Leveling Off

Today on BP my column is a follow-up on The Myth of the Golden Age published back in January. Essentially, I use pitcher hitting relative to position player hitting to create a "Level Index" relative to the 2006 American League and then adjust player performances for single seasons, careers, and career rate. I purposefully did not use the same technique used by Clay Davenport and David Gassko since in part I wanted to see how well this independent measure would agree.

To give you a little preview here are the top 250 career adjusted leaders in WX¹ which is a generalized version of Keith Woolner's Win Expectacny (WX) framework which I wrote about last year. You'll also note that the difference between the original WX¹ and version adjusted for year and league difficulty as well as WX1 per 600 plate appearances in both cases is also included.

Name                 Start     End      PA     AdjWX1     WX1    Diff    WX1Rate  AdjWX1Rate
Barry Bonds           1986    2006   12026      104.6   108.6    -4.0        5.4         5.2
Babe Ruth             1914    1935   10573       80.4   116.2   -35.7        6.6         4.6
Hank Aaron            1954    1976   13908       78.9    89.3   -10.3        3.9         3.4
Ted Williams          1939    1960    9752       73.7    97.3   -23.6        6.0         4.5
Willie Mays           1951    1973   12449       73.4    83.8   -10.3        4.0         3.5
Stan Musial           1941    1963   12659       69.3    86.0   -16.8        4.1         3.3
Ty Cobb               1905    1928   12978       68.4   102.1   -33.7        4.7         3.2
Mickey Mantle         1951    1968    9896       66.2    81.8   -15.6        5.0         4.0
Frank Robinson        1956    1976   11545       59.2    67.1    -7.8        3.5         3.1
Lou Gehrig            1923    1939    9615       55.9    78.1   -22.2        4.9         3.5
Rogers Hornsby        1915    1937    9427       53.6    76.8   -23.2        4.9         3.4
Rickey Henderson      1979    2003   13248       52.1    55.7    -3.6        2.5         2.4
Mel Ott               1926    1947   11273       51.9    70.2   -18.3        3.7         2.8
Frank Thomas          1990    2006    9084       51.8    53.7    -1.9        3.5         3.4
Jeff Bagwell          1991    2005    9303       50.8    52.9    -2.1        3.4         3.3
Tris Speaker          1907    1928   11885       49.4    73.9   -24.5        3.7         2.5
Joe Morgan            1963    1984   11289       47.8    54.1    -6.3        2.9         2.5
Gary Sheffield        1988    2006    9441       47.1    48.9    -1.8        3.1         3.0
Mike Schmidt          1972    1989    9983       45.0    50.4    -5.4        3.0         2.7
Mark McGwire          1986    2001    7585       44.7    46.3    -1.6        3.7         3.5
Eddie Mathews         1952    1968   10075       44.2    51.8    -7.5        3.1         2.6
Willie McCovey        1959    1980    9617       42.9    48.0    -5.0        3.0         2.7
Eddie Collins         1906    1930   11960       42.0    62.4   -20.4        3.1         2.1
Honus Wagner          1897    1917   11614       41.4    61.3   -19.9        3.2         2.1
Jimmie Foxx           1925    1945    9657       41.3    57.2   -15.8        3.6         2.6
Dick Allen            1963    1977    7298       40.5    45.1    -4.5        3.7         3.3
Manny Ramirez         1993    2006    7705       39.0    39.8    -0.9        3.1         3.0
Chipper Jones         1993    2006    7528       38.9    39.9    -1.0        3.2         3.1
Harmon Killebrew      1954    1975    9783       38.6    45.4    -6.8        2.8         2.4
Mike Piazza           1992    2006    7386       38.1    39.6    -1.5        3.2         3.1
Tony Gwynn            1982    2001   10208       38.0    40.0    -2.0        2.4         2.2
Willie Stargell       1962    1982    8948       38.0    42.6    -4.6        2.9         2.5
Edgar Martinez        1987    2004    8583       37.6    38.8    -1.3        2.7         2.6
Al Kaline             1953    1974   11542       37.3    44.9    -7.7        2.3         1.9
Carl Yastrzemski      1961    1983   13951       37.2    42.8    -5.6        1.8         1.6
Johnny Mize           1936    1953    7319       35.4    46.5   -11.0        3.8         2.9
Tim Raines            1980    2002   10317       35.0    37.6    -2.5        2.2         2.0
Jim Thome             1991    2006    7835       34.8    35.9    -1.0        2.7         2.7
Ken Griffey           1989    2006    9468       34.4    35.6    -1.2        2.3         2.2
Joe DiMaggio          1936    1951    7625       34.1    45.4   -11.3        3.6         2.7
Reggie Jackson        1967    1987   11320       34.1    40.1    -6.0        2.1         1.8
Fred McGriff          1986    2004   10135       33.6    35.0    -1.4        2.1         2.0
Albert Pujols         2001    2006    4014       32.9    33.7    -0.8        5.0         4.9
Alex Rodriguez        1994    2006    7668       32.6    33.3    -0.7        2.6         2.6
Eddie Murray          1977    1997   12799       32.4    35.9    -3.4        1.7         1.5
Billy Williams        1959    1976   10476       32.3    35.8    -3.5        2.1         1.8
Dave Winfield         1973    1995   12333       32.2    35.8    -3.6        1.7         1.6
Jason Giambi          1995    2006    6781       31.6    32.1    -0.5        2.8         2.8
George Brett          1973    1993   11591       31.5    35.5    -4.0        1.8         1.6
Brian Giles           1995    2006    6333       31.0    31.8    -0.8        3.0         2.9
Rafael Palmeiro       1986    2005   11959       30.8    31.8    -1.1        1.6         1.5
Duke Snider           1947    1964    8216       30.4    37.1    -6.7        2.7         2.2
Jack Clark            1975    1992    8201       30.3    32.9    -2.7        2.4         2.2
Paul Waner            1926    1945   10724       30.2    41.6   -11.4        2.3         1.7
Bobby Abreu           1996    2006    6342       30.1    30.8    -0.8        2.9         2.8
Harry Heilmann        1914    1932    8920       30.0    44.3   -14.4        3.0         2.0
Will Clark            1986    2000    8224       29.7    30.9    -1.3        2.3         2.2
Roberto Clemente      1955    1972   10177       29.6    33.8    -4.2        2.0         1.7
Ralph Kiner           1946    1955    6232       29.4    36.2    -6.8        3.5         2.8
Wade Boggs            1982    1999   10717       29.0    30.9    -1.9        1.7         1.6
Larry Walker          1989    2005    7892       28.5    29.6    -1.2        2.3         2.2
Frank Howard          1958    1973    7320       28.4    32.0    -3.6        2.6         2.3
Rod Carew             1967    1985   10525       28.0    32.5    -4.4        1.9         1.6
Reggie Smith          1966    1982    8017       27.9    32.1    -4.2        2.4         2.1
Norm Cash             1958    1974    7820       27.3    31.7    -4.4        2.4         2.1
Sammy Sosa            1989    2005    9386       27.2    28.4    -1.2        1.8         1.7
Joe Jackson           1908    1920    5631       26.6    40.0   -13.4        4.3         2.8
Hank Greenberg        1930    1947    6080       26.5    35.2    -8.7        3.5         2.6
Pete Rose             1963    1986   15754       26.5    31.2    -4.8        1.2         1.0
Vladimir Guerrero     1996    2006    5503       25.7    26.4    -0.6        2.9         2.8
Orlando Cepeda        1958    1974    8593       25.6    28.8    -3.1        2.0         1.8
Sam Crawford          1899    1917   10571       25.5    41.1   -15.5        2.3         1.5
Keith Hernandez       1974    1990    8521       25.2    28.2    -3.0        2.0         1.8
Jim Edmonds           1993    2006    6850       25.2    26.0    -0.9        2.3         2.2
Paul Molitor          1978    1998   12113       25.0    27.0    -1.9        1.3         1.2
Moises Alou           1990    2006    7455       25.0    25.8    -0.8        2.1         2.0
Arky Vaughan          1932    1948    7675       24.5    32.7    -8.2        2.6         1.9
Lance Berkman         1999    2006    4414       24.4    25.0    -0.6        3.4         3.3
John Olerud           1989    2005    8975       24.3    25.2    -0.8        1.7         1.6
Jeff Kent             1992    2006    8388       24.1    24.8    -0.6        1.8         1.7
Todd Helton           1997    2006    6027       24.1    24.7    -0.6        2.5         2.4
Nap Lajoie            1896    1916   10326       24.0    42.2   -18.2        2.5         1.4
Albert Belle          1989    2000    6618       24.0    25.0    -1.1        2.3         2.2
Jimmy Wynn            1963    1977    7983       23.8    27.2    -3.4        2.0         1.8
Carlos Delgado        1993    2006    7103       23.7    24.2    -0.5        2.0         2.0
Darryl Strawberry     1983    1999    6288       23.5    25.0    -1.5        2.4         2.2
Pedro Guerrero        1978    1992    6083       23.1    25.2    -2.1        2.5         2.3
Boog Powell           1961    1977    7781       23.1    26.8    -3.7        2.1         1.8
Rusty Staub           1963    1985   11150       23.1    26.5    -3.4        1.4         1.2
Ken Singleton         1970    1984    8541       23.0    26.9    -3.9        1.9         1.6
Bobby Bonds           1968    1981    8037       23.0    26.3    -3.4        2.0         1.7
Sherry Magee          1904    1919    8437       22.9    33.1   -10.1        2.4         1.6
Joe Torre             1960    1977    8716       22.9    25.3    -2.5        1.7         1.6
Bob Johnson           1933    1945    8023       22.7    30.1    -7.4        2.2         1.7
Ron Santo             1960    1974    9358       22.6    25.6    -3.0        1.6         1.5
Rocky Colavito        1955    1968    7530       22.3    27.0    -4.8        2.2         1.8
Ryan Klesko           1992    2006    6077       21.9    22.7    -0.7        2.2         2.2
Bill Terry            1923    1936    7102       21.5    29.3    -7.8        2.5         1.8
Johnny Bench          1967    1983    8650       21.4    24.5    -3.0        1.7         1.5
Dwight Evans          1972    1991   10516       21.3    23.3    -2.0        1.3         1.2
Barry Larkin          1986    2004    9002       21.3    22.6    -1.3        1.5         1.4
Cesar Cedeno          1970    1986    8077       21.3    24.8    -3.5        1.8         1.6
Babe Herman           1926    1945    6215       20.9    28.6    -7.7        2.8         2.0
Jackie Robinson       1947    1956    5730       20.6    25.1    -4.6        2.6         2.2
Tony Perez            1964    1986   10818       20.5    23.5    -3.1        1.3         1.1
Charlie Keller        1939    1952    4594       20.4    26.9    -6.5        3.5         2.7
Joe Medwick           1932    1948    8116       20.3    27.8    -7.6        2.1         1.5
Mark Grace            1988    2003    9256       20.0    21.0    -1.0        1.4         1.3
Zack Wheat            1909    1927    9919       19.9    29.1    -9.2        1.8         1.2
Jose Canseco          1985    2001    8045       19.9    20.7    -0.8        1.5         1.5
Eric Davis            1984    2001    6114       19.8    20.9    -1.0        2.0         1.9
Enos Slaughter        1938    1959    9047       19.7    25.5    -5.8        1.7         1.3
Scott Rolen           1996    2006    5849       19.6    20.3    -0.6        2.1         2.0
Jose Cruz             1970    1988    8924       19.3    22.1    -2.8        1.5         1.3
Hack Wilson           1923    1934    5536       19.1    26.8    -7.7        2.9         2.1
Darrell Evans         1969    1989   10702       19.0    21.7    -2.7        1.2         1.1
Luis Gonzalez         1990    2006    9511       18.8    19.5    -0.6        1.2         1.2
Bob Elliott           1939    1953    8174       18.7    24.0    -5.3        1.8         1.4
Kevin Mitchell        1984    1998    4669       18.7    19.7    -1.1        2.5         2.4
Chuck Klein           1928    1944    7156       18.6    27.7    -9.0        2.3         1.6
Ernie Banks           1953    1971   10325       18.4    22.6    -4.2        1.3         1.1
Bernie Williams       1991    2006    9014       18.4    19.0    -0.6        1.3         1.2
Greg Luzinski         1970    1984    7430       18.4    21.1    -2.7        1.7         1.5
Craig Biggio          1988    2006   11666       18.4    19.5    -1.2        1.0         0.9
Andre Dawson          1976    1996   10658       18.4    20.7    -2.3        1.2         1.0
Bobby Bonilla         1986    2001    8227       18.3    19.5    -1.2        1.4         1.3
Roberto Alomar        1988    2004   10350       18.1    18.8    -0.7        1.1         1.1
Larry Doby            1947    1959    6264       18.0    25.0    -7.0        2.4         1.7
Rico Carty            1963    1979    6305       17.8    20.4    -2.6        1.9         1.7
George Foster         1969    1986    7760       17.6    20.9    -3.3        1.6         1.4
Bob Watson            1966    1984    6914       17.4    20.2    -2.8        1.8         1.5
Dolph Camilli         1933    1945    6324       17.3    24.1    -6.8        2.3         1.6
Elmer Flick           1898    1910    6315       17.3    27.8   -10.5        2.6         1.6
Tony Oliva            1962    1976    6820       17.3    20.1    -2.9        1.8         1.5
Stan Hack             1932    1947    8485       17.2    23.1    -5.9        1.6         1.2
Jim Rice              1974    1989    8994       17.1    19.5    -2.4        1.3         1.1
Juan Gonzalez         1989    2005    7093       17.1    17.8    -0.7        1.5         1.4
John Kruk             1986    1995    4601       17.1    17.9    -0.8        2.3         2.2
Yogi Berra            1946    1965    8312       17.1    22.8    -5.7        1.6         1.2
Bobby Murcer          1965    1983    7691       17.1    20.0    -2.9        1.6         1.3
Wally Berger          1930    1940    5625       17.0    23.0    -6.0        2.4         1.8
David Justice         1989    2002    6583       16.9    17.7    -0.8        1.6         1.5
Dale Murphy           1976    1993    9012       16.9    19.3    -2.3        1.3         1.1
Joe Adcock            1950    1966    7287       16.8    20.3    -3.5        1.7         1.4
Sid Gordon            1941    1955    5789       16.8    21.1    -4.3        2.2         1.7
Fred Lynn             1974    1990    7893       16.7    19.3    -2.6        1.5         1.3
Minnie Minoso         1949    1980    7518       16.5    22.5    -6.0        1.8         1.3
Goose Goslin          1921    1938    9767       16.5    24.8    -8.2        1.5         1.0
Ellis Burks           1987    2004    8116       16.4    17.1    -0.7        1.3         1.2
Ray Lankford          1990    2004    6638       16.3    17.2    -0.8        1.6         1.5
Jack Fournier         1912    1927    5944       16.3    24.0    -7.7        2.4         1.6
Don Mattingly         1982    1995    7700       16.3    17.5    -1.2        1.4         1.3
Gene Tenace           1969    1983    5434       16.2    18.9    -2.7        2.1         1.8
Gavvy Cravath         1908    1920    4617       16.2    23.2    -7.0        3.0         2.1
Bill Nicholson        1936    1953    6366       16.2    21.6    -5.4        2.0         1.5
Derek Jeter           1995    2006    7596       16.1    16.4    -0.3        1.3         1.3
Gary Matthews         1972    1987    8168       16.1    18.3    -2.2        1.3         1.2
Jeff Heath            1936    1949    5550       16.1    22.3    -6.2        2.4         1.7
Kiki Cuyler           1921    1938    8013       16.1    23.7    -7.6        1.8         1.2
Ron Cey               1971    1987    8282       16.0    18.3    -2.3        1.3         1.2
Shawn Green           1993    2006    7397       15.8    16.4    -0.5        1.3         1.3
Frank Baker           1908    1922    6610       15.8    24.1    -8.3        2.2         1.4
Al Oliver             1968    1985    9696       15.7    18.3    -2.6        1.1         1.0
