Predicting pitcher wins is a capricious exercise, and few factors have been shown to have any correlation whatsoever with win percentage (W%). To predict wins, one should consider a pitcher’s ERA, offensive support, strength of bullpen, quality of defense behind the mound, and, innings pitched (IP) in a season.

In fact, research has shown that IP and ERA are the only two factors that have a correlation above .30, and the two are very close. In a sample of pitchers from 2003-2013, the correlation for both eclipsed .40.

Obviously, pitching more games leads to more wins in a season, but many fantasy experts insist that pitching deep into games is an important part of earning a win as well. The theory, which I’ve seen taken for granted by experts at ESPN, CBS, Baseball Prospectus, and Rotographs, is that a starting pitcher who pitches into the 8th or 9th inning and leaves with a lead intact is more likely be credited with the W.

However, to earn a win a starter must pitch only 5 innings. Since we know that starters are often less effective after 75 pitches or so, pulling a pitcher early and relying a fresh bullpen that is at least league average should, in theory, be more effective than keeping a starter in the game. Dave Cameron articulated this point when creating a gameplan for the Pirates’ all-important play-in game in October 2013 when he suggested Liriano be pulled after only 3 innings. The chart below reinforces the obvious point that, except for walk rate, relievers generally eclipse starters in most skill metrics.

In 2013 Shelby Miller started 31 games and came away with the W a total of 15 times, earning a W% that ranked 22^nd in the majors right behind Clayton Kershaw and Anibal Sanchez. That’s impressive, but also consider that the innings-limited rookie pitched an average of 5.5 innings per start—he only racked up 13 quality starts (QS), ranked 86^th in the league. QS, after all, require putting in 6 innings of work with at least a 4.50 ERA.

Why, then, are innings pitched per start (IP/GS) so important, relatively, when considering W%? I hypothesized that pitchers who are given the leeway to pitch deep into games, and hence give their bullpen a rest, were generally better at run prevention than their peers, i.e. sported a lower ERA.

In healthcare research, where we don’t write particularly well, we love simple diagrams to explain hypothesized effects. Below is a diagram showing how one might view the relationship between various factors like ERA, IP, defense, offensive support and bullpen ERA. The perceived link between IP/GS and Pitcher Wins is confounded by ERA, which has an effect on both factors.

Pitch Efficiency

Before examining the theory that ERA accounts for the correlation between IP and W%, lets look at another possible explanation. Perhaps pitch efficiency is the key. Jordan Zimmermann was the 3^rd most efficient starter (14.5 P/IP) in the majors last year, and was tied for the 8^th highest W% (.68). However, the table below shows the correlation between W per game started (GS) and P/IP, ERA, and IP/GS among starters between 2009-2013:

While ERA and IP/GS appear to be almost equally correlated, the squared correlation coefficient for P/IP was negligible at .08. Variance in pitch efficiency has little to do with variance in W%.

IP/GS: How to Measure a Confounder

There are 2 straightforward ways to determine if the relationship between 2 variables is actually being skewed by a third factor, in this case ERA. The first is to stratify the sample by ERA and see if the relationship between IP/GS and W% still stands. If ERA is not a confounder, we would expect the correlation between each tier to remain relatively stable. As we can see in the chart below, it follows no clear trend.

Interestingly, only the best tier of pitchers, those with an ERA less than 3.65, show any discernible relationship between W% and IP/GS, supporting the theory that those starters who have demonstrated a strong ability to prevent runs are given the chance to pitch more innings.  Among more middling pitchers, the relationship between pitching deep into games and W% is negligible.

The second way to measure confounding is using a regression model. If you create a model examining how factor X predicts factor Y, introducing factor Z should not change the coefficient for X by more than 10% if Z does not have a strong pull on the relationship. For example, if we run a model that shows that smoking doubles your chance of getting lung cancer, then introducing tea drinking into the equation should not really change that smoking-lung cancer connection by more than 10%, unless we believe that drinking tea can also affect lung cancer and/or smoking.

I’m with MGL that regression is often unnecessary in baseball research, as its results can be difficult to interpret and unnecessarily complicated. I might add that even simple linear regression rests on a series of assumptions that are not always met. With that caveat, the data in this sample are normally distributed and I kept the model as simple as possible. Model 1 examines the relationship between W% and IP/GS. Model 2 adds a third variable, ERA.

All results are statistically significant. Model 1 indicates that for each 1-inning increase in IP/GS, we would expect an 11% increase in W%. Once we control for ERA, we see that each 1-inning increase would result in an even weaker relationship— we would expect a 6% increase in W%. The new coefficient, .057, is more than 10% different from .111 and we can safely conclude that ERA is confounding this relationship, just as we found in the stratified analysis above.

Predicting Wins?

Here at FanGraphs we might mock the idea of pitcher wins, since they are mostly a byproduct of an era when pitchers did pitch deep into games and bullpens were not utilized as often or as effectively. However, when it comes to predicting wins, Will Larson has shown that projection systems like Steamer and CAIRO do a pretty good job, and are on average within 3.5-4 wins of the actual end-of-season results.

In fact, projection systems across the board are better at capturing player-to-player variation (ranking players) in counting statistics like W and strikeouts than rate stats ERA and WHIP.

While I have previously shown that QS correlate much better than W with pretty much every measure of pitcher skill we have, W% is still somewhat predictable. As long as we have yet to #killthewin, we might as well keep trying to forecast the future. 

The Milwaukee Brewers have had a really quiet off season. Just how quiet? They only signed two players to major league contracts. For a team that needed a lot of help, two major league signings doesn’t seem like a lot. However, they did get a lot of help this off season. The other teams in the NL Central have failed to make a splash big enough to make the central a three team race again, and this is a potential opening for the Brewers to move in.

The Brewers were, and are, not expected to make a playoffs appearance during the 2014 season, but is that really true? They could. They very well could, and here’s how:

First, the three other teams who made the playoffs last season have regressed. The Cincinnati Reds have not done anything to improve. They lost their, arguably, two most important players to free agency in Bronson Arroyo and Shin-Soo Choo. The two players combined for an even six wins above replacement. Their replacements (Billy Hamilton and Tony Cingrani) have a combined WAR of 2.9, a 3.1 difference! Albeit, the two players have not been major players in 2013 having spent most of the season in the minors, but that is more reason to be concerned. Who knows how two second year major leaguers with little experience under their belt will do to replace two All-Star caliber players. Will the loss of Choo and Arroyo hurt the Reds? Of course! And Hamilton and Cingrani may not be the best replacements for a team who won one of the NL Wild Card spots in 2013.

The other team who didn’t make moves AND who won the NL Wild Card series, the Pittsburgh Pirates, is in a tougher boat. They lost several key players in Marlon Byrd, Justin Morneau, and A.J. Burnett and they replaced them with, well, nothing really. The only major league signing that the Buccos pulled off was for Edinson Volquez who had an absolutely atrocious season in 2013 and is the least likely replacement for an ace. Plus, first base and right field are still questions with no viable replacements at those positions. So does this mean that the Pirates will be out of the playoffs? I don’t think that the front office will go down without a fight. They want to appease their fan base and they still have many pieces in place to win over 80 games again, but unless they upgrade the rotation, first base, and left field, they are not going anywhere.

The final team and NL Central winners are perhaps in the best shape to make the playoffs again. The St. Louis Cardinals have done enough to maintain their dominance in the central. With Jhonny Peralta and Peter Bourjos in the fold including dominant young players such as Oscar Taveras and Michael Wacha, the Cards are looking like they will win another central title. But the Brewers might have something to say.

Other than the Cardinals, the Brewers have made the most important moves to improve their ballclub for 2014. They addressed all of their issues: The rotation, first base, and a left handed relief pitcher (according to ESPN). The rotation was fixed momentously with the addition of Matt Garza. Garza, one of the most sought after starters during free agency, will help to form a powerful front three rotation. With Kyle Lohse and Yovani Gallardo leading the way and Marco Estrada and Tyler Thornburg rounding things out, the Brew Crew’s rotation is looking like it can compete with the best of them. Plus, the addition of Garza helps to address another issue. Will Smith, a lefty who was acquired in the Norichika Aoki trade, will move to the bullpen. Here, the Brewers are able to add to an already strong bullpen that features a strong back-end and now a stable and reliable left handed pitcher.

Although the Brewers never signed a first basemen to a major league deal, the ones that they were able to acquire will impact the ball club in many ways. Mark Reynolds and Lyle Overbay will help what was a weakness for the Crew last season. Their combination of power, defense, ability to platoon, and familiarity to the NL Central and other leagues will impact the Brewers as if they had signed a major league contract. Plus, the Brewers have many great players in place at other positions. Jean Segura, Carlos Gomez, Jonathan Lucroy, and even Ryan Braun will make a formidable lineup while young players like Khris Davis and Scooter Gennett have shown that they can play at the major league level.

Overall, the Brewers are a much better team and are starting to look much better than the 2013 season. They have addressed all of their pieces while other teams in the NL Central have regressed. Although the Brew Crew may not make the playoffs, as many predict, they will cause havoc and surely improve from the 74-88 record they posted last season.

The 2013 All-Star Game has already been played, and the result was decided. The AL defeated the NL in a 3-0 effort in a game  that was filled with players of all different types. The aging veterans who want a last hurrah. The rising stars who are getting their first taste of what it is like to play among the elite in baseball. The overpaid superstars and the underpaid superstars. However, I thought it would be interesting to assemble an all-star team of players with large platoon split.

Call it an Island of misfit toys or misfit all-stars, if you’re feeling Moneyball-esque.

Catcher

Vs. RHP Jason Castro: PA’s 380, wOBA .371, wRC+ 137

Vs. LHP Derek Norris: PA’s 173, wOBA .426, wRC+ 177

Combined: PA 553, wOBA .387, wRC+ 149

Castro doesn’t actually lead all catchers against RHP. That honor belongs to Joe Mauer. However, Mauer ranks within the top three catchers against left-handed pitching, which makes him not really have a huge platoon split. Therefore I rendered him ineligible as a platoon partner. It makes sense that the Athletics would have a catcher who is so effective in hitting left-handers, because they also have John Jaso who is known to mash righties (.363 wOBA vs RHP). If there is anything an Astro fan should be happy about  — which there isn’t much — it’s the fact that Jason Castro eats right- handed pitching for lunch and he also is one of the better catchers in the league.

First Base

Vs RHP Chris Davis: PA’s 434  wOBA .473, wRC+ 203

Vs. LHP Nick Swisher: PA’s 224 wOBA .398 wRC+ 158

Combined: PA’s 658, wOBA 447 wOBA, wRC+ 187

Davis was considered the best first baseman, as he led the league in dingers and compiled a WAR of 6.8. While Davis was performing at near-immortal levels against right-handed pitching, he was also very vulnerable against left-handed pitching with wRC+ of 104 against LHP. Nick Swisher is an interesting case because he is a switch hitter, but really struggles against right-handed pitching with a wRC+ of 93. This makes me wonder if Swisher should consider going the Shane Victorino route, and drop batting lefty to focus solely on batting right-handed. We don’t know if this strategy works for everyone — it’s probably a case-by-case situation — but it’s something to keep in mind.

Second Base

Vs RHP Robinson Cano: PA’s 420, wOBA .410, wRC+ 160

Vs LHP Brian Dozier: PA’s 148, wOBA .421, wRC+ 171

Combined: PA’s 568, wOBA .408, wRC+ 161

I had a hard time picking Cano simply because while Cano is definitely better at hitting righties than lefties, he’s not that bad at hitting lefties. Last season, Cano had a wOBA of .343 and wRC+ of 114 against LHP. That’s not a bad mark, however it is a sizable enough difference to create a platoon split. On the other hand, this points out that Dozier is a little underrated, and if he is used in the right roles, he could be a very valuable player. I find this platoon an interesting dichotomy: an overpaid superstar in Cano and a cost-effective role player in Dozier.

Shortstop

Vs. RHP Ian Desmond: PA’s 507, wOBA .344, wRC+ 118

Vs. LHP Jhonny Peralta: PA’s 136, wOBA .414, wRC+ 164

Combined: PA’s 643, wOBA .344, wRC+ 126

Shortstop was by far the hardest position for which to make a platoon. The LHP side was easy with Peralta because he led all shortstops when it came to facing lefties. The problem came with the right-handed side because the guys who could hit righties well — such as Tulowitzki and Lowrie — could also hit lefties pretty well. I settled with Desmond because even though he is well balanced against LHP and RHP, he wasn’t as balanced as Tulo or Lowrie.

Third Base

Vs. RHP Adrian Beltre: PA’s 516, wOBA .370, wRC+ 129

Vs. LHP David Wright: PA’s 150, wOBA .454 wRC+ 199

Combined: PA’s 666, wOBA .397, wRC+ 143

There were a lot of good-hitting third baseman last year. Miguel Cabrera led all third baseman in hitting against right handers and left handers. Wright and Beltre are number two to Cabrera. They also both have large platoon splits. Wright can hit RHP, it’s just that the split between PA’s against RHP versus his PA’s against LHP is huge. Beltre, on the other hand, is somewhat insignificant against lefties.

Right Field

RHP Daniel Nava: PA’s 397, wOBA .392, wRC+ 146

LHP Hunter Pence: PA’s 178, wOBA .415, wRC+ 174

Combined: PA’s 575, wOBA .399, wRC+ 154

This is where things can get a little arbitrary because there are a lot of corner outfielders, and therefore a lot of corner outfielders who have platoon splits. You could sub out both outfielders for a combination of Michael Cuddyer and Giancarlo Stanton. However, I thought that it would be more fun to point out how undervalued Nava is. Nava had a breakout year in Boston, and he did so by destroying right handers. Pence actually isn’t all that bad against RHP, wRC+ of 119 against RHP, which is kind of surprising considering he’s a lefty with a long swing. Bruce Bochy should probably take more advantage of Pence’s ability to hit left handers well. I think that both players are underrated.

Center Field

Vs. RHP Shin-Soo Choo: PA’s 491 wOBA .438, wRC+ 183

Vs. LHP Carlos Gomez: PA’s 140, wOBA .421, wRC+ 171

Combined: PA’s 631, wOBA .430, wRC+ 179

Choo is easily one of the worst defensive center fielders in the game, and he probably should shift over to a corner outfield spot in Texas. A lot of people express concern over the Choo contact because of the poor defensive play combined with a massive platoon split. Choo is godly against RHP, but below average against LHP (wRC+ of 81). The three-year, $24 million contract extension that the Brewers gave Gomez looks like it was a steal. Not only did they get a guy who punished left handers, but they also got a guy who led the NL in WAR, had great defense, and even some decent pop.

Left Field

Vs. RHP Dominic Brown: PA’s 381, wOBA .366, wRC+ 133

Vs. LHP Justin Upton: PA’s 164  wOBA .422, wRC+ 174

Combined: PA’s 545, wOBA .382, wRC+ 145

There isn’t anything interesting about why I picked these two, other than the fact that I did consider Matt Holliday instead of Brown. However,  Holliday’s split wasn’t as large as Brown’s. I wouldn’t expect Dominic Brown to perform as well against righties again; he’s in for some serious regression to the mean.

If these platoons were put into practice you could probably get as good or better production than the elite hitters in baseball. This list, just like the actual all-star game roster, is diverse. You have players who are considered elite — such as Choo, Cano, Wright, and Beltre — and then the undervalued guys such as Dozier, Nava, Norris and Castro. It’s surprising that most teams don’t take more advantage of platoons since they could get elite production from two players for a fraction of the cost.

Below are two tools for Ottoneu FGPoints players to be used for the 2014 MLB season.  The first tool is a roster building tool that will provide 2013 statistics, including platoon splits, for offensive players.  Ottoneu players can use this tool to construct their team and prepare for 2014 auction drafts.

The second tool is a 2014 player projection tool that Ottoneu players (and commissioners) can use to estimate player projections for the 2014 season.  The tool incorporates Steamer, Oliver, and 3 Year Average stats for each player and then allows you to enter your own projections for the 2014 season.  Your own projections (will auto-populate FanGraph’s “Fans” projections as of 2.8.14…you can override these projections by entering your own) will load the team dashboard at the top of the tool and provide you with a summary of what you can expect from your Ottoneu team in 2014.

Roster Breakdown w/platoon splits:

http://bit.ly/1iCKkvl

2014 Team Projections Tool:

http://bit.ly/1eh614z

Is positional versatility underutilized? What does it cost for a player to transition from one position to another? MLB rules state that players currently in the game may switch positions at any dead ball, so why don’t teams shift their stronger fielders around the diamond based on batted ball profiles? Would it be worth it, in terms of runs, to try to have players play multiple positions and shift around the diamond? These are the questions that the following research attempts to answer.

I. The cost of transitioning between positions

The first thing that must be evaluated is what a player gains or loses when moving from one position to another. To do this, I looked at a player’s Total Zone and Defensive Runs Saved numbers, on a per inning basis, for each position they played at least 500 innings at. I did this for every player that met this minimum during the years from 2003-2013 (2003 was chosen as the cutoff because that is the first year DRS numbers are available). After data collection, for each position I took the total per inning number, subtracted from the position they were moving to, multiplied by 1200 innings for roughly a full season. I did this for every position, but I will only list the important positions for the purposes of this research. Since teams would most likely be shifting based on handedness and pull rates (though they theoretically could shift based on other things like GB/FB ratio if they had an outfielder who played a fantastic infield position or vice versa), this makes the important transitions ones shifting between the right and left side of the diamond. Those transitions are as follows:

(Note that due to how this was calculated, the inverse transitions, like 2B-SS, are the same number, but negative. This data was all gathered from Baseball Reference.)

SS-2B: 2.32 TZ runs for a season

SS-2B: 1.82 DRS

3B-1B: 4.68 TZ

3B-1B: 4.41 DRS

LF-RF:  -1.03 TZ

LF-RF: -2.05 DRS

(Personally, I had thought left field was more difficult, though maybe that is a result of mostly watching games in PNC park. It is also worth mentioning that on an individual basis, LF and RF are where Total Zone and Defensive Runs Saved had the largest disagreements)

So, as most people would expect, shortstop came out to be the most difficult position on the field, followed by second base and center field, third base and right field, left field, and first base. So, now that we’ve established that baseline for players transitioning between positions, we can move on to how many runs they would gain or lose in the process.

II. Estimating the number of fielding opportunities

Initially, I could not find detailed batted ball information broken down by handedness. So I attempted several methods of quantifying the impact, using the Cubs fielders as an example, and continually came up with the Cubs gaining 3-6 runs over the course of a season while shifting 20-30% of the time. However, those methods will not be discussed here. This is because Tony Blengino posted this wonderful article yesterday, complete with a batted ball breakdown for left and right handed hitters. So, it was revision time.

Step one was to take the number of fielding opportunities (also from Baseball Reference) for each of the examined positions, so I could get TZ/Fld and DRS/Fld numbers. This was also done with the transitions applied, to get TZ/Fld and DRS/Fld numbers for when they were playing the alternative position. Then, Blengino’s breakdown was combined with the average GB%, FB%, LD%, and IFFB% for left and right handed hitters. This gave a more specific batted ball breakdown for each area of the field. This breakdown is as follows:

With this information, I could get to work on estimating the number of fielding opportunities for each position. The first thing to do was to find the number of balls put in play against the Cubs for their 6149 PAs. For right handed batters I took the 6149 PAs * 58% (percentage of RHH) * 68.77% (percentage of balls put in play by RHH). For left handed hitters it was 6149 * 42% * 67.76%.

Unfortunately, this is where I ran into a small problem. I don’t know which balls hit in an area are attributed to which fielding position. For example, I don’t know what proportion of line drives to right field are caught by the first baseman, and what proportion is considered a ball the right fielder should field. This information is likely available, but I do not have it, and could not find it. If someone does find it, I would love to be able to do this more accurately. As it stands, I made educated guesses. The estimated fielding opportunities for each position, broken down by handedness, are as follows for Cubs fielders:

(Percent chance a ball in play was hit into that position’s area, and actual total number of fielding opportunities from last season in parenthesis)

1B: 93.88R (3.83%), 244.35L (13.96%)

1B Total:  338.23 (333 actual)

2B: 223.67R (9.12%), 273.44L (15.63%)

2B Total: 497.11 (496 actual)

3B: 351.59R (14.34%), 69.12L (3.95%)

3B Total: 420.71 (424 actual)

SS: 415.05R (16.92%), 170.37 (9.74%)

SS Total: 585.42 (584 actual)

LF: 459.42R (18.73%), 217.04L (12.40%)

LF Total: 676.46 (676 actual)

RF: 280.80R (11.45%), 331.27 (18.93%)

RF Total: 612.07 (662 actual)

(Estimations attempted to keep close to the actual number and proportion of fielding opportunities. I could not get it to happen properly for RF. It will have to be ironed out at a later date.)

III. Estimating the number of fielding opportunities and runs when shifting

The first thing worth mentioning is the total number of additional runs saved depends entirely on how often a team chooses to run this particular shift. When estimating for the Cubs, I chose to run this shift 25% of the time against all batters (Normally, one might only shift against left handed hitters, but the data suggests that Darwin Barney may be better off playing shortstop than Starlin Castro, so the Cubs will be shifting 25% of the time against all hitters). The first thing to do is to find out a position’s number of fielding opportunities when it is shifting to cover someone else 25% of the time, and when it is covered 25% of the time.

When covering, this is done by taking the number of fielding opportunities when the ball is more likely to be hit at them (like when a 1B is facing a LHH) + 25% of the position being switched to (3B against RHH) + 75% of opportunities when the ball is less likely to be hit at them (1B against RHH). So, a 1B would be playing 1B against every LHH, 3B against 25% of RHH, and 1B against the other 75% of RHH. For being covered, it is the opposite. All fielding opportunities when it is less likely to be hit at them (1B against RHH) + 25% of the alternative position (3B against LHH) + 75% of their original opportunities (1B against LHH). The new total number of estimated fielding opportunities for covering and being covered is as follows:

1B

Original: 338.23

Covering: 402.66

Covered: 294.42

2B

Original: 497.11

Covering: 544.95

Covered: 471.34

3B

Original: 420.71

Covering: 464:52

Covered: 356.28

SS

Original: 585.42

Covering: 611.19

Covered: 537.58

LF

Original: 676.46

Covering: 705.02

Covered: 631.80

RF

Original: 612.07

Covering: 656.72

Covered: 583.51

Essentially, this would get your strongest fielders more fielding opportunities, provided they are still strong after making the transition. Converting the previous formula to runs is simple, since we took both the regular and alternative position’s TZ and DRS runs per fielding opportunity. So for covering this becomes the more likely side * TZ(or DRS)/Fld + 25% of the alternative position’s strong side * AltTZ(or AltDRS)/Fld + 75% of the original weaker side * TZ/Fld. For being covered, the runs per fielding opportunity are added into that previous formula in the same way. That gives us the total number of runs for covering and being covered as follows:

When optimizing the lineup, since one of each pairing (1B-3B, 2B-SS, LF-RF) must be covered, both Total Zone and Defensive Runs Saved agree that 1B should cover for 3B (due to a love of Rizzo’s defense. TZ would disagree if Valbuena had played the whole year) and 2B should cover for SS (both metrics love Barney and dislike Castro). They disagree on RF and LF, where TZ thinks LF should cover, and DRS thinks RF should cover.

If optimized for Total Zone runs, shifting 1B-3B, 2B-SS, and LF-RF 25% of the time results in a total TZ runs for these positions of 7.81, which is a 2.81 run improvement over the original lineup.

If optimized for Defensive Runs Saved, shifting 1B-3B, 2B-SS, and RF-LF 25% of the time results in a total DRS of 22.31, which is a 2.31 run improvement over the original lineup.

IV. Conclusions

Running this shift for the Cubs 25% of the time resulted in a gain of 2-3 runs over the course of the season. This is not an insignificant amount of runs, but there are some things that need to be mentioned.

1. This shift is run 25% of the time against the average for left and right handed hitters. If a team is really going to shift 25% of the time in this method, they will do it against the 25% most extreme pull hitters for each handedness. I do not know the batted ball profiles of the most extreme pull hitters, but it would result in more fielding opportunities when covering, and fewer when being covered. This would likely increase the total number of optimal runs gained significantly. Since I do not have those profiles, I am unsure by what specific margin, but I would love to be able to know.

2. This enables you to somewhat “hide” a poor fielder, particularly at first base. The greatest difference in the odds of a ball being hit at them is between first and third base. If one fielder was particularly poor, you could make sure the odds of a ball being hit to him were always low. The greater the difference between the positions being switched, the greater the overall runs gained are for the season.

3. The Cubs were a terrible team to choose. I initially thought of this idea as I was speaking with a member of their front office, so I did this work on their team specifically. The reason the Cubs are a poor team to choose is because the disparity between the positions being switched is relatively small, except for 2B-SS which has a smaller impact. As mentioned above, this results in a smaller amount of runs gained. A team with a large disparity between first and third would see a far greater impact, particularly with a very good third baseman and poor first baseman due to the transition between positions. I will likely do this with additional teams in the future.

4. As mentioned, this was only run 25% of the time. The more often it is run, the more total runs will be gained.

5. This could be done far more accurately. I do not have all the information I would like available to me right now. I know that an entity like Baseball Info Solutions already records batted ball data to a large number of vectors on the field, as that is how DRS is calculated. That information could be used to come up with far more accurate results in terms of the exact likelihood a batted ball will be fielded by a specific position.

6. The transitions between various positions vary widely on an individual basis. I used the average numbers over a very large sample, so it should be a decent approximation, but every player is different. For every player that went from a very poor shortstop to an excellent second baseman, there is one who performed worse in the same transition. However, due to the transition values roughly lining up well with the positions that are generally known as being difficult, I have no issue with using them.

7. I did not look into whether shifting defensive positions could come with a reduction offensively. Theoretically, a player may slide a bit if he has to focus more attention on fielding multiple positions. I have not yet looked into this. If such a reduction exists, it could possibly be neutralized by an organizational philosophy embracing positional flexibility as players develop.

Overall, the Cubs could likely gain around 3 runs by shifting 25% of the time. If a team has a greater difference between fielders, and shifts with greater frequency, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that team to improve by 1-2 wins over the course of the season. Shifting has grown far more popular lately, and it has been demonstrated to improve overall defense. I believe this is an extension of shifting. It makes sense to shift your fielders to where the other team hits the ball most. It also makes sense to shift players in this manner, and give your better fielders more opportunities to field the ball while giving your poorer fielders fewer opportunities. If you’re going to put a fielder where they hit the ball most, you might as well make it the fielder that is most likely to make a play.

V. A more extreme example

When I wrote this article a few days ago (but hadn’t decided to post it yet) I mentioned that the Cubs were not the greatest choice of team. So, I ran it on a more extreme example, and with greater frequency. As far as frequency is concerned, I upped it from 25% of the time to 50% of the time. For the team, I needed a team with an excellent third baseman, and below average first baseman. The first team that I thought of was the Orioles, so that is the team I used. Considering this is just a quick example to demonstrate the top end of the spectrum rather than the bottom, and the process was not changed, I will not walk through the process in detail again and will just provide the total runs.

If optimized for Total Zone runs, shifting 3B-1B, 2B-SS, and RF-LF 50% of the time results in a total TZ runs for these positions of 49.34, which is a 15.34 run improvement over the original lineup.

If optimized for Defensive Runs Saved, shifting 3B-1B, SS-2B, and LF-RF 50% of the time results in a total DRS of 44.65, which is a 14.65 run improvement over the original lineup.

(For reference, the Orioles when run 25% of the time were approximately an 8-9 run improvement)

With the same potential improvements and diminishments as mentioned in the first example, this is more of an idea of the top end of the spectrum. The Orioles, already a strong defensive team, could potentially gain about 1.5 wins by shifting in this manner 50% of the time. There are definite caveats to consider and improvements to make, but shifting like this could have an extreme defensive impact.

There seems to be quite a bit of disagreement in FanGraphs-land over what skills make for a good pinch-hitter. Some will argue that power is more important while others might say that on-base skills are more important. And while I know that it’s fashionable for the author to make a stance at the start of his article, I’m not going comply. I’m just going to unsexily dive face-first into Retrosheet.

How can we solve this problem? How do we know what skills are best for pinch-hitters? Well, we can examine the base-out states that pinch-hitters confront and then derive from those base-out states specific pinch-hitter linear weights. We will then compare pinch-hitter linear weights to league-average linear weights to see which skills retain value. Simple.

We’re also going to split the data by league, since pinch-hitting tendencies in the National League are likely going to be different than American League tendencies. I’m going to use the last five years of data, because whim. The table below, then, includes league-average linear weights followed by NL and AL pinch-hitter linear weights (aside: the run values of linear weights are from 1999-2002, per Tango’s work. This won’t make a real difference in the results, however, since we’re examining relative value of different base-out states and not overall run-value of different events).

Relative Linear Weights, 2009-2013

In the National League we can see that the value of home runs have increased slightly while walks have seen a corresponding decrease. This is because pinch-hitters often come to the plate when there are more outs than average. This sensibly decreases the value of walks and increases the importance of hurrying up and sending everyone around the bases already. This note comes with a caveat, however — the differences in linear weights are pretty small. It seems that managers in the National League are often forced to use the pinch-hitter to replace the pitcher, and therefore pinch-hitters are used in a lot of sub-optimal places.

The American league does not condone making everyone hit, however, and the impact upon pinch-hitting situations is pretty clear. The run value of home runs increases by .04 in pinch-hitting situations in the American League compared to the paltry .01 National League increase. In fact the run values of nearly all events increases — managers in the American League simply have more flexibility on when to use pinch-hitters and so they are able to deploy their pinch-hitters in base/out situations that are strategically favorable.

What does this all mean? Like everything, this simultaneously means quite a bit and not much at all. Home run value increases while walk value decreases during average pinch-hitter situations, but the change isn’t huge. If you’re a general manager looking for a bench bat and there’s a home-run guy available with a 90 wRC+ and a plate-discipline guy with a 95 wRC+, take the plate-discipline guy. What if they both have a 90 wRC+? Then take the home-run guy. The pinch-hitter linear weights here are more of a tie-breaker than a game-changer. Power is more important than walks when it comes to being a pinch-hitter, but being a good hitter is more important than power.

Roster construction is never that simple, though. Ideally a team will have both power and plate-discipline guys available on the bench and then the manager will be able to leverage both of their abilities based upon the base/out state (and also the score/inning situation, which is outside the scope of this article). Managers tend to be kind of strategic dunces, though, so I’m not sure if I see this happening. If I were in charge of anything I would supply my manager with a chart of base/out states that list the team’s best pinch-hitters in each situation. I’m not in charge, though, and even if I were I would probably be ignored.

I am in charge of this article, however, which means that I can bring it to a close. I’ll note that another valid way to do this study would be to create WPA-based weights rather than run-expectancy weights. There’s a lot more noise in WPA, but it could still create some interesting conclusions. I reckon the conclusion would be pretty much the same though — what makes a good pinch-hitter? Well, a good hitter makes for a good pinch-hitter. And a little power doesn’t hurt.

A recent article by ncarrington brought up an interesting point, and it’s one that merits further investigation. The basis of the article points out that even though two teams may have similar team average on-base percentages, a lack of consistency within one team will cause them to under-perform their collective numbers when it comes to run production. A balanced team, on the other hand, will score more runs. That’s our hypothesis.

How does the scientific method work again? Er, nevermind, let’s just look at the data.

In order to gain an initial understanding we’re going to start by looking at how teams fared in 2013. We’ll calculate a league average runs/OBP number that will work as a proxy for how many runs a team should be expected to score based on their OBP. And then we’ll calculate the standard deviation of each team’s OBP (weighted to plate appearances), and compare that to the league average standard deviation. If our hypothesis is true, teams with a relatively low OBP deviations will outperform their expected runs scored number.

Of course, there’s a lot more to team production than OBP. We’re going to conquer that later. Bear with me–here’s 2013.

A few things to keep in mind while dissecting this chart: 668.5 is the baseline number for Runs/(OBP/LeagueOBP). Any team number above this means that they are outperforming, while any number below represents underperformance. The league average team OBP standard deviation is .162

That chart’s kind of a bear, so I’m going to break it up into buckets. In 2013 there were 16 teams that exhibited above-average variances. Of those, 11 outperformed expectations while only 5 underperformed expectations. Now for the flipside–of the 14 teams that exhibited below-average variances, only 2 outperformed expectations while a shocking 12(!) teams underperformed.

That absolutely flies in the face of our hypothesis. A startling 23 out of 30 teams suggest that a high variance will actually help a team score more runs while a low variance will cause a team to score less.

Before we get all comfy with our conclusions, however, we’re going to acknowledge how complicated baseball is. It’s so complicated that we have to worry about this thing called sample size, since we have no idea what’s going on until we’ve seen a lot of things go on. So I’m going to open up the floodgates on this particular study, and we’re going to use every team’s season since 1920. League average OBP standard deviation and runs/OBP numbers will be calculated for each year, and we’ll use the aforementioned bucket approach to examine the results.

Team Seasons 1920-2013

Small sample size strikes again. Will there ever be a sabermetric article that doesn’t talk about sample size? Maybe, but it probably won’t be written by me. Anyways, the point is that variance in team OBP has little to no effect on actual results when you up your sample size to 2000+. As a side note of some interest, I wondered if teams with high variances would tend have bigger power numbers than their low variance counterparts. High variance teams have averaged an ISO of .132 since 1920. Low variance teams? .131. So, uh, not really.

If you want to examine the ISO numbers a little more, here’s this: outperforming teams had an ISO of .144 while underperforming teams had an ISO .120. These numbers remain the same for both high and low variance teams. It appears that overachieving/underachieving OBP expectations can be almost entirely explained by ISO.

I’m not satisfied with that answer, though. Was 2013 really just an aberration? What if we limit our samples to only teams that significantly outperformed or underperformed expectations (by 50 runs) while having a significantly large or small team standard deviation OBP.

Team Seasons 1920-2013, significant values only

The numbers here do point a little bit more towards high variance leading to outperformance. High-variance teams are more likely to strongly outperform their expectations to the tune of about 20%, and the same is true for low-variance teams regarding underperforming. Bear in mind, however, that that is not a huge number, and that is not a huge sample size. If you’re trying to predict whether a team should outperform or underperform their collective means then variance is something to consider, but it isn’t the first place you should look.

Being balanced is nice. Being consistent is nice. It’s something we have a natural inclinations towards as humans–it’s why we invented farming, civilization, the light bulb, etc. But when you’re building a baseball team it’s not something that’s going to help you win games. You win games with good players.

Given the speedy obsolescence of my last blog post, I am left to conclude that Dan O’Dowd and Bill Geivett either don’t read my blog, or they don’t give a shit what an immodest blogger has to say about the Rockies. It’s likely both. Indeed, after the Rockies traded Dexter Fowler and signed Justin Morneau last week, there’s no use rehashing alternatives and possible failures. The task now is to think about what the Rockies can do with the roster that they do have. Last week, I wrote about the construction of the Rockies’ roster in the long-term and on a macro scale. This week, I want to think about what the lineup might—and, yes, should—look like on a micro level. What did the daily lineup look like in 2013? What will the daily lineup look like in 2014? Can it be a recipe for immediate success? What does the structure of the lineup tell us about the organization? Because the pitching staff is the area most likely to go through changes between now and opening day, I’m limiting myself to the position players and their offensive production.

The consensus among those who think about these things is that most managers follow orthodoxies that determine what types of hitters can hit where—speedy guys are lead-off hitters, and power hitters hit in the four or five hole. However, there is evidence that these managerial codes are non-optimal. The big caveat, however, is that research indicates optimizing lineups might only account for a handful of runs a year, and maybe one or two wins. But sometimes one or two wins can be the difference between postseason play and spending October noting the changing leaves. My goal here is not to compare the probable 2014 lineup with a more optimal one and argue that it constitutes the difference between success and failure. Rather, I suggest that a daily glance at the Rockies one through eight in 2014 can illuminate broader directions regarding where the team is going. Or not going, as the case may be.

Here is what I think the Rockies daily lineup will look like come April (for the sake of simplicity, I’ll only consider lineups against right-handed starting pitchers):

1)      Charlie Blackmon, LF

2)      DJ LaMahieu, 2B

3)      Carlos Gonzalez, CF

4)      Troy Tulowitzki, SS

5)      Michael Cuddyer, RF

6)      Wilin Rosario, C

7)      Justin Morneau, 1B

8)      Nolan Arenado, 3B

9)      Pitcher

The immediate result of the Fowler trade is that the Rockies have lost their leadoff hitter. Fowler fit the profile of a conventional choice to lead off games. Namely, he is fast. Still, Fowler was a good fit to hit leadoff, but it was not because of his speed, but because he was among the best on the team in getting on base. This should be the primary metric for a leadoff hitter because guys need to get on base in order to score runs. Despite hitting just .263, Fowler’s 13% walk rate elevated his OBP to .368. For comparison, Rosario hit .292, but his free swinging style and 3% walk rate put his OBP at just .315. Even without the threat to steal (Fowler stole 19 bases in 28 attempts), his ability to get on base made him the best candidate on the team to hit in the one hole. Without Fowler, I think Walk Weiss (or Bill Geivett, or whoever the hell makes these clubhouse decisions) is going to go with Blackmon (and sometimes Corey Dickerson) in the leadoff spot, only because Blackmon fits the profile that values speed first. If we assume that Blackmon splits time with Dickerson in left field as well as leading off games, they collectively project (per Steamer) to get on base at a .325 clip in about 700 plate appearances, hardly enough to justify hitting first.

Whereas the decision to bat Fowler first made sense both by conventional and unconventional thinking, the number-two hitter is where the Rockies really made a mistake. I expect it to be repeated in 2014. Over the course of the year, a mélange of as-of-now below average hitters were placed in the two spot—mostly whoever happened to be playing second base, meaning either Josh Rutledge or LaMahieu. The total slash line of all two hitters for the 2013 Rockies? .256/.290/.341. Aside from the pitcher’s spot, the collective average and OBP of the two hitter was better than only the seven spot, and the slugging percentage was the worst among position players. The Rockies essentially placed their worst hitter between the one and three spot. If the Rockies, as I suspect, go with LaMahieu to hit second, they’re going to repeat the error. The other player I can envision Weiss placing in the two hole is Arenado—who projects to be the only position player with worse offensive numbers than LaMahieu.

What throws this mistaken lineup construction into such stark relief is that research suggests that the two spot is precisely where the team’s best hitter should be placed. Sky Kalkman argues that a team’s three best hitters should be placed in the one, two, and four holes, with high OBP leaning towards the one and two spots and power at the four spot. The next best two should be hitting in the three and five spots, and the worst hitters placed in spots six through eight (in the National League). If the Rockies daily lineup looks like what I think it will, then two of the team’s three worst hitters will regularly hit one and two.

Then what should the lineup look like? Baseball Musing’s lineup analysis allows the interested fan to input a name, OBP, and slugging percentage, and it purports to output the optimal team lineup based on runs per game. The calculus is based on past performance taken from data either from 1959-2004 or the steroid inflated statistics from 1989-2002. As Jack Moore observes, both models are flawed because neither is applicable to the game today and the simulations take place in a vacuum without context. Additionally, the RPG outputs are inflated beyond reason. But regardless of whether or not the RPG outputs can be taken at face value, the tool has some use because it enables you to see RPG differentials among different lineup constructions. Using the more inclusive 1959-2004 model and 2014 Steamer projections, the supposed optimal lineup—the one that ostensibly would produce just over five runs per game—looks like this:

1)      Tulowitzki

2)      Gonzalez

3)      Blackmon

4)      Morneau

5)      Cuddyer

6)      Arenado

7)      LaMahieu

8)      Rosario

9)      Pitcher

This lineup is enticingly unconventional. It provides for the Rockies’s best hitters to have the most opportunities to get on base and score runs. Still, I wouldn’t follow it. For one, the team’s best hitters at getting on base also happen to be the ones with the most pop. So there is no easy way to favor OBP at the one and two spots and power at the four and five spots. I would love to have an OBP Carlos Gonzalez and a home run hitting one, but we have to make do with the fortunate curse that they are the same person—at least we do now, as Fowler reached base about as often as Gonzalez in 2013. This lineup would also be risky because the two through four hitters are all left-handed, which would make it easy for the opposition to marshal its lefty specialist late in a close game. Conversely, I would construct the Rockies daily lineup as follows, this time with projected slash line (again, per Steamer):

1)      Gonzalez – .297/.376/.547

2)      Cuddyer – .281/.343/.474

3)      Rosario – .278/.316/.515

4)      Tulowitzki – .300/.376/.534

5)      Morneau – .276/.345/.461

6)      LaMahieu – .289/.328/.392

7)      Arenado – .277/.318/.446

8)      Blackmon/Dickerson – .276/.326/.455

9)      Pitcher (based on 2013 production) – .140/.176/.165

In my mind, this lineup is the one most likely to produce the most runs for the Rockies. Ideally, I would rather have Gonzalez hitting second rather than first, but the rest of the roster limits this flexibility. The possibility of Gonzalez leading off has been raised, but I don’t think there is much to the talk. Other than Gonzalez’s first half season with the Rockies in 2009, he’s only led off when Jim Tracy thought it could pull him out of a horrid slump. Tulowitzki is certainly a better hitter than Cuddyer, but Tulo’s power coupled with Cuddyer’s ability to get on base (even if he’s in for some serious regression in 2014) make hitting Cuddyer second and Tulo fourth the best play. The three and five spots will produce more outs than the one, two, and four spots, but the upside of Rosario’s power mitigates the risk of those outs, as would Morneau’s relatively higher OBP and ability to hit about one fifth of his balls in play as line drives.

Again, this exercise does not identify the path to success and the path to failure for the Rockies in 2014. The team is unlikely to make the playoffs regardless of how the lineup is structured. But what it should do is serve as a reminder to pay attention to the daily details and to think beyond inherited baseball wisdom. If the daily lineup turns out to replicate past mistakes, then I think it points to a much larger organizational problem of resisting even the simplest and most easily integrated baseball analytics. But if Weiss runs out lineups that defy convention, then it might suggest that the franchise has a baseball plan in addition to a business plan.

It’s a pretty well documented sabremetric notion that pitching your closer when you have a three run lead in the ninth is probably wasting him. You’re likely going to win the game anyways, since the vast majority of pretty much everyone allowed to throw baseballs in the major leagues is going to be able to keep the other team from scoring three runs.

But we still see it all the time. Teams keep holding on to their closer and waiting until they have a lead in the ninth to trot him out there. One of the reasons for this is that blowing a lead in the ninth is devastating—it’ll hurt team morale more to blow a lead in the ninth than to slip behind in the seventh. And then this decrease in morale will cause for the players to play more poorly in the future, which will result in more losses.

Or will it?

We’re going to look at how teams play following games that they devastatingly lose to see if there’s any noticeable drop in performance. The “devastating blown save” stat can be defined as any game in which a team blows the lead in the ninth and then goes on to lose. Our methodology is going to look at team records in both the following game as well as the following three games to see if there’s any worsening of play. If the traditional thought is right (hey, it’s a possibility!), it will show up in the numbers. Let’s take a look.

All Games (2000-2012)

In the following game, the team win percentage was very, very close to 50%. Over a sample size of 1,333 that’s completely insignificant. But what about the following three games, where the win percentage drops down to roughly 48.4%? Well, that’s a pretty small deviation from the 50% baseline, and is of questionable statistical significance. And wouldn’t it make sense that if the devastating blow save effect existed at all it would occur in the directly following game, and not wait until later to manifest itself? It seems safe to say that the “morale drop” of devastatingly losing is likely nonexistent—or at most incredibly small. We’re dealing with grown men after all. They can take it.

Another thing you might want to consider when looking at these numbers is that teams with lots of blown saves are probably more likely to be subpar. Not so fast. The win% of teams weighted to their amount of blown 9^th innings over the years is .505. This is probably because better teams are more likely to be ahead in the first place, and so they are going to be on the bubble to blow saves more often even if they blow them a smaller percentage of the time. Just for the fun of seeing how devastation-prone your team has been over the past 13 years, however, here’s a table of individual team results.

 Devastating Blown Saves By Team (2000-2012)

Team	Devastating Blown Saves	Next Game W%
Milwaukee	63	0.460
Chicago Cubs	60	0.4
Kansas City	57	0.315
Toronto	54	0.592
Chicago White Sox	52	0.615
Houston	51	0.372
NY Mets	50	0.56
St. Louis	48	0.625
Texas	46	0.543
Cleveland	46	0.586
Texas	46	0.543
Florida	45	0.511
Baltimore	45	0.377
Oakland	44	0.545
Seattle	44	0.5
Boston	41	0.585
Cincinnati	41	0.585
Los Angeles	40	0.425
Detroit	39	0.384
Atlanta	39	0.743
Detroit	39	0.384
San Diego	35	0.4
Anaheim	34	0.529
New York Yankees	33	0.666
Minnesota	33	0.515
Pittsburgh	32	0.468
Montreal	25	0.2
Washington	18	0.555
Miami (post-change)	8	0.375

Congratulations Pittsburgh, you’ve been the least devastated full-time team over the past 13 years! Now if there’s a more fun argument against the effects of devastating losses than that previous sentence, I want to hear it. Meanwhile the Braves have lived up to their nickname, winning in an outstanding 74.3% of games following devastating losses (it looks like we’ve finally found our algorithm for calculating grit, ladies and gentleman) while the hapless Expos rebounded in just 20% of their games. Milwaukee leads the league in single-game heartbreak, etc. etc. Just read the table. These numbers are fun. Mostly meaningless, but fun.

Back to the point: team records following devastating losses tend to hover very, very close to .500. Managers shouldn’t worry about how their teams lose games—they should worry about if their teams lose games. Because, in the end, that’s all that matters.

Raw data courtesy of Retrosheet.

Before we start, I want to get a few things clear:

-Yes, I know the whole “Jacoby Ellsbury to the Dodgers” thing was probably a product of Scott Boras and the media.

-Yes, I know Matt Kemp should be ready by the start of 2014 to play center field.

-Yes, I know the Dodgers already have four outfielders, three of which have massive contracts, and three of which are injury prone.

-Yes, I know Ellsbury is injury prone. This example is operating in a vacuum.

-No, I don’t think the Dodgers will end up signing Ellsbury. There are just too many things that need to happen in order for the signing to make sense. And even then, depending on contracts, the signing STILL might not make sense due to Ellsbury’s injury history, along with how much money the Dodgers would have to eat on the contracts of their traded outfielders, and how badly that money would hamstring them for the future.

Okay. Now that we’ve gotten that cleared up, let’s begin.

The Los Angeles Dodgers, when healthy, have one of the best offensive outfields in the league. But, despite having a couple gold glove winners out there, they lack something when it comes to the fielding department, specifically in center field.

In 2013, the Dodgers trotted out five different players for a combined total of 1450.1 innings in center field, with Andre Ethier (645.1) and Kemp (576.1) getting the lion’s share of playing time. Now, Kemp hasn’t looked awful in center field (besides running into walls, which we’ll cover in a second), but UZR has less-than-friendly reviews on him. With Ethier, he looked somewhat usable while healthy in center, but just looked bad in the NLCS while trying to play with one good ankle. For the record, UZR gives Ethier a -1.8 for his efforts this season. The other three that played center for the Dodgers this season were Skip Schumaker (167 IP, -1.3 UZR), Yasiel Puig (55.1 IP), and Nick “Chili” Buss (6.1 IP). Schumaker shouldn’t be a starter, Puig’s natural position is right field, and I’m not even going to talk about Buss being in there as a viable option.

So, that brings us to comparing UZR for Kemp and Ellsbury.

If we take the three seasons with the greatest sample size, Ellsbury is clearly the optimal choice in the field. Granted, he doesn’t have the arm strength that Kemp has, but UZR factors that into its ratings as well. The signing of Ellsbury to play center field would likely move Kemp to left, and would make Ethier and Carl Crawford expendable. Moving Kemp to left field also saves him from the rigors of center field that have plagued him over the past couple years.

Offensively, the acquisition would be relative. Yes, Ethier would probably hit more home runs, but Ellsbury would offset that with stolen bases. In 2013, Ethier posted a wRC+ of 120 without being able to hit lefties at all (wRC+ of 73 vs LHP) and Ellsbury wasn’t far behind with a 113 RC+ and troubles against lefties of his own (w RC+ of 78 vs LHP). Ellsbury represents more of an upgrade in speed over both Crawford and Ethier, and would give the offense a new dynamic to go with Puig atop the order in front of Hanley Ramirez, Adrian Gonzalez, Kemp, and newly-signed Alexander Guerrero.

Given what a healthy Kemp has meant to this team in the past (which was just as recently as April, 2012), he is arguably the most important piece in their lineup. If moving him out of center field and into left field can save him from some of the numerous hamstring and shoulder injuries that he has experienced, it would be a huge win for the Dodgers to finally acquire a proper center fielder without giving up any value on offense.