arXiv:0907.5241v2 [physics.data-an] 7 Aug 2009 ∗ es icesbnfi y“eetn”btes n vice and batters, from “defeating” data by Using benefit versa. bat- and pitchers ters: (MLB) matchups League head-to-head Major sports. consider between we as paper, such present contexts the social In oc- different also in interactions frequently col- Mutually-antagonistic cur to 11]. difficult more [10, been lect com- other—have each or against fight pete mutually-antagonistic directly who on individuals data interactions—i.e., consumer-resource However, through linked the relationships. for are compete or either resources interac- who same competitive mem- populations, between networks, different competition of these indirect bers In the 9]. from result 8, tions 7, 6, 5, individuals [4, between co- dynamics the competition mediate and general that operation mechanisms a ecolog- the provided on study Research has to framework networks 3]. net- organizational 2, friendship [1, and sciences online ical social to the in biology works in- in protein networks from insights ranging teraction foundational systems providing complex numerous years, into recent in growth ewrsfridvda seasons. individual constructing for (“career”) by networks performances multi-season single-season a and examining network by over careers matchups full considering head-to-head 2008, to appearances plate 1954 MLB from million eight than more the terize lcrncades [email protected] address: Electronic h td fntok a xeine enormous experienced has networks of study The ocmaetepromneo lyr,MBuses MLB players, of performance the compare To ege Saavedra Serguei 1 elg colo aaeetadNC,Nrhetr Univer Northwestern NICO, and Management of School Kellogg rm15 o20 sabprientoko mutually-antagon exhibit of which networks, network single-season bipartite and a network as full the 2008 to 1954 from ewrs iatt ewrsrnigsses admwal random systems, networks,ranking 87.23.-n bipartite 05.40.Fb, ag Keywords: 02.50.-r, own 64.60.aq, rand his numbers: the in PACS in changes success to sensitivity his its with diff on correlate effect under not substantial a does h competed as player network given who networks the a matchup players in players particular the of which on about performance walk information the random compare biased thei to a examine study and network then the We in structure interesting find We efruaeteha-oha acusbtenMjrLeagu Major between matchups head-to-head the formulate We .INTRODUCTION I. 2 aoiaCne o nedsilnr ple Mathematic Applied Interdisciplinary for Center Carolina 3 uulyAtgnsi neatosi aealNetworks Baseball in Interactions Mutually-Antagonistic 5 colo a,Uiest fNrhCrln,Cae il NC Hill, Chapel Carolina, North of University Law, of School ADNCmlxt ete nvriyo xod xod OX Oxford, Oxford, of University Centre, Complexity CABDyN retrosheet.org ahmtclIsiue nvriyo xod xod OX1 Oxford, Oxford, of University Institute, Mathematical 1 , nvriyo ot aoia hplHl,N 79-20 U 27599-3250, NC Hill, Chapel Carolina, North of University nvriyo ot aoia hplHl,N 79-26 U 27599-3216, NC Hill, Chapel Carolina, North of University ∗ 6 nttt o dacdMtras aocec n Technol and Nanoscience Materials, Advanced for Institute ct Powers Scott 4 xodCnr o nutiladApidMathematics, Applied and Industrial for Centre Oxford 3] echarac- we [39], 2 rn McCotter Trent , Dtd coe 3 2018) 23, October (Dated: neliggahsrcueadt eelkyproperties key reveal to and structure the graph and dynamics underlying these to between also interplay but the eras, investigate different not transpar- across to and ran- methodology us systematic, ranking biased allowing ent quantitative, 16], of a [15, construct study graphs only the these on through walkers direction dom simple this first, a in take We step who conditions. quanti- different athletes consider under between played also comparison must for one rely mechanisms to tative statistics; insufficient raw is on it the purely questions, to such elected address be than To eventually sea- HOF? presumably better 2008 will the HOF, who who during and the active son still Koufax, in was who is Sandy Martinez, and Pedro Is for of 1955-1966 required HOF? 62.7% from 75% played the on the years of in appeared two 2009—short who only election—belong in ballots Blyleven, after HOF the Bert totals the off Does vote dropped low (who had [40]? of Belle 2009) in because Albert one HOF than can ballot the how career to instance, better (elected For and a Rice HOF it. Jim make whether draw the tell not to to did attempting who elected when others players fore between Such the comparisons 14]. to [13, come etc. players, arguments different who facing eras, differ- ballparks, conditions—in ent different different from consistency fundamentally fans under of players play by lack comparing the criticized e.g., of widely because time, when, is year all it each of to pundits the players and players best of Although the Cy selection recognize the and [12]. to (MVP) purports performance) Player HOF pitching Valuable (for Most Hall through Young as a performance career such single-season into awards and recognize induction (HOF) to Fame through of players journalists of professional achievement by votes 3 ao .Porter A. Mason , es optto dynamics competition kers, sfcd efidta lyrsposition player’s a that find We faced. as neetn tutrlcagsoe time. over changes structural interesting rgt performance. gregate estvt obsbl’ uechanges. rule baseball’s to sensitivity r mwle akn u nta a a has instead but ranking walker om si neatos ecnie both consider We interactions. istic ,Dprmn fMathematics, of Department s, iy vntn lios S,60208 USA, Illinois, Evanston, sity, rn odtosadt include to and conditions erent aealpthr n batters and pitchers Baseball e ipeadtasaetway transparent and simple 79-30 USA 27599-3380, 4 H,U and UK 1HP, 1 , 5 L,UK 3LB, n ee .Mucha J. Peter and , ogy, SA SA 2 , 6 2 of mutually-antagonistic interactions that can potentially ing square adjacency matrices: also be applied in other settings. 0 A 0 W 0 M Aˆ Wˆ Mˆ − While “water-cooler” discussions about the HOF can = AT 0 , = WT 0 , = MT 0 , often be fascinating, as indicated by the above paragraph,       we stress that the primary goal of our paper is to inves- so that they are appropriately symmetric (Aˆ and Wˆ ) and tigate interesting features of the baseball networks and anti-symmetric (Mˆ ). We construct and analyze each of the impact that network structure can have on rankings these representations for the single-season networks and rather than on the rankings themselves. While it is nec- the aggregate (career) network that contains all – essary to include some example rank orderings for the batter interactions between 1954 and 2008. purpose of such a discussion, it is important to note that To identify the changes in the organization of base- the rankings we show in the present paper must be taken ball networks, we examine the graph properties of single- with several grains of salt because our efforts at simplic- season networks. The number of distinct opponents ity, which are crucial to highlighting the interplay be- per player, given by the distribution of player degree tween network structure and player rankings, require us ˆ ki = j Aij , follows an exponential distribution for a to ignore essential contributing factors (some of which large range and then has an even faster decay in the tail we will briefly discuss) that are necessary for any serious (see Fig.P 2). The mean values of the geodesic path length ranking of baseball players. between nodes and of the bipartite clustering coefficient The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In are only somewhat larger than what would be generated Section II, we define and characterize the mutually- by random assemblages (see Appendix A). However, as antagonstic baseball networks and study the time evo- with mutually-beneficial interactions in ecological net- lution of various graph properties. In Section III, we works [20], the mutually-antagonistic baseball matchup provide a description of the biased random walker dy- networks exhibit non-trivial relationships between player ˆ namics that we employ as a ranking methodology across degree and player strength si = j Wij , which repre- eras and for single-season networks. In Section IV, we sents the total number of opponents of a player (counting P study the interplay between the random walker dynamics multiplicity) [1, 17]. As shown in Fig. 3A, the relation and graph structure, paying special attention to the sen- between strength and degree is closely approximated by sitivity of the player rankings. In Section V, we conclude a power law s ∼ kα that starts in 1954 at α ≈ 1.64 for the paper and discuss a number of potential applications pitchers and α ≈ 1.41 for batters but approaches α ≈ 1 of our work. We explain additional technical details in for each by 2008. The six-decade trend of a decreasing two appendices. power-law exponent indicates how real-life events such as the increase in the number of baseball teams through league expansion (e.g., in the 1960s, 1977, 1993, and 1998), reorganization (e.g., in 1994, to three divisions in each league instead of two), interleague play (in 1997), II. NETWORK CHARACTERIZATION AND and unbalanced schedules (in 2001) have modified the EVOLUTION organization of the networks. An important property mediating the competition dy- We analyze baseball’s mutually-antagonistic ecology namics of mutualistic networks in ecology is nestedness by considering bipartite (two-mode) networks of head-to- [9]. Although the definition of nestedness may vary, a head matchups between pitchers and batters. As shown network is said to be nested when low-degree nodes inter- in Fig. 1, bipartite networks are formed using two dis- act with proper subsets of the interactions of high-degree joint sets of vertices, P (pitchers) and B (batters), and nodes [18] (see Fig. 1). To calculate the aggregate nested- the requirement that every edge connect a vertex in P ness in the binary matchup network A, we employed the to one in B [8, 17, 18] (keeping the pitching and bat- nestedness metric based on overlap and decreasing fill ting performances of pitchers as two separate nodes). (NODF) [21], which takes values between [0, 1], where We consider such interactions in terms of three different 1 designates a perfectly-nested network (see Appendix bipartite representations (with corresponding matrices): A). Figure 3B (black circles) shows that single-season (1) The binary matchups A in which the element Aij baseball networks consistently have nestedness values of equals 1 if pitcher i faced batter j at any point and 0 approximately 0.28. This value is slightly but consis- otherwise; (2) the weighted matchups W in which the tently higher than those in randomized versions of the element Wij equals the number of times that i faced j; networks with similar distribution of interactions (red and (3) the weighted outcomes M in which the element squares) [18], which we also observe to decrease slightly Mij equals a “score” or performance index, which in the in time. In common with bipartite cooperative networks, case of picther-batter matchups is determined using what this confirms that nestedness is a significant feature of are known in baseball as “sabermetric” statistics (see the these mutually-antagonistic networks. discussion below) [13, 14, 19], characterizing the results Although nestedness is defined as a global character- of all matchups between i and j. For each of these bipar- istic of the network, we can also calculate the individ- tite pitcher–batter networks, we also utilize correspond- ual contribution of each node to the overall nestedness 3

