Starting at the Top

The term “leadoff man” usually applies to the number one hitter in the lineup. However, all batters lead off innings. In fact, traditional leadoff men bat first in fewer than 20 percent of their team’s total innings.

When the leadoff batter for an inning reaches first base, his team’s run expectancy becomes .86 runs. If he makes an out, it drops to just .26. That’s a huge swing and teams face this situation nine times each game, 162 games per season.

While number one hitters get the most opportunities in this role, everybody in the lineup receives numerous chances over the course of the season. For example, Michael Bourn led off more innings (282) than any Braves batter by far. But that was just 19.6 percent of the team’s total innings. There were 327 Major League players who led off at least 50 innings in 2012. Most position players – including those currently arbitration eligible – impacted their teams in these situations.

So who stood out when leading off innings last season? None of the top five players in on-base percentage resemble prototypical leadoff men, but all shined in this role: Joey Votto (.457 OBP), Travis Hafner (.456), Miguel Cabrera (.456), David Ortiz (.441), and Joe Mauer (.439).

This data also enables us to measure how number one hitters perform in these situations, when getting on base is much more valuable than with one or two outs. The arbitration-eligible Austin Jackson had a .409 on-base percentage when leading off an inning versus .355 in all other plate appearances. So when he could make the greatest impact by reaching base, Jackson excelled.

We can dig deeper in this analysis as well. Reaching second base to start innings carries major value – a 1.07 run expectancy. A slugger topped this group as well. Giancarlo Stanton got to second base (or further) 28 times in 121 inning leadoff plate appearances. His 23.1 percentage blew away everybody with at least 50 plate appearances in these spots. Oakland’s Brandon Moss topped all arbitration-eligible players. He made it to second in 16.4 percent of his leadoff plate appearances, seventh best overall in MLB.

This analysis results from one small shift in thinking. In arbitration and free agency, such approaches can really pay off.

Arbitration and Free Agency: A Key Distinction

Baseball arbitration and free agency differ tremendously in one respect: free agency is about what a player will achieve while arbitration focuses on what he has done.

Future projections – based on past performance – play a role in free agency. But projections aren’t included in the arbitration criteria. This distinction makes certain types of information and analysis, which clubs may not want to see in a free agent package, extremely important to an agent’s arbitration brief.

For example, skills like bunting and advancing runners with outs won’t fetch top dollar on the free agent market. But arbitration is a whole different ballgame. Exhibits detailing how a player excelled at “little things” – that resulted in wins – help make your brief a winner. Demonstrate how he performed better than comparable arbitration eligibles in these areas, and it strengthens your case even further.

Gregor Blanco didn’t post big numbers in core statistical categories, but he delivered in many other ways that impacted the Giants outstanding season.

1) Blanco did not hit into a double play in 453 plate appearances. This had only been done seven times since 1950.

2) He advanced a runner from second base with nobody out in seven of eight plate appearances in this situation.

3) He drove in a runner from third base with less than two outs 10 times in 18 opportunities. Six of these RBI came in the seventh inning or later, seven contributed to wins and three made up the margin of victory in one-run games.

4) Blanco topped 25 steals and had 5 triples in fewer than 400 at-bats. Only one other Giants player had done that since 1912.

5) He executed five successful sacrifice bunts. The Giants went 4-1 in these games.

All those feats are impressive enough, but they also contributed to a World Championship team. Looking back, for arbitration, that bottom line is all that matters.

Complete Halftime Analysis

Most halftime shows include comments from former players and coaches about how teams must “pick up the intensity” or “step up” in the second half. In basketball games, analysts talk about strategies like “getting the ball inside” or “taking better care of the basketball.”

While such input from former players and coaches is valuable, it is far from complete analysis. You need to get into the numbers for that to happen. Sports analytics provides powerful insight and doesn’t need to involve anything complex. The concept of regression to the mean reveals far more about what to expect in the second half, and only requires comparing a few key stats.

Let’s say one team shoots 8-for-10 from three-point range to grab a 10-point lead while the other clanks 1-for-9. If both teams entered the contest shooting 40 percent on the season, it is almost certain that both teams regress to the mean – the 40 percent mark – in the second half. Defense impacts these stats, but randomness (or luck) is a huge factor in small samples. As more shots get taken, teams should move toward their season percentage and cause the score to tighten up.

Free throw percentages are another great stat to examine at halftime. Unlike three-pointers, they aren’t defended. So randomness plays an even greater role.

I believe broadcasts will soon have a statistical expert offering such insight – alongside coaches and/or former players – on halftime shows. But until that happens, we can all do it ourselves.

Four Ways to Build Value for Arbitration

The arbitration season is a crazy time of year for baseball agents and The Sports Resource. So before it gets into full swing, here are strategies for making your briefs a winner.

Building a brief starts with telling a compelling story in the player profile section. That makes matching the player against key comparables easier and more convincing.

The approaches below work for both the player profile and comparables sections, and will make powerful points that complement a brief's core elements. 

History, All-time Greats, and Rarities. While their achievements may not find their way onto SportsCenter, players record historic achievements throughout the regular season. For example, Antonio Bastardo’s 14.0 strikeouts per nine innings rate this season has been matched by just two lefthanders in Major League history: Billy Wagner and Aroldis Chapman. We’re not saying Bastardo is as good as Wagner (obviously), but linking his name to an all-time great is huge. And such feats carry value even when they don’t involve common statistics. 

Marginal Value adds Major Value. Players on teams that narrowly reach the postseason – such as the Orioles and Cardinals this year – help their teams generate $25-to-$50 million of additional revenue. That’s according to research by Vince Gennaro, a consultant for Major League teams and author of the book “Diamond Dollars”. Reaching the playoffs also impacts club revenues for up to five seasons. Demonstrate how your player made that two or three-game difference for his club (and his key comparables didn’t), and you score a huge plus. 

Ballpark Figures. Park factors can be a tremendous weapon in arbitration. Hitters in Safeco Field, or any of the five California stadiums, are ideal for park adjustments. The same goes for pitchers in Coors Field, U.S. Cellular Field and Fenway Park. Our last newsletter addressed this topic for free agency. The concept works differently in arbitration – because the criteria does not allow for projections – but it’s a great tactic for evaluating past performance. 

Advanced Metrics. Clubs have used win expectancies and leverage index against relievers in recent hearings. So why not do the same? Even if they don’t help your case, it pays to prepare information for rebuttal. WAR is a powerful tool as well, but works better at some positions than others. Although their explanations consume some presentation time, advanced metrics complement core numbers extremely well.

Aircraft Carriers, Adjustments and Arbitration

Last Sunday, Syracuse faced San Diego State aboard the USS Midway in San Diego Harbor. The wind made shots beyond a few feet an adventure. One baseline jumper by Syracuse forward C.J. Fair seemed to blow two feet off course and wound up an air ball.

The shooting percentages were low for both sides, but especially dismal for the Aztecs. They made just one three-pointer in 18 attempts and shot 27 percent overall. At the foul line, they sank 42.4 percent. Broadcasters Dick Enberg and Steve Kerr commented frequently about the conditions, at one time saying the players probably wish these stats wouldn’t count in their season numbers.

While the statistics need to count, we can make adjustments for the context. Other teams have played on ships. Using those averages to adjust actual statistics provide a better indication of how well the teams and players performed. Of course, it’s only one game and won’t impact final season numbers very much.

Baseball players on teams with extreme venues like Safeco Field and Coors Field aren’t so lucky. They play 81 games in settings that have a huge impact on their statistics. While the Aztecs and Orange escaped the aircraft carrier after one game, Mariners hitters and Rockies pitchers have no such opportunity. The altitude never changes in Denver, and neither does its effect on statistics.

Fortunately, in baseball arbitration and free agency, we can make adjustments for context, but it’s not always simple. Just as the outside shooters struggled more than big men aboard the ship, ballparks affect different players in different ways. Left-handed power hitters in Minute Maid Park make a great example. Since the stadium debuted in 2000, there have been 28 20-home run seasons by Astros’ right-handed batters, just one by a lefty hitter.

Extreme environments call attention to the need for adjustments. However, we need them for less obvious conditions as well, not just for basketball games aboard aircraft carriers.

Do-It-Yourself Three-Point Shooters

With five seconds left on the shot clock and all their teammates covered, guards have to create. Some perform much better at it than others.

Creating and then converting a three-pointer is basketball’s version of a grand slam. A 24-second violation nets nothing – and a wild shot attempt isn’t much better. So it’s a three-point swing if a player can nail a three off the dribble. Since few players shoot high percentages in these situations, the players who excel have tremendous value.

After evaluating all three-point shooters for volume, accuracy and the ability to create their shot without an assist, Spurs guard Gary Neal stood out. He hit 41.9 percent overall from three-point range last season, even though only 54.2 percent of his made threes were assisted. On average, 84.2 of NBA three-pointers were assisted in 2011-12.

Most top three-point marksmen have a very high percentage of their threes assisted. That’s no problem of course, it’s their job to spot up and drain threes. But it makes players who can convert threes off the dribble even more valuable, especially for teams that don’t get many open three-point looks from their set offense.

In addition to Neal, other players who shine in this area include Kyrie Irving, Kyle Lowry, Jose Juan Barea and Lou Williams. 

The Common Factor

Besides playing for the Oklahoma City Thunder, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and James Harden don’t seem to have much in common. And that was the case when the Sonics/Thunder selected them in three consecutive drafts, except for one key factor.

All three players were exceptionally young for their class. At 18.74 years old on draft night, Durant was the youngest freshmen (and player) taken in the past five drafts combined. One year later, they landed the youngest sophomore from these five draft classes. Westbrook, at 19.62 years old, was actually younger than many freshmen in the 2008 draft. Then they took Harden in 2009. Only one other sophomore besides Westbrook was younger than Harden at 19.83.

As a result, the Thunder nabbed three players with far more college playing experience than prospects their same age. The Sports Resource Newsletter covered this topic last year. Westbrook, for example, had played 75 games for UCLA. Most of the draft selections close to his age had fewer than half that many.

Obviously, it wasn’t just about their age relative to their class. Durant and Harden also put up outstanding statistics, but so had many others in their draft class. Their numbers were made far more impressive by the fact that they were over one year younger (in some cases) than players that shared the same college class.

Maybe other teams valued this common factor, but went another direction on draft night. Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that Oklahoma City exploited this edge three straight years. Whatever happened, the Thunder may soon start the next NBA dynasty because of those selections.