Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Everything's a little upside down
As a matter of fact
The wheels have stopped


(Anders needs a pinch-hitter? Here I come, to save the day.)

Anyway, I was watching a House re-run last night (Hugh Laurie is a Living God, and has been ever since Fry and Laurie) - and what happens at the end of the episode? Why, Dr Wilson curls up on his couch with either the 1987 or 1988 edition of the Bill James Baseball Abstract. Cool!


On to business! First of all, let me add my enthusiastic agreement to this observation from Jeff Blair yesterday:

I can't say it enough: I can go to a Red Sox game and simply spend the whole night watching Ramirez standing in the outfield. He is the best show in baseball.

Me too, Jeff. In fact, I can hardly wait for his Hall of Fame induction speech. What on earth will that be like? Blair, of course, wrote that after Manny's memorable over-the-shoulder, dreadlocks-flying, back-to-home plate, running grab on the warning track of Kevin Millar's drive, after which he high-fives a fan in the front row, and then doubles Aubrey Huff off first base. Manny! Ain't nobody like him. He is absolutely my favourite player in the league, non-Jays division anyway. I would wish that there more like him, but you have to be as good as he is to get away with being like him. And there aren't very many as good as he is.

As everyone knows, no one has won a Triple Crown since Yastrzemski in 1967. Ramirez and Alex Rodriguez are the only active players who have led the league in all three Triple Crown categories. Well, them and that fellow who may or may not be allowed entry into this country. (Curiously, neither Frank Thomas nor Albert Pujols, who each have a batting title, has ever led their league in HRs or RBIs.)


It's nice that the Blue Jays have escaped the cellar, it's nicer still that the Yankees have taken up residence there. None of this means anything. The standings in May do not matter. Every year, some team that is under .500 as June approaches gets its act together and ends up in the post-season. Every damn year. Last year, it was Colorado and New York. The year before that, it was Minnesota and Oakland. The year before that, it was New York. And it was Atlanta the year before that. Anyone who writes off a season and gives up in May is simply being silly.

That doesn't mean any particular team is actually going to do it this year, but the odds are very good that at least one of them will.

I don't know if the Blue Jays have turned their season in the right direction, and neither do you. Wilner has been suggesting that the Cleveland game - the second of the double-header, with the unassisted triple play and then the two remarkable plays by Martinez and Gutierrez - was a kind of turning point. That was the team hitting bottom. He may be right. Well, if the team does go on to make something of this season, he will be right.

But it's very true that what happened in Cleveland is exactly the kind of thing a struggling team sometimes needs. They needed to have something quite ridiculous and outlandish happen to them. It actually eases the burden. This has been one very tight, squeezing-the-sawdust-out-of-the-bats baseball team. But if you are able to believe, even if only for a second, that it's really not your fault; but that the gods of the baseball universe are having a little sport with you and there's nothing you can do about it.... it eases the pressure. Instead of worrying and fretting and obsessing over your misfortunes, you actually begin to laugh at them. And then you stop trying hit three run homers when you're leading off, and just play.

Anyway, we'll see. That's why they play the games.

Looking round the majors, three things have struck me, and once I'd finished rubbing the wound, I thought I'd make a note.

1. Geovany!

Is this your NL MVP? The Cubs have the best offense in baseball, despite a mediocre performance from the Fonz and an open wound in centrefield so wide that they've actually summoned the Ghost of Jim Edmonds to see if he can still play a little ball despite the fork sticking out his back. But Geovany! is the man. So far, I think he and Berkman and Chipper have been the best players in the league. And, by the way, does the NL have some exciting young catchers or what? Everybody knows about Brian McCann and Russell Martin already, but there's nothing too wrong with Chris Snyder and Yadier Molina. And who the hell is Ryan Doumit, and why is he hitting .350, anyway?

2. Weren't You Guys Supposed to Be Contenders?

At the bottom of the three AL divisions are the New York Yankees, the Detroit Tigers, and the Seattle Mariners. The Yankees won 94 games last year and were involved in the post-season. Detroit won 88 games and thought they'd improved themselves enormously this winter by adding Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis without giving up anyone from their lineup. Seattle also won 88 games, and they went and added one of the better left-handed starters in the AL, Erik Bedard, in exchange for prospects.

The National League doesn't offer quite the same symmetrical and rewarding tour of last place. But tucked away at the bottom of the NL West sit the two teams with the worst records in the senior circuit - the Colorado Rockies and the San Diego Padres. That's right, the two teams that engaged in that thrilling playoff last fall to see which one would go on to the post-season.

Five teams, but one question. What the hell happened?

The Yankees simply forgot the rules. Several of them, in fact. First, there is the rule that says that Old Players Are Going to Get Hurt. The Yankees expected to have a mighty offense this season - but Alex Rodriguez (age 32) has been on the DL and Jorge Posada (a 36 year old catcher) is going to be out for an extended period of time. This sort of thing should not be surprising. The Yankees also forgot the rule about young pitchers, which simply states that Young Pitchers Will Break Your Heart. They may lead you to glory and success, but they will almost certainly break your heart once or twice before they do that for you. Philip Hughes and Ian Kennedy have combined to go 0-7 with an ERA of 8.70, which brings us to the third rule. This the Rule of Free Agent Acquisition. and it says: if the guy you're considering is going to the Hall of Fame (and is still in his prime) or is well on his way to at least making a case for being a Hall of Famer - well, you get him. You don't ask questions, you don't worry about the price. You get him. The Yankees forgot that rule. They decided the price Minnesota was asking for Johan Santana was too high. (Technically, Santana wasn't a free agent - but as a practical matter, that was a Free Agent Bidding that went on this past winter.)

The problem in Detroit is really simple. It is admirably clear and easy for all to see. The pitching has plummetted off some high cliff, and left a squirming, bloody ruin on the rocks below. Three starters each have ERAs north of 6.00 - Kenny Rogers, Nate Robertson, and Justin Verlander - and have combined to go 4-14 while they're at it. Justin Verlander? How did that happen?

What's happened in Seattle is quite different. Pythagoras took a quick look at the 2007 Mariners and said "No, sir. This isn't that good a team. Not really. They just got a little lucky in the close games. Unless they make some major upgrades, the earth will level out and they'll be playing .500 ball." What actually happened was the Mariners did make a major upgrade - Erik Bedard - but the earth didn't just level out. It tilted the other way. The Mariners have the worst record in one-run games of any team in the American League. They're not really this bad, in all likelihood. Mind you, they're not a good team by any stretch of the imagination, but they weren't a good team last year either.

The poor Padres have been suffering from the same thing as Detroit. The Padres pitching ranks middle of the pack - but seeing as how they play their home games in the greatest pitcher's park in the history of the game, that tells us its been nowhere near good enough. Greg Maddux has been solid, Jake Peavy has been his usual outstanding self. Everyone else has been an utter disaster. And it may be just about time for Heath Bell to take over from Trevor Hoffmann. Plus the Padres offense really is pretty terrible - the park is killing them, of course, but they don't have much hitting at all.

As for the Rockies, the team that plays in the greatest hitter's park in the history of the game (it's pretty cool that Petco and Coors Field are both around at the same time, and in the same division) - they've just generally gone into the crapper altogether. Young players, rather building on last year's success and taking another step forward, have instead taken six or seven steps backwards. Hello, Jeff Francis! Hello, Manny Corpas! Hello, Troy Tulowitzki (who then went and suffered a major injury.) Tulowitzki has been so indescribably bad - I mean, John McDonald would have been a huge offensive upgrade - that his being out of the lineup has probably helped the team. For one thing, it seems to have given Clint Barmes a chance to reboot his career. I can see Barmes possibly sliding over to second base and filling what has become a huge black hole in the lineup once Tulowitzki returns. Anyway, chances are, most of these guys will get pointed in the right direction again.


