Saturday, October 10, 2015

Passing the Baton: Making Sense of the 2015 Toronto Blue Jays

This is a difficult weekend to process for Blue Jays fans, die-hards and newcomers alike.  Everybody is frustrated by the performances that led to trailing the Texas Rangers 2-0 in the AL Division Series, and being faced with three straight must-win games.  Fans are looking for someone or something to blame; a reason, a scapegoat, or at least a focus for our emotions.  Let’s look at some options and see if we can find a useful target for our feelings, and maybe learn something about a Jays team that defies simple explanation.


One Season, Two Teams

The baseball season is frequently split into three parts: pre-All-Star break, post-break, and the playoffs.  We have seen three wildly different Jays teams in these periods.

Pre-break, the Jays were struggling to play .500 ball, despite playing in an AL East that no team seemed willing to lead and a run differential that led the league by such a large margin, it was irrelevant to discuss second place.  Blame for the team’s underachievement was thrown everywhere, including Alex Anthopoulos’ failure to address the team’s pitching staff, John Gibbons’ managing and Jose Reyes’ defense; fans were calling for all three to be relieved of their duties.

Post-break, the Jays were hotter than any team in baseball.  A series of trades at and after the deadline strengthened the team considerably, and Anthopoulos received well-deserved accolades for addressing all of the team’s issues.  Fans and media alike attributed the turnaround to these deadline trades:  upgraded defence up the middle, the addition of Tulo’s bat, the presence of an actual left fielder in left field and, of course, the acquisition of rental ace, David Price.  The Jays were 53-51 at the trade deadline; they clinched the AL East on the back of a 39-14 run.


The Effect of the Trades

If we compare statistics for the period after the trade deadline, can we account for the Jays’ transition from two games above .500, to twenty-seven?

Price won nine games for Toronto, which nine wins more than they would have had with Hutchison starting down the stretch.  Tulowitski hit .239 with 5 HR and 17 RBI for Toronto, while missing twenty games following an impact with Kevin Pillar’s adamantium chin.  Without Tulo, Toronto’s improved defence up the middle included Munenori Kawasaki and Cliff Pennington; those three players combined for 0 errors for Toronto, compared to the three errors Jose Reyes made in 47 games with Colorado.  Tulo, Muni and Pennington combined to go 57-for-266 for the Jays (.214) while Reyes hit .259 with the Rockies.  Ben Revere, meanwhile, hit .274 while taking his at-bats from Chris Colabello (.321 on the season) and Ezequiel Carrera (.237).  Rivera also stole 7 bases, compared to Reyes’ 8 SB with Colorado.

Statistically, it is hard to find where all the Jays’ post-deadline wins came from.  Tulo out-homered Reyes by 2 down the stretch while Reyes drive in 2 more runs.  He will undoubtedly be a major asset for the Jays for years to come, but he certainly didn’t account for the Jays’ improved win-loss record.  Ben Revere met or exceeded all expectations, but was only an upgrade based on his defence relative to the bats he replaced in the lineup.  From a purely statistical perspective, the Jays got 9 wins from price, improved fielding in left from Revere, and a wash at best in all other areas.  

Perhaps this is evidence of the critical importance of the “intangibles” that proponents of advanced statistics don’t want to acknowledge.  Anthopoulos’ trades energized the team, and each of the new players seems to all outward appearance to be a perfect fit for their new clubhouse.  Does that account for the difference, or is there something more at play?

There may be an additional “intangible” factor at work here.  More than any other team, the Blue Jays have an ability to absolutely take control of their at-bats.  To a man, this is a group of incredible baseball minds.  They show a laser-like focus on the field, watching and learning and most of all communicating with one another.  This is a whole that is greater than the sum of its already-impressive parts, and the result is the ability to surgically dismantle opposing pitching staffs.  This led to, paraphrasing Sportsnet’s Gregg Zaun, ‘a Yankees bullpen that was so afraid, that they would rather walk in runs than pitch to the Jays’.  This approach requires complete buy-in from everybody, with each batter doing their part to learn, teach and most of all, literally wear out opposing pitchers.  


