Here's a fantastic heartwarming piece by the great Joe Posnanski. He calls it "A Baseball Story." It's not. It's a human potential story. Posnanski is a national treasure.
Now, on to the season. Last year I did detailed predictions for each division. Given that the season's started, and I was out of the country since mid-March, I'm not going to do that this year. But let's get some stakes in the ground:
National League East
Washington Nationals, 91-71: There are, in my mind, five locks in baseball this season. Three are in this division. This is one of them. The Nationals are, to me, clearly the best team in the division, arguably in the league.
New York Mets, 84-78: Mets fans are pessimistic about the team. Mets fans have learned their pessimism from experience. Still, even with young righthander Zack Wheeler out with Tommy John surgery, this is a...well, not excellent, but an okay team. Sure, the offense is suspect, but in 2015, just about everybody's offense is suspect.
Miami Marlins, 81-81: The Marlins are kind of a fashionable pick. I don't care for that fashion. The outfield's great, and they have some good arms, but there are too many weaknesses elsewhere for me to get excited.
Atlanta Braves, 69-93: Lock No. 2. The Braves have all but admitted they're in rebuilding mode, shedding stars (Jayson Heyward, Justin Upton, Craig Kimbrel) for prospects. But they won't be in last place because...
Philadelphia Phillies, 64-98: ...the Phillies are probably the worst team in baseball right now. Lock No. 3
National League Central
St. Louis Cardinals, 89-73: Yes, the Cards have a great farm system, but they're also reliant on some older players (Adam Wainwright, Matt Holliday) who are going to get old someday. Probably not today, though.
Pittsburgh Pirates, 85-77: Probably the best outfield in baseball, but the loss of catcher Russell Martin to free agency will be felt, and I have a hard time seeing last year's surprise hero, Josh Harrison, duplicating his performance.
Chicago Cubs, 81-81: Cool your jets, Cubs fans. Your farm system's fantastic, even after graduating a lot of guys to the majors. You got Jon Lester and Joe Maddon during the offseason. But this was a last-place, 89-loss team last year. Getting to .500 would be a tremendous improvement.
Milwaukee Brewers, 78-84: They spent most of last season in first place. I'd be surprised if they see much if it this year.
Cincinnati Reds, 72-90: They can't hit, and if they're out of contention at the All-Star Break, they might trade starting pitcher Johnny Cueto, an impending free agent, and then things would get really ugly.
National League West
Los Angeles Dodgers, 94-68: The fourth lock. They've been criticized by some for trading outfielder Matt Kemp and second baseman Dee Gordon, but the replacements (rookie Joc Pederson, former Angel Howie Kendrick) could wind up being just about as good.
San Diego Padres, 86-76: Another trendy pick, as new GM A.J. Preller remade the team. They'll be better, but the infield's awful.
San Francisco Giants, 84-78: No, it's not just because the Giants win only in even-numbered years. They lost third baseman Pablo Sandoval to free agency, outfielder Hunter Pence is on the disabled list, and there are a lot of questions in the rotation after postseason hero Madison Bumgarner.
Colorado Rockies, 78-84: DON'T SAY IT. Yes, I know, this team could be pretty good if shortstop Troy Tulowitzki and outfielder Carlos Gonzalez can stay in the lineup together. But they can't. One or the other will get hurt. Or both. Don't get your hopes up.
Arizona Diamondbacks, 71-91: I wouldn't say they're a lock for last, but they're not a good club, either. Worst record in baseball last year, you know.
American League East
Boston Red Sox, 88-74: Viva la parity. The additions of Sandoval and Hanley Ramirez, and the presumed return to health of Dustin Pedroia and Mike Napoli, makes the team's offense formidable. The pitching...not so much. But this is no longer a killer division.
Toronto Blue Jays, 84-78: Really, you could almost draw the names of these five teams out of a hat; they're all pretty close. I really like the additions of Josh Donaldson and Russell Martin.
New York Yankees, 82-80: Because the Yankees are incapable of finishing a season with a losing record.
Baltimore Orioles, 80-82: Over the past three seasons, the O's have won the second-most games in the American League. I haven't been able to figure out why. The batters don't get on base a lot and the starting rotation is unimpressive if solid. In Buck we trust, I suppose. I'm probably going to be wrong about them again.
Tampa Bay Rays, 77-85: I think the departure of GM Andrew Friedman and manager Joe Maddon are the beginning of the end for one of my favorite teams. (I like small-market, low-budget teams.)
