Nachoman's Baseball is pretty much defunct for now...

I've been writing at jacobsphysics for the last couple of years.  Please check that out.

Oh, you're not interested in physics, eh?  Well, you can check out some of Nachoman's Greatest Hits, especially starting here with the posts from the Harry Wendelstedt Umpire School.

Until I re-assume the Nachoman costume, I'll be working on revisions of the Everything Kids Baseball Book, and the Everything Kids Football book.  I would truly love to get back to writing 4000 word weekly baseball columns.  Someday.

NM

Brandon Phillips' runny mouth

From Nachoman's neighbor and Cardinals fan Jason Getz, who still needs a food-related theme name.... he refers, of course, to Tuesday night's bruhaha in game two of the Reds-Cards series, the game that allowed the Cards to tie the Reds for first place:

"You know...if a player is going to run his mouth before a game, you think he'd at least have the decency to back up those comments during the game instead of starting a brawl."

Well, Yadi started it DURING the game.

Brandon Phillips shouldn't have run his mouth. Cincinnatians are on one hand thankful to have a fiery player who gives a #@$! for the first time since Pete Rose. On the other hand, the fans know that Mr. Phillips utterly deserves a good smack upside the shoulder with a fist or a fastball.

Remember, we're only two years removed from an outfield that included Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey, the "swing for the fences, strike out, and head to the clubhouse for a drink. Oh, did we lose? Sorry." duo. We love Brandon Phillips. And we haven't seen a real basebrawl since Rose vs. Pallone.

You should know that Marty Brennaman's continued theme throughout the broadcast was on the order of, "If you're gonna run your mouth like that, you'd better back it up. Look at what Molina did -- his yappin' started the brawl, but then he crushed a home run. Phillips is 1-10 in two games. Nuff said."

NM

"Why do the Bengals...

...sign so many head cases?"  writes El Molé.  "Inquiring minds want to know."

http://www.slate.com/id/2262321/ is the link he sent.  In the Slate.com article, outed Bengals fan Robert Weintraub suggests that perhaps, for the sake of argument and reducing the desire for assasination, Mike Brown is signing criminals, idiots, and losers because they are undervalued in the current NFL marketplace. 

"Huh, exploiting market inefficiencies," I told El Molé. "The hidden genius of Mike Brown."

"His master plan is to enter a third decade without a playoff win, because with the recent ascent of the Cardinals the "rooting for a shitty team" market remains underserved."

NM

Just Say No to the Bengals

So, in order to maintain my allegiance to the Bengals this year, I must root for noted malcontent and primadonna TO; noted executioner Pacman Jones; noted dumbarse Chad Ochocinco; and Mike Brown.

Even worse, the job performance of each of the above is highly overrated, and not particularly far above freely available talent.

Won't do it.

My Carson Palmer jersey will stay buried in a drawer this year.

NM

J.P Ricciardi and ESPN should be sentenced to umpire school

To ESPN:

Okay, Jim Joyce blew the call.  He owned it.  He entered the Tigers locker room, apologized to Armando Galarraga, and admitted his mistake in front of God and the sports media.*

*...who too often seem to think that these terms are redundant.

Sportscenter's highlight package of the game was well-presented and fair, both to Mr. Galarraga and to Mr. Joyce.

However, then SC brought in two buffoons for the "expert" take.  They started with a statement that Mr. Joyce's call is one of a series of blown calls unprecedented in the history of baseball.  First of all, that's what passes for journalism today?  You begin a segment with an inflamatory, prejudicial statement presented without evidence?  For shame.

Okay, then came J.P. Ricciardi's "analysis."  It would make sense to have an expert explain the mechanics of the first base umpire, to verify whether or not Mr. Joyce was in the proper position for the call.  Problem is, Mr. Ricciardi showed himself to be an ignoramus about umpiring right off the bat. 

The first rule of umpiring, one hammered into our heads at Umpire School**, one even written down in the rule book, begins (Rule 9.05):  "Keep your eye everlastingly on the ball while it is in play."  Mr. Ricciardi questioned why Mr. Joyce was watching the ball as the second baseman fielded it.  Why?  BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A BASE UMPIRE IS TRAINED TO DO FROM THE FIRST DAY OF UMPIRE SCHOOL.

** I attended the Wendelstedt School in 2008


The proper mechanic on that play is for the first base umpire to watch the ball, and to take a couple of steps off the foul line into the field.  When the throw is made, THEN the umpire snaps his head to the base in order to make the call.  All kinds of things besides a routine play at first can happen on a grounder, and the base umpire is trained to be prepared for any of them.

