What can Joe Kelly become?

[Kimmi]

You might be right. With respect to the Red Sox of 67, 75, 86, 04, and 07, I would argue that they had a pitcher at the top of the rotation that served them well. I don't like the term ace particularly but I prefer to see money spent on big arms as opposed to big bats. I guess I am prepared to be stunned if they don't make a significant trade before the start of play. Too many players and not enough positions for them all.

 

 

One of the problems with the term "ace" is that there is no set definition of what an ace is. Given the choice, I would prefer strong pitching and average hitting over strong hitting and average pitching, but either way, it takes a balance. Our offense last season was nonexistent and you see where that got us, even with good pitching. I am still holding out hope that the FO gets us another top starter.

[Kimmi]

I like you already, welcome aboard!

 

While i agree with your overall assessment of team needs and potential to reach the playoffs, i disagree with the idea that there's no correlation between a proven "ace" and recent postseason success.

 

Last 10 WS winners:

 

Red Sox: Schilling

White Sox: No "true" ace.

Cardinals: Carpenter.

Red Sox: Beckett

Phillies: Hamels

Yankees: CC

Giants: Lincecum

Cardinals: Carpenter/Wainwright

Giants: Bumgarner

Red Sox: No true ace

Giants: Bumgarner

 

 

*To qualify, "ace" is a pitcher in the top 20% statistically in the league.

 

You can't prove causation, but the correlation is there. The point is, it's certainly easier to win in the postseason with a top-echelon pitcher "getting hot" right around playoff time, although it's clearly not impossible to win the WS without one.

 

 

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that one could give to support the theory that having an ace gives you a better chance of winning in the postseason. However, according to a study conducted at Baseball Prospectus (and other studies), the correlation between having a top notch pitcher and postseason success is .02 - statistically insignificant.

 

Here is a the pertinent part of the study, along with a link:

 

"To do that, BP Director of Research Colin Wyers selected the “ace” of each playoff team from the one-wild-card era of 1994-2011, defining the ace as the starter who pitched at least 120 innings with the lowest ERA. Then he came up with a normalized measure of “ace-ness,” similar to ERA+ (2-ERA/lgERA, to be precise), that allowed us to place all the aces on the same scale. Finally, he checked the correlation between the strength of each team’s ace and the difference between its winning percentages in the regular season and the postseason.

 

The result? A statistically insignificant .02. Park-adjusting the stats didn’t strengthen the correlation. Neither did defining “ace” as the starter with the highest WARP. Neither did running the study again using only pitchers who pitched in the playoffs, so as not to skew the results by including teams whose regular-season aces weren’t available in October. However we sliced and diced the data, we couldn’t find any evidence that the strength of a team’s top starter alone helped dictate how it would do.

"

 

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18414

 

 

Granted, this might change as the scoring environment changes, but as of now, there has been no significant evidence supporting the "ace" theory.

[Kimmi]

World Series winners is kind of a misleading category, though. When you expand it to "Postseason winning teams" including the winners of each LDS and LCS, it becomes much murkier in regards to "ace" pitching. I don't think you can only hold up WS wins as the qualifier for postseason success. In a league with 30 teams where each team plays 162 games, just making it into the postseason is pretty successful. And since there are not that many aces in baseball, when you step back and look at the league in it's entirety, it definitely seems less important to me. An ace obviously can't hold up a team with no bullpen or no power or no speed. You can have a Pedro or a Randy Johnson on the mound every day, but if he is backed up by eight Alex Coras, you're still going to end up losing 100 games. Balance is what is important, in sports, in life, in diet, and especially when having sex in a tree. (FYI, I recommend only doing this in trees with trampolines underneath them.)

 

As long as a team's rotation consists of at least 3 or 4 guys who could qualify as #1-#3 starters, they should have a healthy chance at winning the World Series every year. Unless it's the Cubs, because hahaha the Cubs.

 

 

It turns out the the best predictor of postseason success is regular season success, which should make sense intuitively. The better the winning % in the regular season, the better the chances of winning in the postseason, regardless of whether the team has an ace, a strong defense, a strong offense, momentum, etc.

[Kimmi]

I like you already, welcome aboard!