American League Central
Detroit Tigers, 88-74: They've won four divisional titles in a row. The streak will come to an end, probably soon, as the team's getting old. But I don't think this is they year.
Cleveland Indians, 84-78: Another trendy pick, and I would like nothing more than to see this small-market, low-budget team succeed. But the team's pitchers, unbelievable in the second half of the year (2.95 starter ERA, best in the league), are due for regression, and the team's defense won't help. But I'll be pulling for them, if for no other reason than radio announcer Tom Hamilton's home run calls.
Chicago White Sox, 83-79: Another greatly improved team - they lost 89 games last year - but not enough to contend, yet.
Kansas City Royals, 79-83: Yeah, I know, they came within a game of winning the World Championship. But they didn't win their division, and they kind of lucked their way to a wild card win. Over the winter, they lost their No. 1 starter and their DH. I'm not buying sustained success.
Minnesota Twins, 70-92: My fifth and final lock. I've documented my lack of affection for the Twins.
American League West
Seattle Mariners, 89-73: You can make a case that the other two top contenders in this tight division enter 2015 weaker than 2014. Not so the Mariners.
Los Angeles Angels, 86-76: They had the best record in baseball last year. But they enter the season with concerns in the rotation and at second base and overpaid slugger Josh Hamilton recovering from shoulder surgery and a drug relapse.
Oakland Athletics, 79-83: I mentioned that I don't understand how the Orioles have managed the second-most wins in the league over the past three years. I even more don't understand how the A's are No. 1, but they are. What they did this offseason strikes me as a teardown. But I've been wrong before.
Houston Astros, 79-83: Everything is going according to plan. The Astros improved by 19 games last year, and I see another nine this year. Eight or so next year, and they're talking playoffs.
Texas Rangers, 75-87: I thought they might rebound strongly from their injury-riddled 2014, but then ace pitcher Yu Darvish went down with Tommy John surgery.
Baseball. Analysis. Analysis of baseball. Baseball of analysis. No, wait, that makes no sense.
Showing posts with label Los Angeles Angels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Los Angeles Angels. Show all posts
Monday, April 6, 2015
Monday, October 20, 2014
On The Horror of a Wild Card World Series
Look, I'm not wild about it either. For the second time in baseball history (2002, Angels-Giants), we will have two wild card teams--i.e., teams that couldn't even win their own division--meet in the World Series. That's a far cry from the years though 1968, when a team had to be the best in and eight- or ten-team league in order to make the Fall Classic. Now, you don't have to even win a five-team division.
Except. There is an element of variability in most everything in life, including baseball, that is almost always ignored. Say there's a game, tied 3-3 in the eighth inning. The pitcher throws a ball on the border of the strike zone. The batter doesn't swing. Is it a ball or a strike?
Well, the average major league hitter had a .251 batting average, .314 on base percentage, and .386 slugging percentage in 2014. After a 1-0 count, that rose to .267/.373/.420. After 0-1, it became .221/.261/.331.
That difference, in the late innings of a close game, is enough to sway a ballgame. The batter who gets a strike call is far less likely to get on base and score a run than the batter who doesn't. How many times do fluctuations like that occur over the course of a season? Take the Royals. They finished with 89 wins. If you were to replay 2014, over and over again, using the exact same players, same lineups, same injuries--do you think they'd win exactly 89 games every time? I don't. Maybe they'd win 88 or 86 or 92--it all depends on little things like ball/strike calls, a tiny movement in a batter's swing, the precise timing of a fielder's leap. How random are things like that? Maybe, say, 3%? Then over a 162-game season, we'd expect variance of 162 x 3% = 5 games. So the Royals may have won 89 games this year, but it's just as likely that they're an 84-win team that got a little lucky, to the tune of five wins, or a 94-win team that got a little unlucky, to the tune of five losses. Yes, the 89-win Royals knocked off the 98-win Angels and 96-win Orioles, but you can easily build a case that the Royals, if we were to replay the season over and over, might have, in the long run, a better record than the other two. Maybe the Angels and O's are really, in the long run, 93-win teams that got a little lucky this year while the Royals are really, in the long run, a 94-win team that got a little unlucky this year.
Same in the National League. The Giants won 88 games, and they knocked off the 96-win Nationals and the 90-win Cardinals. But were they an inferior team? Those differences are both within our 3% margin of error.
