Yankees’ Postseason Fate Closely Tied To A.J. Burnett’s Performance

Over the last year or so, I’ve realized that my ardent commitment to statistical analysis in sports has come at the cost of my youthful fandom. I remain a dedicated supporter of my teams, but some of the unadulterated enthusiasm has faded away. For example, when Robinson Cano rips a double on the first pitch of an at-bat, I can’t help but shake my head at his impatience instead of applauding his play. When Joba Chamberlain pitches a good game, I’m not only happy because he’s given the Yankees a quality performance, but also because this means I’m one small step closer to being right about his proper role in the major leagues. In short, I’m rooting more for me to be right than for the athletic displays themselves. It’s a bit of a somber realization, but I’ve come to accept its permanence.

Until recently, this change had all but done away with age-old question “who’s your favorite baseball player?” Ten years ago, I would have said Derek Jeter. Five years ago, it would have been Gary Sheffield. If you asked me in the last year, I would have blinked at you quizzically and named the Yankee with the highest WARP, because he would have contributed the most to my favorite team. But now, strangely enough, I have an answer to that question, and it’s largely without a statistical bent. A.J. Burnett is my favorite baseball player and he is, to my great trepidation, the key to the Yankees’ postseason chances.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back For YES Booth

Michael Kay and Al Leiter are two-thirds of YES' most energetic booth

It’s taken me until late July, but I’ve finally realized that the liveliest combination of the Yankees’ broadcasters consists of Michael Kay, Al Leiter, and Paul O’Neill. That doesn’t mean that this group is the best group; even if O’Neill were capable of focusing on one subject, he wouldn’t be able to communicate his thoughts clearly. For better or worse, however, these three provide bountiful banter, occasional insight, and the rare wisecrack.

The trio was at it again in this afternoon’s game against the Oakland Athletics, producing three exchanges that I found particularly interesting. The first came during Hideki Matsui’s first inning at-bat against Dallas Braden. With two outs and runners on first and third, Matsui hit the ball to the opposite field, scoring Derek Jeter. After the moment had passed, Paul O’Neill and Al Leiter (a former pitcher) had this (paraphrased) exchange:

O’Neill: Al, how aggravating is that to see, as a pitcher? You’ve got two outs, you make a good pitch, and he just fights it off into the opposite field. Now a run scored and you’ve got to get after it all over again. Just a tough break for the pitcher.

Leiter: He didn’t make a good pitch though. He hung it over the middle of the plate. [Kurt] Suzuki set up outside, and Braden left it right over the middle. That was a mistake.

Leiter’s contribution was impressive in two ways. First and foremost, he broke the mold by not accepting an easy and banal explanation as a valid piece of analysis. Broadcasters have made a habit out of regurgitating analytical platitudes instead of taking the time to examine something on its own terms. Leiter rejected this notion and, in turn, provided the viewer with a helpful bit of insight. Less importantly, Leiter’s ability to see that before the overhead replay was even shown was awfully cool. Sure enough, the footage confirmed that Braden missed inside by a good six inches, leaving Matsui a very hittable pitch right over the plate.

Later in the game, discussion shifted towards the day’s Hall of Fame induction ceremony. As a natural consequence, the booth began debating the worthiness of several controversial players. Michael Kay eventually whipped himself up into a justified outrage over some voters’ stubborn insistence on not voting for any player during their first attempt at induction, no matter their qualifications. Kay explained to us that some voters do this because they believe no player should ever be elected unanimously, since inclusion is an incredible honor. Eventually, Kay called this practice “stupid,” and said that it reflected poorly on the voters. I was heartened to hear this. I’ve known Kay to be passionately stodgy about a variety of baseball issues, so I awaited his agreement with these voters’ ridiculous exercise. Agreement never came, and for that, I am happy.

Of course, Kay almost instantly lost any fictional Kevin Points he may have won mere seconds earlier. He rightfully wondered how Greg Maddux’s impending candidacy would go, since Maddux is – by any measure, newfangled or old-fashioned – one of the very best pitchers in the history of baseball. He then had this exchange with himself:

Kay: Greg Maddux is one of the best pitchers of all time, and should be inducted unanimously. But Tom Seaver wasn’t unanimous, and Tom Seaver was better than Greg Maddux.

My father and I furrowed our respective brows, because we were both pretty sure that this isn’t true. A quick look at some key statistics validated our suspicions:

• Seaver: 4,782 IP, 311 W, 2.86 ERA, 127 ERA+, 1.12 WHIP, 2.62 K/BB
• Maddux: 5,008 IP, 355 W, 3.16 ERA, 132 ERA+, 1.14 WHIP, 3.37 K/BB

It’s not a landslide, but Maddux was a better pitcher than Seaver. He threw more innings, had a better ERA relative to his peers, and had superior control. Kay’s dismissing of Maddux’s credentials wasn’t a huge slight, but it wasn’t exactly measured either.

That’s it. Here’s to a 2.5 game lead over the Red Sox and a 7.04 ERA from uber-bargain John Smoltz.

Two Bullpen-Related Notes From Tonight’s Rays-Yankees Game

In an attempt to distract myself from Joe Girardi’s perplexing decision to remove Phil Hughes in favor of Phil Coke, I would like to share two bullpen-related thoughts gleaned from this game. Because, let’s be honest, I just don’t write enough about bullpens.

Yankees’ broadcasters Michael Kay and David Cone have spent much of the night criticizing the Rays’ bullpen for systemic ineptitude. Kay in particular has continually referred to the lack of clear-cut roles given to Rays relievers, citing their general ineffectiveness as preventing such a delegation. Because there is no “7th inning guy” or “8th inning guy” – as Kay phrases it – manager Joe Maddon’s job is made much more difficult.

I have two problems with this, the first of which is factual. Despite their purported maladies, the Rays’ bullpen hasn’t been bad so far. Its 4.14 ERA ranks 14th in baseball. Opponents have posted a .322 OBP and .396 SLG against Rays relievers, ranking 7th and 19th, respectively. Their 1.84 K/BB ranks 14th. These numbers all reveal an average bullpen – not one deserving of incessant criticism. Perhaps this seems like nitpicking, but I found Kay and Cone’s comments a little disingenuous, especially when they’ve also been praising the Yankees’ poor bullpen for its flexibility and dynamism. Yes, that Yankees bullpen.

My second quarrel is more philosophical. Mainstream analysts are of the uniform opinion that not having clearly defined roles for relievers significantly hinders a team. We are told that not having that “7th inning guy” or “8th inning guy” makes a manager’s life miserable, necessitating the painstaking “piecing together” of a game’s final 9-12 outs. The implication is that clearly defined relief roles – thereby enabling push-button management – allows for the more effective deployment of relievers and a better chance of winning baseball games.

I disagree with this implication. Too often, managers create static roles for their relievers as a means of avoiding criticism. For example, if Team A is up 4-3 in the 8th inning, that team will deploy its “8th inning guy” to protect the slim lead. If the reliever relinquishes the advantage, the manager faces little questioning because, well, he used his “8th inning guy” in the 8th inning. This rigid assignment of roles does more to protect a manager from criticism than it does to win games. It’s unimaginative, lazy, and timid management. Alternatively, it seems likely to me that “piecing together” the final outs of a game can present tactically advantageous opportunities – if the manager is willing to put in the work. I hope that a manager will take that risk some day soon.

Michael Kay vs. Context, Part 2

I’m mostly posting just to provide a visual break between the 2009 All-Overrated College Basketball Team and the forthcoming All-Underrated version, but also to share another example of what is fast becoming Michael Kay’s signature quirk. 

Kay was going through the Twins’ batting order before the game, as is his wont. After reading outfielder Delmon Young’s name, Kay added:

“Young has a .297 average against the Yankees, so you can see he’s always had good success against them.”

