• Last year’s Triple Crown winner and AL MVP, Miguel Cabrera, retains the top spot based on total production.  He’s followed by Chris Davis, Joey Votto, Carlos Gonzalez, and Paul Goldschmidt.  David Ortiz and Troy Tulowitzki, who have both missed time this year with injuries round out the top ten in total production, though their yearly production numbers would have them both near the top.  Though the leader in yearly production at this point is a little guy named Yasiel Puig.  While his total production of 264 is limited by a small number of plate appearances, his yearly production of 1679 is the best in the league.  Even better than Miguel Cabrera’s 1643.  At this point I am obligated to say “small sample size”.  Not quite as dramatic, but still very impressive is Jose Iglesias who is currently ranked 80th in total production with 351, but his yearly production is a Puig-like 1536.  It’ll be interesting to see how these guys finish at the end of the year.

    Cheers.

    Updated June 27, 2013 at 12:34 am.

    Yearly Production for a player is the approximate number of runs a team would score if the entire lineup consisted of the same player.

    Total Production is weighted by the number of plate appearances.

     
     Rank Player Total Production Yearly Production
    1 MiguelCabrera 1054 1643
    2 ChrisDavis 873 1481
    3 JoeyVotto 829 1270
    4 CarlosGonzalez 709 1142
    5 PaulGoldschmidt 672 1126
    6 MikeTrout 651 988
    7 EvanLongoria 641 1029
    8 JoeMauer 623 1044
    9 DavidOrtiz 617 1273
    10 TroyTulowitzki 607 1325
    11 DavidWright 586 1010
    12 EdwinEncarnacion 586 946
    13 Shin-SooChoo 564 906
    14 JoshDonaldson 539 898
    15 JayBruce 523 824
    16 MattCarpenter 520 852
    17 PrinceFielder 513 834
    18 RobinsonCano 512 847
    19 YadierMolina 510 933
    20 DustinPedroia 510 788
    21 JeanSegura 508 873
    22 MichaelCuddyer 494 1091
    23 BusterPosey 494 908
    24 CarlosBeltran 492 919
    25 GerardoParra 491 791

    Full Rankings

  • This is part 3 of a series about Nick Cafardo written by guest poster Tim.  You may also want to read Part 1 and Part 2 .

    So, I’m back with another Ask Nick. I took some time off because Nick Cafardo made me want to have part of face surgically removed (THAT’S AN IN-JOKE… kinda). This column, from like a week ago, actually does feature a couple questions that he answers appropriately, so I cut them. They’re boring and I’ve given him credit. But it also features Cafardo’s classic lazy pontificating, failure to answer actual questions and everyone’s favorite game “Let Nick play Team Physician!” where he does even worse than in “Let Nick play GM!” Also, while I normally skip the intro, I do not this time, babycakes.

    (As ever,  your key to the world of this post- People bold enough to ask Nick a questions- BOLD. A professional idiot with an Italian last name- ITALIC. A humble guy who thinks he’s much smarter than a professional idiot- NORMAL. I, as ever, also  hat tip Fire Joe Morgan and pray one day I get an email from Ken Tremendous)

    Hey, what happened to all of you “stop touting Jose Iglesias” readers?

    Miss you guys. Seem a little quiet now. No worries, it’s a long season and I’m sure I’ll hear from you again.

    Oh Nick, there are some people who still saying Iglesias is a horrible hitter and that his numbers are the product of some ridiculously lucky and totally unsustainable outcomes. I suppose it’s not your fault you don’t pay attention to things connected with analysis, intelligence, or, you know, thinking.

    Drew has played a good shortstop, but Iglesias would have scooped up some balls that Drew can’t get to and created outs.

    Drew has played a good shortstop. It was Rey Ordóñez in Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball on N64.

    Seriously, because if you go to Drew’s fielding stats (as of 6/25/13) on Fangraphs, Drew in 544.1 innings at short has made 27 plays out of his zone (an average of one play ever other game) and Iglesias in 81 innings at short has made 2 (an average of one every five games). Iglesias does have a higher UZR/150 (his is 22.2 versus Drew/s 17.3) but given the number of innings at short, this may be meaningless. The point is, unlike Nick has been implying, Drew hasn’t been a defensive Hack and Iglesias hasn’t really been a defensive wizard who tells balls they shall not pass. But don’t let facts get in the way of Nick trolling his readers.

    Drew could become a trade chip. On June 15, he’s eligible to be traded. Doubt the Red sox do anything that drastic this early. But there are a few teams out there who would love either Drew or Iglesias.

    Let me quote some Nick Cafardo- “Ask Nick” 2/27/13– “…what a ridiculous strategy for a big market team if that’s the case. You build a team in the offseason so you can trade them? … Drew is cheap insurance. They can flip him if Iggy shows the bat, or keep him if Iggy has none. I suppose so. Again, I can’t believe they would build their team hoping they can flip guys at midseason. Holy crow.”
    Holy crow, indeed, Nick.

    The Red Sox look like a team with one ace, a very good offense, and four average starting pitchers. I think a lot of teams would kill for this, and it’s not bad for a rebuilding year, but I have a hard time being confident about the playoffs. Do you think this is a valid concern? And if so, what could a team that doesn’t want to shed any prospects really do?
    Tyler, Charlottesville, Va.
    A valid concern, but nothing to panic about just yet. You want consistency out of Jon Lester and right now he’s not giving you that as the team’s ace going into the season. He certainly got off to an excellent start, but now he’s hitting a bump in the road. The key is to limit the bumpy outings and try to get through them with limited damage. That didn’t happen Tuesday night. At some point, sometime before the trading deadline and depending on how things go for the next month, the Red Sox may be in the market for a starting pitcher.

    You got that? At “some point”, “sometime”, “depending”, the Red Sox “may” want a starter.  Professional baseball man Nick Cafardo, folks.

    As for Lester, he’s hit a bad spot in June- his HR/9 went from .56 in April and May to 3.38 in June, his BB/9 ballooned to 5.48 from 2.63. His BABIP also went from .277 to .379 in June, so maybe it’s bad luck, though his FIP (usually not affected by luck) went from 3.28 to 8.06. So maybe it’s a blip, maybe it’s more? If you look at his velocity charts there are no red flags. It could just be regression from his insane start or something else. Or as Nick says, an inability to limit the bumpy outings.

    Injuries aside, who has been the Red Sox biggest disappointment so far?
    Justin, Fairhaven
    I would say Will Middlebrooks. I know he’s had injuries, but he hasn’t been the dynamic player he was as a rookie. That’s not to say he won’t be, but I figured him to be a middle-of-the-order hitter with power. He’s flashed the power, but he hasn’t had consistent at-bats even when he was healthy early in the season. Plenty of time though.

    I have said this enough, like every time I write about Nick Cafardo but Will Middlebrooks is suffering from what I like to call ‘guy who swings and misses a lot and doesn’t walk syndrome’ (Copyright 2013, me). If Middlebrooks had enough PA’s to qualify for the batting title (he is short by 22 as of 6/25), he’d rank next to Nick Swisher as the 125th (out of 161) most swingin’ and missin’ batter in the majors, with 75.7% contact rate on swings (Dan Uggla is worst at 63.5%, Marco Scutaro the best at 95.5%). Pitchers aren’t even taking advantage of this, as he’s getting 48.3% of his pitches in the zone. His walk rate is a grotesque 4.2%, which would tie him at him 147 with Manny ‘Doubles Machine’ Machado. His K rate is an even grotesquer 27.2%, which would be the thirteenth worst in the big, right behind Ryan Howard and ahead of Rickie Weeks. Except Machado and his bonkers doubles rate, you probably don’t want to be compared to any of those guys in 2013.

    Not to belabor this, but I did a little project. Using the stats for every batter from 2009 through 6/25/13 , I looked at every batting-title-qualified player with 100 wRC+ or higher (essentially every league-average or better hitter over this 4.5 year period) to see where Middlebrooks (career MLB BB/KK .17 and 2013 BB/KK .15) stacks up. The worst BB/K ratio in this period was Chris Johnson, at .20 (the best, FYI was Pujols, at 1.17). That means no player who rates as average or better over that period has a BB/K as poor as Middlebrooks. In fact, if you expand the selection to all players, not just the wRC+ 100+, you find only  Miguel Olivo (.16) has a worse BB/K than Middlebrooks and no one else even ties him.  If you go season-by-season, in 2012 no player was below .18. In 2011, Miguel Olivo and Alex Gonzalez were, at .14 and .17 respectively. In 2010, no one. In 2009, no one. Maybe this means nothing. Maybe Middlebrooks is on the verge of reinventing plate discipline. Or maybe he learns plate discipline.  But that’s what they said about Franceour too…  

    And just as I finish writing this, Will is headed for AAA.

    I know the team is paying Drew a lot of money, but with Iglesias on fire and Middlebrooks coming back, is there a chance he’ll sit and ‘rest’ so the kids can play?
    Brent, Sunnyside, NY
    I think because of the left side competition that John Farrell has opened up between Drew, Middlebrooks and Iglesias, you’d better “skate your wing” or you might be out of a job. I think we all know who the best shortstop is – Iglesias. He may also be their best third baseman. So he has to play. This stuff about playing three or four times a week is nonsense. He needs to be in there regularly because he saves you runs defensively and he’s hitting. I don’t think you’ll ever see a complete benching of Drew, but his time in the field could decrease if he doesn’t become more consistent offensively.

    For the record Iglesias, in 81 innings in 2013 at short, has registered 1 Defensive Run Saved. He has 0 in 176 innings at third this year.  In his career 293.1 innings played defensively, he has 8 Defensive Runs Saved, 7 of which were from his 193.2 innings in 2012. Drew is at 3 DRS  in 2012.  That’s all from Fangraphs. These things can be looked up, Nick. It’s not hard.

    Also, “skate your wing”? I’m not a hockey fan, and I assume this is a hockey phrase. When I googled it, and it pops up only 277 times (this Ask Nick is the #3 hit). My favorite is this Italian-English forum where an Italian woman is asking for help, because a native New Yorker moved to Italy and used the phrase and it perplexed her.  There are some great attempts at cracking the code, all of which are entertaining, my favorite being: “An Internet search yielded a number of refernces [sic] to ‘wing skate’ which appeared to be a type of sailing.” Anyway, I think it means do your job.

    What position players on the current Red Sox roster could pitch in a pinch?
    Rick, Eagan, Minn.
    My candidates would be David Ross, Shane Victorino and Will Middlebrooks. I’m guessing Ross would be the first choice.

    This is based on what, exactly? I mean, really, I would like to know. I can’t even come up with a joke for this. Instead, I have to use a cartoon Victorian gentleman. None of these three players have thrown a pitch in the majors. Middlebrooks and Ross pitched a game in the minors in 2009, but neither recorded an out. Would a team have their backup catcher pitch? The Red Sox have used a backup catcher, but only once: the inimitable Dusty Brown who sounds like he should be playing a 60’s soul revue at the Wolf Den (ESTEBAN IS PLAYING THERE JULY 12!) Anyway, I’m guessing the backup catcher would not be the first choice.

    Also, I’m guessing a Red Sox beat writer for the Boston Globe would be unable to ask Manager John Farrell or Pitching Coach Juan Nieves this innocuous question.

    If the Phillies make Jonathan Papelbon available, can you see the Red Sox make an aggressive bid for him and what players could the Sox move for Papelbon?
    Kyle, Peabody
    Not sure if the Red Sox would go after him. They want to monitor Andrew Bailey over the next month to see if he can truly handle the closer role and if he can remain healthy.

    Ahem.

    The Phillies need to get at least one top positional/pitching prospect. He won’t come cheaply. Probably a three-player package with one top prospect and two pretty good ones, or a current, established player. I’m sure they’d come after Allen Webster, someone who is not far from the big leagues.

    I’m sure the Phillies would probably just want to unload the $30 million plus left on his contract through 2015, not counting a 2016 vesting option that kicks in with 55 games finished in 2015 or 100 in 2014-15 (Papsmear’s career includes a 162 game average of 58 Games Finished). I don’t know any team that would ask for propsects in a salary dump.

    With the Sox looking for relievers, one who seems to be having a good year in Pawtucket is Ryan Rowland-Smith. He is 3-0 with an ERA of.76 and a 29/9 SO to BB ratio. He is not on the 40-man roster, so what’s the scoop?
    Ken, North Kingstown, RI
    I know Gary DiSarcina, the Pawtucket manager, is very high on him. One of the biggest issues here is the 40-man roster and Rowland-Smith isn’t on it, so you’d have to designate someone for assignment in order to create a spot. That’s why you’re seeing only 40-man guys getting recalled.

    You know who else isn’t on the Red Sox 40-man? Everyone that you could possibly trade for. Now, we could talk about the intricacies of 40-man roster management, which players have options, DFAs, outrighting, blah blah blah. Maybe you could talk about detritus on the 40-man, like Steven Wright, the 28 year old quad-A guy with a 4.76 ERA in Pawtucket this year and the idea of DFA’ing him. But naw, not ol’ Nick.

    Why is it that catchers, who see thousands of pitches and motions, are not better hitters?
    Dick, Melrose
    They take a beating behind the plate. It wears them down. Catchers need to spend so much time on their catching skills, that hitting becomes secondary.

    I am tempted to have a snarky comeback and links to the BR page for Piazza and Bench and Berra and Campanella, but you know what? Nick’s actually 100% right. Kudos, Nick.

    Would the Red Sox ever bring up Juan Carlos Linares to the major leagues? What are his stats?
    Bob, Jacksonville, Fla.
    He’s in Double-A Portland, hitting about .240. Never really got the chance to show what he can do. Seems to have good outfield skills and is a decent righthanded hitter, but one of those guys who has slipped through the cracks.

    Slipped through the cracks? Or not-that-good 28 year old in AA… who was demoted from AAA this year.

    What is your assessment of Mike Napoli so far and is there any help at first base down on the farm?
    Dave, Running Springs, Calif.
    He’s played the position much better than I thought he would, but he’s certainly not Adrian Gonzalez or Kevin Youkilis. He’s obviously a power threat and a dangerous hitter. He does strike out a lot, but he’s not someone you want to mess with if you’re an opposing pitcher.

    He is not someone you want to mess with. You also don’t want to mess with Texas. And you also don’t mess with the Zohan.  And based on Napoli’s wRC+ of 113 you don’t mess with Kelly Johnson or Gregor Blanco either.

    Wait, did someone ask about Red Sox first base prospects? No, right? No one asked that, I’m pretty sure.

    In a recent article, you said the Sox pitching coach keeps the bullpen ready to go at all times. What does this mean? How does he do this?
    Robert, Swanson
    Hopefully, the story said the bullpen coach keeps the relievers ready to go. Yes. Dana LeVangie does a nice job. He gets them ready physically by putting together a warmup program of how many fastballs and off-speed pitches the reliever throws before coming in and also goes over the hitters he’s going to face and prepares the reliever. It’s nothing out of the ordinary, except for the fact that relievers respond to him well and value his advice.

    Usually, relievers punch the bullpen coach in the groin whenever he suggests how to warm up, so LeVangie is very unique here.

    Jon Lester doesn’t seem prone to awkward and bizarre injuries like Clay Buchholz. Do you think weight training to build Buchholz up might eliminate these nagging problems without altering his effectiveness?
    David, Aurora, Ohio
    I know he’s had some injuries and Lester hasn’t, but I wouldn’t touch a thing with Buchholz. He’s a tall, lean guy. That’s what he is. I think you’d really be messing with success by altering his body shape. He’s not a power pitcher even though he throws 94. He’s a finesse pitcher who relies on the command of five pitches to baffle the hitter. He’s 9-0, the best pitcher in baseball. I hope the conditioning people stay away from him.

    You’d never, ever want to alter what a guy does physically. Especially a pitcher who has missed significant time, especially with back issues, in parts of each of the last four seasons (you can discount his 24-day DL trip last year, as that was esophagitis. I also don’t recommend you click on this link to a google image search endoscopic views of esophagitis. I warned you).

    Incidentally, 9-0 does not make you the best pitcher in baseball. He’s been terrific, yes, but he also enjoys the 9th best run support in baseball (5.25 runs per game). And let us not forget that Cliff Lee, who ranked 6th in pitcher WAR by Fangraph last year, went 6-9 and didn’t get his first win until July 4. It is a galling fact that morons who believe pitching wins matter actually exist and they are paid to write about baseball (I warn you this link may have one of the most mind-blowing paragraph and worst straw man ever if you value your sanity. You might be better off looking at esophagitis). Not to mention those who even played (I’m sorry, I made myself vomit by linking to that). A 9-0 record for Buccholz means diddly. Adam Wainwright (the actual best pitcher in baseball thus far) has struck out 106 batters and walked 10 in 116.2 innings. He’s given up only four home runs. Voros McCracken (the greatest name in the history of everything) pointed out  https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/rec.sport.baseball.analysis/-fcI-UzLhpY/glpawFj-ULQJ that pitchers control  HRs, Ks and BBs, and not much else. Wainwright is doing a much better job at this than anyone in 2013 (and probably ever). And he’s 10-5. So stuff your wins in a sack, mister.

  • StatsInTheWild MLB rankings as of June 26, 2012 at 2pm.  SOS=strength of schedule

