baseball playoffs

Peter_Spaeth · #1 10-19-2016, 08:47 AM

Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.

bravos4evr · #2 10-20-2016, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

tschock · #3 10-20-2016, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate.

Well, that has to be the silliest or most ass-backwards opening statement I've seen today. If something can be proven, would there be any point to even debate it?

In other words, wouldn't debating something that is proven be the height of pointlessness?

Peter_Spaeth · #4 10-20-2016, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

Enjoy your fangraphs, I'll take debates even if they are philosophical and empirical in part.

bravos4evr · #5 10-21-2016, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Enjoy your fangraphs, I'll take debates even if they are philosophical and empirical in part.

wtvr makes you happy booboo

Peter_Spaeth · #6 10-22-2016, 10:30 PM

Ugh, that Dodgers game. Spin time for Clayton post-season defenders, I guess.

KCRfan1 · #7 10-22-2016, 11:40 PM

Looking forward to the Series!

Should be fun!!!

1952boyntoncollector · #8 10-23-2016, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Ugh, that Dodgers game. Spin time for Clayton post-season defenders, I guess.

If kershaw wins the game hes the post season MVP (if they gave out an award today after the win) out of all players on all teams this year thus far so its not like this year was a black mark on his post season when his team won all but 1 of every postseason game he played in the postseason.

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

Anyway, dodgers werent winning the game anyway scoring zero runs but if want to say its all kershaw's fault the kershaw haters will say that.

Hendricks gave up 1 run in 2 starts and he lost as many games in the Dodgers series as Kershaw did the entire postseason...

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

Peter_Spaeth · #9 10-23-2016, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

If kershaw wins the game hes the post season MVP (if they gave out an award today after the win) out of all players on all teams this year thus far so its not like this year was a black mark on his post season when his team won all but 1 of every postseason game he played in the postseason.

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

Anyway, dodgers werent winning the game anyway scoring zero runs but if want to say its all kershaw's fault the kershaw haters will say that.

Hendricks gave up 1 run in 2 starts and he lost as many games in the Dodgers series as Kershaw did the entire postseason...

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

Next spinner?

rats60 · #10 10-23-2016, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

If you think kershaw post season this year was a black mark we were watching 2 different post seasons this year. '

If you think that a 4.44 ERA out of the guy who is supposed to be your best pitcher was good, then we were definitely watching different post seasons. That is what you would expect out of a #4 or 5 starter. It is bad when it is a future hofer.

itjclarke · #11 10-23-2016, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

1 loss doesnt make a horrible postseason. (ask Mad Baum on the Giants) The cubs are a pretty good team (ask Mad Baum) , but maybe the Indians will solve that. We shall see

Just gotta correct, Bum didn't lose in the LDS, he got touched up for 3 (all on Arrietta HR) runs over 5 innings, but the Giants eventually won 6-5 in 13 innings. Those 3 runs represented the first runs he's ever given up in an elimination game. His prior scoreless stretch in elimination games included, a 9 inning CG SHO in the 2014 WC game, 5 scoreless innings to close Game 7 of the 2014 WS and another 9 inning CG SHO in the 2016 WC game.

Add onto that a WS record that includes--- 8 SHO innings in the 2010 WS (as 21 year old rookie), 7 SHO innings in the 2012 WS, then in 2014-- 7 innings w/ 1 ER in game 1, a 9 inning CG SHO in game 5, and the 5 SHO innings to close game 7. It's pretty amazing in its totality. Kershaw destroys Bum's regular season statistics and he's a likely a HOF, but he doesn't come close to touching Bum's record in October.

Peter_Spaeth · #12 10-20-2016, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

Just another form of your a prior assumption -- who says only that which can be conclusively resolved is worth debating?

KCRfan1 · #13 10-20-2016, 09:35 PM

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

This guy kills more rally's at the plate than preventing opponent runs.

clydepepper · #14 10-21-2016, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCRfan1

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

This guy kills more rally's at the plate than preventing opponent runs.

Yeah, that's why the Braves were willing to let him go.

His stance has always looked very uncomfortable. I hope he can spend the off-season re-inventing his approach.

He's built just like Kris Bryant...perhaps he can try that.

With that same kind of 'leverage' (as a tall player), he should be launching!

MCoxon · #15 10-21-2016, 08:50 AM

Humans crave certainty, predictability, and rationality. Evidenced lots of places (religion, economic theory, physics, conspiracy theories like that Oswald couldn't have been a lone gunman, because it bespeaks randomness and disproportionality for a nobody to kill the leader of the free world).

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.

chaddurbin · #16 10-21-2016, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCoxon

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.

this is probably wrong, i mean analytics is all about most of these things...ie the cubs' defensive positioning to suppress #3 and #4 of babip avg, the dodgers stacking 15 left-handed hitters against a rhp. these are meant to combat against some of the luck and randomness. don't know if you can ever quantify "clutch"...but there are stats about players' performance after the 7th in a game where run deficit is 2 or less, we're kind of getting there?

what computers can't analyze is the emotional impact of a hostile crowd in the brightest october lights and our physiological reaction to these stressors. in some of arod's postseason abs you can just tell he'd have no chance, or me personally with yasiel puig judging by his body language he's just gonna flail at 3 pitches with the bases juiced bottom of the 8th trailing 4-2...like he'd rather be in jamaica right then.

and this is where the analytics fanboy in me gets confused sometimes...by the number of course you'd rather have arod in there than slappy mcslap david eckstein or angel pagan...but just going by the eye test at least those guys won't shrink up and battle thru the at bat. that's where the great divide is atm and the 2 sides of grit/attitude vs. computer/analytics can't reconcile.

bravos4evr · #17 10-21-2016, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCoxon

Humans crave certainty, predictability, and rationality. Evidenced lots of places (religion, economic theory, physics, conspiracy theories like that Oswald couldn't have been a lone gunman, because it bespeaks randomness and disproportionality for a nobody to kill the leader of the free world).

But in baseball, especially short series, there is:
1) Underlying skill
2) Mental aspect ("clutch" or not)
3) Randomness
4) Luck

All 4 exist. Sabre-matricians want it to be #1 only. Historicals and qualitatives want it to be heavly weighted on #2. But #3 and #4 come into play a lot as well.

And, I don't think it's knowable how much is #1 vs. #2 vs. #3 vs. #4, either in any single series or in all series in the history of baseball.

I disagree with your conclusion, people into metrics understand all 4 are at play, they just focus on the one that can be measured. (and understand how the numbers point out the randomness and luck associated with the game, especially in small sample sizes)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Twins are in the playoffs!!!	nolemmings	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	2	05-10-2015 09:17 AM
Playoffs	alanu	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	8	10-15-2012 08:56 PM
More Playoffs??	SmokyBurgess	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	1	11-23-2010 10:41 AM
2010 baseball playoffs, who are you rooting for??	bobafett72	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	40	11-01-2010 09:51 PM
Today's Baseball and the Playoffs- O/T	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	65	10-16-2006 06:11 AM