 

Thank you for the welcome, Username.

 

Let's hope you still like me in about a month. ;-)

[cp176]

There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that one could give to support the theory that having an ace gives you a better chance of winning in the postseason. However, according to a study conducted at Baseball Prospectus (and other studies), the correlation between having a top notch pitcher and postseason success is .02 - statistically insignificant.

 

Here is a the pertinent part of the study, along with a link:

 

"To do that, BP Director of Research Colin Wyers selected the “ace” of each playoff team from the one-wild-card era of 1994-2011, defining the ace as the starter who pitched at least 120 innings with the lowest ERA. Then he came up with a normalized measure of “ace-ness,” similar to ERA+ (2-ERA/lgERA, to be precise), that allowed us to place all the aces on the same scale. Finally, he checked the correlation between the strength of each team’s ace and the difference between its winning percentages in the regular season and the postseason.

 

The result? A statistically insignificant .02. Park-adjusting the stats didn’t strengthen the correlation. Neither did defining “ace” as the starter with the highest WARP. Neither did running the study again using only pitchers who pitched in the playoffs, so as not to skew the results by including teams whose regular-season aces weren’t available in October. However we sliced and diced the data, we couldn’t find any evidence that the strength of a team’s top starter alone helped dictate how it would do.

"

 

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18414

 

 

Granted, this might change as the scoring environment changes, but as of now, there has been no significant evidence supporting the "ace" theory.

 

You do your homework well. Obviously we can find studies somewhere if we are willing to look to support just about anything. Many of those studies I wind up helping to pay for. I admit I am more of a feel kind of guy. We know that both types are necessary to create a winning formula. My strong personal belief is that any study disparaging a great athletes regular season accomplishments based upon what they have or have not done in the post season is a poor one. Before you can win a championship, you have to get there. The ill chosen word ace is the guy who usually leads you to it. I still think that the Sox need that arm to lead them there. I find your posts informative and unbiased. Fun for me to read.

[Bellhorn04]

It turns out the the best predictor of postseason success is regular season success, which should make sense intuitively. The better the winning % in the regular season, the better the chances of winning in the postseason, regardless of whether the team has an ace, a strong defense, a strong offense, momentum, etc.

 

And yet last year, the teams with the best regular season records went out early and two Wild Card teams ended up in the World Series.

 

Baseball is a game that likes to confuse and confound us. We're always looking for the magic formula and we never find it.

[cp176]

And yet last year, the teams with the best regular season records went out early and two Wild Card teams ended up in the World Series.

 

Baseball is a game that likes to confuse and confound us. We're always looking for the magic formula and we never find it.

 

 

That's the rub for me. As more and more teams qualify for the playoffs, tends to de-emphazize the importance of the regular season to a certain extent. For this fan, the regular season is the journey to reach the playoffs. If you get there, you have a chance to win. If you win - great. If you lose - you got there.

[Palodios]

That's the rub for me. As more and more teams qualify for the playoffs, tends to de-emphazize the importance of the regular season to a certain extent. For this fan, the regular season is the journey to reach the playoffs. If you get there, you have a chance to win. If you win - great. If you lose - you got there.

 

How so? The best records don't have to play any additional games. The only difference is that they might play a #5 seed instead of a #4 in the first round.

[cp176]

How so? The best records don't have to play any additional games. The only difference is that they might play a #5 seed instead of a #4 in the first round.

 

Good point. It is just a personal thing. I don't like the length of the playoff season in general. I know that it isn't changing. I accept it, I just don't like it.

[BSN07]

You build a rotation to win 90+ games during the regular seasons and get you into the playoffs. Once the post season starts it's all about who is hot at that time imo.

[cp176]

You build a rotation to win 90+ games during the regular seasons and get you into the playoffs. Once the post season starts it's all about who is hot at that time imo.

 

Very true. i hope that is what the current thinking is in Boston. If it is, we will see an addition to that staff soon.

[User Name]

They don't need a lot of luck to be a 90 win team right now though. Just a bounceback from Masterson, and relative non-suck from Buchholz.

[BSN07]

Very true. i hope that is what the current thinking is in Boston. If it is, we will see an addition to that staff soon.

 

The rotation has enough potential as is to keep them in contention for a 90+ win season. If they are in contention come June-July they will probably look to add a SP. If for whatever reasons they are out of it come the TDL they can clean house in the rotation again and go hard in next off season on the trade and FA market. All tho I don't like big long term deal for SP I'd rather offer one to Price as opposed to Scherzer and Shields. I'd also take a page out of the Marlins book and offer an opt out after the 4th year on a 7 year deal and hope he takes it lol

[BSN07]

They don't need a lot of luck to be a 90 win team right now though. Just a bounceback from Masterson, and relative non-suck from Buchholz.

 

Exactly. That is why it seems unnecessary at this point in time to add Shields or Scherzer.

[cp176]

They don't need a lot of luck to be a 90 win team right now though. Just a bounceback from Masterson, and relative non-suck from Buchholz.

 

In all honesty I agree with you. If Buchhoz can stay healthy, I think we all know what he is capable of. If Masterson is able to come back strong, he is solid. If Porcello's last season is what we can expect from him this year that would be great. If Kelly can stay healthy, he obviously has great potential. Miley will be durable and play a solid roll. A whole lot of ifs there but if your glass is half full as opposed to half empty then I guess things look pretty good. Looking forward to it all starting, just wish I felt better about all of the ifs.

[Bellhorn04]

That's the rub for me. As more and more teams qualify for the playoffs, tends to de-emphazize the importance of the regular season to a certain extent. For this fan, the regular season is the journey to reach the playoffs. If you get there, you have a chance to win. If you win - great. If you lose - you got there.

 

You're right, of course. Generally speaking, the more teams make the playoffs, the less important it is to win the regular season. Bud Selig 'sort of' addressed this with the new Wild Card structure, but the real inequities are with the large number of divisions.

 

Football is even worse, of course, with Carolina making it to the tournament with a 7-8-1 record.

[cp176]

You're right, of course. Generally speaking, the more teams make the playoffs, the less important it is to win the regular season. Bud Selig 'sort of' addressed this with the new Wild Card structure, but the real inequities are with the large number of divisions.

 

Football is even worse, of course, with Carolina making it to the tournament with a 7-8-1 record.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. It's mostly about $.

[seabeachfred]

And yet last year, the teams with the best regular season records went out early and two Wild Card teams ended up in the World Series.

 

Baseball is a game that likes to confuse and confound us. We're always looking for the magic formula and we never find it.

 

Baseball is a game you can never figure out and anyone who thinks they can Bellhorn is a first class sap. Who the hell could have predicted 2013, or even last season the way things shook out? It is what makes baseball in my opinion the greatest of all sports. And you're right, there is no magic formula. The Yankees back in the 1921-1964 era thought t hey had it but two long dry spells brought them out of it, though, I don't think that ever got down to their entitled fans.

[Kimmi]

You do your homework well. Obviously we can find studies somewhere if we are willing to look to support just about anything. Many of those studies I wind up helping to pay for. I admit I am more of a feel kind of guy. We know that both types are necessary to create a winning formula. My strong personal belief is that any study disparaging a great athletes regular season accomplishments based upon what they have or have not done in the post season is a poor one. Before you can win a championship, you have to get there. The ill chosen word ace is the guy who usually leads you to it. I still think that the Sox need that arm to lead them there. I find your posts informative and unbiased. Fun for me to read.

 

 

I am a huge fan of the research that the folks at BP, Fangraphs, and The Hardball Times do. One of the problems with trying to compare postseason numbers to regular season numbers is that you're usually looking at small samples spread out over several years. So, I don't put much stock into a player who has had a couple of bad postseasons. IMO, he is just as likely to exceed his regular season numbers in the next postseason as he is to perform below par again.

 

I would feel much better if the Sox did add another arm, but as I posted before, I am okay with this team as currently constructed.

[Kimmi]

And yet last year, the teams with the best regular season records went out early and two Wild Card teams ended up in the World Series.

 

Baseball is a game that likes to confuse and confound us. We're always looking for the magic formula and we never find it.

 

 

Go figure, huh? The correlation between regular season success and postseason success is .28. That is the strongest correlation to postseason success that any of the studies have been able to find. In other words, the idea that the playoffs are mostly a crapshoot is true.

 

Baseball, more than any other sport, falls victim to randomness or luck. When you're talking about a short series, skill is likely to be overwhelmed by random variation.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Kimmi

[User Name]

With the caveat that all-hit, no run prevention teams are unlikely to win in the postseason even if they do reach it.

[Bellhorn04]

With the caveat that all-hit, no run prevention teams are unlikely to win in the postseason even if they do reach it.

 

That sounds right, but I'm finding it hard to think of any recent teams that made it to the playoffs with that kind of profile.

[a700hitter]

That sounds right, but I'm finding it hard to think of any recent teams that made it to the playoffs with that kind of profile.

I am not familiar with the stats, but my recollection is that the 2008 Phillie Championship team had a bludgeoning offense and very so-so pitching.

[User Name]

That sounds right, but I'm finding it hard to think of any recent teams that made it to the playoffs with that kind of profile.

 

2014 Angels, most mid-2000 Yankees.

[User Name]

I am not familiar with the stats, but my recollection is that the 2008 Phillie Championship team had a bludgeoning offense and very so-so pitching.

 

3.88 team ERA. This stuff takes 30 seconds to look up.

[a700hitter]

The starters for the 2008 Phillies were:

 

Cole Hamels

Jamie Moyer

Brett Myers

Kyle Kendrick

Adam Eaton

Joe Blanton

 

Other than Hamels, they were a bucket of garbage. Unfortunately, we gave away the pennant to the Rays that season and did not get a chance to face them. Our hitters would have pummeled that staff.

[seabeachfred]

The starters for the 2008 Phillies were:

 

Cole Hamels

Jamie Moyer

Brett Myers

Kyle Kendrick

Adam Eaton

Joe Blanton

 

Other than Hamels, they were a bucket of garbage. Unfortunately, we gave away the pennant to the Rays that season and did not get a chance to face them. Our hitters would have pummeled that staff.

 

Once again you got it right Ted----and that's the bad part of it because very very rarely does a team slug its way to a WS Title. The Phillies in 2008 did just that but there is a caveat or two there. One, Hamels came up big in the playoffs and WS and the bullpen held its own. The starters were from starvation central but they were pitching against a Rays team that didn't hit all that much all season---in a year where we s*** the bed and failed to win the AL when we most certainly should have. This was the season that really soured me on Francona and where we kept hearing for the first time his famous refrain....I DON'T WANT TO LOSE HIM. The reference was mostly for Varitek who hit the wall by June of that year and it seemed whenever we needed a hit in a close game he came up and failed miserably, and yet Francona never pinched hit for him.....not once during the regular season.

[User Name]

Starting pitching isn't the only part of run prevention. The Phils played good D and had a lights-out BP.

[a700hitter]

Once again you got it right Ted----and that's the bad part of it because very very rarely does a team slug its way to a WS Title. The Phillies in 2008 did just that but there is a caveat or two there. One, Hamels came up big in the playoffs and WS and the bullpen held its own. The starters were from starvation central but they were pitching against a Rays team that didn't hit all that much all season---in a year where we s*** the bed and failed to win the AL when we most certainly should have. This was the season that really soured me on Francona and where we kept hearing for the first time his famous refrain....I DON'T WANT TO LOSE HIM. The reference was mostly for Varitek who hit the wall by June of that year and it seemed whenever we needed a hit in a close game he came up and failed miserably, and yet Francona never pinched hit for him.....not once during the regular season.

We would have demolished the Philly staff with the possible exception of Hamels. Those guys stunk.

[Kimmi]

With the caveat that all-hit, no run prevention teams are unlikely to win in the postseason even if they do reach it.

 

 

This is true. Pitching and defense still wins championships. More often than not, teams that win it all will have both good pitching and good hitting.

 

A team with below average pitching, as measured by regular season ERA+, has won the WS only 3 times between 1903 and 2010 (2.83%).

 

A team with below average offense, as measured by regular season OPS+, has won the WS 33 times over the same period (33.02%).

 

This doesn't mean that the team needs an ace to win it all. It means that we need an overall solid (above average) pitching staff, bullpen included.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/pitching-almost-always-wins-championships/