Somebody to Leon

2010-09-20T13:26:00.000-07:00

On Batting Stance, Plate Discipline, and Pitch Selection, Part 1

2009-09-02T17:48:00.001-07:00

I would like to break from the game recaps for a second, for a theoretical discussion of wiffleball. For today, I will only consider the slider, a pitch with decent velocity and good movement away from a batter. The slider is one of the most common pitches in the PMRNHDWBL, and is used extensively by Malinowski, Roe, Hunter, and Morgan. Several other pitchers sprinkle the slider in occasionally.

Perhaps the most important difference between wiffleball as played in the PMRNHDWBL and hardball is that the wiffleball strike zone stands several feet behind the batter, essentially where a catcher would squat in a hardball game. Therefore, to be a called strike, a wiffleball does not actually have to pass through the strike zone even with the batter. For instance, a wiffleball slider could pass the imaginary hardball plate as a ball on the inside, but then continue its movement away from the batter to catch the inside edge of the wiffleball strike zone. A well placed slider on the inside seemingly extends the strike zone towards the batter.

By the same token, a slider on the outside corner may pass directly over the imaginary hardball plate, but then move away from the outside edge of the wiffleball strike zone to become a ball. This discrepancy seemingly slides the outside edge of the strike zone for a slider back towards the batter. Therefore, the true strike zone on a slider actually stretches from about a foot off the inside edge of the "plate" to right down the middle of the "plate."

"But wait," you say. "I can crush a pitch on the outside half of the plate, and I have no chance to hit a pitch that nearly grazes my belly!" Well, you are correct. What I have just described is really the strike zone on a slider if you take the pitch. From now on, I will describe this as the "take zone." there is another, equally important zone that describes the area in which a batter can make good contact with a pitch. It varies from player to player, but it generally extends somewhat outside a batter's hands to about a bat length outside of this point From now on I will refer to this area as the "hit zone."

Mutch of the pitcher-hitter confrontation in wiffle ball can be explained through the relationship between the take zone and the hit zone. In the next installment of this series on wiffleball theory, I will discuss three different batting stances and strategies used by players in the PMRNHDWBL, and how they affect the hit zone/take zone relationship.

Game Recaps: Competitive Day 2

2009-09-02T17:47:00.001-07:00

Now sporting a 2-0 record, The Dave Easley Zach Morgan Project to be Named, Fuckers (project) only had one more team to beat before they could truly be considered favorites to win the PMRNHDWBL. In Competitive Day 2, the Naming Project was scheduled to take on perhaps the most offensively gifted team in the WBL, the Stiff Bats and Hollow Balls.

Stiff and Hollow won the toss and elected to bat last. Matt Hunter took the mound, and immediately fell behind Morgan 3-1, eventually giving up an opposite field flyball double. Hunter then upped his velocity, and struck out Easley on three pitches. With the new-found velocity came a lack of control, as Hunter walked the next two batters on eight straight pitches outside of the zone. He rallied, however, to strike out the next two batters and get out of the inning with a scoreless frame.

In the bottom of the inning, Hunter lead off against Morgan and flew out on the first pitch. Morgan then struck out Squire on three pitches, before walking Hunter on four. Squire then hit a ground ball double, and Hunter also doubled to drive in two runs. Morgan got out of the inning, however, when he made an amazing grab to deny Squire a triple on a hard hit line drive back to the pitcher.

Not to be outdone, Stiff and Hollow replied with an amazing defensive play of their own, when Hunter showed great range in the outfield and laid out to catch a fly ball to opposite field. This play took on extra significance, as Hunter may have injured his throwing shoulder on the play. Next, Squire struck out Easley to put the Naming project firmly in the hole. They responded, however, with a line drive triple by Morgan, a homer by Easley, and another triple by Morgan. Easley then hit a soft grounder, which Squire could not field, to score the third run of the inning and take the lead. Morgan would send a double down the right field line before Squire got Easley to ground back to him again, this time scooping it cleanly to get out of the inning.

The Naming Project entered the bottom of the inning up one, with their ace on the mound, but Stiff and Hard immediately put Dave Easley under pressure. Hunter hit a grounder into left, which Morgan mishandled to allow the runner to advance to third. Squire then singled in the tying run with another grounder into left. Hunter popped out to the pitcher, but Squire and Hunter hit back to back doubles to push the lead back to two. Easley would strike out Squire and walk Hunter before Morgan tracked down a deep fly ball to end the inning.

With a scoreless inning already under his belt, Matt Hunter came out to protect the two run lead full of confidence, despite complaining about pain in his shoulder. He walked Morgan, but grittily stuck out Easley, despite the blood soaking through his sock. The wheel's came off, however, when Morgan doubled, and Easley tripled to tie the game at five. Morgan walked once more, but Easley struck out on a foul tip. Morgan walked for the third time in the inning, causing rumbles to start in the Stiff and Hollow dugout about a pitching change. The injured Hunter grittily/stubbornly refused to be taken out. With the bases loaded, Easley hit a double that scored three runs when Squire misplayed the bounce in the outfield. Morgan blooped a single the other way, and then Hunter badly misplayed a comebacker to the pitcher for an error of his own. Morgan doubled once more, before Easley hit a home run to put Matt Hunter out of his misery with the mercy rule. In this half inning, Morgan was not retired a single time, and Easley provided just enough power with a triple and a homer to put up a 13-5 lead on the still dangerous Stiff Bats and Hollow Balls.

Despite having given up three runs compared to Morgan's two, Easley returned in the bottom of the third inning to protect the eight run lead. This time he was dominant. He struck out Hunter by drilling a ball through the corn toss hole, and then also struck out Squire looking before getting Hunter to ground back to the pitcher to end the game.

With an explosive comeback win against an elite team, The Dave Easley Zach Morgan Project to be Named, Fuckers (project) has made a strong statement over the first two Competitive Days, firmly positioning themselves as front runners in the PMRNHDWBL. It will be interesting to see how Stiff Bats and Hollow Balls handles their bullpen in future high leverage situations.

Game Recaps: Competitive Day 1, Game 2

2009-09-02T16:16:00.000-07:00

After making such short work of Wiffle Deez Balls in the season opener, The Dave Easley Zach Morgan Project to be Named, Fuckers (project) was confident, bordering on cocky heading into their second game. Game two wold pit the victorious Naming Project against an already primed (read: drunk) Pitches and Hos.

Fouché lead off in the first against Morgan with a hard hit line drive triple back up the middle. Roe then knocked the first run of the game in with an opposite field double that fell just out of Easley's reach. Morgan pulled himself together and struck out the next two batters looking, but Fouché, in late game form (read: drunk), knocked an 0-1 pitch out of the park. Morgan would allow another single to Roe, and yet another triple to Fouché before getting out of the inning with a strikeout. The preseason favorites looked poised to dominate, with a four run lead already in the books against one of the better pitchers in the league.

In the bottom of the first, Easley lead off against Roe, and was promptly sat down on four pitches. Morgan then coaxed a walk out of a six pitch at bat, and Easley singled to right. Morgan flew out weakly, but Easley mashed a two out triple to get his team on the board. Next, Morgan walked once more to set the table for Easley's first home run of the season. Thoroughly flustered, Roe walked Morgan again before getting Easley to fly out weakly to the pitcher. The first inning ended with the Naming Project up 5-4.

The second inning started withe the Naming Project's fireballer, Easley, on the mound. He struggled to find the zone, walking the first two batters, until he got Fouché to pop up on the infield. The popup fell off of Easley's fingertips for a single. However, he was bailed out when Fouché gave in to his questionable decision making skills (read: he was drunk), and threw the bat at Easley, getting himself called out for batter's interference. Easley walked Roe once more before getting out of the inning with a flyout and a strikeout.

In the bottom of the inning, Fouché had difficulty finding the strike zone at first, and immediately gave up an opposite field double to Morgan in a 3-1 count. Then, a ground ball single by Easley was butchered by both Fouché and Roe for two errors in an incredibly uncoordinated (read: drunk) sequence. By the time a Molina was substituted, Easley had made his way to third. Finally, Good Fouché took over and he closed out the inning only down two with the score at 6-4.

The manager of the Naming Project made a curious decision when he sent Morgan back out for the save, despite Easley's scoreless frame in the second. Both opposing batters immediately doubled off him to shrink the league to one. Morgan rallied, however to strike out both of his next two batters swinging, the latter strikeout coming after falling behind 3-0. Down to their final out, the dreams of drinkers everywhere rested on Ryan Fouché. While you should never drive drunk, the good Doc Fouché took this opportunity to prove that it is in fact a good idea to hit a hanging cutter while under the influence, and deposited one out out of the park. Morgan managed to strike out the next batter he faced, but he left the inning down one run and with a blown save to his name.

Fouché then came on for the save, and got his first two batters before he took his turn to try for the last out. Easley had other plans, however, as he lined an 0-1 pitch so far out of the park that it was figuratively never seen again. A flustered Fouché walked his next batter before the manager called for a pitching change, rather than let Fouché face the powerful Easley once more. Like the true gamer he is, Full Count Roe struck out Easley on a caught third strike in a full count. The game was going to extra innings.

In the top of the fourth, Easley got Fouché to pop out, walked Roe, struck out Fouché, walked Roe again, walked Fouché to load the bases, and then struck out Roe to end the inning. Interestingly, Roe saw 15 pitches in this inning, and did not swing the bat a single time.

In the bottom of the inning, Pitches and Hos decided to play the matchups. Fouché started and struck out Morgan. Then Roe got Easley to hit a catchable fly ball which Fouché clumsily (read: drunkenly) dropped. Fouché then redeemed himself by striking out Morgan again, and then Roe came on to strike out Easley and send the game into the fifth.

To start the inning, the Naming Project stuck doggedly to their policy of rotating pitchers, sending Morgan back out. He immediately gave up a triple and two doubles (two runs) before Easley relieved him and struck out the now tired (read: drunk) side on only 11 pitches.

Now up by two runs, Pitches and Hos attempted once more to close out the game. They elected to again vary their pitchers by matchup. This time, however, Morgan hit a fly ball double off of Fouche's first pitch. Easley followed it with a ground ball single off of Roe, and then Morgan hit a another double off of Fouché that Roe predictable (read: still drunkenly) mishandled to allow the tying run to score from first. Fouché stayed on to face one more batter, and Easley made him pay, with a walk off home run to win the game.

With three home runs and three scoreless innings pitched, Easley announced himself as an MVP candidate. Pitches and Hos reaffirmed themselves as the immensely talented yet ironically flawed contender they were suspected to be. The rematch is excitedly awaited by fans of both teams.

Game Recaps: Competitive Day 1, Game 1

2009-08-16T06:18:00.001-07:00

Competitive Day 1 got under way last Friday with a matchup between Wiffle Deez Balls and The Zach Morgan Dave Easley Project to be Named, Fuckers (project). Jamie Elliot lead off the top of the game against Zach "Gaylord" Morgan with an epic 10 pitch at bat. After swinger over the top of a cutter on the first pitch, and then falling behind 0-2, Elliot proceeded to foul off 5 pitches before finally working a leadoff walk. Shiloh Wallace then fought her way to a full count before going down swinging. Morgan then struck out each member of Wiffle Deez Balls (both swinging) on only 7 pitches to retire the side.

In the bottom of the inning against Elliot, Morgan lead off with an opposite field fly ball double, and Easley followed that up with a line drive home run. The Naming Project then doubled and trippled, failing to miss on a single pitch in the zone. At this point, Elliot lost his confidence and his control (the lack of support from his teammate may have been a contributing factor), walking the next 7 batters, after which Easley doubled in the 10th run to mercy rule Elliot out of his misery.

