Now Available for 2012

Now Available

THT's latest e-book

Most Recent Comments

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Disco Hayes theorizes

• cites the rulebook multiple times
• uses a greek character to represent a variable
• uses the phrase "batted ball trajectory"
• repeatedly uses precise batted ball type and direction numbers
• cites run values for base-out situations

So, late in the game, if an opposing team's batting order goes righty, lefty, righty, why take O'Day out of the game when the lefty comes up and not stick him at first base with the idea of putting him right back on the mound for the next batter? If he's twice as bad as the worst first baseman--let's say -0.00112 runs per batter, which is two times the runs the worst first baseman costs his team--in the league and is replacing the best, for that one left-handed batter, he will cost 0.00228 runs, but then for the next batter, the righty, he will return to the mound and save 40 times that, or 0.09239 runs, a net 0.09065 positive runs. To begin with, he was only worth 0.09239 runs, and he just added .09065; you could say he has doubled his value. And this makes sense, have him pitch to two batters instead of one and he's twice as effective.

Now, this doesn't quite compare apples to apples, but it's an interesting elementary look into the idea. We would have to look at O'Day's RE24/BF splits against righties and lefties, and then look at how many runs the left handed pitcher you brought in to face the lefty would save. Plus we didn't take into account how many runs the next righty out of the bullpen may save or what if a pinch hitter bats? Not to mention, a first baseman's value is undoubtedly magnified with a lefty at the plate and we haven't taken into account the weighted value a fielder would have in, say, a bases loaded situation rather than bases empty. I will leave all that to the guys who get paid to have this stuff left to them. But all these caveats aside, the fact a pitcher can save runs more effectively than the first baseman by multiple orders of magnitude should make sense and should make you think.

Teams improved where Brian Johnson moved

• Johnson first broke in with the 1994 Padres, who were a lousy 47-70 in that strike-shortened year. On a pro-rated basis, however, that was about three wins better than their record in 1993. Johnson was just warming up.
  
• In 1995, the Padres improved to 70-74 in another short year. Pro-rated, that was an 11-game improvement.
  
• The next year, the Padres leaped to 91-71 and first place in the NL West. A 12-game improvement.
  
• There were other players on the Padre roster during this time, such as Tony Gwynn, so Johnson's unique talent evidently didn't stand out. The Padres decided to trade him to the Tigers.
  
• Good news for the Tigers, who had gone 53-109 in '96. In 1997, with Johnson on the roster, they improved to 79-83. Johnson batted only .237 for them, however, and the Tigers, not recognizing Johnson's true talent, sent him to the Giants in the middle of the season.
  
• The Giants had been 68-94 in 1996, far behind the Padres. In 1997, with Johnson on their roster for the second half of the season, they won the division with a 90-72 record. The Padres, without Johnson, sank to fourth place with a 76-86 record.
  
• It's hard to improve on a 90-win season, so even though the Giants kept Johnson on the team, they "fell" to 89 wins and second place in 1998. Disenchanted, they let Johnson walk as a free agent.
  
• Johnson signed with the Reds, who had been 77-85 in 1998. With Johnson on the team (albeit mostly in the dugout), they zoomed to 96-67 and second place in the NL Central. Inexplicably, the Reds released him after the season. They haven't won more than 85 games since.
  
• Johnson moved onto the Royals, who had been 64-97 in 1999. Johnson did his thing and pulled the Royals up to a 77-85 record, which is a mighty heady win total for that particular franchise. KC released Johnson in June, when they were just below .500.
  
• The poor guy played a bit for the Dodgers in 2001, but the magic was gone, unrecognized by MLB's braintrust and media. Even the bloggers missed him. Were there bloggers back then?