Since discovering Wins Above Replacement, I've had basically two ambitions: one, to create an uber-stat which I could use to combine peak and career weight when having a Hall of Fame discussion. I believe I've already done that with WARSCOR, particularly in its new revision (though it's admittedly much more convoluted than the Hall of Stats or JAWS methodologies). The second goal I've had is to make calculating WAR a simpler process. In other words, to be able to calculate it myself quickly and efficiently. Well, I'm here to say that, while I haven't quite "done it," I've gotten much, much closer. I now have a very good (and reasonable, I think) way to calculate WAR for offense and for pitching. Defense, not so much, but that's okay (and we'll explore what that might look like, if there ever were such a thing, at the end of this post). This is a start. It doesn't really do that, but it does give you a way to compare offensive players to pitchers by giving them a "won-lost" record which matches up with a pitcher won-lost record - in other words, there are 162 decisions for the pitchers, but also 162 "decisions" for the hitters.
You may recall my last post that I used ERA+ to give relievers a "record." Well, we're not going to worry about Fibonacci wins like I did in that post (though you'd certainly be welcome to play with them, if you feel like it). But the rest of the methodology stays the same, pretty much. Except that now, we're going to be comparing to replacement level. So, what is a reasonable replacement level? How about, just picking something out of the air, .310? If you'd like to use something different, you're welcome to it. Just follow the same steps, only with a different product side of the equation. We have to find out that, if a team's run prevention and run scoring are equally bad (compared to average), what would they be for a .310 winning percentage? The equation looks like this:
(100-x)^2 - 31
(100-x)^2 + (100+x)^2 - 100
100(100-x)^2 = 31(100-x)^2 + 31(100+x)^2
69(100-x)^2 = 31(100+x)^2
69(10000-200x+x^2) = 31(10000+200x+x^2)
690000-13800x+69x^2 = 310000+6200x+31x^2
380000-20000x+38x^2 = 0
Solve that equation, and you get (roughly) 20. Actually, using 20, you get a winning percentage of .307, but that's good enough for me.
So, basically, since we have measures that can tell us how to compare players to average (where 100 is average) that are consistent (if not perfectly linearly related) to run scoring, we can actually tease out individual records from this exercise. We want to know what a player would be like if he were on an average team. We could actually do it with a replacement-level team instead, but average will work fine well.
So now, for pitchers, we figure out the record. It's easy: divide the number of innings pitched by 9. This will be the number of decisions. Then take 10000/(ERA+) [or, alternately, just use ERA-, which needn't be adjusted]. Take this number and insert it for "x" in this formula:
100^2
100^2 + x^2
Now, multiply by the number of decisions. This gives you a number of wins. You can get "losses" by subtracting wins from decisions, if you felt so inclined.
So, let's look at two pitchers: Justin Verlander in 2011 (251 IP, 172 ERA+) and Justin Verlander in 2012 (238.1 IP, 160 ERA+).
2011:
10000/172 = 58
100^2/(100^2+58^2)=.748
251/9=27.9
.748*27.9=20.9
2011 Verlander, by this method, "went" 20.9-7.0
2012:
10000/160 = 63
100^2/(100^2+63^2)=.716
238/9=26.4
.716*26.4=18.9
2012 Verlander, by this method, "went" 18.9-7.5
So, let's do hitters. They're pretty much the same, except that we use OPS+ or wRC+, and we're adjusting the numerator and denominator. They'll do different things: wRC+ will include SB and some other offensive events (including sacrifices, double plays, etc.); OPS+ will only consider hitting properly. But they're basically the same. Still, I'll show them separately, because they're just different enough to cause a kerfuffle. For OPS+:
First, we take batting outs (AB-H) and divide by 25.5 to get the number of "decisions." Then, we just plug like we did last time, with OPS+ standing in for x, but this time, it looks like this:
x^2
x^2 + 100^2
Then, we multiply by "decisions." Here are two hitters, Miguel Cabrera in 2011 (572 AB, 197 H, 179 OPS+), and Miguel Cabrera in 2012 (622 AB, 205 H, 165 OPS+):
2011:
572-197=375
375/25.5=14.7
179^2/(179^2+100^2)=.762
.762*14.7=11.2
2011 Cabrera, by this method, "went" 11.2-3.5
2012:
622-205=417
417/25.5=16.4
165^2/(165^2+100^2)=.731
.731*16.3=12.0
2012 Cabrera, by this method, "went" 12.0-4.4
-------------------
Aside:
I'm gonna take this opportunity to say a word about replacement level. A replacement level player on an average team will be considerably better than replacement level. That just makes sense, doesn't it? Since we're only comparing offense or defense, and making the other average, we will get the overall to be higher than .307, which is what we used as replacement level. By this method, a replacement level offensive player would be stuck into this formula:
80*80/(80*80+100*100)=.390
A pitcher actually has a different replacement level, for this exercise, since:
100*100/(100*100+120*120)=.410
Personally, I don't see this as any reason to really care, because no one pitches enough innings for this to even make up a full win. If you feel differently, please feel free to do the math to normalize this discrepancy. Otherwise, keep in mind that this is just a fun, silly exercise by a person who only took one math class in college.
As you can see, the result is not .307, but .390. Of course, this means that, comparing, say, 2012 Miguel Cabrera to replacement level, we'd do (replacement level) * (number of "decisions"), and then subtract that number from Cabrera's own wins. In other words:
.390*16.3=6.4
11.9-6.4=5.5 "Wins Above Replacement"
Of course, there's another alternative. We could have put Cabrera on a team that gave up runs at a replacement-level rate, and then simply subtracted wins at a rate of .307, our initial rate. Like this:
165*165/(165*165+120*120)=.654
.654*16.3=10.7
.310*16.3=5.0
10.7-5.0=5.7 "Wins Above Replacement"
I've been working off the first method, but if you were to work by the second method, I wouldn't begrudge you. It's probably actually a little better. A little cleaner for the comparison to replacement, anyway. But it's up to you.
End of Aside
-------------------
Finally, we'll look at what it looks like if you use wRC+, instead of the baseball-reference stats. We'll use two players: Ryan Braun in 2011 and Ryan Braun in 2012. In this method, we look at all the outs the offensive player made, instead of just batting outs. So the formula looks like this.
First, we figure total outs, by taking batting outs (AB-H), like before, and adding GDP, SH, SF, and CS. Then we divide that by 27 to get "decisions." The rest of the formula is identical to the OPS+ version. So here's Brauny.
2011:
563-187+9+3+0+6=394
394/27=14.6
173^2/(173^2+100^2)=.750
.750*14.6=11.0
2011 Braun, by this method, "went" 11.0-3.6
2012:
598-191+12+5+0+7=431
431/27=16.0
162^2/(162^2+100^2)=.724
.724*16.0=11.6
2012 Braun, by this method, "went" 11.6-4.4
So, there you go. You can see that we can, pretty easily, produce a "pitcher-like" record for an offensive player. Obviously, it's not on the same scale quite, since even top players end up with under 20 "decisions," making comparisons difficult. But it's still fun, I think, to look at.
So now, we get to imagination land. How would I change this, if I could, to make it more like actual WAR? Well, first of all, I would want a defensive system. What we'd need to develop, of course, is a system by which we measured, basically, the number of "plays" that a player made (or perhaps better, runs saved on plays made, or whatever), relative to the expected number for his position, just as we would have for OPS+ or ERA-. Once we have that number relative to 100, just as we do for other parts of the game, we can determine the number of decisions and then the number of wins.
Of course, it would be silly to have a number of defensive wins and losses that equalled 162, as well as a number of offensive and pitching wins and losses. So what do we do about it? Well, for my money, we would divide the offensive number by two, the defensive number by six, and the pitching number by three. That would give us a much better basis for comparison. We could actually see this already. Take Cabrera in 2011 and Verlander that same year. If we take Cabrera's record in half, we get 5.6-1.8; Verlander's as a third and we get 7.0-2.3. Those are a lot more comparable, and would be even moreso if we were able to add in Cabrera's defensive wins and losses. We'd see something much different from what we're used to seeing.
There is, of course, one problem that I must address. If one were to implement the system I just suggested with, say a shortstop who was slightly below average fielding and hitting (let's say a 99 in each), he would grade out as a below-average player. However, everyone knows that a shortstop who is basically average defensively and basically average offensively is a HUGE asset. This is why, perhaps, it would be good in creating a defensive system to compare the runs saved, not to position, but to all positions on the field. That would make shortstops automatically very valuable, while it would make first basemen very low in value. But that's just an idea. As far as I know, there's no such stat out there, so maybe that's another project for me. But I doubt it.
So, that's my big brainstorm. If you made it this far, wow. Just wow. Because I'm really, really impressed. It was a ridiculously long post. But I hope you enjoyed it. Suggestions?
Thanks to baseball-reference and fangraphs for the stats in today's post!
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Happy New Year... And Hall of Fame Relievers
It's Baseball Hall of Fame season, which is typically a very active time for me on this blog. Well, it's been a really, REALLY busy few weeks, so I haven't done as much as I'd like. But suffice it to say that I'm disappointed that it's likely no one will get election to the Hall this year. I mean, I'm not the kind of person who says that Jack Morris should make the Hall of Fame. But here's the thing: Jack Morris was better at baseball than most people are at ANYTHING, and yet people scream and shout about how he doesn't belong. Now, if I had a ballot, I would not vote for Morris. I don't think he's good enough to make the Hall. But if he did, I'd be very, very happy for him and for all the Tigers fans out there who have seen so many players who are above the Hall benchmark fail to be elected.
But anyway, today, Poz posted an article that discusses the candidates he didn't vote for, but who merit more consideration. Well, I'm happy to say that one of the sections struck a chord with me: the section on Lee Smith. I thought to myself, would I vote for Lee Smith? Now, with a ballot as crowded as this year's, the answer is "no." But, if there were unlimited slots, would I? I don't know. So, I devised a way to figure it out.
People (like Poz) talk about how saves are too one-dimensional a stat. I agree. Especially when we're comparing people to starters (as we do in HOF voting). So how do we account for this? I think it's actually pretty easy.
First, we look at only two statistics for the pitcher: ERA+ and Innings Pitched. Normally, I'm more of a fan of ERA-, but I'll use the more commonly-known baseball-reference stat (speaking of which: all stats courtesy of that wonderful site). And I use Batters Faced for most of the silly little things I do with pitchers, but in this case, IP is necessary.
Anyway, we first convert ERA+ to ERA-, which is easy, and necessary. ERA+ measures how much higher the league ERA was than the pitcher's (adjusted for ballpark). What we need to know is the inverse (in other words, how much lower was the pitcher's ERA than the league, adjusted for ballpark). Here it is:
10000/ERA+
It's that easy. So we then have that number. And we'll figure out a Pythagorean winning percentage, based on an average offense. It looks like this:
100^2/(ERA-^2+100^2)
Now, we have a winning percentage. Let's keep that in our back pockets.
Next, we take the innings pitched, and we divide by nine. Why? Because, roughly every nine innings, there's a decision. Look at individual pitchers (starters, preferably), if you want. Divide their career innings by nine. Usually, you'll find that they have roughly nine times as many innings pitched as decisions. If that's not good enough proof for you, go ahead and pick a random team in history. Divide their number of Innings Pitched by the number of Games Played. You will usually find that the answer hovers between 8.8 and 9.2 - which is good enough for me to just call it nine.
So anyway, we now have a number of "decisions" and a "winning percentage." Now, just multiply them together. That gives us a number of "pitcher wins" for these players who usually don't really have those to look at!
This gives us a nice starting point, actually. But we can go a step further, of course. We simply take the decisions, and subtract the wins. That gives us losses, because that's important to know, too. Then, we use one of my favorite Bill James tools: Fibonacci wins. We take:
Wins*Winning%+(Wins-Losses). This helps us account for both the raw total of winnings, and the percentage of the time the player won.
Anyway, I did this for eleven relievers, who are considered among the best of all-time. Why eleven? Because these are the eleven relievers who are either in the Hall of Fame, or I have heard an argument for belonging in the Hall of Fame. Here they are, presented with their "record," as well as Fibonacci wins (and ordered by the latter).
Hoyt Wilhelm: 171.2-79.2; 209.1
Dennis Eckersley: 209.4-155.6; 173.9
Mariano Rivera: 109.7-25.8; 172.6
Goose Gossage: 123.3-77.7; 121.3
Billy Wagner: 78.0-22.3; 116.4
John Franco: 90.8-47.7; 102.6
Rollie Fingers: 111.6-77.5; 99.9
Lee Smith: 91.0-52.2; 96.6
Dan Quisenberry: 78.9-37.0; 95.6
Trevor Hoffman: 80.5-40.5; 93.6
Bruce Sutter: 75.1-40.6; 83.3
Obviously, this is overly simplistic. It takes a lot to say that you can boil things down to one number (as much as we all try to do it). But at the end of the day, when it comes to the Hall of Fame, there are only two options: in or out. That's a binary decision. Binaries are numbers. So you have to be able to put a number on it. And this is a pretty good place to start, if you ask me.
As you can tell, innings pitched is skewed for Eckersley because of his years as a starter. But so what? He did that pitching, as well. And when you factor it all in, he's roughly as good as Mariano, which sounds about right to me. Wilhelm's HUGE number of innings keeps him at the top of the group, which sounds about right to me. And frankly, I'm not sure if I could vote for anyone below Mariano - the gap seems to be in roughly the 150 Fibonacci win area.
But, back to the topic at hand, which is Lee Smith. Fingers' induction has been much-maligned by many people. But seeing Fingers, Wagner, and John Franco atop Lee Smith makes me fairly certain of this much: I don't think I could vote for him. He deserves to be remembered, so, like Jack Morris, I would never begrudge his election. But, also like Morris, I just don't think the Hall of Fame is big enough to include not only Lee Smith, but all of the players who were better or roughly his equal. I just don't think anyone wants a Hall of Fame with 10 relief pitchers - not yet, anyway. Maybe in another 50 years, but not right now. And if Smith is still one of the 10 best relievers of all-time in 50 years, then we can talk about it. But for now, it's a no.
But anyway, today, Poz posted an article that discusses the candidates he didn't vote for, but who merit more consideration. Well, I'm happy to say that one of the sections struck a chord with me: the section on Lee Smith. I thought to myself, would I vote for Lee Smith? Now, with a ballot as crowded as this year's, the answer is "no." But, if there were unlimited slots, would I? I don't know. So, I devised a way to figure it out.
People (like Poz) talk about how saves are too one-dimensional a stat. I agree. Especially when we're comparing people to starters (as we do in HOF voting). So how do we account for this? I think it's actually pretty easy.
First, we look at only two statistics for the pitcher: ERA+ and Innings Pitched. Normally, I'm more of a fan of ERA-, but I'll use the more commonly-known baseball-reference stat (speaking of which: all stats courtesy of that wonderful site). And I use Batters Faced for most of the silly little things I do with pitchers, but in this case, IP is necessary.
Anyway, we first convert ERA+ to ERA-, which is easy, and necessary. ERA+ measures how much higher the league ERA was than the pitcher's (adjusted for ballpark). What we need to know is the inverse (in other words, how much lower was the pitcher's ERA than the league, adjusted for ballpark). Here it is:
10000/ERA+
It's that easy. So we then have that number. And we'll figure out a Pythagorean winning percentage, based on an average offense. It looks like this:
100^2/(ERA-^2+100^2)
Now, we have a winning percentage. Let's keep that in our back pockets.
Next, we take the innings pitched, and we divide by nine. Why? Because, roughly every nine innings, there's a decision. Look at individual pitchers (starters, preferably), if you want. Divide their career innings by nine. Usually, you'll find that they have roughly nine times as many innings pitched as decisions. If that's not good enough proof for you, go ahead and pick a random team in history. Divide their number of Innings Pitched by the number of Games Played. You will usually find that the answer hovers between 8.8 and 9.2 - which is good enough for me to just call it nine.
So anyway, we now have a number of "decisions" and a "winning percentage." Now, just multiply them together. That gives us a number of "pitcher wins" for these players who usually don't really have those to look at!
This gives us a nice starting point, actually. But we can go a step further, of course. We simply take the decisions, and subtract the wins. That gives us losses, because that's important to know, too. Then, we use one of my favorite Bill James tools: Fibonacci wins. We take:
Wins*Winning%+(Wins-Losses). This helps us account for both the raw total of winnings, and the percentage of the time the player won.
Anyway, I did this for eleven relievers, who are considered among the best of all-time. Why eleven? Because these are the eleven relievers who are either in the Hall of Fame, or I have heard an argument for belonging in the Hall of Fame. Here they are, presented with their "record," as well as Fibonacci wins (and ordered by the latter).
