Team of the Decade(s)

Well, with the 2009 baseball season nearing an end, pundits everywhere are proposing their "Team of the Decade". So here's mine:

C: Jorge Posada
1B: Todd Helton
2B: Jeff Kent
3B: Chipper Jones
SS: Derek Jeter
OF: Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, Vlad Guerrero
DH: David Ortiz
SP: Roy Halladay, Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling, Pedro Martinez, Johan Santana
RP: Mariano Rivera, Joe Nathan

Before the bickering starts over who should be on the team instead, let me say that I computed these players. I went over to FanGraphs and grabbed the wRAA (Runs Above Average) for batters and WPA/LI (Situational Wins) for pitchers (see FanGraphs for more info). I chose those because:

1. I wanted something I could quantify for each year
2. I wanted a counting stat (like HR) not a rate stat (like AVG) so it would measure overall impact and not require a threshold like the best player with 2000+ at bats.
3. I wanted it to be a comparison of above average performance to measure the stellar nature, not just their usefulness.
4. And, as you'll see later, I wanted it to span quite a number of years, so I could look back at previous decades.

The downsides of these stats are:

1. They don't count fielding prowess.
2. They only go back to 1974.

So, the kicker in this was I didn't just calculate the best players of the 2000's, or just the best players of the 80's and 90's. I calculated the best players of every decade. In other words, I can show you who the best first baseman in the 10-year-span of 1992-2001 (hint: it's not the 1B of the 90's: Frank Thomas).

And here are the pitchers:

First, a few notes:

• The year on the left represents the first year of the decade in which these players were the best. For example, Gooden was the best pitcher in the 1978-1987 decade.
• From 2001 on, the player listed represents the best performance from that year to the present day. For example, Lincecum was the best pitcher from 2008 to present.
• I chose to list the outfielders as the top 3 instead of listing LF, CF, and RF individually for this chart, as I felt that was more representative. I computed both, and as a point of comparison, in that version Manny Ramirez only showed up in 2003, 2004, and 2008, simply because he was competing with Bonds and Holliday for best left fielder.
• For the pitchers graph, I listed the top starter, then expanded it to the top 5. These top 5 aren't in order of 1-5, but are grouped so as to show each pitcher's range of dominance. I did the same with relievers (showing the best, then the top 2).
• Because it was impossible to keep pitchers in the same column, I color-coded all the pitchers that had multiple stints in the top 5, so as to make it easier to find them. For example, Mike Mussina is one of the top 5 in the decades starting in 1988, 1992, 1994, and 1998.

Now for the interesting tidbits:

• I was so struck by the occurrence of hall-of-famers that I shaded all of them orange. Understandably, there aren't many who played their best ball in decades starting in the 90s, as most likely they're not even eligible for the Hall yet. But there is a WHOLE LOT of orange in the top of the graph. Which makes players like Evans and Raines stand out all that more. (What happened to the outfielders in the late 80s / early 90s? There's Henderson and Puckett, and that's it. Hello! Anyone out there?)
• The only two hall-of-famers covered by this era that didn't make the chart are Tony Gwynn and Ozzie Smith. Gwynn had three decade entries as the top right fielder (85-87), but was effectively outdone by a second left fielder named Rickey Henderson. Ozzie Smith didn't make it at all... in fact, he never finished higher than 4th in any decade, behind Cal, Barry Larkin, and Alan Trammell. Of course, as mentioned above, this stat doesn't count fielding, which is what makes the Wizard so dominant of a shortstop.
• In a similar fashion, looking down the list on both sides, it's easy to pick out the future hall of famers (steroids scandals not-withstanding): Piazza, Thomas, Kent, Chipper, A. Rod, Bonds, Manny, Clemens, Maddux, Pedro, Rivera, etc.
• The vast ranges of dominance stood out to me, too. Bonds, Manny, Chipper, Boggs, Henderson, Murray, A Rod (at 2 positions), Clemens, Johnson, Schilling, Maddux, Pedro, and Rivera(!) all had such a longevity of being at the top of their game.
• One interesting side-effect of this is that a player's decade of dominance can start even before they started playing. Cal Ripken was the best shortstop in the 1979-1988 decade, though he didn't start playing until 1981. Gooden and Clemens each pitched their first Major League game in 1984, yet they were the best starter in the decades starting 1978-1983.
• I wonder if the most common Jim Rice argument (a decade+ of dominance) will translate to other borderline players, such as Blyleven: the best pitcher from 1977-1986.
  

Some unsung heroes:
SP: Saberhagen, Stieb, Cone, Kevin Brown, Halladay, Oswalt
RP: Henke, Foulke (remember how dominant he was)
C: Tettleton?!
IF: Bagwell, Biggio, Larkin
OF: Dwight Evans, Raines, Larry Walker, Matt Holliday, Adam Dunn

This was a lot of fun for me to do (yes, you should know by now I'm weird). Now, the next time someone argues that Beltran is the CF of the 2000's, I can say that if it were 2001-2009, I'd agree, but 2000 puts Jim Edmonds over the top.

Rotating the (Pitching) Tires

Well, I was going to post this in the comments on this blog entry by Rob Neyer, but it won't let me. Anyway, I'm realizing that for some reason, I'm politics-heavy recently, so let's lighten it up a bit with analyzing the five-man rotation in baseball.

From Rob:

Let's say these magical evaluations tell you that you've got two starters who will thrive on just three days of rest, two who will do better with four days, and one old left-hander who's most effective with five days of rest.

Let's call them 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B, and 5 (or you can call that last one 6, if he's the new Ted Lyons and is going to just pitch every Sunday afternoon). OK, now try to slot those guys into an actual baseball schedule. I fooled around for a few minutes, and I couldn't do it. I couldn't come close.

From me:

If a team really wanted to implement this, I imagine that instead of pigeonholing each starter into a number of days rest, they'd create a chart of how effective (in terms of both duration and quality) each starter is on 3, 4, 5, and 6+ days of rest. Sure, CC might be best on 3-days rest, but if there's only a slight drop-off pushing it to 4, maybe Girardi should do that so Pettitte doesn't go 12 days between starts or Brett Tomko doesn't get a fill-in start.

As far as creating a pitching schedule, that's what a computer is for. Maybe the ideal pitching schedule is impossible, but there's a good chance it would find something better. In fact, the worst thing it would come up with is the current 5-man rotation, since we know that already works.

One interesting thing is we're assuming the best starters are those that would thrive with the fewest days off. But maybe Wakefield (on the Red Sox) goes every 4 days and Lester goes every 6.

I think it could work in theory. I think it will fail in practice, because:

• Pitchers would not be convinced this is the best for them, and for the team.
• Injuries would upset the rotation much more than they do now (if your 3-day starter goes out and your replacement is a 5-day starter, that won't work).
  

Oh well, I guess this will remain in the realm of baseball simulations.

Ball Hogs

My new favorite baseball site, fangraphs.com, posted this article about the differences in team fielding between this year and last year. Here are the top 5 most improved teams:

Tigers 97.9
Pirates 89.8
Reds 89.7
Rangers 84.7
Mariners 69.6

Those numbers are what is called Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR). Other than being a very cool name, it indicates how many runs were saved by excellent fielding as compared to the average fielders. And since it is generally accepted that a difference of ten runs equates to a win, these numbers are fairly significant. It implies that the Tigers are on pace to win 10 more games than last year because of improved fielding alone.

And the bottom five:

Indians -51.0
Phillies -57.7
Mets -70.1
Red Sox -80.3
Nationals -81.7

The interesting thing from this is it's easy to point to certain acquisitions that make all the difference: Jason Bay from Pirates to Red Sox, Adam Dunn from Reds to Nationals, Raul Ibanez from the Mariners to the Phillies, Franklin Gutierrez from the Indians to the Mariners, and Endy Chavez from the Mets to the Mariners. (How about those Mariners upgrading the outfield!) Or new players coming up: Nyjer Morgan for the Pirates and Elvis Andrus for the Rangers.

And then there are my Orioles, at -40.7: losing 4 more games because of failing defense. Why? Well, because our outfield has fallen apart.

In 2008, the Orioles had Payton (+12.0), Jones (+9.9) and Markakis (+12.1).
In 2009, the Orioles have Reimold (-2.4), Jones (-4.8) and Markakis (-8.7).

Okay, fine. Switching out Payton for Reimold in left field cost us a decent bit. I'm willing to accept that to get a player 11 years younger (26 to 37) and 270 points higher in OPS (.908 to .637). But what happened to Adam Jones and Nick Markakis? Did someone install an obstacle course in right-center? Or is it simply one more reason for my favorite team to be the NotYankees?

Bracket Time

We're rapidly approaching the end of the playoffs for two major sports leagues: the NBA and the NHL. Each league accepts 16 teams into their playoffs, and each matchup is a best-of-seven series. This, combined with a good number of off days explains why these playoffs last two months.

This makes me wonder why Major League Baseball can't involve more teams. Why do they only invite 8 teams to "the dance" where the other leagues invite 16. The NFL even invites 12 teams. Why not have best-of-seven series matching up more teams in baseball.

Then I realized, this pretty much already happens. It just happens during the regular season. What if, instead of playing another set of games at the end of the season, we just take the games already played, simulate a bracket, and have the "winners" play in the World Series? So, that's what I did, at least for the past five seasons.

Here are the rules:
All teams are seeded (per league) based on win-loss record. Ties are broken based on expected win-loss (which is based on runs scored and allowed). The 1 and 2 seeds in the AL get first-round byes, since there are only 14 teams. Each round is then "played" by looking at how these teams did head-to-head. If they tied (often teams play 6 games), then the team with the most runs scored wins. The winner of the AL bracket meets the winner of the NL bracket in the Bracket World Series.

For example, the 2008 American League bracket looks like this:
1 LA Angels (100-62) Bye
8 Cleveland (81-81) vs. 9 Texas (79-83)

4 NY Yankees (89-73) vs. 13 Baltimore (68-93)
5 Chicago Sox (89-74) vs. 12 Detroit (74-88)

2 Tampa Bay (97-65) Bye
7 Toronto (86-76) vs. 10 Oakland (75-86)

3 Boston (95-67) vs. 14 Seattle (61-101)
6 Minnesota (88-75) vs. 11 Kansas City (75-87)

In the first round,
Cleveland beats Texas, 6 to 4 [their season head-to-head record].
New York beats Baltimore, 11 to 7 [why do the O's always seem to stink against the Yanks?]
Chicago beats Detroit, 12 to 6
Toronto beats Oakland, 6 to 4
Boston beats Seattle, 6 to 3
Minnesota beats Kansas City, 12 to 6

In the second round,
Los Angeles beats Cleveland, 5 to 4
New York beats Chicago, 5 to 2
Tampa Bay beats Toronto, 11 to 7
Boston beats Minnesota, 4 to 3
There are still no upsets in the bracket, though real-life playoff team Chicago is ousted by the team with the better record, New York.

In the third round,
Los Angeles beats New York, 7 to 3
Tampa Bay beats Boston, 10 to 8
No Yanks and no Red Sox in this imaginary Series... it's a happy ending after all.

And for the AL crown, Tampa Bay beats Los Angeles, 6 to 3.

Again, these are the records these teams had head-to-head during the season. Is it really fair to discount that New York beat Chicago 5 out of 7 games, even if those games weren't in October?

I'll sum up the remaining brackets with the World Series matchups, then a few comments about how it played out.

2008 : #2 Rays vs. #2 Phillies
Surprisingly, this is the same matchup as the actual World Series. The Cubbies made it to the Finals, though, before losing to the Phillies, 5-1. They almost didn't, as they split their series 3-3 with the lowly #16 Nationals, only to be saved by scoring 7 more runs. Upset special: #12 Atlanta (72-90) knocks out #5 Astros (86-75) and #4 Mets (89-73) before getting eliminated by the Cubs.

2007 : #4 Angels vs. #4 Padres
The NL champ is the one who in reality was eliminated in a one-game playoff with the Rockies for the NL wildcard. The Angels beat #13 Orioles, #5 Tigers, #1 Indians in a tie-breaker, and #3 Yankees, 6-3. The Padres squeak by thanks to #8 Brewers defeating the top-seeded Diamondbacks, 5-2.

2006 : #6 Angels vs. #1 Mets or #2 Dodgers
Whoops! My tiebreakers wasn't breaking enough! In the first round, the mighty Mets (97-65) played the #16 Cubs (66-96) to a tie, 3-3, in which they managed each to score 35 runs. If the Mets "win" that match, they go all the way; if not, the Dodgers go in. As far as the 89-73 Angels go, they earn their bid. After dispensing with the #11 Mariners, they beat the #3 Tigers, the #2 Twins, and the #1 Yankees. They had a winning record against the top three AL teams (all playoff bound), yet missed the playoffs entirely. It goes to show you have to beat the bad teams, too.

2005 : #3 Red Sox vs. #2 Braves or #8 Brewers
Argh! Failed again! Milwaukee ended dead even with the Mets in the 3rd round, with 3 wins and 40 runs each. If they win, they beat the Braves for the title. If not, the Braves beat the Mets. This was the year of the upset. Besides the Brewers, the 67-95 Devil Rays take out the #4 Yankees, #5 Indians, and #9 Rangers (who beat the top-seeded White Sox) before succumbing to the Red Sox. But the bigger upset came when 67-95 16-seed Colorado beat the 100-win, top-seeded Cardinals by one run in the tiebreaker, 34-33.

2004 : #1 Yankees vs. #1 Cardinals
The first time a top seed makes it outright, though this year is not without excitement. #6 Texas makes it to the finals before losing 5-4. And a Dodgers/Brewers tie in the first round trickles into the finals before St. Louis ousts them all. The 71-91 Mets also make it to the third round by beating #5 Giants and #4 Astros.

So, what did I learn from this exercise, other than I have way too much time on my hands? Well, first, that I don't have enough time, for if I did, I'd have made a program that would download these records and compute the bracket for me. This way, I could tweak the tiebreakers, tweak the seedings, and even decide whether to re-order the winners based on seed or keep them in bracket (e.g. if a 16 beats a 1, do they play the #8 or the #2 next?)

And why doesn't MLB go to something like this? Well, other than the loss of revenue from playoff games and selling October as the big-time games, I can think of one really good reason. I can imagine a scenario in this bracket system where the last day of games determines the seeding. And, I can imagine that based on matchups, a lower seed may actually be better for a team. So, the worst-case scenario is if two teams are playing each other on the final day, and the LOSER will end up in the World Series. Imagine two teams each trying to throw the game. That's why this will only ever be an exercise for stat geeks like myself.

Week(s) in Review : Baseball

All-Asian WBC, Oriole turned World Series hero retires, a superstar catcher about to debut, and Opening Day exactly two weeks away! What a wonderful time of year!

Yankees Outfield - The whole point of this article is to show that the Yankees didn't need Manny Ramirez because Nick Swisher is just as good. The player values or potential corner outfielders (both batting and fielding):

• Manny: 36.3
• Swisher: 34.0
• Damon: 29.4
• Abreu: 16.7 (for comparison purposes)
• Matsui: 15.8
• Nady: 14.9

So, the argument goes if you stick Damon in left and Swisher in right, that's just as good as Damon and Manny. My answer is, what about sticking Manny at DH instead of Matsui?

Of course, the real issue is right here: picking Nady over Swisher.

Most Indispensable Players - Buster Olney's gut versus Baseball Prospectus' numbers. I love to see the analysis of how much better a player is than his actual replacement. The one thing I note in the difference between the two lists is Olney has six starting pitchers and four batters, while BP has ten batters. While the splits on Brandon Webb are impressive, I do find myself wondering whether a guy who plays two-thirds of a game every five days is the most indispensable. Also interesting is where they disagree on the same team: Utley vs. Hamels (PHI), Wright/Reyes vs. Santana (NYM), Jones vs. Lowe (ATL), and Soto vs. Zambrano (CHC).

The Worst Contracts in Baseball - Not of all time, but just current ones. Thankfully, the Orioles only have two of the forty-four there, and one (Eaton) doesn't count because Philly is paying his salary.

Most Interesting Games

Rob Neyer (my favorite ESPN columnist) posted a blog entry (ESPN insider required, sorry) about computing the most interesting baseball games to watch, if you disregard any allegiances, interests in individual players, or starting pitching matchups. We're talking solely about which are the most interesting teams to watch play each other.

He creates his formula by using the number of games out of a playoff spot for each team, with a bonus (divide by 2) if the two teams play in the same division, but only if both don't stink (at least 5% chance of making the playoffs). This was an interesting idea, but I found it lacking in a few areas.

• Teams that are so far ahead in their division are less interesting than those in tight races. (See Angels)
• Teams in wild-card races are less interesting than teams in division races.
• Good teams outside the division should rank higher than mediocre teams in division.

Here's my attempt:

• Each team starts with 10 points.
• Division leaders add half of the games ahead they are (Angels add 7.5; Rays add 1.5).
• Teams closer in the division race than the wildcard add the total games back (Twins add 0.5; Braves add 9).
• Teams closer in the wildcard race add the average of wildcard and division games back (Yankees add 6.5, Cardinals add 5.75).
• Teams then subtract 50 times how much over .500 a team is (.600 = 5 points off, .500 = 0, .400 = 5 points ADDED)
• Division foes get another 5 points off the game score.
• Lowest score is the best game.

So, for the games on Wednesday, here are the three best and worst games:
17.9 : PHI(64-56) vs LAD(61-59)
23.6 : MIN(67-53) vs NYY(64-57)
24.0 : STL(67-56) vs FLA(63-58)

48.3 : SEA(46-74) vs LAA(75-44)
49.9 : BAL(57-62) vs CLE(54-65)
55.2 : CIN(53-68) vs PIT(55-65)

And here are the top 10 possible games (not counting interleague), given the standings at the beginning of the day Thursday:

8.8 : TAM(72-47) vs BOS(70-51)
9.2 : CHC(73-47) vs MIL(70-51)
11.7 : NYM(64-56) vs PHI(64-56)
13.3 : TAM(72-47) vs CWS(67-52)
13.8 : NYM(64-56) vs FLA(63-58)
14.7 : BOS(70-51) vs CWS(67-52)
14.8 : CHC(73-47) vs STL(67-56)
16.2 : NYM(64-56) vs MIL(70-51)
17.3 : TAM(72-47) vs NYY(64-57)
17.9 : NYM(64-56) vs ARI(61-59)