John Bonnes

There is no question that umpires have biases. The question is whether we want them or not. A couple of years ago I reported on a book that I was reading titled Scorecasting by Tobias J Moskowitz and L. Jon Weerthem. This writeup is going to copy a lot of that story. The book is similar to the book Freakonomics, except that it focuses exclusively on sports. If you have an iPad or iPhone, you can download the first chapter for free – and just that much changed forever how I watch baseball. The chapter is about a bias that umpires have because they are, with the possible exception of Joe West, human. And humans are far more willing to forgive an error of omission over an error of commission. That is, we are more willing to forgive an error caused by doing nothing over an error caused by doing something. And thus humans are for more willing to commit an error of omission over an error of commission, because it gets us into less trouble. I’ll give an example from the book: “In a well-known psychological experiment, the subjects were posed the following question: Imagine there have been several epidemics of a certain kind of flu that everyone contracts and that can be fatal to children under three years of age. About 10 out of every 10,000 children with this flu will die from it. A vaccine for the flu, which eliminates the change of getting it, causes death in 5 or every 10,000 children. Would you vaccinate your child?” Most parents opted to NOT to vaccinate their child, despite it halving the chances of their child dying. The thought of doing something to the child which would cause his or her death was worse than the though of doing nothing and doubling the chances of death. The same bias is statistically apparent in umpires when it comes to calling balls and strikes and now I can’t help but notice it. In 2007, mlb.com installed the pitch f/x equipment in all the ballparks, providing data on 2 million pitches, including 1.15 million called pitches. Suddenly we could see from data how accurate umpires were in calling balls and strikes, and whether there are any circumstances that made them less accurate. It turns out there are. A ball that is in the strike zone is called accurately by an umpire 80.2% of the time. But that number dives if there are two strikes on the batter (and it isn’t a full count). Then, a ball in the strike zone is called a strike just 61.3% of the time. He’s almost twice as likely to mistakenly count a strike as a ball. Again, don’t forget – we KNOW that these are really strikes from the f/x data. The same thing happens the other way on pitches outside the strike zone on three-ball counts, though it’s not quite so drastic. A pitch outside the strike zone is called a ball 87.8% of the time, but if there are three balls (and it’s not a full count) it’s only called a ball 84% of the time. The reason? Because calling strike three or ball four ends the at-bat. It’s active – it affects the game far more than giving the batter and pitcher another pitch to resolve the at-bat themselves. The incentive is toward the error of omission rather than that of commission. Incidentally, this is most apparent on borderline pitches. Over all counts, a borderline is called a strike 49.9% of the time – almost literally a coin flip. But with a 2-strike count (again not a full count) it’s called a strike just 38.2% of the time. And with a three ball count, it’s called a strike 60% of the time. The percentages become even more extreme on 3-0 and 0-2 counts. This may be a bias that we, as fans, want to reward. For the first time, I thought about whether or not I really want to take that kind of call out of an umpire’s hands. Don’t we want someone who prompts the batter and pitcher to resolve their conflicts themselves? Even if it might not be a perfectly accurate call.

There is no question that umpires have biases. The question is whether we want them or not. A couple of years ago I reported on a book that I was reading titled Scorecasting by Tobias J Moskowitz and L. Jon Weerthem. This writeup is going to copy a lot of that story. The book is similar to the book Freakonomics, except that it focuses exclusively on sports. If you have an iPad or iPhone, you can download the first chapter for free – and just that much changed forever how I watch baseball. The chapter is about a bias that umpires have because they are, with the possible exception of Joe West, human. And humans are far more willing to forgive an error of omission over an error of commission. That is, we are more willing to forgive an error caused by doing nothing over an error caused by doing something. And thus humans are for more willing to commit an error of omission over an error of commission, because it gets us into less trouble. I’ll give an example from the book: “In a well-known psychological experiment, the subjects were posed the following question: Imagine there have been several epidemics of a certain kind of flu that everyone contracts and that can be fatal to children under three years of age. About 10 out of every 10,000 children with this flu will die from it. A vaccine for the flu, which eliminates the change of getting it, causes death in 5 or every 10,000 children. Would you vaccinate your child?” Most parents opted to NOT to vaccinate their child, despite it halving the chances of their child dying. The thought of doing something to the child which would cause his or her death was worse than the though of doing nothing and doubling the chances of death. The same bias is statistically apparent in umpires when it comes to calling balls and strikes and now I can’t help but notice it. In 2007, mlb.com installed the pitch f/x equipment in all the ballparks, providing data on 2 million pitches, including 1.15 million called pitches. Suddenly we could see from data how accurate umpires were in calling balls and strikes, and whether there are any circumstances that made them less accurate. It turns out there are. A ball that is in the strike zone is called accurately by an umpire 80.2% of the time. But that number dives if there are two strikes on the batter (and it isn’t a full count). Then, a ball in the strike zone is called a strike just 61.3% of the time. He’s almost twice as likely to mistakenly count a strike as a ball. Again, don’t forget – we KNOW that these are really strikes from the f/x data. The same thing happens the other way on pitches outside the strike zone on three-ball counts, though it’s not quite so drastic. A pitch outside the strike zone is called a ball 87.8% of the time, but if there are three balls (and it’s not a full count) it’s only called a ball 84% of the time. The reason? Because calling strike three or ball four ends the at-bat. It’s active – it affects the game far more than giving the batter and pitcher another pitch to resolve the at-bat themselves. The incentive is toward the error of omission rather than that of commission. Incidentally, this is most apparent on borderline pitches. Over all counts, a borderline is called a strike 49.9% of the time – almost literally a coin flip. But with a 2-strike count (again not a full count) it’s called a strike just 38.2% of the time. And with a three ball count, it’s called a strike 60% of the time. The percentages become even more extreme on 3-0 and 0-2 counts. This may be a bias that we, as fans, want to reward. For the first time, I thought about whether or not I really want to take that kind of call out of an umpire’s hands. Don’t we want someone who prompts the batter and pitcher to resolve their conflicts themselves? Even if it might not be a perfectly accurate call.

I don’t know if these are questions, or thoughts, of forum topics, but after a 13-hour day, I’m pretty much free associating. Let’s see what happens. Because Fourth Place Is Just Five Games Away? Why is Carl Pavano pitching? The Twins long term strategy regarding Pavano needs to be to have him demonstrate enough success to get some value for him at the trade deadline, right? What is the purpose of trotting him out there at 80% to look below average? Get him healthy, let him string a strong month or so together and then shop him in July. Doesn’t this have to be the strategy? Why isn’t this the strategy? Or Maybe It Was Andy’s Whoopie Cushion. Liriano was Liriano. To me, the most encouraging sign wasn’t that he got the first five guys out, or that he bounced back to get out of the second inning after almost completely falling apart, or that he struck out three guys. It was that he smiled and laughed on the bench with Rick Anderson for the first time since last May. Including The Door On Your Wait Out. Capps hasn’t been bad this year, though last night was the second game he cost the Twins. I won’t site how many games he’s “saved” as evidence, but I think it’s worth noting that his WPA is still in positive territory even after losing 30 points last night. Mostly he’s still just Matt Capps – he has been for years, so he should know how by now. For all the talk about his new pitch, he’s got the same strikeout rate, a high home run rate and though he’s walking fewer guys. To me, he’s in the same boat as Pavano – the team needs to do whatever they can to boost his value, and if that means closing, then close away. Plus, We’ll Resemble The Pirates Ryan Doumit’s OPS is up to 763 after last night’s game, which is a lot closer to the bat I thought we were getting. That’s a season high mark – he was as low as 550 before he broke out in that Sunday game in Seattle, which was just a little over a week ago. But the better news is that he’s worked out far better than I ever thought he would so far. His defense at catcher is better than we had heard. He’s hitting left-handers better than I had anticipated (albeit without any power). And he’s been healthy. He’s also been the ideal guy to play on a team with Joe Mauer. I’m anxious to move a lot of guys at the trade deadline, but Doumit isn’t one of them. I don’t know what it would take to sign the 31-year-old, and I’d want to limit the years, but he looks like a hell of a good fit for this team for the next few years.

I don’t know if these are questions, or thoughts, of forum topics, but after a 13-hour day, I’m pretty much free associating. Let’s see what happens. Because Fourth Place Is Just Five Games Away? Why is Carl Pavano pitching? The Twins long term strategy regarding Pavano needs to be to have him demonstrate enough success to get some value for him at the trade deadline, right? What is the purpose of trotting him out there at 80% to look below average? Get him healthy, let him string a strong month or so together and then shop him in July. Doesn’t this have to be the strategy? Why isn’t this the strategy? Or Maybe It Was Andy’s Whoopie Cushion. Liriano was Liriano. To me, the most encouraging sign wasn’t that he got the first five guys out, or that he bounced back to get out of the second inning after almost completely falling apart, or that he struck out three guys. It was that he smiled and laughed on the bench with Rick Anderson for the first time since last May. Including The Door On Your Wait Out. Capps hasn’t been bad this year, though last night was the second game he cost the Twins. I won’t site how many games he’s “saved” as evidence, but I think it’s worth noting that his WPA is still in positive territory even after losing 30 points last night. Mostly he’s still just Matt Capps – he has been for years, so he should know how by now. For all the talk about his new pitch, he’s got the same strikeout rate, a high home run rate and though he’s walking fewer guys. To me, he’s in the same boat as Pavano – the team needs to do whatever they can to boost his value, and if that means closing, then close away. Plus, We’ll Resemble The Pirates Ryan Doumit’s OPS is up to 763 after last night’s game, which is a lot closer to the bat I thought we were getting. That’s a season high mark – he was as low as 550 before he broke out in that Sunday game in Seattle, which was just a little over a week ago. But the better news is that he’s worked out far better than I ever thought he would so far. His defense at catcher is better than we had heard. He’s hitting left-handers better than I had anticipated (albeit without any power). And he’s been healthy. He’s also been the ideal guy to play on a team with Joe Mauer. I’m anxious to move a lot of guys at the trade deadline, but Doumit isn’t one of them. I don’t know what it would take to sign the 31-year-old, and I’d want to limit the years, but he looks like a hell of a good fit for this team for the next few years.

Looking forward to these posts. If you want, you can add that logo to the header for your blog. Just go to Blog Settings (in the sub menu) and put the image in the Blog Description (and maybe center it.) John

[ATTACH=CONFIG]947[/ATTACH]Aaron and John talk about the latest roster shakeup, including Danny Valencia's demotion to Triple-A and Francisco Liriano's move to the bullpen, get a call from Aaron's mom for Mother's Day, marvel at Scott Diamond's unexpected gems, make their PickPointz picks and name last week's winners, and wonder what the future holds for Trevor Plouffe and Joe Benson. Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes

I just listened to Denard Span short circuit a potential rally by trying to steal second base with runners on the corners and one out. He was caught. I wondered if that was an especially stupid decision. It turns out, it's not that risky. Or at least it's not if you accept that a baserunner usually needs to steal bases about 2/3 of the time to be effective. Generally, one studies something like this using Palmer & Thorn's Run Expectancy Matrix. It's a neat grid that shows, given a certain number of outs and people on base, the average number of runs that should score that inning, based on 75 years of major league games. It was published in The Hidden Game of Baseball by Pete Palmer and John Thorn. You can find it here. Here's the numbers we care about: 1. 1.088 - That's how many runs a team on average would score with runners on 1st and 3rd and one out. 2. 1.371 - If Span would've stolen the base, that's how many runs the average team would've scored. 3. 0.382 - If he was caught, that's how many runs the average team would score. So Span risked a gain of .283 runs if he stole that base, but a loss of .706 if he was caught. Converting those to percentages, if he steals that base 71% of the time, the team breaks even. That's not especially different than the 2/3 view that is the case for most base stealers. This wasn't especially risky.

I just listened to Denard Span short circuit a potential rally by trying to steal second base with runners on the corners and one out. He was caught. I wondered if that was an especially stupid decision. It turns out, it's not that risky. Or at least it's not if you accept that a baserunner usually needs to steal bases about 2/3 of the time to be effective. Generally, one studies something like this using Palmer & Thorn's Run Expectancy Matrix. It's a neat grid that shows, given a certain number of outs and people on base, the average number of runs that should score that inning, based on 75 years of major league games. It was published in The Hidden Game of Baseball by Pete Palmer and John Thorn. You can find it here. Here's the numbers we care about: 1. 1.088 - That's how many runs a team on average would score with runners on 1st and 3rd and one out. 2. 1.371 - If Span would've stolen the base, that's how many runs the average team would've scored. 3. 0.382 - If he was caught, that's how many runs the average team would score. So Span risked a gain of .283 runs if he stole that base, but a loss of .706 if he was caught. Converting those to percentages, if he steals that base 71% of the time, the team breaks even. That's not especially different than the 2/3 view that is the case for most base stealers. This wasn't especially risky.

At some (very depressing) point, as a season becomes turns into an extended offseason, the focus needs to change. For the Twins, that change has been coming since the middle of last week. The turning point was tonight. At some point, the focus changes from the team to the players. The moves become less about what the team needs, and more about what each player needs. It doesn’t necessarily mean coming down on one side or the other, but the balance changes. That balance changed tonight. Tonight third baseman Danny Valencia was sent to AAA-Rochester and starting pitcher Francisco Liriano was sent to the bullpen. I like both moves, because I agree with the change in focus. I don’t know if Valencia is ever going to be a competent starting third baseman in the majors. Nobody does. But I sure used to think so. This move isn’t a punishment – it’s a release. Valencia is hitting .198, 50 points lower than last year, which was 50 points lower than 2010. As bad as that is, that’s not the most alarming of his statistics. He’s also struck out 23 times in 96 AB – and walked just twice. I don’t know what he needs, but he isn’t finding it here. I won’t argue with those suggesting that it’s foolish for a club to invest time in a 27-year-old’s career in AAA. But at this point, one needs to try things. Maybe AAA might reestablish Valencia’s confidence. With literally zero third base options in the Twins pipeline until at least 2014, why not try it? Which is exactly the philosophy for the other big move. Liriano is moved to the bullpen to try and regain some …. well, name it what you will. Confidence? Mojo? Momentum? Or, if you're especially cynical: Equity? They all work. The Twins and Liriano have tried everything else, and short of demoting him (which I suspect he and his agent would resist) this is the last option. If you’re of the opinion that Liriano needs to be traded for something valuable, I gotta think you like this move. Maybe Liriano can build some value. A decent reliever is valuable at the trade deadline. Even more so if he’s a southpaw. His value certainly can’t decrease. As for the rest – meh. Matt Maloney was the odd man out with another lefty moving to the bullpen. That's unlucky for him. I like Darin Mastoianni as a infield/outfield utility guy, though his infield coverage is limited. One can argue whether he’s the best fit, but I’m getting weary of sweating where deck chairs should be moved. PJ Walters must have had the right mix of control, BABIP and veterany goodness to make him the default pick for the open rotation spot. That's not the way I would go, but I’m not nearly as close to this situation, and it's close to a tie. Whatever. The bad news is that these look more and more like the moves of a last place team looking to the future. The good news is that is probably the correct philosophy to embrace. The focus is changing from the team to the individuals, and for both of these individuals, the change in focus looks to be wise.

At some (very depressing) point, as a season becomes turns into an extended offseason, the focus needs to change. For the Twins, that change has been coming since the middle of last week. The turning point was tonight. At some point, the focus changes from the team to the players. The moves become less about what the team needs, and more about what each player needs. It doesn’t necessarily mean coming down on one side or the other, but the balance changes. That balance changed tonight. Tonight third baseman Danny Valencia was sent to AAA-Rochester and starting pitcher Francisco Liriano was sent to the bullpen. I like both moves, because I agree with the change in focus. I don’t know if Valencia is ever going to be a competent starting third baseman in the majors. Nobody does. But I sure used to think so. This move isn’t a punishment – it’s a release. Valencia is hitting .198, 50 points lower than last year, which was 50 points lower than 2010. As bad as that is, that’s not the most alarming of his statistics. He’s also struck out 23 times in 96 AB – and walked just twice. I don’t know what he needs, but he isn’t finding it here. I won’t argue with those suggesting that it’s foolish for a club to invest time in a 27-year-old’s career in AAA. But at this point, one needs to try things. Maybe AAA might reestablish Valencia’s confidence. With literally zero third base options in the Twins pipeline until at least 2014, why not try it? Which is exactly the philosophy for the other big move. Liriano is moved to the bullpen to try and regain some …. well, name it what you will. Confidence? Mojo? Momentum? Or, if you're especially cynical: Equity? They all work. The Twins and Liriano have tried everything else, and short of demoting him (which I suspect he and his agent would resist) this is the last option. If you’re of the opinion that Liriano needs to be traded for something valuable, I gotta think you like this move. Maybe Liriano can build some value. A decent reliever is valuable at the trade deadline. Even more so if he’s a southpaw. His value certainly can’t decrease. As for the rest – meh. Matt Maloney was the odd man out with another lefty moving to the bullpen. That's unlucky for him. I like Darin Mastoianni as a infield/outfield utility guy, though his infield coverage is limited. One can argue whether he’s the best fit, but I’m getting weary of sweating where deck chairs should be moved. PJ Walters must have had the right mix of control, BABIP and veterany goodness to make him the default pick for the open rotation spot. That's not the way I would go, but I’m not nearly as close to this situation, and it's close to a tie. Whatever. The bad news is that these look more and more like the moves of a last place team looking to the future. The good news is that is probably the correct philosophy to embrace. The focus is changing from the team to the individuals, and for both of these individuals, the change in focus looks to be wise.

I'd be up for moving Liriano to the bullpen, just to see if anything positive comes of it. If something does, relief pitchers are in demand at the trade deadline, especially left-handers. Maybe then they could unload his salary. (Not that the Twins are likely to do much with it at this point.) I can't see any way out with Blackburn. Hope he turns it around and dump him to the first person that shows any interest. That contract was a huge mistake and everyone thought so at the time except the Twins. I'd love to get a sense of what they were thinking.

Brian Dozier turns 25 next Tuesday. That’s not young for a prospect. This spring he barely made the cut of Baseball America’s top 10 Twins prospects. Above him on that list were Chris Parmelee (who is hitting .203), Liam Hendriks (who is being demoted to AAA-Rochester) and Joe Benson (who was demoted yesterday to AA-New Britain yesterday). He has never hit even double-digits home runs in his minor league career. Prior to this year, he was never a fulltime shortstop in the minors. Anticipation, especially prolonged anticipation, can really skew expectations. Dozier has been talked about since the middle of last year by manager Ron Gardenhire. At the time, Gardenhire was also desperate for anything resembling a competent middle infielder. If you’re especially optimistic about Dozier’s debut this week, that prolonged anticipation is likely the cause, more so than any promise he’s shown in the minor leagues. Along with his other challenges, he will likely be dealing with inflated expectations. But there may be a bigger challenge. Dozier is likely being rushed. After spending three years navigating through rookie ball, A-ball and AA-ball, he’s had all of a month at AAA. He hasn’t posted particularly impressive numbers at that level: .276 average, one home run and two stolen bases, though he’s shown good control of the strike zone. And it’s not like he’s caught fire recently – he’s hit about .200 over the last several weeks after a hot start. Finally, promoting Dozier now is an odd move financially. Major League clubs will often wait until the first couple of weeks in June to promote a prospect so he doesn’t reach arbitration a year early as a “Super 2”. What does that mean? The short answer is that if Dozier succeeds as a starting shortstop, the Twins will need to pay him a million dollars extra or more per year from 2015 through 2018, just so they could call him up a few weeks early this year. So why now? Initially, the answer seems obvious: in a lost season, why not play the youngsters? But if that’s the philosophy, then why is Liam Hendriks being sent back to Rochester? Why can’t Trevor Plouffe find his way into the lineup? And why not give Dozier another four weeks in Rochester to regain his stroke and lower his future compensation? Instead, the answer seems to be the opposite. Dozier is coming up because things are getting desperate. He’s a lottery ticket, or maybe a more apt analogy would be that he’s a Christmas present that the manager (and maybe the organization) is anxious to open. That’s fun, but it’s worth noting just how often that has backfired on the Twins in the last year. The fast-rising Hendriks made all of nine pitching starts in AAA, didn’t have much success and then struggled in the majors until he was demoted again. Ben Revere spent just a few weeks in AAA where he had trouble getting on base, did the same in extended time in the majors, and is back in Rochester. Chris Parmelee, after a strong September and spring training, skipped Rochester entirely and now has 20 strikeouts and four walks. One might think that with that recent track record, an organization might be a little more conservative in their callups. Instead, the Twins are rushing a mid-level prospect to the majors to help save the season. I hope they (and Dozier) enjoy the moment. But it would sure be nice if this present wasn’t returned.

Brian Dozier turns 25 next Tuesday. That’s not young for a prospect. This spring he barely made the cut of Baseball America’s top 10 Twins prospects. Above him on that list were Chris Parmelee (who is hitting .203), Liam Hendriks (who is being demoted to AAA-Rochester) and Joe Benson (who was demoted yesterday to AA-New Britain yesterday). He has never hit even double-digits home runs in his minor league career. Prior to this year, he was never a fulltime shortstop in the minors. Anticipation, especially prolonged anticipation, can really skew expectations. Dozier has been talked about since the middle of last year by manager Ron Gardenhire. At the time, Gardenhire was also desperate for anything resembling a competent middle infielder. If you’re especially optimistic about Dozier’s debut this week, that prolonged anticipation is likely the cause, more so than any promise he’s shown in the minor leagues. Along with his other challenges, he will likely be dealing with inflated expectations. But there may be a bigger challenge. Dozier is likely being rushed. After spending three years navigating through rookie ball, A-ball and AA-ball, he’s had all of a month at AAA. He hasn’t posted particularly impressive numbers at that level: .276 average, one home run and two stolen bases, though he’s shown good control of the strike zone. And it’s not like he’s caught fire recently – he’s hit about .200 over the last several weeks after a hot start. Finally, promoting Dozier now is an odd move financially. Major League clubs will often wait until the first couple of weeks in June to promote a prospect so he doesn’t reach arbitration a year early as a “Super 2”. What does that mean? The short answer is that if Dozier succeeds as a starting shortstop, the Twins will need to pay him a million dollars extra or more per year from 2015 through 2018, just so they could call him up a few weeks early this year. So why now? Initially, the answer seems obvious: in a lost season, why not play the youngsters? But if that’s the philosophy, then why is Liam Hendriks being sent back to Rochester? Why can’t Trevor Plouffe find his way into the lineup? And why not give Dozier another four weeks in Rochester to regain his stroke and lower his future compensation? Instead, the answer seems to be the opposite. Dozier is coming up because things are getting desperate. He’s a lottery ticket, or maybe a more apt analogy would be that he’s a Christmas present that the manager (and maybe the organization) is anxious to open. That’s fun, but it’s worth noting just how often that has backfired on the Twins in the last year. The fast-rising Hendriks made all of nine pitching starts in AAA, didn’t have much success and then struggled in the majors until he was demoted again. Ben Revere spent just a few weeks in AAA where he had trouble getting on base, did the same in extended time in the majors, and is back in Rochester. Chris Parmelee, after a strong September and spring training, skipped Rochester entirely and now has 20 strikeouts and four walks. One might think that with that recent track record, an organization might be a little more conservative in their callups. Instead, the Twins are rushing a mid-level prospect to the majors to help save the season. I hope they (and Dozier) enjoy the moment. But it would sure be nice if this present wasn’t returned.

Nice weekly recap Kirsten. Thanks for posting.

I hope you added this to his Adopt A Prospect profile thread, too. His fanst should see this. Is it possible that Perdomo's beard is an homage to Abe Lincoln because Luis is also a vampire hunter? Throwing fastballs, knocking bats out of the sky ... it makes too much sense to just be a coincidence.

Aaron and John talk about Justin Morneau's latest injury, Brian Dozier's arrival, swapping Clete Thomas for Erik Komatsu, giving Scott Diamond a chance in place of Liam Hendriks, their new PickPointz game, Ron Gardenhire's job security, bad news for Danny Valencia and Alexi Casilla, answering questions submitted by listeners via Twitter, and the latest from the minor leagues with special guest Seth Stohs. Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes (where you can listen, rate and subscribe).

Aaron and John talk about Justin Morneau's latest injury, Brian Dozier's arrival, swapping Clete Thomas for Erik Komatsu, giving Scott Diamond a chance in place of Liam Hendriks, their new PickPointz game, Ron Gardenhire's job security, bad news for Danny Valencia and Alexi Casilla, answering questions submitted by listeners via Twitter, and the latest from the minor leagues with special guest Seth Stohs. Here are: the podcasts the rss feed if you want to subscribe and the podcast on iTunes (where you can listen, rate and subscribe).