Filter posts by...
Playoffs
Playoffs
Friday, October 28, 2011
By , 02:29 PM
In this article, Tom Verducci, not an intellectual giant when it comes to sabermetrics, said this:
There is a universal rule in baseball about playing the outfield with a lead, especially a two-run lead, and three outs or fewer from victory. Under no circumstance can the ball be hit over an outfielder’s head—not unless it’s flying all the way out of the ballpark. It’s called no-doubles defense. The outfielders have to station themselves deep enough to make sure the ball cannot get over their head.
This is how center fielder Josh Hamilton and left fielder David Murphy played the ninth inning. I saw Cruz early in the ninth inning playing too far in and said aloud, “He’s not back far enough. A ball can get over his head.”
There are so many things wrong with that segment, I don’t know where to begin. I won’t actually. Except to say that the article thoroughly evinces the “either/or”, “black/white,” digital rather than analog approach that managers and even journalists apply to baseball decision-making.
Oh, and the ridculous title of Verducci’s article is:
Cruz’s unforgiveable defensive gaffe proves costly to Rangers
In this case, according to Verducci, you simply play so deep that no ball can ever be over your head and stay in the park. As if a single in front of you is tantamount to an out. And as if by playing deep you are not forgoing some catches on short fly balls.
BTW, if you simply watch the replay of that non-catch, it is obvious that Cruz WAS playing rather deep, and of course it was an eminently catchable ball, not that is HAS to be catchable in order for his positioning to have been correct…
Monday, October 24, 2011
By , 08:10 PM
I’m pretty busy getting ready to head back west tomorrow, but I’ll probably watch the game and pop in here from time to time. Hopefully, you guys can keep a lively discussion going…
Sunday, October 23, 2011
By , 08:05 PM
Saturday, October 22, 2011
By , 06:44 PM
Here we go again, in Texas!
Friday, September 02, 2011
The linked spreadsheet is the real payoff. Just fantastic stuff!
Friday, March 25, 2011
Neyer points to this interesting exchange. And BPro is suggesting that there are a few teams with a 50-60% chance of winning its division (Redsox, Rangers, Phillies, Giants). Each of those teams is forecasted to be at least 2 wins better than the 2nd best team in the division.
So, that’s really all you need. If you are at least 2 wins better than the next best team in the division, you have at least a 50% chance of winning the division. You don’t need me to tell you that an estimate of being 2 wins better has a large enough uncertainty level around it (probably 3-5 wins?) that you can make a convincing case for a dozen teams to have the best chance of winning its division.
What is Vegas saying?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
If you had a chance to court Beyonce, but there were 30 other men there, how much of your fortune would you spend? What if there was only eight other men?
J-Doug is suggesting that teams who have little hope of making the playoffs are saved from even considering to spend too much money simply because the ROI isn’t there. But, if you have expanded playoffs, you are giving extra false hope to those teams, and they’ll start to spend inefficiently.
***
Please, no opinion as to whether you want or don’t want more playoff teams. What you can offer are considerations, arguments for others to consider. Basically, don’t make any summary opinions as if there is an answer. Because there is no answer without specifying objectives and constraints.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
By , 04:35 AM
Rangers or Giants, including any league differences of course. And I’ll limit it to the basic team that was put out in the WS - e.g., no Jose Guillen, yes Cody Ross, yes Posey (obviously), Molina on the Rangers, etc. When I say “better team” I simply mean if they played against one another with roughly the same players (we’ll even say 4 starting pitchers only) for a few thousand games, who would likely win the most games? (Actually, those are not exactly the same question, but we’ll assume it is. Team A could theoretically be better than team B, against neutral or unknown opponents, but team A could match up poorly against team B and be a dog. For the record, I think that is likely, and even if it is possible, I don’t think that we would be able to identify it very well, other than by traditional matchup criteria, like platoon, G/F, and park effects.)
So the question is NOT who played better during the series. The question has nothing to do with the series other than it is a recent sample of 5 games for each team, against each other of course.
If you give the results of the WS more than 1% (or so) weight (IOW, the Giants get more than a 1% bonus just by virtue of winning the series), you don’t deserve to answer the question. By “bonus” I mean you answer the question as if you don’t know any of the results from the WS and then you can change those numbers by virtue of the results of the series. How much you change it is what I call the “bonus.”
I’m not really interested in the answer - I am mostly making a point, which should be fairly obvious…
Monday, November 01, 2010
By , 12:53 AM
I hate to admit that I was listening to Dibble’s “analysis” of the Series on XM radio today, but I was. One thing he said, when discussing Moreland’s home run off of Sanchez was, “I don’t buy all that lefty/righty stuff.” I was wondering what you guys thought of that? Just kidding (about what you think - he did actually say that though).
Anyway, he also said, about whether Lee should pitch on 3 days rest or not, “What would you rather be, if you were the Rangers, down 3-1 with with Hunter on the mound, or be 2-2 with Lee on the mound?”
Can’t argue with that logic!
Anyway, none of us can really say whether Lee is even capable of pitching on 3 days rest, but you would have to think that just about any pitcher can and it just depends on what the penalty is going to be. Many managers, like Washington, seem to think it is a matter of “yes” or “no”.
