2008 Season Preview and Predictions

This is two baseball fans' take on the start of the season. Keep in mind Filliam is a Dodgers fan, Carl is a Padres fan, and, all things being equal, we root for the NL over the AL. Unlike other predictions, you can rest assured these will be dragged out and reviewed after the season, if only so the better predictor can celebrate his victory. With that in mind, on to the preview:

NL West

Filliam: As a Dodgers fan I would be remiss if I didn't pick the boys in blue to return to the top of the division. I like their lineup top to bottom, and a healthy Schmidt would give them a very solid 1-5 to go with a solid bullpen.

Carl: Shockingly enough, I like the Padres. I see a team that had a very good season last year (89 wins) and did enough in the offseason to maintain that level of performance. Much as it pains to admit me, the Dodgers do look very good, especially now that it looks like they're going to pick Ethier to start in left over Pierre.

Filliam: For the same reason my esteemed colleague Carl likes the Padres to win the division, I like the D-backs to finish in second. They won 90 games last year, and while they were outscored, I believe their hitters will progress enough and the rotation will benefit from the addition of Dan Haren. The Padres as I've said previously, are too reliant on one-year players, injury risks, and are starting Scott Hairston and Jody Gerut in the outfield to open the year. But, the rotation should be good, the bullpen always is, which is why I still think they'll finish over .500.

Carl: Ah, see people rag on the Padres for starting Hairston in center and McAnulty/Gerut in left, but the Dodgers are throwing out Blake DeWitt at third. I think people are overestimating how much Arizona's young players are going to improve. A modest improvement for a lot of those guys still makes their lineup below average. And their bullpen pitched way, way over its head last year, both in terms of season versus career performance and relative to their peripherals. For some reason, the Rockies just don't do it for me, probably because it's hard for me to get a handle on the magnitude of their park effects. They have 5 really good hitters in their lineup and three really bad ones, and their lineup isn't as great as it's cracked up to be. Last year, it was a little above average, slightly better than the Padres'. As a side note, the Dodgers, D-backs, and Giants all had really terrible hitting teams last year. Getting back to this year, the Giants' lineup is going to be horrific. They had a 89 OPS+ last year and subtracted the 170 OPS+ from left. Brian Bocock, who put up a .656 OPS in A-ball last year, starts the year at short for them.

Filliam: The Rockies to me were good, but fluky last year, and I think they'll be closer to 80 wins than 90. The Giants have promising young pitching but disastrously awful hitting and are clearly the bottom feeder in the division.

Filliam's Prediction:

1. Los Angeles Dodgers 88-74
2. Arizona Diamondbacks 86-76
3. San Diego Padres 83-79
4. Colorado Rockies 82-80
5. San Francisco Giants 67-95

Carl's Prediction:
1. San Diego Padres 91-71
2. Los Angeles Dodgers 89-73 *wild card
3. Arizona Diamondbacks 84-78
4. Colorado Rockies 83-81
5. San Fransisco Giants 65-97

NL Central

Carl: Looks like a two team race between the Cubs and Brewers. The Brewers hugely improved their defense by signing Cameron, moving Hall to third, and moving Braun to left. That change alone could give them 3 wins over last year. The Cubs look like a very solid team top to bottom, and I think they'll edge out the Brewers at the end of the season.

Filliam: I had the Cubs winning the division before I remembered Lou Pinella is their manager. He's terrible. If Gallardo and Sheets return healthy the Brewers will definitely challenge for the division. The Reds have some exciting young players, but in general the rest of the division is pretty weak and unexciting.

Carl: Agree with you there. If everything breaks the Reds way, they could contend, but they're probably too focused more on the future to take some risks trying to win now. Man how the Astros and the Cardinals have fallen. As for the Pirates, well, at least they probably won't use their top draft pick on a reliever this year.

Filliam's Prediction:

1. Milwaukee Brewers 86-76
2. Chicago Cubs 85-77
3. Cincinnati Reds 80-82
4. Houston Astros 76-86
5. St. Louis Cardinals 74-88
6. Pittsburgh Pirates 71-91

Carl's Prediction:
1. Cubs
2. Brewers
------.500----
3. Reds
4. Cardinals
5. Astros
6. Pirates
(Note: I'm not predicting records anymore because that's a ridiculous implication of precision that I don't want to make. Ok, no, mainly I just don't want to tally up all the wins and losses to make sure the league as a whole isn't winning more games than it's losing. I'll draw in a .500 line in the standings; that's about as precise as I can predict.)

NL East

Filliam: The Mets are the best team in the National League this year, mainly due to Johan Santana. The Mets have always had pitching problems, and although Santana won't completely solve all of their issues, he'll certainly help. The Braves should have a great offense, and Hudson, Smoltz, and Glavine in the rotation, which will be enough to compete. The Phillies have pitching issues, the Nats have well, issues, and the Marlins are rebuilding.

Carl: Yes, the Mets are good. Very shallow, but good. I think they'll avoid enough injuries to be the best team in the NL. I agree with your other assessments, and would like to throw in a compliment of Jim Bowden, who has made some solid high upside acquisitions in his quest to rebuild the Nationals.

Filliam's Predictions:

1. New York Mets 91-71
2. Atlanta Braves 87-75
3. Philadelphia Phillies 84-78
4. Washington Nationals 75-87
5. Florida Marlins 68-94

Carl's Predictions:
1. Mets
2. Braves
3. Phillies
------.500-------
4. Nats
5. Marlins

AL West

Carl: I'm really down on this division in general now that Escobar is out for the year and Lackey is missing a month. The Angels should still have enough to win the division, but they're not a particularly strong team anymore.

Filliam: I liked the Angels to win more games until the severity of Kelvim Escobar's injury was revealed, and before John Lackey got hurt. The Mariners will challenge them with Bedard and King Felix, but the Angels offense should be enough to get them through.

Carl: I'm not very impressed with the Mariners, who outperformed their runs scored/runs allowed last year, but they could have enough to push the weakened Angels. I was surprised to see they had a 104 OPS+ last year, so they found some offense from somewhere. Oakland could regret punting on this year if Rich Harden and Bobby Crosby somehow avoid injury. Ok, so that's not going to happen. Oh well. Good job by Beane acknowledging the improbability of everyone in the division suffering massive injuries while Harden and Crosby avoid them.

Filliam: Yeah, the Rangers and A's have a lot of prospects but neither should be contenders this year.

Filliam's Predictions:

1. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim of Los Angeles no wait, Orange County 89-73
2. Seattle Mariners 86-76
3. Texas Rangers 75-87
4. Oakland A's 71-91

Carl's Predictions:
1. The Angels Angels of Anaheim
2. Mariners
------.500--------
3. A's
4. Rangers

AL Central

Filliam: The Tigers made one of the biggest acquisitions of the offseason by getting Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Add those two to an already very good team, and you have a great team. The Indians too have a playoff caliber team, and a return to form by Cliff Lee would go a long way in helping them return. If the Tigers get Joel Zumaya and Francisco Rodney back healthy they should have a good enough bullpen to get by the Indians.

Carl: My bold prediction for this year: the Tigers are not going to score 1000 runs. Cabrera and Renteria are great upgrades, but the Tigers are going to see a lot of regression from Polanco, Granderson, and Ordonez. I like the Indians to sneak by the Tigers mainly due to better pitching and pitching depth. As for the rest of the division, got anything relevant or interesting to say about them, because I certainly don't.

Filliam: The Royals are up and coming, the White Sox are, uh, a baseball team, and the Twins are rebuilding.

Carl: Nicely done.

Filliam's Predictions:

1. Detroit Tigers 96-66
2. Cleveland Indians 92-70
3. Kansas City Royals 77-85
4. Chicago White Sox 74-88
5. Minnesota Twins 68-94

Carl's Predictions:
1. Indians
2. Tigers
-------.500------
3. White Sox
4. Royals
5. Twins

AL East

Carl: Ooh, finally time for the only division that matters. That's right, it's the home of the storied Jays-Rays rambunctious rhyming rivalry. The Rays have taken it on the chin from their northern rivals, but they've done an excellent job building up their team from within. Picking first every year certainly helps with that. I don't think this is the year they pass the Jays though. My favorite part about the Blue Jays is their awesome, awesome defense. Until they cut Reed Johnson, they had a legitimate gold glove caliber defender at every position except catcher. It looks like the Rays actually adopted some of the Jays' defensive emphasis this year, adding Bartlett at short and keeping Upton in center for good. That, the addition of Matt Garza, and the continued development of their top minor league arms should greatly decrease their RA this year. I think both teams will be right around .500, with the Blue Jays a couple games up on their Floridian nemesis. Can you think of any other interesting teams that call this division home? I guess we could theoretically talk about the two best teams in baseball.

Filliam: The Red Sox have some interesting questions right now, namely can Jon Lester become a top flight starter, is Josh Beckett healthy, and can Clay Buchholz and/or Bartolo Colon be good enough to get them the division? That's more questions than you'd like from a defending world champion, but if they get satisfactory answers they will probably win the division. The Yankees are for the first time that I can remember, relying on young players on the starting staff, Phil Hughes, Joba Chamberlain, and Ian Kennedy will all be a major part of the team. While this is a good thing for the future, I'm not entirely sure how their rotation will look this year. Mike Mussina was awful last year, Pettitte was good last year, but has injury issues, and has steroids drama to deal with now. So again, questions for a contending team.

Carl: I actually think the Yankees will take the division and the Red Sox the wildcard. Better offense, just enough pitching. Thoughts on the rest of the division?

Filliam: The Blue Jays have some good young players, and continue to get better, but I don't think they have enough to get over the hump. If they bring up Adam Lind and he fulfills his considerable potential, they'll have a good offense to go along with what appears to be a good rotation. The Devil...err, Rays have a ton of young talent, a ton of prospects, some more ready to contribute than others, and with some luck, will be contenders within a few years. But losing Rocco Baldelli hurts, and Scott Kazmir needs to get healthy as well. The Orioles are a solid 5 years away from being a decent team.

Carl: Oh yes, the Orioles, now more than ever complete afterthoughts. At least they're going in the right direction in rebuilding now, though.

Filliam's Predictions:

1. Boston Red Sox 95-67
2. New York Yankees 91-71
3. Toronto Blue Jays 86-76
4. Tampa Bay Rays 82-80
5. Baltimore Orioles 65-97

Carl's Predictions:
1. Yankees
2. Red Sox *wild card
3. Blue Jays
4. Rays
----.500-----
5. Orioles

Postseason

Filliam's Predictions:

AL-Detroit over Anaheim, Boston over Cleveland; Detroit over Boston

NL-New York over Milwaukee, Los Angeles over Atlanta; Los Angeles over New York

World Series-Detroit over Los Angeles

Carl's Predictions:
NL - Dodgers over Mets, Padres over Cubs, Padres over Dodgers
AL - Indians over Red Sox, Yankees over Angels, Indians over Yankees

World Series - Padres over Indians
(I'm being a homer in picking the Padres to win their division, I'm not going to just stop there and pick someone else to win the World Series.)

Awards

AL Cy Young: Erik Bedard, Seattle Mariners

NL Cy Young: Johan Santana, New York Mets

AL MVP: Grady Sizemore, CF, Cleveland Indians

NL MVP: David Wright, 3B, New York Mets

AL ROY: Evan Longoria, 3B, Tampa Bay Rays

NL ROY: Kosuke Fukodome, CF, Chicago Cubs

Random other predictions:

Filliam: It seems to me that there are a few really good teams, a few really bad teams, and a lot in the middle. Should make for quite an interesting season. Players I tossed out for consideration in the awards categories: Prince Fielder for NL MVP, and Miguel Cabrera for AL MVP. I like our selections, but both of those guys could be close.

Carl: Randy Wolf has a huge year for the Padres. Brad Penny has a terrible year for the Dodgers. Matt Kemp takes a step back, Andruw Jones has a very good bounceback year. Pedro Martinez throws 50 innings this year and signs with the Padres next offseason. C.C. Sabathia signs an extension with Cleveland in the middle of the season. Justin Verlander disappoints. Jose Guillen disappoints, Zach Greinke has a huge year. Cole Hamels throws a no-hitter, the Mariners and A's get into a brawl, and Shane Victorino hits for the cycle.

Ouch

While perusing Oliver Perez's PECOTA card at Baseball Prospectus, I found this comment on him from the 2003 annual:

"I had seen notes that showed Perez’s fastball at 90 mph, but it sure looked better than that to me. He supports it with a tremendous changeup and tight curveball, giving him three quality pitches to work with. Perez is mature beyond his years in terms of working hitters with speed changes; somewhere, his changeup against Reggie Sanders just hit the glove. San Diego might be the only club with better and younger front-line starting pitching than Oakland. These guys are that good."

Ouch. At least Peavy's good...

Some of these young arms that were better and younger than Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, Aaron Harang, and Rich Harden:

Jake Peavy - Hey, a success. Let's just stop here.
Oliver Perez
Brian Lawrence
Dennis Tankersley
Adam Eaton
Mark Phillips
Ben Howard
Eric Cyr
Mike Bynum

Glance at this article and think about what might have been.

So what does this tell us? Never count your minor league pitching prospects until they are hatched as fully formed big league starters. Actually, if you think about this list, Peavy is one of the best pitchers in baseball, Perez was traded for a great player (coming of a 177 OPS+ year), and Eaton was used to acquire Chris Young and Adrian Gonzalez. I guess that's about as good as you can hope for when dealing with minor league arms and potential. I think I would have preferred a rotation of Hudson, Zito, Mulder, Harden, Harang in their primes, though.

Padres Opening Day Roster Analysis

The Padres came into spring training with a number of questions to resolve about the roster. The left field starter and fifth rotation member were TBD, three of the five bench spots were up in the air, and the last three bullpen slots remained unclaimed. With five days to the opener, these questions have been answered and the Opening Day roster seems to be set, barring further injury or a change of heart. Here's a look through how those questions were answered and if they came up with the correct answer, in my (obviously infallible) opinion.

Disclaimer: I was really cheesed off when the Padres released Russell Branyan, so I tend to overreact to small roster moves that make no sense to my way of thinking about the team. Most of the bench and back of the bullpen spots are all about small sample size theater, so the true impact of the back of the roster construction is very small. We're not choosing between Juan Pierre and Matt Kemp for 700 PA here. Still, in the NL West, every game counts.

5th Starter's Spot: Justin Germano has been declared the victor in this battle after everything worked out in the Padres' interests nicely in spring training. Germano had a very good camp; the second best option, Glendon Rusch, had a very good camp and is ready to help if Germano falters or Wolf is injured; the inexplicable front runner entering camp, Shawn Estes, who is an inferior pitcher to Germano and Rusch, had a terrible camp and will start with Portland to work on stuff. Germano is the fifth starter until/unless Prior returns. Rusch can step in if Germano falters or Wolf goes down and hopefully not embarrass himself (PECOTA has him at an above replacement level 4.95 ERA, and presumably he could be better if he's healthier, which the Padres seem to think he is). Ideally LeBlanc will be ready to help in the second half if anyone goes down beyond that; he held his own in major league camp this spring.

Left Field Starter: Deciding to delay Headley's service clock to control him for another year and the injury to Edmonds left Gerut and McAnulty the left fielders by default. The addition of Huber should create a passable left field platoon. I'm not particularly excited about any of these guys, but maybe one of them will catch fire and keep Headley down for a while. When Edmonds comes back, Hairston moves back to left and probably platoons with the hotter of Gerut or McAnulty.

Bullpen spots: Hoffman, Bell, Thatcher, and Meredith were guaranteed spots. Hampson and Guevara (who I really like and hope is on the team when he's healthy) start the year on the DL, and Ledezma, Rusch, and Gonzalez get the last three spots. Rusch is the necessary long man, but I don't get the inclusion of Ledezma and Gonzalez. Ledezma has good stuff but needs to refine his control. He had a superficially good spring ERA-wise, but in 13 IP he's had 8 BBs and 6 K's. Gonzalez also has a mediocre track record and wasn't impressive this spring. Oh well. Neither of them is going to pitch in many high leverage situations, and if they aren't very good they'll get booted in favor of Cameron, Hampson, and Guevara quickly enough.

Bench Spots: I think the club did an solid job picking their bench players. Crabbe is the obligatory light hitting fast scrappy guy, who will mainly be used as a middle infielder and center fielder. Clark and Gerut provide good lefty bats off the bench, and the trade for Huber fills the need for a righty pinch hitter. Barrett is the backup catcher, and with a 12 man pitching staff that's all you get on the bench. It looks like they picked the best hitters that have the necessary versatility.

In summary, a solid job filling out the team. I think when Headley gets called back up he'll be mostly the starter in left, with Hairston spelling Giles and Edmonds regularly. I'd also expect Hampson, Guevara, and Cameron to cycle into the back three spots in the bullpen as Ledezma and Gonzalez struggle or other guys get hurt.

The best news of all about the roster this year: Geoff Blum is not the first right handed pinch hitter off of the bench.

March Madness

March is a time for madness. This much we know. Madness as in, 48 college basketball games in four days. Madness as in playing two regular season baseball games in Japan at 3am Pacific time, then having both teams return to playing exhibition games for a few days, then back to regular season games. With all of that over, however, I'm going to be your guide to the upcoming madness the last few remaining days of March will provide. So, pack your bags and come with me on a journey. 

With the NCAA Men's Division 1 Basketball Championship breaking records for longest name and attendance, the tournament will move into regional action. The most interesting matchups include Washington State-North Carolina, Louisville-Tennessee, Stanford-Texas, and Wisconsin-Davidson. That last game features probably the best story of the tournament so far, embodied by Stephen Curry of Davidson. Curry is averaging 35 points through his first two games, and there's no reason to expect he won't be around that total again on Friday. In addition to the rather interesting pronunciation of his first name, Curry also could be the first one man team to advance to the Elite 8. If you saw his performances against Gonzaga and Georgetown, you'd have noticed that his teammates valuable services exist mainly to support his heroic efforts. As an "underdog" fan, I'll be pulling hard for Davidson to continue its run, in the fleeting hope that they knock off North Carolina in the Final Four. 

Baseball is back! And by back, I mean the Red Sox and A's are back and the rest of the teams are still basing their decisions on statistics racked up against pitchers like Byung-Hyun Kim. 

In any case, while the return of America's pastime to the forefront of television consciousness is most welcome, I can't help but feel that some teams still think they're in spring training. For your consideration, I submit the Florida Marlins. While teams not expected to compete such as the A's, Giants, and Pirates are at least throwing out promising starters such as Joe Blanton, Barry Zito and Ian Snell for opening day duty, the Marlins are starting...Mark Hendrickson. The same Mark Hendrickson that last season was beat out for starts by Brett Tomko. With Miami-Dade County committed to building a new stadium, the team rewards this development by starting Mark Hendrickson. Good luck creating excitement for baseball in South Florida. 

All that being said, we're hurtling towards exciting finishes in both college basketball and professional basketball, with classic matchups possible in both championships. North Carolina and UCLA are both favored to return to the championship game, and while not necessarily rivals, they are two of the most storied programs in college basketball history. Meanwhile in the NBA, the Celtics and Lakers are at the top of their respective conferences. Even though the Eastern Conference looks more and more like North Dakota High School Basketball each day. Both of these matchups have as much intrigue and excitement as the "Lost"-"CSI" battle on Thursday nights. 

So as you navigate through the raging waters of March sports, look for Stephen Curry, Mark Hendrickson, and the entire Western Conference to add more madness to an already crazy month. In closing, I'll give you my Fantasy Baseball tip of the week, pick up Willy Aybar, the starting third baseman for the Tampa Bay Rays. I feel like he'll be entrenched in that spot for a long, long time.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying (about ERA) and Love RA

I hate unearned runs. More specifically, I hate their arbitrary separation from earned runs. In the humble opinion of this excellent actor, they are the worst stat in baseball today. Sure, a stat like wins is terrible and often very misleading, but anyone that has ever thought about wins for more than a second realizes their inherent flaws. When arguing about pitcher quality, anyone who wants to make an intelligent comparison focuses on runs allowed, innings pitched, strikeouts, things of this nature. But everyone uses ERA as their quick and easy pitcher comparison stat. It's universally accepted. In comparing pitchers, you look at ERA, adjust it for the home park and/or league, account for innings pitched, and voila, you know which pitcher is better. Except the decision to use ERA instead of RA (runs allowed, which includes earned and unearned runs) could create a serious flaw in the conclusion.

First, the case against separating earned and unearned runs. As anyone who has ever watched a baseball game knows, errors are very arbitrary. Hometown scorekeeping frequently skews the awarding of errors, so that home team is more likely to get hits than errors. Plays where a fielder gets a terrible jump on the ball and doesn't come close to it are scored as hits, while a harder play where the fielder gets a great jump and ranges very far but bobbles a ball is scored an error. Fielding mistakes by outfielders are rarely scored as errors, while most mistakes by infielders are ruled errors, at least those that aren't a result of a lack of range. This unfairly penalizes fly ball pitchers, as they're deemed to be responsible for more of their runs than ground ball pitchers. Finally, pitchers are actually responsible for most of the unearned runs they allow. That an error helped prolong the rally doesn't excuse the other hits allowed by the pitcher that allow the rally to continue. Attempting to adjust ERA for the quality of the defense is a good idea, but the simple use of errors is a very flawed way to do this, in the same way that the use of errors is a very flawed way to evaluate defense.

So, how does this affect our evaluation of pitchers? Well, the comparison that sent me off on this kick is that of Brandon Webb versus Jake Peavy. They've had extremely similar careers to this point: Webb has 1089 IP with 390 ER, for a 3.22 ERA, Peavy has 1087 IP with 400 ER, for a 3.31 ERA. So even before adjusting for ballpark, Webb appears to be the superior pitcher. Once you adjust for park, Webb ends up with a 144 ERA+ and Peavy with a 119 ERA+. It's apparently not even close. But wait, Webb is an extreme groundball pitcher, and as such gives up many more unearned runs than Peavy. That's not a function of Webb's defense, that is a result of the inherent pitching ability of Brandon Webb and the way he attacks hitters. Regardless of how good his defense is, he's going to allow more unearned runs than Jake Peavy over the long haul. As such, the unearned runs must be included in any analysis of his pitching. So if you include those, suddenly Webb has allowed 456 total runs, versus 427 total runs allowed for Peavy. After adjusting for park, Webb is still better, but it's certainly closer than it appears from a cursory glance at ERA or park adjusted ERA.

Use of unearned runs in a pitching analysis makes a big difference in looking at the NL Cy Young race last year. Myron at Friar Forecast took a look at the value of Peavy and Webb last year and concluded that if we ignore unearned runs, Webb was actually slightly more valuable than Peavy last year (the extra innings and more difficult ballpark to pitch in outweigh Peavy's more impressive raw ERA). However, if you re-run in the analysis as Myron does in the comments section (prompted by me, actually) to account for the unearned runs, it tilts the scales definitively in Peavy's favor. Campaigning for Peavy in this context was actually what set me off on my anti-earned/unearned runs crusade.

There are some other interesting comparisons to look at through the lens or earned vs. total runs allowed. Last year Greg Maddux put up a 4.14 ERA in the cavernous Petco Park, while Derek Lowe compiled a 3.88 ERA in the neutral Dodger Stadium (yes, Dodger Stadium is basically neutral, perhaps even slightly favoring hitters). They pitched 198 and 199 1/3 innings, respectively. Lowe threw slightly more innings with a lower ERA in a more hitter friendly park; it seems like a slam dunk that he would have been more valuable. So why does VORP (a measure of a pitchers value compared to a generic freely available replacement, which adjusts for park, league, and yes, uses total runs instead of earned ones specifically) say Maddux was worth 5 runs more last year than Lowe? I'll give you a hint: it's the subject of this entire post, and the last comment in my parenthetical explanation of VORP was something of a spoiler. Yes, that's right, Maddux allowed only a single unearned run last year, while Lowe allowed a whopping fourteen. It's funny how the earned/unearned run split colors our perception. Lowe is viewed as a very good number three pitcher, while Maddux is considered more of a number four guy and considerably shakier. And yet, Maddux was better than Lowe last year.

One final comparison, just for fun. Matsuzaka had a 4.40 ERA last year in a season considered mostly a disappointment. However, he didn't allow a single unearned run. Oliver Perez posted an excellent 3.56 ERA, but he allowed twenty (!) unearned runs. That is definitely an indication the Mets defense was shaky behind him but Perez certainly bears some portion of the blame for those runs. If 20 of Matsuzaka's runs were converted to unearned runs, perhaps by moving 8 errors committed by the Red Sox into 8 of Matsuzaka's bad innings, suddenly he's got a 3.52 ERA and is celebrated as a huge success story. If all of Oliver Perez's unearned runs were earned, maybe the Mets' scorekeeper doesn't like to award errors ever, then he's got a questionable 4.58 ERA. Suddenly the Pirates organization doesn't look like quite such an epic failure for trading Perez back away for peanuts. Sorry, Pirates, most of your other epic failures can't be explained away by looking at unearned runs. The point of this hypothetical is that small changes that have little to do with how Matsuzaka or Perez pitched would cause massive changes in their ERAs and in how they're perceived.

The moral of this story: errors are arbitrary, and bad defense happens to everyone, regardless of their ERA/RA split (RA is ERA but with all runs allowed included). When evaluating past performance of pitchers, RA is a better tool than ERA.

As a postscript, this is an interesting article by David Gassko looking at ground ball pitchers. He confirms that groundball pitchers do allow more unearned runs than other pitchers. 85% of errors occur on groundballs. This article by Michael Wolverton makes the same case I'm trying to make here, only using actual numbers to back it up: that preventing unearned runs is a skill just like preventing earned runs. Wolverton summarizes it succinctly, "Errors will happen. Good pitchers will minimize the damage caused by them. That is, a good pitcher will allow fewer runners on base before the errors happen (so there aren't runners to score on the errors), and will allow fewer hits and walks after errors happen (so the runners who reached on errors won't score)." He finds that, yes, pitchers good at preventing earned runs are also good at preventing unearned runs in general. If he had adjusted for groundball rate, presumably this correlation would have been even stronger.

Why do we love? What is it about an individual that makes us feel very strongly about them? Is it that we share common goals and aspirations? Or is it that they possess a singularly intangible quality that a limited amount of people notice. These are some of life's biggest questions. 

But they're not about relationships.

No, ladies and gentlemen, when I ask those questions I'm not asking from the relationship perspective, I'm asking about fantasy baseball. Why is it that those of us among the Hot Ham Water community are fans of specific players, for example, Tim Lincecum? In this case, I think Lincecum is a combination of goals and aspirations, and intangibles. Which, in turn, makes him even more "desirable." He has the cold, hard statistics that bear out his talent, and he has that certain something, that intangible quality that leads one to believe he will be an incredible major league talent. Another example of a player who just seems to "have it" is Jake Peavy. When you watch him pitch, he has ridiculous talent, and he has the intensity and competitive spirit that leads to greatness. And in another example, this one outside of the world of sports, George Clooney comes to mind as someone who fits that description. He has acting chops, as shown by his excellent performance in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" and someone who can make any movie better with his charm and suaveness. Tim Lincecum has that kind of ability. Unfortunately, it appears he will continue to toil for a poor quality team in San Francisco, instead of going to pitch for a contender. 

One of the best parts about fantasy baseball is the ability to lock in on your favorite players and follow their careers from the minors to the majors.  Somehow, I managed to not get Lincecum on any of my three teams this fantasy baseball season. As depressing as that is, a few of the other plays that I feel this way about are currently residing on rosters at least in part controlled by me. While I know that these gut feelings of mine do not conclusively lead to hall of fame careers, it does provide for much more enjoyment and satisfaction. Again, to put things into entertainment terms, having players on your team you consistently root for is like seeing a movie where the plot doesn't necessarily interest you, but the actors do. I'm not a Giants fan, in fact, I despise the Giants, but Lincecum is one of my favorite fantasy players. 

