2015 MLB Season Thread

[laughedatbytime]

Lets go Mets!!

[sullysue]

Thank you, on behalf all Texas Rangers fans. We like Hamels. He's a good one.

 

Speaking of the Bautista bat flip flap, Cole was but one of many not amused:

 

"Only the most dead-inside of those watching could behave as if Bautista's bat flip was somehow more offensive to the Rangers than the three-run lead that caused it.

Except some people.

Cole Hamels: "It's hard to be politically correct. It's tough to see. A lot of us on our team don't carry ourselves that way."

 

Yeah, like if this happened on the flip side, in Globe Life Park in Arlington and, let's say... Beltre... belted a three run home run to win the deciding game, that if he flipped that bat, that every Rangers fan alive AND dead would be ... we probably would be a little uncomfortable with it to be honest. Prove me wrong. Someone show me a Rangers batflip in all of the opportunities we had to rightfully so flip the f***ing bat.

 

Some will argue that baseball is too uptight and the batflip should be allowed. I say bullcrap. One of the BEST things about baseball is that it's played with a general sense of decorum, usually. Sometimes. Mostly. There's a reason there was an actual rule for that funky run by Odor in the 7th. Baseball works because you can't make it up as you go, like football. They've got it covered. The game of baseball is OLD! Whatever it is, it's happened at least once and now there's a rule. You don't bend it. It's the rule. Period.

 

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2015/10/14/9535641/cole-hamels-eliminated-not-a-fan-of-jose-bautistas-bat-flip

[lerxt1990]

Thank you, on behalf all Texas Rangers fans. We like Hamels. He's a good one.

 

Speaking of the Bautista bat flip flap, Cole was but one of many not amused:

 

"Only the most dead-inside of those watching could behave as if Bautista's bat flip was somehow more offensive to the Rangers than the three-run lead that caused it.

Except some people.

Cole Hamels: "It's hard to be politically correct. It's tough to see. A lot of us on our team don't carry ourselves that way."

 

Yeah, like if this happened on the flip side, in Globe Life Park in Arlington and, let's say... Beltre... belted a three run home run to win the deciding game, that if he flipped that bat, that every Rangers fan alive AND dead would be ... we probably would be a little uncomfortable with it to be honest. Prove me wrong. Someone show me a Rangers batflip in all of the opportunities we had to rightfully so flip the f***ing bat.

 

Some will argue that baseball is too uptight and the batflip should be allowed. I say bullcrap. One of the BEST things about baseball is that it's played with a general sense of decorum, usually. Sometimes. Mostly. There's a reason there was an actual rule for that funky run by Odor in the 7th. Baseball works because you can't make it up as you go, like football. They've got it covered. The game of baseball is OLD! Whatever it is, it's happened at least once and now there's a rule. You don't bend it. It's the rule. Period.

 

http://www.thegoodph...tistas-bat-flip

 

I couldnt agree with you more. #DontLetBaseballGetLikeFootball

[laughedatbytime]

Thank you, on behalf all Texas Rangers fans. We like Hamels. He's a good one.

 

Speaking of the Bautista bat flip flap, Cole was but one of many not amused:

 

"Only the most dead-inside of those watching could behave as if Bautista's bat flip was somehow more offensive to the Rangers than the three-run lead that caused it.

Except some people.

Cole Hamels: "It's hard to be politically correct. It's tough to see. A lot of us on our team don't carry ourselves that way."

 

Yeah, like if this happened on the flip side, in Globe Life Park in Arlington and, let's say... Beltre... belted a three run home run to win the deciding game, that if he flipped that bat, that every Rangers fan alive AND dead would be ... we probably would be a little uncomfortable with it to be honest. Prove me wrong. Someone show me a Rangers batflip in all of the opportunities we had to rightfully so flip the f***ing bat.

 

Some will argue that baseball is too uptight and the batflip should be allowed. I say bullcrap. One of the BEST things about baseball is that it's played with a general sense of decorum, usually. Sometimes. Mostly. There's a reason there was an actual rule for that funky run by Odor in the 7th. Baseball works because you can't make it up as you go, like football. They've got it covered. The game of baseball is OLD! Whatever it is, it's happened at least once and now there's a rule. You don't bend it. It's the rule. Period.

 

http://www.thegoodph...tistas-bat-flip

 

I couldnt agree with you more. #DontLetBaseballGetLikeFootball

 

Is it time for Carlin?

[sullysue]

Thank you, on behalf all Texas Rangers fans. We like Hamels. He's a good one.

 

Speaking of the Bautista bat flip flap, Cole was but one of many not amused:

 

"Only the most dead-inside of those watching could behave as if Bautista's bat flip was somehow more offensive to the Rangers than the three-run lead that caused it.

Except some people.

Cole Hamels: "It's hard to be politically correct. It's tough to see. A lot of us on our team don't carry ourselves that way."

 

Yeah, like if this happened on the flip side, in Globe Life Park in Arlington and, let's say... Beltre... belted a three run home run to win the deciding game, that if he flipped that bat, that every Rangers fan alive AND dead would be ... we probably would be a little uncomfortable with it to be honest. Prove me wrong. Someone show me a Rangers batflip in all of the opportunities we had to rightfully so flip the f***ing bat.

 

Some will argue that baseball is too uptight and the batflip should be allowed. I say bullcrap. One of the BEST things about baseball is that it's played with a general sense of decorum, usually. Sometimes. Mostly. There's a reason there was an actual rule for that funky run by Odor in the 7th. Baseball works because you can't make it up as you go, like football. They've got it covered. The game of baseball is OLD! Whatever it is, it's happened at least once and now there's a rule. You don't bend it. It's the rule. Period.

 

http://www.thegoodph...tistas-bat-flip

 

I couldnt agree with you more. #DontLetBaseballGetLikeFootball

 

Is it time for Carlin?

 

http://youtu.be/qmXacL0Uny0

[laughedatbytime]

Murphy goes deep, Mets lead 3-2, top 6

[sullysue]

Murphy goes deep, Mets lead 3-2, top 6

 

I'll be honest here: All I care about is that there is not an LA team going any further than this. GO METS!!!!!!

[laughedatbytime]

Murphy goes deep, Mets lead 3-2, top 6

 

I'll be honest here: All I care about is that there is not an LA team going any further than this. GO METS!!!!!!

Season series: Cubs 7, Mets 0

Dodgers 4, Cubs 3

 

Lets go Mets. 3 outs left.

[TexMike]

Mets movin' on!

[lerxt1990]

F-ing Dodgers.

 

Go CUBBIES!

[goose]

Well, Dodgers made a go of it, anyway. New York bats are looking pretty strong right now. Cubs will have their hands full. Cubs were 7-0 during the regular season. 11-3 against any team is a tall order.

[goose]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

[troutman]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

 

I am not surprised they lost the series,

 

They played like crap down the stretch during the regular season. Mets/Cubs, thats a tough one for me. I am leaning towards the Cubs. To this day I miss Harry Caray. He always cracked me up. Plus it blows me away that they haven't won it for so long. They are due.

[Tick]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

[troutman]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

[Tick]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

[WorkingAllTheTime]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

 

I imagine it was about that. Mattingly probably doesn't want to get into it publicly because it's such a counter-intuitive move, to let the ball drop and not take the out.

 

Conventional wisdom is you take the out because every out gets you closer to ending the half inning. Yes, an 0-2 count favors the pitcher, but there's still significant risk. The 0-2 count is meaningless if the hitter drops one on in and you now have both a run and another man on base, keeping the rally alive with one less out on the board.

 

But, to your point, this wasn't an ordinary game. It was the late innings of a very close elimination game. Teams sometimes do lots of unconventional things in elimination games (how a club manages their roster and pitching staff is completely different in the post season, for example) and there is some logic in letting the foul drop.

 

In a regular season game, you absolutely take the out, risk the go ahead run and try to get it back in your at-bat.

 

In this kind of post season game, the situation might necessitate a different approach and I think there is a valid argument for letting the ball drop. My hunch is you still take the out and put the fate of the team in your bats, rather than risk extending a rally and inning, but I do see your point.

[goose]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

If you can lip-read...

 

It does llook like Ethier says "STFU, Matt..."

 

But there was one moment involving Ethier that did make a difference in the game -- a significant difference, at that.

In the bottom of that inning, Daniel Murphy had reached third base on an alert steal with no one covering third after a walk. Mets catcher Travis d'Arnaud followed by skying a fly ball to deep right.

The ball hooked toward the seats, but it didn't quite get there, and Ethier had to make a split-second decision -- catch the ball and allow the run to score, or let it drop foul, leaving the Dodgers with one out instead of two.

 

More out of instinct than anything else, Ethier reached up and caught the baseball. Given where he was on the field -- only a couple feet into foul ground -- he said he didn't have enough time to process the implications. (Obviously, in that situation, the worst possible result for the Dodgers would have been Ethier choosing not to catch the ball, only for it to land fair for extra bases.)

"I was willing and wishing it went farther foul," Ethier said. "It ended up right on the wall, and my mind wasn't working fast enough to make any other decision but to catch the ball from there."

But given the benefit of hindsight, should Ethier have caught the ball? Going by the book, probably not. The Mets' win probability sat at 41 percent before the catch, but it jumped to 47 percent afterward once the run scored.

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/154642322/andre-ethier-don-mattingly-downplay-argument

Edited October 16, 2015 by goose

[WorkingAllTheTime]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

If you can lip-read...

 

It does llook like Ethier says "STFU, Matt..."

 

But there was one moment involving Ethier that did make a difference in the game -- a significant difference, at that.

In the bottom of that inning, Daniel Murphy had reached third base on an alert steal with no one covering third after a walk. Mets catcher Travis d'Arnaud followed by skying a fly ball to deep right.

The ball hooked toward the seats, but it didn't quite get there, and Ethier had to make a split-second decision -- catch the ball and allow the run to score, or let it drop foul, leaving the Dodgers with one out instead of two.

 

More out of instinct than anything else, Ethier reached up and caught the baseball. Given where he was on the field -- only a couple feet into foul ground -- he said he didn't have enough time to process the implications. (Obviously, in that situation, the worst possible result for the Dodgers would have been Ethier choosing not to catch the ball, only for it to land fair for extra bases.)

"I was willing and wishing it went farther foul," Ethier said. "It ended up right on the wall, and my mind wasn't working fast enough to make any other decision but to catch the ball from there."

But given the benefit of hindsight, should Ethier have caught the ball? Going by the book, probably not. The Mets' win probability sat at 41 percent before the catch, but it jumped to 47 percent afterward once the run scored.

 

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

"It's important to remember that those numbers exist in a vacuum."

 

I think all of us stat geeks would be wise to respect this comment. Remember when the Rangers took the first two games of the DS and the stat geeks were all about Toronto's chances tanking? http://fivethirtyeig...rangers-game-2/

 

Well, yeah, now the Rangers are setting up tee times and Toronto has, stat geeks be damned, a 1 in 4 shot of winning it all. The same as the Royals, Cubs, and Mets.

 

I realize it is reference to another sport, but Chris Behrman is always right when he says "that's why you play the games." We can analyze pitching match-ups, hitting and fielding data, WAR, etc.,because it's fun to do. But in the end.... the only thing that determines the outcome is the play on the field.

Edited October 16, 2015 by WorkingAllTheTime

[TexMike]

You can't really fault Ethier for catching that foul ball. Sure in hindsight it's easy to say that letting it drop may have been the smarter play, but your outfielder only has a couple seconds in real time to process all those implications in his head. Unless it's been discussed ahead of time, he's going to do the natural thing and take the out if he can. The bigger blunder was leaving 3rd base so wide open to steal because you're too busy outsmarting yourself playing the extreme shift.

[TexMike]

And whether this series loss was on him or not, I'll be surprised if Mattingly is wearing a Dodger uniform in 2016. With like a $300 million payroll and playing in the second biggest market in the country, continually coming up short of a world series appearance will not be tolerated for long.

[laughedatbytime]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

If you can lip-read...

 

It does llook like Ethier says "STFU, Matt..."

 

But there was one moment involving Ethier that did make a difference in the game -- a significant difference, at that.

In the bottom of that inning, Daniel Murphy had reached third base on an alert steal with no one covering third after a walk. Mets catcher Travis d'Arnaud followed by skying a fly ball to deep right.

The ball hooked toward the seats, but it didn't quite get there, and Ethier had to make a split-second decision -- catch the ball and allow the run to score, or let it drop foul, leaving the Dodgers with one out instead of two.

 

More out of instinct than anything else, Ethier reached up and caught the baseball. Given where he was on the field -- only a couple feet into foul ground -- he said he didn't have enough time to process the implications. (Obviously, in that situation, the worst possible result for the Dodgers would have been Ethier choosing not to catch the ball, only for it to land fair for extra bases.)

