Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Leandro Damiao Is Still Really Good

Baby Winexp on Games 1 and 2 (with Toy Surprise inside)

First as a special reward to people who read these Winexp diaries...

Star-divide

I am pumped up to announce that I have gotten a killfile script developed for the Firefox browser. It allows you to hide all comments by people that annoy you on AN (and in fact any SB Nation blog). Every person commenting now has a kill (or unkill) link attached. So I could hide all of Sal's posts for instance with a click and unblock later. This only hides them from you, not anyone else. There are certain people in the game threads that I will be adding immediately to my killfile. Freedom... freedom!

In short, install Firefox 1.5, install Greasemonkey, and then install this Greasemonkey script written by Daniel Martin, customized very very quickly at my request.  You might have to restart your browser.
(All I know is that it is working great for me. Actually, I use Safari, but I'm going to start using Firefox for AN specifically for the killfile.)

Okay, on to the games.  Baby W has already made her commentary on Game 1, so go there if you missed it.

Game Two

In some ways Baby W has very little to tell us about the game. (What is this? Search AN for "winexp" for background.) Only by watching the game can you see that the Kotsay homer was at least partly if not fully due to Torii, and the Kotsay double play was fully due to Morneau. We could manually change the credit, but I prefer to leave human judgment out of it as much as possible. In the same way that Kotsay officially gets a HR and GIDP, you know what went into that judgment and to take it with a grain of salt... e.g. an outfielder never gets an error without touching the ball and a GIDP could be a weak grounder or a blast to the wrong glove. Reyes gets the 2 ER, Kotsay gets the HR. All stats have their limits and knowing where they are is important.

Having said that, Baby W says the heroes of the game are Kotsay, Duke and Morneau. Most interesting to me is how harsh Baby W is to Loaiza. He pitched an excellent game, I thought. But in her mind, pitching with a 2 run lead starting in the bottom of the 6th, you should win 3 out of 4 games (~75%). To let them tie it right away drops your chances to about 40%, which is a huge swing. So... no cookie for Loaiza, whom she deems approximately neutral.  

Second interesting thing to me is the icy calm she feels in situations that terrify me (and AN). For instance, Huston in the bottom of the 9th, 2 out, up 3, runners on 1st and 2nd, tying run at bat. How often do you think the home team pulls out the win? Enough to be having a heart attack? (My answer: yes.) Well according to history, the home team wins 39 times in 1000 (~4%). The mathematical model commonly used for winexp says the home team wins 43 times in 1000.  In fact, go back to right after Kotsay's homer. Up two, top of the 7th, 2 outs, your chances of willing are around 78% - 80%. And yet it didn't feel in the bag at all.

It would be interesting to isolate the historical data for playoff teams, but I don't think it would change much. Both sides are going to get better by selection, so the odds will probably stay similar.

TOP PLAYS

2006-10-04.  Top 7.2. R: 0. B:1. P: Dennys Reyes. Mark Kotsay in the park home run to center, Kendall scored (0.776, +0.329)
2006-10-04. Bot 6.0. R:-1. B:. P: Esteban Loaiza. Justin Morneau homered to right (0.585, +0.176)
2006-10-04. Bot 6.0. R:-2. B:. P: Esteban Loaiza. Michael Cuddyer homered to left (0.409, +0.136)
2006-10-04.  Top 5.0. R: 0. B:2. P: Boof Bonser. Marco Scutaro doubled to right, Swisher scored (0.693, +0.122)
2006-10-04.  Top 5.0. R: 0. B:. P: Boof Bonser. Nick Swisher doubled to right (0.571, +0.091)
2006-10-04.  Top 3.1. R: 0. B:1. P: Boof Bonser. Mark Kotsay grounded into double play first to shortstop, Kendall out at second (0.425, -0.061)
2006-10-04.  Top 5.1. R:+1. B:3. P: Boof Bonser. Jason Kendall singled to left, Scutaro scored (0.741, +0.060)

        Name            WXC     Events

MIN     Justin_Morneau  +0.125  4
MIN     Michael_Cuddyer +0.085  4
MIN     Pat_Neshek*     +0.043  3
MIN     Juan_Rincon*    +0.011  5
MIN     Boof_Bonser*    -0.002  25
MIN     Joe_Nathan*     -0.012  4
MIN     Jason_Tyner     -0.023  5
MIN     Luis_Castillo   -0.033  5
MIN     Torii_Hunter    -0.051  4
MIN     Nick_Punto      -0.069  5
MIN     Jason_Bartlett  -0.086  5
MIN     Joe_Mauer       -0.093  4
MIN     Rondell_White   -0.115  4
MIN     Dennys_Reyes*   -0.320  2

        Name            WXC     Events

OAK     Mark_Kotsay     +0.228  5
OAK     J_Duchscherer*  +0.185  6
OAK     Mark_Ellis      +0.080  4
OAK     Kiko_Calero*    +0.075  5
OAK     Frank_Thomas    +0.069  4
OAK     Nick_Swisher    +0.067  5
OAK     Huston_Street*  +0.047  6
OAK     Marco_Scutaro   +0.038  4
OAK     Jay_Payton      -0.008  4
OAK     Jason_Kendall   -0.030  5
OAK     Esteban_Loaiza* -0.047  23
OAK     Milton_Bradley  -0.066  4
OAK     Eric_Chavez     -0.098  4

Comment 34 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

what about a final regular season winexp diary?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2006 4:45 PM PDT reply actions  

[kill];[hide comment]
Grease monkey!  Thanks Apricot.
"so... I'll take that as 'none of your business'" ~ ArakSOT

by eamb on Oct 5, 2006 4:52 PM PDT reply actions  

heartattackworthiness
Interesting point about the Street situation. It demonstrates something about what winexp does and doesn't measure. You feel, not unreasonably, that what Street did was incredibly important. But objectively the outcome was only a small numerical change in the win probability.

What winexp doesn't capture here is the range of possible outcomes of a play. The reason you were so tense about that plate appearance was that the result could have been a huge drop in win probability, from nearly 1.0 to well below 0.5.

Consider the case of the starting pitcher getting the first batter out. That result in a small increase in winexp. The worst that could happen, giving up a leadoff home run, results in a small decrease. So you are not that excited by the first out, because the worst possible outcome wasn't that bad anyway.

In the case of the closer getting the last out with the tying run at the plate, the winexp only goes up a little bit, but you know it COULD have gone down a lot.

When Street got the final out you weren't excited because of what he did, but because of what he didn't do.

So how might we measure the "heartattackworthiness" of an event? Simple - by measuring the difference between the worst possible outcome and the best possible. Then you could rank the most heartattackworthy. I think you'd find find Street involved in a lot of them.

by matthias on Oct 5, 2006 5:20 PM PDT reply actions  

matthias
That is just a terrific insight.

by RLangford on Oct 5, 2006 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Good point
This is more or less what the Leverage Index measures, no? The version of the WPA (WinExp) graphs they have at http://fangraphs.com include a bar graph showing the leverage of each situation below the main graph (but they don't seem to have yesterday's game up yet). I wonder how well this correlates with the subjective heartattackworthiness.
Some are sabermetricians.

by andeux on Oct 5, 2006 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

dang
there goes my Fields Medal.

by matthias on Oct 5, 2006 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Don't worry about it.
Jeter woulda gotten it anyway.
Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Oct 6, 2006 7:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think Hunter's play
at least for now, stands as the worst defensive play in baseball this year, given the significance of it.

In the same way, the Dodgers yesterday probably made the biggest running gaffe on the bases this season, as well.

Quick: Most significant baserunning error in 2003. Eric Byrnes. Close second: Miguel Tejada.

by RLangford on Oct 5, 2006 5:36 PM PDT reply actions  

[hide comment]
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2006 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

Wait
What the hell is this, some sort of shot at me? I'm not really getting it?

by RLangford on Oct 5, 2006 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

i didn't really block it
"Quick: Most significant baserunning error in 2003. Eric Byrnes. Close second: Miguel Tejada."
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2006 5:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I figured it out below
And then made further mention of it. What a bastard, huh?

Go A's. Go Tigers.

by RLangford on Oct 5, 2006 5:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

question
is there any way to make the hide comment thing pre-emptively apply to all comments that mention jeremy giambi, byrnes, tejada, and billy kock?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 5, 2006 5:45 PM PDT reply actions  

Oh, now I get it
Come, xb, we're exorcising those demons. Have no fear.

Byrnes play sidenote: Worst I've ever sworn in front of my kids--no close second. It's legend in our house.

by RLangford on Oct 5, 2006 5:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

[kill];[hide Jeter]
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Oct 5, 2006 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

what is this weird blank comment?
No, so far the script doesn't screen out comments by keywords. Just do what I do, which is to respond to "J*r*my G" posts by having my blood pressure go up until I black out. Kind of an organic killfile.

by Apricot on Oct 5, 2006 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Clicking on kill
is pretty satisfying.  Thanks Apricot.
""Let's go home and do this shit!"-Mark Kotsay

by mikeA on Oct 5, 2006 8:42 PM PDT reply actions  

Unfortunatly, kill files lead to . .
people threating to put people in kill files, announcing it, complaining, etc.

