League Updates

Monsters of Unusual Size? I don’t think they exist.

Before we get to the standings — calm down, you there in the front row.  Yes, yes, I know, you want to see the standings today because you think something stunning has happened. But this league is being run in an academic environment, mostly, so what’s most important isn’t your personal interest in a particular team.  No, we are about the advance of knowledge, not any particular species of flora or fauna (yes, yes, or of cuisine) (yes, yes, or of dynamics… sheesh, can we move on yet?).

What? When have I EVER put the interests of a particular team over the interests of human betterment?  Oh, that?  Come on, that is ephemera, a little glitch.  Yes, glitches can too last 12 years. 12 years is nothing on the cosmic scale.

Before we get to the standings, we have to address a deep question:  Can baseball teams have personalities?  It’s tricky.  Humans looking at the night sky, or any other randomly distributed phenomenon, will find a way to “see” patterns.  We want explanations so we can make predictions. An ability to see patterns when most of the data is obscured to seem random is a powerful survival tool when one’s family is being stalked by lions, or other humans. So making “sense” of random data is a strong urge in us.

There is still a lot of random stuff going on with every baseball team in every season.  If we happen to watch a team for three games, spread out over any intervals you like, in which they score 1, 3, and 2 runs, we’re likely to conclude it is a crummy hitting team — even if the season stats show it to score right in line with the average for that year.  We’ll discount the 12 – 10 slugfests we didn’t watch while we were distracted doing something else.

So we are likely to see more personality than is really there.  But when the Rockies used to select for devout Christians — I think I remember hearing that they did this, heedless of it being illegal discrimination — did they succeed in building a team with a different feel, with different behavior patterns, different tastes and values?  I don’t know — but then you had the “fried chicken and beer” Red Sox pitching staff that blew a nine-game lead in September of 2011.  Since baseball teams are a finite set of interacting players’ personalities, I am pretty confident teams as a whole have personalities that vary from each other, and even from year to year.

Can baseball seasons have personalities?  Maybe.  They are still finite sets, etc. But the bigger and more diverse the population, the less likely that order will emerge, and the more likely that what we see as patterns are due to our unconscious structuring of the data to make sure there are no monsters under the bed.

Except that this time there IS a monster. And it’s no longer under your bed.

EFL Standings for 2016
EFL
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT. GB RS RA
Haviland Dragons 77 45 .634 624.9 473.1
Portland Rosebuds 74 45 .625 1.5 607.4 465.1
Old Detroit Wolverines 75 46 .623 1.5 635.5 493.5
Pittsburgh Alleghenys 70 48 .596 5.1 632.5 524.3
Canberra Kangaroos 67 52 .564 8.8 578.3 494.0
Peshastin Pears 64 55 .542 11.4 568.0 515.3
Flint Hill Tornadoes 58 63 .478 19.1 508.6 529.8
Kaline Drive 57 65 .465 20.7 594.8 649.5
Cottage Cheese 54 65 .456 21.6 571.8 622.0
D.C. Balk 41 78 .341 35.3 482.1 676.9
Haviland: W 2, L (-1); 14 – (-6).  (.476, .577, .619;  26.3 ip, 5 er.)  One of the best single days ever in the history of EFL baseball. A 20-run swing in the fortunes of a single team! And a 2.2-game swing in the standings in a single game. Only in the EFL!
Portland: L, 5 – 6. (.269, .304, .365;  9.0 ip, 10 er.)  Bad time to uncork bad pitching.  But at least you’re still in second place (albeit suddenly 1.1 games further from first).
Old Detroit: L, 0 – 6. (.132, .190, .263;  5.3 ip, 5 er). Ditto, only also with execrable hitting. Other than Jackie Bradley Jr, who went 2 for 3 with a double, homer, and HBP, the Woeverines batted 3 for 35: 0.086, .137, .114.
Pittsburgh: W (-1), L 2;  5 – 12. (.333, .407, .458;  9 ip, 10 er).  The devastation engulfs Pittsburgh, too, ejecting the Alleghenys from the pack of league leaders. They are now much closer to Canberra than they are to first place.
Canberra:  L, 6 – 7. (.229, .243, .514;  2.7 ip, 5 er).  The Kangaroos weren’t having a great day, but they did manage to limit their slippage in the pennant race to only 1.1 games.  These are expensive games to give up for a team trying to catch up so much ground, but it says something about the ‘Roos that their losses were not on an historic scale.
Peshastin: L, 4 – 5.  (.250, .311, .425;  2 ip, 0 er) Peshastin matched the ‘Buds and the ‘Roos in keeping their slippage down to 1.1 games in the standings.
Flint Hill:  L, 3 – 5. (308, .379, .385;  12.3 ip, 5 er).  Flint Hill dropped 1.4 games further behind, but at some point out here in the farthest reaches of  the league it stops mattering so much. Perhaps citizens of these regions can enjoy the spectacle atop the league as pure entertainment. One hopes so — one would like to think someone was salvaging some utility out of this catastrophe.
Kaline: W, 4 – 4. (.235, .333, .324;  0.7 ip, 0 er).  Baseball is supposed to be a zero-sum game.  The EFL is less so, which is why 6 of our 10 teams are above .500.  But on a day when so many have lost so much, and all those losses are not balanced by the sudden engorgement of the Dragons, there has to be some benefits flowing somewhere else.  As the only EFL team other than the Dragons to win on Wednesday — even though their win was by the slimmest of margins — the Drive were the only non-reptilian team not t0 slip more than a game in the standings.
Cottage: L, 4 – 11. (.289, .333, .378; 10.3 ip, 10 er).  Nasty bit of pitching there, but again, it’s mostly lost in the glare of the flames atop the league.
DC:  “W”, 3 – 7. (.220, .273, .317;  2.3 ip, 1 er).  The Balk didn’t really win a real game yesterday.  They just have a high albedo — you’re seeing a distant reflection of the Dragons’ “glory.”
Editor’s Note: This whole post was supposed to be about whether the W’s are really as bipolar as I perceive them to be, and whether I should send them to a counselor or a psychiatrist.  I wrote most of the intro last night. I had no idea the Woeverines and Rosebuds had been eaten by Dragons until I was copying stats from BP this morning. Even then I did not anticipate the extent of the carnage until the standings appeared on my screen.
AL East
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT. GB
Old Detroit Wolverines 75 46 .623
Toronto Blue Jays 69 52 .570 6.4
Boston Red Sox 67 52 .563 7.4
Baltimore Orioles 66 53 .555 8.4
New York Yankees 61 59 .508 13.9
Flint Hill Tornadoes 58 63 .478 17.6
Tampa Bay Rays 50 69 .420 24.4
NL East
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT. GB
Washington Nationals 70 49 .588
Canberra Kangaroos 67 52 .564 2.9
Miami Marlins 62 58 .517 8.5
New York Mets 60 60 .500 10.5
Philadelphia Phillies 56 65 .463 15
Atlanta Braves 44 76 .367 26.5
D.C. Balk 41 78 .341 29.4
AL Central
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT. GB
Pittsburgh Alleghenys 70 48 .596
Cleveland Indians 68 50 .576 2.3
Detroit Tigers 63 57 .525 8.3
Kansas City Royals 60 60 .500 11.3
Chicago White Sox 57 62 .479 13.8
Minnesota Twins 49 71 .408 22.3
NL Central
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT. GB
Chicago Cubs 76 43 .639
St. Louis Cardinals 64 56 .533 12.5
Pittsburgh Pirates 62 56 .525 13.5
Cottage Cheese 54 65 .456 21.7
Milwaukee Brewers 52 67 .437 24
Cincinnati Reds 50 69 .420 26
AL West
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT. GB
Haviland Dragons 77 45 .634
Texas Rangers 72 50 .590 5.4
Seattle Mariners 64 55 .538 11.9
Houston Astros 61 59 .508 15.4
Kaline Drive 57 65 .465 20.7
Oakland A’s 52 69 .430 24.9
Los Angeles Angels 50 70 .417 26.4
NL West
TEAM WINS LOSSES PCT. GB
Portland Rosebuds 74 45 .625
Los Angeles Dodgers 67 52 .563 7.4
San Francisco Giants 66 54 .550 8.9
Peshastin Pears 64 55 .542 9.9
Colorado Rockies 58 63 .479 17.4
San Diego Padres 50 70 .417 24.9
Arizona Diamondbacks 50 70 .417 24.9