SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Red Sox vs. Astros 2018 ALCS Gameday Thread
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2018 16:18:46 GMT -5
Only six teams in history have come back from a 3-1 deficit without home field advantage. I've put the W / Pyth W in parentheses for each team.
The 1958 Yankees (92 / 98) over the Braves (92 / 92).
The 1968 Tigers (103 / 103) over the Cardinals (97 / 96)
The 1979 Pirates (98 / 95) over the Orioles (102 / 98). The 2003 Marlins (91 / 87) over the Cubs (88 / 85). The 2004 Red Sox (98 / 96) over the Yankees (101 / 89). The 2016 Cubs (103 / 107) over the Indians (94 / 91). It's rather amazing that the last two times, famous post-season droughts were broken, Theo Epstein was the architect of both winning teams, and Terry Francona managed first the winner and then the loser. What's even freakier is that the feat has only been accomplished five times by a team with home field advantage: 1985 Royals (91 / 86) over Cardinals (101 / 100)
1986 Red Sox (95 / 90) over Angels (92 / 91)
1996 Braves (96 / 94) over Cardinals (88 / 86)
2007 Red Sox (96 / 101) over Indians (96 / 91)
2012 Giants (94 / 88) over Cardinals (88 / 93)
Perhaps the freakiest thing is that either the Red Sox or Cardinals have been involved a majority of the time, and the Sox are 3-0 and the cardinals 0-4. If the Cardinals ever get a 3-1 lead in the WS over the Sox, we'll all know what to expect.
Of the 11 teams that did this, 6 had an edge in regular season wins and 2 were tied, while 7 had an edge in Pyth wins. So neither seems to matter more than the other.
Technically the Cardinals did take a 3 game to 1 lead in a World Series against the Red Sox once. The Red Sox did win Games 5 and 6, but Bob Gibson was too much in Game 7 and the 1967 Cardinals did win the World Series. I have no idea how often a team leading 3 to 1 wins, because I am not insane enough to research that. Presumably often!
But your point is a great one, and in my defense I only point out that 1967 is the year before the first of the four times the Cardinals blew 3-1 leads and, of course, long before we came back from the 3-1 deficits.
Cardinals also held on to a 3-1 lead in the '13 NLCS and in the WS in '06 and '42. So they're 2-4 since 1968, which is terrible, and 4 - 4 all-time, which is bad.
We were up 3-1 in '12, '15, '16, and '18. This is the first time since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 18, 2018 16:25:03 GMT -5
Interesting tweet from Olney. Eovaldi could see a inning tonight. Didn't think that was really all that possible with how many innings he threw 2 days ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by h11233 on Oct 18, 2018 16:32:30 GMT -5
It's basically 100% because the game was in Houston. Vegas probably had Houston rated (very) slightly higher than us going into the series. Home field obviously tilts those odds a little bit, as does the pitching matchup. I'm guessing based on the odds from other games that Vegas thought Morton vs. Porcello was relatively even. It's always safe to assume, no matter how much you think you know, that Vegas knows more. Even if a line "looks crazy," usually it isn't, it's just that your opinion is out of alignment with the most likely outcome. There's a reason very few people in the world can make money betting on sports over the long haul. But I can assure you that Vegas will hardly ever shift a line dramatically based on factors drawn from a tiny sample size like "up 2-1 in the series" or "undefeated on the road in the playoffs," and they are going to look a lot deeper than W/L record were during the regular season. People who bet based on extreme recency/SSS are generally considered to be squares.
I think to consider Morton coming off a 17 day layoff after being pulled from his last start vs Porcello to be relatively even is crazy. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but with the information available before the game, that's an absurd notion to me. Even if Morton was on fire, they couldn't have expected more than 3 or 4 innings from him coming back from injury. That's my main point, the rest (season record, undefeated on the road, up 2-1) were just the cherries on top. Guess I should've been a square yesterday and put some money on the game... I think on paper the Sox had a definite advantage yesterday and, well, they won. |
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Oct 18, 2018 16:33:22 GMT -5
Assuming two evenly matched teams and no home-field advantage, the team up 3-1 should win 87.5% of the time (1-(0.5)^3). When you factor in that the team who is ahead 3-1 is usually the "better" team, i.e., more than 50% likely to win any subsequent games, we would expect that historically the team up 3-1 is usually a bit stronger favorite than that. Obviously having 2 of the final 3 games in your home ballpark would factor in as well.
