Archive for billy beane

The timeless struggle between pitcher and batter is one of dominance — who holds it and how. Both players use a repertoire of techniques to adapt to each other’s strategies in order to gain advantage, thereby winning the at-bat and, ultimately, the game.

These strategies can rely on everything from experience to data. In fact, baseball players rely heavily on data analytics in order to tell them how they’re swinging their bats, how well they’ll do in college, how they’ll perform at Wrigley versus Miller.

Big data has been used in baseball for decades — as early as the 60s. Bill James, however, was the first prominent sabermetrician, writing about the field in his Bill James Baseball Abstracts during the 80s. Sabermetrics are used to measure in-game performance and are often used by teams to prospect players.

Baseball fans familiar with sabermetrics, the A’s, and Brad Pitt have likely seen Moneyball, the Hollywood adaptation of Michael Lewis’ book. The book told the story of As manager Billy Beane’s use of sabermetrics to amass a winning team.

Sabermetrics is one way baseball teams use big data to leverage game theory in baseball — on a team-wide scale. However, by leveraging their data through the concepts of game theory on a smaller scale, baseball teams can help their men on mound out-duel those at the plate.

Game theory studies strategic decision making, not just in sports or games, but in any situation in which a decision must be made against another decision maker. In other words, it is the study of conflict.

Game theory uses mathematical models to analyze decisions. Most sports are zero-sum games, in which the decisions of one player (or team) will have a direct effect on the opposing player (or team). This creates an equilibrium which is known as the Nash equilibrium, named for the mathematician John Forbes Nash. What this means is that if a team scores a run, it is usually at the expense of the opposing team — likely based on an error by a fielder or a hit off a pitcher.

In the case of pitching, game theory — especially the use of the Nash equilibrium — can be used to predict pitch optimization for strategic purposes. Neil Paine of FiveThirtyEight advocates using big data and sabermetrics to analyze each pitch in a hurler’s armory, then cultivating the pitcher’s equilibrium — the perfect blend of pitches that will result in the highest number of strikeouts, etc.

Paine has gone so far as to create his own formula, the Nash Score, to predict which pitcher should throw which pitches in order to outwit batters.

In perfect game theory, the Nash equilibrium states that each game player uses a mix of strategies that is so effective, neither has incentive to change strategies. For pitchers, Paine’s Nash Score uses their data to find the optimal combination of pitches to combat batters, including frequency.

Paine does point out that creating this kind of equilibrium in baseball can be detrimental to a pitcher. He is, after all, playing against another human being who is just as capable of using game theory to adapt strategies to upset the equilibrium.

If a pitcher’s fastball is his best, and his Nash Score shows that he should be using it more often, savvy hitters are going to notice. “ . . . In time, the fastball will lose its effectiveness if it’s not balanced against, say, a change-up — even if the fastball is a far better pitch on paper,” writes Paine.

In this case, a mixed strategy is the best — in game theory, mixed strategies are best used when a player intends to keep his opponent guessing. Though pitch optimization using Paine’s Nash Score could lead to efficiency, allowing pitchers to throw fewer pitches for more innings, it could also lead to batters adapting much quicker to patterns, thus negating all the work.

The Oakland Athletics may have finally completed their roster turnover on Wednesday with their most recent deal sending Yunel Escobar to Washington for RP Tyler Clippard. However, you can never know if Billy Beane is finished making moves. With that being said, I’d like to break down the roster from last year to this year and assess whether or not the team will actually regress in 2015. The fact is that the Athletics got quite a bit younger this offseason and acquired many players with a lot of team control remaining. The distant future appears brighter now than it did prior to this offseason, but the main question is, will the Athletics be able to compete in 2015 as well as they would have prior to the roster turnover? Lets take a look at the numbers:

STARTING LINEUP

I will start by comparing the most common nine players in the A’s lineup last year to their projected starting nine this year, using WAR and wRC+:

[All stats give on the chart will represent the 2014 season in the MLB only. In further commentary I may bring up career numbers or minor league numbers for some players.]

