Did I Hear A 'Niner' In There?

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 10:00 AM PDT in Research Comment 50 comments

More photos » Jeff Chiu - AP

Today is all about the number nine.

Browse more photos »

Its only fitting that on 9/9/09, the number nine is prominently featured. Nine is...

The number of Dodgers with 50 runs scored this season. Only four teams in baseball history have had more players score 50 runs
The number of home runs hit by second baseman Orlando Hudson this season. Other Dodger second baseman to hit exactly nine homers were Mark Grudzielanek (2002), Pete Coscarart (1940), and Tony Cuccinello (1933)
The number of extra-base hits by Dodger pitchers this season (seven doubles, and two home runs), including five by Randy Wolf
The number of runs scored by Brad Ausmus this season, the most by a Dodger backup catcher since Dioner Navarro scored 21 runs in ~~1995~~ 2005
The number of wins this season by tonight's Dodger starter, Jon Garland
The number of home games remaining for the Dodgers...in the regular season

Here is how the Dodgers have fared on other recent numerological dates:

August 8, 2008: Dodgers 6, Giants 2
July 7, 2007: Marlins 7, Dodgers 2
June 6, 2006: Dodgers 8, Mets 5
September 9, 1999: Mets 3, Dodgers 1
August 8, 1988: Houston 10, Dodgers 0
July 7, 1977: Dodgers 7, Astros 4
May 5, 1955: Dodgers 4, Cardinals 3
September 9, 1909: Giants 6, Dodgers 5
August 8, 1908: split a doubleheader with the Reds; 8-6 loss & 3-2 win
June 6, 1906: Dodgers 5, Cardinals 0
May 5, 1905: Dodgers 7, Phillies 4
September 9, 1899: Dodgers 4, Beaneaters (now Braves) 0
August 8, 1888: Dodgers 5, Louisville Colonels 1

The Dodgers were off on a few of these days. How will the Dodgers do on 9/9/09? We'll find out in about nine hours.

0 recs | Comment 50 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

9

The number of Dodgers that will bat in the first inning. :)
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Sep 9, 2009 10:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

and the minimum number of runs we score

William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.

by Ollie on Sep 9, 2009 10:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dan Haren

has given up nine runs or more twice in his career:

10 runs (as a Cardinal) at Wrigley Field on 6/10/04

9 runs (as an A) in Toronto on 8/21/06

He’s due. :)

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 10:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Fun Fact

If you want something much better – go look at a playoff odds report – which still has us at 85% to win the division and 98% to make the playoff.

With 22 games left, and a record of 83-57 to date, the following would happen if the Dodgers played .500 through the rest of the season: They end with 94 wins. For the Rockies to beat that (they have to beat that because the Dodgers are locked to win the season head-to-head) the Rockies would have to play .696 the rest of the season (going 16-7). The giants to tie (head-to-head vs. SF is 8-7) the Giants have to win at a .782 pace (18-5).

The weighted record of the Dodger’s opponents for the rest of the year is .459.

Just something to consider if you see us falling below 3.5 games ahead of the Rockies over the next couple of weeks.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Very nice.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Col E#

it says 20 on MLB. But you should know it is actually 19. This is, of course, because of h-t-h tie-breaker. With 22 games left to play, the Dodgers losing all of them means what?

Colorado has 23 games left. To reach the required 84 wins (in a Dodgers lose all remaining games scenario) Col has to win 5 of its remaining 23 games. 23 – 4 (one less that what is needed) = 19. So any combination of Dodger wins and Col losses totaling 19 means the Rockies cannot finish head of the Dodgers (and therefor cannot win the Division).

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Good explanation.

The folks at RIOT have the number as 19.

http://riot.ieor.berkeley.edu/~baseball/national_league.html

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m missing an “also” in there somewhere.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct me if I'm wrong

but the Rockies don’t need to finish ahead of the Dodgers. If they tie the Dodgers, the head to head tiebreaker only comes into play if the Rockies would be the Wild Card Champs anyway. If neither the Dodgers nor Rockies are the wild card winner (and if both squads finished with 84 wins they would not be) then if the records were tied at the end of the year, there would be a 1 game playoff.

by Michael White on Sep 9, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The 84 wins

was just to take the Dodgers out of the equation. Neither the Dodger nor Rockies (nor Giants) will end at 84 wins.