Explaining the Enigma

The team refers to “passing the baton” which is commonly interpreted as willingness to take walks and to find ways to get on base to keep the lineup moving, like a relay baton.  A better interpretation may be that the Jays are able to turn their lineup into one extended at-bat; they pummel their opponents into submission with a police baton.  With almost a hive-mind powering them, the Jays appear to opposing hitters as a single entity that you have to get out 27 times.  The collective sees all of your weaknesses and, feeling naked and afraid, you have nowhere to hide, no easy outs, and no relief from the pressure.  Even if you get one guy out, the next guy is going to pick up the baton and just keep hitting you.  Opposing pitchers don’t bend or crack; they crumble.  The Jays hit their opponents until candy comes out, and then they keep hitting.  This is why the Jays scored in the double digits 26 times this season; this is why their run differential shamed the rest of the league, even when they weren’t winning.  

This is also the effect that Gregg Zaun referred to as (again, paraphrasing) ‘scoring unnecessary runs’ and ‘smelling blood in the water’ leading to an inflated run differential.   There is more to the Jays’ approach, however, than simply piling on a wounded opponent.  The unrelenting assault works when everyone is on board:  putting pressure on the pitcher, sharing knowledge, causing havoc on the basepaths and above all seeing a ton of pitches are all critical components of The Baton.  When it works, the pitcher is beaten physically as well as emotionally, and explodes in a shower of crooked numbers.  When it fails, and a pitcher is able to stand up to the assault, the Jays lose one-run games.

The baton strategy will fail if anybody on the team doesn’t buy in.  That player becomes the AL equivalent of the pitcher in the batting order; a spot for the opposing pitcher to collect his thoughts and record a (relatively) easy out.  Picture the Jays pre-trade deadline as the Oakland A’s in the first half of Moneyball:  the team keeps getting cold feet and backing out of the strategy, and the inability to commit costs them games.

Therefore, it is critical that every player buys into the strategy and is prepared to give maximum intensity with every at-bat.  Can you see Ben Revere buying into this approach?  Can you picture Tulo finding ways to contribute even when his bat has gone cold?  Would this approach work even when Kawasaki starts?  Does this sound like a team that Jose Bautista and Josh Donaldson were born to lead?  Perhaps most importantly, can’t you kind of picture Jose Reyes taking a nap, complaining that Moneyball was SOOOOOO BORING and then just doing whatever he felt like?


The 2015 Post-Season

As mentioned, Toronto’s fans are looking for something to focus their frustrations on.  After 22 years, with a maddening first half of the season, we suddenly had a team that could do no wrong.  With more eyes on them than ever before, the Jays’ failed to pass the baton in two games against the visiting Rangers.  What went wrong, and where can our anger do the most good?


The Pressure

David Price was not sharp in Game 1.  After the game, he addressed the monkey on his back, of not having won a postseason start.  In Game 2, Stroman had a shaky first inning that was made worse by bad luck and worse defence.  In both games, the team looked like they were pushing to do too much, which works against The Baton.  By the end of Game 2, the Jays may have replaced nerves with anger, and they play better when they’re angry.


The Rest

The decision to skip Price’s last start of the regular season was a controversial one, both because of the potential value of winning the best record in the AL, and because of the effects of too much rest on a starter.  The added rest is also antithetical to The Baton, where the Jays may have benefited from the belief that they couldn’t afford to take their foot off the gas (or off their opponent’s neck, if that fits the metaphor better).  John Gibbons made the call he thought was best for his players, and for a lot of arms that had thrown a lot of pitches.  In retrospect, it may have been the wrong move, and it would be interesting to see how Gibby would handle that call in the future.  Even if you’re not a Gibby fan, this isn’t a decision he deserves any grief over.


The Replay

Maybe Odor’s foot came off the bag in the 14th.  If it did, it sure wasn’t by much.  Is that really what instant replay should be used for?  Replay is perfect to make sure the obvious calls are made right.  Fair or foul can be hard to pick up by eye.  Sometimes the umps miss their rotation and have a bad angle on a tag, or blink at the wrong time.  When everybody in the stadium can see a blown call, replay lets the officials fix it right away.  When a player is skidding to a stop and bounces imperceptibly off the base for a fraction of a second that no human eye could ever see, replay becomes an act of desperation.  Replay should be for fixing the calls that should have been made, not for catching the ones nobody could ever see. 


The Officials

Both the Jays and the Rangers had issues with the strike zone all night.  There was no team bias; the strike zone was consistently inconsistent.  Both teams saw batters lashing out over called third strikes.  However, the officiating affected the Jays disproportionately.  

Gregg Zaun has described difficulty some umpires have in reading a knuckleball, and the value of Russell Martin helping the umpire to make the right calls by properly framing the pitch.  In Game 2, I recall him making a similar argument with respect to home plate umpire Vic Carapazza and the amount of movement on Stroman’s pitches.  Stroman was punished because the nature of his pitches made them too difficult for Carapazza to call properly.

This effect is magnified when it comes to The Baton.  The Jays’ higher-level strategy relies on being able to control their at-bats, which they can’t do when they can’t predict how balls and strikes are going to be called.  When hitter and pitcher alike are guessing at the strike zone, the effects of The Baton are normalized and the Jays become “just” a lineup of talented hitters.  Since the Rangers lineup is also full of talented hitters, the Jays lose a major differentiator.  Put another way, lousy officiating can make all teams equally bad, and not just in baseball.  You see this in hockey, where a team that relies on enforcers to keep the opposition’s scorers in check might be disproportionately affected by a referee that is more strict about fighting, or in basketball, where a more physical team is punished by a ref that is more strict on incidental contact.

As with the knuckleball, you run the risk of hitting some bad officiating during a 162-game season that disrupts The Baton.  During the playoffs, however, there is no excuse for using anything but your very best officials.  Consistency of the strike zone is the one thing all players would ask for in an umpire, and there was no consistency to be found.  The look of bewilderment on Vic Caparazza’s face, coupled with all the players he didn’t eject for arguing balls and strikes, tells me he knew he was having a bad night behind the plate.  The Jays and Rangers were equally frustrated by inconsistent balls and strikes, but the Jays have chosen a strategy that relies on consistency, and they were punished for Caparazza not showing any.


Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Servers

The UW servers have been down for several hours, which means no posting of lecture slides. I'll upload them as soon as I see the servers go back up.

Friday, January 4, 2008

BIOL432

This entry is for students in Biology 432, Molecular Biotechnology 2, to leave feedback on the course; this feedback can be anonymous if desired and will allow me to tailor my teaching style in both the long-term and the short-term, including any adjustments or clarifications that become appropriate through the course of this semester.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Unboxing

We bought a new TV this week, a 42" Sharp Aquos 1080p LCD. It was delivered today! It had been suggested that at least I wasn't a big enough dork to do an officially documented Unboxing. I am so that big a dork! Here we go!



Unboxing: Before




The empty spot where a TV will be!




First look in the box




The goodies




The stand




The TV itself, hermetically sealed for your protection!




Unboxing: After




It works!



Input from my Mac Mini. So happy!

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Assignment

I've been giving writing assignments in my class (4th-year Environmental Microbiology at the University of Waterloo) to help the students with their written communication, leading up to a group term project. Last week, I asked students to choose and summarize a scientific journal article; this week, I asked the class to critique another student's summary. I solicited feedback on the assignment, partly out of fear that the students might see it as being "too high school". I got a great comment on the section of my blog that I provided for this purpose, and I tried to clarify what it is I am trying to accomplish with these assignments. I'm going to provide them here on the front page, to try to get them a little more exposure and maybe solicit further feedback as to whether my experiment in writing skills is a worthwhile one.

Hey Dr. Scott, today's tutorial task was a little annoying. It's not difficult to summarize a summary (though it seems pointless to summarize a summary, but I understand there's a reason why we did that), but to do so in about 30 minutes while you're calling out people's names, people are shuffling around and leaving, and I am trying to understand what somebody else thinks they understand from a primary research article....summarizing a summary becomes quite difficult. Sure it's worth 1% but that makes it even more frustrating because you would think it would take a little less effort to gain the percent. That takes me to my next grievance...

The tasks, as simple as they are and meant to help us, should be worth more than a % each, perhaps 2%. They are easy but time consuming. And though one could argue that they are helping us towards the project which is a big chunk of our final mark, you won't be looking at the 'little' things for the big presentation as closely as you are looking at them now...and that makes me believe that the tasks should be worth more.

Please don't make us do another impromptu task unless everybody in the room is going to be quiet and not start leaving 10 mins into the task. Thank you.

My response:

Thanks, I really appreciate that depth of feedback. I don't have a good solution for handing back assignments - for privacy reasons, I can't put them in the middle of the room and ask people to grab their own, and if you just tell the class to come and pick them up, many people don't bother. Since the most important part of the assignment is the feedback, I want to make sure people get them. I hoped that calling names would be unobtrusive, but I'll try to find a better compromise in the future. There were several logistical issues that I didn't consider ahead of time (what if someone comes in late? what if someone doesn't hand in assignment 2?) that I will need to work out before I try an experiment like this again.

Regarding the effort and the marks, my feeling is that I'm not asking students to do anything they shouldn't be doing already for their group projects. In a perfect world, I wouldn't bother assigning grades for the assignments at all, as I feel the exercise and the feedback from it is the important thing. Besides, if the point of the exercise is to help you improve at something you're not already good at, how can you be expected to get a good mark?

Here's an open secret about teaching: if you want students to take something seriously, you have to assign a grade to it, no matter how small. I want you to do it regardless of how much or how little of your grade it is worth, and you (as a class) won't do it or take it seriously if I don't grade it. Studies have shown that attaching a grade to a task is the (only!) way to assign importance to it, and that's why some classes will assign a trivial grade to things like participation: if you want students to talk, make it worth a mark.

As far as the effect this will have on my grading the final group project: Again, I am asking for things you should be doing anyway, and hopefully giving you feedback to keep you on the right track, as well as practice at writing and communicating effectively. My expectation is that each assignment should require between half an hour and an hour of effort above and beyond what you were already putting in for your group project. You get a mark for completing the assignment and putting the effort into writing clearly, and the real value is the chance to catch mistakes before they become habits. This should result in a final paper that is easier to read and more properly constructed, showing a more polished effort deserving of a higher grade (to say nothing of the effect on my mood while grading it!) On the other hand, if your final project still exhibits these mistakes despite the practice you've had with the assignments, I am going to be far less lenient when grading them.

Ultimately, I would expect that the majority of the class will get full marks on the majority of the assignments, while learning how to write properly and improving everybody's grades not just on the final report, but on the exams as well. If I have to give everybody in the class an A because everybody learned how to do these things properly, I'd imagine I'll find a way to sleep at night.

I don't want to "dispute" your comments and I certainly don't want to discourage anybody else from posting negative comments or constructive criticism. However, I feel that the teacher-student relationship will be beneficial to everybody if the process of teaching is transparent. If some of what I say here helps you to understand why I'm asking you to do these things, then you'll feel better and do better work. If you still think I'm full of it, let me know, and it'll help me to become a better teacher.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Asterisk

The ball that Barry Bonds hit to break Hank Aaron's career home run record was bought by fashion designer Marc Ecko for $752 467 (that's $756 385 Canadian!). On his website, Ecko put to a vote the three fates of the ball: Bestow it to the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown; Brand it with a red asterisk, and then donate it to Cooperstown; or Banish it to outer space.

According to an article on MLB.com, the overwhelming result (47%) was to brand the ball. The President of the HoF has stated that the ball will be displayed in whatever state it is presented, asterisk and all.

The asterisk has a controversial history in Major League Baseball, as it was first used to qualify Roger Maris' single-season home run record, in which Maris hit 61 home runs over 162 games, breaking Babe Ruth's record of 60 hit when the season was only 154 games long. The asterisk on Bonds' record-breaking ball is intended to represent the controversy over Bonds' alleged steroid use, in what is quickly becoming known as the "Drug Age" of baseball.

After being called "an idiot" by Bonds for doing this with the ball after spending so much money on it, Ecko said:

"I saw the purchase of the ball as an opportunity to open a national conversation using new media -- the Internet, blogs, videos -- to allow America's oldest sport to have America's most modern conversation. The people should be the arbiters of what is historically significant about this artifact."

For the record, I voted Brand.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Comments

This entry is for my students in Biology 447 to leave anonymous comments regarding the lecture from Sept 24 2007, or any other lecture, really. Thanks for your feedback, guys!