So someday soon hopefully I'll be able to acquire Lincecum on one of my teams, and happiness will prevail across the land. Or, I could just win my three leagues and the $1500-ish that goes along with that. Happiness would definitely prevail across the land then too.

Until then I'll keep wondering about just why I love Tim Lincecum. 

Mailbag

Well! Ladies and gentlemen, it has been far too long between posts here at Hot Ham Water. I personally apologize for this as I (and I believe my co-bloggers too) have been wrapped up in the madness that is fantasy baseball drafting season. While the season is not nearly over, today has provided somewhat of a lull in the action, an eye of the storm, if you will. Today, I would like to lovingly take a page from the Bill Simmons playbook and create my own mail bag from which to respond. As always, these are completely fake e-mails sent by non-existant readers...

Q: Ian, you know I'm completely and madly in love with you, why won't you run away with me?

--Becky Smith, Pittsburgh, PA

A: Because you live in Pittsburgh. Move to California. 

oops, sorry wrong mailbag...MOVING ON...

Q: Can Randy Moss have the same impact for the New England Patriots this upcoming year as he did last year?

--Alvin Chipmunk, Rancho Cucamonga, CA

A: Well Alvin, I don't think so. And I'll tell you why. Moss came into New England with no expectations other than possibly negative ones, which took off most of the pressure he had on him in Oakland. While he had previously handled himself like an upset 12 year old girl, the lack of pressure and possibly the calming influence of Bill Belichick allowed him to ease into the season without an undue amount of stress. Whether this is a permanent maturation, we won't know until the season starts, but my gut tells me with the now high expectations, Moss will start to revert back to his old ways. Another possible reason for the record breaking season he had last year was the fact he was playing for a contract. In fact, today Moss signed a 3 year $27 million dollar contract. With that out of the way, one would think he would possibly decline somewhat. Kind of like an Adrian Beltre decline from possibly an artificially high, high, to say a very solid level of production. Maybe something like 12 touchdowns and 1,200 yards, which would still put him among the best wide receivers, just not the end all be all at the position like he was last year. 

Q: Will Asante Samuel push the Eagles into contention in the NFC?

--Becky Smith, Pittsburgh, PA

A: Wow Becky you sure are sending in a lot of questions. Well I hope so because an Eagles-Chargers Super Bowl matchup would be fantastic for my betting career. 

Q: Will Chris Carpenter make a full and complete recovery from Tommy John surgery and be the dominant ace he once was? 

--Ron Burgundy, San Diego, CA

A: Yes Ron, yes he will. Without a doubt. Carpenter is barely older than Derek Jeter and although he has a history of injuries, he clearly will regain the form that made him a Cy Young winner. And when he does I will return to this post and point out to all of you just how right I was. 

Q: Did you know the Dodgers experimented with vest uniforms in 1999?

--Steve Carrell, Holmby Hills, California

A: I did know that Steve, but thanks for bringing it up. While I am as big a fan of the vest uniform as the next guy, and arguably more so, that was a terrible mistake. When you have a classically identifiable, traditional uniform, the best thing to do is NOT play around with it. Do you hear that Cubs, Yankees, Red Sox, UCLA, USC, Notre Dame, and Marlins?

Q: What do you think of the hit NBC show, "Chuck?" Starring Zachary Levi as the endearingly nerdy eponymous lead?

--Zachary Levi, Los Feliz, California

A: I love it, Zach. Love it. For some reason it makes me really enjoy seeing Los Angeles, and also I am a big fan of the characters and the overall tone of the show. Spy "stuff" has always interested me, and the show mixes humor, action, and emotion quite well. Keep up the good work. 

Q: Ian, is it just me or does John Travolta look startlingly good in "Hairspray?" 

--David Bergstedt, Carlsbad, California

A: Yup, these are my readers...

I know this has been painfully short for a mail bag, but duty calls. Keep sending in those e-mails and I'll get to more of them next time.