5/1 v Blue Jays

[VA Sox Fan]

OK' date=' people are starting to get justifiably grumpy and gloomy.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure I can justify "whimpy" and "whiny" on May 1st. But they are out there, the wimps and the whiners.

 

Man up, quit your whining, shut the fack up.....Sox will be fine!

 

I had a nice 2 game winning streak starting the in-game threads. Someone else's turn.

 

Have a good night ALL!

 

p.s.

[CrespoBlows]

By the way - our offense is the greatest and we are just going thru a little slump. Anyone else who thinks otherwise is an idiot.

 

The 3rd ranked offense in the AL is horrible. They need a major shakeup. We should trade for Eckstein, because he is scrappy.

 

Sorry to rub it in - but I have taken enough abuse here recently for something which is obviously clear to unbiased eyes.

 

Jesus Christ, you are a bitch.

[das11209]

The 3rd ranked offense in the AL is horrible. They need a major shakeup. We should trade for Eckstein, because he is scrappy.

 

 

 

 

For the record - Eckstein is the most overrated player in the league.

[Cocos Disciples]

Not a fun game to be at. It was f***ing cold, and the offense wasn't warming anything up. Oh well.

[Cocos Disciples]

For the record - Eckstein is the most overrated player in the league.

 

He's the most overrated underrated player.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Checking Pitch f/x logs this morning, I show only thirteen wrong calls by umpires. Eight of the calls went against Boston pitchers (5 Wakefield, 2 Aardsma, 1 Lopez) and five of the calls went in favor of AJ Burnett. That's 13 wrong calls in the same direction--that's a 1/8192 chance--a 0.0122% chance--a game called so badly in favor of the Blue Jays that it would happen once every 8.8 MLB seasons to some team or another at random.

 

At a 99.9% certainty, I say that last night's game was rigged by the home plate umpire, Gerry Davis.

 

Of course, your mileage may vary: I may have somehow misinterpreted graphs of the data, or made a math error. But I don't think so.

[ORS]

Sorry to rub it in - but I have taken enough abuse here recently for something which is obviously clear to unbiased eyes.

What unbiased eyes? Your definition of good is that they have to be tops in the game. That is not a generally accepted definition of good. It is your definition. That is a personal bias.

 

Over the last 5 games, the balls in play result in hits only 19.3% of the time. With practically the same roster, balls in play resulted in hits 31.7% of the time last year. That's unfortunate, but it is indicative that this is not likely to continue.

[MANNYHOF24]

Checking Pitch f/x logs this morning, I show only thirteen wrong calls by umpires. Eight of the calls went against Boston pitchers (5 Wakefield, 2 Aardsma, 1 Lopez) and five of the calls went in favor of AJ Burnett. That's 13 wrong calls in the same direction--that's a 1/8192 chance--a 0.0122% chance--a game called so badly in favor of the Blue Jays that it would happen once every 8.8 MLB seasons to some team or another at random.

 

At a 99.9% certainty, I say that last night's game was rigged by the home plate umpire, Gerry Davis.

 

Of course, your mileage may vary: I may have somehow misinterpreted graphs of the data, or made a math error. But I don't think so.

 

Yeah, Im sure that Gerry Davis is a huge BlueJ ays fan. Umpires make mistakes, its part of baseball. I didnt think that the strike zone was that bad last night. Face it, different strike zones for different umpires is just a part of baseball right now. Im not saying I agree with it, but thats not going to change any time soon.

[Mr Crunchy]

much like joe dumars from the pistons,david eckstein has gotten so much attention for being underated hes become overrated in the process..

he should give 1/2 his salary to curtis granderson due to his efforts in the 06 series...

[Jayhawk Bill]

Yeah' date=' Im sure that Gerry Davis is a huge BlueJ ays fan. Umpires make mistakes, its part of baseball. I didnt think that the strike zone was that bad last night. Face it, different strike zones for different umpires is just a part of baseball right now. Im not saying I agree with it, but thats not going to change any time soon.[/quote']

 

Did you understand my post?

 

Umpires make mistakes--I've no trouble with that. I've commented previously in Game Threads that mistakes broke about evenly. I even reopened the issue with Iassogna calling Lowrie out on two bad called strikes, pointing out the next day that, despite the highly visible error, overall he'd called a fair game, with his mistakes breaking just about evenly.

