A Realistic View at 2021: Part I

[moonslav59]

Rusney Castillo signs to play in Japan.

 

I had hoped he'd play in MLB, this season, so we could see what we had.

[Kimmi]

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

 

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

 

An election is an entirely different circumstance, but no matter. If there were only 10 votes, would you consider a 6-4 vote a landslide or more of a toss up?

 

In a 5 game series, a 60-40 split would be a 3-2 series. In a 7 game series, a 60-40 split would be a 4-3 series. That could amount to one good or bad bounce, one bad strike call, one defensive miscue, etc.

 

Besides, the vast majority of playoff teams will have a regular season winning % between .550 and .610, which would be about 55-45 between the best and the worst team. Most matchups will be closer than that.

[Kimmi]

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.)

 

LOL This might be the reason why I don't play poker.

[Kimmi]

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?

 

What is one of the main questions teams are always asking? As you mentioned, how can we gain an edge to win in the postseason. If teams are asking this question, you can bet the analysts are working hard to answer this question.

 

The very beloved stat geeks have studied this from every possible angle imaginable, including but not limited to, who's hotter, momentum (which doesn't exist from the predictive standpoint), 2nd half records, September records, September 15-30 records, records against winning teams, experienced players versus rookies, pitching, starting pitching, having an ace, relief pitching, closers, defense, OPS, HRs, speed, the ability to play small ball, defense, and payroll. They have found no significant correlation between anything and postseason wins. Nothing correlates to winning in the postseason.

 

Because of this, teams are better off building to win in the regular season rather than trying to build to win in the postseason. There is no secret formula for the latter.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

You can't look at it like that though. You have to take it one series at a time. But even if we did take the multiples of five, we are still talking about a very small sample size.

[Kimmi]

Rusney Castillo signs to play in Japan.

 

I had hoped he'd play in MLB, this season, so we could see what we had.

 

I was hoping he'd play in MLB also for the same reason.

[Bellhorn04]

So here are the results for the last 5 postseasons, using my primitive method, which was to see how many games were won/lost by the team with the better regular season record. And if the teams had identical regular season records I ignored those games.

 

2016 21-13

2017 23-15

2018 24-9

2019 22-15

2020 32-21

 

Total 122-73 .626

 

I was a little surprised by how strong those numbers were.

 

At the same time I can see that if you go back further, things were not as skewed.

 

Maybe it's a short-term trend. Interesting, though.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Bellhorn04

[moonslav59]

If you combine this methodology with adjustments for who was hot to end the season, I think the numbers will show the better teams wins by more then .550.

 

The Nats and the Rockies of 2007 won a lot of playoff games.

Edited January 11, 2021 by moonslav59

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

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

 

This is a set-up: who was hotter than our '04 champs in winning their last eight games vs. the team with the best AL record, and then the club with the best overall record?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

What is one of the main questions teams are always asking? As you mentioned, how can we gain an edge to win in the postseason. If teams are asking this question, you can bet the analysts are working hard to answer this question.

 

The very beloved stat geeks have studied this from every possible angle imaginable, including but not limited to, who's hotter, momentum (which doesn't exist from the predictive standpoint), 2nd half records, September records, September 15-30 records, records against winning teams, experienced players versus rookies, pitching, starting pitching, having an ace, relief pitching, closers, defense, OPS, HRs, speed, the ability to play small ball, defense, and payroll. They have found no significant correlation between anything and postseason wins. Nothing correlates to winning in the postseason.

 

Because of this, teams are better off building to win in the regular season rather than trying to build to win in the postseason. There is no secret formula for the latter.

 

This is good stuff, lots of factors to consider. What about the strategy of managers of runaway division champs who take their foot off the gas the last week before the postseason to rest regulars and limit innings for key pitchers? It seems like a requirement of every dominant club that clinches early to coast until October...

[Bellhorn04]

This is a set-up: who was hotter than our '04 champs in winning their last eight games vs. the team with the best AL record, and then the club with the best overall record?

 

2004 was, of course, the only time in baseball postseason history that a team came back from a 3-0 deficit. That has to show something in itself.

 

And we were only able to do it because we had Schilling and Pedro, plus Lowe and Foulke pitching out of their minds.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

2004 was, of course, the only time in baseball postseason history that a team came back from a 3-0 deficit. That has to show something in itself.

 

And we were only able to do it because we had Schilling and Pedro, plus Lowe and Foulke pitching out of their minds.

 

Don't forget the guy from the ring reunion, when a-hugging Pesky yelled, "Leskanic, you sonuvabitch!"

[Bellhorn04]

Don't forget the guy from the ring reunion, when a-hugging Pesky yelled, "Leskanic, you sonuvabitch!"

 

I have mentioned Leskanic before. He got 4 outs in Game 4, I believe, and never pitched again. Cabrera made a very fine play to take a hit away from A-Rod in extra innings of Game 4. Pretty sure it was a play 2004 Jeter wouldn't have made.

[dgalehouse]

Citing a particular game or series of games does not prove or disprove a point. There is still a basic principle. The better team or athlete is more likely to win . This is not as certain in baseball, especially playoff baseball. But it is still a fact. That is why you have odds and point spreads. Even in a crapshoot, you are somewhat more likely to roll a seven than you are an eight. But you are much more likely to roll either than you are to roll a two ( snake eyes). I don't see how any of this is arguable.

[notin]

Citing a particular game or series of games does not prove or disprove a point. There is still a basic principle. The better team or athlete is more likely to win . This is not as certain in baseball, especially playoff baseball. But it is still a fact. That is why you have odds and point spreads. Even in a crapshoot, you are somewhat more likely to roll a seven than you are an eight. But you are much more likely to roll either than you are to roll a two ( snake eyes). I don't see how any of this is arguable.

 

But baseball, unlike other sports, doesn't have point spreads.

 

What it does have in the post season is a bunch of teams typically separated by a very small amount over a large season. How much better really is a team with a 98-64 record over a team with a 94-68 record? Especially since they probably did not even play the same schedule...

[dgalehouse]

I have mentioned Leskanic before. He got 4 outs in Game 4, I believe, and never pitched again. Cabrera made a very fine play to take a hit away from A-Rod in extra innings of Game 4. Pretty sure it was a play 2004 Jeter wouldn't have made.

 

I will always have good memories of Curtis Leskanic. I remember him doing the " Angels in the snow thing " after the championship was won. I remember him pitching, basically broken down and washed up , on sheer guts and some luck , with an 86 year curse staring at him. A whole lot of things went into ending that curse. And Curt Leskanic was a part of it.

[dgalehouse]

But baseball, unlike other sports, doesn't have point spreads.

 

What it does have in the post season is a bunch of teams typically separated by a very small amount over a large season. How much better really is a team with a 98-64 record over a team with a 94-68 record? Especially since they probably did not even play the same schedule...

 

Baseball does not have point spreads , but there are still betting odds , favorites and underdogs. And regular season records are not necessarily the determining factor. There is a general understanding of which team is better. And my point is that the better team is more likely to win. Call it a crapshoot or whatever you want, but the favorite is the favorite for a reason. They are more likely to win.

[moonslav59]

Baseball does not have point spreads , but there are still betting odds , favorites and underdogs. And regular season records are not necessarily the determining factor. There is a general understanding of which team is better. And my point is that the better team is more likely to win. Call it a crapshoot or whatever you want, but the favorite is the favorite for a reason. They are more likely to win.

 

The question is how much more likely?

 

The second question is what is considered "random" or a "crap shoot?"

 

I'm thinking anything above 55-45 should not be called a crap shoot/random, but if someone says 56-44, I might not argue.

 

Sure, if two near-equally strong teams, one 100-62 and the other 98-64, play each other, I'd say the odds are probably pretty close to even, assuming no major injuries.

 

If a 100-62 team is playing an 86-76 team, and neither showed a significant stronger end to the season, I'd put the odds on the better team at more than 56-44. (In other words-not a crap shoot.)

[jad]

LOL This might be the reason why I don't play poker.

 

Nor do I!

 

(If I did, I'd be one of those old guys from Atlantic City you see on tv with a Hawaiian shirt and straw hat: "I used to ahve a wife, kids, a house! I had a job, retirement! I had friends ... and then ....")

[dgalehouse]

Nor do I!

 

(If I did, I'd be one of those old guys from Atlantic City you see on tv with a Hawaiian shirt and straw hat: "I used to ahve a wife, kids, a house! I had a job, retirement! I had friends ... and then ....")

 

The good news is that you no longer have to go to Vegas or Atlantic City to blow your life savings. Due to the magic of the Internet, you can now go online , and a lovely lady will smile sweetly , and maybe show a little cleavage , as she takes your money. All from the comfort of your own living room. This is progress. ( This message is brought to you by Gamblers Anonymous) Please wager wisely.

[moonslav59]

The good news is that you no longer have to go to Vegas or Atlantic City to blow your life savings. Due to the magic of the Internet, you can now go online , and a lovely lady will smile sweetly , and maybe show a little cleavage , as she takes your money. All from the comfort of your own living room. This is progress. ( This message is brought to you by Gamblers Anonymous) Please wager wisely.

 

Three friends and I used to bet on NFL every Sunday. We studied, discussed and bet, usually between $25-100 per bet, up to 25 or 30 bets every week.

 

We usually came out about even, which means we won slightly more than we lost, but the vig evened us out. One Sunday, the 4 of us combined lost something like 27 out of 28 bets!

 

3 of us quit, that Sunday. One of us (not me) was down about $300 and bet it all on Steve Carlton and the Phillies to win. They were big favorites, that night, and they lost.This kid ended up having to work off the debt at our bookie's restaurant.

 

I have not bet since then, except in brackets and pools.

 

Lesson learned.

 

[moonslav59]

The BTV site updated some Sox players' values:

 

The prior values are what I recall:

 

Duran 12.0>14.0

Jimenez 8.5>10.8

Houck 5.0>6.0

Ward 4.5>5.3

Groome 3.7>4.5

Arroyo 2.0>3.6

Pivetta 3.0>3.3

Bello 1.0>1.6

Barnes 0.0> 1.2

 

Wong 4.0> 3.1

Brasier 4.7> 2.9

Chatham 4.7> 1.9

Taylor 1.6>1.3

 

[Kimmi]

So here are the results for the last 5 postseasons, using my primitive method, which was to see how many games were won/lost by the team with the better regular season record. And if the teams had identical regular season records I ignored those games.

 

2016 21-13

2017 23-15

2018 24-9

2019 22-15

2020 32-21

 

Total 122-73 .626

 

I was a little surprised by how strong those numbers were.

 

At the same time I can see that if you go back further, things were not as skewed.

 

Maybe it's a short-term trend. Interesting, though.

 

Interesting numbers, for sure. I am open to the possibility that there is some type of new trend developing, but it will take much longer to determine whether that's the case.

[Kimmi]

This is good stuff, lots of factors to consider. What about the strategy of managers of runaway division champs who take their foot off the gas the last week before the postseason to rest regulars and limit innings for key pitchers? It seems like a requirement of every dominant club that clinches early to coast until October...

 

I think that could probably be accounted for in looking at team records in the last 2 weeks or last week of the season versus postseason records, or it could be accounted for in the 'momentum' (or lack thereof) category.

 

On a similar note, in studies trying to determine whether home field advantage is really a big thing in the playoffs (it isn't), it was determined that teams were better off resting their players and lining up their rotation than they were going all out to win home field advantage.

[Kimmi]

Nor do I!

 

(If I did, I'd be one of those old guys from Atlantic City you see on tv with a Hawaiian shirt and straw hat: "I used to ahve a wife, kids, a house! I had a job, retirement! I had friends ... and then ....")

 

Haha. I have to admit that I take regular trips to the casino (during non-pandemic times) to play the slots. Yes, I know that my chances of coming out ahead are nil, but it's something I enjoy doing with my best friend. We usually make a weekend out of it, a girls getaway weekend. Don't worry, I play very small amounts. LOL

 

 

I do have to admit that I take regular trips to the casino (during non-pandemic times) to play slots. Yes, I am aware that my chances of winning anything are sl

[Bellhorn04]

The good news is that you no longer have to go to Vegas or Atlantic City to blow your life savings. Due to the magic of the Internet, you can now go online , and a lovely lady will smile sweetly , and maybe show a little cleavage , as she takes your money. All from the comfort of your own living room. This is progress. ( This message is brought to you by Gamblers Anonymous) Please wager wisely.

 

I do some betting for fun, mostly on football, on our provincial government's gambling web site.

 

It's actually pretty amazing how well designed and easy to use it is.

 

It might be the best work the government has ever done LOL

[jad]

Haha. I have to admit that I take regular trips to the casino (during non-pandemic times) to play the slots. Yes, I know that my chances of coming out ahead are nil, but it's something I enjoy doing with my best friend. We usually make a weekend out of it, a girls getaway weekend. Don't worry, I play very small amounts. LOL

 

 

I do have to admit that I take regular trips to the casino (during non-pandemic times) to play slots. Yes, I am aware that my chances of winning anything are sl

 

Ha. You can probably drink a glass of wine or two without becoming a drooling disgusting drunk within days. I can't do that! I'll bet you can even have a cigarette now and then!

[moonslav59]

The BTV site updated some Sox players' values:

 

The prior values are what I recall:

 

Duran 12.0>14.0

Jimenez 8.5>10.8

Houck 5.0>6.0

Ward 4.5>5.3

Groome 3.7>4.5

Arroyo 2.0>3.6

Pivetta 3.0>3.3

Bello 1.0>1.6

Barnes 0.0> 1.2

 

Wong 4.0> 3.1

Brasier 4.7> 2.9

Chatham 4.7> 1.9

Taylor 1.6>1.3

 

 

It seems like none of the higher level players saw their values adjusted.

Edited January 12, 2021 by moonslav59

[Bellhorn04]

Liam Hendriks to White Sox 3/54 mill. Seriously? MLBTR predicted 3/30.

 

What does this do to free agent prices the rest of the way?

[moonslav59]

Liam Hendriks to White Sox 3/54 mill. Seriously? MLBTR predicted 3/30.

 

What does this do to free agent prices the rest of the way?

 

I kinda thought the $30M/3 was low for a top closer, but yes, it looks like the best FAs are not signing at discount rates. Even the tier 2 FAs seem to be doing well, so far.

 

What might happen when all the "spenders" have signed all they are going to sign? Will we see a big drop off in AVV and years?