This is a post introducing and explaining NERD scores for teams. I’m including the results first and then the background, methodology — all that junk — second.
Curious as to what NERD is? The short answer is: it’s a number, on a 0-10 scale, designed to express the “watchability” of teams for those of the sabermetric persuasion.
For more information, consult the index right after the results.
The Results
Here are the results for team NERD:
If you’re a more or less normal, sensitive American male like myself, you were shocked and/or awed by the revelation — courtesy of R.J. Frigging Anderson’s article of last week in re Jay Bruce — that Baseball-Reference is currently in the business of keeping a stat called XBT%, or Extra Base Taken Percentage. What this stat tells all of us normal, sensitive American male-types is the — and I quote — “percentage of times the runner advanced more than one base on a single or more than two bases on a double, when possible.” In other words, the stat seeks to represent the frequency with which a player takes an extra base. Also, in other words: it’s awesome.
And not only that, but B-R also records Stolen Base Opportunities (SBOs) — i.e. “the plate appearances through which a runner was on first or second with the next base open.” I feel no shame in not having formerly realized this — I mean, I’m a pretty important guy with a lot on my figurative plate — but I give thanks and praise now for having discovered it when I did.
In any case, here’s why I bring up all this junk: if one were in the business of attempting to adjudge the aesthetic pleasure provided by certain players, then one would very likely be curious about the baserunning skills of those players. As I, Carson Cistulli, am such a “one,” then it follows logically that I would be interested in such a thing.
Though baserunning is, admittedly, a rather minor part of a player’s overall contribution, it’s also a contribution which is rather easy to isolate. In what follows, I’ve attempted to do just that.
So, what makes an interesting baserunner? Well, I’m sure we could have all sorts of fist fights about that (and might soon at the FanGraphs Live Event). In this case, however, I allowed my enthusiasm to guide me unapologetically.
Much like with pitcher NERD, I utilized z-scores (i.e. standard deviations from the mean) to arrive at baserunning NERD (rNERD). In this case, I used a sample of players who’ve recorded at least 100 plate appearances. For each player, I found the sum of three different z-scores: XBT%, SBO% (that is, stolen base attempts as a percentage of opportunities), and stolen base success rate (SB%).
From there, all I did was cap the lowest possible SB% z-score at -1.1 (to mirror the highest z-score) and then add a constant (in this case, 4.91) to put all the scores on a 0-10 scale.
Using this method, here are the Top 25 baserunners (from a sample of 350 qualified players):
I like this list, because there are very few surprises. I mean, Michael Bourn, B.J. Upton, Rajai Davis: we know those are fast guys. The pleasure from such an exercise, however, frequently comes from the players who surprise us. In this case, Kyle Blanks has to be that guy. Surprisingly, Blanks is among the league leaders in taking the extra base. Why that is exactly — maybe batting ahead of lefties, or something? — is unclear, but it makes for something to think about when Blanks makes his retun to the field in August sometime.
As for the 25 laggards, here they are:
I don’t know that there are too many surprises here. Mostly, it’s a list of first basemen and catchers, which is probably to be expected. The presence of Mitch Maier might be of some concern to Royal fans — although, truth be told, they have enough on their plates. Nick Swisher, like Maier, has been seen roaming centerfield more recently than not. He’s never been a speed demon, but it’s surprising to see him on this list.
If you’re interested in seeing the full spreadsheet of 350 baserunners, it’s available just by clicking here.
If, over the past month or so, you’ve kept your eyes on the prize that is FanGraphs, you might’ve very well come across my humble attempts at devising a point system to preemptively adjudge the appeal of any given pitching matchup to the baseball nerd aesthetic.
To recap briefly, the resulting number — called NERD — is computed by taking the sum of the z-scores (i.e. standard deviations from the mean) for the following categories (weighted to best fit the tastes of the baseball nerd): xFIP, age, fastball velocity, strike percentage (of total pitches thrown), and swinging-strike percentage. To that total is added a pitcher’s “luck” (that is, ERA-xFIP, capped at 2), and a constant (around 4) to have everything come out approximately on a scale of 0-10. Additionally, because it seems a bit ridiculous to compute a toy stat to the decimal level, I’ve rounded the results.
The final thing I’ve done after all that is to round any scores above 10 down to that number (i.e. 10) and any NERDs below 0 up to that number (i.e. 0). Nor has this really caused any sort of problem. With about 170 pitchers in the sample, only about 10 or 12 have ever gone above or below the 0-10 range — and even then, never by more than 2 points.
Until Stephen Strasburg came along, that is.
Were we still living in a pre-Strasburgian world, these would be your current NERD leaders (rNERD = rounded NERD, aNERD = actual NERD):
What you’ll notice about that group is that they have the good sense not to dominate the rest of the league to such a degree as to to render NERD useless. Francisco Liriano’s un-rounded 11.25 is the highest mark I’ve seen to date, but at least it’s on a human scale.
The same goes for our laggards, whom you see here (in a table that has been, for a reason that only my computer knows, reproduced more poorly than the other two in this post):
Again, despite dipping into the negatives, neither Snell nor Monasterios nor the rest of their incompetent friends reach depths that problematize NERD’s competence unduly.
But cast your eyes all the way to the tippy-top of the NERD leaderboards and you’re faced with this:
Apparently, Stephen Strasburg has no sympathy for this modest experiment, as his NERD score almost doubles that of the next-best pitcher in the majors.
Of course, it’s no trouble to see why Strasburg rates so highly: he’s got an xFIP of 1.54, an average fastball velocity of 97.5 mph, the highest swinging-strike rate in the league, and he’s only 21 years old.
Strasburg’s excellence asks an interesting question of NERD and, by extension, the question we might ask of ourselves when choosing which game to watch on the nights that he’s pitching: Is Strasburg, all by himself, enough of a spectacle to make a game worth watching? Because, really, with the exception of Snell or Monasterios (neither of whom, let it be known, are currently in a major league starting rotation), any pitcher, when combined with Strasburg, will give the game an average NERD score of 10 amongst its starting pitchers.
Put concretely: Is Strasburg vs. Brad Lincoln more interesting than Roy Halladay vs. Josh Johnson? The latter match-up has happened at least a couple of times now, and one of those resulted in a perfect game for Halladay. That’s pretty great shakes. On the other hand, Strasburg really does represent everything of interest to the baseball nerd — to the baseball fan, in general, really.
The ancillary question, of course, is whether it’s smart/necessary to round NERD scores outside of the 0-10 range back into that range. In most cases, it’s not an issue: again, only 10 or 12 players — somewhere in the vicinity of 5-10 percent — ask that question. But NERD is designed to represent the taste of the sabermetrically inclined fan, and so the question is a fine one to ask.
The best answer, for now, is probably to see if Strasburg can keep it up. So long as he does, maybe there just has to be a Strasburg Bonus. In any case, it’s not the worst problem to have.
In the event that you somehow didn’t notice all the confetti and bunting left over from the big unveiling, I announced earlier this week the introduction of NERD to the public imagination.
Essentially, NERD represents an attempt to anticipate what games might be most appealing to the baseball nerd (read: you and you and you). It’s in its most infant stages right now, but is probably better than nothing at the moment. As such, it’s with zero apologies that I’ve utilized it to look at this weekend’s pitching match-ups.
Remember, NERD is graded on a 1-10 scale (for starters with 20+ IP) in terms of how appealing a pitcher is to the nerd aesthetic. For each day of the weekend, I’ve looked at three types of game: one that’s appealing by NERD’s standards (Behold), one that’s totally unappealing (Flee), and one that NERD might not quite yet be ready to assess correctly (Also Consider).
Friday, June 04
Behold: Mat Latos (7) at Roy Halladay (10), 7:05pm ET
• Halladay is one of three pitchers — alongside Cliff Lee and the very unlucky Dan Haren — currently sporting a perfect NERD score. Like Lee, Halladay is shockingly effective without throwing a ton of swing-and-miss pitches, relying instead on controlling the strike zone and getting grounders.
Flee: Joe Saunders (0) at Ian Snell (0), 10:10pm ET
• Saunders is a soft-tosser who doesn’t throw strikes. Snell has 1:1 K:BB and only 33% groundball rate. Together, they form a perfect storm of mediocrity.
Also Consider: Clay Buchholz (6) at Chris Tillman (NA), 7:05pm ET
• Tonight marks Tillman’s second ML start of the year after being recalled from Triple-A Norfolk last week. Also, the average age of tonight’s starters is a mere 23.5 years old. Also, did you know that Buchholz has posted about a 53% groundball rate in his last 150 major league innings? Why does no one tell me these things?!?
