Being An October Buzzkill(?)

by Jeff on Oct 9, 2007 9:44 PM PDT in Regular News Comment 77 comments

Note: this is the last post I'll be putting up for a little while, as I'm taking a quick trip back East through next Monday. I'll still try to put up the playoff game threads, but if I can't get to a computer, you guys know the drill.

----------

I was talking to my Red Sox fan brother last night about the playoffs. How Boston matches up with Cleveland, whether CC Sabathia is better than Josh Beckett, why the Diamondbacks are still alive, all the usual stuff. None of that is anything extraordinary, but we did talk a little about something that really got me thinking. In baseball, what does October actually prove?

In theory, the MLB playoffs are all about crowning the best team in the league. They're no different than any other tournament in that regard, where the last team left standing - the one team to defeat all of its competition - is said to be the best. But the older I've grown and the more baseball I've watched, the more I've come to believe that this isn't really true at all. St. Louis in 2006? Florida in 2003? Arizona in 2001? We're supposed to believe that these were the cream of the crop?

In my opinion, baseball has two main things working against it when it comes to calling the playoff winner the "best", things that you don't see in, say, hockey, where I believe the playoffs do usually accomplish their intent.

(1) Team depth means little in October

(2) Luck (or, if you prefer, non-repeatable skill) is a bigger component of baseball than any other major sport

As far as #1 is concerned, while there are a bunch of things here, you need look no further than playoff rotations. Fourth starters get barely any work, and fifth starters don't see the light of day. Topheavy rotations, like Arizona's in 2001, therefore have a significant built-in October advantage over the deeper, more balanced variety, an advantage that doesn't exist during the summer. Why should this be the case? Why favor a team that puts everything it has in its top two starters and neglects the back of the rotation? Should that really be part of our definition of the "best team in the league"?

With that said, #2 is at least as big an issue, if not bigger. While batters can generally control how well they hit the ball, they have very, very little say in where it goes afterwards. Jeter's double play yesterday, for example, was just a few feet away from being a crucial RBI single, a hit that would've changed the dynamic of the entire series. Was it Jeter's fault that he happened to hit it within the range of an infielder? While you can argue that "he should've timed his swing better," the fact of the matter is that no batter in baseball history has demonstrated the ability to put the ball where he wants. There is no skill involved in rolling grounders through the hole, or making your line drives avoid the left fielder. This isn't like taking a shot in hockey or basketball, or throwing a pass in football, where you can have incredibly good aim with the ball/puck; this is, in large part, random chance. A batter can't even consistently hit a pitch to the same side of the field, much less hit a ball to a specific tiny zone between the defenders.

These randomly-determined outcomes typically balance out over a long enough period of time, but when you're talking about samples as small as three or five or seven games, you can end up with teams advancing for reasons that were by and large out of their hands. And the second you concede that possibility, you have to be willing to consider that World Series winners can be complete and utter flukes.

In a sport like hockey or basketball, you can have your anomalous results in individual games, but once you go to a best-of-seven format, you're eliminating a lot of the noise. There isn't nearly as much room for "luck" in either sport - you end up with series that really do pit one team's talent and ability to adjust up against another's. Not to mention that, in both playoffs, entire teams are playing against each other, and you can't really hide players from action very easily while riding one or two stars. The best player on a basketball team is only one of five on the court, and in hockey even the top line is only on the ice for 20-25 minutes as game. It's depth against depth, just as (I think) it ought to be.

I don't mean to diminish the thrill of watching the October playoffs. The magic's still real, and the suspense is still nerve-wracking. I just think it's important to recognize the difference between chasing a trophy and chasing a title as the best team in the league. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand, and nowhere is this more apparent than it is with baseball. I mean, this year alone, unless Boston wins the Series, we can say with a high degree of certainty that the title went to an underdog. Nobody else - except for the Yankees - really comes close to their level of ability. If someone else wins the Series, they will have been the best team in October, but they won't have been the best team in the league.

Of course, in the end, this isn't much more than a thought exercise, because as much as everyone wants to be called the best, they don't hang banners for having the most wins or the highest run differential. People play sports to get that trophy, and once it's theirs, nothing you can say can ruin the moment. Just ask Mike Eruzione. Sometimes it isn't about being the best. Sometimes it's about being the best story. And that, I think, is what makes October so compelling. So the Cardinals may not have been the best team in baseball last year. Who really cares? Certainly not the Cardinals.