[21]. Comparing node degrees and individual nestedness We initiate our ranking methodology by considering (see Appendix A) before 1973, batters and pitchers col- independent random walkers who each cast a single vote lapse well onto separate curves (see Fig. 3C). Starting in for the player that they believe is the best. Each walker 1973, however, each of these split into two curves (see occasionally changes its vote with a probability deter- Fig. 3D), corresponding to players in the two different mined by considering the aggregate outcome of a single leagues: the (AL) and the National pitcher–batter pairing, selected randomly from those in- League (NL). This structural change presumably resulted volving their favorite player, and by a parameter quanti- from the AL’s 1973 introduction of the fying the bias of the walker to move towards the winner of (DH), a batter who never fields but bats in place of the the accumulated outcome. A random walker that is con- team’s pitchers (see Fig. 1), apparently causing the AL to sidering the outcome described by this matchup is biased become less nested due to the replacement of low-degree towards but not required to choose the pitcher (batter) batting pitchers with higher-degree DHs. This suggests, as the better player if Mij < 0 (Mij > 0). as we discuss below, that the network position of a player The expected rate of change of the number of votes might affect his own ranking (while, of course, network cast for each player in the random walk is quantified by a position is strongly influenced by a player’s longevity and, homogeneous system of linear differential equations v′ = thus, by his performance). D · v, where

Wˆ + rMˆ , i 6= j D = ij ij (1) III. BIASED RANDOM WALKERS ij ˆ (−si + r k Mik , i = j . P To compare the performance of players, we rank play- The long-time average fraction of walkersv ˜j residing at ers by analyzing biased random walkers on the bipar- (i.e., voting for) player j is then found by solving the tite network M encoding the outcomes of all mutually- linear algebraic system D·v˜ = 0, subject to an additional antagonistic interactions between each player pair. Our constraint that j v˜j = 1. If the bias parameter r > 0, method generalizes the technique we previously used for successful players will on average be ranked more highly. NCAA football teams [15, 16], allowing us to rank play- For r < 0, theP random walker votes will instead tend ers in individual seasons and in the 1954–2008 career net- toward the “loser” of individual matchups. work, yielding a quantitative, conceptually-clear method Equation (1) gives a general one-parameter system for for ranking baseball players that takes a rather different a biased walker with probabilities that are linear in RUE, approach from other sabermetric methods used to project but the approach is easily generalized by using other player performance such as DiamondMind (which uses functional forms to map observed plate appearance - Monte Carlo simulations), PECOTA (which uses histor- comes (in M) into selection probabilities. By restricting ical players as a benchmark), and CHONE (which uses our attention to a form that is linear in RUE, the in- regression models) [22, 23]. terpretation that the off-diagonal components of D cor- To describe the aggregate interaction Mij between respond to random walker rate coefficients requires that pitcher i and batter j, we need to quantify each possible these components remain non-negative, a preferable state individual pitcher–batter outcome. For simplicity, we fo- that leads to a number of beneficial properties in the cus on the quantity runs to end of inning (RUE) [14], resulting matrix. For example, this allows us to apply which assigns a value to each possible plate appearance the Perron-Frobenius theorem, which guarantees the ex- outcome (single, home , , etc.) based on the istence of an equilibrium v˜ with strictly positive entries expected number of runs that a team would obtain be- (and similarly guarantees the existence of positive solu- fore the end of that inning, independent of the situational tions in algorithms such as PageRank) [16, 17, 24, 25]. context (see Appendix B for specific values). Higher In practice, this requirement is equivalent in the base- numbers indicate larger degrees of success for the batting ball networks to |r| . 0.7, so that the result of a home team. For each season, we add the RUE from each plate run in a single plate-appearance matchup (i.e., the case appearance of pitcher i versus batter j to obtain a cumu- in which a batter faces a pitcher exactly once and hits lative RUE for the pair. Note that any performance index a in that appearance) maintains a small but that assigns a value to a specific mutually-antagonistic non-negative chance that a corresponding random walker interaction can be used in place of RUE without chang- will still select the pitcher. ing the rest of our ranking algorithm. We then define the However, because the aggregate outcome of most pair- single-season outcome element Mij by the cumulative ex- ings remains close to the mean, the bias in the random tent to which the batter’s outcome is better (Mij > 0) or walk is small, and the rankings become essentially inde- worse (Mij < 0) than the mean outcome over all pitcher– pendent of the bias parameter. The linear expansion in batter matchups that season. When defining the career bias r thereby yields a ranking with no remaining param- outcome element Mij for 1954–2008, we account for base- eters beyond the statistically-selected RUE values, given ball’s modern era offensive inflation [13, 14] by summing by v˜ = v(0) + rV + O(r2) . Generalizing the similar ex- over individual seasons (i.e., relative to mean outcomes pansion described in detail in Ref. [16], the zeroth-order on a per season basis). term results in a constant number of votes per player, 4 and the additional contribution at first order is given by than (115th), suggesting that Belle’s hitting the solution of a discrete Poisson equation on the graph: performance perhaps merits HOF membership more than that of Rice. Similarly, Bert Blyleven ranks higher not 4 L V = Mˆ , (2) only than current HOF competitors such as ij j n ij j j and Tommy John but also higher than three HOF - X X ers with over 300 wins (, Phil Niekro, and Don Sutton), which is one traditional benchmark for se- subject to the neutral charge constraint j Vj = 0. (By analogy with electrostatics, we refer to Vj as the RUE lecting elite pitchers. Direct comparison with other rank ‘charge’ of node j.) In equation (2), n = PP+B is the total orderings of players across different eras would necessi- number of players, L = S − Wˆ is the graph Laplacian, S tate restriction to sufficiently similar time periods and is thus beyond the network-science focus of the present is the diagonal matrix with elements sii = Wˆ ij (and j study. sij = 0 for i 6= j). Accordingly, we restrict our attention to the first-order ranking specified by V andP obtained using the solution of equation (2). IV. LINKING STRUCTURE TO We tabulate this rank ordering separately for pitch- PERFORMANCE ers and batters, for individual seasons and the full career network. We compare the results of the random walker ranking to major baseball awards in Table I. We note As previously suggested, the network architecture that the rankings are highly correlated with the under- should have important effects on the performance of lying RUE per plate appearance of each player (r ≈ .96 players. In particular, central players in the network for 2008 and similar for other seasons), so that the top might have a systematic advantage in the rankings rel- players in the rankings produced by our method have a ative to those who are not as well connected. Such strong but imperfect correlation with the lists produced structurally-important players (see Table II for exam- by ranking players according to raw RUE values. (This ples), who have high values for both betweenness cen- similarly holds for any other sabermetric quantity that trality and nestedness, have had long—and usually ex- one might use in place of RUE.) That is, it matters tremely successful—careers, so it is of significant interest, which players one has faced, and that is codified by the yet difficult, to gauge the coupled effects on their rank network. We note, for example, that the differences be- ordering from statistical success versus structural role in tween random walker rankings and raw RUE rankings the network. In fact, we found no correlation (r ≈ 0.001) appear to appropriately capture the caliber of opponents between a player’s position—i.e., individual nestedness (for example, pitchers from teams with relatively ane- and betweenness—and his success measured by the frac- mic offenses—such as the 2008 Nationals, Astros, and tion of votes received. Reds—have a higher ranking in the random walker rank- Hence, we investigate this connection further via the ing, reflecting that they never had the good fortune of correlation between the sensitivity of rankings to changes going up against their own teams’ batters). We also in outcomes in individual pitcher–batter pairs, which is compared the rankings with a leading metric in baseball formulated using the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of analysis, ESPN’s MLB Player Ratings, which combines the graph Laplacian. Consider changing the outcome ratings from ESPN, Elias, Inside Edge, and The Baseball of the single edge that corresponds to the aggregate Encyclopedia [26]. Of the top 99 players for 2008 who are matchup between players i and j. If we increase the listed in the Player Ratings, 12 did not meet our thresh- former’s aggregate RUE by a unit amount at the ex- old for plate appearances. Comparing the random walker pense of the latter, then the total RMS change in votes V results for the remaining 87 players with the Player Rat- is proportional to the difference between the ith and L+ ings yields a r ≈ .5601 correlation. We thus proceed to jth columns of . This difference yields a node-centric measure of the sensitivities of rankings to individual per- study the random walker results for the full career rank- + + ing both with confidence that it correlates with methods formances: the constraint i Lij = 0 yields that Lii (the diagonal element of the graph Laplacian pseudo-inverse), currently used for single-season analysis and caution that P the ranking details do not capture all effects according to the direct control that player i has over his own ranking, current best practices in quantitative baseball analysis is equal and opposite to the total change his performance [27]. directly imposes on the rest of the network. Additionally, + The full career ranking allows credible comparisons be- as illustrated in Fig. 4A, the quantity Lii is closely re- tween players from different eras. Interestingly, consider- lated to the RMS changes in votes across the network ing the rankings restricted to individuals who played in due to the performance of player i. + at least 10 seasons during this time (HOF-eligible play- Noting that the element Lii is related to the mean ers), we find that (batter), Pedro Martinez of the commute times between nodes i and j (averag- (pitcher), and () are the best ing over all j) [28], specifically under our constraints, the + + + players (in these categories) from 1954 to 2008. We show sum of the commute times tij = Lii + Ljj − 2Lij over + + additional rankings in Table II. We especially note that j yields a linear function of Lii . Consequently, Lii pro- (29th among batters) is ranked much higher vides a node-based measure of the average distance from 5 node i to the rest of the network. This definition of av- mutually-antagonistic interaction networks in baseball. erage commute time has similarities with the measures We considered a simple ranking system based on biased known as information centrality [29] and random walk random walks on the graphs and used it to compare centrality [30] (though the results of applying the differ- player performance in individual seasons and across en- ent measures can still be quite different). The negative tire careers. We emphasize that our ranking methodology + relationship between Lii and both betweenness central- is overly simplistic, having noted several considerations ity and nestedness, which we show in Fig. 5, thus yields that one might use to improve it (see, e.g., Appendix B) a corresponding negative relationship between the mean while maintaining a network framework that accounts for commute distance and the betweenness and nestedness which players each player has faced. We also examined of a player. A player who is highly embedded in the how the player rankings and their sensitivities depend on network (i.e., one with high individual nestedness) has a node-centric network characteristics. small mean commute distance to the rest of the network, We expect that similar considerations might be useful and the ranking of that player is not very sensitive to for developing a better understanding of the interplay be- the outcome of a single matchup. In contrast, a player tween structure and function in a broad class of compet- who is in the periphery of the network (i.e., one with low itive networks, such as those formed by antigen-antibody individual nestedness) typically has a very large mean interactions, species competition for resources, and com- commute distance to other portions of the graph, and pany competition for consumers. Given the motivation his place in the ranking-ordering is consequently much from ecology, we are optimistic that this might lead to more sensitive to the results of his individual matchups interesting ecological insights, compensating for the dif- [41]. This would suggest that players in the AL tend on ficulty in collecting data on the regulatory dynamics of average to be more prone to changes in their own rank- mutually-antagonistic networks in ecology—such as the ings than players in the NL (see Fig. 3D). ones formed by parasites and free-living species [11]—or Remarkably, we can make these general notions much assessing the potential performance of invasive species + −1 more precise, as Lii ≈ si , where we recall that si is from different environments [31]. the strength of node i (see Fig. 4B). Some similarities between these quantities is reasonably expected (cf. the role of relaxation times in a similar relationship with ran- Acknowledgments dom walk centrality in Ref. [30], which can be quantified by an eigenvalue analysis). This simple relationship be- We thank Eduardo Altmann, Jordi Bascompte, Mari- lies a stunning organizational principle of this network: ano Beguerisse D´ıaz, Damian Burch, Justin Howell, Pe- The global quantity of average commute time of a node is ter Jensen, Tom Maccarone, Ravi Montenegro, Cy Mo- well-approximated by its strength, a simple local quan- rong, Felix Reed-Tsochas, David Smith, Daniel Stouf- tity. That is, in the appropriate perturbation analysis fer, and Tom Tango for useful comments. SS did some to approximate the Laplacian pseudo-inverse, the higher of his work while a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Ox- order terms essentially cancel out, contributing little be- ford University Corporate Reputation Centre and the yond the (zeroth-order) local contribution. We also found CABDyN Complexity Centre. PJM, SP, and TM were a rougher relationship for nestedness and betweenness funded by the NSF (DMS-0645369) and by start-up funds (see Fig. 6). to PJM provided by the Institute for Advanced Ma- These results have two interesting implications. First, terials, Nanoscience and Technology and the Depart- they reveal that the success of well-connected players de- ment of Mathematics at the University of North Car- pends fundamentally on a strong aggregate performance olina at Chapel Hill. MAP acknowledges a research rather than just on their position in the network. Sec- award (#220020177) from the James S. McDonnell Foun- ond, they imply that neophyte players would need to dation. We obtained the baseball network data from face well-connected players if they want to establish a retrosheet.org. The data was obtained free of charge stronger connection to the network and a ranking that is from and is copyrighted by Retrosheet (20 Sunset Rd., less vulnerable to single matchups. Similarly, recent re- Newark, DE 19711). search on mutualistic networks in ecology has found that neophyte species experience lower competition pressures by linking to well-connected species [9]. Our findings on APPENDIX A: QUANTITIES FOR BIPARTITE baseball-player rankings suggest the possibility of finding NETWORKS similar competition patterns in mutually-antagonistic in- teractions in ecological and social networks. Here, we review some important quantities for bipar- tite networks and discuss their values for the baseball matchup networks. V. CONCLUSIONS A clustering coefficient for bipartite networks can be defined by [32]

Drawing on ideas from network science and ecology, qimn C4,mn(i)= , (A1) we have analyzed the structure and time-evolution of (km − ηimn) + (kn − ηimn)+ qimn 6 where qimn is the number of complete squares involving nestedness is given by [21] nodes i, m, and n; ηimn =1+ qimn enforces the require- ment in bipartite graphs that there are no links between Ni,j + Nl,m NODF = i,j l,m . (A3) nodes of the same population; and we recall that k is i ([P (P− 1)/2] +P [B(B − 1)/2]) the degree of node i. Hence, the numerator in (A1) gives the actual number of squares and the denominator gives For every pair of pitchers (i and j), the quantity Ni,j is the maximum possible number of possible squares. For equal to 0 if ki ≤ kj and is equal to the fraction of com- the single-sason baseball networks, we calculate the ratio mon opponents if ki > kj . We also define a similar quan- rc = hC4i/hC4ri between the mean clustering coefficient tity for every pair of batters (l and m). The nestedness hC4i summed over all nodes i and the mean clustering metric takes values between [0, 1], where 1 designates a coefficient hC4ri generated by a randomization of the net- perfectly-nested network and 0 indicates a network with work that preserves the original degree distribution [33]. no nestedness. We found that baseball networks have average clustering The NODF nestedness also allows us to calculate the coefficients that are just above that of random networks. individual nestedness of each pitcher (column) or batter Interestingly, the ratio rc decreases gradually (and al- (row) using the equation most monotonically from one season to the next) from rc ≈ 2.5 in 1954 to rc ≈ 1.3 in 2008. z(i)= Ni,j /(T − 1) , (A4) j The geodesic betweenness centrality of nodes over the X unweighted network Aˆ is defined by [1, 34] where T = P (total number of columns) for pitchers, T = B (total number of rows) for batters and N is cal- ∆ (i) i,j b(i)= j,k , (A2) culated as above. In this way, the individual nestedness dj,k j,k metric takes values between [0, 1], where 1 designates a X perfectly-nested individual and 0 indicates an individual where ∆j,k(i) is the number of shortest paths between with no nestedness. players j and k that pass through player i and dj,k is The null model used to compare the empirical nested- the total number of shortest paths between players j and ness is given by [18] k. For the single-season baseball networks, we calculate ki kj the ratio rb = hbi/hbri between the mean path length q(i, j)= + , (A5) hbi summed over all nodes i and the mean path length 2B 2P hb i generated by a randomization of the network that r where qi,j is the occupation probability of a pairwise in- preserves the degree distribution [33]. As with cluster- teraction between node i and node j, and we recall that ing coefficients, we found that the mean path lengths of B and P are, respectively, the total number of nodes j baseball networks are only slightly larger than those of (batters) and nodes i (pitchers) in the network. In a bi- random networks, finding in particular that rb ∈ (1, 3) partite network, j and i represent two different types of [35]. nodes, so qi,j is the mean of the occupation probabilities Nestedness is an important concept that has been ap- of the row and column. Recent studies have shown that plied to ecological communities, in which species present model-generated nestedness values extracted from this in sites with low biodiversity are also present in sites null model lower the probability of incorrectly determin- with high biodiversity [36]. Although the general no- ing an empirical nested structure to be significant [21]. tion of nestedness may vary, the concept has nonethe- For baseball networks, we calculated the standard error— less been employed quite successfully in the analysis of given by Z = (NODF − hNODF i)/σ, where NODF ecological networks [18]. In a nested network, interac- corresponds to the nestedness values of the empirical net- tions between two classes of nodes (e.g., plants and ani- works and hNODF i and σ are, respectively, the average mals) are arranged so that low-degree nodes interact with and standard deviations of nestedness values of random proper subsets of the interactions of high-degree nodes. replicates generated by the null model. For the base- A nested network contains not only a core of high-degree ball networks, we found that Z > 3 for all seasons (see nodes that interact with each other but also an impor- Fig. 3B). tant set of asymmetric links (i.e., connections between high-degree and low-degree nodes). The importance of nestedness measures is twofold: (1) they give a sense of APPENDIX B: DEFINITION OF RUNS TO END network organization; and (2) they have significant im- OF INNING (RUE) plications for the stability and robustness of ecological networks [9, 18]. To quantify the outcome of each plate appearance, To avoid biases in nestedness based on network size we used the sabermetric quantity runs to end of inning (i.e., the number of nodes), degree distribution, and other (RUE) [14], which assigns a value to each of the possible structural properties, we employ the nestedness calcu- outcomes in a plate appearance based on the expected lations introduced recently in Ref. [18]. The aggregate number of runs a team would obtain before the end of 7 that inning following that event, independent of game a declining phase in their careers and might have higher context. (RUE can also be adjusted by subtracting the rankings now than they will when their careers are over. initial run state [27].) Higher numbers indicate larger de- We expect that the relatively high rankings of modern grees of success for the batting team. The batter events players versus ones who retired long ago might also result (and their associated numerical RUE values) are generic in part from the increased performance discrepancy be- out (0.240), strikeout (0.207), walk (0.845), by pitch tween the top players and average players in the present (0.969), interference (1.132), fielder’s choice (0.240), sin- era versus what used to be the case and in part from gle (1.025), (1.311), (1.616), and home run performing well against the larger number of relatively (1.942). poor players occupying rosters because of expansion [38]. Note that we are ignoring events such as passed balls Finally, we note that batter–pitcher matchups are not and stolen bases that can occur in addition to the above fully random but contain significant correlations (e.g., outcomes in a given plate appearance. This might lead to in a given baseball game, the entire lineup of one team some undervaluing in the ranking for a small number of has plate appearances against the other team’s starting position players (such as Tim Raines) that rely on stolen pitcher) that can be incorporated to generalize the ran- bases. We also considered the metric known as weighted dom walker process itself [27]. on base average (wOBA) [37], and note that any metric To include the outcome of players who did not have that assigns a value to a specific plate appearance can be many plate appearances without skewing their rankings used in place of RUE without changing the rest of our via small samples, we separately accumulate the results ranking algorithm. This includes, in particular, popular for all pitchers and batters with fewer than some thresh- sabermetric quantities such as win shares and value over old number of plate appearances K into a single “re- replacement player (VORP) [12, 14]. One can also incor- placement pitcher” and “replacement batter” to repre- porate ideas like ballpark effects into the metric employed sent these less prominent players. In the results pre- at this stage of the algorithm without changing any other sented in this paper, we used the threshold K = 500 part of the method. Although it would make the method- both for single seasons and for the collective outcome ma- ology more complicated (in contrast to our goals), it is trix. Note that similar thresholds exist when determin- also possible to generalize the algorithm to include more ing single-season leadership in quantities such as batting subtle effects such as estimates for when player perfor- average (which requires 3.1 plate appearances per team mance peaks and how it declines over a long career. Some game, yielding 502 in a 162-game season) and of the active players in the data set have not yet entered average (1 inning per team game).

[1] M. E. J. Newman. SIAM Review 45, 167 (2003). [15] T. Callaghan, M. A. Porter, and P. J. Mucha. Not. Amer. [2] G. Caldarelli. Scale-Free Networks: Complex Webs in Math. Soc. 51, 887 (2004). Nature and Technology. (Oxford Univ. Press 2007). [16] T. Callaghan, M. A. Porter, and P. J. Mucha. Amer. [3] M. A. Porter, J.-P. Onnela, and P. J. Mucha. (arXiv: Math. Monthly 114(9), 761 (2007). 0902.3788) to appear in Not. Amer. Math. Soc. [17] J. L. Gross and J. Yellen. Handbook of Graph Theory [4] R. M. May. Nature 238, 413 (1972). (CRC Press 2004). [5] M. Pascual and J. Dunne (Eds). Ecological Networks: [18] J. Bascompte, P. Jordano, C. J. Meli´an and J. M. Olesen. Linking Structure to Dynamics in Food Webs. (Oxford Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 100, 9383 (2004). Univ. Press 2005). [19] P. Dickson. The Dickson Baseball Dictionary, Third Edi- [6] U. Bastolla, M. Lassig, S. C. Manrubia, and A. Valleriani. tion (W. W. Norton & Comp 2009). J. Theor. Biol. 235, 521 (2005). [20] J. Bascompte, P. Jordano, and J. M. Olesen. Science 312, [7] S. Saavedra, F. Reed-Tsochas, and B. Uzzi. Proc. Natl. 431 (2006). Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 16466 (2008). [21] M. Almeida-Neto, P. Guimar˜aes, P. R. Guimar˜aes Jr., R. [8] S. Saavedra, F. Reed-Tsochas, and B. Uzzi. Nature 457, D. Loyola, and W. Ulrich. Oikos 117, 1227 (2008). 463 (2009). [22] N. Silver. Introducing PECOTA (Brassey’s Publishers [9] U. Bastolla, M. A. Fortuna, A. Pascual-Garc´ıa, A. Fer- 2005). rera, B. Luque, and J. Bascompte. Nature 458 1018 [23] The Hardball Times Writers. The Hardball Times Base- (2009). ball Annual 2009 (The Hardball Times 2008). [10] T. L. Cz´ar´an, R. F. Hoekstra, and L. Pagie. 99, 786 [24] J. P. Keener. SIAM Review 35, 80 (1993). (2002). [25] A. N. Langville, C. D. Meyer. SIAM Review 47, 135 [11] K. D. Lafferty, A. P. Dobson, and A. M. Kuris. Proc. (2005). Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 11211 (2006). [26] ESPN, http://espn.go.com/mlb/playerratings/_/year/2008. [12] B. James. What Happened to the Baseball Hall of Fame [27] T. Tango. “Six Degrees of WOWY”, in THE BOOK– (Fireside 1995). Playing the Percentages in Baseball blog, available at [13] J. Thorn and P. Palmer. The Hidden Game of Baseball: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/article/six_degrees_of_wowy/ A Revolutionary Approach to Baseball and its Statistics (5 August 2009). (Garden City 1984). [28] D. Aldous and J.A. Fill, Reversible Markov Chains and [14] B. James. Win Shares (STATS 2002). Random Walks on Graphs, in preparation (available at 8

www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/RWG/book.html). not currently complete, we do not extract pitcher–batter [29] K. Stephenson and M. Zelen. Social Networks 11, 1 matchups from earlier years. (1989). [40] Of course, the decisions of the HOF voters are influenced [30] J. D. Noh and H. Rieger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, art. no. not only by perceptions of player performance in batter– 118701 (2004). pitcher matchups but also by perceptions of other fac- [31] F. Bulleri, J. F. Bruno, and L. Benedetti-Cecchi. PLoS tors such as defense, leadership/attitude/clubhouse pres- Biology 6, e162 (2008). ence, clutch performance, use of performance-enhancing [32] P. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Li, M. Li, Z. Di, and Y. Fan. drugs, etc. The current list of HOF members, play- Physica A 387, 6869 (2008). ers who will shortly become eligible for membership, [33] S. Maslov and K. Sneppen. Science 296, 910 (2002). and past voting results are available on the Na- [34] L. C. Freeman. Sociometry 40, 35 (1977). tional Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum’s website [35] D. Watts and S. H. Strogatz. Nature 393, 440 (1998). (www.baseballhalloffame.org) [36] W. Atmar and B. D. Paterson. Oecologia. 96, 373 (1993). [41] This feature is a sensible one, as players with high nest- [37] T. Tango, M. Lichtman and A. Dolphin. The Book: Play- edness have typically accumulated many more plate ap- ing the Percentages in Baseball (Protomac Books 2007). pearances, whether as a regular starter in a single-season [38] S. Forman, Baseball-reference.com network or over a long career in the multi-season net- (http://www.baseball-reference.com/). work, as compared to players further in the periphery of [39] Retrosheet has pre-1954 data, but because that data is the network. 9

TABLE I: Single-Season Awards and Random Walker Rankings. We show the MVP and award winners for various years from 1954 to 2008. In parentheses, we give the rank-order of the player within his own category (pitcher or batter) that we obtained using our random walker ranking system applied to the corresponding baseball season. For most of the seasons, there is good agreement between award winners and their random walker ranking. (Note that the was awarded to a single pitcher—rather than one from each league—until 1967.) 1954 1958 1963 MVP (AL) (11th) (8th) (20th) MVP(NL) WillieMays(2nd) ErnieBanks (6th) (1st) Cy Young (AL) N/A (14th) Sandy Koufax (1st) Cy Young (NL) N/A Bob Turley (14th) Sandy Koufax (1st) 1968 1973 1978 MVP (AL) Denny McLain (4th) (11th) Jim Rice (3rd) MVP (NL) (1st) (6th) Dave Parker (1st) Cy Young (AL) Denny McLain (4th) (13th) (1st) Cy Young (NL) Bob Gibson (1st) (1st) (30th) 1983 1988 1993 MVP (AL) Cal Ripken Jr. (11th) (3rd) Frank Thomas (3rd) MVP (NL) Dale Murphy (3rd) (17th) Barry Bonds (1st) Cy Young (AL) LaMarr Hoyt (21st) (24th) Jack McDowell (17th) Cy Young (NL) John Denny (14th) (7th) Greg Maddux (3rd) 1998 2003 2008 MVP (AL) Juan Gonzalez (18th) (7th) (23rd) MVP(NL) SammySosa (7th) Barry Bonds (1st) AlbertPujols (1st) Cy Young (AL) (3rd) (15th) Cliff Lee (8th) Cy Young (NL) Tom Glavine (10th) Eric Gagne (8th) Tim Lincecum (1st)

Btw(P) N(P) R(RP) R(SP) Btw(B) N(B) R(B) Jamie Moyer Mariano Rivera Pedro Martinez Julio Franco Barry Bonds Roger Clemens Billy Wagner Roger Clemens Rickey Henderson Barry Bonds Todd Helton Tommy John Greg Maddux Troy Percival Roy Halladay Steve Finley Mike Morgan Trevor Hoffman Hank Aaron Craig Biggio Manny Ramirez Jamie Moyer Tom Henke Sandy Koufax Pete Rose Gary Sheffield Frank Thomas Greg Maddux B. J. Ryan Randy Johnson Tony Perez Ken Griffey Jr. Charlie Hough Armando Benitez Luis Gonzalez Mark McGwire Don Sutton Terry Mulholland John Wetteland Dave Winfield Julio Franco Alex Rodriguez Phil Niekro Jose Mesa Keith Foulke J. R. Richard Ken Griffey Jr. Jeff Kent Larry Walker Roger Clemens Tom Glavine Rob Nen Greg Maddux Omar Vizquel

TABLE II: Player Rankings. Top 10 pitchers (P) and batters (B) according to geodesic node betweenness (Btw), nestedness (N), and random walker ranking (R). Pitchers are divided into relief pitchers (RP) and starting pitchers (SP). In accordance with HOF eligibility, this table only includes players who played at least 10 seasons between 1954 and 2008. Note that if we consider all players with careers of at least 10 seasons, no matter how many of those seasons occurred between 1954 and 2008, the only change is that becomes the highest-ranking batter. If we consider all players with at least 8 seasons, the only additional change is that is ranked just behind Barry Bonds. 10

A Greg Maddux Mookie Wilson

Chili Davis Mike LaCross Rickey Henderson

Steve Bedrosian Dave Gallagher

Ken Griffey Jr. Bert Blyleven Barry Bonds

Richard Dotson Manuel Lee

Tim Laudner Paul Kilgus Jim Rice

Ed Whitson Jeff Innis

Mark Davidson Rich Thomson Walt Terrell

Jerry Don Gleaton Marty Brown

Terry Jorgensen

Jeff Kaiser Mitch Williams

B 700

600

500

400

Batters 300

200

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Pitchers

FIG. 1: Bipartite Baseball Networks. (A) A subset of the bipartite interactions between pitchers (left column) and batters (right column) during the 1989 baseball season. The area of each circle is determined by the node degree (i.e., how many different opponents were faced). Each line indicates that a given pitcher faced a given batter, and the darkness of each line is proportional to the number of plate appearances that occurred (i.e., the node strength). (B) The matrix encoding the complete set of bipartite interactions from 1989, with pitchers (columns) and batters (rows) arranged from the lowest to the highest node degree. An element of the matrix is black if that particular pitcher and batter faced each other and white if they did not. Observe the presence of a core of high-degree players that are heavily connected to each other (top right corner), an important presence of asymmetric interactions (i.e., high-degree players connected to low-degree players), and a dearth of connections between low-degree players (bottom left corner), which are all characteristics of nested networks [18]. Some of the batters are actually pitchers (e.g., Mitch Williams), as pitchers (and, since 1997, also American League pitchers) have a chance to bat and face a small number of pitchers while at the plate. 11

0 10

−1 10 Pcum(k) −2 10

−3 10 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 k

FIG. 2: [Color online] Cumulative Degree Distribution. Semi-log plot of the cumulative degree distribution Pcum(k) for pitchers and batters in the career (1954–2008) network. The empirical data (dots) are arranged in logarithmic bins. 12

1.7 0.32 α Pitchers Data α Batters A 0.3 B Random 2 1.6 10

s 0.28

1.5 0 0.26 10 0 k 2 10 10 0.24 α 1.4 0.22 Nestedness 1.3 0.2

0.18 1.2 0.16

1.1 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year Year

0.7 0.7 Pitchers Pitchers 1972 C Batters 1973 D Batters 0.6 0.6 NL 0.5 0.5

0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3 AL

0.2 0.2 Individual Nestedness Individual Nestedness 0.1 0.1

0 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Degree Degree

FIG. 3: [Color online] Time Evolution and Summary Statistics of the Baseball Networks. Panel A shows the relation between player degree k and player strength s from 1954 to 2008. The vertical axis gives the value of the exponent α in the power-law α relationship s ∼ k (see the discussion in the main text), where we observe that α tends to decrease as a function of time. Shuffling the strengths in the network while keeping the player degrees fixed yields a power-law relationship with α ≈ 1 for all years. Blue circles denote pitchers and gray crosses denote batters. Each error bar corresponds to one standard deviation. The inset shows on a log-log scale the relationship between degree k and strength s for the 2008 season. Panel B shows the time evolution of the network’s nestedness (which we defined using the NODF metric [21]). Black circles and red squares represent, respectively, the values for the original data and the standard null model II [18]. Each error bar again corresponds to one standard deviation. Panels C and D show, respectively, the relationship between node degree and individual nestedness for the 1972 and 1973 networks. For comparison purposes, the degree of pitchers and batters are respectively scaled by a multiplicative factor of P/l and B/l, where P is the number of pitchers, B is the number of batters, and l is the number of undirected edges in the network. In 1973, the American League introduced the designated hitter rule, which caused a significant change in the structure of subsequent networks. Between 1954 and 1972, pitchers and batters each collapse onto a single curve. From 1973 to 2008, however, pitchers and batters each yield two distinct curves, revealing a division between the American league (bottom) and National League (top). 13

1 10 3 10 A B

0 10

2 10

−1 10 Strength

1 10 −2 10 RMS rate of change in votes

−3 0 10 10 −3 −2 −1 0 −2 0 10 10 10 10 10 + 10 L+ L ii ii

FIG. 4: [Color online] Network Quantities versus Graph Laplacian. We plot the diagonal elements of the Moore-Penrose + pseudo-inverse of the graph Laplacian of the network Lii versus (A) the root mean squared change of votes across the network due to the RUE ‘charge’ at each node and (B) node strength. In each case, we use logarithmic coordinates on both axes. We + −1 note in particular the Lii ≈ si relationship in panel B.

0 10 −2 10 A B

−1 −3 10 10

−4 10 −2 10

−5

Betweeness 10

−3

Individual Nestedness 10 −6 10

−7 −4 10 10 −3 −2 −1 0 −3 −2 −1 0 10 10 L+ 10 10 10 10 L+ 10 10 ii ii

FIG. 5: [Color online] Betweenness and Nestedness versus Graph Laplacian. We plot the diagonal elements of the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse of the graph Laplacian of the network versus (A) node betweenness and (B) individual nestedness. 14

FIG. 6: [Color online] Degree, Strength, Betweenness, and Nestedness. We show a log-log plot of (A) player degree k versus betweenness centrality and (B) degree versus individual nestedness in the career networks. The insets show the analogous relationships obtained by replacing degree with strength s. Pitchers are given by blue dots, and batters are given by gray crosses. Pitchers with betweenness b ≈ 2e−4 and low degree k tend to be position players who made a few pitching appearances (e.g., Keith Osik), pitchers with short careers (e.g., Wascar Serrano), or recent pitchers with few Major League appearances (e.g., John Van Beschoten, who has split time between the Major Leagues and the Minor Leagues since 2004).