Tags
"The E-Mail on the Kitchen Table", 2019 MillersTime Baseball Contests, A History of Baseball in Ten Pitches, A Walk-off Walk, Boston, Boston Red Sox, Fenway, MillersTime Baseball Contests, Nationals, Nats' Park, Red Sox, Secondary Average, Victor Mather, Walk-Off, Washington Nationals, World Series Rings
From Fenway Park in 2005 and soon to be repeated. See Notes below
I. Some Predictions from MillersTime Baseball Contestants
Contest 1: MillersTime contestants say it will be the Dodgers vs either the Red Sox or Yankees in the 2019 World Series, and they believe the American League team will win it in six games.
Contest 3: No doubt here. Overwhelming choice is the American League to win the All Star game. Scherzer (or maybe Sale) will be the first pitcher to win 12 games. Harper, Stanton, and Judge all tied for first to hit 25 home runs.
Contest 4: Contestants split evenly between those who think the Yankees will win the AL East and those who don’t, but they seem to think the Nats will definitely not win the NL East. Everyone seems to think one of my ‘grand’ children will see at least one of the following: a grand slam, a triple play, a no hitter, Teddy winning the President’s race, will go home with a foul ball, will have his/her pix taken with an MLB mascot, or will be on the TV screen at an MLB stadium. (Has happened yet, but I’m working on this one.)
Other Contest Predictions: Too complicated to post here. But thanks to all who participated.
II. Baseball Notes and Two Questions:
***Check out this article that looks at a different, but easy way to judge who are the best hitters in baseball: Secondary Average by Victor Mather, NY Times, April 5, 2019. (Hat Tip to Joe H for alerting me)
***There’s a new book out by one of today’s top baseball writers, Tyler Kepner of the NY Times. A History of Baseball in Ten Pitches. Reviews have been outstanding, and I’ll let you know what I think as soon as I finish it. (It’s due to arrive at my house April 7.)
***Every time I attend a baseball game, I’m looking for something I never saw before. A few days ago this: Tie game between the Phillies and the Nats in DC. Bottom of the 9th. First man up for the Nats gets a single. Then the the Phillies’ pitcher walks the next two batters. Bases loaded. And he does it again. A third walk. Walking in the winning run for the Nats. What do we call that? A Three Walk Walk-Off? A Triple Walk Walk-Off? A Walk-Off Walk? Bad pitching? Terrible managing? Let me know what you would call it. And I suppose you all know the actual definition of ‘Walk-Off’ win. It’s not the winning team walking off. It’s about the losing team having to ‘walk off’ the field after they’ve ‘blown’ the game.
***Not sure if it’s my getting older (which is certainly happening), but I’ve already attended four games at Nats’ Park, and I’m sure they’ve cranked up the loud speakers, making it difficult to talk and hear each other between innings. one of the enjoyable aspects of seeing a game with a son, daughter, wife, father, grandfather, grandchild and/or friends. Is this increase in noise level happening elsewhere too? Or am I just getting more like my parents did at a similar stage in their lives?
III. Repeating History
***Finally, heading to Boston with the three females in my life – wife Ellen, and daughters Annie and Elizabeth – to ‘treat’ them to Opening Day, April 9 in Fenway where the World Series flag will be raised, a huge banner will be dropped across the Green Monster, and the WS rings will be given out. I took them in 2005 (see photo above) when the Yankees had to sit in the Visitors’ dugout and watch the ceremonies after the best ever WS win in my lifetime. Now, with this fourth WS victory in this early part of the 21st century — eat your hearts out Yankee fans — my only regret is that my daughters and grand children will never truly understand what I had to go through for most of my baseball life – though I think Elizabeth kind of understands. If you’ve never read this, don’t miss: The E-Mail on the Kitchen Table, posted 12.19.08 on MillersTime but written just after the Sox finally won it all in 2004. A must read.