 

If Davis had made just one mistake, it could've gone either way with no supposition of bias. Heck, if he'd made just two mistakes, one time in four (one over two squared) both would have gone against Boston. If he'd made just four mistakes, one time in sixteen (one over two to the fourth power) all would've gone against Boston. Luck that bad can be expected about ten times each season: 10/162 ~ 1/16.

 

Gerry Davis made 13 mistakes calling balls and strikes. EVERY MISTAKE WAS AGAINST BOSTON.

 

The odds of that are one over two to the thirteenth power, or (1/8,192), or 0.000122.

 

This is no "different strike zones for different umpires" issue, it's a different strike zone for different teams. Gerry Davis wanted the Blue Jays to win. Maybe it's because he rooted for the Cardinals over the Red Sox as a boy in 1967 Missouri; maybe it's because gamblers bought him out; maybe it's because MLB wants the AL East to beat each other up until the Yankees regain their footing lest the biggest media market in MLB tune out through the summer. I have no idea why Gerry Davis was biased, nor if it's even a conscious bias.

 

I am, however, 99.988% confident that Gerry Davis was a biased home plate umpire last night.

[MANNYHOF24]

Did you understand my post?

 

Umpires make mistakes--I've no trouble with that. I've commented previously in Game Threads that mistakes broke about evenly. I even reopened the issue with Iassogna calling Lowrie out on two bad called strikes, pointing out the next day that, despite the highly visible error, overall he'd called a fair game, with his mistakes breaking just about evenly.

 

If Davis had made just one mistake, it could've gone either way with no supposition of bias. Heck, if he'd made just two mistakes, one time in four (one over two squared) both would have gone against Boston. If he'd made just four mistakes, one time in sixteen (one over two to the fourth power) all would've gone against Boston. Luck that bad can be expected about ten times each season: 10/162 ~ 1/16.

 

Gerry Davis made 13 mistakes calling balls and strikes. EVERY MISTAKE WAS AGAINST BOSTON.

 

The odds of that are one over two to the thirteenth power, or (1/8,192), or 0.000122.

 

This is no "different strike zones for different umpires" issue, it's a different strike zone for different teams. Gerry Davis wanted the Blue Jays to win. Maybe it's because he rooted for the Cardinals over the Red Sox as a boy in 1967 Missouri; maybe it's because gamblers bought him out; maybe it's because MLB wants the AL East to beat each other up until the Yankees regain their footing lest the biggest media market in MLB tune out through the summer. I have no idea why Gerry Davis was biased, nor if it's even a conscious bias.

 

I am, however, 99.988% confident that Gerry Davis was a biased home plate umpire last night.

 

Pitchers who have great stuff and are around the strike zone all night get calls. Plain and simple. It happened for nearly every Pedro start when he was with Boston.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Pitchers who have great stuff and are around the strike zone all night get calls. Plain and simple. It happened for nearly every Pedro start when he was with Boston.

 

Adjusting the official count to reflect Pitch f/x, pitches and strikes:

 

Burnett: 112-63 (56.25%)

Wakefield: 97-61 (62.9%)

 

Wakefield was more "around the strike zone" than Burnett, and he lost five calls while Burnett got five.

 

Any other bright ideas to excuse Gerry Davis?

[MANNYHOF24]

Adjusting the official count to reflect Pitch f/x, pitches and strikes:

 

Burnett: 112-63 (56.25%)

Wakefield: 97-61 (62.9%)

 

Wakefield was more "around the strike zone" than Burnett, and he lost five calls while Burnett got five.

 

Any other bright ideas to excuse Gerry Davis?

 

Why do you like watching baseball if you think games are rigged?

 

Edit- Wake always losses should be strikes during games because the umps sometimes quit on pitches that might break late into the strike zone, or balls that are dropped by the catcher. That has always happened for wake.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Why do you like watching baseball if you think games are rigged?

 

Most games aren't. I point out the ones where there's a statistically significant bias--this is one.

 

Edit- Wake always losses should be strikes during games because the umps sometimes quit on pitches that might break late into the strike zone, or balls that are dropped by the catcher. That has always happened for wake.

 

Cool! Thanks!

 

By the way, um, any evidence to back up your assertion, kinda like I had? :dunno:

[MANNYHOF24]

Most games aren't. I point out the ones where there's a statistically significant bias--this is one.

 

 

 

Cool! Thanks!

 

By the way, um, any evidence to back up your assertion, kinda like I had? :dunno:

 

Not really, but you know after watching almost every wakefield start over the last 10 years you can really pick up on things like that.

 

I really dont have the time everyday to search for stats to argue with you, I wish I did but I am a college student and its finals week! Cut me some slack.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Not really' date=' but you know after watching almost every wakefield start over the last 10 years you can really pick up on things like that.[/quote']

 

Except that there's a site where you can check Pitch f/x results for that sort of thing, graphically, and the history of Wakefield's called strikes that were balls and called balls that were strikes seem to offset, at least visually.

 

http://baseball.bornbybits.com/php/combined_tool.php

 

I really dont have the time everyday to search for stats to argue with you, I wish I did but I am a college student and its finals week! Cut me some slack.

 

Cut me some slack--you're posting things as if they're true to try to discredit my post, and I'm disproving them one by one because, um, they seem to be false. :dunno:

 

You might acknowledge that the stats are heavily on my side as you express subjective disbelief. Your opinion is your opinion, and you're as good a fan as I am...but this time the facts were on my side, as outrageous as the comment "the umpire rigged the game" sounds.

[MANNYHOF24]

Except that there's a site where you can check Pitch f/x results for that sort of thing, graphically, and the history of Wakefield's called strikes that were balls and called balls that were strikes seem to offset, at least visually.

 

http://baseball.bornbybits.com/php/combined_tool.php

 

 

 

Cut me some slack--you're posting things as if they're true to try to discredit my post, and I'm disproving them one by one because, um, they seem to be false. :dunno:

 

You might acknowledge that the stats are heavily on my side as you express subjective disbelief. Your opinion is your opinion, and you're as good a fan as I am...but this time the facts were on my side, as outrageous as the comment "the umpire rigged the game" sounds.

 

 

I guess my point is, just because there are bad calls against one team, it doesnt mean that the ump was blatenly calling the game in an unfair manner. By the way with that Pitch Fx thing how did you get the career stats, rather than just the season stats?

[Jayhawk Bill]

I guess my point is' date=' just because there are bad calls against one team, it doesnt mean that the ump was blatenly calling the game in an unfair manner.[/quote']

 

So, would you consider his bias more of the subtle variety?

 

Either way, 13 consecutive wrong calls in the same direction suggests "fixed game" at the 99.9% level.

 

By the way with that Pitch Fx thing how did you get the career stats, rather than just the season stats?

 

Josh Kalk runs that site I just linked. He's drawing down every pitch from Pitch f/x by pitcher ID number so it's career stats...or as "career" as Pitch f/x is. Pitch f/x was introduced late in 2006 and was introduced ballpark-by-ballpark across MLB in 2007, with Camden Yards, the last park, being added in 2008.

[das11209]

What unbiased eyes? Your definition of good is that they have to be tops in the game. That is not a generally accepted definition of good. It is your definition. That is a personal bias.

 

Over the last 5 games, the balls in play result in hits only 19.3% of the time. With practically the same roster, balls in play resulted in hits 31.7% of the time last year. That's unfortunate, but it is indicative that this is not likely to continue.

 

4 runs in last 5 games .205 with a .275 on-base percentage and three homers in last 8 games - that is not my definition of good. The Yankees will not struggle all year - we know that from experience - right?

 

And I am not getting an indication that things are going to change in the long run like you are - I guess you are relying on your optimism there. Last year - Lowell made a big difference - this year let's just say he has sucked so far. Having Ellsbury back at the top of the order might make some difference ( D-Ped and Youk are too slow) - but not sure it will turn things around drastically. I just don't see how this offense will suddenly jump-start for a prolonged period.

 

My position from the start of the season has not changed. I think the offense is our weakest link, not starting pitching or bullpen. That said - I will be happy if they prove me wrong.

[ORS]

They kind of already are. Even with the struggles of some and the recent cold patch, the offense is for 6th in MLB in runs scored. The pitching staff ERA is 19th. You think 19th is a sign of strength and the 6th is a sign of weakness. I don't need to say much more than that.

 

EDIT: To be fair, let's consider only the AL, as the leagues are very different.

 

With the early season warts, 5th in RS, 9th in ERA. Yet it is the offense that will be the weak point. Nonsense.

