Comments on: Have A Hot Dog With Me, Don Wakamatsu http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/ Seattle Mariners blog and general baseball discussion Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:19:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: TranquilPsychosis http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355631 TranquilPsychosis Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:26:44 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355631 <blockquote>Sometimes being lucky is better than being good, but the offseason should be devoted to working on the “good.”</blockquote> And often times, being good can almost seem to create more luck. Just look at the '09 WS winners for example.

Sometimes being lucky is better than being good, but the offseason should be devoted to working on the “good.”

And often times, being good can almost seem to create more luck. Just look at the ’09 WS winners for example.

]]> By: joser http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355322 joser Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:46:15 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355322 I don't know about "late and close" but, by way of <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/play-index/inning_summary.cgi?year_game=2009&team_id=SEA" rel="nofollow">B-R</a>, here's the outcome (and winning %) per inning when the M's enter an inning with a tie score (which for the first inning is every game): <code> 1 85-77 0.525 2 44-39 0.530 3 27-22 0.551 4 20-18 0.526 5 18-16 0.529 6 15-12 0.556 7 19-10 0.655 8 13-7 0.650 9 12-9 0.571 10 9-7 0.562 11 6-2 0.750 </code> Actually there's data for innings after 11 (all the way out to inning 15) thanks to that ridiculous game with the A's but it's just one game. The M's look pretty strong in the 7th and 8th inning to me; the 9th looks weaker but only by comparison. Keep in mind there's some duplication -- an 0-0 game that is won with one run in the 9th gets a win credited to every inning here. There's more at that link, including leads gained and lost and runs scored / allowed per inning (which of course is vastly skewed by the lineup spots that come up in a given inning). <blockquote> The other thing that Wak didn’t mention is that the M’s led the league in save opportunities with 77, as well as blown saves at 28. The lesson we should take from that isn’t really that we blew too many saves, we should have scored more runs so we have a greater margin of error. League average BLSV% was 34%, M’s: 36%, so our bullpen cost us 1.54 wins. </blockquote> Yes, this is the best way to look at it I think. Every one-run game is is one more invitation for random disaster. That the M's did well in 1-run games in '09 shouldn't really be seen as an asset, since some of it was luck. Sometimes being lucky is better than being good, but the offseason should be devoted to working on the "good." I don’t know about “late and close” but, by way of B-R, here’s the outcome (and winning %) per inning when the M’s enter an inning with a tie score (which for the first inning is every game):

1 85-77 0.525
2 44-39 0.530
3 27-22 0.551
4 20-18 0.526
5 18-16 0.529
6 15-12 0.556
7 19-10 0.655
8 13-7 0.650
9 12-9 0.571
10 9-7 0.562
11 6-2 0.750

Actually there’s data for innings after 11 (all the way out to inning 15) thanks to that ridiculous game with the A’s but it’s just one game. The M’s look pretty strong in the 7th and 8th inning to me; the 9th looks weaker but only by comparison. Keep in mind there’s some duplication — an 0-0 game that is won with one run in the 9th gets a win credited to every inning here.

There’s more at that link, including leads gained and lost and runs scored / allowed per inning (which of course is vastly skewed by the lineup spots that come up in a given inning).

The other thing that Wak didn’t mention is that the M’s led the league in save opportunities with 77, as well as blown saves at 28. The lesson we should take from that isn’t really that we blew too many saves, we should have scored more runs so we have a greater margin of error. League average BLSV% was 34%, M’s: 36%, so our bullpen cost us 1.54 wins.

Yes, this is the best way to look at it I think. Every one-run game is is one more invitation for random disaster. That the M’s did well in 1-run games in ’09 shouldn’t really be seen as an asset, since some of it was luck. Sometimes being lucky is better than being good, but the offseason should be devoted to working on the “good.”

]]> By: Breadbaker http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355290 Breadbaker Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:20:27 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355290 <blockquote>Ichiro Wlad Kirby Puckett</blockquote>You obviously meant "Vlad", not "Wlad." It's hard to imagine two guys whose approach at the plate is as different as Ichiro's and Vlad's, though. Completely different swings, completely different approaches even if they both swing at a lot of balls and put them in play. Ichiro, I've always felt, if he had been born in a country that played it, would have been the greatest cricketer ever. Vlad perhaps the winner of the long-drive competition in golf.

Ichiro
Wlad
Kirby Puckett

You obviously meant “Vlad”, not “Wlad.” It’s hard to imagine two guys whose approach at the plate is as different as Ichiro’s and Vlad’s, though. Completely different swings, completely different approaches even if they both swing at a lot of balls and put them in play. Ichiro, I’ve always felt, if he had been born in a country that played it, would have been the greatest cricketer ever. Vlad perhaps the winner of the long-drive competition in golf.

]]> By: Kazinski http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355286 Kazinski Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:30:53 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355286 <blockquote>This statement “In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning” is accurate</blockquote> It maybe accurate but it doesn't mean anything. Even if their average win % in those 113 games was 65%, and in the other 49 games it was 25% they still would have won only 86 games. That doesn't make the playoffs usually.

This statement “In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning” is accurate

It maybe accurate but it doesn’t mean anything. Even if their average win % in those 113 games was 65%, and in the other 49 games it was 25% they still would have won only 86 games. That doesn’t make the playoffs usually.

]]> By: TranquilPsychosis http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355280 TranquilPsychosis Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:40:50 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355280 The save has been a media stat since it's inception. And the more recent "hold" is no different. They both give the heads and writers something to blather about. The save has been a media stat since it’s inception. And the more recent “hold” is no different. They both give the heads and writers something to blather about.

]]> By: Utis http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355271 Utis Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:31:52 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355271 Sorry "ninth inning" should have been "late inning". However, I stad corrected. If, as Adam shows, you can get a blown save in the sixth inning it is a meanigless stat. I still would like to know how any wins plus "close and late" games the Mariners had. Is the Win Expectancy data archived somewhere? Sorry “ninth inning” should have been “late inning”. However, I stad corrected. If, as Adam shows, you can get a blown save in the sixth inning it is a meanigless stat. I still would like to know how any wins plus “close and late” games the Mariners had. Is the Win Expectancy data archived somewhere?

]]> By: Graham http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355270 Graham Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:45:59 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355270 <em>This statement “In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning” is accurate</em> No it isn't, and there's no need to look it up - that's clearly untrue. This statement “In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning” is accurate

No it isn’t, and there’s no need to look it up – that’s clearly untrue.

]]> By: Adam S http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355268 Adam S Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:21:34 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355268 Actually most of the games are losses but indeed there's some double counting. But a lot of the 28 number is because you can get charged a blown save in a situation where you wouldn't actually be pitching for the save. Lowe, Batista, and Kelly combined for 18 of the blown saves. (I checked these because I assumed all were middle relief.) The Mariners were 4-14 in those games. Half of those were in the 6th or 7th inning and they had no practical chance at a save. Only 1 was in the 9th inning and was a game the "Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the 9th". Someone can add up Morrow, White, and Aardsma. I'd guess 2-8 with 6 in the 9th inning. That said, 28 BS led the league. But I think that's a result of lousy offense + pitchers park => low-scoring close game => lots of opportunities for middle relief to "blow a save". Actually most of the games are losses but indeed there’s some double counting. But a lot of the 28 number is because you can get charged a blown save in a situation where you wouldn’t actually be pitching for the save.

Lowe, Batista, and Kelly combined for 18 of the blown saves. (I checked these because I assumed all were middle relief.) The Mariners were 4-14 in those games. Half of those were in the 6th or 7th inning and they had no practical chance at a save. Only 1 was in the 9th inning and was a game the “Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the 9th”.

Someone can add up Morrow, White, and Aardsma. I’d guess 2-8 with 6 in the 9th inning.

That said, 28 BS led the league. But I think that’s a result of lousy offense + pitchers park => low-scoring close game => lots of opportunities for middle relief to “blow a save”.

]]> By: Mike Snow http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355266 Mike Snow Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:01:35 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355266 <em>This statement “In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning” is accurate</em> Have you checked? Because I doubt it is accurate, actually. This statement “In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning” is accurate

Have you checked? Because I doubt it is accurate, actually.

]]> By: Utis http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/11/18/have-a-hot-dog-with-me-don-wakamatsu/comment-page-1/#comment-355265 Utis Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:54:19 +0000 http://ussmariner.com/?p=9683#comment-355265 I got Steve's point. You are missing my point. This statement "In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning" is accurate though perhaps meaningless. The numbers 86 or 106 would be a less accurate number to use in that statement. I got Steve’s point. You are missing my point. This statement “In at least 113 games the Mariners had a greater than 50% win expectancy in the ninth inning” is accurate though perhaps meaningless. The numbers 86 or 106 would be a less accurate number to use in that statement.

]]>