Frayed Knot

Well, best record in both leagues are GONE! No baseball until Friday with all the quick series. Four very flawed teams moving ahead.

Can't blame Desmond for being pissed on that one

Problem drinker and his enabler friend 'Dave' conspire to cause dog to cry all night.

A list of guys we WON'T be seeing next season Josh Beckett announces his right after the Dodgers were eliminated. Still only 34 y/o but with a hip surgery upcoming that he doesn�t want to rehab from. 14 seasons and 138 wins under his belt. A 2nd & 9th place CY placements, plus a WS MVP Paul Konerko - 18 seasons, all but two partial ones with the ChiSox. He got a nice sendoff in the season's final week 439 HRs; .279/.354/.486 Admittedly contemplating it but not announced as such: Torii Hunter Will turn 40 next summer, has several kids in college already. 331 career HRs.279/.334/.465 Plus I heard something about some Yanqui infielder retiring. If only that one had received some publicity I might be able to recall his name. And I'm sure this list will grow over the winter and then on into the spring as guys find themselves unwillingly retired by being able to find jobs.

Zvon wrote: You can't expect a pitcher on a play like that to be worrying about giving a lane. Well whether he intends to or not, if he prevents the runner from getting to the plate before he has the ball then I have no problem flagging him for it. Being a pitcher doesn't make him exempt. It's just that earlier in the year they were flagging guys for being there as the runner was still only half-way home.

Zvon wrote: If they call this obstruction at home, I'm done with baseball. I wouldn't go that far, but there's no way I'd reverse this. (and they don't) Yeah he was in the lane BUT HE HAD THE BALL!!!

Panik at the 'Cisco !!

Matt Williams a bit trigger happy with the (first) pitching change? ... I kind of thought so. Pulling the starter, who had given up 2 runs (none earned) and very few well hit balls, as early as the top of the 5th so you could PH in a 2-out/runner on 2nd situation down by only 1 ... seemed like a bit of a panic move to me. And in doing so you bring in the 5th starter which gives you the ability to stick with him for multiple innings ... but then pull him before the inning is out. Plus there were 2 LHBs leading off (who both got hits off Roark). They danced out of it so it's tough to say that it was the wrong move, but they still have (at least) three innings still to cover.

Edgy MD wrote: Cards again. Y'know what the annoying thing about the Cards is? (among the annoying things anyway) -- it's that their RS/RA +/- this season (+16) was barely distinguishable from ours (+11)

Pence does everything in this game well ... and looks good doing absolutely none of it!

Puig as a pinch-runner could work to the benefit of either team depending on how things go.

All these StL HRs in this series have been lefty-lefty That was an awful lot of strutting down the 1st base line by Adams for a HR that cleared the fence by about 18 inches

Ceetar wrote: The obvious caveat is that the league OPS in 2014 was .700 whereas the league OPS from 1999-2002 was somewhere around .765. Nearly 4000 more runs were scored on average in those years than in 2014 and more than a 1000 home runs. Those definitely mess with the scoring numbers, particularly the 'more than 1' bits The specific numbers would change (they'd basically be lower all around) but the relationship between them all would remain more or less the same. IOW, it's not like the odds are going to reverse themselves as compared to how they were a decade ago; a (generic) move of giving the winning run a free pass to 1st will increase the odds that you lose the game in that inning. ... [buck] argued quite seriously that no, he had won a minor league post-season series with Oneonta or Fort Lauderdale or Albany or somebody. The interviewer was all, "Yeah, but.... the big leagues" and Buck was all, "They all count." Buck was a career minor leaguer as a player and started managing at those levels very young. I'm not surprised that he takes that attitude. btw, do you know that BB-Ref is now tracking manager challenges for each skipper?

... I'd be interested to see those tables as well, though I don't think I've seen a 2+ runs one though. t he numbers I posted were from 2014. Remind me when the 2014 data is available via retrosheet and maybe I'll try to recreate it myself. I'd also like to see an _exactly_ one run chart because while bunting with no outs and 1 on is generally bad and reduces scoring, when it's the bottom of the 9th of a tie game, I'm not so sure it's as bad as it's made out to be somtime. OK, here's an example of what I was talking about. That particular chart is for 1999-2002 but the idea is the same even if the numbers there won't correspond exactly to those of 2014 For the O's/Tigers situation specifically what we're looking at is the difference in scoring in those pre and post IW situations: Runner on 2nd/1 out vs runners on 1st & 2nd/1 out - odds of scoring 0 runs: 59.4% vs 57.4% - odds of scoring exactly one run: 23.0% vs 16.1% - odds of scoring exactly two runs: 9.8% vs 11.0% - odds of scoring 2 or more runs (the sum of the 2 thru 5+ columns): 17.5% vs 26.4% So, as expected, the odds of the O's losing the game in that inning by issuing the IW increased (assuming all other things being equal which they were NOT in this case) and a 9% jump in the odds is not a small difference. I would have expected the odds of no runs to increase slightly after the walk on account of the increased GiDP rate, but maybe the chances of 2 consecutive walks bringing in a run negated that plus a bit more The only odds that did decrease were those scoring exactly one run but that's not because the chances the offense would score at all went down but because the odds of them scoring only one run did.

Edgy MD wrote: "We're going to walk this guy, Showalter reportedly told the conferencers at the mound. "The next guy's going to hit into a double play, and we're gonna go home." Congratulations to Buck and all the Orioles. One thing I hadn't realized is that this was the first time a Showalter team had won a post-season series. NYY 1992 - finished 4th w/Yanx 1993 - finished 2nd in the last pre-WC season 1994 - was in 1st place when the season was canceled 1995 - won the first ever AL WC but lost in 5 games to Seattle after taking a 2-0 leadm then was fired after the season and the Yanx went on to win four of the next five WS Ariz 1998 - finished 5th w/the expansion Diamondbacks 1999 - Won NL West but lost in a 5-game series to the WC NY Mets 2000 - Finished 3rd and was fired after the season, DBacks won WS the following year TEX: 2003 - finished 4th 2004 - finished 3rd 2005 - finished 3rd 2006 - finished 3rd, then was fired after the season BALT: 2010 - took over late in the season, finished 5th 2011 - finished 5th 2012 - Won WC plus the WC play-in game vs Texas, but then lost the 1st round to the Yanx 3-2 2013 - finished 3rd

But Storen survives. Hey, a sub-3:00 playoff game! Wasn't sure if those were permitted these days.

Now let's see if Storen can avoid blowing his 3rd straight post-season game (going back to 2012). And seeing as how he's been given a 4 run lead here, this would be a major disaster if he can't close it out. oe: And he quickly starts off 1B - 2B

Holding team to ZERO runs might increase slightly based on the increased GiDP odds But at the same time the 2-or-more odds have to jump some given that you're freely awarding the winning run the toughest 90 feet to get. I've seen tables like this in the past--ones that show pcts rather than averages--but can't seem to locate one now. And of course you'd want stats that are at least relatively up to date since run scoring in general is down these days. And we have to remember that any of those tables are only generic and can't take into consideration the specific batters & pitchers. I don't have a problem with what Buck did did given the players involved and the two game gap he had to play with. I'd just be curious as to how the individual pcts broke down.

Ceetar wrote: but you can do the math from there. It's all probability. teams score 1 run every 4 times they're presented with that situation, or 2 runs every 8. No, that's not what your .24 stat is saying. It's saying (assuming that you're finding the same stats I am: Run expectations of .8623 vs .6235, or ~.24 difference) that teams score One Extra run in every four attempts depending on the base runners. Those are averages you're quoting, not probabilities. The percentage of times that a team will score two or more runs given the extra base runner vs not is a separate number (one which I can't find at the moment).

Frank Taveres

Washington at San Francisco When: 5:00 PM ET, Monday, October 6, 2014 Where: AT&T Park, San Francisco, California 5:07 p.m. ET, MLBN PITCHING MATCHUP: Nationals RH Doug Fister (16-6, 2.41 ERA) vs. Giants LH Madison Bumgarner (19-10, 2.86) Fister answered a three-game losing streak by winning his final four starts of the regular season - in dominating fashion, no less. The 30-year-old scattered three hits and struck out nine in a complete-game gem versus Miami on Sept. 26. Fister, who has yielded four earned runs on 15 hits in his last four outings (28 2/3 innings), suffered the loss against San Francisco on Aug. 22 after permitting four runs in six frames of a 10-3 setback. Bumgarner won five of his final six decisions of the regular season but suffered the tough-luck loss in his lone meeting with Washington in 2014. The 25-year-old permitted two runs on eight hits in seven innings en route to a 2-1 setback on June 10. Bumgarner owns a 2-3 mark with a slim 2.60 ERA and 1.09 WHIP in seven career starts versus the Nationals. What a shitty report, the guy doesn't even mention how stunning it would be if the Giants complete the sweep!!

Ceetar wrote: teams only scored .24 more runs with first and second than with just second. The weaker hitter and Britton's pitch profile probably negates that difference. Yeah but .24 is only an average of all outcomes starting from those situations and it's the 2nd run there, the one you're issuing a free pass to, that's the game loser. The stat you really want here is the percentage of times a team scores fewer than two runs given each set-up vs the pct they score two or more.

Beats being a slave to 'the book', or sticking strictly to a pre-arranged 'plan' (hello Matt Williams) But when you're trying to guard against the tying run as much as the winning one, AND the IW sets up a DP, AND the next hitter is weaker/less experienced than the current one, AND you've got the luxury of the two games to none lead, it does become the easier choice. Still, credit to him for going with it.

According to TBS announcer guy, the team with the best record in the majors has never been swept in the LDS round of the playoffs. So I guess that'll make it officially stunning if KC hangs onto this win!

Frayed Knot wrote: Centerfield wrote: deGrom kind of illustrates how little I understand about scouting and labeling prospects. For instance, Zack Wheeler is as highly touted as they come. They say he has front-of-the rotation potential. Zack throws his fastball around 96, but his secondary pitches are not great, and lack consistency. Wheeler struggles with his control. deGrom, on the other hand, sits at about 94 with his fastball, but has plus secondary pitches, including a great changeup he can throw even when behind in the count. deGrom has good control and limits his walks. Despite this, he was a fringe prospect. From what I read about him, I expected him to be Pat Strange or Kevin Mulvey. Part of that is age - Wheeler is two full years younger so compare, say, where he is now vs where deGrom was two years ago (single-A); part is the age at which they were drafted - college senior vs HS, meaning that Wheeler has been on the radar longer; part is small sample size - deGrom being better NOW!!!! doesn't mean he will be for the next 5 or 10 and the long term is what forecasters are trying to project part is a scouts tendency to drool over readings on the radar gun and other such talents that fall under the general category of 'Stuff' And, yeah, the scouts and touts who follow this end of the business do also get things wrong more than occasionally. A little background on how deGrom was seen (by one person anyway) prior to this season. John Sickels had named him a "sleeper candidate" a year or so back - and sometimes those predictions work out in spades.