22 thoughts on “August 2, 2023: GG”

  1. The weather was absolutely beautiful last night: 83° at game time (left side was in the shade though) and finished in the 70s. Oh, and we won! My seat was right on the left field foul wall, and as I was standing there during warmups, the field attendant came up to chat -- I had forgot that the baseball card shop owner's brother Kevin (in the red helmet in the photo) worked the ballpark! I had a really nice couple and their 7ish year old son (Silas) to visit with during the game, and I had caught Kevin's attention at one point and singled out the boy, so about the 7th inning or so Carlos Correa grounded foul, and next thing we know an usher was bringing the ball over to Silas -- absolutely made his day. We were sure to give Kevin a thumbs up.

    I brought my earbuds along but didn't use them at all; I did pull up audio on my phone during the missed first base rigmarole to catch what was going on, otherwise just enjoyed the ambiance.

    We've had a ½" rain overnight and more off and on today, but it looks like it might be fine all during game time tonight. Runner daughter's godfather has four tickets, and my neighbor and I are joining him -- no idea where the seats are, but if someone has free tickets, you don't ask! I'll pick up his brat and drink (he's a WSox fan, so I feel some pity).
    Go Twins!

  2. I feel like the Twins brass just assume they can get someone that is a good enough right-handed off the scrap heap of DFA's. Though Gleeman's thoughts have me a bit concerned if the FO is even willing to do that: "[T]he notion that Gallo, an impending free agent hitting .163 in his last 75 games, couldn’t be cast aside for a better fit in a lefty-heavy lineup, simply lacks credibility."

    That doesn't really work for relievers. As seen by the White Sox's deadline moves, I don't understand why every off season goal for every team isn't "sign 3 above average relievers to modest contracts, and if things go south trade them for prospects." I guess maybe every team's goal is that, but there are only so many relievers to go around (RE: the whole "Pagan is a constantly healthy, below average reliever … but he's constantly healthy so has value" thing).

    1. RE: the whole "Pagan is a constantly healthy, below average reliever … but he's constantly healthy so has value" thing

      Is he a below average reliever?

      1. League average ERA for a reliever in 2023 is 4.14. Pagán has a 3.23 ERA and a 3.53 FIP. Both above average.

        1. It seems like when he's been bad he's been really bad, and that, along with his time as closer last year, skews the perception of him. But for the most part, he's been fairly good.

        2. But hasn't here been pretty bad in high leverage situations? That's kind of a big deal for a reliever.

          1. It hasn't been pretty in high leverage situations.

            Split PA BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS sOPS+
            High Lvrge 28 3 8 .200 .286 .560 .846 123
            Medium Lvrge 46 2 10 .182 .217 .273 .490 33
            Low Lvrge 115 10 26 .192 .270 .308 .577 61
              1. I should have included home runs, but yes. Five hits, three of which went over the fence, in his 28 PAs. The OBP part looks nice but the SLG not so nice.

                1. I thought I would crunch the probabilities on this. Given a 12% chance of a hit being a home run (that's Pagan's overall HR per hit ratio for this season), there is roughly a 1% chance that we would observe 3 (or more, though 4+ is essentially 0% chance of happening). So it's unlikely to happen by chance, but not *that* unlikely to happen, given how much baseball gets played.

                  Another way to look at it is that given roughly a 2.1% chance of a HR allowed per PA, there is an expectation of 0.59 HR over 28 PA. Approximating with a binomial distribution, you'd get 0 HR 55% of the time (so 1+ HR 45% of the time). 3+ HR happens roughly 1.8% of the time based on that method, which isn't too far off from looking at home runs per hit.

                  If you divide up Pagan's career into "trials" of 28 PA, then you get roughly 55 trials. With the probability of allowing 3+ HR in each trial of p = 0.01, then the probability of allowing 3+ HR over one of the 28 PA trials is 43%. If you set p = 0.018, then the probability of allowing 3+ HR over one of the 28 PA trials is 63%.

                  Being totally accurate in estimating the probability of it happening by chance would be more complicated (you probably need to adjust for base-out situations and given such small sample sizes, even strength of opponent probably matters), but I think by the back-of-the-napkin math, just based on the evidence of this season, it's not too hard for me to say it's more likely than not a bit of a fluke. Strikeouts look good, BA against looks good, 3 bad pitches over 28 PA can happen. If he was really totally unable to cope with high leverage situations, I'd expect way more than 3 walks or something like we saw with Rick Ankiel melting down with the yips.

                  1. I appreciate the one-man mission to counteract Gleeman's one-man mission to paint Pagán as the worst ever.

                    1. Yeah, it’s become a bit of a crusade. At some point I’ll move on, but I struggle with acceptance.

          2. He has more outings with +0.06 WPA than with -0.06 WPA. (Fangraphs tracks these as “shutdowns” versus “meltdowns.”)

            Teams carry 8-man bullpens these days. Pagan is far from elite, but I’d say he’s been average to above average the last calendar year. There are a ton of really bad relief pitchers out there.

        1. On the whole, WPA is a stupid metric on which to evaluate players, though. Just to start with, everything is double counted (hitters get the same credit for improving win probability as pitchers get blame for losing win probability but it is rarely the case that they share equal responsibility), and pitchers get ascribed the entire credit/blame regardless of anything that happens defensively. WPA for relievers also depends on how they are deployed and it also depends on whether your team is leading a lot late in games or if it is losing a lot late in games. The best bullpen in the world can’t really earn WPA if they are consistently handed 5-run leads. And the worst bullpen can’t really lose WPA if they are being handed 5-run deficits.

          Plus, I hate going back to evaluating against averages — there are a lot of really good reasons that we should evaluate against replacement level instead.

      2. Relievers in general are fickle creatures. Fan perspective is often different than underlying stats. They are often subject to fairly small sample size when you look at one season or portions of a season. Sometimes it is just unfortunate luck. For example: How many times have we seen a team execute a timely hit on a great slider out of the zone. 3 runs score and the reliever is the goat, despite executing a perfect pitch that the batter just happened to correctly guess was coming. How many stellar relievers have been picked up at the deadline and then bomb for the new team? That is why I am not really excited about the team signing (or not signing) a reliever at the deadline. You are almost better off running a few power arms from your farm club through the roster and see if one of them catches fire. Pagan is no different than so many other career relief pitchers. He has had a couple above average years, and a few not so great years. For the Twins he has been unfortunate to lay an egg at the wrong time during a handful of games.

        1. I'm sure someone somewhere has figured out the relivers in history that were well above average for x number of years in a row. I imagine the list is pretty small once you get up to 7-8 years in a row. Nathan was really special and he only did it for 7. Rivera was unreal. 17 consecutive great years, with his worst year sporting a 144 ERA+

Comments are closed.