Yankees: Objects in Mirror are Closer then they Appear

[Arrian]

if the yanks lose 2 outta 3 against indians (likely) lose 2 outta 3 against Os (50/50 chance depending on whose pitching and whether they show up or not) and take 2 outta 3 against the d rays (very likely)

They're not going to lose 2 of 3 to the O's. Much higher chance of dropping 2 of 3 to the D'Rays. The Yankees OWN the Orioles. And I honestly think the D'Rays are just a better team than the O's.

I'll say this: the Yankees' recent swoon and the Sox's recent surge has made this thing interesting. But you're still gonna end up with the Wild Card.

-Arrian

p.s. Using the "sabermetric" method of tracking performance as a team (aka the pythagorean standings), the Red Sox would be leading the division.

[Arrian]

Pythag standings, AL EAST:

Boston 78-51 76-53 (-2)
NY Yankees 73-57 81-49 (+8)
Baltimore 60-69 58-71 (-2)
Tampa Bay 57-73 59-71 (+2)
Toronto 57-74 54-77 (-3)

Much of it is luck. I'd be willing to guess that 1 or 2 of the Yankees wins above expected are due to having dominant relief pitching an a solid bench, but most of it's just luck. The Yankees have been lucky this year, and it's starting to catch up to them ("it" being their terrible starting pitching). They're built like the '02 Angels... a team that could certainly be described as lucky.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

Using the "sabermetric" method of tracking performance as a team (aka the pythagorean standings), the Red Sox would be leading the division.

Interesting.. I had heard the Red Sox were doing better offensively and had better pitching, but hadn't verified it. It seems the Yankees have some very great luck so far this year (+8 is incredible).

[Arrian]

Yeah, +8 for the season would be fairly remarkable. Which is kinda scary if you're a Yankees fan, because that means that they're due for some bad luck (right now they're not being unlucky... just bad).

-Arrian

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Pythag standings, AL EAST:

Boston 78-51 76-53 (-2)
NY Yankees 73-57 81-49 (+8)
Baltimore 60-69 58-71 (-2)
Tampa Bay 57-73 59-71 (+2)
Toronto 57-74 54-77 (-3)

Much of it is luck. I'd be willing to guess that 1 or 2 of the Yankees wins above expected are due to having dominant relief pitching an a solid bench, but most of it's just luck. The Yankees have been lucky this year, and it's starting to catch up to them ("it" being their terrible starting pitching). They're built like the '02 Angels... a team that could certainly be described as lucky.

-Arrian

Isn't that mainly due to 1 run games (losses and wins)?

which is in the end mainly due to luck-type factors etc.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It could be. The Yanks do have a great bullpen (helps in close games), but they have been VERY overworked.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Since you asked, records in 1-run (and wider) games:

1 Run: Sox 11-17, Yankees 21-14
2 Runs: Sox 12-5, Yankees 20-5
3 Runs: Sox 14-9, Yankees 10-4
4 Runs: Sox 13-6, Yankees 9-8
5 Runs: Sox 3-7, Yankees 3-6 (go figure)
6 Runs: Sox 7-2, Yankees 6-5

As for the Yankees bullpen, their ERA is 3.89, 6th in the league. Boston's is 3.77, 5th in the league. Baseball Prospectus has the Adjusted Runs Prevented for both at 23.6 and 3.9, respectively (note that the guy who updates these is a lazy bastard and hasn't done so for a month). And yes, the bullpen has been worked pretty hard (400 bullpen IP for the Yankees, 6th in the league; 334 for Boston, last in the league and in MLB).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

well if you look at last year and this year, you will see that the yankees both overachieved and the red sox both underachieved - obviously, its the difference in managers - the gut feeling of torre resulted in more positive results, since he could sense when for example a pinch hitters marginal hit average would be 1.000, or making timely substitutions etc.

look what happened to bill james' 'closer by committee' he said it would work, it didnt.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

im looking for a team
who call themselves red sox

let go of the curse
ride his pulse and you'll forget
slow down, our time will come
if not tonight, surely by the dawn
just take it like a fan
the strange face of the sox

a cat's eye, a lizards tail
the pentaplayer he sold to hell
he stalks the night with set intent
his brow sweats for innocence
take it like a fan
the strange face of the sox

dont look back dont look back
we're right on your track
dont look back dont look back
we're just a step away from hell
dont look back dont look back
into the strange face of the sox

the teams soul makes us all cry
we want desperatly to win
but fast and skillfully forget
we're back on the streets with no regrets
take it like a fan
the strange face of the sox

dont look back dont look back
we're right on your trail
dont look back dont look back
we're just a step away from hell
dont look back dont look back
into the strange face of the sox

[Lawrence of Arabia]

so what vlads stats say is if you remove the one run games (luck i guess right?) the yanks are 48 - 28 (.631) and the sox are 49 - 29. (.628) since the sox have played 7 less one run games, it means that the sox are more likely to get blown out or blowout than the yanks, who seem to keep games closer (as a result, you can see that they have played way more 1 and 2 run games, 60 vs 45)

which can also explain the diff in bullpen IP - in close games you bring bp in earlier, in blowouts, you leave sp in longer

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Secondly, one type of out being 'better' than another type of out out still doesn't make it "productive", because an out is wasted, even if a player is moved over or comes in to score. It would still have a negative value, but perhaps less negative than another type. Doesn't change the fact that no out is actually "productive".

and this too i dont get. if you have a runner on first with no outs, and you have a low OPS guy at the plate, it would be better to bunt (where the chance of advancing the runner would be over (.900) then swing away. then you have two chances with higher average hitters to bring him home (if you have two batters hitting .300, thats a .600 chance of bringing him home) plus it eliminates the DP ball (a chance also) how is this not better than swinging away and striking out. is SB not a productive out?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

for example, sox are 15 -6 when differemtial is more than 6.

[Imran Siddiqui]

look what happened to bill james' 'closer by committee' he said it would work, it didnt.

There is no Bill James' "closer by committee" theory. The media's ignorance doesn't excuse the mistake. Bill James' theory with relievers is that your reliever ace should enter the game when both teams are within 1 run. He will have more value in saving a run in those instances than he will in the bottom of the 9th when your team is up by 3.

The problem with the Boston Red Sox of last year is that they did not have a relief ace.

Basically his view of reliever aces is like Hoyt Wilhelm is the best way to use them.

if you have a runner on first with no outs, and you have a low OPS guy at the plate, it would be better to bunt (where the chance of advancing the runner would be over (.900) then swing away.

The expectanct of scoring a run with a runner on 2nd with 1 out is LESS compared to scoring with a runner on 1st with no out. I refer you to this chart showing statistical data on expectancy of scoring runs:

RE 99-02 - 0 Out - 1 Out - 2 Out
Empty - 0.555 - 0.297 - 0.117
1st - 0.953 - 0.573 - 0.251
2nd - 1.189 - 0.725 - 0.344
3rd - 1.482 - 0.983 - 0.387
1st_2nd - 1.573 - 0.971 - 0.466
1st_3rd - 1.904 - 1.243 - 0.538
2nd_3rd - 2.052 - 1.467 - 0.634
Loaded - 2.417 - 1.650 - 0.815

You are much more likely to score a run with a man on 1st with no outs than you are with a man on 2nd with 1 out. A majority of the time, a sacrifice is a waste.

You can't be totally sure that the guy with the low OPS won't get a hit or walk. If you want to assert that the person definetely WILL NOT get a hit (some sort of extreme situation or outlier) then bunt. Sabermetrics doesn't want you blindly follow the findings they have found. In fact James cautions against that and tells his readers to ask questions about the data for themselves. If you find yourself in an outlier situation do what you think best, BUT BASED ON THE NUMBERS AND FACTS (not 'gut'). No sabermatrician wants to see the abolition of managers .

is SB not a productive out?

A SB is not an out.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i meant sacrifice bunt, not stolen base. my bad

There is no Bill James' "closer by committee" theory. The media's ignorance doesn't excuse the mistake. Bill James' theory with relievers is that your reliever ace should enter the game when both teams are within 1 run. He will have more value in saving a run in those instances than he will in the bottom of the 9th when your team is up by 3.

so if during t he span of one week, you never get within 1 run of the other team in the final inning you should not bring in your ace closer? doesnt bill realize the closer will get rusty, lose his edge etc?

and yeah, the expected average is that, but if you know that your batter will not get a hit, then its better to have runner on 2nd, no outs, then runner on first with 1 out.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/snwlreport04.html

also look under team luck totals, the yanks are the luckiest (+28.9) , while the red sox have one the top 10 unluckiest pitchers.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/st...odds.htm#RANGE!A61

btw, the sox had a 12% chance of wining the division, and a 2/3 chance of getting to the playoffs on aug 25th. since then, both numbers have prolly gone up (since they caught up to yanks, and since they kept pace with the rest, the amount of games left decreases so they have a larger chance of winning WC)