Progeny of Pagnozzi

Recently at BaseballAnalysts.com Cardinals senior statistical
analyst Mitchel Lichtman along with fellow sabermetricians Tom Tango from TangoTiger.net and Red Sox consultant Eric Van of Sons of Sam Horn fame sat down with Baseball Analyst’s Rich Lederer in a follow up to The Great Debate hosted by Alan Schwarz of Baseball America.

Here are a few excerpts from ”The Great Discussion”:

Rich Lederer: It's March 2006. Nearly 30 years have passed since Bill James wrote his first Baseball Abstract. The sabermetric community has grown significantly in numbers and respect over the last few decades. Our voices are now being heard more than ever. Let's take a few minutes to assess where we've been, where we are, and where we're going.

Mitchel Lichtman: Wow, that's a heck of a question to start off with Rich! It sounds like the topic for an entire book (by Bill James no doubt)! The way I see it is that there has been an evolution of sorts on two fronts. One is with the technology/information itself. We know and understand infinitely more about baseball (in a sabermetric sense) than we did 30 years ago. Two is with the acceptance and use by the fans, the media, and the teams themselves. The latter appears to be much slower and much more disjointed, for various reasons.

As far as the future is concerned, I anticipate that teams "jumping on the sabermetric bandwagon," if you will, will continue to accelerate at a rapid pace. As far as the information and technology is concerned, I anticipate that the evolutionary pace will slow down considerably. In certain "industries" there is a limit to the amount of information/understanding that can be gleaned. Sabermetrics and the game of baseball in general is one of those industries I believe. Sabermetrics is more like "trigonometry in mathematics" then "computers in science." With sabermetrics, as with trigonometry, you create a number of theories, constructs, and paradigms, and then you move on to something else. We are not quite ready to move on to something else, but we are close, in my opinion.

Rich Lederer: Well, now that you've raised the question, how many teams would you estimate employ sabermetric consultants?

Mitchel Lichtman: Good question. I have no idea exactly. Obviously St. Louis, Oakland, and Boston are the most notable. I have heard that Cleveland, Toronto, and San Diego may use sabermetrics and employ analysts.

Eric Van: Mitchel, do you make an exception at the top of the talent pyramid? Do you break the bank just for the elite? You're not going to wrap up Albert long term for that kind of money.

Mitchel Lichtman: Yes and no, Eric. As I've said many times in many different forums, the essential bottom line for the owner (for whose interests I essentially look out for) is, "How much net profit will this player provide over the course of his contract, as compared to how much money we are paying him, and what are the alternatives?" That is usually a function of that player's marginal win value (as compared to some baseline, like a replacement player) over the length of that contract (among other things). As Tom said, to figure that, teams don't really need sabermetricians. All they need is the Marcel Formula and a calculator or spreadsheet!

I do "allow" some leeway for elite, "top of the pyramid" players, where supply and demand really affects the market (even though it really shouldn't). But anything more than 3 or 4 million per marginal win (per year, of course) is generally a waste of money. Compare that to Konerko's contract which will cost the White Sox around 8 or 9 mil per marginal win - or Jeter's current salary, which is almost 7 mil per marginal win. Heck, Albert is currently worth around 7 wins above replacement and is making only around $15 million per. Of course, he was signed pre-arb, I think, which entitles the Cards to a substantial discount, as compared to a free-agent player.

Mitchel Lichtman: I'm not really working on anything earth-shattering right now. I have recently revamped my entire UZR methodology, which doesn't really mean anything to too many people, as I haven't published any wholesale results in a long time anyway. And, of course, I've been "scooped" by John Dewan in terms of any future public disclosure of UZR ratings in the form of a book. That is fair, as the original concept of a "zone rating" and even an "ultimate zone rating" was originally published by John and STATS Inc (although I developed my own "zone rating" independently and about the same time - along with several other people that I know of - remember DeCoursey's and Nichols' "defensive average" back in the late 80's or early 90's?).

Mitchel Lichtman: I am also working on an "ultimate, ultimate zone rating (UUZR)" which, rather than using distinct zones or vectors and the probabilities of catching a certain type ball within them, uses a smooth function such that we can basically plug in the x, y coordinates of a batted ball (along with the usual characteristics - speed, type, etc.) and come up with the probability of that ball being caught, regardless of whether we already have an historical "baseline" for that particular type of ball at those coordinates. I am also going to incorporate into the UUZR methodology subjective ratings on all plays made (which STATS routinely provides) to improve the integrity of the data.

As well, I am working on better ways of "park adjusting" player stats in order to do better context-neutral projections as well as to determine the future value of a player in a specific park, especially when that player changes home teams. I am continually working on improving my projection models, as these are really at the heart of what a sabermetrician can do for a team. Tom might disagree with this as he tends to think that one projection system is basically as good as another.

Cards Senior Statistical Analyst Mitchel Lichtman also has co-authored a book along with Tom Tango and Andy Dolphin, The Book: Playing The Percentages in Baseball, aimed at coaches, managers, and front office executives, as well as baseball fans interested in strategies such as batter/pitcher matchups, platooning, the sacrifice bunt, base stealing, and much more.

You can read the entire discussion involving Mitchel here.

An older excerpt from Sports Illustrated:

"If one had exact information on every batted ball," said Mitchel Lichtman, a consulting statistical analyst for the St. Louis Cardinals, "then one should easily be able to say at what rate an average fielder would have turned any given ball into an out, given its exact characteristics, and compare that to whether a fielder actually did or did not turn a ball into an out. That is essentially the 'Holy Grail' of defensive metrics, and is really quite simple."

Ultimate Zone Rating (UZR), devised by Lichtman, is considered by many in this pursuit to be as close to a Grail-safe system as baseball has seen. To some extent, it is a victim of its own success -- it led to the Cardinals hiring Lichtman, and removing his data from publication -- and the mechanics of the system are complicated enough to defy easy imitation.