It is high, it is far, it is... caught!: Joey Gallo is on fire

2020 Tabloids Back Page & Covers Results

Yankees 152
Mets 132
Giants 123.5
Jets 55
NFL w (Super Bowl) 52
Knicks 51

MLB (w/World Series) 46

Covid 37

Nets 20

Astros cheating scandal 16.5
RIP: Kobe Bryant 13.5

NBA 11

Rangers 8.5

Golf 8
Horse racing 5
NCAA football 4
Olympics 2.5

Patrick Ewing w Covid 2

RIP: Hank Steinbrenner 2

RIP: Anthony Causi 2

RIP: George Floyd 2
Tennis 2
NCAA basketball 2
NASCAR racism 2

RIP: David Stern 1

RIP: Don Shula 1

RIP: Tom Dempsey 1

RIP: Joe Morgan 1

Colin Kaepernick 1

Chinese Baseball 1

Little League baseball 1

Lady Liberty 1

MMA 1

Michael Jordan 1

Len Dykstra disgrace 1

Wednesday, August 10, 2022

Joey Gallo is on fire

Posted by el duque at 3:45 PM

He's 55 points above his average with the Yankees.

54 comments:

DickAllen said...: Who?; August 10, 2022 at 4:42 PM
ranger_lp said...: Finally…Higgy!!!; August 10, 2022 at 6:03 PM
ranger_lp said...: Judge!!!; August 10, 2022 at 6:09 PM
ranger_lp said...: They’re losing this game…smh; August 10, 2022 at 6:27 PM
Publius said...: The 2022 New York Yankees are not a good baseball team.; August 10, 2022 at 6:27 PM
Hinkey Haines said...: What a dumpster fire. I think all pre-season predictions of <90 wins are still in play.; August 10, 2022 at 6:31 PM
Hinkey Haines said...: Good thing Cashman got Abreu back. BIG help.; August 10, 2022 at 6:33 PM
Publius said...: Think they'll get one in Boston?; August 10, 2022 at 6:37 PM
Doug K. said...: I hate this team. They are predictable and not in a good way. Abreu is better when he starts an inning. Bringing him in with a man on is tantamount to flushing the game. The Yankees can't hold leads anymore.; August 10, 2022 at 6:49 PM
DickAllen said...: 4for23 RISP this series; August 10, 2022 at 6:57 PM
Hazel Motes said...: Any team that inflicts not just Michael Kay, but also, for sadistic good measure, Ryan Ruocco on its fans deserves its grisly fate.; August 10, 2022 at 6:57 PM
DickAllen said...: And a pitching staff ERA for the 3 games of 2.96; August 10, 2022 at 6:59 PM
Carl J. Weitz said...: I hate this team too but despise the (mis)managent even more.; August 10, 2022 at 6:59 PM
The Archangel said...: Good thing that we sent Marinachio down in order to not have the DFA Abreu.

Another stroke of genius by Cashamn.

this team suffers from Executive Suckitude.; August 10, 2022 at 7:13 PM
HoraceClarke66 said...: Andujar already has 2 hits in as many games—which for Gallo, would have been a month's work. Give him a week. Johnny Lasagna, too, who has pitched well for us in the past.

To me, the crazy thing—excuse me, ONE of the crazy things—remains the lineup. Someone said that the Big Guy likes to bat second.

Fine. But with Beni finally having a hot hand along with DJ, BAT THEM 1-2, ahead of Judge. It just makes sense. AND IT WILL SCORE MORE RUNS.; August 10, 2022 at 7:21 PM
Hazel Motes said...: "It just makes sense." Having your best hitter come up one less time in a game does not make sense. And the odds are not great that both LeMahieu and Benitendi will get on ahead of Judge. AND the batting order gets scrambled after the first inning anyway. Judge could just as easily be leading off a given inning. Best to have him coming up as often as possible.; August 10, 2022 at 7:32 PM
DickAllen said...: Whether Judge bats second or third makes no difference in how many at-bats he’ll get over the course of the season.

