baseball playoffs

[chaddurbin]

they are relievers because they couldn't cut it as starters...turning over a lineup 3x consistently is way harder than facing some random 6-7-8...that is why zach britton can't be a CY YOUNG candidate to me.

just found this article today talking about kershaw's playoffs clutchness and how he's a victim of being CLAYTON KERSHAW (spoiler: he's clutch)

https://theringer.com/clayton-kersha...610#.28z8dbf8r

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Ask the San Franciso Giants!..

but i did post a long time ago that closers shouldnt be in the same hall of fame as starting pitchers.....kershaw can get saves, but lets see a closer pitch 5-6 scoreless in an elimination game.... so i agree with you about the overrated issue

you can cherry pick anything to try and prove a point, but the evidence is that every year a handful of guys become closers, save 30+ and then disappear again. Good relievers are good and can close, or pitch whenever,bad relievers can have good years but eventually become bad again. I think too often people have confirmation bias when it comes to relief pitchers and their performance.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

you can cherry pick anything to try and prove a point, but the evidence is that every year a handful of guys become closers, save 30+ and then disappear again. Good relievers are good and can close, or pitch whenever,bad relievers can have good years but eventually become bad again. I think too often people have confirmation bias when it comes to relief pitchers and their performance.

same as starting pitchers..some are great for a year or 2 then disappear as well

sometimes it only takes a 2h of the year to implode

my comparison is HOF starting pitchers versus HOF closers so there is no cherry picking...i just can see the HOF starting pitchers doing a better job at closing then the closers could ever do as starting pitchers.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

same as starting pitchers..some are great for a year or 2 then disappear as well

sometimes it only takes a 2h of the year to implode

my comparison is HOF starting pitchers versus HOF closers so there is no cherry picking...i just can see the HOF starting pitchers doing a better job at closing then the closers could ever do as starting pitchers.

they are different jobs tho..... (tho I agree relievers should have a much tougher path to the HOF, and generally they have)


relief arms are the most volatile position in baseball from one year to the next, heck from one month to the next! Guys will post the best numbers in MLB and then be awful the following season. It's a tough gig.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

they are different jobs tho..... (tho I agree relievers should have a much tougher path to the HOF, and generally they have)


relief arms are the most volatile position in baseball from one year to the next, heck from one month to the next! Guys will post the best numbers in MLB and then be awful the following season. It's a tough gig.

or a guy like Rodney who can be a all star 1h and wasnt even roster worthy the 2h of the year

but same has happened with starting ptichers.... think the path should be much much tougher if any path for a reliever to be in the HOF..

its like special teams in football, you can be an all pro one year than cut the next year if you are a gunner etc..

[chaddurbin]

Was totally wrong about Cleveland.... They're scrappy! Toronto will not beat Cleveland playing 2-1 3-2 games. They need to take advantage of the fact that Carrasco and Salazar out.

[vintagebaseballcardguy]

If a team is going to beat Cleveland, they had better score some runs in the first 5 innings or so because when that bullpen takes over...

[irv]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

Was totally wrong about Cleveland.... They're scrappy! Toronto will not beat Cleveland playing 2-1 3-2 games. They need to take advantage of the fact that Carrasco and Salazar out.

Hats off to Cleveland but the Jays aren't playing anywhere near the level they are capable of.

I currently don't have a good feeling about this series and unless the Jays get it together quickly, I can see Cleveland winning both games in Toronto completing the sweep.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Now the short sample size is starting to return to the normal form for kershaw with his 1-0 victory

You will see the news outlets saying the dodgers won all 3 of his starts. Like i said, people focus on the individual and team Ws....

No way the Washington series is a blemish at all to his legacy with the key save and he was in line for two Ws.......

Dodgers only wins this postseason have come from games that Kershaw has either started or finished...

[botn]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Dodgers only wins this postseason have come from games that Kershaw has either started or finished...

Hmmm....you could be on to something, actually. I just realized all of the Dodgers' wins this season came with Kershaw on the team...and most of those he was in the dugout.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by botn

Hmmm....you could be on to something, actually. I just realized all of the Dodgers' wins this season came with Kershaw on the team...and most of those he was in the dugout.

I dont think anyone has ever questioned the performance of Kershaw during the regular season. The issue on this thread has been the postseason.

You can say the same thing about Koufax being in the dugout for most of the dodger wins....

I guess you are the first. Hmmm, You may be onto something......being wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by irv

Hats off to Cleveland but the Jays aren't playing anywhere near the level they are capable of.

I currently don't have a good feeling about this series and unless the Jays get it together quickly, I can see Cleveland winning both games in Toronto completing the sweep.

Now you, too, fear the Indians of Cleveland. (see my first post on thread)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Now the short sample size is starting to return to the normal form for kershaw with his 1-0 victory

You will see the news outlets saying the dodgers won all 3 of his starts. Like i said, people focus on the individual and team Ws....

No way the Washington series is a blemish at all to his legacy with the key save and he was in line for two Ws.......

Dodgers only wins this postseason have come from games that Kershaw has either started or finished...

Small sample size has nothing to do with it. Find me a sample without cherry picking of 13 regular season starts where (even including last night's gem) his stats are anywhere near as bad as his post-season stats. Instead of blaming sample size, it makes much more sense to me to say he had some very poor performances in years past, some OK but not up to par ones against the Nationals, and a phenomenal one yesterday. THAT was what you expect from the best pitcher in baseball.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Small sample size has nothing to do with it. Find me a sample without cherry picking of 13 regular season starts where (even including last night's gem) his stats are anywhere near as bad as his post-season stats. Instead of blaming sample size, it makes much more sense to me to say he had some very poor performances in years past, some OK but not up to par ones against the Nationals, and a phenomenal one yesterday. THAT was what you expect from the best pitcher in baseball.

you had said THIS year was a black mark though. Its obviously a short sample size when so many inherited runners scored and his recent performance on short days rest gives more credence to give him the benefit of the doubt on the past performances. His era is probably now close to 2.50 if only half of the inherited runners scored during the postseason

You were provided with many stats on the past performances that showed the amount of runs scored was not usual given the metrics in play. The recent performances are showing the numbers evening out.

Your quote was "The post season continues, IMO, to be a huge black mark on his otherwise astonishing career"

Lets face it, the narrative has changed. He has pitched in every post season victory this year for the Dodgers. I just dont see the Huge Black mark when you made that post, when he won the first 2 games he started which helped him earn another start in the second round and another victory. I mean it only took one more start to show right now he is having a TERRIFIC postseason.

You are allowed to not have as good numbers against 100 win teams overall then you do when you face the Braves/losing teams this year in the regular season. Postseason stats against elite teams are not expected to be as good as they are against the regular season teams.

[bravos4evr]

The #1 mistake fans make is they look at results and then deduce the quality of a decision made prior to said result in which to judge it's merits. But, that isn't really fair, a decision is either the right one or not at the time it is made, regardless of the results.

If you choose to leave a RHP in to face a lefty masher and he pops up, it might be the result you wanted but it was not the correct decision to make.


Take Kershaw's relief appearance for example. In an age where arms fall of left and right AND he had a back injury, bringing him out to close the game was silly and seemed more like a stunt than anything else. It's also a slap in the face to the pen. You pay these guys to finish games, if you aren't going to let them do that ,then why are they on the roster? If he ends up injured or get's lit up in his next start.... Dave Roberts will have a lot to answer for

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

You are allowed to not have as good numbers against 100 win teams overall then you do when you face the Braves/losing teams this year in the regular season. Postseason stats against elite teams are not expected to be as good as they are against the regular season teams.

Show me some statistics that back that up, because I could equally posit that hitters won't do as well against elite teams with better pitching staffs, and you end up chasing your tail.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Show me some statistics that back that up, because I could equally posit that hitters won't do as well against elite teams with better pitching staffs, and you end up chasing your tail.

Im going to take a wild guess that facing a 100-95 win teams with their #1 pitcher usually more than once and #2 (more than once sometimes )and #3 pitchers aer harder then facing teams that won 65-80 games and many of those games are facing those teams #4-#5 pitchers. In addition i going to assume facing a 95-100 win team lineup (starting lineup most of the time) will be tougher than 65 win lineups who also give off days during the regular season to starters and also use AAAA call ups who cant hold a full season job.

