Reviewing The Twins-Yankees Series

I missed college a great deal yesterday. I don’t miss it often; the South and I had a doomed relationship, I never found a subject that fired me up, and wearing a jacket and tie to a football game will never, ever make sense to me. Two out of those three could easily be classified as self-inflicted, but that doesn’t change the fact that I’m at peace with my dispassion towards much of my college experience. But if there were ever a day to make me long for a time machine, yesterday would be it.

The magnitude of the day revealed itself slowly. I woke up eminently cognizant of the Yankees game at seven o’clock. I also knew the Giants were playing the Raiders at one. Then, as if the sports schedule were a coloring book and these games were the thick black lines, I slowly filled in the vacant spaces. The Angels were playing the Red Sox at noon. The Broncos and Rockies were playing at four and ten, respectively. I realized there would be twelve consecutive hours of meaningful sports, and that’s precisely when I started to miss my closest friends from college. If the year were 2007 instead of 2009, the five of us would have procured our adult beverages of choice, secured some terribly unhealthy provisions, and embedded ourselves in front of our too-large television for a day of witty banter, obnoxious proclamations, and the rare enlightening debate. That’s what I missed and will continue to miss the most about college: those endless, sports-filled Saturdays and Sundays that gave us a great excuse to do nothing but enjoy each other’s company.

On a less nostalgic note, yesterday also provided the faint but exhilarating possibility of the elusive fivefecta (I couldn’t find anything higher than a superfecta, so I made this up.) The fivefecta is the unassisted triple play of sports fandom, albeit less sudden in its occurence. If the Red Sox lost, the Giants won, the Broncos won (at the Patriots’ expense), the Yankees won, and the Rockies won, October 11th, 2009 would have to be considered one of the all-time great days in personal fan history. Naturally, I decided to monitor this situation very closely, only to see it fall short because of the uncharacteristically effective Brad Lidge. And so it goes.

As you can probably guess, the most important game of the day for me was the Yankees-Twins contest. Because it’s October and my doctor says it’s bad for me to be a statistically-inclined curmudgeon all the game, I decided to watch it the way most fans do: with youthful exuberance, relentless optimism, and with the belief in the unlikely. Valiantly, that approach lasted until the bottom of the eighth inning, when a perpetual pet peeve and occasional blog topic reared its ugly head. I simply could not resist the temptation. I regressed into curmudgeonhood, which I why I’m writing this right now.

Team-Wide Trends Continue To Elude Joe Morgan

I’d like to apologize for the lack of content recently. I spent much of last week working on a large piece, hoping to post it on Friday. Then I sent it to the smartest person I know, who lived up to that billing by pointing out several problems with the argument and its lack of focus. So, licking my wounds, I’m returning to the drawing board with no estimated time of arrival. I’ve also started a new job working with middle schoolers to improve their literacy skills (those of you that have followed Fan Interference since its inception can feel free to shudder now). Although it’s only part-time, it requires a significant commute and some work outside the classroom, so finding time to post will become marginally more difficult. But, much like utilizing both sabermetrics and scouting, I’m confident that a balance can be found.

Today’s offering is meager but meaningful. One week ago, I posted a blurb about ESPN analyst Joe Morgan’s infamous reluctance to look things up before offering his opinion. Well, Morgan did it again in today’s chat:

Matt (St. Louis): Hi Joe, From the current playoff contenders which team do you think is the best well rounded?

Joe Morgan: I think St. Louis in the National League. They have excellent starting pitching. Good relief pitching. Until recently Ryan Franklin was great as a closer and I think he can be again in the playoffs. In the American League, I’ve been believing in the Yankees for the last month. But you have to wonder about their starting pitching. Sabathia will get the job done, but you have to wonder about Burnett. Pettitte has the shoulder problems and Joba is a star in the Yankees’ minds and no where else. But I guess all the good teams have some weaknesses. Philly doesn’t have a closer. Anaheim is just now getting their pitching in order, but you have to wonder about their power. Boston, their starting pitching, Lester and then Beckett, but he’s been struggling until recently.