[CrespoBlows]

Not really, but you know after watching almost every wakefield start over the last 10 years you can really pick up on things like that.

 

I really dont have the time everyday to search for stats to argue with you, I wish I did but I am a college student and its finals week! Cut me some slack.

 

It kind of sucks to live without a frontal lobe, huh?

[das11209]

They kind of already are. Even with the struggles of some and the recent cold patch' date=' the offense is for 6th in MLB in runs scored. The pitching staff ERA is 19th. You think 19th is a sign of strength and the 6th is a sign of weakness. I don't need to say much more than that.[/quote']

 

I know what the stats are and you know that stats lie. Our problem in pitching was control issues with all starters and Becket being injured. Looks like Lester, Buch. Dice-K, Wake are all going deep in the ball-games now. The bull-pen will get better if they stay in the pen till the late innings. Apart from Timlin and Lopez - I think we have a servicable pen.

 

I am just not that high on our offense. I know that they have scored lots of runs in some games. But I don't think that they can keep it up. As I said before - the disproportionate ratio between hits and runs are not good. We need a power hitter apart from our big 2 and neither Drew or Lowell looks like can be that guy. I was not very high on Lowell signing but I guess he was the best option available.

 

We are all obviously speculating at this point and as I have said before I will be quite happy to be proven wrong on our offense.

[ORS]

What the hell is this hits/runs ratio you are talking about?

[das11209]

What the hell is this hits/runs ratio you are talking about?

 

3rd in hits - 8th in RBI.

[Jayhawk Bill]

I will be quite happy to be proven wrong on our offense.

 

Cool! I foresee a happy 2008 Red Sox season for you! :thumbsup:

[das11209]

Cool! I foresee a happy 2008 Red Sox season for you! :thumbsup:

 

I love your analysis - where do you think out offense will be at the end of the year? Like 2003 or like 2006?

[ORS]

And that means? Answer, nothing.

 

I knew what you were trying to get at. The problem is you have failed to educate yourself with the cornucopeia of free information on the internet. Here's quick refresher course on what you could have learned in about 15 minutes.....

 

There are stats that account for context free run performance. In the simplest terms, this means there are stats that keep track of how many runs a team should score based on the sum of all offensive contibution. The first such stat was runs created (RC), which just multiplied OBP * Total Bases. Later versions of RC included baserunning stats and GIDPs.

 

The best non linear weights stat right now is probably EqR - Equivalent Runs, which is a proprietary stat of Baseball Prospectus.

 

Just so you know, the Adjusted (for park effects and oppenents) EqR for the Sox right now is 154, which leads the AL. The pitching Adjusted EqR allowed is 140, good for 11th. It just makes your point even more hard to swallow.

 

You claim it is a bad thing if the AEqR is higher than the actual Runs, because it is a sign that they are somehow choking. This couldn't be further from the truth. While it is true that their contextual hitting is substandard, it is a good thing when the AEqR leads Runs. AEqR is much more predictive of future Run scoring capability. In other words, if they keep doing what they've done to this point in the season, over time, the runs will come.

[das11209]

And that means? Answer, nothing.

 

I knew what you were trying to get at. The problem is you have failed to educate yourself with the cornucopeia of free information on the internet. Here's quick refresher course on what you could have learned in about 15 minutes.....

 

There are stats that account for context free run performance. In the simplest terms, this means there are stats that keep track of how many runs a team should score based on the sum of all offensive contibution. The first such stat was runs created (RC), which just multiplied OBP * Total Bases. Later versions of RC included baserunning stats and GIDPs.

 

The best non linear weights stat right now is probably EqR - Equivalent Runs, which is a proprietary stat of Baseball Prospectus.

 

Just so you know, the Adjusted (for park effects and oppenents) EqR for the Sox right now is 154, which leads the AL. The pitching Adjusted EqR allowed is 140, good for 11th. It just makes your point even more hard to swallow.

 

You claim it is a bad thing if the AEqR is higher than the actual Runs, because it is a sign that they are somehow choking. This couldn't be further from the truth. While it is true that their contextual hitting is substandard, it is a good thing when the AEqR leads Runs. AEqR is much more predictive of future Run scoring capability. In other words, if they keep doing what they've done to this point in the season, over time, the runs will come.

 

I see what you are saying - let us see if they actually do turn it around in long term.