Johnny Cueto is my favorite kid pitcher

Tonight was the first night I've seen Cueto pitch (via TiVo). Now, I know almost nothing about pitching. I can analyze stat lines, and I can see where a pitch lands vs. where a catcher's mitt is originally located. But I don't know good movement from bad movement, and can only correctly identify maybe (at best) 60% of pitches thrown by pitch type.

But my goodness, I was getting chills watching him. I don't know if I've ever seen a Reds pitcher miss so many bats. Not just the strikeouts--they had more swinging strikes than I've seen in a long time. I'm sure Doug will do some pitchf/x fun with this game.

Mark Grace and Darren Sutton were worshiping him the entire game. Always fun when the opposing team announcers are in love with your favorite kid pitcher. And yes, he's officially my favorite kid pitcher now. :)


Also, I didn't mention it yesterday, but Keppinger sure looks like a good hitter. I see why people are so entranced with him. It was fun to see him go deep tonight...though his power's still the biggest question I have about him this season. Dunn sure has looked good so far too--seems like he has a lot more confidence than I've seen him have in the past. For whatever that's worth.

On the downside, Griffey hasn't looked real good. Not much solid contact, lots of weak ground balls. Not that he got a whole lot to hit. And Freel once again got himself thrown out on the basepaths, and managed to pop up a bunt in a silly count for bunting. I swear, I think he does something stupid every time I see him play.


I'm just loving watching my Reds on TV this week. Part of it's the long offseason, but even so, I just don't get many chances here in Arizona. I'm really looking forward to living in Pirates country so I can see them more throughout the season.

Edwin!!

'Nuff said.

Photo by AP/Tom Uhlman

Can you make a better lineup than Dusty Baker?

As I type this, Opening Day is just over 12 hours away. And with it has come Dusty Baker's first official lineup as a Reds manager, courtsey of John Fay:

Corey Patterson CF
Jeff Keppinger SS
Ken Griffey Jr. RF
Brandon Phillips 2B
Adam Dunn LF
Edwin Encarnacion 3B
Scott Hatteberg 1B
Javier Valentin C
Aaron Harang P

Among the most common (and convincing) critiques of Dusty's managerial tendencies is his selection of leadoff hitters. Statheads "know" that OBP rules all in the leadoff slot, right? Patterson and his PECOTA-projected 0.313 OBP is therefore an awful choice. Right?

I'm pretty sure it is. But I'm not positive, and I'd like to know how big of a deal it is. Fortunately, there's an excellent tool that can answer just this kind of question: John Beamer's Markov model from the Hardball Times 2008 Annual. Because it uses Markov Chains (described here), Beamer's model is a much better approach to understanding the dynamic nature of lineup interactions than simple regression equations (like in David Pinto's oft-cited lineup tool).

So, I'd like to set up a Lineup Showdown! To that end, I'm requesting that each of you reply to this post with two lineups:

1. Your "best" lineup using only Dusty Baker's Opening Day Starting Eight.
2. Your "best" lineup with your pick of players from the Reds' organization.

If you want to submit more or fewer than two lineups (e.g. one vs. righties, one vs. lefties), go ahead. I will take all submitted lineups--along with any others that Baker uses this week--and plug them into Beamer's Markov model, along with 2008 PECOTA projections, and report the results back later this week.

Markov will tell us, for each lineup:
1. Its estimate for how many runs it should produce per game.
2. How many times each batting slot should lead off an inning.
3. Complete run expectancy frequency matrices for every out base & out state.

Should be fun!

Friday Night Links: Goodyear, Stanton, Baker, and more

I thought I'd do another Friday Night Links. Who knows, maybe this'll become a regular feature.

Reds move to Arizona in doubt?

For the first time in this process, we see reports that someone important in Goodyear is not completely on board with the plan to invest $33 million of city funds into the Reds' new spring training facility:

"The issue is the money," said Councilwoman Joanne Osborne, who opposes paying for the new facilities. "It's about priorities. We don't have a downtown. We don't have a library. We don't have the things our citizens have asked for."
...
"I'm for it 100 percent," Councilman Dick Sousa said. "With two teams, and the enthusiasm of two Ohio teams, I think the impact on tourism would be so great over a long haul."

Sousa is one of the three councilmen who is on board with the plan to invest in the Reds' facilities. Osborne, on the other hand, is the sole council member who has come out against the plan, but there are two others who are undecided. If both of the undecided individuals vote against the investment, the Reds' might yet end up back in Sarasota.

I talked a bit about the issue of whether investments in spring training facilities were likely to provide a good return with economist J.C. Bradbury in an interview last month. Here are some relevant sections from that interview:

Question: Sarasota county commissioners recently voted to contribute $17.6 million towards a $41 million renovation of their Florida spring training facility, Ed Smith Stadium. However, their delay in making this decision has resulted in the Reds entering an exclusive negotiation agreement with a Cactus League facility, which lasts through mid-April. Signs are that the Reds will be heading west. Again from the perspective of the cities/counties, to what degree do you think the economic benefits of building and maintaining a spring training facility for a team is worth the cost? Does the ability to attract vacationing fans make spring training facilities a more worthwhile investment?

JCB: It's not like Sarasota won't attract outsiders without spring training visitors. Florida is a nice place to be this time of year. I suspect that the hotels and restaurants will do about the same without the team. I can't imagine that the improvements in Sarasota's stadium will generate enough value in one month to justify nearly $18 million in public subsidies.

Question: Why do you think the Cactus league has been so successful in luring teams--even those not from the West Coast like the Indians and Cubs--away from their former Florida spring training homes?

JCB: I haven't looked at this, but my guess is that they have been able to offer newer and nicer facilities. I suspect that Florida residents know that the tourists will come, with or without baseball, which gives Cactus League hosts an advantage. Taxpayers in Arizona may be more willing to support public subsidies, because they aren't as certain as Florida taxpayers that visitors will come anyway.

I am sure that Sousa is correct that Goodyear would see an increase in tourism in exchange for their investment. But would the return be enough to justify a $33 million? I have to say that if I were on the council, I'd be a bit more inclined to go with the sorts of projects that Joanne Osborne cited.

The vote is set for April 7th, so we'll know by then what the verdict will be.

So Long, Stanton

The Reds have apparently decided to part ways with Mike Stanton. Shame to see the rest of career suddenly in doubt, as he always seemed like a nice guy. Baker had some positive things to say about his character earlier this week.

Still, in making this cut, the Reds opted to let ability, not pride, determine their roster. In so doing, the Reds correctly determined that the $3.5 million they owe Stanton was a sunk cost--already committed no matter what, and therefore irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to keep him o the team. It's not as big of a deal as the Diamondbacks' decision to release Russ Ortiz two years ago (with $22 million left on his contract), but it's always nice to see rational decision-making in the Reds' front office.

In the interest of accountability, this appears to be my first miss of the 2008 season (and I'm sure there'll be more). I wrote this about Stanton in the THT Season Preview 2008:

There were few players who suffered the Reds fans' wrath more than Stanton last year. When signed, there was talk that he would be the co-closer with Weathers. Ultimately, he never got a save, and frankly never seemed to even put together more than a few solid appearances in a row. His peripherals and high BABIP indicate that he was terribly unlucky last season. But he also showed a big increase in his home runs allowed rate, in part due to GABP, and an in part due to a declining GB%. I still think he can be a decent middle-inning lefthanded option, but I also think that someone like Bill Bray or Jon Coutlangus can do about the same job for much lower cost.

I noted his declining GB%, but otherwise still thought he could do the job. Apparently, the Reds disagreed, and I'm guessing that they were right.

Interestingly, though, both Coutlangus and Bray have both been optioned to Louisville in favor of lefties Affeldt (who hadn't signed when I wrote the above passage), Mercker (ditto), and someone named Matt Mike Lincoln...who is now on John Fay's short list to make the big league roster. Go figure.

How much is a manager worth?

Tom Tango had a small comment today on managerial salaries, based on this article in the Wall Street Journal (congrats to David Gassko for the prominent feature):

...Basically, a win is a win is a win. A free agent win is worth 4.4MM, whether that comes directly off the play of the player, or has been “performance enhanced” by his manager. If the average manager gets 2MM, then a manager that can add 1 win should get 6.4MM. Of course, if you have a below average manager, one who gets LESS out of their players than an average manager would, then pay him 1MM.

I talked about Gassko's managerial study from the Hardball Times Annual in this previous post. The surprise finding from that study (at least to me) was that Dusty's players have performed 1.65 wins above expectations per season based on Gassko's model, which included simple aging curves and regression to the mean. The effect was entirely due to his hitters--he was +3.4 wins with hitters, and -1.7 wins with pitchers. And the effect remained (though was reduced, naturally, to ~+1 wins) when Barry Bonds was removed from the dataset.

Granted, there are other aspects to being a manager--particularly strategic decisions. But I think a lot of fans discount Baker's ability to motivate players, which seems genuinely exceptional from what I've heard and seen of him. And I've yet to see a good study that assesses differences in managerial strategic skill in a rigorous way. Doesn't mean that Baker's not deficient in that area (I'm not real excited about Mr. Patterson hitting leadoff, for example), just means that I don't know how to assess this right now.

So, if we can accept that Baker's approximately a +1 to +1.5 wins manager, then we can value his performance in the current free agent market as $4.4 to $6.6 million per season. The Reds are paying him $3.5 million...so I'd say that if he's worth half of what Gassko's study suggests he's worth, then he's being paid appropriately.

Sergio Valenzuela sold by Braves to Mexico

I think I saw this on a Braves blog originally, but forgot to save the link and now I can't find that post. But the Reds' Rule 5 draft pick, Sergio Valenzuela, was flipped to the Acereros de Monclova, a Mexican League team, for future cash considerations almost immediately after the Reds sold him back to Atlanta. You can see him listed on their roster here. I guess the Acereros were willing to pay more than the $25k the Braves had to return to the Reds to get Valenzuela?

I'm pretty sure that this is an independent triple-A team. ... which surprises me, as I didn't know that a player could be traded outside of the major & minor league system.

I have to think that the Reds could have afforded whatever the Acereros were willing to pay for Valenzuela. Which must mean that they were thoroughly unimpressed with him in spring training. "J" Harrison, who is listed as the Reds' Director of Pro Scouting, was the guy who scouted Valenzuela in the winter and came away so impressed. I'd love to be a fly on the wall for wall for some of the conversations that must have preceded the Reds decision to sell Valenzuela back...

Another Reds' Blog!

It seems like I stumble upon a new Reds blog every day. This one is the Big Red Latrine, and is written by fellow south-westerner rmul. It's clearly in the humor category, and has had some pretty fun stuff over the past week.

Also in the humor category is Reds Rocket, which was an absolutely bizarre read all last season. Tim Timmons has recently started posting again. Right now he's doing a preview of the roster, and has been having a good time with photoshop (as usual). Somehow, every time I read Tim's blog I always hear this guy in my head.

Brandon "Taco" Phillips

Finally, with a hat tip to studes, here's a great story about an interaction between Brandon Phillips and a fan. I love seeing this kind of stuff. And I continue to really like our second baseman. Hopefully he won't implode this year.

RedsPitchF/x.com

Doug Gray of redsminorleagues.com has started a new blog, redspitchfx.com. His goal is to do something with pitchf/x data every day in the coming season. Sounds ambitious, but Doug's pretty good about keeping his other blog updated. Even something once a week would be pretty exciting through.

I really don't like "sabermetrics"

Dave Studeman posted his first column of the season today. Let's all take a moment to do a happy dance. :) Tom Tango has called his Studeman's "10 Things I Didn't Know Last Week" column the "Best Column in Sports," and I think he's right. Studeman always has insightful comments on baseball news and research from around the web, and does some excellent work in his own right. He's a fantastic communicator and a tremendous asset to our community.

The first thing that Dave talks about in this new column is the identity and meaning of the term "sabermetrics." I think he's right that it's about the search for truth...or, as I like to put it, understanding. Bill James once defined it as "the search for objective knowledge about baseball," which I think is a great definition. That search involves both process (the context with which we search), and the products (our findings). I have no disagreement with anything in Dave's article.

However, I do have a beef with the use of the term "sabermetrics." We talked about this a bit in the comments of this post, but I think it's a terrible, counterproductive term that should be flat-out dropped. Here is my comment about this in response to Studeman's article, posted on ballhype:

While I know this is probably a minority opinion, I really dislike--almost despise--the term "sabermetrics." Maybe it's just because I didn't grow up with Bill James. But that term has always sounded both pompous and half-baked to me--like we're trying to claim some kind of grand authority or officiality by coming up with an official-sounding name for what we do.

I think at least part of the backlash against "sabermetrics" has as much to do with that name as anything else. I've occasionally interacted with a local reporter in Cincinnati for some stat-inspired articles on the Reds over the past year, and one thing I've tried to stress (as have the other folks like me who have contributed to these articles) is to try to avoid calling us sabermetricians. I don't want to give people that as a reason for ignoring some of the ideas we advocate.

I'd much prefer it if everyone just called what we do what it is--baseball research. There's nothing really special about it...we're just searching for better understanding of how the game works. -j

Anyway, there you have it.

New WBC news

Some of the first tangible news of the 2009 World Baseball Classic was announced yesterday. I had a blast watching the last tournament (I'll sprinkle a few pictures into this post that I took when attending the first US v. Mexico game), and it looks like this next one will be even better.

There were two big news items in yesterday's announcement:

No More Tiebreakers!

This bit of news has gotten a bit less play, but I think it's probably the most exciting thing in the announcement: at least in the first round, teams will use a double-elimination format to determine who advances similar to that used in the NCAA baseball tournament. This format should also allow clear and simple seeding moving into the next round.

This new format, of course, occurs instead of the round-robin with tiebreaker format of the last Classic. The tiebreaker was something of a pet peeve of mine, and switching to a double-elimination format is something I advocated back in '06. The problem was that the tiebreaker, which was stupidly just runs scored (not even run differential), determined who advanced in 33% of the pools in the last Classic. Ridiculous.

A double-elimination format is a much better fit for a baseball tournament because it puts the emphasis on winning games, not scoring runs. A team will always be alive in the tournament until the final play of that last game. That's what baseball is all about, baby!

Round 1 locations and brackets announced

Here's the first round:

• Playing in Tokyo: China, Chinese Taipei, Japan, South Korea
• Playing in Mexico City: Australia, Cuba, Mexico, South Africa
• Playing in Toronto: Canada, Italy, USA, and Venezuela
• Playing in San Juan: D.R., Netherlands, Panama, and Puerto Rico

I like that they're switching up the brackets. Last time, the US played Mexico and South Africa in the first round. Bringing Venezuela up to the USA bracket sets up the possibility of a later showdown between the Dominican Republic and Venezuela, which is a match-up of high-caliber teams with a great rivalry. It also introduces a serious competitor in the USA's bracket, which was not (supposed to have been) the case in the previous tournament.

Japan and Cuba seem to have the easiest path through the first round, which is appropriate given that they played in the final game of the last Classic. Japan will probably always play the other three Asian countries in the first round, so that's no surprise. Cuba, on the other hand, does have to deal with the decent Mexican team, but they also get to play against two lower-tier teams in Australia and especially South Africa.

In contrast, the Toronto and San Juan brackets are a bit more challenging. Both feature two top-tier teams (USA and Venezuela, and Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico), a legitimate second-tier team (Canada and Panama), and a lower-teir team to beat up on (Italy and the Netherlands). I think that's a nice balance across the four brackets.

Also, there are some good, historically-meaningful match ups in the first round. South Korea gave Japan a run for their money last time, so that should be a fun way to start the tournament. And the battles between the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico is always fairly heated. And Canada beat the USA team in the first round last time, so I would hope that the lackadaisical US team might have something to prove this go around.

...

Anyway, looks like a great start to the next tournament. Let's hope that they get some decent television coverage this year, both in terms of budgeted time as well as announcer preparation. If they do that, we should be in for exciting times next spring.

Hat tip to David Pinto.