The arbitrary nature of the statistics and governing rules surrounding free agency need to be abolished. There has been a major push for progressive, intelligent research on players' values over the past forty years. It is unacceptable any longer to formulate business strategy on archaic rules especially when those rules are unpredictable, as we have seen in the aforementioned Yankees case.
The examples of favoritism in MLB are polarizing the teams and beginning to eliminate the lower-class from playoff contention. In the second-half of the 2000s, there was a 7% increase in the number of lower middle-class and upper middle-class teams to make the playoffs than during the previous five years. Also, there has been 10% less lower class teams to have made the playoffs in the most recent five years than in the first half of the decade. A more important ratio is that the upper and upper middle-class teams have accounted for over 83% of the total playoff teams in the 2000s. These numbers continue to build on the Weisman and Chatterjee (2002) paper that displayed the correlation of payroll and performance to the increase of likelihood of postseason entry.
From this blog’s data analysis, it has been shown that as teams spend more money, they will increase their chance for berths in the playoffs. The policies instituted by the new CBA do not need to give added benefit to upper payroll tiered teams.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Free Agency Part 2 - Crazy in play
By examining the following example of the free agency system in play, I will demonstrate why the system needs to be changed.
There are rules in place to guard against a team giving up too much in the draft for signing more than one free agent. Last winter, the Yankees signed Mark Teixeira (Type A), CC Sabathia (A) and AJ Burnett (A) to long-term contracts. Under the rules of Free Agency, these players were all ranked by Elias and it turned out that Teixeira was ranked higher than CC, who was ahead of Burnett. Therefore, when the Yankees signed Sabathia on Dec. 10, 2008, the Brewers were in line to receive the Yankees' first-round pick as compensation. But when the Yankees signed Teixeira a month later, due to his higher ranking, the Angels were actually awarded that first-round pick and the Brewers only a second-rounder. To compound this was that AJ Burnett was also signed, but since he was lower than the other two players signed by the Yankees, the Blue Jays were only awarded a third-round selection for letting him walk.
This is the kind of action that shows me how MLB is protecting the proliferation of its richer and more marketable teams. Only the richer teams are going to be able to afford to sign multiple Type A free agents. Not only are the Type A free agents generally the better players, but the teams that sign them usually have the most money and build a bulk of their roster through free agency rather than through their farm systems. Therefore, they are in a position to give up their first- and second-round picks. Even considering this, MLB allows for the exact teams who can afford to lose their draft picks to actually keep them, almost as a sort of bonus for improving their roster!
I would also think that if the Brewers thought that they could only get one draft pick for Sabathia instead of two, that they may not have given up their top prospect (Matt LaPorta) for CC. I have to believe that the Blue Jays would almost certainly have traded Burnett away the the in-season trade deadline if they knew that they were going to only receive a third-round draft pick for AJ's services. The best part about all of this is that MLB is essentially saying that based on all of these irrelevant statistics, some free agents are better than others, and so the teams losing the players (not the teams that sign the players) are forced into being penalized by the governing body.
There are rules in place to guard against a team giving up too much in the draft for signing more than one free agent. Last winter, the Yankees signed Mark Teixeira (Type A), CC Sabathia (A) and AJ Burnett (A) to long-term contracts. Under the rules of Free Agency, these players were all ranked by Elias and it turned out that Teixeira was ranked higher than CC, who was ahead of Burnett. Therefore, when the Yankees signed Sabathia on Dec. 10, 2008, the Brewers were in line to receive the Yankees' first-round pick as compensation. But when the Yankees signed Teixeira a month later, due to his higher ranking, the Angels were actually awarded that first-round pick and the Brewers only a second-rounder. To compound this was that AJ Burnett was also signed, but since he was lower than the other two players signed by the Yankees, the Blue Jays were only awarded a third-round selection for letting him walk.
This is the kind of action that shows me how MLB is protecting the proliferation of its richer and more marketable teams. Only the richer teams are going to be able to afford to sign multiple Type A free agents. Not only are the Type A free agents generally the better players, but the teams that sign them usually have the most money and build a bulk of their roster through free agency rather than through their farm systems. Therefore, they are in a position to give up their first- and second-round picks. Even considering this, MLB allows for the exact teams who can afford to lose their draft picks to actually keep them, almost as a sort of bonus for improving their roster!
I would also think that if the Brewers thought that they could only get one draft pick for Sabathia instead of two, that they may not have given up their top prospect (Matt LaPorta) for CC. I have to believe that the Blue Jays would almost certainly have traded Burnett away the the in-season trade deadline if they knew that they were going to only receive a third-round draft pick for AJ's services. The best part about all of this is that MLB is essentially saying that based on all of these irrelevant statistics, some free agents are better than others, and so the teams losing the players (not the teams that sign the players) are forced into being penalized by the governing body.