The only plausible scenario where the Dodgers are not a team in the mix (e.g. fall clearly in 3rd place – or in second place but where a team out of division is the WC winner) involves a complete collapse (something on the order of the Dodgers finishing out the season at 6-16 – e.g. at 89 total wins. Even with this complete collapse, the Marlins would have to play .667 with the Dodgers playing .273 for that to happen – I view this as sufficiently implausible to disregard it. It may even be impossible (though I think it is merely extremely improbable).

Since it actually is impossible for the Giants, Dodgers and Rockies to all have a complete collapse (they just play too many games against each other), 19 remains he only relevant number for the Rockies. That is, any scenario that sees the Dodgers and Rockies tied for 1st place in the NL West also sees the Dodgers and Rockies both making the playoffs.

But, yes, in a situation in which the Rockies and Dodgers finished tied for the division lead AND in which neither is the Wild Card team, then there would be a playoff. I cannot see how all of that could happen. I can see scenarios where the Rockies have first squarely. I can see scenarios where the Rockies and Dodgers are not wild card teams. But I can’t see the Scenario where they finish tied for first in the NL West AND where one does not represent the WC team.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very good

by PHAT JULIO on Sep 9, 2009 1:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Got it

thanks Paul…

by Michael White on Sep 9, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The number to clinch a tie for a playoff spot is 15, and let me see if I can make my way through the logic (I think I have it right):

Dodgers 83-57
Rockies 79-60
Giants 76-63

The most wins the Giants (2nd, WC) could have is 99, so the Dodgers would need 17 wins to beat that and win at least the wild card. A couple of notes:

The Giants and Rockies play 3 more times, and for the Giants to win out they would sweep the Rockies, making the max for both teams 99 wins.

The Dodgers have 22 games left, but 9 are against the Rockies and Giants. If they win the 13 other games, they still need more wins to take the division. Each win against the Giants or Rockies lowers the SF/Col max wins, so 2 wins against SF/Col means one will have at least more loss, reducing their maximum to 98 wins. For the Dodgers to tie that, they need 15 wins.

I probably made that more confusing than it is.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lets just win the next 10 in a row

Than the Giants are probably done and the way the other teams behind them are doing, we could clinch something in Pittsburgh.

by bhsportsguy on Sep 9, 2009 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is an interesting take on baseball strategies and game theory by our friends at Beyond The Boxscore.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 10:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

1995?

Dioner was only 11 in 1995….should be 2005. Sorry to nitpick but I am alwayer and that is my job….

by Blue in SF on Sep 9, 2009 10:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Apparently spelling is not part of my job...

by Blue in SF on Sep 9, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good catch…thanks.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

From Buster Olney’s blog today:

A rival talent evaluator on Manny Ramirez: “He still is a good technical hitter, and he’s still a dangerous hitter. But he’s not driving the ball anywhere close to what he was doing in the second half of last year. I know the Dodgers would never bench him, but right now, I think they’re a better team with Juan Pierre in the lineup than him, because Pierre at least energizes the team. Manny is a bad outfielder, and if he’s not hitting, you notice that a lot more.”

I really hope that “talent evaluator” works for the Rockies or Giants, and has a big role in decision making with that team.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 11:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

not only

is that just incredibly stupid, but if Olney is not posting that quote in order to criticize it, it will be just one more example of why no one should pay money to read ESPN insider.

OTOH, if whomever thinks JP is better than Manny has any influence on his team, Ned should be seeking this guy out. I am sure there are players on whatever team that is that produce within a win of Manny. We can “take a haircut” and trade JP straight up for whomever that player may be.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm pretty sure that "talent evaluator" is Buster Olney with a fake moustache

I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours

by BoulderDodger on Sep 9, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ha!

Yeah, that sounds about right.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Buster OIney did grow up as a Dodger fan. Maybe he always loved Bobby Valentine :)

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You need to embed

a good base .mp3 when you post a ’stash like that.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also from Olney’s blog:

One more from ESPN Stats & Information’s Jeremy Lundblad, on the Diamondbacks and weird numbers: Wednesday is 9/9/‘09, which seems to be bad news for the Diamondbacks. Arizona lost on 9/9/’99, 5/5/‘05, 6/6/’06, 7/7/‘07 and 8/8/’08.

Yay!

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 12:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My only disappointment

Is that Eric didn’t think of this before Olney posted it. :)

by bhsportsguy on Sep 9, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was too Dodger myopic :)

I never thought to check Arizona’s history too

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 12:54 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs

James (Orange, CA)

Ethan Martin or Chris Winthrow?
Jim Callis
(2:55 PM)

Martin. Nice bounceback year for Withrow though.
James (Orange, CA)

Best Dodger Position Prospect, Dee Gordon or Andrew Lambo, or ________?
Jim Callis
(2:55 PM)

Gordon.

by Tripon on Sep 9, 2009 1:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

Withrow is only two months older than Martin and played at a higher level.

Our positional player depth has taken a huge beating.

by silverwidow on Sep 9, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

We have pitching prospects up the wazoo but we keep on trading our only good position prospects.

by Tripon on Sep 9, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Give Ned some time

and he’ll convert those pitching prospects into a few months of PVL performance.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

According to the Dodgers game notes, the starters for this weekend in SF are still TBD. I know earlier in the week, Dylan Hernandez reported Wolf would pitch Friday, with Saturday and Sunday yet undetermined.

I would imagine those details will come out in today’s pregame media session w/Torre.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 2:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

D-Backs lineup tonight (posted quite early, I must say):

Roberts 2B
Drew SS
Upton RF
Reynolds 3B
Montero C
Young CF
Byrnes LF
Tracy 1B
Haren P

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

They posted it early to let Byrnes know he’s starting so that he can get his hair and nails done this afternoon so he’s ready to preen for the cameras.

by KellyStephen on Sep 9, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Parra's been kicking our ass all year long, and he's out of the lineup? heck yeah.

by Tripon on Sep 9, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fuck Parra

by PHAT JULIO on Sep 9, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’ll still making a diving catch from the bench, or somehow take out a Dodger as they attempt to catch a ball near the AZ dugout :)

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I missed this last night

but Andre Ethier got his 596th plate appearance, triggering a $25,000 incentive clause in his contract.

He is making $3.1 million, base salary, but has $100k total in incentives ($25k at 625 PA, $50k at 650 PA) to get him to the midpoint of the arbitration offers (club & player).

I believe 596 was chosen as the first threshold because that was Ethier’s career high in PA, set in 2008.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 2:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

so should we feel sorry for the g's?

bases loaded, no out, down 4-2 in the bottom of the 8th…

bunt popup foul out, K, K…

they go 138 games giving up only 500 runs… and it just doesn’t matter.

by stillnotah8er on Sep 9, 2009 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I am trying

really hard to feel bad.

Nope, it didn’t take.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ninth inning

GIDP to end it.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

di d you see it?

why the hell is bochy bunting with the bases loaded? who was up? trying to squeeze home one? bunting for a base hit? I just do not get it.

by MammothDodger on Sep 9, 2009 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bases were not loaded

Sequence was actually: BB,BB,Bunt PO, K, Swinging PO

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that at least ake some sense

I was thinking Bochy had totally lost it (which would not necessarily be a bad thing)

by MammothDodger on Sep 9, 2009 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget

that this is purely a game theory thing. In terms of WE, the defense should be playing so that it does not matter weather there is a bunt attempt or swing attempt. If they are not, then the offense should do whatever the defense is allowing for the higher WE.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

MGL’s article on that was a pretty good read.

by Eric Stephen on Sep 9, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

very

Of course making use of it seems difficult. My “feeling” is that bunts are too infrequent given what I see re: defensive set up. I think most are playing giving higher RE/WE to the bunt, but few people that have any power or anything other than very fast speed bunt. I think in another 4-5 years we’ll be able to actually analyze this when Pitch, Hit and Def f/x are all routinely available and kinks largely worked out.

I, for one, am very much looking forward to that time.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

With that said

if there really was a man on third, the squeeze is actually a pretty high percentage play that gets far too little use. A bases-loaded bunt with runners going and a good bunter has a high-probability of scoring one and giving you 2nd-3rd with one out. Of course, it could also be an easy triple-play if the bunt was popped up.

by Paul Scott on Sep 9, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs