Playoffs for 10/13

DMZ · October 13, 2006 at 2:00 pm · Filed Under General baseball 

I’d rather be at some sort of awesome pizza feed with USSM readers, frankly, but — HEY! What a wacky coincidence!

Oakland @ Detroit, now
St. Louis @ NYM, 5:05

Comments

91 Responses to “Playoffs for 10/13”

  1. ConorGlassey on October 13th, 2006 2:03 pm

    Does the secret location with the ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT PIZZA!!!!111!!1 have a TV in the banquet room? :)

  2. DMZ on October 13th, 2006 2:30 pm

    I don’t know. Possibly. Sure, why not.

  3. Thingray on October 13th, 2006 2:33 pm

    DMZ, I think that will be my answer fro every single question for the rest of the day. “I don’t know. Possible. Sure why not.”

  4. Thingray on October 13th, 2006 2:34 pm

    Answer “for”, not “fro”… Maybe I should consult the Answer Fro before submitting poorly typed posts!

  5. DMZ on October 13th, 2006 2:36 pm

    Go Tigers, or something!

    Anyway, whoever wins the AL is the likely WS winner. I’m waiting for that stomping.

  6. msb on October 13th, 2006 2:43 pm

    you know, if it ends up a Detroit/NY series, there will be a record number of ski masks involved…

  7. DMZ on October 13th, 2006 2:45 pm

    It may make for a reconsideration of having the World Series played on neutral ground.

  8. msb on October 13th, 2006 2:47 pm

    Seattle??

    it won’t be as disparate weather as the Indians/Marlins series… I can still see Omar in his Winter Weather Gear

  9. msb on October 13th, 2006 2:53 pm

    Marco can’t hear anything under his knit cap….

  10. rockjr13 on October 13th, 2006 2:54 pm

    Does anybody else think that Scutaro looks as ridiculous as you possibly could on baseball field right now… did he forget to take off that beanie? I know its cold, but…

  11. Jed C on October 13th, 2006 3:01 pm

    Maybe we could release massive amounts of hot air and molecules that reflect heat released by the Earth’s surface into the atmosphere, thereby warming up the climate so October weather will be perfect baseball weather in norther latitudes. It will go perfectly with my plan for attaching lasers to sharks …

  12. msb on October 13th, 2006 3:01 pm

    it’s a knit cap over his regulation ball cap. Obviously, Boone didn’t pass along his cold weather tips to the rest of the AL West before he retired; that elegant cut-the-top-off-your-knit-cap-and-pulling-it-down-to-make-a-turtleneck look.

    you know, it’s too bad Rizzs isn’t here to remind us all of the temperature in Comerica during that Opening Day in 2000…

  13. DMZ on October 13th, 2006 3:03 pm

    I think they should consider chopping the season back, myself, before they go to neutral ground. Drop ten games off the schedule, schedule more sunday double-headers, start a little earlier, you wouldn’t have to be nearly as deep in October, and that’d help a ton.

    Not going to happen, of course.

  14. msb on October 13th, 2006 3:05 pm

    #13– although Ron Fairly would agree with you….

    hey! I just realized my eldest nephew’s football team is mopping up the 1A South Central-West division– go Warriors!

  15. Paul B on October 13th, 2006 3:11 pm

    Leyland. The anti-Hargrove.

    (they were just talking about use of different lineups and putting players in a position where they could succeed).

  16. dw on October 13th, 2006 3:16 pm

    You know, they could return to playing some of the Series games during the day, when it’s a little warmer.

    I think requiring teams to play a certain number of “true” doubleheaders would make a huge difference. All you’d need is six, and that would move the start of the playoffs to the last week of September. And then, you could consider expanding the division series to seven games as well.

    But, you know, it’s usually just as cold in April as it is in October. I remember opening day 1994 in Denver — it started snowing in the sixth inning.

  17. Evan on October 13th, 2006 3:22 pm

    I like that the champion is determined under conditions entirely unlike the rest of the season.

    That said, I like that Canadian football plays into November. In Canada. I recall a playoff game in Winnipeg where they had to play on a reduced size field because they couldn’t chip off all of the 10″ thick layer of ice in time for the game.

    Baseball needs more of that. It’s a shame they don’t play much in the snow.

  18. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 3:38 pm

    So, Billy Beane’s favorite line is that winning in the postseason is a matter of luck. Will he essentially be claiming that he called heads, flipped a coin and it came up tails the last five times?

  19. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 3:39 pm

    Will George Clooney star in the new HBO movie: “Recovery of The Gambler: The Kenny Rogers Story”?

  20. Evan on October 13th, 2006 3:42 pm

    Is Ramon Santiago that Guy We Got For Guillen?

  21. JMB on October 13th, 2006 3:46 pm

    Yeah, Santiago and Juan Gonzalez (not that one, the other one).

  22. dw on October 13th, 2006 3:52 pm

    So, Billy Beane’s favorite line is that winning in the postseason is a matter of luck. Will he essentially be claiming that he called heads, flipped a coin and it came up tails the last five times?

    Obviously, this was covered in Baseball Between The Numbers, but personally, I think the problem is that Beane builds teams that have decent starting pitching, a scrap-heap bullpen, and a range of high OBP middling hitters. But because he thinks defense is not something he can afford, he tends to get walk machines who aren’t great fielders. And he really doesn’t buy power as much as OBP.

    And while defense and power aren’t going to win you a World Series per se, it can’t hurt to have them, either.

    Detroit’s starting pitching isn’t letting Oakland work the count, and even if they do, they have a young, solid bullpen. And then you add in the defense and the ability to cover the vast estate that’s Comerica’s outfield, and also the solid starting pitching built around a legit #1 starter in Bonderman, you have a team with a little more talent than Oakland.

    And honestly, they were one Frank Thomas HR from winning on Wednesday. So, in a sense, they are unlucky.

  23. Mat on October 13th, 2006 3:56 pm

    So, Billy Beane’s favorite line is that winning in the postseason is a matter of luck. Will he essentially be claiming that he called heads, flipped a coin and it came up tails the last five times?

    If you figure that the post-season starts with eight teams vying for the championship, and you make a simplifying assumption that they are all of equal quality, you get a 7/8ths chance that you won’t win the WS that year. Under those simplifying assumptions, you get the probability of winning the World Series at least once to be 1 – (7/8)^n where n is the number of times you make the playoffs. So plugging the numbers in for n=5, you get a 48.7% chance.

    Obviously, you can get a better estimate than that if you consider that the teams really aren’t all of equal quality, etc. However, it’s still such a small number of postseasons that it’s really difficult to judge whether or not his team can win in the postseason based simply on number of WS titles or whatever. (Now, if he’s GM for long enough that he gets up to n=25, and he still hasn’t won a WS title, you might have something.)

  24. gwangung on October 13th, 2006 4:01 pm

    Obviously, this was covered in Baseball Between The Numbers, but personally, I think the problem is that Beane builds teams that have decent starting pitching, a scrap-heap bullpen, and a range of high OBP middling hitters. But because he thinks defense is not something he can afford, he tends to get walk machines who aren’t great fielders. And he really doesn’t buy power as much as OBP.

    I think that strategy gets you wins in the regular season, when you get a lot of mediocre pitchers to face. It gives you an advantage in the post, but can be easily overwhelmed by superior talent, when games are closer and tighter, where a star can change the course of a game with a swing of a bat, or mow ‘em down with a strike out.

  25. arbeck on October 13th, 2006 4:09 pm

    After reading BBTN I played around simulating the playoffs and was shocked to discover how much of a crap shoot it really is. I decided my team had a 60% chance of winning every game it played. I figured this would be a dominant team in the post season. After 5000 playoff runs, they won the world series 37% of the time and were eliminated in the first round 30% of the time.

  26. PositivePaul on October 13th, 2006 4:10 pm

    And I think we need to go trade for the Red Sox’ Edgar Martinez and the former Pirate Freddy Garcia Sample-size, Schmample-size. In his last year in the majors, he hit .500 bay-baaaay!!!

  27. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 4:10 pm

    #23: What are the odds of even GETTING to the World Series? (Since Beane hasn’t managed even that yet.)

  28. arbeck on October 13th, 2006 4:16 pm

    Jim,

    According to my simulation if they have a 60% chance of beating a team on any given day about 37% the time they would reach the world series. If you figure the teams they are playing are a toss up then it drops to 27%.

  29. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 4:17 pm

    So, at 27 percent, the A’s should really be advancing to the World Series at least once out of every five playoff appearances?

  30. dw on October 13th, 2006 4:18 pm

    Mark Kiger makes his major league debut in the playoffs. According to Elias, that has never happened in the “modern era” (since the AL came into existence in 1901) until now.

  31. JI on October 13th, 2006 4:18 pm

    It’s official, start engraving the tombstone:

    Oakland Athletics

    April 3, 2006 – October, 14 2006.

    Into God’s Hands. R.I.P.

  32. Josh on October 13th, 2006 4:19 pm

    Kenny Rogers is the Best. Pitcher. Ever. Just look at him – He’s everything you could ever want! Why isn’t Bavasi smart enough to sign him for a 15 year, $385m deal? Damn stupidity.

  33. arbeck on October 13th, 2006 4:24 pm

    Jim it’s one of the complicated statistical mind twisters. If the A’s make the playoffs 5 times you would expect them to reach the world series at least once. However, in any given trip to the playoffs they have a 27% chance of making the series.

  34. Josh on October 13th, 2006 4:27 pm

    I think they should consider chopping the season back, myself, before they go to neutral ground. Drop ten games off the schedule, schedule more sunday double-headers, start a little earlier, you wouldn’t have to be nearly as deep in October, and that’d help a ton.

    Not going to happen, of course.

    They could also go back to four playoff teams, but that’s never going to happen either. If anything we’ll end up basketballing-it-up with sixteen. I hate playoff mediocrity and we have more than enough already.

  35. dw on October 13th, 2006 4:33 pm

    Tigers win.

    And to think that 11 days ago they were going to be swept out of the playoffs by the Second Coming Of The Big Red Machine that was the 2006 Yankees.

  36. Paul B on October 13th, 2006 4:35 pm

    Four teams make the playoffs from one league, one of them makes it to the WS. Simplified, each has a 25% chance to make it. (Not exactly true with differences in talent, injuries, home field advantage, but close enough).

    So, a team that makes it to the post season once has a 25% chance of getting to the WS.

    A team that makes it to the post season twice has a 44% chance of getting to the WS at least once.

    A team that makes it three times has a 58% chance.

    A team that makes it four times has a 68% chance

    A team that makes it five times has a 76% chance.

  37. Mat on October 13th, 2006 4:43 pm

    They could also go back to four playoff teams, but that’s never going to happen either. If anything we’ll end up basketballing-it-up with sixteen. I hate playoff mediocrity and we have more than enough already.

    Heck, if we’re going to cut 10 games off the schedule, I propose eliminating the 5 games in the Division Series, the 7 games in the Championship Series, and then adding 2 games to the WS to make it best-of-9. Personally, I think I might prefer that.

    Of course, as DMZ noted, eliminating games from the schedule just isn’t going to happen.

  38. msb on October 13th, 2006 4:43 pm

    dang, I could use some of that pizza right about now.

  39. dw on October 13th, 2006 4:46 pm

    The World Series was a best-of-nine once.

    1919.

    And thus, it will never be best-of-nine ever again.

  40. Mat on October 13th, 2006 4:47 pm

    A team that makes it five times has a 76% chance.

    Right. In a 4-team pool of equal teams from a league, a team reaching the playoffs n times has a 1 – (3/4)^n chance of advance to the WS.

    As sort of a side note, if you go to two (equally talented) teams from each league, the probability of advancing to the WS after 5 chances goes up to 97% from 76%.

  41. JI on October 13th, 2006 4:48 pm

    Oh God #$@#@%#%#%%^^#@#$, Duncan has been playing left all year. Quit mis-leading the audence for the sake of drama, FOX.

  42. EnglishMariner on October 13th, 2006 4:48 pm

    Why do they call him The Gambler?

    I like Rogers, he has an English auntie and he lived over here on a USAF base when he was yonger with his parents and used to play Cricket and Football. Although unlike the historic trend of sportsman associated with England, he doesn’t tend to choke [any more!] in pressure situations.

  43. Steve T on October 13th, 2006 4:50 pm

    “The Gambler” was a big hit for the other Kenny Rogers, the pop-country singer. You know, the “you got to know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em” song.

  44. Josh on October 13th, 2006 4:51 pm

    Another way of looking at it is like this.

    Let’s assume that a given team does have a 27% chance of reaching the World Series in any given playoff run.

    Let’s also give them 5 playoff runs.

    The average rate of World Series appearances in any given 5-run set would be 1.35. Of course, it’s not possible to get that in any particular set of 5, and it’s going to vary anywhere from 0 to 5 appearances.

    The odds of appearing in the World Series 1 or more times during any set of 5 runs is roughly 79.3%. So 21.7% of the time, the team wouldn’t make it even once.

  45. EnglishMariner on October 13th, 2006 4:52 pm

    @41, FOX has been portraying Rogers as a Strawberry farming peasant all game, when in reality he was [at least for a time] the son of a USAF airmen – part of the most sophisticated fighting machine the world has ever known. Hardly as romantic as picking the strawberry fields of the Mid-West I imagine, but facts and truth don’t seem to be overly important to FOX during the playoffs [ie: speed gun readings].

  46. Josh on October 13th, 2006 4:53 pm

    20.7%, I can’t think straight.

  47. Mat on October 13th, 2006 4:53 pm

    The World Series was a best-of-nine once.

    1919.

    And thus, it will never be best-of-nine ever again.

    Huh? A quick glance at Baseball Reference’s postseason page makes it appear that there were best-of-nine series in 1903, 1919, 1920, and 1921.

  48. RussM on October 13th, 2006 4:54 pm

    Note to Eric Byrnes: WEAR A SUIT!

    Do you think that he showed up at the studio today and the producer said, “excuse me sir, would you like to wear this jacket?”

  49. EnglishMariner on October 13th, 2006 4:54 pm

    @43 – there is an other Kenny Rogers? Ahhh … country music. That doesn’t tend to get played too much over here, hence I have never heard of that song. ;)

  50. msb on October 13th, 2006 4:56 pm

    He’s worn a suit, and man, it was the ugliest suit I have ever seen.

    I forgot about Spiezio in the post-season 2nd-Gen guys.

  51. Mat on October 13th, 2006 4:57 pm

    The odds of appearing in the World Series 1 or more times during any set of 5 runs is roughly 79.3%. So 21.7% of the time, the team wouldn’t make it even once.

    And the 27% figure you started with comes from assuming a team that beats playoff teams 60% of the time. I don’t know how many teams have been that good, but I’m guessing not many.

  52. Josh on October 13th, 2006 5:03 pm

    And the 27% figure you started with comes from assuming a team that beats playoff teams 60% of the time. I don’t know how many teams have been that good, but I’m guessing not many.

    Right, just started writing semi-in-response to #33. :)

    I’d venture to say you’re right.

  53. msb on October 13th, 2006 5:03 pm
  54. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 5:15 pm

    So the question remains: Have the A’s been MORE unlucky than the laws of probability say they should be?

  55. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 5:24 pm

    In-A-Del-Ga-Do-Da-Vida, baby!

  56. JI on October 13th, 2006 5:34 pm

    TERRIBLE! HORRIBLE! WHAT WAS HE THINKING?!?

    Score that “E-3.”

  57. JI on October 13th, 2006 5:41 pm

    Carpenter is one of the worst hitting pitchers in all of baseball… Look for the Fairly’s Favorite, “The Butcher Boy.”

  58. Josh on October 13th, 2006 5:44 pm

    So the question remains: Have the A’s been MORE unlucky than the laws of probability say they should be?

    If you want to call it luck. Whatever it may be, with all teams being “equal” five shots in the postseason should give the team a 76% chance of making it at least once. They’re on the 24% end.

  59. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 5:47 pm

    Dismember the Maine!

    In all fairness, Carpenter was called out on a low pitch.

  60. JI on October 13th, 2006 6:06 pm

    Edmonds > Pujols > God.

    There’s a flowchart in the lobby.

    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    -
    *Just kidding, don’t smite me.

  61. EnglishMariner on October 13th, 2006 6:07 pm

    Mets pitching is why they are not going to win the WS. If Pedro was fit, then they might have stood a chance, but the Tigers will be too strong for them.

  62. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 6:11 pm

    That, plus the Tigers are more likable. Or would be if they had David Wright, too.

  63. JI on October 13th, 2006 6:14 pm

    Mets pitching is why they are not going to win the WS. If Pedro was fit, then they might have stood a chance, but the Tigers will be too strong for them.

    Hell, they only have the advantage in this series in the Weaver/Glavine games. They’re running Oliver Perez, who at the current moment is well on his way to etching his name in hisotry alongside Steve blass and Rick Ankiel, in game 4. They have to win today or tomorrow or else they’re screwed.

  64. JMB on October 13th, 2006 6:18 pm

    Yeah, but if they win tonight the series is over — up 2-0 with Carpenter already having pitched once? I also think they have an advantage in the game right now, given they have a better bullpen than the Cards.

  65. JI on October 13th, 2006 6:30 pm

    Yeah, but if they win tonight the series is over.

    I really disagree with that. Even if the Cards lose tonight they’re far from finished. They’re going home, Steve Traschel scares nobody, and I can’t think of a worse playoff option, ever, than Perez.

    Basically, if the Cards won’t be in Big Trouble unless they go down 3-0. Considering the back of their rotation, if the Mets go down 2-1 they’ll be in a world of hurt.

  66. JI on October 13th, 2006 6:32 pm

    Did Joe Buck really just compare Duncan to Ryan Howard? I’m the biggest Cardinals homer I know, and I know that comparison is just silly.

  67. JI on October 13th, 2006 6:43 pm

    It’s going to be super important for the either team to knock out the strater soon, as the long relief corps will surely be tested on Monday… or sooner as none of the starters tomorrow or Sunday are strong bets to go 7.

  68. adamt on October 13th, 2006 6:46 pm

    Man, Pujols just can’t get it going, can he?

  69. adamt on October 13th, 2006 6:48 pm

    Edmonds, almost duplicated that last at bat. Dang!

  70. JMB on October 13th, 2006 6:57 pm

    Delgado! Instead of two Carloses homering, one Carlos homers twice.

  71. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 7:27 pm

    In-A-Delgado-Da-Vida-Deux!

  72. JMB on October 13th, 2006 7:28 pm

    Reyes finally gets going this game…

  73. Jim Thomsen on October 13th, 2006 7:33 pm

    Does Reyes still get mad hate from sabe-heads because he doesn’t walk?

  74. JI on October 13th, 2006 7:51 pm

    SPIEZIO!!!

  75. Herb R on October 13th, 2006 8:13 pm

    I just checked on Sandfrog’s contract. I though thta this was the last year that the M’s have to pay him, but wait, there’s an option for 2007 at 3.25 million with a 0.250 million buyout.

    Who pays each of those? I’d think that the Cards would pay the 3.25 if they exercised the option, but the M’s would pay the 250K if they don’t.

  76. Josh on October 13th, 2006 8:15 pm

    Go Cards!

  77. Josh on October 13th, 2006 8:24 pm

    Scrappy 12-pitch groundout by Eckstein, swinging at ball four a foot outside. He’s showing up WFB, and in all the glamour of the playoffs, too.

  78. Mat on October 13th, 2006 8:28 pm

    They’re going home, Steve Traschel scares nobody, and I can’t think of a worse playoff option, ever, than Perez.

    Two pitchers come to mind. Joe Mays started Game 1 of the 2003 ALCS (miraculously getting the win that day) coming off of a season where he posted a 5.38 ERA and a 5.16 FIP. If you buy that Rick Peterson may have helped Perez out some and look at his New York numbers, his ERA is brutal (at 6.38) but his FIP is at just 5.10 and his xFIP 4.65, so that suggests he might not be that bad, and with his K-rate, he’s at least showing that he can miss bats.

    The other guy that comes to mind didn’t actually pitch in the postseason, but was certainly an option. Had the Twins forced a Game 4 in the ALDS, Carlos Silva was going to take the hill. Silva had a 5.81 FIP (worst amongst qualified AL starters) and a not much better 5.09 xFIP. These days, he basically throws nothing but batting practice fastballs and even meatier off-speed pitches. So to the extent that he was indeed an option, I’d say he’s worse than Perez.

    That said, I sure wouldn’t want to be pinning my hopes on Oliver Perez.

  79. Mat on October 13th, 2006 8:38 pm

    Does Reyes still get mad hate from sabe-heads because he doesn’t walk?

    Reyes’ 75th percentile PECOTA forecast was something like .303/.343/.460, and he actually hit .300/.354/.487. To me, he seems like the sort of guy who won’t peak much higher than what he is now, but that he can probably repeat this year a few more times. So I guess I’m saying that I’m a “sabe-head” and I certainly can’t find any mad-hate for him. And while recognizing that speed might be overvalued, I enjoy watching speedy guys play the game.

    I could be remembering incorrectly, but I think a lot of the displeasure surrounding Reyes wasn’t that he didn’t have promise, but that he was miscast as a leadoff hitter. I guess I would argue that was true when he was posting a .300 OBP.

  80. JI on October 13th, 2006 8:39 pm

    I was hoping Randolph would Pull A Grover and hold out Wagner for a save situation in extra innings at home, but no…

  81. JI on October 13th, 2006 8:40 pm

    #79

    …Unless he turns out to be a fast Miguel Tejada. I was skeptical Tejada’s ability to hit .300 on a regular basis, but here we are…

  82. adamt on October 13th, 2006 8:42 pm

    Re #80

    Good call, too bad… Taguchi for Duncan? *sigh*

  83. adamt on October 13th, 2006 8:43 pm

    Taguchi… OMG. I’m sorry TLR, forgive me!

  84. JI on October 13th, 2006 8:46 pm

    Oh. My. God.

    Billy Wagner is the most unhittable relief pitcher in the NL, and Little So Taguchi just took him yard.

    Wow.

  85. adamt on October 13th, 2006 8:49 pm

    The Spiez is on FIRE!

  86. Mat on October 13th, 2006 8:49 pm

    Your NLCS–it’s Spaz-tastic!

  87. Mat on October 13th, 2006 8:57 pm

    …Unless he turns out to be a fast Miguel Tejada. I was skeptical Tejada’s ability to hit .300 on a regular basis, but here we are…

    That’s an interesting comp that I wouldn’t have thought of. I don’t remember much about Tejada when he was coming up, but check out their SO and BB numbers in their age 23 season:

    94 K, 57 BB, 593 AB — Tejada, ‘99
    81 K, 53 BB, 647 AB — Reyes, ‘06

    That’s pretty close, all things considered. It took Tejada ’til age 26 before he was even very close to .300, so I guess I can see why you would’ve been skeptical.

  88. LB on October 14th, 2006 12:15 am

    #78: Two pitchers come to mind. Joe Mays started Game 1 of the 2003 ALCS (miraculously getting the win that day) coming off of a season where he posted a 5.38 ERA and a 5.16 FIP.

    Sometimes memory fails, but I’m pretty sure I have this right: Tim Wakefield started and won ALCS 2003 Game 1 against the NY Yankees.

  89. Mat on October 14th, 2006 1:18 am

    Sometimes memory fails, but I’m pretty sure I have this right: Tim Wakefield started and won ALCS 2003 Game 1 against the NY Yankees.

    I meant 2002. Sometimes memory fails–this time it was my memory.

  90. terry on October 14th, 2006 4:35 am

    #7: God I hope not…with Bud Selig (BS) at the helm:

    game 1: Mexico City
    game 2: Tokyo
    game 3: Caracus
    game 4: Beijing
    game 5 (if needed):Moscow
    game 6 (if needed):Paris
    game 7 (if needed):Sydney

  91. mln on October 14th, 2006 4:56 am

    In honor of Scott Spiezo’s continuing clutchness in the playoffs, here is a link that should warm all your hearts.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.