All Time Draft Round Two DRAFT PAGE.

[AstrosFan]

Hi guys. I'll take Bryan Harvey 1991-93. I've already got plenty of innings in my bullpen, even with the 28.7 IP season in 1992, I'm at a robust 482 IP for my bullpen. Harvey brings an average of 58.8 IP a season to the table, along with a 236 ERA+. I'm pretty happy I stumbled upon this pick.

[brett]

Hi guys. I'll take Bryan Harvey 1991-93. I've already got plenty of innings in my bullpen, even with the 28.7 IP season in 1992, I'm at a robust 482 IP for my bullpen. Harvey brings an average of 58.8 IP a season to the table, along with a 236 ERA+. I'm pretty happy I stumbled upon this pick.


Not a big deal, but you have to take the reciprocol of ERA+ before averaging them, and then reverse them back. There was a discussion about this on the stats forum and he still is an excellent 225.1. Great pick. Big K's. Suprisingly AWESOME against LEFT handed batters (.158 BA over the 3 years! in 343 ABs).

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I'll take Steve Kline. 1999-2001

He's another lefty who will adds even more depth to my pen.

[Wade8813]

Wee Willie is skipped, so WL is up.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Jim Kern, 1977-79



Sal Maglie, 1950-54

[Minstrel]

I do agree with WARP III in this sense: players were ideally used in their time to maximize their WARP and so Appier would not have been worth more if he pitched more, and Drysdale also had "x" amount of value to go around. I think that the WARP system sets the baseline level way too low though-I think around a 72 ERA+. I would move it higher somewhat.

I will probably use ERA+ above some baseline, and I will probably rate their IP based on how close they were to being near the league lead because in the 60s it was much easier to cruise through parts of the lineup. Drysdale was among the league leaders in IP.

Appier finished 2, 1 and 6 in ERA+ and a best of 8th in IP.

Drysdale finished 2, 10, 8 and 3 in ERA+ and 5, 9, 1, 2, 1 in IP so I agree. Teams tended to let their pitchers rack up innings at the expense of dominant ERA+ scores.

But I still feel it was a little easier to rack up easy innings in the 60s so there are really 2 effects-one of having fewer dangerous hitters in the lineup and the other of a mentality of letting your top guys go longer.

I may look at a BBPro formula that shows how pitchers improve as their innings are reduced.

Its actually a paradox with LQ. The 4 man rotation makes it harder to separate from the league in ERA+ (high LQ) but the 5 man rotation tends to improve LQ by decreasing the workload and spreading it among more pitchers.

There is a rough formula. Take a pitchers ERA+ x (IP-200)/200 x .25 to figure out what he would do with 200 IP.

Drysdale'e relative ERA was .781. This would be reduces by 13% by this formula to .680 converting to an ERA+ of 147.

That, of course does not deal with moving a player to a different period where innings were harder to come by however.


But keep in mind, I'm not saying that they pitched their best through the first 210, just that they pitched their best through their BEST 210. Still, I agree that that is not entirely accurate.

All quite reasonable and fair. Thanks for the thought-out response.

[Westlake]

Armando Benitez

2002-2004

[brett]

Armando Benitez

2002-2004



That's one down out of the 4 relievers I mentioned, though he was 4th on my list.

[brett]

I am going to post offense by position on the stat thread. It will take some time. I don't want to do lineups yet because I'm sure they are in flux. Can people check their starters please?

[Erik Bedard]

Well, now I realize that I don't have a 3B. That's a fairly large oversight.

[ElHalo]

That's my roster, all right. Everybody knows who I'm taking at SS (or at least DMF and Leecemark should; I've said since about round five that I'd be punting offense to go defense only at that position), so my roster is pretty much set there.

[brett]

That's my roster, all right. Everybody knows who I'm taking at SS (or at least DMF and Leecemark should; I've said since about round five that I'd be punting offense to go defense only at that position), so my roster is pretty much set there.

If he is not testudinal, he may make up some of his offense on the bases.

(though if he happened to play second base as well, he might be gone before you're up.)

[Erik Bedard]

I don't know what's sadder: that I know who EH will take or that I know what testudinal means.

[Wade8813]

I don't know who EH means. Saying he's picking a SS purely for DEF eliminates a few options, but it's SS for crying out loud. There are dozens who count as punting offense to go DEF only there.

[brett]

I don't know who EH means. Saying he's picking a SS purely for DEF eliminates a few options, but it's SS for crying out loud. There are dozens who count as punting offense to go DEF only there.

Yea but even Ozzie Smith was a well above average offensive player for his top 5 years. His OPS+ was about 100, and linear weight have him a little higher because of OB%. He was worth around 15 more for baserunning and steals.

The problem is that defensive sytems have been shown to jip the very best fielders, especially at SS. Smith was only in the high teens in FRAA for most of his career, but I think BBPro showed that he probably saved twice that many above average.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Latroy Hawkins... 2002-2004.

Wade: I'll PM you soon with an offer.

[brett]

Latroy Hawkins... 2002-2004.

Wade: I'll PM you soon with an offer.


That's 2 down, though he was #3 on my list.

[Wade8813]

I'll take Hank Aguirre (1967-1969) and Francisco Cordero (2002-2004).

[brett]

I'll take Hank Aguirre (1967-1969) and Francisco Cordero (2002-2004).

3 down, though he's still only #2

[Wade8813]

Yeah, I figured Cordero would be on the list, and that Aguirre wouldn't.

[brett]

Yeah, I figured Cordero would be on the list, and that Aguirre wouldn't.


Aguirre has a 181.4 composite ERA but I think only around 41.9 innings, though he would have been on the list if I had seen him-though with 3 lefties I'm pretty set there.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Jim Brewer... 1970-1972.

EDIT: Thanks brett for catching on that Burgmeier pick. I just overlooked him on your bullpen list.

[brett]

Tom Burgmeier... 1980-1982.


He's taken I believe. Yes EB got him 2 rounds ago.

[Wade8813]

I completely missed Brewer, but I wouldn't have taken him over Aguirre or Cordero anyway, so that's ok.

[brett]

Brewer had a 166 ERA+ for about 80 innings per. Aguirre 181 for about half that much. I have to think that if you cut Brewer's innings in half he is in the 190s. That's just a rough guess based on a study of other guys who did better on reduced innings.

I still see 4 more real good lefties.

If any team gets over 500 innings worth of relievers, they probably will get a bump in my personal rating. High 400s is good, low 400s will be a little suspect.

(With 162 games averaging 8.75 IP per, that's 1418 and it goes up if you win more than half the time, so if you get 1000 from your starters)

[Wade8813]

I don't buy that. It's one thing to guess that someone who pitches 350 innings may have been conserving themself. But someone who had 80 IP is probably throwing at 100% just about every time.

[brett]

I don't buy that. It's one thing to guess that someone who pitches 350 innings during a pitching era may have been conserving themself. But someone who had 80 IP is probably throwing at 100% just about every time.


But probably specializing against righties or lefties at least a little? Possibly seeing the same batter twice in a series?

[Wade8813]

I don't think facing the same batter once in a series or twice in a series makes much of a difference.

Specializing against lefties or righties can make a difference. But it depends on if TSS would be using his guy in that sort of roll, and how good that person's splits are. It didn't seem to me that you were adjusting based on splits, just assuming that someone with about 160 ERA+ would have about 190 ERA+ if they pitched 40 IP.

[brett]

I don't think facing the same batter once in a series or twice in a series makes much of a difference.

Specializing against lefties or righties can make a difference. But it depends on if TSS would be using his guy in that sort of roll, and how good that person's splits are. It didn't seem to me that you were adjusting based on splits, just assuming that someone with about 160 ERA+ would have about 190 ERA+ if they pitched 40 IP.

I just think you'll find that guys in the 40 inning range tended to come in to face a specific handed batter or two. There's nothing wrong with that. The main purpose of having multiple lefties is to shut down a left handed batter in a key situation, but I think you'll find that the 80 inning lefty probably faced an almost equal number of lefties and righties.


Aguirre faced about 36% lefties during his 3 years. Brewer, interestingly only faced 19% lefties (even though he was pretty good against them).

Those are both a little mysterious though, as starting pitchers tend to face almost equal proportions of lefties and righties, so both of them pitched to more RIGHTIES than the league proportion.

(Well that's what I thought)

I just checked Palmer and Quizenberry and found that for their careers they faced almost equal amounts of lefties and righties for their entire careers, but I checked Koufax and he faced 80% RIGHTIES over his career. Randy Johnson faced 89% righties.

It must have to do with teams totally loading up on right handed hitters against them and in Brewer's case it may simply be that teams pulled a pinch hitter on him more often.

[brett]

Bullpen and rosters have been updated.

[ElHalo]

Jim Brewer was a great pick; I probably wouldn't have noted him if I didn't have him in the Classic Keeper League across the forum.

[Westlake]

Willie Hernandez 1983-1985

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Wee Willie was skipped last round, so that means it's my pick.

I'll take Mort Cooper

1942-1946

[brett]

Willie Hernandez 1983-1985



I ignored him because his ERA+ was not so dominating at about 145 composite, and I thought that with the screwgie, he would have been a lefty who did better against righties like McGraw did, BUT he had a lot of innings and what I noticed, and has me agreeing that this was a PRIME pick is that he allowed just a .230 on base% and .250 slugging to lefties over that span. Those are the ultimate numbers for a lefty shut down guy. That, in case you are all wondering correlates to about a 333 ERA+ versus lefties (about a 30 OPS+ against).

[brett]

Wee Willie was skipped last round, so that means it's my pick.

I'll take Mort Cooper
1942-1946

A 144 ERA+ makes him the top rate starter left, though his best years were helped by WWII (much like Newhouser). I think he was one of the top 3 starters left.

[ElHalo]

Willie Hernandez 1983-1985


This is up to you, but I'd take his 1984-1986 years over that. Here's the comparative lines:

1983-1985:

W: L: ERA: ERA+: WHIP: K: IP: K/9: BB/9: H/9: SV:
8.67 5.67 2.58 149.87 1.02 93.67 120.77 6.98 2.04 7.13 23.67


1984-1986:

W: L: ERA: ERA+: WHIP: K: IP: K/9: BB/9: H/9: SV:
8.33 6.67 2.60 154.81 1.00 88.33 111.90 7.10 1.90 7.10 29.00


Of course, neither his 1983 nor his 1986 were as good as his 84-85 peak. But the thing is, since he had fewer innings in 1986 than 1983, it drags down his averages less, and the IP don't really hurt you, because he's still a very high IP reliever either way.

[brett]

Of course, neither his 1983 nor his 1986 were as good as his 84-85 peak. But the thing is, since he had fewer innings in 1986 than 1983, it drags down his averages less, and the IP don't really hurt you, because he's still a very high IP reliever either way.

He had a little better OPS+ against in '83 than '86 (91 to 96) which might affect his defense independent ERA+, but he was better against left handers from '84-'86 with a 32.6 OPS+ against! versus a 49.1 from '83-'85. I would go with your recommendation because a 32.6 ERA+ against is just insanely "shut down" against left handers.

By the way, I discovered that Koufax actually had as good or better an OPS+ against him in '63, '64 and '65 than Gibson had in '68. That was a suprise. Koufax' numbers must be less meaningful though considering the right handed platooning against him. Same for Randy Johnson. Gibson for example faced 46% left handers and 54% right handers. Koufax faced about 80/20. Never realized that before.

[brett]

Found another starter!

[Westlake]

You're right ElHalo. I just did it in haste before work so I didn't look into it that much. Thanks.

I'll change Hernandez's years to 84-86

[Erik Bedard]

AF should be skipped, so I'll take Scott Rolen 2000-04.

[ElHalo]

AF should be skipped, so I'll take Scott Rolen 2000-04.

I'm really hoping PK3 makes his pick.

[AstrosFan]

Ken Singleton 1975-79

[ElHalo]

Ok, I have a pick. I'm ready to take him, but the clock's not closing until thirteen minutes after 10.

[Wade8813]

Yeah, I'm getting sick of the same people missing their turn over and over. I have no problem with it if they're already skipped, because we just skip them again. But then they come back, and make their picks, and then miss a pick again, and we have to wait another 8 hours for them.

[ElHalo]

Especially with this stupid twelve hour window at night. Now, my window doesn't start until 10:13 tomorrow morning... when I'll be at work.

[Wade8813]

If he only has 13 minutes, I'd probably just give him an extra 20 minutes after his time would expire (if it wasn't stopped), then just pick anyway. The odds are, it won't matter. It's a slight gamble - he might get on before his clock expires, and want the person you took. But it's incredibly unlikely, and probably not the end of the world even if it does happen.

Or you can PM someone. (it's my day off, so I may not wake up in a timely fashion, but you can PM me if you wish)

[ElHalo]

Joe Hoerner, 1966-1968.

[brett]

Joe Hoerner, 1966-1968.

I had a strong feeling you would take him-to give you a third lefty. My
recal is a 174 ERA+ and 63 innings per.

[brett]

Since the other guys waiting to go in this round have been pretty saavy with the relievers, I am going to take another reliever here as well. I'd be interested to know who if anyone had him on their lists.

Steve Farr '90-'92. 202 ERA+ and 83 innings per.

Awesome verus righties-.200/.251/.279.

Also started 6 games in '90 with a 1.47 ERA, and CG shutout, in spot and emergency duty.

[AstrosFan]

One of the problems I've been having is keeping up with where the draft is, and whose turn it is, because the draft list is updated so infrequently. I'm not putting the blame on Chris; I should be able to figure out where I am even without the updates. But when the draft list was updated more frequently, I got to relying on it, and the drop in updates has had an effect.

To counter this, I have decided to create my own draft list, and just update it myself. I think I will have it updated much more frequently than the page one list is, and it will prevent me from missing my turn. I will also include the last time a player picked, so that I know what the clock is for the next player.

[philkid3]

Yeah, I'm getting sick of the same people missing their turn over and over. I have no problem with it if they're already skipped, because we just skip them again. But then they come back, and make their picks, and then miss a pick again, and we have to wait another 8 hours for them.

Sorry, I was gone yesterday.


If possible, I'd be fine with my clock being shortened to an hour. Usually if I'm around a computer, I'm checking regularly. If I'm not, I won't be around during my window.

[philkid3]

William Jennings Brian "Billy" Herman (1935-39)

[Westlake]

Hey Brett, i'll admit i'd never even heard of Farr.

[Wade8813]

I had Farr on my list. In fact, he was who I was going to guess was the last person on your list that you were talking about, brett.

BTW, it's great that we've got at least some sort of resolution to this draft taking so long, even if it did take us almost twenty rounds to do something about it ;)

[Minstrel]

Since the other guys waiting to go in this round have been pretty saavy with the relievers, I am going to take another reliever here as well. I'd be interested to know who if anyone had him on their lists.

Steve Farr '90-'92. 202 ERA+ and 83 innings per.

Great pick. He was next on my list. I had him in the last iteration of this challenge.

My pick coming soon...

[Minstrel]

Wow, sorry. I'm at work and as I was deciding, I got pulled away. Here's my pick.


Jay Howell (1988-90)

184.76 composite ERA+ and an average of 70.1 IP per season for my fourth reliever. Gives me a great right-hander.

[brett]

Wow, sorry. I'm at work and as I was deciding, I got pulled away. Here's my pick.


Jay Howell (1988-90)

184.76 composite ERA+ and an average of 70.1 IP per season for my fourth reliever. Gives me a great right-hander.

Well, you do know how to compute composite ERA+, though I make a small adjustment which is to standardize the run environment between seasons. That way a high run season doesn't get weighted more than a low run season. On the stats forum it was agreed that that is just a little more accurate when the run environment changes over a player's years. I still get 181.4 though which is top notch.


CORRECTION: actually you made an error. You have to take the reciprocol of his ERA+ scores for each year, then weigh them by innings, then take the average and then flip them back over. An ERA+ of 200 means a relative era of .50. An ERA+ of 100 means a relative era of 1.00. The average of these is 0.75 which is a 133 ERA+ (not the average of 100 and 200 which is 150). His correct ERA+ IS 181.4.

[Minstrel]

CORRECTION: actually you made an error. You have to take the reciprocol of his ERA+ scores for each year, then weigh them by innings, then take the average and then flip them back over. An ERA+ of 200 means a relative era of .50. An ERA+ of 100 means a relative era of 1.00. The average of these is 0.75 which is a 133 ERA+ (not the average of 100 and 200 which is 150). His correct ERA+ IS 181.4.

I added up the innings for the three years and then divided each year's inning by the three year total to get a weight. I then multiplied each season's ERA+ by its weighting and added up the weighted ERA+'s.

Can you explain the logical significance of using the reciprocal, please? I see that you get different answers, using that method, but why do you feel the method you use has greater logical validity?

[brett]

I added up the innings for the three years and then divided each year's inning by the three year total to get a weight. I then multiplied each season's ERA+ by its weighting and added up the weighted ERA+'s.

Can you explain the logical significance of using the reciprocal, please? I see that you get different answers, using that method, but why do you feel the method you use has greater logical validity?

Lets say a pitcher pitches one season in which he gives up 3 runs per game in a 5 run per game league for 100 innings. Then the next year he gives up 4 runs per game in a 5 run per game league in 100 innings (to keep it the same).

His ERA+ in season 1 is 5/3 x 100 or 166.7.
His ERA+ in season 2 is 5/4 x 100 or 125.0.

If you averaged the 2 ERA+ scores you would get (166.7 + 125.0)/2 or 145.85

But in fact his total 2 year average of runs per game is (3+4)/2 or 3.5 and his league total average is of course 5. His total era+ then is 5/3.5 x 100= 142.86 This is what you get when you take 1/((3/5 + 4/5)/2) x 100.

(.6 + .8)/2 = .7 1/.7 = 1.4286

Another math example is that 1/((1/3 + 1/4)/2) is not equal to (3 + 4)/2

Lets say that someone gives up runs at a rate of 20% of the league in one year and 80% in another. His ERA+ in each year is 500 and 125. The average of that is 625/2 or 312.5 but in fact, over the 2 years he gave up a total rate of 50% of the league rate (the average of 20% and 80%). That would give him a true composite ERA+ of 200.

You can look at Papelbon's 3 year stats of BBRef and see that it is not the average of the ERA+ scores weighted by innings. It is the reciprocol of the average of the reciprocols of his ERA+ scores.

[Minstrel]

Lets say that someone gives up runs at a rate of 20% of the league in one year and 80% in another. His ERA+ in each year is 500 and 125. The average of that is 625/2 or 312.5 but in fact, over the 2 years he gave up a total rate of 50% of the league rate (the average of 20% and 80%). That would give him a true composite ERA+ of 200.

Ah, okay. The average of the rates, rather than the results. I understand, thanks.

[ElHalo]

I did not have Farr on my horizon, although I'm not sure why. I remember really liking him.

[brett]

Remember when we used to get 2-3 picks a day?

[brett]

Chris is up and 2:29 into his time as of 6:45 central right now.

[brett]

Chris' time is up as of 12:16 Central.

Leecemark, your up and 47 minutes in.

If you make both picks and Chris and STBF aren't back, then its back to Minstrel.

[ChrisLDuncan]

My pick is Lance Berkman 2002-2006

[brett]

My pick is Lance Berkman 2002-2006




crrrrrrap! He was a guy I felt I needed to still put up a complete offense.

And played over 165 games at first, left, right and center.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Yeah, I think he had like a 150 OPS+ over that stretch, he gets underrated, if he still does what he's been doing I feel he's a hall of famer. So was he your DH plan? If yes, maybe we'll work out a trade.

[leecemark]

Mark Eichron 1986-88 - which puts me at about 600 relief innings
Gary Sheffield 1996-2000 - hope he isn't too disruptive as the 4th outfielder! Too good to pass up at this spot though

[brett]

Yeah, I think he had like a 150 OPS+ over that stretch, he gets underrated, if he still does what he's been doing I feel he's a hall of famer. So was he your DH plan? If yes, maybe we'll work out a trade.

He was actually not my DH plan when we last spoke. He became the plan around the end of the last round (rd 18).

There are actually 2 other plans for DH, but I would prefer Berkman in that slot.

[brett]

And Chris, your up again.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Gary Sheffield 1996-2000 - hope he isn't too disruptive as the 4th outfielder! Too good to pass up at this spot though

DAMN YOU! I really really really wanted Sheffield too.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Bob Elliott, 1947-51

[brett]

Bob Elliott, 1947-51

Is he, perhaps the least known MVP ever?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Stu Miller (I don't THINK he's been taken, but he was a top ten reliever in baseball for the three year peak I chose)

1963-1965

[ChrisLDuncan]

There are actually 2 other plans for DH, but I would prefer Berkman in that slot.

I'm open to dealing anyone of Foxx, Giambi, or Berkman.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Gary Sheffield 1996-2000 - hope he isn't too disruptive as the 4th outfielder! Too good to pass up at this spot though

I'd actually argue that he's a better player than Kaline. He was a flat out offensive force, total beast. He was an average defender though...something to consider.

[leecemark]

--I'm not going to have the best hitting team OR the best pitching team. I might have the best defensive team and Kaline needs to start to give me something besides a super durable bullpen as a standout area.
--Sheffield will play alot though. He'll probably platoon with Keller in LF or possibly DH vs LHP with McCovey going to first and Henandez sitting. Kaline is not a 162 game player so Sheff will see some action in RF. He could play 3B if needed too. At this point he is the backup for all 3 outfield spots, DH, 1B and 3B. Well actually he is my only bench player:shhh:. I'll need someone to back up the middle IF (or maybe 2 someones), a backup catcher and probable a RH hitting, elite defender in CF. I still want one more LH pitcher too, but he can be just a 1 out kind of guy with the rubber arms I already have in the pen.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I think STBF's second pick was skipped and Minstrel is OTC.

[Minstrel]

I will select:



Rod Beck (1992-1994)

Approximately a 170 component ERA+ (I took the reciprocals this time, brett!) over that period and 73.1 IP per season.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Joe Adcock, 1958-62

It's not his fault he was platooned by Fred Haney.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Brett and I made a 10 player mega deal.

I get:
L. Gomez, K. Appier, F. Rodriguez, T. Munson, and E. Murray

Brett get:
F. Thomas, M. Cochrane, and my 23rd, 24th, and 25th round pick.

Brett will confirm this.

[brett]

Brett and I made a 10 player mega deal.

I get:
L. Gomez, K. Appier, F. Rodriguez, T. Munson, and E. Murray

Brett get:
F. Thomas, M. Cochrane, and my 23rd, 24th, and 25th round pick.

Brett will confirm this.


Confirmed. I was getting bored anyway.

[brett]

I think STBF's second pick was skipped and Minstrel is OTC.

Just for the record, STBF got his pick in for last round before Chris got his his pick in his round 20 pick, so he should have reset his time.

[ElHalo]

Nevermind, thought I was on the clock

[brett]

Nevermind, thought I was on the clock

I didn't see anything.

I need just a little time to re-evaluate my team.

[brett]

Babe Herman '29-'33.

ElHalo, I have a guess at your next pick. Waiting to see.

[Wade8813]

Wow, mega trade is right. I can't even process all of the implications of that trade yet... :noidea :crazy

[brett]

Remember that PK3 asked for 1 hour windows for himself. Is that correct?

[Wade8813]

That's what he said. Personally, I think even with the circumstances he mentioned, an hour seems too short, but it's up to him, so that's the way it is.

[leecemark]

--I thought he said reduced BY one hour not TO one hour.

[brett]

Post 1051

'Sorry, I was gone yesterday.


If possible, I'd be fine with my clock being shortened to an hour. Usually if I'm around a computer, I'm checking regularly. If I'm not, I won't be around during my window."

[Wade8813]

Yep. Top of page 43 of this thread.

[Erik Bedard]

Sorry, I was gone yesterday.


If possible, I'd be fine with my clock being shortened to an hour. Usually if I'm around a computer, I'm checking regularly. If I'm not, I won't be around during my window.

Going by that, I'll pick now.

Ugueth Urbina, 1997-99

[Wade8813]

What's in front of his face? It looks almost like prison bars, except the color's all wrong...

BTW, EH didn't pick.

[brett]

What's in front of his face? It looks almost like prison bars, except the color's all wrong...

BTW, EH didn't pick.

Looks like beer tap handles.

[brett]

Going by that, I'll pick now.

Ugueth Urbina, 1997-99




His clock is shortened, but that goes into play after EH picks.

[philkid3]

Yes, I did say to one hour.

I didn't think I was on the clock, though. It's kind of hard to keep track, I was watching for Halo to pick.

[Wade8813]

EH has NOT picked yet. It is his turn. Then PK3 will get a turn. PK3 was not on the clock.

[philkid3]

Undone.

Please don't take my pick, Halo!

[ElHalo]

Ok; I was under the impression that STBF had two picks coming to him, and when he took Adcock, he got another window. I guess I was mistaken.



Ernie Lombardi, 1935-1939. Can't hurt to have one of the greatest hitting catchers of all time coming off the bench.

[ElHalo]

Babe Herman '29-'33. Can NOT find a decent picture out there.




ElHalo, I have a guess at your next pick. Waiting to see.

Have a feeling you weren't guessing Ernie Lombardi.

Backup C is of course the most important backup position, and I needed somebody I could trust there to provide me with some pop off the bench.

[brett]

Have a feeling you weren't guessing Ernie Lombardi.



No, but the guy I was thinking of was for much of the same reasoning. I'll tell you when he goes.

[philkid3]

I'm amazed this guy is still there (unless I'm mistaken). I must be missing something because I almost took him as my starter several rounds ago.


Alan Stewart Trammell (1983-87)

[Wade8813]

Nope, nobody took him before. I even looked him up, but for some reason didn't put him on my list.

[Erik Bedard]

What's in front of his face? It looks almost like prison bars, except the color's all wrong...

BTW, EH didn't pick.

They are prison bars. He got sentenced to 14 years in jail for attempted murder a couple years ago.

My bad on picking too early. I'm guessing philkid didn't want Urbina, though, so it's fine.

[Wade8813]

Oh yeah, I think I vaguely remember hearing something about that. So, he's behind bars, and has a bunch of microphones and some guy behind bars with him? I'm pretty sure prisons have better places for press conferences then that.

So, AF is on the clock.

[brett]

I'm amazed this guy is still there (unless I'm mistaken). I must be missing something because I almost took him as my starter several rounds ago.


Alan Stewart Trammell (1983-88)



I was lookint at him again today. You need 5 years though. '83-'87 I presume.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Man... I gotta completely redo my roster page and brett gotta redo his roster, his rotation, and bullpen page as well for our mega trade. All I know is that I have 3 picks left (all RP picks) and just like the first all time draft... I'll be done by the 22nd round. Man... gotta love that. Now I think I got a great chance of winning this thing since my offense is still top 5 (after trading Thomas and Cochrane) and my pitching is probably top 5 (adding Gomez/Appier to rotation and K Rod to bullpen) as well with very good to great defense (my infield alone is like 60+ FRAA in 5 year avg).

[philkid3]

I was lookint at him again today. You need 5 years though. '83-'87 I presume.

Yeah, that's a typo.

[brett]

Man... I gotta completely redo my roster page and brett gotta redo his roster, his rotation, and bullpen page as well for our mega trade. All I know is that I have 3 picks left (all RP picks) and just like the first all time draft... I'll be done by the 22nd round. Man... gotta love that. Now I think I got a great chance of winning this thing since my offense is still top 5 (after trading Thomas and Cochrane) and my pitching is probably top 5 (adding Gomez/Appier to rotation and K Rod to bullpen) as well with very good to great defense (my infield alone is like 60+ FRAA in 5 year avg).

I will try to update everything by this afternoon.

[Wade8813]

So, AF has about 2 hours left on the clock.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I'll take my backup catcher. Javy Lopez 1995-1999.

[Wade8813]

Westlake is on the clock (and AF and WW both have picks to make up).

[AstrosFan]

Sorry I'm late with my pick. I've got a midterm coming up on Thursday, and I forgot I had a turn coming up.

Gene Tenace 1975-79

[Wade8813]

Nice pick. I'm disappointed - I didn't have him on my list... :cool:

[brett]

Nice pick. I'm disappointed - I didn't have him on my list... :cool:

I had him as one of my 4 when I went for Munson. Great "saber" pick. Downside-only caught 96 games a year for that stretch and not as highly rated in the history forum..

[Westlake]

Bill Henry (1964-1966)

[The Splendid Splinter]

YAY... I got him as my lefty specialist.

Mike Gonzalez... 2004-2006.

only 49 IP avg. but his ERA+ should be very close to 200 or more.

[AstrosFan]

I had him as one of my 4 when I went for Munson. Great "saber" pick. Downside-only caught 96 games a year for that stretch and not as highly rated in the history forum..

That would worry me if he were my starting catcher, but as a backup catcher, it's not a problem, especially since I've got perhaps the most durable catcher in history in Yogi Berra as my starter.

[AstrosFan]

YAY... I got him as my lefty specialist.

Mike Gonzalez... 2004-2006.

only 49 IP avg. but his ERA+ should be very close to 200 or more.

206.6, in fact.

[Wade8813]

Holy crap, quit taking all the players I want right before I'm about to...

Gimme a sec here.

[Wade8813]

I'll take Jason Kendall and Al Hrabrosky

[The Splendid Splinter]

Woo Hoo...

Larry Andersen... 1989-1991.


only one more pick left...

[Westlake]

Damaso Marte (2002-2004)

[brett]

That would worry me if he were my starting catcher, but as a backup catcher, it's not a problem, especially since I've got perhaps the most durable catcher in history in Yogi Berra as my starter.


Your right. He's a perfect backup. And with Berra a left handed hitter and Tenace a righty its a fantastic semi-platoon. Yogi starting maybe 110 and Tenace 50 versus lefties. Either one could be a valuable pinch hitter too.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I'll take Lou Whitaker

[AstrosFan]

Sal Bando 1968-72

[Wade8813]

EB, you were supposed to pick...

[Erik Bedard]

Well then. I thought it was going the other way.

Rob Murphy, 1986-88

[philkid3]

I think he's overrated, but I also think he's a worthy pick at this point (though there are a few other outfielders I could have been just as happy with):

Kirby Puckett (1988-92)

[ElHalo]

Nomar Garciaparra, 1996-2000. Or maybe 1997-2001. I'll have to explore the studio space on that one.

I know what you're thinking. "He missed an entire year!" Yeah, well, that would be a problem if he was my starting shortstop. Which he isn't. He's my backup SS/3B. How can I take a backup shortstop before a starter? Because I'm craaaaaazy, that's how.

[brett]

Nomar Garciaparra, 1996-2000. Or maybe 1997-2001. I'll have to explore the studio space on that one.

I know what you're thinking. "He missed an entire year!" Yeah, well, that would be a problem if he was my starting shortstop. Which he isn't. He's my backup SS/3B. How can I take a backup shortstop before a starter? Because I'm craaaaaazy, that's how.

That's who I thought you were going to take last round when you got Lombardi.

[leecemark]

--I'd start Nomar and just make sure I had a solid backup for his nevitable injuries.

[brett]

Buck Ewing probably '88-'92.

Lefty/Righty platoon with Cochrane

As a bench player he can play anywhere in a pinch. May be my bench third baseman.

Also one of a few catchers who could be a first rate pinch runner.

Not sure what his 148 OPS+ would be worth-maybe 115-120, but with plus speed and defense he's my guy.


CAN SOMEBODY GET ME A GOOD PICTURE?

[ElHalo]

Buck Ewing probably '88-'92.

CAN SOMEBODY GET ME A GOOD PICTURE?

[leecemark]

Buck Ewing probably '88-'92.

Lefty/Righty platoon with Cochrane

As a bench player he can play anywhere in a pinch. May be my bench third baseman.

Also one of a few catchers who could be a first rate pinch runner.

Not sure what his 148 OPS+ would be worth-maybe 115-120, but with plus speed and defense he's my guy.


CAN SOMEBODY GET ME A GOOD PICTURE?

--He was my next pick. The knock on him as a great catcher was that he didn't catch enough, which isn't a problem as your backup. The knock on him as an all time great is league quality, but my team is going to win most LQ debates in this league (only 2 pre-integration players so far). His versatility is a nice plus too. Very few 19th century guys that I think shine in this league, but Buck Ewing off the bench is a good one.

[Erik Bedard]

I hope I can still get my backup catcher after this huge run is over. Maybe picking Murphy at this juncture wasn't the smartest move.

[Wade8813]

I don't need to platoon my catcher, since Posada is a switch hitter ;)

Also, another thing against Ewing was his entire career was pre-1900.

[SamtheBravesFan]

EDIT: Fixed

[Westlake]

Ewing is a great pickup.

[brett]

Can you guys check the current rosters?

[brett]

And the starters in the field

[Wade8813]

My team's correct.

BTW, Minstrel's up...

[ElHalo]

You have Trammel on my roster; he's not mine.

[Wade8813]

PK3 has Trammel

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

You have Herman as my second baseman, I don't have him on my team, my second baseman is Lou Whitaker.
Other than that my roster appears correct.

[brett]

I am going to make corrections and re-post in about 24 hours.

[Wade8813]

PK3 has Herman

[Wade8813]

Minstrel's skipped - STBF is now on the clock (and actually has been since about 5:40 this evening.)

[Wade8813]

STBF has about one hour left on his clock.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Harry Brecheen

[Minstrel]

Sorry for missing my pick. I had a really busy day and the draft slipped my mind. I do apologize.

I'll select:



Jason Isringhausen (2001-2003)

[ChrisLDuncan]

Derek Jeter (years to come)

[leecemark]

--Ross Barnes 1872-76: there is a definate league quality issue with Barnes, but for peak value he was Rogers Hornsby 50 years before Hornsby - except Barnes was a top defender as well as hitter. He'll back up Biggio unless he shows he can hit modern pitching somewhere close to what he did back in the pioneer days.
--Jimmy Wynn 1965-69: He'll spell Duke Snider vs tough LHP and upgrade the outfield defense a little. He brings some speed off the bench too.

[brett]

Harry Brecheen

I am 99.9% sure he's the last guy with a 140 ERA+ and 200 innings per season over 5 years. (at least among liveballers).

[brett]

--Ross Barnes 1872-76: there is a definate league quality issue with Barnes, but for peak value he was Rogers Hornsby 50 years before Hornsby - except Barnes was a top defender as well as hitter. He'll back up Biggio unless he shows he can hit modern pitching somewhere close to what he did back in the pioneer days.
--Jimmy Wynn 1965-69: He'll spell Duke Snider vs tough LHP and upgrade the outfield defense a little. He brings some speed off the bench too.

Barnes: Like Ewing, while I worry about LQ a lot for hitting and pitching, I don't think anyone doubts they were top all time fielders in any context. Give these guys modern equipment and I think they may be the best fielders ever. And both could definitely run the bases. Barnes was a 190 OPS+ roughly for 5 years. Ewing was 148 though a little later. Barnes was the best hitter of his time, and so I think that for 5 years he's got to be at least a 130-140 guy with good speed when put into the modern context. He could field, but second wasn't as critical back then. I would take Ewing for maybe a 115-120 guy with good speed and very good defense too.

Wynn: Another pick who's time had come. He can pinch run, play any position in the outfield, get on base and hit with power. I thought that Astrofan would grab him next if he was around. I think he was a below average fielding centerfielder, but far more than adequate, and if you put him an the corners he covers more than his share of ground.

[brett]

By the way, what DO people think about Nolan Ryan? He doesn't seem to have a great ERA+ for 5 years.

I hope people don't use ERA+ as the only judge of a pitcher. Sometimes guys worked more innings because they were just far better than anything else their team had.

So is Nolan Ryan better than his 115 ERA+ for 5 years?

And what were his best 5 consecutive years?

And should he be on somebody's roster come the end of this draft?

[Wade8813]

I certainly don't use ERA+ as the only criteria, but it is very important. But depending on which years are used, his WHIP wasn't that great either. I don't think I'd want him on my team.

[brett]

I certainly don't use ERA+ as the only criteria, but it is very important. But depending on which years are used, his WHIP wasn't that great either. I don't think I'd want him on my team.

I think its reasonable that he was not one of the best 100 pitchers for his top 5 years in history. Personally, I didn't consider him a hall of famer in '83 or in '87 when he was setting and extending records. Probably it was after 1989 that I FIRST thought he had finally done enough to deserve the label, and even then I'm not sure. I think that people forget that no-one really saw him as legitimate a hall of famer before his '89 season.

I will mention though that the all star game is full of starters with ERA+'s in the 130s.

I'm thinking of removing the "composite" total from my stats posts. The composites are not really accurate until we can get a feel for the usage patterns of pitchers.

Also, I noticed in the lineups that you can get one guy make his team look better on paper, say with a 155 OPS+ and then when you look deeper you see that he averaged 120 games a season.

The player's individual scores are one thing, but the composites are probably misleading and may have driven some draft picks so far.

I still think I will generate a composite at the end for my own evaluation, but it will have to be based on probably usage patterns.

I wish I had more time. Now I like Baseball Prospectus' DERA (though the defensive adjustments may not be perfect). They set an ERA of 4.5 as a baseline which is a little too high.

[Wade8813]

I'd like it if you still left them up, but just include the caveats that you just mentioned. I feel they're helpful when trying to work out trades.

[ElHalo]

I think its reasonable that he was not one of the best 100 pitchers for his top 5 years in history. Personally, I didn't consider him a hall of famer in '83 or in '87 when he was setting and extending records. Probably it was after 1989 that I FIRST thought he had finally done enough to deserve the label, and even then I'm not sure. I think that people forget that no-one really saw him as legitimate a hall of famer before his '89 season.

I'll admit something: I was very young during the '80's while the events you describe were going on. However... Are you serious? I distinctly remember going to see Ryan pitch in the NLCS in 1986 and it being the consensus among everyone that Ryan was the best pitcher since Sandy Koufax, and that it was a far greater evil that the Mets had lost him than it was a good that they'd kept Tom Seaver. To this day, every single Met fan I know who grew up in the '70's considers Ryan to be a better pitcher than Seaver. When Ryan hit 5000 K's in 1989, it wasn't just him being a legit Hall of Famer... it was sincerely the biggest single baseball event of my lifetime, even to this day (I don't recall there being nearly the as much hype when McGwire hit 71 homers as when Ryan hit 5000 K's).

It's entirely possible that my memory isn't the clearest on this as I was young at the time, but Nolan Ryan was an absolute god during the mid '80's. Like I said, I went to the 1986 NLCS at Shea, and got Ryan's autograph, and I remember that being far more impressive than when I got Mickey Mantle's autograph a few years later. It's my very clear and unmistakable remembrance that, until four or five years ago when SABRmetrics reared its ugly head, a rundwon of the greatest pitchers of all time gave you Walter Johnson and then Nolan Ryan (and even the Walter Johnson part was tenuous... remember that Nolan Ryan was the leading vote getter on the All Century team in 1999, and was then chosen as the number one starter after the whole roster had been put together).

[brett]

I'd like it if you still left them up, but just include the caveats that you just mentioned. I feel they're helpful when trying to work out trades.

What I'm talking about is the bold total for the entire "rotation" or "bullpen". Do you want that left up? When someone has a deadballer with 400 innings and a 135 ERA+ it just dominates their overall combined rates.

I want to leave up player 5 year averages just remove the team composites.

[Wade8813]

Oh, ok. That's fine.

[brett]

By the way, when I use DERA, it attempts to adjust for defense, and puts each player's ERA into a 4.5 baseline league.

Pedro for example is tops with a DERA of 2.35 for 204.4 innings. That may be just a little more meaningful than ERA+ which is already flipped upside down.

[brett]

I'll admit something: I was very young during the '80's while the events you describe were going on. However... Are you serious? I distinctly remember going to see Ryan pitch in the NLCS in 1986 and it being the consensus among everyone that Ryan was the best pitcher since Sandy Koufax, and that it was a far greater evil that the Mets had lost him than it was a good that they'd kept Tom Seaver. To this day, every single Met fan I know who grew up in the '70's considers Ryan to be a better pitcher than Seaver. When Ryan hit 5000 K's in 1989, it wasn't just him being a legit Hall of Famer... it was sincerely the biggest single baseball event of my lifetime, even to this day (I don't recall there being nearly the as much hype when McGwire hit 71 homers as when Ryan hit 5000 K's).


I have a few basic stages where I recall Ryan's career.

First, I saw him pitch (on TV) in an all star game in the mid to late 70s. It had to have been '77 because of my age, and he was still an Angel. It was the first all star game I saw. I was 6. He was a huge story, and I remember my dad telling me that he threw harder/faster than anyone else. He and George Brett were my first 2 favorite players.

Second, I remember when he and Carlton topped Johnson's K record in '83. Everyone at that time talked about Carlton as the great pitcher, and Ryan as the great strikeout guy. I didn't like Carlton at all, but I knew that he had had better winning records over the years. Ryan was like 219-195 at the time and many thought that '83 was it for Ryan, a last "good but not great" season. Some people even compared him to Dave Kingman. I can say that in '83 he was viewed as the strikout king who probably woudn't get into the hall of fame because he couldn't produce top winning records. '83 was pretty much the end for Carlton, but Ryan, of course pitched another decade.

In '87 Ryan had another season that got him a lot of attention. He struck out 270 with a 2.76 ERA, and baseball digest ran a big article about him how this was his last hurrah, but they still talked about him like a guy who would be considered amazing, but wouldn't get into the hall of fame. His career record was 261-242 at the time.

And by the way, I wasn't paying much attention to baseball until '83 or '84. By then, Seaver was just talked about as an old guy who used to be great who went to the White Sox and had a couple decent seasons. I didn't know any better, but you are right, nobody really cared about Tom Seaver by that point. Granted, coming off the '83 season, Seaver had 273 wins, was going on 40 and had had two crappy seasons in a row.

[brett]

so I've started computing pitchers 5 year DERA3 scores. The DERA adjusts players based on their defenses, and makes a LQ adjustment-though really almost everyone from '30-'90 is is virtually equal with the LQ, though it DOES adjust up players DERA for war years so it deals with that issue.

It is interesting to see the differences when defenses are factored in and the biggest player hit so far, as I originally expected when I said that he may have been drafted too high is Mordecai Brown. His defenses, at least as they compute it saved him about 10% on his ERA.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Eddie Guardado

[Westlake]

Woah Chris. Put away the lipstick and stop kissing your Jeter posters. :)

Chris' team now leads in intangibles.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Woah Chris. Put away the lipstick and stop kissing your Jeter posters. :)


You know that's not happening?

[Minstrel]

Caption: Which of the three plays shortstop the best?

[brett]

I am going to post starting pitchers DERA's by the end of the day. I always intended to eventually use this stat. It basically takes an ERA+ but adjusts it for defense and sets it to an average of 4.50. I might re-adjust it to a 4.00 scale because I think that is probably more what I consider an all-time average.

I have to say, when defenses (both for and against) are factored in, you get some changes. I wouldn't drop Ryan just yet. Strikeout guys tend to do better because they don't depend on their defenses as much.

In MY evaluation I will probably drop raw ERA+ altogether eventually. If you are still picking pitchers you may want to chech out their DERA scores.

Then I have a conversion to convert guys innings to a baseline due to their period, and finally, to adjust their innings again to a standard workload for ANY era.

When in doubt, pick the pitcher who actually was considered good.

[The Splendid Splinter]

so I've started computing pitchers 5 year DERA3 scores. The DERA adjusts players based on their defenses, and makes a LQ adjustment-though really almost everyone from '30-'90 is is virtually equal with the LQ, though it DOES adjust up players DERA for war years so it deals with that issue.

It is interesting to see the differences when defenses are factored in and the biggest player hit so far, as I originally expected when I said that he may have been drafted too high is Mordecai Brown. His defenses, at least as they compute it saved him about 10% on his ERA.

I wonder how Ed Reulbach does in DERA as well since he played on the same team. Yes the Cubs had a great defense so Brown would take a hit. He was also a good defensive pitcher as well. That team is a lot like mine. Great infield defense and so-so OF. He is an extreme case on this I believe. I wasn't really paying attention with the defense because I knew as a team, mine would be above average so it would help my pitchers.

[brett]

I wonder how Ed Reulbach does in DERA as well since he played on the same team. Yes the Cubs had a great defense so Brown would take a hit. He was also a good defensive pitcher as well. That team is a lot like mine. Great infield defense and so-so OF. He is an extreme case on this I believe. I wasn't really paying attention with the defense because I knew as a team, mine would be above average so it would help my pitchers.

Your defense will go back into the equation. Granted, its a good point that if he had the defense, he's be wrong not to learn to use it.

And by the way, Cone and Appier are extremely good with the defense independent numbers. And LQ doesn't make any difference. Its funny because Brown takes a big hit-though not as huge as Carl Mays, but your overall staff may look better.

I am a little upset that I seemed to start a somewhat mindless hunt for ERA+ scores.

[brett]

Here's the DERA put in a 4.00 ERA neutral context. LQ didn't really have any trend to favor older or newer, because the older guys got to have the effects of a newer defense. I sure hope people are willing to take some time in really analyzing the teams after they are done.

Carl Mays now has the worst adjusted ERA.
Schilling became an ace.
Pedro, Maddux, Walter Johnson, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens are the top 5 in DERA.
Joe Wood took a huge hurt.
Wibur Wood looks like a great pick now.

25 starters have a defense independent, completely adjusted to a 4.00 environment ERA of under 3.00.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Your defense will go back into the equation. Granted, its a good point that if he had the defense, he's be wrong not to learn to use it.

Yeah... I figured when I was drafting and with the defense I had in mind that when it came to pitcher, I was just picking the best peak available. Which is why I picked Brown over like Koufax, Seaver, and Young. Also in the years Brown was picked, his field was more of a hitter's park than a pitcher's park.

And by the way, Cone and Appier are extremely good with the defense independent numbers. And LQ doesn't make any difference. Its funny because Brown takes a big hit-though not as huge as Carl Mays, but your overall staff may look better.

Yeah... I was surprised with the DERA numbers on my rotation. Even Rijo was good as well. Did Mays took the biggest hit out of the pitchers?

I am a little upset that I seemed to start a somewhat mindless hunt for ERA+ scores.

Yeah, but I think it's a good place to start at least. If you were looking at a couple other stats... that would be a lot of research and time as far as ranking and drafting players. I just look into everything towards the end of the draft and afterwards like you're doing now.

Yeah I know it will probably take me a day for each team to research everything and use my own system. It will definately be interesting on how all this turns out.

[ElHalo]

Wibur Wood looks like a great pick now.

I personally don't believe in DERA, but it's pronents are always quick to specifically mention that it just 100% does not work for knuckleballers, so it really wouldn't have much relevance to Wood.

[Minstrel]

I personally don't believe in DERA, but it's pronents are always quick to specifically mention that it just 100% does not work for knuckleballers, so it really wouldn't have much relevance to Wood.

It's not that it doesn't work, just that it doesn't work as well for knuckleballers, who have some ability to control balls in play. In fact, pitchers with extreme movement in general can have some minor ability to control the number of extra base hits allowed.

DERA or DIPS are not hard-and-fast, but they are probably a bit closer to "true ability" of pitchers than metrics based on runs allowed.

[brett]

It's not that it doesn't work, just that it doesn't work as well for knuckleballers, who have some ability to control balls in play. In fact, pitchers with extreme movement in general can have some minor ability to control the number of extra base hits allowed.

DERA or DIPS are not hard-and-fast, but they are probably a bit closer to "true ability" of pitchers than metrics based on runs allowed.

I'm not sure that you guys are totally familiar with DERA.
It uses relative ERA as a baseline and adjusts it simply based on the number of balls allowed in play and how many hits a players defense would have saved, or allowed versus an average defensive team. That's pretty easy to get a good guess at. It doesn't appear to differentiate between ground ball and fly ball pitchers though-so a player probably gets a single adjustment based on his total team defense.

It is fairly easy to rate total team defense. Its much harder to figure out how to distribute that value among fielders.

[brett]

It's not that it doesn't work, just that it doesn't work as well for knuckleballers, who have some ability to control balls in play. In fact, pitchers with extreme movement in general can have some minor ability to control the number of extra base hits allowed.



And in any case, it still gets the pitcher CLOSER to his actual neutral defense relative ERA. It just doesn't get knucklers consistently as MUCH CLOSER to as other pitchers.

[brett]

And EH still has a straight average DERA of (correction 2.82)

Unfortunately, TSS is second at 2.94.

I'll have to check Appier and Cone again.

(Yep, they are right) Remember by the way that DERA in Baseball Prospectus is on a 4.50 scale and I reduced it proportionately to a 4.00 scale-though not on the stat analysis page yet. I will keep up the ERA+ totals. Then if a player seems to be much better or worse in DERA, we can ask if they really had such a good/poor defense. And since I took out the team composites (which were misleading to me for a variety of reasons) maybe people will pick up a valuable 6th starter. I really think that on a real team you would want a legitimate #6 starter who can work in long relief otherwise.

2.82 seems to be still way ahead of the pack. All the other teams seem to be in the 2.90-3.15 range

[Wade8813]

Someone needs to pick.

[Erik Bedard]

STBF's time expired, Minstrel is OTC as of half an hour ago.

We really need to fix this dead period.

[brett]

Derek Jeter (years to come)



Jeter's a good pick at this point, but you still need a backup SS.

[Wade8813]

Jeter's a good pick at this point, but you still need a backup SS.
CLD has Joe Sewell.

[brett]

CLD has Joe Sewell.

Oh, I know. I meant a backup to Sewell at SS.

[brett]

By the way, using Nolan Ryan's DERA from '87-'91 he's a little better than Whitey Ford.

[Wade8813]

Oh, I know. I meant a backup to Sewell at SS. I'm confused. Was that just a jab at Jeter?


By the way, using Nolan Ryan's DERA from '87-'91 he's a little better than Whitey Ford. I might be able to buy that, but some of them seem like too much of a stretch.

[Minstrel]

I'll select:



Carlton Fisk (1971-1975)

As my backup catcher, he'll do quite nicely. Didn't play a lot of games (82 game per season average over that span) but hit great during that time. Since he's a backup, I don't need even 82 games per season out of him.

[brett]

I'm confused. Was that just a jab at Jeter?



It's just slow

[Erik Bedard]

Brett, you're OTC.

[brett]

Eric Plunk '94-'96

186.9 ERA+
70.9 IP
9.7 K/9IP

[brett]

I'm also going to be looking at DERA for relievers. I have no idea what suprises it will show, but one I suspect is that the super-low ERA+ seasons will be shown to be somewhat due to luck.

Someone like Rivera though who is consistently in the high 200s ERA+ will probably show to have been less due to luck.

There is one other stat for relievers that BBPro uses which is basically a total reliever rating. If I can find a database I may go with that.

[Wade8813]

I'm highly suspicious of this DERA thing. It just has too many results that are way different than what I expected. Also, I don't think it's that easy to evaluate a team's defense.

[brett]

I'm highly suspicious of this DERA thing. It just has too many results that are way different than what I expected. Also, I don't think it's that easy to evaluate a team's defense.

Well the option is to take ERA+ and try to evaluate a pitcher's defensive support in our heads. I knew from the outset that a pitcher's ERA can be influenced by up to a 20% swing by the defenses he pitched in front of.

And if you use WARP scores, DERA is built in.

[leecemark]

--Well we do know that some teams turn balls in play into outs better than others. Pitchers for those teams do benefit from that. Whether DERA effectively measures that or not is another question. The work Brett is putting in is interesting and helps to evaluate our teams. You shouldn't regard his findings as binding though. We are all free to use what stats we like - or even to disregard them in favor of more esoteric concerns where we see fit.

[brett]

--Well we do know that some teams turn balls in play into outs better than others. Pitchers for those teams do benefit from that. Whether DERA effectively measures that or not is another question. The work Brett is putting in is interesting and helps to evaluate our teams. You shouldn't regard his findings as binding though. We are all free to use what stats we like - or even to disregard them in favor of more esoteric concerns where we see fit.

Thanks, and I hope nobody is drafting based on how it will affect the stats that I post. In the end, for pitchers, I am going to post 2 rate stats. One is basically ERA+ though I am going to put it into "relative era" on a 4.00 scale.

The second is DERA on a 4.00 scale.

Then we have the raw stat, and a possible look at how that might have been influenced by defense.

What I don't want to do is drive the draft with my posting of stats. If a pitcher was considered great, and racked up innings, and was considered to have good stuff then a 129 ERA+ should not be scaring people away. In fact, people seemed to be going for fewer innings because it affected the rates better.

[Wade8813]

Well, I'll admit to being biased in favor of ERA+ from the beginning. I also looked at WHIP, but I don't have any set way to adjust it for era. The same applies for IP - I don't really know how much to adjust it for era.

[ElHalo]

Brendan Donnelly, 2002-2004.

[brett]

Brendan Donnelly, 2002-2004.

209.5 ERA+ 55.2 IP

By the way, I actually found a pitcher out there with a 3 year ERA+ of 302.4 (for 29.6 innings).

[brett]

Here's the starting rotations with 2 rate stats.

Relative ERA on a 4.00 scale-which is just raw ERA+ converted to a pitcher's relative era scaled to league ERA being 4.00


DERA on a 4.00 scale-again this is where the defensive adjustments are made. This also adjusts for LQ issues like the war, but it doesn't necessarily hurt older players because it assumes they would have better defenses behind them.

Right now, I am planning on probably taking the average of these 2. DERA does factor in defense-rightly or wrongly, but pitchers probably adapt to their defenses somewhat so they deserve the credit for using their good defense.

If I can find another defense adjusted stat, I can compare it to DERA statistically to see if they mesh.

Its a pretty extensive process just to try to evaluate the starting pitchers.

[philkid3]

For some reason I remembered him being lefty before this.

[Wade8813]

I'm not familiar with DERA, but it appears that virtually every starting pitcher we've taken benefited from above average fielding. That seems odd - by definition, one would expect it to be fairly balanced - some fielding is above average, some below average, and some average.

[brett]

I'm not familiar with DERA, but it appears that virtually every starting pitcher we've taken benefited from above average fielding. That seems odd - by definition, one would expect it to be fairly balanced - some fielding is above average, some below average, and some average.


I noticed that as well. There are 2 possibilities.

First of all, pitchers with great 5 year runs probably tended to benefit a little more from their defenses than the average pitcher-so pitchers with better than average era's would tend to have benefitted more while pitchers with poorer than average ERA's tended to do so in part because they benefitted less from their defenses. It makes sense to me that when we pick the best 5 years of the best 70 pitchers in history, we are naturally selecting seasons that tended to have had their relative ERA's aided the most by their defenses. Also, the best pitchers may have, as a group tended to utilize their defenses better so their raw ERA+ was better in the first place. And they should get credit for this, which is why I may take the average of DERA and relative raw ERA. So basically what we are seeing is just a kind of regression effect in that great years tended to be benefitted more, while lowsy ones tended to be benefitted less.

Second, BBRef uses a pythagorian estimator to adjust a pitchers era to a 4.50 environment. Now I am not totally sure how that would effect things. I think that a pitcher with a 3.00 ERA in a 4.00 environment (75%) would be worth just as much in terms of wins as a pitcher with a 2.25 ERA in a 3.00 environment. The thing is that they use the pythagorian adjustment based on wins produced relative to TOTAL runs per game, not earned runs.
So what we may be seeing here is that the very best ERA+ seasons also were seasons where a pitcher may have had a slightly higher percentage of his runs allowed going into the unearned runs column-simply because if you pick the best ERA+ seasons, there is also an increased likelyhood that those particular seasons were a little lucky in terms of unearned runs allowed.

Combine the conjecture that the best relative ERA seasons happened to naturally be those that benefitted most from their defenses, AND that they happened to be the ones which were the luckiest in terms of having runs scored as unearned runs, and that may explain things.

Again, I would prefer to see some other defense independent pitching stat. If it correlates well to DERA, it validates it. If it doesn't, then they can offset each other somewhat.

ERA+ in and of itself is really flawed. Pitchers get to count the run environment for all 162 team games, but their actual run environments may be different.

ERA+ is based on league offense, but pitchers who pitched for good offenses didn't have to face their own teams.

And look at someone like Koufax or Randy Johnson. They got almost total right handed platooning against them. That has to vary from the true average run environment.

[leecemark]

--Well we've been taking the guys with the best ERA+ and those are aided by good defensive teams. You'd expect many of them to have benefited from that. If its all of them then I'd say that suggests a flaw in the methodology though.

[brett]

--Well we've been taking the guys with the best ERA+ and those are aided by good defensive teams. You'd expect many of them to have benefited from that. If its all of them then I'd say that suggests a flaw in the methodology though.

Besides, while they may be flawed in establishing a baseline, that doesn't mean that they don't show the proper trends.

[brett]

--Well we've been taking the guys with the best ERA+ and those are aided by good defensive teams. You'd expect many of them to have benefited from that. If its all of them then I'd say that suggests a flaw in the methodology though.


It wouldn't require that they all pitched for good defenses, just that their actual raw relative ERA's were better than would have been expected given their defenses. That is much more possible than that they all pitched for good defenses.

[Wade8813]

ERA+ is based on league offense, but pitchers who pitched for good offenses didn't have to face their own teams. True, although pitchers who pitched for poor offenses never got to face their own teams (Koufax, Walter, etc).

[Erik Bedard]

King Kelly, 1884-88

That's gotta be over a 160 OPS+ for a reserve.

[brett]

I figured out some of the DERA question. It is not the defensive adjustment that makes all of the DERA's higher than the relative ERA's. I know for a fact that many pitchers on the list had their DERA's go UP from the baseline that was set by BBPro.

The problem is that they set a baseline using that pythagorian estimator. That pulls every pitcher, good and bad, toward the mean (which with my adjustment is 4.00). While it may mirror projected WARP, it is not in line with a true ERA score that we are familiar with. In other words, if the baseline is 4.00, they want to reset the scale so that a 2.00 is exactly twice as good as a 3.00 in producing wins above average. I DON't need that for my analysis because I'm going to be computing pythagorian WP anyway.

There are two possibly ways I can use to correct that. One is to remove the pythagorian effects. The other is to use relative ERA as a baseline and to only use their defensive adjusment. The first method would be quick and easy, if it works.

[brett]

--Well we've been taking the guys with the best ERA+ and those are aided by good defensive teams. You'd expect many of them to have benefited from that. If its all of them then I'd say that suggests a flaw in the methodology though.


I found that most of the reason behind it is that that they are setting the highest LQ as the baseline (rather than the average LQ or using a certain year as the baseline). The rest of the effect has to do with the proportion of unearned runs to earned runs. It should have everyone a little higher than their true relative ERA.

The pythagorian estimator has a minor effect to compare ERA to league RPG.

[AstrosFan]

I was going to get Brendan Donnelly, but ElHalo saw into my soul and stole him from me.

So Troy Percival 1995-97 That's a 191.8 ERA+ over 66.67 IP on average, if anyone's still keeping track of that.

[Wade8813]

Leecemark has Percival.

[AstrosFan]

Great. That means the FIND function on my computer doesn't work.

Well, now it finally shows up. Yesterday, I went on my list, which had been updated through pick 295 (Mark's Percival pick was 211), placed the cursor at the beginning of the document, and used the FIND function to search for the word "percival". No matches were found. I am convinced my computer is out to get me, because this isn't the first time that's happened. Everyone thinks I'm not looking to see if these players are available, and that's why I keep choosing players that have already been taken, but that it completely false.

[ChrisLDuncan]

I'll update the front page later today...

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

I'll finish off my bullpen with Roberto Hernandez. 1996-1998

[brett]

Just as a reminer, I have 2 picks in each of the last 3 rounds:

Round 23, TSS and mine
Round 24, TSS and mine
Round 25, TSS and DMF's
And Wade has my original round 25 pick

[AstrosFan]

Correcting my earlier pick:

Armando Benitez 2002-04 188.7 ERA+ over 70 IP. I just searched for him, and he didn't show up. Which probably means someone already has him.

[Wade8813]

Yep, Westlake took him in the 18th round.

[The Splendid Splinter]

Correcting my earlier pick:

Armando Benitez 2002-04 188.7 ERA+ over 70 IP. I just searched for him, and he didn't show up. Which probably means someone already has him.

yes.. he has been picked already. look at brett's bullpen page... it's much easier.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1127618&postcount=3

[AstrosFan]

yes.. he has been picked already. look at brett's bullpen page... it's much easier.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1127618&postcount=3

Yeah. Do you know why it didn't show up in the search this time? Because Benitez was misspelled Benetiz on the original draft page, and I didn't see it when I copied to Word so I could update more frequently than the draft list has been. I looked up "Benitez" in the search, and of course, nothing appeared. If I believed in God, I would be convinced he (or she) is out to get me.

I've checked my document (which never works, but what the hell), and Brett's worksheet. Paul Quantrill 1997-99 is not on either. It's a 187.4 ERA+ over 72.2 IP. If he has been taken, I'm quitting the draft, because that means there is a conspiracy to prevent me from making a pick that hasn't been selected already.

[Wade8813]

That's too bad. He was... (I'm kidding, nobody's taken him)

[Wade8813]

So, WW is still skipped - that makes it Westlake's turn.

[Erik Bedard]

Quantrill was the guy I was about to take before I realized Kelly was still there.

[brett]

I've checked my document (which never works, but what the hell), and Brett's worksheet. Paul Quantrill 1997-99 is not on either. It's a 187.4 ERA+ over 72.2 IP.

Way to go! I was in a little pain for you. I basically flipped a coin between Quantrill and Plunk, but Plunk had the much better strikeout rate. I'm glad you found him-he's the top righty left for sure and your pick pretty much assures that I will stick with 3 righties in the pen.

Hey and you computed his 3 year average ERA+ perfectly!

[Wade8813]

I'm a bit confused. I understand that when computing the ERA+, you weight it based on IP, etc. But Putz had about 100 more ERA+ if you just added them together. How come he ends up with less ERA+ than Quantrill? How does it adjust that much?

[Westlake]

Bill Dahlen 1892-1896

[brett]

I'm a bit confused. I understand that when computing the ERA+, you weight it based on IP, etc. But Putz had about 100 more ERA+ if you just added them together. How come he ends up with less ERA+ than Quantrill? How does it adjust that much?


First off, ERA+ is actually a stat derived from relative era-by flipping it over and multiplying it by 100.

Here's a look at Putz and Quantrill


Putz ERA+ Relative ERA
'05 116 1/1.16=0.862
'06 193 1/1.93=0.518
'07 314 1/3.14=0.318

So Putz three year relative era's were
.862
.518 and
.318

Average these straight up (forget about innings for a minute) and you get .566

Quantrill ERA+ Relative ERA
'97 233 1/2.33=.429
'98 178 1/1.78-.562
'99 148 1/1.48=.676

Average these and you get .556

So even without considering innings, Quantrill had a better average relative ERA: .556 to .566

What you have to realize is that ERA+ is the reciprocol of relative era.

What's a better combination of relative ERA's?

1.00
0.33
0.50

or
0.50
0.50
0.50

The first set gives ERA+ scores of

100
300
200

The second
200
200
200

But the first guys relative ERA was (1.00+0.50+0.33)/3 or 1.83/3 or 0.61
The second guys was (.5+.5+.5)/3 or 0.50

So the first guys composite ERA+ is 164 and the second guys is 200.

Here's a final example. If I cost my boss 100%, 80% and 60% of the average employee over three years and another guy costs 80%, 80% and 80% we are costing the same over three years, but if you turn our three salaries into recoprocols+, you get for me:

100, 125, 167 (average of 130.7)

And for him

125, 125, 125 (average of 125)

So I get a wrong higher score. You have to convert us back to relative salary to find our true cost.

(1/5 + 1/4 + 1/3)/3 is not equal to (1/4+ 1/4 + 1/4)/3

but (5 + 4 + 3)/3 = (4 + 4 + 4)/3

[brett]

Bill Dahlen 1892-1896



Brett's:cry:

I think he played about 270 games at third as well, and ran the bases well. Probably not more than an average hitter but a most valuable player.

[AstrosFan]

Did STBF make his pick for this round?

[brett]

Did STBF make his pick for this round?

No. I was waiting to see who he would get. I actually thought he might get Quantrill.

[Wade8813]

So, the first 100 ERA+ (over 100) is more valuable than the 2nd 100. I should have realized that based on the math involved, but my instinct was to think that 100 points of ERA+ was always worth the same amount, which it's not. Which is somewhat misleading about the stat, IMO.

[brett]

So, the first 100 ERA+ (over 100) is more valuable than the 2nd 100. I should have realized that based on the math involved, but my instinct was to think that 100 points of ERA+ was always worth the same amount, which it's not. Which is somewhat misleading about the stat, IMO.

Everyone on the stat forum agrees. That's why I went back and put everyone back into relera (4.00) which is just raw relative era put into a 4.00 scale.

And yes. The difference between a 200 and 100 may be 50 runs, the difference between a 300 and a 200 would only be 17 more runs difference.

My next mini-project is to calculate pitchers relative workload for their times. I think I can also adjust deadballers by looking at the balance of pitching to defense in run prevention (which is related to earned runs versus unearned runs).

[The Splendid Splinter]

For my last pick of the draft.....

Tommy Bridges... 1939-1943. 181.8 IP with a 140.8 adjusted ERA+

He'll be my spot starter/long reliever since my rotation didn't rack up the innings. Seems like this would be the best pick for my team instead of getting a RP.

[Wade8813]

I'll get Joe Sambito (1979-1981) and Mike Jackson (1996-1998).

[The Splendid Splinter]

Just letting everyone know about this again... Brett has my last 3 picks so it's his turn to pick now.

[brett]

Luke Appling 33-37

[philkid3]

Whoah, Appling was still there? I definitely made a mistake by overlooking that.

I would have taken him over Boudreau and Trammell by total career. Not sure about peaks off the top of my head.

[Westlake]

George Foster 1975-1979

[brett]

George Foster 1975-1979



Actually played 117 games in center at +9 FRAA during those years. A good corner outfielder in my book.

[brett]

Whoah, Appling was still there? I definitely made a mistake by overlooking that.

I would have taken him over Boudreau and Trammell by total career. Not sure about peaks off the top of my head.

I have Appling, Trammell and Larkin each in the 90s on my all time list. I prefer Trammel's peak though. (And Larkin's except for the partial seasons). Trammell was around 50 FRAA from '83-'87 and more skilled at stealing bases. Appling was an above average fielder though, and .416 on-base percentage for 5 years probably makes him a little better than his 5 year 117 OPS+ would indicate.

[Disgruntaledmarinerfan]

Ichiro Suzuki (2001-2005)

[brett]

Ichiro Suzuki (2001-2005)


Wasn't sure where he'd slip to because of the "saber wisdom" about him as a hitter but he can play any outfield position at a gold glove level and I saw one report that in '04 he gained 36 "non stat-line" bases on the basepaths above average which would be equivalent to about 18 points of OPS+.

I will probably bump his effective OPS+ up from about 120 to about 135 or so with steals and baserunning. He's also would probably be worth about another +15 for his fielding above average, so all things factored in, he's equivalent to an average fielding and running 150 OPS+ guy splitting time between right and center.

[brett]

For my last pick of the draft.....

Tommy Bridges... 1939-1943. 181.8 IP with a 140.8 adjusted ERA+

He'll be my spot starter/long reliever since my rotation didn't rack up the innings. Seems like this would be the best pick for my team instead of getting a RP.


I think that's a wise choice-even if he ends up being primarily a reliever.

BBPro ran a couple of articles showing that a starter moved into a reliever role will improve his relative ERA just due to not having to face the same batters 2-3 times a game.

An average starter (100 ERA+) becomes a 133 ERA+ from the bullpen.

A 120 starter is equivalent to about a 160 reliever
A 130 starter is equivalent to about a 173 reliever and
A 140 starter will tend to be around 187 from the pen-again just due to not having to face the same guys 3 times.

Bridges was a little low in innings, so he might be around 175/180 in relief-but heck, he could start for half a season if someone got injured.

So I sure wouldn't be drafting ANY righty relievers below a 180 ERA+ at this point, or lefties below 160 UNLESS THEY ARE 80+ inning guys, or are known specialists versus lefty or righty batters. You'd simply do better to take a 135 starter and use him.

[Wade8813]

So, AF is up.

[brett]

I think AF has until 6:00 central? About 10 minutes.

[brett]

By my clock EB is up.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Mark Davis, 1987-89

[Erik Bedard]

If I'm calculating five-year ERA+ right, then I've got a starter with a 160 ERA+ who hasn't been picked yet, which leads me to believe that I made a mistake somewhere. I'll try it again, a different way, then make my pick.

[AstrosFan]

Roger Connor 1885-89

[Erik Bedard]

DERA doesn't like this guy, but I'm taking him anyway. Partly because it would be cool to have the guys with four of the top five single-season ERA+ scores ever.

Dutch Leonard 1913-17