Hoyt Wilhelm: 171.2-79.2; 209.1
Dennis Eckersley: 209.4-155.6; 173.9
Mariano Rivera: 109.7-25.8; 172.6
Goose Gossage: 123.3-77.7; 121.3
Billy Wagner: 78.0-22.3; 116.4
John Franco: 90.8-47.7; 102.6
Rollie Fingers: 111.6-77.5; 99.9
Lee Smith: 91.0-52.2; 96.6
Dan Quisenberry: 78.9-37.0; 95.6
Trevor Hoffman: 80.5-40.5; 93.6
Bruce Sutter: 75.1-40.6; 83.3
Obviously, this is overly simplistic. It takes a lot to say that you can boil things down to one number (as much as we all try to do it). But at the end of the day, when it comes to the Hall of Fame, there are only two options: in or out. That's a binary decision. Binaries are numbers. So you have to be able to put a number on it. And this is a pretty good place to start, if you ask me.
As you can tell, innings pitched is skewed for Eckersley because of his years as a starter. But so what? He did that pitching, as well. And when you factor it all in, he's roughly as good as Mariano, which sounds about right to me. Wilhelm's HUGE number of innings keeps him at the top of the group, which sounds about right to me. And frankly, I'm not sure if I could vote for anyone below Mariano - the gap seems to be in roughly the 150 Fibonacci win area.
But, back to the topic at hand, which is Lee Smith. Fingers' induction has been much-maligned by many people. But seeing Fingers, Wagner, and John Franco atop Lee Smith makes me fairly certain of this much: I don't think I could vote for him. He deserves to be remembered, so, like Jack Morris, I would never begrudge his election. But, also like Morris, I just don't think the Hall of Fame is big enough to include not only Lee Smith, but all of the players who were better or roughly his equal. I just don't think anyone wants a Hall of Fame with 10 relief pitchers - not yet, anyway. Maybe in another 50 years, but not right now. And if Smith is still one of the 10 best relievers of all-time in 50 years, then we can talk about it. But for now, it's a no.
Labels:
Baseball
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Next in MMA
So ESPN is back at it again with its "Next" magazine issue. For those that do not know, ESPN each year likes to make a magazine issue that stars athletes that are the future of their respective sports. For example Cam Newton was the winner last year for being "Next" in football (not sure how that has worked out so far). Typically I always have an issue whenever ESPN tries to create a list or a bracket of any sort. I looked at their nominees for who is next in each sport and in typical ESPN fashion they made some really hair scratching choices just for their nominees. Though I could hammer ESPN for choosing Johnny Football as a nominee for being "Next" in football over Russell Wilson or Breanna Stewart for being "Next" in basketball over Damian Lillard, I decided to take my frustrations out on their list of who is "Next" in fighting.
As I have gotten older my love for combat sports has grown to the point where the knowledge I use to store about football, basketball, baseball, and hockey have been pushed out to make room for MMA. No longer do I pay close attention to recruiting classes or even care who wins what award in college sports. Now I wonder who will be the next great fighter to enter the 145 pound class in the UFC and whether the 125 pound division is sustainable with a lack of well known fighters? Gone are the days of wondering who will be the next great defensive end to challenge the greatness of Bruce Smith and Reggie White. Now I wonder if anyone can eclipse the standard set by Anderson Silva and GSP. ESPN is clearly the gold standard in sports and is the voice of the sports world, but ESPN has always lacked in its knowledge of combat sports especially in MMA. So when I saw their list of who is "Next" in fighting needless to say I thought the list was extremely underwhelming.
Of their list of five fighters, two of their fighters were MMA fighters. I was impressed by the fact that they put Michael Chandler on their list. Michael Chandler is a star in the Bellator ranks and is one of the top 10 fighters in arguably the deepest weight class in MMA, the 155 pound division. However after Michael Chandler, ESPN then listed Alexander Gustavsson which is just an okay choice. Alexander Gustavsson has been relevant in the UFC (the biggest organization in MMA) for more then three years now. I'm not sure what ESPN considers for "Next" but in my book Gustavsson is more of a now guy then a next guy. After the two MMA fighters the next three fighters were boxers. Now I'm not a big boxing fan, but the guys they listed (Broner, Canelo, and Price) are all also well established boxers that hold multiple titles (which I understand isn't very difficult. I think you get a title just for turning professional). The fact that ESPN decided to list more boxers then MMA fighters is a clear sign of their ignorance of the popularity of MMA.
Their ignorance is evident every time the topic of MMA is brought up on one of their shows. The talking heads on ESPN always brush off the topic as if they are asked to discuss an obscure Olympic sport like curling or ribbon dancing. However, UFC alone has gone from being exclusively on Spike TV to having headlining shows of FOX, FX and Fuel TV. The Bellator brand has shows on Spike TV, MTV, and MTV2. UFC fighter Jon Jones has his own line of training gear in Nike. Oh and his line of gear was brought in after Nike dropped Manny Pacquio, (this was before he was left sleeping on the mat by Marquez). MMA is the biggest growing sport in the world with MMA gyms popping up all over in each country. MMA is the biggest individual sport in Brazil and in Canada. It's also considered the most popular combat sport in all European countries and in Asia. With this being a fact ESPN has to get with the times especially if they are going to try to provide commentary on combat sports. With this in mind I think it's my job to provide the correct insight on who is actually "Next" in fighting, specifically in MMA. So here we go!
5) Jon Dodson: The five foot three inched 125 pound American could be the face of a struggling division in the UFC. The 125 pound division gets criticized for not having enough heavy hitters. Though the fights are fast paced the masses always like a good knockout artist. Enter Jon Dodson. In his three UFC fights he has two spectacular knockout victories. Also his post-fight celebrations of flips and acrobatics just adds to his appeal. Jon Dodson will be fighting Demetrious "Might Mouse" Johnson on January 26 in Chicago for the championship. This fight will be the headlining bout on a card that will be on FX. This could be the stage that vaults Dodson into mainstream popularity
4) Anthony "Showtime" Pettis: There is no Milwaukee bias in this choice. Anthony Pettis has been slowed by some injuries, but he could be the most exciting fighter in the deepest weight class in the UFC. The 155 pounder has explosive kicks and amazing grappling. Milwaukee is surprisingly becoming a hotbed for training UFC fighters at the Duke Roufus gym and Anthony Pettis is their best prospect. The 25 year old has a huge fight against Donald Cerrone on the same card as Jon Dodson. A victory in this card should put him in line for a title fight against the current 155 pound king Ben Henderson.
3) Dustin Porier: The 23 year old Louisiana native has been on a tear ever since he was introduced to the UFC. He had a minor setback against Chan Sung Chung, but his submission defeat to the Korean Zombie happened after he was dominating that fight in the first round with timely strikes. With only two losses under his belt and with a recent bounce back victory over former TUF winner Jonathan Brookins, Porier is on track to be a serious threat to current 145 pound king Jose Aldo. With time, the American Top Team prospect should be fighting for a title sooner rather then later.
2) Chris Weidman: He could arguably be number one on this list, but the guy in front is just a little bit more dominant. However, this 185 pounder is the most serious threat to the MMA king, Anderson Silva. His dominant performance over Anthony Munoz sent a message to every fighter in the 185 pound division. The 28 year old is yet to lose a fight and has avoided the injury bug for the most part. Another dominant performance against another top 5 contender should put him in line to take on Silva. A victory over Silva would make Weidman the first American to hold the middleweight title since Rich Franklin was relevant in the early 2000s.
1) Rory McDonald: We thought there would never be another GSP, but here he is. If anything he's the evil GSP. Unlike GSP, this Canadian does not care for fan approval. His robotic post-fight interviews reminds many fans of Ivan Drago. However his skill sets are completely unstoppable. He has ran through every opponent that has been placed in front of him. His lone lost to former #1 contender Carlos Condit came in the very last round when he was knocked out after dominating Condit for the previous two rounds. He will have a chance to revenge that lost at UFC 158. The 23 year old could be the most dominate fighter in the UFC over the next five years. Rory McDonald has all of the striking and wrestling as his mentor GSP and he has time on his side. He's a bigger version of GSP and has way better kicks then GSP ever had. Canada has arguably the most rabid MMA fan base and they also have the next big thing in Rory McDonald.
As I have gotten older my love for combat sports has grown to the point where the knowledge I use to store about football, basketball, baseball, and hockey have been pushed out to make room for MMA. No longer do I pay close attention to recruiting classes or even care who wins what award in college sports. Now I wonder who will be the next great fighter to enter the 145 pound class in the UFC and whether the 125 pound division is sustainable with a lack of well known fighters? Gone are the days of wondering who will be the next great defensive end to challenge the greatness of Bruce Smith and Reggie White. Now I wonder if anyone can eclipse the standard set by Anderson Silva and GSP. ESPN is clearly the gold standard in sports and is the voice of the sports world, but ESPN has always lacked in its knowledge of combat sports especially in MMA. So when I saw their list of who is "Next" in fighting needless to say I thought the list was extremely underwhelming.
Of their list of five fighters, two of their fighters were MMA fighters. I was impressed by the fact that they put Michael Chandler on their list. Michael Chandler is a star in the Bellator ranks and is one of the top 10 fighters in arguably the deepest weight class in MMA, the 155 pound division. However after Michael Chandler, ESPN then listed Alexander Gustavsson which is just an okay choice. Alexander Gustavsson has been relevant in the UFC (the biggest organization in MMA) for more then three years now. I'm not sure what ESPN considers for "Next" but in my book Gustavsson is more of a now guy then a next guy. After the two MMA fighters the next three fighters were boxers. Now I'm not a big boxing fan, but the guys they listed (Broner, Canelo, and Price) are all also well established boxers that hold multiple titles (which I understand isn't very difficult. I think you get a title just for turning professional). The fact that ESPN decided to list more boxers then MMA fighters is a clear sign of their ignorance of the popularity of MMA.
Their ignorance is evident every time the topic of MMA is brought up on one of their shows. The talking heads on ESPN always brush off the topic as if they are asked to discuss an obscure Olympic sport like curling or ribbon dancing. However, UFC alone has gone from being exclusively on Spike TV to having headlining shows of FOX, FX and Fuel TV. The Bellator brand has shows on Spike TV, MTV, and MTV2. UFC fighter Jon Jones has his own line of training gear in Nike. Oh and his line of gear was brought in after Nike dropped Manny Pacquio, (this was before he was left sleeping on the mat by Marquez). MMA is the biggest growing sport in the world with MMA gyms popping up all over in each country. MMA is the biggest individual sport in Brazil and in Canada. It's also considered the most popular combat sport in all European countries and in Asia. With this being a fact ESPN has to get with the times especially if they are going to try to provide commentary on combat sports. With this in mind I think it's my job to provide the correct insight on who is actually "Next" in fighting, specifically in MMA. So here we go!
5) Jon Dodson: The five foot three inched 125 pound American could be the face of a struggling division in the UFC. The 125 pound division gets criticized for not having enough heavy hitters. Though the fights are fast paced the masses always like a good knockout artist. Enter Jon Dodson. In his three UFC fights he has two spectacular knockout victories. Also his post-fight celebrations of flips and acrobatics just adds to his appeal. Jon Dodson will be fighting Demetrious "Might Mouse" Johnson on January 26 in Chicago for the championship. This fight will be the headlining bout on a card that will be on FX. This could be the stage that vaults Dodson into mainstream popularity
4) Anthony "Showtime" Pettis: There is no Milwaukee bias in this choice. Anthony Pettis has been slowed by some injuries, but he could be the most exciting fighter in the deepest weight class in the UFC. The 155 pounder has explosive kicks and amazing grappling. Milwaukee is surprisingly becoming a hotbed for training UFC fighters at the Duke Roufus gym and Anthony Pettis is their best prospect. The 25 year old has a huge fight against Donald Cerrone on the same card as Jon Dodson. A victory in this card should put him in line for a title fight against the current 155 pound king Ben Henderson.
3) Dustin Porier: The 23 year old Louisiana native has been on a tear ever since he was introduced to the UFC. He had a minor setback against Chan Sung Chung, but his submission defeat to the Korean Zombie happened after he was dominating that fight in the first round with timely strikes. With only two losses under his belt and with a recent bounce back victory over former TUF winner Jonathan Brookins, Porier is on track to be a serious threat to current 145 pound king Jose Aldo. With time, the American Top Team prospect should be fighting for a title sooner rather then later.
2) Chris Weidman: He could arguably be number one on this list, but the guy in front is just a little bit more dominant. However, this 185 pounder is the most serious threat to the MMA king, Anderson Silva. His dominant performance over Anthony Munoz sent a message to every fighter in the 185 pound division. The 28 year old is yet to lose a fight and has avoided the injury bug for the most part. Another dominant performance against another top 5 contender should put him in line to take on Silva. A victory over Silva would make Weidman the first American to hold the middleweight title since Rich Franklin was relevant in the early 2000s.
1) Rory McDonald: We thought there would never be another GSP, but here he is. If anything he's the evil GSP. Unlike GSP, this Canadian does not care for fan approval. His robotic post-fight interviews reminds many fans of Ivan Drago. However his skill sets are completely unstoppable. He has ran through every opponent that has been placed in front of him. His lone lost to former #1 contender Carlos Condit came in the very last round when he was knocked out after dominating Condit for the previous two rounds. He will have a chance to revenge that lost at UFC 158. The 23 year old could be the most dominate fighter in the UFC over the next five years. Rory McDonald has all of the striking and wrestling as his mentor GSP and he has time on his side. He's a bigger version of GSP and has way better kicks then GSP ever had. Canada has arguably the most rabid MMA fan base and they also have the next big thing in Rory McDonald.
Monday, December 3, 2012
The New WARSCOR
So, you all may remember WARSCOR, my attempt at a career rating system which could be my version of Adam Darowski's wWAR. Of course, there's also the fact that Adam has rolled out his newest thing: The Hall of Stats. Well, I got jealous. One of my biggest criticisms of wWAR was that it was too arbitrary: it had cutoffs in weird spots, and for no reason. The Hall of Stats has cutoffs at replacement and average.
WARSCOR has the advantage of being adaptable to be used with Win Shares, rWAR, fWAR, (the now-defunct gWAR, which I miss a whole lot, because it used DRA for defense,) and WARP (although that's my least favorite of the group, because it doesn't have full historical stats). And since I don't actually run a website with it, I am free to just do what I need for a specific project, not sort of figure everything out for every player in history.
But, of course, Adam had to go and come up with something better. I realized that, perhaps, average is a better comparison than replacement. Hmph. It's tough to say. But here's what I did. I ran the WARSCOR system using replacement level. Then I did the exact same thing with Wins Above Average (baseball-reference-style - let's not get ahead of ourselves TOO much). Then, I took the geometric mean. Easy as that. Here it was for Adam's list of the top 9 3B not in the Hall of Fame, with their WARSCOR, WAASCOR, and the Composite:
Stan Hack, 38.4; 21.0; 27.1
Heinie Groh, 37.3; 22.8; 28.3
Ron Cey, 39.3; 23.2; 29.2
Robin Ventura, 39.8; 23.6; 29.7
Darrell Evans, 41.4; 23.5; 30.0
Buddy Bell, 44.6; 27.9; 34.4
Sal Bando, 45.5; 28.4; 35.0 (35.954)
Graig Nettles, 46.2; 28.1; 35.0 (34.958)
Ken Boyer, 46.9; 28.0; 35.1
It's really only when you have a distance of at least 1.0 that you can start to even say there's a remote distinction between the players. Therefore, you can see that Bando, Nettles, and Boyer can't be distinguished between in a meaningful way, although it's probably not outrageous to say that they're significantly better than Bell. But it's also pretty clear that Evans falls into the lower group. There's a rather HUGE gap between Evans and Bell, and one can see that, if we were to say that people were to go into the Hall of Fame, this might be a good place to separate into different factions.
So, there you have it. A new, even more convoluted system. But one that I'm pretty proud of, and would stand behind.
WARSCOR has the advantage of being adaptable to be used with Win Shares, rWAR, fWAR, (the now-defunct gWAR, which I miss a whole lot, because it used DRA for defense,) and WARP (although that's my least favorite of the group, because it doesn't have full historical stats). And since I don't actually run a website with it, I am free to just do what I need for a specific project, not sort of figure everything out for every player in history.
But, of course, Adam had to go and come up with something better. I realized that, perhaps, average is a better comparison than replacement. Hmph. It's tough to say. But here's what I did. I ran the WARSCOR system using replacement level. Then I did the exact same thing with Wins Above Average (baseball-reference-style - let's not get ahead of ourselves TOO much). Then, I took the geometric mean. Easy as that. Here it was for Adam's list of the top 9 3B not in the Hall of Fame, with their WARSCOR, WAASCOR, and the Composite:
Stan Hack, 38.4; 21.0; 27.1
Heinie Groh, 37.3; 22.8; 28.3
Ron Cey, 39.3; 23.2; 29.2
Robin Ventura, 39.8; 23.6; 29.7
Darrell Evans, 41.4; 23.5; 30.0
Buddy Bell, 44.6; 27.9; 34.4
Sal Bando, 45.5; 28.4; 35.0 (35.954)
Graig Nettles, 46.2; 28.1; 35.0 (34.958)
Ken Boyer, 46.9; 28.0; 35.1
It's really only when you have a distance of at least 1.0 that you can start to even say there's a remote distinction between the players. Therefore, you can see that Bando, Nettles, and Boyer can't be distinguished between in a meaningful way, although it's probably not outrageous to say that they're significantly better than Bell. But it's also pretty clear that Evans falls into the lower group. There's a rather HUGE gap between Evans and Bell, and one can see that, if we were to say that people were to go into the Hall of Fame, this might be a good place to separate into different factions.
