I was planning to do a recap of every game but I realized that you
can basically get a recap on any major baseball website and I was just
burdening myself with unnecessary writing. I’ll just stick to the
analysis that I don’t see being done.
That said, posts may be cranked out at a slower rate for the time
being because I finally upgraded from Microsoft Office 2000 to 2007 and
now I can use Pitch F/X data in Excel. So, I’ll be trying to learn how
to correctly use and analyze that, and I’ll try to implement it into my
analysis when possible.
To anyone who does have expertise with Pitch F/X, I will be needing
any pointers I can get, so please drop some hints for me if you can (my
contact information is listed at the bottom of this page). I’m really interested in learning how to create graphs like the ones Mike Fast has in this article about Johnny Cueto’s first start. I’ve also read his tutorial on building a database
for Pitch F/X data, and while my mind went numb almost immediately, it
does sound like a cool idea, but I know very little about Perl and
MySQL, so that’s another call to any experts out there willing to lend
a few pointers.
But enough about me and my shortcomings (that’s your cue to offer a hug).
Kyle Lohse
Remember how I was whining about the Phillies preventing themselves from signing Kyle Lohse? Yeah, well, this happened:
April 1 vs. Colorado Rockies: 5 IP, 0 R, 3 H, 3 BB, 3 K
April 6 vs. Washington Nationals: 7 IP, 0 R, 4 H, 1 BB, 2 K
Total: 12 IP, 0 R, 7 H, 4 BB (0.917 WHIP), 5 K
Yeah… and the St. Louis Cardinals signed him for one year at $4.25
million. Granted, he did face a Rockies lineup that has been struggling
all season and a Nationals offense that isn’t expected to be much
better than last year’s MLB-worst, but he’s pitched 12 innings without
surrendering a single run. That’s impressive.
I will give credit where credit is due, however, and that’s to Adam
Eaton. On April 5 in Cincinnati, Eaton held a decent Reds offense to
three runs in 7 and two-thirds innings. He had nearly a 2-to-1
strikes-to-balls ratio, but he still managed to walk four. It’s an
encouraging start from a pitcher almost everyone, myself included, gave
up on a long time ago. If the Phillies can just get league-average
production from Eaton, it’s a huge burden lifted off of the bullpen.
Pat Burrell
If the Phillies’ front office is thinking about letting Burrell walk
when the season is over, they’re crazy. He’s started the season hitting
3 HR and driving in 9 runs in the first seven games, posting an OPS of
1.476.
On Monday night’s Baseball Tonight, Karl Ravech said,
half-seriously, that people should be thinking about Burrell
potentially completing the Philadelphia-themed MVP trifecta, since most
people are predicting that if anyone is going to win it as a Phillie
this year, it will be Chase Utley.
Since the Baseball Writers Association of America doesn’t really
know how to factor in a player’s true defensive contributions, it is
actually a realistic thought to imagine Burrell being named the
National League MVP. Burrell is not at all fleet of foot, and as a
result, his defense is burdensome. If the BBWAA knew of any of the
metrics that display this fact in all its glory, there’s not a chance
in hell that Burrell wins the award outside of a 60 HR, 150 RBI season.
It will be a shame if Burrell is forced to sign elsewhere after the
season because he has indicated that he relishes playing in
Philadelphia, so he’d probably be willing to take a hometown discount.
If the Phillies do decide to lock him up for a few more years, they
know what they’ll be getting, as Burrell is as consistent as they come.
From 2005 to ‘07, his slugging percentage ranged from .502 to .504 and
his OBP ranged from .388 to .400; home runs from 29 to 32; doubles from
24 to 27, and all of this consistency comes while losing at-bats in ‘06
and ‘07 from Charlie Manuel taking him out after the sixth or seventh
inning in a lot of games.
For me, though, the most satisfying statistic of his from 2007 is his 114 walks in just 598 plate appearances.
Jayson Werth vs. Geoff Jenkins
So far, Charlie Manuel has used the right field platoon as intended:
Werth against left-handed starters, Jenkins against right-handers.
However, Werth only has five at-bats in the Phillies’ first seven
games. Granted, the Phillies have only faced one left-handed starter,
and that was on Opening Day (Matt Chico of the Nationals), but you
can’t just hold Werth for the lefty starter — you have to start him
against a right-hander every now and then as well.
Geoff Jenkins is 33 years old and doesn’t appear to be getting any
better, unsurprisingly. He’s been above-average over his career (115
OPS+) but in ‘06 and ‘07, he was just league average (101 OPS+ in both
seasons). Definitely use Jenkins against right-handers only, but let
him sit out one every now and then in favor of Werth.
In 19 at-bats, Feliz has put up an uninspiring 22 OPS+ for the
Phillies. That is not a misprint; that is a real, live, correctly
calculated 22 OPS+. He has four hits — all of them singles — and one
walk. There’s just nothing to say here. I know it’s early in the
season, small sample sizes and all that good stuff, but… a 22 OPS+?
Come on.
What we didn’t see coming is that he’d be a bottom-feeder defensively. Baseball’s best-fielding third baseman has sunk to the 12th out of 16
qualified NL third-sackers in Revised Zone Rating. It won’t stay that
way forever, and I fully expect Feliz to climb his way back up, but it
just illustrates how little value Feliz has to the Phillies right now.
He’s worse than a black hole.
Myers suspects he may have tipping his pitches, a problem he licked early in his career — which doesn’t mean it can’t re-occur.
[…]
“There were a few pitches that I had to question whether I was
tipping or not,” said Myers, who added that he didn’t notice anything
after looking at the game video. “They had good approaches. I’m not
saying I was [tipping pitches]. I’m just saying they had good
approaches.”
From the dugout, Phillies manager Charlie Manuel saw a pitcher
whose fastball velocity appeared lower than normal. Myers normally
throws in the 92-95 mph range. On Sunday, he reached 92 once, and
mostly stayed in the 88-91-mph range.
Myers is way too important to the Phillies to have any extended
stretch of bad pitching. Let’s hope he figures it out when he starts
against the Chicago Cubs on Friday.
Three-Game Set at Shea
The Phillies begin a three-game series in Queens bright and early: a 1:10 EST start. Here are the pitching match-ups:
Tues. 4/8, 1:10 PM EST: Jamie Moyer vs. Oliver Perez
Wed. 4/9, 7:10 PM EST: Kyle Kendrick vs. Mike Pelfrey
Thurs. 4/10, 7:10 PM EST: Adam Eaton vs. John Maine
The first thing you should notice about the match-ups is that the Phillies get to miss Johan Santana, as expected.
Second, Adam Eaton starts a game at Shea Stadium, and that has boded well for him. His starts at Shea last season:
April 11: 7 IP, 2 ER, 4 H, 3 BB, 5 K
June 6: 6 IP, 2 ER, 5 H, 2 BB, 4 K
September 16: 4.2 IP, 5 R (4 ER), 7 H, 2 BB, 1 K
That last start aside, he was great in Queens last season. Over his
career, Eaton has a 2.81 ERA in the Mets’ home ballpark and just over a
1.0 WHIP in 32 innings.
Yeah, you read that right: the Phillies’ bullpen shined
in a victory over the Reds! Starter Kyle Kendrick looked pedestrian,
but was able to get out of some jams and limit the Reds to four runs.
Afterward, the Phillies’ bullpen pitched four scoreless innings,
allowing only one hit, no walks, and striking out three.
The
game was originally slated for a 7:10 start, but was delayed more than
an hour and a half due to rain (those of us in the Philly area were
treated to some videos reliving the 1980 season). Nevertheless, the
Phillies’ offense was on, as Chase Utley hit two home runs and drove in
three runs, and Pat Burrell hit a first-inning two-run homer as well.
Kendrick allowed eight hits — three of which were doubles — and
walked two in five innings. He did start the sixth inning, but walked
lead-off hitter Edwin Encarnacion.
The second-most surprising element of the game, after the Phillies’
great bullpen performance, was that Pedro Feliz drew a walk! Even
better is that he started the at-bat taking two strikes.
Ryan Howard isn’t looking particularly good so far this season, but
there are 158 more games to play. He’s yet to get an extra base hit.
Aside from that, it was a relatively easy victory for the Phils, and
it went almost according to plan. Manager Charlie Manuel would have
preferred if Kendrick could have notched six innings instead of five,
but Ryan Madson made up for it with two scoreless innings of relief.
Both Tom Gordon and Chad Durbin were unavailable. Gordon has pitched in
two out of the Phillies’ three prior games; Durbin had pitched in all
three.
Tomorrow afternoon, Adam Eaton faces Aaron Harang for a 1:10 meeting.
In case you missed Wednesday night’s SportsCenter, the Cincinnati
Reds had a thrilling come-from-behind victory when Edwin Encarnacion
hit a game-winning three-run home run in the bottom of the ninth inning
with his team down 5-3 to the Arizona Diamondbacks. That wasn’t the
best part, though. Jeff Brantley, the color analyst for FSN Ohio,
spends nearly the whole at-bat criticizing Encarnacion first for his
lack of bunting ability, and later for not being “clutch.”
Fire Joe Morgan, expectedly, loved it. They have the clip up, so check out their post if you’d like to watch it.
Brantley: Encarnacion has struck out three of
his last five AB’s, hasn’t hit the ball out of the infield, he had a
terrible spring training, and after that pitch right there, like I
said, you need to make sure he can bunt. I don’t think he can.
Brennaman: Well, there is no way they’re going
to ask him, or at least you would assume there is NO way they’re going
to ask him to bunt with two strikes.
One and two to Encarnacion. Breaking ball in the dirt. Count even now at two balls and two strikes.
See, that’s the problem when you ask a guy who has never bunted –
Brantley: Take him out of the game!
(Brennaman and Brantley talk over each other)
Brantley: Put somebody else in there.
Brennaman: If you believe in the bunt in this situation –
Brantley: You’re at home, you’ve got to tie the game.
Brennaman: That’s a “by the book” kind of
thing. I don’t know if there’s anybody on that bench that you’re going
to bring in and bat for Encarnacion.
Brantley: This guy is not a clutch hitter. He is not a clutch hitter.
Brennaman: His numbers would be contrary to that.
Brantley: He’s not a clutch player.
Brennaman: Two-two pitch.
(Encarnacion hits game-winning three-run home run, Brennaman is extremely excited)
Brantley: You called it! My goodness. I stand corrected, my friend! Wow!
[…]
Brantley: Boy, when I’m wrong, I love to be wrong like that, my friend.
For starters, yes, Brantley was proven wrong in that event that
Encarnacion isn’t “clutch,” (humoring, for the moment, that “clutch”
exists in some meaningful way). However, if “clutch” does exist, one
event does not turn a player from “unclutch” to “clutch” (just ask Alex
Rodriguez bashers). Brantley isn’t necessarily wrong that Encarnacion
is not “clutch.”
Brantley is quick to admit his fault, though, and does so in a
good-natured way. You have to respect this. A lot of those in the media
would slowly tip-toe away from the situation or just completely deny it
altogether.
Where Brantley definitively errs is using spring training statistics
to back up his statement that Encarnacion isn’t the guy you want up at
the plate at that moment. As has been stated numerous times in recent
years, there is little correlation between spring training and regular season performance.
Also, bunting in that situation can and cannot be a smart move. Using last year’s Run Expectancy Matrix,
runners on second and third with one out yields 1.44328 expected runs
as opposed to 1.51044 expected runs with runners on first and second
with no outs. However, bunting the runners over eliminates the double
play and, obviously, gives the Reds a chance to tie the game up on
almost any base hit to the outfield. In the context of that situation —
down by two runs in the ninth inning at home — bunting is a winning
play.
So, while Brantley probably should stray from the concept of
“clutch” since it’s just one of those intangible elements for which its
proponents have produced no evidence, he should be given leniency for
being a victim of bad timing. Nothing he said was way off the mark, and
he was cordial in admitting fault.
Costas, speaking before he emceed (and donated $50,000) at
Tuesday’s Make-a-Wish sports auction at the Broward County Convention
Center, doesn’t understand what compels so many nonjournalist sports
fans to seek a forum for their opinions.
I don’t know… maybe it’s the enjoyment one gets out of discussing
something you enjoy? I’d much rather talk with a bunch of baseball fans
than with some Englishmen about cricket. Wouldn’t you?
Why is one’s lack of journalism credentials prudent to seeking “a forum” for his opinion?
Before the Internet, most fans were content talking about sports with their buddies.
It’s funny that this line of reasoning is somehow passable. Try it in another context.
“Before anesthesia, most patients were content having open heart surgery while wide awake.”
”Today, I saw on ESPN a poll about which Western Conference
teams would not make the playoffs,” Costas said. “Well, 46 percent said
the Denver Nuggets, which has zero percent influence on anything. […]
A) Voting in an online poll != Blogging.
B) Welcome to the world of voting, Bob! Your vote has never had any
influence on anything meaningful, ever. Voting is an illusion of
democracy.
[…]Who has the time or the inclination to do this, even if you’re sitting on your computer? Why would you weigh in on it?”
There are many reasons why you’d vote in an online poll:
It’s easy.
You’re bored.
You’re feeling mischievous and you vote 12,000 times for the most
ridiculous answer to the question “Who will win the NBA championship?”
You actually believe that your vote will have a meaningful impact.
‘But it’s one thing if somebody just sets up a blog from
their mother’s basement in Albuquerque and they are who they are, and
they’re a pathetic get-a-life loser[…]
Oh, boy. First, I’ll focus on the obvious: not all bloggers live in
their mothers’ basements (talk to the elbow ’cause the hand is on
vacation).
Not all bloggers are “pathetic get-a-life losers,” either. Many
simply blog as an activity. Bloggers can just as easily be
neurosurgeons as they can be fry cooks at Wendy’s. That’s the beauty of
it, actually. The internet provides a true democracy of opinion.
Dictators like Costas, however, would prefer the power rest in the
hands of the elite, the haughty sports journalists. Don’t you know,
sports journalists can do stuff that regular people just can’t do!
Let’s see, sports journalists…
Watch games, and record important events from those games.
Talk to integral people involved with those games.
Write a narrative about the event using quotes from the people spoken to.
That’s stuff that even Harvard-graduated neurosurgeons can’t fathom. “I know how to send electromagnetic signals to the thalamus*,
but I just can’t put into words what occurred during the Blue
Jays-Twins game! And I have no idea what Ron Gardenhire is saying: ‘The
ump blew a few calls.’ What?”
* I have no idea if this is even necessary, much less possible.
[…] but now that pathetic get-a-life loser can piggyback
onto someone who actually has some level of professional accountability
and they can be comment No. 17 on Dan Le Batard’s column or Bernie Miklasz’ column
in St. Louis. That, in most cases, grants a forum to somebody who has
no particular insight or responsibility. Most of it is a combination of
ignorance or invective.”
How can a blogger “piggyback” onto someone? I’m not following this
one (I realize it’s metaphorical). Is commenting on an article
“piggybacking”? Is blogging about an article (as I am doing here)
“piggybacking”? My understanding of the term is that you actually have
to have some kind of tangible gain from someone else’s work.
The Celtics don’t get to be the best team in the
East because they have three superstars and play exceptional defense,
which seems obvious enough. They’re great because of the ”chemistry”
and ”determination” and ”leadership” of those three great players, but
might yet lose to the ”unity” and ”experience” and ”clutchness” of
Detroit, a team with, um, four great players.
Truth is, at the top of the sports food chain, the difference
between the most talented teams — and the most important of the
intangibles — is often dumb luck. You, too, can beat the clutchness of
Tom Brady and genius of Bill Belichick and desire of Wes Welker if
David Tyree happens to catch the ball off the top of his helmet after
Eli Manning magically becomes Vince Young.
Back to the subject, why just flat assume that those commenting have
“no particular insight”? I’m a cynic of the highest degree, but that is
just too cynical even for my tastes, and it reeks of elitism.
Costas seems to think that his degree in journalism somehow gave him the power to understand everything sports-related.
Internet and talk radio commentary that “confuses simple
mean-spiritedness and stupidity with edginess. Just because I can call
someone a name doesn’t mean I’m insightful or tough and edgy. It means
I’m an ####.”
So, Costas has a problem with people on the Internet calling each other names. The pot calls the kettle black. Let’s recap:
Bloggers set up blogs from their mom’s basement in Albuquerque.
These bloggers are pathetic get-a-life losers.
People who comment on articles have no insight and are ignorant.
It’s true: people are more likely to act immaturely since they are
protected by the anonymity the Internet provides. Let’s not throw the
baby out with the bath water, however.
Lastly, I’d be offended if I was from Albuquerque. What does that have to do with loserdom?
“It’s just a high-tech place for idiots to do what they used
to do on bar stools or in school yards, if they were school yard
bullies, or on men’s room walls in gas stations. That doesn’t mean that
anyone with half a brain should respect it.”
So, blogging about how David Wright > Jimmy Rollins for ‘07 NL
MVP, for instance, is something I’d do while sitting in a bar? Sure. So
is pontificating about U.S. foreign policy, asking for cheap
one-liners, and begging for my car keys after my 9th beer.
I don’t see how being a school bully has anything to do with
blogging. Is this a Freudian slip? Bob… is there something you’d like
to talk about? Is it not the bloggers who are wedgie-prone, but you?
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen someone write on a men’s
room wall, “David Wright > Jimmy Rollins for ‘07 NL MVP because he
has a higher OBP/SLG, plays better defense, and has comparable
base-stealing ability.”
Most bloggers do a great job in adding to the dialogue in a broad
array of subjects. I get more of my sports information from bloggers (I
have five blogs with RSS buttons in my browser, still more in my
favorites; none on both counts for newspaper and magazine websites,
including ESPN). I think it’s the same way for most Web surfers.
If we can infer one thing from Costas’ unnecessary, immature,
factless rant, it’s that his displeasure over bloggers and the people
who read and comment on them is based on the fact that they are
competition for his job. Bloggers do for free what elitists like Costas
do for six-figure incomes, and many do it at a comparable level and are
more entertaining in the process.
Focusing on those who comment on articles is fallacious. It’s what a
statistics-inclined person would describe as a “small sample size.”
Making a judgment based on two sentences is awfully flawed. It’s
absolutely true that more than just a few people who leave comments do
so to start flame wars, to spam, or to simply make a (usually) unfunny
joke that adds nothing to the intellectual level of the conversation.
The next step up for Costas is calling for comment Eugenics. “Want
to leave a comment on a Bob Costas article? Take the 30-minute IQ test.
If you score 110 or higher, your comment will be held in moderation for
approval by Mr. Robert Quinlan Costas himself.”
Even worse is imagining how he’d handle blogging. “So, you wish to
start a blog about the Cincinnati Reds? Answer the following question:
Do you have a degree in journalism?”
If you answer no, your computer immediately shuts down and you
become unable to access the Internet through a browser the next time
you turn it on. If you answer yes, you are instead redirected to a Google image search for “Bob Costas.”
WHY EVA LONGORIA AND I WILL ELOPE TO WARP-3 ISLAND
Let’s
play a guessing game. In the last five years, how many mainstream
baseball journalists have linked to anything on Baseball Prospectus?
I’m going to go ahead and guess “three.”
Today, Todd Zolecki makes it four
with an article titled “Phillies show striking out not all that bad.” I
believe every dead baseball purist just rolled over in his grave. But
there are a few people who are interested in hearing more: me, the
other mother’s basement-dwelling nerds, and Eva Longoria (pictured to
the right with the caption, “It’s so sexy when a man rattles off
statistics”).
Baseball Prospectus looked at the relationship
between teams’ strikeout rates and run production from 1950 to 2002. It
found there was no correlation between the two. It also found that a
hitter’s strikeout rate correlates positively to power, slugging
percentage, and walk rate.
After another look at strikeouts by Baseball
Prospectus in 2005, analyst James Click wrote, “On a very rough scale,
a strikeout costs a team about three one-hundredths of a run. Looking
at team totals from 2004, Reds batters led the league in strikeouts
with 1,335. . . . All those failures at the plate cost the Reds an
estimated 13.6 runs over the course of the season, or just over one
win.”
Most interesting in Zolecki’s article isn’t the plethora of
statistics that show strikeouts as rather meaningless for a hitter, but
the feelings of Ryan Howard regarding the use of K’s to judge a
hitter’s worth:
Ryan Howard struck out 199 times last season, the
most strikeouts in a season in baseball history. He’d rather talk about
anything else.
“I feel like I’m back in double A,” he said. “That’s all people
used to talk about were strikeouts. You don’t hear anybody say, ‘That
guy led the league in ground outs last year.’ “
Howard could benefit from reducing his strikeouts, but they are
part of his game. He is one of the most feared hitters in baseball. He
has hit 100 home runs faster than any other player in baseball history.
“You ground out. You fly out. You strike out. An out is an
out,” Howard said. “People want to glorify what they want to glorify.
If hitting into double plays were a big thing, then people would make
them a big thing.”
Howard’s logical reaction is a breath of fresh air, especially when
you consider some of the bigger names in baseball have become all hot
and bothered with the advent of in-depth statistical analysis. Derek
Jeter, when he was told that “clutch” hitting doesn’t exist, said, “You
can take those stat guys and throw them out the window.”
It’s not just the players that have balked at the notion that you
can better understand the game of baseball with Microsoft Excel; fans
(especially the better-educated sportswriters) have been just as
unresponsive to the science of baseball. We, of course, remember Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News, but there’s also Jon Heyman, Bruce Miles, Joe Morgan, and a plethora of other guys out there scowling at the calculations.
For Zolecki to not only link to, but quote a Baseball Prospectus
article and to write a non-traditional article like “hitters striking
out means nada” — bravo.
Congratulations aside to an honorable Philadelphia sports journalist
(one of very few), I do take issue with just one thing he wrote towards
the end of his article:
Howard is a career .291 hitter. He has struck out
493 times in 1,461 career at-bats, which means he hits .439 when he
puts the ball in play. If he could have cut his strikeouts from 199 to
175 last season, his average would have jumped from .268 to .289. He
might have hit 50 homers instead of 47.
First of all, Howard’s batting average on balls in play (BABIP) is .353, not .439.
Zolecki states that if Howard cut down on his K’s, his production
would increase as a result of putting the ball in play more often.
However, there’s no way to know this, even if we know his BABIP. The
theory hinges on all of the variables staying exactly the same except
for strikeouts, as if none of them are related to each other. Howard’s
power production is, in fact, related to his propensity to strike out.
Look at the kings of not striking out.
They are overwhelmingly players with puny to mediocre slugging
percentages, like Juan Pierre and Jason Kendall. You don’t see 20+ HR
player on the page until you hit Albert Pujols. The defense against a
swinging strikeout is a shorter swing. Shortening the swing results in
more bat control but less power.
If we learned one thing from Zolecki’s article, it’s that we
shouldn’t go into cardiac arrest every time we hear “strike three.” But
if we learned another, more important thing — say, from Dan Shaughnessy
— it’s that Zolecki and his calculator are “living at home, in the
basement, rent free.”
P.S. Sorry, Tony Parker, you just weren’t nerdy enough for her. You didn’t even cry when Gary Gygax died.
Visit my new website -- Crashburn Alley!>
Crashburn Alley is a fusion of the phrase "crash and burn" with Ashburn Alley, which is beyond the center field fence at Citizens Bank Park. You can read more about Crashburn Alley here.>
I'm a diehard Phillies fan who is still reeling from the 1993 World Series and Joe Carter's three-run homerun in Game 6.
The
game was originally slated for a 7:10 start, but was delayed more than
an hour and a half due to rain (those of us in the Philly area were
treated to some videos reliving the 1980 season). Nevertheless, the
Phillies’ offense was on, as Chase Utley hit two home runs and drove in
three runs, and Pat Burrell hit a first-inning two-run homer as well.
