mailbag
good stuff today. first, some well-considered criticism from jay jaffe of futility infielder:

Julien,

A friend of mine to whom I recommended your site called my attention to your brief post on Brandon Claussen today. I just wanted to call a few things to your attention.

In 2001 Claussen led the minors in strikeouts, whiffing 220 in 187 innings of work split between AA Norwich (131) and A Tampa (56). In 2000, he K'ed 142 in 150 innings in two A-ball stops. See http://tsf.waymoresports.thestar.com/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2875 for his full record.

Claussen had Tommy John surgery late last June. Prior to the surgery he'd whiffed 73 in 93 innings at AAA Columbus. He returned to game pitching on an accelerated pace, seeing action less than a year removed from surgery and making his auspicious major league debut 1 year and 1 week removed from TJ. That's pretty unique.

His K rate at Columbus this season may seem a bit underwhelming, but based on what we know about TJ recovery rates (95%, according to a recent ESPN Outside the Lines special which I saw this week, featuring everybody who's anybody associated with the surgery -- John, Jobe, Andrews, and several recipients -- but with full command and control taking over a year to return), and what we know about Claussen's history, he's still a top prospect. That seems to be the general consensus within baseball.

For you to disagree with that is one thing. For you to disagree with that while calling out "some idiot over at Sporting News," without providing a link to the article, and apparently without doing your homework is another. It makes you come off merely as some lazy idiot with a weblog. 68 innings is a small sample size, though for whatever it's worth, at three levels including the bigs, Claussen's struck out 70 in 97 innings in 2003. That makes for a 24-year-old with 505 Ks in 527 innings over the past four season, 8.6 per 9 IP. There's not a team in baseball who wouldn't take their chances with a prospect like that.

I don't consider myself to be any great arbiter of baseball blog conduct; I'm merely speaking to you from experience and out of concern. Choose your words and your idiots wisely.

Best,
j

jay, thanks for the letter. you nailed it. i was shooting from the hip and it turns out that i'm the idiot!

also, thanks for the link! i've been looking for minor league career data; who knew it was at the toronto star!

Year  Team          Lea    ERA  W  L   G  GS    IP     H   R  ER  HR  BB  SO

2003  New York       AL   1.42  1  0   1   1    6.1    8   2   1  1   1    5

2003  Columbus      AAA   2.75  2  1  11  11   68.2   53  28  21  4  18   39

2003  Tampa           A+  1.64  2  0   4   4   22.0   16   5   4  0   3   26

2002  Columbus      AAA   3.28  2  8  15  15   93.1   85  47  34  4  46   73

2001  Norwich        AA   2.13  9  2  21  21  131.0  101  42  31  6  55  151

2001  Tampa           A+  2.73  5  2   8   8   56.0   47  21  17  2  13   69

2000  Greensboro      A   4.05  8  5  17  17   97.2   91  49  44  9  44   98

2000  Tampa           A+  3.10  2  5   9   9   52.1   49  24  18  1  17   44

1999  Staten Island   A-  3.38  6  4  12  12   72.0   70  30  27  4  12   89

1999  Greensboro      A  10.50  0  1   1   1    6.0    8   7   7  1   2    5

1999  GCL Yankees     R   3.18  0  1   2   2   11.1    7   4   4  2   2   16

ok that 2002 looks a lot like he was hurt. and his 2001 is impressive. but it was at low levels. he hasn't dominated AAA.

i still say he ain't all that. no way he's a #2.

here's the original article.

i read it wrong. he's either a #1 or a 2--4. i'm calling the guy an idiot not as a personal attack, but to lump him in with others who do the sort of analysis he did. he uses era and won/loss record, which are basically meaningless with these sample sizes, and he says wrong things.

to wit:

"It would be a shock if (Claussen) were to spend much more time in the minors this season. The Reds need pitching badly and Claussen is just about ready to take a spot in a major league rotation."

the reds do need pitching, but the kid is not ready. he has yet to dominate the upper minors. if i were in charge, he'd be in AA.

also, the article mentions his one major league start like it's important.

then there's this gem:

". . . a low-90s fastball, a good slider and very good control."

how many times have we heard that about someone? it doesn't mean anything.

lets check his skills, for all reasonable sample sizes:

Year  Lea   wal   con

2003  AAA  .065  .849

2002  AAA  .112  .800

2001   AA  .100  .694

2001    A+ .057  .679

2000    A+ .103  .745

2000    A+ .076  .786

1999    A- .040  .689

i agree, he's worth keeping. he's 24, and he could develop. but he's just an arm. the minor leagues are crawling with them.

now that we have stats, let's check aaron harang:

                        ab  bb    k   wal   con

2003  Oakland      AL  132   9   16  .064  .879

2003  Sacramento  AAA  271  17   60  .059  .779

2002  Oakland      AL  313  45   64  .126  .796

2002  Sacramento  AAA  157   9   39  .054  .752

2001  Midland      AA  623  37  112  .056  .820

2000  Charlotte     A  599  50  136  .077  .773

1999  Pulaski       R  299  17   87  .054  .709

there's nothing like claussen's 2001 here, but harang has pitched over 100 innings in the majors, with similar results to claussen's AAA. yes, claussen's had surgery, but if he's supposed to be ready, these are the numbers we have to look at. also harang has the better AAA numbers, in a hitter's league. it's hard to say who is more valuable to the team. harang is 25, so he's ahead in development. not having your elbow snap in two will do that for you.

tell you what, tommorrow i'll run the whole reds farm system.

here's the other letter i got. i was gonna take out the profanity, but fuck it. it's from my friend stephen:

A lot of people wonder why there was an offensive explosion in the early to mid 90s. Using your methodology, the answer becomes quite clear. Check out the following statisical lines:


MLB TOTALS

Year   wal   con   pow   rpg

2002  .092  .805  .326  4.45

2001  .089  .797  .332  4.70

2000  .099  .805  .332  5.00

1999  .097  .807  .330  5.00

1998  .089  .803  .326  4.60

1997  .091  .802  .325  4.60

1996  .088  .804  .325  4.68

1995  .088  .807  .324  4.63

1994  .086  .816  .325  4.62

1993  .084  .828  .319  4.49

1992  .083  .827  .313  3.88

1991  .087  .825  .315  4.10

1990  .086  .831  .316  4.20

1989  .087  .827  .314  3.94

1988  .081  .832  .312  3.88

1987  .090  .824  .322  4.52

1986  .091  .823  .317  4.18

1985  .088  .838  .314  4.07

1984  .085  .834  .312  4.06

1983  .089  .836  .314  4.10

1982  .083  .845  .312  4.09

1981  .086  .855  .309  3.91

1980  .083  .851  .311  4.03

1979  .086  .850  .315  4.22

1978  .088  .848  .313  3.99

1977  .089  .843  .319  4.40

1976  .087  .854  .308  3.98

1975  .092  .852  .310  4.13

1974  .093  .849  .310  4.15

1973  .089  .841  .314  4.15



total .089  .827  .319  4.32


Notice the sharp drop off in con in the early 90s and the sharp increase in pow. Everybody just started to swing a lot harder! The results are exactly as you would expect: the missed the ball more often (higher K rate), but they got more mileage when they hit it. This puts the lie to all those theories about how expansion teams with shittier pitching created the offensive explosion. There was just a radical reinterpretation of what hitting was all about. Also look at the lower walk rate through the mid 90s. It wasn't until very recently that teams started to focus so much on plate discipline: the aggregate walk rate was higher in 1974 adn 1975 then 1994 and 1995.

Now look at these annual correlations:

wal / rpg con / rpg pow /rpg
0.62 (0.77) 0.94


correlation coefficient (simple r, one factor regression)

Contact is negatively correlated with runs per game over this time period! So as pitcher K rates went up, so did runs per game! This reflects the gradual phasing out of "small ball" and the introduction of "moneyball": try to hit the ball as hard as you can every time you are at bat, and don't worry so much about striking out.

Also I thought this was pretty interesting:

Year average batter age

2002 29.4
2001 29.2
2000 29.1
1999 28.9
1998 28.5
1997 28.7
1996 28.7
1995 28.2
1994 28.3
1993 28
1992 28.2
1991 28.4
1990 28.3
1989 28.4
1988 28.1
1987 28.2
1986 28.5
1985 28.7
1984 28.5
1983 28.5
1982 28.5
1981 28.4
1980 28.5
1979 28.3
1978 27.8
1977 27.4
1976 27.6
1975 27.2
1974 27.1
1973 27.3


The aggreagate 2002 lineup was the oldest ever! After spiking sharply in the mid late 70's average batter age remained constant until very recently when it started spiking sharply again, and it would appear to be correlated to the spikes in runs per game. This against the backdrop of many Sabrmetric complaints about overhyped veterans and the importance of prospects. I would suspect this reflects two things: the new valuation placed on "old-player" skills (walks, power), and advances in sports medicine that increase the average player's career length. High-profile craterings like Mo Vaughn tend to stick in people's minds, but what about Edgar Martinez, Barry Bonds, Jim Thome, and Garry Sheffield? Perhaps the veterans are not as overvalued as people think. Remember that Fred McGriff was available in our fantasy league last year for most of the season, and ended up being of far greater than average value, while overhyped prospects on a lot of teams flamed out. Also my impression is that a lot of players are now going through mid-career spikes in value more often than they used to, like a 32-year old Javy Lopez boosting his OPS 350 points (p.s. what the fuck?). Teams like the Yankees and Braves have been wisely spending dollars on older players for years, and going to the playoffs every time. Everybody wants to suck Billy Beane's dick, but what about Schuerholz and Cashman? What, if instead of being poor and smart, and buying good, cheap young players, you're rich and smart, and buying old, expensive, awesome players? Isn't that better?

Anyways, food for thought.

thanks, stephen. it's cool to see those wal con pow's next to the run averages. what formulae did you use? they look slightly different from numbers i ran. either way, it doesn't really matter. the point is to see how they vary.

the players did start swinging harder, as most sabermetricians agree. but it wasn't because they figured out hitting. it was because they had magic potions which gave them bigger muscles. pitching and hitting kind of ebbs and flows. they feed back into eachother. if you look at the 1950's, you'll notice a similar period of high wal and pow, with low con. then, in the 60's, con became more important.

it's about to happen again. power pitchers are becoming more important, because to have any success against these mashers you gotta strike em out. then when power pitchers dominate the scene, contact hitters become more valuable. it is the tao of baseball.

that's why the correlations work the way they do. in a hitter's era, pow is more valuable. in a pitcher's era, it's con. so the marlins are actually forward-thinking. unfortunately, they are also dumb.

but that's another story. the other thing you point out is the age thing. i attribute that more to the "old-player skills" argument than the medical one. but the reason these players are highly valued is not because they're better than contact speedsters; it's because they're better right now.

so yes, it helps to be rich so you can afford star mashers. but it's still all about dollars. every team has a budget, and the farm system is the best bang for your buck. these things were known by another great a's gm (also owner), charlie finley.

finally, with regard to billy beane's dick, i'd suck it.

peace.
- posted by julien @ 2:18 AM