'Tis Better to Have Played and Lost

Once the New York Yankees were eliminated in the American League wild card game, it was clear that the theme of this postseason was going to be one of redemption. Of the eight teams in the Division Series (other than the St. Louis Cardinals), the Toronto Blue Jays were the team that had most recently won the World Series, and that was back in 1993. Last night, the Kansas City Royals ended their 30-year World Series drought by extending the New York Mets' streak of not winning the Series to 29 years.

Even so, the reaction from a number of teams is legitimately, "cry me a river." Here are a list of the teams that have gone the longest without a World Championship:

ORIGINAL 16 MAJOR LEAGUE FRANCHISES

• Chicago Cubs: Last won in 1908. Last appeared in 1945. You may have heard about this.
• Cleveland Indians: Last won in 1948. Last appeared in 1997.
• Pittsburgh Pirates: Last won in 1979. Last appeared in 1979.
• Baltimore Orioles: Last won in 1983. Last appeared in 1983.
• Detroit Tigers: Last won in 1984. Last appeared in 2012.
• Los Angeles Dodgers: Last won in 1988. Last appeared in 1988.
• Oakland Athletics: Last won in 1989. Last appeared in 1990.
• Cincinnati Reds: Last won in 1990. Last appeared in 1990.
• Minnesota Twins: Last won in 1991. Last appeared in 1991.
• Atlanta Braves: Last won in 1995. Last appeared in 1999.
• Chicago White Sox: Last won in 2005. Last appeared in 2005.
• Philadelphia Phillies: Last won in 2008. Last appeared in 2009.
• New York Yankees: Last won in 2009. Last appeared in 2009.
• St. Louis Cardinals: Last won in 2011. Last appeared in 2013.
• Boston Red Sox: Last won in 2013. Last appeared in 2013.
• San Francisco Giants: Last won in 2014. Last appeared in 2014.

EXPANSION FRANCHISES

• Texas Rangers: Never won (franchise established in 1961 as the Washington Senators). Last appeared in 2011.
• Houston Astros: Never won (franchise established in 1962). Last appeared in 2005.
• Milwaukee Brewers: Never won (franchise established in 1969 as the Seattle Pilots). Last appeared in 1982.
• San Diego Padres: Never won (franchise established in 1969). Last appeared in 1988.
• Washington Nationals: Never won (franchise established in 1969 as the Montreal Expos). Never appeared.
• Seattle Mariners: Never won (franchise established in 1977). Never appeared.
• New York Mets: Last won in 1986 (franchise established in 1962). Last appeared in 2015.
• Toronto Blue Jays: Last won in 1993 (franchise established in 1977). Last appeared in 1993.
• Colorado Rockies: Never won (franchise established in 1993). Last appeared in 2007.
• Tampa Bay Rays: Never won (franchise established in 1998). Last appeared in 2008.
• Arizona Diamondbacks: Last won in 2001 (franchise established in 1998). Last appeared in 2001.
• Los Angeles Angels: Last won in 2002 (franchise established in 1961). Last appeared in 2002.
• Miami Marlins: Last won in 2003 (franchise established in 1993). Last appeared in 2003.
• Kansas City Royals: Last won in 2015 (franchise established in 1969). Last appeared in 2015.

So yeah, it's a bummer being a Mets fan today. But 11 of the 30 teams in the majors have been waiting longer for a World Series championship team, including three (the Cubs, Indians, and Senators/Rangers) who've been waiting longer than the Mets have existed.

Going For The Hat Trick

My latest Banished to the Pen article is here. In it, I talk about fastballs. If you've been watching the postseason at all, you know that the Mets have pitchers who throw the ball really, really hard. If you've been paying a lot of attention, you may have read that the Royals were arguably the most successful team in the majors this season at hitting the fastest pitches. As I point out, both those are true. However:

1. The Royals were very successful at hitting pitches thrown 95+ mph, but less so with really, really fast pitches, based on work by mlb.com's Mike Petriello.
2. The Royals pitching staff throws very hard as well, and the Mets hitters struggled against very fast pitches.

I conclude that while people may be overestimating the ability of the Royals to hit the pitches the Mets are likely to throw at them, they may also be underestimating the problems Mets hitters may have with Royals pitchers.

On that note, I'd like to point out my record for predicting this year's postseason series. Let's ignore the wild card games, because they were just one game each. (I got the Cubs right and the Astros wrong). Among the four Division Series games, I was 3-0 (correctly predicting Cubs over Cardinals, Royals over Astros, and Blue Jays over Rangers) if you exclude the Mets (whom I thought would fall to the Dodgers). In the Championship Series, I was 0-1 (play along with me here - I thought the Blue Jays would beat the Royals) if you exclude the Mets (whom I thought would lose to the Cubs). In other words, I was 3-1 if you exclude the Mets. That's not bad! But I got the Mets wrong twice, making me as good as a coin flip at 3-3. 

The point is, I'm going to try to keep the streak going. I'm going to pick the Royals in the World Series. I think their hitters will have more success against the Mets pitchers than people may think, and I think their pitchers will have more success against the Mets hitters than people may think. Specifically, as I pointed out in the article linked above, the Mets were one of the worst teams in baseball at hitting very fast fastballs, which the Royals throw a lot. Further, the Mets' hitters' tendency to hit fly balls (fifth most frequently in the majors) plays into the Royals' pitchers' tendency to yield fly balls third most frequently in the majors). Fly ball/ground ball tendencies are similar to rightly/lefty match-ups: Hitters tend to do better against the opposite type of pitchers. So the fly ball-hitting Mets should do better against a ground ball-yielding team (like, e.g, the Dodgers, who were second in the majors at yielding ground balls) than against the fly ball-yielding Royals, and the fly-ball yielding Royals should do better against the fly ball-hitting Mets than against a ground ball-hitting team (like, e.g., the Pirates, who were sixth in the majors at hitting ground calls). (Neither the Mets pitchers nor the Royals hitters had a pronounced fly ball/ground ball tendency, so there isn't a notable match-up when the Mets are pitching.)