Astute baseball fans will quickly notice Morgan’s incorrect assessment of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim’s perceived deficiency – lack of power. The Angels rank fifth in baseball in slugging percentage, 11th in home runs, 12th in triples, and 14th in doubles. Morgan’s argument for the St. Louis Cardinals is peculiar in two ways: (1) the Cardinals rank 12th in slugging, 15th in home runs, 19th in triples, and 11th in doubles and (2) his argument consists entirely of touting their pitching. I’m not sure the answer to Matt’s question is the Angels. But if Morgan is going to pass over the Angels because of their weak hitting, he can’t go for the Cardinals either.

The more interesting aspect of Morgan’s response is its relationship to the rest of the mainstream sports media. Traditionally, the sports media is slow to pick up on changes in a team’s style of play. I’ve written about this phenomenon before, in which people base their analysis on their perception of a team’s style (usually rooted in history) rather than what the data tells them. Good examples of this include last year’s persistent declaration that the Pittsburgh Steelers are a running team, even though they finished the season ranked 23rd in rushing. Or that the Minnesota Twins are built on defense and unselfish play (read: bunting), when in reality they rank 21st and 25th in those categories. It’s a pretty common practice.

Joe Morgan has consistently demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to evaluate each edition of each baseball team on its own terms. That much is unsurprising. What’s quite surprising – and more than a little disconcerting – is how he’s been left in the dust by even the most obtuse of his peers. I will refrain from naming names, because I still haven’t given up hope that a major sports media network will offer to buy this blog from me for millions of dollars (note: kidding), but I’ve consistently heard these members of the mainstream sports media admire the Angels’ sudden shift from a punchless team to a slugging one. I never thought I’d see the day when the talking heads aren’t praising the Angels for their headiness, grit, guts, baserunning, and timely hitting, but that day has come. The word is out, and everyone knows it: for the first time in years, the Angels can really, really hit. Everyone but Joe Morgan, professional baseball analyst, that is.

… And there goes my multimillion-dollar absorption.

As Surely As The Sun Rises In The East, Joe Morgan Will Not Look Up A Statistic

Rajai Davis is the only athletic Oakland Athletic, as judged by Joe Morgan

I’m working on a fairly large (or dense, depending on how it works out) piece for the end of the week, so in all likelihood, posts will be sparse until then. For now, I offer you this irresistible nugget that confirms three things: Joe Morgan still hates the Oakland Athletics, Joe Morgan still has no idea when he’s being baited, and Joe Morgan still doesn’t look anything up.

Otto (CA): Hello Joe. What do the Oakland A’s need to do to be competitive again? Maybe Billy Beane should quit writing books and start acquiring some athletes.

Joe Morgan: Become more athletic. Sometimes, when I look at the A’s players, I think they’re playing softball. They have some big guys who try to hit the ball out of the ballpark. They strike out a lot. They just are not in position to make things happen on the basepaths. They’ve never really been a team to run or steal bases, bunt guys over or hit and run. They’ve always tried to hit the big home run. Now they have one guy in Davis. Their philosophy was working for a while, but now that philosophy doesn’t work any more. You have to be more athletic, steal some bases in order to be a well rounded team. You don’t have to steal a lot of bases, but you have to have the threat there.

The unathletic, basepath-clogging, stationary, one-dimensional Oakland Athletics have the fourth-most steals in Major League Baseball, having swiped 119 bags this season. Also, does anyone else find it weird that the only Oakland player that Morgan deems athletic is Rajai Davis, who just happens to be the only black position player on the team? Because I do.

What Exactly Has To Happen For People To Accept Joba Chamberlain As A Starter?

This is, I believe, the first time I’ve talked about Joba Chamberlain with respect to his role on the Yankees’ pitching staff. As you undoubtedly know, much has been said about Chamberlain’s optimal usage on a baseball team. Many people – and sometimes it sure seems like most people – believe that Chamberlain should be a reliever. This is because he made his major league debut in this role and performed exceptionally well. Others believe that he should be a starter. After all, he was a starter both in college and in the minor leagues before changing roles to fit an immediate need in the Yankees’ bullpen. I’m firmly in the latter camp, but I’ve refrained from publicly taking a side on this issue because, quite honestly, I didn’t even want to dignify the opposing argument with a response. Unfortunately, it’s gotten to the point where I must make a few things very clear. 

