Countdown To Opening Day: #37

Sorry, I got decked with something unexpected that isn't my responsibility and I'd reaaaally rather not do this morning at work. I have a post in the works, but it could be a little while. Here are some Casey Stengel Spring Training pictures to hold you over.

And now the action shots!

Talking about balance, maybe?

Or possibly just wasted


He just punted the rosin bag in those one, apparently

The Yankees also learned ballroom dancing at Spring Training

(You may notice that I took the header for the site from another shot from this sequence.)

Joba to De-Virginize New Yankee Stadium?

Based on the rotation that Joe Girardi has set forth...

1. Sabathia
2. Burnett
3. Wang
4. Pettitte
5. Chamberlain

...and the Yankees schedule, New York Post genius George King has penciled Joba in as the starter for the Opener of the New Yankee Stadium (by the way, how long will this Yankee Stadium be called "New"?).

Says King:

Since Chamberlain would work on April 11, he would be in line to start April 16 against the Indians at the Stadium.

"I don't want to give that to you yet because there is a lot of things that can change in spring training," Girardi said of which pitcher will draw the prestigious Stadium opener.

I'm not sure that I buy King's hypothesis. Given the many off-days in the beginning of the season (both scheduled and as a result of Mother Nature being a bitch in the Northeast at this time of the year), a few guys will be skipped, as is ordinarily the case. The prime skip candidate is Joba himself, whose 2009 innings need to be limited to around 150-160 given his total of 100 1/3 IP last year.

Given that Joba will probably be skipped, Andy Pettitte, Sabathia or Burnett are the prime candidates for the Opener.

Thanks for the blog content, George!

Huggins-Stengel Field

[Ed. Note: Sorry folks, the content is going to be somewhat fluffy today, as I've got a lot of (actual) work to do.]

Here are some pictures from Huggins-Stengel Field in St. Petersburg, the site of Yankees Spring Training from 1925-1942, 1946-1950, and 1952-1961. After the Yankees vacated the site, it was used by the Mets from 1961 to 1988, then by the Orioles and the (at the time Devil) Rays in the 90's.

Legend has it that the reason the Yankees moved to St. Pete from New Orleans after the 1924 season was to eliminate the temptation for the Babe to carouse around Bourbon Street. The Babe was said to have lofted a blast into the alligator infested Crescent Lake some 500 feet from home plate, as was Dave Kingman.

The park was first known as Crescent Lake Field but was changed to Miller Huggins Field in 1931. The name was altered to honor Casey Stengel as well in 1963.

The book Haunted Baseball: Ghosts, Curses, Legends and Unexplained Events, by Mickey Bradley and Dan Gordon details some of the supposedly supernatural occurrences at the field, if you are into that sort of thing. They say, sometimes, when it's just you and a couple other equally irrational/superstitious people, you can still smell Miller Huggins' cigar smoke.

Here is a picture taken last October from an article in USA Today.

You can also check out a really cool slideshow here.

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.]

Jerry Reese, I Am Available

The Sporting News has a rather earth-shattering revelation, via the Cincinnati Enquirer:

Wideout T.J. Houshmandzadeh of the Bengals is the top free agent on the New York Giants' wish list, according to The Sporting News.

>8

While Houshmandzadeh is a reliable receiver, TSN noted, "there is no way to find a comparable replacement to Plaxico Burress, as 6-5 receivers with speed and a huge wingspan are almost impossible to find. Burress faces a serious legal battle and possible jail time as a result of illegal gun charges."

If you were one of the six people reading this blog a month and a half ago you may recall this post. No? Perhaps this one from a week later.

I threw out the possibility of TJ Houshmandzadeh, who is going to be a free agent, because the Giants won't have to give anything up besides money and cap space. Up until this season, Housh has taken a backseat to the artist formerly known as Chad Johnson. TJ caught 905 of the 2672 yards thrown for by Bengals QBs in 2008, and has had more touchdowns than Ocho in each of the past three years. But he's 6'1", 199, and 31 years old.

Come on Jerry Reese, you know you need a guy with no experience in professional sports and a sometimes vulgar sports blog on your staff. You can find my email address on the left side of the site. I look forward to hearing from you.

/pats self on back

//toots own horn

Spike Lee Plays D

I don't know who would be penalized, but I'm fairly sure this is against the rules.

With the Knicks down by two and under a minute to go, Spike Lee decided to get his lean on and help Al Harrington force the Magic to spend their last timeout. Well played, sir.

Spike is trying to be fairly discreet, but unfortunately, the guy in the suit next to him looks like he's about to piss himself.

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]

The Stolen Base: Fallen From Grace

With the advent of the Juiced Era and an emphasis on sabermetrics by front offices around MLB, the stolen base has declined in use around the game.

One of the most telling disadvantages of stealing bases is measured by the run expectation stat. Below is the run expectation chart for the 2003 MLB season (thanks to writer Joe Sheehan at Baseball Prospectus).


Based on this chart, a runner on first with no one out is worth .9116 runs. A successful steal of second base with no one out would bump that to 1.1811 runs, a gain of .2695 expected runs. However, in the unfortunate event that a runner is caught stealing second base, the run expectation stat drops to .2783. This is a loss of nearly 2/3 of a run (2.3 times more than the gain).

Why would managers risk this chance for a run and give up one of 27 precious outs? Unless it is late in the game and there is a need for a tying run, the batter is a ground into double play threat, or there is next to little chance that the batter at the plate cannot drive the runner in from first (i.e. low slugging percentage), it is stupid.

Horrible times to steal bases include early in the game, when you need multiple runs (baserunners are important) and when a big slugger is at the plate.

In his article, Sheehan points out that the belief that running distracts defenses is misplaced or exaggerated. Sheehan correctly states that "a runner on first is more disruptive to a defense, with the first baseman holding and the second baseman cheating towards second for a double play, than a runner on second." He also points out the distraction that running has on the batter. How many times have we seen a batter give up an out by flailing at pitches in the dirt so that the runner can advance? If the batter strikes out and the runner is thrown out, the run expectation goes from .9100 to .1083 in an instant.

Sheehan concludes that break even rate for a stolen base is a 75% success rate. Thus, players with less than a 75% success rate should not even attempt to steal. In fact, if your speed is your only asset and you have less than or barely a 75% success rate, you shouldn't even be on a roster (ahem, Scott Podsednik).

Stealing bases also presents injury risks. Why risk the injury of high-salaried slugger such as an A-Rod, Vladimir Guerrero or Alfonso Soriano? The benefit that these players provide at the dish is immensely higher than their base stealing benefits.

With the decline in Performance Enhancing Drugs and subsequently the decline in the number of home runs, it will be interesting to see if the number of stolen bases returns to 1980s levels when Rickey Henderson, Vince Coleman and Rock Raines ran wild. Having a few .390+ OBP/85+% SB guys can make a team lethal so long as they are in front of a few power hitters. However, as evidenced by the teams mentioned in Sheehan's article, teams shouldn't run just to run.

Yesterday

(Benjamin Molina with Yadier pictured above)

Peter Abraham has a story about the passing of Jose Molina's father in LoHud this morning.

Despite having three sons in the major leagues, Benjamin Molina continued to work at a factory on an assembly line. Only after his death did the brothers learn that he intended to retire in December to spend more time with their mother.

"He used to say he worked to get the health insurance for my mom," Molina said. "We told him we would take care of that, but he loved to work. I could tell you hours and hours of stories like that. There was nothing bad about him."

There is no way a father can have three sons at the same position in the major leagues without knowing a whole lot about baseball, teaching and hard work.

I lost my dad a while back and although I never played baseball, my dad was a lot like Mr. Molina. When I was six years old he started taking me to the driving range and eventually let me play in from the 150 yard markers. I owe a lot of my golf skills to the fact that my dad wasn't afraid to push me to try harder.

He'd get up at 5AM during the week and bust his ass at SOFCO during the day but would usually stop by The Edison Club on the way home to pound some balls and could always be found at sunset on the putting green.

You have to hang in 'til the end, but this song will hit home if you've lost your father.

I Have Nothing To Add To This

"The only thing left to answer about this case, for now, is what kind of wacko attempts to seduce porn stars by posing as a career .248 utility player?" [Deadspin]

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.

I Stand Corrected

Earlier today, I wrote a post detailing The Sports Guy's on-air complaints about ESPN's policy regarding what radio shows he was allowed to appear on. I was wrong about what he was referring to in his cloaked bitching to ESPN management.


Awful Announcing now has the audio:



I thought ESPN didn't want him to go on with Max Kellerman in favor of Colin Cowherd's National show. He has never been on The Herd, in no small part due to the feud that I brought up in the previous post.

I did some more in-depth research and here is an except from one of Simmons' chats:

Kevin (Chappaqua, NY): Bill, with the Mike and the Maddog show no longer on the airways and the classic radio 1, 2 combo having gone their separate ways, What do you think there interactions will be at their first Super Bowl apart? I'm sure they will be fighting for guests, giving evil snickers and stares across radio row, while Mike sips on his Diet Coke and Dog fidgets uncontrollably in his chair. My questionthough is if you were asked to go on both shows and only had time for one, who you going with?

Bill Simmons: I would go on Mike's show. There's a 85% chance that Dog has never read a single thing I've written. Mike and I have a love-hate relationship (mostly love) but at least he reads me... the last time I was on, they grabbed me on Media Row and I was sick... I want a second chance... sadly it can never happen because I am not allowed to go on non-ESPN shows ... even though the show that goes against Mike's (Michael Kay) has never asked me to come on. Yup, this is my company.

So as commenter JJV first pointed out, the show that he was talking about wanting to appear on was Mike Francesa's (Mike'd Up) and the show that hadn't invited him on was the Michael Kay Show on 1050, which is up against Mike'd Up.

I think my overall point still stands. Simmons is a bit of a drama queen and never misses an opportunity to publicly slam ESPN for any policy that he disagrees with. I find it hard to believe he's really that upset about not being ask to go on Michael Kay's show.

As The Big Lead pointed out, it's not a great match, seeing that Michael Kay is predominantly a Yankees guy and bringing Simmons on wouldn't really appeal to his audience. Has there been a good reason to bring him on? It's not like TSG has been promoting anything recently.

I would tend to think that Simmons is just bitching because he can't go on Francesa's show and is just using the fact that Michael Kay hasn't asked him to come on (without any incentive to do so) as an excuse to whine about ESPN management (again).

I respect what Simmons does, but ESPN pays him close to $1M, and I don't think anyone held a gun to his head when he agreed to the terms of the contract. He has a job that every blogger would trade for in a second, even if you had to take his annoying nasally voice and were consigned to writing 90% of your columns about Boston teams for the rest of your career. I just get the feeling that no matter what happens, he's going to be a malcontent.

Still, I was wrong, and thought the record should be set straight. An anonymous commenter on the last post really summed it up, though:

Anonymous said...
Yeah dont be a dipshit, the show he wants to go on is Mike'd Up on WFAN (Formerly Mike and the Mad Dog)but he is not allowed by ESPN and he is not invited on the ESPN--1050 Michael Kay Show. Dont just spill diarhea [sic] from your mouth.

Buzz Bissinger, is that you? I believe in this case the "diarhea" would have been flowing from the tips of my fingers since these are the interwebnets and I actually had to type all of that up. Also, apostrophes are your friends, don't be afraid to use them. Thanks for your input, though. Feel free to share your sage and flawlessly written insights anytime, whoever the fuck you are.

Bill Simmons: Kind Of A Drama Queen?

[Ed. note - 1:57PM: It has been brought to my attention that some of the assumptions I made in this post were wrong and I've corrected them in this post. However, I stand by the title and general premise of the article.]

Yesterday during the Max Kellerman Show on 1050 ESPN Radio in New York, the Sports Fella popped on. They two are excellent foils to each other as both have unique perspectives and represent New York and Boston, respectively. They would make a fantastic radio combo, but ESPN would never put them together. Simmons anti-establishment position has been well-documented, and Kellerman has clashed with executives at ESPN, as well as FOX.

