05 April 2010

Noah Webster and the Red "Sox"

from Stanford.edu


Have you ever wondered why the Red Sox are the "Red Sox" instead of the "Red Socks"? I'm sure you have because you've also probably wondered about what to call a singular player on the team. Is he a "Red Sox" or a "Red Sock"? Well, I have some answers for you.

Noah Webster was born in Connecticut in 1758, and while attending Yale, he also fought in the American Revolutionary War. Unable to initially afford law school, Webster became a teacher, and these years as a teacher greatly influenced his life and American history.

You see, after fighting in a war with Britain to gain independence from Britain, the United States has never really been "independent" of Britain. Once the country gained its independence, it still needed all sorts of things from Britain -- manufactured goods, spices (from the rest of the British Empire), a stable banking system, etc. The US could never really separate itself from the strongest country in the world, and the fledgling country even benefited from the connection.

There was still quite a bit of resentment, however. The US longed to make itself a separate identity, and one of those areas became the English language. While teaching, Webster hated the American school system. It was overcrowded, underfunded, and, worst of all, it used British textbooks. His initial book, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, was a three-volume text published in 1783 that included, of course, the first American dictionary called the Blue-backed Speller (the colloquial term anyway; it underwent about 400 name changes). Instead of a traditional dictionary as we understand it, this was more of a textbook, teaching students the basics of spelling and its general rules.

Webster began writing a dictionary, as we understand it today, in 1807, and it would take him 27 years to complete. It would become The American Dictionary of the English Language, and the title was key. Webster wanted the American English language to differentiate itself from British English. Why this was is up for some debate. Was it because the English spelling rules were too complex? Or did Webster hold a grudge against the British and wanted an "American" language? I'm not qualified to answer that, but the end result is the same -- the language changed.

You ever wonder why we spell "color" instead of "colour"? "Wagon" instead of "waggon"? "Center" instead of "centre"? Well, you can thank Mr. Webster.

But what does this have to do with the Red Sox? He died in 1843, and most people didn't even know who he was at that time in history (I doubt most people know who he is today). Ah, but here's where you need to know a little more US history. For as much as this country is known as the "Land of the Free" and as a melting pot (it's more of a tossed salad if you ask me), it's had a strange and evolving definition of who is "free" and who gets melted into the pot. Nativist movements (xenophobic movements) have been a large part of American history. Just 11 short years after the Constitutional Congress of 1787, John Adams proclaimed the Alien and Sedition Acts in part to prevent French influence at the start of the French Revolution (which we sparked, by the way). The mid-1800s saw the Know Nothings who were alarmed at the amount of German and Irish Catholics immigrating to the country. And the late 19th century was riddled with immigration restrictions that tried to prevent "undesirables" (religious, political, and economic radicals or Asians, mainly Chinese) from gaining entrance to the country. What this did was foment the idea of being "American" and making an American identity. So again, how does this pertain to the Red Sox?

Well, the "patriotic" movement spread to all parts of society, and because language is a powerful tool for any government and a common thing which everyone uses, Webster's ideas resurfaced. People began shortening words in order to a) make them easier to spell, to b) further differentiate American English from British English (also spoken by those terrible Irish Catholics), and to c) utilize in propoganda. The actual transformation of the word "socks" to "sox" is difficult to pinpoint, but when the John Taylor (owner of the Red Sox) named the team in 1907, he called it the Red Sox to shorten the colloquial "Red Stockings" name for the team. "Sox" was simply the spelling that had become common at this point in time.

The spelling campaign, and many other nativist movements, began to die down after WWI. The country was tired of fighting and just wanted peace, and any "undesirables" just assimilated to avoid the chaos of the 1910s. Over time, the spelling of "sox" reverted back to "socks", but by the time it did, the Red Sox and White Sox weren't going to change their names. Funny enough, I think the reversion had to do with one of the first questions I asked at the beginning, though not specifically (it probably had nothing to do with the baseball team, just a word inside the nickname). What is a singular player on the "Red Sox" called? 

Red Sox or Red Socks, the grammatically correct way is to call him a "Red Sock"




I would like to thank this article from Slade. It was very helpful, but I thought it left some things out that I brought in here. This article was spawned by the very fun HBT chat and my roommate asking the big question.

04 April 2010

Rockies and 'Past Prejudice'

 from Denver Times


I try to be fair, and I try to take my feelings out of analysis as much as I can. Unfortunately, this isn't entirely possible. As much as anyone might try, our subconscious plays tricks on us, and because it's our "sub"conscious, it takes a bit of introspection to find our inner thoughts or motives. When one finds that one might have been a bit unfair (or wholly unfair), one should then try to address it. That's what I'm here to do.

I wrote my NL Predictions post, and Bill took exception to my Rockies pick. This is fine. I welcome comments, be them criticism or praise (especially perfectly sensible ones like Bill's), but his comment stuck out to me for some reason. Why? I wasn't sure at first, but it bugged me a bit. I thought about it, and I thought about my general perception about the Rockies.

After making the playoffs as the initial NL Wild Card team in 1995, they've only made 2 more playoff appearances (2007 and 2009). Traditionally, they're not a very good team. Of course, we shouldn't use a team's past reputation against them (You have to a bit, but saying they won't make the playoffs because they've only made 3 out of the last 15 is a bad reason), but I wonder how much that hurt them in my prediction of them. The Rockies seem to be a trendy pick for the NL West crown, and the projection systems also seem to like them. Why don't I (granted, I'd give them 85 wins, but most people like them for about 90 or so)? Was my prediction based on past prejudice?

Offensively, this team scored 804 runs last season (good for second, which actually surprised me a bit), and they even rid themselves of some dead weight in Garrett Atkins. Ian Stewart, Atkins' replacement, should improve based on his .270 BABIP. Chris Ianetta should as well and for the same reason (.245 BABIP). Dexter Fowler's production might have been a bit high, but his .351 BABIP wasn't out of line with his minor-league numbers. I might expect Todd Helton and Brad Hawpe's production to slip a bit, but their decline might not be too bad. And Troy Tulowitzki is just amazing. All in all, they shouldn't slip too much offensively, though PECOTA gives them 20 less runs.

Starting pitching doesn't usually come to mind when one thinks of the Rockies, but last year, they were decent (8th of 16). Ubaldo Jimenez is a stud, and he should do roughly what he did last season and the season before. But the rest of the rotation is a bit sketchy for me, and here's my main criticism of the team. Jorge de la Rosa (3.91 FIP) was better than he appeared for the second straight season, and Jason Hammel also had chance go against him (3.71 FIP). With those FIPs, their results should be better this season, right? I'm not so sure, and Aaron Cook is my main example (something about having one example should warn you, shouldn't it?). After a 3.76 FIP 2008, Cook slipped back into his mid-4s ways in 2009. I'm not here to discredit what de la Rosa and Hammel did last season, but I question their ability to repeat their performance this season. Hammel's FIP has been in the low-5s in his 170+ innings over three seasons, and de la Rosa has only done so well in one other season but only in 130 innings (2008). Can they repeat their 2009s in 2010? Sure, but I wouldn't count on it.

But why wouldn't I count on it? The statistical evidence states that they were legit, but every projection also has them going backwards this season. But here's my question -- why? Am I basing my analysis on what I want the Rockies to do (not in the least because they might be the Braves' main competition for the Wild Card)? Do Bill James, the Fans, and I underestimate Rockies pitchers because Rockies pitchers are usually bad, and therefore, 2009 was a fluke? Do the projection systems, who are supposedly more "objective" but are harsher than James or the Fans, hate them because of the same biases? Could the projection systems include the Coors Effect even though the humidifier seems to have helped? Do we prejudice our analysis (make up our minds beforehand) on their past results? And do other people overcorrect and give them more credit than they deserve because they want to believe in Rockies pitchers because no one else seems to want to?

Or do I give de la Rosa less credit because his career has been a bit odd? Do I not see progression in Hammel because he's an older player and not a hot-shot prospect? Is it the particular person? Is it their relative obscurity? Is it because they aren't flashy enough?

I don't know the answers to these questions, and even after the season, the only question we'll have the answer to is if I underestimated them. But I'll maintain that I'm not convinced that the Rockies are that good. I didn't include the bullpen, but will it be better than last year (13th of 16)? I didn't include the defense, but will it be better than 11th of 16 like it was last season?

But here's the thing. The Rockies won 92 games last season, and unless one thinks they will drastically decline, they should win 92 games again, right? Well, their expected win total was only 90 wins, and I expect that Hammel and de la Rosa will lose a win together. That's 89. But who will take over for Jason Marquis' 3.8 wins? Jeff Francis? Are you really going to count on a guy coming off a major surgery who is on the DL to start the year? 3 wins less, and we sit around 86, or PECOTA's projection. 