Mr. Joyce was in correct position, and he followed correct mechanics.  Mr. Ricciardi contends that the call at first should be based on sound, and so implied that the call is easy.  That's true of a routine play when the first baseman is planted on the bag.  It is a much more difficult call when the pitcher covers, because the sound of the glove hitting the mitt is irrelevant - all that matters is which foot touches first, the runner's or the pitcher's.  Sure, a major league umpire needs to get that right, but I take issue with Mr. Ricciardi's inflammatory suggestion that the umpire should be able to call that with his eyes closed.

Mr. Joyce did everything right leading up to this play, but got the call wrong.  He should be held accountable for missing the call.  (That accountability should not include wikipedia death threats, obviously; but it should also not include ignorant ridicule by ESPN's talking heads.)

Mr. Ricciardi did everything WRONG leading up to his appearance on Sportscenter.  He failed to understand the correct mechanics of the play, he failed to understand the nature of the call, he failed to recognize his journalistic responsibility to keep perspective and objectivity.  For that he should be held accountable.

While I would prefer to see Mr. Ricciardi publicly humiliated for his poor judgement -- after all, he publicly humiliated Mr. Joyce -- I would be pleased to see Mr. Ricciardi sentenced to attend umpire school.  Perhaps that might cure him of his ignorance on a topic for which your network has proclaimed him "expert."

Greg Jacobs
Woodberry Forest School
Woodberry Forest, VA 22989
greg_jacobs@woodberry.org

Cubs 6, Rockies 2... conversation with Deep Dish

I worked the Cubs-Rockies game last night for STATS.  Carlos Silva vs. Jhoulys Chacin.  I've always wanted to see ESPN televise a spelling bee in which blowhard sportswriters and talking heads are given interesting sports names to spell.  How many would get Jhoulys right?  (Of course, they could come right back at me and ask me to PRONOUNCE Mr. Chacin's name.  No luck there.)

Nachoman correspondent and #1 Cubs fan Deep Dish watched a bit of the game, and maintained some correspondence with me:

NM: Working the Cubs game, and I like G. Soto's catcher's gear -- it's white and blue, and looks sharp. Looking forward to seeing this Silva guy.

DD: Soto is back this year (he had a rotten 2009) -- hitting over .300, making good contact, solid at-bats (his OBP is astronomical, like .450 or something). Be sure to watch our new rookie at short: Starlin Castro. They moved Theriot over to second to bump him up to the majors, and he's had a great 2-3 weeks. Silva is good (believe it or not, we actually got him for Bradley -- is that the best trade of all time or what?). The Cubs are living proof that giving long-term contracts to guys who are around 28-30 is a BAD long-term move. Soriano is on one of his streaks, but Ramirez, Lee, and Zambrano have been poopy (although Lee started slowly last year and ended up having one of his best years ever).

NM: Best trade of all time: Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena.  And Milton Bradley for a handful of Magic Beans would be a candidate for the best trade of the century.

I am a big fan of Mr. Silva already. He got lucky on a phantom tag on a double play that cost the Rox a run, but he's been awesome. 12 balls to 34 strikes.

DD: Wily Mo Pena:  Is this a real name or some sort of joke?

NM: Just as real as "Jhoulys." Who has not endeared himself to me, walking the leadoff guy twice in four innings.

DD:  As for Soto's catcher's outfit, I disagree with you -- he looks like a superhero. I'm too old school for white-and-blue catcher's gear...

NM: Nah, I like the hockey-style masks with the detailed artwork.

But I *hate* Rafael Betancourt. I'd like to see fire ants poured down his pants... and he can have them washed off when he's finally finished pitching an inning.

 

 

DD: Molasses. I watched an inning or two and almost fell asleep. You picked a decent game to work.

 

 

NM:  "Decent" as in "close" and, from your perspective, "the Cubs won."  Crappy in the "3:19 for 8.5 innings" sense.  And crappy in the "FSN Rocky Mountain spent an inning ignoring the game in favor of a vapid interview with Lindsay Vonn, which mainly consisted of the announcers leering and kissing her (figurative) butt."  But generally enjoyable.

 

NM

The definition of "indisputable"

Tuesday night, April 13, 2010

To:  the Atlanta Cracker

From: the Nachoman

Thanks for obtaining prizes for last weekend's physics fights.  I especially liked the hanging tomato grower!  Oh, and the umpires used a 5 minute replay review to reverse a Jay Bruce home run, even though the Reds broadcasters thought the ball was fair from their replay. (I was watching on extra-low def internet video, so I couldn't tell.) Now the game is tied at 8 in the 8th, 'cause a reliever walked a guy with a three-run lead and then gave up a tying homer.  Guh. 

To: the Nachoman

From: the Atlanta Cracker

Nice. What's the definition of "indisputable" again? Or is that word not in the MLB replay policy?

To: the Atlanta Cracker

From: the Nachoman

No idea. The MLB replay policy appears to be identical to that of the NFL, NCAA football, and NCAA basketball -- Stop the game and take 5-10 minutes to agonize over an issue that could be resolved in 30 seconds if the organization were willing to say "Can't tell, let's move on."

P.S. The Reds game went to extras, then the Reds took advantage of the Marlins reliever who gave up two walks, and would have had more than two runs but for an amazing catch on a Cabrera drive.  F. Cordero actually looked good getting the save.

Rays Haze

I just watched the video highlight of Carl Crawford's walkoff double to defeat Peter Angelos.  Sure, it's an exciting baseball play, well-called by the play-by-play man.  What ELSE do you notice?

I thought there was old-fashioned TV static on my internet video.  On further reading, I found out that a haze had settled in over the Trop, St. Petersburg's indoor stadium that is second only to old Olympic stadium for charm.  Why the haze?

During player introductions, the Rays used elaborate smokey special effects to heighten the excitment of opening day.  (Traditionalists such as the Nachoman scoff scoffingly at such gimmickry.  If a fan needs more than organ music to feel excited on opening day, than he is no fan.)

Problem is, the Trop is an indoor stadium.  INDOOR!  I've been annoyed at Reds games in an OUTDOOR stadium when the brief smoke effects after a home run drift into the crowd and reduce visibility for a half inning.  The Tampa smoke hung around until the end of the game.

I continue to wonder at how baseball manages to survive when marketing geniuses like these are in charge.  I'd rather watch Schotzie the Elephant.

NM

How far will YOU go to avoid Joe Morgan's commentary?

Okay, that was exciting... I'm listening to the Yanks-Sox in Spanish via Gameday Audio. No, I don't speak a word of Spanish, but nevertheless this is far more enjoyable than Joe Morgan. The call of Granderson's home run was especially fun (possibly because Mr. Granderson is on my fantasy team). Not that I knew what the announcer said, but he said it well.


FYI, I did the same thing for World Cup 2006. I entered the room with some (American) friends to watch the US game, and an Argentinian had the Spanish broadcast on. She offered to switch, and every one of us said, emphatically, "NO!" We all preferred to hear knowledgable, experienced, and properly trained broadcasters in a different language than random ignorant American play-by-play man who's trying his best with random-veteran-of-1994 USA team who has no ability on air but got the job anyway.

That's today's rant. Back to grading ray diagrams.

Ramon Hernandez -- Don't underestimate the value of Spanish

Last week I acquired the 2010 Baseball Prospectus, the tome that's home to the best writing and statistical analysis available in the preseason.  I'm disappointed that the authors deliberately choose not to organize their statistics in aggregate tables -- after all, the primary purpose of such statistical season previews is to assist fantasy baseball owners with their drafts.  The BP folks are banking on the fact that readers won't mind paying online for a sortable spreadsheet.  Pah, I say.  I feel like I bought a car, but the tires cost extra.

Anyway.  On to BP's commentary on the Reds. 

The Reds section includes three separate comments about the Ryan Hanigan / Ramon Hernandez combination at catcher.  BP points out, quite reasonably, that Mr. Hanigan had a slightly better year than Mr. Hernandez in 2009, Mr. Hanigan is an inexpensive player relative to the $3 million that Mr. Hernandez just signed for, and Mr. Hanigan is the younger player with a higher long-term upside.  BP criticizes Reds general Manager Walt Jocketty harshly for paying a premium for Mr. Hernandez; they mock Mr. Jocketty for his publicly stated rationale that Hernandez brings "veteran leadership." 

In the world of baseball statistics, "leadership" and other intangibles probably don't exist, and if they do, they certainly aren't worth a million dollars.

Now, Baseball Prospectus did not contact Mr. Jocketty or the Reds to discuss the Hernandez signing.  I don't know that they would have gotten a useful answer if they had attempted to obtain a comment -- baseball GMs are not known for their frank honesty when dealing with the media.  But I wonder if BP overlooked and underestimated the language issue.

As I understand it, Ramon Hernandez speaks fluent Spanish, and Ryan Hanigan does not.  (If I am mistaken here, I would love someone to correct me.  I do not have the access to find out if I'm wrong.)

Consider the Reds starting pitching.  The team hopes to make their rotation the bedrock of a team that can win several division titles.  Look at the players and their native languages.

Aaron Harang, a solid veteran and one-time ace whose performance has slipped recently, is from San Diego.  He almost definitely doesn't speak Spanish.

Bronson Arroyo, a "veteran league average innings eater," in BP's estimation, was born in Key West to a Cuban family.  He almost definitely DOES speak at least some Spanish; chances are he's rather fluent.

Behind these two veterans are the young pitchers the Reds are counting on to lead them out of the NL Central depths:

Johnny Cueto, from the Dominican Republic.  Native Spanish speaker.

Edinson Volquez, also from the DR.  Native Spanish speaker.  [Mr. Volquez will not be back on the roster until midseason due to injury.]

