Joe Girardi is a good guy, but he doesn't exactly have a lot of managerial experience. Sure he won the manager of the year, and he managed to win 78 games with an overachieving Marlins team. Still, that's only 78 games -- about 20 games below expectations in New York.
Granted, Girardi has a lot more talent to work with now. Is it his kind of talent? What I mean is, Girardi squeezed everything out of a Marlins team with an average age under 26. His experience is primarily with motivating young players. The oldest position player on the team with more than 100 at bats was Joe Borchard at 30, and he didn't even have 150 ABs. Next in line? Backup outfielder Alfredo Amezaga at age 28.
Last year the Yankees' average age was nearly 31. Cano and Cabrera are young. All the other position players are at least 30. Not only does Girardi not have a lot of experience generally, his meager experience was with a completely different kind of team in a completely different kind of market. Is the theory that the Yankees are getting old, and they want Girardi around for the young players?
I'm not knocking the hiring of Girardi, but I expected an experienced coaching staff to surround him. Here's who he has instead:
1st Base Coach: Tony Pena -- has managerial experience (if you count the Royals), and is the incumbent. So I guess this is where the experience is for Girardi. Question: What is a catcher doing coaching runners at first base? He stole 80 bases in 18 seasons (and was caught 63 times). I think Pena makes a better bench coach. Wonder if he can still throw from his knees.
3rd Base Coach: Bobby Meacham -- coached for Girardi in Florida, and is a Yankee, having spent all of his 6 seasons with New York. He was a very good baserunner and an average infielder, so he's not such a bad choice. I might swap out Pena and Meacham, though. Meacham would be helpful for steals. Pena, as a former manager, might be more suited to the dignified third base spot (or the aforementioned bench coach).
Hitting Coach: Kevin Long -- another incumbent who seems to be competent, since the Yankees hitters are not too shabby. I'm not convinced A-Rod, Jeter, Giambi, Matsui and Posada need a hitting coach at this point, much less one who never played in the majors. Where's the credibility? Maybe Mattingly was really coaching the hitters.
Pitching Coach: Dave Eiland -- I don't know a lot about his coaching experience, but he wasn't much of a pitcher. He started 70 games in the majors -- basically a little more than two seasons' worth as a 5th or spot starter. His ERA was basically about 25% worse than the league for his career. Of course there are lots of pitching coaches without distinguished playing records, but they don't coach the Yankees and work for an inexperienced manager. Let's face it, Girardi is the real pitching coach here. Eiland pitched 373 innings. Girardi caught pitchers for about 10,000 innings.
Bullpen Coach: Mike Harkey -- a failed prospect from the Cubs system but coached for Girardi in Florida. Harkey had lots of potential as a starting pitcher, but could never stay healthy. He pitched for 8 years and had a grand total of 27 relief appearances. What's he doing coaching a bullpen? (I can hear Harry Caray's voice slurring Mike Harkey's name even as I type this).
Bench Coach: Rob Thomson -- First of all, why do teams need a bench coach? I understood it when a grizzled vet like Don Zimmer with 60 years of baseball experience was whispering in the manager's ear. But Rob Thomson? He didn't even play in the majors. Is this the guy who is going to coach when Girardi gets thrown out of games? When I first saw this I was hoping it was former Giant second baseman Robby Thompson, but alas...
I might be wrong -- sorta hope I am -- but I don't think this coaching team is going to last long.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
That's Not Wright!
Rollins won the NL MVP, with favorite Matt Holliday and Prince Fielder trailing.
Where, pray tell, were the two best players in the National League: David Wright and Albert Pujols.
If someone further down the list had to win it, I guess I can accept that it is Rollins. He's an exciting player and good for the game. I still think his teammate Utley had a better year, even with a missing month.
Where, pray tell, were the two best players in the National League: David Wright and Albert Pujols.
If someone further down the list had to win it, I guess I can accept that it is Rollins. He's an exciting player and good for the game. I still think his teammate Utley had a better year, even with a missing month.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Chris Berman
Why does Chris Berman wish us all a very happy Thanksgiving? Does he think I care whether he wishes me a nice Thanksgiving? Have I been waiting all year just to get his best wishes?
National TV anchors are so full of themselves.
I hope Chris Berman has a very happy Thanksgiving too. Looks like he has a head start.
National TV anchors are so full of themselves.
I hope Chris Berman has a very happy Thanksgiving too. Looks like he has a head start.
Analyzing the Angels-White Sox Trade
Sox get Orlando Cabrera (SS)
Angels get Jon Garland (SP)
First the players.
Cabrera
Cabrera finished in my own Gold Glove standings at short. Interestingly, I gave the Gold Glove to Juan Uribe, the man who Cabrera will replace. Of course, Cabrera brings a lot more to the plate than Uribe, since Uribe is essentially a replacement-level hitter. There's no question this is an upgrade at SS for the Sox.
Did the Angels get equivalent value? Let's not forget that Cabrera is 33 years old...not exactly his prime. Cabrera's best year was 2001 with Montreal at age 26, and his second best year was 2003. Last year was his third best year, but the pattern for shortstops normally does not include a lot of upside at age 33. On the other hand, Cabrera improved every year he was with the Angels and exceeded his projections by about 25%.
Garland
You might argue that the Angels don't need the pitching. Lackey is a perennial Cy Young contender, and Escobar has been terrific the last two years. Toss in Jared Weaver and you've got a pretty good top 3. Joe Saunders was promising, and if Ervin Santana can get back on track, the Angles are in good shape. Don't forget, though, Escobar will be 32 next year, so he's no sure bet. Then again, he's had his two best years in 06-07.
Garland is a pretty good hedge against Escobar's downside risk, as Garland is only 28. Garland basically wore out his welcome in Chicago this year, with some atrocious starts. Looking at his final numbers, though, he wasn't too shabby overall. Garland was not as valuable as Escobar, but nearly as valuable as Cabera, and with less mileage on him.
Take away his three really bad starts (game scores below 10, all of which were among the worst all time), and he posted an ERA of 3.31 (not 4.23), gave up only 14 homers in 200 IP (his lowest rate ever) and and a WHIP of 1.20 (not 1.33). Good numbers. In fact, Garland was every bit as good in 07 as 06. It's hard to know if he can return to his 2005 form, but as is, he's a good #3.
This trade certainly benefits both teams in terms of getting a good player and filling a need. The outcome hinges, then, on whether the Angels can adequately fill the SS spot and whether the White Sox can fill Garland's spot in the rotation.
Replacing Cabrera
The Angels have three choices: Maicer Izturis, Erick Aybar and Brandon Wood. Izturis has played a lot of third, where he really can't hold up against other AL third basemen because of his bat and only average defense. He's a good value as a utility man, but isn't the answer to Cabrera.
Aybar is a prospect, more dazzling with the glove than the bat, and only 23 years old. He split time in 2006 between AAA and the Angels, and wasn't ready for prime time. In '07, he got fewer than 200 at bats, and did not impress. He was shaky at SS, and bad at the plate, showing neither patience nor power. He was basically replacement level, which is quite a setback for his 23rd year.
Brandon Wood doesn't seem ready either. Wood is one of the most highly touted players in the minors...drafted 9th overall in 2003. His power numbers in 2005 and 2006 led many to conclude he was destined for 3b. Then he only got 33 ABs for the Angels this year, and didn't hit a lick. He was pretty strong at Triple A, with 23 homers in 430+ ABs.
Wood will compete for the starting job in training camp. I'm guessing he won't quite be read, but will get the starting nod anyway, with Izturis filling in. Aybar looks like he's on the outside looking in. By mid-year, I suspect Wood will have the job for big league job for good.
Replacing Garland
Chicago better start from the ground up. Contreras and Vazquez are getting old, leaving only Buehrle with experience and a track record. Danks had a rough rookie year, but always transitions slowly to a new level. His morale could not have been good with this team. He could be a solid pitcher. Who is left? Gavin Floyd? Charlie Haeger, the knuckleballer? I'm trying to come up with another name. Jack Egbert (he was great in Birmingham, but is he ready to jump from Double A)?
I can see trading Garland and rebuilding, but don't you need young arms in the system to rebuild? I guess the White Sox will be buying -- not a good strategy at the prices charged by average pitchers these days. Other than Egbert, I don't see it.
Verdict
Any downside for the Angels will be remedied by mid-year. The White Sox will benefit at SS, but not enough to make up for the horrid pitching. And down the road, Garland will certainly be more valuable and successful in LA than Cabrera in Chicago.
Angels get Jon Garland (SP)
First the players.
Cabrera
Cabrera finished in my own Gold Glove standings at short. Interestingly, I gave the Gold Glove to Juan Uribe, the man who Cabrera will replace. Of course, Cabrera brings a lot more to the plate than Uribe, since Uribe is essentially a replacement-level hitter. There's no question this is an upgrade at SS for the Sox.
Did the Angels get equivalent value? Let's not forget that Cabrera is 33 years old...not exactly his prime. Cabrera's best year was 2001 with Montreal at age 26, and his second best year was 2003. Last year was his third best year, but the pattern for shortstops normally does not include a lot of upside at age 33. On the other hand, Cabrera improved every year he was with the Angels and exceeded his projections by about 25%.
Garland
You might argue that the Angels don't need the pitching. Lackey is a perennial Cy Young contender, and Escobar has been terrific the last two years. Toss in Jared Weaver and you've got a pretty good top 3. Joe Saunders was promising, and if Ervin Santana can get back on track, the Angles are in good shape. Don't forget, though, Escobar will be 32 next year, so he's no sure bet. Then again, he's had his two best years in 06-07.
Garland is a pretty good hedge against Escobar's downside risk, as Garland is only 28. Garland basically wore out his welcome in Chicago this year, with some atrocious starts. Looking at his final numbers, though, he wasn't too shabby overall. Garland was not as valuable as Escobar, but nearly as valuable as Cabera, and with less mileage on him.
Take away his three really bad starts (game scores below 10, all of which were among the worst all time), and he posted an ERA of 3.31 (not 4.23), gave up only 14 homers in 200 IP (his lowest rate ever) and and a WHIP of 1.20 (not 1.33). Good numbers. In fact, Garland was every bit as good in 07 as 06. It's hard to know if he can return to his 2005 form, but as is, he's a good #3.
This trade certainly benefits both teams in terms of getting a good player and filling a need. The outcome hinges, then, on whether the Angels can adequately fill the SS spot and whether the White Sox can fill Garland's spot in the rotation.
Replacing Cabrera
The Angels have three choices: Maicer Izturis, Erick Aybar and Brandon Wood. Izturis has played a lot of third, where he really can't hold up against other AL third basemen because of his bat and only average defense. He's a good value as a utility man, but isn't the answer to Cabrera.
Aybar is a prospect, more dazzling with the glove than the bat, and only 23 years old. He split time in 2006 between AAA and the Angels, and wasn't ready for prime time. In '07, he got fewer than 200 at bats, and did not impress. He was shaky at SS, and bad at the plate, showing neither patience nor power. He was basically replacement level, which is quite a setback for his 23rd year.
Brandon Wood doesn't seem ready either. Wood is one of the most highly touted players in the minors...drafted 9th overall in 2003. His power numbers in 2005 and 2006 led many to conclude he was destined for 3b. Then he only got 33 ABs for the Angels this year, and didn't hit a lick. He was pretty strong at Triple A, with 23 homers in 430+ ABs.
Wood will compete for the starting job in training camp. I'm guessing he won't quite be read, but will get the starting nod anyway, with Izturis filling in. Aybar looks like he's on the outside looking in. By mid-year, I suspect Wood will have the job for big league job for good.
Replacing Garland
Chicago better start from the ground up. Contreras and Vazquez are getting old, leaving only Buehrle with experience and a track record. Danks had a rough rookie year, but always transitions slowly to a new level. His morale could not have been good with this team. He could be a solid pitcher. Who is left? Gavin Floyd? Charlie Haeger, the knuckleballer? I'm trying to come up with another name. Jack Egbert (he was great in Birmingham, but is he ready to jump from Double A)?
I can see trading Garland and rebuilding, but don't you need young arms in the system to rebuild? I guess the White Sox will be buying -- not a good strategy at the prices charged by average pitchers these days. Other than Egbert, I don't see it.
Verdict
Any downside for the Angels will be remedied by mid-year. The White Sox will benefit at SS, but not enough to make up for the horrid pitching. And down the road, Garland will certainly be more valuable and successful in LA than Cabrera in Chicago.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Instant Replay
Why does baseball need to change anything? It had the most successful year in its long history. People love it for its quirks, including missed calls.
As approved by the general managers, it would only apply to home run calls: fair or foul, fan interference or not, etc. If the.re was public outrage about home run calls during the year, I could see the compulsion to take action. I don't think that outrage exists.
The worst calls I saw this year were on catchers' throws to second base, and outfielders' throws to home. Those are not part of the proposed instant replay -- nor should they be.
The real danger is the slippery slope. If we start here, how many years are we away from having the computer call balls and strikes? This seems to have happened in the NFL, as the reviewable plays morph. They are now reviewing everything in the last two minutes of each half. I'm tired of the delays. I'm actually tired of having all the controversies resolved by a ref sticking his head under a hood.
In baseball will they review everything in the 8th and 9th innings? That would be ridiculous.
No one inning is more important than any other. Will it slow the game down? Will the umps run off the field into the dugout to check out the replays? If the ball is called foul, does the batter stand at home plate awaiting the decision? And if the ump says home run, does the batter then start running. Blah.
Tennis has the system down. It is a challenge system. The player simply signals to the umpire he/she wants to challenge. It takes about 10 seconds for the computer to make the line call, and the umpire has it on a screen in the umpiring chair. It is also shown to the fans. Play resumes immediately. Seamless.
I see no way to make it seamless in baseball.
As approved by the general managers, it would only apply to home run calls: fair or foul, fan interference or not, etc. If the.re was public outrage about home run calls during the year, I could see the compulsion to take action. I don't think that outrage exists.
The worst calls I saw this year were on catchers' throws to second base, and outfielders' throws to home. Those are not part of the proposed instant replay -- nor should they be.
The real danger is the slippery slope. If we start here, how many years are we away from having the computer call balls and strikes? This seems to have happened in the NFL, as the reviewable plays morph. They are now reviewing everything in the last two minutes of each half. I'm tired of the delays. I'm actually tired of having all the controversies resolved by a ref sticking his head under a hood.
In baseball will they review everything in the 8th and 9th innings? That would be ridiculous.
No one inning is more important than any other. Will it slow the game down? Will the umps run off the field into the dugout to check out the replays? If the ball is called foul, does the batter stand at home plate awaiting the decision? And if the ump says home run, does the batter then start running. Blah.
Tennis has the system down. It is a challenge system. The player simply signals to the umpire he/she wants to challenge. It takes about 10 seconds for the computer to make the line call, and the umpire has it on a screen in the umpiring chair. It is also shown to the fans. Play resumes immediately. Seamless.
I see no way to make it seamless in baseball.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Monday, October 29, 2007
Predict-A-Matic Results
Let's see how the Predict-A-Matic did with the World Series:
The Predict-A-Matic did not foresee a sweep. Actually, the likelihood of a sweep was 13%. However, two of the games were one-run victories, including game 4, where it thought Colorado had the best chance. I'd give the Predict-A-Matic a "B-" in this category.
The Ortiz assumption was good, but Ellsbury hit first, not second, in the Colorado games. The Rockies changed their lineup more significantly in the Colorado games, as explained below.
Beckett did have a strong outing, going 7 innings and allowing one run on 6 hits. He struck out 9 hitters. As predicted, Francis did not make it 6 innings (he went only 4) and the 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs came true. He walked three instead of two.
No system will predict a 13-1 blowout, but the system did give the Rockies the least chance of winning this game. Overall, I'd give the Predict-A-Matic an "A" on this game.
Schilling did not pitch 6 innings (5 1/3), and he was better than predicted, giving up only 1 run. He had 2 walks instead of one, but the strikeouts were as rpedicted. Jimenez did not make it out of the fivth inning. He walked five and struck out only 2. However he only gave up two runs.
Boston won the game by one, but it was a low scoring affair. The Predict-A-Matic gets a "C" on this game. Maybe even a "C-".
Dice-K didn't make it out of the sixth. He gave up 2 runs on three hits. He walked three and struck out five. Fogg did not make it out of the third inning, walking 2 and striking out two. He gave up 6 earned runs, which did not surprise the Predict-A-Matic.
It was a high scoring affair. Colorado had a chance after scoring three in the seventh, but Boston pulled away.
Note: Colorado altered its lineup, putting Matsui in the leadoff spot, Tulowitzki second and Sullivan eighth. Boston, as predicted, kept Ortiz in the lineup, but Ellsbury hit first instead of second. Plugging the actual lineup into the Predict-A-Matic would not have significantly changed the prediction, except that Colorado's chances of winning dropped to 40%.
The Predict-A-Matic was pretty weak on the pitching results, but pretty good on the game results: "C+".
Lester was much better than expected. He did walk three (and struck out only three), but he gave up no runs. Cook's prediction was almost perfect, except he gave up no walks.
Colorado lost 4-3, instead of winning 5-4, but as I mentioned, Boston was almost even money to win it. Even though it picked the wrong winner in a close contest, I still think the Predict-A-Matic did pretty well. Also, the bad Lester grade is offset by the excellent good Cook grade. I'll give game 4 a "B".
Note: More lineup changes for Colorado, where Spilborghs hit sixth and Hawpe was pushed to seventh. This would have made little difference. Lester's chances of having a horrible game decreased, but since he gave up no runs, it does not matter.
This obviously never happened.
***
The Beckett MVP award was based on him pitching two games, which did not happen. However, Mike Lowell won the actual MVP award! I think Papelbon deserved it more, but nevertheless, the Predict-A-Matic pegged that one. Also Taveras did kill Colorado at the plate, but so did some other Rockies. Matsui was weak. Until their home runs, Hawpe and Atkins were weak. Predict-A-Matic gets a "B" here.
The Predict-a-Matic unfortunately predicts a Boston championship, 4 games to 1. It predicts that Colorado wins game 4. Colorado also has a good shot in game 3, so it could go 6 games.
The Predict-A-Matic did not foresee a sweep. Actually, the likelihood of a sweep was 13%. However, two of the games were one-run victories, including game 4, where it thought Colorado had the best chance. I'd give the Predict-A-Matic a "B-" in this category.
Some notes. I have assumed the same lineups in games 1 and 2. In games 3 and 4, I put Ortiz at first and hit Ellsbury in the 2d spot. In game 5, Youkilis gets the start at 1b and hits in Ortiz' spot (3rd).
The Ortiz assumption was good, but Ellsbury hit first, not second, in the Colorado games. The Rockies changed their lineup more significantly in the Colorado games, as explained below.
Game 1: Beckett has a strong outing, striking out 6 and allowing only 2 runs on 6 hits in about 6 2/3 innings. There's about a 1/3 chance Beckett will strike out at least 9 batters. Francis fails to make it through 6 innings, and gives up at least 4 runs, with about a 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs. Neither pitcher walks a significant number of batters (Beckett 1; Francis 2)
Boston wins by a score of something like 7-4. I give Colorado a 25% chance of winning this one.
Beckett did have a strong outing, going 7 innings and allowing one run on 6 hits. He struck out 9 hitters. As predicted, Francis did not make it 6 innings (he went only 4) and the 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs came true. He walked three instead of two.
No system will predict a 13-1 blowout, but the system did give the Rockies the least chance of winning this game. Overall, I'd give the Predict-A-Matic an "A" on this game.
Game 2: Schilling goes about 6 innings and gives up 3 runs, with a walk and 4 strikeouts. Theres a 1/3 chance he gives up 4 runs or more. Jimenez also gives up 3, but does not make it out of the 5th inning, walking three and striking out 4. There's a 1/4 chance he gives up 5 runs or more.
Boston wins by a score of 6-4 or 6-5. I give Colorado a 30% chance of winning this one.
Schilling did not pitch 6 innings (5 1/3), and he was better than predicted, giving up only 1 run. He had 2 walks instead of one, but the strikeouts were as rpedicted. Jimenez did not make it out of the fivth inning. He walked five and struck out only 2. However he only gave up two runs.
Boston won the game by one, but it was a low scoring affair. The Predict-A-Matic gets a "C" on this game. Maybe even a "C-".
Game 3: Matsuzaka goes 6 and gives up 3 runs on 6 hits, but there's a 40% chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of 5 runs or more. He walks 3 and strikes out 7. Fogg goes a little more than 5 innings, walking 3 and striking out 3. He gives up at least 3 runs, but there's a 50/50 chance of more than that, and a better than 1/4 chance he'll give up more than 5 runs.
Boston wins in a high scoring affair 6-5 or 7-5. I give Colorado a 45% chance of winning this one. This could be the game that results in a 6 game series instead of a 5 game series.
Dice-K didn't make it out of the sixth. He gave up 2 runs on three hits. He walked three and struck out five. Fogg did not make it out of the third inning, walking 2 and striking out two. He gave up 6 earned runs, which did not surprise the Predict-A-Matic.
It was a high scoring affair. Colorado had a chance after scoring three in the seventh, but Boston pulled away.
Note: Colorado altered its lineup, putting Matsui in the leadoff spot, Tulowitzki second and Sullivan eighth. Boston, as predicted, kept Ortiz in the lineup, but Ellsbury hit first instead of second. Plugging the actual lineup into the Predict-A-Matic would not have significantly changed the prediction, except that Colorado's chances of winning dropped to 40%.
The Predict-A-Matic was pretty weak on the pitching results, but pretty good on the game results: "C+".
Game 4: Lester goes a little more than 5 innings, striking out 5 and walking 3, while giving up 3 runs. There's a 1/3 chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of giving up 5 runs or more. Cook goes 6 innings, gives up 7 hits and 3 runs. He walks 2 and strikes out 2. His chances of giving up 4 runs or more are about the same as Lester's.
Colorado wins 5-4 in a tight contest. Boston has a 45% chance of winning this one.
Lester was much better than expected. He did walk three (and struck out only three), but he gave up no runs. Cook's prediction was almost perfect, except he gave up no walks.
Colorado lost 4-3, instead of winning 5-4, but as I mentioned, Boston was almost even money to win it. Even though it picked the wrong winner in a close contest, I still think the Predict-A-Matic did pretty well. Also, the bad Lester grade is offset by the excellent good Cook grade. I'll give game 4 a "B".
Note: More lineup changes for Colorado, where Spilborghs hit sixth and Hawpe was pushed to seventh. This would have made little difference. Lester's chances of having a horrible game decreased, but since he gave up no runs, it does not matter.
Game 5: Beckett repeats his game 1 performance, but is slightly better, with a few more strikeouts. Francis improves his game 1 performance (helped by Ortiz' absence), but not enough to win the contest.
Boston wins 4-3 or 5-4. Colorado has a 40% chance of winning this game.
This obviously never happened.
***
Beckett wins the MVP, though Mike Lowell will also play a big part. Taveras and Matsui kill Colorado at the plate. Atkins will be better than expected.
The Beckett MVP award was based on him pitching two games, which did not happen. However, Mike Lowell won the actual MVP award! I think Papelbon deserved it more, but nevertheless, the Predict-A-Matic pegged that one. Also Taveras did kill Colorado at the plate, but so did some other Rockies. Matsui was weak. Until their home runs, Hawpe and Atkins were weak. Predict-A-Matic gets a "B" here.
World Series MVP
I don't think there's any question that Jonathan Papelbon should be the World Series MVP. The other plausible choice is Mike Lowell.
For a short series like this, it isn't enough to just look at stats. You need to measure when those stats took place, particularly when there is a 13-1 blowout game like game 1. Contributing after the game is out of reach isn't worth much. Contributing while the game is on the line is key.
That's what Win Probability Added measures. Fangraphs keeps track of this stuff. If you add the WPA from the games in which they appear, Papelbon leads the Red Sox, followed by Lowell. That means not only that Papelbon pitched well, and Lowell hit well, but that they did so at key times during games. As you know from other posts, a save is not an indicator of the pressure of the situation. Saves are sometimes available without much pressure.
However, Papelbon's contributions in the Series were at key times, particularly in games 2 and 4.
For a short series like this, it isn't enough to just look at stats. You need to measure when those stats took place, particularly when there is a 13-1 blowout game like game 1. Contributing after the game is out of reach isn't worth much. Contributing while the game is on the line is key.
That's what Win Probability Added measures. Fangraphs keeps track of this stuff. If you add the WPA from the games in which they appear, Papelbon leads the Red Sox, followed by Lowell. That means not only that Papelbon pitched well, and Lowell hit well, but that they did so at key times during games. As you know from other posts, a save is not an indicator of the pressure of the situation. Saves are sometimes available without much pressure.
However, Papelbon's contributions in the Series were at key times, particularly in games 2 and 4.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
McCarver's Keys to Success
How are these "keys to success"?:
1. Red Sox want to close it out and sweep the Series; and
2. Rockies must win tonight.
1. Red Sox want to close it out and sweep the Series; and
2. Rockies must win tonight.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
World Series Prediction
The Predict-a-Matic unfortunately predicts a Boston championship, 4 games to 1. It predicts that Colorado wins game 4. Colorado also has a good shot in game 3, so it could go 6 games.
Some notes. I have assumed the same lineups in games 1 and 2. In games 3 and 4, I put Ortiz at first and hit Ellsbury in the 2d spot. In game 5, Youkilis gets the start at 1b and hits in Ortiz' spot (3rd).
Game 1: Beckett has a strong outing, striking out 6 and allowing only 2 runs on 6 hits in about 6 2/3 innings. There's about a 1/3 chance Beckett will strike out at least 9 batters. Francis fails to make it through 6 innings, and gives up at least 4 runs, with about a 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs. Neither pitcher walks a significant number of batters (Beckett 1; Francis 2)
Boston wins by a score of something like 7-4. I give Colorado a 25% chance of winning this one.
Game 2: Schilling goes about 6 innings and gives up 3 runs, with a walk and 4 strikeouts. Theres a 1/3 chance he gives up 4 runs or more. Jimenez also gives up 3, but does not make it out of the 5th inning, walking three and striking out 4. There's a 1/4 chance he gives up 5 runs or more.
Boston wins by a score of 6-4 or 6-5. I give Colorado a 30% chance of winning this one.
Game 3: Matsuzaka goes 6 and gives up 3 runs on 6 hits, but there's a 40% chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of 5 runs or more. He walks 3 and strikes out 7. Fogg goes a little more than 5 innings, walking 3 and striking out 3. He gives up at least 3 runs, but there's a 50/50 chance of more than that, and a better than 1/4 chance he'll give up more than 5 runs.
Boston wins in a high scoring affair 6-5 or 7-5. I give Colorado a 45% chance of winning this one. This could be the game that results in a 6 game series instead of a 5 game series.
Game 4: Lester goes a little more than 5 innings, striking out 5 and walking 3, while giving up 3 runs. There's a 1/3 chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of giving up 5 runs or more. Cook goes 6 innings, gives up 7 hits and 3 runs. He walks 2 and strikes out 2. His chances of giving up 4 runs or more are about the same as Lester's.
Colorado wins 5-4 in a tight contest. Boston has a 45% chance of winning this one.
Game 5: Beckett repeats his game 1 performance, but is slightly better, with a few more strikeouts. Francis improves his game 1 performance (helped by Ortiz' absence), but not enough to win the contest.
Boston wins 4-3 or 5-4. Colorado has a 40% chance of winning this game.
Game 6 (maybe): With all the same lineups and back in Boston, the Predict-a-Matic won't stray far from game 2. Boston scores a few more runs, though, so Colorado gets a 33% chance of winning this one, if it gets that far.
***
Beckett wins the MVP, though Mike Lowell will also play a big part. Taveras and Matsui kill Colorado at the plate. Atkins will be better than expected.
Some notes. I have assumed the same lineups in games 1 and 2. In games 3 and 4, I put Ortiz at first and hit Ellsbury in the 2d spot. In game 5, Youkilis gets the start at 1b and hits in Ortiz' spot (3rd).
Game 1: Beckett has a strong outing, striking out 6 and allowing only 2 runs on 6 hits in about 6 2/3 innings. There's about a 1/3 chance Beckett will strike out at least 9 batters. Francis fails to make it through 6 innings, and gives up at least 4 runs, with about a 1/3 chance of giving up more than 5 runs. Neither pitcher walks a significant number of batters (Beckett 1; Francis 2)
Boston wins by a score of something like 7-4. I give Colorado a 25% chance of winning this one.
Game 2: Schilling goes about 6 innings and gives up 3 runs, with a walk and 4 strikeouts. Theres a 1/3 chance he gives up 4 runs or more. Jimenez also gives up 3, but does not make it out of the 5th inning, walking three and striking out 4. There's a 1/4 chance he gives up 5 runs or more.
Boston wins by a score of 6-4 or 6-5. I give Colorado a 30% chance of winning this one.
Game 3: Matsuzaka goes 6 and gives up 3 runs on 6 hits, but there's a 40% chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of 5 runs or more. He walks 3 and strikes out 7. Fogg goes a little more than 5 innings, walking 3 and striking out 3. He gives up at least 3 runs, but there's a 50/50 chance of more than that, and a better than 1/4 chance he'll give up more than 5 runs.
Boston wins in a high scoring affair 6-5 or 7-5. I give Colorado a 45% chance of winning this one. This could be the game that results in a 6 game series instead of a 5 game series.
Game 4: Lester goes a little more than 5 innings, striking out 5 and walking 3, while giving up 3 runs. There's a 1/3 chance of 4 runs or more, and a 1/4 chance of giving up 5 runs or more. Cook goes 6 innings, gives up 7 hits and 3 runs. He walks 2 and strikes out 2. His chances of giving up 4 runs or more are about the same as Lester's.
Colorado wins 5-4 in a tight contest. Boston has a 45% chance of winning this one.
Game 5: Beckett repeats his game 1 performance, but is slightly better, with a few more strikeouts. Francis improves his game 1 performance (helped by Ortiz' absence), but not enough to win the contest.
Boston wins 4-3 or 5-4. Colorado has a 40% chance of winning this game.
Game 6 (maybe): With all the same lineups and back in Boston, the Predict-a-Matic won't stray far from game 2. Boston scores a few more runs, though, so Colorado gets a 33% chance of winning this one, if it gets that far.
***
Beckett wins the MVP, though Mike Lowell will also play a big part. Taveras and Matsui kill Colorado at the plate. Atkins will be better than expected.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
ALCS Game 7, 5th Inning
Cleveland ought to be tied right now, and if the game ends up a one-run victory for Boston, it will be a travesty.
In real time, Lofton appeared to me to be out at second trying to stretch for the double. But I'm watching from a distant camera, from the perspective of home plate. The ump is behind the play (the outfield side). That's the better angle, and he shouldn't have missed it.
What fooled us the first time is the glove hitting the bag...we thought it hit Lofton. From behind, that's clearly not true.
Plus, the umps are supposed to be better than me, even though it was bang bang.
There was no argument from either Lofton or Wedge, however, so if they don't care, why should we?
In real time, Lofton appeared to me to be out at second trying to stretch for the double. But I'm watching from a distant camera, from the perspective of home plate. The ump is behind the play (the outfield side). That's the better angle, and he shouldn't have missed it.
What fooled us the first time is the glove hitting the bag...we thought it hit Lofton. From behind, that's clearly not true.
Plus, the umps are supposed to be better than me, even though it was bang bang.
There was no argument from either Lofton or Wedge, however, so if they don't care, why should we?
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Going to a game 7
Oh, you Indian fans, you better watch Major League 2 if you want to see your Indians win the pennant. You also better have Wild Thing going in game 7. "Forget about the curve ball Ricky, give him the heater."
Cast of Major League 2
Charlie Sheen ... Rick 'Wild Thing' Vaughn
Tom Berenger ... Jake Taylor
Corbin Bernsen ... Roger Dorn
Dennis Haysber ... Pedro Cerrano
James Gammon ... Lou Brown
Omar Epps ... Willie Mays Hayes
Eric Bruskotter ... Rube Baker
Takaaki Ishibashi... Isuro Tanaka
Alison Doody ... Rebecca Flannery
Michelle Burke ... Nikki Reese
David Keith ... Jack Parkman
Bob Uecker ... Harry Doyle
Steve Yeager ... Coach 'Duke' Temple
Anything can happen with a one-game playoff but the big "Mo" seems to be on Red Sox side. Can the Red Sox do anything easy? Don't be suprised if the Indians counter with El Presidente up early out of bullpen if the Sox jump on Westbrook.
Parting quote from Major League 2.
Harry Doyle-"Parkman leads the league in most offensive categories, including most nose hairs."
Cast of Major League 2
Charlie Sheen ... Rick 'Wild Thing' Vaughn
Tom Berenger ... Jake Taylor
Corbin Bernsen ... Roger Dorn
Dennis Haysber ... Pedro Cerrano
James Gammon ... Lou Brown
Omar Epps ... Willie Mays Hayes
Eric Bruskotter ... Rube Baker
Takaaki Ishibashi... Isuro Tanaka
Alison Doody ... Rebecca Flannery
Michelle Burke ... Nikki Reese
David Keith ... Jack Parkman
Bob Uecker ... Harry Doyle
Steve Yeager ... Coach 'Duke' Temple
Anything can happen with a one-game playoff but the big "Mo" seems to be on Red Sox side. Can the Red Sox do anything easy? Don't be suprised if the Indians counter with El Presidente up early out of bullpen if the Sox jump on Westbrook.
Parting quote from Major League 2.
Harry Doyle-"Parkman leads the league in most offensive categories, including most nose hairs."
Ken Rosenthal vs. Craig Sager
Tale of the tape for Fox's sideline reporter and TBS' sideline reporter:
It's not that I like Craig Sager. It's that I cannot figure out who is doing the auditioning at Fox. Ken Rosenthal is literally reading scripts from the sidelines, and he has nothing interesting to add. You get the impression they write his material before the game, and then go to him every couple of innings so he can read the prompter. What is the point? Why do something like that?
The same reason local news reporters go "live" at 11:00 from their t.v. studio parking lot about stories that happened at 4:00. Because we want to pretend something is happening, even when it isn't.
Sure Craig Sager interviews old ladies and celebrities from the stands, but at least the whole thing is not rehearsed. At least he is real.
Category KR CS
Human or robot Robot Human
Looks comfortable? No Yes
Interesting comments? No No
Easygoing style? No Yes
Appears intelligent? Yes No
Can improvise? No Yes
Complexion Normal Orange
Clothing Wall St. Zoot suit
Activities in 1970s GI Joe TBS reporter
Activities in 1980s Beating off TBS reporter
Activities in 1990s Chess club TBS reporter
It's not that I like Craig Sager. It's that I cannot figure out who is doing the auditioning at Fox. Ken Rosenthal is literally reading scripts from the sidelines, and he has nothing interesting to add. You get the impression they write his material before the game, and then go to him every couple of innings so he can read the prompter. What is the point? Why do something like that?
The same reason local news reporters go "live" at 11:00 from their t.v. studio parking lot about stories that happened at 4:00. Because we want to pretend something is happening, even when it isn't.
Sure Craig Sager interviews old ladies and celebrities from the stands, but at least the whole thing is not rehearsed. At least he is real.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Beckett in Game 5
Why on Earth is Francona sending Beckett out to pitch the 8th inning? Here are the facts:
1. Beckett has already thrown 96 pitches.
2. Boston leads 7-1.
3. Beckett sat on the bench for 20 minutes while Boston was at bat.
4. Boston has the best setup man in the AL in Okajima.
5. Boston has one of the best closers in MLB in Papelbon.
6. Beckett will not pitch Game 7, no matter what.
Only #6 would be an excuse to run Beckett back out there, but what about injury? Becket has been known to stiffen up, particularly his back. Why send your best player out to the mound when his arm is cold and at least somewhat fatigued, when you have a six run lead and a great bullpen?
Could it be that this is a game that does not fit the paradigm of setup man in the 8th and closer in the 9th because no one can get the save, and therefore like most MLB managers, Francona is just lost?
1. Beckett has already thrown 96 pitches.
2. Boston leads 7-1.
3. Beckett sat on the bench for 20 minutes while Boston was at bat.
4. Boston has the best setup man in the AL in Okajima.
5. Boston has one of the best closers in MLB in Papelbon.
6. Beckett will not pitch Game 7, no matter what.
Only #6 would be an excuse to run Beckett back out there, but what about injury? Becket has been known to stiffen up, particularly his back. Why send your best player out to the mound when his arm is cold and at least somewhat fatigued, when you have a six run lead and a great bullpen?
Could it be that this is a game that does not fit the paradigm of setup man in the 8th and closer in the 9th because no one can get the save, and therefore like most MLB managers, Francona is just lost?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Fox Cutaways
Cleveland wins game 4 to take a 3-1 lead. The players and fans are celebrating. The Red Sox are downcast. An exciting moment
Fox cuts away to Mark Shapiro, the Cleveland GM, celebrating, kissing his wife, hugging some other people. Then a quick shot of the Indians celebrating. Then back to more Shapiro.
Just like Fox. Give the props to the corporate guy sitting behind a bullet (ball) proof shield.
Fox cuts away to Mark Shapiro, the Cleveland GM, celebrating, kissing his wife, hugging some other people. Then a quick shot of the Indians celebrating. Then back to more Shapiro.
Just like Fox. Give the props to the corporate guy sitting behind a bullet (ball) proof shield.
AL Gold Gloves: Pitchers
I really, really don't care whether a pitcher gets a gold glove. They don't play enough defense to register on the Win Shares scale, except in hundreths of a decimal point. Only a few register Fielding Runs Above Average.
Fausto Carmona has 3 FRAA, as does Jake Westbrook. Chien-Ming Wang has 3. Pettitte has 2. Halladay and Litsch have 2. Jamie Shields has 2. Steve Trachsel has 2.
That's slim pickens.
Of those, Pettitte ranks the highest in Win Shares, followed by Wang and Carmona. There's no way to choose among them.
Pettitte will win the actual award. I'm okay with that.
Iron glove? Who knows? Kevin Millwood and Jeremy Bonderman are godawful at getting off the mount. I'll give it to Millwood. A former Brave should know better.
Fausto Carmona has 3 FRAA, as does Jake Westbrook. Chien-Ming Wang has 3. Pettitte has 2. Halladay and Litsch have 2. Jamie Shields has 2. Steve Trachsel has 2.
That's slim pickens.
Of those, Pettitte ranks the highest in Win Shares, followed by Wang and Carmona. There's no way to choose among them.
Pettitte will win the actual award. I'm okay with that.
Iron glove? Who knows? Kevin Millwood and Jeremy Bonderman are godawful at getting off the mount. I'll give it to Millwood. A former Brave should know better.
AL Gold Gloves: Outfield
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates for the outfield. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9).
Unlike the real voting process, I like to give the three gold gloves to three different outfield positions.
Not many left fielders to choose from, and a couple of surprises. Teahen is a contender in right field, after a move from third base. Hard to trust Win Shares when Markakis is rated the same as Ichiro.
My guess is that Gary Matthews, Curtis Granderson and Torii Hunter win, though Suzuki may get the nod over Matthews.
Coco Crisp easily gets my Gold Glove in center. No one is close. In left, my only choices are Willits and Payton, and Willits is clearly better. Right is tight, between Rios and Teahen.
I'll resolve right field with the composite method (described in the NL Catcher's post), using 2.6 as the average fielding win shares for an outfielder.
Mark Teahen gets it. I guarantee you he won't win the real award (nor will Willits). Crisp at least has a shot.
Iron gloves to Jose Guillen in right field and Raul Ibanez in left field. You'd think Suzuki would be gobbling it up in center with those two statues flanking him. Jerry Owens (he plays for the White Sox), gets it in center field.
Unlike the real voting process, I like to give the three gold gloves to three different outfield positions.
Outfield FWS FWAA
Crisp 8.5 2.6
Wells 6.4 -0.2
Granderson 6.3 2.0
Matthews 5.4 0.5
Cabrera 4.9 1.4
Rios 4.9 0.3
Teahen 4.0 1.3
Willits 3.5 1.0
Suzuki 3.3 1.5
Markakis 3.3 0.9
Cuddyer 3.1 0.3
Payton 2.8 0.7
Not many left fielders to choose from, and a couple of surprises. Teahen is a contender in right field, after a move from third base. Hard to trust Win Shares when Markakis is rated the same as Ichiro.
My guess is that Gary Matthews, Curtis Granderson and Torii Hunter win, though Suzuki may get the nod over Matthews.
Coco Crisp easily gets my Gold Glove in center. No one is close. In left, my only choices are Willits and Payton, and Willits is clearly better. Right is tight, between Rios and Teahen.
I'll resolve right field with the composite method (described in the NL Catcher's post), using 2.6 as the average fielding win shares for an outfielder.
Mark Teahen gets it. I guarantee you he won't win the real award (nor will Willits). Crisp at least has a shot.
Iron gloves to Jose Guillen in right field and Raul Ibanez in left field. You'd think Suzuki would be gobbling it up in center with those two statues flanking him. Jerry Owens (he plays for the White Sox), gets it in center field.
AL Gold Gloves: Shortstops
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at shortstop. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
This is an interesting list. Cabrera will win, because of his superior hitting stats.
Peralta is a surprise. Cleveland has never liked his defense, but tolerated him because of his bat. Here, he shows up as a solid 2d or 3d in gold glove merit.
My gold glove to Juan Uribe, a small bright spot on the southside of Chicago.
Iron glove is difficult. Win Shares has Lugo ranked 6th. BP has him as one of the worst in the league. Visually, I'd side more with BP. Fortunately for Julio, his replacement in Tampa, Brendan Harris, fares poorly -- very poorly -- in both systems. Think Josh Wilson is better than Harris? Nope, he just plays less.
Shortstop FWS FWAA
Uribe 9.3 1.5
Cabrera 9.2 1.4
Peralta 8.4 1.6
Pena 8.4 1.4
This is an interesting list. Cabrera will win, because of his superior hitting stats.
Peralta is a surprise. Cleveland has never liked his defense, but tolerated him because of his bat. Here, he shows up as a solid 2d or 3d in gold glove merit.
My gold glove to Juan Uribe, a small bright spot on the southside of Chicago.
Iron glove is difficult. Win Shares has Lugo ranked 6th. BP has him as one of the worst in the league. Visually, I'd side more with BP. Fortunately for Julio, his replacement in Tampa, Brendan Harris, fares poorly -- very poorly -- in both systems. Think Josh Wilson is better than Harris? Nope, he just plays less.
AL Gold Gloves: Third Base
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at third base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
Lots of disagreement between WS and BP on this one. WS likes Punto, Gordon and Blake. BP thinks they were about average. But, BP thinks nearly all the third basemen are about average.
This is a contest between Lowell and Inge. Lowell has the reputation and will win it.
Using the composite score method (see the NL Catcher's gold glove post), based on an average third baseman achieving 2.0 fielding win shares, Lowell has a very (very) slight edge over Inge. I like it whent he unknowns win. My Gold Glove goes to Inge.
The iron glove goes to....hold your hat....
Eric Chavez! Can that be true? The former gold glove winner? To say this wasn't his year is an understatement.
Third base FWS FWAA
Lowell 6.0 1.4
Inge 4.7 1.8
Punto 4.6 0.0
Gordon 4.1 -0.3
Blake 3.8 0.4
A-Rod 3.7 0.4
Lots of disagreement between WS and BP on this one. WS likes Punto, Gordon and Blake. BP thinks they were about average. But, BP thinks nearly all the third basemen are about average.
This is a contest between Lowell and Inge. Lowell has the reputation and will win it.
Using the composite score method (see the NL Catcher's gold glove post), based on an average third baseman achieving 2.0 fielding win shares, Lowell has a very (very) slight edge over Inge. I like it whent he unknowns win. My Gold Glove goes to Inge.
The iron glove goes to....hold your hat....
Eric Chavez! Can that be true? The former gold glove winner? To say this wasn't his year is an understatement.
AL Gold Gloves: Second Base
Here are the AL Gold Glove candidates at second base. I'll evaluate them using Fielding Win Shares and Fielding Wins Above Average (derived from fielder runs above average on BP, divided by 9):
I think Polanco will win the real award, since he committed no errors. What's amazing is that he doesn't fare particularly well in either system. He may have made no errors, but Win Shares and BP think his range is less than optimal.
I give it to Ellis, with Cano second. Another easy call.
Iron Glove to Danny Richar, who is evidence of just how bad the White Sox are. Can't hit. Can't field. Luis Castillo could have earned it, but I felt sorry for him because he was hurt.
Second base FWS FWAA
Ellis 8.5 2.5
Cano 6.8 2.3
Hill 7.5 0.3
Pedroia 7.1 0.6
Polanco 5.5 1.6
I think Polanco will win the real award, since he committed no errors. What's amazing is that he doesn't fare particularly well in either system. He may have made no errors, but Win Shares and BP think his range is less than optimal.
I give it to Ellis, with Cano second. Another easy call.
Iron Glove to Danny Richar, who is evidence of just how bad the White Sox are. Can't hit. Can't field. Luis Castillo could have earned it, but I felt sorry for him because he was hurt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)