Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
Supposedly the Diamondbacks are a pretty good team this year, but I've mostly watched them get pummeled by either the Red Sox, Mets, or Yankees, so - while acknowledging the small sample size - I can’t say I'm overly impressed. At least they ditched the purple and teal uniforms. The Yankees beat them 7-1 today behind a very strong eight-inning, four-hit performance from Andy Pettitte. By the way, why doesn’t Pettitte have a better nickname? We've got Moose, Rocket, Worm-Killer, the Yankee Clippard, and…. Andy. You guys need to get to work on this.
Anyway, the Yankees' offense was actually a bit frustrating today – seven runs is nothing to complain about, but they left a bushel of runners stranded in between their 12 hits and 6 walks. Every Yankee besides Cano and Cairo had a hit, with the bulk of the RBIs coming from Alex Rodriguez (surprise) and Hideki Matsui, each 3-4 on the day.
The Diamondbacks also made three errors, but that doesn’t even begin to describe the unfathomable abyss that was their defense; they really should have made at least three or four additional plays. Some of this can probably be blamed on starting pitcher Doug Davis, who, apparently determined to resuscitate Steve “Human Rain Delay” Trachsel’s tarnished reputation, was taking his sweet, sweet time before every single pitch, throw to first, and cup-adjustment, while his infielders lolled around with glazed eyes knitting elaborate holiday sweaters. His sluggishness was so frustrating that Michael Kay and John Flaherty, dying up in the booth, got peeved enough to start attacking his personal appearance -- though I don’t think they can have been totally aware of all the connotations of the phrase “landing strip.” Davis threw 105 leisurely pitches in his five innings, of which 57 were strikes, and was lucky to escape with just four runs allowed. It was a bad day all around for the Snakes: they also had to watch the eminently likeable Orlando Hudson limp off the field with an apparent (hopefully minor) leg injury.
So it was only half of a pretty game, but Andy Pettitte is a pleasure to watch this season – Arizona’s only run scored on a groundout - and so is a ninth straight win. Pettitte probably could have finished the game, but, get this, Scott Proctor needed to get some work in. No, really. No – really. Who are these people and what have they done with the Yankees?
The Subway Series this weekend may actually live up to the hype; neither team can afford to lose right now. Actually, the Mets technically could – they’re still in first after all – but after losing five in a row and nine of their last ten, they need to stop the bleeding. They’re a much better team than this, and way past due for a breakout game.
Ah, an important Subway Series featuring Roger Clemens! I feel young again.
BTW, Mike Hargrove is the original "Human Rain Delay"
Along the lines of that inadvertent use of "landing strip" mentioned above --
tomorrow Clemens really begins earning his next Hummer.
Yaaayyyyyyyy!!
And good luck with your new movie.
Josh Beckett getting shellacked, however, is oe of those things.
Reading Emma Span's recap of today's game was icing on the cake.
perhaps it's the way she makes it OK to kinda like the mets, too.
Michael Kay: Baseball's Marv Albert?
But these new Mets are emminently likeable, especially because of Willie.
How can you not root for Willie?
El Duque, too. I'll always have a soft spot for that guy, plus, he's just so much fun to watch pitch.
So those are the two Yankees who make it ok to root for the Mets, and the rest of their cast of characters isn't too bad either.
And they've got an outstanding broadcast team in Darling, Hernandez and Cohen.
That said, let's crush them into the dirt this weekend.
A damned shame.
Should've kept him and should've kept Andy.
I for one am glad to have Emma bantering it up here. There is something to be said for relaxed consciousness, or a relaxed conscience in any respect >;)
"El Dookie" What have you been calling me??
Can't wait to see BP's adjusted standings in the morning.
I was thinking about this and, while I'm obviously no expert, it occurred to me that as an infielder (and yes, of course, I'm talking little league) I was taught to field short hops by getting my body in front of the ball and using my throwing hand to knock down bad hops.
First basemen, however, have a much different technique, because they have to stretch, keep one foot planted, and use but one hand.
And it's do or die, so they have to decide whether and when to come off the bag.
It doesn't seem like run-of-the-mill infield work to me.
