Sorry for the lack of posting recently. I’ve been extremely busy, and will be for the next several weeks. I’m not sure how often I’ll be updating this blog, but I’m continuing with my one post per week at Statistically Speaking. Once the season starts, I’ll definitely continue regular posting.

Anyway, I contributed a guest post to the LoHud Yankees blog, run by Yankees beat writer Pete Abraham. The post can be found here. I wrote about evaluating trades and transations and such, and pretty much told the LuHud community (indirectly) to stop being so stupid and ignorant (but in a nice way).

Just put up a new post on StatSpeak about some remaining members of the current free agent class. This includes Nomar, Pudge, Frank Thomas, and Jim Edmonds. I swear I set the post to go live at midnight tonight, but obviously something went wrong with that. No big deal. Anyway, here’s a link to the post if you’re interested.

That’s pretty much the thought that goes through my mind every time I read another one of his blog posts. I’m sorry for the lack of updates recently, I’ve been incredibly busy with rush week and the fraternity stuff, and now classes just started back up again. I have StatSpeak stuff to work on that I haven’t had time to tend to either, so I’m not only neglecting the Yankee fans out there.

But I’d like to pass along this Joe Posnanski blog post, as I feel it is relevant to being a rational fan. No team, not matter the resources, can operate to perfection. There will always be mistakes, whether they are made at the time or turn out to be mistakes down the road. If a team had just one perfect year ever, they’d be set for a long, long time. In this post, Posnanski shows what just one perfect draft would look like. Suffice to say, the team would be pretty stacked.

One draft. Of course, no team gets all the draft picks right. No team gets half the draft picks right, or one-third, or one-quarter or even one out of every twenty right. But it’s possible. If the Royals had just been right three times in 1999 — if they had only drafted, say, Lackey, Peavy and Pujols — what would their history have been like? And this is why, at the end of the day, teams like the Royals and Pirates and Reds and Twins and Marlins and Rays and all the rest have every chance to succeed in this crazy game. If you are right on the draft, really right, you can beat every team out there no matter how many billion they might spend.

This week is, and will continue to be, incredibly busy for me. It’s the middle of rush week, which means I’m out all day and night shmoozing with frat brothers, judging my interest in their house and trying to make them interested in me. So it’s pretty much a bunch of guys man-flirting with each other. But I digress…

This edition of From the Archives is a post from David Pinto of Baseball Prospectus about changing the save rule in baseball. The rule has changed a few times throughout history, and as a result has more than a few quirks. There are people out there, myself included, that wonder why the guy coming in in the 7th inning with the bases loaded and up by one doesn’t get the save, while the guy coming in in the 9th with no one on and his team up by 3 runs does. I know the guy in the 9th got the save, but which one really “saved” the game? It’s an interesting read, even if his proposal would never happen in reality. See the link above.

In case you didn’t notice, there’s a new theme. WordPress was annoying me with the different blog layouts and how restrictive each one was. I had been fighting with that green one for a while, trying to get it to organize the blogroll, and trying to add other widgets. So instead of having a sub-par blog viewing experience, I decided to go with a different look. With this new look also comes more fun things in the side bar. Check over to the right side of your screen and you’ll now see categories for the links in the blogroll, a recent comments section so you can quickly check if anyone responded to a comment of yours, and that little bubble (the subtitle) in the top right that says “Just another WordPress.com weblog.”

Well with the old theme, the page didn’t display a subtitle for the blog, so I never bothered to make one. Now that it has one shown, the fact that it says “just another…” is annoying the crap out of me. So if you, the readers, would like to have an enhanced role in this blog then feel free to contribute ideas for a subtitle in the comments section of this post. Or if you really don’t like this new look, let me know and I can look for something else that works. I’m not going back to the green and black look, it was just too annoying to deal with.

I hope someone comes up with a good one, or anything really, so that I don’t have to come up with something on my own that’s guaranteed to be un-funny and awkwardly worded. Fire away.

A number that journalists have liked to toss around this off-season is $423.5 million. That’s the total amount of money the Yankees committed to CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira this winter, in an attempt to fill the holes in the club, partially caused by the departures of Mussina and Giambi. Keep in mind, the Yankees aren’t paying them all of that money in one season. In fact, the 2009 payroll will be lower than the 2008 figure. That little tid bit is often glossed over, for whatever reason. That hasn’t stopped people from complaining. Brewers owner Mark Attanasio said this in an e-mail to Bloomberg News:

“At the rate the Yankees are going, I’m not sure anyone can compete with them. Frankly, the sport might need a salary cap.” (source)

In response to that, I give you this. Also against the Yankees free spending ways is Astros GM Drayton McLain, saying, “We would love to have a salary cap, but the (players’) union has been very resistant to that.” As a way to curb the Yankees’ free spending ways, a salary cap would seem to do the trick. But would it? Yes, the Yankees couldn’t spend whatever they wanted and afford to cover up whatever mistakes they make (a certain Carl Pavano comes to mind). But other than hurting the Yankees, how does it help the poorer teams? Why do the Brewers and Astros care what the Yankees do? By my count, those two teams play the Yankees a combined ZERO times next season. So how would curbing the Yankees spending somehow help the Brewers and Astros? I have no idea.

It’s not even like McLain and  Attanasio are looking out for the best interests of the sport either–the Yankees generate a ton of revenue for baseball by being such a marketable club.  With a salary cap must come a salary floor. And poorer teams are hurt by salary floors more than they are helped by salary caps. Shawn at Squawking Baseball contributes this in a piece for Baseball Prospectus:

Imagine being Frank Coonelly in this situation. Coonelly, the Pirates‘ team president, has publicly supported a cap. Had our fictional cap/floor arrangement been instituted last year, the Pirates would have needed to increase their Opening Day payroll by $28 million. Not only would the team have taken a big loss, but Neal Huntington’s long-term strategy would have been sabotaged, since the team would have had to sign a number of veterans just to meet the minimum payroll.

Now fast forward to 2009. Let’s say the Pirates’ sales staff runs into major headwinds, with the team struggling and the economy sinking. The team’s top line takes a hit, falling $10 million from 2008. The Mets and Yankees, meanwhile, open their new ballparks, and each team increases its local revenue by $50 million. If the twenty-seven other teams are flat, total industry revenues rise by $90 million (not including any appreciation in national media revenue). Forty-five percent of that, of course, goes to the players. So even as the Pirates’ purchasing power decreases, the payroll floor actually rises.

In other words, without a more egalitarian distribution of income, the system crumbles.

Shawn goes on to talk about why keeping the current system is the best option for baseball to take. But even as a Yankee fan, I don’t completely agree. I think a better system of revenue sharing is the cure for what ails these billionaire owners. If I were voting on what to implement, I’d look for a system that provides strong incentives for teams to win (even more-so than the current system), and that didn’t force teams like the Pirates to spend money that they don’t want to spend. In a piece from way back in 2002, Derek Zumsteg lays out such a system, which rewards teams that get the most out of their respective fanbases. I urge you to read the article in its entirety, but here is a taste:

Owners should love it: it doesn’t punish them for spending on their teams, it doesn’t punish them for working to maximize revenue. It’s proportional, so it’s just, and if you expand or allow another team to move close, it’s almost a relief.

(snip)

For the players, this is the greatest plan ever: there’s no drag on payroll at all. If the Yankees want to go buy their pennant, hey, no one’s stopping them. They won’t be able to do it for long with their reduced revenues, but not many people are going to complain about that.

Just to be clear, there’s probably less than a 1% chance that this would happen. I personally love this proposed system, and I think any economist will tell you that it correctly assigns incentives. Even though it’s not going to happen, we can still dream, can’t we?

I was talking to my dad this past week about the state of the Yankees pitching staff. You see, my dad is one of those pessimistic Yankee fans, although not nearly as pessimistic as Steve Lombardi. Side note: That post right there got me banned from Was Watching. Talk about letting criticism roll off your back.

Anyways, as I was saying…according to my dad it’s a virtual lock that Burnett will get hurt this year, and I can’t really blame him for that. So with the Yankees already not having a reliable fifth starter, and Joba having an innings cap this year, there’s reason to worry about where the remaining innings will come from. What he doesn’t realize is that it’s extremely rare for any team to have good starting rotation health all season, and every team relies on starters at some point that Joe Fan hasn’t heard of. Let’s use the Red Sox, who had the third best starters ERA (4.02) in the American League this past season, as an example. The Red Sox top 4 starters—Beckett, Matsuzaka, Wakefield, and Lester—pitched a combined 733.1 innings, compared to 966.2 total from everyone combined. That’s a difference of 233.1 innings. Keep those numbers in mind.

So based on a conversation, this is what we figured the front four of the Yankee rotation would look like:

• CC Sabathia: 34 starts, 233 innings (6.9 per start compared to 7+ each of the last two years)
• A.J. Burnett: 26 starts, 160 innings (6.2 per start compared to 6.4+ each of the last three years)
• Chien Ming Wang: 33 starts, 210 innings (6.4 per start compared to about 6.5 the last three years)
• Joba Chamberlain: 23 starts, 140 innings (~6 per start, just an educated guess)

That total adds up to 743 innings, using pretty reasonable, if not conservative, guesses for everyone. The Red Sox got 733.1 innings from their front four. So let’s say the Yankees want to get to 970 innings, which would have put them at 6th most in the league in 2007 and 2008. Remember, we’re taking into account a possible (probable?) injury for Burnett and a severe innings cap for Chamberlain. To get to 970 from 743 innings means getting 227 innings out of whoever is in the fifth starter spot and/or the fill-in for Burnett.