So, there you have it. A new, even more convoluted system. But one that I'm pretty proud of, and would stand behind.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
2012 MVP
Today is MVP day. Happy last day of the 2012 season!
Seriously, it's all hot stove from here on out, so let's take a moment to savor this moment. Savor it.
Aaaaaaaahhhh.
But just because 2012 is ending doesn't mean we can't have more people discussing the MVP debate, right? Here's a comment I posted over at Seamheads this morning.
-----------
In my opinion, there is a solid, non-sabermetric argument to be made for Trout over Cabrera. First, you just have to suggest that the currency of baseball is runs.
Then, you can look at a good, non-sabermetric stat like Runs Produced (RBI+R-HR). Trout had 182; Cabrera had 204. Or you can go more simply and say that you get half-credit for each run, and half-credit for each RBI. In other words, (R+RBI)/2. 106 for Trout; 118 for Cabrera. That’s either a difference of 12 runs, or 22. Let’s just hedge our bets and use the larger, 22 run-advantage for Cabrera. The question becomes, is it possible that Trout’s baserunning+fielding yielded 22 runs? Well, he pulled back 5 home runs this year. That’s five runs right there, easy as pie. We’re down to 17 runs. Let’s look at baserunning. Let’s say that every CS eliminates 2 SB. And let’s count each SB as 1/4 run. In math, that’s (SB-2CS)/4. That’s not very much. For Cabrera, that gives us (4-2*1)/4=.5. So the difference is back up to 17.5 runs. For Trout, we get (49-2*5)/4= 9.75. So the difference is now down to 7.75 runs. Are you really going to argue that non-stolen base baserunning and defense (which, keep in mind, we’ve only accounted for in terms of home runs stolen) is less than 8 runs? Didn’t think so.
This is the best non-saber case I can make for Trout. I think it holds, as much as any such argument could. It shows Cabrera to be “up” by 7.75 runs – but that doesn’t account for the slew of extra outs he made, or the fact that the Angels foolishly left Trout in the minors for a month, or the fact that the Angels won one more game than the Tigers, or account for differences in ballpark. Frankly, I don’t see how you can even make the case for Cabrera in light of this. But that’s my opinion.
------------
Now, perhaps it was unfair of me to "double-count" stolen bases; after all, shouldn't those have been counted in Runs Produced already? Probably, so that was a boo-boo by me. Anyway, we're left with a 17-run difference - or, disregarding the homer-robbing exploits of Trout, a 22-run difference.
Is it possible that Mike Trout saved 22 more defensive runs than Miguel Cabrera? I would say that it's pretty darn possible. 22 is a lot of runs, but it's definitely not inconceivable. And when you take into account that Trout is an electric defender, while Cabrera is adequate-at-best, I don't think it's unrealistic. But let's say that he didn't. What about some of the other points I made?
For example, who created more outs? That's easy to figure - and this will help fix the issue with playing time. You take batting outs (AB-H), and you add caught stealings and grounding into double plays. The whole thing is : AB-H+CS+GDP
Cabrera: 622-205+1+28=446 outs
Trout: 559-182+5+7=379 outs
So Cabrera created (as we said) 22 extra runs, in 67 extra outs. Is that good or bad?
Well, the entire AL this year created 17217 runs, using up 59932 outs. In other words, for every out, an average player created .287 runs. Why is this important? Well, what if we credit Trout for some of his missed playing time by giving him only AVERAGE performance for those additional 67 outs? If we do that, we take 17217/59932*67=19 runs. That means, if Trout had played as an average player, instead of as MIKE TROUT for the difference in playing time as Cabrera, we would have expected Trout to be only 3 runs behind Cabrera. Three runs. Remember those 5 homers we talked about earlier? Yeah. Add those in, and we get Trout above Cabrera. And that's still not factoring in the majority of their difference on defense.
Now, again, I can see someone saying, Well, you can't just "make up" for lost time like that - Trout wasn't playing, and that's that. To an extent, obviously, that's true. So let's look at a ridiculously similar MVP race, involving a part-time outfielder who was a better defender and baserunner, and compare him with... MIGUEL CABRERA.
In 2010, Josh Hamilton of the Rangers and Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers were in a very similar boat. Cabrera led the league in RBI (batting .328 and hitting 38 HR; this year, he batted .330 with 44 HR - so, basically, the exact same year) and played 150 games (161 this year). Josh Hamilton, on the other hand, played in only 133 games (Trout played 139 this year). In 2010, Miguel Cabrera produced 199 runs, topping the AL. Hamilton produced 163 runs - a difference of 36. Which, if you're scoring at home, gives Hamilton a BIGGER gap, and LESS playing time; and yet, people happily voted him the MVP. And the outs gap was only 44. So basically, Cabrera produced one run for every extra out he created. Giving Hamilton the extra 44 outs at a league-average rate for 2010 gives him only 13 runs, which still leaves him 23 runs behind - bigger than Trout's gap was, even BEFORE we adjusted for playing time! And since Josh Hamilton's 2010 defense is not 20 runs better than Mike Trout's 2012 defense, we have to conclude, I think, that voters in 2012 and voters in 2010 are not applying consistent reasoning.
So why did Hamilton win? Because of the batting title? Because his team made the playoffs? Because of his defense? Well, Trout's D is better, he practically won the batting title, and his team won more games than Cabrera's. So why Hamilton in 2010 but not Trout in 2012?
All I know is, I can make the argument that the difference between Trout and Cabrera, even before adjusting for defense or ballpark, is closer to 3 runs than 22. And I can also make the argument that we've had a Trout-Cabrera situation before, and resolved it in favor of our "surrogate" Trout. Yet, it seems to be a problem this year.
By the way, I made this case for Trout without the use of WAR. You don't need it, because it's obvious that Trout had the better year. I used a vastly inferior offensive statistic, which actually makes the gap between Trout and Cabrera look bigger than it really is. I hardly touched on defense. The fact of the matter is, Miguel Cabrera had a wonderful year. He was one of the 5 best players in the AL this year, probably one of the top 3, and maybe even one of the top 2. But he wasn't as good as Mike Trout. As I've said before, he'll win the MVP, and that's fine. But there's no doubt in my mind that it's also incorrect.
******
Addendum to original post:
Another way to think of this might be the following. What percentage of Miguel Cabrera's value comes from defense? 0%? A negative percentage? Let's be absurdly generous and say that 10% of Miguel Cabrera's value is from defense.
And now, how about Mike Trout. What percentage of Trout's value comes from defense? 30%? Let's say 20, to be conservative.
Well, if we assume those figures to be true, and even if we stick with Runs Produced as the offensive model, we're left with this math:
Cabrera= (11/10) * 204 = 224.4
Trout = (5/4) * 182 = 227.5
First of all, I swear I picked those numbers out of thin air, and did not specifically engineer them for Trout to come out on top. But really, they probably don't look that unreasonable. So, again, I get Trout as the MVP. In spite of less playing time, he still created, by this "measure" more total runs than Cabrera. Again, I just can't avoid the conclusion that Cabrera did not have as good of a year as Trout did.
Seriously, it's all hot stove from here on out, so let's take a moment to savor this moment. Savor it.
Aaaaaaaahhhh.
But just because 2012 is ending doesn't mean we can't have more people discussing the MVP debate, right? Here's a comment I posted over at Seamheads this morning.
-----------
In my opinion, there is a solid, non-sabermetric argument to be made for Trout over Cabrera. First, you just have to suggest that the currency of baseball is runs.
Then, you can look at a good, non-sabermetric stat like Runs Produced (RBI+R-HR). Trout had 182; Cabrera had 204. Or you can go more simply and say that you get half-credit for each run, and half-credit for each RBI. In other words, (R+RBI)/2. 106 for Trout; 118 for Cabrera. That’s either a difference of 12 runs, or 22. Let’s just hedge our bets and use the larger, 22 run-advantage for Cabrera. The question becomes, is it possible that Trout’s baserunning+fielding yielded 22 runs? Well, he pulled back 5 home runs this year. That’s five runs right there, easy as pie. We’re down to 17 runs. Let’s look at baserunning. Let’s say that every CS eliminates 2 SB. And let’s count each SB as 1/4 run. In math, that’s (SB-2CS)/4. That’s not very much. For Cabrera, that gives us (4-2*1)/4=.5. So the difference is back up to 17.5 runs. For Trout, we get (49-2*5)/4= 9.75. So the difference is now down to 7.75 runs. Are you really going to argue that non-stolen base baserunning and defense (which, keep in mind, we’ve only accounted for in terms of home runs stolen) is less than 8 runs? Didn’t think so.
This is the best non-saber case I can make for Trout. I think it holds, as much as any such argument could. It shows Cabrera to be “up” by 7.75 runs – but that doesn’t account for the slew of extra outs he made, or the fact that the Angels foolishly left Trout in the minors for a month, or the fact that the Angels won one more game than the Tigers, or account for differences in ballpark. Frankly, I don’t see how you can even make the case for Cabrera in light of this. But that’s my opinion.
------------
Now, perhaps it was unfair of me to "double-count" stolen bases; after all, shouldn't those have been counted in Runs Produced already? Probably, so that was a boo-boo by me. Anyway, we're left with a 17-run difference - or, disregarding the homer-robbing exploits of Trout, a 22-run difference.
Is it possible that Mike Trout saved 22 more defensive runs than Miguel Cabrera? I would say that it's pretty darn possible. 22 is a lot of runs, but it's definitely not inconceivable. And when you take into account that Trout is an electric defender, while Cabrera is adequate-at-best, I don't think it's unrealistic. But let's say that he didn't. What about some of the other points I made?
For example, who created more outs? That's easy to figure - and this will help fix the issue with playing time. You take batting outs (AB-H), and you add caught stealings and grounding into double plays. The whole thing is : AB-H+CS+GDP
Cabrera: 622-205+1+28=446 outs
Trout: 559-182+5+7=379 outs
So Cabrera created (as we said) 22 extra runs, in 67 extra outs. Is that good or bad?
Well, the entire AL this year created 17217 runs, using up 59932 outs. In other words, for every out, an average player created .287 runs. Why is this important? Well, what if we credit Trout for some of his missed playing time by giving him only AVERAGE performance for those additional 67 outs? If we do that, we take 17217/59932*67=19 runs. That means, if Trout had played as an average player, instead of as MIKE TROUT for the difference in playing time as Cabrera, we would have expected Trout to be only 3 runs behind Cabrera. Three runs. Remember those 5 homers we talked about earlier? Yeah. Add those in, and we get Trout above Cabrera. And that's still not factoring in the majority of their difference on defense.
Now, again, I can see someone saying, Well, you can't just "make up" for lost time like that - Trout wasn't playing, and that's that. To an extent, obviously, that's true. So let's look at a ridiculously similar MVP race, involving a part-time outfielder who was a better defender and baserunner, and compare him with... MIGUEL CABRERA.
In 2010, Josh Hamilton of the Rangers and Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers were in a very similar boat. Cabrera led the league in RBI (batting .328 and hitting 38 HR; this year, he batted .330 with 44 HR - so, basically, the exact same year) and played 150 games (161 this year). Josh Hamilton, on the other hand, played in only 133 games (Trout played 139 this year). In 2010, Miguel Cabrera produced 199 runs, topping the AL. Hamilton produced 163 runs - a difference of 36. Which, if you're scoring at home, gives Hamilton a BIGGER gap, and LESS playing time; and yet, people happily voted him the MVP. And the outs gap was only 44. So basically, Cabrera produced one run for every extra out he created. Giving Hamilton the extra 44 outs at a league-average rate for 2010 gives him only 13 runs, which still leaves him 23 runs behind - bigger than Trout's gap was, even BEFORE we adjusted for playing time! And since Josh Hamilton's 2010 defense is not 20 runs better than Mike Trout's 2012 defense, we have to conclude, I think, that voters in 2012 and voters in 2010 are not applying consistent reasoning.
So why did Hamilton win? Because of the batting title? Because his team made the playoffs? Because of his defense? Well, Trout's D is better, he practically won the batting title, and his team won more games than Cabrera's. So why Hamilton in 2010 but not Trout in 2012?
All I know is, I can make the argument that the difference between Trout and Cabrera, even before adjusting for defense or ballpark, is closer to 3 runs than 22. And I can also make the argument that we've had a Trout-Cabrera situation before, and resolved it in favor of our "surrogate" Trout. Yet, it seems to be a problem this year.
By the way, I made this case for Trout without the use of WAR. You don't need it, because it's obvious that Trout had the better year. I used a vastly inferior offensive statistic, which actually makes the gap between Trout and Cabrera look bigger than it really is. I hardly touched on defense. The fact of the matter is, Miguel Cabrera had a wonderful year. He was one of the 5 best players in the AL this year, probably one of the top 3, and maybe even one of the top 2. But he wasn't as good as Mike Trout. As I've said before, he'll win the MVP, and that's fine. But there's no doubt in my mind that it's also incorrect.
******
Addendum to original post:
Another way to think of this might be the following. What percentage of Miguel Cabrera's value comes from defense? 0%? A negative percentage? Let's be absurdly generous and say that 10% of Miguel Cabrera's value is from defense.
And now, how about Mike Trout. What percentage of Trout's value comes from defense? 30%? Let's say 20, to be conservative.
Well, if we assume those figures to be true, and even if we stick with Runs Produced as the offensive model, we're left with this math:
Cabrera= (11/10) * 204 = 224.4
Trout = (5/4) * 182 = 227.5
First of all, I swear I picked those numbers out of thin air, and did not specifically engineer them for Trout to come out on top. But really, they probably don't look that unreasonable. So, again, I get Trout as the MVP. In spite of less playing time, he still created, by this "measure" more total runs than Cabrera. Again, I just can't avoid the conclusion that Cabrera did not have as good of a year as Trout did.
Labels:
Baseball
Friday, November 2, 2012
How to Make Football a Better Game
I can hear you thinking it. "But David - football is already the most popular game in America. How are you going to make it better?"
What if I said that I could eliminate the most boring play in the game, make football higher-scoring, and make virtually every possession have at least one edge-of-your-seat play? Would you be interested?
Here's how it works:
First, in my football dream world, kickoffs and punts would also be eliminated. Every drive starts from the 20, and you get four downs - if you don’t convert, sucks to be you. I think the 20 is a good spot to start because it's not SO far back, but it's not so far up that teams can just play conservatively back and forth, gaining one or two first downs and then turning the ball over on downs. If you are facing fourth-and-four from the 26 yard line and you MISS it - you're screwed. The other team starts in GREAT field position. Thus, the game becomes higher scoring. If you can't punt, even when you're in horrible field position, teams have to get more creative and riskier, and that results in more turnovers, more spectacular plays, and a better game overall.
Second, there's a change in OT. Overtime will still be sudden-death. Home team has a choice of ball or wind. Why? Because they're the home team. Whoever starts on offense starts from their own 35. Why the 35? Because if they fail to convert, their opponents start with the ball less than half a field away. This yardline could be changed if the 35 is too problematic. Hopefully, though, the field position and wind disadvantages and the possession advantage even one another out. If defense stops the offense, good for them.
Third, the extra point is eliminated. Every TD is worth 7 points. However, if you'd like to get an "extra" point, you can. All you have to do is wager one of your 7 points. In other words, you'd get one down from the three yard-line. If you made it, you'd have 8 points. If you missed it, you'd LOSE one of your 7, and you'd only have 6. It makes a game-tying TD ACTUALLY tie the game, most of the time. And, if you tie on the last play of the game, you can choose to win or lose, right there. No time to think about overtime or not. You either win, or go home.
Fourth, I wouldn't eliminate the kicking game entirely. The only vestige of the kicking game I appreciate is the field goal. The rest of it can just go. But I also support progressive field goal scoring (2 points for a field goal of 20-29 yards, 3 points for a field goal of 30-39 yards, etc.). It rewards strong-legged, accurate kickers. And it creates some interesting scenarios, like this vignette:
You're the home team. There's a decent-speed wind with you, for now. It’s four and one from the 39, with your team down by 5 with two minutes to play, and you have Sebastian Janikowski (or a similarly strong-legged kicker). Do you:
a. Go for the conversion, and try to keep moving the ball, trying to score while running out the clock?
b. Kick a field goal from the standard distance (~17 yards farther than your yardline), which would be a 5-pointer to tie the game, but leave time on the clock?
c. Have your holder line up an extra four yards back and kick a 6-pointer to tie the game while leaving time on the clock?
To me, that would all make football a MORE exciting and interesting game, rather than what it is now. Defense matters more, because there's no onside-kick to fall back on. Another scenario, with the same team: If you're down by two TDs with 3 minutes left, and you score, now you're down by one TD. If your defense creates a four-and-out, they turn the ball over to you inside their own 30! You're in great position to score again. And, if you do, you can choose to go for the extra point, at which point you'll either win the game, or lose. And if you choose to play for overtime, you now have to choose if you want the ball, at which point you'll have to fight the wind even if you're in "normal" range for your strong-legged kicker, or you can give the ball to the other team in the hope that your D can stop them again. It's a boatload more strategy, more second-guessing of coaches, fewer gimmicks, fewer scary special teams plays that cause injuries, more scoring, defense is more important, there's more appreciation for strong-legged kickers, and there's a freed-up roster spot because no team carries a punter anymore. It's pretty much the best of all possible worlds.
What do you think? Do you have answers for the posited scenarios? Do you think these would be good changes?
What if I said that I could eliminate the most boring play in the game, make football higher-scoring, and make virtually every possession have at least one edge-of-your-seat play? Would you be interested?
Here's how it works:
First, in my football dream world, kickoffs and punts would also be eliminated. Every drive starts from the 20, and you get four downs - if you don’t convert, sucks to be you. I think the 20 is a good spot to start because it's not SO far back, but it's not so far up that teams can just play conservatively back and forth, gaining one or two first downs and then turning the ball over on downs. If you are facing fourth-and-four from the 26 yard line and you MISS it - you're screwed. The other team starts in GREAT field position. Thus, the game becomes higher scoring. If you can't punt, even when you're in horrible field position, teams have to get more creative and riskier, and that results in more turnovers, more spectacular plays, and a better game overall.
Second, there's a change in OT. Overtime will still be sudden-death. Home team has a choice of ball or wind. Why? Because they're the home team. Whoever starts on offense starts from their own 35. Why the 35? Because if they fail to convert, their opponents start with the ball less than half a field away. This yardline could be changed if the 35 is too problematic. Hopefully, though, the field position and wind disadvantages and the possession advantage even one another out. If defense stops the offense, good for them.
Third, the extra point is eliminated. Every TD is worth 7 points. However, if you'd like to get an "extra" point, you can. All you have to do is wager one of your 7 points. In other words, you'd get one down from the three yard-line. If you made it, you'd have 8 points. If you missed it, you'd LOSE one of your 7, and you'd only have 6. It makes a game-tying TD ACTUALLY tie the game, most of the time. And, if you tie on the last play of the game, you can choose to win or lose, right there. No time to think about overtime or not. You either win, or go home.
Fourth, I wouldn't eliminate the kicking game entirely. The only vestige of the kicking game I appreciate is the field goal. The rest of it can just go. But I also support progressive field goal scoring (2 points for a field goal of 20-29 yards, 3 points for a field goal of 30-39 yards, etc.). It rewards strong-legged, accurate kickers. And it creates some interesting scenarios, like this vignette:
You're the home team. There's a decent-speed wind with you, for now. It’s four and one from the 39, with your team down by 5 with two minutes to play, and you have Sebastian Janikowski (or a similarly strong-legged kicker). Do you:
a. Go for the conversion, and try to keep moving the ball, trying to score while running out the clock?
b. Kick a field goal from the standard distance (~17 yards farther than your yardline), which would be a 5-pointer to tie the game, but leave time on the clock?
c. Have your holder line up an extra four yards back and kick a 6-pointer to tie the game while leaving time on the clock?
To me, that would all make football a MORE exciting and interesting game, rather than what it is now. Defense matters more, because there's no onside-kick to fall back on. Another scenario, with the same team: If you're down by two TDs with 3 minutes left, and you score, now you're down by one TD. If your defense creates a four-and-out, they turn the ball over to you inside their own 30! You're in great position to score again. And, if you do, you can choose to go for the extra point, at which point you'll either win the game, or lose. And if you choose to play for overtime, you now have to choose if you want the ball, at which point you'll have to fight the wind even if you're in "normal" range for your strong-legged kicker, or you can give the ball to the other team in the hope that your D can stop them again. It's a boatload more strategy, more second-guessing of coaches, fewer gimmicks, fewer scary special teams plays that cause injuries, more scoring, defense is more important, there's more appreciation for strong-legged kickers, and there's a freed-up roster spot because no team carries a punter anymore. It's pretty much the best of all possible worlds.
What do you think? Do you have answers for the posited scenarios? Do you think these would be good changes?
Labels:
Football
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Triple Crown Part IV
It's been a long time since one of my Triple Crown posts. And, now that the season's over (congratulations, Giants), I think it's time for another - especially since we actually saw a Triple Crown this year! Very exciting stuff. As I've mentioned in at least two posts, I support Mike Trout for MVP... but that doesn't mean that Miguel Cabrera shouldn't be celebrated for an outstanding season!
One of my old sawhorses is looking at alternative Triple Crowns. There's an article at the Hardball Times about the old-school-new-school debate. Frankly, I'm sick of it, because it seems to me that it's mostly settled - but then again, I hang around in "new school" circles on these here internets. And while I understand that it's not true for most people, my guess is that, in 20-30 years, baseball fandom will look quite different from how it looks now. Kids who have grown up with WAR and WPA and REW will not mind those stats. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up at all is that the aforementioned Hardball Times article has an interesting comment from a reader. That reader (TomH) says the following:
"WAR is too complicated for a stattha most will be able to get a handle on. We ought to start but getting old-schoolies to acknowledge that OBP is far batter than AVG, and that scoring is as important as driving them in. That the ‘triple crown’ (TC) wasn’t drawn up by Moses (pre-Ruth it was irrelevant), and a better measure of offesnive breadth (what the TC tries ot capture) would be OBP, R and RBI, or OBP, SLG, and R+RBI, or OBP, HR, and R+RBI."
I left it as was, typos and all. So while I think "stattha" means "stat that," one can never be sure. Anyway, He makes a good point that the TC, if it tries to measure anything (my response would be that it's artificially constructed, and doesn't try to do anything at all), it's breadth of offensive statistics. Not to mention the idea that there's one stat which is an "average" and two counting stats - and one of those stats involves power, the other, runs. Anyway, I got really curious about the ideas he mentioned as possibilities as a "replacement" Triple Crown. So lets go through them, one-by-one, since 1893.
OBP/R/RBI
Mike Schmidt (PHI), 1981 - .435/78/91
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1967 - .418/112/121
Frank Robinson (BAL), 1966 - .410/122/122
Ted Williams (BOS), 1949 - .490/150/159
Stan Musial (STL), 1948 - .450/135/131
Ted Williams (BOS), 1947 - .499/125/114
Ted Williams (BOS), 1942 - .499/141/137
Ted Williams (BOS), 1941 - .553/135/120
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1926 - .516/139/146
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1923 - .545/151/131
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1922 - .459/141/152
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1921 - .512/177/171
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1921 - .458/131/126
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1920 - .532/158/137
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1919 - .456/103/114
Gavvy Cravath (PHI), 1915 - .393/89/115
Sherry Magee (PHI), 1910 - .445/110/123
Ty Cobb (DET), 1909 - .431/116/107
Nap Lajoie (PHA), 1901 - .463/145/125
OBP/SLG/R+RBI
Albert Pujols (STL), 2009 - .443/.658/259
Todd Helton (COL), 2000 - .463/.698/285
Larry Walker (COL), 1997 - .452/.720/273
Frank Thomas (CHW), 1994 - .487/.729/207
Barry Bonds (SFG), 1993 - .458/.677/252
Barry Bonds (PIT), 1992 - .456/.624/212
Mike Schmidt (PHI), 1981 - .435/.644/159Joe Morgan (CIN), 1976 - .444/.576/228
Dick Allen (CHW), 1972 - .420/.603/203
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1970 - .452/.592/227
Willie McCovey (SFG), 1969 - .453/.656/227
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1967 - .418/.622/133
Frank Robinson (BAL), 1966 - .410/.637/244
Willie Mays (SFG), 1965 - .398/.645/234
Duke Snider (BRO), 1956 - .399/.598/213
Ted Williams (BOS), 1951 - .464/.556/235
Ralph Kiner (PIT), 1951 - .452/.627/233
Ted Williams (BOS), 1949 - .490/.650/309
Stan Musial (STL), 1948 - .450/.702/266
Ted Williams (BOS), 1947 - .499/.634/239
Ted Williams (BOS), 1942 - .499/.648/278
Ted Williams (BOS), 1941 - .553/.735/255
Jimmie Foxx (BOS), 1938 - .462/.704/314
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1936 - .478/.696/319
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1934 - .465/.706/293
Chuck Klein (PHI), 1933 - .422/.602/221
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1926 - .516/.737/285
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1925 - .489/.756/276
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1924 - .513/.729/264
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1923 - .545/.764/282
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1922 - .459/.722/293
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1921 - .512/.846/342
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1921 - .458/.639/257
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1920 - .532/.847/295
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1920 - .431/.559/190
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1919 - .456/.637/217
Ty Cobb (DET), 1917 - .444/.570/209
Gavvy Cravath (PHI), 1915 - .393/.510/201
Ty Cobb (DET), 1909 - .431/.517/223
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1909 - .420/.489/192
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1908 - .415/.542/209
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1907 - .408/.513/180
Nap Lajoie (CLE), 1904 - .413/.546/194
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1904 - .423/.520/172
Nap Lajoie, (PHA), 1901 / .463/.643/270
OBP/HR/R+RBI
Albert Pujols (STL), 2009 - .443/.47/259
Larry Walker (COL), 1997 - .452/49/273
Barry Bonds (SFG), 1993 - .458/46/252
Mike Schmidt (PHI), 1981 - .435/31/159
Dick Allen (CHW), 1972 - .420/37/203
Harmon Killebrew (MIN), 1969 - .427/49/226
Willie McCovey (SFG), 1969 - .453/45/227
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1967 - .418/44/133
Frank Robinson (BAL), 1966 - .410/49/244
Willie Mays (SFG), 1965 - .398/52/234
Duke Snider (BRO), 1956 - .399/43/213
Ralph Kiner (PIT), 1951 - .452/42/233
Ted Williams (BOS), 1949 - .490/43/309
Ted Williams (BOS), 1947 - .499/32/239
Ted Williams (BOS), 1946 - .497/.667/265
Ted Williams (BOS), 1942 - .499/36/278
Ted Williams (BOS), 1941 - .553/37/255
Mel Ott (NYG), 1938 - .442/36/232
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1936 - .478/49/319
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1934 - .465/49/293
Chuck Klein (PHI), 1933 - .422/28/221
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1926 - .516/47/285
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1925 - .489/39/276
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1924 - .513/46/264
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1923 - .545/41/282
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1922 - .459/42/293
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1921 - .512/59/342
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1920 - .532/54/295
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1919 - .456/29/217
Gavvy Cravath (PHI), 1915 - .393/24/201
Ty Cobb (DET), 1909 - .431/9/223
Nap Lajoie, (PHA), 1901 - .463/14/270
Well, that was fun. Hope you liked it.
One of my old sawhorses is looking at alternative Triple Crowns. There's an article at the Hardball Times about the old-school-new-school debate. Frankly, I'm sick of it, because it seems to me that it's mostly settled - but then again, I hang around in "new school" circles on these here internets. And while I understand that it's not true for most people, my guess is that, in 20-30 years, baseball fandom will look quite different from how it looks now. Kids who have grown up with WAR and WPA and REW will not mind those stats. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up at all is that the aforementioned Hardball Times article has an interesting comment from a reader. That reader (TomH) says the following:
"WAR is too complicated for a stattha most will be able to get a handle on. We ought to start but getting old-schoolies to acknowledge that OBP is far batter than AVG, and that scoring is as important as driving them in. That the ‘triple crown’ (TC) wasn’t drawn up by Moses (pre-Ruth it was irrelevant), and a better measure of offesnive breadth (what the TC tries ot capture) would be OBP, R and RBI, or OBP, SLG, and R+RBI, or OBP, HR, and R+RBI."
I left it as was, typos and all. So while I think "stattha" means "stat that," one can never be sure. Anyway, He makes a good point that the TC, if it tries to measure anything (my response would be that it's artificially constructed, and doesn't try to do anything at all), it's breadth of offensive statistics. Not to mention the idea that there's one stat which is an "average" and two counting stats - and one of those stats involves power, the other, runs. Anyway, I got really curious about the ideas he mentioned as possibilities as a "replacement" Triple Crown. So lets go through them, one-by-one, since 1893.
OBP/R/RBI
Mike Schmidt (PHI), 1981 - .435/78/91
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1967 - .418/112/121
Frank Robinson (BAL), 1966 - .410/122/122
Ted Williams (BOS), 1949 - .490/150/159
Stan Musial (STL), 1948 - .450/135/131
Ted Williams (BOS), 1947 - .499/125/114
Ted Williams (BOS), 1942 - .499/141/137
Ted Williams (BOS), 1941 - .553/135/120
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1926 - .516/139/146
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1923 - .545/151/131
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1922 - .459/141/152
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1921 - .512/177/171
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1921 - .458/131/126
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1920 - .532/158/137
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1919 - .456/103/114
Gavvy Cravath (PHI), 1915 - .393/89/115
Sherry Magee (PHI), 1910 - .445/110/123
Ty Cobb (DET), 1909 - .431/116/107
Nap Lajoie (PHA), 1901 - .463/145/125
OBP/SLG/R+RBI
Albert Pujols (STL), 2009 - .443/.658/259
Todd Helton (COL), 2000 - .463/.698/285
Larry Walker (COL), 1997 - .452/.720/273
Frank Thomas (CHW), 1994 - .487/.729/207
Barry Bonds (SFG), 1993 - .458/.677/252
Barry Bonds (PIT), 1992 - .456/.624/212
Mike Schmidt (PHI), 1981 - .435/.644/159Joe Morgan (CIN), 1976 - .444/.576/228
Dick Allen (CHW), 1972 - .420/.603/203
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1970 - .452/.592/227
Willie McCovey (SFG), 1969 - .453/.656/227
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1967 - .418/.622/133
Frank Robinson (BAL), 1966 - .410/.637/244
Willie Mays (SFG), 1965 - .398/.645/234
Duke Snider (BRO), 1956 - .399/.598/213
Ted Williams (BOS), 1951 - .464/.556/235
Ralph Kiner (PIT), 1951 - .452/.627/233
Ted Williams (BOS), 1949 - .490/.650/309
Stan Musial (STL), 1948 - .450/.702/266
Ted Williams (BOS), 1947 - .499/.634/239
Ted Williams (BOS), 1942 - .499/.648/278
Ted Williams (BOS), 1941 - .553/.735/255
Jimmie Foxx (BOS), 1938 - .462/.704/314
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1936 - .478/.696/319
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1934 - .465/.706/293
Chuck Klein (PHI), 1933 - .422/.602/221
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1926 - .516/.737/285
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1925 - .489/.756/276
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1924 - .513/.729/264
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1923 - .545/.764/282
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1922 - .459/.722/293
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1921 - .512/.846/342
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1921 - .458/.639/257
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1920 - .532/.847/295
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1920 - .431/.559/190
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1919 - .456/.637/217
Ty Cobb (DET), 1917 - .444/.570/209
Gavvy Cravath (PHI), 1915 - .393/.510/201
Ty Cobb (DET), 1909 - .431/.517/223
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1909 - .420/.489/192
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1908 - .415/.542/209
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1907 - .408/.513/180
Nap Lajoie (CLE), 1904 - .413/.546/194
Honus Wagner (PIT), 1904 - .423/.520/172
Nap Lajoie, (PHA), 1901 / .463/.643/270
OBP/HR/R+RBI
Albert Pujols (STL), 2009 - .443/.47/259
Larry Walker (COL), 1997 - .452/49/273
Barry Bonds (SFG), 1993 - .458/46/252
Mike Schmidt (PHI), 1981 - .435/31/159
Dick Allen (CHW), 1972 - .420/37/203
Harmon Killebrew (MIN), 1969 - .427/49/226
Willie McCovey (SFG), 1969 - .453/45/227
Carl Yastrzemski (BOS), 1967 - .418/44/133
Frank Robinson (BAL), 1966 - .410/49/244
Willie Mays (SFG), 1965 - .398/52/234
Duke Snider (BRO), 1956 - .399/43/213
Ralph Kiner (PIT), 1951 - .452/42/233
Ted Williams (BOS), 1949 - .490/43/309
Ted Williams (BOS), 1947 - .499/32/239
Ted Williams (BOS), 1946 - .497/.667/265
Ted Williams (BOS), 1942 - .499/36/278
Ted Williams (BOS), 1941 - .553/37/255
Mel Ott (NYG), 1938 - .442/36/232
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1936 - .478/49/319
Lou Gehrig (NYY), 1934 - .465/49/293
Chuck Klein (PHI), 1933 - .422/28/221
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1926 - .516/47/285
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1925 - .489/39/276
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1924 - .513/46/264
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1923 - .545/41/282
Rogers Hornsby (STL), 1922 - .459/42/293
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1921 - .512/59/342
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1920 - .532/54/295
Babe Ruth (NYY), 1919 - .456/29/217
Gavvy Cravath (PHI), 1915 - .393/24/201
Ty Cobb (DET), 1909 - .431/9/223
Nap Lajoie, (PHA), 1901 - .463/14/270
Well, that was fun. Hope you liked it.
Labels:
Baseball
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
