Flickering Hopes and Miracles

Yankees' beat writer Tyler Kepner wrote an article in the Times today about the possibility of the Yankees trading for C.C. Sabathia. I like Kepner, but I violently disagree with about half of the article, and thought other parts were an interesting jump off for discussion. So here goes.

A painful swing by the Cleveland Indians’ Víctor Martínez on Wednesday could have significant ramifications for the Yankees. An elbow injury to Martínez all but ended the Indians’ flickering playoff hopes, and will probably lead to a trade of the ace left-hander C. C. Sabathia.

I guess he needed a way to kick off the article and get everybody's attention. Well, that worked.
No, it's not good that Martinez is going to be out at least through July. But it's not like he had been carrying the team; .278/.332/.333 with exactly zero home runs 54 games. Something was clearly wrong, and it turns out it may have even been two things (I've read that his hamstring has been bothering him as well). Also, Shoppach is one of the best backups in the league; this is why you don't trade your backup catcher, as tempting as it may be at some points.

Anyway, "All but ended the Indians' flickering playoff hopes"? I'm sorry, did I miss something here? Are they 15 back of some powerhouse team? No, they're 6.5 back of the freaking White Sox. They're not in great shape, but they've still got a decent shot here. It's not like it would take a miracle or anything.

The Indians would need a miraculous recovery from their 31-36 start to make the playoffs, and it seems likely they will focus on next season.

Winning 21 of 22 games to reach the World Series is a miracle. Coming back from being seven games out on September 12 is a miracle (it is pretty crazy that both those things happened in one year, isn't it). Winning seven more games than the White Sox over a 95 game stretch doesn't quite fit that description.

By the way, the Yankees are seven games out of first themselves. This is what happens when you make the playoffs 13 straight seasons. You actually begin to think that it's your birthright.

Sabathia is 4-8 with a 4.34 earned run average, but he shut out the Minnesota Twins in his last start Tuesday.

What? Was that start not included in his statistics? Was it a particularly important game?

Here, let me try:

Sabathia's ERA isn't stellar, at 4.34, but he's been dominant since posting a 13.50 ERA in his first four starts. It's not clear what caused his early struggles--maybe thinking about playing for a new contract, maybe all the innings last year, maybe bad mechanics, possibly none of the above--but he seems to be beyond it, as he's posted a 2.09 ERA and a 73:14 K:BB ratio in 73 innings since. He won't be winning any personal awards this year, but he looks to be back to his '07 Cy Young form.

Was that so hard?

The earlier the Indians make Sabathia available, the more they could demand for him in prospects. The Indians acted quickly in June 2002 by dangling Bartolo Colón, their ace at the time, in trade talks. They received a bonanza of prospects from Montreal, including outfielder Grady Sizemore, pitcher Cliff Lee and infielder Brandon Phillips.

I don't have anything to say here. I just like being reminded of that trade. This was the worst trade in...how long? It's worse than Kazmir-Zambrano, because it's three guys instead of one. The Liriano/Nathan/Bonser combo was looking pretty unbeatable around here, but that ended. I'm open to suggestions.

The Yankees’ second baseman, Robinson Canó, is struggling, and his salary would not be too much for the Indians. But because Sabathia is unsigned past this season, it is doubtful Canó would be traded for him.

That would work. Did you know Dewan's numbers had Cano at +17 last year, and +5 so far this year? I knew he had improved out there, but damn. He hasn't been hitting, but whatever--I'll take that 110 OPS+. Trading Sabathia for him wouldn't even be that much of an immediate downgrade, especially if they do it after Carmona is back; the Indians have gotten a glorious .256 SLG out of their second basemen this year, and currently have Jamey Caroll and Jorge Velandia manning the position.

I doubt the PostingYankees would do it though. Maybe if they got a negotiating window with Sabathia? Maybe IPK instead, would that be agreeable? Just thinking out loud here.

Whether they make a deal, the Yankees must get more consistency from their rotation to reach the playoffs.

“I think over the long haul, consistency from your rotation is the most important thing in baseball,” Manager Joe Girardi said. “This game, to me, starts with your rotation and how well your rotation is throwing.”

That's it. That's how he ends the article. There is no way anyone proofread this last part. At least I hope not.

A Familiar Hole?

The above table was in the Times yesterday. This seems to be the popular opinion around these parts- "Yeah, they haven't gotten off to a great start, but this happens all the time, they'll come back".

There are all kinds of problems with this. First, the biased samples. We're dealing with 30 games vs. 44 games vs. 50 games, and low point vs. right now vs. low point. It's a mess.

When we look at comparable periods, we see that there really aren't that many similarities. Some numbers through 44 games for these three Yankee seasons:

(And this doesn't even include the disaster that was last night.)

Three years ago, they were well into turning it around at this point. After the 11-19 start, they went 12-2. They still hadn't caught up to their Pythag, but they were close.

Last year, they had the exact same record through 44 games. And, oddly, they'd allowed the same number of runs (although the pitching has actually been worse this year, because of the lower run environment). But that's where the similarities end. Because of their offense, they were 100 points behind their expected W% this year, while they're actually ahead of it this year.

The Yankees could very well come back and make the playoffs- it's true that A-Rod missed 20 games, and Posada has missed 27 so far. It's also looking increasingly likely that the Wild Card will come out of the AL East. So they're certainly not dead yet. But their "recoveries" in '05 and '07 really aren't relevant at all.

"Dissecting the Line"

If you enjoy this site, I think it's likely that this will be the most interesting thing you'll read all day. It's 22 months old, but its subject is one that isn't at all time sensitive. A few highlights:

"If you had bet $5,000 on the home underdog in every N.F.L. game over the past two decades, you would be up about $150,000 by now (a winning rate of roughly 53 percent)"

Interesting to see that this well-known theory is true. 53% is actually pretty significant, considering the large sample size there. It is unclear if the author is considering the "vig" here; a 53% winning rate is barely above the threshold necessary to be profitable. But either way, it's an impressive percentage.

"The most certain way for a bookmaker to turn a profit is to balance his book — that is, to set a point spread that produces an equal number of dollars wagered on both sides of the line. Since only losers pay the house a 10 percent fee (known as the vigorish, or vig) on top of wagers, a balanced book guarantees the house a 5 percent gain. The conventional wisdom holds that bookmakers set point spreads to achieve this balance."

Until about two months ago, I thought the conventional wisdom was true. It is not. The following is a much more realistic depiction of betting markets.

"Let's say that a bookmaker is handicapping a game between the Broncos and the Pittsburgh Steelers. He first studies every conceivable element of the game: strengths and weaknesses, momentum, injuries, tendencies, weather forecast, etc. He then decides that the true line — that is, a line that he figures will give each team a 50 percent chance of winning the bet — happens to be Denver minus 7 points.

But because of bettor bias, perhaps as much as 80 percent of the money will inevitably flow to the favorite. So what if the bookie sets the line a little higher, at 9 points? Denver is still likely to draw the majority of the wagering, but its chances of winning the bet are now slightly less than 50 percent. The bookie has thus managed to tempt the majority of the wagering toward an outcome that is unlikely, even if only slightly, to happen."

So, how does this translate to actually wagering on games? This means that the best strategy has nothing to do with trying to outsmart the bookmaker (which I don't think is particularly hard to believe). The best strategy is to bet with the bookmaker.

The key here is to find out what side the majority of the public is on, and then go against that side. If 80% of the public is on the Broncos, that tells us that the bookmakers likely don't think Denver will cover, so betting against them would be a good move.

This, however, is easier said than done. Sites like Wagerline give us a broad sense of where the public opinion lies, but getting a more accurate picture of the situation is much more complex, and an art that I'm not even going to pretend to have mastered.