Surprises of 2012

Hey everyone.  Been a while since I posted.  Sorry about that.  A good way to get back in to the swing of things is to post my thoughts on the surprises of 2012.  So without further ado, here we go.

Typical Bobby V.

Boston Red Sox - The number one surprise has to go to the Bosox.  Experts from all across the baseball world were not only  picking them to finish in first place in the AL East, but some were even predicting them to go all the way.  This team surprised me for sure.  As a Yankee fan I was concerned that with this Sox team and the Rays, the Yanks would not even make the post season.   With a powerful lineup and a pitching staff with names like Beckett, Bucholz and Lester, they were a shoe-in.  Yeah, a shoe-in for their worst record in 30 years.  Oh, this just in - Bobby V is no longer the Manager - that should not be in this post since this is NOT a surprise.  My opinion - they're not going to be the same without Theo.

Baltimore Orioles - When I was young I had a love hate relationship with the O's.  I loved them because they were enjoyable to watch and a great team.  I hated them because they always seem to beat my Yanks.  Earl Weaver and his damn 3 run homer.  This team combined with the Rays make the Al East a new and exciting division which no longer belongs to Boston or NY.  Buck Showalter not only built a winner, but a team that is beaming with confidence.  The O's play some good ball.  I don't think there is a player on that team that does not hustle or know his role (and is darn good at it).  Well if there was, they would immediately be on Buck's you-know-what list.

Billy Beane

Oakland A's - Billy Beane's boys did it again. I'll bet the majority of casual baseball fans would not be too familiar with this crew.  Yoenis Cespedes - the Cuban defector who everyone predicted a lot of HR's but a dismal batting average seemed to manage to hit .292.  Josh Reddick traded from (none other than) the Red Sox, hit 32 dingers.  On the pitching side - the names Milone, McCarthy and Parker are not household names, yet they are pitchers that can bring the A's far in the post season.  Everyone said Beane's model was old and through.  I'm glad to see Billy zig when the rest of the league zagged.

Washington Nats - You may say - "any baseball fan could have predicted this one".  Yes, maybe, but 98 wins!!  This was a team built and bought - to win!  This successful team got even better throughout the season.  With the mid-season call-up of Bryce Harper, and Ryan Zimmerman finding his stroke in a big way simply added to the winning combo.  I still feel it was as bad decision to shutdown Stephen Strausburg for the season.  My opinion - they may miss Strausburg if they make the World Series.

Mike Trout

On the individual side of things there weren't many surprises. Some players performed above or below expectations, but that's not really a surprise.  The one player that took everyone by surprise was rookie Mike Trout.  Trout is a very exciting player who put up nice numbers (not only for a rookie, but a veteran as well).  If his head or PED's don't get in the way we may be looking at the next Mickey Mantle.





And those are my surprises.  I'm hoping to post more often with some history, stats, strategy, rules, observations and more.


Thanks for reading
-Tom

Musings of a Grouchy Baseball Fan

There are certain "implementations" the MLB has put in place which has caused some rhubarb among fans.  Here are some of my thoughts.  Now sometimes I (as a baseball fan) can come off as slightly irritable and "get off my lawn"-ish, but I really don't mean to - damnit. 

Ron Blomberg - The first DH

The Designated Hitter

The DH has been around since 1973.  I'm a Yankee fan but not as much aligned with the American League (never understood the reason fans do this).  I don't care for the designated hitter.  It just seems like every slow, washed up first-baseman is parking himself in the American League.  The DH takes away some late-game strategy that pertains to whether or not to remove the pitcher and who to put in his place.  Also, there is very rarely a double-switch (a future post) in the American League.   The sad thing is, the DH will probably never go away.

All-Star Game Decides World Series Home Field Advantage

I despise this!!  I truly believe this is one of the stupidest implementations in all of sports.  In the other three major sports (NHL, NFL, NBA), the all-star game is fun and trivial.  Now the MLB feels they are doing good by making it count.  What they are doing is possibly getting players injured.  Plus the strategy used in baseball all-star games do not align with winning.  If it did, when Justin Verlander pitches 3 perfect innings, he'd certainly be out there for a fourth.

Interleague Play

I guess I'm not the baseball purist I thought I was.  I really like interleague play.  It's such a nice new novelty.  The interstate/city (NY, CHI, LA, FLA, etc) games are exciting to watch.  It looks like there will be more interleague play in the seasons to come.

New Ballparks

Yet again I find myself unconventional.  I really like the "retro" look and feel of some of the new ballparks.  I know Camden has been around for a while now, but I love attending games at Camden.  Some of my other favorites are Coors, Citi and Nationals Park.


Fundamentals
This is where my "back in my day" will shine.  Now remember, I'm not talking about talent or athletisism here, I'm referring to fundamentals.  There will be many that disagree, but I feel fundamentals have degraded slowly since the 80's.   Some may say this is due to the more teams and players playing in the league and of course more visible coverage with Baseball Tonight or the MLB network.  I say hogwash.  What does more players have to do with kids learning fundamentals?  I'm seeing more and more outfielders hitting the cutoff man incorrectly (or not at all), fly-ball priorities just botched up royally, one handed catches and just lack of hustle on occasion.  There I said it.


Attire
I'm going to make this one short and sweet - "fix you hat and pull up your pants".
 

Umpiring
Many fans say umpiring is worse now then it was "back then".   The incorrect excuses used for fundamentals (above) can also be used to describe the umpiring differences of now and then.  I feel umpiring is the same now as it was then - no better, no worse.  I'm not saying umpiring is as good as it should be.  Like brussel sprouts - they were bad then and they are equally as bad now.


Hall of fame selection process
Years ago the baseball writers were the only people (other than the players themselves) who were very close to the game.  Today more than just writers are close to the game. Football HOF-selection has its issues, but I like the fact that there are no restrictions on the number of inductees.   Football also uses "media representatives" and not just the writers. There should be more individuals involved in the voting and a larger group of candidates.


Watching Home Runs
Some fans say "the batter likes to watch his home run so let him" and some say its rubbing it in the face of the pitcher.  Here's my take - Willie, Mickey and the Duke never did it.  Hank Aaron and Harmon Killebrew (two of the classiest players in history) certainly never did it.  Therefore it shouldn't be done.

Well, those are my rantings.  Take 'em or leave 'em.  I'm sure there are opposing views and I'd love to hear them - That what makes this country great.

Thanks for reading
-Tom

Book review - "Prophet of the Sandlots"

Are you getting tired of hearing about statistics being used more and more by front offices in baseball?  Sick of Moneyball?  Well I have a book for you - Prophet of the Sandlots by Mark Winegardner.   The author accompanies the affable scout - Tony Lucadello on scouting trips throughout the mid-west.   Tony was one of the best.  The only tools he used to evaluate players were his two eyes. 

"Prophet" was an interesting read.  Many of Tony's techniques are described in the book.  Tony is a loveable character who you can probably relate to an old uncle or grandfather.   I found it hilarious when Tony was scouting at a college or high school he had to take some time to look under the bleachers for loose change.  He ate the same meals every day and stayed in cheap hotels where he knew the workers.

Tony's Fedora

Tony never quite made it as a ball player, but he had an eye for talent.  Tony could recognize aspects of a player that statistics could not.  He could tell if a good player would fade or an average player could be a star.  He could see holes in a batters swing or verify if a pitchers motion would get him injured.  The book explains his take on the different varieties of scouts as  well as his "Lucadello System" for player development. 

Tony started his scouting career in 1942 with the Chicago Cubs where he discovered (among others) Fergie Jenkins.  Tony left the Cubbies and worked for the Phillies until 1989.  With the the Phillies his big prize was Mike Schmidt.  

If you can get your hands on this book, please do so.  You may be able to find it in your local library system or used from Amazon.com.  In case  you decide to read it, I won't tell you any more about the book or its ending.

Thanks for reading
-Tom

Stats - "Bogus" Stats - Batting

"What Jefferson was saying was, 'Hey! You know, we left this England place 'cause it was bogus; so if we don't get some cool rules ourselves - pronto - we'll just be bogus too!' Get it?"

 -Jeff Spicoli, Fast Times At Ridgemont High

Everyone likes the batting average stat.  You hear it all around - "What's his average?" people will ask.  It's sort of a measuring stick for a player.  Rod Carew hit .388 in 1977 - awesome!  Mario Mendoza had a .215 lifetime batting average - yikes. 

