The secret importance of this Braves-Mets series
Posted by John Autin on June 15, 2011
The Mets haven't been able to hurt the Braves very often in the past 20 years. During Atlanta's long run of NL East dominance, in the few years that the Mets also contended, there were a number of late-season series wherein the Gothamites had the chance to make a move in the standings and a statement about their status; and of course, there was the 1999 NLCS. Every time, Atlanta reestablished their supremacy.
The Braves and Mets are in the midst of a 3-game series that began at a historic moment for the Braves: On Sunday, June 12, Atlanta beat Houston and moved the all-time franchise record -- dating to the founding of the National League in 1876 -- to one game over .500, with 9,983 and 9,982 losses.
It was the first time since the 1923 season that the Braves, taking their history as a whole, were a winning team.
But on Monday, the Braves lost in Houston and fell back to .500. And the Mets beat them Tuesday in Turner Field, knocking Atlanta's all-time record 1 game below .500.
So, if the Mets can capture 1 more win in this series -- and they lead 3-0 through 6 innings in tonight's rain-delayed game -- they would leave town with the satisfaction of knowing that the Braves are under .500 once again. And if the Mets can sweep, their own season record will be on the bright side of .500 for the first time since April 6.
It ain't much -- and yes, Braves fans, I'm well aware that Atlanta leads the all-time series against the Mets, 382-314 -- but I'll take it.
[Thanks to Neil Paine for the germ of this post.]
June 16th, 2011 at 12:08 am
It would be nice to get any small measure of revenge against the Braves, especially at the hellish (for the Mets) Turner Field!
Speaking of Mets-Braves, there were two plays in tonight's game in which the Mets put on the shift, but the third baseman Murphy played to the right of the shortstop Reyes. So my question is, when is a shortstop no longer a shortstop? Why doesn't Reyes get credit for a couple of plays at third, and Murphy for short?
June 16th, 2011 at 12:16 am
I find it even more interesting that as MLB approaches the 200,000 game mark, the Braves account for 10% of those games as the franchise approaches the 20,000 game mark.
According to Jonnymo on Sean's 200,000 game post, the Braves may be in game 200,000 (based on start times) against Colorado on July 4th. And, barring rainouts, their game 20,000 would follow on July 23, in Cincinnati.
June 16th, 2011 at 12:21 am
It's not uncommon for teams to move the 3Bman into right field and leaving the SS close to home when shifting. I've thought about the positional designations before. There's probably no perfect way to handle it. Suppose they shifted with everyone just moving over 50 feet. Then Murphy is playing close to where the SS usually is -- should he be called a SS? And then what position is Reyes? 2B? And Turner(?) is....Shallow-RF? So trying to designate positions just by where they're standing on that particular play runs into problems. So scorers handle irregular alignments by assuming the guy hasn't changed his Position, he's just standing in a new position/place on the field for a particular PA.
What I wonder is how this affects the advanced defensive stats, some of which analyze how many balls the player handles in his "zone," compared to how many the average fielder handles. These extreme shifts are becoming more common, so I think they need to be accounted for somehow.
June 16th, 2011 at 7:43 am
At one point this season the Cardinals had only one "outfield assist." It was from the 11th inning on April 8th against the Giants.
The Giants had a runner on 3rd with no outs and La Russa chose to deploy his fielders with 5 men on the infield including LF Allen Craig. Sanchez struck out and then Rowand hit a ground ball to Craig who was playing where the 3B would normally play. The runner was retired in a rundown 7-2-5, crediting Craig with an outfield assist on a fielder's choice, with Rowan advancing to second. Intentional walks were then issued to Posey and Sandoval (presumably the reasons La Russa didn't walk 2 guys to set up a force at home) to load the bases and DeRosa was retired on a strikeout to end the inning. However, the Giants won the game the following inning when DeRosa came up with the bases loaded and hit a fly ball to the warning track in LF-CF that was just out of the reach of Rasmus.
June 16th, 2011 at 8:26 am
JT-
We touched on that back when we discussed optimal defensive positioning. I wonder if we should "re-number" the positions and just give guys a number based on their distance from the 1st base/right field foul line and whether they were in the IF or OF at the start of the play. The Pitcher and Catcher would remain 1 and 2 because their positions are static. Then, starting with everyone lined up in the IF (as marked by the arc that traces the infield dirt, though a slight allowance for 2B who play a step on the grass), we just number them starting at 3. On most plays, this would only swap the SS and 3B. Then, jump up to the OF and go back across the same way. In an alignment like the one offered, Reyes is the 4, Murphy the 5, and Turner would be the 6 or 7 depending on where he is in relation to the RF. Basically, on 99% of plays, the only difference would be the 3B/SS, which purists might take issue with. But given that teams seem more prone to experimentation in this area and the fact that 7 of the positions on the diamond are completely fluid and don't really exist in any concrete, official form, I don't see why we should feel bound by the position naming/numbering convention if it no longer works.
June 16th, 2011 at 9:04 am
Semi-related,
Livan Hernadez, batted 8th last night, while the offensive poor Nationals scored 10. I wish there was more out of the box thinking in the game.
I guess part of the appeal of Baseball is that it is essentially the same game as it was played 130 years ago, but small changes like the shift or playing two relief pitchers in the field or hitting the pitcher eighth all make managing seem a bit less robotic. I think LaRussa is the most innovative, but there still lacks a manager that takes chances.
June 16th, 2011 at 9:09 am
No mnetion that the Braves are about to lose (and win) their 10,000th game.
June 16th, 2011 at 9:40 am
In this same Mets game, Dillon Gee was in line to pick up the win when rain halted the game in the 5th inning with the Mets in the lead, thus preventing Gee from qualifying for the win and giving him an 8-0 start. As I learned yesterday when the game resumed, it then becomes the official scorers discretion as to who gets credited with the win. In this case Bobby Parnell pitched 2 innings (7th and 8th) and was credited with the win.
Does anyone know why a starter has to go 5 innings to qualify for a win, meanwhile a reliever can come in at any point in the game and get a win, sometimes not even neededing to throw a pitch? Working with the lead yesterday, Gee threw twice as many innings as the other relievers. This rule just doesn't make sense to me nor does it seem fair that the official scorer arbitrarily decides who gets the win in a rain delayed game such as this.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:06 am
@8, Brian T -- How would you like to change the rules on who gets the win in a game such as the one last night in Atlanta?
June 16th, 2011 at 10:18 am
I believe the pitcher who starts a game and exits with a lead should get credit for the win. I don't understand why a starting pitcher needs to go 5 innings to earn a win, meanwhile a reliever can enter at any point and not need a minumum innings pitched to get credit for a win. Yesterday it seems like Gee, who started and went 4 innings and left with the lead, is more deserving than the 3 pitchers who combined for 5 innings pitched.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:21 am
I don't know if it's fair to say that the Barves history started in 1876. I think the Braves win-loss record needs to start in 1871.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:21 am
I meant Braves. Sorry for the typo.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:34 am
Why not just have it the way it is the rest of the game? Whoever is the pitcher when the team goes ahead wins it, regardless of what inning it is.
So here's a question. If a starter goes two innings, and leaves the game behind, and a reliever takes over for him, then their team goes ahead for good in the third, but that reliever only works two innings (leaving before the 5th), does that reliever get the win? Why is it that the starter has to go 5? I, too, have always wondered about that rule...
Also, back to the original post, not only is 1923 the last time the Braves were at .500, but the time before that was in 1876 when the team was 19-19. Between 1876 and 1923, they were ABOVE .500 as the organization was one of the best teams in the league in the 1800s.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:49 am
As a Braves fan, that game last night was almost as painful to watch as it was to sit through all the rain delays.
This Braves team has been decimated by injury in the past few weeks (especially offensively), and the great pitching seems to be coming back to earth a bit. Hopefully with Heyward back (and hopefully not batting 7th for long), they'll get back on track. I think Uggla is finally coming around, if they can get .250/.350/.450 out of him for the remainder of the season I think the Braves will be right in the thick of the wild card hunt. As far as the division goes, unless one or two Philly pitchers go down, I don't know how much of a chance the Braves have there.
June 16th, 2011 at 11:02 am
@Brian T,
Excellent point. That's another one of the myriad of problems with W-L record for a pitcher.
Where's the logic in Not giving the Win to the starter because he ONLY pitched 4 innings and then giving the Win to a reliever who Pitched 2 innings??? That makes absolutely no sense. And why did Parnell get the Win over Carrasco? It's a completely arbitrary decision.
A relief pitcher can get a Win with only 1/3 of an inning pitched yet a Starter has to go 5 innings to get Win? Again this logic makes no sense.
Hypothetically a relief pitcher can give up 10 runs and pitch 1/3 of an inning and still be the winning pitcher if the offense comes back and scores 11 in the bottom of that inning. But a Starter can't get a win even if he pitches a perfect 4 2/3 innings and then comes out of the game because of a rain delay?
Yet there's no minimum for a Starter to get the loss. Hypothetically a Starter could pitch 4 innings and pitch no hit ball with only 1 run scoring on a error and leave the game because of a rain delay and still get a loss in the game. Even if the relief pitchers gave up 5 more runs and the final score was 6-5, the loss would still go to the Starter.
They really should change the minimum inning rule for Rain Delayed games because it's not like the Starter was ineffective or injured. It should be something like a minimum of 3 innings pitched for a starter to get a Win in a Rain shortened game.
June 16th, 2011 at 11:20 am
@11, The Iron Horse --
I know there is a valid difference of opinion on whether the 1871-75 National Association should be considered a major league. But in my view, considering the instability of most of the franchises (many teams folded mid-season), the irregularity of the schedule, and the frequent competitive imbalance, it does not qualify as a major league.
In the last year of the N.A., Boston won the title with a record of 71-8. The Brooklyn Atlantics finished last at 2-42, although "finished" is perhaps inapt, as they were one of 6 teams in a 13-team league that didn't play close to a full schedule.
June 16th, 2011 at 11:25 am
@13 Jay K,
That's another good example of the why W/L is terrible.
I think in your scenario the relief pitcher would only have to pitch 1/3 of an inning or be the pitcher of record when his team went ahead.
I've never really understood the logic in not having a minimum innings pitched for a starter to get a Loss yet a starter has to pitch 5 innings to get a Win. Like you said the pitcher of record should be the pitcher of record regardless of minimum innings pitched.
Theoretically, a Starter could not record an out and leave the game because of injury after only facing one batter down 1-0 and still get the loss if his team never regains the lead in the game. Even if his team scores 15 runs yet never regains the lead, that starter will still be given the loss.
Even if a relief pitcher on his team gives up 10 runs in the 7th inning, the original starter who only faced one batter still gets the loss
June 16th, 2011 at 11:33 am
@ Various -- I wholly agree that the requirements for a win are arbitrary.
But I think the illogic mainly centers on wins credited to relief pitchers. Hypothetically, if wins and losses were accorded only to starting pitchers, would there still be a groundswell to reduce or eliminate the 5-inning requirement?
I would suggest that the hypothetical I posed above is the de facto reality. Relievers still get wins and losses, but does anyone really care? Mark Davis won the 1989 NL CYA with 4 wins; Steve Bedrosian won it in '87 with 5 wins. Trevor Hoffman placed 2nd in the 2006 race (12 first place votes) without a single win to his credit.
It seems to me that, although relievers' W-L records are still published and announced, those records are almost universally understood to be meaningless without context.
June 16th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Royals should be in AL West. Put the Brewers back to AL Central. 5 teams in each division and 15 teams per league. PROBLEM SOLVED!
June 16th, 2011 at 11:45 am
The sabermetric thing to do would be to give the win to the pitcher with the highest WPA or RE24 (take your pick, I prefer RE24). And closers could be rated by WPA in save situations (something I have looked at in the past).
A problem with that is that WPA and RE24 are defined in terms of a particular run environment. I suppose you could use the MLB averages over the last n years, where n is not too large.
June 16th, 2011 at 11:47 am
@2 Doug,
Let's take that a step further. Imagine if the Braves go 16-14 over their next 31 games. They would then be 9,999-9,999, playing the Reds in Cincinnati (again barring rainouts) to determine whether or not they hit 10,000 victories or losses first, with their 20,000th game the next night.
June 16th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
@18 John A,
The big problem with W/L record for pitchers is that it's a relic from 19th century baseball. There's so many flaws with that stat that I wish the whole concept of awarding a pitcher a Win or Loss would be done away with. Wins and Losses are team accomplishments or failures and shouldn't be credited to one individual.
I've often made the comparison to the NFL with Quarterbacks. If the NFL judged QB's by W-L record then guys like Warren Moon, Dan Fouts and Fran Tarkenton would be considered mediocre players and not HOF QB's. On the flip side a guy like Jay Schroeder would be a HOF QB if the NFL judged players by W-L record.
One of my many problems with W/L record is that a Starter must pitch a minimum of 5 innings for a win. To follow up what Jay K said @13, the win or loss should go the Pitcher of record regardless of innings pitched.
June 16th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
One of my many problems with W/L record is that a Starter must pitch a minimum of 5 innings for a win. To follow up what Jay K said @13, the win or loss should go the Pitcher of record regardless of innings pitched.
It's not much of a problem if once in a blue moon a game gets rain-delayed in the 5th inning so the SP can't continue. Pretty much any SP pitching well enough to deserve a win is going to last 5 IP anyway.
There are flaws with the stat (as with any stat), but I would never want it to be done away with. It helps tell a story about the game (I mean both an individual game, and the game of baseball in general). Knowing Cy Young "won" 511 games is part of being a fan, to me, and the stat is a thread tying us back to him.
If you'd like your favorite team's manager and GM not to be so wrapped up in their pitchers' W-L records when making decisions, well, I can't disagree with you there.
June 16th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
Actually, according to the Teams page, both the Cubs and the Braves have already played their 20,000th games (last year), however, they are both nearing 20,000 decisions this year. As a matter of fact, the Cubs are sitting at 19,995 (10,267-9,728), so Monday night's game on the Southside vs. the White Sox will be the Cubs' 20,000th decision (just missing the Yankees in Wrigley by one day).
June 16th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
@22/ John Q Says: "... @18 John A,
The big problem with W/L record for pitchers is that it's a relic from 19th century baseball... ...Wins and Losses are team accomplishments or failures and shouldn't be credited to one individual.
Yes, John Q, in 19th century ball, starting pitchers were rarely relieved (by 1899, 1593 of 1842 pitcher starts were CG, or 87 %), so Wins and Losses _were_ an accurate reflection of the individual pitcher, subject to their offensive support.
But, even by 1923, starters finished less than half of their games; by 1960; about a quarter; by 1990, about 10% were CG. Individual pitcher Wins and Losses have gradually became less and less of a reflection of a starter's performance.
June 16th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
@ John Austin, the OP
I can completely accept not counting the N.A. for the reasons that you cited. If it wasn't really considered a Major League for those reasons, then the Braves win-loss record should start in 1876.
My only problem would be if the N.A. doesn't count as a major league, then why are the players stats from that league counted in their career totals?
June 16th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
I agree with you about W/L Johnny Twisto. I wouldn't want the stat abolished. I don't even want it changed. While I loathe some of the dinosaur baseball fan/players/personnel that resist every change, the continuity of some stats is important and this is one of them, and it is best left alone.
I mean, ideally, if a starter pitches seven scoreless but his team is also kept off the board and then his team scores in the ninth and wins it, he deserves the majority of the defensive credit for the team win, but no starter has gotten a win by the official stat in such a situation in over 100 years of baseball and changing that now would just throw the stat out of whack. That stat is not flawed--it is flawed to use it as a strong measure of pitching success, but people sometimes forget that a stat only tells you what it tells you and if you infer things you shouldn't infer from it that is your own mistake.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
As a Mets,Rangers,Jets,Knicks fan I've learned humility.Throw in my favorite college football team University of Nebraska,knocked off the pedestal in my time after long being near the top.There was a time when my teams losing really bothered me(the last that really REALLY hurt was losing the WS to the Yankees)but I'm pretty much over it now.
June 16th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Ugly blown lead tonight(thanks K-Rod!),don't bother me much.I've matured.