Dueling Projections

I have taken considerable heat for my post on Nate Silver's A-Rod projections in our comment section and elsewhere. As always, here at Fack Youk, we subscribe to Benjamin Disraeli's quote "It is easier to be critical than right". As the result of some goading from a commenter named Fridas Boss at Baseball Think Factory, I have used some cutting edge statistical techniques to develop my own projection for how many home runs Alex Rodriguez will amass over the course of his career.

First, for the record, here are Nate's projections again (with A-Rod's past two years).

One thing I didn't notice before was that Silver's projection lasts two years beyond A-Rod's current contract. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but if A-Rod hits four home runs in 2017 and is at 726 total, I don't think the Yankees, or any team for that matter, are going to sign him.

-----

My method was extremely complex and exhaustive. Here are the steps I took.

1. Used the later years of Frank Robinson, Eddie Murray, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays and Babe Ruth to see, in total, how some of the greatest home run hitters of all-time have produced during their decline phases. I excluded Barry Bonds because of his atypical middle aged physical metamorphosis, despite the fact that he a A-Rod are both alleged PED users.



2. Combined that and A-Rod's previous totals to develop a trend line for doubles.



3. And for slugging percentage, factoring in his declining speed and the negative impact it will have on his SLG%.
   
   
4. Combined those three lines into a conglomerate trend line I called his Projected Power Index (PPI)



5. Estimated the ballpark effects of the New Yankee Stadium based on the prevailing weather patterns in April through September and the way it the diamond now faces.
   
   
6. Used all of these in conjunction with his previous home run numbers, taking into account his steroid use in Texas (increased production minus park effects) to create his Projected Home Runs (PHRs).



7. Decided all of that that would be way too difficult and possibly counterproductive, and instead picked the number "792" which would ensure that if he breaks the record, I will be closer than Nate by a couple of HRs. I then back-filled the numbers making sure there wasn't a drop off every single year since that was something I took issue with.



8. Behold:

One of the things I said in the last post, but probably should have emphasized more was:

I realize that the most reliable way to predict future outcomes is by analyzing past events. However, the flaw in using this methodology is that it becomes impossible to predict when someone will do unprecedented things. Simply put, how is analyzing 20 guys, none of whom is the career home run leader, ever going to result in the simulation predicting A-Rod will break the all-time record?

Commenter scatterbrian nailed it:

It seems futile to attempt projecting a career that is an outlier. Rodriguez had 91 extra-base hits in his age-20 season, so we're dealing with a pretty rare player as it is. (DiMaggio and Pujols each had 89 in their age-21 seasons.) Using guys like Grich, Caminiti and Sandberg as comps doesn't seem fair to Rodriguez. Combined those three have only four seasons with 30+ homers. Rodriguez has hit less that 35 just one time.

The point of an individual projection, at least to me, is not to produce a seemingly exhaustive and all-encompassing methodology. The objective is to be right.

PETCOA is obviously more complex and accurate overall than anything I could ever hope to construct. However, the point of the previous post was to call into question a method that is only going to produce one result: A-Rod falling short of the all-time home run record.

Silver's projection serves to remind us that A-Rod breaking Hank Aa-- er, Barry Bonds' record is far from a foregone conclusion based on pretty much every career path that has taken shape in the history of baseball. I just don't think A-Rod fits that mold.

Only time will tell.

-----

Oh and by the way, I made a similar projection for his home run totals this year, based on his performance in Spring Training. You probably won't believe it, but he is currently on pace for 162 HRs in 2009: A-Rod homers in first spring game [ESPN]

He Also Picked Mickey Rourke...

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but Nate Silver's projections of A-Rod's home run totals just don't look right. Here is his description of his methodology:

I took Rodriguez's top 20 PECOTA-comparable players and averaged their performances over each remaining season of their careers. Actually, the process was a little more complicated than that (each comparable's performance was adjusted for his park and league context, as well as his previous track record, and we had to make an accommodation for guys like Manny Ramirez who made A-Rod's comparables list but have yet to conclude their own careers). But the basic idea is simple: Comparables like Frank Robinson, who aged well, have a favorable effect on Rodriguez's forecast, and players like Caminini [sic] just the opposite one.

And here are the projections (I've added A-Rod's two previous seasons in white):

There are three glaring problems to me.

1. Silver predicts a near-linear decline, with each total being 2-6HR lower than the preceding year. This, of course, is the result you are going to get when you take his "top 20 PETCOA-comparable players" like Silver did. If you take any 20 players and average their careers, the total number of home runs is almost always going to decline with age. Increase the sample size and it will always decline. The only problem is, over that ten year period it is extremely unlikely that any individual player is going to have that consistent of a downward slide. I will bet anyone reading $100 that this doesn't happen to A-Rod. First one to take the bet in the comments is on, we can iron out the details later.
   
   
2. A-Rod is going to be able to DH at some point. Common knowledge would suggest that playing regularly in the field puts wear and tear on a body, draining energy in individual games and effectively shortening careers. Many of his comparables didn't have that luxury and were driven out of the league because they were no longer well-rounded players, not just because they could no longer be effective at the plate and hit home runs.
   
   
3. The problem with being on pace to be the greatest home run hitter of all time is that you aren't going to have too many people similar to you.

Here are Alex's 20 comparables (and their career HR totals):

1. Sammy Sosa (609)
2. Bobby Grich (224)
3. Dave Winfield (465)
4. Ken Caminiti (239)
5. Ryne Sandberg (282)
6. Frank Robinson (586)
7. Dwight Evans (385)
8. Jeff Bagwell (449)
9. George Brett (317)
10. Reggie Jackson (563)
11. Hank Aaron (755)
12. Greg Luzinski (307)
13. Albert Belle (381)
14. Reggie Smith (314)
15. Manny Ramirez (527, Inc.)
16. Carlos Delgado (469, Inc.)
17. Dick Allen (351)
18. Doug DeCinces (237)
19. Larry Walker (383)
20. Tony Perez (379)

Granted, PETCOA's comparables are based on a ton of things besides home runs, but the problem with this list is that A-Rod already has more HRs than 16 of the guys on it. He has twice as many as his second and fourth closest matches and his career isn't over. I know Nate is going to lean on his own projection system for a variety of reasons, but it would probably have made more sense to look at the top 20 career HR leaders. We are, after all, trying to predict how many home runs he is going to hit and he's already #12 on the list.

I realize that the most reliable way to predict future outcomes is by analyzing past events. However, the flaw in using this methodology is that it becomes impossible to predict when someone will do unprecedented things. Simply put, how is analyzing 20 guys, none of whom is the career home run leader, ever going to result in the simulation predicting A-Rod will break the all-time record?

Look what happens when you line up A-Rod's projections with Hammerin' Hank's:

For one thing, last year, A-Rod played in only 138 games. If he played 156 games, he was on pace for almost exactly 43 HRs, right in line with a 32 year old Aaron.

Where the big differentials come in, are from ages 35-39. As A-Rod enters his steady plunge into oblivion (98HR, 19.6/year), Hank checks in with 203 round-trippers (40.6 per year) including the highest single season total of his career (47 at age 37).

There's no guarantee that A-Rod will hit even one more home run. He could get struck by lightning tomorrow. I just don't think that Alex is going to take the field on a consistent basis and gradually slide off into oblivion like PETCOA projects. The truly eye opening part of Silver's projection is that he'll would still only be 33 HRs away from the all-time record even if he is as bad as the simulation predicts.

-----

Before you leave a comment telling me how much of a moron I am, I've posted my own projections here.

Midday Linkaround

Sorry Fackers, it's a slow day in terms of news and a busy one for both Matt and me. Here are a couple of items of interest to get you through the afternoon.

-----

I hardly watched any of the Home Run Derby last night because in the process of drinking three beers at the bar, I saw a grand total of 11 home runs hit, thanks mostly to Brandon Inge's impressive display. How's that for action?!?! Didn't exactly entice me to turn it on when I got home, you know? Craig from Shysterball didn't watch much more, but he did jot more of his thoughts down.

Joel Sherman has three suggestions to improve the Derby. I like the first two, and even though third sounds like a good idea, it feels really dirty.

Sherman also posted three things he thinks about the Yanks at this point in the season. One of the items is a positive look at A-Rod. He's got 17HRs and 50RBIs despite missing the first 5 weeks of the season. Not too shabby, all things considered.

