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)
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.Well I guess it's a good thing Boston doesn't have a propensity to give up massive amounts of runs in the first or anything then.
Uh oh.
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)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.
Yes. That's what I saw as well.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)
Why yes, if you remove all the games where the Sox got blown out, they had a fantastic year!!Take away the 12 to 2 loss, and it’s 19 to 17 in the other games. One blowout skews those numbers.
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.Why yes, if you remove all the games where the Sox got blown out, they had a fantastic year!!
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Tony Womack hates you for glossing over the second most improbable hit in recent world series history except for maybe Rajai Davis.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.
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 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.
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."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.
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.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)
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).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.
Yeah, but neither against the Yankees.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).
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. ;-)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)
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.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.
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.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.