Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Revisiting pitching predictions and Cy Young voting
While I was here making my post about rarities, I looked at my previous post from June 5 about pitchers to seek and to avoid.
As usual, it was good advice.
I advised that Alex Wood, Jameson Taillon and Cole Hamels should be good for more wins.
Wood had won one game at the end of May. He added eight wins, even though he made just eight starts after the All-Star Game after making 19 before that artificial midpoint.
Taillon had six wins in the first half, eight in the second.
Hamels had five wins at the All-Star break, four thereafter. He had three at the end of May and six over the final four months, essentially the same rate of 1.5 wins per month. But look more closely and you'll see that he was 4-0 in August after being traded to the Cubs, but was 0-3 in September as part of -- a big part of -- the team's overall slide.
I said Felix Hernandez would not do as well during the second half. He had five wins at the end of May, three more in June and zero over the final three months.
The June post said you could expect to see Masahiro Tanaka's ERA to go down and Jake Arrieta's to go up. Tanaka had a 4.54 ERA at the All-Star break and 2.85 thereafter. Arrieta's splits were 3.23 and 5.04.
Look at the list of pitchers with a 2 rating (the best in the Hittability/Strikeability ratings). Nine of the 10 pitchers on the list received Cy Young Award votes.
AL Cy Young winner Blake Snell was rated 3. So was Miles Mikolas, with a note calling him "a surprise player to watch," and he also receive Cy Young votes.
The lowest-rated players at 8 mostly continued to pitch badly. Zach Godley was the exception who turned his season around.
Trevor Williams, rated at 7, and Carlos Carrasco, Kent Freeland and David Price, all with average ratings of 5, pitched much better later in the season.
A Cy Young award note about NL winner Jacob deGrom. I have no problem with the writer who didn't give deGrom a first-place vote. He might have been thinking as I was, that at a time when most starters' goal is to pitch well and long enough merely to "give the team a chance to win."
I had written, possibly in this blog, a well reasoned piece on why Felix Hernandez shouldn't have won a Cy Young in a 13-win season. My argument showed that he hadn't performed well while the Mariners were in key games that could have helped them in that season's pennant race. I complained -- and continue to complain -- against the analytical hysteria that says individual pitchers' wins don't mean anything.
The Mets were just 14-18 in deGrom's starts. His record was 10-9; a poor bullpen was 4-9 after he left games. Was deGrom not pitching enough innings to give the Mets a chance to win? On close inspection, I can't say that. He pitched more than six innings in about two-thirds of his starts.
In 1992, I wrote for a publication that I think was named "Left Field Baseball" about reasons why Doug Drabek seemed to get fewer wins than would have been expected from the ace of a good Pirates rotation and team at that time. One of the factors I explored was whether Pittsburgh's batters didn't feel such a need to produce with Drabek on the mound because he would hold down the other team. I think that idea was partly responsible for deGrom's low total of wins. His average run support was 3.49; the Mets' offense averaged 4.17 for the season, or about 20 percent more than when deGrom was pitching. The clincher: in his 32 starts, he allowed more than three runs once -- when he allowed four. So I have no trouble with the voters' choosing deGrom, either.
As usual, it was good advice.
I advised that Alex Wood, Jameson Taillon and Cole Hamels should be good for more wins.
Wood had won one game at the end of May. He added eight wins, even though he made just eight starts after the All-Star Game after making 19 before that artificial midpoint.
Taillon had six wins in the first half, eight in the second.
Hamels had five wins at the All-Star break, four thereafter. He had three at the end of May and six over the final four months, essentially the same rate of 1.5 wins per month. But look more closely and you'll see that he was 4-0 in August after being traded to the Cubs, but was 0-3 in September as part of -- a big part of -- the team's overall slide.
I said Felix Hernandez would not do as well during the second half. He had five wins at the end of May, three more in June and zero over the final three months.
The June post said you could expect to see Masahiro Tanaka's ERA to go down and Jake Arrieta's to go up. Tanaka had a 4.54 ERA at the All-Star break and 2.85 thereafter. Arrieta's splits were 3.23 and 5.04.
Look at the list of pitchers with a 2 rating (the best in the Hittability/Strikeability ratings). Nine of the 10 pitchers on the list received Cy Young Award votes.
AL Cy Young winner Blake Snell was rated 3. So was Miles Mikolas, with a note calling him "a surprise player to watch," and he also receive Cy Young votes.
The lowest-rated players at 8 mostly continued to pitch badly. Zach Godley was the exception who turned his season around.
Trevor Williams, rated at 7, and Carlos Carrasco, Kent Freeland and David Price, all with average ratings of 5, pitched much better later in the season.
A Cy Young award note about NL winner Jacob deGrom. I have no problem with the writer who didn't give deGrom a first-place vote. He might have been thinking as I was, that at a time when most starters' goal is to pitch well and long enough merely to "give the team a chance to win."
I had written, possibly in this blog, a well reasoned piece on why Felix Hernandez shouldn't have won a Cy Young in a 13-win season. My argument showed that he hadn't performed well while the Mariners were in key games that could have helped them in that season's pennant race. I complained -- and continue to complain -- against the analytical hysteria that says individual pitchers' wins don't mean anything.
The Mets were just 14-18 in deGrom's starts. His record was 10-9; a poor bullpen was 4-9 after he left games. Was deGrom not pitching enough innings to give the Mets a chance to win? On close inspection, I can't say that. He pitched more than six innings in about two-thirds of his starts.
In 1992, I wrote for a publication that I think was named "Left Field Baseball" about reasons why Doug Drabek seemed to get fewer wins than would have been expected from the ace of a good Pirates rotation and team at that time. One of the factors I explored was whether Pittsburgh's batters didn't feel such a need to produce with Drabek on the mound because he would hold down the other team. I think that idea was partly responsible for deGrom's low total of wins. His average run support was 3.49; the Mets' offense averaged 4.17 for the season, or about 20 percent more than when deGrom was pitching. The clincher: in his 32 starts, he allowed more than three runs once -- when he allowed four. So I have no trouble with the voters' choosing deGrom, either.
Not even medium rare
I woke up this morning thinking about the rarity of
what I've seen in the last two games I've covered. On Wednesday, the
Mavericks allowed a team-record-low 22 points in the second half against
the Jazz. On Friday, the Stars and Bruins played three periods with no
scoring until Dallas scored an overtime goal to win 1-0.
Each of those events was rare, but how rare?
After Friday's game, I asked Stars goalie Ben Bishop, "Have you been in a game that was zero-zero after three periods before?"
He answered, "Yeah, lots, I think."
I
gave him a pass on that answer. He either misunderstood the question,
as if I had asked if he'd been in games that were scoreless for a long
time, or he was including games from alternate universes.
The
Stars have played 4,309 regular-season and playoff games. Friday's game
was just their fourth that had gone scoreless for three periods, and
Bishop was not around for any of the other three.
Did
he have a number of 0-0 games at the University of Maine or with the
North American Hockey League's Texas Tornado? Highly unlikely.
It turns out that relatively speaking Bishop has been in lots of NHL games that were scoreless for three periods.
With
the Tampa Bay Lightning, Bishop was the goalie in three games that went
into overtime 0-0 -- at Anaheim Nov. 12, 2013; vs. Boston March 8,
2016, and at Carolina Dec. 4, 2016 -- and lost all three of those games!
Bishop
has been in 336 NHL games, during which he has equaled the number of
0-0-entering-overtime games for the North Stars/Stars franchise over
4,309 games in 51 seasons.
Comparing:
Bishop 1 in 84 games; Stars 1 in 1,077.
Bishop 1 in 1.19 percent of his games; Stars 1 in 0.09 percent of their games.
In other words, Bishop has been in those scoreless games more than 13 times as often as the Stars have.
The Mavericks' milestone on Wednesday was even rarer than the Stars' games with three scoreless periods.
In 39 seasons, Dallas now has allowed an opponent just 22 points in a half once in 3,288 games, or 0.03 percent.
Even
if we add the Mavericks' game with the previous record of 23 points
allowed in a half, the ratio of games with 22 or 23 points allowed is
just twice in 3,288 games, once every 1,644 games or 0.06 percent.
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Pitching forecast: Kluber, Scherzer solid; Colon, Tanaka should improve; beware King Felix, Arrieta
It's fitting that I'm resuming this blog where I left off three years ago. This is a rundown on pitchers likely to have better results during the latter two-thirds or so of this season than they did in the first two months.
The first thing that struck me from the previous post was that at that point in the 2015 season, 109 pitchers had thrown enough innings (one per team game) to be on pace to qualify for the ERA title. Just three years later, the number of would-be qualifiers is down to 91 -- a 17 per cent decrease and fewer than three starters per team.
I attribute that decrease to the moronic way pitching staffs are handled these days. Starters are groomed to pitch five or six innings and "keep the team in the game." And far be it from a reliever to work more than one inning. I'll be writing more about that philosophy.
That trend had its roots 20 years or so ago, but its impact seems to be accelerating.
My method uses two simple statistics, opponents' batting average (which I call Hittability) and strikeout/walk ratio (Strikeability).
The eligible starters are broken down into four more-or-less-equal quartiles in each category. Those in the top quartile get 1 point, those in the bottom get 4. The best pitchers are in Quartile 1 in each category, so their total score would be 1+1=2. Those in both bottom quartiles would score 4+4=8. The average score would be 5. Those scoring 3 and 4 would be above average, and those at 6 or 7 would be below average, possibly clinging to their jobs.
My reasoning is that the batting average and K/W ratio measure pitchers' efficiency, and over the course of a season the results in terms of won-lost records and ERA, for example, the cream would rise to the top.
Moving up
Pitchers I expect to win more often over the remainder of this season: Bartolo Colon (really!), Alex Wood, Jameson Taillon, Cole Hamels, Tanner Roark, Kyle Gibson and Matthew Boyd. Masahiro Tanaka's ERA should be a run or so lower going forward.
Going down
On the other end, there are pitchers who somehow have won games without pitching very well. Expect more losses than wins for Marco Gonzales, Felix Hernandez, Jose Quintana and Chris Stratton. And a decline in strikeouts seems to be foreshadowing an upward spike in Jake Arrieta's ERA.
The cream of the crop
10 pitchers in the top quartile in Hittability (.152-.214 OBA) and Strikeability (4.11-8.80 K/W ratio):
Corey Kluber, Indians
Max Scherzer, Nationals
Justin Verlander, Astros
Gerrit Cole, Astros
Jose Berrios, Twins
Chris Sale, Red Sox
Patrick Corbin, Diamondbacks
Luis Severino, Yankees
Jacob deGrom, Mets
Aaron Nola, Phillies
You want those guys on your fantasy teams.
Avoid at any cost
The eight pitchers in the bottom quartile in Hittability (.257-.313 OBA) and Strikeability (1.35-2.14 K/W):
Tyler Anderson, Rockies
Zach Godley, Diamondbacks
Andrew Cashner, Orioles
Danny Duffy, Royals
Homer Bailey, Reds
Sal "Mad Men" Romano, Reds
Lance Lynn, Twins
Ty Blach, Giants
In Hittability, the second quartile pitchers allowed opponents an average between .220 and .238, and the third quartile was from .241 to .255.
The second quartile in Strikeability included pitchers with K/W ratios between 2.74 and 4.00, and the third quartile ranged from 2.18 to 2.73.