Now, Hunter is not a very good pitcher. He is quite a bit worse than average (despite his w/l record of course). Lee is maybe the best pitcher in baseball or close to it.
So even if we give Lee a large penalty, like .75 rp9, isn’t he a lot better choice than Hunter? And if he pitched tonight, you could conceivably pitch him in game 7 on 3 days rest again. If he pitches tomorrow, you can’t do that of course.
You may say, “If you don’t throw Lee in the 7th game, then either way, you have Hunter for one game, and Lee for another,” and you would be right. But I don’t think you can discount the possibility of using Lee again on 3 days rest, especially if you were somehow able to limit his pitch count in game 4. On the other hand, a fresh Colby Lewis may be better than a not-so-fresh Lee, especially against a RH heavy team like the Giants (unless they bench Burrell again).
Here is what the sim says:
Using the normal rotations, going into game 4, and being down 2-1, the Rangers have a 38% chance of winning the series.
What if we insert Lee in game 4 and deduct 6% from the his normal win percentage to reflect that fact that he gives up .5 more runs than usual in 6 innings of work? In game 4, instead of Texas being a 59.2% favorite, they are a 64.7% favorite.
But now, unless you want to also use Wilson on 3 days rest, you have to use Hunter on Monday anyway. That is against Lincecum, which gives the Rangers a 50.7% chance. Then, you are back to your normal rotations in games 6 and 7.
That scenario gives the Rangers a 37% chance of winning the series rather than a 38%. Worse than starting Hunter.
Now, if Lee is not .75 rp9 worse on 3 days rest, then it was probably a flip of the coin whether to use him in game 4.
In any case, Dibble was right. Use Hunter and be down 3-1!
Friday, October 29, 2010
Uncovering forgetten legends with WPA.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Read the motion for continuance:
Mr. Cook states, “he has developed a love of the Rangers that has gone generally unrequited for thirty-eight (38) years.”
“Everything between Darrell and the Rangers was business as usual this year: a) Josh Hamilton was discovered drunken and covered in whip cream. . .”
“Darrell went to all three games played in Arlington against the Yankees and creid in the stands as the Rangers defeated the Evil Empire known as the New York Yankees.”
Glove-slap: Kristi.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
By , 05:42 AM
Just watch the replays of:
1) Howard’s double off the wall careeming right to Torres in center,
2) Sanchez’ 400 foot single off the glove of Victorino that Torres couldn’t tell whether it was caught or not,
3) Ruiz’ line drive double play to Huff,
4) The curve ball that was probably 6 inches outside to Francisco with a runner on third and 1 out,
and probably 10 other plays and calls that could have gone either way in just this one game.
(Pardon me if I got any of the players or details above wrong - I am going my memory and 3:00 in the A.M.)
Saturday, October 23, 2010
By , 10:38 PM
In the bottom of the 5th, that was a terrible IBB of Werth by Bochy. You’ll rarely see a worse IBB than that. It is almost never correct to walk the bases loaded with 2 outs, for obvious reasons.
The strike zone of the home plate umpire, Tom Hallion, was embarrassing (I am writing this in the middle of the 7th). The called strike in the top of the 7th to Ishikawa was reminiscent of Eric Greg with Livan Hernandez on the mound (1997?). He also missed several strikes almost right down the middle when the catcher had to reach across the plate. His inconsistency was ridiculous. I can’t wait to see the pitch f/x for the game…
Monday, October 18, 2010
By , 07:55 PM
You’ve heard this before. This is from this article on Fangraphs by David Cameron. He is not explicitly agreeing with the theory, but he does not say that it is wrong either and the implication is that it is true.
This essentially boils down to match-ups and attempting to leverage the most winnable games. With Cliff Lee going tonight, the Yankees are going to be underdogs no matter who takes the hill. They could have chosen to start Burnett against Lee in Game 3, lowering their chances of winning a game where they are already likely to lose, and then using Pettitte in Game 4. Rather than having a disadvantage on the mound in both Game 3 and Game 4, they could have consolidated their problems in tonight’s game in order to increase their odds of winning tomorrow’s.
If I use my sim to match up Lee with Pettitte tonight, with Lee being a 3.25 rp9 pitcher and Pettitte a 4.25, the game is about dead even in Yankee stadium. Vegas has the Rangers as a slight (51%) favorite.
With Lee versus Burnette, and Burnette as a 4.55 rp9 pitcher, my sim has the Rangers as a 52% fave, so there really isn’t much difference, so I can’t test the theory. One of the problems is that Burnette is perceived as much worse than he (likely) is, and Pettitte is perceived as (likely) better, in the post-season at least.
How about if we use Burnette and Sabathia. Sabathia is a 3.25 pitcher, like Lee, maybe a little worse. I already said that with Lee v. Burnette in NY, Lee is a 52% fave.
With Lee v. Sabathia in The Stadium, the Yankees are a 56% fave.
