Optimism, Carlos Gomez, and Projections

I surprised myself with a surprisingly upbeat preview of the Brewers vs. Reds series today:

Going into their game against the Mets last night (as I wrote this), the Brewers had a 7.5-game lead on the Reds.  Now, one can't really hope for a sweep.  But can you imagine?  That'd suddenly put the Reds 4.5 games back.  With the Cardinals still hovering around 0.500, the Reds have an opportunity here.  I like the Reds pitching match-ups in all three games.  If the offense can build on what it did the last two games of the Dodger series, this could be an exciting weekend for the Reds.  Here's to optimism! Go Reds!

Somewhere recently, I saw someone write (I think for another team) that it's more fun to be optimistic and wrong than pessimistic and right.  I'm trying to adopt that view. :)

Carlos Gomez: A lesson on the importance of
patience, scouts, and tools.
Photo Credit: Keith Allison

I also wrote a bit about Carlos Gomez.  He fits into the mold of a former top prospect who had been given up on by nearly everyone, only to discover himself.  Others include Jose Bautista and Edwin Encarnacion, although to his credit, Gomez was never DFA'd.

Some of Lucroy's best competition in the MVP race is his center fielder, Carlos Gomez.  I think Gomez is fascinating.  I find it almost impossible to believe that he's only in his age-28 season, because it seems like he's been around forever.  He was the key acquisition in the Twins' deal that sent Johan Santana to the Mets before the 2008 season.  Despite playing in the majors as a 22-year old, he was largely considered a flop in the aftermath of that trade.  He earned a strong reputation as a great defensive center fielder, but he didn't hit a lick.  The Brewers acquired him in exchange for J.J. Hardy, a deal that many (myself probably included) panned.  Hardy was often-injured, but he was a quality offensive shortstop coming off a bad season, while Carlos seemed like the definitive no-hit defensive center fielder.  Then, something happened in the second half of 2012: Gomez started to hit for power.  From July through September, Gomez slugged 15 home runs (previous season high was 8).  He continued to show that power through last all of last season, and FanGraphs estimated his season value at 7.6 fWAR (though that might be a bit inflated by a +24 run fielding rating...though b-ref gave him +38 runs in the field and 8.9 WAR, so....).  He's one of the best players in baseball.

This is the kind of thing that has taken me forever to wrap my head around.  I am a projection guy, and rely on them to guide my evaluations of players to avoid getting overly excited about new changes in performance.    In fact, MGL just wrote a great piece on the importance of this approach, which was then summarized by Dave Cameron.  But there are guys for whom I am bound to miss with this approach, and Carlos Gomez (and Bautista and Encarnacion) are cases in point.  Therefore, while I use projections, I also try to keep an eye out for toolsy guys who seem to finally be figuring it out.  In my view, the lesson is to trust your projection tools, but to still be cautiously conservative in their ability to forecast the future.  I'll always have a blind spot for this kind of player, but hopefully I'm not as blind as I once was.

Brandon Phillips might have been my first lesson in that.  Here's what I wrote when the Reds acquired him:

Previously a highly-touted prospect out of the Montreal farm system, this guy is apparently going to sit on our bench this year. He is out of options, and the Reds seem to have acquired him from the Indians because they didn't want to lose him via waivers and he's not good enough to be on their team. Phillips had a very good half-year as a 21-year old in the then-Expos' AA franchise, hitting 0.327/0.380/0.506/0.886 in 245 at bats in '02. But that's the last time he had a really outstanding, prospect-like season. He was probably rushed a bit to the majors in '03, but was thoroughly ineffective there and hasn't done a whole lot since. His '04 campaign with the Indians' AAA affiliate was decent (0.353 OBP), but he regressed a bit in '05. Krivsky mentioned in his rain delay interview with Marty Brennaman today that Phillips hit 15 homers last year in AAA, which is good. But his slugging percentage was a fairly poor 0.409, particularly given those HR totals. Overall...I wouldn't expect much from this guy's bat this season, and perhaps not ever.

Phillips might be overrated by some of the Cincinnati media, but there's no question that I missed the mark badly on this one.  Phillips has posted five seasons as an above-average hitter during his time with the Reds, has played legitimate gold-glove defense, and has topped 3 WAR five times (and posted 2.9 fWAR a sixth time).  He's been an excellent player for the Reds since almost the first day he donned the Reds' uniform.  The scouts were right.

Thoughts on the Reds & Chase Field

Chase Field was my local ballpark for seven years.
Photo Credit: Not That Bob James

In my series preview today of the Reds and Diamondbacks, I posted some doomy and gloomy thoughts on the current state of affairs:

So.  At the time that I write this (prior to end of the last Dodgers game), the Reds are in the midst of a 4-game losing streak.  They're 7.5 games behind the Brewers.  And thanks to a modest surge by the Pirates, the Reds now sit in 4th place in the NL Central.  Finally, the Reds' playoff odds, according to both FanGraphs and Baseball Prospectus, have dropped below 10% for the first time this season.  It's a tough time.  The offense has been very poor, and the bullpen has been even worse.  Despite the strong performances by the starting pitching, the Reds have been a sub-0.500 team, in terms of both real wins and PythagenPat record. 

Is there hope?  Sure.  Latos and Votto could return, Bruce could catch fire, Frazier & Mesoraco & Cueto and the rest could keep on keepin' on, and the Reds could go on a tear.  But they're at the point that they will need to go on a heck of a run to get back into contention.

John Fay and C. Trent Rosecrans are already starting to talk about the Reds' potential trade chips.  Cueto's at the top of the list, of course.  He's cheap for his value, and there's not a team in baseball that wouldn't love to have him.  None of us are privvy to the Reds' true financial situation, but they are facing what could be a major escalation in payroll next year.  First-time eligible arbitration players Todd Frazier, Devin Mesoraco, and Zack Cozart are in line for big raises.  And other salaries are going up, while very little salary is scheduled to go off the books.  It could be that the Reds are set up to absorb that hike in payroll, which could allow them to field much the same team next year as they did this year (hopefully in good health!).  But it just seems like a lot of money.  I'm not sure what the coming few months will bring, but if the Reds don't rebound, I think we could be looking at some significant roster changes.  Of course, maybe that's what this team needs...

But, I also took some spent a moment to reminisce about Chase Field, which was fun:

The Reds return to my old haunts.  I spent 7 years in Phoenix (hence the AZ in my username), and for a lot of that I lived only about 10 minutes away from the ballpark in South Phoenix.  As a result, I've probably seen more games there than any park other than Riverfront.  It's a really nice place to take in a game.  I never thought I'd like indoor baseball.  But when the heat is blazing outside, it was an incredibly comfortable, pleasant place to kick back and enjoy a ballgame.  It's the place where my oldest "saw" her first ballgame as a two-month old (the night of Carlos Quintin's debut, when he hit his first major league home run), and where I got to watch live games in the first World Baseball Classic.  I also got to see a 2007 playoff game there (Cubs v. Dbacks), which was the only playoff game I've ever attended in person (go ahead, make fun of me).  I have pretty great memories of that ballpark.

How much has the Reds' slow start cost them?

The Reds have gotten off to a bit of a slow start this year, going 3-6, and losing all three of the opening series two games to one.  Meanwhile, the Cardinals (who the Reds played 6 times), the Pirates, and the Brewers are all off to good starts.  Right now, the Brewers are leading the division, and the Reds are already four games behind them.

It's obviously extremely early, and by no means should anyone give up hope on this team--or draw any conclusions about their talent level due to their performance in nine games of the season.  But it's not as if going 3-6 and falling four games behind makes no difference at all, either.

Changes in Playoff Odds

In my preview of the Reds' season, FanGraphs gave them a 28% of making the playoffs, while Baseball Prospectus had them at 38%.  Now, following the first nine games, the Reds' chances have dropped to 16% at FanGraphs (down 13%), and 24% at Baseball Prospectus (also down 13%).  That feels like a pretty big drop for a week and a half of games, but it's a consequence of both the Reds' poor performance thus far...and the wins banked by other teams.  In the case of FanGraphs, this was also the result of some downgrading of the Reds' projected talent level: FanGraphs dropped the Reds' rest of season winning percentage projection from 0.500 to 0.480.  I'm guessing a chunk of that is a decreased playing time projection for Mat Latos.

I'm surprised that there's been such a big change in the playoff odds.  Floored, really.  It's not like the Reds are out of the race, of course, but I'm used to the mindset that a team's record on April 11th is meaningless. And really, it should be meaningless, right?

First 10 Games & Historical Playoffs

John Dewan's Stat of the Week might beg to differ.  Today's, they look at whether team records over the first 10 games can predict the playoffs.  The effect is stronger than I expected:

In the middle of the distribution, which is where most teams are, initial record is close to meaningless.  But as you look at teams that had either extremely bad (3-7 or worse) or extremely good (8-2 or 9-1) first weeks, you start to see a change in the chances that they make the playoffs.  The Reds are teetering right on that edge, with the outcome of tonight's game determining whether they'll be 3-7 or 4-6.

These are just historical trends, of course, and are based on pretty small samples at the extremes.  It's not like Reds' playoff chances hinge on whether they beat the Rays tonight.  And they have lost a lot of close games thus far; their PythagenPat record is 0.437 going into tonight's game, compared to an actual winning percentage of 0.333.  So, I'd like to think they're a better team than they've shown.

Simple Maths

One more take.  Let's say the Reds are a true-talent 87-win team.  That's a 0.537 winning percentage.  Then, they start 3-6, because it's baseball.  Over the remaining 153 games, then, they should win 0.537*153=82 wins, making for 85 total wins on the year.

So yeah, it's really just two wins.  The problem is, with the Reds being a marginal playoff team as it is, a few games back in the loss column makes a big difference in the likelihood that they can get their way into a playoff slot.

I'm definitely not giving up, obviously (despite Jim Day saying scary things about Mat Latos's arm).  The Reds need only go on one good winning streak to make up this first 9 games.  Every game does count, but there are major ups and downs in any baseball season.  Let's just hope that these first three series have been one of the bigger downs for the 2014 Reds.

The Free Agent Compensation Mess

The Reds' Todd Frazier was acquired via compensation
pick in the 2007 draft.  Photo courtesy of David Slaughter.

One of the biggest features of the latest CBA is a revised free agent compensation system.  The short version, as I understand it, is that if a team makes a "qualifying offer" to a player, which is defined as at least a one-year offer at a certain rate based on current player salaries (last year, it was ~$14 million), his team can receive compensation in the form of a draft pick if he turns it down and signs with another team.  The draft pick usually will come from the team that signs the free agent.

This offseason we've seen a group of free agents really struggle to find employment.  It's a big list: Nelson Cruz, Stephen Drew, Ervin Santana, Ubaldo Jimenez, Kendrys Morales...  All of these players are mid-tier free agents, and all are players who turned down qualifying offers from their teams in order to pursue larger contracts on the open market.  Like we saw in past years, these players all appear to be encountering a significant challenge: these are not top-tier talents, so teams don't want to give up their first round pick to sign them on top of paying their salaries.

The Nelson Cruz example is particularly interesting because he ended up having to settle for a one-year, $8 million contract after turning down a $14 million contract earlier in the offseason.  And ultimately, the main reason he actually got a deal seems to be that the Orioles had already given up their first-round pick to sign Ubaldo Jimenez, which made signing Cruz far less of a consequence for them.  Now, granted, his agents probably misread the market for him; apparently, teams are realizing that low OBP, poor fielding sluggers aren't worth as much as teams used to pay for them.  But this was a pretty big mistake.

Earlier this week, Tangotiger noted that MLBPA has decided not to challenge the compensation system until the next CBA.  I can understand that on some level--trying to renegotiate in the middle of the agreement might make negotiations of the next CBA a challenge.  But the system really seems very unfair to these few players who have to deal with the compensation pick.  It's not just this offseason, either.   I remember Orlando Hudson having similar issues some years ago.

I've always liked the principle of compensation.  It's best merit, in my view, is that it's a small token of recognition that small market teams, in particular, can't always keep their players.  Therefore, when a team loses an important free agent, they get slightly better draft position to help them begin to recover.  A 30-something pick isn't great shakes, but teams have scored some nice players with compensation picks.  Todd Frazier, for example, was the product of a compensation pick under the old system when the Reds lost Rich Aurilia to free agency.  I also like the idea of a qualifying offer: rather than trying to rank players by the TERRIBLE free agent system, the qualifying offer lets the market determine a player's value.  Teams (presumably) won't give a qualifying offer if the player isn't worth it, and so you're effectively letting the market determine if a player is good enough that the team deserves compensation.  To me, that's pretty elegant.

So how do we fix it?  To me, the problem is that the team has to surrender their own pick in order to sign a free agent.  I'm sure there's some important reason for this, but it seems to me that if we just got rid of that component--there would be no cost to the team that signs the player beyond the player's salary, just a bonus mid-30's pick to the team who lost the player--the system would serve its purpose and work quite well.  

As it is, the penalty of the pick means that some players get a raw deal, and teams are less likely to sign mid-tier free agents to improve their teams.  Seems like a lose-lose to me.

How much does Mat Latos matter?

Image via Wikipedia

I'm still thrilled about the Latos deal.  I know I'm probably more down on Alonso than most others, and for that reason I'm probably wrong.  But the main loss I see in the deal is Grandal.  I love Grandal, but that's an acceptable price for an outstanding pitcher of Latos's age and contract.  It bears repeating: the contract is a huge deal.  Without it, Latos is a top-30 pitcher (maybe top-15).  With it, he's one of the most valuable pitchers in baseball.