The remainder of the pitchers included:
3
(1 in Hittability and 2 in Strikeability)
Zach Greinke, Diamondbacks
Miles Mikolas, Cardinals -- a surprising player to watch
Daniel Mengden, Athletics
Bartolo Colon, Rangers
Stephen Strasburg, Nationals
J.A. Happ, Blue Jays
Nick Pivetta, Phillies
(2 and 1)
Sean Manaea, Athletics
Charlie Morton, Astros
James Paxton, Mariners
Blake Snell, Rays
Trevor Bauer, Indians
4
(1 and 3)
Noah Syndergaard, Mets
Alex Wood, Dodgers
Rick Porcello, Red Sox
(2 and 2)
Jakob Junis, Royals
Kyle Hendricks, Cubs
Masahiro Tanaka, Yankees
Eduardo Rodriguez, Red Sox
Jameson Taillon, Pirates
Cole Hamels, Rangers
(3 and 1)
Mike Foltynewicz, Braves
Caleb Smith, Marlins
Tanner Roark, Nationals
Kyle Gibson, Twins
Garrett Richards, Angels
Mike Wacha, Cardinals
Matthew Boyd, Tigers
5
(1 and 4)
Ivan Nova, Pirates
Dylan Bundy, Orioles
(2 and 3)
Carlos Carrasco, Indians
Vincent Velasquez, Phillies
Jose Urena, Marlins
Tyler Skaggs, Angels
Dallas Keuchel, Astros
Luke Weaver, Cardinals
(3 and 2)
Lance McCullers, Astros
Kyle Freeland, Rockies
David Price, Red Sox
Jon Lester, Cubs
(4 and 1)
Sean Newcomb, Braves
6
(2 and 4)
Jhoulys Chacin, Brewers
Julio Teheran, Braves
Chase Anderson, Brewers
James Shields, White Sox
Reynaldo Lopez, White Sox
(3 and 3)
Tyson Ross, Padres
Gio Gonzalez, Nationals
Chad Kuhl, Pirates
Mike Clevinger, Indians
Clayton Richard, Padres
Jake Odorizzi, Twins
Jake Arrieta, Phillies
(4 and 2)
Kevin Gausman, Orioles
Jon Gray, Rockies
Brent Suter, Brewers
Marco Gonzales, Mariners
Mike Leake, Mariners
Chris Archer, Rays
Brandon McCarthy, Braves
7
(3 and 4)
Felix Hernandez, Mariners
Chad Bettis, Rockies
Trevor Williams, Pirates
Derek Holland, Giants
Michael Fulmer, Tigers
Jose Quintana, Cubs
Chris Stratton, Giants
Aaron Sanchez, Blue Jays
(4 and 3)
Ian Kennedy, Royals
Tyler Mahle, Reds
Luis Castillo, Reds
Jason Hammel, Royals
German Marquez, Rockies
The first thing that struck me from the previous post was that at that point in the 2015 season, 109 pitchers had thrown enough innings (one per team game) to be on pace to qualify for the ERA title. Just three years later, the number of would-be qualifiers is down to 91 -- a 17 per cent decrease and fewer than three starters per team.
I attribute that decrease to the moronic way pitching staffs are handled these days. Starters are groomed to pitch five or six innings and "keep the team in the game." And far be it from a reliever to work more than one inning. I'll be writing more about that philosophy.
That trend had its roots 20 years or so ago, but its impact seems to be accelerating.
My method uses two simple statistics, opponents' batting average (which I call Hittability) and strikeout/walk ratio (Strikeability).
The eligible starters are broken down into four more-or-less-equal quartiles in each category. Those in the top quartile get 1 point, those in the bottom get 4. The best pitchers are in Quartile 1 in each category, so their total score would be 1+1=2. Those in both bottom quartiles would score 4+4=8. The average score would be 5. Those scoring 3 and 4 would be above average, and those at 6 or 7 would be below average, possibly clinging to their jobs.
My reasoning is that the batting average and K/W ratio measure pitchers' efficiency, and over the course of a season the results in terms of won-lost records and ERA, for example, the cream would rise to the top.
Moving up
Pitchers I expect to win more often over the remainder of this season: Bartolo Colon (really!), Alex Wood, Jameson Taillon, Cole Hamels, Tanner Roark, Kyle Gibson and Matthew Boyd. Masahiro Tanaka's ERA should be a run or so lower going forward.
Going down
On the other end, there are pitchers who somehow have won games without pitching very well. Expect more losses than wins for Marco Gonzales, Felix Hernandez, Jose Quintana and Chris Stratton. And a decline in strikeouts seems to be foreshadowing an upward spike in Jake Arrieta's ERA.
The cream of the crop
10 pitchers in the top quartile in Hittability (.152-.214 OBA) and Strikeability (4.11-8.80 K/W ratio):
Corey Kluber, Indians
Max Scherzer, Nationals
Justin Verlander, Astros
Gerrit Cole, Astros
Jose Berrios, Twins
Chris Sale, Red Sox
Patrick Corbin, Diamondbacks
Luis Severino, Yankees
Jacob deGrom, Mets
Aaron Nola, Phillies
You want those guys on your fantasy teams.
Avoid at any cost
The eight pitchers in the bottom quartile in Hittability (.257-.313 OBA) and Strikeability (1.35-2.14 K/W):
Tyler Anderson, Rockies
Zach Godley, Diamondbacks
Andrew Cashner, Orioles
Danny Duffy, Royals
Homer Bailey, Reds
Sal "Mad Men" Romano, Reds
Lance Lynn, Twins
Ty Blach, Giants
In Hittability, the second quartile pitchers allowed opponents an average between .220 and .238, and the third quartile was from .241 to .255.
The second quartile in Strikeability included pitchers with K/W ratios between 2.74 and 4.00, and the third quartile ranged from 2.18 to 2.73.
The remainder of the pitchers included:
3
(1 in Hittability and 2 in Strikeability)
Zach Greinke, Diamondbacks
Miles Mikolas, Cardinals -- a surprising player to watch
Daniel Mengden, Athletics
Bartolo Colon, Rangers
Stephen Strasburg, Nationals
J.A. Happ, Blue Jays
Nick Pivetta, Phillies
(2 and 1)
Sean Manaea, Athletics
Charlie Morton, Astros
James Paxton, Mariners
Blake Snell, Rays
Trevor Bauer, Indians
4
(1 and 3)
Noah Syndergaard, Mets
Alex Wood, Dodgers
Rick Porcello, Red Sox
(2 and 2)
Jakob Junis, Royals
Kyle Hendricks, Cubs
Masahiro Tanaka, Yankees
Eduardo Rodriguez, Red Sox
Jameson Taillon, Pirates
Cole Hamels, Rangers
(3 and 1)
Mike Foltynewicz, Braves
Caleb Smith, Marlins
Tanner Roark, Nationals
Kyle Gibson, Twins
Garrett Richards, Angels
Mike Wacha, Cardinals
Matthew Boyd, Tigers
5
(1 and 4)
Ivan Nova, Pirates
Dylan Bundy, Orioles
(2 and 3)
Carlos Carrasco, Indians
Vincent Velasquez, Phillies
Jose Urena, Marlins
Tyler Skaggs, Angels
Dallas Keuchel, Astros
Luke Weaver, Cardinals
(3 and 2)
Lance McCullers, Astros
Kyle Freeland, Rockies
David Price, Red Sox
Jon Lester, Cubs
(4 and 1)
Sean Newcomb, Braves
6
(2 and 4)
Jhoulys Chacin, Brewers
Julio Teheran, Braves
Chase Anderson, Brewers
James Shields, White Sox
Reynaldo Lopez, White Sox
(3 and 3)
Tyson Ross, Padres
Gio Gonzalez, Nationals
Chad Kuhl, Pirates
Mike Clevinger, Indians
Clayton Richard, Padres
Jake Odorizzi, Twins
Jake Arrieta, Phillies
(4 and 2)
Kevin Gausman, Orioles
Jon Gray, Rockies
Brent Suter, Brewers
Marco Gonzales, Mariners
Mike Leake, Mariners
Chris Archer, Rays
Brandon McCarthy, Braves
7
(3 and 4)
Felix Hernandez, Mariners
Chad Bettis, Rockies
Trevor Williams, Pirates
Derek Holland, Giants
Michael Fulmer, Tigers
Jose Quintana, Cubs
Chris Stratton, Giants
Aaron Sanchez, Blue Jays
(4 and 3)
Ian Kennedy, Royals
Tyler Mahle, Reds
Luis Castillo, Reds
Jason Hammel, Royals
German Marquez, Rockies
Saturday, June 6, 2015
Hittability and Strikeability rankings, and what those could mean
This post is primarily a list. It includes the rankings of the 109 pitchers who, as of the Memorial Day weekend, were on a pace to qualify for the ERA title.
The pitchers are divided into four relatively equal groups, or quartiles, in each of two statistics. Those measures are opponents' batting average (Hittability, or Hit) and strikeout:walk ratio (Strikeability, or Strike). The pitchers are assigned a number from 1 (top quartile) to 4 (bottom quartile). Those numbers are added for the total rating.
Thus, the best overall rating is 2 (1 in Hit plus 1 in Strike equals 2), and the worst is 8 (4+4=8).
The lists follow.
Above average
2
(1 Hit, 1 Strike)
Jason Hammel
Max Scherzer
Matt Harvey
Johnny Cueto
Jake Odorizzi
Felix Hernandez
Zack Greinke
3
(1 Hit, 2 Strike)
Madison Bumgarner
James Shields
Clayton Kershaw
Gerrit Cole
Jake Arrieta
Jacob deGrom
Rubby De La Rosa
(2 Hit, 1 Strike)
Chris Archer
Aaron Harang
Ubaldo Jimenez
Aaron Sanchez
Sonny Gray
Cole Hamels
4
(1 Hit, 3 Strike)
Bartolo Colon
Michael Pineda
Corey Kluber
Danny Salazar
Carlos Carrasco
Matt Shoemaker
Collin McHugh
David Price
Kyle Hendricks
Jeff Samardzija
(2 Hit, 2 Strike)
Chris Sale
Dan Haren
J.A. Happ
Colby Lewis
A.J. Burnett
(3 Hit, 1 Strike)
Wei-Yin Chen
Shelby Miller
Chase Anderson
Michael Wacha
Francisco Liriano
Jimmy Nelson
Trevor Bauer
Dallas Keuchel
Miguel Gonzalez
Average
5
(1 Hit, 4 Strike)
Phil Hughes
Trevor May
C.C. Sabathia
(2 Hit, 3 Strike)
Clay Buchholz
Andrew Cashner
Lance Lynn
Kyle Lohse
Jon Lester
Jordan Zimmermann
Jered Weaver
Chris Heston
Jose Quintana
Rick Porcello
(3 Hit, 2 Strike)
C.J. Wilson
Scott Kazmir
John Lackey
Alfredo Simon
Shane Greene
Joe Kelly
Carlos Martinez
Tyson Ross
(4 Hit, 1 Strike)
Hector Santiago
Nathan Karns
Edinson Volquez
Garrett Richards
Anthony DeSclafani
Tim Lincecum
Below average
6
(2 Hit, 4 Strike)
Josh Collmenter
Stephen Strasburg
Brett Anderson
Mike Fiers
Scott Feldman
Nathan Eovaldi
(3 Hit, 3 Strike)
Yordano Ventura
Yovani Gallardo
(4 Hit, 2 Strike)
Tom Koehler
James Paxton
Nick Martinez
Mike Leake
Ryan Vogelsong
R.A. Dickey
Anibal Sanchez
7
(3 Hit, 4 Strike)
Drew Hutchison
Wily Peralta
Julio Teheran
Gio Gonzalez
Jerome Williams
Eric Stults
Jeff Locke
Jon Niese
(4 Hit, 3 Strike)
John Danks
Roberto Hernandez
Matt Garza
Adam Warren
Mike Pelfrey
Kyle Gibson
8
(4 Hit, 4 Strike)
Jeremy Hellickson
Alex Wood
Mark Buehrle
Tim Hudson
Kyle Kendrick
Jordan Lyles
Jeremy Guthrie
Chris Tillman
Kyle Lobstein
If you look closely at individual pitchers on the list, you can get some idea why some of them are doing well this season or why they aren't.
For example, look at C.C. Sabathia on the list of average pitchers rated 5. Why is he just an average pitcher, when he once was one of the majors' best. It's right there in his rankings. He's still difficult to hit, still in the first quartile. But he's in the 4 (bottom) group in Strikeability. That can mean he's having control problems, but it also could indicate that he's no longer able to put batters away by striking them out.
A note on Jeremy Guthrie: He ranked this badly even before giving up 11 runs in a start against the Yankees.
Also, I was listening on Sirius XM radio to a Twins game started by Kyle Gibson. During the pregame show, Minnesota's announcers were going on about his ERA and the wins he'd provided. I was thinking, without being able to look at my rankings, that he was pretty low in the Hittability/Strikeability combo. You'll see him on the 7 list. That portends struggles for him during the remainder of the season. Struggles the team's broadcasters never saw coming.
I'll have another post about what the collective individual rankings might mean in the pennant races. And this weekend, I intend to come up with similar rankings for batters, and what those might mean for them and their team.
The pitchers are divided into four relatively equal groups, or quartiles, in each of two statistics. Those measures are opponents' batting average (Hittability, or Hit) and strikeout:walk ratio (Strikeability, or Strike). The pitchers are assigned a number from 1 (top quartile) to 4 (bottom quartile). Those numbers are added for the total rating.
Thus, the best overall rating is 2 (1 in Hit plus 1 in Strike equals 2), and the worst is 8 (4+4=8).
The lists follow.
Above average
2
(1 Hit, 1 Strike)
Jason Hammel
Max Scherzer
Matt Harvey
Johnny Cueto
Jake Odorizzi
Felix Hernandez
Zack Greinke
3
(1 Hit, 2 Strike)
Madison Bumgarner
James Shields
Clayton Kershaw
Gerrit Cole
Jake Arrieta
Jacob deGrom
Rubby De La Rosa
(2 Hit, 1 Strike)
Chris Archer
Aaron Harang
Ubaldo Jimenez
Aaron Sanchez
Sonny Gray
Cole Hamels
4
(1 Hit, 3 Strike)
Bartolo Colon
Michael Pineda
Corey Kluber
Danny Salazar
Carlos Carrasco
Matt Shoemaker
Collin McHugh
David Price
Kyle Hendricks
Jeff Samardzija
(2 Hit, 2 Strike)
Chris Sale
Dan Haren
J.A. Happ
Colby Lewis
A.J. Burnett
(3 Hit, 1 Strike)
Wei-Yin Chen
Shelby Miller
Chase Anderson
Michael Wacha
Francisco Liriano
Jimmy Nelson
Trevor Bauer
Dallas Keuchel
Miguel Gonzalez
Average
5
(1 Hit, 4 Strike)
Phil Hughes
Trevor May
C.C. Sabathia
(2 Hit, 3 Strike)
Clay Buchholz
Andrew Cashner
Lance Lynn
Kyle Lohse
Jon Lester
Jordan Zimmermann
Jered Weaver
Chris Heston
Jose Quintana
Rick Porcello
(3 Hit, 2 Strike)
C.J. Wilson
Scott Kazmir
John Lackey
Alfredo Simon
Shane Greene
Joe Kelly
Carlos Martinez
Tyson Ross
(4 Hit, 1 Strike)
Hector Santiago
Nathan Karns
Edinson Volquez
Garrett Richards
Anthony DeSclafani
Tim Lincecum
Below average
6
(2 Hit, 4 Strike)
Josh Collmenter
Stephen Strasburg
Brett Anderson
Mike Fiers
Scott Feldman
Nathan Eovaldi
(3 Hit, 3 Strike)
Yordano Ventura
Yovani Gallardo
(4 Hit, 2 Strike)
Tom Koehler
James Paxton
Nick Martinez
Mike Leake
Ryan Vogelsong
R.A. Dickey
Anibal Sanchez
7
(3 Hit, 4 Strike)
Drew Hutchison
Wily Peralta
Julio Teheran
Gio Gonzalez
Jerome Williams
Eric Stults
Jeff Locke
Jon Niese
(4 Hit, 3 Strike)
John Danks
Roberto Hernandez
Matt Garza
Adam Warren
Mike Pelfrey
Kyle Gibson
8
(4 Hit, 4 Strike)
Jeremy Hellickson
Alex Wood
Mark Buehrle
Tim Hudson
Kyle Kendrick
Jordan Lyles
Jeremy Guthrie
Chris Tillman
Kyle Lobstein
If you look closely at individual pitchers on the list, you can get some idea why some of them are doing well this season or why they aren't.
For example, look at C.C. Sabathia on the list of average pitchers rated 5. Why is he just an average pitcher, when he once was one of the majors' best. It's right there in his rankings. He's still difficult to hit, still in the first quartile. But he's in the 4 (bottom) group in Strikeability. That can mean he's having control problems, but it also could indicate that he's no longer able to put batters away by striking them out.
A note on Jeremy Guthrie: He ranked this badly even before giving up 11 runs in a start against the Yankees.
Also, I was listening on Sirius XM radio to a Twins game started by Kyle Gibson. During the pregame show, Minnesota's announcers were going on about his ERA and the wins he'd provided. I was thinking, without being able to look at my rankings, that he was pretty low in the Hittability/Strikeability combo. You'll see him on the 7 list. That portends struggles for him during the remainder of the season. Struggles the team's broadcasters never saw coming.
I'll have another post about what the collective individual rankings might mean in the pennant races. And this weekend, I intend to come up with similar rankings for batters, and what those might mean for them and their team.
Pitchers you should pick up, others you should avoid
Every year on the Memorial Day weekend, I study which pitchers are likely to improve their results based on two metrics that show how well they have been pitching. At the same time, I come up with a list of pitchers whose performance is likely to fall off during the final two-thirds of the season.
Some of the pithcers on the way up are pretty obvious. Clayton Kershaw and Corey Kluber weren't winning early. But they are Cy Young Award winners. And the metrics I use -- opponents' batting average, or Hittability, and strikeout:walk ratio, or Strikeability -- showed that both were pitching well during April and May.
In the study, I included the 109 pitchers who at that point were on a pace to qualify for the ERA title (1 inning per team game). I compared their Hittability and Strikeability ratings with their standing in strikeouts and wins. Pitchers ranking high in combined Hittability and Strikeability but low in the counting stats are likely to be rewarded with better results going forward.
Others on the good list are Jimmy Nelson, Wei-Yin Chen, Francisco Liriano, Aaron Sanchez, Chase Anderson and Michael Wacha.
If any of those pitchers are a product of a small sample size or luck, rather than talent, I'd suggest Nelson, Anderson and possibly Sanchez. The others all have a track record.
There are just two pitchers I would expect to fall this season. Usually, there are seven or eight pitchers, sometimes even more on the bad list. This year's players due for a fall are Mark Buehrle and Mike Fiers. Buehrle was easy to see coming. In recent years, he has started fast and finished poorly. I remember telling someone it was OK to draft him, but he should be traded by midseason or the first sign that he was faltering.
In my rankings, I divide players into four groups as equal as possible, based on where they stand in each category. Buehrle began the year as one of the majors' biggest winners, even though he ranked in the bottom quarter in both Hittability and Strikeability. That made him not only an obvious candidate to fade, but also one of nine pitchers who should be replaced in the rotation as soon as someone better could be found.
There are seven pitchers in the top one-fourth in both Hittability and Strikeability. They are also good bets for success between now and October: Jason Hammel, Max Scherzer (another Cy Young Award winner), Matt Harvey, Johnny Cueto, Jake Odorizzi, Felix Hernandez (Cy!) and Zack Greinke. The biggest surprises on that list are Hammel and Odorizzi, who is one of the reasons why the Rays still are contending in the American League East.
They are players you should seek to acquire in your fantasy leagues, if you don't already have them.
Pitchers to avoid or to dump, in addition to Buehrle, are Jeremy Hellickson, Alex Wood, Tim Hudson, Kyle Kendrick, Jordan Lyles, Jeremy Guthrie, Chris Tillman and Kyle Lobstein.
Hellickson has been at the top of the Hittability and Strikeability lists in years past. I'd suggest that he and Tillman might have previously undisclosed injuries. Hudson, Guthrie and Buehrle may simply be at the end of the line.
I'll have more posts on my Hittability/Strikeability ratings, and how they can be used to predict future performance.
Some of the pithcers on the way up are pretty obvious. Clayton Kershaw and Corey Kluber weren't winning early. But they are Cy Young Award winners. And the metrics I use -- opponents' batting average, or Hittability, and strikeout:walk ratio, or Strikeability -- showed that both were pitching well during April and May.
In the study, I included the 109 pitchers who at that point were on a pace to qualify for the ERA title (1 inning per team game). I compared their Hittability and Strikeability ratings with their standing in strikeouts and wins. Pitchers ranking high in combined Hittability and Strikeability but low in the counting stats are likely to be rewarded with better results going forward.
Others on the good list are Jimmy Nelson, Wei-Yin Chen, Francisco Liriano, Aaron Sanchez, Chase Anderson and Michael Wacha.
If any of those pitchers are a product of a small sample size or luck, rather than talent, I'd suggest Nelson, Anderson and possibly Sanchez. The others all have a track record.
There are just two pitchers I would expect to fall this season. Usually, there are seven or eight pitchers, sometimes even more on the bad list. This year's players due for a fall are Mark Buehrle and Mike Fiers. Buehrle was easy to see coming. In recent years, he has started fast and finished poorly. I remember telling someone it was OK to draft him, but he should be traded by midseason or the first sign that he was faltering.
In my rankings, I divide players into four groups as equal as possible, based on where they stand in each category. Buehrle began the year as one of the majors' biggest winners, even though he ranked in the bottom quarter in both Hittability and Strikeability. That made him not only an obvious candidate to fade, but also one of nine pitchers who should be replaced in the rotation as soon as someone better could be found.
There are seven pitchers in the top one-fourth in both Hittability and Strikeability. They are also good bets for success between now and October: Jason Hammel, Max Scherzer (another Cy Young Award winner), Matt Harvey, Johnny Cueto, Jake Odorizzi, Felix Hernandez (Cy!) and Zack Greinke. The biggest surprises on that list are Hammel and Odorizzi, who is one of the reasons why the Rays still are contending in the American League East.
They are players you should seek to acquire in your fantasy leagues, if you don't already have them.
Pitchers to avoid or to dump, in addition to Buehrle, are Jeremy Hellickson, Alex Wood, Tim Hudson, Kyle Kendrick, Jordan Lyles, Jeremy Guthrie, Chris Tillman and Kyle Lobstein.
Hellickson has been at the top of the Hittability and Strikeability lists in years past. I'd suggest that he and Tillman might have previously undisclosed injuries. Hudson, Guthrie and Buehrle may simply be at the end of the line.
I'll have more posts on my Hittability/Strikeability ratings, and how they can be used to predict future performance.
Monday, February 9, 2015
No home-court advantage in regionals
The NCAA Division I men’s basketball tournament isn’t likely
to have a top seed with a big home-court advantage in this year’s regionals.
We’ve seen teams such as Duke and Syracuse playing close to
home cooking over the years.
That scenario could have resulted again this season with the
East Regional in Syracuse. SU, which wasn’t headed for a top seed anyway, took
itself out of the equation by putting the team on a self-imposed probation that
made them ineligible for the tournament.
A cynic might say that was an easy decision in a year when
the Orange might not even have qualified for the Big Dance. They won’t even
have the option of being embarrassed in the NIT the ACC Tournament, for which
they’re also ineligible.
The other regionals are distant from the homes of other
perennial contenders. The Midwest Regional is in Cleveland, the South in
Houston and the West in Los Angeles.
There is one team that could win the tournament without
having to board an airplane.
That’s top-ranked Kentucky, which should be able to win
anywhere short of the NBA’s Western Conference.
Assuming the Wildcats would go in the Midwest, they’d open
NCAA play in Louisville, move on to Cleveland and play in the Final Four even
closer to home in Indianapolis.
In the most recent polls, Gonzaga, Virginia and Duke
followed Kentucky. Gonzaga would be the natural choice as the No. 1 seed in a
West Regional woefully short of top teams. Virginia would be likely to be the
East’s top seed. Though Duke would be playing in its natural South Regional,
the Blue Devils would be about 1,000 miles from home.
Based on the current polls, the regions could stack up like
this:
East – 1. Virginia, 2. Villanova (playing on a familiar
Carrier Dome court), 3. North Carolina, 4. West Virginia or Maryland.
South – 1. Duke, 2. Kansas, 3. Iowa State, 4. Northern Iowa
or West Virginia.
Midwest – 1. Kentucky, 2. Wisconsin, 3. Louisville or
Kansas, 4. Notre Dame.
West – 1. Gonzaga, 2. Arizona, 3. Utah, 4. Wichita State or
Northern Iowa.
There’s still a long way to go. So those regional lineups
could change a lot, but it’s still not likely that a clear hometown favorite
will be hosting.
Notes on Virginia-UNC
Virginia beat the North Carolina Tar Heels at their own game
Monday night.
The ACC leading Cavaliers (20-1 overall, 8-1 in conference)
rallied from a six-point deficit to win the road game 75-64.
Third-ranked Virginia was coming off its first loss, to No. 4
Duke before taking on the No. 12 Tar Heels. A rugged stretch of schedule will
continue for UVa Saturday against No. 9 Louisville.
UNC (17-6, 7-3) had broken away from a defensive struggle
where neither team scored in the first 2 minutes by beating the Cavaliers’ zone
and getting the ball inside.
When Joel Jones scored for a 16-10 lead, North Carolina
already had scored 10 points in the paint.
By halftime, which Kennedy Meeks ended with a tip-in to put
the Tar Heels back in the lead at 33-32, they had scored 18 points inside.
North Carolina scored 16 more points in the paint in the
second half, but Virginia put in 24 from short range. Those earned the
Cavaliers a 40-34 advantage for the game.
“The defense tightened up,” Virginia coach Tony Bennett told
ESPN’s Allison Williams. “Our guys played the way we need to play, and that’s
blue-collar play.”
UVa’s three starting guards were the leading scorers, but
Anthony Gill came off the bench to help up front with 13 points and a team-high
7 rebounds.
Malcolm Brogdon scored 17 points. Justin Anderson’s 16
included three 3-pointers, and London Parrantes added 15 points.
Marcus Paige led UNC with 15, but 10 of those came after
Virginia had built an 18-point lead at 66-48. Playing inside, Brice Johnson had
14 points and 8 rebounds, and Meeks added 11 and 7.
Meeks was playing after waking up with a 101-degree fever.
J.P. Tokoto struggled, missing all three field goal attempts and scoring one
point in 30 minutes.
The Tar Heels will visit unranked Boston College Saturday.
Monday, February 2, 2015
Belichick, Patriots one move ahead in chess game
You've seen the last-minute interception that clinched the Patriots' big game 49 victory -- if not live, then in incessant replays.
And you've seen or heard the second guessing of Seahawks coach Pete Carroll.
Why would Seattle pass with 20 seconds left, the ball on New England's 1 yard line and Marshawn Lynch in the backfield?
As the teams lined up, I was thinking that the Seahawks would be swarming around Lynch so much that a pass could be open.
Carroll might have been thinking the same thing when he called for the pass. But he wasn't expecting that New England's Bill Belichick might be one step ahead of him.
Belichick was like the customer in the AT&T commercial who one-ups Lily in appreciation for appreciation of appreciation by saying merely, "I appreciate that." By the the time Lily recovers with "ahhhhh," it's too late. The point has been made.
The Patriots were not too late.
In a post-game interview, Malcolm Butler, the rookie who made the interception, said when he saw receivers stacked on the right end of the formation, he was looking for the pick play designed to get Ricardo Lockette open.
Why would Butler be looking for that? Had the Patriots spied on Seattle practices?
No, it was probably just good old-fashioned scouting.
Were there examples of pick plays the Seahawks used this season to score on short passes in similar situations?
On Sept. 21, Seattle had the ball on Denver's 5 with 23 seconds left in the first half. There was a stack and a third receiver on the left end, with Lynch split out wide on the right. Tight end Zach Miller ran downfield, Lynch slanted across his backside, the deep defender was late getting to him and Russell Wilson hit Lynch for a touchdown.
And you've seen or heard the second guessing of Seahawks coach Pete Carroll.
Why would Seattle pass with 20 seconds left, the ball on New England's 1 yard line and Marshawn Lynch in the backfield?
As the teams lined up, I was thinking that the Seahawks would be swarming around Lynch so much that a pass could be open.
Carroll might have been thinking the same thing when he called for the pass. But he wasn't expecting that New England's Bill Belichick might be one step ahead of him.
Belichick was like the customer in the AT&T commercial who one-ups Lily in appreciation for appreciation of appreciation by saying merely, "I appreciate that." By the the time Lily recovers with "ahhhhh," it's too late. The point has been made.
The Patriots were not too late.
In a post-game interview, Malcolm Butler, the rookie who made the interception, said when he saw receivers stacked on the right end of the formation, he was looking for the pick play designed to get Ricardo Lockette open.
Why would Butler be looking for that? Had the Patriots spied on Seattle practices?
No, it was probably just good old-fashioned scouting.
Were there examples of pick plays the Seahawks used this season to score on short passes in similar situations?
On Sept. 21, Seattle had the ball on Denver's 5 with 23 seconds left in the first half. There was a stack and a third receiver on the left end, with Lynch split out wide on the right. Tight end Zach Miller ran downfield, Lynch slanted across his backside, the deep defender was late getting to him and Russell Wilson hit Lynch for a touchdown.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Pitching moves don't guarantee anything to Sox
Looking at the big splash -- or at least the overblown coverage -- about Boston's new pitching acquisitions.
The article breathlessly adds that they're also looking at RHPs James Shields and Max Scherzer and just about every other available pitcher. The implication is that they might have about a 9-man All-Star rotation. Probably won't lose a game, except occasionally to the Yankees.
I'm thinking that to acquire a star pitcher in a trade, the Sox would have to trade at least one from the group of RHPs Justin Masterson and Rick Porcello and LHP Wade Miley, or that if they sign a free agent pitcher or two, to fill other holes they'd have to trade one of the pitchers they've acquired.
Here's some reality: After the All-Star break, those three pitchers were a combined 9-17. I haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure their combined ERA was well above the league average. Porcello was 3-8, 3.48. Miley 3-6, 4.60. Masterson was 3-3, but with an awesome 7.04 ERA.
If the plan is to improve the pitching incrementally, and they're able to pull it off, that should work if they have Shields and Scherzer in the rotation instead of Masterson and Miley, plus another above-average infielder or center fielder who could hit. But if 2/5 of the rotation is Masterson and Miley, and they still have holes in their lineup, the Sox wouldn't be a major threat.
I think Porcello should be OK, but his ERA could take a hit pitching in Boston. I saw him last season before he slumped. He was masterful in shutting out the Rangers. I asked him if he was a better pitcher than he'd been in the past. He looked at me, hesitated and said, "That's for you guys to say." I was pretty sure he was at that time, not so sure now and not too sure what happened to him down the stretch.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Proposal: the easy way out for college football committee
In a little over an hour, the college football championship teams will be decided.
Seems to be there's one easy solution for the committee to make.
In that solution, these would be the seeds.
1. Oregon -- avenged its only loss in a big way against Arizona in the Pac-is it now 12? championship game.
2. Alabama -- No. 1 in the polls for a good part of the season, and won the Southeastern Conference championship game.
3. Florida State -- The only undefeated team and the defending national champion under last year's BCS system. The Seminoles won the Atlantic Coast Conference championship in their typical fashion, by an eyelash. But they did win every game on their schedule, and I believe in the boxing maxim, "To be the champ, you've got to knock out the champ." The committee should give FSU a chance to lose the title, but they also could spare a couple of more eyelashes to win it
4. Ohio State -- won the Big Ten championship game in resounding fashion with the Buckeyes' third quarterback this year.
The matchups would be Ohio State vs. Oregon in the Rose Bowl and Florida State vs. Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.
OK. I hear you howling: What about TCU and Baylor? What about them? What conference championship did they win? Oh, they were Big 12 co-champions? And Baylor beat TCU head to head, so the Bears should have been placed with the top four? That argument doesn't hold water under the championship committee's priority of criteria, which lists strength of schedule higher than head-to-head competition.
By taking deserving Ohio State and Florida State teams, the committee avoids the sticky wicket that would be picking one of the Big 12 teams over the other.
By not rewarding Baylor for playing a soft non-conference schedule, he committee also could send a message to teams to beef up the opponents on their resumes.
Also, by not taking either Big 12 team, the committee would set up a third game with great interest on New Year's Day. A Baylor-TCU rematch in the Cotton Bowl would have all of Texas and most of the rest of the U.S. buzzing.
* * *
I don't like this idea, but I'm resigned to having an eight-team playoff in the near future. That way a champion in one of the five biggest conferences would not be excluded from the playoff. However, there still would be a lot of whining from the No. 9 and 10 teams in that system.
Before that eight-team playoff comes into being, the committee would require the Big 12 actually to have 12 teams. The easiest solution would be to annex Houston and Rice, with woeful SMU as a possible fallback. With 12 teams, the Big 12 would be able to have its own championship game.
The conference made a huge blunder in its marketing as being the conference with "one true champion." Turns out, the Big 12 doesn't have any champion. That is, until one team wins the Cotton Bowl showdown.
Another thing I'd like to know is why college teams have to play 12 regular-season games. I know, I know, money. But when one of the 12 is say Alabama vs. Florida International or Baylor vs. Sam Houston State, that money really benefits only the lower-rung team that's the visitor against a team that could have national championship aspirations.
I'd favor a 10-game regular-season schedule. The 11th game for some teams still could be a conference championship.
Then there could be a 16-team playoff over four weeks, ending at about the same time as in the current format. A bunch of other teams still could play in one of the crappy bowls featuring teams whose only requirement would be having a pulse. The only downside would be from the teams ranked 17th and 18th.
Seems to be there's one easy solution for the committee to make.
In that solution, these would be the seeds.
1. Oregon -- avenged its only loss in a big way against Arizona in the Pac-is it now 12? championship game.
2. Alabama -- No. 1 in the polls for a good part of the season, and won the Southeastern Conference championship game.
3. Florida State -- The only undefeated team and the defending national champion under last year's BCS system. The Seminoles won the Atlantic Coast Conference championship in their typical fashion, by an eyelash. But they did win every game on their schedule, and I believe in the boxing maxim, "To be the champ, you've got to knock out the champ." The committee should give FSU a chance to lose the title, but they also could spare a couple of more eyelashes to win it
4. Ohio State -- won the Big Ten championship game in resounding fashion with the Buckeyes' third quarterback this year.
The matchups would be Ohio State vs. Oregon in the Rose Bowl and Florida State vs. Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.
OK. I hear you howling: What about TCU and Baylor? What about them? What conference championship did they win? Oh, they were Big 12 co-champions? And Baylor beat TCU head to head, so the Bears should have been placed with the top four? That argument doesn't hold water under the championship committee's priority of criteria, which lists strength of schedule higher than head-to-head competition.
By taking deserving Ohio State and Florida State teams, the committee avoids the sticky wicket that would be picking one of the Big 12 teams over the other.
By not rewarding Baylor for playing a soft non-conference schedule, he committee also could send a message to teams to beef up the opponents on their resumes.
Also, by not taking either Big 12 team, the committee would set up a third game with great interest on New Year's Day. A Baylor-TCU rematch in the Cotton Bowl would have all of Texas and most of the rest of the U.S. buzzing.
* * *
I don't like this idea, but I'm resigned to having an eight-team playoff in the near future. That way a champion in one of the five biggest conferences would not be excluded from the playoff. However, there still would be a lot of whining from the No. 9 and 10 teams in that system.
Before that eight-team playoff comes into being, the committee would require the Big 12 actually to have 12 teams. The easiest solution would be to annex Houston and Rice, with woeful SMU as a possible fallback. With 12 teams, the Big 12 would be able to have its own championship game.
The conference made a huge blunder in its marketing as being the conference with "one true champion." Turns out, the Big 12 doesn't have any champion. That is, until one team wins the Cotton Bowl showdown.
Another thing I'd like to know is why college teams have to play 12 regular-season games. I know, I know, money. But when one of the 12 is say Alabama vs. Florida International or Baylor vs. Sam Houston State, that money really benefits only the lower-rung team that's the visitor against a team that could have national championship aspirations.
I'd favor a 10-game regular-season schedule. The 11th game for some teams still could be a conference championship.
Then there could be a 16-team playoff over four weeks, ending at about the same time as in the current format. A bunch of other teams still could play in one of the crappy bowls featuring teams whose only requirement would be having a pulse. The only downside would be from the teams ranked 17th and 18th.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
What I've told some Cubs fans about Joe Maddon
As I was driving home from a Mavericks game, I realized that Joe Maddon could be the one person able to erase the misery of the last 106 years or so.