Batting average is just that - its how often a player gets a hit.  I would venture to say it's the single most popular offensive stat.  But sometimes you want more info when comparing players.  More info?  What kind of info?  Let's look at a non-baseball situation.  So  you're daughter is heading out for the evening.  "Who are you going out with"  you ask.  You're little darling replies with "just a friend".  Oh, just a friend huh?  "Sure go ahead" ... WHOA!! wait just a minute there Ma and Pa.  Who is she going out with??!!  Is it Lindsey Lohan or Mother Teresa?  Now that's lack of info huh?  As for batting average sometimes we need more meat in there.  For instance what kind of hits were they?  Were all of the hits singles or were there a good amount of doubles, triples and homers?  As we all know doubles, triples and homers are more valuable than just singles.  Also, what about walks? Drawing a walk is a proven skill that some players can perform better than others.   The batting average stat does not take into account walks.  We'll look at two stats - Slugging Percentage (SLG) and On Base Percentage (OBP).

When looking at SLG you need to know what this stat really means.  SLG represents, on average, how many bases a batter advances per at bat.  It may help to look at the formula:

SLG = 1B + (2*2B) + (3*3B) + (4*HR) / AB

SLG solves the "type of hit" problem and puts a weight on doubles, triples and HR's.  That weight being how many bases are advanced.  In 2011 the MLB average for SLG was .411.  The best was Jose Bautista at .608 and the worst was Jason Barlett at .307.

OBP is in essence batting average with walks and hit batsmen thrown in.  As discussed above, walks are important.  You can think of OBP as how often a batter gets on base.  In recent years getting on base has been recognized as an important skill.  In 2011 the MLB average for OBP was .339.  The leader in OBP was Miguel Cabrera with .448.  The lowest was Vernon Wells at .248.

Which of these two stats is a better?  It's been said that OBP is.  Teams with higher OBP generally produce more runs. 

There is another stat called OPS (On Base Plus Slugging).  That is simply adding OBP and SLG.  Frankly, I don't like it.   I'm not a big fan of combining as many stats as we can to create one big stat. Here's why.  Below are two players from the 2011 season

	OPS	SLG	OBP
Andrew McCutchen	.820	.456	.364
Nelson Cruz	.821	.509	.312

According to OPS they are the same player.  But a look at SLG and OBP show they are not quite the same.  McCutchen gets on base more than Cruz, yet Cruz appears to have more power.  This is not to say 'Cutch is better than Nellie, or vice-versa, but I just want to show you need to look more into stats.

One last thing regarding batting average, SLG and OBP.  Below are three graphs based on team stats.  Please excuse my shaky Excel skills.  The charts below all have runs (in blue) plotted in a line.  Either AVG, OBP or SLG scattered (in red) are individually represented on each graph.  As  you can see OBP and SLG are more tightly knit to the runs line than batting average is, thus telling us OBP and SLG are more related to producing runs than batting average is (in some years OBP is actually closer to the runs line).

fig 1 - Batting Average / Runs

fig 2 - OBP / Runs

fig 3 - SLG / Runs

In some upcoming entries about offensive stats I'll talk about some of the more advance stats like wOBA (Weighted On Base Percentage), ISO (Isolated power) and RC (Runs Created).  Hope you found this interesting.

Thanks for reading,
-Tom

Kenesaw Mountain Landis

"Don't go to those owners if you get into trouble, come to me. I'm your friend. They're no good." 

-Kenesaw Landis

Have you ever watched an action or superhero movie in which the hero makes a last minute rescue just in a nick of time?  Always seems to happen right?  That was the case with Kenesaw Mountain Landis.  He wasn't an action move hero or even a brave leader of a nation.  He was the very first commissioner of Major League Baseball.

There were times in baseballs' history where baseball needed "saving".  There was the 1994 players strike which left a bitter taste in a lot of fans mouths.  And recently there was (and in some sense still is) the steroid era.  But the event which Landis came to the rescue was the 1919 Black Sox scandal.

In a nutshell the Black Sox scandal was centered around the 1919 World Series.  A number of players for the Chicago White Sox fixed the games to allow the Cincinnati Reds to prevail.  There is much more to this story and we'll cover it in a future post.

Now, on to Kenesaw.  Regarding his name - Kenesaw Mountain.  Kenesaw Mountain was the site of a Civil War battle in which his father was injured and he gave his son that name.  As a boy, Kenesaw was a big baseball fan.  Landis dropped out of high school in 1885 (seemed to be the thing to do back then).   But, in 1891 he earned a Law degree from the University of Cincinnati.  In 1905 Landis was appointed as a U.S. District Judge by Teddy Roosevelt.

In 1914 a rival league known as the Federal League brought an anti-trust suit  against the MLB.  Judge Landis was asked to preside over the case.  Landis somehow manged to delay the case just long enough until the Federal League folded.   In 1919, following the Black Sox scandal, baseball needed to be saved and the owners knew exactly who the right man for the job was. The owners appointed Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis as the first commissioner of the MLB.

One of the first things Judge Landis did was ban eight White Sox players from baseball.  Throughout his tenure he imposed numerous suspensions and fines. The superstars of the league were not exempt.  He once hit up Babe Ruth with a suspension for barnstorming.  Some other improvements and implementations Landis was know for were: developing the minor league system, support of breaking the color barrier and making the All-Star game an official yearly event. 

In 1944 with his health failing, Landis died as the commissioner.  He was known as the man who restored integrity to baseball following the black sox scandal and ran a tight ship during his tenure.   To this day the MVP award has his name on it.

Thanks for reading

-Tom

The Infield Fly Rule

With the previous entry we described the "Dropped Third Strike".  As promised, this one will talk about the Infield Fly Rule.  Right off the bat (no pun intended) we'll give you an excerpt from the rules book.  Rule 2.00 Definition of Terms:

An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted

bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or

first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any

outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for

the purpose of this rule.

The Infield Fly rule kicks in with less than two outs and runners on first and second or the bases loaded.  When a fly ball in the infield is deemed catch-able by the umpire he signals "Infield Fly" and the rule comes into effect.  The batter is automatically out regardless if the ball is caught or not.  Once again this seems a little silly until we look at a scenario.  Let's pretend the infield fly rule does not exist.  With a runner on first and second and no outs,  the batter hits a high fly to the shortstop.  The runners on first and second must stay put on their bases or risk being doubled up.  The shortstop purposely drops the ball throws to the third baseman who is covering third then the third baseman throws to second for a double play.  Doesn't seem fair does it?  Of course not! That's why the powers that be implemented the Infield Fly Rule.

Below is how to score a Infield Fly.  I put in the first two batters to show the base runners.

There you have it.  Simple enough right?  Next post we'll talk about Kenesaw Mountain Landis.  Who? ... Where?  He's a "who" and you'll see what a fascinating person he is.

Thanks for reading,

-Tom

Dropped Third Strike

Two rules which fans are often confused about are the Dropped Third Strike and Infield Fly rules.  This entry will deal with the Dropped Third Strike and the next will explain the Infield Fly Rule.

So what is this silliness where a batter actually strikes out but can reach first base?  One of the rules in baseball is a ball must be caught to register an out.  In the case of the third strike it must be caught cleanly - not dropped and not on a bounce.  Sections 6.05 and 6.09 of the MLB rules come in to play with the Dropped Third Strike.  Here are excerpts for your reading pleasure:

6.05 A batter is out when—

(b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher;

Rule 6.05(b) Comment: “Legally caught” means in the catcher’s glove before the ball touches the

ground. It is not legal if the ball lodges in his clothing or paraphernalia; or if it touches the umpire and is

caught by the catcher on the rebound.

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when—

(b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is

unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out;

Rule 6.09(b) Comment: A batter who does not realize his situation on a third strike not caught,

and who is not in the process of running to first base, shall be declared out once he leaves the dirt circle

surrounding home plate.

So here's the play.  With less than two outs and first base open or two outs and runners at any base; if strike three is not caught by the catcher the runner can take off for first.  He must be thrown out.  If the runner is safe the strikeout is still recorded but it is simply that - an occurrence in the game that is recorded (like a hit batsman) and not an event that causes an out.  Got it?

So why isn't this rule in effect for every situation and not just the ones mentioned above?  Let's look at a scenario.  Say there is a runner on first with one out.  The dropped third strike rule cannot be in effect.  Why not? Theoretically, the catcher can purposely drop the third strike and fire the ball to the second baseman for one out and back to first for an inning ending double play.  Not fair is it now?  Of course not, that's why the rule is in place.

