Tangotiger Blog

Tuesday, October 01, 2024

Cy Young Predictor 2024

As we know, when Corbin Burnes had his historical FIP season and won in 2021, that was a paradigm shift. From 2006-2020, the voters voted very consistently. And now, they are in a transition period. As a result, I have two Predictors, one is the Classic that works for 2006-2020, and another the New FIP-enhanced version that works almost as good as the Classic for 2021-2023. The Classic is probably a smidge ahead still, and it's a matter of time until the New version takes over. When that happens, I don't know. So, let's run both, with the Classic listed first, and the New in parens.

1. Skubal (1)

... way way way ahead

2A. Lugo (2)

2B. Burnes (5)

...

4. Valdez (6)

5A. Ragans (3)

5B. Blanco

5C. Gilbert (4)

5D. Miller

Anyone within ~1 point I put with the "letter" designation, signifying essentially a tie, and likely needing the New version as the tie-breaker

Even so, I consider FOUR points as being essentially tied, and so that's where the tiebreaker comes in. In the above, that means Valdez is really tied with the gang listed at #5

So, what do we learn here? Well, Skubal will win the Cy Young, easily. Number 2 will be Seth Lugo.

The uncertainty will be between Burnes who is NO LONGER the FIP-hero and Ragans. Burnes is ahead of Ragans by almost 6 points using the Classic Predictor, while Ragans is ahead of Burnes by almost 5 points using the New Predictor.

If we treat it as 3/4 Classic, 1/4 New, we get this as our top 6:

1. Skubal
2. Lugo
3. Burnes
4. Ragans
5. Valdez
6. Gilbert

Going 1/4 Classic, 3/4 New:

1. Skubal
2. Lugo
3. Ragans
4. Burnes
5. Gilbert
6. Valdez

And in all that will be Clase, who will finish somewhere between third and seventh. To finish second, he'd have to be considered the equal to Lugo, Burnes, Ragans. Given how little support the best relievers have received since Britton's incredible run in 2016, it'll be surprising if Clase is listed on all 30 ballots.  As Britton was listed on 24/30, that's probably what Clase has as an over/under.

***

1A. Sale (1 runaway)

1B. Wheeler (2)

3. Skenes (3)

4A. Imanaga (9)

4B. King (6)

6. Lopez (7)

7. Cease (5)

..

10. Webb (4)

As close as Wheeler made it in the end, Sale's tripe-crown and runaway lead in the New Predictor will be an easy win for him. Whether it's unanimous is the only question.

Skenes will be third.

So, here's where the uncertainty happens, in the downballot. Cease/Webb are the FIP-hero, while Imanaga/King are the Classic hero.

Here's how it looks 3/4 Classic, 1/4 New:

1. Sale
2. Wheeler
3. Skenes
4. King
5. Imanaga
6. Lopez
7. Cease
8. Webb

Going 1/4 Classic, 3/4 New:

1. Sale
2. Wheeler
3. Skenes
4. Cease
5. Webb
6. King
7. Lopez
8. Imanaga

In order to see where we are in the paradigm shift, just look to see where Cease/Webb finish relative to Imanaga/King. Imanaga/King are ahead of Cease by 5 points and Webb by 10 points with the Classic Predictor. With the New Predictor, Webb is ahead of all of them, but especially with Imanaga by over 10 points. So, Webb/Imanaga especially will be the tell.

If you see a ballot that looks something like this:

Sale, Wheeler, Skenes, Webb, Imanaga

or

Sale, Wheeler, Skenes, Imanaga, Webb

Then you will see this makes no sense, as the voter has basically decided to not decide on their view.  They've basically taken the position that they have no position and are still trying to balance everything out.  A vote for Webb is a vote for Cease.  And a vote for Imanaga is a vote for King.  To choose one from each group is the reason we are still in this paradigm shift.

Monday, September 23, 2024

Clase and Cy Young voting for relievers

I looked at the Cy Young voting for 2018-23, excluding 2020.  That's 10 Cy Young winners.

There were 100 names listed on those ballots (an average of 10 pitchers per Cy-season), with 70 unique pitchers.  Gerrit Cole was listed all 5 times.  Three-timers: Burnes, deGrom, Verlander, Gausman, Scherzer.

Let's talk about relief pitchers.  There were 10 of them, with Edwin Diaz the only relief pitcher to appear in two different seasons (2018, Mariners; 2022, Mets).

