So how does the baseball analyst that created PECOTA end up on the Colbert Report with less than 30 days until a presidential election?

Turns out that Nate is a big time political junkie, too. He's created a web site that uses methods similar to the those used by PECOTA to forcast baseball statistics to predict the result of the presidential election. Also see recent appearances on Olberman or this interview with Dan Rather.

I'll just point out three things I really like about Murphy:

  1. He has put up some crazy good AAA numbers despite being younger than his competition, and he's still only 24.

  2. He managed to post a .441 SLG (.731 OPS) with a .220 Avg. That's crazy power for a SS; Crosby could break his back swinging at a pitch and still not have that kind of power.

  3. He actually put up better defensive numbers than Crosby at SS, and seems to be perfectly adequate in the field.

Bonus: Projection systems love the guy. As Rob Neyer pointed out recently, guys who hit for crazy power and low average in one year and good average but only decent power tend to figure out how to do both eventually. My guess is that PECOTA will like him about 100 OPS points better than Crosby for next year.

It seems that recently there has been a fair amount of discussion about the need to acquire someone who hits for high average to drive runners in. The implication in this line of thinking is that a base runner is significantly more valuable in front of Hitter A with a  .300/.350/.450 line than hitter B at .250/.350/.450. Is it possible that, by emphasizing OBP over everything, the A's have actually reached a point where a high OBP is no longer providing the expected marginal benefit due to their lineup construction? Is it possible we really do miss Jay Payton's .270 average more than we're happy to be rid of his .700 OPS?

I wish I could work this out for myself, but I have a much greater ability to interpret statistics than actually devise them. Thanks.

Sometimes, it's easy to look at statistics and instantly see why a pitcher is struggling. In Zito's post-ASB ERA of 4.75, we can look at him walking as many batters as he Ks, and a low GB rate and see that he's just plain not pitching well.

I can't figure out why Haren is getting killed. His K rate has been good, he doesn't walk anyone. Does anyone have any of the more advanced rate stats since the ASB that account for his collapse? Is it just a big statistical blip?

Going into the playoffs, you have to feel good about Harden and Loiaza, but finding a 3rd pitching in our rotation I want on the mound is becoming difficult.

Anyone who's interested in the clutch vs. non-clutch debate should check out this site:

http://clutchiness.blogspot.com/

Here's the site description:

"Clutch hitting may or may not exist. Clutchiness most certainly does. By comparing a player's value in terms of win probability to his projected value based on OBP and SLG, we see how much he has over- or under-performed expectations due to performance in higher leverage situations. If clutch exists, it might just look like this."

There are some surprises on the A's page. The clutchiest player is Payton, but Crosby at #2?

Good stuff.

Am I crazy to think that batting Chavez leadoff is a good idea? His arm injuried apparently prevent him from hitting the ball, but he still walks a lot. Why not bat him leadoff? He's not slow, either.

My lineup:

1. Chavez  3B
   
2. Kielty  OF
   
3. Thomas  DH
   
4. Swisher OF
   
5. Johnson 1B
   
6. Melhuse C
   
7. Crosby  SS
   
8. Payton/Kotsay CF (Bradley once he's back)
   
9. Ellis/Perez 2B
   

There's an excellent article at BP about prospect valuation posted here:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4750

Here's the thesis:

Michael Bourn is a center fielder who played in the Eastern League last year. BA offers the following scouting report:

Bourn offers the quickness, aptitude and offensive approach required of a leadoff hitter. He's the system's best defensive outfielder and also has an above-average arm.

Here too, PECOTA largely agrees with BA's assessment. Bourn's speed scores are off the charts, and he rated as a +9 in center field last year. It doesn't think Bourn's a sure thing--his strikeout rates are high for a player with his profile, and he almost certainly won't develop home run power. But it gives him about a 25% chance of getting up to an EqA in the .265/.270 range, heavy on the OBP side and coupled with good baserunning, which would in fact make him an adequate leadoff hitter.
But how does Bourn rate compared to Shane Victorino, the International League MVP who will inherit the fourth outfielder's job in Philly next year? PECOTA would seem to have reasonable enough expectations for Victorino. It thinks he was playing a little bit over his head at Scranton last year, where he put up a .282 EqA, and pegs his 2006 at an EqA of .266 with plus defense in center field. It doesn't expect Victorino to get any better from here on out, nor does it see much in the way of star potential--his 90th percentile forecast only gets him up to a .289 EqA.

So we have:

A 23-year-old center fielder who has little star potential, but about a 25% chance of developing into a solid regular.
A 25-year-old center fielder who has little star potential, but who could be a solid regular right now.

Which of these players is the more valuable commodity? The answer to that seems obvious enough, and PECOTA's various long-term valuation metrics say that Victorino is perhaps two or three times more valuable than Bourn. But BA has Bourn ranked as the #3 player in the Phillies system, whereas Victorino doesn't crack in their Top 10 (in one of the weakest systems in baseball).

The A's farm system is frequently described as barren after the advancement of so many young players over the last few years, but I'm wondering if that is really an apt evaluation. Although the A's lack any high-ceiling prospects, it does seem like that have more than a few who promise to be regular contributors that the ML level. Dan Johnson may not be a Jason Giambi, but he's highly likely to give us 5 years of very solid production for league minimum.

Just a thought that occured to me: Why not go for a 6 man rotation?

I was just listening to Urban speaking about concerns about workloads. Why not just go to a six man rotation? We already carry a ton of guys in the pullpen, we have a versitile bench... so why not?

It would save our pitchers for a stronger September and October.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3925

Interestingly, the number through Sunday show that if the A's continue to score runs and allow runs at the same rate, you would expect them to have a 94 win season.

I'm sure Sunday's blowout is going to hurt that number, but it reflects generally how I felt about the season up to that point; the A's were getting a bit unlucky against the O's and Rays. It will be interesting to see how they look after they cycle through the rotation for the 2nd time.