A couple of weeks ago, I read this blog post from Joe Posnanski, in which he discusses comments made by Red Sox GM Theo Epstein about outfielder J.D. Drew. The whole thing's interesting, but what caught my eye was the following quote from Epstein:

He [Drew] does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player. And that’s not make outs.

Well, this really hit me, because it's about the most concise possible argument you could make about hitting - just to simply state, "We get only three outs an inning, and when we reach three, we have to start over. Wasting outs for any reason does not help us." And yes, I realize that slugging percentage plays a big part in scoring runs, too, and a single is sometimes more valuable than a walk, and all of that. But ultimately good hitters that help their teams simply don't make outs.

This, however, got me thinking about "productive outs," and sacrifice bunting and all the rest of the things that managers and announcers talk about. How many times have you heard the Twins broadcast crew laud Nick Punto for grounding out to the correct side of the infield, thus moving the runner from second to third?

With all this in mind, I went over to Baseball Prospectus to grab the Run Expectancy Matrix for 2009. If you're not familiar with this graph, simply put, it tells you how many runs a team can be expected to score, given a certain situation and all else being equal.  Here's the 2009 version:

If you're new to reading this table, examine with me the second row ("Runner on first"). This row says that, in 2009, a team could be expected to score .8834 runs, on average, if it had a runner on first with nobody out. With one out and a runner on first, it was expected to score .5330 runs, and so on.

What I thought I'd find, from this table, was the ability to state a hard-and-fast rule about outs.  I assumed that we could all live by the following statement: "Making an out ALWAYS decreases the number of runs a team can be expected to score in an inning."

What I found was close to that statement... but not quite.

Of course, the value of an out always depends on the situation, the batter at the plate, the runners on base, and so forth. (For example: it's a better idea to have Alexi Casilla try to bunt a run home than it is to have Joe Mauer try to bunt a run home, because Casilla is far less likely to get a hit or otherwise drive the run home.)  However, with all else being equal, I was surprised to find that there are productive outs.

By this, I mean outs that actually increase the expected number of runs that a team would score. Here's the list of plausible productive outs I've found; perhaps you can find more.

• With the bases loaded and fewer than two out, an out that advances all three runners is a productive out.  (Just as an example, here's the math: With nobody out and the bases full, a team is expected to score 2.2790 runs. If the batter advances all three runners - say, with a sacrifice bunt - a run comes home, and the team has second and third with one out, an expectancy of 1.4138. In other words, the run expectancy has gone from 2.2790 to 2.4138.  With one out, the expectancy goes from 1.5580 to 1.5623.)
• With a runner on third base and one out, getting the run home via a sacrifice or simple ground-out is productive (the expectancy goes from .9655 to 1). Interestingly, this isn't true if no one is out (decreases from 1.3146 to 1.2789).
  
• With runners on first and third and one out, moving both runners along is productive (1.2018 to 1.3219). This can plausibly be done via sacrifice, or possibly a deep fly ball to Johnny Damon or any other outfielder with a terrible arm.

And that's it. In all other situations, all else being equal, making an out - whether the announcers think it's productive, or not - doesn't help the team score more runs.

Of course, productive outs are better than non-productive outs. It's better for Nick Punto to move a runner over than strike out.  But these are Pyrrhic victories; in most situations, the team is worse off.

I thought, when I looked at the numbers, we'd end up with a strict rule.  Instead, we're stuck with more of the ambiguity that baseball will always be famous for: "For the most part, making an out decreases the number of runs a team can be expected to score, all else being equal."

I swear, I didn't want to be the guy that keeps harping on payroll discrepancies in baseball.  But then I discovered one of the depressing things about payrolls.  And then the great Joe Posnanski got in on the act, pointing out that baseball has a tendency to hide dominance - that even if you put together a team made up of the best players in baseball, that team still might lose 45-50 games during the season, and still might not win the World Series. That's just the way it's set up.

So I went ahead and did some number crunching (well, number adding, at least). Using the USA Today payroll database, I went through a decade's worth of payrolls. (Please, no arguments about whether the decade is over this year or next year. It's 2000-2009 for the purposes of this post.)

You won't be surprised to find out that the Yankees top the list; they had the largest payroll in every single season, and all told spent just over 1.67 billion on player contracts over the decade. Only three other teams (the Red Sox, the Mets, and the Dodgers) cleared the $1 billion mark.

I'm not sure that I'm doing justice to how big that gap is, though.  The Yankees spent only $9 million less than the Cubs and the White Sox combined. The Yankees spent more than the Nationals, Pirates, Marlins, and Rays - FOUR OTHER TEAMS - combined.

A little closer to home: take the Red Sox payroll, the second-highest payroll in the league.  Now add the Twins payroll. THAT is what the Yankees spent; they could afford to buy the Red Sox roster, and add in the Twins roster, every year.

And now, let me address the "money can't buy wins" argument, which is what Posnanski tackled so ably. No amount of money can buy an undefeated season, and the playoffs are such a crapshoot that the best team doesn't always win.

So I ask you to instead look at it this way.  Consider this:

• The top 13 teams in payroll over the last decade each won at least one division title. Only six of the other 17 teams won even one.
• 43 of a possible 60 division titles were won by these same 13 teams.
• 57 of a possible 80 playoff berths were won by these same 13 teams.
  
• The Mets and the Mariners were the only teams in the top 13 that didn't go to the playoffs at least three times in the decade, going twice each. Out of the bottom 17, only the Athletics, Twins, and Diamondbacks made the playoffs at least three times (and the D'Backs had payrolls north of $85 million two of those years).

What I'm trying to say is this. There are, in general, two ways to compete in baseball.  You can get lucky with young talent, like the Twins and Athletics. You can hope for one or two good years, like the Rays or the Marlins or the Brewers.

Or you can spend lots of money.

2008 incarnation
2007 incarnation

I always like doing this at the end of the year, because there are always a few surprises.  Plus, it's good to not do a lot of heavy reading on a Monday morning...

Continue reading this post »

1. Joe Mauer's contract extension/lack of same.  You need something to stress about over the winter, right?
2. Joe Nathan's elbow chips.  Keep telling yourself this is the only reason Game 2 turned out the way it did, and that it's all going to be better now.
3. O-Cab or C-Pav?  Both?  Neither?
4. The five blissful months where you won't hear John Gordon screw up even the most basic of calls.
5. The slowly dawning realization that Phil Cuzzi didn't even make the worst call of the playoffs.  Hi, Tim McClellan!  (PS: Cuzzi, you still suck.)
   
6. The TwinsCentric Offseason 2009 GM Handbook.  Learn it, know it, live it.
   
7. Justin Morneau's broken back.  Don't tell me you're not a little bit worried about this.
8. Forgetting the horrors of the ALDS and savoring the brilliance of Game 163.
9. Hoping for Chone Figgins, settling for J.J. Hardy, ending up with Brendexi CaPunto.
10. Insane optimism that you're talking yourself into.  Current favorite: "2010 is when Delmon Young figures it out!  He was really good those last two weeks!"
11. Dick Bremer's non-Twins broadcasting efforts.  He just looks so forlorn working a 4th-tier Big Ten men's basketball game.  Deep down, I suspect he knows that he needs that farting, Dutch madman beside him to talk about maintaining downward planes and circling farm wives from Paynesville.
12. Danny Valencia.  If not him, who?  If not now, when?
13. Wondering who gets to pay Joe Crede's MRI bills in 2010.
14. Guessing what form the precipitation will take on Opening Day in Target Field.
15. Weaning yourself off constantly checking LaVelle or Joe C.'s blog every afternoon for the starting lineups.

More photos » by Tom Olmscheid - AP

Browse more photos »

During last week's great "Joe Nathan: Trade Him?" debate, a friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) made the following point: "His fastball seems to have lost some hop (and not just in the final month of the season)."

Apart from all of the other arguments, this one I had to explore for myself - and thanks to the highly useful PitchFX tool at BrooksBaseball.Net and the PitchFX pages at FanGraphs.com, I had the tools I needed.

Let us deconstruct the above argument, and tackle some possibilities one by one.

Prop. #1: Joe Nathan's fastball has lost some hop.
Veracity: Probable.

First of all, let's be clear: the PitchFX data available only extends back to midway through the 2007 season.  We can't use this to prove whether Nathan has dropped velocity since 2004, when he started closing games for Minnesota.

However, it's probable that he's lost some zip since then; after all, he was 29 back then. He'll be 35 next month. Of course he's not throwing as hard as he once did. Not everybody's Nolan Ryan, and can keep throwing hard until they're 68 years old.

That said, if you wanted to use that argument, then you should have used it two years ago.

Prop #2: Joe Nathan has RECENTLY lost some zip on the fastball.
Veracity: Questionable.

Looking back over 2008 and 2009, the numbers seem to speak pretty clearly. Nathan's average fastball in 2008 was 93.6 mph.  In 2009, his average fastball was... 93.6 mph. (In the limited data from 2007, he was up around 95).  Take a look at the following charts. (Update: Just to be clear, these graphs are from the super-wonderful PitchFX pages at FanGraphs.com. I trust their data and so should you.)

The first is a graph of his averages, for all of the data we have for the past three years:

The second shows his velocity ranges for his fastball, in the same time period:

I'm just eyeballing these graphs, so I can't tell you that these prove anything with any statistical certainty.  But 2008 and 2009 look a lot alike, and I have a feeling that if you lined them all up in descending order, there'd be a lot of '08 appearances and '09 appearances intermingled.  If anything, his fastball has been the same for two years.

So let's examine one more possible argument, about September and October this year.

Prop. #3: Joe Nathan lost something off his fastball in September.
Veracity: Doubtful.

I reviewed his average and max fastball speeds for all of his appearances in the regular season in September and October (a stretch in which he saved 12 of 13 games, had a 3.38 ERA, and allowed opponents to hit .158, by the way.)

• In his 16 appearances, his average fastball was 93+ mph in 13 of them. Two of the other three came on 9/15 and 9/16, when he was pitching for the third and fourth day in a row.
• In ten of those appearances, he threw at least one fastball faster than 94.
• In two of those appearances, he touched 95 on the radar gun.

