B-R Blog & Stat of the Day

I'll soon be adding a split that shows how pitchers do when their teams score 0-2, 3-5, or 6+ runs in a game.

Here is a little taste.

This is almost the perfect example of Simpson's Paradox. Blyleven was (very nearly) had the better winning percentage in each category of run support, but has the worse overall winning percentage due to the weighting of the various categories.

Rich Lederer feel free to use this.

Back in November I posted 5 predictions about the off-season between the 2009 and 2010 seasons.

I can sum up how I did in a single word: poorly.

1. I predicted that the Blue Jays would not trade Roy Halladay, based on the idea that most teams would not want to give up their top-tier prospects in exchange for an ace pitcher before the start of the season. I was wrong about that, although I take a little bit of comfort in the fact that most people were confused by the trade that did eventually happen. The Phillies did a one-for-one swap of ace pitchers (not counting the fact that they received some prospects from Seattle and sent some to Toronto) which was kind of baffling and the Blue Jays didn't get a ton for Halladay. Still, though, I find it tough to fault Toronto for making the trade. If they had waited they might have gotten more, or perhaps Halladay could have gotten injured and they would have received nothing.
2. I predicted that the Red Sox would dump either David Ortiz or Mike Lowell. They tried to dump Lowell by paying most of his salary to send him to Texas but the trade fell through. Many folks think the Red Sox will try to trade him again this spring but they may need to wait and see if Ortiz looks like he will be productive. They might end up keeping both guys. I also predicted that they would pick up 2 out of 3 of the trio of Jason Bay, Matt Holliday, and Adrian Gonzalez. Wrong again. Apparently they tried to retain Bay but he wasn't a big target. It appears they sniffed around Holliday but never made him a formal offer. And Gonzalez is still in San Diego, at least for the time being.
3. I predicted that the Yankees would not retain Johnny Damon or Hideki Matsui, despite both playing extremely well in the post-season. I was right about this pick.
4. I predicted that the Phillies would make some major changes to their pitching staff. I was right about that but for the wrong reasons. Yes they said goodbye to free agents Brett Myers, Clay Condrey, Chan Ho Park, Scott Eyre, and Tyler Walker. And yes they said hello to free agents Danys Baez and Jose Contreras. And Pedro Martinez is unsigned. But I also said that the only thing I knew for sure is that Cliff Lee would be their opening day starter--oops. Lee's gone and Halladay is in and I missed the boat on this one too.
5. I predicted some strange free-agent signings, specifically some of the better players going to small-market teams. I was wrong on this one too. Of the 9 biggest off-season contracts (in terms of total dollars) the only really surprising ones were Aroldis Chapman going to the Reds instead of one of the richer teams and Mike Cameron getting $15.5 million from the Red Sox. Looking at the rest of the top signings, they were all with larger market teams or were reasonable deals for smaller market clubs. I guess maybe Randy Wolf to the Brewers and Jason Marquis to the Nationals might qualify but it's typical to see over-the-hill pitchers get overpaid to go to lesser teams. That's not the sort of unusual contract I expected to see.

Anyway, I did a lousy job but at least I'm being honest about it!

NOTE: This is my attempt to predict the standings for the 2010 MLB season using Tom Tango's Marcel projection system. For NL East projections and more background info on how these projections work, go here. For NL Central projections, go here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sponsoring a page is fun, fast, and easy way to support what we're doing here at Baseball-Reference. With a sponsorship, you can:

• Show your support for your favorite player or team.
• Drum up traffic for your own site & draw in fans with a common interest.
• Get some well-deserved recognition for your support of B-R.
• Make your voice heard by the tens of thousands of people who visit Baseball-Reference every day.

Here's all you have to do to get involved:

1. Create a membership account.
2. Find the page(s) you'd like to support, and click "sponsor" (available pages).
3. If the page you want is already sponsored, click "Alert Me!" to be informed when the current sponsorship expires.
4. Follow the instructions to create your message and make your payment.
5. Your message and links will be visible on the page after we approve them (usually in less than 24 hours).

And who knows, if you're clever enough, your message might end up on lists like these.

CBB Blog at Sports Reference » Blog Archive » NCAA Tourney in Monte Carlo.

For those looking for my NCAA Tourney Simulations. I've posted them on our new CBB Site.

NOTE: This is my attempt to predict the standings for the 2010 MLB season using Tom Tango's Marcel projection system. For more background info on how these projections work, go here.

Read the rest of this entry »

Twice last season a player hit a grand slam in a game that he entered as a pinch runner. The first occurred on June 7th. Sensing that Miguel Cabrera was not at full strength, manager Jimmy Leyland pinch ran Clete Thomas for him in the 4th inning. Four innings later with 2 outs in the eighth and the game tied at 5 Thomas became a hero with the decisive blow that would eventually beat the Angels.

Three and a half months later, on September 30th, the Nationals were down a run to the Mets with a runner on first and 2 outs in the eighth. Justin Maxwell was sent in to pinch run for Josh Willingham, but was stranded when Ian Desmond grounded out to end the inning. The Nats were still down a run with the bases loaded and 2 outs in the ninth when Maxwell's turn in the lineup came up again. Maxwell came through in dramatic fashion , depositing a 3-2 pitch over the left field wall to end the Nationals home schedule in style.

Here are all the players since 1954 who have hit a grand slam in a game in which they pinch ran:

After our recent Hall of Fame debate on Jim Edmonds, I decided to open a similar discussion on a player about whom I'm much more curious: Tim Raines.

First let's recall some facts about Raines. Having retired after the 2002 season, he's been on the HOF ballot 3 times already, getting 24.3% of the vote in 2008, 22.6% in 2009, and 30.4% in 2010. A player needs 75% of the vote to get in.

The discussion about Raines and the HOF is, in my opinion, more interesting than typical because he was an unusual player. Although he had power, he wasn't a power hitter. Although he hit for great average in numerous seasons (including nearly .330 for the three-year period 1985-1987) he finished with a career average under .300. Although he hit almost exclusively leadoff, he finished with a career OPS+ of 123.

Despite being an unusual player, most discussions of Raines and his chances for the Hall of Fame start with a direct comparison to another player: Rickey Henderson. There are two truths about these players that I think are virtually  without debate:

1. They were the two best leadoff hitters of the period 1980-1995  and
2. Henderson was better.

I love Tim Raines but I can't accept any argument that he was better than (or as good as) Henderson. However, I think the comparison of those two players is totally irrelevant to Raines' HOF worthiness, especially since Henderson got in on his first try. Henderson was an incredible player and extremely Hall-worthy. Raines was less accomplished to some degree, but does that mean he doesn't belong? Guys with 700 HR are in the HOF so does that mean that guys with 600 don't belong? Or guys with 500 HR? Or 400? Clearly this type of argument is nonsense. So please don't bring up any comparisons to Henderson.

The other thing that is irrelevant is Raines' cocaine use in the 1980s. I have already written about that extensively in the comments on this post. Raines made a mistake, stepped up, took responsibility, and took care of the problem. If there is anybody out there who has never made a mistake, feel free to hold Raines' cocaine use against him. But otherwise, let's stay quiet on the subject.

I'm going to try to keep my analysis of Raines fairly short but I invite you to be as detailed as you like in the comments below.