Here is how to score the Dropped Third Strike rule (in my very own chicken scratch):

Runner out

Runner safe

Hope this was informative.  Next up - The infield fly rule.

Thanks for reading,
-Tom

Strategy and Tactics - Infield Positioning

Branch Rickey

Let me preface this blog entry by stating that any game-time tactical move, whether on offense or defense, carries with it some level of risk.  If there was no risk, well, what fun would that be?  Historically, strategy and tactics have been around since the 1800's with some moves growing in and out of popularity throughout the decades.  I also feel it necessary to mention two leaders who perfected strategies used at the turn of the century and today - Branch Rickey and Connie Mack.

With that out of the way let's discuss infield positioning. During a game you could hear any of the five basic infield positions cited - "standard", "double-play-depth", "infield-in", "infield-back" and "the shift".  You won't hear broadcasters mention standard positioning too much though, since it is, well - standard.  There are other positioning schemes which handle an array of circumstances such as pitcher and hitter tendencies, but let's stick with the five we mentioned since they are the ones utilized most often.

Standard

Standard positioning - the diagram shows the standard position the infielders take for most batters in most situations.  The first and third basemen are about five steps in and nine steps back from their bags.  The shortstop and second baseman are about six steps in and 12 steps back from their bags.  The infielders would probably move a step or two in either direction to account for hitter tendencies.

Double Play Depth

With a runner on first and less than two outs the manager may decide the conditions are right for double play depth.  Double play depth is almost the same as standard positioning except the infielders are a step or two closer to the batter and a step or two closer to second base.  This positioning will allow the middle infielders to get to second base faster and the corner infielders to get a ball to them quicker.



 The following conditions would warrant bringing your infield in:

1. The score is tied or your team is one or two runs behind.



Infield In

2. Runner on third with fewer than two outs.
3. It's late in the game - 8th or 9th inning

Bringing the infield in will allow a play at the plate, thus preventing a run - the play at home is a must.  Now remember the risk factor discussed above.  There is an old saying that goes like this - "Bringing the infield in makes a .250 hitter a .300 hitter".  That's the trade off here.  As you can see the infielders play just beyond, or on the grass.

Infield Back

Playing with the infield back typically says - "OK,  'other team', we'll give you this run (which we will make up later), but we're getting an out in the process".  The position is usually done with a runner on third, no outs or one out and early in a close game. The positioning is a step or two back from the standard.

The Shift

Now for "The Shift".  This always seemed a little gimmicky to me, but many managers are using it more and more these days.  Joe Maddon of the Rays uses it most.  I'm not sure who invented the Shift, but it became famous when used by the Cardinals against Ted Williams of the Red Sox in the 1946 World Series.  It was so successful that other teams used it against Williams.  Today the Shift is used by teams when facing players like Ryan Howard, David Ortiz and Adam Dunn.  The Shift is used against dead pull hitters - usually lefties who hit the ball to the right side a high percentage of the time.  The set up for the Shift is shown here.


So there you have the five basic infield positions.  Next time  you're watching a game on TV and you hear one of these mentioned, the camera may not show the infield but you can see the resulting play and how it evolved.  Better yet, next time your taking in a game live, make a point of watching the infield.

Note - the above images were created by software called  Baseball Playbook by Jes-software.

Thanks for reading
-Tom

Yankee Stadium (the 2009 variety)

So I finally got out to Yankee Stadium, courtesy of my daughter Tina who gave me the tix for my 48th birthday.  I can't believe it took 3 years for me to get out there.  I wanted to see the stadium for myself as I have heard endless mediocre reviews.  As a matter of fact there are so many such reviews that I didn't know what to expect.  My hopes were not high.  Well I'll tell you - I was pleasantly surprised.

When we arrived at the stadium, Tina and I wanted to look around.  The limestone exterior was, in its own way - breathtaking.  Such a regal, Roman/Greek look  - perfect for a team with 27 Championships!   We went inside and "The Great Hall" just hits you.  What a classy dedication to the fine Yankees from the 20's right up to the 90's.  I'm a big baseball history buff so this was fabulous for me.

After looking around the gate area we went to field level to take some pictures of the inside.  I love the open view.  We walked all around getting looks and shots from many different angles.  The layout is very similar to the old Yankee Stadium - I'm glad they kept that.  Also retained was the frieze along the top.  Overall, the look and feel of the stadium was what I hoped for - not an overload of character (which some of the new stadiums tend to do), yet keeping the Yankee atmosphere.

Our seats were in section 134 in left field.  The seats were along side of the bleachers so we got a good feel for "role call".  I think Jeter is getting tired of it.  Personally, I don't think he ever liked it.  All of the seats in the stadium were cushioned.  There was a very good selection of food. I had a Brother Jimmy's pulled chicken - very tasty.

All in all, my experience was a good one.  I'd also like to mention that the D-train was cleaner and safer than I remember and the area around the stadium was equally as safe and clean.

You can see some of the pix we took here - http://s999.photobucket.com/albums/af120/tag0519/Yankee%20Stadium/. 

Thanks for reading,

-Tom

Keep Score - Get Connected!!

A few weeks ago I was watching a game in which Bob Costas was announcing.  At the conclusion of one of the innings the batter grounded out to the shortstop.  Costas said something most broadcasters say - "If you're scoring at home that's 6-3 on your scorecard.  Does anyone even do that anymore?".  Yeah Bob, I do.  I see Bob Costas' point though.  Besides the broadcasters and official scorers, I too was wondering who keeps score these days. I don't even see it being done at baseball games too much any longer. 

I enjoy keeping score.  Two or three times a season I try to set aside some time to take in an entire game and keep score.  At the left is my scorecard from the game where Jeter got his 3000th.  The process of keeping score connects an individual to the game via pencil and paper.  You become a part of the game.  I encourage every baseball fan to try it.

 If you don't know how to keep score or if you do and  you need to sharpen your skills a fan named Christopher Swingley created a fantastic tutorial on his site - 

http://swingleydev.com/baseball/tutorial.php

The tutorial works through a game (the game which Mark McGwire hit his 60th home run).  Chris readily admits that his tutorial is somewhat incomplete.  I'm going to take his system and create a fictional game that covers more plays and (hopefully) making the tutorial close to complete.  I received Chris' permission to do this.  I'll be working on it from time to time and should complete it by the end of the season.

In the meantime, grab a scoresheet (free on Chris's site) and pencil (not a pen - trust me) and try it out.  I bet you'll like it and you'll receive a new perspective on the game.

Thanks for reading,
-Tom

Baseball and my Dad

This entry is dedicated to Nicholas J. Graziose - my Dad

On May 22 it will be 7 years since my Dad passed.  I'd like to tell you about him and, of course baseball.  Dad, was a Dodger fan - both Brooklyn and Los Angeles.  He knew a lot about the players of the 40's, 50's and 60s.   Oh, and just so you know - Nobody could hold a candle to Sandy Koufax, and Duke Snider was the most underrated player on the planet.  Just thought you'd like to know.

I remember watching games on TV and Dad would stroll in and sit down.

"Who's this pitching?"

"Nolan Ryan Dad"

"Oh yeah, he's wild.  No where near the control Koufax had"

Thanks, Red Barber

When my Mom and Dad moved to Florida, Dad acquired an affinity for the (then) Devil Rays.  Not sure why. I guess he wanted a local team to follow.  He followed that sad team religiously.  I bring this up because to this day I wish he could have seen the current Rays.  I know he would have loved this team and their manager Joe Maddon.  They are the type of team Dad loved to watch.

As most of  you know, a father and son's relationship is not always silky smooth (no!).  That held true for Dad and me. If things got a little rocky between us baseball came to the rescue.  After a tiff of some sort, in which he was right 99.9% of the time (and you thought there wouldn't be any stats in this entry), I would be watching the game and probably in a pissy mood.  Dad would come in, sit down a watch for a few minutes.  then we'd talk about the game.  We'd admire the performances, critique the managerial decisions and even make fun of the broadcasters. Then ...

"Oh who's pitching?"

"That's Steve Carlton Dad.  Wicked slider"

"yeah he looks good"

a few innings later - "Koufax had a better curve" .... here we go....

Rest In Peace Dad. I miss you.

Thanks for reading,

-Tom

Sacrifice For The Greater Good .... Is It Really??