Danny Tartabull       1984    1997    5825       15.7    16.4    -0.7        1.7         1.6
Dave Parker           1973    1991   10128       15.5    18.0    -2.5        1.1         0.9
Andy Van Slyke        1983    1995    6451       15.5    16.5    -1.1        1.5         1.4
Gil Hodges            1943    1963    8079       15.4    20.1    -4.6        1.5         1.1
Tim Salmon            1992    2006    6972       15.4    16.1    -0.7        1.4         1.3
Ryne Sandberg         1981    1997    9248       15.4    16.9    -1.5        1.1         1.0
Al Simmons            1924    1944    9485       15.2    25.8   -10.6        1.6         1.0
J.D. Drew             1998    2006    3733       15.2    15.6    -0.4        2.5         2.4
Bill Madlock          1973    1987    7304       15.1    17.6    -2.4        1.4         1.2
Kent Hrbek            1981    1994    7111       14.9    15.9    -1.0        1.3         1.3
Bob Allison           1958    1970    5887       14.9    17.4    -2.6        1.8         1.5
Chili Davis           1981    1999    9981       14.8    16.0    -1.1        1.0         0.9
Roger Maris           1957    1968    5808       14.7    17.6    -2.9        1.8         1.5
Rick Monday           1966    1984    7138       14.5    16.9    -2.4        1.4         1.2
Ken Griffey           1973    1991    8034       14.5    16.7    -2.2        1.2         1.1
Richie Ashburn        1948    1962    9693       14.5    18.6    -4.1        1.1         0.9
Roy White             1965    1979    7706       14.5    17.4    -2.9        1.4         1.1
Charlie Gehringer     1924    1942   10187       14.5    22.4    -7.9        1.3         0.9
Nomar Garciaparra     1996    2006    5242       14.4    14.7    -0.3        1.7         1.7
Harold Baines         1980    2001   11078       14.4    15.6    -1.2        0.8         0.8
Augie Galan           1934    1949    6978       14.3    20.3    -5.9        1.7         1.2
Lenny Dykstra         1985    1996    5251       14.3    15.1    -0.9        1.7         1.6
Paul O'Neill          1985    2001    8307       14.2    14.9    -0.7        1.1         1.0
Larry Doyle           1907    1920    7329       14.0    20.5    -6.5        1.7         1.1
Brian Downing         1973    1992    9180       14.0    15.5    -1.5        1.0         0.9
Lou Brock             1961    1979   11186       13.9    16.6    -2.8        0.9         0.7
Bobby Grich           1970    1986    8134       13.8    16.3    -2.4        1.2         1.0
Gabby Hartnett        1922    1941    7262       13.5    19.0    -5.5        1.6         1.1
Tommy Henrich         1937    1950    5375       13.5    18.0    -4.6        2.0         1.5
Derrek Lee            1997    2006    4847       13.4    13.8    -0.4        1.7         1.7
Roy Sievers           1949    1965    7298       13.4    18.9    -5.6        1.6         1.1
Dixie Walker          1931    1949    7650       13.3    18.4    -5.2        1.4         1.0
Kirk Gibson           1979    1995    6595       13.2    14.3    -1.1        1.3         1.2
George Sisler         1915    1930    8965       13.2    24.7   -11.5        1.7         0.9
Earl Torgeson         1947    1961    6029       13.2    16.7    -3.5        1.7         1.3
Mo Vaughn             1991    2003    6302       13.2    13.8    -0.6        1.3         1.3
Steve Garvey          1969    1987    9437       13.1    15.6    -2.5        1.0         0.8
Edd Roush             1913    1931    7305       13.1    21.2    -8.1        1.7         1.1
Frank Chance          1898    1913    4962       13.1    20.2    -7.1        2.4         1.6
Roy Cullenbine        1938    1947    4776       13.0    18.3    -5.2        2.3         1.6
Al Rosen              1947    1956    4347       13.0    18.3    -5.2        2.5         1.8
Ted Kluszewski        1947    1961    6447       13.0    17.0    -4.0        1.6         1.2
Andruw Jones          1996    2006    6542       12.9    13.3    -0.3        1.2         1.2
Bill Dickey           1928    1946    7029       12.7    17.9    -5.1        1.5         1.1
Gene Woodling         1943    1962    6585       12.7    17.5    -4.8        1.6         1.2
David Ortiz           1997    2006    4251       12.7    12.9    -0.2        1.8         1.8
Earl Averill          1929    1941    7182       12.6    18.3    -5.6        1.5         1.1
Bobby Veach           1912    1925    7498       12.6    18.9    -6.3        1.5         1.0
Lefty O'Doul          1919    1934    3636       12.5    17.5    -5.0        2.9         2.1
Lou Whitaker          1977    1995    9947       12.5    13.7    -1.2        0.8         0.8
Ken Williams          1915    1929    5588       12.5    19.4    -6.9        2.1         1.3
Cliff Floyd           1993    2006    5359       12.4    12.9    -0.5        1.4         1.4
Brett Butler          1981    1997    9507       12.4    13.5    -1.1        0.9         0.8
Del Ennis             1946    1959    7909       12.4    16.3    -3.9        1.2         0.9
Dusty Baker           1968    1986    7991       12.3    14.7    -2.4        1.1         0.9
Richie Zisk           1971    1983    5725       12.3    14.3    -2.0        1.5         1.3
Riggs Stephenson      1921    1934    5093       12.3    17.5    -5.2        2.1         1.4
Ernie Lombardi        1931    1947    6303       12.1    16.7    -4.6        1.6         1.2
Fred Clarke           1894    1915    9666       12.1    23.1   -11.0        1.4         0.8
Ted Simmons           1968    1988    9646       12.1    15.2    -3.1        0.9         0.8
Davey Lopes           1972    1987    7309       12.0    13.9    -1.9        1.1         1.0
Jim Bottomley         1922    1937    8312       12.0    19.8    -7.8        1.4         0.9
Chick Hafey           1924    1937    5080       11.9    17.6    -5.7        2.1         1.4
Mickey Cochrane       1925    1937    6177       11.9    16.6    -4.7        1.6         1.2
Kal Daniels           1986    1992    2725       11.8    12.4    -0.6        2.7         2.6
Ron Fairly            1958    1978    8397       11.8    14.2    -2.4        1.0         0.8
Ken Boyer             1955    1969    8248       11.7    14.2    -2.5        1.0         0.8
Billy Hamilton        1890    1901    6741       11.6    19.7    -8.1        1.8         1.0
Mike Donlin           1899    1914    4262       11.6    17.3    -5.7        2.4         1.6
Earle Combs           1924    1935    6490       11.6    16.9    -5.3        1.6         1.1
Miguel Cabrera        2003    2006    2372       11.6    11.8    -0.2        3.0         2.9
Hank Sauer            1941    1959    5380       11.4    14.7    -3.2        1.6         1.3
Reggie Sanders        1991    2006    6888       11.4    12.1    -0.6        1.1         1.0
Kirby Puckett         1984    1995    7775       11.4    12.3    -0.9        0.9         0.9
Lonnie Smith          1978    1994    5860       11.3    12.6    -1.2        1.3         1.2
Howard Johnson        1982    1995    5698       11.3    12.1    -0.8        1.3         1.2
Gary Carter           1974    1992    8951       11.2    13.5    -2.3        0.9         0.7
Ross Youngs           1917    1926    5296       11.2    17.3    -6.1        2.0         1.3
Travis Hafner         2002    2006    2065       11.2    11.3    -0.1        3.3         3.2
Jim Ray Hart          1963    1974    4208       11.1    12.2    -1.0        1.7         1.6
Jason Thompson        1976    1986    5677       11.1    12.9    -1.8        1.4         1.2
Bob Horner            1978    1988    4197       11.0    12.3    -1.2        1.8         1.6
Vic Wertz             1947    1963    6994       11.0    16.1    -5.1        1.4         0.9
Jackie Jensen         1950    1961    6056       10.9    14.9    -3.9        1.5         1.1
Sal Bando             1966    1981    8213       10.8    13.8    -2.9        1.0         0.8
Ferris Fain           1947    1955    4886       10.8    14.8    -4.0        1.8         1.3
Don Mincher           1960    1972    4698       10.8    12.5    -1.7        1.6         1.4

