by Myron Logan
This is not a review of any sorts – maybe I’ll do that after I read more of the book – just some random comments on BP ‘09, which I picked up the other day. Consider it like an open thread on the book (or other preview books, if you wish), and feel free to comment on it below as you read.
Anyway, my favorite part of the BP annuals are the essays. The first one I read this year was Clay Davenport’s. In the article, we learn that, Davenport, to calculate his fielding metric, is now using play-by-play data. The new stat does not appear to be quite as detailed as the best ones out there – UZR, Plus/Minus, PMR, etc – but it’s a big jump in the right direction. Davenport states that he wants to keep things the same between the majors and minors, and if he incorporated more detail at the major league level, that wouldn’t happen.
The second big news to come out of Davenport’s essay, which is a must-read, is his new replacement level calculation. As we’ve discussed here in the past, the way they were doing it was going against sabermetric orthodoxy, using a replacement level for both hitting and fielding, thus making it very low, compared to other methods. Davenport is now calculating WARP assuming a replacement player is average at fielding, rather than ~20 runs worse than average. It seems to be a good move to me, as I’ve criticized their calculation in the past, but I’ll admit that replacement level is a much more fuzzy area than many make it. Anyway, both are those things are big news for baseball geeks, and I await others reaction.
I also read Gary Huckabay’s article on MLB marketing, mostly because I enjoy Huckabay’s work, not so much because I’m overly interested in marketing (I majored in sports management and hated it!). It is a pretty good read, and I’d recommend it to anyone with any kind of interest in that kind of stuff.
Kevin Goldstein’s top 100 prospects, with commentary, are also located in the essay section. O’s catcher Matt Wieters is ranked number 1 and, perhaps more interestingly, is projected to lead the AL in WARP at 7.9. Note that his projected WARP has nothing to do with Goldstein’s rating; it just seems like a good place to mention it. I guess it must be based on his college numbers and his lone season in the minors, but I wouldn’t blame you if you think it’s a little optimistic.
The Padres have three in the top 100; Mat Latos at 69, Kellen Kulbacki at 84, and Adys Portillo at 100. Not terrible, not great. You know, like the consensus expert opinion – outside of Ben : ) – on the Pads’ system.
The Padres chapter, written by I’m guessing (edit: I’m wrong) Marc Normandin, is good. “Good” as in well-written and informative, not in its outlook on the Pads. I think it might be a bit too negative, though; at one point this is said:
But even should Moorad take control of the club, a more intriguing question is this: even if 2009 is a loss, what of 2010? The farm system is hopeless and the free agent class that follows this one is expected to be extremely thin, so even if Moorad deigns to up the budget, there will be few freely available players on whom to spend the dollars.
I don’t think I’d call the farm “hopeless.” It is, I think, somewhere in the middle of the pack, overall, maybe a little thin on high-upside talent, and relatively deep with decent prospects. Also, if the Pads try to put together a winner, I have a lot of faith in their front office to do just that. So, should the payroll constraints subside, I don’t think the Padres will have trouble putting a competitive team on the field, and by competitive, I mean a projected division winner.
That’s about as far as I’ve got. I’ll add to the comments as I read stuff, though.
My early take is that, as usual, it’s a very good book. They pack a ton of information and plenty of articles – though I wish there were more, especially more analysis-type articles – into this thing, and it’s well worth the money. Now, since I’ve been mostly positive, let me end with one criticism:
Like usual, there are lots of typos. Usually, typos do not bother me. For one, I know I make many of them, not to mention flat-out mistakes like screwing up their/they’re for much of the existence of this blog. Secondly, many times I skip right over typos, as they don’t interfere with my understand of the overall text. That’s pretty much still the case, but for whatever reason, perhaps because I’m reading more thoroughly, I’m noticing more of them. I don’t know why exactly there are so many, but it appears to be a problem with BP and the publisher. Not a huge deal to me, but I figured I’d mention it.
By the way, the foreword was written by Keith Olbermann. I uh, haven’t read it yet.