Saturday, June 05
Behold: Carlos Silva (7) at Roy Oswalt (9), 7:05pm ET
• The thing we know that NERD doesn’t (yet!) is that Houston’s offense, currently way last in batting runs, is officially a threat to the human spirit. In terms of just the pitching match-up, though, Silva versus Oswalt promises to be a strike fest. Quick thing: did you know that Oswalt is currently posting his highest K rate since 2002? Well, he is: 9.08 K/9. This, after posting right around 7 K/9 for like the last five years.
Flee: Todd Wellemeyer (0) at Paul Maholm (3), 7:05pm ET
• Ick.
Also Consider: James Shields (9) at Tommy Hunter (NA), 4:10pm ET
• Dave Cameron’s favorite for this year’s Cy is essentially — in terms of product, if not process — is essentially the right-handed version of Cliff Lee right now, absolutely filling up the strike zone while getting enough whiffs to make such an approach truly menacing. Hunter, I’m not so excited about, but he is just 23 and this is just his second ML start of the season. There’s room for curiosity there.
Sunday, June 06
Behold: Javier Vazquez (5) at Brandon Morrow (8), 1:07pm ET
• While last year’s NERD leader Vazquez has fallen on hard times, Morrow is delivering on some of his potential right now, currently behind only Tim Lincecum and Clayton Kershaw in swinging-strike rate. And while it may surprise the frig out of Seattle fans, Morrow is actually throwing about a league-average rate of strikes (61.4%).
Flee: Matt Garza (4) at Rich Harden (0), 3:05pm ET
• Harden is currently sporting a below-average whiff rate — this after producing three consecutive years of 15%-plus in the same category. When he’s not producing swing-and-misses, Harden’s hard to watch. Garza’s mediocre NERD might surprise you, especially if you’re looking at his 3.08 ERA. But he’s basically a league-average dude right now: normal whiff rate (7.5%), normal xFIP (4.43).
Also Consider: Tim Lincecum (9, 1:35pm ET) and Ubaldo Jimenez (7, 4:10pm ET)
• Only problem is, these guys aren’t facing each other. Lincecum goes up against Ross Ohlendorf (0), who’s almost as unappealing to the nerd as possible. Rodrigo Lopez pitches for Arizona against Jimenez. The fact that Jimenez gets a 7 on the current NERD scale is proof that the system needs to incorporate Awesomeness into its criteria. Or at least fastabll velocity. One or the other.
Last week, as part of his Thursday Throneberries, Rob Neyer wrote — in re the Why We Watch post that I’d submitted to these electronic pages — he wrote that “the only thing missing [from said post]… is a points system that would let us put a number on each game.” That is, Neyer was curious if it might be possible to assign points to each game on a particular day in order to tell which might be most appealing to the sabermetrically inclined viewer.
Neyer’s challenge put a bee in my proverbial bonnet. And when you put a bee like that in Carson Cistulli’s bonnet — proverbial or otherwise — he’s not gonna stop until that bee is either dead or, if not dead, at least captured and successfully rehabilitated.
Which is why I’ve spent every waking minute of the last five or so days — and some of the sleeping minutes, too — working on the problem.
A few minutes of consideration reveal two facts:
1. It’s a big-ish task, this, to devise a points system for every possible aspect (pitching, hitting, uniform design, stadium, broadcast team, etc.) that might contribute to the viewing experience.
2. Despite the verity of point 1, it seems as though we can say with some certainty that pitching matchups — because the pitchers are constantly playing — go the greatest way towards making a game either compelling or not. Therefore, that’s where I’ve elected to start.
So the question I posed to my own brain is: what makes a starting pitcher interesting to the baseball nerd? And also: of the things that might make a pitcher interesting, which of them are easily measured? And finally: what ought one call a stat designed to address these urgent questions?
The last question is the easiest to answer. Were I to construct a stat designed to appeal to the baseball nerd, I’d call that stat NERD. What would/does it stand for? Hard to say, but it just feels so right.
Now, as for the first two questions there, let’s take a look at some possible answers.
Components of Pitcher NERD
• Pitcher Ability (xFIP)
At the center of the baseball nerd’s quest is the desire to understand, quite simply, who is good at baseball and who is less good. While, as Tommy Bennett rightly notes, metrics that evaluate process (as opposed to outcome) aren’t flawless, Expected FIP (xFIP) is both pretty damn sweet and pretty freaking accessible.
