9999

To recap, since I've been digging into the stats and doing some other things rather than writing more updates, the mantra of the Spectometer is PRODUCTION + PLATE SKILLS + AGE-ARC.

For those prospects who provide all of those sought-after things at once, we declare them as having a "Golden Year," and they are serenaded by freaky-'70s-era David Bowie (if you watched the YouTube video).  They also have a very high chance of being at least relatively successful as major-league hitters.  The great majority of successful major-league hitters had such seasons in the minors prior to age 23, and the great majority of minor leaguers we've identified as having such have gone on to success in the majors.

But not everyone who has success in the majors has the "all-around" abilities to get the "Gold," so how do we find the rest of the guys?

I have identified three "profiles" of guys who succeed in the majors despite not having the "all-around" abilities.  The guys who fit the profile are identified as "Persons of Interest" (and since I'm obviously not the kick-backside secret agent dude, I must be the nerdy computer guy):

THE LOW-K POWER GUY:  The tip-off for the Low-K Power Guy is the ability to hit with authority while maintaining a low (sub 20%) strikeout rate.  I use a stat I called "Authority Percentage" (AP), but which is really just ISO with slightly different math.  I need to use the different math in order to plug the number into my "Plausibility Index" (for the basis for said math, see the "Allegory of the Window").

• (I actually don't really know if it's an allegory or not, but I know that Plato's is called the Allegory of the Cave, so I went with that.  My son asked me the difference between an allegory and a parable the other night, and I didn't know.  Maybe DrD the theologian knows?).
• Now I'm even farther off course, so feel free to skip:  ISO is (2b + 2*3b + 3*HR) / AB ; while AP is (2*2b + 3*3b + 4*HR) / AB.  The reason is ISO is SLG - BA and AP is SLG with singles not counted.  They measure the same thing, but I need AP on my spreadsheet to calcuate "singles needed for .890 OPS", which is the enumerator of my "Plausibility Index"  (the denominator is balls in play minus extra-base hits, which is, itself, a "proxy" for "random-y" balls in play not hit with authority).  AP will be about 80 to 120 points higher than ISO (which number will be equal to XBH / AB ).  OK then.

The system looks for AP over .300 (which is ISO of .190-ish) and a K% under 20 percent.  What it means is that you've demonstrated the ability to hit the ball with authority without missing too often.  The "big catch" of this profile is Mike Morse, who otherwise would not show up as a promising prospect.

THE PLATE SKILLS TECHNICIAN: The tip-off for the Plate Skills Technician is the ability to "win plate appearances" to the tune of a "Hitter's +/-" of +3.0 or higher, while attaining a minimum level of Production ("Production Percentage of 19% or above [that's (XBH + BB) / PA]).

Remember, you have to hit the ball with authority to "win plate appearances" too (not just draw walks and avoid striking out), but these are likely guys who don't have lights-out power (more Olerud than Fielder).  This is the category in which Ackley and Seager first appear on THE GRID.

When a really good Plate Skills Technician gets a really strong BABIP, he will probably be in line for a batting title.

THE SLUGGER WHO WALKS: The final profile accounts for the Mark Reynolds of the world.  To overcome a high K%, you gotta put balls in the seats (HR% over 4.0%), but, even then, you've got to draw walks to survive  (BB% over 8.5 percent).  Yes, Casper Wells and Carlos Peguero sneak onto THE GRID in this way, but not in eye-catching fashion.  Wladimir Balentien and Alex Liddi are the ones who show up in this category at a young age.

November is National Novel Writing Month, an annual challenge in which participants attempt to write 50,000 words during the course of the month.  Although I am not always successful, I participate in NaNoWriMo every year, and have ever since 2006.

I've also been a freelance writer since 2005, so one might question why it is that I got started doing NaNoWriMo.  Early on, I found that as a full-time freelancer, I rarely ever got around to working on my own projects -- I always felt guilty about neglecting paying work from clients in order to write fiction or work on an ebook idea of my own.  Yet not just writing for a living, but writing fiction, has been my dream ever since I was old enough to really know what I wanted to be when I grew up.

Enter NaNoWriMo.Doing a challenge like NaNo, complete with a goal and a deadline, forced me to get both my client work and my own writing done.  Fifty thousand words in a month works out to about 1,667 words per day, which is a significant -- but not impossible -- commitment.  At a minimum, it requires an hour a day, but depending on how fast I write (and that varies according to the type of scene or how immersed in my writing I am at the time) I more often need an hour and a half or two hours.

I "won" (reached 50k) the very first year I did NaNoWriMo, but for years after that I fizzled out shortly after starting -- I think because I never had another story idea that was compelling enough to inspire that kind of speed in my writing.  Last year, however, I started used NaNoWriMo to finish the first in a series of novels that are extremely compelling to me.  (No, I don't always follow the NaNoWriMo rules of starting a new novel at the beginning of the month -- I just keep track of new word count during the month if I use it to continue working on a project I've already started.)  Then, this year, I participated in Camp NaNoWriMo for the first time, and started the second book in August.  I "won" both sessions, and plan on using next month to finish the second book.

What about you?  If you do NaNoWriMo, or are planning to do it this year, why do you participate?  Is it just for fun, for motivation, or for another reason, such as extra credit in school (I have heard of some teachers offering that)?

Last week was Banned Books Week, and I celebrated by reading one of the books in the list of the top ten books challenged in 2011: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.  Fair warning: This review does contain some spoilers!

Some friends and I had a discussion the other day about why there is almost always at least one classic on the list every year. I'm pretty sure it's because most instances of books being challenged occur in the schools -- patrons of public libraries don't typically challenge books being on the shelves, but parents and other adults are constantly trying to dictate what kids ought to be able to read. 

They usually challenge books that are being taught in the classroom, or contest whether certain books ought to be accessible in the school library.  I'm sure that most, if not all, of the classics that make it onto the list were part of the curriculum.

Anyway, Brave New World is often on the list, as are a few other classics.  The reasons given for the book being challenged in 2011, according to the ALA (American Library Association), were: "insensitivity; nudity; racism; religious viewpoint; sexually explicit."  Of course, the nature of the dystopian world is such that the people are conditioned to be highly racist, irreligious and rather callous about sex, so you simply couldn't have the story (or the message, which is the whole point of teaching the book) without the aspects that are so often challenged.

I didn't know anything about Brave New World before reading it, except that it is about a dystopian future and one of the early classics of science fiction.  In the book, society has eliminated people's unhappiness almost entirely, at the same time creating a perfectly functioning society.  The society holds Henry Ford, the creator of things like assembly lines and interchangeable parts, in the highest esteem -- he is essentially their messiah, and a book about him is held in the same regard as religious texts are today.

In order to achieve this perfect society, however, where no one is ever unhappy and everyone's work gets done, the engineers of the society had to do away with things such as free will, love, compassion, religion, and -- except in an elite minority -- intelligence.  People can have sex with whomever they want, and in fact, are expected to do so with a wide variety of people, since intense relationships are viewed as a source of unhappiness.  Babies are not born anymore, but are grown in a lab environment, and children are raised via strict conditioning, a.k.a. mind control, according to their place in society.  The harder-working castes are also genetically engineered to be ugly and unintelligent, so that they will never question their lot in life.  In short, the castes are designed to work together as in a well-oiled machine (hence all the references to Ford) in order to produce the seemingly perfect society.

The story is a bit slow to get started, since the author has to make you really see and feel what society has become before introducing his character, John, also known as the Savage, who was accidentally born at a "Reservation" -- a place where Indians still live in the old ways (and are essentially locked in so that they won't contaminate the perfectly controlled society around them).  John's parents were both higher-caste people, so he is intelligent but untouched by the conditioning that controls everyone in "civilized" society.  The result is that, when he rejoins civilization, he finds a world that -- to him -- holds no hope.

It's an excellent piece of early science fiction, but even better is the commentary on society -- as pertinent to today's society as it no doubt was when it was first published in the 1930s!

.

Q.  What could be bad about a nice guy who does everything well?

A.  I guess I'm confused about the proposals for 5-7 year Swisher deals at big money.  

On the hardcore saber sites, I'm used to seeing calculations that take a Nick Swisher's 4.0 WAR, that set it at 3.5 for next year, and amputate 0.5 WAR per year until it hits zero.  Calculations like these always seem to wind up proving that Albert Pujols, Ryan Braun, and Prince Fielder are going to be bozos in three or four years.  You think they won't do that with Josh Hamilton?  :- )

Now here we are with Nick Swisher, who actually is the type of player who is done at age 34 (in this case, 2-3 years from now, max), and all of a sudden age is a nonissue.  

I'm confused.  What happened to the age-arc paradigm that rules almost every free agent signing to be insane?

.

Q.  Would Swisher actually age quickly?

A.  Here is a Derek Zumsteg article that follows on Bill James' original research.  He used the paradigm to explain Richie Sexson's crash, after Sexson's two falloff years in 2006 and 2007.

Zumsteg explains it well, and James (and Dr. D) take the principle as axiomatic.  Fast-twitch hyperathletes, those who have SPD and contact ability, project to play better at 35 than "intelligent" players who have Three True Outcomes skills.  Ichiro, Rickey, and Lofton are at one end of this spectrum; Jack Cust and Nick Swisher are at the other end of it.

.

Q.  Does Swisher look like he's aging?

A.  He's got a glorious swing, but it's slowing already.  Watch him drag the bat through the zone on this double.  Now, that's an extreme example; Swisher can be quicker than that at times.

But we're talking about his age-31 season with that swing-through-water.  Where's he going to be at 34?

..............

That's his bat launch.  Home Run Tracker gives an idea of his throughspeed.  His average home run this year was only 388 feet, and he hit 24 of them in Yankee.  It's not like he's Josh Hamilton up there.

We're not saying that Nick Swisher is something brown and unpleasant that you step in on the sidewalk.  He's a classy player.  But 7 years starting at age 32?  I'd seriously be nervous about four years.

...............

His cold zone, as a left hand hitter, is inside (except at the knees).  That's the area of the strike zone that emphasizes quickness.  Swisher doesn't have a lot of quickness at the plate; right now he's got average quickness.  Not "average" quickness compared to other $100M players; average quickness relative to Brendan Ryan and Eric Thames.

Swisher can hit, don't get me wrong.  He sees pitches extremely well.  And his swing is ready to inflict damage on pitches he can handle.  The question, as with all players, is what happens when a hole shows up at age X, and he gets "booked" on that hole.

.

Q.  How are the sabermetric comps?

A.  We're piling on at this point, but here are the b-ref.com comps - read them and weep.  From age 32 to the end of their careers, Swisher's comps were out of baseball in four years.  Not "average players" -- out of baseball.  That's pretty weird for ten players of that quality.  Not often you see a b-ref.com comps list with a 4 in that years remaining column.

I would take Jason Bay as Swisher's #1 similar pairing, as b-ref.com also does.  Here is Bay's b-ref.com card:  compare the Per 162 Games totals for HR, BB, K, and everything else, to Swisher.  Walks the same.  Homers the same.  Bay came up at age 24-25, like Swisher did, the same.  Everything the same.

Bay, a classy hitter with an outstanding EYE, eighty walks per year, signed a big contract at age 31 and immediately pulled a Richie Sexson.  Age 31 was his crash year.

Dr. D wouldn't imagine that Swisher crashed next year, but if he did, it would be nothing that Jason Bay and a ton of age 32-33 hitters of 120 OPS+ quality hadn't done.

NEXT