Let’s look at two of the Yankees division rivals, the Blue Jays and Red Sox (who also happen to be two of the top pitching teams in the league last year), for some help with getting to that magic number of 970 innings. Blue Jays starters not in their top four pitched a combined 233.1 innings. Pretty close. Red Sox starters not in their top four also pitched a combined 233.1 innings. Now that’s creepy. These pitchers who combined to be each team’s “fifth starter” had 4.74 and 5.48 ERAs, respectively.

When pitching (not on the DL), the Yankees top four should have better numbers than the top four of the Jays and Red Sox. So if the Yankees match the innings projections above, and can get an ERA of around 5 from their committee of fifth starters (or maybe just Phil Hughes), they should be in very good shape this coming season.

If you’ve been reading here for…oh, I guess five minutes, you’ll know that I’m a big fan of both baseball and sabermetrics. About a week ago, I was contacted by Pizza Cutter (note: not his real name) of the Statistically Speaking blog about writing there. I’ve been a big fan of StatSpeak for about two years now, so it was with much joy that I accepted his invitation. My first post is about differing run environments, using the careers of Roy Halladay and Sandy Koufax to help illustrate the point.

I was looking at some blog stats tonight and realized that some people have missed some of the more important posts on this site, simply because they haven’t been on the front page. So I’m going to “reprint” some of them (probably only one more after this) in this space, in order to increase their popularity within the site. Read on…

There are plenty of people out there who believe that the entirety of sabermetrics is coming up with new statistics and the funny-sounding acronyms that come with them (WARP, wOBA, DIPS, etc.). Well, let’s just say that’s not completely right. There are many ways to define sabermetrics, most of which involve calling it some kind of science or analysis for baseball. But that doesn’t really answer the question in the minds of some. So if you’ve ever wondered, “What is sabermetrics?” then this is for you. Bill James is considered the godfather of sabermetrics, so who better to tell us about it? Here’s a speech he once gave:
<blockquote>Sportswriters discuss a range of questions which are much the same from generation to generation. Who is the Most Valuable Player? Who should go into the Hall of Fame? Who will win the pennant? What factors are important in winning the pennant? If Boston won the pennant, why did they win it? If Kansas City finished last, why did they finish last? How has baseball changed over the last few years? Who is the best third baseman in baseball today? Who is better, Mike Lowell or Eric Chavez?

The questions that we deal with in our work are the same as the questions that are discussed by sports columnists and by radio talk show hosts every day. To the best of my knowledge, there is no difference whatsoever in the underlying issues that we discuss. The difference between us is very simple. Sportswriters always or almost always begin their analysis with a position on the issue. We always begin our analysis with the question itself.

If you find a sportswriter debating who should be the National League’s Most Valuable Player this season, his article will probably begin by asserting a position on the issue, and then will argue for that position. If you find 100 articles by sportswriters debating issues of this type, in all likelihood all 100 articles will do this.

What we do is simply to begin by asking “Who is the National League’s Most Valuable Player this season?” rather than to begin by stating that “Albert Pujols is the National League’s Most Valuable Player this season, and let me tell you why.” That’s all. That is the entire difference between sabermetrics and traditional sportswriting. It isn’t the use of statistics. It isn’t the use of formulas. It is merely the habit of beginning with a question, rather than beginning with an answer.

We are no more statisticians than we are historians, or scouts, or accountants, or computer programmers. I suspect that everything we do is much the same as what many of you do. We look to the past, and we try to organize the things we have seen so that they make some sense. We ask ourselves “how many of those were there?” and “how many of those others were there?” and “How many of them ended well?” and “How many of them ended badly?”, just as I would imagine most of you do.</blockquote>

A little Sunday reading for you…

Mike Marshall is probably the most polarizing figure in the (small) world of pitching mechanics. His ideas are so drastically different from the norm that it is difficult for people to take him seriously. Also, a lack of results in pro baseball have given his doubters more ammunition.

Marshall claims that his style of pitching a baseball will end arm injuries, and allow pitchers to throw more efficiently than they do now. While the second claim has been refuted by many, and I don’t agree with Marshall on that point either, the claim that pitcher health is all but certain is pretty much accepted. But are people willing to give up performance in exchange for health? There are ways of incorporating some of Marshall’s teachings into the current pitching motion that could greatly increase the chances of staying healthy. Guys like Roger Clemens and Dan Haren, whether knowingly or not, display certain aspects of the Marshall pitching motion. You can find the Jeff Passan article on Yahoo right here.

If you would like to learn more about the Marshall pitching motion specifically, you can visit his site here (be warned, it’s a HUGE amount of reading), or read a primer by Chris O’Leary here.

For those of you who missed it the first time, the Jeff Passan Yahoo article is below.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Aoed4ocYk2a3.8zz7CqRSdwRvLYF?slug=jp-marshall051007&prov=yhoo&type=lgns