And We're Back...

Its been awhile, so hopefully people still read this occasionally. 

Baseball postseason awards are coming out, and Seattle's Felix Hernandez won the American League Cy Young Award.  He led the AL (or was top 2 or 3) in most pitching categories.  He did have a 13-12 record.  He also had a 2.27 ERA and the Mariners had a record of 61-101.  Simply put:  the Mariners were bad (Pittsburgh Pirate bad), and Felix Hernandez was good (Cy Young good).

To help illustrate how bad they were, Ichiro Suzuki was on base 249 times with an OBP of .359.  It was a little low by his standards, but usually a player getting on base that many times in a season will score at least 100 times that season.  He only scored 74 times-- His Mariner teammates left him stranded about 70% of the time.

Hernandez' stellar numbers should have led to more wins, but the bad Mariner offense (and relief pitching) did not help him.  He won the Cy Young by a large margin, but old crusty baseball writers can't get past the W-L record.

I can understand the argument of pressure affecting a pitcher, and how a pitcher on a bad team can avoid a lot of attention - pitching without the bright spotlight on him.  However, arguing that W-L record is the primary stat of a pitcher's quality is antiquated and really useless.  And some antiquated writers decided to make this argument. 

Despite the Win being based on the hitting of teammates, relief pitching and sometimes just luck, Murray Chass can't accept this.  He talked with the Tribune's resident crusty baseball man Phil Rogers here.  Phil felt intimidated by all those bully numbers Geeks and their facts and arguments.  Murray Chass' own thoughts are here.

Here's a song for King Felix.  Both articles after the video.  Thanks for stopping by again.



Setting The Record Straight
by Murray Chass
Nov. 21, 2010

(Under the The Minority Speaks header.  3 sections down)

 
Phil Rogers of the Chicago Tribune voted for Price because, he said, Hernandez’s 13 wins didn’t merit the award and Price was a dominant pitcher in his own right.
Speaking of the one-sided outcome of the vote, Rogers added, “I wonder how much of it was bullying on the Internet. There were a lot of columns written in September saying no one should be stupid enough not to vote for Felix. Maybe that’s what happened, but I hope not.”

All those Internet bullies-- forcing long time sports writers to read their columns and intimidate them into voting for Hernandez.  Who will protect these delicate, feeble minded writers from all these organized facts and stats and opinions?



Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun noted that the difference between the leaders in wins last year was three (Zack Greene 16, Hernandez 19) and this year was eight (Hernandez 13, Sabathia 21.)
“I asked a bunch of players on both teams I saw the last weekend of the season and it came out 9-1 or 10-1 for CC,” Elliott said.

Wait, how have I not read this scientific poll before?  I mean, there's a bunch.  or 10.  or eleven.  or Bob Elliott pulled numbers out of his ass.  There's no real way to know for sure.  But if the CC-Feliz ratio is that overwhelming and there's no representation of the question asked or who he talked to, and apparently no written record of the results, then it must be fact.  


All right, that was fun.  Like stretching before a run. Hopefully I won't be sore tomorrow-- On to article 2 (I apologize for the length).

THE DARK SIDE TO OVERTAKE CY YOUNG AWARD

By Murray Chass

November 17, 2010

 The standard for wins by an American League pitcher was lowered to 16 last year. It is about to be lowered even further – to 13. That’s the number of games Felix Hernandez won this past season, and I expect he will be announced Thursday as the A.L. Cy Young award winner. 

Here's his thesis:  the main way to judge pitchers is by wins.  And the numbers are getting too low for him to feel comfortable.  Hopefully he'll acknowledge other stats then completely disregard them...


The Seattle right-hander had the league’s lowest earned run average, 2.27; the lowest opposing batting average, .212; the most innings pitched, 249 1/3, and missed by two of having the most strikeouts (232). What he didn’t have was wins. When he won his last start of the season, he finished above .500 at 13-12.

To Clarify- Categories Hernandez led the league in or was top 2:
ERA
Opponents BA
Innings Pitched
Strikeouts

Category (singular) that he didn't lead:
Wins

So obviously, there's absolutely no argument to be made for Hernandez.  Unless you pay attention to the stats the he had the most control over...

The development, I believe, is directly related to the growing influence of the new-fangled statistics which readers of this site know I have no use for, a fact that sends stats-freak denizens of the blogosphere into a stats-freak frenzy.

You just listed the stats-- apparently ERA, OBA, Innings pitched and strikeouts are "new-fangled statistics."  You know, the ones those Ivy league math nerds created using supercomputers, auditoriums full of servers, confusing algorithms, thick glasses, and stacks upon stacks of punch cards.  That or they're stats that can be figured out by a sixth grader with a solar calculator and a piece of scrap paper.


“Look out, he’s at it again” the cry will go out, as if a carrier of the black plague were loose in the land. And a flood of e-mail messages will pour in to my inbox calling me vile names (they are only the best educated and articulate of responders) and telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Don't forget snarky jackasses on poorly maintained, seldom updated blogs.


Besides his otherwise impressive statistics, the best argument Hernandez has going for him is his lack of run support. Elias Sports Bureau says the Mariners’ 3.06 runs per Hernandez start was the A.L.’s lowest. The Mariners say in Hernandez’s 12 losses, the team scored a total of seven runs while he was in the game.


It is a good case. That whole "worst run support in the AL" thing might be a factor in wins.  And the 7 runs in 12 losses-- that's tough to win games.  If, being generous, those runs were spread out across 7 games, that's five games he didn't have a chance to win because his team didn't score.  Congratulations, you've successfully argued the Win is a bad stat for Cy Young.  A pitcher can marred by a terrible team.  Nice debating.  Please stop writing. 

I accept that those figures represent terrible run support and would make it difficult for any pitcher to win. But not impossible. I have long believed that good pitchers find a way to win. 

C'mon!  You just proved at least 5 of his starts were impossible to win.  7 other starts probably would've required shutouts.  How can you find a way to win if your team doesn't score runs?  

Two Examples: 

Steve Carlton compiled a 27-10 record in 1972 for a Phillies team that otherwise had a 32-87 record. Carlton led the league with a 1.97 e.r.a., 30 complete games, 310 strikeouts and 346 1/3 innings pitched.

Murry Dickson was a 20-game winner for one of the most inept teams in history, the 1951 Pirates, whose 64-90 record belied their level of talent. The only reason they didn’t finish last was Dickson’s 20 wins.

Both Carlton and Dickson had more run support than Hernandez, but both found ways to win in spite of the teams they played for.

So, all Hernandez has to do is go back in time (when closers didn't exist), complete thirty games and throw a little less than 2 season's worth of innings to get the win total you require?  And you make the point that both Carlton and Dickson had more run support.  You think, possibly, that their teams scoring more runs led to more victories.  I don't have exact numbers at hand, but I do believe that the team that scores more runs than the other team usually wins.  I will double check that, but I'd say this is true 100% of the time.  Also, that would be more runs than 7 runs in 12 games.  Thanks for arguing against yourself.

He then goes on to quote people saying that pitchers find ways to win.  But then offers no evidence besides those quotes.

Well, welcome back readers.  I'll try not to be so bad in updating.  And David Haugh needs to get mocked soon. 

 

Don't Call It A Comeback

I've been gone for a while-- climbed some mountains, found myself, wrote a song about it, had surgery and spent too many hours creating my own Stanley Cup champion on NHL 2k10 (Kaner!!!).  In the process, I've neglected you loyal reader.  For that I am deeply sorry.  Hopefully I can make it up to you.  I'll buy you a beer- or just try to write more.

There was a lot of Stanley Cup bad writing- and I'll get to that in due time.  There's also more bad thoughts I'm gonna go after in the next few days:  Dr Phil commenting on Lebron James, the Bears beat writers writing about how incredible the Bears are, former Bear Muhsin Muhammad talking about how easy Mike Martz' million+ play offense is, and much, much more.  Oh, there was Lou Piniella throwing a fit over criticism Steve Stone made of him-- then (the next day) doing what Stone suggested. (Don't think I'll need to write on that one.  It takes care of itself).  So get ready for this and much, much, much more.  (Much more)

I don't want to make the reset entry too long so I'll make this one a quick one:

Let's pretend you have 2 catchers:  Catcher #1 is hitting .268 with an on-base percentage over .400.  He's hit for a little power (7 hrs).  He's two years removed from being an All-star.

Catcher #2 is hitting .236 and doesn't walk too much.  He has also hit 0 (zero) home runs for the year.

Add in the fact that your team hasn't hit all year and is desperately trying to score runs.  Knowing this (as balanced as I've made it), which catcher would you start?

If you said Catcher  #2-- Congratulations!  You can be the manager of the Chicago Cubs.  Lou Piniella, through a season of odd choices spanning from moving Carlos Zambrano to the bullpen to not getting an up & coming prospect more playing time, has made another odd choice of starting Koyie Hill over Geovany Soto.  Here's a Daily Herald story on it. 

Here's Lou's quote: I'm probably going to put Hill behind the plate, too. We're not scoring any runs. We need somebody that keeps the other team from running. We'll do that tomorrow and see what happens. I know these guys are trying. I know they're trying. But, boy, I tell you what, we see the same thing every day, day in and day out.


So you're not hitting, not scoring runs so the logical solution is to get a worse hitter as many at-bats as possible.  I still can't even understand it.  Really, I can't.  I haven't seen any stellar defense out of Koyie Hill.  All I know is that he's a pretty consistent out and a pretty consistent bad at-bat.  


Have I not done this justice?  Go here to fangraphs.com article on this.  Its called Piniella is losing his marbles.  That sums it up nicely.  


From the story: 
The reason, of course, is the old manager crutch: handling pitchers. Since Hill can’t hit, he’s earned the reputation as a good defender. 


For some reason, I hadn't thought about that before.  I'm surprised I haven't-- but its a simple idea.  A guy can't hit, therefore, he must be in the league for some reason.  That reason must be he's a great defensive catcher.  So simple and so wrong and such a bad sports thought. 


Well, its good to be back.  I'll be back with more cutting & pasting & snarkiness & everything that the reader would like.   Here's some The Mountain Goats

What Is Frank Deford Talking About?

As I was getting ready for work this morning, I heard Frank Deford's commentary.  It didn't make sense when I heard it, so I listened to it later while I was at work.  Then I read the trasnscript.  The best I could do was to start a new series here, "What is Frank Deford Talking About?".  Hopefully it will be as critically acclaimed as my other series: FireDavidHaugh.com.

Back to today, Frank Deford was talking about games taking too long:  what reasons are there?  Could it be too many TV commercials or bad pitching or bad weather-- no, its batters taking pitches.  It seemed like a shot at sabermetrics, and it was poorly done.  Well, here's the article and here's the audio.  and some more Hold Steady.  And then my thoughts...






Why Working The Count Doesn't Work For Me
By Frank Deford
May 5, 2010

It was 100 years ago when Franklin P. Adams wrote what is, after Casey At The Bat, sports' most famous poem. It appeared in the New York Evening Mail, titled "Baseball's Sad Lexicon," as Adams lamented how three players on the Chicago Cubs kept thwarting his beloved hometown team.

It went, of course, like this:

These are the saddest of possible words:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Trio of bear cubs, fleeter than birds,

Tinker and Evers and Chance.

Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble,

Making a Giant hit into a double —

Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:

"Tinker to Evers to Chance."

I have heard this before.  Its a fun poem.  Just for fun, here are some career numbers:
Joe Tinker - .262 BA | 31 HRs | 774 Runs | 783 RBI | .353 Slg | .308 OBP | .661 OPS
Johnny Evers - .270 BA | 12 HRs | 919 Runs | 538 RBI | .334 Slg | .356 OBP | .690 OPS
Frank Chance - .296 BA | 20 HRs | 798 Runs | 596 RBI | .394 Slg | .394 OBP | .788 OPS

While I understand the anguish of your team getting beat repeatedly by the same team, if these guys were nothing but trouble when your team faced them then your team really sucked.  I know home runs were rare back then, but these numbers aren't intimidating- even back then.

The three gentlemen who were upsetting the sports-page poet in 1910 were the double-play combination of Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance. But today, a century later, in 2010, all baseball faces a much more serious scourge –– the dreadful strategy of what is called "working the count."

Yeah, Baseball is being ruined by... working the count?  huh?  What is Frank Deford Talking about?" (Hold for applause).

That means that the idea is no longer to swing away, but to fight a battle of attrition, make the pitcher throw more pitches, stall, wait him out.

Yeah, I'm tired of all these selfish players trying to hit pitches they can handle.  Why don't they just swing at everything like they were at the batting cage.  The games would be over in about an hour and a half and Frank Deford and I could get to bed at a reasonable hour.  

So the pitcher retaliates by taking more time and the catcher makes serial trips to the mound, and the batters call time out constantly, incessantly monkeying with their batting gloves, delaying, loitering, dragging out every at-bat. Hitters who can take pitches and get walks now seem more valued than hitters who can actually ... hit.

As long as I can remember, there's been trips to the mound and batters fixing their batting gloves.  And hitters work counts to get better pitches to hit, not necessarily to get a walk.  I don't recall a guy signing a huge contract for just being patient at the plate.

Last year's league leader in walks was Adrian Gonzalez-- who also hit 40 hrs.  A guy named Albert Pujols was #3. Most players who walk a lot are good hitters.   5 players in the top 20 walks for 2009 hit fewer than 20 Hrs:
Chone Figgins hit 5 -- but he had 42 sbs and can play multiple positions.
Nick Johnson hit 8 -- but he's not exactly a highly coveted player.
Kosuke Fukudome hit 11 -- Not worth the money but not exactly highly valued anymore
Marco Scutaro hit 12 -- Plays short and hits .282.  Not a highly desired player.
Todd Helton hit 18 -- He also hit .325, so he actually hits the ball.

I'm not quite sure who these players desired for their ability to take pitches are.

Come back, steroids: All is forgiven.

If I ignore the steroids part of it:  Barry Bonds-- all time walks leader.  #2 is a mere 368 walks behind.  He wasn't quite free swinging.

So the games get longer. The average time now approaches three hours. Our hero is Cowboy Joe West, an umpire who dared publicly call out the Yankees and Red Sox for being the worst offenders –– which they are, year after year.


They've also been really good year after year.  I wonder if scoring more runs thus having more plate appearances means a longer game? 

The Yankees' old manager, Joe Torre, has carried the virus to his new team, the Dodgers. Now L.A. is the slowest team in the National League ... working the count.

They've also been winning since Torre got out there.

And, of course, we spectators are the big losers, down for the count.

Defenders of baseball always get very sensitive when critics snort that the game is too slow. Yes, part of baseball's charm is that by taking its time, it enjoys an intellectual suspense other sports don't. A slow dance is more romantic.

At a certain point, though, the obsession for working the count is twisting the game's cherished rhythm into stultifying sluggishness.

I'm for the game going faster-- but not by telling batters to swing at more pitches.  If you want the game to go faster, have the pitcher work fast and throw strikes.  Pitchers like Mark Buehrle and Greg Maddux did that and, win or lose, usually played in shorter games.  If you want to speed up the game, go after the guys who hold the ball at the beginning of each play, not the ones who are partly dependent on the ability of the pitcher. 

And so, a century on from Tinker to Evers to Chance, we have, this year, "Baseball's Sadder Lexicon":

These are the saddest of possible words:

"Working the count."

Hopelessly boring, slower than curds,

Working the count.

Strategically destroying the grace of the game,

Turning each at-bat into a pain,

Words that are heavy with nothing but shame:

"Working the count."

Okay, walks aren't as exciting as home runs.  But then neither is 3 ground outs on 3 pitches.  The best players take pitches-- that's what they do. 

If you look at the top 40 pitches/at bat from 2009, there's quality hitters like Jayson Werth (36 HR), Kevin Youkilis (27 HR), Adam Dunn (38 HR), Todd Helton (see above), Nick Swisher (29 HR), Jack Cust (25 HR), Luis Castillo (.302 BA), Brad Hawpe (.285 BA/23 HR) in the top 10. 

Others in the top 40 include Joe Mauer, Bobby Abreau, Dan Uggla, David Wright, Chase Utley, Joey Votto, Ryan Howard, Raul Ibanez, Ryan Zimmerman, Johnny Damen, Ben Zobrist, Victor Martinez, Justin Upton, BJ Upton.  Not exactly "walks over hitting" players.

So I don't know what Frank Deford is talking about.

Phil Rogers Time

I need to post more, but here's entry #2 from the Tribune's Phil Rogers. Here he talks about formers Cubs managers managing on other teams. For a while, the Cubs were the last stop for managers until Dusty Baker joined the Reds and Jim Riggleman joined the Nationals.

Long-departed manager getting second shot with Nationals
...

Riggleman points to the improvement of the Cubs' franchise for helping the standing of those who have worked there.

The premise of Riggleman getting a chance now is the Cubs being good now. Apparently the Cubs are now a prestigious enough organization that a downtrodden manager can finally find a job with the worst team in baseball. It also has nothing to do with any of the former managers' abilities apparently.

Riggleman, 57, oversaw one of the most dramatic turnarounds in the franchise's history, winning a one-game playoff over the Giants for a wild-card spot into the '98 playoffs one year after a 68-94 season. He was fired after injuries to Kerry Wood and Kevin Tapani contributed to a 95-loss season in '99 and waited almost 10 years to get another chance to manage.

The Cubs did have a resurgent year. Not mentioned here is the breakout out year of the magically more muscular Sammy Sosa. Medicine and the hop helped propel the Cubs to the turn around.

There is also an inference that injuries were the reason Riggleman didn't get a job until last season (Wood and Tapani Out = 10 years of no being a manager). I don't recall a healthy Kevin Tapani being good enough to be the difference between a playoff and a 95 loss team.

Riggleman, whose team is 3-12 this spring, is looking forward to the chance to manage at Wrigley Field again. He knows this is a critical season for Piniella, who is trying to rebuild the mojo the Cubs seemed to have before being swept in the first round of the playoffs in '07 and '08.

Thanks for the spring training record- it really helps establish Riggleman's abilities as a manager. We all remember the spring training record of the Yankees last year, right?

And the real problem with the '09 Cubs was mojo. I had been thinking it was Soriano hitting in the low .200s and Milton Bradley getting off to a bad start and Geo Soto being overweight and bad and not having a major league caliber replacement for the hurt Ramirez and Kevin Gregg blowing saves.

I was watching the wrong team this whole time. They just needed their mojo back. Yeah baby. Unless the Austin Powers reference is too dated. I personally like "How Piniella Got His Groove Back" a little more.

He [Riggleman] believes the negativity of fans takes on a life of its own.

"It's tangible,'' he said. "It's a tangible feeling. In '99, when things started to go bad, it was tangible. We got the feeling, ‘Oh, God, we're not going to turn this around.' "

Why not end the article blaming the fans. I mean, the booing must be worth about 20 losses according to my advanced algorithm. That would've possibly made the Cubs a playoff team and saved Riggleman's job. But time was not so kind.

Don't worry- Riggleman isn't going to be able to hear the collective booing of the dozen fans in DC.