Series 49: Darren O'Day x4

[Kin]

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/principles/expected-wins-and-losses/

From the same article:

Regardless, what we need to know for now is that there?s both an empirical and logical relationship between runs scored, runs allowed, and wins, and they agree down to some very small details.

...

A team with an expected winning percentage of .500 and an actual record of 77-85 is not ?really? an 81-win team, although it is true that deviations from pythagorean win-loss are subject to regression.[Nik's emphasis]

...

If you shouldn?t use pythagorean expectancy to guess at team talent, and you probably shouldn?t refine it to more accurately ?retro-predict? actual wins, what exactly is the point of learning about it?

The quick answer is that you can use it to predict wins given expected runs scored and against, perhaps in a projection system.

Which was all that was being done. I said that regression to something more in line with their pythagorean W-L was a factor in their second half record.

 

[Andy007]

That is a paraphrase of a joke I was making at Nik's expense. Call off the sabremetric dogs.

I think it's pretty clear by now that it was a "joke" you made at your own expense.

Whoa! Easy there slugger.

 

[Andy007]

"Remaining 120-odd games"? Interesting. Maybe once those remaining games whittle down to 60 and 50 and so on, those pythagorean numbers begin looking a little less like predictors and more like aberrations, no?

In an average season, 90-95% of the league will be within 3 games of what their end of season Pythagorean numbers expect them to have been. So, no, not aberrations at all. As more games are played, the closer teams get to what their run differential numbers predict them to have been.

And that's why I think it's pretty telling that Toronto still hovered at the .500 mark even after 100+ games. Without any trade deadline additions, that was likely an 80-83-win team.

 

[bustaheims]

And that's why I think it's pretty telling that Toronto still hovered at the .500 mark even after 100+ games. Without any trade deadline additions, that was likely an 80-83-win team.

Even without the trade deadline additions, they were a better team than that. They just wouldn't be quite as good as they are now. They were probably closer to a 86-88 win team, and now they're obviously a 90+ win team.

 

[Kin]

I think one of the easiest ways to illustrate the issue of luck here is to look at the bullpen. Improvements to the bullpen have been frequently mentioned as being instrumental to the team getting better and the discredited thought process on one run games would say that improving the bullpen would substantially lead to a much better record in those games.

But here's the Blue Jays bullpen ERA's month by month

April: 4.11
May: 3.63
June: 2.66
July: 3.00
August: 2.10
September: 4.44

The Jays bullpen was never historically bad and, in fact, from May until the Deadline it was actually pretty good. There's certainly no explanation for a historically bad record in one run games there. Their April record with the bullpen pitching badly was 11-12, their September record with the Bullpen pitching worse is 17-8.

In fact, their post-deadline bullpen(3.55) actually has a worse ERA than their pre-deadline bullpen(3.32).

 

[Deebo]

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/70467870/v507363483/torbal-pompey-scores-pillar-out-call-confirmed/?query=definitive%2Bangle

Looks like Joe West may have got the call right:

In this freeze frame, it looks like the tag is being applied and Pillar hasn't touched the plate yet.

 

[TML fan]

Watching all the highlights, I thought he was out too. There certainly wasn't enough to overturn the call on the field.

 

[Frank E]

I think there was a better angle on tv that showed he missed...even that picture isn't conclusive.

It was close, but I think he missed.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think either of those two images show either (a) Pillar not touching the plate and/or (b) Pillar being tagged.

 

[TML fan]

Every angle I saw, the actual tag was blocked, either by the Pitcher's/Pompey's legs or by Wieters' own body. They didn't show an overhead angle for some reason, although the actual tag may not have been in view of the overhead camera.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Every angle I saw, the actual tag was blocked, either by the Pitcher's/Pompey's legs or by Wieters' own body. They didn't show an overhead angle for some reason, although the actual tag may not have been in view of the overhead camera.

Wouldn't overhead be the sky in a stadium like that?  I've seen a few people reference that, do dome-less/roof-less baseball stadiums have overhead plate cameras?

 

[bustaheims]

I think there was a better angle on tv that showed he missed...even that picture isn't conclusive.

It was close, but I think he missed.

Yeah, that's how I saw it, too. Fortunately, it didn't end up mattering.

 

[Deebo]

I don't think either of those two images show either (a) Pillar not touching the plate and/or (b) Pillar being tagged.

I think that on the 2nd image it is very clear that he hasn't touched the plate at that point, and the first image is at the same time so if there the tag was made at that point, he is out.

Either way, you can see how the out call was made and that the replays could be insufficient to overturn that call.

 

[TML fan]

Every angle I saw, the actual tag was blocked, either by the Pitcher's/Pompey's legs or by Wieters' own body. They didn't show an overhead angle for some reason, although the actual tag may not have been in view of the overhead camera.

Wouldn't overhead be the sky in a stadium like that?  I've seen a few people reference that, do dome-less/roof-less baseball stadiums have overhead plate cameras?

I would think its possible to have one in an open air ball park, but you're right they may not have one.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I don't think either of those two images show either (a) Pillar not touching the plate and/or (b) Pillar being tagged.

I think that on the 2nd image it is very clear that he hasn't touched the plate at that point, and the first image is at the same time so if there the tag was made at that point, he is out.

Either way, you can see how the out call was made and that the replays could be insufficient to overturn that call.

2nd image looks to me like he's touching the plate, but the 2nd image it's also impossible to tell whether Wieters is tagging him or not.

 

[TML fan]

If you zoom right in on the 2nd image, he's not touching the plate.

This discussion should be enough to answer the question of why the call wasn't overturned.

 

[Deebo]

2nd image looks to me like he's touching the plate,

To me, it looks like there is clearly dirt between the plate and his hand:

but the 2nd image it's also impossible to tell whether Wieters is tagging him or not.

The 2nd image is at the exact same time as the first but from a different angle and it looks like it could be a tag on that image:

It's certainly not enough to definitively say there wasn't a tag. I can't remember any angles that did clearly show he wasn't tagged at that point and unless they had one, the ruling on the field should stand.

 

[bustaheims]

To me, it looks like there is clearly dirt between the plate and his hand:

The 2nd image is at the exact same time as the first but from a different angle and it looks like it could be a tag on that image:

It's certainly not enough to definitively say there wasn't a tag. I can't remember any angles that did clearly show he wasn't tagged at that point and unless they had one, the ruling on the field should stand.

In the first image, it looks to me like his tips of his fingers reach the black of the plate, which would be enough to qualify as touching it. I agree that the 2nd picture is inconclusive as to whether or not the tag is being applied, though. Other angles I saw made it look much more definitive that Wieters didn't get him, but I'm willing to admit that might be my bias influencing my perception of close calls.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

To me, it looks like there is clearly dirt between the plate and his hand:

The 2nd image is at the exact same time as the first but from a different angle and it looks like it could be a tag on that image:

It's certainly not enough to definitively say there wasn't a tag. I can't remember any angles that did clearly show he wasn't tagged at that point and unless they had one, the ruling on the field should stand.

In the first image, it looks to me like his tips of his fingers reach the black of the plate, which would be enough to qualify as touching it. I agree that the 2nd picture is inconclusive as to whether or not the tag is being applied, though. Other angles I saw made it look much more definitive that Wieters didn't get him, but I'm willing to admit that might be my bias influencing my perception of close calls.

To be honest, I think it was more or less a tie.

EDIT:

Actually this replay from MLB.com makes me change my opinion to out.  Having the ability to slow it down with each angle it looks like he got him: http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/70467870/v507363483/torbal-pompey-scores-pillar-out-call-confirmed/?query=definitive%2Bangle

 

[bustaheims]

Yankees lose. Magic number down to 1!