IV. PS
***You can look forward to an upcoming post, Opening Day Thru Ellen’s Lens, with commentary attached.
Nick Nyhart said:
Richard, good to see this post and good for you for coming to Boston with the ladies.
As far as I am concerned, the real opening day is Tuesday at Fenway, the rest was just a bad dream, and Dustin “Destroya” Pedroia is my shortstop. Look out world. -Nick
Carrie said:
Enjoy the games and the 3 wonderful woman in your family
Chris Boutourline said:
Richard, good luck with Opening Day in Boston and thank you again for switching my contest winning WS ticket for some great seats to Seattle’s home opener. Fortunately, I also went to the next game and witnessed Mitch Moreland’s clutch 9th inning homer, one of the few highlights of this, so far, sad season. The best part might have been the deflation of a Seattle fan who’d been taunting the numerous Red Sox fans by gleefully “conducting” our “Let’s go Red Sox” chants since mid-game.
Sorry, Nick Nyhart, but, if you’re counting on Pedroia to pull us out of this tail-spin, we’re in more trouble than I ‘m accounting for (Dallas Keuchel is my guess for a more likely savior). speaking of sad, my guess for first to 12 wins, Rick Porcello, is more likely first to 12 losses. And, it turns out my first to 25 homers, Cleveland’s Jose Ramirez, is the one guy on that weak-hitting team that will be “pitched around”.
The “secondary average” article was interesting and answered my question, posed to a Seattle fan, of why Dee Gordon, a former batting champ, was batting 9th and not lead-off. She didn’t have an answer other than to say that he’d batted lead-off last year. The more accurate answer is named Mallex Smith, who sort of reminds me of Mickey Rivers but with more power and, possibly, faster. I think Seattle is for real if their pitching holds-up their end of the game.
Lastly, I found Elizabeth’s essay very true and well written. I was lucky enough to become a fan during the “Impossible Dream” year of 1967 and can only imagine the fruitless longing of people who were “hooked” in the ’50’s or early ’60’s. My earliest memory of the Red Sox was, the less than inspiring one, of of my Grandfather falling asleep, pipe in hand, in front of the TV in the mid-’60’s. The 2004 win was bittersweet (mostly sweet) as Grandpa had passed away and, a close friend’s grandmother, who lived to 103, had to depend on her memories of the 1918 team until the end of her life.
Land said:
R,
In some ways this is like the rich getting richer because they already have lots of money. Some of these statistics are generated, in part, by the pitcher’s knowledge that he is facing a good hitter and must be handled a little differently. Right now, a batter with a high batting average will always be grouped with his team’s other good hitters in the lower part of the order. That means that he is more likely to come to bat with runners on base so he is more likely to drive in runs and thereby raise his secondary average. And because he is a good hitter, the pitcher is going to place pitches closer to the edge of the zone, which increases the batter chances of drawing a walk. And several times a season, he is going to draw an intentional walk when a lesser hitter would be pitched to. These are all ways of raising a secondary average that don’t require the batter to do anything other than what he was going to do anyway.
The idea is great but, even without the numbers, this skill has long been recognized. But when you give a hitter credit for so many different kinds of ways he helps the offense, this cries out for some way to evaluate which of these numbers or different components are of most benefit to a team. It seems to me that hitting a home run with two men on is of more value than getting a walk, because the first immediately raises the score while the latter merely puts a runner on first base and he will need someone else with a good secondary average to bring him home.
Perhaps managers should use secondary averages to decide how to structure the batting order. This is already done by putting batters up 1st and 2nd who are likely to get on base and then batting the best hitter 4th or 5th. But maybe the hitters who have the highest rating for getting hits should be placed after those hitters who have the best chance of getting on base, so that when the batter with the good primary average gets his hit, it will raise both his primary and his secondary average. If Bryce Harper was batting ninth, he would still have a great primary average but I predict that his secondary average would droop.