And, most importantly...

Aroldis Chapman, the Reds newest signee, straight off the Cuban national team.  With the fortune the Reds have given Mr. Chapman, it is in the organization's interest to do everything possible to ensure his success. 

How many times have we seen a foreign player struggle mightily in his rookie season because of the considerable cultural adjustment?  Mr. Chapman in particular is going to experience possibly the biggest possible one-year swing in his social, cultural, and economic status.  He's going from, essentially, Cuban peasant to American zillionaire.  As far as I know. Mr. Chapman doesn't have any family or established relationships in America.  He will be left to deal with the transition on his own, and with help from his teammates.

Who's going to tell Mr. Chapman the difference between a legitimate financial advisor and the unscrupulous sharks who want him to fund their Madoff-style schemes?  Who's going to confront Mr. Chapman when he's made too many late night Taco Bell runs?  Who is going to listen to and understand Mr. Chapman's adjustment issues?

While they might not be able to RELATE to Chapman's issues, the Spanish speakers on the roster will at least have the language skills to UNDERSTAND what Mr. Chapman is saying.  Mssrs. Cueto and Volquez will have gone through something similar over the past few years -- but they are still learning the ropes of major league life themselves. 

And here is the hole that Ramon Hernandez can fill.  It is likely that Mr. Jocketty expects Mr. Hernandez to be as much coach as player to the predominantly young and predominantly Spanish-speaking starting pitchers.  Sure, Ryan Hanigan is the better hitter with the better arm and more potential.  But Hernandez might be better for his teammates.

Chapman?

The Nachoman's Cubs correspondent Deep Dish writes in to ask about the Reds signing of Aroldis Chapman.

1.  I trust Walt Jocketty.

2.  $5 mil per year isn't really that much, as major league pitchers go.

3.  I don't believe the 102 mph baloney for a second.  Remember the "gyroball?"

4.  I'm much more worried about Rolen's contract.  I like him, but isn't he older than me?

5.  I'd be a whole lot more confident if I thought the Reds had a decent pitching coach.  Can we please steal Dave Duncan or Leo Mazzone?  Mazzone is broadcasting, for Bob's sake, he's available!

6.  Isn't Havana the best possible expansion city for MLB?  Can someone please just "dissapear" whichever Castro is in charge so we can put a team there?

NM

Hey, Deadspin, it's Karch Kiraly! AP Physics is how I knew.

This December 22 Deadspin post asks readers to identify the man to the right.  I knew right away it must be the best known volleyball player of the 80s and 90s, Mr. Karch Kiraly.  I was right -- take a look here, or check several pages worth of Google image searches.

How did I recognize this somewhat obscure character?  AP Physics.

Each June I read thousands of AP Physics exams.  Last year I was a table leader for problem 5.  One of the members of my group was the multitalented Eric Plett, who teaches at Junipero Serra High School in San Mateo, CA.  Eric is himself a kick-butt swimmer and volleyball player.  He arrived at the pool each morning at 6:30 to work out with another physics teacher from Wisconsin -- I enjoyed the daily recaps of their races*.

Anyway, I remembered Eric discussing how people think him a dead ringer for Karch Kiraly.  And when I saw the picture above, I said, "What's Eric Plett doing in Deadspin?"

Now, imagine that Mr. Plett were to give his AP Physics reading invitation to Mr. Kiraly.  How long, do you think, could Mr. Kiraly last before he were found out as not-a-physics-teacher?  Bids start at two minutes.

NM

*I enjoyed them all the moreso because *I* was usually still asleep at 6:30.

Yes, I swear to the Almighty Bob, this conversation happened

Sunday afternoon, El Mole and I saw the Redskins miss the 23 yard field goal, leaving Drew Brees and the Saints under two minutes and 77 yards to go to tie or win the game. 

I turned to El Mole.  "So, how many plays will it take for Brees to score?  Over or under, say, five?"

"Hmmm," replied El Mole.  "I'd go with exactly five."

We noted that neither of us had any doubt whatsoever that the Saints would, in fact, score the touchdown. 

When the Brees-to-Meachem 53 yard touchdown occurred on the FIFTH play of the Saints drive, there was much rejoicing in the Nachoman household.*

*Except for by Burrito Girl, who didn't care.

"I Hate Myself for Loving You?"

Okay, maybe I'm just too ignorant of 80s music, but I was unaware of the 1988 Joan Jett and the Blackhearts song "I Hate Myself for Loving You," at least until my XM 80s channel just played it. I know this song as the Sunday Night Football theme, sung not by an aging Joan Jett but by some blonde in a tight black Joan Jett-style thing.

Right? Was this just brutally obvious, such that any non-physicist with normal pop-cultural literacy would have known this? And if the SNF theme IS based on a 1988 Joan Jett song, does that mean that my generation is taking over the world? Will we soon see Sting and Duran Duran replacing Paul McCartney and the Rolling Stones on ads for retirement funds and cholesterol-lowering medication?

