:29 -0000

Jeff Pearlman offers we the lifeblood of sport his "Pearls of Wisdom" on SI.com. Last week's "pearl" was more a bullet of sanctimonious outrage aimed at the heart of the Cardinals' new hitting coach.

When most people think of Mark McGwire, one of three things enters their minds:

• Monstrous blasts that cleared the highest of walls and the most distant of gaps.

• Pathetic congressional testimony.

• Arms the size of refrigerators.

Allow me to take a moment to lament the overuse of bullet points by sportswriters in this day and age. Now, if you please, an additional moment to lament the use of bullet points when letters reminscent of a multiple choice problem would have been more appropriate. The new question: "What do most people think of when they think of Mark McGwire?" The answer: "'d.' None of the above."

Seriously. I don't think of monstrous blasts. In fact, I remember two McGwire homers. First and foremost, I think of Number 62, which barely scraped over Busch II's left field wall. Secondly, I think of the 500-and-some-odd-foot shot through the roof of the Kingdome off of The Big Unit. I suppose the second one is monstrous, but that was no gap shot. He pulled into the uber-upper deck. I don't think of his congressional testimony. Probably because he did not lie like the finger-wagging Raffy or the translated Sosa. I also don't think his arms are the size of refrigerators. Maybe portable coolers, but not 'friges, because that's just silly. "Popeye Arms," yes. "Refrigerator arms," no.

I consider myself "most people" and I think of: (1) The single season home run record of 70; and (2) Steroids. Then, I say to myself:

"Self, why should I waste my time wondering if Mark McGwire used steroids over ten years ago? He isn't even the single season home run champion any longer. The majority of the pitchers he faced were likely using PEDs of some sort, whether it be amphetamines like the great Willie Mays, steroids like the great Barry Bonds, or HGH like True Yankee Andy Pettite. I think I'll go read about the 2009 World Series since I love baseball and am looking forward to (hopefully, fingers crossed) another dramatic game featuring multiple Chase Utley L.A. Looks-fueled homers sailing through the November sky. [Brings up Shysterball.] Oh that Craig Calcaterra is so amusing. I love non-sancitimonious baseball commentary, especially when it also happens to be funny."

Jeff Pearlman is not "most people." He is an author, educated in the history of baseball, and his cranium chooses "None of the Above," as well, but for an educated reason.

When I think of Mark McGwire, the first image to cross through my cranium is that of hair. Clumps upon clumps upon clumps of hair.

(As an aside, along with bullet points, I don't really understand why columnist go out of their way to drop a multiple-syllable word unnecessarily. Sure, cranium is only three syllables and the name of a once-popular board game. But, doesn't that make it all the more annoying? I mean, at least George Will makes you dig out your dictionary.)

Clumps of hair? If you are thinking that this is some sort of dadaist exercise, you will be disappointed.

Back in 1961, when a relatively obscure New York Yankee outfielder named Roger Maris was chasing Babe Ruth's single-season home run mark, the pressure was unbearable. Commissioner Ford Frick desperately wanted the Bambino's record to stand. Yankee fans hoped Mickey Mantle, their beloved homegrown star, would set the new standard. The New York media did its all to paint Maris as an ungrateful outsider -- sullen and surly and ultimately unworthy.

As the summer heated up and 60 came closer into view, Maris began to fall apart. He chain-smoked one cigarette after another. He stopped speaking to the press.

He lost his hair.

In clumps.

Large, brown clumps.

According to his Wikipedia page, Mr. Pearlman got his first job in journalism in 1989. Assuming he got this job fresh out of college, that would put him in mid-40s. Judging by his picture, he looks about that old. That is to say, not old enough to have, ya know, actually witnessed firsthand Roger Maris losing clumps of hair. I, too, have seen Billy Crystal's well-done "61*" and that was a very memorable part of the movie. I agree that it was very unfortunate the way that the media, baseball establishment, and sportswriters treated Maris. (Crystal's movie was made after the '98 home run chase, by the way, and probably would not have been made without that memorable chase bringing this record to the fore.) "61*" told a story a lot of us did not know and, I believe, permanently changed the public's perception of Roger Maris. I know that it molded mine, as a college freshman, even if I already had a positive impression of the former Cardinal. Roger Maris deserved the treatment Crystal gave him and the rewriting of history for which the 1998 home run chase provided an impetus.

As I sit here at my computer, dumbfounded by the St. Louis Cardinals' numbingly inane decision to hire McGwire as the team's new hitting coach, I think back to Maris. Actually, I really think back to September 8, 1998, when McGwire hit his 62nd home run of the season at Busch Stadium, then immediately walked toward the stands to engulf Maris' family in an enormous bear hug. Later, with tears streaming down his cheeks, McGwire told the media how, earlier in the day, he had held the bat Maris used when he set the old mark. "I touched it with my heart," McGwire said. "When I did that, I knew tonight was going to be the night. I can say my bat will lie next to his, and I'm damn proud of it."

Sniff, sniff.

"Inane?" Is it really nonsensical? After all, Milt Thompson is a big-league hitting coach and his resume is significantly thinner than McGwire's. What's that? Oh, Thompson couldn't possibly have used 'roids? That's the difference? To that I say, to know hitting is to know hitting and if you can teach what you know, then coach away.

The scent of hypocrisy rises from this attack. In one paragraph, Pearlman bemoans the treatment of Maris that resulted in Maris chain-smoking and losing hair; in the next, he sarcastically attacks McGwire for honoring Maris in a way that few associated with the game--sportswriters, baseball insiders, players--had done before 1998. It is inconsistent and disingenuous. But, I suppose, only by undermining the genuine honoring of Roger Maris can Pearlman attack McGwire's character for allegedly using steroids...

As we all now know (Admittedly, I'm technically supposed to include the word "allegedly" in here somewhere. But I can't. And won't. Because, without question, McGwire used performance-enhancers.) McGwire was a fraud. His amazing feat wasn't nearly so amazing. His courage and strength were mirages. His greatness, well, very artificial.

The juvenile "[s]niff, sniff" seems like it should be beneath someone writing for Sports Illustrated, but this whole column does, too, so I'll just chalk it up to Pearlman Being Pearlman. (He's like Manny that way.) Pearlman then goes on to label McGwire a fraud. And maybe he was, if using steroids--assuming, as Pearlman states outright, that McGwire did--makes one a "fraud." But, what Pearlman cannot outright assert, even as he goes to great column-structuring lengths to infer, is that McGwire's sentiment toward Roger Maris was fraudulent. For those of us who watched the events unfold, this inference rings hollow. Unfortunately, Pearlman is not even close to done with his rant.

Worst of all, however, McGwire was a baseball thief. At the very moment his 341-foot home run landed behind the outfield fence, he robbed Roger Maris of the most important record in professional sports...

Even assuming this is a crime, as dastardly in nature as Pearlman's childlike psyche feels it to be, to assert that Mark McGwire is some lone figure in the shadows, slinking into the record books to singlehandedly steal professional sports' greatest record, is just silly. It is nowhere near as cleancut as Pearlman, in his sophomoric column, would have us believe. The list of accomplices to this "crime" is a mile long. The owners, the non-using players who turned a blind eye, the training staffs, the front office management, the Players' Association, and the sportswriters...Yes, that's right. The sportswriters. Jeff Pearlman helped Mark McGwire steal Maris' record. So did Murray Chass and countless others who had eyes, ears, common sense, and access. Any man or woman with that basic set of traits, and who turned a blind eye, is an accomplice to this historical "theft." Rather than worshipping these cardboard gods like a schoolboy, put on your Lois Lane cap and do some investigative journalism. It is a basic tenant of journalism. The industry gives out awards for it, even. Each and every sportswriter who missed this story, the baseball story of an era, should be denied Hall of Fame access. If Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are denied plaques because of the BBWAA's sanctimony, then so should the BBWAA members who missed this story. They failed show even the most basic level of competence, let alone greatness, and none of those who cast stones out of their glass houses should be memoralized alongside the greats of baseball journalism.

Pearlman goes on with his scarlet "R" sewing.

...He robbed the Maris family of future income from 61-related merchandising and events. He robbed the Hall of Fame -- which swooped up McGwire memorabilia as if it were free Twinkies -- of its credibility, he robbed those fans who spent hundreds of dollars for a ticket in order to witness history and he robbed thousands upon thousands of kids of a seemingly genuine role model.

I'm pretty sure that the Maris family received income from 61*-related merchandising, events, and probably will get more from Blu-Ray sales (when HBO releases 61* in blu-way, which I will be sure to purchase).

Not only should the Hall of Fame have McGwire memorabilia, but it should also have his plaque, and Bonds', and Clemens', and Sosa's, because their performances are an inextricable part of baseball history, just like segregation-era greats Ruth, Honrsby, and Dean, as well as amphetamines-era players Mays, Mantle, Robinson, Ripken, and Smith. (And, I might add, an institution that cancels an event to commemorate one of the sport's greatest films because of two of the stars' statements in opposition to a war already has some credibility problems.)

Thank you for carrying the torch of outrage for the Cardinal faithful that filled Busch II during that historic 1998 season, Jeff. I don't know how many of the millions asked you to do so, but consider me someone who does not feel cheated in any way, shape, or form. It was an amazing experience that produced many an indelible memory. That chase brought many back to the game of baseball and hooked many more for life. We came for Big Mac, but stayed for the game of baseball.

If the baseball record book is the sport's Holy Bible, then McGwire is a 3-year old armed with a permanent marker. The damage is not merely done -- it is un-erasable. (Of course, along the same analogous measures, Barry Bonds is a 3-year-old with a permanent marker, a torch and a vat of gasoline.)

The damage is "un-erasable" (because it was done with a permanent marker!). Again, if Pearlman, protector of the sanctity of baseball after-the-fact, had been paying attention before the 1998 home run chase, like in 1996 when he was hired by Sports Illustrated to write about baseball, the 3-year old would not have gotten even remotely close to the HolyBibleRecordBook. Sure, those numbers will be there, but every person who cares enough to open that record book will know of the accusations leveled against McGwire and Bonds. (For example, I was going to buy tickets for the final Cards/Brew Crew series if it looked like Pujols would be approaching 61.) If that's not enough, we could put a double-asterisk in the HolyBibleRecordBook, to denote "Steroids Era," but that seems childish, doesn't it? Kind of like putting an asterisk next to a record to denote a different season length.

And now, because Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa (whose steroid-loaded A's teams of the 1980s and early-'90s went down as an embarrassment to the sport)...

As with most everything in this "Pearl of Wisom," this is an unnecessary pot shot. How are Tony LaRussa's Athletics clubs any more of an embarassment than any other club--say, the Rangers? Yankees? Red Sox?--that employed PED users during this time in baseball history? Tell me and I'll join the stone-casting.

...has a soft spot for a former player who shed 70 pounds as soon as he retired, McGwire is back in the baseball fold; back to teach today's ballplayers how to (egad) succeed the same way he did; back to offer wisdom.

Is Pearlman really inferring that Big Mac is going to teach steroids use? Or, is he inferring that because McGwire might have used steroids, that he knows nothing about hitting a baseball? Where was this sanctimony when the Cardinals signed, re-signed, and extended known PED user Ryan Franklin? After all, that cheater was and will continue to actually play the game...

I, for one, am angry. In the course of researching and writing two books that dealt with steroids, I heard from angry fans, from angry writers, from angry coaches and baseball retires. Within the game, however, McGwire is still lauded as an all-time great. He is to be admired and worshiped and embraced.

Yes, Pearlman has written two books--one on Bonds that was overshadowed by "Game of Shadows" and one on Clemens that was overshadowed by Clemens' lawsuits--after the steroids story broke. He was a day late and a dollar short. If he'd have written one column in 1996, he could have saved Roger Maris and the sanctity of the HolyBibleRecordBook from un-erasable harm. He heared from angry fans (because angry people are the ones who make a point of being heard from) and angry writers (who were doubtlessly angry at themselves for not being more like Lois Lane and getting to the bottom of the 500-foot homers, 50-HR season, and bulgingly muscular bodies of the 1990s adn 2000s players) and angry coaches (who had NO IDEA! HONESTLY! that PEDs were being used) as well as angry former players (who think that greenies are fine but steroids are an outrage).

Mark McGwire is a baseball golden calf who is worshipped by PED sinners, apparently. I do my worshipping on Sundays, and not of athletes. Whether or not you want to admire a man who went out of his way to share the spotlight with Roger Maris and his family, who did some great charity work to help abused kids and may have used steroids is your business. I, for one, will be embracing Mark McGwire, the hitting coach, because the Cardinals could use a more patient approach at the plate and I am hoping McGwire can help them to achieve it. The other reason is that--aside of Ozzie Smith, of course--I don't worship ballplayers. I know that some are racist, some gamble, some hit women, some do drugs, and some womanize. All of them happen to be incredibly physically gifted. Being a grown-up, I can separate the awe of a 12-to-6 curveball, or, a 450-foot moonshot, from what makes someone admirable, their character. That is why I'll tell my kids about the steroids era, and why players did what they did at that time, just like I'll tell them about the Black Sox, Pete Rose, greenies, and segregation--but only when they are older and only after they have heard stories of Stan Musial and how, no matter the degree of physical talent, the true measure of a human being is how that person treats others.

Mets Fans Have Choice of Two Evils in World Series

bgh — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:20:18 -0000

Mets Fans Have Choice of Two Evils in World Series

The lead:

In recent years Mets fans could measure baseball seasons by degrees of suffering. Since a called third strike dashed championship hopes in 2006, the team has been defined by fall flameouts, until this year, when there was an early summer flameout.