That being said, my choice of Kansas City probably means that New York will win. You're welcome, Mets fans.

Your On the Field of Play Postseason Guide - Championship Series Edition

I batted .500 in the wild cards round, getting the Cubs over the Pirates but not the Astros over the Cubs. I did better in the Divisional Series round, correctly picking Toronto over Texas, Kansas City over Houston, and Chicago over St. Louis, missing New York over Los Angeles. (For those of you who listened to my Banished to the Pen podcast appearance, my pick of Toronto over Los Angeles in the World Series is already kaput.) 

AMERICAN LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES - TORONTO VS. KANSAS CITY

The American League Division Series offered the possibility of interesting Championship Series matchups: Power vs. power Toronto/Houston. All-Lone Star State Texas/Houston. Instead, we've got what was probably the most likely outcome: The two teams with the best record in the American League. Both American League Division Series went the full five games, so the teams have equally depleted pitching staffs. Toronto will start Marco Estrada tonight, David Price tomorrow afternoon, and Marcus Stroman Monday night against the Royals' Edinson Volquez, Yordano Ventura, and Johnny Cueto, respectively.

This series, like Kansas City's against Houston, features some contrasts in hitting, though fewer than in the Division Series. The Blue Jays led the league in home runs; the Royals were second to last. Toronto drew the most walks, Kansas City the fewest. But the Blue Jays don't pair strikeouts with power: They had the fourth lowest strikeout rate, though Kansas City had the lowest by far. As a result, while the Royals get kudos for making contact when they swing, their contact rate, second in the league, isn't dramatically higher than that of the Jays (seventh), and the Jays are less free-swinging, chasing the second lowest percentage of pitches outside the strike zone as the Royals chased the second highest

Both teams made big pitching acquisitions at the trade deadline, with the Royals adding Cueto and the Blue Jays getting Price. Since the All-Star break, Blue Jays pitchers allowed the lowest rate of hard contact on batted balls, the third highest rate of soft contact, and the lowest rate of home runs on fly balls. The Royals were seventh on all three measures. Over the full season, the Royals had the better bullpen, but the two teams' relievers were very close in the season's second half, with a 3.33 ERA for Kansas City and a 3.35 ERA for Toronto. Toronto's relievers struck out fewer batters but walked a lot fewer. 

Toronto got here by playing one of the most memorable playoff games ever in the deciding Game Five. Kansas City's Game Five win was much less exciting. But it's not a carryover of momentum or emotion or heart that's going to decide the series. It's talent, and from what I can see, the Blue Jays have more at the plate and in their starting rotation, with the Royals having better fielders and a better bullpen. I'll take the Blue Jays' plusses over the Royals'. Toronto in six.


NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES - CHICAGO VS. NEW YORK

There could be as many four dates on which there will be both ALCS and NLCS games: Saturday the 17th and Tuesday the 20th for sure, Wednesday the 21st and Saturday the 24th depending on how far the series go. Gee, which of the two games on those dates do you think will get the prime time slot: Kansas City (No. 31 media market in US) vs. Toronto (No. 1 in Canada, a nation with a population less than that of California), or Chicago (No. 3 in US) vs. New York (No. 1)? [UPDATE: I wrote that before MLB announced the official start times. I was 75% right. The Cubs-Mets game is prime time on October 17, October 20, and, if the ALCS goes to five games, October 21. It'll be the afternoon game on October 24, but only if the ALCS goes to seven games.]

These two teams are surprisingly similar. You think of the Cubs, and you think of young hitters, and you'd be right: per Baseball Reference, Cubs hitters are the second youngest in the league. You think of the Mets, and you think of young pitchers, and you'd be kind of right: Baseball Reference lists the Mets as the seventh youngest, but that's thrown off by the presence of 42-year-old Bartolo Colon; remove him and they're second or third youngest. But here are the similarities:

• On offense, both teams are extreme fly ball hitters. The Cubs and Mets were 1-2 in the 15-team National League in percentage of batted balls that were fly balls, and 14-15 in the percentage of batted balls that were grounders.
• When they hit the ball in the air, they left the park more than average: the Cubs were fourth in homers/fly balls, the Mets fifth.
• They both refused to chase pitches outside the strike zone. The Mets swung at the lowest percentage of pitches outside the zone, the Cubs the second lowest.
• Batters had a hard time making contact against both pitching staffs: The Mets were 11th in contact rate, the Cubs 12th. And they kept fly balls in the yard, as Mets pitchers were tenth in homers/fly balls, the Cubs eleventh.
• Both pitching staffs struck out a lot of batters, though, contrary to perception, the Cubs hurlers struck out more, with the highest strikeout rate in the league. The Mets were fifth. Both avoided bases on balls, as the Mets had the second lowest walk rate and the Cubs the fourth lowest.
• Both teams' pitchers induced a lot of grounders, with the Cubs and Mets ranking sixth and seventh in percentage of batted balls hit on the ground.

There were some differences. The Cub hitters struck out more (first in the league) than the Mets (eighth), but they also walked more (second highest walk rate, the Mets were sixth). Mets pitchers were more fly ball prone, and Cubs pitchers more line drive prone.

