NERD Game Scores: Examining the R.A. Dickey Question
Devised originally in response to a challenge issued by sabermetric nobleman Rob Neyer, and expanded at the request of nobody, NERD scores represent an attempt to summarize in one number (and on a scale of 0-10) the likely aesthetic appeal or watchability, for the learned fan, of a player or team or game. Read more about the components of and formulae for NERD scores here.
Most Highly Rated Game
Cleveland at Toronto | 19:07 ET
Carrasco (56.0 IP, 80 xFIP-) vs. Dickey (95.2 IP, 109 xFIP-)
More than one reader over the past month-plus has suggested — in only the most congenial possible terms, naturally — that perhaps Toronto right-hander R.A. Dickey isn’t entirely worthy of his high marks here. This is a fair sort of criticism to make. If one looks into his or her heart and finds that it’s unmoved by the prospect of R.A. Dickey, regardless of whatever charms Dickey’s knuckleball possesses — this is, essentially, a kind of Truth.
Here’s why Dickey is so well received by the haphazardly constructed pleasure-algorithm featured here. When the author first introduced a sort of prototype of NERD to readers at this site, there was something resembling consensus among those same readers — or at least those compelled to raise their internet voices — that Dickey, who has never possessed great velocity or the promise of youth or excellent fielding-indepedent numbers, ought to receive a bonus for the knuckleball. The solution: to provide a bonus to all pitchers calculated by multiplying the frequency with which they threw a knuckleball (KN%) by five. Since then, only Dickey and (now) Steven Wright have benefited from the adjustment, essentially receiving about extra four points above and beyond their leaguemates.
Ought the knuckleball bonus to be eliminated? Ought it, at the very least, to be decreased slightly? Perhaps. Readers are invited to comment on the matter with civility in the space below. Or invited to dismiss the entire matter as an absurd thing in an ocean of absurd things.
Readers’ Preferred Broadcast: Cleveland Radio.
Two Other Brief Notes
Today’s Free Game
Today’s free game features Chicago NL at New York NL, starts at 19:10 ET, and can be accessed by means of this hyperlinked text.
Broadcaster Rankings
Recently, the present author facilitated a crowdsourcing effort to reproduce the broadcaster rankings which appeared on this site roughly four years ago. The results from that effort are published here in one easily digestible post.
Complete Schedule
Here’s the complete and very sortable table for all of today’s games. Pitching probables and game times aggregated from MLB.com and also the rest of the internet. Note that calculations both for team and game NERD scores feature adjustment for postseason odds that increases as season progresses. Read more about those adjustments here and here.
| Away | SP | TM | GM | TM | SP | Home | Time | ||
| A.J. Griffin | TEX | 4 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | NYA | Michael Pineda | 13:05 |
| Kenta Maeda | LAN | 5 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 6 | MIL | Zachary Davies | 14:10 |
| Tommy Milone | MIN | 5 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 7 | CHA | Carlos Rodon | 14:10 |
| Brandon Finnegan | CIN | 3 | 3 | 5 | 7 | 6 | WAS | Gio Gonzalez | 19:05 |
| Carlos Carrasco | CLE | 7 | 7 | 7 | 6 | 9 | TOR | R.A. Dickey | 19:07 |
| John Lackey | CHN | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 10 | NYN | Steven Matz | 19:10 |
| Jordan Zimmermann | DET | 5 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | TB | Jake Odorizzi | 19:10 |
| Wei-Yin Chen | MIA | 5 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 8 | ATL | Mike Foltynewicz | 19:10 |
| Chris Young | KC | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | STL | Mike Leake | 19:15 |
| Madison Bumgarner | SF | 7 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | OAK | Dillon Overton* | 22:05 |
| Chris Tillman | BAL | 4 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 9 | SEA | Taijuan Walker | 22:10 |
TM denotes team score.
GM denotes overall game score.
Highlighted portion denotes game of the day.
* = Fewer than 10 IP, NERD at discretion of clueless author.
Carson Cistulli has published a book of aphorisms called Spirited Ejaculations of a New Enthusiast.
Perhaps the knuckleball bonus should be at the discretion of the most civil author. I would suggest that this author might wish you to consider the aesthetic qualities of particular pitcher’s knuckleball in deciding whether to award the bonus. Butterflies are indeed solace to the learned fan numbed by the artifice that we have surrounded ourselves with.
Mr. Wright’s offerings this year have possessed this comfort. Mr. Dickey’s have not, alas, for several years.
Fortuitously for the most civil author, the aesthetic qualities of a particular pitcher’s knuckleball regularly aligns with his runs allowed per 9 innings.
“Most civil?” I thought the author was “very handsome.”
I would think that the factor for knuckleball should be 2. My reasoning for that is the knuckleball factor is somewhat of an adjustment for the inherent lack of velocity in being a knuckleball pitcher. KN% can range from 0 to 1, and since Velo is artificially capped at 0 to 2, KN% should be multiplied by 2 to keep it on the same scale as Velo.
I did a cursory assessment of the leaderboards, in conjunction with a rough (and likely incorrect) calculation of NERD as the equation stands now. Just looking at RA Dickey’s KN factor (5*KN% = 4.32), it’s the equivalent of the following differences in the other factors:
43 points of xFIP-
18.8% of SwStr% (range of eligible pitchers is 4.1% to 16.1%)
30.4% of Strk (range of eligible pitchers is 39.1% to 59.6%)
10.5 MPH of Velo
16 Yrs of Age
14.7 sec of Pace (range of eligible pitchers is 18 sec to 26.1 sec)
86 points of Luck
Some of these differences are larger than the entire range of eligible pitchers for certain categories (as noted above), which means Dickey is getting a bonus that won’t be matched in three categories by other pitchers, at least until Sidd Finch comes around.
You could scale the knuckleball bonus by some number. Perhaps by its pitch-type linear weight? I do think that there should be a bonus for knuckleballers, but Dickey’s wKN is -5.3 whereas Wright’s is 9.2 (or, if you prefer, -0.40 and 0.71 wKN/C, respectively).
Establish a lower baseline knuckleball bonus and scale it up when the wKN is positive and scale it back when the wKN is negative, maybe? That way, Wright would receive a greater bonus.
I civilly propose that those readers who are not adherents of the knuckleball should most civilly get bent, and that the only civil response to their criticisms is to assign the maximum score to any pitcher who has thrown any non-zero number of knuckleballs in an appropriately civil time-frame, such as their entire career.
Pitches within said career that have yet to occur are, of course, allotted at the discretion of the author.