Archive

Monthly Archives: June 2013

As some of you know, both Ryan and I studied politics at Cal and now work in it in different capacities. Politics and baseball are some of the most interesting things to us, and we have noticed many ways that the two tend to overlap. For this reason, I am starting a new running series entitled “Politics and Baseball” that will hopefully be as entertaining for you as it is for me. Future themes will involve the use of political sabermetrics, which is a term I’ve been playing around with in my head for a while, but for right now I am going to write about how trades and deals that are made throughout the year between baseball teams reflect the way that deals get done in Sacramento or Washington.

Trade Blocking

The NL West is all jammed up. All 5 teams are technically still in contention, with the Dodgers and Giants underperforming, the D Backs playing well, and the Padres and Rockies surprising some people.

NL West Standings

Because the standings are so tight, with the year half over, there is no clear “seller” or “buyer.” Everyone is still willing to make a deal that improves their team, and no team is looking to mortgage this season to start rebuilding for next year yet. So, with this backdrop, enter Ricky Nolasco. There are, of course, many pitchers that are rumored to be moving teams soon (Bud Norris, Jordan Lyles, Matt Garza, etc.), but Nolasco represents a special case in that his contract is up at the end of this year, the Marlins have no hope of contending this year, and the Marlins have come out and said whoever takes on the rest of Nolasco’s contract can get him first without giving up top-tier prospects.

All 5 of the contending NL West teams (except maybe Arizona) need starting pitching help right now. The Giants rotation is not as vaunted as it once was, the Dodgers entered the year with 8 starters but are down to 3 or 4 capable ones at this point, the Rockies staff is performing well, but they need some help on the backend with no true ace, and the Padres have had their share of injury troubles as well. For these reasons, everyone in the NL West seems to be in on Nolasco, but his salary is not low (half a season at $11.5 million) and that his contract expires at the end of year making him just a rental, meaning that a team has to make a conscious decision that they are going to try and contend for this year before making a move for him.

You’d be angry too if you had to pitch for the Marlins. Photo courtesy: blogs.sun-sentinel.com

This is where money comes in handy. As in politics, money cannot win you a race alone, but it certainly helps. The Dodgers seem to still have money to burn from their lucrative TV contract and Magic Johnson trust fund, meaning they find themselves at an advantageous position. Though the Dodgers are technically in last place, they are only 6.5 games back of first, and thanks to their extra cash supply, they can afford to make a move for Nolasco now, blocking the other teams in the West. Assuming Nolasco does well, the Dodgers can simultaneously help themselves and prevent a good player from winding up on a rival.

In California state politics, there is a June 30 filing deadline for all California legislative candidates. This deadline marks the first time that a candidate discloses how much money he/she has raised. Besides keeping them honest, it is there to show viability and give an idea of who the frontrunners in a race might be. By making a move for Nolasco now, the Dodgers can show viability that, despite their place in the standings, they are a contending team and one that intends to do everything possible to get to October. In the same way that a political candidate can dissuade other challengers from running by starting off strong with lots of donations and endorsements, so can the Dodgers dissuade some of the other teams in the West, such as the Padres and Rockies, from getting too confident in their current position and making moves that might improve their club before the deadline. Obviously, it will be tough to dissuade the Giants from contending in the same way that an incumbent who is down in the polls would still want to run for re-election. Still, wrapping up early endorsements from star players can definitely help improve your chances.

There is a lot of campaign left, and the race is still wide open, but whichever team makes the move for Nolasco the soonest gives themselves a huge advantage for the rest of the year. It is low-risk in that Nolasco is a proven innings eater and that the Marlins have said they won’t require big-name prospects in exchange. And more importantly, the longer Nolasco is on a team other than the Marlins, the more chances he has to help that club. He is wasting wins on the Marlins currently, and the sooner a team goes out and gets him, the sooner he becomes a productive member of that team and starts generating wins. This type of move should be made more often in the major leagues, but many teams are risk-adverse and like to wait until the trading deadline when they have a clearer picture. For just this reason, the Dodgers, or any other team in the West that is willing to take on his contract, can improve themselves now by trading for Nolasco. This will give the team that gets him the best chance of making the playoffs, while dissuading other candidates from running. Whichever team makes a conscious effort to improve themselves first puts themselves in the best position to contend in October. My bet is the team that goes out and gets Nolasco now will be the one you see in the playoffs come seasons end.

Advertisements

Human Error is a Part of the Game

By: Ryan

No play in baseball has lead to more outcry for the incorporation of expanded replay use by umpires than the blown Jim Joyce call which cost Armando Galarraga a perfect game in the bottom of the ninth. While baseball has been inching towards expanding the use of replay, many will soon find that while replay will solve some deficiencies in the game, it will merely adjust how these deficiencies surface.

joyce22n-5-web

The Runner was Called Safe.

It always seemed that a large reason that the game had resisted replay was because its fans believed in two axioms; 1. People make mistakes and 2. Umpires are people. Fans accepted that human error was part of the game and that the human element just another obstacle to overcome. This mentality stems from strike zone discrepancies with different umpires. The general rule is that anything over the plate from the letters to the knees is a strike, but anyone that’s played baseball/softball knows that each umpire sees this zone differently. No other sport relies so heavily on the umpire to define the terms of the majority of the game. And since the game is so dependent on the umpire for balls and strikes, inconsistent “mistake” calls are inevitable. And it always seemed that because of this, we were willing to accept that umpire call were imperfect, even on the base paths.

But it’s 2013, and people are less tolerant of mistakes at the professional level. The demand for expanded replay has grown when fans witness blown call after blown call on the base paths and with fair/foul balls. While the reasoning for expanded replay use has been well vocalized and developed, the ramifications of play review have not been equally evaluated, even though expanded replay will result in longer games, continual play discrepancies, and continual human error.

The most obvious unintended consequence is the lengthening of games. Baseball as a sport is already ragged on because the game “drags on.” Currently, the average baseball game lasts just under three hours. Once umpires are allowed to review plays and consult, the game will see its average game time increase, just like basketball and football, making the baseball experience an even longer affair for non-diehard fans.

While many look for replay to remove the discrepancy that results from human interpretation, this won’t necessarily be the case. When replay is used to determine that a foul ball down the line is actually fair, it will be up to the umpires to determine how many bases the player will be awarded, which can vary depending on the depth of the hit and park proportions. There is no clear cut determining factor, unlike the ground rule double, making awarding bases and runs entirely arbitrary and unrelated to the players skills. Umpires then become even more involved in the game, and can receive more backlash.

Additionally, umpires can still blow calls after looking at replay, an unfortunate event that already happened this year. Earlier in the season, the Athletics were visiting the Indians and were trailing 4-3 in the top of the ninth. Into the box steps Adam Rosales and he crushes a ball deep to left field. The ball looks like a homer but is ruled a double on the field. Due to this discrepancy, the umpires review the play. Fans at home watch the replay and A’s fans rejoice because the hit is clearly a homer. The umpires come back out and rule to the contrary and put Rosales at second. A’s then load the bases before grounding out to the pitcher and losing the game. The next day, the umpires and MLB admit that they botched the call, a call which cost the A’s the chance forcing extra innings. Thus, while replay can reduce the number of botched calls, this problem is not eliminated and leaves umpires with little to no excuse for mistakes.

HR?

While instant replay appears to solve some of the problems that are present in the game, baseball will never be able to entirely eliminate human error and discrepancies.

8365828

The Case for Expanded Replay

By: Matt

Nothing in sports is an exact science, but considering the amount of time, money, and effort that goes into playing a baseball game, the league should be doing everything in its power to get a call right.  Commissioner Selig has been wary of adding replay to the game for all the reasons that Ryan outlined above, and they are certainly valid, but we have come to a point with technology where no calls should be getting blown and no one should feel cheated or ripped off.

Below are some examples from this year showing that this is indeed a real problem in the game right now. Umpires miss calls. Like Ryan said: it happens, they are human.

Called safe. His foot looks on the bag to me.

Safe?

Missed the bag or didn’t have possession of the ball. Take your pick.

Nice sales job by Segura, but it would have been easily overturned on review.

And my personal favorite:

Ruled Out at Third, Safe at First. Two blown calls on the same play.

In the Adam Rosales home run case from Ryan’s article, the umpires got it wrong. MLB admitted that the call was blown and the A’s ended up losing that game. But can we really fault the umpires for blowing the call when, according to NBC Sports, they were watching the footage on this?

Replay booth or arcade game?

Replay booth or arcade game? Photo: NBC Sports

There are many other examples of blown calls so far this year even though we aren’t half way through the season yet. So, the problem exists, what should we do about it?

First off, MLB needs to upgrade the screens and televisions that umpires are using to review plays. It looks like the ones they currently use double as a way to check the weather during rain delays. There is no excuse for having umpires review on what looks to be a Pac-Man arcade game that has more pixels than the center field scoreboard.

Next, the MLB must expand their use of replay. The argument that review would slow down the game makes sense, but doesn’t the game already get slowed down when a player argues with the umpire? And then the manager argues with the umpire? And then the manager gets tossed? And then the manager keeps arguing since he’s already tossed and can say what he really feels now? And then the players bark at the umpire from the dugout and get tossed? I think you get my point, but think about all the extra time that bad calls currently soak up in a regular baseball game.

This could all be avoided with the introduction of a “challenge flag” system like the one practiced in the NFL. Certain plays would be deemed reviewable, and a manager could get 1-2 challenges per game. This of course would not work on balls and strikes. Since that is still sacred ground with umpires, and this Kickstarter failed. Umpires would be able to review a call and save face on a blown call by reviewing it and getting it right, and managers and players would be happy since they would no longer feel cheated out of an at bat, hit or run.

Now that wasn’t so hard.

Baseball will never be perfect, but considering the expectations that we place on baseball players and management to do everything right all the time, that same expectation must be placed on its umpires. An expanded replay system will not only make sure that the umpires have the materials they need to get the call right as often as possible, but it will eliminate grudges and animosity between players, managers, and umpires. This will lead to fewer ejections and hurt feelings, and most importantly a better ball game.

To our readers,

We wanted to start by apologizing on behalf of Fastball/Changeup for the lack of updates over the course of the last month or so. Ryan and Matt have both been going through changes in their lives including final exams, college graduation, the job hunt, and an increase in workload. That being said, the good news is that both of us have settled in and are getting a handle on our responsibilities and we plan on updating the site a lot more frequently in the near future.

Photo Credit: Slate

The Delay is over. Hope you’ve been keeping yourselves busy!

To come is a fb/cu on the umpire controversies and whether or not it is time for an expanded replay.

Also soon to come is a piece that Ryan has been working on about lineup order optimization and how stats and sabermetrics can contribute to overall runs scored.

If there are any other issues you are interested in us writing about, please leave them in the comments below!

Thank you for your patience and we look forward to posting a lot more frequently in the near future.

Sincerely,

Matt and Ryan