But with everything, context. It is not enough, in baseball and its literary interpretations, to simply point to this or that happenstance and cry "a ha," because this is not true to the spirit of the game. Though this may satisfy they who pour dilligently over score sheets for some secret recipe for future success or explanation for the successes of the past, looking at the game from a purely statistical point of view, I think, can be damaging. To be sure, from a purely analytical standpoint, pure statistical analysis is the truest, best, and -- most important in a game where millions are won or lost with every RBI gained or squandered -- safest course of action for those in the game. But, as fans and critics, we are by necessity not in the game.*
Dispelling Misconceptions
That said, here are some numbers that any Red Sox fan at least since 2007 should keep in mind. The following numbers are Jonathan Papelbon's P/IP per month, per year, starting in 2007:
2007:
APR - 15.643
MAY - 18.100
JUN - 16.594
JLY - 15.261
AUG - 15.517
SEP - 12.636
2008:
APR - 14.538
MAY - 14.692
JUN - 15.200
JLY - 16.179
AUG - 15.938
SEP - 17.471
2009 (so far):
APR - 20.516
MAY - 16.957 #
Much has been said this year about Papelbon's erraticism this season, and not unjustifiably. In many ways, 2009 has seen Papelbon's worst April of his closing career. Other stats bear that out as well. This April, Papelbon's WHIP and K/BB have been 1.355 and 1.67 compared to figures of 0.628/7, 0.750/3, and 0.846/20(!) for 2006-08, respectively. One of the difficulties in the analysis of closers is the inherently small sample size; even keeping this in mind, I had, before this research, the idea that Papelbon's erraticism this year was typical of his Aprils and that, with his solid performance last night, he was exhibiting signs of returning to his baseline. As it stands, I was only half-right. He certainly seems to returning to his baseline -- with 7 2/3 IP this May, the relative sample size is large enough to make this judgment -- but it is a general rather than month-specific baseline.
Game Log
Last night, facing the Blue Jays, Papelbon saved a very good Tim Wakefield start in a perfect inning. Someone said to me, somewhat with tongue-in-cheek, that this must be the first time in 2009 that Papelbon had collected a save in one perfect inning in 12 pitches. However, due to his bad April, this was more true than the person realized. It was, in fact, only his third perfect inning of the season, the first coming in a non-save situation in the second game of a double-header against MIN on April 22, the first against OAK in extra innings April 14.^ But neither of these were save situations.
Here is Papelbon's game log from last night:
Blue Jays @ Red Sox, 5/19/09, facing 5-7
Lind: K swinging (three pitches)
Rolen: Groundout - 4-3 (three pitches)
Overbay: Groundout - 3u (six pitches)
Here is Papelbon's game log from the previous time:
Blue Jays @ Red Sox, 9/12/09, facing 5-7
Overbay: Groundout - 4-3 (one pitch)
Lind: K swinging (seven pitches)
Rolen: Ground - 6-3 (four pitches)
Same number of pitches, same batters, albeit in different order, same pitching line, very similar plays.
There are a couple stories here: of Papelbon's amazing consistency thus far in his career; the comparison of a first-place TOR team at this point in 2009 to what was, according to many sources, the best fourth-place team in league history at the time in 2008; that each game had arguably the same hero: Jacoby Ellsbury was 2-4 in the 09 game, 2-4 with 3R and 1RBI in 08; but one of the primary topics I want to explore in this blog -- something that that final stat of Ellsbury's further illustrates -- is baseball's knack for delivering not only interesting story lines, but sometimes fascinating coincidences.
Where numbers can be used to predict future performances (Papelbon's career line against TOR reads: 5-1, 15 saves, 1.09 ERA, .879 WHIP over 33 IP with 32 Ks; so saying that Papelbon might do well in the future against TOR is not exactly a great leap), they have two much more powerful functions, in my opinion.
The first is to dispell misconceptions. Too often last season did I hear that Johan Santana was not living up to his contract terms by not putting up "Cy Young" numbers. I do think the right, that is to say, most deserving, player, Tim Lincecum, won it, but Santana should have finished higher. Brandon Webb was nothing like the pitcher Johan Santana was last year. Webb did, however, have six more wins, something that Santana would easily, easily have attained had he had anything approaching a league-average bullpen. And the only reason I can discern why Bert Blyleven isn't in the Hall of Fame is due to his low win totals. One might need to look a little closer at the numbers to deduce that Johan Santana was a better pitcher than Brandon Webb last year, but even the most cursory glance at any of Blyleven's numbers other than win totals seems to insist he be enshrined.$
The second, one that I will seek to explore much more in depth, is to add a layer, often hidden of depth to the game, and not just analytical depth. It is no secret that this game has endeared itself to artists and writers in particular. There is a lyricisim to it, and the combination of meticulous practice and fearless execution is certainly something, at least for my part, that artists can appreciate.
In his essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus," Camus decried looking at reality with a sense of pure reason, as this path will inevitably descend into poetry. One can appreciate that we are guided and subject to evolution, one can appreciate the incredible reducibility of nature down to atoms, but neither of these are things we can see. Michael Lewis in Moneyball made a similar observation in that an everyday player .290 is, to the everyday observer, virtually indistinguishable from the hitter with a .300 average (plug in OBP or SLG if those stats are more to your flavor; I'd say a .480 slugger is even harder to tell from a .490 slugger than when using averages). The statistical analyst can quantify these two players more effectively and more thoroughly, but, for the semiotician, these multifarious statistics are a language unto themselves.
The method of interpretting how what is written into what is said is through criticism. With this blog, I hope to accomplish this same act of interpretation. Mostly, anyway.
-----------------------------------------
*Though I did not always hold this opinion. More on this in a later post.
#Papelbon's average P/IP for this period, for the curious: 16.030
^Another indication that this has been Papelbon's worst start of his closing career. Before 2009, he had averaged 5.3 perfect innings per April, though it should be said that he only had three in 2007 -- if nothing else, this is assuring to me that April of 2009 will be as exciting as he gets this season.
$Fortunately, for Blyleven and for justice, every player that has received more than 60% of the HoF vote in any year has become enshrined eventually.
