Wednesday, May 28, 2014

The Americans Season 2

            FX’s drama, The Americans, just completed its stellar second season. The first season, which I reviewed here, starred Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell as Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings, a pair of KGB deep cover agents. The married couple run a Washington D.C. travel agency by day and covert operations by night. They also raise their two children, Paige and Henry, in a banal Virginia suburb. This season further sharpened the show’s focus on marriage, family, and the moral ambiguity of spy craft. These efforts produced one of the very best shows on television.
             At the end of last season, Phillip and Elizabeth committed themselves to turning their arranged marriage into a real one. In the world of espionage, this new devotion for each other proved emotionally dangerous and damaging. Elizabeth sought to understand how Phillip behaved in his undercover work. She asked Phillip to act as “Clark,” one of Phillip’s aliases during an ill-advised sexual encounter. Elizabeth had already awkwardly pumped information about “Clark” from Martha, an FBI secretary and “Clark’s” wife (they secretly married to further Phillip’s cover). In the bedroom, Phillip donned his “Clark” wig and roughly handled Elizabeth. His behavior backfired and instead of bringing the couple closer together, evoked the trauma of Elizabeth’s rape during her KGB training. Following Elizabeth’s wounding at the end of season 1, Phillip’s attempts to carry more of the operational burden of their missions proved similarly problematic. The increasing body count took its toll on Phillip. He killed an Afghani restaurant worker who had merely shown up for work, a computer scientist who had forgotten his wallet, and a sanitation worker who worked the wrong route. The growing emotional toll boiled over in a frightening scene where Phillip seemed likely to kill the minister of Paige’s church. His crime? Introducing her to Jesus. Phillip and Elizabeth grew to love each other, but that affection brought emotional turmoil.
            The Americans also continued to explore the central tension in the Jennings marriage: Elizabeth’s true belief versus Phillip’s pragmatism. In dealing with Moscow Centre, Elizabeth never questions the communist cause. Phillip, however, doubts both the Center’s tactics and its motives. These differing approaches also manifested themselves in Paige’s burgeoning faith—providing fertile ground for the season and the remaining series. Paige’s embrace of religion horrifies her communist parents. Phillip adopts a more practical approach. The night after Paige says Grace at the table, Phillip tells Elizabeth that they need to eat dinner later. Paige’s physical cravings will overwhelm her spiritual hunger. Elizabeth chides him for being overly reasonable and worries about raising a daughter who believes in everything that her parents have sworn to oppose. Phillip, however, still believes in the cause. He bitterly and hilariously comments that he wanted to punch Paige in the face after she espoused the virtues of nonviolent resistance. The tension between the pragmatism and idealism manifests itself in the season finale when Elizabeth warms to the idea of recruiting Paige into the KGB. She sees Paige’s participation (really just riding a bus and holding a sign) in a protest over nuclear weapons as a burgeoning belief that she and the KGB can exploit. Phillip expresses horror at the prospect, noting that Paige, already questioning her parents, would never forgive them.
            Phillip and Elizabeth had just seen that outcome played out with the other main arc of the season: the murder of Emmett and Leanne, another married pair of KGB deep cover agents. Phillip discovered Emmett, Leanne, and their daughter, dead in their hotel room. Jared, Emmett and Leanne’s son, seemingly survived the incident while swimming at the hotel pool. Their shocking deaths served as a reminder of the danger of their mission. The revelation at the end of the season that Jared had murdered his parents only further highlighted the risks of their lifestyle. The KGB had approached Emmett and Leanne about recruiting Jared into the KGB. They refused, but the KGB recruited him anyway—setting the stage for the deadly confrontation. Phillip and Elizabeth initially viewed Jared as a reason to resist any efforts to recruit Paige. The shock of the truth had led Jared to murder his parents. Using Emmett and Leanne as a mirror, Phillip wants nothing to do with the KGB approaching Paige. Elizabeth, despite the risks, sees an opportunity to give Paige purpose.
            The character of Andrew Larrick provided another opportunity to explore the moral ambiguity of espionage. Emmett and Leanne and then Phillip and Elizabeth blackmailed Larrick, a gay Navy SEAL, into turning against the United States. Larrick proved an able antagonist for Phillip and Elizabeth. The strength of Larrick lay in the ability of the show also to cast him as a protagonist. Blackmailed because of his sexuality, Larrick betrayed his country and did everything his KGB handlers asked of him. He handed the KGB evidence of the US’s training of the Contras and only decided to hunt down Phillip and Elizabeth after they killed his compatriots. Along the way he killed Gregory, the Soviet phone messenger, and Kate, the Jennings’s KGB handler. In the end, Larrick prepared to take responsibility for his actions by turning himself in, rather than killing the Jenningses. Turning Larrick into a potential protagonist represents the strength of the show and its embrace of the moral minefield of the spy game.
            Characters on The Americans who believe in something greater than themselves have a better chance of navigating the moral morass of spying. This theme manifested itself in the story of Stan, the FBI agent and the Jennings’ neighbor, and Nina, a KGB agent at Soviet Embassy.  Since Nina confessed to betraying her country, Arkady, the chief KGB agent, and new arrival, Oleg, had begun the process of turning Stan into an asset. They used his affair with Nina to exploit his crumbling marriage and life. Yet Stan remained devoted to, as he put it in an interview with Henry “catching the bad guys.” When Arkady and Nina pushed Stan to commit treason, he had to choose between his two loves: Nina and America. Ultimately Stan chose his job and country over Nina. Unfortunately for Nina, she had no greater belief for support. From the beginning of the series, Nina remained devoted to her own survival. First, she smuggled electronics equipment to the USSR for a quick buck, then sold out the Motherland and then Stan, all in the name of self preservation. Stan last saw her being driven out of the Soviet Embassy, presumably on her back to Moscow to stand trial for treason. Without any belief to fall back on, Nina had exhausted her options.
          
Some other brief observations:

In the season finale, Stan notices in his dream that Martha, secretly married to Phillip, is stealing files off of the mail robot (an unsung hero of the show). So he’s aware of Martha’s questionable loyalties, but only on a subconscious level.

            I especially enjoyed how Agent Gaad, Stan’s boss, orchestrated his return following Stan’s execution of Vlad in season 1. The two scenes between Gaad and Arkady were standouts in a season full of them.

             I fully expect something to happen with Martha and her newly purchased gun. Phillip can’t be happy that his “wife” and only of the KGB’s most valuable assets—especially now that she’s stealing files for Phillip—has a gun. 

            Overall this was a great season of a great TV show. 

Thursday, May 22, 2014

He's Back: Stephen Drew in 2014

            On Tuesday, the Boston Red Sox resigned shortstop Stephen Drew to a one year contract worth approximately ten million dollars. In the offseason, Drew rejected a qualifying offer from Boston that would have guaranteed him approximately fourteen million dollars. By not signing the qualifying offer, Drew would have cost any team that signed him (apart from Boston) a high draft pick. The draft pick compensation, as it has for other free agents in recent years, caused Drew’s market to dry up.
            Now that Drew has returned to the fold, what can the Red Sox expect from him for this season and what would be the best way to use him? Drew played in 124 games with 501 plate appearances last season. Below are his statistics (courtesy of Fangraphs) from 2013.


AVG
OBP
SLG
BB%
K%
wRC+
WAR
2013
.253
.333
.443
10.8
24.8
109
3.4

            Back in December, I argued that Drew represented an above average option at shortstop in 2013. Here’s a link to that piece—go read it. Back? Okay, good. Now we can look at what Drew can offer to the Red Sox in 2014.
First question, will he be an improvement at the production the Red Sox have gotten out from new shortstop Xander Bogaerts this year?

2014
AVG
OBP
SLG
BB%
K%
wRC+
WAR
Bogaerts
.269
.369
.379
11.3%
22.6%
111
0.9

            Answer: not really. Xander Bogaerts has ably replaced Drew’s production. Drew possesses a bit more power, but Bogaerts is 21 years old and in his first full season in the majors. The power will come. Drew’s obviously not replacing Dustin Pedroia at second base, but what about the chronically injured Will Middlebrooks (currently on the DL) at third?  

2014
AVG
OBP
SLG
BB%
K%
wRC+
WAR
Middlebrooks
.197
.305
.324
8.0%
28.0%
74
0.0

            Here’s an area where the Red Sox could use an upgrade—desperately. This year, Middlebrooks has had difficulty putting the ball in play, sporting a .261 BABIP, 30 points below his career average. His walk rate is up, but so is his sky-high strikeout rate. Offensively, he measures about 26% below league average. His short-term replacement, Brock Holt, is the definition of a no-hit utility man.
            Middlebrooks’s struggles are nothing new. Third base was where the Red Sox offense went to die last year. Will Middlebrooks, Jose Iglesias, Brandon Snyder, Brock Holt, Pedro Ciriaco, and Xander Bogaerts combined to offer zero wins above replacement—the equivalent of fielding a replaceable minor league veteran.

3B
AVG
OBP
SLG
wRC+
WAR
2013
.250 (15th)
.300 (20th)
.392 (16th)
85 (20th)
0.0 (23rd)
2014
.196 (26th)
.301 (20th)
.266 (30th)
59 (27th)
-0.9 (28th)

            Horrified by that chart? Good.
The question remains where can Drew be most effective this season? A look at Drew’s career stats suggests that he should play regularly against right-handed pitchers, but not against lefties. Just look at his career splits.

Drew
AVG
OBP
SLG
BB%
K%
wRC+
Vs. LHP
.235
.291
.390
7.5%
24.4%
74
Vs. RHP
.275
.343
.451
9.4%
16.4%
105
           
            What about Middlebrooks? In his short career, Middlebrooks has demonstrated one positive skill: hitting lefthanded pitchers.

Middlebrooks
AVG
OBP
SLG
BB%
K%
wRC+
Vs. LHP
.288
.342
.491
7.0%
22.6%
123
Vs. RHP
.228
.273
.427
4.6%
27.3%
86

            But what about Bogaerts? Leave him alone and let him play every day. The most optimal lineup would feature Drew and Bogaerts against right-handers and Bogaerts and Middlebrooks should start against lefties. Will this solve all the Red Sox offensive problems? No, but the improvement from Middlebrooks playing every day to just against lefties should be worth about one or two wins over the season. With a seven game losing streak, the Red Sox can use every win they can get. 

Monday, May 12, 2014

The Curious Case of John Lackey

            On December 16, 2009, the Boston Red Sox signed pitcher John Lackey to a five year, 82.5 million dollar contract. The deal included a 3.5 million dollar salary bonus, an 18 million dollar salary in 2010, and 15.25 million from 2011-2014. The contract also included a vesting option at the league minimum salary (about five hundred thousand dollars) for 2015 if Lackey missed significant time because of a pre-existing elbow injury. Lackey missed the 2012 season following Tommy John surgery on that elbow.
            After the “Fried Chicken and Beer” fiasco of 2011 and Lackey’s subsequent surgery, his contract seemed like a total bust. It was another example why giving five year contracts to older pitchers rarely work out. Yet when Lackey returned to the Red Sox in 2013, he pitched effectively. His season culminated with a 6 2/3 inning pitching performance in Game 6 of the World Series. A closer look at Lackey’s pitching performance since Tommy John surgery suggests that the deal might not be a total bust after all. (All Stats courtesy of Fangraphs)


IP
K/9
BB/9
ERA
FIP
WAR
2010
215
6.53
3.01
4.40
3.85
3.9
2011
160
6.08
3.15
6.41
4.71
1.6
2013
189.1
7.65
1.90
3.52
3.86
3.2
2014
53
8.88
1.87
3.57
3.22
1.3
Career Avg
-
7.13
2.63
4.04
3.88
39.0
           
In 2013 and 2014, Lackey has dramatically improved his K/9 rate. He has transformed himself from an average strikeout pitcher to a great one. His walk rate declined from over 3 batters per nine innings to well under two. His FIP (for an explanation see here) has similarly climbed from average to something slighter better than that.
            What accounts for Lackey’s improvement? In 2013, he arrived at Red Sox camp in much better shape than in previous years. While losing weight certainly helped, it cannot account for such a striking transformation. In doing some research, I looked at Lackey’s pitch usage over his time on the Red Sox and noticed some pretty big changes.


Four Seam Fastball %
Two Seam Fastball %
Cut-Fastball %
Slider %
Curve %
Changeup %
2010
15.2
4.8
41.9
9.2
24.1
4.6
2011
15.1
2.4
34.7
22.1
17.7
7.8
2013
52.0
4.9
29.3
0.9
10.4
2.6
2014
59.0
8.1
20.9

9.7
0.7
           
            In 2010 and 2011, Lackey threw his four seam fastball only about 15% of the time. Instead he relied on his cutter, curveball, and a slider (a pitch he no longer throws according to PitchF/x data).  Since 2013, Lackey has leaned heavily on his four seamer. He has cut back on his cut fastball and curveball and incorporated his two-seam fastball more into his repertoire.
            Since Lackey has relied on his four seamer more, what has that done for the effectiveness of his other pitches?


Hitters  AVG/OBP/SLG against Two Seam Fastball
Hitters  AVG/OBP/SLG against Cut Fastball
Hitters  AVG/OBP/SLG against Curveball
2010
.371/.463/.543
.258/.323/.395
.266/.335/.410
2011
.350/.409/.500
.312/.397/.523
.336/.400/.462
2013
.205/.220/.308
.226/.280/.359
.233/.243/.438
2014
.100/.250/.200
.204/.250/.347
.353/.389/.412

            In 2011, major league hitters smacked Lackey around like a rag doll. Against Lackey, major league hitters were the equivalent of Cardinals outfielder Matt Holliday (career .310/.386/.527 with a career wRC+ of 139—39% better than the average hitter). In 2013 and 2014, they’ve hit more like a 2013 version of Yuniesky Betancourt (.212/.240/.355 and a 56 wRC+).
            How has Lackey made such improvements so late in his career? Compare Lackey’s average pitch location on his cut fastball between 2011 and  2013. (Pitch location courtesy of http://pitchfx.texasleaguers.com/)

2011

 

2013


            Looking at location charts for Lackey’s other pitches reveal a similar pattern. In 2011, Lackey left his pitches over the heart of the plate and hitters crushed them. In 2013, Lackey kept his pitches on the outer edges of the strike zone. As a result of his better location, Lackey has improved his strikeout rate, getting more hitters to swing and miss at strikes: 9.8% in 2013 and 10.8% in 2014 (well above his career rate of 8.7%).
            If Lackey can continue his improved pitch location, his contract may not have been a bargain, but it won’t have been a total bust either.