I wasn't able to follow yesterday's game. My custom in such
circumstances is to immediately send Liam a text message as soon as
possible to find out what's going on. Here's the exchange:
Me: Jays update?
Liam: Don't ask.
Me: We suck.
Liam: We sure do.
Sigh. It's not just that following this team isn't exactly rewarding - this team isn't even very interesting. But I will persevere, I'll provide some shrewd and savvy insight. I'm a professional, right?
Wait a minute - I'm not? I'm doing this for nothing?
Well, then. Just shoot me, now. Make sure you get my whole head in front of the shotgun.
But until then, I do have some random thoughts and observations. And, surprisingly enough, following up on them led to the generation of Data Tables. Having done this much, I feel compelled to share. I don't want to keep all this misery and despair to myself. Mind you, I'm not feeling particularly motivated to polish this, to shape it all into some sort of coherent and persuasive argument or anything like that - the 2008 Blue Jays do not inspire that level of commitment. We'll just kind of free associate a bit...
On Saturday, the general subject of the Blue Jays luck, or lack of same, came up. The context, for me anyway, was the Jays failure this season to match their Pythagorean expectation. A team that has scored 364 runs and allowed 347 really ought to have a 47-42 record. The Jays, at 42-47, are five games below that, which is quite a bit, actually. Cleveland and Atlanta are the only teams in the majors to have missed their expected wins by more than the Blue Jays.
As I noted on Saturday, there are two things and two things only that pull a team's actual record away from its Pythagorean expectation: one-run games and blowouts. In the case of the 2008 Jays, it's the one-run games (they're 4-3 in games decided by 7 or more runs.) If they had simply split their one-run games, they'd be bang-on with what the Ancient Sage expects of them. Instead, they've gone a pretty dismal 12-21 in the close games. Yes, it's 2005 all over again.
Well, it's not quite that bad. Not yet, anyway. The Jays went a stunning 16-31 in one-run games in 2005. That's hard to accomplish.
Anyway, a lousy record in one-run games is the mark of an unlucky team. I've gone on and on about this before, but to sum it up one more time:
The biggest variable in one-run games is just dumb luck. Although reasons for the specific failures of specific teams can be identified with more precision, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - common to all teams that are lousy in one-run games. And so it's a random thing. A team can have a lousy record in one-run games one year and be perfectly fine the next. A good record in one-run games usually isn't the mark of a quality team - it's the mark of a lucky team. Blowouts, on the other hand, are significant because the ability to beat the other team senseless is characteristic of a quality team. Its a genuine marker. You can catch a break and win a game by one run quite regularly. It happens all the time. But you don't catch a break and win by ten runs. You win by ten because you were way better than the other team that day. And you have to be pretty good, in some fundamental way, if you make a habit of that sort of thing.
(See how uninspired I am? I'm just cutting and pasting!)
So, fine. The 2008 Jays have been unlucky in the close games. If the dice had fallen normally, they'd be around 46-43 or 47-42. Nothing to write home about, but we'd be living in hope, right? And if their luck had been good and they were a few games over their Pythagorean expectation - wow, what a concept - they could actually be something like 50-39. It's genuinely conceivable, folks.
After all - the Angels have scored only 9 more runs than the Jays this season. They've allowed 4 more. And they're sitting pretty at 53-35, a full six games better than what Pythagoras expects. The Angels are better in the close games (16-11) than they are in the blowouts (2-3).
Anyway, on this level, the Jays have been unlucky. They really have! They haven't been catching any breaks in the close games.
Okay, fine. Bauxite Olerud363 commented Saturday that the Jays have been unlucky in many ways since 2005: he mentioned Halladay's broken leg, Overbay's wrist, Hill's concussion and some other things. All of which happened, it was painful, and let's not dwell on it overmuch.
Because anyway - I just look around the AL East this year and what do I see? The Jays have lost Marcum for the last little while? The Rays started their year without Scott Kazmir. The Yankees lost Phil Hughes, which was disappointing, and Chien-Ming Wang which could well prove catastrophic. The Red Sox have had to do without Schilling all year, and Matsuzaka was out for a while.
The Jays lost Rolen and Wells for a while, and Hill is still out. Okay, but the Yankees lost Posada and Rodriguez. Matsui is hurt. Damon is hurt. Boston lost and is still without David Freaking Ortiz.
And even Tampa hasn't been entirely Smiled Upon by the Fates. Carlos Pena has returned to planet earth and Jonny Gomes has fallen right off planet earth. Even Carl Crawford is having an off year, by his own remarkable standards. Meanwhile, Troy Percival is on the DL. Rocco Baldelli's career remains in jeopardy, and that reminds me that it's always worth the time and trouble to hiss and hoot at Kevin Hench for his nasty hit job on Baldelli back in March "And what is he exhausted from, the off-season?") No, you vicious little slug, he has a mitochondrial disorder. (I'd include links, but for some reason whenever I try to include a link these days it ends up pointing absolutely nowhere, disappearing into some hole in cyberspace. Kind of like the Jays offense...)
Glad I got that off my chest.
Anyway, my point - and it's possible that I do have one - while I'll submit that the Jays have genuinely been unlucky in the close games, and that Pythagoras has never enfolded them in his warm embrace - they haven't been particularly unlucky in any other way. Every team has its own tale of Woe and Misfortune, some of them even more heart-wrenching than ours...
The Blue Jays offense hasn't been giving AL pitchers a lot of sleepless nights this season, unless the post-game celebrations are going very late indeed. And by now it seems that everyone has commented on the Jays' special futility in the Big Situations. They don't hit very well with Runners in Scoring Position. And hey - maybe if they were better in those situations, they'd score more runs! Win more close games!
I suspect this to be a Grasping After Straws, but let's look into it. The first thing I want to know is how many runs have the Jays scored. Well, that's easy - they've scored 363. How many runs should they have scored, given what their offense has done? We haul out the old Runs Created formula (still my favourite, because I more or less understand it!), and discover they should have scored 385 runs. Okay, the offense is underachieving a little in two aspects - not only is everybody not hitting as well as one had a right to expect, they're not even getting as many runs out of what they have done as you would expect.
But it's not that big a deal. Most of the AL has scored slightly fewer runs than the RC formula projects. The league average is 11 runs below the RC formula. One team has scored a bunch more (Minnesota), two teams have scored a bunch less (Texas and Boston).
So here is a Data Table, in which the teams are ranked by their divergence from the RC formula. So its the columns at the far right that I would draw your attention to. "R-RC" stands for "Runs minus Runs Created" - a negative figure means a team has scored fewer runs than the formula would expect, (which is actually par for the course this season.)
TEAM AB R H TB 2B 3B HR BB SO SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG OBP SLG OPS RC RC/27 R-RC.
Minnesota 3002 432 834 1222 160 24 60 255 522 53 24 27 34 16 70 .278 .334 .407 .741 410 4.77 22
LA Angels 2946 366 756 1136 138 10 74 235 553 64 23 14 21 28 73 .257 .315 .386 .701 357 4.17 9
Oakland 2963 381 741 1114 156 14 63 325 643 50 13 13 25 18 67 .250 .325 .376 .701 375 4.29 6
Cleveland 2934 384 722 1154 166 10 82 280 631 45 15 21 23 57 63 .246 .321 .393 .715 381 4.38 3
Kansas City 3023 360 794 1172 164 11 64 219 534 43 25 22 17 26 66 .263 .316 .388 .704 366 4.18 -6
Seattle 2977 353 767 1127 143 8 67 250 466 62 16 21 29 14 69 .258 .315 .379 .694 360 4.14 -7
Chicago Sox 2978 423 782 1313 159 6 120 298 524 33 17 18 19 35 83 .263 .335 .441 .776 435 5.06 -12
Baltimore 2985 401 774 1257 168 18 93 289 552 50 25 17 19 20 56 .259 .327 .421 .748 416 4.80 -15
Tampa Bay 2913 411 771 1216 137 16 92 325 619 97 32 12 32 29 60 .265 .341 .417 .758 431 5.10 -20
NY Yankees 3008 412 811 1260 172 11 85 301 490 53 21 18 21 39 80 .270 .342 .419 .761 433 5.02 -21
Toronto 2985 363 775 1138 150 15 61 326 510 55 23 25 29 34 97 .260 .336 .381 .718 385 4.41 -22
Detroit 2984 413 814 1287 157 20 92 293 533 31 14 21 23 21 75 .273 .340 .431 .771 438 5.12 -25
Texas 3111 477 869 1414 196 17 105 327 643 49 13 30 33 28 63 .279 .350 .455 .804 509 5.73 -32
Boston 3083 449 861 1380 185 14 102 337 581 76 21 16 35 40 90 .279 .354 .448 .802 496 5.65 -47
AVERAGE 2992 402 791 1228 161 14 83 290 557 54 20 20 26 29 72 .264 .332 .410 .742 413 4.76 -11
RISP
TEAM AB R H TB 2B 3B HR BB SO SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG OBP SLG OPS RC RC/27 vs TOT
Minnesota 757 362 241 355 47 8 17 102 126 13 4 12 34 7 24 .318 .389 .469 .858 146 6.63 138.9%
Cleveland 731 303 190 311 45 2 24 109 168 8 2 11 23 20 20 .260 .361 .425 .787 122 5.39 123.1%
Oakland 735 299 203 291 33 2 17 115 169 6 4 6 25 6 25 .276 .368 .396 .764 114 5.15 119.9%
LA Angels 701 283 192 286 41 1 17 84 131 12 4 7 21 7 22 .274 .348 .408 .756 104 4.92 118.0%
Baltimore 694 288 195 302 39 7 18 102 136 17 7 9 19 7 24 .281 .370 .435 .805 116 5.62 117.2%
Kansas City 742 284 205 298 38 2 17 74 132 12 7 10 17 11 23 .276 .344 .402 .745 104 4.69 112.1%
Chicago Sox 704 298 197 323 42 3 26 79 139 12 2 6 19 12 31 .280 .354 .459 .813 114 5.45 107.8%
Tampa Bay 725 309 190 296 26 4 24 116 158 32 9 2 32 10 26 .262 .358 .408 .766 115 5.17 101.2%
Seattle 708 274 168 256 36 2 16 108 114 20 4 10 29 6 29 .237 .331 .362 .693 91 4.03 97.4%
Texas 821 351 225 348 42 6 23 129 169 15 2 14 33 7 22 .274 .365 .424 .789 139 5.53 96.5%
Detroit 766 304 207 311 34 11 16 91 144 3 4 14 23 8 28 .270 .345 .406 .751 109 4.65 90.7%
Boston 819 334 218 330 45 2 21 128 165 32 4 11 35 9 33 .266 .358 .403 .761 129 5.08 89.9%
NY Yankees 810 312 207 309 47 2 17 101 157 9 1 9 21 14 25 .256 .340 .381 .722 111 4.48 89.4%
Toronto 802 288 192 282 33 3 17 111 155 14 5 11 29 13 36 .239 .331 .352 .683 97 3.82 86.7%
AVERAGE 751 306 202 307 39 4 19 104 147 15 4 9 26 10 26 .269 .354 .409 .764 115 5.01 105.5%
TEAM AB R H TB 2B 3B HR BB SO SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG OBP SLG OPS RC RC/27 R-RC
Minnesota 3080 406 872 1357 160 17 97 207 515 42 18 19 16 19 74 .280 .327 .436 .763 438 4.98 -32
Seattle 2969 412 809 1243 179 11 77 322 574 45 17 17 36 31 74 .270 .342 .411 .753 440 5.07 -28
Cleveland 2981 393 817 1275 151 8 97 254 550 37 17 18 19 27 82 .271 .332 .423 .755 420 4.86 -27
Toronto 2992 347 748 1160 151 18 75 264 649 51 19 21 23 31 58 .247 .312 .383 .695 373 4.16 -26
Baltimore 2954 410 784 1217 125 7 98 357 498 73 23 19 29 36 88 .262 .344 .406 .751 434 4.99 -24
Chicago Sox 2959 338 735 1142 147 16 76 247 633 84 18 25 15 26 77 .245 .307 .381 .689 356 4.01 -18
LA Angels 2941 351 751 1160 143 14 79 254 556 72 21 17 23 19 77 .253 .313 .390 .703 367 4.20 -16
NY Yankees 2989 390 793 1210 147 13 79 279 593 68 37 21 23 29 63 .265 .331 .400 .731 404 4.60 -14
Detroit 2952 418 798 1219 169 13 74 341 459 36 18 20 22 37 86 .268 .347 .406 .753 432 5.01 -14
Boston 3011 372 731 1138 151 5 80 333 655 64 17 27 16 31 59 .243 .322 .374 .696 384 4.22 -12
Kansas City 3010 429 815 1291 162 19 92 275 572 35 14 17 28 15 73 .267 .328 .424 .752 429 4.88 0
Oakland 2894 324 688 1039 142 10 63 280 607 42 24 15 23 29 70 .235 .306 .355 .661 323 3.68 1
Texas 3103 509 886 1377 195 16 88 360 499 63 21 19 30 35 91 .282 .359 .438 .797 507 5.70 2
Tampa Bay 2897 342 698 1094 146 17 72 273 598 41 18 16 23 18 68 .238 .305 .373 .678 339 3.86 3
AL AVERAGE 2981 389 780 1209 155 13 82 289 568 54 20 19 23 27 74 .259 .327 .400 .727 402 4.58 -43
RISP
TEAM AB R H TB 2B 3B HR BB SO SB CS SH SF HBP GDP BAVG OBP SLG OPS RC RC/27 vs TOT
Baltimore 727 217 188 274 21 1 21 121 117 24 4 7 29 12 43 .259 .361 .377 .738 104 4.61 92.4%
Toronto 694 170 159 236 32 3 13 102 156 10 2 12 23 12 19 .230 .329 .341 .670 86 3.87 93.0%
Seattle 797 267 207 312 41 2 20 129 167 7 5 11 36 10 29 .260 .356 .391 .747 119 4.78 94.3%
Minnesota 737 192 209 307 35 6 17 63 132 12 3 9 16 4 20 .284 .337 .417 .753 105 4.84 97.0%
Chicago Sox 729 203 180 275 39 4 16 81 161 23 1 11 15 8 28 .247 .323 .377 .700 92 4.08 101.7%
NY Yankees 756 219 203 309 39 5 19 94 161 11 13 14 23 9 23 .269 .347 .409 .756 109 4.70 102.2%
Boston 724 214 177 269 38 0 18 104 172 18 7 17 16 10 21 .244 .341 .372 .712 98 4.32 102.4%
Tampa Bay 680 202 167 242 36 6 9 91 148 18 2 5 23 4 26 .246 .328 .356 .684 85 3.99 103.4%
LA Angels 665 201 174 254 24 4 16 93 141 23 4 10 23 5 27 .262 .346 .382 .728 93 4.55 108.4%
Cleveland 678 197 187 297 38 3 22 82 147 11 4 9 19 8 21 .276 .352 .438 .790 108 5.30 108.9%
Kansas City 713 208 200 312 40 3 22 93 132 7 4 9 28 3 22 .281 .354 .438 .791 115 5.32 109.2%
Detroit 784 257 221 330 40 3 21 126 121 7 4 8 22 11 36 .282 .380 .421 .801 129 5.53 110.4%
Texas 856 287 253 415 52 7 32 150 152 18 3 13 30 16 31 .296 .398 .485 .883 177 6.99 122.6%
Oakland 643 180 169 246 37 2 12 87 139 15 1 7 23 9 29 .263 .348 .383 .730 90 4.55 123.8%
AL AVERAGE 727 215 192 291 37 4 18 101 146 15 4 10 23 9 27 .264 .350 .399 .749 107 4.82 98.0%
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20080707064427142