The Reds' rotation is currently looking like this:
1. Latos
2. Cueto
3. Leake
4. Bailey
5. Arroyo I guess.
6. Wood/LeCure/Chapman

Latos and Cueto make a very good #1/2, and Leake/Bailey are solid mid-rotation starters if they can last the season.  Arroyo's sort of a disaster, but at least his xFIP was still in the mid-4 range last season.  I still think Wood can contribute something, and wouldn't be surprised to see him take Arroyo's job by the end of the season.

To me, this is an average to above-average rotation.  If coupled with good offense and good fielding, this should result in an above-average Reds ballclub.  And if they get to the playoffs, I feel pretty good having Latos and Cueto going 1 & 2 in the rotation against most rotations in the league.  And that's even acknowledging that I'm pretty skeptical of Cueto's 2011 season.

Does this trade make the Reds good enough to make the playoffs, though?

Last year, the Reds went 79-83 in what was a very disappointing season.  Baseball Prospectus's adjusted standings, however, has them at between 82 and 83 wins depending on which set of data you use (83 wins based on runs scored/allowed, or component stats...82 if you include strength of schedule).  While obviously the win that's on the books is what matters for last season, I tend to think (with some data to back this) that estimated wins are a better forecaster of future team performance.

Let's be simple-headed here.  Latos is essentially slotting in for what was replacement-level performances from Volquez and hopefully some of Arroyo's dreadful outings.  If we assume the rest of the team will perform as it did last year (it won't), and that Latos performs at his typical 3-4 WAR level next year, we can reasonably expect that this deal improves the Reds from an 83ish win team to an 86-87ish win team.

Is that enough?  The Brewers (90-93 wins by BPro-adjusted standings) and the Cardinals (88-90 wins) are both losing big pieces this offseason.  I expect that the Cardinals, at least, will replace Pujols with above-replacement production.  And there's a decent bet that the Brewers will do the same.  The Cardinals lose more by losing Pujols, but then they also are gaining a starter next year in Wainwright.  Therefore, I think that we can ballpark that both teams will drop 4 wins or so off their BPro estimated standings pace

This puts all of three of the Reds, Cardinals, and Brewers in the 85-88 win range.  So we're back to a three team heat to start the 2012 season.  That's where I thought we'd be last season, so this is nice to see.  I guess.

To get the Reds to the point that they are the realistic favorites, however, they really need to add another significant piece.  Unless Mesoraco breaks out in a huge way (and it has to be huge to be an improvement, given how good Hernnadez/Hanigan were last year (~4 fWAR!)), I just don't see a position where the Reds stand to get better next season.  And declines are pretty likely at a few positions: hell, Phillips was a 6-fWAR player last year, which is awesome but quite likely his peak.  The most obvious candidate position for an upgrade is left field, though I will say that you can do worse than running Chris Heisey out there.

I don't know how realistic it is that the Reds could add someone who could make a big difference.  I don't think there's room in the budget for an impact signing, and free agent prices seem kind of crazy to me this offseason (3yr/$31.5 M for Michael Cuddyer?  Wow).  And in terms of trades, who do the Reds have left to deal after this deal?  I can see a team being interested in Travis Wood, but how much will they pay for him?  And is that return enough to ditch the Reds best insurance option in the rotation?  I'd be fine with trading away Juan Francisco or Billy Hamilton, but I think the Reds like them as much as any other team could be expected to.

My guess is that what we have is probably the team we'll see on opening day.  That's a team that can compete.  But I don't think they can be ranked as a favorite.  And frankly, I have this feeling that this team is held together by a shoestring.  I don't see a lot of depth to withstand injury here.  So, we'll hope for the best and see what happens.

I'm done, at least for this year

I feel liberated.  Image via WikipediaA little over a month ago I wrote an impulsive little post describing some of my internal struggles with being a baseball fan, and especially being a fan of a particular team.  Baseball is a game designed to break your heart.  It builds you up, gives you false hope, and then crushes you.  I mean, look at what the poor Pirates fans are dealing with right now with their 10-game losing streak.  The point of the post is that investing emotionally in a team is a tough thing to do, and is usually a thing that will end up causing one anguish.  But I pledged to keep trying.

The Reds have gone 10-12 since the All-Star break, with nearly a third of those victories coming in one series against the Giants.  They've lost series to the Mets (swept!), Astros, and Cubs over the past two weeks.  It's been a rough haul.  It's only a couple of games below .500 in that stretch, but it feels much worse.

I think the one that finally broke me was the Mets.  Part of it was that I was at a work conference that week, so I had the awesomeness of what's going on in my scientific field contrasting with the misery of fandom staring me in the face all week.  And part of it was that it was the Mets, who I still haven't forgiven for 1999.  And part of it, I think, is that it was just time.  The Reds have done nothing to discourage me of this since that Mets series, despite the fun sweep of the Giants that weekend.

As it is, the Reds are 9.5 games out of first place.  There are still two very good teams in front of them.  They are, for all intents and purposes, out of the race.

I still think they are better than they've shown.  I'm going to continue to root for them to get back to .500 by the season's end.  And I will continue to try to do my little series preview bits for Red Reporter whenever I can.  But at this point, I've decided that it no longer matters to me personally if they win or lose.  I'm pulling my emotions out of it.

Instead, I'm going to watch the players I like, and enjoy some of the new faces we'll see.  I'm looking forward to seeing Sappelt play (couldn't watch the game today, though I was glad to see he picked up a hit), and I can't wait to see Devin Mesoraco next month.  There's still a lot to look forward to with this team as they build for a run in 2012.

If you haven't quite given up hope yet--good for you.  Don't let me dissuade you from that.  I'll be back with you next year.

Why fandom?

One of the things that came up in the Reds Blogger Roundtable today was a grade for the Cincinnati Reds' fans.  Generally speaking, the bloggers were not particularly complementary of ourselves.  Too impatient, too much complaining, bitching... etc, etc, etc.

That's probably all true.  I'm not sure that other fanbases are all that different, but I've seen a tremendous about of griping and complaining this year.  I've run across people who use their twitter accounts to do nothing but rant about the team, and put down anyone expresses anything positive about the team.  It really makes one wonder why they even follow the team when it clearly causes them so much anguish.

That's a question I've been asking myself lately.  Following Wayne Krivsky's firing in 2008, I sort of stepped back from the Reds for a while.  I'm always going to be a fan; the team is basically family, and being a Reds fan is a part of my identity.  But it's definitely the case that I didn't pay nearly as much attention to them on a day to day basis during the 2008 and 2009 seasons.  I'm sure I checked the score every day, and watched the few games that came onto TV.  But I was spending at least as much time being a baseball fan as I was being a Reds fan.

Last year, it probably took until July before I really started to believe that this team might win.  That's when I started following every inning again.  And this year, I went all in with an mlb.tv package, which I have used to watch at least part of almost every game this season.

It's been a lot of fun.  But it's also been mind-bogglingly frustrating at times.  Maybe I don't scream quite as loud as some others, but when the Reds are losing it can put me in a pretty negative mood.  There are other things that I enjoy doing besides watching the Reds blow it...things that are pretty much guaranteed to make me happy and put me in a good mood.  So why do I bother?

I guess the answer is that the good times, when they happen, are just so incredibly good that they keep you around during the bad times.  It's sort of like an abusive relationship that way.  But when Jay Bruce hit that home run last September, I don't think I've felt that amazing since I saw Todd Benzinger jumping up and down after he caught the ball in 1990.  At least, not from a baseball game.  That's the kind of payout you're looking for when you emotionally invest in a team.  But when you do it, you also open yourself up to anguish when they utterly and completely fail.

As I write this, the Reds are now parked 4 games behind the Brewdinals.  I'm trying to gear myself up for the second half.  So I look at the numbers, and I see that the Reds' overall performance, as measured by run differential or their component statistics, is right there with those two teams.  And I know that a four-game deficit just isn't that much when there are still two and a half months of games left.  And that the Reds have some terrific depth from which they can deal to upgrade the team.  The Reds' losses have been painful lately...but a couple of big series, and they can be right back in this.

The question is, am I ready to go all in with this team in the second half?  I honestly don't know if I can.  But I'm going to try.

Musings on the World Baseball Classic Expansion

The World Baseball Classic is apparently expanding from 16 to 28 teams.  The wrinkle is that those 12 new teams, plus four of the mainstay countries in the last tournament, will compete in a "play-in" round during Fall 2012.  Four teams will emerge from this round to enter the main tournament in Spring 2013.

So, the teams guaranteed a spot in the Spring 2013 tournament are:
Australia
China
Cuba
Dominican Republic
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
Puerto Rico
United States
Venezuela

They'll be joined by four of:
Canada*
Chinese Taipei*
Panama*
South Africa*
France
Spain
Great Britain
Germany
New Zealand
Colombia
Nicaragua
Brazil
Izrael
Thailand
Czech Republic
Phillipines
* = played in 2009 WBC

The "play-in" teams will be divided into four pools.  I don't know how that is going to work, but here's a guess, simply based on time zone geography:

Americas Brazil Colombia Panama* Nicaragua	Eastern Europe Czech Republic Germany Israel South Africa*
Eastern Asia Chinese Taipei* New Zealand Philippines Thailand	Western Europe Canada* France Great Britain Spain

Obviously the regional names are poorly chosen, as there are countries that don't fit.  But it helped me keep track of things to use a geographic name.  The biggest oddball is Canada, but I unfortunately don't see a way to put it in the "Americas" group with all of those countries being so close to one another.  Aside from that, it makes a lot of sense, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the WBC follow this very scenario.  It also has the advantage of having one "incumbent" team in each group.  Without knowing a lot about international baseball, I'd guess that they also would represent the putative favorites in each pool--although South Africa would seem to be the weakest of the bunch.  There was a small league (for a year) in Israel, and I'm pretty sure that Germany has some kind of semi-pro baseball league.

Anyway, I don't know how this will all shake out, but I enjoy thinking about stuff like this.

Scorecard - 5/29/11 Braves over Reds

Kept score.  It was a fun game to watch, except that the Reds didn't win it.  I don't know if Janish was safe either.

The general state of the Reds fan right now seems to be one of anger and frustration, with a tad of hopelessness.  I feel a bit of that, though at the same time I feel like the team is still showing signs of quality.  They still play good defense.  Their offense is still at least average.  And their pitching, I think, is better than the on-field results indicate.  It doesn't help that 2/5 of the expected rotation is injured (and roughly that ratio has been injured all year), and they're in the middle of this this streak of...what, 34 games in 35 days?  The team still has resiliency, and has good pieces all over the place.  The might just not have enough great pieces.

But all's not lost.  They're only (as I write this) 4.5 games out.  If Arroyo's back is ok, and if Volquez can indeed get at least back to competency, their rotation might finally start to stabilize.  Really, one good winning streak, and the Reds are right back with there with the Cardinals.  Right now, BPro's PECOTA projects the Reds to finish with 82 wins.  THT's Oliver has them at 88 wins.  I think that represents the most likely range of possibilities from here on out...though if they're out of that range, I think they're more likely to miss low than high.

As for me and this site, I think I may try to post here a bit more often for now.  It's fun to have my own place to ramble again, even if no one reads it.  But my main outlets will continue to be at Red Reporter and Rotographs.  Speaking of which, I have started doing series previews at RR.  Last week's was on the Braves, while today's is on the Brew Crew.  I also appeared in FanGraphs Audio last week.  Havin' fun...

Regarding Mudgate: I will read from a prepared statement

I did it. It's all my fault. Yes, the attendant rubbed the balls correctly and thoroughly. But I cleaned them. With soap. And a Snuggie.

I deeply regret my actions and apologise to my family, friends, and the baseball community. I will accept any consequences that MLB/Dave Duncan/Tony La Russa deem appropriate.

This concludes my statement. On the advice of my lawyer, I will not be taking questions.

Thank you.
Justin

My conversation with Neal Huntington and Dan Fox

Ok, that's going a bit far. I was in a room with 50 other people for the Baseball Prospectus event at PNC Park, and they answered two of my questions during the Q&A (the first and last questions of the night!). Like a typical amateur blogger, I was completely unprepared--I brought a camera but not a notebook or recording device (and I didn't use the camera much), and didn't put much thought into composing my questions to be comprehensible (and thus they almost certainly weren't).

But here, at least in spirit, is a summary of the exchange. Please do not interpret any of these things as quotes...but I think, at least, they are not misrepresentations. If anything, I sounded less coherent, and Huntington sounded more coherent. If someone out there who attended can submit any modifications or additions, please do so. My goal is for this to be as accurate as it can be. Maybe there will be some audio on a BPRadio podcast later on where we can confirm some of this.

Me: I'm a big believer in scouting (at this point, Will Carroll made fun of me for being a Reds fan--it was funny). But how do you know that a scout is a good scout? I've asked this of other people and you hear "well, some of these guys have been doing this for a long time and know so much about the game." But what is your process for evaluating a scout to find out whether they really know what they are talking about, or whether they are full of it?

Huntington: It's a good question, and one that has been asked since the advent of scouting departments. It's always going to be subjective. But for me, the way you can identify a good scout is in how he breaks down a player. In my mind, there are probably two different kinds of scouts. The first one sees a player and within a minute decides he likes a player...and then proceeds to dig deeper and find support for that decision. To me, that's more the "old school" type of scout. My preference is for the other type, who will be very methodical in breaking down a player, piece by piece, and then at the end of the process will come to a decision that (motioning with hands) all of these things are adding up and therefore he likes the player.

Me (later, after some discussion of trades and prospect valuation): So how is it that you do break down a player? I mean, I write a blog, and we've gotten to a point that we can do a reasonably good player valuation in our basement (by this, I meant, that we have some objective numbers and methodologies to use when evaluating both MLBers and prospects, like seen here). But I'm wondering if you can talk about the process that you use to take all of your information and assign a number to your player, be it dollars, wins, or whatever unit you want to use. Clearly, you've made a lot of trades lately, and therefore must have this sort of thing down.

Huntington: I don't think we really do ever assign a "number" to a player. We have a lot of internal discussions about how we value a player, but it doesn't come down to a number to the point that there's a dollar figure put on a guy. At least not yet. Dan (Fox)'s information definitely comes into play with this, however, and often helps reign in some of our more outlandish positions.

Fox: Let me just add that something along the lines of what you describe is something we're working towards. But we're not there yet.

(Let me just say, I have absolutely no doubt that Fox, at least, is well aware of the sort of trade evaluations that people are doing in the amateur circuits. In fact, it is very clear from my conversations last night that he and others like him around baseball are constantly poaching the best ideas, methods, etc, that amateur researchers come up with and putting them to good use. My feeling is that they must still do something along the lines of what we do, but that they bring in a lot of other approaches as well to come to a decision on value. ... It's worth noting, however, that when SFiercex4 broke down the Pirates trades this season, he found that they received almost dead-on even value. So, either we're doing something that other teams are doing, or at least we're doing something that is an accurate way to predicting the decisions that teams will come to.)

Some other tidbits from the conversation:

* Huntington thinks that there has clearly been a big shift towards teams putting great value on their top prospects, more so than ever before in the history of baseball. He actually thinks that teams may be over-valuing prospects at this point. (I think they are probably being valued accurately, for the most part, but this is the first time this has happened in baseball history and so it is jarring).

* He also thinks that the competitive balance this year is disappointing. He continues to think that they can succeed, but it's going to be more of a challenge that it would have been 5 years ago. A salary cap would help, he thinks.

* Dan Fox stated that the ultimate goal in baseball analysis, data collection-wise, will be to have a complete digital record of a ballgame: tracking the ball and player position in real time. And we're almost there, as evidenced by the "GPS" software demo we all saw videos of earlier this summer. The question then will be how to mine it; that's where the next great advances in baseball statistics will come from. I hope the public will have access to those raw data...if nothing else, it's in baseball's best interest to let us do that research.

* The Pirates have a no-touch policy for the first six months a player is in the organization. After that time, they may try minor tweaks, but rarely will make huge changes to a player. There was lots of discussion of Tim Alderson in this regard.

----

As for me, it was a really fantastic evening. I got to meet and interact with a lot of folks that I've corresponded with and/or read over the years, including Dan Fox, Eric Seidman (chatted with him most of the game that followed the Q&A session--terrific guy), Will Carroll, Brian Cartwright, and, of course, the newly minted Pizza Cutter, Ph.D. Wonderful experience.

Furthermore, let me say that Neal Huntington is an incredibly impressive person. I'm sure most GM's are when you meet them--I remember Chad having a similar impression of Wayne Krivsky when they met for an interview early in Krivsky's tenure. But he seems like a very direct, no-nonsense person who had a very clear idea of how he felt was the best way to get his organization back on a winning path. It helps, I'm sure, that I agree with him. He talked a lot about the joint role of scouts vs. stats, and about making sure that the process is right, even if mistakes are occasionally made....something I've been talking about a fair bit of late. This kind of venue is precisely the sort of experience that could make a Pirates fan out of someone. I doubt I'll ever quit the Reds, but I sure like the Pirates front office.

I'll add some photos later on, though I didn't take photos of people--didn't want to be the Paparazzi.

Update: Here's Shawn Hoffman's recap of the event. For the record, Brian, I never ridiculed the Pirates' record. :)

If anyone else sees an event recap, please let me know--I'd like to link it.

Why do we bother trying to judge trades as they happen?

There's a tendency in the media and among fans to evaluate trades after the fact. You wait a few years, see which teams win out, and then see which team got the most value.

On the other hand, many of us also like to try to judge a trade as it happens. Everyone does this, some using a qualitative approach and others using a quantitative approach (e.g. my analysis of the Rolen trade). Yet some would say that we shouldn't evaluate a trade until after the fact, as there's just too much uncertainty in trying to forecast the future--and what matters are results, right?

I certainly agree that there are big error bars around quantitative trade analyses. But I still think there's a lot of merit in trying to judge trades as they happen, because it helps us recognize quality moves by GM's--regardless of the eventual outcome. You can make what, by all information available, is a great trade at the time, only to have some bad luck (injuries, etc) derail it in a post-hoc analysis. I still think we should recognize that the GM made a smart move, even if it falls apart later.

Paul DePodesta wrote a great article about this that I've been meaning to link to for a long time. Here's an excerpt:

As tough as a good process/bad outcome combination is, nothing compares to the bottom left: bad process/good outcome. This is the wolf in sheep's clothing that allows for one-time success but almost always cripples any chance of sustained success - the player hitting on 17 and getting a four. Here's the rub: it's incredibly difficult to look in the mirror after a victory, any victory, and admit that you were lucky. If you fail to make that admission, however, the bad process will continue and the good outcome that occurred once will elude you in the future. Quite frankly, this is one of the things that makes Billy Beane as good as he is. He is quick to notice good luck embedded in a good outcome, and he refuses to pat himself on the back for it.

Understanding Surplus Value

Joey Votto is not only the Reds' best player, but also one of their cheapest players. Image by phillenium1979 via Flickr

In the Rolen trade analysis, I spent much of my time evaluating "surplus value" in my assessments of the players involved. This is not the first time I've posted about this, though perhaps it's the highest profile case of this sort. It is, however, becoming a more mainstream approach to analyzing trades (see, for example, Sky's Trade Value Calculator). I thought I'd take a stab at explaining this concept, and how it has been extended to prospect valuation.

The core of it is understanding the connection between player value and payroll.

The major league minimum this year is $400k. You need 25 guys on your team (assuming no injuries, etc...), which means the minimum possible payroll in MLB right now is $10 million ($400k * 25). How well would such a team perform? Well, if you use that $10 million exclusively on free agents, you're not going to get very good players--mostly guys who can't get a job anywhere else, minor league free agents, etc. Those guys are essentially the definition of replacement players, and we generally assume a team full of replacement players will play around 0.350 ball, which amounts to 57 wins per season (you'll see other figures around the 'net--which one you choose doesn't change what I'm about to do qualitatively).

On the other side of the coin are the New York Yankees, who began this season with a $201 million payroll. From other work, we know that each win above replacement cost roughly $4.5 million in last offseason's free agent market. Therefore, if the extra $191 million they're spending above the minimum was invested in free agent salaries, they could reasonably expect to win $191/$4.5 = 42 extra wins above the minimum 57, or 97 wins (for what it's worth, the Yankees are on pace for 99 wins). :)

But take the Tampa Bay Rays. They began the year with a $63 million payroll. That's just $53 million over the minimum payroll. If you invested that extra money in free agents, and filled in the rest with replacement players, you'd expect they'd win another $53/$4.5 = 12 extra wins. That would equal 69 total wins. But they're on pace for 91 wins. How?

The answer, of course, is that their team is not made up of free agents. It is made up of a lot of quality, young players making far less than they would had they signed as free agents. For the first three seasons of a player's career in the major leagues, they make at or close to the league minimum. For the next three seasons after that, they are eligible for arbitration and get raises, but for a variety of reasons still get paid well below what they would as a free agent. As a result, for the first six years of a player's career, they will make less than a free agent regardless of their performance on the field.

Most teams operate under a fairly set budget. The median opening day payroll was about $81 million this year. So if a team has that budget, and spend it all on free agents, you'd expect them to win around 57+16 = 73 games. In order to win more games, teams have to have players who produce value above their salaries. For example, this year, Joey Votto has produced ~2.5 wins above replacement (worth $11.3 million on free agent market), but is making just over league minimum. If you fill your team with those kinds of players instead of replacement players, and still spend $71 million on free agents, you'll obviously win a lot more games.

That's what we're talking about when we talk about surplus value. It's the extra value a player provides above what their salary would bring on the free agent market. The keys to winning, at the club level, is 1) to spend money for good players, and 2) to get players who produce value above what their salary would predict. Most teams can't get by on #1 alone, and the easiest way to do #2 is to get young players making "slave" wages.

This is also what makes prospects valuable commodities. Prospects generally have no or minimal MLB playing time, which means that their "owners" get them for six full seasons when they will make below free-agent market rates. So, the short of it is that if you figure out how much surplus value a typical prospect type provides their team during the first six years (including assessments of how often they provide any value to their team at all--many, of course do not), that gives you a good indication of how much value to assign prospects of that type.

In Zach Stewart's case, I pegged him (as many others do) as a class-B pitching prospect. Pitchers of this sort tend to provide the equivalent of $7.3 million in surplus value over their first six seasons. Another way to think of that is that it's a total of ~1.6 wins above replacement over their first six years (only 0.3 WAR/season). Not particularly inspiring, maybe, but it reflects the fact that many class-B pitching prospects do not pan out for one reason or another. But some do, some provide a little value, and some provide a ton of value. The $7.3 million total is the typical amount of surplus value you can hope to get from such a pitcher.

Anyway, this became rather long. But if anyone made it this far, I hope it helped clarify the underpinnings of this kind of trade analysis.