sk7326

Who said they were being gotten out randomly? Of course teams lose and win for a reason. I've used the term randomness - but I should have restated it ... it's noise in the data. Put another way - since you brought up gambling - there is no doubt that Phil Ivey (or whatever famous poker player you want) is a better poker player than me. If we played a ton of hands, he'd clobber me (assuming I had not busted out by then). But - I'm going to run into a few wins here and there. It might be because he makes a mistake (since he is not perfect), or I make a mistake (since I do at least know something about poker), but most likely it's because you play the percentages but the cards went my way. In horse racing, the long shot only has to win the race once. Given the nature of baseball (the rotating pitchers in particular) - a best of 5/7 is not much more certain (if at all) than single elimination. There is just a lot of variability - much more than any other sport's playoffs. In the micro, there are specific reasons (of course there are) why any single event occurs. There will never be a Super Bowl III in the baseball playoffs.

Not really - Cubs had the same problem. You look at the team scouting ranks and the top is dominated by teams without recent major league track record. The likelihood that a team has put together a serious contender while sustaining oodles of stars at AA-AAA are extremely low. The math just doesn't add up. Farm systems are supremely important ... but I think the "Farm" term is specifically appropriate. There's a harvest, and then a new crop - but there will be lag there. There certainly has not been enough time to judge Dombrowski's replenishment efforts in either direction.

I look at the playoffs like I do March Madness ... it's likely that a pretty good team will win it all. It's not guaranteed - and there are upsets all the time. It's not guaranteed chalk, like the NBA playoffs. There have been some amazing teams (see 2018 Sox) that have won, and some very meh teams (the 1987 Twins, the 2006 Cardinals) who have won too. After all, it's about playing 1 good month of baseball - and basically all of the teams who make the playoffs are capable of that. It's what makes it fun. I mean - David Ortiz in 2013 and Johnny Damon in 2004 will be remembered for ALCS heroics ... during series they hit a combined 8 for 57. It's why the game is awesome.

I am grateful for every title ... the Red Sox were the best team in the league. The 162 game season was the best evidence of that.

4 of the 5 Astros games were on the table in the 8th. The Dodgers could have won games 2 and 5 with a break here and there. "The inches we need are everywhere" ;-) But they are inches.

A missile right hand landing can - indeed boxing is the land of the ten-run homerun, where you can lose every second of a fight until Boom! But yes, there is less randomness - physical domination is hard to overcome. With baseball those gaps are not the same. There ARE gaps, but they are relatively small. And with the outsized importance of pitching, the gaps are often temporary.

If the 2004 team could be physically relocated closer to the Mississippi River ...

2004 will always have my heart - really it was the win that made it hard to be angry anymore at losses. (the Celtics losing to the Lakers in 2010 was the closest I've gotten since) Every other title is special of course - this year because my oldest is old enough to at least understand why daddy has this mental disease.

The 2013 team was eerily similar to the 2018 one ... led from wire to wire, beat the defending AL champion in the LCS (including surprisingly beating Justin Verlander) and then beat a better Saint Louis team than the Dodgers team they faced.

Limited resources? Who said that?

If I go tale of the tape (fwiw): Lineup: 2004 Bench: 2018 Rotation: 2004 Bullpen: push - though this is tricky. The pitching staff was managed differently in 2018 than anyone though to manage a staff in 2004. But I cannot assume the starters except for Lowe and Wakefield that 2004 would have the flexibility to rove. That said, Foulke was the best reliever on either team. It's a tough call. Defense: 2018 Manager/Coaching - push.

The 2004 team went 98-64. The playoffs were not really in doubt - the doubt was being down 3-0 to the Yankees. But it was also the only 3 games they lost in the postseason. The Red Sox won 108 games in a league where there were a high number of 95+ loss teams. Now, there is no wrong answer here. Heck, I'd say the Red Sox had a more dominant season in 2018 (nobody is really arguing otherwise). But I'd probably pick 2004 in a best of 7 for many marbles.

(the NBA ratings went up last year, a year where ratings for every other sport dipped)

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.

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.

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)

yes - or do what soccer does and make regulation wins worth 3 points

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.

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.

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)

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.

The defense in 04 was not great granted. But the bullpen was at least as good and the rotation was stronger. Backend Pedro had 5.5 WAR, 4th in the American league! Lowe was wildly inconsistent, but coming off of a Cy Young caliber season and obviously flat brilliant in the playoff run. It would be a fun series. I would offer that the 2004 Angels > 2018 Yankees and the 2018 Astros vs 2004 Yankees is fairly close. The 2018 Dodgers were a bit better than the 2004 Cardinals (or a least the Chris Carpenter-less one we faced) The 2007 team had the most dominant end-game bridge with Okajima to Papelbon. That said all 4 teams had good bullpens. Uehara was clearly the best closer of the bunch - though Foulke's crazy flexibility gave him specific special value outside of a traditional closer's expectations.

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.

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.

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.