Wednesday Links

Here are a couple of things in case you missed them:

The 2007 Scouting Report by the Fans for the Fans - Tango is once again collecting data on fan perception of fielding prowess. It's always great to harness the wisdom of crowds.

Billy Wagner Breakdown - Ok, so he didn't really break down but Will Carroll's recent comments on his "dead arm" inspired me to sift through some PITCHf/x data for Wagner on BP Unfiltered.

Jimenez Looking Good

Tonight Rockies rookie Ubaldo Jimenez turned in a good start for the third consecutive outing beating the Nationals here at Coors Field. I chronicled his arsenal over on the Rocky Mountain SABR site using PITCHf/x data.

Update: Mike Fast and Sky Kalkman point out that the data used to plot the fastball was incorrect. I inadvertantly used a positive rather than a negative vertical acceleration which caused the pitch to appear to level out. I've since corrected the graphs in the article at RMSABR. My apologies.

Visualization

My column today on Baseball Prospectus deals with using PITCHf/x data to visualize the trajectory of pitches in much the same way as the actual Gameday application shows each pitch during the game. After discussing how this can be done and plotting a few individual pitches I then aggregate pitch types for a few individuals including Rich Hill, Barry Zito, Roy Halladay, and Derrek Lowe to form a "visual pitch profile" that can be used for comparison. Finally, I look at the complete repertoire of Daisuke Matsuzaka.

After the article was submitted for publication I learned that SABR member Mat Kovach has also been doing this kind of thing.

Update: Just saw that Joe P. Sheehan had done something very similar last week at Baseball Analysts. You know what they say about great minds... :)

Record Breaker!

I'm sure someone has beat me to the punch but in light of the record-breaking performance of the Texas Rangers who scored 30 runs in the first game of a doubleheader against the Orioles tonight, here are the next 20 highest scoring games for one team.

6/8/1950  Thu     AL      SLA (4) at BOS (29)
4/23/1955 Sat     AL      CHA (29) at KC1 (6)
7/6/1929  Sat     NL      SLN (28) at PHI (6)
7/7/1923  Sat     AL      BOS (3) at CLE (27)
6/11/1985 Tue     NL      NYN (7) at PHI (26)
8/18/1995 Fri     NL      CHN (26) at COL (7)
4/19/1996 Fri     AL      BAL (7) at TEX (26)
9/9/2004  Thu     AL      KCA (26) at DET (5)
6/4/1911  Sun     NL      BSN (3) at CIN (26)
4/30/1944 Sun     NL      BRO (8) at NY1 (26)
8/12/1948 Thu     AL      CLE (26) at SLA (3)
8/25/1922 Fri     NL      PHI (23) at CHN (26)
6/27/2003 Fri     AL      FLO (8) at BOS (25)
6/9/1901  Sun     NL      NY1 (25) at CIN (13)
9/23/1901 Mon     NL      BRO (25) at CIN (6)
5/24/1936 Sun     AL      NYA (25) at PHA (2)
5/11/1930 Sun     AL      PHA (7) at CLE (25)
5/18/1912 Sat     AL      DET (2) at PHA (24)
6/26/1978 Mon     AL      BAL (10) at TOR (24)
8/25/1979 Sat     AL      CAL (24) at TOR (2)

Two other notes about the game. They scored those 30 runs in just four separate innings and they have 9 runs in the second game of the doubleheader which breaks that record as well.

Picking on Pierre

I just couldn't let this article on the Dodger's Juan Pierre pass by. It starts off like so:

What is it about the on-base percentage that a player like Juan Pierre -- who leads the Dodgers in at-bats, runs scored, hits, stolen bases, triples and games played -- gets knocked for not having his higher than .350?

Pierre has been one of the most consistent players in the Dodgers lineup this season. He plays every day (395 consecutive games, which is the longest active streak in the Majors), makes diving catches in center field on a regular basis and steals second just about every time he gets on base, yet his OBP evidently isn't cutting it.

Essentially, the author is arguing that acquiring playing time, and thus the opportunity to rack up those counting stats, automatically means you're a good hitter. Omar Moreno, playing in all 162 games for the Pirates in 1980 also led his team in all those categories including walks. In the end though he was 9 runs below average offensively because in addition to accumulating 87 runs scored, 13 triples, and 96 stolen bases, he made 551 outs. Yes, 551. Last year for the Cubs Pierre was also 9 runs below average while playing in all 162 games and made 526 outs. This season he's 8 runs below average and has made almost 400 outs.

While there is certainly a strong link between playing time and offensive performance and being able to stay on the field is in itself valuable, in Pierre's case the perception of performance is apparently what counts.

This season, Pierre leads the Dodgers with 147 hits. He is fifth in the NL with 45 multi-hit games, he leads the Majors with 14 sacrifice bunts and he's second in the Majors only to Jose Reyes with 50 stolen bases, and yet his OBP supposedly isn't cutting it.

Well. Multi-hit games are heavily dependant on playing time, sacrifice bunts are nothing to brag about, and while his 50 stolen bases against only 9 caught stealing is very good, historically he's a break even base stealer at best.

In 2003 and 2004 with the Marlins Pierre was an above average offensive player to the tune of 10 and 14 runs respectively. In those seasons his OBP was a healthy .361 and .374 (he also had a .378 OBP for the Rockies in 2001 but was still 3 runs below average in the pre-humidor era). The reason of course is that as Pierre himself explains:

When I'm hitting good, my on-base percentage is high and that's just the way it is. The Dodgers knew that before I came here. It is what it is. I just go out there and play the game, and I don't get caught up in all of this.

Indeed, in those three season his batting averages were .305, .326, and .327. The problem is that what the Dodgers should have paid attention to is that Pierre hadn't cracked .300 since 2004 and going into his age 29 season it wasn't exactly likely he would revert to his form as a 23 through 26 year-old.

In order to justify his low OBP the author makes much of his ability to disrupt the pitcher and comes up with this quote from Grady Little.

He's a disruptive force when he's on base. The other team has to be concerned with him regularly and it disrupts the pitcher.

Unfortunately for the Dodgers there is little evidence and in fact there is some evidence to the contrary as documented in The Book that "disruptive" baserunners tend to disrupt the batter more than the defense.

Where the author should have focused perhaps was on Pierre's other contributions on the bases. Since 2000 in my four baserunning metrics he's a positive 27.9 runs making his biggest contribution in advancing on hits to the tune of 18.6 runs. When you add those 27 runs to his total runs above average he comes out 1 run to the good. In other words, offensively over the past almost eight seasons he's been average. Unfortunately, his ledger was heavily stacked in 2003 and 2004 and so in the other six seasons he's been below average.

On the other side of the coin he's also been a below average defender since 2004 and his lack of arm strength is well known. Contrasted with Omar Moreno, who had a monster year with the glove to the tune of saving 17 run over average in 1980 and who was an above average defender until his latter days with the Yankees, Pierre doesn't stack up very well.

Don't get me wrong. When Pierre was with the Cubs I enjoyed watching him play and was a little sad to see him go (but not enough to wish the Cubs had signed him at that price tag of course).

Finally, the author sums up his point by saying...

Whether his OBP is at .324 or .350, Pierre will continue to do the small things for the Dodgers. He bunts, he steals bases, he legs out triples and robs balls in the outfield, yet he'll constantly be scrutinized because he doesn't get on base enough -- that's just the way it's going to be.

And that's just the problem. The things he can do are indeed small things and when he doesn't get on base those small things simply aren't enough to compensate for the big things like power which he does not posses.

He's an exciting player to watch no doubt about it. Just don't pretend that he's a plus offensively when at this point in his career he's clearly not.

Stealing Pays?

Carl Bialik at the Wall Street Journal who authors a column titled "The Numbers Guy" ran an interesting piece on his blog today related to the trend in stolen bases success rates.

Until he called my attention to it I hadn't realized that the success rate in 2007 was over 74% marking the highest it has ever been. In looking into the historical trend I found that three of the four previous highs occurred in 2004-2006 and I produced the graph he shows in the post. Because of its steady increase since the second World War I then ventured that it recorded a systemic change in the game perhaps related to increasing athleticism by baserunners coupled to a smaller degree with refinements in technique and strategy.

For those familiar with the strategic analysis of baserunning you'll notice that the current rate is dangerously close to the oft-repeated claim that 75% is the break even success rate for stolen bases in the big picture (it varies by base, out, and score of course). As a result, using the tenets of game theory, we would expect that as the actual success rate catches up with the break even rate, defenses would be a little more vigilant in protecting against the running game in order to keep the rate close to the break even. Whether they'll be able to do so, however, is dependant to a large degree on the constraints that are inherent in the game. For example, pitching out more often may indeed keep the rate down but at the cost of increasing the productivity of the current batter perhaps making it a wash. Balk rules also constrain attempts by the pitcher to keep the runner close. As a result, if the increase is primarily a result of increasing athleticism on the part of runners outstripping the combined throwing velocity of pitchers and catchers (and their technique), then we might indeed see the rate continue to climb.

Einstein: His Life and Universe

"I think physicists are the Peter Pans of the human race. They never grow up and they keep their curiosity." - Nobel Prize winner Isidor Isaac Rabi

Throughout my entire elementary, middle school, high school and college educations I never had occasion to read a real biography of, write a paper on, or let alone actually study the technical work of Albert Einstein. Thinking about it now it sounds hard to believe but my only exposure to the famous equation E=mc² came from a book on science we had in our home (related to our antiquated encyclopedia set I think but can't recall anymore) that I picked up around the time I was twelve years old or so. I do recall thinking how simple and elegant that formulation is and, once I learned how fast the speed of light really was, trying to wrap my around the idea that such a small amount of matter could contain such a large amount of energy (a kilogram of mass if converted completely into energy would yield 25 billion kilowatt hours of electricity).


For Einstein the construction of the formula that equated mass and energy was merely a coda to his "miracle year" of 1905 which he published in a three-page paper in September titled "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on it's Energy Content?" That was last of his papers from that year which also saw him devise the quantum theory of light, help prove the existence of atoms, explain Brownian motion, and of course produce the special theory of relativity in addition to what proved to be the most famous equation in science. As with much of Einstein's work, Walter Isaacson does a masterful job of taking the general reader through not only the chronology but the big ideas behind these discoveries and their historical context in his new biography Einstein: His Life and Universe. I had the pleasure of making Einstein and his world a more or less constant companion over the last two months and can say I thoroughly enjoyed the company.

The book is the first of what will likely be several new biographies of Einstein that draw on a set of letters newly published in 2006 by the Einstein Papers Project at Caltech. Most of these are personal letters and provide additional insight to Einstein's relationship with family and friends and Isaacson seems to quote from them liberally as he provides a straightforward chronology. That chronology is much more detailed from the time of his birth in 1879 through the completion of the general theory of relativity in 1915 and picks up speed considerably after that and especially from the time of his immigration to the United States in the early 1930s to where only scattered events from his final decade of life are mentioned.

But even if the book doesn't detail all the chronology, Isaacson does a wonderful job as he did with Benjamin Franklin: An American Life, in chronicling the key intellectual development, struggles, and triumphs of his subject. This is particularly evident in the chapters on the miracle year and the march leading up to the paper on general relativity. In the latter case what we learn in the book and what I found especially fascinating was that Einstein simultaneously pursued parallel physical and mathematical strategies in his quest to generalize relativity. The physical approach had to comport with Newton's laws and Einstein's own intuition about the physical world (on which he heavily relied in his earlier work) while the mathematical strategy was based on work previously done by Bernahrd Reimann among others. As the story is told in the book the mathematical approach, much to Einstein's surprise since his physical intuition served him so well in his earlier successes while he sometimes derided a reliance on pure mathematics, was the winner while the physical approach ultimately cost him several years as he attempted to refine what is known as his Entwurf theory (German for "outline"). This interesting detail has an appeal since it highlights the effectiveness of taking multiple approaches to solving a problem. The trick of course is in being able to work both sides simultaneously and this episode shows how even a genius had some difficulty in doing so.

As a side note to this narrative, Isaacson chronicles what turned out to be a race with mathematician David Hilbert in the fall of 1915 to publish the final equations after the two had corresponded earlier in the summer. In fact Hilbert published a version of the final equations on November 20 while Einstein didn't deliver the fourth in a series of lectures where he finalized his equations on November 25th. Although there has been some controversy over the priority of general relativity as a result, it was discovered about a decade ago that Hilbert changed his paper in December based on Einstein's version. In any case Hilbert always gave priority to Einstein.

In addition to the key episodes and papers, the book paints a portrait of Einstein's beliefs about the physical world and how those subtly changed over time. From his early career Einstein was heavily influenced by his reading of Ernst Mach who insisted that concepts only had meaning if one could create an operational definition of them and who derided Newton's views of "absolute space" and "absolute time" as a "monstrosity". This skepticism of received wisdom and adherence to what is observable helped Einstein break through the earlier framework when his contemporaries, who had all the same data, simply could not. But while Einstein would later abandon Mach after his general theory and instead rely more on his intuition about reality, Baruch Spinoza was also a huge influence and his belief in a deterministic universe would stay with Einstein until the end. When confronted with the implications of the revolution he started in quantum physics and its reliance on chance, Einstein famously couldn't believe that at the heart of all things determinism didn't rein despite the growing evidence that he was wrong. As a result he spent the remaining 30 years of his life in a quest to find a unified field theory that would marry electricity and magnetism with gravity and quantum mechanics that culminated with twelve pages of equations he scribbled in his last days in the hospital.

While Isaacson does a nice job of describing Einstein's sparring with the "young turks" of quantum physics including Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, a second book titled Uncertainty: Einstein, Heisenberg, Bohr, and the Struggle for the Soul of Science by David Lindley documents that struggle in more detail. In particular Lindley includes in-depth portraits of Heisenberg, Bohr, and Erwin Schrodinger among others as well as the debates that raged in the famous Solvay conferences that occurred primarily between the first and second world wars.

As the years went on, of course, Einstein became known almost as much for his political views as for his scientific accomplishments which were increasingly seen as ancient history. His revulsion at the strict militaristic school he briefly attended as a youth instilled in him a deep disdain both for conformity and the military. It wasn't surprising that he embraced both socialism and pacifism through a refusal of individuals to bear arms, although the latter was markedly softened in the face of German militarism and anti-Semitism in the 1930s. Later he would advocate a world government with its own military which was enforced by his personal lack of nationalistic feeling. He never felt at home in the country of his birth, although he lived in Berlin for many years primarily because his second wife Elsa was from there, as he preferred first Switzerland and later America where he became a citizen in June of 1940. At the same time events in Europe increased his awareness of and solidarity with his Jewish heritage and throughout the book his support of and sometimes entanglement with the Zionist movement (including his dealings with Hebrew University and being offered the presidency of Israel much to David Ben-Gurion's displeasure) are discussed.

Isaacson also spends a good deal of the last few chapters in recounting Einstein's peripheral role in the development of the atomic bomb after having help draft the letter to President Roosevelt outlining the possibility. More entertainingly he describes the somewhat slapstick efforts by the FBI to obtain information and build a dossier on him while completely missing the one true Soviet spy he consorted with and whom he had an affair after the death of his second wife Elsa. Finally, he also talks a good bit about Einstein's firm resistance to McCarthyism. For Isaacson, Einstein valued political systems that cultivated personal freedom and especially freedom of thought. In America he saw as primary the first amendment and continued to speak out on a variety of issues despite the strictures that the Red Scare induced.

In the end Isaacson concludes that curiosity was the primary driver for Einstein. And when combined with his imagination and ability to visualize the physical reality behind his equations, it created a genius. Although I haven't commented much on the personal portrait the book paints, as with Franklin Isaacson seems to fairly show multiple sides of his personality. Both his warmth towards acquaintances and strangers as well as his self-induced emotional distance accompanying his often uncaring attitude towards his wives (Isaacson touches on but doesn't dwell on several of Einstein's mistresses through the years) and children, are on display. In that regard, which incidentally is a weakness of Doris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, the book humanizes a figure that for me, as for many others I'm sure, had always been little more than the caricature of the absent-minded professor.

Umpires and QuesTec

Several readers have been asking about the recent study that was reported to show umpire bias by race known as the Hamermesh study. Phil Birnbaum and Mitchel Lichtman have been doing great work in that regard already so I have little to add other than providing a few links for those interested:

The original study

The Time Magazine piece

Phil's first take - he questions the author's findings of statistical significance by examining the core table (table 2) from the original study

Phil's follow-up - where he uses to conclude that perhaps and at most 1 in 700 pitches is biased

And even more by Phil - here he uses several different tests of significance and it appears there is no racial bias

MGL's own study - here he uses a much simpler approach and comes to the tentative conclusion that there are not racial differences that are statistically significant. Update on 8/19: MGL posted some updates to his study here and here and comes to the opposite conclusion. He also notes there is a good discussion of the study at The Sports Economist.

One of the side topics that have arisen here is the affect of QuesTec on called strikes. The authors of the Hamermesh study found that for both white and minority pitchers, in non-QuesTec parks pitchers received a higher percentage of strikes when the race of the pitcher and umpire matched than they did in QuesTec parks. White pitchers did not experience this difference when the umpire was non-white although minority pitchers still did.

This provides an opportunity to look at the PITCHf/x data from this season in QuesTec and non-QuesTec parks to get a more granular feel for what the overall difference might be. While we have data for only 9 of the 11 parks where QuesTec is installed, we still end up with almost 35,000 pitches in QuesTec parks and 63,000 in non-QuesTec parks to analyze. When we do so by comparing the location of the pitch to the strike zone (defined by the PITCHf/x operator for each plate appearance) and give the umpires a 1 inch buffer zone to correspond with the limits of the system, we find the following:

Park      Pitches   CS%   CB%  Agree%
QuesTec     34427 .8252 .9433   .8790
Non-QuesTec 62862 .8052 .9488   .8772

By way of explanation CS% is the called strike percentage defined as the percentage of actual pitches in the strike zone that were actually called strikes. CB% is the called ball percentage defined as the percentage of pitches that were actually out of the strike zone that were called balls and Agree% is the overall percentage of pitches on which PITCHf/x (given the buffer zone) and the umpire agreed.

By simply examining the confidence intervals it appears that umpires do indeed call more pitches in the zone strikes at QuesTec parks than at non-QuesTec parks. The difference is statistically significant at .05 at amounts to 1 pitch in 50. However, at QuesTec parks umpires don't do as well at identifying balls and end up calling more of them strikes to the tune of 1 in 180 pitches. This result too is statistically significant at .05 indicating that perhaps the biggest effect of QuesTec is simpy to call more strikes.

Because the factors are working in opposite directions when we add them up the Agree% fails to meet the .05 test. Overall then, if we attribute the entire difference to whether the umpire is in a QuesTec park or not we're talking about a difference of 1 pitch in 550. Of course there may be other factors at work here including the calibration of the system at particular parks that may play a role which I haven't examined.

756

I wasn't old enough nor interested enough to appreciate Hank Aaron's blast in April of 1974 - a fact for which I have a partial excuse intruding as it did on my sixth birthday (although I do faintly remember the television on and comments made). Later, however, I had always imagined that when 755 was finally reached and breached by someone it would be among the highlights of my baseball fandom.

As for many others that simply wasn't the case and the event passed with little joy and more than a tinge of disappointment. This was not unlike, I suppose, the feelings experienced by many who had waited a lifetime for the 1986 approach of Halley's comet only to be disappointed. There were no external or internal cheers from my desk as I watched the replays of 755 and 756 on my laptop.

In understanding why the disappointment lingers, it comes down to a preponderance of the evidence suggesting that Bonds didn't accomplish the feat legitimately in the spirit of fair competition. Who can say what would have happened if he had chosen an alternate path? Perhaps he would have broken the record anyway since he certainly is the greatest offensive player of his generation with or without help. But therein lies the problem. He didn't let us find out and so now the game's greatest number, at least for awhile, (whatever that turns out to be) and hence it' greatest story will forever be accompanied by a shadow.

The litany of popular defenses including no positive PED test (until recently when Bonds tested positive for amphetamines), the actions of Major League Baseball and the player's union during the entire era, the lack of rock solid performance data quantifying the impact of PEDs, and the fact that many of his peers engaged in the same behavior, are indeed mitigating factors but ones that don't remove the ultimate responsibility of all competitors to play the game "the right way".

Believe me, I would rather have cheered.

A Sabermetric Cambrian Explosion

Several folks have alerted me to this article by Nate DiMeo on Slate.com that talks a bit about PITCHf/x and it's promise. What I like about it is that it does a nice job of showing the range of analysis that has already been done (and I like the quote he used as well from this column) and linking to some of those articles.

I've written 10 articles on the subject with a couple more already in the works which include:

Schrodinger's Bat: Putting the Pedal to the Metal - August 16

Schrodinger's Bat: Calling the Balls and Strikes - July 26

Schrodinger's Bat: Searching for the Gyroball - July 5

Schrodinger's Bat: Playing Favorites - June 28

Schrodinger's Bat: Gameday Meets the Knuckleball - June 21

Schrodinger's Bat: The Science and Art of Building a Better Pitcher Profile - June 14

Schrodinger's Bat: Gameday Triple Play - June 7

Schrodinger's Bat: Physics on Display - May 31

Schrodinger's Bat: Batter Versus Pitcher, Gameday Style - May 4

Schrodinger's Bat: Phil Hughes, Pitch by Pitch - May 10

Schrodinger's Bat: The Information Revolution - October 26, 2006

In addition Dr. Nathan has created a wonderful page that not only has the most complete data dictionary for the PITCHf/x data but also includes a paper he wrote detailing his own analysis of pitch classification using derived parameters of axis of rotation and spin using a sophisticated model.

Although it may be difficult to detect, one of my goals in researching and writing about the PITCHf/x data this season has been to explore as many avenues of analysis as possible in this early stage when the system is still being tweaked and the data is incomplete. By doing so we can begin to see which of those ideas for analysis are useful and should be developed further as well as to help spur new ideas by other researchers. This is analogous to one of my favorite intellectual ideas, that of the inverted cone of diversity that I also used to help illuminate the evolving way in which players have been used throughout baseball history, and that Stephen Jay Gould was also fond of. From that earlier column the idea is briefly this:

In 1909 Charles Doolittle Walcott discovered a treasure trove of wonderfully unique fossils preserved in a layer of shale near the town of Field in British Columbia, specimens that would become known simply as the Burgess Shale. While Walcott placed his specimens in familiar phyla that were known to exist during the period (Middle Cambrian, 505 million years ago), it was a reinvestigation by Harry Blackmore Whittington, Derek Briggs, and Simon Conway Morris of the University of Cambridge in the 1980s that upended that traditional interpretation of the fossils' place in the evolution of life. By inverting the familiar iconography of the cone of increasing diversity in life forms, Whittington, Briggs, and Morris reinterpreted the Burgess Shale as replete with creatures in phyla that are now extinct. In other words, rather than life becoming increasingly more diverse in terms of its basic body plans over successive geologic periods, the Burgess Shale records an initial flowering of experimentation in structures just after the dawn of life before a later decimation or winnowing into the few surviving phyla we see today. Stephen Jay Gould devoted an entire book to this theme as an illustration akin to his theory of punctuated equilibrium in his 1989 book Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History.

So with the introduction of PITCHf/x we're in our own kind of sabermetric Cambrian explosion where ideas are flowering and we're looking for those that survive the selection pressures that prevail.

Where the analogy breaks down however, is that unlike body plans that are almost fully constrained by what went before, ideas never are and so while many of the paths that we'll subsequently travel will come out in the near future, there will always be a decreasing number that are novel and could therefore fundamentally change the way we look at this data.


Updated 8/16/2007: Added new article on pitch speeds with runners on base.

