Math Can Be Such A Buzzkill Sometimes

I was just watching an ESPN News segment during which baseball analyst Orestes Destrade offered his opinions on the NL West this year. The anchor mentioned that the San Diego Padres, unlike the other teams in the division, stood pat this winter and neglected to make any major moves. Destrade:

“You’re right, the Padres have sort of stayed put with what they’ve got. So it’s going to be tough for them. For them to have a chance in the division, they need to play well at home – .700 ball – and .500 on the road.”

I’m most definitely not a math whiz. I’m probably not even average. But I’ve got a pretty decent sense of when something sounds fishy. Destrade’s claim sounded fishy.

If the Padres won 70% of their home games, that would be 56.7 wins. If the Padres also won 50% of their road games, that would be 40.5 wins.

56.7 + 40.5 = 97.2 wins.

The following teams won 97 games in 2007:

…

…

…

…

Yeah, I’d say 97 wins would be enough in the NL West.

I Am Irritable, Which Must Mean It’s Baseball Season

For your reading pleasure, I present to you the first potpourri of moronic baseball analysis, followed by my corrections and/or opinions. Today’s victims are the Detroit Tigers’ broadcasters.

Edgar Renteria is at the plate with runners in scoring position:

“Edgar Renteria is a clutch hitter. He hit .341 with RISP last year – clutch indeed.”

Renteria hit .332 last year. The difference between that and .341 is a handful of hits. He OPSed .860 last year, and .875 with RISP. Again, minimal difference.

Also about Renteria:

“Edgar is an unselfish baseball player. He’s always looking to go right back up the middle with a pitch.”

That…is nonsense. Pulling the ball is selfish? What does it even mean to be selfish in baseball? Isn’t the goal in baseball for an individual player to achieve the best possible outcome in every encounter? Questions abound.

Lastly:

(camera shot of Tigers’ starting pitchers) “There are the Tigers’ starters. And boy, do they have some good ones.”

In 2007, Justin Verlander had a 125 ERA+. He’s fine. Jeremy Bonderman was at 91. Nate Robertson = 96. Kenny Rogers is at 103 and is 57 years old. Dontrelle Willis put up an 83 in the NL, with consistently increasing hits, homers and walks allowed, and declining strikeouts. I think the jury is (or should be) out as to whether or not the Tigers have good starters. Time will tell.

Happy baseball season everyone, from Scrooge himself.

Drug Problems Apparently Just Happen To People

This is probably nitpicking, but something in Bill Simmons’ most recent column struck me as odd. The subject is Chris Webber, and his supposed inability to ever totally maximize his potential. While I generally disagree with this notion, that is not my concern. Rather, I found this excerpt interesting:

Of all the great players who passed through the NBA and never fulfilled their promise, Webber was the only one without a legitimate excuse. Bernard King and David Thompson had drug problems and knee problems.

Bernard King and David Thompson were before my time, so I’m not entirely familiar with the details of their struggles. But I disagree with the implication that developing a drug problem is a “legitimate excuse” for not performing at an expected level. Drug problems do not just happen to people. Certainly, some are more likely to develop a problem than others. But make no mistake about it, they are developed. One must make a poor decision to develop a problem, and I don’t think making such decisions qualifies as a legitimate excuse.

No.

Curt Schilling has never won the Cy Young award.

Matsuzaka’s Fat Will Lower His ERA, And Other Assorted Double-Standards

I don’t understand this:

2. Daisuke Matsuzaka, Red Sox. Matsuzaka surprised the Red Sox by reporting to camp heavier than last year. He explained he enjoyed his best seasons in Japan when he carried more weight. Perhaps Matsuzaka also is better prepared for the grind of the longer major league season, which took its toll on the right-hander over the final two months of last season.

Maybe it’s true. Maybe Matsuzaka’s success really is directly proportional to his weight. I don’t know, although I’d love to see some numbers on this. It just irks me that the Red Sox seemingly get a pass for things like this. Call me a paranoid and delusional Yankees fan; that’s fine and probably true. But I implore you to hear me out on this. If any other high-profile pitcher in baseball did this, there would be questions about his dedication and work ethic. If not, it certainly wouldn’t be passed off as a good thing. It just always seems to be something with the Red Sox. Does anyone remember Josh Beckett (and subsequently, Peter Gammons) blaming a blister flare-up on a defective baseball? Does anyone remember the Red Sox saying Matsuzaka struggled because he couldn’t adapt to his new American mattress? It’s unbelievable.

Anyway, I would like to close with the following reminder. Red Sox don’t under-perform, they have defective baseballs and insurmountable mattress problems. Red Sox don’t get old and decline (despite having the oldest roster in baseball last season), they gain experience. Red Sox aren’t injury risks, they just get nicked up from playing so hard. Yankees, on the other hand, are overpaid mercenaries (despite having more home-grown players than the Red Sox), who are getting old and brittle. If they show up fat, they are spoiled slackers.

That’s it for now. Soon I will post the Second Annual Yankees-Red Sox Comparison, during which I will predict that the Yankees will win the division.

EDIT: In light of today’s Yankees-Rays brawl, I have a new double-standard to add to the preceding list. Rays players Jonny Gomes, Troy Percival, and manager Joe Maddon have all been quoted as saying (paraphrasing) “that’s not the Yankee way. Usually they’re professional and play the game the right way, but that’s not what happened today.”

Under Joe Torre, the Yankees would never, ever throw at an opposing player or seek revenge for prior incidents. Never. Torre was too “classy” for that stuff. It reached the point where – specifically in the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry – Red Sox pitchers hit Yankee hitters twice as often as Yankees did Red Sox. I have the specific statistics on this somewhere; if you think I’m full of it, I’ll dig them out. Anyway, for years now the Yankees have maintained a general policy of non-retaliation, even following blatant acts of aggression.

This brings us to our newest double-standard. When other teams retaliate for previous incidents, it is known as “being old-school,” “defending your teammates,” or “showing heart and fire.” When the Yankees do it, it is called “borderline criminal” (Maddon) or “not the Yankee way” (Gomes).

I, for one, am thrilled with this development. I have no idea whether Girardi ordered this, or whether Shelley Duncan did this on his own. Regardless of its origins, I am completely and unabashedly optimistic that the Yankees are done being unwaveringly “classy.”

Is it March 31st yet?

What’s The Difference?

This Spring Training, I have repeatedly heard that the Red Sox have the slight edge on the Yankees because the Yankees are relying too much on their young starters. I would find a quote for you, but I have seen this is in too many places and too many times to document it completely. Anyway, I would like to formally present this complex statistical analysis to you, our valued readers:

• Young Red Sox starters (Lester/Buchholz): 167 IP, 4.25 ERA
• Young Yankees starters (Hughes/Chamberlain/Kennedy): 115.7 IP, 3.18 ERA

This comparison is essentially a wash, which is exactly my point. Both teams are not entirely sure what their young starters will do, yet both teams are relying heavily on them. If the implication is that relying on young starters is dangerous because they’re an unknown quantity, then this logic should apply to the Red Sox as well. I suppose an argument could be made that the Yankees are more reliant because three-fifths of their rotation could be comprised of their young starters. But I would counter by saying that, with Curt Schilling out until mid-season, the Red Sox are just as reliant.

If the numerous sportswriters and analysts are looking for advantages the Red Sox have over the Yankees, this is not one of them. The Red Sox have a better bullpen and better defense; those are good answers. Saying the Yankees are in trouble because of their reliance on young starters while ignoring the same issue for the Red Sox is lazy analysis.

New Stat Alert!

Via Joe Strauss of The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Pujols is the brightest star within a smaller constellation. The situation now, according to manager Tony La Russa, is not new because of how injuries diminished Edmonds and Rolen in recent seasons.

“It may change for the media, but players on other teams still walk up to him like they would before. He leads the league in that,” La Russa said.

The Houston Astros Might Lose 100 Games

Quick rant before I grab some lunch:

I’m watching the Yankees-Astros Spring Training game, and the Astros’ broadcast team has manager Cecil Cooper on during the third inning. Kaz Matsui reaches first. The Astros put on a hit-and-run, which miraculously works, resulting in runners on first and third with no outs. Carlos Lee comes up, and promptly hits a home run. Mr. Cooper, what is your take on this sequence of events?

(paraphrasing): “See? That’s what we’re trying to do here. That’s going to be our brand of baseball. That all started from the hit-and-run, putting pressure on the defense, and that allowed Carlos to do what he did.”

Firstly, I think it’s neat that Mr. Cooper thinks the whole “let’s get runners on base and it would be sweet if someone hit a homer” is an approach unique to the Astros.

Secondly, Mr. Cooper is wrong. I do not believe that the Yankees’ defense was so terrified and skittish about the Astros’ hit-and-run tactics that Mike Mussina threw a meatball to Carlos Lee with two strikes. Mr. Cooper is seeing careful planning and premeditation where there is only circumstance. There happened to be runners on base when Lee hit a homer. The runners on base – and, furthermore, the means by which they got there – did not cause Lee to hit a homer. There is no cause and effect relationship here. Lee achieved the single best outcome an at-bat can yield, and happened to do so with runners on base.

For all my complaining about this sort of stuff, I really do think the interview with Mr. Cooper during this whole sequence gave valuable insight into the mind of the average baseball manager. It’s almost as if they see what they want to see. If the hit-and-run works, it’s deemed valuable and worthy of repetition. If it doesn’t, well, they were just “being aggressive” and “putting pressure on the defense.”