3. The Weirdness of the Atlanta Braves

I pay attention to the Braves. Liam's a fan, I wrote this year's season preview, and there's usually something going on that's worth watching. The Braves have been Pythagorean underachievers each of the last two seasons, which has never happened to Bobby Cox in his long, long managerial career. So far this year, they're well on their way to making it three years in a row, which would be shocking. But that's not what got my attention. Nor is it the fact that they have the best pitching in the National League. That is one very big surprise, by the way. We all thought the Braves would score runs, and indeed they have - only three teams in the majors are scoring more runs, and one of those teams uses a DH. (Not that David Ortiz has hit all that that much better than the Atlanta pitchers this season.)

There were, however, many serious concerns about Atlanta's pitching. They were talking about having Mike Hampton in the rotation, for God's sake. They were also planning to go Bravely forward with two 40 year olds in their starting rotation, a strategy that hasn't led to anyone winning a championship since... well, 2007 to be honest. But still. Anyway, the pitching has been just fine, even with the injuries to their two best relievers (Soriano and Moylan) and to their best starter (Smoltz - you do take the Hampton injury for granted, right?) That sort of thing never did faze Bobby Cox, anyway.

But it sure is puzzling that the league's best pitching and the league's third best offense would place them in fourth place in their own division, sputtering along at .500. How has it happened? Let me tell you. The Braves have managed to go an incredible 1-11 in one run games. Which is beyond weird. That's so hard to do that it's obviously a complete fluke. It does help explain the other very odd thing in the records - an enormous home-road split. The Braves are 14-4 at Turner Field - it's the best home record in baseball. But on the road, they've gone 6-16, and yes - that is the worst road record in baseball. Anyway, very strange goings-on in the Land of the Braves this year. It should be very interesting to pay attention to this team.

One Last Thing...

I've been working on a study of how the various AL managers ran their bullpens in 2007 - I've been looking at each team's various Bullpen Configurations (each team goes through anywhere from ten to twenty different bullpen lineups over the course of the season), and the manager's patterns in using his guys. Did he carry six relievers? Seven? Eight? Does the manager use the same pitchers day after day after day and while the others sit around and do nothing? Does he keep everyone in a regular mix? Or will a pitcher do nothing for seven or eight days, and then pitch three days in a row? And especially, how often does the bottom guy in the pecking order get into a game? (All of this was prompted by a passing comment by VBF wondering how often teams actually used the seventh guy in the pen.)

All of this will be coming to a Batter's Box near you quite soon. In the meantime, I will give you a tentative, and quite subjective, assessment of the AL managers work in this regard in 2007. Yes, yes, the top guy is a surprise to me, too (probably not as big a surprise as I'm sure he is to some of you.) I was indeed expecting him to do OK, maybe even top five - but after looking at the job everyone did last year I simply don' t see any other way I can go. And while I honestly had no idea that I'd be coming to this conclusion... well, now that I have, I surely can't resist tossing it out there. As a kind of Teaser, a Preview!

The Best (figure in parentheses is where the team's bullpen ranked in ERA in 2007)
1. John Gibbons, Tor. (2nd)
2. Eric Wedge, Cle. (4th)
3. Terry Francona, Bos. (1st)

Their Work Looks OK to ME
4. Ron Gardenhire, Min. (5th)
5. Ron Washington, Tex.(3rd)
6. Buddy Bell, KC (6th)
7. Mike Scioscia, LAA (8th)
8. Mike Hargrove/John McLaren, Sea (7th)
9. Bob Geren, Oak. (9th)
10. Jim Leyland, Det. (11th)

I Have Some Questions
11. Ozzie Guillen, Chi. (12th)
12. Joe Torre, NYY (10th)
13. Joe Maddon, TB (14th)

Absolutely Out of His Goddam Mind
14. Sam Perlozzo/Dave Trombley, Bal. (13th)

I was actually expecting Scioscia, Gardenhire, and Wedge to be my top three. That may be partially because I'd prefer a six man pen myself. Scioscia and Gardenhire go that way more often than anyone else, although not exclusively.

I suppose I was looking at three things in coming to these conclusions: 1) the results; 2) how the manager went about the care and feeding of the arms out there; 3) what the manager had to cope with. Gibbons does well on all three. His bullpen had the second best ERA of any AL bullpen, which speaks for itself. Scott Downs was the only man who pitched three days in a row more than once (four times); Accardo, Janssen, and Kennedy each pitched on three consecutive days once. That's quite a low figure by the standards of the 2007 AL. Wait til you see what Torre and Maddon were doing. And Gibbons had some things to cope with. Of the seven men who began the year in his pen, three were gone for good by the beginning of May. His closer went to the DL for the rest of the year, and two other guys went into the rotation. After a false start with Jason Frasor, he quickly identified which relievers could do which jobs for him, and he got them to do it. The more I look at it, the more impressed I am.

Anyway, I'll get all this together quite soon, and share all my findings and reasonings. Its still very possible that by then the sequence may have changed. Almost everybody could eventually move up or down a peg or two or even three (but no more!)

But I will tell you this: no power on earth will change my mind about the last place ranking. Nothing. No way, no how.

And it's worth reflecting that the man who may be the most famous and celebrated and highest-paid pitching coach of all time was a-sitting and a-rocking right at the manager's side for these six months of madness.
16 May 2008: This, That, The Other | 42 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
zeppelinkm - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 07:37 AM EDT (#185393) #

Magpie, not many people can write a piece on the game of baseball that gets me so fired up I have a grin from ear to ear.

Well done, I really enjoyed reading this. It's a fantastic read.

There is always hope! And I, like China Fan said in another thread, will cling to every last bit of hope as long as possible.

 

3RunHomer - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 07:51 AM EDT (#185394) #

Baltimore's manager must've had a brain transfusion because their pen is fine this year.

As Heath Bell's owner in the BBFL (Alomar), I heartily agree that it's time for him to take over from Trevor Hoffmann.

And ... GO RAYS GO! Anybody but the Yankees and Red Sox in 2008 (and beyond)! WOO!

Matthew E - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 08:38 AM EDT (#185395) #
I must say that the Blue Jays have been spoiling me with bullpens over the past few decades. Rarely does this team have a bad bullpen. The most recent one, the 2004 pen, was bad not because of mismanagement but because all six pitchers the Jays were counting on - all with good reason - failed spectacularly and simultaneously. (New acquisitions Speier, Ligtenberg, de los Santos, and Adams, and holdovers Kershner and Aquilino Lopez.)

Other than that one year, I don't remember the last time the Jays had a bullpen that just [i]didn't work[/i]. I imagine there was a year or two in the mid-'90s, but I can't get more specific than that.
Magpie - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 08:39 AM EDT (#185396) #
Baltimore's manager must've had a brain transfusion

Indeed, as far as I can tell so far it was the Perlozzo-Mazzone team responsible for just about everything I'll be objecting to... So, yeah!
Paul D - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 08:44 AM EDT (#185397) #
Chris Iannetta in Colorado is another potential good young catcher in the NL.  At least, my fantasy team hopes so.
Mike Green - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 10:12 AM EDT (#185399) #
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last

Little did we know that Dylan in his typically grandiose way was projecting the 2008 AL East...

The 2005-08 Tigers and Rays would make a fascinating study on the interaction between defence and pitching.  The Tigers had a good to excellent defence prior to 2008, while the Rays had poor defence prior to 2008; the quality of the teams' defences are reversed in 2008, and the Rays pitching staff FIP is significantly down while the Tigers is significantly up.  I wonder if there is a tipping point in both directions.

Paul D - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 10:16 AM EDT (#185400) #
In terms of the Jays LF problem, I wonder if Lasting Milledge would be available.  My guess is probably not, since he hasn't been there very long, but both he and the Nationals are struggling, so you never know.  Of course, given that he's struggling, he may not solve anything for the Jays, but he seems like the kind of player who's worth taking a shot at.  No idea what the Nationals would want, of if there's any chance that he could be traded.
Mike Green - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 10:45 AM EDT (#185404) #
It's a very small thing, but enlightening anyways.  The Jays sent down Velandia, rather than Inglett, to make room for Purcey on the roster.  Well done.
Cristian - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 11:10 AM EDT (#185405) #

I don’t post as much as I used to on this website even though often people routinely write comments so blatantly wrong that I shake my head in disbelief.  However, something was written in this post cannot be allowed to pass without comment.   

Hugh Laurie is a Living God, and has been ever since Fry and Laurie

Everyone with two braincells to rub together knows that Hugh Laurie has been a Living God since Blackadder.

That is all.

China fan - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 11:34 AM EDT (#185406) #
   Cristian is absolutely correct.  Blackadder is one of the top three or four British TV shows of all time.  Only perhaps Monty Python and The Office rank ahead of it.
Craig B - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 11:34 AM EDT (#185407) #

It was the '87 Abstract, the one with the yellow cover.  A moment forever burned into my brain cells and the exact moment that House moved from "favorite TV show" to "cult following" for me.

Ryan Day - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 11:41 AM EDT (#185408) #
It's about the same time, actually.  The first season of Fry & Laurie debuted in 1987, the same year as Blackadder the Third.

Though really, you could go back to 1982 and the Cambridge Footlights Revue.

Flex - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:00 PM EDT (#185411) #
"Blackadder is one of the top three or four British TV shows of all time. Only perhaps Monty Python and The Office rank ahead of it"

I absolutely agree, but if we're talking Top Four you have to include Fawlty Towers.
nanook - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:08 PM EDT (#185413) #
I won't trash Monty Python, although I thought it was uneven, but how can you guys forget Faulty Towers and Father Ted?
John Northey - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#185414) #
Nonono, best BBC product is Red Dwarf!  Now that was fun, especially the backwards episode's ending.
Pistol - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:35 PM EDT (#185416) #
How about Brandon Webb?  9 starts, 9 wins.
rtcaino - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:45 PM EDT (#185418) #

I have McCann in my Diamond Mind keeper league: This current sim season, based on 06, he led the league in batting. Of course he was strictly platooned.

I also picked up Nate McClouth also. Gotta love the young left handed bats up the middle!

christaylor - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 12:56 PM EDT (#185420) #
I have a hard time accepting that Gibbons should be crowned the best bullpen manager in 2007. On the face of it, shouldn't one be looking at how the manager used the BP abstracting away from how good the pitchers are to see his influence on the pen? Perhaps just ranking the the relievers are and noting under what leverage situations the managers used their 1-6th best relievers?

But that's not what I meant to comment on first. Isn't ERA the wrong measure to use for relievers? I (and many others I'm sure) would question a study that used ERA. Perhaps the Jamesian idea of charging the reliever with the runs he allows to score instead of giving them to the pitcher who allowed them on base (one way to get an artificially low BP ERA would be to alway pull the starter with men on base)...also there are the problems with ERA itself. WHIP would be better but that's problematic too. Also there's the issue that the Jays had a crazy good defense last year. Making the pen and the BP usage look better. I'm curious how you'll solve these problems Magpie.

Last and certainly not least, I have a hard time calling Gibbons BP usage good when in two years running key components of his pen have gone down with major injuries. I don't know how much of this is Gibbon's fault, but I don't think that can be known... but it is a serious problem.

Anyway, I'm willing to accept the conclusion. kind of like Gibby, I find him very pedestrian as a manager, he tends to make the obviously correct decisions, enough of the time and when he gets creative he's never that far outside the box... except perhaps when pinch hitting McDonald instead of Rios because "he had a feeling"... I think most of this is because he's got strict instructions to manage by a relatively obvious set of numbers from JP - matchups, platoon splits, etc.

As said above. I'm looking forward to the details of your study. I always enjoy your and other roster members' writing. One of the best team-specific blogs on the web, for sure... and I read a bunch of them.
Magpie - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#185422) #
On the face of it, shouldn't one be looking at how the manager used the BP abstracting away from how good the pitchers are to see his influence on the pen?

I definitely agree, and this is very much a seat-of-the-pants evaluation. But that very issue - usage patterns - is very much something that's on my mind, and something I will be looking at Very Closely. So also is the bullpen talent apparently available to the manager. I look at the Toronto bullpen last April, and who were the well established proven relievers on that team? Ryan for sure, and I suppose Frasor and Downs. Janssen, Tallet, Marcum really didn't have all that much of a track record. As a group, they didn't look as impressive as the groups in Los Angeles or Minnesota, for example.

Isn't ERA the wrong measure to use for relievers?...I'm curious how you'll solve these problems Magpie.

Oh I'm not going to solve anything! Trust me! It's going to reflect my prejudices. I'm not wild about pitchers working three days in a row. I'm also not wild about them sitting and not pitching for long stretches. Six relievers makes more sense to me than seven. But I don't think these things are proven facts, I think they're my prejudices.

As for ERA and inherited runners, you raise a very valid concern. I do think it's more a concern if you're looking at individual relievers than if you're looking at bullpens. The majority of relief appearances are going to be in relief of other relief pitchers. It's true that the Blue Jays do have one of the smaller ratios of Relievers-relieving-Relievers as opposed to Relievers-relieving-Starters in the league. But even so, Blue Jay relievers replaced another reliever 431 times last season, while replacing a starting pitcher 151 times.

The fact that Ryan went down with a major injury last spring, and Janssen this spring is very troubling indeed. I didn't look at 2006 and I'm absolutely not going to. I will say that don't see anything in Janssen's usage patterns in 2007 that seems disturbing (and I saw plenty of others around the league.) Pitching is hazardous, and most teams had to cope with relievers going on the shelf. But the rankings are provisional, and this factor might cause me to further boost Francona, say, while dropping Perlozzo lower (once I figure out what's lower than 14th out of 14)


JustinD - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:35 PM EDT (#185423) #
Cristian is absolutely correct.  Blackadder is one of the top three or four British TV shows of all time.  Only perhaps Monty Python and The Office rank ahead of it.

If we are talking best British TV shows, how can you possibly neglect Spaced. Only the show that started Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright, and Nick Frosts careers. Each episode truly a masterpiece. Do yourself a favor and check it out.
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#185424) #
What.. no love for The Prisoner, which might just be the greatest TV show of all time (British or otherwise)?
uglyone - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 01:43 PM EDT (#185425) #

I don't know if the Blue Jays have turned their season in the right direction, and neither do you. Wilner has been suggesting that the Cleveland game - the second of the double-header, with the unassisted triple play and then the two remarkable plays by Martinez and Gutierrez - was a kind of turning point. That was the team hitting bottom. He may be right. Well, if the team does go on to make something of this season, he will be right.

But it's very true that what happened in Cleveland is exactly the kind of thing a struggling team sometimes needs. They needed to have something quite ridiculous and outlandish happen to them. It actually eases the burden. This has been one very tight, squeezing-the-sawdust-out-of-the-bats baseball team. But if you are able to believe, even if only for a second, that it's really not your fault; but that the gods of the baseball universe are having a little sport with you and there's nothing you can do about it.... it eases the pressure. Instead of worrying and fretting and obsessing over your misfortunes, you actually begin to laugh at them. And then you stop trying hit three run homers when you're leading off, and just play.

I have to agree with at least the possibility of this point - if only because when that play happened, it actually eased MY burden as a fan. All tensed up and frustrated for weeks....and then that happened, and it was like a release - a point where I could literally and without reservation say - IT CAN'T GET ANY WORSE.  A point where you realize that bad luck is just bad luck.

If I felt it, maybe they did too.

 

It's a very small thing, but enlightening anyways.  The Jays sent down Velandia, rather than Inglett, to make room for Purcey on the roster.  Well done.

It's a little scary to think of.....but once Eckstein is healthy, both Scutaro and Inglett might be better starting OF options than either Wilkerson or Stewart.

 

MatO - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:06 PM EDT (#185428) #
Yes, The Prisoner!  I am not a number!  I am a free man!
Chuck - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:10 PM EDT (#185429) #

"Who is number one?"
"You are... number six." (or was it: "You are, number six"?)

Mylegacy - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#185431) #

We're still not hitting well enough - timely enough - for us to consider this team as having risen to at least the level of the walking dead. Even in this "massive" (for us anyway) 4 game winning streak we've only been a hair above pathetic in getting runners in scoring position home.

We need more out of our Top Guns - Rolen, Stairs, Overbay & Rios ('specially the latter two), we need at least some form of rotating mediocrity from Zaun, Wilkerson & Stewart and the KEY is getting Hill to become what we thought (dared to hope) he would become after his growth of last year.

When these things have come to pass - then shall the stars align, the Jays ascend, and peace and justice be restored to Nardia - er the AL East.

mathesond - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:35 PM EDT (#185432) #
Let's not forget about "As Time Goes By" - Judi Dench, Geoffrey Palmer - that's a Hall Of Fame Cast right there
jgadfly - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 02:43 PM EDT (#185433) #
On the BBC theme... Ashes to Ashes with Keeley Hawes is quite intriguing as was Dr Who and Hitchiker's Guide for when we were young ...
seeyou - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 03:51 PM EDT (#185436) #
Not sure if this has already been covered, but as per Rotoworld, Sergio Santos was claimed off waivers by the Twins.
Craig B - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 04:31 PM EDT (#185438) #

Isn't ERA the wrong measure to use for relievers?

ERA is an excellent measurement of quality for large groups of reliever-seasons, like an entire bullpen or a reliever's career.  It also improves in accuracy when you compare relievers directly to relievers, like comparing two teams' entire bullpens.  It is somewhat more problematic as a year-on-year measure of quality (the variability over 60 innings can be very high and is exacerbated by inherited-runner issues) or when comparing relievers to starters, neither of which is an issue with what Magpie's up to.  A blend of Component ERA and ERA would probably be better in those cases.

Mike Green - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 04:45 PM EDT (#185440) #
Personally, I wouldn't use ERA or ERA+ exclusively to evaluate bullpens as a whole.  There are two issues:

  • managerial tendencies to pull out starters after an inning or in the middle of an inning, which result in more or fewer bequeathed runners, and more importantly,
  • collective ERA of the bullpen takes no account of leveraging.

ChicagoJaysFan - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:01 PM EDT (#185442) #
  • managerial tendencies to pull out starters after an inning or in the middle of an inning, which result in more or fewer bequeathed runners, and more importantly,
  • collective ERA of the bullpen takes no account of leveraging.
I agree that leveraging is a key aspect of bullpen management and is something that should be greatly factored in.  Tossing in a Josh Towers or equivalent in a 8-run game may bump up the ERA, but if he saves you from going through one or two other pitchers, that's a pretty good decision in that case.

Another factor I'd like to add that may not be apparent is how often your starters go late into games.  This is a bit harder to evaluate, but I can think of a couple of ways.

Does the manager leave starters in too long on a consistent basis (a la Dusty Baker)?  This can make you look good as far as not overusing your bullpen, but likely is a poor trade-off.  For instance, Kerry Wood and Mark Prior as starters are worth a fair # of bullpen arms.

Second, does the manager have to leave starters in the game as a result of not wanting / being able to go to the bullpen? Do you have to leave your starter in, even though he's struggling and the game is close, just because your bullpen is exhausted?  It would be sort of arbitrary on how to define this, but how many times does a starter come out for the 5th inning having a WHIP higher than 2.5 for the game, given up 4+ runs, and your team is within 2 runs (i.e. it's still within reach).
Magpie - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:05 PM EDT (#185443) #
Also valid concerns, Mike, and also probably less important fro bullpens as a whole than individual relievers. It does strike me that the most highly leveraged situations (did I actually say that?) are almost all given to relief pitchers anyway, these days. There's probably a wide variation in what's assigned to individual relievers. I'm not sure how much it would vary from team to team.

And I ain't looking! There never has been and never will be anything all that scientific about any evaluations I make! I wing it, people! I'm really mainly interested in identifying different ways of using the relievers, and even that is without paying any attention to game situations. I'm looking at schedules.

uglyone - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:26 PM EDT (#185445) #

interesting example?

H.Okajima:  0.93era, but only 3 of 14 inherited runners prevented from scoring. 11 of his 14 inherited runners have scored.

