1
We still thoroughly enjoy the build up and the stories that get us to these facts... Thanks Doc.
.
Once in a while, at BJOL, James will make a remark that pertains to "fighting spirit" (as Soviet chess called it) in baseball. A few weeks ago, he observed that Juan Marichal had been 272-5, 0.32 in career games against playoff teams on the road, with Bert Blyleven being 2-101, 7.14.
Funny thing is, when I follow up and press him a bit about "chemistry" in baseball, I usually get a stony silence. He isn't at all friendly -- that I can tell -- towards the idea of intangibles in baseball. "I'm in the knowledge business," he'll say, "not the baloney business," as he reminds everybody here:
.........
Is there a statistic that adjusts for the talent of competition that the players play against each year? It's doubtful to anyone that babe ruth could have a lifetime OBP of .450 and a SLG percentage of .690 if he were to be dropped into present times due to relief specialists, integration, the vastly larger talent pool, etc. If there is not, has anyone tried?
Asked by: secondbaserules
Answered: 8/7/2013
Certainly people have tried it. ..I've tried it; others have tried it. But before you answer that question, you have to deal with a prior question: HOW MUCH improvement has there been, in any period of time? How much better is the competition in 1980 than in 1970?
Since our answers to THAT question are at this time fairly unpersuasive, there isn't much value in trying to go on to the NEXT question: What would Babe Ruth hit today? Research builds knowledge on top of knowledge. [Baloney] builds speculation on top of speculation. I'm not in the [baloney] business; I'm in the knowledge business.
.........
James' comment about 'speculation on top of speculation' is instructive. But in my view, he errs on the side of mathematics when he keeps emphasizing "If I can't prove it, I don't believe it. Stick to what you can prove."
In fact James does believe in love, which isn't provable. The human mind believes in millions of things that it cannot prove, and appropriately so. It would take us four hours to get out the door and down the driveway if we needed proof for everything, if our minds could not quickly process intuitive information and reach a conclusion.
Once in a while James is caught out, IMHO, with this inconsistency. The fact is that he, and everybody else, does believe a lot of things about baseball that could be called 'speculation.' But, of course, his point is well taken that you want to be VERY CAREFUL when you're in that territory. In my view, the (other) posters at Seattle Sports Insider, and Geoff Baker for example, hit a nice medium there.
That was preamble. The real quote we wanted to clip from BJOL was this one:
...........
The Tigers, Indians, and Royals are getting hot at the same time. The extent of their shared streaks is quite rare, I understand, but their heating up at the same time triggers a couple of impressions in me for which I wonder if there's statistical validation: a) it strikes me that contending teams mirror each other's game by game results more than their overall records and chance would indicate and b) it seems to me that good teams do better as the season progress, with their second halves being better than their first, notable counterexamples notwithstanding. Do you think there's empirical backing for one or both of those impressions? If so, what do you think the cause(s) may be? At the end of the season, weak teams might be giving young players lots of chances, but that doesn't seem like a sufficient explanation for even the second trend.
Asked by: DavidM
Answered: 8/7/2013
It is certainly true that good teams get stronger as the season goes on, get stronger down the stretch run; absolutely. This may be hard to quantify, but. . .bad teams just kind of quit at some point. . .not ALL of them, maybe, but some of them. Not a team like the Astros, but a team that goes into the season hoping and expecting to be competitive, falls behind, has some injuries, can't catch up. . .at some point they just quit. It's hard to nail it down, but if you're around the game enough you see it happen. The strong teams get stronger late in the year by taking advantage of the teams that are just going through the motions.
The other effect, the "mirroring" of streaks. . . .I would assume that that is false unless there is proof that it is true. I see the same thing, but I assume that it is an illusion of some sort.
.
.............
.
There we go again: "it is certainly true." James has observed it; he hasn't proven it. But James does tend to value Truth more than he values Research. The scientific method is a means to an end, gentlemen. Our self-images as Smarter Than Thou (because using better methods than thou) should not prevent us from seeing things that are so. James rather uncomfortably tags his observation, "This may be hard to quantify..."
Many, many REAL things are IMPOSSIBLE to quantify, boys. A non-sabermetrician can build on speculation to his own detriment, and a sabermetrician can insist upon metrics to his own detriment.
How many people do you know -- like Bill James and Geoff Baker and Inside Pitch -- who can GIVE you the non-quantifiable-type Truths about baseball? When I find a guy like that, I'm thrilled. They are much, much more uncommon nowadays than are the people who can run regressions.
...............
I'd never noticed that a lot of stretch runs come because good teams are FEASTING on "quit" teams. Makes me want to go back and check whether the 1995 Mariners, 2009 (?) Rockies, etc., made their incredible runs based on this factor. Wouldn't that be an awesome throwaway stat -- games remaining against teams that have thrown in the towel, and projected standings finish based on that :- )
...............
