Shohei Ohtani collapsed yesterday.
On Thursday, remember, he had this batting line:
OHTANI (6 PA): 10 RBI, 6 H, 5 XBH, 3 HR, 2 SB. 1.000, 1.000, 2.833
Batting like that, Ohtani creates an infinite number of runs per game. Baseball would be ruined if everyone created infinite runs per game, but as long as only one or two players per team do it, we’re ok. So it would have been fine if Ohtani continued performing as he did Thursday.
But he didn’t. He had one of the most epic collapses in the history of baseball. Look at his pathetic Friday numbers:
OHTANI (4 PA): 2 RBI, 3 H, 1 XBH, 1 HR, 1 SB. 0.750, 0.750, 1.500
I am not sure how many runs created per game that is. And no, at a time of such pathos, you can’t expect me to go digging around for the rc/g formula so I can give you an exact number. Let’s call it 81.00 rc/g, which is what would happen if a team got two men on base, then hit a homer, then made an out, and repeated that process 26 more times a game. It might be lower than that. Maybe I’m not thinking of something, and it could be higher than that. It doesn’t matter.
Ohtani’s rc/g fell an infinite amount, even if it only fell to 81.00. Infinity minus 81.00 still equals an infinite number.
My brain is right now telling me I had a conversation about this once with John, about the idea that there can be infinities of different sizes. I don’t exactly remember the position he took on this possibility, but I walked away from the conversation believing this to be true.
I am not a math expert. I made a fateful choice half way through my senior year in high school, and switched from my Advanced Math (pre-calc) class to the Advanced Writing (pre-nothing) class. They were having more fun than I was having on the borders of calculus. Also, I didn’t tell my parents until it was too late, my engineer Dad being more chagrined than my schoolteacher Mom. Also, I haven’t taken a class in either of those topics since, unless you count Legal Research and Writing, which you shouldn’t. (There was some statistics instruction in my graduate research methods class.) However, I have TAUGHT classes in both since, including stats for the GF degree completion program, and Legal Research and Writing for University of Detroit law students… AND (currently) Writing 111 for regular, normal undergrads.
I am no longer on the borders of calculus. But I may be on the borders of charlatanry.
ANYWAY, back to empathy for Ohtani: imagine how you’d feel if overnight your professional performance took an infinite dive. Worse than you’re feeling today, since your team did not take an infinite dive Friday. Shohei’s infinite misfortune dwarfs yours.
Standings: Week 26, Game 5 (9/20/2024)
| Team | Wins | Losses | WPct | GB |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haviland Dragons | 95.06 | 59.94 | .613 | 0.0 |
| Portland Rosebuds | 90.48 | 64.52 | .584 | 4.6 |
| Peshastin Pears | 84.73 | 70.27 | .547 | 10.3 |
| Pittsburgh Alleghenys | 79.14 | 75.86 | .511 | 15.9 |
| Salem Seraphim | 77.15 | 77.85 | .498 | 17.9 |
| Canberra Kangaroos | 75.69 | 79.31 | .488 | 19.4 |
| Flint Hill Tornadoes | 74.98 | 80.02 | .484 | 20.1 |
| D.C. Balk | 69.95 | 85.05 | .451 | 25.1 |
| Cascadia Glaciers | 68.65 | 86.35 | .443 | 26.4 |
| Old Detroit Wolverines | 64.16 | 90.84 | .414 | 30.9 |
| Kaline Drive | 59.23 | 95.77 | .382 | 35.8 |
Haviland: 0.92 [3.70 – 1.30] v. Canberra: 0.08 [1.30 – 3.70]
Kyle Tucker came alongside the fallen Ohtani, going 4 for 5 with a homer, but the rest of the Dragons showed their respects by following well behind, leaving the team line a respectful .262, .289, .500. Dragon pitchers enforced proper deference on opposing hitters, allowing only 2 earned runs in 9 innings.
The Kangaroos probably didn’t need the Dragon pitchers’ help. They mourned so deeply they could only go .125, .167, .150. And in what may have been the most profound show of Ohtani solidarity, Kangaroo pitchers pitched 8 scoreless innings — and still almost completely succeeded in avoiding a win — the poor hitting doing almost as much damage to the Canberra raw winning percentage as the great pitching undid.
Portland: -1.12 [0.63 – 4.37] v. Peshastin: 2.12 [4.37 – 0.63]
Ooooo. The Rosebuds’ misfortune feels sort of boundless, doesn’t it? They not only didn’t win anything Friday, they lost a game they’d already won. And the Pears STILL were not sated: they took 1/8th of an even earlier win. What’s to stop these marauding fruits from wiping out everything the ‘Buds have worked so hard to achieve?
Judging by yesterday’s results, Rosebud pitchers may not be able to stop the Pears. The staff nearly chulked,, completing 5.7 innings but surrendering 10 earned runs. Hitters might be able to do more, since they were clearly trying to show respect to Ohtani. Yainer Diaz, for instance, matched Ohtani’s 3 for 4, but made sure none of them went for extra bases.
Don’t worry, my Rosebuds: the Pears can’t take away any wins you had before the week started. Your loss feels boundless, but we have circuit-breakers installed every 6 games to limit your risk. The Rosebuds could still fall into third place, but it’s still more likely (barely!) that they could rise into first place. The pall you are anticipating over all the off-season family celebrations from losing to the Dragons (again!) is not yet inevitable.
It can’t have helped that the Pears were so tone-deaf about Ohtani’s collapse. Peshastinian hitters even celebrated a Happy Edgar Martinez Day (.389, .425, .583) and Colton Cowser showed up Ohtani by hitting two home runs. Peshastinian pitchers were equally rude, piling up 22 innings against demoralized opposition, allowing only 8 earned runs.
Pittsburgh: 0.47 [0.72 – 4.28] v. Salem: 0.53 [4.28 – 0.72)
The Seraphim are an inspiration to all of us. They started Week 26 in 7th place, 5.6 games behind the Alleghenys. Now, with a game and a bonus day left in the week, they are in 5th place, 2.0 games behind the A’s. It’s like a heavenly dream! I know I dream of being like the Seraphim in the Wolverines’ pursuit of the Glaciers. (But see below.)
But even the Seraphim trimmed their wings out of respect for Ohtani’s infinite fall. (Did even Lucifer fall infinitely? There’s a theological question for you!) Alec Bohm joined Kyle Tucker alongside Ohtani (4 for 5 with a homer), but the rest stayed a respectful distance back ( .195, .244, .268.) Seraphic pitchers got just enough innings to cover the game (7 2/3) and kept things quiet (2 er).
Jose Berrios tried to tamp things down for the A’s opponents, going 6 strong innings with only 1 earned run slipping through. Four A’s homered, but none of them went 3 for 4, maintaining a respectful space around Ohtani agonistes.
Flint Hill: 1.31 [2.09 – 2.81] v. MLB
Apparently the Tornados either failed to see the pathos in Ohtani’s fall, or decided to rub it in. (Editor: Maybe that’s just the way they console mourners in those craggy Flint Hills.) Julio Rodriguez blatantly blasted TWO homers, Jarren Duran stole TWO bases, and Juan Soto batted 1.000 (in one plate appearance), in every case humiliating Ohtani further. Jameson Taillon and Joe Musgrove both pitched 6 scoreless innings, countering DL Hall’s triple chulk (1.3 ip, 4 er) to end up with a dominant 15.3 ip, 4 er day. In effect, the Tornados ambushed MLB competition, won the day, and won back 1/3 of a loss.
DC: 0.19 [2.62 – 2.38] v. Kaline: 0.81 [2.38 – 2.62]
In Kaline’s defense, the Drive are not in the best position to see what’s going on in the rest of the league. So their batting .280, .308, .640 was not necessarily disrespect for Ohtani’s fall. Supporting this conclusion: no individual Drive did anything to take the spotlight off Ohtani — no 2-homer days, no 2- stolen bases days. Kaline pitchers pitched only 2 innings and gave up 2 runs, again not showing up Ohtani.
The Balk sent no pitchers to the mound, and only batted .240, 333, .320 — not terrible, but certainly not show-offy, either. A nice, sedate, little-bit-somber approach to the day. Very fitting. Adolis Garcia did go 3 for 4 with a double, but a) he’s had a rough season, especially since his trade to DC, and b) I am sure he intended his matching Ohtani’s .750 OBP as homage rather than upstage.
Cascadia: 0.44 [2.64 – 2.36] v. Old Detroit : 0.56 [2.36 – 2.64]
The race for 9th place isn’t over. But I have to say the week has not so far gone as I was dreaming.
The Glaciers got no pitching yesterday, while the Wolverines got two scoreless innings. I thought that would give the W’s a big boost… but the G’s didn’t NEED any pitching yesterday, since they already had 5 games’ worth plus a little more (37.7 ip so far). There’s still hope: the Wolverines have three starting pitchers slated for this weekend, and only need 17.3 innings to avoid all replacement innings. I assume the Glaciers have pitchers scheduled, too, which means they are risking epic meltdowns.
Glacier hitting wasn’t strong yesterday: 43 PA, .214, .233, .357. All their hitters were even worse than Ohtani, with Andy Pages’s 2 for 4 with a homer coming closest. Wolverine hitters did better — 45 PA, .317, .356, .415. Jose Iglesias came closest to walking with Ohtani in his moment of pain: 2 for 4 with a double and a homer. But it was only good enough to narrowly win the day against Cascadia, while leaving the Glaciers with the lead for the week
Ron is right – there are different sizes of infinity. In fact there are an infinite number of different sizes of infinity. I’ll explain it to you, but if you’re not interested (and I wouldn’t blame you) just scroll up and observe the beautiful standings included in this post.
In math we study sets and often we need to talk about the size of a set (how many elements it contains) – the fancy term for this is the “cardinality” of the set.
For finite sets this is uninteresting- just count the number of elements:
The set of EFL teams (call it E) has cardinality 11 while the set of MLB teams (call it M) has cardinality 30. So M is a bigger set than E. Like I said, uninteresting.
But for infinite sets it is complex and beautiful!
Since we can’t count the number of elements in an infinite set we decide two sets have the same cardinality (same size) if their elements can be put into a one-to-one correspondence.
So, for example, the set of positive integers (call it N) has the same cardinality as the set of positive even integers (call it P) because you can create a one-to-one correspondence between them by assigning each element in N to its double. Thus every element in N is assigned to a unique element in P and vice versa.
If you note that P is a proper subset of N then you begin to see that cardinality is (maybe “interesting “ is too far) more complicated for infinite sets.
I won’t go into detail here (but would gladly have this conversation over coffee, I’ll even treat) it can be shown that there are infinite sets for which it is impossible to construct a one-to-one correspondence and thus they have different cardinalities and therefore there are different sizes of infinity.
The simplest example is that the set N above cannot be put into one-to-one correspondence with the real numbers, so they are different sizes!
The first mathematician to publicize this (Georg Cantor in about 1900 AD) reportedly said (in German) “I see it but I don’t believe it.” He also was ostracized from the mathematical community and died penniless and broken in an insane asylum. A few years later everyone agreed he was right!