The Stat Guy

Goodbye, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu

2007-03-08T10:03:00.000-08:00

Occasionally, I still get a message wondering if/when I'm going to post on this blog. Well, I'm not. I'll leave it up as an archive but for anything new, you can find me at www.doolittlebrothers.com. Check it out.

Moore Q&A

2006-07-23T11:42:00.000-07:00

The complete transcript of my interview with Dayton Moore can be found here:

Moore transcript

More on wins added

2006-07-12T20:34:00.000-07:00

As promised, I'm going to offer a little more detail on the Wins Added system I used this week to evaluate the first half of the baseball season.

Let me throw out some explanation.

First off, I'd consider this to be a beta version of a system I'd like to use for myself in my efforts at covering baseball. As I pointed out in my column, as much as I admire the terrific work done at sabermetric sites like baseballprospectus.com and hardballtimes.com, I often find myself in a quandary about using their metrics for writing analysis on baseball for the paper.

My primary problem, frankly, is one of space. When I'm addressing an issue, I can't use advanced concepts like VORP or WARP because they require too much explanation. Stat Guy addresses a mainstream audience. In fact, my original reason for writing it was to serve as a conduit between the hardcore statheads and the mainstream baseball fan. At the same time, I don't like to fall back on stalwarts like OPS and, certainly, batting average, etc., because I know their shortcomings all too well.

I've always wanted to see metrics expressed in terms of wins and losses. EQA, RAP, etc. are fine but give me the bottom line: how is it helping my team win or lose?

A big issue is that B.P. -- the industry standard -- is much more concerned with measuring player value as opposed to wins and losses. The concept of replacement value was and is revolutionary. But replacement value is not what I'm thinking of as I scan up and down a register of raw statistics and conventional percentages. I want to know how many wins and losses a player is responsible for. One number. Fielding, hitting and pitching. To accomplish this, I use league averages as my baseline instead of replacement value.

Anyway, that's what I have set out to do. The measurements are crude compared to some other systems but that's what I'm after. Simpler numbers told in a simpler way but yet still tell and important and accurate story.

The final results are expressed in exactly the way I'd like to seem them expressed in, say, baseball-reference.com. Four columns at the end of a traditional statistical grid: hitting wins, fielding wins, pitching wins and, finally, wins added.

The underlying methodology behind the numbers will have to be tweaked, especially the fielding part. It would also be nice to introduce some kind of leverage index as well. As I say, this is the first step of developing a new framework for my own use. Eventually, I want to integrate it with my projection system, PROFITS, which has been locked away for a long time now undergoing major renovation.

HITTING WINS: Hitting Wins Added are calculated as extrapolated runs per plate appearance (XRPA) compared to league-average XRPA times ballpark factor times total plate appearances. Convert runs added or subtracted to Wins Added (10 runs = 1 win).

FIELDING WINS: Uses zone rating. Calculate number of plays made above or below league average for that position. Convert the plays made or missed into runs made or missed. Convert runs into wins. Catchers necessitate a different method. Mine needs work. For the time being, I'm using expected assists versus actual assists.

PITCHING WINS: I calculate extrapolated runs per plate appearance (XRPA) for the batters each pitcher has faced. However, I'm using fullblown DIPS theory, which I know isn't exactly right. This is something that will have to be adjusted. What this means is that instead of actual singles, doubles and triples, I'm using league-average figures, adjusted for ballpark. Homers are also adjusted for ballpark. After figuring XRPA for each pitcher, I compare it to the league average and multiply by total batters faced. This yields runs saved above or below average. Runs are converted to wins.

WINS ADDED: The sum of the other three categories.

BUT DOES IT WORK?

Best way to answer that is to say that I think it will work, once I perfect the way I manipulate my underlying data.

At this point, I'd say the system is about 85% of the way there. For example, the sum of the Royals' Wins Added is -13.81. Based on their runs scored and runs allowed totals, you'd expect it to be -12.18. Other teams have a bigger discrepancy. Some have less. There is better correlation with a team's Pythagorean record than with actual record. This is not surprising.

Drop me a line at bdoolittle@kcstar.com with suggestions & criticisms. I welcome the input.

The complete table of first-half Wins Added is here.

A note about Big 12 power rankings

2006-05-06T08:52:00.000-07:00

Quite understandably, my system for ranking Big 12 baseball programs that I introduced this season has drawn the ire of Kansas Jayhawk fans. As such, I thought I'd post a little more detailed explanation about what the rankings attempt to measure. Also, I want to illustrate the concepts behind the rating number.

First, let me acknowledge my credentials, or lack thereof, depending upon your perspective. I am first and foremost a writer. I majored in English. I spend my spare time reading Henry Miller, Hemingway, Joyce, Collette, etc. My greatest aspiration is to publish a novel and I've got a burgeoning manuscript always beckoning me in my "writing room" where I clack away on an old manual Underwood. Of course my job, or at least part of it, is to write about sports which is an occupation that I absolutely relish.

All this is preamble to admitting that I am not an engineer. I did not attend MIT. I have never been a Bill James research assistant. At the same time, I do have a profound belief in numbers and statistical analysis. I also have a certain aptitude with numbers - once upon a time, I made my living as an accountant. No formal training, it just came naturally to me. Statistics have always seemed to me to be like a conduit between myself and the teams I watch and cover. We keep track of what they do and if you know how to decode that information logically and accurately, then you can know far more about the teams than you would know just by reading games stories and catching a game now and again.

There are few things that bother me in sports media than "power rankings" which are based solely on subjective observation. In baseball, in particular, I do not believe that you can adequately differentiate between teams by watching an occasional game. If you're going to rank teams in this sport, you need to have some sort of objective criteria as your foundation.

That is all background. Here is the nut of the system.

My Big 12 ratings system attempts to rate teams based on true ability. It does not attempt to replicate the won-loss standings. A baseball team's won-loss record is a mixture of ability, execution, quality of competition and luck. That last component is more prevalent than anyone wants to admit and is also why I felt the need to establish a power ranking system in the first place.

In big-league baseball, we have known for years that the runs scored and runs allowed by a team are a more accurate measure of team strength than won-loss record. Given enough games, a team will eventually play to its run differential. However, the number of games even in a 162-game schedule is not enough for this to occur with all teams. Thus the standings at the end of the season do not reflect exactly the order of teams by run differential. They are skewed by noise such as clutch hitting and record in one-run games. And that's great - that's baseball. That's why we love it.

Still, I think it's important to have an accurate picture of the true ability of teams. At the end of the regular season, it gives us a better idea of who is likely to succeed in the postseason. After that, it gives us a better idea of who will sink or rise the next season. For the teams whose record is significantly under their power ranking (like Missouri) we can better come to grips with our disappointment: they should have won more games. For teams who outperform their power ranking (Kansas) we can have that much more appreciation for their accomplishments.

So, to summarize, the object is to rank teams by their true level of ability. And to do this, we want to use runs scored and runs allowed.

In college baseball, this is not nearly as straight-forward as it is in Major League Baseball. The difference, of course, is the wildly different levels of talent from conference-to-conference and even from team-to-team within a conference. (Some schools just don't put much emphasis on their baseball programs.)

The crux of my rankings system is that for each game a team plays, after I enter the final score, the system then adjusts for four things:

1. who was the opponent?
2. where was the game played?
3. when was the game played?
4. was it a weekend game?

If you're playing a team like, say, St. Louis University, you don't get full credit for your run differential. In fact, if you win by, say, 5-4, then the system actually registers that as a defeat. The worse your opponent is, the more you need to beat them by to get positive credit. Games against very small schools, like Nebraska Kearney, for instance, don't count in the system at all.

Home teams win more in college baseball and, especially early in the season, northern teams don't play at home nearly as often as the teams in the souths. Thus the run differential is adjusted again depending on where the game was played.

Since we want to identify teams that are going to do well in the postseason, we try to identity those schools who are improving as the season progresses and vice versa. Thus, each game a team plays has more value to the overall rating than the previous game. By the end of the season, a game played has many times more value than the first game of the season.

We all know that weekend games in college baseball are more indicative of team strength than midweek games. That is the way pitching staffs are structured. Thus, weekend games have double the value in this system of midweek games.

Once the system adjusts the runs scored/runs allowed for each game, one final question is asked. What was the margin of victory? At a certain point, runs are superfluous. Is there a real difference between a 22-1 victory and a 9-2 victory? There is some but the fact of the matter is that if you chart won-loss records and run differentials, you get a gradually rising slope until you hit somewhere between five and six runs. Beyond that, it's just overkill. Thus the system does not reward "extra" runs above a margin of victory of six.

The adjusted runs scored and allowed figures are added together and plugged into a similar formula to Bill James' Pythagorean system (runs scored squared divided by runs scored squared plus runs allowed squared). The total is then multiplied by 100, which expresses the number as a integer between 0 and 100, though I've begun carrying the number out to one decimal so that teams don't appear to be tied if they are not.

That's about it. Pretty simple.

What can skew these results? A couple of things. First, getting squashed by a really inferior team can set you back. But more than anything, a team with an extreme record in close games will fluctuate away from its actual record. That is what has occurred in the case of Kansas. Up and down its schedule, you see that Kansas wins the close ones but often loses the blowouts. Last Sunday was the Jayhawks' season in a microcosm: they lost the first game of a doubleheader to OU 17-5 but won the second game 7-5. As I mentioned, OU doesn't get full credit for that 12-run margin in the first game but KU still comes out minus-four even before you begin to make other adjustments.

Overall, I think the system paints a very accurate picture. Nebraska is the best team in the Big 12. Texas is also strong but is a little down from what it has been in the past. Oklahoma is a veteran team that is really coming on. After that, you have two distinct groups. Missouri, Baylor and OSU are all flawed teams with good talent. Missouri has underachieved significantly and the discrepancy between its won-loss record and its power ranking reflects that.

Then you have the bottom four: Kansas, Texas Tech, Kansas State, Texas A&M. Kansas just hasn't been able to avoid the blowouts consistently enough to raise its rating. Sure, the Jayhawks have a chance to finish fourth in the conference by won-loss record. That would be a great accomplishment. But the teams are so tightly-packed together can you really say that a 10-11 team is obviously better than a 9-12 team based strictly on the conference standings? This is the complaint I've been getting from KU fans.

Other fans point to the RPIs, which have Kansas in the top 40. I don't know the formula for RPI but I am almost certain that they don't use run differentials. They simply use winning percentage adjusted for strength of schedule. (Someone is welcome to correct me if I am wrong in this belief.) Besides, it is not my intent to replicate the RPI system. That system is already out there. As I don't know how it works, I don't trust it. It is important info because the NCAA uses it and that is why I list it with the power rankings. But I don't know that it does what I set out to do: Rate teams by their true level of ability.

KU has had a great season and I really hope it continues. But my system tells me that the Jayhawks have overachieved and, ultimately, I think the system will prove to be correct. In any event, I'm glad folks are paying attention to the ratings and they've obviously accomplished one thing that I wanted them to do: spark discussion.

- Brad

AFL: week 6 power rankings & picks

2006-03-03T17:14:00.000-08:00

Through Week 5

TEAM	SCR%	STP%	OFFe	DEFe	*EFF*
Nashville	66.1%	52.6%	4.20	2.61	6.80
Georgia	67.9%	47.4%	4.31	2.32	6.60
Chicago	71.4%	34.5%	4.55	1.72	6.28
Colorado	70.9%	33.3%	4.53	1.58	6.25
Dallas	66.1%	42.4%	4.16	2.08	6.19
Utah	69.4%	34.4%	4.44	1.80	6.12
Austin	60.9%	50.0%	3.75	2.47	6.11
Tampa Bay	62.5%	39.7%	3.92	1.79	5.76
Philadelphia	59.6%	44.6%	3.54	2.20	5.67
New York	61.7%	30.0%	3.95	1.46	5.53
Orlando	53.4%	41.7%	3.09	2.22	5.32
San Jose	57.6%	35.0%	3.53	1.83	5.31
Grand Rapids	54.0%	39.7%	3.23	2.03	5.24
Las Vegas	54.0%	33.3%	3.32	1.76	5.20
Columbus	50.0%	46.3%	2.81	2.33	5.18
Kansas City	49.1%	46.2%	2.64	2.37	5.03
Los Angeles	64.4%	27.6%	3.46	1.41	4.85
Arizona	47.3%	35.1%	2.91	1.73	4.64
LEAGUE	60.3%	39.7%	3.69	1.98	5.6

KEY: SCR - percentage of offensive possessions resulting in scores; STP - percentage of defensive possessions resulting in stops; OFF - average point value of offensive possession; DEF - average point value of defensive possession; EFF - overall team efficiency, calculated as sum of OFF and DEF. EFF is adjusted for for strength of schedule. (Formulas by Bradford Doolittle.)

WEEK 6 PICKS

(Last week 6-3, 13-14 overall)

Friday's game

Columbus 41, New York 32

Saturday's games

Georgia 50, Austin 42

Utah 65, San Jose 57

Nashville 52, Arizona 34

Sunday's games

Chicago 58, Dallas 56

Orlando 47, Los Angeles 45

Colorado 63, Grand Rapids 49

Tampa Bay 54, Kansas City 34

Philadelphia 50, Las Vegas 39

AFL: week 5 power rankings

2006-02-25T14:01:00.000-08:00

Through Week 4

TEAM	SCR%	STP%	OFFe	DEFe	*TOTe*
Nashville	69.8%	51.1%	4.44	2.49	6.87
Austin	62.7%	53.1%	3.86	2.69	6.47
Georgia	70.5%	40.4%	4.41	2.03	6.39
Chicago	73.3%	31.9%	4.67	1.63	6.29
Dallas	67.4%	41.3%	4.20	1.98	6.19
Utah	68.8%	33.3%	4.35	1.75	6.01
Philadelphia	62.2%	46.8%	3.74	2.34	5.95
Colorado	71.7%	26.2%	4.55	1.23	5.91
Orlando	55.3%	44.0%	3.19	2.34	5.58
Kansas City	55.3%	46.5%	2.96	2.58	5.57
Tampa Bay	60.8%	38.0%	3.81	1.66	5.53
Grand Rapids	56.9%	40.0%	3.49	2.10	5.44
San Jose	58.3%	34.7%	3.56	1.74	5.23
New York	60.0%	24.5%	3.88	1.17	5.21
Las Vegas	54.0%	32.0%	3.32	1.73	5.13
Columbus	47.7%	43.2%	2.53	2.26	4.88
Arizona	48.9%	34.0%	3.00	1.69	4.68
Los Angeles	63.0%	29.5%	3.22	1.45	4.68
LEAGUE	61.4%	38.6%	3.73	1.94	5.67

KEY: SCR - percentage of offensive possessions resulting in scores; STP - percentage of defensive possessions resulting in stops; OFF - average point value of offensive possession; DEF - average point value of defensive possession; EFF - overall team efficiency, calculated as sum of OFF and DEF. Beginning with Week 4, TOTe is been adjusted for strength of schedule. (Formulas by Bradford Doolittle.)

AFL: week 4 power rankings

2006-02-18T06:50:00.000-08:00

AFL Power Rankings

Through Week 3

TEAM	SCR%	STP%	OFFe	DEFe	*TOTe*
Nashville	67.6%	51.5%	4.31	2.34	6.65
Colorado	79.4%	27.3%	5.23	1.28	6.52
Austin	61.5%	56.8%	3.70	2.80	6.50
Georgia	75.8%	32.4%	4.78	1.70	6.48
Dallas	70.6%	44.1%	4.37	2.09	6.46
Utah	71.1%	34.2%	4.58	1.84	6.42
Chicago	67.6%	31.4%	4.50	1.54	6.05
Philadelphia	55.9%	48.6%	3.17	2.37	5.53
Tampa Bay	61.1%	40.5%	3.81	1.66	5.47
San Jose	60.0%	36.1%	3.62	1.79	5.40
Columbus	54.5%	45.5%	3.06	2.26	5.32
Las Vegas	59.5%	28.2%	3.68	1.56	5.25
New York	60.5%	26.3%	3.96	1.28	5.24
Grand Rapids	52.6%	37.8%	3.22	2.01	5.22
Orlando	50.0%	45.7%	2.85	2.35	5.20
Kansas City	52.8%	37.5%	3.07	2.10	5.17
Los Angeles	61.8%	36.4%	3.08	1.72	4.80
Arizona	42.9%	32.4%	2.62	1.58	4.20
LEAGUE	61.3%	38.7%	3.75	1.90	5.65

AFL: week 4 picks

2006-02-18T06:44:00.000-08:00

No comments this week. Coming off a 3-6 Week 3 showing, I better just keep my mouth shut.

Dallas 51, Austin 39
Georgia 60, Las Vegas 53
Nashville 59, Colorado 55
Chicago 52, Los Angeles 45
Utah 54, Arizona 50
Kansas City 48, Columbus 45
New York 45, Philadelphia 44
San Jose 56, Grand Rapids 41
Tampa Bay 50, Orlando 38

Big 12: Baseball roundup, weeks 1/2

2006-02-15T13:41:00.000-08:00

Believe it or not, the baseball season is already rolling, at least on the collegiate level. With pitchers & catcher starting to filter into big-league camps tomorrow, let's take a look at what has transpired so far on Big 12 diamonds. This is the first of what will become my weekly conference rankings. The "previous" that you will see reference below refers to each team's ranking in the preseason coaches poll. The order of the teams hasn't changed. No one has shown quite enough to be moved up or down yet. Heck, Nebraska and Kansas State haven't even played yet. But it was tempting to move Kansas and Texas A&M up a notch and Missouri down. Sure, Texas started 0-3 but its showing in the Houston Classic demonstrated that it's business as usual for Augie Garrido's crew in Austin. The opponents' RPI is merely the average RPI of the teams' opponents to date, taken from the final ranking from www.boydsworld.com

1. Texas (4-4, prev: 1, oRPI 96)
Longhorns have recovered from season-opening sweep at surprising San Diego to win four of five, including 2 of 3 in the though Houston Classic. The game Saturday night against Rice was as good as early-season college baseball gets. After Texas ace Kyle McCulloch and Rice stud Joe Savery hooked up for for a 2-2 tie through seven innings, Rice was able to break through against the Longhorn bullpen and eventually took a 4-3 lead into the bottom of the ninth. With one on and two out, freshman Kyle Russell blasted a two-run, opposite-field, pinch-hit shot into the Crawford boxes at Minute Maid Park to give Texas the win. Russell is a 6'5" masher who bats lefty and looks like the mirror image of a young Richie Sexson. This weekend, Texas travels to Stanford. As their year-in, year-out postseason success shows, the Longhorns may sacrifice some off the won-lost record with its tough early-season schedule but it pays off come tournament time.

2. Nebraksa (0-0, prev: 2, oRPI n/a)
Huskers open Thursday at Charleston Southern, who lost to Missouri last Friday. They play in the Homewood Suites Shootout in Charleston, S.C. this weekend against N.C. State, The Citadel and Richmond. The Wolfpack were #19 in the RPI last season.

3. Missouri (2-2, prev. 3, oRPI 187)
Bad opening weekend for the Tigers in South Carolina. Has the black cloud hovering over the Mizzou athletic department enveloped the promising baseball program? Ace starter Max Scherzer closed a door on a finger on his pitching hand and missed the opening weekend. He's not expected to pitch this weekend, either. Tigers have a three-game series at Louisiana-Monroe this weekend, a team that Texas Tech pounded by a combined 47-19 in three games earlier this season.

4. Baylor (3-0, prev. 4, oRPI 291)
Bears opened with a sweep of Stephen F. Austin, a school that hasn't fielded a baseball team since 1995, and a lambasting of Texas-Arlington. Hard to get much of a gauge on the new-look Bears from that. Top starters Ryan LaMotta and Cory VanAllen were both sharp in their initial outings, each hurled five shutout innings with little resistance. This weekend, Baylor will host Califorina, which finished 61st in the RPI last season but did not make the NCAA tournament field. Guess it will be the battle of the Bears.

5. Oklahoma (5-1, prev. 5, oRPI 180)
Here's another ID: Insufficient Data. The Sooners struggled to beat Texas State in their opener but Texas State knocked off Texas Christian on Tuesday. Oklahoma has pounded the weak teams on its schedule but was pounded by Lamar, a non-tournament team in 2005 that finished 69 in the RPI. Chuckie Caulfield is off to a 12 for 27 start and Kevin Smith has driven in 10 runs for the Sooners. This weekend, Oklahoma will play in the very tough Coca-Cola Classic in Houston. They'll play No. 5 Rice, No. 19 Long Beach State and will have a rematch with Lamar.

6. Oklahoma State (2-1, prev. 6, oRPI 50)
The Cowboys have had perhaps the toughest slate early on, playing tourament teasms South Alabama and Arkansas plus a George Mason team that was 74th in the RPI. The results were decidedly mixed. Oklahoma State's booming bats were alive and well in two victories in which it combined to scored 28 runs against S.Alabama and Georg Mason, hammering four home runs in the process. But the Cowboys were no-hit by three pitchers against Arkansas. This weekend, Youngstown State will visit Stillwater. We won't know any more next week than we do now unless, of course, the Cowboys flop. Realistically, expect a bunch of runs and a bunch of homers for Adam Carr and company this weekend but we won't know about OSU's pitching staff until sometime next month.

7. Texas A&M (4-0, prev. 7, oRPI 60)
You really have to look at the results on the field in college baseball. In football or basketball, Northwestern State won't strike fear into any of the Big 12 schools (though the men's hoops team almost beat Missouri). In baseball, however, the Demons were 39th in the RPI last season and made the NCAA tournament. So it was actually a nice season-opening sweep for the Aggies last week, even though two of the victories were by one run. It's a nice start for new A&M coach Rob Childress, the former pitching guru at Nebraska who has to be thrilled by his team's early 1.45 composite ERA. This weekend's opponent, Northern Colorado, isn't very highly regarded.

8. Kansas (6-2, prev. 169, oRPI 169)
Terrific week for Kansas, who won two of three at Stanford. Gus Milner continued his hot start and has already driven in 16 runs this season. Sean Land and transfer Ricky Fairchild beat the Cardinal. Only ace Kodiak Quick, who transferred to Kansas from Stanford, was defeated. Ritch Price's early-season schedule doesn't get any easier this weekend as the Jayhawks head to California for a tournament which includes No. 25 USC, Vanderbilt and surprise No. 15 San Diego, who swept Texas in three games last week.

9. Texas Tech (4-3, prev. 9, oRPI 114)
Larry Hays has had an up-and-down start to his 20th season at Tech. After beating weak La-Monroe three straight to begin the season, the Red Raiders lost all three games in the ultra-tough Houston Classic but were competitive in all three games against Rice, Tulane and Houston. This weekend, Tech will host St. Johns, 49th in last season's RPI and made the NCAA tournament.

10. Kansas State (0-0, prev. 10, oRPI n/a)
Brad Hill will kick off his third season at the helm of the Wildcats this weekend with three games at the Texas-Arlington Invitational, which includes KSU, UTA, Oral Roberts and Illinois State. Not too easy but not overly tough. Good early season litmus test for the improving K-State program.

AFL: week 3 roundup

2006-02-15T10:11:00.000-08:00

Here are some thoughts looking back at Week 3 of the AFL season and looking ahead to Week 4. Teams are listed in order of the Week 2 power rankings. The new ranking will be posted on Saturday.

1. Nashville, 2-1 (W3: lost to Chicago 56-55; W4: vs. Colorado, Sat., 7 p.m.)
Kats lost a heartbreaker at Chicago in the league's first overtime game of the season. Nashville dominated statistically but was only able to get the game into OT on a hook-and-lateral play that sent Cornelius Bonner into the end zone on the the final play of regulation. Kats gave Rush the short field a couple of times with lost fumbles and Chicago scored on a missed field goal. Chicago is a good team, though, so Kats should still feel good about themselves as one the league's best. Any questions about contender / pretender status can be answered this week with a quality showing against Colorado. This will be one you will want to watch.

2. Georgia, 1-2 (W3: lost to Tampa Bay 61-60; W4: at Las Vegas, Fri., 9:30 p.m.)
Force coach Doug Plank always seems to have that sort of repressed smile but he's got to be ready to spit nails over the Force's losses. Last week, the Georgia defense struggled to get stops against the Storm, getting only a fumble recovery and a end-of-half situation in 10 Tampa possessions. Nothing wrong with the Georgia offense, however. Chris Jackson has emerged, as hoped, as a worthy replacement for Troy Bergeron. Chris Johnson had a big game last week as well. On top of all that, is there a better red-zone receiver than Derek Lee, well except for Damian Harrell? This week's game is huge for Georgia. Sure they're better than their record but 1-3 is 1-3.

3. Austin, 3-0 (W3: beat Kansas City 37-33; W4: at Dallas, Fri., 7:30 p.m.)
If the Colorado-Nashville game this week is Main Event #1, the Austin-Dallas game is 1A. The Wranglers put up their third straight excellent defensive effort in an extremely hostile environment in Kansas City. Still, they didn't get any big plays offensively. 37 point won't get it done in Dallas. A win over the also-undefeated Desperados would make me a believer in Skip Foster's bunch once and for all.

4. Dallas, 3-0 (W3: beat Columbus 52-38; W4: Austin, Fri., 7:30 p.m.)
Dallas was a little sloppy in beating an inferior Columbus team but defensive posted a 50% stop rate, easily enough to defeat the Destroyers. Austin likes to win ugly and will try to maul the pretty-boy Desperados in what will be a fascinating matchup of contrasting styles. Terrill Shaw came back to earth a little bit after Week 2's career performance but Will Pettis stepped up again and is establishing himself as an Ironman of the Year candidate.

5. Colorado, 3-0 (W3: beat Las Vegas 65-55; W4: at Nashville, Sat., 7 p.m.)
The Crush had me worried for a second there, last week, trailing Vegas 35-27 at halftime. Terrible week for Colorado offense: 3 stops in 13 possessions! Seriously, how good is this offense when it puts up 65 on an off-night? The defense finally made some plays this week, too. They'll have to make more this week in the great matchup with Nashville.

6. Utah, 1-2 (W3: lost to New York 84-81; W4: at Arizona, Sat., 8 p.m.)
Leave it to the irrepressible Blaze to take part in one of the most memorable AFL games ever in only its third game. 165 points - second-most ever. 20 touchdown passes by the two quarterbacks - a new record. Incredible. Utah has taken the great offense/no defense style of football to the extreme. They are to the AFL what the Paul Westhead-era Loyola Marymount teams were to college basketball. Utah has been the best team in a weak division but, still, has lost 2 of 3. With San Jose getting healthy, Danny White's crew simply has to start getting some defensive stops. This week will be a key road test for Utah as Danny White and many of the Blaze players return to familiar stomping grounds. Utah is a better team than Arizona but they need to show that they are learning to win the close one.

7. Philadelphia, 2-1 (W3: lost 47-33 to Orlando; W4: vs. New York, Sun., noon)
Uh, gee, I guess the Soul missed Tony Graziani after all. Matt Sauk did fine when he was able to actually get the ball from the center. Sauk fumbled five times in the game. Lost in the maze of Soul mistakes was the fact that the defense put up another fine effort. It'll have to do the same this week against the red-hot offense of Aaron Garcia and company.

8. Chicago, 1-2 (W3: beat Nashville 56-55 in OT; W4: at Los Angeles, Sat., 9:30 p.m.)
The Rush finally got a much-needed W. Like Georgia, Chicago has been much better than its record but you can't reasonably expect to bounce back from 0-3. The Rush won it when Mike Hohensee boldy went for two after the Rush scored on the second possession of overtime to cut Nashville's lead to 55-54. Matt D'Orazio hit Cornelius White for the two-point conversion to win it for the Rush. This week presents an excellent opportunity for Chicago to even its record when the visit the flagging Avengers.

9. Columbus, 1-2 (W3: lost to Dallas 52-38; W4: at Kansas City, Sun., 1 p.m.)
Even John Kaleo admits that the Detroyers can't pass. That's kind of a problem in arena football. Columbus was only able to hang with Dallas last week because of sloppy play by the Desperados. This week, Columbus looks to right its ship at winless Kansas City.

10. Kansas City, 0-3 (W3: lost to Austin 37-33; W4: vs. Columbus, Sun., 1 p.m.)
The Brigade are a hit in Kansas City but a win would be a nice gesture for their adoring fans. For the second straight week, Kansas City came up just short on the game's final play. They have to be licking their chops this week with the Destroyers coming to town. It's now or never for the Brigade.

11. Los Angeles, 1-2 (W3: lost to Grand Rapids 66-41; W4: vs. Chicago, Sat., 9:30 p.m.)
The quarterbacking situation in LA is an absolute mess. You can't win in the AFL without quality quarterbacking, not even against Grand Rapids. Brian Mann has his moments but must develop a repore with one or two receivers beyond Kevin Ingram. The defense had a bad week at Grand Rapids but the 66 points allowed were exaggerated by the offense's mistakes. This week, LA will have to get better in a hurry to fend off a very good Chicago team hungry to get back to .500.

12. Tampa Bay, 2-1 (W3: beat Georgia 61-60; W4: vs. Orlando, Sun., 2 p.m.)
One of the classic AFL rivalries is renewed this week when the Predators take on the Storm. Bobby Sippio stepped up with a big performance last week and may be emerging as a top-notch complement to Lawrence Samuels. Shane Stafford was outstanding against Georgia. The Storm really seems to be on the verge of establishing something big.

13. Las Vegas, 1-2 (W3: lost to Colorado 65-55; W4: vs. Georgia, Fri., 9:30 p.m.)
Craig Whelihan continues to turn in big plays - for both teams. Joe Douglas took advantage of the extra attention paid to Marcus Nash with 4 touchdowns against Colorado. But it really comes down to Whelihan - can the Gladiators line keep him upright and can he take care of the ball?

14. San Jose, 1-2, (W3: beat Arizona 58-50; W4: at Grand Rapids, Sun., 1 p.m.)
This week will be the third game of a five-game road trip for the Sabercats, who are expected to get James Roe back this week. They managed to put up plenty of points with Calvin Schexnayder as the featured guy and having Roe back should make them plenty dangerous going forward. Don't forget that Barry Wagner will be back eventually, as well. Defensive question marks still abound for San Jose. With games at Chicago and Utah coming after this week, this is simly a must win for the Sabercats against the inferior Rampage.

15. Orlando, 2-1 (W3: beat Philadelphia 47-33; W4: at Tampa Bay, Sun. 2 p.m.)
Look, I realize that Jay Gruden is a Hall of Famer. I realize that the Predators are 2-1. But I still don't think this is a good football team. I still think they should be 0-3. And I think they'll start to prove me right this week in Tampa. Sorry, Orlando fans, it's just the way I feel.

16. New York, 2-1 (W3: beat Utah 84-81; W4: at Philadelphia, Sun., noon)
I know that Utah's defense is putrid but, come on Aaron Garcia, 24-26 and 10 touchdowns? That's ridiculous. Garcia, Swayne, Horacek and company will find the going much tougher this week in Philadelphia. This week's game will determine who will be in position to run with Dallas in the Eastern Division race.

17. Grand Rapids, 1-2 (W3: beat Los Angeles 66-41; W4: vs. San Jose, Sun., 1 p.m.)
Hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again.

18. Arizona, 0-3 (W3: lost to San Jose 58-50; W4: vs. Utah, Sat., 8 p.m.)
Thought this season might be the tipping point for this edition of the Rattlers and looks like I was right. If they can't beat expansion Utah - at home - this week, the season is toast. It won't be easy but with Sherdrick Bonner back last week, at least they look like a professional football team.

AFL: Brigade gameday

2006-02-12T10:18:00.000-08:00

11:44 a.m. - First impressions
The floor of Kemper Arena is covered with the unmarred surface of a brand new football field. Danni Boatwright is over to the side, chatting up the suddenly famous Wingman. The stadium is filling fast. There was already quite a stir when the Brigade came through the tunnel for pregame stretches. There is a dancing snow cone bustin' a move in the aisle. Ah, the sights and sounds of Arena Football.

As the local Arena Football expert and officially sanctioned media professional (or what HST would call a media wizard) I felt it was my duty to record my observations from this, my first in-person AFL game. Well, to tell the truth, I just really don't have anything better to do and I brought my computer.

My seat is a precarious one. I'm right behind the south end zone, right up against the rear wall underneath the goalpost support. Having watched many arena games this season, I have good reason to fear for the life of my laptop. These guys are big and fast and they come hurtling against the sideboards with an unnatural momentum. I've seen quite a few player / fan communions but, thankfully, none that resulted in bodily injury. Nevertheless, if you cough up the $110 for a front row seat, stay alert.

I see that Brian Poli-Dixon is suited up. Been wondering what happened to him. I know he has to learn the arena game, no small task. Plus he's built pretty slight. If he's not the offensive specialist, it'll be interesting to see him play defense. But, on offense, I've seen how a big, tall receiver like Colorado's Andy McCullough or Georgia's Derek Lee can really be an important weapon in the red zone. (And, yes, the arena game has a red zone. And it's not the whole field.)

More to come ...

12:28 p.m. - How I learned to stop worrying and love the arena game
Since I have made myself a local AFL guru, perhaps I should take the opportunity to explain my genesis. I had watched only a couple of Arena games up to last season. Didn't know much about the game or league. But with the Sprint Center going up, I knew that Kansas City would at some point get a shot at getting a team. So I started to watch and quickly became a convert. Since then, I tape every game I can get with my TiVo and satellite dish. Entering this week, I've watched well over half the games played and listened to several others through Web broadcasts.
(Consumer warning: If you ever desire to listen to a Dallas Desperados game, do everything you can to find the broadcast of the opposing team. The home radio broadcast is the most annoying thing I've encountered since the heyday of Gilbert Gottfried.)

There is a whole dynamic to arena football that sets it apart from the stadium game as a truly unique and different sport, not just a gimmicky imitation of the NFL. The game has tremendous pace and rhythm. No replays. Running clocks. With so many two-way players, it is fascinating to watch the mano-a-mano matchups.

Most of all, I really love the concept that teams are expected to score a touchdown on the majority of their possessions. Through last night, teams have scored on 276 of 514 possessions, or 53.7%. The best teams push that conversion figure to 75-80%. If you can't score at that pace, you can't win consistently in the AFL.

Last night, the New York Dragons beat the Utah Blaze 84-81 in the second-highest scoring game in Arena history. They fell two points short and Utah had the ball deep in New York territory when the game ended. In such a contest, it's the defensive stops (if one ever occurs) and the quirky bounces of kickoffs off the net that decide the contest. Most games go to the final minute, even the ones that don't look so close on the final scoreboard. A quick touchdown and an onsides kick can get teams back into a game in a hurry. I still love the stadium game, the battles for field position, teams establishing a power running game, etc. But, as I say, this game is different. Has a whole different dynamic. And it truly stands on its own as a game to appreciate.

So enough of that. I just looked up and saw that the place is nearly full and the crowd is really buzzing. I'll be back with some more comments on the first half. Hope you enjoy the game. This is nuts - I've never been in Kemper Arena when it was even half-capacity.

12:54 p.m. - Do I have any eyebrows left?
Man, these pyrotechnics are hot. I have to admit. I not much one for these pregame shenanigans. Flip the coin. Kickoff. That's plenty for me. The crowd seems to like it though. Of course. Is there a fire marshal in the house?

1:05 p.m. - Obstructed view
The cheerleaders are standing right in front of me, blocking the coin flip which involves the league's enormous commissioner and the mayor. This is a complaint. Really.

2:15 p.m. - Halftime. No, really. This time it's halftime.
Not the prettiest first half I've seen. Having watched all of Austin's games this season, I can tell you that no team, except perhaps Orlando, can uglify a game like Skip Foster's bunch. Wranglers' WR/LB Kevin Nickerson, who went to Central High and Central Missouri, scored two first-half touchdowns in his return to K.C.

We had our first Brian Poli-Dixon sighting of the season. He didn't do much. On defense he was playing "mac linebacker." That's the one that just sort of slides back and forth like a foosball piece. Dixon does not look like a defender. Andy Kelly didn't look his way but with his height, I was surprised Dixon didn't get a look down near the end zone.

The half seemed to end once when Steve Smith was tackled inbounds. Kelly frantically signaled for a timeout but the inattentive officials allowed several seconds elapse. As they stood around and deliberated, Austin cleared out and headed for the locker room, while Kelly jumped and down and waved his arms frantically in the officials' face.

After about three minutes and with the Cobras ready to start their halftime presentation, they finally decided to put 3. 5 seconds back on the clock. Austin was recalled from the bowels of Kemper Arena and Tim Seder missed a long field goal to end the half.

These end-of-game, end-of-half time issues are the biggest complaint that I have about the AFL at this point. I'm glad they don't have instant replay, which I think really disrupts the rhythm of a game. But there should be some apparatus in place that allows officials to check the clock at the end of a half. The Brigade were burned on this last week at Orlando. Utah suffered the same fate last night. Seems like it would be an easy loophole to close. Gigantic AFL commissioner David Baker is speaking at the postgame press conference. I might ask him about this but, at the same time, I'm concerned he might crush me like a grape.

It's 24-17 Austin. Kelly threw one touchdown. Entering this week, he trailed New York's Aaron Garcia for the all-time league lead. But Garcia threw 10 touchdowns last night in that wild game at Utah. (Utah quarterback Joe Germaine also racked up 10 TD passes. Both tied for second-most in a league game. Garcia is among those who hold the record of 11.)

2:57 p.m. - One quarter to go
Brigade trail 31-30 after three quarters. Action was more brisk in the third quarter and the crowd is still really into the game. Tim Seder just missed a long field goal, which was really a glorified punt. This puts the Brigade down a possession, pending the outcome of the current Austin set. K.C. has nine possessions in the game, Austin has completed eight. If the Wranglers score, the Brigade will be behind by one possession. A field goal puts them down 1/2 possession. This is how you have to score Arena football and is why I always keep a simple scorecard of drive outcomes. Of course, I also apply average point values, etc. Austin has 6.20 efficiency right now, the Brigade are at 5.14.

5:31 p.m. - And they all went home semi-happy
It was another last minute disappointment for the Brigade as Andy Kelly overthrew a receiver in the back of the end zone as time expired. Austin won 37-33. Wasn't the most artistic game, not many of the big plays that earmark most AFL contests.

After the game, there seemed to be a lot of fans who took advantage of the AFL's policy of having players come back onto the field to sign autographs after the game. Players from both teams milled around, chatting with fans, as did AFL commissioner David Baker. The game was a success at the gate, to be sure. And the crowd was into it all the way through and stayed till the end. Sometimes it seemed like they didn't know what they were cheering for. As Austin coach Skip Foster told me after the game, it sometimes takes awhile for fans to learn the nuances in Arena games. Of course, that is sort of my mission with my Arena notebook - to shorten the learning curve.

It was an interesting game and the Brigade are showing that they can go toe-to-toe with good AFL teams. In the razor-thin margin of error in most Arena games, it is the playmakers who make the difference: the big hitters, the ballhawks, the surehanded receiver who can grab the floater in the red zone. So far, the Brigade haven't had as many of those players or those plays as their opponents. The result? 0-3.

But does that really matter to 16,532 fans who packed the stands at Kemper this afternoon? I don't think so, not at this point. Brigade coach Kevin Porter praised the atmosphere created by the fans, who seemed to definitely take their cues from their collective Arrowhead Stadium background. (At the end of the national anthem, was that a Chiefs! I heard?) He also hoped that K.C. showed enough to bring them back next week.

My guess is that the Brigade showed plenty.

AFL: week 3 picks

2006-02-11T10:01:00.000-08:00

FRIDAY
Tampa Bay 48, Georgia 47: Storm went 8-0 at home last season so Georgia is attempting to do what Colorado did to it last week. Georgia is the better team but, for this week, you have to give Tampa Bay the nod because of the home crowd.

SATURDAY
Dallas 65, Columbus 44: Columbus defense has been solid but Destroyers can't score with Dallas, even at home. Clint Dolezel, Will Pettis and company have put Desperados' offense in a class formally occupied by only Colorado.

Philadelphia 51, Orlando 37: Tough to pick against Predators at The Jungle but Soul looks like one of the league's most-improved teams. Tony Graziani is still listed as questionable but Matt Sauk was very effective in his place last week. Orlando was actually outplayed by Kansas City last week and solid Philadelphia pass rush should be able to harass Joe Hamilton into mistakes.

Utah 58, New York 51: Danny White's crew doesn't resemble an expansion team, at least on offense. Blaze is fun to watch. Aaron Garcia and company looked better last week against a Chicago team that has some holes to plug on the defensive side of the ball. Raucous Delta Center crowd should be enough to put Utah over the top.

SUNDAY
Kansas City 46, Austin 44: Call me a homer but Brigade has played better than 0-2 and should have won last week in Orlando. K.C. coach Kevin Porter has seemingly figured out that Steve Smith is his go-to receiver. Austin's defense has been league's best over the first two weeks but they haven't faced a quarterback as effective as Andy Kelly and haven't faced a revved-up home crowd like they'll face at Kemper Arena Sunday. Wranglers' primary possession receiver, Darren Chiaverini, injured his shoulder near the end of Austin's win over Arizona last week. He isn't listed on the injury report for this week and John Fitzgerald better hope his security blanket is good to go against a Brigade defense that is soft on the short routes.

Los Angeles 57, Grand Rapids 48: Avengers have problems on offense but Rampage just isn't very good. Sparky McEwen is going to start rolling heads any day now.

Colorado 70, Las Vegas 45: This will be the week that Rashad Floyd and the rest of the Crush defense starts to show that it can actually help Colorado's unstoppable offense win some games. Should be entertaining to watch Alonzo Spellman huff and puff his way through this one.

Nashville 55, Chicago 51: Nashville has been the best all-around team in the league so far this season. Defense has been outstanding and Matt D'Orazio can be harassed into errors by Kats' Frank Carter-led pass rush. Chicago defense has been poor this season and the Rush simply do not have the horses to cover T.T Tolliver, Cory Fleming, Jermaine Lewis, etc.

Arizona 41, San Jose 38: Sherdrick Bonner is supposed to be back in the saddle for the Rattlers. Good thing, too. Arizona couldn't move the ball a lick with the backups last week in Austin. Injuries have led to San Jose's status as the league's most disappointing squad. James Roe and Barry Wagner are still listed as out for this week. Arizona may be the league's second-worst team after Grand Rapids but Sabrecats are just missing too many pieces to win on the road.

AFL: week 3 power rankings

2006-02-11T08:55:00.000-08:00

Through Week 2

TEAM	SCR%	STP%	OFFe	DEFe	TOTe
Nashville	71.4%	63.6%	4.48	2.82	7.30
Georgia	76.2%	40.9%	4.69	2.03	6.72
Austin	62.1%	61.5%	3.74	2.90	6.64
Dallas	73.9%	41.7%	4.64	1.98	6.63
Colorado	81.0%	23.8%	5.44	1.03	6.48
Utah	65.2%	43.5%	4.04	2.28	6.32
Philadelphia	63.6%	50.0%	3.73	2.40	6.13
Chicago	65.2%	27.3%	4.32	1.28	5.60
Columbus	56.5%	50.0%	3.17	2.36	5.52
Kansas City	52.0%	36.4%	3.17	2.13	5.31
Los Angeles	66.7%	42.1%	3.30	2.01	5.31
Tampa Bay	50.0%	48.0%	3.23	1.90	5.13
Las Vegas	56.0%	30.8%	3.40	1.73	5.13
San Jose	52.2%	34.8%	2.98	1.75	4.74
Orlando	47.6%	39.1%	2.68	2.00	4.68
New York	47.8%	30.4%	3.07	1.46	4.53
Grand Rapids	41.7%	33.3%	2.45	1.69	4.13
Arizona	36.4%	36.0%	2.10	1.80	3.90
LEAGUE	58.9%	41.1%	3.58	1.98	5.56

A-Mays-ing

2005-12-24T09:07:00.000-08:00

Take a gander at the following 2005 park-adjusted statistics for two American League pitchers:

Player	SO%	BB%	HB%	HR%	G:F	DER	06Pay
Plyr_A	12.7%	6.1%	0.8%	4.6%	0.67	.732	$4 mill
Plry_B	8.3%	5.9%	0.4%	3.5%	1.46	.681	$1 mill.
AL average	15.9%	7.8%	1.0%	2.8%	1.25	.696	---

Pitcher_A strikes out quite a few more batters than Pitcher_B. That's good. In all other categories, Pitcher_B is more alluring: He walks a few less, hits fewer batters, induces many more groundballs and, not surprisingly, gives up significantly fewer home runs. Pitcher_A received a bigger boost from the defense behind him though it should be noted that his flyball ways probably had a significant impact on those figures.

Going forward, factor in the Royals' infield defense which projects to be improved next season and ask yourself which pitcher you would rather have pitch in Kauffman Stadium in 2006.

Obviously the two pitchers in this scenario are Scott Elarton and Joe Mays. Given the weak outfield defense the Royals will likely receive from the corners and the fact that Mays could possibly nudge up his strikeouts due an additional year of recovery from Tommy John surgery, I'd take Mays.

As I've written before, Royals fans should hope that the veteran pitching acquistions by the Royals post ERAs close to league average. That's the upside of the Redman-Elarton-Mays triad. The downside is ugly. The likely outcome of a collective mid-5.00 ERA is an improvement from last season but is hardly what the Royals have in mind with these acquisitions.

I still like Redman the best of the three but I like Mays' chances to post a better ERA than Elarton. At the very least, he gives the team another option, additional depth. Hopes for real improvement still are carried by the arms of Greinke, Hernandez, Affeldt, Bautista and Howell. But if those guys aren't ready to produce this season, at least there are semi-competent placeholders who can keep them in the minors for a while longer.

My fear is that Elarton will bomb Jose Lima style. At $1 million (plus incentives) for one year, Mays can be easily shoved aside. But with $8 million committed to Elarton, the Royals will leave him out there to stink it up like they did with Lima and Brian Anderson before him.

Given the dollars and the possible upside, I think the acquisition of Joe Mays is has the kind of risk/reward ratio that Allard Baird should strive for. It's almost the antithesis of the Elarton signing.

Reggie, Reggie, Reggie

2005-12-23T08:56:00.000-08:00

The problem with the signing of Reggie Sanders, who is, or used to be, a fine player, is that the Royals are paying $5 million per annum for a player based on what he has already done, not for what he is likely going to do.

When you look at the evidence, you have to think that Reggie Sanders is due for a precitious drop in production. That holds true even if he manages to stay healthy for 130-140 games, which is very unlikely.

Let's begin by looking at the history of 38-year-old outfielders.

Since 1950 and not including last season, there have been 134 player-seasons in which an outfielder, at least age 38, had at least 50 plate appearances. Only 28 (21 percent) created at least 10 runs above the league average or, to put it another way, only one-fifth of the 134 players added even a single win to the team's bottom line. Only 12 (9 percent) added two wins. Here are those 12: Barry Bonds (twice), Ted Williams (three times), Willie Mays (twice), Hank Aaron, Stan Musial, Rickey Henderson, Tony Gwynn and Gene Woodling. Is it safe to say that Reggie Sanders is not in these guys' class?

When you look at the second year of Sanders' contract, only 8 of 83 39-year-olds (9.6 percent) added at least two wins offensively, all of them the Hall-of-Famers listed above.

Here are the ten-most similar player to Sanders at baseball-reference: Ray Lankford, Kirk Gibson, Ron Gant, Eric Davis, Darry Strawberry, Bill Nicholson, Frank Thomas (the 1950s/Pirates version), Ben Oglivie, Moises Alou, Roy Sievers. Each and every one of these players either quit after their age-37 seasons because of injuries (like Sanders) or declining skills. The ones who didn't quit suffered big productivity dropoffs at age 38 and never bounced back.

Before this season, PECOTA forecasted a dropoff in VORP for Sanders from 18.1 in 2005 (he actually posted a 27.5) to 5.9 in 2005 and 3.9 in 2006.

The last two seasons for St. Louis, Sanders has posted road OPSs of 738 and 789. His overall OPS those seasons was .797 and .886, so you have to believe he was taking advantage of the confines of Busch Stadium. In Kansas City, he'll be moving into a park in which runs were scored a little below the league-average rate and away from a park that gave a slight boost to the hitters.

Worst of all, here are the games played for Sanders over the last EIGHT SEASONS: 135, 133, 103, 126, 140, 130, 135, 93. That's 301 games missed, or nearly a quarter of the games in which he could have played. That won't get better as he moves towards 40 years of age.

Defensively, Sanders suffered a huge drop in zone rating from 2004, from .888 to .785. Will that improve with another year under his belt?

Sanders' acquistion means that either Chip Ambres or Aaron Guiel will likely be pushed off the Royals' roster. Either one would have provided similar or, possibly, superior production and would have done it at a fraction of the price. Either one could be easy moved aside when it was decided that Alex Gordon and/or Billy Butler were ready for the big leagues. Moving Sanders aside won't be nearly so easy.

This is the worst move the Royals have made in an off-season of questionable activity. The Royals employ a statistical analyst but this person either looks at the wrong statistics or holds no sway with the team's decision makers. The team has fallen into the common trap in the free-agency game of paying a player based on past performance rather than future performance.

This one is going to come back to bite them.

NBA Trak, 12/20

2005-12-20T11:36:00.000-08:00

Raptors 92, Magic 90
Magic 100 EFF - Raptors 87. Why? Eight more three-pointers. The great equalizer. Crappy game, nonetheless.
Celtics 109, Warriors 98
Warriors lose despite combined 74 points from Davis, Richardson and Murphy.
Bobcats 106, Kings 103, OT
When a pick'em game goes OT for the second-straight night, you got to like what your system is telling you.
Pistons 106, Grizzlies 104
You'd like the Grizzlies' chances to beat the Pistons if you knew they'd shoot 51.8% from the field but Memphis was done in by a 26-10 advantage at the foul line for Detroit.
Sonics 111, Wizards 101
Alonzo Jamison outscored 10-4 by Reggie Evans.

Updated rankings and predictions are here.

FULL DEFENSIVE RANKINGS ARE HERE

Yesterday, I finished incorporating on-court/off-court statistics into my defensive database. The information, which I am taking from www.82games.com, will be updated periodically but the latest update will always be included in the player rankings.

Again, I have taken a three-prong approach to address the issue of man-on-man defense as part of a player-rating system:

1. First, each player is assigned the team defensive rate (EFF per minute)
2. The team rate is then adjusted according to counterpart statistics. Each day, I enter player efficiencies from box scores and assign an opposing player as his counterpart. The system looks at the efficiency his counterpart posted and compares it to the expected efficiency based on season averages and minutes played. The difference, positive or negative, is that player's defensive efficiency for that game. The sum of all of these games are then compared to league averages and the team defensive rate is then adjusted upwards or downwards.
3. The player's team defensive rate is adjusted a second time using on-court/off-court statistics. If a team allows more points than its average when a player is on the floor, it has a negative impact on his rating. It the team allows fewer points, then the player's rating goes up.

So with those explanations out of the way, here are my initial man-on-man rankings:

DEFENSIVE MAN-ON-MAN RANKINGS
finley,michael	6.70
bowen,bruce	6.13
howard,juwan	5.68
stoudamire,damon	5.64
garnett,kevin	5.02
francis,steve	4.94
jackson,stephen	4.80
artest,ron	4.60
battier,shane	4.58
billups,chauncey	4.52

The name that will jump out to most people here is Damon Stoudemire. Clearly, Stoudemire, who has a terrible defensive reputation, benefits from the terrific team defense orchestrated by Czar Mike Fratello. But go to www.hoopsstats.com and look at the numbers posted by point guards against the Grizzlies. Stoudemire has been a part of that.

Of course, blocks, steals, fouls and defensive rebounds - all measurables - are components of a player's defensive value. These are and have been included in the TPR ratings, which were missing only individual defense to be truly comprehensive. But to rank the best and worst defensive players strictly for their all-around defensive contribution, defensive TPR needs to be combined with these plays made.

To accomplish this, I developed a formula which blends defensive TPR with the other categories weighted by value per possession, which is a method taken from John Hollinger's excellent Pro Basketball Forecast. With that, here are the best and worst defensive players in the NBA so far this season:

BEST DEFENDERS		WORST DEFENDERS
garnett,kevin	11.2	williams,marvin	-10.5
marion,shawn	10.6	arenas,gilbert	-6.1
artest,ron	9.8	bibby,mike	-5.5
ming,yao	9.3	james,mike	-5.0
gasol,pau	9.1	graham,joey	-4.7
bowen,bruce	9.1	turkoglu,hedo	-3.5
duncan,tim	9.0	simmons,bobby	-2.6
battier,shane	8.8	jones,damon	-2.4
finley,michael	8.7	davis,ricky	-2.1
francis,steve	8.7	stojakovic,peja	-1.8
wade,dwyane	8.4	rose,jalen	-1.8
howard,juwan	8.4	calderon,jose	-1.8
jackson,stephen	8.1	ridnour,luke	-1.6
camby,marcus	8.1	dixon,juan	-1.5
stoudamire,damon	7.9	brezec,primoz	-1.4
mcgrady,tracy	7.8	childress,josh	-1.3
mourning,alonzo	7.4	bosh,chris	-1.2
o'neal,jermaine	7.3	daniels,antonio	-0.8
wallace,rasheed	7.2	jeffries,jared	-0.8
kirilenko,andrei	7.2	lewis,rashard	-0.6

I didn't develop this system until around Thanksgiving. Many early-season box scores have not been entered. Thus, there is a fairly small sample size in the counterpart database. But the anamolies (Ben Wallace has very poor counterpart statistics) should smooth out as the database grows.

NBA Trak daily, 12/19

2005-12-19T12:05:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's games:

76ers 107, Raptors 80

Iguodala: 9-10 FG. You can only assume that's 9 dunks and 1 jump shot. Sixers have been significantly better since Dalembert (18 boards, 3 blocks) returned to the lineup. Sixers doubled Raptors' EFF score.

Hawks 110, Nuggets 107

Hawks are playing better but Nuggets are woefully thin right now.

Nets 118, Warriors 90

Sign of road weariness: allowing 57.5% FG shooting to Nets. These things happen.

Mavericks 102, T-Wolves 95

Josh Howard outplayed Wally more than KG outplayed Dirk as Mavs win another one with defense.

Trail Blazers 97, Wizards 92

Where have you gone, Larry Hughes?

Rockets 76, Lakers 74

When the effort is there, T-Mac can get it done on both ends of the floor.

Hornets 89, Spurs 76

If Chris Paul continues to school guys like Tony Parker, he'll be this season's ROY easy.

New ratings & predictions are here. Spurs' dud means there is a new second-place team.

NBA Trak, 12/18

2005-12-18T11:45:00.000-08:00

Last night's games:

Clippers 89, Rockets 81
COMMENT: Bad Clips' free-throwing kept this one closer than it should have been.
Pistons 103, Bobcats 78
COMMENT: The Pistons just don't let up. Bobcats need to get Sean May, Ray Felton on floor more, Kareem Rush less - much less. Remember when Gerald Wallace was a burdgeoning All-Star? That was just two weeks ago.
Pacers 102, Knicks 96
COMMENT: Tinsley getting his groove back.
Cavaliers 115, Heat 107
COMMENT: King James. Shaq isn't back.
Grizzlies 91, Suns 87
COMMENT: 114 missed field goal attempts. Suns were 3-4 from the line. NBA is FAN-tastic. Grizz committed just 4 turnovers.
Bulls 118, Celtics 86
COMMENT: Bulls shot 59.7% from floor and assisted on 34 of 43 field goals. Sometimes, it just seems so easy.
Spurs 90, Kings 89
COMMENT: Once-sharp-shooting Kings lose by 1 in game they went 8-16 from the foul line.
Jazz 88, Bucks 80
COMMENT: Who can figure out the Jazz? An up-and-comer: Devin Brown of the Jazz.

As always, the updated rankings and predictions are here. A shocking name sneaks his name onto the 10-worst list. How did he get there? It's a combination of inefficient offense and horrendous defense, a malady which effects nearly the entire team he plays on.

NBA Trak, 12/17

2005-12-17T13:16:00.000-08:00

Updated NBA rankings can be found here. New leader at the top - and the bottom - of the player rankings.

Who's in right?

2005-12-17T10:09:00.000-08:00

It's still my position that the Royals don't need to sign a free-agent outfielder. But they appear intent on doing so. Jacque Jones is the likely signing but two other names have been mentioned. Here's a thumbnail look:

PLAYER	AGE	3YR_RD_OPS	ZR**
2005 ROYALS	--	.721*	.873
Preston Wilson	31	.784	.884
Jacque Jones	31	.782	.875
Juan Encarnacion	30	.746	.890

* Royals' 2005 overall park-adjusted OPS for LF; ** projected

From this table, it doesn't look like there is a whole lot of difference between the three. All of would be upgrades with the bat and the glove. As I mentioned yesterday, you have to use the Royals' LF stats last year for comparison because, in essence, that is the lineup spot that will be replaced. Last year's right-fielder, Emil Brown, will be moving to left field. Emil posted a .809 OPS last season.

Dollars and length of contract should be the determining factor here. Jacque Jones may be similar in value to the other two but would you rather have him for three years if you can get one of the others with a two-year pact?

That aside, if you're talking strictly about on-field value, I like Encarnacion. He's the best gloveman in the bunch and has, by far, the best throwing arm. Offensively, he might be a bit below the other two, though the numbers you see here are weighed down by his subpar 2004 season.

Further, Encarnacion is a year younger, no small consideration when you're talking about 30-somethings. His right-handed bat would meld well with a corner-outfield rotation of Encarnacion, Aaron Guiel, Emil Brown and Matt Stairs, though there wouldn't be room for all of them if the Royals go with a 12-man pitching staff. That leaves Chip Ambres out of the equation, which would be semi-regrettable. (By the way, Baird said yesterday that Stairs will be getting time in the outfield during the upcoming season.)

Even though Encarnacion is my preference, there really it really doesn't matter a whole lot who the Royals bring in if the dollars and years are similar.

But, again, I think corner platoons of Stairs/Ambres, Guiel/Brown work just fine. Pocket the $5 million per annum for another season. Which reminds me - a lot of the response that I got yesterday was mildly scolding for being too negative. Perhaps my opening comments were a little harsh but, overall, I think I presented a mixed bag of opinions. Most of the moves are defensible and, in the end, the 2006 Royals will win a few more games than they would have without the moves.

However, I have to reiterate that I think it would be better to keep the payroll supressed for at least another year. I'm working on an analysis of last year's free agent class along with some other big-picture issues. That should be ready in a couple of days.

But, hey, if you're excited about the Royals' moves yesterday, more power to ya. I may be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Baird's big day

2005-12-16T12:43:00.000-08:00

I suppose it was bound to happen. You give a guy money to spend, I guess he's going to find a way to spend it. The damage is done. No use crying about what should or shouldn't have been done. Contracts have been signed and they're legally binding and there are no two ways about it.

The worst move is yet to come. Jacque Jones hasn't signed yet, but sounds like he will and his three-year, $15 million deal will be an albatross, the exact kind of move the Royals can't afford to make. Not when you've got better options already in house and even better options coming down the pipe.

Anyway, to recap (with projections from my PROFITS system):

THE PITCHERS

[2005 ROYALS STARTERS: 33-73, 6.00 ERA]

* Mark Redman (9-11 wins, 190 IP, ERA 4.59 - 5.02, 105-115K, 18-23 HR, 58-68 BB, 1.25 GB:FB)
* Scott Elarton (8-10 wins, 180 IP, ERA 5.10 - 6.00, 90-100K, 30-35 HR, 50-60BB, 0.60 GB:FB)

Both of these guys will be around for the next two seasons. Neither will strike out many batters and the Royals have virtually guaranteed that their starters will again finish at the bottom of the league in K's.

Redman has always nominally been a flyball pitcher but posted an excellent 1.65 GB:FB for the Pirates last season. A continuation of that trend would be great. There are no such hopes for Elarton who is an extreme flyball pitcher. He moves from a stingier run-scoring environment in Cleveland so his already-shaky numbers will likely take a hit.

The ERA range for all of the pitchers is predicated on the Royals' DER. A .690 DER would generate the low end of those projections. A .670 figure yields the high end. An extreme bump (say to .700 or .705) would move the pitchers into the neighborhood of league average. But don't hold your breath.

Both pitchers should be an improvement over the stock 6.00 ERA the Royals were getting from starting pitchers in 2005. But they might not be, either. The hope is that they hold steady in the midrange of those projections (4.90 ERA for Redman, 5.50 for Elarton), which would be good enough to keep them in the rotation for 30-35 starts apiece.

That would allow the Royals, and the rest of us, to pin our hopes for pitching improvement to come from:

1. a maturing Zack Greinke
2. a healthier Runelvys Hernandez
3. a more consistent Jeremy Affeldt
4. a potentially dynamite bullpen

In other words, Redman and Elarton can hopefully stop the merry-go-round of replacement-level fodder (and worse) that annually fills out 2/5 - 3/5 of the Royals' rotation. Will that be worth the combined $10 million the two are likely to make each of the next two seasons? What happens if Denny Bautista and J.P. Howell are ready to stick in The Show?

Best case scenario: Redman & Elarton overachieve the first half of next season. Bautista & Howell progress in the minors. Redman and Elarton are flipped at the trade deadline, leaving the Royals with a 2007 rotation of Greinke, Hernandez, Affeldt, Bautista & Howell.

Worst case scenario: Redman and Elarton make us long for the days of Brian Anderson and Jose Lima. Midway through the 2007 season, both are released with the Royals eating considerable dollars. Meanwhile, none of the five young starter aforementioned fulfill their potential.

* Elmer Dessens (3-5 wins, 60-70 IP, 4.40 - 4.95 ERA, 30-40 K, 4-8 HR, 10-15 BB. 1.65 GB:FB)
- Elmer has exceptional command and a sterling groundball ratio. He can go 2-3 innings and his finesse style will be a different look from the BBs fired by Sisco, Burgos, Nunez, et al. But what does he do that is any different than Mike Wood? How many of those guys do you need on your staff? Wood has higher upside. Dessens might work out just fine but it's money that could have been better spent elsewhere. Or, better yet, not spent at all.

POSITION PLAYERS

[2005 ROYALS SECOND BASEMEN: (.235/.293/.334, 9 HR, 55 RBI, 66 R, 4 SB, .786 ZR]

* Mark Grudzielanek (.299/.342/.412, 7 HR, 50 RBI, 69 R, 6 SB; .856 ZR)

I've changed my tune on Grudz. He's a middle infielder who will turn 36 next season but his indicators were solid last season. (CAUTION: middle infielders, when they drop off, do it steeply. See Boone, Bret; Alomar, Roberto) The Royals are only on the hook for him for one year, minimizing the risk.

It will be virtually impossible for a healthy Grudz to not improve the position, both at the plate and in the field. Look at that difference in zone rating. That alone could bump the Royals' DER 5-10 points.

If the Royals could unload Berroa and hand shortstop over to Andres Blanco AND if Mark Teahen plays as he did at the end of last season AND Doug Meintkiewicz hits well enough to hold down the first-base position, then you're looking at a pretty solid infield defense. With the improvement of the young starters the single most important problem facing the Royals, improving the defense to above league average is crucial. They may be on the path to accomplish that.

The other upshot is that during the one-year of Grudz' package, Ruben Gotay and Donnie Murphy will be subject to another much-needed year of development and evaluation. If they don't pan out, then you can pick up Grudz' option for 2007 and hope that Jeff Bianchi is ready beyond that.

* Doug Mientkiewicz (.270/.350/.460, 15 HR, 70 RBI, 60 R, 0 SB; .890 ZR)

Not since the days of Wally Joyner have the Royals seen a capable glove at first base. Well, I guess Jeff King was here but he was mailing it in by the time he was through here. Anyway, I like this move as a stopgap solution if D.M. matches that projection. That's a big, fat if, however.

Last season, he showed surprising pop for the Mets but his batting average was down for the second-straight season. But D.M.'s contact rate and walk percentages have remained steady. Was he unlucky with the average? I can't answer that for sure but his line-drive rate was a good 5 percent below the National League average. That's a sign of slowed bat speed.

But, as I say, the risk is minimal. Sure, he's blocking Justin Huber but Huber could use more Class AAA seasoning anyway. If D.M. can't hit at all anymore, then Huber is always just a phone call away. D.M. would then just be an expensive defensive replacement.

* Paul Bako (Sal Fasano, Tim Spehr, Jorge Fabregas, Hector Ortiz, A.J. Hinch, Mike DiFelice, Alberto Castillo, Kelly Stinnett - does it really matter?)

[2005 ROYALS LF: .276/.324/.396, 13 HR, 68 RBI, 81 R, 5 SB, .873 ZR from right fielders]

* Jacque Jones (.257/.321/.442, 25 HR, 84 RBI, 82 R, 15 SB; .875 ZR)

I used left field hitting stats here because Jones will be replacing Emil Brown in right, who will move to left. While the zone-rating improvment projects to be nominal, the ZR for that position is flaky and Jones will be a defensive upgrade.

Jones projects to be a slight upgrade at the plate over the Royals' paltry LF production from last season, which came primarily from Terrence Long. But will it be better than what the Royals could get from a platoon of Matt Stairs & Chip Ambres? Was it worth it to designate Matt Diaz for assignment?

Those questions pertain to this season but what about beyond that? Billy Butler? Alex Gordon? Hello? Remember, folks, the Royals' offer to Jones is three years, $15 million. Perhaps it won't happen but if (or when) it does, it'll be a terrible acquisition.

Overall, the Royals have acquired a group of players that, in the aggregate, is mediocre or slightly worse. That, sad to say, does improve the ballclub over the short term. Other than Jones, none of these players are likely to be blocking a younger player who ought to be playing in a regular big-league role in 2006.

I give tepid thumbs-up to signings of Mientkiewicz and Redman, a solid thumbs-up to Grudzielanek, a moderate thumbs-down to Dessens and Elarton, a who-cares to Bako and a resounding thumbs-down to Jacque Jones.

The unasked question here is whether it would have been better for the Royals to take it on the chin for another year, save these funds for the next off-season, and hope their not-ready-for-prime-time crew develops at the big-league level. That was my preference at the beginning and after Baird's spending frenzy of the last two days, that preference hasn't changed.

NBA Daily

2005-12-15T14:43:00.000-08:00

For those of you that have used the Blogger platform to post data tables, you know how aggravating it can be. On this site, the problem is compounded by the Knight Ridder coding that is forced onto the template. So...

I'm going to keep this page text only. But don't worry. I'll still be lashing together tables. I'll upload them as seperate pages and link to them. It'll be better this way. Trust me.

Anyway, no time for commentary right now, but the complete updated NBA Trak ratings with yesterday's results can be found here.