TLR on Twitter?

bgh — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:06:00 -0000

TLR on Twitter?

Questions:

1) Is this really Tony La Russa?

2) Did TLR choose the picture for Twitter account? If so, I applaud him.

October Lore: One In A Million

bgh — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:45:36 -0000

For baseball, October is the month of eternity. While a plate appearance in June will often become swallowed up in and forgotten amongst the thousands of other batter-vs.-pitcher confrontations over the course of the marathon 162-game regular season, each postseason pitch offers those involved a chance at heroism and at infamy. For every Kirk Gibson, there is a Carlos Beltran. For every Jim Edmonds, there is a Bill Buckner. For every Mariano Rivera (pick one), there is a Mariano Rivera (blown save and loss in Game 7 of the '01 World Series).

The game of baseball, more than any other sport, places individual players on an island, which shines a spotlight on their individual successes and failures. This unique stage enshrines in our collective consciousness heroes and goats as each October triumph and heartbreak for a team and its fans is the product of players coming through or failing, largely while acting alone, right before our very eyes.

These successes and failures are made all the more memorable by their improbability. It adds to both their enjoyment and anguish. As we all know, the best hitter in a given season, on average, will make an out at least sixty-five out of every one hundred times he digs into the box. This means that, in those most hand-wringing of situations, even the greatest hitters have the odds that they will come through stacked against them.

Now let us move to Cardinal October Lore, and the improbable feats that gave birth to a Cardinal hero and a Cardinal goat.

"GO CRAZY, FOLKS! GO CRAZY!"

Ozzie Smith will never be known first for his bat. Even if his offensive skill is underrated, he is known as "The Wizard" because of otherworldly skill as a defensive shortstop. For his career, Ozzie hit .262/.337/.328 for an OPS of .666 overall. He managed only 28 home runs in 10,778 PAs. That is one homer per every 384.9 PAs. Think about that for a moment; in let it sink. Now introduce these figures to your doubtlessly already-blown mind. Ozzie hit 23 of his 28 homers from the righthanded batter's box, only hitting 5 dingers (to use the new hitting coach's term of choice) in his 7,183 PAs from the lefthanded side of the plate. That is one homer for every 1,436 PAs.

In 1985,the Cardinals squared off against the Los Angeles Dodgers in the NLCS. The clubs split the first four games, making the series knotted up at 2 games each, and setting the stage for a dramatic and pivotal Game 5 in the astroturfed Busch Stadium. The Cardinals struck first, plating 2 runs in the bottom of the first when Tommy Herr's double plated Willie McGee and the Wizard. In the top of the fourth, the Dodgers tied the game on a Madlock homer. The series, and the game, would remain deadlocked at two into the ninth inning.

Right Dodger reliever Tom Niedenfuer took the ball for the visitors. That season, he had amassed 104 strikeouts to just 24 walks while earning 19 saves and posting a 2.61 ERA. The hulking righty stood at 6'5" and retired Willie McGee on a pop out to third base. In stepped Ozzie Smith, batting left-handed, something during which he had never, up to that point in his MLB career, hit a home run while doing. Niedenfuer, who had allowed 6 home runs in 106.1 IP, worked ahead in the count to the Wizard, 1-2. The mustachioed righty went down and in with a fastball and Ozzie swung his way into eternity, yanking the heater just barely over the right field wall. Over the joyous explosion of the Cardinal faithful, Jack Buck lent his legendary call.

"I LOST IT IN THE LIGHTS"

Matt Holliday was the apple of TLR's eye, the Proven Veteran who could actually protect Albert Pujols such that opposing pitchers would be forced to pitch the National League's perennial MVP. At the trading deadline, Cardinal GM John Mozeliak made TLR's dream a reality and traded a handful of prospects, including the Cardinals' top hitting prospect, for the now-Oakland A's left fielder. Holliday took the National League by storm upon re-joining it and contributed to the Cardinals' runaway division title.

Matt Holliday has played left field throughout most of his time in the big leagues. He has established himself as an above-average defenderat the the position, posting a UZR/150 of 6.2 for his career. In 6 seasons, Holliday has been given 31 errors in 7,267.1 innings. Of those 31 errors, 24 occurred on a fielding opportunity. A runner reached base due to one of Holliday's errors on 6 occasions. So, a runner reached base because of a Holliday error once every 1,211 innings Holliday plays in the field.

There were two outs in the pivotal Game 2 of the NLDS versus the Los Angeles Dodgers. Chris Carpenter was less than stellar in his opening game loss and Adam Wainwright was magnificent in Game 2, handing over a 2-1 lead in the ninth to closer Ryan Franklin. After record two outs, Franklin gave up a fly-ball to left field, which Holliday seemed to track, only to misplay the flyball as it fell toward the outfield grass, deflecting off his body. The Dodgers would go on to score two runs in the inning, both unearned, and take a commanding 2-0 series lead before completing the sweep in St. Louis two days later. Over the bitter gasps and moans of Cardinal fans, Mike Shannon and Vin Scully called the play (and both can be heard on the MLB.com link above).

OCTOBER HISTORY

Whether it was the jubilation felt upon Ozzie's homer or the stomach-punch of Holliday's blunder, is it any wonder that ballplayers and coaches often talk of the Gods of Baseball? How is it that such long-shot occurrences take place at moments when seasons hang in the balance, where a home run or a dropped fly-ball mean exponentially more to a team's fortunes than they would on a cold April evening or a sweltering July afternoon? Of course, we will never know. But, for me, it shows that the postseason hinges on luck as much as skill and only cements my habit, since childhood, of wearing my "lucky" Cardinal gear in the month of October, when the games mean so much more and the fate of our Cardinals, as players and as a team, will be sealed in the annals of baseball history and remembered forever in the tales of October lore.

P-D photo of Boog throwing to Pujols

bgh — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:51:48 -0000

P-D photo of Boog throwing to Pujols

I saw this on the sidebar while I was reading Goold this morning. Pretty cool photo.

October 21st: Anthony Reyes Day

bgh — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:18:47 -0000

Anthony Reyes presumably throws a four-seam fastball up in the zone against a Detroit Tiger batsman on October 21, 2006 (via newyork.yankees.mlb.com ).

It was late October in the year 2006 and the "Tigers-in-Three" conventional wisdom had reached a fever pitch amongst the baseball commentariat that had already confidentally, knowingly picked the Padres in two and the Metropolitans in three in the weeks prior. Nonetheless, it was the 83-win Cardinals who emerged as champions of the National League, escapees of one of the most dramatic National League Championship Series of our lifetimes, which featured a Game 7 for the ages that still causes Carlos Beltran to wake up at night in a cold sweat, having dreamt of an Adam Wainwright curveball coming right at him, only to break seemingly against the laws of physics, over the plate, through the strikezone, for a called "Strike Three!" After that knock-down, drag-out heavyweight fight, the Cardinals trudged onward and northward to the city of Detroit.

A seven-game series inevitably throws a club's pitching rotation and staff into disarray, as the field manager is thrust into a win-at-all-costs mentality and consequently leaves no arrows in his pitching quiver for the World Series that is to follow. And so the Cardinals were left with an up-and-comer, or, down-and-outer--depending on where you, as a Cardinal fan, came down on the dramatically polarizing Anthony Reyes debate--for the pivotal (and what World Series game is not pivotal?) Game 1.

Tyler Kepner, of the New York Times (newspaper of the once-again free archives), offers a wonderful setting of the stage in his game story:

Anthony Reyes made his first start this season at a place called Bricktown Ballpark in Oklahoma City, against a team called the RedHawks. He gave up nine hits and his team lost.

Reyes was not the preferred choice for the St. Louis Cardinals in Game 1 of the World Series on Saturday. He had not won in 47 days, and his five regular-season victories were the fewest for a Game 1 starter in 77 years.

But Reyes was rested, unlike the other Cardinals starters, so there he was on the mound at Comerica Park...

Loathe as I am to measure a pitcher's individual pitching performance with "Wins" and "Losses." There are other stats which demonstrate the improbability of Reyes being tapped by TLR and Dave Duncan to start the first game of the World Series. That year, Reyes started 17 games for St. Louis, throwing 85.1 big-league innings. He struck out 7.59 and walked 3.59 per 9 innings. Reyes also gave up many a homer, 1.79 per 9 innings, in fact. All of this amounted to a 5.49 FIP, or, a 5.06 ERA, if you are so inclined. Furthermore, his groundball percentage was a mere 34.5 percent.

His manager had turned to Reyes in Game 4 of the NLCS, with St. Louis leading the series two games to one, and Reyes had neither dominated nor flopped, lasting only 4 innings while surrendering only two runs despite issuing four walks and giving up two home runs. (He left the game to WonderBrad Thompson tied at two, and Thompson wasted little time allowing the Mets to take a 5-2 lead. Thompson was the losing pitcher in a 12-5 thumping that tied the series. This is part of the postseason experience Thompson possesses and that Straussie seemed to so covet in the days between season's end and playoffs' start.) The walks and homers surrendered to the Mets left no reason for the Cardinal faithful to anticipate anything but more of the same from Reyes: walks, strikeouts, and homers.

To make matters worse, the Wild Card Tigers had ripped through Billy Beane's Athletics, sweeping Oakland in the ALCS, which afforded Jim Leyland the luxury of having his pitching staff perfectly alligned for a three-game World Series sweep. For Game 1, that meant Rookie of the Year Justin Verlander, he of the high-90s (and sometimes 100) fastball which was complimented by a deceitful change-up. Verlander's 3.63 ERA somewhat masked a 4.35 FIP, but Verlander was democratically only striking out 6 batters per 9 innings while inducing grounders about 42 percent of the time (compared to the fascist K and GB rates of Reyes). Verlander was also walking 2.99 per nine innings. The peripheral stats made a David-vs-Goliath ERA mismatch something less biblical in nature, even if it was, perhaps even justifiably, Exhibt A in the case for the Tigers-in-Three.

The temperature was a cool, but comfortable, 54 degrees in Detroit that evening, and Verlander cooled the Cardinal bats in the first, inducing two groundouts before striking out The Great Pujols, to end a 1-2-3 visitors' half of the first. Reyes then took the mound. After retiring Granderson on a grounder to Pujols, Reyes surrendered a double to Craig Monroe, induced a popout by former Cardinal Placido Polanco, walked Magglio Ordonez, and gave up an RBI single to Carlos Guillen, which gave Detroit a 1-0 lead, before Ivan Rodriguez fortuitously lined out to second base to bring the first inning to a close.

In the top of the second, Scott Rolen tied the game with a home run off of Verlander and Reyes made quick work of the bottom third of the Tiger order, 1-2-3. In the third, the Cardinal bats opened up the game. Yadier Molina led things off with a single and advanced to second base by starting left fielder, So Taguchi. After David Eckstein struck out looking, Chris Duncan doubled home Molina, for a 2-1 Cardinal lead. Then, The Great Pujols launched a ball deep into the Motor City night, expanding the Cardinal lead to three runs, 4-1. That would be all Reyes would need.

Beginning in the second, Reyes retired 17 consecutive Tigers, a streak that was broken by a seventh inning Carlos Guillen single. By that time, however, an error-filled sixth had doubled the St. Louis lead to 7-1. Reyes retired four consecutive Tigers after the Guillen single and entered the bottom of the ninth still ahead 7-1, having not allowed a Tiger past first base since the first inning. Naturally, Reyes regressed to his mean and gave up a solo home run to Craig Monroe, making the score 7-2, and was pulled by Tony La Russa for Braden Looper, who finished out the Cardinal victory. Reyes threw 91 pitches that evening, 67 for strikes. He collected only 5 democratic outs via groundball and 19 by the flyball. He struck out only four Detroit batsmen, but walked merely one. The Tigers mustered only four hits on the rookie, in an offensive effort that was diagnosed as rust-induced, due to the long layoff between ALCS Game 4 and World Series Game1.

Timesman Kepner writes:

[T]he Tigers could not explain how Reyes, without an overpowering fastball, handled them so easily. Reyes threw almost all fastballs after the first inning, taking a suggestion from the pitching coach Dave Duncan, and he rarely missed a spot.

He was a marvel of efficiency, throwing only 90 pitches and allowing four hits and a walk with four strikeouts. From the last out of the first inning to the first out of the seventh, he retired 17 Tigers in a row. It was the longest such streak in the World Series since Cincinnati's José Rijo set down 20 Oakland hitters in 1990.

Tom Goldman, of NPR, colorfully describes how Reyes tamed the Tigers:

Here's a World Series math puzzler. When is five greater than 40,000? Answer: when Anthony Reyes is pitching. Before last night's game, five was the number most associated with the Cardinals' rookie right-hander. It was the woeful amount of wins he had during the regular season, the fewest of any Game 1 starting pitcher in World Series history.

But by the end of the game, the roughly 40,000 Detroit fans at Comerica Park were left shell-shocked by what Reyes did to their Tigers. He defanged them, de-clawed them, turning them into pussycats who only got four hits and two runs. With his Cardinal-red socks pulled up high the old fashioned way, and wearing his cap with the most unfashionable flat brim, Reyes at one point retired seventeen straight Detroit batters.

And so the Tigers-in-Three movement was stopped dead in its tracks with an unlikely gem by a former top prospect. As Thomas Harding wrote for stlcardinals.com, "Thanks to outstanding pitching by Cardinals righty Anthony Reyes, the coronation of the Tigers is not such a foregone conclusion now, is it?" Sportswriters, fans, and players alike were astounded to learn that the Tigers now had to win four games out of a maximum of six remaining games to clinch the title.

Reyes' was a classic performance, but, sadly, not one that was a harbinger of future success for the young four-seamer in the birds-on-the bat. He would appear in 22 games for the Cardinals during the 2007 season and perform poorly, with a FIP of 5.25 and an ERA over six. In 2008, he was traded to the Indians for Luis Perdomo, a young fireballer out of the bullpen who the organization would not even protect from the Rule V Draft. Reyes pitched well for Cleveland in '08, but was lit up in 2009 and now faces a murky future.

The fate of Anthony Reyes was unsurprising. His most important game, even if it was not his best performance, collected a game score of 69, consisted of ~~one less~~ 4 strikeouts and 3 groundouts to go with ~~nearly 20~~ 15 flyball outs.* Anthony Reyes on the LaDunc St. Louis Cardinals was a mixing of oil and water, a flyball/strikeout pitcher known for firing his four-seamer high in the zone for swings-and-misses installed into a system founded on the philosophy of pitching to contact, throwing sinking two-seamers down in the zone. Despite a relationship that was, in retrospect, doomed from its inception, Reyes turned in a pivotal performance on the sport's greatest stage, helping the National League's greatest franchise capture the tenth World Series championship in its long and storied history. Every October, I think of that unlikely band of Cardinals, and give them the appreciation I feel they deserve for that magical run. The day of October 21st goes to Anthony Reyes.

*Hat tip to Solanus for correcting the out breakdown via Retrosheet.

King's Ransoms: Are Left Fielders Worth It?

bgh — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:03:33 -0000

October 2006 was a happier time (via newyork.mets.mlb.com). Yes, I got this off of the Mets' official site. How awesome is that? No, I never tire of posting photos from the magical 2006 run.

Lets go back to a happier time, a little more than three years ago, when the St. Louis Cardinals had dispatched of the San Diego Padres in the NLDS, defeated the New York Metropolitans in a high-drama, classic NLCS, and then defeated the heavily-favored Tigers in the World Series for the franchise's National League-leading tenth world title. It was a title that the MV3 deserved, even if the MV3 was little more than a shell of its former greatness. After the season, there were many decisions to be made about the World Champs' roster, and Walt Jocketty, much to the chagrin of many in the VEB community who recognized that the '06 Cards needed a shake-up to compete for the playoffs in '07, was largely content to bring the '06 champs back for a victory lap in '07. There were two immediate offensive upgrades available on the open market. Both happen to be left fielders, then and now, both went to NL Central rivals, and both offer cautionary tales on investing nine figures in thirty(-something) outfielders.

ALFONSO SORIANO TO THE CUBS

One of the players coveted by some on this board was Alfonso Soriano. Walt Jocketty didn't bite, and the Cubs swept him up, immediately adding more punch to a lineup that already had the power bats of Derek Lee and Aramis Ramirez at the infield corners.

Soriano was the prize catch of the 2006-07 Hot Stove. He had just completed an impressive Age 30 season in the cavernous RFK Stadium, former home of the Nationals. He swatted 46 home runs a year after hitting 36 in the homer-friendly Ballpark at Arlington (or whatever the corporate name is these days). His line was impressive: .277/.351/.560/.911, a career-high OPS in his free agent year. And the Cubbies rewarded him handsomely, giving Soriano an eight-year deal worth $136 million, the largest in the franchise's long history. The Cubs' Official Site also gives us this perspective on the Soriano deal:

Soriano's package is the fifth largest given to a Major League player, behind Alex Rodriguez ($252 million for 10 years), Derek Jeter ($189 million for 10 years), Manny Ramirez ($160 million for eight years) and Todd Helton ($141.5 million for 11 years).

It was an addition that would ultimately prove enough to help make the Cubs the last club standing in an underwhelming NL Central the following year when Soriano repeated his career-high WAR of 5.5 for the Cubs in '07. That year, the backloaded deal paid Soriano $10 million for $22.7 million in value from the left fielder, and many a Cubs fan celebrated the signing while many a Cardinals fan bemoaned DeWitt for not opening DeWallet and making Soriano a Cardinal.

The next year, 2008, the Cubs were a juggernaut. They had some of the best pitching and hitting in the league and bulldozed their competition in the division while securing the NL's top record. Everything fell into place for Hendry's 25 and the season was magical...until they repeated their 2007 NLDS flameout and were swept into the history books, providing a sad chapter that commemorates their 100th consecutive year of losing. Soriano had a good year, OPSing .876, but his WAR fell to 3.3, giving the Cubbies $13.8 million in value for $14 million in salary in his Age 32 season.

We all know that Soriano's production fell off the proverbial cliff in the just-completed summer of 2009. Soriano hit .241/.303/.423/.726 over 522 PAs in 117 games and his UZR/150 went from 5.2 in '08 to -13.4 in '09 (for whatever the reason, e.g., UZR being slightly unreliable, Soriano being injured, Soriano aging, Soriano having a bad defensive season). His offense, coupled with his defense, resulted in Soriano's WAR plummeting to -0.8, giving the Cubs -$3.6 million in value for Soriano's$16 million 2009 salary. In three years with the Cubs, Soriano has given them $32.3 million in value, according to WAR, for a salary of $40 million. As noted above, however, Soriano is still under contract for five more years. Through 2014. At $19 million annually.

This is not to say that the 34-year-old Soranio, in the Poststeroids Era, will not OPS .900 next year and put up a WAR of 5.5 on the strength of a complete revival of his game, but it is also possible, perhaps even likely, that Soriano will struggle to OPS even .800 and against be a negative value for the Cubs. It is worth taking notice and seeing just how easy it is for yesterday's triumphant signing to become today's albatross contract.

CARLOS LEE TO THE ASTROS

The aptly nicknamed El Caballo couldn't ever field--and this is something that UZR and scouts alike will agree--so it is unlikely that the Astro front office ever had even the seed of a thought in its collective mind that he could be even serviceable as a full-time left fielder. (At least this is what I tell myself.) No, they wanted the .300-average, 30+ home run power hitter. So what if his last name doesn't begin with a "B," he was a killer of baseballs. Like Soriano, Lee had just completed an impressive display of offensive power in his Age 30 season. He whacked 37 homers between Milwaukee and Arlington while posting a slash line of .300/.355/.540/.895. It was a 2.6-WAR season for Lee and got him a $100 million, 6-year deal (with a "nominal weight clause") to patrol the Crawford Box-shorted pasture of left field in ~~Enron~~ Minute Maid.

"This is a historic commitment to winning," Astros general manager Tim Purpura said. [Author's Note: Purpura said this upon signing a .300-hitting, ~30 HR left fielder. Hmmm. Who could I see saying the same thing come Thanksgiving, upon inking another .300-hitting, ~30 HR left fielder to a 6-year, $100+ million contract...]

Again, the contract was backloaded (as contracts tend to be). Again, this made the contract look pretty good, in terms of value, in the early years.

How the Crawford Boxes affect his UZR is certainly up for debate, but he has been consistently below average during his three years in Houston, according to the metric. Thus, a downward trend in defense has not negatively impacted Lee's WAR, like it had Soriano.

Lee can hit and has done so consistently for the 'Stros, even if his power numbers were somewhat lower this season. His slugging percentage was .528 in '07, .569 in '08, and then .489 in '09. Lee has hit for average--.303, .314, and .300--in his three seasons. In fact, offensively, Lee has been about what one would expect him to be through his Age 33 season. In terms of value, he has delivered a 3.3-WAR '07, giving Houston $13.5 million in value for $11.5 million in salary. In '08, his WAR was again 3.3, that year providing a $15 million value for $12.5 million in salary. This year, his WAR fell to 2.4, good for a value of $10.6 million. His salary, though, climbed to $18.5 million, giving the club a value-to-salary ratio of -$7.9 million. For three years, Lee's net value by WAR has been -$3.4 million for Houston. Who thinks he will be worth the $19 million annual salary the Astros will pay him in each of 2010, 2011, and 2012? Me, neither. Maybe they could trade him? Not according to the ESPN article on the contract.

A source told ESPN.com's Jayson Stark the only significant non-monetary clause in the contract is that Lee will have a complete no-trade clause for the first four years of the deal and a limited no-trade for the final two years.

So, we have two power-hitting left fielders who were signed to long-term, $100 million (or more) contracts by divisonal foes in the not-so-distant Hot Stove of aught-six. As Cardinals fans, we can sit back and chuckle as we watch them "earn" their $19 million salaries over the next three or five years. And we should do as much, but we should also look in the mirror and ask ourselves what Matt Holliday is worth in both years and dollars, because, come 2012, our franchise could be weighted down by a $100-million albatross contract just as the Astros and Cubs are today.

Next Installment: "The Parameters of Signing Holliday"

Slate Video: "Baseball's Warped Camera Angle"

bgh — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:30:54 -0000

Slate Video: "Baseball's Warped Camera Angle"

They did an article on this a while back, and here is the video. Definitely worth checking out as we begin to yell at our televisions over umpiring this October.

THT Player Profile: Colby Rasmus

bgh — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:11:57 -0000