Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1700231)

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?

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1701737)

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.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1703160)

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! ;)

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1703327)

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

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1703351)

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.

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1703353)

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

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1703351)

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.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1703358)

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.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1703414)

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.

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060 (Post 1703458)

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.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1700231)

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?

Originally Posted by ls7plus (Post 1704308)

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

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1704333)

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

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1704369)

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.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1704378)

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

.

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1704390)

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.;)

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1704435)

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

Originally Posted by bravos4evr (Post 1704440)

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)

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1704408)

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

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1704408)

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

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1704390)

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.;)

Originally Posted by bravos4evr (Post 1704440)

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)

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1704390)

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.;)

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1711385)

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.

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1711390)

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

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1711390)

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

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1711390)

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

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1711397)

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

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth (Post 1711632)

Badgers down the field. :D

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1711624)

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.:D

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1711624)

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.:D

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1711688)

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 :)

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1711700)

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.;)

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1711715)

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.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1711715)

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.

Originally Posted by rats60 (Post 1711766)

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.

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1712103)

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!!!

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1712117)

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.

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector (Post 1712117)

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.