Delmon Young’s career batting average is .292. His performance against the Yankees is almost identical to his against everyone else he’s ever hit against in his major league career. 

Back later with more basketball.

It Must Be Baseball Season!

I’m going to keep this short, because for the first time in four long months, I can turn on the television and watch baseball being played instead of imagining it in my head. Celebrating imaginary home runs is a great way to clear a subway car, I’ve discovered. Anyway, about two minutes into today’s Rays-Yankees Spring Training game, Yankees’ play-by-play man Michael Kay showed us that his new year’s resolution was not “provide context when remarking on a statistic.” Kay:

“Batting second is Yankee-killer Carl Crawford, who always owns the Bombers – you see his .296 batting average against them.”

Carl Crawford’s career batting average is .293.

Happy baseball season!

UPDATE: Derek Jeter just grounded weakly to short. It really must be baseball season.

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.

Michael Kay: Great Baseball Mind, Or Greatest Baseball Mind?

Tonight, I was humbled by the overwhelming sports intellect offered by Yankees’ broadcaster Michael Kay. With Yankee pitcher Darrell Rasner on the mound, Kay descends from the pantheon of baseball genius to grace us with this gem (paraphrasing closely):

“It’s funny Kenny [Singleton], Darrell Rasner gets great run support in his wins and none in his losses.”

Consider my mind blown.

No

During the Yankees-Angels pre-game tonight, Michael Kay said:

“Andy Pettitte has been a Yankee since 1995.”

No. Just…no.

EDIT: Michael Kay and John Flaherty are making a big deal out of Pettitte’s career 67-33 record after a Yankee loss – he’s their “stopper”, he always come through here, etc.

67-33 is a .670 winning percentage. His career record is 196-111, which is a .638 winning percentage. This is not a statistically significant difference.

And By “Pesky”, I Mean “Short”

During the 1st inning of today’s Yankees-Orioles game, Michael Kay said:

“Here’s Brian Roberts leading off for the Orioles. He’s pesky; the whole top of their order is pesky. They make good contact, get on base, and run.”

I do not dispute Brian Roberts’ ability to play baseball. He’s got a .401 OBP and 36 steals in 42 attempts.

I strongly dispute Corey Patterson’s inclusion (he is their #2 hitter today). He has a .308 OBP, which is terrible. Players better at getting on base than Patterson include: Felipe Lopez, Alex Gonzalez, Yuniesky Betancourt, Brian Schneider, and Jack Wilson.

I do, however, think that I have discovered why Michael Kay thinks the top of the O’s order is “pesky” – Roberts and Patterson are both 5′9.

This Is Really Late, But Whatever

On 7/21, Matt DeSalvo is in the first inning of his spot-start for the Yankees. Yankees’ play-by-play man Michael Kay explains why DeSalvo was chosen to pitch over other bums prospects in AAA. Paraphrased:

“Matt DeSalvo is pitching today because he throws strikes. Talking to Joe Torre before the game, he said that the big thing DeSalvo has going for him is his ability to throw strikes.”

A quick look at DeSalvo’s major league statistics reveals just how crazy that statement is. In 27.2 IP, DeSalvo has allowed 18 BB and struck out 10. His BB/9 is 5.86, and his K/9 is 3.2.

Okay, but 27 innings is a small sample. Special K should follow his own advice and look at a larger set of data.

In 508 minor league IP, DeSalvo has walked 254. That’s a BB/9 of 4.5.

I don’t know who is more at fault: Kay for stating as fact something so obviously wrong, or Torre for even suggesting this is true in the first place. Even more amazing is that Kay has seen each and every one of DeSalvo’s starts this year, and it has been painfully obvious in each one that DeSalvo can’t find the plate with any sort of regularity. Kay should have at least expressed doubt about Torre’s assessment, but then again, the Yankees are the ones writing Kay’s paycheck every two weeks.

I mean, really, do these guys even look at the numbers in front of them?