Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actual standings NL Central this morning:
Cincinnati 66-46 -
Pittsburg 63-48 -2.5
St. Louis 61-57 -5
Pythag expected standings:
St. Louis 67-45 -
Cincinnati 64-48 -3
Pittsburg 60-51 -6.5
The Cardinals are under achieving and it is a product of either poor luck, or as jtur suggests, serial in game mismangement. Whichever, the Cardinals are a lousy 12-18 in one run games and that is the primary reason that they are five games back rather than three games ahead.
St. Louis has outscored their opponents by 101 runs, the largest margain in MLB. (And this despite the hit that stat took in the 15-0 loss to SF this week) In theory they should have the best record in baseball, and in the Pythag standings, they do.
The scoring probability with none on, 2 out is 0.40. But that is inflated by multi-run innings so probably about 0.30% of such innings produce at least one run. That's with an average hitter coming up, so let's say 0.25% with a pinch hitter cold off the bench. Reduce that to maybe 0.20 the way Halladay has been mowing them down. For that one-in-five chance of a scoring inning, Matheny pulls out Lohse, who has virtually matched Halladay and is showing no signs of tiring. In fact, a majority of those 2-out-none-on runs come on bases empty homers, for which Matt Carpenter connects one AB out of 45. Jf Carpenter singles, the only way you're going to get a run out of this deal is if Jay also hits safely, and then Craig drives him home. Three straight hits needed to make a better situation than Lohse pitching the eighth. Of course, he comes away with zero, but Lohse is wasted. If Lohse's turn at bat had not come up in that inning, there is no way he comes out of the game at this point, so Matheny is wasting Lohse for that microscopic chance of scoring against Halladay with 2 out bases empty and no real threat at the plate.
Instead of Lohse, now, he has his maybe 6th man down in the bullpen mop-up depth chart, a month in the major leagues, to face the top of the Phillies batting order. He promptly gives up a solid hit, balks the winning run to second, and after Utley's homer, it's game over. Matheny loses another one.
The scoring probability with none on, 2 out is 0.40. But that is inflated by multi-run innings so probably about 0.30% of such innings produce at least one run. That's with an average hitter coming up, so let's say 0.25% with a pinch hitter cold off the bench. Reduce that to maybe 0.20 the way Halladay has been mowing them down. For that one-in-five chance of a scoring inning, Matheny pulls out Lohse, who has virtually matched Halladay and is showing no signs of tiring. In fact, a majority of those 2-out-none-on runs come on bases empty homers, for which Matt Carpenter connects one AB out of 45. Jf Carpenter singles, the only way you're going to get a run out of this deal is if Jay also hits safely, and then Craig drives him home. Three straight hits needed to make a better situation than Lohse pitching the eighth. Of course, he comes away with zero, but Lohse is wasted. If Lohse's turn at bat had not come up in that inning, there is no way he comes out of the game at this point, so Matheny is wasting Lohse for that microscopic chance of scoring against Halladay with 2 out bases empty and no real threat at the plate.
Instead of Lohse, now, he has his maybe 6th man down in the bullpen mop-up depth chart, a month in the major leagues, to face the top of the Phillies batting order. He promptly gives up a solid hit, balks the winning run to second, and after Utley's homer, it's game over. Matheny loses another one.
filihok may come along with a more sophisticated calculation of the odds in play in your scenario. You can't do what you are doing up there. You begin with the odds for scoring with none on and two out. This figure is a calculation based on the frequency of scoring in that situation in the past. So far, so good.
Then you follow that with a series of eccentric additions and reductions to the odds which are not based on measuring the past, but on your gut estimates. When you mix a measured calculation with an instinctive calculation, the result is not an improved instinct, it is the invalidation of the measurement.
The short version of the above is...
2+4+4=10
or
2 +4+soap=6 soap
One of those two calculations produces a useful answer, the other yields nonsense.
filihok may come along with a more sophisticated calculation of the odds in play in your scenario. You can't do what you are doing up there. You begin with the odds for scoring with none on and two out. This figure is a calculation based on the frequency of scoring in that situation in the past. So far, so good.
Then you follow that with a series of eccentric additions and reductions to the odds which are not based on measuring the past, but on your gut estimates. When you mix a measured calculation with an instinctive calculation, the result is not an improved instinct, it is the invalidation of the measurement.
The short version of the above is...
2+4+4=10
or
2 +4+soap=6 soap
One of those two calculations produces a useful answer, the other yields nonsense.
Yours was a soap measurement.
I did not have a calculation of odds of scoring with none on and two out. I have only the expected number of runs, which will be larger than the number of scoring innings, due to multiple runs in some cases. Maybe Filihok has the appropriate probability of a scoring inning, and can enlighten us. I didn't have it, so I gave it my best guess.
Do you really think that a realistic run expectancy is the same 0.40, whether it is Halladay or Browning who is on the mound? And whether it is Mendoza or Bonds at the plate (or course, based on the past -- what else do we have?), and no adjustment is relevant? If so, then carry on.
I leave it to you. As manager, what would you have done? Bat Lohse, or Carpenter? With Browning warmed up as your relief choice in a tie.
Do you really think that a realistic run expectancy is the same 0.40, whether it is Halladay or Browning who is on the mound? And whether it is Mendoza or Bonds at the plate (or course, based on the past -- what else do we have?), and no adjustment is relevant? If so, then carry on.
.
My criticism wasn't that you modified the stat, it was the manner in which you did it, fusing precision and guesswork.
As noted, the result of doing that is not a superior guess, it is loss of precision.
I did not have a calculation of odds of scoring with none on and two out. I have only the expected number of runs, which will be larger than the number of scoring innings, due to multiple runs in some cases. Maybe Filihok has the appropriate probability of a scoring inning, and can enlighten us. I didn't have it, so I gave it my best guess.
Do you really think that a realistic run expectancy is the same 0.40, whether it is Halladay or Browning who is on the mound? And whether it is Mendoza or Bonds at the plate (or course, based on the past -- what else do we have?), and no adjustment is relevant? If so, then carry on.
I leave it to you. As manager, what would you have done? Bat Lohse, or Carpenter? With Browning warmed up as your relief choice in a tie.
I have this chart, which I never found before, so thanks for giving me reason to look it up.
With nobody on and 2 outs a team is held scoreless 92% of the time.
I'd agree that Matt Carpenter vs Roy Halladay will probably lead to a run less often than that.
I'd also suspect that Kyle Lohse vs Roy Halladay would probably lead to a run even less often than Carpenter hitting.
Through 7 innings, Lohse had thrown 101 pitches. I agree with you that 100 pitches isn't a magic number after which pitchers turn into toads. Every pitcher is different, and every pitcher is different on every day. I wasn't watching the game so I can't comment on how Lohse looked towards the end of his night. We can look at some stats though to see if we can see any indication that he was tiring.
First, and most obvious, is pitch speed.
Lohse's fastballs were coming in in the 88-90 range early in the game, similarly in the middle of the game and a bit faster towards the end of the game.
Lohse threw 11 of 14 pitches for strikes in his last inning. Strike % isn't command, but he was at least getting the ball over the plate with regularity.
He may have been, but these simple looks give no indication that he was tiring.
Lohse has only faced 10 hitters after throwing 100 pitches. Neither this season, nor in his career, has he shown an unusual propensity to get hit hard after his 100th pitch.
Lohse would have been facing the Phillies' order for the 4th time in the game. We know that pitchers become less effective each time through the batting order:
For 2012:
1st time: .715 OPS against
2nd time: .740 OPS against
3rd time: .776 OPS against.
This changes facing hitter for the 4th time as, generally, pitchers who face batters for a 4th time and good pitchers or pitchers having good games.
However, this season (small sample), Lohse has been terrible when facing a lineup for the 4th time. Hitters are hitting 65% better in that situation than they do against Lohse as a whole.
This holds true for Lohse in his career as hitters have hit 13% better against him the 4th time through the lineup. Again, small sample, as this only represents 247 plate appearances.
But, it may be something to consider.
The biggest thing to consider though, were the Philly batters.
Jimmy Rollins, Juan Pierre, Chase Utley, Ryan Howard, Domonic Brown, and Nate Schierholtz were the next 7 scheduled batters. 6 of them are left-handed.
Lohse is a righty, Browning is a lefty
Lohse actually handles left-handed hitters pretty well for a right-handed pitcher, showing basically no platoon split:
Career vs righties: .321/.428 (OBP/SLG)
Career vs lefties: .341/.446
This season (small sample) is a bit different:
vs right: .266/.358
vs left: .303/.390
The Phillies' hitters (2012), though:
Rollins (vs R) .326/.439, (vs L): .262/.360
Pierre .342/.380, .191/156
Utley .388/.535, .283/.383
Howard .323/.473, .263/.382
Brown (really insufficient data)
Schierholtz .200/.250, .366/.486
All of them have extreme platoon splits.
Browning is a lefty.
The decision was likely not predicated on Carpenter's pinch-hitting prowess. It was decided that the lefty Browning would face the Philles' left-handed brigade of hitters due up.
It didn't work out, but I'd have a hard time not bringing in a lefty to face that string of hitters as well.
Excellent analysis. The only thing I would add is that Rollins is a Switch hitter, Pierre bunted, and Utley needed only a sac fly to win the game, all of which pretty much neutralize handedness, which in my opinion is hugely overrated in the first place. If you NEED to remove a pitcher, then yes, consider handedness, but you don't pull an effective pitcher just to change hands. I mean, seriously, do you want Rollins batting left against Lohse, or right against Browning?
The balk was lack of experience with MLB umps. Rollins was standing with both heels on first base when Browning balked him to second. Even if Lohse gave up the leadoff hit, he never would have balked, and could have been replaced by a lefty then. Conserving a tie on the road in the 8th inning, playoff hopes dimming rapidly, is not a situation that calls for the likes of Browning.
Browning, by all appearances, is showing some potential. But he needs some more seasoning at the MLB level to be in a crucial game situation. Furthermore, after the balk, I would never have left him in there, because you know that is working on his head, and he's pitcning to Utley thinking about his balk. I've been watching this for a long time, and when a pitcher becomes rattled by an unusual turn of events, his effectiveness always nosedives. Very few pitchers have the mental discipline to work through that without it messing with them. If I were a batter, and the pitcher balked, I'd bunt the next pitch right back to him, and watch him throw the ball away.
Excellent analysis. The only thing I would add is that Rollins is a Switch hitter, Pierre bunted, and Utley needed only a sac fly to win the game, all of which pretty much neutralize handedness,
For his career Rollins is essentially equal batting from each side of the plate. He's hit .331/.435 vs righties and .321/.427 vs lefties.
However, over the last 2 seasons (small sample), he's hit .344/.430 vs righties and .274/.346 vs lefties. Is this a change in talent or sample size? I don't know.
As for Pierre's bunt. Well, since we'd expect Rollins to make an out something along the lines of 68% of the time we shouldn't be making decisions on what happens the other 32% of the time. It's certainly the right move to have a lefty face Pierre.
Ditto for Utley. Before the inning, the chances of Utley hitting with a runner on 3rd were pretty small. Even so, with the runner on 3rd you certainly want Utley hitting against a lefty.
vs R: 13% strike outs
vs L: 19% strike outs
A significantly higher chance that Utley whiffs against a lefty. With a runner on 3rd, that's important.
Quote:
which in my opinion is hugely overrated in the first place.
Platoon advantage is important.
According to page 88 of The Book, hitters with the platoon advantage hit about 19 wOBA points better than they do without it. That's roughly the difference between Prince Fielder and David Freese.
Quote:
If you NEED to remove a pitcher, then yes, consider handedness, but you don't pull an effective pitcher just to change hands. I mean, seriously, do you want Rollins batting left against Lohse, or right against Browning?
For Rollins it's pretty even, for Pierre, Utley and Howard, I'd want Browning.
Quote:
The balk was lack of experience with MLB umps. Rollins was standing with both heels on first base when Browning balked him to second. Even if Lohse gave up the leadoff hit, he never would have balked,
and could have been replaced by a lefty then.
Lohse has balked 4 times in his career. It's unlikely he would have balked. But he certainly could have balked. It was also unlikely that Browning would balk.
And, how would bringing in Browning to face Pierre with Rollins already on 1st have made Browning less likely to balk?
Quote:
and could have been replaced by a lefty then.
What we have to figure out to see if this is true is if the difference in the chance of Lohse giving up a hit to Rollins and the chance of Browning giving up a hit to Rollins. Then we have to use that probability to find the change in expected runs of those 2 situations and compare that to the difference in expected runs between Lohse batting in the previous inning and Carpenter hitting for him.
I'm not going to do that, that's a lot of work.
Quote:
after the balk, I would never have left him in there, because you know that is working on his head, and he's pitcning to Utley thinking about his balk. I've been watching this for a long time, and when a pitcher becomes rattled by an unusual turn of events, his effectiveness always nosedives. Very few pitchers have the mental discipline to work through that without it messing with them. If I were a batter, and the pitcher balked, I'd bunt the next pitch right back to him, and watch him throw the ball away.
This is all speculation that I can't even comment upon.
In the Cubs/Reds game this afternoon, in the top of the 7th, it was 2-1 Cubs. The Reds catcher was on first base with one out. The Reds starter, Arroyo, was due to bat. He hit for himself and attempted a sacrifice. Let’s look at why this was a terrible decision by Baker.
let’s quickly look at the Cubs manager, Dale Sveum. I am not familiar with his reputation for his strategic decisions. He let his starting pitcher, Travis Wood (also not a good pitcher), bat in the bottom of the 7th inning (with 2 outs and no one on base) and then took him out of the game. Huh?
The numerical deconstuction approach is, always has been, and always will be, a matter of indifference for Dusty Baker. He isn't that kind of manager. Dusty is of the Peerless Leader school. That means he sets an example of dedicated professionalism by always radiating the aura of a dedicated professional. It isn't Knute Rockne rah, rah, rather a quiet seriousness about the game which results in the players being serious because they do not want to fail Dusty. That is the core of his approach, getting the players to think the worst possible thing is being on Dusty's Ugly List because of some failure to do the job properly. I think the manger he most modeled himself upon was Ralph Houk.
Dusty treats the percentages as though they are all 50/50 shots and relies on his instincts for pulling the trigger or staying his hand. The results are random, as was the decision.
Give a Peerless Leader a strong roster and he will keep them focused on winning, even if he gives away some advantages by not knowing the percentages.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
