Vegas Watch

Neyer continues the Neyer/MGL Cliff Lee saga today:

"What does any of it mean? Is Lee a Cy Young candidate now? Let's assume 1) he's reasonably healthy for the rest of the season, and 2) beginning today he merely hits his career numbers: six innings per start, 4.37 ERA. If those things happen, Lee finishes the season with a 3.26 ERA, which last year would have been sixth-best in the league. Cy Young-worthy? C.C. Sabathia won the award last year with a 3.21 ERA; Josh Beckett finished second with a 3.27 ERA.

So is Lee a Cy Young candidate right now? Yeah, I think he is. Based purely on what he's done throughout his career, and not just this spring."

Before I get into this I want to quickly talk about this whole, "Yeah, but he hasn't faced any real offenses" criticism. It's true that Lee hasn't faced particularly stellar lineups: Oakland (twice), Minnesota, Kansas City, Seattle, New York, and Toronto. But how much of a difference has that made?

By AEQR, here is the strength of each offense, in R/G, that Lee has faced, after taking out their performance against him.

He faced the Yankees without A-Rod or Posada, and Toronto without Wells*. So knock them down to 4.60 and 4.50, respectively. Weighting the A's twice, that averages out to 4.32. The AL average in non-Cliff Lee starts is 4.58. So, yeah, he's faced bad offenses- 0.26 runs below average. So that bumps his ERA up to 0.93, his FIP up to 2.11, and his QERA up to 3.03. Somehow, I think he'll be okay.

So, is Cliff Lee a Cy Young candidate? To get an idea of where he stands, I used each player's PECOTA to finish out the season, assuming each pitcher would make 26 more starts. I added that to their current stats, and plugged it into the Cy Young Predictor formula (which takes into account wins, losses, IP, ER, Ks, and shutouts). I looked at both perennial contenders, and guys off to quick starts this year. Halladay and Saunders were also included, but didn't make the cut for the table below. Remember, this is being outrageously pessimistic about Lee going forward- PECOTA had his ERA at 4.95.

(Quick note: I understand that wins are not a good measure of pitcher value. I get it. But the question is whether Cliff Lee is a Cy Young candidate, rather than whether we should expect Cliff Lee to be the most valuable pitcher in the league this year. And, in the coming months, sports books will have odds on the former criteria, and not the latter.)

Here are the predicted standings:

Matsuzaka is the only guy who combines a tremendous start in the Cy Young categories (6-0, 2.45 ERA, 40 Ks) with an optimistic PECOTA (4.00 ERA). Whether he can keep this up while walking six guys per game is another story entirely.

The only guy that seems out of place here is Wang. He is 6-1 with a 3.12 ERA, and has a career ERA of 3.69. But PECOTA was down on him, probably because of the low K rate, expecting Wang to have a 4.40 ERA. So he should probably be higher on the list.

That's not the focus here though. The point is that, as Neyer hypothesizes, Lee is still a Cy Young candidate even if he goes back to his mediocre form of years past. Starting off 6-0 with a 0.67 ERA will have that effect. He's not at the top of the list, but he's in the conversation- he finishes 15-10, with a 3.74 ERA, and 158 Ks in 190 IP. Not your typical Cy Young numbers, but remember these are all averages, so nothing is going to jump off the page.

But what about if we're a little more optimistic about Lee's final 26 starts? How about a 4.00 ERA, 6.5 K/9, and wins in 38% of his starts.

That puts Lee's Cy Young Predictor score at 140.8, far ahead of his competitors- 16-7, 3.19 ERA. And, considering his FIP and QERA after 53.2 IP, I don't think a 4.00 ERA is an unreasonable expectation. In conclusion, not only is Cliff Lee a Cy Young candidate, he may even be the favorite at this point.

*I noticed, while looking through his game logs, that Lee has pitched the second game of a doubleheader twice this season. In those two starts, against Kansas City and Toronto, he's gone 18 innings, and hasn't allowed a run while striking out 14 and walking 2. I wonder if scoring is lower the second game of a doubleheader than on average. My guess is that it probably is- you have some guys sitting out, and others have already played a game earlier in the day. Wouldn't really make a difference, but interesting nonetheless.

