Expectations for the Yankees down the Stretch

[Dipre]

The 2002 LA angels had the BEST run diferential league at +207

 

Run differential, by itself, is not a given indicator of dominance.

 

Just sayin'.

[redsoxrules]

Run differential, by itself, is not a given indicator of dominance.

 

Just sayin'.

 

third best ERA in MLB

[RWTP24]

The 2002 LA angels had the BEST run diferential league at +207

 

Damn it, I forgot to put them on my list. That just helps my case even more.

[example1]

Run differential, by itself, is not a given indicator of dominance.

 

Just sayin'.

 

It is, by itself, a good indicator of overall offensive and defensive prowess, which is what teams are really all about. It is predictive of overall results in any particular year throughout the history of baseball.

[jacksonianmarch]

Run differential, by itself, is not a given indicator of dominance.

 

Just sayin'.

 

Its a great indicator of regular season dominance.

[Dipre]

third best ERA in MLB

 

The thing is RSR, that you need to remember the fact that they had a really really really good bullpen, and a couple of overachievers in the rotation.

 

Remember Ramon Ortiz?

[Dipre]

Its a great indicator of regular season dominance.

 

Not arguing it isn't, but were the 2002 Angels really the best team in the playoffs?

[RWTP24]

Not arguing it isn't' date=' but were the 2002 Angels really the best team in the playoffs?[/quote']

 

They won it all didn't they?

[Dipre]

They won it all didn't they?

 

Exactly the point of the argument in the first place?

 

We were talking about the postseason being a "crapshoot" because the best team doesn't always win because of all the variables involved.

 

And............two minutes later there come the vultures with fantastic opinions that do not pertain the root of the argument.

 

Well done.

[jacksonianmarch]

Not arguing it isn't' date=' but were the 2002 Angels really the best team in the playoffs?[/quote']

 

I thought NY was with the depth of the rotation.

[RWTP24]

Exactly the point of the argument in the first place?

 

We were talking about the postseason being a "crapshoot" because the best team doesn't always win because of all the variables involved.

 

And............two minutes later there come the vultures with fantastic opinions that do not pertain the root of the argument.

 

Well done.

 

Holy s***! What part of they had the best pitching that year did you not get??

 

You do not always have to be right.. Sometimes you are wrong. I just gave you all the proof you needed to why your THEORY of a "crapshoot" is wrong. In the last 13 years one team had s***** pitching.

[Dipre]

I thought NY was with the depth of the rotation.

 

I hate to admit it, but yes.

 

That's not even debatable.

[ORS]

Run differential, by itself, is not a given indicator of dominance.

 

Just sayin'.

No, it isn't, not just run differential at least, but I'd bet money you can't tell me the deficiencies of run differential as a stand alone stat.

[Dipre]

Holy s***! What part of they had the best pitching that year did you not get??

 

You do not always have to be right.. Sometimes you are wrong. I just gave you all the proof you needed to why your THEORY of a "crapshoot" is wrong. In the last 13 years one team had s***** pitching.

 

*Sigh*

 

It's not about being right, my good sir.

 

It's about discussion.

 

If you don't like discussion (very civil discussion btw) then this isn't the place for you.

[Dipre]

No' date=' it isn't, not just run differential at least, but I'd bet money you can't tell me the deficiencies of run differential as a stand alone stat.[/quote']

 

There are none.

 

I'd be a douche and a bonehead if i tried.

[ORS]

I thought NY was with the depth of the rotation.

Wait, you thought the Yankees were the best bet to win going into the postseason?

 

No, I don't believe it.

[Dipre]

Wait, you thought the Yankees were the best bet to win going into the postseason?

 

No, I don't believe it.

 

Ah.

 

Saw that coming from a mile away.

 

Still made me chuckle.

[RWTP24]

*Sigh*

 

It's not about being right, my good sir.

 

It's about discussion.

 

If you don't like discussion (very civil discussion btw) then this isn't the place for you.

 

I like discussion. That is why I am on here.

 

 

Sometime you have to admit when you are wrong.

[Dipre]

I like discussion. That is why I am on here.

 

 

Sometime you have to admit when you are wrong.

 

You have to prove me wrong for me to admit it.

 

That's the beauty of it.

[example1]

Wait, you thought the Yankees were the best bet to win going into the postseason?

 

No, I don't believe it.

 

What's your take on the "crapshoot" discussion? I'm curious.

