Cliff Lee: Welcome to Philadelphia
by David S. Cohen on Jul 29, 2009 5:01 PM EDT
94 comments
The Phillies have acquired an AL team's ace, and his name is Cliff Lee. For a very good package of minor league prospects, the Phillies now have the 2008 Cy Young Award winner.
Welcome to Philadelphia Cliff. Now here's one piece of advice: don't believe what you hear about Citizens Bank Park. It's a slightly hitters-friendly ballpark, and has been for a while now. But, it's not the bandbox it once was and that the media still believes it is.
Still, it's a very different stadium than your previous home stadium - Progressive (Jacobs) Field. In fact, even though CBP isn't a bandbox, it might seem like one in comparison.
Although not the best park factors out there, ESPN's are the most readily available in season. Here's how the two stadia compare so far this year. Numbers above 1.00 indicate the park increases that stat; numbers below 1.00 indicate a decrease:
| Rank | City | R | HR | H | 2B | 3B | BB |
| 10 | Philadelphia | 1.06 | 1.07 | 1.02 | 1.08 | 1.07 | 1.11 |
| 28 | Cleveland | 0.84 | 0.69 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.55 | 0.94 |
Lee's previous home park decreased run scoring by 16% whereas now he'll be pitching somewhere that increases it by 6%. CBP increases homeruns only by 7%, but that's almost 40% more than Progressive. The other drastic difference is in triples, where CBP increases them by 7%, but 52% more than Progressive.
Lee's career home/road splits indicate he's taken advantage of Progressive. His career home ERA is 3.80, whereas his career away ERA is 4.22 Last year's Cy Young campaign showed the same thing -- 2.45 at home versus 2.61 on the road. But his career WHIP is actually better on the road - 1.31 compared to 1.32.
It's hard to imagine that Lee won't feel the effects of CBP compared to Progressive. However, with the change in offense behind him, the park change likely won't matter in the results of games.
0 recs |
94 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
But as with all stats that is not the whole story. CBP has Howard, Utley and company banging away every night.
What was Jacobs field like when they had Thome, Ramirez, Belle…….
I would not read into that very much. To me it not a very good indicator.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 5:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You would have to look more at the oppositions numbers at Jacobs fields. Then you would have to look at the power number of the AL Central and weight the numbers accordingly since the play AL Central opponents every night. Playing the Tigers and Royals 18 times vs 7 times against the Yankees and Red Sox would skew those numbers further.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Irrelevant
Who plays in the park on the home team is irrelevant, as long as the same players play for the team when they’re on the road.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 29, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am right.
If you actually did your home work then you would have found that Jacobs Field was the most homer friendly Park in 2001 with an HR rating of 2.031. That was when they had Thome, Ramirez… etc
Again it is a flawed stat…..
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or the park changed
Just like CBP did from its early days.
Your arrogance is very unbecoming.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 29, 2009 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did my homework found an honest counter example to the conclusion of your article and the best you can do is call me arrogant?
WOW!!
The point is that if ESPN’s ball park HR stats vary that much the statistical deviation is far too large for the stat to be worth anything… In other words it says more about the strength of the players and the schedule than anything meaningful about the ball park.
To have a range from a 2.031 to a .69 again means that these stats are worthless as far as a proper indicator of ball park effects. The dimension have not changed and the climate has not changes that much so that indicator has to reflect something else.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It certainly has NO reflection on the hitters as you have proposed. The Indians AND their opponents have hit 70+ HRs on the road and 40+ homers at home. The same hitters hitting in the same places. I don’t know why the park factor has changed (I haven’t looked, so that may be giving you too much credit) but it has NOTHING to do with the hitters.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 9:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and to boot, you are CLEARLY stating ONE outlier as the truth. What a ridiculous concept.
HR effect Progressive Field:
2001: 2.031
2002: 1.049
2003: 0.719
2004: 0.742
2005: 0.867
2006: 0.866
2007: 1.104
2008: 0.824
2009: 0.963
Clearly the park doesn’t like homeruns much at all. 2001 seems to be a complete statistical anomoly and 2007 and 2002 seem to be outliers as well, but at least make more sense than 2001.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 9:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks jonk
Exactly what he said. The point is that the same players on the Indians play at home and on the road, and yet in most of the years listed, they hit many more home runs on the road than at home. That’s a park factor for you.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 29, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But there is more to it that that. You have to weigh the strength of the schedule when you have an unbalanced schedule. You also have to factor in the amount of games in which ballparks that they play. Otherwise the model is woefully incomplete and the statistics meaningless.
At that point you become nothing more than Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh just throwing around loose data to suit your particular needs.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The unbalanced schedule? For the most part they play the exact same number of games in their opponents stadiums that they do at home (by that I mean 10 at home against the White Sox and 9 in Chicago). The only difference may be with interleague, but it is small and has NOTHING to do with your premise about Albert Belle and Jim Thome.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is not true at all. The Phillies this year play “roughly” nine games each on the road at Atlanta (pitchers park), Mets (pitchers park), Florida (average), Nats (no one knows yet). The Cubs however play at STL, PIT, CIN, HOU, and MIL 9 times each. They also play at a complete different set of inter league opponents.
So their road schedule “very roughly” overlaps about 65 percent. The other 35 percent is different. That is what I mean about weighting things.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It is like when a journalist loosely throws around data such as Dallas has the lowest average price of a home. But that is a disingenuous statement because the home prices are artificially depress because of the extreme property taxes you have to pay.
The true measure is home pricing or affordability which measures monthly payments based on mortgage + property taxes + home owners insurance.
Journalists throw around data all of the time with really looking at the model from 30,000 ft.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 10:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be nice if your analogies actually had to do with what we are talking about. We all know there are 10000000 statistics out there. The numbers themselves have no value. It is the logic behind their usage that matters. Please, take this into consideration as you peruse this site as we expect people to have a basic understanding of what we talk about. It is ok not to, as long as you are willing to learn.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What is your background in math anyway? Do you have one? Think of it like this…
Phils play the Braves in CBP 10 times. Both teams hit 25 homers in those games combined.
Phils play the Braves in Atlanta 9 times and hit 16 HRs in those games.
Those are “roughly” the same numnber of games played by the almost exact same teams under the exact same conditions. Park factors then compare what a team does at home versus what it does on the road. The quality of your hitters OR your competition has no factor at all. Doesn’t matter. If you need me to explain this more, I’ll be happy to.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 10:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a Masters Degree in Mathematics. I would like to discuss with you the virtues of probabilistic measure theory, Wavelets, C
- Algebras, the adjoint of operator, or the Hahn Banach Theorem with you someday.
Players do have a factor. If one year the Philies have a staff that leans heavily on sinker ball pitchers (Kevin Brown) and two years later they have a staff full of fly ball pitchers (Lefty ), they may equally do well on the road but at CBP the staff full of Kevin Brown clones will do much better then the Staff full of Carlton clones.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good, so then I want to assume you are willing to put your math background to use, rather than use subjective analysis to screw everything up.
Aren’t the Kevin Browns AND the Steve Carltons pitching at home and on the road? The only player to only pitch at home that I know of is Roger Clemens. If Brown’s heavy sinker depresses HR totals at CBP by 15% one year, it will ALSO suppress HR totals in opponent’s parks by 15% as well. He is pitching at home AND on the road. Players remain a constant and can be removed from both sides of the equation. You don’t need a math degree to figure that out. All we are looking at is the difference between how the team hits on the road versus at home.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roger Clemens NEVER pitched only at home. He only would show up at home during his off days the last two years with the Astros. He would still pitch on the road but would be absent on the bench on his days off..
If you can’t get that right there is no use arguing any further.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 11:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice strawman there genius. But if that was the out you wanted to use in order to not continue this conversation, then so be it. I don’t want you to embarass yourself anymore.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 30, 2009 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
He also claims to work in theoretical physics
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 30, 2009 9:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a Masters Degree in Mathematics
At this point I have to assume your degree is from Clown College (technically I guess it would be Clown University to be able to offer graduate degrees?), or else be very sad about the state of higher education in this country.
by phatj on Jul 30, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Google indicates a B.A. in math from UNC-Asheville, but can’t find evidence of an M.A.
by taco pal on Jul 30, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well that’s kind of spooky – i wonder if my ‘degrees’ are floating out there on the interweb – and no mention of that theoretical physics?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 30, 2009 12:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. I’m not saying this disproves anything, just that I can’t find the evidence.
I’m not going to say anything further than that though, as I think that would violate internet etiquette.
by taco pal on Jul 30, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dunno, you basically told us how to make cookies, gave us a taste and then said you’ll not gives us the rest though all the ingrdients are there in our house and we can make them ourselves.
What a long and usless analogy…
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 30, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Cubs only play at Turner Field, a perceived pitchers park , 3 times one year and fours times the next.
