This question has been generating some debate again. I thought we should have a separate thread for it, and a poll to boot.
Yes, completely.
Mostly, but not completely.
It's half true.
To a limited degree-but generally not.
No, not at all.
This question has been generating some debate again. I thought we should have a separate thread for it, and a poll to boot.
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
i am going with limited degree.
my assumption is that crapshoot = luck, correct?
my list for playoff success would be:
Pitching
Defense
Clutch
Momentum
Hitting
Managing
Luck
other names i have posted under: none
The counterargument is that the teams in the postseason should have a certain degree of pitching, defense, hitting, and managing. They had to be doing something right to make it that far and excel over a 162 game season.Originally Posted by Slasher9
That leaves clutch, momentum, and luck. So the question is, how much do momentum and clutch depend on luck?
all are not created equal. the astros pitching was superior to the yankees pitching. yankees are playing golf.
other names i have posted under: none
One little side issue I'd like to raise is 'luck' vs. 'randomness'. I think there are some shades of difference between the two terms when applied to baseball, and there is also some crossover.
For me, pure luck is something like Tony Clark's double bouncing into the stands in Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS and preventing what could have been the series-winning run from scoring.
Pure randomness is something like a starting pitcher not having his best stuff on that particular day, as may have been the case with Cole in Game 1 of the WS. (On that point I'll refer once again to Mike Mussina's neat theorem that in 32 starts he would have everything working in 8 starts, nothing working in 8 starts, and something working in 16 starts.)
Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1
The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.
Well, the Astros starting pitching was superior to the Yankees. But I get where you're going.
Of course, in 2015, the Mets' starting pitching was superior to the Royals' SP as well. It is possible to make it a bullpen game...
I think a lot of what we call choking (or chocking) is sometimes based on a pitcher's fatigue as well. Cole threw his career high in IP during the regular season in 2019, and then threw another 35 IP in the ALDS and ALCS. What we are calling choking might be simple fatigue. He did have his velocity going for him the other night, but he was still also very hittable and probably was not hitting his spots. And a loss of command can certainly be attributable to workload, as it can effect the repeatability of his release point...
100 percent yes. There was MAYBE 4 or 5 on this board that predicted Washington would give Houston a good series, but hardly anyone predicted this blow out so far and possibly a sweep. It really just depends who is the hotter team at that time.
Except the Red Sox.... If they hit 100 plus wins it's just a given they're gonna fuck you up in the playoffs
man...i can still picture that double. thank god it bounced over the wall.
god = luck
other names i have posted under: none
100% yes?100 percent yes. There was MAYBE 4 or 5 on this board that predicted Washington would give Houston a good series, but hardly anyone predicted this blow out so far and possibly a sweep. It really just depends who is the hotter team at that time.
Except the Red Sox.... If they hit 100 plus wins it's just a given they're gonna fuck you up in the playoffs
So MN had an equal chance as the Yanks? (And Mn wasn't even the worst team in the playoffs!)
When you say it's gonna happen now
When exactly do you mean?
Just when I said I was out of this debate, you pull me back in. LOL
I am shocked by the results of the poll so far. Shocked, I tell you.
I guess it's a fine line, but I believe in terms of the stat stuff, randomness and luck are the same thing.
Yes. I have said since the day I signed up on this forum that baseball playoffs are much different than other sports..... Any team has a chance. Teams go cold quite a bit in the playoffs. Granted Houston beat the Yankees, their offense hasn't exactly been explosive and now it's catching up to them against the Nats who are underdogs in this series. Yankees were the Twins kryptonite all year, hence why I was hoping Oakland would advance (I still hold true to my word that Oakland would have given the Yankees a very good series) All that matters in baseball is making the playoffs and you have a chance to beat anyone. (hence Cardinals beating the Braves) Nats beating the Dodgers.
In the NFL if a Wild Card team like the Texans, Colts, Bills take out a top seed like the Pats it's a MASSIVE upset that nobody saw coming (07 Giants run) Baseball in my opinion isn't the same. Yes it's a massive upset but once the playoffs hit I kind of expect anyone to compete.
In addition to the chart that I posted in the other thread, some of the fine folks at Fangraphs also recently looked for statistical correlations between playoff wins and pretty much any other factor. This study analyzed data from every playoff team from 1996 to 2015. They came up empty.
The correlation coefficient between regular season wins and post season wins was 0.007.
This study even took combinations of factors, and came up with no correlation. The best correlation was 0.063.
Go look at Washington's record since July. This should be no surprise to anyone100 percent yes. There was MAYBE 4 or 5 on this board that predicted Washington would give Houston a good series, but hardly anyone predicted this blow out so far and possibly a sweep. It really just depends who is the hotter team at that time.
Except the Red Sox.... If they hit 100 plus wins it's just a given they're gonna fuck you up in the playoffs
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote