Baseball – notesfromnokomis

Baseball 2021

Tonight is the first time that the 2021 baseball season could end. The Braves have won three games, a fourth victory concludes the World Series. This is always a bittersweet day for me – exciting because there could be a new champion, sad because it will be a long wait until meaningful games are played next spring.

[The grand slam that Adam Duvall just hit makes it much more likely that the season will end tonight.]

I watched a lot of games this summer.[1] First, it was nice to have full summer of games after last year’s pandemic-induced truncated season. Second, the Red Sox played well, much better than last season, and a bit better than expected. The Red Sox were quite brutal last year, winning only 40% of their games, which was fourth worst in the majors (there are 30 teams). This year they won almost 57% of their games, which only six teams bettered.

[The Braves 4-run lead lasted less than two innings, though they have regained the lead 5-4.]

But the turnaround was not entirely unexpected, even to non-fans of the Red Sox. There is a baseball website (indeed there are so many good ones that even I can’t read them all) called Fangraphs,[2] which predicts how each player will perform and, based on that, how many games each team will win. They predicted that the Red Sox would win 88 games; they finished the season with 92 wins.

Below is a chart that shows (according to Fangraphs) how each team fared against its expectation. You will see extreme variability. This is not necessarily a fault of the prediction system. It is common for teams that play well (in the first half of the season) to improve their team with trades and therefore win more games than would have been expected based on the season-opening roster. And – teams that aren’t playing well often make trades that weaken their roster this year, while (hopefully) strengthening their team in the future.

Team	Predicted	Actual	Wins over
	Wins	Wins	Prediction

Giants	78	107	29
Mariners	73	90	17
Rays	83	100	17
Brewers	79	95	16
Cardinals	79	90	11
Dodgers	96	106	10
Reds	76	83	7
Astros	89	95	6
Rockies	68	74	6
Athletics	81	86	5
White Sox	88	93	5
Red Sox	88	92	4
Tigers	73	77	4
Blue Jays	89	91	2
Phillies	80	82	2
Braves	89	88	-1
Cleveland	81	80	-1
Pirates	65	61	-4
Royals	78	74	-4
Yankees	96	92	-4
Marlins	72	67	-5
Cubs	77	71	-6
Angels	84	77	-7
Rangers	71	60	-11
Mets	91	77	-14
Orioles	67	52	-15
Padres	94	79	-15
Twins	88	73	-15
Nationals	83	65	-18
Diamondbacks	74	52	-22

As you can see, the Giants massively exceeded expectations in winning the most games in the league. But the Dodgers, who were predicted to win more games than any other team also substantially exceeded expectations. And even teams expected to be bad can underperform. The Orioles and Pirates were predicted to have the fewest wins in the AL and NL respectively (seemingly perennially) and they both managed to underperform.

This chart is a proxy for how each fan base feels about their team. Those with an overperformance, like the Mariners and Reds, probably have pretty happy fans. Even though they didn’t make the playoffs, they were playing games that mattered deep into September. On the other hand, fans of the Padres and Nationals, who began the season with championship aspirations, are rather despondent.

Over or under performing is all well and good and might influence a fan’s psyche over the course of a season. But what really matters is making the playoffs, and eight of the teams that made the playoffs exceeded expectations. Only the Braves (one game fewer) and the Yankees (four fewer) made the playoffs while winning fewer games than expected.

I was quite happy with the Red Sox season. They led their division for 74 days in the middle of the season. They won 46 games against teams with a winning record, only three teams won more. They dominated teams with a losing record, going 46-22, but this highlights a huge inequity in baseball scheduling. The Giants and Dodgers, who led with majors with 107 and 106 wins respectively, played 99 and 100 games against teams with losing records, at least 30 more games against weak competition than the Red Sox.

[The Astros now lead 9-5 in the eighth inning, which almost certainly means there will be a game six in Houston.]

To top off the season, the Red Sox played their archrivals the Yankees in the AL wildcard game and prevailed. Then they played the top team in their division in a best of five series. The current playoff system is relatively stupid. It rewards teams who win a weak division more than teams, like the Dodgers, who won the second most games in the majors. And in this case, it forced the Red Sox to play the Rays, whom they had already played 19 times.

Quick fix for playoffs system, no wild card game. Only the top four teams make the playoffs, without regard to division, and all series are best of seven. (I may have written about this before. If I did, it bears repeating.)

The Red Sox beat the Rays in four games and then fell to the Astros in six games. Then I started rooting against the Astros, who are something of a pariah team based on a cheating scandal from a couple of years ago. I’m looking forward to seeing how the Red Sox tweak their roster during the off-season.

[Astros won 9-5.]

And I’m looking forward to at least one more World Series game this season.

[1] Major League Baseball sells a cable package for a bit under $200, which provides access to almost every game played every day of the season, and which I consider about the best money I spend every year.

[2] https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

The 2019 Baseball Season Has Begun

Baseball’s opening day has come and gone with little fanfare. Even I barely noticed. There is something weird about starting the year with games in a foreign country. And Cincinnati fans will perhaps never recover from losing their long cherished first-game-of-the-year privileges.

Did anyone care about seeing Ichiro retire? Contrived sports events do not resonate well with me. To let a guy play two games in his home country and then retire during the second game isn’t per se wrong. But it doesn’t seem right either. He was a tremendous player in his prime and, although he still thinks he can help a team, no team agrees.

Who knows what a “check swing” is? Be honest. Who thinks a swing is checked as long as the bat doesn’t cross the plate? Or the player didn’t “break his wrists”? Who thinks there is a specific standard? There isn’t. A player attempts to hit the ball or he doesn’t. It’s as simple and ineffable as that.

In the second inning of game five of the 2017 World Series, Chris Taylor looked like he wanted to bunt, had the bat ready to hit the ball, but didn’t. The umpire yelled “yes, he did.”[1] The “did” was attempt to hit the ball. That is the swinging strike rule. There is no check swing rule. Nothing in the rule book mentions check swing, despite the constant references to it by players, coaches, and announcers. The concept of “attempting to strike at the ball” is undefined. It is a pure judgment call.[2]

Also in game five, an announcer said “if you give Kershaw three runs, he knows what to do with it.”[3] This statement suggests that Kershaw pitches differently with a lead than without. Perhaps he does. Is he the only such pitcher? Is it a rare skill? Is it a skill at all? Or is it just another announcer saying something that he heard someone else say? Most likely, the last. All credible research suggests that pitchers perform roughly the same whether they have the lead, the game is tied, or they are behind. Pitchers do not pitch to the score; they pitch.

A common bit of tripe from announcers is that was “a great piece of hitting,” which you will hear all year long. I have heard announcers say it about line drive singles, bloop doubles, long fly balls off the wall, just about anything hit that doesn’t result in an out. If you watch even two baseball games, you will hear an announcer pronounce (after a batter reached base on a hit) “that was a great piece of hitting.” They never say it about a vicious line drive that a third baseman dives and snares inches off the ground or a towering fly ball that the center fielder tracks down just before it sails over the outfield fence. They only say it when the batter reaches base. They say it without regard to whether the swing was good or bad. It is an entirely results based comment and is therefore almost wholly without merit.

The announcer stated that game five of the 2017 World Series was “one of the most unique game fives in history.” Who knows, maybe it was. But how can you tell? Is there any way to judge? Is there even a way to contemplate “most unique?” BTW, Don Larsen threw a perfect game in game five of the 1956 World Series. That was pretty unique. Maybe not the most unique, but it has to be right up there. (I’d be interested in hearing what you consider the most unique thing you have done, seen, or heard of.)

These notes from 2017 are helping me get ready for another baseball season, a season that now is full of questions.

–Will the Red Sox repeat despite losing significant contributors off their roster?

Not unless they add players during the season.

–Will the Yankees win the division after being only the ninth team in history with 100 wins to finish in second place?

They made several significant additions to an already loaded roster and have a good chance to usurp the Red Sox.

–Will the Reds, who are undefeated, be competitive after four consecutive years with over 90 losses?

I think they will, but they need solid seasons from newly acquired Yasiel Puig, Sonny Gray, and Matt Kemp, among others.[4]

–Will the Indians be able to win the relatively pathetic Central Division yet again?

Few teams in MLB are as lopsided as the Indians – they have two offensive stars (Francisco Lindor and Jose Ramirez), outstanding starting pitching, and precious little else. Still, I think they will win the division.

–Can the NL win the World Series?

Probably not, the Yankees, Astros, and Red Sox figure to be the three best teams in the majors

Don’t forget the little guys. Go watch a youth or high school baseball game. The players are fun, if highly flawed. You might uncover a gem. The best baseball in the world is played in our country and it starts at the youth level. In a typical year, I see games involving players from age five all the way through the majors. Every person reading this lives near a college. Most of them have baseball free for the watching, certainly every high school does. Go watch America’s pastime safe in the knowledge that you probably know more about the non-existent check swing rule than the coaches do.[5]

[1] I hate it when players, fans, and coaches yell “yes, he did.” I’m ok with umpires doing it.

[2] In the 11th inning of game five, Yasiel Puig looked like he might have swung at a pitch, but no strike was called, the announcer stated that “he went a long way.” Apparently, that is his standard.

[3] The announcer seemingly believes that most pitchers have no idea what to do with a three-run lead.

[4] The Red last 90 games four years in a row from 1930 to 1934, when they managed the “feat” five years in a row. On the other side of the ledger, the Big Red Machine averaged over 100 wins a year from 1972 to 1976.

[5] If you see me at a game, ask me about the fourth out rule. It’s one of my favorite topics.

The Baseball Playoffs Have Begun

With the stupendously unfair wild card games out of the way, we can focus on true playoff baseball. “Unfair” because one game in baseball is irrelevant, a rounding error over the course of 162 games. The outrageously bad Baltimore Orioles won 61 fewer games than the Red Sox, but they still won 47 games. A good NFL team needs at least four years to win 47 games.

Bad as they were, the Orioles had a four-game win streak and two three-game win streaks. In late July, they won three games in a row by scores of 15-5, 11-2, and 11-5, against a Tampa Bay Rays team that won 90 games. That was after the Orioles had traded away their best player, Manny Machado, and their best relief pitcher, Zach Britton. They did it again in late August, after trading away a starting pitcher, their closer, and their starting 2nd baseman. That time, they won three in a row over the 73-win Toronto Blue Jays by scores of 7-0, 12-5, and 10-5. A really bad baseball team can still win consecutive games convincingly.

My general point is that one game in baseball signifies almost nothing, it certainly doesn’t prove anything. But, over the past two days, one game consigned the Oakland Athletics and the Chicago Cubs to the 2018 dustbin along with the Orioles. This, despite the Cubs winning 95 games, the second most in the National League, and the A’s winning 97 games, more than any NL team. Life isn’t fair, and neither is the MLB playoff format.

Now the real fun begins. There will be four five-game series to (essentially) send teams to the Final Four. But because it’s baseball, they don’t use exciting lingo, they use “AL division series” or, even worse, “ALDS,” which don’t convey anything meaningful. The series doesn’t determine a division winner. Perhaps “AL semi-finals” would be better. At a minimum, it conveys something comprehensible.

The chart shows the playoff teams, their wins (out of 162 games), and their run differential, the number of runs they scored above the number their opponents scored against them.

Team	Wins	Run Diff.
Red Sox	108	229
Yankees	100	182
Astros	100	263
Brewers	96	95
Dodgers	92	194
Indians	91	170
Rockies	91	35
Braves	90	102

Three of the teams (Red Sox, Yankees, and Astros, all from the American League) are great — many wins (100+) with a huge run differential. Two of the teams (Dodgers and Indians, the other AL team) are very good — over 90 wins and a huge run differential. The other three teams are good — 90+ wins and a positive run differential. Each of these eight teams is good enough to win the World Series. And each of them could lose to the Orioles if they played one game today.

If baseball were like hockey, which reseeds teams after each round of their playoffs, the Red Sox would play the Indians. That is, the playoff team with the best record in the AL would play the playoff team with the worst record in the AL. But baseball deems the Yankees inferior because they did not win their arbitrarily assigned division, even though they won 100 games. And the Indians are deemed superior because they won a division, never mind that it is the only division with just one team over .500.

Looking at these numbers, the Astros should play the Dodgers again in the World Series. (The Astros won last year.) But looking at the numbers, the Cubs, with 95 wins and a run differential of 116 should have defeated the Rockies. The numbers don’t matter, what matters (generally) is whose starting pitcher is better today.

The game one starters suggest what we already know: that the best teams are in the AL. In the Rockies/Brewers game, the 144th best starting pitcher Antonio Senzatela (Rockies) is matched up against Brandon Woodruff (Brewers), who isn’t even ranked because he has only started four games in 2018, none since June. I’m not expecting a pitcher’s duel. In the other NL game, Mike Foltynewicz (Brewers), the 25th best starting pitcher, is up against Hyun-Jin Ryu (Dodgers), the 91st ranked starting pitcher.

The average starting pitcher ranking in game one for the NL is 87, ignoring Woodruff’s non-ranking.[1] Meanwhile, tomorrow in the AL, Justin Verlander (Astros 3rd) is matched against Corey Kluber (Indians 5th) and Chris Sale (Red Sox 2nd) faces off with J.A. Happ (Yankees, a relatively paltry 17th). The AL game one starters average 7.

A 100-win team will lose in the first round of the playoffs. Maybe two. Because all three 100-win teams play in the American League, only one of them can make the World Series. There is no question that the cream of the crop plays in the AL. But – for the first time in years, the NL won more inter-league games than it lost.

As you watch games, consider this: the eight teams remaining averaged 4.95 runs scored per game and 3.98 runs against per game. It’s not rocket science and it’s not revolutionary, but I predict that five runs will win most games this post season. Enjoy.

[1] All of these rankings come from billjamesonline.com, one of the great websites in America. The rankings are based (roughly) on the last season and a half.

The First Pitch Isn’t That Important

I love baseball. I love watching it, reading about it, and thinking about it. I help organize the youth baseball program in Worthington. We have 12 travel teams, 700 or so boys in a summer program, and roughly 200 boys who play fall ball. I enjoy riding my bike to the fields and watching the boys play. They smile much more than major leaguers do. I love baseball at all levels, but – when I say “baseball,” I usually mean “Major League Baseball” or “MLB.”

Baseball has a statistical record like no other sport. It dates to 1876. Every single player who has appeared in a “major league” game is part of that statistical record. One of the greatest websites of all time is https://www.baseball-reference.com/, which has all of the normal statistics, much information derived from those statistics, and even more information that is tangential, such as biographical and (when available) salary information.[1]

Despite this trove of fascinating information being available to them, my operating assumption when watching or listening to a baseball game is that when the commentators are speaking about statistics, they are almost certainly wrong, unless stating a fact. For instance, when a commentator says “Billy Ray has a hit in his last nine day games on the road,” the mumbo-jumbo being muttering is almost certain factually correct. Alas, the fact’s accuracy tends to be directly proportional to its significance.

The other side of my assumption is that when a baseball commentator is saying something significant or strategic, he is probably wrong. Here is a baseball truism that is spewed in virtually every game I have ever watched: the first pitch (of an at bat) is extremely important. I’m sure the commentator’s Little League coach mentioned it back in the sixties or seventies or eighties, but the coach was wrong then and the truism is just as wrong now.

On average, when major league players swing at the first pitch, they bat .342. That is all-star caliber hitting (leaving aside the fact that batting average isn’t the best way to measure how good a hitter is). When the count is 1-0, presumably a better situation for the batter, otherwise why talk about the first pitch being important, MLB players bat .337. That, my friends, is not better than .342. When the count is 0-1, and the pitcher theoretically has the advantage, MLB players still bat .321. Slightly worse, but not enough to suggest that the first pitch is especially important. Moreover, .321 is excellent when, as now, the league average is .248. (It would have been less impressive in 1930, when the National League batted .303.)

Consider this, only 47 players in the history of baseball (with at least 3000 plate appearances) have a career batting average higher than .321. There is no compelling reason to consider a first pitch strike to be a difference maker.

In reality, the most important pitch is the 1-1 pitch. When the next pitch is a ball, and the count goes to 2-1, players bat .327, right in line with other early counts. But when the third pitch is a strike and the count goes to 1-2, players bat only .164. That is a massive difference.[2]

Count	BA on the next pitch
0-0	.342
0-1	.321
1-0	.337
1-1	.319
1-2	.164
2-1	.327

Joe Lemire, The Myth of the First Pitch Strike (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/debunking-mlb-first-pitch-strike-myth/ )

On the ESPN website in January 2016, Dan Szymborski discussed the issue in relation to OPS. “OPS” stands for on-base percentage plus slugging percentage. Even though the math is suspect – because the denominator of on-base percentage is plate appearances and the denominator of slugging percentage is at bats – the derivative statistic is a pretty good proxy for quality. As we speak (so to speak), the league average OPS is .728, which is a handy comparative tool when you are trying to gauge approximately how good the players on your favorite team are.

Count	OPS
1-0	.815
0-1	.609
2-1	.873
1-2	.423

Whether the first pitch is a strike or ball leads to an OPS difference of .206 (.815 minus .609). That is a real difference, but whether the third pitch (after a 1-1 count) is a ball or strike leads to a massive .450 (.873 minus .423) difference in OPS. The bottom line is that the 1-1 pitch is much more important than the overhyped first pitch.

Steven Wright, the comedian, not the Red Sox pitcher, has many great one-line jokes. He stated that “42.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.” I’m pretty sure he made up that statistic on the spot and I’m pretty sure that he is essentially right, especially with respect to baseball commentators.[3] Everything they say should be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism. The next time you watch a game, focus on the 1-1 pitch and (basically) ignore the first pitch, it’s not nearly as significant.

[1] Omar Vizquel, who never signed a big money long-term contract, was paid at total of $63,210,668 over the course of his 24-year career.

[2] Please note that this discussion is truncated. I am only discussing the pitch immediately after the given count, not all of the subsequent possible counts.

[3] I was watching the Yankees and Red Sox play last night. (Yankees won 3-2.) The commentators were predictably horrid. They spent much time discussing the Yankees need to win to prove that they could beat the Red Sox. Silly. As well as the Red Sox have played this season, they have lost 47 games, including two recent 8-0 losses to the Mets and White Sox. It’s baseball, even the best teams lose lots of games.

My favorite exchange occurred during the 7th inning when they were talking about the Yankees having the chance to beat the Red Sox A-team, as if that matters. But they said it matters and they asserted that the Yankees were playing the Red Sox at their best. Sure, maybe – if you ignore the facts, which baseball commentators often do.

Mookie Betts, MVP candidate, did not play. Andrew Benintendi, who is third on the team in hits, runs scored, and runs driven in, did not play. Nathan Eovaldi, the starting pitcher is eighth on the team in games started. Eighth! The commentators singled out Brandon Workman and Ryan Brasier, two relievers who pitched, as being a significant part of the A-team, even though 13 pitchers on the team have pitched more innings for the Red Sox. Baseball commentators should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Bob Feller — Player / Writer

Two Fellers have played major league baseball. The most recent was Jack Feller, who caught for an inning in 1958 for the Detroit Tigers. He had a putout and did not bat. He is somewhat less well known than his namesake Bob Feller, who is in the Hall of Fame.

Bob Feller led the league in wins six times, in innings pitched five times, and in strikeouts seven times. Each of those accomplishments was in consecutive years if you don’t consider seasons missed while Feller took time off from baseball to serve in the Navy during WWII. Feller missed seasons when he was 23-26 years old, prime years for a baseball player. Even so, he won 266 games and struck out over 2,500 batters. Only three pitchers since 1900 have won more games while pitching fewer seasons.[1]

Feller threw three no-hitters, only two pitchers have thrown more.[2] Bob Feller was a fantastic pitcher, who well-deserves his plaque in Cooperstown. Based on the book Bob Feller’s Little Blue Book of Baseball Wisdom, he was not a fantastic baseball commentator.

The book contains a fair amount of Feller touting his considerable achievements. I have no problem with that. My sixth-grade teacher Mr. Gray used to say: if it’s the truth, it ain’t braggin’. When Feller writes “I threw 36 complete games in 1946,[3] the most complete games hurled in a single season since 1916,” I yell “fair.” But when he writes “I know that this ability came from all the farm work I did as a youth,” I scream “foul.” Many pitchers from Feller’s era grew up on farms; they didn’t throw 36 complete games. The book is full of similarly simplistic and unsubstantiated conclusions.

When Feller writes about loyalty, he describes a one-way street. He decries players for not having loyalty because they chase free-agent contracts. But he never mentions the teams. They show no more nor less loyalty than the players without attracting the opprobrium that Feller hurls at the players.

Feller believes that regular throwing is an important way, perhaps the only way (other than farm work), to build arm strength. I happen to agree with him, but along the way, he gratuitously chastises modern pitchers for not throwing batting practice. On the same topic, Feller offered the following non-sequitur: “In Japan, a pitcher starts his warm-up 100 feet from the catcher and comes closer. In the United States, the opposite is true: pitchers warm up about 10 to 15 feet in front of the mound and then make their way back to regulation distance as the warm-up intensifies.” Feller, who is not shy at any other time about his opinions, wrote nothing to indicate which approach is better or even whether they are the same.

Much of Feller’s writing is anecdotal. Not the end of the world really, but not particularly useful in support of broad conclusions. When talking about the importance of making contact, he referred to Nellie Fox, Johnny Pesky, and Bobby Doerr as “tough outs.” Perhaps they were — they didn’t strike out a lot. They were also middle infielders, who (in aggregate) were approximately league average hitters. That necessarily means that most players were tough outs.

The right field foul pole in Fenway is known as “Pesky’s Pole” because Pesky’s former teammate turned broadcaster Mel Parnell called it that. It’s not certain that any of the six home runs that Pesky hit at Fenway in his career were aided by the pole. Nevertheless, Feller wrote that Pesky “was known for his craft of being able to hit drives to right field that, by God, hooked around that little pole for home runs.” Feller knew about the name of the pole and, apparently, decided to create a myth instead of learning the real story.

Feller described Stan Spence as a “guy who could make you sick to your stomach because he came through in the clutch quite a bit.” Sure, maybe. Spence had his best seasons during WWII when Feller and many other good players were in the military. (Spence served the military as well, but he missed only one season.) In three of the five seasons that Feller and Spence both played approximately full time, Spence hit .240 or worse. He may have given Feller indigestion, but the rest of the league seems to have handled him just fine.

Here is a classic Feller conclusion: “Some call errors ‘lapses in judgment.’ I call it not knowing the fundamentals of the game.” Huh? I’m pretty sure neither applies with regularity. When a third baseman overthrows the first baseman, it has nothing to do with judgment or fundamentals. His conclusion doesn’t make sense and it isn’t supported by a single example.

Here’s one last gem, this time about Andy Pettitte: he “has a sensational pickoff move. He manages to get the runner caught in the open, about 15 paces off first base. He’s a darn good pitcher and a gamer, competitive and honest to a fault.” A standard pace is 30 inches. A lead of 15 paces is 37.5 feet, almost half way between the bases. I could pick off a guy with a lead like that. As for “honest to a fault,” there is no example, just a conclusion. I’m not even sure whether it’s good or bad; “honest” is good, but “to a fault” doesn’t sound good.

This book is a great example of an “expert” believing that because he is an expert, pretty much anything he says about his field of expertise is real and valuable. It isn’t. It rarely is. One of the great things about Bill James, the forefather of modern sports analysis is that he repeatedly admonishes people to believe him because of what he says, not because he is saying it. He wants people to test his conclusions, not simply to believe them. Testing Feller’s conclusions leads to a lot of failures. He was much better at playing the game than at explaining it. But don’t take my word for it, read the book and see for yourself.