Joba Chamberlain was a starter in college, and was drafted to fill the same role in the major leagues. In 2005, he started 18 games and threw 118 innings for the Nebraska Cornhuskers. He struck out 130 batters, walked 33, and allowed only seven home runs. The result was an ERA of 2.81. In 2006, he started 14 games and threw 89 innings. He struck out 102 batters, walked 34, and allowed eight homers. His ERA was 3.93. After being drafted by the Yankees, Chamberlain started 15 games and threw 88 innings in the minor leagues. He struck out 135 batters, walked 27, and allowed four homers. His ERA was 2.45. He’s thrown 100 innings as a starter in the major leagues. He’s struck out 108 batters, walked 42, and allowed eight homers. His major league ERA in this role is 3.15. These numbers indicate two things: Chamberlain has been conditioned to be a starting pitcher, and he’s been very good at actually doing it. If one of those statements were false, then perhaps there would be an argument for him becoming a full-time reliever. But neither is false. 

At first, the Chamberlain-to-the-bullpen argument centered around his electric performance as a reliever in 2007. Reporters, analysts, and fans alike recognized Chamberlain’s single-inning dominance and saw no way he could sustain it over the course of a five, six, or seven inning start. This was, of course, true. Two hundred innings of sub-2.00 ERA pitching just doesn’t happen. But rather than see what Chamberlain could do as a starter, seemingly everyone was content to just leave him in the bullpen and have him pitch 80 innings a season instead of 200. At the time, I could sort of, kind of, maybe accept him being a reliever, but only if he failed as a starter. It seemed like a fair assessment to me.

Well, Chamberlain has not failed as a starter. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And yet there is still an insatiable clamor to put him in the bullpen. When asked about Chamberlain in today’s chat, ESPN’s Jayson Stark said the following about why he should be a reliever:

Two reasons: For one thing, I think his ERA alone is misleading because he really hasn’t gotten deep enough in games to make a significant enough impact for me. He’s made it beyond six innings once this year. So he’s causing the bullpen to get a ton of outs every time he pitches. The other reason is, I see him as the obvious heir to Mariano. He has the stuff. He has the temperament. He has the love for that big moment. Those are invaluable qualities in the town he pitches in. 

I can’t wrap my head around this. Initially, Chamberlain becoming a starter was a bad idea because there was no way he could be good enough to justify his removal from the bullpen. Now, after 100 innings of 3.15 ERA ball, his ERA is “misleading”? I think his ERA is more “good” than “misleading.” Also, there’s a reason Chamberlain hasn’t gotten deep into games. It’s because he spent time pitching out of the bullpen, thereby sidetracking his development as a starter. It’s unfair for Stark to insist Chamberlain be a reliever and then qualify his success as a starter by saying “he really hasn’t gotten deep enough in games.” I also object to the notion that Chamberlain hasn’t given the Yankees enough innings in his starts. On average, starting pitchers have thrown 5.82 innings per start this season. Chamberlain has thrown 5.72 innings per start. For a 23-year-old pitcher that’s still refining his skills, that’s absolutely acceptable. The “not going deep enough into games” argument is garbage. It’s a cop out that reveals stubbornness more than useful insight. 

I don’t know if Joba Chamberlain will become a good starter. He’s thrown 100 innings in that role, which is nowhere near enough to draw any firm conclusions. It is, however, enough information to decide whether or not to abandon the idea. An ERA of 3.15 and 108 strikeouts in 100 innings is enough to convince any rational and impartial person that Chamberlain should continue as a starter until he proves he can’t do it.

Unrealistic Expectations Surround Yankees’ Ramiro Pena

As Spring Training mercifully draws to a close, the New York Yankees have filled 24 of the 25 spots on their active roster. The final spot is for the unenviable position of utility infielder. Cody Ransom was set to fill this role, but Alex Rodriguez’s injury has thrust Ransom into to the starting lineup, creating a vacancy on the Yankees’ bench. The competition has come down to former Rookie of the Year Angel Berroa and Yankees farmhand Ramiro Pena. Berroa has had the superior performance offensively, hitting .373/.383/.610. He is, however, 31 years old and nothing more than the .260/.305/.378 hitter revealed by his career line. The 23-year-old Pena has posted a .295/.348/.361 line – slightly better than his career minor-league line. By all accounts, his defense has been exceptional. It has been a fairly uninspired competition, as one would expect when the prize is the utility infielder’s role.

The real story here is not the competition, but the incomprehensible excitement over Pena’s merely average performance. Both local and national writers have begun to include Pena in the discussion of elite Yankees prospects. The New York Daily News‘ Bill Madden wrote the following about Pena:

The Yankees Had A Better Winter Than The Red Sox

In recent months, I’ve taken a much more even-tempered approach to the decaying state of sports analysis. My blood pressure is very thankful for this adjustment. I smile more. I curse less. People seem to like me more, and I can still uphold Fan Interference’s fundamental goal of pointing out shoddy, lazy, or factually incorrect analysis in an effort to better educate you, the avid sports fan. That hasn’t changed, but the tone has. 

I mention this because this post will be decidedly in the “old style” tone. Jayson Stark’s recent column comparing the Yankees’ and Red Sox’ off-seasons has served as the impetus for this brief regression. The column heavily implies – if not outright asserts – that the Red Sox’ player additions are better than the Yankees’, despite the latter’s prodigious spending. It’s essentially yet another David versus Goliath analogy that, of course, sides with David (even though David is a Goliath too). To be clear, I’m not arguing that the Yankees are better than the Red Sox. I’m arguing that it’s lunacy to suggest that a team improves more by adding the current versions of John Smoltz, Brad Penny, Takashi Saito, and Rocco Baldelli than adding CC Sabathia, Mark Teixeira, and AJ Burnett. I am putting my fan hat back on for this post, because quite honestly, Stark’s piece got my blood boiling again. Articles like this are the reason we started this blog in the first place.

Here we go, Fire Joe Morgan-style:

“Playing The Game The Right Way” Usually Just Means “Good”

The phrase “playing the game the right way” has always bothered me. A favorite of commentators across a variety of sports, this phrase’s only purpose is to irritate me. The literalist in me flails angrily when it is told that “Player X plays the game the right way,” because really, no one runs around the bases clockwise or carries the basketball around with them like a rugby player. Everyone plays the game the right way. The analyst in me seethes when it is told that “Team Y play the game the right way,” because this brings absolutely nothing to the table in the way of greater scrutiny or understanding. If anything, this utterance detracts from the discussion. Unfortunately, this expression reared its ugly head three separate times in the last 24 hours, necessitating this post.

Before going to bed last night, I perused Tim Kurkjian’s piece on the Minnesota Twins. Its thesis, much to my dismay, is that the Twins have prospered under manager Ron Gardenhire largely because of the organization’s “doing things/playing the game the right way” mantra. I sighed wistfully, brushed my teeth, and crawled into bed.

I turned on the MLB Network this afternoon. A four-man panel, including Harold Reynolds and former general manager John Hart, were discussing the Baltimore Orioles. In a feeble attempt to diagnose the team’s recent woes, Reynolds said:

“One thing that has been passed down from generation to generation in Baltimore that the Orioles have kind of gotten away from is the idea of ‘Orioles baseball,’ or ‘the Oriole way.’ It hasn’t really been around since Cal Ripken left, the idea of doing things the right way, and that’s been hurting this ball club.”

My jaw stiffened. I bit my lower lip, exhaled deeply, and then ate a slice of pizza.

During the Twins-Yankees Spring Training game later in the afternoon, a discussion of the Twins’ success in spite of their low payroll began. The camera cut to Gardenhire. Play-by-play man Michael Kay admiringly offered “boy, the Twins really do play the game the right way.” I implode.

I have come to the conclusion that “doing things/playing the game the right way” is synonymous with “good.” I believe this for the same reason that I believe a “professional hitter” is synonymous with “white bench player in his mid-30s with no power but some contact”; because whenever I hear someone described as a “professional hitter,” that player is usually a white bench player in his mid-30s with no power but some contact ability. But Fan Interference seeks validate suspicions through research, so it would be negligent for me to draw the “doing things/playing the game the right way” : “good” comparison without backing it up statistically. 

