Category: MLB

A Few Thoughts About 39

by A.J. Coltrane

This SI piece talks about Rick Peterson, then of the A’s, managing the pitching staff to try to avoid the 39th batter in a game. (That’s the cleanup hitter’s 5th plate appearance.)

…Oakland’s Opening Day rotation that year had four lefthanded starters, and Peterson learned that it was best to use his righthanded-specialist, Chad Bradford, as a preemptive strike against tough righty hitters even before his starter was exhausted. The reasoning was often to avoid matchups two or three innings later as much as it was about a particular at-bat in the present.

Peterson asked the team’s analytics department to research the correlation of winning percentage with the number of batters faced in a game. That research, he said, found a tipping point between 38 and 39 batters faced.

“Once they came back with that information,” said Peterson, who advocates for the use of biomechanics and advanced analytics in pitching through his company 3P Sports, “that answered my question. You’ve got to manage your bullpen [because] it’s critical that the 3-hole hitter doesn’t come up for the fifth time.”

Here’s why: Since 1991 home teams that have faced fewer than 39 opposing batters in a nine-inning game — four full times through the lineup, plus three additional hitters — win roughly three-quarters of the time (74 percent) while teams that have faced 39 or more hitters have won only 31 percent of games.

Moreover, in the last 22 seasons home teams that have faced 39 opposing hitters have won almost exactly 50 percent of their games — 50.082 percent, to be more precise — making 39 the inflection point of winning or losing.

The piece is accompanied by this table:

Winning Percentage As Correlated With Batters Faced 1991-2012

Batters Faced Winning Percentage Batters Faced Winning Percentage
27 100.0 41 36.2
28 97.4 42 31.2
29 96.4 43 23.4
30 95.2 44 21.9
31 93.2 45 17.4
32 89.2 46 12.6
33 87.0 47 11.2
34 82.1 48 6.7
35 77.0 49 7.5
36 69.4 50 3.0
37 65.2 51 5.7
38 57.4 52+ 2.4
39 50.1 Summary 27-38 74.3
40 44.7 Summary 39+ 31.0

Now, is that really useful? Possibly to the pitching coach, though I’d think that there are a lot of other variables associated with it that make that observation fairly useless in practice.

Of course, the direct way to determine win probability is just to look at the scoreboard. Factoring in the runners on base, inning, and the out situation gives win probability, for an example check out the excellent post-game wrapups at Lookout Landing.

..and here’s a Win Probability Inquirer at the Hardball Times. That might a good link to save to the mobile device…

As a fan though, wouldn’t it be great to have a simple rule to know when the game is likely “over” without needing the assistance of an app? Maybe a high certainty to the results could be had with something like the following statement:  “If at any time during the game a team’s leadoff hitter has two more plate appearances than the opposition’s leadoff hitter, then the game has been decided at a 85% confidence level.” then “At three more plate appearances the certainty is 97%.”

For that matter it could be “If at any point after the 3rd inning one team has sent 10 more batters to the plate than their opponent then they’re 95% likely to win.” Maybe the number is 15. Maybe it’s 7… Maybe it’s the 5th inning and 8 batters…

I’m sure somebody knows this stuff, right?

A Veritable Cornucopia

By Blaidd Drwg

From Dave Schoenfield’s espn.com chat on 11/27:

Matt (Kansas City)
Would Lorenzo Cain, Johnny Giavotella, Jorge Bonifacio, Chris Dwyer, Mike Montgomery, and Bruce Chen be enough to land Giancarlo Stanton from a value and a Union standpoint?

David Schoenfield
(2:10 PM)
No. You don’t really see the poo-poo platter trades in MLB.

Hehe. He said poo.

As Homer Simpson would say, mmmm…sampler platter….

What Year Is It?

By Blaidd Drwg

You have probably already seen this State Farm commercial featuring Kerry Wood and Andre Dawson…

But have you seen the blooper reel?

I guess it proves you should never work with baseball players or insurance agents when shooting commercials.

A Different Take on Hall of Fame Voting

By Blaidd Drwg

To become eligible to vote in the annual Baseball Hall of Fame election, you need to be a member of the Baseball Writers Association. To become a member of the BBWAA, you need to cover baseball and be voted in by a committee (which is why some of the more brilliant baseball writers out there, like Rob Neyer, are not part of the BBWAA). Once you are a member of the BBWAA, you are a member for life, even if you stop covering baseball.

This causes a ton of issues during the Hall of Fame election process since there are a large number of the 575 ballots that are in the hands of “writers” who either no longer cover baseball or no longer follow baseball. Most of the articles that you will read about the Hall of Fame voting process are about why someone is or is not voting for a particular player. Espn.com recently posted an article by T.J. Quinn about the election process. This one was slightly different – Quinn is no longer turning in his ballot for what I think is a very good reason. It is a bit of a long read, but I recommend it.

Quinn questions whether he is qualified to vote, and it isn’t just about steroids:

Even before the issue of performance-enhancing drugs overwhelmed the annual conversation, I questioned my capacity to evaluate a player’s fitness for immortality. My only qualification, like all voters, was 10 years’ service as a BBWAA member. But nothing in my years as a beat writer covering the Chicago White Sox and New York Mets, and nothing in my years covering doping as an investigative reporter since has prepared me to evaluate the effect PED use should have on a player’s legacy.

He also makes a point that I think few who argue that the steroid players should not be in the hall consider:

The argument hits a serious roadblock, however, when it is applied retroactively. Mickey Mantle, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron and countless others have admitted they used amphetamines during their careers. If they used today and were caught, they would be suspended under baseball’s rules. I don’t know anyone who wants to think about pulling those beloved players out of the Hall, even though one of the few studies ever done on PED use showed that amphetamines clearly enhance athletic performance.

I have asked this question before, where do you draw the line? Do you take out the guys who admitted to cheating if you make the argument that you won’t vote for Barry Bonds because he cheated? Can you prove that Cal Ripken never took anything, despite him claiming he did?

Quinn also sums this up nicely:

I’ve heard other writers say they couldn’t wait for certain players to make the ballot so they could leave their names unchecked. Eddie Murray’s name came up that way more than once. I voted for Albert Belle because I thought he was one of the most dominant players of his era. He didn’t get enough votes to stay on the ballot, in large part because of the way he treated reporters. He cursed me out a handful of times, but he also asked me how my grandmother was years after she had a stroke. I tried hard not to let either element influence the way I evaluated his career; and to me, he belonged. Robin Ventura might have been my favorite player to cover, both with the White Sox and the Mets, but that wasn’t reason enough to vote for him.

But at the end of the day, the game, the Hall and journalism would be better served if voting was limited to a select group of veterans, historians and even journalists — if they’re the right journalists. Columnists and national writers who have devoted their careers to the game, not dabblers. That wouldn’t solve the problem of how to evaluate players in the age of modern chemistry, but at least the right group would be making the call.

I have to agree with him. The process has too much bias in it, which has led to a good number of substandard guys getting elected to the Hall because of poor evaluation of their careers and they were “liked” by the media.

I don’t know if there is a better system, but the one we have isn’t very good. Heck, I would be happy if the BBWAA changed its procedures so that if you have not been covering the game for 5 years, you don’t get to vote for the Hall of Fame. I will be honest, that is about as likely to happen as pigs flying.

Baseball Card Vandalism

By Blaidd Drwg

Ok, so the person who did these is no Picasso and some are crude but some are actually funny and could be great if someone with photoshop skills got a hold of them. These kind of remind me of Wacky Packages or Garbage Pail Kids. My two favorites:

The art may actually be a slight improvement over the actual face of Rick Rhoden, who isn’t nearly as unattractive as Julian Tavarez