The best showing by a relief pitcher was in 2018 with Blake Treinen, who appeared on 8 of 30 ballots.  This is the BEST showing for a relief pitcher over these 10 Cy Young seasons.

There were 300 ballots cast in these seasons.  Not a single one had a relief pitcher get a single first place vote.  And given Sale/Skubal in 2024, that's going to continue.

• Only 1 of the 300 ballots had a relief pitcher appearing in 2nd place (Diaz, 2022).
• Only 4 of the 300 ballots with a reliever in 3rd place (Liam Hendricks with 3, and Treinen with 1).
• Only 5 of the 300 ballots with a reliever in 4th place (3 Treinen, 1 Hader in 2018, 1 Yates in 2019).
• Finally, 19 of the 300 ballots had the reliever in 5th place.

And this is where we are with relievers: 29 of the 1500 slots on the 300 ballots had a relief pitcher named!  Five of the ten relievers who got Cy Young votes only got votes as a token 5th place.

So where does this leave Clase in 2024?  Well, he won't get any 1st place votes.  As for 2nd thru 5th, he's competing with: Lugo, Burnes, Ragans, Valdez.  Given how relievers have been treated, it would be a huge win if Clase appears on half the ballots.  I suspect he'll top off with at most 5 votes for 2nd place, and at most 10 votes for 2nd+3rd.  Meanwhile, one of the remaining starters will likely get at least 15, if not 20 votes for 2nd+3rd place.  Clase just won't be able to compete with that.

In the end, Clase will likely finish at best 3rd, and at worst 6th place.  Treinen finished in 6th place while getting 8 votes (1 3rd, 3 4th, 4 5th).  Clase will likely finish better than that.  The last time a reliever finished better than 4th overall was, I dunno, when Eric Gagne won?  Kimbrel, Kenley, Aroldis all topped off at 4th I believe. So, I'd look for Clase to finish 4th or 5th.

Sunday, September 01, 2024

Can Wheeler win the Cy Young in 2024?

As those who follow me know, the Cy Young Predictor has worked spectacularly well. Until Colin Burnes won it in his FIP year. I created a FIP-enhanced version as well, given that we may be in a paradigm shift.

Chris Sale (and Tarik Skubal) are running away with the predictor using the FIP-enhanced version. Skubal is ALSO running away with it with the classic predictor. So, we won't learn anything there.

However, Sale is barely holding back Wheeler with the Classic Predictor. This means that Wheeler has a chance for an upset here... as long as there are enough old-school voters whose behaviour is being captured by the Classic Predictor.

How many of the 30 voters are Classic voters? I don't know, but let's say that there are 20 Classic voters and 10 FIP-enhanced voters. This means that Wheeler is already 0-10, and he needs to perform well enough over his next 5 starts (and/or Sale pitch poorly enough) that Wheeler can get 16 of the 20 Classic voters. Wheeler and Sale are going to get all 1st and 2nd place votes, regardless of mindset.

In order for Wheeler to get 16 of 20 votes, he probably has to lead with the Classic Predictor by about 5 points. Right now, Sale is ahead in the Classic scoring by 1.4 points. So over the next 5 starts (assuming they each get 5 more starts), Wheeler needs to get about 6 or 7 more points than Sale.

How doable is that?

Sale is averaging 13.5 points per 5 starts with a standard deviation of 4.9 points per 5 starts. Wheeler is 12.25 points and 6.3, respectively. In terms of the difference of two distributions, the standard deviations is the RSS, or one standard deviation is 8 points.

With Wheeler 1.4 points behind already, and 1.25 points expected behind over the next 5 starts, he's 2.65 points behind and he needs to be about 5 points ahead, or a swing of almost 8 points.

In other words: one standard deviation. Which will happen about 16% of the time.

Of course, all this is pretty rough, and if you want to say 10% or 15% or 20% or 25%, that's fine. I can't really give you that precision.

I can tell you the current market is at 82% for Sale and 18% for Wheeler. So, it seems that the market is basically in line with the Predictor.

Monday, October 02, 2023

Cy Young Predictor 2023

Going by the Classic Predictor in the NL, and it looks like this (with the FIP-enhanced version in parens):

1. Blake Snell (1)
2. Zac Gallen (4)
3. Spencer Strider (2)
4. Justin Steele (5)
5. Logan Webb (3)
6. Kodai Senga (7)

Zack Wheeler is 6th in FIP-enhanced.

So, Snell wins either way. And Gallen is ahead of Steele either way. And Steele is ahead of Senga either way. Strider is ahead of Webb either way. Strider is really the wildcard.

Corbin Burnes in 2021 aside, we're still not at a full paradigm shift. We are basically at a 60/40, maybe 75/25 split in terms of the Classic v FIP-enhanced Predictors.

If we were at 50/50 in terms of the weighting of the two, Strider would be just ahead of Gallen. If it were 75/25, Gallen is just ahead of Strider. If it was two-thirds/one-third, they are dead-even. Webb and Steele are dead-even if it was 80% Classic and 20% FIP-enhanced.

As you can see, we can twist ourselves into knots here trying to figure out where we are in the FIP paradigm shift.

Going by the Classic Predictor in the AL, and it looks like this (with the FIP-enhanced version in parens):

1. Gerrit Cole (1)
2. Kevin Gausman (3)
3. Luis Castillo (9)
4. Sonny Gray (2)
5. Kyle Bradish (5)

Zach Eflin is 4th in FIP-enhanced.

Again, Cole wins either way. Just as in 2022, we had a huge disconnect between Nola/Urias based on whether it was FIP-or-not, we see the same with Eflin and Castillo. If you go with 50/50, Eflin and Castillo are tied for 5/6.

If we go with the more reasonable 75/25, Castillo drops to 5th, while Gray and Bradish move up one slot from the Classic Predictor.

Again, we can tie ourselves into knots here. So, I'll just stick with the Classic Predictor, and let's see what we learn in 2023. If we find that what Nola/Urias taught us is that FIP is in play, then let's make a new Predictor that introduces FIP into the official, and SINGLE, forecaster.

Wednesday, July 26, 2023

How to use the Cy Young Predictor

In order to use the Cy Young Points for a Cy Young Prediction, you do NOT base it on: if the season ended today.

After all, if Connor McDavid missed the first ten games of the season, he'd still be the favorite to win the scoring race.  This is because we are predicting the rest-of-season stats based on something than other current-season stats.  And the same would apply for the MVP race.  If you were to construct a Hart Trophy Points system using current season data, McDavid would have 0 after ten games in this illustration.  But a Hart Trophy PREDICTION system would naturally have to first use rest-of-season predicted data FIRST, and THEN you apply your Hart Trophy Points system.

This is why Spencer Strider has been the favorite to win the Cy Young since just before the all-star break.  Even though he is currently sixth in Cy Young Points.  Strider is simply much better than anyone else in the Cy Young race, and he's given them a headstart, that's all that's happening here.  Use the Steamer forecasts to get his rest-of-season stats to get his future Cy Young Points, and add that to his current Cy Young Points.

Friday, January 06, 2023

Revamping the Hall of Fame process

You can pinpoint all the problems with the Hall of Fame selection process down to the rigidness of the rules.  And you can see all the corrections the Hall of Fame employs in response to that rigidness.  You have 400 voters (yay) all coming from one body (nay). That same body is the BBWAA involved for wide exposure (yay).  You have a wide array of players initially considered (yay), but if they don't meet a cutoff they are dropped forever (nay).  You have a high standard (yay), and players pick up consideration over the years (yay), but if they don't meet it in time they are dropped forever (nay).  You have a safety net group (yay) who have to consider alot of great players (yay) but don't give them an up or down vote (nay) and often reconsider the same players (nay).  And the corrections often happen when the players are old, or in some cases, departed (nay), when they should enjoy the honor for a better part of their retirement.

The revamp works as follows: instead of ten years on the initial ballot, make it five years.  The BBWAA gets first crack, and most of their selections are indeed made early: Since Larkin (2012) was elected, BBWAA has voted in 18 players in their first three years of eligibility.  That averages about 1.5 players per season.

There were another 6 players (Piazza, Mussina, Bagwell, Raines, Edgar, Walker) that the BBWAA eventually inducted, but as we will see, the improvement process will not only pick up these players, but more.

The improvement process goes back to an idea from Bill James, where we have precincts, or basically a group of people who speak for each club.  These people are fans, historians, players, really anyone dedicated to baseball.  There would be hundreds of voters in these 32 precincts, one for each club, plus some at-large precincts to cover potentially Negro Leagues or other persons (does not have to be players) not easily confined to specific clubs.  Bill has a very long essay on the subject, very thoughtful that handles various issues that you might have already thought about.  The key is that persons are being advocated for, and they go through a bracket-style competition until we are down to two persons.  Those two, plus the BBWAA players make up the induction class.

If you want David Cone or Bret Saberhagen or Luis Tiant or Dennis Martinez to be considered, well, now they can.  Bill has put in some levers in there to make sure it's not always the same persons being brought forth.  It is both wide ranging in scope, and yet straightforward in its application.  Roy Oswalt may not be put in the Hall of Fame by this process, but he will be given a chance every few years to have his case considered.  Future generations will have a chance to learn about Roy Oswalt in a way that the current process will simply pass him by.

Thursday, October 06, 2022

Cy Young Predictor 2022

As we know, we can easily model voter behaviour by relying solely on ERA, IP, SO, and W.  This has been confirmed since 2006 through 2020.  Except notably for 2021, when Burnes pulled a FIP win out of the hat.  Though notably, Cole did not pull the FIP win from Robbie Ray's hat.  So, there's a potential change happening, but we're not sure.

Let's go to 2022, and see what our traditional predictor is telling us, and what our FIP-enhanced version (in paren) might be saying as well.

In the NL, we have:

1. Alcantara easily (1 easily)
2. Urias easily (9)
3. Fried barely (3)
4. Burnes really close (5)
5. Gallen barely (6)
6. Rodon (2)

(Nola 4th using enhanced)

So as you can see, the big tell as to whether voters are relying on FIP or not is how it sees Urias and Rodon principally, and maybe Nola as well.  So, watch for the early returns with the top 3 "Finalists" are announced.

On to the AL:

1. Verlander easily (1 easily)
2. Cease barely (3)
   
3. Manoah (4)
4. Ohtani (2)
5. Valdez (5)
6. Bieber (6)

So we will learn about the impact of FIP based on how Ohtani finishes.  So again, look for the top 3 finalists as an early indicator.

Saturday, January 15, 2022

Of Johan and Carpenter

Using Enhanced Game Score: Johan Santana had 1 game at 100+ points, and 10 at 90-99.  So did Chris Carpenter.

Johan had 31 at 80-89, Carpenter had 30.
Johan had 171 at 50-79, Carpenter had 170.

In other words, when they were both above average, they reached those heights as often as the other player.

Johan had 76 games below average, while Carpenter had 139.  And that is the difference between the two players.  It's not that Johan was better necessarily. It was that he had fewer bad games, while having the same number of good games.

So, let me ask you this question: when you think of someone achieving Hall of Fame status, do you think of how good they are when they are on?  Or do you also think how often they haven't been good?

If you were to award "Hall of Fame" points, on a start by start basis, can someone lose HOF points for a bad start?  Or, do you just focus on the good starts?

Which makes more sense to you: 

• Give 5 points for a 100 Game Score start, 4 for a 90, 3 for an 80... 0 for a 50 ... minus 1 for a 40, minus 2 for a 30...minus 5 for a 0 Game Score start
• Give 5 points for a 100 Game Score start, 4 for a 90, 3 for an 80... 0 for a 50... and 0 for every start below that

How you answer this question will tell you whether you see Carpenter around the equal of Johan, or much below him.

Monday, October 04, 2021

Cy Young Predictor 2021

​In my review of 2020, I closed off ominously:

Overall, the model gets a B- I think. I think the fans get a similar grade.

This is probably as bad as it should get. If 2021 gives us something similar, then it’s time to retire this model. I’m going to assume the 60-game season is the cause, but it could very well be a behaviour change. Let’s see how it goes.

And NL 2021 is the test. After a neck and neck race in September, Walker Buehler came out to lead the NL in Cy Young points. As a reminder, the model is ridiculously straightforward:

Cy Young Points = IP/2 - ER + SO/10 + W

I know it looks TOO straightforward, making the concept ridiculous. How is it possible to distill the 30 voters for each award down to such a simple rule? But then again, this is how well it looks going back to 2006:

Every single Cy Young winner finished 1st or 2nd in Cy Young points, since 2006, without exception. None. And even those who finished 2nd were within striking distance (4 points) of 1st place.

So the rule is straightforward enough: if you lead the league in Cy Young points, or are within 4 points of the leader, you are the only candidates to win the Cy Young. This is true for the 30 awards from 2006-2020.  30 for 30.

2021 is going to be the test. Buehler is ahead of 2nd+3rd place Scherzer and Wheeler by 4.6-4.7 points. So, that’s more than the 4 points above. And maybe the model needs to increase its uncertainty level to 5 points. Doing that, then I can at least plausibly say that any one of Scherzer, Wheeler, and Buehler winning is a feather in the cap for the model. But Corbin Burnes has a chance to win the Cy Young, and he’s 11 points behind Buehler. If this was any season before 2021, Burnes would have no shot. But the odds makers have Burnes even with Scherzer (and Buehler nowhere to be found).

The Fans on a Twitter poll have it this way:

• 1/2: Scherzer/Burnes (too close to call)
• 3/4: Wheeler/Buehler (too close to call)
• 5: Woodruff
• 6/7: Gausman/Urias (too close to call)
• 8: Wainwright

So, are the fans and the bettors more in tune with the psyche of the voters in 2021? Is it time to retire the model? We’ll see in about six weeks. Until then, here are the forecasts:

NL

1. Buehler
2. Wheeler (though really splitting hairs with Max, which I should not mention because…)
3. Scherzer
4. Burnes (...really splitting hairs with Gausman, and basically points to the idea that we need to rethink the model)
5. Gausman
6. Urias
7. Woodruff
8. Wainwright

AL

1. Ray
2. Cole
3. Rodon (only 132 IP!)
4. Lynn
5. Montas
6. McCullers
7. Berrios
8. Bassitt

Thursday, October 22, 2020

How close is Mookie Betts to being great enough to be in the Hall of Fame

Setting aside whatever rules are in place, I asked readers how they would want to vote for the Hall of Fame (if they had the vote) for Ken Griffey Junior at various stages of his career, as well as Ted Williams. And the consensus was that they’d vote for Junior after his 1997 season and Ted Williams after his 1947 season. This is how they stacked up:

• After 1997, Junior had 41 wins above average (in equivalent of 7.5 162-game seasons)
• After 1947, Williams had 42 wins above average (in equivalent 5.5 seasons)

So pretty clearly, they are looking for players to cross that 40 WAA level. That’s one of the things I do with my polls. I don’t ask: How many WAA are you looking for. Rather I ask an indirect question and reverse engineer how they are really thinking. So, 40 WAA is our threshold. That’s not to say you can’t make it in the HOF at 30-39 WAA, but that once you cross that 40, you are in.

Here’s Mookie Betts so far:

• After 2020, Betts had 33 wins above average (in equivalent 5.2 seasons). He is one year, maybe two, from getting to the 40 WAA level, and be considered a Hall of Famer by those who follow me.

Since someone will bring up Mike Trout:

• After 2016, Trout had 36 WAA in 5.0 seasons (aka slightly better than Mookie Betts)
• After 2017, Trout had 41 WAA in 5.7 seasons (aka slightly worse than Ted Williams)
• After 2018, Trout had 49 WAA in 6.6 seasons (aka noticeably better than Junior)

I also asked my followers about Bobby Orr. The consensus was after the 1971-72 season, the equivalent of 5 80-game seasons. So, that’s the Ted Williams level, of five years at the highest level of play. That’s what everyone is after. Bobby Orr notably at that point would have been only 24 years old! So he reached the Hall of Fame level at age 24, with five Norris (best defender), three Hart (MVP), and two Smythe (Stanley Cup MVP to go with the two Cups). He also somehow won the scoring title… as a defender.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Batting Average bias in MVP voting

Bill has a tremendous article showing that batting averages bias MVP voting to a pretty large extent.  Now, if you wanted to determine the EXTENT of the bias, there's a path there.  While Bill used Win Shares as his central point, he did also do a quick overview with WAR, which is what I'll focus on here.

First, figure out how many hits above (or below) the league average the hitter has (using AB as your opportunity number). For example, if you have a .360 batting average in a league of .260 with 600 at bats, that's +.100 x 600 = +60 hits.  You can now run a regression, but you can do a trial and error process as well, which is probably going to be more instructive.  Give each extra-hit 0.01 WAR.  So in the above example, you are giving +0.6 WAR.  Go back to Bill's study, and now look to see if the bias still persists.  You will probably not notice much difference.  Try again with 0.02 WAR for each extra-hit, then try 0.03, then 0.05, and then 0.10.  You may iterate downwards as you may have overcompensated.

So what we are doing here is building-in the bias into the model, so that there is no bias in the output.  Once you have something close to that, then congratulations, you have now figured out the extent that batting average biases the MVP voting.

Monday, September 28, 2020

Cy Young Predictor 2020

​As you know, the simple Cy Young tracker has done very well since its start several years back.  The system is simple enough:

IP/2 - ER + SO/10 + W

Easy enough to commit to memory, and clear in what it's doing.  Innings, earned runs, strikeouts, and wins.  Each voter may use other metrics like WAR from Fangraphs or Reference, they may use shutouts, or FIP, or complete games, or quality of opponent.  But those are tertiary level considerations, and they all end up canceling out, as all the voters are focusing, at a minimum, on the big 4.

This year will be a challenge, since a third of a season is not enough for the system to separate players.  Normally, we'd get 2-4 points of separation.  We can't get that this year for the most part.  Anyway, time for the predictions.

AL

1. Bieber.  He's so far ahead of everyone, it'd be a shock if he's not unanimous.  He leads in ERA, Wins, Strikeouts, and second in Innings.  Regardless of whatever point system I'd create, he'd end up number 1.
2. Gerrit Cole
3. Keuchel
4. Maeda
5. Bassitt

After that we have Lynn and Ryu.  Keuchel over Maeda is a bet on ERA over strikeouts.  Bassitt over Lynn is a bet on ERA over strikeouts and innings.  Lance Lynn will be the biggest test to the system.  Any time you have an extreme case like Lynn, leading the league in innings, but with a fairly high ERA for a Cy Young candidate, it's a test as to whether the system overweights or underweights a category.  

It would seem that both Keuchel and Bassitt have to both appear together.  It's just hard to choose one over the other.  With Bieber and Cole, that leaves one spot.  And so, more likely Maeda over Lynn.  As usual, no reliever will make an appearance in the top 5.

NL

1. Darvish 
2. Bauer.  They are neck and neck, both at 38 points.  The difference is a rounding error, but an error in favor of Yu.  Tertiary level stats like FIP favors Yu, so that's my guess.  But, this is a 52/48 kind of guess.
3. deGrom
4. Lamet.  Another neck and neck, and they are even closer than Darvish/Bauer.  In this case, even though the rounding error is in favor of Lamet, I'm betting that voters will use deGOAT as the tie-breaker.
5. Burnes.

Wednesday, November 06, 2019

HOF Balloting and splitting the vote

?I ran a series of polls of the Straight Arrow voters among the 9 player candidates, along with intermediary results, which are close to the current results.  To read that, it says that if you were to select ONE player, and one player only, Lou Whitaker would get 34% (using that link) of the votes.  It's currently at 35%, and I'll use the most current results for this blog post.

So, you can see that in a "must 1" balloting process, if the threshold is 75%, no one would get inducted.  There's too much vote splitting.  Ah, but what if it was a "must 2" balloting process?  What if everyone had to select 2 players?  Could we figure that out?  Yes!  

Warning, math ahead.

Let's start from the perspective of Lou Whitaker. In a must 1, we already know that 65% did not select him. Of those 65, 12 of those was Don Mattingly that was selected.  So, if we look at the 8 remaining (so, Whitaker, and the other 7, not Mattingly), we take Whitaker's strength (353) and divide it by the remaining strength (1000 minus Mattingly's 119) to get 40.1%.  In other words, if Mattingly is off the board, then Whitaker will appear on 40% of those ballots, as the 2nd candidate.  We repeat this for each player, and Whitaker will appear from 40% to 36% as the second candidate.  

And how often do each of those happen?  Well, we weight it by the 1st ballot voting rates.  For MAttingly that's 12% and for John and Murphy that's 10% each, and so on.  And when we do that, we get 39% for Whitaker.  In other words, given that Whitaker was NOT the first selection on the ballot, he will be the SECOND selection on the ballot 39% of the time.  And since he was NOT on the first selection 65% of the time, we take 65% times 39% and we get 25%.  Whitaker appears on 25% of the ballots as the #2 candidate. We already know he appears on 35% of the ballots as the #1 candidate.  And so, Whitaker, in a must-2 selection process, will appear on 60% of the ballots.

Mattingly, who was 12% on a must-1 process, is now at 25% on a must-2 process.  Garvey, 2.7% on a must-1 is now 6.1% on a must-2.

End of Math

Ok, so this is how it works.  I will now turn it over to the aspiring saberists.  First figure out the strength values.  If you don't know how to do that, then just use what I posted on Twitter.  Secondly, repeat what I did for a must-1 and must-2. And then show us must-3 and must-4 and must-5 and must-6.

You'll have plenty of fun if you are a math enthusiast.

Sunday, September 29, 2019

Cy Young Predictor 2019

?The AL is going to be close, but Cole will take it over Verlander.  Cole's lead in ERA and SO will take it over Verlander's lead in W and IP.  Morton will finish ahead of Bieber.  The fifth slot is where all the action is.  Liam Hendriks has an outside shot, given that there are many SP candidates that will split that last slot: Lynn, Giolito, Rodriguez, Minor, Clevinger.  But I'll make the official call that Lynn will finish 5th, Hendriks 6th, then the rest as I listed in order.

The NL is a foregone conclusion: deGrom will win.  2-3-4 will be very close, but Ryu's ERA lead will seal him for 2nd, and Flaherty's 2nd half dominance will put him in 3rd.  The next 3 will be Nationals pitchers: Strasburg, Corbin, Scherzer, in that order.  7 thru 10: Kershaw, Gray, Soroka, RP Yates.

Our first glimpse will be when they announce the top 3 finalists.  Look to see if it is Morton or Bieber.  And look to see if Strasburg is in there or not.

I gotta say, this year is REALLY putting the model to the test. If the model fails, then I will hang it up, and will eagerly await the aspiring saberist to flex their Cy muscles.  If the model succeeds, then you've gotta deal with me for at least another year or two.

Monday, January 28, 2019

Hall of Fame membership by position

Of players born 1941-1970 in the Hall of Fame (plus Clemens, Bonds, Schilling, Mussina, Rose), we have 60 players.

In WAR, I give out nonpitchers to pitchers at a ratio of 4:3.  This suggests 34 nonpitchers and 26 pitchers.  We actually have 36 and 24.  So, probably 2 pitchers too few.

Among pitchers, I give out 0.3 reliever WAR for each 1 SP WAR, or 23% to relievers.  Among the 24 pitchers, 17 SP and 7 relievers, whereas 23% would suggest 17 SP and 5 relievers.  So, probably 2 relievers too many, if we want to maintain 17 SP.  If we want to go to 20 SP, then 6 relievers.  So, probably 3 SP missing, and 1 RP too many.

Among the 36 nonpitchers (we should have 34 using the above method), we should have 4 per position, and maybe 2 for DH (that's 34).

We actually have:

• 4 catchers
• 4 1B
• 4 2B
• 3 3B
• 5 SS
• 4 LF
• 3 CF
• 3 RF
• 3 DH
• + Molitor, Rose, Carew

Doesn't seem that outlandish a balance.

Monday, October 29, 2018

Machine Learning the MVP voting

?Statcast Intern Sam Sharpe gave a great intro to his model last year, and his gives you his results this year, with a ready-made headline for all the media out there.  Ryan at Fangraphs shows us his method, and gives slightly different results.  Where JD Martinez lands in the MVP voting will  tell you who is able to better understand the 2018 voter behaviour. 

Great job guys, exactly what we've been looking for.  Can't wait for you guys, and others, to do the same with HOF voting.  Edgar Martinez fans are waiting.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Snell/Verlander 2018 v Kershaw/Scherzer 2017

?Last year, I tweeted this:

"...the only time a pitcher led is league in ERA and W and NOT win the Cy Young was in 1984 (Mike Boddicker)"

That streak was broken last year, when Max Scherzer, EASILY, won the Cy Young, with 27 of 30 1st place votes.  Last year, Kershaw has 2 more wins (and 2 fewer losses) and an ERA 0.20 lower than Scherzer.  Max had the lead in IP (by 25.2) and K (by 66).

Fast forward one year later, to today.

Blake Snell has 4 more wins (and 4 fewer losses) and an ERA 0.70 lower than Verlander.  Verlander has the lead in IP (by 33) and K (by 69).  In a head to head matchup, this is very similar to Kershaw/Max last year, except Snell is in a better position than Kershaw was.  So what Max won handily last year should  be closer this year.

***

But in the middle of that is Chris  Sale, who is actually leading the league in ERA but not officially: he is  2 IP short of qualifying today... he'll need 12 innings by the end of the season.  He  has two starts remaining, of which the next one, he is scheduled  to throw 65 pitches, which likely means 4, maybe 5 innings if he is stellar.  And so would need to go 7 innings in his last start to make it over the wire.  He  could realistically finish the season with 160 or 161 IP and not qualify for the ERA title, and Snell would take it potentially.

Sale leads the league in WAR under both Fangraphs and Baseball Reference implementations.  And in a poll of MLB.com writers, Sale easily laps the field.  Meaning he could be a starting pitcher who wins the Cy Young without qualifying for the ERA title.

***

As if all that wasn't enough of a watershed moment, deGrom's under .500 record might not be an obstacle to the NL Cy Young either.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Cy Young Predictor update

Cy Young Predictor (merging forces of BBWAA mindset with the forecasts of @steamerpro ...forecasting is the ONLY and CORRECT way to do "on pace"):

In the NL, it's resolving itself to be a two-man race between Scherzer and deGrom, the likely leader in W v the likely leader in ERA. In terms of the Cy Young points:

• deGrom has a 13 point advantage in ERA
• Scherzer has a 9 point advantage in W
• Scherzer also has a slight 2 point advantage in IP and 3 point advantage in K

As you can see, it's a very very close call. As for Nola, Scherzer is ahead of Nola in every component, and so, wherever Scherzer is placed on any individual ballot, Nola will be either 1 or 2 slots behind him. The Cy Points Forecast:

• 102.6 Scherzer
• 101.4 deGrom
• 88 Nola

Look for downballot support for: Corbin, Folty, Greinke, Freeland, Mikolas, and Kershaw

Over in the AL, there are six viable candidates. Sale, Snell, Bauer are way ahead of Verlander in ERA by 13 to 18 points. But Verlander is ahead of them in IP by 11 to 15 points. So when you include both ERA and IP, Verlander is 2 to 4 points behind them. In terms of strikeouts, Verlander is ahead of them by 4 to 7 points. 

Focusing on Verlander and Snell, the front-runners:

• Snell ahead by 14 points in ERA
• Snell ahead by 2 points in W
• Verlander ahead by 11 points in IP
• Verlander ahead by 7 points in K  

This is a tight race, much like Verlander has been involved with Porcello and Price in the past. Unmentioned is Kluber and Cole, who are each very much in the mix, if not as contenders, at least as spoilers, as they can push a contender down a peg in the balloting.

With six viable candidates and five slots, it's hard to see there could be any more down-ballot support, but look for Carrasco, Severino,  Clevinger, Morton, as well as relievers to Diaz (58 saves) and Treinen (1.05 ERA) to pick up possibly 5th place votes.

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Bill James and Hall of Fame Standards: Wins over 0.550

?Bill James has a new Hall of Fame article, this time with a focus on getting "seasonal hall of fame points".

His core metric is Win Shares.  And his main calculation is to subtract 17 Win Shares to convert this into Hall of Fame points, but never going into negatives.  Since a full time player has about 30 "Game Shares", Bill is essentially subtracting win shares above .550, maybe .600.

This is interesting because I've been advocating "positive wins above average".  That is, I've been doing wins over .500, never going into negatives.  Bill basically has a bit higher standard.

Except... when you get TOO HIGH, he starts capping seasons.  The cap starts at a win % of around 1.000.  Then the player doesn't get as much credit.  However, this may be an artifact of his "bonus points" system.  In other words, he sorta of double-counts in some categories, so he has to "half count" to get things in balance.  Or something like that.

Anyway, we intersect to a large degree, and we're at the periphery in difference.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

Preliminary prediction for BBWAA voting

?As of right now, the NL Kershaw followed by Scherzer.

For the next 4 spots, it's a weird scenario because of Alex Wood.  Take him out of the equation, and the order is: Gio, Stras, Greinke.  Include Alex Wood, and he either is above Gio, or behind Greinke (and Robbie Ray).  Maybe we'll get more clarity by the end of the season.  There's also Kenley, who will get plenty of down-ballot support.  I don't know where he'll land, but it won't be in the top 2.

Over to the AL: it'll be Kluber getting most of the 1st place votes, and Sale getting most of the 2nd place votes.  Then it's all down-ballot from there.  It should be Severino, Verlander, Carrasco, with Stroman and Santana lurking.  I expect Kimbrel to suffer/enjoy the same fate as Kenley, plenty of down-ballot support, and he won't finish in the top 2.  

Kimbrel's best showing ever was when he finished 4th, and that's pretty much what a reliever is relegated to finish, especially given that Britton last year finished 4th (behind a good, but not great, Kluber), and he had the best stats of a reliever relative to his competition in quite a while.