http://economics.about.com
This has the potential to be another arcade game.

I hope it turns into Baseball Stars 2. That was a really cool game.

I hope it doesn't turn into Pengo just because that would be really weird.

I've been working way too hard today.

Mike

I found that BB Stars 2, like most sequels (except The Empire Strikes Back, couldn't hold up to the original. Mike, do you remember the cheat code to start with a powered-up team in the original Baseball Stars?

http://economics.about.com
No.. I only remember the Konami code used in a lot of games like Contra.

My other job at About is the "Nintendo" Results About Editor. Nintendo ResultsAbout.

You can find the Baseball Stars Codes here.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Oops.. try this:

You can find the Baseball Stars Codes here.

Cheers,

Mike

3-0 good guys after one inning. This offence is fearsome. Enjoy the game, kids.

No hits for Pittsburgh through three ... Mark Hendrickson is pitching like a man who does not want to wear a Skychiefs uniform again.

This is off-topic, but I was scrolling through the report of the Astros' six-pitcher no-hitter against the Yankees, and I came across this:

By the time the Astros returned to their clubhouse, the Yankees had left a bottle of champagne in front of the locker of all six pitchers.

This is why, much as I'd like to, I can't hate the Yankees. They show the kind of class that the Jays were known for, a decade ago.

http://economics.about.com
No hits for Pittsburgh through three ... Mark Hendrickson is pitching like a man who does not want to wear a Skychiefs uniform again.

Here we see the dangers of speaking too soon.

Mike

Great work as always, Tam.

Hey, is it bad luck to sweep the pirates? Why is Tam up there then!

Great work as always, Tam.

An Acevedo-Tam flip-flop is at least worth a roll of the dice, no?

http://economics.about.com
If Keith Law is responsible for having Lopez on the team, I should buy him a beer... to go along with the one I promised him and never provided.

Mike

http://economics.about.com
Baseball Prospectus has Acevedo at 5 runs worse than Tam this year.

My back of the envelope (literally!) calculations give Tam and DERA of 5.03, and Acevedo one of 5.27.

So I can't really say that Tam's been worse.

Mike

Chuck, believe me, I'm sympathetic to your sentiments. But Mike M is right -- Acevedo's been truly terrible.

Plus, looking game to game, it's not like Acevedo had one third-of-an-inning, six-run blow-ups to inflate his numbers. He was awful in relief over and over again this year. Only his control stacks up favourably to Jeff the Jersey-Eater.

http://economics.about.com
Chuck, believe me, I'm sympathetic to your sentiments. But Mike M is right -- Acevedo's been truly terrible.

Thanks! What has killed Acevedo is his 5 homers allowed in 25.2 innings. He seems more suited to a park like Comerica where he won't give up too many longballs. Skydome wouldn't help his case any.

Tam on the other hand has only given up 4 homers in 33 innings. His K/BB ratio has been lousy at 24/20, whereas Acevedo is at 19/10.

Mike

http://economics.about.com
C'mon.. just two more outs Cliff!

I haven't been able to see any of the games recently. Does Politte look like he's pitching hurt?

Mike

http://economics.about.com
YESSS!

Another exciting win.

The Jays are just a game out of first. Unfortunately, they have *two* teams to pass. Fortunately, passing just one of them would put them in fourth overall in the AL (a.k.a. The WildCard Spot).

The A's really got hosed this year by the schedulemaker.

Mike

How good does seven games over .500 sound? Excellent, I think. By this time I am usually wandering aimlessly, as the Leafs are gone, the Raptors are ready for an uneventful draft, and the Jays are sitting comfortably in third. I'm not gonna declare a playoff spot yet. I'll acutally stick to my 86 win prediction, but man, they sure are playing well right now. How about Pat Tabler? What if they DID go 10-2 in that streak sandwiched around the All-Star break???

Acevedo's been truly terrible.

I don't dispute that. He's been even worse than Tam, which is almost unfathomable. But coming into this season, who would you have taken? It's certainly not Acevedo in a cakewalk, but he'd have to have been given a bit of edge, having pitched well more recently.

At this point I'd be willing to trade in my electric chair for a guillotine, if only for the novelty of experiencing a different flavour of torture. I've grown weary of Tam.

Tam faced 3 batters, didn't walk anybody, gave up a weak grounder for a single and a bloop single on a pitch well outside the zone (on an 0-1 count). You guys should use your eyes before pronouncing judgement.

Let me also add that I think every pitching decison Tosca made tonight was the right one.

Anyone a little timid about facing Kerry Woods & Mark Prior in two of the three games? I am.

http://economics.about.com
Tam faced 3 batters, didn't walk anybody, gave up a weak grounder for a single and a bloop single on a pitch well outside the zone (on an 0-1 count). You guys should use your eyes before pronouncing judgement.

I imagine everyone was either listening to the game or following it on Gamecast.

Let me also add that I think every pitching decison Tosca made tonight was the right one.

I can't argue with any of them either. Nothing done tonight struck me as truly odd.

Besides.. the only reliever who has been lights out lately is Lopez, and you can't pitch him for four innings every night. Tosca's main problem is that he doesn't have a lot of attractive options at his disposal right now. I have a feeling the bullpen will be much better in '04 and '05 than it is today.

Mike

It shoudl be fun to watch , anyway, Shane. I wouldn't say I was timid about facing Wood, maybe Prior. But it should be an entertaining couple of games anyway. Who are the Jays' probables going against that pair?

Tam "gave up a weak grounder"? Robert, I know you've been a backer for Tam being on the club, and that's cool, but the single was a well hit ball that was no where close to being near a fielder...it was a hit, no excuses. And the "bloop single" really wasn't. Reboulet reached for a ball off the plate, and put it in play on the hit and run. Tonight Tam didn't suck, his results just weren't great.

You guys should use your eyes before pronouncing judgement.

Robert, I agree with you that Tam was snakebit tonight. But had he gone 3-up 3-down, my pessimism about him would be no different.

Of course, if I can pony up no better alternatives than the recently released Acevedo, I'm basically just barking at the moon.

So, does this mean that Hendrickson survives? If he does, I guess Davis goes down.

I still don't expect much from this season, but:

- The Jays are now seven over .500. If you'd told me back in April that the Jays would be one game back of first in mid-June, I'd've asked you what you were smoking.

- The Jays have a better Pythagorean record than the Sox, and are closing in on the Yanks.

- There are six teams under .500 in the AL, and the Jays have yet to play three of them (Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit).

Arrrrr!

That ball was half-volleyed up the middle. The fact that this is turf means that if it's a roller (bouncing balls are a different story) 15 feet to the shortstops's left, he's got little chance to get it unless he's Ozzie or Tony in his prime. It was simply a perfectly placed ground ball, but not at all hard hit (e.g. Delgado's ball that the 2B made a super play on was hit exponentially harder, but only 3 feet to his right; Giles ball off Lopez was hit very hard right at Woodward).

"Tonight Tam didn't suck, his results just weren't great."

That's exactly my point. Tam is a useful reliever as long as he can keep his walk rate down. He had walkitis in April but has since settled down in that department. He's given up 4 homers in 166 BF to Politte's 9 in 128 BF, and some of you are implying that Tam is washed up?

Jeff Tam

March/April: 86 BF, 15 walks (4 intentional); walk rate (11/82)= 13.4%
May: 61 BF, 5 walks (2 intentional), 1 HBP; walk rate (3/58)= 5.2%
June: 19 BF, 0 walks
total: 166 BF, 20 walks (6 IW), 1 HBP; walk rate (14/159) = 8.8%

I'm sure you guys have heard of DIPS. DIPS says 3 Batters Faced, 3 balls in play, 0 walks, 0 homers, 0 strikeouts tonight.

Coach, a teammate and I took in a double-header today/tonight down at ye old Skydome...On the front end we saw Henry St. self-implode while playing Pickering High in the Prentice Cup (I believe the final was 11-5). Although the game was a rout, it had less to do with Pickering's good hitting and more to do with the careless mental errors made by Henry St. At one point it got so bad that on a called third strike with a man on first, Henry St.'s catcher threw down to first to finish the K and ended up throwing it down the right-field line (for anyone keeping track, on a dropped third strike with a runner on first, the batter is automatically out).

