As several folks noticed, Robert Andino of the Orioles seemed to be yelling at Yankee players at the end of last night's game... but why? nobody seemed to know.

Per the Baltimore Sun:

There were some angry words exchanged between Yankees catcher Russell Martin and Orioles infielder Robert Andino at the end of Monday night's game at Oriole Park. Martin told the New York reporters afterward that he started it because he felt that Andino was trying to steal signs from second base in the bottom of the ninth inning.

Just watched the conclusion of Rangers-at-Tigers ALCS game #5. As everyone knows, the Tigers won. Not a bad game, actually, though not exactly a pitchers' duel.

Then, out of the blue, I heard Joe Buck say something in his closing comments to the effect: "an outstanding job by Justin Verlander."

Really?

I like Verlander. Wish he was a Yankee. The guy is a great competitor and is an exceptional talent. He pitched 7.1 innings, kept his team in the game and ultimately got the win. But he was anything but outstanding in this game... or in this series... or in this entire postseason so far. To wit:

ALCS Game #5: Justin Verlander

7.1 IP, 8 H, 4 R, 4 ER, 1.59 WHIP

Sorry, Joe, but that's not exactly my definition of "outstanding." In fact, it's my definition of a starter with a 4.91 ERA.

Incidentally, for the ALCS to this point, Verlander's ERA is 5.56.

Not "outstanding," Joe.

(Incidentally, the oft-maligned A.J. Burnett's ERA this regular season was 5.15, and in the ALDS, it was 1.59.)

For the entire 2011 postseason to this point, Verlander's ERA is 5.31. His career postseason ERA (5 series total) is 5.57.

Not outstanding, Joe. Not outstanding.

I don't know if these announcers script their comments before the game or announce in brainless fashion, or simply form the imaginary narrative in their minds then refuse to budge when something inconvenient like facts say otherwise... (I suspect the latter)... but this seems like more of the same that Joe Posnananski wrote about recently in his column over here.

As for Joe Buck: you're supposed to be knowledgeable in the sport that you're announcing AND keep your eyes open during the game... is that asking too much?? If you have a man crush on Verlander or anyone else, I'm happy for you. If you insist on speaking in monotone, no matter how grating, and can manage not to get fired for that, so be it. But at minimum, please oh PLEASE comment on what ACTUALLY HAPPENED in the game, not what you want to have happened in your own personal bizarro world. Justin Verlander is a great pitcher, and he got the win for this game. He was NOT outstanding.

While you're at it, you might want to time warp back to the ALDS and revise your thoughts in that "pitcher's duel" between C.C. and Verlander, too. With all due respect, I don't think those 3 innings we saw of Verlander in that game were particularly impressive, either...

Granted I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but what does Jeter's BABIP say about his recent troubles? His career BABIP is .356, while this season it's .294.

If I understand things correctly, for pitchers BABIP tends to be a constant, and I seem to recall people referring to abnormally low or high BABIP as evidence of good or bad luck for a particular pitcher, with the expectation that his BABIP would tend to return to normalize over time.

But what about hitters: is BABIP considered a factor the hitter controls, or something that tends to be more of a constant? Seems like it must be a constant for a hitter if it's considered a constant for pitchers... after all, who's hitting all those pitched balls that generate those constant BABIP? ...and if it were indeed a constant for hitters, would that suggest we might expect Jeter's hitting to improve? Would appreciate some thoughts on this.

Started thinking about this after reading jscape2000's "Donny Baseball: Inside The Numbers" article over here.

People have said a lot of things for and against Don Mattingly's performance in the 1984-88 timeframe, so eventually I decided to go right to the source data and have a look for myself.

Just took a look at some numbers over at baseball-reference for Mattingly vs. some of the other players mentioned in jscape2000's thread for 1984-88 performance. Gotta say, Mattingly comes away looking VERY good against that peer group.

I focused on OPS+ as a standard of comparison in that it covers both OBP and slugging percentage, so it seems fair to both styles of hitter... plus it's league and park adjusted, so in theory at least it reduces the impact of playing in a particularly big or small park. It's still not a perfect measurement, and I doubt there is such thing as a perfect measurement. But I had to look at something.

Here's average OPS+ for the five year period 1984-88 for the players in question...

Average OPS+ 1984-88

Boggs: 154.2
Mattingly: 149.4
Raines: 140.6
Henderson: 139.2
Gwynn: 135.8
Ripken: 125.0
Puckett: 119.2

Boggs and Mattingly were in a class of their own during this time period. Boggs had the upper hand over Mattingly, though I doubt any manager would have complained about having either on their team. To be clear, the above suggests that over the 1984-88 seasons Boggs and Mattingly performed, on average, roughly 50% better than league average.

I wondered how the players' peak OPS+ would compare... so in this case we're taking the BEST of those five seasons for each player. Wondered if that would shake things up. It didn't...

Best OPS+ During 1984-88

Boggs: 173
Mattingly: 161
Gwynn: 158
Henderson: 157
Raines: 151
Puckett: 152
Ripken: 145

Boggs and Mattingly are still at the top, though the order of the guys underneath changed a little. The gap between Boggs and Mattingly increased and the gap between Mattingly and everyone else decreased. This shows Mattingly's consistency relative to Boggs during that stretch: Boggs' average OPS+ is fueled largely by that monster 173 season skewing the overall number... by contrast, Mattingly's five seasons were much more consistent, so while he didn't go quite as far into the stratosphere as Boggs in his best season, he kept performing at a consistently high level for longer during this time.

We can see this more clearly in how far each player's peak OPS+ was above the 1984-88 average...

"Streakiness" Rating 1984-88

Puckett: +32.8
Gwynn: +22.2
Ripken: +20.0
Boggs: +18.8
Henderson: +17.8
Mattingly: +11.6
Raines: +10.4

Think of the above as a measure of each player's "streakiness" during the 1984-88 seasons. Only Raines was more consistent from season to season than Mattingly, but it's almost a wash between these two, with a large gap separating them from everybody else.

It's clear to me that my eyes weren't lying to me in watching Mattingly play during those peak seasons, nor was I looking back with sentimentality at the "good old days." The numbers really do support what I (and countless other Yankee fans during that time period) saw on the field. Mattingly was bested by only Boggs, with both players clearly separating themselves from the others. Between the two, Mattingly was markedly more consistent year-to-year. I thought Mattingly was the better player then and I'd still take him now.

The biggest knock against Mattingly seems to be that he didn't put up good enough numbers for a long enough time, essentially that his performance faded later in his career. I wanted to see how that played out in OPS+, so I checked the career OPS+ for each player...

Career OPS+

Gwynn: 132
Boggs: 130
Mattingly: 127
Henderson: 127
Puckett: 124
Raines: 123
Ripken: 112

I was surprised. Clearly every player's career OPS+ is lower than their peak seasons, but that's stating the obvious. Given the rap Mattingly gets about the latter part of his career, I expected to see his career OPS+ drop him to the bottom of the group. But that's not what actually happened. Turns out he held his own pretty well... not quite the best-in-baseball caliber player he had been, but certainly holding his own! Makes me wonder if Mattingly's demise hasn't been a little overstated.

Another knock on Mattingly was that he'd never been to the postseason... how would he handle the pressure? Pretty well as it turns out...

1995 ALDS vs. Seattle Mariners (5 games)

.417 AVG, .440 OBP, .708 SLG, 1.148 OPS, 10 hits, 4 doubles, 1 HR, 3 R, 6 RBI, 17 total bases

What makes the above more impressive is that Mattingly posted these numbers while batting against Randy Johnson in two of the five games, and at a point in his career when his own skills had already diminished. That's a heck of a performance. If the Yankees had won the series, Mattingly would quite possibly have been the ALDS MVP.

Overall, I came into this little analysis already a Mattingly fan, but still I'm impressed with what I found. He stacks up extremely well against his peers in 1984-88, with only Wade Boggs standing between him and designation as the best player in baseball. And Mattingly was more consistent, which counts for a lot in my book. His oft-cited late-career slide just doesn't measure out to be remotely as bad as his detractors suggest. He didn't wilt under postseason pressure when he finally made it, this despite playing against a dominating left-handed starting pitcher and at the tail end of his own playing career.

All the other players in this peer group are in the Hall of Fame, or most likely will be soon. Mattingly more than holds his own against them. I don't have a vote but if I did, seems to me he's plenty worthy. As for the 1984-88 analysis that was the premise of my exercise, Mattingly certainly looks like the winner or near-winner there depending on how much you value the year-to-year consistency. He's got my vote.

I posted this in a reply to a different thread but it occurred to me it might merit a fanpost of its own. Interested in hearing what people think of this angle on Mauer's upcoming free agency and what it means for baseball.

Continue reading this post »

There's been lots of buzz around here lately regarding Johnny Damon...

• his asking price
• how much the Yankees have offered
• IF they actually made an offer
• how much SHOULD they offer
• how long will they allow for reaching an agreement
• should we bring Damon back
• what position will Damon play if he comes back
• who will replace Damon if he doesn't come back

...but the one thing I haven't seen much talk about, is who might sign Damon if he doesn't sign with the Yankees, and under what terms?

Continue reading this post »

In the aftermath of game 1, funny how the media suddenly pegs the Yanks as in crisis mode. "Oh no! This changes everything!" they cry. Well, it does change one thing:

We're 0-1 in the World Series.

We still need to win 4 games before the Phillies do.

If we win 4 games, we're World Series Champions.

We'll probably have to beat Cliff Lee on the way to a possible championship. Consider this: if CC gave up ONE homer to Utley and had the other fall for a double, plus our relievers actually HOLD THE SCORE where it was for a couple innings, Jeter scores in the 9th inning to TIE THE GAME. That would have us going into extra innings with a crack at the Phillies bullpen, and with Mo giving us potentially two innings on our side of things. That would put us in a great position to win the game.

As dominant as Lee was last night, it's not hard to see how we could have won that game. It can be done. If we want to be WS Champs, we must do it. If we can't or won't, we will not deserve to win this World Series. It's pretty simple.

I'm sorry folks, I've had it with the media's never-ending slant against the Yankees and felt the need to vent. In the media's eyes, it's as if the Yankees can never win. If they lose in the playoffs (or [gasp] COMPLETELY MISS the playoffs) they are a bumbling bunch of underachievers with idiot owners and idiot management; but God forbid they win, the story isn't that they won, but rather how much money they spent to win. !@#$%^&**()!!

Continue reading this post »

Just went back to look at Ron Guidry's pitching line for his terrific 1978 season -- the season in which young me became a Yankee fan, incidentally -- and that led me to look at the MVP voting from that year. One thing quickly became apparent: MVP voting is neither rational nor objective; nor are the stated reasons for voting in a particular manner consistent... in other words, the voting is par for the course in the absurdity of human reasoning and the joke that is human rationality. Or take the short answer: in 1978 and/or 1986 (I'll get to that after the jump), the Yankees got jobbed!

Continue reading this post »