BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: WCBS: Allard: Q&A with Sabermetrician Matthew Frank

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

WCBS: Allard: Q&A with Sabermetrician Matthew Frank

Interview with Matthew Frank of nyyfans.

Who are your sabermetric influences? Bill James? Eric Walker? Earnshaw Cook?

First, my background is in research and statistical methods, and I have actively worked to develop my own statistical framework to analyze baseball. However, it is absolutely a fact that if James and others hadn’t done a lot of the leg work to develop such things as runs created stats, win-shares, ERA+ etc, the field of sabermetrics wouldn’t be what it is today. And almost certainly I wouldn’t have the advantage, indeed luxury, of following in the footsteps of some major contributors to understanding baseball with a richer statistical perspective than the one that existed for much of the Twentieth Century, without James’ and other people’s contributions.

Essentially, I have found James’ work a great starting point to fine-tune and even further elaborate his contributions. Stats I’ve introduced like CR+ (created runs plus), DERA (defensive independent ERA+) and MDERA (minor league equivalent defensive independent ERA+) are all variations on work that James began long ago. I hope any small contribution that I have added to his and other people’s work, is useful for consumers of baseball statistics.

Repoz Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:09 PM | 61 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. AROM Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:48 PM (#2607882)

After reading this I can't take him seriously as a sabermetrician.

Just a Yankee fanboy who like to play with numbers and is able to dress it up with professor speak.

You can say the same about me and the Angels (apart from me not being a professor) but I have never claimed Jered Weaver would have a career 150 ERA+, at least not with a straight face.

2. Kyle S Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:50 PM (#2607884)

Is this guy well known in yankee blogdom? I've never heard of him.

Love this quote:

For Hughes I expect his career ERA+ to exceed 150. I am well aware that the number of pitchers who have produced careers like that can be counted on a mutilated hand. That doesn’t change the projection. What could change the projection is if Hughes doesn’t produce ERA+ as good or better than he did those minor league equivalents.

Here's the career ERA+ leaderboard according to BBref:

1. Pedro Martinez (35) 161 R

2. Lefty Grove+*......  148 L

3. Walter Johnson+.... 147 R

4. Dan Quisenberry.... 146 R

4. Ed Walsh+.......... 146 R

4. Hoyt Wilhelm+...... 146 R

4. Joe Wood........... 146 R

8. Brandon Webb (28).. 144 R

9. Roger Clemens (44). 143 R

9. Roy Oswalt (29).... 143 R

Either Frank expects Hughes to become an elite reliever, or else he's extrapolating Pedro Martinez's career out of three good minor league seasons. Now who knows, Hughes may indeed go on to have a career like that, but to expect it is dumber than expecting Ted Kennedy to be elected president in 2008. Frank may be a very smart fellow, but to make pie-in-the-sky fanboy projections like that does himself a grave disservice IMHO.

3. bibigon Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:52 PM (#2607888)

Are these numbers cubically transformed perhaps?

4. Mike Emeigh

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:53 PM (#2607889)

What could change the projection is if Hughes doesn’t produce ERA+ as good or better than he did those minor league equivalents.

Translation:

"I project that Hughes will pitch well. My projection won't change unless he doesn't pitch well."

Sheesh.

-- MWE

5. bibigon Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:54 PM (#2607890)

Essentially, I have found James’ work a great starting point to fine-tune and even further elaborate his contributions. Stats I’ve introduced like CR+ (created runs plus), DERA (defensive independent ERA+) and MDERA (minor league equivalent defensive independent ERA+) are all variations on work that James began long ago. I hope any small contribution that I have added to his and other people’s work, is useful for consumers of baseball statistics.

Is he claiming to have invented DERA?

6. Kyle S Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:55 PM (#2607894)

I think he's claiming to have invented DERA+, which he calls DERA.

7. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:56 PM (#2607896)

What could change the projection is if Hughes doesn’t produce ERA+ as good or better than he did those minor league equivalents

I expected LeBron James to average 40 points a game in the NBA, but he didn't live up to his high-school equivalents.

8. AROM Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:57 PM (#2607901)

Hughes has been great in the minors, but my guess is if you search the Baseball Cube (minor league stats back to 1979) long enough you can find 100-200 minor leaguers who were similarly dominant, and probably less than half had any length of a career as an above average MLB starter.

9. AROM Posted: November 07, 2007 at 04:59 PM (#2607907)

Stats I’ve introduced like CR+ (created runs plus),

When I see things like this, all I can say is "why?" On so many levels.

10. Chris Dial Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:00 PM (#2607908)

I guess he's not familiar with TINSTAAPP.

11. Dan Szymborski

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:00 PM (#2607909)

If he has Duncan's 329/554 as similar to his MLEs, I'm guessing he hasn't updated translation factors from the original version of MLEs.

12. bibigon Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:02 PM (#2607911)

Oh! These numbers are cubically transformed...

This guy made quite a name for himself on NYYFans.com and SoSH. He at various times projected Hughes, Betances, Joba, and someone else to put up career ERA+s in the 130-150 range, and peaks exceeding Koufax.

13. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:10 PM (#2607933)

His threads on nyyfans.com are glorious trainwrecks. He does not post on SoSH. We make fun of him extensively on SoSH (glass houses, I know).

His projections are utter garbage. He is a fanboy dressed up in mathematicians' clothes.

You couldn't even project Pedro to have Pedro's career, never mind Hughes or anyone else.

14. bibigon Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:16 PM (#2607943)

His threads on nyyfans.com are glorious trainwrecks. He does not post on SoSH. We make fun of him extensively on SoSH (glass houses, I know).

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest he did. I just meant on the "Making fun of NYYFans" thread, he made quite a name for himself.

15. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:16 PM (#2607944)

I’m excited about the futures of Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes. Who isn’t? But please tell us – in layman’s terms – why you think they will post a 150+ ERA?

First it is useful to picture any statistical projection as one looking through an aperture (the aperture width and direction is set by the current conditions of interest - more positive indicators tilt the aperture ever so slightly above the horizontal). Close by the aperture (in the near future) the range of possible outcomes seems fairly narrow, but the farther away one looks the extreme ranges that represent all possibilities get much wider apart. Imagine that the wider range indicates that in the future, farther into the future, it becomes more likely that given the current vantage point (aperture setting), it is still reasonable to envision very positive outcomes (seen at the top-most edges of the range), and it is possible to see an ever wider range of possibilities that will leave the outcome grounded (poor outcomes).

O RLY?

That clears things up nicely.

16. Kyle S Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:20 PM (#2607952)

So, his argument is that Chamberlain and Hughes *could* post career ERA+s of, say, 500. But those are brought back to earth by more middling projections, leaving the rational expectation for them as being the second and third best pitchers of all time on a rate basis, respectively.

17. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:24 PM (#2607960)

You have to admit, this was fun. I like when dumb things are said in intellectual-speak. I should, as it's my modus operandi.

18. AROM Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:29 PM (#2607968)

If he has Duncan's 329/554 as similar to his MLEs, I'm guessing he hasn't updated translation factors from the original version of MLEs.

I've got Duncan's MLB debut as very simlar to his 2007 MLE. Its just that Duncan has naver hit close to this good in the past.

19. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2607969)

The sad thing for him is that Hughes' minor league numbers are good enough to "merely" expect him to be one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. To take that really exciting possibility and to extrapolate it into the second best ERA+ of all time for the entirely of his future career simply distracts from Hughes' very good possible career arc.

20. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:31 PM (#2607972)

I remember him from NYYFans.com. He was and is a clown.

21. pkb33 Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:34 PM (#2607977)

I predict Hughes will have a less impressive career than is projected by Matthew Frank.

I like to go out on a limb like that sometimes.

22. Mike Emeigh

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2607980)

He was and is a clown.

Matthew Frank. Michael Hoban. Hmmm....seven letter first names beginning with M, five-letter last names, both professors....hmmmm.

-- MWE

Good thing my last name has six letters - and I'm not a professor.

23. I can't believe we're playing Francoeur(KevinHess) Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:36 PM (#2607981)

I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

/I don't know anything, but that's apparently more than he knows.

24. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:38 PM (#2607985)

And, just to clarify, he was viewed as a crazy person on NYYFans as well.

25. greenback

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:44 PM (#2607994)

Doesn't your view of him depend on the appropriate aperture?

26. bibigon Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:45 PM (#2607999)

And, just to clarify, he was viewed as a crazy person on NYYFans as well.

He had more than a few devotees. Granted after Hughes didn't pitch like the second coming, there were fewer, but they still remain even today.

27. jimmybob Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:50 PM (#2608008)

I recall him spouting that Gardner was a better prospect than Ellsbury on nyyfans. No one really questioned him on it either.

28. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:53 PM (#2608018)

bib, your memory might be different than mine, but I remember him making his proclamations about "The Royal Flush" and people questioning a.) his methodology and b.) his sensibility. He provided no response to b, but said that he would roll about his methodology when the time came to do so he did it in a roundabout way that raised more ire and people were generally pissed at him. There were people that may have bought some portion of his conclusions i.e. Hughes is going to be tremendous or that Steven Jackson is going to be better than Tyler Clippard (which was a big debate at the time, actually), but no one sat there and said "you know what, this guy is right, and I'm going to side with his opinions." The one thing I will say to his credit is that whatever his awful methodology is, he sticks with it, so at least he's consistent. I really don't remember anyone doing anything that could lead you to call them a "devotee" of his. His "Royal Flush" thing was seen as a big joke, on the whole, and his views on Pedro Martinez were perhaps an even bigger joke.

29. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:56 PM (#2608030)

I recall him spouting that Gardner was a better prospect than Ellsbury on nyyfans. No one really questioned him on it either.

Again, this might be because I haven't been back to that site in like 6 months, but...I think his view was that there wasn't much difference between Gardner and Ellsbury, which not a lot of people questioned and I wouldn't really expect that. I think on any team-specific thing you have to expect some bit of homerism and to leave Gardner vs. Ellsbury unquestioned falls within reasonable CFBPS variance.

30. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: November 07, 2007 at 05:58 PM (#2608036)

He also says in his 2008 prediction thread on nyyfans that Hughes and Joba will both exceed 140 ERA+ in 2008 while pitching in the rotation all season long. This would make both of them, in their first full years in the majors, roughly equivalent to Sabathia, Beckett, or Bedard.

Ye gods.

31. Mike Green Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2608042)

" He was and is a clown.

Matthew Frank. Michael Hoban. Hmmm....seven letter first names beginning with M, five-letter last names, both professors....hmmmm."

I am not, and have never been, a professor.

32. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:04 PM (#2608043)

Maybe he'll collaborate with Cyril Morong.

33. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2608050)

in the future, farther into the future, it becomes more likely that given the current vantage point (aperture setting), it is still reasonable to envision very positive outcomes (seen at the top-most edges of the range), and it is possible to see an ever wider range of possibilities that will leave the outcome grounded (poor outcomes)

REPLY HAZY TRY AGAIN

34. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2608068)

Can anyone find this guy on the web? I can't. A "professor at a New York college" should be easily found.

35. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:15 PM (#2608071)

He's a Lecturer at Ithaca College.

36. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:16 PM (#2608072)

Matthew Frank. Michael Hoban. Hmmm....seven letter first names beginning with M, five-letter last names, both professors....hmmmm.

Mark Garber?

37. Melo's Love Handles (NJ) Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:18 PM (#2608077)

He's a lecturer at Ithaca College.

EDIT: Beaten to the punch.

38. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:20 PM (#2608083)

my googlin stinks. thanks.

39. AROM Posted: November 07, 2007 at 06:58 PM (#2608172)

I think his view was that there wasn't much difference between Gardner and Ellsbury

In 2006 there wasn't. Same age, same leagues (FSL and Eastern), both with great speed. Ellsbury hit 303/382/425 and Gardner hit 298/395/370. Not much value difference at all, though Ellsbury should have had a slight edge. For future development, looks like Gardner suffered the classic problem faced by many players who have no power at all - they fall off more than usual moving up levels. Ellsbury has just enough power to keep pitchers honest.

40. Umpsicle Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:04 PM (#2608182)

His method -- at least as presented to date -- gets analyzed closely by poster Munson's Stache on nyyfans.com: http://forums.nyyfans.com/showthread.php?t=103873. It's a pretty damning review, which I guess is no surprise. He's still sly about "cubic transformation" part, which seems to open his results up to some serious distortions because of the non-linear manipulations.

His statement on the future of Yankee prospects (http://forums.nyyfans.com/showpost.php?p=3791002&postcount=187):

Here are my projected ERA+ for each pitcher during his prime period (26-33 years old):

Hughes (175)/Wang (130)/Sanchez (140)/Joba (145)/Betances (185)

I think at the time of the "projection" Betances had thrown 20-something innings in the GCL.

41. pkb33 Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:21 PM (#2608208)

42. CrosbyBird Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:23 PM (#2608209)

I am well aware that the number of pitchers who have produced careers like that can be counted on a mutilated hand.

A lot of Mordecai Brown references these days.

Fantastic line from his wiki page:

Between Brown and Antonio Alfonseca, the Cubs are probably the only team to have featured both a three-fingered pitcher and a six-fingered pitcher on their all-time roster.

43. Mike Emeigh

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:34 PM (#2608220)

He's a lecturer at Ithaca College.

...which means that he's not tenured, and that he's not a professor (yet).

I am not, and have never been, a professor.

I knew you had at least one redeeming quality :)

Seriously, there is a lot of high-quality research being done by academic professionals out there; this isn't an example of it, though.

-- MWE

44. Mike Emeigh

Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:36 PM (#2608224)

He's still sly about "cubic transformation" part, which seems to open his results up to some serious distortions because of the non-linear manipulations.

This sounds a lot like the old "then a miracle occurs" joke about software design.

-- MWE

45. Chris Dial Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:38 PM (#2608229)

His projections are utter garbage. He is a fanboy dressed up in mathematicians' clothes.

He's Eric Van?

46. Moe Greene Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:55 PM (#2608248)

His projections are utter garbage. He is a fanboy dressed up in mathematicians' clothes.

He's Eric Van?

Yes... Eric Van & his dad came up with this shtick years ago.

47. AROM Posted: November 07, 2007 at 07:56 PM (#2608249)

This sounds a lot like the old "then a miracle occurs" joke about software design.

Or the underpants Gnomes:

1. Collect 19-22 year old pitchers who succeed in the minors.
2. ???
3. Profit!

48. Kyle S Posted: November 07, 2007 at 08:46 PM (#2608337)

from Phil Hughes' bbref page, check out the ad:

Buchholz2.50 sponsor(s) this page.

Will be cubically transformed soon. Sincerely, The Fans of Phil Hughes's favorite baseball team; the Red Sox and their fans at SoSH.

Too funny.

49. BosoxBob Posted: November 07, 2007 at 09:53 PM (#2608457)

Frank, in using his "aperture" analogy, essentially claims that the consistency of Hughes' past MLEs have determine the direction of the aperture, i.e. determined his career projection of an ERA+ greater than 150. And yet Frank himself indicates that Hughes' MLEs from 2004-06 resulted in ERA+ values around 130. So why isn't the "aperture" pointed towards a 130 ERA+ instead of 150? I can only guess it has something to do with the stats he presented indicating that Hughes had an ERA+ over 160 during September and October. If changing a career projection 20 points worth of ERA+ based on 35 innings of work isn't cherry picking, then I don't know what is...

50. PreservedFish Posted: November 07, 2007 at 10:10 PM (#2608487)

This is fascinating. This man was born with some level of intelligence but is, in matters of common sense, even when relating to intellectual pursuits, a jackass. Do you think that it is genetic? Do we have a common sense gene? Of course there are also many people that are unintelligent by most criteria but are extremely wise and reasonable. I hope somebody has studied this.

51. AROM Posted: November 07, 2007 at 10:30 PM (#2608518)

That seems a little harsh. I wonder how bad I'd look if I tried to describe my sabermetric projects in a one page interview. There would probably be a ton of things left out for the sake of brevity, then somebody comes and reads it and plays gotcha.

The projections mentioned on Mussina and Clemens are probably right in line with what other people had. He just seems to be in over his head when it comes to young pitchers, and from his comments has no idea how far.

52. PreservedFish Posted: November 07, 2007 at 10:40 PM (#2608540)

Not harsh. He's a jackass.

53. Flynn Posted: November 07, 2007 at 10:59 PM (#2608570)

What PF said. He's a fairly prolific internet poster and his posts are just as loaded with BS as this interview.

He's Eric Van?

EV has the self-aggrandizement down pat, and has put out some pretty outrageous stuff (Varitek's circadian rhythms), but unless my EV filter has been working unusually well, I don't remember anything quite as eye-rollingly stupid as this.

54. bibigon Posted: November 08, 2007 at 12:56 AM (#2608694)

EV has the self-aggrandizement down pat, and has put out some pretty outrageous stuff (Varitek's circadian rhythms), but unless my EV filter has been working unusually well, I don't remember anything quite as eye-rollingly stupid as this.

From SoSH

Some Lugo projections:

Conservative:
.311 / .378 / .456

If he actually does hits better 1st and 2nd than down in the order, as opposed to the observed difference being random:
.316 / .379 / .473

55. Teheran's Uranium Enriched Missiles Posted: November 08, 2007 at 12:59 AM (#2608698)

Who was the guy who predicted Crisp was going to go all Ted Williams on the league after his trade from the Indians?

56. Munsons Stash Posted: November 09, 2007 at 05:41 PM (#2610412)

He might have a leg to stand on if he would answer any of the criticisms directed against his "work." I wrote a lengthy critique on NYYFans.com (in the sabermetric forum, basically a step by step analysis of what everyone here already knows) and was told that unless I PM'd him my academic credentials he would not be able to answer my questions.

He's the sort of guy who gives legitimate sabermetrics a very bad name.

Edit: at least Eric Van is (kind of) willing to own up to being wrong. Ol Perfesser here just disappears for awhile and comes back saying the same thing.

57. Dan Szymborski

Posted: November 09, 2007 at 05:52 PM (#2610430)

Ol Perfesser is an econ professor at a mid-Atlantic college, not Frank.

58. Mike Emeigh

Posted: November 09, 2007 at 07:11 PM (#2610513)

I wrote a lengthy critique on NYYFans.com ... and was told that unless I PM'd him my academic credentials he would not be able to answer my questions

I read that critique - very nice piece of work.

There are some academics - thankfully not many IME - who act as though their work can only be understood, and critiqued, by other academics, and that "lay people" can't possibly understand it. My opinion is that if you are researching baseball questions, you should EXPECT "lay people" to criticize your work, especially when your methodology leads you to a conclusion that is hard to justify within the context of baseball history - and you'd better be prepared to take an approach different from "you couldn't possibly understand".

-- MWE

59. Munsons Stash Posted: November 10, 2007 at 08:04 PM (#2611330)

Ol Perfesser is an econ professor at a mid-Atlantic college, not Frank.

Right. I was just indulging in a little flippancy regarding Frank's credentials, not commenting on someone with that screen name here.

60. robinred

Posted: November 10, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2611335)

thankfully not many IME

We already know you are Mike Emeigh. No need to remind us with a new abbreviation.

61. Dan Szymborski

Posted: November 10, 2007 at 08:23 PM (#2611334)

Right. I was just indulging in a little flippancy regarding Frank's credentials, not commenting on someone with that screen name here.

Ah, understood - there's a poster here at times named Ol' Perfessor.

62. The Kids Are Enright (1k5v3L)

Posted: November 10, 2007 at 08:53 PM (#2611344)

Here are my projected ERA+ for each pitcher during his prime period (26-33 years old):

Hughes (175)/Wang (130)/Sanchez (140)/Joba (145)/Betances (185)

Steroids.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

WCBS: Allard: Q&A with Sabermetrician Matthew Frank

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics