As of a couple weeks ago, I’m working for the Orange County Register. And as of today, I’m covering the Angels. I had a little cameo on the Dodgers last week.

So, what’s that mean for this blog? Well, I’d say it’s now dead, but it was pretty dead already. I really hadn’t been posting much of anything for a while because, when I was working for the Giants and A’s magazines, I didn’t think it would have been a good idea for me to be giving too many opinions about those teams. Now I can give all the opinions I want on them, but I’m probably not going to have many, since I’ll be focusing so much on the Angels.

I will keep it here, though, because, well, you never know.

In the meantime, I hope that you keep following me, just to keep an eye on the competition down South. If not, thanks for following.

And you know what? He’s absolutely right.

If ever there were a situation in which a pitcher could pull his team out of a deficit to win a game, this was it. And to see what I’m talking about, let’s look at a little thing called win probability. Don’t panic that I’m going all stat-geek on you. Win probability is a very easy concept. It uses previous outcomes to figure the chances of victory for each team given each specific situation in a game, based on the score, the inning, the outs and the runners on base. It also takes into account the run environment, and I’m not exactly sure how that’s calculated, but it measures the difference between ballparks and eras. You can play around with the calculator here.

If you look at this chart, you see that the moment Blevins took the ball, the A’s were actually underdogs. They had a 35-percent chance of winning that game, even though at the moment they were actually winning.

Poker players, like me, are all familiar with this ahead-and-behind phenomenon. Let’s say one player has a pair on the flop and the other guy has two overcards, a flush draw and a straight draw. Even though the second player is losing at the moment, there are so many cards out there that will put him ahead that, with two cards to come, he’s better than 50-50 to hit one of them.

So Jerry Blevins was out there with nothing but a pair — hey, this is a better analogy than I thought — and the Angels had all the outs. (Except in poker outs are good, but in baseball they are bad. Anyway…)

By now you know that Blevins flipped the odds and pulled the A’s out from behind to protect their lead. (What a sentence that is!)

And guess what? It was a pretty rare feat. Since the A’s had a 35-percent chance to win when he entered and 100-percent chance when he was done, he added 65 percent to their win probability. Only three times in A’s history has a pitcher pitched one inning or less and added more than 50 percent to his team’s win probability. The only one that was more dramatic than Blevins was Mark Guthrie in 1999. Guthrie actually faced the exact same situation as Blevins (up one, runners at the corners, no outs, bottom of the last inning), but the difference was he did it in a slightly different “run environment.” Back in 1999, runs came a lot easier for some reason (read: steroids). Guthrie did it at the Metrodome.

Now, someone get Jerry Blevins some pie!

I know that both of my loyal readers probably gave up on this blog since I haven’t written anything on it in months except for those posts that looked strangely like paid advertisements. Hmmmm. Anyway, I’m back because, as often happens, I started to make a point on twitter and couldn’t sufficiently explain myself in 140 characters.

The point is this: The loss of Melky Cabrera is tougher blow for the Giants emotionally (among the players and fans) than it is realistically.

What? You’re an idiot, Fletch! Do you realize how much better Melky is than Gregor Blanco? And do you realize that one game can be the difference between making the playoffs and not?

What I mean is this: 45 games is not a lot of games. A lot of weird things happen over 45 games that wouldn’t happen over 162. I could give you a million examples of someone who looked awesome or terrible over 45 games, when the opposite was actually the case. For 45 games, anything can happen. To players and teams.

Now, let’s look at this statistically. I kinda hate the stat WAR, because I don’t like the defensive component. But if you take that out, and look only at offensive WAR, I think it’s semi-useful, if only as a means to compare. So Cabrera’s offensive WAR, according to B-R, is 4.5. Gregor Blanco’s is 1.2.

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but WAR is a cumulative stat, so a guy who plays more has a higher WAR than a guy who plays less, even if their production is equal. Blanco has about 70 percent of the plate appearances of Cabrera, so I think we can say if he had that extra 30 percent of PAs, producing at the same levels, his WAR would be 30 percent higher, so about 1.5.