Free Agency Part 1 - The Crazy
Under the current system, players eligible for free agency are ranked by an outside source (Elias Sports Bureau) based on several measurements. There are three tiers of FA players: Type A (top 20% of the class), Type B (the next 20%) and unclassified. If a player is awarded Type A status and does not resign with his most current team, then the team with which he does sign gives either its first- or second-round pick (depending on the record of the new team) to the team who lost the player AND that team is awarded a "sandwich pick" (an extra round in between the first- and second-rounds). If the player is given Type B status and doesn't resign, then his former team is awarded just the sandwich pick.
In a three-part post, let's take a look at the most pressing problems with the free agency classification system:
1. The Classification System
The Classification system is bogus on two accounts: it ranks every MLB player, including rookies and other players not eligible for free agency, by accumulating certain, arbitrary stats, over the previous two years. Here are the stat categories used for each of the five position groups.
The second issue with Elias' rankings is that it ranks every player in MLB so the free agents are not only being compared to its own class, but also in relation to the general population of MLB players. In theory, the top 20% could all be players that are not free agents, and so that year could not have one player worthy of two first round picks. To have such a system that ranks players based on obsolete, archaic and irrelevant stats and to organize the free agent rankings with a mixture of eligible and non-eligible players just shows how disorganized MLB leadership is.
The crux of this matter is that the value of free agents directly influences the long-term plans of MLB organizations and affects the financial outlook of each organization that has hundreds of employees. In order to perform good business, MLB must adopt a change in their free agency metrics to value players as accurately as possible.
In a three-part post, let's take a look at the most pressing problems with the free agency classification system:
1. The Classification System
The Classification system is bogus on two accounts: it ranks every MLB player, including rookies and other players not eligible for free agency, by accumulating certain, arbitrary stats, over the previous two years. Here are the stat categories used for each of the five position groups.
- 1B/OF/DH: PA, AVG, OBP, HR, RBI
- 2B/3B/SS: PA, AVG, OBP, HR, RBI, Fielding percentage, Total chances at designated position
- C: PA, AVG, OBP, HR, RBI, Fielding percentage, Assists
- SP: Total games (total starts + 0.5 * total relief appearances), IP, Wins, W-L Percentage, ERA, Strikeouts
- RP: Total games (total relief appearances + 2 * total starts), IP (weighted slightly less than other categories), Wins + Saves, IP/H ratio, K/BB, ERA
The second issue with Elias' rankings is that it ranks every player in MLB so the free agents are not only being compared to its own class, but also in relation to the general population of MLB players. In theory, the top 20% could all be players that are not free agents, and so that year could not have one player worthy of two first round picks. To have such a system that ranks players based on obsolete, archaic and irrelevant stats and to organize the free agent rankings with a mixture of eligible and non-eligible players just shows how disorganized MLB leadership is.
The crux of this matter is that the value of free agents directly influences the long-term plans of MLB organizations and affects the financial outlook of each organization that has hundreds of employees. In order to perform good business, MLB must adopt a change in their free agency metrics to value players as accurately as possible.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Instant Replay shot down in Chicago
With the recent announcement from the GM Meetings in Chicago this week that MLB will not be extended instant replay for the 2010 season, it has become apparent that MLB is not attempting to better itself in the slightest. When the executive VP of baseball operations in the Office of the Commissioner says the following - "I think commissioner Selig is going to look at the entire umpiring structure and he's going to seek ways to enhance the entire structure" - as a way to rationalize the irrational decision by Bud Selig, it only shows me how distantly out of touch the leaders of MLB truly are. I do not believe that the comment above makes any sense. The idea that instant replay will not enhance the structure of umpiring leads me to believe that Selig thinks that instituting instant replay is somehow going to make the use of umpires obsolete, thereby putting his friends out of jobs. The only human element that we should remove is Selig, and hopefully soon.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Instant Replay - Balls and Strikes
I think one of the relatively new technological innovations that major TV networks have invented - the K-Zone - can be used formally by MLB to accurately call balls and strikes during live games (and act as a replay mechanism). K-Zone is a computer graphic that charts the movement of the baseball as it leaves the pitcher's hand and travels across the plate. It can be programmed to depict the movement and speed of the ball, and also where it hits on the 2-D plane that represents the strike zone of a batter (its dimensions can also be manipulated to change as the height and batting stance of each subsequent hitter changes).