Craig B - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:34 PM EDT (#185446) #

Mike - I agree with your comments.  Note my statement that ERA is well suited in those circumstances to measure quality - a characteristic distinct from value.  Use of bullpen leverage is all about getting more value out of your quality... (of course, collective ERA has issues there too).

Mike Green - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:48 PM EDT (#185449) #
Fangraphs.com, by the way, has all kinds of useful tools, including individual and team bullpen WPA for a number of years.

I am looking forward to another Magpie magnum opus. 
owen - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 05:52 PM EDT (#185450) #
H.Okajima:  0.93era, but only 3 of 14 inherited runners prevented from scoring. 11 of his 14 inherited runners have scored.

I read that too.  But the interesting thing is that his peripherals look just as good as they did last year ... so all the speculation in that article about other teams figuring him out only works situationally, as the writer indeed posits ("Maybe they now have an idea of what to expect in different counts").  Has Okajima (temporarily) lost his ability to pitch well in the clutch?  Personally, I think that some minor adjustments should fix things for Okajima and that the Red Sox don't have too much reason to be alarmed.


westcoast dude - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 06:31 PM EDT (#185457) #
Magpie's observation that the Yankees should have taken Santana is profound. I was blessed to be patrolling this site when a Yankees troll floated the Joba for Santana question and I shot a whole in the balloon. Sweet.
robertdudek - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 07:38 PM EDT (#185461) #
I suggest using BaseRuns per PA for evaluating relief pitchers. It is a more sophisticated measure than Component ERA.

I would like to add Fawlty Towers to the list of great British TV shows.

Matthew E - Friday, May 16 2008 @ 08:19 PM EDT (#185464) #
Fawlty Towers is a great show... but the problem is that its run was just so short. There were only twelve episodes! I think it's tough to call something the greatest ever after only twelve episodes. Although I imagine that a lot of the other shows mentioned here didn't have that much more. It's an approach to broadcasting that I have a hard time wrapping my head around.
christaylor - Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 02:37 AM EDT (#185475) #
You make the distinction between quality and value below... I think I know what you're getting at but I'm not sure it really matters, but then again, I'm not clear on what you mean specifically by the distinction and how it solves the problems. While averaging more pitchers and more years takes care of the sample problem, the problem with doing this is that it carries the implicit assumption that you're drawing the samples from a relatively homogenous population. Your classic sort of oranges and apples comparison, so to speak. In stats jargon, random versus systematic error/variation. When averaging groups of relievers on the same team in a given year there is almost certainly systematic variation, the difference between who the manager/gm chooses as closers and those relegated to mop-up hell, however this might be undone by better pitchers being used in more difficult, higher leverage situations, which (should be) proportional to a given reliever's ability. When averaging across seasons the systematic variation is almost certainly there in the confounding effect of a pitcher's aging curve... this is probably not a problem if one is comparing two relievers who are thought to have similar aging curves and similar year to year variability - a good example of the problem here is Simpson's Paradox, a classic example of which is where one hitter can have a higher batting average than another in every year but have a lower career batting average than the other hitter. In any case, I'm not convinced that averaging ERAs is the best way of getting at this issue... but then again it might be good enough to provide the broad strokes as something like the central limit theorem might come to the rescue. I suspect that as one plows through the data one would get a sense of whether the answers one wrings out of it provide a meaningful answer. At least from the list provided in the original post meshes with my memory of what I saw last year enough for Magpie's list to have face validity and enough surprises to make for an interesting discussion... which is more important than being overly scientific when it comes to baseball.
christaylor - Saturday, May 17 2008 @ 02:42 AM EDT (#185476) #
Ugh sorry - the html formatting got borked in that post for some reason.

I meant to include a link to Simpson's paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox

...which is interesting and obscure enough to warrant (I think) a self-reply but my messing up the html means it is definitely time for me to go to bed. : )
Anders - Monday, May 19 2008 @ 01:28 PM EDT (#185541) #
Good show, I say.
16 May 2008: This, That, The Other | 42 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.