 So you're watching the big game with your buddies.  Your team is playing their crosstown rivals.  It's the 6th inning and the score is tied 1-1.  The next batter steps up to the plate with a runner on first and no outs.  He lays down a bunt - a beaut of a slow roller up the first base line. The runner is safe at second base and the only play is to first base where the batter is out.  The batter who just sacrificed is giving and receiving fist bumps from his teammates in the dugout. You're bragging - "Now there's a team player".  "You don't see that anymore", you tell your friends.  With a runner on second and one out instead of a runner on first with zero outs, you're convinced this was a great decision - but was it?

Below is a table called the "run expectancy matrix" or some call it "baseball's 24 states".   This data tells us the average runs that are scored for a certain situation.  In other words with a runner on first and second and no outs, the MLB average runs scored was 1.43. 

Base Runners	0 outs	1 outs	2 outs
Empty	.48	.258	.096
1st	.85	.502	.217
2nd	1,06	.649	.313
3rd	1.31	.899	.354
1st_2nd	1.43	.893	.434
1st_3rd	1.68	1.14	.475
2nd_3rd	1,89	1.29	.571
Loaded	2.26	1.53	.592

source - Baseball Prospectus

Take a closer look at the table.  Was the sac-bunt really worth it?  The data says "No" with a capital "N".  The average runs scored with a runner on first and no outs is .85.  The average runs scored with one out and a runner on second - .65.

As the great Earl Weaver once said - "Your most precious possessions on offense are your twenty-seven outs"

So that's it then.  The sac bunt is the stupidest thing since antenna balls.  OK, before you go throwing empty beer cans at the TV and cursing the manager, let's look at numbers and how they can sometimes slightly fabricate.  Then we'll talk about context.

As we all have heard - numbers can lie.  The numbers in the matrix are an average, and they are just that - an average.  Take an average of three test scores - 100, 75 and 40, the average being ~71.  This student has a 71 average yet he was highly successful one time. He may have studied extra hard for that 100 or the material was easy for him to digest.  In any case, that's how we need to look at those numbers in the matrix.  There are certain times in which the mix of runners and batter will be the perfect storm to get a run via the sac bunt.  There is also the situation where a pitcher is at bat.  With a runner on first, less than two outs and a pitcher at bat, a big inning looks bleak and the best play is the sac bunt.  If this "perfect storm" occurs in a low-scoring close game - the sac bunt may also be necessary.  That's the context I was talking about. 

To quote Coach Weaver again - "If you play for one run, that's all you'll get"


So there you have it.  When your watching a game and you're thinking - "a sac would be good here", it may not be the case and the manager knows the numbers, and the context.

In the future I'll do an entry on the sac bunt in more detail.

Thanks for reading
-Tom

Is This Goodbye Sandman?

I wanted to slap this together today.  Sorry for any grammar or spelling issues (I don't have my regular proof reader).

I owe Mariano Rivera a lot.  Why? Welp, he gave me many extra hours of sleep.  Since 1997, when Mo entered the game, I could safely go to sleep.  That was it ... game over!  Exit Light ... Exit Night ... Off to never never land.

I'm not into the "he's the best ever" statement or "this player is better than that player" - unless of course its comparing Willie Mays and Mario Mendoza (I give the edge to Mays).  But, I'll have to say that Mo is the best closer ever.  Yes there are those that will say Eckersley or Sutter was better, or Goose, Hoffman and Fingers have the edge over him.  I say not quite.  First of all, there is his longevity and his saves (more than anyone in history).  Next is that ice-water he has flowing around in his veins.  Doesn't matter the situation, he's as cool as a Navy Seal.

Hope this isn't it for Mo, but if it is - I'm gonna miss him... and my sleep.

Thanks for reading
-Tom

Stat-Head - Stats All Around Us!

What is the obsession with stats to the baseball fan?  I think baseball fans like stats because the stat paints a picture or tells a story.  Let's take a  look at a simple stat like batting average.  In 2011 Jacoby Ellsbury hit .321.  That will tell us that he got a hit 3.21 times out of every 10 at bats.   When fans look at .321 they see that ratio.  They also see a frame of reference.  .300 or above is very good.  Below .280 is average (actually .272 was the MLB average for BA in 2011).  Below .250 is considered pretty bad.  When we look at stats in this blog I'll try to "paint that picture" and also give you a good frame of reference by providing the MLB averages, leaders and bottom dwellers of that stat.  I'll also show you where on the inter-webs  you can find this stat.

I'll create a handy dandy stat-reference that will have all of my favorite stats with the description, leader, MLB avg and formula.

 

There is a plethora (it's on my word of the day calendar) of stats out there.  It's mind-boggling how many stats there are. If you look on fangraphs or baseball-reference you'll see what I'm talking about.  Out of the four big sites - baseball-reference.com, fangraphs.com, baseballhq.com and baseballprospectus.com there are over 200 stats - and that's with eliminating duplicates and like-stats between sites.  Some of these stats aren't even  called stats.  They're called "systems".

 
All of these stats can be a little overwhelming.  In this blog, I'll take a stat or two every once in a while and analyze them.  If you're of the breed that just likes his/her batting average, RBI's, ERA etc, then so be it.  Who am I to sway you otherwise?  I'm a firm believer that watching baseball and comparing players is a personal preference.  Do it your way!  But, on the other hand if you want to get into some of the newer and more complex stats then join me in my journey.  It will be fun.

In some upcoming blog-entries about stats I'll write about what some pundits are calling "bogus" stats and in another - OBP, SLG and wOBA

Thanks for reading

-Tom

Baseball History - 1901

Today we'll take a look at some Baseball History. The year - 1901.  This was the season the American League was established.  To put it mildly - The National League was not happy to have company and it took two long years before the AL and NL learned to play nice.  Let's see how and why the AL got going and also take a look at some teams and key players from both leagues in 1901.

The National League, which started in 1876 was pretty much alone up until 1901. It was only a matter of time before there was infighting about, what else - the almighty dollar.  Some owners in the National League were known as tyrants and tight with the wallet. But the fat-cats rolling in the money didn't notice the wolf stalking in the form of the American League.

 A guy named Ban Johnson joined with other owners and formed 8 AL teams - Chicago White Stockings, Boston Americans, Detroit Tigers, Philadelphia Athletics, Baltimore Orioles, Washington Senators, Cleveland Blues, and Milwaukee Brewers.  Not only did they start up their own league, they did a little pillaging at the expense of the NL.  Some big names jumped ship to the kinder and gentler AL.  Players like Nap Lajoie and Cy Young (big enough for ya?) found success in the AL.

Let's take a look at some of the players from 1901.  We talked about Nap Lajoie.  He hit .426 for Connie Macks' (more on him in a future post) Athletics.  Cy Young resurrected his career with Boston at age 34.  In the National League, 27 year old Honus Wagner hit .353 with 49 stolen bases.  For the Giants a 20 year old rookie by the name of Christy Mathewson was 20-17 with a 2.41 ERA. 

Other players of note:

Sam Crawford (OF - Reds) batted .320 and lad the NL with 16 HR's.
Jack Chesbro (P - Pirates) had a 21-10 record with a 2.38 ERA.
Rube Wadell (P - Pirates/Orphans) in his third year was 14-16 with a 3.01 ERA
Rookie Eddie Plank (P -  Athletics) was 17-13 with a 3.31 ERA.

The standings from 1901:

1901 American League Standings
Team	Wins	Losses	WP	GB
Chicago White Stockings	83	53	.610	0
Boston Americans	79	57	.581	4
Detroit Tigers	74	61	.548	8½
Philadelphia Athletics	74	62	.544	9
Baltimore Orioles	68	65	.511	13½
Washington Senators	61	72	.459	20½
Cleveland Blues	54	82	.397	29
Milwaukee Brewers	48	89	.350	35½

1901 National League Standings
Team	Wins	Losses	WP	GB
Pittsburgh Pirates	90	49	.647	0
Philadelphia Phillies	83	57	.593	7½
Brooklyn Superbas	79	57	.581	9½
St. Louis Cardinals	76	64	.543	14½
Boston Beaneaters	69	69	.500	20½
Chicago Orphans	53	86	.381	37
New York Giants	52	85	.380	37
Cincinnati Reds	52	87	.374	38

Hope you enjoyed this.  Please feel free to offer opinions.

Thanks for reading,

-Tom