Archive for January, 2005
Rotojunkie has No Pepper
Good news! Brad of No Pepper is now writing a column for Rotojunkie.com Check out his first installment on Marte, Francoeur, McCann, and Davies. It’s about time somebody noticed. Brad runs one of the best — if not THE best — minor league blog on the web. Braves fans are very lucky to have him.
Congratulations Brad, and good luck!
Out of the Box
It’s not just that annoying show on the Disney Channel, but John Schuerholz’s solution to stocking the Braves outfield. The “out of the box” remedy he teased fans with recently turned out to be Raul Mondesi and Brian Jordan. To most, these guys are washed up veterans with little left to offer. And that might be true, as both had horrible 2004 seasons. However, in the AJC story on the Jordan signing closes with this fact, “Between them, Jordan and Mondesi are guaranteed only $1.6 million in 2005; their combined salaries in 2003 were $22.6 million.”
Schuerholz just parted with all but one of his outfielders while spending $1.6 million on free agent replacements and relying on several rookies to win back-up, platoon, or everyday roles. And people think Billy Beane’s got balls. If he gets away with this, the legend will grow even more. The more I look at his strategy of throwing talent at the wall and hoping something sticks, the more I think it’s going to work. Between Langerhans, McCarthy, Marte, Mondesi, and Jordan something good should result.
Studes on Relief
Studes has a fantastic article rating relief pitchers in 2004 over at The Hardball Times. It’s a must-read.
Comments Change
I’ve decided to adopt the Blogger comments tool to replace the Haloscan option. While Haloscan was great, I’ve had a lot of posts go over 1,000 words lately, and this is a pain. The Blogger option requires registration, which initially bothered me, but that seems to be the norm now. The old comments are still available on the individual archived pages.
I really like the comments I receive, so keep them coming. I believe that this method will facilitate more comments. I plan to implement some open threads to get some more feedback, and the Blogger system seems to be the way to go at this time.
Steroids
I want to add another ending to the TANSTA (There Ain’t No
Such Thing As) family of words: AGSA. TANSTAAGSA — There ain’t
no such thing as A Good Steroids Article. Unfortunately
for me, this offseason has proven to be a high-water mark for the discussion of
performance-enhancing drugs in the media. From Caminiti to Sheffield to Bonds/Giambi
, and now the new steroids agreement between MLB and the MLBPA, I can’t blame the media
for not noticing. But, the moral grandstanding that’s going on in the midst of all this —
largely uncontested — is so phony. I consider myself a pragmatic realist, with very little
tolerance for bullshit. There’s so much shoveling going on right now that I can’t take it
anymore, so I’m just going to lay my thoughts down here.
The issue in MLB is that players can use supplements such as steroids and HGH to enhance
their performance. The attitude of the public, as the media portrays it, is that using
drugs to boost performance is cheating. Using a simple deductive argument it’s easy to reach
the conclusion that using steroids to gain a competitive edge is morally reprehensible
(Steroids ==> Cheating; Cheating ==> Wrong; Steroids ==> Wrong). I disagree that steroids
ought to be banned from this game for this reason. Steroids are simply way to improve
performance just like eating right, getting plenty of rest, and working out. (For the sake
of this argument I’ll assume steroids do improve performance.) I don’t think anyone would
contest that these methods are morally illegitimate. What seems to be different with
steroids is that they are “unnatural.” Since we’re purging the unnatural permit me to go
off the deep-end for a moment with rule changes that return us to a natural game.
First out is surgery, especially of the Tommy John variety. If your arm blows out, that’s
just one of those breaks. I don’t think anyone would argue there is anything natural about
cutting a
piece of the body and placing it on another part of the body. Next, let’s get rid of
glasses. If God didn’t give you 20/20 vision, well that’s tough. You see, improving the
vision of a player would give him an unnatural advantage over players without glasses.
Let’s move to protective gear. Cups, helmets, etc. are gone. This will stop fielders from
unnaturally charging grounders, and batters will stop hanging out over the plate. So, I
fast forward to the end of the argument; if we want to get back to nature, let’s just have the
players play naked.
I get it, these things are different from steroids. But why? Is it that we don’t like
ingesting performance-enhancers because it’s something everyday people don’t do? What about
caffeine, sugar, and nicotine? All are stimulants that can improve performance. Do you
complain to your boss that the guy in the neighboring cubicle is cheating because his
reports are coffee-enhanced? My point is that I don’t think that’s the reason. The main
concern on the minds of people is that steroids have negative side-effects. Look to the
death of Ken Caminiti for an example. I bet you cannot find an obit on the web that doesn’t
mention his admitted steroid use within the first paragraph. Somewhere in the article,
there will be a statement saying it is unclear whether or not steroids contributed to his
death. And you see, that’s ridiculous. Steroids had NOTHING to do with the death of Caminiti.
The autopsy showed evidence of cocaine and heroin (most likely) in his system. The dude
ODed. However, this doesn’t mean the health effects are irrelevant. I think the health
effects are a real concern. But, if we are concerned about the health of baseball players
– and that’s the reason we want to get steroids out of the game — banning tobacco and
alcohol (certainly not performance-enhancers in the long run) would be a more effective
way. So it’s not just the health effects that creates the negative impression of steroids
in the public.
If it’s not the performance-enhancing element or the health effects, what is it? Howabout a
combo of the two. Alone, neither of these seem to matter much to fans. If players can
trade their health for athletic success that spills over onto other players, then now we have a problem. And it’s not just an
individual choice problem. For simplicity, let’s assume there are two types of players,
normal and star. Let’s make a second assumption that steroids cause normal players to become
stars and stars are pushed to a third class of superstars. If higher classes of players earn
more income and fame than lower classes, taking steroids maybe a good option. But here is
the problem. If there is a fixed pot of fame and income to go around this is a sub-optimal
system. Normal players become stars, and stars become superstars with the same relative
salary and fame difference with normal and star players. The big difference is that in this
world players suffer the negative health consequences of steroids and receive nothing in
return. At the end of the day, a ban on steroids seems to be a good thing.
I agree, banning steroids is a good thing for the players. Clearly, players ought to want
to stop the use of steroids and strict testing to prevent their use. So what’s the problem?
The problem is that the players are the ones that have somehow borne the blame for the whole
steroids mess. So I ask, why would the players want to stop MLB from keeping the steroids
out? It’s in their best interests. This is where the owners come in. In fact, I think owners
have a pretty strong incentive to want steroids to remain in the game. Here’s why. Though
the relative salary differences between normal and star players and star and star players
ought to be roughly the same the overall play of the game can go up with the move to stars
and superstars. There will be more spectacular plays by all players. If the overall level
of the game ratchets up, then this may create more fan interest. (An aside to this is that
overall player salaries would go up in this instance; however, this is quite a collective
action problem to overcome for a small benefit that will be shared equally across all
players.) Also, there is a strong positive correlation between winning and revenues. An
owner who can convince his players to take steroids can reap the returns from winning
extra games. Without any rules governing steroid use there ought to be no gains to be had
here as all owners will push steroids until everyone was back where we started. Right now,
owners are in a great position. Steroids are illegal, but with toothless punishment and weak
detection. An owner certainly cannot openly encourage his players to take steroids, but he
can set a precedent for players who visit the right “doctors” avoiding arbitration more
frequently. This quote from Marvin Miller (the famed MLBPA leader who opposes testing)
shows some the owners’ attitudes in the 1970s.
“In most locker rooms, most clubhouses, amphetamines — red ones, green ones, etc.,
were lying out there in the open, in a bowl, as if they were jellybeans,” he said.
“They were not put there by the players, so of course there was no pressure to test.
They were being distributed by ownership. I can’t remember ever having a
proposal from the owners, that we’re going to have random testing or testing of any kind.”
But, this leads to the obvious question of why the owners seem to be for testing and the
players against it. Are owners looking out for the integrity of the game? Yeah right, the
same guys who threaten contraction and want to put Spiderman on the basepaths
(I actually find nothing objectionable in either of these proposals, but I am clearly
in the minority on this.) Are the owners concerned about the health of the players? The
positive effects of steroids occur in the present the negative effects in the long run.
What do you think? Are the players are principled civil libertarians taking a stand?
There may be a few examples, but I doubt it. I would suspect there are many players who
own businesses that require drug tests for their employees. Well, I think the reason is
about an issue that is not even being discussed in the midst of all of this. Urine contains
not just use of steroids but other health related information. I would suspect there is a
higher than average incidence of THC in the bodies of major league players. This is a
cohort of men aged 19-35 who spend large amounts of time on the road trying to kill time.
I’ll be blunt. I think there’s a lot of partying going on (not quite rock star level,
but way higher than the average American), and players like to keep their partying levels
a secret from owners. Pot is certainly not performance-enhancing, but it probably makes being on the
Devil Rays at least funny. With the knowledge from tests for performance-enhancers
owners can learn about the bad stuff too.
So what’s my beef? I clearly support some sort of testing program. Well, I just hate all of
the grandstanding politicians and owners are making about this. I do, however, have a better
solution to all of this that can make the players happy without giving in the ulterior
motives of owners. The MLBPA should adopt it’s own testing policy. As a requirement for
membership, players would be subject to fines (not suspension since MLB would not like
this) for using drugs deemed to be performance-enhancing. I suspect the players could find
the right penalty to make the returns from steroids insufficient to offset incomes from steroid-enhanced performance. Of
course, the owners will hate it and can preach from the alter about how the MLBPA cannot be
trusted. But, I think the MLBPA has a much better chance of keeping steroids out of the
game than any joint solution between the parties.
Win Probability Added
The Hardball Times has started to track Win Probability Added for pitchers. Props to my colleague and neighbor, Doug Drinen, who coined the technique and name. Tangotiger has also done excellent work in this area, too. Read more about it here and here. Good work Studes, and thanks to all of the guys at THT for all of the great stuff they put out.
Tales from the Road
Whew! I’m slowly returning to normal from a hectic winter break. I spent a lot of time with family, had a relaxing vacation on Edisto Island, SC (very nice), attended a sports and mathematics sessions at the Joint Mathematics Meetings in Atlanta, and interviewed economics candidates at the American Economic Association in Philadelphia. Here are some of the highlights:
– The look on my 16-month-old daughter’s face upon receiving The Wiggles “Big Red Car” scooter for Christmas made my year.
– I watched USC crush Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl with 2/3 of the Sports-Reference network at the math conference. Doug Drinen of Pro-Football-Reference and Sean Forman of Baseball-Reference were excellent company for the game. Doug wasn’t real specific about his plans for PFR, but he’s got more ideas in the works than the folks at Duff Beer. I won’t reveal exactly what Sean passed along, but I will say that I am very excited about the future of Baseball-Reference. Yes folks, it is possible for it to get even better. Sean seems to know every regular on Baseball Primer, yet still even he doesn’t know Tangotiger’s real name. Doug explained to me what Sooners were, cheaters. I think he enjoyed the game more than any of us.
– Though I didn’t attend the session, Doug presented our paper on protection at one of the sessions of the meeting, and he thought it went pretty well.
– I talked to Skip Sauer of The Sports Economist for about 10 seconds at the AEA meeting. We were both doing interviews, so we said hellos before returning to our respective interview chambers. Skip’s adding two new interesting bloggers to his site, so be sure to check it out. I also bumped into Brad Humphreys, the “pencil-necked geek” who tried to save DC citizens from that awful stadium deal.
– Here’s an interesting observation. I didn’t see a single Phillies cap for sale in the Philadelphia airport. In the Atlanta airport it’s hard to find a shop that doesn’t have Braves caps. What does this say about these teams?
– Brad from No Pepper and James Hall e-mailed me a link to this Baseball America roundtable debate on stathead versus old-school scouting. Near the end Gary Huckabay of Baseball Prospectus says, “we’ve been building something over the last three years something we call the Databeast. It’s going to include information on, basically, coaching effectiveness. How much is Leo Mazzone really worth? And the answer is, a hell of a lot.” Hey Gary, this is old news to the readers of Sabernomics. 
So now that I’m back in front of a computer everyday, I hope to post a bit more regularly than I have been. I still have a lot of e-mail to catch up on, so if you are waiting on a response from me, I should get back with you shortly.
Sabernomics FAQ
Happy New Year! Sorry about the delay in posting, but I’ve been on the
road a bit. I think now is a good time to add an FAQ for this site. I
receive many e-mails relating to this site, and I have come to notice
that many are redundant and could be answered in a single post. I’ll
add a link to this post on the left sidebar.
Will you add a link to my site? I added a link to yours.
This is the most common request I receive. I am always happy to learn
of new sites with related interests; however, it is my policy not
to “blogroll” or trade links. The problem is that I either have to say
yes to everyone, no to everyone, or via person e-mail write, “I don’t
want to link to your site.” My policy is that I link to blogs that I
like and read on a regular basis.
Do you like pointers?
Yes!
What are your advertising rates?
At this time I do not accept advertising. This may change, though. I’ll
let you know when I’m open for business.
Will you help me with my school project?
No. I really don’t want to be in the position of providing help on a
project that is supposed to be independent. Even if your instructor
says getting help is OK, I’m not going to be interested. However, I am
always happy to read completed school projects.
Why don’t you link to [Insert site here]?
Probably because I don’t visit that site much. I do not link to pay
subscription sites, normally. Occasionally, I have problems with the
administration of a site, causing me not to link to the site.
Why do you link to [Insert site here]? It’s not a good
site.
I’m sorry you feel this way. I differ with your assessment. In the
future, keep your opinion to yourself.
Can I post an idea on your site?
No. I am the sole poster on this site at this time.
I have a suggestion for your site. Would you like to hear it?
Yes.
I often find spelling and grammatical mistakes in your posts. Why
don’t you be more careful?
I like blogging because it is a good way to post my thoughts quickly.
If I proofread my posts as much as I wanted to, I wouldn’t post nearly
as often.
