Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
I also question some "oh it's too small a sample size" arguments. Those always seem to me to reflect cherry-picking, to dismiss inconvenient stats that don't fit the theory. We used to see that argument all the time here to rebut the theory that Kershaw was not a good post-season pitcher; his lousy performances were just random events and couldn't possibly reflect that he wilted under pressure. Of course after a full season worth of postseason outings there's still a huge disparity so maybe that argument has been retired.
Of course when the stats do fit the theory, we don't see the sample size argument so much.
|
And sometimes people don't look at it a little deeper (when they want to dismiss an argument). Like you said, it's not always just as simple as "postseason doesn't matter" because of the sample size.
Willie Mays hit one homer in 134 postseason plate appearances, and that was at the end of a game that was 8-1. So, basically none.
If you assume that 100 of Mays' 134 postseason PAs were relevant (for lack of a better word), the chance of him hitting no homers in those (given his lifetime HR rate) is around .005.
Even if you factor in how it's tougher to hit homers against the quality of championship-level pitching, that's still way too out there on the bell curve to assume that it's just random statistical noise.