 

This is what the Nachoman ponders as he waits for baseball to resume.  Too bad they didn't bother to schedule an ALCS game Friday night, when the weather was lovely... now it's likely the World Series will last into January.

 

GCJ

Are the Yankees "desperately needed" by baseball?

The NachoGrandpa writes:

"A radio talk show host, I think Colin Cowherd, said that Yankees-Angels had a TV rating of 6.5, whereas Dodgers-Phillies had a 3.5. The 3.5 is well lower than the big college football games, and the NFL gets around a 12.

He concluded that the Yankees are desperately needed by baseball to do well financially. Does this ring true to you?"


Yes, but NOT for television purposes. If national TV ratings were the only important issue, then MLB would do what I've wanted to see for years: Cut the season so that it ends on August 10th, have the playoffs and world series finish before the start of the NFL season, and make the games fit into a concise 2.5-hour bin. National TV ratings would, at minimum, quadruple.

The fact is, individual teams get substantial revenue from local broadcast rights and from attendance at the games themselves. This is NOT the NFL, where national broadcast revenue dwarfs pretty much every other source of money. Only die-hard baseball fans care substantially about the playoffs and world series if the home team isn't playing. This wasn't true 30 or even (maybe) 20 years ago... but now, NFL playoffs are national events regardless of who's in them; baseball playoffs are only truly important in the home market.

Nevertheless, which team gets the largest local broadcast revenue? The Yankees. Which team makes the most money per game throughout the season? The yankees. Which team sells the most paraphernalia? Yankees. Which team is guaranteed to sell out in a visitor's stadium, even if that stadium is named PNC Park? Yup, the Yankees. So strong New York baseball is definitely important to the league, but for different reasons than Colin Blowhard says.

(My second act as commissioner would be to put a team in Brooklyn named the Dodgers with the correct old insignia. I actually think that the New York market is underserved by baseball.)

The baseball analogy might be Reggie Jackson hitting a bird

Okay, the NLCS last night just stunk. I watched a couple of early innings (since when can an "elite" offense not hit Vicente freakin' Padilla?), as well as about an hour of the bottom of the eighth. All you need to know about this game, and about the detritus that is modern postseason baseball, is that this hour did not represent the entirety of the half-inning.

So I'll post about soccer instead. Under the "truth is stranger than fiction" tag, as well as "you see something new and crazy all the time":

Liverpool playing at Sunderland, first few minutes... Sunderland takes a shot from about 15 yards out, straight in front of the goal but with a few defenders around. It's a kinda weak shot, headed straight for the keeper for an easy save. BUT WAIT! A balloon was on the pitch. "A rogue balloon, dispatched by the spectators," was sitting on the ground near the Liverpool goal. This shot ricocheted off of the balloon, changing its path just enough to get past the goalkeeper.

Now, I don't know enough about soccer rules to know what is supposed to happen here, but I doubt this situation is covered in your normal official's clinic. Apparently the goal stands -- that certainly makes the most sense, even though Liverpool could be justifiably angry at the unfortunate and unlucky situation.

The commentator was excoriating the Liverpool defense, saying that they "should have stomped on the balloon so that it could not impact play." Huh? You really want your fullbacks trying to catch a slippery balloon rather than mark their men? I mean, I would have a word for the Sunderland event management, who allowed the balloon to get on the pitch to begin with. (To take the argument ab absurdio, an unscrupulous team could deliberately release balloons when their offense makes a run on goal.)

Could the referee have stopped the Sunderland attack if he had noticed the balloon? Should he have? (I'm guessing not.) Have you ever seen something like this before?

Another reason to love Chris Collinsworth

Sunday night, Bears at Packers. Illegal contact is called by the referee. NBC’s cameras replay the source of the action, which was a near-interception by a Green Bay cornerback.

Al Michaels asks, with a bit of indigence, “Where was the illegal contact?”

Probable John Madden (or pretty much any other “analyst,” especially one who played offense) response: “I don’t know, Al, *I* certainly don’t see any illegal contact. I can’t imagine what the officials were thinking.”

Chris Collinsworth response: “It was downfield.”

Mr. Collinsworth, seemingly alone among announcing booth denizens, knows that illegal contact is ANY contact that occurs more than 5 yards downfield before the ball is thrown, even away from the eventual focal point of the play. I appreciated how Collinsworth’s quick, concise response refocused the broadcast on the game rather than on the purported incompetence of the officials.

