|
Monthly archives: June 2004
The Transparent Law Of New-Baked Bread
2004-06-29 14:23
There are no fixtures in nature. The universe is fluid and volatile. Permanence is but a word of degrees. Our globe seen by God is a transparent law, not a mass of facts. The law dissolves the fact and holds it fluid. —Ralph "Garr" Waldo Emerson It has its ups and its downs. —Elevator operator describing his trade. An age and a faith moving into transition, — Alfred "Boomer" Wellington Purdy "The bottom rail's on top now!" —Union soldier and former slave to his ex-master whom he was now guarding during the Civil War. For a few moments the Tampa Bay Devil Rays captivated the imagination of the average baseball fan, and it wasn't to figure out how their meaningless All-Star rep would impact more deserving but necessarily overlooked candidates. The D-Rays won 12 straight and were over .500 later in the season then ever before. And they didn't even have the best improvement in the AL, let alone in baseball. The Tigers own that honor by going from a historically poor record in 2003 to just mediocre this season, a 215-point improvement in winning percentage. If the Tigers can keep it up, it would be only the second 215-point increase since 2902 (the other being the second-year D-Backs in 1999). As a matter of fact the Padres (up 144 points), Rangers (143), Brewers (114), and Reds (114) are all ahead of the D-Rays and their 111-point improvement and all of those teams are in the playoff hunt this year after being marginalized quickly in 2003. Then there's the other side of the equation, the teams that have had severe declines in 2004, and there are more than a few. The Expos went from marginal wild card challenger last year to the worst team in the NL this year (179 point dropoff). Other teams aged quickly—the D-Backs (168 points lower), M's (161), Braves (150)—or just plain failed to live up to—Royals (120) and Jays (89). The volatility in the standings got me to wondering how unusual a season this one was. I first compared all teams' record over the last season and half to determine each team's change in winning percentage, i.e., the increase or decrease each has seen (the absolute value of the winning percentage difference). I average those numbers for each league and for baseball in general along with the standard deviation of the data. Here 'tis:
So how odd is an average change of 79 points anyway? I took a look at the average annual winning percentage change for all teams in a given league as well as within all of baseball through time. Well, the first thing I found was that baseball has never witnessed six teams improving by 100 or more points as it has so far this year. Five teams did improve by that much only three times before, and the last was amid the Federal League wars in 1914. The others were during the during the American Association and Union Association challenges in 1883 and 1884. Only one time since World War I have there been five teams decline by at least 100 winning percentage point (actually 6 met the criterion in 1992 as well as in 1884; also, there were 5 in 1902 and 1918). Now, let's put the 79-point change in perspective. On average the change per league per year is 67 points. Here is the breakdown per decade:
Note the flattening effect especially from the 1920s until today. As the game and the teams matured, it became much more difficult for teams to make dramatic changes in their winning percentage from one year to the next. The last time that the major-league average change exceeded this year's (79 points if you've forgotten), was 1919 (84 point average change). The last league to exceed either league's average change this year was the NL in 1993 (89 points, greatly aided by my Phils). The only other league since World War II to exceed this year's was the AL in 1968 (83 points) So what does this all mean? It could mean that this is a special season in which teams like the Braves, D-Backs, and M's pass the torch to the Rangers, D-Rays, Padres, and Reds. (And the Tigers rebound from putrescence while the Expos finally run out of gas as well). Or it could mean that the first-half success that those teams are now enjoying will not last. The D-Rays have been streaky and could return to their old ways. Another 5-24 run like they had earlier this year is not an impossibility. The lack of pitching on the Reds and Rangers may come back to haunt them. The reality will probably be somewhere in between. By the way, here are the yearly percentage changes per league for those late nights when you just can't get to sleep:
Permalink |
No comments.
Can't Tell the Uniforms Without a Scorecard
2004-06-28 21:37
The Mets evidently need to hire a style consultant or at least a go-fer who can hail a cab. They forgot uniforms for Tom Wilson and Jose Parra for their crosstown double header with the Yanks yesterday. The Mets wore their road grays for the first game: In the second, they went to the alternate road blacks: However, Wilson and Parra wore their alternate home blacks--Note the familiar/home-ish "Mets" in script: They had many other options as well. The home whites with pinstripes: Then there's the second alternate home whites without stripes: Or the we-don't-know-where-the-hell-we-are orange jerseys: Or the we're-just-in-it-for-the-money orange BP jerseys: Or the hockey jersey: Or the green St. Pat's jersey: Or the old pullover blues: Or the old pullover greys with white piping: Or the old pullover greys without piping: To quote John Franco by way of my friend Murray, "I bleed whatever our colors are." Of course, the Yankees had but one choice: That kinda tells you a lot about these two franchises, huh? And they say the Yankees are all about the money? [Thanks to StrarStuck.com for the pictures.]
Permalink |
No comments.
Very Biggio Of You
2004-06-27 01:37
Craig Biggio started his second game in left field today for the Astros and went 2-for-5 in the 8-7 loss to the Rangers. Biggio was, of course, moved to left after the Astros acquired baseball 2004's version of the bachelor, center fielder Carlos Beltran. As you probably know this isn't the first time that Biggio has changed positions in his career. He came up as a catcher in 1988 and went to the All-Star game as a catcher in 1991. In order to preserve his knees and thereby, his speed and also to give then-hot prospect Eddie Taubensee time behind the plate, Biggio was moved to second base. Biggio had been a catcher even since college though he did play short in high school, like just about every other eventual major-leaguer. Biggio played 11 seasons at second and went to the All-Star game six times as a second baseman. And that would have been that. Biggio was a sabermetrician's dream and was named the 37th best player of all time in Bill James' New Historical Baseball Abstract. He seemed destined to finish his career and then launch a thousand arguments when he became a borderline candidate who would live in BBWAA voting purgatory for the foreseeable future. Then when the 'Stros acquired Jeff Kent last year, all of a sudden he was recast as a center fielder. Now after 72 games this season, Biggio is a left fielder, a position that he had played a total of 33 times prior to this season. When Kent was signed, original reports had Biggio moving to left, but 2002 center fielder Lance Berkman had been given dibs there. Biggio played adequately in center in 2003 though his range factor was slightly below average (2.30 vs. 2.50). Fortunately, his offensive fall-off could be hidden relatively easily in center. But this season his offense is on the upswing. He projects to 20 homers, which would be the first time in three seasons, and his ratios are a .295 batting average (his highest since 1998), a .358 OBP (his highest since 2001), a .463 slugging average (his highest since 1998), and a .821 OPS (his highest since 1999). In fact his OPS is good enough for fifth among the 22 qualifying center fielders. However, among the qualifying left fielders, he would rank 13th out of 17. Incumbent left fielder Lance Berkman was ranked third behind Barry Bonds and Manny Ramirez. Berkman catapults to the top of the right field ranks. By the way, Beltran, if he qualified, would lead all center fielders in OPS. If Biggio returns to his 2003 form, he'll fall to 15th among the 16 qualifiers. It does, however, make Biggio's career a little more interesting as if he needed it. When he moved to center, he became one of only three players to started as a catcher, started at one of the four other infield positions, and also started at one of the three outfield position (i.e., played at least 80 games at each position in a season). The other two are Buck Ewing (C-1B-LF who also played third and pitched) and B.J. Surhoff-Surhoff (C-3B-LF). No, if Biggio lasts the season in left, he'll be the first to start at two outfield positions along with catcher and infield. There were rumors that he would replace Jeff Kent at second while he was out with an injury but he has already returned. But that would have been interesting. Of course, with the way that Brad Ausmus is hitting (.611 OPS), maybe Kent should move back to catcher.
Permalink |
No comments.
Gross Anatomy
2004-06-24 23:25
[Our old friend Gregi Gross, with whom I discussed baseball in Germany in a three-part series entitled "Eine Kleine Chin Music" (parts I, II, and III) some time ago, has conducted a study on what it takes to be a winner in baseball. I am proud to present it here. Enjoy.] Heading into the 2002 season, so says Michael Lewis in Moneyball, then Oakland A´s assistant GM Paul DePodesta faced a serious task. With Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhausen and Johnny Damon the team was going to lose three core players to free agency, and Athletics GM Billy Beane wanted DePodesta to determine exactly what influence those three players had on the 102 wins the team had compiled in 2001. The idea was to offset these losses by signing other players with different skill sets that together would bring to the table what free agency had robbed the team. Paul DePodesta decided to start by judging how many wins a team would need to make it to the play-offs. "There aren´t a lot of teams that win ninety-five games and don´t make it to the play-offs," he said. "If we win ninety-five games and dont make the play-offs, we´re fine with that."According to Michael Lewis, he then calculated how many more runs the A´s would need to score than they allowed in order to win those 95 games. By using Bill James Pythagorean Theorem, he came up with a run differential of 135. Using the A´s players past performance, DePodesta then made reasoned arguments about how many runs the team would score and allow, but let´s leave him here since we already know what happened. I wanted to find out if Paul DePodesta assumptions were right. Is 95 the magic number of games a teams needs to win to safely enter the postseason? And which run differential had historical teams brought into the play-offs? Since for the last ten years we have enjoyed the wildcard, I first looked at the seasons from 1995 until today. Looking at each division individually, I prorated all seasons to 162 games where needed (in 1995 the season was shortened, for instance). Since some teams in some years clearly had franchise seasons (like the 1995 Indians, the 1998 Yankees or the 2001 Mariners) or in some years an entire division struggled, I decided to also include averages without those peaks: AL East
AL Central
AL West
AL Wildcard
And for the National League we get this picture: NL East
NL Central
NL West
NL Wildcard
For Paul DePodesta's team, the Oakland Athletics, the average number of wins needed to win their division was 95. It was 93 if you discount the 2001 Seattle Mariners and their 116 win campaign. If the A´s would face serious competition in their division, they could also qualify via the wildcard. There they would need 94 wins on average, and only 93 if you discount their own 2001 campaign, when they trailed the Mariners but took the wildcard with 102 wins (still the most wins for a wildcard team in its short history). What else can we see? Judging by the number of wins needed to win a division, the weakest division in baseball is the NL Central, followed by the AL Central and the AL West. The best division then would be the NL East, followed by the AL East. Then again, both eastern divisions probably feature very good and very bad teams, so the division winners run up high win totals against weak competition. And in the NL Central there is tough competition among almost equal teams, so their win totals stay low. So overall the average of the average (of the average...) for all of MLB looks like this:
So yes, Paul DePodesta hits the nail right on the spot. With 95 wins you stand a good chance to enter the postseason. On average, your team needed close to +130 run differential to win that many games. But what about before? When there was no wildcard? Or even before that, when there were no divisions? Let´s have a look at divisional play dating back to 1969: American League
National League
On average you get these figures:
Even before the Wildcard, your team needed 95 wins to enter the play-offs. However, from 1969 to 1993, the run differential of all the play-off teams was a bit smaller. On average, the teams accumulated +121 runs more than they allowed. So, judging purely from wins and run differential, the wild card made things difficult for teams, but not by much. And before that? Here are the prorated stats:
The average?
Now that is interesting: Before divisional play started in 1969, you needed 104 wins to contend. And the earlier you look, the higher the number gets (as you can see in the Prorated Wins graph). In fact, the first play-off team with no more than a 100 prorated wins were the New York Giants in 1891 - and prorated they won 99 games. The first team to win their league or division with less than 95 prorated wins were the 1904 Brooklyn Dodgers. And it's around that time, that as many teams started to pour into the play-offs with fewer than a 100 prorated wins as ones that had more than that figure. Lets look at some graphs showing the prorated wins and prorated run differentials of all playoff teams in the history of major league baseball:   As Jim Albert and Jay Bennett show in Curveball, there was a wider spread in winning percentages in the early years of baseball. This has as much to do with the many changes in the basic structure of the major leagues given the small number of teams as well as the short schedules. It's easier to win eighty percent of 60 games than it is to win eighty percent of 162 games. And the number of wins needed for contending teams tells us the same. According to the numbers above, there is a difference of nine wins between the average needed for a playoff team before and after 1969. Today, with all the fuss about competitive balance, you need just 95 wins to be a play-off team. 50 years ago that figure was nine wins higher. You had less competitive balance back then, I´d say. As Mike points out, that also has a lot to do with the fact that before 1969 you had two playoff spots for 16 teams (12.5 percent) and today you have eight playoff spots for 30 teams (26.6 percent). And you could take this line of thought even further – because of expansion and free agency you have a different type of talent distribution today that also influences competitive balance.  Yet for the last 35 years or so, Paul DePodesta's assumption was right: By winning 95 games, you almost assure your fans of following your games into October. And history shows that you need a run differential of +120 to do so. So what happened to the 2002 Oakland Athletics? They would score 800 runs and allow 654 of them. Their run differential of +146 would secure them 103 wins, enough for the division crown and four more than the wild card team from Anaheim had. Billy Bean and Paul DePodesta, based on the right assumption, took the necessary steps. But what about the run differential of +135 needed for 95 wins? If you look at the formula used by Bill James, you´ll see that the number of runs scored and allowed – the number of overall runs in the teams games – greatly influences the run differential needed for a certain amount of wins: To make it more clear, lets have a look at a graph depicting the situation for 95 wins:  During the last ten seasons, the average playoff team scored 845 runs. Looking at the graph, you see the average playoff team then should allow no more than 710 runs for a run differential of exactly +135. But if you, say, allow just 588 runs, you need to score just 700 runs for a run differential of +112 to have an expected W-L record of 95-67. And if your team happens to play in Denver, you better prepare for a better run differential. Finally just for fun, let´s have a look at teams that followed that rule but somehow managed to miss their goal. Throughout baseball history we find teams that missed the play-offs despite accumulating these 95 wins or even more. • The last team were the 1999 Cincinnati Reds, which won 96 games and had a run differential of +154. Unfortunately for them, the Mets had a slightly smaller run differential (+142), but beat their pythagorean W-L record by two games to finish at 97-66, thus taking the wild card spot. How far could you take your run differential without danger of entering the play-offs? If we prorate their stats, the 1898 Baltimore Orioles put up a run differential of +326. They would finish safely in second, trailing the Boston Beaneaters by six games. The 1886 Detroit Wolverines scored a +374 (prorated), finishing 3 games behind the Chicago White Stockings. Yet those two teams were not to be compared to the 1872 Philadelphia Athletics. If we prorate their 44 games to a 162-game schedule, they outscored their opponents by a whopping 655 runs. Unfortunately for them, the Boston Red Stockings did better and it wasn´t even close. Their prorated run differential came in at +961 and it enabled them to distance the Philadelphia Athletics by 7.5 games. On the opposite site of the spectrum, we find the 1984 Kansas City Royals. The team was outscored by 13 runs, yet managed to win AL West by 3 games. They were trailed by the Minnesota Twins, who finished with a .500 record. Yet the fact that they had a better Pythagorean W-L record than the Royals seems to have made the Twins tick. Because three years later, in 1987, they won 85 games to win the AL West two games ahead of the Royals. To add insult to injury, the Twins let themselves be outscored by 20 runs. By the way, they still beat their Pythagorean W-L record regularly by a few games. As of today, they have won 21 more games since the start of the 2001 season than they should. And of course, this season they own a 32-26 record but have been outscored by 11 runs. (All stats from Baseball Reference and Sean Lahmans Database)
Permalink |
No comments.
Killer Beltran?
2004-06-24 21:38
ESPN reports that the Astros are "very close" to winning the Carlos Beltran derby. It would be part fo a three-way trade with the Astros sending closer Octavio Dotel to Oakland and the A's would send third-base prospect Mark Teahan and two others to the Royals. Actually, MLB.com just confirmed that it's a done deal. The Astros also send catcher John "Don't Call Me Jack" Buck to the Royals, so they do get a thrid baseman and a catcher in the deal. The A's also got Mike Wood and some how cash from the Royals. Buck was batting .296 with 12 HRs and 33 RBI with 21 K, 38 BB, and 223 ABs. Teahan was batting .275 with no homers and 10 RBI at Triple-A Sacramento with 22 strikeouts (and just 11 walks) in just 69 at-bats. He had been ripping up the league at Double-A Modesto: .336, 6, 36 bit still 44 Ks (and 29 BBs) in 197 ABs. Wood is 11-3 with a 2.80 ERA at Triple-A with 66 K/25 BB in 90 IP (and 14 unearned runs). So it looks like the Royals got three decent prospects, one at third and one catcher, just as they wanted. The A's got their closer. The Astros replaced Richard Hidalgo (CF Biggio will move to LF).
Permalink |
No comments.
Musical Chairs
2004-06-24 00:07
It seems that we are having a musical Rashomon day at All-Baseball.com. Will Carroll's site has three articles on the topic of music. Then Jon Weisman followed up with the listings from an old compilation tape of his. That reminded me of an old tape that I copied from my friend Doug in college that he had gotten from a friend who is long forgotten. It was dubbed "Never on the Radio" and was supposed to collect fringe songs that you would never hear on the radio in those days. Of course, it predated the college radio revolution of the '80s led by REM and Husker Du. And there were those fringe stations like WLIR in Long Island and WFNX in Boston that would actually put these types of artists on mainstream radio. However, this was perhaps the last point in time in which music still seemed revolutionary, aside from the short spasm during the anti-establishment grunge era. Punk was giving way to New Wave, and this was when that term was supposed to harken back to the last British invasion and the musical revolution it brought about. This was about when the Clash released their era-defining London Calling album. The Clash went from a punk group to one that embraced the full spectrum of musical styles of the day (ska, reggae, rockabilly, etc.). The Clash knew they were doing nothing less than redefining what rock music was when the put bassist Paul Simenon on the cover just about to smash his instrument while the album title scrolls across the left and bottom of the cover a la Elvis Presley's debut album. Compare:
It was a tribute and a statement of devious in one fell swoop. And it worked. The Clash presaged/captured the musical potpourri that would define the era. Little did we know that the what would follow would be years of synthesizers, big hair, and the calcification of corporate rock. Anyway, here are the tracks from the 21-year-old tape: Side A: U2-I Will Follow Side B: Chron Gen-Lies
Permalink |
No comments.
Devil of a Streak
2004-06-23 15:05
As I'm sure you've already heard, the Devil Rays have improbably won twelve straight games. Should they make it thirteen straight, they reach .500 for the first time since April 17, when they were 5-5. It's especially odd given the fact that it took the D-Rays 40 tries to win their first 12 games this year, and that occurred just a little over a month ago on May 21. A year ago today, Tampa Bay was 24-49, .328 winning percentage. They were 20 games behind the first-place Yankees, and 9.5 behind the fourth place O's. Two years ago? They were again last: 24-48, .333, 21.5 out of first with the worst record in baseball. In 2001, they were last in the AL East, 21-51, .291, 22.5 back, with the worst record in baseball. In 2000, they were last in the AL East, 28-42, .400, 10 games back, with the worst record in the AL. In 1999, they were, you guessed it, last in the AL East: 29-41, .414, 12 back. In 1998: Lats in AL East, 31-43, .418, 22.5 games back. And that's it. Their best previous record on June 23 came in their inaugural season (1998). Also, this has been a rollercoaster year for Tampa Bay. They started off 5-4 on April 16. Then went 5 and Twenty-four over their next 29 games to fall to 10-28 on May 19 at which time they had just lost their 5th straight and the 12th out of their last 13 tries. Tampa Bay then won 5 straight and 11 of 17 to run their record to 21-34 on June 8. With twelve straight wins their record is now 33-34. Take out their 5-24 run and they have a 28-10, .737 record. I thought it would be fun to see what the odds were for the D-Rays to win 12 straight given the "past is prologue" theory at various points throughout the young season. I also included their odds of reaching the all-time record of 26 straight (by 1916 Giants). By the way, the odds of a .500 team winning 12 straight is one in 4,096 and winning 26 straight, one in 67,108,864:
The Devil Rays should they match the Giants all-time record, will be a good record companion for the 1916 team. Here's a rundown of that team that I put together when the A's were threatening their record two seasons ago: Of these teams [i.e., the all-time win-streak teams], the 1916 New York Giants are by far the oddest. They have the longest streak and qualify for the list for two separate streaks, but they are one of two teams to be included that finished fourth. As a matter of fact half of their win total is derived from their two streaks. They would be 43-66 without those two streaks. So I investigated further. First the 1916 Giants presaged the 1979 Pirates and any of a half-dozen or so teams today who have more than just the home and away jerseys. The Giants had four jerseys and three-well, I'll let Marc Okkonen from Baseball Unifoems of the 20th Century describe it-"provided the ultimate-an almost plaid effect with a crossing of multiple fine lines of purple" and purple hose. Wow, and you thought the Diamondback unis were ugly. This sartorial trailblazing was abandoned after one season.  