[1] Christy Mathewson (373), Eddie Plank (326), and Lefty Grove (300).

[2] Nolan Ryan (7) and Sandy Koufax (4). Larry Corcoran and Cy Young each threw three no-hitters.

[3] In the history of MLB, a pitcher has had 43 or more complete games in a season 208 times. Only three times did it occur after 1900, Jack Chesbro threw 48 in 1903, Vic Willis threw 46 in 1902, and Joe McGinnity threw 43 in 1903.

It’s the Playoffs — So More Baseball!

Among the reasons baseball is so great is that something unusual happens regularly, it has a robust, extensively documented history, and, despite significant changes,[1] the sport remains essentially the same as it was in 1903. But this post isn’t about the big picture, it’s (mostly) about one game.

Let’s start though with an old baseball chestnut: good pitching beats good hitting. It might even be true, certainly many people think it is. With an added caveat, it is irrefutably true: good pitching beats good hitting, except when it doesn’t.

This year in the AL, teams averaged 4.71 runs per team per game. That includes both the good teams (the ones with better pitching) and the bad teams (the ones with worse pitching). In the 10 games of the playoffs thus far, team have scored 93 runs in 10 games, or 4.65 runs per team per game. It’s only 10 games, but the pitchers from the best teams have been giving up the same number of runs as the pitchers from all of the teams. That is not good pitching beating good hitting. In five of the 10 games, the winning team scored eight or more runs and one losing team scored eight runs. That is not good pitching beating good hitting.

This year in the NL, teams averaged 4.58 runs per game. It’s not surprising that NL teams score fewer runs than AL teams because pitchers bat in the NL. Pitchers are not good hitters, exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding. In the playoffs so far, NL teams have scored 93 runs in nine games, that’s 5.16 runs per team per game. So with the best pitchers from the best teams pitching, the batters have been scoring more runs per game. In the nine games, the winning team has scored eight or more runs four times and the losing teams scored eight runs twice. Again, it’s only 10 games (so it disproves nothing), but it certainly doesn’t support the notion that good pitching beats good hitting.

Never look to truisms for truth.

Now let’s look at a few of the notable events from last night’s game, in which the Chicago Cubs defeated the Washington Nationals in a decisive game 5 in the NLDS to advance to face the Los Angeles Dodgers in the NLCS.

In the first inning and the score 0-0, Jon Jay of the Cubs was on third base with one out. Anthony Rizzo hit a ground ball to second and was thrown out at first base while Jay scored. Rizzo was credited with a run batted in and charged with an at bat. With the infield playing back, it’s possible that Rizzo intentionally tried to hit a ground ball, knowing it would generate a run. It’s possible, but unlikely, and it certainly isn’t reliably verifiable.

In the eighth inning, with his team trailing by two runs and the based loaded with one out, Bryce Harper flied out to center field. Michael Taylor, the runner on third base tagged up and scored. Harper was credited with a run batted in but was not charged with an at bat. In this game situation, it is inconceivable that Harper was willing, let alone attempting, to trade an out for a run. Yet according to the rules, he is considered to have sacrificed himself, just as if he had squared up and bunted. It’s an absurd vestigial scoring rule.

Neither or both of these situations should be considered sacrifices. I would prefer neither because I believe batters are (almost) always trying to get hits, unless they sacrifice bunt.

Catcher Matt Wieters had a rough game, despite going 2-4 at the plate. He was called for catcher’s interference, which occurs when the batter while attempting to hit a pitch makes contact with the catcher, usually with the catcher’s outstretched hand or mitt. In the last ten years, catcher’s interference has been called as few as 17 times in a season and as many at 28 times. If we err on the high side (28 times per year) that means catcher’s interference occurs once every 173 games. It’s a rare thing and is rightly considered an error.

Wieters also had a throwing error. A team’s catchers averaged 94 errors this past season in 162 games, which is .58 per game. With two errors in one game, Wieters more than tripled that rate. There’s more — he also mishandled a strikeout, though that shouldn’t have mattered.

With two outs in the 5th inning, Javier Baez swung and missed on strike three. Weiters didn’t catch the low pitch, though it hit his glove in the air. A caught strikeout would have ended the inning with the Cubs ahead 6-4. Instead, a run scored to make it 7-4. But it shouldn’t have counted because Baez hit Weiters in the head with his bat while following through with his swing.

Just as catchers can’t interfere with batters while they are attempting to hit, batters can’t interfere with catchers. Baez should have been called out for hitting the catcher. All six umpires missed it. For some reason, hitting the catcher with your bat is not reviewable and the umpires couldn’t correct their obvious mistake. In a one-run loss, that run was pretty important.

Of Wieters’s three misplays, two occurred on a play that should have been negated. His throwing error occurred after he retrieved the passed ball on Baez’s swinging strikeout, when Baez should have been called out for interfering with Wieters. So it’s really on the umpires or rather the system that doesn’t let them correct all of their obvious errors. I’d like to blame that on Bud Selig,[2] but even to me, that doesn’t seem fair.

Baseball is a weird game. All of this strangeness in one game – and I barely scratched the surface, discussing only four plays.[3] Still, that’s probably more than enough for some of you. Those of you who want more will get a chance very soon.

[1] See recent post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=754

[2] See https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=767 for a bit more blame assigned to Selig.

[3] If I had to pick one more play to discuss, it would be a non-play. In the 8th inning with no runners on base, Wade Davis threw a pitch that missed his target so badly that catcher Willson Contreras whiffed when attempting to catch it. The fastball hit the umpire square in the mask and staggered him. The umpire retaliated by softly punching Contreras in the jaw.

Musings: baseball, hoax, college football, peripathetic

Both wild card games were won by the team with the best record. Good. Even so, having two one-game “playoff” games is stupid. Playing 162 games and making the “playoffs” for one whole game just doesn’t make sense. Neither does having a five-game series in the playoffs. It’s as if MLB wants lesser teams to win.

A better system would be to eliminate divisions. They were created in 1969, so it’s not like they have ancient roots. Instead each league should play a balanced schedule; the current unbalanced schedule in which teams play almost half of their games against the other four teams in their division is absurd. Repeat: absurd.

A balanced schedule would put all teams in a league on equal footing; none would play a weaker or stronger schedule. My scheme is radical, so I might as well double down and propose that MLB decrease the schedule from 162 to 154 games.[1] One hundred fifty-four is the perfect number for two reasons. First it allows each team in a league to play every other team 11 times. Second, it’s the number of games that all major league teams played from the early 20th century until 1960 when baseball expanded.[2]

Notice that there is no provision for interleague games. Even better. That was another silly Bud Selig creation (like the one-game wild card playoff), that is best discarded as quickly as possible. With 15 teams in each league and each team playing all of its games within its own league, one team in each league will always be without an opponent. So what? Let the players enjoy a few three-day vacations during the season in addition to the all-star break. I’m sure they will love it. And the fans will be able to adjust.

Ok – no interleague play, no unbalanced schedule, no divisions, and “only” 154 games. Time to tackle the playoffs: the top four teams in each league make the playoffs. The #1 and the #4 seed play in the first round, as do the #2 and #3 seeds. There will have to be a tie-break system to determine seeds, but no extra games, unless the #4 and #5 or more finished tied.

The first round will be seven games with no extra days between games. That will reward the team with deeper starting pitching. Because of travel and other off days built in to the current system, many teams only use their top three starting pitchers. The second round and the World Series would also be seven games with no extra days between games. The teams all fly charter planes, so the players will be able to handle it, just like they do all year. I might even consider a longer World Series. In the early days, a few World Series were played until a team won five games (1903 and 1919-1921).[3]

Eliminating travel days would help the better teams, who are presumably deeper in pitching and position players – otherwise they wouldn’t have won more regular season games. It would also enable the post-season to end before November. Baseball should not be played when players can see their own breath.

These ideas are available to MLB for the asking. If they want to give me two tickets to the next World Series game seven, I probably wouldn’t say no.

In November 2004, Colin Powell, then US Secretary of State, in response to Russian interference in the elections in Ukraine, stated “We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10212-2004Nov24.html

In September 2017, President Donald Trump, in response to various investigations regarding Russian interference in the elections in the United States, stated “I call it the Russian Hoax, one of the great hoaxes.”

I’m not saying Trump’s victory wasn’t legitimate – it was unless someone can prove otherwise. And, as far as I can tell, nobody is even trying to. That does not mean the Russians did not interfere, which is why the investigations are important. We must determine what happened and attempt to prevent it from happening again. Calling it a hoax demeans virtually every American, all of whom know that the Russians were up to something. Whether that something worked, whether it was collusion, even whether it influenced a single vote, has not been proven – and may never be. But that doesn’t mean that the interference doesn’t matter. And it is beyond debate that their attempt to influence the election was not a hoax.

Q: Why is Ohio State’s football team ranked above Washington State’s?

A: Pedigree.

Oh, I guess you could argue that OSU is more likely to win the rest of its game than WSU. But based on what has happened so far, there is no reason to rank OSU ahead of WSU. They have both played five games – WSU is 5-0, OSU is 4-1.

OSU has beaten juggernauts like Indiana (48th in Sagarin’s College Football Rankings — http://sagarin.com/sports/cfsend.htm ), UNLV (101), Rutgers (108), and Army (138). That’s an average ranking of 99. 99! That is an incredibly unimpressive string of victories.

WSU has done something similar, defeating Boise St. (49), Oregon St. (111), Montana St. (135) and Nevada (138). That’s an average ranking of 108, even worse than OSU, though not appreciably so.

But what about the fifth game you ask. OSU played Oklahoma (who was ranked in the top ten at the time) at home and was favored by a bit more than a touchdown. They managed to lose decisively. The final score, 31-16, was not indicative of how little chance OSU had to win. Oklahoma dominated the second half.

Meanwhile, WSU played USC (who was ranked in the top ten at the time) at home and was a five-point (or so) underdog. They won. It wasn’t decisive, but it was a victory.

To recap – OSU and WSU have played four nobodies and beaten them. They have also each played one (at the time) top ten team. WSU won; OSU lost, but is higher ranked because . . .

Neologism (see previous post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=627 ) – peripathetic. This word was created (by yours truly) in “honor” of the Cleveland Browns. The word combines “peripatetic,” which describes a person who travels from place to place and “pathetic,” which needs no explanation. Neither does the ascription of that word to the Browns.

[1] There would be 5% fewer games. The overall impact on revenues is uncertain, but would likely be less than 5%. For example, no team operates at full capacity, so they can still sell the same number of tickets, just at slightly fewer games.

[2] Does anybody know why baseball expanded? I gave you a clue in my last post.

[3] Baseball expanded in 1960 to forestall the Federal League.

Baseball is Changing and It Isn’t

The modern era of Major League Baseball began in 1901 when Ban Johnson morphed the minor Western League into the major American League. He did this by declaring that the newly-named American League would be a major league. Then the owners of the teams in the American League paid major league salaries and raided dozens of players from the National League. In 1903, the National League surrendered, and agreed that, if the American League would quit signing its players, it would recognize the American League as a major league. That two-league system remains to this day, despite some interesting forays by other putative major leagues: the Federal League in 1914-1915 and the Continental League in 1959-1960.

Since that beginning, certain aspects of baseball have been remarkably stable.[1] The average age of all batters was 28.1 in 1920, 28.3 in 1950, 28.2 in 1980, and it is 28.3 this year.

Here’s another graph based on league average batting average. Other than a live ball era peak in 1930, which was a year of epic offense, comparable to the so-called Steroid Era (the 1990s give or take a few years on either side of the decade), batting average is quite stable, around .260.

And, the last graph highlighting stability shows the average runs scored by each team per game. Other than that bump in 1930, runs scored are quite stable at around 4.5 runs per team.

Other aspects of baseball have changed dramatically. Strikeouts per game have risen sharply, from 3.87 strikeouts per game in 1910 to 8.25 this year.

Complete games per game have dropped even faster than strikeouts have risen as teams limit the innings their starting pitchers throw, hoping that helps them stay healthy. In the early days of modern baseball, starters completed over 60% of the games they started; now they complete under 3%. That is a massive change.

Finally we come to home runs, which are being hit at an unprecedented rate.

This year, players hit more home runs than they hit during the steroid years. Players of that era were pilloried for ruining the game by using steroids. They were accused of desecrating the game (essentially) for exceeding certain magic numbers – 60 home runs in a season for instance. Babe Ruth hit 60 in 1927 and Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. Nobody else hit 60 home runs in the first 98 years of modern baseball. But in the next four years, three different players eclipsed 60 home runs: Sammy Sosa did it three times, Mark McGwire twice, and worst of all Barry Bonds, when he hit the most ever, 73 in 2001. Many baseball fans have never forgiven them.

I have no doubt that each of those recent 60+ home run years was aided and abetted by PEDs (performance enhancing drugs). I am equally certain that neither I nor anyone else can quantify how much PEDs helped. It just isn’t possible. I fervently wish that the excesses of the Steroid Era had not occurred. But the players did little more than what players have done for decades: push the envelope in an effort to help their teams win games and earn massive contracts for themselves. Think corked bats,[2] improperly stolen signs,[3] spit balls,[4] and amphetamines, among other rules violations.

People tend to scoff at suggestions that amphetamines were as helpful as steroids and other modern PEDs. But the players didn’t. They used them regularly, often every day. It helped them sustain their energy through a 162-game season. Yet, none of the players of the 1960s and 1970s have taken the hits that the Steroid Era players have taken. We should not glorify the players for cheating, but neither should we vilify them.

The bottom line is that many factors affect the total number of home runs that are hit, whether during the Steroid Era, when record numbers of home runs were hit, or now when even more home runs are being hit.

Among the factors that might influence how many home runs are hit are:

Hotter summers – players hit better when it is hot,
Smaller ballparks and shorter fences,
Better scouting – though that would also help the pitchers,
Faster pitches, but less command of the strike zone,[5]
Changes in the ball – they could have more hop or lower seams and, therefore, less movement,[6]
Greater willingness to swing for the fences,[7]
Greater willingness to accept more strikeouts (related to 6 above), and
Changes in the strike zone, smaller and higher.

There are no doubt other factors that I haven’t mentioned. The most important might be that players are continuing to use PEDs. Perhaps they are using them in lower dosages to avoid suspicion, perhaps they are just better at avoiding detection. Few people are talking about PEDs even though home runs are being hit at an historic rate. That might be because no individual player is setting records. [8] Apparently, when players set a collective record, it doesn’t offend sensibilities.

“The more things change, the more they stay the same” is wonderfully trite and even true in certain situations. But in baseball, many things remain stable even as others change dramatically. It’s one of the reasons baseball fans remain in the sport’s thrall. And now we get to watch the playoffs. Happy days.

[1] I like these graphs much better than charts full of numbers. But Word Press can’t handle graphs unless I engage is some pretty serious software manipulation, which I’m not capable of. Instead, I took a picture of each graph, emailed it to myself, and uploaded the graph as a picture. This work around is inelegant, but effective. If any of your know a better way to achieve the same result, I’m all ears.

The data points are the years on the X-axis, 1910, 1920, etc. The lines between the data points are straight. That way I could enter 12 data points, not over a hundred for each graph.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corked_bat

[3] It is likely that one of the most famous home runs in the history of baseball was hit with the help of signs stolen by the use of a telescope. http://www.booksonbaseball.com/2010/08/did-the-ny-giants-steal-the-signs-for-bobby-thomsons-1951-homer/

[4] One great pitcher, Gaylord Perry, was well-known to throw illegal spit balls. It didn’t keep him out of the Hall of Fame. http://www.captainsblog.info/2013/01/10/the-gaylord-perry-problem-hall-of-fame-already-has-a-cheater-in-its-midst/18860/

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/sports/baseball/home-run-trend-derby-all-star-break.html?mcubz=0

[6] http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2017/06/29/a-second-study-confirms-that-home-runs-are-up-due-to-a-change-in-the-baseball/

[7] http://www.chicagonow.com/312-sports/2017/05/why-are-there-so-many-home-runs-in-major-league-baseball-today/

[8] With three games left in the season, Giancarlo Stanton has 59 home runs.

Four Comments on Baseball

(1)

The playoffs are upon us and it’s a shame that four wild card teams make the post-season. To be fair, two of them will last just one game. That only adds to the stupidity of the current system.

Under the old system (1993-2011), four teams made the playoffs in each league: the three division winners and the team with the most wins that didn’t win a division. If that were the case this year, we would have four worthy teams in the American League. As of today, Boston (89 wins), Cleveland (96), and Houston (94) would be the division winners and New York (85) would be the wild card team. Minnesota would be the second wild card team with 80 wins. The Twins have a 3.5 game lead on the Rangers and Angels, who are both under .500. News flash: adding a clearly inferior team does not enhance playoff excitement.

The picture is essentially the same in the National League. Washington (92 wins), Chicago (86), and Los Angeles (98) would win divisions and Arizona (89) would be the wild card. The second wild card team is only slightly more credible than in the AL, Colorado has 83 wins, followed closely by Milwaukee (81) and St. Louis (81).

The single game play-in format generates bogus excitement. It is winner-take-all, so inevitably there is interest in who wins. But, in reality, it is just an opportunity for an inferior team to advance and water down the playoff competition.

(2)

The intentional walk is now automatic, if the defensive team’s manager so chooses, and the baseball world is nonplussed (secondary definition).[1]

(3)

One of the great things about baseball is that unusual things happen on the field of play on a regular basis. Sometimes the unusual things are more personal. For instance, Dovydas Neverauskas is not exactly a household name. Well, not in the US anyway. But in Lithuania, he probably is. Neverauskas is the first player in the 100 plus year history of MLB to hail from that Baltic country. But even that is small potatoes compared to Gift Ngoepe. He is the first player not merely from his home country, South Africa, but from the entire continent. No player born in Africa had ever played in the major leagues until Gift pulled on his cleats and played some second base for the Pirates. Dovydas also plays for the Pirates. That seems unusual, but it just a coincidence.

(4)

I’m going to pile a bunch of unusual into one player: Scooter Gennett. He was not a household name entering the season, but now he just might be.

When the season started Gennett has played in 456 games and hit 35 home runs, one every 44 at bats. This season he has hit 27 homeruns in 133 games, one every 16 at bats. That’s almost three times the frequency. That is a highly unusual seasonal improvement. In years past, people would have screamed about PEDs (performance enhancing drugs).

Along the way, Gennett has achieved extremely rare milestones. On June 6, he hit four home runs in a single game. That means he hit more than 10% of the home runs he had hit in 456 games (headed into the season) in one game. That is unbelievable. He became just only the 17th player to hit four home runs in a game.[2] http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/history/rare_feats/index.jsp?feature=four_homer_game

Gennett’s unusual home run exploits were not done. Last night he hit his fourth grand slam of the year. Only six players have hit more in a season. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/higs2.shtml

And last, Gennett became only the second player to hit four grand slams in the same season in which he also had a four-homer game. The only other player to do it: Lou Gehrig. I’m pretty sure that, entering the season, Gennett had never been favorably mentioned with Lou Gehrig. Now he always will be.

[1] “Nonplussed” has long been one of my favorite words because its two main meanings are essentially antithetical. The primary definition is “so surprised and confused that one is unsure how to react.” The secondary definition is “not disconcerted, unperturbed.” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nonplussed

[2] Subsequently J.D. Martinez hit four home runs in a game. So now, 18 players have hit four home runs in a game.

Baseball is changing (but only a little)

The Major League Baseball season commenced with little fanfare. I guess when each team plays 162 games, there is no reason (or no way) to generate early excitement. Except by resorting to trivia questions. Here’s one: name any of the three players to accomplish all of the following in the same season: finish in the top ten in the majors in batting average, on-base percentage, home runs, and stolen bases and win a gold glove.

Hint – it didn’t happen before 1950.

Baseball is trying two things this year that cause traditionalists to cringe. The first will only occur at the lowest level of professional baseball: the Gulf Coast League and the Arizona League. Both are rookie-level leagues that play a limited schedule, fewer than 60 games. These two leagues will experiment with a concept designed to shorten extra-inning games.

A normal MLB game lasts nine innings and approximately three hours, but games can last much longer. A game tied after nine innings continues until one team is ahead after a complete inning. Last year, MLB teams played an average of 12 extra-inning games, with most ending within an inning or two. But some last deep into the night, as many as 15 or 18 innings. To diehard baseball fans, that is wondrous extra baseball. But even diehard fans have to work and the stands at most stadiums suggest that fans would rather the game conclude after nine innings than after 13. (To non-fans, even rain-shortened five-inning games are too long, let alone the longest professional game ever which lasted 33 innings.)

The experiment involves placing a runner on second base at the beginning of each extra inning for each team. There has been much weeping and gnashing of teeth among traditionalists. I’m not sure whether I like the rule, but I’m glad that MLB is willing to experiment. Let’s face it, relatively few people enjoy the extra-long games, least of all the players who likely have a game the next day.

The tweak significantly changes the run expectancy. A normal inning starts with no runners and no outs and on average yields .461 runs. With a runner on second and no outs, teams average 1.068 runs. This approximate doubling of run expectancy will almost certainly result in fewer long extra-inning games. For now, it’s just an experiment at the rookie level. Still, it has been tried at the youth level for years and has also been used in the World Baseball Classic, where runners are placed on first and second starting in the 11th inning. The baseball gods have not yet) exacted retribution.

The other rule change is occurring at the major league level, with, I would suggest, less fanfare than associated with the beginning of the season. The intentional walk is one of the least interesting parts of a typical baseball game; that it’s of dubious strategic value is beside the point. Last year, teams averaged 31 intentional walks, roughly one every five games. The overwhelming majority consisted of four high and wide pitches and then a batter jogging to first base.

Very occasionally something outside the routine happens. For instance, Miguel Cabrera once hit a single on a pitch that wasn’t quite far enough outside. In his career, Cabrera now has one hit in 223 intentional walk attempts. Every once in a while a team pretends it’s going to intentionally walk someone and then throws a strike, though that’s probably even more rare than a Cabrera hit during an intentional walk. The general point is that, in the vast majority of intentional walks, nothing happens. So the rule now is that a manager can signal for an intentional walk and the batter will immediately go to first base without requiring the pitcher to throw four unnecessary and uneventful pitches.

This rule has been used at the youth and high school level for decades. Nobody thinks they aren’t playing baseball because of it. It is efficient, it is simple, and it is not earth-shattering. Still, the traditionalists roar, invoking as they so often do a parade of “what will they do next” scenarios.

Trivia answer – Willie Mays 1957, Joe Morgan 1976, and Matt Kemp 2011. (Credit to Bill James for asking the question and providing the answer. His website billjamesonline.com is outstanding.)

The game has been tweaked again and again since the beginning when batters could request a high or low pitch, when players didn’t use gloves, when catching a batted ball after only one bounce was an out. The number of pitches that constitute a walk changed frequently in the early years, peaking at nine before mercifully sinking to the current four. Deep into the 20th century, the home team manager could still decide whether to bat first or last before the league established a rule and settled the matter in the 1950s.

Few changes have made the game materially worse, though nine balls for a walk must have been brutal. Most rule changes have improved the game, perhaps only incrementally, but better is better. Let’s give the rules a chance – as long as they don’t try that putting a runner on second thing during the playoffs or World Series. By the way, the playoffs started in 1969, almost 100 years after the first professional baseball game was played. Imagine baseball without playoffs, even purists aren’t pushing for that.