Red Sox / Cubs World Series? (1 Viewer)

[wilked]

Baseball Prospectus revealed its formula for postseason success...basically it has found 3 factors that correlate with winning in the playoffs -

Adjusted Strikeout Rate

Fielding

Closer performance

The article is free and published here

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=548

The numbers show a Red Sox / Cubs World Series

From the article:

The Red Sox, in fact, might be one of the best Secret Sauce teams of all time, ranking in the Top 3 in all three categories.

For reference, Cleveland is in the middle of the pack, LA in the top 5, Yankees in the top 10

 

[ThisGuy]

 

[wilked]

Not interesting?I know I have read in the past that those are the the three factors that translate to postseason success, but I thought it was interesting that they revealed the formula.

 

[ThisGuy]

Not interesting?I know I have read in the past that those are the the three factors that translate to postseason success, but I thought it was interesting that they revealed the formula.

How in the world does Ryan Dempster rank in the Top Anything in Closer Performance? I'll hang up now.

 

[shadyridr]

Fascinating being that I thought the Cubs were horrible this year

 

[wilked]

Not interesting?I know I have read in the past that those are the the three factors that translate to postseason success, but I thought it was interesting that they revealed the formula.

How in the world does Ryan Dempster rank in the Top Anything in Closer Performance? I'll hang up now.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't take the time to look, otherwise you need some reading help. From the chart, the Cubs WXRL is <3, ranking them 18th just behind Toronto and just above Texas. BP is not saying that Closer is the Cubs strength. They are saying they are tops in EqK9 and 3rd in fieldingHTH

 

[ThisGuy]

Not interesting?I know I have read in the past that those are the the three factors that translate to postseason success, but I thought it was interesting that they revealed the formula.

How in the world does Ryan Dempster rank in the Top Anything in Closer Performance? I'll hang up now.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't take the time to look, otherwise you need some reading help. From the chart, the Cubs WXRL is <3, ranking them 18th just behind Toronto and just above Texas. BP is not saying that Closer is the Cubs strength. They are saying they are tops in EqK9 and 3rd in fieldingHTH

Also, is this over the full season or say, since May 29th?Point is, the Dodgers are ranked 2nd on that list and they are golfing this October. Does this help with your putting, too?

 

[wilked]

Not interesting?I know I have read in the past that those are the the three factors that translate to postseason success, but I thought it was interesting that they revealed the formula.

How in the world does Ryan Dempster rank in the Top Anything in Closer Performance? I'll hang up now.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't take the time to look, otherwise you need some reading help. From the chart, the Cubs WXRL is <3, ranking them 18th just behind Toronto and just above Texas. BP is not saying that Closer is the Cubs strength. They are saying they are tops in EqK9 and 3rd in fieldingHTH

Also, is this over the full season or say, since May 29th?Point is, the Dodgers are ranked 2nd on that list and they are golfing this October. Does this help with your putting, too?

Once again, I assume you did not read the article. The article discusses what team qualities lead to postseason success, not regular season.HTH

 

[ThisGuy]

Not interesting?I know I have read in the past that those are the the three factors that translate to postseason success, but I thought it was interesting that they revealed the formula.

How in the world does Ryan Dempster rank in the Top Anything in Closer Performance? I'll hang up now.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't take the time to look, otherwise you need some reading help. From the chart, the Cubs WXRL is <3, ranking them 18th just behind Toronto and just above Texas. BP is not saying that Closer is the Cubs strength. They are saying they are tops in EqK9 and 3rd in fieldingHTH

Also, is this over the full season or say, since May 29th?Point is, the Dodgers are ranked 2nd on that list and they are golfing this October. Does this help with your putting, too?

Once again, I assume you did not read the article. The article discusses what team qualities lead to postseason success, not regular season.HTH

SO it's a forumla based on what a team is going to do in the postseason and has nothing to do with the regular season?

 

[wilked]

SO it's a forumla based on what a team is going to do in the postseason and has nothing to do with the regular season?

