Dave Dombrowski

[sk7326]

Andujar did tie the All time rookie record for the AL with 47 doubles. He led the bigs in rookie HRs with 27. He also hit .297. He’s the best offensive rookie. His defense let’s him down a bit, but I still think he takes home the award. A healthy Ohtani takes the award hands down, but he wasn’t.

 

Ohtani still had what was basically a full season's worth of bulk - 50 innings and 400 PAs is darn close to 600 PAs worth of action.

[sk7326]

It’s an award, not a marketing tool. Why not also give MVP to the player who does the most commercials and the Cy Young to the pitcher who garners the most television appearances?

 

Of course it's a marketing tool. But more importantly - if a race is close, I would consider age as a factor. Ideally an accomplished rookie is an identifier of a star of tomorrow. So if that is the result of the award, it is better for baseball. I absolutely consider that. Now, if the older rookie is clearly the best rookie - like Ichiro in 2001, you don't run from that.

[sk7326]

More interesting than that, the Sox have a real shot at back to back WS. The NL is utter trash at the moment. Get out of the AL in one piece and you are winning the WS. Dodgers are way under the Lux tax so they could come up big filling the holes in their pitching. But frankly I just don't think they can get out of their own way and they are head and shoulders better than the rest of the trash over there. The whole NL can't get out of its own way. Compound that with what clearly is a strange upper management and baseball ops relationship with field management and the team and I have no idea what the Dodgers think they are doing.

 

That said, getting out of the AL is no cake walk.

 

This is baseball, not the NBA. All of these series are not much more lopsided than coinflips. The Red Sox won 11 of their 14 games, but every game in the Astros series was still interesting in the 8th inning. The Dodgers with a break could have won Games 2 and 4 of the WS. You get to the playoffs, you can win the whole thing. There are no dead on arrival teams.

 

The best team in the league loses - all the time.

 

The Red Sox should make the playoffs again - and once that happens, you have to like their chances.

[Bellhorn04]

This is baseball, not the NBA. All of these series are not much more lopsided than coinflips. The Red Sox won 11 of their 14 games, but every game in the Astros series was still interesting in the 8th inning. The Dodgers with a break could have won Games 2 and 4 of the WS. You get to the playoffs, you can win the whole thing. There are no dead on arrival teams.

 

I disagree with this a bit. I think there are some teams that come into the playoffs with virtually no chance to win.

[dgalehouse]

When you lose , the playoffs are a crapshoot. When you win , you don't talk about any crapshoot.

[sk7326]

I disagree with this a bit. I think there are some teams that come into the playoffs with virtually no chance to win.

 

Any team can win 4 out of 7 - even bad ones. And this historically great REd Sox team got smoked to a significantly inferior Tampa team 3 times in September. Here is the thing - given how pitching rotations work, it is very unlikely that any team is even a 1/3 chance to win every single head to head matchup. I mean the Red Sox were one of two teams to hold the Yankees homerless in the Bronx in back to back games this season ... the other one was the Orioles.

[notin]

I disagree with this a bit. I think there are some teams that come into the playoffs with virtually no chance to win.

 

Like the 2006 Cardinals, who were 83-78 in the regular season and that was good enough to take an extremely weak NL Central.

 

Except the 83 win 2006 Cardinals did win the World Series...

[Bellhorn04]

When you lose , the playoffs are a crapshoot. When you win , you don't talk about any crapshoot.

 

You are on a roll, man.

[notin]

Of course it's a marketing tool. But more importantly - if a race is close, I would consider age as a factor. Ideally an accomplished rookie is an identifier of a star of tomorrow. So if that is the result of the award, it is better for baseball. I absolutely consider that. Now, if the older rookie is clearly the best rookie - like Ichiro in 2001, you don't run from that.

 

Except that 20yo CC Sabathia was something like 17-5 in his rookie year of 2001. While Ichiro won the fWAR battle today, I’m not sure if Fangraphs even existed in 2001...

[Bellhorn04]

Like the 2006 Cardinals, who were 83-78 in the regular season and that was good enough to take an extremely weak NL Central.

