OrangeWhoopass.com Forums
General Discussion => Talk Zone => Topic started by: Snuffy on October 09, 2018, 03:19:06 pm
-
This NYT article about the Cleveland sweep had some significant Springer & Bregman postseason highlights:
A Series Sweep by an Overlooked Bunch: The Defending Champions From Houston (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/sports/houston-astros-mlb-playoffs.html) (Original title, as noted at bottom of article.)
....Springer’s solo shot in the top of the fifth, which tied the score at 1-1, was his ninth career postseason homer, a franchise record. He hit his second in the eighth to extend Cleveland’s Houston's lead to 5-2, giving him seven home runs in his last seven postseason games dating to last year’s World Series.
The only other players to hit seven homers in a stretch of seven postseason games are Lou Gehrig, Reggie Jackson and Carlos Beltran.....
....He (Bregman) gave the rest of the postseason field plenty of reason to pay attention on Monday, reaching base all six times and going 2 for 3 with a double, a run-scoring single and two walks. He was also hit by a pitch and reached base on a critical error.
The only other players to reach base six times in a postseason game are Kenny Lofton for the Indians in the 1995 World Series, and Stan Hack, who did it in 1945 for the Chicago Cubs.
-
Nice notes.
But the Times might want to note that it wasn't Cleveland's lead that got extended by Springer's second dinger.
-
Nice notes.
But the Times might want to note that it wasn't Cleveland's lead that got extended by Springer's second dinger.
....Maybe they were wishing......
(Correction made; nice catch!)
Btw, ck out the original title for the article - original post)
-
Even crazier stats from Fangraphs
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-astros-gave-the-indians-an-all-time-beating/
-
Even crazier stats from Fangraphs
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-astros-gave-the-indians-an-all-time-beating/
Wow! Those are crazy stats!
Tks for the link.
Was there a similar breakdown of the pitching stats?
-
Yeah...
The Indians played like shit and the Astros didn’t make many mistakes. The Astros were the beneficiary of some horrendous defense at the worst possible time for the Indians and the Astros took advantage of a bullpen filled with people that might not have been on the Astros 40 man roster this season (I know they have talented arms there but they were a steaming pile of shit this year). If you gave the Indians the choice of the 4 pitchers left off our roster and their own bullpen I’d be shocked if they chose their own.
That’s the sweep I saw with my eyeballs this last week.
Make no mistake, the Astros had the easy road to the ALCS this year. The next round they’re about to play a real team. Likely Boston.
I give articles like this zero gravitas. It’s basically statistical masturbation. Luckily, the guys playing the games don’t give a shit either.
Buckle up!
-
Of course, you're right!
Even stats based on such a small sample as three games - especially with the 'Stros are winning - can be fun.
What they do show is how strong pitching, starters and relievers, can muzzle good hitting in a short series.
Looks like the ALDC will be w/ Boston (leading 4-1 in the 9th).
-
Of course, you're right!
Even stats based on such a small sample as three games - especially with the 'Stros are winning - can be fun.
What they do show is how strong pitching, starters and relievers, can muzzle good hitting in a short series.
Looks like the ALDC will be w/ Boston (leading 4-1 in the 9th).
The Astros didn’t face “good hitting”.
If it’s Boston they will face “good hitting”.
I can’t wait.
-
The Astros didn’t face “good hitting”.
If it’s Boston they will face “good hitting”.
I can’t wait.
Are you saying the Indians did not have a good lineup or good pitching? Really? I, for one, was very nervous about the ALDS. Boston is great for sure and may eliminate us, but do not try to tell me Cleveland was a nothing team.
-
Cleveland's lineup is very good. Maybe the Astros pitchers were just better.
-
Cleveland's lineup is very good. Maybe the Astros pitchers were just better.
The Indians had the 5th best record in the AL, coming out of arguably the weakest division (every other team was under .500). The Astros had the 2nd best record in the AL, coming out of arguably the toughest division (the worst team would not have been last in any other division, 4 of the 6 above .500).
So maybe their record was flattering while the Astros' was not. The 3-0 sweep was not expected, therefore, but not out of whack with how good the Astros are compared to most in the AL.
