The Rockies’ 10-game winning streak
Posted by Andy on September 13, 2010
Just a few quick notesThe Rockies have won their last 10 games. They have won 11 in a row twice before in franchise history--once in late 2007 and once in the middle of last season.
According to coolstandings.com, their playoff odds had fallen all the way down to 1.7% after their last loss on September 2nd. The likelihood has increased with each subsequent win, but now stands at only 21.1%, still a longshot, due primarily to the fact that they're chasing two teams in their own division.
Despite winning, Carlos Gonzalez has fallen pretty far behind in his triple crown chase. He's still leading comfortably in batting average but now trails Albert Pujols by 4 RBI and 7 RBI.
September 13th, 2010 at 9:25 am
yesterday on the giants v padres broadcast, fleming and i think kuiper were suggesting that the rockies were using un-humidored baseballs late in the games for the rockies' batters. not that far out there considering how often they come from behind late in recent seasons...
September 13th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Re: the batting race, don't forget that Omar Infante is still in play at .342, despite being (currently) 21 PAs shy of qualifying. Infante has been steadily making up ground towards qualifying; he has started Atlanta's last 44 games, averaging 4.6 PAs per game. If he maintains that rate over the last 18 games, he would get 83 more PAs and finish with 509, more than enough to qualify. And even if he falls short of 502, he can still win the title if his adjusted BA -- hits / (AB + extra PAs needed to qualify) -- is higher than any other. Each missing PA would cost him roughly 3/4 of a point of BA. And Infante has been extremely consistent over the last month; his BA has been at .339 or higher since Aug. 15. I would have to say that Infante is the favorite to win the batting title, one way or another.
September 13th, 2010 at 9:29 am
If such a thing were true, the ramifications would be quite significant. I feel pretty confident that most teams cheat in some way, whether it's using hidden cameras/microphones to pick things up from opposing dugouts or what, but cheating of the sort you suggest would be amazing.
September 13th, 2010 at 9:29 am
#2, shades of Willie McGee. Thanks for the reminder.
September 13th, 2010 at 9:51 am
What an interesting conspiracy theory. Or maybe they're doing well because they're relatively healthy for the first time this year, and they're actually playing decent baseball.
September 13th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Andy -- Apologies for quibbling, but the Willie McGee thing was different. The oddity wasn't that he fell short of the qualifying PAs when he won the 1990 NL crown at .335; it was that he got traded to Oakland in late August, and finishing with an overall season mark of .324. He had 542 PAs in the NL, and by rule, only the stats compiled while playing for a team in a given league count toward that league's leaders. Had McGee's total stats counted for that purpose, the NL crown would have gone to Eddie Murray, who hit a career-high (and MLB-best) .330 for the Dodgers. (The Dodgers haven't had a batting champ since Tommy Davis in 1962-63.)
Since the batting title rule was changed to 3.1 PAs per team game, I don't think anyone has ever won a BA crown via the "loophole," but I'm not entirely sure on that.
September 13th, 2010 at 9:59 am
This Rockies team is quite hot and they are definitely not out of the playoffs. They play San Diego at home the next three games. Should be fun to watch.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:01 am
John, no problem, although that does bring you to a streak about of 15 straight comments disagreeing with me. I guess maybe I'm just that dumb.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Andy -- No criticism intended. (And who called you dumb?!? Wait, let's not go down that road.)
Someday I'll have a blog, and you can even the nitpicking score.
And if you want to break my streak, write something about Ken Keltner. 🙂
September 13th, 2010 at 10:14 am
@1 "yesterday on the giants v padres broadcast, fleming and i think kuiper were suggesting that the rockies were using un-humidored baseballs late in the games for the rockies' batters."
Are they switching to humidored baseballs for the opponents' batters?
If they're switching, why wait until late in the games?
September 13th, 2010 at 10:18 am
#10, Let's assume (big assumption) that the Rockies are in fact cheating. I presume they'd want to minimize it to minimize the chance they get caught. Using different balls by half-inning can't be easy--they would have to be really paying attention to where the balls go. If we assume the difference in the humidor balls is 10% (approximately the difference we saw in Coors offense at the peak) then that's a tremendous advantage for the Rockies. Makes sense to wait to use it until the team is behind....
September 13th, 2010 at 10:47 am
@6 It appears Tony Gywnn won the batting title in that manner in 96. That's the only one that came to mind.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:48 am
September 13th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I wonder who will have to stand before Congress for un-humidored baseballs.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:54 am
I find this conspiracy theory fascinating. I'm usually one to dismiss conspiracy theories fairly quickly, but I think this one has legs.
Maybe we need to go back and look at 2007, when they won something like 98 straight games at the end of the season.
Also, would the opposing pitcher notice a difference in the two "types" of balls? I would assume that the Rockies wouldn't be able to make sure that *every* ball thrown to one of their batters was un-humidored, since the umpire has a stock of balls that will extend from one half-inning to the next. Logistically, such a feat would be next to impossible to pull off.
The opposing pitcher may be able to notice a difference, whether its only in the way the balls breaks (or doesn't), or if its something he can literally feel in his hand.
September 13th, 2010 at 10:56 am
Andy -- This is off-topic, but here's an idea for a blog and/or a poll: The MLB rule that teams from the same division cannot face off in the first round of the postseason is silly and unfair.
It's silly because the rule treats it as *unusual* that the wild card team is in the same division as the team with the best record in the league -- when, in fact, that outcome is quite common, in both theory and practice.
It's unfair because, while "protecting" the team with the best record from having to play immediately the team that they already beat out for the division, the rule also (a) almost always rewards the wild card team, and (b) often penalizes one or both of the other division winners. Consider the current AL standings: Without that provision, the first-round matchups would be NY-TB and Minnesota-Texas. Because of that provision, the first-round matchups would be NY-Texas and Minnesota-TB. Both the Twins and the Rangers would end up facing a stronger team than they otherwise would have, and the Rays face a weaker team.
The rule is ostensibly meant to reward the division winner, but I think that effect is more than offset by how it helps the wild card and hurts the other division winners. What the rule really does is to exalt the team with the best overall record, without caring how that affects the other teams.
In the past 10 years, this rule has come into play 7 times in the NL (2009, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2001) and 5 times in AL (2009, 2007, 2004, 2003, 2001). That's 12 out of the last 20 chances, which doesn't seem unusual when you stop and think about the very nature of the wild card. The wild card goes to the best 2nd-place record; thus, the wild card was better than all the non-division winners, but worse than at least 1 division winner. Isn't it inherently more likely, then, that the wild card will be in the same division as the team with the best overall record?
September 13th, 2010 at 11:02 am
John, what the rule really does is ensure that if two teams from the same division meet in the playoffs, it will be on the larger stage of an LCS, with 7 possible games instead of 5. This is done since there will almost certainly be a strong rivalry between the teams (think Orioles-Yankees in 1996, Red Sox-Yankees in 2003 and 2004, and lots of others....COL/ARI 2007, STL/HOU 2004/2005, etc.) MLB is thinking about higher TV ratings and further increasing the rivarly.
If you ask me, though, they have it backwards. If they got rid of that rule, which I agree with you is unfair, then in practice there would be a postseason meeting between division rivals virtually very year, since as you point out the wild card often comes from the division with the team with the highest W-L% in the league.
If you're a fan of the Braves, Phillies, Yankees, or Rays, what could be better in terms of drama than a first-round playoff matchup? Then the home field advantage one team earned really means something, especially in a short series.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:21 am
@6 & 12...Gwynn was indeed the only BA title winner under that rule. bb-ref marks it with a double ** in the yearly leader chart.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I believe Bonds won the OBA title in that fashion once late in his career when he fell just short of 502 PAs.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:39 am
@16,@17
Baseball got the idea of keeping the WC team from playing its own division champ in the first round from the NFL which had the same rule throughout the 1970s and 1980s. They dropped it when they moved to the six-team-per-conference format. I don't know what the original rationale was there. Might have something to do with the unbalanced schedule which has a larger effect in football.
Its a completely different case, but the World Cup even has a similar rule. The two teams from the same group go into opposite brackets.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:43 am
what prompted the conversation on the radio was that the rockies have won 7 games of their 10 game win streak at home and they have comeback late in games in 3 of their last 4 wins, all also at home. and that this seems like it happens every year.
i would also think that the pitchers would be able to feel the difference in the balls but the pitchers late in games are most likely relievers that just got into the game and don't have a good feel for the ball. i doubt that the bullpen balls are humidor balls. that can also be a factor, warming up with regular balls, then having to use humidor balls once they get into the games.
September 13th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Remember back in the early aughts when the As used to do this? Every year they'd be under .500 at the break and then explode in the second half. I think more than anything teams will develop mentalities. Those As teams "expected" to make comebacks and they did. These Rockies are the same way. In a few years they'll be back to normal and some other team will the take the mantle of "second-half team"
September 13th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
@13 "I am wondering what prompted the Giants announcers to make such a charge."
The Jints choking on their lead over the Rox?
September 13th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I find the humidor conspiracy to be logistically improbable precisely because I'm not aware of the umpire chucking all the balls he may have in stock to start the inning in favor of other balls, and that while the likelihood of scandal in the case that this scheme is found out is pretty high, the actual advantage is low.
This conspiracy, as they say in the 'Frisco booth, is "Outta here!"
September 13th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
@20
I submit that any idea baseball got from football (either version) is inherently suspect.
But seriously ...
If the intent is to reward division winners vs. wild cards, as MLB claims, then it's far more logical to have TWO wild cards, who meet in a one-game, do-or-die playoff immediately after the regular season. The winner then plays the team with the best overall record. This would not cost anything in terms of time, but would make the wild cards' path through the postseason significantly harder.
And I think it should be harder. This format has been in place for 15 years. Wild cards have won 10 of 30 pennants, and 4 WS titles. The current format, with the combination of loose scheduling (too many off days make it possible to get by with just 3 SPs) and not having to play a 1st-round series against the league's top team if they're in your division, makes the wild card's path no harder than the #3 division winner's.
September 13th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
No no, the Coors Field conspiracy theory is absolutely true. Opposing relief pitchers are given harder, less humidified baseballs that are slippery and easily driven out of the ballpark. This gives the Rockies a clear advantage over their opponents. Please, as a Rockies fan, I encourage you to pass this on to all your friends, and it's my sincerest hope that your team's players start to believe in it too.
Never mind that to pull off a conspiracy like that requires the knowledge of several low level, underpaid stadium employees, that the Rockies ownership is quite political and that there are media types who would love to uncover something like that, that there's been zero actual evidence put forward other than the same sort of circumstantial and anecdotal stuff you get from Area 51 believers.
No, go ahead and spread this to as many fans of other teams as possible, because even though it's incredibly far fetched, if opposing players and managers believe it to be true, it's going to help the Rockies keep this home field advantage that they've had since long before the humidor arrived.
September 13th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
One of those comeback wins was on a walk-off steal, and two of them were against the worst bullpen in major league baseball.
In 2007, I believe six of the victories in the 10-game winning streak were at San Diego (a contender)and at Los Angeles (a team that believed it was contending).
The Astros in 2004 were four games under .500 on Aug. 14, they went 36-10 the rest of the way. The next season they were two games under .500 July 17 and went 45-27, including 19-5 in the final 24 games. So I don't think that just because the Rockie are winning means they are cheating.
I'm not a Rockies fan . . . I'm just saying.
Actually, I wish it were true. Our hometown 9 is thinking of going to a humidor next season, and if this trick works, well . . .
September 13th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
i am just repeating what was said on air, i don't really think anyone believes it at this point, but i also don't think anyone (except you) would be surprise if it were true. i don't think that it is that hard to pull off, all you need is one guy, the guy that pulls the balls out of the humidor, the rockies don't even have to know that he is doing it, maybe i am over-simplifying it.
cheating happens all the time - the phillies got caught stealing signs earlier this year, mariano got caught spitting on balls (although no one would dare do anything about it), sosa got caught using a corked bat, even thompson knew what pitch was coming...happens all the time (cheating)...
September 13th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Ryan Braun won the SLG title in his rookie year with only 492 PAs, 10 extra outs added.
September 13th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
2010 Phillies
We have:
-Roy Halladay
-84 home games
-your signs
September 13th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
"One of those comeback wins was on a walk-off steal, and two of them were against the worst bullpen in major league baseball"
I don't think you are right. The Chris Nelson steal of home was in the 8th inning if that is what you are referring to (the batter then hit a fly ball which would have scored Nelson anyway). One was against STL several months ago. One was against the Braves, whose future Hall of Fame manager, declined to use his best relief pitcher.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
The conspiracy theory doesn't even pass the initial smell test, since the possible reward for Colorado isn't nearly worth the enormous risk. Not all "cheating" is actually cheating. Sign-stealing ranges from "against the unwritten rules, but technically legal" to "gray area," depending on the method used. And when the Twins used to finagle the air-conditioning in the Metrodome, that probably wasn't even covered by the rules. But MLB strictly regulates Colorado's use of the humidor, so switching humidored and non-humidored baseballs clearly would be illegal, and subject to unprecedented punishment. There's no way anyone in management comes up with that idea.
In any case, the effect of the humidor has been overstated. As Rob Neyer recently wrote, the humidor has merely changed Coors Field from {the best hitter's park in the history of MLB, by a large margin} into {the best hitter's park operating today}. The average one-year batting park factor for Coors Field was 124 pre-humidor (1995-2001); it's 111 in the humidor era, and 113 in 2009-10. It's still a fantastic hitter's park.
September 13th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
The Rockies hitting in a 124 park while their opponents hit in a 113 would be an extremely large benefit...fly balls going 30 ft further etc.
September 13th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Was their last loss before the streak that rainout make-up game at Coors Field in which the Phillies came from behind to win 12-11?
September 13th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
W/R/T the wild card rule, that also assumes that the WC is the worst of the playoff teams. As is often the case, the wild card is better than at least one other playoff team, and often times two. And I don't just mean better in terms of assessed quality, but also in terms of record. It's likely that TB finishes with the 2nd best record in the AL, yet still ends up as the WC. Should they really be treated as the 4th best team in the playoffs? That is fair to neither them or the Yankees. I say just rank the 4 teams by record and have 1 play 4, whether 4 is the wild card or another division winner. I realize this risks skewing things because of unbalanced schedules, but my amateur memory (is there such a thing as professional memory?) tells me that rarely does a team beef up its overall W-L on a crappy division. They MAY run away with a division in such a way that implies they are better than they are, but that usually gets balanced out with their out-of-division games. Even when the Angels were "dominating" the West the last few years, I don't think they ever led the league in Ws, right? Not in the most recent years, at least.
Anyway, just a thought. Not sure it's more fair than the automatic WC as 4 seed advocated above, but I think either would be an improvement on the current system.
September 13th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
I'm a late-comer to the discussion threads here, having been at work all day. Can someone explain to me the chemistry/physics of humidored vs un-humidored balls?
Is the theory that humidored balls contain more moisture, are more hydrated, therefore less compressible than un-humidored balls and don't travel as far?
As people have already suggested in here, A Houdini-type move of this magnitude seems improbable.
September 13th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Wouldn't it also mean that A) this only possibly works (if it works at all) at home and B) that the Rockies already exaggerated road splits on account of playing in Denver might be further exaggerated? I don't know if the balls specifically would factor into that, but I've seen a bit of research that shows Rockies hitters tend to struggle greatly upon immediately leaving Denver because of how the pitches move differently. If this effect was compounded by unhumidored baseballs, it'd do just as much harm (if not more) as good.
September 13th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
@ 6.
The other oddity that season (1990), was Eddie Murray led the all of baseball in BA; .330, but like you mentioned, McGee's total was frozen when he was traded and George Brett won his third BA title with .329.
So the major league leaders were:
1. Eddie Murray .330
2. George Brett .329
3. Willie McGee .324
September 13th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Sorry
Batting Average
1. Murray (LAD).330
2. Brett (KCR).329
3. Magadan (NYM).328
4. Dykstra (PHI).325
5. Henderson (OAK).325
6. McGee (TOT).324
7. Palmeiro (TEX).319
8. Dawson (CHC).310
9. Roberts (SDP).309
10. Grace (CHC).309
September 13th, 2010 at 7:47 pm
@26
Rox Girl, I envy you rooting for a team with as much late-season upside as the Rockies. Enjoy the ride! My team is out of it. However, isn't Area 51 closer to Arizona than Denver? The D'Backs should be feelin' those extra-terrestrial vibes.
Next thing you know people will be saying that home team grounds-keepers over-watered basepaths to beat down opposition base-stealers. Where will it end? (lol)
September 13th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Neil, I can't explain the physics, but yes, a more humid ball doesn't travel as far. Conversely (inversely? none of the above?), I believe a ball travels further when the air is more humid.
John Autin, yes it's still a hitter's park, but not egregiously so, and part of its high park factor is probably due to three of the other four teams in its division (LA, SD, SF) playing in what are generally pitchers' parks. I thought the humidor was kind of a lame copout when it was introduced, but it probably does make a better game.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Johnny Twisto and Neil,
A ball kept in a humidor is a bit heavier and more dense. The water vapor (gas) condenses on the ball's fibers. It returns to a liquid state and creates 'drag' and extra weight, while the ball is in flight.
Conversely, humid air, is less dense. This may sound contrary to the first statement and go against common sense, but the water vapor in the air is still gaseous. And while a gas, water is actually less dense then oxygen and nitrogen. So air with more 'water vapor' or humidity in it, has less oxygen and nitrogen, ergo less density, therefor less 'drag.' Or simply put; the ball in flight is pushing lighter material out of its path as it travels on a humid day.
Also, humidity %, is a bit misleading. 75% humidity at 60 degrees and 75% percent at 95 degrees are far different quantities. Humidity % is relative. And of course a hot day always allows balls to travel through the air with more velocity.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
Preventing a wild card team from playing its division winner in the first round is most likely intended for situations such as the one in the AL this season: the Rays and Yankees are seemingly the two best teams in the league, at least based-upon record. The rule allows these teams to square off in the LCS if they can win 1st round series. I think giving the two best teams an opportunity to meet in the LCS is the basic concept behind the rule.
September 13th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
The only fair way to deal with wild cards is to play each team the same number of times and list the teams in one table without divisions, which of course will never happen...
September 14th, 2010 at 6:05 am
@33 "The Rockies hitting in a 124 park while their opponents hit in a 113 would be an extremely large benefit...fly balls going 30 ft further etc."
Umm . . . I don't think that's how it could work
September 14th, 2010 at 11:00 am
@35 / BSK re: wild card and playoff format --
I don't necessarily assume that the wild card has the worst record; in fact, I'd guess that to have been true less than half the time so far. My comments on the format are premised on the assumption that MLB *intended* that the format should:
(a) generally favor the division winners over the WC (if not, then why is the WC barred from ever having the home-field edge in the league playoffs?); and
(b) favor the division winner with the best record over a wild card from their own division by not making the DW face the WC in the first round, on the grounds that the DW has already "beaten" the WC in the division race.
And I'm pretty sure that MLB did *not* draw up the "no 1st-round matchups within the division" in order to promote the chances of a #1-record-vs.-#2-record LCS when those teams come from the same division, as Evan said @43. As I recall, when the wild card was introduced in '95, MLB stated that it meant to "preserve the sanctity of the division races" (quotations mine) by favoring *all* DWs over the WC in the playoff format.
I believe that these intentions have been stated by MLB representatives from time to time, although I cannot cite sources. My point was only that *if* the format was drawn up with those intentions, then it clearly doesn't have the desired effect.
I didn't mean to get into the issue of how the playoffs really ought to be structured, regardless of what MLB thinks it wants.
September 14th, 2010 at 11:01 am
#45 what do you mean? If the Rockies are hitting with the untreated balls and their opponents are hitting the treated balls, and that's the thing that's changing the park factors, then why wouldn't it work like that?
September 14th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
@47
I'm thinking it's because I read post #24
September 14th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
OK--my point is just that if somehow the Rockies were able to cheat in that fashion, and do it 100% effectively, the batting advantage it would give them is huge. I agree that in practice it would be pretty hard to pull off.
September 14th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
John Autin @46,
I have no idea what the thinking and logic behind MLB's decisions were. Permitting the two best teams to play in the LCS is, in my mind, the best justification for the rule. Seeding the WC last makes sense to preserve the sanctity of the division races and reward division winners (if these are your intended goal). The no in-division 1st round rule seems to be contrary to this goal (I think we are in agreement on this).