A note about Troy Palamalu's hair

A note from last night's NFL opener, Titans-Steelers:

On the crazy-sick Polamalu interception, the Tennessee receiver’s leg touched Polamalu’s hair. I read a couple of years ago that the hair is considered part of the uniform for the purposes of “touching.” Therefore, Polamalu should have been ruled down after the interception, and his ~10 yard return should have been disallowed. I’m surprised Jeff Fischer didn’t challenge. I’m also surprised that the most astute commentators on television, Michaels and Collinsworth, didn’t notice.

P.S. Isn’t it great to have Collinsworth in place of Madden? I’m enjoying the announcers, which is a highly unusual state for the Nachoman.

P.P.S. I sighed to myself as I headed to bed last night, "Be prepared for the onslaught of lazy sportswriter columns decrying the NFL overtime system." Sure enough, SI.com had one at 11:39 a.m. Come on, folks, just deal with it. If you don't want to lose in overtime because the other team won the coin toss, you have two options: (1) win the dang game in regulation, or (2) make your defense and special teams stop the opponent. If you can't do either of those things, TS.

Two important notes about the August 28 Dodgers-Reds game

(1) No, it’s NOT a save situation when the pitcher comes in in the 9th with one out, no one on, and a 3 run lead. Sorry, FSN Cincinnati.

(2) The game should have been over a batter early! With two outs in the 9th, and the bases loaded, Andre Either swung at a pitch that hit his foot for strike 3. Plate umpire Chuck Meriwether let the wild pitch go… the ball went to the backstop , a run scored, and the inning continued.

Well, if it WERE a wild pitch, then that’s correct – the batter can run to first even though first was occupied because there were two outs. However, a pitch that hits the batter is always dead, even if swung at. The correct call is strike 3, ball dead, game over.

Good thing Crappy Cordero, who made a three-run lead with two outs to go interesting, got Manny to take strike 3.

It's almost college baseball season, and replay bites the Gnats in the thorax

We're less than two months into the season, and one team has been, in the Nachoman's eyes at least, eliminated from playoff contention. How's that, you say? Take a look at the Baseball Prospectus playoff odds . A computer "plays" each remaining game in the season and computes the final standings. Then the computer does the same thing for another pretend season. Then again and again, a total of a million times. Of those million pretend seasons, the Nationals have made the playoffs just 53,000 times, or 0.5 % of the time.

I call that "effectively eliminated." Why? Baseball in something resembling its current form has been around for just over 100 years. The probabilities computed by BP suggest that the Nationals have well less than one chance in 100 of making the playoffs. My conclusion: the Gnats ain't making the playoffs without a Moses-level miracle.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Dodgers are listed at a 96% chance of making the playoffs, best in the league. What's most surprising: the early-season darling Pirates still have a 9% chance of making it; and both the Royals and the Reds are still in the 20-30% range. Moses level miracle, indeed.


Do you spit in the gruel of your most bitter rival if you can?
The ACC baseball tournament has an unusual structure. The eight qualifying teams are split into two pools. Each pool plays one game against each team in the pool; the winners of each pool face off in a championship game.

With four teams in a pool and only three games to play, it’s highly likely that two teams tie for the top spot in the pool. The tiebreaking procedures are reasonable: If two teams tie, then the head-to-head victor advances. If three teams tie, then the best regular season conference record among the teams gets to the title game.

On Saturday afternoon, the last day of pool play produced a strange situation. At 4:00, Clemson took on North Carolina. Clemson was out of it, at 0-2. North Carolina, 1-1, had to win in order to have any chance of advancing. At 8:00, Duke at 1-1 was to play pool leader Virginia, 2-0. A UVA win obviously put them in the title game. But if Duke were to win on Saturday night, then craziness would ensue.

Carolina had the best regular season record. So, if they, Duke, and UVA all tied at 2-1, Carolina would advance. Look at the timing of the games: the Tar Heels played first. If they won, then Duke would have no prayer of advancing, but must beat UVA for Carolina to advance.

Now, one might expect that a team tries to win in all circumstances. And I do not believe that the Blue Devils would ever purposely lose. But remember the bitter blood feud that exists between UNC and Duke. Knowing that a loss hands UNC the championship, and that a win would be meaningless, might they subconsciously give less than their best effort?

(It turned out to be a mute point, as UNC lost in extra innings in the 4:00 game. Virginia beat Duke to advance to the ACC championship game.)



Why was there a 30 minute no-rain delay in Florida on Sunday?
At the scheduled start time of 1:10 PM, the tarp at Wayne Huizenga’s “It Was Good Enough For Baseball When We Lobbied For An Expansion Team” Stadium still sat on the field. I didn’t expect the game to start on time, because the weather forecast on Yahoo indicated a tornado warning in north-central Dade County, which is the approximate location of the stadium. Nevertheless, the forecast was clear for the rest of the day, and no rain had fallen in the stadium all day. Finally, at about 1:15, the grounds crew began to pull the tarp off the field; the game started at 1:40 or so.

So, why did the game start late if no rain ever fell? The turf at IWGEFBWWLFANET stadium drains extraordinarily well. Knowing that clearing skies were approaching, the tarp could have been left off for warm-ups pending the actual arrival of actual rain.

Problem was, the Marlins bullpen was completely burned out from long outings on the previous couple of days. They couldn’t afford the possibility of their pitcher having to come out of the game due to rain in the second inning. Since the home team, not the umpires, determines whether conditions are suitable to start the game, the Marlins chose to avoid even the remote chance of their starter being forced out of the game early.


And the best way to avoid walks is to throw strikes
I was on dorm duty on Tuesday, during which I watched the Reds-Astros game. Nonetheless, I still had responsibilities as the duty master for the evening. As I walked around the dorm around lunchtime, I found two rooms that smelled really bad. To the residents’ credit, they tried to do something about the odor: they opened their doors and turned on several fans. One person even put some kind of perfume near the fan. While I appreciated the effort to remove the smell, I had to turn off the fans, as fans in unoccupied rooms are considered a fire hazard.

Both rooms had full garbage cans, even after the fans had been on much of the day.

The residents looked at me with interest when I noted that the best way to avoid a smelly room is to keep the trash emptied. This was new, world-changing information.


Oswalt’s meltdown
On Tuesday, for only the7th time in his career, Roy Oswalt walked a batter with the bases loaded. And for only the second time in history, Mr. Oswalt took the loss against the Cincinnati Reds.


Every hit a pitcher ever gave up was the result of a pitch “out over the plate.”[1]

Jeff Brantley: “That’s [Felipe] Paulino’s problem, elevating the baseball.”

Mr. Paulino had just given up a home run to Jay Bruce. The first replay showed the catcher presenting a target above the waist. So Mr. Brantley did a MacCarver:

“Yes, his catcher wanted the ball elevated in this case, but look where that pitch was.” [Brantley drew a line on telestrator.] “Here’s where the catcher wants the ball, WAY up there, and here’s where the pitch is.”

The replay ran... The pitch hit the catcher’s glove right on top of the line drawn by Mr. Brantley, meaning that the pitch essentially hit the target. But Brantley continued with his Bush Administration science: “See he elevated the ball, but not enough. The ball ended up out over the plate.”

Later, on a swinging bunt, Willie Taveras raced toward first base. The throw from the catcher was well wide of first base, allowing Mr. Taveras to reach third base. The Astros protested that Taveras had run out of the three-foot running lane, and thus should be called out for interference.[2]The 2003 Iraqi Foreign Minister made an appearance in the guise of Jeff Brantley, who said “[Taveras is running] on the line.” No he wasn’t. Replay clearly showed Taveras’ feet never touched the white baseline.


Nevertheless
See, for some stupid reason I like Brantley. He’s not afraid to say what he thinks, even when he’s wrong. Sometimes he’s even right. For example, he talked about Jay Bruce. “When he came into the big leagues, he was surrounded by guys who were only concerned with hitting the ball out of the ballpark. Now those two guys are gone. He’s adjusting his approach, because now he’s surrounded by guys who know there’s more to offensive baseball than crushing home runs.”

Now, one could argue with Mr. Brantley about Bruce’s approach to offensive baseball, but it’s about time that someone took Mssrs. Dunn and Griffey to task publicly for the way they played the game.

Then, he suggested that “a team learns a lot about itself through its mistakes. This ballclub got swept in San Diego, and it was an utter embarrassment. Sometimes that’s the best way to come together as a team, to be utterly embarrassed.” Right on! On one hand, the repeated references to teamwork and inter-team relationships has an almost Joe Morgan-like feel; but attitude has more of an effect on baseball teams than many Sabermatricians like to admit, and Mr. Brantley’s insights are occasionally useful.

Brantley kind of reminds me of Joe Nuxhall (RIP), who would have flunked out of broadcast school. No one was a better foil for Marty Brennaman, though. Nuxhall’s folksy delivery, his knowledge of and place in Reds history, and his storytelling made up for his deficiencies in his fundamentals, at least for Reds fans. I can say the some of the same things about “Cowboy” Jeff Brantley.


Replay Fiasco, only three months into the replay system
On Wednesday night in New York, Met Daniel Murphy hit a long fly ball to right field. Adam Dunn, who patrols right field as Frank Drebin patrols Los Angeles, gave up on what he thought to be a sure home run. But the ball landed in the field of play, hitting the top of the fence on one bounce. Mr. Dunn recovered from his surprise, threw back to the infield, and managed to nail a baserunner at home plate.

BUT WAIT! The Mets asked for a replay review, the fourth review in a Mets game in five days. Three umpires headed for the replay room. Six excruciating minutes later, the umpires reversed themselves and awarded Mr. Murphy a tiebreaking and eventually game deciding home run.

On Wednesday night, the Atlanta Cracker wrote to me asking my thoughts.

Sayeth the Nachoman (who didn’t see the play, but watched it on a small-screen highlight):
I didn't at first realize this was a replay review. I thought the umpires just got together to sort it out. If a non-calling umpire had a better angle, then the crew generally would defer to him. Furthermore, if the calling umpire wasn’t totally sure, better to let play go and THEN ask for help than to call a mistaken home run.

Sayeth the Atlanta Cracker:
Yes, it was a replay review. But I'm more interested in what you think of the physics of it. Look at it again and tell me if you think it's physically possible for that ball to hit the Subway sign, then bounce on the field and bounce up high against the wall. I say no, and I think that should have been something the umpires considered. But I bet they just looked at the video around the sign itself and decided that they thought it hit the sign.

Nachoman:
Yes, it's physically possible. I see it now ('cause I got it in high def). The "Pepsi Porch," as I learned when I first watched a game from Ponzi Scheme Field, hangs out OVER the playing surface. It's like old tiger stadium. You hit the "Pepsi Porch," it's a home run.

AC:
I don't think you're understanding my objection. The two MASN announcers debated this, and I actually think one of them had a fairly good idea of the physics involved. The other one seemed clueless.

I realize the porch hangs out over the field. The objection is that a ball that hits the porch would at best (if the collision is fairly inelastic) fall straight down or, more likely (if the collision is more elastic) bounce back towards the infield. It would not fall to the ground and then bounce towards the wall. Look at it again. The trajectory of the hit is very high, which is why I think the umpires guessed it could have hit the Subway sign and fallen down without bouncing back towards the infield much. Fine. But look at how it bounces off the field and then high up off the wall. The only way it could have bounced like that is either by not hitting the "Pepsi Porch" at all or by just barely skimming the bottom edge of it---and of course there's no way to tell from the video if the ball just barely skims the bottom edge.

NM:
Yes, I see... I had the SNY announcers. But I think you kind of agree with my point: if the Porch were not hanging over the field, then the trajectory you indicate would be impossible. But with the porch in front of the fence, then the ball can maintain some momentum toward the wall after the collision, and still bounce further toward the wall. I am thinking precisely of a collision that you would describe as "skimming" the bottom part of the sign.

AC:
OK, but only with the "skimming" collision, right? Is there any way the ball could smack the face of the sign, come down, and then because of some sort of spin from the collision bounce like that towards the wall? I can't imagine it happening, but I could be wrong.

So basically, what the umpires were saying is that the video review shows indisputably that the ball barely skimmed the sign. What a crock.

NM:
You're right, the video is inconclusive from every angle I saw. And the umpires should take physics into account, of course.

By the way, the plate umpire was Sam Holbrook, one of the Wendelstedt School instructors. He has a masters degree... in sports administration. And he didn't look at the replay.

AC:
Interesting. Why would one umpire sit out the replay session? I assume that's standard procedure, not just that he didn't feel like going over to look.

NM:
I think the idea is to keep one umpire in case something untoward happens... like a fight, or someone stealing bases (Lou Pinella style, not Ricky Henderson style).

AC:
Two other points:

#1: The MASN announcers were all over the first-base umpire, to the point that they were suggesting he look into a new line of work. It was really harsh and completely unwarranted, as far as I could see. Apparently they had some complaints about a call from a previous night, but last night it came down to stuff like any time a close call didn't go Washington's way, who was responsible? That umpire, of course!

#2: The MASN sideline reporter actually went up to the "Pepsi Porch" to talk to the Mets fans there about the disputed HR, and they were in agreement that the Mets got a gift there---none of them thought the ball hit the sign.

NM:
You’ve hit on the Nachoman’s entire objection to instant replay, in all sports, not just baseball. Replay exists to rectify obvious errors of judgment. If a call cannot be reversed using one quick look from each camera angle, then the “error or judgment” was in no way “obvious,” nor was it necessarily an “error.” If anyone can say, with even a shred of credibility, “I looked at the replay, and I still wasn’t sure whether the official was right or wrong,” then the call on the field has to stand. Unfortunately, that’s not how replay has actually worked in practice in college basketball, college and pro football, and now baseball. All replay has done in these sports is prolong the already interminable games, interrupt their flow, and cause more arguments than they’ve settled.


Next week:
Amid widespread calls for improving the quality of the Nachoman’s officiating, the Woodberry Athletic Department spends 2/3 of their remaining budget installing an instant replay system for intramural flag football.




[1] The following are approximate quotations written down immediately after I heard them. I don’t claim word-for-word accuracy, but the gist is correct.
[2] The umpires correctly ruled no interference. Since the throw was nowhere near Mr. Taveras, then he could not have hindered the fielder taking the throw at first base. If he doesn’t interfere with a throw to first, a runner can go to first on any path he wants.