Table of Contents
Today’s edition of the Daily Notes has no table of contents, it appears.

A WBC Status Update of Reasonable Quality
By the end of this past weekend, the first round of this year’s World Baseball Classic had produced eight qualifiers: Cuba, Japan, the Netherlands, and Taipei from Pools A and B, and the Dominican Republic, Italy, Puerto Rico, and the United States (from Pools C and D).

Second-round play among the first set four qualifiers (called Pool 1, in this case) has now already produced two teams for the four-team final: Japan and the Netherlands. Pool 2 (composed of the second set of four qualifiers) began on Tuesday afternoon.

What follows is more — perhaps even possibly sufficient — information on theme of the 2013 World Baseball Classic.

Standings
In the first round, each team plays the other three teams in its pool once. The two teams with the highest winning percentages — or, in case of a three-way tie, the two teams that qualify via this set of tie-breaking rules — advance to Round Two.

The eight qualifiers from the first round progress to Round Two. Pool 1 features the four qualifiers from first-round Pools A and B; Pool 2, from Pools C and D. Both Pool 1 and 2 are played as a four-team double-elimination tournament. The top two teams in each qualify for the four-team final round.

Read the rest of this entry »

Bill James headlined the second annual SABR Analytics Conference in Phoenix last weekend. Brian Kenny from MLB Network’s Clubhouse Confidential acted as a roving emcee of sorts.  Joe Posnanski was there. Rob Neyer was there. And our own Dave Cameron and David Appelman were there. The three days of sessions led to lively discussions about WAR and knuckleball academies and the mythical analytics-scouting divide.

But this year’s conference wasn’t limited to questions about how best to measure and project on-the-field performance. Analytics have moved to the business side of the front office. And it’s your off-the-field performance in watching, listening to, and attending ballgames that is now the subject of intense study. Sports marketing isn’t new but the techniques used to measure fans, create new ones, and motivate both groups to purchase tickets and merchandise have become much more sophisiticated.

Read the rest of this entry »

Vance Worley will be displaying his uniquely-diverse repertoire in the Twin Cities this summer. Ditto his deception. Acquired by Minnesota from the Phillies in the Ben Revere deal, the 25-year-old right-hander throws six different pitches. They include a four-seam fastball that acts like a cutter and a cutter that acts like a slider. His delivery has produced a k-swing% markedly lower than league average each of the past two seasons.

Worley talked about his repertoire last week in Fort Myers.

——

David Laurila: How do you get hitters out?

Vance Worley: For me, it’s about setting pitches up. It’s being able to go inside, back out, up in the zone, bounce a pitch when you need to. Get guys guessing.

DL: Is velocity important to your game?

VW: It can be, but it’s more just flashing it. You don’t have to throw everything 100 percent. Some guys call it a BP fastball. You throw it with command more than velocity. At times you’ll show a hitter something, then come back and throw something harder.

For some reason, on my first pitch of the game, I can never throw anything over 87 mph. It doesn’t matter how hard I try. But I’m usually somewhere between 86 to 93, maybe 94.

DL: Do you throw a two-seamer or four-seamer?

VW: Both, and I have command of both. Whatever is working better is what I’m probably going to throw more. I had a two-seam before I got drafted, but at the lower levels of the minor leagues they wanted me to focus more on four-seamers. I did that until I realized my four-seam was straight. If a ball is straight it’s going to get hit, so I went back to knowing what I knew how to do. That was to throw more sinkers.

DL: You’ve had a low home run rate. Is that mostly a matter of location?

VW: Not necessarily. Read the rest of this entry »

Ben and Sam answer listener emails about how many games a team formed from the three worst teams in baseball would win, whether catchers (and non-catchers) should be allowed to block the plate, and expanding active rosters.

Podcast (effectively-wild): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Begin with the principle that spring-training stats are meaningless. Use that as your rule of thumb and far more often than not, you’ll end up in the right. Player X mashes a dozen dingers before the end of camp. It’s probably meaningless. Pitcher Y finishes with an unheard-of strikeout-to-walk ratio. It’s probably meaningless. Team Z ends up with a really good or really bad record. It’s probably meaningless. We know this. If you’re reading FanGraphs, you know this. People try to tease meaning out of spring-training statistics, but the meaning is almost impossible to find.

Still, we talk about spring-training statistics, mostly because they’re our first new statistics after months of desolation. By and large we can’t help ourselves, and we trick ourselves into believing we’re better than we are at separating signal from noise. We look for numbers that seem to be out of character. We consider other factors that might give numbers more substance. I turn your attention now to Rick Porcello.

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s safe to say there’s general acceptance that using a small sample in data sets has the potential to result in spurious correlations or unreliable conclusions. Yet every Spring, there’s a long list of reclamation projects who will no doubt be judged on a very small sample size of data. Just ask Kelvim Escobar who found himself looking for a new team after two-thirds of a Spring inning, perhaps setting a new standard for small sample size decisions. There’s just not a lot of time for pitchers to demonstrate they can rediscover their velocity, recapture their control, or that they have discovered the fountain of youth. I’m sure Jon Garland can relate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Table of Contents
Here’s the table of contents for today’s edition of the Daily Notes.

1. Top Performers of the 2009 WBC, Curiously
2. SCOUT Leaderboards: 2009 World Baseball Classic
3. Illustrative Video: Cuba’s Frederich Cepeda

Top Performers of the 2009 WBC, Curiously
Because both (a) a very persistent reader has requested it and (b) the author must produce content anyway lest he be fired completely from his job, what follows is a pair of SCOUT leaderboards for the 2009 iteration of the World Baseball Classic.

“What is a SCOUT leaderboard?” a reasonable person might ask. For hitters (for whom it’s denoted as SCOUT+), it’s this: a metric that combines regressed home-run, walk, and strikeout rates in a FIP-like equation to produce a result not unlike wRC+, where 100 is league average (in this case, for all 2009 WBC hitters) and above 100 is above average. xHR%, xBB%, and xK% stand for expected home run, walk, and strikeout rate, respectively.

Read the rest of this entry »

Prospect lists are one of the best parts of the off-season. Marc Hulet published his top 100 yesterday as the culmination of several months of work, and Baseball America, Baseball Prospectus, Keith Law, John Sickels and a plethora of websites have published others. Each group puts myriad hours into analyzing, calling, writing, editing, re-analyzing and finally publishing their work. But even after all that, they usually come to several different conclusions. I decided — instead of focusing on a specific list — to generate a list that combined each of these lists into one.

The idea of community or consensus lists isn’t new. Sites have done it before, but I’ve added some wrinkles:

Read the rest of this entry »