Their season is almost nearly as strange: - On April 23 with a record of 1-5, the Giants are trailing 8-1 in the first inning of an exhibition game with the Long Branch Cubans at West Side Park, Jersey City, when rain ends the game sparing them embarrassment. - They do not collect their second win until the 11th game of the season; their third win comes in their 16th game. - They then proceed to win 16 more in a row for 17 in total. The streak starts May 9 and goes to May 29, inclusive. The 17 wins are all on the road. The Giants move from eighth (last), 8.5 games out, to second, 1.5 game out, during the streak. - On June 22, they lose to the Braves at home, 3-1 in eleven innings for their third straight loss. They are 25-24 in third place, 5 games back. In the eleventh the Braves execute a triple steal with Johnny Evers the lead runner (the NL's only triple steal in extra innings) - The Giants lose three of four games to the Dodgers in consecutive doubleheaders (June 24 and 26). The only win is for Christy Mathewson who relieves Bill Perritt, and it proves to be his last in the majors. Also, three fans are arrested in the game for not throwing back foul balls (see the Angels fans the other day just wanted to comply with the law). In the process the Giants fall into fourth place, 6.5 games out. - The lose both ends of a doubleheader to the Phillies on June 29 and to the Dodgers on July 4, both at the Polo Grounds. - On July 20 the Giants trade three future Hall of Famers in Christy Mathewson, Edd Roush, Bill McKechnie (Hall of Fame manager) for former Giants Buck Herzog and Red Killefer. - On July 26, they lose to Cincinnati 4-2 at home for their third loss in a row. Their record is 39-43. They are in fifth, 9.5 games back. - On July 31, New York beats Pittsburgh at the Polo Grounds in both ends of a doubleheader for the second time in a row to complete a six game winning streak. They are now 45-43 in fourth place, 8.5 games back. - On August 14, the Phillies behind future Hall of Famers Peter Alexander and Eppa Rixey sweep both ends of a doubleheader from the Giants in the Baker Bowl. They are now 52-49, in fourth, 11 games out. - On August 20, the Giants fall below .500 again (53-53, fourth place, 14 games behind) losing to the Cards in St. Louis, 5-0. They will remain below .500 until their next streak. They also trade Fred Merkle of "Merkle's Boner" fame to Brooklyn. - On September 6, the Giants split a doubleheader with the Robins (soon to be Dodgers) at the Polo Grounds, with Rube Benton pitching both games. The Giants end the day 59-62, in fourth place, 13.5 games out and playing out a string. The Phillies, in the midst of an eight-game win streak, are in first, followed closely by the Robins half-game back and Braves, one game back. The next day, the Giants defeat the Robins 4-1 to start their 26-game win streak. - September 9 Pol Perritt takes both ends of a doubleheader from the Philles, 3-1 and 3-0. - September 13, they defeat the Reds in both games of a doubleheader at the Polo Grounds. They are nine games out. The Phillies and Robins are tied for first (Philadelphia leads by percentage points) and the Braves are one game back. - September 15, The Giants-Reds game is called in the fourth with the Reds winning 2-0. - September 16, 18, and 19, they win five of six games from the Pirates in three sets of doubleheaders at the Polo Grounds. The second game on September 18 is called after eight innings tied 1-1. - September 23 the Giants defeat the Cardinals 1-0 and 6-2 to extend their win streak to 21 games breaking the record set by Providence in 1884. They are now 80-62 in fourth, seven games out. - September 28 the Giants take their fourth straight doubleheader defeating the Braves 2-0 and 6-0 at the Polo Grounds. They are 84-62, in fourth place, 4.5 games out with eight games left. Also, the Phillies defeat the Robins 8-4 behind Pete Alexander. The Phillies are now a half-game out of first behind the Robins. The Braves are 4 back and the Giants 5. The Giants can still win the pennant if all things go in their favor. - September 30 is another doubleheader for the Giants again against the Braves. In game one Rube Benton takes another no-hitter into the eighth but then gives up the only Braves hit of the game to Ed Konetchy. The Giants score their third straight shut out of the Braves, 4-0. The Braves and Giants are in a virtual tie for third with Boston ahead by percentage points. - They lose the second game 8-3 to end the streak. Oddly, this streak came all at home while the first was entirely on the road. They are now 85-63, in fourth place, 4.5 games out with six games left. The Robins and Phillies play a doubleheader at Ebbet's Field. Brooklyn takes the first game to go up by 1.5 games but lose the second to go up by just one half again. The Braves and Giants remain 4 and 5 games back respectively. The best that the Gainst can now hope for is a tie with the Robins, but the Giants will now finish the season in Brooklyn. The Phillies and Braves will duke it out in the Baker Bowl to end their years. - In their next game October 2 against the Robins, they lose 2-0 to fall to 85-66, in fourth place, 5.5 games out. They are officially eliminated from the pennant race. The Braves and Phillies split. Brooklyn leads, the Phillies are one game back, the Braves 4.5, and the Giants 6. The Braves mathematically can still force a tie for the pennant. - On October third, manager John McGraw leaves the bench after five innings in disgust. His Giants lose 9-6 and he is convinced that they did not put in their best effort in order to help the Robins, a team with many ex-Giants on their roster. When Boston sweeps Philadelphia, the Robins are said to clinch the pennant. (Mathematically, the Phillies could still have tied the Robins, but since they had lost some games to ties during the season, they were eliminated. If that happened today, the teams would be forced to re-play the tie games. I am not sure if that rule was in place in 1916. If so, the Robins did not in actuality clinch until the last day of the season.) - October 5: The Giants are beaten by Brooklyn 7-5 to finish the season 86-66 in fourth, 5.5 behind the pennant-winning Robins. In the World Series the Robins lose to Babe Ruth and the Red Sox in five games. The Red Sox play their home games in Braves Field, preferring it to Fenway Park because of the additional seating.
Permalink |
No comments.
Given the Byrd
2004-06-23 01:04
Last September Marlon Byrd batted .330, scored 25 runs, and got on base 41% of the time. After early-season failures including a .204 batting average, .216 on-base percentage, a .501 OPS, and only three runs scored in May (49 ABs). He registered .364/.449/.470/.918 June with 12 runs scored in 66 at-bats. He was supposed to build on the successes in the last two-thirds of last season to lead off competently and play a decent center field. However, the Phils first went out and acquired Doug Glanville, their old center fielder—who had already played his way out of the job two years earlier mind you—as some sort of insurance policy-slash-security blanket. I was shocked at the end of spring training when Glanville, helped by a fabulous spring including 3 homers, made the team as a sixth outfielder. Now, the Phils used to carry six outfielders when I was a kid and they had a 10-man pitching staff. Now that most teams carry 12 pitchers for the majority of the season, the sixth outfielder had gone the way of the third catcher and the dodo. But Glanville made his first start April 10 against the Marlins' lefty, Darren Oliver. The perhaps the worst positive thing that could have happened to the team occurred on April 18 when Glanville replaced Byrd in a double-switch and ended up hitting a walk-off home run to win the game. That same day Byrd had been dropped from first to eighth in the order because of his supposed poor performance (.229 BA and .325 OBP) in all of 35 at-bats. The next day, guess who Larry Bowa had in center? From that point on Byrd's every move was scrutinized. A bad day and Byrd was dropped to eighth supposedly to help him out of his rut. Off course, how many good pitches does a number eight hitter get to see in the National League with the pitcher due up next? Byrd showed some signs of shaking off the slump that had been made a reality for him. But after a slight improvement in May, the wheels came off in June (.244/.279/.293/.572). So now Byrd is in the minors working on his stroke with Charlie Manuel, the man that many point to as Larry Bowa's replacement should Bowa get the axe. Manuel is a special assistant to GM Ed Wade. Wade seems to love surrounding himself with former managers since ex-Phil manager Dallas Green is also one of his special assistants. I saw Green interviewed in the pregame show last Friday and his reaction to the Bowa situation was to poke fun at the situation. When asked if Bowa had difficulty dealing with anyone, Green laughingly asked if there was someone with whom he didn’t have a problem. Now the Phils are left with three options in center: Glanville, Ricky Ledee, and Jason Michaels. Michaels is a nice extra outfielder, but clearly not a viable starter for a team with playoff aspirations. Glanville shouldn't be on the team. Ledee has been great as a supporting player for the last two-plus years in Philly and has been fabulous so far this year, but if the Phils think that at 30 his numbers (.312/.384/.584/.968) can hold up during for a whole season when it far exceeds his career numbers (.247/.330/.423/.753), they're crazier than their manager. The Phils sent down Byrd with the appropriate approbations about his still being their center fielder, but one has to wonder. Meanwhile, the Carlos Beltran sweepstakes are fully underway, and one has to think that the Phils will be players (they could also use a starting pitcher). I've been suggesting a trade with the Yankees for the still useful Kenny Lofton. One thing is for sure, the Phils can't expect to back into the playoffs just because a .529 winning percentage has been good enough to stay in the race so far. There are enough teams within striking distance (four within 5.5 games) for one Tampa Bay-like hot streak to put on top. This team started the season with one major hole, the manager, but now the list of their issues is growing. For the want of a manager, the war may be lost.
Permalink |
No comments.
A Sound Salvation?
2004-06-21 01:03
For all their seeming permanence they might as well have been buffaloes…They went quickly, yet so silently that we whom they served have not yet really noticed that they are vanished. So with other vanishings. There were the little bunty street-cars on the long, single track that went its troubled way among the cobblestones…A lone mule drew the car, and sometimes drew it off the track, when the passengers would get out and push it on again. They really owed it courtesies like this, for the car was genially accommodating: a lady could whistle to it from an upstairs window, and the car would halt at once and wait for her while she shut the window, put on her hat and cloak, went downstairs, found an umbrella, told the "girl" what to have for dinner, and came forth from the house… In good weather the mule pulled the car a mile in a little less than twenty minutes, unless the stops were too long; but when the trolley-cars came, doing its miles in five minutes and better, it would wait for nobody. Nor could its passengers have endured such a thing, because the faster they were carried the less time they had to spare! In the days before deathly contrivances hustled them through their lives, and when they had no telephones—another ancient vacancy profoundly responsible for leisure—they had time for everything: time to think, to talk, time to read, time to wait for a lady! —Booth "Don't Call Me Fran" Tarkington, the aptly named The Magnificent Ambersons Do you remember lyin' in bed, with the covers pulled up over you head, radio playin' so no one could see? —The Ramone "Aviles", "Rock'N'Roll Radio"
|
| 2003 | WS | 2005 | WS |
| Johnny Allen | 144 | Mark Belanger | 161 |
| Bobby Avila | 176 | Bert Campaneris | 280 |
| Glenn Beckert | 125 | Larry Doyle | 289 |
| Guy Bush | 167 | Jim Kaat | 271 |
| Leo Cardenas | 199 | Sparky Lyle | 161 |
| Larry French | 218 | Lee May | 225 |
| Julian Javier | 134 | Bobby Murcer | 274 |
| Mel Parnell | 141 | Andy Pafko | 221 |
| J.R. Richard | 102 | Reggie Smith | 325 |
| Manny Sanguillen | 157 | Luis Tiant | 255 |
| Hal Schumacher | 176 | Smokey Joe Wood | 193 |
| 11 Old | 158.1 | 11 New | 241.4 |
| Overall | 213.6 | 218.1 |
That's about an 85-Win Share improvement.
In my previous Hall of Fame investigations, I came up with a way to grade Hall of Fame candidates based on career Win Shares. Grade A players have at least 400 career WS. All eligible Grade A players have been elected to the Hall. No Player under 150 WS has ever been elected to the Hall (Tommy McCarthy, 171 WS, is the lowest). Therefore the lowest threshold for a Hall-worthy candidate (Grade D) is 150 WS. Here's a rundown of the grading system:
| Grade | % of HoFers | Win Share Min | Hall | Eligible | % |
| A | Top 5% | 400 | 39 | 39 | 100.00% |
| B | Next 10% | 300 | 73 | 111 | 65.77% |
| C | Next 25% | 225 | 58 | 217 | 26.73% |
| D | Next 60% | 150 | 22 | 312 | 7.05% |
| F | 0 | - | 0.00% | ||
| A-D | 100% | 192 | 679 | 28.28% |
You'll notice that the percentages fall off quickly from 400 WS down to 150 WS. The overall average for the Hall of Fame is 337.23 WS. My assumption is that any player who meets this criterion is at least as good as an average Hall of Famer and therefore should be in the Hall.
There are five players on the Vets Committee list who have at least 337 WS. They are Tony Mullane 399, Bill Dahlen 394, George Van Haltren 344, Dick Allen 342, and Bob Caruthers 337. Overall there are zero Grade A, 15 Grade B, 69 Grade C, 96 Grade D, and 20 Grade F candidates. Ron Santo has 324 WS.
Of course, my expectation is that no one will be elected by the Veterans again. I think that having 200 candidates on the ballot will ensure that the Veterans never elect anyone again. Given that 10% of the candidates are Grade F candidates, meaning that they are far worse than anyone already in the Hall, the ballot has too many candidates.
I would suggest