Ankiel and Bressler

Back in September of 2005 I wrote a column titled "Rube Bressler Redux?" for The Hardball Times that chronicled the first season of Rick Ankiel's transition from pitcher to hitter. At that time Ankiel had completed a 2005 season that I summarized this way:

This was the second [his demotion to low-A Quad Cities in late May] stop for Ankiel as he started the year at Double-A Springfield, but did not fare well in his first 60 at-bats, getting off to a 1-for-20 start and hitting around .160 before getting sent down. With the Swing he continued to improve and wound up hitting .270/.368/.514 with 10 doubles and 11 homeruns in 212 plate appearances. His strikeouts were a bit high (37), though he showed a little patience at the plate, collecting 27 walks.

That good showing in the Midwest League earned him a trip back to Springfield on August 3, and this time it appears he took advantage of it. In the remainder of the season he would hit .300 with 10 homeruns and drive in 28 runs in the 28 games he played, including a 3-for-4 performance with two homeruns and three RBI on the final day of the season. His late season surge even prompted some talk of a September call-up.

His combined line at Springfield was .243/.295/.515 while overall for the season he hit .259 with 17 doubles, 21 homeruns, and 75 RBIs in 321 at-bats and 85 games. Although he still has a long way to go, I'm sure he and probably the Cardinals viewed this season as a success.

Late in June Ankiel was asked about making the transition from pitching to the outfield.

"Not very many people have been successful at it," he replied. "To conquer that quest would be very self-fulfilling."

Well, after a 2006 season in which he was shelved all year with patellar tendonitis, it appeared that perhaps his window was slipping away. This season, however, he came back at the AAA level and belted 32 homeruns in just over 400 plate appearances before being called up on Thursday and hitting a three-run homer in last night's 5-0 Cardinals victory.

When I wrote the original article I was interested in how many players had successfully made the transition from full-time pitcher to full-time position player in the history of baseball. It turns out that only five others have ever totaled more than 50 games pitched and 50 games played at other positions in the major leagues. Click on the link above to read about their stories, including that of Rube Bressler for whom the article is titled, but suffice it to say that Ankiel appears as if he'll become the sixth. Whether he goes on to be as successful as any of the others remains to be seen and given his age and plate discipline still seems somewhat remote.

The interesting thing is that all five of the other players completed their transition before 1940. The final section of the Bressler article details an explanation of just why it is more difficult today to make such transitions than it was in the days of Rube Bressler. Simply put, the argument, first detailed by Stephen J. Gould in an essay discussing the disappearance of the .400 hitter, is that these transitions essentially ended after the war because of the increasing level of play that comes closer to the "right wall" of human ability, coupled with the stabilization of the game itself. In other words, over time baseball players, like other athletes, including sprinters and swimmers, have become better and as the level of play has increased, it has had the side effect of decreasing the variation among players. For players like Bressler and company there was therefore more opportunity to make the transition because good athletes of their ilk could more easily excel beyond the more numerous lesser athletes that populated baseball in the early part of the century.

The evidence for an increasing level of play was the topic of a column I wrote earlier this year on Baseball Prospectus titled "The Myth of the Golden Age" and in particular one line of evidence fits nicely with Ankiel and Bressler. As described in that column:

Pitchers are increasingly selected from the amateur ranks based on their extreme right-hand-tail-of-the-distribution excellence in pitching. While there is certainly some athletic and experiential crossover that allows them to hit better than the general population (as evidenced by the best players at early ages being both the best hitters and pitchers), their hitting skill is not selected for in the evolutionary sense and so should remain relatively constant over time. In other words, pitchers simply don't hit as well in the modern game, not because they are not just as skilled (or slightly more so) with the bat as their predecessors, but because the selected skills of all players have increased over time.

What this all boils down to is that by measuring the relative success of pitchers at the plate we can at the same time, at least indirectly, measure the increasing level of play. The following graph documents that relation using OPS normalized by park and breaks it up by league.



What I find fascinating about this graph is that it not only shows the increasing difficulty that pitchers have when competing against their peers from the batter's box, it simultaneously gives some information on the relative level of play amongst competing leagues. You'll notice that the American Association and the Union Association of the 1880s and 1890s record higher relative values ostensibly because the leagues were not as difficult. The same applies to the Federal League (1914-1915) and American League relative to the National League from from 1901-1920 and again after integration through the early 1970s. Obviously, after the introduction of the designated hitter in 1973 the league differences can't be measured and so the graph doesn't reflect the subsequent time period. However, if one were to plot those just in the NL, the decline would continue to the point where today the relative production is well under .500.

All of this has conspired to make Rick Ankiel's story even more compelling and so I for one am going to enjoy it while it lasts.

End of the Week

A busy week after being on vacation and so just a couple links:

Chat Transcript - here's the chat transcript from today. Thanks to all those who asked questions and sorry for cutting things a little short.

A Physicist Speaks - my column this week was an interview with Dr. Alan Nathan on the intersection of baseball and physics. I followed it up with an addendum on BP's Unfiltered blog.

Rocky Mountain SABR - our local SABR chapter has a new website and I made a small contribution following up on the bunting exploits of Willy Taveras. Hopefully it will become a community site for baseball fans on the Front Range and beyond.

More PITCHf/x - a wonderful summary of all the articles written on the system by Mike Fast.

The Young and the Motionless

Just wanted to make a quick comment on Joe Sheehan's column on Sunday regarding the Nationals and their signing of Dmitri Young to a two-year $10M contract extension. Joe's analysis is spot-on and this marks the second consecutive year where the Nationals chose to hold on to a veteran having a career year instead of turning him over for prospects - even middling ones - or mediocre major leaguers. This time, however, they made the mistake of continuing to pay the veteran who also happens to play a position that will be occuppied with the return of Nick Johnson.

In any case Joe mentioned Young's negative contributions in areas outside of his direct offense and so I thought I'd quickly document his baserunning "contributions" over the years.

Year      Opp  EqGAR   Opp  EqSBR    Opp   EqAAR     Opp   EqHAR   Total
2007       18  -1.11     0   0.00     20    1.28      30   -0.45   -0.29
2006       11   0.76     9  -0.54      2   -0.37       8   -1.15   -1.30
2005       20  -0.89     1   0.09     15    0.18      25    0.22   -0.40
2004       18  -0.64     1  -0.44     20    0.67      36   -2.94   -3.34
2003       24  -1.09     2  -0.58     31    0.97      38   -2.39   -3.08
2002       11  -0.26     1   0.15      8    0.47      17    0.07    0.43
2001       37  -0.25    13  -2.07     26    0.58      34   -2.75   -4.49
2000       22  -0.10     4  -2.10     19   -0.29      31   -3.26   -5.76

          161  -3.58    51  -4.21    121    2.22     219  -12.66  -18.23

Overall, he's at a little more than -18 runs contributed since 2000 which puts him towards the bottom and among the "leaders" in 2000, 2001, 2003, and 2004.

Chat This Friday

I'll be chatting on the Baseball Prospectus site on Friday at 12:30 PM eastern, 10:30 AM mountain time. You can submit your questions ahead of time. Your thoughts on bunting, baserunning, PITCHf/x, the trade deadline and anything else you want to talk about are always welcome.