The Baseball Thread 2007

[Dan Gould]

It is almost comical how everyone, I mean EVERYONE(Yeah, me included) thought there was no way the Yankees could even have a chance at the Wild card, let alone the Division. Didn't everyone say the very same thing last year? Love them, or hate them, they don't give up. I'd still say the Red Sox have a lock on the division, but I bet a lot of folks thought that back in 1978! How far back were the Yankess that year?????

They were (iirc) 14 games back on July 4. However, that was obviously an extraordinary year, and the Sox were still daunted (for whatever it was worth) by "the Curse." I'd agree with Dan that they've got a decent shot at the wild-card, longshot for the division. Clemens is an asset, no doubt about it, even if he is going to be a 5-6 inning pitcher.

There was no curse in 1978 for the simple reason that Shaugnnesey didn't write his book until after 1986. There was no consciousness of being fated to lose, only a knowledge that it hadn't happened since 1918.

Reasons why the Red Sox should be able to hold off the Yankees this time:

Yankees don't have an ace named Ron Guidry.

Red Sox don't have a third baseman who had to adjust the bone chips in his elbow before every pitch and still threw away 39 throws to first.

Red Sox in '78 won by bashing the ball; when the offense failed, they had a tough time winning. This season they're balanced in both pitching and offense, and unlike '78 they've got a decent to excellent group of arms in the pen. That year's team had Eck plus mediocrities like Mike Torrez and El Tiante, who was at the end of the line, and Bill Lee, who was toast or pissed off his manager too often, depending on who you believe.

That Yankee team was a two-time pennant winner and defending world champions. They knew how to win. This team has as many players with rings as the Red Sox do.

[Patrick]

Guys, I know the NL by and large is not as good as the AL, but....IF Roger doesn't deal with too many injuries this year, he will be pretty darn good. This was only his 4th start of the year, how many folks after 4 spring training starts would be up to mid season form? I know, he was pitching before those Minor league starts, but it still ain't the same thing.

Like most power pitchers who reach 40 and haven't had a lot of shoulder problems,(Ryan, Smoltz, Shilling, Seaver) he still has a very good fastball. And no one has better control than he does when has a few starts under his belt. He was still 91 to 94 last year, and I expect he will be back to that in a few more starts.

I have heard so many so called experts say he won't be like he used to be, and I say why not? If he had pitched for just about any other team than the Astros the last 3 seasons, he'd have about 370 wins right now. Even with the press he has gotten the last few late start seasons, he doesn't get the props he really should have. He was 18-4 with a 2.98 ERA his first year in the NL, then, after NL folks had a chance to see him, he lowered his ERA to 1.87 the next year!!!!

He was the best starter in the NL in 2005 and 2006. He was only 7-6 last year, but had a 2.30 ERA in a fairly small home park.(A combined 20-14 over '05, 06 with a ERA of only 2.14!!!!) Except for his first and last season with Boston, he has never given up more than a hit per inning. Still strikes out about one guy per inning.

If his ERA goes up 1.5 runs per 9 innings over last year, his ERA will be 3.80. Even if he continues to give up 3 runs per 6, that will be just fine with the Yankees I am sure. If he stays healthy, he will win 12-14 games for them this year.

Yes, Clemens may turn out to be pretty darn good. He's had lots of success in the past. He may improve as he goes through his spring training (so to speak). Heck maybe he'll really surprise and be a #2 guy. Either way, I am amused by the hype. Was he great or terrible in the first start? No. Why was espn showing every pitch of his minor league games, and opining about the groin implications of how he walked off the field?

Will Kenny Rogers' return be getting this much scrutiny? I don't think so. Will Kenny Rogers be as effective as Clemens this season? If KR is fully recovered, I suspect yes.

[Big Al]

You'll still have the Japanese closer for those occasional leads in the ninth ( ) and can maybe get something for "winning" the Gagne sweepstakes last winter.

Well, Aki has been okay this year. IIRC, the last time he was given a lead, he lost it.

Somehow, I doubt there are owners as clueless as Hicks who will forget about Gagne's proneness to injury. Stranger things have happened, though.

[jlhoots]

Brewers really struggling - BUT still 5 1/2 games ahead in their (admittedly) weak division.

[Dan Gould]

A question for my fellow fans:

Is the following a significant statistical finding or not?

I've been noticing that the Yankee pitching staff shows a surprising inability to strikeout a lot of batters - they currently rank dead last in total Ks, with 315, and the difference between them and 29th place is much larger (25) than just about any other pair of adjacent teams.

So that got me to wondering: is there a correlation between say, pennant winners and strikeouts by the pitching staff? There is a certain logic at work - pitchers who miss bats tend to avoid the really crummy outcomes, and pitchers who work to contact are at the mercy of their defense as well as to a great extent, luck. On the other hand, pitching to contact can result in great efficiency and pitching deeper into games but let's face it, the Yankee pitching staff isn't exactly keeping the bullpen well-rested.

So, here's a quick and dirty survey of the data. First, pennant winners:

2006:

Cards - #26

Tigers - #21

Not much to hang my hat on there. But take a look at the others:

2005:

White Sox - 11

Astros - 3

2004:

Red Sox - 5

Cards - 16

2003:

Yankees - 7

Marlins - 6

Seems like there is some relationship between K rate and reaching the Series. So I wondered what the Yankees championship teams ranked:

2000: 16

1999: 7

1998: 14

1996: 7

Hmmmm ... seems pretty clear to me that the Yankees need to pick up the strikeouts. Of course, maybe this is a symptom and not the disease and it will all be solved with some health and a little Rocket power, but it looks to me like this team is going to rank quite low all season on strikeouts - whether it matters in the end remains to be seen.

[Johnny E]

Go !!!

[ghost of miles]

It is almost comical how everyone, I mean EVERYONE(Yeah, me included) thought there was no way the Yankees could even have a chance at the Wild card, let alone the Division. Didn't everyone say the very same thing last year? Love them, or hate them, they don't give up. I'd still say the Red Sox have a lock on the division, but I bet a lot of folks thought that back in 1978! How far back were the Yankess that year?????

They were (iirc) 14 games back on July 4. However, that was obviously an extraordinary year, and the Sox were still daunted (for whatever it was worth) by "the Curse." I'd agree with Dan that they've got a decent shot at the wild-card, longshot for the division. Clemens is an asset, no doubt about it, even if he is going to be a 5-6 inning pitcher.

There was no curse in 1978 for the simple reason that Shaugnnesey didn't write his book until after 1986. There was no consciousness of being fated to lose, only a knowledge that it hadn't happened since 1918.

Reasons why the Red Sox should be able to hold off the Yankees this time:

Yankees don't have an ace named Ron Guidry.

Red Sox don't have a third baseman who had to adjust the bone chips in his elbow before every pitch and still threw away 39 throws to first.

Red Sox in '78 won by bashing the ball; when the offense failed, they had a tough time winning. This season they're balanced in both pitching and offense, and unlike '78 they've got a decent to excellent group of arms in the pen. That year's team had Eck plus mediocrities like Mike Torrez and El Tiante, who was at the end of the line, and Bill Lee, who was toast or pissed off his manager too often, depending on who you believe.

That Yankee team was a two-time pennant winner and defending world champions. They knew how to win. This team has as many players with rings as the Red Sox do.

Hey, you're implying that "the Curse" was only a psychological effect...

Just doublechecked and the Yanks were 14 games out as of July 18th that year. So yeah, an extraordinary comeback, the likes of which we probably won't see again for a long time... though this is baseball, and anything not only can happen, but is likely to happen. Beyond Guidry, that Yanks staff wasn't so great... Figueroa won 20 that year, but then you get down to Jim Beattie, Tidrow, and a fast-declining Catfish Hunter. They did have both Gossage and Lyle out of the bullpen, though Lyle iirc was disgruntled over Goose's being signed and wasn't quite as effective as he'd been in '77.

Still, I'd agree that this particular NY team so far hasn't shown nearly the heart of that late-1970s team... or the late-1990s team, another edition that really knew how to win in the clutch.

[Patrick]

Yeah. Joe Borowski gift wrapped this one for the Mariners. And Paul Byrd was a lot worse than he was in April when that chump Mike Hargrove started crying about the snow only after it became evident that the Mariners were not going to take the lead in the top of the fifth...

[Big Al]

Go !!!

I was wondering when you were going to drop in!

[BERIGAN]

I have heard so many so called experts say he won't be like he used to be, and I say why not?

1. He wasn't just pitching against "the NL" last year. Due to the uneven schedule, something like 12 of his 19 starts came against NL Central foes, all or most of whom, if I am not mistaken, ranked in the lower half of the league in offense.

2. His fastball is not what it once was. That has been remarked upon by many a scout. Now, it has not declined the way Mike Mussina's fastball has, but it is still not the blow-em away fastball it once was.

3. No pitcher, far fewer crappy hitting catchers and second basemen to feast on, plus a DH who in some cases is the best hitter on the field.

4. He's a walking injury risk, and the biggest one this side of Eric Gagne. The chances he does not make a trip to the DL are virtually nil.

I will be shocked if Clemens is a sub-4.00 ERA in the DH league. After all, his last two years with the Yankees he had an ERA of 4.2 and 3.9 if I remember correctly, and that was four years ago. ....

It's true, his fastball is not what it once was, but I still saw a lot of dead red fastball hitters like Jeff Francoeur swing and miss a lot of 94 MPH pitches that looked "hittable" If those scouts are saying his fastball this year is not what it once was, it's still spring training for him! He will hit 94 on the outside corner, which only folks like Vlad can hit....

No crappy second basemen perhaps, though having to face SS Lugo's .213 and Coco's .224 must be some sort of compensation!

Sure, he will miss a start or two,(Or do the John Smoltz thing, and just push starts back 2-3 days) but I bet won't be on the DL unless something tears.

Granted, Nolan Ryan had a better fastball than Clemens when he joined the Rangers after many years in the gianormous Astrodome, but Ryan at 41 had a 3.52 Era his last year there, then went to work in the hitter friendly Arlington Stadium(and had to deal with the DH again) and lowered it to 3.20 at the age of 42.

I also think that having to pitch on a team that couldn't score a run to save it's life probably made Roger an even better than before. Like I said, the first year in the NL should have been his best since most of the hitters hadn't seen him before. And like I mentioned before, it dropped from 3.91 in his last AL year, to 2.98 in '04. But then he managed to get it even lower the next year, 1.87!!! How'd that happen? The Cards won the division with 100 wins, so the offense couldn't have been as bad as it was last year, where he slumped to 2.30 ERA.

And hey, if the NL, and the central in particular were so terrible last year, why did Pettite have a 4.20 ERA for the 'stros last year, and a 3.11 for the Yankees this year?

and how about these apples?

I saw on www.mlbtraderumors.com that Steve Trachsel has a 3.82 ERA pitching in the AL East! He of the 4.97 ERA last year for the Mets, they didn't want anything to do with him!!! How the fuck can a BP guy like him have an ERA under 4 in the AL??? Perhaps Leo Mazzone really is a miracle worker!

So, I expect him to struggle some for the next month, and then IF healthy, to be their best pitcher. Bet money on it!

Edited June 12, 2007 by BERIGAN

[Big Al]

A question for Dan and the rest of Red Sox nation: why the obsession with the Yankees? Why does it matter to you how good/bad the Yankees do at any given time?

Case in point: a friend of mine was at the final game of the Red Sox winning the World Series against the Cardinals (he's a die-hard Cards fan). He was going to join the Red Sox celebration to offer congratulations and all that, and he said he heard the weirdest thing: instead of hearing things like "Red Sox rule" or "We Are The Champions" or something like that, all he heard was "YANKEES SUCK! YANKEES SUCK! YANKEES SUCK!" Why? Who cares? Your team just broke the curse and all you're (not you, Dan; just RS Nation in general) all concerned about rubbing it in the face of a team who has more than 20 rings!

But then, never having had any kind of World Series action in my hometown (and probably never will in my lifetime), maybe I just don't understand the mentality.

[Noj]

It's a brand of irrational hatred common in many sports, in which fans of teams which were stomped out for so many years by a single opponent can't properly enjoy success. They are fixated on the other team instead of their own.

Personally, I don't really "hate" other teams all that much, excepting of course the New England Patriots and San Francisco Giants, who aren't even human fucking beings.

[Dan Gould]

I have never actually lived in "Red Sox Nation" and never knew a Red Sox fan when I was growing up (that part of Fairfield County CT is filled with New Yorkers who root for the Yanks or Mets, with a scattering of Sox fans). So I have never seen a spontaneous "Yankees Suck" chant break out and would never participate in one if I were there when one started.

But I certainly do feel that the Yankees suck, due to the near-lifetime experience of almost always finishing behind them, getting beaten by them in heart breaking fashion, and of course there is an element of jealousy due not so much to their advantage in rings but to their recent advantage. I will celebrate the day that Jeter and Rivera and to a lesser extent, Posada, are gone from the game.

This is precisely why I will remain fixated on the Yankees and their performance - because this is the best opportunity in a long time to snap their streak of division championships. You will find Yankee fans who will claim that 2004 is "tainted" because the Red Sox were the wildcard. These same fans will continue to point to 2005 and 2006 as other times when the Sox got off to a good start but the Yankees stormed back. My need to see them put in their place this season is overwhelming. While I would be disappointed, it would not break my heart if the Red Sox win the division, the Yankees miss the playoffs, and the Sox are swept by Detroit in the first round.

It would be a great season, because the Yankees lost the division and had their post-season appearance streak snapped.

[Big Al]

This is precisely why I will remain fixated on the Yankees and their performance - because this is the best opportunity in a long time to snap their streak of division championships.

...

It would be a great season, because the Yankees lost the division and had their post-season appearance streak snapped.

Put in that context, it makes a LOT more sense. Not having paid that close attention to standings outside of the AL Worst, it slipped my radar that the Yanks have won every division for the last nine years.

Well, that and the fact that I hate the Yankees, too, so I couldn't care less how they finish; and not just because they are the source of every Rangers playoff loss. Gad, how long ago was that?

[Big Al]

Also, if you look at it, you could argue that the '97 season was a bump in the road, since they also won the '96 division. It remains to be seen if, should they not win the division this year, the bump in the road becomes a major stumbling block.

I hope!

[ghost of miles]

Funny thing is the Yankees missed the playoffs for 13 years in a row, from 1982 through 1994. Don't know how many, if any, times they would've made it as a wildcard in those years... when they finally did get back in in '95 it was in just such a manner. (Odds are they would've won the division in '94 if the lockout hadn't ended the season, but so it goes.)

[Dan Gould]

Also, if you look at it, you could argue that the '97 season was a bump in the road, since they also won the '96 division. It remains to be seen if, should they not win the division this year, the bump in the road becomes a major stumbling block.

I hope!

Well, that's the hope - with another year of a decrepit Giambi, and two more years of declining Damon, and probably an extention for Mo and Posada, who will almost certainly underperform before their next contracts expire. Add in some growing pains for young pitchers, and you may see a year or two of struggling to reach the playoffs.

that's why I am bullish on the future for the Sox. Beckett and Dice-K and Jon Lester and Papelbon are good to great young pitchers (and there are at least two more who'll be knocking on the door next year) and Pedroia and Youklis should be strong contributors. I feel like the Sox are better situated for getting younger while still being competitive.

[Quincy]

So that got me to wondering: is there a correlation between say, pennant winners and strikeouts by the pitching staff?

Though a good thing for a pitcher & team to be able to do, I don't recall running across any study that showed a strong tendency of high team pitching strikeouts as being key to winning. I'm guessing WHIP would be stronger, but last I read the best measure still seems to be some multiplicative combination of (batting) OBP & SLG as being the best predictors (not OPS, as one of the 2 is slightly more important - I think OBP but I'm not positive.) Truth is I'm not the quant freak I used to be (hey, I got a life!, or a better semblance of one), so I've likely missed a few studies in the past few years.

Not telling you anything you don't know, but the low K rate on the Yankee staff reflects the patchwork rotation they've had. Also Wang is a highly unusual pitcher in that his numbers shout out there's no way for continued success, but the reality of trying to hit the "heavy ball" of his that results in DPs is another matter. Still, the guy looks like a candidate for a Scott Erickson fade-away when he hits his 30s, if not sooner.

The August onwards numbers will improve if they get Hughes back and otherwise don't suffer more damage to the staff. I wouldn't want to be betting against injuries at this point, though maybe they've used their allotment up.

[Quincy]

Funny thing is the Yankees missed the playoffs for 13 years in a row, from 1982 through 1994. Don't know how many, if any, times they would've made it as a wildcard in those years... when they finally did get back in in '95 it was in just such a manner. (Odds are they would've won the division in '94 if the lockout hadn't ended the season, but so it goes.)

Tough to say because of there were fewer teams for those years, so it's a tricky business to slice up the league into 3 divisions. And as we've seen with Selig, what seems logical isn't always the choice. Also managerial behavior would have been different with extra playoff spots available which isn't reflected in reality.

That said, here's a list of "2nd best record not by a division winner," "maybe," and "nope":

WC:

1985 - .602% - Strong team, 2nd best record in baseball behind Blue Jays. KC won World Series that year.

1986 - .556% - Behind Red Sox. 3rd best record in baseball, better than any possible "Central" teams.

1993 - .543% - 2nd in East, 3rd best record in AL. Rangers win West if White Sox are in Central.

Maybe:

1984 - .537% - 3rd in East. Detroit tops, Toronto 2nd. Very weak AL West, so if Detroit is in Central NY wins WC.

No

1982 - .488%

1983 - .562% - 3rd in East, 1 game behind 2nd place Detroit. Baltimore won the East (and WS), Chicago won the West with .611%. Current West teams weak, but Rangers "win" with a .475%.

1987 - .549% - Det, Tor, Mil all ahead in East. Very weak West.

1988 - .528%

1989 - .460%

1990 - .414% - LAST PLACE!

1991 - .438%

1992 - .469%

*edited for formatting

Edited June 12, 2007 by Quincy

[Soulstation1]

85 WS Champs

[Dan Gould]

Yeah, I was thinking that the starts taken by certain rookies has hurt them. It will be interesting to see where they rank by the end of the season. It certainly seems like they've got their work cut out to have a more Yankee-like ranking at the end of the season. I would have looked at SO rates for playoff teams but I was too lazy to remember/look up who made it in what year.

It is interesting to compare the Yankee current starters with the Red Sox starters:

Pettite: 4.92 K/9 innings

Wang: 4.14

Mussina: 4.5

Clippard: 6.0

Clemens: 10.5

Obviously Clemens and Clippard are small sample sizes. Clemens strikeout rate last year was 8.1 per 9 innings.

Boston:

Beckett: 8.37

Dice-K: 8.93

Schill: 6.99

Wake: 5.54

Tavarez: 5.85

Even the guys at the back of the rotation are out-performing the core of the Yankee rotation. I agree the connection is unclear but I would argue that in general, strikeout rates correlate with better performing staffs.

[BERIGAN]

So that got me to wondering: is there a correlation between say, pennant winners and strikeouts by the pitching staff?

Though a good thing for a pitcher & team to be able to do, I don't recall running across any study that showed a strong tendency of high team pitching strikeouts as being key to winning. I'm guessing WHIP would be stronger, but last I read the best measure still seems to be some multiplicative combination of (batting) OBP & SLG as being the best predictors (not OPS, as one of the 2 is slightly more important - I think OBP but I'm not positive.) Truth is I'm not the quant freak I used to be (hey, I got a life!, or a better semblance of one), so I've likely missed a few studies in the past few years.

Not telling you anything you don't know, but the low K rate on the Yankee staff reflects the patchwork rotation they've had. Also Wang is a highly unusual pitcher in that his numbers shout out there's no way for continued success, but the reality of trying to hit the "heavy ball" of his that results in DPs is another matter. Still, the guy looks like a candidate for a Scott Erickson fade-away when he hits his 30s, if not sooner.

The August onwards numbers will improve if they get Hughes back and otherwise don't suffer more damage to the staff. I wouldn't want to be betting against injuries at this point, though maybe they've used their allotment up.

Well, as a long time braves fan, I know that soft tossers get you nowhere more often than not. Glavine, Maddox? Swell pitchers, great control, always changing speeds....an ability to convince umpires that a pitch 3 inches outside might have had a stitch go over the front corner of the plate. But, never had consistent success in big games. Just take Glavine's pitch to left field, over and over(hats off to him for what he did with the Mets last year) And with Maddox, you know he will throw around the plate, and can't throw one past you, so just look for something early in the count.

Smoltz found this out after sitting in the Bullpen for 3 years in the playoffs, and seeing that without a power pitching starter, the braves kept getting knocked out, and all he could do was watch. That, and his bad elbow were reasons he went back to starting.....

Edited June 12, 2007 by BERIGAN

[Quincy]

I agree the connection is unclear but I would argue that in general, strikeout rates correlate with better performing staffs.

Tell that to the Cubs. They've lead the NL in Ks every year since 2001 inclusive (and last year's staff was bad, others better.) In 2000 the D-backs lead the league and they finished 3rd in the NL West.

I do agree that (to paraphrase Mr. Garrison from South Park) "Ks are good, walks are bad," so I wonder if a K to BB ratio is better. That way you reward those rare birds like David Wells, Greg Maddux, and Saberhagen without rewarding Wild Thing from Major League.

By the way, the record for fewest Ks by a team according to Baseball Almanac (did not confirm using a 2nd source):

1930 Red Sox - finished last

1921 Giants - World Series champs

Most Ks:

2001 Yankees - Pennant

2003 Cubs - Bartman!

If I remember I'll see if I can whip thru some 20 year old James Abstracts and such to see what past pitching studies have shown. I know they've been done, but where some of them are on the shelves is a mystery.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Quincy

[Quincy]

During lunch I found a bit of an oddball study from a 1998 Baseball Scoreboard (p. 84) by Brent Osland. He looked at every baseball between 1993-1997 and "compared the opposing teams' stats in a number of diiferent categories. The chart show the winning % for the team with statistical advantage for that game in the different catagories. Note that this is the team with the advantage in each category for that game only, not for the season";

Winningest Stats -1993-97

Advantage

Higher On-Base% + Slg %-----------------.852

Higher On-Base%---------------------------.824

Higher Slg%---------------------------------.820

Higher Batting Avg.-------------------------.804

Fewest Errors per 9 defensive innings----.669

Most SB per 9 offensive innings-----------.653

Higher HR% (HR/PA)-----------------------.653

Higher BB% (BB/PA)-----------------------.623

Higher SB%---------------------------------.576

Most Pitcher K's per 9 defensive innings-.543

At least my memory of OBP & SLG as being the best predictors is correct. The .852 leading the way means 85.2% of the time the team with the higher on-base% + slugging% won the game.

Note the pure walk percentage at .623 (as opposed to OBP.) In other words, the staff that walks fewer (or the offensive team that walks more) is more likely to win 62% of the time. There's a reason managers throw their hands up in the air when their pitcher walks a guy. Most Ks per 9 is just 4% better than a coin flip.

Still I agree, K's are good. But as a predictor it's not as good as other things. Also remember the '70s Angels staff with Ryan & Tanana. Lead in K's for many years, but the rest of the staff stunk and the teams as a whole weren't very good either. It would probably be better to do what Dan did comparing the Yanks vs. Boston and list starters K/9, rather than staff totals, as it helps illustrate depth of starting staffs. Ryan had seasons where he had over a 1/3 of the staff K totals (as have others.) Of course staff K's includes the bullpen too.

I'll see what else is in the stacks.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Quincy

[Dan Gould]

I think that the best correlation might be K rate and staff ERA rather than winning percentage or championships. Too many other factors go into winning, while a correlation of pitching stats would have less "noise". Those highest Ks in history - its hard to argue that the Bartman Cubs weren't a good pitching team, particularly for their two short-lived aces plus Zambrano.