Eli GierynaLook, a vanity domain!

Archive for ‘baseball

Suck It Up, Crybabies

by Eli » Permalink

Edit: 9:31 p.m., Thursday night

Well, Game 1.  That sucked.

But amazingly, and contrary to the popular opinion of hackish media types and ledge-jumping fans, the Cubs only lost one game last night.  Not three.

Not that you would know it from reading the local papers this morning.

The Cubs spent six months working and hitting and pitching and fielding and sweating to get home-field advantage in the playoffs, and they gave it away in five innings. They might’ve given this series away, too, because losing the first game at home in a five-game series is exponentially more disastrous than doing it in a seven-game series. - Steve Rosenbloom

Bringing a feeling of dread and dejection back to Wrigley Field, which is world-famous for it, the Cubs lost to the Los Angeles Dodgers, 7-2, Wednesday night to accept their seventh postseason whipping in a row. What did you expect?  They are just Cubs being Cubs. - 185-year-old Mike Downey

Thank the Lord that Jay Mariotti is unemployed, so we’re not subjected to whatever nonsense he would have to say about the game.

The Cubs didn’t lose because they’re the Cubs.  They lost mostly because of one bad pitch by Dempster, on a 1-2 count to James Loney.  If he gets that pitch out a little bit more, and Loney pops it up, I’m probably sitting here today talking about what a great win it was for the Cubs.

But, of course, I’m not talking about that.

Tonight, everyone turns to watch Carlos Zambrano and wonders what they’re going to get from the most enigmatic pitcher in all of baseball.  While trying to stifle hyperbole, it’s safe to say that tonight is likely the most pivotal start of his career, and the prevailing thought seems to be that he’s going to be lights-out, or that he’ll give up six runs in four innings and then accidentally kill Aramis Ramirez in the dugout, leaving the Cubs without their best hitter and a hole at third base.

I’m still optimistic, but my optimism stems mostly from the offense.  They were better than just two runs last night, gathering 11 total baserunners in the game.  Chad Billingsley, tonight’s Los Angeles starter, is tough, but he has control issues at times, and I expect the Cubs to work him.  Frankly, the hitters were too good for too long this year to just fade out and disappear.

My prediction?  Cubs knocked around Billingsley a bit and grab a 5-2 win.  And then we’re right back where we started, except the Cubs will have a major advantage with Harden and Lilly in Games 3 and 4.  Rock on.

And if you’re a Cubs fan watching the game tonight, please try to enjoy it.  This is a great baseball team, and it’s been a blast to watch them this summer.  If they get what they deserve, we’ll get to see them still play plenty more baseball this year.

Go Cubs.

Baseball Stats for Neophytes

by Eli » Permalink

Yesterday, I was reading an article the other day about baseball players who are struggling this year. You know, the standard mid-season type thing about guys who aren’t earning their paycheck and all that standard formulaic journalism.

In the article, a scout for the Royals spouted that standard line that even the best hitters in baseball fail 70 percent of the time and it’s a really hard game. We’ve all heard that statement before, and it’s even used as a metaphor for other aspects of life.

Unfortunately, it’s not true.

You might say that this borders on nitpicking, but the best hitters in baseball don’t fail 70 percent of the time. In fact, if a hitter is failing 70 percent of the time, he should be benched and not allowed to see the field.

What those people are referring to is that if you are getting a hit in 30 percent of your at bats (batting .300), you’re pretty good at baseball. And yet, you are still failing to get a hit in 70 percent of your at bats.

The problem with this line of thinking is that there are other ways to not fail when batting. As a hitter, the only real measure of failure is making an out. If you make an out as a hitter, you have failed at your job.

In order to not make an out, a hitter can do the following things:

  • Get a hit
  • Draw a walk
  • Get hit by a pitch

When you add those things together, you end up calculating a hitter’s on-base percentage. This is the percentage of times a hitter has gotten on base instead of making an out. And therefore, has not failed.

The current major-league leader in on-base percentage is Chipper Jones, at .466. That means that Jones has only failed in about 53 percent of his at bats.  In Barry Bonds’ incredible 2002 season, his OBP was .582.  Granted, that number was almost unreal, but it did happen.

I realize that this is not a major distinction. However, it sounds far less impressive to turn to your buddy Hank down at the diner when he describes his latest life struggle and say, “Hell, damn it, even the best baseball players ever are up there flailing and failing 43 percent of the time! And those are the ones that are good! You’re doing OK, Hank.”

Hank is not doing OK, of course. And neither is Pedro Feliz, who actually does fail 70 percent of the time he goes to the plate.

While you’re here (if you’re still here), let’s go over one other common baseball conception that need to be killed. Again, if you follow baseball closely, you probably know these things. Although, as Fire Joe Morgan has proven, following baseball closely does not mean you know anything. So let’s move forward to another baseball misconception.

Pitcher wins mean something
All throughout the summer, we hear about pitchers who “aren’t getting it done” because they haven’t won as many games as some other pitchers. Often, the speaker will say something like, “The rest of his numbers look great, but the wins aren’t there. And that’s what matters the most.”

Except it isn’t.

A few summers ago, John Kruk was arguing with someone on Baseball Tonight about the Cy Young race between Johan Santana and Curt Schilling. At the time, Santana had 20 wins and Curt Schilling had 21 wins. Santana, however, had an ERA (earned-run average — the average number of runs given up per nine innings) that was almost a full run lower. On average, he gave up one run fewer than Schilling did every nine innings. That’s significant.

Old Krukky didn’t care about that. He firmly stated that Schilling should get the Cy Young award because of that one extra win. When Karl Ravech pointed to the ERA differences, Kruk said the only stat that mattered was helping your team win, and Schilling had done that better than Santana.

Let’s examine that idea closer. Here are two pitchers:

Frank Driziwisczki plays for the Montana Mopes. He has a 97 mph fastball and one of the best sliders in the league, along with pinpoint control. He has used these skills to compile a 2.15 ERA (very good) to go along with 220 strikeouts in 190 innings (anything above one strikeout per inning is great). Unfortunately, the rest of his team sucks at hitting. They truly are the type of hitters that fail 7 of 10 times. So despite his great number, Frank’s team loses a lot of 2-1 or 1-0 games when he pitches. So he only has 12 wins on the season.

Steven Marcatopolous plays for the Biloxi Bashers. He is 39 years old and has had five elbow surgeries. His fastball is only 84 mph and his curveball doesn’t curve anymore. But, since Biloxi spent their all of their money on hitters, they have to employ pitchers like Steven. Opposing hitters love batting against Steven, and he has an ERA of 5.85 (terrible). However, since Biloxi has a bunch of awesome hitters, they score a lot of runs. So even though Steven gives up 5 or 6 runs every start, Biloxi will sometimes score 8, 10 or 135 runs. Because of this, Steven technically wins a lot of games.

This does not mean he’s good. Make sense?

If it does make sense to you, and you can also grasp that on-base percentage is more important than batting average, congratulations, you’re smarter than Tim McCarver.

***Note****

If you’re totally new to baseball and looking for a general guideline about these stats – in case you see a game on TV, or you’re at a ballgame, here are some basic guidelines about numbers that are good and bad.

On-base percentage
Below .320: Awful
.320-.340: Needs work
.340-.370: Useful
.370-.399: Great
Above .400: Outstanding and awesome

ERA
Above 5.00: You suck
4.50-5.00: You still pretty much suck
4.25-4.50: The fringe of average, or worse
3.75-4.25: This is good-to-average production
3.25-3.75: Very good
Below 3.25: Pretty studly

I’m aware that ERA has its flaws, and OBP shouldn’t be used totally without context but this is supposed to be a basic intro to baseball stats.  Maybe in another installment we’ll dive into more stuff.  But for now, ERA and OBP are good things to know.

A-Rod Needs a Better Publicist

by Eli » Permalink

Ah, A-Rod. Here’s a guy who has a chance to become the greatest player in the history of his sport, breaking tons of records while playing for the most prominent team in his sport. He plays on a team that has a chance at title every year. He’s still in the prime of his career. He is good-looking, talented and has access to the largest media market in America.

And he’s a total turd, in the eyes of the public.

His public foibles (yes, foibles!) have been well-documented. But let’s run through them one more time:

  • This year, despite the begging of Major League Baseball, A-Rod opted to sit out the Home Run Derby, which was being held at his home park. He mumbled some lame excuse about how it messes up his swing. What better chance for him to show off his talent in a fun, relaxed atmosphere?  If he had gone out and ripped a bunch of long homers, it would have helped his image.  If he had stunk, well, his image can’t get any worse.
  • He’s getting divorced from his wife, after being spotted with Madonna. A-Rod, you’re 33 years old. Madonna is 50.  Also, you were married.
  • Last year, a story came out about how A-Rod passed out in the delivery room during the birth of his child. This did not help the perception that he’s a sissy.
  • Last year, he was spotted entering a strip club with a woman who looked like a cross between Jay Buhner and Edgar Winter.
  • When once asked why he thinks people don’t like him, he said it might be because he’s good-looking and Latin, and people are jealous.  Way to appeal to the masses.
  • Gave an in-depth interview where he discussed his sensitive relationship with Derek Jeter. He mentioned that the two used to always “sleep over,” but they don’t anymore.
  • Attempted to show his sensitive side during an ESPN interview, talking about how he goes to therapy. I have no problem with therapy, but A-Rod managed to shoot himself in the foot by uttering that “therapy can be very therapeutic.”

I’m not sure I can recall an athlete who has had as many embarrassing blowups — that aren’t crimes, at least — in recent years. And none of A-Rods mistakes have been handled well. So I want to know, who is A-Rod’s publicist?

It’s interesting to compare the branding of Michael Jordan and A-Rod. Jordan was the greatest basketball player of all-time; Rodriguez will wind up being one of the best players ever. They both played in huge media markets. But the perception of the two couldn’t be more different.

Jordan is viewed as a global icon. At his peak, he was once said to be the single most recognizable face on the planet. He had incredible endorsement deals. His image was infallible. He also cheated on his wife, had a gambling addiction and got in fist-fights with teammates because he was so competitive.

We can see the same type of careful branding with LeBron James. His image is so carefully controlled by his handlers, he has been able to overcome some minor blips to have a great public image.

As for A-Rod? Well, every little piece of information is allowed to spiral out of control. He’s now viewed as a choking, mentally-weak loser who won’t ever get it done on the field. And worst yet, nothing is ever done to combat these perceptions. When A-Rod says he doesn’t sleep over with Derek Jeter anymore, or he refuses to participate in a fan-centric event like the Home Run Derby, he goes into a shell and lets everything fester. And his image continues to get worse.

Maybe he doesn’t care about public perception, which, I suppose, would be admirable in some fashion. He has more money than he needs, and he probably understands how good he is on the field.  Why should he care what people think?  But he’s not like Barry Bonds.  You still get the sense that A-Rod does care what people think.

Honestly, I’m not even sure how his image could be repaired at this point. LeBron currently takes part in all sorts of wacky advertisements, and is able to pull it off. But can you imagine A-Rod trying to play the lead in a commercial like this? It’d be the unintentional comedy event of the summer.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that A-Rod’s public image sucks, it’s a little unfortunate given his talent, and I think it’d be difficult to alter that image, no matter how carefully he was branded and marketed.

Of course, if A-Rod wants to offer me the measly sum of one-half-of-one-percent of his annual salary, I’d be more than happy to take a stab at it. I can be reached via the link near the top right of the page. Talk to you soon!