2017-11

Hugh Mason

            I was watching a movie the other night, and I realized that Hugh Grant has become the new James Mason.   I used to love James Mason; he was one of my favorite actors ever, from 5 Fingers through A Star is Born, Lolita, Salem’s Lot and The Verdict.    No matter what happened to his character, he reacted to it with poise and balance, which makes it all the more powerful when, as in A Star is Born and Lolita, his front degenerates and the angry, frustrated human being inside comes to the surface—or even when, playing a lawyer in The Verdict, he is momentarily flummoxed by unexpected testimony and asks a question which he should have known better than to ask.            

            Hugh Grant, I never much cared for, when he was a young actor, and I supposed him to be a younger, new-generation Cary Grant, supposed to be funny and charming and veddy Englischa.  But I was watching Florence with my wife—pretty decent movie—and realized that Hugh Grant was playing the role that James Mason would quite certainly have played 50 years ago.   And he played it very well. 

            I am always fascinated by that. . . .by who gets the roles now that Jimmie Stewart would have gotten in his time (Tom Hanks) or who gets the roles that Paul Newman would have gotten (Brad Pitt) or who gets the roles that Burt Lancaster would have played (Tim Robbins), or who gets the roles that Sidney Poitier would have played (Denzel).  After John Wayne was gone in the 1970s there were 15 people picking up John Wayne-type roles, but I was shocked to realize that now there are none; has that hit you?   There is nobody left in Hollywood who plays John Wayne-type roles, and who has had a high-impact career.  That must be what Willie Nelson meant by the song.   Come on back, Jesus, and pick up John Wayne on the way. 

Red Arms

            Did the 2016 Cincinnati Reds have the worst pitching staff of all time?    Of course, the quality of play improves over time, so no doubt the Reds’ pitching in 2016 was better in purely objective terms than the Reds pitching of 1916.    We can’t measure things in purely objective terms; we can only measure them relative to the other teams in the league.  

            I have been working with John Dewan on Win Shares and Loss Shares, and as a step in that process I was measuring the quality of the "pure pitching" numbers of every team, every team since 1900.    If a team had more strikeouts (as a percentage of batters faced). . .if they had more strikeouts than the league average, I credited them with .30 runs per strikeout.   If they walked LESS than the league average, I credited them one run for each three walks (above or below the league average.)   Hit batsmen, the same as walks.   If they had a Wild Pitch or a Balk, that was a charge of 0.25 runs; fewer wild pitches and balks than the league average (based on batters faced), that would be a positive.   If they gave up a home run above the league norm, that’s 1.40 runs per home run.   Six categories—strikeouts, walks, hit batsmen, wild pitches, balks and home runs allowed.  

            I didn’t do this to pick on the 2016 Cincinnati Reds; I was just doing the Reds as I was doing every team.    Also, it should be noted that in a hitter’s year, in a hitter’s era, the numbers go up.   If you’re 10% worse than league in 1930, that’s more runs than if you’re 10% worse than league in 1968.  But the study concluded that the worst pure-pitching stats of all time by far belonged to the 2016 Cincinnati Reds. 

            33.5 runs for below-average strikeouts,

            33.6 runs for above-average walks,

            5.9 runs for above-average hit batsmen,

            1.7 runs for balks,

            Saved half a run (0.5) on wild pitches, but

            104 runs for giving an all-time record number of home runs. 

            Taken together, it’s 179 runs, the worst ever.   Second-worst ever is the 2002 Rockies, and they at least could blame some of it on the park.     The 2002 Rockies are at negative 145 runs, the 1996 Tigers at negative 140 and the 1955 Kansas City A’s at 140.  

            The Reds didn’t have the worst ERA in the National League, but they didn’t miss by much, either, with a 4.91 ERA.   The Diamondbacks were also at 4.91, the Rockies were at 5.09.     But the Rockies and Snakes play in the two best hitter’s parks in baseball, with Park Run Indexes (based on 2016 data only) of 137 and 122.    The Reds Park Run Index was 99.    Park Adjusted, the Reds’ ERA was far worse than Colorado’s or Arizona’s. 

My Research Stinks

           ​ Also related to that research, I figured the "Expected Double Plays" turned by each major league team in 2016.    Expected Double Plays are figured as:

            Estimated Opposition Runners on First Base, divided by the League Average of the same,

            Times the number of double plays turned in the league,

            Times the relative assists rate of the team. 

            If the team has a lot of ground balls, hence a lot of assists, they are expected to turn more double plays.     Anyway, when I did this a couple of things hit me between the eyes. 

            1)  The Texas Rangers, who led the major leagues in Double Plays (190), also led in Double Plays over expected (28.1).   Their expectation is high (161.9—about 11 above average), but their performance easily exceeded their expectations.

            When I rated the second basemen for MLB TV a month ago, I didn’t focus on that, and wasn’t aware of it.    I didn’t list Rougned Odor among the top ten second basemen in baseball.   But that was a mistake.   If I had been aware of the Ranger’s high Double Play number—which I should have been—then Odor would certainly have made my top 10 at second base.  

          &nbs​p; 2)  Both of the 2016 World Series teams, the Cubs and the Indians, were very poor at turning the double play.    In fact, they ranked 27^th and 30^th in the majors in double plays compared to expected double plays.   The Cubs turned only 116 double play against an expectation of 138 (-22), and the Indians turned only 126 against an expectation of 151 (-25).

           ​ This was the second straight season when the World Series combatants were relatively weak at turning the double play.   In 2015 the Mets ranked 20^th, the Royals 25^th.  

            At this point I launch into my endless war to prevent people from misinterpreting the data in a thousand different ways, although trying to prevent people from offering wild speculative misinterpretations of the data is like trying to prevent a one-year-old from getting applesauce on his chin.     But

         &nb​sp;  a)  It is NOT generally true that successful teams do poorly in this area.   A + total in double plays correlates with winning at about the level you would expect it to.   Successful teams are better than unsuccessful teams at everything; most World Series teams over time do well in this area.   In 2010 the two World Series teams (the Rangers and the Giants) were #s one and three in the majors in double plays vs. expectation.  The 2011 Rangers, back in the series in 2011, were first again, and the 2013 Cardinals and 2014 Giants were both second.

            b)  This is NOT because the Cubs and Indians have high fastball pitchers who get strikeouts instead of ground balls; we adjust for that.   High strikeout teams not only don’t get LESS double plays than expected, they actually get MORE than expected, on average.  

            It was just a fluke of the 2015-2016 seasons.    But I wasn’t aware of it before, so I thought I would share that with you.