• Strikeouts (SwStrk%)
Swinging strikes correlate very highly to strikeouts — are, in fact, more predictive of future K rate than K rate itself. Also, they’re awesome to watch. Yes, strikeouts are a part of xFIP, but there’s a pleasure to the strikeout that ought to be recognized. It represents a pitcher’s total pwn-ing of his opponent. Consider: despite having absolutely no ties to San Francisco or its environs, I consider it a great privilege to watch Tim Lincecum throw his change-up. Yeah, the crazy wind-up is pretty sweet, but his change-up — which gets whiffs about 25% of the time — is what really gets the party started.
• Strike Throwing (Strike% of Total Pitches Thrown)
It’s nice to watch a pitcher who throws a lot of strikes — even those not of the swing-and-miss variety. Phrased differently, it can be super boring to watch a pitcher who doesn’t throw strikes. Consider Rich Harden of 2009. He had a swinging-strike rate of about 16% in 2009, but he only threw about a league average number of strikes. That’s enough to make him less watchable. (And, of course, he’s much harder to tolerate this season, now that he’s getting about half the swing-and-misses.)
• Luck (ERA-xFIP)
It’s a fact: nerds like watching regression happen. Scientists are efforting day and night to figure out why — to no avail as of yet. Anyway, it’s a fact.
A Note on Weighting the Components
Though each of the components listed above probably all contribute to making a pitcher interesting, that’s not to say that each of them ought to be weighted equally. Value luck too heavily and Charlie Morton is the most interesting player in the world. Do the same to swinging strikes and Brandon Morrow makes his way to the top of the charts.
As the goal of this exercise is not to uncover an objective truth — like, for example, how many runs a player has produced or how much he might be worth on the open market — but rather to address questions of an aesthetic nature, I’ve allowed myself to abide by intuition in assigning weights to the components in consideration.
Here’s how I’ve opted to go about it.
Calculating NERD
To calculate NERD, I found each pitcher’s z-score (standard deviations from the mean) for cats 1-3. I multiplied the xFIP score by 2, divided both the swinging strike and strike percentage scores by 2, and then added Luck to the total.
In re that last part, about luck, a couple notes: I opted only to add bad luck to the overall equation. A pitcher who’s overperforming his xFIP is less interesting to me (and to baseball nerds, in general, I’m guessing) than one who’s underperforming it. If a pitcher’s ERA-xFIP is less than 0 (i.e. lucky), I just counted as 0. In other words, I only real care about pitchers who will seem to be improving.
Also: I capped the Luck “bonus” at 2. Otherwise, seriously, Charlie Morton is the highest-ranked pitcher.
Adding a constant (in this case, 4.69) gives all 150 or so pitchers (with 20+ IP) a score between 0 and 10, with average exactly at 5. I had to round the top two guys down to 10 and the bottom three guys guy up to 0, but that’s it.
The Final Equation
Looks like this:
(xFIPz * 2) + (SwStrk%z / 2) + (Strike%z / 2) + Luck + 4.69.
Results
Here are the current top 20 starters (with 20+ IP) by NERD:
Here are the bottom 20:
Discussion
Bill James once suggested that, if a stat never surprises you, it’s probably worthless. This is an idea I embraced while attempting to fine tune NERD. Which is to say, I wanted it to be occasionally surprising.
For example, one might wonder how Randy Wells ranks higher than the very talented Tim Lincecum. Well, in addition to actually being quite good so far this season, Wells’ ERA is almost a full point above his xFIP. With time, the former is likely to crawl back down towards the latter. When it does, Wells will very likely not occupy his current spot. Still, in the meantime, it’s worth wondering when we’ll see Wells’ luck turn for the better.
Future Considerations
Pitcher NERD is definitely not complete. Undoubtedly, it makes sense to consider at least a couple-few more components. Components such as (though not limited to):
• Player Age/Experience
Rookies are exciting. Young players, generally, are exciting. It makes sense to factor something like player age or service time into the equation.
• Repertoire
My good friend Leo writes, “Should a guy like Justin Verlander be higher because he throws 100 MPH? That’s fun to watch.” The same friend also would like see Ubaldo Jimenez further up the charts. And who can blame him: watching Jimenez pitch is fun.
• Fat Heads
Vincente Padilla has one. That should count against him somehow.
If you’re interested in fooling around with the weights, by all means utilize this spreadsheet that I’ve uploaded to Google Docs. It also includes data for 2009, which saw Javier Vazquez, Ricky Nolasco, Roy Halladay, Tom Gorzelanny (!), and Tim Lincecum finish in the top five.
