I’ve been wrestling with the term “luck” — specifically, as it applies to the Padres’ record in one-run games so far this season. Bill James has said that “winning or losing close games is luck” but also that “winning or losing close games is probably not all luck.”
When such seemingly contradictory statements emanate from the same knowledgeable source, I think that we must be dealing with a fairly complex issue. Actually, first my head explodes. Then I get over that and try to wrap my head around the situation.
One factor that appears to help teams achieve a good record in close games is the presence of a strong bullpen. The Padres, from a purely statistical standpoint, have the strongest bullpen in baseball. Given these two assumptions, it follows that the Padres should enjoy a fair amount of success in close games.
We also know that good teams win more close games. There’s even a variant of the Pythagorean theorem floating around (try using 0.865 as the exponent) that describes the relationship among runs scored, runs allowed, and record in one-run games. Without walking through the mathematical pyrotechnics, if we apply this formula, we can reasonably expect the Padres to have a .556 winning percentage, which currently translates to 16-13. In reality, the Padres are 13-16 in one-run games.
In Tuesday’s IGD, Anthony observed of the Padres’ poor performance in close game that “calling it luck somehow absolves the team of the responsibility to improve the situation.” He raises a great point, and I’m not sure how to tackle it. In life, I imagine that luck comes into play most every day. I also imagine that there are certain measures we can take to increase our odds when it does.
Returning to baseball, and using a real-world example, in the eighth inning of Tuesday night’s game (recap | boxscore), Scott Linebrink retired the first two batters he faced — Ryan Klesko on a lazy fly ball to center field, and Pedro Feliz on a routine grounder to second base — bringing up Kevin Frandsen. On a 1-1 count, Linebrink delievered a nasty slider at the knees, just off the outer half of the plate. Frandsen lunged for it and managed to get his bat on the ball, tapping it into no-man’s land between Linebrink and third baseman Kevin Kouzmanoff.
Linebrink had taken a measure (delivering a nasty slider) to increase his odds of success, while Frandsen had taken his own countermeasure (putting bat on ball) to do the same for his side. In this case, the ball that Frandsen struck landed in a spot where nobody could field it. He just as easily could have hit it directly to third base and been retired for the final out of the inning.
Later, in the 10th, Kouzmanoff drove a ball to dead center. Dave Roberts got a good jump and made a valiant effort to keep it in the park, but came up just short. Kouz’s homer proved to be the game-winning hit for San Diego.
So, what is luck? Linebrink makes a great pitch to Frandsen, but it doesn’t result in an out. Kouzmanoff hits a home run that barely clears the fence. If Linebrink retires Frandsen, there’s a good chance the Padres win the game in regulation. If Kouzmanoff’s drive begins its descent a foot or so earlier, the game remains tied.
I guess my point in all this is that there’s a lot of grey area. Luck doesn’t, and shouldn’t, absolve a team of anything. But here and there, it does help explain a few things.
How would we feel about Tuesday’s game and this team if Frandsen had hit his ground ball a little harder and made the final out of the eighth inning? How about if Roberts had caught Kouzmanoff’s fly ball and the Giants ended up winning? Now, what is the difference between Kouz hitting a fly ball to the wall and, say, striking out?
We’re looking at a few key moments among many in a single game. Multiply this by all the games a team plays over the course of a season and all the events that occur in those games, and you begin to get the idea. After your head explodes, of course.
Take measures to increase the odds of success. Formulate a plan, execute the plan, hope good things happen. That’s baseball, that’s life.
by Peter Friberg
You will not see Clay Hensley in San Diego any time soon…
AAA
Clay Hensley: 7.0 IP, 11 H, 8 R, 8 ER, 1 BB, 9 SO, 4 HR – Yikes!
Jared Wells: 2.0 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 0 BB, 4 SO, 0 HR
AA
Will Venable: 3 AB, 2 R, 2 H, 1 RBI; HR – All-Star game
High-A
Matt Antonelli: 4 AB, 2 R, 2 H, 0 RBI; BB, SO
Craig Cooper: 4 AB, 2 R, 3 H, 4 RBI; 2 2B, SF
Brian Giles: 3 AB, 0 R, 0 H, 0 RBI; 2 BB, SO
Low-A
Game postponed…
Short Season-A
Kellen Kulbacki: 3 AB, 1 R, 3 H, 1 RBI; BB
Rookie
Yefri Carvajal: 4 AB, 1 R, 2 H, 1 RBI; 2B, HR, SO
Cooper Brannan: 0.0 IP, 3 H, 5 R, 5 ER, 3 BB, 0 SO, 0 HR – 45.00 ERA
Matt Bush: 1.1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 1 BB, 4 SO, 0 HR
Commentary:
Clay has LOST it… Wow!
In Portland:
2-4 with 6.85 ERA in 43.1 IP, 66 H, 40 R, 33 ER, 20 BB, 28 SO, 7 HR
Will Venable hit a Texas All Star Game game-tying homer Tuesday night.
Monday night Kellen got his name in the PPR for making his debut. Tuesday he earned it.
Can we promote Matt Bush to Eugene yet?
Thanks, Peter. Wednesday’s game starts at 12:35 p.m. PT. We’ll have the IGD up and running about an hour before first pitch.
Go Padres!
In today’s UT Notes from Krasovic:
“In talks with the Padres, the Cubs offered to pay the remainder of outfielder Jacque Jones’ $4 million salary for this season, plus all of his $5 million salary for 2008 in return for a low-level prospect. Preferring Terrmel Sledge over Jones, the Padres declined, after which the Cubs dealt Jones to the Marlins”
Geez, talk about not being able to give a guy away! That just floors me – not that Pads weren’t takers, thank goodness for that – but that the Cubs are offering to pick up the full tab and still had trouble moving the guy.
1: I would have been surprised if that deal has gone thru. Word is that the Commisioner’s Office torpedoed the deal to the Marlins because of how much salaray the Cubs were picking up.
Hensley’s line is just weird…he gives up four homers but strikes out nine…he gives up eight earned but pitches through the seventh inning???
Who would have thought our rotation would rely so much on Justin Germano at this point?
*Head explodes* You know, maybe Clay’s been thinking too much about luck’s role in baseball lately and that’s why HE’S exploded.
3: Since it’s a AAA game and the Portland team is a world of suck, I’m guessing they left him in there to try to get him to figure things out. If everything else hasn’t helped,… It may not have been the worst idea, since 7 out of 8 earned runs were in the first 3 innings. It’d be interesting to see where the Ks came.
Peter, I have to say I love the varied intros to the PPR. Especially today’s – for humor value, not the actual fact that Clay has lost it.
3: That tells me Clay still has good movement on his pitches but is also still leaving balls up in the zone where they get hammered. Obviously that’s not a good place to be for a sinker specialist. One thing I noticed with Clay earlier this year was he seemed like he was throwing harder than last year. I wonder if he’s throwing too hard, negating his natural movement, or if he’s somehow decided that he’s a power pitcher?
The emphasis on “luck” in stathead circles over the last few years really bothers me. It seems like any time something can’t be explained by current statistical knowledge, it’s ascribed to luck. As Branch Rickey famously stated, luck is the residue of design. Was Zito’s failure to get a bunt down bad luck, or was it bad bunting? Sure one of those bunts could have stayed fair, but they didn’t. As Mud said after Zito fouled a couple off, Maddux would already be in the dugout with his jacket on.
As fans of the game (I’d like to consider us thinking fans) we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss a subpar record in one run games as “luck”. It may very well be a function of how this team is constructed, and as such is something that will continue unless changes are made. My two cents: the lack of a legit power hitter is hurting us because we don’t get that solo home run in the late innings that could make the difference, a la Varitek v. Linebrink (not a tie game but you get my point). Sure we had Kouz last night but think how many more of those we would have if we had a guy like Dunn or Glaus.
In an environment where runs are scarce, each individual run takes on more importance. We have a run suppressing home park, the best pitching staff in baseball, a good defense and a middling to weak offense. I think there’s a good argument that an Adam Dunn would be vastly more important to the Padres than he is to the Reds.
Sorry for the long comment. I should start a blog or something…
5: I thought I saw the total opposite in his major league starts, that Clay had decided to be like Maddux and was throwing his fastball slower and his changeup way too much.
The team can’t think he’s hurt. There’s nothing to be gained by letting him pitch for Portland if they even suspect it. Or if they do think he’s hurt, then there’s a strange decision-making process.
Jomel Crudge has 3 HR in Innings 7 and on.
Adam Dunn has 2 HR in Innings 7 and on.
Anthony, it would be interesting for you to profile all Padres one-run games this year, and evaluate them according to your hypothesis.
#5: Bingo. Luck plays a role, but the open questions are a) how much of a role, and b) what other factors can influence luck? We should be looking at luck as the beginning of a problem, not as the solution. Sometimes the best answer is to throw up one’s hands, but only after a lot of digging has been done. In many cases, we haven’t reached that point yet.
Thanks, Anthony, for bringing this up in the IGD. It has been eating at me for a while. Thanks for mentioning the Rickey quote also. I almost used it myself but couldn’t make it fit. Good stuff…
Re: Luck.
It isn’t really luck, most of the time, in my opinion. Winning or losing is the result of actions by your team. It is just that teams are close enough in ability and there is enough variability in ability and environment that the best team doesn’t always execute and win.
Kouzmanoff did hit it hard enough to get the home run. If he didn’t hit it hard enough next time, it isn’t luck, it’s just variability in his performance.
My theory is that luck plays a very minor role on a game-by-game basis, but over the course of a season (or half a season) it is almost completely diminished to having no role. That is also why long series are more telling than short series. the “luck” factor will even out over the course of time.
Of those 13-16 record games, I’m curious to see how many of those games are true 1-run game (not of the variety in which either teams score runs late in the game just enough to turn a 5-run game into a 1-run game). I consider a nail bitter like last night game to be a true 1-run game.
I agree with Anthony that at some point the luck factor can’t be just that. The Padres as they are right now, has flaws in their roster (Silent L getting way too many ABs in important spots, too many OF that’re not hitting enough to start everyday nor field enough to add to the defense).
9: Bloops are the luck variety of hits, a high chopper that gave a fast runner a first base is a lucky hit. But, I agree that most of the time, it’s not luck that decides the outcomes of games.
7: I love Jomel Crudge, the name. Now, if only they’d perform much better, that name will be in songs and DS glossary.
10: In any one game luck can have an effect, from tiny to huge and all stops in between. We’ve all seen games where one team hits the ball right on the nose all night but right at people, while the winning team gets a couple of favorable hops, a blown call by an umpire, and a seeing-eye ground ball. During the season those games are less important because you have 161 changes for it to balance out. In the playoffs it can kill you. Jeffrey Maier. Don Denkinger.
Oh, wait. Crudge is in the DS glossary. Now we have a first name. Cool.
re: Luck … it seems a complex concept that no one definition will encompass … one that I like and helps me is this …
Luck is Preparation meeting Opportunity
… which seems to me to be a fancy way of saying that oftentimes you make your own “luck”.
GY, can you clarify one thing for me? You said …
… and I’m not sure I know that. I know good teams win more games, that’s what the definition of a good team is. Are you saying “good teams win even more games than that”? It’s my understanding that “good teams win more games that are not close” … ie. good teams win blowouts … that that concept is at the core of the Pythagorean theorem … ie. blowouts are what leads to “run differential” after all the close games wash out …
5 … I hope from 14 you can see that I’m a “make your own luck” kind of guy, at heart … and there’s another side to my understanding of “luck” …
What the “statheads” call “luck” are events which seem to be random … ie. are unpredictable. If there’s no correlation between a teams overall winning pct and it’s winning pct in 1-run games or close games, then that seems to be evidence that it’s random … aka “luck”. I don’t know what the correlation is … just projecting an example of how results of 1-run games can be described as “luck”.
14: Hey, how did you do that?
“Luck is probability taken personally”
Penn Jillette
Can anyone explain this news from Yahoo sports? If true, could they be recalling Thompson for purposes of waiving him and creating a roster spot somewhere? Strange.
Padres recall RHP Thompson, option INF Headley
June 27, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO (TICKER) — The San Diego Padres completed a pair of moves prior to Wednesday’s finale of a three-game series with the San Francisco Giants.
The Padres recalled righthander Mike Thompson from Class AAA Portland and optioned young infielder Chase Headley to Class AA San Antonio.
The 26-year-old Thompson returns to San Diego for the first time since being optioned down on April 19. He is 0-1 with a 7.84 ERA in five games this season.
15: However, sometimes, like the 17-inning lost to the Dodgers, the luck is a product of design as well. As good as both bullpens were at the time, the Padres hitters were horrid at the plate, producing only 1 hit and 1 BB from the 7th inning on as opposed to the Dodgers’ hitters (6 hits & 5 BBs). In that way, one does make one’s luck. Of course, had that 1 hit by the Padres been a winning HR, then, it’s truly lucky. It wasn’t so.
#14: I like your definition of luck, LM. Regarding “good teams win more close games,” follow the link in the first paragraph of today’s post. If you scroll down a bit, you’ll come to this nugget:
Incidentally, that linked article at THT is full of other resources on this seemingly inexhaustible topic.
At the risk of getting too “Dark Side of the Moon” (or “Houses of the Holy” if you prefer), another aspect of luck relates to the convergence of discrete events. What are the odds that Linebrink would throw a quality pitch to Frandsen AND Frandsen would hit it BUT not hard enough for anyone to make a play on it?
There, my head just exploded again. I hope you’re happy…
Re: 18 hmm I would imageine they are making that move because they have burned alot of bullpen arms in the past few days and OG is due back tomarrow or fri.
BP has a recap of interleague-play which included these comments about the Padres …
The Padres went 6-9 for their eighth straight losing season against AL clubs. However, their 3.53 ERA was the best in the major leagues, and a visit from the Red Sox helped the bottom line as a Petco Park-record 133,311 attended the three-game series last weekend.
16 … GY modified the site to allow “pre” tags … try it, you’ll like it!
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_pre.asp
It was primarily so that folks could post data in a nice-looking table form (ie. so that the multiple-spaces wouldn’t get eaten), but I like it for other purposes also …
The Padres make WAY too many unproductive outs (K’s and fly ball outs that don’t advance runners). This leaves them in an abundance of close, low scoring games so the importance of singe bad luck/good luck events are magnified.
If this team could string together a few guys making contact, and not just hits, this 1 run game/luck conversation wouldn’t be taking place.
On a slight side note – Derek Jeter fielding that ground ball last night where the barrell of the broken bat is moving side-by side with the ball and still being able to make the throw is skill overcoming bad luck.
Which kind of goes to my point, a little more skill (particularly at the plate) would diminsh the significance of their bad luck/good luck scenarios.
re: correlation between performance in close games and bullpen strength
I always thought it was too simple to say it’s about a strong bullpen…I think top-heavy bullpen makes more sense. If there was a great disparity between your best and worst relievers, think about it:
-your small leads will often be preserved by your hi-leverage relievers
-your large leads will often turn into small leads as your crappy mop-up men hand the game over to your hi-leverage guys
-your deficits will often turn into bigger deficits
hence you’d see a lot of close wins and blowout losses, and a “lucky” pythagorean split.
our bullpen is not really top-heavy, so we’re not particularly “lucky,” pythagoreaically speaking
“pythagoreaically”…….nice!
12-15 is a statistic that doesnt say we have the strongest bullpen in MLB.
Re 12:
wiktionary definition of luck
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luck
1. Something that happens to someone by chance, a chance occurrence.
2. A superstitious feeling that brings fortune or success.
I don’t believe in superstition, so I go with def #1.
As for def # 1, I don’t think it applies since ballplayers are technically completely in charge of what they do. A better hitter has more control over where he hits the ball (i.e. not directly at a fielder) and thence lowers his “chances” of getting out. But, he is definitely in control, as are the pitchers, fielders, coaches, umps, etc. Since no one is perfect, there are a lot of missed opportunities, but I don’t ascribe 99.9% of missed opportunities to “chance”.
Now, when Dave Winfield hit the bird with a thrown ball and killed it. THAT was chance.
I wonder what the Cubs are going to do with their glut of OFs.
They don’t seem to know what to make of Felix Pie, Matt Murton, and Angel Pagan. Which one should the Padres try to trade for and at what cost?
I’m not sure that the Padres even have enough chips to trade for any of them.
30: Randy Johnson throwing the slider and hitting the bird flying through the strike zones, thus decimating the bird into puffing feathers was a CHANCE.
31: How about none of them. I dont really like any of those names.
A little late in this conversation, but I think of luck as the distance from the expected outcome vs. what actually occurs, especially the clustering of infrequent events. I don’t have any way of measuring it, but I am guessing if you ran a perfectly controlled experiment of a Scott Linebrink vs. a Fransden, ran the outcomes a billion times, you are going to get the “true” expected outcome of that match up. In some of those tests, Fransden hits a home run (not often), in some of those tests, Fransden K’s (a lot more). Now Fransden’s dribbler was not only a hit against Linebrink but a weak hit, but I think of it in the “hit” category. I think the “true” outcome of Linebrink vs. Fransden favors the Padres, so when Fransden wins, it is at odds with the expected outcome, but not incredibly shocking either (Linebrink is not that much better than Fransden), but still “lucky” for the Giants.
I am starting to stretch it here, but I would argue it would not necessarily appear like luck if Linebrink pitched a fat fastball that went for a jack. No one would say that Linebrink was “unlucky”, just bad. But, unless pitching fat fastballs was part of new trend, I would say that event, because it happens infrequently, is bad luck.
With the clustering events, I think of a team is given an allotment of 6 singles (no walks) in a game. If those are spread out over the game, the team will most likely get shut out. They are bunched sequentially, six in a row, that could generate 3 or 4 runs. To me, that is an improbable, aka “lucky”, outcome. So, I would use stats to predict the expected runs scored per 9 for six singles without a walk. If the team scores worse, unlucky, if the team scores better, lucky.
So when James says “1 run games are luck”, I interpret him to say the variability in outcomes, even between two mismatched teams but ones locked in a close scoring game, is such that which team prevails is a matter of chance, or luck. You play those two teams against each other a billion times, the better team will win more often, but when you isolate to the games where it is very close, a lot of variability/luck comes into play. I would expect a slight bias towards good teams winning those more often than weaker teams, just because the cards are stacked in their favor, but it is far from a lock.
I’ve re-read this a few times, and while it mostly makes sense to me, I expect it will muddy the discussion instead of clarifying it, but I thought I would add my thoughts.
#34: Thanks, Jay, for the thoughtful response. This is a difficult topic, and I’m not sure we’ll ever reach a satisfying resolution, but it’s good to think about these things every once in a while.