2014 AVG WAR = 2.1 / Total wRC+ = 929

2015 AVG WAR = 1.7 / Total wRC+ = 937

As shocking as it may seem, this displays that the A’s should in fact score more runs with their lineup in 2015 than they did with Donaldson, Moss and Cespedes in the heart of their lineup last season. Although, this chart only accounts for 2014 stats, in which Billy Butler (among others) had an off year. If the A’s can get him back to, or even near his 2012 form, in which his WAR was 2.9 and his wRC+ was 139, they could be in for a significant upgrade on offense as a whole. One of the reasons why this lineup has the potential to be more successful even after losing a guy like Donaldson is because of the acquisition of Ben Zobrist. While Brett Lawrie is -4.7 to Donaldson in WAR and -28 to Donaldson in wRC+, Zobrist is +5.4 to Sogard in WAR and +52 to Sogard in wRC+, more than making up for the loss of Donaldson. While the A’s did use a lot of other DH besides Callaspo in 2014, he totaled the greatest amount of plate appearances from that spot, which might lower the 2014 numbers a little.

The average WAR is down slightly from last season, but with Stephen Vogt behind the plate and Marcus Semien most likely getting the every day job at SS, the A’s feel they are upgrading defensively. Semien’s numbers represent his slim 255 plate appearances in the majors last season, but in TripleA his wRC+ was 142. You cannot expect that out of Semien at the major league level, but it shows that he has potential to improve in 2015. The A’s did use a lot of players at each position last season and they will again in 2015; that is why it is important to also take a look at the bench players from last year and the projected bench for this year.

BENCH

While the 25-man roster is not set in stone for 2015 just yet, here is last year’s most commonly used bench players versus next year’s projected bench.

2014 AVG WAR = 1.1 / TOTAL wRC+ = 344

2015 AVG WAR = .48 / TOTAL wRC+ = 367(407)

While these numbers are a bit skewed due to the fact that Canha has not yet reached the majors and also because Jaso was actually a starter while he was healthy, they do give a good idea of what to expect in 2015. Sogard takes over for Punto as the reserve infielder. Fuld and Gentry will most likely platoon in LF, same goes for Vogt and Phegley at C. Since Fuld and Vogt are LH, they will see more time in the starting lineup, leaving Gentry and Phegley on the list of bench players for 2015. Gentry and Phegley will see most their time against lefties, which will likely help their overall numbers. The A’s always do a great job shifting their lineup to create the match ups they want, expect more of the same with platoons and late pinch hitting in 2015.

STARTING ROTATION

The starting rotation is an area where a lot of people say they A’s have question marks. This may be due to the fact that they lost Jon Lester and Jason Hammel to free agency and traded away Jeff Samardzija to the White Sox earlier this off season. However, the A’s held the best record in baseball for months in 2014 with a rotation featuring Sonny Gray, Scott Kazmir, Jesse Chavez, Drew Pomeranz and Tommy Milone. Four of those guys will be returning in 2015, with a slew of other young arms fighting for a spot in the rotation. Anyone from Chris Bassitt, Jesse Hahn, Sean Nolin or Kendall Graveman would be an upgrade or at worst an equal replacement of Milone. Let’s take a look at the numbers for the five players who started the most games for the Athletics last season VS the A’s projected rotation for next season using ERA, WHIP and WAR from the 2014 season:

2014 AVG: ERA = 3.46 / WHIP = 1.22 / Avg WAR = 2.56

2015 AVG: ERA = 3.12 / WHIP = 1.18 / WAR = 1.96

Keep in mind that ERA and WHIP are better when they are lower and WAR is better if it is higher. While this list does not consist of Jon Lester, the A’s were at their best when they still had Chavez and Milone in their rotation. Also, it was a small sample size for Pomeranz, so we cannot expect numbers quite that solid again in 2015. However, with all that being said, the A’s, despite losing All-Stars, should not take more than a tiny step back in 2015. This rotation is still very solid and is in fact younger this year than last. Not only that, the A’s now have a lot more depth with three other pitchers not on this list that could fill a rotation spot, Chris Bassit, Sean Nolin and Kendall Graveman. Also, we cannot forget about the Tommy John rehabbers Jarrod Parker and AJ Griffin, who could make their way back into this rotation before the All-Star break. Both Parker and Griffin were huge contributors to the A’s success in both 2012 and 2013.

BULLPEN

There are a lot of similar faces coming back to the Athletics’ bullpen in 2015. So, instead of continuing with the format I’ve used for position players and the starting rotation I’m quickly going to compare Luke Gregerson and Tyler Clippard, the one main difference in the bullpen for 2015.