The Red Sox had the best record in the AL, but had the benefit of playing the Orioles 17 times from which they picked up 14 wins and 3 losses. Normalizing the Orioles to being just Rangers-bad probably takes 3 or 4 wins away from the Sox, but even then they'd still have a better record than the Astros (the Astros went 6-1 against the Orioles, so they'd lose wins too in a normalized count).
Of course, all of this is statistical nonsense. The Red Sox won 108 games and are very, very good. The Astros are very, very good too, and won 103 games. Head-to-head, it's 4-3 in favor of the Astros, including a 2-1 series in Boston in September in which the one home win required a big assist from the HP ump (https://abc13.com/sports/controversial-call-highlights-red-sox-win-over-astros/4203965/).
Bottom line: I'm sure they're just as nervous as we are.
-
Vegas has Astros at +145, which outts our chances at 55-60%. Will be a tough series.
-
Vegas has Astros at +145, which outts our chances at 55-60%. Will be a tough series.
+145 odds is equivalent to 40.8%
-
It's more like -135 when you count the vig (they are +125)
-
It's more like -135 when you count the vig (they are +125)
I just looked it up and I see you meant to write -145. That’s a 59.2% chance of winning the series.
-
Apologies (I may have been drinking at the airport). My point is, the table you are using doesn't include the spread for Vegas. Look up the Sox odds at +125, and you'll see it doesn't add up unless you normalize both to 135. That's why more like 55%
-
Apologies (I may have been drinking at the airport). My point is, the table you are using doesn't include the spread for Vegas. Look up the Sox odds at +125, and you'll see it doesn't add up unless you normalize both to 135. That's why more like 55%
We’re in agreement! And you are clearly having a better afternoon than I am.
-
I probably was, until I got on board and a yappy dog was seated next to me. I thought United policy was they had to go in the overhead bin?
-
This article contrasted the impact of the Astros' quality AB's with the inability of the Cleveland starters to protect their bullpen:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/moisekapendabower/2018/10/09/quality-at-bats-powered-the-astros-to-a-sweep-of-the-indians-in-the-alds/#1b9ce4ad25a8 (https://www.forbes.com/sites/moisekapendabower/2018/10/09/quality-at-bats-powered-the-astros-to-a-sweep-of-the-indians-in-the-alds/#1b9ce4ad25a8)....Clevinger leaving his bullpen an excessive workload (4 innings) was the culmination of the Astros’ supreme patience. Cleveland received a cumulative 15 innings from their starters in the series, an insufficiently low total considering Corey Kluber (215 innings), Carlos Carrasco (192), and Clevinger (200) ranked first, ninth, and sixth in the AL in innings during the regular season.....
....Kluber, Carrasco, and Clevinger allowed Astros hitters to bat 5-for-11 with three home runs and two walks the third time through the order....
....The Astros’ handiwork against the Indians’ starters enabled their bludgeoning of the Cleveland bullpen....
-
Vegas has Astros at +145, which outts our chances at 55-60%. Will be a tough series.
This strikes me as being very important 3 days before the games start. I agree it will be a tough series.
-
Vegas odds are not the chances that a team will win or lose, they're the chances that you will get sucked out of your money.
-
That's what the people who get sucked out of their money think
Vegas odds are not the chances that a team will win or lose, they're the chances that you will get sucked out of your money.
-
That's what the people who get sucked out of their money think
True. Only a gambler would think they're an indicator of a team's success or failure.
-
I don't gamble, but the Vegas odds have repeatedly been shown to be the best predictor of outcomes.
-
I don't gamble, but the Vegas odds have repeatedly been shown to be the best predictor of outcomes.
It's worth a lot of money to them to be right.
-
I just hope the Astros give it their best and the Good Lord willing things will work out.
-
I just hope the Astros give it their best and the Good Lord willing things will work out.
I hope the Astros beat the snot out of the Redsox and then do the same to whoever represents the NL in the WS.
-
I would not be disappointed if the Astros had to play the Brewers for the World Series. I might even get to see a game then..
-
I would not be disappointed if the Astros had to play the Brewers for the World Series. I might even get to see a game then..
Sorry, Iowa is subject to all MLB blackouts.
-
Sorry, Iowa is subject to all MLB blackouts.
Boy, no kidding.. Here's hoping the Brew Crew can wreck that meme.