"I was willing and wishing it went farther foul," Ethier said. "It ended up right on the wall, and my mind wasn't working fast enough to make any other decision but to catch the ball from there."

But given the benefit of hindsight, should Ethier have caught the ball? Going by the book, probably not. The Mets' win probability sat at 41 percent before the catch, but it jumped to 47 percent afterward once the run scored.

 

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

"It's important to remember that those numbers exist in a vacuum."

 

I think all of us stat geeks would be wise to respect this comment. Remember when the Rangers took the first two games of the DS and the stat geeks were all about Toronto's chances tanking? http://fivethirtyeig...rangers-game-2/

 

Well, yeah, now the Rangers are setting up tee times and Toronto has, stat geeks be damned, a 1 in 4 shot of winning it all. The same as the Royals, Cubs, and Mets.

 

I realize it is reference to another sport, but Chris Behrman is always right when he says "that's why you play the games." We can analyze pitching match-ups, hitting and fielding data, WAR, etc.,because it's fun to do. But in the end.... the only thing that determines the outcome is the play on the field.

Saying that each team has the exact same chance of winning the World Series is taking your point a step too far. Its a bit of argument ad absurdum but that's somewhat akin to saying there's a 1 in 2 chance of winning powerball. I've estimated the chance of the Royals and Cubs at about 30%, Toronto at 22% and the Mets at 18%. Not overwhelmingly different but not exactly the same, either.

 

 

[WorkingAllTheTime]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

If you can lip-read...

 

It does llook like Ethier says "STFU, Matt..."

 

But there was one moment involving Ethier that did make a difference in the game -- a significant difference, at that.

In the bottom of that inning, Daniel Murphy had reached third base on an alert steal with no one covering third after a walk. Mets catcher Travis d'Arnaud followed by skying a fly ball to deep right.

The ball hooked toward the seats, but it didn't quite get there, and Ethier had to make a split-second decision -- catch the ball and allow the run to score, or let it drop foul, leaving the Dodgers with one out instead of two.

 

More out of instinct than anything else, Ethier reached up and caught the baseball. Given where he was on the field -- only a couple feet into foul ground -- he said he didn't have enough time to process the implications. (Obviously, in that situation, the worst possible result for the Dodgers would have been Ethier choosing not to catch the ball, only for it to land fair for extra bases.)

"I was willing and wishing it went farther foul," Ethier said. "It ended up right on the wall, and my mind wasn't working fast enough to make any other decision but to catch the ball from there."

But given the benefit of hindsight, should Ethier have caught the ball? Going by the book, probably not. The Mets' win probability sat at 41 percent before the catch, but it jumped to 47 percent afterward once the run scored.

 

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

"It's important to remember that those numbers exist in a vacuum."

 

I think all of us stat geeks would be wise to respect this comment. Remember when the Rangers took the first two games of the DS and the stat geeks were all about Toronto's chances tanking? http://fivethirtyeig...rangers-game-2/

 

Well, yeah, now the Rangers are setting up tee times and Toronto has, stat geeks be damned, a 1 in 4 shot of winning it all. The same as the Royals, Cubs, and Mets.

 

I realize it is reference to another sport, but Chris Behrman is always right when he says "that's why you play the games." We can analyze pitching match-ups, hitting and fielding data, WAR, etc.,because it's fun to do. But in the end.... the only thing that determines the outcome is the play on the field.

Saying that each team has the exact same chance of winning the World Series is taking your point a step too far. Its a bit of argument ad absurdum but that's somewhat akin to saying there's a 1 in 2 chance of winning powerball. I've estimated the chance of the Royals and Cubs at about 30%, Toronto at 22% and the Mets at 18%. Not overwhelmingly different but not exactly the same, either.

 

My point is this.... there are four teams left. They have yet to play a game. I am not saying a 25% chance for each team, I am saying all four teams have the same opportunity to win it all because they are the last four standing.

 

I love the stats thing and enjoy pondering them, but for anyone to say, with any level of mathematical certainty, one team is absolutely going to do better than the other, is just crazy talk. We can stat geek ourselves to death, but the reality is there are too many variables that constantly change the situation. Again, going into Game 3 of the ALDS, Toronto's elo dropped from nearly 20% to start the playoffs to 5% only to go back to 20+% now that they pulled off three straight (which statisticians basically said wasn't going to happen).

 

In the end, it comes down to pitching and match ups. And the fact of the matter is the AL teams basically get to reset. So does Chicago. New York might have a bit of a challenge, so... on paper... yeah, Chicago has a better line on the pennant. But for any remaining team.... one bad pitch... one awkward slide... one odd collision in the field.... and the fates change quickly.

Edited October 16, 2015 by WorkingAllTheTime

[laughedatbytime]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

If you can lip-read...

 

It does llook like Ethier says "STFU, Matt..."

 

But there was one moment involving Ethier that did make a difference in the game -- a significant difference, at that.

In the bottom of that inning, Daniel Murphy had reached third base on an alert steal with no one covering third after a walk. Mets catcher Travis d'Arnaud followed by skying a fly ball to deep right.

The ball hooked toward the seats, but it didn't quite get there, and Ethier had to make a split-second decision -- catch the ball and allow the run to score, or let it drop foul, leaving the Dodgers with one out instead of two.

 

More out of instinct than anything else, Ethier reached up and caught the baseball. Given where he was on the field -- only a couple feet into foul ground -- he said he didn't have enough time to process the implications. (Obviously, in that situation, the worst possible result for the Dodgers would have been Ethier choosing not to catch the ball, only for it to land fair for extra bases.)

"I was willing and wishing it went farther foul," Ethier said. "It ended up right on the wall, and my mind wasn't working fast enough to make any other decision but to catch the ball from there."

But given the benefit of hindsight, should Ethier have caught the ball? Going by the book, probably not. The Mets' win probability sat at 41 percent before the catch, but it jumped to 47 percent afterward once the run scored.

 

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

"It's important to remember that those numbers exist in a vacuum."

 

I think all of us stat geeks would be wise to respect this comment. Remember when the Rangers took the first two games of the DS and the stat geeks were all about Toronto's chances tanking? http://fivethirtyeig...rangers-game-2/

 

Well, yeah, now the Rangers are setting up tee times and Toronto has, stat geeks be damned, a 1 in 4 shot of winning it all. The same as the Royals, Cubs, and Mets.

 

I realize it is reference to another sport, but Chris Behrman is always right when he says "that's why you play the games." We can analyze pitching match-ups, hitting and fielding data, WAR, etc.,because it's fun to do. But in the end.... the only thing that determines the outcome is the play on the field.

Saying that each team has the exact same chance of winning the World Series is taking your point a step too far. Its a bit of argument ad absurdum but that's somewhat akin to saying there's a 1 in 2 chance of winning powerball. I've estimated the chance of the Royals and Cubs at about 30%, Toronto at 22% and the Mets at 18%. Not overwhelmingly different but not exactly the same, either.

 

My point is this.... there are four teams left. They have yet to play a game. I am not saying a 25% chance for each team, I am saying all four teams have the same opportunity to win it all because they are the last four standing.

 

I love the stats thing and enjoy pondering them, but for anyone to say, with any level of mathematical certainty, one team is absolutely going to do better than the other, is just crazy talk. We can stat geek ourselves to death, but the reality is there are too many variables that constantly change the situation. Again, going into Game 3 of the ALDS, Toronto's elo dropped from nearly 20% to start the playoffs to 5% only to go back to 20+% now that they pulled off three straight (which statisticians basically said wasn't going to happen).

 

In the end, it comes down to pitching and match ups. And the fact of the matter is the AL teams basically get to reset. So does Chicago. New York might have a bit of a challenge, so... on paper... yeah, Chicago has a better line on the pennant. But for any remaining team.... one bad pitch... one awkward slide... one odd collision in the field.... and the fates change quickly.

Completely agree. But part of being a stat geek is knowing the difference between best estimates and virtual certitude.

 

 

I'm actually pretty surprised that dropping the ball actually increased the odds of a Dodger win, let alone by six pts. I'd rather, if I was a Dodger fan, have a 2-2 score with two outs and a runner on first than a 2-1 score and first and third with one, even with an 0-2 count on the hitter.

[lerxt1990]

BTW...Dodgers with the shift and no one covers 3rd on the walk? End up losing by one run?

 

Buffoons...

And I personally thought Ethier make a mistake catching that foul ball allowing the tying run to score. Grenke is not an ordinary pitcher and with a second chance might very well have gotten out of the inning unscathed.

 

I know many would say you take the out that early on, but I don't agree.

 

Do you know why,

 

Eithier and the manager were arguing?

I don't. Mattingly said it was nothing. Could have been about that?

Statistically by catching that ball and letting the Mets score the tying run they decreased there chances of winning. If you don't catch the ball you don't have that out, BUT you now have d'Arnaud in an 0-2 hole. Advantage Grenke big time.

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

If you can lip-read...

 

It does llook like Ethier says "STFU, Matt..."

 

But there was one moment involving Ethier that did make a difference in the game -- a significant difference, at that.

In the bottom of that inning, Daniel Murphy had reached third base on an alert steal with no one covering third after a walk. Mets catcher Travis d'Arnaud followed by skying a fly ball to deep right.

The ball hooked toward the seats, but it didn't quite get there, and Ethier had to make a split-second decision -- catch the ball and allow the run to score, or let it drop foul, leaving the Dodgers with one out instead of two.

 

More out of instinct than anything else, Ethier reached up and caught the baseball. Given where he was on the field -- only a couple feet into foul ground -- he said he didn't have enough time to process the implications. (Obviously, in that situation, the worst possible result for the Dodgers would have been Ethier choosing not to catch the ball, only for it to land fair for extra bases.)

"I was willing and wishing it went farther foul," Ethier said. "It ended up right on the wall, and my mind wasn't working fast enough to make any other decision but to catch the ball from there."

But given the benefit of hindsight, should Ethier have caught the ball? Going by the book, probably not. The Mets' win probability sat at 41 percent before the catch, but it jumped to 47 percent afterward once the run scored.

 

http://m.mlb.com/new...wnplay-argument

 

"It's important to remember that those numbers exist in a vacuum."

 

I think all of us stat geeks would be wise to respect this comment. Remember when the Rangers took the first two games of the DS and the stat geeks were all about Toronto's chances tanking? http://fivethirtyeig...rangers-game-2/

 

Well, yeah, now the Rangers are setting up tee times and Toronto has, stat geeks be damned, a 1 in 4 shot of winning it all. The same as the Royals, Cubs, and Mets.

 

I realize it is reference to another sport, but Chris Behrman is always right when he says "that's why you play the games." We can analyze pitching match-ups, hitting and fielding data, WAR, etc.,because it's fun to do. But in the end.... the only thing that determines the outcome is the play on the field.

Saying that each team has the exact same chance of winning the World Series is taking your point a step too far. Its a bit of argument ad absurdum but that's somewhat akin to saying there's a 1 in 2 chance of winning powerball. I've estimated the chance of the Royals and Cubs at about 30%, Toronto at 22% and the Mets at 18%. Not overwhelmingly different but not exactly the same, either.

 

My point is this.... there are four teams left. They have yet to play a game. I am not saying a 25% chance for each team, I am saying all four teams have the same opportunity to win it all because they are the last four standing.

 

I love the stats thing and enjoy pondering them, but for anyone to say, with any level of mathematical certainty, one team is absolutely going to do better than the other, is just crazy talk. We can stat geek ourselves to death, but the reality is there are too many variables that constantly change the situation. Again, going into Game 3 of the ALDS, Toronto's elo dropped from nearly 20% to start the playoffs to 5% only to go back to 20+% now that they pulled off three straight (which statisticians basically said wasn't going to happen).

 

In the end, it comes down to pitching and match ups. And the fact of the matter is the AL teams basically get to reset. So does Chicago. New York might have a bit of a challenge, so... on paper... yeah, Chicago has a better line on the pennant. But for any remaining team.... one bad pitch... one awkward slide... one odd collision in the field.... and the fates change quickly.

Completely agree. But part of being a stat geek is knowing the difference between best estimates and virtual certitude.

 

 

I'm actually pretty surprised that dropping the ball actually increased the odds of a Dodger win, let alone by six pts. I'd rather, if I was a Dodger fan, have a 2-2 score with two outs and a runner on first than a 2-1 score and first and third with one, even with an 0-2 count on the hitter.

 

Do odds account for making a little league mistake of not covering bases after a walk? Yeah I know they dont do the shift, but that was sad.