The Next Frontier In Baseball Analysis

Okay, so that's settled. Baseball front offices have completely bought into the new analysis that values on-base percentage, slugging percentage, BABIP, stolen-base efficiency, defensive efficiency and defense-independent and park-independent pitching statistics rather than batting average, homers and RBIs, raw steals, fielding percentage and pitching wins. The sports media and ordinary fans are coming around too.

In the marketing field, they say that a corporate tagline begins to become effective just about the time the company gets sick of it. In baseball, the same thing is happening. No sooner has all of baseballdom finally acknowledged that the number crunchers were on to something (save for a handful of writers like Murray Chass and Dan Shaughnessy who have carved out a niche clinging to the Stone Age) than the seamheads have moved on.

For the past seven seasons, MLB ballparks have been equipped with cameras capturing the path, break, speed, strike zone position and result (ball, strike, hit, out, etc.) of every single Major League pitch (Pitch/FX). The information that can be gleaned from the data beggars the imagination. The percentage of pitches thrown by any given pitcher that are balls or strikes, swung at or taken, the mix of pitches, etc. are now public knowledge. Anyone with too much time on their hands can mine the data for percentage of pitches a pitcher threw outside the strike zone that were offered at by the batter and what percentage of in-zone pitches were taken for strikes. Anyone with 25 spare hours a day can compare how a pitcher approaches righties as opposed to lefties, day games versus night games, early innings versus late innings, etc. (Ditto for batters.)

Below is just one of the many charts, graphs and tables that comprise Pitch/FX's treasure trove of material (Thank you Brooks Baseball and Baseball Prospectus.) It documents Craig Kimbrel's pitch selection (one change-up his entire career!) and the average velocity and movement of each pitch type. As you can see from the headings, this is a mere tip of the iceberg.



Pitch/FX also allows us to follow the results of these pitches, as seen below in this swing rate graphic. Note how Kimbrel induces 60% of batters to take their cuts at pitches down the middle but above the strike zone. (The percentage of pitches thrown outside the zone that batters swing at is the O-swing rate. Good pitchers tend to have high O-swing rate. They are fooling people. Batters with high O-rates may be good hitters but are not very selective.)


Batters also take for strikes a third of the pitches he fires right down the middle. The percentage of pitches in the zone swung at is called the Z-swing rate. Good pitchers have relatively low Z-swing rates. Batter with low Z-rates tend to be selective hitters who walk and strike out a lot.


This information is incredibly useful for evaluating pitchers and hitters because it reveals a heretofore hidden part of the game. It is likely that Pitch/FX could have showcased and explained the special genius of Greg Maddux, whose shockingly ordinary repertoire yielded league-leading strikeout totals, probably because of a low Z-rate swing % (i.e., lots of called strikes) and a high O-rate swing % (lots of weak contact.) You can just imagine the on-field adjustments that can be wrangled out of this vast ocean insight.

The same information can disassemble a batter just as quickly. Teams are pouncing on the goldmine of data Pitch/FX is uncovering. And starting this season, there will be even more gold to mine.

Teams are now placing cameras afield to capture the movements of defenders and compare them with the most efficient path towards the ball. These cameras will monitor jump, speed and path of the defender and the speed, path and height of the ball when (if) caught. It is the next frontier and it promises quantum leaps in accuracy of defensive statistics. It will tell us why, for example, Jacoby Ellsbury's blazing speed doesn't translate to more fielded balls than average. And it will reveal the special genius of Derek Jeter, who will be getting out just in time.

All this will increase the premium of smart front offices and give low-income teams like Tampa opportunities to win with lower-cost talent. It could also reduce parity as front-office prowess, perhaps particularly in the number-crunching departments, rises in importance compared to on-field ability.

In any case, it's a bold new world and more than ever, those slow to adapt will feel the wrath of the competitive marketplace, even as they earn hosannas from dinosaurs like Chass and Shaughnessy.

Will Mike Trout Be the Best Ever?

You can't write about Major League Baseball these days without writing repeatedly about Mike Trout. It would be like leaving out Mozart from a history of classical music. Trout, after all, has already in his young career reached heights no one else has seen in the game's 130-year history.

Mike Trout authored the greatest age-20 season of all time, batting .326 with 30 homers, scoring 129 runs, swiping 49 of 55 bases and intercepting everything in center field. He followed that with the greatest age-21 season of all time, somehow increasing his OPS 25 points. He was the world's most spectacular player (and the AL's most valuable, though not the Most Valuable) each of his first two seasons. He is the greatest player through age-21 ever to play the game.

Consider this: Before he's even celebrated his 22nd birthday, Mike Trout has produced 21 wins against replacement at the highest level of baseball on the planet. That's more than Carl Everett, a two-time All-Star who hit a commendable .271/.341/.462 with 202 homers and 107 stolen bases, produced in his entire career. Mike Trout has had Carl Everett's entire career before most great players even get a Major League call-up.

In fact, Dave Cameron of Fangraphs has determined that Mike Trout has had the greatest  career of all time through age-22 -- even though he hasn't played his age-22 season yet. He could literally play at replacement level for the Angels in 2014 -- we're talking something like .240/.300/.380 with average defense and 12 steals --  and still be considered the greatest 22-year-old ballplayer of all time. (We would re-assess him if he were that bad, but you get the point.)

Fortunately for us, nothing short of a season-ending injury in Spring Training will prevent Mike Trout from producing value in 2014. Fangraphs' Steamer projections system, which tends to be conservative with superstars, projects for Trout .306/.401/.522, 26 homers, a very pessimistic 31 of 43 steals, and about eight more wins above replacement. 

So Mike Trout is a certain Hall of Famer and is knocking on Babe Ruth's mansion to claim the Best of All Time trophy, right? In the words of the sage philosopher Quick Draw McGraw, "now just a doggone minute there, Babalooie."

Consider the plight of Cesar Cedeno, the Mike Trout of the '70s. Cedeno burst onto the scene from the Dominican at age 19 in 1970 flashing speed, power and potential. In 90 games in that rarely-mourned cavern called the Astrodome, Cedeno laid down a .310/.340/.451 with 17 steals in half a season for Houston. He regressed a bit at age-20, but then broke out the following two years, hitting .320, averaging 37 doubles, 23 homers, 55 steals and 7.7 wins against replacement. Entering the 1974 season, 23-year-old Cedeno was at the top of everyone's "next superstar" list, the top power/speed merchant since Mantle and Mays.

It's not as if Cedeno disappointed. Over the next four years he averaged .352 OBP, 35 doubles/triples, 18 homers, 56 steals and 5.2 wins against replacement. Through his age-26 season, he had collected four All-Star berths, five Gold Gloves, and 40 WAR. He was a star, just not quite a superstar.

And then the wheels came off -- or at least one wheel. Surgery following a bad knee injury cost him most of 1978 and limited his effectiveness thereafter. Cedeno never again stole 50 bases, never again hit even 11 homers, and missed at least a third of games in five of his remaining eight seasons. It's a cautionary tale for Trout and his fans.

Cedeno's tale of the tape is a study in excellence. He smacked 199 home runs, nearly 500 doubles/triples, added 550 steals and hit 23% above average while patrolling the vast center pasture. His 53 lifetime WAR ties him with Fred McGriff and places him a few spots above Lance Berkman, Mickey Cochran and Luis Gonzalez. 

Almost anyone would envy Cedeno's career, but not Mike Trout. Trout is aiming well-above 259th on the WAR list and so are his fans, which should include every baseball in North America. Now in year three, we'll be watching to see if he transitions from phenom to marvel and avoids the plight of players like Cesar Cedeno.

Las Vegas Odds for Team Wins

Las Vegas has spoken. Below is the over-under betting for teams in the 2014 season. Las Vegas believes Arizona will win 81 games. If, based on your wisdom, your profound insights or your uncontrollable fandom you think the Diamondbacks are a better than .500 team, you bet the over. Worse than .500, bet the under. 

If you have the under and Paul Goldschmidt suddenly contracts dengue fever, your $100 bet becomes $200. The same for all other bets except those so marked in the third column. In those cases, wagering on the under requires a $115 bet to win $200. Bookie's kids need new shoes.

Team	Will they win more or fewer games than ...	Special considerations
Dodgers	92.5
Tigers	91.5
Cardinals	90.5
Nationals	90.5
Rays	88.5
Red Sox	87.5
Reds	87.5	(-115u)
Braves	86.5
Athletics	86.5
Giants	86.5
Rangers	86.5
Royals	85.5
Pirates	85.5	(-115u)
Angels	84.5
Yankees	83.5
Indians	82.5	(-115u)
Mariners	81.5
Diamondbacks	81
Orioles	80.5
Brewers	78.5	(-115u)
Phillies	78
Blue Jays	77.5
White Sox	76.5	(-115u)
Rockies	76.5
Padres	76.5
Mets	71.5
Marlins	66.5
Cubs	65.5
Twins	65.5	(-115u)
Astros	57.5

Most of these seem pretty reasonable on March 1, given our limited information. The Pirates and Red Sox weren't as good as last year's records and this year are more likely to reflect that. San Francisco has too much talent to lose more than they win two years running. The Nats will bounce back. Yes, the Phillies will be awful.

