General 2020 Blue Jays Discussion Thread

[BlueBaller]

You have to win 2 games. Does not matter at all...and if anyone throws the momentum word at me I will rage ban half the board

lol.. big mo.

[BlueBaller]

I just looked up Jansen's stats. Unreal that he had a sub .200 babip. I've never seen anything close to that.

[JaysAllMighty]

I just want the Baseball Gods on our side! YES WE CAN!

[Virgil_Hiltz]

I just want the Baseball Gods on our side! YES WE CAN!

 

Karma a bitch!

[Grant77]

I just looked up Jansen's stats. Unreal that he had a sub .200 babip. I've never seen anything close to that.

 

It can be partly explained by his mediocre exit velocity and lack of speed, but there's still a lot of bad luck.

 

He's remarkably similar to Cavan Biggio minus the BABIP. Same K and BB percentages, same ISO, same EV. He's going to be really good soon.

[Olerud363]

I can't recall the exact number, but Sportsnet had a graphic earlier today with team's record after winning game 1 of a playoff series. It was 124-39 or something, a huge discrepancy.

 

I won't pretend to know the reasons, but game 1 is more important than game 2. It's a fact.

 

OK.

 

1. Is your number correct?? I mean you can't say "I can't recall exactly"... If it was actually 120-43 that is a huge difference.

 

2. Is the number way higher then what would be expected given randomly matched teams?? Yes it is, if your number is accurate.

 

3. Is the number way higher then what would be expected given un-matched teams? One team is often a bit better than the other, that team will win game 1 and the series more often.

[Laika]

OK.

 

1. Is your number correct?? I mean you can't say "I can't recall exactly"... If it was actually 120-43 that is a huge difference.

 

2. Is the number way higher then what would be expected given randomly matched teams?? Yes it is, if your number is accurate.

 

3. Is the number way higher then what would be expected given un-matched teams? One team is often a bit better than the other, that team will win game 1 and the series more often.

 

The number might be right if you assume the team that tends to win game 1 is the better team.

If we are talking about a coin flip matchup the odds of the game 1 loser winning 4 of the next 6 would be like 11/32. So ~65% chance the game 1 winner wins the series. Grant's number is a 73.6% series win percentage, not far off that.

 

What the figure does not prove is the importance of game 1 over any other game. The numbers are probably the same if you look at game 2 instead.

[Deadpool]

The number might be right if you assume the team that tends to win game 1 is the better team.

If we are talking about a coin flip matchup the odds of the game 1 loser winning 4 of the next 6 would be like 11/32. So ~65% chance the game 1 winner wins the series. Grant's number is a 73.6% series win percentage, not far off that.

 

What the figure does not prove is the importance of game 1 over any other game. The numbers are probably the same if you look at game 2 instead.

 

In a 3 game series you need to win 66% of the games. If you've already won 1 game, you now have to win 33% of the games, while your opponent still has to win 66% of the games.

[connorp]

In a 3 game series you need to win 66% of the games. If you've already won 1 game, you now have to win 33% of the games, while your opponent still has to win 66% of the games.

 

Wat?

[Krylian]

In a 3 game series you need to win 66% of the games. If you've already won 1 game, you now have to win 33% of the games, while your opponent still has to win 66% of the games.

 

Are you sure about this? Sounds like something that would be more common knowledge if it were true.

[connorp]

The number might be right if you assume the team that tends to win game 1 is the better team.

If we are talking about a coin flip matchup the odds of the game 1 loser winning 4 of the next 6 would be like 11/32. So ~65% chance the game 1 winner wins the series. Grant's number is a 73.6% series win percentage, not far off that.

 

What the figure does not prove is the importance of game 1 over any other game. The numbers are probably the same if you look at game 2 instead.

 

I didn’t respond when I first saw it but I was thinking red/black but then you have to account for one team being better, so there’d be more of one color on the wheel, that gap is always unique of course. But it pushes it from 50/50. So it’s hard to pinpoint an exact number in terms of probabilities but looking at it as red/black or coin flip is best start.

 

But to play devils advocate, someone will say human emotion is involved. The idea that being down 1-0 in a 3 game series will cause people to perhaps perform differently. While you can’t really quantity that, it can’t be completely dismissed either

[Olerud363]

Are you sure about this? Sounds like something that would be more common knowledge if it were true.

 

If you could only win one of game 1 or game 2 which would you choose?

 

Game 1 clearly. It's a fact.

 

I am never one to dispute facts but still... what I would like to see is

 

a) assuming team wins game 1 do they have a better then predicted chance of winning game 2 based on underlying team quality?

assuming series is tied 1-1 does the team that won game 1 have a better chance of winning than the team that won game 2?

 

Intuitively I think a) no... no

 

What are the facts though?? Facts matter, it is all we have to defeat the irrational.

[Boxcar]

Wat?

 

He meant to say 50% and 100%

 

Or at least I hope he did

[connorp]

He meant to say 50% and 100%

 

Or at least I hope he did

 

Well technically he’s still right as-is but the way he presented it (after game 1) you’d think 50/100

 

Don’t think he realized that so was busting balls

[Laika]

But to play devils advocate, someone will say human emotion is involved. The idea that being down 1-0 in a 3 game series will cause people to perhaps perform differently. While you can’t really quantity that, it can’t be completely dismissed either

 

You could say the same thing about the team being up. They could get complacent. The non-quantifiable BS kind of cancels out.

[Krylian]

If you could only win one of game 1 or game 2 which would you choose?

 

Game 1 clearly. It's a fact.

 

I am never one to dispute facts but still... what I would like to see is

 

a) assuming team wins game 1 do they have a better then predicted chance of winning game 2 based on underlying team quality?

assuming series is tied 1-1 does the team that won game 1 have a better chance of winning than the team that won game 2?

 

Intuitively I think a) no... no

 

What are the facts though?? Facts matter, it is all we have to defeat the irrational.

 

I choose winning game 3

[connorp]

You could say the same thing about the team being up. They could get complacent. The non-quantifiable BS kind of cancels out.

 

Yeah, it can go both ways. But you can’t just say they cxl each other out.

I’m not saying I’m one to go by that stuff but you can’t totally discount it, even though it’s impossible to quantify and it’s undoubtedly less of an impact as standard probabilities

[Laika]

Yeah, it can go both ways. But you can’t just say they cxl each other out.

I’m not saying I’m one to go by that stuff but you can’t totally discount it, even though it’s impossible to quantify and it’s undoubtedly less of an impact as standard probabilities

 

Yes you can. We've all played sports. Being down a game can actually be motivating. You can't at all say that a team being up 1-0 has any type of positive effect on them or the other team. It can't be said. You can't assume the direction of the intangibles. To assume a direction is to say that you can touch an intangible in at least some respect, which is categorically BS. You're not God. Who do you think you are?

[Olerud363]

Well technically he’s still right as-is but the way he presented it (after game 1) you’d think 50/100

 

Don’t think he realized that so was busting balls

 

If you wanted to do this properly you'd have to present every series and the expected number of series wins by the winner of game 1, vs the actual number of series wins by the winner of game 1.

 

That data is totally missing from this discussion.

 

To me the number Grant showed 124-39 seems higher than what you'd expect... so the number could show an effect

 

However

 

1. Is this number even correct or did Grant hear a different number, then fudge a bit to make his case?? Like maybe the real number was 119-45.

2. If correct is the trend the number shows significant in a statistical sense ?

[connorp]

Yes you can. We've all played sports. Being down a game can actually be motivating. You can't at all say that a team being up 1-0 has any type of positive effect on them or the other team. It can't be said. You can't assume the direction of the intangibles. To assume a direction is to say that you can touch an intangible in at least some respect, which is categorically BS. You're not God. Who do you think you are?

 

Bro, you’re the one trying to change the direction of intangibles (“cxl each other out”), not me.

[Laika]

Bro, you’re the one trying to change the direction of intangibles (“cxl each other out”), not me.

 

No, f*** you. You are implying that the intangibles work in some way against the team that will be down 1-0. I am saying that are intangibles and you can't even assume a direction for them. wbgtikujgbtiuwerybgtiuyewrbgtiyujrebgtiurwebuirewbtniuowerhbtiuwer4bgte4uirwb

[connorp]

No, f*** you. You are implying that the intangibles work in some way against the team that will be down 1-0. I am saying that are intangibles and you can't even assume a direction for them. wbgtikujgbtiuwerybgtiuyewrbgtiyujrebgtiurwebuirewbtniuowerhbtiuwer4bgte4uirwb

 

No, I’m not implying that. It can work in both ways, I was merely taking exception to you saying since the intangibles work both ways, the logical conclusion is to “cancel them out” and pretend they don’t exist.

[Laika]

No, I’m not implying that. It can work in both ways, I was merely taking exception to you saying since the intangibles work both ways, the logical conclusion is to “cancel them out” and pretend they don’t exist.

 

You brought up the intangibles you fart! Praying to Mecca for you to get hit by a bus right now

[wilko]

I think they should start Ryu game one. If they lose because of Walker or someone else starting, the Jays lose momentum going into the 2nd game.

[BTS]

WTF, Vladdy finished with a 115 wRC+? He's so close to being a great hitter. Just a few more fly balls.

[G-Snarls]

WTF, Vladdy finished with a 115 wRC+? He's so close to being a great hitter. Just a few more fly balls.

 

He has it in him...

[Deadpool]

Are you sure about this? Sounds like something that would be more common knowledge if it were true.

 

Perhaps my phrasing was inartful, but you need to win 66% of the total games in a series to win a 3 game series.

 

If you are recalculating after game 1, then it becomes 50% v/ 100%.

 

It's the same math, I'm just looking at the sum total of games, not the number of games remaining.

[Laika]

Perhaps my phrasing was inartful, but you need to win 66% of the total games in a series to win a 3 game series.

 

If you are recalculating after game 1, then it becomes 50% v/ 100%.

 

It's the same math, I'm just looking at the sum total of games, not the number of games remaining.

 

Wrong. 2/3 does not equal 66%.

[Deadpool]

Wrong. 2/3 does not equal 66%.

 

Well, now you're just getting into the realm where 3/3 doesn't actually equal 1, but 0.999999 repeated until infinity.

[Krylian]

He has it in him...

 

I think it's abuela's cooking he has in him.