He could make the Cubs winners because that's what he did with the Rays.
He didn't do it all by himself. He came along with a management that had a clue without thinking it knew everything. It was an enlightened management that realized you didn't have to give everyone the highest salary of anybody at his position if you treated the players well.
With Maddon running the team, the Rays were able to find players who were better than even they knew.
The last step was for Maddon to convince the players that they could win. It took a few years.
The situation he'll have in Chicago isn't a whole lot different from what he had in the AL East. But the Cardinals and Pirates are hardly as entrenched as the Yankees and Red Sox, nor do they receive the benefits that the New York and Boston teams did from baseball's hierarchy and the media.
So it might take Maddon two years to do what he did in three for the Rays.
If he uses his tenure there as the template, he'll spend the first year convincing players it's possible for them to win as a group. He'll be firm but positive with the players. He'll get them working together without cliques in the locker room.
In the second year, he'll take aim at the Cardinals. There will be a game when the Cardinals throw at a Cub, and the Chicago pitcher will come back to take out Yadier Molina or some other key player. Or maybe a minor character. With the Rays, he did it with utility infielder Elliot Johnson taking out Yankees catcher Francisco Cervelli. In spring training. The uproar at the time from New York was deafening. Who were they to do that to the Yankees?
But at a time when another AL East manager told me his team was afraid of the Yankees -- and I observed that the Rangers seemed the same way -- the Rays had no fear of the Yanks.
I heard Maddon in his farewell press conference saying how great a contribution Elliot Johnson made to the Rays' success.
By the third year, here's how the Rays as a team showed me they were together from the top of the organization to the bottom. When they'd come to Texas in '09 or '10, it seemed that the music in the clubhouse was almost always a song called "Low" by Flo Rida. Kind of a hip hop song. The younger players -- most of them were young -- and the black players liked the music. But there in the clubhouse, singing along with the lyrics, would be 38-39-40-year-old Troy Percival. I never heard Maddon singing it, but I'm sure he approved.
Joe Maddon is my favorite major league manager to deal with. That's the case with most of the people who come in contact with him. He is one of the most genuinely interesting and interested people I've been around. He can carry on a conversation on just about any topic without coming across as a know-it-all. He knows what he doesn't know, and seems willing to listen to others who might have the answers.
Managers have different reactions to their pre-game and post-game sessions with the media. Some treat it like a visit to the dentist, let's get it over with (Ryne Sandberg). Most tolerate it. Some can be prickly (Ned Yost). Maddon seems to embrace the time. He never seems rushed, he always allows enough time so he doesn't have to tell the writers and broadcasters it's time to go. It begins and ends on its own time, and it's a give and take.
Especially with Ozzie Guillen and Jim Leyland out of managing, Maddon has the most interesting media sessions.
I'm pretty sure he's the same with his players. Always having time and making time for them, and always hearing them out and learning from them.
A story. I was in one of Mike Scioscia's pre-game news gatherings in the dugout before a game a couple of years ago. I'd noticed in the media notes that a couple of players were nearly ready to come off the disabled list. He didn't say anything about them, so I asked about their status. He said something about one player, then he said that the other one, Sean Burnett, would be shut down and would undergo season-ending shoulder surgery. By that time, the clubhouse was closed to the media, but the Angels beat writers arranged to get an interview with Burnett outside the clubhouse. While we were waiting to talk to him, the Angels writers thanked me for asking. I said something about how I just figured it didn't hurt to ask. I don't think Scioscia neglected to tell us on purpose. But I told the writers that because I worked with a lot of visiting managers, there were managers who wouldn't tell you anything, some who would tell you just what they were supposed to say and others who would volunteer information. The writers didn't seem to believe it and asked, "Who volunteers information?" I said, "Maddon." Then they all nodded their heads and understood.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
We need weekend postseason baseball
Not exactly a news flash: TV ratings for World Series games are down.
My hope is that baseball's new hierarchy under Rob Manfred will not make the mistake of the outgoing commissioner, who figured that what baseball needed to boost interest in the game was more Yankees and Red Sox.
That feeling has led to adding an extra wild card (more chances that both the Yanks and Sox would get into the playoffs) and limiting the bonus money for off-shore player signings (because the teams making hay in Latin America and Asia were not the Yanks and Sox, who despite their millions lagged behind in international scouting).
Sure, Yankees-Red Sox games draw viewers in New England and the Tri-State area. But even -- maybe especially -- baseball fans in the other 90 per cent or so of the population are tired of seeing Yankees-Red Sox on Saturday afternoons, Sunday nights, Monday nights, Wednesday nights, on every network showing baseball.
There are plenty of other interesting teams and players. Hunter Pence and Lorenzo Cain shouldn't have to arrive in the World Series to be recognized more than Jackie Bradley Jr. and Francisco Cervelli.
Aided by a weekly thirst for gambling action, football has capitalized on making itself a national attraction without having to lean on one or two teams (the way baseball does) and a small group of players (see basketball and golf). NFL teams in places like Dallas, New Orleans and even Green Bay can gain a national following and recognition. And if the Chargers can cover against the Broncos, that can make bettors from coast to coast happy on any given Sunday (or Monday or Thursday).
Baseball's ratings problem isn't entirely that the games are on too long and too late, though those are factors. I watched just part of Game 4 Saturday -- the part that went something like this: pitching change, several minutes of commercials, another pitching change, several more minutes of commercials, another pitching change and I think more commercials. But even I had lost interest in the non-game by then.
It hasn't helped that all but one of the first six games has turned into a blowout.
The real problem has not been inaction during the games, but 1. inaction of any kind after the first rounds were sweeps or near-sweeps and 2. baseball's fear of going up against football.
Baseball has all but abdicated the weekend to pro football, college football and even high school football in some areas of the country.
Wouldn't it make sense to set up the World Series so there's at least the possibility so it could go over two weekends -- when more people could watch, or at least choose to watch either baseball or football? Or both, with a remote. Games could even be played -- God forbid! -- during the day so young, budding fans could watch. (Of course, today parents could record the night games so their children could watch while they're awake. I know, I know, advertisers. But for the future of baseball, what's more important: appeasing today's advertisers, or building a fan base that could attract even more advertisers in the future? I see the current approach as a result of the used-car-sale mentality of the recent regime.)
It didn't work so well this year to set up the schedule so there would be two weekends of League Championship Series. With each series ending early, there was no second weekend. And no baseball for so long that a pitcher who won the last game of a Championship Series could also start World Series Game 1.
The Chicago Tribune article linked above pointed out how bad the ratings were for Game 1.
Why wouldn't those have been bad? By the time baseball got around to playing again, on a Wednesday night, casual fans probably had forgotten there was even a baseball postseason still going.
Because of the lengthy delay between the two series, there was no baseball on Friday night (traditionally high school football night), Saturday (college football), Sunday (pro football), Monday (more pros).
Wouldn't it make more sense, if you're going to have a possible five-day layoff, to have that lag occur during the week rather than on a weekend abdicated to baseball's perceived enemy: football?
Schedule the Championship Series Games 6 and 7 for midweek, say Wednesday-Thursday. That way, if those series ended early, those games would be on a weekend. The more exciting Games 6 and 7, when at least one World Series competitor could be crowded, would generate more interest, especially as virtually the only games in town.
Those climactic games could create a couple of days of buzz for the World Series beginning Saturday. Because college and pro football go on all day on the weekend, it still would be possible to play one game each weekend during the day.
World Series Games 3, 4 and 5 -- two of which could be the final game -- on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday -- would keep baseball alive while football was dormant. And those baseball games could set the stage for weekend Games 6 and 7 on the weekend.
To Rob Manfred and baseball: Stop dodging football. Take it on during the time when more people can watch television.
My hope is that baseball's new hierarchy under Rob Manfred will not make the mistake of the outgoing commissioner, who figured that what baseball needed to boost interest in the game was more Yankees and Red Sox.
That feeling has led to adding an extra wild card (more chances that both the Yanks and Sox would get into the playoffs) and limiting the bonus money for off-shore player signings (because the teams making hay in Latin America and Asia were not the Yanks and Sox, who despite their millions lagged behind in international scouting).
Sure, Yankees-Red Sox games draw viewers in New England and the Tri-State area. But even -- maybe especially -- baseball fans in the other 90 per cent or so of the population are tired of seeing Yankees-Red Sox on Saturday afternoons, Sunday nights, Monday nights, Wednesday nights, on every network showing baseball.
There are plenty of other interesting teams and players. Hunter Pence and Lorenzo Cain shouldn't have to arrive in the World Series to be recognized more than Jackie Bradley Jr. and Francisco Cervelli.
Aided by a weekly thirst for gambling action, football has capitalized on making itself a national attraction without having to lean on one or two teams (the way baseball does) and a small group of players (see basketball and golf). NFL teams in places like Dallas, New Orleans and even Green Bay can gain a national following and recognition. And if the Chargers can cover against the Broncos, that can make bettors from coast to coast happy on any given Sunday (or Monday or Thursday).
Baseball's ratings problem isn't entirely that the games are on too long and too late, though those are factors. I watched just part of Game 4 Saturday -- the part that went something like this: pitching change, several minutes of commercials, another pitching change, several more minutes of commercials, another pitching change and I think more commercials. But even I had lost interest in the non-game by then.
It hasn't helped that all but one of the first six games has turned into a blowout.
The real problem has not been inaction during the games, but 1. inaction of any kind after the first rounds were sweeps or near-sweeps and 2. baseball's fear of going up against football.
Baseball has all but abdicated the weekend to pro football, college football and even high school football in some areas of the country.
Wouldn't it make sense to set up the World Series so there's at least the possibility so it could go over two weekends -- when more people could watch, or at least choose to watch either baseball or football? Or both, with a remote. Games could even be played -- God forbid! -- during the day so young, budding fans could watch. (Of course, today parents could record the night games so their children could watch while they're awake. I know, I know, advertisers. But for the future of baseball, what's more important: appeasing today's advertisers, or building a fan base that could attract even more advertisers in the future? I see the current approach as a result of the used-car-sale mentality of the recent regime.)
It didn't work so well this year to set up the schedule so there would be two weekends of League Championship Series. With each series ending early, there was no second weekend. And no baseball for so long that a pitcher who won the last game of a Championship Series could also start World Series Game 1.
The Chicago Tribune article linked above pointed out how bad the ratings were for Game 1.
Why wouldn't those have been bad? By the time baseball got around to playing again, on a Wednesday night, casual fans probably had forgotten there was even a baseball postseason still going.
Because of the lengthy delay between the two series, there was no baseball on Friday night (traditionally high school football night), Saturday (college football), Sunday (pro football), Monday (more pros).
Wouldn't it make more sense, if you're going to have a possible five-day layoff, to have that lag occur during the week rather than on a weekend abdicated to baseball's perceived enemy: football?
Schedule the Championship Series Games 6 and 7 for midweek, say Wednesday-Thursday. That way, if those series ended early, those games would be on a weekend. The more exciting Games 6 and 7, when at least one World Series competitor could be crowded, would generate more interest, especially as virtually the only games in town.
Those climactic games could create a couple of days of buzz for the World Series beginning Saturday. Because college and pro football go on all day on the weekend, it still would be possible to play one game each weekend during the day.
World Series Games 3, 4 and 5 -- two of which could be the final game -- on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday -- would keep baseball alive while football was dormant. And those baseball games could set the stage for weekend Games 6 and 7 on the weekend.
To Rob Manfred and baseball: Stop dodging football. Take it on during the time when more people can watch television.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Thoughts after Series Game 1.05
I didn't get to watch the first game of the World Series because I was covering the Stars and Canucks. Here's the edited version of what I wrote.
From time to time, I did peek at the Gameday. First, I saw that the Giants had scored three runs in the first inning and Hunter Pence had scored a run and driven in two. That made me think he had hit a home run (I couldn't scroll down as far as HR on the new-fangled version of Gameday). And that made me think that if I had survived the Championship Series in either Inner League, I would have received credit at least for that run and the one he scored later.