0 recs | Comment 77 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I saw this sentiment expressed elsewhere

and fully support it: It's a real shame that baseball is such a beautiful game played all throughout the summer. Its like a constant pulse where teams slowly propel themselves forward, slowly seperating themselves from the pack. No loss is make or break, but it all adds up. Then in October, everything turns into some manic, crazy clusterfuck. Things are decided so suddening, reputations built on a handful of pitches or at-bats. It seems almost counter to the flow of the season up untill that point. I feel like some old codger complaining about the beauty of the game, but it really seems like something is lost in October. A new game takes over. It's obviously not a horrible way to play out the season to a conclusion, and I don't have a better alternative (would support moving atleast the finals to the old 9 game format), but I think it's an interesting and thought provoking comment on the way the games structured

by DCMariner on Oct 9, 2007 10:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If I had to come up with a solution

the best I can come up with would be to extend all three rounds to a best-of-nine format, where the teams play all nine games within ten days (at most). It doesn't come close to solving everything, but it's a little better than what we have right now.

by Jeff on Oct 9, 2007 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like that

Other sports manage to drag out their postseasons for ungodly ammounts of time, so 9 games in 10 or so days shouldn't be that big a deal. Of course realistically, baseball would have to convince the networks that there is public interest in the sport when each individual game means less than the current format. I'd love to watch the whole thing, but I know many casual fans who already think the reg. season is too long, and would lose interest in the playoffs quickly with a more "drawnout" format (drawnout as in games played, not necessarily days ellapsed)

by DCMariner on Oct 10, 2007 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

I like seeing both the laid-back games of August and the tense playoff games. I like seeing things like Pedro Martinez coming into the game in relief, or Byung-Hyung Kim melting down. I like the fact that short series leads to things like David Eckstein, MVP or Jeff Weaver, staff ace. The October game is great because it produces great images and moments. Without the playoffs, you don't get moments like Ankiel's meltdown, or A-Rod's slap, or Aaron Boone taking Wakefield deep. There's also a sense of urgency in watching it, because you know that these are the last meaningful games that will be played for six months. The pulse gets manic, but that's a good thing because once November hits, it flatlines.

by abelard on Oct 9, 2007 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I mostly agree

(except noone wants to see another Eckstein MVP). I think my comment was more about the difference in feel between the regular and postseasons. While I prefer the regular season, there defenitely is October magic. Baseball in any of its forms is better than practically any other sport. It just seams weird that such a dichotomy should exist at all.

by DCMariner on Oct 10, 2007 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure I totally agree with #1

There are very few teams out there that would use their #4 or #5 if they had to, but even if they do they recognize that they're not their best pitchers. I think most people can recognize that the Angels didn't get into the postseason based on the arms of Joe Saunders, Bartolo Colon, and Edwin Santana. We know that even the best teams are going to lose 46 baseball games at least (hee hee hee) and that there's a reason that they do.

Other sports you can make longer runs at being undefeated, but not baseball. In baseball you accept that two out of every three games won is a good thing, not failure. You also have more games to play and more wiggle room to recover a bad thing.

If the season were shorter, with longer breaks inbetween series', you'd probably see more three - four man rotations and we wouldn't have these debates. But we don't, so our "filler pitchers" have to go out there and do their best and if we win, bonus, if not, oh well.

I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not...

by TIF on Oct 9, 2007 10:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ehh

I know what you mean, but this way you're just penalizing the teams that bother to get some use out of the back of the rotation (Lester in Boston, Laffey in Cleveland, Jimenez/Morales in Colorado, and Marshall in Chicago, as a few fifth-starter examples).

If it matters during the regular season, I feel like it should matter in the playoffs. That's my stance.

by Jeff on Oct 9, 2007 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the thing

You're trusting MLB and television to handle a postseason of 9 games when they can't even get 5 or 7 right.

I think either way you're fighting a losing battle.

I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not make jokes in my sig. I will not...

by TIF on Oct 10, 2007 3:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kinda disagree

In terms of ONLY the teams that are in the post-season, I consider it to basically be a dominant starter and luck competition. Getting to the post season, however, is not.

For the most part, you need a fairly good rotation and bench depth to even reach the post-season (unless you are in a really weak division like the AL Central was for a long time). And typically luck will fade as a 162 games go on.

I've long been in favor of a more hockey-style playoffs-- Shorten the season by about 15 games and have 3 7-game series with fewer games off. I think this is a good thing because it would include twice as many teams in the playoffs and be more likely to prove the best team is the best.

There are too many teams playing in August and September as "Spoilers". Lets get rid of some pointless games and get more teams into contention.

by batura on Oct 9, 2007 11:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oops

Damnit, I meant 4 7-game series.

by batura on Oct 9, 2007 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see what you're saying

and yeah, the four best teams in each league almost always make the playoffs. Rarely do you have a tough luck near-miss, or a fluke that sneaks into the wild card or division lead, because a 162-game season tends to balance out pretty much everything.

But then what? All you can say for sure is that the best team in baseball is somewhere among the eight that qualified for October. And the tournament that's currently in place isn't real good at figuring out which it is (because, like you say, it's basically a dominant starter + luck competition, which means you're testing the teams on something other than what they were tested on during the summer).

That's weird to me.

by Jeff on Oct 9, 2007 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This year in the NL

This year in the NL was something special though-- it was really cool to see 6 teams playing for 2 spots through the last couple of games.

Its too bad I have a general apathy for the NL, having lived in Seattle for 15 years.

by batura on Oct 9, 2007 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To some extent this is true with all US leagues

If you have a 6 month season that ends with a 1+ month playoff, the overall champion is basically going to be the team that was hottest at the right time. And while yes, you do have to make the playoffs, in hockey and basketball its like the top 50% of the league that advances. (In this regard, baseball is actually better.) In the 2006 NHL playoffs all the lower seeded Western teams won in the first round (I'm pretty sure). Edmonton, a #8, won the cup. Were they really the best team in the league, or just the one that was hottest late?

Basically, playoffs won't give you the best team. In a perfect world, to determine the best team, all leagues would be like the EPL (soccer) and the team with the most overall points is the best team and champion.

I guess the point is that playoffs aren't designed to declare the best team, they're meant to crown a champion. Two different things. If the best team was always champion, we'd have been celebrating back in 2001.

(But the drama of playoffs just makes the whole thing that much awesomer.)

by Nick S on Oct 9, 2007 11:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So I just read the original post more closely

And it basically says the same thing. So, uh, I agree.

by Nick S on Oct 9, 2007 11:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

EPL, La Liga, etc.

In soccer, there are TWO (or more) competitions going on at the same time. Both lead to championships. One is a "regular season" and the other is a tournament. Each is important, though generally it's considered to be more important to win the season-long league championship. We mix the two: the regular season is just a qualifier that leads to a tournament.

In defense of baseball's system: There's something about the desperation involved in a short series, when the worse team CAN somehow squeak out a win, thanks to unlikely heroes, that gives them a hysterical edge, especially because there's no real reward from having the best regular season record. That hysteria can lead to elation or depression of out-sized proportions!

rightly, in every age it is assumed we are witnessing the disappearance of the last traces of paradise... Cioran

by toonprivate on Oct 10, 2007 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to be pedantic

But here I go, being pedantic again.

One is a "regular season" and the other is a tournament.

They're all tournaments, actually. The part that we in the US would consider the "regular season" is a tournament where every league team plays every other team at home and away; in a 20 team league, that's 38 games. At the end of those 38 games, the team with the most points is the winner of the tournament.

The top 17 teams in the league qualify for next season's tournament, and the bottom three go down to what should still be called the Second Division, replaced in the top tier by three teams from that division.

The concurrent tournaments in England (FA Cup, Carling-or-whatever-they-call-it Cup, and the various Europe-wide tournaments) are all qualifying tournaments, meaning that teams have to do well enough in the previous season's domestic tournament ("the league") to get into any of them for the following season.

This is why the domestic title is considered the most important, even if the Champions League is the "holy grail" - without consistent domestic success, you go nowhere.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Oct 10, 2007 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

In European soccer, nowadays,

the cup competitions, like the FA cup, the Copa Del Rey etc, with the exception of the European Champions title, are regarded as bonus competitions, to earn some extra revenue etc.

Again, with the exception of the European Champions title, the league title is considered of utmost importance, not just more important; the winner of the league is the champion.

visiting A's fan.

by rfloh on Oct 11, 2007 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

At least in England...

...the "lesser" cups, like the Carling Cup, give the bigger teams a chance to play their kids, as well, so they're viewed as more of a development opportunity than a real competition.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Oct 11, 2007 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And the Carling Cup gives us a chance

To laugh at Man U.

by Graham on Oct 11, 2007 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And at Liverpool

or is that just the Arsenal U18's that are laughing at Liverpool?

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Oct 11, 2007 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're making me do something

that I really hate myself for having to do: Carolina won the Cup in 2006. They beat Edmonton.

You bastard... now I need a long hot shower.

David Ortiz > God

by brick Royl on Oct 10, 2007 6:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

whoops, you're right

I should've looked that up instead of going from memory...

by Nick S on Oct 10, 2007 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wild Card Fever

Ironically, the Wild Card and realignment that are credited as Bud Selig's crowing achievements as commissioner have actually cheapened the World Series and its champion.

Back in the "golden era" there were a bunch of teams in the AL (somewhere from 10-12), a bunch of teams in the NL, and the winners met in the World Series. That's as close to the "best team" format favored by the English Premiership as any American sport has ever been...

Yet, without the Wild Card, the M's may have given up on the AL West in '95, the Yankees and Rockies (and their fans) may have given up this year. I'm sure there are many other examples. What's good for the goose is good for the gander....

It's a difficult balance to strike as Mariner fans. Without the Wild Card, the team would have probably folded in 1995, and Howard Lincoln would be taking his grandkids to Epcot in between games of a day-night doubleheader.

Yet that 2001 team should have been rewarded for their performance over 162 games. Otherwise, why play all those games? If it's all arbitrary anyway, give the guys some more days off. I mean, God knows the M's could use some extra travel days....

by tuttle07 on Oct 10, 2007 12:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I actually find it more interesting this way

by Graham on Oct 10, 2007 3:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

2001 Graham says fuck you

by Robert on Oct 10, 2007 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was actually pretty pleased

That we 'won the league' in 2001 and was mildly bemused that everyone took losing in the cup semifinals so hard.

My sports mentality was much more english back then.

by Graham on Oct 11, 2007 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, but...

That's the beauty of baseball. In other sports, there is occasionally a playoff upset, but it's usually pretty clear who the final teams will be long before the playoffs even begin. Still, they manage to invite half the teams to keep playing anyway. I was watching a football game this past weekend, and before the game, the announcers seemed damn sure of the best four teams already. 25% of the way into the season. But come January, there will be a couple 9-7 teams in there just for the sake of getting kicked around.

Basketball and Hockey are just as bad. You can tell almost every day who the better team is, and with so little random variation, they might as well put up the final score at the beginning. There is no gambling on who the winner is going to be, it's all about the point spread. Everybody knows who will win, the only question is by how much.

The only reason to play the game is to see individual players make exciting individual plays.

Yet any day of the week, the Devil Rays or Pirates can beat a far superior team.

You can have a killer QB/RB combo, or a superstar guard and a half-decent supporting cast, or one good forward and a fantastic goalie and expect to do well. Or you can have Griffey/A-Rod/Buhner/Edgar/RJ and still finish around .500.

It's a cliché in every sport, but that's why they play the games. If you have only the best teams make the playoffs to begin with, there are no undeserving winners. There is far more 'parity' in baseball, to the point that who is the better team in most games (especially the playoffs) isn't as obvious.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'd rather my team slide into the playoffs as a 90-72 team with a shot than get in as a #2 seed in any other sport knowing that the #1 probably had their names engraved on the trophy months ago.

by AnotherAaron on Oct 10, 2007 7:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

As much as I like the wild card...

...I do actually miss the days when there were only four divisions, and only the division winners got to the playoffs. Yeah, it restricts the playoff pool, but isn't that the point of a playoff pool? At least that way you're reasonably certain that the four best teams in the game are where they should be, and if a team gets a "lucky" or "unlucky" bounce, it's less damning than if, say, the 2006 Cardinals get one (nothing against the Cardinals, just an example).

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Oct 10, 2007 8:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Two words and an acronym: Round Robin LCS

Sure, match up teams and play two games at one site, but then flip flop opponents after two games, and then again. Lose four games and you're gone. Last team standing goes to the World Series.

by Gomez on Oct 10, 2007 8:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed with the basic argument.

reminds me of why i am still (yes, after all this time) pissed that the M's couldn't win a single game the final weekend in Arlington at the end of the '95 season, forcing them to burn Randy Johnson in the one-game playoff. if they win just one against the dog-ass Rangers they would've had a day off for every one of their starters instead of flying to NY the night after the Angel game and losing the next two, won the first game with Randy in Yankee Stadium, and not needed any of the heroics. yeah it was a brilliant, memorable series that no one outside of Seattle and NY saw (remember "The Baseball Network" and games all played at the same time? ugh). but i'd rather be talking about our glorious 1995 World Series championship right now.

The Big Dude and any 2-3 starters in the league was the best rotation in the playoffs that year, but by the ALCS Johnson was dead and Kenny Lofton ran like the fucking wind.

by lemonverbena on Oct 10, 2007 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's simple - just rid of all the off days

Would solve a lot of stuff. Just do one off day between each series, and no off days during each series. It would force managers to use 4, if not 5, starters. You could also finish the whole damn thing before it starts snowing in Denver.

by Zack on Oct 10, 2007 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm cool with one travel day

But otherwise, yeah, play straight through. That's the big problem, really, that they're getting a day off after EVERY game.

by Gomez on Oct 10, 2007 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What playoffs are you referring to?

Last time I looked at ESPN's MLB main page, all I could see were stories about the Yankees. If a playoff occurs in the MLB and the Yankees aren't in it, did it really happen?

----groan----

Still not making fun of Willie.

by carcinogen on Oct 10, 2007 11:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

restructure

if I had all power for one day:
2 Leagues, 2 div/league, 8 teams/div (32 total)
East: NY, NY, NY^, BOS, BAL, DC, PHL, TOR
West: SEA, SF, OAK, LA, LA, SD, COL, ARZ
North: DET, MIL, CLE, CIN, MIN, PIT, CHI, CHI
South: HOU, TEX, ATL, STL, KC, ^^x3

^new team (Brooklyn?)
^^3 teams scattered in the southeast whereever the best markets are (incl. North FL, South FL, New Orleans, NC, KY/TN, etc)

Schedule: 160 games
2 home/away series (4 game lengths) against 7 div teams + 1 home/away series (3 game length) against 8 nondiv league teams (no interleague)

a few scattered scheduled double headers incl one day in the middle of summer where every team has a scheduled DH (preferably on some holiday like Labor day or something).

div winners + 2 WC teams (regardless of div) per league advance

WC teams play a one-game playoff to determine DivSeries matchup, loser plays div winner w/best record. (penalizes WC teams by either causing them to burn a good SP or face the more talented DivWinner)

Day0:last day of reg season
Day1:above playoff
Day2:start of DivSeries (7 games, 2+3+off+2)
Day10:off
Day11:start of LeagueSeries(7 games, 2+3+off+2)
Day19:off
Day20:start of NatlSeries(9 games, 3+4+off+2)

Misc:
-RevSharing: scrap the old plan, new plan an offshoot of one Derek pitched a while back that rewards teams based on relative market sizes and attendence

-Draft bonuses slotted and non-negotiable.
-Draft picks allowed to be traded.
-Managers/coaches not allowed to wear uniforms.
-Earlier start times for more games.

by Matthew on Oct 10, 2007 11:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've seen rosterbating

But this is the first I've seen of leaguerbation on LL.

by Gomez on Oct 10, 2007 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No kidding...

And a third NY team?? WTF???

Dude. They're totally swarming with teams in NY. They might have more room in Hoboken or somethin', but no way NY needs a third team. There's no way the third team would even CONSIDER playing baseball in NY...

//slamming leagurebation is much more difficult than slamming rosterbation...

Imagine what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zig-zag...

by PositivePaul on Oct 10, 2007 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

a 3rd NY team

helps even out the revenue adv of the current 2 teams there.

by Matthew on Oct 10, 2007 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know.

That's precisely what I figured. I just figured I could use Hoboken in a sentence related to NY in some sort of way...

Imagine what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zig-zag...

by PositivePaul on Oct 10, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jersey City would probably

make more sense anyways.

The Jersey City Pathfinders. (now there's a fitting name!)

by Matthew on Oct 10, 2007 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brooklyn

would love to get an MLB team back. And it smells better than Jersey City.

Nice Guys Finish Third - Hopelessly lost, but makin' good time.

by pdb on Oct 10, 2007 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

pre-1960's MLB says hi

along with the New York Baseball Giants and the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Maybe a 3rd NY team would work if they took a page from the NFL and put the team in Jersey. Both NY teams in MLB are in NYC proper.

by Gomez on Oct 10, 2007 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My sarcasm button...

...wasn't clear enough.

Imagine what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zig-zag...

by PositivePaul on Oct 10, 2007 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah I see

I do seriously think that MLB could drop a team in Jersey if they wanted to, though.

by Gomez on Oct 10, 2007 3:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd vote for giving Brooklyn a team again.

I'm never blocking a fire exit.

by Thingray on Oct 10, 2007 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Me, too.

Give 'em back the Dodgers name, too. LA can come up with something else...

Imagine what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zig-zag...

by PositivePaul on Oct 10, 2007 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No kidding.

I'm never blocking a fire exit.

by Thingray on Oct 10, 2007 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing I take issue with...

"they don't hang banners for having the most wins or the highest run differential."

Not true in Safeco Field with the 116 staring you in the face on the 2001 banner.

by basebliman on Oct 10, 2007 2:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Touche.

by Jeff on Oct 10, 2007 5:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the banner is there for winning the division

though, it's not there for winning 116 games.

by Matthew on Oct 10, 2007 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

also

it's not even a banner, which pisses me off. What fun is raising a giant cardboard sign?

Put up real banners SafeCo!

by Matthew on Oct 10, 2007 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

geez jeff,

your more of a buzzkill then Buzz Killington

by marinerschas2 on Oct 11, 2007 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or Buzz Lightyear

"You guys should be in every major city. This is some heavy shit. This is, like, Lone Ranger heavy, man."

by AZSEAfan on Oct 12, 2007 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

nobody got

the family guy ref. apparently

by marinerschas2 on Oct 12, 2007 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I DID!

by JI on Oct 13, 2007 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

AnotherAaron wrote

[in soccer] "You can have... one good forward and a fantastic goalie and expect to do well".

Early 1970s: The Northern Ireland international team had George Best and Pat Jennings. Only a handful of players in the history of the game have ever been better at either end of the park. Won nothing.

1982: Best long gone down the road to self-destruction, Jennings still around (but very old) and a supporting cast of varyingly talented journeymen: Mal Donaghy; Martin O'Neill; Gerry Armstrong; Billy Hamilton; and a very young Norman Whiteside. That team made it to the quarter finals of the World Cup. Bloody amazing.

It's a team game, Brian.

Danny Blanchflower Lives!

by Colm on Oct 12, 2007 1:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Playing straight through

keeps the whole roster in the picture, which has to be the point if we're talking about the best team.

A point so simple and so brilliant that it allows me to allow you to get away with crap like this:

"the fact of the matter is that
no batter in baseball history
has demonstrated the ability
to put the ball where he wants.
There is no skill involved in
rolling grounders through the
hole, or making your line drives
avoid the left fielder."

Never saw Rod Carew hit, did ya?

Good article. Have a good rest.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 13, 2007 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

You're talking about Rod "I have a lower career batting average than Ichiro Suzuki" Carew as though he had some sort of magical ability to put the ball exactly where he wanted?

by Graham on Oct 13, 2007 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Carew's ability is evidenced by his

1.000 career average.

by JI on Oct 13, 2007 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not magic

but certainly magical the way he rolled his wrists with that picture perfect, inside-out swing. Never a "hard" swing, just total control.

It's hardly his fault that infielders occasionally got in the way.

Or yours that you didn't see him play.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 12:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

1.000 is the point

Insisting that a lifetime .330ish hitter doesn't have a "repeatable skill" is probably something Rod will have to come to grips with at the next Hall of Fame veterans committee meeting.

I mean, now that he finally knows the truth!

Probably have counselors for that sort of thing.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 12:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just going to get abusive if I argue this

So I'll let everyone else do it.

by Graham on Oct 14, 2007 2:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a good trait to have:

abusive.

Is it repeatable?

I'm always willing to be instructed. If you can convince me that hitting .330 over a 20-year career is not the definition of a "repeatable" ability being implemented then I'll be smarter and you'll have discovered a new skill!

We both win!

But before we begin, can you tell me whether you ever saw Rod Carew at bat?

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 4:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nope.

And I'm glad, because had I lived through an era like that away from easy access to stats, I'd probably be delusionally nostalgic for better days, when players were magical beings who rode unicorns to the ballpark, and discussed ways in which to cure smallpox in the dugout between innings.

Speaking of magic, BABIP is a decent measure of a player's ability to hit it where they ain't. LD/GB/FB would obviously preferable, but whenever Rod Carew was hitting, everyone was obviously too awed by his magical powers of amazingness that they didn't bother doing a proper job of recording discrete events.

Let's be quite clear, here (and I'll be serious for a moment). I'm not suggesting Rod Carew was anything but a fantastic hitter. My assertion is simply that he did not have the ability to have the baseball magicall find holes in the infield - rather that his high average was the result of speed, superior bunting, and a great batting eye, all of which ARE repeatable skills.

Anyway, BABIP [career, stdev]...

Carew: [0.361,0.028]

Unsurprising, considering you have a fast slap hitter who's good at bunting his way on (wouldn't it be nice if we had bunt numbers so we could remove them from BABIP and actually focus on grounders and line drives?).

Ichiro: [0.359,0.030]

There you have it. Carew is 0.55% more magical than Ichiro and slightly more consistent about it (which is hardly surprising considering he had a more stable sample size).

The obvious conclusion is that Carew could put the baseball wherever he wanted it, while Ichiro merely slaps the ball to the left side and runs like a Kenyan for first without any magical powers whatsoever. How could I be so misguided?

by Graham on Oct 14, 2007 5:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like BABiP

I even pretty much understand it.

What I don't understand is why you'd be "glad" you never saw this or that Hall of Fame player play. Waxing nostalgic or not, I saw Rod get about eleventy million hits. About half of them, seemingly, placed between the third baseman and the short-stop. Of course I'm delusional, so that explains that.

But what it doesn't explain is why "a great batting eye" (repeatable) bears no relation to "finding holes in the infield" (unrepeatable/magical), especially for a player known for his bat control (repeatable) and who probably hit 80% singles.

Which is why I originally asked if you'd seen him. Not to say, "ha, I'm older than you, you wanker" (as enjoyable as that is to say) but having seen him (even despite the lack of LD/GB/FB data,) I think I'm not wrong to suggest that I bet his LD rate and Ichiro's aren't real similar.

You're assuming that he had Ichiro's "slap it down and beat it out when you're fooled" ability and that he employed it regularly. He didn't. Rod squared up everything (intentional hyperbole). Maybe his BABiP - even without the LD rates - could be interpreted to suggest that. His 131 OPS+ (Ichiro 120, Clemente 130, Al Oliver 121, Yaz 130) helps out perhaps.

That he was a fabulous bunter is true, but an assertion that "his high average was the result of speed, superior bunting, and a great batting eye" is only about 33% right. I'll concede and would even consider retracting my spiritual beliefs if I could be shown conclusively that Rod Carew ever got 40+ IFH a year. He just wasn't "that type" of hitter.

Don't interpret this as antagonistic. It's not. But it's not without argument. Jeff originally wrote that "no batter in baseball history has demonstrated the ability to put the ball where he wants" followed up by the thought a few sentences later that where a batted ball goes "is, in large part, random chance."

And that's where I get confused. Nobody possesses the ability (another way of saying "unrepeatable") and yet the ball ends up going where it's going only "in large part...[due to] chance"?

Which is it? Unrepeatable or just mostly unrepeatable?

I submit that a batter with a consistent plate approach, a good eye, superior intelligence, some speed, can and does put the ball exactly where he wants to. A lot.

But not always. Not even most of the time in a sport where 33% is, as you said, fantastic. Sometimes the guy with all those repeatable skills gets fooled, gets distracted by the ball-girl with the big jahoobies, or gets fancy and tries to hit a 7-run homer, gets unlucky, whatever, but some of the time he doesn't.

A Tony Gwynn bat with ball marks layered on the sweet spot and Rod Carew buttering the bat through the zone with exactly the same level stroke about 10,000 times isn't magic. It's control.

That it's not "all" just luck is probably the least we can say about a guy whose BABiP was probably two standard deviations over the mean for a career.

Rare, sure, but nonexistent, not a chance.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 7:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If Rod Carew

or anyone had the repeatable ability to "put the ball where he wanted" to, then he was biggest idiot in the world for putting it near a fielder 2/3 of the time.

by Matthew on Oct 14, 2007 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not an idiot,

human.

It's tough to hit a baseball. Even for the guys for whom it's not as tough.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

so then you're saying

that Rod Cares didn't have the ability to always put the ball where he wanted to?

by Matthew on Oct 14, 2007 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes,

and it's what I've always said.

As a counter-argument to Jeff's original statement that "no batter in baseball history has demonstrated the ability to put the ball where he wants. There is no skill involved in rolling grounders through the hole, or making your line drives avoid the left fielder."

I disagree with the absolute nature of that statement.

I think that players who are able to do it consistently (whatever measure that takes) are rarer than say, lumpy power hitters, but to say that they "don't exist" or that "they're just lucky" (i.e., not consciously capable of repeating a desired outcome with a batted ball) is where I disagree.

Rod Carew is just "luckier" than Roy Smalley?

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Strawman

by Matthew on Oct 14, 2007 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

learn the term

before you use it.

What's with the hostility? Seriously.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure he knows what the term means.

by JI on Oct 14, 2007 9:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

K

Why am I glad I didn't see the old hall of famers play baseball? Because modern athletes are much better.

Incidentally, here're some numbers I've managed to wrest from retrosheet, looking at a 300 PA sample of Carew's 1977...

LEFT    1B    2B    3B    GO    FO    LO
98    33%    6%    2%    20%    31%    8%
RIGHT    1B    2B    3B    GO    FO    LO
73    14%    3%    10%    64%    3%    4%

This data's not perfect, because there are a bunch of '?'s for hit location, but it's servicable.

Carew's obviously fantastic at getting singles to left field. My explanation, from the gamelogs I've been going through, would be that his swing is geared towards producing soft line drives to left field, which would increase BABIP to left, decrease ground balls, and increase flyouts. However, since I can't get LD/GB/FB numbers for his hits, I can't be sure this is the truth.

The idea that he could guide groundballs through holes is killed by his numbers on the other side of the diamond. Of the 78 balls he put in play to the right, Carew was thrown out on 64% of them (as opposed to 98/20%). There's no hole-finding skill apparent there, and therefore there's no reason to believe that he could generate mass amounts of seeing-eye grounders on the left side either. Great hitter? Yeah. Able to consistently put the ball where he wanted? No.

by Graham on Oct 14, 2007 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

PS: Derek Jeter BABIP? 0.363

by Graham on Oct 14, 2007 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm grateful for your research.

...but as far as that "old" bit...Rodney's playing days aren't that long ago. We're not talking about Honus.

I hope that we don't overlook the obvious: that Rod's swing was "geared toward producing LD to left" because he himself geared it that way.

This small sampling of a pretty good year only confirms what a lot of us thought we were watching: a guy who was consciously, and with tremendous levels of success (98/20%) inside-outing the ball to left field. You conclude that this is luck, I conclude that he waited for his pitch and then did what he planned on doing all along: hitting it safely through/over the left side.

Perhaps what this chunk of data also shows is that this skill is limited. What I don't agree with is the all-or-nothing insistence that because a hitter isn't 100% successful at handling a pitch the way he'd like to that therefore, he isn't capable AT ALL of directing a pitch. (It would be foolish to insist on an absolute either way, really.)

Batters with an inside-out swing (Rod is their patron saint) are particularly adept at picking a spot and hitting it there. Again, the sample above seems to bear this out. I'd wager that were it possible to crunch the numbers for his 19 years we'd see that Rod Carew knew how to get a hit the other way with incredible consistency, but was pretty mortal (78/64%) when he tried to pull the ball.

The conclusion that "he's lucky to get a hit at all because he doesn't know where it's going when he hits it" is fine if we're talking about Adam Dunn. I think that degrees/levels of consistently doing what you want with a batted ball do exist. Rod, Ichiro, Boggs, Gwynn are a few at the top of that consistency category.

I also think it's possible to become dogmatic with terms like repeatable and non-repeatable. The conclusion that he couldn't put the ball where he wanted AT ALL just because he couldn't do it ALL THE TIME just doesn't compute.

Whether his ability to do it some of the time constitutes a consistent, i.e., repeatable skill is something we'll argue about.

I mean, if Rod Carew wasn't consistent, then nobody is.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We accept that hitting it to left is a skill

We do not accept that hitting it to 'that spot between third and short' is a skill, rather that having hits go through the hole is one of the outcomes that will result from the true skill.

You've over-simplified the idea behind BABIP - we know that hitters try to hit to specific areas of the field and are able to do so with varying success. What we do not accept is that they can place the ball in minute wedges - Ichiro is considered special because he can cut down the field to 30 degree arcs, while most players are generally capable of dumping the ball somewhere within a 45 degree target.

In order to aim at a hole between fielders, you'd have to get down to 10 degree accuracy or so. That would be a repeatable skill (and really really cool). Lining it into left and then saying the skill was 'putting the ball where he wanted' is missing the whole point.

by Graham on Oct 14, 2007 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm glad you agree

that intentionally hitting the ball to the left side is a skill. I'm not the one who neglected to type the words "only through minute wedges on the left side of the infield" in the original post, see? I'm apparently not being clear.

Rod Carew could hit the ball to the left. He was good at it. He repeated this activity his entire career. A lot. He was good at grounding it left and at lining it left.

Jeff said "no player...no skill...in grounding...or avoid(ing)." Argue with him as it seems you both may be overstating the majesty of BABiP. There are times when tools like BABiP are pressed beyond what is reasonable in attempts to quantify what we're observing on the field. It's a good though flawed measurement, open to misuse. Comping Jeter with Carew without reference to defense/pitching of 1977 is, perhaps, one form of that.

Honestly, I think your dismissal of players of the previous generation as 'inferior' indicates you've closed your mind to the possibility that there were players with similar, or even superior, skill-sets in previous eras.

No, I'm not saying that 40 years ago there were 25 guys "better than Arod" playing the game. But there may have been two or three.

Re: Ichiro. I agree that he is special. In one respect (especially) he reminds me a lot of Rod: in the chance he gives me to watch what a smart batter will do with the pitch sequence he sees in this PA. The only thing we know for sure is that he has a plan.

пар горячий развяжет язык...

by LouKlimchock HoF on Oct 14, 2007 1:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well

I hate BABIP as a tool. It's crude and imprecise, and the only reason I'm using it is because I can't get good play by play data on Carew (even the stuff I -could- get has too many holes for me to be happy with mounting any sort of rigourous analysis).

Really, this arose because the "hit it where they ain't" argument has been done to death, and many of us (including Jeff and Matthew,) are intimately familiar with the standard definition, which is what we've arrived at through this series of posts. I really should have made sure we were on the same wavelength to begin with, but one of my many failings is assuming overfamiliarity with subject matter.

Regarding the change in league difficulty over time, the inferiority of years past is not something I just decided to be true (although I've always suspected it, so I guess I'm more receptive to the argument) - rather it's the product of many studies and my own work. One of my long running baseball experiments (I'm juggling my degree, my pitching research, and this*) is looking at league difficulty adjustments from a statistical distribution perspective, so it's not like I'm a novice at this.

In bygone days, the excellent players had more of a chance to stand out from their peers, because the further back you go, the lower the average talent level is. Assuming baseball skill follows a bell distribution (not that strong an assumption), a wider talent pool with finite elements drawn from it will result in a much, much, much higher leaguewide average. Derek Jeter undoubtedly (well, you can have doubts if you want) faces better pitching and defense than Rod Carew ever did. The difference isn't as big as Ruth's day and now, but it's still there, measurable and important.

Anyway, I never meant to take anything away from Rod Carew.

*And foosball, but that's beside the point.

by Graham on Oct 14, 2007 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs