Live postseason game thread (1 Viewer)

[Capella]

Sickening amount of pitching, probably enough to shut any team down in a short series. Glllllll

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Not an impressive finish by the victors tonight.

Fortunately Osuna knows home runs don't win in the playoffs, so giving up that bomb settled it all down and assured Toronto the win.

Please stop addressing the group as if tjnc is representative of all of us. It's bad enough when you exstrapolate one comment from one guy and elect him spokesman for an entire fan base. This is worse. You're embarrassing yourself.

Representative of what? I would never want to be mistaken for a Royals fan. The double rooting for the Cardinals and Royals from the majority of that fan base is the saddest thing in sports. I have them beating the Jays, then I hope they choke in the World Series just like last year.

His line "Home runs don't win in the playoffs" was a shot directed at you. Fan bases had nothing to do with it. Way to misread that entire exchange.ETA; how on earth did you draw the conclusion that the Royals rotation was deeper than Toronto's? Have you seen the Royals' SPs pitch?

I have seen the Royals starting pitchers. Have you seen the Blue Jays starting pitchers?

Yes. You didn't answer my question. How did you draw that conclusion?

You've made some bold claims about your intelligence and knowledge level, yet in these threads all you've done is pick fights, make logic errors, and in general rant like an immature jackass. I would much rather have an intelligent conversation with you, but I'm having my doubts about your capability to have one. So, pretty please, with sugar on it, how did you draw that conclusion?

 

[pantagrapher]

I think the Mets pitching is overrated right now. They're good and they have SP depth, but they're not as good as the Cubs are making them look, and their bullpen is OK. Familia is good, but he's no Wade Davis. Heck, he's no Herrera. I think the Royals offense will have plenty of success against them. The problem for the Royals is going to be that the Mets now have a pretty decent offense that's just as scrappy as their own, and I think they'll do well against KC's starters. KC has a better bullpen, but you can't just throw Davis and Herrera out there every game. I mean, I guess you can, but that's not ideal. I'd say KC takes the series in 6, but every game is going to be competitive.

 

[Dentist]

Sickening amount of pitching, probably enough to shut any team down in a short series. Glllllll

I've never heard of any of their pitchers except Colon... who appears to not even be in the post-season rotation.

I see they have plenty of power in the lineup though.... and pretty consistent mid range power top to bottom.

Who will DH?

 

[fred_1_15301]

Sickening amount of pitching, probably enough to shut any team down in a short series. Glllllll

I've never heard of any of their pitchers except Colon... who appears to not even be in the post-season rotation.

I see they have plenty of power in the lineup though.... and pretty consistent mid range power top to bottom.

Who will DH?

You've never heard of Matt Harvey? Wow.

 

[Dentist]

Sickening amount of pitching, probably enough to shut any team down in a short series. Glllllll

I've never heard of any of their pitchers except Colon... who appears to not even be in the post-season rotation.

I see they have plenty of power in the lineup though.... and pretty consistent mid range power top to bottom.

Who will DH?

You've never heard of Matt Harvey? Wow.

Nope. I really really don't follow the MLB as a whole. Pretty much just the Royals and some of their division, and I know almost zero NL players unless they are household names.

It's amazing the difference that playing fantasy sports makes.. I know a lot of offensive NFL players and as a result follow that league as a whole a lot better.

With baseball, I know every Royal, listen to a Royals weekly podcast, and tune in to at least 3-5 innings of probably 100+ games a year. But I usually don't even pay attention to the players on the other teams at all.

 

[RUSF18]

I think the Mets pitching is overrated right now. They're good and they have SP depth, but they're not as good as the Cubs are making them look, and their bullpen is OK. Familia is good, but he's no Wade Davis. Heck, he's no Herrera. I think the Royals offense will have plenty of success against them. The problem for the Royals is going to be that the Mets now have a pretty decent offense that's just as scrappy as their own, and I think they'll do well against KC's starters. KC has a better bullpen, but you can't just throw Davis and Herrera out there every game. I mean, I guess you can, but that's not ideal. I'd say KC takes the series in 6, but every game is going to be competitive.

15 hits allowed through 3 playoff games against a very good offense = overrated. Got it.

 

[pantagrapher]

I think the Mets pitching is overrated right now. They're good and they have SP depth, but they're not as good as the Cubs are making them look, and their bullpen is OK. Familia is good, but he's no Wade Davis. Heck, he's no Herrera. I think the Royals offense will have plenty of success against them. The problem for the Royals is going to be that the Mets now have a pretty decent offense that's just as scrappy as their own, and I think they'll do well against KC's starters. KC has a better bullpen, but you can't just throw Davis and Herrera out there every game. I mean, I guess you can, but that's not ideal. I'd say KC takes the series in 6, but every game is going to be competitive.

15 hits allowed through 3 playoff games against a very good offense = overrated. Got it.

Glad you understand this simple concept.

 

[Eephus]

I think the Mets pitching is overrated right now. They're good and they have SP depth, but they're not as good as the Cubs are making them look, and their bullpen is OK. Familia is good, but he's no Wade Davis. Heck, he's no Herrera. I think the Royals offense will have plenty of success against them. The problem for the Royals is going to be that the Mets now have a pretty decent offense that's just as scrappy as their own, and I think they'll do well against KC's starters. KC has a better bullpen, but you can't just throw Davis and Herrera out there every game. I mean, I guess you can, but that's not ideal. I'd say KC takes the series in 6, but every game is going to be competitive.

15 hits allowed through 3 playoff games against a very good offense = overrated. Got it.

Glad you understand this simple concept.

The Cubs offense led the NL in strikeouts by a large margin and were near the bottom in batting average (tied w/ the Mets at .244). Their power made their overall production look a lot better but if the homers aren't flying, their offense can look bad. But three games is a small enough sample size that any offense can be shut down.

 

[DoubleG]

I think the Mets pitching is overrated right now. They're good and they have SP depth, but they're not as good as the Cubs are making them look, and their bullpen is OK. Familia is good, but he's no Wade Davis. Heck, he's no Herrera. I think the Royals offense will have plenty of success against them. The problem for the Royals is going to be that the Mets now have a pretty decent offense that's just as scrappy as their own, and I think they'll do well against KC's starters. KC has a better bullpen, but you can't just throw Davis and Herrera out there every game. I mean, I guess you can, but that's not ideal. I'd say KC takes the series in 6, but every game is going to be competitive.

15 hits allowed through 3 playoff games against a very good offense = overrated. Got it.

Glad you understand this simple concept.

The Cubs offense led the NL in strikeouts by a large margin and were near the bottom in batting average (tied w/ the Mets at .244). Their power made their overall production look a lot better but if the homers aren't flying, their offense can look bad. But three games is a small enough sample size that any offense can be shut down.

Which is Pantagrapher's point exactly (which I think is what you are trying to point out).

I do think it's also worth pointing out that the two games in New York were very cold which of course doesn't help hitters either. It's also worth noting that the Cubs during the regular season were one of the worst teams in baseball hitting off pitcher who threw 95+ mph.

All of these are reasons most (intelligent) Cub fans were actually pulling for the Dodgers. A warm weather team, with a weaker lineup and fewer fireballers.

On a side note, if I were MLB, I'd make Daniel Murphy pee in a cup though - this run is unreal. A guy who never had more than 14 regular season home runs has hit 6 off some of the best pitchers in baseball in the last two weeks. Sadly, it doesn't make you go "Wow!" - it makes you go "Hmmm?"

 

[pantagrapher]

I think the Mets pitching is overrated right now. They're good and they have SP depth, but they're not as good as the Cubs are making them look, and their bullpen is OK. Familia is good, but he's no Wade Davis. Heck, he's no Herrera. I think the Royals offense will have plenty of success against them. The problem for the Royals is going to be that the Mets now have a pretty decent offense that's just as scrappy as their own, and I think they'll do well against KC's starters. KC has a better bullpen, but you can't just throw Davis and Herrera out there every game. I mean, I guess you can, but that's not ideal. I'd say KC takes the series in 6, but every game is going to be competitive.

15 hits allowed through 3 playoff games against a very good offense = overrated. Got it.

Glad you understand this simple concept.

The Cubs offense led the NL in strikeouts by a large margin and were near the bottom in batting average (tied w/ the Mets at .244). Their power made their overall production look a lot better but if the homers aren't flying, their offense can look bad. But three games is a small enough sample size that any offense can be shut down.

Exactly. Also throw in some cold weather and the fact that this is largely a rookie lineup. But as I found out in the other thread, if you don't admit the greatness of Mets starters, some of their fans go bonkers. Maybe it'll take watching KC hit them well for them to come back to reality.

 

[tjnc09]

Not an impressive finish by the victors tonight.

Fortunately Osuna knows home runs don't win in the playoffs, so giving up that bomb settled it all down and assured Toronto the win.

Please stop addressing the group as if tjnc is representative of all of us. It's bad enough when you exstrapolate one comment from one guy and elect him spokesman for an entire fan base. This is worse. You're embarrassing yourself.

Representative of what? I would never want to be mistaken for a Royals fan. The double rooting for the Cardinals and Royals from the majority of that fan base is the saddest thing in sports. I have them beating the Jays, then I hope they choke in the World Series just like last year.

His line "Home runs don't win in the playoffs" was a shot directed at you. Fan bases had nothing to do with it. Way to misread that entire exchange.ETA; how on earth did you draw the conclusion that the Royals rotation was deeper than Toronto's? Have you seen the Royals' SPs pitch?

I have seen the Royals starting pitchers. Have you seen the Blue Jays starting pitchers?

Yes. You didn't answer my question. How did you draw that conclusion?

You've made some bold claims about your intelligence and knowledge level, yet in these threads all you've done is pick fights, make logic errors, and in general rant like an immature jackass. I would much rather have an intelligent conversation with you, but I'm having my doubts about your capability to have one. So, pretty please, with sugar on it, how did you draw that conclusion?

How can I have an intelligent conversation with someone who thinks all I have done is posted logic errors? Apparently if you disagree with me it's my logic that is flawed even though the actual results have suggested otherwise. You already disagreed with everything I said about the Mets. The same will happen here so exactly why would I waste my time?

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think the Mets pitching is overrated right now. They're good and they have SP depth, but they're not as good as the Cubs are making them look, and their bullpen is OK. Familia is good, but he's no Wade Davis. Heck, he's no Herrera. I think the Royals offense will have plenty of success against them. The problem for the Royals is going to be that the Mets now have a pretty decent offense that's just as scrappy as their own, and I think they'll do well against KC's starters. KC has a better bullpen, but you can't just throw Davis and Herrera out there every game. I mean, I guess you can, but that's not ideal. I'd say KC takes the series in 6, but every game is going to be competitive.

15 hits allowed through 3 playoff games against a very good offense = overrated. Got it.

Glad you understand this simple concept.

The Cubs offense led the NL in strikeouts by a large margin and were near the bottom in batting average (tied w/ the Mets at .244). Their power made their overall production look a lot better but if the homers aren't flying, their offense can look bad. But three games is a small enough sample size that any offense can be shut down.

Which is Pantagrapher's point exactly (which I think is what you are trying to point out).

I do think it's also worth pointing out that the two games in New York were very cold which of course doesn't help hitters either. It's also worth noting that the Cubs during the regular season were one of the worst teams in baseball hitting off pitcher who threw 95+ mph.

All of these are reasons most (intelligent) Cub fans were actually pulling for the Dodgers. A warm weather team, with a weaker lineup and fewer fireballers.