Fivethirtyeight currently gives us an 88% chance of winning the series. Betting markets have us at -700 for the series, which is an implied probability of 87.5%. This makes sense considering the Astros were a small favorite going into the series but we have home field advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Oct 18, 2018 16:38:49 GMT -5
This is why Verlander is a HOF folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by geostorm on Oct 18, 2018 16:41:56 GMT -5
I was really hoping to see some evidence that Verlander isn't very good on 4 days rest. I didn't  Here's the only thing I can think of, that you might find a little hope from - He's thrown the most pitches, by far, over the last three seasons, and typically top 2-3, since 2010, with the exception of his shortened 2015, when he threw only 2100+ (I'm tryin!  )
...and this isn't any ordinary lineup he's facing, tonight, either
|
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Oct 18, 2018 16:43:33 GMT -5
Last nights game was everything that’s right with baseball and wrong with it wrapped up as one. Game started too late, was too long and way too choppy but man was it exciting. The food was great but the portions were too large?
(Admittedly, I wouldn't have minded if all of that excitement had happened before 1am.)
No poor analogy |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2018 16:45:21 GMT -5
1) God created games that end past midnight as compensation for people like me who are incapable of getting up in time to take their 96-year old Mom to lunch.
2) Barnes is definitely available to close tonight. That was why he faced the one hitter yesterday. He could even go more than an inning. Kelly is probably not available; he's never pitched three days in a row.
3) Hembree has actually been reasonably effective, especially now that he's junked his slider (he walked 3 of 7 hitters trying to throw it, with 1 SO, just 1 in 5 with a SO of Judge without it). He's the likely extra pitcher beyond Price and E-Rod and before Barnes. He can get you 5 or 6 outs. Despite his success against Jusge and Stanton (GDP) I still think you want to avoid Bregman, Springer, and Altuve with him.
4) Workman's list of hitters to avoid would seem to be longer. Like, everyone. OTOH, it wouldn't surprise me if they fix a mechanical flaw in the pen and he throws two great innings.
5) If the series were 2-2 I'd be watching live, but like every Thursday night I've got friends coming over, and we have the last two eps of season 2 of Farscape to watch (and we're totally cliff-hangered at present). I watched last night on delay after I couldn't resist a nap at 7:30 PM. Started an hour or more late and was only nine minutes behind when it ended.
6) And now I've burned my chance at a nap before they arrive, reading and posting!
|
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Oct 18, 2018 16:45:42 GMT -5
Vegas probably had Houston rated (very) slightly higher than us going into the series. Home field obviously tilts those odds a little bit, as does the pitching matchup. I'm guessing based on the odds from other games that Vegas thought Morton vs. Porcello was relatively even. It's always safe to assume, no matter how much you think you know, that Vegas knows more. Even if a line "looks crazy," usually it isn't, it's just that your opinion is out of alignment with the most likely outcome. There's a reason very few people in the world can make money betting on sports over the long haul. But I can assure you that Vegas will hardly ever shift a line dramatically based on factors drawn from a tiny sample size like "up 2-1 in the series" or "undefeated on the road in the playoffs," and they are going to look a lot deeper than W/L record were during the regular season. People who bet based on extreme recency/SSS are generally considered to be squares.
I think to consider Morton coming off a 17 day layoff after being pulled from his last start vs Porcello to be relatively even is crazy. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but with the information available before the game, that's an absurd notion to me. Even if Morton was on fire, they couldn't have expected more than 3 or 4 innings from him coming back from injury. That's my main point, the rest (season record, undefeated on the road, up 2-1) were just the cherries on top. Guess I should've been a square yesterday and put some money on the game... I think on paper the Sox had a definite advantage yesterday and, well, they won. Morton being on a long layoff, and the effect that would likely have, was publicly available information, and therefore certainly factored into the moneyline spread, along with 1000 other things. A pro bookmaker isn't going to just ignore something so obvious, but he also isn't going to give it more weight than he feels it deserves. Now if you had inside information, like "I'm one of only 5 people in the world who know Charlie Morton's cat just died and he's despondent," then you might have an edge. Or, if you have spent months/years painstakingly building and testing a model that can, on average, beat Vegas (extremely difficult but not impossible), then you might have an edge.
You wouldn't have been a square to bet on the Sox, but you would have been a square to give somebody even money or better odds on the Astros.
Even the squarest squares are still right close to 50% of the time, so saying "I thought the Sox were going to win yesterday and they did" is hardly proof that you're Jimmy the Greek.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 18, 2018 16:50:46 GMT -5
Kimbrel's collapse is DD's fault? Barnes and Brazier are awful? Yeah he does seem to have issues building pens but maybe it gets overplayed? In 2013 that was on the manager for not bringing in the lefty to face Papi. He got a lefty specifically to pitch to a guy like Papi and the manager didn't use him. Last year Farrell chose not to pitch Reed in game 4 in the 8th. Reed in his last reg season 24 games - he pitched 24.33 innings and only let up 5 runs. You can't blame him for Farrell being bad. The Sox got Reed specifically to be their "8th inning" guy and Farrell didn't use him. I do think it's somewhat overplayed, but also it makes a certain amount of sense to me that Dombrowski's weakest area would be bullpen construction. He takes such a straightforward approach to team building: figure out your needs, find the best guy to address those needs, don't worry too much about the cost. I think that works quite well for hitters and pretty well for starters, but relievers are a different animal. They're just too volatile. Is Kimbrel's collapse Dombrowski's fault? No, not exactly, but by making a huge investment in Dombrowski, you expose yourself to the risk of having ineffective closer who's expensive and can't be easily removed from the role. Kimbrel is one example but Smith and Thornburg are the really damning ones. Paying a premium price for premium assets makes more sense when those assets are more likely to maintain their value, and relievers are the worst in that regard. So in that light, Dombrowski's history of building teams with great lineups, great rotations, and very questionable bullpens makes a lot of sense. I agree with you. It seems this is his weakest issue. He pays premium and usually his weakest results seems to come down to the bullpen over-and-over. But just as I look back in that 2013 bullpen, while it was the weakest part-- it still should have been good enough. The mgr blew it. Imo last year Farrell blew it. Yeah the bullpen was the weakest but it could have been good enough if used properly. And this year-- it's his highest price bullpen guy. I was arguing with a sports editor/Yankee fan in that he felt the SOx bullpen was awful. The only player he admitted was good was Kimbrel. Sure DD paid too much for Kimbrel -- but still Kimbrel's pathetic performance is not DD's fault. The reason why you pay so much for a Kimbrel is that you are supposedly reducing exposure to this type of collapse. It's the same as paying a player $30m that can't hit or a pitcher that can't pitch. On the flip side possibly getting a starter such as Eovaldi helps guys like Brasier and Barnes. It seems like he can put together strong starting pitching and strong hitting but never a strong bullpen. I believe that the pendulum has now slipped from prior to the Royals run that bullpens weren't as highly valued and now get overly highly valued in a manner they don't deserve. So if a pretty good bullpen falters you'll hear for example the media try to hype it into a colossal failure for that team. But if you have a starter or two you can move into the bullpen then it's not that bad. From the beginning of this year and throughout the season we've had to hear even from some analytical sites how the Yanks bullpen could be/ is so awesome that it could be/ is "historic." IMo the super-bullpens when they highlight up to 5 guys or so is somewhat of an exaggerated/over-hyped product. IMO it's too much to rely on withotu solid starters. So in a way DD getting good starters that either in combination or as a group can give length or be used as bullpen pieces isn't that bad. It's not as bad/ and DD is not as bad what that sports editor said/or media says of DD. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 18, 2018 16:57:25 GMT -5
The stuff with Kimbrel is fascinating on so many levels. He has never been scored upon like this, yet he hasn't blown a save. He has done the job, yet folks are pissed at him. It is amazing. He's been terrible and has needed insane luck to avoid blowing multiple games. He's also the guy who's performing most below his expected level (you could maybe have Price in that discussion as well). He has one job and he's not doing it. Unless you think he has some magic ability to induce outs on balls in play that come within fractions of an inch of losing a game, he's been very bad and very lucky this postseason. |
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 18, 2018 17:10:12 GMT -5
Kimbrel's collapse is DD's fault? Barnes and Brazier are awful? Yeah he does seem to have issues building pens but maybe it gets overplayed? In 2013 that was on the manager for not bringing in the lefty to face Papi. He got a lefty specifically to pitch to a guy like Papi and the manager didn't use him. Last year Farrell chose not to pitch Reed in game 4 in the 8th. Reed in his last reg season 24 games - he pitched 24.33 innings and only let up 5 runs. You can't blame him for Farrell being bad. The Sox got Reed specifically to be their "8th inning" guy and Farrell didn't use him. 1) Yes, he traded for him so yeah it is his fault. 2) Barnes was before Dombrowski 3) Brazier was catching lightning in a bottle. You wanna rely on catching lightning to build a good bullpen? Sox had the 9th best ERA from the bullpen per below. That stinks? Was it Washington's fault that Harper had the subpar year for him that he had? You blame his poor performance on the Washignton GM? WHy would Harper vs Kimbrel be different when ti comes to blaming the GM's for the performance of the star players? Does DD get credit for keeping a guy like Barnes? Wasn't their calls this year that Barnes isn't very good? Last year I was on a site and many tore apart Barnes pretty good saying he will never be much. And the story I provided before from the Sports Editor/imo a Yank fan say "are you really going to rely on guys like Barnes?" It would have been easy to replace him with for example Famila, right? Maybe Familia does well but I don't think much of him. If you disagree we can agree to disagree. Has Brazier been lightning in a bottle all year? Does DD get credit for the starting pitching staff that are used in the bullpen or give length so guys like Barnes don't have to get stretched as much? www.covers.com/pageloader/pageloader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/statistics/2018/bullpenstatistics_mlb_regular.html**The sox are 3-1 and so far in this series SOx only had one bad bullpen pitcher. DD gets no credit for this even though he decides who stays and who goes? |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2018 17:14:48 GMT -5
Fun with Win Probability on Benny's catch:
If he plays it safe and lets it fall in for a hit, one run probably scores and the Sox have a 72% chance of winning with an average hitter and pitcher up. With a gassed and down-melting Kimbrel facing Springer (HR, 2B, 1B, BB, 5-4), it's probably much higher. Given that and the accuracy of Benny's arm, I think they hold Correa at 2B.
If he dives and fails to make the catch, he probably keeps the ball in front of him and two runs score. Sox win probability is 33%, and Price would be facing Springer, so that's close enough. OTOH, there's, what, a 1 in 3 chance the ball gets by him and they lose. (And using Price reduces your odds of winning tonight, but I think I have to leave that out of the calculation!)
Call it a 50% chance of winning (instead of 72%) if you play it safe and let the game go to 1 run. But since Kimbrel has only retired 4 of 10 batters faced, we'll keep in mind hat it might be lower.
Rounding down a bit, there's a 20% chance of winning if you try and make the catch and fail, and a 100% chance of winning if you succeed. If you think your odds of catching the ball are 50%, that gives you a 60% chance of winning the game if you go for it.
I think the odds of making the catch in Benny's mind were considerably higher than 50%. I also think that players have an instinctive sense of these win probabilities, unless they're Tony Kemp. And I think that the combination of the confidence and the knowledge that a gamble here is almost a no-brainer is what makes the catch happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by soxjim on Oct 18, 2018 17:17:14 GMT -5
Fun with Win Probability on Benny's catch:
If he plays it safe and lets it fall in for a hit, one run probably scores and the Sox have a 72% chance of winning with an average hitter and pitcher up. With a gassed and down-melting Kimbrel facing Springer (HR, 2B, 1B, BB, 5-4), it's probably much higher. Given that and the accuracy of Benny's arm, I think they hold Correa at 2B.
If he dives and fails to make the catch, he probably keeps the ball in front of him and two runs score. Sox win probability is 33%, and Price would be facing Springer, so that's close enough. OTOH, there's, what, a 1 in 3 chance the ball gets by him and they lose. (And using Price reduces your odds of winning tonight, but I think I have to leave that out of the calculation!)
Call it a 50% chance of winning (instead of 72%) if you play it safe and let the game go to 1 run. But since Kimbrel has only retired 4 of 10 batters faced, we'll keep in mind hat it might be lower.
Rounding down a bit, there's a 20% chance of winning if you try and make the catch and fail, and a 100% chance of winning if you succeed. If you think your odds of catching the ball are 50%, that gives you a 60% chance of winning the game if you go for it.
I think the odds of making the catch in Benny's mind were considerably higher than 50%. I also think that players have an instinctive sense of these win probabilities, unless they're Tony Kemp. And I think that the combination of the confidence and the knowledge that a gamble here is almost a no-brainer is what makes the catch happen.
I think Correa scores. He's running on the pitch and Beni would have had to re-position himself. The ball was to his right. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 18, 2018 17:24:40 GMT -5
Fun with Win Probability on Benny's catch: If he plays it safe and lets it fall in for a hit, one run probably scores and the Sox have a 72% chance of winning with an average hitter and pitcher up. With a gassed and down-melting Kimbrel facing Springer (HR, 2B, 1B, BB, 5-4), it's probably much higher. Given that and the accuracy of Benny's arm, I think they hold Correa at 2B.
If he dives and fails to make the catch, he probably keeps the ball in front of him and two runs score. Sox win probability is 33%, and Price would be facing Springer, so that's close enough. OTOH, there's, what, a 1 in 3 chance the ball gets by him and they lose. (And using Price reduces your odds of winning tonight, but I think I have to leave that out of the calculation!) Call it a 50% chance of winning (instead of 72%) if you play it safe and let the game go to 1 run. But since Kimbrel has only retired 4 of 10 batters faced, we'll keep in mind hat it might be lower.
Rounding down a bit, there's a 20% chance of winning if you try and make the catch and fail, and a 100% chance of winning if you succeed. If you think your odds of catching the ball are 50%, that gives you a 60% chance of winning the game if you go for it.
I think the odds of making the catch in Benny's mind were considerably higher than 50%. I also think that players have an instinctive sense of these win probabilities, unless they're Tony Kemp. And I think that the combination of the confidence and the knowledge that a gamble here is almost a no-brainer is what makes the catch happen.
I think Correa scores. He's running on the pitch and Beni would have had to re-position himself. The ball was to his right. I know the math doesn't necessarily support this but I think that once that ball left the bat, it was either going to end up in Benintendi's glove, or the Astros were winning that game. It was maybe the most crucial single play of the entire season so far. |
|
|
|
Post by voiceofreason on Oct 18, 2018 17:37:05 GMT -5
So tonight ...available...Price, Erod, Hembree, Workman, Barnes, Kelly, with 2 of these fresh Unavailable...Porcello, Sale, Eovaldi, Kimbrel, Brasier It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Can they squeeze more from Brasier? ..Kimbrel (gulp)? Could Brasier be the closer in waiting? |
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Oct 18, 2018 17:46:22 GMT -5
Fun with Win Probability on Benny's catch:
If he plays it safe and lets it fall in for a hit, one run probably scores and the Sox have a 72% chance of winning with an average hitter and pitcher up. With a gassed and down-melting Kimbrel facing Springer (HR, 2B, 1B, BB, 5-4), it's probably much higher. Given that and the accuracy of Benny's arm, I think they hold Correa at 2B.
If he dives and fails to make the catch, he probably keeps the ball in front of him and two runs score. Sox win probability is 33%, and Price would be facing Springer, so that's close enough. OTOH, there's, what, a 1 in 3 chance the ball gets by him and they lose. (And using Price reduces your odds of winning tonight, but I think I have to leave that out of the calculation!)
Call it a 50% chance of winning (instead of 72%) if you play it safe and let the game go to 1 run. But since Kimbrel has only retired 4 of 10 batters faced, we'll keep in mind hat it might be lower.
Rounding down a bit, there's a 20% chance of winning if you try and make the catch and fail, and a 100% chance of winning if you succeed. If you think your odds of catching the ball are 50%, that gives you a 60% chance of winning the game if you go for it.
I think the odds of making the catch in Benny's mind were considerably higher than 50%. I also think that players have an instinctive sense of these win probabilities, unless they're Tony Kemp. And I think that the combination of the confidence and the knowledge that a gamble here is almost a no-brainer is what makes the catch happen.
I think this is a really great point, and beyond obvious physical skills, it's a key characteristic of professional athletes that makes them great at what they do--having an innate sense of risk and reward.
As far as the math goes, I think fans tend to be WAY overly influenced by recency (Kimbrel is melting down, Springer has three hits tonight, the Astros "have all the momentum") as opposed to long-term statistical averages. Not that you don't weigh recent results at all, just that most human beings do it too much. That's why the prevailing opinion is, if the ball drops in front of Benintendi *we lose* even though there is a chance we would be up 1 run or tied and literally one pitch away from winning the game by a run or sending it to extra innings where we would have at least close to a 50% chance of winning.
I'm confident that live in-game betting markets would have still had us as slight favorites to win if the score is 8-7 with two outs and the bases loaded.
|
|
|
|
Post by h11233 on Oct 18, 2018 17:50:22 GMT -5
Morton being on a long layoff, and the effect that would likely have, was publicly available information, and therefore certainly factored into the moneyline spread, along with 1000 other things. A pro bookmaker isn't going to just ignore something so obvious, but he also isn't going to give it more weight than he feels it deserves. Now if you had inside information, like "I'm one of only 5 people in the world who know Charlie Morton's cat just died and he's despondent," then you might have an edge. Or, if you have spent months/years painstakingly building and testing a model that can, on average, beat Vegas (extremely difficult but not impossible), then you might have an edge.
You wouldn't have been a square to bet on the Sox, but you would have been a square to give somebody even money or better odds on the Astros. Even the squarest squares are still right close to 50% of the time, so saying "I thought the Sox were going to win yesterday and they did" is hardly proof that you're Jimmy the Greek.
It wasn't my intent to argue or pronounce myself a genius. My whole point was that I was genuinely surprised that the Sox were underdogs in game 4 specifically, because I feel that even an average baseball fan could see that the Sox had an advantage. That's all... but if you want to collaborate on this testing model that can make us millions, hit me up. Reach me at (555)867-5309. |
|
|
|
Post by trajanacc on Oct 18, 2018 17:55:12 GMT -5
Morton being on a long layoff, and the effect that would likely have, was publicly available information, and therefore certainly factored into the moneyline spread, along with 1000 other things. A pro bookmaker isn't going to just ignore something so obvious, but he also isn't going to give it more weight than he feels it deserves. Now if you had inside information, like "I'm one of only 5 people in the world who know Charlie Morton's cat just died and he's despondent," then you might have an edge. Or, if you have spent months/years painstakingly building and testing a model that can, on average, beat Vegas (extremely difficult but not impossible), then you might have an edge.
You wouldn't have been a square to bet on the Sox, but you would have been a square to give somebody even money or better odds on the Astros. Even the squarest squares are still right close to 50% of the time, so saying "I thought the Sox were going to win yesterday and they did" is hardly proof that you're Jimmy the Greek.
It wasn't my intent to argue or pronounce myself a genius. My whole point was that I was genuinely surprised that the Sox were underdogs in game 4 specifically, because I feel that even an average baseball fan could see that the Sox had an advantage. That's all... but if you want to collaborate on this testing model that can make us millions, hit me up. Reach me at (555)867-5309. Haha. Sorry, I know you weren't trying to do that. My point is that what the average baseball fan sees/thinks they know (and believe me, I'm no more than an average baseball fan myself) does not necessarily line up with what Vegas thinks, and historically Vegas is a way better predictor of outcomes than an average baseball fan, or even an extremely intelligent one. |
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Oct 18, 2018 17:57:01 GMT -5
Morton being on a long layoff, and the effect that would likely have, was publicly available information, and therefore certainly factored into the moneyline spread, along with 1000 other things. A pro bookmaker isn't going to just ignore something so obvious, but he also isn't going to give it more weight than he feels it deserves. Now if you had inside information, like "I'm one of only 5 people in the world who know Charlie Morton's cat just died and he's despondent," then you might have an edge. Or, if you have spent months/years painstakingly building and testing a model that can, on average, beat Vegas (extremely difficult but not impossible), then you might have an edge.
You wouldn't have been a square to bet on the Sox, but you would have been a square to give somebody even money or better odds on the Astros. Even the squarest squares are still right close to 50% of the time, so saying "I thought the Sox were going to win yesterday and they did" is hardly proof that you're Jimmy the Greek.
It wasn't my intent to argue or pronounce myself a genius. My whole point was that I was genuinely surprised that the Sox were underdogs in game 4 specifically, because I feel that even an average baseball fan could see that the Sox had an advantage. That's all... but if you want to collaborate on this testing model that can make us millions, hit me up. Reach me at (555)867-5309. If you're actually curious about this: www.fangraphs.com/blogs/effectively-wild-episode-1222-testing-the-balls-and-beating-the-bookies/ |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2018 17:57:20 GMT -5
Some Kimbrel thoughts:
1) Astros led MLB in lowest percentage of balls outside the zone swung at and missed, by a huge margin. (The difference between their .098 and the Indians' runner-up .103 is larger than that between the Indians and the 6th place A's. Sox were 5th.) So guys like Kimbrel who rely on chases are the worst possible matchup.
(The Dodgers were 3rd and the Brewers 20th, BTW.)
2) We don't know whether (for the time being) he's fundamentally lost the ability to repeat his mechanics or whether he has a mechanical flaw early in his delivery that makes it impossible to repeat them. Only the latter is really fixable by coaching. In either case, he could return to being his true self at any time.
3) I don't know how anyone can say he's doing his job because he hasn't blown a save. And I'm not just talking about his good luck. Part of his job is to create despair in the minds of opposing hitters, making them alter their approach in the 8th inning, as their last chance to score. Now, this effect would be minimized against the Astros, but it would not be absent altogether. Having no fear of the other team's closer really changes a team's entire offensive mindset.
4) It's still too soon to judge the Kimbrel trade. If he recovers his form and leads us to a WS victory without multiple heart attacks, and Margot never becomes a star ... well that's very different from the alternative which I'm not going to type.
5) Would you re-sign him to a 1/$17.9M deal even if he's lights-out beginning tomorrow? I wouldn't. So I wouldn't assume he gets a QO just because he's Craig Kimbrel. He's been worth that just once in his three years here.
|
|
|
|
Post by klostrophobic on Oct 18, 2018 18:03:51 GMT -5
Kimbrel has been awful, but I certainly want him out there being potentially awful over the rest of the dreck that is Hembree/Kelly/Workman. I have zero faith in any of those guys throwing a useful inning, but if you can use a THREE RUN LEAD to perhaps give your most filthy pitcher a chance to work through whatever his issue is, I think you should do that. Clearly, he still doesn't have it, but I'll take that over the chance that Kelly, Hembree or Workman instantly figure it out after several hundred batters' worth each of data pointing to the unlikelihood of this.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 9,027
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 18, 2018 18:09:32 GMT -5
Morton being on a long layoff, and the effect that would likely have, was publicly available information, and therefore certainly factored into the moneyline spread, along with 1000 other things. A pro bookmaker isn't going to just ignore something so obvious, but he also isn't going to give it more weight than he feels it deserves. Now if you had inside information, like "I'm one of only 5 people in the world who know Charlie Morton's cat just died and he's despondent," then you might have an edge. Or, if you have spent months/years painstakingly building and testing a model that can, on average, beat Vegas (extremely difficult but not impossible), then you might have an edge.
You wouldn't have been a square to bet on the Sox, but you would have been a square to give somebody even money or better odds on the Astros. Even the squarest squares are still right close to 50% of the time, so saying "I thought the Sox were going to win yesterday and they did" is hardly proof that you're Jimmy the Greek.
It wasn't my intent to argue or pronounce myself a genius. My whole point was that I was genuinely surprised that the Sox were underdogs in game 4 specifically, because I feel that even an average baseball fan could see that the Sox had an advantage. That's all... but if you want to collaborate on this testing model that can make us millions, hit me up. Reach me at (555)867-5309. I graduated prep school in 1972 with the guy who wrote the verses and bridge to that song, Jim Keller, who was Tommy Tutone's lead guitarist and principle songwriter (but not lead singer). He's the guy in the opening shot here. I see him every five years, and I swear he looks the same as he does in that video. Of course, I think I do, too!. |
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 18, 2018 18:15:02 GMT -5
No way in hell we get 6 innings from Price tonight. And I don't fault him for that. We've been lucky to have pulled out most of the major pitching dice rolls but we also paid a price potentially during Porcello's start and Sale's last start. Now we've done the same thing to Price. We've made all of our top[ pitchers relievers to a degree. I'm not expecting that to work tonight either for Price.
Fortunately this team appears to be able to hit anyone. I like our chances against any team at this point. If we win tonight it's got to be from Erod being the occasional stud he sometimes has been. If he or Price were right handed I'd like our chances more. We probably need to score 5-6 runs to have a chance to win though and that's a tall order against Verlander.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 18, 2018 18:37:52 GMT -5
Actually yes. Again, the volatility of relievers means that when you pay full price for one who's already performing at a high level, the Dombrowski MO, you're almost never going to get get what you paid for. If you want a good bullpen, you have to be willing to buy low on guys. Otherwise you're always going to be investing more into your bullpen than you're getting out of it.
You can certainly make a case DD has been inefficient getting bullpen arms, yet like you pointed out its a crazy volatile market. Every team is inefficient! Your way though will almost never work. You will kill your team year after year doing that and force you to make deadline deals after deadline deals. Kimbrel has his ups and downs, but he was still our best reliever over the whole season. Heck even when he sucks he gives up 1 run in two innings, with some good D. Joe Kelly when he sucks could give up 5 runs in two innings. Lets give DD props for actually getting a lightning in a bottle guy, instead of saying you want a pen full of them! Not at all. Feltman might be up by mid-season next year, ready to out-Kimbrel Kimbrel. And there are endless examples of guys being picked up by pitching-wise teams and going from good and cheap, to unbeatable and cheap overnight. Blake Treinen is only the latest example, one that's cost-controlled right through 2021. Koji Uehara is yet another example (my favorite one!). Papelbon had 35 saves in his first full season as a reliever and never looked back. Brasier looks as if he's pushing for a spot on the list of reasonably priced alternatives as well. Picking relievers just takes a different zen I think. And it is the place to save money. Turning it into yet another income stream for agents is a mistake, a costly one. |
|
|
)