Player ERA / WHIP / WAR

Luke Gregerson 2.12 / 1.01 / 0.9

Tyler Clippard 2.18 / 1.00 / 1.5

These numbers are very similar, making Clippard a perfect replacement for Gregerson, taking over the 8th inning duties in front of incumbent closer Sean Doolittle. I don’t think many people expected the A’s to make a move to acquire another back end of the bullpen piece. Even after losing Gregerson, they seemed to have a very solid bullpen, but now it is even more solidified with a proven set-up man in Tyler Clippard. Another important thing to note about Clippard is his ability to create fly balls. His FB% in 2014 was 49.4% also, his IFFB% was 19.3% and that will likely increase mightily with him now pitching in Oakland. He is the perfect pitcher for the o.Co Coliseum. The A’s will pay Clippard more than they would have paid Escobar in 2015, but they are saving money in the long run due to the fact the Escobar is owed 14 million over the next two seasons and Clippard becomes a free agent after this season (in which he will make around 9 million).

Now let’s take a look at 12 potential options for the Athletics bullpen in 2015. Some of them are locks, but the others will either gain a spot due to the fact that they did not make it into the rotation or if they have a solid showing in spring training.

There are a lot of very solid options for the A’s bullpen in 2015. I’d expect to see, Doolittle, Clippard, O’Flaherty, Cook, Otero and Abad for sure, but I expect all of these guys to make an impact at some point, if not this season then in 2016.

TAKEAWAY

The Athletics have a very deep pitching staff. With Sonny Gray and Scott Kazmir headlining the rotation, they have a plethora of options to fill the remaining three spots. Pomeranz, Hahn and Chavez look to be the leading candidates, although Billy Beane himself has mentioned Kendall Graveman as someone he sees making the rotation out of spring training. The A’s also have a very strong bullpen, especially after the recent acquisition of All-Star set-up man Tyler Clippard. After losing Josh Donaldson, Brandon Moss, Yoenis Cespedes and Derek Norris (four All-Stars), the A’s lineup for 2015, according to wRC+ actually got better. It’s not always the big name All-Stars that make a team successful. Oakland has proven this many times in the past, most recently in 2012, right after an offseason makeover similar to this year’s. The one piece that has remained since before the 2012 makeover and after this 2015 makeover, is Coco Crisp. There cannot be enough said about the value of Crisp to the A’s organization. With Crisp healthy in CF and the newly acquired pieces filling in around him, I expect the A’s to be back competing for another American League West division title in 2015.

The ability to quantify the value of catcher framing has been one of the biggest sabermetric breakthroughs of the last decade. By parsing through PITCHf/x data, analysts like Mike Fast, Max Marchi, Dan Brooks, and Harry Pavlidis have managed to shed light on which catchers are adept at turning balls into strikes, uncovering hidden value in otherwise unremarkable players, including Rene Rivera, Chris Stewart, and of course, Jose Molina.

MLB front offices have taken notice. Several teams, including the Yankees, Rays, Red Sox, Pirates, Padres, and Brewers have begun hoarding good-framing catchers over the past few years. But one team that’s missing from this list are the Oakland Athletics, who have historically been among the first adapters of sabermetric principles. One would think that the A’s would be all over the Jose Molina‘s and Chris Stewart’s of the world, yet Billy Beane and co. seem to have missed the memo on acquiring good framers. In fact, they’ve made a habit of employing poor ones. According to Baseball Prospectus‘ model, A’s catchers rank fourth from last in framing runs saved this season. This isn’t a one year anomaly, either. Here’s a look at all of the catchers the A’s have used since 2010, along with their career framing numbers.

That right there is a pretty sorry group of framers. There’s not a single catcher in the group who’s even above average. So what gives? Why has Billy Beane — who’s nearly synonymous with the term “market inefficiency” — been so reluctant to exploit the latest market inefficiency?

As far as I can tell, there are two possible explanations, and the real answer is probably some combination of the two:

1) The A’s have chosen to employ catchers who excel in areas other than pitch-framing.

2) The A’s aren’t completely buying into all of this pitch-framing stuff.

Let’s start with the first explanation. Since 2010, A’s catchers have accumulated 12.1 fWAR (which doesn’t account for framing), putting them 15th out of 30 MLB organizations. But since 2012, the year after Mike Fast’s research first brought the value of pitch framing to the public’s eye, the A’s rank 10th. The average wRC+ from a catcher is 93, but the A’s have done much better than that of late by employing guys like John Jaso (136 wRC+) and Derek Norris (110 wRC+). Even if you were to dock the Oakland’s catchers for their poor framing skills, they’d still fall somewhere in the middle of the pack in terms of total value. Basically, the A’s have managed to find good, cheap catchers, who generate value in ways other than framing pitches. Plus, for all we know, the A’s might have reason to believe these guys excel in other overlooked areas. They could be superb game callers, for example.

But that can’t be all that’s going on. Sure, the A’s have done a decent enough job of finding catching talent without prioritizing framing, but it’s not like they’ve had Mike Piazza or Johnny Bench behind the plate. Jaso and Norris are fine players, but aren’t exactly superstars. Plus, it should tell us something that they haven’t even brought in any bottom-of-the-barrel framing specialists. Eric Kratz or Chris Stewart were both traded for warm bodies last winter, but the A’s instead chose to roll with Vogt as their primary catching depth.

Perhaps the A’s have reason to believe that publicly available framing models overstate the value-add of a framed pitch? As Dave Cameron recently pointed out, its not entirely clear if the full value of a framed pitch should be attributed to the catcher, with none of the credit going to the pitcher. Current models don’t account for how a pitcher might change his approach based on the framing abilities of his catcher, and research shows that pitchers do in fact change their approach based on who’s catching, throwing a few more pitches outside of the strike zone:

Oakland’s brain trust is about as progressive as they come, and have a proven penchant for unearthing value from unlikely places. When a team like that zigs while others zag, it probably makes sense to ask why. This isn’t to say that the publicly-available framing data is useless, as having a good framer undeniably adds some value, even if it’s only a few runs. But the fact that the A’s have yet to employ a single plus framer should lead us to wonder if there’s a piece of the puzzle we might be missing.

Statistics courtesy of FanGraphs and Baseball Prospectus.

Take a turn around Twitter or any major baseball news source and you’ll hear a familiar echo about the former best team in baseball; the offense hasn’t been the same since the deadline.  When the A’s traded away Yoenis Cespedes for Jon Lester, the impact to the lineup was noticeable.  They wagered they could get the same level of production out of some combination of Jonny Gomes, Stephen Vogt, and Sam Fuld.  In the first half of the season, the A’s were a top-six team in wOBA, OBP,and wRC+ all while being second to last in BABIP.  It’s safe to say they were rolling. Now they aren’t.  Since the deadline, the A’s have become a bottom-third team in all the aforementioned stats.  It’s easy to look at these stats and say that Cespedes was clearly the catalyst of something in the offense.

While much has been written about the rumors of Oakland emphasizing clubhouse chemistry the last couple years, Cespedes has never really been written as one of the chief leaders in that category.  We typically hear names like Coco Crisp, Scott Sizemore, the aforementioned Jonny Gomes, and Sean Doolittle mentioned there.  Cespedes by all accounts was just a crazy athletic guy who didn’t really cause any trouble, but wasn’t exactly a team leader.  Yet the fact remains: the A’s have refused to hit since the deadline. Sure, 17 games isn’t a gigantic sample size, but it’s pretty reasonable when evaluating team performance.  Baseball Prospectus just three years ago theorized that a reasonable prediction could be made of a team’s overall season after fifteen games,  so we’ve got something substantial to work with.  Is there another pattern, though?  Let’s take a look at the team’s month by month performance.

We see a steady decline here in the A’s performance, not a sudden jump.  The A’s started off really hot, leading the league in most offensive categories in April.  A notable decline can even be seen in May, as the A’s began their meteoric rise to the top, though they held steady in the top three in most categories.  In June, the team dipped even further, down to a mark that was only slightly above average.  They looked to be leveling off there to a rather league-average team in July, which wasn’t encouraging, but maybe suggested a possible rise back up to looking like a playoff team. In August, though, the wheels have come off.  The A’s have dipped below league average in most categories, and their win totals have suffered as well.  Can we blame all of this on Cespedes?  Let’s take a look at some wOBA numbers for chief contributors to the Oakland offense:

It’s a bit cluttered, but the dark blue line in the middle labeled wOBA is the team as a whole; see the steady decline as we’ve noted.  In April, we see all of these guys hovering between a .300 wOBA and somewhere above .420.  Nearly all of them are now either .300 or far below it; the one exception being Josh Donaldson, who has picked it up again since a dismal June.  Even Cespedes, having been traded to the Red Sox, is having an unremarkable August since performing poorly in July.  Let’s take a look at a wRC+ graph, with some of the members removed for clarity:

Here we see six players who routinely batted in the top five in the batting order having horrible Augusts.  Stephen Vogt and Brandon Moss, two lefty platoon bats being pressed into full-time duty in the outfield lately, lead this group with a 91 wRC+, which is below the average line.  John Jaso, Coco Crisp, and Derek Norris have been downright horrible, with wRC+’s in the barely digestible territory. So yes, the A’s have been bad since Cespedes has left the team.  It’s clearly not just the loss of his bat; the vast majority of the team, outside of Josh Donaldson and the surprisingly resurgent Eric Sogard and Josh Reddick, have been really, really bad.

So if the whole team is flailing, perhaps Cespedes was more of a sparkplug than we previously had attributed?  More importantly, did Billy Beane fail to see a trend here?  The A’s were trending downwards in hitting as demonstrated, so why the need for pitching?  Well, the A’s were unfortunately not exactly trending very well in pitching either.  They were third in pitcher WAR through April, but then plummeted to 19th in May, and further dipped to 21st in June before rising a bit to 17th in July. The A’s were a decidedly middle of the road team when it came to pitcher WAR, and FIP seems to agree, ranking them about the same spot everywhere.

So why make the trade?  If anything, this trade has only served to confuse fans.  What do we make of a team with three above-average catchers who all tank right after a trade for a top-flight starting pitcher?  While all the fans are clamoring for Jimmy Rollins to come and help the middle infield, we’ve got Eric Sogard being one of the few bright spots in the offense, and nobody seems to care. All we know is that the A’s are in trouble.  Whether it’s because Cespedes was the glue or because the A’s are peaking at the wrong time, they’re all of a sudden facing down the dire straits of a one-game coin flip at the end of the season, despite being the most aggressive pursuer at the trade deadline. The A’s can cling to a few bastions of hope; maybe their BABIP dropping all the way to .260 in August shows that they’re just a bit unlucky.  It’s either that or face the fact that sometimes the best-laid plans of mice and men fail, and pray that Jason Hammel doesn’t have to start the Wild Card game.

 Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

— Robert Frost

There are many things that stand out about this year’s Oakland A’s. Their incredible run differential has reached a near historic level, their breakout star from last year has proven that last season was no fluke, and the top three starters are pitching at incredible levels. They’ve been marauding through the American League like Heisenberg’s nemesis through Janjira. However, there’s one aspect of this team that flies under the radar: of their current 25-man roster, only two players were acquired through the amateur draft – Sonny Gray and Sean Doolittle. The rest were acquired through a mix of trades, free agency, waiver claims, purchases, and even one conditional deal.

Billy Beane made his name a while ago by not being afraid to stray from the pack, and in fact looking for those market inefficiencies that could save him a buck or two with the low payroll A’s. By trading for players who may have disappointed at other spots across Major League Baseball, or claiming players put on waivers, Beane is once again finding talent in the most frugal way possible. So is this a new phenomenon in Oakland? Let’s see what the numbers say. Here’s the acquisitional (who says you can’t invent words?!) breakdown of the Oakland A’s roster the last thirteen years.* This includes any hitters who made at least 100 plate appearances and any pitchers who pitched in at least ten games in addition to this year’s current 25-man roster.

* Why thirteen years? Because, Moneyball, of course!

AD*= Players acquired through amateur draft;  FA**= Players acquired through free agency;  T***= Players acquired through trades;  AFA^= Players acquired through amatuer free agency;  WC^^= Players acquired through waiver claims;  P^^^= Players acquired through purchases;  CD’= Players acquired through conditional deals;  R5’’= Players acquired through the rule 5 draft;  MnD’’’= Players acquired through minor league draft

While the A’s have always built their roster through trades more than through the draft (the only years those numbers were even tied was in 2007 and 2003; every other year there were more players acquired via trade than draft), the trend is becoming more and more evident as of late. On the A’s current 25-man roster, there are a measly two players who the A’s acquired through the amateur draft versus sixteen acquired through trades. Granted, the number acquired through the draft was bound to be a bit smaller so far this season than in previous years since a 25-man roster was used this season, instead of qualified players (again, players who had either 100 plate appearances or ten games in which a player pitched in that given season), which totaled between 27 and 37 in the previous twelve seasons. However, given that the season with the second lowest number of players acquired via the draft was last season, there definitely appears to be a trend here.

