April, 2008

Two Questions

Question #1: How can the New Milford Blazers be this good?

The New Milford Blazers were picked to finish dead-last in the Butler Division this year, with more than 100 losses.  Yet after one chapter of play, they were in first place with the best record (19-9) in the Ozzie League.  How can this be?

Four reasons:

1. Clutch hitting.

Overall, the Blazers hit .276/.339/.441 on the chapter.  But with runners in scoring position, they hit .305/.368/.513 (an OPS 101 points higher), and .304/.366/.480 (66 points higher) with two outs and runners in scoring position.

Over time, the stats in "clutch" situations versus all other situations evens out, so this trend is unlikely to continue.

2. Balls in play.

Opposing batters managed an average of just .218 on balls in play against New Milford pitchers.  The second-lowest rate among all teams was .260, and the league average is .283.  New Milford's .218 average is crazy-ridiculous.  Even the best defenses in baseball history are incapable of holding opponents to a BIP average of .218.  And the Blazers don't exactly own the world's best defense.

None of the team's primary infielders owns a range rating above average: Carlos Delgado (Av), Aki Iwamua (Fr), Kevin Kouzmanoff (Av) and Alex Gonzalez (Av.)  And the outfield includes only one above-average glove, and one poor glove: Garret Anderson (Av), Willie Harris (Vg) and Jack Cust (Pr.)

Balls simply landed in the mitts of New Milford's fielders throughout Chapter One through nothing but sheer good fortune.  Unless Peburn made a pact with a guy wearing a red suit (and I'm not talking about a member of the New Milford fire department), this trend is highly unlikely to continue as well.

3. The bullpen.

Damaso Marte, Hideki Okajima, Justin Speier and Brian Wolfe did not allow a single earned run in Chapter One -- in 48.1 innings combined.  No BDBL reliever has ever finished a season with an ERA of 0.00, and few have ever finished with an ERA below 1.00.  Therefore, you have to figure that this trend, too, is unlikely to continue.

New Milford's seven primary starters have performed as poorly as expected, with a combined ERA of 4.78 in 150+ innings.  But the bullpen consistently saved the day in Chapter One.  The Blazers were 9-5 in games decided by two or fewer runs, and the bullpen allowed only 15.4% of inherited runners to score -- the best rate in the league, and well below the 31.8% league average.

But here is the most eye-popping stat of all: from the seventh inning on, opposing batters hit just .150/.221/.237 against Blazers pitching.  Throughout the entire first chapter, the Blazers allowed just nine runs TOTAL in the eighth and ninth innings.

Can this performance possibly continue much longer?  Please.

4. Overperforming offense.

Several hitters on the Blazers roster out-performed their MLB numbers in Chapter One:

While that 22-point difference doesn't seem like much for a small sample, bear in mind the major drop in offense in Chapter One throughout the entire BDBL.  The Blazers' team OPS of just 780 was good enough to lead the Ozzie League in Chapter One -- 66 points above league average.  In comparison, the MLB average for all OL teams was 773 -- a difference of only eight points.  So, while the Blazers' offense didn't exactly light the world on fire with a mediocre 780 OPS, it was 1927 Yankees-like compared to the rest of the BDBL.

Peburn has argued that this performance is in line with expectations, due to his home ballpark and the ingenious way in which he uses these players.  However, New Milford actually hit better on the road in Chapter One (.283/.349/.453 with 31.1 AB/HR) than they did at home (.271/.331/.431, with 33.5 AB/HR.)  And all BDBL players are used with full platoon advantages and hindsight, so this is not an advantage for any one team.

So, what can we expect going forward?

Well, if things like "statistical corrections" exist in Diamond Mind Baseball, then we can expect four things: 1) New Milford's hitters will eventually slump in clutch situations, 2) New Milford's defense will allow far more balls in play to land in the grass instead of in their mitts, 3) New Milford's bullpen -- as good as it is -- will eventually allow a few runs to score against them, and 4) New Milford's offense will eventually decline, as players like Sosa, Navarro and Cust fall back to their expected performance levels.

And once those four things happen, all will be right with the world once again.

Question #2: How can the Great Lakes Sphinx be this bad?

Last year, I predicted the Sphinx would finish in second place and win the wild card, putting them in the post-season for the first time in franchise history.  Instead, they lost 89 games and finished tied for last place.

This year, I predicted the Sphinx would finish in second place and contend for the wild card.  And after one chapter of play, they are 9-19 on the season.

How can this be?  Three reasons:

1. Stunning underperformance by the offense.

With the exceptions of Morneau, Tracy and Fields, the entire starting lineup is performing below expectations -- and in most, cases, FAR below expectations.  Byrnes should be performing at an all-star level, but instead he owns the ninth-worst OPS in the entire BDBL (among players with 100+ PAs.)  And Kent, Lee, Cuddyer, Young and Mirabelli are all underperforming by 100 points or more.

The Sphinx moved into a new custom-built ballpark this season, which slightly suppresses left-handed numbers (99/98/90/97) and slightly enhances right-handed performance (101/102/95/103.)  Could that be the issue?  Well, Great Lakes hit .219/.281/.327 at home in Chapter Two, and .258/.302/.419 on the road.  While the road numbers are slightly better, neither is even close to the level of performance we expected from the Sphinx offense this year.

2. Stunning underperformance by the pitching staff.

Like the offense, the pitching staff performed better on the road (.279/.338/.459 against) than at home (.286/.368/.457), but not so drastic a difference as to explain the overall underperformance.

The Great Lakes defense allowed opponents a .316 average on balls in play -- 28 points above the league average -- but this, too, isn't enough to explain the underperformance.

3. Poor performance at home.

As mentioned, both Great Lakes pitchers and hitters performed better on the road than at home in Chapter One, and this led to a league-worst 4-12 record at home (compared to 5-7 on the road.)  In the old days of the BDBL, no one would have blinked at those records, as most BDBL teams performed better on the road.  But these days, home teams typically sport a better record.

As stated earlier, the newly-reconfigured "Pyramid" is a mostly neutral ballpark that slightly favors right-handers and slightly penalizes left-handers.  You would expect, then, that the only three lefties in the starting lineup (Morneau, Tracy and Schneider) would be suffering a little.  Instead, all three are performing better than their MLB numbers.  It is the right-handed batters (Kent, Byrnes, Cuddyer, Lee and Young) who are all suffering.

And on the pitching side, you would expect Farnsworth (824/680 splits), Gordon (970/601), Maine (759/653), Marmol (616/445), Smoltz (709/628), Vizcaino (790/668) and Zumaya (795/450) to be most affected by pitching in a lefty-friendly ballpark.  And that is true for all but Gordon.

So, what can we expect going forward?

Since there is no reasonable explanation for Great Lakes' team-wide slump, I would expect them to bounce back very shortly.  We've seen something like this happen countless times before.  (Remember when the '04 Black Sox started 8-20 and finished with over 100 wins?)  And if Scott Romonosky has enough patience to stick this one out for another chapter or two, he'll probably be rewarded.