    Team Rank Change Record ESPN TeamRankings.com SOS Run Diff
    St. Louis 1 – 48-29 1 2 25 +114
    Boston 2 ↑1 46-33 2 1 6 +76
    Detroit 3 ↑3 42-33 3 4 16 +76
    Pittsburgh 4 ↑1 47-30 7 3 21 +34
    Cincinnati 5 ↓3 45-33 4 10 20 +52
    Oakland 6 ↑2 45-34 6 8 17 +49
    Tampa Bay 7 – 41-37 14 7 4 +21
    Baltimore 8 ↑1 43-35 8 5 2 +14
    Texas 9 ↓5 44-33 9 6 15 +25
    Atlanta 10 – 45-33 5 11 30 +56
    NY Yankees 11 ↑1 42-33 11 9 3 0
    Toronto 12 ↑6 38-38 12 12 1 -1
    Cleveland 13 ↑1 39-37 16 13 9 +16
    Arizona 14 ↓3 41-35 10 14 22 +20
    Colorado 15 ↓2 39-39 18 15 24 +28
    Kansas City 16 – 35-39 20 16 8 +7
    SF 17 ↓2 38-39 13 18 19 -18
    LA Angels 18 ↑3 34-43 21 22 11 -8
    Minnesota 19 ↓2 34-49 22 20 10 -25
    San Diego 20 – 39-39 17 19 23 -21
    Washington 21 ↑1
    38-38 15 17 28 -28
    Chi Cubs 22 ↓3 31-44 24 27 14 -18
    Chi WSox 23 – 32-42 26 26 12 -34
    Milwaukee 24 ↑2 32-43 27 25 13 -41
    LA Dodgers 25 ↑2 34-42 23 24 18 -41
    Seattle 26 ↓2 34-44 25 23 7 -62
    Philadelphia 27 ↓2 37-41 19 21 29 -55
    NY Mets 28 ↑1 30-43 28 28 27 -44
    Houston 29 ↓1 29-49 29 29 5 -104
    Miami 30 – 26-50 30 30 26 -88

    Past Rankings:

    6/7/2013

    4/24/2013

    4/17/2013

    4/12/2013

    9/25/2012

  • Sent to me by a lawyer friend:

    The Prop 8 thing is a big deal, but the Court didn’t make any substantive ruling. Basically, Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional in Federal District Court, the parties defending it (the proponents of Prop 8, not the State of California) appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where a panel of the court ruled that the proponents of Prop 8 had standing to appeal, but ruled that the law was unconstitutional on the merits. The parties defending the law appealed to the Supreme Court. Today the court ruled that those parties had no standing to appeal the District Court’s ruling. So, the court declined to rule on the merits and invalidated the appellate court ruling. Now the District Court ruling stands, so Prop 8 is invalidated. No statement from the court on whether they think it was/was not constitutional, which would have been major. An interesting to me legal nerd point is that the lawyers trying to invalidate the law were Ted Olson and David Boies. In Bush v. Gore, Olson represented Bush and Boies represented Gore.

     

    Cheers.

  • statsbylopez's avatarStatsbyLopez

    Random notes from the Bruins Blackhawks series, and some final numbers from the Bruins postseason run.

    1- Chicago had more shots than the Bruins in 5 of 6 games, outshooting the Bruins by an average of 6 shots a game. That said, using the unofficial collection of NBC’s scoring chances (the NHL does not keep this official stat), the Bruins had more scoring chances in 4 of the 5 games (Game 2 was Chicago’s, Game 5 was roughly even, Game 1, 3-4, 6 were in Boston’s favor as far as scoring chances go).

     

    2- Zdeno Chara was on the ice for 10 of Chicago’s final 12 goals.

    2a- In his last three games, Chara finished with a +/- of -6. In his lengthy career, Chara has only played three consecutive games with that ranking or lower twice.

     

    3- If you are like me, you felt like the hockey…

    View original post 574 more words

  • burrsettles's avatarSlackpropagation

    To many people, “geek” and “nerd” are synonyms, but in fact they are a little different. Consider the phrase “sports geek” — an occasional substitute for “jock” and perhaps the arch-rival of a “nerd” in high-school folklore. If “geek” and “nerd” are synonyms, then “sports geek” might be an oxymoron. (Furthermore, “sports nerd” either doesn’t compute or means something else.)

    In my mind, “geek” and “nerd” are related, but capture different dimensions of an intense dedication to a subject:

    • geek – An enthusiast of a particular topic or field. Geeks are “collection” oriented, gathering facts and mementos related to their subject of interest. They are obsessed with the newest, coolest, trendiest things that their subject has to offer.
    • nerd – A studious intellectual, although again of a particular topic or field. Nerds are “achievement” oriented, and focus their efforts on acquiring knowledge and skill over trivia and memorabilia.

    Or, to…

    View original post 1,308 more words

  • If the internet has done anything, and I’m not sure it has, but if it has it’s that it has glorified “Geek Culture;” to use a phrase I’m annoyed I even have in my brain. Back in the day, I had a certain amount of reservation talking as extensively as I wanted to about movies and TV, particularly the less “hip” movies (Star Wars and Monty Python and the Holy Grail), TV (Murder She Wrote) and words (“hip”). As such, now that it’s “Hip to be square” as Huey Lewis would say (I’ve lost all credibility now…). So I read articles like this, and decide to launch into internet tirades.

    So what was it about that article that lead me to start tapping away? To be as succinct as possible (if anyone knows my writing, succinct isn’t how I roll) it was that it sucked. The article makes 12 comparisons that are supposed to make the geekier folks in the world be sad and upset. Buzzfeed has done it before, and it worked on me to a degree there, but this time I shout in reply a call that should always been on your lips- “LOGICAL FALLACY.” Logical fallacies are natural traps, and often are used not on purpose, but because the brain naturally wants to fall into them. There are three common fallacies that show up on this list- apples to oranges, ignoratio elenchi  and the Texas sharpshooter. Every body knows apples to oranges; it’s the great party game. Wait, no it’s comparing two different, incomparable things. (from The Simpsons– Lenny: “Muhammad Ali in his prime was much better than anti-lock brakes.” Carl: “Yeah, what about Johnny Mathis versus Diet Pepsi?”) Ignoratio elenchi  translates from Latin as “an ignoring of a refutation” but it means basically that an argument has come to irrelevant conclusions. If you know that all dogs bark and that all beagles are dogs, and from that you conclude that you should watch the movie Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, you have just committed ignoratio elenchi (and also made a horrible decision). The Texas sharpshooter comes from a joke about a Texan who shoots his gun at a barn and then paints targets over the bullet holes. In arguments, it’s when you take very specific data that support a claim you’re trying to make. It’s the Yankees giving Ichiro a $13m, 2 year deal after a hot September in 2012 following a cold April 2011 through August 2012 (I’d rather be watching Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance than watching today’s Ichiro at the plate, yeesh!). In several entries, the facts that are so “depressing” are box office grosses. A few examples are Episode I made more money than Episode IV; Marky Mark’s Planet of the Apes out-grossed the original series combined; Transformers: Dark of the Moon is the sixth highest grossing film of all time. Mainly this is the Texas Sharpshooter hard at work. We have a theme we want to push (crappy movies out perform good movies) and then we find the facts that fit the argument.

    The domestic gross of Phantom Menace is $474,544,677; domestic gross of A New Hope is $460,998,007. Hard to argue with that. Wait a minute, me- no it’s not. Phantom Menace has had two theatrical runs- it’s first in 1999 and the 3D re-release in 2012. A New Hope was released originally in 1977, and has had several re-releases since, the most recent being the 1997 special editions. You know what changed in those years? Movie ticket prices, inflation, tastes, Mark Hamill’s face. The Star Wars argument is a nice mix of Texas sharpshooter and apples to oranges.

    Box office receipts are going to come up repeatedly on this list, but the basic fact is gross receipts are marketing tools for studios. They want to say “the number one family, christmas-themed movie in the box office last week was Christmas with Kranks” and James Cameron can prance about saying, “I have directed the top two, all-time grossing films, la di da.” (I know, my James Cameron impression is uncanny.) But in reality, what does it mean?

    Let me show you something meaningful- Star Wars: A New Hope  vs. Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. For the uninitiated, the estimate domestic ticket sales for the original Star Wars total 178,119,600, while the first prequel sold 90,312,100. This is going to make the rest of this entry shorter, but you can’t compare two movies released in different years based on their lifetime gross receipts- apples to oranges.  Almost twice as many people bought tickets to see Episode IV than Episode I. If you’re sad about Phantom Menace out performing A New Hope, you’re actually just sad about inflation and the marginal price increases of theater tickets. So cheer up, I guess…

    But wait, there’s more! Episode I was popular BECAUSE Episode IV was so popular (180 million tickets in the US, and that’s not even considering Empire and Jedi). The anticipation (not to mention marketing) that led up to the 1999 release of Phantom Menace guaranteed its success. It’s the same reason that The Matrix was out performed by the second two films. One made $170m, two made $280m, three made $200m. Part of this is inflation;The Matrix sold 33,755,900 domestic tickets, The Matrix Reloaded– 46,695,900 , and The Matrix Revolutions– 23,095,400. The sequels only earned their money off the sad sacks (myself included) who were excited and then disappointed by the films.  To prove that point, consider that The Matrix made only 16.2% of its gross on opening weekend, while Reloaded was at 32.6%, and Revolutions 34.8%. Likewise, nearly half (15.2 million vs. 8 million) people saw the third film on opening weekend, which still ended up a higher percentage of total gross. The fact is that the sequels sucked and people learned their lesson and it showed at the box office. To me, that should reassure geeks- people learned (just like RAPTORS!)

    The remarkable thing is the first movie, only the second film directed by the Wachowskis, who would go and give us almost nothing else worth watching, made such a good movie as The Matrix. Unless you count Speed Racer. Which I don’t, because it sucked too.

    And that opening day weekend nonsense is also marketing. Not long ago, lifetime grosses were important. Often, movies opened on few screens, and an audience was built up by word of mouth. Looking back at the Star Wars boxoffice mojo numbers, it opened on 73 theaters. It’s “wide” release was 757 theaters. And it’s largest number of screens during its original run was 1750. This is why the Indiana Jones ‘fact’ is galling.  Of course the crapfest that is Indy 4 outgrossed the three good movies on opening weekend. Here’s a handy chart:

    Movie Opening Weekend Release (Theaters) Opening Weekend Ticket Sales Overall Ticket Sales Opening Weekend % of Total Sales Price of a Movie Ticket That Year Inflation Adjusted Opening Weekend Is This a Good Movie
    Raiders of the Lost Ark 1078 2,987,700 77,239,100 3.87% $2.78 $21,451,686 Holy crap, yes
    Temple of Doom 1687 7540800 53,5328,00 14.09% $3.36 $54,142,944 Solid, but third best
    Last Crusade 2327 7,394,200 49,416,500 14.96% $3.97 $53,090,356 Connery.
    Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 4260 13,946,800 44,164,500 31.58% $7.18 $100,138,024 Even if I only paid $7.18, I was robbed

    So, yeah, KotCS earned more opening weekend, but what does that mean? A third of its take was on opening weekend and it was in FOUR TIMES the theaters as Raiders. Also, like the time GWB gave Angela Merkel a shoulder massage at a G8 meeting, everyone wishes they never saw it in the first place.

    5. The Resident Evil movies have made far, far more money than the Resident Evil video games.

    According to the article, the movies have made a total of $674,764,589, while the games have made $36,290,000. So just another false equivalency. I have played no RE game and watched no RE movie, so I can’t speak on the merit of one over the other. I can say that according to VG Chartz the RE video game franchise has sold just under 24 million units of games in North America. And if you look at ticket sales for the five (holy crap!) (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) RE movies, you see that 35.4 million domestic tickets were sold to the films.

    My math also says that 24 million games sold should be a higher gross sales than $36.3 million. If I have to shell out $60 just to play a game on my PS3 that I forget I own and never finish, I can’t believe the Resident Evil franchise is averaging $1.50 per game.

    Additionally, much like the box office numbers are really a marketing tool for movie studios, look at each of the RE movies foreign vs domestic take. These are movies that are not made for American audiences. RE 1 had 60.8% of its gross from overseas, 2  had 60.4%, 3 had 65.7%, 4 had 79.7%, and 5 had a whopping 82.4% (for a total of $197.8 million in 2012 bucks. Someone should let me make Resident Evil and release it in Europe and Asia. I can retire from writing 3000 word essays about Buzzfeed entries that annoy me by misapplying math and facts. OR FOCUS ON IT!) Maybe Milla Jovovich’s Ukrainian family is just really huge and they’re just supporting little Milla.

    3) Firefly lasted one season, and had terrible ratings.The Big Bang Theory is in its sixth season, and has incredible ratings.

    Here is a combination of the Texas sharpshooter as well as ignoratio elenchi. The graphic on Buzzfeed says Firefly had one season, averaging 4.5 million viewers, and Big Bang Theory has six season (and counting), with an average of 19 million viewers.

    There are about twleve dozen mitigating factors- Firefly was an hour-long drama, BBT is a traditional three-camera sitcom (the very definition of traditional). Firefly was on FOX, a channel notorious for canceling shows with dedicated followings, while Big Bang Theory is on CBS (not to mention like seventeen other channels in syndication). BBT does not average 19 million viewers, though it did approach that in its sixth season. It’s viewership trend has been increasing since it first debuted (it averaged 8.31 million per episode in season one). Firefly was also aired on Fridays and broadcast out of order, despite having a overarching story that spanned all of the episodes.

    All that being said, I don’t think you need to run market analysis to figure out there will be a heck of a lot more viewers for a broad sitcom with quirky characters, airing on a network that has popular shows to lead-in and follow it than a western/space drama on a network that was last place during the 2002 fall sweeps. In the entire 2002 season , FOX had only two shows in the top 30, American Idol and Joe Millionaire. I invite you to read that sentence again if you want to feel dirty. 

    And finally, the last entry on the list is the most galling. This is our big apples to oranges one, not to mention the mind numbing corruption of facts. Hold on to your butts if you care a lick about the following: facts, numbers, reason, logic, not wanting to stab yourself in the face.

    12. M. Night Shyamalan’s films have made more money than Joss Whedon’s films.

    Yep.  Let that one sink in, while I dunk my head in a toilet to make myself feel cleaner.

