A Realistic View at 2021: Part I

[Kimmi]

The last 5 years have been pretty good for the 'non-crapshoot' side of the debate. And I'm including Washington because of their second half record. I think after best regular season record, that's the next thing that should be looked at. Maybe there's a trend in that direction for some reason?

 

So, if you divide the playoff teams into two groups: the better half vs the worse half, you'd call a 55% to 45% split a "crap shoot?"

 

How about a 60-40 split?

 

A 2 to 1 split?

 

Well, 78% have won the WS in the last 9 years. Maybe it used to be somewhat random, but it is not anymore.

 

Even more convincing, about the last 9 seasons, 4 of the 9 WS winners were the best record teams. Total randomness would predict about 1.

 

Okay,maybe you can claim "small sample size." Something I have used often, but times have changed. The rich have gotten obscenely richer and better.

 

It is absolutely a small sample size. There is no statistical relevance to what happened in the last 9 or 5 years. That would be like me claiming that a coin toss is not a random event because I tossed a coin 9 times and it came up heads 7 times. When you list examples like this, you are providing anecdotal evidence, not anything that is statistically significant.

 

Now, perhaps there is a trend against the crapshoot notion, but it is too soon to say that.

[Kimmi]

In any sports event , the better team or athlete is more likely to win. That is why we have betting odds and point spreads. In baseball , there are more variables, most notably pitching performance, so the chances of an upset are greater.

Still, it is not a total crapshoot. The better team is still more likely to prevail.

 

Not really. Not in the short series of postseason baseball.

[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.

 

It is absolutely a small sample size. There is no statistical relevance to what happened in the last 9 or 5 years. That would be like me claiming that a coin toss is not a random event because I tossed a coin 9 times and it came up heads 7 times. When you list examples like this, you are providing anecdotal evidence, not anything that is statistically significant.

 

Now, perhaps there is a trend against the crapshoot notion, but it is too soon to say that.

 

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)

[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.

 

Not really. Not in the short series of postseason baseball.

 

People would be making a killing in Vegas, by betting the underdog every series and collecting the huge payouts due to the lines.

 

Even if the results were 60-40 against the weaker teams, and IMO I wouldn't call that a crap shoot, but for argument's sake let's say it is, the odds often pay out way better than 6:4, if you take the underdog.

[dgalehouse]

It is a basic understanding in sports and in gambling. The better team/athlete is going to win more often than not. That is why they have odds and point spreads. If you could bet on baseball , even money , you could make a nice, easy living without working. In the post season , all the teams involved are good so the result is less certain . But the same idea still applies.

[Bellhorn04]

I see the exact opposite position over the past 5 years.

 

50 teams made the playoffs, and only 5 were best record teams, yet the best record team won 60% of them (3 of 5). You'd expect zero or one, if it was totally random.

 

You Magoo'd my post. Read it again.

[jad]

All right. Either I have lost my mental capacity to follow a rational argument or there is none here. Ix there really a case being advanced (or one that is being imagined to be advanced by some 'other' poster) that bad teams have as good a chance of winning as bad [OOPS! typo--I mean 'good'] teams? (I believe that thinking has been what keeps me a Clippers fan). Edited January 9, 2021 by jad

[Bellhorn04]

All right. Either I have lost my mental capacity to follow a rational argument or there is none here. Ix there really a case being advanced (or one that is being imagined to be advanced by some 'other' poster) that bad teams have as good a chance of winning as bad teams? (I believe that thinking has been what keeps me a Clippers fan).

 

Whatever you're trying to say there, it's not quite the same as 'the playoffs are a crapshoot' LOL

[notin]

Whatever you're trying to say there, it's not quite the same as 'the playoffs are a crapshoot' LOL

 

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...

[jad]

All right. Either I have lost my mental capacity to follow a rational argument or there is none here. Ix there really a case being advanced (or one that is being imagined to be advanced by some 'other' poster) that bad teams have as good a chance of winning as bad teams? (I believe that thinking has been what keeps me a Clippers fan).

 

Sorry for the typo: I meant "bad teams have as good a chance of winning as good teams". But I'm not sure I follow the intricacies of the argument either way!

[notin]

Sorry for the typo: I meant "bad teams have as good a chance of winning as good teams". But I'm not sure I follow the intricacies of the argument either way!

 

I think we got that.

 

But even taking the Vegas betting situation into account, the individual game betting lines are not like NFL or NBA lines with odds or point spreads on a team. The most common lines are payoff lines that represent winnings on a $100 bet or the quantity you need to bet to win $100, and are heavily (re: solely?) based on starting pitchers, not on teams...

Edited January 9, 2021 by notin

[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.

 

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...

 

I guess it depends on what people think a "crap shoot" means.

 

Would you call a 45% chance at winning any given series a "crap shoot?" (I might.)

 

How about 40%? (I would not.)

 

33%? (No way.)

 

25%?

 

If 10 teams make the playoffs, of course the play-in teams have a less chance than the others, because one is knocked out right away, so let's just count the remaining 8 teams.

 

In theory, a totally random chance application (a true crap shoot), would mean every team has a 12.5% chance at winning. Does anyone really believe all 8 remaining teams hover around the 12.5% mark?

 

Does anyone think all teams fall withing a range of 10-15%, which one could argue is close enough to a true crap shoot to call it one? What if the range was 8-20%? Still a crap shoot?

 

Let's look at only the final 8 teams of 2018, and let's assume these were the proven chances (for argument's sake) of each team's chances at winning the World Series. Would you call this a crap shoot?

 

20% BOS

18% LAD

14% HOU

13% NYY & MIL

10% ATL

6% CLE & COL

 

I'd say clearly, "no," but maybe you disagree with the chances I assigned. That's fine. Would this be a crap shoot?

 

16% BOS

15% LAD

14% HOU

13% NYY & MIL

11% ATL

9% CLE & COL

 

I'd argue that even if this is more realsitic than my first example,it's still not a crap shoot, when one team has nearly twice the chance of winning it all than 2 other teams (Sox 16% and CLE & CIN 9%).

 

Would anybody really have thought it would be a good bet to take CLE & CIN's combined chances as being equal to Boston's chances? I guess if you really believe in crapshoots, you'd think that bet was a great one.

 

Do you think the chances were really more like this?

 

14% BOS

13% LAD, HOU, MIL &NYY

12% ATL

11% CLE & CIN

 

I can't see this as being even close.

 

I'm no math expert, and I know that just because the Sox won 67% of all their games in 2018, it does not mean they will or can be expected to win 67% of their games in the playoffs, especially since their are no bad or really bad opponents in the playoffs, but to me, they have a clear advantage over teams like CLE, COL & ATL (56% in 2018).

 

Yes, it looks like 67% vs 56% is slight, but when you multiply that times 5 or 7 games, the odds become much more than a 50-50 chance, and IMO more than a 55-45 chance.

 

I'd still like to see the studies that show it's a crap shoot. I'm willing to change my mind if the evidence shows I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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.

 

I think we got that.

 

But even taking the Vegas betting situation into account, the individual game betting lines are not like NFL or NBA lines with odds or point spreads on a team. The most common lines are payoff lines that represent winnings on a $100 bet or the quantity you need to bet to win $100, and are heavily (re: solely?) based on starting pitchers, not on teams...

 

Vegas does offer odds on winning a series or even winning the WS at the start of the playoffs. We are not talking about any given game, where yes, the SP'er is a major influence on the odds given.

 

I'm not sure what the odds are usually like, since I stopped betting long ago, and never bet on baseball, but my point is this: if it was a total crap shoot (all 8 teams have a 12.5% chance of winning), you could not place a $100 bet on all of the bottom 4 of the final 8 teams and expect to win due to the vig. However, if the payout for taking the 4 underdogs exceeds the vig, you could expect to win over the long run. I just can't see that as being even remotely possible, and if it was, people would be taking Vegas to the cleaners over the long run.

 

Now, we all know Vegas odds are not just based on who they think will win, they are based on who Vegas thinks people will bet on or against, so it's not just about actual chances of winning based on team strength data, but you can see where I'm coming from, right?

[dgalehouse]

In an actual crapshoot, there are odds and probabilities on every roll of the dice. It is not a flip of the coin situation. I would be happy to bet on baseball, playoffs included , if I could pick who I wanted without laying any odds. But my local " gambling impresario " , Paul " Needlenose " Minagge won't take me up on it.

[Bellhorn04]

Vegas does offer odds on winning a series or even winning the WS at the start of the playoffs. We are not talking about any given game, where yes, the SP'er is a major influence on the odds given.

 

I'm not sure what the odds are usually like, since I stopped betting long ago, and never bet on baseball, but my point is this: if it was a total crap shoot (all 8 teams have a 12.5% chance of winning), you could not place a $100 bet on all of the bottom 4 of the final 8 teams and expect to win due to the vig. However, if the payout for taking the 4 underdogs exceeds the vig, you could expect to win over the long run. I just can't see that as being even remotely possible, and if it was, people would be taking Vegas to the cleaners over the long run.

 

Now, we all know Vegas odds are not just based on who they think will win, they are based on who Vegas thinks people will bet on or against, so it's not just about actual chances of winning based on team strength data, but you can see where I'm coming from, right?

 

What might be interesting would be to go through the postseason games of the past 10 years, say, and look at the results of each game, and see how many games were won/lost by the team with the better regular season record.

 

If the teams had identical regular season records you would disregard those games.

 

It would be a primitive method, but the results might show something.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

World Series winners in the entire Wild Card Era: in 26 years -- 7 had the best record in the MLB that year and 5 more had the best record in their leagues. So 12 of 26 or 46% -- almost half the top teams -- went on to win it all. Of the remaining 14 champs, 7 were division winners and the other 7 were Wild Cards.

 

So first place teams won rings in 19 of 26 years or 73% -- nearly three-fourths of the time. Wild Cards won 7 of 26 or 27% -- a little better than one-fourth of the time.

 

Clubs with the best overall records that finished the deal include three from Boston ('07, '13, '18), along with the '09 and '98 Yanks, '16 Cubs and '20 LA. Bet on big markets when they're good.

[Bellhorn04]

Kyle Schwarber gets 1 year/$10 million from Nats. Wow, that ain't much of a bargain price.

[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.

 

World Series winners in the entire Wild Card Era: in 26 years -- 7 had the best record in the MLB that year and 5 more had the best record in their leagues. So 12 of 26 or 46% -- almost half the top teams -- went on to win it all. Of the remaining 14 champs, 7 were division winners and the other 7 were Wild Cards.

 

So first place teams won rings in 19 of 26 years or 73% -- nearly three-fourths of the time. Wild Cards won 7 of 26 or 27% -- a little better than one-fourth of the time.

 

Clubs with the best overall records that finished the deal include three from Boston ('07, '13, '18), along with the '09 and '98 Yanks, '16 Cubs and '20 LA. Bet on big markets when they're good.

 

I think going back beyond the wild care era shouldn't be counted, so I'm glad you provided this info.

 

If the odds were totally random, you'd expect the best record team to win 12.5% of the time or about 3 times in 26 seasons. They won 7 (27%). You'd expect the top teams from both leagues to win 25% of the time- not 46% (12 out of 26 years).

 

This isn't even close. It's not random.

 

If some math whiz wants to figure out the odds of a 67% winning team winning it all vs a 56% team winning it all, my guess is these last 26 seasons will show that winning teams out perform even that statistical numbers projected.

[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.

 

Kyle Schwarber gets 1 year/$10 million from Nats. Wow, that ain't much of a bargain price.

 

Maybe my theory on waiting for bargains may never be possible.

[Bellhorn04]

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

[harmony]

Kyle Schwarber gets 1 year/$10 million from Nats. Wow, that ain't much of a bargain price.

ZiPS and Steamer project Kyle Schwarber with a 2021 WAR of 2.0, which in 2020 was valued at about $16 million.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kyle-schwarber/16478/stats?position=OF

[Bellhorn04]

ZiPS and Steamer project Kyle Schwarber with a 2021 WAR of 2.0, which in 2020 was valued at about $16 million.

 

https://www.fangraphs.com/players/kyle-schwarber/16478/stats?position=OF

 

You're right. I think it's because things have been so slow so long you start thinking the players will be signing for deep discounts.

[notin]

World Series winners in the entire Wild Card Era: in 26 years -- 7 had the best record in the MLB that year and 5 more had the best record in their leagues. So 12 of 26 or 46% -- almost half the top teams -- went on to win it all. Of the remaining 14 champs, 7 were division winners and the other 7 were Wild Cards.

 

So first place teams won rings in 19 of 26 years or 73% -- nearly three-fourths of the time. Wild Cards won 7 of 26 or 27% -- a little better than one-fourth of the time.

 

Clubs with the best overall records that finished the deal include three from Boston ('07, '13, '18), along with the '09 and '98 Yanks, '16 Cubs and '20 LA. Bet on big markets when they're good.

 

To be fair, in most of those years, 3/4 of the teams involved were first place teams. And since the only change in the WC was the addition of another team and a single game, those odds really remain the same. (As in this isn’t the NFL where it’s possible for two WC teams to advance in the same league.)

 

So if the percentage of WC champions = the % of WC teams, that really does lend itself towards crapshoot...

[notin]

Benintendi involved in trade talks.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/01/red-sox-discussing-andrew-benintendi-in-trade-talks.html

[jacksonianmarch]

I wonder if they’re shopping Beni for prospects to flip or to groom? If it’s to groom, then clearly the Sox aren’t going for it

[notin]

I wonder if they’re shopping Beni for prospects to flip or to groom? If it’s to groom, then clearly the Sox aren’t going for it

 

Per the article, it says a pitcher and outfield prospect. No mention of any names or even teams.

 

With Schwarber going for $10mill, Benintendi does look better due to his salary. But we shall see. I have a feeling Bloom has a high price tag and no one will meet it.

 

This also could be BS. Players rumored to be marketed all the time were never really on the block...

[harmony]

Benintendi involved in trade talks.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/01/red-sox-discussing-andrew-benintendi-in-trade-talks.html

Andrew Benintendi's position, handedness and team control might be a fit for the Seattle Mariners.

 

Or not.

 

Seattle general manager Jerry Dipoto was quoted this week: “We are even open to the idea if the right bat, part left-handed bat, fell to us. ... Could be a little bit of infield, could be some left field, just find that left-handed bat, that’s what we would be shopping for.”

 

https://sports.mynorthwest.com/1259584/drayer-where-the-seattle-mariners-26-man-mlb-roster-currently-stands/

 

For two years of Benintendi (with his 2021 salary of $6.6 million), would the Red Sox consider five years of 25-year-old righthander Justin Dunn, a one-time first-round pick out of Boston College, who in 2020 posted an ERA of 4.34 in 10 starts for the Mariners?

 

Baseball Trade Values approves a trade of two years of Benintendi to Seattle for six years of righthander Ljay Newsome and six years of outfield prospect Zack DeLoach, who was taken in the second round of the 2020 draft:

 

https://www.baseballtradevalues.com/trades/trade-36516/

Edited January 10, 2021 by harmony

[TylerD]

Colts broke my heart today. Red Sox better make me proud.....: by winning some games lol

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

To be fair, in most of those years, 3/4 of the teams involved were first place teams. And since the only change in the WC was the addition of another team and a single game, those odds really remain the same. (As in this isn’t the NFL where it’s possible for two WC teams to advance in the same league.)

 

So if the percentage of WC champions = the % of WC teams, that really does lend itself towards crapshoot...

 

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.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Benintendi involved in trade talks.

 

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2021/01/red-sox-discussing-andrew-benintendi-in-trade-talks.html

 

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