A Realistic View at 2021: Part I

[moonslav59]

The rankings clearly assume future additions by the Yanks. As they stand, right now, they should not be top 5.

 

They clearly are not assuming the Sox make significant additions.

 

Be consistent: either rank the teams as they are right now, or not.

 

moon, I think you need to go back and remove the multi-quote checkmark from your post #3495.

 

I keep trying to, but it doesn't work.

[moonslav59]

The rankings clearly assume future additions by the Yanks. As they stand, right now, they should not be top 5.

 

They clearly are not assuming the Sox make significant additions.

 

Be consistent: either rank the teams as they are right now, or not.

 

If Beni goes, they're signing Rosario. Cora likes him, and he's half the cost of Ozuna.

 

I can't imagine us getting much for Beni, but Rosario seems better.

[oldtimer]

I can't imagine us getting much for Beni, but Rosario seems better.

 

The Sox are testing the waters and hope to find a combination, including Beni, that will get us meaningful relief pitching.

[moonslav59]

The Sox are testing the waters and hope to find a combination, including Beni, that will get us meaningful relief pitching.

 

I have a lot of faith in Bloom, but Beni's stock is as low as ever. Who knows, maybe some GM still values him highly enough.

[cp176]

The Sox are testing the waters and hope to find a combination, including Beni, that will get us meaningful relief pitching.

 

I'm thinking that a physically fit Benintendi is likely to still able to be one of the better all round hitters in baseball. he gained unneeded weight. he lost foot speed. Kind of makes sense. Maybe he is stupid and doesn't understand what could be for him but I don't think that trading him for relief pitching of any sort would make much sense. i still think that he has great potential.

[oldtimer]

I'm thinking that a physically fit Benintendi is likely to still able to be one of the better all round hitters in baseball. he gained unneeded weight. he lost foot speed. Kind of makes sense. Maybe he is stupid and doesn't understand what could be for him but I don't think that trading him for relief pitching of any sort would make much sense. i still think that he has great potential.

 

The Sox are no doubt floating a lot of names out there. Beni is an obvious one since he had a sub par 2019 and started 2020 in a funk. Maybe some GM would value him high enough to get a good return in relief pitching, but it is just another case of the Sox looking for ways to improve the team. The Sox do need a CF as well as pitching, so there is much to do and time is getting shorter. Players are reluctant to take bargain contracts and owners are watching expenditures so the market will continue to be slow. We don't really know when the season will start, so that also is weighing on player and owner decision making. If Beni returns to decent form is anyone's guess. I'm not as optimistic as you are but agree that it is possible.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, it wouldn't make sense to look back before there were Wild Cards -- eight-team leagues where only the pennant winner advances isn't crappy at all.

 

Maybe Bellhorn's idea of comparing fates of the hottest teams down the stretch is worth a look -- like Washington. Then again, in '07 there was Colorado, which won 21 of 22 to get to the Series -- only to get swept by Papelbon's Sox. And who could forget the Moneyball A's of '02, who won 20 in a row and then lost in the ALDS first round to the Twins (was that their last postseason win?)... while the second-place Angels went all the way (why didn't they make a movie about them?).

 

Teams with the best overall records certainly have to be favored, even slightly, though... if only because they stayed hot all season long.

 

Here's my thought process:

 

1) Did the champ have one of the best regular season records?

2) If not, did they have one of the best second half records - like Washington in 2019?

3) If neither, then it was a crapshoot year.

[Kimmi]

The whole system has changed in the last few years. Baseball is very different from what it was 9, 18, 27 or 54 years ago.

 

On the 5 year sample size, I was responding to a post that said they felt the last 5 years showed the craps hoot theory was sound. I feel the best team winning 3 of 5 times, when the crap shoot theory would predict about 0.5, showed the opposite.

 

Do you have a link that shows the best teams are close to having an equal record as the weakest teams? (long sample size)

 

I do not have a link that shows the records (in terms of best teams versus weakest teams) of playoff winners. I could provide you with several other links supporting the crapshoot theory. Keep in mind, when I say the playoffs are a crapshoot, I'm not saying that the odds of every team winning the championship are perfectly equal. I am saying that the odds are not significantly different enough to really matter. Yes, the better teams have a slightly better chance of winning than the weaker teams, but that difference is really not significant.

 

In the 20 year period beginning with the wildcard era (1996-2015), the best team won the World Series 4 times. The wildcard team won the WS 6 times. Yes, that is anecdotal.

 

The saber community has widely studied this, and they largely agree that the playoffs are a crapshoot. IMO, the fact that no one can find any stat or combination of stats, trait, or quality of the regular season that correlates to postseason wins is the very definition of randomness or crapshoot. The R^2 between regular season wins and postseason wins is approximately .1, meaning that about 10% of postseason wins can be explained by or attributed to regular season wins. In other words, there is very little correlation between the two. And that is the strongest correlation that has been found between anything and postseason wins.

[Bellhorn04]

Wait till you see the numbers for the last 5 years. Pretty interesting. I'll put them up later today.

[Kimmi]

I know what he meant, but I agree it isn’t the same.

 

But the playoffs also don’t typically involve “bad teams.” In MLB, they’re usually a bunch of teams that won between 55% and 62% of their games and thinking that 7% advantage represents any sort of significant difference in a stretch of 3 to 19 games...

 

And there in lies part of the rub. In a regular season, the best teams typically only win roughly 60% of the time to begin with. In the playoffs, with the competition being stronger overall, the chances of winning decrease.

 

A .600 team would be expected to win against a .500 team 60% of the time.

 

A .600 team would be expected to win against a .550 team 55% of the time.

 

A 55%-45% split is a crapshoot.

[Bellhorn04]

A 55%-45% split is a crapshoot.

 

How high would the difference have to get to remove the crapshoot tag?

[Kimmi]

The Sox are testing the waters and hope to find a combination, including Beni, that will get us meaningful relief pitching.

 

I would like to see Beni remain with the Sox, especially since the Sox would probably be selling low on him, but of course the Sox have to look into possible trade scenarios. If it makes sense for the short and long terms, then do it, but trade Beni just to trade him based off of last year.

[Bellhorn04]

Bloom wouldn't just unload Beni for a small return, I'm quite sure of that. He'll only trade him if the return is worth it.

[Kimmi]

How high would the difference have to get to remove the crapshoot tag?

 

I don't have a specific number in mind. I might even consider 60%-40% to be a crapshoot when you are talking short series in the playoffs.

[Kimmi]

Bloom wouldn't just unload Beni for a small return, I'm quite sure of that. He'll only trade him if the return is worth it.

 

Agreed. I trust Bloom.

 

That post was more directed at fans (not necessarily on this site) who are anxious to trade Beni away.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't have a specific number in mind. I might even consider 60%-40% to be a crapshoot when you are talking short series in the playoffs.

 

In an election, a 60-40 split would be considered a landslide.

 

Maybe we have radically different ideas on what a crapshoot is.

[jad]

Kimmi-- If you consider 60/40 odds a crapshoot, please join my poker game any time you want. (Las Vegas, on the other hand, setting up roulette wheels, crap tables, and similar scams, considers 51/49 odds a steady and certain form of revenue.)

[notin]

Kimmi-- If you consider 60/40 odds a crapshoot, please join my poker game any time you want. (Las Vegas, on the other hand, setting up roulette wheels, crap tables, and similar scams, considers 51/49 odds a steady and certain form of revenue.)

 

Las Vegas considers that slight advantage worth it due to the volume. There’s only one World Series per year...

[notin]

In an election, a 60-40 split would be considered a landslide.

 

Maybe we have radically different ideas on what a crapshoot is.

 

Again, there may be a volume issue there.

 

Would a 60-40 split in an election be considered a landslide for 5 votes?

[moonslav59]

The rankings clearly assume future additions by the Yanks. As they stand, right now, they should not be top 5.

 

They clearly are not assuming the Sox make significant additions.

 

Be consistent: either rank the teams as they are right now, or not.

 

If Beni goes, they're signing Rosario. Cora likes him, and he's half the cost of Ozuna.

 

And there in lies part of the rub. In a regular season, the best teams typically only win roughly 60% of the time to begin with. In the playoffs, with the competition being stronger overall, the chances of winning decrease.

 

A .600 team would be expected to win against a .500 team 60% of the time.

 

A .600 team would be expected to win against a .550 team 55% of the time.

 

A 55%-45% split is a crapshoot.

 

I don't agree with this. A .600 team will beat a .550 team more like .575 not .550.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I always appreciate those who cite quantitative data, as long as they don't discount qualitative data.

 

Many factors beyond just chance can determine outcomes between two good teams in the postseason. Some of those aspects can include head-to-head records, and who's hotter, healthier and hungrier; the latter Hs often combine to form the concept of momentum -- which may just be late-season additions at the trade deadline or rookie call-ups (whose young, supple muscle tissues have an advantage over more brittle veterans on cold October nights). Exhibit TB: Randy Arozarena.

 

Many GMs talk of increasing their odds by constructing rosters "built to win in the postseason" -- so there must be something to it. For those of us who remember the '88 and '90 seasons, the Red Sox were clearly overmatched by the mighty A's. But while Boston couldn't win one single game vs. Oakland, seemingly inferior teams like LA and Cincy pulled off major upsets by dominating.

 

How? Are we overanalyzing? Does the old adage Good Pitching Beats Good Hitting still supersede all other theories?

[Bellhorn04]

Again, there may be a volume issue there.

 

Would a 60-40 split in an election be considered a landslide for 5 votes?

 

Valid point, but we're not just talking about a single set of 5 games here. We're talking about that 60% rate holding true over multiples of five.

[Bellhorn04]

How? Are we overanalyzing? Does the old adage Good Pitching Beats Good Hitting still supersede all other theories?

 

Personally I liked Yogi's version: "Good pitching beats good hitting - and vice versa".

[Bellhorn04]

There are plenty of examples of stacked pitching rotations not getting it done in the postseason.

 

The '71 Orioles with 4 20 game winners lost to the Pirates.

 

The Phillies and Tigers in recent years. I'd have to dig up which years those were.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

There are plenty of examples of stacked pitching rotations not getting it done in the postseason.

 

The '71 Orioles with 4 20 game winners lost to the Pirates.

 

The Phillies and Tigers in recent years. I'd have to dig up which years those were.

 

I remember '71 well -- it went seven games with a 2-1 Game Seven -- a good example of hot pitchers tipping the scale: Blass, Briles and Kison were just a little better than Palmer, McNally and Cuellar.

[Bellhorn04]

I remember '71 well -- it went seven games with a 2-1 Game Seven -- a good example of hot pitchers tipping the scale: Blass, Briles and Kison were just a little better than Palmer, McNally and Cuellar.

 

But in hindsight, it was always the hotter team who won. Pretty hard for the colder team to win.

[harmony]

I'm a Seattle Mariner fan. What would I know about the postseason?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

But in hindsight, it was always the hotter team who won. Pretty hard for the colder team to win.

 

But maybe -- "since momentum is the next day's starting pitcher" -- the hotter teams more often than not just have the hotter pitchers.

 

This may also be a direct product of the freshest arms; the '71 O's Big Four each started 30 games or more, 90% of Baltimore's schedule... meanwhile, the Pirates had seven guys start at least 13 games.

[notin]

There are plenty of examples of stacked pitching rotations not getting it done in the postseason.

 

The '71 Orioles with 4 20 game winners lost to the Pirates.

 

The Phillies and Tigers in recent years. I'd have to dig up which years those were.

 

The 2014 Tigers' rotation had the three most recent AL Cy Young winners (David Price, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer) and started them in 3 straight games in the ALDS, only to be swept by the Baltimore Orioles...

[notin]

But in hindsight, it was always the hotter team who won. Pretty hard for the colder team to win.

 

Yep, that's what killed the 2004 Red Sox, who went ice cold in the first 3 games of the ALCS...