Skipping over the obvious, such as huge stolen base and runs totals, check out these tidbits:

• Over 23 seasons (although the first two in 1979-80 were really just cups of coffee) Raines amassed an OPS of .810, which was an OBP of .385 and a SLG of .425. That was good for an OPS+ of 123. His neutralized batting record, though, shows that he might have been more deserving of a career OPS of .864 (!) probably due mainly to the influence of Stade Olympique and below average Expos teams.
• Oh by the way, his neutralized career batting average is .314 (vs .294 actual) and his neutralized OBP is .410 (vs .385, as mentioned above.)
• At least going back as far as outfield positions are differentiated in the box scores, there have been 7 players with at least 10,000 career plate appearances who played primarily in left field. Four are in the HOF: Yaz, Billy Williams, Henderson, and Lou Brock. Barry Bonds is another who based purely on numbers deserves enshrinement. Luis Gonzalez is the only guy on the list who is clearly not a HOFer. The 7th is, of course, Timmy Raines.
• Among post-1954 leadoff hitters, he makes the top 5 for most games with at least 4 times on base. This isn't a particularly notable accomplishment as Raines' longevity really helped. In fact, guys #3, #4, #5, and #7 on that list (Lofton, Boggs, Raines, and Tony Phillips) had a similar number of career games and similar number of 4-TOB games. It's #6 who really sticks out...guess who?
• Let's take a quick look at his career rankings. He's 55th in plate appearances and 50th in runs. That's a little surprising--given that he hit leadoff I would have expected him to score more runs than guys who batted in the middle of the lineup. I would have liked to see him in career runs more like 30th overall, especially given than he's 5th in stolen bases. Other top-100 appearances include hits (73rd), times on base (41st) and power-speed number (28th). Overall his rankings are not that impressive but I think that's partially because he was such an unusual player.
• He made the leaderboard as both the youngest player in MLB in 1979 and 1980 and the oldest player in MLB in 1999-2002.
• An important part of the HOF argument is whether he was ever considered a top player at his peak. Through the 1980s but particularly in the mid-1980s Raines was considered the best leadoff hitter in the NL. There was a heavy debate about Raines in the NL vs Henderson in the AL. Even though we know that Henderson eventually won that contest in a landslide, the important part is that Raines was in serious contention for years, meaning that he was regarded as one of the best players during his peak period. His 1985-1987 period is almost without comparison, with cumulative stats such as a BA approaching .330, an OBP over .410, and an OPS+ of nearly 150. Over those 3 seasons he stole 190 bases and scored 329 runs (second only to you-know-who.) And keep in mind he did this all while playing for a Canadian team that wasn't all that good and didn't get nearly as much coverage as other teams.

Ok, so now have your say. Please vote in the poll below and please, please, add your comments below. I am expecting very polarized views.

Everyone loves projected standings at this time of the year, since it gives us another baseball-related topic to argue about before the games start to count for real in a few weeks. With that in mind, I thought I'd throw another batch of projections out there to join the great work by Sean Smith, Baseball Prospectus, and others. The projection system of choice? Marcel the Monkey, of course, since it's completely open-source, surprisingly accurate given its simplicity, and at the very least should provide a decent sanity check against other, more sophisticated methods.

The other component of any team-projection method is allocating playing time, and for that I used a great site that's only been around for a year or so, called MLB Depth Charts. They offer downloadable depth charts in spreadsheet form, updated every day, so you should definitely check them out (the set I used was from last Thursday, 3/11/2010). I allocated playing time based on how teams over the past 3 years had used their players: AL teams gave 90% of their outs to their 9 starting batters and top 4 bench players, NL teams gave 84% of their outs to their top 8 hitters and top 5 bench players, teams in both leagues gave 31% of their pitching outs to their top 7 relievers, etc. This method isn't perfect, but it's also fairly accurate without me having to introduce any biases into the process, which was important if this was going to be done in the spirit of the Marcels (motto: the "dumbest" possible projections).

Read the rest of this entry »

Via Baseball-Reference.com's Play Index Batting Game Finder - the only time, since 1954, that a player was caught stealing 4 or more times in a game:

.

O.K., granted, that was an extra inning contest. So, how about games of 9 innings or less? Which players have been caught stealing 3 times in such a game, the most times in their career?

Well, guess what! Since 1954, there has not been a player to be caught stealing 3 times (or more) in one game of 9 innings or less. Hmmm...what about in a game that went extras? Here's that list:

.

Brad Ausmus? Oh, my, what was he thinking?