Oh, the Humanities

As I tweeted a week or so ago, this was a good season for the part of me that is a Tigers' fan to miss. I have been dealing with a return of my wife's cancer (the outlook is not great but, as the last lines of the original theatrical release of Blade Runner go, "I didn't know how long we had together... Who does?"), in addition to moving house (and changing countries). However, I accumulated a few bookmarks and other ideas to work through, especially now we can only watch other teams in the post-season.

While I was busy, a very important blog post was made back in May. Phil Birnbaum, who is nothing if not insightful in writing about sabermetrics, announced that dWAR, a measure of fielding value, seemed to him to have a significant problem. Birnbaum proposed that dWAR inherently overvalued fielding. Birnbaum's argument is rooted in mathematical accuracy, so I don't feel confident trying to explain it. If you haven't read the post already, you should go to his blog to read how he explains it.

However, his explanation boils down to three key points, if we focus on the effects:

a) the runs allocated to the fielders under dWAR are too high, by an order of around fifty percent. (So a team dWAR of -40 is actually more like -20

b) The cause of this is that when one assumes "certain balls in play are the same" (as one has to do with older baseball statistics) then the math sends all the credit to the fielders.

c)

"Observations are a combination of talent and luck. If you want to divide the observed balls in play into observed pitching and observed fielding, you're also going to have to divide the luck properly."

Here, I think, we run into the problem of "All things being equal", or the distinction that the philosopher of history R.G. Collingwood made between meteorology and chemistry. It is an essential fact of human life that all things are NOT equal. People working in meteorology can collect observations of events, but cannot reproduce them at will, unlike people working in chemistry. By contrast, the historian can observe events, but they cannot create political or social crises at will, nor send qualified observers back into the past in order to collect the information needed to understand those events in the way scientists might send an expedition to view an eclipse or collect specimens. In scoring a baseball game, at best a sabermetrician can be a weatherman.

One can take issue with the statement "the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on 28 June 1914 triggered the First World War" as one of causality, but without doubt the shooting set off a diplomatic crisis that led to the war. More importantly, luck played a crucial role in the event because the Archduke's car came to a complete halt very close to where the "Yugoslav nationalist" Gavrilo Princip, had stationed himself. An earlier attempt to kill the Archduke in a moving car had failed. We have no idea whether Princip could have been successful if his targets had been in a moving car. So, what percentage of responsibility to the war do we assign to Princip, to the driver, to the governor of Bosnia at whose orders the driver stopped, to the Serbian officers who conspired to arm Princip, to the Archduke or to the general diplomatic situation? And any formula that did allocate "responsibility shares" to these people would be essentially an act of faith.

Birnbaum went on to add some further details to his understanding in a threat on the blog of Tom Tango, the tremendously influential pseudonymous saberist. In the comments section of Tango's thread on the post by Birnbaum, Birnbaum suggested in one reply that it was just not possible for a system like Defensive Runs Saved or Ultimate Zone Rating to make distinctions about balls in play that could tell us something about the skill of the fielder.But before that he stated that he wanted to assign the luck to the pitcher. However, reading the comments there is to venture into a world where something like the Responsibility Shares is thought to be possible. Possibly, with enough computing power, such things can be made for evaluating baseball players. But I can't help but think the effect will be small.

To reduce Birnbaum's position down, what he thinks is that about half of the dWAR effects at the team level need to be transferred from the fielder to the pitcher. Another way to think about it is that he wants a cap on the amount of Runs Allowed value distributed to the fielders. But this would also have effects on how we value players. A quick-and-dirty method would be to halve the UZR assigned to any player when calculating their WAR, although I suspect Birnbaum would object on the grounds that something true at the team level may not be true at the level of the individual player.

Nationals: Do or Die, My Good-bye

I was an Expos fan. In 2004, I listened to many of the games during that last season by means of MLB's GameDay audio. Compared to the previous two seasons of the MLB Expos, that demanded a degree of fortitude and loyalty. I still bear a deep grudge towards Brian O'Nora, who during an interleague game called a foul ball fair for a home run. When the Expos were moved to Washington, I was upset and my initial response was to look for an alternative team to follow, settling on the Arizona Diamondbacks. However, as luck would have it, the Diamondbacks were playing in Washington at the start of the 2005 season, and I decided to listen to Charlie Slowes and Dave Shea. I was charmed by Slowes in particular, and gradually my familiarity with the 2005 Nationals' roster holdovers from the Expos, and their division-leading antics, had me sticking by the team.

For younger Nationals' fans, who found that where baseball teams are concerned it is better to receive than to give, the kind of humility required to hang on to fandom of a team that is moved is possibly hard to envisage. Longer-term Washington baseball fans might know the feeling well, especially after the original Nationals/Senators became the Twins and went on to a very successful 1960s while the Replacements really gave meaning to the old saying, 'First in war, &c'. In this case, I was rooting for a bunch of people who had made life very miserable with their taunts on message boards during 2002-4. Not many Expos' rooters followed me to Washington. In fact, many would despise me for sticking with the franchise.

The next four years saw me dividing my fandom between the Nationals and the team that I actually grew up with, the Detroit Tigers. The improbable 2006 World Series run by the Tigers did a lot to draw my interest, but my preference for National League baseball (no DH! — the reason I became a fan of a National League team in the first place) also pulled me back towards the ex-Expos. I was tugged in two directions.

In 2009, I made a conscious decision at the start of spring training to refocus on the Nationals, and I started writing this blog to help with that. The title of this blog is, in fact, a Latin pun on 'D.C.'. I paradoxically enjoyed following that losing 2009 team, despite its problems. But there were also annoyances, such as the horrible Rob Dibble & Bob Carpenter television duo, and the fact that Nationals Park clearly referenced not the Nationals' franchise history, but the history of Washington baseball. Now that's great for Washington baseball fans, but it creates problems outside of the District. And, in fact, there has been a constant tension between the Expos' heritage and the marketing problem of building a new fan-base. I've never really been comfortable with the Nationals borrowing the Twins' past, given that there was an Expos' past that the Nationals had every right to. But I also understood that the Expos' past could not speak with much authority to Washington's baseball fans.

2012, right down to Mr Slowes' outstanding home-run call on Jayson Werth's walk-off in Game #4 of the NLDS against the Cardinals, was for me a culmination. Despite being in Canada, not Washington, despite being nurtured into my baseball fandom in Tiger Stadium, not DC Stadium, my elation was just as great as that of anyone's along the Potomac. And the sadness that followed after the Game #5 loss was equally as great. I had followed the construction of that team from 2009 with interest. Those events hurt a bit more than the Tigers' loss to the Giants in the World Series. But when the 2013 season rolled around, something had changed between me and the Nationals. I still don't know what, but I felt a distance that wasn't there before. Was it the free agency of John Lannan? The acquisition of Denard Span? The trade of Michael Morse? Was it the fact that the bitter loss of the 2012 NLDS had cemented their identity as a Washington team, as opposed to a continuing example of the Expos' futile pursuit of post-season glory? Not even Slowes & Jageler could shift a sensation that something was rotten in the state of my Nationals'fandom. The 2014 season simply reinforced these feelings of distance. Instead I invested considerable emotion in the ups and downs of the Tigers, who literally uglied their way into an AL Central pennant.

Then, last Saturday night, there was the 1924 Flag That Will Fly Forever, marking the Washington team's World Series victory that season. Except that flag belongs to the Twins, who took it with them along with the makings of a competitive team when they left in 1960. Now I gather that something like it may have been flying over Nationals Park since it opened in 2008, but on Saturday the prominence given it in the television coverage rankled with me. First Washington baseball fans took someone else's team, and now they are taking another club's history. That's one way to look at it. One could just as easily argue that the Twins left it there when they moved to another city. But neutral arbiters have assigned it to the Twins. It's one of those areas where one's predisposition will determine what side of the argument one will find oneself on.

As the Tigers crashed out of the ALDS in miserable fashion, I came to a conclusion: the Expo in me has to let go of the Nationals. Unless I wind up living in the Chesapeake Bay area in the future, I will focus my baseball team fandom on the Tigers. Tonight will be the last game I watch as a fan of the Nationals. I will still make the post-season blog posts I intend to make about the 2014 Nationals, but they will be the last gestures towards a team that I have followed, in some fashion or another, since 2005. Whether the Nationals do or die, I say ave atque vale to a part of my life that sought to maintain ties to a dead franchise and a memory of past times.

Baseball Hotbeds

In case this Nate Silver article hasn't got much circulation, I thought I'd post a link to it.

I like the way he has related Google searches to the size of television markets. This strikes me as one of the best methods people who have no money to pay for surveys have available to identify where the interest in baseball might be considered weak or strong. The results it gives largely meet my expectations. The Tigers are kind of average. The Cardinals and Reds are strong. The Diamondbacks and Marlins are weak. To me the anomalous results are the poor outcome for the Angels and the strong showing by the Pirates. Silver noted that there might be some kind of problem with the way the data is accumulated for the Angels. Pittsburgh, however, has always seemed so much a Steelers' town, and has done so badly until very recently, that its appearance ahead of the Reds, Tigers and Indians looks incredible.

Sad to say, the Nationals rank pretty poorly, behind even the Tampa Bay Rays and the Toronto Blue Jays.

Draft Day & Unfinished Business

Today is the amateur baseball draft. In the olden days, one didn't know much about it until the next day's papers. Then, mlb.com started offering the audio of the conference call. I loved that. Great soundtrack for a June afternoon. Now it's one big party. Can't we go back to the olden days?

I also owe this blog some links to very interesting work related to defensive statistics that appeared on the Web recently. It's made me look back over my Defensive Winning Percentage method. I'll get round to it, I promise.