Centerfield

I think we have two different argument styles and we are trying to opine on a topic where the data is very hard to analyze. Still, I think it's fun, and I've enjoyed the back and forth. I love when people come back at me with data. I feel like I learn something in those exchanges. Back to the numbers. Let's use your method to measure success. You are correct. The 80 win teams are crammed into 5 post season and I missed the 2015 Cardinals. So 80 win teams are 1 for 5 (20%). The 100 win teams are crammed into four post seasons, so they are 3 for 4 (75%). And this small adjustment demonstrates the foolish nature of dealing with this small sample size. 20% vs. 75% is much closer than 14% vs. 100%. There is still a difference, but the difference seems less stark. But this method fails to weight the fact that there are more 80 win teams than 100 win teams. That's why I maintain that this is not the proper analysis. There have been 14 80 win teams, and 7 100 win teams. Twice as many. The 80 win teams are spread out over 5 post seasons, where the 100 win teams are represented in four. So if you operate at chance, the 80 win teams should have more titles, since there have been twice as many teams and one additional year. But it's just the opposite. The 100 win teams hold the advantage 3-1. That's the reason I think there is something more than chance working here. My original point wasn't about head-to-head matchups either. But I brought that up to refute your analysis of head to head matchups. This time period doesn't do a lot for my theory about low win playoff teams since there really weren't that many to start with. So instead, I went through the same era and and tracked series where the win margin was 10 games or more. Feel free to disregard since I think we are having enough issues with our original discussion.

Yeah. I think I'm just sour grapes on that one. Coupled with a few bullpen pieces and that could have been great for us.

Yup. We did this while infielders were available just for money. When tons of relief pitchers were available just for money. And now there are two legitimate aces and a few 1A type aces available on the market. Just for money.

I am terrified of what our idiot fan base will say the first time they disagree with a Beltran bullpen decision.

This is the first time baseball has made me happy since Dom Smith touched home plate.

The problem with that analysis is that the sample size includes series where the win margin was small. If you have an 97 win team playing a 94 win team you'd expect the results to mirror chance. This time period doesn't do a lot for my theory about low win playoff teams since there really weren't that many to start with. So instead, I went through the same era and and tracked series where the win margin was 10 games or more. In those series, the favorite went 11-3. It's still a small sample size, but it suggests that the results are more than chance. I think you may be right that there just isn't enough data to draw any meaningful conclusions. Comparing data from different playoff formats is not proper, and the current format has such a small sample size that no real conclusions can be drawn. But where we disagree is that I don't think the data we have suggests that the teams are operating at chance. Consider: Since the beginning of the two WC format through last year (2012 to 2018): *There have been 14 low win teams (win total in the 80s) and only 1 has won the World Series. *There have been six high win teams (100+) and three of them were crowned champions. And yes, I get that there are only 7 championships to be won by those 14 teams and that many of them had to play each other, but there were only 3 championships available to the 6 high win teams (since all were within the last three years) and one of those teams won all of them despite the fact they had to play each other as well. In fact, during the two WC era (until this year), the only team team to eliminate a 100 win team was another 100 win team. 2016: 103 Win Cubs won it all. Went 3-0 . 2017: 101 Win Astros won it all (3-0). 104 Win Dodgers (2-1). Lost to the 101 win Astros. 2018: 108 Win Red Sox won it all (3-0). 101 Win Astros (1-1). Lost to the 108 Win RS. 100 Win Yankees (1-1) Won the WC game, then lost in ALDS to the 108 win RS. The 100 win teams are 13-0 in series when they are matched against non 100 win teams. The Dodgers loss to the Nats this year marks the first 100 win team in the two WC format to lose a series to a non 100 win team. And I get that this could all be chance, but I think these results suggest something more is there. I don't know. I guess we can table this discussion for ten years and see where things stand then.

Was his swing actually loopier? I'm not a big fan of changing one's swing, especially if he's having a first half like he was. Look I'll take either guy, but if I had to pick, I like the first one.

I thought so too. Oh well. Anyway, batmags, to your points. First, let's argue about arguing. I disagree that I've been unclear about my point. Or that my point is changed. I know I've quoted this before, but let me try again. My original post. 1. Better Teams Tend to Win I know this sounds like a "]I just wanna point out that your cutoff is 2012. How convenient because the year before, the Wild Card Cardinals took the 2011 WS crown. A wild card team. Now the Cardinals won 90 games during the 2011 regular season, so they're not an 80 something-win team. But 90 wins is only one more win than the 89 they would've needed to win to qualify as an 80-something win team. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals had the worst regular season W-L record of any of the 2011 playoff teams, including the AL teams, too. Plus, the 2011 Cardinals personally eliminated the playoff team with the best record in baseball -- the 2011 102-win Phillies. That's a 12 game difference between the 2011 Phils and Cards. That's huge in baseball. If the two teams were division rivals, the Cards would've (naturally) finished 12 games behind the Phils and would have practically and spiritually, if not mathematically, been eliminated from 1st place by Labor Day. But so what sez me, when two good teams play a best out of five set? A best out of five game set is meaningless in determining who's the better of two good teams. Those teams would have to play each other head to head maybe 200 times for someone to say, with any mathematical meaningfulness, who's the better team. But whatever, we'll work with your set of numbers and leave the 2011 Cardinals out of this discussion. But like I said, how convenient. I started with 2009. But you correctly criticized my initial analysis. It covers two different playoff formats, so I adjusted and moved to the current format. And I conceded that my small sample size got even smaller. The 90 win Cardinal team, although close, is not an 80 win team. Is my adherence to round numbers arbitrary? I guess. But why stop at 90 then. Why not 91? 91 is almost 90, which is almost 89. All your points about who advances and who beats who. Great points for a different discussion. My discussion is much narrower. Ok. Let's go to numbers. I don't know that your point about multiple teams and only one champion being crowned is correct. I'll have to think that through. Maybe I've oversimplified, but there has to be some way to weight the fact that there have been 14 80 win WC's and only 6 100 game winners, but the 100 game winners hold the edge in championships 3-1. I don't know. I'm tired. I'll think about it tomorrow. But let's use your rationale, but this time holding the 80's and 100's to the same criteria. My argument gets stronger. From 2012 through 2018 (7 postseasons), there are 5 post seasons that had an 80 something win WC team. Only one of those post-seasons crowned an 80 Win WC team as a champion. (20%) In that same era, there were three years where there were 100 win teams. 2016-2018. In each of those years, the champion was a 100 game winner. Your numbers: 80something Win WC: 20% 100 Win Team: 100%

You can do this Houston.

If history is any indication, I should sit out these discussions. I remember being very happy that the Mets selected Mickey Calloway since he was billed as a smart, cutting edge guy. And since we really know nothing about these candidates, we, as fans, are wholly reliant on what is written about them. And it seems the guys writing about these candidates have no fucking clue what they are talking about.

I don't know why you keep arguing as if my point was about Wild Card teams. It wasn't. It was about low win total teams. That's why I mentioned 87 wins. That's why I gave the average win total for the past 10 WS champions. Do you not see that the 2002 Angels, who won the Wild Card with 99 wins actually bolsters, not undermines, my point? Better Teams Tend to Win I know this sounds like a "duh" statement, but the prevailing logic is that once you get in, any team can get hot, and a 87 win Wild Card team can run the table. The fact is, in the last ten years, it just doesn't happen that often. Of the last 10 WS Champions, 4 of them won 100+ games. 8 of the 10 were Division Champions, and the average number of wins for a WS Champ is 97.1. Better teams win the World Series. Since 2012, there have been 14 teams that made the playoffs while winning less than 90 games. Only one of those teams has won the World Series. That is a 7% conversion rate. During that same time 100 win teams had a 50% rate. That's much better. You looked back further and found they have a 30% rate. That's still much better than 7%. I see you are trying to make a point about WC winners in general. And I guess you are free to make whatever point you want. I would offer that WC winners are not the same. Are they the 99 win 2002 Angels? Or the 98 Win 2003 Red Sox? Or are they the 87 win 2016 Mets?

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24141 time=1570681692 user_id=68] Hey! Look at that! The wild card team is about to eliminate the league's best team. A team that won 13 more games than the wild card team did during the season. A team that was closer to 110 wins than 100. That's umpossible.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24078 time=1570653022 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24077 time=1570652440 user_id=65] This is what I'm saying: Thesis: I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team. Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October. The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%). Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.

This is what I'm saying: Thesis: I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team. Relevance: The reason I am saying it is because there is a prevailing notion, pushed in part by the Wilpons, that the goal is to simply make the playoffs, and then roll the dice because anything can happen. The implication is that 100 win teams and 87 win teams are on equal footing come October. The small sample size of data that we have, suggests that this is not the case. 80-something win teams have won the WS 1 in 13 chances (7%). 100+ win teams have won the WS 3 times in 6 chances (50%). Conclusion: Win 100 games instead of 87.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=24070 time=1570650286 user_id=68] =Centerfield post_id=24069 time=1570649682 user_id=65] Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

You're talking about playoff teams that usually aren't significantly better than each other playing a handful of games against each other in a sport that reeks of luck, way more than any of the other sports. This is what I'm trying to address. There are those that say "Why bother to win 100 games? The post season is just a roll of the dice anyway." I submit that it's not. The early returns suggest that it very much matters.

I don' think my statements are profound. In fact, I think I explicitly state that they are obvious. I hear you about the small sample size. I work with what I have. Let's go back to my actual point, which was not about Wild Cards in general, but specifically, the type of teams the Wilpons look to build. the prevailing logic is that once you get in, any team can get hot, and a 87 win Wild Card team can run the table. The fact is, in the last ten years, it just doesn't happen that often. It looks like this is a relatively new phenomenon since the institution of the second wild card. So I guess it makes sense to limit the analysis to this format since prior formats will throw off the math. Also, prior to that, a lot of the wild cards were legitimate high 90's win teams which is outside of my thesis. Anyway, since 2012 and the institution of the two WC format, there have been 13 Wild Card winners that won less than 90 games. Of those 13 teams, only one of them won the World Series. By contrast, there have been six 100 game winners and three of them have won it all. Acknowledging the small sample size I have to work with, I submit to you that it is far more likely that a 100 game juggernaut will win the World Series than an 87 win Wild Card team.

Two one hundred game winners face elimination tonight at the hands of wild card teams. All of this had fed storylines of "the Post-Season is a crapshoot" and "Once you get in, you never know what will happen." And though that's true to some extent (or else LA would already have a title), I think most would be surprised to see that the last ten years suggests that the post-season isn't quite as random as one might expect. A couple of things are true. 1. Better Teams Tend to Win I know this sounds like a "duh" statement, but the prevailing logic is that once you get in, any team can get hot, and a 87 win Wild Card team can run the table. The fact is, in the last ten years, it just doesn't happen that often. Of the last 10 WS Champions, 4 of them won 100+ games. 8 of the 10 were Division Champions, and the average number of wins for a WS Champ is 97.1. Better teams win the World Series. And this makes sense. Once an 80+ win team sneaks in through the Wild Card, it has to engage in a series of upsets, and the chances of that happening through three (now 4) rounds, is unlikely. In the last 10 years, only one team (2014 Giants) fit this bill. Wild Card winner with 88 wins went on a run. Every other WS champion won 90+ games, and 8 of the remaining 9 won their division. 2. It Helps To Make the Playoffs Frequently I know. Another obvious statement. But this is why I harp so much on sustained success and batmags brings up 2 division titles in 30 years. A common thread for these WS Champions is that they give themselves multiple chances at winning. The Yankees lead all the champions with 7 post season appearances in the last ten years. The Cards have six, the Red Sox 5. The average number of post-season appearances for the WS champions is 4.4. The only team to win it all with only 2 appearances are the KC Royals. Every other champion has had sustained success. So basically, in the last ten years, there have been 2 outliers. The 2014 Giants had a low win total. In fact, their three championship teams have 3 of the lowest 4 win totals. But they offset some of this by getting to the post-season 4 times (still below average but close). And the KC Royals only made the post-season twice. But the team that won it all was a 95 game Division Winner (again, below average but close). Every other champion won at least 90 games and made the playoffs regularly. Which brings us to the Mets. The Mets don't make the playoffs often. Only twice in the last ten years. And even when they did, those teams didn't have a high win total (average of 88.5 wins). No WS Champion in the last ten years has met this profile. And that's troubling, because this is exactly the type of team that the Wilpons insist on fielding. If you want to win a championship, the goal should be to win 97 games and make the playoffs a minimum of 4 times in 10 years. Can any of us realistically see this happening during the Wilpon era?

I would rank my post-season priorities as such: 1. Eliminate the Yankees at all costs. That means rooting for better teams to win in preparation for a potential showdown with the Yankees. 2. Make sure the Yankees have been eliminated. 3. Check one more time. You can never be too safe. 4. Eliminate Atlanta 5. Eliminate Washington 6. Sit back and enjoy the postseason.

Astros need to TCoFB today.

Agreed. I mean, I like the Rays and all, but you know, we have to stay focused on the big picture here.

You guys are all wrong. The worst commercial in the history of TV is the Carmel ad. "What are you meshugenah?"

The Twins didn't impress me at all when the Mets played them. I remember thinking to myself "How can this team be a playoff contender?" MFY's in 3. No game is close. Like I said. Our only hope is Houston. Let's hope some of the MFY's get frostbite or some shit while they're in Minnesota.

Useless. Might as well be the Pirates.

I would love to see the Rays win, but we can't take the chance that anyone faces the MFY's in the ALCS except Houston. Go Stros.