Ultimately, his fastball was more or less the same for the entire month - right in the 93-94 range consistently, day after day.

My conclusion

I think it's simple to sum up: sure, Nathan is older than he once was. He may not be able to throw as hard as he could at age 29. But over the past two years, he's maintained a remarkably consistent velocity on his fastball, and at 93-94 mph, he still throws plenty hard. I don't think a drop in velocity can be used as an argument for trading him.

More photos » by Jim Mone - AP

Browse more photos »

Let's run it down.

• Michael Cuddyer, of course:  .391/.404/.848 (no, that's not his OPS, that's his slugging percentage) with six homers and 18 RBI.  18, I hear you ask?  18.
• Delmon Young's been playing regularly, and has collected multi-hit days six times over these 11 games.  He's batting .349/.370/.558.  He's even walked twice!
• Denard Span has missed a couple games, but returned last night and picked up a pair of hits and an intentional base-on-balls.  His OBP in this span is .375, which is actually below his season line but still just find for a leadoff hitter.
• Nick Punto continues to hit well with an average of .294 and an OBP of .429.  With a season OBP of .332, he currently is on base at a higher rate than any other middle infielder on the team.  By a significant margin.
• Orlando Cabrera has started hitting again, picking up a pair of big home runs.  He's hitting .295/.347/.523.
• In spite of going hitless last night, Jose Morales continues to look good at the plate and has appeared in seven games, with a .300/.400/.400 triple slash.
• Am I forgetting anyone?  Any hitters?  Any hitters who are about to win their third batting title in four year?  Oh yeah, Joe Mauer and his .457/.596/.686 line!  Joe's picked up 16 hits, including a pair of doubles and a pair of homers, as well as 12 (TWELVE) walks.  Add to that four intentional base-on-balls.  And one strikeout.
• Nick Blackburn has contributed 13.1 innings of two-run ball.
• Carl Pavano hasn't been great, but has been good enough over three starts:  19 IP, 4.26 ERA.  Not great, but the Twins have still won all three contests.
• The Twins have also won all three of Brian Duensing's starts.  Two shutout starts where the opposition couldn't score over 13.1 innings, and then a third that wasn't nearly as impressive.
• Jesse Crain has strung together six consecutive scoreless appearances (although it's now been over a month since Crain has been charged with a run).
• Just one run against Jose Mijares in seven appearances.
• Five innings and six appearances under Matt Guerrier's belt have garnered opponents just one run.
• How about the big man, Jon Rauch?  Five scoreless appearances.
• Joe Nathan has retired nine on strikes over 6.2 innings, giving up one run.

Lots of contributors over the last string of days, and it's been mucho exciting.  Tonight we get to see the boys do it all over again.

We've heard for awhile about the seven games that the Twins have upcoming with Detroit.  This has been offered as proof that Minnesota's still in the pennant race, even though the home team is a game under .500 and shows no signs of finishing anywhere outside a game or two from 81-81.

That said, the Twins have 19 games left, the Tigers have 20.  Seven of those games for each team are against each other.  The remainder break down thusly:

MIN: Cleveland-3, @Chicago-3, Kansas City-3, @Kansas City-3
DET: Toronto-1, Kansas City-3, @Cleveland-3, @Chicago-3, Chicago-3

Not a lot of difference there, to be sure - it's intradivisional matchups all the way home for both teams, apart from Detroit's matchup with Toronto tonight. Here's a quick chart of the two teams' records this season against AL Central opponents:

The teams have identical 30-23 records within the division; the Twins are 7-4 against the Tigers.

And, just a small reminder of how difficult it would be for Minnesota to actually top Detroit in this race: let's say the Twins won both series with the Michiganders, taking five out of seven games.  Let's say the Tigers went just 7-6 in their other remaining games.  In order to take the pennant, Minnesota would need to win ten of twelve.

The Twins haven't had a single 10-2 stretch this year. In late August, they won ten of thirteen; apart from this, they haven't had another 9-3 stretch, over twelve games.

Not too confidence-inducing, any of this.

I've been meaning to write this article for some time now, but the data has eluded me thus far. As I showed during the offseason, in 2008, the Twins were a full 27 runs better than any other team in the majors (42 runs above average) doing the "little things", including baserunning and directional hitting (moving the runner over and other "productive outs"). Last year, these "little things" were a key to our offense outperforming the rest of the league relative to other measures like wOBA or OPS. 

So how are the Twins doing in 2009? I've run the data as of July 28th, and the team by team spreadsheet is posted here. As many of you have probably noticed this year, we've taken a decent sized step backward, slipping to 14th in the majors at +3.00 runs due to these "little things". Considering that on 7/28 we were about 2/3 of the way through the season, I estimate that solely due to these aspects of baseball that do not appear in the box score, the Twins are about 25 runs worse than in 2008. Prorated over a full season, that's over 3 marginal wins, enough to put the Twins right at Detroit's heels.

As you can see, Mike Scioscia has the Angels at the top again in 2009. How do we explain the Twins' drop? After the jump, I'll look a little deeper into the Twins numbers, comparing to last season.

Continue reading this post »