Some one should play “scrambled eggs” with a line up and, using completed games, assume that each batter would have done the same thing wherever he appeared in the lineup. He could see what happens to secondary averages when good hitters are placed in various situations and determine the overall impact of all the batters on the outcome. Who knows, perhaps a line-up of scattering the better secondary hitters at spots one, three, five and seven might be more productive than the present preference. I recall several years ago there was a strong recommendation that the first batter should always be the batter with the highest on-base percentage and then the second and so being sent up according to their averages.
It is a good idea but it is based on the frustration of not being to determine, in any statistically valid way, what way of structuring a line up will produce one more run every other game. How many games in a season would that win?
L
Jere said:
Here’s my answer to the “walk-off” question.
In most sports, either team can score at any time. In baseball, we take turns. When it’s your turn at bat, only you can score. The other team can’t grab the bat out of your hands and hit the ball. They can’t decide they’re going to step on home plate and expect the umpire to credit them with a run. Because of this, we have first-ups and last-ups. It wasn’t always this way, but for decades, the team with last-ups in every level of baseball and softball has been the home team. This means that if the home team takes a lead in the 9th inning (or in extra innings), the game ends–at that moment. They’re now ahead, and since the road team has already had their chance, there’s no reason to keep playing.
But that is rare. Way more often, the visiting team wins, OR the home team has a lead after the road team bats in the top of the 9th inning, meaning the home team does not need to bat in the bottom of the 9th–they’ve already won. In each of these cases, the game ends when the team on defense records the final out. At that point, the winning side gathers together on the field in mild celebration, with the coaches and bench players coming out of the dugout to join them. Again, this is by far the most common way a baseball game ends.
However, in the rare case of the home team taking the lead in the 9th inning or later, we end up with a phenomenon in which the team currently at bat wins the game. So a celebration is not had by the defense, but by the offense. And the entire offensive team, save for the batter and any runners, is in the dugout. Therefore they all rush out onto the field and go wild, joining the exuberant players who scored and/or knocked in the winning run in a group celebration. By now, all baseball fans know this as a “walk-off win.”
Good night. Oh… you…. you were wondering where the term came from? I know what you’re saying: Why is it called a “walk-off” win when the winning team runs on to the field? That’s the exact opposite of “walk-off.” Shouldn’t it be called a “run-on” win?
You sound smart. Well, the phrase was coined by a pitcher, Dennis Eckersley. Eck just gave up the winning run, and at that moment, he and his entire team have been forced to put their heads down and solemnly walk off the field while the home team pours out of its dugout and its fans go wild. This is the only case in which you’ll see an entire team walk off the field. (After any other inning they’ll jog off.) It’s perfect: a term that captures the concept of one moment fighting for your life, and the next being forced to just clear the area. “But you’ve got two more outs.” “Doesn’t matter, we’ve already won, you can go home now.”
And that’s why it ticks me off when I hear announcers and fans and reporters and writers say, “and the Red Sox WALK OFF WITH A WIN!” No, they won and made the OTHER team walk off. It’s called a “walk-off win,” but let’s take a quick look at the field and see who’s walking off and who’s doing the exact opposite! It’s obviously a case of a term getting corrupted: “They walked off with a victory”; “They walked it off”; “The Red Sox walked off the Yankees,” etc. It’s lost its meaning. Even Eck, now an announcer, says it wrong these days, because it’s just so common to hear it that way, I guess. I think people confuse it with when, say, someone steals something: “the masked men walked off with $2 million worth of diamonds.” Or when someone quits: “The actor walked off the set.” They feel like their team is maybe walking away with a victory they shouldn’t have had. But you can have a big comeback in the 8th inning and you don’t call that a walk-off. It’s a specific event that warrants this specific name.
So to answer Richard’s question in which a walk (four balls and a free base, forcing in a run since the bases were loaded) won the game, the team didn’t “walk off with a walk,” or “literally walk off” or anything like that. Call it a “walk-off walk”: a walk that caused the other team to walk…off.