So, yesterday it took Simmons all of thirty seconds to start complaining about ESPN and their restrictive policies as to which radio shows he can or can not appear on.

[Ed. Note: I had to edit out some of Kellerman's excessive verbal tics, but other than that, the transcript is basically word for word]

[around the 0:40 mark (open that link in a new window)]

Max Kellerman: ...then I was mentioning, like, how you have a standing invite to come onto this show and you have invited me onto your podcast and everything, but is it kind of like... you have a friend that you are friendly with and everything, but you are like "Come over" or "Yeah, we'll see you" but you don't really mean it...? Is that what it's like with us?

Bill Simmons: No. No, what I said was... You know, we have the rule that ESPN talent can only go on ESPN shows, which is fine, but, you know, there are some shows that I'd like to go on, and I'm not allowed to go on, but then the show that's going against that show, has never invited me on.

Max Kellerman: I see...

Bill Simmons: So, basically I'm just banned from whatever that time slot is...

Max Kellerman: Oh I see, I see, I see what you are saying...

Bill Simmons: Yeah, without getting into details...

The show that he'd "like to go on" is obviously the Max Kellerman Show, but he's obviously "allowed to go on", considering he was on it right then. The show airs from 10:00AM to 1:00PM on the New York affiliate. The show on opposite that on the national stream? The Herd with Colin Cowherd (who has never invited Simmons on). If you'll recall, there was a dust up between Simmons and Cowherd about a year and a half ago:

While we're here, my ESPN colleague Colin Cowherd mocked my seven trade scenarios for Kobe on the radio last week without reading the entire column or even attempting to understand its premise, namely, that the trade options for Kobe were limited because (A) he needed to go to a big market for a team that could contend right away, and (B) nobody pays 100 cents on the dollar for a team looking to unload an unhappy superstar.

And if that wasn't bad enough, Cowherd embarrassed himself by not understanding basic NBA trading principles like "it would be valuable for L.A. to swap Vlad Radmanovic's contract for Bobby Sura's expiring contract in a T-Mac/Kobe deal because Sura's contract expires in 2008, which would buy them some cap space down the road."

Look, I know the radio business lends itself to hosts lazily skimming other people's columns and blogs ... but seriously, Colin, in the words of Mark Jackson, you're better than that. Your show's on for three hours a day and you get four giant commercial breaks per hour. That leaves you plenty of time to research your segments so you don't come off as misinformed. No offense.

Those are all fair points, but dumping "No offense" after saying someone "embarrassed himself" and using the word "lazily" in reference to their professional work ethic is like taking a shit on their pillow and then putting a mint on top. Cowherd later retorted that his show was actually on for four hours a day (from 6-7 Pacific time is his "mysterious West Coast hour") and that Simmons was in fact the uninformed one.

It never went any further than that and both ESPNers have publicly laid the conflict to rest.

But here is the weird thing. After Simmons calls out ESPN for not letting him go on Kellerman's show, this appears on the front page of ESPN.com.

If ESPN didn't want Simmons to go on Kellerman's show, why would they give it such a prominent billing that same day? (It's still up as of 8:00AM on Tuesday). Is this just Simmons and his blogging alter ego, (still complete with a picture of Tim Robbins at his breaking point in Shawshank) whining about ESPN's policies, again?

Would ESPN put that up knowing that the podcast leads off with Simmons' trademark ESPN bashing? The segment was about 18 minutes long and Simmons congratulates Kellerman at the end for running long.

Simmons: You know what, I love the fact that you fought the man and stayed on past that 8/40, 20/20 break.

Kellerman: I'm not playing around, I'm not playing games. Let me tell you something, it was 35 break, not 40. How do you like that?

Is Simmons just being a baby or constructing this talent vs. executive conflict in his own mind? He was clearly allowed to appear on the show and it was given as high profile a link as a random radio spot ever gets. I like Simmons, but I think I have to side with ESPN on this one; he's being a drama queen.

The other outstanding issue: It would be very unESPNlike to feature something on their front page with this kind of outright anti-management rhetoric. I thought the whole segment was fantastic and perhaps the editors just thought it was good enough to feature anyway.

Your thoughts?