Posts Tagged ‘sports’

The Matt Cain Conundrum, part 2

Posted: April 15, 2012 in Stats
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

So I guess Matt Cain started off the season pretty well. Initially, anyway.

After signing a six-year, $127.5 million contract with the San Francisco Giants earlier this month, Cain pitched a complete game shutout in a 5-0 win against the Pittsburgh Pirates. He surrendered one hit and struck out 11.

He got knocked around in his second start though, giving up 5 runs on 6 hits in 6 innings of work as the Giants dropped a 7-6 decision to the Arizona Diamondbacks. Two starts does not a season make, but if Cain finds a middle ground, which he’s apt to do, he’ll be the model of consistency the Giants hoped he’d be when they signed him.

Great expectations

Last week, in light of the Cain signing, we looked at some of the biggest contracts handed out to right-handed pitchers and examined their performance before and after their paydays. As one reader pointed out, some of the stats that were brought up – wins, specifically – weren’t the best measure of pitching acumen.

That’s partly correct, considering Zack Greinke and Felix Hernandez have a combined 29-20 record in their Cy Young winning seasons. In 2009, Greinke’s winning year, the anxiety-prone hurler’s .667 (16-8 record) win percentage was 10th-best in majors, but he led with a 9.0 WAR (Wins Above Replacement) and a 2.16 ERA.

In 2010, Hernandez’s winning year, his .520 winning percentage (13-12 record) was 37th best in the majors, but his 2.27 ERA was tops. He also faced 1,001 batters that season, more than any other pitcher and the only one to break the 1,000 mark. Dan Haren was second, facing 994 batters pitching for the Diamondbacks and the Los Angeles Angels.

That Hernandez won as many games as he did was a feat, considering the Seattle Mariners were dead last in the majors in almost every offensive category, including batting average, slugging percentage, on-base percentage, home runs, RBIs, runs scored and total bases.

So win-loss records aren’t the end all be all. But the four pitchers we looked at last week all had solid ERAs to accompany their record.

Zambrano was 59-32 with a 3.14 ERA, Beckett was 41-34 with a 3.46 ERA, Lackey was 102-71 with a 3.81 ERA and Verlander was 65-43 with a 3.92 ERA.

Were some of them helped by an explosive offense and airtight defense? Absolutely. Every pitcher is at some point. Mark Buerhle’s perfect game against the visiting Tampa Bay Rays wasn’t without its incredible defensive plays. But it’s not like Zambrano, Beckett, Lackey or Verlander posted huge win numbers with an ERA over 5.00.

Together, those four pitchers average a $16.95 million annual salary. For a team like the Atlanta Braves, who ranked 15th in the majors last year with an $87 million payroll, $16.95 million would tie up almost 20% of that.

What have you done for me lately?

But the Braves and the Boston Red Sox met the same fate in 2011, losing on the last day of the season and ending their bid for a playoff berth. The Braves spent $39,415,000 on pitching that season.

The Red Sox spent $76,785,333 in that department.

Boston’s three winningest pitchers – Beckett, Lackey and Jon Lester – combined for 40 wins and collectively made $38.7 million.The club paid $967,500 for each of those 40 wins.

Atlanta spent $12.7 million on their three winningest hurlers – Tim Hudson, Jair Jurrjens and Tommy Hanson – and also got 40 wins out of them. They spent $317,500 for each of those 40 wins- a third of what Boston spent.

Boston finished 90-72 last year, while the Braves were 89-73. Same result, similar wins, different payroll.

You’re killin’ me, Smalls

For fans, casual or hardcore, it’s easy to forget that a huge contract isn’t necessarily a smart one, nor is it an indicator of future performance. Clubs obviously spend big money on players based on past performance in hopes that that player continues to shine in the future.

Despite the outcome last season, the Braves spent their money wisely on those 40 wins, though the same can’t be said for some of their other contracts. Derek Lowe definitely didn’t earn his $15 million paycheck, going 9-17 with a 5.05 ERA and a 1.5 WHIP. There’s no “it’s-not-as-bad-as-it-looks” analysis with that one – the man just didn’t pitch well.

Contracts are such a crapshoot that it’s hard to blame Boston for saddling themselves with millions in dead money (Lackey) and underperforming players (Beckett). But certain players, like Verlander, have proven so far that they’re the model of consistency and have earned their big paydays.

And with his record-breaking contract, Matt Cain now has to do the same.

No pressure, big guy.
—
I promised in my last entry I’d look at huge contracts given to left-handed pitchers this week, but last week’s data needed more analysis. Keep an eye out next week for the lefty portion.

The Mendoza Myth

Posted: March 4, 2012 in Stats
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1

If you listened to any Pittsburgh Pirates broadcast in the last twenty years, you probably heard the phrase “the Mendoza line” in reference to a slugger with a wicked case of the Mondays every at-bat.

That “line” is drawn at the .200 batting average mark, so a player hitting below .200 during the season or over the course of his career is said to be under the Mendoza line. Tracking this serves two purposes:

  1. Fans can easily identify which player to throw stuff at.
  2. Without ducking, players generally avoid most items thrown at them because they are, literally and figuratively, slumping.

