Game Recap: Seminoles 9, Tarheels 8 (or as I like to call it, Matt Holliday lives)

Happy Easter Seminole Fans! This afternoon, FSU took on UNC for the rubber game of this weekend's series. Today's game seemed to be going the way of our Saturday performance: behind early and a comeback that falls short. Luckily the Noles pulled it together (and were on the receiving end of a little baseball luck) as they won 9-8 on Jason Stidham's walk off single. You can see the box score and play by play here, but I'd like to talk about the game's ending and some other observations without doing a full recap. If you don't want to read the official recap, here's a quick synopsis...

Mike McGee managed a decent outing despite not having his best stuff- he put up a line of 2 ER, 6K's and 2 walks. Geoff Parker and John Gast gave up 4 and 1 run(s) respectively in relief and continue to fall short of pre-season expectations. Tyler Holt and Stephen Cardullo were Base on Balls machines and Jimmy Marhsall did a nice job of keeping it close during the last few innings. Yet again, the Tarheel starter was tough, giving up only 1 earned run while striking out 6 and walking only 2 over 5.2 innings. With all the dominant pitching coming out UNC in recent years (Andrew Miller and Daniel Bard come to mind), how is pitching coach Scott Forbes not better known? This weekend, UNC starting pitching gave up 6 ER against a good hitting FSU team. Perhaps he likes the college game, but if I were a major league system, I'd be throwing some money at this guy to help with my player development.

But on to the other topics, like the ending of the game. FSU scores 4 runs in the 8th to make it a 1 run game. Tyler Holt collected his 4th walk of the game to begin the 9th and was followed by another walk from Cardullo. Stu Tap laid down a beautiful bunt to put men on third and second and and then Jason Stidham singled to win the game.

But here's the thing- my eyes were following the right fielder and Stephen Cardullo's progress, so I never actually saw Holt score. What I did see, was that as Cardullo was rounding third, the UNC catcher was on his back right on top of the plate (he looked like a turtle). All I can figure is that Holt somehow mananged to knock over the Tarheel backstop (who was proably blocking the plate already), which allowed Cardullo to reach the plate before he could get up. Here's the other thing, I'm 99% Cardullo didn't actually touch the plate, seeing as how Fleury (the catcher) was sort of lying on top of it. Fleury was understandably irate, and had to be restrained by several team members and coach's from going after the umpires. Sometimes the baseball gods just throw one your way I guess. If anyone saw exactly what happened, I'd love to hear more about it, but in the meantime, I'll just say that I love Tyler Holt, and once again, take back anything bad I ever said about him.

Some other observations:
Third baseman Stuart Tapley has a strong accurate arm, and looks great charging in on balls. He fielded one today that was about even with the pitchers mound and still got the runner. He also has suave new music for his at bats that makes me envision a montage of Tap courtin' the ladies with roses and champagne. Hey, Stu is a lover, not a fighter, what can I say?

College Baseball is really unpredictable. Jack Posey looked like a deer in the headlights at 1st yesterday, and today he looked solid and smart. And that was on top of being acccidentally called "Buster" by the PA guy. Parker Brunelle also had a nice day behind the plate after looking terrible in some earlier starts. I suppose this boils down to what always separates professionals from amateurs...consistency.

James Ramsey seems really fast. He darn near beat out a quick throw and he looked liked he covered a bunch of ground tracking down balls in left.

The most annoying fan of the game award goes to a visiting Tarheel fanatic. Now, I have nothing against fans of the away team cheering their squad. But there was a point in the game when UNC brought in a pitcher who was apparently nicknamed "Gator". A woman behind me kept shouting "Alright Gator, Good Job Gator! or Get 'Em Gator!". At this point we were still down several runs, and let me tell you, when you're an FSU fan and your team is losing, there is nothing worse than hearing a shrill voice yelling anything about "Gators". At the time, it was enough to make me want to drown myself in a vat of Muscle Milk (the offical protein beverage of the Florida State Seminoles!) (TM).

I liked the call to bunt with Tapley in the 9th. No outs, and in a close game Win Expectancy trumps Run Excpectancy in the closing innings. I like it less that some of our better hitters are showing bunt on first pitches in the middle of games.

Next Up: The Mike McGee question...

True Crime

I don't necessarily want to diverge too much from our stated mission of talking about FSU sports, but hear, hear!

Who's afraid of the big, bad stat?

Firstly, I offer an apology for the lack of baseball writing in recent weeks. It turns out we here at Somebody to Leon are fan-freaking-tastic at keeping scorecards, and woefully inept at entering the data into our spreadsheets. We'll try and do better.

I want to talk about a conflict within the game of baseball. Some of you will be familiar with the arguments presented in this post- others will be hearing them for the first time. This is my take on the apparent schism between "stats people" and "baseball people".

Truthfully, I don't think the divisions listed above are actually real, although people do certainly position themselves as one or the other. Individuals who have gained an in-depth knowledge of baseball statistics have done so because they love the game. They are passionate about understanding what makes a player or a team successful. They watch a lot of baseball and take pleasure in the nuance and history of the game. They are not, as many people in the mainstream media like to say, "geeks who live in their mother's basement". This attitude has probably arisen because the media members who hurl these insults have not taken the time to learn about new ways of thinking. Or maybe they feel threatened by new voices in their occupational sphere. Either way, they're getting it wrong more often than not. In my opinion, baseball is currently a sport that is covered best by a small community of bloggers and "stats" oriented writers. Read almost any of the links on this blog and you're likely to find something that is more thoughtful, more original, better researched, and funnier than 90% of what you find the talking heads from ESPN (except you Rob Neyer) or the newspapers saying.

It's not that traditional baseball people don't have a lot to offer. People who have played the game have a wealth of firsthand knowledge about what it feels like to turn on a fastball, what it looks like when a pitcher's shoulders are flying open upon delivery of a pitch, or how your mind is affected after an 0-5 night at the plate. They can tell you how recognize a changeup and they can help you integrate the moving body parts that constitute the game of baseball. That knowledge is valuable, and I love hearing anecdotes from managers, color commentators, and players, but it's not everything.

The notion that people who haven't ever put on a uniform have nothing to offer is ignorant and insulting. This is essentially the same elitist attitude that governments have used for years to keep their citizens from questioning highly suspect and sheltered patterns of decision making. Perhaps it's no coincidence that when people talk about negotiations within the Beltway, they speak of the "inside baseball" of what went on during a meeting, hearing, or session. Look at it this way- baseball is a business and operates as such. If you're running a business and someone comes to you and presents compelling evidence that your company is using antiquated modes of evaluating performance and is not taking advantage of opportunities in the marketplace, wouldn't you listen? You wouldn't do what many managers, general managers and media members do and deride those who are offering you sound advice.

It's not that baseball people hate stats; they actually love stats. The problem is a lot of them love stats that aren't particularly useful. They value too highly a pitcher's wins, losses, and ERA. Wins are largely dependent on the fielding behind the pitcher and the quality of his own offense, so it seems pretty clear this is a less than ideal way of evaluating a pitcher's true skill. ERA is a little better, but is also dependent on defense and the ballpark where the game is being held. When speaking of batters, batting average seems to be of the utmost importance. Luckily, some very smart people have come up with better ways of measuring a hitter's total contribution to the team's ability to win baseball games. How many times the batter hits the ball and reaches base safely is important, but it does not tell the whole story.

During tonight's Braves broadcast, I heard broadcaster Joe Simpson dismissively answer a question about WHIP (Wins+Hits per Innings Pitched). First of all, I'm not taking potshots at Joe. I love Joe...always have and always will. He smart, funny, and actually pretty receptive to more modern baseball thinking, especially when it comes from his main broadcast partner, Jon "Boog" Sciambi. But when tonight's conversation led to all the "new" stats, it was clear that Simpson didn't think much of WHIP's statistical cousins and the people who care about them. "Trust your scouts, trust your scouts", he shouted as he launched into a rant about how people who haven't played the game have no business evaluating players.

Don't get me wrong, the input of scouts should be trusted. But their opinions (and those of other "baseball people") should not be trusted so much that hard data is ignored. For instance, earlier in the game, Joe said that he thought that Chipper Jones should have won a Gold Glove in 2007 over fellow 3rd baseman David Wright. His reason? David Wright had more errors in the field (21 to Chipper's 9).

Here's why his logic is flawed: Errors are only part of the picture. We can now measure the range of a fielder pretty accurately and David Wright had much better range than Chipper in 2007. Wright is making more errors because he is getting to balls that most fielders would not even touch! It's highly likely that the young and agile Mr. Wright saved more runs with stellar defense than he allowed with his errors. Wright also had 324 attempts with which to throw out baserunners while Chipper only had 226. So the Met's man at the hot corner had nearly 100 more chances to make (or mess up) a play.

Here are some other common reasons for unfortunate baseball thinking...forgive the snark.

1. Aesthetics/ Personal Preference: "He looks like a ballplayer" is something we often hear. That's great, but I'll take the fat, slow guy with great numbers over the guy who looks sexy hacking at the first pitch and striking out a lot.

2. Tradition: The stolen base looks cool and it has been a part of baseball for a long time. I get it. This does not mean it's always a good idea. We know that if runners are not stealing at certain success percentage (usually b/w 70-80%), stealing is not a gamble worth taking. If you're below the break even point, you will get caught enough times to hurt your team more than your successful steals help them. Some guys should be stealing less, some could probably steal a little more, and some shouldn't be stealing at all. It's not witchcraft, it's just run expectancy tables that come from some simple statistics. If I tell you that you're going to fail the majority of times you attempt a particular non-essential challenge, do you keep attempting it? What if I also say that you're more likely to acheive your goals by not attempting the challenge? I think most people would say, "Perhaps I've been going at this the wrong way."

3. Memory: Oh she's a fickle mistress, that memory. We tend to remember certain events more than others. Spectacular successes and failures stick out more than a handful of more mundane occurances. No one is immune to this tendency. When I say, "Dude, Miguel Tejada freaking OWNS Jamie Moyer!!!" , I'm basing this statement off of a series of memorable hits which constitute a ridiculously small sample size. Chances are, Miguel and old man Moyer are likely to perform as they have over a much larger sampling of games the next time they face each other. The larger career sample size beats the miniscule one that we remember. Luckily we have databases that keep track of such things so we don't have to rely on faulty memories.

4. Tradition: Closers. Closers are dumb. I don't mean the men themselves, although I'm not sure Jonathon Papelbon is exactly a Mensa member in hiding. I mean that the idea of the closer (which isn't even an old tradition) is not a good one. Your best relievers should be used in the situations where they are needed most- the high leverage situations. Arbitrarily assigning this player to the 9th inning is a poor allocation of resources in many cases. Years of statistics tell us that the 3 run lead is damn near unassailable, and yet we often see good relief pitchers come in during these situations. Ironically, it's the "save" stat that is responsible for so much of this foolishness about closers.

5. Asinine Sports Cliches: Let's call this the David Eckstein Phenomenon. For years, broadcasters and coachs have praised the tiny infielder because of his willingness to "get his uniform dirty". Unfortunately, aside from seeing a decent amount of pitches per plate appearance, he is not a very good baseball player. Other talent masking maxims used to describe players include, "He plays the game the right way" or "He's a gamer", or "He's scrappy".

In the end, my point is that we're all baseball people. We all love the game for its beauty and grace, for its excitement and endless potential for discussion. There's no reason that statistics and firsthand experiences can't be combined to create a greater understanding of our favorite pastime. Furthermore, I believe that the teams that truly integrate these two forces will experience years of unchallenged success. We're already seeing this as teams take positive steps toward a more holistic approach to talent evaluation, scouting, drafting, strategy, and building a roster (see Tampa Bay Rays and Boston Red Sox). Let's hope that people entrenched in the traditions of baseball can discard their fear of change so that some meaningful dialogue can occur. There are brilliant baseball people from all walks of life- somebody get them in a room and build a winner!

P.S. If anyone is curious about some of the topics raised here, I recommend:
-"The Book: Placing the Percentages in Baseball" by Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin
- Any of our links, but especially Fangraphs and The Hardball Times. I check em' everyday.
- FireJoeMorgan - a super snarky, but very funny (one of the posters is a writer for "The Office")
critique of how horrifically baseball is covered by the mainstream media. It will make you
laugh, cry, clench your fist, and rue the day you ever heard the name "Bill Plaschke".
- "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis. It's not about the death of baseball as we know it, it's actually
about smart people doing smart things. It's rational yet emotional, and immensely readable.
One day, some of the people who bash it might actually read it too.

NCAA Tournament Postmortem

Well, the game was painful. I have just a couple thoughts to offer.

The injury to Luke Loucks hurt us. Loucks had been playing very well, and when he hurt his arm, we lost valuable depth. By the end of the second half, we looked tired.

The traveling call on Derwin Kitchen was wrong. The refs are not supposed to give a timeout to a player as he is flying out of bounds, and Derwin definitely looked like he may have been on the way out. He came down in bounds, however. The ref called him for traveling. The correct call would have been to wait to see whether or not he landed in or out of bounds, and then give him the timeout retroactively when he landed.

It was really quite improbable that Trevor Hughes would beat Toney Douglas off the dribble for the final play of the game. Toney is one of the best on the ball defenders in the nation, and Hughes is merely a decent scorer. Sometimes it's just not your day.

There has been a lot of talk about that final play, specifically why Leonard Hamilton didn't have Solomon Alabi on the court. It is true that Hughes barely got his shot off over a leaping Ryan Reid, and he almost definitely would not have gotten it over Alabi. I'm not sure whether or not it was the right decision, but I can at least tell you what Hamilton was thinking.

Whenever Alabi was on the floor, Wisconsin moved their center, Leuer, out to the perimiter and used him as a three point shooter. Alabi was faced with the choice of either hanging back to control the paint (but leaving a Leuer open on the perimeter), or covering Leuer (but vacating the middle, and any chance of blocking or altering shots). Alabi tried to compromise, but ended up being ineffectual in the middle and allowing Leuer to knock down open looks.

Among our big guys, Ryan Reid is the best perimeter defender, and he's also a very solid post defender. He is not, however a great shot blocker. Hamilton chose to play Reid, and force Wisconsin to beat us off the drive (our man defense had been solid all game), rather than to eliminate the drive but potentially give up an open perimeter shot. Once again, I don't know if it was the right decision by the percentages, but it wasn't a negligent oversight on Hamilton's part.

NCAA Tournament Part III-B: Who are they?

So, I spent some time today, while live NCAA tournament games were taking place, to watch an archived Wisconsin game. That's how much I care. The game I chose was Wisconsin's recent loss to Ohio State in the Big 10 tournament. Now, here at Somebody to Leon we like to keep the analysis classy and at a high level. I must tell you, though, that my strongest impression of Wisconsin basketball was that they are ugly. No, I don't mean that they play a slow, grind it out style of basketball (which they do). I mean that their players are not attractive. I'm not prepared to claim that beauty pageant ability correlates strongly with basketball ability (though I haven't seen any studies showing that it doesn't), but if it does, FSU has this one in the bag.

Now, onto the serious part. The Badgers play a very patient style of offense, passing the ball around the perimeter, and working for a good shot. They don't appear to have an explosive scorer, but they do have plenty of large, relatively agile players who can all handle the ball, shoot, and pass.

Jon Leuer (number 30) is 6-10 sophomore who mostly plays inside, but can move well in the open court, and even knocked down a three or so in this game. He doesn't appear to have a dominating post-up game. If the 'Noles can handle Tyler Hansborough and Trevor Booker, they can handle Leuer, but it will be important not to forget about him. He's skilled enough to hurt a team when given space.

Marcus Landry (number 1) is a 6-7 senior, who is easily identified by his large sports glasses. I remember watching him in the tournament last year. He's a playmaker with pretty good post moves, and while what I saw in this game didn't impress me, I think that he's a player capable of giving the Badger offense a boost when they're having trouble running their system. He also makes nearly 40% of his shots from three.

The player who most scared me is 6-7 senior, Joe Krabbenhoft (number 45). He's big, and fast, with good moves and a smooth shot. He reminds me a lot of Nick Calathes off of the Gators, and he should present some real matchup problems. I would not be at all surprised if FSU gives DeMercy more than his usual playing time, in an attempt to slow Krabbenhoft down.

The other two starters for Wisconsin are the 6-0 junior, Trevor Hughes (number 3), and the 6-2 junior, Jason Bohannon (number 12). Both can shoot, but neither impressed me all that much. One of them will be rendered completely ineffectual by Toney Douglas.

As for the Badgers' defense, I thought that they looked susceptible to athleticism on the outside. Ohio state was able to penetrate relatively easily, leading to fouls and dishes for easy buckets. I would expect Toney Douglas, Derwin Kitchen, and Luke Loucks to have the same success. The Badgers did rebound the ball effectively, but it didn't seem to me like Ohio State was really pressuring them. Maybe it only appeared this way because their boxouts were so dominating, but maybe the Big 10 is just not a very aggressive league, and Wisconsin's gaudy defensive rebounding stats are a product of the conservative environment.

FSU absolutely can beat the Badgers. The Seminoles have better athletes, and they play against better athletes in the ACC. While Wisconsin may be a more consistent team, if FSU performs at the level they are capable of, the 'Noles will win.

NCAA Tournament Part III-A: What are they?

Continuing the series of posts in my NCAA tournament preview, here is a look at FSU's first round match up with Wisconsin through the numbers. As always, I will be using Ken Pomeroy's wonderful and free site. Personally, Wisconsin doesn't scare me as a team, but Bo Ryan is a great coach.

Wisconsin is solid but not spectacular in almost all categories. They are the nations 27th best offense and 60th best defense. The fact that their offense is better than their defense is often obscured by their slow pace of play. On offense, they are average in almost all categories, except for turnovers. They are the 5th best team in the nation at protecting the ball. As for the components of their offense, the Badgers are more efficient from the three point line and the foul line than they are from two, though they are not exceptional from anywhere. The strength of their offense lies almost entirely in not committing turnovers.

Wisconsin's defensive numbers mirror their offensive numbers. They are average nearly everywhere, except for in regards to defensive rebounds, where they are the 5th best team in the country. They are, however, below average in terms of creating turnovers. They are slightly above average at limiting three point percentage, but they do give up a fair number of points from the foul line.

The overall picture is one of a conservative and consistent team. They play at a slow pace and do not allow teams to get points in transition (giving up offensive rebounds in the process). They are not explosive on offense, but they don't make mistakes either. If FSU plays well, the Seminoles should be able to win, but if they stumble, Wisconsin will be right there, ready to capitalize.

NCAA Tournament Part II-B: Who are we?

In this second installment of our NCAA Tournament preview, I'm going to go through the Seminoles' players individually. Watching basketball is much more fun when you know what to watch for in each player. Here's the Seminole bench.

Ryan Reid (number 42) is a 6-8, 235 pound forward in his junior season. I believe Reid to be an exceptional athlete. The only problem is that he's not calibrated for basketball. Reid has decent speed and jumping ability, but exceptional strength. In order to get his shot versus more "bouncy" defenders, Reid has to clear them out with his superior strength. The result is that he's very prone to offensive fouls. He is a great worker on the defensive end, and an excellent post defender, highlighted by his masterful performance against Trevor Booker of Clemson. He may not put up great individual defensive rebounding numbers, but you can be sure that his man isn't going to be the one hurting the 'Noles on the glass. Opposing fans may think Ryan Reid a dirty player. I prefer to merely call him physical. Versus Duke in the ACC championship game, Reid surprised me by sticking with the smaller Duke players on the perimeter. He's a very important part of our big-man rotation.

Sophomore Jordan DeMercy (number 2) is a very intriguing player. He's perhaps the best athlete on the team, standing 6-7, yet able to guard opposing guards. He's the definition of a stopper, and if there is a flaw in his defense, it's simply that he's overconfident, trying to guard great players too closely. The problem is that he's an offensive black hole. He cannot (and does not) shoot. He can easily get into the lane with his amazing athleticism, but he has trouble finishing anything that's not a dunk. What's worse, he lacks confidence, so rather than take what should be an easy lay in, he attempts circus passes that often fly out of bounds. DeMercy would be a great player if he brought even replacement level offense to the table.

Devidas Dulkys (number 4) is a 6-5 freshman from Lithuania. He was billed as a sharpshooter, but when he arrived, that shooting touch failed to materialize, and he lost confidence. The coaching staff placed him under standing orders to take every single shot he saw, and while the result was a lowly 29% shooting percentage from three for the season, he's now hitting his stride. He's finally become the shooter he was advertised as, and his teammates definitely believe in him, looking for him in the corner for drive and dishes.

The biggest surprise with Dulkys, however, has been his athleticism. When he first came to the program, he looked lost on defense, but he quickly learned the system, and has now progressed to the point where coach Hamilton uses him in conjunction with Toney Douglas and Jordan DeMercy to guard the best opposing scoring threats. If he continues to improve, and adds more wrinkles to his offensive game, Dulkys could have NBA potential.

Luke Loucks (number 3) is a 6-5 freshman point guard. FSU fans seem to have a dislike for Loucks, which is something I really can't understand. Early in the season he struggled with turnovers (especially in the Northwestern game) and the game seemed to be moving too fast for him. He still has a bad game every now and again, but he's proved himself as a valuable player with great vision and a basketball IQ that's off the charts. He's the inverse of Derwin Kitchen in that he may struggle bringing the ball up the court against tough man to man pressure, but he reads the game very well and is able to avoid traps. On defense, Loucks is slightly slow of foot, having difficulty handling athletic types such as Wayne Ellington of UNC (then again, many players have had similar difficulty). His basketball IQ shows up on defense, too, as he has the best steal rate on the entire team. With the 'Noles deep bench, you never know who will play in any given game, but if you get a chance to watch Loucks, count yourself as lucky. His passing is sublime.

Freshman center/forward Xavior Gibson (number 1) is 6-11 230 pounder with incredible potential. When he gets in the game, he provides an instant offensive lift, with a sweet jumper and some nice explosive inside moves. The problem is that he doesn't get onto the floor very often. Believe it or not, at 230 pounds, he's a waif. He gets pushed around, and is a liability on defense and on the boards. When he bulks up, he and Solomon will be a killer inside duo. As it stands now, Gibson only plays when Solomon, Uche, and Reid are in foul trouble or need a breather. Lately though, he's given some quality minutes.

Senior guard Brian Hoff is not part of the regular rotation, but I think I should still mention him. Hoff joined the team as a walk-on as a freshman, and for his senior season he was awarded a scholarship. Someone on the outside like me cannot really say how important Hoff has been to the program, but what I can say is that he's not as limited a player as some might think. From what I've seen, Hoff is the 'Noles best shooter. He's also calm with the ball, and plays within himself. He doesn't commit turnovers. In a different program, or in a different year, Brian Hoff would contribute.