Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 105: Will R.A. Dickey’s Knuckleball Be Better in the Dome?/Do the Red Sox Have a Consistent Philosophy?

Episode Date: December 19, 2012

Ben and Sam answer listener emails about R.A. Dickey, the Red Sox, and more.

Good morning and welcome to episode 105 of Effectively Wild, the Baseball Perspectives Daily Podcast. In New York, New York, I am Ben Lindberg, and no longer in Tyler, Texas, but back in Long Beach, California. In or around the Honda Fit is Sam Miller. Hello, Sam. Hi, Ben. So today is our listener email show,

the traditional Wednesday listener email show that we have occasionally bumped to other days. But today it will actually be on Wednesday. And a bunch of you sent questions and the questions were good. And we're going to answer some of the most interesting ones or the ones that were most interesting to us. So Sam has them all lined up and ready to read. So what's first? Well, first I want to revisit a question that we answered last week about why left-handed starters are more in demand than right-handed starters. And the great Russell Carlton attempted to answer this

with three points that he thought were relevant. And so sincesell is incredibly smart and his answers are very savvy i just thought i would quickly go over them uh the first is the argument from statistics which is uh as we kind of mentioned briefly but russell actually had knowledge uh the platoon split is uh the platoon advantage for lefties on lefties is much higher than the platoon advantage for righties on righties. It's about double if you go by. Yes, it's about a 100-point edge for lefties and about a 50-point edge for righties. So even if you're facing more of the other, Russell thinks that maybe the math works out.

So that's one reason. Another is neuropsychology. Russell says, the ball spins differently from a lefty, and hitters generally have different neuron pathways laid down, decision pathways and motor responses, i.e. swings for different visual stimuli. They don't get to see a lefty spin as much, so those pathways aren't as strong. If the world were dominated by lefties, then righties would be exotic and coveted for the same reason. And the third is the argument from functional fixedness, in which Russell supposes that there is some small, probably small benefit to mixing up to alternating lefty-righty because the tasks are actually different tasks.

They're two discrete skills, hitting lefties and hitting righties. And if you alternate, you probably do get some benefit. It would be minor. But he says all else being equal, any little edge helps. So I'm glad that Russell... Yeah, and Russell actually also followed up on another question from this, from I think it was the same show, where it was Tom who asked, are teams this year using signing bonuses as incentives for players to sign quickly

in the 2012 year as a way of giving players a large portion of their salary before tax rates go up in 2013. We sort of answered that, but Russell had, I think, a better answer. He said there is no question that it is in a player's best interest to pay out a signing bonus before January 1st. If the Bush-era tax cuts expire, marginal rates on income over $250,000 will go up by 4.6%, from 35% to 39.6%. So, for each million that is carried forward to the 2012 tax year, the player would save $46,000 in tax liability. If you can convince the team to give you $10 million in bonus like BJ Upton did, you can save almost half a million bucks. And even if the GOP version of a compromise comes to pass and rates do not go up, there's

no downside. It's not likely that there will be more tax cuts for high income earners. I think we weren't entirely sure, though, whether the signing bonus would be part of your 2012 income or 2013 income. So that's still potentially out there. And then also, I don't know, I mean, the flip side would be that the team, I guess businesses pay different tax rates but the team is also, now the team is going to have less revenue if they front load it to 2012. And so now they're paying, you know, like the exact opposite thing would happen for the team.

Yeah. Anyway. Ari Dickey got, I think, part of his extension as a signing bonus, although that might have had something to do with the difference in taxes between the U.S. and Canada. I'm not sure exactly. But anyway, in conclusion, Russell should just do the podcast probably. And that's the end of Email Wednesday. Send us your emails for next week. No, okay. So we're going to answer a question about the Red Sox. This is from James who writes, in August, when the Red Sox seemed to sacrifice Adrian Gonzalez to rid themselves of Beckett and Crawford's contract,

it appeared the Red Sox were making a conscious decision to either spend money wiser or pursue a new core group of players in the upcoming season, offseason. However, neither of these things have happened. Instead, they've overpaid for good supporting players, Napoli, Victorino, and Dempster, and signed them to two- or three-year deals that suggest these guys aren't just placeholders. Do you think there's a consistent front office philosophy on how to retool this team to make them a contender again? So I guess there are maybe two different things.

One is I don't actually know how you feel the Red Sox have done this offseason, if you think that they've been doing well or not. And the other is James' sort of specific question of whether you think that it is intellectually consistent. Yeah. Well, we know from yesterday that I don't particularly like the Shane Victorino deal. I mean, I don't know. I had the same thought that he did, and I was wondering the same thing, which is kind of why I wanted to at least bring up this question. I mean, it's not inconsistent, I think, that they're spending money. No one expected them to suddenly become a small market team just because they made those trades or that trade with the Dodgers to save all that money last season.

It's not as if, well, that's the last time they'll ever make a long-term commitment or sign a free agent to a multi-year deal. So maybe it is just sort of that I don't love the things that they've done, I guess. I mean, the Dempster move is okay, I guess. I kind of like the Dempster move. But the interest in Dempster and Victorino and Napoli, I don't know. I guess I kind of expected them to either go for the real top of the line guy and just bring in a cranky or someone or just kind of hang back and maybe do a kind of a transition year, which they've done recently in the past intentionally, just to sort of bridge two contending teams. So I don't know. I'm kind of surprised by what they've done and not overwhelmed by what they've done.

How have you felt about it? I don't know. I think that the trade that they made with the dodgers probably shouldn't be looked at as any sort of philosophical decision at all it was simply this opportunity um came in front of them it was a sort of a once in a you know whatever period of time opportunity when the dodgers were willing to do something that basically no other team is ever willing to do and and uh and and give the the red Sox this sort of jubilee period where they get out of all their bad contracts. I mean, I don't think there was a philosophical thing to it.

It wasn't a philosophy to get in a position where they had a bunch of bad contracts, and then when they got to get rid of them, they did. I might be misremembering this, but I recall in the middle of last decade that the Red Sox were one of the leading teams behind the idea of really not going to long contracts. That's why Pedro Martinez walked away, for instance, as I recall. They refused to go more than four years or more than three years or something like that. That resolve kind of wore away.

And they ended up with some longer contracts. And I think it's perfectly consistent with kind of the organizational mindset as a whole, if that is an organizational mindset, in that this year they haven't given anybody more than three years. I think that if you try to label all these moves, then maybe it's hard to create a super coherent narrative. But if you just look at them as whether they a small gamble on getting a little extra value, then I think it shows a consistency there. If you look at what they subtracted and what

they gained, and you don't try to force a philosophy onto it, they have added better to force a philosophy onto it, they have added better talent than they gave up, and they're paying a lot less for it. When they traded Gonzalez, Beckett, and Crawford, I think it was about $270 million in salary commitments after the 2012 season. So that plus whatever they shaved off in August and September of last year. And this year they've signed Dempster, Napoli, Victorino, Stephen Drew, Gomes, Uehara, and Ross. And the total commitment of all those players is $135 million. So they basically have cut their salary commitment in half. million so they basically have cut their salary commitment in half and if you go by pakoda um the three that they traded are projected to be worth about eight wins next year and the ones that they've signed are projected to be to be about 12 wins next year for about the same cost

next year so you know i mean i don't know it's it's um i don't know i i have a tendency to just not really want to put labels on any of these moves or any of these players and just look at them each in isolation, and I think it's been a solid offseason. Yeah. I guess I'm influenced by something Rob Neier wrote in August. I think it was his take on the trade, and as summarized by then Mark Normandin, or actually not Mark Normandin, but actually not Mark Normandin, but someone

at Mark Normandin's site over the monster, the idea that they were returning to what Nyer called first principles, payroll flexibility, a strong farm system, and avoiding long-term free agent contracts. And I guess in a way they've done that in the sense that these aren't that long-term. I guess it depends how you define long-term. And I'm also kind of remembering an interview with Bill James in September. And there were a few articles around that time where John Henry said that Bill James had kind of been marginalized in the Red Sox decision-making process and that he was going to be a bigger part of decisions going forward. And Bill James said, we're trying

to think more clearly about players' value. Our process in the past has relied on making good judgments about players and then paying whatever the market demanded we pay for those players that we liked. That process had sprung a wheel, so we're trying to think about players' value in a more organized, cohesive fashion. That's essentially what's driving this, this being his, I think his return to prominence. And I don't know, I guess the players that they've signed this season seem like they've just been kind of market rate signings, which is not a bad thing. I guess I kind of expected them to based on that quote,

kind of just not pay what, what the market was, was demanding for players like that. And, and that they would be kind of trying to go back towards younger players rather than signing a bunch of over 30 guys. But my expectations were probably just wrong and not based on all that much so um yeah i don't know it's uh i don't know if it's inconsistent with their their trading gonzalez because

obviously the red sox were going to sign people again. They're the Red Sox. For what it's worth, I thought that Gonzalez's contract wasn't very good either. I mean, the idea at the time was that the Dodgers sort of took on Crawford and Beckett, and that was partly why they were able to get Gonzalez. And I think that's true. I'm not sure that the Red Sox were looking to move Gonzalez even to that contract. But, I mean, based on the season he was having and the length of that deal, I didn't think it was a very good situation for them anyway. So I thought that was a net gain for them to get rid of that even.

And that was the best part that they gave up. Anyway, the Red Sox seem to be just fine. All right. So we're going to now go to a question from a fellow named Alan, who says Jason Parks, who was on episode 103, stated that Alex Anthopoulos was bullish on R.A. Dickey in the Dome. Do we know the reason? And then he goes on to include some links and such. And that's basically the question do that has come up a few times on our site and elsewhere since the trade the idea that Dickie will be better because

he's in a dome have you looked into this at all? Sort of I alluded to it at least in my transaction analysis stuff as Jason did and really I don't know that I would have even thought to bring it up if Dan Evans hadn't mentioned it on our BP email list. And he speculated that it could be a reason that Toronto was interested in him, the idea that a knuckleball

can be more effective in a dome where the atmospheric conditions are controlled. And to my knowledge, there is no hard evidence that that's the case. I asked Alan Nathan, who's kind of the baseball physics expert, a professor at the University of Illinois, whether there was any evidence to suggest that knuckleballs would be better in domes. whether there was any evidence to suggest that knuckleballs would be better in domes. He said anecdotally there is and that maybe it makes sense, but he's not aware of any kind of controlled study or any definitive evidence for it. And it's really hard to say because there aren't that many knuckleballers and there really aren't that many knuckleballers, and there really aren't that many knuckleballers who've pitched a lot of games in domes.

And obviously there's all kinds of factors at play. Like Tim Wakefield, I think, had something like a 2.5 career ERA at Tropicana Field. And you think, well, maybe it was because the knuckleball was more effective, and maybe it was, but maybe it was just because the Rays were really bad for most of the time that he was pitching there. And it's a pitcher's park to begin with. And it's help him than we do. I quoted in my transaction analysis piece Ari Dickey from 2009 when he joined the Twins, who were at the time playing in the Metrodome. And Dickey at the time said that it would be a good thing. I'm just looking for the quote quickly here. He said, I pitched there last year with the Mariners, referring to the Metrodome, and I found that the constant climate where you have a little bit of humidity in the

dome and a little bit of air conditioner in your face proves to be a real nice kind of controlled atmosphere to throw it in. Whereas if you're on the coast somewhere and you get wind gusts up to 30 miles an hour, it could be a little more difficult sometimes. So at least as of 2009, R.A. Dickey thought it would help him. And maybe the fact that he thinks it will help him will help him. Although he didn't pitch particularly well that season at home for the Twins. So maybe he no longer believes that. Yeah. So the thing is that's interesting to me is that if this is just sort of accepted baseball wisdom and yet in our lifetimes, we've never seen a team in a dome pursue this

strategy at all um so uh i don't know i don't know how much faith anybody in the game really has in it um and like you say i mean not only is there a problem in in the fact that there aren't that many knuckleballers in the majors but there are essentially no knuckleballers anywhere else in the world i mean like 80 of the knuckleballers in the world are pitching in the majors, which is to say, well, I guess that's impossible because there are not four. But it's not like you have – this isn't wisdom that would start in high school and move on up or anything like that. For what it's worth, I once briefly looked at the question of weather for Tim Wakefield because there was, I think, probably Bobby Valentine or somebody like Bobby Valentine was on a game talking about how I think cold weather was better for knuckleballers and knuckleballers should, Tim Wakefield should be in a great place because it was a cold night that night. And so I started looking around at what the science of the knuckleball suggested,

and I found a long piece about how knuckleballs actually do best in hot and humid weather, and that that's how Charlie Hager's career turned around was when he went to a muggy how Charlie Hager's career turned around was when he went to a muggy ballpark in the Sally League, and that quoted something called the Bernoulli effect, a theory developed in the 18th century by Daniel Bernoulli, a Swiss physicist, and I was very, very convinced. And then I found a different piece from a scientist who said that it actually has nothing to do with humidity and that it's way too unpredictable and that none of these sort of theories make sense. And then I found another one from Mike Marshall who said that cold weather means there are more molecules per cubic foot of air, which creates more resistance.

Any pitch that is designed to move will move more in cold weather and fastballs will slow down significantly so um yeah so pretty much science has proven all of it yeah and people have cited uh dickie throwing a one hitter against the tampa bay rays at tropicana field in june he allowed in one earned run he struck out 12 as if that means something but didn't he throw like a one yes he had a bunch of one hitters he's just really really good but he i mean he did win the cy young award last year and he pitched in tampa bay once yes so correlation um well i think we will be able to tell whether the Blue Jays think there's anything to this, because if they do, then they can close the dome if they want to. I believe the Blue Jays control whether the roof of the Rogers Center is open or closed before the game. You can't open and close it for each half inning or something to try to do some sort of gamesmanship

there. But they can if they would like to. They can on a perfectly nice day where it's 75 degrees and sunny, they can close the dome if they want and play the game indoors. So if they really believe that this is a significant thing, then presumably we will see them do that i kind of doubt we will see them do that i kind of i think we will see them do it i hope i hope so that'd be fun i think we'll see them do it and it won't matter like they'll see them do it and then dickie will have one bad start and that will be the last time that they do it i mean it's almost a it's almost a lock that dickie's going to be worse next year than he was this year which which won't prove anything. But does this, I mean, are we going to read all these columns now from people who think that that's proof that the Dome actually hurts knuckleballers?

I do remember when I was a kid growing up that my dad told me that knuckleballers like, I think they like to win. And my dad would have no idea about this item. I'm probably misremembering how certain he was when he told me but I always had it in my head that they liked wind because wind would make... Drilled this into your head from an early age. Yeah. On his knee. Sam, knuckleballers, wind.

They like the wind. I actually have never heard your opinion on this trade. In the context of the Shields-Myers trade that we talked about, how do you kind of rate this? I like the trade a lot for the Mets and didn't really dislike it for the Blue Jays because you'd think that it was maybe inconsistent to kind of be against the Royals trading Myers and then not be against the Blue Jays trading a prospect or a package of prospects that is maybe just as good or almost as good for another starting pitcher. But I think the difference is that the Blue Jays are just in a

better position to win right now than the Royals are. I think even though they had very superficially similar records and run differentials last season, I think the Blue Jays had a ton of injuries, which maybe would encourage you to think that they would have done better this season without making any moves. And then the fact that they already made the huge deal for Reyes and Johnson and Burley this offseason, I feel like that just put them in the position where the Dickey deal could kind of put them over the top, whereas the Royals trade for Shields leaves them still looking like maybe a second or even, as you said, third place team potentially. So that makes a difference to me. It still seems like a lot to give up for an old pitcher, but the fact that they are more convincingly poised to win makes

it more palatable to me. I like it. Actually, I like it a lot more for the Blue Jays and a lot less for the Mets than the corresponding teams in the previous trade. And not, I mean, what you said about the competitive window is a factor, but not really the key one to me. I mean, I just think that I like Dickey a lot more than I like Shields. I think that they're not really comparable pitchers. I think Dickey's probably quite a bit better than Shields right now, and I like his contract status a lot more, and I like Myers a lot more than I like Darnell.

I sort of hinted at this when we were talking to Jason, but I kind of have a thing against catching prospects. I'm not really that keen on them. I think Wade Davis maybe gets overlooked a little. And so there's a possibility that that swings it a little bit more toward the Royals. But just in terms of the packages going back, I like the package that the Rays got back a lot more. And also, I just don't really feel like the Mets should have been punting a guy like Dickey for three years. I mean, I would think the Mets have plans on competing in the next three years,

and in the next three years, I'm going to want Dickey a lot more than I want Darneau. I mean, I guess in five years I'd rather have Darneau, because Dickey's probably not going to be on the team anymore, but I just think the Mets are going to try to make a run sometime before the end of 2015, and D Dickie's really good I mean he's like he won the Cy Young award like four days ago it's you know it's kind of a big deal so I don't know that's how I feel I didn't really like it that much for the Mets perspective I mean I don't hate it once you once you sort of blow it with Dickie and you got to get something they they got a good package back. Yeah, they got a lot back.

Yeah. Anyway, we actually have gone really long. So I think we should end this. I mean, we have other questions, but maybe we should do email Thursday. Yeah. Because I feel like we've gone a long time right now. Okay. Maybe we'll answer some more emails then tomorrow.

All right. We just will look for any reason not to have to think of a topic ourselves. No, we've got good ones. We've got good ones that are, I mean, we answered kind of conventional ones, but we've got some less conventional ones, and I look forward to getting to them. Yeah, and you can then still send us some. You can email us at podcast at baseballperspectives.com,

and maybe we will answer your question tomorrow. Or maybe we'll just read whatever Russell sent us. Right. Russell can just monopolize the podcast. All right. So that's it. Yeah, that's it. All right.

Okay.