In the second game we saw some fantastic defense, especially by Jeff Reboulet on Delgado's tatooed grounder up the middle. We also agreed that upon returning home, we would read at least 10 messages wondering what in the world Tosca was thinking with the Tam, Miller, Lopez fiasco but to my amazement I didn't see anything. So I'll take this opportunity to wonder outloud why Tosca would remove the lefty in favour of the righty when he HAD to know that Giles (left-handed bat) was in the hole.

For all that may have been brainwashed, please remember: it is not, I repeat, NOT illegal for a left-handed reliever to face a right-handed batter.

And just as a heads up, some GREAT interviews are coming your way in the next week, Kent did some outstanding work buttering up the Jays' coaching staff this afternoon. (Sorry for the pun)

Donkit, I don't want to steal the Advance Scout's thunder, but it looks like Wood-Escobar, Prior-Davis (or Prior vs. a cast of thousands) and Estes-Lidle. Two out of three would be a fine result for the Jays.

I just got home from another great game, and am pleased to report that Batter's Box interviews with Gil Patterson, Mike Barnett, Brian Butterfield and John Gibbons all went very well. They may take a while to transcribe, but you can expect them all on the site within the next week. I'm grateful to all four coaches for their time this afternoon and for providing such candid responses. Once again, thanks to the Jays for the field-level access before the game. I could get used to this.

Dave, Hendrickson most definitely "survives," and Davis isn't going anywhere, either. Jayson Werth has his bags packed for whenever Stewart is activated, which remains a well-kept secret, though Shannon did take BP. If Davis is ineffective on Saturday, Corey Thurman will probably take over, but they need another lefty in the pen before Everyday Miller's arm falls off. I'm sure people sitting near me thought I was crazy, but knowing he was close to 100 pitches and done for the night, I gave Lurch a one-man standing ovation as he left the field in the sixth. Under the pressure of pitching for his job, Mark had great stuff tonight:



Eric Hinske looked good fielding ground balls and making easy throws. He still has stitches in his hand, and isn't ready to swing a bat yet, but his progress is very good -- keeping him patient is the biggest hurdle now; you can imagine how eager he is to return. Hinske, the first Jay out of the clubhouse, while the provincial high school champion Pickering team was still on the field receiving their trophies from Carlos Tosca, asked me, "Did those guys just win State?" I said yes; we both knew what he meant. Many of the runner-up Henry Street players looked glum, until Eric started autographing their equipment. A kind gesture from a classy big leaguer made them happy teenagers again.

Speaking of buttering up, Adam: the season's over, you're graduating, so quit angling for more playing time. And thanks for taking the pictures; the one of Butter and me turned out pretty good.

Just to clarify -- we weren't upset with the bullpen moves tonight, although in general I think that once Miller's warmed up and in there, he could face two more hitters, we just thought there might be more second-guessing here in Da Box. Tam wasn't perfect, and neither was Politte, but that Lopez fella was pretty close.

Boston was down 3-zip in the bottom of the 9th - scored 3 to tie. They were down 5-3 in the bottom of the 10th - scored 2 to tie. They were down 8-5 in the bottom of the 13th, scored 2, had 2 on and 2 out when Damon flied out to rightfield to end the game. 8-7 Saint Louis.

Blue Jays are now 0.5 games befind Boston for the wildcard position!

The problem with Tam is that his K rate isn't great and depending on his (generally hard hit) groundballs for outs on artificial surface is playing with fire. The second hit also wasn't a bloop...it was Tam's non-descript slider being lined hard over Delgado's head.

I think Tam can be useful but he doesn't belong in a 2-run game or even a three run game. He just allows way too many baserunners. He's fine for mop-up situations.

Dave, Hendrickson most definitely "survives," and Davis isn't going anywhere, either.

Yep, you're right: Huckaby and Towers are the odd men out.

The second hit was on a pitch a foot out of the strikezone. Let's give some credit to the hitters, shall we.

This post may look like a hijack, but it's more of a flight of fancy.

David Bush's last six starts in the FSL:

39 IP, 30 H, 10 R, 8 ER, 3 BB, 45 K, 1.85 ERA

and his overall stats for the year:

77 IP, 64 H, 29 R, 24 ER, 6 HR, 9 BB, 75 K, 2.81 ERA

Two questions:

1. Why is this man not in New Haven? What does he have to prove against A-ball hitters when he's striking out a man every inning and eight men for each one that he walks?

2. Suppose that he is promoted to New Haven tomorrow and has four or five good starts. Suppose also that the Jays are still in the race. Would you call Bush up to Tirana to pitch middle relief?

OK, three questions:

3. Am I the only one who thinks that Brian Bowles just might be able to pitch effectively in the major leagues? His career line in bits of three seasons with the Jays is:

25 IP, 20 H, 12 R, 10 ER, 0 HR, 15 BB, 23 K, 3.60 ERA

and his career AAA line is:

161 IP, 119 H, 59 R, 50 ER, 7 HR, 89 BB, 153 K, 2.80 ERA

Bowles' only problem is control. He has a good strikeout rate, he gives up few hits on balls in play, and his home run rate is low. I think he's worth another 20 innings in the Show to see whether he can succeed despite walking five men per game.

I don't want a guy who's walked 89 guys in 161 innings in AAA unless he's 23 years old and has mid-90s stuff (and therefore can be expected to improve his command).

Bowles isn't ever going to be a valuable major league pitcher.

Bowles isn't ever going to be a valuable major league pitcher.

Brian Bowles vs. Jeff Tam, 2002-2003:

Tam in MLB: 73.2 IP, 100 H, 6 HR, 33 BB, 38 K, 5.62 ERA
Tam in AAA: 29 IP, 31 H, 2 HR, 5 BB, 26 K, 5.59 ERA

Tam must have had some really rotten luck in AAA last year; his peripheral numbers don't support a 5.59 ERA.

Bowles in MLB: 21.1 IP, 16 H, 0 HR, 14 BB, 19 K, 4.22 ERA
Bowles in AAA: 83.2 IP, 63 H, 4 HR, 45 BB, 72 K, 2.69 ERA

I don't think Bowles is ever going to be an above-average major league pitcher. On the other hand, I think he has a pretty good chance of being somewhat above replacement level, which would make him better than Tam has been for the last two years. I don't want a guy who's given up 100 hits in his last 73-plus innings in MLB unless he's a 6'9" left-handed ex-basketball player. :)

(I am aware that Tam had a track record of major league success prior to 2002, but I don't think 100 hits in 73-plus innings can be chalked up to small sample size.)

Rates per 9 IP:

Tam in MLB: 12.2 H, 0.7 HR, 4.0 BB, 4.6 K
Tam in AAA: 9.6 H, 0.6 HR, 1.6 BB, 8.1 K

Bowles in MLB: 6.8 H, 0.0 HR, 5.9 BB, 8.0 K
Bowles in AAA: 6.8 H, 0.4 HR, 4.8 BB, 7.7 K

Homers are a wash. I fail to see why Bowles' 2-3 extra walks per game are so much worse than Tam's 3-5 extra hits per game.

The problem with Tam is that his K rate isn't great and depending on his (generally hard hit) groundballs for outs on artificial surface is playing with fire.

I think you've got a point with the artifical turf, especially at SkyDome, which is extremely fast. But putting balls in play is generally a very good thing if you're not prone to giving up the long ball, which Tam is not. I don't have quite the level conviction that Robert seems to have but I don't think Tam is horrible either.

For those of you who don't know DIPS (Robert, I think you overestimate the statheadedness of some of the readers), it's essentially a measure that captures the notion that hits allowed are not the pitcher's fault. Hits Allowed are largely dependent on the defense behind the pitcher. So, if you simply use walks, strikeouts, hit-by-pitches and homers...or in other words, the things the pitcher has more or less complete control over...you can better evaluate just what that individual pitcher's contribution is. Using those stats, we can calculate that pitcher's DIPS ERA or dERA.

If we look at the Jays pitchers and what their dERA, you can see that Tam is quite average compared to the rest of the staff. The Jays' current "closer" has been horrible so far. Worse than Creek!

Lopez 3.29
Escobar 3.58
Lidle 3.82
Hall 3.97
Hendri 4.76
Tam 5.00
Miller 5.39
Sturtze 5.62
Davis 5.95
Creek 6.04
Politte 6.35
Walker 7.09

http://economics.about.com
For those of you who don't know DIPS (Robert, I think you overestimate the statheadedness of some of the readers), it's essentially a measure that captures the notion that hits allowed are not the pitcher's fault.

They should already all know what DIPS is from reading my article on catchers!!! :)

The average reader of this website has a high level of statheadedness, but that's probably just from 2 or 3 of us (myself included) bringing up the average. Not everyone here is a nerd. Just you guys who like to read science fiction. :P

Mike
(In an emoticon mood)

I discussed Tam's major league career near the end of April. Tam had a much higher average on balls in play last year than his team (about 11 more hits than expected), whereas in previous seasons he was very very near average. This suggests that last year was an aberation - he had bad luck or had some sort of problem which led to a lot of hard hit balls that didn't leave the park. He wasn't giving up extra homers or walks last year compared to his earlier seasons (though he did strikeout significantly fewer batter - something that has not carried over to 2003).

I speculated that his BIP average would return to the (Blue Jays') team norm. As I write this he's given up hits in play at a .342 rate this season. That's 3.9 more hits than would be expected based on the team figure (.309).

Tam has also struck out 15% of batters faced in 2003. Compare that to Sturtze - 11.3% as a reliever and 12.2% as a starter. Creek was at 16.7%, but also walked 14.1% of batters faced (Tam is at 8.8%). The AL average strikeout rate for a reliever is about 18.5% (it's much lower for a starting pitcher).

[Note that I exclude intentional walks in calculating strikeout rates, and intentional walks and hit batsmen when calculating walk rates.]

In short, Tam is no worldbeater, but neither is he the worst reliever on the staff. Historically, he's had fairly low walk and homerun rates - and it's plain to see that his stiff is as good or better than he's had in previous years.

Before I forget, if the guy who sat in section 524A last night and kept yelling "SWING" at the top of his lungs when a Pirate had two strikes on him, if that guy reads this page, let it be known that you're not going to psych out a major league hitter from 300 feet away and you only succeed in pissing off the people around you.

Spicol,

It's been a while since I reviewed the nuts and bolts of DIPS, but as far as I know the statement "hits allowed are not the pitcher's fault" is perhaps stronger than the evidence warrants. Voros found a year-to-year correlation of .15 on batting average on balls in play for pitchers who threw at least 162 innings in both 1998 and 1999. That is substantially lower than the year-to-year correlation on home runs (.51), strikeouts (.79), or walks (.68) per PA. However, Keith Woolner did a larger study and found a correlation of .53 between BABIP in the even and odd years of pitchers' careers. You can't dismiss a correlation of .53 as insignificant.

Furthermore, a low correlation coefficient doesn't rule out a high predictive value in a subgroup of your study group. Tam is not a typical pitcher. He's a groundball pitcher who puts a lot of balls in play. I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether the BABIP correlation might be different for different type of pitchers, and neither does Woolner.

Finally, if Tam is allowing a lot of hits on balls in play because fast turf and/or poor infield defense are hurting him more than the average pitcher, maybe it's not a great idea to have him on a team with fast turf and/or poor infield defense. The case that the Jays should think of dumping Tam doesn't depend on proving that Tam's ineffectiveness is entirely his fault.

END RANT

"hits allowed are not the pitcher's fault" is perhaps stronger than the evidence warrants.

It was simplification for the non-stathead. Stick "entirely" before "the" if you want...it's just semantics.

Finally, if Tam is allowing a lot of hits on balls in play because fast turf and/or poor infield defense are hurting him more than the average pitcher, maybe it's not a great idea to have him on a team with fast turf and/or poor infield defense.

It isn't a great idea if there are better options. But are there? Are there better, cheaper options that won't damage the long term goals of the team? The point is that Tam has been better than some other Jays and before you get rid of Jeff, maybe it would be a good idea to ditch Pete Walker or Doug Davis or Tanyon Sturtze.

Robert,

While I don't agree that Tam's BABIP should necessarily be expected to regress to his career norms (if we acknowledge that pitchers have any real effect on BABIP, then we should admit the possibility that a particular pitcher's effectiveness in this area might increase or decrease), I can't argue with your larger point: there's no reason to expect Sturtze or Creek to outpitch Tam. So I'll stop singling him out for abuse.

John

A groundballer will tend to have a higher BIP average (or $H as Tangotigre of Baseball Primer labels it) than the average pitcher, but he is also going to get more GIDP and allow slightly fewer doubles and triples. Voros thinks that the tradeoff is basically a wash.

The turf stuff is overdone. The ball does scoot through a bit better on turf, but it's vastly easier to get bunt singles on grass, and so the overall effect of turf on $H is very very small.

The Jays infield defense is about average (having Bordick around helps). It was terrible in April when they were making errors, but since then it's actually been quite good. Carlos Delgado has had a solid year with the glove.

I don't see how Tam is significantly prejudiced because he plays on turf with Toronto.

I'm looking forward to Wood/Escobar. It'll be one of the best games of the year if we see Super Kelvim AND Super Wood show up. They do exist, but I don't think the odds are great that they BOTH show up in one game....

and it's plain to see that his stiff is as good or better than he's had in previous years

The dialogue on Tam has been enlightened and interesting, so it may not be entirely appropriate for me to point out Robert's Freudian slip.

But I'm doing so anyway!

Sorry, Chuck...Damn that they put 'u' and 'i' next to each other on the keyboard. Damn that QWERTY.

I don't see how Tam is significantly prejudiced because he plays on turf with Toronto.

Robert, I wasn't actually arguing that he was, although I probably wasn't clear about it. R Billie had suggested it, and Spicol thought the idea had some merit. The point I was trying to make was that if the turf and/or infield defence in Toronto increase the proportion of ground balls that become hits, then you'd expect Tam to be hurt more than the average pitcher. This would mean that one might predict Tam to continue to be less effective than his "context-free" ability would predict.

In actual fact, I agree that the defence is fine, and I'd defer to you on that anyway. I'm not sure how much the inability to bunt matters: how much do AL teams bunt these days, and is it a decent strategy to begin with? Anyway, I'll take your point that the turf effect is overblown.

Spicol, I made the admittedly semantic point about DIPS because I was trying to argue that Jeff Tam v.2003 might really be different from Jeff Tam v.2000; it might not all be luck. I wasn't trying to be a pedant for its own sake and I'm sorry to have come across that way. I'll admit that Tam is no worse (probably better) than Sturtze, Creek, and Davis (which is in the end, what matters), but I don't think it's fair to dismiss Pete Walker after 32 bad innings during which he may have been pitching hurt. Finally, I still think Brian Bowles deserves a real shot, but I don't think I'm going to win any converts on him or on my earlier, even more harebrained idea.

I read somewhere that close to 50% of attempts to bunt for a hit succeed (excluding the foul balls). If you can bunt it's absolutely a good idea to do it on grass if the 3B or 2B is playing back. You can't really do it on turf. which is why I think the Jays don't seem interested in developing this skill.

If turf doesn't make a big difference for Jeff Tam, history seems to disagree. Although the data isn't great.

In his time in Oakland (2000-2002) Tam only pitched 17.1 turf innings (.355 opp avg, 6.75 era) versus 183.1 grass innings (.267 opp avg, 2.95 era)...perhaps coincidence or perhaps by design.

This year the turf hasn't been friendly to him (19.2 ip, .345 avg, 7.32 era) while grass has been tolerable (13.2 ip, .255, 4.61 era). Oddly enough, Tam becomes a power pitcher in SkyDome...he gets more movement on his sinker but consequently less control too (13 bb, 14 k, 16.1 ip).

And there are degrees of groundball pitcher. There is still such a thing as a groundball pitcher with good stuff and one with bad stuff. Halladay's K-rate is lower than Tam's at SkyDome but his opp avg is only .264. Of course, he has a nuclear sinker and power curve which makes all the difference. Just because Tam is a groundball pitcher doesn't mean he should be expected to hold opponents to the same average as all groundball pitchers.

It's not Tam's fault that his stuff isn't as good as Halladay's, but it is the managers fault for bringing him in close games.

There is scant evidence that good pitchers have a much lower $H than average pitchers. Maybe 5% of the difference in ability is $H and the rest is K/W/HBP/HR.

Of course, pitchers in general perform better at home than on the road and all of Tam's turf appearances while with the Athletics were on the road. Additionally, Oakland is perhaps the park that helps $H most in the AL (because of the large foul territory).

These 2 factors render the splits quoted as virtually meaningless.

Great post, R Billie. Collecting those data of yours, we have:

Turf 2000-2003: 37 IP, 57 H, 3 HR, 19 BB, 30 K, 0.016 HRr, 0.102 BBr, 0.16 Kr, 0.327 BABIP
Grass 2000-2003: 196 IP, 197 H, 9 HR, 66 BB, 96 K, 0.012 HRr, 0.088 BBr, 0.128 Kr, 0.242 BABIP

I'd consider that a meaningful difference in BABIP. Then again, I considered the difference between 2000/2001 and 2002/2003 meaningful, and I seem to be in the minority there.

2000/2001: 160.1 IP, 154 H, 6 HR, 52 BB, 90 K, 0.010 HRr, 0.083 BBr, 0.144 Kr, 0.235 BABIP
2002/2003: 73.2 IP, 100 H, 6 HR, 33 BB, 38 K, 0.021 HRr, 0.113 BBr, 0.130 Kr, 0.298 BABIP

Of course, the two sets of data aren't independent (since a disproportionate number of the turf innings are from 2003), and there are park factors at work.

I wish I could remember second-year stats; I'd go run some tests for significance...

All but 3.1 of Tam's turf innings this year have been at home. That gives him 16.1 home turf innings, 20.2 road turf innings, 101.2 home grass innings, and 95.1 road grass innings in the period 2000-2003.

44% of his turf innings since 2000 have been at home. 52% of his grass innings since 2000 have been at home. I don't think the home/road splits matter all that much.

The park factors are a different story.

Of course they do - since it's 44% of only 37 innings. Name a pitcher. I can guarantee you I can find a stretch of 37 consecutive innnings (most likely several) where he had a $H of 100+ points higher than his career average.

The problem isn't with the grass split - it's the turf split. 37 innings - is NOTHING. Tam may or may not be affected by turf. But if he is, then it's because groundballers as a whole are affected, unless you are somehow going to argue that Tam's groundballs are very different from other ground balls.

There is a difference between hard 'almost linedrive' grounders and routine grounders or high choppers. It's stands to reason (at least to me) that a pitcher with a better sinker will induce more of the latter and one with a lesser sinker will induce more of the former. Unless you're trying to argue that Tam's sinker is just as hard to square up on a bat as Halladay's sinker. In which case, I respectfully disagree.

Not everyone in the sabermetric community accepts DIPS entirely...I agree there is value in the work, I also agree that the turf samples talked about above are insignificant (though it makes you wonder why Oakland used him almost exclusively on grass). But it's far from conclusive.

http://economics.about.com
Not everyone in the sabermetric community accepts DIPS entirely...I agree there is value in the work, I also agree that the turf samples talked about above are insignificant (though it makes you wonder why Oakland used him almost exclusively on grass). But it's far from conclusive.

It might have something to do with the fact that there aren't any turf fields in the AL West. I imagine *none* of the A's pitchers had a whole lot of turf experience.

Mike

Would Oakland's large foul territory -- which really benefits someone like Barry Zito, who works up in the zone -- help a sinker-ball pitcher as much?

Mike, Safeco is only two years old. The A's had Tam around when the Kingdome was still standing. Fortunately, that blotch has been vaporized. Er, the Kingdome that is.

In case anyone cares, the rates I calculated for Jeff Tam in post 64455 are all messed up. In particular, his $H on turf was .400; on grass, .274, unless I'm compounding my earlier miscalculations.

I had written a much longer correction but then the computer crashed and I lost it, which I took as a sign from the blog gods that I need to get back to real life.

I would consider 37 innings insignificant for sufficiently small deviations. < autology> The question is whether a .400 $H and 57 H in 37 IP is insignificant. You can't just look at the 37 IP; if Tam had given up 200 H in those 37 IP, no one would pipe up "small sample size." And yes, I know that the burden of proof is on those of us who want to reject the null hypothesis ... anyway, Robert, I'm neither sadistic enough to send you a list of pitchers nor masochistic enough to do that study myself. But if you ever feel compelled to do it on your own, I'd love to hear the results. Also, if anyone has any data on groundballers on turf vs. grass, it would be nice to see what they are.

Jeff Tam's overall $H for 2000-2003 is .295. I decided to check the statistical significance of:

1. Tam's $H on turf since 2000.
2. Tam's $H in 2002-2003.

In each case, I calculated Tam's balls-in-play allowed in the specified sample. For example, on turf, Tam pitched 37 innings, allowing 57 H and 3 HR and recording 30 K. This means he put 135 balls in play (3*37+57-3-30=135), of which 54 (57-3=54) went for hits. In 2002-2003, Tam pitched 73.2 innings, allowing 100 H and 6 HR and recording 38 K, so he put 277 balls in play, of which 94 went for hits.

Using the binomial theorem, I calculated the probability that:

1. A pitcher with an underlying .295 $H would allow at least 54 hits on 135 BIP
2. A pitcher with an underlying .295 $H would allow at least 94 hits on 277 BIP

The probabilities of interest are .0066 and .069. If you use Tam's 2000-2001 $H instead of his career $H (thereby calculating the probability that a pitcher with an underlying .275 $H would allow at least 94 hits on 277 BIP), the second probability becomes .010.

Conclusions: 73.2 innings is not nothing, and neither is 37 innings. The null hypothesis that Tam's $H on turf does not differ significantly from his overall $H is rejected at a confidence level of .01. Possible explanations of this effect include park factors and Tam being a truly worse pitcher on turf.

The null hypothesis that Tam's $H in 2002-2003 does not differ significantly from his overall $H is not rejected at any usual confidence level (p=.05 or below) unless we accept the post facto analysis comparing Tam's 2002-2003 numbers to his 2000-2001 numbers (rather than to his overall numbers). However, it's awfully close to being rejected, as is Tam.

The basic point is that Tam's overall $H is pretty close to his teams' average over the course of his career. If you are going to pick a groundballer who is especially prone to the groundball single, you should probably be looking in another direction.

As mentioned, groundballers in general do allow a higher $H rate, but get more GIDP than flyball pitchers. Voros thinks it's a wash and I think it probably is too.

Regarding the comparison to Halladay: there are plenty of pitchers with awesome stuff that don't have particularly good $H. Randy Johnson is one of them. Jamie Moyer and Rick Helling, for some reason, tend to have low $H.

BTW Tam has a really really good sinker - it isn't a Kevin Brown, but it's fairly heavy. His main problems are 1) if he starts it out at the knees hitters tend to lay off; 2) He doesn't have any other quality pitch (which is one reason he's a relief pitcher). From what I've seen it's just as good as Halladay's (But Doc has a better "normal" fastball, can throw a nasty curve in the zone almost any time he wants, and has a pretty good slider).

To conclude about Tam:

1) He's still a useful pitcher
2) He may be slightly hurt by pitching on turf

That's all I'm going to say about him until the end of June, when I will reevaluate the numbers (assuming he's still on the team).