Saturday, December 31, 2005
This Year in Retrospect
這一年 Yankees 發生了許多事情，包括想像的到和想不到的。
從事後來看，Carl Pavano、Jaret Wright 和 Tony Womack 這三個 FA signings 的 VORP 分別是 -1.3、-9.8 和 -8.9，大約是兩場勝差。換句話說，如果 Yankees 使用三個 replacement level 的選手，他們可以多贏兩場，省掉大約 $20M，而且在有主場優勢的情況下打 ALDS。
我在當時簽約時知道這些是爛約，對於 Pavano 還有藉口可找，但是其他兩個沒有。不過我當時也沒想到這幾個人的水準會低於 replacement level 這麼多。除了他們三個以外，Brown 也低於 replacement level 甚多 (VORP -9.5)。這還沒完，他們造成的問題還不止於此。由於有這幾個投手在陣中，所以 Yankees 的 front office 誤以為手上有足夠的先發投手。等到這幾個人不只是表現不好，甚至還上了 DL 之後，接上來的是 Sean Henn (VORP -8.7)，Darrel May (VORP -8.5) 和 Tim Redding (VORP -5.4)，大概又是兩場勝場。
當 Steven Goldman 在批評那是 Yankees 數十年來最爛的 off-season 時，我還有些懷疑。雖然我可以看出這些不是好合約，但是沒有把它評估的那麼低。Goldman 在這裡的判斷非常精準。
另外一件事情不是新鮮事，是再度的體認到要連續兩年拿下冠軍有多困難。當 Yankees 從 98 到 00 連續三年拿下冠軍時，很多人沒有體會到那要靠多少運氣才行。拿到 WS 的另外一面是要至少多打 11 場球賽。Yankees 在 98 年打了 13 場季後賽，99 年打了 12 場。這些都不是容易的事情，對於征戰一整年的球員來講，是十幾場比球季中正常比賽消耗更大的球賽。不只是氣氛而已，寒冷的氣候和較少使用板凳球員使得季後賽比平常球賽要求更為嚴苛。我在去年春天覺得 Will Carroll 對 Curt Schilling 的復原情形太過樂觀，不過由於他有一手資料和豐富知識，所以沒有對這個主題談什麼。事實證明要復原不是易事。
到了球季快要結束時，Red Sox 面對另外一個選擇也值得一提。他們可以選擇暫時 shut down Schilling 然後看看他十月能不能回來，或是讓他每五天出場一次但是贏球的機率不會太好。事後來看比較好的選擇大概是讓 Schilling 專心養傷，但是以那時 Yankees 迅速從後趕上的架式，很少有人能夠做出讓 Schilling 休息的決定。如果那時候的勝差是 10 場以上，也許 Schilling 還可以休息；現在的問題則是觀察他明年能不能恢復了。傷也許可以，不過年齡不行，所以無法決定的東西還很多。
這些都是把大名字放上球場並沒有辦法贏球的血淋淋例子。我並不是鼓勵該用些無名的年輕球員，只是說在做決策時要更小心一點而已。
在球季的最後一個月以及季後賽裡面，我們學到一件事情。不管你有多少缺點，只要比別的競爭對手好，你就會是最後的贏家。這件事情用這種方式寫出來大家都曉得，可是在九月和十月的時候，幾乎每一隻球隊的球迷都在抱怨自己的球隊有多少缺點，我也不例外。也許有時候我們該想想半杯水哲學，但是記得永遠看到半杯滿或半杯空可能都不是好選擇。
轉眼間寫這個 blog 已經超過兩年了，當時無論如何想不到我可以寫這麼久。接下來還會寫多久沒有人知道，先祝大家新年快樂吧。我們明年見。
Comments:
Goose is a HOF'er, Donnie Baseball is not.
No, Jim Rice shouldn't be in the Hall, though he might get in this year. According to Bill James, the senior advisor of baseball operation of the Red Sox no less:
"[Jim Rice is] Probably the most overrated player of the last thirty years. He was a pretty good defensive left fielder, and didn't get credit for that because he wasn't Yastrzemski. But he was a poor runner, and as a hitter, he was helped by playing in Fenway. He led the league in grounding into double plays four straight seasons, and has one of the highest GIDP rates in history."
Rice's splits:
Fenway: .320/.374/.546, 208 homers, 207 2B, 44 3B, 4075 AB
Away: .277/.330/.459, 174 homers, 166 2B, 35 3B, 4150 AB
HOF can do just fine without him. I guess he'll get in with the thin pool this year, but I don't think he's good enough to be enshrined. I really hate his OBP, especially when he's not hitting in the Fenway Park.
There's one reason among others he got such a hype from the Red Sox fans and rightfully so. He hit extremely well against the Yankees, both in the Bronx and in Queens. Here're the splits:
at Shea Stadium: .476/.478/.667, 0 HR, 4 2B, 0 3B, 21 AB.
at Yankee Stadium: .336/.386/.661, 22 HR, 17 2B, 4 3B, 280 AB.
PS. He played against the Yankees in the Shea Stadium in 74 and 75, his first two seasons of his major league career.
No, Jim Rice shouldn't be in the Hall, though he might get in this year. According to Bill James, the senior advisor of baseball operation of the Red Sox no less:
"[Jim Rice is] Probably the most overrated player of the last thirty years. He was a pretty good defensive left fielder, and didn't get credit for that because he wasn't Yastrzemski. But he was a poor runner, and as a hitter, he was helped by playing in Fenway. He led the league in grounding into double plays four straight seasons, and has one of the highest GIDP rates in history."
Rice's splits:
Fenway: .320/.374/.546, 208 homers, 207 2B, 44 3B, 4075 AB
Away: .277/.330/.459, 174 homers, 166 2B, 35 3B, 4150 AB
HOF can do just fine without him. I guess he'll get in with the thin pool this year, but I don't think he's good enough to be enshrined. I really hate his OBP, especially when he's not hitting in the Fenway Park.
There's one reason among others he got such a hype from the Red Sox fans and rightfully so. He hit extremely well against the Yankees, both in the Bronx and in Queens. Here're the splits:
at Shea Stadium: .476/.478/.667, 0 HR, 4 2B, 0 3B, 21 AB.
at Yankee Stadium: .336/.386/.661, 22 HR, 17 2B, 4 3B, 280 AB.
PS. He played against the Yankees in the Shea Stadium in 74 and 75, his first two seasons of his major league career.
新年快樂。
對於“事後來看比較好的選擇大概是讓 Schilling 專心養傷”，我實在不知道，事後怎麼看出來，專心養傷，會有比較好的結果。紅襪在 Schilling 還沒上場時，就遭到淘汰，若有第四場，他會表現如何，是個未知數。再跟專心養傷，看十月能不能回來，這個不知結果為何的情況相比。現在怎麼事後來看，後者較佳？
Schilling 在前幾場復出先發時，的確投得一團糟。紅襪讓他這樣投，並不是因為要以此擋住 Yankees 迅速從後趕上的架式。相反地，紅襪多半是當時對領先有些信心，才願意讓他每五天上來投，恢復球感。而他最後五場的成績，3W1L ERA 3.70 WHIP 1.41，雖然不是漂亮的數字，但的確進步不少。尤其那三場勝投，內容都蠻理想的。經過八場先發調整，然後準備在季後賽出場，從事後真的看出來，專心養傷是比較好的選擇？
另外，Schilling 在七八月間，擔任 closer，十一次的救援機會，成功了九次，ERA 5.57 WHIP 1.27，一樣不是漂亮的成績，但卻為當時紅襪殘破的牛棚提供了相當大的幫助。在 Schilling 第一次在有救援機會上場是 7/19，在這天之前，紅襪尚以 50-42 落後給洋基的 50-41。他最後一次在牛棚出現，8/21，紅襪反以 71-51 領先洋基的 67-55。若這段時間 Schilling 是在養傷，紅襪是否能領先，可能都還是個未知數。
在球隊需要牛棚戰力時，讓 strength 尚未恢復的 Schilling 先在牛棚幫忙。等到 Schilling 的 strength 較恢復，球隊也取得了四場領先後，將他放回先發，讓他自己調整，瞄準季後賽。老實說，我覺得這幾步棋下得不錯。雖然最後輸了棋，卻不是輸在這幾著。
對於“事後來看比較好的選擇大概是讓 Schilling 專心養傷”，我實在不知道，事後怎麼看出來，專心養傷，會有比較好的結果。紅襪在 Schilling 還沒上場時，就遭到淘汰，若有第四場，他會表現如何，是個未知數。再跟專心養傷，看十月能不能回來，這個不知結果為何的情況相比。現在怎麼事後來看，後者較佳？
Schilling 在前幾場復出先發時，的確投得一團糟。紅襪讓他這樣投，並不是因為要以此擋住 Yankees 迅速從後趕上的架式。相反地，紅襪多半是當時對領先有些信心，才願意讓他每五天上來投，恢復球感。而他最後五場的成績，3W1L ERA 3.70 WHIP 1.41，雖然不是漂亮的數字，但的確進步不少。尤其那三場勝投，內容都蠻理想的。經過八場先發調整，然後準備在季後賽出場，從事後真的看出來，專心養傷是比較好的選擇？
另外，Schilling 在七八月間，擔任 closer，十一次的救援機會，成功了九次，ERA 5.57 WHIP 1.27，一樣不是漂亮的成績，但卻為當時紅襪殘破的牛棚提供了相當大的幫助。在 Schilling 第一次在有救援機會上場是 7/19，在這天之前，紅襪尚以 50-42 落後給洋基的 50-41。他最後一次在牛棚出現，8/21，紅襪反以 71-51 領先洋基的 67-55。若這段時間 Schilling 是在養傷，紅襪是否能領先，可能都還是個未知數。
在球隊需要牛棚戰力時，讓 strength 尚未恢復的 Schilling 先在牛棚幫忙。等到 Schilling 的 strength 較恢復，球隊也取得了四場領先後，將他放回先發，讓他自己調整，瞄準季後賽。老實說，我覺得這幾步棋下得不錯。雖然最後輸了棋，卻不是輸在這幾著。
To Bubble,
A lot of people didn't think Schilling recovered from that injury, and we still speculate that he might not fully recover even now.