So the difference between 500-PA Cabrera and 500-PA Blanco is about 3 wins. Over the final 45 games there are maybe 180 PAs left for Cabrera/Blanco, so that’s a difference of … what? … maybe one win? (And this isn’t even taking into account that Blanco is actually better than Cabrera defensively.)

But one win is the difference between making the playoffs or not!

Yes, that’s true. But this theoretical one win is the average. If the Giants played the final 45 games a million times with Cabrera and a million times with Blanco, on average they’d be one win better with Cabrera. But you know that there would be wide variations within that. Sometimes they’d be five wins better with Blanco, because even bad players get hot and good players get cold over short spans. It happens. Happens all the damn time.

We’re talking about replacing 11 percent of a team’s plate appearances over 25 percent of the season.

That’s nothing.

Don’t believe me? Look at the Reds. Did you realize that Joey Votto has been out for a month? What have the Reds done since he’s been gone? They’ve gone 21-8!

That’s a fluke, Jeff. They are not better without Joey Votto, and you’re an idiot for suggesting it. It’s just a small sample … oh wait!

So the point to all of this is you should step away from the ledge. The Giants did get worse yesterday. No question about it. But over 45 games (44 now, since they already lost their first post-Cabrera game on Wednesday), teams don’t always play to the level of their talent.

I expect that the Giants will be in the race right till the end, just as I did before Cabrera got suspended. They may win and they may lose, but whatever happens is going to be determined on the virtual randomness of a few bounces here and there, or a few well-timed hits. That’s what truly affects the outcome of those two or three or four games that will be difference between making the playoffs and not making it.

The Cespedes homer may have been predictable, but not the Pagan dinger. Remember Angel Pagan in spring training? You probably didn’t have too much faith in him being a legit producer. But here we are, a few weeks into the season, and he’s got an 11-game hitting streak, during which he’s hit .308.

Pagan is a perfect example of why you can’t predict what’s going to happen in baseball. I’ll never understand why people bet on baseball, but apparently lots of them do so at great sports betting sites.

Personally, I prefer poker for my gambling, but I’m sure it’s also possible to win in the long term at sports betting if you stick to what you really know. Of course, the sport I know best is baseball, and it’s pretty hard to bet on baseball, so I guess I’ll stick to poker.

Can you see Lew Wolff and Larry Baer sitting down at a poker table playing heads-up. With the sunglasses and the iPods.

How cool would that be?

Speaking of poker, I’ve discovered another source for reviews of the online poker sites that still operate in the U.S. Check out Cardschat poker. It gives you the low-down on which sites are the best for U.S. players.

I haven’t played online poker in a while, but it would be a nice way to get in a little practice before I go down to win the World Series of Poker.

I’ve come to learn that people in the U.S. are still playing poker with real money online. There may not be as many sites as there used to be, but there are still some.

Personally I prefer to play live poker, although I can’t do that too much because it requires me to make the commitment of leaving the house for hours at a time. So I guess I ought to just hope for the return of full-scale online poker, like back in the glory days of 2006. In the meantime, at least there are options.

As you probably know, I’m quite the poker player. In fact, I’ve been to the World Series of Poker (six times) more times than the real World Series (three).

I’m going to be interested to see what the turnout is like this year, because of the laws that shut down online poker in the US. It all came to an end in April 2011, so that may have been too soon before the 2011 WSOP for the impact to be apparent.

I’ve wondered how many U.S. poker players just moved to Canada to continue playing? There is still plenty of legal online gambling in Canada. If you’re interested in finding a good one, there are reviews at Casino.org.

Anyway, I’m still not sure when I’ll be going to the WSOP this year, but I’m sure it will depend on the baseball schedule.

I figure I’m due to win the thing this year, so if you want to invest…

That shows a lack of understanding not just of the law, but of simple logic.

Let’s say he’s innocent. Say he never took a single drug in his life. Not even aspirin.

MLB: “We have a test of your urine that shows Chemical X.”
Braun: “But I never took anything.”
MLB: “OK, but we have a test of your urine that shows Chemical X.”

Where do you go from there?

Braun’s only defense is to challenge the accuracy of the test, whether he is totally innocent or whether he’s guilty and looking for an out. Doesn’t matter. His only defense is to challenge the accuracy of the test.

This isn’t some murder case where there is other evidence, like witnesses who can be challenged. The only evidence is the test. So the only way to beat it is to challenge the test. Period.

Did you think that MLB would come back and say “Even though we have this positive test and Mr. Braun gave us no reason to believe the test was faulty, he looked us straight in the eyes and said he was innocent and we believed him, so we let him off”?

I don’t know whether Braun is really innocent or if he’s really guilty and did get lucky on a loophole. (I think the most likely scenario, considering all the tests he passed before, is that he accidentally took a banned substance.) All I know is that he defended himself in exactly the way he should.

It is the finals of the World Series and it is all down to this. The crowd favorite is down to just one out to keep his hopes alive for a World Series title. Fans are all on their feet and are frantic with cheers for their favorite players while fans for the opposite side are just as frantic. Sports writers, journalist, and media from around the world watch and are ready with their camera to see if the player can make a comeback or fall short.

The official signals and the pitch is thrown. It’s is a deuce of spades, a total blank, and the other guy has just won the World Championship of Texas Hold’em! The crowd goes wild and confetti flies as the fans cheer their new World Champion. Press from websites like Pokerlistings.com and other sports writers start to interview the new champion while family and friends console the loser.

What? You thought I was talking about baseball? Sorry folks, I was talking about the finals of the World Series of Poker, the World Championship of professional poker. Every year, thousands of players from around the world descend upon Las Vegas to take their shot at immortality and literally Millions in prize money.

Sounded pretty exciting didn’t it. A bit like Major League Baseball. That was the point. Many people don’t understand how that poker, much like baseball, can have such a huge fan base when there are long periods of inactivity. Texas Hold’em is often described as “hours of boredom followed by moments of excitement.” As you can see from above, the thrills in the game can equal that of baseball and other sporting events.

The great part about the game of poker is that it is an everyman game. Baseball is a game loved by millions of people all over the world, but the reality is that once we hit a certain age, our skills begin to decline and we aren’t as proficient in the game. The great thing about online poker and live poker is that as long as our minds are sharp, we can still compete at a high level in the game. So if you don’t already play the game of poker, check it out. You may not win the World Series of Poker, but you might find a fun new hobby.

I know the MLB numbers are pretty good for all hitters who put the first pitch in play, but that a) only takes into account when they actually hit the ball and b) could be slanted because hitters are supposed to know to only swing at fat first-pitches, which would mean their results would naturally be good when they hit the ball.

But, I assumed, the vast majority of first pitches are not cookies, so anyone who swings at a lot of them is probably swinging at a lot of them that he shouldn’t.

So, I figured if I took a list of the guys who swung at the highest percentage of first pitches, and a list of the guys who swung at the lowest percentage, the guys in the latter list would be waaaaay better.

These are their overall stats, not the first-pitch stats, because I wanted to judge the overall success of the guys who swung at first pitches, not just their success on those first pitches. This is just 2011, only for players who had enough plate appearances to qualify for the batting title (502)…

(Before you ask, Pablo Sandoval, at 40 percent, would have made the first list, except he came up 35 plate appearances short of qualifying because he was hurt.)

Anyway, what you see here is that the guys who swung at most first pitches had cumulative numbers better than the guys who swung at the least. That surprised me.

I suppose I could redo this and look at overall swing percentage, and that might be a better indicator, but I just spent 45 minutes doing this, so I’m going to leave the rest up to someone else.