Let’s compare the post-Ripken Orioles (not doing things the right way) to the Gardenhire-led Twins (doing things the right way). Conveniently, both eras began in 2002. Since 2002, the Orioles have ranked:

• 29th, 23rd, 7th, 17th, 11th, 17th, and 13th in OBP
• 23rd, 22nd, 15th, 8th, 20th, 19th, and 10th in SLG
• 20th, 22nd, 20th, 23rd, 29th, 29th, and 29th in ERA
• 9th, 25th, 23rd, 20th, 25th, 14th, and 18th in Defensive Efficiency

In that same span, the Twins have ranked:

• 16th, 9th, 16th, 21st, 7th, 19th, and 9th in OBP
• 6th, 9th, 16th, 29th, 17th, 27th, and 20th in SLG
• 14th, 16th, 6th, 7th, 3rd, 8th, and 13th in ERA
• 8th, 11th, 22nd, 7th, 17th, 16th, and 19th in Defensive Efficiency

The culmination of these statistics is seasons of 67, 71, 78, 74, 70, 69, and 68 wins for the Orioles; 94, 90, 92, 83, 96, 79, and 88 for the Twins. The Orioles haven’t been bad because they’ve gotten away from whatever the heck “Oriole baseball” is. They’ve been bad because they can’t really hit, they certainly can’t pitch, their defense is lacking, and they play in a division with the Yankees and Red Sox. The Twins haven’t been good because, by golly, they do things the right way. They’ve been good because they hit well enough, pitch their butts off in front of an average defense, and play in a division with no superpowers. That’s it.

I’m convinced, small sample be damned, that this unhelpful phrase is simply a lazy way of describing a good team. Interestingly, all good teams are not described as “doing things the right way.” I’ve never heard the Yankees, Athletics, or Mets described in this way. On the other hand, the Twins, Red Sox, Braves, and Angels are often given this label. And you most certainly never, ever hear of bad teams that “do things the right way” but just can’t compete because of the talent gap. It’s a meaningless and arbitrarily-applied statement, and it does nothing to inform the audience.

Steve Lavin’s Analysis Doesn’t Quite Cut It

During February 10th’s Michigan State-Michigan game, ESPN’s color-commentator Steve Lavin made a fairly large generalization about college basketball teams:

“This is the time of year when teams start to hit a wall. In January, you’ve got a hop in your step, everyone is 0-0 coming out of non-conference play. In March, you’ve got tournaments. But February is when teams slow down, particularly younger teams.”

Initially, I yielded two questions from Lavin’s comment. The first: do teams, in fact, lose more games in February than in other months? Second: If so, is the effect greater in younger teams than their older counterparts?

After explaining the context, I discussed these questions with one of my closest and brightest friends. This was a good decision, because it took him about half a second to point out the inanity of the first question; namely, that all teams can’t hit a wall at the same time, because the number of losers always equals the number of winners. It’s reasonable to believe that Lavin didn’t mean literally all teams suffer in February, but some specificity would have helped. 

The first question still stands, however, if you realize what Lavin actually meant. He meant “this is the time of year when good teams hit a wall,” because really, how many basketball games with bad teams does Lavin watch? None, just like the rest of us (unless you’re a Vanderbilt fan). This intent releases him from the aforementioned logical problem, and allows for the possibility that bad teams benefit from the wall-hitting of the good ones. 

So, me being me, I decided to research the questions associated with Lavin’s statement.

A Triumvirate Of Irritants

Before the Knicks game starts, I would like to briefly share with you three incredibly irritating statements that were unveiled in rapid success tonight on ESPN. The shows are “Around The Horn” and “Pardon The Interruption,” and the culprits are Jay Mariotti and Mike Wilbon.

Unfortunately, I caught the last two minutes of “Around The Horn” and was thus subjected (I know, I could have changed the channel) to one of the more astoundingly ignorant reactions I’ve seen in some time. Panelists J.A. Adande and Mariotti were debating some issue, when the former invoked the work of Adam Smith. Mariotti, at this point, and not without a flicker of pride in his eyes, incredulously yelps “Who? What are you talking about?”

I have no idea if Mariotti was kidding or not, but cognizant of his well-deserved reputation as a raging ignoramus, I suspect he was quite serious. Adam Smith, fair readers, is pretty much the father and pioneer of modern economics. He wrote An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. This book was really important. No, I did not have to look any of this up. I learned this in ninth grade, and have not forgotten it, because: it is really important. 

Jay Mariotti, as Wikipedia tells me, has a college degree from Ohio University. He should know this. I’m positive I’m overreacting to this, but the pride with which Mariotti professed ignorance of Smith’s work was more than a little irritating. Individuals with degrees from an accredited four-year academic institution should know who this guy is. Maybe I should target my irritation at Mariotti’s schooling, but I doubt that Mariotti went eight years (four high school, four college) without hearing this name. End rant.

Irritant number two will take significantly fewer words to describe than irritant number one. During “Pardon The Interruption,” Wilbon tangentially mentioned his viewing of “Boston Legal” last night. I furrowed my brow a little a little, knowing that “Monday Night Football” was on at 8:30pm, which I imagined competed with “Boston Legal.” Sure enough, “Boston Legal” airs at 10pm. While it is certainly possible that Wilbon capitalized on the wonders of modern technology and TiVoed football and watched “Boston Legal,” I wish he were a little less forthcoming about his viewing habits. I would just like to assume blissfully that Wilbon watched the only major televised sporting event last night instead of watching his favorite drama. Because, you know, the first two minutes of Wilbon’s 22 minute show were about the game broadcast on “Monday Night Football.”

The final irritant is by far the most quantifiable of the three, which in turn makes me extraordinarily happy. Later in “Pardon The Interruption,” Wilbon proclaimed that he would not have voted for Tim Tebow in the Heisman voting last year, but would do so this year. This makes no sense. Behold these numbers:

• 2007: 234 CMP, 350 ATT, 3286 YDS, 66.9 CMP%, 9.39 YPA, 32 TD, 6 INT
• 2008: 174 CMP, 268 ATT, 2515 YDS, 64.9 CMP%, 9.38 YPA, 28 TD, 2 INT

There is no question that Tim Tebow is an incredible college quarterback and one of the top ten players in the sport. This is clear to any reasonably observant person who watches a significant amount of college football. It is, however, ludicrous to say that Tebow is more deserving of the Heisman Trophy this year than last year. Florida and its insane stable of like 5′9, 190 lbs RBs/WRs/Athletic Gods are running the ball more, which has resulted in fewer passing opportunities for Tebow, which have resulted in diminished counting statistics for the quarterback. Even by measurements of efficiency (YPA, CMP%), his numbers are very slightly down. Tebow is an amazing quarterback. He is not more deserving of the Heisman Trophy this year than he was last year. 

And now, the New York Knicks. Hooray.

EDIT: Because I am a dork, I woke up in the middle of the night last night because I forgot to include Tim Tebow’s rushing statistics. Then I went back to sleep. But now I’m giving them to you. They too reveal Wilbon’s statement to be ridiculous:

• 2007: 210 ATT, 895 YDS, 4.3 YPC, 23 TD
• 2008: 154 ATT, 564 YDS, 3.7 YPC, 12 TD

I feel better now.

Michael Kay Did Not Look This Up

During tonight’s Yankees-Blue Jays game, the YES Network flashes the Red Sox-Orioles score. Michael Kay mentions Daisuke Matsuzaka’s 14-2 record this year, but calls it “shaky.”

I agree. This is good.

Kay then explains it is shaky because Matsuzaka “walks six batters a game.”

Having looked at precisely zero statistics and without the advantage of preparation, I am 100% positive this is wrong.

Daisuke Matsuzaka has pitched 121 2/3 innings this year, in which he has allowed 72 walks. Basic number-crunching reveals that he allows 0.59 walks per inning, and 5.31 per 9 innings. Mind you, 5.31 BB/9 does not mean Matsuzaka walks 5.32 per game, which would be somewhat close to what Michael Kay is saying. It just means that if he were to regularly pitch a complete game, he would allow 5.31 walks.

Kay is arguing that Matsuzaka allows six walks per start. Matsuzaka has started 21 games this season, which means on average he pitches 5.79 innings per start. This means that he allows 3.41 walks per start, which means that Michael Kay is wrong.

I am going to dance on Kay’s grave a little bit more. Let’s ignore the fact that every reputable baseball website shows that Matsuzaka’s BB/9 is less than six, rendering Kay’s statement mathematically impossible. Let’s focus more on the fact that spending 30 seconds looking at Matsuzaka’s game log shows that he has walked six batters or more in three starts this season. Therefore, Kay’s statement has been true 14.28% of the time this season.