Gustavo Chacin was uncharacteristically wild, walking a career high six batters in just five innings of work, and the bats couldn't get anything going against the immortal Aaron "Biggie" Small.
The Instant Replay has been transformed! It has undergone a metamorphosis!
Updated at 3:30 AM!
The Jays had two glittering opportunities to get back into this game, and each ended the same way. With one out and the bases loaded in the fifth, Frank Catalanotto grounded into a 6-4-3 double play. In the next inning, with one out and runners on the corners, Gregg Zaun hit into a 4-6-3 double play. The Jays stranded 9 baserunners. Was that the story of the game?
Well, the Yankees stranded 11 baserunners, and blew a couple of good opportunities the same way. In the very first inning, with two runs in and the bases loaded, Jorge Posada, with a chance to put the game out of reach, hit into an inning-ending double play. In the third inning, after the first two batters had reached, Hideki Matsui grounded into a double play, and the inning ended when Giambi flied out. The Jays only had their opportunities to get back into the game because the Yankees had missed their opportunities to put the game out of reach.
The Yankees got 19 men on base, the Blue Jays just 13. I think that was ultimately more significant than the double plays and missed opportunities, which were even on both sides.
And so, once more, the Jays were unable to salvage a victory after falling behind. Which brings us tonight's truckload of numbers, which of course inflates the Word Count, and makes me look so Very Industrious.
As promised, I was going to prepare a whole lot of data for you all. Because this is so much work, and I'm so tired when I've finished formatting the numbers, I hereby predict that I will provide a very quick and sketchy analysis of it all when I'm done.
I'm leaving that up to you guys!
First, let's look at how AL teams have done in coming from behind in the late innings, and, while we're at it, how they are holding on to a lead in the late innings. As some of you may know, the Toronto Blue Jays, after last night, are now 0-44 when they trail after six innings.
I assembled the data from the pre-game notes each team prepares, which are all posted at mlb.com - their handy-dandy press pass feature - however, some teams only provide this information for after the 7th and 8th innings. So that's what I'm going to use.
I honestly don't think this is the most significant information in the world, so I'm just going to present it with a minimum of comment. See what you think...
Coming From Behind Trailling After 7 - After 8 CWS: 10-31 3-29 NYY: 10-44 3-46 LAA: 7-34 5-37 MIN: 5-40 1-47 OAK: 4-43 4-43 TEX: 4-41 3-47 BOS: 4-36 3-38 DET: 4-44 2-51 SEA: 4-52 1-58 BLT: 4-41 0,48 CLE: 3-39 3-40 TAM: 3-50 1-60 KAN: 3-61 0-64 TOR: 2-44 0-49Indeed, the Blue Jays rank dead last in coming from behind after 7, and are one of three teams who have yet to win when losing after 8. Still, most of the teams in the league do not pull off this type of victory very often - except for the Yankees and the White Sox. The Yankees are the third highest scoring team in the majors, and have some great veteran hitters. They have the weapons you think would be required. But Chicago's late inning performance is remarkable.
Everybody frets about the bullpen, and carries enough relief pitchers to make building a bench impossible. What has it accomplished?
Holding a Lead Winning After 7 - After 8 NYY: 43-1 48-1 SEA: 36-1 42-1 CWS: 55-3 61-2 OAK: 45-3 52-2 MIN: 42-3 41-0 DET: 42-3 47-1 BOS: 49-4 54-2 TEX: 47-4 46-3 TOR: 46-4 49-1 BLT: 42-4 50-0 KAN: 31-5 34-1 LAA: 50-7 53-3 CLE: 46-8 50-5 TAM: 35-11 36-4There is very, very little to choose from here. One wonders just how significant this information is. The Seattle Mariners are one of the best teams in the league at holding a lead, and the first place Angels are one of the worst. The Angels, however, are much, much better at getting a lead in the first place. Which is what it's all about. Pretty well everyone can hang on, once you're in front, except Tampa Bay, and suddenly we see documentation of exactly what Lou Piniella was talking about - the Devil Rays strange case of the Eighth Inning Blues.
The other thing I promised to examine this week was team hitting with runners in scoring position, and in scoring position with two outs. So, first, here are the basic team hitting numbers. decided to rank them by Runs Created rather than actual runs scored. The main reason is because I want to get a measure of how well teams have performed in these situations, rather than how many opportunities they have had. Boston's hitters have had roughly 150 more at bats with runners in scoring position than Washington's batters. Of course the Red Sox have plated more runners in those situations. But have they actually hit better in those situations? (Well, yeah. They have.) Having used Runs Created (the basic version, by the way) for the situational numbers, I used it to rank the overall numbers as well - mainly in the interests of consistency, but it's always interesting to see where the formula varies with the actual offensive production. Hello, Baltimore.
So, first overall offensive numbers:
TEAM G AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB BAV OBP SLG OPS RC
1 Boston 107 3718 595 1046 229 15 128 1689 566 442 .281 .360 .454 .814 604
2 Texas 107 3766 571 1012 199 18 176 1775 548 389 .269 .331 .471 .802 599
3 NY Yankees 106 3651 576 1003 180 9 148 1645 552 415 .275 .354 .451 .804 574
4 Cincinnati 109 3682 551 978 232 12 149 1681 526 389 .266 .339 .457 .795 564
5 Baltimore 108 3720 503 1019 205 22 144 1700 488 300 .274 .331 .457 .788 558
6 Chi Cubs 108 3744 488 1021 224 17 135 1684 468 288 .273 .328 .450 .778 547
7 St. Louis 108 3665 549 991 194 20 121 1588 514 363 .270 .341 .433 .774 534
8 Milwaukee 109 3689 505 971 230 7 125 1590 481 367 .263 .337 .431 .768 525
9 Arizona 109 3750 471 969 206 19 120 1573 454 413 .258 .334 .419 .753 522
10 Cleveland 109 3728 494 986 211 21 122 1605 476 334 .264 .328 .431 .758 522
11 Phil. 109 3690 508 988 173 21 106 1521 477 420 .268 .346 .412 .758 521
12 Tampa Bay 109 3723 505 1031 192 29 100 1581 484 287 .277 .332 .425 .757 520
13 Atlanta 109 3646 507 963 206 27 120 1583 480 347 .264 .330 .434 .764 519
14 Florida 106 3589 486 999 204 21 91 1518 460 327 .278 .343 .423 .766 514
15 Detroit 107 3703 490 1020 195 35 96 1573 457 272 .275 .328 .425 .753 511
16 Toronto 107 3693 528 998 200 33 96 1552 503 323 .270 .336 .420 .756 511
17 Oakland 108 3741 519 992 211 15 93 1512 495 370 .265 .334 .404 .738 501
18 NY Mets 108 3672 492 961 199 20 115 1545 466 327 .262 .325 .421 .745 498
19 Chicago Sox 107 3618 527 958 166 8 136 1548 505 299 .265 .326 .428 .754 497
20 San Diego 108 3694 475 957 178 27 94 1471 456 407 .259 .335 .398 .733 489
21 Colorado 107 3641 466 968 191 23 98 1499 441 319 .266 .330 .412 .742 487
22 LA Angels 108 3741 499 999 188 25 91 1510 475 289 .267 .321 .404 .725 483
23 Minnesota 108 3699 468 962 184 21 98 1482 441 338 .260 .327 .401 .727 477
24 LA Dodgers 108 3615 459 935 187 12 107 1467 439 336 .259 .328 .406 .734 472
25 Houston 108 3617 463 933 198 22 105 1490 439 305 .258 .322 .412 .734 470
26 San Fran. 107 3642 462 972 210 14 82 1456 442 302 .267 .326 .400 .726 470
27 Kansas City 108 3662 473 958 199 25 88 1471 437 282 .262 .319 .402 .721 462
28 Pittsburgh 109 3690 440 935 198 25 89 1450 421 332 .253 .320 .393 .713 457
29 Seattle 107 3643 472 942 189 21 90 1443 447 294 .259 .317 .396 .713 453
30 Washington 108 3571 411 908 198 24 75 1379 396 328 .254 .324 .386 .710 437
AVERAGE 108 3680 498 979 199 20 111 1553 474 340 .266 .328 .422 .750 510
As mentioned, the teams are actually ranked by Runs Created - which is the number of runs we could reasonably expect a team to score with these offensive components. What this suggests is that the Blue Jays have had an efficient offense, at least in terms of getting a maximum number of actual runs on the scoreboard given what their hitters have actually done. (Sometime down the road, I hope to look at another efficiency issue - have they distributed these runs most usefully so as to get the maximum number of actual wins out of this production.) Other offenses that have scored significantly more runs given their offensive output: the White Sox, Oakland, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh. With the exception of the White Sox, these variations are generally within the normal 5% margin of error that Bill James always liked to use with respect to his Runs Created formula. Notable underachievers: Baltimore, the Cubs, and the Diamondbacks. The Cubs and Orioles are underachieving by signifcantly more than 5%. There seems to be something seriously disfunctional about those two offenses.Here is how teams have performed with Runners In Scoring Position. You will notice that the general hitting performance changes very slightly; however, the OBP increases significantly, as pitchers presumably tend to nibble a bit more and work around certain hitters:
TEAM G AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB BAV OBP SLG OPS RC
1 Boston 106 1028 452 300 61 5 39 488 424 155 .292 .378 .475 .852 188
2 St. Louis 107 942 405 269 53 4 30 420 371 142 .286 .377 .446 .823 159
3 Phil. 107 965 401 266 42 6 31 413 370 158 .276 .373 .428 .801 156
4 Florida 104 954 393 272 64 6 25 423 367 117 .285 .359 .443 .803 154
5 Tampa Bay 108 935 395 269 47 5 33 425 374 107 .288 .357 .455 .812 153
6 NY Yankees 105 956 427 251 46 3 43 432 403 137 .263 .354 .452 .806 153
7 Toronto 106 950 428 260 53 11 32 431 404 103 .274 .342 .454 .795 149
8 Cincinnati 106 918 388 238 60 1 37 411 363 146 .259 .358 .448 .806 148
9 LA Angels 104 901 391 266 49 7 24 401 367 103 .295 .360 .445 .805 147
10 San Fran. 105 901 371 258 60 4 27 407 351 103 .286 .357 .452 .809 146
11 Chi. Cubs 107 920 348 246 52 0 37 409 328 116 .267 .344 .445 .789 143
12 Texas 105 880 364 240 49 5 37 410 344 100 .273 .345 .466 .811 142
13 Detroit 106 933 377 258 52 8 23 395 345 108 .277 .344 .423 .767 139
14 Atlanta 108 925 372 232 50 9 32 396 345 140 .251 .345 .428 .773 138
15 Minnesota 106 909 369 248 42 3 27 377 342 128 .273 .361 .415 .775 137
16 Oakland 107 985 394 268 56 3 19 387 371 120 .272 .346 .393 .739 136
17 Pittsburgh 107 854 352 236 47 7 25 372 334 119 .276 .360 .436 .795 136
18 Houston 105 900 342 244 46 7 26 382 319 108 .271 .348 .424 .772 133
19 NY Mets 107 930 359 239 53 7 24 378 333 131 .257 .342 .406 .748 132
20 LA Dodgers 107 895 351 233 53 5 27 377 331 122 .260 .347 .421 .769 132
21 Baltimore 106 878 355 226 48 4 33 381 340 115 .257 .338 .434 .772 131
22 Milwaukee 106 901 365 219 59 1 29 367 342 143 .243 .347 .407 .755 127
23 San Diego 106 920 357 238 44 6 20 354 339 138 .259 .348 .385 .732 126
24 Seattle 105 890 372 237 57 4 21 365 347 103 .266 .339 .410 .749 125
25 Chicago Sox 105 817 374 220 40 1 30 352 353 95 .269 .339 .431 .770 122
26 Kansas City 106 880 358 237 45 9 19 357 322 95 .269 .335 .406 .740 122
27 Arizona 109 954 345 225 44 4 27 358 328 145 .236 .332 .375 .707 121
28 Cleveland 107 902 353 232 47 7 19 350 335 111 .257 .334 .388 .722 119
29 Colorado 106 925 326 234 42 5 15 331 301 114 .253 .339 .358 .697 111
30 Washington 107 865 319 212 58 8 11 319 305 133 .245 .350 .369 .719 110
AVERAGE 106 917 373 246 51 5 27 389 350 122 .268 .354 .424 .778 138
The Blue Jays have hit quite well with runners in scoring position - in particular, their power production increases. It's good to know, but I don't know that it explains why they've scored a little more than the Runs Created formula suggests. The Blue Jays variation is not really statistically signifcant. And I certainly don't think performance with runners in scoring position accounts for the under-achievement of the Cubs and Orioles.Finally, Runners In Scoring Position with 2 outs. Here we find a significant drop in batting average, and an even larger drop in slugging percentage. The On-Base remains relatively high - presumably the result of more nibbling:
TEAM G AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB BAV OBP SLG OPS RC
1 Boston 104 478 182 124 25 4 15 202 169 85 .259 .373 .423 .796 75
2 Cincinnati 106 440 179 116 36 0 14 194 166 81 .264 .380 .441 .821 73
3 Houston 104 442 169 121 27 2 16 200 159 57 .274 .368 .452 .821 71
4 Phil. 106 467 182 118 20 3 16 192 168 84 .253 .372 .411 .783 70
5 St. Louis 105 445 162 109 21 3 15 181 144 74 .245 .359 .407 .766 64
6 LA Angels 104 415 156 113 24 3 11 176 146 54 .272 .355 .424 .779 63
7 Texas 105 428 155 110 19 3 19 192 145 44 .257 .333 .449 .782 63
8 San Fran. 105 425 146 106 29 1 13 176 140 66 .249 .359 .414 .774 62
9 Detroit 105 425 145 111 23 4 13 181 131 49 .261 .347 .426 .773 61
10 Colorado 106 458 155 121 23 2 10 178 142 54 .264 .353 .389 .742 61
11 Minnesota 105 418 152 107 21 1 14 172 138 63 .256 .363 .411 .774 61
12 Florida 103 451 145 112 30 3 10 178 136 62 .248 .349 .395 .744 60
13 Oakland 106 458 167 120 28 0 9 175 158 58 .262 .350 .382 .732 60
14 Milwaukee 106 431 155 101 32 1 13 174 148 72 .234 .352 .404 .755 60
15 Atlanta 107 432 152 98 25 6 14 177 142 70 .227 .343 .410 .752 59
16 Chicago Sox 104 405 155 107 25 1 11 167 145 55 .264 .359 .412 .771 59
17 Tampa Bay 108 433 157 109 19 1 14 172 148 58 .252 .349 .397 .747 59
18 San Diego 105 447 149 107 24 3 9 164 140 72 .239 .347 .367 .714 57
19 Pittsburgh 107 415 139 108 19 4 8 159 131 61 .260 .358 .383 .741 56
20 Arizona 109 473 149 104 24 3 11 167 140 84 .220 .341 .353 .694 56
21 LA Dodgers 107 434 135 104 20 3 14 172 130 56 .240 .332 .396 .728 56
22 Baltimore 103 411 142 96 26 0 14 164 133 60 .234 .333 .399 .732 54
23 NY Yankees 104 439 145 99 17 1 14 160 135 75 .226 .345 .364 .709 54
24 Seattle 103 420 150 101 31 2 9 163 141 54 .240 .328 .388 .717 53
25 Cleveland 106 455 154 110 23 4 10 171 146 45 .242 .318 .376 .694 53
26 Chi. Cubs 106 433 130 97 21 0 14 160 120 69 .224 .332 .370 .702 53
27 Toronto 106 415 151 98 17 3 13 160 141 53 .236 .331 .386 .717 52
28 Washington 105 426 137 95 29 4 4 144 130 82 .223 .359 .338 .697 50
29 NY Mets 105 416 120 94 20 3 9 147 109 67 .226 .335 .353 .688 49
30 Kansas City 106 408 136 100 16 7 6 148 114 43 .245 .320 .363 .683 47
AVERAGE 105 435 152 107 24 3 12 172 141 64 .247 .343 .396 .739 59
The Blue Jays have not hit well in this particular situation, but I really don't think it means a hill of beans. Well, maybe more than that, but not a whole lot. Mostly, though, I think it's just One of Those Things. Houston hits very very well with runners in scoring position and two outs. Unfortunately for them, the Astros haven't hit particularly well with runners in scoring position and zero or no outs. Toronto's case is the reverse - they appear to have hit very very well indeed with none out or one, and not so well with two outs.
https://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20050805184404107