Stretch Run 2017: is the glass half full or that other thing?
- Thread starter Stanley Steamer
- Start date
So breaking down your table (after adding in the last 4 games) and comparing it to the Astros the story is that Houston's RD advantage is entirely in the 1st 3 innings. (I've scaled the 9th inning results up to 162 games played and left extra-innings as raw numbers with (inn) indicated)
So any game that's tied after 3 is a coin-flip...
Code:
Innings Bos Hou
1-3 251-251 0 302-182 +120
4-6 273-240 +33 304-281 +23
7-9 211-177 +34 309-239 +70
XInn 32-8 (59) 8-7 (15)
Fangraphs has us at 45% to beat the Astros, 538 42%.
Underdogs? Sure. Significantly so like this thread is suggesting? Hell no.
Underdogs? Sure. Significantly so like this thread is suggesting? Hell no.
Sale doesn’t. Pom earlier in the year did. The others just do. Now I see why they’re considering Sale on short rest for Game 4.
They are? I have not seen that anywhere. (And unless the Sox score 50 so that Sale gets pulled early in Game 1, I think its a bad idea)
I'm not a fan of the second wild card, but I guess I have to admit looking back at this thread that it really did add a fair amount of drama and excitement to September. Holding off the surging Yankees was really impressive. And, barring a Championship or other crazy drama, will probably be how I remember the 2017 Boston Red Sox. The truth is that without the second wild card, the last month would have been boring. With only one wild card, it would have been reasonably clear that both the Sox and the Yankees would be in the playoffs and would be the road team in the ALDS. The only question would have been opponent, which this year doesn't mean too much and wouldn't have been anything that either really could control one way or the other while the Astros and Indians battled for the better record. About the only thing they would have been playing for over a month would have been the right to host the ALCS if both made it.
Yes. That's what I saw as well.
There is a win probability table that I posted in the stats thread that show this pretty well too.
Hope the combination of Sox pitcher skill and playoff low run scoring keeps us close in the early innings...
Why yes, if you remove all the games where the Sox got blown out, they had a fantastic year!!
I think the point is that if you have a small sample of 7 games (4.3% of the season), then the run differential is less meaningful. One blow out can skew the results.
You don’t do this specifically because it’s a 162 game season where these things tend to even out. If you want to do an analysis that removes all games where they lost or won by 5 or more for example, I’m not sure what further insight you gain. It’s a long season.
But the argument is specifically about the season series between the Red Sox and Astros, which was only seven games long. The rest of the season is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Why does it skew anything? That's part of the sample. You don't remove outliers just because they're outliers -- you only remove them if (and only if) you think they're totally a fluke and not indicative of at the real matchup. But why would that possibly be true? Why are those 9 innings any less important than any other 9 innings? Why make the sample size even smaller than it already is? That's not analysis, that's cherry-picking.
Run differential is a lot less meaningful over a 7 game series than it is over the 162 game season. Removing blow out wins or losses probably does little to make the results more meaningful. Which is why head-to-head W-L record is probably a better indicator of where the two teams stand than pure run differential, and even the head-to-head record would have extremely large error bars if trying to use that to project the results of a best-of-5 series.
The 2001 World Series is an interesting case. Here were the scores of the games:
G1: Ari 9, NY 1
G2: Ari 4, NY 0
G3: NY 2, Ari 1
G4: NY 4, Ari 3
G5: NY 3, Ari 2
At this point, NY had been outscored 19-10, but led 3 games to 2.
G6: Ari 15, NY 2
Now it was tied 3 games apiece, but Arizona had outscored NY 34-12!
G7: Ari 3, NY 2
If it wasn't for the crazy rally in the 9th (complete with throwing error and bloop single over a drawn-in infield), Arizona would have outscored NY by 21 runs and lost the series 4 games to 3.
G1: Ari 9, NY 1
G2: Ari 4, NY 0
G3: NY 2, Ari 1
G4: NY 4, Ari 3
G5: NY 3, Ari 2
At this point, NY had been outscored 19-10, but led 3 games to 2.
G6: Ari 15, NY 2
Now it was tied 3 games apiece, but Arizona had outscored NY 34-12!
G7: Ari 3, NY 2
If it wasn't for the crazy rally in the 9th (complete with throwing error and bloop single over a drawn-in infield), Arizona would have outscored NY by 21 runs and lost the series 4 games to 3.
Isn't the classic example the 1960 World Series? The Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27 (including wins of 16-3, 10-0, and 12-0), but the Pirates won the Series 4 games to 3.
Tony Womack hates you for glossing over the second most improbable hit in recent world series history except for maybe Rajai Davis.
Womack's double was after the error, but if you follow obviously flawed what-would-have-happened-anyway model, it still would have scored the tying run. The Gonzales hit was huge, but the D-Backs were totally winning that game either way in extras if necessary. The Yankees had blown their wad and the D-Backs had the bullpen edge.
But, to your main point, it was a crazy series. The D-Backs either won big or lost in excruciating fashion with Yankees hitting pretty darned good pitches from B.Y. Kim.
Well there was the Mariano throwing error which should have been a double play, and so Womack's double should have been with bases empty. But yeah. Crazy series. And really, an incredible one.
Tony just texted me and said, "tell your internet pal that you can never assume the double play and anyway, Miller had some speed, and I'm the hero of that game not that roid head."
Just passing it along. Tony has some resentment. :0)
You tell Tony I think he rocks. He hit that double, I went to call up my brother, but by the time I got to the phone it was ringing because he was calling me. That hit was epic.
I'm assuming you're referring to Podsednik's homer off Lidge at #1? Or is 1988 considered "recent". Or maybe the fact that Allen Craig got not one, but two hits off Koji in 2013? (the only two hits Koji allowed in the series).
Yeah, but neither against the Yankees.
Podsednik's is crazy -- probably even more so than Rajai's, though it's close.
Haha well I don't want to get Tony mad at me so tell him I'm just grateful that he delivered in a big spot against the Yankees. ;-)
No one is trying to remove the game from the record books or anything. When talking about a 7 game run differential a single game blowout that was pitched primarily by the back end of the bullpen doesn’t seem very indicative of the matchup, especially when some of those pitchers won’t even be on the roster.
People are just pointing out how that game skews that number, just like we don’t start talking about 400hr seasons when a player hits 3 in a game. I’m not sure what you’re so worked up about.
If you want to throw out that game because Blaine Boyer and Matt Barnes gave up a few runs, then you might as well throw out all the other six games, too, because they were all started by Houston pitchers not named Justin Verlander, Dallas Keuchel, or Brad Peacock, and are therefore irrelevant to how well Houston will pitch in the ALDS.
To use another example from a few seasons ago: Texas actually beat the O's 30 to 3 in the second game of a doubleheader, I believe. It was the game where Josh Hamiliton hit four home runs. Anyway if you were comparing the season series between the two teams, you would obviously place less emphasis on if not completely discount the 30 to 3 game. I think even you would think that game was a fluke. Well in the 12 to 2 game, a lot of pitchers pitched who will not be on the post season roster. It makes sense to throw out that result since it mostly featured players who are largely irrelevant now.
Edit: I cannot believe you are still arguing this seemingly uncontroversial point. What don't you get?