Everyone on the panel for Fox's pregame show Wednesday picked the Royals to win Game 2.
That wouldn't square with the idea that this year's Royals are the 2007 Rockies reincarnated.
I would have thought at least one person would have favored the Giants, but I guess most if not all of them had been caught up in Rockies -- I mean Royals -- fever and picked KC to win the Series.
Here are a few reasons I think the Giants can win tonight (the leadoff batter currently has a 2-2 count in the top of the first).
Rookie RHP Yordano Ventura is pitching for the Royals.
Pence
Pablo Sandoval and his World Series history (remember his three-homer game)
Well, it's now 1-0, courtesy of Gregor Blanco, so the Giants may be making this too easy.
Buster Posey
2010 and 2012
I'm not really sold on San Francisco RHP Jake Peavy, but I believe he should receive enough help, or Bruce Bochy will know not to leave him in too long, for the Giants to be able to win in any case.
Hey! I remembered which other World Series this one brings to mind. Of course! The 1980 Dickie Noles and Willie May Aikens Series. I'll tell you why in a later post. I want to send this one before you begin to think I wrote it after the fact. All I know is it's 1-0 going to the bottom of the first.
From time to time, I did peek at the Gameday. First, I saw that the Giants had scored three runs in the first inning and Hunter Pence had scored a run and driven in two. That made me think he had hit a home run (I couldn't scroll down as far as HR on the new-fangled version of Gameday). And that made me think that if I had survived the Championship Series in either Inner League, I would have received credit at least for that run and the one he scored later.
Everyone on the panel for Fox's pregame show Wednesday picked the Royals to win Game 2.
That wouldn't square with the idea that this year's Royals are the 2007 Rockies reincarnated.
I would have thought at least one person would have favored the Giants, but I guess most if not all of them had been caught up in Rockies -- I mean Royals -- fever and picked KC to win the Series.
Here are a few reasons I think the Giants can win tonight (the leadoff batter currently has a 2-2 count in the top of the first).
Rookie RHP Yordano Ventura is pitching for the Royals.
Pence
Pablo Sandoval and his World Series history (remember his three-homer game)
Well, it's now 1-0, courtesy of Gregor Blanco, so the Giants may be making this too easy.
Buster Posey
2010 and 2012
I'm not really sold on San Francisco RHP Jake Peavy, but I believe he should receive enough help, or Bruce Bochy will know not to leave him in too long, for the Giants to be able to win in any case.
Hey! I remembered which other World Series this one brings to mind. Of course! The 1980 Dickie Noles and Willie May Aikens Series. I'll tell you why in a later post. I want to send this one before you begin to think I wrote it after the fact. All I know is it's 1-0 going to the bottom of the first.
Root canals get a bad name
You've probably heard someone say sarcastically, "That was as much fun as a root canal," or about their day, more seriously, "It wasn't as bad as a root canal."
That's the kind of day I had today. I had a root canal.
I was eating some popcorn at Tuesday night's Dallas Stars game when I crunched down on something hard and felt a quick, jarring pain in the upper right of my mouth.
"I might have broken a tooth on a kernel," I thought.
Then I spat out two small, hard things on to a napkin. One was a hard kernel. The other, about as big around but a bit longer, was part of a bicuspid.
So today when I went to the dentist, I found that I would need a temporary crown. And a root canal.
I'd had both before, sometimes when dentistry was less high-tech than it is now.
For example, McKinney Dentist has flat-screen TVs above every chair. When the dentist wasn't showing me the holes, decay and nerve in the affected today, the flat screen showed what looked like a tropical island, with rocky cliffs on either side of a sandy beach. That, I figured, was where the dentist will be going with the money I'll be paying for today.
That's not the first time I've thought that. A couple of decades ago, when my dentist gave me a partial bridge to replace one that had been there since I had parts of three teeth knocked out while playing hockey, he actually was going on a vacation to Jamaica or some other Caribbean island soon after.
Today's root canal really wasn't bad.
My greatest realization was that my mouth is like a TARDIS, bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Here's why I know that. How else could the dentist fit in my mouth an instrument in each hand, along with something to prop my mouth open, some other rubber thingies to surround the tooth in question, as well as having his assistant rooting around in there with the hose, the leaf blower or the vacuum cleaner, whichever was needed at the time?
Ask yourself this, too. If you have a missing tooth, or a hole in a tooth, and you run your tongue over it, doesn't that feel about the size of a pothole that could swallow a Buick Enclave?
When the dental team started loading things into my pinhole, the dentist said to let him know if there was any problem. How could I possibly do that? I wondered from underneath the gas mask and hoses stretched across my cheeks.
My greatest concern was that I would forget some of these pithy observations that came to me while I was high on nitrous oxide.
I probably have, but that concern is why I'm writing all of this and not yet about baseball and my fantasy teams.
Back to the dentist and the tropical island. I had been feeling pretty good because two checks came in the mail today. That was before a woman from the business office brought me my bill. It was for nearly 10 times the total of the two checks. And I'd worked about three half-days for those; the dentist worked on me for barely two hours today.
Anyway, my time with the dentist, the anesthetic and the nitrous oxide was kind of a seehearsmelltouchtaste one, two, three, four, five senses working OverrTIME.
Well, the see and touch parts not so much. I could see past the stuff stuffed into my mouth, and I still can't feel anything on the right side of my face.
The hear part wasn't so good, because I could hear the drill grinding my tooth to dust even if I couldn't feel that. I could hear the dentist asking the assistant for various drill bits. The 19 and 20 didn't sound too bad. I wasn't sure about the 30, but I survived it.
The taste was worse. Even if it had tasted good, I still would have thought about how it was equal parts water from the hose, those specks of tooth dust and drippings of Novocaine or whatever anesthetic had been injected.
But the worst was the smell. That sense was working overtime on a Sunday holiday. The odor of burnt tooth is not pleasant. And it added to the unpleasant taste.
My next appointment, to put a permanent crown in place and to collect whatever money I haven't yet paid, will be in three weeks with a different dentist. At that time, I'll be envisioning the dentist who worked on me basking on that tropical island. See? Root canals aren't so bad for some people.
That's the kind of day I had today. I had a root canal.
I was eating some popcorn at Tuesday night's Dallas Stars game when I crunched down on something hard and felt a quick, jarring pain in the upper right of my mouth.
"I might have broken a tooth on a kernel," I thought.
Then I spat out two small, hard things on to a napkin. One was a hard kernel. The other, about as big around but a bit longer, was part of a bicuspid.
So today when I went to the dentist, I found that I would need a temporary crown. And a root canal.
I'd had both before, sometimes when dentistry was less high-tech than it is now.
For example, McKinney Dentist has flat-screen TVs above every chair. When the dentist wasn't showing me the holes, decay and nerve in the affected today, the flat screen showed what looked like a tropical island, with rocky cliffs on either side of a sandy beach. That, I figured, was where the dentist will be going with the money I'll be paying for today.
That's not the first time I've thought that. A couple of decades ago, when my dentist gave me a partial bridge to replace one that had been there since I had parts of three teeth knocked out while playing hockey, he actually was going on a vacation to Jamaica or some other Caribbean island soon after.
Today's root canal really wasn't bad.
My greatest realization was that my mouth is like a TARDIS, bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. Here's why I know that. How else could the dentist fit in my mouth an instrument in each hand, along with something to prop my mouth open, some other rubber thingies to surround the tooth in question, as well as having his assistant rooting around in there with the hose, the leaf blower or the vacuum cleaner, whichever was needed at the time?
Ask yourself this, too. If you have a missing tooth, or a hole in a tooth, and you run your tongue over it, doesn't that feel about the size of a pothole that could swallow a Buick Enclave?
When the dental team started loading things into my pinhole, the dentist said to let him know if there was any problem. How could I possibly do that? I wondered from underneath the gas mask and hoses stretched across my cheeks.
My greatest concern was that I would forget some of these pithy observations that came to me while I was high on nitrous oxide.
I probably have, but that concern is why I'm writing all of this and not yet about baseball and my fantasy teams.
Back to the dentist and the tropical island. I had been feeling pretty good because two checks came in the mail today. That was before a woman from the business office brought me my bill. It was for nearly 10 times the total of the two checks. And I'd worked about three half-days for those; the dentist worked on me for barely two hours today.
Anyway, my time with the dentist, the anesthetic and the nitrous oxide was kind of a seehearsmelltouchtaste one, two, three, four, five senses working OverrTIME.
Well, the see and touch parts not so much. I could see past the stuff stuffed into my mouth, and I still can't feel anything on the right side of my face.
The hear part wasn't so good, because I could hear the drill grinding my tooth to dust even if I couldn't feel that. I could hear the dentist asking the assistant for various drill bits. The 19 and 20 didn't sound too bad. I wasn't sure about the 30, but I survived it.
The taste was worse. Even if it had tasted good, I still would have thought about how it was equal parts water from the hose, those specks of tooth dust and drippings of Novocaine or whatever anesthetic had been injected.
But the worst was the smell. That sense was working overtime on a Sunday holiday. The odor of burnt tooth is not pleasant. And it added to the unpleasant taste.
My next appointment, to put a permanent crown in place and to collect whatever money I haven't yet paid, will be in three weeks with a different dentist. At that time, I'll be envisioning the dentist who worked on me basking on that tropical island. See? Root canals aren't so bad for some people.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Royals remind me of some similar teams
I was thinking that this October's Royals brought to mind two other World Series teams from days gone by.
One was the 1969 Mets. Another was the 2007 Rockies.
The Mets, because of the better-than-average defensive plays, especially outfield plays, Kansas City has been able to make. In truth, once Lorenzo Cain and Co. started making some plays, the network analysts went a little overboard in overselling some of the web-gem candidates. I mean, sure, plays such as Alex Gordon's catch on the warning track and run into the fence were good plays. But you can see a play like that virtually every day in the major leagues.
Where the Royals fall short of the Amazin' Mets is in the ridiculous plays that were made by players not known for defensive skills. Amos Otis' plays in center field weren't a great surprise, but Google Ron Swoboda and see what it says about him. And if you can find video of his airborne diving catch (which I found for you; it's about 3:45 in, though I have seen more spectacular video of the play), just know that was almost totally out of character with his career.
Don't get me wrong. What KC's defense has done has been remarkable. And I've done research showing that the area of the game that correlates most closely to winning postseason series is defense. The team with the better statistical defensive record in the World Series -- measured by bases saved and extra bases allowed -- wins a higher percentage of the time than the better-pitching or -hitting teams.
Many of you who aren't old enough to remember the '69 Series can, however, remember the '07 Rockies. They got on an undefeated roll through the final games of the regular season to earn a playoff berth, then kept winning for all but one game before reaching the World Series. Once Colorado arrived in that championship event, the Red Sox swept the Rockies.
So on the one hand, we have a good defensive team. Probably a better defensive team than the Giants, from the limited amount I have seen them on TV.
On the other hand is a Cinderella carriage waiting to turn into a pumpkin before Halloween.
Today, I thought there was a third World Series team brought to mind by the '14 Royals. But I didn't write it down, it's late and I'm not fully thinking straight. Perhaps I'll remember it, and I can write about it before the Series begins Tuesday night.
* * *
Made it into the playoffs in two of my three Inner League Baseball fantasy leagues. Lost in the Championship Series in both leagues. Now, as the leagues' commissioners, I've helped the remaining teams re-draft and reset their rosters for the World Series. I'll try to remember to keep you posted on what's happening there.
* * *
Won one, lost one in my fantasy football leagues this week. Not a good week. I don't feel like talking much about either of them right now.
* * *
My ESPN fantasy hockey team, Texas Shooting Stars, has risen from the depths of a 20-team league to the middle of the pack. Some time when I have time, I'll let you know some things I realized about how a 20-team draft is vastly different from a 10- or 12-team draft. One thing that has developed since the season began is that I no longer have any Dallas Stars on my team. I dumped Ales Hemsky, who started slowly and now has been taken off the superpower power play where he started the season. Probably more of that in future posts.
* * *
I've kind of debated whether to get into an ESPN fantasy basketball league, but I think I owe it to myself to try to win another title. I'll keep you posted, and probably will be drafting within the next week. Saw the Mavericks and Grizzlies play tonight, by the way. Good game for Dallas C Tyson Chandler, who now appears able to shoot with greater range.
One was the 1969 Mets. Another was the 2007 Rockies.
The Mets, because of the better-than-average defensive plays, especially outfield plays, Kansas City has been able to make. In truth, once Lorenzo Cain and Co. started making some plays, the network analysts went a little overboard in overselling some of the web-gem candidates. I mean, sure, plays such as Alex Gordon's catch on the warning track and run into the fence were good plays. But you can see a play like that virtually every day in the major leagues.
Where the Royals fall short of the Amazin' Mets is in the ridiculous plays that were made by players not known for defensive skills. Amos Otis' plays in center field weren't a great surprise, but Google Ron Swoboda and see what it says about him. And if you can find video of his airborne diving catch (which I found for you; it's about 3:45 in, though I have seen more spectacular video of the play), just know that was almost totally out of character with his career.
Don't get me wrong. What KC's defense has done has been remarkable. And I've done research showing that the area of the game that correlates most closely to winning postseason series is defense. The team with the better statistical defensive record in the World Series -- measured by bases saved and extra bases allowed -- wins a higher percentage of the time than the better-pitching or -hitting teams.
Many of you who aren't old enough to remember the '69 Series can, however, remember the '07 Rockies. They got on an undefeated roll through the final games of the regular season to earn a playoff berth, then kept winning for all but one game before reaching the World Series. Once Colorado arrived in that championship event, the Red Sox swept the Rockies.
So on the one hand, we have a good defensive team. Probably a better defensive team than the Giants, from the limited amount I have seen them on TV.
On the other hand is a Cinderella carriage waiting to turn into a pumpkin before Halloween.
Today, I thought there was a third World Series team brought to mind by the '14 Royals. But I didn't write it down, it's late and I'm not fully thinking straight. Perhaps I'll remember it, and I can write about it before the Series begins Tuesday night.
* * *
Made it into the playoffs in two of my three Inner League Baseball fantasy leagues. Lost in the Championship Series in both leagues. Now, as the leagues' commissioners, I've helped the remaining teams re-draft and reset their rosters for the World Series. I'll try to remember to keep you posted on what's happening there.
* * *
Won one, lost one in my fantasy football leagues this week. Not a good week. I don't feel like talking much about either of them right now.
* * *
My ESPN fantasy hockey team, Texas Shooting Stars, has risen from the depths of a 20-team league to the middle of the pack. Some time when I have time, I'll let you know some things I realized about how a 20-team draft is vastly different from a 10- or 12-team draft. One thing that has developed since the season began is that I no longer have any Dallas Stars on my team. I dumped Ales Hemsky, who started slowly and now has been taken off the superpower power play where he started the season. Probably more of that in future posts.
* * *
I've kind of debated whether to get into an ESPN fantasy basketball league, but I think I owe it to myself to try to win another title. I'll keep you posted, and probably will be drafting within the next week. Saw the Mavericks and Grizzlies play tonight, by the way. Good game for Dallas C Tyson Chandler, who now appears able to shoot with greater range.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Homers help, too
Homers help, too
I realized after I made my last post that it might have left the impression that home runs aren't important.
That wasn't my point. Perhaps I didn't make well enough that point: Teams need more than home runs to make their offense strong enough to win in the playoffs.
Conversely, it's very difficult to win in the postseason -- or even get there -- without some kind of home run threat.
There's nothing wrong with getting an instant run with a homer. But it's not always easy to hit the ball out of the park against the better pitching staffs you'll see in the playoffs.
And the Giants and Nationals might still be playing if San Francisco 1B Brandon Belt hadn't led off the top of the 18th with the home run that brought a 2-1 victory. If you look back at a lot of extra-long games in baseball history, they're won by long balls. And not always by the big boppers, but often by someone like Jack Reed or Rick Camp. Google them and if there's anything on the web about them it's probably that home run.
The Dodgers also won last night on CF Matt Kemp's tie-breaking homer.
If you can hit homers AND build big innings by stringing hits, walks and whatever else you can get -- see Baltimore Orioles, 2014 -- you're going to have a better chance to win. You can't just will a home run.
* * *
The Royals-Angels series is reminding me of the best Championship Series no one remembers. That's the 1980 NLCS, which the Phillies won over Houston three games to two. (That was 5 years before that playoff round was stretched to best-of-seven.)
The first two KC-LAA games, plus the Royals' wild card game, have gone to extra innings. The last four games between Philadelphia and the Astros went into overtime. The last three were won by one run. It was nail-biting fun that wasn't duplicated until Houston and the Mets went 16 innings to decide the '86 NLCS -- and there was tragic drama between the Red Sox and Angels in the other league.
Another forgotten feature was a line drive back to the mound that caused great confusion among the players and the umpires. Was it a triple play or only one out? There was no official replay in those days, but the play was resolved when the umpires went to the commissioner's box, where Bowie Kuhn made a ruling: Double play. Huh?
I did take the time to consult Google about that 1980 NLCS and found something else that surprised me. Through five games and 50 innings, there was only one home run, by Phillies LF Greg Luzinski in their 3-1 first-game victory.
I realized after I made my last post that it might have left the impression that home runs aren't important.
That wasn't my point. Perhaps I didn't make well enough that point: Teams need more than home runs to make their offense strong enough to win in the playoffs.
Conversely, it's very difficult to win in the postseason -- or even get there -- without some kind of home run threat.
There's nothing wrong with getting an instant run with a homer. But it's not always easy to hit the ball out of the park against the better pitching staffs you'll see in the playoffs.
And the Giants and Nationals might still be playing if San Francisco 1B Brandon Belt hadn't led off the top of the 18th with the home run that brought a 2-1 victory. If you look back at a lot of extra-long games in baseball history, they're won by long balls. And not always by the big boppers, but often by someone like Jack Reed or Rick Camp. Google them and if there's anything on the web about them it's probably that home run.
The Dodgers also won last night on CF Matt Kemp's tie-breaking homer.
If you can hit homers AND build big innings by stringing hits, walks and whatever else you can get -- see Baltimore Orioles, 2014 -- you're going to have a better chance to win. You can't just will a home run.
* * *
The Royals-Angels series is reminding me of the best Championship Series no one remembers. That's the 1980 NLCS, which the Phillies won over Houston three games to two. (That was 5 years before that playoff round was stretched to best-of-seven.)
The first two KC-LAA games, plus the Royals' wild card game, have gone to extra innings. The last four games between Philadelphia and the Astros went into overtime. The last three were won by one run. It was nail-biting fun that wasn't duplicated until Houston and the Mets went 16 innings to decide the '86 NLCS -- and there was tragic drama between the Red Sox and Angels in the other league.
Another forgotten feature was a line drive back to the mound that caused great confusion among the players and the umpires. Was it a triple play or only one out? There was no official replay in those days, but the play was resolved when the umpires went to the commissioner's box, where Bowie Kuhn made a ruling: Double play. Huh?
I did take the time to consult Google about that 1980 NLCS and found something else that surprised me. Through five games and 50 innings, there was only one home run, by Phillies LF Greg Luzinski in their 3-1 first-game victory.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Teams to do live by homers alone
Let's see.
Thursday got off to a bad start. My friend Bruno Sniders' stepson called to tell me that Bruno had died Wednesday night.
That set back my schedule for the day. The biggest casualty was that I didn't have or take the time to switch quarterbacks from Kirk Cousins to Aaron Rodgers. When I heard the early scoring from the Packers-Vikings game, I thought that omission would be costly. It could be, but Rodgers finished with just 18 points and change.
As Thursday's games played out, they reminded me of something that I observed about the Pirates' 8-0 loss to the Giants the night before.
My biggest concern coming down the stretch was that the Bucs' offense frequently depended solely on home runs, and not on building runs and sustaining big innings. The biggest example was during a five-game stretch when Pittsburgh scored just nine runs but still went 4-1 because the pitchers held the opponents to five. But even those meager nine runs, if I'm not mistaken, all scored on home runs.
My observations on the National League wild card game I expressed in a Facebook post: The Pirates were like McCroskey in "Airplane!". I guess they picked the wrong day to start walking people. I guess they picked the wrong day to stop hitting popups. I guess they picked the wrong day to have no range in the infield. Bottom line: The Pirates did almost everything poorly. It didn't help that Giants LHP Madison Bumgarner was in his best postseason form, which is very good.
Back to Thursday's American League Division Series games and home runs. The Tigers scored three runs, all on solo homers, and lost. The Angels scored two runs, both on solo homers, and lost. The dagger in Los Angeles' loss was that the Royals won that game on Mike Moustakas' 10th-inning ... solo homer.
Baltimore put a game-clinching eight-run eighth inning together with a series of base hits and misplays.
And don't you know today the Orioles overcome a 6-3 deficit with a four-run eighth built on hits and walks. No home runs. Four of the Tigers' runs scored on homers, but even for the purposes of this post, you can't really complain when three consecutive hits started their five-run fourth inning, which closed with J.D. Martinez's three-run homer and Nick Castellanos' solo shot.
But aside from that one inning, the Tigers couldn't put together any sustained offense. If they go home this weekend and do the same, they won't make it to a Game 5.
A few words about J.D. Martinez. Two years ago, he was the best player I saw in the Double-A Texas League and in the Corpus Christi Hooks' lineup. That's saying something, because one of his teammates was 2B Jose Altuve, who was almost as good in the Texas League as he was as this year's AL leader in batting average, hits and stolen bases.
This season didn't start out well for Martinez. The Astros released him. The Tigers signed him. After Martinez tore up the Triple-A International League, Detroit called him up and he almost immediately began to hit.
He talked about how he reconstructed his swing during the off-season. After he joined the Tigers, I asked him whether he went back more to the hitting style he used at Corpus Christi, and he said it was similar. He indicated that the Astros and hitting coach Dave Mallee wanted Martinez to hit more to the opposite field. He had trouble doing that, partly because he couldn't change his swing adequately and partly because he was resistant.
Another time-consuming task Thursday was running playoff fantasty drafts for the three Inner League Baseball leagues.
In those leagues, which began a year before Rotisserie Leagues, our starting lineup is one player in each of nine statistical categories. I'm in the playoffs in two of the leagues. In one of them, J.D. Martinez is in my lineup for RBI. In the other, he's my HR guy. It appears that I did something right.
Let's see.
Thursday got off to a bad start. My friend Bruno Sniders' stepson called to tell me that Bruno had died Wednesday night.
That set back my schedule for the day. The biggest casualty was that I didn't have or take the time to switch quarterbacks from Kirk Cousins to Aaron Rodgers. When I heard the early scoring from the Packers-Vikings game, I thought that omission would be costly. It could be, but Rodgers finished with just 18 points and change.
As Thursday's games played out, they reminded me of something that I observed about the Pirates' 8-0 loss to the Giants the night before.
My biggest concern coming down the stretch was that the Bucs' offense frequently depended solely on home runs, and not on building runs and sustaining big innings. The biggest example was during a five-game stretch when Pittsburgh scored just nine runs but still went 4-1 because the pitchers held the opponents to five. But even those meager nine runs, if I'm not mistaken, all scored on home runs.
My observations on the National League wild card game I expressed in a Facebook post: The Pirates were like McCroskey in "Airplane!". I guess they picked the wrong day to start walking people. I guess they picked the wrong day to stop hitting popups. I guess they picked the wrong day to have no range in the infield. Bottom line: The Pirates did almost everything poorly. It didn't help that Giants LHP Madison Bumgarner was in his best postseason form, which is very good.
Back to Thursday's American League Division Series games and home runs. The Tigers scored three runs, all on solo homers, and lost. The Angels scored two runs, both on solo homers, and lost. The dagger in Los Angeles' loss was that the Royals won that game on Mike Moustakas' 10th-inning ... solo homer.
Baltimore put a game-clinching eight-run eighth inning together with a series of base hits and misplays.
And don't you know today the Orioles overcome a 6-3 deficit with a four-run eighth built on hits and walks. No home runs. Four of the Tigers' runs scored on homers, but even for the purposes of this post, you can't really complain when three consecutive hits started their five-run fourth inning, which closed with J.D. Martinez's three-run homer and Nick Castellanos' solo shot.