    There are a number of problems with this. The basic facts are, through June 17, 2013, Joss Whedon’s films have an adjusted domestic gross of $641,316,200 and M. Night Shyamalan’s films have an adjusted domestic gross of $1,356,193,700. That is indisputable. But you’re comparing the gross of Joss Whedon’s three films (which includes his latest, Much Ado About Nothing, which currently is screening in five- yep, FIVE- theaters…) to M. Night’s nine movies  (which, to be fair, includes Wide Awake, which made it into 43 theaters in 1998). To compare the numbers on these two fellas’ filmographies is like saying “How sad is it that a great hitter like Mike Trout, a good guy and one of the brightest stars in all of baseball has hit 334 fewer home runs than All-Time Jerk and General Ne’er-do-well Albert Belle.” And then Albert Belle would hit you with a bat for calling him names.

    But hold on, I hear the whole planet saying, “We’re pretty sure Joss Whedon had a pretty big hit that earned scads of cash. You know, that one with Sean Connery and Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes.” And I say, calm down, planet earth- you’re thinking of the late 90’s The Avengers, the remake of the 60’s TV show. You’re close, but he directed 2012’s Marvel’s The Avengers, which made $1.5 billion worldwide and $623, 357,910 in 2012 money. Looking back at M. Night’s list, you’d be hard pressed to find any two movies (or even three, if you’re inclined to do that much adding) that can (in adjusted dollars) meet The Avengers. And The Avengers didn’t have a crazy M. Night Twist!

    I’ll end by circling back to the claim about Transformers 3: The Absence of the Racist Cars being #6 on the all-time highest grossing list. What’s remarkable about this list is that you have to go to #18, Jurassic Park, to find a movie made earlier than 1997’s Titanic (and all three of the 90s movies in the top 20, #2 Titanic, #18 Jurassic Park, and #13 Episode I, all had 3D re-releases in the last two years.) In the top 40, Lion King (which also has a recent 3D rerelease) at #21, and #38 Independence Day round out the only pre-2000 releases. In the top 100, only three films from before 1990 appear (#41 ET, #44 Star Wars, and #100 Empire Strikes Back). So of the all-time top 100 all-time highest grossing films of all time, 97 are from the last 20 years (1993’s Jurassic Park is the oldest movie after ET). How can this be?

    In a 2002 edition of Issues in Political Economy, “The Decline in Average Cinema Attendance 1930-2000” , Michelle Pautz of Elon University (it’s a real school, I looked it up) wrote about the change in movie-going habits. In 1930, 65% of Americans went to the movies once a week. In 2000, it was 9.7%. Additionally, in 1930, a ticket price was $0.25, which in 2012 dollars is $3.48. A 2012 movie ticket price was $8.12. So inflation doesn’t even cover the difference in movie grosses. So, much like comparing Whedon’s ouevre to Shyamalan’s, or Trout’s dinger output to Belle’s, the comparison is inappropriate and completely invalid. Without an adjustment, you’re comparing the Coolidge administration to central air conditioning- it can’t be done (Silent Cal did preside over one of the greatest periods of American prosperity, but he ain’t helping me come July) 

    This is the all-time adjusted gross list. As pointed out in probably a skajillion places, but well enough in the New York Times’ “Economix” blog by David Leonhardt, who, in March 2010, pointed out, things look a bit different from the reported list we normally see. Yes, as Leonhardt says, it’s domestic only because older movies don’t have great sales data for foreign releases. But this makes more sense, doesn’t it? A more representative mixture of crappy blockbusters from every era (Cleopatra, Grease), instead of just the crappy blockbusters from after I finished 7th grade. The fact that Mama Mia! or The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn 2 Electric Boogaloo don’t show up on the all-time is reassuring, but besides the point. It’s just applying math correctly.

    test

     But you won’t hear this on the TV or radio or the internets all that often, because when Johnny Depp is out pimping The Lone Ranger this month, it’s easier for the media and better for Disney to talk about the billions of dollars his Pirates series and Alice in Wonderland made, or that he is in four of the top 20 grossing movies of all time. And James Cameron looks better while prancing about, saying he’s got the #1 and #2 movies of all time, instead of being intellectually honest by saying he has the #5 and #14 (which, btw, is still awesome for him, especially since one movie is a super long suckfest and the other movie is a super long suckfest). But who will stand up for the inflation-adjusted success of Doctor Zhivago? Omar Sharif? He’s too busy with bridge. Without PR (and why does a 50 year old movie need PR?) or a good narrative, there is little reason for your average Joe-box-office-receipt-watcher to realize he’s being duped by shoddy math and incomplete context. Now, with that, I shall go curse Buzzfeed for reminding me I saw Lady in the Water in theaters.  

    This post was written by Tim.

  • If you’re going to use a Schunk in a beamer slide, make sure you open the slide with \begin{slide}[fragile].  I kept leaving out the “fragile” part and getting an error.  Hopefully this post will save someone out there some time in the future.

    Cheers.