 

Except the 83 win 2006 Cardinals did win the World Series...

 

Yeah, I get that. But some teams are clearly better than their record. Some are not.

 

The franchises of Oakland, Minnesota and Atlanta have remarkably bad postseason records over the last 20 years or so. I don't think it's all randomness.

[notin]

Yeah, I get that. But some teams are clearly better than their record. Some are not.

 

The franchises of Oakland, Minnesota and Atlanta have remarkably bad postseason records over the last 20 years or so. I don't think it's all randomness.

 

When you look at it that way, of course it is all randomness. You’re judging everything based upon maybe three weeks of baseball spread it over the better part of 20 years. There’s no commonality at all...

[Bellhorn04]

When you look at it that way, of course it is all randomness. You’re judging everything based upon maybe three weeks of baseball spread it over the better part of 20 years. There’s no commonality at all...

 

Some divisions are consistently weaker than others, are they not?

[sk7326]

When you lose , the playoffs are a crapshoot. When you win , you don't talk about any crapshoot.

 

The playoffs are a crapshoot. But it's still how the title is decided - and it's okay to be upset at not winning the tournament and thrilled at winning it. But it is impossible to game it in the same way you can game the NBA playoffs for example. I mean, in my 32 years as a fan I've seen an 85 win team and an 83-78 team win it all. (the 83-78 team more remarkable since it was in the wild card era)

[notin]

Some divisions are consistently weaker than others, are they not?

 

But that doesn’t mean a team from a “weak” division can’t win the World Series.

 

It seems like the weakest division most years is the AL Central. But they have produced 2 WS champs in the past 18 years. A normal distribution has them producing 3 in that time...

[sk7326]

Except that 20yo CC Sabathia was something like 17-5 in his rookie year of 2001. While Ichiro won the fWAR battle today, I’m not sure if Fangraphs even existed in 2001...

 

Sabbathia went 17-5 with a 4.39 ERA ... so the traditional stats were less amazing. 6.0 fWAR vs 2.7 fWAR is pretty clear. I don't blame anyone for voting for Sabathia - but to me it wasn't close. Plus - Ichiro had every indication of a superstar anyway (for what its worth). I have to reiterate - stardom is a secondary consideration for me ... but this was a case where a secondary consideration did not have to kick in.

[Bellhorn04]

Some teams come into the postseason as longshots on the Vegas board. If you really think those teams have the same chance, you should be betting those longshots every year.

[Bellhorn04]

This year the biggest longshots on the Vegas board were Atlanta and Colorado. They were leaning heavily toward the AL to win it. The top 3 favorites were 1) Astros 2) Red Sox 3) Dodgers.

[sk7326]

Yeah, I get that. But some teams are clearly better than their record. Some are not.

 

The franchises of Oakland, Minnesota and Atlanta have remarkably bad postseason records over the last 20 years or so. I don't think it's all randomness.

 

I wouldn't claim randomness. But I don't think there is a playoff mismatch that is ever really much more than say a 57-43 edge. That edge is substantial, but not so much where upsets don't happen all the freakin' time. I mean you break down Atlanta - they lost a bunch. But you look at say the 1991 World Series (still probably the most dramatic World Series of my lifetime), every game but one (an Atlanta win) was a coinflip.

 

I just look at baseball - with the oversized importance of pitching, and how teams rotate starters. It is rare that any team is rolling out a demonstrably inferior squad every single game. Put another way, the 1972 Phillies were not a sorry team on Steve Carlton days.

[Bellhorn04]

I wouldn't claim randomness. But I don't think there is a playoff mismatch that is ever really much more than say a 57-43 edge. That edge is substantial, but not so much where upsets don't happen all the freakin' time. I mean you break down Atlanta - they lost a bunch. But you look at say the 1991 World Series (still probably the most dramatic World Series of my lifetime), every game but one (an Atlanta win) was a coinflip.

 

I just look at baseball - with the oversized importance of pitching, and how teams rotate starters. It is rare that any team is rolling out a demonstrably inferior squad every single game. Put another way, the 1972 Phillies were not a sorry team on Steve Carlton days.

 

This year, I think Atlanta and Colorado had very little chance of going all the way. I think the Vegas guys were right.

[sk7326]

This year, I think Atlanta and Colorado had very little chance of going all the way. I think the Vegas guys were right.

 

If the Red Sox were 60-40 odds to win every series they played, there would be a 22% chance of them going all the way ... that's also very little chance. (and I think 60-40 is very steep odds for any baseball series)

[Bellhorn04]

Colorado had no chance, seriously. They were not a very good team.

[sk7326]

Colorado had no chance, seriously. They were not a very good team.

 

won as many of the 162 games as LA did ... a worse Colorado team made the World Series in 2007. Back to back postseasons and a team that finally figured out how to pitch in Coors. They were flawed but they had one of the few legit aces in the sport (as well as a legit perennial all star) and you can go a long way with that.

[Bellhorn04]

won as many of the 162 games as LA did ... a worse Colorado team made the World Series in 2007. Back to back postseasons and a team that finally figured out how to pitch in Coors. They were flawed but they had one of the few legit aces in the sport (as well as a legit perennial all star) and you can go a long way with that.

 

They were a longshot, though. Not impossible-longshots do come in sometimes.

 

I guess the only real question here is, how much better of a chance does the favorite actually have vs. the longshot.

[redsoxrules]

This year's Colorado team was overrated. Their run differential was in the negative until like the last month of the season.

 

As soon as they hit the playoffs they promptly lost every game without much of a fight.

[jacksonianmarch]

They did win one game

[Behindenemylines]

The trades to get Sale and Kimbrel have worked out. Some of the young guys that were given up might still be stars, but 2018 championship is a done deal. The Carson Smith trade and Tyler Thornburg trade have not worked out. I think Thornburg will be given one more shot, but Smith era is over. The Kinsler trade also might be questionable, but the Pearse and Eovaldi trades were gold. JD signing at reasonable $$$$ has worked, and Price came up big in the ALCS and the WS. Without his effort I don't know ifv the Sox have enough pitching to get it done. Overall, DD's moves have more positives them negatives.

[sk7326]

They were a longshot, though. Not impossible-longshots do come in sometimes.

 

I guess the only real question here is, how much better of a chance does the favorite actually have vs. the longshot.

 

I have a hard time thinking the most massive favorite in a playoff series is more than 55-45 or so. I mean, you look at how frequently good teams lose 2 out of 3 to bad teams during the season - it's hard to think of any team as a lock. Or put another way, a run of the mill bad team (as opposed to an extra special bad team like the 2018 Orioles or early era Astros) still wins 40% of their games. Similarly a baseball team that loses 40% of the time has had a terrific season.

[notin]

They were a longshot, though. Not impossible-longshots do come in sometimes.

 

I guess the only real question here is, how much better of a chance does the favorite actually have vs. the longshot.

 

THere is a big difference between being a longshot and having "virtually no chance" to win. Especially at the odds Vegas gives...

[Bellhorn04]

I have a hard time thinking the most massive favorite in a playoff series is more than 55-45 or so. I mean, you look at how frequently good teams lose 2 out of 3 to bad teams during the season - it's hard to think of any team as a lock. Or put another way, a run of the mill bad team (as opposed to an extra special bad team like the 2018 Orioles or early era Astros) still wins 40% of their games. Similarly a baseball team that loses 40% of the time has had a terrific season.

 

As you mentioned earlier, I think, a team with a 60% probability of winning a game or series has only a 21.6% probability of doing this 3 times in a row.

 

The flip side is that a team with a 40% probability of winning a game or series has only a 6.4% probability of doing this 3 times in a row.

[Kimmi]

I disagree with this a bit. I think there are some teams that come into the playoffs with virtually no chance to win.

 

I would have to disagree with you there Bell.

 

I think the favorite team, at best, would be at about 55% chance of winning each series, while the weakest team would be at about 45%.

 

That puts the favorite team at about 16-17% chance of winning the whole thing, as opposed to the weakest team having about a 9% chance.

 

That's not much different than the flat out even 1 out of 8 chance of 12.5%.