Joel Sherman reported in the NY Post today that the Yankees are on the verge of acquiring Cliff Lee. He followed up that post with more information on his blog. Both are worth a read, because there are all kinds of things that don't make sense...
1. Why would the Yankees offer up catching prospect Jesus Montero for Lee? Their starting rotation has been one of their strengths this year. Sherman claims it is because they have some concerns about their rotation holding up in the playoffs. He claims it might mean moving Phil Hughes to the bullpen. He (and ESPN apparently) suggest that Javier Vazquez could be traded in the deal, too.
Presumably, Vazquez would be sent back to level out the salaries - because the Yankees don't want to pay too much? Really? Or would the Mariners believe they can trade him and get something for him to a National League team?
And Hughes has been great, but the Yankees recently skipped a start for him, and when he came back he had a bad night. Are they hiding an injury? Or are they so worried about his innings (he only threw 86 last year) that they're really going to move him back to the bullpen? Could that not have been foreseeen when they moved him into the rotation to begin with?
2. Why would the Mariners want Montero over Wilson Ramos AND Aaron Hicks?
You can argue that Ramos is a better prospect straight up than Montero. Montero is younger, both were highly regarded, and both are struggling in AAA, but nobody really knows if Montero can stay at catcher. There is no doubt about that with Ramos.
So either the rumor earlier this week is wrong, or this one is wrong. I'm guessing both, and I thin it's Seattle (along with the Yankees) working to drive Lee's value up.
And if I'm wrong? Well, then you're REALLY going to want the TwinsCentric Trade Deadline Primer that is coming out on Sunday night. Because it lists Montero and Lee as two of the 150 players that might be available. Just like it listed Russell Branyan (already traded to Mariners) and Bengie Molina (already traded to Rangers). And you can use it to find the other few dozen starting pitchers that are available on one of it's handy-dandy cheat sheets. It'll be on sale as an ebook on Sunday night for $9.95.
But I really hope we aren't looking at that starting pitcher list for the next best alternatives by Sunday night. And I don't think we will.
Friday, July 09, 2010
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Tired
Matt Guerrier took the loss last night. Again.
You gotta feel bad for him. I think it’s fair to say that he’s currently residing in his own little personal circle of hell. I’m going to go with the fifth circle – Wrath and Sullenness – because I’d be pretty sullen/wrathful if I had been tagged for the loss in the last three games in which I appeared. That also seems kinder than the ninth circle: Betrayal.
But I don’t doubt that a fair amount of fans feel betrayed. In the last week, Guerrier has made three appearances, pitched a total of two innings, and given up the winning run in each of those three games. That’s about as bad a week as one would care to have as a relief pitcher.
But Twins fans who remember 2008 don’t want to hear about a bad week. They don’t want to hear about, well, anything, because they have spend a good deal of time trying to forget about 2008. Particularly about the 8.88 ERA that Guerrier posted that year after the All-star break.
But remember we do, and it appears manager Ron Gardenhire remembers too. After pitching predominantly the 8th inning for most of the season, Guerrier didn’t come in during the 8th last night. He came in during the 7th. That’s different.
Also different: unlike the previous game (in which he gave up four earned runs) Guerrier also had a much shorter leash. He pitched to three batters, one of which walked and two of which hit the baseball very hard. He still managed to be on the mound when both the tying run and the winning run came across the plate. And he wasn’t around when the inning ended.
What Gardenhire and Twins fans are witnessing is a meltdown, pure and simple. In those three games and two innings, he has given up six hits. Three walks. Six earned runs. He doesn’t have a single strikeout even though he’s faced 14 batters. His ERA has ballooned from 1.72 to 3.03.
The last time this happened, back in 2008, the Twins swore it was because Guerrier had been overused. That year, problems began on July 8th, when Guerrier pitched for the fourth time in five games. This year, it began on July 1st, when Guerrier pitched the fourth time in five games.
This time, the Twins seem to have already tried what has often worked in the past – given Guerrier a break. After a pair of disastrous outings against Tampa Bay, Guerrier got three days of rest. It didn’t work.
The natural conclusion is that Guerrier again has a tired arm, or has hit some sort of wall, but I can’t find any evidence of it in today’s pitches. His fastball was consistently 91 or 92, and according to pitch tracking it wasn’t drifting over the middle of the plate. But it caught enough to let Vernon Wells knock the snot out of it. We don’t know if that was primarily because Guerrier is struggling, or because Wells is very good at hitting a baseball.
What is clear is that the Twins can’t, and seemingly don’t, trust Guerrier too much right now. He’s about to get a pretty long rest in the way of the All-Star break. And there are a litany of right-handers in Rochester who might be able to contribute to this season’s division race, if only they could find their way onto the roster. If the Twins and Guerrier really want to overcome this little trend, I wonder if the two sides shouldn’t agree to extend that All-Star break with a short trip to the DL for a “tired arm.” Is that legitimate? Is that really the problem?
I’m not sure, but god knows we’re tired of it.
Lotsa stuff to talk about this morning. First, I had a great time at the TwinsCentric event last night at Park Tavern, despite the loss and only being there for about 1/3 of the game. Thanks to everyone who came out. It was very good to touch base again.
Second, we are now just three days away from being able to by the TwinsCentric 2010 Trade Deadline Primer. It's an ebook only which we were showing on the iPad yesterday, and people really seemed to like it. It is basically a 175-page reference that you can use throughout the next three weeks to really launch yourself into the trade season.
Want to know whether the Reds really would pursue Cliff Lee? It's in there, under the team summaries. Or a list of third basemen the Twins could pursue? Also there, in the list of 150 trade targets. Or what prospects The White Sox have which might impact the second half race? We also have 100+ prospects. There is also an essay about the Twins payroll for 2011 which you need to read. I think that harsh reality is driving a lot of the urgency this year, and I can't believe people aren't talking about more.
I hope you'll take a moment, take a risk, and check it out. You'll be able to start ordering it Sunday night at TwinsCentric.com.
You gotta feel bad for him. I think it’s fair to say that he’s currently residing in his own little personal circle of hell. I’m going to go with the fifth circle – Wrath and Sullenness – because I’d be pretty sullen/wrathful if I had been tagged for the loss in the last three games in which I appeared. That also seems kinder than the ninth circle: Betrayal.
But I don’t doubt that a fair amount of fans feel betrayed. In the last week, Guerrier has made three appearances, pitched a total of two innings, and given up the winning run in each of those three games. That’s about as bad a week as one would care to have as a relief pitcher.
But Twins fans who remember 2008 don’t want to hear about a bad week. They don’t want to hear about, well, anything, because they have spend a good deal of time trying to forget about 2008. Particularly about the 8.88 ERA that Guerrier posted that year after the All-star break.
But remember we do, and it appears manager Ron Gardenhire remembers too. After pitching predominantly the 8th inning for most of the season, Guerrier didn’t come in during the 8th last night. He came in during the 7th. That’s different.
Also different: unlike the previous game (in which he gave up four earned runs) Guerrier also had a much shorter leash. He pitched to three batters, one of which walked and two of which hit the baseball very hard. He still managed to be on the mound when both the tying run and the winning run came across the plate. And he wasn’t around when the inning ended.
What Gardenhire and Twins fans are witnessing is a meltdown, pure and simple. In those three games and two innings, he has given up six hits. Three walks. Six earned runs. He doesn’t have a single strikeout even though he’s faced 14 batters. His ERA has ballooned from 1.72 to 3.03.
The last time this happened, back in 2008, the Twins swore it was because Guerrier had been overused. That year, problems began on July 8th, when Guerrier pitched for the fourth time in five games. This year, it began on July 1st, when Guerrier pitched the fourth time in five games.
This time, the Twins seem to have already tried what has often worked in the past – given Guerrier a break. After a pair of disastrous outings against Tampa Bay, Guerrier got three days of rest. It didn’t work.
The natural conclusion is that Guerrier again has a tired arm, or has hit some sort of wall, but I can’t find any evidence of it in today’s pitches. His fastball was consistently 91 or 92, and according to pitch tracking it wasn’t drifting over the middle of the plate. But it caught enough to let Vernon Wells knock the snot out of it. We don’t know if that was primarily because Guerrier is struggling, or because Wells is very good at hitting a baseball.
What is clear is that the Twins can’t, and seemingly don’t, trust Guerrier too much right now. He’s about to get a pretty long rest in the way of the All-Star break. And there are a litany of right-handers in Rochester who might be able to contribute to this season’s division race, if only they could find their way onto the roster. If the Twins and Guerrier really want to overcome this little trend, I wonder if the two sides shouldn’t agree to extend that All-Star break with a short trip to the DL for a “tired arm.” Is that legitimate? Is that really the problem?
I’m not sure, but god knows we’re tired of it.
Lotsa stuff to talk about this morning. First, I had a great time at the TwinsCentric event last night at Park Tavern, despite the loss and only being there for about 1/3 of the game. Thanks to everyone who came out. It was very good to touch base again.
Second, we are now just three days away from being able to by the TwinsCentric 2010 Trade Deadline Primer. It's an ebook only which we were showing on the iPad yesterday, and people really seemed to like it. It is basically a 175-page reference that you can use throughout the next three weeks to really launch yourself into the trade season.
Want to know whether the Reds really would pursue Cliff Lee? It's in there, under the team summaries. Or a list of third basemen the Twins could pursue? Also there, in the list of 150 trade targets. Or what prospects The White Sox have which might impact the second half race? We also have 100+ prospects. There is also an essay about the Twins payroll for 2011 which you need to read. I think that harsh reality is driving a lot of the urgency this year, and I can't believe people aren't talking about more.
I hope you'll take a moment, take a risk, and check it out. You'll be able to start ordering it Sunday night at TwinsCentric.com.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Everything Cliff Lee....
It's been way too long since I've updated regularly, and since I'm back from vacation, and since the Cliff Lee rumors are flying, let's just heave all these thoughts into cyberspace and hope it looks a little better than fingerpainting.
So is Seattle starting pitcher Cliff Lee really that good?
Well, yeah, he's that good. The usual sabermetric caveats apply with the big one being: he's very, very good, but that doesn't mean he would be very, very good for the next three months. But all the signs are there.
1. The Twins have to LOVE these numbers - 89:6. That's how many strikeouts and walks Lee has so far this year. Thinks the brain trust would like someone like that in the rotation?
2. He certainly has one heck of a lot of incentive. He's a free agent at the end of the year, and the big money teams are going to care a lot about how he performs in the heat of a pennant race and in the playoffs. He (literally) can't afford to choke.
3. And his history has shown that he shines in the spotlight. What really gets people excited about Lee is his performance in the playoffs last year. Facing the very best teams in the majors, he finished 4-0 with a 1.56 ERA. Excuse me while I swoon a bit.
What would it take to get him?
Considering that he's already been traded twice in the last year, we have a pretty good idea what it might take.
When he was traded from the Phillies to the Mariners, the Mariners traded away:
Of course, that's part of the reason that Philadelphia was criticized so vehemently when they made the deal. It just didn't seem like they got enough in return. How about when they traded for Lee? They sent the following players to the Indians (and also got back utility outfielder Ben Francisco):
For either of those packages, I'd pull the trigger.
Would the Twins be giving up too much if they offered Aaron Hicks and Wilson Ramos, as was reported by Jeff Fletcher of AOL FanHouse?
That package, in my mind, is better than either of the ones he was traded for previously. However, it is consistent in one way - both of those guys are struggling this year. The same thing was the case for an awful lot of the guys in the first two trades - they were struggling when they were traded for Lee. And not a lot of them have worked out.
Hicks is repeating Low-A ball as a 20-year-old. He's hitting just .259 with 5 home runs. He had an awful start, a stretch where he was an absolute monster, then another awful stretch and he's now settled in at "underwhelming." So while he was probably a better prospect than any of the other guys on this list last offseason, you can bet he's going to be down one or two "stars" in the same evaluations this next year.
And Ramos had an amazing spring training, a fantastic two-game debut with the Twins, and then a whole lot of nothing. He's still just hitting .208. He has been injured again this year. He's struck out 41 times while walking just 8 times. And in his brief major league debut he threw out exactly 0 basestealers (in four attempts). Will his prospect status next offseason go up or down?
Is that too much? I'm not sure it is. It would be nice if it also included a relief pitcher in return, though it's not like the Twins have any shortage of options. They just don't have room for them all on the roster.
Are there any other teams that could drive the price up?
Hmm, how deep do I want to go on this...
Aw hell, I'm already not sleeping tonight. Let's go deep. Here are the teams likely to be buying at the trade deadline:
Probably Looking for Something Else
Atlanta - is likely looking for offense, not pitching.
Boston - already has plenty of pitching options, too.
Chicago White Sox - also needs offense, not pitching.
Cincinnati - is a possibility, but the bullpen is a much, much bigger concern.
Colorado - needs to focus on offense, especially with the injury to Troy Tulowitski.
New York Yankees - had had great starting pitching and are battling injuries in their lineup. Plus, there is no need to trade for a guy they plan to sign this offseason anyway.
San Diego - needs offense, not pitching.
San Francisco - ditto.
Toronto - won't derail it's long term plans by giving away top prospects.
Could Be Interested But There are Obstacles
Los Angeles Angels - They need pitching and have money, but they're also in the same division as the Mariners. I can't imagine them giving up top prospects knowing they'll need to face them 18 games over the next six years.
Los Angeles Dodgers - They need pitching, but it looks like they don't have any money because of the nasty divorce settlement going on with their owner.
Philadelphia Phillies - Often mentioned, but if they didn't have money in the offseason to pay Lee, why would they have it now? Plus, their starting pitching has been pretty good and has J.A. Happ coming back soon.
Texas Rangers - They are often mentioned, but the starting pitching is pretty good and they also don't have any money to spend, as their creditors (including MLB) would need to approve it.
May Be Worth Worrying About
New York Mets - Their pitching has been really good lately, but it's come from suspicious sources, like RA Dickey. They also have money. But GM Omar Minaya has never really pulled off a big deadline deal, and the bullpen looks like a bigger priority.
St. Louis - I don't think they have the prospects to really draw much interest, but they could use a fifth starter, they have the money, and the trio of Lee, Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter could get that region REAL excited about the playoffs.
Detroit - They seem like a decent possibility. Again, offense seems to be more the need, and they have had luck rehabbing Rick Porcello and Max Scherzer. Still, I'm surprised we never hear them mentioned.
Tampa Bay - They've already got a lot of good pitching, but I suppose they could look for an ace, or simply acquire him as a defense of anyone else getting him. They have the prospects, that's for sure. I bet Seattle would love for them to be interested.
The Twins are a better fit than any other team. They have a bigger need than all but a handful, they have the money, and they have the prospects. They aren't the only game in town, and so they'll need to pony up some decent talent in return, but Lee should be attainable if they're willing to make a fair offer.
So is Seattle starting pitcher Cliff Lee really that good?
Well, yeah, he's that good. The usual sabermetric caveats apply with the big one being: he's very, very good, but that doesn't mean he would be very, very good for the next three months. But all the signs are there.
1. The Twins have to LOVE these numbers - 89:6. That's how many strikeouts and walks Lee has so far this year. Thinks the brain trust would like someone like that in the rotation?
2. He certainly has one heck of a lot of incentive. He's a free agent at the end of the year, and the big money teams are going to care a lot about how he performs in the heat of a pennant race and in the playoffs. He (literally) can't afford to choke.
3. And his history has shown that he shines in the spotlight. What really gets people excited about Lee is his performance in the playoffs last year. Facing the very best teams in the majors, he finished 4-0 with a 1.56 ERA. Excuse me while I swoon a bit.
What would it take to get him?
Considering that he's already been traded twice in the last year, we have a pretty good idea what it might take.
When he was traded from the Phillies to the Mariners, the Mariners traded away:
- Phillippe Aumont - A 21-year-old pitcher who was the Mariners #1 pick in 2007. Lots of upside (he's 6' 7") but also was converted to a relief pitcher already with the Mariners.
- Juan Ramirez - Another young pitcher who projects to be a mid-rotation starter.
- Tyson Gillies - A 21-year-old outfielder who excelled last year in High-A (but has struggled mightily this year in AA.)
Of course, that's part of the reason that Philadelphia was criticized so vehemently when they made the deal. It just didn't seem like they got enough in return. How about when they traded for Lee? They sent the following players to the Indians (and also got back utility outfielder Ben Francisco):
- Jason Knapp - A 19-year-old flamethrower who needed arthroscopic shoulder surgery shortly after the Indians got him. He's the high upside guy in the deal.
- Carlos Carrasco - A 23-year-old who was the Phils top pitching prospect but struggled in 2009 in AAA before the trade, and has struggled since.
- Jason Donald - A 24-year-old shortstop who was also struggling at AAA when he was traded. He looked like a competent starting shortstop, but now looks more like a utility infielder.
- Lou Marson - A 24-year-old who looked like he could be a lower-tier starting catcher, or a competent backup catcher.
For either of those packages, I'd pull the trigger.
Would the Twins be giving up too much if they offered Aaron Hicks and Wilson Ramos, as was reported by Jeff Fletcher of AOL FanHouse?
That package, in my mind, is better than either of the ones he was traded for previously. However, it is consistent in one way - both of those guys are struggling this year. The same thing was the case for an awful lot of the guys in the first two trades - they were struggling when they were traded for Lee. And not a lot of them have worked out.
Hicks is repeating Low-A ball as a 20-year-old. He's hitting just .259 with 5 home runs. He had an awful start, a stretch where he was an absolute monster, then another awful stretch and he's now settled in at "underwhelming." So while he was probably a better prospect than any of the other guys on this list last offseason, you can bet he's going to be down one or two "stars" in the same evaluations this next year.
And Ramos had an amazing spring training, a fantastic two-game debut with the Twins, and then a whole lot of nothing. He's still just hitting .208. He has been injured again this year. He's struck out 41 times while walking just 8 times. And in his brief major league debut he threw out exactly 0 basestealers (in four attempts). Will his prospect status next offseason go up or down?
Is that too much? I'm not sure it is. It would be nice if it also included a relief pitcher in return, though it's not like the Twins have any shortage of options. They just don't have room for them all on the roster.
Are there any other teams that could drive the price up?
Hmm, how deep do I want to go on this...
Aw hell, I'm already not sleeping tonight. Let's go deep. Here are the teams likely to be buying at the trade deadline:
Probably Looking for Something Else
Atlanta - is likely looking for offense, not pitching.
Boston - already has plenty of pitching options, too.
Chicago White Sox - also needs offense, not pitching.
Cincinnati - is a possibility, but the bullpen is a much, much bigger concern.
Colorado - needs to focus on offense, especially with the injury to Troy Tulowitski.
New York Yankees - had had great starting pitching and are battling injuries in their lineup. Plus, there is no need to trade for a guy they plan to sign this offseason anyway.
San Diego - needs offense, not pitching.
San Francisco - ditto.
Toronto - won't derail it's long term plans by giving away top prospects.
Could Be Interested But There are Obstacles
Los Angeles Angels - They need pitching and have money, but they're also in the same division as the Mariners. I can't imagine them giving up top prospects knowing they'll need to face them 18 games over the next six years.
Los Angeles Dodgers - They need pitching, but it looks like they don't have any money because of the nasty divorce settlement going on with their owner.
Philadelphia Phillies - Often mentioned, but if they didn't have money in the offseason to pay Lee, why would they have it now? Plus, their starting pitching has been pretty good and has J.A. Happ coming back soon.
Texas Rangers - They are often mentioned, but the starting pitching is pretty good and they also don't have any money to spend, as their creditors (including MLB) would need to approve it.
May Be Worth Worrying About
New York Mets - Their pitching has been really good lately, but it's come from suspicious sources, like RA Dickey. They also have money. But GM Omar Minaya has never really pulled off a big deadline deal, and the bullpen looks like a bigger priority.
St. Louis - I don't think they have the prospects to really draw much interest, but they could use a fifth starter, they have the money, and the trio of Lee, Adam Wainwright and Chris Carpenter could get that region REAL excited about the playoffs.
Detroit - They seem like a decent possibility. Again, offense seems to be more the need, and they have had luck rehabbing Rick Porcello and Max Scherzer. Still, I'm surprised we never hear them mentioned.
Tampa Bay - They've already got a lot of good pitching, but I suppose they could look for an ace, or simply acquire him as a defense of anyone else getting him. They have the prospects, that's for sure. I bet Seattle would love for them to be interested.
The Twins are a better fit than any other team. They have a bigger need than all but a handful, they have the money, and they have the prospects. They aren't the only game in town, and so they'll need to pony up some decent talent in return, but Lee should be attainable if they're willing to make a fair offer.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Road Trip Thoughts
You can tell when I’m either lazy or out of touch, because the columns take the form of bullet points. Especially when I’m both….
Cuddy at 3B
Manager Ron Gardenhire gets a lot of criticism for his staying the course, so it was fun to see him start Michael Cuddyer at third base in the National League parks. In the initial series vs the Phillies, Cuddyer only did so against right-handers. That allowed Jason Kubel to get his hacks against right-handers, but protected him against left-handers. However, as the road trip went on, the Twins kept seeing left-handed starter (four of their last six games were against southpaws) so Cuddyer played third against some of them, too. That was interesting in and of itself, because Gardenhire has pretty consistently dissuaded any talk of moving Cuddyer to the infield.
But what could really be interesting is if Gardenhire continues to do something similar back in the American League ballparks. I haven’t been able to see most of the games on this road trip, but my understanding is that Cuddyer didn’t embarrass himself at the hot corner. According to FanGraphs.com, he had six assists there, or about one per game. Defensively, that seems like a pretty small risk to take.
And the offensive upside of such a move isn’t insignificant. Playing Cuddyer at third allows Jim Thome to be in the lineup (at DH) instead of Danny Valancia. Given Thome’s inconsistent health status, that isn’t a trade you want to make every day, but it could certainly be something to try semi-regularly. If Cuddyer is open to that flexibility, it could be something the Twins could employ versus some tough right-handers.
Kubel versus the Southpaws
I keep looking for evidence that Jason Kubel is relatively effective against left-handed pitchers. And I keep not finding it.
This year, I thought it might be different. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed several good games against southpaws by Kubel, including this weekend’s game against Johan Santana. Kubel hit a home run late in the game, but his key at-bat was the ground rule double against Santana. Delmon Young’s double scored more runs, but Young is right-handed, Kubel is left-handed, and Kubel was the guy the Mets needed to get out. (Young was probably the guy the Mets needed to walk, but that’s another story.)
So I thought Kubel was doing better against left-handers. He isn't. He’s hitting just .219, he’s slugging just .359, and only his on-base percentage of .346 shows any real sign of improvement. The really depressing thing is that he continues to lack any semblance of power against lefties. Here are his slugging percentage the last four years against lefties:
.359, .345, .374, .333
His career slugging percentage against lefties is .357. As a point of comparison, Brendan Harris’ career slugging percentage is .383, 26 points higher than that. And he’s not even in the majors any more.
I’m not saying that Kubel shouldn’t be in the majors, or even that he shouldn’t be in the lineup against left-handers. But it might make sense to move him down the order a bit against southpaws, even if that means having Cuddyer and Young (who both bat right-handed) bat back to back.
The Twins versus Left-handers
Yesterday’s game is the second time in the last two series that the Twins ended up losing to a young pitcher without a great record, the first being last Tuesday against Chris Narveson. But those two pitchers have something else in common besides their relative inexperience - they were both left-handed.
The Twins sport a 760 OPS overall, good for 6th overall in the major leagues. But that number falls to 740 versus left-handers, which puts them in the middle of the pack in MLB. Its not a huge weakness, but it’s worth keeping an eye on as the Twins face lefties.
Incidentally, getting JJ Hardy back could help a lot with that. He has hit lefties quite a bit better over the course of his career.
The Mariners Trade
This weekend the Seattle Mariners surprised the baseball world a bit, nabbing slugger Russell Branyan for a couple of marginal prospects. It wasn’t a surprise that they liked Branyan, since he worked out pretty well when he was on their team last year. It was a surprise because that’s the kind of move a contending team makes, and the Mariners aren’t especially close to contending. They’re 15 games back in their division.
In fact, if any trade was going to be made by the Mariners, most expected the exact opposite. For a couple of weeks baseball has speculated that Seattle’s ace pitcher Cliff Lee could be available, with the Twins being mentioned as frontrunners to acquire him. Does this trade me that won’t happen?
Probably not. It might mean that the Mariners aren’t ready to give up just yet. But is also might mean that Seattle GM Jack Zduriencik took a look at the trade prospects for his guy and didn’t like what he saw. The trade market works like any other market, determining value based on supply and demand. Unfortunately, there isn't that much demand just yet, especially for a pitcher that is going to cost a lot of money, like Lee.
But further depressing the value is that there is a big supply. There are plenty of pretty good pitchers that could be available in trade, many who might be considerably cheaper than Lee. Furthermore, there are still some pitchers who are available as free agents, like Pedro Martinez who showed just how useful he can be in when used in a short season last year with the NL champion Phillies.
With little opportunity to move Lee now, why not trade a couple of very marginal guys for a possible shot in the arm for the team? Worst case is the Mariners keep Lee and end up getting a couple of good draft picks next year, right?
That sounds good. At least until the end of July….
Thursday, June 17, 2010
A Walk in Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh sits 874 miles, two travel days and one waterpark overdose from the Minneapolis. It seems like a good place for a walk.
• And any good walk in Pittsburgh starts with a bridge, because the city is practically chained down by them to the surrounding area. And, as you might expect, they are old, big, manly bridges, decorated by rivets. They are made of testosterone in the form of pure steel and concrete and nothing else, because what else would need?
This walk starts on Roberto Clemente’s bridge, the one that goes to PNC Park from downtown, spanning the Allegheny river. It is closed down completely a few hours before game time, creating an impropmptu plaza for under-attended Pirates games. It ends at the cornere of the ballpark, in front of the gate where Clemente’s statue stands. It provides one of the most unique pregame approaches to a ballpark in MLB. I’d rank it even above the tailgating that happened at old Milwaukee County Stadium
• Does anyone else out ther feel the road calling to them as they make a big change in their life? I do. It seems to be th perfect way to embrace the change.
When I moved from Minneapolis to Philly to court this girl I had been dating long-distance, I moved my life in a Honda Prelude. When we married and moved back to Minneapolis, we abandoned our careers for 3 months to tour the U.S. When I left my job to start my own business, we road tripped to Cleveland for a wedding, just because we could
There is a shared spirituality about change and road trips. The rules are being rewritten, there is a sense of freedom and adventure in both. The Road Trip is a taste of a larger impending truth. It is a reminder to honor the Start of Things.
• After going to PNC Park yesterday, The Voice of Reason and I ranked our favorite ballparks. By the end of this trip, we will have been to 19 active parks and probably another ten deceased parks, so we’re not rookies.
PNC ranks in my top 3, and it’s near there for TVOR, too. It’s top three attributes are the primary attribute for all great real estate - location, location, location. It is just over the river, from downtown, on the river, at the end of a prototypical Pittsburgh bridge. It has it’s own neighborhood, but is close to downtown, and along a beautiful riverwalk. You would sit in that ballpark for hours - picnic there - just for the view.
And to the Pirates credit, they didn’t screw up that built-in advantage. (The guy I went with states both proudly and lamentably that PNC is the only thing the Pirates have done right in the last fifteen years.) They refrained from adding seating in center field and kept it low in the entire outfield. The background to the ballgame is a river, a bridge, and a sparking downtown skyline.
It’s a place lovers would go to be alone with each other. And, unfortunately for the Pirates that’s reinforced by the sparse attendance on weeknights.) The fans come to spend some time with their team, enjoying each other’s company, and escaping the harsher day-to-day realities.
But I suspect it would be nice if they won, occasionally. We saw the Pirates drop their ninth in a row.
• Even after 17 years of futility, I think I would like to be a Pirates fan. It’s a team with a ton of great history, a fantastic ballpark, and a dedicated fan base that is passionate. That city reminds me of Cleveland in the early 90s - just waiting to have someone to cheer for. They could use a movie like Major League for that team.
It is easy to forget how similar the Pirates were to the Twins through the 90s and up until 2001. Hell, the Twins were likely ranked lower in most people’s minds - it wasn’t Pittsburgh that was scheduled for contraction. I see a team like this, and I wonder how the Twins did it. We like to focus on a struggling team’s mistakes, and they’re valid, but it also tends to go overboard in blaming the victim. The truth seems to be that it isn’t about avoiding mistakes as it is about filling the gaps and having an awful lot go right all at once. And I don’t’ know how that happens.
• Because you asked, here are the list of top MLB ballparks. Load up the Honda Prelude with gas and get busy.
1. Wrigley - Because I feel like I’m back in time 70 years when I walk into that place. Get there 2 hours early for batting practice. Is it holy.
2 & 3. Camden Yards (BLT) and PNC Park - They’re both new, but they both feel older, and they both feel like ballparks and utilize their inherent location advantage. I rank Camden higher right now, but it’s been 10+ years since I’ve been there, so I might be wrong.
4. Fenway (BOS)
5. Dodger Stadium (LAD)
6. Kaufmann Stadium (KC)
I give Fenway the edge, both because of the sense of history and the neighborhood around it. Dodger Stadium is a beautiful place, and I love the 50s-60s Mad Men vibe about it. It might be the most underrated stadium in MLB. I can’t tell you what I love so much about Kaufmann, but it’s similar to Dodger - nice design, has heldup will to history and is valued by it’s team that doesn’t screw with it too much. I just wish the latter two weren’t in the middle of parking lots.
7-10
Target Field falls into this group, along with Petco (SD). Coors (COL) might, just because of it’s neighborhood. Possibly Jacobs (CLE), too.
Most overrated - Miller Park. I cannot be happier that Target Field stayed away from a retractable roof after seeing Miller. It feels like you’re watching baseball inside a mall.
Would be #2, but deceased - Tiger stadium. A GREAT old ballpark. I haven’t seen Comerica yet, but I plan on hating it. This is a stadium that should have been saved, ala Kaufmann.
--------------
Tomorrow night we’ll be in Philly to watch the Twins and tailgating beforehand. We’ll try and be in the upper left hand corner up of K-lot as early between 4:30 and 5:00. We’ll try to park against the bushes right across the street from the stadium. There's a pedestrian gate right there at the corner of 11th and Pattison. If you can make it, stop by. We’ll try to have a hot dog for you. Also, if you want to contact us, direct message me on my Twitter account.
• And any good walk in Pittsburgh starts with a bridge, because the city is practically chained down by them to the surrounding area. And, as you might expect, they are old, big, manly bridges, decorated by rivets. They are made of testosterone in the form of pure steel and concrete and nothing else, because what else would need?
This walk starts on Roberto Clemente’s bridge, the one that goes to PNC Park from downtown, spanning the Allegheny river. It is closed down completely a few hours before game time, creating an impropmptu plaza for under-attended Pirates games. It ends at the cornere of the ballpark, in front of the gate where Clemente’s statue stands. It provides one of the most unique pregame approaches to a ballpark in MLB. I’d rank it even above the tailgating that happened at old Milwaukee County Stadium
• Does anyone else out ther feel the road calling to them as they make a big change in their life? I do. It seems to be th perfect way to embrace the change.
When I moved from Minneapolis to Philly to court this girl I had been dating long-distance, I moved my life in a Honda Prelude. When we married and moved back to Minneapolis, we abandoned our careers for 3 months to tour the U.S. When I left my job to start my own business, we road tripped to Cleveland for a wedding, just because we could
There is a shared spirituality about change and road trips. The rules are being rewritten, there is a sense of freedom and adventure in both. The Road Trip is a taste of a larger impending truth. It is a reminder to honor the Start of Things.
• After going to PNC Park yesterday, The Voice of Reason and I ranked our favorite ballparks. By the end of this trip, we will have been to 19 active parks and probably another ten deceased parks, so we’re not rookies.
PNC ranks in my top 3, and it’s near there for TVOR, too. It’s top three attributes are the primary attribute for all great real estate - location, location, location. It is just over the river, from downtown, on the river, at the end of a prototypical Pittsburgh bridge. It has it’s own neighborhood, but is close to downtown, and along a beautiful riverwalk. You would sit in that ballpark for hours - picnic there - just for the view.
And to the Pirates credit, they didn’t screw up that built-in advantage. (The guy I went with states both proudly and lamentably that PNC is the only thing the Pirates have done right in the last fifteen years.) They refrained from adding seating in center field and kept it low in the entire outfield. The background to the ballgame is a river, a bridge, and a sparking downtown skyline.
It’s a place lovers would go to be alone with each other. And, unfortunately for the Pirates that’s reinforced by the sparse attendance on weeknights.) The fans come to spend some time with their team, enjoying each other’s company, and escaping the harsher day-to-day realities.
But I suspect it would be nice if they won, occasionally. We saw the Pirates drop their ninth in a row.
• Even after 17 years of futility, I think I would like to be a Pirates fan. It’s a team with a ton of great history, a fantastic ballpark, and a dedicated fan base that is passionate. That city reminds me of Cleveland in the early 90s - just waiting to have someone to cheer for. They could use a movie like Major League for that team.
It is easy to forget how similar the Pirates were to the Twins through the 90s and up until 2001. Hell, the Twins were likely ranked lower in most people’s minds - it wasn’t Pittsburgh that was scheduled for contraction. I see a team like this, and I wonder how the Twins did it. We like to focus on a struggling team’s mistakes, and they’re valid, but it also tends to go overboard in blaming the victim. The truth seems to be that it isn’t about avoiding mistakes as it is about filling the gaps and having an awful lot go right all at once. And I don’t’ know how that happens.
• Because you asked, here are the list of top MLB ballparks. Load up the Honda Prelude with gas and get busy.
1. Wrigley - Because I feel like I’m back in time 70 years when I walk into that place. Get there 2 hours early for batting practice. Is it holy.
2 & 3. Camden Yards (BLT) and PNC Park - They’re both new, but they both feel older, and they both feel like ballparks and utilize their inherent location advantage. I rank Camden higher right now, but it’s been 10+ years since I’ve been there, so I might be wrong.
4. Fenway (BOS)
5. Dodger Stadium (LAD)
6. Kaufmann Stadium (KC)
I give Fenway the edge, both because of the sense of history and the neighborhood around it. Dodger Stadium is a beautiful place, and I love the 50s-60s Mad Men vibe about it. It might be the most underrated stadium in MLB. I can’t tell you what I love so much about Kaufmann, but it’s similar to Dodger - nice design, has heldup will to history and is valued by it’s team that doesn’t screw with it too much. I just wish the latter two weren’t in the middle of parking lots.
7-10
Target Field falls into this group, along with Petco (SD). Coors (COL) might, just because of it’s neighborhood. Possibly Jacobs (CLE), too.
Most overrated - Miller Park. I cannot be happier that Target Field stayed away from a retractable roof after seeing Miller. It feels like you’re watching baseball inside a mall.
Would be #2, but deceased - Tiger stadium. A GREAT old ballpark. I haven’t seen Comerica yet, but I plan on hating it. This is a stadium that should have been saved, ala Kaufmann.
--------------
Tomorrow night we’ll be in Philly to watch the Twins and tailgating beforehand. We’ll try and be in the upper left hand corner up of K-lot as early between 4:30 and 5:00. We’ll try to park against the bushes right across the street from the stadium. There's a pedestrian gate right there at the corner of 11th and Pattison. If you can make it, stop by. We’ll try to have a hot dog for you. Also, if you want to contact us, direct message me on my Twitter account.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Think, Know, Prove, revisited
About a month ago, I played the Think, Know and Prove game, and drew a fair amount of criticism in the comments. Some thought I was jumping the gun or drawing conclusions far too early. Some thought I was being conceited. And the truly rational were panicking because they thought I was jinxing the Twins.
I absolutely agree with the third criticism, and I sort of generally agree with the second one, though I think I can find better examples. But that first one – jumping the gun – I wondered about that one.
It might be true. I had never written a story like that after just one month. I wondered how it might change as the year goes on. And since it’s already half an hour after midnight and my life force has been sapped by consecutive nights at a Twins game with 13-year-old girls followed by 10-year-old boys, this seems like as good a night as any. So let’s revisit those statements and see if we want to make any revisions.
1. I think Oakland or Texas is going to find themselves in the postseason. By default.
Revision: It’s likely a three-horse race, but will likely come down to the remaining games between the Rangers and Angels..
The team that is still “out” is Seattle, who was 12 runs below .500 when I wrote the story, is now 52 runs below .500, as well as 23-36 and nine games back of first place. It might be hard to imagine how a team with that pitching (remember, they took three of four games vs our Twins last week) can be that bad. The truth is they haven’t been bad against the AL East (6 wins, 8 losses) or the AL Central (9 wins, 6 losses). But they have been dismal against the AL West, posting just seven wins in 27 games. They have tangled with each of the AL West teams and been emasculated.
The other team I thought was done, the Angels, are a half game back of first place as of today. More tellingly, they’re also almost even in run differential, a significant improvement from where they were a month ago. They’re still over performing at four games over .500, but teams do that, and they don’t give those wins back.
But the real reason the Angels are in such good shape, and the reason I have no idea who is going to win this thing, is that they just haven’t played the Rangers much yet. The two teams have played just two games so far (both won by the Rangers), meaning they have seventeen games left. Basically, the first half of the season has been one long spring training for these teams. Now things are going to get serious.
2. I think I was dead wrong about the White Sox.
Revision: none
Still true. I half expected them to rebound a bit, maybe even challenge the Tigers for second place and make a half-hearted run toward competitiveness in July. That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. The Pale Hose have netted another negative 16 runs, are still eight games under .500 and are 9.5 games behind the Twins. Things may not get really, really ugly, but I can’t imagine GM Kenny Williams not being a seller at the trade deadline. And probably sooner, seeing as both AJ Pierzynski and Mark Buehrle will soon be achieving no-trade protection due to their 10-5 deadlines.
3. I know the Red Sox don’t matter.
Revision: I think the Red Sox don’t matter.
Back on May 6, the Red Sox had a .500 record, were about even in runs scored and runs given up, and looked like a .500 team. Now they’re +33 runs and +9 games over .500. They’re also just three games worse than the Yankees.
So they’re not totally out of it, and while they have a losing record so far this year against the Yankees and Rays, I guess they’re not totally out of it. In any case, they no longer look like a .500 team. Do they matter? I don’t think so, but that has more to do with the next belief than anything else….
4. I know that the Twins are the third best team in the American League. But they still need to prove to themselves and the rest of the baseball world that they matter.
Revision: The Twins are far behind the top two teams in the American League. And they’re a longshot to matter.
The Rays and Yankees run differentials dwarf the rest of the American League, as do their records. In the two series versus the Yankees, the Twins won just two of four, and that was without facing CC Sabathia or Phil Hughes. Unless Andy Pettitte breaks down or retires or has some demon driven out of him or something, he’s not going to lose to the Twins. The Yankees have better pitching almost across the board, and right now the Twins don’t have an answer to that.
I don’t want to write about this any more.
5. I can prove that the Twins will handily win the AL Central.
Revision: none
Since the last story, the Twins have mostly tread water, inching up slightly in wins and run differential. But the Tigers have inched the other direction, seemingly determined to show that they’re only a .500 team. As of today, they’re just two games over .500, -5 runs in run differential, and 4.5 games back of the Twins.
The good news for them is they still have 12 games against the Twins in which to make up ground. The bad news is that they are 2-4 against the Twins so far this year. And that’s after posting a 7-12 record last year. And a 7-11 record in 2008. The Tigers continue to be a mediocre team that doesn’t match up particularly well with the Twins. Their offense is 9th in the AL in runs scored. Their pitching and defense is 4th in runs given up.
The Twins are two notches above in each category. They’re also two notches above the Tigers and possibly one good surge from proving to Tigers management that Detroit might want to start selling off pieces for some future returns. But even if they don’t, the Twins should make September fairly anti-climactic.
I absolutely agree with the third criticism, and I sort of generally agree with the second one, though I think I can find better examples. But that first one – jumping the gun – I wondered about that one.
It might be true. I had never written a story like that after just one month. I wondered how it might change as the year goes on. And since it’s already half an hour after midnight and my life force has been sapped by consecutive nights at a Twins game with 13-year-old girls followed by 10-year-old boys, this seems like as good a night as any. So let’s revisit those statements and see if we want to make any revisions.
1. I think Oakland or Texas is going to find themselves in the postseason. By default.
Revision: It’s likely a three-horse race, but will likely come down to the remaining games between the Rangers and Angels..
The team that is still “out” is Seattle, who was 12 runs below .500 when I wrote the story, is now 52 runs below .500, as well as 23-36 and nine games back of first place. It might be hard to imagine how a team with that pitching (remember, they took three of four games vs our Twins last week) can be that bad. The truth is they haven’t been bad against the AL East (6 wins, 8 losses) or the AL Central (9 wins, 6 losses). But they have been dismal against the AL West, posting just seven wins in 27 games. They have tangled with each of the AL West teams and been emasculated.
The other team I thought was done, the Angels, are a half game back of first place as of today. More tellingly, they’re also almost even in run differential, a significant improvement from where they were a month ago. They’re still over performing at four games over .500, but teams do that, and they don’t give those wins back.
But the real reason the Angels are in such good shape, and the reason I have no idea who is going to win this thing, is that they just haven’t played the Rangers much yet. The two teams have played just two games so far (both won by the Rangers), meaning they have seventeen games left. Basically, the first half of the season has been one long spring training for these teams. Now things are going to get serious.
2. I think I was dead wrong about the White Sox.
Revision: none
Still true. I half expected them to rebound a bit, maybe even challenge the Tigers for second place and make a half-hearted run toward competitiveness in July. That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. The Pale Hose have netted another negative 16 runs, are still eight games under .500 and are 9.5 games behind the Twins. Things may not get really, really ugly, but I can’t imagine GM Kenny Williams not being a seller at the trade deadline. And probably sooner, seeing as both AJ Pierzynski and Mark Buehrle will soon be achieving no-trade protection due to their 10-5 deadlines.
3. I know the Red Sox don’t matter.
Revision: I think the Red Sox don’t matter.
Back on May 6, the Red Sox had a .500 record, were about even in runs scored and runs given up, and looked like a .500 team. Now they’re +33 runs and +9 games over .500. They’re also just three games worse than the Yankees.
So they’re not totally out of it, and while they have a losing record so far this year against the Yankees and Rays, I guess they’re not totally out of it. In any case, they no longer look like a .500 team. Do they matter? I don’t think so, but that has more to do with the next belief than anything else….
4. I know that the Twins are the third best team in the American League. But they still need to prove to themselves and the rest of the baseball world that they matter.
Revision: The Twins are far behind the top two teams in the American League. And they’re a longshot to matter.
The Rays and Yankees run differentials dwarf the rest of the American League, as do their records. In the two series versus the Yankees, the Twins won just two of four, and that was without facing CC Sabathia or Phil Hughes. Unless Andy Pettitte breaks down or retires or has some demon driven out of him or something, he’s not going to lose to the Twins. The Yankees have better pitching almost across the board, and right now the Twins don’t have an answer to that.
I don’t want to write about this any more.
5. I can prove that the Twins will handily win the AL Central.
Revision: none
Since the last story, the Twins have mostly tread water, inching up slightly in wins and run differential. But the Tigers have inched the other direction, seemingly determined to show that they’re only a .500 team. As of today, they’re just two games over .500, -5 runs in run differential, and 4.5 games back of the Twins.
The good news for them is they still have 12 games against the Twins in which to make up ground. The bad news is that they are 2-4 against the Twins so far this year. And that’s after posting a 7-12 record last year. And a 7-11 record in 2008. The Tigers continue to be a mediocre team that doesn’t match up particularly well with the Twins. Their offense is 9th in the AL in runs scored. Their pitching and defense is 4th in runs given up.
The Twins are two notches above in each category. They’re also two notches above the Tigers and possibly one good surge from proving to Tigers management that Detroit might want to start selling off pieces for some future returns. But even if they don’t, the Twins should make September fairly anti-climactic.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Running Wild
Are opposing teams running more on the Twins, and especially on Joe Mauer? It sure seems like it has been more of a problem this year.
It turns out that Mauer has thrownout 9 of 32 stolen base attempts, which is just 28%. That's actually above last year's 26% rate, but below his career rate of 37%. But it appears that any stolen base problems the Twins are having aren't really the fault of the catchers. They fall primarily on one pitcher'a shoulders, which becomes apparent when you look at how many stolen base attempts and stolen bases each has faced.
Nick Blackburn - 1 attempt, 0 stolen bases
Scott Baker - 3 attempts, 1 stolen base
Francisco Liriano - 4 attempts, 3 stolen bases
Kevin Slowey - 7 attempts, 5 stolen bases
and
Carl Pavano - 17 attempts, 15 stolen bases
Pavano has given up 60% more stolen bases than the rest of the starting staff COMBINED.
It turns out that Mauer has thrownout 9 of 32 stolen base attempts, which is just 28%. That's actually above last year's 26% rate, but below his career rate of 37%. But it appears that any stolen base problems the Twins are having aren't really the fault of the catchers. They fall primarily on one pitcher'a shoulders, which becomes apparent when you look at how many stolen base attempts and stolen bases each has faced.
Nick Blackburn - 1 attempt, 0 stolen bases
Scott Baker - 3 attempts, 1 stolen base
Francisco Liriano - 4 attempts, 3 stolen bases
Kevin Slowey - 7 attempts, 5 stolen bases
and
Carl Pavano - 17 attempts, 15 stolen bases
Pavano has given up 60% more stolen bases than the rest of the starting staff COMBINED.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Maybe Bert is Right (Part 3)
(This is the third part of a 3-part series that I’ll be running on the TwinsCentric blog and at TwinsGeek.com. In Part 1, we discovered that an original metric for evaluating pitcher abuse, Pitcher Abuse Points (PAP) had been declared bunk by its creator, Rany Jayazerli. However, he and Keith Woolner instead presented another metric called PAP3 to replace it that also started tabulating abuse points of a pitcher at the 100-pitch mark.
In Part 2, we found out that PAP3 was actually developed to show short-term performance effects of high pitch counts, not long-term injury effects. What’s more, the “significant” effect it showed was a 1% decrease in pitcher performance after a 130 pitch outing versus a 90 pitch outing, or about one extra run per year.
In Part 3, we’ll look at the second half of the Analyzing PAP essay, where Jayazerli and Woolner see how effective PAP3 is at predicting pitcher injuries.)
In the second half of the study, Jayazerli and Woolner are very careful about what they are trying to prove. They do NOT try to show that PAP3 is a good predictor of pitching injuries. Instead, they try to show that it is a better indicator than just counting pitches. Of course, to those that believe that counting pitches is already bunk, that’s not proving much.
They do this by looking at the same time period and finding 73 pitchers with arm injuries that cost them 30 days or more of playing time. They then find comparable healthy pitchers that threw about the same number of pitches over their career. Then they compared the PAP3 scores for those pitchers.
They found that the injured pitchers were three times more likely to have had above-average PAP3 scores for their career. There are also two more studies from this same data set that suggest that PAP3 is better than just straight pitch counts. But again, it isn’t showing any kind of cause-effect or even a correlation between injuries and pitch counts. It’s just showing that their way of counting pitches correlates better than just straight pitch counts.
Interestingly, they specifically study the baseline of 100 pitches where PAP3 starts counting, and conclude it is essentially a line drawn in the sand. They tested 90, 100, 110 and didn’t find that any one measurement was significantly better than the other. They end up using PAP3 for injuries because it is convenient:
“Therefore, any reasonable metric that gives extra weight to high-pitch-count outings should yield a risk factor that in time is in the same ballpark as PAP3 (pardon the pun). Because we have a preferred metric for short-term impact that does acceptably well long-term injury risk to, we will stick with simplicity and use a single metric for both purposes.”
So let’s review. The purpose of the study was to study long-term injury risk as it related to pitch counts. Instead, a formula was devised to predict short-term performance impact instead. While the formula starts creating very large and spooky totals at 100 pitches, the results show almost zero impact on a pitcher’s performance until 130 pitches and nothing significant until 140 pitches.
As for long-term injury risk, all that was proved was that any metric that applies extra weight to pitches thrown late in a game is more accurate at demonstrating increased injury risk than just counting pitches throughout a season. But, of course, if you think pitch count is bunk, this is just a little above bunk. What’s more, since no baseline number or formula was any more accurate than any other, the same formula was used because it was convenient, not because it was more accurate.
Conclusion
The 100 pitch count “limit” was ingrained in people’s noggins before this study. The original PAP metric had sabremetrics lovers everywhere analyzing and criticizing managers for fragging their players' arms, present company included. The revised metric supposedly brought it even more credence.
It didn’t. The study of pitch counts appears to – as Bill James wrote a couple of years later – resulted in a dead end. The evidence shows that pitchers arms are no more affected in the short or long term by 125 pitches than they are by 100, and barely affected up to 139 pitches. And pitch counts like that almost never happen in major league baseball these days.
I’m not advocating pushing the limit to 180 pitches. But maybe Bert is right: we can trust the opposing batters to indicate to a pitcher when he is done, and rely a lot less on arbitrary pitch counts.
Monday, May 31, 2010
What is Going on with the DL?
So, why was Cuddy at second base?
The Twins have been slow to place banged up players on the 15-day disabled list (DL) this year, and last night that resulted in Michael Cuddyer playing second base. Cuddyer hasn't played second base consistently since 2005 when he played 11 games there. He started last night because the Twins have two injured second basemen on the roster and neither of them were on the DL.
Starting second baseman Orlando Hudson was injured Sunday night, and the Twins are still trying to evaluate if there is something wrong with his wrist. After negative x-rays, and a CT scan that turned up nothing, they say he should be back in a couple of days. We'll see.
But backup Alexi Casilla underwent an MRI on his elbow back on 5/21 or 5/22. It found a bone spur and loose bodies, but nothing that prevented him from filling in for Hudson back on 5/22. He also played on 5/27, going one for four. However, last night he was only able to pinch run, which is why Cuddyer ended up starting at second base. Now he's going to be placed on the DL, ten days after his MRI?
This isn't the first time the Twins have kept a guy on the roster while he treating an injury. It's happened over and over. Instead of calling a healthy backup from Rochester, the Twins have played short-handed this year, and the player coming back has struggled. Let's review...
Nick Punto
Situation: Most recently, Punto was basically out of games from 5/22 to 5/28 with an injured finger. I say "basically" because he was used as a pinch runner a couple of times during that stretch. When he returned, he could only bat left-handed, which limited the spots in which he could be used.
Results: In the 9 days in which Punto would have been on the 15-day DL, he has garnered two hits.
JJ Hardy
Situation: Hardy jameed his wrist sliding into third base on 5/4. Initially, we were told he would miss a day or two. A week later he ended up seeing a specialist and was finally put on the DL on 5/11.
Results: The Twins played short-handed for a week - and still ended up putting Hardy on the DL. He didn't return until 5/25 and admitted this weekend that his wrest still isn't 100%. He is 4-22 since his return, with one double.
Joe Mauer
Situation: Mauer hurt his heel in a game 4/30. He was out until 5/8, when he pinch hit. He started as a designated hitter on 5/9. And he finally started again at catcher on 5/11, eleven days after the injury. During that time the Twins used multiple roster moves to cover for not placing him on the DL.
Results: Mauer went 8 for 19 in the games in which he would have been on the DL. What can you say - it's Mauer. He hits.
Nick Punto (again)
Situation: On 4/16 Punto was held out of a game because he had a sore groin. Later the problem was diagnosed as a hip flexor injury, and he was finally added to the DL on 4/23, a week later.
Results: For a week, the Twins played without their starting third baseman and without making a roster move. Punto returned 4/30.
Pat Neshek
Situation: On 4/15 it was reported that Neshek had a sore flexor tendon in his finger. He was held out of games until 4/24. A week later the Twins decided to send him to AAA, at which point he asked to be put on the DL, at which point the finger-pointing started. Eventually he was given an MRI and a new diagnosis was given: he had a problem with his palm pulley tendon.
Result: In the 15 days he would have been on the DL, the Twins played short-handed for nine days, and then Neshek gave up two runs on eighteen pitches. Plus, he was eventually put on the DL, plus it looks like the missed diagnosis resulted in treatment that aggravated the actual injury.
Conclusion
What the hell is going on out there? For four guys (Neshek, Punto's hip, Hardy and Casilla), it looks like the Twins just had no idea how serious (or what) the injury was. In Mauer's case, the felt like they would rather play short-handed than not have him for a few days (and Mauer made that look almost prudent). And with Punto's finger, he was seemingly rushed back.
I had thought that the Twins were trying to be careful about roster moves. That doesn't seem to the be case. It looks more and more like the problem is that players are either trying to downplay injuries or the medical staff is having trouble evaluating them. I can only think of a couple of games that it has impacted, but it must be driving manager Ron Gardenhire crazy. This is an area that needs some extra attention, and needs it fast.
The Twins have been slow to place banged up players on the 15-day disabled list (DL) this year, and last night that resulted in Michael Cuddyer playing second base. Cuddyer hasn't played second base consistently since 2005 when he played 11 games there. He started last night because the Twins have two injured second basemen on the roster and neither of them were on the DL.
Starting second baseman Orlando Hudson was injured Sunday night, and the Twins are still trying to evaluate if there is something wrong with his wrist. After negative x-rays, and a CT scan that turned up nothing, they say he should be back in a couple of days. We'll see.
But backup Alexi Casilla underwent an MRI on his elbow back on 5/21 or 5/22. It found a bone spur and loose bodies, but nothing that prevented him from filling in for Hudson back on 5/22. He also played on 5/27, going one for four. However, last night he was only able to pinch run, which is why Cuddyer ended up starting at second base. Now he's going to be placed on the DL, ten days after his MRI?
This isn't the first time the Twins have kept a guy on the roster while he treating an injury. It's happened over and over. Instead of calling a healthy backup from Rochester, the Twins have played short-handed this year, and the player coming back has struggled. Let's review...
Nick Punto
Situation: Most recently, Punto was basically out of games from 5/22 to 5/28 with an injured finger. I say "basically" because he was used as a pinch runner a couple of times during that stretch. When he returned, he could only bat left-handed, which limited the spots in which he could be used.
Results: In the 9 days in which Punto would have been on the 15-day DL, he has garnered two hits.
JJ Hardy
Situation: Hardy jameed his wrist sliding into third base on 5/4. Initially, we were told he would miss a day or two. A week later he ended up seeing a specialist and was finally put on the DL on 5/11.
Results: The Twins played short-handed for a week - and still ended up putting Hardy on the DL. He didn't return until 5/25 and admitted this weekend that his wrest still isn't 100%. He is 4-22 since his return, with one double.
Joe Mauer
Situation: Mauer hurt his heel in a game 4/30. He was out until 5/8, when he pinch hit. He started as a designated hitter on 5/9. And he finally started again at catcher on 5/11, eleven days after the injury. During that time the Twins used multiple roster moves to cover for not placing him on the DL.
Results: Mauer went 8 for 19 in the games in which he would have been on the DL. What can you say - it's Mauer. He hits.
Nick Punto (again)
Situation: On 4/16 Punto was held out of a game because he had a sore groin. Later the problem was diagnosed as a hip flexor injury, and he was finally added to the DL on 4/23, a week later.
Results: For a week, the Twins played without their starting third baseman and without making a roster move. Punto returned 4/30.
Pat Neshek
Situation: On 4/15 it was reported that Neshek had a sore flexor tendon in his finger. He was held out of games until 4/24. A week later the Twins decided to send him to AAA, at which point he asked to be put on the DL, at which point the finger-pointing started. Eventually he was given an MRI and a new diagnosis was given: he had a problem with his palm pulley tendon.
Result: In the 15 days he would have been on the DL, the Twins played short-handed for nine days, and then Neshek gave up two runs on eighteen pitches. Plus, he was eventually put on the DL, plus it looks like the missed diagnosis resulted in treatment that aggravated the actual injury.
Conclusion
What the hell is going on out there? For four guys (Neshek, Punto's hip, Hardy and Casilla), it looks like the Twins just had no idea how serious (or what) the injury was. In Mauer's case, the felt like they would rather play short-handed than not have him for a few days (and Mauer made that look almost prudent). And with Punto's finger, he was seemingly rushed back.
I had thought that the Twins were trying to be careful about roster moves. That doesn't seem to the be case. It looks more and more like the problem is that players are either trying to downplay injuries or the medical staff is having trouble evaluating them. I can only think of a couple of games that it has impacted, but it must be driving manager Ron Gardenhire crazy. This is an area that needs some extra attention, and needs it fast.
Maybe Bert is Right (Part 2)
(This is the second part of a 3-part series that I’ll be running on the TwinsCentric blog and at TwinsGeek.com. You can find Part 1 here. Part 3 on June 3rd.)
In Part 1, we discovered that an original metric for evaluating pitcher abuse, Pitcher Abuse Points (PAP) had been declared bunk by its creator, Rany Jayazerli. However, he and Keith Woolner instead presented another metric called PAP3 to replace it. It also starts tabulating abuse points of a pitcher at the 100-pitch mark. The evidence that it has any correlation to pitcher abuse is supposed to be in the Analyzing PAP essay, which is divided into two parts. We’ll look at the first part of that essay today.
Analyzing PAP Essay
While the initial intent of PAP was to study whether a pitcher is at risk for injury or permanent reduction in effectiveness, Woolner and Jayazerli tried to get that to happen indirectly. They broke their study into two parts. First, they studied whether there is any short-term reduction in effectiveness for pitchers after a long outing. Then, in the second part, they studied whether those high pitch counts also can predict injury.
In part one, they looked at starts for pitchers over a ten-year period (from 1988 through 1998) and look at a pitcher’s performance 21 days before and 21 days after each start. If a pitcher has a high pitch count, do the 21 days after the start reflect a decrease in performance compared to the 21 days before?
After looking at some initial results, they implemented one more filter. They only analyzed “high-endurance” starting pitchers, or pitchers whose average pitch count is above that of the league. They did this essentially so they could study the better pitchers in the league, and the ones most likely to be pushed. It also provided data that makes a little more sense.
The essay starts with a surprising result: they find a very slight decrease in performance across the board - about 1% – no matter how many pitches a pitcher throws. That is true up through 129 pitches; at 130 pitches, future performance slopes down 2% and at 140 pitches future performance dives about 5%. Those results weren’t terribly in sync with what PAP would’ve predicted, so they tried some other formulas and came up with the PAP3 curve instead.
To summarize Part 1, they found that a high pitch count can have a slight impact to a “high-endurance” pitcher’s short-term performance. That impact is about 2% if a pitcher throws upwards of 130 pitches. In what is otherwise a very candid and objective study, I’m a little disappointed by the attempt to frame this as significant:
“Assuming a fairly abusive usage pattern across a staff, a team’s starting rotation could suffer a season-wide decline of about 2%. Considering the effect on both the innings pitched (putting more strain on the bullpen) and extra runs allowed by the starting pitchers, this might amount to perhaps 20-25 runs over the course of a season, worth about 2 to 2.5 games in the standings. It’s comparable to the difference in value between Tim Hudson and Kevin Tapani or Todd Ritchie in 2000. That’s a trade worth making.”
Um, hold it. So if I allow all my pitchers to throw 130+ pitches in 162 games, I’ll decrease my staff’s effectiveness by 2%? And if I allow them to throw just 90, they’ll only decrease by 1%? And we think that’s significant, do we?
Just so we’re clear, on what 1% is, one of the metrics that was used was runs against. So Carl Pavano (who has a significant injury history) gave up 119 runs last year while consistently throwing between 90 and 103 pitches. But if his teams would’ve allowed him to throw 130 pitches, he would’ve given up – one more run? Again, I’m supposed to think that’s a significant finding?
And, of course, this doesn’t measure what all this was supposed to measure – whether it’s actually dangerous to the pitcher. That comes next, in Part 3….
In Part 1, we discovered that an original metric for evaluating pitcher abuse, Pitcher Abuse Points (PAP) had been declared bunk by its creator, Rany Jayazerli. However, he and Keith Woolner instead presented another metric called PAP3 to replace it. It also starts tabulating abuse points of a pitcher at the 100-pitch mark. The evidence that it has any correlation to pitcher abuse is supposed to be in the Analyzing PAP essay, which is divided into two parts. We’ll look at the first part of that essay today.
Analyzing PAP Essay
While the initial intent of PAP was to study whether a pitcher is at risk for injury or permanent reduction in effectiveness, Woolner and Jayazerli tried to get that to happen indirectly. They broke their study into two parts. First, they studied whether there is any short-term reduction in effectiveness for pitchers after a long outing. Then, in the second part, they studied whether those high pitch counts also can predict injury.
In part one, they looked at starts for pitchers over a ten-year period (from 1988 through 1998) and look at a pitcher’s performance 21 days before and 21 days after each start. If a pitcher has a high pitch count, do the 21 days after the start reflect a decrease in performance compared to the 21 days before?
After looking at some initial results, they implemented one more filter. They only analyzed “high-endurance” starting pitchers, or pitchers whose average pitch count is above that of the league. They did this essentially so they could study the better pitchers in the league, and the ones most likely to be pushed. It also provided data that makes a little more sense.
The essay starts with a surprising result: they find a very slight decrease in performance across the board - about 1% – no matter how many pitches a pitcher throws. That is true up through 129 pitches; at 130 pitches, future performance slopes down 2% and at 140 pitches future performance dives about 5%. Those results weren’t terribly in sync with what PAP would’ve predicted, so they tried some other formulas and came up with the PAP3 curve instead.
To summarize Part 1, they found that a high pitch count can have a slight impact to a “high-endurance” pitcher’s short-term performance. That impact is about 2% if a pitcher throws upwards of 130 pitches. In what is otherwise a very candid and objective study, I’m a little disappointed by the attempt to frame this as significant:
“Assuming a fairly abusive usage pattern across a staff, a team’s starting rotation could suffer a season-wide decline of about 2%. Considering the effect on both the innings pitched (putting more strain on the bullpen) and extra runs allowed by the starting pitchers, this might amount to perhaps 20-25 runs over the course of a season, worth about 2 to 2.5 games in the standings. It’s comparable to the difference in value between Tim Hudson and Kevin Tapani or Todd Ritchie in 2000. That’s a trade worth making.”
Um, hold it. So if I allow all my pitchers to throw 130+ pitches in 162 games, I’ll decrease my staff’s effectiveness by 2%? And if I allow them to throw just 90, they’ll only decrease by 1%? And we think that’s significant, do we?
Just so we’re clear, on what 1% is, one of the metrics that was used was runs against. So Carl Pavano (who has a significant injury history) gave up 119 runs last year while consistently throwing between 90 and 103 pitches. But if his teams would’ve allowed him to throw 130 pitches, he would’ve given up – one more run? Again, I’m supposed to think that’s a significant finding?
And, of course, this doesn’t measure what all this was supposed to measure – whether it’s actually dangerous to the pitcher. That comes next, in Part 3….
Friday, May 28, 2010
Too Good To NOT Show
For two years I've been saying Justin Morneau was the captain of this team. Apparently he does have at least a little captain in him.
-- Post From My iPad
-- Post From My iPad
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Maybe Bert is Right (Part 1)
Pitch Counts May Be BS
(This is the first of a 3-part series that I’ll be running on the TwinsCentric blog and at TwinsGeek.com. Part 2 will be published on Memorial Day and Part 3 on June 3rd.)
Let’s be honest: for the first one hundred years or so of major league baseball, the players were chattel. That’s the biggest reason that starting pitchers were allowed to throw until their arms fell off. Management didn’t really give a damn if they fell off or not.
That’s also why things have changed. With the introduction of guaranteed contracts, a fragile arm can sink an entire front office. (Just ask Omar Minaya next fall.) So teams, coaches, agents and certainly players are looking for a way to protect those investments. Pitch counts seemed like a good place to start. And 100 is such a nice round number.
But don’t make the mistake of thinking there is any science behind it. Or at least that it isn’t paper thin. The current wisdom that 100 pitches is some kind of limit is an overly simplified interpretation of very specific studies that weren’t afraid to point out their own limitations.
The initial and most significant research on pitching abuse was a pair of essays in the 2001 edition of Baseball Prospectus. The first is called “Re-Thinking Pitcher Abuse” by Rany Jazayerli, which gives a brief history of his attempts at studying pitching abuse and summarizes a new measurement called PAP3. The second is “Analyzing PAP,” written by Jazayerli and Keith Woolner, which details the study that led them to develop the new measurement.
Both essays are very candid about what they found and what their limitations are, mostly without an ax to grind. Unfortunately, the measurements they created have been misinterpreted and oversimplified to become some deranged gospel of truth that doesn’t exist. So let’s take a look at what we REALLY know about pitch counts from those essays.
Re-Thinking Pitcher Abuse Essay
Jayazerli introduces both essays by explaining his original theory: that all pitches are not created equal. In particular, pitches thrown later in a game, once the arm is tired, are more damaging than those thrown earlier in a game.
When Jayazerli had proposed that idea earlier, he also devised a statistic to try and measure it called Pitching Abuse Points, or PAP. The original idea was that the first 10 pitches over 100 would be worth one point each. The next 10, two points each. The next 10, three points each, and so on. The more points, the worse the risk to the pitcher.
(In the later essay, Jayazerli says he chose 100 as a starting point because of research dating back to Craig Wright’s The Diamond Appraised, which suggested the 100-pitch limit for developing pitchers. I’m afraid I haven’t procured a copy of that book to see exactly where it came from.)
Jazayerli had thrown out this statistic as a starting point, but BaseballProspectus.com was exploding in popularity at that time, and he noted that a strange thing happened:
“And for two years, I have tried to use PAP as a framework in which to center the ongoing discussion of pitcher usage. In the process, though, PAP became more than a framework for measurement; it became the standard for measurement. Which it was never intended to do.”
Jazayerli then points out that he had never found any evidence that this PAP score is tied to injuries. He explains that it is a very difficult thing to measure because of all the confounding factors. So he enlisted Keith Woolner’s help and they conducted another study (detailed in the second essay) which resulted in a new measure called PAP3.
PAP3 was similar to PAP except that the points increase exponentially once you get over 100 pitches. Basically, you cube the number of pitches over 100, so 105 pitches would be 5^3 or 125 points. But 110 pitches would be 10^3 or 1000 points. And 120 pitches would be 20^3 or 8000 points.
You can see, that creates some very scary looking numbers in a hurry. However, the standard for what was truly damaging was also raised considerably. So they also included a table which listed the pitch counts along with their risk. Anything below 105 pitches was “virtually none.” Anything under 122 pitches was “moderate” and anything over 133 pitches was “severe.”
So let’s review what this essay just said. First, it explains that there was never any evidence that a previous metric (PAP) was ever valid. It pushes any significant risk in pitch counts up to 120+ pitches. And finally it explains a new metric (PAP3) for evaluating pitcher risk.
Of course, the basis for PAP3 and those conclusions are in the second essay, and we’ll start evaluating that in Part 2 on Monday.
I really, really, really cannot believe that I haven’t covered this next item yet. I’ve just been distracted by some life stuff. Many of you may have heard that one of the TwinsCentrick authors, Parker Hageman, has been designing some t-shirts for Twins fans. His initial one is a “Thome is my Homey” t-shirt and the first batch already sold out, but they’ve ordered a second batch. You know you’re going to want to rock this shirt at your next Twins game, so get it now, because I don’t think there will be a third batch.
(This is the first of a 3-part series that I’ll be running on the TwinsCentric blog and at TwinsGeek.com. Part 2 will be published on Memorial Day and Part 3 on June 3rd.)
Let’s be honest: for the first one hundred years or so of major league baseball, the players were chattel. That’s the biggest reason that starting pitchers were allowed to throw until their arms fell off. Management didn’t really give a damn if they fell off or not.
That’s also why things have changed. With the introduction of guaranteed contracts, a fragile arm can sink an entire front office. (Just ask Omar Minaya next fall.) So teams, coaches, agents and certainly players are looking for a way to protect those investments. Pitch counts seemed like a good place to start. And 100 is such a nice round number.
But don’t make the mistake of thinking there is any science behind it. Or at least that it isn’t paper thin. The current wisdom that 100 pitches is some kind of limit is an overly simplified interpretation of very specific studies that weren’t afraid to point out their own limitations.
The initial and most significant research on pitching abuse was a pair of essays in the 2001 edition of Baseball Prospectus. The first is called “Re-Thinking Pitcher Abuse” by Rany Jazayerli, which gives a brief history of his attempts at studying pitching abuse and summarizes a new measurement called PAP3. The second is “Analyzing PAP,” written by Jazayerli and Keith Woolner, which details the study that led them to develop the new measurement.
Both essays are very candid about what they found and what their limitations are, mostly without an ax to grind. Unfortunately, the measurements they created have been misinterpreted and oversimplified to become some deranged gospel of truth that doesn’t exist. So let’s take a look at what we REALLY know about pitch counts from those essays.
Re-Thinking Pitcher Abuse Essay
Jayazerli introduces both essays by explaining his original theory: that all pitches are not created equal. In particular, pitches thrown later in a game, once the arm is tired, are more damaging than those thrown earlier in a game.
When Jayazerli had proposed that idea earlier, he also devised a statistic to try and measure it called Pitching Abuse Points, or PAP. The original idea was that the first 10 pitches over 100 would be worth one point each. The next 10, two points each. The next 10, three points each, and so on. The more points, the worse the risk to the pitcher.
(In the later essay, Jayazerli says he chose 100 as a starting point because of research dating back to Craig Wright’s The Diamond Appraised, which suggested the 100-pitch limit for developing pitchers. I’m afraid I haven’t procured a copy of that book to see exactly where it came from.)
Jazayerli had thrown out this statistic as a starting point, but BaseballProspectus.com was exploding in popularity at that time, and he noted that a strange thing happened:
“And for two years, I have tried to use PAP as a framework in which to center the ongoing discussion of pitcher usage. In the process, though, PAP became more than a framework for measurement; it became the standard for measurement. Which it was never intended to do.”
Jazayerli then points out that he had never found any evidence that this PAP score is tied to injuries. He explains that it is a very difficult thing to measure because of all the confounding factors. So he enlisted Keith Woolner’s help and they conducted another study (detailed in the second essay) which resulted in a new measure called PAP3.
PAP3 was similar to PAP except that the points increase exponentially once you get over 100 pitches. Basically, you cube the number of pitches over 100, so 105 pitches would be 5^3 or 125 points. But 110 pitches would be 10^3 or 1000 points. And 120 pitches would be 20^3 or 8000 points.
You can see, that creates some very scary looking numbers in a hurry. However, the standard for what was truly damaging was also raised considerably. So they also included a table which listed the pitch counts along with their risk. Anything below 105 pitches was “virtually none.” Anything under 122 pitches was “moderate” and anything over 133 pitches was “severe.”
So let’s review what this essay just said. First, it explains that there was never any evidence that a previous metric (PAP) was ever valid. It pushes any significant risk in pitch counts up to 120+ pitches. And finally it explains a new metric (PAP3) for evaluating pitcher risk.
Of course, the basis for PAP3 and those conclusions are in the second essay, and we’ll start evaluating that in Part 2 on Monday.
------------------------
I really, really, really cannot believe that I haven’t covered this next item yet. I’ve just been distracted by some life stuff. Many of you may have heard that one of the TwinsCentrick authors, Parker Hageman, has been designing some t-shirts for Twins fans. His initial one is a “Thome is my Homey” t-shirt and the first batch already sold out, but they’ve ordered a second batch. You know you’re going to want to rock this shirt at your next Twins game, so get it now, because I don’t think there will be a third batch.
Monday, May 24, 2010
More Endgame Talk
You may have heard about the Atlanta Braves big seven-run comeback in the bottom of the ninth last week versus the Cincinnati Reds. It ended on a grand slam that gave the Braves a 10-9 victory.
But one thing I didn't know about was that the Reds, leading 9-3, missed out on chances to add to the score in both the eighth and ninth inning. In both cases, the Reds had runners on first and second base with no outs, but the third batter hit into a double play and the fourth struck out. It seemed unimportant at the time - up until the Braves remarkable comeback.
The lost opportunities were a topic of analysis in the local SABR forum. (I'm including the link because I think you can sign up, and I'm guessing most of my readers probably would like some of the topics. I hope you can sign up. I'm not really sure how - it's been so long since I joined. And please, be nice.) The question is whether the Reds should have tried playing "smallball" to push an extra insurance run across in those two innings.
I replied:
Some folks may find this interesting. Below is the URL for something called the Win Expectancy Tracker, which shows the probability of winning a baseball game in various situations, based on historical results.
http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/expectancy/search
Using it, I find that from 1997 through 2006, there were 1993 games where the home team entered the bottom of the ninth losing by six runs. They won three of them. So the visiting team won in that situation 99.85% of the time.
How much more would an extra run have helped? During the same time period, there were 4224 where the home team entered the bottom of the ninth losing by seven OR MORE runs. (Sorry about the OR MORE, but the tool just lumps everything over 6 together.) The home team came back to win just four of those, so they lost 99.91% of the time.
So getting that extra run across would've helped in approximately 0.06% of all games, and that's being generous. How insignificant is that? Let's take a look at another seemingly trivial situation and see how it would rank.
If the lead off batter of the visiting team just gets on base at the beginning of the first inning, he's improved his team's chances of winning 4.4%, or about 70 times more than that single extra run should've helped in the ninth inning.
One could do a similar analysis on the question raised yesterday - at what point do you really need a closer? So, if there wasn't a "save" statistic, at what point does the percentage chance of winning a game justify putting in someone other than your best reliever? So let's use the Win Expectancy Tracker to see historically what percentage of games were won by the home team carrying various leads or deficits into the top of the ninth.
Leading by 5 - win 99.7% of the time
Leading by 4 - win 98.8% of the time
Leading by 3 - win 98.0% of the time
Leading by 2 - win 94.5% of the time
Leading by 1 - win 86.6% of the time
Tied - win 52.2% of the time
Losing by 1 - win 15.2% of the time
Losing by 2 - win 6.3% of the time
Losing by 3 - win 2.9% of the time
Losing by 4 - win 1.3% of the time
Losing by 5 - win 0.6% of the time
Looking at those odds, I suppose you can make a pretty good case that whoever tries to hold a three run lead should be the same guy that tries to hold a four run lead. But I would argue that you don't need your best reliever to try and hold a three-run lead, either. 98% of the time a three run lead is safe, for chrissakes.
For the home team, the times a closer should be used include holding a one-run lead and a two-run lead. It also certainly includes a tie game, where giving up a single run decreases the chances of winning by 35%. I suppose one could even make a case for using him when losing by a run, since that second run decreases the chances of winning the game by almost 9%.
So I think it's a fair question to ask what the difference is between protecting a three-run and a four-run lead. But to claim that a closer needs to be used to protect a game that is already won 98.8% of the time seems a little severe.
But one thing I didn't know about was that the Reds, leading 9-3, missed out on chances to add to the score in both the eighth and ninth inning. In both cases, the Reds had runners on first and second base with no outs, but the third batter hit into a double play and the fourth struck out. It seemed unimportant at the time - up until the Braves remarkable comeback.
The lost opportunities were a topic of analysis in the local SABR forum. (I'm including the link because I think you can sign up, and I'm guessing most of my readers probably would like some of the topics. I hope you can sign up. I'm not really sure how - it's been so long since I joined. And please, be nice.) The question is whether the Reds should have tried playing "smallball" to push an extra insurance run across in those two innings.
I replied:
Some folks may find this interesting. Below is the URL for something called the Win Expectancy Tracker, which shows the probability of winning a baseball game in various situations, based on historical results.
http://winexp.walkoffbalk.com/
Using it, I find that from 1997 through 2006, there were 1993 games where the home team entered the bottom of the ninth losing by six runs. They won three of them. So the visiting team won in that situation 99.85% of the time.
How much more would an extra run have helped? During the same time period, there were 4224 where the home team entered the bottom of the ninth losing by seven OR MORE runs. (Sorry about the OR MORE, but the tool just lumps everything over 6 together.) The home team came back to win just four of those, so they lost 99.91% of the time.
So getting that extra run across would've helped in approximately 0.06% of all games, and that's being generous. How insignificant is that? Let's take a look at another seemingly trivial situation and see how it would rank.
If the lead off batter of the visiting team just gets on base at the beginning of the first inning, he's improved his team's chances of winning 4.4%, or about 70 times more than that single extra run should've helped in the ninth inning.
One could do a similar analysis on the question raised yesterday - at what point do you really need a closer? So, if there wasn't a "save" statistic, at what point does the percentage chance of winning a game justify putting in someone other than your best reliever? So let's use the Win Expectancy Tracker to see historically what percentage of games were won by the home team carrying various leads or deficits into the top of the ninth.
Leading by 5 - win 99.7% of the time
Leading by 4 - win 98.8% of the time
Leading by 3 - win 98.0% of the time
Leading by 2 - win 94.5% of the time
Leading by 1 - win 86.6% of the time
Tied - win 52.2% of the time
Losing by 1 - win 15.2% of the time
Losing by 2 - win 6.3% of the time
Losing by 3 - win 2.9% of the time
Losing by 4 - win 1.3% of the time
Losing by 5 - win 0.6% of the time
Looking at those odds, I suppose you can make a pretty good case that whoever tries to hold a three run lead should be the same guy that tries to hold a four run lead. But I would argue that you don't need your best reliever to try and hold a three-run lead, either. 98% of the time a three run lead is safe, for chrissakes.
For the home team, the times a closer should be used include holding a one-run lead and a two-run lead. It also certainly includes a tie game, where giving up a single run decreases the chances of winning by 35%. I suppose one could even make a case for using him when losing by a run, since that second run decreases the chances of winning the game by almost 9%.
So I think it's a fair question to ask what the difference is between protecting a three-run and a four-run lead. But to claim that a closer needs to be used to protect a game that is already won 98.8% of the time seems a little severe.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Gardy's Late Inning Decisions
Is that where we are now? We can be frustrated by a near sweep?
Yeah, that's right, and I'm not going to apologize for it. The Twins seemed like a vastly superior team compared to the Brewers. Maybe that was due to the party-like atmosphere of Friday night. Maybe it was the quick start on Saturday. Even the Brewers late-inning comeback on Saturday felt like a fluke, and you had to love the pitching matchups for Sunday.
So even though the Twins finished with the same results we should have expected (I doubt the Twins were favored throwing Kevin Slowey versus Yovani Galarado), it left me frustrated, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Listening to the post-game audio for the game, the manager and players sounded like they were frustrated too.
One aspect that is bound to be analyzed after a couple of one-run games is the late-inning decisions, and the last two games provided more than their share for manager Ron Gardenhire. In fact, he's all ready drawn a little second-guessing from Patrick Reusse. So let's review them quickly:
1. Saturday, top of the ninth - 6-2 lead - Ron Mahay starts the inning over Jon Rauch.
This is the move that Reusse not only criticizes, but ponders whether Gardenhire learned from it. I'm sure his argument resonates, seeing as it provides an opportunity to trash managing to a fairly useless statistic, the save. Reusse (probably correctly) postulates that Rauch didn't start the inning because it wouldn't have resulted in a save.
I guess. To, if you're going to criticize the blown lead, it falls 10% on Gardenhire and 90% on Mahay and Rauch. There needs to be some dividing line - you're not going to have Rauch hold a seven run lead - and three runs is as good as any. The southpaw Mahay has been one of the Twins more reliable relievers this year and he got to start an inning where the first and third batters were batting left-handed. Oh, and he got to face the bottom of the Brewers order.
A priori, there was no reason that the Twins should have felt like they needed Rauch there. It was only after Mahay laid a major egg - and Rauch contributed a few extra-base hits himself - that it was a move that merited any criticism.
2. Saturday, bottom of the ninth - having Jim Thome pinch hit for Trevor Plouffe - and get intentionally walked.
It was a tie game with one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd when Gardenhire used the last bullet in his holster for what everyone knew would be an intentional walk. Of the three moves here, this is the most debatable in my mind, but still pretty defendable.
Gardenhire had two choices: he could either choose to have Plouffe bat with runners on second and third (and again, one out) or he could have Nick Punto bat with the bases loaded and one out. To me, the second is a defensible choice, and probably the one I would make. But it is a choice that can easily drawn two criticisms.
The first is that the Brewers would've walked Plouffe anyway to load the bases, which would've allowed Thome to bat with the bases loaded. Maybe, but not intentionally. Brewers manager Ken Macha has a decision to make too, and his is a lot easier to figure out. Would he rather face Plouffe with runners on 2nd and 3rd or Thome with the bases loaded? There is no doubt they pitch to Plouffe.
The second criticism is that it's a fairly incremental upgrade from Plouffe to Punto and the price for it is too high - it's Thome. That's a fair criticism, but I can only fault Garenhire so much for being aggressive in that situation. And it turned out that over the next couple innings, the Twins had good players at the plate in the high-leverage situations anyway. He ended up not needing Thome on his bench.
3. Sunday, bottom of the ninth - trailing by one run, Thome replaces Brendan Harris and is walked so Plouffe needs to drive in the winning run. He strikes out to end the game.
In this situation, Gardenhire had another choice to make. With two outs, he had to decide between batting Harris with runners on the corners or Plouffe with the bases loaded. Again, he went with the bases loaded, which means that the batter only need to draw a walk, instead of get a hit.
The problem wasn't where Thome pinch-hit. The problem was that Gardenhire had two spots where he needed a pinch-hitter and only one Thome. If one really wants to second-guess Gardenhire, the place to start might be to ask why there wasn't another option on the bench, cuz there coulda been. Joe Mauer was available until an inning earlier, when he had been inserted for Sal Butera. That was with one out and the bases empty, a much lower leverage spot. But, of course, Gardenhire couldn't see that another, better option would be coming an inning later.
The problem is that all three moves failed, and the last one led to a loss. The frustration we feel about the series might magnify them, but I can't say I disagree with any of the moves.
Yeah, that's right, and I'm not going to apologize for it. The Twins seemed like a vastly superior team compared to the Brewers. Maybe that was due to the party-like atmosphere of Friday night. Maybe it was the quick start on Saturday. Even the Brewers late-inning comeback on Saturday felt like a fluke, and you had to love the pitching matchups for Sunday.
So even though the Twins finished with the same results we should have expected (I doubt the Twins were favored throwing Kevin Slowey versus Yovani Galarado), it left me frustrated, and I'm not going to apologize for it. Listening to the post-game audio for the game, the manager and players sounded like they were frustrated too.
One aspect that is bound to be analyzed after a couple of one-run games is the late-inning decisions, and the last two games provided more than their share for manager Ron Gardenhire. In fact, he's all ready drawn a little second-guessing from Patrick Reusse. So let's review them quickly:
1. Saturday, top of the ninth - 6-2 lead - Ron Mahay starts the inning over Jon Rauch.
This is the move that Reusse not only criticizes, but ponders whether Gardenhire learned from it. I'm sure his argument resonates, seeing as it provides an opportunity to trash managing to a fairly useless statistic, the save. Reusse (probably correctly) postulates that Rauch didn't start the inning because it wouldn't have resulted in a save.
I guess. To, if you're going to criticize the blown lead, it falls 10% on Gardenhire and 90% on Mahay and Rauch. There needs to be some dividing line - you're not going to have Rauch hold a seven run lead - and three runs is as good as any. The southpaw Mahay has been one of the Twins more reliable relievers this year and he got to start an inning where the first and third batters were batting left-handed. Oh, and he got to face the bottom of the Brewers order.
A priori, there was no reason that the Twins should have felt like they needed Rauch there. It was only after Mahay laid a major egg - and Rauch contributed a few extra-base hits himself - that it was a move that merited any criticism.
2. Saturday, bottom of the ninth - having Jim Thome pinch hit for Trevor Plouffe - and get intentionally walked.
It was a tie game with one out and runners on 2nd and 3rd when Gardenhire used the last bullet in his holster for what everyone knew would be an intentional walk. Of the three moves here, this is the most debatable in my mind, but still pretty defendable.
Gardenhire had two choices: he could either choose to have Plouffe bat with runners on second and third (and again, one out) or he could have Nick Punto bat with the bases loaded and one out. To me, the second is a defensible choice, and probably the one I would make. But it is a choice that can easily drawn two criticisms.
The first is that the Brewers would've walked Plouffe anyway to load the bases, which would've allowed Thome to bat with the bases loaded. Maybe, but not intentionally. Brewers manager Ken Macha has a decision to make too, and his is a lot easier to figure out. Would he rather face Plouffe with runners on 2nd and 3rd or Thome with the bases loaded? There is no doubt they pitch to Plouffe.
The second criticism is that it's a fairly incremental upgrade from Plouffe to Punto and the price for it is too high - it's Thome. That's a fair criticism, but I can only fault Garenhire so much for being aggressive in that situation. And it turned out that over the next couple innings, the Twins had good players at the plate in the high-leverage situations anyway. He ended up not needing Thome on his bench.
3. Sunday, bottom of the ninth - trailing by one run, Thome replaces Brendan Harris and is walked so Plouffe needs to drive in the winning run. He strikes out to end the game.
In this situation, Gardenhire had another choice to make. With two outs, he had to decide between batting Harris with runners on the corners or Plouffe with the bases loaded. Again, he went with the bases loaded, which means that the batter only need to draw a walk, instead of get a hit.
The problem wasn't where Thome pinch-hit. The problem was that Gardenhire had two spots where he needed a pinch-hitter and only one Thome. If one really wants to second-guess Gardenhire, the place to start might be to ask why there wasn't another option on the bench, cuz there coulda been. Joe Mauer was available until an inning earlier, when he had been inserted for Sal Butera. That was with one out and the bases empty, a much lower leverage spot. But, of course, Gardenhire couldn't see that another, better option would be coming an inning later.
The problem is that all three moves failed, and the last one led to a loss. The frustration we feel about the series might magnify them, but I can't say I disagree with any of the moves.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
An Apology to UZR
Several times over the last year, I've tried to explore the details of Ultimate Zone Rating(UZR), a defensive metric, in part because I thought it was unfairly rating Twins outfielders. It started back in October, but if you click back, make sure you make it down to the second comment. It was by Parker Hageman of OverTheBaggy.Blogspot.com, whose research suggested that maybe UZR is biased against smaller outfields.
That's because we thought the zones in UZR didn't take into account the particular ballpark they were in. So a 350 ft fly ball down the right field line was judged similarly in park after park - even if that fly ball was a home run in the Metrodome or Target Field, but not in another field. So, somewhat ironically, the larger, more spacious outfields pumped up UZRs because fielders had more chances to make plays, while the smaller ones penalized UZR.
But we were wrong. I'm sorry UZR, I should not have doubted you.
It is apparent I was wrong because FanGraphs.com has now added a "Split" option to their statistics, including UZR. Here is Cuddyer's for last year. Instead of having the Metrodome hurt him, it helped him. Cuddyer's UZR/150 was just -6.6 at home but -22.2 on the road. All in all he cost the team just 2.7 runs at home and 7.3 runs on the road.
The same thing happens as you look at his statistics year to year, and you also see the same thing in other ballparks, like Fenway's left field. Jason Bay's 2009 season shows him having a better UZR in Fenway than on the road.
So it appears that somehow, UZR is making the appropriate call for smaller outfields. There are other weaknesses we can pick apart, but all stats have weaknesses. UZR's method for handling somewhat extreme outfields is not one of them. In fact, it seems to be a strength.
But there is something else going on here, too, I think. Somehow, Cuddyer's defense got a lot better in 2009. This offseason I'm 99% sure it said that his UZR/150 was -22.1 in 2009, but now it's -13.6? That's not an insignificant change.
In some ways, that's good news, because I think that's a lot closer to what we're really seen from Cuddyer, and demonstrates his defense hasn't hurt the Twins the way other outfielders, like Jermaine Dye, have hurt their teams. But it's also very, very bad news, because I don't know why it changed. Was there an error before? Is there an error now?
If anyone knows, I'd love to hear it.
That's because we thought the zones in UZR didn't take into account the particular ballpark they were in. So a 350 ft fly ball down the right field line was judged similarly in park after park - even if that fly ball was a home run in the Metrodome or Target Field, but not in another field. So, somewhat ironically, the larger, more spacious outfields pumped up UZRs because fielders had more chances to make plays, while the smaller ones penalized UZR.
But we were wrong. I'm sorry UZR, I should not have doubted you.
It is apparent I was wrong because FanGraphs.com has now added a "Split" option to their statistics, including UZR. Here is Cuddyer's for last year. Instead of having the Metrodome hurt him, it helped him. Cuddyer's UZR/150 was just -6.6 at home but -22.2 on the road. All in all he cost the team just 2.7 runs at home and 7.3 runs on the road.
The same thing happens as you look at his statistics year to year, and you also see the same thing in other ballparks, like Fenway's left field. Jason Bay's 2009 season shows him having a better UZR in Fenway than on the road.
So it appears that somehow, UZR is making the appropriate call for smaller outfields. There are other weaknesses we can pick apart, but all stats have weaknesses. UZR's method for handling somewhat extreme outfields is not one of them. In fact, it seems to be a strength.
But there is something else going on here, too, I think. Somehow, Cuddyer's defense got a lot better in 2009. This offseason I'm 99% sure it said that his UZR/150 was -22.1 in 2009, but now it's -13.6? That's not an insignificant change.
In some ways, that's good news, because I think that's a lot closer to what we're really seen from Cuddyer, and demonstrates his defense hasn't hurt the Twins the way other outfielders, like Jermaine Dye, have hurt their teams. But it's also very, very bad news, because I don't know why it changed. Was there an error before? Is there an error now?
If anyone knows, I'd love to hear it.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Frustrated by the Slow(ey) Stuff
I’m going to admit it that I’m more than just a little frustrated with Kevin Slowey right now. And by “little frustrated,” I mean turning myself into a parody of Chris Farley’s Matt Foley character every time Slowey fails to make it past the middle innings. I'm one more long middle inning from breaking our coffee table.
It happened again last night. For the fifth consecutive start, and the seventh of his eight starts, he failed to make it through the sixth inning. His ERA has climbed to 4.70, a trend that has also been going on for almost a month. And as I listened to this, I wondered two things:
1) What’s going on with Slowey and
2) How much longer before Slowey finds himself living in a VAN, DOWN BY THE RIVER?!?
Is it possible Slowey just isn’t going to be that good? After all, he’s now 26 years old. This is his fourth year in the majors. His high water mark for endurance is 27 starts and 160.1 innings. He’s given up 50 more hits than innings pitched, and his home run rate is pretty consistently about 50% higher than you would hope. And his career ERA heading into last night’s game is 4.42.
To find the promise, you need to go back to his minor league career. He was drafted in the second round in 2005. In his first full year he posted a 1.88 ERA between High-A and Double-A. In his second full year he dominated AAA-Rochester, with a 1.89 ERA. While Matt Garza was getting all the hype, Slowey was right behind him, moving up a level just after Garza, and often posting at least as nasty numbers.
But in his four years in the majors, we’ve really only seen that promise once, in 2008. That year he stayed relatively healthy, only missing time at the beginning and ending of the year. He still gave up the home runs, but showed the impeccable control that was supposed to make him such a reliable rotation staple. But even then his ERA was only as low as 3.99. As Mr. Foley said, “Well, lad-dee-FRICKIN-da.”
Outside of that year, he’s posted a 4.73 ERA, a 4.86 ERA and now a 4.70 ERA. He received a fair amount of hype last before the All-Star break for having won 12 games, but that was mostly due to being in the right place at the right time; only nine of his 16 starts were quality starts.
Mostly, he’s just plain been hittable. Last year hitters had a batting average of .309 against him and this year it is .304. If you’ve got a lineup full of .300 hitters, your team is a powerhouse. Slowey does that to a team.
But given the injuries he’s faced with his wrist (which really go back to September of 2008) it’s way too early to say he’s never going to amount to JACK SQUAT. 2008 was a very good sign of what Twins fans could expect. And it’s silly to overlook those years in 2007 and 2006 in the minors. Our expectations are not out of line. He could be very good.
So what’s gong on? Because right now, he is easily the weakest of the Twins starters, and it’s not particularly close.
Taking a look at the Pitcher Report Card for him MyInsideEdge.com, the easy answer seems to be that he’s having trouble with his namesake – the slow stuff. He is just plain having trouble throwing his offspeed pitches for strikes. In 2008 he was throwing 63% of his offspeed pitches for strikes, which Inside Edge graded out as a B+. (MLB Average is 61%). This year he’s throwing just 50% for a strike, which grades out as an F.
And it looks like Major League batters have gotten the memo, because they’re not chasing those pitches. Again in 2008, he got hitters to chase 33% of those off-speed pitches (MLB average was 31%). This year, they’re chasing just 12%, which grades out as another F.
Is that how things played out last night?
It’s hard to say. The first two runs happened in the second inning, when he found himself in two full-count battles with Alex Gonzalez and Jose Bautista. In both cases he was throwing primarily offspeed pitches, sometimes for strikes, sometimes not. Both hits he gave up were pitches that drifted into the inside edge of the plate about thigh-high. In Gonzalez case it was an off-speed pitch that he singled. In Bautista’s it was a sinking fastball that he hit for a homerun.
It was a little different in the fourth inning. Freddie Lewis got on base after seeing almost exclusively sinking fastballs. Vernon Wells drove him in hitting a changeup on the outside of the plate. In neither case was the batter really ahead in the count, or in a full count.
So I don’t know if the problem is that offspeed pitch control, or that batters just aren’t being fooled. Either way, it could certainly indicate why Slowey is suddenly having trouble keeping his pitch count low enough to get deep into games, and why batters are adjusting to him in middle innings. Let’s hope he makes an adjustment for my own coronary health.
It happened again last night. For the fifth consecutive start, and the seventh of his eight starts, he failed to make it through the sixth inning. His ERA has climbed to 4.70, a trend that has also been going on for almost a month. And as I listened to this, I wondered two things:1) What’s going on with Slowey and
2) How much longer before Slowey finds himself living in a VAN, DOWN BY THE RIVER?!?
Is it possible Slowey just isn’t going to be that good? After all, he’s now 26 years old. This is his fourth year in the majors. His high water mark for endurance is 27 starts and 160.1 innings. He’s given up 50 more hits than innings pitched, and his home run rate is pretty consistently about 50% higher than you would hope. And his career ERA heading into last night’s game is 4.42.
To find the promise, you need to go back to his minor league career. He was drafted in the second round in 2005. In his first full year he posted a 1.88 ERA between High-A and Double-A. In his second full year he dominated AAA-Rochester, with a 1.89 ERA. While Matt Garza was getting all the hype, Slowey was right behind him, moving up a level just after Garza, and often posting at least as nasty numbers.
But in his four years in the majors, we’ve really only seen that promise once, in 2008. That year he stayed relatively healthy, only missing time at the beginning and ending of the year. He still gave up the home runs, but showed the impeccable control that was supposed to make him such a reliable rotation staple. But even then his ERA was only as low as 3.99. As Mr. Foley said, “Well, lad-dee-FRICKIN-da.”
Outside of that year, he’s posted a 4.73 ERA, a 4.86 ERA and now a 4.70 ERA. He received a fair amount of hype last before the All-Star break for having won 12 games, but that was mostly due to being in the right place at the right time; only nine of his 16 starts were quality starts.
Mostly, he’s just plain been hittable. Last year hitters had a batting average of .309 against him and this year it is .304. If you’ve got a lineup full of .300 hitters, your team is a powerhouse. Slowey does that to a team.
But given the injuries he’s faced with his wrist (which really go back to September of 2008) it’s way too early to say he’s never going to amount to JACK SQUAT. 2008 was a very good sign of what Twins fans could expect. And it’s silly to overlook those years in 2007 and 2006 in the minors. Our expectations are not out of line. He could be very good.
So what’s gong on? Because right now, he is easily the weakest of the Twins starters, and it’s not particularly close.
Taking a look at the Pitcher Report Card for him MyInsideEdge.com, the easy answer seems to be that he’s having trouble with his namesake – the slow stuff. He is just plain having trouble throwing his offspeed pitches for strikes. In 2008 he was throwing 63% of his offspeed pitches for strikes, which Inside Edge graded out as a B+. (MLB Average is 61%). This year he’s throwing just 50% for a strike, which grades out as an F.
And it looks like Major League batters have gotten the memo, because they’re not chasing those pitches. Again in 2008, he got hitters to chase 33% of those off-speed pitches (MLB average was 31%). This year, they’re chasing just 12%, which grades out as another F.
Is that how things played out last night?
It’s hard to say. The first two runs happened in the second inning, when he found himself in two full-count battles with Alex Gonzalez and Jose Bautista. In both cases he was throwing primarily offspeed pitches, sometimes for strikes, sometimes not. Both hits he gave up were pitches that drifted into the inside edge of the plate about thigh-high. In Gonzalez case it was an off-speed pitch that he singled. In Bautista’s it was a sinking fastball that he hit for a homerun.
It was a little different in the fourth inning. Freddie Lewis got on base after seeing almost exclusively sinking fastballs. Vernon Wells drove him in hitting a changeup on the outside of the plate. In neither case was the batter really ahead in the count, or in a full count.
So I don’t know if the problem is that offspeed pitch control, or that batters just aren’t being fooled. Either way, it could certainly indicate why Slowey is suddenly having trouble keeping his pitch count low enough to get deep into games, and why batters are adjusting to him in middle innings. Let’s hope he makes an adjustment for my own coronary health.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Need
You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need.
It wasn't what I hoped for in the Yankees series, but it may have been the best possible outcome.
Friday night I got validation that the Twins (and Ron Gardenhire) were absolutely psyched out by Yankee Stadium. On Saturday, as hit after hit found their way into Yankee gloves, it became apparent that the Twins were also snakebit. (In fact, on Sunday I listened to the Yankees announcers confirm both points throughout the game. They were virtually shaking their heads about how break after break seemed to be going the Yankees way.)
There is only one way for a trend like that to end - in the strangest possible manner. And so I stoically listened to Sunday's late innings hoping that this would be the game that lightning struck.
Did it ever. Down 3-2 in the eighth inning, the Twins were faced with four seemingly insurmountable obstacles:
1. Yankee Stadium
2. Mariano Rivera
3. the bases loaded and
4. Jason Kubel at the plate.
All year the last two virtually assured failure. All decade the first two virtually assured failure. But apparently it's easier to throw four monkeys off your back than just one. Who knew?
And so the Twins will head into the playoffs knowing that they can win at Yankee Stadium, that they can beat Rivera, and that closer Jon Rauch can strike out the top three guys in the Yankees order. That is a far better ending than I would have hoped for on Saturday night, Friday night or even Thursday night.
I got what I need. I think the Twins did too.
I gotta say, I had a GREAT time at the TwinsCentric Viewing Party on Saturday. That's saying something considering the Twins were being shellacked and we probably only had 30-35 people there. Or maybe that was what made it so much fun for me, because the gallows humor kicked in and we just had such a great group relaxing and debating baseball. Sincerely, thanks to everyone who came. It really was a fun communal baseball experience. And I LOVE that.
I did some research on the Blue Jays that I was going to write up tonight, but instead I'm going to try and tweet it tomorrow prior to the game, so please sign up for my Twitter feed, which I think you can even get on your cell phone. See you tomorrow.
- The Rolling Stones
It wasn't what I hoped for in the Yankees series, but it may have been the best possible outcome.
Friday night I got validation that the Twins (and Ron Gardenhire) were absolutely psyched out by Yankee Stadium. On Saturday, as hit after hit found their way into Yankee gloves, it became apparent that the Twins were also snakebit. (In fact, on Sunday I listened to the Yankees announcers confirm both points throughout the game. They were virtually shaking their heads about how break after break seemed to be going the Yankees way.)
There is only one way for a trend like that to end - in the strangest possible manner. And so I stoically listened to Sunday's late innings hoping that this would be the game that lightning struck.
Did it ever. Down 3-2 in the eighth inning, the Twins were faced with four seemingly insurmountable obstacles:
1. Yankee Stadium
2. Mariano Rivera
3. the bases loaded and
4. Jason Kubel at the plate.
All year the last two virtually assured failure. All decade the first two virtually assured failure. But apparently it's easier to throw four monkeys off your back than just one. Who knew?
And so the Twins will head into the playoffs knowing that they can win at Yankee Stadium, that they can beat Rivera, and that closer Jon Rauch can strike out the top three guys in the Yankees order. That is a far better ending than I would have hoped for on Saturday night, Friday night or even Thursday night.
I got what I need. I think the Twins did too.
-------------------
I gotta say, I had a GREAT time at the TwinsCentric Viewing Party on Saturday. That's saying something considering the Twins were being shellacked and we probably only had 30-35 people there. Or maybe that was what made it so much fun for me, because the gallows humor kicked in and we just had such a great group relaxing and debating baseball. Sincerely, thanks to everyone who came. It really was a fun communal baseball experience. And I LOVE that.
---------------------
I did some research on the Blue Jays that I was going to write up tonight, but instead I'm going to try and tweet it tomorrow prior to the game, so please sign up for my Twitter feed, which I think you can even get on your cell phone. See you tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Numerical Limits
We can take a lot of comfort in numbers, but it doesn't take a mathematician to tell you that they have limits.
Pick a game that you play, even if it's somewhat casual. Darts. Pool. Ping-pong, of maybe a video game. Now think of someone that you play who is maybe slightly better than you at it. Their "VORP" is a little bit better in that game. Not dominant, mind you. Just a little bit better.
If it was important, could you find a way to beat that person in that game? Could you beat them three out of five? Four our of seven? Do you believe you could find a way to do that?
I hope so. Maybe you find a weakness and pound it. Maybe you catch a few lucky breaks. Maybe there are a few distractions, or they're dealing with an injury. The bottom line is that the slight difference in talent doesn't mean anything in a short series. That's the limit of the numbers. In a short series, the team with the better numbers won't necessarily win.
That seems obvious, and it's more obvious when you take a look at two examples.
In 1965, the Yankees were visiting Metropolitan Stadium for four game just before the All-Star break. This might not have seemed like the biggest series, seeing as the Yankees were 12 games behind the division leading Twins. Except that the Yankees had won the division the year before, in 1964. And in 1963. And in 1962. And 1961. 1960, too.
And in 1958, 1957, 1956 and 1955.
And 1953, 1952, 1951, 1950 and 1949.
That's fourteen times in sixteen years, for those of you who care to count. So you can bet that when the Twins lost two of the first three game in that series, it felt as inevitable as wave crashing into shore. Even moreso when the Yankees grabbed the lead in the top of the 9th in the fourth game.
But in the bottom of the ninth, that changed when Harmon Killebrew hit the most important home run in the first 30 years of the franchise. It beat the Yankees for that game, saved the series, and announced to the Yankees and the rest of the world that their dynasty was over. And the Twins were intending to start their own.
Fast forward forty years to when the Twins have established their own mini-dynasty. The only AL team that has been more successful winning their division has been the Yankees. There is no doubt that they've won more games and been the slightly better team objectively. But that doesn't explain the dominance they have had individually versus the Twins in the regular season and in the playoffs. It certainly doesn't explain the dominance and dramatic wins they've consistently pulled off in Yankee Stadium.
So don't tell me the numbers say this is just another series. Maybe it's a measuring stick. Maybe it's a chance for the Twins to prove something to themselves. Or to identify a weakness, or to figure out a way to take that three out of five. There are an infinite number of reasons this series means more, just like there are an infinite number of ways to win a game.
So I'll let the numbers, and their limits, rest this weekend. Bring on the Yankees.
I've been harping on it, but WOW, and I looking forward to Saturday. TwinsCentric Viewing Party at Major's in Bloomington, Yanks vs. Twins, $2 pints, 2-4-1 appetizers, raffle of row 6 Twins tix and now Francisco Liriano is starting? Seriously? Show up early....
More TwinsCentric stuff today...
- Switch over to KFAN 1130 this morning at 9:15 to hear Seth and read his latest notes here.
- Nick thinks that Nick Punto's walk rate last year was a fluke.
- In a tweet yesterday, Parker points out that Delmon Young isn't swinging at as many bad pitches.
Pick a game that you play, even if it's somewhat casual. Darts. Pool. Ping-pong, of maybe a video game. Now think of someone that you play who is maybe slightly better than you at it. Their "VORP" is a little bit better in that game. Not dominant, mind you. Just a little bit better.
If it was important, could you find a way to beat that person in that game? Could you beat them three out of five? Four our of seven? Do you believe you could find a way to do that?
I hope so. Maybe you find a weakness and pound it. Maybe you catch a few lucky breaks. Maybe there are a few distractions, or they're dealing with an injury. The bottom line is that the slight difference in talent doesn't mean anything in a short series. That's the limit of the numbers. In a short series, the team with the better numbers won't necessarily win.
That seems obvious, and it's more obvious when you take a look at two examples.
In 1965, the Yankees were visiting Metropolitan Stadium for four game just before the All-Star break. This might not have seemed like the biggest series, seeing as the Yankees were 12 games behind the division leading Twins. Except that the Yankees had won the division the year before, in 1964. And in 1963. And in 1962. And 1961. 1960, too.
And in 1958, 1957, 1956 and 1955.
And 1953, 1952, 1951, 1950 and 1949.
That's fourteen times in sixteen years, for those of you who care to count. So you can bet that when the Twins lost two of the first three game in that series, it felt as inevitable as wave crashing into shore. Even moreso when the Yankees grabbed the lead in the top of the 9th in the fourth game.
But in the bottom of the ninth, that changed when Harmon Killebrew hit the most important home run in the first 30 years of the franchise. It beat the Yankees for that game, saved the series, and announced to the Yankees and the rest of the world that their dynasty was over. And the Twins were intending to start their own.
Fast forward forty years to when the Twins have established their own mini-dynasty. The only AL team that has been more successful winning their division has been the Yankees. There is no doubt that they've won more games and been the slightly better team objectively. But that doesn't explain the dominance they have had individually versus the Twins in the regular season and in the playoffs. It certainly doesn't explain the dominance and dramatic wins they've consistently pulled off in Yankee Stadium.
So don't tell me the numbers say this is just another series. Maybe it's a measuring stick. Maybe it's a chance for the Twins to prove something to themselves. Or to identify a weakness, or to figure out a way to take that three out of five. There are an infinite number of reasons this series means more, just like there are an infinite number of ways to win a game.
So I'll let the numbers, and their limits, rest this weekend. Bring on the Yankees.
---------------
I've been harping on it, but WOW, and I looking forward to Saturday. TwinsCentric Viewing Party at Major's in Bloomington, Yanks vs. Twins, $2 pints, 2-4-1 appetizers, raffle of row 6 Twins tix and now Francisco Liriano is starting? Seriously? Show up early....
------------------
More TwinsCentric stuff today...
- Switch over to KFAN 1130 this morning at 9:15 to hear Seth and read his latest notes here.
- Nick thinks that Nick Punto's walk rate last year was a fluke.
- In a tweet yesterday, Parker points out that Delmon Young isn't swinging at as many bad pitches.
Phoning It In: Delmon Young Week
Today is Delmon Young day across the Twins blogosphere, but only TwinsGeek.com has had a Delmon Young week. Back in June 2009, I lot all perspective and dedicated a whole week and a ton of words to evaluating Delmon Young's history and specifically Minnesota's reaction to him. Since I just couldn't get myself to write anything new about him last night, I'm just going to revisit those this morning. Here they are:
What the Hell Happened to Delmon Young?
Part 1: The Promise
Part 2: The Big Problem
Sidebar: Delmon Young vs. Joe Mauer
Part 3: Traps
Part 4: The Future
Part 1: The Promise
Part 2: The Big Problem
Sidebar: Delmon Young vs. Joe Mauer
Part 3: Traps
Part 4: The Future
Sunday, May 09, 2010
More on Patience
Could history be repeating itself?
A little over two years ago, I raised the question about whether Denard Span, a first round draft choice and non-prospect, had perhaps turned a corner? At 24 years old, he was putting up slightly better numbers than we expected in spring training. It was easy to write them off because of his history, just like we wrote off his late-year success the previous year as "one nice month."
But looking closer at his numbers, one noticed a change in walks and strikeouts that indicated a guy taking substantially different at-bats. I suggested that maybe he had developed some patience, and maybe we should have waited for someone with first-round talent to shine through. That year ended with him essentially nailing down the center field job for the Twins.
If we learned that lesson, we certainly didn't apply it to the first round pick taken years later. Like Span, Trevor Plouffe has been a poster child for an area in which the Twins have struggled - middle infielders. Plouffe has never posted an on-base percentage over .340 and never exceeded a 736 OPS. Or at least he never has until this year, where he is hitting .299 with an on-base percentage of .355 and a slugging percentage of .468.
But like Span, the numbers that are most interesting to me are his walk and strikeout numbers. So far this year, Plouffe has 9 walks and 13 strikeouts, or about 1 walk per 1.5 strikeouts. He hasn't shown that kind of a rate since the low minors. Last year it was 1:2, and that's been the case for most of his career.
And like Span, you can see the same change starting in August of last year:
That looks like a little like a progression, especially when you add in 2010. Plouffe is just 23 years old, plays shortstop, and is looking like a hitter that can both get on base and provide a little pop at AAA. If these numbers are legit for the year, he becomes a top prospect. He also, by the way, is right-handed, something else that would fit in well in the Twins lineup.
So let's hope that history really is repeating itself. And while we're at it, we might want to withhold judgment on Chris Parmelee. He's the first round pick two years after Plouffe, a 21-year-old who is hitting just .195 in AA-New Britain with a 24:5 K:BB ratio. History suggests that sometime these things turn around.
Get it on your calendar right now - Twins vs Yankees this Saturday at Major's in Bloomington. The whole gang will be there, we'll have big specials and a raffle for Twins tix, too. Plus, I have a hunch this could be one of the biggest games of the year. Hope to see you there.
A little over two years ago, I raised the question about whether Denard Span, a first round draft choice and non-prospect, had perhaps turned a corner? At 24 years old, he was putting up slightly better numbers than we expected in spring training. It was easy to write them off because of his history, just like we wrote off his late-year success the previous year as "one nice month."
But looking closer at his numbers, one noticed a change in walks and strikeouts that indicated a guy taking substantially different at-bats. I suggested that maybe he had developed some patience, and maybe we should have waited for someone with first-round talent to shine through. That year ended with him essentially nailing down the center field job for the Twins.
If we learned that lesson, we certainly didn't apply it to the first round pick taken years later. Like Span, Trevor Plouffe has been a poster child for an area in which the Twins have struggled - middle infielders. Plouffe has never posted an on-base percentage over .340 and never exceeded a 736 OPS. Or at least he never has until this year, where he is hitting .299 with an on-base percentage of .355 and a slugging percentage of .468.
But like Span, the numbers that are most interesting to me are his walk and strikeout numbers. So far this year, Plouffe has 9 walks and 13 strikeouts, or about 1 walk per 1.5 strikeouts. He hasn't shown that kind of a rate since the low minors. Last year it was 1:2, and that's been the case for most of his career.
And like Span, you can see the same change starting in August of last year:
| MONTH | BB | K | BA |
| APRIL | 7 | 6 | 0.228 |
| MAY | 4 | 23 | 0.215 |
| JUNE | 10 | 20 | 0.273 |
| JULY | 3 | 9 | 0.272 |
| AUGUST | 10 | 10 | 0.314 |
That looks like a little like a progression, especially when you add in 2010. Plouffe is just 23 years old, plays shortstop, and is looking like a hitter that can both get on base and provide a little pop at AAA. If these numbers are legit for the year, he becomes a top prospect. He also, by the way, is right-handed, something else that would fit in well in the Twins lineup.
So let's hope that history really is repeating itself. And while we're at it, we might want to withhold judgment on Chris Parmelee. He's the first round pick two years after Plouffe, a 21-year-old who is hitting just .195 in AA-New Britain with a 24:5 K:BB ratio. History suggests that sometime these things turn around.
-----------------
Get it on your calendar right now - Twins vs Yankees this Saturday at Major's in Bloomington. The whole gang will be there, we'll have big specials and a raffle for Twins tix, too. Plus, I have a hunch this could be one of the biggest games of the year. Hope to see you there.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
What I Believe
There aren't a lot of good reasons to be a blogger. The pay is nonexistent. The daily appetite of readers is constant. You’re competing in a wide open market for attention without any outside promotion. You're the butt of every joke established media can dream up, and members of the organizations you promote seemingly go out of their way to provide barriers. Hmmm. Let me revise that first sentence.
There is really only one good reason to be a blogger, or, as they were called before weblogs, an independent writer. It's the independent thing. You get to write what you want when you want to write it. You get attention on your own merits. And you can take as many risks as you want without needing to worry about everything you're going to lose. Because, frankly, you don't have a damn thing to lose.We’ll start with the AL standings, but rather than just look at the wins and losses, we’ll see how each team is doing by runs scored and runs against. This is as of midnight:
| EAST | GB | Runs Scored | Runs Against | Run Differential |
| Tampa Bay | - | 160 | 85 | 75 |
| NY Yankees | 1 | 151 | 96 | 55 |
| Toronto | 5 | 140 | 125 | 15 |
| Boston | 6.5 | 139 | 144 | -5 |
| Baltimore | 13.5 | 97 | 144 | -47 |
| CENTRAL | GB | Runs Scored | Runs Against | Run Differential |
| Minnesota | - | 149 | 106 | 43 |
| Detroit | 3.5 | 139 | 135 | 4 |
| Chicago Sox | 7 | 118 | 139 | -21 |
| Kansas City | 8 | 113 | 148 | -35 |
| Cleveland | 8.5 | 95 | 134 | -39 |
| WEST | GB | Runs Scored | Runs Against | Run Differential |
| Oakland | - | 126 | 122 | 4 |
| Texas | 0.5 | 122 | 116 | 6 |
| LA Angels | 3 | 112 | 155 | -43 |
| Seattle | 3 | 91 | 103 | -12 |
What do I think?
I think Oakland or Texas is going to find themselves in the postseason. By default.
But I'll readily admit, I sure didn't think that four weeks ago, so stay tuned.
I had picked the Angels to win the division, because they won 97 games last year, distancing them from the second place Rangers by 10 games. This year they are only 2.5 games back in the standings, but they've already been outscored by 41 runs. That's the second worst differential in the league, ahead of only the 7-21 Orioles. Forget the Red and White Sox - this is the most disappointing team in the American League.
Don't get me wrong - I still don't think they are quite this bad, but they aren't going to compete, and they aren't even going to finish second in this division.
Their pitching is going to get better. There is no reason that staff and that bullpen should be giving up over five runs a game, except – OK, there is one reason. And it may be the critical error GM Kenny Williams and manager Ozzie Guillen made in compiling this team this offseason.
What do I know?
I know the Red Sox don’t matter.
The national media wants to talk about the Red Sox’ demise because the Rays and Yankees, two excellent teams, already have sizable leads over them. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the Red Sox aren’t a very good team. They’re a .500 team, and that’s not going to be good enough in that division. Just ask Toronto, who has played that role for years.
May 14-16 @ NYY
May 25-27 vs. NYYJune 18-20 @ PHL
July 1-4 vs. TBAugust 1-4 @ TB.
Do those series mean everything? No, but they mean something. This team needs to prove that they’re more than first round fodder to the big guns in the AL East. That was abundantly clear as gaffe after gaffe caused them to cough up games last October.
A couple of weeks ago I suggested that the Twins might hold a seven game lead in the division by the time they go on next week’s killer road trip. That's no longer likely to happen, but if it wasn't for that epic meltdown in Game 2 of last week's Detroit series, they would be well on their way.
But that run differential column shows me what Detroit's record doesn't: they are a mediocre team. While I'm willing to concede that their pitching will improve, their lineup is going to hold them back. Beyond their top four hitters, there is nothing to fear in that lineup. And even Magglio Ordonez and Miguel Cabrera will lose some firepower once Austin Jackson comes back to earth.
More TwinsCentric...
- Seth discusses the misdiagnosis of Pat Neshek's "Finger" injury.
- Nick thinks the Twins should be looking to trade Wilson Ramos.- Seth will be on KFAN today (thursday) with Paul Allen around 9:15.
- And don't forget the TwinsCentric and Twins blogger get-together on May 15th at Major's in Bloomington. I'm so excited about laying a beat down on the Yankees in their ballpark I might fly too close to the sun myself.Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Twins 4, Tigers 3: Quick Notes
I took my kids to Target Field for the first time tonight. The most memorable reaction? The Boy asking me "If they put so much money already into this thing, why not add a roof?"
That just about killed me. And I don't mean that in a ha-ha funny way. I mean in a "Oh my god, what have I done to my impressionable young son?" kind of way. Keep in mind that he is named after an outdoor ballpark.
And then, because God wanted to make me his own personal Job for a half hour, he made sure it rained on us for the first couple of innings. The kids enjoyed that quite a bit. So that was nice.
Fortunately, The Big Guy ended up coming through before the night was out. And by "The Big Guy", I mean JJ Hardy. I saw the defensive play and the offensive blast, but I missed how he got the skies to clear in that third inning. Still, it's a skill that should come in handy with an outdoor ballpark, but probably not as much in a place with a retractable roof. No wonder the Brewers were willing to trade him away.
Hey - how is that trade going for the Brewers anyway? I'm honestly asking. I haven't heard Gomez' name since he went 4-5 in that first game. Let's find out....
Since that first game he's 14-62 since then with a .225 batting average. Overall he's hitting .269 with a .310 OBP and 14 K in 67 AB with 4 walks. Those ratios look awfully (emphasis on the first five letters) similar to what we saw here the last two years. And of course he's batting second, where he can do the most damage. But I'm sure his defense makes him worth all of that....
Finally, I have two questions to those who could watch replays at home...
- The miss by Delmon should have been an error, right? It looked from our seats like he had that measured all the way.
- Did Hardy break into a home run trot up to the point where he was rounding first base? It looked like it in the brief replay I saw.
That's it for tonight. The Voice of Reason is waiting out on the stoop for me with a pint of Premium. We'll talk more tomorrow.
That just about killed me. And I don't mean that in a ha-ha funny way. I mean in a "Oh my god, what have I done to my impressionable young son?" kind of way. Keep in mind that he is named after an outdoor ballpark.
And then, because God wanted to make me his own personal Job for a half hour, he made sure it rained on us for the first couple of innings. The kids enjoyed that quite a bit. So that was nice.
Fortunately, The Big Guy ended up coming through before the night was out. And by "The Big Guy", I mean JJ Hardy. I saw the defensive play and the offensive blast, but I missed how he got the skies to clear in that third inning. Still, it's a skill that should come in handy with an outdoor ballpark, but probably not as much in a place with a retractable roof. No wonder the Brewers were willing to trade him away.
Hey - how is that trade going for the Brewers anyway? I'm honestly asking. I haven't heard Gomez' name since he went 4-5 in that first game. Let's find out....
Since that first game he's 14-62 since then with a .225 batting average. Overall he's hitting .269 with a .310 OBP and 14 K in 67 AB with 4 walks. Those ratios look awfully (emphasis on the first five letters) similar to what we saw here the last two years. And of course he's batting second, where he can do the most damage. But I'm sure his defense makes him worth all of that....
Finally, I have two questions to those who could watch replays at home...
- The miss by Delmon should have been an error, right? It looked from our seats like he had that measured all the way.
- Did Hardy break into a home run trot up to the point where he was rounding first base? It looked like it in the brief replay I saw.
That's it for tonight. The Voice of Reason is waiting out on the stoop for me with a pint of Premium. We'll talk more tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