Although this exercise didn't change my mind, was this still useful? You bet. I'll admit that my predictions may have been based more on my perception of the Rockies than an actual analysis of their talent because I didn't go through this much trouble the first time. The idea isn't to be perfect every time, but once you figure out the problem, you should work to correct it. And I'll try to do that. If I have an initial "feeling" about a team, I'll try to look at the supporting evidence -- statistics -- to back me up. And it's up to you to call me out whenever you see it. 

I don't think Bill meant to call me out on this, specifically, but he saw an inconsistency in his analysis and mine and sought to find out why. While trying to answer his question, I stumbled upon another and ended here. I'm all the better for it, and I hope that I'm not the only one who's learned something from this. Keep asking questions. It makes us responsible for our answers.

01 April 2010

NL Predictions

 from MLBlogs


Predictions don't really mean anything. You really can't predict injuries, breakouts, breakdowns, etc., but I like making them anyway. It's a fun exercise. What do you think is going to happen? What actually happens? We always have excellent reasons for why we think something is going to happen, but we're usually dead wrong. This is just an exercise. Feel free to disagree with me, but please realize that you're just as likely to be wrong as I am.

NL East
Philadelphia Phillies --> I'm a Braves fan by trade, but even I can't come up with a reason the Phillies will lose the division. The offense might be better than that of the Yankees, and the defense is pretty good all the way around, as well. The starting rotation looks swell, and the Lee trade looks better by the strained abdomen (though it still doesn't make much sense that they made that trade). The bullpen should be fine, and I wouldn't bet on Lidge being that bad again. All around, this looks like a good team with the bullpen appearing to be the only real threat to collapse. Final Prediction: Chase Utley does enough to deserve the MVP Award and doesn't even come in the top 10 in the voting. Life just isn't fair.

Atlanta Braves (WC) --> I'm a Braves fan, so you know I won't have them out of the money. But I don't think this is a stretch, and I pride myself on not being terribly biased. The rotation looks like the best in the National League from 1-5, and the bullpen restocked with the addition of Wagner (I remain unimpressed with Saito, but Wagner will be just fine). The defense should improve, especially in the outfield, but it probably will be middle of the pack, at best. Offensively, there isn't too much pop, but there's a decent chance that Chipper, Glaus, McCann and Heyward hit 25+ bombs. Final Prediction: Bobby is ejected 9 times during the season.

New York Mets --> The offense comes alive again, but much like the Indians, there just isn't enough pitching to get them anywhere. The bullpen should be fairly good, and although they're misusing Mejia, that doesn't change the fact that he can be effective as a reliever. They could make a run if all goes well, but they don't have much wiggle room. Final Prediction: Jerry Manuel rips off his shirt in an effort to motivate his players, and they just laugh at the white, wispy, and uneven hairs.

Florida Marlins --> They should have a good offense (at least until Uggla is traded), but I'm not terribly excited by the defense. As for the pitching staff, they have a nice 1-2 punch in Johnson and Nolasco, but I worry about the rest of the rotation. The bullpen may not end up a whole lot better. They're like the Rays in some ways -- tons of potential and youth -- but with less chance of realizing that potential. Final Prediction: Florida doesn't break the 1.5 million attendance mark despite the added payroll.

Washington Nationals --> The offense looks decent. The rotation looks decent. The bullpen looks decent. The defense looks decent. It's just that decent doesn't get it done. Strasburg will make an appearance by June, and he'll give the team some excitement for a few months. That'll be about it. Final Prediction: They won't have the first pick in a supposedly-loaded 2011 draft.

NL Central
St. Louis Cardinals --> They have a helluva 3-4 punch in Pujols and Holliday, and Colby Rasmus is due for a breakout. The rest of the offense is good enough. The starting rotation is a bit top-heavy (there needs to be a snide remark about Brad Penny and the bottom of the rotation), but the bottom is solid enough. I don't really know what to expect from the bullpen, but Franklin will do just fine as the closer. There's really not much other competition in this division. Final Prediction: McGwire and Pujols have a home run derby during a pre-game BP, and McGwire wins.

Cincinnati Reds --> This ought to get me some funny looks. The rotation should be fairly decent, but it won't be better than middle-of-the-pack. The bullpen will probably be a major strength (rip on Cordero's contract if you want, but he is effective). The offense should be due an improvement with a six months of Votto and a better version of Jay Bruce, and the defense could be a major asset. The more I looked at the team, the better I felt about this decision. Final Prediction: Something about Dusty Baker and Mike Leake and Aroldis Chapman's arms falling off.

Chicago Cubs --> Some of their players (Zambrano and Soto) will rebound, but some of them just aren't that healthy anymore (Soriano and Ramirez). Unfortunately, they need everyone to make a run at this. There are just too many questions in the rotation, bullpen, and offense to accurately assess this team. Final Prediction: Soto wins Comeback Player of the Year Award but doesn't make the All-Star team. It happens.

Milwaukee Brewers --> I've seen way too many stories about how "nasty" the Brewers rotation can be. While I agree, it's not the compliment that the journalists usually mean. The bullpen may not be any better, especially when Trevor Hoffman loses his invincibility. Luckily, the offense and defense will be helpful, but they just aren't deep enough to get much done. Final Prediction: Rickie Weeks plays in a career-high number of games.

Houston Astros --> I bet they make things interesting at some point because they always seem to. There isn't much to like beyond Oswalt, Rodriguez, Lee, Berkman, Bourne, and Pence, but there's an awful lot of money tied into those guys. Everything else is iffy at best, and there is no help coming up the pipeline. If one or more of those guys goes down, the team might cross the 70-win threshold the wrong way. Final Prediction: There will be all sorts of stories about Brad Mills and teaching the "Red Sox way". That's fine and all, but it won't make a bit of difference.

Pittsburgh Pirates --> Just wait a little longer Pirates fans. I like what Neil Huntington has done, but it's going to take another season. Nothing looks special, and most of the team looks less than so. The fans won't like it, but this is progress. Final Prediction: Huntington makes his first major splash by jumping in on one of the major free-agent starters in the off-season. You heard it here first.

NL West
Los Angeles Dodgers --> The offense should be just fine as there hasn't been a major turnover, and there's more upside than down. I imagine the bullpen will remain stellar and with incredible depth. Critics seem to hate the rotation, but I don't know what the problem is. Kershaw hasn't lost anything, Billingsley had a rough second half but he's still incredibly talented, Kuroda should be solid, and Padilla could be league-average. There's still a lot to like about this team. Final Prediction: They win the division by the largest margin of any division champion.

Colorado Rockies --> Their spot here is more about how bad the rest of the division is than how good the Rockies are. I expect the rotation to give a lot back, and I don't think the bullpen will be much better. I'm also not incredibly sure how many runs they are going to score, but the defense should be good enough to save some. I just don't see it. Final Prediction: They narrowly eclipse the .500 mark.

Arizona Diamondbacks --> I'm tired of believing in this team. Of course, that means they'll actually come through this season. I like Haren, but I remained unconvinced that Webb and Jackson will be healthy and effective, respectively, all season. The bullpen will probably be a strength, but usually, that's the last thing you worry about. At this point, the "young D-Backs" aren't really young anymore, and they are who they are. And they just aren't that good. Final Prediction: Adam LaRoche and Kelly Johnson's WAR won't combine to equal Justin Upton's.

San Francisco Giants --> Well at least they have Lincecum and the Panda. After just getting an extension, Cain will also start to give up more runs, and the rest of the rotation won't really pan out all that well. It's too bad because the offense isn't going to be good enough to carry the team. It's Lincecum, Cain and pray for rain and an offense. Final Prediction: Lincecum pitches extremely well again, but he'll fall by the wayside this time because the Giants just won't be any good.

San Diego Padres --> I actually think the Padres could end up being better than the Giants, but I just don't have the stones to put them any higher up. Gonzalez, Blanks, and Headley could make for an interesting offense, but I doubt they'll score very much. The rotation should improve fairly dramatically, and the bullpen will be pretty good. They're moving up in the world, just not very far. Final Prediction: Adrian Gonzalez and Heath Bell remain Padres through the season. Just a hunch.

MVP --> Just don't bet against Albert Pujols. You're just throwing money away.

Cy Young --> I hate saying it, but I think this is the year Halladay finally gets his due.

Rookie of the Year --> I didn't want to choose Heyward, but I can't think of a good reason not to take him.