Royals Records

The 2004 season didn't provide much to get excited about if you're a Royals fan but on the bright side the team did set some records (ok, not all of them positive). I've been going through these since I volunteered to help The Sporting News update their Royals section for the 2005 Complete Baseball Record Book. So the following is a list of all the records that the 2004 Royals or their players eclipsed or effected:

• Most homeruns switch-hitter career: Carlos Beltran 123
• Most hit by pitch team: 76
• Highest batting average career: Mike Sweeney now tied with George Brett at .305
• Highest on-base percentage career: Mike Sweeney .377
• Most hits allowed by the team in a season - 1,638
• Most homeruns allowed pitcher: Darrell May 38
• Most players season - 58
• Most games lost - 104
• Lowest winning pct. - .358 (58-104)
• Overall Record: 2,835-2,858 (36 seasons) - notice that they dipped under .500 this season
• Interleague Record: 57-83 (8 seasons)
• Number of times worst in the league: 1 in 2004
• Most runs game - 26 vs, Detroit, Sept 9, 2004 (gm 1 of DH)
• Most hits game - 26 vs. Detroit, Sept 9, 2004 (gm 1 of DH)
• Most hits game opponent - 27 vs. Detroit, May 27, 2004
• Largest crowd day game - 41,575 vs. Chicago, Apr 5, 2004
• Largest crowd for a home opener - 41,575 vs. Chicago, Apr 5, 2004
• Most players used before the All-Star break – 47
• Most RBI game – 25 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most RBIs both teams-game – 30 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Largest margin of victory game - 21 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most plate appearances inning – 16 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most consecutive singles - 7 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most runs doubleheader - 26 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most hits doubleheader – 33 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most RBIs doubleheader – 25 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most runs both clubs doubleheader – 39 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most RBIs both clubs doubleheader – 38 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Tied most singles in a game Joe Randa - 5 at Detroit September 9, 2004
• Most double plays by a 2nd baseman in a game – 5 by Donnie Murphy 9/24 at Chicago

And here are American League or Major League records set or tied by the 2004 Royals.

• Joe Randa ties AL record 9 inning game with 6 hits September 9, 2004 at Detroit
• Joe Randa ties ML and AL record with 6 runs September 9, 2004 at Detroit
• Most runs scored 2 players in a game (10 - Berroa 4, Randa 6 or Randa 6, DeJesus 4) ties AL record September 9, 2004 at Detroit
• Joe Randa ties AL record most AB 9 inning game - 7 September 9, 2004 at Detroit
• Tied AL record with 13 straight batters reaching base in the 3rd inning September 9, 2004 at Detroit

Defensive Indifference

In the Braves/Astros game last night there were several instances of defensive indifference. David Smith at Retrosheet included the following numbers in a post on SABR-L that categorize how often DI's occur. In the last 15 seasons (1990-2004) there were 2,005 occurrences:

Defensive Indifference by year:
2004 247
2003 219
2002 201
2001 213
2000 199
1999 166
1998 54
1997 122
1996 124
1995 88
1994 82
1993 85
1992 85
1991 78
1990 42

Defensive Indifference by base:
2nd base 1940
3rd base 65

Defensive Indifference by inning:
1st 1
2nd 1
3rd 1
4th 3
5th 12
6th 36
7th 69
8th 212
9th 1498
extra 172

As you might expect the vast majority come in the 8th, 9th, and extra innings when the value of the run represented is minimal. Why there are so many more in the most recent years I'm not sure. One possibility is that historically managers just didn't recognize the value in taking the free base in order to make a putout on a groundball harder. Most DI's occur with 2 outs (especially if the batter is right-handed) since the defensive team often wants the keep the double play in order with 0 or 1 outs. In fact, its still the case that teams don't take full advantage of indifference as I've seen Steve Stone criticize many teams for not taking the free base.

It is interesting the DI's are described in the rule book as "undefended steals" but not included by the official scorer. Instead the scorer scores it as a fielder's choice:

"FIELDER'S CHOICE is the act of a fielder who handles a fair grounder and, instead of throwing to first base to put out the batter runner, throws to another base in an attempt to put out a preceding runner. The term is also used by scorers (a) to account for the advance of the batter runner who takes one or more extra bases when the fielder who handles his safe hit attempts to put out a preceding runner; (b) to account for the advance of a runner (other than by stolen base or error) while a fielder is attempting to put out another runner; and (c) to account for the advance of a runner made solely because of the defensive team's indifference (undefended steal)."

I've always argued that DI's should be recorded as stolen bases since the runner did actually take an extra base for which he is not getting credit and which has some value, and because it does take a modicum of running ability to take the base.

Box on Mobility

Here's the editorial Jon Box wrote that included my Compact Framework Big League Pocket Manager. Jon gives a broad outline of mobility that includes more than just Pocket PC's.

Design the Residue of Luck?

Branch Rickey is often quoted as saying that "Luck is the residue of design". Jay Bennett (the co-author of Curve Ball) and Aryn Martin turn this phrase on his head in this chapter entitled "The Numbers Game: What Fans Should Know About the Stats They Love". The chapter is included in the book Baseball and Philosophy: Thinking Outside the Batter's Box.

In particular I think its instructive to consider their analysis of the variation in batting average among the 146 players who qualified for the batting title. They conclude that the variation resulted from two sources: ability and chance, and thatfully half of the variation (the averages ranged from .215 for Jeremy Burnitz to .370 by Barry Bonds) is the result of chance, the left - the residue - the result of ability. For most fans that just doesn't sound right since we think of .300 hitters, for example, as having the ability to hit .300 when in reality their actual ability is best thought of as a range instead of as a point. This is similar to Stephen Jay Gould's often repeated statement that variation, not type, is the central aspect of biology.

More interestingly for sabermetricians Bennett and Martin then go on perform a similar analysis with on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and OPS. They found that ablity played a much larger role in determining these values, as much as 3 to 4 times that of chance. So not only does OPS correlate better with run scoring, it also is a better measure of a hitter's true ability. While general managers are just now figuring out the former, I haven't heard much discussion of the latter.

C.S. Lewis: A Biography

It's sometimes said that you learn as much about the biographer as the subject. In the case of C.S. Lewis: A Biography (or should I say "pathography") by A.N. Wilson I think you learn more about Wilson than about CSL. In 312 well written pages Wilson gives you his view, or should I say his Freudian psychoanalysis of the life of Lewis (1898-1963).

And that view essentially boils Lewis down to a man who could never come to terms with the death of his mother in 1908 and as a result of his Oedipus Complex had a sexual relationship with a mother-figure (Mrs. Janie Moore) 25 years his senior that also fulfilled his need to be dominated by a woman, rejected and then accepted God only when his biological father died in 1929 (God as wish-fulfillment), rejected the intellectual defense of Christianity and retreated into his childhood when challenged (and by a woman no less), and who when Mrs. Moore died married a course and disagreeable woman in Joy Davidman again because of his sadomasichistic need to be dominated by women. There.

There are some redeeming aspects of the book. First, Wilson's literary analysis of many of CSL's works is quite interesting. For Wilson, CSL's scholarly works such as The Discarded Image, The Allegory of Love, and his history of medieval literature are among his best and his comments on these books were interesting for me as someone who knows precious little about literature. And Wilson does a good job of describing the academic environment and politics in which Lewis worked in both Oxford and Cambridge and how Lewis was thought of by his peers. One gets the impression that Wilson shares CSL's peer's view that when CSL began his defense of the faith he compromised his intellectual standing.

Not surprisingly then, Wilson does not care for CSL's apologetic works and takes a dim view of The Problem of Pain, Mere Christianity, and Miracles. In each, he condescendingly picks apart arguments and illustrations (Lord, Liar, Lunatic, the incarnation, and that naturalism abolishes reason) and attempts to make the books, and CSL's whole attempt at a defense, appear simple and childish. He especially fixes on one incident after Miracles was published as a key point in his story. As the story goes the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe read a paper at a meeting of the Socratic Club (an Oxford society where CSL was president and where an atheist and a Christian would each read a paper and defend it) on chapter 3 of Miracles. Wilson writes that Lewis was so crushed by Anscombe's obvious disposal of his argument against naturalism that he essentially abandoned his intellectual defense of Christianity and retreated into his childhood which produced the Narnia stories. I thought this sounded strange and in pulling out my copy of Miracles I noticed that the last revision of the book was made by CSL in 1960, long after the crushing defeat when he supposedly abandoned an intellectual faith. I've since discovered that he edited Mere Christianity in 1952 as well. In Wilson's view Lewis develops an imaginative view of faith only after Joy dies as exemplified in A Grief Observed.

But Wilson is especially keen on pillorying CSL's spiritual autobiography Surprised By Joy published in 1955. Wilson thinks it a cruel book (he says the same of The Screwtape Letters) because of the chapter on Albert Lewis (which I'll admit is tough but very funny) and one that does not portray the real reasons, by which he means Freudian reasons, Lewis became a Christian.

In the end this book gives you a picture of CSL as a man struggling against his neuroses that began with the death of his mother and who hides his feelings behind his books, his smoking and drinking, and bullying of his students and peers.

If that's not enough CSL's brother Warnie doesn't come off well either. He's simply depicted as a frustrated man stuck in his own childhood, totally dependant on Jack (the name everyone called Lewis), and a whiskey addict who periodically disappears to Ireland and elsewhere for a "bender". Oh, Wilson does say he was a fine historian for his book on French history.

Perhaps the main reason Wilson wrote the book is revealed both in the preface and in the last chapter. Wilson abhors the "CSL Industry" by which he means the idea that CSL has become a kind of saint to many, especially in America. And so his aim is to inject some realism into the plastic portraits of Lewis (for example that CSL wasn't a loud and bullying smoker and drinker - something that Wilson apparently thinks must be abhorrent to all those American evangelicals who appreciate CSL) that have in his view replaced the real man. I'm not sure this book is any better than those plastic portraits since it seems to erect its own false image of Lewis. I do agree that those like Walter Hooper (who has also changed his own handwriting and speaking voice to be more in accord with his master) who now believe in the perpetual virginity of CSL have obviously moved from appreciation of Lewis to misguided veneration.

I'll have to admit that this theme of the book struck me close to home since my wife, elder daughter, and I did visit Oxford last spring when in England on business with the express purpose of seeing where CSL lived and worked. I think my wife and I were both surprised that for so famous a writer there is precious little public recognition of his work outside of a few pictures in the Eagle and Child pub where the Inklings met and a plaque on the house where Joy Davidman lived when she first moved to Oxford. But perhaps that's the point and reveals Wilson's perspective. CSL is not viewed as a famous writer in Oxford, or England for that matter, and so Americans like us visiting Oxford and the continued popularity of his apologetical books probably seems grotesque to someone like Wilson.

All I know is that for me the works of CSL provide challenging insight and clarity to many aspects of the Christian life, from its intellectual components to the moral landscape on which I find myself daily doing battle. I don't think many who appreciate CSL as an author hold the plastic portrait view of the man but rather, like us all, think of him as he described Joy and himself in A Grief Observed, "A sinful woman married to a sinful man; two of God's patients, not yet cured."

Since there are many inaccuracies and other difficulties with the book I'll leave these two links if you're hungry for more. I'm told that George Sayer's biography is much better and I might just go ahead and read it as a corrective. In case you didn't get the message, this book is not recommended.

http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/anwilsonerrata.html
http://www.solcon.nl/arendsmilde/cslewis/reflections/e-definitivebiography.htm

Dusty's Not Walkin'

Saw this quote from Dusty Baker on The Cub Reporter:

"Yeah, you need on-base percentage guys to put the pitcher in the stretch. I don't agree with going up there looking for a walk unless the game situation dictates it. This isn't Little League."
Dusty Baker (Chicago Sun-Times - 10/4/04)

Little League? So just to be complete Dusty started off the year with this gem on the base on balls:

"I think walks are overrated unless you can run. If you get a walk and put the pitcher in a stretch, that helps, but the guy who walks and can't run, most of the time he's clogging up the bases for somebody who can run."

So in Dusty's mind walks are primarily useful for...

1. Putting the pitcher in the stretch
2. Clogging the bases

How about getting runner on base so that they can eventually score on say...one of the 235 homeruns your team hit this year??? Geez. Slow learner. I say this as I watch Mark Bellhorn, a guy Dusty gave up on, and his 88 walks and .373 OBP help the Red Sox on their way to a series sweep of the Angels.

In Dusty's defense he did also say:

"The whole thing boils down to that half of on-base percentage is getting a good pitch to hit. Most of the times when guys are striking out, a bad pitch has been swung at during the course of that at-bat." Dusty Baker (Chicago Sun-Times - 10/4/04)

That sentiment I certainly agree with. But why not recognize that walks have value in and of themselves?

A Brief History of Run Estimation: Runs Created

As promised we'll start our look at run estimation formulas with what is perhaps the most well known formula - Bill James Runs Created.

History
James, who coined the term "sabermetrics", introduced the formula in an early Baseball Abstract (1979 I believe). It is one of a class of run estimation formulas which I'll discuss in this series that Albert and Bennett in their book Curve Ball call "intuitive" formulas because they are based not on rigorous statistical models such as regression analysis but rather on a common sense model of how the game of baseball actually works.

In its basic incarnation the Runs Created formula James initially published (although he confesses in the 1984 Baseball Abstract that he developed and discarded 30 or 40 such formulas - a sure sign that this is an intuitive formula) simply consists of three components:

RC = (A*B)/C

where A = H+BB or the number of runners on base, B = Total Bases or what is done to move runners along, and C = AB+BB, or the context in which A and B occur. So in total the basic formula was:

RC = ((H+BB)*TB)/(AB+BB)

The main advantage of this formula is that it is simple to calculate and based on counting statistics such as hits, at bats, and walks that are readily available. The other advantage is that the scale is the same as runs batted in or runs scored and so 100 Runs Created is an excellent season. To give an example, Aramis Ramirez in 2004 had 174 hits, 49 walks, 316 total bases, and 547 at bats. That gives him ((174+49)*316)/(547+49) = 118.2 Runs Created, a fine season.

The basic premise, or the intuitive model, behind the formula is that offense is essentially the product of getting on base and advancing runners through extra base hits within a particular offensive context. Typically, this formula is accurate to within 1% for a given league for a year.

In The 1984 Baseball Abstract James introduced two additional versions of the formula, a stolen base version, and a technical version.

The stolen base version uses the following formulas for A, B, and C:

A = H+BB-CS
B = TB+.55*SB
C = AB+BB

So the complete formula is:

RC = ((H+BB-CS)*(TB+(.55*SB)))/(AB+BB)

In the 1984 Abstract James explains that he shifted from using the .70 figure for stolen bases published in the 1983 Abstract and removing caught stealing from the C factor of the equation, since doing so could be shown to make logical sense.

The technical version (also called Tech-1) simply expands the stolen base version by including all the available counting statistics. The A,B, and C factors then become:

A = H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP
B = TB+.26*(BB-IBB+HBP)+.52*(SB+SF+SH)
C = AB+BB+HBP+SF+SH

As you can see now hit batsmen (HBP), and grounded into double play (GIDP) are included in the A factor since the former adds a runner to the bases and the latter subtracts one. In the B factor intentional walks (IBB) are subtracted from walks and hit batsmen are added. The reasoning being that non-intentional walks and hit batsmen both have some advancement value, here weighted at .26. Sacrifice flies (SF) and sacrifice bunts (SH) are also included along with stolen bases and given a weight of .52, slightly lower than .55 since an advantage of the stolen base, that it helps prevent double-plays, is already included in the A factor. The C factor then expands appropriately to include the entire offense context encapsulating all plate appearances.

These three versions of Runs Created remain among those used most often by sabermetricians because of their ease of use. However, James kept innovating and, for example, the authors of Total Baseball in 1989 included 13 additional technical versions of the formula (Tech-2 through Tech-14) introduced in the 1988 version of The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract that adjusted the weights and included the counting statistics that were available in the period from 1900-1954. These are variations of Tech-1 and include:

• Tech-2: 1954; B factor drops IBB
• Tech-3: AL 1940-53, NL 1951-53; SF is dropped from C factor; B factor changes to (1.025*TB+.26*(BB+HBP)+.52*(SH+SB)
• Tech-4: AL 1939; B factor becomes TB+.26*(BB+HBP)+.52*(SH+SB)
• Tech-5: AL 1931-38; A factor becomes .96*(H+BB+HBP-CS)
• Tech-6: AL 128-30, 1920-26, NL 1920-25; B factor weights for SH and SB change from .52 to .51
• Tech-7: AL 1927, NL 1926-30; A factor changes to .93*(H+BB+HBP) and B becomes TB+.26*(BB+HBP)+.46*SH
• Tech-8: AL 1913,1917-19, NL 1913-14, 1917-1919; A factor becomes H+BB+HBP-.02*AB and B becomes TB+.85*(SH+SB)
• Tech-9: AL 1914-16, NL 1915-16; A becomes H+BB+HBP-CS
• Tech-10: AL NL 1908-12; B becomes 1.025*(TB+SB)+.75*SH
• Tech-11: AL NL 1900-1907; A becomes H+BB+HBP
• Tech-12: NL 1939-50; A becomes H+BB+HBP-GIDP; B becomes TB+.26*(BB+HBP)+.52*SH
• Tech-13: NL 1933-38; B factor becomes 1.025*TB+.26*(BB+HBP)+.52*SH
• Tech-14: NL 1931-32; A becomes .95*(H+BB+HBP)

Most recently James included a newer version in his 2004 edition of The Bill James Handbook and his 2002 book Win Shares where:

A = H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP
B = TB+.24*(BB-IBB+HBP)+.62*SB+.5*(SH+SF)-.03*SO
C = AB+BB+HBP+SH+SF

While all three factors remain relatively intact (the B factor now gives different weights to stolen bases versus sacrifice flies and bunts and even includes a bit of a penalty for striking out) the relationship between the factors has also changed over time from the simply (A*B)/C and become a bit more complicated:

RC = (((2.4*C+A)*(3*C+B))/(9*C))-(.9*C)

The basic structure remains but as James described in Win Shares the calculation has been modified to address one of the criticisms of earlier version of the formula. Essentially, since the previous versions of the formula simply multiplied the A and B factors "it presented the player as if his offensive elements were interacting with one another". This leads to estimates of runs created for players and teams with high slugging percentages and high on base percentages that are in fact too high. Albert and Bennett note this in Curve Ball when they discuss how "product models" like Runs Created "tend to be unrealistic for players at either end of the offensive production spectrum." In fact, a player's offensive elements interact with other players on his own team. However, James concluded that if you attempt to calculate runs created by calculating the runs created for the player's team and then determining how many runs they would have created without the player, the player would rate slightly differently on good offensive teams and bad. His solution is to evaluate the player "as if he played in a context of eight other players of average skill, each having the same number of plate appearances." For average skill he simply used a player with a .300 on base percentage and a .400 slugging percentage. Albert and Bennett advocate using this same idea but instead place the player in the context of an average team for the league and year in which he played.

With this information you can see that the A factor of the equation has been modified to include 8 other players with a .300 on base (8 * .300 = 2.4). The B factor has been augmented with 8 players with a .400 slugging percentage (8 * .400 = 3). The C factor then includes the plate appearances for all 9 players. After performing the (A*B)/C, the runs created by the other 8 players are removed by multiplying the plate appearances for one player by .9. This works since the runs created by 8 of the typical players are equal to 10% of the plate appearances (a quirk of using the .300 OBP and .400 SLUG).

There are additional adjustments when home runs with men on base and batting average with runners in scoring position are available.

D = (HRRISP-(ABRISP*AVG))+(HRROB-(ABROB*HR/AB))

Here HRRISP and ABRISP are the homeruns and at bats for the player with runners in scoring position while HRROB and ABROB are the homeruns and at bats with runners on base. Essentially, D is the number of hits with runners in scoring position plus homeruns with men on base above that which would be expected given the player's typical performance. D is then added to the number of runs created found through the previous equation apparently on the theory that each is worth about a run.

Derivatives
Once Runs Created are calculated it can be used to create derivative statistics that are appropriate for making comparisons between players. This is necessary since like other counting statistics such as hits or runs scored, Runs Created is heavily influenced by the opportunity the player has. Even a very good hitter with 100 plate appearances will create fewer runs than a very bad hitter with 600 plate appearances.

The first is Runs Created per 27 outs or RC/27 (also sometimes called Runs Created per Game or RC/G). Simply put, this formula estimates the number of runs per game that a team made up of nine of the same player would score per game. To do so you divide the number of Runs Created by the number of outs the player consumed and then multiply this by 27.

RC/27 = (RC / (AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP)) * 27

Early versions of the formula by James used 27 outs, however, later versions of the formula use the league average outs per game like so:

RC/27 = ((RC*3*LgIP)/(2*LgG))/(AB-H+SH+SF+CS+GIDP)

where LgIP is the number of innings pitched in the league and LgG is the number of games played in the league.

Of course, this statistic produces a rate and so is ideal for comparison. For example, here are the season leaders in RC/G from Lee Sinins Sabermetric Encyclopedia where he calculates Runs Created using the appropriate technical version:

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR RC/G

1 Barry Bonds     2004 22.08

2 Barry Bonds     2002 21.23

3 Ted Williams    1941 19.14

4 Barry Bonds     2001 18.65

5 Babe Ruth       1920 18.41

6 Babe Ruth       1921 17.90

7 Babe Ruth       1923 17.31

8 Barry Bonds     2003 16.75

9 Ted Williams    1957 16.44

10 Nap Lajoie     1901 15.78

A second derivative statistic is OWP or Offensive Winning Percentage. OWP is a calculation of the winning percentage of a hypothetical team made up of nine of a particular player on offense and league average pitching and defense. It is based on RC/27 and the Pythagorean Formula which estimates how many games a team should win based on their runs scored and runs allowed. The formula is:

OWP = (RC/27^2)/((RC/27^2)+(LgR/G^2))

This produces a winning percentage that can easily be used to compare players. The advantage it has over RC/27 is that it takes into account the league context in which the player played by using the league runs scored per game (LgR/G). Notice the differences in the top 10 list in RC/27 and the top 10 in OWP shown below:

1    Barry Bonds              2004     .958   

2    Barry Bonds              2002     .942   

3    Barry Bonds              2001     .922   

4    Mickey Mantle            1957     .915   

5    Babe Ruth                1920     .913   

6    Ted Williams             1941     .908   

7    Babe Ruth                1923     .896   

8    Babe Ruth                1921     .891   

9    Ted Williams             1957     .891   

10   Babe Ruth                1926     .883   

Finally, Runs Created can also be used for comparisons to average players. For example, Lee Sinins has created RCAA or Runs Created Above Average which estimates how many runs a player contributed beyond a league average player given the same number of outs consumed. As a results RCAA can have a negative values much like Batting Runs as we'll discuss in our next post in this series.

The Toughest Out in Baseball

In last night's Twins-Yankees game Fox broadcaster Tim McCarver called Ichiro Suzuki "the toughest out in baseball". Is that so?

Not really. If you define the "toughest out" as the person who makes the fewest outs per plate appearance then Suzuki actually ranks 12th. Here are the leaders

       Outs Outs/PA

Bonds   238  0.388

Helton  357  0.527

Berkman 372  0.546

Drew    360  0.562

Thomas  175  0.565

Snow    233  0.567

Abreu   401  0.568

Walker  181  0.569

Edmonds 348  0.576

Pujols  396  0.580

Mora    363  0.582

Suzuki  442  0.584

The strange thing about this list is that 9 of the top 10 are all in the National League. You'll also notice that because Suzuki had so many at bats (702) he also made the most outs in baseball. Of course, this list is in the same order as a list in descending order by on base percentage.

A Brief History of Run Estimation, Part I

One of the axioms of sabermetrics listed in my post Sabermetrics 101 is:

"The goal of a batter is to help his team score runs, the goal of a defensive player is to prevent runs. Therefore statistics that do not directly measure run production (e.g. batting average) or run prevention (pitcher's wins) are less meaningful than those that do."

As a result sabermetricians have long been on a quest for the perfect run estimation formula so that an offensive player's contribution can be adequately measured. In this series of posts I'll detail the various formulas and how they've evolved over the years including:

• Runs Created
• Batting Runs
• Estimated Runs Produced
• Extrapolated Runs
• Base Runs

Along the way I'll detail some of the derivative formulas used to contextualize and produce rates from the results of these formulas as well as talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each.

As a little background run estimation formulas are first and foremost a counting statistic. In other words, these formulas attempt to estimate or count the number of runs a player is responsible for. They are therefore not rate statistics that are used to compare the rate at which, for example, an offensive player gets hits (batting average), or accumulates bases (slugging percentage).

These formulas can further be classified as linear versus non-linear formulas. A linear formula like Batting Runs or Extrapolated Runs attempts to assign weights to various offensive events and add the weighted values to estimate the number of runs they account for. As a result, linear formulas produce a straight line when plotted for changing values in one of the offensive categories. For example:

Non-linear formulas attempt to model the interaction of offensive events and so will essentially multiply events to produce the estimate. As a result, when graphed the plotted line looks as follows:

In my next post I'll start with perhaps the most well-known run estimator, Runs Created.

The Other Other Stone

Happily, it turns out I was wrong in my post the other day. Steve Stone is not yet gone as the Cubs broadcaster. His fate is still undetermined. Stone's comment the other day referred to Chip Caray who will be broadcasting next season with his dad Skip in Atlanta. I've always thought Chip was a good announcer as well and will miss him on WGN. Hopefully, the Cubs will retain Stone.

More disturbing is Sammy Sosa's early exit during the final game. That's just wrong and I hope he gets disciplined. It will be interesting to see if he can rebound from his last year and half and his general 4 year-decline:

       G HR  BB   OPS

2001 160 64 116 1.174

2002 150 49 103  .993

2003 137 40  62  .911

2004 126 35  56  .849

On another note Dusty Baker said the following on Corey Patterson:

"Corey can be an excellent leadoff hitter," Baker said. "It's a matter of No. 1, cutting down on strikeouts. It's knowing when to bunt, when not to bunt. He's still in the process of learning it. We're still in the process of teaching him."

Bunting and strikeouts? Neither of these is at the top of the list for leadoff hitter skills. Hmmm, no word here about increasing his walks although cutting down his strikeouts will lead in that direction. Let's pretend that's what Baker meant when he said "He's just swinging at balls out of the strike zone..." which is absolutely true. Overall in 2004 Patterson saw 3.46 pitches per plate appearance. His highest number of P/PA at 3.70 was in Sept/Oct when saw 3.70 with an OPS of just .623. That's probably because he struck out 45 times in 135 plate appearances. In other months when he hit well (June and August) he saw more pitches (3.56) than in the other months (3.28).

Random Royals Thoughts

After the game yesterday the Royals made several player moves:

• Did not pick up the $3.5M option of Joe Randa
• Bought out Juan Gonzales' contract for $500K
• Outrighted Aaron Guiel, Dee Brown, Alberto Castillo, Wilton Guerrero, Matt Kinney, and Justin Huisman

Castillo may be back if Benito Santiago won't accept a backup role. Hopefully, Santiago won't and Baird can move him and his $+2M salary before spring training. Guiel will become a free agent but sounds like he wants to stay with the Royals. If he recovers from his eye problems by spring training (a big if it seems) I think he'd be an ideal 4th outfielder. Brown, Kinney and Huisman will be free agents and the Royals won't pursue them. To me, Kinney still looks like a guy who can throw but Brown and his slow bat should definitely be done and Bukvich outperformed Huisman in Omaha so that probably leaves him out. Dennys Reyes, Desi Relaford and Kelly Stinnett can also elect free agency. I hope Baird signs Reyes but I think it's time for Relaford to move on, if only so that Tony Pena has one less reason to play a middle infielder in the outfield. Stinnet isn't really needed and so will drift into the Backup Catcher Oort Cloud to be captured again by some other team's gravitational field.

I mentioned in my previous post that I thought the rotation should be: Grienke, Bautista, Hernandez, and a new pitcher. I know that leaves out Darrell May and Brian Anderson but of course the Royals will in fact go with a 5-man rotation and so either May or Anderson will be in there with the other in a long relief role unless Baird can move one or both.

Baird mentioned this morning on 610AM that his priorities included a left-fielder, an "innings eater", a fourth outfielder, a stop-gap third baseman, some relief help, and a utility infielder. I heard a suggestion on the radio the other day that I kind of like. Make Ken Harvey the stop-gap third baseman. He played there in college and he's not really a good firstbaseman (yes, Mike Sweeney is worse). That would free Sweeney and Calvin Pickering to alternate at DH/1B with Stairs playing right field most of the time. I know that once again sounds like a brutal defensive arrangement but it does utilize the resources they have. It will also increase Harvey's trade value, something Baird should be exploring.

Baird also said that he doesn't project 24 year-old Miguel Asencio to be ready until June. However, with a career K/9 rate of 4.46 I wouldn't expect production long term. Hopefully, he'll look good when he comes back and Baird can unload him.

104 in 2004

With a 5-0 loss today the Royals end at 58-104, setting a new record for losses. This little box from the Royals website kind of sums up the season:

Team Leaders
AVG: J. Randa, .288
HR: M. Sweeney, 22
RBI: M. Sweeney, 79
W: Two tied, 9
ERA: D. May, 5.61
K: D. May, 120

Ouch. Also if you look at sabermetric stats like Win Shares you'll see that as of 9/23 remarkably Carlos Beltran still leads the team with a paultry 13, tied with Mike Sweeney. Joe Randa was second with 12. A Win Share is defined as a 3rd of a win so Sweeney was credited with contributing just over 4 wins. No other team even approaches this level.

Calvin Pickering in the short time he was up had as many Win Shares as Brian Anderson and Dee Brown combined (4).

The Other Stone Drops

Steve Stone just basically announced he wouldn't be back next year. Game 162, Cubs 9 Braves 4 in the top of the 6th. It's strange to watch a Cubs game that has no meaning...been a long time, which for a Cubs fan is a good thing to say. Lots of next year wishing.

Stretching a Single

Here's an interesting datapoint from SABR's Clem Comly which he posted on SABR-L. The question was asked how often a batter is successful in stretching a single into a double. With the bases empty Clem came up with the following numbers:

       2B 1B+out  Pct

1962 2315  89   95.9%

2003 4962 114   97.8%

In other words batters were successful 97.8% of the time when going for a double with the bases empty. Certainly on a large percentage of the doubles there was no play on the runner but it appears that major leaguers are pretty good at determining when they can make it and when they can't.

Given these numbers one wonders whether runners shouldn't take more chances, since the odds of scoring a run increase from 12 to 19% with a runner on second only as opposed to a runner on first depending on the number of outs.

Ave Catuli 2004

The Cubs were officially eliminated today 8-6 by the Braves. One of the themes of the nightmare week continued as Kyle Farnsworth and Mike Remlinger let it slip away in the 8th. Sammy Sosa hit number 574 to pass Harmon Killebrew along with homers by Moises Alou and Aramis Ramirez but it wasn't enough.

It doesn't hurt as much as last year since the inconsistency of this team would have doomed it in the playoffs. Hoping Steve Stone is retained as he's one of the best in the business. Personally, I didn't think his comments as written were that bad. Dusty did make some questionable moves this week as he usually does but the failure of the team should be laid squarely at the feet of the players. The offense was non-existent the last week and half and the bullpen didn't come through.

The Cubs will have some interesting decisions in the off-season on the offensive side. Only Sosa, Michael Barrett, and Derrek Lee are signed for next season I believe. The Cubs have an option on Mark Grudzielanek and Ramirez is eligible for salary arbitration. It's likely Alou and Matt Clement will not be back which will free up some money (oops, I know the Cubs needn't be concerned about money but that's my Royals reflex kicking in). I wouldn't sign Nomar Garciapara with his injury history and for the love of all that's holy I'm pleading that Hendry refrain from signing Dusty's collection of misfits including Niefi Perez, Tom Goodwin, Calvin Murray, et. al. More than anything they need someone who can get on base...say Carlos Beltran who would then move to left field. I don't see anything coming out of the minors next season since the top prospects were traded in the Nomar deal.

Baird's Moves

Although the Royals season on the field has been anything but fun to watch (I scored 27 games for MLB.com and attended 5 or 6 others so I speak from first-hand experience) GM Allard Baird can be commended for making some pretty good deals during the season. Here are the highlights:

• 8/13 Claimed RHP Matt Kinney off waivers from Milwaukee. Kinney is a guy who appears to still have a good arm at 27 and can still throw in the mid 90s. He's struggled a bit with the Royals in 16.3 innings but has struck out 21. I think the Royals are trying to work with him on his mechanics. If he can control the number of homeruns he gives up (58 in 377.67 career innings) he could become a valuable guy out of the bullpen.
• 7/31 Acquired OF Abraham Nunez from the Florida Marlins for RHP Rudy Seanez. Nunez, while perhaps not the 5-tool player he claimed to be, was worth taking a risk on, especially for the 35+ year-old Seanez. Nunez is 27 years-old, has some power, pretty good plate discipline, and is a switch-hitter. For the Royals he's gone .236/.306/.349 after a good start which I grant is not inspiring. He has a chance to be a decent 4th outfielder if the Royals can address their corner-outfield problems by picking up at least one outfielder in the off-season.
• 7/30 Traded INF Jose Bautista to the New York Mets for C Justin Huber. Huber, at just 22 years-old is a definite prospect while Bautista is only 23 but not needed after the Royals acquired Mark Teahan (below). Huber had a .414 OBP for the Mets AA team before being traded. He was a catcher but after undergoing surgery on his left knee in August to repair torn cartiledge it looks more like he'll drift leftward on the defensive spectrum and end up at first base. The question will be if he has enough power to hold down first base and if he develops it what the Royals will do with their glut of firstbasemen (Calvin Pickering, Ken Harvey, Mike Sweeney, Matt Stairs).
• 7/2 Acquired outfielder Ruben Mateo from the Pittsburgh Pirates for cash considerations. Like Nunez, Mateo was worth taking a risk on. As a formerly highly regarded prospect it was just possible that he would blossom. Of course he didn't but still a decent risk for minimal investment along the lines of Nunez.
• 6/24 Acquired pitcher Octavio Dotel and catcher John Buck from the Houston Astros for outfielder Carlos Beltran; traded Dotel and cash considerations to the Oakland Athletics for pitcher Mike Wood and third baseman Mark Teahan. This was the biggest deal of the summer. Since the Royals were going to lose Beltran anyway at the end of the season they addressed three needs, a starting catcher, a third baseman, and an interim starting pitcher. After struggling early, Buck seems to have found his stroke with .274/.299/.562 in September and 11 homeruns in his last 153 at bats. Teahan hit .280/.344//.447 for Omaha in 267 plate appearances. He struck out an awful lot but he is projected to be in Kansas City at some point next season. And of course the deal frees up $11M for next season assuming the same payroll. I don't really see Mike Wood having much of a shot of winning a spot in the rotation next season (see below).
• 6/21 Acquired RHP Denny Bautista from the Orioles for RHP Jason Grimsley. The 24-year old Bautista has the best pure stuff of any pitcher the Royals have (with the possible exception of Jeremy Affeldt). Mid 90s fastball, slider, curve, and changeup. His stats don't look great but his last two outings have been much better (12IP, 4ER, 9Ks, 0HR). He hadn't been throwing his slider until the other night against the White Sox and he has a very good one. He's also reportedly put on almost 20 pounds since joining the Royals. This may be the sleeper of the summer as he vies for a position in the rotation next season. Right now I'm projecting Zack Grienke, Bautista, Runelvys Hernandez, a pitcher they pick up in the off-season (their second biggest priority behind a corner outfielder), and then one of the combination of Jimmy Gobble, Mike Wood, Kyle Snyder, and the other cast of characters. Of course, I'd rather see them use a four-man rotation but that's an argument for another day...
• 4/8 Acquired RHP Justin Huisman from the Rockies for RHP Zach McClellan and INF Chris Fallon and cash. Husiman was up with the Royals for a short time and then sent back to Omaha. He had nice numbers in 2001-2003 as a closer. Allowed only 1 homerun in 61.67 innings in 2003. He pitched adequately for Omaha although Ryan Bukvich, although with less control, was more impressive in that role.

Overall, Baird has succeeded in filling three positions, shoring up the outfield some, and acquiring some pitching depth at almost no cost. Personally, I'd like the see the Royals commit to a youth movement to see if the core of DeJesus, Buck, Teahan, Grienke, Bautista, Angel Berroa, Gotay, and Hernandez along with a power-hitting corner outfielder and of course Calvin Pickering can make some headway in the next 2 or 3 years.

In Dusty we Trusty?

I've read some criticism of Dusty Baker for yesterday's loss. To be fair, although generally Dusty is a poor game tactician, the loss can not reasonably be laid at his feet.

• Yes, Mark Prior batted twice with the bases loaded but with the bullpen issues the Cubs have had you can't blame him for not pinch hitting. Also one of the times was in the 2nd inning.
• Also he was criticized for not pinch hitting Ben Grieve in several situations, especially when a baserunner was needed. Well, Grieve has looked awful the last few days and is 3-14 in September with exactly 1 walk. In fact, he's had only that one walk in his last 48 times to the plate so you're probably not giving much up by not pinch hitting him.
• Third, he was pilloried for the Nomar Garciapara bunt with 1 out in the bottom of the twelvth. Yes, on its face this is a terrible move as it changes the probability of scoring from 28.3% to 22.3% and the run potential from .573 to .344 and the win probability from 20.8% to 14.3% - all bad things. But I think it was clear that the bunt attempt was for a hit and was done by Nomar himself. Actually, not too bad a play if it succeeds of course with the 3rd baseman playing back. Not sure with Nomar's bad groin whether it was a good idea though. But certainly not Dusty's fault.

Mike Hampton against Kerry Wood today at 2:20PM central.

Reds = Spoilers

I'm to depressed to write much about the Cubs tonight. Once more a lack of offensive production spoiled a beautiful 16-strikeout pitching performance by Mark Prior and Sammy Sosa tying Harmon Killebrew at 573 for 7th place. Adam Dunn also set the single-season strikeout mark and now has 191. Three extra-inning losses in the last week have been devastating.

With the Giants set to win tonight the Cubs will need to sweep the Braves this weekend and have both the Giants and Astros lose at least one game. In the event of a tie the playoff game will not be played at Wrigley I understand but I'm not sure who would have to play the extra game.

I spent an hour the other day updating the Big League Pocket Manager application per a suggestion from Jon Box. I've added a grid control that shows all of the strategy options simultaneously. Options that aren't viable because of the runners or outs situation are simply left blank. When a strategy actually lowers the odds a "No" is placed in the column. Here is a typical example.

Royals Make History

Not the kind of history you want but the 5-2 loss to the Indians tonight was the 101st loss of the season, setting a new team record and surpassing the 2002 squad's 62-100 finish.

On a lighter note I'm told that during the ballgame the Indians veteran players absconded with the rookies street clothes and replaced them with various costumes - ballerinas, cheerleaders, and so forth. After the game the rookies were instructed to change into their new outfits and head outside to sign autographs. It's their last roadtrip of the season.

Struggling Royals

I'm scoring the Royals/Indians game for mlb.com tonight and note the following struggling Royals hitters:

• Angel Berroa is 4 for his last 33
• Dee Brown is 2 for his last 24
• Ken Harvey only has 1 extra base hit in his last 73 at bats dating back to August 7th
• Abraham Nunez is 0 for 15 and 2 for his last 27
• Desi Relaford is 0 for 14 and 2 for his last 39

On the plus side of the ledger David DeJesus and John Buck continue to hit and Calvin Pickering does what he does, hit homeruns, walk, and strikeout. Tonight Mike Wood is keeping the ball down but has given up a few hits including a 420 foot homerun to Ben Broussard. Indians 2 Royals 2, bottom of the 4th.