Dr. D has been watching Seattle Mariners teams "just kind of quit at some point" since 1977. That point is normally mid-May to early June. It can occur on Opening Day if you have Jeff Smulyan as your owner. According to Pat Gillick, the trade deadline can be an anti-quit day if you bring in a hero.
This year, the "just kind of quit at some point" moment was when Zunino and Wedge went down. Note carefully that "quit" does not necessarily mean "get lazy." It can mean "get discouraged." Two days after Zunino got injured, Dr. D began opining that the season was over. This turned out to be true. Problem was, 90% of the SSI community realized this ONE day after Zunino got injured. :- ) It gets harder and harder to write for you guys...
Benihana, of all people, noted that Wedge's loss was a crushing blow to the 2013 Mariners. None of us would have guessed that, but now that we've witnessed it, we should not be slow to grok it. Nor the effect of a catcher like Zunino on the ballclub as a whole.
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
2
Do you mean the TEAM was 272-5 in games he started on the road against playoff level opponents? Marichal only won 243 games. If you can use the term "only" when referring to winning 243 games...
Or a typo, and it should read 172-5?
Just wondering.
3
Marichal personally was 722-5 in those situations and the team was 1722 and 9.
C'mon Brent you're killin' me here :- ) ... the original article is here with stats etc.
4
For some reason that one weighed heavily. Appreciate it TR :- )
5
Brent, those stats were hyperbole.
6
I thought I would piggy back on what TR said... This website is often the first site I pull up in the morning, and I really enjoy your writing style and thoughtful content, Jeff. I think I almost enjoy the non baseball stuff the most, especially your little axioms that have so many applications. Thanks for all of it! -Ryan
7
is that I don't "get it" when someone is being sarcastic or pulling my leg. People will say things with a straight face and I'll just... not see it as blarney. I am the WORST poker player ever. My biggest weakness in chess was a gambit. I'd think my opponent had made a mistake and I'd waltz right into the trap.
I read the original article but didn't remember the stats. I saw the stats you posted in this article and my pea-brain went "what??"
Sorry.
8
I was numb at the Zunino loss, but still hopeful. We had to win 2 of 3 in Boston, and had lost the first one already. Kuma was dealing, we have a small lead late, it evaporates. We lose after the pen gave us all it had. The next day, Felix on the mound, big lead late, TW comes in to mop up, then disaster. And I couldn't barely lose my temper. I expected it, waiting for it to happen. I didn't scream at the TV, like I'd done at it and the radio, and the umps, time and again all season with every maddening win that turned into a loss (I follow this team alone these days, so I there's no one around to frighten). Maybe I called the ump a name when he squeezed Medina needlessly, causing the game to be ultimately lost. But I found I was resigned to losing instead of hoping for victory. That resignation hadn't been there before.
I gotta say that the backup catchers really tried to step up after Mike went down. Hitting machines they were.
But we needed the young pitchers to come in at this time, and they still aren't ready. Paxton, Walker, Hultzen, Erasmo were to provide the second lift, after the Franklin, Miller and Zunino first lift. They say the young pitchers will break your heart.
Well get through this, guys. Together. And it will be sweet when it turns around. I have 2016 marked on my calendar. :-)
9
This team has been neck and neck with the Tigers for the best OPS in Baseball since Miller's arrival. It hurt to lose Zunino but the catchers that replaced him have seemed to hit a bit over their heads (OK Blanco's OPS has not been great but he has those two timely home runs).
Here are the OPS of the team members since Miller arrived.
Smoak .973
Quintero .970
Morales .963
Seager .933
Saunders .923
Ibanez .785
Miller .763
Franklin .690
Zunino .690
Ackley .594
Blanco .585
Morse .564
Ryan .541
So far in August the Mariner are leading the Majors by a lot with an OPS of .842 after being number 3 in July.
The pitching and the defense have let us down but the bull pen may be sorting itself out now. Rick82 is spot on. The young starting pitchers needed to be ready by now so we could rid ourselves of Harang at least and possibly Saunders by now. I think there is too much energy from the young players to say the team has quit, either consciously or unconsciously.
BTW, I echo the thought by several others mentioned above. I thoroughly enjoy reading this site but rarely post anymore. Hats off to everyone who contributes to it.
10
Y'know ... I think I get where BJ is coming from when he says "I'm not in the business ..." I take that to mean that his JOB is not to speculate, but to look for evidence to support theories. And if your foundation principle is built upon the non-existence of evidence, ("intangibles" by their very definition, are REQUIRED to have no evidence), then I do get that it's rather pointless for the analyst to respond.
That said ... my warning bells start going off when I hear phrases like "I knew on THIS DAY that X ... " The problem here is that as soon as one becomes certain of something (anything), then the ability to look at data through any prism but the one of that belief becomes increasingly difficult.
For me ... if you believe that Zunino's injury would deflate the TEAM (as much as it did you), what actual statistical information would you expect to follow?
I would expect the OFFENSE to swoon. If the premise is 'giving up", then "going through the motions" is the cliché that seems to most readily go along with that.
Of course, if the inciting incident is player loss, you have to adjust for the actual delta between the offensive person lost and his replacement. Losing Miguel Cabrera is going to reduce your offense (regardless of replacement), more than losing Brendan Ryan. The key point here is you have to separate the actual "tangible" differences from the "intangible" ones.
In this particular case ... the offense is hitting BETTER in August (.795) than they did in July (.792). So, there is no numerical evidence on the offensive side that supports "giving up".
No. If one actually looks that stats in the current 4-9 stretch, the problem lies completely on the pitching/defense side.
The August SP line is: 2-5 (6.57) - .291/.348/.512 (.861) - a complete disaster
The August RP line is: 1-1 (.5.10) - .289/.362/.388 (.751) - not great, but way better than June and only a tad worse than July (.730)
Last 14 day totals for pitching shows an overall .808 OPS allowed.
The offense shows .756 over last 14 days, (just a hair over the .730 over that last 28.
Statistically, the offense has actually stepped FORWARD since losing Zunino.
So, you lose a position player and the pitching staff swoons? That makes no sense at all. The only position player that has obvious direct impact on pitching performance would be the catcher, and Zunino plays .... oh, wait. Gee, I wonder how Quintero's been behind the plate.
Quntero - 8 games: 2-6; 5.59 ERA - .781 OPS against.)
But Blanco is solid -; (17 games - 4.94 - .781 OPS against) ... 2-4 since Zunino left ... 11-17 overall in games started ... meaning 9-13 before
The evidence leans MUCH heavier toward the change in catcher (and catcher rotation) has been very detrimental.
Additionally, the Seattle defense continues to get worse. Mind you, I was pointing out the decline of the Seattle defense EVEN WHEN THEY WERE WINNING, which was generally hand waved away as irrelevant. The DER is down to .685.
Now, the DER "could" be viewed as a going-thru-the-motions impact. Except, the sudden spike of errors actually (IMHO), suggests exactly the OPPOSITE psychological conclusion. In my experience, players tend to make more errors when they are PRESSING, rather than when they have "given up".
======
So, here's a challenge. In the NEXT week ... ask yourself the question after every strike out with RISP ... after every error ... after every base-running blunder ... "Are they pressing?" Because, my belief is that if you go into a game with that question, what you will see is almost nothing but evidence of a team pressing. That, of course, won't mean they ARE pressing, (any more than it will mean they have given up).
=====
What is actually a little surprising is just how bad the starters have been in the aggregate over this losing skein. It has actually been the starters more than the relievers that have crashed. Felix had one of his (rare) bad outings. Was that bad Felix day due to HIM giving up? What about Iwakuma? Did Morse give up on the HR ball he failed to save last night? Not like that's the first play Morse has looked like a bad fielder on.
But, here's a bigger question. What if the Ms go something like 12-8 over their next 20 games. What would a stretch like that says about this current 4-10 spell since Zunino left?
The problem in drawing conclusions at the "team" level when it is your rotation that is showing the biggest change is that pitchers have random good and bad spells.
Everyone understood from day one that this club had a great 1/2 punch followed by a lot of weakness. The problem with that setup is that during any spell where the BOR happens to bring their A game (and your aces pitch normally)... you suddenly have a winning streak. But ... the flip side of that is any spell where your aces happen to struggle, (and your weak BOR pitch "normally"), you suddenly have a losing streak.
How much is random and how much is psychologically induced? That's the real problem. Even if you believe in psychological impacts on the game, and accept the reality of things like chemistry or collective streaking and slumping which may be psychologically induced (and communicable) ... even if ALL that is true ... that doesn't mean randomness ceases to exist. Anyone who has ever played strat-o-matic or OOP understand that random statistical fluctuation will produce streaks and slumps even with 100% of psychological impact removed as a variable.
So, then the challenge for the analyst is to attempt to discern the random from the induced.
Hey. I believe in psychological impact on the team in a number of ways. But, even though I predicted BOTH that Griffey might have a major positive impact the year of his return AND that said impact could not possibly bleed into a second season ... I accept that just because what happened supported my position does not guarantee that I was right about the CAUSE. The question here is can I apply that logic forward? Could I, (for example), suggest the same reality for another returning hero ... like Ibanez?
Is it possible the team was deflated after the Zunino loss? Maybe. But, the stats say the offense has been better and the pitching collapsed. That data tends to run more toward ... the catcher you picked up is NOT meshing with your pitching staff. That would be a tangible difference that you may be able to work out the kinks with ... or revisit your catcher situation.