This post originally appeared here

Vin Scully likes to repeat a quote from a well-known former Major League manager, “Give me 50 games and I’ll know what kind of team I have.” I don’t remember who said it, or what the exact quote is, but that’s the gist of it. Just for reference, 50 games into the MLB season usually lands around the end of May. I wanted to test this out and see how quickly we know how good a team actually is, so I did what any regular baseball fan would do: I went to coolstandings.com and grabbed the record at the end of each month for every team since 1998 (expansion). Then, I looked at the end of month winning percentage and compared it to the end of season win total, using a linear regression. I also split each month up into bins of team winning percentage. Each bin contains about 65 teams.

Read the rest of this entry »

This post originally appeared here.

According to Major League Baseball commissioner Bud Selig, another wild card spot in each league will be added to MLB’s playoff system. However, Michael Weiner – head of the Player’s Association – says talks are still in negotiation, though he doesn’t seem opposed to the idea. I’m sure there is a lot of politicking taking place, something I don’t much care for. So instead, I ask the question: what is the difference in adding a second playoff team? I decided to take a look at each season since the wildcard was introduced in 1995 and find out for myself. I took the record for each playoff team since 1996 and this is what I found:

Read the rest of this entry »

On the surface, Brett Gardner looks like a Bobby Abreu protege (without any power). Since 2010, Brett has shown off his great eye for pitches, posting the 2nd lowest chase rate in baseball at 18.1%.

His ability to make contact with pitches is also astonishing, as he makes contact with 97.2% with pitches in the strike zone, behind only Juan Pierre and Marco Scutaro. Of the 2789 pitches Brett has seen since the start of 2010, he has only swung and missed at 265 pitches.

Where Brett Gardner lacks is in his ability to swing at pitches in the strike zone. Over the last two seasons, Brett has swung at a major league low 45.2% of pitches in the strike zone. He owns this record almost 6% (next lowest is Elvis Andrus at 50.9%) and is almost 20% below the league average. Combined with his low chase rates, its only natural also that Brett has the lowest swing rate in MLB at 31.3%, compared to the league average of 45.6%.

Read the rest of this entry »

There are a number of published baseball player forecasts that are freely available and online.  As Dave Allen notes in his article on Fangraphs Fan Projections, and what I find as well, is that some projections are definitely better than others.  Part 1 of this article examines the overall fit of each of six different player forecasts: Zips, CHONE, Marcel, CBS Sportsline, ESPN, and Fangraphs Fans.  What I find is that the Marcel projections are the best based on average error, followed by the Zips and CHONE projections.  However, if we control for the over-optimism of each of these projection systems, each of the forecasts are virtually indistinguishable.

This second result is important in that it requires us to dig a little deeper to see how much each of these forecasts is actually helping to predict player performance.  This is addressed in Part 2 of this article.

The tool that is generally used to compare the average fit of a set of forecasts is Root Mean Squared Forecasting Error (RMSFE).  This measure is imperfect in that it doesn’t consider the relative value of an over-projection versus and under-projection; for example, in earlier rounds of a fantasy draft we may be drafting to limit risk while in later rounds we may be seeking risk.  That being said, RMSE is pretty easy to understand and is thus the standard for comparing average fit of a projection.

Table 1 shows the RMSFE of each of the projection systems in each of the main five fantasy categories for hitters.  Here, we see that each of the “mechanical” projection systems (Marcel, Zips, and CHONE) are the best compared to the three “human” projections.  The value is the standard deviation of the error of a particular forecast.  In other words, 2/3rds of the time, a player projected by Marcel to score 100 runs will score between 75 and 125 runs.

Table 1. Root Mean Squared Forecasting Error

Another measure that is important is bias.  Bias occurs when a projection consistently over or under predicts.  Bias inflates the MSFE, so a simple bias correction may improve a forecast’s fit substantially.  In Table 2, we see that the human projection systems exhibit substantially more bias than the mechanical ones.

Table 2. Average Bias

We can get a better picture about which forecasting system is best by correcting for bias in the individual forecasts. Table 3 presents the results of bias corrected RMSFEs. What we see here is a tightening in the results of the forecasts across each of the forecasting systems.  Here, we see that each forecasting system is about the same.

Table 3. Bias-corrected Root Mean Squared Forecasting Error

So where does this leave us if each of these six forecasts are basically indistinguishable?  As it turns out, evaluating the performance of individual forecasts doesn’t tell the whole story.  It may be true that there is useful information in each of the different forecasting systems, so that an average or a weighted average of forecasts may prove to be a better predictor than any individual forecast. Part 2 of this article examines this in some detail. Stay tuned!

Eno Saris’s recent article on Jason Heyward comps got me thinking about comps. It also happens to coincide with the day that I got my Baseball-reference subscription. That I would start looking at seasons from 20 year-olds was inevitable.

It was maybe the third or fourth thing I noticed: 2010 featured another remarkable season from a 20 year-old hitter: Mike Stanton. Here’s a fun fact about Heyward: among 20 year-olds, only two guys walked in more plate appearances than the Braves’ young stud. (Ted Williams and Mel Ott.) Here’s a fun fact about Stanton: the guy closest to him in batted balls for home runs, among 20 year-olds, is Mel Ott, but Mike Staton sent a greater percentage of batted balls over the fence than any age 20 hitter in the retro-sheet era. (Perhaps less fun: he has the highest K% among 20 year-olds too.)

But who are the players most comparable to Stanton and Heyward? To answer this question, I started focusing on three true outcome rate stats (since those are more stable in small samples than ball-in-play stats) in seasons from 20 year-old hitters (regardless of experience). While it’s tempting to focus on rookies, there are just 102 seasons with 200+ PA from a 20 year-old since 1920, so focusing on similarly young rookies just shrinks an already small group. To expand the group a little, I added 21 year-old in their first season (also cut off at 200 PA).

To compare these players, I developed z-scores for players BB/PA, K/AB, and HR/batted ball (AB-K). (See a technical section below on these scores.) Then, treating each 20 year-olds 3 z-scores as a vector, I found the distance of their vector from Heyward’s and Stanton’s vectors. The smaller this distance from their vector, the more comparable they are.

Read the rest of this entry »

On January 5, the Hall of Fame class of 2011 will be announced. It appears that Bert Blyleven will finally get the call after 14 years on the ballot. Roberto Alomar is likely to receive the necessary votes as well. There will be a long list of deserving candidates left out this year. After the announcement, there will be no shortage of analysis of the snubbery. But we know for a fact that, even before the votes are tallied, one deserving candidate will not be inducted.

Read the rest of this entry »

Earlier in the year I observed that CC was getting significantly more groundballs than earlier in his career. At this time we can see that he has maintained this new approach throughout the year (via fangraphs):

Read the rest of this entry »

Since 1994, when Major League Baseball converted to three divisions and expanded its playoff system to four teams per league, the format has been a mixed blessing.  Good teams that didn’t win their division would qualify for the playoffs as a wild card team, and the expansion of two more playoff teams per league meant that more fans could root for their teams to make the playoffs.  Gone were the days of a make-or-break pennant race, as the second-best team in the division didn’t make the playoffs. 

While I am not arguing that this system is better than what was done in the past, our current format is not the most optimal way MLB should have the playoffs structured, and I propose an alternative.  First, I would like to review what I feel is wrong with the current system:

Problem #1: Teams are not incentivized to get the top seed.

The reward of having the league’s best record means little if a team knows they’re making the playoffs.  For example, let’s say it is the last day of the regular season and a team is either tied for the division lead or for the best record, but if it loses the last game it will be the wild card team or the second seed.  What incentive is there to win that game?  At the risk of overusing them, a manager is unlikely to use an ace on two- or three-days rest, or his closer for two or three innings.  In other words, there is no urgency for teams as to where they’re seeded in the playoffs. Regardless of who wins the division, both teams should make the playoffs.

Problem #2:  Home field advantage is not much of an advantage.

Since 1995, home playoff teams have won two-thirds of NFL games, 65% of NBA games, but only 54.6% of MLB games.  (Incidentally, home teams won 54.1% of regular season MLB games during the same period.)

Problem #3:  Wild card teams have performed just as well – if not better than – the division winners in the playoffs.

Nine of the thirty pennant winners have been wild card teams.  Given that wild card teams do not have home field advantage in either the division series or the LCS, this shows that the current system does not put wild card teams at much of a disadvantage.

Simply put, the current “balanced” playoff system was easy to implement  and simple on the schedule makers – the higher seed gets home field advantage over the lower seed.  While there has been talk of different ways of unbalancing this, not much has changed, although there is talk of changing the Division Series to a best-of-seven series.

My proposal, which improves upon the issues mentioned above and makes for more exciting pennant races and playoff games, is as follows:

I propose that MLB adds a second wild card team to both leagues, and that both wild card teams in each league play a one-game play-in game the day after the regular season ends to determine the fourth seed.  The top-seeded team in each league – based on the regular season record – would then play the four seed in a best-of-five Division Series.

This change eliminates the problems listed above.  Teams would now have an incentive both to 1) try for the top seed and 2) avoid being a wild card.  Top seeds are given a big advantage in this scenario because they will face the winner of the playoff game that will most likely have used their ace in either that game or a pivotal last game of the season, and wouldn’t be able to use him again until possibly Game 3 of a five-game Division Series.  This comes at a great detriment to the wild card teams and more than makes up for the “advantage” of home field for the top seed.

Taking this year’s AL East race as an example, if both the Yankees and Rays are tied going into the last game of the season knowing they’re both making the playoffs, there is little incentive for either manager to push their players that last day.  But if either team knew that the second-place team would, say, face Boston in a one-game playoff, then this would greatly change managerial decisions that last day of the season.

Given that both proposed one-game playoffs would only last one day, scheduling the playoffs will not make it much of a burden on the other playoff games.  As we saw with the Chicago-Detroit game last year, one-game playoffs are exciting to watch and would be a great opening to the MLB playoff season.

The Kansas City Royals last week flashed back to the past by signing NFL quarterback Pat White in a move that conjures up memories of the old Kansas City Royals Baseball Academy which I wrote about here in June.

Judging by the internet commentary on this move, it is being seen as comical or a case of pure desperation by either White or the Royals and is being dismissed entirely by baseball and football fans alike.

For those unfamiliar with White, he was a star college quarterback for West Virginia for several years and noted for his unique combination of running and passing ability. White is rather short for an NFL quarterback and lacked the great arm strength desired by NFL scouts. Many thought he would be best suited as a wide receiver and might be converted by a team like fellow college quarterbacks Antwaan Randle-El  or Patrick Crayton and many others have done successfully.

The Miami Dolphins thought differently and drafted him in the second round with plans to use him in their much-hyped “Wildcat” formation which was wildly successful in its first year of operation.

A year later, the Dolphins infatuation with White has apparently waned and he was released as an NFL camp casuality in his second year. This posed a problem for White because a team that might want him as a WR cannot place him on their practice squad because he has too much NFL service time and no teams are interested in making him a backup quarterback right at the beginning of the season.

White has long been pursued by major league baseball teams, being drafted by the California Angels in the fourth round out of high school in 2004. He was subsequently drafted again by the Angels,  Reds and Yankees in the last part of the draft.

As a high schooler, White projected as a Carl Crawford-type outfielder with the speed to play center field. He hit .487 his senior year of high school and might have been taken in the second round if not for his quarterbacking abilities.

Now, the question is can Pat White play baseball at age 24? Most seem to think not. It’s a question of Nature or Nurture. And most seem to come down on the Nurture side of things.

Are baseball players born or developed? Has Pat White’s window of opportunity closed because he hasn’t swung the bat for so long or is his brain arranged in such a way that he was born to hit a baseball?

There is reason to think it is possible that White could be playing in the major leagues in a few years. Consider the case of Ron LeFlore.

LeFlore did not grow up playing baseball or any sport for that matter. He was incarcerated at age 19 and began playing sports because he noticed that the prison athletes received extra free time from the guards to play their sports. He began by playing basketball and then was invited to play softball, ultimately graduating to the prison baseball team where he began playing at age 23.

In a community service visit to the prison, Tigers manager Billy Martin was cornered by the inmates who urged him to give LeFlore a tryout. Martin promised he would. Upon his release from prison, LeFlore unexpectedly took Martin up on that promise. Martin didn’t really remember LeFlore but made good on his pledge and ultimately signed him to a contract over the objections of Tigers ownership after a prodigious batting practice display. It was real-life shock and awe.

And how much did LeFlore’s late start set him back? He was signed at age 25 and hit .273 in a 73 at-bat stint in Class A. The next year, he hit .339 in 423 at-bats in Class A and was promoted to AAA and the Tigers shortly afterward. Just one year after signing and three years after beginning playing the sport, LeFlore hit .260 in the major leagues and eventually became a .300 hitter and stole as many as 97 bases in a season.

Or consider Rick Ankiel who went back to hitting at age 25 when he could no longer throw a strike and eventually hit 25 home runs for the St. Louis Cardinals at age 28.

Or consider the way Deion Sanders and Bo Jackson tore through the minor leagues despite never really being all that serous about baseball.

There is also Josh Hamilton. You know him, right?

As talented as White may be, my guess is that he does not have the baseball talents of a Ron LeFlore. I suspect that White is not committed enough to baseball and will bolt for his first chance in the NFL or professional football. I will not be at all surprised if White manages to hit Class A pitching rather well, though.

I’ll put White’s odds at being a major league baseball player at 1 in 15. However, if White was truly destined to be a All-Star major-league baseball player and was another Carl Crawford, he’ll be playing center field for the Royals in three years. No joke.

It’s been done before — more than once.

“Oft expectation fails, and most oft where most it promises; and oft it hits where hope is coldest; and despair most sits” – William Shakespeare

If you’ve ever read the magnificent Joe Posnanski (and if you haven’t, what are you waiting for?), you’re probably familiar with his patented movie rating scale. The first time I read about it, I was blown away – the concept is so simple and elegant, yet it captures the intricacies of expectations and how they influence our final opinions of movies, books, beers, musics, video games, first dates, and yes, baseball players. Let’s take the M. Night Shyamalan film “Lady in the Water” for example. If you rented the movie after watching “The Sixth Sense”, you’d obviously have high expectations for the film – maybe a 3 1/2 to 4 star rating. And well, it turns out the movie was nothing like what you were expecting; it wasn’t a thriller or suspense story, but more something like a fairy tale for kids. To you, the movie was a flop – a one star movie in the end. Four stars minus one star gives you a negative overall movie experience.

But suppose you entered watching that same movie with different expectations. I’d watched little Shyamalan before watching “Lady in the Water”, and I’d heard from others that the movie was a disappointment. I was expecting something like a 1/2 star performance, but hey, the girlfriend wanted to watch it so we did. I wasn’t expecting a thriller or suspense movie, so the movie struck me as actually quite fun. I’d rank it a two-ish star movie in the end, giving me a positive movie experience. My expectations were lower than the quality I received, so it made the movie fun to watch.

It’s an odd coincidence that when I first read about Joe Poz’s movie system, I was studying abroad in Denmark. The Danes are masters of low expectations; their entire culture is built around “Jantelov“, the idea that nobody is better than anyone else. If you succeed and admit it, you’re ridiculed and held in contempt. And if you talk to a Dane, they’ll constantly remind you of the fact that their nation is no great shakes.* If you take a look at their nation’s history, you can understand why. They’ve lost every war they’ve been involved in since Viking times, their nation has shrunk continuously for the past 200 years, and their land is cold, dark, and uninspiring for 11 1/2 out of 12 months every year. Heck, the most cocky thing you can find in the entire nation is Carlsberg’s (their beer’s) slogan: “Probably the best beer in the world.” And even then… “probably”? What advertising agency over here would ever approve of such ambiguity? Danes are the kings of schadenfreude.

*My host family commented at one point that the war in Iraq probably wasn’t going to end well since the Danes were allied with the US. “We’ve lost every war we’ve been involved in – sorry, but it doesn’t look good for you.”

And yet, in multiple studies over different time spans, the Danes have been ranked the happiest nation in the world. Not who you would have expected, huh? In classic form, the Danes don’t have a great answer as to why – they just shrug their shoulders and say that they’re really not that happy. The weather stinks, their taxes are too high – jantelov all over again. The best answer I’ve ever heard came from one of my professors there; she claimed that if you were never expecting anything good to happen to you, you’d always end up pleasantly surprised.

What does any of this have to do with baseball? As fans, everything.

Read the rest of this entry »