I'm back!

Third time is the charm, right?

I am going to try to update this blog more regularly now that the regular season is under way. I will be commenting a lot about the Cleveland Indians, but I am a baseball fan in general, and therefore will be commenting on and asking questions about every team.

Please feel free to post comments---it's nice to know that someone is reading (although I'm not sure anyone will be...).

The Yankees might have just traded their best pitcher

Well, their best pitcher not named Philip Hughes.

The Yankees have agreed to trade Randy Johnson to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Many writers and Yankee fans are praising this move; the Yankees are getting younger, continuing to stockpile prospects, and saving money. Most importantly, however, the Yankees are getting a pitcher who had an ERA of 5.00 last season out of their starting rotation.

Foxsports.com’s Dayn Perry writes that the Yankees got the far better end of this deal. He cites seven “grim indicators” about Johnson’s future with one conclusion: Randy Johnson is visibly declining.

No one will argue with the idea that Randy Johnson is declining. However, the key is that Randy Johnson used to be so good that even a Randy-Johnson-in-decline is still pretty darn good.

Johnson did have a 5.00 ERA last season; however, this ERA is misleading. I would argue that his ERA was rather fluky---if we look at the underlying statistics (which are far better indicators of future performance than ERA)---we see a pitcher who is in a clear decline, but also pitched far better in 2006 than people might realize.

Johnson’s strikeout rate was low for him, but still an above-average 7.7 strikeouts per nine innings. His walk rate rose, but only to 2.7 walks per nine innings. In other words, Johnson obviously was not as good as he had been in the past, but was still quite good, posting an overall K/BB ratio of 172/60. He also gave up a lot of home runs for him, allowing 28 in 205 innings (of course, Curt Schilling allowed 28 in 204 innings).

Johnson’s main problem was pitching with runners on base. He stranded only 61.8% of the runners who reached base---meaning that almost 40% of all runners who reached base ended up scoring (for comparison’s sake, his previous two years’ strand rates were 74.1% and 69.5%). In fact, Johnson’s stand rate was the worst for any starting pitcher in all of baseball, at least 2% worse than any other starter’s.

With nobody on base, opposing hitters hit .206 with a .595 OPS against Johnson; with runners on base, the batting average rose to .321 and the OPS rose to 927. With runners in scoring position, Johnson allowed a batting average of .348 and an OPS of 998. However, Johnson’s K/BB ratio was very similar with the bases empty and runners on base---with the bases empty Johnson struck out 2.91 batters per walk; with runners on base, he struck out 2.78 batters per walk.

Only 38% of the plate appearances against Johnson came with runners on base, yet 15 of the 28 homers Johnson allowed were with runners on base. Hitters were 9-for-15 against Johnson with a runner on third; 7-for-14 with runners on first and third; 6-for-15 with runners on second and third; and 3-for-6 with the bases loaded. With runners in scoring position and two outs, batters hit .346 against Johnson.

Perhaps this is an indication that Johnson is not as good of a pitcher when there are runners on base. If this were true, we’d expect to see similar splits from 2005, when he was also old, also with the Yankees, and also hampered by back problems (although not to the same extent).

Year	2005	2006
BA with bases empty	0.228	0.206
BA with runners on base	0.251	0.321
OPS with bases empty	0.653	0.595
OPS with runners on base	0.766	0.927
OPS with runners in scoring position	0.717	0.998
Runner on 3rd	5-for-24	9-for-15
Runners on 2nd and 3rd	1-for-10	6-for-15
Runners on 1st and 3rd	9-for-43	7-for-14
Bases loaded	2-for-8	3-for-6
% of PAs with runners on base	42%	38%
% of homers allowed with runners on base	50%	54%
strikeout/walk ratio with bases empty	4.06	2.92
strikeout/walk ratio with runners on base	4.65	2.78

If Johnson was not as good of a pitcher with runners on base, we’d likely see a significant change in Johnson’s K/BB ratio with runners on base, as compared to his ratio with the bases empty. In 2005, Johnson was slightly better with runners on base; in 2006 he was slightly worse. However, neither difference is extreme---it’s fair to say that Randy Johnson was essentially the same pitcher whether there were any runners on base or not. (Additionally, I must note that successful veteran pitchers---especially those without power stuff---sometimes post worse ratios with runners on base because there is less incentive to challenge hitters---thus leading to more walks---with runners on base).

Nate Silver at Baseball Prospectus did a similar evaluation of Johnson and also noted that Johnson’s BABIP with the bases empty was .239, while with runners on base it was .369. “This is almost certainly a matter of luck,” Silver writes.

Certainly Johnson was not as a good of a pitcher in 2006 as he was in 2005. However, the change in Johnson’s abilities was not nearly enough to warrant a rise in ERA from 3.79 to 5.00. Yes, the Yankees are getting younger and cheaper, but they’re also losing a pitcher who will likely perform well in 2007 from an already-questionable rotation.

Perry writes that “Arizona must now pin their hopes on Johnson's ability to defy expectations.” He is right that Arizona is hoping that Johnson defies Perry’s expectations; however, Perry’s expectations are misguided.

Randy Johnson isn't known for his personality

Bob Klapisch has recently written an article on ESPN.com in which he comments that “it’s clear no one will miss [Randy Johnson].” Klapisch cites the lefty’s social awkwardness, his inability to handle playing in New York, and his general demeanor which was bringing down the Yankees’ clubhouse. He claims that Johnson never fit in with the Yankees from the start. “The Unit, cold and aloof from the first day, never fit in with the Yankees, spending most of his time at his locker with his back to his teammates.” Klapisch implies that somehow this had a negative effect on the team. “The clubhouse is about to get a whole lot warmer,” Klapisch says, in reference to Johnson’s impending departure. The clear implication of this statement is that in addition to more a friendly clubhouse, Johnson’s departure will have a positive effect on the Yankees as a team. Addition by subtraction, as they say.

Of course, Klapisch fails to mention that Johnson was not a friendly person before he came to New York, yet his teams had managed to succeed in the past despite his presence in the clubhouse (and because of his presence on the mound). But more importantly, Klapisch fails to demonstrate just how Johnson’s demeanor affected the Yankees as a team. Did Johnson’s ignoring of his teammates cause them to play differently? Did Johnson work less hard because he was unhappy in New York? Did personal differences with teammates spill onto the field?

As I’ve demonstrated, in football or basketball it is possible that a person like Johnson could have a negative effect on the team, because football and basketball are much more team sports than baseball. However, baseball is more individualistic---especially for a starting pitcher. Johnson is not trying less hard; his work ethic is renowned. Certainly he is declining in performance, but this is not because he is uncomfortable in New York.

Even if everything Klapisch said about Johnson were true---and we have no reason to think it’s not true---it is unclear how these things would have an effect on the Yankees’ ability to score or prevent runs. Unless someone is actively not trying as hard due to personal problems with Johnson, Johnson can have absolutely no effect on the team’s performance on the field outside of his own performance as a pitcher.

There’s a reason that Josh Byrnes, a smart, statistically-minded GM, wants Johnson despite his injury risk, high salary, and the fact that the Diamondbacks are a very young team: Johnson is still a good starting pitcher. And no amount of foul personality can change that.

Addendum: When good things happen to bad teams

Because basketball and football rely on systems rather than a summation of individuals, “coaching” in basketball and football is essential---you needn’t have the most talent to win the most games (just ask the New England Patriots, Detroit Pistons or George Mason University), because it is possible to develop a system which makes that raw “talent” into a cohesive force which is better than more “talented” teams (come to think of it, ask Team USA).

In baseball, you cannot do this. Because of the individual nature of the events in baseball, a team really is simply the sum of its parts, and cannot by some cohesive force play above its ability. The key to understanding this is understanding the following: it can often look like a baseball team is playing above its talent, but you cannot confuse this with luck.

There is surely luck involved in other sports too; I am not arguing that there isn’t. However, I am referring less to the cases of teams like George Mason and more to cases like the Detroit Pistons and New England Patriots. The Pistons and Patriots have not been “lucky”---they’ve legitimately been the best team in their respective leagues. However, few would argue that they’ve been the “most talented” team. In the NBA and NFL “best” and “most talented” do not always go together; in baseball, I will argue, they do.

Baseball is a game of failure, and the fundamental difference in production between good and bad players is vastly smaller in baseball than in other sports. For example, Player A with a .400 on-base percentage is vastly superior to Player B with a .300 on-base percentage. Even in this extreme example, Player A will only succeed in not making an out 10 additional times per 100 plate appearances than Player B. Usually, the differences between players are much smaller, even on teams whose win totals differ dramatically.

Because the fundamental differences in success rates are not really that high, when you take this down to a minute level---such as an individual game or a short series---the differences are barely perceptible. Player A’s .400 OBP means that in five plate appearances, he will reach base about 2 times. Player B’s .300 OBP means that in five plate appearances, he will reach base about 1.5 times. Every other game, Player A and Player B will reach base the same amount of times in five plate appearances, despite their 100-point difference in their ability to get on base.

Certainly, over the course of 162 games, the differences between Player A and Player B will be readily evident, and Player A’s team will benefit significantly more than Player B’s team. However, in one game, the differences are barely perceptible, meaning that Player B’s team has a decent chance of winning that one game. In other words, bad teams have a much better chance of beating good teams in one game of baseball than they do in one game of basketball or football.

Extended to the playoffs, the “lesser” of two baseball teams has a much greater chance of winning a playoff series in baseball than in basketball or football for the same reason. This is not due to some cohesive force like chemistry that combines to make the “lesser” baseball team the better team, this is due to chance and luck---when teams get their hits, for example, or whether a home run occurs with no one on base or with the bases loaded. Players liking each other or getting along cannot increase their ability to get a hit with runners on base, or add velocity to their staff’s fastballs.

Tshe very nature of the sport of baseball is that most of the time, most batters are going to “fail” in their attempt to get on base. In a small sample size, the difference between the amount of times a good player will get on base, as compared to the amount of times a bad player will get on base, is very small. Thus, the chance that the “better” team will win one specific game or a five- or seven-game series is relatively low. “Chemistry” or “managing” is often attributed as an explanation for what seems to be a surprising result, when in actuality the chance of that “surprising” result occurring is much higher than people realized.

The Prisoner's Dilemma

Nate Silver at Baseball Prospectus wrote in his “Unfiltered” post on December 23 that clubhouse chemistry in baseball is quite different than clubhouse chemistry in basketball or football. Silver used the example of the Chicago Bulls, citing that their coach, Phil Jackson, had to maximize the best interests of the team, which were often in conflict with the best interests of each individual. Each player stood to gain by scoring; the Bulls, as a team, stood to gain if the player who had the highest probability of scoring took the shot.

This can be translated into football as well, as Silver mentions. Again, there is high potential for a conflict between the team’s best interest and the individual’s best interest on that team. Every time a quarterback passes the ball to receiver A, receivers B, C, and D have no chance to add to their statistics. Every time the coach calls a running play, the quarterback has no chance to pad his statistics, etc.

Here we see illustrated a fundamental problem of groups in all of human society, not just sports. If each person within a group of people maximizes their own best interest---a fundamental tenet of the individualistic American society where each person is encouraged to try to “get ahead”----the group’s interest is often thwarted, which thus trickles down to the individuals of the group.

Philosophically speaking, there is a hypothetical situation called the “Prisoner’s Dilemma.” If you’ve ever taken a philosophy, ethics or economics class, you’ve probably heard of this, in some variation.

The idea is this: two people are arrested for a crime which the police have insufficient evidence to convict them of. They are sequestered and each given the following proposal: “If you confess to this crime, and your partner stays silent, you will go free and your partner will receive 20 years in jail. If you both confess, you will both receive 5 years in jail.” If neither partner confesses, however, they will both only be jailed for one year on a minor charge.

However, each criminal knows that their partner is receiving the same offer. Thus, there are four possible outcomes:

1) Neither confesses; they each receive one year of jail time

2) Prison A confesses, but Prisoner B does not; A goes free, B receives 20 years

3) Prison B confesses, but Prisoner A does not; B goes free, A receives 20 years

4) Both confess; both receive 5 years

Because each prisoner has to make the decision without knowing what decision their partner makes, the logical choice for both prisoners it to confess (assuming their goal is to get the smallest amount of time in jail as possible). Here’s why:

From the point of view of Prisoner A, if his partner confesses, his best move would be to confess as well, that way he’d receive only 5 years instead of 20. However, if his partner does not confess, Prisoner A’s best move would still be to confess---that way, he’d receive 0 years instead of 1.

From Prisoner A’s point of view:

1) Assuming my partner confesses, I can either:

a. Confess and receive 5 years

b. Not confess and receive 20 years

2) Assuming the partner does NOT confess, I can either:

a. Confess and receive 0 years

b. Not confess and receive 1 year

As you can see, regardless of what my partner does, it makes sense for me to confess. This also applies to my partner, who is going through the exact same calculations. Thus, it is logical for both to confess, and each receives 5 years. However, this is not the optimal outcome for the prisoners---had they both trusted the other and opted to stay quiet, they could have each gotten away with only 1 year. The logic of the individual leads to a sub-optimal outcome for the “group.”

To translate this to sports, it would be optimal if each player on a team performed their given duty or task in order to maximize the team’s performance; this would increase the chances of the team being successful. Role players are necessary for basketball teams to win games---someone needs to set picks, be a defensive specialist, and other things which benefit the team but do not show up in the boxscore.

However, each individual player is concerned with themselves as well---the more points a basketball player averages, the larger his next contract; the more rebounds he grabs, the bigger his payday. Thus, what is beneficial to each individual on a particular team may not be beneficial to the team as a whole. Furthermore, each player attempting to make the best decisions for themselves could lead to a sub-optimal outcome for the team.

This can have a detrimental effect on the team, as you can imagine. This can also lead to tension within the locker-room, as players may be upset with one another over the decisions they have made, because these decisions affect both the team’s ability to win and the individual’s ability to maximize his statistics. NBA Player A could be angry at NBA Player B because he thinks Player B is taking ill-advised shots in an effort to boost his own scoring totals. Furthermore, Player A could be upset because every shot Player B takes is one less shot that Player A can take in an attempt to boost his own scoring totals.

Additionally, because basketball and football players depend on one another directly within the game itself in order to achieve both personal and team success, a personal dislike of another player or a conflict with another player can directly affect team performance. If Player A doesn’t like Player B, he might choose to pass the ball to him less. This would both irritate Player B and lessen the team’s chances of being successful, because the player’s decision-making would be clouded by a subjective opinion of a teammate, rather than an objective analysis of best way to score.

If Point Guard A doesn’t like to pass, he’s probably hurting the team’s chances of scoring as well as irritating other players on the team, who would then be less likely to pass to Point Guard A, and so forth. In basketball and football, locker-room chemistry is essential; it’s not that guys have to like each other, but they have to not let personal feelings get in the way of their playing with each other, because this could hurt the team (and, by extension, the individuals themselves).

In baseball, this is not the case, at least not nearly to the same extent as in basketball and football. This stems from the very nature of the sport itself. As Silver writes, “baseball isn’t like basketball – or other major team sports – in this important way: baseball players don’t make decisions, by and large, that affect the statistics or opportunities of their of their teammates.” Baseball is not the same kind of “team” sport that basketball and football are. Certainly it is a team sport in the sense that baseball games are won and lost by a team. However, the game of baseball consists of a series of individual events within one game. Often times these individual events are related and in a quick succession, and thus can seem to be “team” oriented. However, they are distinctly different from events which make up a basketball or football game.

In basketball, for example, the point is to shoot the ball into the basket. However, there is only one ball, and only one player can score at once for his team. Furthermore, one player’s scoring prevents another player from scoring on that possession. This is not true in baseball, at least not to the extent that it would be in another sport. My hitting a home run does not prevent you from hitting a home run.

You are likely now thinking of the various plays in baseball where my doing something does prevent you from achieving something, such as a run-batted-in. If I do not get on base, you cannot drive me in. If I’m on base and am caught stealing, you cannot drive me in; if I’m on base and steal second base, it’s easier for you to drive me in. This is all true (and is the basic argument for why RBIs are a relatively meaningless stat, because they are so dependent on others). However, there are few of these scenarios in baseball; and even within these scenarios the events are individual, uninfluenced by teammates’ conscious decisions. If I fail to reach base, it is not in an attempt to prevent you from driving me in. Similar logic applies to my getting caught stealing. Occasionally you will hear someone moan about a player attempting to pad his stolen base totals; however, this is very rare, as many steals are called by the manager or a coach.

Let’s examine how baseball consists of a series of individual events, even within one “play.” First of all, we have the matchup of batter versus pitcher. Obviously this is not “individual” in the sense that it involves only one player; however, the players are competing against each other, and no one on either team can influence whether the pitcher or batter performs well.

Scoring runs in baseball is about the accumulation of independent individual at-bats. Scoring the ball in basketball is about the accumulation of dependent series of events. Larry Hughes getting open for a three-pointer depends on LeBron James getting double-teamed, Hughes moving without the ball, James’ vision and ability to pass and find the open man, the defense’s inability to rotate fast enough. Much of Hughes’s open shot depends on his teammates---James’s ability to pass and choice to pass to Hughes or pass at all, a teammate setting a pick freeing Hughes from his defender, positioning and location of other Cavaliers players. Once Hughes gets the ball, he makes the decision whether or not to shoot it, and this decision has a direct impact on all of his teammates on the court, because if Hughes chooses to shoot, no one else is going to be able to shoot.

In baseball, each event leading to scoring runs---each at-bat---is completely independent from the previous and next at-bat. While scoring runs is dependent on the situation---you need runners on base in order to score---the actual scoring still depends on an individual at-bat, and the succession of individual outcomes leads to scoring runs. If a player fails to add to his statistics, it is because of his own failure, not because of a decision his teammates have made.

If you look at the correct stats in baseball, you can isolate one player’s contribution to his team in a way that you cannot isolate it in basketball, because a player’s contribution in basketball is so dependent on his teammates. This means that if you take Player A out of the Cleveland Cavaliers’s lineup and drop him in Detroit Pistons’s lineup in basketball, he may not contribute in the same way because he is playing with different guys in a different system. However, if you take Player B out of the Cleveland Indians’s lineup and drop him in the Detroit Tigers’s lineup he will contribute the exact same amount as he did in Cleveland.

For example, an at-bat in baseball is one large dependent event---it’s batter vs pitcher, but also depends on the fielders. If the pitcher induces a ground-ball, he depends on his infields to turn this into an out. If the pitcher does his part (gets the hitter to hit the ball on the ground), but the infielders fail to do theirs (field the ball and throw the batter out at first), the pitching team will not have achieve its goal, to retire the batter. However, each individual involved in the play---the pitcher, fielder, and first baseman---benefits individually from making the play which would also benefit the team. There is no Prisoner’s Dilemma here. Additionally, none of these events depends on players making an active decision one way or another.

In basketball, a player can decide not to pass the ball to another player; in baseball, if a player fails to field a ground-ball, it is not because he actively decided he was going to fail to field the ball. Thus, while a teammate could be upset at another for his inability to perform his job, any personal strife with the teammate, conflict of personalities or “clubhouse tension” will have no bearing the plays within the game, because plays within the game are made only by individuals, and because there is no conflict between one individual’s best interest and another’s, nor between an individual’s best interest and the team’s best interest.

Thus, in baseball players rarely make intentional decisions which directly affect another player’s ability to maximize his own interests. If a batter fails to get a hit, it’s likely not for lack of effort. If an outfielder fails to catch a fly ball, it’s not because he dislikes the pitcher. In basketball and football, events are dependent upon choices made by players during the game, such as whether or not to pass the ball. However, in baseball, one large event consists of several small independent events which combine into a large dependent event.

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog "Unconventional Wisdom." This blog will be about anything and everything baseball, from a sabermetrically analytical point of view.

I am a baseball fan first and foremost, but I am also a Cleveland Indians fan; you will probably notice this throughout my posts. However, while there may be several Indians-related posts, the overall purpose of this blog is to discuss baseball in general, not just the Indians.

So sit back, relax, enjoy, and please feel free to make comments.