I want a kill file that removes all comments about kill files.

by MobiusKlein on Oct 5, 2006 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

I used to think I wanted a killfile
But now that it's an actual possibility, I think I'd rather see everything that annoys me, so I can continue to sneer at it.
"I miss taking showers with Kendall" ~ Brian Giles

by Poppy on Oct 5, 2006 9:25 PM PDT reply actions  

Kinda off topic
but since you seem familiar with firefox, when is Blez going to attach an AN logo/icon to the address bar?
I like websites that have that added little feature. For instance, yahoo has the "Y!", and Google has the boxed in G, and MSNBC has the peacock, etc..

by sf drift king on Oct 6, 2006 12:21 AM PDT reply actions  

it's called a favicon
and it's pretty simple to add to your web pages. Wikipedia it for details. Maybe if someone gave Blez a hot 32 x 32 AN icon, he might be motivated to add one.

by Apricot on Oct 6, 2006 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Blez
is probably too busy for something like that. But if you're reading this and have time in the offseason, hook it up Blez.

by sf drift king on Oct 6, 2006 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

More thoughts on closer winexp
If a closer performs exactly at the average level of all closers in the league in the situations he is in, he will end the season with a cumulative winexp of zero - exactly the same as a mop-up guy who only pitches in blowouts and performs at the league average for those situations.

To see this imagine a simplified baseball world in which closers alway pitch in exactly one situation: bottom of 9th, one run lead, one runner on, two outs. And the outcome is always either an out  to save the game, or a home run to lose it. And imagine the league average is to get the save 90% of the time and blow it 10% of the time. Then winexp will show a .9 chance of winning this situation, so a save will be worth +.1, and a loss will be -.9. If Street matches the league average, he'll have one -.9 for ever nine +.1s, and end the season with zero.

And if a mop-up guy - call him Sweetbeck - only pitches the ninth inning of games with a more than five run lead, and has average performance, he will make virtually no difference to the outcomes and also end up with a zero.

So... does this mean Street has contributed no more to his team than Sweetbeck? No. He has produced league average performance in extremely critical situtations where the average is set by the best players in the game (Rivera, Nathan etc.) who routinely play in that situation.

So whatever winexp contribution is measuring here, it's not measuring value to the team. It's measuring something more like VORP, where you have to think very hard about what "replacement player" would mean.

More thought later if time permits...

by matthias on Oct 6, 2006 8:22 AM PDT reply actions  

All true, but
as Apricot makes clear, Baby Winexp is what she is. All that is being calculated is the change in the expectation of winning, and it is up to the user to interpret this in the appropriate way.
"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Oct 6, 2006 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

yes, and that's what I'm doing...
interepreting the results. And sharing my interpretation, since this is a blog and all, and it's open for comments.

by matthias on Oct 6, 2006 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

what 0 WXC means is interesting
Sal and I discussed this before (with no conclusion). The main data for me is that a team with a cumulative 0 WXC is going to be right at .500 (barring freakish home/road performance imbalance, because home teams earn slightly less for wins than visitors). A team WXC of .5 happens for each win over .500.

So I interpret 2*WXC as "games over .500" contributed. So having a WXC of 0.000 could be pretty reasonable if you've played a lot of games. If you haven't then it's not meaningful.  The same way a 0.75 ERA is incredible if you've pitched all year and not so much after a couple of short appearances.

There is also a whole other issue about how many significant digits one should attach to WXC. I personally think it's accurate to about +/- .5, so a possible better way to report the results would be to report 2*WXC and round off, giving a "Games Over .500 Contributed" stat.  However, baseball has trained me to love 3 sig digs (BA, ERA, etc), so I report WXC to 3 decimal places.

by Apricot on Oct 6, 2006 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions  

and more to the point
I think it would be pretty simple to add Leverage calculations to Baby W.

by Apricot on Oct 6, 2006 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

settings a baseline and including leverage
The goal would be to try to use winexp as input to a new metric - call it Winexp-based Value Metric (WVM) that really does measure player value.

So the first step is to get the baseline right. I sit here typing comments on AN, and each comment contributes exactly zero to the A's probability of winning their games. My winexp contribution for the season currently is 0.00000000, which is better than many of the A's players. Yet the A's organization stubbornly refuses to pay me even the major league minimum for my league-average performance.

Why don't they pay me? Here's the thing: winexp says they start each game with a 50% chance of winning. But that's only true if they show up and play, and play decently. When the ump says "play ball!" they actually have to put some guys out on the field who are capable of playing the game at a professional level. It costs good money to find someone to take the first at-bat who will on average not reduce their chance of winning. If they sent me up to the plate, I would be a guaranteed strikeout. If they put nine guys like me in the lineup, they would have zero chance of winning and might as well forefit.

The winexp based value metric should produce zero for a player who always produces the worst possible result in every situation. Such a player is no better than me; a team made of such players would do no better playing than forefiting. So there's a start - getting zero right is always a great feature of any metric.

Figuring how much to add for non-pessimal outcomes is trickier. For each situation a player faces there's a worst possible outcome, a best possible outcome,  and a range of outcomes in between including a mean outcome. We know to assign zero if the play achieves the worst outcome. What about better outcomes? Baby winexp currently assigns the same value to mean outcome for every situation. One approach would be to preserve that property and assign an arbitrary positive number (such as 1.0) to achieving the league average result in every situation.

But there's a problem with that rule in that it conflicts with the first. The average result can be arbitrarily close to the minimum result, so if you try to do a linear function from 0 at min to 1 at mean you could get a near infinite slope with a near divide by zero.

So the amount of credit you five for each play has to very with the range of possible outcomes. In other words, you have to include leverage. Here's rule 2: for zero-leverage situations, you must give zero credit. And generally, the more leverage, the more possible credit you should have (we'll have to formalize that).

More later. I have to squeeze some real work in before the game starts :-).

by matthias on Oct 6, 2006 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ah, so much for work.
Here's my proposal for WVM:

For any situation let Wmin be the worst possible change in winexp that can result. Let P(w): [-1,+1] => [0,1] be a function giving the probability of an a winexp change of w or better.

For each event, resulting in a winexp change of w, credit the player with a wvm contribution of (w-Wmin) * (1 - P(w)).

This function has all the properties I want as described above. A player who produces the worst possible outcome always gets zero credit; as the outcome improves the credit increases. And an outcome that was sure to happen no matter what gets no credit either; the more unlikely the (positive) result the more credit.

by matthias on Oct 6, 2006 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

Absolutely
and I'm really sorry if I came off as suggesting that you shouldn't, or that your point wasn't a pertinent one about the limitations of BW. My only point was only that it is an acknowledged limitation.

My train of though was off in the direction of the issues of interpretation, and how the anti-stats folks (certainly not intended to include you) often mis- or over-interpret numbers to show that they are flawed. Rather than "lies, damn lies and statistics" there are "liars, damn liars, and pundits".

"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Oct 6, 2006 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Camino question
Does the killfile work with Camino, do you know ?
"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Oct 6, 2006 8:50 AM PDT reply actions  

I don't know
Can you try it and report back?   It used to be that Camino didn't work with Greasemonkey, which would stop the show.  I haven't used Camino since it was Chimera, so I don't know...

by Apricot on Oct 6, 2006 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

1 question..
Does it work backwards?  I mean can I block my comments from someone? Could be a lot of fun next year as great way to f with Rev.
Miller-You forgot about Scutaro! Morgan- So did Santana...

by tresselfan on Oct 6, 2006 10:44 AM PDT reply actions  

you are creative
and ahead of your time. If you figure out how to do that, let me know!

by Apricot on Oct 6, 2006 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Aperture_logo_small
Community Prospect List #4
Img_2672_small
Long-Term Outlook

Recent FanPosts

Fubarcloud_small
Wolf being told to spend money
Small
The wRC+ Challenge
Pumpkin_small
Maybe this is a stupid stats question
Small
A's reportedly sign Cespedes
Unknown_small
Is It Really Worth It: Three Veterans Who May Be Playing Oakland Next Year, But Shouldn't Be
Small
Manny's Contract
Small
fantasy baseball league for A's fans!
Small
NYY Proposal
Small
Roy Oswalt = opportunity

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Front Page Writers

Maya_papi_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Josefav2_small danmerqury

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

Img_0653_small dwishinsky

Front Page Writers

Smiley_face_small gigglingone

Venasfans_small OaklandSi

60-minutes-clock_small cuppingmaster

Patpicturebucky2_small YonYonson

Img_3830_small David Fung

Moderators

Photofunia-5c770b_small coffee roaster

Denver_small Colorado Fan

Ls_logo100_small LoneStranger

Thumbs_up_small LongTimeFan

Marty_profile_in_green_small mrod

Img_1877_small Billy Frijoles

Babycomputergeek_small paris7

Img_0115_small Tutu-late