Search THT:

Or you can search by:

May 08, 2013

What nobody is talking about

There are plenty of hot topics in baseball today, a sampling of which includes:

{exp:list_maker}Justin Upton is killing the ball while his brother, B.J., is getting killed.
The Red Sox and Yankees are 1-2 in the American League East, just as God—or at least ESPN—intended it, while the Blue Jays absorbed the Marlins' big payroll obligations yet continue to absorb loss after loss.
Those same Yankees have compiled one of baseball's better records while nearly $100 million in payroll sits on the disabled list.
Roy Halladay has looked, at best, mortal, at worst, mostly dead, and now he's on the DL.
Los Angeles' two franchises are scuffling along with sub-.500 records despite adding making major salary outlays over the winter.
Strikeouts, strikeouts, strikeouts! Oh, the humanity, strikeouts everywhere!!!{/exp:list_maker}
While all of these stories and many others are quite deserving of the coverage they've received, there's one story that seems to have all but evaporated in terms of the attention it's getting now compared to before the season started.
Click for more...

Posted by: Greg Simons

April 22, 2013

FCC failure

I imagine everyone has seen the video already. If not, here it is.

In it, David Ortiz expressed his thanks to the mayor of Boston, the governor of Massachusetts and the city police department for their efforts in the wake of the April 15 bombing. All well said, and I—and everyone else around the country—agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment.

However, it seems somebody somewhere ought to point out that Ortiz's dropping of the F-bomb a few seconds later to a stadium full of people and to a television audience of millions was in error, even if it was heartfelt. (To his credit, Ortiz did apologize afterward, saying, "It just came out. If I offended anyone, I apologize.")

Instead, the Federal Communications Commission implictly endorsed Ortiz's choice of words with the following Tweet:

David Ortiz spoke from the heart at today's Red Sox game. I stand with Big Papi and the people of Boston - Julius

The Julius credited with this message is Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the FCC. As a Harvard grad—and, again, as an American—his personal feelings on this issue are completely understandable.

However, as the head of the organization charged with preventing indecency on the airwaves, Genachowski should have tempered his approval of Ortiz's language. I don't know if he has a personal Twitter account, but that would have been a better platform for such a statement. Sure, rules are made to be broken, but the rule-makers shouldn't be supporting their breaking.
Posted by: Greg Simons

Allen Webster impresses, disappoints?

I was excited to see Allen Webster take the mound in a Boston Red Sox uniform Sunday night. Yes, I am a Red Sox fan, but I also am a PITCHf/x fan. To my knowledge, tonight was the first time that Webster has thrown in front of PITCHf/x cameras in a major league ballpark. Scouts rave about Webster’s fastball, and about how much it moves. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Red Sox director of player development Ben Crockett had this to say about Webster:

His fastball moves so much that he doesn’t necessarily have to be really fine with it, throwing it to the black at all times. Because of the late action and the velocity that he has on that pitch, he has the luxury of probably pitching a little bit more to the halves of the plate or the thirds of the plate than the corners, like some guys need to.

Webster appeared confident in his fastball in the early going, as he challenged Kansas City’s best hitters with it. His fastball touched 97 mph in the first inning, though it didn’t really return to that level afterward. He threw two change-ups in the first inning, and he was able to generate great arm side movement on them even though his arm action seemed a bit tentative.

The right-hander was able to better spot his fastball in the second and third innings, and he also started to work his change-up in more often. I couldn’t tell if he was throwing one or two breaking balls, but he does throw both a curveball and a slider. He used breaking balls often to get a called strike, and none looked particularly impressive.

After allowing a solo home run to George Kattaras in the fifth, Webster came back with a breaking ball and two change-ups to strike out Elliot Johnson. He began to rely heavily on his off-speed stuff after allowing his second solo home fun in the fifth; it looked like Kansas City hitters were keying in on his fastball, which was no longer looking like a plus pitch.

After a long half inning on the bench, Webster struggled to control his fastball a bit in the sixth. In an effort to be more accurate with the pitch, it looked like he took a little off. His average fastball velocity in the sixth was 1-2 mph lower than in the first. It did look like he threw more two-seam fastballs as the game progressed, but he also was fighting control issues.

Now that we’ve seen Webster throw in front of the cameras, we can evaluate Crockett’s claim quantitatively. PITCHf/x results from the early innings revealed that his four-seamer moved around three inches horizontally and around 10 inches vertically (before accounting for the effects of gravity). His two-seamer had an additional three inches of arm side movement, and less “vertical” movement. According to Texas Leaguer’s league chart, average horizontal movement for four-seamers and two-seamers is about five inches and eight inches, respectively. Webster wasn’t far from the league average in terms of vertical movement, either.

Exceptional Movement? Live fastball? Not exactly.

Note: I heard that classifications on PITCHf/x data (made available a few hours ago) are rough right now , and I might not have been to able clearly differentiate between two-seam and four-seam fastballs. I defined fastballs as pitches that hit 90 mph or higher, and found that Webster might actually have more vertical fastball movement than I came up with originally.

Posted by: Noah Woodward

October 23, 2012

A few playoff nuggets

— How have the Tigers and Giants fared against each other in previous postseason encounters? Actually, they've never faced one another in the playoffs. Heading into the League Championship Series, this was the only one of the four potential World Series match-ups that never had happened before.

The Yankees and (New York and San Francisco) Giants have met seven times (1921, '22, '23, '36, '37, '51, '62), with the Bronx Bombers holding a 5-2 advantage. The Cardinals and Yankees have faced off five times (1926, '28, '42, 43, '64), with St. Louis winning three titles. The Cardinals and Tigers have squared off three times (1934, '68, 2006), with the Cards emerging victorious twice.

— Could we be watching both Most Valuable Players in this year's Fall Classic? Buster Posey seems to be the favorite in the National League, while Miguel Cabrera has a strong shot in the American League if those nerdy stats geeks focus just on the numbers.

You know, the Triple Crown, which contains one category (home runs) of obvious value, another (batting average) that is worthwhile in limited situations, and a third (RBI) that has as much to do with the guys hitting in front of a player as with that player's actually ability.

— The Giants are the second team in history to win three do-or-die games twice is a single postseason, joining the 1985 Royals. Kansas City came back from 3-1 deficits against Toronto in the ALCS and St. Louis in the World Series. As we just witnessed, San Francisco overcame a 2-0 hole in this year's best-of-five NLDS against Cincinnati and rallied from a 3-1 deficit in the NLCS.

— In its four League Championship Series wins, San Francisco outscored St. Louis, 27-2. The Cardinals and Yankees combined to score eight runs in their eight LCS losses, with New York looking like a relative powerhouse by plating six runners.

— The Redbirds are the first team to lose four playoff series after having a three-games-to-one lead. They also were the first, and still only, team to lose in three such scenarios. In addition to this season and the '85 World Series mentioned above, St. Louis dropped the 1968 championship to Detroit and the '96 NLCS to Atlanta.

— Boston is the only team to overcome a 3-1 series deficit three times, including the remarkable comeback from a 3-0 hole versus New York in the 2004 ALCS. The Red Sox also rallied against the Angels in the '86 American League Championship Series and the Indians in the 2007 ALCS.

The Royals the Pirates have achieved this feat twice each. KC's triumphs were mentioned above, while Pittsburgh defeated the Washington Senators in the 1925 World Series and Baltimore in the '79 Fall Classic.
Posted by: Greg Simons

September 14, 2012

Lasting impressions: Reviewing the Beckett-Hanley trade

So often, and of course in our Twitter-infused, must-have-it-now sports world, we want to know immediately what will be the impact of things like big trades. Who won the Josh Beckett-Adrian Gonzalez-Carl Crawford to Los Angeles fiasco of a trade? You couldn't listen to sports-talk radio the next day without being inundated with that question, and 25 different answers from 25 different talking heads.*

*Of course, if you're listening to sports-talk radio, you're kind of asking for that type of punishment, aren't you?

We obviously don't know who will end up winning that trade. Heck, it's still hard to tell who won the first big Beckett trade.

But with Beckett and Hanley Ramirez (the main player he was traded for the first time) coming full circle and ending up as teammates out on the left coast, it seemed like a good time to look back and check out the trickle-down effects from that deal that are still being felt.

The original deal was Beckett, Mike Lowell and Guillermo Mota heading from Florida to Boston for shortstop prospect Ramirez, young pitcher Anibal Sanchez and minor leaguers Harvey Garvey and Jesus Delgado. It took place during the offseason before the 2006 season.

Beckett was in the last year of team control and about to hit free agency for the first time after the 2006 season, but during July of that year, the Red Sox signed him to a three-year extension. This wasn't a given for the Red Sox when they made the trade, but the likelihood of them being able to come to a deal with Beckett had to have been pretty good for them to give up their top prospect in Ramirez and an arm like Sanchez's.

The deal worked out well for both sides.* Ramirez went on to post a 32.5 WAR over six-plus years before being sent to Los Angeles this season in a deal that was more about his moping than his abilities, while Sanchez earned the Marlins 13.4 wins above replacement during roughly the same time period before leaving this season in a separate deal.

*understatement alert

On the Red Sox side, Beckett turned in a WAR of 26.8 and they also got an unexpected 10.4 WAR out of Lowell, who was basically considered a salary dump by the Marlins.

From a strictly numerical standpoint, the Marlins won the WAR*, but no one has ever put a numerical value on winning a World Series, expect maybe the team owners who made a ton of money off the impending Red Sox dynasty that came with winning their second title in four years. Beckett and Lowell were key contributors on a World Series winning team, so that has to be worth the difference in WAR right? The Red Sox gave up a lot in Ramirez, but was it not worth a championship? You won't find too many people in Boston who regret that deal.

*sorry, I couldn't help myself

But the trade can't be fully evaluated based on just those four players. The Red Sox have turned Beckett into more prospects, as have the Marlins with both Ramirez and Sanchez.

Beckett was sent to Los Angeles last month, along with Gonzalez, Crawford and Nick Punto in a deal that returned James Loney, Ivan DeJesus Jr., Allen Webster and eventually Rubby de la Rosa and Jerry Sands, once they are able to be named later. Beckett wasn't the main draw for the Dodgers in that deal, but he's not chopped liver either, so he gets at least a little credit for part of the Red Sox return.

Soon after Boston acquired Mota, and before he ever suited up for the Sox, he was flipped to Cleveland, along with prospect Andy Marte, catcher Kelly Shoppach and minor leaguer Randy Newsome for Coco Crisp, Josh Bard and David Riske. Marte was probably the main part of that deal for Cleveland, but Crisp became a seven win player during his time with the Red Sox before being flipped to the Royals for reliever Ramon Ramirez. Ramirez was later traded to the Giants for minor leaguer Daniel Turpen, who never made it to the majors, but Ramirez was worth a half-win for the Red Sox during his time with the team. That's an additional 7.5 wins for the Sox, for which at least a portion of the credit goes to the Beckett trade.

On the Marlins side, most of their action came this season. After their all-in approach crashed and burned, the Marlins began to sell their players for parts, and the grumpy Ramirez was among the first to be put on the block.

After six-plus years of Ramirez, the Marlins turned him and reliever Randy Choate into pitching prospect Nathan Eovaldi and Scott McGough. The book is still wide open on their contributions to the Marlins. The same goes for the three prospects the Marlins got back for Anibal Sanchez: Jacob Turner, Rob Brantly and Brian Flynn.

So what's the tally in the end?

The Red Sox got six mostly strong years from Beckett, a few good years from Lowell, some solid pay from Crisp, and whatever Webster, de la Rosa and Sands turn into in exchange for Ramirez, Sanchez, Marte (Crisp deal, who turned into nothing) and a couple of good seasons from Shoppach. Oh, and they got a World Series ring out of it, too.

The Marlins got six mostly good years of Ramirez, a few good years from Sanchez, and whatever Turner, Brantly, Flynn and Eovaldi turn into in exchange for one more year of Beckett (who wouldn't have re-signed in Florida) and Lowell, whose contract they couldn't afford anyway.

We still don't know who won the trade, which wasn't the exercise here anyway. Six years later, the Marlins have only a collection of prospects to show for their deals, but that could be better than what the Red Sox have left. The Red Sox, however, have the jewelry to claim a victory.

I'm going to do this exercise once a week with a major trade from some time in the last decade, not in an attempt to determine a winner and loser (although if there is an obvious one, I'll point it out), but rather to look at the dominoes that continue to fall today from the trades we remember from years back.
Posted by: Jeff Moore


Click here for more THT Notes.