SB Nation User Blog: steincat

6 Cubs Bleachers - Friday 1:20pm

steincat — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:41:50 -0000

6 Cubs Bleachers - Friday 1:20pm

Chicago Tribers -

I have 6 bleachers for Friday afternoon game (6/19) against the Cubs at Wrigley Field. Start time is 1:20pm. I figured I would post here first before Craigslist if anyone wants them. Face value is $50 - can meet anytime to drop off tickets. Happy to split the total if you want only a couple.

email: steincat@gmail.com
adam

ps. If you're not supposed to pimp tickets through FanShots, sorry - I looked for some other forum and didn't see anything.

Grand Opening for Goodyear, AZ Complex

steincat — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:59:08 -0000

Grand Opening for Goodyear, AZ Complex

I moved down here last month to start at Thunderbird School of Global Management (MBA). While there are definite drawbacks to summers in Arizona, the arrival of the Indians for ST in 2009 is going to be well worth it.

Thought you all would like to know that they're opening up the facilities next weekend to the public. I'm hoping to make it and will post pics if I do.

The Big Inning

steincat — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:53:44 -0000

Ok -

I tried to go and model what was being discussed in a thread a couple days ago, and had been mentioned by DiaTriber.

Basically, the idea is that the Indians are struggling because they bunch their runs in just a few innings, and don't score otherwise. This seems to bear out in the data and I tried to depict it graphically. The red triangles indicated a Winning Percentage of .550 or greater.

via i284.photobucket.com

The chart essentially maps out two things:

X-axis: Number of innings with 4+ runs / Total number of innings played

Y-axis: Number of runs scored in innings with at least 4 runs scored / Total number of runs scored

The extreme would be if you scored all of your runs for the whole season in one inning, you would be in the upper left hand corner and would not win many games. However, if you scored 4+ runs consistently in bunches over and over again, let's call it being good at having a "Big Inning" then you would be towards the upper right hand corner.

I think it's clear that the majority of the teams that are winning their games (red triangle is a W-L % of greater than .550) are able to have the "Big Inning" more often than the rest of the league. They have a greater proportion of their innings, and a greater number of total runs, that are generated in big innings.

The Indians are generating big innings, but they are clearly concentrated in a smaller number of innings than is being demonstrated for clubs that are successful thus far. The Indians are also 24th in the majors in runs scored, so their absolute number of runs is much smaller than, say the Cubs or Red Sox, who are scoring 250+ runs total so far (compared with 186 for the Indians).

I guess this goes without saying, but if the Indians can move towards the right, that means that they'll be stringing together more "Big Innings", which should be plenty to get them wins if the pitching stays consistent.

Went to the game last night and had to take a pic of this very very odd thing. For those in...

steincat — Thu, 22 May 2008 15:35:56 -0000

Went to the game last night and had to take a pic of this very very odd thing. For those in Chicago, you doubtless know the tale of Ronnie Woo-Woo. For those who don't, click on link below.

http://www.ronniewoowoo.com/inTheNews.htm

Anyways, outside U.S. Cellular, Ronnie Woo-Woo was standing in front of a band, dancing and waving a Barack Obabma 2008 election sign. It was really a bizzarro world scene that I had to capture with my phone. Enjoy.

(ps. I was in LF corner and Dellucci's catch was incredible - definitely a highlight on a horrible night)

Willis to the 'Pen

steincat — Wed, 21 May 2008 21:50:40 -0000

Willis to the 'Pen

Bad Managing = Winning Teams?

steincat — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 20:39:10 -0000

Bad Managing = Winning Teams?

I'm not sure what this WSJ article is meant to get at, but it seems to me, looking at the bottom of the rankings, that you want your manager to score as poorly as possible in their rating system in order to have success at the MLB level. Way to go, Wedgie!

The Aluminum Monster vs. Fatty McGoo

steincat — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:59:46 -0000

I've been having some conversations with a buddy in LA about Andruw Jones being fat. So I decided to take a look at the fattest listed weights in the game - I pulled my info from ESPN.com rosters as of 3/14, and it is not the full 40-man, but is above 25, so most teams have around 35 people listed (1,006 total players). I recognize that listed weights aren't that accurate, and that this is more trivial than informative, but I found it interesting anyways:

(1) CC is tied for fattest listed weight in the league, along with Jonathan Broxton, at 290. Wow. The saving grace for Charleston Chew is that he has 3 inches on Broxton.

(2) The White Sox are the fattest team in the majors (avg wt = 221), followed by the Yankees (219). This couldn't have turned out any better, IMHO.

(3) The general numbers between AL and NL by position are pretty similar, except that at CF, AL is 10 lbs heavier than NL (202 v. 192). The next largest variance of any position is RF 7 lbs (214 v. 207), and then 5 lbs LF(204 v. 209), with NL being heavier. Given that there are 8 people named as DH in the AL (avg wt = 235), it surprises me that AL outfielders are also much heavier.

(4) All three AL divisions are heavier, with avg wt of W (210) / C (210) / E (208) on average, than NL divisions, C (208), W (205), E (204). AL (avg wt = 209) is heavier than NL (206).

Position breakdowns (min 100 ABs in 2007):
(AL / NL )

Catcher
Skinny: I Rodriguez, DET (190) / J Flores, WAS (180)
Fat: T Hall, CHW (255) / R Paulino, PIT (245)
Tribe Note: Victor's 210 is below Catcher AL avg of 214

1B
Skinny: R Gload, KC (190) / R Aurilia, SF (190)
Fat: R Sexson, SEA (240) / P Fielder, MIL (270)
Tribe Note: Garko 225 is right on 1B AL avg of 223

2B
Skinny: AstroCab, CLE (170) / M Fontenot, CHC (160)
Fat: M Cairo, SEA (208) / R Weeks, MIL (213)
Tribe Note: Asdrubal tied with new teammate Carroll for lightest AL at 170, soaking wet

3B
Skinny: M Izturis, LAA (170) / C Counsell, MIL (179)
Fat: S Rolen, TOR tied Miggy Cabrera, DET (240) / T Glaus, STL (240)
Tribe Note: Blake's 210 is close to 3B AL avg of 207

SS
Skinny: J Lugo, BOS (175) / J Rollins, PHI (168)
Fat: J Uribe, CHW (225) / M Tejada, HOU (213)
Tribe Note: Jhonny's chubby face and lack of range belie his weight of 210, tying him for third fattest SS in MLB

LF
Skinny: R Johnson, TOR (180) / E Chavez, NYM (165)
Fat: R Ibanez, SEA (225) / A Dunn, CIN (275) WOW!
Tribe Note: Delucci edges out Michaels for skinny honors, 205 to 206 - right on LF AL avg of 204

CF
Skinny: Ichiro, SEA (172) / W Taveras, COL (160)
Fat: M Byrd, TEX (245) / E Dukes, WAS (220)
Tribe Note: Grady is at 200 even, a little less than the AL CF avg of 202

Side Note: Turns out Andruw Jones LISTED weight is 210, which is far from Marlon Byrd territory. I think actuals would give a lot closer competition.

RF
Skinny: Gootz, CLE (190) / S Victorino, PHI (180)
Fat: J Dye, CHW (245) / A Kearns, WAS (245)
Tribe Note: Franklin checks in almost 25 lbs lighter than AL avg of 224, as he truly represents a CF playing the corner

DH - only 8 listed as full-time DH
Skinny: J Vidro, SEA (200)
Fat: F Thomas, TOR (275)
Tribe Note: Pronk holds his own with the big boys, checking in at 240 against the DH avg of 235

P - did not separate relief v. starter
Skinny: F Cabrera, BAL (170) / W Rodriguez, HOU (160)
Fat: C.C., CLE (290) / J Broxton, LAD (290)
Tribe Note: I'll stick to starters - Fausto (230), Westbrook (215), Byrd (190 with HGH, 189 without), Lee-Laffey-Sowers (190-180-180) are mostly far from the AL average of 211. And JoBo, despite looking and pitching like Wickie, is listed at 215 somehow. Like his ERA, his belly must be inflated from a few bad trips to the all-you-can-eat buffet

So general reaction is that Tribe is right around league average, maybe even a little light, with the obvious exception. No clue how that projects to performance, but I'm going to say it is positive (less injury risk?)

--> Full data set of 1,000+ players can be viewed at google docs