I'm picking the Cubs in seven for three reasons. First, once you adjust for their respective home fields, the Cubs had a better pitching staff. Park-adjusted offense is a bit of a tossup (the Mets overall appear to be a bit better), but park-adjusted pitching isn't. Second, the Cubs's last game was on Tuesday, so their pitching staff will enter the NLCS pretty well rested, while the Mets won't have Jacob deGrom available until the third game of the series, and it's not clear when Noah Syndergaard, who pitched only one inning yesterday but warmed up multiple times, will be ready to go. Third, while both teams came on strong during the second half of the season, the Mets had a considerably easier schedule. Beginning July 28, the Mets played 63 games, going 39-24: Six against the Yankees and Pirates, against whom they went 1-5; nine against the Nationals, who were in meltdown mode; and 48 against teams that finished .500 or worse. The Cubs, over the same stretch, played better--45-19--against a much tougher schedule that included 19 games against teams that qualified for the postseason. As a result, Baseball Prospectus calculates the Cubs with 96 third order wins (based on run differential and quality of opponents) compared to 88 for the Mets. I expect a close series between two similar and evenly matched teams, but I think the Cubs are the better club.

Your On the Field of Play Postseason Guide - Division Series Round

Well, that was clever. Wrote the previews, then forget to publish them. These are a day old. Sorry.

AMERICAN LEAGUE

Texas vs. Toronto: This series is viewed as the most lopsided among the Division Series, with Toronto heavily favored. I agree. Texas' big trading deadline acquisition, lefthanded starter Cole Hamels, will start in the second game on Friday and, if necessary, in the fifth game on Wednesday. However, the Blue Jays have the best record in the American League against lefties. They scored the most runs in the league (5.7 per game; the Rangers were a distant second at 5.1) and gave up the fewest (3.7; the Rangers were eighth at 4.6). I could see the Blue Jays sweeping this one. [Note: I wrote this before the Rangers won last night's game, 5-3. I still think the Jays will win the series. I'm assuming third baseman Josh Donaldson and right fielder Jose Bautista, who left Thursday's game with injuries, are healthy.] For a more comprehensive look at this series, see my Banished to the Pen colleague Barry Gilpin's preview here.

Houston vs. Kansas City: Another series with a clear favorite, as the Astros fell out of the American League West lead late in the season and struggled to qualify as a wild card, while the Royals had the best record in the American League. However, the Astros overall played better ball than their record indicated, based on the underlying statistics, while the Royals won five more games than their run production would predict. These two teams are a stark contrast: Houston hits home runs and strikes out in bunches, Kansas City batters led the league in contact and had the lowest strikeout rate, by far. Kansas City had a surprisingly weak rotation and a shutdown bullpen; Houston's rotation was solid, anchored by likely Cy Young Award winner Dallas Keuchel, and a bullpen that looked gassed down the stretch. I'm favoring the Royals in five because the Astros will get only one game from Keuchel and because the Royals pitchers were very effective against fly ball hitters, and no team hit a larger proportion of fly balls than the Astros. [Note: I wrote this before the Astros won last night's game, 5-2. I'm not feeling good about that prediction; if the Royals don't win today, it's going to be a real struggle for them.] For a more comprehensive look at the series, see my Banished to the Pen preview here.

NATIONAL LEAGUE

Chicago vs. St. Louis: The Cardinals had the best record in baseball, but the Cubs had the third best. Like the Astros, the Cubs have a Cy Young candidate, Jake Arrieta, who was used in the wild card game and will thus be available in only Game 3 of this series. Unlike the Astros, who faded in the stretch, the Cubs had the best record in the National League in the second half of the year, scoring the second must runs in the league and allowing the third fewest since the All-Star break. The Cardinals are relying on a number of players coming off injuries who may or may not be at their best: catcher Yadier Molina, pitcher Adam Wainwright (who'll be available only out of the bullpen), and outfielders Randal Grichuk, Matt Holliday, and Stephen Piscotty. Pitcher Carlos Martinez is out with a shoulder injury and first baseman Matt Adams, recovering from a leg injury, is not on the Division Series roster. I pick the Cubs in four games. For more detail, see my Banished to the Pen preview here.

New York vs. Los Angeles: It's hard to imagine a New York vs. Los Angeles series not getting top billing, but the longtime Chicago/St. Louis rivalry and the Cubs' history (107 years since their last World Series championship) may take center stage. The story of this series will be pitching: the Mets' young guns vs. the Dodgers' two Cy Young contenders, lefty Clayton Kershaw and righty Zack Greinke. (The secondary story will be the Madoff-scammed financially constrained Mets vs. the more-money-than-God Dodgers.) Both teams had surprisingly good offenses (the Dodgers were seventh in scoring and the Mets eighth despite both playing in pitcher-friendly parks) and strong closers with OK-not-great middle relief. I'm taking the Dodgers in five games, as the Mets' record was juiced by playing in the very weak National League East (the club was 43-43 outside of their home division) while the Dodgers bullpen, a perennial weakness that helped torpedo their last playoff appearances, seemed to have found its footing after the All-Star break. For more detail, see my Banished to the Pen colleague Darius Austin's very thorough preview here.