But aside from that one inning, the Tigers couldn't put together any sustained offense. If they go home this weekend and do the same, they won't make it to a Game 5.
A few words about J.D. Martinez. Two years ago, he was the best player I saw in the Double-A Texas League and in the Corpus Christi Hooks' lineup. That's saying something, because one of his teammates was 2B Jose Altuve, who was almost as good in the Texas League as he was as this year's AL leader in batting average, hits and stolen bases.
This season didn't start out well for Martinez. The Astros released him. The Tigers signed him. After Martinez tore up the Triple-A International League, Detroit called him up and he almost immediately began to hit.
He talked about how he reconstructed his swing during the off-season. After he joined the Tigers, I asked him whether he went back more to the hitting style he used at Corpus Christi, and he said it was similar. He indicated that the Astros and hitting coach Dave Mallee wanted Martinez to hit more to the opposite field. He had trouble doing that, partly because he couldn't change his swing adequately and partly because he was resistant.
Another time-consuming task Thursday was running playoff fantasty drafts for the three Inner League Baseball leagues.
In those leagues, which began a year before Rotisserie Leagues, our starting lineup is one player in each of nine statistical categories. I'm in the playoffs in two of the leagues. In one of them, J.D. Martinez is in my lineup for RBI. In the other, he's my HR guy. It appears that I did something right.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
The hare loses again
In early August of 2012, the Texas Rangers were leading the American League West by 10 games or so. At that time I told my friend Billy, an Athletics fan, "The A's are going to catch the Rangers. It will be like the tortoise and the hare."
The Oakland tortoises did exactly that, taking the West title of the final day.
Fast forward to just a little more than 2 years later. The A's were running away in the AL West race.
Something another friend -- Frank, one of the toughest fastasy competitors in Inner League Baseball -- said today applies to what happened next in July-August-September for Oakland. Frank was talking about his own fantasy teams and how he "got greedy" at our trade deadline and went for the kill instead of sticking with a winning lineup.
That's what happened with A's general manager Billy Beane in July. Instead of sticking with a winning formula that got Oakland into the playoffs in 2012 and '13 (but again not to the World Series), Beane got greedy and went for the kill.
He understood that his starting rotation was fragile. So Beane traded for three established starters -- Jeff Samardzija, Jason Hammel and Jon Lester.
Beane got greedy, and in so doing, hurt the chemistry of a team built with smoke, mirrors and chicken wire.
NEWS FLASH! Just sent this text to my daughter Diana at PNC Park: "When I saw the starting lineup I was thinking, 'Crawford could be a dangerous No. 7 batter.'" The Pirates will have to figure a way to get into the Giants' bullpen.
Back to Beane and the A's. In hindsight, it wasn't good to bring in a bunch of high-paid mercenaries to be the saviors for a team that was doing perfectly well with a bunch of guys whose salaries -- relatively speaking -- were the equivalent of guys being paid with lunch money and coins out of the couch cushions.
I spent some time with the A's in the visitors' clubhouse in Arlington this weekend -- waiting up with them until after midnight Saturday night in hopes that the Mariners would lose, and wading through puddles of champagne and beer Sunday afternoon when Oakland celebrated a win to take the AL's No. 2 wild card.
The old spirit of that clubhouse seemed to be there.
But then came Monday night, and the A's lost that wild card game in Kansas City. Jon Lester started for Oakland, but the bullpen blew a four-run lead. The winning hit came off Jason Hammel.
The game was the A's season in microcosm. And this time, the Athletics were the hares.
In early August of 2012, the Texas Rangers were leading the American League West by 10 games or so. At that time I told my friend Billy, an Athletics fan, "The A's are going to catch the Rangers. It will be like the tortoise and the hare."
The Oakland tortoises did exactly that, taking the West title of the final day.
Fast forward to just a little more than 2 years later. The A's were running away in the AL West race.
Something another friend -- Frank, one of the toughest fastasy competitors in Inner League Baseball -- said today applies to what happened next in July-August-September for Oakland. Frank was talking about his own fantasy teams and how he "got greedy" at our trade deadline and went for the kill instead of sticking with a winning lineup.
That's what happened with A's general manager Billy Beane in July. Instead of sticking with a winning formula that got Oakland into the playoffs in 2012 and '13 (but again not to the World Series), Beane got greedy and went for the kill.
He understood that his starting rotation was fragile. So Beane traded for three established starters -- Jeff Samardzija, Jason Hammel and Jon Lester.
Beane got greedy, and in so doing, hurt the chemistry of a team built with smoke, mirrors and chicken wire.
NEWS FLASH! Just sent this text to my daughter Diana at PNC Park: "When I saw the starting lineup I was thinking, 'Crawford could be a dangerous No. 7 batter.'" The Pirates will have to figure a way to get into the Giants' bullpen.
Back to Beane and the A's. In hindsight, it wasn't good to bring in a bunch of high-paid mercenaries to be the saviors for a team that was doing perfectly well with a bunch of guys whose salaries -- relatively speaking -- were the equivalent of guys being paid with lunch money and coins out of the couch cushions.
I spent some time with the A's in the visitors' clubhouse in Arlington this weekend -- waiting up with them until after midnight Saturday night in hopes that the Mariners would lose, and wading through puddles of champagne and beer Sunday afternoon when Oakland celebrated a win to take the AL's No. 2 wild card.
The old spirit of that clubhouse seemed to be there.
But then came Monday night, and the A's lost that wild card game in Kansas City. Jon Lester started for Oakland, but the bullpen blew a four-run lead. The winning hit came off Jason Hammel.
The game was the A's season in microcosm. And this time, the Athletics were the hares.
Monday, September 29, 2014
The Fault in Our Wild Cards
The way this year's National League wild card pairing came about showed a glaring flaw in the system.
First, a disclaimer. I have followed the Pirates since I was 6 years old. But my feelings about what transpired would be the same if Pittsburgh received the benefit of the system.
Going into the final day of the regular season, the Bucs trailed St. Louis by one game in the NL Central. Pittsburgh already had earned the first wild card, and the Giants had clinched the second.
Thus, the Pirates still had a mathematical chance to catch the Cardinals for the division title. It would take a lot -- Pittsburgh win at Cincinnati, St. Louis loss at last-place Arizona and another Pirates victory in a tie-breaker game.
Still, it was worth it for manager Clint Hurdle to go for it Sunday. With Gerrit Cole pitching then, instead of being saved for the wild card game, the Bucs would have a chance to get into the tiebreaker. At worst, they'd still be playing the wild card contest with a couple of starters unavailable. Best case, the Pirates would skip past the one-game playoff and have a couple of days for those starters to recover before going into the Division Series against the Dodgers.
Meanwhile -- well, not even meanwhile, but hours later -- the Giants would have nothing to play for. Whatever happened Sunday, they'd be heading to play in Pittsburgh Wednesday.
San Francisco's pitchers would be well rested. Even better rested than might be expected, because they saved battle-tested 18-game-winner Madison Bumgarner and are having him start against the Pirates.
Instead of Bumgarner, Sunday's starter was a wet-behind-the-ears rookie, I think Charlton Heston. The Pirates already had lost by that time. Manager Bruce Bochy said if the Pirates had won, Tim Lincecum would have started the regular-season finale. You can believe the skipper if you like.
If I had been in the position Bochy was in, I might have started Sophia Loren. He was rightly taking advantage of the situation was in.
My point was that he shouldn't have been put in that situation.
It makes little sense to have a team lose, on the field, the right to host the wild card game, but then have that advantage blunted if not eliminated because the opponent earning the home field has a chance at something bigger.
It's a problem, but I have a couple of solutions.
1. Mandate that every game on the last day of the season start at the same time -- let's say 4 p.m. Eastern, 1 p.m. Pacific. That way, a team in the race wouldn't receive the advantage of knowing how other games ended before they even throw a pitch. This move would eliminate the minor advantage created by the earth's rotation.
Another advantage would be that in years with tight races, MLB could take that take a lot of that TV time slot away from the NFL, and the baseball rights could be marketed to any number of networks.
2. More important: If you're going to have two wild cards in each league, Don't have them play only one game!
They could play a best-of-three series during roughly the same amount of time the division champions have off before they begin the Division Series. The regular season ended Sunday. One league isn't starting its Division Series until Thursday. That's 1-2-3 days off, during which the league could play a 1-2-3-game wild card series.
That would soften the blow of one team's having to use an ace in the regular-season game while the team proven to be slightly inferior could line up its rotation however it wants. It would no longer be one sudden-death game.
If tiebreaker games are needed, they could still be played on the Monday after the season ends. That league could push its wild card series and one Division Series back a day.
But, you say, the wild cards might have to fly coast-to-coast overnight for the third game (or second, depending on whether the series format was 1-2 or 2-1). So what? That's tough. The division champs earned their time off, and it should be more difficult for the wild cards to win.
3. The third choice would be to go back to one wild card, but we'll never see that happen.
The way this year's National League wild card pairing came about showed a glaring flaw in the system.
First, a disclaimer. I have followed the Pirates since I was 6 years old. But my feelings about what transpired would be the same if Pittsburgh received the benefit of the system.
Going into the final day of the regular season, the Bucs trailed St. Louis by one game in the NL Central. Pittsburgh already had earned the first wild card, and the Giants had clinched the second.
Thus, the Pirates still had a mathematical chance to catch the Cardinals for the division title. It would take a lot -- Pittsburgh win at Cincinnati, St. Louis loss at last-place Arizona and another Pirates victory in a tie-breaker game.
Still, it was worth it for manager Clint Hurdle to go for it Sunday. With Gerrit Cole pitching then, instead of being saved for the wild card game, the Bucs would have a chance to get into the tiebreaker. At worst, they'd still be playing the wild card contest with a couple of starters unavailable. Best case, the Pirates would skip past the one-game playoff and have a couple of days for those starters to recover before going into the Division Series against the Dodgers.
Meanwhile -- well, not even meanwhile, but hours later -- the Giants would have nothing to play for. Whatever happened Sunday, they'd be heading to play in Pittsburgh Wednesday.
San Francisco's pitchers would be well rested. Even better rested than might be expected, because they saved battle-tested 18-game-winner Madison Bumgarner and are having him start against the Pirates.
Instead of Bumgarner, Sunday's starter was a wet-behind-the-ears rookie, I think Charlton Heston. The Pirates already had lost by that time. Manager Bruce Bochy said if the Pirates had won, Tim Lincecum would have started the regular-season finale. You can believe the skipper if you like.
If I had been in the position Bochy was in, I might have started Sophia Loren. He was rightly taking advantage of the situation was in.
My point was that he shouldn't have been put in that situation.
It makes little sense to have a team lose, on the field, the right to host the wild card game, but then have that advantage blunted if not eliminated because the opponent earning the home field has a chance at something bigger.
It's a problem, but I have a couple of solutions.
1. Mandate that every game on the last day of the season start at the same time -- let's say 4 p.m. Eastern, 1 p.m. Pacific. That way, a team in the race wouldn't receive the advantage of knowing how other games ended before they even throw a pitch. This move would eliminate the minor advantage created by the earth's rotation.
Another advantage would be that in years with tight races, MLB could take that take a lot of that TV time slot away from the NFL, and the baseball rights could be marketed to any number of networks.
2. More important: If you're going to have two wild cards in each league, Don't have them play only one game!
They could play a best-of-three series during roughly the same amount of time the division champions have off before they begin the Division Series. The regular season ended Sunday. One league isn't starting its Division Series until Thursday. That's 1-2-3 days off, during which the league could play a 1-2-3-game wild card series.
That would soften the blow of one team's having to use an ace in the regular-season game while the team proven to be slightly inferior could line up its rotation however it wants. It would no longer be one sudden-death game.
If tiebreaker games are needed, they could still be played on the Monday after the season ends. That league could push its wild card series and one Division Series back a day.
But, you say, the wild cards might have to fly coast-to-coast overnight for the third game (or second, depending on whether the series format was 1-2 or 2-1). So what? That's tough. The division champs earned their time off, and it should be more difficult for the wild cards to win.
3. The third choice would be to go back to one wild card, but we'll never see that happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)