Now, you should be able to see the problem right away. If pitching Sabathia versus Lee is a waste because Lee is going to win anyway, then pitching Lee versus Sabathis is also a waste since Sabathia is going to win anyway, which doesn’t make any sense. Of course the whole thing makes no sense, since what does it mean that a pitcher “is going to win anyway?” You can see that even with Tex’ best pitcher (Lee) and the Yankees’ worst (Burnette), the Yankees still have almost a 50% chance of winning. So where is this “going to win anyway?”
OK, how about we switch to the Giants and Phillies. The Phillies have 3 starters who are very good and one who is pretty bad.
What if we compare pitching Lincecum against Halliday, and then Bumgarner against Blanton, or Lincecum versus Blanton and then Bumgarner versus Halliday. That seems to fit the bill for the Phillies not wasting Halliday against the Giants’ best pitcher, Lincecum (but then you still have the problem of the Giants also wasting Lincecum against Halliday - and you can’t have it both ways). At least in this example, you have Bumgarner who is probably a better than average pitcher and Blanton, who is likely a lot worse than average.
Halliday (2.95 rpg) v. Lincecum (3.25 rp9) in SF:
PHI is a 51% fave.
Blanton (4.70 rpg) v. Lincecum (3.25 rp9) in SF:
SF is a 61% fave.
Halliday (2.95 rpg) v. Bumgarner (4.15 rp9) in SF:
PHI is a 55% fave.
Blanton (4.70 rpg) v. Bumgarner (4.15 rp9) in SF:
SF is a 57% fave.
We’ll assume that these are the first 2 games of a 7 game series and that the rest of the games are even money (50/50) for both teams.
Results of a 7-game series:
Scenario I
Game 1: Halliday v. Lincecum
Game 2: Blanton v. Bumgarner
Game 3-7: 50/50
SF wins series 52% of the time.
Scenario II
Game 1: Blanton v. Lincecum
Game 2: Halliday v. Bumgarner
Game 3-7: 50/50
SF wins series 52% of the time.
So it makes no difference.
Again you have a little bit of the scenario where the Giants are facing the same situation as the Phillies - should they waste Lincecum against Halliday, although, as I said, Bumgarner is much better than Blanton.
So what about if Sanchez pitches the second game. He is better than Bumgarner.
Blanton (4.70 rpg) v. Sanchez (4.00 rp9) in SF:
SF wins 58%.
Halliday (4.70 rpg) v. Sanchez (4.00 rp9) in SF:
Phi wins 54%.
Scenario I
Game 1: Halliday v. Lincecum
Game 2: Blanton v. Sanchez
Game 3-7: 50/50
SF wins series 52% of the time.
Scenario II
Game 1: Blanton v. Lincecum
Game 2: Halliday v. Sanchez
Game 3-7: 50/50
SF wins series 52% of the time.
So again, no difference.
As I assumed, the “theory” is probably nonsense and doesn’t really make any sense on its face on a number of different levels. What you primarily want to do is tailor your pitchers to the ballpark if possible (and NOT by how they pitched in that ballpark in the past) and to make sure that your best pitchers pitch as many games as possible, the latter being more important than the former.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Dave Cameron. Cool stuff.
***
But, then you have this thinly veiled forecast from Crasnick:
Opponents are hitting .351 (20-for-57) vs. Cliff Lee this year after he reaches 100 pitches. He’s at 87 through 6 innings.
This is what clutters up watching a baseball game with too much information. My ideal baseball game is one where I see only a player’s overall career numbers, or numbers over the last 3-4 seasons. Or better yet, NO STATS AT ALL. I certainly don’t want to know how Pedro does after 105 pitches in 2003. I don’t want to know how Cliff Lee does after 100 pitches in 2010.
Can’t people just enjoy watching baseball by, you know, watching the game? Stop showing off on the diving board, and just come into the pool already.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
In today’s game between the Rangers and Rays, the Rangers quickly got the lead. According to fangraphs by the top of the 5th, the Rays had <10% of winning. David Price, the ace, went on to face 12 more hitters, with the WP never getting above 10% again. My question is, given that the current plan is to pitch your ace on short rest, when (or, at what win probability) do you remove him from the game in an effort to make him more rested for his next start (or even move up his next start.)
This drives me nuts as well. I seem to remember Mark Prior having a start where the Cubs were leading 10-1 or something, and he pitched 7 innings.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. If you go to the play log here, you will see that in the 5th inning, the Leverage Index was 0.4 when he gave up the fifth run. After the Rays did nothing, that lowered the LI for Price’s batters to under 0.2. And in the 7th inning, it was down to 0.1.
Where do you draw the line as to pulling him out, and keeping him a bit fresher for his next start, not to mention that you have more options with the bulpen in the playoffs? I don’t know, but I would say he should have been pulled after 5. Maybe after 6. But to let him pitch the 7th?
I think managers simply play for the win today, regardless of what happens later. That’s how they are judged, so that’s how we should expect them to react.
Colin does exactly the right thing in approaching the forecasting. Though, I’m not sure how fielding is accounted for (whether it was rolled up into the pitcher’s line, or what not). I also can’t tell if the starters are going to pitch 6-7 innings, or not, and how the bullpen comes into play.
I’d also like to see MGL’s sim on these lineups.
Page 1 of 1 pages
from Amazon
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date