Photo: RotoZoo.

The following is a list of the members of the BBWAA (from Wikipedia, so don't even think about questioning it's accuracy; although Wikipedia does say it's incomplete).

• Peter Abraham, The Journal News
• Dave Albee, Marin Independent Journal
• Maury Allen, New York Post, retired
• Dom Amore, The Hartford Courant
• Mel Antonen, USA Toda
• Phil Arvia, Daily Southtown
• Bill Ballou, Telegram & Gazette of Worcester
• Mike Bauman, MLB.com
• Ira Berkow, The New York Times
• Jeff Blair, Toronto Globe and Mail
• Barry Bloom, MLB.com
• Ron Blum, Associated Press
• Paul Bodi, MLB.com
• Hal Bodley, USA Today
• Thomas Boswell, Washington Post (non-voting member)
• Pat Borzi, New York Times
• Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Mark Bradley, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
• Steve Buckley, Boston Herald
• Don Burke, Newark Star-Ledger
• Jim Caple, ESPN
• Mike Celizic, MSNBC
• Bill Center, The San Diego Union-Tribune
• Murray Chass, New York Times (non-voting member)
• Gene Collier, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Bill Conlin, Philadelphia Daily News
• Ron Cook, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Jerry Crasnick, ESPN
• Ken Davidoff, Newsday
• Jose de Jesus Ortiz, Houston Chronicle
• Mike Dodd USA Today
• Mike Downey, Chicago Tribune
• Rich Draper, MLB.com
• Gordon Edes, Boston Globe
• Bob Elliott, Toronto Sun
• Mark Faller, The Arizona Republic
• Jeffrey Flanagan, The Kansas City Star
• Gerry Fraley Dallas Morning News
• Tom Gage, The Detroit News
• Peter Gammons, ESPN
• Pedro Gomez, ESPN
• Ken Gurnick, MLB.com
• Mark Gonzalez, Chicago Tribune
• Jerry Green, The Detroit News
• Tony Grossi, The Plain Dealer
• Paul Hagen, Philadelphia Daily News
• Jim Hawkins, The Oakland Press
• John Henderson, Tampa Tribune
• Lynn Henning, The Detroit News
• Jon Heyman, Sports Illustrated
• Jerome Holtzman, Chicago Tribune
• Jeff Horrigan, Boston Herald
• Paul Hoynes, The Plain Dealer
• Rick Hummel St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Bruce Jenkins, San Francisco Chronicle
• Chuck Johnson USA Today
• Richard Justice Houston Chronicle
• Dick Kaegel, MLB.com
• Ann Killion, San Jose Mercury News
• Bob Klapisch, ESPN
• Mike Klis, Denver Post
• Gwen Knapp, San Francisco Chronicle
• Michael Knisley, ESPN
• Dejan Kovacevic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Doug Krikorian, Long Beach Press-Telegram
• Tim Kurkjian, ESPN
• Joseph Liao, World Journal
• Paul Ladewski, Daily Southtown
• Mike Lefkow, Contra Costa Times
• Bill Livingston, The Plain Dealer
• Seth Livingstone USA Today
• Bill Madden, New York Daily News
• Tony Massarotti, Boston Herald
• Sean McAdam, ESPN
• Hal McCoy, Dayton Daily News
• Dan McGrath, Chicago Tribune
• Paul Meyer Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Bernie Miklasz St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Scott Miller, CBS Sportsline
• Larry Milson, The Globe and Mail
• Jim Molony, MLB.com
• Carrie Muskat, MLB.com
• Bob Nightengale USA Today
• Mark Newman, MLB.com
• Marty Noble, MLB.com
• Jack O'Connell Hartford Courant
• Dave O'Hara, retired
• Buster Olney, ESPN
• Rob Parker, The Detroit News
• Jeff Peek, Traverse City Record Eagle
• Mike Peticca, The Plain Dealer
• Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times (non-voting member)
• Joe Posnanski, Kansas City Star
• Ray Ratto, San Francisco Chronicle
• Tracy Ringolsby, Rocky Mountain News
• Phil Rogers, ESPN
• Bob Rosen, Elias Sports Bureau
• Ken Rosenthal, Fox Sports
• Roger Rubin, New York Daily News
• Jim Salisbury, The Philadelphia Inquirer
• Alan Schwarz, Baseball America
• Chaz Scoggins, The Sun of Lowell
• Dan Shaughnessy, The Boston Globe
• Bud Shaw, The Plain Dealer
• John Shea, San Francisco Chronicle
• Joel Sherman, New York Post
• Claire Smith, The Philadelphia Inquirer
• Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Jim Sohan, Minneapolis Star Tribune
• Lyle Spencer, MLB.com
• Jayson Stark, ESPN
• Kit Stier, The Journal News
• Larry Stone, Seattle Times
• Joe Strauss, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Jim Street, MLB.com
• Paul Sullivan, Chicago Tribune
• T.R. Sullivan, MLB.com
• Dave van Dyck, Chicago Tribune
• Tom Verducci, Sports Illustrated

So these 119 guys are apparently qualified. Included on that list are sixteen Web writers, who were recommended for approval yesterday:

"Sixteen of the 18 nominations were recommended for approval: Scott Miller from CBS Sportsline; Jim Caple, Jerry Crasnick, Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkjian, Amy Nelson, Buster Olney, and Jayson Stark from ESPN; Ken Rosenthal from FoxSports; John Donovan, Jon Heyman, and Tom Verducci from SI; and Tim Brown, Steve Henson, Jeff Passan, and Dan Wetzel from Yahoo. "

Who are the two that missed the cut, you ask? Oh, nobody you've heard of. At least there's a good reason for this (from comment #90):

"One of the requirements for membership in the BBWAA is the need to be at Major League ballparks. Several members questioned whether Rob and Keith meet that requirement.

Some board members informally contacted folks at ESPN with this question and were told neither Rob nor Keith regularly attend big-league games and do not need to do so in order to do their jobs.

I can guarantee you that if my supervisors reported that to the BBWAA about me, I wouldn't have a card.

Also, this is how the system works. Newspapers designate candidates for membership. Reporters don't apply on their own. We followed the same basic procedure in adding internet reporters.

One difference: Candidates have always been reviewed each year by a chapter chairman, but since the internet sites were applying through the national office, they were reviewed by the national board of directors.

I've been in contact with Keith and Rob since the vote. Keith said he does attend games on a regular basis and expects to increase his attendance in the coming year.

If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt Keith, I hope ESPN confirms this and resubmits his name next year for consideration. If so, I would expect him to be approved.

I haven't heard back from Rob at this point, but if the view on his need was similarly misrepresented, I hope ESPN also resubmits him as a candidate.

Bob Dutton
BBWAA president"

Oh. Nevermind. Because attending lots of Tigers games allowed Gage and Hawkins to make such informed selections in this year's MVP voting, right?

Just another addition to the long list of votes pathetically screwed up by this organization, I guess.

Update: FJM chimes in:

"Mr. Neyer, Mr. Law: you are not "beat" enough to be beat writers for the BBWAA. You do not spend enough time smelling players' sweat and managers' chaw. Your brand of writing -- writing about facts, information, and data -- will not be tolerated within their ranks. Gentlemen: congratulations."

Update 2: More debate in the comments of Law's blog.

Update 3: Another BBTF thread.

This was a lot of fun, and there's more to look at, so I thought it deserved another post.

First, the final standings. Methodology is slightly different, as I'm using RMSE (Root Mean Squared Error) rather than just average error. This penalizes large misses more (sorry, Buster), and is more widely used.

As we'll see, Neyer comes out on to pretty much any way you do this. Notice the top five are all at least based on statistical systems. Be sure to remember that when you're watching Baseball Tonight next March. Your time is probably better spent subscribing to BP.

Just for fun, I also looked at how many of the Vegas over/unders everybody chose correctly. A lot of this is luck- if the line is 83.5, and your prediction is 84, you get the same credit if that team wins 84 or 104. (BTW, Silver is Nate Silver from BP; he's the "PECOTA guy", among other things. As I understand it, he took the PECOTA predictions and just made adjustments where he saw fit.)Again, pretty meaningless, but Caple and Law both jump way up. Gammons is last, but I wouldn't be too worried about that- I'm pretty confident he didn't place any wagers.

Now, the following is very interesting. Sky beat me to this (although I believe he did straight difference rather than RMSE), but if we really want to know how good these predictions were, we should look at Pythag record.

Basically, Pythag record is how many games a team should have won, based on how many runs they scored and allowed. It's a better at predicting future performance than actual record, and thus is a better indicator of team strength. It's great for this exercise, so lets take a look.

These numbers are noticeably lower. This makes sense- there is less variation in Pythag record than actual record (I think). I found this table to be very interesting. Sports Interaction jumps up considerably, which doesn't surprise me. Think about how much money these guys have at stake with this stuff. It's their job to post a number that will entice people to bet equally on both the over and the under. I would hope they are good at it- it's a lot different than Steve Phillips handing in a list of completely arbitrary numbers to some ESPN editor.

Beyond that, the list is once again dominated by the "numbers guys". I am somewhat surprised that Olney did so poorly.

The obvious next step is to see who got lucky, and whose picks were better than they originally appeared. Since the average Pythag miss was 1.39 smaller than the average actual miss, I have taken that into account in the final column. A negative "Adj Diff" means you got lucky.

Phillips' picks were poor to begin with, and he got unlucky on top of that (which is only fair, considering his recent good luck in other areas). Olney had the worst picks according to Pythag by a pretty wide margin, but had luck on his side, which allowed him to almost catch up to Phillips.

The numerical systems all obviously did better than others regardless of what metric I've looked at, but they were also on the lucky side. I would be interested to see if this is also true in previous years (which would indicate that it's not actually luck). The PECOTA predictions for each year since 2003 are readily available, so when I have time I figure I'll look into those.

In his blog this morning, Rob Neyer linked to my MVP post from a couple days ago. In the comments of his blog (as well as the comments of my post), there was an inspired debate of the merits of WPA, traditional stats, sabermetric stats, fielding stats- pretty much everything. I think it would be interesting to do the same kind of analysis using VORP rather than WPA, but I'll wait on that until the season ends.

What I want to talk about today is the following comment from Neyer:

"Moo269 (that's my ESPN.com handle), I think you're generally right about most everything else here, except I think you might be wrong about the Rookie of the Year reasults.

There's a LOT of buzz about Tulowitzki out there right now. If the Brewers somehow get into the playoffs, Braun might squeak by Tulo in the voting. But otherwise, I think, Tulo's going to be the come-from-behind winner. Which is okay, because he's been fantastic. -r"

The dynamics of this race are fascinating to me. When I wrote about this the other day, I had in my head that Braun was way ahead offensively, with Tulo obviously leading in terms of defense (I continue to think that).

The way I translated that to the actual voting results was that Braun would win, because the BBWAA would value offense over defense. This is true, but I missed a step. Braun is way ahead in stats like VORP, but the counting stats, which are obviously what the voters will look at, are actually surprisingly close.

As I wrote in the comments of the Neyer post, here are the merits of both candidates in the eyes of the voters:

Tulo: .293 BA, 23 HR, 94 RBIs. Plays in Coors. Good defensively. Rockies made hard charge into/just short of playoffs.

Braun: .325BA, 34 HR, 95 RBIs. Poor defensively. Brewers likely won't make playoffs, haven't been good down the stretch.

I had not realized that their RBI numbers are so close.

So it comes down to the fact that the voters will view Braun as being ahead offensively (but not by the margin that he actually is), and not give Tulowitzki as much credit as he deserves for his superior defense.

The mistake I made was not looking at the counting stats (notably RBIs), and just assuming that Braun was way head in those. This, of course, is because I was looking at stats like VORP and BRAA. But I fear that some of the voters may make a similar mistake- they might just assume that Braun is ahead in these categories, and not bother to look anything up. This, of course, is insane, but it's reality.

If I was a betting man (which I am), my money would still be on Braun, although if Tulo makes some noise against the D'Backs this weekend (and especially if the Rockies make the playoffs), he might be the surprising (and deserving) winner.


Photo: Chieftain(I have no idea what happened there) the best newspaper in the world.

Everybody makes baseball predictions in late March/early April. A lot of people just predict who will win each division, and who will advance to the World Series. Anyone can do this- you really only have to have a general knowledge of the top teams.

There are also people who predict how many wins each of the 30 teams will have. There are various complications with this (Jayson Stark's predictions have the average team winning 83.6 games, which is quite unlikely), but the thing about this is you actually have to know what you are doing. People make these predictions differently- some rely strictly on numbers, others on "feel".

I found 13 sets of these predictions- 10 from ESPN (Gammons, Stark, Crasnick, Olney, Neyer, Kurkjian, Phillips, Law, Caple, Karabell), two from BP (PECOTA and BP Hit List), and also the over/unders from SportsInteraction.com (via SoSH). I thought I'd take a look at some of the best and worst individual predictions, as well as whose overall predictions were most accurate.

(Note: These lists aren't just based on who was the closest- I also factored in how far off the other predictions were. So predicting at team within two games if the average prediction was eight games off would be higher than predicting a team exactly if the average was just three games off.)

The Best

1. PECOTA, Chicago White Sox
Predicted wins: 72
On pace for: 71.0

The over/under for the White Sox was 89.5, and the ESPN analysts average prediction was 84.6. Chicago won 90 games in '06 after winning 99 in 2005. Much was made of PECOTA's pessimism, but this turned out to be, pretty easily, the best prediction of the year.

2. Jayson Stark, Seattle Mariners
Predicted wins: 85
On pace for: 86.6

The average for everyone else was 76.5, and PECOTA had them winning only 73 games. They only won 78 games in '06, while finishing last in the AL West. ESPN's preview had JJ Putz under "Bust", as they were worried about his elbow pains. I feel like that turned out OK for him.

3. Steve Phillips, Minnesota Twins
Predicted wins: 78
On pace for: 78.6

Steve Phillips: Not Smart! Well, for now at least. Nobody else at ESPN had the Twins winning less than 83 games, and PECOTA pegged them at 90. On the ESPN Message Boards, Twinsdude08 remarked that, "The Twins just have too much talent to not win the division." I don't know how Phillips came to 78 wins, but, as well see later, this accuracy certainly isn't a trend.

4. Rob Neyer, Washington Nationals
Predicted wins: 69
On pace for: 71.1

People (especially Buster Olney), thought the Nationals were going to be really bad. The second most optimistic ESPN prediction was 64 wins; six had them losing over 100 games. Neyer, who always refers to his predictions as "running the numbers", was more realistic- it's hard to lose 100 games in the NL, since all the other teams are really bad too.

5. Peter Gammons, Colorado Rockies
Predicted wins: 84
On pace for: 87.2

The Rockies have far exceeded all expectations- their over/under at SportsInteraction was 74.5 wins, and nobody else had them winning even 80 games. Even Gammons didn't see this coming, but everybody else was so far off that his prediction makes the list.

The Rest (Predictor, Team, Prediction, Actual Pace)
6. Phillips, Orioles, 70, 69.4
7. Karabell, Pirates, 69, 68.9
8. Caple, Marlins, 68, 68.6
9. PECOTA, Oakland, 80, 77.3
10. Stark, Red Sox, 96, 96

Now for the fun part...

The Worst

1. Buster Olney, Washington Nationals
Predicted wins: 49
On pace for: 71.7

Pretty much everyone was a little off on the Nats, but this one stands out. Sure, things didn't look good back in March, but 113 losses? No NL team lost more than 96 games in '05 or '06- it would be quite amazing if someone was actually that bad. Olney is a smart guy, but I'm not sure where he got 49 wins from.

2. Jim Caple, Kansas City Royals
Predicted wins: 54
On pace for: 70

I don't know, maybe people just think it's funny to pick teams to be amusingly bad. I kind of see Caple's reasoning here, as he predicted the other four AL Central teams to average 89 wins. But seriously, how did he see this playing out? Did he figure they would all go like 16-3 against the Royals? Thats the only way they could average 89 wins, since they have to play each other so many times.

3. Steve Phillips, Boston Red Sox
Predicted wins: 82
On pace for: 96

This only came out third in my little formula, but that may be generous. Boston was a mess in '06, and they still managed 86 wins. Nobody else had the Red Sox winning less than 90 games. Between this and repeatedly predicting the Yankees to miss the playoffs in August, I feel like Phillips just makes predictions for the shock value of them.

4. Keith Law, Seattle Mariners
Predicted wins: 65
On pace for: 86.6

Law and Stark didn't quite see eye to eye on this one, as their predictions were 20 wins apart, the highest such margin. Seattle has surprised people, but their over/under was 79.5 wins; there really wasn't any reason to think they would approach 100 losses.

The Rest (Predictor, Team, Prediction, Actual Pace)

5. Philips, Diamondbacks, 78, 90.8
6. Phillips, White Sox, 92, 71
7. PECOTA, Devil Rays, 78, 66.4
8. Karabell, Cubs, 75, 86
9. Stark, Reds, 85, 74.2
10. Karabell, Astros, 88, 70.5

Now, let's look at whose overall predictions were the most accurate. The table on the right is ranked by how close people were, on average of all 30 predictions.

The top three are all predictions based on numbers. PECOTA is 100% quantitative, and both Neyer and the Hit List rely heavily on numerical predictions.

Those are the only three that did better than Vegas. Neyer did really well- his picks are 19-10-1 against the over/unders so far. Even more impressive, of his seven predictions that had large discrepancies with Sports Interaction, he was right on six of them.

On the other end of the spectrum is, not surprisingly, Mr. Phillips. If you watch Baseball Tonight and SportsCenter (or are a Mets fan...) this probably doesn't come as much of a surprise. Luckily, Steve Phillips isn't paid a lot of money to analyze baseball for a living- if he was, his incompetence would be pretty embarassing.

Pictures: Pecota, Phililps, Olney, Law.

The best place to find analysis on the Oden situation? DraftKevinDurant, of course.

An interesting discussion about John Hollinger's PER ratings at Free Darko.

BP's Postseason Odds now include the 1-day and 7-day changes.

Check out this absurd picture from the now infamous Marlins-Nationals game (via Knuckle Curve).

Gilbert Arenas goes "on strike" against his wife, sleeps in the gym for a week.

An interesting study looking at which out is the toughest to get (via Neyer).

OMDQ interviews NESN reporter Tina Cervasio.

So the Rockies ended up losing last night, which was unfortunate. But VIP continues to be very kind, as they've actually changed Colorado's odds to 250:1 (WS) and 100:1 (NL).

Oh, and by the way, David Wright is still 3:1 to win the NL MVP at SB.

If you read one thing on Ankiel/HGH, Will's Deadspin post has to be it.

At one point I was considering writing a long profile on Clay Buchholz, but SOX & Dawgs has a pretty good summary, certainly more concise than mine would have been. Although I don't quite understand all the "where did this guy come from" angle; he was Boston's #2 prospect coming into the season, and had 171 Ks in 126 minor league innings this year.

FanHouse continues its takeover, as they've now acquired The Dugout. As a send off, The Dugout is doing a series of farewell posts, starring Farnsworth, The Young brothers, and PECOTA.

I am constantly referring to the BP Playoff Odds; if you're curious as to how they're computed, Derek Jacques has a (free) article explaining what goes into them.

Snuck into the end of Neyer's blog post (Insider) yesterday: "P.S. By all measures I can find -- both numbers and media buzz -- if the Mets finish in first place, David Wright is a lock in the National League. Book it." I generally agree with this, although I think it's far from a lock. Knuckle Curve points out that the voters may be blinded by all the HRs of Fielder and Howard. This is true, but I think that will only allow them to overtake Wright if one of their teams reaches the playoffs.

I understand this isn't how the world works, but right now CC Sabathia should win the AL Cy Young. A big reason for this is he leads MLB in innings. Beckett is going to be right up there with the voters because of his 17 wins, but Sabathia has pitched thirty six more innings. This is partially because he has made four more starts (which has value in itself), but he also goes deeper into games, averaging 7.0 innings per start to Beckett's 6.7.

In notching his 16th win last night, Kelvim Escobar jumps up to third in Cy Young Predictor- he would be a deserving choice as well. Sadly, it looks like Bedard's season might be done. This means that the MLB strikeout leader is one again up for grabs, with the top contenders being Peavy (210), Johan (203), and Kazmir (199).