WS Game 1 Discussion

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-23-2008, 01:10 AM
OldFatGuy

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I'm not buying this line of reasoning. Game 7 of the ALCS vs. the defending World Series champs is damn packed with pressure. I don't see the World Series itself as being "extra pressurized" enough for it to matter.

The whole deal with the "younger" team stuff, history has shown that it's really irrelevant in the playoffs. 2003 Florida Marlins were about 27 years old on average, against the Yankees, who were about 5 years older. 2002 Angels were 29, vs. the Giants who were 31. Age and playoff experience have proven to mean little, if not nothing, when it comes to the outcome of a playoff series.

No amount of "clutch" can outweigh the fact that Jamie Moyer maxes out in the low-80s, and that just doesn't fly in the American League like it can in the National League, and that Joe Blanton is basically the same except right-handed with some extra oomph on his ball.

True enough, and good points. And I hope you're right. Because in theory, "no amount of clutch can outweigh the fact that Jamie Moyer maxes out in the low-80's" so therefore, it's a done deal. Once the Phillies get beyond Hamels, the Rays should win em all. Problem is, that exact same philosophy could have been applied to the Dodgers series.

It didn't work there either. The thing that SABR lovers never, EVER, want to admit is that instead of random number generators, real people play out the games. Stats don't, and never will, explain everything. If they did, the world's best statisticians would've already been hired as MLB GM's. Or managers. It just doesn't work that way.

The best statistical pitcher in the MLB could come accross the worst statistical hitter in the MLB and depending on all of the millions of other variances, it might end up that the best pitcher would totally dominate the worst hitter, OR MAYBE, the worst statistical hitter might dominate the best statistical pitcher. WHY???? I mean, of course, that's not possible, right??? (Do you want me to post real stats here??????)

I agree HGM, the Rays SHOULD win. And I HOPE that they will win. But I'm just not sure that they WILL win.

But I'm gonna watch till it's over either way. IMO, this is one of the very best series at least since the Mets/Orioles. In fact, in my own personal situation, I haven't been this interested since then.
10-23-2008, 01:24 AM
HoustonGM

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

True enough, and good points. And I hope you're right. Because in theory, "no amount of clutch can outweigh the fact that Jamie Moyer maxes out in the low-80's" so therefore, it's a done deal. Once the Phillies get beyond Hamels, the Rays should win em all. Problem is, that exact same philosophy could have been applied to the Dodgers series.

Well, no, it's not a "done deal", and I never said it was. In baseball, ANYTHING can happen. Also, like I said, Moyer's stuff is very unlikely to work well against an AMERICAN LEAGUE lineup. There's a large difference between the leagues, so the same can't be applied to the Dodger series.

Quote:

It didn't work there either. The thing that SABR lovers never, EVER, want to admit is that instead of random number generators, real people play out the games.

Not true. That's something that "SABR haters" like to say about "SABR lovers" which no "SABR lover" actually thinks. As I've said in other threads, this person that believes that baseball is played by computers that generate numbers does not exist. It's a mythical thing used by people that don't understand statistical analysis in an effort to make "statheads" seem silly. It's a strawman.

Quote:

The best statistical pitcher in the MLB could come accross the worst statistical hitter in the MLB and depending on all of the millions of other variances, it might end up that the best pitcher would totally dominate the worst hitter, OR MAYBE, the worst statistical hitter might dominate the best statistical pitcher. WHY???? I mean, of course, that's not possible, right??? (Do you want me to post real stats here??????)

Uh, what? There is no person in the world that thinks that situation is "not possible." It's a thing called sample size. In one at bat, between any hitter and pitcher anything can happen. It's just that the pitcher has a better CHANCE to "dominate the hitter" than the batter does the pitcher.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Quote:

I agree HGM, the Rays SHOULD win. And I HOPE that they will win. But I'm just not sure that they WILL win.

Nobody can be SURE that they will win. That's why they play the games. The only thing people can do is look at the facts at hand and make a choice about who they think has the best chance of winning.

That's what I'm doing above. I'm analyzing the rosters of the two teams. Up and down, the Rays have a better team. The Rays easily have a much better starting rotation. Two of the Phillies starters (Moyer and Blanton) feature repertoires that are likely to get hit hard by an American League lineup. I am not saying that it's a done deal that the Rays will beat the Phillies in all the non-Hamels games. I'm not saying that it's a done deal that the Rays will beat Moyer or Blanton at all. I'm just looking at the facts at hand and making an educated "guess", for lack of a better term, of who has the better CHANCE to win, and that is all ANYBODY, stathead or otherwise, does.

Simply put, statistics do two things. 1) They tell you what has happened and 2) They can be used to help you make educated decisions about the chances of what will happen. They CANNOT tell you what will happen, and NOBODY claims that.
10-23-2008, 01:51 AM
ohms_law

Yea, that's the thing. Variation certainly exists in baseball. Players speak about it all the time. There's even a term used by very many fans and commentators: "It's a game of inches".

The best players ever generally have a successful plate appearance about 1/3 of the time. They have the success that they do have due to their skill, but the fact is that the worst hitters can get a hit off of the best pitchers and vice versa. There's simply no way for the human body to be perfect enough to put bat to ball more often then that. That's what created the "variation" that we observe, not some mythical random number generator.

ps.: if the "best team" should be winning, then this world series match up probably shouldn't be occurring right now...
10-23-2008, 01:54 AM
HoustonGM

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms_law

The best players ever generally have a successful plate appearance about 1/3 of the time.

More like 3/8 of the time ;)
10-23-2008, 01:59 AM
ohms_law

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

eh... give or take. Kind of depends on the definition of "successful", of course.
10-23-2008, 02:01 AM
HoustonGM

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms_law

eh... give or take. Kind of depends on the definition of "successful", of course.

I'll use the definition as "not making an out."

Of course, there's always exceptions.

I was just nitpicking for fun :)
10-23-2008, 02:01 AM
BINGLEBOP

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by ohms_law

ps.: if the "best team" should be winning, then this world series match up probably shouldn't be occurring right now...

We have a winner.
10-23-2008, 07:46 AM
TheNamelessPoet

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

no comments about the NON balk call... I think that may be what cost the Rays

HOWEVER...
GREAT teams overcome bad calls... and it was certainlyearlyenough in the game the should have recovered
10-23-2008, 08:19 AM
phightinphils

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

no comments about the NON balk call... I think that may be what cost the Rays

HOWEVER...
GREAT teams overcome bad calls... and it was certainlyearlyenough in the game the should have recovered

What balk? Terry Mulholland had the same move and he perfected what looked like a pitch to the plate and would absolutely pick a guy off with no problem.

But, that doesn't matter. A win is win and in the World Series, it doesn't matter if it is ugly or a beautiful portrait.

Oh, and Kazmir didn't look all that great last night.

And if you think of it realistically, the Rays have LOST 3 out of their last 4 games.

Phils up 1-0 baby! :D
10-23-2008, 08:33 AM
HoustonGM

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by phightinphils

And if you think of it realistically, the Rays have LOST 3 out of their last 4 games.

Which doesn't matter.
10-23-2008, 08:49 AM
TheNamelessPoet

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by phightinphils

What balk? Terry Mulholland had the same move and he perfected what looked like a pitch to the plate and would absolutely pick a guy off with no problem.

Um ok... and that makes it legal how??? Kenny rodger put pine tar on his hand for 2 innings... taht doesn make it legal Different circumstance but the point being people get away with illegal stuff all the time... and that was an illegal move to 1st... LIKE I SAID HOWEVER... A Great team can get past that.

Quote:

But, that doesn't matter. A win is win and in the World Series, it doesn't matter if it is ugly or a beautiful portrait.

100% agree

Quote:

Oh, and Kazmir didn't look all that great last night.

And if you think of it realistically, the Rays have LOST 3 out of their last 4 games.

Phils up 1-0 baby! :D

I personaly think kazmir is their 3rd best starter but tahts my opinion... I'd put shields and garza ahead of him.

as for the 3 out of 4??? wtf are u talking about... thats 3, different series?!?!?!
10-23-2008, 08:53 AM
HoustonGM

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

as for the 3 out of 4??? wtf are u talking about... thats 3 different series?!?!?!

No, just 2. The last 3 games of the ALCS and the first game of the World Series.

But, like I said, that means nothing.
10-23-2008, 08:56 AM
TheNamelessPoet

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

No, just 2. The last 3 games of the ALCS and the first game of the World Series.

But, like I said, that means nothing.

no they lost game 5 also remmeber.. he was right 3 out of 4and I agree it means nothing
10-23-2008, 08:57 AM
HoustonGM

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet

no they lost game 5 also remmeber.. he was right 3 out of 4and I agree it means nothing

Yes, they lost Game 5 and 6 of the ALCS, won game 7, and lost game 1 of the World Series. 3 out of 4 games is right, but you said "3 series", and it's only 2. :p
10-23-2008, 12:55 PM
Alloutwar

Re: WS Game 1 Discussion

Unrelated issue: does anyone here know anyone that went to the game?

My Phillies fan buddy from Orlando bought 4 tickets, and it cost him around $1500 total. $1500!!! For tickets to the TROP!

I know World Series tickets are hiked; are the prices set by MLB? Because to go from $10 tickets in the upper deck that are not sold and typically covered with tarp during the season, to charging $338 per before taxes and WalletBlaster fees, is rather incredible. 3300% markup?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page