To start the second, Dave Easley got a soft fly out to the pitcher, which he followed up by a strikeout and a soft ground ball to retire the side. At this point, the Naming Project only needed to score four runs to ice the game, and while Wallace showed better raw pitching skills than Elliot had, she never really had a chance given the hole she had been dug. A walk, two doubles, and two triples later, the game was over.

Scouting Report: Wiffle Deez Balls

2009-08-16T06:17:00.000-07:00

Wiffle Deez Balls obviously has talent, but their caustic clubhouse situation appears to be severely crippling their ability to produce on the field. A constant presence on the covers of PMRN Help Desk Tabloids, Jamie Elliot and Shiloh Wallace are actually very similar players, with decent fundamental hitting skills (Jamie may have greater power), and changeup reliant pitching. The constant infighting on Wiffle Deez Balls, however, eats away at both payers' concentration and seriously hurts their command.

There are reports that Elliot has altered his training routine, and intends to practice his pitching while listening to a constant loop of Wallace's voice criticising his every move. Whether or not this new approach will improve the production on the field has yet to be seen. What I can say with certainty is that Elliot and Wallace must first neutralize the clubhouse poison if they hope to have any shot of making a run this year.

Scouting Report: The Dave Easley Zach Morgan Project to be Named, Fuckers (project)

2009-08-16T06:16:00.000-07:00

The Dave Easley Zach Morgan Project to be Named, Fuckers (project) is a short-notice replacement team created by the the commissioner after the Pabst Pounding Pirates failed to sign their hot young prospect, and then folded for lack of fan support. The team consists of league veteran and Commissioner Level 2 User, Zach Morgan, and foreign born fireballer, Dave Easley. From the looks of things, they may be contenders.

Zach "Gaylord" Morgan is a command and control pitcher who sets hitters up with a slider, and then finishes them off with his signature cutter. The cutter moves very slightly away from a right handed batter, but it also loses velocity at a rate greater than any other pitch currently in play. Interestingly, Morgan is the only pitcher in the league who actually prefers scuffed and/or broken balls (hence the nickname), as the extra drag improves his cutter.

Dave Easley is a change of pace from the Gaylord, as he relies almost exclusively on his fastball. In his short career stateside, Easley has already drawn comparisons to a young Randy Johnson, as his completely over the top delivery gives his fastball a distinctive downward plane. He works the top of the strikezone, at times wildly, but he has the raw stuff to get out of jams. Sources close to Easley claim that he may be attempting to add a sidearm riser to his repertoir. If he succeeds, it would be a formiddable addition to his already tough sinking fastball.

At the plate, The Dave Easley Zach Morgan Project to be Named, Fuckers (project) is just good enough to make their pitching stand up. Easley may have better power, while Morgan's plate discipline is more advanced. Either way, neither batter should be taken for granted.

Scouting Report: Stiff Bats and Hollow Balls

2009-08-12T20:45:00.000-07:00

Stiff Bats and Hollow Balls are about as offensive as they come. Their name is (over)sexed and their bats are juiced. With improved control they could be a real contender. Think of them as the White Sox from one year ago - high quality sluggers combined with starting pitching that might pull it together on any given day, but can also give up a crooked number if their BABIP luck drops.

Mild mannered Kellan Sqire is perhaps the most nerve wracking player in the league to pitch against. He uses a relaxed stance with a smooth swing that wiffle ball scouts agree suggests prior baseball experience. Nearly everything he puts in play goes for a high-arching, majestic home run. The saving grace from the pitcher's perspective is that he pulls the ball foul much more often than he actually puts it in play. He has difficulty slowing his swing up enough to hit a changeup, and he can be made to chase pitches out of the zone both high and outside.

As for his pitching, Squire's obvious athleticism and ball skills have yet to translate into productivity on the mound. He's shown a willingness to experiment with different types of pitches, but doesn't throw very hard or with great command. If something clicks and Squire finds his pitching identity, the rest of the league could be in trouble.

Matt Hunter, the non-PMRN member of Stiff Bats and Hollow Balls, is an imported player from a strange foreign league where only home runs count as hits. There is currently no reliable translation from his former league in Derby, England to our league in Tallahassee, FL, but anyone can see that the power is legit. Hunter uses a unique one handed swing to generate tremendous power, hitting moonshot home runs and scorching tripples. Opponents are advised never to give him pitches on the outside half of the plate, or even within two or so feet of the plate on the outside. He's susceptible to being jammed with splitters and screw balls, and if you want to throw a slider, make sure it's way outside. Hunter is an aggressive swinger and just might go for it.

As for Hunter's pitching, he mixes and matches changeups, fastballs, the occasional slider, and even some underhanded offerings, with very inconsistent results. If I had to make a comparison to a hardball player, however, I would say that Hunter resembles Curt Schilling, at least in terms of insistent self-promotion of his blog.

Scouting Report: The Wobblies

2009-08-12T13:38:00.001-07:00

The Wobblies, consisting of Ian Malinowski and Kelly Scherwitzki took their name because, like the Industrial Workers of the World, they’re still throwing strikes in the third inning. They flash both stellar pitching and energetic, dedicated fielding, but have difficulty putting it all together in any given inning. Moreover, experts agree that they lack the necessary offensive firepower to compete with the class of the PMRNHDWBL.

Scherwitzki bears the distinction of being the only female founding member of the PMRNHDWBL. She is a high-contact singles hitter with developing plate discipline, though she still chases the occasional high pitch. Teams have taken to playing the defense up against her, but Scherwitzki, undeterred, continues to lance ground balls through the middle, viewing the up-shift simply as an opportunity to turn those singles into doubles.

As a pitcher, Scherwitzki offers a steady diet of changeups. She has above average control, limiting walks and trusting the defense behind her to make plays on popups. Batters do not fear Scherwitzki, but perhaps they should. She has no problem with pitching high and inside, and has hit Tyler Roe in the head numerous times in preseason games. Some (communist) analysts believe that by the end of the season, the stats will show Scherwitzki to be the definition of a league average pitcher.

Ian "The Wilting Rose"Malinowski earned his nickname for the way opposing batters wilt before his superb stuff. Also, he's just generally a classy and artistic individual. Malinowski throws a wide assortment of pitches, but his bread and butter is a hard slider that starts out behind the batter and breaks back into the strike zone. Once he gets to a two strike count, Malinowski leans on his wide assortment of out pitches, including sliders off the outside edge, a sidearm sinker, a maximum effort fastball, and changeups on the high inside corner. When Malinowski falls behind in the count, he tends to lean on a high curve, backdoor splitters and screw balls, and changeups. Lastly, once hitters start to get a read on Malinowski's pattern of pitches, he will switch to sidearm risers and sinkers for a batter or two. The Wilting Rose figures to challenge Fouche for the league Cy Young award.

As a batter, Malinowski is the consummate leadoff hitter. He works the count, being stingy with his swings to the point where he often takes pitches right down the middle if he doesn't feel like he can drive the ball. (Because of this, he leads the league in strikes taken through the hole.) [No, that's not what she said.] Malinowski displays decent contact skills, especially on pitches high and away, but he only really possesses doubles power. In fact, Malinowski has never yet hit a home run.

With quality pitching and some BABIP luck, The Wobblies could be a good team. Their major concern, however, is the offense. Their lineup consists entirely of leadoff hitters, and will get plenty of men on base. Will they be able to drive them in?

Scouting Report: Team Pitches and Hos

2009-08-12T08:30:00.000-07:00

Pitches and Hos are the preseason favorites to win the PMRNHDWBL, as well as to capture the much coveted Beers Per Game (BPG) crown. Their all-around skillset, superior drinking ability, and the rather bizarre way in which the latter appears to improve the former makes them a difficult opponent. Opposing players who give in to the constant heckling from Pitches and Hos, and attempt to prove their manhood (or womanhood) by matching the scorching BPG pace, usually end up being taken both out of the park and under the table.

Tyler “Kung Fu Panda” Roe may be the most inconsistent hitter in the league. He expands the zone, swinging at bad pitches outside, while at the same time taking strikes right down the middle. His swing definitely has holes, which combined with the suspect plate disciple leads to high strikeout totals. However, opposing pitchers shouldn’t take Fat Ichiro lightly, as he’s developed excellent power, to the point where some fielders elect to play him to take away the homer and the tripple. Moreover, Roe’s batting skills appear to increase as the light wanes. Perhaps it is only the accumulation of talent juice, but some analysts think that his left eye (which is a cloudy brown rather than the clear green of his right eye) is actually taken from a deep sea eel, and only comes into focus at twilight.

As a pitcher, Roe throws a moderate fastball which he is able to locate well enough to get by, and he couples it with an increasingly filthy slider. The two pitches have similar velocity, and when he can control his fastball, the combination is very effective. Moreover, the rate at which both his pitching and hitting have improved make him one of the more projectable prospects in the league.

Ryan “Popeye” Fouché is the cornerstone of Pitches and Hos’s championship hopes, and a serious contender for both the MVP and the Cy Young (which will be renamed the Doc Ellis if Fouché wins). As a batter, Fouché shows power to all fields, scorching line drives left right and up the middle. If he has any pattern, it is that he tends slightly towards opposite field, especially when drunk or in the dark. To date, Fouché is the only batter to have hit a true line drive home run.

If Fouché’s hitting is impressive, it’s his pitching that really sets him apart from most other players in the PMRNHDWBL. He only throws one pitch, a scorching fastball that is in the strike zone almost every time. When sober, Fouché will miss with his locations occasionally, and give up a run here and there. Once he gets a respectable BPG going, however, Fouché becomes untouchable. His fastball, on top of piling up strikes both looking and swinging, generates a large number of ground balls. And this is where the irony comes in. As Fouché gets drunker, his fastball becomes faster and his command becomes better. His fielding, on the other hand, becomes worse (proving that he is actually mortal). If he ever struggles during the season, chances are that it will be the result of poorly fielded ground ball singles. Some analysts speculate that hitters will figure out Fouché’s one offering eventually, but until that happens, he should be considered likely to pitch a perfect inning every time he takes the mound with an inning or two of drinking under his belt.

Pitch Glossary

2009-08-10T08:03:00.000-07:00

This is a glossary of all of the pitches currently thrown by players in the PMRN Help Desk Wiffle Ball League (PMRNHDWBL). These standard pitch names will be used in game recaps and in scouting reports that will appear hear at Somebody to Leon periodically. If you know of a pitch thrown by at least one player not listed here, feel free to add it as a comment, or to contact Ian Malinowski at the PMRN Help Desk.

Note: In an attempt to mirror the essence of hardball, if not necessarily the details, some of these pitches are categorized accurately by their movement while others are categorized by their affect on the batter-hitter matchup. Movement for each pitch is described as if the pitch were thrown by a right handed batter.

Fastball: The fastball travels in a straight line, and is thrown fast.

Changeup: The changeup travels in a straight line and is thrown more slowly than the fastball.

Slider: The slider is thrown hard and breaks away from a right handed batter.

Curve: The curve also breaks away from a right handed batter, but is thrown slower than the slider.

Splitter: The splitter is thrown hard and breaks in toward a right handed batter. It is the mirror image of the slider.

Screw Ball: The screw ball also breaks in toward a right handed batter but is thrown slower than the slider. It is the mirror image of a curve.

Cutter: The cutter is a fastball of moderate speed with a small amount of movement. This movement can be made to go in different directions. The cutter also loses its velocity especially quickly, causing it to drop more than expected.

Eephus: The Eepus is a slow, high, arcing pitch which the pitcher tries to drop into the back of the strike zone. The name comes from outfielder Maurice Van Robays. When asked what it meant, Van Robays replied, "'Eephus ain't nothing, and that's a nothing pitch."

Sinker: This pitch is thrown side-arm, and drops dramatically.

Riser: This pitch is thrown side-arm, and rises as it travels through the air.

Submarine Slider: The submarine slider is thrown underhanded, and breaks away from a right handed batter

Submarine Splitter: The submarine splitter is thrown underhanded and breaks in toward a right handed batter.

The Offseason is Over

2009-08-07T07:48:00.000-07:00

Things are starting to heat up again in the world of FSU sports. The football team is in camp, the basketball team allegedly weighs at least 40 pounds of muscle more as a unit, and Tyler Holt is back from tearing it up in Japan. Perhaps more importantly, the inaugural season of the PMRN Help Desk Wiffle Ball League is about to begin.

Somebody to Leon will be covering the PMRNHDWBL, and will hopefully be reporting stats with geater frequency than we did with FSU baseball. Check daily for game recaps, stats, scounting reports, and betting lines.

Game Recap: Seminoles 9, Tarheels 8 (or as I like to call it, Matt Holliday lives)

2009-04-12T19:40:00.000-07:00

Happy Easter Seminole Fans! This afternoon, FSU took on UNC for the rubber game of this weekend's series. Today's game seemed to be going the way of our Saturday performance: behind early and a comeback that falls short. Luckily the Noles pulled it together (and were on the receiving end of a little baseball luck) as they won 9-8 on Jason Stidham's walk off single. You can see the box score and play by play here, but I'd like to talk about the game's ending and some other observations without doing a full recap. If you don't want to read the official recap, here's a quick synopsis...

Mike McGee managed a decent outing despite not having his best stuff- he put up a line of 2 ER, 6K's and 2 walks. Geoff Parker and John Gast gave up 4 and 1 run(s) respectively in relief and continue to fall short of pre-season expectations. Tyler Holt and Stephen Cardullo were Base on Balls machines and Jimmy Marhsall did a nice job of keeping it close during the last few innings. Yet again, the Tarheel starter was tough, giving up only 1 earned run while striking out 6 and walking only 2 over 5.2 innings. With all the dominant pitching coming out UNC in recent years (Andrew Miller and Daniel Bard come to mind), how is pitching coach Scott Forbes not better known? This weekend, UNC starting pitching gave up 6 ER against a good hitting FSU team. Perhaps he likes the college game, but if I were a major league system, I'd be throwing some money at this guy to help with my player development.

But on to the other topics, like the ending of the game. FSU scores 4 runs in the 8th to make it a 1 run game. Tyler Holt collected his 4th walk of the game to begin the 9th and was followed by another walk from Cardullo. Stu Tap laid down a beautiful bunt to put men on third and second and and then Jason Stidham singled to win the game.

But here's the thing- my eyes were following the right fielder and Stephen Cardullo's progress, so I never actually saw Holt score. What I did see, was that as Cardullo was rounding third, the UNC catcher was on his back right on top of the plate (he looked like a turtle). All I can figure is that Holt somehow mananged to knock over the Tarheel backstop (who was proably blocking the plate already), which allowed Cardullo to reach the plate before he could get up. Here's the other thing, I'm 99% Cardullo didn't actually touch the plate, seeing as how Fleury (the catcher) was sort of lying on top of it. Fleury was understandably irate, and had to be restrained by several team members and coach's from going after the umpires. Sometimes the baseball gods just throw one your way I guess. If anyone saw exactly what happened, I'd love to hear more about it, but in the meantime, I'll just say that I love Tyler Holt, and once again, take back anything bad I ever said about him.

Some other observations:
Third baseman Stuart Tapley has a strong accurate arm, and looks great charging in on balls. He fielded one today that was about even with the pitchers mound and still got the runner. He also has suave new music for his at bats that makes me envision a montage of Tap courtin' the ladies with roses and champagne. Hey, Stu is a lover, not a fighter, what can I say?

College Baseball is really unpredictable. Jack Posey looked like a deer in the headlights at 1st yesterday, and today he looked solid and smart. And that was on top of being acccidentally called "Buster" by the PA guy. Parker Brunelle also had a nice day behind the plate after looking terrible in some earlier starts. I suppose this boils down to what always separates professionals from amateurs...consistency.

James Ramsey seems really fast. He darn near beat out a quick throw and he looked liked he covered a bunch of ground tracking down balls in left.

The most annoying fan of the game award goes to a visiting Tarheel fanatic. Now, I have nothing against fans of the away team cheering their squad. But there was a point in the game when UNC brought in a pitcher who was apparently nicknamed "Gator". A woman behind me kept shouting "Alright Gator, Good Job Gator! or Get 'Em Gator!". At this point we were still down several runs, and let me tell you, when you're an FSU fan and your team is losing, there is nothing worse than hearing a shrill voice yelling anything about "Gators". At the time, it was enough to make me want to drown myself in a vat of Muscle Milk (the offical protein beverage of the Florida State Seminoles!) (TM).

I liked the call to bunt with Tapley in the 9th. No outs, and in a close game Win Expectancy trumps Run Excpectancy in the closing innings. I like it less that some of our better hitters are showing bunt on first pitches in the middle of games.

Next Up: The Mike McGee question...

True Crime

2009-04-12T19:37:00.000-07:00

I don't necessarily want to diverge too much from our stated mission of talking about FSU sports, but hear, hear!

Who's afraid of the big, bad stat?

2009-04-11T18:28:00.000-07:00

Firstly, I offer an apology for the lack of baseball writing in recent weeks. It turns out we here at Somebody to Leon are fan-freaking-tastic at keeping scorecards, and woefully inept at entering the data into our spreadsheets. We'll try and do better.

I want to talk about a conflict within the game of baseball. Some of you will be familiar with the arguments presented in this post- others will be hearing them for the first time. This is my take on the apparent schism between "stats people" and "baseball people".

Truthfully, I don't think the divisions listed above are actually real, although people do certainly position themselves as one or the other. Individuals who have gained an in-depth knowledge of baseball statistics have done so because they love the game. They are passionate about understanding what makes a player or a team successful. They watch a lot of baseball and take pleasure in the nuance and history of the game. They are not, as many people in the mainstream media like to say, "geeks who live in their mother's basement". This attitude has probably arisen because the media members who hurl these insults have not taken the time to learn about new ways of thinking. Or maybe they feel threatened by new voices in their occupational sphere. Either way, they're getting it wrong more often than not. In my opinion, baseball is currently a sport that is covered best by a small community of bloggers and "stats" oriented writers. Read almost any of the links on this blog and you're likely to find something that is more thoughtful, more original, better researched, and funnier than 90% of what you find the talking heads from ESPN (except you Rob Neyer) or the newspapers saying.

It's not that traditional baseball people don't have a lot to offer. People who have played the game have a wealth of firsthand knowledge about what it feels like to turn on a fastball, what it looks like when a pitcher's shoulders are flying open upon delivery of a pitch, or how your mind is affected after an 0-5 night at the plate. They can tell you how recognize a changeup and they can help you integrate the moving body parts that constitute the game of baseball. That knowledge is valuable, and I love hearing anecdotes from managers, color commentators, and players, but it's not everything.

The notion that people who haven't ever put on a uniform have nothing to offer is ignorant and insulting. This is essentially the same elitist attitude that governments have used for years to keep their citizens from questioning highly suspect and sheltered patterns of decision making. Perhaps it's no coincidence that when people talk about negotiations within the Beltway, they speak of the "inside baseball" of what went on during a meeting, hearing, or session. Look at it this way- baseball is a business and operates as such. If you're running a business and someone comes to you and presents compelling evidence that your company is using antiquated modes of evaluating performance and is not taking advantage of opportunities in the marketplace, wouldn't you listen? You wouldn't do what many managers, general managers and media members do and deride those who are offering you sound advice.

It's not that baseball people hate stats; they actually love stats. The problem is a lot of them love stats that aren't particularly useful. They value too highly a pitcher's wins, losses, and ERA. Wins are largely dependent on the fielding behind the pitcher and the quality of his own offense, so it seems pretty clear this is a less than ideal way of evaluating a pitcher's true skill. ERA is a little better, but is also dependent on defense and the ballpark where the game is being held. When speaking of batters, batting average seems to be of the utmost importance. Luckily, some very smart people have come up with better ways of measuring a hitter's total contribution to the team's ability to win baseball games. How many times the batter hits the ball and reaches base safely is important, but it does not tell the whole story.

During tonight's Braves broadcast, I heard broadcaster Joe Simpson dismissively answer a question about WHIP (Wins+Hits per Innings Pitched). First of all, I'm not taking potshots at Joe. I love Joe...always have and always will. He smart, funny, and actually pretty receptive to more modern baseball thinking, especially when it comes from his main broadcast partner, Jon "Boog" Sciambi. But when tonight's conversation led to all the "new" stats, it was clear that Simpson didn't think much of WHIP's statistical cousins and the people who care about them. "Trust your scouts, trust your scouts", he shouted as he launched into a rant about how people who haven't played the game have no business evaluating players.

Don't get me wrong, the input of scouts should be trusted. But their opinions (and those of other "baseball people") should not be trusted so much that hard data is ignored. For instance, earlier in the game, Joe said that he thought that Chipper Jones should have won a Gold Glove in 2007 over fellow 3rd baseman David Wright. His reason? David Wright had more errors in the field (21 to Chipper's 9).

Here's why his logic is flawed: Errors are only part of the picture. We can now measure the range of a fielder pretty accurately and David Wright had much better range than Chipper in 2007. Wright is making more errors because he is getting to balls that most fielders would not even touch! It's highly likely that the young and agile Mr. Wright saved more runs with stellar defense than he allowed with his errors. Wright also had 324 attempts with which to throw out baserunners while Chipper only had 226. So the Met's man at the hot corner had nearly 100 more chances to make (or mess up) a play.

Here are some other common reasons for unfortunate baseball thinking...forgive the snark.

1. Aesthetics/ Personal Preference: "He looks like a ballplayer" is something we often hear. That's great, but I'll take the fat, slow guy with great numbers over the guy who looks sexy hacking at the first pitch and striking out a lot.

2. Tradition: The stolen base looks cool and it has been a part of baseball for a long time. I get it. This does not mean it's always a good idea. We know that if runners are not stealing at certain success percentage (usually b/w 70-80%), stealing is not a gamble worth taking. If you're below the break even point, you will get caught enough times to hurt your team more than your successful steals help them. Some guys should be stealing less, some could probably steal a little more, and some shouldn't be stealing at all. It's not witchcraft, it's just run expectancy tables that come from some simple statistics. If I tell you that you're going to fail the majority of times you attempt a particular non-essential challenge, do you keep attempting it? What if I also say that you're more likely to acheive your goals by not attempting the challenge? I think most people would say, "Perhaps I've been going at this the wrong way."

3. Memory: Oh she's a fickle mistress, that memory. We tend to remember certain events more than others. Spectacular successes and failures stick out more than a handful of more mundane occurances. No one is immune to this tendency. When I say, "Dude, Miguel Tejada freaking OWNS Jamie Moyer!!!" , I'm basing this statement off of a series of memorable hits which constitute a ridiculously small sample size. Chances are, Miguel and old man Moyer are likely to perform as they have over a much larger sampling of games the next time they face each other. The larger career sample size beats the miniscule one that we remember. Luckily we have databases that keep track of such things so we don't have to rely on faulty memories.

4. Tradition: Closers. Closers are dumb. I don't mean the men themselves, although I'm not sure Jonathon Papelbon is exactly a Mensa member in hiding. I mean that the idea of the closer (which isn't even an old tradition) is not a good one. Your best relievers should be used in the situations where they are needed most- the high leverage situations. Arbitrarily assigning this player to the 9th inning is a poor allocation of resources in many cases. Years of statistics tell us that the 3 run lead is damn near unassailable, and yet we often see good relief pitchers come in during these situations. Ironically, it's the "save" stat that is responsible for so much of this foolishness about closers.

5. Asinine Sports Cliches: Let's call this the David Eckstein Phenomenon. For years, broadcasters and coachs have praised the tiny infielder because of his willingness to "get his uniform dirty". Unfortunately, aside from seeing a decent amount of pitches per plate appearance, he is not a very good baseball player. Other talent masking maxims used to describe players include, "He plays the game the right way" or "He's a gamer", or "He's scrappy".

In the end, my point is that we're all baseball people. We all love the game for its beauty and grace, for its excitement and endless potential for discussion. There's no reason that statistics and firsthand experiences can't be combined to create a greater understanding of our favorite pastime. Furthermore, I believe that the teams that truly integrate these two forces will experience years of unchallenged success. We're already seeing this as teams take positive steps toward a more holistic approach to talent evaluation, scouting, drafting, strategy, and building a roster (see Tampa Bay Rays and Boston Red Sox). Let's hope that people entrenched in the traditions of baseball can discard their fear of change so that some meaningful dialogue can occur. There are brilliant baseball people from all walks of life- somebody get them in a room and build a winner!

P.S. If anyone is curious about some of the topics raised here, I recommend:
-"The Book: Placing the Percentages in Baseball" by Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin
- Any of our links, but especially Fangraphs and The Hardball Times. I check em' everyday.
- FireJoeMorgan - a super snarky, but very funny (one of the posters is a writer for "The Office")
critique of how horrifically baseball is covered by the mainstream media. It will make you
laugh, cry, clench your fist, and rue the day you ever heard the name "Bill Plaschke".
- "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis. It's not about the death of baseball as we know it, it's actually
about smart people doing smart things. It's rational yet emotional, and immensely readable.
One day, some of the people who bash it might actually read it too.

NCAA Tournament Postmortem

2009-03-24T09:52:00.000-07:00

Well, the game was painful. I have just a couple thoughts to offer.

The injury to Luke Loucks hurt us. Loucks had been playing very well, and when he hurt his arm, we lost valuable depth. By the end of the second half, we looked tired.

The traveling call on Derwin Kitchen was wrong. The refs are not supposed to give a timeout to a player as he is flying out of bounds, and Derwin definitely looked like he may have been on the way out. He came down in bounds, however. The ref called him for traveling. The correct call would have been to wait to see whether or not he landed in or out of bounds, and then give him the timeout retroactively when he landed.

It was really quite improbable that Trevor Hughes would beat Toney Douglas off the dribble for the final play of the game. Toney is one of the best on the ball defenders in the nation, and Hughes is merely a decent scorer. Sometimes it's just not your day.

There has been a lot of talk about that final play, specifically why Leonard Hamilton didn't have Solomon Alabi on the court. It is true that Hughes barely got his shot off over a leaping Ryan Reid, and he almost definitely would not have gotten it over Alabi. I'm not sure whether or not it was the right decision, but I can at least tell you what Hamilton was thinking.

Whenever Alabi was on the floor, Wisconsin moved their center, Leuer, out to the perimiter and used him as a three point shooter. Alabi was faced with the choice of either hanging back to control the paint (but leaving a Leuer open on the perimeter), or covering Leuer (but vacating the middle, and any chance of blocking or altering shots). Alabi tried to compromise, but ended up being ineffectual in the middle and allowing Leuer to knock down open looks.

Among our big guys, Ryan Reid is the best perimeter defender, and he's also a very solid post defender. He is not, however a great shot blocker. Hamilton chose to play Reid, and force Wisconsin to beat us off the drive (our man defense had been solid all game), rather than to eliminate the drive but potentially give up an open perimeter shot. Once again, I don't know if it was the right decision by the percentages, but it wasn't a negligent oversight on Hamilton's part.

NCAA Tournament Part III-B: Who are they?

2009-03-19T14:09:00.000-07:00

So, I spent some time today, while live NCAA tournament games were taking place, to watch an archived Wisconsin game. That's how much I care. The game I chose was Wisconsin's recent loss to Ohio State in the Big 10 tournament. Now, here at Somebody to Leon we like to keep the analysis classy and at a high level. I must tell you, though, that my strongest impression of Wisconsin basketball was that they are ugly. No, I don't mean that they play a slow, grind it out style of basketball (which they do). I mean that their players are not attractive. I'm not prepared to claim that beauty pageant ability correlates strongly with basketball ability (though I haven't seen any studies showing that it doesn't), but if it does, FSU has this one in the bag.

Now, onto the serious part. The Badgers play a very patient style of offense, passing the ball around the perimeter, and working for a good shot. They don't appear to have an explosive scorer, but they do have plenty of large, relatively agile players who can all handle the ball, shoot, and pass.

Jon Leuer (number 30) is 6-10 sophomore who mostly plays inside, but can move well in the open court, and even knocked down a three or so in this game. He doesn't appear to have a dominating post-up game. If the 'Noles can handle Tyler Hansborough and Trevor Booker, they can handle Leuer, but it will be important not to forget about him. He's skilled enough to hurt a team when given space.

Marcus Landry (number 1) is a 6-7 senior, who is easily identified by his large sports glasses. I remember watching him in the tournament last year. He's a playmaker with pretty good post moves, and while what I saw in this game didn't impress me, I think that he's a player capable of giving the Badger offense a boost when they're having trouble running their system. He also makes nearly 40% of his shots from three.

The player who most scared me is 6-7 senior, Joe Krabbenhoft (number 45). He's big, and fast, with good moves and a smooth shot. He reminds me a lot of Nick Calathes off of the Gators, and he should present some real matchup problems. I would not be at all surprised if FSU gives DeMercy more than his usual playing time, in an attempt to slow Krabbenhoft down.

The other two starters for Wisconsin are the 6-0 junior, Trevor Hughes (number 3), and the 6-2 junior, Jason Bohannon (number 12). Both can shoot, but neither impressed me all that much. One of them will be rendered completely ineffectual by Toney Douglas.

As for the Badgers' defense, I thought that they looked susceptible to athleticism on the outside. Ohio state was able to penetrate relatively easily, leading to fouls and dishes for easy buckets. I would expect Toney Douglas, Derwin Kitchen, and Luke Loucks to have the same success. The Badgers did rebound the ball effectively, but it didn't seem to me like Ohio State was really pressuring them. Maybe it only appeared this way because their boxouts were so dominating, but maybe the Big 10 is just not a very aggressive league, and Wisconsin's gaudy defensive rebounding stats are a product of the conservative environment.

FSU absolutely can beat the Badgers. The Seminoles have better athletes, and they play against better athletes in the ACC. While Wisconsin may be a more consistent team, if FSU performs at the level they are capable of, the 'Noles will win.

NCAA Tournament Part III-A: What are they?

2009-03-19T09:55:00.000-07:00

Continuing the series of posts in my NCAA tournament preview, here is a look at FSU's first round match up with Wisconsin through the numbers. As always, I will be using Ken Pomeroy's wonderful and free site. Personally, Wisconsin doesn't scare me as a team, but Bo Ryan is a great coach.

Wisconsin is solid but not spectacular in almost all categories. They are the nations 27th best offense and 60th best defense. The fact that their offense is better than their defense is often obscured by their slow pace of play. On offense, they are average in almost all categories, except for turnovers. They are the 5th best team in the nation at protecting the ball. As for the components of their offense, the Badgers are more efficient from the three point line and the foul line than they are from two, though they are not exceptional from anywhere. The strength of their offense lies almost entirely in not committing turnovers.

Wisconsin's defensive numbers mirror their offensive numbers. They are average nearly everywhere, except for in regards to defensive rebounds, where they are the 5th best team in the country. They are, however, below average in terms of creating turnovers. They are slightly above average at limiting three point percentage, but they do give up a fair number of points from the foul line.

The overall picture is one of a conservative and consistent team. They play at a slow pace and do not allow teams to get points in transition (giving up offensive rebounds in the process). They are not explosive on offense, but they don't make mistakes either. If FSU plays well, the Seminoles should be able to win, but if they stumble, Wisconsin will be right there, ready to capitalize.

NCAA Tournament Part II-B: Who are we?

2009-03-19T07:50:00.000-07:00

In this second installment of our NCAA Tournament preview, I'm going to go through the Seminoles' players individually. Watching basketball is much more fun when you know what to watch for in each player. Here's the Seminole bench.

Ryan Reid (number 42) is a 6-8, 235 pound forward in his junior season. I believe Reid to be an exceptional athlete. The only problem is that he's not calibrated for basketball. Reid has decent speed and jumping ability, but exceptional strength. In order to get his shot versus more "bouncy" defenders, Reid has to clear them out with his superior strength. The result is that he's very prone to offensive fouls. He is a great worker on the defensive end, and an excellent post defender, highlighted by his masterful performance against Trevor Booker of Clemson. He may not put up great individual defensive rebounding numbers, but you can be sure that his man isn't going to be the one hurting the 'Noles on the glass. Opposing fans may think Ryan Reid a dirty player. I prefer to merely call him physical. Versus Duke in the ACC championship game, Reid surprised me by sticking with the smaller Duke players on the perimeter. He's a very important part of our big-man rotation.

Sophomore Jordan DeMercy (number 2) is a very intriguing player. He's perhaps the best athlete on the team, standing 6-7, yet able to guard opposing guards. He's the definition of a stopper, and if there is a flaw in his defense, it's simply that he's overconfident, trying to guard great players too closely. The problem is that he's an offensive black hole. He cannot (and does not) shoot. He can easily get into the lane with his amazing athleticism, but he has trouble finishing anything that's not a dunk. What's worse, he lacks confidence, so rather than take what should be an easy lay in, he attempts circus passes that often fly out of bounds. DeMercy would be a great player if he brought even replacement level offense to the table.

Devidas Dulkys (number 4) is a 6-5 freshman from Lithuania. He was billed as a sharpshooter, but when he arrived, that shooting touch failed to materialize, and he lost confidence. The coaching staff placed him under standing orders to take every single shot he saw, and while the result was a lowly 29% shooting percentage from three for the season, he's now hitting his stride. He's finally become the shooter he was advertised as, and his teammates definitely believe in him, looking for him in the corner for drive and dishes.

The biggest surprise with Dulkys, however, has been his athleticism. When he first came to the program, he looked lost on defense, but he quickly learned the system, and has now progressed to the point where coach Hamilton uses him in conjunction with Toney Douglas and Jordan DeMercy to guard the best opposing scoring threats. If he continues to improve, and adds more wrinkles to his offensive game, Dulkys could have NBA potential.

Luke Loucks (number 3) is a 6-5 freshman point guard. FSU fans seem to have a dislike for Loucks, which is something I really can't understand. Early in the season he struggled with turnovers (especially in the Northwestern game) and the game seemed to be moving too fast for him. He still has a bad game every now and again, but he's proved himself as a valuable player with great vision and a basketball IQ that's off the charts. He's the inverse of Derwin Kitchen in that he may struggle bringing the ball up the court against tough man to man pressure, but he reads the game very well and is able to avoid traps. On defense, Loucks is slightly slow of foot, having difficulty handling athletic types such as Wayne Ellington of UNC (then again, many players have had similar difficulty). His basketball IQ shows up on defense, too, as he has the best steal rate on the entire team. With the 'Noles deep bench, you never know who will play in any given game, but if you get a chance to watch Loucks, count yourself as lucky. His passing is sublime.

Freshman center/forward Xavior Gibson (number 1) is 6-11 230 pounder with incredible potential. When he gets in the game, he provides an instant offensive lift, with a sweet jumper and some nice explosive inside moves. The problem is that he doesn't get onto the floor very often. Believe it or not, at 230 pounds, he's a waif. He gets pushed around, and is a liability on defense and on the boards. When he bulks up, he and Solomon will be a killer inside duo. As it stands now, Gibson only plays when Solomon, Uche, and Reid are in foul trouble or need a breather. Lately though, he's given some quality minutes.

Senior guard Brian Hoff is not part of the regular rotation, but I think I should still mention him. Hoff joined the team as a walk-on as a freshman, and for his senior season he was awarded a scholarship. Someone on the outside like me cannot really say how important Hoff has been to the program, but what I can say is that he's not as limited a player as some might think. From what I've seen, Hoff is the 'Noles best shooter. He's also calm with the ball, and plays within himself. He doesn't commit turnovers. In a different program, or in a different year, Brian Hoff would contribute.

NCAA Tournament Part II-A: Who are we?

2009-03-19T05:13:00.000-07:00

In this second installment of our NCAA Tournament preview, I'm going to go through the Seminoles' players individually. Watching basketball is much more fun when you know what to watch for in each player. First, the Seminole starters:

For the Seminoles, everything starts with number 23, Toney Douglas. Toney is a 6-2 senior guard, who was named to the all ACC 1st team, as well as the all ACC defensive team, and was the runner up for ACC player of the year. Toney lead the ACC in scoring at 21.3 points per game. As a scorer, he can do it all. He can penetrate and finish around the basket, he loves to pull up and take mid-range jumpers or floaters, and if his opponent plays off him, he has no problem simply stepping back and knocking down the three. He's also amazing at using his great quickness to force his opponent into blocking fouls, and he uses this ability both to score once FSU reaches the bonus, and to get opposing players into foul trouble. While the 'Noles as a whole are turnover prone, Toney is by far the most secure player with the ball. If "clutch" is a repeatable skill, Toney Douglas is clutch. The only thing I've noticed that he doesn't do well is find the roller on a pick and roll.

Perhaps even more impressive than his offense is Toney Douglas's defense. Toney has very quick hands, and is able to cleanly get steals even against opposing point guards as they bring the ball up the court. Once an opponent gets into their half-court offense, Toney stops going for the steal, and becomes a lockdown defender. In the regular season game versus UNC, Toney neutralized Ty Lawson, and later in the year versus Miami, he was able to stick to Jack McClinton so closely that McClinton only took 2 shots in the entire first half. Toney plays 90.7% of his team's minutes, the 25th highest mark of any player in the NCAA. His leadership with this young team has had a huge impact.

Uche Echefu (number 41) is the other senior on the team, playing the forward position at 6-9. For much of his career, Uche has been the Seminoles' main big man, having to fight against bigger, heavier, stronger centers. Now, in his senior year, the emergence of Solomon Alabi has taken some of the inside pressure off of Uche, but he still benefits from the toughness and grit he had to develop in those past years. He's the team's best defensive rebounder, and his defense has been described by the coaches as "clinical." Perhaps the highpoint of Uche's season was the regular season UNC game where he shut down Tyler Hansborough by keeping him from ever receiving the ball in the post. On the offensive end, Uche is well polished. He uses an assortment of power moves, finesse moves,and turnaround jumpers, and this year he's extended his shooting range to beyond the three point line. When he gets to the foul line, he's an 85% free-throw shooter. The 'Noles don't run very many isolations, but when they want to make an opposing big man play some defense (and maybe get into some foul trouble), they usually try and run Uche at him.

Red shirt freshman center, Solomon Alabi (number 32) has been a revelation. Last year, his season was ended by a stress fracture in his leg, which also prevented him from working out his lower body. Because of this, he lacks the necessary leg strength to really establish his position inside. Nevertheless, he's made himself a force. At 7-1, he's one of the nation's top shotblockers, right up there with UConn's Hashim Thabeet, and Mississippi State's Jarvis Varnando. He's also developed a beautiful finess game complete with baby hooks and a sweet 15 foot jump shot. He's a very good player now. When he has more time to build up his strength, he'll be lottery pick good.

Chris Singleton (number 31) was the most anticipated recruit of the incoming freshman class. At 6-9, 220 pounds, he's an amazing athlete. He can jump through the roof, is a beast on the offensive boards, and is a very good man to man defender. He has size, speed, and quick hands, which allows him to put up a very respectable steal rate. He does, however, tend to lose his man when the ball is shot, giving up offensive rebounds. He also sometimes gets sucked too far inside in help defense, giving up open threes. When he arrived, he drew immediate comparisons to Al Thorton. Unfortunately (though understandably) he's not quite there yet. He dribbles the ball too high, which leads to turnovers, and he's slightly prone to taking wild shots. He's not quite skillful enough yet to dominate as a driver and slasher, but he's still useful on offense because of his three point shooting. When he develops his offensive skills in future years, he'll be a force.

Derwin Kitchen (number 22) is a 6-4 sophomore guard in his first year at FSU. He became eligible with the season already in progress, so it took him some time to get up to speed. Now, he seems to have gained confidence and understanding in the system, and is turning the corner. He's a very good dribbler, and can break a press all by himself. On offense, he takes some of the ball handling responsibility off of Toney Douglas's shoulders. He can drive and finish at the basket, but he's not yet a great shooter from distance (maybe he can shoot, but he lacks confidence). Sometimes Kitchen dribbles himself into trouble, causing turnovers, but I think that his understanding improves with every game. Kitchen is at his best when he's pushing the pace after defensive stops, creating fast breaks.

NCAA Tournament Part I: What are we?

2009-03-18T17:47:00.000-07:00

The NCAA tournament begins tomorrow, and for the first time in a decade, the Seminoles will be a part of it. Interestingly, this is the first year in the past decade that Somebody to Leon has been around to cover Florida State basketball, and while the causal connection may be tenuous, I think that I better keep the karma rolling. In this first two sections, I will describe where the FSU men's basketball team stands going into The Tournament. In the third section I will attempt to provide a scouting report for FSU's first round foe, Wisconsin.

Let me begin by discussing what Ken Pomeroy thinks the Seminoles are. By his stats, the 'Noles are the 12th best defensive team in the nation, but only the 94th best offensive team, barely above average. On offense, the 'Noles shoot an average percentage (slightly better from three-point range than from two), but do score effectively from the free-throw line. They collect offensive rebounds at a good but not great rate. The real problem (why so many analysts are picking FSU to be upset in the first round) is turnovers. The Seminoles are only the 291st best team in the nation at limiting turnovers.

On defense, the picture is much more comforting. Overall the 'Noles are the 12th best defense in the country. They are exceptional at blocking shots (6th), and limiting opponents' shooting percentage (17th). They are significantly better at limiting two-point shooting percentage (16th), than three-point shooting percentage (80th), but their three-point defense is still above average. They are affective at creating steals (40th) and turnovers in general (69th). In light of the fact that they play aggressive man-to-man defense, it is impressive that the Seminoles commit fouls at merely an average rate. The only thing that the 'Nole defense doesn't do well is rebound. They are the 274th best defensive rebounding team, and their penchant for giving away second chances is both frustrating, and difficult to explain, as they are the tallest team in the nation, by average height.

Based on these numbers, many stats experts believe that FSU is primed to be the victim of a first round upset. At the same time, I've heard several announcers claim that they think the Seminoles are capable of a deep tournament run. I tend to agree with the latter group. In the next segment, I will attempt to justify my optimism as I take a look at the 'Noles on a personnel level.

Home Runs and PEDs

2009-03-14T23:46:00.000-07:00

Firstly, Whooooooooooo!

The Noles upset win against UNC in today's ACC tournament is something to celebrate, especially in the wake of the NCAA ruling that forced FSU to vacate wins in the wake of the academic cheating scandal. Being in the finals with Duke should be exciting- and not just because of my visceral dislike for the Blue Devils. Although the Seminoles were swept by Duke in the regular season, the games were both relatively close (the second one especially) and in them our team showed the ability to stay in the game with tremendous defense.

Secondly, although this blog primarily covers FSU sports, we will occasionally post things that relate to the sports world as a whole. With that in mind, here's an interesting article about Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) and Home Run output.

http://webusers.npl.illinois.edu/~a-nathan/pob/Tobin_AJP_Jan08.pdf

Even typcially rational Sabermetricians are often quick to speculate on whether or not steroids help boost home run totals- often times without scientific evidence to support their claims. Since we're dealing with chemicals that enhance biological processes with the aim of altering physical performance, I thought the views of an actual scientist might be welcome.

Don't Cry, Put Your Head on My Shoulder

2009-03-08T09:33:00.001-07:00

Before the verdict was rendered and public, I expected the worst. I didn’t know what “the worst” was, but it scared me. It scared me a lot. Florida State athletics was just emerging out of one of the darkest periods in its history. The entire athletic department seemed to be on a steep incline, and if it could weather the only foreseeable pitfall, the ascent should have continued.

Well, we can come out of the cellar now. The storm has passed.

Of course, talking heads (both local and national) will exaggerate the sentence to all different levels. Some will claim Bobby knew about it all along, and that he is a notorious cheater. Others will paint the misdeeds as of the most egregious form in college athletics. Even others will scoff at the punishment and call for postseason bans and further scholarship reductions. Gradually, however, the national media will no longer be interested, and they will move on (This may have already happened, but otherwise it won’t be long). The local media will continue to take shots whenever the topic comes up, but local media outlets in Florida usually have their allegiances to one of the “Big 3.”

Other than the image being tainted, what reason is there to worry? The punishment has been pushed into the past. By vacating wins, Florida State has been washed clean. Let me repeat: WE are clean. Other than some possible difficulty convincing a mother to let her son go to a school with a proven lack of control, the future is still bright.

The scholarship reductions are minimal. I understand that depth is important, but every year we have a few players on the roster that will never see playing time outside of special teams. Yet, they have a scholarship. The number isn’t large, but neither is the number of scholarships we are giving up. Essentially, all this means is we are in more of a “can’t miss” mode in recruiting. I still don’t think it will make much of a difference, nor do I think most fans are worried on this issue.

Fans are concerned, however, over the dreaded “vacating” of wins. If Florida State wins its appeal, those wins will have truly gone on a bit of a “vacation,” only to return by the start of the season. However, I don’t think Florida State will win the appeal, and I don’t think it matters. Fans, in my observation, fret over two major concerns: 1. We lose one of our track national championships. 2. Bobby will now never catch Joe Paterno.

The former is legitimate. Championships are so precious and valuable that losing one is probably the worst punishment one can suffer. After all, programs are built on tradition, and to weaken the tradition is to significantly weaken the program. The latter, however, could end up being beneficial to the program.

Bobby is great. He’s one of the greatest of all time. Whether or not he has more wins than Joe Paterno will not decide that. JoePa coached longer and will have more wins. It doesn’t make Bobby anything less. If they were both going to fulfill their current arrangements, JoePa would have pulled away anyway. He just signed an extended contract, while Bobby would most likely have retired before the clock struck pay-Jimbo-time. As Whelk pointed out on another occasion, this will actually benefit FSU, because it will give the administration less of a reason to do something silly (keeping Bobby beyond the agreed time, etc.)

As for the probation, I admit I am concerned. FSU just finds a way to get in trouble for one reason or another. The punishment for any further infractions would probably be enough to derail the momentum train. With that said, I don’t think this was. The entire athletic department can still push onward to new heights. The football team just had a very good recruiting class, and with success on the field in 2009, no bad rumors from out East will hinder further recruiting accomplishments. Both men’s and women’s basketball are poised to enter the NCAA Tournaments shortly. The baseball team hasn’t been stellar, but it is young and very talented, so there’s plenty of reason for optimism. Soccer, track, swimming, golf, and tennis have all been contenders for either ACC or NCAA titles over the last few years. Softball has a Hall-of-Fame coach on her last hurrah, and volleyball brought in some new blood with a history of success.

There are plenty of reasons for optimism.

Positioning and Infield Defense

2009-03-04T05:54:00.000-08:00

Here's an excerpt from The Fielding Bible posted on The Hardball Times, comparing the excellent defense of Chase Utley to the also excellent defense of Brandon Phillips. The gist of the passage is that Utley positions himself abnormally close to the first base line against left handed hitters, with great results. I have yet to get around to reading the whole book, but I have some thoughts about this excerpt.

First off, Ryan Howard is a real clunker at first base. BP has him as +7 (plays above average) last year, but -6 the two years previous. Joey Votto appears to be a plus fielder at first base, although he's only really played one full year. For the sake of argument, though, assume that Votto has significantly greater range than Howard. Perhaps Utley plays so close to first base to cover for Howard's limited range. Maybe Utley is getting to many grounders that would be gobbled up by the better fielding Joey Votto. In this situation, his ridiculous fielding numbers are partly a product of the poor team defense around him.

I once read a small study (I'll link to it if I can ever find it again) that concluded that rangey third basemen depress the zone rating of the shortstop they're playing next to. The middle infield spots are often thought of as a pairing, but how often have you seen a shortstop field a ball to the right of second base, or a second baseman to the left of the base. It probably makes more sense to consider second and first base as a pair, and shortstop and third base as a pair.

I'm not claiming that Chase Utley isn't an outstanding defender. I do think, however, that defense in baseball is a complex system, and that individual numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story.

Early Impressions

2009-03-03T19:27:00.000-08:00

In the past few days, the Noles have lost to Auburn on the road, gotten snowed out, and lost to Jacksonville (away). When compared to past incarnations of team performance, these events may seem like a sure sign of the apocalypse, but I don't ultimately place that much stock in losing the first two road games. The fact that FSU has not lost two consecutive games since 2006 is also a pretty meaningless stat. With that said, I do believe that this team may currently be weaker than the 2007 (and definitely 2008) squad- but it's still a young team with tons of potential. Since one of our chief purposes in writing this blog is to gain greater clarity of impression (a phrase I believe I'm lifting from Whelk's personal version of Luther's 95 Theses), here are some short observations about what I've seen so far...

- Tyler Holt gets on base, is fast, and is a good baserunner. For what it's worth, he also appears to be chock full of "intangibles" (meaning he's feisty and usually pumped up- I can dismiss its overall importance, but I can't not love it).

-Ohmed Danesh is a beast, and is making a serious case for playing every day if he maintains a reasonable portion of his current production. He may have a fair number of strikeouts along the way, but the balls he puts in play have pretty much all been hammered.

-Pitching is a problem. So far Gilmartin has been the only bright spot amongst starters, winning his first two starts and not giving up a lot of runs in doing so. In the bullpen, Brian Busch has absolutely dominated most of his relief appearances and appears to have some of the best stuff on the team (couple this with a quirky delivery and he makes opposing hitters appear foolish more often than not), but he's been used an awful lot. Don't get me wrong, I love seeing him in high leverage situations, but I wonder if the talk of turning him into a starter has become more than talk (hence the gradual increase in innings)? Beyond those two, I'm concerned about depth, especially in the bullpen.

-D'Vo is maybe the best athlete on the team. We knew that right? He's got the speed to leg out infield hits, and although we haven't seen it much yet, I imagine he can steal too. Still, he doesn't seem to be making terrific contact, and I'd imagine that if one were to remove his infield hits, his BABIP (Batting Average on Balls In Play) would be relatively low.

-Rafael Lopez has shown flashes of brilliance, but also shows signs of a dude who didn't get to play last year.

-Stuart Tapley seems to have pretty good range when he's charging a ball, but little lateral movement. It's puzzling.

-The offense will probably be just fine. Granted, it's a less powerful team without Posey, Rye, and Guinn, but it's got the potential to bat 9 guys capable of putting together patient, quality, plate appearances. It's also very young, so I imagine we'll see a dip in the freakish numbers currently being put up followed by a gradual climb by some of the 2nd and 3rd year players as the season progresses.

* A few words about all this darn observing: We want stats to be a part of this discussion. As Jon "Boog" Sciambi says, the great thing about Sabermetric thought is that you can enhance your discussions of the game with factual evidence. We're getting there, and as Whelk has said, we hope to have those stats available soon. Then, instead of telling you that I think D'Vo isn't hitting that well or that Ohmed Danesh is awesome, I can point to some (hopefully) meaningful stats to illustrate the point. But we realize there's going to be a serious sample size issue. The numbers we're looking at are probably more of a barometer rather than a predictive tool. We can tell you who's got the best contact % or OPS right now, but that's not as indicative of overall ability as it would be when viewing a major leaguer's career numbers. With that said, I still think the stats we're compiling will allow for much more informed analysis than visual memories of select games. Finally, we love spreadsheets. Doesn't everyone?

Are college baseball statistics useful?

2009-03-03T16:04:00.000-08:00

Here's an article by Dave Cameron on Fangraphs about whether or not college statistics are any use when projecting major league potential. He points out similarities in college production between superstars like Chase Utley and peripheral role players like Greg Dobbs. While his point is well taken (scouts rather than college stats are the best way to peg future stars), the achievements of Greg Dobbs should not be discounted. He was signed as an undrafted free agent and after several years in the minors he's found a major league roster spot contributing off the bench for the World Champion Phillies. I take examples like his as evidence that while scouts may have most of the story on college players, exceptional statistical production is not meaningless.

By the way, we should have our own statistics on the Seminoles' season so far available soon.

Transition Defense

2009-02-25T06:42:00.000-08:00

After the basketball team's loss to Boston College yesterday, I am concerned. I still believe that we will make the NCAA tournament, and we can completely cement that with one win in our next three games (four, if you count the ACC tournament). What concerns me, is our defense. Our defensive efficiency on the year is an exceptional 88.6 (this is in points per possession, adjusted for quality of opponent). Over the past four games, though, our defensive efficiency has been 109.9 (Wake), 100.0 (Miami), 104.1 (VT), and 108.9, (BC). Previously, we haven't had two consecutive outings with defensive efficiency over 100 (higher numbers are bad).

In the Miami game, I thought we actually played very well (the DE of our first meeting in Miami was a season high 110.3), and I didn't get to watch the Virginia Tech game. But one thing that I noticed against both Wake Forest and Boston College was that they were able to push the pace and get easy transition baskets against us. Boston College even fastbreaked on us after a couple made baskets. With my view tethered to the TV cameras, I wasn't able to see why Wake and BC were having such success. We certainly don't lack for athleticism, and versus UNC (a notoriously fast team) we were able to hold them to only one transition basket. This is something to pay attention to going forward.

Spray Chart

2009-02-23T08:30:00.000-08:00

Here's a spray chart for when FSU was on defense over the first weekend of games. You can click on the picture to see the full size. Sorry if the color's aren't that pretty, or the dots are too small. I'm still working on the aesthetics. My hope is that by the end of the season we'll be able to see some nice groupings and draw conclusions about what types of balls in play the 'Noles field well, and what types they have trouble with. We don't have data for the 3rd game (we were late getting there). If anyone would like to help with the in-game charting, just let me know and I'll get you a drawing of the stadium.

Note: Midway through the blowout second game, FSU basically subbed off the entire starting team. I stopped plotting balls in play at that point, because the defense was pretty terrible, and (hopefully) not representative of what we can expect from the usual position players.

Defensive Rebounds: Epilogue?

2009-02-23T06:31:00.000-08:00

For anyone out there who, like me, has become obsessed with the Seminole basketball team's rebounding patterns, here's a heads up. Boston College, who we play tomorrow (Feb. 24) , also displays the out of balance offense/defense rebounding splits. Their players to watch are Joe Trapani, who's stats say he is a solid defensive rebounder but uninspiring offensive rebounder, and Corey Raji, who looks to be a beastly offensive rebounder but a lacking defensive rebounder.

Lineups: Part 3

2009-02-22T18:33:00.000-08:00

So could the Noles have gotten a little more out of their lineup last year? My answer is yes, definitely. How much more, you ask? That's a little bit harder to pin down. I'm basically applying major league criteria to college baseball in order to optimize our batting order. While certain aspects of the game are always the same, it's entirely possible that players in college are placed into the lineup in order to mould them into the types of players they ought to be. For example, if you see a guy that might make a good leadoff hitter, maybe you put him in the 1 spot in order to teach him to develop his innate plate discipline. College baseball can afford to be an "instructional league" of sorts- in fact it has to be. Even your most grizzled college veteran has only been with the team 4 or 5 years. Development is key.

Players can improve a tremendous amount in just one year, but they've got to get playing time in order to make those leaps. Unlike the Major Leagues (which produce much larger samples sizes with typically older players), a college player's numbers from one year aren't all that indicative of his future production. With that said, I still think that there are trends and tendencies that should not be ignored when constructing a lineup.

Anyway, here's last year's typical batting order:
1. Tyler Holt .324/.471/.416
2. Jason Stidham .322/.430/.518
3. Buster Posey .463/.566/.879!
4. Jack Rye .371/.478/.526
5. Dennis Guinn .322/.430/.641
6. Tony Delmonico .374/.455/.529
7. Tommy Oravetz .361/.456/.550
8. Mike McGee .344/.427/.544
9. Stuart Tapley .383/.472/.592

Going by the tenets laid out in "The Book" (and statistcal knowledge in general), I probably wouldn't have batted Tyler as the leadoff guy. Our 4th best OBP'er without much power, he probably should have been down toward the bottom of the order. We've already discussed how batting Buster 3rd was a waste of a phenomenal hitter. The following might have been a better balance of OBP and Power in the appropriate places:
1. Jack Rye (Great OBP, good power)
2. Stuart Tapley (I still have no idea why this man batted 9th)
3. Mike McGee
4. Buster Posey (On Base a lot, ungodly power)
5. Dennis Guinn is fine here
6. Oravetz (still great numbers, just less power)
7. Delmonico
8. Stidham
9. Holt

For more quantifiable results, I used Cyril Morong's "Lineup Analysis" tool, which generated this lineup as optimal.
1. Rye
2. Posey
3. Delmonico
4. Guinn
5. Tapley
6. McGee
7. Oravetz
8. Stidham
9. Holt

I ultimately disagree with Buster batting 2nd because of his power, although maybe such a great hitter deserves as many plate appearances as possible. The calculator says that the above lineup would score 8.888 runs per game (RPG), as opposed to the 8.569 it estimates for the real lineup (actual values would be higher in the more offensive college run environment). That's a difference of .319 wins per game, which comes out to a ridiculous 18 more runs over an almost 60 game regular season. Would the gains be this great in practice? Probably not. Again we're not generating this with NCAA Run Expectancy numbers (although if someone knows where to find this information, by all means send it my way), and there can be a psychological effect to moving hitters around. But I feel that in terms of optimization, .319 RPG is just too big a number to ignore.

So, now that we've gone through all that, what would be an optimal lineup for the 2009 FSU baseball team? After seeing the first four games of the season, here's my take.
1. Tyler Holt (who has matured and may now be well suited to this role)
2. Oravetz or Cardullo
3. McGee
4. Danesh or Tapley (I know it's early, but Danesh has been beastly good so far)
5. Tapley or Danesh
6. Stidham
7. Cardullo/Oravetz
8. D'Vontrey Richardson
9. Rafael Lopez

Now, immediately after writing this, I realize that I am a world class fool for making such predictions this early, and with so many young players to boot. Maybe Stidham can become an offensive leader and produce enough to warrant the cleanup billing he's been receiving. Lopez seems to have great offensive potential and should maybe be much higher. Plus, I still no clue about what kind of player D'Vo will be this year. There are so many players on this roster with unknown potential that it is difficult to accurately assign batting positions at this point. I'll hopefully return to the question of optimal lineup once we've gotten a little bit better idea of our player's tendencies and current abilities.

P.S. I'm curious to know what Whelk and anyone else has to say about the Noles and batting order.

Defensive Rebounds: Uche Echefu and the Rest, Part II

2009-02-19T08:52:00.000-08:00

Before I get to the conclusion of the defensive rebounding series, I have to admit that I had great difficulty watching the battle in the paint for the first half. I was completely transfixed by the show Toney Douglas put up guarding Jack McClinton, Miami's star scorer. In FSU's first meeting with Miami, Leonard Hamilton elected to guard the 6-1 McClinton with the 6-7 Jordan Demercy. This strategy made perfect sense, as it should be difficult for even the best of shooters to get off clean shots against athletic freaks half a foot taller than them. McClinton, however, was able to create just enough space to bomb away from well beyond the NBA three point line. It was a learning experience for DeMercy, and a reminder that sometimes elite scorers appear completely unstoppable.

In the second meeting, Hamilton adopted a different strategy. Sometimes the Noles trapped McClinton as he was bringing the ball up the court, just to get it out of his hands. Other times, Toney simply pressured McClinton man to man till he gave the ball up. After the ball was out of McClinton's hands, Toney stuck to him like a Venus fly trap sticks to a bug it has already digested. By my count, McClinton took only one shot in the first half while Toney was guarding him, and that was a brick. In the second half, Devidas Dulkys and Demercy each spent time on McClinton to give Toney a rest, with acceptable results, and Toney was able to martial enough energy for his usual late game excellence, but for my money, the whole first half was "Toney Douglas Time."

Now for the rebounding. When I payed more attention in the second half, I found that FSU's help line is not as aggressive as Clemson's. We seem to place it right about at the center of the paint (Clemson's was on the strong side of the paint). I don't think that aspect of our scheme is as instrumental in our rebounding woes as it is for Clemson. As for Singleton, he does watch the ball too much and lose his man occasionally. Alabi does lack some strength, most noticeable in the fact that Hamilton often tries to protect him by placing Uche or Reid on the opponent's most bullish player. Reid, though, is a complete mystery. Everything that I previously noted Trevor Booker doing well and Raymond Sykes doing poorly, Ryan Reid excels at. Reid never loses his man, he never lets him take up position near the basket, and he always puts a strong body on him when the shot goes up. Reid may not be pulling down a ton of defensive rebounds, but he most definitely is not letting his man get to them either. Perhaps he is too disciplined and doesn't go after the ball soon enough on defense. Perhaps his style of play helps the team without showing up in his personal stat line. For a great read about +/- statistics and their use in analyzing the true contribution of a player, read this Michael Lewis article in the New York Times Magazine. As far as I know, no one keeps +/- stats for college basketball, and I don't feel able to hazard a qualitative guess at what Reid's true rebounding contribution is.

So here are my concluding facts:
1) The Seminoles are good at offensive rebounding but bad at defensive rebounding.
2) The Seminoles are the tallest team in the nation.
3) Uche Echefu's individual stats say that he is a good defensive rebounder. My eyes agree.
4) Solomon Alabi's individual stats say that he is a decent defensive rebounder, but a comparison to other centers of his considerable talent (and to Uche last year) reveals that he should be better than he is. My eyes and Leonard Hamilton's mouth say that he lacks lower body strength due to his recent stress fracture, and that he will improve.
5) Chris Singleton's individual stats say that he is an underperforming defensive rebounder. My eyes agree, because he often fails to get a dominating boxout on his assigned man.
6) Ryan Reid's individual stats say that he is an underperforming defensive rebounder. My eyes disagree, and say that he rarely misses his assignment.

Extras:
7) Xavior Gibson has a long way to go before he isn't a defensive liability in ACC play.
8) Jordan Demercy's stats say that he is a valuable rebounder in the context that he usually plays defense against a perimeter player.

Lineups: Part 2

2009-02-18T20:54:00.000-08:00

(In Part 1, we talked about the basic theory behind lineup optimization. A lot of what follows comes from the excellent "The Book" by Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin. You can also read more detailed discussions of lineup analysis here and here. Now let's take a closer look and evaluate what FSU did in 2008)

So aside from putting your power hitters in the appropriate places, what are other factors to consider while constructing a batting order? Here's a brief synopsis of each spot in the lineup

1. "OBP machine": He can be a great all around hitter, but OBP is more important than power here. This guy isn't going to see many batters on base in front of him, but he's also going to get more plate appearances than anyone else on the team, so why not make the most of them by getting on base a lot? The 'Noles played Tyler Holt here in 2008, most likely because he seems like a traditional lead0ff hitter. Basically, he's fast without a lot of pop (plus massive levels of the ever tangible qualities of "scrappy-ness" and "get's his uniform dirty"). However, putting our 4th best OBP'er in this spot is probably not ultimately wise. He did, however, walk more than anybody else (albeit with more plate appearance), so he could potentially grow into a better OBP down the road.
2. "Balance": Extra base hits are not valued quite as much here as they would be in the 4 spot, but this player is still a fine batsman. The #2 and #4 hitters should be about the same quality, with the one who walks more getting the nod for the two hole (walks are more valuable toward the top of the order). Jason Stidham played here last year. He's an OK choice- he walks a fair amount, but is balanced over all. However, there are guys who walk about the same amount and are arguably better hitters. We'll get to that in Part 3...
3. "Mr. Not as Good at Hitting a Baseball as the 1,2,4, and 5 hitters": Why? Context. He's going to encounter more situations with no men on and 2 outs than the other batters in the top 5. He's sadly deprived of leverage- even if he does something awesome, chances are it's going to be worth less. Some suggest putting one of your "leftover" players here- Sabermetrician David Pinto says that spreading out your easy outs in this manner is not such a bad idea. However, this spot sees a ton of potential double plays too, so if this guy has a saving grace it should be a relatively low propensity to hit into to DP's. You may recall that FSU played one Buster Posey in this slot. Remember him? I seem to recall him going .463/.566/.879 with 26 HR in 2008. Hmmmm, perhaps this was not the ideal usage of his many talents.
4. "His divine awesomeness knows no bounds": Well, some managers do get this one right. This is where your best hitter goes. This where you ought to put your Barry Bonds, A-Rod, Willie Mays, or in our case- Buster Posey. Coach Martin played Jack Rye here. If not for Buster, I'd say that this was a good choice.
5. "Hey, I'm still pretty darn good": The #5 hitter is going to get some nice opportunities with runners on base, so he should be almost as good as the guys in the 2 and 4 spots. He's here because his slight shortcomings are mitigated some by fewer plate appearances. We played Dennis Guinn here. I'm fine with that. Good power plus so-so OBP compared to his teammates...I'll bite. But that doesn't mean Dennis might not have been able to contribute more in another spot.
6-9. "We're still here. We're actually much better at baseball than the average American." In general, these guys will descend in quality due to the dearth of opportunities to score runs down here. You'll probably want to slot in a powerful player without OBP prowess to bat sixth He can potentially drive in leftover runners from this spot. #7 can be a generally mediocre hitter with a little more emphasis on OBP than SLG. If you've got somebody who can hit singles and not much else, 7th is a fine place in the order. #8 is hanging in there with servicable OBP but no punch. The 9 spot should be your worst batter if you're playing in a league that uses a designated hitter. In the 6, 7, 8, and 9 spots FSU played (respectively) Tony Delmonico, Tommy Oravetz, Mike McGee, and Stuart Tapley. I can't really argue with any of this, except to say that Holt should maybe be down here somewhere. (Feel free to disagree with that if you don't like what I say next, I'm not entirely sure I want to discount Tyler's speed either.)

A note on speedsters: The best way to leverage a good basestealer is to put him in front of somebody who hits consistently but with little power. The fast man will probably end up 5th or 6th in the order. If your speedster steals second in front of a slugger, then he's going to be driven in anyway by a powerful hit without making the most of his speed. You're wasting his talent. The fast runner is leveraged more when he gets to use those wheels to score from second on a lowly single. Tyler Holt was probably our best stealing threat, going 15-24, but in the offensive environment the Seminoles play in, stealing is less valuable than straight up hitting, so I'm going to disregard this aspect of lineup analysis.

In Part 3 we'll see what the 'Noles could have done differently last year and how it might have helped. I'll also throw out some reckless, loosey goosey speculation about what lineup we should employ this season- so there's always that to look forward to as well.

Part I-B-a in the "I'm Still Avoiding Rewatching the Wake Game" series

2009-02-17T07:22:00.000-08:00

So I went and watched the Clemson-Virginia OT game, and here's what I decided:

1) It's inaccurate to call Trevor Booker a center and Raymond Sykes a forward. When they're both in, Booker sticks to the paint and Sykes roams, but each of them spends significant time as Clemson's defensive post presence. This makes the difference in their rebounding splits more significant.

2) Clemson full court presses after every made basket. What's more, they usually use a big man as one of the pressers. Sykes does this more than Booker, but they both do it some. When the press is broken, they do not have a half court defense set up, which leads to offensive players getting better position and more rebounds. I believe that this is part of the reason why Clemson defensively rebounds poorly. However, FSU doesn't press, so we don't have this excuse.

3) Clemson uses an aggressive help line on defense. For example, picture the following situation. Clemson's opponent has the ball on one of the wings (call this side the strong side). The man that Sykes (or Booker) is guarding stands on the other side of the court (the weak side), just outside of the paint. To prevent the man with the ball from driving, Clemson will have Sykes leave his man, and come all the way to the edge of the paint on the strong side. This ensures that if the man with the ball does drive, Sykes will be in a perfect position to block his shot. If, however, a shot is taken before Sykes can get back to his man, that man (usually a good rebounder) will become the responsibility of another (smaller) Clemson defender. What's more, he will have perfect position on the weak side. All teams use help defense, but many teams only have the help man come to the middle of the paint, putting him in less good position to block a shot but closer to his original man. This is one of the trade-offs coaches make which can have a large effect on their team's statistics. I'm slightly ashamed to admit this, but I've never taken note of where FSU puts their help line. I don't know if the Noles' help line positioning is relevant to their defensive rebounding problems.

4) There is indeed a noticeable difference between the way Booker (the good defensive rebounder) and Sykes (the bad defensive rebounder) position themselves. With Booker, his boxout begins the moment his man gets within ten feet of his basket. He makes contact, diagnosis where his man wants to go (it's pretty obvious: near the basket), and continuously gets in his way. When a shot goes up, Booker already knows where his man is (he's very often touching him), and is able to immediately box him out, a good distance from the basket - he never even lets him get close. Sykes on the other hand always plays slightly off his man. He stands half facing him, perhaps two feet away, and follows both his man and the ball out of the corners of his eyes. He does a good job (at least in this game) of diagnosing play, and preventing the ball from ever coming in to the man he is defending, but he doesn't really use his body. He allows his man to take up any position he wants as long as he doesn't have the ball. He only moves to box out once the ball is in the air, so ends up in many more situations where both he and his man have equal position, and it is merely an athletic contest for the ball. He approaches offensive and defensive rebounds essentially the same way, and collects them at almost identical rates.

The differences that I noted between Booker and Sykes are essentially what I expect to find between Uche Echefu and Chris Singleton, an inexperienced but athletic player who excels at getting offensive rebounds. However, I don't think that Solomon will fall into the same category. I expect his problems (I use the word very relatively) to have more to do with leg strength. He has decent technique and gives good effort, but he's simply not strong enough at this point to dominate the same way that Uche or Booker do. As for Ryan Reid, I really have not a clue why he fails to dominate the defensive boards, while performing well on the offensive ones. He's not the active athlete Sykes or Singleton is (which allows them to get offensive boards), but he is experienced (a junior) as well as strong. I am sure he doesn't shy away from contact.

Miami comes to the Tucker Center tomorrow. Barring another blowout, I'll pay special attention to our help line and all of our bigs, especially Reid.

Defensive Rebounds: Part I-B

2009-02-16T17:33:00.000-08:00

Just one note. Clemson also displays the weird offensive/defensive rebounding splits I was talking about earlier. I've often thought that Clemson is a very similar team to us. They aren't as tall, but they are long and athletic. Their potential is not as high, but they've reached more of it. They don't have as dynamic a scorer as we do in Toney Douglas, but they spread points around their lineup better, and crash the offensive boards like fiends. Their offensive efficiency has an abnormally high correlation with their offensive rebounding percentage. They serve as an optimistic model for Life After Douglas.

But why are they a poor defensive rebounding team? Well, they aren't actually that tall for one, but Trevor Booker is a solid offensive rebounder (265th) and an outstanding defensive one (81st). The culprit appears to be my favorite player on their team, Raymond Sykes. Mostly playing forward, he's the nation's 39th best offensive rebounder, but is outside the top 500 defensively. Actually, he collects defensive rebounds at a worse rate than he does offensive rebounds, which is extremely unusual.

I'm not saying that watching Clemson can solve our problems, but pay attention to what's happening in the paint the next time you happen to see them play.

Lineups: Part 1

2009-02-15T20:30:00.000-08:00

Constructing baseball lineups seems to be an area of optimization that is often neglected at both the major league and college levels. In Parts 1 and 2, I'm going to take a look at the prevailing wisdom concerning batting order (note: wisdom, not tradition). In Part 3, I'll speculate on what an ideal Seminole lineup might have looked like last year and project what kind of optimized lineup the 'Noles could (but probably won't) trot out come opening day. Let's start by looking at the most frequently deployed lineup from the 2008 season.

Batter AVG/OBP/ SLG
1. Tyler Holt .324/.471/.416
2. Jason Stidham .322/.430/.518
3. Buster Posey .463/.566/.879!
4. Jack Rye .371/.478/.526
5. Dennis Guinn .322/.430/.641
6. Tony Delmonico .374/.455/.529
7. Tommy Oravetz .361/.456/.550
8. Mike McGee .344/.427/.544
9. Stuart Tapley .383/.472/.592

Now, this is not a bad collection of hitters. It scored an obscene amount of runs last year (663 in 68 games). It won games with monster homeruns and it won them with "small ball" and timely hitting. But could it be better? Could the performance of the batting order be maximized? Well, there are 24 possible base/out states in the game of baseball- ranging from no men on base, no men out to bases loaded with two outs. By tracking the scoring outcomes of each base/out state, we can come up with a Run Expectancy (RE) for each of them. By comparing the RE before and after any event, we can assign the event itself a value in runs. An out leads to a lower Run Expectancy for the inning, but putting men on base or moving batters over leads to a greater RE. Of course it's actually more complicated than that (which is why people can argue about whether bunts are stupid or not until they're blue in the face), but there you have the basics.

So how is this useful? Well, each spot in the order sees certain base/out states more than others. It follows that certain events (causing a change in run expectancy) are more valuable to one batting spot than the other. On the simplest level, this is why you don't want your most powerful hitter batting last in the order behind your typically worst batters. Your slugger won't see many situations with men on base here if the aformentioned men kinda stink at getting on base. His homeruns and extra base hits just don't mean nearly as much here as they would in the 4 or 5 spot. Well, it looks like Coach Martin had the right idea, we've got our 3 most powerful hitters in the 3, 4, and 5 spots. But is there something being left on the table? Could we have made better use of all the great hitters on this team?

I'll provide some more details and simple critical analysis in Part 2...

Defensive Rebounds: Uche Echefu and the Rest, Part I-A

2009-02-15T10:35:00.000-08:00

I became far too upset watching the Wake Forest game to actually analyze much of anything, and I don't think that I will be able to bring myself to go back and watch it again. Wake is really good at running the break off missed baskets, maybe better than UNC. Aminu is exceptional. We had very little answer for his offensive skill (though I thought that we could have been successful isolating Uche on him to try and get him into foul trouble). Toney handled Teague well enough, but the rest of their team was able to hurt us, even without being able to shoot the three. The most frustrating part was the refs. I won't say that they weren't consistent (though they did miss a few obvious calls that went against us). However, the game was called so tickey-tack that a team that plays aggressive man defense like we do really had very little chance. We couldn't stop their transition game, the refs kept us from being effective defending in the half court, and we never were able to build any energy offensively. Once Solomon was ejected, we were done. This game reminded me what a razors edge FSU walks between being able to beat anyone, and not even being competitive. A couple momentum swings against us can tip the balance way too far.

Anyway, back to defensive rebounding. The one play I did notice occurred in the first half when Solomon had perfect inside position on his man, but was unable to keep him sealed long enough, and his man managed to slide around him for the offensive rebound. Leonard Hamilton has often stated in his interviews that the stress fracture Solomon had last year kept him from working out his lower body at all, and that he's still suffering from a lack of strength. Now my original plan to determine why we have trouble with defensive rebounding was to compare Uche with Reid and Singleton, because the three of them spend most of their time at the forward position, while Solomon, who is our best overall rebounder, sticks more to the middle, as a true center. However, recall that Uche grabbed defensive rebounds last year (when he was our primary center) at a higher rate than Solomon does this year, and while our team last year had far less height overall, they ranked significantly better on the defensive boards. What I'm beginning to wonder is if our problem has more to do with Solomon's emergence pushing Uche out of the paint than it does with the rebounding skills of our forwards. When we next play a game that I can watch with a cool head, I will both compare Uche to Reid and Singleton, and also compare our rebounding prowess as a team with Solomon in the game to when he takes a seat.

Deffensive Rebounds: Uche Echefu and the Rest, Part I

2009-02-12T10:20:00.000-08:00

This year, the FSU men's basketball team has emerged as a true tournament contender, and as of right now they are nationally ranked for the first time in over a decade. Their success has been a product of great offensive play from senior guard Toney Douglas and outstanding all-around team defense, highlighted by the shot blocking powers of redshirt freshman center, Solomon Alabi. The two main weaknesses this season have been turnovers and defensive rebounding. Recently, with the maturation of Alabi, Luke Louks, and Derwin Kitchen, I think that the Noles may have gotten over their turnover bugaboo. However, defensive rebounds continue to be a problem, which is both worrisome and puzzling, being that they are the tallest team in the nation, and are pretty good at corralling offensive rebounds.

What's wrong with us, and how can we improve? To try to answer this question, I will turn to the excellent pace-independent statistics provided by Ken Pomeroy. Caveat: When looking at statistics in any evaluation of player skill, it is important to remember that context matters. Team strategy and the abilities of the other four players on the floor impact individual statistics. For those who are interested, here is an interesting discussion of scheme and its affects on rebounding, at Basketball Prospectus.

First off, FSU grabs 36.7% of all offensive rebounds, good for 55th in the NCAA, but they allow opposing teams to reach 36.1% of rebounds on the defensive side of the court. This makes them the 284th best defensive rebounding team in the nation. Now, it's generally thought that offensive rebounding has more to do with athleticism and pursuit, whereas defensive rebounding depends on discipline and technique. (Of course, both offensive and defensive rebounding depend on scheme as well).

Looking at the individual rebounding statistics, it's instantly apparent that Alabi is FSU's best rebounder in an absolute sense, ranking 74th in the country in offensive rebounding percentage and 377th in defensive rebounding percentage. This makes intuitive sense, as Alabi is a 7-1 beast, who always plays in the paint when he's on the court. Note however, that he is a relatively better offensive rebounder than defensive one. The picture becomes more interesting, however, when we look at FSU's other frontcourt players. Chris Singleton and Ryan Reid rate 331st and 353th at offensive rebounding, but are not even within the national top 500 on the defensive glass. I am excluding Xavior Gibson from this analysis, as he plays significantly fewer minutes than the others.

The picture changes slightly when we look at senior Uche Echefu. This year, Uche has been the nations 360th best offensive rebounder and 488th best defensive rebounder. There is still a disparity between the two ratings, but it's the smallest disparity we've seen yet for an FSU player. Checking back one year to 2008, Uche was the nation's 419th best offensive rebounder, but 127th best defensive rebounder (actually, Uche's 2008 defensive rebounding rate was better than Alabi's rate this year). In fact, 2009 is the first time in Uche's career that he has rebounded better on the offensive glass than on the defensive. For comparison, Reid has ranked highly as an offensive rebounder in the past two seasons, but been out of the top 500 on the defensive end.

What does this all mean? I take it as strong evidence that Uche Echefu actually does something different on the defensive boards than all of the other FSU frontcourt players. The overall rebounding trend can be attributed to the scheme, but Uche outperforms his teammates who are used somewhat interchangeably within the same scheme. By only looking at the numbers, it is impossible to tell if he establishes position earlier, fights to hold his boxout longer, doesn't extend his defense as far on the perimeter, tries to block less shots, or any combination of these factors plus countless ones that I haven't thought of. For the next basketball game, I will devote all of my attention to the FSU frontcourt, to try to establish what is it exactly that Uche does that I sincerely hope he can pass on to his young teammates. Stay tuned for Part II.

Welcome

2009-02-11T07:54:00.000-08:00

Welcome to the inauguration of Somebody to Leon. Our original idea was to attend and chart all of the home games of the upcoming 2009 FSU baseball season, in the hope that we could provide some small amount of relevant statistics, analysis, and discussion to the hordes of fans left thirsty from the generally small and poor coverage that FSU sports get around the nation. We plan on keeping track of plate discipline, pitch selection, BABIP, defense, and perhaps some other stats, as well as our own very valuable opinions.

We will also use this space to discuss Florida State basketball, football, or any of the other important issues facing society today.

Important Issue number one: Why is our basketball team so amazingly terrible at defensive rebounding, when we're really pretty good on the offensive boards? How can we fix this? I have almost no clue, but I'll let y'all know soon.