I am going to walk you through thisIt uses regular season data to predict post-season performance. After studying various elements, they determined that there are 3 main elements of a team that correlate well with postseason performance. Those 3 are, in basica terms:-Ability of the team to strikeout batters-Fielding ability of the team-Closer PerformanceLet me know if that clears things up

 

[Darth Cheney]

Baseball Prospectus also said the Yanks wouldn't be in the playoffs.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Seems like it would have not favored the 2006 St Louis Cardinals. Actually just seems like some bull#### formula some baseball nerd put together in basement when he was laid off from Krispy Kreme (no offense RnR). I'd have to see the entire breakdown of all years this Special sauce formula has been applied but it seems to me it isn't all that groundbreaking. Someone just found two teams in the 70s that exemplified these statistical attributes and then tried to apply it across the years.

A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate. A good closer, as measured by WXRL. A good defense, as measured by FRAA. Of the dozens of team characteristics that we tested for statistical significance, in terms of their relationship with winning post-season games and series, these were the only three that mattered. Ending the year hot doesn’t make a whit of difference, for example, nor does having a veteran club, or a smallball offense. More remarkably, all three of these characteristics relate to run prevention, rather than run scoring. That does not mean that offense is of no importance in the playoffs. But there is a lot of noise in the postseason record, and offense did not produce enough signal to emerge through it. The reasons are too complicated to get into here, but have to do with what happens when good offenses face good pitching. Pitching does have some tendency to dominate these match-ups, whether they occur in the regular season or in the playoffs. Because "plus pitching" versus "plus hitting" duels occur more frequently in the post-season, we tend to notice the effects more then. In any event, this "secret sauce" is fairly pungent. The two teams that rated most favorably in these categories in the 2005 playoffs were the White Sox and the Astros, who met in the World Series. The formula also predicts the success of some surprise World Series winners like the 1990 Reds and 1979 Pirates. Conversely, of the ten post-season teams since 1972 that rated worst in the "secret sauce" rankings, none advanced beyond their LCS.

 

[wilked]

Someone just found two teams in the 70s that exemplified these statistical attributes and then tried to apply it across the years.

How do you get that from this?

The two teams that rated most favorably in these categories in the 2005 playoffs were the White Sox and the Astros, who met in the World Series. The formula also predicts the success of some surprise World Series winners like the 1990 Reds and 1979 Pirates. Conversely, of the ten post-season teams since 1972 that rated worst in the "secret sauce" rankings, none advanced beyond their LCS.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Someone just found two teams in the 70s that exemplified these statistical attributes and then tried to apply it across the years.

How do you get that from this?

The two teams that rated most favorably in these categories in the 2005 playoffs were the White Sox and the Astros, who met in the World Series. The formula also predicts the success of some surprise World Series winners like the 1990 Reds and 1979 Pirates. Conversely, of the ten post-season teams since 1972 that rated worst in the "secret sauce" rankings, none advanced beyond their LCS.

I want to see where all the WS teams ranked since 1972 and especially since the playoff fields expanded. This is your argument, if you believe this formula has some success maybe we should see where the 2004 Marlins, 2006 Cards, and 1997 Indians ranked.

 

[wilked]

Someone just found two teams in the 70s that exemplified these statistical attributes and then tried to apply it across the years.

How do you get that from this?

The two teams that rated most favorably in these categories in the 2005 playoffs were the White Sox and the Astros, who met in the World Series. The formula also predicts the success of some surprise World Series winners like the 1990 Reds and 1979 Pirates. Conversely, of the ten post-season teams since 1972 that rated worst in the "secret sauce" rankings, none advanced beyond their LCS.

I want to see where all the WS teams ranked since 1972 and especially since the playoff fields expanded. This is your argument, if you believe this formula has some success maybe we should see where the 2004 Marlins, 2006 Cards, and 1997 Indians ranked.

Ya, it would be nice if they supplied those results. Obviously there is still a ton of variability in a short series to allow surprises (say, the 06 Cards), but I would like to see the cumulative results as well

 

[wilked]

Also, relative to the 04 Marlins...think you are selling them short. If I remember correctly they had a very good defense, has a closer (Benitez) with these stats

ERA SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO1.29 47 51 69.2 36 11 10 6 0 21 62And has Beckett as an Ace.

 

[boom king]

i could definately see boston there, but the cubbles? not so much (cubs fan)

but it would be pretty kick-### to see a world series played in wrigley / fenway

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Also, relative to the 04 Marlins...think you are selling them short. If I remember correctly they had a very good defense, has a closer (Benitez) with these stats

ERA	SV	SVO	IP	H	R	ER	HR	HBP	BB	SO1.29	47	51	69.2	36	11	10	6	0	21	62

And has Beckett as an Ace.

It was actually the 2003 Marlins I got the years mixed up. Marlins were above average in the field and 5th in the NL in K's that year. Beckett and Willis would fit the bill with Penny and Pavano being decent. I'd imagine they ranked behind the D'Backs, Yankees, A's and probably Red Sox that year in this Special Sauce thing. This isn't an off the wall evaluation measure but I'm not so sure it's a good predictor otherwise they would have had more than just one example of the top two sauce teams making it to the WS.

 

[Capella]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

 

[harryhood]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

you know that answer cap

 

[wilked]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

YaAlthough it got no play, the Red Sox certainly were not near the top here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

I am a numbers guy, and like these type of analyses

 

[Sammy3469]

Also, relative to the 04 Marlins...think you are selling them short. If I remember correctly they had a very good defense, has a closer (Benitez) with these stats

ERA SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO1.29 47 51 69.2 36 11 10 6 0 21 62And has Beckett as an Ace.

It was actually the 2003 Marlins I got the years mixed up. Marlins were above average in the field and 5th in the NL in K's that year. Beckett and Willis would fit the bill with Penny and Pavano being decent. I'd imagine they ranked behind the D'Backs, Yankees, A's and probably Red Sox that year in this Special Sauce thing. This isn't an off the wall evaluation measure but I'm not so sure it's a good predictor otherwise they would have had more than just one example of the top two sauce teams making it to the WS.

Keep in mind too, DD...that it's not so much where you rank, but that you are not poor in all three. So for instance all 8 teams could have have relatively good "Special Sauces" historically speaking, so even the worst club that year would have a reasonable shot at success (i.e. this gets regressed on actual data as opposed to rankings, so while a team's ranking may be relatively bad, they may be just fine based on the actual stats). For instance, this year a lot of the team's have historically good K/rates and while the Rockies have pretty poor K and "closer" rankings their defensive rating is otherworldly.Like anything though, there's so much "noise" in the postseason that even if these are fairly good predictors, they may not explain much of the team's success. The other thing to keep in mind is that top closers matter a whole heck of lot more in the postseason since they can account for 10% of a team's IP versus about 5% in the regular seasonAs for history, this is what Silver wrote in his pay article back in Sept of 2006:

In any event, this "secret sauce" is fairly pungent. The two teams that rated most favorably in these categories in the 2005 playoffs were the White Sox and the Astros, who met in the World Series. The formula also predicts the success of some surprise World Series winners like the 1990 Reds and 1979 Pirates. Conversely, of the ten post-season teams since 1972 that rated worst in the "secret sauce" rankings, none advanced beyond their LCS.

Not that it matters much since the Cardinals were truly horrible by this metric last year (either on rank or stats) while the Tigers were the worst AL playoff team though it was by just a hair and all 4 were evenly bunched up.

 

[The Man from Laramie]

Don't those three factors only explain about 20% of their postseason win points or whatever?

 

[Your Mother]

Seems like it would have not favored the 2006 St Louis Cardinals.

I don't think you understand what "correlate" means.

Actually just seems like some bull#### formula some baseball nerd put together in basement when he was laid off from Krispy Kreme (no offense RnR). I'd have to see the entire breakdown of all years this Special sauce formula has been applied but it seems to me it isn't all that groundbreaking. Someone just found two teams in the 70s that exemplified these statistical attributes and then tried to apply it across the years.

"Baseball Between The Numbers", edited by Jonah Keri. Pages 352-368, a chapter entitled "Why Doesn't Billy Beane's #### Work In The Playoffs?"Since 1972, out of the Top 10 teams with the highest "Secret Sauce" ranking, 7 won the WS. 2 lost in the WS, and one lost in the NLCS to another Top 10 teamOf the Bottom 10 teams, none of them have reached the WS.

 

[Sammy3469]

Seems like it would have not favored the 2006 St Louis Cardinals.

I don't think you understand what "correlate" means.

Actually just seems like some bull#### formula some baseball nerd put together in basement when he was laid off from Krispy Kreme (no offense RnR). I'd have to see the entire breakdown of all years this Special sauce formula has been applied but it seems to me it isn't all that groundbreaking. Someone just found two teams in the 70s that exemplified these statistical attributes and then tried to apply it across the years.

"Baseball Between The Numbers", edited by Jonah Keri. Pages 352-368, a chapter entitled "Why Doesn't Billy Beane's #### Work In The Playoffs?"Since 1972, out of the Top 10 teams with the highest "Secret Sauce" ranking, 7 won the WS. 2 lost in the WS, and one lost in the NLCS to another Top 10 team

Of the Bottom 10 teams, none of them have reached the WS.

Cardinals last year down? And like Laramie said, these 3 factors while correlated with winning in the postseason aren't that predictive.

 

[wilked]

Seems like it would have not favored the 2006 St Louis Cardinals.

I don't think you understand what "correlate" means.

Actually just seems like some bull#### formula some baseball nerd put together in basement when he was laid off from Krispy Kreme (no offense RnR). I'd have to see the entire breakdown of all years this Special sauce formula has been applied but it seems to me it isn't all that groundbreaking. Someone just found two teams in the 70s that exemplified these statistical attributes and then tried to apply it across the years.

"Baseball Between The Numbers", edited by Jonah Keri. Pages 352-368, a chapter entitled "Why Doesn't Billy Beane's #### Work In The Playoffs?"Since 1972, out of the Top 10 teams with the highest "Secret Sauce" ranking, 7 won the WS. 2 lost in the WS, and one lost in the NLCS to another Top 10 team

Of the Bottom 10 teams, none of them have reached the WS.

Cardinals last year down? And like Laramie said, these 3 factors while correlated with winning in the postseason aren't that predictive.

Of course it isn't 'very predictive'...if it was we would all sell the house and put $100K down in Vegas and go buy beachfront property in the Barbados. In a short series, especially a 5 game series, there is so much randomness involved that a ball hit two feet in the wrong direction can be the difference between a series win or loss. That said, the 'Secret Sauce' is at least mildly predictive and the best tool that I know of relative to determining postseason success. What else is there to do for the next couple of days before the games start, but use what analystical tools are available to try and predict what will happen?

 

[phthalatemagic]

I have a 99% confidence level that says this is dumb

 

[wilked]

I have a 99% confidence level that says this is dumb

I can see you put a lot of time and thought into that analysis Are you suggesting that this is simply a fluke?

Since 1972, out of the Top 10 teams with the highest "Secret Sauce" ranking, 7 won the WS. 2 lost in the WS, and one lost in the NLCS to another Top 10 teamOf the Bottom 10 teams, none of them have reached the WS

 

[phthalatemagic]

I have a 99% confidence level that says this is dumb

I can see you put a lot of time and thought into that analysis

Well, I definitely know what a confidence level is, I've used them before. You cannot deny my my confidence level.

 

[wilked]

I have a 99% confidence level that says this is dumb

I can see you put a lot of time and thought into that analysis

Well, I definitely know what a confidence level is, I've used them before. You cannot deny my my confidence level.

good stuff here...almost PatsFan good

 

[Your Mother]

Colorado bucking the "Secret Sauce" article, although their ranking is a bit flawed since they've added Corpas and Jimenez.

 

[Die]

Colorado bucking the "Secret Sauce" article, although their ranking is a bit flawed since they've added Corpas and Jimenez.

Well the answer to that would be to use the formula on the last 2 months, or 1 month, or last 2 weeks, to see if you can coax better results out of the thing.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I really wanted to bump this.

 

[Your Mother]

I really wanted to bump this.

I don't think you understand what "correlation" means.And Jimenez and Corpas have rendered those numbers flawed. Principle remains the same, though.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I really wanted to bump this.

I don't think you understand what "correlation" means.

Sure I don't.

 

[shadyridr]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

YaAlthough it got no play, the Red Sox certainly were not near the top here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

I am a numbers guy, and like these type of analyses

Curious, you didnt use baseball prospectus to show that Colorado was the favorite. Guess youre a liarhttp://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti...tseasonodds.php

 

[wilked]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

YaAlthough it got no play, the Red Sox certainly were not near the top here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

I am a numbers guy, and like these type of analyses

Curious, you didnt use baseball prospectus to show that Colorado was the favorite. Guess youre a liarhttp://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti...tseasonodds.php

huh?Anyway, looks like the 'Special Sauce' worked pretty well...

As the article stated, the Sox had one of the highest (if not THE highest) special sauce score in WS history.

The Cubbies were first in the NL, but no team was overwhelmingly dominant.

 

[[icon]]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

YaAlthough it got no play, the Red Sox certainly were not near the top here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

I am a numbers guy, and like these type of analyses

Curious, you didnt use baseball prospectus to show that Colorado was the favorite. Guess youre a liarhttp://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti...tseasonodds.php

Poor shady gets kinda stalkerish when he's not got any yankees games to watch.

Wilked didn't post that because Alias had posted it earlier in the thread, Sherlock.

 

[shadyridr]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

YaAlthough it got no play, the Red Sox certainly were not near the top here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

I am a numbers guy, and like these type of analyses

Curious, you didnt use baseball prospectus to show that Colorado was the favorite. Guess youre a liarhttp://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti...tseasonodds.php

Poor shady gets kinda stalkerish when he's not got any yankees games to watch.

Wilked didn't post that because Alias had posted it earlier in the thread, Sherlock.

Curious why wilked didnt start a new thread about it like he did this one

 

[[icon]]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

YaAlthough it got no play, the Red Sox certainly were not near the top here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

I am a numbers guy, and like these type of analyses

Curious, you didnt use baseball prospectus to show that Colorado was the favorite. Guess youre a liarhttp://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti...tseasonodds.php

Poor shady gets kinda stalkerish when he's not got any yankees games to watch.

Wilked didn't post that because Alias had posted it earlier in the thread, Sherlock.

Curious why wilked didnt start a new thread about it like he did this one

Because he knew you were lurking the shadows with a bottle of KY and a box of kleenex just waiting to pounce on him? What part of "it was already posted in the other thread" are you struggling with. I've got powerpoint on this machine.. I think I can whip up a diagram for ya if y ou just wanna point to the area you're stuck on.

 

[shadyridr]

Honest question: would you have posted this if it was say, Indians/Cubs?

YaAlthough it got no play, the Red Sox certainly were not near the top here

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...=331413&hl=

I am a numbers guy, and like these type of analyses

Curious, you didnt use baseball prospectus to show that Colorado was the favorite. Guess youre a liarhttp://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti...tseasonodds.php

Poor shady gets kinda stalkerish when he's not got any yankees games to watch.

Wilked didn't post that because Alias had posted it earlier in the thread, Sherlock.

Curious why wilked didnt start a new thread about it like he did this one

Because he knew you were lurking the shadows with a bottle of KY and a box of kleenex just waiting to pounce on him? What part of "it was already posted in the other thread" are you struggling with. I've got powerpoint on this machine.. I think I can whip up a diagram for ya if y ou just wanna point to the area you're stuck on.

ok please do so

 

[wilked]

shady - this was a new concept / article...obviously it generated a lot of interest, and uses multiple years of data to try and understand why world series winners, win.

It doesn't really compare to BP predicting a team as having a 53% chance of winning the WS

 

[Your Mother]

I really wanted to bump this.

He's a big dumb animal, folks.