Archive for NLDS

Against all odds, my attempt Friday to predict not only the exact score, but also to provide a precise play-by-play rendering of Game Two in the Philadelphia-Cincinnati NLDS series — well, it wasn’t a rousing success. As it happened, Roy Oswalt didn’t strike out 15 batters, and Chase Utley didn’t hit the inside-the-park home run I was so sure he would. Nor was I able to account for the Reds’defensive woes.

With regard to my failure, all I can say is that, like a politician who’s recently been tied to a New York City-based call-girl ring, I am humbled.

On the subject of humility, however, there appears to be one resident of Philadelphia who’s not feeling too much of it presently — namely, Mr. Charlie Manuel. With Cole Hamels set to start Game Three this evening (at 8:07 ET), and Roys Halladay and Oswalt ready to pitch hypothetical Games Four and Five, Manuel’s feeling pretty confident, as evidenced by his comments in AP writer Jay Cohen’s game preview:

[W]hile Reds manager Dusty Baker is talking about faith, his time in the military and a self-help book he read earlier this year, Manuel feels comfortable enough to say he doesn’t like Cincinnati’s chances of advancing.

“It can happen,” the grinning manager said Saturday. “It ain’t goin’ to happen, but it can happen.”

I can’t say for sure what the proper response is to these comments. Does it demonstrate undue hubris? Is Manuel merely being realistic? Ought Jay Cohen be given a Pulitzer immediately for accurately rendering Charlie Manuel’s spoken English in print?

I don’t know.

In any case, here were this author’s reactions, one-by-one:

1. Wow, did he really say that?

2. [Re-reading] Yes, he appears to’ve said that.

3. [Thinking in My Brain] He maybe shouldn’t’ve said that. The payoff for being correct is much lower than the penalty for being incorrect. Unjustified or unfulilled or un-whatever hubris is generally taboo in the sporting world.

4. On the other hand, he’s probably right. Even if these two teams are evenly matched and only home-field advantage informs the resulting outcomes, that still gives Philadelphia about an 87% chance of winning the series [1 – (.542*.542*.458)].

5. I should note this in that frigging game preview I have to write.

Before I continue, let’s agree on one thing, please — that the subject of “guaranteed victories” is a tired one. Joe Namath’s was pretty excellent, I suppose, because it’s the oldest famous one. But subsequent guarantees — and, seriously, I refuse to spend even one second of my life cataloging them — ring hollow. By definition, one needs to speak in probabilities when it comes to victory.

In any case, this is what makes Manuel’s statements notable — both (a) his acknowledgement of the probabilities and (b) recognition that the Phils’ chances of winning their series are really high. Where usually a player or manager might say, “Yeah, we just gotta go out there and continue to play our game” and/or “That’s a good team in that other dugout,” Manuel’s basically like, “We’re at least as good as the other team, and we have a 2-0 games lead. You fill in the blanks, dogg.”

Is this making a mountain out of the proverbial mole hill? Perhaps, except for two things: (a) I, personally, haven’t ever seen a manager make comments of this nature precisely, and (b) because this is the playoffs, all such comments are necessarily magnified.

As the reader will already know, my colleagues here at FanGraphs have gone to great lengths to provide learned previews for each of the postseason games thus far. Certainly, the writing and the analysis, it’s quite good — nor would I dare change it.

Having said that, though, I will level criticism on one ground — namely, for their (i.e. my colleagues’) inability to predict the future, or even to offer a prediction of same.

For example, consider Dave Cameron’s preview of tonight’s Cincinnati-Philadelphia game. Looking at the contest from the Reds’ point of view, Cameron offers some notes on Roy Oswalt‘s excellence, Bronson Arroyo’s relative inferiority, and how Dusty Baker might be best suited to leverage his bullpen against the Phillies.

That’s fine — all of it — but one thing is conspicuous by its absence from Cameron’s preview: the exact score of the game and the specific events leading to said score.

With all due respect to Cameron, I’m forced to ask: Is this still 2009, or something? If FanGraphs is going to lead the way in baseballing analysis, Dave, we’re gonna have to go the extra mile.

It’s with those shortcomings in mind that I offer to the reader this “Preemptive Review” of Game Two of the Cincy-Philly Divisional Series — in which the author (I, Carson One-Million-Dollars Cistulli) provide a review of a game that has as yet to occur.

You can find an image of the game’s exact box score below and a can see both the box score and play-by-play by clicking here. In the meantime, however, here are some things that will definitely, no-questions-asked occur tonight:

1. Roy Oswalt will strike out 15 batters, en route to a 5-2 victory.
It’s a true fact!

2. Chase Utley will hit two homers, one of the inside-the-park variety.
It’s been pre-ordained!

3. Aaron Harang will pitch 0.1 IP in relief.
Doubt it at your own risk!

4. Laynce Nix will twice be “frozen” on a strike three.
It’s getting cold in here!

5. With two outs in the sixth inning, Drew Stubbs will limit Placido Polanco to a single on a line drive “smoked” to right-center field
Why even question it?!?

Read the rest of this entry »

Eno Sarris and I will be covering the Philadelphia Phillies for the duration of the postseason.

In lieu of a proper series preview, we have elected instead — really for no reason whatsoever, other than it’s a fantastic idea — we’ve elected to explore the Phils’ chances versus Cincinnati via the splendors of Lincoln-Douglas (LD) style debate.

As is custom in LD-type debate, we begin this one with a case, as follows:

Resolved: The Phillies will defeat the Reds in the NLDS.

As is also custom in LD debate, one of us (Sarris, in this case) will take the Affirmative side; the other (I, Carson America Cistulli) will take the Negative.

It should be noted that there are a number of things here that are most certainly not proper to typical LD debate. For one thing, we basically just stop after the second cross-examination. For another, we have no idea what we’re doing.

Finally, the reader should understand that, in what follows, Sarris and I are probably just as interested in cataloging the relative strengths and weaknesses of each club as we are of actually “predicting” a winner. Obviously, in such a short series, one can only really speak in probabilities of victory.

Affirmative Constructive
In which the Affirmative makes his case.

The gentleman from Wisconsin may think he’s the Mr. Lincoln in this debate, but the Affirmative in this case is the side that will more likely stand the test of time. There are seemingly no terms to define — we all know that “wins” means “scores (much) more than the opponent in (probably the first three, but at least) the majority of games in the series,” I assume — so we can get on with the debate.

Here on this electronic paper are the most obvious reasons the “Phillies” will “win” this “series.”

1. Their “Big 3” in the starting rotation is better.
The best three starters on the Phillies averaged an 3.28 FIP this year. The Reds’ best (or first) three starters averaged an 4.19 FIP. That’s a stark difference. Oh, and a starter on the Phillies will probably win the Cy Young this year if you are into that hardware thing.

2. Their lineup is deeper.
Take out Joey Votto, the Reds’ best hitter, and the rest of the lineup averages an .340 wOBA. Take out Jayson Werth, the Phillies’ best hitter this year, and the rest of the lineup averages a .347 wOBA. And in some ways that’s understating the Phillies’ depth: their “worst” regular this year was Jimmy Rollins with his .317 wOBA, but he was hurt for much of this year, and his career wOBA is .336. You might be able to pitch around Votto, but how do you pitch around the “scariest” Phillie batter? And how do you identify the scariest Phillie batter?

Cross Examination: Negative Questions
In which the Negative asks the Affirmative questions.

Q. Could the gentleman from California please inform the reader what other factors — besides starting pitching, that is — what other factors contribute at a significant level to run production and run prevention (and, therefore, wins and losses).

Q. The gentleman from California has given the team wOBAs of the Phillies and Reds sans each respective team’s best hitter. Is there a new rule of which I’m unaware that expressly forbids each team from playing its best hitter? Are there any other reasons why neither Jayson Werth nor Joey Votto would play in these games?

Q. Does the gentleman from California’s face hurt? Because it’s sure hurting me.

Cross Examination: Affirmative Answers
In which the Affirmative responds.

A. Yes, there are other things. Like, let’s say a bullpen. The Phillies’ bullpen had a 3.87 FIP this year, the Reds a 3.90. Look at their closers – Brad Lidge (3.87 FIP, 4.06 xFIP) versus Francisco Cordero (3.92 FIP, 4.53 xFIP). “Lights-out” Lidge ain’t great, but at least he’s no Co-Co. The Phillies, in a remarkable twist of fate for that franchise, own the mound in this series.

A. There are ways to deal with singular, impressive hitters. I know that the sabres can rattle in some circles when you mention the intentional walk, but walking Joey Votto and facing Scott Rolen doesn’t quite have the same “scaritude factor” as walking Chase Utley to get to Ryan Howard. The point is, the Phillies lineup is scary from top to bottom. The Reds have some good hitters, but they also have Orlando Cabrera and his .303 OBP (.292 wOBA) in the second spot in the lineup. Thanks Dusty!

A. The gentleman from Wisconsin is no gentle man. If he would like to get petty, I’d get down in the muck with him, but I’ve shown I can be the better man and continue with the discourse at hand.

Read the rest of this entry »