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.
2019 World Series Gameday Thread
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 28, 2019 10:31:56 GMT -5
Seriously, when you played sports, even as a kid, how much thought did you give to momentum and how much effect did it have on how you played ? As a kid, I didn't think about it. I didn't even realize the concept. But I play tennis and golf now and if it is a competitive environment, I am.aware of when I have it or my opponent has it. It my opponent has it i am trying to get it back. happened just the other night when my opponent crushed me in the 1st set. I won.the next 2. I am the better player, but I felt his success when he was winning. i don't get how this is a novel concept, players talk about it plenty. Do you think it is real ?s No, I don't, just statistical variance which always falls within a distribution pattern. Back when I was into sports gambling I did a huge stats run and found out that teams on winning streaks were no more likely to win the next game than teams on losing streaks once you filter for a team's overall winning percent.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 28, 2019 10:37:47 GMT -5
Losing can snowball into a team underachieving when there is poor coaching and leadership. I think that's very much what happened to the 2012 Red Sox, for instance - a team that played far, far, far below the 2011 and 2013 ones. I don't think that's "momentum" but it's along the lines of what people perceive it to be.
Teams don't win beyond their talent and coaching just because they are hot and are building on that heat. If someone simply being better is enough to stop your momentum then it wasn't actually momentum.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2019 10:40:19 GMT -5
Basically it comes down to: if you can't quantify it, then it must not be real.
I don't agree. That would suggest that the players are downright robotic and their emotions don't come into play. I think when things feel like they're going your way, there's no deficit you can't overcome, but when things aren't going your way, a 1 run deficit feels like a mountain to climb.
Momentum is something that can be stopped and always does get stopped at some point (or else teams would either go 162-0 or 0-162), or if the timing is right like it was for the 2004 Red Sox, their season finished before their momentum did. No such luck for the Nats. Baseball is a streaky game, for players and for teams.
Does that mean that momentum is the reason why a team wins or loses? No, but it can be an arrow pointing up or down at any given time. And I think it can walk hand in hand with the law of averages. When a team has everything seemingly go their way for an extended time, eventually things do go the other way. You hope it just doesn't happen until it doesn't matter. For the Red Sox, fortunately the everything that could go right extended to the final pitch of the 2018 season which made it easier to digest the unrelenting everything that could go wrong factor that was the 2019 season.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2019 10:44:47 GMT -5
Losing can snowball into a team underachieving when there is poor coaching and leadership. I think that's very much what happened to the 2012 Red Sox, for instance - a team that played far, far, far below the 2011 and 2013 ones. I don't think that's "momentum" but it's along the lines of what people perceive it to be. Teams don't win beyond their talent and coaching just because they are hot and are building on that heat. If someone simply being better is enough to stop your momentum then it wasn't actually momentum. I wish I could remember the exact quotes that Ben Cherington gave in Alex Speier's new book, but I think it's pretty pertinent. I don't want to even try to paraphrase it or I'll mangle it. Now when I get a free minute (some year) I'll try to find it.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 28, 2019 10:50:43 GMT -5
Basically it comes down to: if you can't quantify it, then it must not be real. I don't agree. That would suggest that the players are downright robotic and their emotions don't come into play. I think when things feel like they're going your way, there's no deficit you can't overcome, but when things aren't going your way, a 1 run deficit feels like a mountain to climb. Momentum is something that can be stopped and always does get stopped at some point (or else teams would either go 162-0 or 0-162), or if the timing is right like it was for the 2004 Red Sox, their season finished before their momentum did. No such luck for the Nats. Baseball is a streaky game, for players and for teams. Does that mean that momentum is the reason why a team wins or loses? No, but it can be an arrow pointing up or down at any given time. And I think it can walk hand in hand with the law of averages. When a team has everything seemingly go their way for an extended time, eventually things do go the other way. You hope it just doesn't happen until it doesn't matter. For the Red Sox, fortunately the everything that could go right extended to the final pitch of the 2018 season which made it easier to digest the unrelenting everything that could go wrong factor that was the 2019 season. That assumes that one of the sides isn't human. The only factor which I think is real is the fatigue factor but that's significantly more prevalent in basketball than any other sport. Teams that travel before a home game, ie, the first game of a home stand, are less likely to win than their usual home record. In basketball, that difference is more than the spread which is significant. Fatigue is, to me, the most likely cause.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 28, 2019 10:55:41 GMT -5
Basically it comes down to: if you can't quantify it, then it must not be real. I don't agree. That would suggest that the players are downright robotic and their emotions don't come into play. I think when things feel like they're going your way, there's no deficit you can't overcome, but when things aren't going your way, a 1 run deficit feels like a mountain to climb. Momentum is something that can be stopped and always does get stopped at some point (or else teams would either go 162-0 or 0-162), or if the timing is right like it was for the 2004 Red Sox, their season finished before their momentum did. No such luck for the Nats. Baseball is a streaky game, for players and for teams. Does that mean that momentum is the reason why a team wins or loses? No, but it can be an arrow pointing up or down at any given time. And I think it can walk hand in hand with the law of averages. When a team has everything seemingly go their way for an extended time, eventually things do go the other way. You hope it just doesn't happen until it doesn't matter. For the Red Sox, fortunately the everything that could go right extended to the final pitch of the 2018 season which made it easier to digest the unrelenting everything that could go wrong factor that was the 2019 season. If momentum can stop or start at any moment, basically it's totally non-predictive right? If you say "in the first two games the Nats had all the momentum, but then it reversed (for unexplained reasons) and the Astros had all the momentum for the next three games," what have you explained? I agree that not all meaningful things can be qualified, but for a theory to be useful it has to be able to explain something. The theory that momentum is real doesn't explain anything. So: seems like a useless concept.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 28, 2019 11:13:28 GMT -5
Looking at it another way, when a batter is trying to make contact with a 98 MPH fastball, he isn't thinking about momentum good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2019 11:13:30 GMT -5
Basically it comes down to: if you can't quantify it, then it must not be real. I don't agree. That would suggest that the players are downright robotic and their emotions don't come into play. I think when things feel like they're going your way, there's no deficit you can't overcome, but when things aren't going your way, a 1 run deficit feels like a mountain to climb. Momentum is something that can be stopped and always does get stopped at some point (or else teams would either go 162-0 or 0-162), or if the timing is right like it was for the 2004 Red Sox, their season finished before their momentum did. No such luck for the Nats. Baseball is a streaky game, for players and for teams. Does that mean that momentum is the reason why a team wins or loses? No, but it can be an arrow pointing up or down at any given time. And I think it can walk hand in hand with the law of averages. When a team has everything seemingly go their way for an extended time, eventually things do go the other way. You hope it just doesn't happen until it doesn't matter. For the Red Sox, fortunately the everything that could go right extended to the final pitch of the 2018 season which made it easier to digest the unrelenting everything that could go wrong factor that was the 2019 season. If momentum can stop or start at any moment, basically it's totally non-predictive right? If you say "in the first two games the Nats had all the momentum, but then it reversed (for unexplained reasons) and the Astros had all the momentum for the next three games," what have you explained? I agree that not all meaningful things can be qualified, but for a theory to be useful it has to be able to explain something. The theory that momentum is real doesn't explain anything. So: seems like a useless concept. I don't think anyone is calling it theory. It is more an occurrence. Just my opinion, but if people are trying to lump this in with statistics they are kind of missing the meaning of it. It is clear to me that in a competition like a seven game series it has more of an opportunity to be recognizable. Over longer periods...not as mUch
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2019 11:15:38 GMT -5
Looking at it another way, when a batter is trying to make contact with a 98 MPH fastball, he isn't thinking about momentum good or bad. Correct...but if he has just hit a 98 mph fastball for a home run as opposed to a K...all things being equal....he has momentum
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2019 11:35:09 GMT -5
Basically it comes down to: if you can't quantify it, then it must not be real. I don't agree. That would suggest that the players are downright robotic and their emotions don't come into play. I think when things feel like they're going your way, there's no deficit you can't overcome, but when things aren't going your way, a 1 run deficit feels like a mountain to climb. Momentum is something that can be stopped and always does get stopped at some point (or else teams would either go 162-0 or 0-162), or if the timing is right like it was for the 2004 Red Sox, their season finished before their momentum did. No such luck for the Nats. Baseball is a streaky game, for players and for teams. Does that mean that momentum is the reason why a team wins or loses? No, but it can be an arrow pointing up or down at any given time. And I think it can walk hand in hand with the law of averages. When a team has everything seemingly go their way for an extended time, eventually things do go the other way. You hope it just doesn't happen until it doesn't matter. For the Red Sox, fortunately the everything that could go right extended to the final pitch of the 2018 season which made it easier to digest the unrelenting everything that could go wrong factor that was the 2019 season. If momentum can stop or start at any moment, basically it's totally non-predictive right? If you say "in the first two games the Nats had all the momentum, but then it reversed (for unexplained reasons) and the Astros had all the momentum for the next three games," what have you explained? I agree that not all meaningful things can be qualified, but for a theory to be useful it has to be able to explain something. The theory that momentum is real doesn't explain anything. So: seems like a useless concept. It's not meant to explain why teams are winning and losing over 162 games. You're being very clinical here. It's a short-term thing - it's the confidence/feeling that grows within a good streak or the concern/feeling that grows within a bad streak. The Nats were on a hot streak where everything was going their way. Sooner or later the law of averages come into play and that streak or momentum or whatever the hell you want to call it, gives out. I mean, really, take a good look back at the 2004 ALCS and tell me you didn't see momentum building toward the Red Sox from the 9th inning on from Game 4 ALCS throughout the entire World Series. I never saw momentum build like it did that series. Why it swung as soon as the clock struck midnight on Oct 18, 2004, I have no idea, but it did. Did the Red Sox win BECAUSE of momentum? No. They had everything go right for them for four games starting in the 9th inning of Game 4 and continue all the way through the Series. Does that mean it was all luck? No. Were they better than the Yankees and Cardinals? Yes and no. Pythag said yes as far as the Yankees go and the real standings said no. I mean this is purely anecdotal because you're not going to get any stats on this, but I can't help back, but think about the reporter friend Big Papi referred to in his book, who had who was covering the ALCS in 2004. He said to Big Papi before Game 7, "You guys are going to win tonight". Your clubhouse feels like a party and I was over in the Yankees' clubhouse and it looks like they're preparing for a funeral." The guy surveyed the room and noticed the difference in temperature. My question is why would there be a difference if everything was truly equal - after all it's 3-3 and Kevin Brown is no worse than Derek Lowe for that season and you have the HFA? I mean, why are the Yankees down and why were the Red Sox up? They hadn't even played the damn game yet. The point is that even these guys feel it. I mean, Reggie Jackson, Mr. October himself, told somebody, "We're gone, man" (wish I could remember where I read that - was it in Roger Angell's book? Wish I could remember.) just before Game 7 of the 1986 ALCS after the Red Sox had their miraculous Game 5 comeback in Anaheim and defeated the Angels in Game 6 at Fenway. Reggie was ultimately correct as the Sox won the pennant with an easy 8-1 victory.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Oct 28, 2019 11:37:38 GMT -5
Looking at it another way, when a batter is trying to make contact with a 98 MPH fastball, he isn't thinking about momentum good or bad. Correct...but if he has just hit a 98 mph fastball for a home run as opposed to a K...all things being equal....he has momentum So having momentum = playing well? That's fine if you want to define it that way, but again, if it doesn't actually predict anything, what's the use of the concept? You can just say the team has been playing well.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 28, 2019 11:45:45 GMT -5
Looking at it another way, when a batter is trying to make contact with a 98 MPH fastball, he isn't thinking about momentum good or bad. Correct...but if he has just hit a 98 mph fastball for a home run as opposed to a K...all things being equal....he has momentum No! That's my point! It just means he hit a homer! If every good thing is "momentum" then "momentum" is functionally useless.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2019 11:48:02 GMT -5
Correct...but if he has just hit a 98 mph fastball for a home run as opposed to a K...all things being equal....he has momentum So having momentum = playing well? That's fine if you want to define it that way, but again, if it doesn't actually predict anything, what's the use of the concept? You can just say the team has been playing well. A person / team can have momentum by having a few breaks go their way.....I don't If it has to be about performance, but certainly you are in that regard. this can get split a million different ways because the origin / happening is more organic with less definition to people like me. I do think the players feel it and use it their advantage, for whatever that is worth.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2019 11:52:58 GMT -5
Correct...but if he has just hit a 98 mph fastball for a home run as opposed to a K...all things being equal....he has momentum No! That's my point! It just means he hit a homer! If every good thing is "momentum" then "momentum" is functionally useless. Ha !! All things don't just happen that arbitrarily. Momentum has a begining point, that is what I was saying. Some moment where things turn for better to worse to better to worse. Honestly, think of the root word definition.and it makes total sense
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2019 13:33:33 GMT -5
So, when's the debate as to whether clutch hitting really exists?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Oct 28, 2019 14:45:20 GMT -5
I just flipped a coin and got heads 10 times in a row. I have momentum.
The more it's discussed, the more momentum just sounds like playing well.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Oct 28, 2019 15:30:17 GMT -5
So, when's the debate as to whether clutch hitting really exists? The discussion was on a roll so let's not stop the momentum with clutch hitting.
|
|
gerry
Veteran
Enter your message here...
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by gerry on Oct 28, 2019 16:17:26 GMT -5
So, when's the debate as to whether clutch hitting really exists? The discussion was on a roll so let's not stop the momentum with clutch hitting. Perfect. This thread has momentum. It will stop for reasons unknown. IMO so much in life gains momentum, has momentum, and loses momentum. Writers Block defines, for prolific writers, the end of momentum. Music Writers encounter the same kind of block(s). BABIP may help define momentum, or not. Physical and emotional health play roles in success and failure as do the physical and emotional fatigue described upthread. I can’t be the only one here to actually feel so “hot” as to experience, even anticipate, a run of good games or good days, to experience feeling virtually untouchable, and sustaining a good run. And conversely a bad run. Plato the philospher with ideas vast and simple was also a mathemetician. Strangely, music is math, and poetry is too. As is the rare green flash or blue moon, but to us mere humans they are more than math and are appreciated in ways beyond math. We all have experienced momentum, both positive and negative. Poor Ior. Such cliches as “everything that could go wrong went wrong” or “don’t jinx it” exist for reasons. Most cliches do. Mathematically it may measure as meaningless, but it still happens.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2019 16:26:22 GMT -5
So, when's the debate as to whether clutch hitting really exists? The discussion was on a roll so let's not stop the momentum with clutch hitting. I was trying to stop it. Like the saying goes, "Posting momentum is only as good as the next topic's posting."
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 28, 2019 19:59:16 GMT -5
So, since the mid-20's when MLB settled on the 2-3-2 format for 7 game series, there have been 46 teams that have returned home leading 3 games to 2.
The coin flips odds without factoring in home field are 75%. With home field, it's closer to 80%. Given that all these teams won 3 games while on the road, if home field matters, it might be slightly higher.
In fact, 35 of those teams won, which is 76%.
However ....
Through 1991, those teams were 13-8 (.619). Since then, they're 22-3 (.880). So maybe home field has started to matter? Crowds are bigger. The odds of that split happening at ramdom are 1 in 26. And see below for the numbers that I think clinch the argument that this is real and no random.
You know the three teams that won: the 2003 Marlins in the NLCS against the Cubs, the 2004 Red Sox in the ALCS against the Yankees, and the 2016 Cubs in the WS against the Indians. If the Nats can pull this off, it will be nearly as legendary: first WS win for the franchise, first 7-games series to have ever had zero wins by the home team.
Breaking it down:
The home team in game 6 is 27-19 (.587). Home field and a bit more.
Home teams who lost game 6 are 8-11 (.421) in game 7. Is that because of a letdown by the home team, or because teams that win game 6 facing elimination on the road just tend to be the better team? Or is could be random (7 to 2 odds against).
(Trivia note: if the 2004 Sox were capable of playing .550 ball against the 2003 Yankees, then the odds of their winning 4 straight are fractionally better than their odds of losing 3 straight. I've always maintained that the unlikely thing that happened in that series was the Yankees winning 3 straight, not us winning 4. The pure odds back up that up.)
Through 1991, home teams looking to clinch were just 8-13 in game 6 (.381). The 13 teams that lost went 5-8 in game 7 (.385), resulting in the dismal .619 overall mark.
Since then, they are 19-6 (.760) in game 6. The 6 teams that lost game 6 are of course 3-3. You no doubt recall the three teams that won game 6 on the road but lost game 7: the '97 Indians in the WS against the Marlins, the '03 Red Sox against the Yankees, and the '08 Red Sox against the Rays.
So, through 1991, teams returning home up 3 games to 2 went 13-21 in games 6 and 7 combined. Since then, they are 22-9. The odds of that happening randomly are 1 in 122.
The 8 teams that pulled off the road comeback before 1992:
1926 Cardinals vs. Yankees 1934 Cardinals vs. Tigers 1952 Yankees vs. Dodgers 1958 Yankees vs. Braves 1968 Tigers vs. Cardinals 1979 Pirates vs. Orioles 1985 Royals vs. Blue Jays, ALCS
1991 Braves vs. Pirates, NLCS
Only 9 different teams were involved. It's still only 13, and the Yankee, Cardinals, Tigers, Braves, Pirates, and Cubs have all both pulled off the feat and had it done against them. In Fact, the '85 ALCS is the only matchup involving two teams, neither of which was involved in one of the other 10 series. So if the Nats pull it off against the 'Stros, that's unusual, too.
|
|
|
Post by Papi's Gift on Oct 29, 2019 9:40:03 GMT -5
To change the subject in a radical (and less serious) way, this is surely the first time a world series team has two players on the roster who seem to be named after Carthaginian generals: Asdrubal Cabrera and Anibal Sanchez.
In the late 3rd century BCE, during the second Punic War against Rome, the Carthaginian army left present-day Tunisia and crossed the Mediterranean Sea to Spain, where Hasdrubal held down the fort while his brother Hannibal took the elephants over the Alps and into Italy.
Maybe it's a Venezuelan thing? Could turn out to be an unbreakable record.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 29, 2019 10:02:22 GMT -5
Amazing. Totally on board with any links between the World Series and the wars of antiquity. (I believe Anibal is a relatively common name in Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries. It was the name of the previous president of Argentina. But still, amazing.) EDIT: This, of course, sent me down the rabbit hole. You think I'm not going to click the link from Hasdrubal's wikipedia page titled "Other Hasdrubals in Carthaginian history"? Of course I'm clicking that. We have: - Hasdrubal I of Carthage was the Magonid king of Ancient Carthage from 530 to 510 BC.
- Hasdrubal the Fair (c. 270 BC – 221 BC), son-in-law of Hamilcar Barca
- Hasdrubal Barca (245–207 BC), son of Hamilcar Barca and brother of Hannibal and Mago
- Hasdrubal Gisco (died 202 BC), another commander in the Second Punic War
- Hasdrubal the Bald, a Carthaginian general in the Second Punic War
- Hasdrubal the Boetharch, the general of Punic forces in the Third Punic War c. 146 BC
- Hasdrubal, commander of the service corps, a Carthaginian officer in the Second Punic War c. 218 BC
- original name of Carthaginian Clitomachus (philosopher) (187/6–110/09 BC)
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,948
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 29, 2019 11:42:14 GMT -5
To change the subject in a radical (and less serious) way, this is surely the first time a world series team has two players on the roster who seem to be named after Carthaginian generals: Asdrubal Cabrera and Anibal Sanchez. In the late 3rd century BCE, during the second Punic War against Rome, the Carthaginian army left present-day Tunisia and crossed the Mediterranean Sea to Spain, where Hasdrubal held down the fort while his brother Hannibal took the elephants over the Alps and into Italy. Maybe it's a Venezuelan thing? Could turn out to be an unbreakable record. Orestes Destrade: March 30, 1988: Traded by the New York Yankees to the Pittsburgh Pirates for Hipolito Pena. Orestes is the son of Agamemnon who went into exile after his mother Clytemnestra killed his dad (because he had sacrificed their daughter Iphigenia to Artemis so that the winds would stop preventing the Greek fleet from sailing to Troy); as a adult he came home in disguise and with his sister Electra killed their mother Clytemnestra, then was haunted by the Furies. Hippolytus was the sone of Theseus and an Amazon who rejected Aphrodite and sex, so Aphrodite made his stepmother Phaedra fall in love with him. When he rejected her she killed herself and left a note saying he had tried to rape her; Theseus found the note and used a curse he had been given by his father Poseidon to kill Hippolytus, though as he lay dying or soon after he learned the truth.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 29, 2019 15:38:15 GMT -5
I like tonights pitching match up. Would love a game #7 with both Martinez and Hinch managing by their (seat of the pants) for Martinez and (excell spread sheet) for Hinch.
|
|
|
Post by Papi's Gift on Oct 29, 2019 15:40:35 GMT -5
And, of course, Arquimedez Pozo. Get him a lever long enough and a fulcrum and he can (almost) move the umpires' union.
|
|
|