Now the question becomes, “how does this compare to the league as a whole?”

Usually Beane is at the forefront of certain trends, so if the A’s roster composition varies greatly from the rest of the league, could it be the start of a league wide trend, especially given the A’s incredible success so far? To answer that question, data on all 30 teams’ roster composition was collected for the 2013 season. Given the same requirements as the previous A’s seasons (100 plate appearances or ten games pitched), how did other rosters across Major League Baseball look last year?

That’s a lot of numbers, so let’s take a step back and look at some of the numbers that stick out. First of all, instead of using raw totals, percentages have been used to even out the variance among how many players each team had qualify for this roster construction study. It’s also important to note that the highest and lowest percentage in each column has been bolded (this was used only for the three primary ways of acquiring players – the amateur draft, free agency, and trades). One may think of the old adage, “there’s more than one way to skin a cat” when looking at the top of the league. Apparently this adage holds true for baseball roster construction, as well as cat mutilation, as the St. Louis Cardinals – you know, that franchise that has won four of the last ten NL pennants with a pair of titles, and has the self-proclaimed best fanbase in baseball – has gone the complete opposite direction as the A’s to build their squad, relying more on the amateur draft than any other team in baseball, and doing so with great success. Then there are last year’s World Series champions, the Boston Red Sox, who were among the league leaders in players brought in through free agency.

One consistent, league-wide trend was that teams at the bottom of the league standings had far more players qualify for the 100 plate appearance/ten games pitched minimums. This is a bit of a “chicken or the egg” type observation, where the cause can sometimes be confused with the effect. There are several teams among the league’s cellar dwellers that went through numerous players throughout the season in an attempt to find effective players (the “throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks” approach Jonah Keri has referenced on multiple occasions). This would be your Marlins, Astros, and Cubs. However, there are also teams among the lower tier of the standings that were forced into more personnel choices due to injuries; your Phillies, Blue Jays, and Angels. Whatever the reason, it is noticeable that nearly all the teams at the top of the standings at the end of the year have fewer players qualified for the 100 plate appearance/ten games pitched minimums thanks to good health and a clear vision – two staples of successful franchises (interestingly enough the one team that was an exception to this rule in 2013 was the Boston Red Sox; however, given their disaster of a 2012 season, it’s not as surprising to see that they tinkered a bit with their roster throughout the season).

The data supports what many baseball fans would already think, which is that the teams with higher payrolls usually are among the most reliant on free agents, and, in order to compete, the smaller market teams need to find other ways to build their rosters. For example, the top eight teams who built through free agency were: the Cubs, the Tigers, the Phillies, the Giants, the Brewers, the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the Dodgers. Of those eight, the Tigers, Philles, Giants, Yankees, Red Sox, and Dodgers make up the top six teams by payroll in 2014. The Cubs are in the middle of a complete roster overhaul, and Theo Epstein seems to be constructing a team built for flipping at the deadline for future prospects, so cheap free agents are a prime commodity. The Brewers are the odd team out, and would make for an interesting case study.

On the flip side, the top nine teams created by trading players were: the Indians, the A’s, the Blue Jays, the Diamondbacks, the Pirates, the Rays, the Astros, the Padres, and the Marlins. Of those nine, the A’s Pirates, Rays, Astros, Padres, and Marlins made up the six lowest teams by payroll in 2013; the Indians were not far off, with only the 21^st biggest payroll of 2013; and the Blue Jays and Diamondbacks both have super aggressive front offices that prefer to bring in players via (usually poor) trades.

There is, of course, the caveat that while this study looks at general roster construction it does not have the nuance to differentiate between a team that is loaded with free agents that are big money free agents (like the Yankees and Red Sox) versus a team loaded with replacement level free agents (like the Cubs). If each player’s salary was totaled by how he was acquired, and then turned into percentages of roster construction again, this would show us how much each team is truly investing into each method of roster construction from a financial point of view. This could be used to compliment Jonah Keri and Neil Payne’s recent study that looked at roster construction. In their piece, Keri and Payne look at roster construction through the lens of a stars and scrubs roster versus a balanced roster. Although there might be some discrepancy based on the arbitrary 100 plate appearance and ten games pitched cut-offs, the data likely wouldn’t be vastly skewed from the current results.

Todd Boss, of Nationals Arm Race did an interesting study somewhat similar to this one, looking at the core players (the 5-man starting rotation, the setup and closer, the 8 out-field players, and the DH for AL teams) for the playoffs teams in 2013, and put the teams into four different categories of roster construction: draft/development, trade major leaguers, trade prospects, and free agency. The results were similar to what was found here, and help to support the idea that the arbitrary cut-offs of 100 plate appearances and 10 games pitched didn’t have a negative impact on the study. The only slightly different result was that Boss found the Rays to be relying more on the draft than on trades.

Having looked at the league-wide breakdown for roster construction last season, let’s take a look at roster construction from an historical perspective. To make a long story short, when Curt Flood took on Major League Baseball, and eventually the Supreme Court, in his fight to turn down a trade to Philadelphia (who can blame him?), he opened up the Floodgates (couldn’t help myself) for the eventual implementation of free agency in baseball. So, has successful (being judged by the extremely arbitrary “ringz” perspective) roster construction changed since then? Let’s take a look with yet another chart (Marshall Eriksen would be proud), this time looking at the past 40 World Series winners, and how each team was constructed.

#DC+= Players acquired through free agent draft compensation;  #XD++= Players acquired through the expansion draft

The first note that needs to be made is regarding the 1997 Marlins and 2001 Diamondbacks. Both rosters had skewed roster construction due to how soon after the team’s inception they were able to win a championship. The Marlins have by far the lowest reliance on the amateur draft, and the Diamondbacks have tied for the highest reliance on free agents, but both of these numbers were driven up (or down) by the limited time for drafting and moving along prospects before their championships.

After accounting for the 2001 Diamondbacks season, the steady rise of reliance on free agents since the mid-seventies is notable – up until three years ago that is. It’s hard to tell whether baseball is undergoing an actual “grass roots” movement, with teams relying less and less on big market free agents to succeed, or if this is simply a three-year blip in the radar, but it is certainly notable that the last three World Series winners have had notably lower reliance on free agents than the previous seven years’ winners. The 2011 Cardinals, 2012 Giants, and 2013 Red Sox have not, however, relied on trades, but instead their farm systems more so than other winners of this millennium (not including the 2002 Angels).

In fact, excluding the fluky 2003 Marlins, there has not been a World Series winner as reliant on trades as the 2013 A’s (50 percent) since the mid-eighties Twins and Mets. What’s even more troubling for the A’s is that there hasn’t been a team to use the draft and free agency combined as little as the 2013 A’s since the 1982 Cardinals, a team built during the dawn of free agency.

When judging by championships, in fact, the picture of baseball as a sport in which you need to be in a big market, with the ability to sign big name free agents becomes unfortunately evident. The roster composition of nearly all of the World Series winners this century is quite similar to that first group of teams mentioned above as big market teams built through free agency. This is no surprise to any real baseball fans, however. Look at the cities that have hosted World Series parades since the Yankees’ dynasty of the nineties began. Sure, there are the success stories in Florida and Arizona, but other than that it’s a who’s who of big market teams. While the Cardinals play themselves off as plucky little underdogs, their payroll was the eleventh largest in baseball last year, almost exactly twice that of the A’s.

That’s why this year’s A’s team could be so special. If they are able to continue their regular season success, and finally make the breakthrough they have been struggling so much to make in recent years, they could continue the recent trend of teams moving away from a strictly free agent diet to fulfill their championship dreams. Of course, this has been the case for a couple of years in Oakland now, and it hasn’t happened yet. However, with the top three in the A’s rotation looking as good as any in baseball right now, baseball’s secret superstar at third, and the fact that it is the 25^th anniversary of the last A’s World Series title, suddenly it doesn’t seem that unlikely that the A’s could make ole Bobby Frost proud this October.