What's the deal with the Dodgers?

[barrysloate]

So the Dodgers had perhaps the greatest two month run in baseball history, going something like 55-11, and immediately follow it with some of the worst baseball ever played, going 1-17. How is this possible?

If you're a fan of unusual stats, these back-to-back streaks have to be among the most bizarre ever. What's going on? Can anyone explain what is happening?

[clydepepper]

Certainly, these Dodgers are the streakiest team around...with apologies to the Indianss.

the Dodgers: ---------------------the Indians:

6/7-6/26 16W-1L--------------first six post-AS games 1W-5L

6/29-7/19 14W-1L--------------since then, CLE had a 9 & 6-game win streak

7/22-8/6 13W-1L--------------before the current 20-game winning streak


8/26-9/11 1W-16L

Interesting to note: 24,654 attended Cleveland's 20th straight victory (at home) while 50,161 attended the Dodgers 10th straight loss (also at home).

[TUM301]

They had a poll during the Red Sox game last nite for the viewers at home, vote for one as more surprising, Indians 20 game winning/L A`s 11 game losing streak. Thought it was a cool poll and know how I voted. The T V broadcasters, one being Dennis Eckersley, were split.

[clydepepper]

Always a thorn in the Yankees' paw:

These streaking Cleveland Indians are being comparing, due to their run differential during the streak, to the 1939 Yankees who hold the all-time single season run differential of an amazing 411!

The Yanks were 106-45 that year. They started the year beating the Red Sox 2-0, HOF Ruffing over HOF Grove.

However, this great team's longest loosing streak - 6 games - beginning with 5straight losses to those same Red Sox at Yankee Stadium.

Boston finished fourth that year, but, they did have something to say for 5 games.

.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

So the Dodgers had perhaps the greatest two month run in baseball history, going something like 55-11, and immediately follow it with some of the worst baseball ever played, going 1-17. How is this possible?

If you're a fan of unusual stats, these back-to-back streaks have to be among the most bizarre ever. What's going on? Can anyone explain what is happening?

At least the Dodgers are in 1st place. The 1916 Giants started the season 2-13, then they won 17 games in a row. At the end of the season they won 26 in a row to finish in 4th place.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by rats60

At least the Dodgers are in 1st place. The 1916 Giants started the season 2-13, then they won 17 games in a row. At the end of the season they won 26 in a row to finish in 4th place.

The Dodgers could still finish behind the Dbacks, Nationals, Red Sox, Astros and Indians, all of whom could end the season with more than the Dodgers' current 96 wins.

[KMayUSA6060]

26 days ago, the Indians were 20 games in back of the Dodgers for the best record in baseball. After last night, they are 1 game back. Come on Phillies!

[packs]

The other day I heard analysts discussing who would start game 2 of their eventual playoff series. But in my mind they should be talking about who will start game 1. Wood, Darvish, Kershaw, none of them have particularly good track records in the post-season.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

26 days ago, the Indians were 20 games in back of the Dodgers for the best record in baseball. After last night, they are 1 game back. Come on Phillies!

How did home field work out for the Indians last year?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by rats60

How did home field work out for the Indians last year?

Worked pretty well. Swept the Red Sox, cleaned Toronto's clock pretty good, then reached extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series. Mind you, this was all without their #2, #3, and for a period their #4 starters. They also didn't have their All Star LF, and their starting C was out until late in the World Series.

Jumped out to a 1-0 series lead in the World Series thanks to home field advantage, too. Couldn't finish, but that was largely due to the injuries mentioned above.

Additionally, if it does happen to be the Indians vs. a West Coast team, home field advantage would play a much larger role due to the strenuous travel across the US.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Worked pretty well. Swept the Red Sox, cleaned Toronto's clock pretty good, then extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series. Mind you, this was all without their #2, #3, and for a period their #4 starters. They also didn't have their All Star LF, and their starting C was out until late in the World Series.

Jumped out to a 1-0 series lead in the World Series thanks to home field advantage, too. Couldn't finish, but that was largely due to the injuries mentioned above.

Additionally, if it does happen to be the Indians vs. a West Coast team, home field advantage would play a much larger role due to the strenuous travel across the US.

So what is the Indians' secret about traveling across the US less strenuously than their opponent?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

So what is the Indians' secret about traveling across the US less strenuously than their opponent?

My point about the travel is I'd rather have the first two games in Cleveland to try and get ahead in the series, rather than play on the road the first two games (maybe lose 1 or both) then make the trip cross country to try and come back in the series.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Worked pretty well. Swept the Red Sox, cleaned Toronto's clock pretty good, then reached extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series. Mind you, this was all without their #2, #3, and for a period their #4 starters. They also didn't have their All Star LF, and their starting C was out until late in the World Series.

Jumped out to a 1-0 series lead in the World Series thanks to home field advantage, too. Couldn't finish, but that was largely due to the injuries mentioned above.

Additionally, if it does happen to be the Indians vs. a West Coast team, home field advantage would play a much larger role due to the strenuous travel across the US.

1-3 at home in the World Series tells me that it doesn't matter if the Indians finish ahead of the Dodgers. Having the best record in the league is a big deal because of the wild card game. If home field was so important, the Indians wouldn't have choked games 6 and 7 at home.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

My point about the travel is I'd rather have the first two games in Cleveland to try and get ahead in the series, rather than play on the road the first two games (maybe lose 1 or both) then make the trip cross country to try and come back in the series.

So why did the Indians split the first two at home, take 2 of 3 on the road and then lose two at home? Seems to me that they are just as good on the road as at home. Even slightly better this year in the regular season.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by rats60

1-3 at home in the World Series tells me that it doesn't matter if the Indians finish ahead of the Dodgers. Having the best record in the league is a big deal because of the wild card game. If home field was so important, the Indians wouldn't have choked games 6 and 7 at home.

For a small market team, it is also important for revenue. I believe the Indians generated an additional $60M last year with their deep playoff run. They parlayed that into Encarnacion.

Also, keep in mind there was a strong Cubs contingent at the World Series games in Cleveland due to the closer distance between the cities. If it were an East vs. West situation, it would be a bigger home field advantage.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Also, keep in mind there was a strong Cubs contingent at the World Series games in Cleveland due to the closer distance between the cities. If it were an East vs. West situation, it would be a bigger home field advantage.

Not at the game that I went to. With only 35K seats, there weren't a lot of extra seats available and they certainly didn't generate that much extra revenue for 1 extra home game.

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

So the Dodgers had perhaps the greatest two month run in baseball history, going something like 55-11, and immediately follow it with some of the worst baseball ever played, going 1-17. How is this possible?

If you're a fan of unusual stats, these back-to-back streaks have to be among the most bizarre ever. What's going on? Can anyone explain what is happening?

Of course. There is nothing at all wrong with the Dodgers--they simply descended back to reality, i.e., came back to earth. Among position players, they really only have 3 outstanding players--Bellinger, Seager and Turner--and other than Kershaw, the balance of the starters were pitching well above their norm. A lengthy losing streak is precisely how reality corrects for the statistical anomaly of their unlikely winning streak. In short, they never, ever were truly a 115-116 win team.

Hi Barry,

Larry

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Of course. There is nothing at all wrong with the Dodgers--they simply descended back to reality, i.e., came back to earth. Among position players, they really only have 3 outstanding players--Bellinger, Seager and Turner--and other than Kershaw, the balance of the starters were pitching well above their norm. A lengthy losing streak is precisely how reality corrects for the statistical anomaly of their unlikely winning streak. In short, they never, ever were truly a 115-116 win team.

Hi Barry,

Larry

Well they did add Yu Darvish who they didnt have in 1h.......Kershaw and a healty Darvish is a tough series

People forget that 60% of the games in the regular season dont really matter when looking into the postseason. Those are games started by #3, #4, #5 and even #6 starters sometimes..

If you are telling me the Dodgers were 1-4 the last 5 games when Kershaw started that would mean something if there was a long losing streak

If the Dodgers only won 8 of their last 20 games..but those 8 wins were by Kersahaw and Darvish..would those 12 losses really mean anything? I know not that simple but you know what i mean. Who cares if they lost the last 5 games started by Brandon McCarthy

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Well they did add Yu Darvish who they didnt have in 1h.......Kershaw and a healty Darvish is a tough series

People forget that 60% of the games in the regular season dont really matter when looking into the postseason. Those are games started by #3, #4, #5 and even #6 starters sometimes..

If you are telling me the Dodgers were 1-4 the last 5 games when Kershaw started that would mean something if there was a long losing streak

If the Dodgers only won 8 of their last 20 games..but those 8 wins were by Kersahaw and Darvish..would those 12 losses really mean anything? I know not that simple but you know what i mean. Who cares if they lost the last 5 games started by Brandon McCarthy

Kershaw's post season record to date isn't all that remarkable and Darvish as a Dodger isn't either. The Dodgers may win it all, but not because of your argument. There is usually a Brandon McCarthy type who plays a pivotal, unexpected role in a short series. Don Larsen was 3-21 with the Orioles (1954) before his World Series Perfecto in 1956.

Identifying which team the unexpected hero plays for before the playoffs is the problem.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Kershaw's post season record to date isn't all that remarkable and Darvish as a Dodger isn't either. The Dodgers may win it all, but not because of your argument. There is usually a Brandon McCarthy type who plays a pivotal, unexpected role in a short series. Don Larsen was 3-21 with the Orioles (1954) before his World Series Perfecto in 1956.

Identifying which team the unexpected hero plays for before the playoffs is the problem.

Understood, but in your argument it doesnt matter if the dodgers won their last 15 games of the year or lost the last 15 if we are just going on what we believe certain pitchers do in the postseason and talking about unknown surprises Last year though Kershaw was very good in the postseason by the way if not great.

Thus, basically it doesnt matter then if a first place teams ends up losing their last 50 games..if their best player are great in the post season and the many many unknown surprises of players who could suck in the regular season be great in the postseason

If kershaw and Darvish win 6 games in the post season etc, that would further show who cares how the #3 to #5 pitchers did for them in many losses..we shall see..

However my point was that if you think regular season record matters during the last 30 games or whatever i would be more concerned how the #1 and #2 pitchers did not the rest of them. In post season #1 pitchers pitch more often as well

.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Understood, but in your argument it doesnt matter if the dodgers won their last 15 games of the year or lost the last 15 if we are just going on what we believe certain pitchers do in the postseason and talking about unknown surprises Last year though Kershaw was very good in the postseason by the way if not great.

Thus, basically it doesnt matter then if a first place teams ends up losing their last 50 games..if their best player are great in the post season and the many many unknown surprises of players who could suck in the regular season be great in the postseason

If kershaw and Darvish win 6 games in the post season etc, that would further show who cares how the #3 to #5 pitchers did for them in many losses..we shall see..

However my point was that if you think regular season record matters during the last 30 games or whatever i would be more concerned how the #1 and #2 pitchers did not the rest of them. In post season #1 pitchers pitch more often as well

.

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

Of course, but people do bet on games based on prior performances.. Theres a reason there is a betting line. Nothing is certain but there are always situations where the odds are greater.

to me i wouldnt care how a teams #4 and #5 starter did the last 30 games going into the postseason...i would care more on the #1 and #2 starter did. yes there are other pitchers that may come up huge but i am just going by the odds... Back to the thread top ...there would no 'deal' to me for those losses. I wouldnt be asking whats the deal with the dodgers

If Ross Stripling starts this week and takes a loss, does that loss really matter. Would i be saying 'whats wrong with the dodgers?" Nothing would be wrong to me if all they lost were games started by back end guys....

[Peter_Spaeth]

As I did last year (I was close!!), I fear the Indians of Cleveland.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Yu Darvish did fine tonight. I would care more about that that Ross Stripling or whoever losing a game later on.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Yu Darvish did fine tonight. I would care more about that that Ross Stripling or whoever losing a game later on.

but you also need to look at the offense and defense and base running during the losing streak too. Pitchers can do great and still get losses because of things out of their control.(which is why pitcher record is such a bad gauge of quality)

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

but you also need to look at the offense and defense and base running during the losing streak too. Pitchers can do great and still get losses because of things out of their control.(which is why pitcher record is such a bad gauge of quality)

Right you never know. But Starting pitching is the most important factor

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I did last year (I was close!!), I fear the Indians of Cleveland.

Smart man.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I did last year (I was close!!), I fear the Indians of Cleveland.

And I drink with the Brewers of Milwaukee!

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

Not to mention the man above men who made "The Catch" with his back turned, 450+ feet away from the plate off Vic Wertz, the incomparable Willie Mays!

Best wishes,

Larry

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

but you also need to look at the offense and defense and base running during the losing streak too. Pitchers can do great and still get losses because of things out of their control.(which is why pitcher record is such a bad gauge of quality)

Hmm..dont think there has been any deal with the Dodgers thus far........they dont have to worry about #4 and #5 starters losing games like they did the in the regular season...

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The reason to play the games is the uncertainty of the outcomes. The 1954 Cleveland Indians won 111 games with four starters who won 80.

No, the regular season is not predictive of post season results. It determines who plays, but not the results.

Ask the 1954 New York Giants who swept the Tribe with the help of their unexpected hero, Dusty Rhodes.

Yeah the Dodgers have no chance this year in the playoffs. Thus far they are 4-0 in the playoffs in games started by Kershaw and Darvish. That losing streak meant so much on all of those games lost by #4, #5 and #6 starters.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Yeah the Dodgers have no chance this year in the playoffs. Thus far they are 4-0 in the playoffs in games started by Kershaw and Darvish. That losing streak meant so much on all of those games lost by #4, #5 and #6 starters.

Tell me today who will be the MVP of this year’s World Series. I’m getting tired of watching 4+ hour baseball games.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Tell me today who will be the MVP of this year’s World Series. I’m getting tired of watching 4+ hour baseball games.

It wont be anyone from the Indians or Twins or Red Sox.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Tell me today who will be the MVP of this year’s World Series. I’m getting tired of watching 4+ hour baseball games.

Chris Taylor, he of the 446 ft. Homer.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Tell me today who will be the MVP of this year’s World Series. I’m getting tired of watching 4+ hour baseball games.

Aaron Judge

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

It wont be anyone from the Indians or Twins or Red Sox.

Not only is your grammar impeccable and your logic unassailable, you have now demonstrated your true brilliance.

I refuse to accept any argument on Net54 as an example of sound logical principles, including my own which are often laced with a tinge of sarcasm that is often not appreciated or understood.

If one questions the view of a Yankee or Dodger fan for that matter, the likelihood of a rational response based on facts is rare. It is almost as if they are members of the team and the rest of the world is their foe. The questioner becomes instantly identified as a "hater". You can love their enthusiasm, but nary a question of doubt should be raised regarding their idols, whether proven or unproven.

I am not a Kershaw hater and I am not a Judge hater. I wish them both well now and in the future. The psychology of being a rabid fan however I find at times overbearing. Dealing with them (rabid fans) is my problem, whether it is mindless lemmings still doing the tomahawk chop at Atlanta Braves games or the enlightened minions who find solace in some ridiculous hand gesture at a USC football games after the Trojans score their 8th touchdown against Tijuana Tech.

On a message board I try to stay above (or below) the fray. I consider the vast majority of members here friends. A few are not. If you think I'm an idiot for my views, I might think the same of you.

Anything I have said about the current baseball playoffs or players can be taken with a grain of salt including this post.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Badgers down the field.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Badgers down the field.

Peter,

I used to work for the Cubs and do understand why folks deride Cubs fans, but you have to respect them and cut them some slack. After all, they waited 108 years between championships.

Excuse me, I have to resume playing "On Wisconsin" on my tenor sax now.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Not only is your grammar impeccable and your logic unassailable, you have now demonstrated your true brilliance.

I refuse to accept any argument on Net54 as an example of sound logical principles, including my own which are often laced with a tinge of sarcasm that is often not appreciated or understood.

If one questions the view of a Yankee or Dodger fan for that matter, the likelihood of a rational response based on facts is rare. It is almost as if they are members of the team and the rest of the world is their foe. The questioner becomes instantly identified as a "hater". You can love their enthusiasm, but nary a question of doubt should be raised regarding their idols, whether proven or unproven.

I am not a Kershaw hater and I am not a Judge hater. I wish them both well now and in the future. The psychology of being a rabid fan however I find at times overbearing. Dealing with them (rabid fans) is my problem, whether it is mindless lemmings still doing the tomahawk chop at Atlanta Braves games or the enlightened minions who find solace in some ridiculous hand gesture at a USC football games after the Trojans score their 8th touchdown against Tijuana Tech.

On a message board I try to stay above (or below) the fray. I consider the vast majority of members here friends. A few are not. If you think I'm an idiot for my views, I might think the same of you.

Anything I have said about the current baseball playoffs or players can be taken with a grain of salt including this post.

Its just your negative views on the Dodgers chances and views of Judge so far are completely wrong so people are having fun at your expense..

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Not only is your grammar impeccable and your logic unassailable, you have now demonstrated your true brilliance.

I refuse to accept any argument on Net54 as an example of sound logical principles, including my own which are often laced with a tinge of sarcasm that is often not appreciated or understood.

If one questions the view of a Yankee or Dodger fan for that matter, the likelihood of a rational response based on facts is rare. It is almost as if they are members of the team and the rest of the world is their foe. The questioner becomes instantly identified as a "hater". You can love their enthusiasm, but nary a question of doubt should be raised regarding their idols, whether proven or unproven.

I am not a Kershaw hater and I am not a Judge hater. I wish them both well now and in the future. The psychology of being a rabid fan however I find at times overbearing. Dealing with them (rabid fans) is my problem, whether it is mindless lemmings still doing the tomahawk chop at Atlanta Braves games or the enlightened minions who find solace in some ridiculous hand gesture at a USC football games after the Trojans score their 8th touchdown against Tijuana Tech.

On a message board I try to stay above (or below) the fray. I consider the vast majority of members here friends. A few are not. If you think I'm an idiot for my views, I might think the same of you.

Anything I have said about the current baseball playoffs or players can be taken with a grain of salt including this post.

Judge doesnt get a hit every time but thus far you are 0-2 (with 2 ks) for your negative views on Judge and also your views on the Dodgers in our many posts. If you want to declare the cubs will be the winner of the dodgers/cubs series now and they come through you can be 1-3

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Judge doesnt get a hit every time but thus far you are 0-2 (with 2 ks) for your negative views on Judge and also your views on the Dodgers in our many posts. If you want to declare the cubs will be the winner of the dodgers/cubs series now and they come through you can be 1-3

Jake, as I said before, the games need to be played to determine the outcome. If the Cubs win the series, I will not be upset. If the Dodgers win, that's fine too. I have a friend who could get me tickets to see Kershaw pitch in the World Series.

Stating that Judge struck out over 200 times in the regular season is not a positive or negative view. It is simply a statistic. In the current nomenclature of analytic baseball, strikeouts are non-productive outs though. With the recent escalation of both strikeouts and home runs in the game, I suspect that someday an Aaron Judge Jr will hit 90 home runs and strike out 300 times. Will such an AJ Jr be considered favorably to Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle? I haven't a clue.

Judge as a 25 year-old rookie, who appeared this year out of nowhere, remains unproven. Time will tell. I hope he knocks the train off the tracks in Houston and hits 10 home runs in the World Series. Hopefully for your sake, none of the 10 will be off Kershaw.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Jake, as I said before, the games need to be played to determine the outcome. If the Cubs win the series, I will not be upset. If the Dodgers win, that's fine too. I have a friend who could get me tickets to see Kershaw pitch in the World Series.

Stating that Judge struck out over 200 times in the regular season is not a positive or negative view. It is simply a statistic. In the current nomenclature of analytic baseball, strikeouts are non-productive outs though. With the recent escalation of both strikeouts and home runs in the game, I suspect that someday an Aaron Judge Jr will hit 90 home runs and strike out 300 times. Will such an AJ Jr be considered favorably to Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle? I haven't a clue.

Judge as a 25 year-old rookie, who appeared this year out of nowhere, remains unproven. Time will tell. I hope he knocks the train off the tracks in Houston and hits 10 home runs in the World Series. Hopefully for your sake, none of the 10 will be off Kershaw.

when hit 50+ home runs with a decent walk rate, we disagree that strikeouts are non-productive outs especially with nobody on base due to the opportunity to hit a a home run with the risk of the k versus ensuring no k but making a ground out/single etc. Its a least arguable that your statement is wrong. He's been proving it this whole year. So it does appear still you have a bias and not just stating facts.

Plus the walks dont hurt either. I am just focusing on this year and the playoffs. Next year is next year.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

when hit 50+ home runs with a decent walk rate, we disagree that strikeouts are non-productive outs especially with nobody on base due to the opportunity to hit a a home run with the risk of the k versus ensuring no k but making a ground out/single etc. Its a least arguable that your statement is wrong. He's been proving it this whole year. So it does appear still you have a bias and not just stating facts.

Plus the walks dont hurt either. I am just focusing on this year and the playoffs. Next year is next year.

2017
Judge 208 K with 52 HR and 114 RBI = 62 teammates batted in
Rizzo 90 K with 32 HR with 109 RBI = 77 teammates batted in
Just the facts, Ma'am

[rats60]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

when hit 50+ home runs with a decent walk rate, we disagree that strikeouts are non-productive outs especially with nobody on base due to the opportunity to hit a a home run with the risk of the k versus ensuring no k but making a ground out/single etc. Its a least arguable that your statement is wrong. He's been proving it this whole year. So it does appear still you have a bias and not just stating facts.

Plus the walks dont hurt either. I am just focusing on this year and the playoffs. Next year is next year.

With bases empty Judge struck out 43% of the time. With RISP, he still struck out 36% of the time. With a runner on 3rd, 41%. His strike outs were still a big problem in key situations. Not being able to put the ball in play cost his team runs.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by rats60

With bases empty Judge struck out 43% of the time. With RISP, he still struck out 36% of the time. With a runner on 3rd, 41%. His strike outs were still a big problem in key situations. Not being able to put the ball in play cost his team runs.

What are the numbers in the playoffs? He may have the best numbers on his team.

[frankbmd]

Barry's (Hi Barry) initial post in this thread sought an explanation for the fact that a team that goes 55-11 and then suddenly falls into a horrible slump going 1-17 for no easily apparent reason. Baseball, as we all know, is a measurable sport rife with statistics. We all recognize in any given year there are a few teams that seem destined for success and then there are a few teams that are god-awful. But on any given day a god-awful team can beat a team of destiny. It happens every year, sometimes for a day, sometimes for a series and this year sometimes for several weeks. The allure of baseball is the interplay between its randomness and its predictability (as determined the flood of statistics it generates). How many times have you watched a game and seen a play occur that you have never seen (or perhaps can't remember) before? After 60+ years of watching the game, it still happens.

The Dodgers winning ways in July and August were perhaps too good. Their announcers in late August speculated daily about how many games they would win and on what day they would top the record of 116. Not doing so was a possibility they never considered before the slump. Their losing ways in September were perhaps too bad. To shift overnight from being the team of ultimate destiny to a god-awful nine seemed unprecedented, but it happened.

Meanwhile the Indians streak emerged with only 4 losses (I think) in the last 5 weeks of the season. Did Francona suddenly become that good and Roberts suddenly become that bad as managers? Of course not.

But September certainly set the table for a lot of speculation about the post-season.

The "stats" or numbers were the attraction of the game for me at a young age. I'm a math guy, just born 10 years to soon and in the wrong place to become Bill Gates. In statistics, randomness can be measured to a certain degree by calculating standard deviations from the mean. The streaks of the Dodgers and the streak of the Indians this season both represent a greater standard deviation from expected results than in years past and perhaps in any past year. Because of the lengthy season, the final record of both the Dodgers and Indians approached their "mean" or expected result. Both teams ended up winning their divisions but neither was as good as their streaks might suggest.

The odds of winning in the post-season are speculation, determined by some on the basis of statistics and determined in Vegas by the money bet on each team. As in baseball, on any given day some gamblers win and some lose. I suppose in some sense the appeal of baseball (or any other game) is analogous to the appeal of gambling (with the obvious difference being the bookies cut in the latter).

Remember though on any given day the god-awful team can beat the team of destiny. Could a team win 162 games or lose 162 games in a single season? Sure, remotely possible but highly unlikely. But when you shift the framework to a single wild card game and short series of 5 or 7 games, the remote chance of an upset becomes a real possibility. I think the Dodgers won 21 or 22 consecutive series during their hot streak and then lost 6 in a row. In probability the result of an event is independent of the previous or subsequent event. If you flip a coin 28 times, one result would be 22 heads followed by 6 tails. Because the probability of heads or tails is 50%, the prior sequence is just as likely as the following sequential result:

H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T

But if you flip the coin 162 times or 162,000 times the preponderance of aggregate results will cluster around the 50-50 line.

So, without introducing any vitriol regarding the merits or liabilities of individual players, as we have seen in the past, any team that makes it into the post-season has more than a minuscule chance of winning any individual game or short series or the whole enchilada. The randomness of baseball will prevail. That is precisely why the games have to be played to determine the winner and loser, and also why we watch them. Play ball!!!

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Barry's (Hi Barry) initial post in this thread sought an explanation for the fact that a team that goes 55-11 and then suddenly falls into a horrible slump going 1-17 for no easily apparent reason. Baseball, as we all know, is a measurable sport rife with statistics. We all recognize in any given year there are a few teams that seem destined for success and then there are a few teams that are god-awful. But on any given day a god-awful team can beat a team of destiny. It happens every year, sometimes for a day, sometimes for a series and this year sometimes for several weeks. The allure of baseball is the interplay between its randomness and its predictability (as determined the flood of statistics it generates). How many times have you watched a game and seen a play occur that you have never seen (or perhaps can't remember) before? After 60+ years of watching the game, it still happens.

The Dodgers winning ways in July and August were perhaps too good. Their announcers in late August speculated daily about how many games they would win and on what day they would top the record of 116. Not doing so was a possibility they never considered before the slump. Their losing ways in September were perhaps too bad. To shift overnight from being the team of ultimate destiny to a god-awful nine seemed unprecedented, but it happened. Maybe seager was the reason they lost all those games in that last month by others people logic.

Meanwhile the Indians streak emerged with only 4 losses (I think) in the last 5 weeks of the season. Did Francona suddenly become that good and Roberts suddenly become that bad as managers? Of course not.

But September certainly set the table for a lot of speculation about the post-season.

The "stats" or numbers were the attraction of the game for me at a young age. I'm a math guy, just born 10 years to soon and in the wrong place to become Bill Gates. In statistics, randomness can be measured to a certain degree by calculating standard deviations from the mean. The streaks of the Dodgers and the streak of the Indians this season both represent a greater standard deviation from expected results than in years past and perhaps in any past year. Because of the lengthy season, the final record of both the Dodgers and Indians approached their "mean" or expected result. Both teams ended up winning their divisions but neither was as good as their streaks might suggest.

The odds of winning in the post-season are speculation, determined by some on the basis of statistics and determined in Vegas by the money bet on each team. As in baseball, on any given day some gamblers win and some lose. I suppose in some sense the appeal of baseball (or any other game) is analogous to the appeal of gambling (with the obvious difference being the bookies cut in the latter).

Remember though on any given day the god-awful team can beat the team of destiny. Could a team win 162 games or lose 162 games in a single season? Sure, remotely possible but highly unlikely. But when you shift the framework to a single wild card game and short series of 5 or 7 games, the remote chance of an upset becomes a real possibility. I think the Dodgers won 21 or 22 consecutive series during their hot streak and then lost 6 in a row. In probability the result of an event is independent of the previous or subsequent event. If you flip a coin 28 times, one result would be 22 heads followed by 6 tails. Because the probability of heads or tails is 50%, the prior sequence is just as likely as the following sequential result:

H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T

But if you flip the coin 162 times or 162,000 times the preponderance of aggregate results will cluster around the 50-50 line.

So, without introducing any vitriol regarding the merits or liabilities of individual players, as we have seen in the past, any team that makes it into the post-season has more than a minuscule chance of winning any individual game or short series or the whole enchilada. The randomness of baseball will prevail. That is precisely why the games have to be played to determine the winner and loser, and also why we watch them. Play ball!!!

Or, perhaps the last month didnt really mean anything as I have said over and over with you. Losing games with your #3-#6 pitchers and using relievers that wont pitch in the playoffs don't matter. Hitters smoking AAAA pitching in the majors the last month of the season also doesnt mean as much as the other regular season months.

Theres always room for arguments but its not like i havent been saying the 'losing' by the dodgers meant nothing before the playoffs started. They have only lost 1 playoff game thus far. The Dodgers didnt have to play the games in my mind, they had so much margin for error they were going to the world series, and if they didnt, it wouldnt of been from anything we saw the last month.

Theres always a chance. A high school team can beat a major league team perhaps. Theres a reason there are betting odds. Theres chance but there are also more likely than not scenarios.

Basically, i didn't see any room for speculation for that 'losing streak' impact on the playoffs and thats how it easily turned out. Of course that it turned out exactly what i have been saying, i am still wrong.

[ALR-bishop]

Frank-- I think Jake has you on that last paragraph.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Or, perhaps the last month didnt really mean anything as I have said over and over with you. Losing games with your #3-#6 pitchers and using relievers that wont pitch in the playoffs don't matter. Hitters smoking AAAA pitching in the majors the last month of the season also doesnt mean as much as the other regular season months.

Theres always room for arguments but its not like i havent been saying the 'losing' by the dodgers meant nothing before the playoffs started. They have only lost 1 playoff game thus far. The Dodgers didnt have to play the games in my mind, they had so much margin for error they were going to the world series, and if they didnt, it wouldnt of been from anything we saw the last month.

Theres always a chance. A high school team can beat a major league team perhaps. Theres a reason there are betting odds. Theres chance but there are also more likely than not scenarios.

Basically, i didn't see any room for speculation for that 'losing streak' impact on the playoffs and thats how it easily turned out. Of course that it turned out exactly what i have been saying, i am still wrong.

With all that said what is your opinion on the Dodgers VS the Yankees or if they get real lucky the Astros? I honestly have not been fallowing that the playoffs have turned out exactly like you said.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Or, perhaps the last month didnt really mean anything as I have said over and over with you. Losing games with your #3-#6 pitchers and using relievers that wont pitch in the playoffs don't matter. Hitters smoking AAAA pitching in the majors the last month of the season also doesnt mean as much as the other regular season months.

Theres always room for arguments but its not like i havent been saying the 'losing' by the dodgers meant nothing before the playoffs started. They have only lost 1 playoff game thus far. The Dodgers didnt have to play the games in my mind, they had so much margin for error they were going to the world series, and if they didnt, it wouldnt of been from anything we saw the last month.

Theres always a chance. A high school team can beat a major league team perhaps. Theres a reason there are betting odds. Theres chance but there are also more likely than not scenarios.

Basically, i didn't see any room for speculation for that 'losing streak' impact on the playoffs and thats how it easily turned out. Of course that it turned out exactly what i have been saying, i am still wrong.

this is so very wrong and not based on fact that it kinda makes me laugh.


The results of the playoffs are predominantly random due to the amount of teams now invited . In fact, the playoffs are so driven by small sample sizes and random occurrences unrelated to team talent (such as hit sequencing, and bullpen performance in any given series) that if we were to put the worst team in each league into the playoffs as an experiment, one of them would win the WS around every decade or so. The playoffs are simply unrelated to regular season results (which a cursory look at the winners of the WS in the wildcard era will show)


P.S. the above are not my opinions but are mathematical facts based on probability and the actual results of the tournament relative to the team pool over time