Drove down to the Bank yesterday to watch the Phillies' most anticipated opening day since 2011 (let's face it, in 2012 no one expected the team to fare well, and it finished .500).
The good:
1. The buzz was amazing. I felt it in the late 1970's with the Carlton-Schmidt teams and then in the mid-to-late 2000's with the Utley-Rollins-Howard teams. At times I felt it with the 1993 team, but no one thought on opening day then that the Daulton-Dykstra-Kruk team was going places (in fact, it was a lightning strike, as that team was a one-year wonder). Fans were festive, the lines were long (why they planted annual plants along Pattison Avenue with the anticipated crowds was beyond me, but the fans did their best not to trample them).
2. The fans have returned. Okay, so that's part of the buzz, but how many times did fans witness half-empty stadiums (and this stadium was not 100% full, even if they sold all the tickets -- there were chunks of empty seats at all levels)? Ghost-laden parking lots? Plenty.
3. The joint was jumping. It was loud, it was enthusiastic, it was hopeful, all the things that you want to see in a crowd. If you haven't experienced the union of a team on the rise and its fans, it is something special to see. The atmosphere can be electric.
4. The team delivered. The Phillies have not played their first game at home normally (my memory suggests that mostly they have been on the road) and over the past 50 years they have lost many more openers than they have won (even with some of the excellent teams that I mentioned above). Andrew McCutcheon homered to lead off the bottom of the first, the oft-maligned Maikel Franco hit a three-run frozen rope and then Rhys Hoskins capped the day with a grand slam -- after the Braves walked Bryce Harper to load the bases. This was a team whose offense was paltry, putrid, weak, non-existent at times last season. This year's lineup -- with half of the eight position players new to the squad -- has zing and oomph.
5. Aaron Nola is a treat to watch even when he does not have his best stuff. As one scout put it in Sports Illustrated, he pitches like Greg Maddux. Nola was not at his best yesterday, but what he did was good enough.
6. Bryce Harper has star power, even when he strikes out twice, which he did. Harper wore bright lime green kicks with images of the Phillie Phanatic on them. Those were fun to see.
The bad:
1. Traffic. The Phillies blew it yesterday with their messages to fans. They did warn fans to get to the stadium complex early because they were expecting a big crowd. What they failed to do -- and they must take ownership for this -- is warn their fans that the lots at the Wells Fargo Center -- where fans historically have parked when the Phillies have had sell-outs -- would be closed because the 76ers were hosting the Nets at 7 p.m. (the Phillies' game started at 3:05). This lot closure caught many fans unaware, created a massive traffic jam even for fans who arrived at the complex 90 minutes before game time, and spoiled for some what should have been an early arrival, the ability to watch the pre-game festivities and to see McCutcheon's home run, which many missed. I called the Phillies to register a complaint about this -- and got hung up on, clearly by someone without training in customer service. And I was polite, too.
2. Alcohol. It is bad enough that they charge over $10 for a beer, but worse that so many people believe that consuming multiple beers is a wise investment of their hard-earned $. But the bigger problem is how many people seemed inebriated. There were four early twenty-somethings sitting next to us who were wasted and asking my friend the dumbest of questions about the game and the scoreboard. And they were not alone. I don't know what the answer is except to limit fans to 2 beers per game (by stamping a hand, and, of course, the heavy drinkers could get more sober friends to purchase extras for them). But the fans who drink too much can take away from the experience of others.
3. Sad to see as a sign of the times bollards surrounding the stadium (to prevent a terrorist or shooter from driving up on the sidewalk amidst fans and coming out shooting) the armed Homeland Security guards in strategic locations. Yes, all of these measures are for the public good, but it is sad to see all of the measures that need to be taken.
4. Hector Neris. Great guy, apparently, and someone whose teammates love him. He was once "Hector the Lead Protector" but got sent down mid-season last year when he was more "Hector the Launch Master." He developed a new pitch at AAA Lehigh Valley, and worked on his game, improved, only to yield a home run in relief yesterday. The team is counting on Neris, and, yes, yesterday is only a single data point. But his performance is something to keep an eye on.
Good day, overall, at the Bank, even if it took me from door to door about 2.5 hours to park and get inside. The Phillies might be onto something -- and they will be if their #2-#5 starting pitchers can throw with consistency.
Friday, March 29, 2019
Wednesday, March 06, 2019
Is WAR the Answer?
Many of my friends think not. One goes so far as to question the work of Baseball Prospectus in its entirety because while it discusses its metrics, it does not explain them or define them. So while a statistic like WAR intrigues him, he puts little stock in it because he does not know how it is calculated.
Oh, I tell him, look at Baseball Reference for career WAR and you have to conclude that it is a robust statistic because all the all-time greats rank at the top of the lists. Ergo, the BP people are getting something right. No, is the vigorous counter, all that means is that human observations and the old stats told us who was good, and those were good enough to tell us who the stars were and are. What he is protesting, when you get down to it, is that the stat guys have taken all of the fun out of debates as to who was better, a province of the liberal arts guys who liked baseball without having to have earned a degree in higher math to understand it.
The purpose of this writing, though, is not to discuss the topic in the headline, which is a teaser. WAR seems here to stay. Assuming, for purposes of this argument, that it has merit, what does it mean for player salaries? Whose salaries am I thinking of particularly -- well, those of Mike Trout and Mookie Betts. Why, do you ask? Simple? Both are better players -- and you could argue significantly better players -- than both Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. In WAR terms, twice to three times as good. So, if Harper just signed a 13-year, $330 million contract, how much are Trout and Betts worth?
Let's say Harper had a WAR of 4.0 last season, Trout 8.3 (he was injured for a while) and Betts 10. Simple math tells you that both of them could be worth double what Harper is worth per year, perhaps even more than that. The numbers do not lie -- these two players, right now, are the best position players in the game. Both will get huge paydays.
And, in the meantime, because analytics' influence progressed more rapidly than the assumptions on which the Collective Bargaining Agreement is based, the mean salary will continue to drop. The very productive will get paid richly, but the other 80% will get paid lower than the average. Watching how MLB and the MLBPA address this issue, along with the fact that the average age of a fan is 55 and the games take too long to play, will be compelling theater. But make no mistake about it, the superstars can help a good team become great and an a so-so average attendance rocket.
So is WAR the answer? How about PECOTA, BABIP, True Average and a lot of terms that get tossed out there but are unexplained, leaving the rest of us to bob our heads or else risk revealing that we are ignorant about baseball's important numbers. My guess is that not only is WAR the answer, there are other sub-WARS that figure into a team's analytics too. And while such analytics might be good to help a team win games, they also help further alienate a fan base that simply wants to relate to a national pastime, two-out rallies, the pop of a fastball into a catcher's mitt, a hot dog with spicy mustard and a cool breeze coming in from center field.
WAR is not the answer for fans. It is the answer for management and for the elite players. That is, until the owners and the players' union go to war.
Oh, I tell him, look at Baseball Reference for career WAR and you have to conclude that it is a robust statistic because all the all-time greats rank at the top of the lists. Ergo, the BP people are getting something right. No, is the vigorous counter, all that means is that human observations and the old stats told us who was good, and those were good enough to tell us who the stars were and are. What he is protesting, when you get down to it, is that the stat guys have taken all of the fun out of debates as to who was better, a province of the liberal arts guys who liked baseball without having to have earned a degree in higher math to understand it.
The purpose of this writing, though, is not to discuss the topic in the headline, which is a teaser. WAR seems here to stay. Assuming, for purposes of this argument, that it has merit, what does it mean for player salaries? Whose salaries am I thinking of particularly -- well, those of Mike Trout and Mookie Betts. Why, do you ask? Simple? Both are better players -- and you could argue significantly better players -- than both Bryce Harper and Manny Machado. In WAR terms, twice to three times as good. So, if Harper just signed a 13-year, $330 million contract, how much are Trout and Betts worth?
Let's say Harper had a WAR of 4.0 last season, Trout 8.3 (he was injured for a while) and Betts 10. Simple math tells you that both of them could be worth double what Harper is worth per year, perhaps even more than that. The numbers do not lie -- these two players, right now, are the best position players in the game. Both will get huge paydays.
And, in the meantime, because analytics' influence progressed more rapidly than the assumptions on which the Collective Bargaining Agreement is based, the mean salary will continue to drop. The very productive will get paid richly, but the other 80% will get paid lower than the average. Watching how MLB and the MLBPA address this issue, along with the fact that the average age of a fan is 55 and the games take too long to play, will be compelling theater. But make no mistake about it, the superstars can help a good team become great and an a so-so average attendance rocket.
So is WAR the answer? How about PECOTA, BABIP, True Average and a lot of terms that get tossed out there but are unexplained, leaving the rest of us to bob our heads or else risk revealing that we are ignorant about baseball's important numbers. My guess is that not only is WAR the answer, there are other sub-WARS that figure into a team's analytics too. And while such analytics might be good to help a team win games, they also help further alienate a fan base that simply wants to relate to a national pastime, two-out rallies, the pop of a fastball into a catcher's mitt, a hot dog with spicy mustard and a cool breeze coming in from center field.
WAR is not the answer for fans. It is the answer for management and for the elite players. That is, until the owners and the players' union go to war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)