Looking at this post from Jason made me realize that A-Rod is still on pace to exceed Nate Silver's infamous projection, which I offered an alternative to back in February. Nate said 33, I said 42 and if A-Rod holds his pace of homering every 3.41 games he plays in, he'll end up with 39.

The average All-Star makes less than the average Yankee. Does that bother any of you?

Mike from River Ave. Blues takes an in-depth look at the development of Austin Jackson. It's something we've attempted to do here in the past but Mike really knocks this one out of the park (even if Jackson has struggled to do so).

Also at RAB, Joe weighs the possibily of adding a veteran starter.

Josh has something in common with Andrew Bailey, but I have something in common with Mariano Rivera.

Remember when fan clubs were just for the Backstreet Boys and the Red Sox? Not anymore...

/hangs head in shame

And last but not least, allow me to offer a friendly travel tip: If you are going to smuggle cocaine in your golfing equipment, you might want to brush up on the basics of the game.

Partial Postseason Prognostication

With only a week remaining in the MLB regular season and only two races still undecided - the AL Central and NL Wild Card - we're seeing more and more articles seeking historical trends that predict postseason success. Last week, we linked to Lisa Swan's article about strong Septembers and Flip Flop Fly Ball's chart displaying the correlation (or lack thereof) between the having the best record during the regular season and winning the World Series.

Well late last week and over the weekend a few more of these pieces popped up and here are three of them (all via BBTF):

Similar to the chart at FFFB, Tom Verducci sorted the last 9 World Series winners by their regular season record and found an almost perfectly even distribution of League Championship pennants and World Series Victories. One championship came from each of the top 7 seeds and two came from teams seeded 8 or higher, such as the 2006 Cardinals who had the 13th best record in the league that year but still won the WS.

It's a pretty rough measure for a couple of reasons. The first, which Verducci points out himself, is that the teams don't play balanced schedules so teams get as much credit for the record in the NL Central as they do in the AL East, and so forth. Secondly, in 2006 for instance, four of the best 5 records came out of the American League. As a result there was an artificially higher chance of a low seed winning a pennant and a World Series (which happened with the Cardinals) since three of them were on one side of the bracket.

----

Next up, Dave Cameron wrote a piece for Wall Street Journal's website which showed that over the last 7 years, the teams that won the World Series have had a relatively small amount of meaningless games leading up to the postseason.

Dave quantifies "meaningless" games as ones that were played after their team has locked up a postseason berth either by winning their division or securing the Wild Card, but doesn't count ones that factor in the race for homefield advantage or are played against potential postseason opponents. Those certainly are played with a higher level of effort and urgency that the ones the Yankees are about to play against the Royals, one would assume. As Rob Neyer points out, 7 years is also a pretty small sample size.

----

Lastly, we have a piece by Lincoln Mitchell in The Faster Times which would seem to fly directly in the face of the half-baked theory proposed by Jeff Pearlman that we took issue with last week. Mitchell attempts to identify the team with the best two starters each year and concludes that since 1995, that club has won the World Series only twice.

There are problems with this methodology as well. ERA+ is not a bad measure but it certainly is not conclusive in determining the team with the best two starters when the postseason rolled around. Furthermore, if we wanted to do more of a complete assessment, we would rank each team's top two pitchers, or better yet give them a score on a scale of, say, 1-10 which would more accurately display the difference between each duo. In some years the top two hurlers for the best team might get a "9" and the next best team only receives a 6, but a straight ranking wouldn't convey that. Once the scores were determined then we could look at the results and see how they correlated with postseason success. Then we might have a better picture of how having two dominant starters predicts playoff series victories.

----

Do you notice a theme developing here? These methodologies are all pretty incomplete. A huge part of the problem is that baseball is littered with variables, there is no control group and you can't just create situations and run them over and over. Of course it's much easier to point out the deficiencies of these findings than take the time to complete the analysis.

All of these writers are admittedly taking a "quick and dirty" type of approach to their analysis and that's completely understandable. At one point, I started a post that was similar to Lisa Swan's about finishing the regular season on a high note (but I wanted to look over the last 10, 15 and 20 games as opposed to the final month) but as soon as I figured out how many tedious calculations I was going to have to do and how much time it would take me to do even a couple years worth of analysis, I scrapped it.

Another factor that makes it difficult to go more in-depth is that, ideally, you want to have a point when you are done with your research. These pieces were written for online outlets where time is always of the essence. You don't want to spend a bunch of time and at the end of the post have to say, "Through all of this research I determined that there is no noticeable correlation in the data."

And this brings me back to a piece that we looked at back at the end of August by Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus. Jaffe brought up the research conducted by Nate Silver and Dayn Perry that lead to the creation of BP's Secret Sauce and applied it to this year's playoff picture. The difference here is that the Silver and Perry went into their research testing all sorts of variables and determined that strong defense, a pitching staff with a high K/9 and strong closer all had high correlation to postseason success. The Secret Sauce is the closest thing we have to a scientific study of what teams are "built for the playoffs" and it's still fairly incomplete.

In all likelihood the Yankees will take the long ALDS, so we still have over nine days before the first postseason pitch is thrown. We're to see more attempts at unlocking the postseason code and they'll probably be pretty interesting. But I highly doubt any of them are going to take the time to shift our thinking with a truly in-depth study of what October baseball really comes down to. Let's just try to enjoy the fact that the Yanks can coast home, throw out their B and C line ups and take things as they come.

Fantastic News

Fack Youk has been picked up by ESPN:



Despite of all the Widget bashing, erroneous Simmons hating, and Nate Silver questioning, we are now part of the ESPN family. They've specifically requested more incoherent rants from Big Willie Style.

[Ed. Note: That's not a photoshop, just a random Internet Explorer glitch.]

Pondering Left Field And The DH

Good morning Fackers. Friday morning. Finally. Good Lord, a five day work week after a three day work week and four day weekend is a special kind of torture. I think I'd rather be water boarded. And still there's eight hours to go until that sweet, glorious weekend.

Speaking of interminable waits, today is the last weekday prior to the Winter Meetings. Maybe, just maybe, that'll get things moving and we'll get some actual player movement. Then again, the non-tender deadline for arbitration eligible players isn't until next Saturday, so the free agent market may not materialize until clubs know the full spectrum of who will be available.

Either way, the Yankees' biggest needs remain the ones we identified immediately after the World Series: filling the left field and designated hitter jobs for next year. As I stated then, I think the Yankees' best options for 2010 are to have both Johnny Damon and Hideki Matsui return on one year deals. To that end, here are a couple things I came across yesterday that speak to that (again, more confirmation bias on my part).

First up, we have Jay Jaffe at Futility Infielder examining the Yankees' decision not to offer arbitration to Johnny Damon. Jaffe points out that based on Nate Silver's calculations from four years ago, the value of the potential compensation picks forgone by not offering arbitration to Damon is somewhere in the neighborhood of $12M.

I've already stated that I thought it was a worthwhile risk to offer arbitration to Damon, but this drives the point home even more. It was no sure bet that Damon, as a Boras client seeking a multiyear deal, even would accept arbitration. If he refused, the club picks up the equivalent of $12M as compensation. If he accepted, the club keeps him for a year, which is probably all they really want to commit to him, at a price tag of about $15M - about $5M more than market value and exactly what Fangraphs pegs his worth, on average, over the last two years.

Yes, we're only talking about draft picks here, which don't always pan out and may be overvalued, as questioned by the blog-formerly-known-as-The-Yankee-Universe yesterday. But as Fangraphs pointed out last week, there are several factors to consider when pondering an arbitration offer. And all things considered, it appears the Yankees were unwilling to risk a $5M investment for a potential $12M return. Then again, the Yankees had the free agent market figured perfectly last year, so what do I know?

Next up, we have The Bronx View pondering if the DH spot is undervalued. And they raise very valid questions. The popular narrative is that the Yankees need to "free up" the DH spot so that Jorge Posada, Alex Rodriguez, and Derek Jeter can get some time off there. There's two problems with that. First every time one of those three players is the DH an inferior offensive player takes their position in the field for the day. Second, The Bronx View estimates those three players might account for 79 games at the DH spot next year; who is the designated hitter for the remaining 83 games?

I'm all for resting the aging veterans from time to time, whether it be with a full day off or with a day at DH. But that's going to cover half the season's games at most. The Yankees cannot afford to turn the DH spot over to an offensively inferior player for the other half of the games, particularly if they don't replace Damon's offense in left field.

I'm sure the options are being discussed at the Yankees' organizational meetings in Tampa. Hopefully, with the Winter Meetings starting Monday, we're not too far off from getting answers to these questions.

Getting The Links Out

It's been a surprisingly lively day in terms of baseball talk on these here internets. Let's take a look around at what's going on.

Here is the best visual you will see explaining how the Red Sox got into the playoffs.

Big Legue Stew gives the Yankees their postseason entrance exam which is proctored by Rob Iracane of Walkoff Walk. It's worth the read just to see which of th ESPN talking heads picked them to finish third in the AL East.

You might have heard Michael Kay state matter-of-factly that the Twins were upset with the rain out on Monday night because it forced a double header. Conventional baseball wisdom says that it's harder to sweep a double header than it is to take two games from a team, but is that really true. MGL from The Book doesn't think so but the primates at BBTF think he should probably have looked at the numbers first. Somewhere in that thread (68 comments and counting) you'll find the truth.

Is Derek Jeter a thief or a liar? The Shyster wants answers. The best part of that post is the dunces on the comment thread who tell Craig to "get a real job" because they take offense to him daring to question the Captain's integrity. [Sidenote: By the URL, you can tell that the original title of that post was vintage Calcaterra ("Great Moments In Gift Giving"), but odds are an editor changed it to the more inflammatory current one. They got their desired reaction all right.]

Teddy Atlas breaks down a fight that broke out in the concourses at Yankee Stadium. It may be the cutest fight ever.

Shocker: According to Hal Steinbrenner, Joe Girardi doesn't have to win a title to return as manager.

The numbers are almost in, and it turns out that Yankee Stadium isn't quite the bandbox it was originally portrayed as. After averaging 3.78 HRs/game in April and May, the Stadium has given up 2.56 per game since then and only 2.46 since the All-Star Break.

Shelley Duncan's suspension for his role in the Posada-Carlson brawl was rescinded by the MLB. Matt thought Shelley might get off when he initially appealed it and it turns out he was right. Apparently you can kick all the ass you want, just as long as the camera's can't clearly see you and you don't start the fight.

The Indians fired Eric Wedge and his staff. Well, not really because they still have to coach the last six games of the season. This would be the rare occasion when "lame duck" actually applies.

PETCOA's run of amazingly accurate preseason predictions has come to a screeching halt. Well, maybe if Nate Silver wasn't so damn busy becoming rich and famous by predicting the results of the Presidential Election, he might have had more time to spend on his baseball simulations. Talk about misplaced priorities!

Well be back to make fun of the Royals in the preview shortly.

The Most Undah-rated Linkaround Evah!

Here are a few things to check out before you really begin hoarding your company's bandwidth and submarining its productivity:

Alex Speir of WEEI wants to know why the rest of the country doesn't appreciate Kevin Youkilis for the haaahd-working, ovah-achieving supahstah he is. WHEN WILL YOU FACKS EVAH GIVE YOUK THE CREDIT HE IS DUE??!

If you are planning on buying Yankee tickets when they go on sale at noon today, be sure to check out the Ticketmaster tips from Ross at NYY Stadium Insider.

Nate Silver's projections say that Jeter will hit .286 this year and Allen Barra of the Village Voice infers that the Yanks are doomed if he's right... CRUCIFY THEM BOTH!

Speaking of the Captain, it appeared that he might have tweaked his throwing hand on a diving stop last night night, but according to him, it's fine and he'll play today against the Tigers at 1:05.

Joel Sherman says that it's "almost certain" that the Yankees will trade either Sergio Mitre or Chad Gaudin before the season begins. Gaudin seems to have more value as a swingman but also has a higher salary. Just depends on who they select as a trading partner, I suppose.

Patrick Sullivan over at The Baseball Analysts continues their Stakeholders series with five questions for Bronx Banter's Cliff Corcoran about the Yankees.

Greg Fertel from Pending Pinstripes did the math on the concept of bullpen chaining I brought up in my post about the 5th starer. Click through to see how much sending Joba to AAA would cost the MLB club.

Mike Vaccaro of the Post talked to Mark Teixeira about the pressures of playing in New York. It's the typical "playing in New York is so much more difficult and important that playing anywhere else" piece, but I still enjoyed this line:

Nobody ever wonders if a linebacker "has the makeup to make it in New Orleans." No one ever ponders if a power forward can become "a Portland guy." Or if a goalie has what it takes to make it in Buffalo.

Prospect maven John Sickels interviewed Yankees Senior Vice President Mark Newman. Topics include Slade Heathcott, Andrew Brackman, Jesus Montero, Pat Venditte, and Jeremy Bleich (pronounced "Bleish").

Geoff Baker did an interesting video interview with Bill James which included some reader/viewer questions. As always, James gives frank and interesting answers but this time you have visual confirmation that he is not a robot.

DRay's Bay wonders if the number of batters hit by pitches is in decline.

Is the hype around Aroldis Chapman enhanced by the fact he comes from the magical and mysterious island of Cuba? Tim Marchman believes so. Marchman also believes that it's ridiculous for baseball to be drug testing it's managers. We may or may not have some more thoughts on the Ron Washington Saga in the near future.

Jeff Zimmerman at Beyond the Box Score used spray charts as a way of examining wrist injuries. If nothing else, it's a nice reminder of how much David Ortiz sucked at the beginning of last year.

We'll be back with more in a little bit.

About Those Chickens...

Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus did not heed Matt's advice from this morning when penning this column for New York Magazine, applying BP's "Secret Sauce" for postseason success to this year's Yankees. The formula, developed by Nate Silver and Dayn Perry, isolates three key variables that have predicted team's outcomes in the postseason more accurately than others over the past 30 years:

They found that age and postseason experience had no effect on a team’s chances; surprisingly, they also found no significant correlation between any measure of team offense (including bunting and stealing) and postseason success. What they did find important were three measures of pitching and defense, which they called the “Secret Sauce”.

The best predictors of October glory are a pitching staff with a high strikeout ratio, a strong team defense and a solid closer. Since scoring is depressed in the postseason, it's valuable to have a pitching staff that avoids bats, a defense that can save runs and a closer than can lock down victories. Jaffe does a great job of explaining in detail why these factors increase in importance in the playoffs and concludes (emphasis mine):

None of this is meant to knock the offense, which has helped make them a near-lock for the playoffs. But it’s the Secret Sauce that bodes well for their chances once they get there. The last time the team made such a drastic leap in the Sauce rankings was 1996—which, fans will remember, was the end of their last excruciatingly long World Series drought.

Since Jaffe is a BP guy, he's not concerned with jinxes and is speaking in no uncertain terms because their odds have the Yanks' odds of making the postseason are at 99.4%.

The leap he's talking about comes mainly from a jump from 26th to 3rd in Fielding Runs Above Average and a big boost in K/9. The increase in strikeouts is obviously driven by the acquisitions of CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett but the cosmic leap in defense is harder to explain. Even with Derek Jeter suddenly above average at short and Hideki Matsui, Jason Giambi, and Bobby Abreu out of the field all together it's hard to imagine the Yankees jumping 23 slots in that ranking.

Do I trust the rankings implicitly? No, but it certainly is encouraging to know that the Yanks have a team built for success not only in the regular season, but into October as well. Whether or not that translates into anything this year remains to be seen. Those are the chickens that Jaffe doesn't dare to count either.

"Their degree of greatness doesn't matter, just the greatness itself."

Maybe a pregnant Candace Parker being on the cover of the new ESPN The Magazine started me off on the wrong foot, but I couldn't help but FJM Bill Simmons' column.

I'm hoping The Sports Guy didn't write the headline...

You don't need stats to know greatness. Meryl taught me that.

...because his entire column seeks to undermine it.

Only 59 years old, Streep has been in 40 movies (stat) (not including voice-overs and cameos), taken home Oscars for Sophie's Choice (best actress) and Kramer vs. Kramer (best supporting actress) (stat) and drawn 13 other nominations (stat). She's been nominated for 23 Golden Globes (stat) and won six (stat). She has two Emmys (stat).

If we called age "Years Lived (YL)", that would be a stat too. Just like the people rail against "advanced" statistics in baseball, Simmons rips off a bunch of numbers that when strung together give you an idea of how good of an actress Meryl Streep is, but individually are fairly arbitrary and incomplete. If only someone could devise a better analytical technique...

Only Katharine Hepburn had a more decorated career -- four Oscars and 12 nominations in all -- but Streep has a lot of years left to pass her.

Hang on to that, because we are going to need it later.

Statistics allow us to compare players with one another, follow their peaks and valleys, determine which are most responsible for their team's success. Hollywood doesn't work like that.

Well, yeah it kind of does. This entire column is about actors' peaks and valleys. It's just that the "teams" come together temporarily and are disbanded when production of a movie is finished. You can't determine that the producer, director, and starring actors are mostly responsible for the success of a movie?

It's an industry of extremes -- this movie had the biggest opening weekend, this guy made the most money, this woman used to be terrific until she went crazy -- that hinges on what everyone believes, not on what can be proved.

I'm pretty sure which "movie had the biggest weekend" and which "guy made the most money" can be proved.

At some point in his career [Jack Nicholson] broke into the greatest actors club, the membership of which we have all subconsciously agreed upon. We know who the best actors are. We just do. It's why Hollywood has never built a Hall of Fame. We don't need it.

You know there is a Hollywood Walk of Fame, right?

Sports are objective (you win or you lose), whereas movies are almost entirely subjective.

All of the numbers you've cited for movies are "win or lose" (Oscars, Emmys, Golden Globes). And movies are so subjective that we can all "subconsciously agree upon" the membership of the "greatest actors club"?

If the Oscars were reliable, they would help us create a formula that enabled us to rank actors of all eras.

Well, Nate Silver created a formula to predict this year's Oscars using past results and they were fairly reliable. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about that though, because you don't read blogs.

Well, what if we tried anyway?

Then it would completely contradict the title of this column?

Let's make best actor/actress nods worth seven points and nominations worth three. Then let's make best supporting actor/actress nods worth three and nominations worth one(...)

Top 13 actors: Nicholson (38); Spencer Tracy (35); Laurence Olivier (32); Marlon Brando (30); Hoffman, Newman (29); Jack Lemmon (28); Peter O'Toole (24); Gary Cooper, Hanks, Penn (23); De Niro and Pacino (22).

>8

Are you happy with those rankings? Me too! I'm a genius! Yeah, Pacino and De Niro should be higher, but they were robbed in '74 and '76, so their stats make sense.

That, and like you said about Meryl Streep, their careers aren't over. But why would this part of the column agree with another? That would totally shatter the precedent you've established.

Other than that, I have no major qualms besides a failure to account for iconic performances like De Niro's in Raging Bull (should it be worth 10?)...

No major qualms with the system you just arbitrarily created? I mean, I'd like to think that you read this once or twice after you wrote it. You probably could have gone back and worked it in.

Now, if you feel like getting your supernerd on, you could figure out Simmons Points on a per-film basis by dividing SPs by movies made... a Hollinger-like AER (actor's efficiency rating) ... or even VODM (like baseball's value over replacement player, only it would be value over Dermot Mulroney).

Why does it have to be me getting my "supernerd on", Bill? You are the one who just named the fucking statistic you just created after yourself. Why do you have to deflect the "statistics are nerdy" stigma, dude? Because fantasy sports are so much cooler?

But that's not the point. We've had ample time to figure this all out, and we've never bothered.

Maybe the reason that we've never bothered is because acting is not quantifiable unless you want to start tallying things like "lines spoken" or "scenes appeared in".

The numbers that you've cited throughout this column (award nominations and victories) are just like measuring an athlete by the number of championships won. Award shows each happen once a year. Being nominated is sort of like making the playoffs. There are an incredible number of variables that go into making a movie aside from that person's performance, most of which are well beyond their control.

We never felt the need to validate Brando's brilliance by raving that he's the most consecutively nominated leading actor (four, from 1951 to '54), nor do we pimp Nicholson by pointing out that he's the only living actor with three Oscars.

Those are some really interesting stats you just used to indicate greatness. That's not what Meryl taught you.

Those guys are legends. Their degree of greatness doesn't matter, just the greatness itself.

Yes, once you surpass the Greatness Threshold (GT) it doesn't matter. Which of course is why you began this column proclaiming Meryl Streep as the "greatest living actor" and state your case with absolute certainty.

Maybe we overthink this stuff. The truth is, either you're great or you're not.

And I think that we can all subconsciously agree that Bill Simmons' is great.

-----

Here's what I don't understand: He makes up a pretty interesting system, finds some holes in it, and even goes as far as to create more insightful ways of looking at it. And right after he does that, he just shoots it down all in the name of "stats are for nerds". Then he wraps up by stating a fucking stupid truism: "either you're great or you're not"? Thanks for that, Bill.

Why couldn't he write the column and actually try to create some sort of a rubric for measuring actors against each other? It would have been interesting. The crux of it is already in there, just trapped inside a two inch coating of condescending bullshit.

Jeter, Rose, Rodriguez & Record Projections

The question of whether or not Derek Jeter will pass Pete Rose's all-time hit mark is not a new one. From what I can find on these here internets, Rob Neyer addressed the possibility in a mailbag back in 2006 as Jeter was approaching 2,000 hits and was, like he is now, slightly outpacing Rose based on seasonal age and number of hits accumulated. It came up again in 2008 as he neared 2,500 hits and probably a few times in between.

Since then, essentially nothing has changed except the people who bring up the question - usually not bloggers but relative outsiders who haven't heard it discussed ad nasuem already. Back in that 2006 Neyer mailbag it was a reader named Yehuda Hyman and yesterday it was the pinch hitter at LoHud named Lucas Vanderwarker. Lucas's post got picked up over at Baseball Think Factory and Neyer got in on the action again, adding some new relevant assumptions to the equation:

Now, let's think about how Derek Jeter's career is likely to play out. One, everyone seems to think that Jeter will retire as a Yankee; that they'll do anything keep him around and that he won't be interested in playing elsewhere. Two, he's a shortstop. There's essentially no such thing as a 42-year-old shortstop. Three, the Yankees have Mark Teixeira under contract through 2016, when Jeter will be 42. They've also got Alex Rodriguez under contract through 2017, when Jeter will be 43.

David Pinto also chimed in, offering up Robin Yount as a comparable who, as a 35 year old was over 100 hits ahead of Rose but played only two more seasons and finished with 3,142 in total.

As Rose said Joe Posnanski, "You tell Derek the first 3,000 are easy". Of course, the implication is not that they're actually easy, but they're a lot easier than the next 1,256, which, as every other person ever to have played the game has figured out, is a true statement.

Jeter is 35 and a half years old and although we've seen very few indications to the contrary, the Cap'n is not invincible. No one is.

I learned this the hard way last year when I took issue with Nate Silver's projected home run totals for Alex Rodriguez, which predicted he'd end up with 730. I eventually ventured a guess as to what his career home run tally would be. I used an exhaustive 8 step methodology and arrived at the number 792. That involved a prediction of 42 for the 2009 season.

Much to my chagrin, not even two weeks later A-Rod was out in Colorado having surgery to repair a torn hip labrum, missed over a month of the season and had to hit two home runs in the same inning in Game 162 just to reach 30. Not only that, but his hip injury also cast serious doubt on his long term health.

While it's still a distinct possibility that A-Rod breaks Barry Bonds' Hank Aaron's record, it doesn't seem nearly as likely as it did just a year ago. But the picture is a lot rosier than it was the day after he had surgery. And that likelihood will probably fluctuate countless more times before he either breaks the record or retires.

I understand why fans like to talk about these far-flung possibilities and we are outrageously lucky to have two players on the Yankees pursing perhaps the two most hallowed career offensive records in Baseball. But at the same time, I'm not interested in reassessing what a projection system - using a bunch of players as comparables who, by definition didn't break the record - predicts the odds are that A-Rod or Jeter will reach that milestone every time one of them passes a round number, gets injured or the offseason news cycle grinds to a halt.

Projections can be a very useful tool in the right context but these kinds of records get broken on a very infrequent basis and only then by extreme statistical outliers. And besides, the left side of the infield still has a long, long road ahead.