AL Playoff Matchup

[batmagadanleadoff]

Zvon wrote: Zvon wrote: Wow. These Royals are for real! They answer right back in the 1st. Knocks the Laa's pitcher right off the mound already. Holy schmoly! 3-1 KC in the 1st. These Royals are freakin' stunning. If you were watching earlier, one of the talking heads on TV did use the word "stunning". I chuckled.

I can't prove this, so I'll probably get it for saying so, but I believe that the media's using the word "stunning" to describe the Royals in this series, simply because they're ahead of the Angels -- i.e., the wild card survivor beating the team with baseball's best record. They'd describe the series as stunning even if the Royals beat the Angels three games to two.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Either way, bro.. it's no coin toss. So far.

[Zvon]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: Wow. These Royals are for real! They answer right back in the 1st. Knocks the Laa's pitcher right off the mound already. Holy schmoly! 3-1 KC in the 1st. These Royals are freakin' stunning. If you were watching earlier, one of the talking heads on TV did use the word "stunning". I chuckled. I can't prove this, so I'll probably get it for saying so, but I believe that the media's using the word "stunning" to describe the Royals in this series, simply because they're ahead of the Angels -- i.e., the wild card survivor beating the team with baseball's best record. They'd describe the series as stunning even if the Royals beat the Angels three games to two.

The media does tend to latch on to a word and beat it into the ground. I'll back you on that.

[Zvon]

These little blue Royals might be goin' places.

5-1 KC

[Zvon]

Papa Pujols goes BOOM.
5-2


& Kendrick just missed one by >< this much.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Zvon wrote: The media does tend to latch on to a word and beat it into the ground. I'll back you on that.

Oh, jeez ... it was a from a sports feed.
Nothing beaten into the ground at all.

[Zvon]

d'Kong76 wrote: Zvon wrote: The media does tend to latch on to a word and beat it into the ground. I'll back you on that. Oh, jeez ... it was a from a sports feed. Nothing beaten into the ground at all.

I meant just in general. Stunning has plenty of play left, jury is out on that. It just started. We'll see if it pops up more. If the Royals continue this run I'm betting it does.

[Guest d'Kong76]

Ok, and you keep backing people on it!

[Zvon]

d'Kong76 wrote: Ok, and you keep backing people on it!

I think the media does that, generally speaking.

WHOA! The Royal Surge continues as Moustakas takes one out.
6-2, see the glory of The Royal Surge

Just replace Scam with Surge:
F9D6TkKZW7Q

[Frayed Knot]

The Angels bench coach is named Dino Ebel?
I hope he doesn't have siblings named Hearno and Speakno.

[Zvon]

WHOA! Look at all this leather. I officially jump on The Royal Wagon.

[Frayed Knot]

Cain is able!

[Zvon]

[fimg=555]http://s3.amazonaws.com/media.wbur.org/wordpress/10/files/2013/07/0726_OAG-George-Brett.jpg[/fimg]
"...George is getting excited!"

[Frayed Knot]

According to TBS announcer guy, the team with the best record in the majors has never been swept in the LDS round of the playoffs.
So I guess that'll make it officially stunning if KC hangs onto this win!

[Zvon]

Frayed Knot wrote: According to TBS announcer guy, the team with the best record in the majors has never been swept in the LDS round of the playoffs. So I guess that'll make it officially stunning if KC hangs onto this win!

I can't think of a better word.

8-2 STGOTRS*bows before TRS

[Zvon]

The Royals need 3 more outs.

8-3

[Zvon]

2..

[Zvon]

1...wow,off the pitcher, bare handed from 2nd

[Zvon]

It has started to pour there.

[Zvon]

[Edgy MD]

And a couple of Angels' fans end up beating a guy to the brink of death.

[Zvon]

Edgy MD wrote: And a couple of Angels' fans end up beating a guy to the brink of death.

I was gonna say sore losers, but both the attacker and victim wore LAA stuff. People are strange.

[Edgy MD]

"We're going to walk this guy, Showalter reportedly told the conferencers at the mound. "The next guy's going to hit into a double play, and we're gonna go home."

Congratulations to Buck and all the Orioles.

[Lefty Specialist]

Ballsy move by Buck, going against the book there. That's having faith in your players to execute.

[Frayed Knot]

Beats being a slave to 'the book', or sticking strictly to a pre-arranged 'plan' (hello Matt Williams)

But when you're trying to guard against the tying run as much as the winning one, AND the IW sets up a DP, AND the next hitter is weaker/less experienced than the current one, AND you've got the luxury of the two games to none lead, it does become the easier choice.
Still, credit to him for going with it.

[Ceetar]

teams only scored .24 more runs with first and second than with just second. The weaker hitter and Britton's pitch profile probably negates that difference.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: teams only scored .24 more runs with first and second than with just second. The weaker hitter and Britton's pitch profile probably negates that difference.

Yeah but .24 is only an average of all outcomes starting from those situations and it's the 2nd run there, the one you're issuing a free pass to, that's the game loser.
The stat you really want here is the percentage of times a team scores fewer than two runs given each set-up vs the pct they score two or more.

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: Ceetar wrote: teams only scored .24 more runs with first and second than with just second. The weaker hitter and Britton's pitch profile probably negates that difference. Yeah but .24 is only an average of all outcomes starting from those situations and it's the 2nd run there, the one you're issuing a free pass to, that's the game loser. The stat you really want here is the percentage of times a team scores fewer than two runs given each set-up vs the pct they score two or more.

By definition it's even less than that.

but you can do the math from there. It's all probability. teams score 1 run every 4 times they're presented with that situation, or 2 runs every 8.

I mean, it's virtually meaningless anyway. run expectancy, just like calculating expected value in poker, is designed to win out over the long run. Buck makes that decision 100 times all the variables drop out and he's generally allowing about 24 more runs over that span. But if you see an individual situation that makes sense to you, just like if you were in a poker hand and were pretty sure the opponent had nothing, you might make the statistically-wrong call.

Also those averages ignore the 'how you got there' state. If I had the time (I don't, nor is the 2014 data readily available to me) I'd like to run these run expectancy charts through a filter of previous state. I think what happened before matters, and I wonder, though doubt, if runs already in matter. But what I'm getting at is that 12- 1 out situations factor in getting there via 2 hits/walks, I'd like to sit the matrix for when you get to 12- 1 out via -2- 1 out versus 1-- 1 out. I bet the difference is even less.

[Frayed Knot]

Ceetar wrote: but you can do the math from there. It's all probability. teams score 1 run every 4 times they're presented with that situation, or 2 runs every 8.

No, that's not what your .24 stat is saying.
It's saying (assuming that you're finding the same stats I am: Run expectations of .8623 vs .6235, or ~.24 difference) that teams score One Extra run in every four attempts depending on the base runners.
Those are averages you're quoting, not probabilities.

The percentage of times that a team will score two or more runs given the extra base runner vs not is a separate number (one which I can't find at the moment).

[Ceetar]

Frayed Knot wrote: but you can do the math from there. It's all probability. teams score 1 run every 4 times they're presented with that situation, or 2 runs every 8. No, that's not what your .24 stat is saying. It's saying (assuming that you're finding the same stats I am: Run expectations of .8623 vs .6235, or ~.24 difference) that teams score One Extra run in every four attempts depending on the base runners. Those are averages you're quoting, not probabilities. The percentage of times that a team will score two or more runs given the extra base runner vs not is a separate number (one which I can't find at the moment).

yes, specifically 2+ is different, and I don't know where you'd easily find that number without querying the database, but that first run is very important in this regard too, and avoiding it was also part of Buck's reasoning.