On a side note, if I were MLB, I'd make Daniel Murphy pee in a cup though - this run is unreal. A guy who never had more than 14 regular season home runs has hit 6 off some of the best pitchers in baseball in the last two weeks. Sadly, it doesn't make you go "Wow!" - it makes you go "Hmmm?"

This isn't how PEDs work. There's nothing about Murphy's incredible run to arouse suspicion. He's just really locked in. Bashing the ball like it's a homosexual or something.

Also, not sure where this notion of the Cubs as a great offense came from. They scored just six runs more than the Mets during the regular season. And like you say this was a horrible matchup from the get-go for a swing and miss team.

 

[the moops]

Well played tobias

 

[Good Posting Judge]

Did the devil visit Edinson Volquez in a dream or something? This guy's throwing smoke.

 

[Northern Voice]

Just ####### die already!!

 

[Capella]

Well what's another year.

 

[Snoopy]

Foghorn Leghorn is liking this game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYyHifLHp00

 

[Pipes]

Schwarber needs to go to the AL.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I don't believe what I just saw.

 

[fred_1_15301]

Can't be real. Total anomaly. Dude has to cool down in the WS right? right?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Can't be real. Total anomaly. Dude has to cool down in the WS right? right?

In the off-season. He has a new free agent contract looming.

 

[Annyong]

What happened?

 

[Annyong]

Oh Murphy. Yeah wtf.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Can't be real. Total anomaly. Dude has to cool down in the WS right? right?

It's a contract year, who knows.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

How can I have an intelligent conversation with someone who thinks all I have done is posted logic errors?

Devoting less time to picking fights and ranting like a child would be a good start. Devoting more time to posting substance is a pretty good idea, too. As of right now in the baseball threads, there's as much evidence you bet on the Mets because you really like the color orange as there is for any other argument. You have steadfastly refused to enter into any substantial discussion.

Apparently if you disagree with me it's my logic that is flawed even though the actual results have suggested otherwise.

That's not even close to anything I've said about you. Not even close.

We've disagreed on objective stuff, like your earlier post where you implied the the pitcher on the Cubs staff closest to the role Familia had on the Mets is Fernando Rodney. That's not an error in logic as much as it is a factual error.

You already disagreed with everything I said about the Mets.

That is not even close to true. You're making stuff up.

The same will happen here so exactly why would I waste my time?

Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.

I think you're actually a lot smarter than you've acted in these threads. Whether you choose to act it or not is on you. I have nothing to do with that choice. It's all yours.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

What happened?

The Cubs ended the Cardinals' season and advanced to the NLCS. After that it didn't go so well. But damn, there's a lot for Cubs fans to be happy and excited about for 2016 and beyond.

 

[larch]

What happened?

The Cubs ended the Cardinals' season and advanced to the NLCS. After that it didn't go so well. But damn, there's a lot for Cubs fans to be happy and excited about for 2016 and beyond.

If they make their starting rotation better.

 

[tjnc09]

How can I have an intelligent conversation with someone who thinks all I have done is posted logic errors?

Devoting less time to picking fights and ranting like a child would be a good start. Devoting more time to posting substance is a pretty good idea, too. As of right now in the baseball threads, there's as much evidence you bet on the Mets because you really like the color orange as there is for any other argument. You have steadfastly refused to enter into any substantial discussion.

Apparently if you disagree with me it's my logic that is flawed even though the actual results have suggested otherwise.

That's not even close to anything I've said about you. Not even close.

We've disagreed on objective stuff, like your earlier post where you implied the the pitcher on the Cubs staff closest to the role Familia had on the Mets is Fernando Rodney. That's not an error in logic as much as it is a factual error.

You already disagreed with everything I said about the Mets.

That is not even close to true. You're making stuff up.

The same will happen here so exactly why would I waste my time?

Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.

I think you're actually a lot smarter than you've acted in these threads. Whether you choose to act it or not is on you. I have nothing to do with that choice. It's all yours.

It is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation about the postseason because the majority of responses immediately cite regular season stats.

I say KC is better built for the series than Toronto. Cliff's response: One of the best offenses isn't built for the postseason is good shtick

I say I choose the Met's arms over Cubs bats. Fred's response: lol, Cubs have pitching and hitting. Wrigley posts the team ERAs from the regular season. You tell me "they have one of the best pitching staffs in the league this season outperforming the Mets in several categories knowledgable (sic) people use to measure pitching success" and "Just about every available quantitative and qualitative measure knowledgeable people use would say both teams have strong pitching"

I asked you specifically what are these "quantitative and qualitative measures" all these smart people are using and your response was I simply was being obtuse. It was a serious question that you didn't bother answering. There is a common fallacy that a larger sample (162 game season) is more useful than a short playoff series. Even people who write about baseball for a living fall into this trap. If that 162 game sample is identical in every way - sure, absolutely correct. But it is not even close. I already addressed this when I asked what does a Bartolo Colon August start have to do with the Cubs vs. Mets matchup we are trying to predict last week. There are numerous other issues such as weather, trades, starting pitching days, bullpen usage, etc. that mean it is incorrect statistically to use the regular season to predict postseason results.

The only way people should try to predict a postseason series is to do a game by game analysis of the projected lineups, starting pitchers, bullpen availability etc of that specific series. I will use a simple example to illustrate my point. Let's say the Cubs bat .500 vs. knuckleball pitchers and .100 vs. fastball pitchers. Their first postseason series was against a team whose starting rotation included four knuckleball pitchers. Now, after dominating that series, they face a team who has four elite fastball pitchers. Do you think they have as much success in that second series as they do in the first? Do you think their cumulative regular season batting average that includes facing all types of pitches - sliders, curveballs, knuckleballs, fastballs etc is very useful when you know the team they are facing relies heavily on fastballs? The amazing thing about baseball (and large sample sizes) is you can get a decent idea of how a certain batter does against a pitcher who relies heavily on certain types of pitches. That is completely different than saying the Cubs bat .xxx and the Mets bat .xxx so they must be similar teams. If you also include who will come out of the pen, better defensive stats, weather adjustments etc., I don't believe postseason results appear as random because of a "small sample size".

P.S. I know who the Cubs reliever is. My comment about Rodney was a knock on the Cubs. Naturally, when a team doesn't have as good of a starting rotation, the chance they bring in a middle reliever is greater than a team who has dominant starting pitching.

 

[Northern Voice]

I've responded with specific studies that outline all their work and you ignore them and say you know better than the people who do this for a living. Elo and 538 did the specific game by game analysis you talk of for the playoffs and picked Toronto, but again, you post on a message board, so you know more than them too.

 

[tjnc09]

I've responded with specific studies that outline all their work and you ignore them and say you know better than the people who do this for a living. Elo and 538 did the specific game by game analysis you talk of for the playoffs and picked Toronto, but again, you post on a message board, so you know more than them too.

You realize that Toronto is down 3-2 with two games left in KC, right? That makes complete sense why you think they are smarter than me.

 

[Northern Voice]

I've responded with specific studies that outline all their work and you ignore them and say you know better than the people who do this for a living. Elo and 538 did the specific game by game analysis you talk of for the playoffs and picked Toronto, but again, you post on a message board, so you know more than them too.

You realize that Toronto is down 3-2 with two games left in KC, right? That makes complete sense why you think they are smarter than me.

hah, okay... would you be so kind as to post your detailed analysis, as each one I cited did? Or is basically results are good = process must be right?

 

[tjnc09]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/best-2015-mlb-teams-blue-jays-elo/

Here were their projections on 10/6. Not really that great lol

I posted on 9/11 I was backing the Mets. I am pretty damn happy with how that is looking:

Dodgers for me (wagering implications)

Mets for me (wagering implications)

 

[Northern Voice]

So, no.

 

[TobiasFunke]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/best-2015-mlb-teams-blue-jays-elo/

Here were their projections on 10/6. Not really that great lol

I posted on 9/11 I was backing the Mets. I am pretty damn happy with how that is looking:

Dodgers for me (wagering implications)

Mets for me (wagering implications)

Those are not projections. They're probabilities. If you predict something has a 60% chance of happening and it doesn't happen you didn't get anything wrong.

Your failure to understand the difference the two is probably the reason you're not grasping what others are saying here.

 

[tjnc09]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/best-2015-mlb-teams-blue-jays-elo/

Here were their projections on 10/6. Not really that great lol

I posted on 9/11 I was backing the Mets. I am pretty damn happy with how that is looking:

Dodgers for me (wagering implications)

Mets for me (wagering implications)

Those are not projections. They're probabilities. If you predict something has a 60% chance of happening and it doesn't happen you didn't get anything wrong.

Your failure to understand the difference the two is probably the reason you're not grasping what others are saying here.

 

[tjnc09]

A: Hey, I think the Cardinals have the best chance to make the World Series of all the NL teams.

B: They didn't make it. Not close actually.

A: Oh, I wasn't wrong, I didn't give them a 100% chance of making the WS

lol

 

[tjnc09]

So, no.

No what?

 

[Peyton Marino]

ELO is kind of trash (from a predictive standpoint) as it doesn't factor in injuries at all and often differs wildly from betting markets (which generally means your model sucks).

 

[Northern Voice]

So, no.

No what?

No you have no tangible numbers whatsoever to back up your prediction, other than the 3-2 series lead.

 

[tjnc09]

So, no.

No what?

No you have no tangible numbers whatsoever to back up your prediction, other than the 3-2 series lead.

As you have already said twice, all I do is post on a message board. Why would I share that information for free?

 

[Northern Voice]

So, no.

No what?

No you have no tangible numbers whatsoever to back up your prediction, other than the 3-2 series lead.

As you have already said twice, all I do is post on a message board. Why would I share that information for free?

Because you go on at length about how you know more and your statistical analysis is unique. I and others post links to people who actually show their work and analysis and you say they are wrong with nothing to back it up except, "KC is up 3-2".

 

[Peyton Marino]

Just for fun, let's break down the Jays series on a game by game basis (based on 2016 Steamer projections, just released this morning):

G1: M. Estrada (4.48 ERA) vs. Edinson Volquez (4.29 ERA)

G2: D. Price (2.97 ERA) vs. Y. Ventura (3.51 ERA)

G3: M. Stroman (3.70 ERA) vs. J. Cueto (3.51 ERA)

G4: R. Dickey (4.29 ERA) vs. C. Young (3.97 ERA)

and then G5, G6 and G7 should be repeats of G1, G2, and G3. To the best of my knowledge, defense is included in this calculation, so no need to do an overlay there. Not going to dive into quantifying bullpens, but I don't think anyone would argue the Royals have the edge there. On the whole, the Royals have the edge on run prevention, but it is close. If we want to get especially nerdy here, Baseball Prospectus has Russell Martin as the 5th best pitch framer in 2015, whereas Perez is 74th.

Batting wise, based of off G5 lineups (should note I prefer ZIPS for hitting projections, but have not seen 2016 projections from them yet):

Jays

B. Revere 88 wRC+

J. Donaldson 131 wRC+

J. Bautista 137 wRC+

E. Encarnacion 135 wRC+

C. Colabello 107 wRC+

T. Tulowitzki 110 wRC+

R. Martin 105 wRC+

K. Pillar 97 wRC+

R. Goins 70 wRC+

Royals

A. Escobar 74 wRC+

B. Zobrist 114 wRC+

L. Cain 104 wRC+

E. Hosmer 117 wRC+

K. Morales 111 wRC+

M. Moustakas 106 wRC+

S. Perez 97 wRC+

A. Gordon 115 wRC+

A. Rios 80 wRC+

Just taking a simple average (admittedly not ideal as it should be weighted based on xPA), Jays hitters come out at an aggregate of 109 wRC+, Royals come out to 102. So, Jays expected to perform about 9% better than league average hitting, Royals expected to perform about 2% better. That Jays lineup is really good.

Considering the Royals have HFA and weighing the aforementioned factors, I think the Royals have a slight edge in pitching (mostly due to their bullpen, and even more so if you believe the Price playoffs narrative, which I don't), whereas the Jays have a pretty nice sized advantage in hitting. All in, I think the numbers suggest the Jays as the better team and the series favorites.

 

[Northern Voice]

Look, I don't care and believe there is way more randomness in MLB playoffs than most want to admit, just don't expect me to think you're not just talking out your ### because I believe you are.

Edit this was for tjnc obviously

 

[tjnc09]

Look, I don't care and believe there is way more randomness in MLB playoffs than most want to admit, just don't expect me to think you're not just talking out your ### because I believe you are.

Edit this was for tjnc obviously

I couldn't care less what you think of me. All I did was post a casual comment that I thought KC was better built for the series. I did the same thing regarding the Mets' arms and people have aneurysms when you say something poorly about the team they root for.

Maybe the Jays come back and you will have won the Internet.

 

[urbanhack]

Sickening amount of pitching, probably enough to shut any team down in a short series. Glllllll

I've never heard of any of their pitchers except Colon... who appears to not even be in the post-season rotation.

I see they have plenty of power in the lineup though.... and pretty consistent mid range power top to bottom.

Who will DH?

You've never heard of Matt Harvey? Wow.

Nope. I really really don't follow the MLB as a whole.

 

[Capella]

Sickening amount of pitching, probably enough to shut any team down in a short series. Glllllll

I've never heard of any of their pitchers except Colon... who appears to not even be in the post-season rotation.

I see they have plenty of power in the lineup though.... and pretty consistent mid range power top to bottom.

Who will DH?

You've never heard of Matt Harvey? Wow.

Nope. I really really don't follow the MLB as a whole.

I know Harvey but before the playoffs I only knew 2-3 players on each team.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

It is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation about the postseason because the majority of responses immediately cite regular season stats.

Regular season stats is often a good starting point for the discussion. I think some numbers are more important than others, but IMO there's nothing wrong with a couple of back-of-envelope calculations to get the conversation rolling. For me, seeing difference break out between the regular season and postseason is part of what makes the postseason interesting.

I say KC is better built for the series than Toronto. Cliff's response: One of the best offenses isn't built for the postseason is good shtick

I've i-known Cliff for a long time. He plays up and down to the level of the conversation. If you had said "KC is better built for the series because of X,Y,Z" you would have gotten a more substantive response from him. But since you made a statement that came off like it was fired straight from the Hot Take Cannon, you got what you got.

I say I choose the Met's arms over Cubs bats. Fred's response: lol, Cubs have pitching and hitting. Wrigley posts the team ERAs from the regular season. You tell me "they have one of the best pitching staffs in the league this season outperforming the Mets in several categories knowledgable (sic) people use to measure pitching success" and "Just about every available quantitative and qualitative measure knowledgeable people use would say both teams have strong pitching"

As usual, you're not telling the whole story. Again, difficult to have an intelligent conversation amidst all the misrepresentation.

Love the (sic) callback, BTW. Solid. Especially right behind your use of "Met's".

I asked you specifically what are these "quantitative and qualitative measures" all these smart people are using and your response was I simply was being obtuse. It was a serious question that you didn't bother answering.

In context, you were being obtuse. Plus, you're way behind on the Unanswered Question Scoreboard, so if you don't like questions left unanswered, be the change you want to see.

There is a common fallacy that a larger sample (162 game season) is more useful than a short playoff series. Even people who write about baseball for a living fall into this trap. If that 162 game sample is identical in every way - sure, absolutely correct. But it is not even close. I already addressed this when I asked what does a Bartolo Colon August start have to do with the Cubs vs. Mets matchup we are trying to predict last week. There are numerous other issues such as weather, trades, starting pitching days, bullpen usage, etc. that mean it is incorrect statistically to use the regular season to predict postseason results.

Sometimes people use statistics to start discussion, not end it. I'm generally sympathetic to what you are trying to saying here, but IMO you overstepped a bit on your conclusion and have made other statements inconsistent with it. And I'm saying that while giving you a pass on that awful lead sentence.

The only way people should try to predict a postseason series is to do a game by game analysis of the projected lineups, starting pitchers, bullpen availability etc of that specific series.

Whoa, whoa. Slow down, egghead. In the discussion you keep referring to, the only factors you listed were deep starting pitching and having the best relief pitcher. I know it seems like I keep humping that note on the piano, but I'm trying to help you understand the disconnect between how you think the discourse has gone inside you head versus what has actually happened in the threads.

There's a lot of ways to predict a postseason series. Some are better than others.

I find it fascinating how often you try to paint people and situations black-and-white. Just about everyone I know with a statistics background makes a strong effort to avoid that kind of behavior and discourse.

I will use a simple example to illustrate my point. Let's say the Cubs bat .500 vs. knuckleball pitchers and .100 vs. fastball pitchers. Their first postseason series was against a team whose starting rotation included four knuckleball pitchers. Now, after dominating that series, they face a team who has four elite fastball pitchers. Do you think they have as much success in that second series as they do in the first? Do you think their cumulative regular season batting average that includes facing all types of pitches - sliders, curveballs, knuckleballs, fastballs etc is very useful when you know the team they are facing relies heavily on fastballs? The amazing thing about baseball (and large sample sizes) is you can get a decent idea of how a certain batter does against a pitcher who relies heavily on certain types of pitches.

I agree with a lot of this. We've had discussions like these breaking down postseason series before. If you had led with this, you would have gotten about 80%-90% less flak than you've gotten.

However, this is a much different statement than ones you made earlier, when you summarily dismissed regular season stats.

You also didn't mention the ultraimportance of dismissing Bartolo Colon starts in August. Gotta remember to toss those out.

That is completely different than saying the Cubs bat .xxx and the Mets bat .xxx so they must be similar teams. If you also include who will come out of the pen, better defensive stats, weather adjustments etc., I don't believe postseason results appear as random because of a "small sample size".

Why the quotes? Is the postseason not a small sample size?

P.S. I know who the Cubs reliever is.

You probably do. However, there is still zero evidence in this forum that you do.

My comment about Rodney was a knock on the Cubs. Naturally, when a team doesn't have as good of a starting rotation, the chance they bring in a middle reliever is greater than a team who has dominant starting pitching.

Then your comment was logically flawed. You created a false equivalency between Rodney and Familia. Remember, at the time the only things you said mattered were SP depth and best reliever. So Rodney shouldn't have been a factor, but you brought him up anyway.

I know I was critical, but this was still my favorite post of yours in this forum. By a mile. Just remember if your arguments really are that compelling you won't have to misrepresent anyone's words, including your own.

 

[Bruce Dickinson]

Sickening amount of pitching, probably enough to shut any team down in a short series. Glllllll

I've never heard of any of their pitchers except Colon... who appears to not even be in the post-season rotation.

I see they have plenty of power in the lineup though.... and pretty consistent mid range power top to bottom.

Who will DH?

You've never heard of Matt Harvey? Wow.

Nope. I really really don't follow the MLB as a whole.

I know Harvey but before the playoffs I only knew 2-3 players on each team.

Yeah, if you don't play fantasy baseball and mostly just follow your own favorite team, it's easy for players from the other league to slip under your radar.

 

[Capella]

Unfortunately I played fantasy (poorly) this year