Hype is a funny thing. It can rattle your nervous system even when you KNOW the hype is wrong. Take Derek Jeter. I know, intellectually, that the whole “Derek Jeter is Captain Clutch, Conqueror of Pressure, Count of Men on Base, Knight of the Round Ball, Duke of the Postseason, Chairman of the Big Moment, Come Through Lou, Lord of the Swing, Prince of the Playoffs, Emperor of October, Secretary of Fate, Johnny Big Appleseed, Legend of the Fall, The Impossible Out, Shah of It’s Gone, Yankee Go Home, the Mightiest Duck on the Pond” … all of that might have been slightly overplayed. I knew that.
And still, when he came up in the sixth inning on Monday, two men on, Cleveland up by four, Yankee Stadium bursting with sound … I couldn’t help it. The thought popped into my head and echoed: “Oh boy, here it comes, the Derek Jeter moment, he’ll hit a double into the gap for sure, make it 6-4, turn the whole game around, have three more supermodels wait outside the locker room for him …”
He promptly hit into a nifty 4-6-3 double play, the cruelest stab to the heart of the Yankees postseason.
And I remembered: Oh yeah, Derek Jeter chokes in the clutch.
It’s true. Derek Jeter DOES choke in the clutch, if you use the verb “choke” to mean, “ performs below his usual standards in the biggest games.” Look at his career numbers:
Jeter during the regular season: .317 average, .388 OBP, .462 SLG. Jeter during the postseason: .309 average, .377 OBP, .469 SLG.
That’s close, but clearly Jeter is not performing BETTER during the playoffs than he does during the regular season. Here’s the thing, though: Those postseason numbers are deceiving. Take a look at those numbers when you take out Division Series.
Jeter during ALCS/World Series: .279 average, .358 OBP, .418 SLG.
That’s significantly down. His average drops 38 points, his on-base percentage 30 points, his slugging percentage 44 points. In the biggest games, he becomes Orlando Merced.
Of course, it’s silly to write that Jeter chokes in the clutch because over the years his numbers in the postseason are slightly-to-moderately lower than his regular season numbers. That’s natural — pitching is better, weather is colder, games are played differently, etc.
Then again, that is no sillier than the 10,000 odes written to Jeter (and dozens of other players) when his postseason numbers are slightly-to-moderately HIGHER than his regular season numbers. It’s no sillier than going off an A-Rod when he has a bad series. The whole thing is pretty stupid, and in my opinion it is best summed up by John Updike in his famous story about Ted Williams last game. Updike was trying to answer the ugly change that the Splendid Splinter shattered what it mattered:
Baseball is a game of the long season, of relentless and gradual averaging-out. Irrelevance—since the reference point of most individual games is remote and statistical—always threatens its interest, which can be maintained not by the occasional heroics that sportswriters feed upon but by players who always care; who care, that is to say, about themselves and their art. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter’s myth, he is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I especially like that last sentence. What would it say about a guy if a guy was, truly and completely, a clutch player, if he only played his best when it was a big, huge moment? Isn’t that Randy Moss?
OK, that said: Jeter did hit .176 in the Cleveland series, he did not walk, he played lousy shortstop, he rapped into three double plays in the last two games, he killed the key rally, and you know what? I’ll admit it: I kind wanted to see a little New York outrage. I know it’s wrong. But I wanted to see people all over New York turn on their beloved hero. Just a little.
And it isn’t because I dislike Jeter — I actually like him very much. I think he’s a terrific player who gets on base, gives you good at-bats, plays hard, plays smart, steals you some bases, hits with a little pop and so on. I don’t have any problem with Jeter getting all the publicity he gets — he’s a good looking guy, he represents himself and the game well, he’s a good player, and if he was playing for, say, Cleveland, he would be vastly underrated, and I don’t see that being any better …
As I mentioned in a previous thread, at age 33 Derek Jeter has more hits than Pete Rose at the same age. Someday Jetes will break Rose's record. Isn't that grand!?!?! . Next year Jeter will move ahead of Mantle and Ruth on the all-time Yankee hit list. And in 2 years he will move ahead of Lou Gehrig to be #1. Since Queen Troll is bashing Jeter again I thought I would get him all riled up.
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>As I mentioned in a previous thread, at age 33 Derek Jeter has more hits than Pete Rose at the same age. >>
Who cares? Jeter won't even SNIFF 4k, let alone the record. Let it go man!
<< <i> Someday Jetes will break Rose's record. >>
bwahahahahahahaha thanks for the laugh.
<< <i> Isn't that grand!?!?! . Next year Jeter will move ahead of Mantle and Ruth on the all-time Yankee hit list. And in 2 years he will move ahead of Lou Gehrig to be #1. >>
Who cares? Other than yankee fans, who cares who's tops on the yankee team list? Talk about it again when he gets to 4 grand...otherwise be quiet about it already.
<< <i> Since Queen Troll is bashing Jeter again I thought I would get him all riled up. >>
All riled up? nah, and no one was bashing Jeter, simply pointing out how moronic it is to bash Arod on a handful of at bats when people could (and should) be bashing Jeter over the same nonsense.
Not a single post about Jeter batting .176 and getting 3 hits? Yet people were all on Arod's nuts for having a bad couple of series.
<< <i> This kind of stuff happens the ENTIRE year FREQUENTLY during a 3 game series throughout the regular season. >>
Can you please point out specific examples of this happening 'frequently'? Come on, if a team has a lower ERA and lower BA and OPS against another, they likely aren't beating that other team. You may find it in isolated cases (Like the small sample size of 50 at bats painting Arod as a bad hitter), but the numbers don't lie.
<< <i>Ax, are you freakin kidding me? Have you not seen enough baseball to know that that happens on a very regular basis. I'm not saying it happens with one team throughout the year, all the time, but with over two dozen teams playing regularly, I would think it would be pretty rare to see even a week go by where we don't see a team do this. But as a quick example, the Tigers in their very last series of the year did the following against the White Sox:
2-5 Loss 2-3 Loss 13-3 Win
They lost their last series 2 games to 1 but they outscored the White Sox 17-11. Happy? Do you seriously think this is some abnormality in baseball? >>
Yes it is an abnormality, as regularly the team that outscores the other wins more often than not. It's the entire premise of using runs scored/runs against to determine a team's wins and losses. You think it happens more often than not that a team outscores another one and loses?
No one who claims to follow baseball can think that is true.
<< <i>If you would have read the original post by me that started this whole discussion, you'd realize the context that it's in. Obviously, it's not the norm, but it's far from an anomaly and it suprises no one when they see it happening. In fact, no one who's watching even notices that it's happening because it is so NOT abnormal. >>
Absolutely it's not a common occurance.
Why do you insist on following this line of 'logic'? Runs scored/runs against are a terrific indicator of a team's performance....of course there will be one, two, three game hiccups here and there, but it's a very reliable way of determining a team's success.
<< <i>First off, I don't go on tirades. I fully admit that I get condescending toward you but I never "argue" with you as far as I'm concerned. That would imply that I actually thought you had anything remotely intelligent to say.
And it's you who lose. Everytime! In fact, it's getting REALLY old slapping you around this forum everyday. >>
hahah
you sound like pee wee herman 'I know you are but what am I!' is that your 'debates' have devolved to...it's pretty damn pathetic.
But then when your yankees and their 235 million salary go home after one series (again), jeter chokes in the series, and your team is in ruins, I guess pathetic is all you know.
<< <i>The PeeWee herman analogy is probably best suited for your "arguments". As that is all your are capable of doing...arguing. As for the Mariners, did I even see them in the playoffs? >>
No actually they weren't, but then, the yankees were gone so fast I barely saw them in the playoffs either.
Baseball, the only thing that your example proves (the one where the team that scores less runs in a given series and wins the series), is that it is an unreliable amount of games to explain anything other than randomness being the culprit.
I will say it again...
As for the 1960 WS...that is exactly the point...the lower amount of games, the greater the randomness and deviation from the norm to be a factor. In that case it is almost always the timely hit. In a short series one team gets more timely hits, and they usually win. In the long haul those timely hits even out and happen at a rate consumate of what the true ability tells us(the ability we know based on the THOUSANDS of plate appeances).
TomGshotput is exactly right, the problem is that most don't know how to interpret them. Many fans still don't know the true value of a strikeout, as opposed to a batted out. They severely overinflate things, yet we know exactly how often each leads to runs/takes away from. It isn't a mystery. We know a lot of things to a pinpoint degree, things that fans just guessed on in the past. Instead of fans learning more about the game from this information, they turn the other way either because they don't want to take the time to learn it, or they don't want it to shed a light on their hero that may make him look less than he really is.
Then we have the guys come on here and proclaim stat guys like myself don't love the game or whatever. I, and almost all other guys similar to me(like SABR), have enjoyed the game and its memories and connections to childhood as much as anyone else. I can almsot guarantee I spent my youth watching, playing, and creating more memories than pretty much anyone. That is the kind of stuff that got me, and others, to dig deeper to learn MORE than even the most ardhent fan, and not be satisfied with crapola analysis we always hear. The stat knowledge is ON TOP of all the other stuff you guys are talking about above.
Baseball I agree that the team with the best stats(even the most accurate ones), etc... will not always win the series. If so, it wouldn't be very interesting to watch. In a sense, you really don't even need a World Series to determine who is the best team, but that wouldn't be much fun.
<< <i>I forgot to add that my main point was that even within any given series, a team with much better stats can easily lose any given series. >>
Who says which stats are better?
I just looked quickly through the past 18 postseason series' and no team with better stats ever lost. If it was so easy shouldn't it happen at least 5% of the time
Also, to me, by understanding how much each event correlates to scoring runs or preventing runs, winning or losing, when something like Mazeroski's homerun happens, I can appreciate it even more
(just went and looked through 2004 -- another seven postseason series' -- and again no team with better stats lost. . . )
Using the most common player stats, I will agree Twins-A's 2006 ALDS and Red Sox-Yankees 2004 ALCS were close, but by no means did the loser have better stats
So if it happens so easily, what examples are there? I guess Yankees-Marlins would be a good one, but since that one we have seen 25 series in a row without another one. And again, for me, only by studying how rare and unexpected it truly is, am I able to appreciate it so much more ... only by studying the statistics am I able to understand that perhaps Mazeroski was a good, but not a true all-time great, yet he has had one of the best single moments in history. And maybe watching the way Josh Beckett's career unfolds will be even more intriguing by better understanding what all his strikeouts and walks and innings pitched means
So yes, sometimes the team which exceeds in the usual stats falls short. But that only adds to the importance of studying and understanding what those statistics mean
And if it happens only rarely in a five or seven game series, what does that tell us about a 162 game season?
Braves had better statistics in those six games. And since 1996 we have seen 74 postseason series. So if anything having to go back that far shows just how rare it is, and not happening so easily as you claim. . .
<< <i>I'd have to look thru the numbers, but just off the top of my head, I believe the Braves outscored the Yankees by more than 10 runs in the 1996 WS and lost 4-2 in the series. >>
Once in 11 years sure doesn't seem to be all that often to me.
This past season the Braves played 49 series of at least 3 games. In 5 of those series the Braves won but were outscored. In 7 of those series the Braves lost but outscored their opponents. So in 49 series the team that won the series was outscore 12 times, almost 25%.
typical stupid knee jerk thread, blame Jeter because the Tribe put together a good book on how to pitch him and used it. face it chumpos, the best team won. i know it's a bitter pill but you need to accept that simple truth and move on.
Being the fair guy that we all know Ax is I'm surprised that he never once mentioned the fact that Jeter has been playing with a bum knee and maybe just maybe it affected him
<< <i>Being the fair guy that we all know Ax is I'm surprised that he never once mentioned the fact that Jeter has been playing with a bum knee and maybe just maybe it affected him >>
bwahahaha
But when Arod admitted last year he was playing through an injury he was blasted for making excuses.
Pre 1991 it was extraordinairly rare for the team that scored the most runs in a post-season series to lose. Bill James wrote an article on this after the Braves did it in both the 91 and 92 WS. If I knew where it was I would I would quote the source.
I care to know why it happened? I care to know when something is a rare occurance or a common one? I care to know which players contributed the most to the wins?
Like when the Braves lost to the Yankees, compare the stats of each teams relief ace
You bring up the Red Sox in 1999. Their pitching was so depleted, that they could still score a few runs, but still had very little hope of beating the Yankees in a seven game series (notice that there was only one off day in the entire ALCS, also what the scores looked like the last two games compared to the first two)
Or the Red Sox in 2004. A lot of the runs they gave up came in the game three mop-up appearance from pitchers who had alreayd pitched game one, skews the results a bit
Extrapolating what we know from 162 game seasons into about 5% of all postseason series' is certainly a poor interpretation of statistics
Batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, walks, strikeouts, homeruns, runs scored, runs allowed, they can all enhance a persons understanding of the sport. And even if they are all accumulated in such a way that would point to one team winning while they really lost, perhaps it is a perfect time to look at for something we hadn't known before. . .
I checked back to 1935. The losing team outscored the winning team in the series listed below, with the margin shown. Note that in the first six years of the Braves run, they outscored the opponents in every series they lost, including three six games series. The also outscored the Giants in the 2002 NLDS.
I make no guarantees about the accuracy-I went year by year at www.baseball-reference.com to get the info. In 201 Series (including the extra round in 81) since 1935, the losing team has outscored the winning team 21 times. The Braves have done it six times.
<< <i>Being the fair guy that we all know Ax is I'm surprised that he never once mentioned the fact that Jeter has been playing with a bum knee and maybe just maybe it affected him >>
bwahahaha
But when Arod admitted last year he was playing through an injury he was blasted for making excuses.
Hypocrite. >>
Jeter hasn't whined once about his knee. I'm only pointing out the ususal fair guy you are.
<< <i> Jeter hasn't whined once about his knee. I'm only pointing out the ususal fair guy you are. >>
Then how do you know about said 'bum' knee? >>
It's a well known subject in NY. They've mentioned it during the Yankee games many times for the last several weeks. Jeter even missed a few games, and this guy will play through pain with the best of them. The NL dorks who called the game on TBS were ill prepared with their info, or lack there of.
<< <i><So roughly NINETY percent of the time the team that scores more runs in the series wins the series...that's an overwhelming and dominating percentage.>
It's a long way's a way from "always". >>
It's an even longer from not being a 'rare situation', as you called it. 1 in 10 is definitely a rare situation.
Point # 1.................Sometimes credit has to be given to the opponent and I don't think that it is happening here, especially when it comes to ARod. He is ALWAYS the player that opposing teams say in a pregame meeting 'don't let this guy beat us.' This has been going on for a very long time now.................never let the big hitter beat us. The Indians are paid to play the series to the best of their abilities and they did that. They didn't let ARod (or anyone else for that matter) beat them.
Point #2..............Some players are going to be given a pass when it comes to a bad series and Jeter is probably at the top of the list. Ortiz would get the same pass in Boston. It's just the way it is, you don't have to like it, you don't even have to agree with it, it's simply just the way it is.
Point #3..................Without ARod, the Yankees wouldn't even had a sniff of the playoffs. He is the MVP of the AL, he should win it unanimously. But the playoffs are a different animal, see point # 1.
<< <i>I'll give you this much. You incessantly hypocritical and uninformed comments on this forum are amusing and a source of great entertainment for me. >>
And there you are, right on cue, and true to form no less...I wouldn't expect anything more out of you than mindless rants expressing how predictable and pathetic you are.
Serious issues because I can see a pattern of behavior and predict it? Namely, you getting your ass handed to you in a debate, you resorting to name calling, you pouting like a child who's had his toys taken away.
No, that's simply predicting what is going to happen.
You, however, have your psychiatrist on speed dial one for those frequent bouts of self doubt, especially after coming here and getting absolutely owned time and again.
I will infer that you have no friends and your entire 'social life' revolves around these boards....I will also infer you have serious behavioral issues if you continue to post responses to someone you claim to abhor.
You claim to be a yankees fan, I'm willing to bet you're a Chicago Bulls fan (or fan of their 6 titles) and a fan of the cowboys (and their 5 super bowl rings).
<<Since Queen Troll is bashing Jeter again I thought I would get her all riled up>>
All riled up? nah, and no one was bashing Jeter, simply pointing out how moronic it is to bash Arod on a handful of at bats when people could (and should) be bashing Jeter over the same nonsense.
LOL. She responded to this. At least she realizes she is a Queen Troll. Got to give her credit for that.
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
Comments
Column on Captain (Not So) Clutch
Jeters never prosper …
Hype is a funny thing. It can rattle your nervous system even when you KNOW the hype is wrong. Take Derek Jeter. I know, intellectually, that the whole “Derek Jeter is Captain Clutch, Conqueror of Pressure, Count of Men on Base, Knight of the Round Ball, Duke of the Postseason, Chairman of the Big Moment, Come Through Lou, Lord of the Swing, Prince of the Playoffs, Emperor of October, Secretary of Fate, Johnny Big Appleseed, Legend of the Fall, The Impossible Out, Shah of It’s Gone, Yankee Go Home, the Mightiest Duck on the Pond” … all of that might have been slightly overplayed. I knew that.
And still, when he came up in the sixth inning on Monday, two men on, Cleveland up by four, Yankee Stadium bursting with sound … I couldn’t help it. The thought popped into my head and echoed: “Oh boy, here it comes, the Derek Jeter moment, he’ll hit a double into the gap for sure, make it 6-4, turn the whole game around, have three more supermodels wait outside the locker room for him …”
He promptly hit into a nifty 4-6-3 double play, the cruelest stab to the heart of the Yankees postseason.
And I remembered: Oh yeah, Derek Jeter chokes in the clutch.
It’s true. Derek Jeter DOES choke in the clutch, if you use the verb “choke” to mean, “ performs below his usual standards in the biggest games.” Look at his career numbers:
Jeter during the regular season: .317 average, .388 OBP, .462 SLG.
Jeter during the postseason: .309 average, .377 OBP, .469 SLG.
That’s close, but clearly Jeter is not performing BETTER during the playoffs than he does during the regular season. Here’s the thing, though: Those postseason numbers are deceiving. Take a look at those numbers when you take out Division Series.
Jeter during ALCS/World Series: .279 average, .358 OBP, .418 SLG.
That’s significantly down. His average drops 38 points, his on-base percentage 30 points, his slugging percentage 44 points. In the biggest games, he becomes Orlando Merced.
Of course, it’s silly to write that Jeter chokes in the clutch because over the years his numbers in the postseason are slightly-to-moderately lower than his regular season numbers. That’s natural — pitching is better, weather is colder, games are played differently, etc.
Then again, that is no sillier than the 10,000 odes written to Jeter (and dozens of other players) when his postseason numbers are slightly-to-moderately HIGHER than his regular season numbers. It’s no sillier than going off an A-Rod when he has a bad series. The whole thing is pretty stupid, and in my opinion it is best summed up by John Updike in his famous story about Ted Williams last game. Updike was trying to answer the ugly change that the Splendid Splinter shattered what it mattered:
Baseball is a game of the long season, of relentless and gradual averaging-out. Irrelevance—since the reference point of most individual games is remote and statistical—always threatens its interest, which can be maintained not by the occasional heroics that sportswriters feed upon but by players who always care; who care, that is to say, about themselves and their art. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter’s myth, he is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I especially like that last sentence. What would it say about a guy if a guy was, truly and completely, a clutch player, if he only played his best when it was a big, huge moment? Isn’t that Randy Moss?
OK, that said: Jeter did hit .176 in the Cleveland series, he did not walk, he played lousy shortstop, he rapped into three double plays in the last two games, he killed the key rally, and you know what? I’ll admit it: I kind wanted to see a little New York outrage. I know it’s wrong. But I wanted to see people all over New York turn on their beloved hero. Just a little.
And it isn’t because I dislike Jeter — I actually like him very much. I think he’s a terrific player who gets on base, gives you good at-bats, plays hard, plays smart, steals you some bases, hits with a little pop and so on. I don’t have any problem with Jeter getting all the publicity he gets — he’s a good looking guy, he represents himself and the game well, he’s a good player, and if he was playing for, say, Cleveland, he would be vastly underrated, and I don’t see that being any better …
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."
<< <i>As I mentioned in a previous thread, at age 33 Derek Jeter has more hits than Pete Rose at the same age. >>
Who cares? Jeter won't even SNIFF 4k, let alone the record. Let it go man!
<< <i> Someday Jetes will break Rose's record. >>
bwahahahahahahaha thanks for the laugh.
<< <i> Isn't that grand!?!?!
Who cares? Other than yankee fans, who cares who's tops on the yankee team list? Talk about it again when he gets to 4 grand...otherwise be quiet about it already.
<< <i> Since Queen Troll is bashing Jeter again I thought I would get him all riled up. >>
All riled up? nah, and no one was bashing Jeter, simply pointing out how moronic it is to bash Arod on a handful of at bats when people could (and should) be bashing Jeter over the same nonsense.
Not a single post about Jeter batting .176 and getting 3 hits? Yet people were all on Arod's nuts for having a bad couple of series.
You 'fans' are pathetic.
<< <i> This kind of stuff happens the ENTIRE year FREQUENTLY during a 3 game series throughout the regular season. >>
Can you please point out specific examples of this happening 'frequently'? Come on, if a team has a lower ERA and lower BA and OPS against another, they likely aren't beating that other team. You may find it in isolated cases (Like the small sample size of 50 at bats painting Arod as a bad hitter), but the numbers don't lie.
<< <i>Ax, are you freakin kidding me? Have you not seen enough baseball to know that that happens on a very regular basis. I'm not saying it happens with one team throughout the year, all the time, but with over two dozen teams playing regularly, I would think it would be pretty rare to see even a week go by where we don't see a team do this. But as a quick example, the Tigers in their very last series of the year did the following against the White Sox:
2-5 Loss
2-3 Loss
13-3 Win
They lost their last series 2 games to 1 but they outscored the White Sox 17-11. Happy? Do you seriously think this is some abnormality in baseball? >>
Yes it is an abnormality, as regularly the team that outscores the other wins more often than not. It's the entire premise of using runs scored/runs against to determine a team's wins and losses. You think it happens more often than not that a team outscores another one and loses?
No one who claims to follow baseball can think that is true.
<< <i>If you would have read the original post by me that started this whole discussion, you'd realize the context that it's in. Obviously, it's not the norm, but it's far from an anomaly and it suprises no one when they see it happening. In fact, no one who's watching even notices that it's happening because it is so NOT abnormal. >>
Absolutely it's not a common occurance.
Why do you insist on following this line of 'logic'? Runs scored/runs against are a terrific indicator of a team's performance....of course there will be one, two, three game hiccups here and there, but it's a very reliable way of determining a team's success.
<< <i>Ax, you're obviously too stupid to understand grown up talk so you should just go play with your toys when grown men are talking. >>
This is what you resort to when your arguments are shot down in flames? Just admit you are wrong and move on...sheesh.
<< <i>Wrong about what? Read the thread stupid. >>
Again, another insult?
What's wrong with you?
You'll sleep better.
When your 'argument' breaks down to nothing but insults and tirades.
You lose.
<< <i>First off, I don't go on tirades. I fully admit that I get condescending toward you but I never "argue" with you as far as I'm concerned. That would imply that I actually thought you had anything remotely intelligent to say.
And it's you who lose. Everytime! In fact, it's getting REALLY old slapping you around this forum everyday. >>
hahah
you sound like pee wee herman 'I know you are but what am I!' is that your 'debates' have devolved to...it's pretty damn pathetic.
But then when your yankees and their 235 million salary go home after one series (again), jeter chokes in the series, and your team is in ruins, I guess pathetic is all you know.
<< <i>The PeeWee herman analogy is probably best suited for your "arguments". As that is all your are capable of doing...arguing. As for the Mariners, did I even see them in the playoffs? >>
No actually they weren't, but then, the yankees were gone so fast I barely saw them in the playoffs either.
Baseball, the only thing that your example proves (the one where the team that scores less runs in a given series and wins the series), is that it is an unreliable amount of games to explain anything other than randomness being the culprit.
I will say it again...
As for the 1960 WS...that is exactly the point...the lower amount of games, the greater the randomness and deviation from the norm to be a factor. In that case it is almost always the timely hit. In a short series one team gets more timely hits, and they usually win. In the long haul those timely hits even out and happen at a rate consumate of what the true ability tells us(the ability we know based on the THOUSANDS of plate appeances).
TomGshotput is exactly right, the problem is that most don't know how to interpret them. Many fans still don't know the true value of a strikeout, as opposed to a batted out. They severely overinflate things, yet we know exactly how often each leads to runs/takes away from. It isn't a mystery. We know a lot of things to a pinpoint degree, things that fans just guessed on in the past. Instead of fans learning more about the game from this information, they turn the other way either because they don't want to take the time to learn it, or they don't want it to shed a light on their hero that may make him look less than he really is.
Then we have the guys come on here and proclaim stat guys like myself don't love the game or whatever. I, and almost all other guys similar to me(like SABR), have enjoyed the game and its memories and connections to childhood as much as anyone else. I can almsot guarantee I spent my youth watching, playing, and creating more memories than pretty much anyone. That is the kind of stuff that got me, and others, to dig deeper to learn MORE than even the most ardhent fan, and not be satisfied with crapola analysis we always hear. The stat knowledge is ON TOP of all the other stuff you guys are talking about above.
-skinpinch
<< <i>I forgot to add that my main point was that even within any given series, a team with much better stats can easily lose any given series. >>
Who says which stats are better?
I just looked quickly through the past 18 postseason series' and no team with better stats ever lost. If it was so easy shouldn't it happen at least 5% of the time
Also, to me, by understanding how much each event correlates to scoring runs or preventing runs, winning or losing, when something like Mazeroski's homerun happens, I can appreciate it even more
(just went and looked through 2004 -- another seven postseason series' -- and again no team with better stats lost. . . )
So if it happens so easily, what examples are there? I guess Yankees-Marlins would be a good one, but since that one we have seen 25 series in a row without another one. And again, for me, only by studying how rare and unexpected it truly is, am I able to appreciate it so much more ... only by studying the statistics am I able to understand that perhaps Mazeroski was a good, but not a true all-time great, yet he has had one of the best single moments in history. And maybe watching the way Josh Beckett's career unfolds will be even more intriguing by better understanding what all his strikeouts and walks and innings pitched means
So yes, sometimes the team which exceeds in the usual stats falls short. But that only adds to the importance of studying and understanding what those statistics mean
And if it happens only rarely in a five or seven game series, what does that tell us about a 162 game season?
<< <i>I'd have to look thru the numbers, but just off the top of my head, I believe the Braves outscored the Yankees by more than 10 runs in the 1996 WS and lost 4-2 in the series. >>
Once in 11 years sure doesn't seem to be all that often to me.
1 in 4 is hardly an anomoly
Look at the postseason.
<< <i>Being the fair guy that we all know Ax is I'm surprised that he never once mentioned the fact that Jeter has been playing with a bum knee and maybe just maybe it affected him
bwahahaha
But when Arod admitted last year he was playing through an injury he was blasted for making excuses.
Hypocrite.
<< <i>Who really cares about any other stat? >>
I care to know why it happened? I care to know when something is a rare occurance or a common one? I care to know which players contributed the most to the wins?
Like when the Braves lost to the Yankees, compare the stats of each teams relief ace
You bring up the Red Sox in 1999. Their pitching was so depleted, that they could still score a few runs, but still had very little hope of beating the Yankees in a seven game series (notice that there was only one off day in the entire ALCS, also what the scores looked like the last two games compared to the first two)
Or the Red Sox in 2004. A lot of the runs they gave up came in the game three mop-up appearance from pitchers who had alreayd pitched game one, skews the results a bit
Extrapolating what we know from 162 game seasons into about 5% of all postseason series' is certainly a poor interpretation of statistics
Batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, walks, strikeouts, homeruns, runs scored, runs allowed, they can all enhance a persons understanding of the sport. And even if they are all accumulated in such a way that would point to one team winning while they really lost, perhaps it is a perfect time to look at for something we hadn't known before. . .
I make no guarantees about the accuracy-I went year by year at www.baseball-reference.com to get the info. In 201 Series (including the extra round in 81) since 1935, the losing team has outscored the winning team 21 times. The Braves have done it six times.
I welcome any corrections.
1940 +6
1957 +1
1959 +2
1960 +28
1962 +1
1964 +1
1972 +5
1973+3
1977 +1
1984 NLCS+4
1991 WS Braves +5
1992 NLCS +1
1992 WS Braves +3
1993 NLCS Braves +10
1996 WS Braves +8
1997 NLCS Braves +1
2000 ALDS +4
2001 ALDS +10
2002 NLDC +2
2003 NLCS +2
2004 ALCS +4
<< <i>
<< <i>Being the fair guy that we all know Ax is I'm surprised that he never once mentioned the fact that Jeter has been playing with a bum knee and maybe just maybe it affected him
bwahahaha
But when Arod admitted last year he was playing through an injury he was blasted for making excuses.
Hypocrite. >>
Jeter hasn't whined once about his knee. I'm only pointing out the ususal fair guy you are.
<< <i>
Jeter hasn't whined once about his knee. I'm only pointing out the ususal fair guy you are. >>
Then how do you know about said 'bum' knee?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Jeter hasn't whined once about his knee. I'm only pointing out the ususal fair guy you are. >>
Then how do you know about said 'bum' knee? >>
It's a well known subject in NY. They've mentioned it during the Yankee games many times for the last several weeks. Jeter even missed a few games, and this guy will play through pain with the best of them. The NL dorks who called the game on TBS were ill prepared with their info, or lack there of.
<< <i><So roughly NINETY percent of the time the team that scores more runs in the series wins the series...that's an overwhelming and dominating percentage.>
It's a long way's a way from "always". >>
It's an even longer from not being a 'rare situation', as you called it. 1 in 10 is definitely a rare situation.
Point #2..............Some players are going to be given a pass when it comes to a bad series and Jeter is probably at the top of the list. Ortiz would get the same pass in Boston. It's just the way it is, you don't have to like it, you don't even have to agree with it, it's simply just the way it is.
Point #3..................Without ARod, the Yankees wouldn't even had a sniff of the playoffs. He is the MVP of the AL, he should win it unanimously. But the playoffs are a different animal, see point # 1.
Now proceed with the barrage of 'insults', as you pound your fist on your desk as you've been proven wrong again.
<< <i>I'll give you this much. You incessantly hypocritical and uninformed comments on this forum are amusing and a source of great entertainment for me. >>
And there you are, right on cue, and true to form no less...I wouldn't expect anything more out of you than mindless rants expressing how predictable and pathetic you are.
No, that's simply predicting what is going to happen.
Don't go away mad, just go away, ok?
You, however, have your psychiatrist on speed dial one for those frequent bouts of self doubt, especially after coming here and getting absolutely owned time and again.
You claim to be a yankees fan, I'm willing to bet you're a Chicago Bulls fan (or fan of their 6 titles) and a fan of the cowboys (and their 5 super bowl rings).
Front running bandwagoner.
All riled up? nah, and no one was bashing Jeter, simply pointing out how moronic it is to bash Arod on a handful of at bats when people could (and should) be bashing Jeter over the same nonsense.
LOL. She responded to this. At least she realizes she is a Queen Troll. Got to give her credit for that.
"The answer was in the Patriots eyes. Gone were the swagger and c0ck sure smirks, replaced by downcast eyes and heads in hands. For his poise and leadership Eli Manning was named the game's MVP. The 2007 Giants were never perfect nor meant to be. They were fighters, scrappers....now they could be called something else, World Champions."