 

EDIT:

I think it is a useful term and an interesting discussion, but it should not be confused with "complete randomness" when evaluating who should win (or should have won) the World Series.

 

If teams are more or less equally balanced throughout the regular season and in terms of talent, then it really is just a bunch of short series to see who is playing the best at that time.

 

If one team has a huge lead over other very good teams, has dominated for most of the season and spends nearly twice what everyone else does, that team should be expected to do more than just show up for a coin flip.

 

I think history shows that there are times when some teams are just better, both in the playoffs and regular season. The Yankees of the 90s and the 30s both took that form and backed up their talent gap by winning when it mattered. Good teams do that.

 

EDIT 2: This years Yankees team is not one of the middle of the pack competitive teams for the WS IMO. They added a huge amount of talent to an already very talented team and they haven't had a problem turning that into wins.

[Dipre]

What's your take on the "crapshoot" discussion? I'm curious.

 

I think it is a useful term and an interesting discussion, but it should not be confused with "complete randomness" when evaluating who should win (or should have won) the World Series.

 

If teams are more or less equally balanced throughout the regular season and in terms of talent, then it really is just a bunch of short series to see who is playing the best at that time.

 

If one team has a huge lead over other very good teams, has dominated for most of the season and spends nearly twice what everyone else does, that team should be expected to do more than just show up for a coin flip.

 

I think history shows that there are times when some teams are just better, both in the playoffs and regular season. The Yankees of the 90s and the 30s both took that form and backed up their talent gap by winning when it mattered. Good teams do that.

 

I don't think any of us has taken it that far.

 

However, as stated earlier, the amount of variables in a short series makes predicting a winner extremely difficult.

 

Sometimes a team that is head and shoulders better meets a lesser team with enormous momentum and better health, and then strange s*** happens.

 

That's about the size of it.

[TheKilo]

Run differential, by itself, is not a given indicator of dominance.

 

Just sayin'.

 

How so? It's a measure of runs scored v. runs allowed. What is a better statistic to use?

[Dipre]

How so? It's a measure of runs scored v. runs allowed. What is a better statistic to use?

 

I said "As a stand alone stat".

 

That should be interpreted as "A fantastic stat, but by itself, doesn't tell the whole story".

 

Stop cherry picking.

[ORS]

There are none.

 

I'd be a douche and a bonehead if i tried.

Not true, on both counts.

 

Run differential by itself only tells you if a team score more than it's opposition. Now, if a team scores 1200 runs and lead the league in run differential at 200, that's a good thing, but not as big a deal as if they only scored 800 and did the same. What I mean to say is, with any given run differential, the lower the scoring environment, the better for the team maintaining that differential.

 

So, since the Angels lead the league in run diff, and were 3rd in ERA, that's pretty big. They outperformed their opposition better than anyone that year. Their pythag record was the best in baseball. Yes, they were the best team going into the playoffs.

 

And guess what, so were the Red Sox in 2004. The Yankees overperformed their pythag by a whopping 12 games that year.

 

RD, by itself isn't everything, so you were right there, but when you look at it in the context of pythagorean record, it's one of the better predictive measures of success.

[example1]

I don't think any of us has taken it that far.

 

However, as stated earlier, the amount of variables in a short series makes predicting a winner extremely difficult.

 

Sometimes a team that is head and shoulders better meets a lesser team with enormous momentum and better health, and then strange s*** happens.

 

That's about the size of it.

 

 

 

That's called choking, not crap shooting. Let's call it what it is.

[Dipre]

Not true, on both counts.

 

Run differential by itself only tells you if a team score more than it's opposition. Now, if a team scores 1200 runs and lead the league in run differential at 200, that's a good thing, but not as big a deal as if they only scored 800 and did the same. What I mean to say is, with any given run differential, the lower the scoring environment, the better for the team maintaining that differential.

 

So, since the Angels lead the league in run diff, and were 3rd in ERA, that's pretty big. They outperformed their opposition better than anyone that year. Their pythag record was the best in baseball. Yes, they were the best team going into the playoffs.

 

And guess what, so were the Red Sox in 2004. The Yankees overperformed their pythag by a whopping 12 games that year.

 

RD, by itself isn't everything, so you were right there, but when you look at it in the context of pythagorean record, it's one of the better predictive measures of success.