What do you think?
I see three at the end of Aug and three in the middle of Sept.
Sweep, and it's only 1.5 back...
We need to be in a position where 4 of 6'll do the trick.
Or at least if we can hang around where we are now, say 6-8, then at least we'll have some control over our own destiny.
Glad it's a season again!
Its called ESP......N
:)
"Boomer" Wells was also stolen, from Greg "Boomer" Wells. I'm very disappointed that baseball-reference doesn't even list that nickname.
Who knew?
"Baseball seemed to come easy for the son of the former Cuban national team member who originally carried the nickname of "The Duke." Orlando Hernandez's father, Arnaldo "El Duque" Hernandez, was known for his electric pitching style and equally flashy sense of fashion."
Really nice write-up, Emma. Love your sense of humour.
The real championship series was between the Spurs and Suns, and even that felt like a cheat, for obvious reasons.
Thank goodness baseball is back. :-)
I'd like to understand what the following numbers tell us:
Boston has scored 65 more runs than they've allowed (328-263) and they are 41-24.
The Yankees, for their part, have also scored 65 more runs than they've allowed (390-295) and yet they're 33-31.
What does this mean?
If a team does especially well in one-run games, it's either (a) because they're a clutch, winning team, or (b) largely a matter of luck. Depends on who you ask.
Things seem to be regressing to the proverbial mean. Let's hope it ain't too late.
i know that doesn't mean much in the long run, but it would be 3 more wins and most likely an advance in both the division and wild card races.
i like the pitching matchups for the weekend. i think the yankee clippard can do well and glavine is winless in his last 5 starts, i believe.
we will then rake at coors field and get our road record to a respectable level. let's keep the train a-rollin'!!!
Schteeve, I'm not sure I'm following your explanation--either that, or it doesn't seem to explain anything, I'm not sure which.
The explanation is luck? Perhaps my question is actually the mechanism through which that luck works, in which case JL's explanation is more cogent.
So JL, basically, there's no real disagreement, right? The explanation is the same (one-run games) but the explanation as to why one team wins those games and another loses is in dispute.
Is that right?
And am I to understand, then, that there's a school of thought that holds that one-run games are decided by what amounts to a coin flip?
I can't imagine anyone holds that view, and I don't want to caricature that view, so am I missing something?
46 You're right, yankz, I'm inclined to think that winning one-run games is more than just a matter of luck, but I don't pretend to know the argument(s) for luck.
There's much in this world I don't understand...
A sweep would be nice, to be sure, but beware of hubris.
Also, I have issue with something she wrote yesterday. You're telling me you'd really like to see Jeter or A-God stop to hug Ian Kinsler or something?
There's probably an argument to be made that 1-run games are decided on the basis of fewer individual random events (esp. if it's the case that 10-9 games are less likely among 19-total-run-games than 2-1 among 3-run-total-games) and therefore suffer larger statistical fluctuations and are therefore in fact more like coin-tosses. Also, imagine the Yankees are playing your Little League team - you'd expect them to do worse in 1-run games than in blowouts.
Finally, note that X+65/X vs Y+65/Y is worse for the X>>Y case, as is obvious from the limit where Y=0. In this case, over about 65 games, that translates to a record of 65-0. A team with 10^6+65/10^6 would certainly have a 0.500 record.
p.s. you can put your umbrella, personal radio, cameras etc. for example in your see through plastic bag if you need help carrying those items into the stadium
That's a good point, and I'll to think about it more. If true, then maybe we have to rethink the whole defensive position scale. It is commonly assumed that, say, SS or CF are much harder to play than 1B--so, light hitting but defensive SS or CF is more acceptable than the same at 1B. But, if 1B (or any position for that matter) rquires a distinct set of skills that are not translatable between positions, then the defensive value of 1B must be considered de facto higher than usually assumed (since the pool of potential radequate replacements would shrink).
Two minor addenda. First,
"X+65/X vs Y+65/Y is worse for the X>>Y case"
The important ratio is
(X+65)^2 / {X^2 + (X+65)^2}
and this will magnify the difference you're talking about.
Second, teams do have some control over the distribution of their runs. Here are two factors: Closer (and bullpen in general), and (yes, I'm afraid it's true!) small-ball skills. If two teams score the same number of runs and allow the same number of runs, but one has a better closer and four really good bunters, that one is likely to win more of the close games and have a better record.
(On a side note, I know that it is popular wisdom that the Yankees have done better than their pythgorean expected win total under Torre because of the excellence of Rivera. But Mo's real excellence has been in the postseason; during teh regular season he has been excellent and consistent, but not always historically so (think Eckersly or Gagné). I wonder if the it is not the opposite--Torre's penchant for relying on middle relievers who manage to squander bigger leads and create more close games that Mo saves. I would never do this study myself, but it would be interesting to compare how close games are created--having a ten run lead that slowly gets wittled to a 10-8 win (maybe a on three run homer with two outs in the ninth) sems to be a different beast than a game that is contested and close throughout. Or maybe not.)
Second, could you explain a little more how having four bunters will help a team win more close games? I thought that bunting a player from first to second (with no outs) actually decreased the chances of that team scoring. But I don't know anything about bunting a player from second to third with no outs--does 3B w/one out represent a higher chance to score than 2B w/no out? I'm talking statistically, not anecdotally.
OUTS
RUNNERS 0 1 2
--- 0.5165 0.2796 0.1075
1-- 0.8968 0.5487 0.2370
-2- 1.1385 0.6911 0.3502
12- 1.4693 0.9143 0.4433
--3 1.5120 0.9795 0.3718
1-3 1.8228 1.1830 0.4931
-23 2.0363 1.4144 0.6073
123 2.3109 1.5279 0.7485
runners and corresponding bases on the left, with the other columns representing chances of scoring with 0, 1, or 2 outs with runners in those positions.... higher the number, better the chance.
i don't remember where i got this from, but i cut and pasted it into a word document when someone here gave a link to this information.
Second, Rivera has been that good. Especially since 2003: ERA of 1.69 in over 300 innings with 264 strikeouts.
Third, RIYank said "baserunners," not bunters. Bunting might have an effect on outperforming the pythagorean record if a team is exceptional at scoring one run in a tie game in the ninth. Baserunning, meanwhile, was one of the factors identified by Bill James as potentially skewing the numbers one way or the other. Having exceptional baserunning ability would allow teams to maximize runs for a weaker offense. Similarly, an exceptional defense would be able to minimize runs allowed for a weaker pitching staff.
"Diaper bags, small children's backpacks, small women's purses, and backpack purses will be permitted but are subject to inspection."
Bunting typically increases your chances of scoring one run, at the expense of your chance of scoring many. This means that your expected runs decreases when you bunt, but if you can do it well in the tenth inning you increase your chance of winning the game. So that (I think) answers the second part of 60, right?
Now for closer. Sure, having a great close just cuts the number of runs you give up, and in that way it's just like having a great starter or a great SS, and that's reflected in the Runs Against parameter in the formula. But when you have a great closer, you also have leverage. You can decide exactly when you're using your best pitcher. This means that the runs you give up will tend to be in the innings that don't matter as much.
Suppose Manager Joe uses his closer really well, while Manager Grady uses his equally good closer badly. The two teams then give up the same number of runs, but Joe's team gives up runs in blow-out games while Grady's gives them up in tight games, so Joe wins more games.
It's much harder to leverage your starters.
One formula takes the elements of run-scoring (hit, walks, steals, homers...) and predicts runs. One formula takes runs and predicts wins. Each of these predicts incorrectly, sometimes way off, and we'd like to know why. Good baserunning explains discrepancies in the first formula. Closer, small-ball ability, those might (MIGHT) explain discrepancies in the second.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/standings.php
I can't find it for earlier years, but basically it goes one step further than Pythagorean Record, and bases expectations on EQA. Clay Davenport explains the principles here: http://tinyurl.com/2dgev6
(BP Subscription required). In part, he uses aggregate player performance to predict, for example, that the 2003 Royals and Expos, who had started hot (article written May 1), would come back to earth- they may have acheived well, but their performances suggested .500 teams.
Further, for those inclined and who have BP subscriptions, this article is highly reccomended: http://tinyurl.com/dletq
After more digging at BP, I found this article, also from 1999: http://tinyurl.com/285ukh In it, Keith Woolner (now assistant to the GM in Cleveland) explains that having a good bullpen could sway the Pythagorean differential as much as 2 games. The real kicker is towards the end, where Woolner finds a 0.56 correlation between a teams' one-run game performance and its deviation from Pythagorean record. He also notes that a .600 team is not supposed to win 60% of its one run games; in fact, bad teams could be expected to have more close games because that's the only way they're going to beat good teams.
Anyway, if performance in one-run games is going to determine the deviation, and there are specific reasons why a team struggles (or overachieves) in one-run games, there's the explanation for the deviation. In the case of the 2007 Yankees, it's because the Yankees started the season 2-11 in one-run games, because of a bad bullpen (including Rivera). That has apparently straightened out, and the Yankees have a much better record to show for it.
looks like you will be treking it around the city. if you absolutely need to have a backpack for your previous excursions i believe you can check a backpack outside the stadium at certain spots. I never done it, but I see signs for it. Maybe someone who has done it can give you more info.
63 i hope you are not trying to find a gigantic ziplock bag for your stuff. I dont even know if it exists or if it would be feasible. What i meant was like a shopping bag type of plastic bag, except that it is clear and see through without any advertisement on markings to obstruct the view of the bag. If you find a bag like that you are set. If you happen to bring in children's bags or diaper bags, they still have a right to refuse you. Go with the clear plastic bag and check in a backpack outside of the stadium is how I would do it. Better safe than sorry.
And here's Joe, calm & collected during the entire ordeal in late April & May, not being testy or snapping at any members of the media.
This is why you can't fire the man - he's truly the eye of the hurricane that is this team.
...that's my $.02
If you need to check your bags, you can use the nearby bowling alley, which is located along River Avenue (under the elevated subway and across from the bleacher's entrance.
As for clear bags, all of the local stores (even McDonalds) have them on hand. If you aren't purchasing things near the stadium, there are actually free clear bags available near the entrances to each gate. Simply grab a few and transfer the contents of your non-clear bags.
As to your big question, yes, there's evidence for that. You can check out the Win Expectancy Finder (google it). Look at the situation with the score tied in the bottom of the ninth. First look at no out, man on second: the winning chance is .798. Now look at one out, man on third: the winning chance is .831.
There must be a more direct way of checking, but I'm too lazy to find it.
Also, does anyone else think the security measures at sporting events are a joke? A terrorist could have several pounds of explosives strapped to their body, but as long as they have a working cell phone and empty cap, they're permitted to walk right through.
Now I have to throw in an extra 30-40 minutes. 15 minutes to pay someone $5 to hold my bag and 25 minutes (assuming it is the Royals in town) to get frisked. It is so annoying to go thru all this extra trouble and extra money for no additional safety.
Meanwhile Shea was much more pleasant. You are allowed to bring bags in -- you just have to allow them to be searched. The guys looked thru them quickly and didn't give anyone any hassle. At the Yanks/Mets game, they were genuinely welcoming. The guy who check my bag, saw my Yankee hat, smiled and said, "I hope you come back to visit." I was very impressed.
Meanwhile, given the 20 games I used to go each year, the yankee security is much less friendly. I would usually carry a small bag that held a newspaper, water bottle and food in. If one guy said "no" (though not so nicely) to my bag, i would just stand on a different line who would let me in. The easiest was to go with a woman and have her pretend the same bag was her purse. She would always get in.
Stadium security is a main reason why I go to less games each year.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19235370/
oops.
Miguel Cairo: "Best .224 hitter in AL... has belly full of guts."
Wil Nieves: "BA lower than Mojave Desert temp... keep glove open, ball will find it... runs til you tag him out."
86 87 nice.
"No film -- has he ever had a plate appearance?"
89 Good one.
90 LOL. Why didn't I think of that one?
The one liners spawned by Banter regulars from this report are priceless, though.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.