Crapshoot: The Cards make Billy Beane's argument

by bear88 on Oct 27, 2006 11:49 PM PDT Comment 66 comments

The St. Louis Cardinals, a team with the worst record of all postseason teams and one that came close to choking its playoff berth away, are World Champions.

Jeff Weaver, who was dreadful for the Angels and not much better for the Cardinals in the regular season, dominated the deciding game and pitched well the entire postseason.

The Cards lost their closer and had to rely on a rookie.

The Tigers, who steamrollered through the American League playoffs after stumbling down the stretch, fell apart in the series. No one, except for Casey, could hit. And the pitchers could not field.

The playoffs were a strong argument for the "get hot at the right time" school of baseball. The Twins roared into the playoffs and then, suddenly, played very poorly. The Mets were struck by the injury bug but almost made it to the series anyway. The Tigers played like the best team in baseball, as they had been through August, until the World Series. And then Placido Polanco couldn't get a hit. Scott Rolen got healthy at a very good time.

There is no way any serious person can argue that the Cardinals were the best team in baseball. They were a .500 team that came from a terrible division in a weak league. Their right fielder was derisively cheered at home, in the team's clinching game, because of his inability to catch the ball. Their Game One starter was 3-13 season or something just as ridiculous. Their hot-hitting, pennant-clinching catcher had a .218 average in the regular season.

But there it is. The Cardinals, with their weakest playoff team in the Tony La Russa era, won because their stars and scrubs got hot at the right time.

I have been somewhat skeptical about Billy Beane's "crapshoot" theory, in part because it felt like an excuse, and in part because the "better team" (even with the caveat about a short series) usually does win. But it's hard not to buy it this postseason.

0 recs | Comment 66 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

hard not to buy it any postseason

Because it's the truth.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 27, 2006 11:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or, that a 10 day wait

can cool off the hottest team of 2006. Sweeping the A's really f'd up their chances, eh?

"We're Menudo," -BB

by eshock on Oct 28, 2006 12:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe the Tigers fell apart

cause they couldnt use their pine tar. Just a though.

by Amnesiac727 on Oct 28, 2006 12:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

anyone

know the Saint Louis payroll? I would suspect it wasn't low.

by elfgirl on Oct 28, 2006 12:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Ben Fry has an awesome web applet

that links overall win loss record vs. payroll. St. Louis went 83-78 (13th best), and had a payroll of $78,491,217 (14th highest).

And on that note, poor Cubs, 66-96 for 3rd worst, yet they paid almost $95 million, 7th highest.

by hunter on Oct 28, 2006 1:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the better team

"I have been somewhat skeptical about Billy Beane's "crapshoot" theory, in part because the "better team" (even with the caveat about a short series) usually does win."

does the better team usually win? it seems like it's the hottest team that usually wins, but even that is a meaningless statement, because if they weren't winning we would no longer consider them to be hot.

obviously the better team has an advantage, as they're the better team. whether or not they usually win depends on what you mean by usually.

A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05

by xbhaskarx on Oct 28, 2006 1:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed. However,

you play the regular season in order to get to the crapshoot. The season is great for compiling stats, spotting tendencies and having things even out. Once you're there momentum plays a part, but the Cards didn't exactly beat the pants off the Mets and Tigers. Rather, they were composed, had guys like Weaver and Suppan come through, capitalized on the other team's mistakes and minimized their own (save Duncan). It has happens time and time again where the best team over the course of the season doesn't win the WS. It is really two different seasons and the crapshoot theory is a crutch for the small sample size mentality. The division series may be random, but seven games is enough for two teams to prove their meddle regardless of how they finished the season. It's not like the post season format is a surprise. Overall it was a strange and not very memorable post season. Beyond the green and gold getting over the first round hump, we've got Endy Chavez' catch, Beltran with the bat on his shoulder, Magglio's walk-off, the Kenny Rogers circus act (not pine tar...wound salve) and Sax/Knoblauch shaking their heads at the Tigers' fundamentals. What's with the Giants not being able to wait until Monday to announce Bochy when MLB has had a long standing policy for clubs to refrain from doing so during the World Series? McCarver on Duncan tonight: first successful prediction since the '88 NLCS with the Dodger outfield playing Gary Carter too deep. David Eckstein...the 8th Wonder of the World.

by southofcruiseamerica on Oct 28, 2006 1:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How is it a crutch?

I don't think bear88 is claiming that the Cardinals didn't play better in the WS -- they obviously outplayed the Tigers, who were awful over these 5 games.

The "crapshoot" point, IMHO, is this: a GM can assemble a team that will win over the course of the regular season, because quality in the end will tend to have an impact. Identify good players, put them on the field, and they'll tend to win. Justin Verlander, for instance, is a better pitcher than Jeff Weaver, and over 35 starts he's very, very likely to pitch much better than Weaver.

But performances in a short series are, from the GM's perspective, almost totally random. Let's even say that a GM had gone into 2006 wanting to assemble a pitching staff "for the postseason." Would it have been logical for him to target Jeff Supan and Kenny Rogers as his frontline starters? I don't think so -- but they were the 2 best starters this postseason.

The "crapshoot theory" doesn't mean that playing better in the WS has no impact on the outcome. It means that either team can end up playing better and winning more games, because players get hot or cold, and balls fall in or get hit right at people, regardless of which team is really better -- and proved itself to be better -- over the course of the season.

"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s

by Nick on Oct 28, 2006 7:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, the only logical conclusion

is to have a 19 game regular season, followed by a 162 game post season to determine the best team.

by southofcruiseamerica on Oct 28, 2006 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

or...

eliminate the post season and unbalanced schedule, and award the championship to the team that wins the most games. Maybe also extend the regular season to around 175-180 games. I like Oakland's chances above anyone save NYY if that were to happen.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you eliminate the postseason

and the unbalanced schedule, why not go to a true league system? Eliminate the divisions, put all 30 teams in a single league, and have each team play the every other team 5 or 6 times.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2006 7:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

29*6 = 174, and you get one series home and

one away. sounds good.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Oct 29, 2006 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

sure but

ain't gonna happen... Postseason is relatively huge for profits, and provides a "climax" to the season... As nice as adding more games would be, the season would still usually come down to the last 3-6 games, and at that point it's still a crapshoot.

Sure taking the whole season as a whole might not be, but any type of deciding factor that comes down to what equates a short series will always be a crapshoot, that's just the nature of a game as statistically and individual-minded as baseball.

by Alon on Oct 30, 2006 4:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly

I agree with your statement that it wouldn't happen due to how much money teams make in the postseason, but you're wrong in saying it would still be a crapshoot. If there is just a season, and no playoffs, every game counts the same. The last game of the season is of the exact same value as the first game. Therefore, there wouldn't be a crapshoot, it would be the best team over the course of a whole season, which is a somewhat significant sample size.

by marcello on Oct 30, 2006 1:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It is a somewhat significant sample size ...

unlike a 7 game series, where the margin of error is something like +/- 7 games, the margin of error is, proportionally, much smaller. BUT, there still is a very significant margin of error.

I think I've read that the margin of error over a full season is something like 10 games. Assuming that's true, we could safely right off the Cards as the best team, but the Yankees, Twins, Tigers, White Sox, A's, Angels, Mets, Dodgers and Padres would have a statistically relevent claim at being the best team in the game and the difference between the Yanks, Mets, Twins, Tigers and A's would be almost entirely statistically meaningless.

What I would like to see would be the regular season ends on August 30th. The top 6 teams in each league then play a 25 game round robin, with the top 2 from each league advancing to the LCS. I don't know if it would actually be any better at picking the best team, but it sure would be a lot of fun.

Besides, the great majority of fans in those other 18 cities aren't really paying much attention in September anyway. And how exciting would it have been in late August as the BoSox, Jays, ChiSox and Halos battled it out for the last two spots into the AL round robin?

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Oct 30, 2006 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball

THe best thing about baseball is that it is completely indominable

you cant buy it
you cant system it
you cant figure it out

everytime you do it turns totally on its head

and its controlled far more by pure chance than any fan cares to accept

just sit back and watch

by forester on Oct 28, 2006 6:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Obviously

the better team will usually win. That being said, the best teams in baseball are generally only marginally better than average teams, and so the odds aren't heavily skewed in the better team's favor.

by Nick86 on Oct 28, 2006 6:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

in the playoffs, the hot team wins

as xbhaskarx points out in his post in this thread.

Strangely, though, neither of the teams in the Series had a winning record in the regular season after the All Star game. That's just bizarre, and it's surprising that they got hot when the playoffs started (Chisox had a similar situation -slumping at the end of the season last year).

Perhaps the playoffs are more of a crapshoot than the regular season, but there are undoubtedly ways to create a team that will have a potential for postseason strength. Focusing on pitching and defense seems like a smart way to proceed, and it looks like BB may be following that formula.

Would anyone have guessed how much pitcher's fielding would matter in this series? I can visualize Joe Blanton making the same gaffes (hmm wonder if that's part of the reason he didn't pitch in the playoffs).

by Brian in 317 on Oct 28, 2006 7:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with what you say Brian

and as I said elsewhere, it seems like forcing the issue on offense pays off more times than waiting passively for walks and the third hit in an inning to score a run

by connie mack on Oct 29, 2006 8:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I raise a point...

How many people feel that we completely lucked out against Minnesota? Or that we beat them fair and square, but Detroit just got lucky?

BigLeagueChoo: rerish noooo

My blog: Off The Record

by JLaff on Oct 28, 2006 7:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I dont think anyone can say Detroit got lucky...

They beat us in every phase of the game for 4 straight days. We just got smoked.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Oct 28, 2006 8:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

we got somewhat lucky against Minn

But seeing as we beat them 3 games to none, they would've needed even more luck to have defeated us, given the same level of play.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Define best

What is your definition of best? How do you define the "best team"? The team with the best record?

The Cardinals won the championship according to the rules. Every other team, including the A's, had the same chances as the Cardinals. If one defines the Champions as the best team, then they are the best team.

I'll use a soccer example: Yes, I know, Americans don't like soccer. In the 2004 / 2005 season, Liverpool surprised everyone and won the European Champions League. Technically, that gave them bragging rights as the best team in Europe. Guess what the rejoinder of Everton fans, their local rivals, was? "Best team in Europe? They're not even the best team on Merseyside!!!11!!" This was because they finished behind Everton in the English Premier League. Nonetheless, they were Champions of Europe.

The Liverpool fans came to the European Cup final as sore-footed pilgrims, forced by road blocks to trudge at least a couple of miles to the Ataturk Olympic stadium. They were on their way to a trial of faith. With their side 3-0 down to Milan, the eye-witness reports were of occasional sobbing at the interval, and those who sang You'll Never Walk Alone cannot have been sure whether they were launching a rallying cry at the Istanbul skies or merely consoling themselves.

There are no reproaches because doubt was a duty. This was the inconceivable victory and the final will remain unique no matter how long the tournament endures. "I never thought in the entire game that we were going to win," said Steven Gerrard. The candid words are woven into the paradox of the night. It was puzzling of the captain to claim that he was all the while resigned to defeat even as he did more than any other individual to overthrow Milan, but after this explosion of a game there were only the fragments of an explanation to be found among the debris.

The outcome that still feels like a miracle is treasured all the more at Anfield. A club who have never won the Premiership now boast a fifth European Cup, and since all football is local the crowd can revel in patronising their rivals. Manchester United have to suffer being caricatured as a diligent outfit in domestic business who are prone to become flummoxed by foreign affairs; so much for Old Trafford majesty. United, all the same, are in good company in feeling that the world has been turned upside down.

Milan wail that they were the better side for all but six minutes out of two hours, as if Liverpool's scoring burst was a fleeting aberration.

Furthermore, the regular season is a league style competition, while the postseason is a tournament style competition, the requirements for success in league and tournament style competitions are different. Just because a GM assembles a team that can succeed in a league style competition, doesn't mean that that same team is going to succeed in a tournament style competition.

In any sport, in any era, all a competitor can do is play by the the rules as they stand and beat the opponents presented. The Cardinals did that, fair and square.

Would the Cardinals win if the postseason were played again? Maybe not. El Duque may not have gotten injured, thus changing the dynamics of the series against the Mets. Nonetheless, the Cardinals DID win this time.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 28, 2006 8:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Steven Gerrard = the Eric Chavez of Liverpool

quote-wise, anyway.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

WOW

"A club who have never won the Premiership now boast a fifth European Cup..."

...I can't believe that either of those facts is true. Strange, strange Liverpool. This is also the same team that got ousted in the first round of either the League Cup or the FA Cup that very season, losing 1-0 to a non-Premier League squad (I don't remember just how low of a division they were from...but how's that for playing to the level of your competition?). That's the equivalent of the A's winning the World Series, but losing to AA Round Rock if there was a tournament that included all major and minor league teams....

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

best diary/response

Ive seen about this topic. These comments put the whole thing in perpesctive....especially your point about the regular season being a league-type of season and the playoffs a tourney-style.
Baseball seems to be the most unpredictable of all sports, simply because of the long season and the failure rate of offense vs. defense ( and I suppose visa versa). It has been pointed out many, many times that even a AAA or AA team would win some games against the "best" teams in MLB, in any given season, at any given time. IE: the 2005 RiverCats would likely win against the 1998 Yankees or the 1974 A's or the 1970 Orioles or the 1929 A's, etc.

tdwclark

by tdwclark on Oct 29, 2006 5:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

this series reminds me of '88

The A's were heavily favored and had the better players, but were young and inexperienced and fell apart against the more seasoned Dodgers. Similar situation to Tigers-Cards.

by vk on Oct 28, 2006 8:38 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The crapshoot theory is crap

Obviously the playoffs, in any sport, are won by the team that plays the best in the playoffs. The "crapshoot" theorists fail to give credit where credit is due: To the players, coaches, and managers who produce in the playoffs and earn the victories when the pressure is on.

If you just let a committee decide who was best and called that team the champions, instead of having a playoff... then you'd be college football, where human polls and computer rankings are a very poor substitute for playoffs.

The "crapshoot" theory is also an egocentric theory, in which general managers are the only important people in baseball and managers, coaches, and players are only pawns to be pushed around on the GM's chessboard. That might be someone's ideal baseball world, but not mine.

It is also a cop-out that allows anyone who wins 90 games in the regular season to congratulate themselves without caring whether they win in the playoffs. To debunk that notion, let's take a quote from the new manager of the BALCO Boys across the bay:

"You play this game for the ring, and until that happens I'll never be content with my career," Bochy said.

I'd rather hear quotes like that coming from the braintrust on the eastern side of the bay.

by socal on Oct 28, 2006 8:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually, 'plays best in the playoffs'

isn't a necessity.

Team A could go 10-4 in the playoffs. Team B could go 11-8. Yet, team B, gets crowned because they're the first to get to 11, but does that really mean they played the best? Tough call ...

by Rickeyfan on Oct 29, 2006 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

If team B won the WS, and team A lost to team B in the WS, then in the playoffs at least, team B > team A.

On Sunday, Minaya ticked off a list of candidates to join the rotation, and for once this season, none of them was Jose Lima.

by rfloh on Oct 29, 2006 3:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Try telling Tony LaRussa

or Jim Leyland--those two old baseball warhorses--that the post-season is a total crapshoot. Of courses you can't predict what's going to happen in these short series, unless you're some kind of time traveller who can go forward into the future. Being at a crapshoot table watching a bunch of yahoos roll dice is different from trying to win a baseball game.

by Salvatore on Oct 28, 2006 8:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

to accurately compare the baseball season...

to a form of gambling, I think you have to go with poker as the proper analogy. Part skill, part luck...the best players win in the long run, but in any given tournament or single session at the poker table, the player(s) with the advantage may very well lose. And this can be repeated seemingly indefinitely over several tournaments or sessions...the "bad beat" is the poker equivalent of an "upset" in sports. I've been there.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll give you

that possibility--I've thought about the poker analogy, too. Another thing I don't like about this "crapshoot" theory, that seems to becoming famous, is the simple fact that it seems to diminish and cheapen any accomplishment by the winning team, and it also kind of covers for the losing team, which I think is why Billy Beane tossed this out there, hence, is why I've given him the nickname of "Machiavelli". Billy--he's brilliant--God love-um.

by Salvatore on Oct 28, 2006 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Come to think of it, one could also say

the post-season cheapens the regular season. All the hard work applied towards 6 months of the year, erased because you were the first team to 11 wins in a 3 week span?

by Rickeyfan on Oct 29, 2006 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Beane tossed it out there

because he was frustrated that his sh*t didn't work in the playoffs. Frustration implies a desire that eludes the one desiring. Therefore, Beane obviously desires a WS. He just feels relatively powerless to try and get one...

Think about it, you can pretty accurately predict the record of most teams to within give or take 3-5 games... Many people were predicting Oakland would win ~95 games, and lo and behold they did, despite injuries. By years end, even their RD supported their being in first place. Beane, in the offseason, is like a child with a bunch of LEGO pieces around him. He can plan and build and buy LEGOs all he wants, but when his older brother tests his new basketball against Beane's LEGO castle, chances are the thing will crumble while Beane has nothing to do about it.

So it's not that he's copping out, it's that he's wanting a ring so badly that when he can't get one, he feels there's no way he can take responsibility. And he's frustrated since he can't actually do anything about it outside of give his team what seems to be the best chance to win. There's no way you can get your team "hot," the very definition of the term implies luck and randomness. I'd be frustrated too.

by Alon on Oct 30, 2006 4:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Cross pollenating...

re "crapshoot," when I read about this concept on AN, I wonder if we're all talking about the same word. A crapshoot is not a random event, like a coin flip. The actual definition is, "A risky business venture." In the context of a short series, this would mean that handicapping the series (not the series itself) is risky business.

Not because it's random--the better team will win more often than the weaker team will win--but because the chance of natural deviation ("standard deviation") from the "expected outcome" is fairly large. As seen in this post-season, when many times the weaker team played better for a week and prevailed.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 28, 2006 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, is that what Billy Beane

meant all along when he threw out his "crapshoot" analogy?

by Salvatore on Oct 28, 2006 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think so--I think Beane's

point was that you can plan more to win the division and hope more to win in the post-season.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 28, 2006 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I guess

you know Billy Beane better than I do.

by Salvatore on Oct 28, 2006 6:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

the definition you provided might be a secondary definition, or tertiary, or...further on down the line. Whatever it is, it's clearly derivative of the original defintion, which is quite simply, the roll of the dice, which, while not being the same as a coin flip, invovles only the same factor as a coin flip, namely, pure chance. But to imply that the most accepted or widely used defintion of "crapshoot" is "a risky business venture"...I don't think you'd find many to be in agreement with that. So for you personally, yes, there may be some misunderstanding based on the defintion of crapshoot itself. Then for others, there's a misunderstanding based on the misunderstanding (sorry to repeat that word, heh) of the context that the original "crapshoot" quote was made in.

In sum, I don't think any of us actually quite has a handle on what Beane meant, or even what we mean when we argue about what Beane meant when he made (and reiterated) that fabled statement, but we can arrive at some sort of middle ground. I'd start by eliminating the notion of equating the term "crapshoot" with anything besides the table game featured at your favorite casino or street corner.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 8:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

further (over)analysis of the original quote

the key word that people forget in that quote is, well, "fucking"...the whole quote was "It's a fucking crapshoot." Which does connote some amount of irrational frustration. It's not like Beane offered some lengthy analysis of the history of postseason results, then matter-of-factly and confidently concluded, "You know, it's really just a craphoot." So I guess what I would take from the emotional aspect of that exclamation is that he wasn't exactly looking to provide a basis for the way people think about the postseason...it was probably too off-the-cuff for that sort of lofty goal. Nevertheless, it has done just that, mainly because of the fact the purists looked at it as a form of sacrilege. So, basically, the quote was blown out of proportion, and I stand by my poker analogy as a more fitting way to conceptualize the postseason.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Beane

mean't exactly what he said. And, he's repeated it a few times--like about every year his team has gone to the playoffs. Which tells me Machiavelli wants people to think he has no control, whatsoever, when the A's lose, but will gladly take any credit when they do win. I also think he's well aware his loyal fans will repeat this mantra of crapshoot to describe the nature of postseason play and results. Have a nice night.

by Salvatore on Oct 28, 2006 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I look forward to the day that they do win...

...for many reasons, but not the least of which is to see how the GM reacts. Somehow I don't think Mr. Niccolo Machiavelli Beane, as you've anointed him, will say or even believe that he had any more of an effect on the championship than he did on the past postseason failures. It reamins to be seen, but he's been pretty consistent all along with his actions and quotes...I really don't think it would change with a WS victory.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"have a nice night"

same to you, AN comrade

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

By all definitions, isn't every game

a crapshoot anyway? One team may have a 55-60% chance of winning, the other a 40-45% chance. And kind of like trying to roll an eight before rolling a seven, the odds tilt one way more than the other, but can go either way without anyone suggesting the dice are loaded.

Each game, each short series, and each season has that element...but the bigger the sample the more predictable--or at least the less unpredictable--the results are likely to be.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 28, 2006 9:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to get

the last word in comrade--you can have the last say and I really do respect your opinion. It's the media and everyone else who'll give him the accolades. Of course he's going to be modest in public, so would I. If the A's ever reach the world series. Even, I will gladly and happily give Billy Beane the credit he deserves.

by Salvatore on Oct 28, 2006 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 pitchers' throwing errors

directly responsible for det losing last 2 games. in other words, without those errors, series is now 3-2 detroit, game 6 tonight. rogers on mound. isn't that the epitome of a crapshoot? unless you say la russa had his batters aim for pitchers cause he wanted to exploit their fielding aim.
(if this were 1919, not implausable to have a discussion of st louis throwing world series, no pun intended)

by oakath on Oct 28, 2006 8:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

LaRussa used his brains

with some smart smallball strategy--he understands you have to do some different things to throw off another team--especially when that other team like the Tigers seem superior. Even if it was a case of random error and mistakes, again, baseball games involve much more than just some dufus throwing dice down.

by Salvatore on Oct 28, 2006 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LaRussa also likely cost the Cards Game 2

...by ignoring one of the oldest cliches in the book, "we're friends off the field, but once we step inside those white lines, we're looking to beat each other at any cost." Or something like that. Yeah, so I'm saying the reason he didn't get Rogers thrown out was because of his close personal friendship with Leyland...it may also have been out of knowledge that his pitchers also used pine tar...either way, in the opportunity where he had the greatest ability to alter the course of the game/series in the favor of his team, he did not. Bad managing, bottom line.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

totally agree with what Sal says here

When the pitcher is owning you, step out of the box. If you can't hit your way on board, try laying down a bunt.
Part of the game is spells of bad luck, but sometimes, maybe only in the player's head, doing something out of the routine helps to change the luck.
The way the Cardinals played PRESSURED the Detroit Defense. to compound this pressure with cold, wet miserable weather and sold out stadiums, was smart baseball.
Maybe that style doesn't work in front of 22,000 in July, but it sure worked in October.

by connie mack on Oct 29, 2006 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's how to prove the "crapshoot"

Here's how you could prove whether postseason success was really a crapshoot: have the 8 teams in the playoffs be selected from the best 4 teams during the regular season along with the worst 4 teams during the regular season. I would place money that if such a likely experiment ever took place (it never would for many reasons) over the course of a few years, that one of the "worst" teams would end up winning a World Series within a few years.

The reality of baseball is that it involves a huge amount of luck in small sample sizes of games (the playoffs). The best team has a small statistical advantage in probability of winning a World Series, but that advantage is usually overcome by the randomness of the small ssample size inherent in the game of baseball.

As a fan of the game, I don't like it when people dismiss a team like the Cardinals as "lucky" or a "fluke." They played the game on the field and won fair and square, and thus deserve credit for their victory. However, it is silly for pundits, experts, and fans to try to devise lessons from the Cardinals victory and it would be silly for a GM to try to emulate what the Cardinals did. They deserve their championship, but should not be a model for other teams to follow in their quest for a championship.

Baseball teams should build a team to make the playoffs while trying as much as possible to assemble a team likely to maximize the small advantages that can be gained in the postseason like dominant starters, a dominant closer, and stellar defense. In building that team, however, the GM has to be cognizant of the reality that the best laid plans often don't work in the playoffs and understand that there is no way to significantly increase the odds of being the World Series champion beyond making the playoffs. Baseball history in the expanded playoff era proves that.

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Oct 28, 2006 1:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

didn't get beyond the first paragraph, but...

that would be an awesome experiment. You would have to randomly alternate the "experimental" system with the current one in order to keep teams from purposefully going 0-162 (I'm concerning myself with the pragmatic aspect of something that's purely hypothetical...futile pursuit, but fun). If there was even a 25% chance that the playoffs were going to be comprised of the 4 best and 4 worst, the end of the season would be amazing.

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital

by Cutthemullet on Oct 28, 2006 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Everybody just needs to play Strat-o-matic

The most famous and most realistic table game ever. With cards for every player and dice rolls to determine outcomes between pitcher and hitter.

I've played seasons and I still play tournaments. Often the best teams win. But in a short series a few unlucky dice rolls at the key time are all it takes to sway a series to the lesser club.

When Strat players see Yavier Molina hit that homer they know it can happen because they've seen just such a crazy outcome in a game before. In Strato parlance that Eckstein double off of Monroe's glove was a "Double 1-8, out 9-20," and the guy rolling the dice rolled an 8. Just nailed it. A "9" and the ball is caught.

You don't need poker analogies. You just need to play the most realistic (by far) baseball game to find out that often a series can come down to a few lucky (or unluckly) rolls of the dice.

by RLangford on Oct 28, 2006 10:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

strato-matic is the bomb, no doubt

i'll definitely back you up in terms of all the exciting aspects of playing it (i think i learned math from the game growing up).

though, the statistical probability game leaves no room for intangibles - like the article I read, i think on ESPN.com, about how, for the Cardinals, the playoffs turned when Belliard made an amazing play late in Game 1 of their series against the Padres, and Jim Edwards gave Belliard the game ball - and it just clicked for the whole team, "we can do this".

Strato is awesome, though. last time I played, Kevin Maas had the most awesome card, 'cause he hit 10 home runs in 100 at-bats or something...

where's hendu when you really need him?

by OaktownWarrior on Oct 29, 2006 5:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Getting Hot.

Is a circular argument. The team that wins the World Series will, by default, be the "hottest team in baseball" at the very end of the season. The fact that the cutoff point moved from September to October is just further proof of it. The idea will never go away because it is, technically speaking, true. Unfortunately, the bad logic behind it is often overlooked.

by Inquisitor on Oct 29, 2006 2:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

How can anyone say

"The hottest team usually wins?" The tigers and cardinals were pretty clearly not hot going into the playoffs, and the tigers clearly were hot going into the world series. Do you mean the team that's the hottest during the actually series itself wins? Because if that's the case, then, well...yeah.

by Nick86 on Oct 29, 2006 7:03 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think the team that

wins the last game has the best chance.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Oct 29, 2006 7:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Congrats to Mark Mulder, he got hisseff a ring.

I thought it somewhat strange seeing him out there celebrating, considering he had to watch it all from th DL.

by popcornjames on Oct 30, 2006 9:52 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

So did backup catcher Gary Bennett...

Yeah, I've never heard of him before either.

"...sometimes I can't tell the difference between baseball and magic."- salb918 "Ellie plowed into him like an evil, pink unicorn."-ArakSOT

by McFood on Oct 30, 2006 11:24 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Lay of GB ...

he contributed a ton to the Cards' winning ... at least relative to Mark Mulder.

His VORP was -6.2, Mulder's was -14.9.

Side note: Given that GB's "replacement" would have been Yadier Molina, with a VORP of -19.7, if we adjust his replacement value to that, his VORP increases to a massive 1.1.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Oct 30, 2006 11:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I meant, lay off GB ...

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Oct 30, 2006 11:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Cards also:

Lost thier SS from August 19th - September 21st
Lost thier closer period
Lost thier CF from August 27th - August 25th
And Scott Rolen played through a bum shoulder in September, batting just .227

You cannot tell me that on paper, a healthy Cardinal team, is not one of the two teams to beat in the NL.

There is no way!!! None!!! Nada!!!

"I think we just feel that now is our time." - Nick Swisher

by saint on Oct 30, 2006 1:46 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think one of the virtues ...

of the current system is that a team like, perhaps, the Cardinals -- who struggled with health (or youth, controversy, whatever) through a portion of the season, but managed to be good enough to make the playoffs can prove their worth by getting healthy, etc come October ... but then you're left with the question of whether they got healthy or lucky ... and discussions like this.

Another project of Devo's

by devo on Oct 30, 2006 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs