2015 MLB Season Thread

[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.

 

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.

Nope. No adjustment for teams with Mattingly as a third year manager either.

[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/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.

With an 0-2 count, batters have a .160-.198 chance of getting a hit (depending on who you read). With runners on base, batters average .036 higher, but you still have a 4/5 chance of getting that out with no run. For you stat geeks, this should be like crack: http://research.sabr.org/journals/study-of-the-count-yields-fascinating-data

[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.

With an 0-2 count, batters have a .160-.198 chance of getting a hit (depending on who you read). With runners on base, batters average .036 higher, but you still have a 4/5 chance of getting that out with no run. For you stat geeks, this should be like crack: http://research.sabr...ascinating-data

 

Strictly speaking its even more complicated than that - those chances are based on previous occurrences, and don't take randomness and chaos into account, so some error is involved. This is all fascinating to read - great stuff.

[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.

With an 0-2 count, batters have a .160-.198 chance of getting a hit (depending on who you read). With runners on base, batters average .036 higher, but you still have a 4/5 chance of getting that out with no run. For you stat geeks, this should be like crack: http://research.sabr...ascinating-data

But that's BA. You can get the run home without getting a hit, and be in the same place you were before.

 

Any stats involving going from first to third on a walk?

Edited October 17, 2015 by laughedatbytime

[Tick]

THE DODGERS ARE TOAST!

THE CUBS SOON WILL BE!

 

THE METS RULE!!!!!!

[troutman]

THE DODGERS ARE TOAST!

THE CUBS SOON WILL BE!

 

THE METS RULE!!!!!!

 

I will never forget the night when,

 

My manager and I were at Shea Stadium for a game the last year before it was being torn down. Damn, those seats were fu**** up. Getting off the train and walking in to the bathroom. :outtahere:

[troutman]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

[Tick]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

[troutman]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Edited October 19, 2015 by troutman

[Disembodied Spirit]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

[laughedatbytime]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

[Disembodied Spirit]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Disembodied Spirit

[laughedatbytime]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

[goose]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

Edited October 21, 2015 by goose

[laughedatbytime]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

[Disembodied Spirit]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

Point is Mets and Cubs could never have 'Met' in the playoffs until the earliest of 1994. So in reality The Cubs and Mets have not played each other because they both have sucked for the past 21 years.

[laughedatbytime]

Some one correct me,

 

If I am wrong. Isn't this the first time the two teams have played each other in the playoffs?

It is indeed

 

Thanks,

 

Thats what I thought. I was thinking back of all of the years and could never remember that they ever played in a playoff series. :codger:

Remember Cubs and Mets were both in the same division - Eastern Division ?? from 1962 to 1994..and only 1 team made playoffs..

1969

What about 1969?

Mets won the division. Mets were in the Eastern division WITH Cubs from 1962 to 1994.

Divisional play began in 1969.

As for the divisional series...

 

Technically, the first division series were in the strike-interrupted year of 1981. Due to the two-month strike, Major League owners elected to split the 1981 season into two halves, with the first-place teams from each half in each division meeting in a best-of-five divisional playoff series. The winner of each of these series was then the division winner facing the other division winner in the League Championship Series. However, there would be no more division series until 1995.

 

http://www.baseball-...on_series.shtml

I believe that the Reds had the best season record in the NL West that year but didn't win either half and were shut out from the playoffs.

Point is Mets and Cubs could never have 'Met' in the playoffs until the earliest of 1994. So in reality The Cubs and Mets have not played each other because they both have sucked for the past 21 years.

Except the Cubs have been in the playoffs 5 times in the divisional series era and the Mets have been in 4, and neither number is all that far under expectations.

[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.

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.

Nope. No adjustment for teams with Mattingly as a third year manager either.

 

Any MLB manager should understand fundamental baseball. I get there are brain farts from time-to-time...... but that was much more than a fart.

[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.

Nope. No adjustment for teams with Mattingly as a third year manager either.

 

Any MLB manager should understand fundamental baseball. I get there are brain farts from time-to-time...... but that was much more than a fart.

 

Raging diarrhea.

[Disembodied Spirit]

:musicnote: :musicnote: :musicnote: :musicnote:

At 7 P.M. the starting pitcher caved in, he said Fellas, it's been good to know ya

:musicnote: :musicnote: :musicnote: :musicnote:

[Disembodied Spirit]

Daniel Murphy is BABE RUTH...WOW

[goose]

Daniel Murphy is BABE RUTH...WOW

Pretty incredible run!

[Disembodied Spirit]

Kris Bryant HOME RUN

 

[Rick N. Backer]

Kudos to the Jays. Down 3-1 it would be easy to lay down like dogs, but they didn't. Edited October 22, 2015 by Rick N. Backer

[laughedatbytime]

Kudos to the Jays. Down 3-1 it would be easy to lay down like dogs, but they didn't.

I guess when your season is over in May, you lose enough interest in your league's championship series that you can only use it to make veiled comments about games played in the other league.