It’s also a measure of offensive aptitude, says baseball historian David Neft:

“What the significance of it is … if you are a terrific defensive shortstop, you can play regularly in the major leagues with a low batting average. But there’s a limit to how low the batting average can get without losing the job.  You can be Mark Belanger (.228 career batting average), who could keep his job for years at that level.  But at .195, he somehow would’ve broken the barrier and he would’ve lost his job.”

So from this, we can assume that Mario Mendoza, the guy the Mendoza line was named for, probably couldn’t figure out which end of the pine to swing, much less make a flip to second base without tripping over his own two cleats.

Not quite.

Mendoza was a brilliant defensive shortstop who spent parts of his seven seasons with the Pittsburgh Pirates, Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers from 1974-1982.

Even though the Mendoza line is commonly accepted as .200, Mendoza himself had a lifetime .215 batting average. He flirted with a .200 average though, hitting .198 in 1977 with the Pirates and again in 1979 with the Mariners.

Mendoza explained the term’s origin in an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in July 2010:

“My teammates Tom Paciorek and Bruce Bochte used it to make fun of me. Then they were giving George Brett a hard time because he had a slow start that year, so they told him, ‘Hey, man, you’re going to sink down below the Mendoza Line if you’re not careful.’ And then Brett mentioned it to Chris Berman from ESPN, and eventually it spread and became a part of the game.”

The Mendoza myth was forever memorialized once it entered mainstream media.

“Nobody would remember Mario Mendoza if not for that,” Neft says. “This happens in sports and in baseball. There’s no question that Tinker, Evers and Chance are better known and thought to be better ball players than they actually were. There is this media thing of sports when something becomes well known and something becomes very popular.

“So the Mendoza line becomes something that people associate with low hitting infielders. It has nothing to do anymore really with Mario Mendoza.”

Oh. So I just wasted all this time proving Mendoza was a more productive out hitter than Brett or Bochte? Fine, guess I’ll just scrap it.

…Naw.

Sticks and stones

Brett and Bochte really didn’t have room to talk when it came to ragging on Mendoza. Despite his low batting average, Mendoza made sure his outs counted. As Neft points out, Mendoza would’ve been asked to sac bunt more often than Brett or Bochte, but the sample size for each player across four seasons is telling.

Elias Sports Bureau lists the criteria for a productive out as follows:

  • A successful sacrifice for a pitcher with one out.
  • Advancing any runner with no one out.
  • Driving in a baserunner with the second out of the inning.

Here’s the breakdown of the seasons where Bochte, Brett and Mendoza each had at least 21 opportunities to record a productive out.

1974
Bochte: 11-21
Brett: 17-48
Mendoza: 9-25

1979
Bochte: 23-59
Brett: 25-63
Mendoza: 19-48

1980
Bochte: 18-42
Brett: 18-34
Mendoza: 15-28

1981
Bochte: 8-23
Brett: 10-21
Mendoza: 18-35

Here are those numbers aggregated:

Bochte – 60-145, or 41%
Brett – 70-166, or 42%
Mendoza – 61-136, or 44%

Granted, Bochte’s .282 career average and Brett’s prestigious membership to the 3,000 hits, 300 home runs, and career .300+ batting average club trump Mendoza’s ability as a productive out hitter, but it’s a small victory for the offensively-challenged shortstop. Mendoza’s real value was his career .960 fielding percentage, good for 146th all-time among shortstops.

Does it vindicate Mendoza as a poor offensive infielder? Definitely not. There were plenty of seasons where Mendoza had just four or five opportunities at the plate to make a productive out, but the numbers make it interesting to explore.

A numbers game

So Mendoza gets a bad rap as an offensive player and the casual fan doesn’t bother to research his defensive ability (or desperately prove he had some plate prowess).

Fans nearly riot when their star player strokes two home runs in the first month of play or their ace pitcher sports a 6.45 ERA through two games. They call for the skipper’s head after a 3-5 record to open the season and demand cleaning house and starting from square one.

Tabula rasa.

This trend isn’t new, Neft says.

“It’s always been happening, it’s always been manifesting in the same way,” he says. “There are more things for people to look at and talk about, more ways to second guess the manager and the general manager. But that’s their sport. If you’re not on the field, you have that chance to be an armchair general manager or an armchair manager.”

The beauty of baseball numbers is they become significant only when a large enough sample size exists, Neft says.

“I really never pay any attention to a player’s stats until a third of the way through the season because they don’t mean a great deal. Similarly, when somebody says, ‘Oh, this guy is a terrific hitter against this pitcher, he’s .400 against him.’ Well, he could be 4/10 against him, it doesn’t mean anything.”

Universally, across every sport, fans are optimists. Choruses of “this year’s gonna be the year” ring throughout the offseason in Cleveland and Pittsburgh, and teams do occasionally surprise fans by playing above their expectations. But naturally, some teams play worse than they’re expected to.

“That’s part of the fun. It’s part of rooting for a team. … If that didn’t happen, you wouldn’t have to play the games. You could anoint the champion on Opening Day.”

But that wouldn’t be any fun. Unless you’re a Cubs fan. Then you can just watch this commercial over and over and cry into your pint of Haagen Daas: