Here is the complete playoff picture after Friday night's games:
Jake has clinched his division and will face either Max or Tief in the playoffs.
John has clinched the wild card and will face Avery (almost 100% certain) or Joel (almost impossible) in the playoffs.
Joel entered Friday trailing Avery by 5 games and needed to go at lease 5-1 to have a chance. Unfortunately for him his starting pitching (Billingsley: -3) let him down for a second consecutive week. Barring a 3 home run game from his catcher Wilin Rosario he will not catch Avery for the division title.
Avery's pitcher tonight is Madison Bumgarner, although it would seem to matter little how he does.
The final playoff spot between Max and Tief is still too close to call although Max has a decided advantage going into Saturday. Tief trails by 22 points and would need his starting pitcher Hiroki Kuroda to make up that difference and more for him to have a chance.
Updates throughout the day as time permits...
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Good Points
Joel posted the following on the FNFT Message board:
I just checked. In fact, a team's starting pitcher of record scores more than their relief pitcher of record only 64.2% of the time. The other 35.8% of the time either the reliever scores more of they're the same. Given the relative perceived value of starters and relievers, I don't think it a misrepresentation to say that relievers "often" score more. I stand corrected.
Be all of that as it may, I still like the new rule for relief pitchers. If the season ended today, we would have two relief pitchers in the auction next year. I think that's a good number. We'd have 10 starting pitchers. I think that's probably about right too.
Here is a discussion of the relief pitcher point system. And here. And here.
I think it's an excellent idea to add bonus points for multi-hit games. Hitters this year are averaging 4.11 PPG. That means that the average relief pitcher is worth almost one and a half times the average hitter. I think that's out of whack.
Let's say that we changed the scoring for hitters so that a guy's first hit in the game is worth one point and each hit after that is worth two.
You guys don't still look at boxscores and add up your points on Friday night, do you? 'Cuz this would make it a little more complicated. I can't imagine that anyone still does that.
If we made that change, the average score for hitters would go up to 4.93 PPG. Given that you start nine hitters, that would on average increase a team's score by a little over 7 points per game. I'd be fine with that. I also like that it favors BA hitters over power hitters.
It's great that you brought this up. I think that these debates are much better had in-season. By March all of this will be forgotten. Hoping others chime in.
If we want to make hitting worth more, we should provide bonus points for multi-hit games. A couple weeks ago, I had a guy get three hits.....total points=3. I understand that we prefer power hitters to slappers, but that's stupid. This change would help power hitters who can also hit for average. If necessary, we could juice up the power bonus too, but i really don't think that's necessary. The scoring system for relievers is way too generaous now too. They shouldn't be scoring more than starters, which is often the case.Starting pitchers this year (the ones that count) are averaging 12.33 points per game. Relief pitchers are averaging 5.71 PPG. I think it's an exaggeration to say that relievers "often" outscore starters. It would be more appropriate to say that they "sometimes" do.
I just checked. In fact, a team's starting pitcher of record scores more than their relief pitcher of record only 64.2% of the time. The other 35.8% of the time either the reliever scores more of they're the same. Given the relative perceived value of starters and relievers, I don't think it a misrepresentation to say that relievers "often" score more. I stand corrected.
Be all of that as it may, I still like the new rule for relief pitchers. If the season ended today, we would have two relief pitchers in the auction next year. I think that's a good number. We'd have 10 starting pitchers. I think that's probably about right too.
Here is a discussion of the relief pitcher point system. And here. And here.
I think it's an excellent idea to add bonus points for multi-hit games. Hitters this year are averaging 4.11 PPG. That means that the average relief pitcher is worth almost one and a half times the average hitter. I think that's out of whack.
Let's say that we changed the scoring for hitters so that a guy's first hit in the game is worth one point and each hit after that is worth two.
You guys don't still look at boxscores and add up your points on Friday night, do you? 'Cuz this would make it a little more complicated. I can't imagine that anyone still does that.
If we made that change, the average score for hitters would go up to 4.93 PPG. Given that you start nine hitters, that would on average increase a team's score by a little over 7 points per game. I'd be fine with that. I also like that it favors BA hitters over power hitters.
It's great that you brought this up. I think that these debates are much better had in-season. By March all of this will be forgotten. Hoping others chime in.
Monday, May 07, 2012
WC & Last 5
OK, so now I've added some columns to the standings. "WC" stands for games behind in the wild-card race. I've been adding that in late in the year - just putting it there a little earlier this year. "Last 5" is each team's record in the last five FNFT games. This was suggested to me by an owner who currently has a very impressive Last 5 record. Understandable that he would want to show it off.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
BAbip
I've added a new column to the online stats - BAbip or Batting Average on Balls In Play.
(I hope that this doesn't cause the stats tables to be too wide for your computer screen so that they start wrapping around and become difficult to read. If they do, let me know. Or change the screen resolution on your computer. Or get a new monitor.)
BAbip has become a widely followed stat in the sabermetric world and is something I'd like to have easy access to and use to evaluate players. Begin fair that I am, I'm providing it to everyone.
Several years ago a guy named Voros McCraken - a young punk baseball researcher like I used to be - discovered that if you only consider balls that are hit into play (excluding strikeouts, walks and home runs) that in the long run, players' batting average on those balls is relatively consistent from player to player. It is even more true for pitchers. The BAbip allowed by pitchers always tends to be about the same - regardless of whether the pitcher is Randy Johnson or Randy Wolf.
This phenomena has many implications in baseball research; most of which are beyond the scope of player evaluation for our league. However, if interpreted properly, it can be a useful tool for evaluating FNFT value.
The overall Major League BAbip, for all of baseball, tends to be right around .300. Since 1995, the highest it has ever been is .303 and the lowest it has been is .293. It's less consistent for individual players, but (and this is an important point) over the course of their careers the vast majority of players have a BAbip right around .300 as well. What this means is that a BAbip that is much higher or lower than .300 is not sustainable. BAbip therefore is a good proxy for measuring a player's luck.
In a nutshell, here is what you need to know:
If a player has a BAbip much higher that .300 it is likely that they have been lucky and their current stats are better than their inherent skill set would typically produce. In the future, this player is likely to have a decline in his statistics as compared to his recent performance. Conversely, a player with a BAbip much lower than .300 has most likely been unlucky. His skill are probably better than what his current statistics show and there is a good chance that his statistics will improve in the future.
Let's cherry pick a couple of examples. Jake Peavy right now is second in FNFT points. He's 3-1 with a 1.99 ERA. He's off to a very good start. But we all know who Jake Peavy is. He is not the second best pitcher in baseball. His BAbip right now is .218. Batted balls are turning into outs when he pitches. He's rolling a lot of snake-eyes. He likely won't be able to sustain this level of performance long term.
Zack Grienke and Yovani Gallardo are two other good examples. Their BAbip's right now are .369 and .360 respectively. Grienke and Gallardo are far down the list in FNFT points. Yet you know they are good pitchers. You would trade Jake Peavy even-up for either one of them. But they have both been unlucky. Balls that would typically be turned into outs are falling in for hits when they pitch. It's likely that fate will turn around and they will put up better numbers from here on out.
There are a thousand article online about BAbip if you'd like to read more. Use that stat if you wish. Ignore it if not.
(I hope that this doesn't cause the stats tables to be too wide for your computer screen so that they start wrapping around and become difficult to read. If they do, let me know. Or change the screen resolution on your computer. Or get a new monitor.)
BAbip has become a widely followed stat in the sabermetric world and is something I'd like to have easy access to and use to evaluate players. Begin fair that I am, I'm providing it to everyone.
Several years ago a guy named Voros McCraken - a young punk baseball researcher like I used to be - discovered that if you only consider balls that are hit into play (excluding strikeouts, walks and home runs) that in the long run, players' batting average on those balls is relatively consistent from player to player. It is even more true for pitchers. The BAbip allowed by pitchers always tends to be about the same - regardless of whether the pitcher is Randy Johnson or Randy Wolf.
This phenomena has many implications in baseball research; most of which are beyond the scope of player evaluation for our league. However, if interpreted properly, it can be a useful tool for evaluating FNFT value.
The overall Major League BAbip, for all of baseball, tends to be right around .300. Since 1995, the highest it has ever been is .303 and the lowest it has been is .293. It's less consistent for individual players, but (and this is an important point) over the course of their careers the vast majority of players have a BAbip right around .300 as well. What this means is that a BAbip that is much higher or lower than .300 is not sustainable. BAbip therefore is a good proxy for measuring a player's luck.
In a nutshell, here is what you need to know:
If a player has a BAbip much higher that .300 it is likely that they have been lucky and their current stats are better than their inherent skill set would typically produce. In the future, this player is likely to have a decline in his statistics as compared to his recent performance. Conversely, a player with a BAbip much lower than .300 has most likely been unlucky. His skill are probably better than what his current statistics show and there is a good chance that his statistics will improve in the future.
Let's cherry pick a couple of examples. Jake Peavy right now is second in FNFT points. He's 3-1 with a 1.99 ERA. He's off to a very good start. But we all know who Jake Peavy is. He is not the second best pitcher in baseball. His BAbip right now is .218. Batted balls are turning into outs when he pitches. He's rolling a lot of snake-eyes. He likely won't be able to sustain this level of performance long term.
Zack Grienke and Yovani Gallardo are two other good examples. Their BAbip's right now are .369 and .360 respectively. Grienke and Gallardo are far down the list in FNFT points. Yet you know they are good pitchers. You would trade Jake Peavy even-up for either one of them. But they have both been unlucky. Balls that would typically be turned into outs are falling in for hits when they pitch. It's likely that fate will turn around and they will put up better numbers from here on out.
There are a thousand article online about BAbip if you'd like to read more. Use that stat if you wish. Ignore it if not.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Yer Out!
Monday, April 30, 2:30 p.m.
I'm having an Internet outage at my home which is preventing you from accessing the roster system. It's also preventing me from updating the main website. But as always, you can find the latest information here at the FNFT Blog.
The guy at Time Warner says he's on it.
UPDATE: Well, it seems that my cable modem is fried. I have to take it in to Mayfair for a replacement. I'll try and do that tonight.
UPDATE 2: 6:30 p.m. New modem installed. Seems to be working like a charm.
I'm having an Internet outage at my home which is preventing you from accessing the roster system. It's also preventing me from updating the main website. But as always, you can find the latest information here at the FNFT Blog.
The guy at Time Warner says he's on it.
UPDATE: Well, it seems that my cable modem is fried. I have to take it in to Mayfair for a replacement. I'll try and do that tonight.
UPDATE 2: 6:30 p.m. New modem installed. Seems to be working like a charm.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
* * * CORRECTION * * *
On Saturday morning, unbeknownst to all of you, instead of doing the FNFT stats from the PC in my den - my normal place - I did them on my iPad by remote controlling my PC with it using a wonderful program called LogMeIn. (From the comfort of my morning throne, mind you. I know - you don't want to picture that.) I did this as a dry run in preparation for when I'm going to be at Indy in a few weeks. I wanted to see if I could do everything on the iPad and not have to bring a laptop computer along.
So what?
Well while the remote control software is very nice, it is still more cumbersome to control all of the highlighting of things with the mouse and all of the Ctrl-this and Alt-that functions I have to hit. And when I copied Friday's hitting stats to me spreadsheet, I unknowingly failed to copy about 25 rows of stats. About 7-8 of those players are in the league and so they were given credit for Saturday's game instead of Friday's game. John astutely noticed that I had two of his players wrong and pointed it out to me.
I fixed everything that needed to be fixed. So if you looked at the stats before 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, they were wrong and the new ones have been posted. John and Joe improve by one game. Joel and myself are one game worse. All of the player stats and playoff probability graph that I posted this morning have been corrected as well.
I will bring a laptop computer with me to Indy.
So what?
Well while the remote control software is very nice, it is still more cumbersome to control all of the highlighting of things with the mouse and all of the Ctrl-this and Alt-that functions I have to hit. And when I copied Friday's hitting stats to me spreadsheet, I unknowingly failed to copy about 25 rows of stats. About 7-8 of those players are in the league and so they were given credit for Saturday's game instead of Friday's game. John astutely noticed that I had two of his players wrong and pointed it out to me.
I fixed everything that needed to be fixed. So if you looked at the stats before 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, they were wrong and the new ones have been posted. John and Joe improve by one game. Joel and myself are one game worse. All of the player stats and playoff probability graph that I posted this morning have been corrected as well.
I will bring a laptop computer with me to Indy.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Playoff Probabilities
You'll notice that I've added a new column to the FNFT standings that appear on the website. This is a product of a new toy I created late last season and put the fishing touches on just last week. What it does is basically answers the question - if the rest of the season were to play out entirely at random, what are each team's chances right now of making the playoffs.
It starts with the current FNFT standings and generates random results for the rest of the season. Then it tallies which four teams would make the playoffs if the season went down that way. It repeats this process 10,000 times. A team's Playoff Probability as reported in the standings is the percentage of those 10,000 random iterations in which that team made the playoffs. In statistical speak, there are called Monte Carlo Projections.
Here are the standings right now:
As you can see only one team - me - has so far established a 50% chance of making the playoffs. That means that in roughly half of the random iterations my team was one of the playoff teams and in the other half it wasn't.
Also note that these percentages are not precise. Despite having identical records, Avery/Joel and Brett/Joe's percentage differ by 1%. That's just rounding and/or a random fluctuation. If I ran the simulation again they might be the same or they might be flipped the other way. It takes about two minutes to run 10,000 simulations. That's about how much time I'm willing to invest in this each week. If I ran more simulations, the percentages would be slightly more accurate but it wouldn't mean anything to anything.
Perhaps obviously, the better your record, the better chance you have of making the playoffs. The further ahead your are of the other teams in your division, the better your chance. My chance is helped by the two teams in my division that are off to very poor starts. The probabilities in the other two divisions are much more closely bunched.
If you have a good week, your playoff chances will go up. If you have a bad week they will go down. At the end season, four teams will be at 100% and all of the rest will be at 0%.
Take this for what it's worth. In 2004 I trailed Avery by 14 games after Game 23. I wound up winning the division by 11 games. I'm certain this system would have given me no chance to win. But that's why we play the games.
It starts with the current FNFT standings and generates random results for the rest of the season. Then it tallies which four teams would make the playoffs if the season went down that way. It repeats this process 10,000 times. A team's Playoff Probability as reported in the standings is the percentage of those 10,000 random iterations in which that team made the playoffs. In statistical speak, there are called Monte Carlo Projections.
Here are the standings right now:
| RED | W | L | Pct | GB | PL% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bill | 9 | 3 | .750 | -- | 38% |
| Connor | 8 | 4 | .667 | 1 | 34% |
| Jake | 7 | 5 | .583 | 2 | 31% |
| Tim | 6 | 6 | .500 | 3 | 26% |
| John | 4 | 8 | .333 | 5 | 20% |
| GREEN | W | L | Pct | GB | PL% |
| Avery | 8 | 4 | .667 | -- | 37% |
| Joel | 8 | 4 | .667 | -- | 38% |
| Brett | 6 | 6 | .500 | 2 | 29% |
| Joe | 6 | 6 | .500 | 2 | 30% |
| BLUE | W | L | Pct | GB | PL% |
| Tief | 9 | 3 | .750 | -- | 50% |
| Jacob | 5 | 7 | .417 | 4 | 32% |
| Max | 1 | 11 | .083 | 8 | 17% |
| Gerry | 1 | 11 | .083 | 8 | 17% |
As you can see only one team - me - has so far established a 50% chance of making the playoffs. That means that in roughly half of the random iterations my team was one of the playoff teams and in the other half it wasn't.
Also note that these percentages are not precise. Despite having identical records, Avery/Joel and Brett/Joe's percentage differ by 1%. That's just rounding and/or a random fluctuation. If I ran the simulation again they might be the same or they might be flipped the other way. It takes about two minutes to run 10,000 simulations. That's about how much time I'm willing to invest in this each week. If I ran more simulations, the percentages would be slightly more accurate but it wouldn't mean anything to anything.
Perhaps obviously, the better your record, the better chance you have of making the playoffs. The further ahead your are of the other teams in your division, the better your chance. My chance is helped by the two teams in my division that are off to very poor starts. The probabilities in the other two divisions are much more closely bunched.
If you have a good week, your playoff chances will go up. If you have a bad week they will go down. At the end season, four teams will be at 100% and all of the rest will be at 0%.
Take this for what it's worth. In 2004 I trailed Avery by 14 games after Game 23. I wound up winning the division by 11 games. I'm certain this system would have given me no chance to win. But that's why we play the games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