I've quoted baseball analyst Joe Sheehan before, but his observation from his newsletter bears repeating: Variance swamps everything. The fact that we're seeing two wild card teams in the Series doesn't mean we're seeing two inferior teams. We're just seeing two teams that didn't compile as good a record over a six-month, 162-game season as the teams they defeated. Maybe they picked the right time to get hot, or maybe they took advantage of their opponents' injuries (the Royals faced an Angels team without its No. 1 starter and an Orioles squad without its starting third baseman, first baseman, or catcher), or maybe some pitchers were more worn down in October than they were in April, or any of many other factors. The point is: If the goal were to insure that the teams with the best record meet in the World Series, then we should return to the pre-1969, pre-divisional play baseball world in which there were two leagues and one champion per league, period. As FanGraphs managing editor Dave Cameron said in his chat last week, "If you crown your champion with a postseason tournament, you’re asking for randomness."
And that's what you get: Randomness. There are two things I hate hearing, incessantly, during the postseason. One is all the myths I addressed last month: that prior postseason experience is important, that having veteran players provides an edge, that momentum matters, that good pitching stops good hitting, that reliance on home runs is bad, that ace starters confer an advantage. All of those, I explained, are dubious.
But the other thing that I hear a lot, and which is probably more offensive, is that the postseason is a test of character. It's a short series of baseball games, not a morality play, for crying out loud. The Royals and Giants didn't advance because they're better people than the players on the Angels, Nationals, Orioles, and Cardinals. They didn't win because they were able to "put it together," "draw on their inner strength," "function better as a team," "will themselves to win," execute under pressure," "perform when they had to," and whatever other crap you read and hear, while their vanquished opponents didn't. They're each here because they won eight baseball games, spread over a one-game play-in and two short series. And, to the delight of baseball fans, most of those games were tight and exciting. Isn't that enough?
Except. There is an element of variability in most everything in life, including baseball, that is almost always ignored. Say there's a game, tied 3-3 in the eighth inning. The pitcher throws a ball on the border of the strike zone. The batter doesn't swing. Is it a ball or a strike?
Well, the average major league hitter had a .251 batting average, .314 on base percentage, and .386 slugging percentage in 2014. After a 1-0 count, that rose to .267/.373/.420. After 0-1, it became .221/.261/.331.
That difference, in the late innings of a close game, is enough to sway a ballgame. The batter who gets a strike call is far less likely to get on base and score a run than the batter who doesn't. How many times do fluctuations like that occur over the course of a season? Take the Royals. They finished with 89 wins. If you were to replay 2014, over and over again, using the exact same players, same lineups, same injuries--do you think they'd win exactly 89 games every time? I don't. Maybe they'd win 88 or 86 or 92--it all depends on little things like ball/strike calls, a tiny movement in a batter's swing, the precise timing of a fielder's leap. How random are things like that? Maybe, say, 3%? Then over a 162-game season, we'd expect variance of 162 x 3% = 5 games. So the Royals may have won 89 games this year, but it's just as likely that they're an 84-win team that got a little lucky, to the tune of five wins, or a 94-win team that got a little unlucky, to the tune of five losses. Yes, the 89-win Royals knocked off the 98-win Angels and 96-win Orioles, but you can easily build a case that the Royals, if we were to replay the season over and over, might have, in the long run, a better record than the other two. Maybe the Angels and O's are really, in the long run, 93-win teams that got a little lucky this year while the Royals are really, in the long run, a 94-win team that got a little unlucky this year.
Same in the National League. The Giants won 88 games, and they knocked off the 96-win Nationals and the 90-win Cardinals. But were they an inferior team? Those differences are both within our 3% margin of error.
I've quoted baseball analyst Joe Sheehan before, but his observation from his newsletter bears repeating: Variance swamps everything. The fact that we're seeing two wild card teams in the Series doesn't mean we're seeing two inferior teams. We're just seeing two teams that didn't compile as good a record over a six-month, 162-game season as the teams they defeated. Maybe they picked the right time to get hot, or maybe they took advantage of their opponents' injuries (the Royals faced an Angels team without its No. 1 starter and an Orioles squad without its starting third baseman, first baseman, or catcher), or maybe some pitchers were more worn down in October than they were in April, or any of many other factors. The point is: If the goal were to insure that the teams with the best record meet in the World Series, then we should return to the pre-1969, pre-divisional play baseball world in which there were two leagues and one champion per league, period. As FanGraphs managing editor Dave Cameron said in his chat last week, "If you crown your champion with a postseason tournament, you’re asking for randomness."
And that's what you get: Randomness. There are two things I hate hearing, incessantly, during the postseason. One is all the myths I addressed last month: that prior postseason experience is important, that having veteran players provides an edge, that momentum matters, that good pitching stops good hitting, that reliance on home runs is bad, that ace starters confer an advantage. All of those, I explained, are dubious.
But the other thing that I hear a lot, and which is probably more offensive, is that the postseason is a test of character. It's a short series of baseball games, not a morality play, for crying out loud. The Royals and Giants didn't advance because they're better people than the players on the Angels, Nationals, Orioles, and Cardinals. They didn't win because they were able to "put it together," "draw on their inner strength," "function better as a team," "will themselves to win," execute under pressure," "perform when they had to," and whatever other crap you read and hear, while their vanquished opponents didn't. They're each here because they won eight baseball games, spread over a one-game play-in and two short series. And, to the delight of baseball fans, most of those games were tight and exciting. Isn't that enough?
Friday, October 17, 2014
The Royals: This Changes...Well, Nothing
With eight straight wins in the postseason--a new record--and their first trip to the World Series since 1985, the Kansas City Royals have become the "it" team of this October. But it's for more than their long playoff drought and low payroll ($89.3 million, 17th of 30 teams). It's because of the way they play, and how they've advanced in the playoffs. Pitted against two slugging teams, the Royals swept the Angels (top scoring team in the AL) in three and the Orioles (top home run team in the majors) in four. The Royals are throwbacks: Last in the majors in homers, last in strikeouts, last in walks. All the things that modern analysis embraces, the Royals reject, and are now four wins away from being world champions.
Here, look at this table:
The percentages are the percentage of plate appearances. So, for example, while the average AL team hit a homer in 2.3% of plate appearances, the Royals did in only 1.6%, while its playoff opponents--the Angels and the Orioles--averaged 2.9%. (I excluded the one-game wild card game against Oakland because the roster rules allow teams to pack extra hitters for the one game, making the conditions unlike other games). As you can see, the Royals eschewed the strategy of standing at the plate, taking pitches, and waiting for a ball to drive over the fence. And it's worked. Can the Royals' success be a blueprint for other teams in the future?
My answer is clearly no, for two reasons. First, let's not forget the regular season. The Royals won 89 games, playing in arguably the weakest division in baseball. They didn't win their division. As a wild card team, they finished only one game ahead of Oakland, two ahead of Seattle. A couple balls going bouncing differently than they did, and the Royals are traveling to Oakland for that wild card game, or maybe watching it on TV. And let's not forget the wild card game: If the A's don't blow a 7-3 lead with one out and one on in the eighth, or an 8-7 lead with one out and nobody on in the twelfth, and we're not even talking about the Royals.
Second reason: I lied. That table above? The third line of figures aren't combined totals for the Angels and Orioles. They're the numbers compiled by the Royals in their seven wins. Yes, for all the talk about small ball, the Royals have been hitting a bunch of homers, drawing a bunch of walks, and striking out in nearly one of five plate appearances--just like the other teams. It hasn't been a case of the Royals winning because they're playing a new brand of baseball; they're winning because they're playing like their opponents. It's not a case of showing us a new way; it's a case of imitation being the sincerest form of advancing in October. The Royals have won by slugging.
Three aspects of the Royals have endured, though. First, their bullpen, as I explained earlier, has been historically great, and has remained so in the playoffs. But a strong bullpen isn't a new idea. Second, their defense has been airtight, with multiple highlight-reel plays in every game, seemingly. But that's not unique to Kansas City. Every team aspires to that. The Royals' success is one of execution, not strategy. Third, the Royals steal a lot of bases. During the season, they led majors with 0.94 steals per game. No other team had more than 0.85. During the playoffs, the Royals have continued to steal a lot, albeit at a slightly slower (0.86 per game) pace. But those steals haven't been a major factor:
Here, look at this table:
| Tm | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Kansas City | 1.6% | 16.3% | 6.3% |
| League Average | 2.3% | 19.8% | 7.7% |
| KC's Opponents | 2.9% | 19.6% | 9.8% |
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 10/17/2014.
My answer is clearly no, for two reasons. First, let's not forget the regular season. The Royals won 89 games, playing in arguably the weakest division in baseball. They didn't win their division. As a wild card team, they finished only one game ahead of Oakland, two ahead of Seattle. A couple balls going bouncing differently than they did, and the Royals are traveling to Oakland for that wild card game, or maybe watching it on TV. And let's not forget the wild card game: If the A's don't blow a 7-3 lead with one out and one on in the eighth, or an 8-7 lead with one out and nobody on in the twelfth, and we're not even talking about the Royals.
Second reason: I lied. That table above? The third line of figures aren't combined totals for the Angels and Orioles. They're the numbers compiled by the Royals in their seven wins. Yes, for all the talk about small ball, the Royals have been hitting a bunch of homers, drawing a bunch of walks, and striking out in nearly one of five plate appearances--just like the other teams. It hasn't been a case of the Royals winning because they're playing a new brand of baseball; they're winning because they're playing like their opponents. It's not a case of showing us a new way; it's a case of imitation being the sincerest form of advancing in October. The Royals have won by slugging.
Three aspects of the Royals have endured, though. First, their bullpen, as I explained earlier, has been historically great, and has remained so in the playoffs. But a strong bullpen isn't a new idea. Second, their defense has been airtight, with multiple highlight-reel plays in every game, seemingly. But that's not unique to Kansas City. Every team aspires to that. The Royals' success is one of execution, not strategy. Third, the Royals steal a lot of bases. During the season, they led majors with 0.94 steals per game. No other team had more than 0.85. During the playoffs, the Royals have continued to steal a lot, albeit at a slightly slower (0.86 per game) pace. But those steals haven't been a major factor:
- Divisional Series Game 1, tenth inning: Terrance Gore steals second, doesn't score.
- Divisional Series Game 2, second inning: Alex Gordon steals second, doesn't score.
- Divisional Series Game 2, ninth inning: Gore steals second, doesn't score.
- Divisional Series Game 2, eleventh inning: Gordon steals second, later scores, due to a throwing error that allowed him to advance to third and score on an infield single.
- Divisional Series Game 3, third inning: Billy Butler steals second, doesn't score.
- Championship Series Game 1, seventh inning: Jarrod Dyson caught stealing.
- Championship Series Game 2, fifth inning: Lorenzo Cain steals second, doesn't score.
- Championship Series Game 2, seventh inning: Dyson caught stealing.
That's it. For all the noise about the Royals' stolen bases, they led to only one run, and that one was lucky (helped along by an error) after the Royals already had a two-run lead. It really hasn't been a factor.
So when you hear, as you undoubtedly will, that the Royals have won because of a brand of baseball featuring speed and defense with a de-emphasis on homers, walks, and strikeouts, you'll be listening to someone who hasn't been paying attention to the Royals this postseason. They've won because of defense and their bullpen, yes, but also because of an above-average rate of homers and walks, with little upside from stolen bases and little downside from a lot of strikeouts. That's the same brand of baseball as the teams they've swept.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Royals-Angels: A Fish Out of Water
Well, I tried. I sat down in front of the TV at noon Eastern yesterday and intended to stay there through all four playoff games. However, I dozed off somewhere after midnight during the Royals-Angels game. I tried.
Three of the four games were one-run affairs, though they didn't feel like tight games, did they? The Tigers and Dodgers were winning their games until they were blown away by big innings late in the game (four-run eighth by the Orioles, eight-run seventh by the Cardinals), and it didn't feel like they had a chance of coming back. The Giants were up 3-0 before the Nationals started scoring, and even when Washington threatened with two on and one out in the eighth, trailing 3-2, it felt to me as if the Giants and reliever Sergio Romo, who's a postseason beast (last six games: 14.2 innings, 11 baserunners, 14 strikeouts, 0.61 ERA), were in control. The game that really was tight was the Royals-Angels game, as it was tied at 1 from the sixth inning until the eleventh, but it wasn't a one-run game, as the Royals scored three in the top of the eleventh to win 4-1.
About the Royals-Angels series: The Angels scored 4.8 runs per game this year, most in the majors. They've scored three runs so far against Kansas City, or less than a third of their average per game. Much has been made of centerfielder and MVP-in-waiting Mike Trout, who is 0-for-8 with a strikeout, two walks, and four runners left on base. I thought, "well, going 0-for-4 two straight games isn't that uncommon," but it turns out it is for Mike Trout: He had only two streaks of two or more games with four or more at bats and no hits this year, just one last year, and just three the year before:
So what's going on? Trout is susceptible to pitches high in the strike zone. This isn't exactly a secret. Here's a heat map of his slugging percentage this year:
The way you read this: Each of the 25 squares is Trout's slugging percentage for pitches thrown to that part of the plate. The 9x9 square in the middle is the strike zone. Trout's a righty, so he's standing to the left in this diagram. See that .892 in the middle? That means that he's slugging .892 on pitches right down the middle of the plate. That's a big number, but it's also not surprising--major league hitters kill pitches thrown down the heart of the plate. But see the .774 down there near the bottom left-hand corner? That means that on pitches below the strike zone on the inside third of the plate, Trout still kills the ball. (The American League average slugging percentage this year was .390.) Heat maps use red for hot, blue for cold. See how red Trout's heat map is at the bottom and blue at the top? That indicates that he kills low pitches and has problems with high pitches.
So given that, do pitchers try to throw pitches up in the strike zone to Trout? Well, not as much as they ought to. Here's a heat map of the pitches he saw during the 2014 season:
Let's break that down. In 2014, pitchers threw Trout 395 pitches above the strike zone and 540 in the upper third of the strike zone. I got those figures by just adding the numbers across each row. That's where they should be pitching him, given the first heat map. He has troubles with those pitchers. However they threw him 709 pitches in the lower third of the strike zone and 806 below the strike zone, where he tends to kill the ball. (Their favorite pitch: Low and away, which means "just avoid him altogether," since he swung at only 16% of pitches down there.)
Why do pitchers throw so many pitches low to Trout, where he smokes them, and so few high, where he has problems? It can't be because they don't know about his pattern. I mean, I'm just some guy with a laptop, and I've got these figures, thanks to BrooksBaseball.net. Pitchers have them too.
I think the reason is that pitchers don't like throwing high. A lot of their pitches, particularly their breaking pitches, cross the plate low in the zone, in an effort to induce ground balls. Seattle's Felix Hernandez will probably be the American League Cy Young Award winner this year, and he threw 533 pitches in the top two rows of the heat map diagram and 2,312 in the bottom two rows this year. The Indians' Corey Kluber, probably the AL Cy Young runner-up, threw 898 up and 1,791 down. For NL Cy Young and likely MVP Clayton Kershaw, the breakdown is 711 pitches high and 1,369 low. Pitchers throw low in the zone more than they throw high in the zone. Mike Trout destroys pitches low in the zone and struggles with pitches high in the zone, so he's got the right skillset.
Here's where the Royals have pitched him the past two days:
He's seen 43 pitches. Twelve of them---28%--have been above the strike zone. Six, or 14%, have been in the upper part of the zone. That's 42% of all the pitches Trout's seen, all up in the zone. Kansas City has thown him only 15 pitches, or 35%, in the lower part of the strike zone. It's not that the Royals are pitching high to everyone. Shortstop Erick Aybar, for instance--27 pitches, nine up in the zone, twelve down. First baseman Albert Pujols: 33 pitches, ten high, seventeen low.
My point is: It's not that the Royals pitchers are throwing a lot of pitches up in the zone to Angels batters. Rather, they're throwing a lot of pitches up in the zone to the single most dangerous Angels batter, one who is particularly vulnerable to that type of pitch. I'm sure there will be a Trout's-a-choker narrative if he doesn't pick it up in tomorrow's game, but I'd give more of the credit to the Royals for pitching him smarter than he's been pitched before.
Three of the four games were one-run affairs, though they didn't feel like tight games, did they? The Tigers and Dodgers were winning their games until they were blown away by big innings late in the game (four-run eighth by the Orioles, eight-run seventh by the Cardinals), and it didn't feel like they had a chance of coming back. The Giants were up 3-0 before the Nationals started scoring, and even when Washington threatened with two on and one out in the eighth, trailing 3-2, it felt to me as if the Giants and reliever Sergio Romo, who's a postseason beast (last six games: 14.2 innings, 11 baserunners, 14 strikeouts, 0.61 ERA), were in control. The game that really was tight was the Royals-Angels game, as it was tied at 1 from the sixth inning until the eleventh, but it wasn't a one-run game, as the Royals scored three in the top of the eleventh to win 4-1.
About the Royals-Angels series: The Angels scored 4.8 runs per game this year, most in the majors. They've scored three runs so far against Kansas City, or less than a third of their average per game. Much has been made of centerfielder and MVP-in-waiting Mike Trout, who is 0-for-8 with a strikeout, two walks, and four runners left on base. I thought, "well, going 0-for-4 two straight games isn't that uncommon," but it turns out it is for Mike Trout: He had only two streaks of two or more games with four or more at bats and no hits this year, just one last year, and just three the year before:
| Rk | Strk Start | End | Games | AB | R | H | 2B | 3B | HR | RBI | SO | BB | SB | CS | Tm | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2014-09-02 | 2014-09-03 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | LAA |
| 2 | 2014-08-12 | 2014-08-13 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | LAA |
| 3 | 2013-04-11 | 2013-04-12 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | LAA |
| 4 | 2012-08-24 | 2012-08-25 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | LAA |
| 5 | 2012-06-15 | 2012-06-16 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | .000 | .000 | .000 | .000 | LAA |
| 6 | 2012-05-22 | 2012-05-23 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | .000 | .100 | .000 | .100 | LAA |
So what's going on? Trout is susceptible to pitches high in the strike zone. This isn't exactly a secret. Here's a heat map of his slugging percentage this year:
The way you read this: Each of the 25 squares is Trout's slugging percentage for pitches thrown to that part of the plate. The 9x9 square in the middle is the strike zone. Trout's a righty, so he's standing to the left in this diagram. See that .892 in the middle? That means that he's slugging .892 on pitches right down the middle of the plate. That's a big number, but it's also not surprising--major league hitters kill pitches thrown down the heart of the plate. But see the .774 down there near the bottom left-hand corner? That means that on pitches below the strike zone on the inside third of the plate, Trout still kills the ball. (The American League average slugging percentage this year was .390.) Heat maps use red for hot, blue for cold. See how red Trout's heat map is at the bottom and blue at the top? That indicates that he kills low pitches and has problems with high pitches.
So given that, do pitchers try to throw pitches up in the strike zone to Trout? Well, not as much as they ought to. Here's a heat map of the pitches he saw during the 2014 season:
Let's break that down. In 2014, pitchers threw Trout 395 pitches above the strike zone and 540 in the upper third of the strike zone. I got those figures by just adding the numbers across each row. That's where they should be pitching him, given the first heat map. He has troubles with those pitchers. However they threw him 709 pitches in the lower third of the strike zone and 806 below the strike zone, where he tends to kill the ball. (Their favorite pitch: Low and away, which means "just avoid him altogether," since he swung at only 16% of pitches down there.)
Why do pitchers throw so many pitches low to Trout, where he smokes them, and so few high, where he has problems? It can't be because they don't know about his pattern. I mean, I'm just some guy with a laptop, and I've got these figures, thanks to BrooksBaseball.net. Pitchers have them too.
I think the reason is that pitchers don't like throwing high. A lot of their pitches, particularly their breaking pitches, cross the plate low in the zone, in an effort to induce ground balls. Seattle's Felix Hernandez will probably be the American League Cy Young Award winner this year, and he threw 533 pitches in the top two rows of the heat map diagram and 2,312 in the bottom two rows this year. The Indians' Corey Kluber, probably the AL Cy Young runner-up, threw 898 up and 1,791 down. For NL Cy Young and likely MVP Clayton Kershaw, the breakdown is 711 pitches high and 1,369 low. Pitchers throw low in the zone more than they throw high in the zone. Mike Trout destroys pitches low in the zone and struggles with pitches high in the zone, so he's got the right skillset.
Here's where the Royals have pitched him the past two days:
He's seen 43 pitches. Twelve of them---28%--have been above the strike zone. Six, or 14%, have been in the upper part of the zone. That's 42% of all the pitches Trout's seen, all up in the zone. Kansas City has thown him only 15 pitches, or 35%, in the lower part of the strike zone. It's not that the Royals are pitching high to everyone. Shortstop Erick Aybar, for instance--27 pitches, nine up in the zone, twelve down. First baseman Albert Pujols: 33 pitches, ten high, seventeen low.
My point is: It's not that the Royals pitchers are throwing a lot of pitches up in the zone to Angels batters. Rather, they're throwing a lot of pitches up in the zone to the single most dangerous Angels batter, one who is particularly vulnerable to that type of pitch. I'm sure there will be a Trout's-a-choker narrative if he doesn't pick it up in tomorrow's game, but I'd give more of the credit to the Royals for pitching him smarter than he's been pitched before.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
And Then There Was One
Following last night's evisceration of the Pirates*, the eight teams entering the Divisional Series round are set. As I commented in my postseason preview:
I am a sucker for small-market, low-payroll teams. This year, only three teams made the postseason with payrolls below the major league median of $95.8 million: The Royals ($89.3 million), the A's ($74.9 million), and the Pirates ($71.5 million). Those three teams were 17th, 26th, and 27th in total payroll.Now the A's are gone and the Pirates are gone. Kansas City's up against the team with the best record in the American League, the Los Angeles Angels, so the Royals may be gone soon as well. Here's a list of this year's payrolls (I threw in attendance, number of All-Stars, and average game time for fun), with playoff teams highlighted:
| Tm | Attendance | #A-S | Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAD | 3,782,337 | 4 | $212,972,000 | 3:14 |
| NYY | 3,401,624 | 3 | $207,843,459 | 3:12 |
| PHI | 2,423,852 | 1 | $168,837,500 | 3:09 |
| DET | 2,917,209 | 4 | $163,635,500 | 3:14 |
| BOS | 2,956,089 | 2 | $152,634,500 | 3:17 |
| SFG | 3,368,697 | 3 | $145,141,667 | 3:05 |
| TOR | 2,375,525 | 3 | $136,466,200 | 3:01 |
| TEX | 2,718,733 | 2 | $135,288,839 | 3:06 |
| WSN | 2,579,389 | 2 | $129,145,000 | 3:05 |
| LAA | 3,095,935 | 2 | $123,492,000 | 3:15 |
| BAL | 2,464,473 | 3 | $105,572,500 | 3:07 |
| ARI | 2,073,730 | 2 | $105,550,000 | 3:03 |
| ATL | 2,354,305 | 3 | $103,500,250 | 3:04 |
| CIN | 2,476,664 | 5 | $102,860,000 | 3:03 |
| STL | 3,540,649 | 4 | $99,990,000 | 3:03 |
| MIL | 2,797,384 | 4 | $91,625,000 | 3:07 |
| KCR | 1,956,482 | 3 | $89,271,575 | 3:02 |
| SEA | 2,064,334 | 4 | $87,723,400 | 2:59 |
| COL | 2,680,329 | 2 | $87,137,500 | 3:12 |
| MIN | 2,250,606 | 2 | $84,044,000 | 3:07 |
| CLE | 1,437,393 | 1 | $83,413,233 | 3:12 |
| NYM | 2,148,808 | 1 | $80,862,500 | 3:08 |
| CHW | 1,650,821 | 3 | $80,475,500 | 3:08 |
| SDP | 2,195,373 | 2 | $78,043,000 | 3:01 |
| TBR | 1,446,464 | 1 | $77,825,500 | 3:19 |
| OAK | 2,003,628 | 6 | $74,895,900 | 3:05 |
| PIT | 2,442,564 | 3 | $71,545,000 | 3:09 |
| CHC | 2,652,113 | 3 | $64,955,000 | 3:12 |
| HOU | 1,751,829 | 1 | $43,736,800 | 3:10 |
| MIA | 1,732,283 | 2 | $31,100,000 | 3:05 |
A few observations:
- I'll bet you most people don't know that the Yankees were not the highest-paid team this year.
- Money can't buy me love: Spending a lot on payroll does not guarantee success. Two of the five highest-spending clubs, and three of the top eight, were last-place teams.
- That being said, every team except Kansas City had an above-median payroll. Of the 30 major league teams, every playoff team was in the top 17 for payroll.
- I look at some of those teams on the bottom and think, Man, it's almost impossible for them to compete year after year. Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Oakland, Pittsburgh--real smart front offices, stuck in divisions with teams with seemingly unlimited financial resources.
- Colorado, Minnesota, the White Sox, San Diego, Miami: These teams are also payroll-constrained, and they lack the front office wiles of the teams listed above, at least of late.
- At some point, of course, the Mets, Cubs and Astros will vault into the high-payroll echelon, though it may take a change of ownership for the Madoff-tainted Metropolitans.
- About some of the teams still playing: Despite the ridiculous Pujols, Wilson, and Hamilton contracts, the Angels are only tenth in payroll. Detroit, the city, is bankrupt, but Detroit, the baseball team, sure isn't. The Cardinals are not, regardless of what they may claim, a small-market team. Well, they're small market in terms of the city of St. Louis, but not in terms of the ballclub.
Does this matter? Probably not. This isn't a case of the richest teams dominating the postseason, and baseball's annual champion has turned over more frequently than those of other sports. So there aren't money-fueled dynasties. But it sure would be nice to see a small-market, low-payroll team compete well into October.
*For a supremely entertaining review of the game, check out Sam Miller's article today at Baseball Prospectus. The article may be behind a paywall, but Miller's analysis alone is worth the subscription. He points out, among other things, that Giants starter Madison Bumgarner pitched a shutout, allowing four hits and one walk while striking out ten. That's the second time that's happened in the postseason. The other pitcher to have accomplished it is Sandy Koufax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)