Umpires will still need to exist because there will be a small percentage of error associated with the graphic. They will still call the games, but if there is a major error, the MLB official manning the K-Zone viewing center in the media box above the field will be able to relay that information through a headset to the home plate umpire. Managers and coaches will also be able to call for instant replay on their own a certain amount of times per game, per pitcher. Obviously, the pace of the game can be affected grossly if managers call for a replay too much, so MLB should determine how many times a game a large error is made per game by an umpire and adjust the number of challenges allowed by a manager to fit that number. But umpires will still call the games as they have been for years and all of these replays should not add more than a few extra minutes to each game, even if each manager exhausts all of its instant replay opportunities.
If the league truly cares about protecting the integrity of the game, then it will find a common resolution between caring for the fans' calls for accuracy and the umpiring crews' votes for preserving their own integrity. Not to say that we do not need the human element in MLB, but it should not come at the expense of getting calls right.
Let's get the ball rolling
Here's a brief overview of some issues I plan to tackle in the coming weeks:
1. Recommended slot in the draft should become mandatory slot.
Teams do not care about a recommended slot price. The slot price was engineered to give teams an idea as to what the appropriate price should be for a player - but that doesn't matter in negotiations since that a non-mandatory price is not leverage against agents. A stern lecture from Bud Selig as the penalty for going over slot to a team's general manager is hardly cause for concern when trying to sign its 1st round draft pick to a six-year deal. I'm sure Billy Beane put the phone down and let Selig jaw on for a few minutes when he doled out the highest 4th round money ever to C Max Stassi (to prevent Stassi from going to UCLA). If you want teams to follow a slot price, do what they do in the NBA: MAKE IT MANDATORY. This leads me to the next point that:
2. Draft spot means nothing.
Players slide down the draft board based on a number of reasons: agent, likelihood of entering college, makeup, etc. But without a mandatory slot, some players (like Shelby Miller in 09) will still receive vastly more money than their neighbors due to where they would have been drafted if not for their choice in agent.
Other recent issues with MLB:
3. A 5-game suspension is NOT the same for hitters and pitchers
Kevin Youkilis and Rick Porcello were suspended this season for 5 games for their roles in a minor bench-clearing fracas. Youk thought Porcello threw at him intentionally and so he charged the pitcher only to be body-slammed to the Earth by the 20 year old (even more bizarre since Youk had a better center of gravity and weighs a good twenty pounds more, though most of that could be in the birdhouse of a chin-beard. I digress.).
Each player was suspended for 5 games but since Porcello is a pitcher and usually pitches every 5 games, the the Tigers were able to sub in another pitcher for Rick and let him go with an extra day of rest on his next turn. The Red Sox, however, were without Youkie's services for almost a week. The way that hitters and pitchers are suspended is never equal and there needs to be a change made in the next CBA. Below is my idea for an amendment:
A. Assume every hitter will play 162 games and each pitcher will make 32 starts. Make the suspensions based on the percentage of games/starts that will be missed by each player instead of just the sheer number. So in the case above, if Youk is going to be suspended for 5 games (3% of his games), MLB needs to ensure that Porcello is suspended for the same amount of starts (= 1 start).
B. It is easy to make sure that a hitter misses the appropriate time; he simply won't play. Pitchers are a little trickier since the rotation can be manipulated in such a way that enables a suspended player to not miss a start, thereby not hurting his team. There needs to be a way to ensure that a pitcher actually misses time from the team otherwise the suspension is essentially moot from the team's standpoint. But by suspending both yet leaving them on the active roster, a team leaves an open spot on the active roster. This is why I suggest placing suspended players (both hitters and pitchers) on a Suspended List that acts as a Disabled List in that the team can call up a player to fill the open spot on the roster left by the suspended player. If a pitcher is suspended for 1 start, he must remain on the SL until three (or four, depending on if the team requires a fifth starter at that point in the season) of his rotation mates have pitched in front of him.
So for example if Porcello is suspended for one start, and he just pitched on Aug. 25, he would be suspended for Aug 26, 27, 28, 29, miss his start on the 30th and not be eligible to pitch again until Sept 4th. The Tigers would place him on the SL so they could replace his open spot on the roster and then they could activate him on Sept 4th and remove his replacement from the roster.
C. Time on the suspension list for hitters will amount to a loss of a paycheck for time spent on the list, but not so for the pitchers. If a hitter is suspended for 5 games, he will spend 5 games on the SL and forfeit his paycheck for 5 games. If a pitcher is suspended for the pitcher equivalent of 5 games (i.e. 1 start), he will forfeit one start check but be required to spend the appropriate time on the SL.
This is just one creative way of fixing the problems associated with suspending players. Would love to hear questions/comments from others.
1. Recommended slot in the draft should become mandatory slot.
Teams do not care about a recommended slot price. The slot price was engineered to give teams an idea as to what the appropriate price should be for a player - but that doesn't matter in negotiations since that a non-mandatory price is not leverage against agents. A stern lecture from Bud Selig as the penalty for going over slot to a team's general manager is hardly cause for concern when trying to sign its 1st round draft pick to a six-year deal. I'm sure Billy Beane put the phone down and let Selig jaw on for a few minutes when he doled out the highest 4th round money ever to C Max Stassi (to prevent Stassi from going to UCLA). If you want teams to follow a slot price, do what they do in the NBA: MAKE IT MANDATORY. This leads me to the next point that:
2. Draft spot means nothing.
Players slide down the draft board based on a number of reasons: agent, likelihood of entering college, makeup, etc. But without a mandatory slot, some players (like Shelby Miller in 09) will still receive vastly more money than their neighbors due to where they would have been drafted if not for their choice in agent.
Other recent issues with MLB:
3. A 5-game suspension is NOT the same for hitters and pitchers
Kevin Youkilis and Rick Porcello were suspended this season for 5 games for their roles in a minor bench-clearing fracas. Youk thought Porcello threw at him intentionally and so he charged the pitcher only to be body-slammed to the Earth by the 20 year old (even more bizarre since Youk had a better center of gravity and weighs a good twenty pounds more, though most of that could be in the birdhouse of a chin-beard. I digress.).
Each player was suspended for 5 games but since Porcello is a pitcher and usually pitches every 5 games, the the Tigers were able to sub in another pitcher for Rick and let him go with an extra day of rest on his next turn. The Red Sox, however, were without Youkie's services for almost a week. The way that hitters and pitchers are suspended is never equal and there needs to be a change made in the next CBA. Below is my idea for an amendment:
A. Assume every hitter will play 162 games and each pitcher will make 32 starts. Make the suspensions based on the percentage of games/starts that will be missed by each player instead of just the sheer number. So in the case above, if Youk is going to be suspended for 5 games (3% of his games), MLB needs to ensure that Porcello is suspended for the same amount of starts (= 1 start).
B. It is easy to make sure that a hitter misses the appropriate time; he simply won't play. Pitchers are a little trickier since the rotation can be manipulated in such a way that enables a suspended player to not miss a start, thereby not hurting his team. There needs to be a way to ensure that a pitcher actually misses time from the team otherwise the suspension is essentially moot from the team's standpoint. But by suspending both yet leaving them on the active roster, a team leaves an open spot on the active roster. This is why I suggest placing suspended players (both hitters and pitchers) on a Suspended List that acts as a Disabled List in that the team can call up a player to fill the open spot on the roster left by the suspended player. If a pitcher is suspended for 1 start, he must remain on the SL until three (or four, depending on if the team requires a fifth starter at that point in the season) of his rotation mates have pitched in front of him.
So for example if Porcello is suspended for one start, and he just pitched on Aug. 25, he would be suspended for Aug 26, 27, 28, 29, miss his start on the 30th and not be eligible to pitch again until Sept 4th. The Tigers would place him on the SL so they could replace his open spot on the roster and then they could activate him on Sept 4th and remove his replacement from the roster.
C. Time on the suspension list for hitters will amount to a loss of a paycheck for time spent on the list, but not so for the pitchers. If a hitter is suspended for 5 games, he will spend 5 games on the SL and forfeit his paycheck for 5 games. If a pitcher is suspended for the pitcher equivalent of 5 games (i.e. 1 start), he will forfeit one start check but be required to spend the appropriate time on the SL.
This is just one creative way of fixing the problems associated with suspending players. Would love to hear questions/comments from others.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Grandfather Time
I enjoy reading that people prefer preserving the pace of the game over the correctness of the calls made during it. It's this type of misdirection that is plaguing the League. The integrity of baseball will be solidified once the Office of the Commissioner does everything in its power to emphasize that the pace of the game is nothing without accuracy.
“I think my position has been clear,” Selig said. “This is a game of pace. I’m worried a lot about that.”
This quote is at the centerpiece of my argument against Major League Baseball - its priorities are so skewed that even during the playoffs, people spend too much time discussing the errors of play-calling and mis-managing than the actual game itself. Proper tools to diagnose the match-ups (i.e. better statistical analysis tools) and less of a reliance on umpires to make calls will open up the game to more praise and preserve its integrity, not destroy it.
“I think my position has been clear,” Selig said. “This is a game of pace. I’m worried a lot about that.”
This quote is at the centerpiece of my argument against Major League Baseball - its priorities are so skewed that even during the playoffs, people spend too much time discussing the errors of play-calling and mis-managing than the actual game itself. Proper tools to diagnose the match-ups (i.e. better statistical analysis tools) and less of a reliance on umpires to make calls will open up the game to more praise and preserve its integrity, not destroy it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)