baseball playoffs

[KCRfan1]

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

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

[clydepepper]

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]

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]

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.

[chaddurbin]

re: kershaw being hit hard in postseason...i remember most of his starts, can't recall many instances where he was really hit hard. i do remember him giving up a 2-run bomb matt adams bottom 7th in st louis pitching on 3-days rest where if the dodgers had a better bullpen he should've been lifted after 6...and that wacky game against wainwright where each SP gave up like 6-7 runs it was alot of dinks and dunks and people were wondering if the cards were stealing signs.

re: urias start at home vs cubs being comparable to a would've been start game 4 against washington. this is silly, totally different circumstances cubs are pretty good against lefties their best hitter is rh bryant vs a depleted washington roster where both their best bats murphy harper were lefties and the biggest rh threat was werth.

i'm not too result-oriented you trust the process/preparation and make the best decision in the moment with the data you have. a bad decision leading to a positive outcome doesn't mean you should repeat that mistake. i thought the complexion of the cubs-dodgers series changed on that agon out call at home...dodgers should've been up 1-0 with 2 runners on instead of what happened. but it wasn't a surprise the cubs finally woke up, i mean the dodgers are down to 2.5 good pitchers and the cubs are stacked.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

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.

confirmation and recency bias can skew your eye and opinion tho, this is why the numbers are best because they don't lie or care about situational opinions.

[bravos4evr]

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)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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)

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

2 can be easily measured in the case of Chokeshaw. How can such a talented player choke everytime in the postseason? 0-3 with an ERA over 6 in deciding games.

It's just small sample size booboo.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's just small sample size booboo.

nothing funnier than watching ignorant people revel in their stupidity.

"I don't like book learnin, it's fer nerds, mama gimme another possum pecker sandwich!"