To be fair, the .500 split may be the opponent's record at the time the game was played, not necessarily how they finished, so the numbers can be moved up or down towards the mean as a fudge factor. But even if you give a factor of 5 OPS+ points towards the mean, the Red Sox are still markedly better against good teams than the Cubs, and the Cubs' value still resides mainly in playing god-awful opponents.

Senior columnist here to say even if the Cubs lose, they are winners. Sample size is the problem.


http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/10/07/ ... tent=10093

_________________
Why are only 14 percent of black CPS 11th-graders proficient in English?

Bernstein may be irritating, and his motive may partially be to run cover for Theo & Co., but I can't disagree with anything he wrote.

_________________

Did he boil it down to the earth shattering they may win but they also may lose conclusion?

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

He absolutely sucked the fun out of gambling yesterday. Granted the caller sounded like an idiot, but he called in to ask about Dan and Barry's thoughts on the Red Sox going homer-less in today's game. Dan started blabbing on and on about which metrics to study.. He stopped short of referencing peer-reviewed HR studies.

_________________
-- source

If luck were such a defining factor, one would think that the Cubs would have stumbled into a title once in the last hundred years.

_________________

Bad luck is part of that equation.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

_________________
Elections have consequences.

Please to be explaining:

Advanced metrics seem to be most prominent in baseball and those who place great value in them often like to sneer at those who don't, regarding them as Luddites who are far too dimwitted to even know what they're looking at when they watch baseball and insisting they would be better off putting on their beats by Dre headphones and watching episodes of 3rd Rock from the Sun on their off-brand tablet.

What I don't understand is how all of these advanced metrics go out the window come playoff time and baseball suddenly becomes too random to even hazard a guess as to who's going to win, invoking all the things that would get someone laughed at as being a meatball if they were brought up at any other time.

Is a five game or seven game series that short of sample size to reduce mountains of data and overwrought analysis, based on the previous 162 games and/or years-long careers, meaningless, or are they covering for the fact they they don't know as much as they think they know?

I have heard several hosts going WAY out of their way to emphasize how random the playoffs are and I do not remember that being hammered on to this extent in the past.

they're just hedging their bets if the Cubs lose

Momentum and hot streaks don't matter until they do.

_________________

Fuck Bernstein. As others here have said, the playoffs and WS determine the season's best team. Period. I love the regular season, but at the end of the day nobody gives a fuck about the 2001 Mariners.

_________________

Bernstein may go overboard, but if anyone thinks there isn't a great deal of luck in the baseball playoffs, you're just wrong. That's not the same as saying it's a crapshoot, which Bernstein seems to be on the verge of doing. It's obviously not a crapshoot or you could put a Little League team in there and they'd have a shot. However, there's a lot of luck and randomness to it, and that's inarguable. I hate Bernstein too, but don't dismiss the message because of the messenger.

Also, I will say that I don't know why that offends people so much. You could almost argue that it's better. In basketball, you basically have 2 or 3 teams who even have a legitimate shot. In baseball, if you get in the playoffs, anything can happen. It's not necessarily a "bad" thing.

_________________

53. Nine were against AL teams.

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

You can choose to look at it that way, but it's more accurate to say they determine the winner. We could debate what constitutes the "best team" forever. It's subjective and unprovable. It definitely determines a winner, though.

_________________

I would agree with you on your last sentence, and Bernstein does seem to be stating that over and over and over.

But come on... you know why metrics don't apply nearly as well to the postseason. The sample size is too small. Baseball is a game of repetition. In a single game, Frank Castillo might outduel Pedro Martinez. But there's no way he's going to do that over the course of a season or the course of a career.

_________________

I don't follow baseball all that closely and (aside from the insufferable way some people in the media pat themselves on the back for referring to them) know very little about metrics. It sounds like metrics are used to make predictions about season- or career-long performance and, as you said, are of little benefit during an individual series. Is that correct?

Leash,

I think the issue I have is the way Bernstein is trying to force it into his narrative.

One could argue that some teams could have had a better regular season if they tried harder or had fewer injuries or structured their team differently. Or didn't get to slay as many bums. In other words, there are myriad reasons a team can have the best regular season record (including actually being the best, of course), and therefore we shouldn't put too much stock in it or hand out so many plaudits.

_________________

Yes, I think that's accurate. It's like if Albert Pujols in his prime had a "slump" for two weeks in June. If you looked solely at those two weeks, you'd think he sucked (on paper). But he's not going to be in a "slump" for an entire year.

_________________

Funny how he neglected his usual narrative of "still, if you don't win it all it's a lost season" for this slurping.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

yeah, the "its all luck" and "championships are all that matter" seem to be somewhat contradictory.....

Let me start by saying that I will never defend Dan Bernstein (at least not on purpose).

Regarding what you said, I partially agree. I mean, there is no perfect indicator of the best team in any sport unless you could run a simulation than ran games an infinite amount of times. And I do understand that getting that academic with it ruins the joy of the sport, anyway. I think Bernstein is ridiculous when he acts like sports should just be settled on paper.

But baseball is unique. Even if everything you state is true (and some of it undoubtedly is), I don't think any of that trumps the fact that baseball requires a large sample size to eliminate randomness. It's a game of percentages and low scores, and any small mistake can lead to a HUGE percentage of runs within a single game or series. In basketball, if Derrick Rose turns the ball over and it leads to a layup, that's 2 points out of probably 100 or so. In baseball, if Arrieta hangs a slider, one pitch could mean the game.

I also want to be clear that I don't think this view in any way diminishes a World Series winner. If you win, you are the champion, no questions asked. I just don't believe it necessarily shows the "best" team, but who even cares? Being the winner is all that matters and holds all the bragging rights.

_________________

Agreed. "Championships are all that matter" is one of the dumbest phrases ever uttered if you really step back and think about it.

_________________

Baseball is unique. The Twins are the worst team in baseball. But if they were to play the Cubs right now nobody would be shocked if the Twins won 3 out of 5. Where as in basketball, there is no way the worst team in the NBA would ever beat the best team 3 out of 5. That would be impossible.

Football is different since they don't have a series. But the worst team in the NFL would also never beat the best team 3 out of 5.

Yep.

_________________

did he mention what a crapshoot it is to even make it through a day alive?

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Fuck this beisbol is random bullshit. Ever see a football bounce? You lose, you got outplayed (and usually out-pitched). What the fuck.

Yes, random stuff happens. Respond to it.

_________________

The worst team ain't making the MLB playoffs, neither.

Wait--you make joke?

_________________

yeah, but if you make it through, say, 70% of your days alive, you're doing well.

_________________

If luck is what wins in the playoffs then everyone would go to Vegas and bet on the bottom half of odds and make huge money over a few years. They don't.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!