You can argue that it may not be enough for him to return to form if he sat the last two months, no one can win that argument from either side.
BTW, if you just enlarge your sample size for one more game, his ERA, WHIP would look worse.
Did he show improvement? Yes. Was he the Schilling of old? Hell no.
Could that inconsistent Schilling contribute? Maybe, maybe not, but a winning team shouldn't bank on that.
BTW, Schilling earned 1.3 VORP, it's even lower than Buddy Groom. It's better off for the Sox to sit him from the get-go.
A lot of people didn't think Schilling recovered from that injury, and we still speculate that he might not fully recover even now.
You can argue that it may not be enough for him to return to form if he sat the last two months, no one can win that argument from either side.
BTW, if you just enlarge your sample size for one more game, his ERA, WHIP would look worse.
Did he show improvement? Yes. Was he the Schilling of old? Hell no.
Could that inconsistent Schilling contribute? Maybe, maybe not, but a winning team shouldn't bank on that.
BTW, Schilling earned 1.3 VORP, it's even lower than Buddy Groom. It's better off for the Sox to sit him from the get-go.
Schilling 的傷是否好了？若沒好，多休息，而非在場上調整，是否能在十月回來？這都是未知。因此，我才會質疑，為什麼“事後來看比較好的選擇大概是讓 Schilling 專心養傷”？
把 Schilling 任何前三場復出的加進來，數據當然更差，加趁多就趁差，這完全沒有疑問。重點是他八場的先發，後五場比前三場好很多，明顯的進步。
Schilling 在四月份那三場先發加上八月回先發的前三場，1W3L 35IP 31ER 56H 9BB ERA 7.97 WHIP 1.86。加上這麼糟糕的六場，超過 1/3 的該季投球局數，最後還有正的 VORP，可見他當 closer 及球季末的五場先發，做了不少正面的貢獻。
"Could that inconsistent Schilling contribute? Maybe, maybe not, but a winning team shouldn't bank on that."
What could they bank on? Could they win it all without him? I have little doubt that the sox would had a better record if they had sit him for the final two months. But a team like the red sox last year had to take a gamble on him, if their goal was the WS champion, not a better record in the regular season.
把 Schilling 任何前三場復出的加進來，數據當然更差，加趁多就趁差，這完全沒有疑問。重點是他八場的先發，後五場比前三場好很多，明顯的進步。
Schilling 在四月份那三場先發加上八月回先發的前三場，1W3L 35IP 31ER 56H 9BB ERA 7.97 WHIP 1.86。加上這麼糟糕的六場，超過 1/3 的該季投球局數，最後還有正的 VORP，可見他當 closer 及球季末的五場先發，做了不少正面的貢獻。
"Could that inconsistent Schilling contribute? Maybe, maybe not, but a winning team shouldn't bank on that."
What could they bank on? Could they win it all without him? I have little doubt that the sox would had a better record if they had sit him for the final two months. But a team like the red sox last year had to take a gamble on him, if their goal was the WS champion, not a better record in the regular season.
Schilling 應該多花時間療傷、復健而非硬撐著上場不是事後的說法，早在他球季中再度從 DL 中出來時就有人談過了。如果沒記錯大概是 Will Carroll，不過由於我找了 BP 的 archive 沒找到這段話，不排除是 BP 其他人說的。
Schilling 最後一個月表現是看起來比較好，不過他並沒有恢復。下面是 Will Carroll 在 10/4 的 Playoff Health Report:
The Red Sox enter October 2005 as almost the opposite of their team that "reversed the curse." The Bambino might be gone, but the tab is still due on the cost of those championship rings. The clearest remnant of last year’s win is the ankle of Curt Schilling. The scar is still pink and the ankle is never going to be the same. That leaves Schilling as a shell of what he once was, yet still occasionally a very effective pitcher. Schilling’s late career recalls Orel Hershiser post-shoulder surgery; a competitive pitcher without his best stuff, fighting to do what he can. One report had Schilling throwing a curve on Sunday, not one of his normal pitches. A source close to Schilling said “he threw a curve and actually gripped up a knuckler at one point. I think Varitek would have killed him if he threw it.”
9/6 Will Carroll 對 Schilling 的談法是：
Want a tough decision to make? How do you take your top two pitchers from last year and tell them they might not even be used in the playoffs? The Red Sox face that. Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke both pitched Monday and both showed major reductions in velocity compared to their norm.
之前 8/29 Carroll 說：
Let me give you a quick preview of Mind Game--pitching wins championships. Okay, there’s a lot more than that in the book, but the biggest difference between last year’s Sox team and this year’s is the pitching. Curt Schilling left an untold amount of himself on the operating table and mound last season and he’s still unable to push off, leaving him throwing "all arm" which wears him out quickly and leaves him reliant on his junk, which is not his strong suit.
這些是在他帳面上成績看起來好轉之前一直到 playoff 的觀察。最後一個多月六場比賽樣本點太小，對於從數據做出來的觀察我並不抱太高信心，通常必須參酌其他意見綜合起來看才會有意義。
結論？Schilling 並沒有恢復。更有甚者，Red Sox 這樣的使用模式並沒有幫助 Schilling，甚至使得他今年仍然是個問號。在 Winter Meeting 時 Carroll 對 Red Sox 的 rotation 意見是：
The Red Sox "Gang of Four" has done amazing work bringing in an ace. Their rotation stacks up now as Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, Jon Papelbon and … well, what comes after that? Matt Clement has been mentioned in a couple of possible deals, to Texas and Milwaukee--both unlikely--but with David Wells headed west and Curt Schilling as much of a question mark in 2006 as he was in 2005, there are still big rotation questions for the Sox to answer.
去年春天時我覺得 Carroll 對 Schilling 可能稍微樂觀了些，不知道他是否會下意識的往反方向預測以『補償』先前的錯誤。經驗告訴我們不要相信 Schilling 的話，他的鬥志太強，可能超過他的身體所能負擔，所以他對自己的情形談起來往往太過樂觀 (I'd use wishful thinking)。
對於之前文章為何會那樣寫應該這是個相當完整的交代了。讀者當然沒有必要照單全收，不過我也沒有打算修改原來的說法。
Schilling 最後一個月表現是看起來比較好，不過他並沒有恢復。下面是 Will Carroll 在 10/4 的 Playoff Health Report:
The Red Sox enter October 2005 as almost the opposite of their team that "reversed the curse." The Bambino might be gone, but the tab is still due on the cost of those championship rings. The clearest remnant of last year’s win is the ankle of Curt Schilling. The scar is still pink and the ankle is never going to be the same. That leaves Schilling as a shell of what he once was, yet still occasionally a very effective pitcher. Schilling’s late career recalls Orel Hershiser post-shoulder surgery; a competitive pitcher without his best stuff, fighting to do what he can. One report had Schilling throwing a curve on Sunday, not one of his normal pitches. A source close to Schilling said “he threw a curve and actually gripped up a knuckler at one point. I think Varitek would have killed him if he threw it.”
9/6 Will Carroll 對 Schilling 的談法是：
Want a tough decision to make? How do you take your top two pitchers from last year and tell them they might not even be used in the playoffs? The Red Sox face that. Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke both pitched Monday and both showed major reductions in velocity compared to their norm.
之前 8/29 Carroll 說：
Let me give you a quick preview of Mind Game--pitching wins championships. Okay, there’s a lot more than that in the book, but the biggest difference between last year’s Sox team and this year’s is the pitching. Curt Schilling left an untold amount of himself on the operating table and mound last season and he’s still unable to push off, leaving him throwing "all arm" which wears him out quickly and leaves him reliant on his junk, which is not his strong suit.
這些是在他帳面上成績看起來好轉之前一直到 playoff 的觀察。最後一個多月六場比賽樣本點太小，對於從數據做出來的觀察我並不抱太高信心，通常必須參酌其他意見綜合起來看才會有意義。
結論？Schilling 並沒有恢復。更有甚者，Red Sox 這樣的使用模式並沒有幫助 Schilling，甚至使得他今年仍然是個問號。在 Winter Meeting 時 Carroll 對 Red Sox 的 rotation 意見是：
The Red Sox "Gang of Four" has done amazing work bringing in an ace. Their rotation stacks up now as Josh Beckett, Jon Lester, Jon Papelbon and … well, what comes after that? Matt Clement has been mentioned in a couple of possible deals, to Texas and Milwaukee--both unlikely--but with David Wells headed west and Curt Schilling as much of a question mark in 2006 as he was in 2005, there are still big rotation questions for the Sox to answer.
去年春天時我覺得 Carroll 對 Schilling 可能稍微樂觀了些，不知道他是否會下意識的往反方向預測以『補償』先前的錯誤。經驗告訴我們不要相信 Schilling 的話，他的鬥志太強，可能超過他的身體所能負擔，所以他對自己的情形談起來往往太過樂觀 (I'd use wishful thinking)。
對於之前文章為何會那樣寫應該這是個相當完整的交代了。讀者當然沒有必要照單全收，不過我也沒有打算修改原來的說法。
我不能同意 如果洋基球員因為打WBC受傷而不能在季賽上場導致戰力減損 有人會同情洋基白付的大把鈔票嗎 洋基的明星球員太多了 所以雖然有人不能去但還是有Jeter Damon AROD等超級明星可以去 總不能要求他們放整隊明星出去吧 風險太大了...
To Debugger,
我不太清楚 replacement level 在有負值版本的 WS 裡面的地位，我如果只講 win shares 腦袋裡通常想的是 Bill James 的原始版本。在 Bill James 的 Win Shares 書中那篇 "Win Shares and Replacement Level" (p.107-109) 文章中，他明確的說出：
"There is no "replacement level" contemplated within this system. Our theory here is that value consists in winning games."
在原始版本中 James 設定了 zero-level 來計算 WS，不過那並不是 replacement level。如果真的要把 WS 拿來計算 replacement level 的話，WS=0 並不是他思考中的 replacement level。同一篇文章接近結尾處他也提到如果同時計算出來 WS 和 Loss Share，replacement level 會比較容易理解。
至於 BARISP 這一部份，我想還是要回到 WS 的原始精神來談。WS 是球員對他的球隊所做出的貢獻，這不是 marginal wins，也不完全代表球員的『能力』。當然能力越強的球員貢獻應該會越大，WS 也就越大，可是在細微處還是有區別。
我不太清楚 replacement level 在有負值版本的 WS 裡面的地位，我如果只講 win shares 腦袋裡通常想的是 Bill James 的原始版本。在 Bill James 的 Win Shares 書中那篇 "Win Shares and Replacement Level" (p.107-109) 文章中，他明確的說出：
"There is no "replacement level" contemplated within this system. Our theory here is that value consists in winning games."
在原始版本中 James 設定了 zero-level 來計算 WS，不過那並不是 replacement level。如果真的要把 WS 拿來計算 replacement level 的話，WS=0 並不是他思考中的 replacement level。同一篇文章接近結尾處他也提到如果同時計算出來 WS 和 Loss Share，replacement level 會比較容易理解。
至於 BARISP 這一部份，我想還是要回到 WS 的原始精神來談。WS 是球員對他的球隊所做出的貢獻，這不是 marginal wins，也不完全代表球員的『能力』。當然能力越強的球員貢獻應該會越大，WS 也就越大，可是在細微處還是有區別。
James 在計算 WS 時所設定的 zero level 意義上跟 replacement level 類似，但兩者所代表的能力水準應該是相差很多的。在 Woolner 有關 VORP 的文章裡面提到，一支全部由 replacement level player 所組成的球隊大概可以在一個球季中贏個 40 場，那麼這些球員的 WS 雖然不大，但不會是零。
另一方面，從 marginal Runs Created 的計算來看，James 取的標準是「聯盟平均 * 0.52」。然而，BP 在計算 EqR 的replacement level 時用的是「聯盟平均 * 0.736」，這個數字顯然比 0.52 大上許多。
Post a Comment
另一方面，從 marginal Runs Created 的計算來看，James 取的標準是「聯盟平均 * 0.52」。然而，BP 在計算 EqR 的replacement level 時用的是「聯盟平均 * 0.736」，這個數字顯然比 0.52 大上許多。