 

I'm still not sold on the Angels deal, basically because of the fact that there were a TON of over-achievers on that team that never got exposed.

 

However, given the recent appearance of such statistical data, defeat must be admitted.

[Dipre]

That's called choking' date=' not crap shooting. Let's call it what it is.[/quote']

 

I'll admit this being very funny.

 

But you also need to consider health, and even if a lot of people don't believe in momentum, i do.

 

An inspired team can pull some amazing stuff off.

[ORS]

What's your take on the "crapshoot" discussion? I'm curious.

 

EDIT:

I think it is a useful term and an interesting discussion, but it should not be confused with "complete randomness" when evaluating who should win (or should have won) the World Series.

 

If teams are more or less equally balanced throughout the regular season and in terms of talent, then it really is just a bunch of short series to see who is playing the best at that time.

 

If one team has a huge lead over other very good teams, has dominated for most of the season and spends nearly twice what everyone else does, that team should be expected to do more than just show up for a coin flip.

 

I think history shows that there are times when some teams are just better, both in the playoffs and regular season. The Yankees of the 90s and the 30s both took that form and backed up their talent gap by winning when it mattered. Good teams do that.

 

EDIT 2: This years Yankees team is not one of the middle of the pack competitive teams for the WS IMO. They added a huge amount of talent to an already very talented team and they haven't had a problem turning that into wins.

In my opinion, any game of baseball is a crapshoot.

 

Think about it. The best teams win only 60% of the time during the regular season. The difference, on the bat, between a HR and a flyout is fractions of a inch in placement on the bat or fractions of a second in timing.

 

Now, over very large samples, the better players win out on those fractions more than the lesser players do, but we are talking about the playoffs, which are very small samples.

 

So, yes, it's a crapshoot.

[example1]

I'll admit this being very funny.

 

But you also need to consider health, and even if a lot of people don't believe in momentum, i do.

 

An inspired team can pull some amazing stuff off.

 

In my opinion, any game of baseball is a crapshoot.

 

Think about it. The best teams win only 60% of the time during the regular season. The difference, on the bat, between a HR and a flyout is fractions of a inch in placement on the bat or fractions of a second in timing.

 

Now, over very large samples, the better players win out on those fractions more than the lesser players do, but we are talking about the playoffs, which are very small samples.

 

So, yes, it's a crapshoot.

 

 

The Yankees have won nearly 64% of their games this year, and 73% in the second half. I'm not willing to say that they have the same chance of winning as the Rockies or the Tigers, even in a short series.

 

I think a big part of my confusion in this discussion might be the use of the word "crapshoot", as the definition of that (slang) word means basically "unpredictable". I have taken that to mean "completely random" (like rolling dice). The way many others are using it is that any results are possible. I acknowledge this is the case also.

 

In terms of the Yankees, if they don't win this year it is a big choke and a huge failure. I'm not willing to project into the future and attribute it to bad luck, just like I'm not going to say that the Tigers losing to the Yankees in the first round would be "bad luck". They will have lost to the better team.

[ORS]

The Yankees have won nearly 64% of their games this year, and 73% in the second half. I'm not willing to say that they have the same chance of winning as the Rockies or the Tigers, even in a short series.

 

I think a big part of my confusion in this discussion might be the use of the word "crapshoot", as the definition of that (slang) word means basically "unpredictable". I have taken that to mean "completely random" (like rolling dice). The way many others are using it is that any results are possible. I acknowledge this is the case also.

 

In terms of the Yankees, if they don't win this year it is a big choke and a huge failure. I'm not willing to project into the future and attribute it to bad luck, just like I'm not going to say that the Tigers losing to the Yankees in the first round would be "bad luck". They will have lost to the better team.

Yeah, but the "better team" is determined over the course of 162 games. That "better" only has 5 games in the ALDS to show itself.

 

I mean, look at what the numbers tell you. Yes, the Yankees win 64% of their games, but the Tigers win 53% of theirs. In a rudimetary adjustment for expectations, the Yankees have a 54% expectation of winning each game [ 64 / (64+53)]. I realize home/road, pitcher vs. lineup, etc will add more realism to this adjustment for each game, but the point is to show that when you pit two good teams against each other, expectations, at least those for individual games, should kind of get tossed out the window.

 

And, you could consider it like rolling dice, only that the dice are weighted, and the weighting is very slight. Enough to favor one side, but close enough to consider it almost random.