Really? No Baseball Thread?

[Merckx index]

I just can't see the Royals beating the Orioles. Then again, I thought the Angels would beat them in 4 games without much of a problem.

Amazingly, FanGraphs not only favors the Royals, but has their win probability for this series as 63%. That is a very large margin for baseball.

Their basic argument is that some of the Royals hitters, like Butler and Moustakas, underperformed during the regular season, and are better than their regular season stats indicate. This is the tricky part of using stats. There is a natural tendency to weight heavily recent performance, whereas a lot of studies show that you have to go back several years (when the data are available) to gauge the value of players. With the two aforementioned players, the argument is strengthened by the fact that their BABIP--% of balls put into play that go for hits--was much lower this season than their historical average, which suggests some bad luck.

In the saber view, stats are like coin flips. It doesn't matter if the last five tosses have been all heads or all tails, the probability of the next one remains 50/50. The weighting of the coin is determined by several years of data, and once that has been determined, the odds are unaffected by anything that has happened in the past few weeks, or even very much by the past few months.

The larger point, and my pet peeve, is that the playoff system is woefully inadequate for determining a seasonal champion. Chance plays far too large a role in a short series. The best team--as determined by the long haul of the season, and not by wins, really, but by run differential, or even better, by weighted on-base average differential--frequently loses out. If one team is gauged to be a 55 vs. 45 favorite to win a single game, based on the strength of its seasonal record, it still has only about a 60% chance of winning a best of seven series.

We've talked in the NFL thread about the problem of expanded playoffs, and teams with losing records having a shot to win the SB, so this is a problem with all sports. But it's especially a problem with baseball, which requires a very large sample size to even out most of the random variation.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I just can't see the Royals beating the Orioles.

Why not? Offense vs defense/pitching. Pitching prevails. Royals in six, HR leading team goes home...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

.
The larger point, and my pet peeve, is that the playoff system is woefully inadequate for determining a seasonal champion.

You bet. They play 162 games, and then some clever idiot came with the idea of a 1-game "wild card" game... Wow!
And then the LDS goes max 5 games. So for what after all slugging it out for 162 games?
Roll a dice before and skip the whole regular season theatre.
MLB became a joke inch by inch. First the millionaires 1994 strike, then the roid records, then the absurd 250 M $ contract for A-Roid, and then this grotesque playoff "format"...
Amazing how this great game got made kaputt...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Good posts guys. Agree with what you wrote Merckx on sample size especially.

The single game game playoff resulted from the league trying to cut down on wild card teams winning the World Series, and making late season games more competitive. They figured by having the extra game they could get more revenue for the league, plus slow down one of the wild card teams by messing with their pitching rotation. As you can see from KC and SF, that didn't matter. The only, and I mean ONLY thing keeping MLB from expanding the season longer is weather. Playing baseball in the north in March or November would be just way too risky, and way too tough on the players, and fans. Cold weather and storms could cause the World Series to never be completed.

I personally would like to see the league reduced back to 148 games, like it was 50+ years ago, and expand the playoffs a little. But that's not going to happen because MLB is in love with statistics (even though the steroid era ruined them), and of course money.
The money is even more obscene than in the NFL. The Yankees have to pay A-Roid over $20m a year for three more seasons. Robinson Cano had a great year for Seattle, but the back-end of his career is loaded. But the most insane contract now is Albert Pujols, who will make $30m in the year 2021, when he's 41 years old.

As to "not seeing" KC beating Baltimore, season wide it didn't make sense, but watching now, I won't be surprised at all if they do beat the Orioles in six games.

 

[Sciocco]

Reduce the season by a little, 154 games is fine.
16 team playoffs. I think NFL should do this too.
First two rounds can be best-of-5 if they are afraid of the playoffs going too long.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

If they wanna have deserving champ, and still milk as much money, go back to the old format but play the LCS and WS best of nine. OTOH, I think the whole mess is beyond help anyway...
AFL has a great format. It´s difficult but fair (have a look at wiki). One game playoff only (but could be easily applied to best-of-series also), still most of time the RS champ or runner-up prevails because the best teams are "allowed" to lose once in the playoffs and have pretty good HFA respectively "bye" week advantage. The lowest seed champ was 5th (out of 8). Never did the lowest seed win, something too common in the NLL or MLB.
There might never be a STL Cards or, if you will NYG, kind of "champ" in the AFL... let alone absurd "champs" like the LA Kings.

 

[Sciocco]

If they wanna have deserving champ, and still milk as much money, go back to the old format but play the LCS and WS best of nine. OTOH, I think the whole mess is beyond help anyway...
AFL has a great format. It´s difficult but fair (have a look at wiki). One game playoff only (but could be easily applied to best-of-series also), still most of time the RS champ or runner-up prevails because the best teams are "allowed" to lose once in the playoffs and have pretty good HFA respectively "bye" week advantage. The lowest seed champ was 5th (out of 8). Never did the lowest seed win, something too common in the NLL or MLB.
There might never be a STL Cards or, if you will NYG, kind of "champ" in the AFL... let alone absurd "champs" like the LA Kings.

I know there is a major difference between sports leagues, but the LA Kings are far from absurd. Yes they were the 8th seed but they underachieved during the regular season and clicked during the playoffs. It is usually close in hockey, especially recently, and especially if you compare to league such as the NBA where the bottom playoff teams are complete jokes for the top teams. Look what happened, LA Kings ended up winning again two years later. They've even followed a pattern of not being dominate during the regular season but they up their game for the playoffs. Whereas a team such as Pittsburgh has done consistently well for years now in the regular season but has not reached the SCF since '09. Not to mention San Jose...

2011-2012 they were 3rd in their division and 8th in their conference, but were only 2 points behind the division leader. 2012-2013 they were 2nd in their division and 5th in their conference. Last season, 3rd in division, 6th in conference.

Low seeds going far is almost commonplace in the NHL playoffs. 13-14 had the 5th and 6th seeds in the SCF(new format but that's their rank in conference), 12-13 was 4th and 1st, 11-12 was 8th and 6th, 10-11 was 3rd and 1st, 09-10 was 7th and 2nd.

Oh this is a baseball thread, go.... who's left? KC! They have nice internet there I hope they win.

Is there a hockey/NHL thread?!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Great game last night! How can you not like the Royals?

Why not? Offense vs defense/pitching. Pitching prevails. Royals in six, HR leading team goes home...

Well, the Orioles did face, and beat, three former Cy Young winners in a row in Sherzer, Verlander and Price. But still, KC has solid pitching across the whole staff, same with SF.

There is an NHL thread.

I think part of the issue is that these leagues with long playoffs become two seasons, the first is the regular season where you play well enough, and prepare for the second season, which is the tournament (playoffs).

The problem with the NBA is that it's so dominated by superstars, with the most subjective refereeing, it's likely you can say right now, today, it's 99% likely one of three teams will win the title next year: San Antonio, Oklahoma City, or Cleveland. So they have an incredibly long 8+ month season to get there.

 

[Sciocco]

Great game last night! How can you not like the Royals?

Well, the Orioles dud face, and beat, three former Cy Young winners in a row in Sherzer, Verlander and Price. But still, KC has solid pitching across the whole staff, same with SF.

There is n NHL thread.

I think part of the issue is that these leagues with long playoffs become two seasons, the first is the regular season where you play well enough, and prepare for the second season, which is the tornament (playoffs).

The problem with the NBA is that it's so dominated by superstars, with the most subjective refereeing, it's likely you can say right now, today, it's 99% likely one of three teams will wn the title next year: San Antonio, Oklahoma City, or Cleveland. So they have an incredibly long 8+ month season to get there.

I think regardless of the league it is a win for fans when the playoffs are a certain length. In the NHL you get two full months of exciting playoff hockey, NBA (even though I don't watch) is apparently decent in the later rounds. Baseball is such a crap shoot it seems, why not throw 16 teams into the mix and see who wins. That's 16 fan bases happily cheering for their team come playoff time. NFL is different I guess, but I think the bye weeks are unfair because rest and recuperation can be important to having a better lineup, favors the top tow teams per conference a lot. Even if it creates worthwhile end of the regular season games as they try to secure a bye spot.

Regular seasons are too long in MLB/NBA/NHL. NHL had a 48 game season recently and I think that was too little but maybe somewhere in the mid 60s to low 70s would be nice. To be fair I would like to see contraction in the NHL to 24 teams (will never happen).

On topic (moreso at least), Phillies goin' all the way next year!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I would be fine with more MLB teams making the playoffs, but only under certain conditions. The first of which is that the season is reduced to 148 games. But that's not going to happen. The other would be if a first round, five game playoff had the first game at the team with the weaker record, and the next four in a row at the home of the better team. (Won't happen either).

The NBA post-season is way, way too long. It goes for like three months. Every series is 7 games to maximize profit. And while last year's middle playoff rounds produced some exciting games, no underdog got very far. The end result was very predictable, with the two teams everyone expected to reach the finals, playing in the finals. The only, and I mean ONLY question was if OKC or Miami could contest San Antonio, and after a couple games the answer was no.

The NHL isn't as bad, but there is way too much randomness to insure the best team wins. Foxxy can attest and give you facts and figures I cannot.

I don't think it's the bye week in the NFL that is tough or helps teams, as much as the difficulty of playing on Thursday night, or west coast teams traveling to Europe (none yet). That's more of a killer. I personally don't like Thursday night football.

I agree that the NHL and NBA should have 60 game seasons. The NBA once did, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar and a few other vets have advocated for that. But it won't happen for the reasons I said. Money. The owners want more money, and the players are willing to play more games for more money.

 

[Amsterhammer]

It's obviously me. Every team in the playoffs that I support loses.

I'm still fuming over how we lost in the first round thanks to a major fcuk up by Matt Williams, when he took Jordan Zimmermann off with one out to get in the 9th, and when we gave them the winning run in the decider with a bases loaded wild pitch. That's no way to go out, and it's just wrong in every conceivable way that the two strongest teams of the season, with all kinds of record breaking stats, both go straight out. In fairness though, I have to admit that too many Nats bats failed miserably over four games.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Definitely a topsy-turvy season. Take a look at the way the A's folded as well. Plus how Kershaw had just a few terribly bad innings.

Big props to the SF Giants, getting to Wainright. And Bumbardner pitched a hell of a game. I really like the way the Giants are playing right now. They just look like real winners.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Definitely a topsy-turvy season. Take a look at the way the A's folded as well. Plus how Kershaw had just a few terribly bad innings.

Big props to the SF Giants, getting to Wainright. And Bumbardner pitched a hell of a game. I really like the way the Giants are playing right now. They just look like real winners.

And Hunter Pence is great to watch.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I just can't see the Royals beating the Orioles.

Stick to NFL... Sorry Alpe, couldn´t resist. Now you can hit back at some of my unintentionally hilarious NFL posts...

Why not? Offense vs defense/pitching. Pitching prevails. Royals in six, HR leading team goes home...

Who´d have thought? Pick six was too conservative... The HR kings went home as expected.

Little trivia: Assume the Royals win the WS (I see no reason why they should not with two awesome closers they have); When was the last time a WS champ hit less than 100 HRS in the regular season. And which team was the last to win the WS with even less RS HRS than KC this year (who had 95)?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

You're taking my comments out of context, Mr. Congressman!

At this point, I'd have to think the Royals will take care of either SF or StL. However, just a couple short years ago Detroit steamrolled through the AL, sweeping the Yankees, was well rested, and played an exhausted SF team who barely beat the Cardinals. And the Giants promptly swept them. So...

 

[JackRabbitSlims]

Go Royals!!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Any given year, I'd cheer for the Giants over the Royals. I'm from the west coast, lived in the bay area, my favorite team is Oakland, but the Giants are okay too. I also like several of their players, and their manager.

But they also won 2 WS in recent years, and the Royals haven't been there in ages, and when they did win it, it was a controversial win with one of the worst calls in MLB history (I think they were the better team anyway, but we'll never know for sure).

I think the Royals are not only hot, I think they are the better team. Their starting pitching, especially Shields and Ventura (if 100%) are superb, and their bullpen is amazing. Just to give you an idea how good the Royals bullpen is, according to ESPN.com, Herrera, Davis and Holland faced exactly 100 batters against the Angels and Orioles, and gave up just one run and only 7 hard hit balls. Their combined ERA was a sick 0.67.

No team has ever gone unbeaten through the post season since the wild card era began. If the Royals do, they'll be the first. Plus, they did it with the wild card win (against the A's, after being down by 4 runs).

So I'm going to cheer for the Royals, they manufacture runs better, are hot, and have better overall pitching, and home field advantage. The Giants do have the edge in experience though, and pulled out some clutch games of their own, and not every ball is going to bounce the Royals way. Still, the Royals are unstoppable most of the time. The Giants best bet is to win 1 of the first 2 games in KC, and take game 3 at home. If they can do that, they have a real chance. I just don't see it happening.

Royals in 5, maybe 6 (maybe 4!).

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Plus, they did it with the wild card win (against the A's, after being down by 4 runs).

Imagine their whole run differential was a measly +27 in 162 games, and they were hitting only 95 HRs (dead last in MLB).

Talk of streaks at the right time... beating the best teams in 8 consecutive games.

Now don´t get me wrong; Again MLB will have to crown a champion which wasn´t the best team. Unthinkable of in Europe. You couldn´t sell such things over here.

But... but... I will cheer for the Royals too. Always liked them since the Gubicza & Bo Jackson years. And those blue uniforms, I always loved them. But the main reason is their two Billy-Wagner-like closers. Other than HRs, i love 100+ mph pitchers (I guess both of them are?, how else could they combine for 13 SO/9-IP), especially since I would not think its possible to throw balls at such speed. Fabulous wrist snap skills... Intent to watch some games. Imagine.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Foxxy should be pleased to see his cynicism once again proved correct. For the first time ever, the two wild card teams make it to the WS. I am so utterly p!ssed off with the way things have gone, that my final desperate fling at reverse psychology will be to 'back' the Giants, in the fervent hope that the Royals will win. Not only are the Royals the big 'underdogs', which always appeals, but they would be the 'worst' team ever to go into the post season and wind up with the big prize.

It's a bizarre business, for sure.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Bizarre ... yes I would agree on that. Pretty much nails it.

I mean 162 games played for nothing but selling game day tickets...

Anyway, looking forward the Royals winning the WS.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Just a superb win for the Giants. Bumbgarner was fantastic, and the Giants played like the superior team in almost every aspect. Right now, it looks like they'll win easy.

But I wouldn't write the Royals off just yet. They really need to win tonight's game though.

For the first time ever, the two wild card teams make it to the WS.

Not true, actually. In 2002 both the Giants and Angels were Wildcard winners. But that was when only 4 teams from each league made the playoffs, not the current system. Also, that year both teams had much better overall records. The Giants were 95-66 and the Angels were 99-63, finishing just behind the A's, who won 103 games, but somehow folded in the playoffs.

As I said, I don't mind a more extended playoff system, I just think the season needs to thus be shorter, and there needs to be a more distinct home field advantage for teams who finish with better records.

But Foxxy is right, the way the MLB is set-up now is for ticket sales.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Right now, it looks like they'll win easy.

And tomorrow/today it´s a whole different ballgame. It´s all about pitching. Get your starter trou the 6th/7th and the SO-Kings of KC will take care of the rest.
One day you win 17-1, the next you lose 6-14, then suffer trou a 17 inning 1-0 battle... Good old Baseball.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Get your starter trou the 6th/7th and the SO-Kings of KC will take care of the rest.

Good (almost)... the SP made it trou 5+... and then came the Kings: a whopping 5 K in 2 IP. Wow!

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Get your starter trou the 6th/7th and the SO-Kings of KC will take care of the rest.

... and they did it again. Not with SOs, but very effective with low pitch counts. Listened live... what was it? 6 pitches by Holland to save the game in the 9th? Wow! And it isn´t a deadliy fastball (as I guessed*) but slider. Whatever, the results are the same: shut down pitching of opposing batters 3-5.

Was quiet interesting to listen live (on espn radio) instead of watching it. Still hope to see at least one game. Preferably the game that wins the WS for the Royals.

* still in the high 90s, it was said. Not bad either.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Yes, baseball is the best sport there is for listening on the radio. It's the easiest to visualize, and follow. And if you have a good announcer, it's magic. I grew up on the west coast listening to baseball on the radio, sometimes with my dad. We could sometimes hear SF Giants games when a young Al Michaels was their announcer, but the real treat was when we got Dodger games with Vin Scully. I wasn't a huge Dodgers fan, but he is the best radio announcer ever. Its an incredibly memory from you youth, right out of the movies.

That was a superb win by KC. I'm still sticking with them winning in 6. The Giants now must win tonight, and win Game 5 with Bumgarner on the mound to have a chance. With the way Lincecum pitched the other night, it made me wonder why they didn't have him throw more middle relief over the last month? He looked stellar until his back tightened up, now, how good will he be? But the simplest analysis is that I think the Royals can manufacture runs, but I'm not so sure the Giants can get to the Royals bullpen.