NL ALDS Giants @ Cubs

[Grant77]

By my understanding, NJH does not care about the Cubs win/loss record in the regular season. He's looking at the talent level of the team, which is stacked to the brim and quite a bit better than the Giants.

 

I clearly interpreted his statement in a different way and responded in kind. Let's drop that for a moment.

 

With some exceptions, regular season record is a decent measure of the talent level of a team. I use the term 'decent' to avoid you picking on semantics and avoiding the topic at hand. I know there are exceptions like the Rangers.

 

Here's the question that needs to be answered. If regular season record doesn't determine postseason success then why does 'talent level'? How do you define this?

[King]

I clearly interpreted his statement in a different way and responded in kind. Let's drop that for a moment.

 

With some exceptions, regular season record is a decent measure of the talent level of a team. I use the term 'decent' to avoid you picking on semantics and avoiding the topic at hand. I know there are exceptions like the Rangers.

 

Here's the question that needs to be answered. If regular season record doesn't determine postseason success then why does 'talent level'? How do you define this?

It's because the post-season is essentially a coin flip, but the Cubs are a better team than the Giants, so that is why NJH would rather face the Giants in a 7 game series. This is not rocket science. My mind is blown that you are actually asking why talent level determines team success.

 

If you want talent level look at fWAR. Cubs ranked 1st in batting fWAR, 4th in pitching fWAR and 1st in fielding fWAR throughout the entire MLB.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=31&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

[King]

It's really not complicated. You said - "I think we'd have a better chance of beating the Cubs. The Giants playoff track record is legit."

 

I said the Cubs are absolutely better, implying that I'd rather face the Giants.

 

We're talking about maybe having a 55% chance to win vs. maybe a 50% chance. Some very small, nearly insignificant difference.

 

You explicitly cited the Giants track record in the playoffs as a reason you don't want to face them. That's irrelevant! Pure cognitive bias.

 

And for the record, the "statistical data" that you would need to support your position is that past playoff success = future playoff success. You didn't do that.

 

I am right and you are dumb I know it's hard to admit.

Read this again, Grant.

[Grant77]

It's because the post-season is essentially a coin flip, but the Cubs are a better team than the Giants, so that is why NJH would rather face the Giants in a 7 game series. This is not rocket science. My mind is blown that you are actually asking why talent level determines team success.

 

If you want talent level look at fWAR. Cubs ranked 1st in batting fWAR, 4th in pitching fWAR and 1st in fielding fWAR throughout the entire MLB.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=31&season1=2016&ind=0&team=0,ts&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0

 

If talent level mattered, it wouldn't be 'essentially a coin flip'. You contradict yourself in a big way here.

 

Talent level should determine wins. That makes sense. The data we have shows that it doesn't determine wins in the playoffs. That doesn't make sense.

 

I totally get your confusion here. Highly regarded baseball analysts still try to predict champions based on regular season performance so you're not alone.

 

I'm open to any additional data you have here and could certainly be wrong, but I think there are other factors that DO influence playoff success. Things like good/bad matchups, hot players, etc.

[Stangstag]

The argument was about whether regular season record is a significant factor in the playoffs. Njh thinks it is and I think it isn't. What side are you on? Let's hear your answer with no stupid comment. Yes it is or no it isn't. Why?

 

What we know about the Giants postseason teams is that Bumgarner is a horse that can single handedly win a series with his endurance and performance. When the series is a virtual coin flip, I'd rather not face him. The way they utilize him is a 'legit' advantage in my opinion. Not all pitchers can do that.

 

So you'd rather face Lester/Hendricks/Arrieta over Bumgarner? Come on.

[Grant77]

So you'd rather face Lester/Hendricks/Arrieta over Bumgarner? Come on.

 

I don't think it makes a significant difference in our chances one way or another, but gun to my head I'd choose to avoid Bumgarner after seeing his mind blowing performance in 2014.

 

The burden of proof is on you here. There are lots of studies out there that say regular season performance isn't a huge factor in the playoffs.

 

Prove to me why the Cubs are a unique case. I'm a scientist through and through. If you show me compelling proof then I'll change my stance and be happy to have learned something new.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Grant77

[Spanky99]

I don't think it makes a significant difference in our chances one way or another, but gun to my head I'd choose to avoid Bumgarner after seeing his mind blowing performance in 2014.

 

The burden of proof is on you here. There are lots of studies out there that say regular season performance isn't a huge factor in the playoffs.

 

Prove to me why the Cubs are a unique case. I'm a scientist through and through. If you show me compelling proof then I'll change my stance and be happy to have learned something new.

 

You're Blinding Me with Science...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8

[Stangstag]

I don't think it makes a significant difference in our chances one way or another, but gun to my head I'd choose to avoid Bumgarner after seeing his mind blowing performance in 2014.

 

The burden of proof is on you here. There are lots of studies out there that say regular season performance isn't a huge factor in the playoffs.

 

Prove to me why the Cubs are a unique case. I'm a scientist through and through. If you show me compelling proof then I'll change my stance and be happy to have learned something new.

 

All you have to do is compare the players at each position and it's clear as day who the stronger team is.

[Grant77]

All you have to do is compare the players at each position and it's clear as day who the stronger team is.

 

Sure, I haven't questioned that.

 

Strong team A vs. Weak team B has played out hundreds of times in baseball playoff history. Weak team B wins roughly just as often. Why? I don't have a f***ing clue, but there it is.

 

Why do you think the Cubs are unique? The available evidence says they aren't. As I said, the burden of proof is on you.

[Spanky99]

Well, that's because anything can happen in a short series... in saying that, I'd much rather face the Giants over the Cubs, because they're a better team, overall. This is going on far too long.

 

/thread.

[Rusty_Savage]

I would def rather face the Giants, but with that being said the Cubbies looked very beatable in that series

[Olerud363]

Njh thinks it is and I think it isn't. What side are you on?

 

Why would this be complicated at all?? There have been hundreds of playoff series in mlb history. Isn't the data out there somewhere.

 

In most cases the differences in regular season record are small, a .600 team going against a .550 team... so you are still basically in coin flip territory. 55, 60% chance of the better team winning.

[Olerud363]

Strong team A vs. Weak team B has played out hundreds of times in baseball playoff history. Weak team B wins roughly just as often. Why? I don't have a f***ing clue, but there it is.

 

 

Why are you so confident?? Do you have the numbers in front of you??

 

Does Strong team win 50% of the time?? 53?? 43?? 60?? What is the definition of "strong team".

 

You have to do aprior design an experiment. Use round numbers so you don't rig it. For example take all playoff series between teams

 

10+ games apart

5+ games apart

 

Tell us, the total number of these games, and the number of times the better team won.

[Olerud363]

I don't think it makes a significant difference in our chances one way or another, but gun to my head I'd choose to avoid Bumgarner after seeing his mind blowing performance in 2014.

 

The burden of proof is on you here. There are lots of studies out there that say regular season performance isn't a huge factor in the playoffs.

 

Prove to me why the Cubs are a unique case. I'm a scientist through and through. If you show me compelling proof then I'll change my stance and be happy to have learned something new.

 

Why is the burden of proof on others?? It's on you?? Sorry if I missed the link to the studies you referenced. But I can't find them.

[Olerud363]

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if they are a 'better team' once the playoffs start. Other factors, whether they be luck or something else, come into play at this point.

 

Holy crap -- Grant doesn't understand luck. Luck is random and would effect all teams equally. If the underdog teams, are proven to be "luckier" over a large sample size it's not luck, it's a real effect, even if we don't the explanation yet.

[Olerud363]

Funny, no more snarky responses from njh when confronted with data that shows he was actually the victim of cognitive bias. Facts are his kryptonite.

 

What data?? That paper was hard to absorb at first glance.

 

Here is a question. How does fangraphs calculate their playoff series odds?? Are they based on historical playoff data?? Or just the regular season model applied to playoff series??

 

For example Toronto has a 26.8 percent chance to win the Series, Cubs 31%?? Is that real?? If regular season has no meaning why are they not even.

 

As with all your arguments, if you are right, by definition you know something fangraphs doesn't. I'm still waiting for this.

 

Fangraphs - Hi Toronto Message Board -- Please check out our latest article on our new "playoff odds" system, it will be of interest to you because one of your Members, "Grant" was insturmental in helping us with the new system. He pointed out a few flaws in our old system, and helped us design the new one. You'll notice that the better regular season teams, no longer have a better chance of winning in the playoffs, Grant pointed out that they shouldn't, and after carefully looking at historical data we realized he was right and adjusted our system.

 

3 cheers for Grant!"

[Rusty_Savage]

Olerud going off

[CHRIS]

It must be so lousy to be a Giants fan this morning.

[Grant77]

I'm sorry to waste your time Olerud, but I posted the data earlier. Statisticians have already done the work, I'm just using their conclusions. There's nothing original here on my part, just a belief in logic.

 

Multiple people use the term crapshoot to describe the playoffs without accepting or understanding what that means. We've got over 100 years of data that says it's a virtual coin flip. It doesn't matter if a team is 'better'. Still, these people fall into the trap and use that irrelevant data to predict winners and declare themselves intellectually superior. I'll proudly say that I don't know who is going to win a given series because that's what the evidence shows.

[Grant77]

Here is a question. How does fangraphs calculate their playoff series odds?? Are they based on historical playoff data?? Or just the regular season model applied to playoff series??

 

Certainly the latter. I'd bet my life that a coin flip model would prove more accurate over a large enough sample. So would the people at fangraphs.

[Olerud363]

I'm sorry to waste your time Olerud, but I posted the data earlier. Statisticians have already done the work, I'm just using their conclusions. There's nothing original here on my part, just a belief in logic.

 

Multiple people use the term crapshoot to describe the playoffs without accepting or understanding what that means. We've got over 100 years of data that says it's a virtual coin flip. It doesn't matter if a team is 'better'. Still, these people fall into the trap and use that irrelevant data to predict winners and declare themselves intellectually superior. I'll proudly say that I don't know who is going to win a given series because that's what the evidence shows.

 

You are not using numbers here. You posted one murky undergraduate project. The fact is that fangraphs gives the better teams a slight advantage. Why?? Are saying that advantage isn't real??

 

What about Vegas odds?? Are they all about even??

 

Are you claiming that there is __LITERALLY__ no advantage for the better team?? That after robust statistical analysis the odds of any playoff series are 50/50??

 

I __suspect__ there is an advantage for the better team, it is small because the team is never that much better.

[Olerud363]

Certainly the latter. I'd bet my life that a coin flip model would prove more accurate over a large enough sample. So would the people at fangraphs.

 

A coin flip model would never be more accurrate... if the process is truly random, the best you could for is a tie. Coin flip model would be 50/50, and no other model could ever beat that, as the sample grows large.

[Governator]

I'm sorry to waste your time Olerud, but I posted the data earlier. Statisticians have already done the work, I'm just using their conclusions. There's nothing original here on my part, just a belief in logic.

 

Multiple people use the term crapshoot to describe the playoffs without accepting or understanding what that means. We've got over 100 years of data that says it's a virtual coin flip. It doesn't matter if a team is 'better'. Still, these people fall into the trap and use that irrelevant data to predict winners and declare themselves intellectually superior. I'll proudly say that I don't know who is going to win a given series because that's what the evidence shows.

 

 

Your link to a student's Undergrad research paper doesn't support your POV in anyway... the research was to find out if a hot in September has a better chance of winning the WS... not if they have the most regular season wins. The paper concluded that teams with higher winning % against the top teams in the league have a higher chance of winning the WS. There is zero mention of 'virtual coin flips' or everyone has some sort of equal chance to win. So why are you using it to support your illogical POV?

[HERPDERP]

It must be so lousy to be a Giants fan this morning.

 

eh, three World Series berths in the past 6 years.

 

It must be infuriating knowing though that if only Sabean did something at the deadline. He's the big target here.

 

Watch them go ham on guys like Chapman and Cecil.

 

Thanks for Biagini, though.

[Olerud363]

Certainly the latter. I'd bet my life that a coin flip model would prove more accurate over a large enough sample. So would the people at fangraphs.

 

This is crazy.. where the hell are the smart guys. Please at least acknowledge this is crazy.

 

If the coin flip model is "better" it means the other model was just inverted... I mean if you proved statistically that the coin flip model __IS__BETTER___ and it is repeatable... then you just invert the other model.

[Olerud363]

This is crazy.. where the hell are the smart guys. Please at least acknowledge this is crazy.

 

If the coin flip model is "better" it means the other model was just inverted... I mean if you proved statistically that the coin flip model __IS__BETTER___ and it is repeatable... then you just invert the other model.

 

If the coin flip model, is better than "regular season wins" it means that the relationship between wins and playoff success is inverted... so Grant is now saying the lesser team has an advantage??

[Grant77]

You bring up a good example, Olerud.

 

Vegas odds adjust to betting patterns. You pay a premium to bet on a popular choice.

 

That's a great example of how someone who understands and accepts the evidence can take advantage of people who don't. The Cubs get heavy action, but Vegas knows they are more or less a 1/8 chance like everyone else.

[Grant77]

If the coin flip model, is better than "regular season wins" it means that the relationship between wins and playoff success is inverted... so Grant is now saying the lesser team has an advantage??

 

No I'm not. I'm saying that nobody has a substantial advantage. Look, you don't understand statistics so I'm just going to drop it. Go bet on the Cubs if you think you are right.

 

/end thread

[Olerud363]

This is crazy.. where the hell are the smart guys. Please at least acknowledge this is crazy.

 

 

I was out of line implying the smart guys don't fight Grant. Sorry smart guys... looking back you did spend time on this, probably more than it deserved it.

[Boxcar]

What data?? That paper was hard to absorb at first glance.

 

Here is a question. How does fangraphs calculate their playoff series odds?? Are they based on historical playoff data?? Or just the regular season model applied to playoff series??

 

For example Toronto has a 26.8 percent chance to win the Series, Cubs 31%?? Is that real?? If regular season has no meaning why are they not even.

 

As with all your arguments, if you are right, by definition you know something fangraphs doesn't. I'm still waiting for this.

 

Fangraphs - Hi Toronto Message Board -- Please check out our latest article on our new "playoff odds" system, it will be of interest to you because one of your Members, "Grant" was insturmental in helping us with the new system. He pointed out a few flaws in our old system, and helped us design the new one. You'll notice that the better regular season teams, no longer have a better chance of winning in the playoffs, Grant pointed out that they shouldn't, and after carefully looking at historical data we realized he was right and adjusted our system.

 

3 cheers for Grant!"

 

That's right. If Bumgarner played for the Braves I'd still rather face the Cubs because Bumgarner basically morphs into a superhuman every playoffs. That or he just tries extra extra hard to be good at pitching. The rest of the team is irrelevant.

 

PS, you dummies never learn. Especially NJH.