January 2009 - Posts

• The Little Things, Part Three

  Posted Jan 24 2009, 10:45 PM by radio silence

  Please feel free to check out Part One and Part Two. 
  

  Now that we understand the power of better baserunning, sacrifice flies, and double play groundouts, I think that we can move on to other runs created exercises, with other areas of production, with hopes of learning the impact of production increases for each player in the Brewers' starting eight.

  Keeping with the theme of "little things," I purposefully kept these increases small, with the hopes of drawing further conclusions about runs created (and using runs created) with small increases, realistic increases -- usually within 1% in OBP and SLG categories, and never more than 2%.

  To keep things interesting, I eye-balled the statistical lines of 2008, adding and subtracting just a few elements here or there, according to conclusions or general guidelines I put together in the original "Six Questions" appraisal of the offense. Thus, I focused on Hart's HR drop in 2008, Braun's hitting drop, Fielder's 2B drop, Weeks' hitting drop, and Hall's discipline decline (i.e., lower K/BB discipline without the hitting results of previous seasons).

  Hardy was an interesting case -- I could not, with an honest mind, project him for any type of improvement, even small, given his luck increase in 2008 (he put fewer balls in play and a higher percentage of those balls in play dropped for hits). So, I turned Hardy into my "counter" case -- I purposefully set him up for a rather large regression, in hopes of seeing how the smaller increases from a few players stacked up against a larger regression from one player.

  Outside of the young core, I did a few simple things with Kendall. Cameron was a tough case, given the anticipated playing tiem discrepency between '08 and '09. So, I put together three models: (1) I used his career averages to build a startling regression season; (2) I used his career averages to build a realistic full seaon; (3) I used his 2004 campaign, which was the last full season in which Cameron played in an offensive environment that was near the offensive environment of Miller Park (for this I used Baseball-Reference's AIR index, which is rather intuitive and easy to read and digest).

  Here are the results...enjoy!

  (1)

  Braun (663 PA): .295/.341/.568 (.909) = 107 RC (+.006 OBP, +.015 SLG).

  (Braun: +6 H, +3 2B, -2 BB, +2 SB, +2 SF)

  (2)

  Fielder (694 PA): .282/.378/.520 (.898) = 110 RC (+.006 OBP, +.013 SLG).

   (Fielder: +4 H, +4 2B)

  (3)

  Hall (448 PA): .246/.308/.394 (.702) = 47 RC (+.015 OBP, -.006 SLG)

   (Hall: +9 H, +5 2B, -1 3B, -4 HR, -2 BB, -3 SB, -5 CS (-8 SB attempt), -1 SH, +1 SF)

  (4)

  Hardy (629 PA): .273/.326/.447 (.773) = 76 RC (-.017 OBP, -.031 SLG)

  (Hardy: -5 H, -2 HR, -4 BB, -2 SH, +4 SF, -3 GDP)

  (5)

  Weeks (560 PA): .239/.348/.412 (.760) = 70 RC (+.006 OBP, +.014 SLG)

   (Weeks: +2 H, +1 2B, +1 HR, +4 SB, +1 CS, +2 BB)

  (6)

  Hart (657 PA): .268/.298/.479 (.777) = 79 RC (-.002 OBP, +.020 SLG)

   (Hart: +4 HR, +2 SB, -2 CS, -4 GDP)

  (7)

  Kendall (587 PA): .254/.337/.333 (.670) = 58 RC (+.010 OBP, +.009 SLG)

  (Kendall: +2 H, -6 SB, -3 CS (-9 SB attempts), +6 BB, +3 SH)

  (8)

  Cameron (a) (568 PA): .231/.320/.389 (.709) = 60 RC; (b) (568 PA): .255/.342/.443 (.785) = 72 RC; (c) (562 PA): .231/.319/.479 = 73 RC

  (a) -.011 OBP, -.088 SLG; (b) +.011 OBP, -.034 SLG; (c) -.012 OBP, +.002 SLG

   (Cameron career averages w/ adjustmnets for hitting, power, and speed regression; Cameron career averages; Cameron 2004; his last full season in a favorable offensive park)

   

   

  The results of this survey: from the lowest Cameron estimates for playing time and runs created, to the highest estimates, the Brewers starting eight can be projected to perform anywhere from 4800 to 4806 PA, creating 607 Runs to 620 Runs.

  Adjusted for playing time, the lowest runs created projection -- 607 runs -- is pretty much the same offensive output as the 2008 Brewers' starting eight. 620 runs created is basically a runs created increase of 13 runs, which is significant in this model because (a) not all of the gains from the "True Little Things" model (see Part Two) were incorporated, leaving the chance at a few more "here and there" runs created in the shadows behind the main stats; (b) these models include at least one significant regression (Hardy), and standard, average and below average projections for Cameron.

  With slight improvements allotted to either Hardy or Cameron, from their 2008 level of production, the aggregate runs created jumps anywhere between 622 to 630 RC; if both Hardy or Cameron improve, that means an aggregate of approximately 633 runs created from the core (these improvements are anywhere between 15 runs and 26 runs above the 2008 core eight).

  Remember, all of these improvements occur without assuming any improvement above 2% in either OBP or SLG. In fact, many of the projected improvements were easily between .005 and .015, and hardly any of the projected improvements bumped against the .020 level (Hart's HR correction is the only one that hits a 2% increase).

  Marked improvement can occur without break-out seasons, and it can also occur even with a case of one player regressing significantly. Without assuming grand, optimistic positions, we have found scenarios in which the Brewers reach higher levels of runs production from their starting eight. This should favorably shape our opinion regarding the chances of improved runs production, and furthermore, should make our next consideration -- that of break-out seasons -- even more interesting now that we know that the team is not doomed if any of the starters fail to show radical improvement over 2008.

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• The Little Things, Part Two

  Posted Jan 20 2009, 10:05 PM by radio silence

  Here we go. If you like, check out Part One.
  

  Using the "technical" version of runs created, which includes SB and CS stats in estimating a batter's success in staying on base and advancing runners, as well as SF and SH in the advancing runners section of the equation. The version I used, as well as Baseball-Reference (as far as they stated and as far as I know), goes something like:

  ( "Producing Baserunners / Keeping Baserunners on base" (H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP) x

  "Advancing Baserunners" (TB + (.26 x (BB - IBB + HBP)) + (.52 x (SH + SF + SB))) )  /

  "Opportunities" (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF)

  All together:

  ( (H+BB+HBP-CS-GIDP) x (TB + (.26 x (BB - IBB + HBP)) + (.52 x (SH + SF + SB))) )  /

  (AB + BB + HBP + SH + SF)

  According to this metric, the 2008 Brewers as a unit created approximately 795 runs, which is approximately 5.7% runs above the Brewers' actual runs scored. I was mistaken in Part One, when I stated that the Brewers' 2008 runs created was almost 8% above the actual runs scored; the estimate of runs created I used to inform that statement featured an aggregate of the individual 2008 Brewers' runs created projections with the Brewers. That RC total was approximately 813 runs, which is approximately 2.7% above the 2008 Brewers' RC using team stats; how is this possible you ask?

  Quite simply, the Brewers as an aggregate of individual production are different from the Brewers as an actual unit, a unit that plays through situations, and produces in sequence with one another. There are ways in which we can intertwine the individual aggregate projections in order to bring them back to the 795 runs created projection, and closer to the actual 750 RS. Those methods were, quite frankly, more difficult and in-depth than I wanted to employ here; I wanted this to be a somewhat easy survey to follow!

  So, for the sake of convenience, I used the Brewers' individual runs created projections from Baseball-Reference, simply because of their availability. You should follow along via B-R player pages; it's rather easy to do -- runs created, as well as other stats, are listed under " Special Batting" sections on each player page. In order to bring the individual RC projections closer to the actual RS by the Brewers, I divided the Brewers' 2008 RS (750) by the 2008 aggregate RC (813), and then multiplied each player's individual RC by that percentage (which is .92251; meaning, each RC projection is approximately 92% of that player's actual runs production in the Brewers' team environment.

  I am aware that there are more accurate methods to rectify this issue, but as I stated above, I wanted to keep this rather simple, and I wanted to use methods I am more familiar and comfortable with.

  Here's the fun stuff:

  2008 Brewers' starters (Braun, Cameron, Fielder, Hall, Hardy, Hart, Kendall, and Weeks): 649 aggregate RC in 4746 PA; corrected to approximately 598.71 RS.

  Player		RC		Correction		PA
  Kendall		59		54.43		587
  Fielder		114		105.17		694
  Weeks		72		66.42		560
  Hall		47		43.36		448
  Hardy		90		83.02		629
  Braun		111		102.4		663
  Cameron		75		69.19		508
  Hart		81		74.72		657
  Starters		649		598.71		4746

  2008 Brewers' main bench (Branyan, Counsell, Dillon, Durham, Gross, Gwynn, Kapler, and Rivera): 144 aggregate RC in 1083 PA; corrected to approximately 132.48 RS.

  2008 Brewers' auxiliary bench and pitchers: 20 aggregate RC; corrected to approximately 18.45 RC.

  The starters and main bench account for the vast majority of the Brewers' production in 2008, of course; the starters' 4746 PA accounted for just over 75% of the team's total PA, and their approximate 598 runs scored / adjusted runs created account for almost 80% of the Brewers' total run production in '08. The bench's 1083 PA account for over 17% of the team's total PA, and their 132 runs scored / adjusted runs created account for just under 18% of the team's runs scored.

  ***

  Now, an exercise involving the starters, and an exercise showcasing some of the value of Runs Created, as it concerns "small" or "background" stats that nonetheless affect advancement of runners and ultimately, creating runs...here are eight "little" things for our starters, which alone account for almost one win above the Brewers' '08 Pythagorean W-L (which was approximately 87 wins):

  “True” Little Things (-8.80 runs created) 758 RS / 689 (174179.86686) / (320585.90346) = .54332 = 88.02 = (almost 1 win)

  Corey Hart: Increase in GDP (94.33 PA/GDP in 2007; 38.65 PA/GDP in 2008) due to increase in GO/AO. Difference: Approximately -4.00 runs created.

  Bill Hall: Continued low SB% (.444 SB% in 2007; .454 SB% in 2008) accounts for wasted outs. Difference: approximately -2.00 runs created (w/o any SB attempts whatsoever)

  Rickie Weeks: Decrease in SB attempts (18.74 PA/SB attempt in 2007; 23.33 PA/SB attempt in 2008), leading to decrease in SB and SB%. Difference: Approximately -2.00 runs created (vs. 2007 SB)

  J.J. Hardy: Increase in GIDP (49.08 PA/GDP in 2007; 34.94 PA/GDP in 2008). Difference: Approximately -2.00 runs created.

  Prince Fielder: Increase in SF (170.25 PA/SF in 2007; 69.4 PA/SF in 2008). Difference: Approximately +1.00 run created.

  Ryan Braun: Decrease in SB attempts (24.6 PA/SB attempt in 2007; 36.83 PA/SB attempt in 2008), failing to capitalize on increased SB%. Difference: Approximately -0.50 runs created.

  Mike Cameron: Increase in SB attempt (28.3 PA/SB attempt in 2007; 23.09 PA/SB attempt in 2008). Difference: approximately +0.50 runs created

   

  Jason Kendall: Increase in SB attempt (73.47 PA/SB attempt in 2007; 53.36 PA/SB attempt in 2008), leading to more runs created with increased SB%. Difference: Less than +0.20 runs created.

  Notice how the little things add up -- without considering issues with extra base hits, luck with BABIP and balls-in-play %, K% or BB%, without concerning any major hitting issues, we've accounted for almost one win's worth of production in stolen base attempts, sacrifice flies, and double play ground balls. And that's just looking at one aspect of the player's game that changed; if we scrutinized the record, we might gain a run or so back, but we might also find more "little thing" blindspots, too...

  This is just a start to answering my initial question, which was, How do we account for 50 runs scored for 2009? We've accounted for almost 9 runs thus far....now it's time to move forward....

  With 2 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• The little things, Part One

  Posted Jan 19 2009, 11:03 PM by radio silence

  What does the Brewers offense need to do to improve? I considered this very question some time ago, arranging the issue in a series of questions about the Brewers 6 major core players between the ages of 24 and 30. That post contains a good amount of year-to-year data, which is nice, but it's lacking something:

  Context.

  It seems to me that with the loss of Sabathia and Sheets, various rotation projections could put the Crew anywhere from 30-50 runs behind the 2008 pitching staff; maybe less, maybe more. It is also my opinion that even with Sabathia and Sheets, the rotation likely does not improve upon their 2008 marks, and the end result is the same: we're looking for extra runs from the offense.

  While some might mourn losing the Brewers' healthy 750 RS, 689 RA runs differential, we can learn from utilizing a Pythagorean Record projection that replacing 50 RS in either direction results in a rather minimal difference in expected wins; whereas the Brewers' 2008 expected winning percentage was .5385 -- based solely on runs scored and runs allowed -- a 2009 exoected winning percentage with a runs differential closer to 800 RS, 739 RA yields an expected winning percentage of .53602. In terms of 162 games, those winning percentages display the difference between an 87.24 win season and an 86.84 win season.

  So, my question in the last few weeks was simple: how do the Brewers score 50 more runs?

  My initial thinking about this issue centered around the fact our entire young core -- minus Hardy -- regressed in 2008 from their 2007 performances, sometimes in large quantities (this is especially true for Fielder and Braun in one sense -- they couldn't possibly repeat the luck of their 2007 campaigns, and it is also true for Hart, Hall, and Weeks in a different sense -- Weeks' late-season explosion was probably unlikely to be sustained for a longer period of time, and Hart and Hall maintained habits that were not conducive for long-term hitting success).

  The result of this line of thinking had me searching for "grand" outcomes. Who could increase their OBP from a .340 range into a .365 range? Or get that slugging up another 3% or 4%...

  The only trouble is, in terms of baseball statistics, a 3% or 4% difference in one category is rather large. This is true for individual and team stats; for instance, the fantastic Cubs (855 RS) and awful Padres (637 RS) were separated by a 3.7% difference in the OBP category (.354 vs. .317). We probably feel the same way about Chase Utley vs. Rickie Weeks, Matt Holliday vs. Carlos Beltran, Carlos Beltran vs. Mike Cameron -- you get the picture. Each of these players have an OBP differential somewhere between 3% and 4%, and that's just my eyeballing stats and picking players off the top of my head.

  So, I started to think about a way to build a more realistic, level, and less-optimistic projection of the offense that still maintained the premise of improving runs production. Luckily, I happened to be reading through The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (New York: Free Press, 2001) for a second time; a particular comment of his, about runs created, spurred me forward:

  "A hitter's job is not to compile a high batting average. A hitter's job is not to maintain a high on-base percentage, not to create a high slugging percentage, not to get 2000 hits. A hitter's job is not to hit home runs. Some hitters might hit home runs as the primary part of their job, but only some hitters, and even those only some of the time..." (James, 2001; 329).

  James is correct:

  "The objective of each team is to win by scoring more runs than the opponent" (MLB Official Rules, "Objectives of the Game," 1.02).

  I could easily sit here and cite to you numerous shifts in BABIP (Batting Average on Balls in Play) for the Brewers' youngsters, coupled with their shifts in Balls in Play %, and the impact those luck factors will have on OBP and SLG and AVG for players such as Braun, Fielder, Hardy, Hart, and Weeks. I can explain to you why I think Braun and Hardy are most likely to regress in 2009, Hart and Hall most likely to improve, and Prince Fielder most likely to explode in 2009.

  But you could still ask, "how do the Brewers score 50 more runs?"

  So, I came to runs created. Runs created is a series of various formulas created and revised over time, initially conceived by James, in order to project the runs production of a particular player. Which makes sense; we can easily and readily cite a player's AVG, how many HR they hit, and their RBI; but we'd be lost for words if we were asked about their runs production.

  All you need to know about runs created is that it basically conceives scoring runs in terms of producing runners (or getting runners onto the basepaths, and keeping them there) and advancing runners (once they are on the basepaths). Producing runners and advancing runners occurs in concrete opportunities to produce and advance runners -- basically, this concept allows us to analyze H, BB, HBP, CS, SB, SH, SF, TB, and AB in a dfferent way, with a different objective in mind: projecting runs production.

  There are multiple runs created formulas, and it's not necessary to know them all here. I used the "technical" version for this survey, simply because it was readily available on Baseball-Reference player pages, and I could easily correct the data for my survey by calculating the runs created of the 2008 Brewers as a whole (using team stats), calculating runs created of the 2008 Brewers as an aggregate (adding different Brewers together), and comparing that data with the actual runs scored of the 2008 Brewers.

  This is a wonderous fact about the 2008 'Crew -- we know how many runs they scored, exactly (750), and we can thus correct the runs created projection. In his 2001 Abstract, James notes that most teams in history fall within 5% of runs created projections, with certain teams deviating for various reasons. The Brewers' deviated more than 5% of their RC projections in 2008, probably because of the dearth of situational hitting coupled with the overall prevalence of extra base hits. If there is a discrepency between extra base hits and situational hitting, that will show up in a formula such as RC, given that Total Bases (TB) is utilized as the basis of advancing runners (along with SB, SH, SF, and BB) -- if a team posts a high TB total due to a high number of extra-base hits, but continually fails to execute a single or a sacrifice fly in situations with a high-probability for scoring actual runs, that difference will eventually be recorded in Runs Created if it occurs frequently.
  

  So, here's one calculation -- the 2008 Brewers' starters, bench, and pitchers (while batting) created 813 runs, which is .92251 of the 2008 Brewers' actual runs scored 750. One of the methods that James suggested that spurred me forward is the following correction of runs created, which suddenly made the formula incredibly useful for the specific projection of projecting an improvement in 2009 for the Brewers:

  "But isn't it possible, someone wonders, that on this team that has 700 runs created, and only 680 runs scored, some players actually created MORE runs than our estimates show? Of course it's possible; in fact, it's inevitable. We're not making the estimates perfect; we're only making them better. If a team scores 680 runs but has 700 runs created, we know that the average player on this team is 2.9% less productive than our best estimate shows. If we reduce all the estimates by 2.9%, we will be making some of them more accurate and some of them less accurate. What we can be absolutely certain of is that those we are making better out-number those that we are making worse" (James, 2001, 331).

  Now that we have a method for projecting runs created, and a method for correcting those estimates and projections, we can ask a question about the little things: what if the 2009 Brewers improve because no member of the offense explodes, produces a career season, or produces at an outstanding level; what if the 2009 Brewers improve because of minute changes here and there in their approaches, their games, and their luck?

  I want to analye the following issue: with a few hits here, a few less caught stealing there, a couple more sacrifice flies thrown in, perhaps a couple of walks, maybe a few more extra base hits...how much can the Brewers' offense improve?

  Which is to say, how many runs will they create in such a scenario?

  With 2 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• 20 Most Underappreciated Records of the 1990s

  Posted Jan 14 2009, 10:07 AM by radio silence

  I love Nirvana, but was too young to experience their influence. I grew up in the swirling power vacuum that followed the wake of Kurt Cobain’s suicide, which sprung a disorganized mess of each and every strain of 1980s indie rock, and a reorganization or reclamation of rock’n’roll past. It is nearly impossible to capture the apathy, disillusion, boredom of alternative in retrospective – an apathy towards economic prosperity that seems enviable at this very moment in time. It is also nearly impossible to capture the creativity and development of rock’n’roll tradition throughout alternative.

   

  With this list of underappreciated records of the 1990s, I wanted to explore the aspects of that eclectic genre of music, and the radio culture of the 1990s could not have provided a better scene for under-appreciated records to take hold. What was important and crucial on the surface, at the time, seems secondary in hindsight.

   

  Thus, I took records that simply remained unheard, records that were over-shadowed by one overplayed single, records by key figures under the guise of a different project, and perhaps even better, records that were obscured by the major trends and sounds of the time.

   

  1. Superdrag, Head Trip in Every Key (1998). After moderate commercial success with their major-label debut, Regretfully Yours, Superdrag hit the studio for Elektra and thoroughly utilized their financial backing. The result is a brilliant creative product that explores every possible avenue of sound, and ties the Tennessee power-poppers to their musical heritage. Full of string and horn ensembles, sitars, mellotrons, and – when the day is done -- strong song structures, this record caused a break between Elektra and Superdrag that was so severe, the band ended up off of the label. This record is under-played, relatively unknown, even if it retains a cult status among Superdrag fans. In hindsight, at the late-90s transitional point between alternative and harder forms of music – such as metal rap, nu metal, and rap metal – this record shines as the gem of its time.  Listen to “She is a holy grail” and “Bankrupt Vibration.”

   

  2. Pixies, Trompe le monde (1991). On-lookers of the Seattle “scene” half-expected the attention to their independent labels and bands to die off as the 1990s approached, only to have a powerful trio hit the mainstream rock’n’roll gold with chart success and artistic street cred. In the midst of all of this, a Boston quartet released their final studio record, following critically acclaimed records Surfer Rosa and Doolittle. As one of the influences behind the alternative rock loud-soft-loud song structures, the Pixies released Trompe le monde to a world that soon became more interested in the next generation of independent rock-gone-mainstream – the sources of that rock’n’roll explosion were left undiscovered. In a year of grungy guitars and aggressive posturing, the Pixies released a record that not only stands to their own catalog, but also stands to the hottest records of the time, and maybe even has some more staying power – without the played-out studio tricks of the time, and without being beaten to death by radio airwave. Trompe le monde was appropriated by no one, but the quality of the songs solidify the band’s status as surrogate parents to alternative rock; in only a single listen to this record, one can hear the entire decade archived. Listen to: “Motorway to Roswell.”

   

  3. Nada Surf, The Proximity Effect (1998). One-hit wonder extraordinaire, this delightfully odd little band from Brooklyn hit the studio once again, in search of that signature pop sound that came to dominate their three independent records. Standing between the two points in their catalog – from alternative one-hitters to indie pop geniuses – The Proximity Effect hits the ear as a band sculpting their future. The record is full of quirky riffs that construct songs at any speed possible – some songs glorious and almost angelic, others blistering and almost abrasive. These gems were produced with somewhat darker tonal values than their major-label debut,  and Elektra – the true villain of 1998 – once again found themselves fighting with a band over the marketability of their sophomore release (see Superdrag, Head Trip in Every Key). If this record had been released in America on-time, and Nada Surf was not forced to delay its release by founding their own label and finding their own distribution, I’m not certain that the course of their career would have changed. But, just maybe, this record could have found the listeners it deserved at the time – and it certainly deserves those listeners to this day, as a brilliant snapshot of how a one-hit wonder can mature, develop their songwriting skills, and maintain their quirky, delightful personalities. Listen to: “The Voices” and “Troublemaker.”

   

  4. Teenage Fanclub, Bandwagonesque (1991). Another casualty to Nirvana and the “Seattle sound,” Teenage Fanclub’s masterpiece of bright pop and fuzzy noise found critical acclaim in 1991, but the sound of the record and the lessons of the songwriting were left to the wayside. Bandwagonesque might be one of the best examples in rock’n’roll history of a completely contrarian sound – the production values could not be any more different, the meandering songs, lofty vocal harmonies, and deadpan lyrics producing an entirely different effect than the popular “sound” of the time. In hindsight, this record stands as a statement-of-purpose for the “other” movement of the 1990s, a movement that did not receive as much commercial acclaim, but certainly saw its moment in some great records. And this record is the battle cry. Listen to “The Concept.”

   

  5. The Folk Implosion, Dare to be Surprised (1997). Lou Barlow is well-known for his unmistakable brand of brooding, introspective, complex songwriting, as well as a lo-fi pioneer with seBADoh. Equally prolific as a collaborator and experimenter, the mid-1990s saw Barlow working with counterpart John Davis in a free-form duo, creating sounds and songs according to principles that may or may not be contrary to the creative drives and message of seBADoh. Dare to be surprised finds Barlow and Davis brewing an eclectic brand of dance, pop, and rock music, and it shouldn’t be surprising that their take on brighter forms of music creates a record full of adventures and left-turns. One of the staples on this record – besides surprisingly clean guitars – is the mixture of drum machines and good ‘ol acoustic drums, for strong backbones throughout the record. This record is perhaps one of the least-mentioned items in Barlow’s catalog of collaborations and creations, but there is no doubt that you should put it at the top of your alternative listening list. Listen to “Insinuation” and “Fall into November.”

   

  6. that dog., Retreat from the Sun (1997). While Weezer received critical acclaim and solid record sales in the mid-90s, and The Rentals became a cult hit, another member of that power pop circle fell by the wayside. Anna Waronker’s group went from noisy, violin-driven punk pop on their first releases, to the brilliant and eclectic pop of Retreat from the Sun, an album that can be obscure, absurd, angelic, and uplifting. Listen to “Gagged and Tied” and “Every time I try.”

   

  7. E, A Man Called E (1992). Mark Oliver Everett – “E” – released several solo records prior to presenting the world with his beautiful shape-shifting and life-affirming songs as Eels, and from the first notes of “Hello Cruel World,” this record stands its ground as one of the strongest records in his entire catalog. Everett will continually (and rightfully) be regarded as a generation’s greatest songwriter, and as time marches on, A Man Called E will stand as an archive of the humble beginning of genius.  Listen to “Fitting in with the misfits” and “Mockingbird Franklin.”

   

  8. Radiohead, Pablo Honey (1993). Critically acclaimed band, artistically reputable, deep songwriting tools and development, and oh yeah, they sell records, too. And here stands Pablo Honey – the debut album that probably never received its rightful response, hidden beneath the stunning success of “Creep” and later buried beneath the ungodly heaps of praise for the band’s following catalog. This record is for those days when you yearn for that guitar-driven Radiohead, and in hindsight the skills of the band and their creative approaches to rock’n’roll are present in this deceptively straightforward debut. Listen to “You.”

   

  9. Neutral Milk Hotel, In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (1998). If there was a “Greatest Records” list of the 1990s chosen solely for its literary style and lyrical content, it would be difficult to find a better #1 than this record. I didn’t put it higher because of its heaps of critical praise and indie status, but this record still remains hidden from the public, hidden by the conventionally loud-soft-loud approach and hip/apathetic lyrics of mid-1990s mainstream alternative. In place of loud-soft-loud we find a record that is simply intense, and in place of apathy we find a record drenched in affectivity. Listen to “Oh, Comely” and “The Fool.”

   

  10. Blind Melon, Soup (1995). Shannon Hoon’s last studio record, a record over-shadowed in popular culture by the “Bumble Bee Girl,” a singer over-shadowed by the more-popular grunge leaders, and an old-fashioned hard rock band overshadowed by the alternative trends of commercial radio. Soup provides especially delicious dips into psychedelic and folk passages, besides serving as a perfect crank-it-up record. Listen to “Toes across the floor” and “St. Andrew’s Fall.”

   

  11. seBADoh, The Sebadoh (1999). As commercial music trends deteriorated further and further in the late 1990s, the line-up of seBADoh morphed evermore, and the chaotic indie trio developed into a rather cohesive unit by the time this final studio effort hit the shelves. Perhaps the loudest record of the year, this straightforward effort by the band is the most thoroughly thematic of their catalog. Rather than smashing your head with the punk rock from many diverging directions, this record smashes you head-on. Listen to “Love is stronger than the truth” and “It's all you."

   

  12. The Dandy Warhols, …Come Down (1997). While our current decade’s film-students and pretentious-music-experts were still pumping Hootie and the Blowfish, the Dandy Warhols released a major-label debut that was so meandering and “out-there” that Capitol Records demanded a second take. Check out their Black Album to hear the original, rejected version, and check out …Come Down  despite what DiG! – everyone’s favorite Cliff’s Note to Psychedelic rock – implicates to the contrary. Listen to “I Love You.”

   

  13. Sleater-Kinney, The Hot Rock (1999). Any record from this Olympia band’s catalog might be justifiably called underappreciated, especially if mainstream attention and sales are considered. It is difficult-by-design to place an independent band on such a list, but I chose this record because it provided a bridge between Dig Me Out and All Hands on the Bad One for the group, and also because it closes the decade with an optimism about another generation of radical Olympia rock’n’roll, a promise that Sleater-Kinney easily cashed in with their following releases. Listen to “Get up.”

   

  14. Green Day, Insomniac (1997). Green Day did make a political record before American Idiot – easily one of the best anti-scene, reactionary records in quite some time. Scenes matter, but scenes are also musically restricting, and after firing this missile at the Bay Area punk scene, Green Day unlocked the door to their future experiments. Listen to “Stuart on the Avenue” and “Panic Song.”

   

  15. Butthole Surfers, Electriclarryland (1996). File this one under, “The Butthole Surfers make a pop record.” And its quirky genius, obscured by its two radio singles, shines throughout the entire disc. Listen to “Thermador” and “Space.”

   

  16. Veruca Salt, Eight Arms to Hold You (1997). Do you ever think that if Ann and Nancy Wilson formed a band with Mick Ronson and Johnny Ramone, this is what it might sound like? Listen to “The Morning Sad” and “Sound of the Bell.”

   

  17. the amps, Pacer (1995). What can’t Kim Deal accomplish? I have a feeling this record might receive more attention if it were released as a Breeders record. Excellent garage rock in the middle of the decade. Listen to “Pacer” and “Tipp City.”

   

  18. The Mr. T Experience, Revenge is Sweet and so are You (1997). Okay, so you don’t like Green Day. So you like this, right? Listen to “Lawnmower of Love.”

   

  19. The Verve, Urban Hymns (1997). If “Bittersweet Symphony” never became such a big deal on American radio, this band probably would have flown under the radar in the states, carrying the battle cry of Teenage Fanclub throughout the decade, contrary to grunge, contrary to alternative, but certainly not contrary to rock’n’roll. Listen to “The drugs don’t work.”

   

  20. James Iha, Let It Come Down (1998). Seriously. Listen to it. The entire thing – don’t just take my word for it. If this can’t change your respective opinions of Billy Corgan and James Iha, I don’t hold out much hope for anything else doing the trick.

   

  With no comments

  Link this   E-mail This Link

• Most Valuable Seasons by Pitchers Under 30, 1999-2008

  Posted Jan 12 2009, 06:44 AM by radio silence

  EDIT: I mistakenly added a season to Halladay that occurred after he turned 30 (2008).
  

  One of the advantages of my VORP survey, from seasons1954-present, published here during the baseball season, is that we can categorize the data in certain ways to learn about how certain types of pitchers performed over the years, or look for certain trends.

  First off, I added the three VORP seasons above 60.0 that were posted in 2008: Cliff Lee (76.5), Johan Santana (73.6), and Tim Lincecum (72.3). Sabathia would probably have posted a VORP above 60.0 had he not been traded. As it stands, his VORP in Milwaukee (51.9) added to his Cleveland performance (25.5) looks to be more valuable than Lee's season (77.4), but that's simply a raw, unscientific calculation that does not truly take into consideration differences in league averages. Unfortunately, Sabathia's being traded will keep him off this particular list, but that doesn't change the fact that what he did after being traded was truly amazing.
  

  This list is simple and straightforward: I looked through the VORP seasons from the past 10 seasons (1999-2008), and searched for pitching performances by pitchers that had not yet turned 30 (or just turned 30; but were not older than 30).

  The following list are some of the best pitching seasons and most valuable performances by pitchers in the last decade; moreso because of their age.

  The one thing that sticks out to me is that no one touches Johan Santana. Sure, you can debate all you like about who the best young pitchers are in the game over the course of the decade, but no one catches Santana in terms of the actual, consistent value of production on the mound. Not Peavy, not Zambrano, not Sabathia, not Oswalt, not Sheets, not Webb.

  Of course, the second lesson is that Roy Halladay is severely underrated as an ace. Although his best performances are not as valuable as Santana, he is the only pitcher that really competes with Santana's 4 top-VORP seasons (VORP above 60.0) in the last decade. Sheets, Sabathia, Webb, Zambrano, Peavy cannot compete with that.

  What I particularly enjoy about this survey is that it makes pitchers generally regarded as aces look like regular 'ol pitchers. Now, obviously every ace is not going to produce a top season every year. But the fact of the matter is that Santana produces top-value seasons more often than anyone else, and Halladay consistently pitches more valuable seasons than other more celebrated aces.

  Best seasons by pitchers under age 30, 1999-2008

  1. Pedro Martinez, 2000 (116.7)

  2. Pedro Martinez, 1999 (102.3)

  3. Johan Santana, 2004 (89.5)

  4. Derek Lowe, 2002 (80.8)

  5. Johan Santana, 2006 (79.6)

  6. Jake Peavy, 2007 (77.0)

  7. Cliff Lee, 2008 (76.5)

  8. Barry Zito, 2002 (75.3)

  9. Tim Hudson, 2003 (75.2)

  10. Kevin Millwood, 1999 (74.7)

  11. Johan Santana, 2008 (73.6)

  12. Johan Santana, 2005 (73.0)

  13. Roy Oswalt, 2006 (72.4)

  14. Tim Hudson, 2002 (72.3)

  15. Tim Lincecum, 2008 (72.3)

  16. Joe Mays, 2001 (71.5)

  17. Roy Halladay, 2003 (71.2)

  18. [deleted, Roy Halladay, 2008]
  

  19. Freddy Garcia, 2001 (70.4)

  20. Brandon Webb, 2006 (68.9)

  21. Roy Halladay, 2006 (68.0)

  22. Mark Prior, 2003 (66.9)

  23. Roy Halladay, 2002 (66.4)

  24. Brandon Webb, 2007 (66.1)

  25. Brad Radke, 1999 (65.7)

  26. Dontrelle Willis, 2005 (65.2)

  27. C.C. Sabathia, 2007 (65.2)

  28. Roy Oswalt, 2005 (65.1)

  29. Ben Sheets, 2004 (65.0)

  30. Bronson Arroyo, 2006 (64.9)

  31. Fausto Carmona, 2007 (64.0)

  32. Carlos Zambrano, 2004 (62.8)

  33. Brad Penny, 2007 (61.7)

  34. Mark Buehrle, 2002 (61.5)

  35. Mark Mulder, 2002 (61.4)

  36. Jarred Washburn, 2002 (60.9)

  37. John Lackey, 2007 (60.7)

  38. Carl Pavano, 2004 (60.6)

  39. Mike Hampton, 2000 (60.4)

   

  Best Pitchers with Most Valuable Seasons – Under Age 30:

  Pedro Martinez (2): 116.7, 102.3

  Johan Santana (4): 89.5, 79.6, 73.6, 73.0

  Tim Hudson (2): 75.2, 72.3

  Roy Oswalt (2): 72.4, 65.1

  Roy Halladay (4): 71.2, 70.6, 68.0, 66.4

  Brandon Webb (2): 68.9, 66.1

  With 1 comment(s)

  Link this   E-mail This Link