MLB 2018

[Hot Pepsi]

Yeah. I reviewed that frame by frame. It really could not have been much closer. Good call.

[danielmak]

I think these games should be exciting, but it's hard to see how anyone can beat the Astros given how well they are playing right now. Of course, things change quickly in baseball and we might see an upset. As I told a co-worker today, I think the Astros will sweep, the Dodgers will sweep or win in 5, and the Astros will sweep again. I hope I'm wrong about that last one but the 'Stros are loaded.

[jefe]

Didi Gregorius is getting the Tommy John, Sonny Gray is up for trade, the Cubs fired their hitting coach, and the Dbacks are putting in turf.

[ursus arctos]

The Cubs fired their hitting coach for the second year in a row.

And the Mets have nominated domestic violence enthusiast José Reyes as their candidate for the Marvin Miller Man of the Year award.

[Femme Folle]

I'm really sorry that I didn't get to see the cycle, but I couldn't take the chance. I'm still trying to decide if I should watch the ALCS. I think my jinx only works when they play the Yankees.

[ursus arctos]

Well, someone has cursed Inca’s boys tonight

[Femme Folle]

It wasn't me.

[Incandenza]

Not looking good. I'm resigned to the likely possibility that Kershaw will never win a ring, and is probably well along the back end of his career now.

[danielmak]

I got home in time to see Grandal's brutal inning. I think Kershaw was slightly hard done by given poor choices by players around him. The players can't give a team extra outs in the playoffs, but I still think the runs post-error are often an excuse. A top notch pitcher can shake that off and do his job. I don't agree with critics that Kershaw's reputation is somehow inflated because he tends to blow it in the playoffs, but he does tend to run into big innings. Tonight seems to be the same. And those big innings certainly separate him from some of the other greats.

I still think the Dodgers have the talent to win this; it will just have to be in 5 rather than 4. haha.

[danielmak]

That was good from Machado, the swing that was missing at the end of that game 4 in Atlanta: just make contact. And Kemp does the same. Don't always need a home run.

[Gerontophile]

I don't agree with critics that Kershaw's reputation is somehow inflated because he tends to blow it in the playoffs, but he does tend to run into big innings.

For the 84th time.

I wouldn't climb over Justin Verlander to get to him.

[danielmak]

I was at work until late on Friday so didn't have a chance to watch MLB Now until after the Dodgers-Brewers game ended. Brian Kenny did a breakdown of Kershaw compared to other frontline starters in history. Kershaws general stats place him as the best pitcher in history (if I remember correctly, although I can't remember which stats Kenny was using--it wasn't WAR). But, and this is interesting, there is no other frontline starter that has been anywhere close to as bad as Kershaw has been in the poststeason. Clemens and Maddux both had higher ERAs but those stats were inflated by their first experiences pitching in the post season. If the stats for first time through on these two guys are excluded then their numbers are excellent. Kenny said that he was expecting at least someone to have faltered (esp. a guy who maybe only had one shot at the playoffs during the pre-Wild Card days). But nothing. Kershaw stands alone in terms of a major differentiation between his in-season stats and his post-season stats.

One other interesting note from the panel discussion that followed Kenny's breakdown, that won't be a surprise to anyone who watches the games: Kershaws strikeout to walk ratio is excellent in the playoffs. But those numbers don't tell the story; it's the big inning. He is either excellent (as he was in Atlanta this season) or he has an inning where he gives up 5, 7, 8 runs. And the game is basically lost.

[ursus arctos]

He's worse than Price?

That's hard for me to believe, though it may be that he was using a definition of "front line starter" that I don't agree with.

My guess is that the stat was "fielding independent" in any case, given the result.

[ursus arctos]

He's worse than Price?

That's hard for me to believe, though it may be that he was using a definition of "front line starter" that I don't agree with.

My guess is that the stat was "fielding independent" in any case, given the result.

[ursus arctos]

Wade Miley is starring in his own personal revival of Damn Yankees

[ursus arctos]

Boom

[San Bernardhinault]

Come on Brewers... this is getting frustrating.

[danielmak]

He's worse than Price?

That's hard for me to believe, though it may be that he was using a definition of "front line starter" that I don't agree with.

My guess is that the stat was "fielding independent" in any case, given the result.

Yeah, that's a good question. Price's stats skew very differently as a starter and out of the pen.

I typed some long response but then found this so deleted that response, but he is using the term "hall of fame ace":
https://twitter.com/MrBrianKenny/sta...68063615283201

In this sense, I would agree that Price might be a front-line starter (my term in the op) but I would not think about him as a hall of famce ace.

[ursus arctos]

And I would agree.

Here’s an interesting snapshot of four guys with serious claims to that category (through the end of the regular season)

Kershaw (age 30, 11 seasons): 2096.1 IP, 61.6 fWAR, 2.64 FIP

Verlander (Age 35, 13 seasons): 2759 IP, 63.6 fWAR, 3.42 FIP

Scherzer (age 34, 11 seasons): 2117.2 IP, 51.2 fWAR, 3.19 FIP

Halladay (15 seasons): 2749.1 IP, 65.2 fWAR, 3.39 FIP.

[danielmak]

FIP is good because it ignores what a pitcher can't control (e.g., errors), but does FIP ignore the base runner after the fact? In other words, Kershaw had another nightmare inning on Friday night but he should have been out of that inning and other plays affected the runs. I wrote last night that an error shouldn't let a pitcher off the hook. Just because another out was granted via the error, if a player didn't score on the error, the pitcher still has an opportunity to end the inning. But last night, Grandal and Bellinger made plays that clearly affected the runs. Had Bellinger hit a cut off man, a single wouldn't score any runs after Bellingers play. And had Grandal just kept his glove where it should be, catcher's interference would not have happened, which would have put Kershaw in a position to get out of the inning much faster.

So, how do these situations affect FIP? Kershaw gave up a single and that single led to a run but the run wouldn't have happened if runners were on first and second instead of second and third (courtesy of Bellinger).

[ursus arctos]

Here's the full definition from Fangraphs

When you look at the formula

FIP = ((13*HR)+(3*(BB+HBP))-(2*K))/IP + constant

you will see that what you are talking about (often called "sequencing") doesn't come into play.

Or, as Fangraphs puts it

Ultimately, we want to use statistics that allow us to isolate the performance of the player we are attempting to analyze. ERA or RA9 do a terrific job telling us how many runs were scored while the pitched was on the mound, but they do not necessarily tell us how well the pitcher performed because the number of runs a pitcher allowed is also dependent on their defense, luck, and the order in which events happened (often called sequencing).

FIP is an attempt to isolate the performance of the pitcher by using only those outcomes we know do not involve luck on balls in play or defense; strikeouts, walks, hit batters, and home runs allowed. Research has shown that pitchers have very little control on the outcome of balls in play, so while we care about how often a pitcher allows a ball to be put into play, whether a ground ball goes for a hit or is turned into an out is almost entirely out of their control.

As a result, a statistic that estimates their ERA based on their strikeouts, walks, hit batters, and home runs while assuming average luck on balls in play, defense, and sequencing is a better reflection of that pitcher’s performance over a given period of time. This is highly related to the reasons why we care so much about Batting Average on Balls in Play (BABIP), specifically the fact that pitchers have very little control over their BABIP allowed.

[danielmak]

Thanks, UA. Now that I see that description I remember the nuances of that stat (and my minor quibble). I don't fully agree that a pitcher lacks control over balls in play. We hear former pitchers complain every time a ball goes through a hole where a player would normally stand but isn't there because of a shift. The critique is akin to football commentators complaining about zonal marking versus man-to-man. So, I get that there are situations where a pitcher loses or benefits from defensive positioning. At the same time, the statcast data now provides access to catch likelihood percentages. So, they report out if a catch really is exceptional or just looks good because a guy laid out (but did so because his route was poor). My point with this is that I would think that there are ways to judge if a hit is something the pitcher gave up versus a hit that happened because a defender made a poor choice or was positioned wrong by a coach (something talked about a lot with Mccutchen when his defensive ratings plunged radically a few seasons back). I could never in a million years come up with a formula that would cover this but it seems that such a stat might better account for a pitcher's true success (home run, hit by pitch, walk, strikeout, ball in play that rarely is caught).

[ursus arctos]

There's an awful lot of research (beginning with Voros McCracken) that supports the basic principle.

While it almost certainly could be further refined (and likely already has been in the proprietary realm), it seems to me that that isn't a reason to dismiss what we have now.

[Femme Folle]

I will never get used to the Astros being in the AL.

[danielmak]

Porecello is looking very good and is providing a much needed bridge to Kimbrell. We're about to see if the closer was just too amped up in New York or if the pressure on the whole is going to get to him.

I think the critics will say that Porcello should have started, and maybe he should have, but every starter turned reliever says that the limited innings in relief allows for a different approach to pitching: less pitches used and throwing much harder. So, Porcello as a starter might not be as dominant. We'll see in game 5 I assume unless the Red Sox blow this.

BTW Maldonado seemed hellbent on outdoing Grandal for worst inning for a catcher during this post-season.