Wednesday Quick Hits

by JD Arney on Apr 18, 2007 1:07 PM EDT in News Comment 47 comments

Frank Howard

Rick Asadoorian is now pitching. He certainly wasn't going to amount to anything as an outfielder, so it's good to see that maybe the Reds will end up with something out of him. Can't hurt to try something like this when the guy throws 96.
Site called RotoRob has an entry up called what the hell ever happened to Ty Howington?.
I'm not really much of a newspaper comic reader (I still miss The Far Side and Calvin and Hobbes), but this Get Fuzzy is awesome.
I had no idea that Joe Morgan was involved in a racial profiling case fifteen years ago. I actually respect him a little more now for seeing it through to the end.
This is really quite funny, especially this part:
So to come up with a method that inspires yet doesn't alienate, I refer you to the times of the Roman Republic. For their naval ships, they had guys that signed up to row the boats from the galley. I'm not sure why, maybe a prestige thing. But they were damn good at it because they were motivated. Not a lackey among them, as they knew, if they didn't row up to their manager's expectation, they would be whipped or simply thrown over-board. There was no question.
Can we get some of that action at GABP? I think a guy beating a leather drum would fit in nicely in the dugout. We'd need someone to operate the whip. Maybe your brother? God knows he needs something to do besides stand around, getting paid to eat sunflower seeds and "be there" for Josh Hamilton. Besides it would give you the chance to say really dynamic things that you've always wanted to say like, "`You are kept alive to serve this team. Row well and live, row poorly and die."

Read the whole thing though, it's good.
Awesome Posnanski blog entry on what real life Cleveland Indians inspired the players in Major League.
Nice entry from Daedalus where she asks some D-backs bloggers for their thoughts on Thom Brennaman. You should also check out her interview with C. Trent.
I could never do it myself, but I think it's awesome that people keep their own scorebooks at baseball games.
Home run leaders by state. I know Caleb is a big Frank Howard fan.

0 recs | Comment 47 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Get Fuzzy

I haven't had much use for the comics section since The Far Side and Calvin left us (although Jim Borgman's one is pretty good) but what I've seen of Get Fuzzy really impresses me. It's about a 20-something slacker, his sarcastic cat and dimwitted dog. Many of the strips are him complaining about his fantasy team. So many comics are about families and jokes from 40 years ago. This one is a fresh voice and is worth keeping an eye on.

by Red Menace on Apr 18, 2007 1:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't think I've seen baseball...

...in Tom the Dancing Bug and it's not going to be found in your father's funny pages (who still reads jokes printed on dead trees?) but it's very very funny. (It's at its funniest when its not pimping the wacko left agenda. And I've got no problem with the wacko left agenda.)

by Alan on Apr 18, 2007 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I ike it

here's a little something for everyone who thinks that the news-comics are for half-wits... http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/
It's my favorite blog in the world.

I Is Unacculturated

by Pops Daniels on Apr 18, 2007 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frank

from my high school and The Ohio State University. Met him for the first time when I was in 7th grade. Biggest person I had ever seen in person at that point in life. Super nice man.

by Caleb on Apr 18, 2007 1:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

keeping score

I love doing that at games. It is a rare game when I do not have a score card and pencil going. I use a little different system than the one used in the link but I know what is going on, lol. I also always write down the scoreboard stumper, days attendance, and time of game.

by Caleb on Apr 18, 2007 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

A true baseball fan!

Caleb I commend you!

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 2:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks

old school fan here. But you guys (and ladies) are getting me to come around about some of these new fangled stats. Crazy Kids. But I still like the bunt. Sorry Boobs

by Caleb on Apr 18, 2007 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought of this the other day..

..and now that you've mentioned scorekeeping and I know that I am among presumably tech-savvy baseball buddies who might make fun of me but they won't push me down in the mud and steal my iPod, I gotta ask. Has anyone ever seen or heard of a website that provides a scorecard? Other than to provide a "blank" scorecard page or a quick software download, I don't know why it would have to be online but it seems to me that if you've got your laptop or Blackberry at the game (and sooner or later many of us will) or if you're watching and blogging along at home keeping score without having to keep track of your little No. 2 might be kinda neato.

Thoughts?

by Alan on Apr 18, 2007 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

that is awesome

But is it real? I'd use it. Hell I'd even use it at a stadium

by Caleb on Apr 18, 2007 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wonder...

Does "the laptop scorebook" exist?

by Alan on Apr 18, 2007 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here are a couple PDA modules

http://www.coachingware.com/bbscorebook.asp

http://www.scorepad.com/index.lasso?fuseaction=whatis.whatis1

They aren't traditional scorebooks, but they do let you capture play-by-play (even pitch-by-pitch). And I think you can copy them to a computer and print out scoresheets and box scores.

If you are looking for something for a laptop with more of a traditional scoresheet feel, this might work:
http://www.scoreit.com/

It must have been around for a long time because their sample scoresheet has the Yankees with Ruth and Gehrig.

Those are the ones that I found with brief searches.

2007 Reds Threat Level is Yellow

by Slyde on Apr 19, 2007 9:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good job

I've never been able to talk mrs. ken into PDA while keeping score.

by ken on Apr 19, 2007 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, no, no, you got it all wrong

You're supposed to keep score of your PDAs compared to other PDAs that you see. That way, you know if you are winning.

2007 Reds Threat Level is Yellow

by Slyde on Apr 19, 2007 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And if you're keeping score at home...

...well then I guess it's not really a PDA.

Unless you're in the driveway. (And the car's in the garage.)

by Alan on Apr 19, 2007 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love the bunt...

But not from Dunn or Griffey with a runner on second...

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 2:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I've actually struggled with this.

Ever since boobs brought this up, and others have talked about a new ways to approach game play based on numbers for a given situation I've kind of been in a quandary. It's not like I pace the hallway of my house at night over it, but I seriously think about it a lot.

It would seem it almost requires a total commitment to all aspects of the newer theories. I can't seem to find a handle on how to blend old school thinking with the new.

You can't deny the logic behind why they feel certain things should be played differently, it just completely unseats someone who thought they had a decent grasp on the game. I find myself second-guessing what I think should be done now.

(maybe should have been a diary, but I doubt there's much interest on the subject)

"Sometimes life kicks you in the teeth, kids.....even when you're eating cake"- obc

by sukr on Apr 18, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Either there isn't much interest in it...

Or it would turn into the afore mentioned Battle Royale...

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

RED REPORTER

Steel Cage match

by Caleb on Apr 18, 2007 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well if it's a fight...

Then I'm on whatever side Sukr is on...

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm on whatever side

has the Royce Clayton bat.

2007 Reds Threat Level is Yellow

by Slyde on Apr 18, 2007 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good call

but let's not let anyone steal it this time, eh?

by Ash on Apr 18, 2007 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

the key to remember is

there are no absolutes. When someone says bunting is a bad idea, they mean in ALMOST all situations. If there is a runner on first or second with no outs in a tie ball game in the ninth inning and you have a decent bunter at the plate, then yes, you do bunt. However, the seventh inning of a one run game with the heart of the order up and no outs? No way.

The logic I usually think of is, is it reasonable to think that the opposition could put up a big inning sometime during the rest of the game? If I answer yes, then I don't bunt. I always play for the big inning whenever possible and never sacrifice outs unless it's late enough in the game that one run pretty much guarantees a win or I am just trying to tie it up in hopes to do something in extra innings.

2007 Reds Threat Level is Yellow

by Slyde on Apr 18, 2007 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol this is a trap

I remember this discussion from last year. But I did get a book out of it.

by Caleb on Apr 18, 2007 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

See? Saber guys

can't be trusted, I'm tellin' ya'!

Slyde, you, boobs, Red Menace, Jd and whoever else should hold clinical diaries on the subject in the off-season when things settle down. I'd enroll in 101 for sure.

"Sometimes life kicks you in the teeth, kids.....even when you're eating cake"- obc

by sukr on Apr 18, 2007 2:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hold On

I thought I remember you saying that your handle "Caleb" came from your Dungeons and Dragons character.

Playing with a 30-sided die doesn't make you amenable to statgeek arguments?

Come back down to the basement :)

The scene begins with darkness and the profound sound of shaving.

by Man Mountain on Apr 18, 2007 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

LMAO

as my wife just said.. BUSTED.

nice recall. I listen to the arguments just not agreeing with all of them. And, for the record, I still prefer the AD&D 2.0 rules to the newer versions.

by Caleb on Apr 18, 2007 8:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

total commitment

It would seem it almost requires a total commitment to all aspects of the newer theories.

I found this interesting. In a podcast I listen to about science and skepticism, they were talking about about how new age thinking seems to be an all or nothing phenomena. You never hear someone say, "Homeopathy is unproven hogwash, but applied kinesiology--that's where it's at!"

I'm wondering if this is the same with sabr-ish baseball thinking. Most of its proponents base their ideas on data so it's not surprising that someone who thinks strikeouts don't matter also doesn't want to sac bunt--the numbers bear both out. The same line of reasoning led to both conclusions. I'm trying to think of some new baseball ideas I don't subscribe to. I guess the first step would be to come up with a suitable list of 'new school' baseball dictums.

On a side note, FJM was going off the other day about writers talking about 'new age' baseball thinking. They pointed out that the sabr stuff, by focusing on measurable results, is the exact opposite of New Age.

by Red Menace on Apr 18, 2007 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

New Age?

So there's a third classification too? Great, I'm behind two curves.

Add Range factor to your list.

"Sometimes life kicks you in the teeth, kids.....even when you're eating cake"- obc

by sukr on Apr 18, 2007 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

labels

With regards to baseball it's all the same thing--sabermetrics, new school, new age, Moneyball, etc. Their point was just that new age is a stupid label. I kind of don't like 'sabermetrics' as a catch-all phrase because many members of SABR are essentially historians and I've heard that they don't like being associated with those basement dwelling nerds that make up some of their ranks.

by Red Menace on Apr 18, 2007 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, I see

I thought it was all one big happy family down there in the basement.

"Sometimes life kicks you in the teeth, kids.....even when you're eating cake"- obc

by sukr on Apr 18, 2007 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

They sit on Boobs's couch...

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

WPA

I'll admit that I haven't read volumes on its formulation and origin, but I'm skeptical on (1) how it's calculated (how do we know what the chances of victory are with two outs in the third?), and (2) its value. Maybe it's relevant for evaluating pinch hitters or relievers, but for most players it strikes me as a worthless stat based on opportunities rather than skill.

This is a little off topic, but your post reminds of something I heard once about the maturity of the sabermetric "movement." Something to the effect that we'll know when sabermetrics is mature when we are capable of having bad Moneyball GMs, i.e. a new-skool GM who fails to successfully implement sabermetrics into his management of the team. With J.P. Riccardi, I think we have an answer.

by ken on Apr 18, 2007 4:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

win probability

Win probability is calculated by simply looking at all past instances of a given situation in a given time frame. Christopher Shea's Win Expectancy Finder, which I believe was one of the first, used all play by play information from 1979 to 1990. So when someone says that in the bottom of the ninth of a tie game with a runner on first and no outs, the home team has a 71% chance of winning it's because the home team won 1,878 of 2,631 games between 1979 and 1990. Further win probability stuff uses a bigger chunk of data than 79 through 90.

Win Probabily Added simply uses that info to make a counting stat. So if a key hit changes a team's win probability from 44% ti 59% he's credited with .150 win probability added.

It's a neat little toy and it's really fun to watch those charts on fangraphs, but the real value of it is questionable. Like you said it's more about opportunity than skill. There's little predictive value.

by Red Menace on Apr 18, 2007 5:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

It was the win probability formula that I wasn't familiar with. For some reason I thought it was more sophisticated, like accounting for the run scoring environment, but I guess not.

by ken on Apr 18, 2007 9:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It does

at least the version that FanGraphs uses does. Win probability changes as run values change. In other words, a 2 run lead means a lot more if teams only average 3 runs a game.

Win Probability started the way RM described it, but it has been adjusted by people like tangotiger who have adjusted it for things like run environment.

2007 Reds Threat Level is Yellow

by Slyde on Apr 18, 2007 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

New School question..

Since strikeouts aren't seen as being all that bad, does that devalue the merit of strikeouts by a pitcher?

Say for example...We thought Harang had a great year last year because he led the league in strikeouts, but if players aren't afraid to strikeout, and don't change their approach with two strikes, then is a lot of strikeouts by a pitcher really a big deal?

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 2:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Strikeouts are good for a pitcher

because they are indicative of good future performance. A pitcher who has a lot of balls put in play on him will be reliant on the defense behind him and will likely see a lot of fluctuation in his success. However, a pitcher that consistently get strikeouts will tend to see prolonged success because he can get himself out of a jam on his own.

Obviously, there are exceptions to this like Jamie Moyer, but in general, the best pitchers are the ones that can consistently get strikeouts.

2007 Reds Threat Level is Yellow

by Slyde on Apr 18, 2007 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

But if players are willing...

to strikeout with a runner on third and less than two outs, then doesn't that mean that strikeouts should be devalued as a pitching stat?

I mean if there is less importance put on it for hitters, then shouldnt' the same hold true for pitchters?

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Difference

There is a difference between willing to and trying to.

And this goes into another tenet of sabermetric thinking which is adjusting for era. If a pitcher struck out 6 batters a game in 1950 but now strikes out 7 because batters don't mind striking out as much, that doesn't mean that the strikeout rate is no longer predictive. It just means we are working with a different scale.

The key is that when evaluating a stat, everything is relative. You have to know the context of the era and park, etc. before you can know the meaning of the stats.

2007 Reds Threat Level is Yellow

by Slyde on Apr 18, 2007 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah that explains it...

Strikeouts are devalued for pitchers...

It takes more strikeouts now to be as impressive as fewer strikouts used to...

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

They help the pitcher's team because they make fans of the opposing team mad, because strikeouts upset people.

Don't mind me...just thinking positive and pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Apr 18, 2007 3:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

strikeouts for pitchers

If there were classes in sabermetrics this would be a 200 or 300 level subject. It seems really counterintuitive that strikeouts don't matter for hitters but do for pitchers. Kind of hard to wrap your head around. Like Slyde said, it's all about the K having predictive value for pitchers.

by Red Menace on Apr 18, 2007 2:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

link

I've been looking for an article that better articulates the points I've been trying to make. Here's a good primer on strikeouts for hitter and pitcher.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2617

It doesn't touch on the apparent incongruity of devaluing Ks for hitters and valuing Ks for hitter. That's what I'm looking for right now.

by Red Menace on Apr 18, 2007 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Slyde explained it...

Strikeouts are still impressive, it just takes more of them to be impressive than it used to.

Which means each strikeout is worth less than it used to be...

I can get on board with adjusting for eras...

We're wanted men, we'll strike again...but first let's have a beer!

by chandrathan on Apr 18, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ground balls are more democratic

But you dont get to yell "Facial!" or "The Whiff!" when the batter hits the ball.

Baseball has certainly changed, as it used to be pretty darn demasculating to strike out frequently. (Cue: Peter Paul and Mary's "Right Field")

Not that we lost very often (ahem), but I still remember having an almost paralyzing fear of making the last out in a ballgame. Striking out to end the game would be a titanic disappointment.

Is it ignorance or apathy? Hey, I don't know and I don't care...

by obc on Apr 18, 2007 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

last out

I made the last out in a state tourney once. Slow roller to short, which video confirms I was safe, but none the less I was called out. The season was over and we didn't get to go to Florida. Wow now I'm depressed

by Caleb on Apr 19, 2007 2:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zero Sum Game

I've been trying to come up with a way to explain the "strikeouts are good for pitchers, but not bad for hitters" conundrum without sounding like a huge stathead. Here's the best way I can come up with.

If you state the goal of a pitcher using only the things that are completely within his control, it would sound something like this:

Throw strikes that are difficult to hit.

Similarly, if you state the goal of a batter using only the things that are completely within his control, it would sound something like this:

Wait for a good pitch, and hit it hard.

If you can agree with that, take those goals and find out which stats benefit the most from achieving those goals.

For the pitcher, if he throws strikes that are difficult to hit, it stands to reason that he wouldn't walk many batters (since he's throwing strikes), and would strike out a lot of batters (since they're difficult to hit). Therefore, the pitcher's goal best manifests itself in K/BB ratio. K's are a significant portion of that, which is why they are so important.

For the batter, it would stand to reason that if he waited for a good pitch, he would walk a lot and probably get some hits, too (sounds a lot like a good on-base guy). If he was trying to hit it hard, he would hit it farther when he got a pitch (I believe they refer to this as a "slugger"). Therefore, the batter's goal best manifests itself in on-base percentage and slugging percentage (there's that pesky OPS again).

For a batter, how OFTEN he makes outs, and what he does with his hits are waaaaaaaaaaaay more important than what kind of outs he is making. If I could get a Dunn OBP and a Dunn SLG from a player who was hitting .300 and only striking out 50 times a year, I'd like that a lot better. Find me one who's available.

"Karma - there it was. The meaning of life, straight from Carson Daly's lips to my morphine-laced ears." -Earl Hickey

by BLee2525 on Apr 18, 2007 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs