Because I’ve been a horrible person and not included this in my past few articles, thanks to the Joe Lefkowitz Pitch F/x tool for the data in these posts.
Earlier I looked at today’s ALCS game, so now we move on to tonight’s NLCS matchup: Edwin Jackson vs. Shaun Marcum.
Judging from the reception to my game preview from last Friday, it seems there are other people out there like me: they like knowing a pitcher’s repertoire and attack plan before watching a game. Since it seemed to be a hit the last time around, I’ll try and provide quick little game previews for each new pitching matchup this postseason.
….That is, I’ll keep it up until everyone gets sick of hearing from me.
So without further ado, let’s take a look at today’s early game: Max Scherzer and Derek Holland.
Earlier today, Eric Seidman provided us with a preview of tonight’s Phillies-Cardinals Game 5 matchup. Halladay v. Carpenter has the primetime slot tonight and is getting a wide amount of attention because a) Philadelphia is the lone ratings machine left in the playoffs, and b) that’s one awesome pitching matchup. But believe it or not, there’s a whole other world outside Philadelphia, and the Brewers/Diamondbacks game tonight has the potential to be another postseason masterpiece.
I always find I enjoy a game better when I know a bit of in-depth information about the starting pitchers. When you know a pitcher’s repertoire and how they like to attack hitters, I find it’s easier to get sucked into the pitch by pitch dramatics of the postseason. Baseball is a game of strategy, but unless you know the weapons on the table, it’s difficult to appreciate the intricacies of each situation.
Tonight’s Brewers/D’Backs pitching matchup is Yovani Gallardo versus Ian Kennedy. Want to learn a bit more about what makes each pitcher tick? So do I.
Throughout the Rangers-Rays series so far, one of the overriding narratives has been, “This Rangers offense is so good, can the Rays possibly contain them?” And unlike other points the media loves to harp on, this is a fair question; the Rangers do have one of the most potent offenses in the majors (.348 wOBA, 2nd best overall), and their lineup is chock full of dangerous power hitters (210 home runs, 2nd most in majors). Meanwhile, the Rays have a strong pitching staff in James Shields, David Price, Jeremy Hellickson, and Matt Moore, so the drama creates itself; power versus power, which side will win?
But if you’re a loyal FanGraphs reader, you’re probably already asking yourself a very different question: “Wait, what about Park Factors?” It’s one thing to look at a team’s raw offensive numbers and declare that they have a dominant lineup, but you always have to consider the context. The Ballpark in Arlington is one of the most hitter-friendly ballparks in the majors, so maybe their offense is overrated? But no, even when you adjust for those effects, the Rangers still have an offense 13% better than league average — tied with the Yankees for 2nd best in the majors.
Yet, now that the action is moving from Arlington to St. Petersburg, everyone harping on the Rangers’ offense is in for a surprise. For the next two games of this series, these two teams are going to be much more evenly matched on offense than most people assume. The reason why? Tropicana Field.
For being an exact rematch of last year’s ALDS, the roles of the Rays and Rangers have been reversed since last season. Last year, the Rays were the favorites; they were loaded with talent in Matt Garza, Rafael Soriano, Carlos Pena, and a pre-Boston Carl Crawford. They won 96 games and beat out the Yankees for the AL East title, while the Rangers won 90 games and reached the postseason for the first time in over a decade. The Rangers were underdogs, but underdogs with a dominant starting rotation and a gutsy, scrappy* attitude.
*Yeah, I just used scrappy in FanGraphs post. I should probably hand in my resignation now.
This season, though, it’s the Rangers who enter the postseason having won 96 games, and they are undoubtedly the favorites in this series. While Vegas has the two teams as a close matchup — odds for the pennant: Rays 4/1; Rangers 13/4 — the Rangers simply have the better team here. They have one of the best offenses in the majors (.348 wOBA), and they are very balanced team, good against both righties and lefties. Their starting pitching staff shouldn’t be overlooked, as they have three starters with sub-4 ERAs and FIPs in C.J. Wilson, Derek Holland, and Matt Harrison. They aren’t going to be an easy team to walk through.
Meanwhile, the Rays have a mediocre offense (.320 wOBA) and have been carried into the postseason primarily on the wings of their pitching (3.58 ERA, 4.03 FIP) and defense (2nd in majors in UZR, 1st in DRS). They got hot down the stretch, going 17-10 in September and beating up on the Yankees and Red Sox, so this year they’re the club with the “intangibles” going for them.
But let’s dig in a bit deeper and take a look at some of the potential key matchups on either side. Both clubs have hidden strengths that could prove to be the deciding factor in the series.
Going into tonight’s action, the common assumptions seems to be that the Yankees are going to coast on into the playoffs. They have already clinched the division and home field advantage, and since they got most of their regular starters and bullpen arms work yesterday, they have little incentive to play their hardest on Wednesday night. Why work yourselves hard in a meaningless game? Why risk injuries to your players when you have nothing to play for?
But I’m not sure that the predominating narrative is correct in this case. Joe Girardi has already said that he’s planning on starting many of his regulars tonight — although who knows how long he’ll keep them in the game — and he seems to be practicing some “gamesmanship” by choosing not to announce his starter until closer to game time. Could it be that the Yankees are treating tonight’s game more seriously than many people are assuming?
If they are, I have to tip my cap to the Yanks for looking past their history with the Red Sox and realizing the larger fact: it’s in their own best interest if the Red Sox to make the playoffs.
That’s right, Yankees fans. As horrible as it may sound, you should probably be rooting for the Red Sox tonight.
I, John, take you Krista, to be my wife, to have and to hold, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, from this day forward until death do us part.
The traditional Christian wedding vow has to be one of the most powerful sentences ever constructed in the English language. It’s concise, clear, and direct, and almost chillingly packed full of meaning. For better or for worse. For richer, for poorer. In sickness and in health. ‘Til death do us part. There’s no room left in there for ambiguity, and it’s enough to immediately make even the most love-struck individual turn somber and thoughtful. That’s a sentence that say, “This is for real, kiddo. Are you sure you know what you’re getting yourself into?”
But that’s an unfair question; no matter how long and hard you think about it, you can never truly know the answer. Are you ready to spend your entire life with this person? Will you be willing and able to cope together with all the obstacles life throws at you? You can hope so, sure, but nobody out there can foresee all the difficulties they will have to deal with in life, or how they will cope in every single case. When you say that vow, you’re making a solemn pledge and a promise… but you’re also hoping like hell that you’re up to the task.
It’s so easy to judge others based on what we can see from the outside. That fact was painfully on display than this morning, when news broke that John Lackey and his wife were divorcing, a mere six months after she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and went through a double mastectomy. The headline writes itself, doesn’t it? What sort of person leaves his seriously ill wife just at her time of need? For those that wanted to judge, it was all too easy to react negatively to the news and to cast Lackey as a villain.
But the underlying assumption hidden in that criticism — that serious illnesses strengthen relationships and reduce divorce rates — sounds backwards to me. Illnesses like cancer put a stress on a marriage unlike anything those people have had to deal with before; if anything, wouldn’t illness promote discord and stress, and increase the couple’s odds of divorcing? Let’s see what the stats say.
For the past three season, James Shields and David Price have battled it out for the status of ace of the Rays’ staff. The title has flopped back and forth between the two of them, with Price gaining the upper-hand in 2010 but relinquishing his hold slightly this season, but there’s one aspect of the game that Shields has always trumped Price in: nicknames.
Shields has seemingly rotated through a new nickname each season. He was “Big Game James” after his performance in the postseason in 2008, and then christened “Yields” in 2010 due to his homer-happy tendencies; this season, he’s been dubbed “Juego G” due to his complete game prowess.* And Price? He’s never had a nickname that stuck for long, besides for a brief bit of time in 2008 when he was lovingly known as Velociraptor Jesus.
But after improving himself as a pitcher for the third straight season — just look at the trend in his FIP and SIERA scores — it’s about time Price was rewarded with a nickname. And so, without further ado, I’d like to bestow upon Price the much-fought-after nickname “Tinkerbell”.
And before you ask, no, I’m not trying to cast aspersions about Price’s manhood. The nickname simply fits. Price can do magical things on the mound with the baseball, but more than that, he tinkers with his pitch selection more than any other pitcher I know. Even though he was selected #1 in the 2007 Draft and has since developed into an ace starter, Price has changed his pitch repertoire and selection multiple, multiple times since first reaching the majors. It’s as though he has this compulsive urge to keep innovating and adapting….or he just gets bored really quickly.
So how exactly has Price changed over the years? What’s his current pitch selection, and how does he attack hitters now? Let’s take a look.
*Don’t ask me to explain why. It just is.
Detractors of advanced statistics love to point out specific instances where the advanced and traditional stats don’t align, as evidence that the saber-stats are far from perfect. You mean to tell me that Derek Jeter isn’t good at defense? That Ben Zobrist is as valuable as Robinson Cano? Or that Tim Raines deserves a Hall of Fame vote? Many of these sort of statements go against people’s first reactions and assumptions, making the stats backing them up an easy target for ridicule.
But these sort of debates miss the larger point: quite often, advanced stats agree with traditional assessments. Torii Hunter was dang good at defense there for a while, and players like Cal Ripken Jr. and Ricky Henderson easily deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Sports fans like to argue, though, and what fun is it debating topics with only one side? It’s much more entertaining to talk about things that are contentious, and as such, the distances between mainstream and saber stats can look like a gaping chasm when in actuality, it’s more like a meandering brook with handy stepping stones.
Enter Mariano Rivera. As you have surely heard, Mariano Rivera got his 602nd save yesterday, passing Trevor Hoffman on the all-time list and entering into first place all by his lonesome. As much as us saberists love to disparage the save, this record highlights an all too evident truth: Mo is the best relief pitcher of all time. And it’s not even close.
In case you live under a rock — which I have been accused of many times in the past — the new “Moneyball” movie comes out in theaters next Friday. Many baseball writers have already seen the movie in private screenings, and reviews are starting to trickle out. From what I’ve seen, the movie is drawing mixed reviews — some people like it and some hate it, but overall it sounds like a fun movie that won’t be terrible. And you know, that’s better than I had originally expected.
But one review has currently caused a bit of a skuttlebutt. Keith Law wrote a fair-handed takedown of the “Moneyball” movie on his person blog a few days ago, and his review drew enough attention that Michael Lewis himself responded. Law’s criticism touched on both the movie and baseball aspects of the film, and in general, he felt that both were lacking. Some of the comments seemed nitpicky to me — inaccuracies I wouldn’t necessarily have noticed, even as a pretty big baseball and “Moneyball” fan — but one of his comment has really stuck with me:
…[T]he lampooning of scouts, which draws from the book, isn’t any more welcome on screen (where some of the scouts are played by actual scouts) than it was on the page; they are set up as dim-witted bowling pins for Beane and Brand to knock down with their spreadsheets. It’s cheap writing, and unfair to the real people being depicted.
Man, how far we’ve come since “Moneyball” first came out. It makes me wonder if this movie is going to end up being a bad thing for the public perception of sabermetrics.