Also one year one division is pitching poor and 4 years down the road they are pitching rich. With uneven schedules those things matter.
I seriously doubt that the differences in schedule are taken into account. The point is the true model is far more complex than the one that is in play by ESPN.
I would give more credence to Dynasty Baseball’s or Strat-o-matic Baseball’s Ball Park factors than ESPN’s. They are in the Statical analysis business.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 11:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There may be minor issues with basic home versus road differences, but for basic purposes, it is how it should work. It doesn’t matter the quality of pitching as it is a constant at home AND on the road. We are likely to face Greg Maddux the same amout in Philly as we do in Atlanta. That is all that matters.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But the Cubs do not face Maddux the same amount of times on the road as the Phillies. That makes it important that you weigh these other factors.
In fact when the Braves had their kick ass pitching staff, unlike every other team in the NL the Braves hitters never had to face the Braves Pitchers. To have a complete Model you have to take that into account as well.
In other words if the Phillies had the worst pitching in the NL and the Braves had the best the Phillies would be facing, on average, better pitchers than the Braves would be facing.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you even know what ESPN’s methodology is? If so, explain what you think it is. Please cite the sources on which you base your understanding of that methodology. Then and only then, please point out exactly which parts of that methodology you find problematic.
There are sources other than ESPN that calculate park factors as well. Have you examined any other calculations? What do they say about Progressive Field? Are they or are they not roughly consistent with ESPN’s?
by taco pal on Jul 30, 2009 12:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why are you arguing with such religious fervor. Are you an ESPN stockholder?
I do not trust a house of journalist with a statistical Model such as this. I have pointed enough statistical deviations with their stats to call BS!
The fact that one year Olympic Stadium was number 15 in Ballpark HR effect to #1 in 2003 to 24 in 2004 shows that the deviation is too high for their stats to be taken seriously.
You tell me how a domed stadium, where climate has no effect, goes from average to ultimate band box to pitcher friendly in three years?
The problem is that ESPN uses simple arithmetic in their calculations. The folks at Strat-o-Matic actually have a staff of real statisticians making their game….I simply trust SOM a hell of a lot more because their livelihood is attached to the statistical accuracy of their game.
Karl Ravich does not get fired if the PF is flawed.
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
YES- The model is not perfect and simple arithmetic cannot give you exact representations for something as complicated as park factors, but your reasoning (Thome, power hitters etc contributed to their parks inflated park rating) is completely wrong.
Read this.
You will see the formula used (if you don’t already know it) and see that the point everyone here is making is correct— The factors you’re saying contribute to the deviations will have a negligible effect on the park factors.
The real noise will come from other things (most of which are explained in the link given).
by phils11 on Jul 30, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Go this web site. They back up my assertions.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/home-run-park-factor-a-new-approach/
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
(Aside to everyone except bluejfk: HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!)
by taco pal on Jul 30, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amazing, truely amazing there are people as oblivious as this.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 30, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That’s an odd response, seeing as how I actually didn’t make any argument at all, let alone one with “religious fervor”. All I did was ask you to explain ESPN’s methodology, since you think it’s so flawed. Why are you avoiding that question? If you really have a sound basis for criticizing the methodology, it shouldn’t be that difficult for you to explain what it is.
The fact that there is a wide variance in results in the case of Olympic Stadium is actually not a very persuasive criticism of the methodology as a whole. That kind of thing is actually quite common in the field of statistics, and does not necessarily show that there’s anything wrong with the model. But maybe you just don’t understand stat.
by taco pal on Jul 30, 2009 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
IF you do not believe me than how about Harvard Professors
The study of Park Factors (PF) is essential to the correct evaluation of player performance in Major League Baseball. We have identified two important problems with the commonly used formula which has been popularized by ESPN: it produces variable results due to unbalanced scheduling, and it has an inherent inflationary bias.
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that the solution is more of an exercise of dynamical systems than statistics…
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
THIS MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL….AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 30, 2009 9:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then the ESPN model is replete with what you call outliers. In 2003 Olympic stadium was number one while the previous year they were 15th and the following year 24th.
This type of deviation is true with a lot of the ball parks. so you have a stadium which had a dome and that much deviation. The dimensions of the park did not change, the climate conditions did not change (as I recall the last few years the expos existed the mechanism to open the roof was broken) so it has to be factor other than “ball park effect”.
To go from 1.539 to .850 is one hell of a deviation.
Again the model is flawed…..
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What model? There are data points. You can claim there is no correlation, which I am not comfortable with doing. What I do know is that 6 of the last 7 years are SIGNIFICANTLY lower than league average. And none of it is based on the big boppers as you originalyl suggested.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 10:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It make the model even more complex to compare a team from one league to a team from another. The Indians have in common only 36 games with that of the Phillies due to inter league play. In other words using basic arithmetic and fractions does not cut it.
You might have to specialize in dynamical systems to figure this one out.
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes the model is flawed...
But your reasoning is not even close.
Read this
It points out the significant sources of statistical “noise”
by phils11 on Jul 30, 2009 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If only you knew how they calculated park effects…
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not just change in offense, but change in defense. When I was breaking out those splits vs. potential playoff opponents, I was really surprised by how many of the runs he’s allowed were unearned. He’s going to enjoy having our defense behind him.
by dajafi on Jul 29, 2009 5:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1. Was going to make the same point.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 29, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
HMMM
I think Cliff Lee makes us a better team and tightens our Grip on the NL east lead.
However in a short series against the Giants, which might be our first round opponent, A Lincecum, Cain vs Hamels and Lee could be trouble. However Hamels has proven that he brings his game up a level for the big ones.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 5:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The thing is, this season we’ve been lighting up many team’s aces.
by myrestingpulse_121bpm on Jul 29, 2009 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair consideration, but there’s a long way to go before matchups are set. The weekend will be fun to see. The question the Giants have is how they score runs.
Halladay just gave up a HR in Seattle. Has to kinda suck to be him this week, but for the adulation and lots and lots of money.
by Wet Luzinski on Jul 29, 2009 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the giants offense is scary
The giants aren’t winning the Wildcard…I’ll bet on it
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 29, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants just aquired Sanchez from the Pirates. Maybe they are in a buying mood
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose so – of course that’s been clear for weeks now – and when they acquired garko – but hey – thanks
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 29, 2009 7:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Giants proposition is a joke right?
Oh ur good
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 29, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does the DH play into this?
Although Lee will lose the benefit of Progressive, won’t that be offset by not facing a DH?
by PhillyPhantastico on Jul 29, 2009 5:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
Wondered about this 2 or 3 sentences in.
by andyreidswaistline on Jul 29, 2009 5:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, to some extent
Something to look into to fully understand the effects of switching from Cleveland to Philly.
by David S. Cohen on Jul 29, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is not as much an effect of being in Progressive. ESPN does not weight the stats properly. THe AL Central is an offensive anemic division compared to past years.
In 2001 Jacobs field was the most homer friendly park with a 2.031 HR rating. I doubt the name change had anything to do with the difference so maybe it has something to do with the difference of not having Thome, Ramirez ,….etc on your roster.
It is a flawed stat.
by bluejfk on Jul 29, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not that it refutes your point, but Manny was already off the team by 2001.
by Toxicadam on Jul 30, 2009 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
JP Ricciardi
How big of a fool does Ricciardi look like right now? He can take his slicked back NY-style haircut to the unemployment office very soon. Way to go Ruben
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Jul 29, 2009 6:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m happy with this move. I think we gave up appropriate prospects. An upcoming servicable catcher, a middling MI, a potential ace if he can get his head screwed on right, and a low level pitching prospect.
None of which mortgages the future or hurts our chances this year, but helps invigorate the indians farm system.
My only question is….now we’re gonna have 7 starters.
Hamels/Lee/Happ/Blanton/Moyer with Lopez and Martinez in the wings…right?
You can’t really push Jamie aside, can you? Lopez has been pitching very well. Happ’s been awesome. Hamels and Blanton have been good too…who loses out here?
by Bilzo on Jul 29, 2009 6:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been wondering about this myself. For now, with Durbin, Romero, and Condrey on DL the bullpen could used Lopez and maybe Happ(?). Once D,R,C are back they have “too much” pitching. Which is crazy considering 2 months ago they were starving for it. Plus Myers wants back in to the Pen. So rotation of Hamels/Lee/Blanton/Moyer/Pedro(?). If Pedro sucks for one inning Happ is back in. Some guys just can’t go out of pen (Moyer).
by Sept.28.Oct.27.Dec.28.2008 on Jul 29, 2009 6:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What’s the run support Lee got in cleveland like compared to ‘avg’ run support for a phillies starter?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 29, 2009 7:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I have him on my fantasy team
Except for some sucking at the beginning, most of his losses are because of Cleveland’s ineptitude and horrible team
by Willgfass on Jul 29, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why do you want to know? to compare his W/L record?
by Clyde Simmons on Jul 29, 2009 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does Lee have a major league AB? Just wondering.
by Ritty77 on Jul 29, 2009 7:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, he’s 2-32 lifetime in interleague play. He’s a masher, that guy.
*sigh*
by zempf on Jul 29, 2009 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
.063 – 2 hits in 32 ABs 1 walk, 12ks
by PhilliesPhan610 on Jul 29, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for the record – 2 for 4 with a double and a run scored in his first game for the Phillies.
by phillyinportland on Aug 1, 2009 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
does anyone know when he is expected to join the team? Tomorrow?
by Ben16 on Jul 29, 2009 7:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
interesting hypothetical for phillies fans
since the pathetic indians couldn’t pry away even 1 of your top 4 prospects (i’m including happ), this means amaro could conceivably turn back to toronto and trade for halladay as well.
but would you guys support that? obviously you’d lose a lot of good, young, homegrown star-caliber players but with that rotation you’re all but guaranteeing a three-peat.
by robcast23 on Jul 29, 2009 8:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You win the world series 4-2 just as much as you win 4-0. There is no need to wipe our system when we already have the pieces in place to win.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You do not guarantee a three-peat. The playoffs are basically a crapshoot. The better team loses all the time. Making that trade from Halladay now would be idiotic.
by taco pal on Jul 29, 2009 10:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I will dare to sy that the better team usually wins, ie- over 50%.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 10:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, yes. Just to be clear in case anyone thinks this was serious, when I said “all the time” I was using that phrase in the colloquial sense, not to suggest that the better team loses 100% of all playoff series.
by taco pal on Jul 29, 2009 11:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually, I was more thinking you were implying a 50/50 split…focusing on a crapshoot. I think it is likely more a 60/40 split where the best team wins 50% more often than the lesser team.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 29, 2009 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Could be. I’m sure there are precise stats out there somewhere. The point is that I think it’s a lot closer to 50% than most people seem to believe intuitively.
by taco pal on Jul 29, 2009 11:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is that the dynamics to win a division crown are not necessarily the same dynamics to win a playoff series.
One is a marathon and the other is a sprint!!
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 12:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why not Halliday?
So, I know it wont happen and the money makes it a no go. However, why not trade Happ and Drabek now and get Halliday? Think about it; Halliday, Hamels, Lee, Blanton, and Pedro or Moyer with the possibility of Brett filing the 5 slot in September.. This would turn out to be the best team in the past 30 years in baseball. I say pull the trigger!
by Scott H on Jul 30, 2009 12:58 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
HERE HERE!!
Although I would rather use Brett M as closer insurance…
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still think either Lidge’s knee is not 100 percent or he has can not mental commit to it just yet.
Myers on the other hand is committed or at least he should be ;)
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 1:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
From the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports
http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol4/iss2/4/
“Although it is difficult to fully escape mathematical error, the frequency and
the obviousness of the errors leads one to question how much thought ESPN has
put into their methodology as well. Their figures have been so widely referenced
by sportswriters and statisticians alike that it is astounding such errors have per-
sisted. To give an example for how severe these errors are, especially with the
intrinsic biases of the model, ESPN still shows that Oakland’s park factor was
1.357 in 2001, 0.703 in 2002, and 0.515 in 2003, despite there having been no
alterations to McAfee Coliseum in this century. Such numbers are totally unreal-
istic, and we have corrected their errors for the comparisons in this paper as the
focus here is to compare estimation formulae and not calculator input errors.”
So Taco Pal and jonk….. Any comments???
The cool thing is that my background is in theoretical mathematics and not applied. I took two courses in Theoretical Probability in grad school but my focus was on Functional Analysis and Von Nuemann Algebra’s (the mathematical foundation to Quantum Mechanics)
I am just glad that my observations where right on the money and I found these boys to back me up.
When I am wrong I will admit when I am wrong.
This time I am right!!
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 1:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The part of the article that you excerpt is not about ESPN’s methodology at all. It’s about errors in data entry that were on the website at the time the article was written. The fact that you would quote that part of the article to support a supposed methodological objection indicates to me that you didn’t understand what the article said.
The article makes some interesting points, but they seem to be consistent with what’s in the Hardball Times article, which, as phils11 has already explained, does not support your reasoning. (It was absolutely hilarious that you would link that article back to phils11 in your very next comment, which suggests that you didn’t even read phils11’s comment before you responded to it.) In any event, even the article doesn’t say that the ESPN park factors are “not worth anything.” What it says is that the ESPN park factors have too much variance and an inflationary bias. If anything the Progressive Field park factor that that would call into question the most is the 2.031 from 2001, not the subsequent seven-plus years worth of roughly consistent park factors under 1. The “true” park factor would still, in all likelihood, be under 1, just by less so (but then, all other pitchers’ ballparks would have park factors closer to 1 as well).
by taco pal on Jul 30, 2009 1:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They actually make my point exactly
“Each American League team has a Neutral Park Adjustment (NPA), which is
a weighted average of all the AL parks in which a team plays in a season.
This calculation in Equation 8 is much more accurate for analyzing statistics than
purely looking at a team’s home Park Factor. For example, the Texas Rangers,
whose Park Factor is one of the highest in the league at 1.127, happen to have the
only hitters park in the AL West. When all the games played in Seattle, Anaheim,
and Oakland are considered, as well as the rest of the Rangers’ schedule, the
Rangers’ NPA drops to 1.058. "
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 1:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
What does ANY of this have to do with lineups or pitchers who played in the park?
This was your initial inflamatory and completely incorrect quote:
“CBP has Howard, Utley and company banging away every night.
What was Jacobs field like when they had Thome, Ramirez, Belle…….
I would not read into that very much. To me it not a very good indicator."
Ignoring that Ramirez wasn’t on that team (and I won’t sink to the stupidity of saying that it isn’t worth arguing with you solely for that mistake), ALL THOSE GUYS PLAYED ON THE ROAD AND HIT HOMERUNS THERE TOO!!!! Nobody is saying that park effects are perfect. However, enough data will point to trends even without an equation. Just stop saying it has anything to do with the hitters or the pitchers.
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 30, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually you missed the one big point that I was also trying to make is that the above article used a snapshot of this year to make a statement of the differences between parks. The journal entry is trying to state that you can really only have a solid model if you basically do linear regressions over years of data. But the relocation of teams and formation new ball parks makes that type of analysis difficult.
I still feel that this is more of a chaotic model in that you have to take into account a lot more variables to paint a true picture of what is truly happening. For example right now you have a cooler than average summer in the midwest and north east while the south west is an oven. The ball carries further in hotter weather but it also carries further when it is more humid (given that the balls are the same)
The point is that with all of these variables the model is really far more complex and really should be done by the dynamical systems folks not the statisticians (chaos theory)
Side note: Humid air is less dense drier air since H20 weighs less than o2 or n2. In Colorado they put balls in humidors so that the ball has more bite as it spins through thus allow for more movement. The ball carries just the same but the pitches are less flat.
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 1:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Here is one last example of why you can not take just one years data and make a conclusion about something like ball park factors.
1973 was a weird year. The NL east had 1 winning team yet the Phillies were in last place on 11.5 out.
5 out of the 6 teams that were above the league average in runs scored came from the west. Yet the NL East had a better overall ERA. THere was a unbalanced schedule back there. you played each team in your division 18 times and each team in the other division 12 times.
So did the NL East have a better ERA because they had better pitchers or because they were pitching to weaker hitters more frequently. Of course this has an application to PF. From a snapshot of one year you simple can not generalize about one park vs another.
Overall,yeah I believe CBP is more hitter friendly than Progressive. But the difference is not as much as the ESPN 2009 numbers in the article above indicate.
by bluejfk on Jul 30, 2009 2:06 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Only YOU took one year’s data. You took 2001 despite the fact that all subsequent years were near 1.000 or WELL below it. Oh my gawd!!!!
For Who? My teammates.
For What? To Win.
How Much? Where do I sign?
by jonk on Jul 30, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the winner for wordiest troll of the year is?
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 30, 2009 9:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
effective troll is effective
by CoburnsCuddleBuddy on Jul 30, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most trolls are effective for a time until they are identified as truly a troll…then they (mercifully) fade away until a new one shows up – it seems that troll attraction may be proportional to popoularity traffic as the troll postings seem to be increasing recently as more ‘new folk’ are showing up – that USA Today article just didn’t help :)
Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned
by jemagee on Jul 30, 2009 8:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
“It’s not that they’re less popular, it’s that their appeal has become more selective!”
/Spinal Tap
http://www.thegoodphight.com
by WholeCamels on Jul 31, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