Johnny Cueto, Kansas City Royal

Johnny Cueto, of course, lost the most famous Pirates game of this generation, the 6-2 victory over Cincinnati in the wild card game of 2013. Other than that, though:

• He has an 18-4 record against Pittsburgh. That's twice as many victories as he has against any other club.
• He's pitched two of his career five shutouts against the Pirates.
• His career 2.13 ERA against the Pirates is his lowest against any team (minimum 50 innings pitched), as his 0.984 WHIP.
• His slash line allowed against Pittsburgh: .201 batting average, .260 on base percentage, .324 slugging percentage. Naturally, each of those are the lowest he's allowed (minimum 50 innings pitched). That's basically like the Dodgers' Zack Greinke last season. As a hitter. Greinke, a pitcher, batted .200/.262/.350 in 2014.

The Pirates have ten more games this year against the Reds. They'll be glad to not have to face their old nemesis. He's been traded to Kansas City. But he's a free agent at the end of the season, so he could come back to the National League.

Next Up: The Kansas City Royals

"Momentum is the next day's starting pitcher."

That quote, attributed to Hall of Fame Orioles manager Earl Weaver, sums up one of baseball's appeals to me. The game is played almost every day of the week for six months straight. If you lose today, there's a game tomorrow, starting with a score of 0-0. The idea of one game or a handful of games that turn around a team's entire season is hard to justify in a sport in which the season consists of 162, rather than 16 (NFL) of 82 (NHL and NFL) games.

Just as a demoralizing loss can be put in a team's rear view mirror in 24 hours, so is the impact of a dramatic win limited and, as far as I'm concerned, often overstated. A come-from-behind or walkoff victory is exciting, but there's still a game the next day, starting at 0-0. If you think the positive vibes carry over for the victor (or harm the loser), consider the Pirates, winner of back-to-back extra-inning walkoff victories against the Cardinals prior to the All-Star break, cutting St. Louis's lead in the Central Division from 4.5 games at the start of their four game series to 2.5. Now, three games into the second half of the season, the Cardinals are back to leading by 4.5 games, having taken two out of three from a Mets team that's on the periphery of the National League wild card race, while the Pirates were swept in Milwaukee by the team with the worst record in the National League Central. Just as I'd caution against reading much into the Pirates' two victories against the Cardinal before the break and what they say about the two teams, so I don't read much into the three games since the break. It's a long season, and momentum is the next day's starting pitcher.

The next day's starting pitcher for the Pirates to begin a three-game series against the Royals in Kansas City are their two All-Star starters, A.J. Burnett and Gerrit Cole, as the team tries to turn things around against the best team in the American League.

How Are They Doing Lately? The Royals are one of the biggest surprise teams in baseball this year. Yes, they lasted until the seventh game of the World Series last October, but they made the postseason only as a wild card team, kind of lucked their way past the A's in the wild card play-in, and lost a couple key players (starting pitcher James Shields, DH Billy Butler) over the winter. They were picked by many (including me) to miss the postseason this year, finishing behind the Tigers, Indians, and, in the opinion of some (including me), White Sox in the American League Central. Of the predictors I track (Baseball Prospectus, FanGraphs, ESPN), I had them with most wins: 79, a sub-.500 season. Instead, they have the best record in the American League, 55-35, six games ahead of the even more surprising Minnesota Twins.

Over the last 30 days, the Royals are also the best team in the league at 17-9. They've scored the eighth most runs per game, 4.35, and given up the eighth fewest, 4.00, suggesting they've been a little lucky over the stretch (a team with that run differential is most likely to go about 14-12), but this is no fluke team: they've scored 67 more runs than they've given up this year, tied with the Dodgers for the biggest run differential in baseball after the Cardinals.

What's Going Right? The Royals' bullpen is a key strength, as the relievers are fourth in the American League in ERA and strikeout rate, fifth in ground ball rate and avoiding hard contact on batted balls, and the lead the American League in both holds and saves (but also blown saves) over the past 30 days. They've worked a lot, though, as their 87.1 innings pitched tops the Junior Circuit during the period. 

On offense, they're second in the league in batting and on base percentage over the past 30 days but ninth in slugging. If you followed the Royals' postseason run last year, you got familiar with their offensive storyline: Not a lot of walks, strikeouts, or homers, but plenty of stolen bases and sacrifice bunts. They've been true to form over the last 30 days: fifth-lowest walk rate, lowest strikeout rate, sixth fewest home runs, most stolen bases, sixth-most sacrifice hits. Basically, they've gotten on base enough that the lack of power hasn't prevented them from scoring runs, though again, their runs per game are exactly in the middle of the American League.

What's Going Wrong? The starting pitching has been shaky, with a 4.23 ERA over the past 30 days, along with the second-lowest strikeout rate and the fourth-highest walk rate in the league. Though the starters' control is good--they lead the league in percentage of pitches in the strike zone over the past 30 days--they're not fooling batters, who've swung at only 29% of pitches outside the zone, the second-lowest percentage in the league. 

Who's Hot? The three workhorses in the bullpen are Kelvin Herrera, Wade Davis, and Greg Holland. The trio's combined for 1.88 ERA and 45 strikeouts in 38.1 innings over the past 30 days. The rest of the bullpen's been pretty good too, with a 2.94 combined ERA. (As an aside, here's a fun fact: Wade Davis's career ERA as a reliever, 1.40, is more then three runs better than his career ERA as a starter, 4.57).

The Royals have three batters with on base percentages in excess of .400 over the past 30 days: center fielder Lorenzo Cain, who's been absolutely on fire (.429/.500/.753 slash line with a team-leading seven stolen bases), shortstop Alcides Escobar (.346 batting average, .409 on base percentage, though only four extra base hits) and left fielder Alex Gordon (.298/.420/.474 but unfortunately disabled until September with a groin pull).

Who's Not? The only Royals starter with an ERA below 3.70 over the past 30 days is Danny Duffy, whom the Pirates won't face. Instead, they'll go against Yordano Ventura (in only his second start since June 12 as he's dealt with hand and elbow issues), Jason Vargas (coming off the disabled list; he last pitched on June 8), and former Pirate Edinson Volquez. Volquez has a 3.71 ERA but--sounds familiar, Pirates fans?--not enough strikeouts (14.2% of batters faced, the league average is 18.9%) and too many walks (8.1% of batters faced, the league average is 6.7%).

It's easy to make fun of Royals hitters, since the team's fans voted five of them to the All-Star team. Over the past 30 days, two of them have been bad. (The others are Cain, Escobar, and Gordon). Catcher Salvador Perez has hit five homers but has a .179 batting average, .198 on base percentage, and only one walk over the past month. Manager Ned Yost has a reputation for overworking his young (Santana turned 25 in May) backstop, but unlike last year, when he caught nearly 130 more innings than any other American League catcher, he's only tied with Seattle's Mike Zunino for the most innings behind the plate this year in the American League, and those two trail St. Louis's Yadier Molina, who's caught 7% more innings. Third baseman Mike Moustakas, who got off to a hot start, has a decidedly un-hot .224/.287/.355 slash line over the past 30 days. Almost-got-voted-to-the-All-Stars second baseman Omar Infante is hitting .240/.262/.280. For a frame of reference, the American League average slash line over the past 30 days is .254/.312/.411.

What's the Outlook? The Pirates enter the series with a 53-38 record, 4.5 behind St. Louis and 2.5 behind Kansas City. Add to that the fact that the Royals play in the better league, and it's hard to conclude anything but that the Royals are the stronger team so far. But that doesn't mean they're unbeatable. The Pirates will face two pitchers with a lot of rust on them and one whom they know very well. And the rotation is the Royals' weak spot. If you can run up the score against the Kansas City starters, you're in a good position to win. You just want to keep them from handing the ball to that bullpen in late innings with a lead.

The Undefeated Detroit Tigers

After compiling a 2-4 road record against, in all likelihood, the two worst teams in the National League Central, the Pirates play their home opener today against the Detroit Tigers, one of two undefeated teams so far. The other, the Kansas City Royals, are in the Tigers' division, so the two teams are tied for first in the American League Central at 6-0. The Tigers, however, lead the majors in run scored, with 47, and run differential, scoring 31 more than their opponents. They pace the majors in batting average (.355) AND on base percentage (.433) AND slugging percentage (.550), and they're second to the Atlanta Braves in ERA (2.00). They've started the season well, obviously.

This illustrates my gripe with interleague play. It's necessary now, because each league has 15 teams, so in order to have every team active, there has to be at least one interleague game everyday. Fine. I'm not crazy with how baseball did well throughout the 20th century with the two leagues not meeting outside of the All-Star Game and the World Series, but whatever. It doesn't spoil the game for me, even though every year it foments a new round of the same DH arguments we've heard for 40+ years. 

The problem is that the schedule's not balanced. Everybody plays 20 games agaisnt the other league, but they don't play the same teams. In the Central, the Pirates play six games against the Tigers, the defending divisional champion. That's the most in the National League Central. The Cubs and Reds play the Tigers just four times, the Brewers and Cardinals three times. The Brewers get six games against the woeful Minnesota Twins, compared to four for the Cardinals and Pirates and three for the Cubs and Reds. Here are the weighted won-lost records of each National League Central team's American League opponents this year:

• .511 Reds
• .504 Pirates
• .503 Cardinals
• .498 Cubs
• .495 Brewers

Granted, those aren't huge differences--over 162 games, the Reds' average opponent would be 83-79, while the Brewers' would be 80-82--but why should there be a difference at all? And I'm not factoring in home-and-away games. For example, the Cardinals have three games against the Tigers, who won 90 games last year and are 6-0 this year, at home and none on the road. The Pirates have three games against the Royals, who won 89 games last year and are 6-0 this year, on the road and none at home. If I tweak the weighted won-lost records by home/road splits, using the overall average that home teams win 54% of games, I get this:

• .511 Reds
• .505 Pirates
• .503 Cardinals
• .497 Cubs
• .497 Brewers 

Again, not huge differences, but one game could be the difference between first place and a wild card, or a wild card and going home. If we're going to have interleague play, shouldn't it be balanced? Four games, two home and two away, against each opponent in the other league would do it. As is, we could get pennant races decided by the schedule instead of the players. And it's worth emphasizing that the Pirates play a tougher interleague schedule than any team in their division other than the Reds.

There's a reason for the unbalanced interleague schedule. It allows for six games--three home, three away--between natural interleague rivals, like Mets/Yankees and Dodgers/Angels. That, of course, limits the number of games with other teams. In the National League Central, there are six games between the Cubs and White Sox for supremacy of Chicago, six games between the Cardinals and Royals for supremacy of Missouri, six between the Reds and Indians for supremacy of Ohio, and six between the Brewers and Twins for supremacy of States You'd Best Avoid In The Winter. For the Pirates, though, their natural rival is probably cross-state Philadelphia, which is already in the National League. So instead...Hey, let's replay the 1909 World Series, every year! Pirates beat the Tigers, four games to three! Honus* outshines Ty! Unfortunately, 106 years later, the Pirates are stuck playing six games against a team that's won its division five straight times.

*The Honus Wagner/Ty Cobb thing was the big story of the series, as the Pirates shortstop and the Tigers right fielder were their respective leagues' big stars (and batting champions). Wagner, 35, easily outhit Cobb in the Series, batting .333 with a .967 OPS, compared to the 22-year-old Cobb's .231/.656. And please, don't say Honus as in bonus. It's pronounced hah-niss, like..um...hah-niss.

Has the Modern Bullpen Destroyed Late-Inning Comebacks?

I had another article posted at FanGraphs today. Rather than reproduce it in full, here's the link. It's a little more stats/jargon/numbers-heavy than what I like to do here, but I encourage you to click the link anyway. The gist of it is this: As I pointed out in my post about Dodgers fans who leave games early, the idea of modern bullpens, with specialists in the seventh, eighth, and ninth innings, is to make leads after six innings insurmountable. We saw that with the Royals in the postseason, as their "HDH" bullpen (Kelvin Herrera in the seventh, Wade Davis in the eighth, Greg Holland in the ninth) turned games into six-inning affairs. In fact, as I presented in the post, the Royals won 94.2% of the games that they led after six innings, and the team leading 93.8% of Dodger games after six innings went on the win. Granted, those two teams are outliers. (The Dodgers were No. 1 in the majors in the measure of games won by the team leading after six, which I dubbed the Foregone Conclusion Index.) But are they part of a trend? Are 21st century bullpens making it impossible for teams to come from late-inning deficits to win?

To answer that, I looked at the percentage of games in which the team leading after six innings went on the win in each of the past 50 years. Here's a graph of the results:

That might look like the percentage of games won by teams leading after six innings--or, put another way, the difficulty in coming back from a deficit after six innings--is rising, but there really isn't much of a discernible relationship. Yes, the two years in which leads were the toughest to overcome were 2014 and 2012. But 2011 and 2013 were both below the long-term average. So we really can't say that the modern bullpen has killed come-from-behind rallies.

The interesting question is: Why not? After the constant refinement of bullpens, from 22.7% of starters completing their games in 1965 to 2.5% in 2014, from the typical reliever pitching more than an inning to single-inning (or fewer) specialists, from the bullpen being a demotion for old starters to a starting point for young flamethrowers, wouldn't you think that it'd be harder to come back in the late innings? I can think of only three reasons why that wouldn't be the case:

• The relievers aren't that good. This one's pretty easy to refute. Relievers had a 3.58 ERA this season, starters 3.82. Relievers put up better numbers. That shouldn't be a surprise. It's easier to throw 15 pitches than 100.
• The relievers aren't being used well. There's something to that. The modern closer pitches the ninth inning in save opportunities, and that's it. One-run lead in the seventh inning and the opposing team's 3-4-5 hitters due up? Nope, that's not the closer's job. Analysts have advocated to using your best reliever when the game's on the line, regardless of the inning. But that's not how relievers are used.
• The hitters are better as well. It's hard to think of hitters improving in the post-PED era, with strikeouts rising every year and scoring in 2014 at its lowest level in a non-strike year since 1976. But I think this makes sense. Hitters today are better conditioned, better coached, and have access to more information about the pitchers and teams they face. In the pitcher vs. batter chess match, the quality of competition keeps moving up on both sides.

The 50-year average is that teams trailing after six innings come back in just under 14% of games, or a little less than one in seven games. So far, the parade of hard-throwing one-inning relief specialists hasn't budged that.

The Last Strike Zone of the Year

Last night's Game Seven was taut, with the outcome in doubt until literally the last at-bat (the Royals had the tying run at third with two outs in the ninth) and will be remembered for yet another amazing performance by Giants pitcher and Series MVP Madison Bumgarner. 

Fortunately, it won't be remembered for the umpires, other than the (correctly) overturned call on the acrobatic double play Joe Panik started in the third inning (aided by Eric Hosmer's dumb slide into first base - do sprinters slide headfirst across the finish line?)


Specifically, home plate umpire Jeff Nelson had a pretty good game. Here's a map of his ball-strike calls with a right-handed batter at the plate:


That's from the umpire's point of view, so the batter's on the left side. Called strikes are in red, called balls are in green. The solid line is the rulebook strike zone, while the dashed line is the strike zone as typically called by major league umpires. (They expand the strike zone a bit). There were a three calls that Nelson missed, calling a strike on the Royals that should have been a ball and a couple strikes on the Giants that were balls (one away, one down), but that's OK.

Here's his strike zone for left-handed batters, whom you should imagine standing on the right side of this diagram:



Lefties get sort of hosed by major league umpires, as their strike zone is a good bit wider than it should be, and Nelson called a lot of strikes on pitches that were outside the rulebook zone, though they were inside the zone lefty swingers usually see. So, all in all, a nice job.

Reality Check: Game Seven

Tonight's the last game of the 2014 season. Does history tell us who's going to win?

Yesterday (I'm sorry I didn't read it until today), ESPN's Jayson Stark had a piece about how the Royals, as the home team for the last two games of the Series, have an advantage. Specifically, here are two of his datapoints:

Starting in 1982, the home team has gone 22-3 in Games 6 and 7. And yes, you read that right. We said 22-and-3. That's an .880 winning percentage. Which makes no mathematical sense at all. If you subtract those 25 games, the winning percentage of home teams in all other World Series games, including this year, is just .540. Amazing.No home team has lost a Game 7 in 35 years, since the Pirates won their last title in Baltimore. Since then, road teams have lost eight straight Game 7s.

Now, my purpose here isn't to call out Jayson Stark. He's a great journalist. His coverage of the game is passionate and humorous, and he's an old-school print journalist who's not afraid to bring on new concepts. His latest book is on my reading list. And the statistics he cited have the virtue of being, you know, correct.

However, they're also selective. True, the home team, since 1982, is 14-3 (after last night, 15-3) in World Series Game Six and 8-0 in Game Seven. But that's only since 1982. What happened before then?

• From 1905 (when the World Series became a best-of-seven tournament, excluding 1919-21, when it was best of nine) to 1982, the home team was 27-18 in Game Six.
• From 1905 to 1982, the home team was 10-18 in Game Seven. Won ten, lost eighteen.
• So from 1905 to 1982, the home team was an unimpressive 37-36 in Games Six and Seven.
• Adding that to the Stark's figures, the home team, in all of baseball history, is now 60-39 (.606 winning percentage) in Games Six and Seven, comprised of a 42-21 (.667) record in Game Six and just 18-18 (.500) in Game Seven.  

Did something significant happen in 1982 that changed the way the game's played, making the post-1982 record more relevant to today's game? We'd already gone to the modern bullpen: In 1982, reliever Bruce Sutter got a win and two saves for the champion Cardinals, while Brewers reliever Bob McClure had two losses and two saves. It was the tenth year of the designated hitter, so that wasn't a new thing, though the practice at the time was that the DH used was used throughout the Series in even-numbered years and not at all in odd-numbered years. (The current rule of using the DH only at the American League park began in 1986). It's hard to see that minor DH change making the home team suddenly invincible. Stadiums have gotten a little smaller (shorter fences) and the fields slower (grass replacing artificial turf), but that shouldn't change the home-field advantage. In short, the game didn't really change. So neither should the outcome of the last two games of the Series.

So in looking at tonight's game, I don't think it's any less accurate, nor less predictive, to say "the home team is 18-18 in Game Sevens" than it is that the home team's 9-0 in the past 35 years (8-0 since 1982, and a winner in 1982 as well), the last home team Game Seven loss being the Orioles to the Pirates in 1979.

----------------------------------------------------------------

On another Game Seven topic, a friend asked me, "Rob, I'm looking game 7 starters and thinking to myself 'whatever happened to aces that pitched games 1,4,7?'" My quick answer was, "That went the way of the four-man rotation." Turns out there's more to it than that.

There have been, including this one, 37 World Series that went seven games. That means there have been 74 opportunities for a pitcher to start games 1, 4, and 7. That happened only 14 times, just 19% of the time: Boston's Smoky Joe Wood and the Giants' Jeff Tesreau in 1912 (the Giants' Christy Mathewson started games 2, 5, and 8--the second game was an 11-inning tie); Washington's Walter Johnson in 1925; Brooklyn's Joe Black in 1952; Pittsburgh's Vern Law in 1960; St. Louis's Bob Gibson in 1967 and 1968; the Mets' Jon Matlack and Oakland's Ken Holtzman in 1973; St. Louis's John Tudor in 1985; the Mets' Ron Darling in 1986; Minnesota's Frank Viola in 1987 and Jack Morris in 1991, and Arizona's Curt Schilling in 2001. The golden era was 1967-2001, when there were 13 Series that went seven games, and eight of them had a pitcher go in the first, fourth, and last games, but that's still only 35% of the total (nine pitchers, including two in 1973, divided by 26 teams).

Part of the reason for the infrequency is that the current pattern of two games, off day, three games, off day, two games didn't emerge until 1957. Still, there have been 23 seven-game series since then, and pitchers started 1-4-7 only ten times (22% of possible). Prior to 1957, there were seven pitchers who got three starts in a seven-game series, but they weren't in games 1, 4, and 7. Since then, there have been 18 such pitchers, including three pitchers in each of the 1962 and 1965 World Series and the Cardinals' Chris Carpenter in 2011.

But I was wrong about the four-man rotation. The only pitchers among those to have started at least 39 games in a 162-game season or 37 in a 154-game season--reasonable indicators of a four-man rotation--were Wood and Holtzman. (Black was a reliever who'd started only two games in the regular season when he was called upon to start three games in the 1952 Series.)

So I suppose the answer to the question is that aces pitching games 1, 4, and 7 was never really all that common in the first place.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And one other Game Seven note: Yesterday on SiriusXM, Steve Sax was speculating on whether Madison Bumgarner might pitch in Games Six or Seven after throwing 117 pitches in a complete game shutout on Sunday. Sax said that Bumgarner could, or even start one of the games. After all, said Sax, Babe Ruth, when a pitcher, would sometimes start both games of a doubleheader. 

Babe Ruth started 147 games in his career. On Tuesday, July 11, 1916, he started the first game of a doubleheader against the White Sox. The box score shows that he pitched to one batter and didn't record an out. I assume he was pulled after just a pitch or two. (The story is that the Red Sox starter that day, Rube Foster, wasn't ready for the start of the game, so Ruth threw some pitches while Foster completed his warmup.) Anyway, he started the second game as well, pitching a complete game in a 3-1 Red victory. That's the only game in which he started both games of a doubleheader, and it really doesn't count. 

What's Bugging the Statheads About This World Series

Every postseason, it seems, engenders a de rigueur response from someone in the media about how one team or the other or the style of play or something infuriates the stats guys, sabermetricians, Moneyball crowd (my favorite term of disrespect, because it misses the point of the book, which is exploiting market inefficiencies, not statistical analysis), whatever. This year's Series brought out a larger-than-usual number of such columns, given that both teams don't hit a lot of home runs, strike out much, or draw a bunch of walks. The Giants were 17th, 17th, and 21st in the majors in home runs, strikeouts, and walks, respectively, while the Royals were famously last in all three categories, the first such team to make it to the Series. Add the Royals' penchant for stolen bases (153, first in the majors, 11% more than the second-ranked team) and sacrifice bunts to extend the narrative.

Not that any of this is really all that true. I mean, yes, the Royals were last in those categories during the regular season, but, as I pointed out after Kansas City won the ALCS, they made it to Series by hitting an above-average number of homers, walking at a much higher-than-average rate, and striking out about as frequently as everyone else. As for the speed, well, the Royals have attempted only five stolen bases in the ALCS and World Series, and were successful only twice, so the stolen base has been more a detriment than a weapon for them.

But there's one thing that both managers have done that's fair game for criticism from he analytic community: Sticking with their starters too long. The times through the order penalty (TTO) refers to what happens to starting pitchers each successive time they face the opposing team's lineup. The longer a pitcher goes, not only does he get tired, but the hitters get used to his delivery and timing, making it easier to make contact.

In 2014, for example, in batters' first plate appearance against a starting pitcher, they batted .246 with a .304 on base percentage and a .377 slugging percentage. They hit home runs in 2.3% of plate appearances, walked in 7.1%, and struck out in 21.1%.

In the second plate appearance, batters' slash line improved to .256/.313/.395. They homered in 2.3% of plate appearances, walked in 7.0%, struck out in 19.1%.

In the third plate appearance, the slash line was .268/.327/.421. Per plate appearance, batters homered 2.7% of the time, walked 7.4%, and struck out 17.7%.

The pattern is pretty clear: The more times a pitcher faces a batter, the more hits, home runs, and walks he gives up, and the fewer strikeouts he gets. 

This has played out in the Series:

• In Game Two, the teams were tied at two runs apiece after five. The managers kept their pitchers in, even though both were facing batters for the third time. In the top of the sixth, Royals starter Yordano Ventura allowed two singles and was lifted. Reliever Kelvin Herrera put out the fire. In the bottom of the sixth, Giants starter Jake Peavy allowed a walk and single, was pulled, but both runners scored, and by the time the inning ended, the Giants were losing 7-2. Both starters ran into problems the third time through the order, though only the Giants were burned.
• In Game Three, the Royals were up 1-0 after five. In the top of the sixth, Royals manager Ned Yost let starting Jeremy Guthrie bat, and he grounded out. Giants starter Tim Hudson then faced Royals shortstop Alcides Escobar for the third time. He singled, left fielder Alex Gordon doubled him home, and a groundout and a pitching change later, first baseman Eric Hosmer drove in Gordon. In the bottom of the inning, Yost's decision to let Guthrie bat came back to bite him, as Guthrie allowed a single and a double and then, facing center fielder Gregor Blanco for the third time, a walk. Again, the Royals bullpen put out the fire, as the Royals won 3-2. Again, both starters ran into problems the third time through the order.
• Game Four was a blowout, with the Giants winning 11-4, but the Royals had a 4-2 lead going into the fifth inning. Starting the bottom of the fifth, facing Giants second baseman Joe Panik for the third time, Royals starter Jason Vargas gave up a double. Yost relieved him, so there wasn't much damage, though Panik came around to score in an inning which the Giants tied the game. Vargas gave up a third-time-through-the-order hit that at the time was costly.

I'm not including Games 1 and 5, because the Giants jumped to a first-inning 3-0 lead in the first game, and besides, Madison Bumgarner, who started both games for the Giants, has been invincible in the postseason (six starts, 1.13 ERA, 0.67 WHIP). He also has had a minimal TTO penalty this year, with batters compiling a .706 OPS against him in their first plate appearance, .603 in the second, .675 in the third. (The league average OPS in 2014 was .694.)

Tonight, the starters are Jake Peavy for the Giants and Yordano Ventura for the Royals. Here's how batters did against them in their starts this year:

Jake Peavy	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	HR%	SO%	BB%
First plate appearance	258	20	59	12	2	7	23	63	.229	.290	.372	.662	2.4%	24.4%	8.0%
Second plate appearance	263	28	59	13	1	8	17	54	.224	.276	.373	.648	2.8%	18.9%	5.9%
Third plate appearance	220	34	71	17	4	8	22	40	.323	.387	.545	.933	3.1%	15.7%	8.6%

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 10/28/2014.

Yordano Ventura	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	HR%	SO%	BB%
First plate appearance	245	11	52	10	3	1	20	54	.212	.276	.290	.566	0.4%	20.1%	7.4%
Second plate appearance	241	33	60	13	1	8	26	57	.249	.326	.411	.737	3.0%	21.1%	9.6%
Third plate appearance	181	18	48	5	1	4	20	42	.265	.340	.370	.710	2.0%	20.5%	9.8%

Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table

Generated 10/28/2014.

Peavy has been pretty good through the first couple times through the order but he's collapsed the the third time through. That .933 OPS that he's allowed--well, Mike Trout, who will be the AL MVP, had a .939 OPS this year. Giants manager Bruce Bochy really shouldn't let him pitch after he's gone through the Royals lineup twice.

As for Ventura, he's been nails the first time through the order, but below average thereafter: the .725 OPS he's allowed the second and third time through the order compares to an AL average of .706.

Presumably, both pitchers will be on short leashes tonight, with the Giants one win from the championship and the Royals one loss from elimination. But if we see, say, Peavy come out in the sixth to face the Royals lineup a third time, clinging to a one- or two-run lead, we could see more sixth-inning fireworks (12 of the 42 runs scored this Series, nearly 30%, have come in the sixth inning, during which starters are typically facing the opponents' batters a third time), courtesy of a failure to understand the times through the order penalty.