Just quick checking with a large sample size..i see roger clemens regular season era 3.12 and playoffs was 3.75 more than half a run higher, Chipper jones hit .303 for regular season and .287 in the post season..

kershaw's era would be in the mid 2s if half of the inherited runners didnt score and it may only takes another game or 2 for him to have an elite post season era.....thats a long way away from the conversation being they he has been terrible in the postseason

[clydepepper]

As hard as it is to believe, it appears that Andrew Miller was actually HIDDEN as a member of the New York Yankees!! AMAZING!!

His Stats so far this post-season:

5G - 9IP - 4H - 2BB - 20K - 0.00 ERA

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Metrics do not ignore "the human side" any more than batting avg, era or RBI's do. It's just a better, more accurate representation of statistics than the old baseball card stats. That's it. They are just stats. And just because something gives you a better chance at winning doesn't mean the results will pan out, but I would always prefer to increase my overall % rather than decrease it if given the opportunity (which is why I loathe so many mgrs who manage with their "gut" instead of data)

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now you, too, fear the Indians of Cleveland. (see my first post on thread)

Yep. I don't know if it's Cleveland's pitching or if the Jays are in a slump, or maybe a combination of both but at this point, I'd say the Jays are done and are likely going to ge swept.

They look off in every which way, hitting, fielding, everything. Something is up with that club, definitely not playing like they are capable of.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Im going to take a wild guess that facing a 100-95 win teams with their #1 pitcher usually more than once and #2 (more than once sometimes )and #3 pitchers aer harder then facing teams that won 65-80 games and many of those games are facing those teams #4-#5 pitchers. In addition i going to assume facing a 95-100 win team lineup (starting lineup most of the time) will be tougher than 65 win lineups who also give off days during the regular season to starters and also use AAAA call ups who cant hold a full season job.

Just quick checking with a large sample size..i see roger clemens regular season era 3.12 and playoffs was 3.75 more than half a run higher, Chipper jones hit .303 for regular season and .287 in the post season..

kershaw's era would be in the mid 2s if half of the inherited runners didnt score and it may only takes another game or 2 for him to have an elite post season era.....thats a long way away from the conversation being they he has been terrible in the postseason

So according to you both pitchers and batters do worse in the postseason? That makes no sense at all, can't have it both ways.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.

Why stop there, Watson could also replace the catcher and select the best pitch and location for each situation.

[Snapolit1]

Jays offense has gone back into a deep sleep apparently.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.

appeal to tradition logical fallacy


the new stats are simply better, and trying to go all flat earth about it doesn't change anything. one needs to either evolve or die.

I want a manager who can at least formulate a lineup and use the bullpen based on the best possible result via available information rather than "gut"

also, you aren't going to like this, but IMO, anything that can't be measured or shown to have direct influence can be ignored as without the ability to prove something, it becomes religion

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Small sample size has nothing to do with it. Find me a sample without cherry picking of 13 regular season starts where (even including last night's gem) his stats are anywhere near as bad as his post-season stats. Instead of blaming sample size, it makes much more sense to me to say he had some very poor performances in years past, some OK but not up to par ones against the Nationals, and a phenomenal one yesterday. THAT was what you expect from the best pitcher in baseball.

well your assertion here is incorrect though, playoff starts don't come all in a row like the regular season, they are spread out over many seasons so to do what you say is by it's very nature "cherry picking"


Very few, if any, players collect enough at bats or appearances in the postseason to provide enough data not tarnished by sample size. I mean, it's hardly fair to look at 60 inning and compare it to a career of 2000 innings because we know that the larger the sample the greater the stability of the numbers.


Go back and look at my post that compared Kershaw's regular season to playoffs, he's done pretty much the same thing just with worse results in BABIP and HR/FB this signals that it is most likely poor luck and sample size at play here.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

appeal to tradition logical fallacy


the new stats are simply better, and trying to go all flat earth about it doesn't change anything. one needs to either evolve or die.

I want a manager who can at least formulate a lineup and use the bullpen based on the best possible result via available information rather than "gut"

also, you aren't going to like this, but IMO, anything that can't be measured or shown to have direct influence can be ignored as without the ability to prove something, it becomes religion

What is it that they say in investing? Past performance does not guarantee future results. Same with stats. You can use the odds, or can ignore them when you deem appropriate. I don't think Ian is saying any different (though I know he can speak for himself).

[tschock]

Oh, and of course metrics ignore the human side. To say they can account for this FULLY is FOLLY. Please show me the metrics for pitchers performance after being injured by a drone.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

well your assertion here is incorrect though, playoff starts don't come all in a row like the regular season, they are spread out over many seasons so to do what you say is by it's very nature "cherry picking"


Very few, if any, players collect enough at bats or appearances in the postseason to provide enough data not tarnished by sample size. I mean, it's hardly fair to look at 60 inning and compare it to a career of 2000 innings because we know that the larger the sample the greater the stability of the numbers.


Go back and look at my post that compared Kershaw's regular season to playoffs, he's done pretty much the same thing just with worse results in BABIP and HR/FB this signals that it is most likely poor luck and sample size at play here.

As I posted before his OPS against is 100 points or close to it higher in the post-season. Want to spin that away too?

I guess by your logic we should throw out all the legendary great post season performances too, like Mathewson, Gibson, etc. Just coincidence from small sample sizes that they pitched their best games under that pressure. Could just as easily have pitched their worst games.

You remind me of a poli sci professor I had in college. He was obsessed with data, his life's work was to come up with equations for predicting the likelihood of wars at any given time. Human considerations had nothing to do with it.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by tschock

Oh, and of course metrics ignore the human side. To say they can account for this FULLY is FOLLY. Please show me the metrics for pitchers performance after being injured by a drone.

no numbers can account for the human side, nobody is arguing this, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims of how important the "intangibles" are when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim. I'm sure these intangibles exist and make a small impact, but being that there "optimizations" that can be made, wouldn't you prefer a mgr who understands them and utilizes them as much as possible?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I posted before his OPS against is 100 points or close to it higher in the post-season. Want to spin that away too?

I guess by your logic we should throw out all the legendary great post season performances too, like Mathewson, Gibson, etc. Just coincidence from small sample sizes that they pitched their best games under that pressure. Could just as easily have pitched their worst games.

You remind me of a poli sci professor I had in college. He was obsessed with data, his life's work was to come up with equations for predicting the likelihood of wars at any given time. Human considerations had nothing to do with it.

Argument from incredulity.....

any given performance can be good or bad, to claim that said performance is a reflection on a person't ability as an entire is fallacious. (ie: "Kershaw is a bad playoff pitcher") Those players you mentioned had great playoff numbers, but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

Clutch is a myth as a skill, the numbers bare this out, good pitchers pitch good, bad hitters hit bad, in any given start a bad/good player can do lots of different things with lots of different results, but the data says that when the sample size reaches a certain threshold they will perform at or around their career averages.

OPS against is a flawed stat as it overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP (and ignores BABIP)


Baseball is a results game, it has statistics that tell us how people performed. If you ignore the facts in favor of whim or emotion you are guilty of confirmation bias and an argument based on this isn't worth the paper it's written on. btw, your poly-sci comparison is also a fallacy as predicting the likelihood of a war is not the same as studying the results of a baseball game. you use stats, you just don't use the new ones, but it's the same thing just more refined.


ETA: after his last start Kershaw's FIP in the playoffs is 2.92 (vs 2.55 for his career) his xFIP (park and league adjusted) is now 3.09 (vs 2.92 for his career) he is striking out 1 more per 9 in the playoffs, walking only .5 more per 9 he has been hurt by BABIP and HR/FB which shows he has been unlucky


this year his slash line looks like this 3.72 ERA 1.18 FIP 2.99 xFIP vs a regular season of 1.69 1.80 2.28 so pretty close to normal (and we would expect it to be a tad bit higher due to the overall quality of competition.



remember how everyone though Big Papi was "clutch?" carer wRC+ 140, in playoffs? 144, career wOBA .392, in playoffs? .398 not much difference at all.


Derek Jeter? 119 wRC+ career, 121 in playoffs

Jack Morris? career era and fip of 3.90/3.94 in playoffs 3.80/3.74

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

no numbers can account for the human side, nobody is arguing this, but it's intellectually dishonest to make claims of how important the "intangibles" are when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim.

As it is also to dismiss the "intangibles" when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim, right?

[Snapolit1]

I don't have a dog in the remaining fights, and realize that many many people are pulling for the Cubs, and it would be a great story for baseball of course, but I've been a little surprised by the level of . .. well, arrogance . . shown by a large segment of Cubs nation. Like its a foregone conclusion that its all done and over and the trophy is on its way to Wrigley Field. Newsflash: it doesn't matter how many games you win the regular season. It's which team gets hot at the right time. Cubs may well go on to win the whole shebang, but I would have thought that fans of a franchise with the Cubs history wouldn't be running out quite yet to get the Championship tattoos.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by tschock

As it is also to dismiss the "intangibles" when it's impossible to post any evidence to back up said claim, right?

not at all, anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I bare no burden to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim to the positive

[bravos4evr]

If you say you have an invisible dragon in your garage I can try and ask question to ascertain the truth, but I carry no burden to prove it DOESN'T exist. You are obligated to prove it does or your claim can be dismissed as nonsense.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

....but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

remember how everyone though Big Papi was "clutch?" carer wRC+ 140, in playoffs? 144, career wOBA .392, in playoffs? .398 not much difference at all.

Perhaps the sample size was not large enough, eh? At least if you are going to use statistics, use meaningful ones. Not every at playoff AB is a 'clutch' AB, is it?

But it does get back to the point. Good managers use stats. Better managers know when to ignore the stats, more based on the 'flow' of the game than just 'gut feel', as you would propose. To level set though, I would really LOVE to see an analysis of managers decisions that went against 'conventional wisdom' or the what the stats said and see how they fared. How did those that deviate from the stats fare in crucial situations? Until someone can provide a meaningful comparison, the rest is just hand waving.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

not at all, anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I bare no burden to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim to the positive

Your 'assumption' is that it is a "small impact"? You are claiming this without evidence. So I am dismissing it until you prove otherwise. You made that claim, not me.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by tschock

Your 'assumption' is that it is a "small impact"? You are claiming this without evidence. So I am dismissing it until you prove otherwise. You made that claim, not me.

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

You seem to think baseball is like a giant APBA game where given enough at bats or innings pitched all players will approach the stats predicted by their cards. Every game is the same, and players are essentially fixed in their abilities, and over time everyone will regress to their mean (if I am using that term correctly, I forget my statistics). I don't buy it; to me even if I can't prove it statistically I can confidently say there are players who perform better or worse under the pressure of big games or situations and anomalies are not just sample size. In other words, I don't buy this reductionist approach. Yeah, I am sure you can identify some logical flaw in the argument, but I think you are making some unwarranted a priori assumptions as well.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Jays offense has gone back into a deep sleep apparently.

Big, much needed, do or die win today for the Jays!

Glad to finally see their bats come alive and score some runs.

If I were the Indians, I'd be a little worried right about now as I think the Giant has been awoken!

[chaddurbin]

up 3-0 i don't understand the need to throw kluber out there on 3 day rest...at worst you have a free game and if it's 3-1 you can let him go tomorrow. now probably the soonest he comes back is game 7...the jays should feel good about the majority of tribes' SP is out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

up 3-0 i don't understand the need to throw kluber out there on 3 day rest...at worst you have a free game and if it's 3-1 you can let him go tomorrow. now probably the soonest he comes back is game 7...the jays should feel good about the majority of tribes' SP is out.

He didn't pitch that badly, 2 runs 4 hits in 5 innings. I can understand Francona wanting to close this thing out, and his aggressive managing has largely paid off recently. I probably would have saved him for the next game but I think it's difficult to criticize the decision too harshly.

[KCRfan1]

Heard an interesting take today.

Going into the playoffs, beware of the team with the biggest chip on their shoulder. The Indians may not be the best team on paper, but they do have the biggest chip on their shoulders. And that goes a long way.

This brings the human element back in the game, and players / teams who rise to the occasion.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

I can't imagine you really believe all this stuff... or at least I'll tell myself that in hopes of not getting fully hooked. I also cannot imagine you believe the "clutch is myth".

The beauty of postseason anything is that once these guys reach their sport's respective pinnacles, they have to perform, right then a there. No BS about small sample size. Would you argue that Madison Bumgarner's 0.25 ERA over 36 innings in WS play is too small to matter? or his 18 scoreless innings in winner take all Wild Card games (2 complete game road shut outs). Or on the flip side when some other Cy Young worthy guy like David Price gets blasted over a similar post season sample size?

Sure you can argue that these guys' playoff sample sizes are too small to judge, and were they perhaps to get 162 games of postseason, they'd eventually perform to their career averages. I think that argument is BS, but I'll humor it. Sure some guys like Jeter are incredibly consistent, post season or regular (that's great), but there are also some that clearly fold while others rise. Check out guys like Ryan Vogelsong, Matt Cain, Timmy, Javier Lopez, Jeremy Affeldt, etc... all who's post season #'s far exceed regular. Anyway, the problem with the small sample size argument is that many of the guys in the post season (this year included) will probably NEVER get another chance to perform. That's one of the beauties of these moments... Howard Emke, Don Larsen, Francisco Cabrera.. this post season, Conner Gillaspie. Some guys step up that moment and grab it. It doesn't matter, and is not even worth arguing that sample sizes are too small, or that performance would have evened out over a longer duration, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THOSE EXTRA GAMES!!

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

With regards to intangibles and team chemistry, I think there's a lot there and though again probably nothing that can be proven via baseball's metrics. That doesn't mean they're not important, even essential to a team's success, just that mathematics don't yet understand. There are players who time and time again not only rise to the occasion, but help bring others around them along for the ride. Not to keep coming back to the Giants, but MadBum vs the Mets is a prime example. The guy is napping on the bus to CitiField, is dead calm before, during and even after the game. I think his calmness feeds into other players' confidence. Joe Montana breaking the ice by spotting John Candy before his game winning 92 yard TD drive in SB XXIII is another prime example. On the flip side, there are examples like the aforementioned Nick Anderson, or what I watched this year in SF with Santiago Casilla and an eventual meltdown within the entire bullpen. Funny thing about that latter, the SF bullpen was pretty good in every inning but the 9th. You think those guys weren't affected by the pressure the came with that moment?? And do you think it's not important that a manager can try to wade through these very human emotions (flaws or strengths), in addition to statistics, to determine who's best and when?

Re- chemistry, Matt Duffy wrote a nice little article on Derek Jeter's web site. He said that when he made the jump to the Giants straight from AA ball, there was no hazing. Instead he was immediately engaged by all star caliber players like Hunter Pence who went out of their way to make him comfortable. That comfort showed early in his MLB career as he was confident enough to try (and succeed) to score from 2nd on WP to tie game 2 of the NLCS in the 9th. This is a late season call up, a rookie who barely made the postseason roster, and was put in to pinch run down 1 run in the 9th. If he gets thrown out at home, the game's over. If he stays at 3rd, no one thinks worse of him... yet he had the guts in that moment to take home. I think the ease he felt within that clubhouse may have gone a long way into how aggressively and instinctively he played that. Sure teams like the 1970's A's and Yankees were at each others' throats (Reggie Jackson is a common denominator) but I think most guys play better when they're comfortable (not all of course, see Barry Bonds or Kobe who needed the chips on their shoulder), and that most winning teams have had very good chemistry... though I do admit winning begets good chemistry, while losing has the opposite effect.

[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.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So according to you both pitchers and batters do worse in the postseason? That makes no sense at all, can't have it both ways.

Yes you can when talking about elite guys. If they are only merely 'good' like you basically saying kershaw is compared to regular season he can still win games. An elite hitter can do worse than their regular season norms and win games. In the playoffs more so than the regular season there is also a tendency to make a lesser hitter beat you and we get the aaron boones of the world make their mark.

In terms of the Cubs being a foregone conclusion to win everything. Its like this every year in the NBA playoffs..unless its 3-0 in a best of 7, there really no reason to say who has won or lost the series until it plays out. How many times has a home team won 2 games and its suddenly 'over' for the away team who than returns the favor and they suddenly its 'over' again and then they lose the next game and so forth.

The dodgers did beat a 104 win Oakland team in 1988 (4 games to 1 ). I do no think that 1988 Oakland team was worse than this cubs team and it can be argued that this years dodgers team is better than the 1988 team. Mcgwire and Canseco were terrible in that world series.

Lets see the series play out. Kershaw certainly has the chance to add to his now post season legacy.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

man you forgot to mention Jon Starks as well...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think Kershaw should start every game from now on, and if they need a reliever, they can bring him in.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I tend to think SSS is largely at play here with a bit of bad luck on BABIP and perhaps a little more aggressive approach by batter's faced in the playoffs.

career (regular season)

K/9: 9.81 BB/9: 2.44 HR/FB: 7.0% BABIP: .271 ERA: 2.37 FIP:2.55


career (playoffs)

K/9: 11.20 BB/9: 3.07 HR/FB: 10.7% BABIP: .311 ERA: 4.83 FIP: 3.04




this tells me that he's getting a little bit unlucky on balls in play(either by placement or bad defensive range behind him) and plays a little more to league avg in HR/FB as his K's go up as do walks, but not so much as to be a problem really.

If he were to have say 60 more playoff games I would expect to see his era and fip closer toward his regular season avg.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Argument from incredulity.....

any given performance can be good or bad, to claim that said performance is a reflection on a person't ability as an entire is fallacious. (ie: "Kershaw is a bad playoff pitcher") Those players you mentioned had great playoff numbers, but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

Clutch is a myth as a skill, the numbers bare this out, good pitchers pitch good, bad hitters hit bad, in any given start a bad/good player can do lots of different things with lots of different results, but the data says that when the sample size reaches a certain threshold they will perform at or around their career averages.

OPS against is a flawed stat as it overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP (and ignores BABIP)


Baseball is a results game, it has statistics that tell us how people performed. If you ignore the facts in favor of whim or emotion you are guilty of confirmation bias and an argument based on this isn't worth the paper it's written on. btw, your poly-sci comparison is also a fallacy as predicting the likelihood of a war is not the same as studying the results of a baseball game. you use stats, you just don't use the new ones, but it's the same thing just more refined.


ETA: after his last start Kershaw's FIP in the playoffs is 2.92 (vs 2.55 for his career) his xFIP (park and league adjusted) is now 3.09 (vs 2.92 for his career) he is striking out 1 more per 9 in the playoffs, walking only .5 more per 9 he has been hurt by BABIP and HR/FB which shows he has been unlucky.

I would suggest that you watch Kershaw's games instead of just looking at stats. Kershaw's ERA is high because he has been shelled. When you give up a series of hard hit balls, your BABIP is going to be higher. He is not giving up 4, 5, 6 runs in innings because other teams have been lucky. It has been because Kershaw has pitched poorly and the other team has pounded him.

I'm not sure how you come up with luck involving giving up more HRs. Again, it is Kershaw making mistakes and getting pounded. What HR that he allowed was bad luck?

It is funny that you claim someone else's post is "myth" because your claims about Kershaw are myth. BABIP is influenced by defense and how hard balls are hit much more than luck. The highest BABIP for a season: Babe Ruth. The highest BABIP for a career: Ty Cobb. I guess you think those guys weren't very good, they were just the luckiest players of all time. However, if you watch the innings where Kershaw has given up runs, it is not because of weak seeing eye singles or bloop hits, it is because of a series of hard hit balls. There is no bad luck involved, in fact it would be Kershaw who would have had to have been incredibly lucky to have not given up big innings.

This article might explain it a little better in the context of false claims this season that the Cubs staff has been good because of luck and defense.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...heir-own-luck/

That leads to a larger takeaway from our models: Leaguewide, the impact of pitchers’ contact management is more than twice that of defense, which seems to contradict the traditional defense-independent pitching theory that most pitchers have little ability to prevent hits on balls in play.

Still, we can conclude that the Cubs’ historically low BABIP through their first 69 games isn’t merely luck. One way or another, the Cubs have earned a lot of those outs.

[irv]

Originally Posted by irv

Big, much needed, do or die win today for the Jays!

Glad to finally see their bats come alive and score some runs.

If I were the Indians, I'd be a little worried right about now as I think the Giant has been awoken!

Guess the Indians weren't too worried after all.

Great job by their starting pitcher today! Well deserved win by the whole club.

Good luck in the World Series.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think Kershaw should start every game from now on, and if they need a reliever, they can bring him in.

I think we would of seen what would have happened if Urias started instead of Kershaw pitched in the National series....giving up the first runs of the game always the toughest...putting up early zeros means a lot even if you give up runs later on when your team is already ahead