Gun to your head, you should bet the over on the Yankees, Mets, Astros, Blue Jays. It's difficult to conceive the pinstripes as also-rans, particularly assuming that they will make moves during the season. The Mets, who had nothing last year and won more than 71.5 games, added Curtis Granderson to a young squad likely to improve. Everything has to go "right" for Houston to lose 105 games, even with a roster of minor leaguers. Toronto plays in a tough division but has way too much talent for last year's fluky crash-and-burn scenario to repeat itself. Maybe the same for the Angels.

The Royals look like a good under bet. They lost to free agency the only Major League starter they had. Seattle seems like a pretty shaky proposition to break .500 in a tough division, despite signing Robinson Cano. It's hard to believe Baltimore doesn't finally turn into a pumpkin, though that is already accounted for somewhat by the oddsmakers.

If you follow the logic here, L.A., St. Louis and Washington win their divisions with Cincinnati, Atlanta and San Francisco battling for two wild card slots. Detroit, Tampa and Oakland/Texas win their divisions in the AL with the loser of the Rangers/A's taking one wild card and the Red Sox nabbing the other.

Bringing up the rear in their divisions, according to Las Vegas odds, will be the Padres/Rockies, Cubs and Marlins in the NL and Astros, Twins and Blue Jays in the AL. 

Here's one sure bet: it won't happen this way.

Potential New Rule Is the N-word: Nuts

Of all the silly, poorly-considered, unenforceable, counter-productive rules that have been proposed and adopted by the NFL, one stands out: the one currently being considered. And it shines a light on how American society has elevated symbols over reality to a degree that borders on cultural mental illness.

The rule would designate a 15-yard penalty for any player who uses the word, "nigger" on the field. This concept is so utterly without merit it beggars the imagination.

Make no mistake, in a particular context, "nigger" conveys a despicable sentiment that harkens to our nation's shameful legacy of slavery and oppression of black Americans. When a person who is not black uses "nigger" as a slur to denigrate a black American, that person is disgracing himself, and deserves all the antipathy that can be heaped upon him.

What's despicable about this invective is the sentiment, not the word, which we have imbued with mystical powers. I've heard many South Carolinians spew racial hatred towards the President of the United States, including fantasizing about assassinating him, without ever using the magic word. And I've heard black friends greet each other with it. The former is not one bit less racist for the absence of the word and the latter is utterly lacking in ill will despite its use. There is nothing inherent to the word, a collection of sounds after all, that is abhorrent; it's the meaning. And meaning can only be understood inside of context. 

Consider the discussions you've heard about use of what many refer to as "the N-word." Because our society has assigned such toxicity to the word "nigger," no one can say it without severe disapprobation, even when they are talking about the word itself.  So we use a stand-in for the word, a symbol for a symbol, because we have confused the first symbol with the original reality. And all of us understand that this new symbol, "the N-word" has the very same meaning as the original symbol. So what is gained? If we're talking about "nigger" why can't we say it? How is using "N-word" any better? (Ditto for all the other iterations of this trope -- the "f-word," etc.)

If racists nationwide all agreed to stop using the word "nigger" and instead expressed their narrow-minded hatred with "N-word" instead, how would that be an improvement? According to those who are supporting this potential NFL rule, if a white Southerner angrily berated the black player lined up across from him with "I'm going to kill you, you nappy-headed, spear-chucking, N-word jungle-bunny," that would be totally acceptable, but friendly on-field bantering between black teammates that included "nigger" as a note of solidarity would result in a penalty. The absurdity is palpable.

Our society already has its own 15-yard penalty for use of the word as a racist slur. Paula Deen lost millions of dollars, not for saying the word, but for admitting that she had employed it years in the past. The NFL, which is 70% black, has a built-in disincentive against hurling racial invective in the form of broken legs. 

The NFL should stay out of the idiot business and concentrate on the problems its players actually have with domestic violence, off-field violence of other types, alcohol and drug use, fiscal irresponsibility, functional illiteracy and brain injury, each of which is far more troublesome than mean language. And the rest of us should stop granting this collection of sounds such power over our emotions, and instead work harder to understand each other's American experience.