MLB 2008

[Big Al]

Dan, I'm not sure I understand your point when you say "A run differential of 158." Does that mean the Red Sox score 158 MORE runs than the opposition or LESS? If it's less, then I see your point. If it's more, then it would seem to me that this year may be one of those years where no matter how good the Sox are, the Rays might be better.

[tkeith]

Dan, I'm not sure I understand your point when you say "A run differential of 158." Does that mean the Red Sox score 158 MORE runs than the opposition or LESS? If it's less, then I see your point. If it's more, then it would seem to me that this year may be one of those years where no matter how good the Sox are, the Rays might be better.

Thank you, my point exactly. The X-factor being that the Rays don't have post-season experience, and that matters. Dan, your argument might work in fantasy baseball, but doesn't really translate to MLB. Run differential could be skewed if they blowout a lot of teams. Fact is, they're a deep, solid team who went through a lot of nonsense with he-who-shall-not-be-named-in-this-post earlier this season. They're in second place by TWO FRIGGIN' GAMES to, arguably, the best team in the league this year if not all of baseball. In a few weeks, everybody is 0-0, and the Sox carry the lion's share of experience. They're not in bad shape at all, and certainly have not underachieved given the myriad injuries and assorted nonsense. If anything, they have grossly OVERachieved.

[Dan Gould]

Dan, I'm not sure I understand your point when you say "A run differential of 158." Does that mean the Red Sox score 158 MORE runs than the opposition or LESS? If it's less, then I see your point. If it's more, then it would seem to me that this year may be one of those years where no matter how good the Sox are, the Rays might be better.

The Red Sox have scored 158 runs more than they have allowed. No other team in contention (in the AL) has the same combination of hitting and pitching. For comparison, the Angels have a run differential of 63, the Rays is 86 (the Rangers are at negative 75, a remarkable testament to the incompetence of the pitching staff, the bane of your existence).

Runs scored and runs allowed have been used to create a "Pythagorean" theorem that predicts wins. The variation from those predicted wins might be described as underachieving, or plain old "luck" depending on which way it goes. The Hardball Times has the Angels at a remarkable +10 in wins compared to what their run differential would predict; the Rays are +6 while Boston is -3.

So yes, the Rays and the Angels are getting better results than they should, the Red Sox worse results, and in the end they will have to beat both of these blessed teams on the road in order to return to the World Series.

[papsrus]

There was a stat during the game last night that the Red Sox outscored the Rays during their 18 games against one another this season by something like 20 runs (80-60 ... something like that), yet the Rays won the season series 10-8.

I'm not much of a stats guy, but it's interesting to see which stats are more reliable as predictors. ... I'm always curious, for instance, when an announcer says something like, "Team X hasn't beaten Team Y at home in the past four years." Is that supposed to indicate it's unlikely to happen now, or is it supposed to mean it it's increasingly more likely to happen, given the law of averages.

[Quincy]

The X-factor being that the Rays don't have post-season experience, and that matters.

Bah.

2005 White Sox

2003 Marlins

2002 Angels

2001 D-backs

The Yankees have had lots of playoff experience in this century and no titles to show for it. I'll take the better team of the year, you can have the experience.

Dan, your argument might work in fantasy baseball, but doesn't really translate to MLB. Run differential could be skewed if they blowout a lot of teams.

No, it works in real baseball too. Every now & then there are cases where it doesn't, like last year's D-backs.

[Patrick]

The X-factor being that the Rays don't have post-season experience, and that matters.

Bah.

2005 White Sox

2003 Marlins

2002 Angels

2001 D-backs

The Yankees have had lots of playoff experience in this century and no titles to show for it. I'll take the better team of the year, you can have the experience.

I only wish the 1995 Indians would have been on your list. But with Red Sox and White Sox off the WS drought list, and hopefully the Cubs this year, perhaps it will be Tribe Time soon. Until then, I can get excited about sweeping the Twins at home after losing 3 of 4 to KC. .500 or bust!!!

[Big Al]

(the Rangers are at negative 75, a remarkable testament to the incompetence of the pitching staff, the bane of your existence).

Do the Rangers hold the lead in this, or does another team have a worse run differential than the Rangers? I'm being serious.

[ejp626]

Pretty tough comeback win for the Cubs, but a W is a W. 3 run homer in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out! And that only tied the game. They won it in the12th. Actually, probably good to have a couple comeback wins, and they seem to have weathered the worst of their mini-collapse pretty well. So now that the losing streak is over, time for the playoffs. Magic number is 2.

[Chuck Nessa]

[tkeith]

The X-factor being that the Rays don't have post-season experience, and that matters.

Bah.

2005 White Sox

2003 Marlins

2002 Angels

2001 D-backs

The Yankees have had lots of playoff experience in this century and no titles to show for it. I'll take the better team of the year, you can have the experience.

Bah back at you. The only team that goes against the argument is the '03 Marlins. The '05 White Sox had experienced players who'd done it elsewhere AND Ozzie (yes, manager's experience counts). '02 Angels had Scocia which counts for a lot! '01 D-Backs had a number of players who had been there, as well. Bah all you want, but the Sox have experience (and you can check the history on this) on their side. There are MANY teams that perform better in the regular season, but seems like the experienced team usually wins out in the end (again, '03 Marlins not knowing what they didn't know are the exception).

Dan, your argument might work in fantasy baseball, but doesn't really translate to MLB. Run differential could be skewed if they blowout a lot of teams.

No, it works in real baseball too. Every now & then there are cases where it doesn't, like last year's D-backs.

The Pythagorean won-loss is a nifty stat and it's frequently way off. It's designed by the hardcore SABRmetricians who analyze stats from the age of two yet rarely don a glove. The best team doesn't always win (01 Yankees, 03 Yankees, 02 Giants to name a few).

[Chuck Nessa]

I sure enjoy interrupting this AL thread once in a while.

[Dan Gould]

(the Rangers are at negative 75, a remarkable testament to the incompetence of the pitching staff, the bane of your existence).

Do the Rangers hold the lead in this, or does another team have a worse run differential than the Rangers? I'm being serious.

KC is at -115 and Seattle is at -129. San Fran, San Diego, Pittsburgh and Washington are over -100 in the NL.

[Dan Gould]

The Pythagorean won-loss is a nifty stat and it's frequently way off. It's designed by the hardcore SABRmetricians who analyze stats from the age of two yet rarely don a glove. The best team doesn't always win (01 Yankees, 03 Yankees, 02 Giants to name a few).

Shows what little you know. No one has ever used the Pythag to predict the results of a post-season series!

What the Pythag shows is that the Red Sox ought to be in a better position for the post-season because they ought to be in position to clinch home field advantage.

And as far as your "experience trumps all" after-the-fact explanation: can we formalize it in some way? Do we count up the players on each team that have made the playoffs with other teams, sort of a reverse "ex-Cub factor"??

[Chalupa]

Thanks Cubs.

[tkeith]

The Pythagorean won-loss is a nifty stat and it's frequently way off. It's designed by the hardcore SABRmetricians who analyze stats from the age of two yet rarely don a glove. The best team doesn't always win (01 Yankees, 03 Yankees, 02 Giants to name a few).

Shows what little you know. No one has ever used the Pythag to predict the results of a post-season series!

What the Pythag shows is that the Red Sox ought to be in a better position for the post-season because they ought to be in position to clinch home field advantage.

And as far as your "experience trumps all" after-the-fact explanation: can we formalize it in some way? Do we count up the players on each team that have made the playoffs with other teams, sort of a reverse "ex-Cub factor"??

No Dan. We watch the games and see what happens. Again, all I know comes from 40 years of watching and about 35 of playing. I'll just defer to your expertise.

[Quincy]

The '05 White Sox had experienced players who'd done it elsewhere AND Ozzie (yes, manager's experience counts).

Jermaine Dye. Freddy Garcia. There were 2 or 3 others who had one & done experience. But both the Red Sox and Angels had more "experience" in 2005. So this is a case of the less experienced team winning over the more experienced.

I'm sure Giants fans are forever grateful Dusty went with Livan in game 7 because of his experience. He should have gone with Gregg behind the plate.

As for the rest, welcome to the board Joe Morgan!

Edited September 19, 2008 by Quincy

[Quincy]

There's a study by Micheal Wolverton which examined players from post-WWII thru 2003 with at least 30 AB comparing their first playoff experience to their last. Batters performed better better as virgins (.755 OPS) than in their last postseason (.720 OPS.) Now obviously this could be skewed towards the decline in productivity due to old age, but it shows that ability trumps experience. Pitchers also performed better in their first playoff compared to their last (2.86 ERA vs. 3.50.)

And repeating myself, but before the rosters were expanded at the start of the month the Yankees had 24 guys with playoff experience. That sure hasn't helped 'em this year (nor have a buttload of injuries, duh), nor has the advantage in experience helped them win another World Series in the past 7 years.

Mind you I don't mind having players with some on my team, but I wouldn't care for those with the experience like Timlin had for the M's.

[Chalupa]

Thank you Atlanta!

Philadelphia is the first team to sweep a season series longer than four games in Atlanta. They swept three three-game series at Turner Field by a combined score of 49-24.

The closest the team came to being swept in franchise history was almost 100 years ago. In 1909, the Boston Doves lost all 11 home games to the Chicago Cubs.

The Phillies lead the season series 13-2, their most wins against the Braves in a season with three games remaining in Philadelphia next week.

[Big Al]

(the Rangers are at negative 75, a remarkable testament to the incompetence of the pitching staff, the bane of your existence).

Do the Rangers hold the lead in this, or does another team have a worse run differential than the Rangers? I'm being serious.

KC is at -115 and Seattle is at -129. San Fran, San Diego, Pittsburgh and Washington are over -100 in the NL.

That's nice to know..... I think.....

GO CUBS!!!!

[tkeith]

The '05 White Sox had experienced players who'd done it elsewhere AND Ozzie (yes, manager's experience counts).

Jermaine Dye. Freddy Garcia. There were 2 or 3 others who had one & done experience. But both the Red Sox and Angels had more "experience" in 2005. So this is a case of the less experienced team winning over the more experienced.

I'm sure Giants fans are forever grateful Dusty went with Livan in game 7 because of his experience. He should have gone with Gregg behind the plate.

As for the rest, welcome to the board Joe Morgan!

I didn't comment on degree of experience. Just being there matters. Is this a new concept?

[tkeith]

There's a study by Micheal Wolverton which examined players from post-WWII thru 2003 with at least 30 AB comparing their first playoff experience to their last. Batters performed better better as virgins (.755 OPS) than in their last postseason (.720 OPS.) Now obviously this could be skewed towards the decline in productivity due to old age, but it shows that ability trumps experience. Pitchers also performed better in their first playoff compared to their last (2.86 ERA vs. 3.50.)

And repeating myself, but before the rosters were expanded at the start of the month the Yankees had 24 guys with playoff experience. That sure hasn't helped 'em this year (nor have a buttload of injuries, duh), nor has the advantage in experience helped them win another World Series in the past 7 years.

Mind you I don't mind having players with some on my team, but I wouldn't care for those with the experience like Timlin had for the M's.

Fine. The Red Sox are doomed and Tampa Bay should be simply crowned. Dan is absolutely right and should never be questions. Egad! No wonder the Red Sox didn't win a championship for 86 years; many of their fans didn't deserve. Learn the game.

[Big Al]

Fine. The Red Sox are doomed and Tampa Bay should be simply crowned. Dan is absolutely right and should never be questions. Egad! No wonder the Red Sox didn't win a championship for 86 years; many of their fans didn't deserve. Learn the game.

You're catching on.

[Brad]

I hope the Cubs clinch this weekend, not because I like them but because they're coming to play the Mets next week and, with that bullpen, we need all the help we can get. Omar should be fired for the bullpen he put together. At the end of the year, just clean it out and start from scratch. Whatever you get can't be any worse then the pile of shit you have already

[Quincy]

Fine. The Red Sox are doomed and Tampa Bay should be simply crowned.

No, that's not it. It's just that the whole "experience" experience ends not being very meaningful when predicting who will win. And of course when comparing one obviously looks at degrees, otherwise (except in rare cases) every team has some that can be found (especially if one throws in College World Series experience.)

It's old news, but the best (yet not perfect) predictor is some function of OBP & SLG, probably leaning a tad towards OBP. But it isn't infallible. And that's a good thing, otherwise there'd be no reason to watch.

Peace.

[BERIGAN]

Thank you Atlanta!

Philadelphia is the first team to sweep a season series longer than four games in Atlanta. They swept three three-game series at Turner Field by a combined score of 49-24.

The closest the team came to being swept in franchise history was almost 100 years ago. In 1909, the Boston Doves lost all 11 home games to the Chicago Cubs.

The Phillies lead the season series 13-2, their most wins against the Braves in a season with three games remaining in Philadelphia next week.

Hey, glad we could help! I think our playing the Mets well in NY shows they are not quite a playoff team. So many nasty mets fans feel the need to inundate braves forums, I really end up disliking them more than the Phillies. Almost all of us are Phillies fans right now.