Clayton Kershaw pitched and labored through five innings with an injured left hip, but he managed to limit the Reds to a lone run. Adrian Gonzalez homered twice to emphatically break out of his slump, and he helped power the offense to a win. But perhaps the biggest surprise goes to Juan Uribe, who managed to … uh … get a hit.

Still, despite the team’s best efforts, their playoff chances actually dropped because both the Cardinals and the Brewers were victorious, thus keeping the Dodgers three games back of the final Wild Card spot with nine games to play. Their chances now sit in the 5-7 percent range, depending on what methodology you choose to employ.

—–

Given Kershaw’s performance, I suppose one could look at as if pitching him was the right decision since the team ended up winning, but ten baserunners, including five walks over five innings against the B-lineup of the Reds, didn’t exactly strike me as normal, nor did it really change the fact that the Dodgers playoff hopes are still slim. Honestly, it was just fortunate that the sequencing of his struggles weren’t different, and that the results somehow managed to remain positive.

Simply put, the risk wasn’t worth the reward no matter what happened, because as even Orel Hershiser noted on the ESPN broadcast (Via Eric Stephen), Kershaw indeed struggled with his mechanics:

“We’re watching Clayton Kershaw throw a lot of balls to the right-handed batters box, or away to Votto, or inside to righties. That right hip, as it gets a little fatigued, his upper body is going to take over and it’s going to over-rotate over that hip and he’s going to start pulling pitches like he is. It’s just that little less bracing that makes the upper body go too far and…instead of that arm speed being braced against that front leg and having some direction, there is less bracing on that front side. The arm and the upper body take over, and you happen to pull the ball to your glove side. So if he’s not putting as much weight on it or using as much strength in that front leg for direction, his mechanics will make him start pulling the ball to his glove side.”

As I’ve said on this issue before, I just didn’t see the upside in starting him. This wasn’t a playoff game, it wasn’t a tiebreaker game, and, heck, it wasn’t even a particularly important regular season game.

—–

In news that I enjoyed the most, A.J. Ellis snapped an 0-for-30 skid with a double in the ninth. The Dodgers dugout made light of his streak by asking for the ball.

With a headline like that, you would expect this is for the division lead, right?

Click To Enlarge

No. It’s to see which team ends up in last place.

I swear these two teams could both be at 40-121 going into the last game of the season and their finish would still be hyped more than the teams who were actually winning.

Way to go, ESPN.

Minor League Ball: Three Los Angeles Dodgers prospects make Minor League Ball‘s 2012 Top 120 Prospects. Unsurprisingly, they are Zach Lee (75), Allen Webster (106), and Nate Eovaldi (87).

ESPN The Magazine: Molly Knight on Dodgers trainer Stan Conte, who wants to banish injuries forever.

Grantland: Jonah Keri on Jose Abreu, the best hitter you’ve never heard of.

While Ryan Braun’s suspension over a positive drug test has ended with it being overturned, I think everybody recognizes that his trial has only just begun.

While the suspension being lifted was a boost to the Milwaukee Brewers, it probably would have actually been better for Braun’s reputation had he gotten suspended but for reasons that were shown to clearly be a mistake or unintentional, much like J.C. Romero.

Sad? Maybe, but utterly true.

As it stands, the debate in the court of public opinion over his guilt or innocence is just getting started.

—–

The fact of the matter is that nothing is clear as of yet.

Yesterday I wrote an article in response to the mainstream media not covering what I believed to be pertinent and relevant information acquired from anonymous sources, same as anybody else reporting on the story.

The point of writing it was to attempt to provide a moment of clarity in what I felt was quickly becoming nothing more than a witch hunt, even though the reality of the situation was that there is still so much that we don’t actually know.

Anybody who has followed me for any amount of time knows that I don’t believe anybody 100% when it comes to athletics and drugs, and I’m a skeptic by nature, but as of this moment I can’t see any reason to go around destroying Braun and pretending the “I know he’s guilty!” version of the story is the absolute truth.

The actual fact of the matter is that we don’t know for sure what has transpired in the Braun saga, despite people acting like they do.

—–

With that established, isn’t it a bit soon for a bunch of people who were all wrong on a judgment about a suspension to regroup and instantly rush to judgment on the same individual yet again? I just found it … sad, really. It was as if nobody had learned the lesson that was just proven to them.

I know some apparently feel comfortable with ruining a guy’s reputation over information that still has questions about it, but I don’t.

The sad fact of the matter is that — while it would be wrong — what could provide clarity and closure to this debate is a leak of the ruling from Shyam Das. If that were to happen, then we wouldn’t have to speculate on what he did and did not know any longer.

At that point I think we could probably make an accurate judgment on exactly what transpired and why Das ruled the way he did. Until then though, everybody’s just guessing as far as I’m concerned.

Doing it over trade rumors and potential performance is one thing, but I’m not okay with dragging anybody’s life through the mud based on assumptions.

=====

Before I found the information I used in my previous post on Braun, I had actually intended to make a light post about the controversy, simply stating something I had observed on the day the suspension was overturned.

CBS Sports

Fox Sports

NBC Sports

Sports Illustrated

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

ESPN

I’m not accusing anybody of anything, perhaps ESPN just happened to be the outlet that acquired the Braun leak and also ran the only headline questioning Braun and also all their writers legitimately believe that Braun appears more guilty than innocent, but it just looked funny to see all the headlines from other outlets and then ESPN’s.

The contrast was amusing.

Tom Hoffarth of the Los Angeles Daily News reports that former manager Kevin Kennedy will be taking over “Dodger Talk” from Josh Suchon and Joe Block.

My thoughts? Ugh.

Two blogger friendly and capable hosts, Josh Suchon and Joe Block, are exiting in favor of a generally uninteresting Kevin Kennedy, who I’m assuming only continues to get work because he used to manage in the MLB.

It’s basically akin to ESPN only hiring former players to be analysts even though 99% of them are completely incapable of doing anything but dishing out cliche after cliche.

Can’t wait for every answer to every question start with: “Well, when I was a manager…”

I was watching “Baseball Tonight” recap the Phillies and Cardinals game yesterday, and I heard John Kruk explaining a graphic that showed that with Shane Victorino on 2nd with 0 outs in the top of the 7th inning, there was a 66% chance of the Phillies scoring. That graphic was followed by highlights of Phillies players flying out to right and grounding out to third, as further graphics flashed across the screen showing the percentage chance of scoring falling. Then came the next highlight, as with 2 outs, Ben Francisco hit the game deciding 3-run homer.

All of that was fine and good until Karl Ravech said out of nowhere that sabermetricians would have “bunted the runner over to 3rd” to “increase the odds of scoring“, and that the homer “threw all the metrics and ‘Moneyball‘ and all that out the window“. Kruk followed that up with an enthusiastic “OUT THE WINDOW” and Mark Mulder mumbled something worthless like he always does.

I did think it was odd that “Baseball Tonight” kept showing the percentages of scoring, but now I get why they did it, as they were trying to show how probability can’t predict baseball and the talking heads then segued it into a piece about how stat nerds suck.

Because statistics and stat nerds are full of shit, you see.

—

The problem, of course, is that it’s complete horseshit, and anyone who remotely follows stat nerds would why.

For starters, they never compared the probability of scoring between a runner on 2nd and 0 outs with a runner on 3rd and 1 out, all they did was show the probability of scoring for the runner on 2nd with 0 outs, 1 out, and 2 outs. To put it lightly, no stat nerd in his right mind would ever suggest that bunting in that situation was the statistically sound decision.

Runner On 2nd/0 Outs – 1.06 Expected Runs Scored
Runner On 3rd/1 Out – 0.89 Expected Runs Scored
Runner On 2nd/0 Outs/Top 7/Tied Game – 60.4% Chance Of Winning
Runner On 3rd/1 Out/Top 7/Tied Game – 58.7% Chance Of Winning

As always, those odds are assuming the bunt is successful, which is hardly a guarantee.

I know it’s almost boring to bag on ESPN at this point, and I’ve seriously learned to let a lot of stupidity slide, but if you’re going to insult statistics and stat nerds for being wrong in a sample size of one type of scenario, then the least you could do is figure out what stat nerds would actually endorse.

I understand what ESPN is trying to do with Total QBR, and it’s not that I’m against statistical evaluation (obviously) or that I want to defend Passer Rating, but Total QBR now has its own goddamn section, and it’s being touted as the be-all end-all for quarterback evaluation, when the reality is that it’s simply not even close to it.

“Well, yes, because there are two basic problems with traditional passer ratings: what they measure and what they don’t measure. The official formula for passer rating is actually less complicated than its reputation. It takes completions, passing yards, touchdown passes and interceptions, all on a per-attempt basis, compares each to a league-average figure, and mashes them into one number. But passer rating doesn’t attempt to weight its categories by their importance to winning football games.

Okay, Passer Rating isn’t ideal, I get it, but almost everybody with a brain knows that already, and pretending like Total QBR is the statistical messiah for objective quarterback evaluation is far worse than what people ever used Passer Rating for.

In that linked article, Total QBR prides itself on bringing WPA to football, and it actually mentions that us fans can now settle historical debates about which quarterbacks were the greatest with it.

Uh…no.

Tom Tango lays it out best regarding WPA:

What WPA represents is the quantification of your feelings as the game unfolds. Imagine if Youk hit into a triple play his first 2 AB, with the score tied 0-0 the whole time, then the Sox lead 15-0 (and he gets two outs), then he hits two HR. How is it that you felt with Youk, if you tracked it in real time?

Well, his first two AB, you are cursing his name like there’s no tomorrow, then when the team batted around (twice), your blood pressure starts to go down, and then, with the score at 15-0, you’re probably not even watching the game any more.

That is what WPA captures…. the quantification of your feelings as the game unfolds, assigned to the players involved.

WPA is not a way to evaluate the talent of a player. WPA is exactly the same as counting a PA 11 times when the bases loaded down by 1 with 2 outs in the bottom of the 9th and counting a PA as almost zero in a blowout game. It is basically ridiculous to think that one PA can inform you on the talent level of a player 1000 times more in one situation than another.

Yup, basically. It’s a fun statistic, but nobody seriously uses it while evaluating a player for a reason.

Just bothers me how ESPN has managed to diminish quarterback analysis down to who can play the best in close games, as if it’s a repeatable skill. Because as we all know, quarterbacks who play well to start the game and rarely get their team into situations where they are down late all the time are useless. However, quarterbacks who play like ass for three quarters, have strong defenses that keep the team in it, and lead late drives to make a come back are clutch and awesome!

-

Worse yet, all of the WPA discussion above doesn’t even scratch the surface of the problems with Total QBR, as there are legitimate questions about how it’s collected, calculated, adjusted, and weighted that need to be answered. However, the equation isn’t available to the public, so for all we know, Total QBR could be a completely worthless metric, worse than Passer Rating even, and nobody would know.

Joy.

-

Obviously this is the statistic that I want defining quarterback play in the NFL.