If he were to bat fourth, yes, he’d lose at bats

You can assume all you want, but nothing can convince me otherwise, and I’ve read the article you posted which qualified their argument by saying he would lose 40-50 at bats but not if he’s starting off the game in the first inning everyday. It specifically said 3-4-5 and offered nothing in the way of conclusive proof about the difference between 2 and 3.; August 10, 2022 at 8:20 PM
MJ said...: DA, what you say makes sense if a game never ends with the #3 hitter on deck. Since the first three batters come up most often, it seems likely that #2 would make the final out at least a little more than the 11% random chance. So there are 14-15 at bats a year. Not a lot but not nothing. None of which is relevant in this case since these shitheads will "rest" Judge more than that.; August 10, 2022 at 8:35 PM
Hazel Motes said...: Someone who says he read everything I posted must have missed the following:

"So why are sluggers batting earlier? There is a very strong correlation between batting order and run production. Statistics show that the #2 hitters get between 40-50 extra plate appearances per season than the player batting third or fourth. Statistics further demonstrate that more of the at-bats from the #2 spot come with fewer than two outs."

From the following:

https://www.lrsitsolutions.com/Blog/Posts/70/Analytics/2019/5/How-Analytics-changed-the-role-of-the-2-hitter/blog-post/; August 10, 2022 at 8:47 PM
Hazel Motes said...: That same person who said he read everything I posted must also have overlooked the following, from Baseball Prospectus:

""The idea behind the shifting identity of no. 2 hitters is a simple one: You want your best hitters batting the most often, and moving from 3-4-5 to no. 2 can equal an extra 30-50 plate appearances per season (and fewer plate appearances with two outs)."

In other words, the difference between the 2 slot and EITHER 3,4, or 5 is in the range of 30-50 plate appearances per season.

If someone insists on reading that as stating that there is no difference in number of PA's between 2 and 3, even though it states something quite different, there's nothing I can do. Anyone else can see what it says.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/38931/banjo-hitter-reimagining-2-hitter/; August 10, 2022 at 8:51 PM
Hazel Motes said...: Person who misread the article states, "you posted which qualified their argument by saying he would lose 40-50 at bats but not if he’s starting off the game in the first inning everyday." No such qualification anywhere in the BP article. Once again, here's the link if you want to see for yourself:

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/38931/banjo-hitter-reimagining-2-hitter/; August 10, 2022 at 8:54 PM
Hazel Motes said...: Moreoer, person who says he read the article but completely misinterprets it does not address the point that the batting order gets scrambled after the first inning, so there's no predictability after that about who will precede your best hitter in a given inning. And it's intuitively obvious that if your best hitter misses even one PA in a close game in a critical situation, it reduces your chances of winning the game.; August 10, 2022 at 8:59 PM
DickAllen said...: Yes, and if you pound on a desk long enough someone is likely to hear.

But Barney, you got nothing. Once you introduce the idea of a 4 or 5 hitter, your argument doesn't hold up. It's all pure conjecture and you've proven nothing.; August 10, 2022 at 9:09 PM
DickAllen said...: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.; August 10, 2022 at 9:12 PM
The Hammer of God said...: Yeah, we get your point that Judge gets 40 to 50 more at-bats over the course of a season if he hits 2 rather than lower. But I still don't agree with it.

How do you calculate probability of two events? If you have two guys in the 1 and 2 slot who both hit .300, that's 3/10 plus 3/10. So if Judge hits 3, then the probability of at least one guy getting on base in front of Judge is 6/10, is it not? (I'm not 100% sure, as it's hard to remember the grade school probability math that I learned, but I think I'm correct.)

If Judge hits 2, then the probability of DJ being on is about 3/10. (This is just taking the batting average, not even the on base percentage.) So 3/10 chance of DJ being on base, and 7/10 chance of Judge hitting with nobody on base. Versus 6/10 chance that at least one guy is on base for Judge. Which do you prefer? That's in the first inning only.

It can be different in later innings, obviously. But even in the later innings, you have to think that there is a higher probability of Judge coming up with somebody on base if he hits 3 rather than 2. The 8 and 9 hitters aren't going to be as good at getting on as the 1 and 2 hitters.

It's a strategic choice that you make, whether you want your hitter to come up 50 times more per season, versus every game that he comes up with AT LEAST a 60% chance that one guy is on base during the first inning. I vote for the 3 slot.; August 10, 2022 at 9:20 PM
Hazel Motes said...: Nothing is proved except that the guys who have done elaborate statistical analysis state very clearly that the difference between 2 and 3 in the order is 30-50 plate appearances per year. That's what I've got, from those experts and statisticians, along with quoted passages and citations to the sources. And what have you got? Endless denial of those plain facts, along with made-up "qualifications" that do not appear in the text, and NO quotations or citations of any kind refuting anything I posted. Such as:

""The idea behind the shifting identity of no. 2 hitters is a simple one: You want your best hitters batting the most often, and moving from 3-4-5 to no. 2 can equal an extra 30-50 plate appearances per season (and fewer plate appearances with two outs)."

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/38931/banjo-hitter-reimagining-2-hitter/

Such as:

"So why are sluggers batting earlier? There is a very strong correlation between batting order and run production. Statistics show that the #2 hitters get between 40-50 extra plate appearances per season than the player batting third or fourth. Statistics further demonstrate that more of the at-bats from the #2 spot come with fewer than two outs."

https://www.lrsitsolutions.com/Blog/Posts/70/Analytics/2019/5/How-Analytics-changed-the-role-of-the-2-hitter/blog-post/

All that looks like "nothing" only to the person who is in denial, with no quotations or citations.; August 10, 2022 at 9:24 PM
Hazel Motes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 10, 2022 at 9:29 PM
Hazel Motes said...: "How do you calculate probability of two events? If you have two guys in the 1 and 2 slot who both hit .300, that's 3/10 plus 3/10. So if Judge hits 3, then the probability of at least one guy getting on base in front of Judge is 6/10, is it not? (I'm not 100% sure, as it's hard to remember the grade school probability math that I learned, but I think I'm correct.)" No, you are not correct--the probabilities are not additive. The probability remains 30 percent that they will BOTH be on base. By your logic, if you have a lineup of all .300 OBP hitters, by the time you get to the 8 spot, the probability that the preceding hitters will be on base is 210 percent. This is getting a bit absurd.; August 10, 2022 at 9:42 PM
Hazel Motes said...: "But even in the later innings, you have to think that there is a higher probability of Judge coming up with somebody on base if he hits 3 rather than 2. The 8 and 9 hitters aren't going to be as good at getting on as the 1 and 2 hitters." This is not true. After the first inning, the probability of anyone coming up first in an inning or second or third or whatever is based on so many variables that there it is not possible to apply any calculus of likelihood. It becomes a random event after the first inning. So all these arguments for the traditional 3 or 4 slot for the best hitter are based ONLY on the first inning, and even there they fail, because the 4 slot means that your best hitter might not even bat in the first inning; and with the 3 slot there is only a marginally higher likelihood that there will be two runners on base in that first inning rather than one, but a much higher likelihood that you will be sacrificing a plate appearance by your best hitter, possibly in a high-leverage situation, later in the game.; August 10, 2022 at 9:46 PM
The Hammer of God said...: Hey man, sorry if I'm as erudite as you. But:

If two guys are both 3/10, then the probability that BOTH will be on base for Judge will be less than 3/10. Just common sense.

If two guys are both 3/10, then the probability that AT LEAST one will be on base is going to be higher than 3/10. Also just common sense.

But regardless of the actual percentages, we know that batting Judge 3 will result in a higher probability of him coming up with AT LEAST one guy on base, instead of with bases empty.; August 10, 2022 at 9:46 PM
Hazel Motes said...: But you stated that the percentages are additive, so that the likelihood would be 60 percent. I'm sure you see that that is not true. The likelihood that one or both will be on base remains 30 percent. The first guy getting on base does not increase or reduce the likelihood of the second guy getting on base. It remains 30 percent for both. And that is only ONE guaranteed scenario in the game, a long shot for which you risk the much greater likelihood of losing an at-bat later in the game, possibly in a pivotal situation, by your best hitter.; August 10, 2022 at 9:58 PM
Rufus T. Firefly said...: Duque,

Time to end the plague.

Permanently.; August 10, 2022 at 10:49 PM
The Hammer of God said...: Okay, I looked up how to calculate probability. I'm not a gambler. LOL

According to Quora (laugh if you want), the easiest way to calculate the probability of two guys being on base at the same time, assuming 3/10 batting averages and ignoring walks and everything else:

7/10 chance of making out X 7/10 chance of making out = 49/100 probability of both making out

So the inverse is: 51/100 probability of either getting on base plus both being on base

If we take out the possibility of both being on base at the same time:

3/10 X 3/10 = 9/100

51% minus 9% = 42% chance that one will be on base

So if Judge hits #2, the probability someone being on base is only 30%. If Judge hits #3, the probability of one guy being on base is 42% and two guys on base is 9%. Probability of at least one guy being on base is therefore 51%.

A simple way to look at it, but I'd rather take the higher probability of someone being on base when he comes up. If you take the actual on base percentages, the odds are going to be even higher that at least one guy is on base ahead of Judge.

With on base percentages, assuming .350 obp, then it'll be about 58% probability that at least one guy is on base for Judge (probability of one guy being on base plus the probability of both being on base).

I'll take my chances that he won't come up one more time in the last inning for the better chance of him coming up with somebody on base in the 1st inning. This might be something that I consider on a game by game basis, but I think I'd put him #3 most of the time.; August 10, 2022 at 11:16 PM
Kevin said...: Barney, always accusing men of being women haters, when in fact you hate men with a passion. I will tip my hat to you, in a sense, at least you did your homework on the sport since last year. It's a shame, really, you go through the trouble not for any love for the game. You simply load up on quotes from serious research and use them as arrows. You really need to grow up and out of yourself. You must be a blast to be around in the real world.; August 10, 2022 at 11:19 PM
Kevin said...: On a fun note, The Post reports that Yes is looking to bring Beltran and Maybin back next year. The reasoning is such bullshit.....; August 10, 2022 at 11:27 PM
AboveAverage said...: end the plague?; August 10, 2022 at 11:35 PM
HoraceClarke66 said...: Hey, sorry to have started this and then been away from it. My apologies, Hammer, Kevin, DickAllen.

You want odds? How about this?

Chances of Aaron Judge hitting a three-run homer in the first inning if he bats second: ZERO.

To be slightly less precise:

Among other things, A LOT of baseball is about playing while ahead. It always gives you a decided advantage. A big problem for the Yankees this year has been that they are so often behind. This will get exponentially worse in the playoffs, where everybody has some big-time relievers...; August 10, 2022 at 11:42 PM
HoraceClarke66 said...: More runners on means more tsuris for the pitcher.

Yes, it does.

It's why the pitcher is always throwing over to first, checking guys. It's why the fielders in general rearrange themselves. And the pitcher is always conscious that, if the Big Bopper he is facing with men on base comes through, he's not down 1 run or 2 runs, but 3. Big difference....; August 10, 2022 at 11:45 PM
HoraceClarke66 said...: ...The optimum lineup is having lots of guys hitting, and nobody feeling they have to do it all. That was the philosophy of "moving the line" on the 1998 Yankees, the greatest team ever.

Players never felt they had to do it all. There was another terrific hitter up next.

Obviously, the poorly constructed 2022 New York Yankees are not your optimum team. But it's all the more important to bunch their best hitters together, rather than liberally sprinting the team's many RY (Rally Killers) throughout the lineup...; August 10, 2022 at 11:52 PM
HoraceClarke66 said...: ...One more question. IS production up—because of the new lineups, or anything else?

Damned if I can figure out just WHAT drives production up or down in the modern game, between juicing, ticky-tack, and what seem to be constant changes in just how juiced the ball is.

But right now, the team that just got shutout for the second time in four games IS indeed leading the AL in runs scored, and is on a pace to score 855 for the whole season.

If they manage that, it will be...the 13th highest total by a Yankees team. This century. And the 31st highest all time, even though that includes many seasons when the Yanks still had a pitcher batting.

I fail to see how that is more productive.; August 11, 2022 at 12:06 AM
Hazel Motes said...: HC66--the chances of Judge hitting a three-run homer in the first inning are miniscule in the best of circumstances--considering the chances of both runners getting on base and then his hitting a homerun. But the chance of his NOT getting on base or getting any kind of hit, much less a homerun, especially in a high-leverage, late-inning situation, is 100 percent if he does not come to bat.; August 11, 2022 at 12:13 AM
Hazel Motes said...: Hammer of God--Just LOOK at the following statement:

"the probability of one guy being on base is 42% and two guys on base is 9%. Probability of at least one guy being on base is therefore 51%."

First, do you see that you have contradicted yourself in the space of about twenty words? The likelihood of one player being on base cannot be both 42 percent and 51 percent. Second, you should be examining on-base percentage, not batting average. Sorry--back to your abacus for another try. Third, ponder this: the chance of Judge NOT getting on base or getting any kind of hit, much less a homerun, especially in a high-leverage, late-inning situation, is 100 percent if he does not come to bat.; August 11, 2022 at 12:19 AM
Hazel Motes said...: Hey Mustang and Doug K.--I don't see any moderation--much less one of your vaunted public sermons on polemical decorum--of at least two personally abusive posts above, from the usual suspects. I'm all for impartial and judicious moderation of the blog, but with consistency and without double standards.; August 11, 2022 at 12:23 AM
Hazel Motes said...: HC 66 and Hammer of God -- Stating it conversely: The probability of Judge getting on base, getting a hit, or hitting a homerun in a late-inning, high-leverage situation is ZERO PERCENT if he does not come to bat.; August 11, 2022 at 12:31 AM
Kevin said...: FYI, the team who scores the first run(s) wins 68.9%of the time.; August 11, 2022 at 12:49 AM
Hazel Motes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 11, 2022 at 12:56 AM
Kevin said...: You, without fail remember only the parts of a narrative which fits your schemas. I'm not interested in pointing out your deliberate prejudices at this late time. Maybe later.

Rest assured, though, the first team to score has a very high chance of winning, it doesn't matter if it's the top or bottom of "X" inning. There has been a lot of research on the topic, which would seem to make YOU the smarmy idiot. Check-mate. Oh yeah, fuck you.; August 11, 2022 at 1:19 AM
Hazel Motes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 11, 2022 at 1:31 AM
Hazel Motes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 11, 2022 at 1:32 AM
Hazel Motes said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 11, 2022 at 1:45 AM
Hazel Motes said...: Kevin opines, "Rest assured, though, the first team to score has a very high chance of winning, it doesn't matter if it's the top or bottom of "X" inning." But that has exactly NOTHING to do with the preceding discussion. Some people were claiming, erroneously, that the best hitter should bat third instead of second because there would be more of a chance of scoring multiple runs rather than one run the first time through the lineup. But that was about the number of runs, not whether the team would score at all, or would score first.

On Tuesday night the first run came in the thirteenth inning--hence we can see the irrelevancy of your point, just as I proved the irrelevancy of your contention that Judge has been hobbled by lack of "protection" from the injured Stanton and Rizzo because he has been putting up Ruthian numbers during their absence.

Glad to help clarify any time, Kev. Oh--and please give links to citations for your statistical assertions, as a courtesy and to prove that you're just slinging made-up numbers. Thanks!; August 11, 2022 at 1:50 AM
Hazel Motes said...: Kevin: " There has been a lot of research on the topic." Which topic--your irrelvancy about win chances when scoring first, which has nothing to do with the preceding discussion? Even so, please provide a link to this "lot of research." Waiting . . .; August 11, 2022 at 1:53 AM
Kevin said...: The larger point is winning baseball games, no? My point renders your endless arguments superfluous. And no,YOU can look up the research. I recall reading the article roughly forty years ago, I believe that I read it in a Bill James book. With very little time or effort I came across similar studies. You will find it an easy task.; August 11, 2022 at 7:25 AM
The Hammer of God said...: @Barney, yep, I did figure it correctly on the old abacus. LOL

Assume that #1 hitter has OBP of .350 and Judge hits 2. There is a 35% that Judge comes up with a man on base (in the 1st inning).

Now assume that both #1 and #2 hitters have OBP of .350 and Judge hits 3. There is a 58% chance that AT LEAST ONE hitter will be on base for Judge. There is a 46% chance that exactly one of the two hitters is on. And a 12% chance that BOTH hitters are on.

So you have a strategic choice to make: 58% chance that Judge comes up with at least one man on base vs only 35% of Judge coming up with at least one man on. Better odds of Judge coming up with at least one man on base in the 1st inning vs Judge getting 50 more at bats during the course of the season.

Some of us are saying that we prefer to take the 1st inning probability of Judge coming up with at least one man on base.

Here are the calculations:

Probability of both hitters making out = .65 X .65 = 42%

The inverse (100-42) will equal the probability of AT LEAST ONE hitter reaching = 58%

Probability of both hitters reaching = .35 X .35 = 12%

Probability of ONLY one hitter being on base = 58% - 12% = 46%

(You have to remember that determining "at least" one hitter vs "only" one hitter is tricky. The probability of "both" hitters reaching base has to be subtracted from "at least" one hitter reaching base, in order to find the probability of "only" one hitter reaching base.); August 11, 2022 at 9:54 AM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)