Nice writeup over at Beyond the Box Score

"Add that to the fact that elite run preventing teams had the same probability of making the playoffs during the decade as run scoring teams (63%) and run preventing teams had a higher probability of winning the World Series (7% to 4%), and the Giants don't look quite so lucky--they just look good."

over 1 year ago hairball 8 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Media dig the long ball.

MY DAD WAS WRONG!
MY BOY NEEDS TO THROW HARDER!

by Roger on Feb 22, 2011 9:49 AM PST reply actions

I like it

Think about 2010. Many prognosticators argued that the Giants were lucky to make it past the Phillies and win the World Series against the Rangers. Upon closer examination, this makes no sense.

The Giants scored only 697 runs all season, but they only allowed 583—for those counting at home, that’s a run differential of 114. That differential was good for 4th in all of baseball and an expected record of 95-67. The Phillies, by contrast, scored 772 runs and allowed 640. They were expected win 96—only one more than the Giants. As for the Rangers, they scored 787 runs and allowed 687, good for the eighth best run differential in the majors. They were expected to win 92 games, four fewer than the Giants. All three teams had what could be considered elite pitching staffs, but the Giants had the best of the three.

Waiting for the next adoption draft...my son was killed in a horrible FA transaction.

Ross on Halladay: "I’d tried everything against him…going the other way, taking pitches, trying to walk…and nothing worked. I’d never tried going up there and just trying to hit a home run off him."

by scout6 on Feb 22, 2011 10:01 AM PST reply actions

it sounds pretty arbitrary to use the top 8… Also, statistically speaking, it is usually not a good idea to compress continuous data (batting or pitching stats) into categorical data (especially into only 2 levels, elite or not) because you are throwing away a lot of the distinctions between samples (or data in general). He could have could have same analysis using continuous stats like OPS, wOBA, etc. that are more appropriate and the analysis wouldn’t be any harder.

Proud adopted parent of the ball dudes, who have grounded into 109 fewer double plays than the Giants.

by DJ Tofu on Feb 22, 2011 10:04 AM PST reply actions

To the author's credit, he explains the top 8 thing pretty well, methinks.

"Today I flew the most poorly dressed bad-ass that has ever entered my jet. And he borrowed my pen to do a cross word puzzle." - robotsapproach on Brian Wilson.

by hairball on Feb 22, 2011 10:06 AM PST up reply actions

If we accept this as true, then 2011 is gonna be a good year

by Mrbasepaul on Feb 22, 2011 10:36 AM PST reply actions

I think the playoffs favor pitching more than the regular season.

Which is conventional wisdom, isn’t it. Everybody said if the Giants could make the playoffs, no one wants the play them in such short series. The extra rest makes your top pitchers much more valuable and the Giants have amazing top tier pitchers.

Pitching gets move valuable in the playoffs because:

No 5th starter.
Only 1 start for 4th starter in a 7 game series
Possibility of 3 starts for your number 1 starter in a 7 game series
More rest for bullpen lets you use top relievers more
Bullpen and starters can go all out
Starting pitchers can become relievers at the end of series

Hi Flem!

by RichHerreraHomer on Feb 22, 2011 8:11 PM PST reply actions

Except

doesn’t do much for the Giants given that Zito is just about the best fifth starter in baseball.
doesn’t do much given that the talent gap between Cain, Sanchez and Bumgarner (esp. the last two) is pretty thin.
would be an important factor if it ever happened anymore, which it basically doesnt

The rest have more impact on the Giants’ fortunes, but i think the biggest factor is the nature of the game itself. Pitching is critical in the playoffs for the same reason all-star games have low scores, which is that great pitchers tend to dominate great hitters much more than the reverse, which is pretty simply explained by the fact that hitting is harder than preventing hitting.

"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."

by i did my job on Feb 23, 2011 1:25 AM PST up reply actions

Good pitching doesn't beat good hitting.

I’ve got it right here in my nerd manual, The Book by Tango, Lichtman and Dolphin. On page 96 they say " There is no platoon effect with respect to the quality of the pitcher or hitter. Good pitching beats good hitting as much as good hitting beats good pitching."

RE:
1. Yeah, you’re right that the 5th starter thing doesn’t help the Giants as much because their staff is so deep. As I read my post over again, I realized what I was trying to say was that a pitching staff with a few elite pitchers and some average pitchers would be better in the playoffs than a staff of the same average quality with no elite pitchers. This is because you can play the elite pitchers more and sit the average quality starters. I guess the Giants don’t fit this. They have elite pitchers and depth.

All star games are different in other ways too. Each pitcher pitches no more than 2 innings so the batters only get 1 AB against each pitcher and every pitcher is fresh. Hitters are moving in and out of the game often too, making them like pinch hitters, which hit at a severely reduced clip. This should give pitchers an advantage.

Hi Flem!

by RichHerreraHomer on Feb 23, 2011 11:05 AM PST up reply actions