Guess I was wron about the East Coast Bias

[sharksrog]

With apologies to Boagie and Randy, I guess I was wrong about the East Coast Bias.

I was listening to a national sports talk show on KNBR about six o'clock last night, and this obviously biased guy came on the air and really panned the Giants.

He said he didn't expect them to repeat this year, since they hadn't done so in 2011 and since a lot of things went right last year. He felt they had the edge on the Dodgers in pitching, but that the Dodgers were better hitters.

He even mentioned the Diamondbacks as being a better team than people realized.

Clearly the guy had that East Coast Bias, or else he would have been picking the Giants. And sure enough, near the end of his call, they asked him where he was from.

Wasn't it obvious? He was from Danville.

[allenreed]

Originally? Or is he an east coast transplant. Or maybe it was Danville, Illinois. Obviously, this guy was terribly uninformed. He wasn't aware that the Giants did well in 2011 despite they're best player being out for most of the year, and won their division resoundingly in 2012 when he returned.
As for alot of things going right last year, where was this guy? Did he not realize that their ace pitcher had one of the worst seasons of any pitcher in the league? That their closer went down for the year in his second game? That one of their best hitters missed 54 games and hit just .283 with twelve homers? That their leading hitter at the time missed the final 49 games due to a positive PED test? That the player they projected as their starting second baseman missed the entire year, and a player they projected as the starter at first was virtually useless?
Again, think anout who's talking and why they're saying what they're saying.

[sfgdood]

Are you really that desperate? Using one yahoo from talk radio to make a point? You should stick to your numbers, stats boy.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Allen -- Originally? Or is he an east coast transplant. Or maybe it was Danville, Illinois. Obviously, this guy was terribly uninformed. He wasn't aware that the Giants did well in 2011 despite they're best player being out for most of the year, and won their division resoundingly in 2012 when he returned.

Rog -- The guy was from Danville, California, and every thing I wrote was truly what happened. And I hope the irony wasn't lost. That was the effect I was trying for.

Clearly one guy proves virtually nothing. But given our discussions on the board, the irony did make me chuckle a bit.

Or maybe the guy was simply disgruntled since the Giants let Nate Schierholtz go. Nate graduated from high school in Danville -- as did Randy Winn.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#9136#ixzz2LvMYn6Hu

[sharksrog]

Allen -- As for alot of things going right last year, where was this guy? Did he not realize that their ace pitcher had one of the worst seasons of any pitcher in the league? That their closer went down for the year in his second game? That one of their best hitters missed 54 games and hit just .283 with twelve homers? That their leading hitter at the time missed the final 49 games due to a positive PED test? That the player they projected as their starting second baseman missed the entire year, and a player they projected as the starter at first was virtually useless?
Again, think anout who's talking and why they're saying what they're saying.

Rog -- Gosh, a lot of things DID go right last year -- which is pretty much the case for every World Champion. Some of those things are good moves by the team; some come seemingly out of nowhere. Let me copy your points and address them one by one. By the way, you made some darn good points here.


Allen -- Did he not realize that their ace pitcher had one of the worst seasons of any pitcher in the league?

Rog -- Statistically, Tim DID have the worst season of any qualifying pitcher -- probably in not just the NL, but the majors. But in the postseason, Tim was a big weapon. What was an extreme hardship in the regular season suddenly became a weapon in the postseason.


Allen -- That their closer went down for the year in his second game?

Rog -- An outstanding accomplishment by the Giants. One that was predictable though. When Wilson went down, it immediately stated here that the Giants would be fine at close without him. The Giants wound up with one of the best save records in baseball.

When the Giants were forced to go to closer by committee, it was immediately pointed out that closer by committee hadn't worked previously more because of the lack of talent in those bullpens, and that the Giants had enough to pull off what is actually a good concept.

Overcoming the loss of Wilson and later the temporary loss of effectiveness of the backup closer, Santiago Casilla, due to a blister problem, was outstanding.

But a question I will ask is this: Was it the East Coast Bias that most here thought both moves would fail? If an East Coast journalist had written it, posters here would have cited the East Coast Bias. But since they themselves were the ones saying it, naturally it was simply the wise observation of long-time Giants fans.

We often see what we want to see. Whether we live on the West Coast or the East.


Allen -- That one of their best hitters missed 54 games and hit just .283 with twelve homers?

Rog -- The Giants' ability to overcome the loss of Pablo and then his limited effectiveness after he returned was a key to the season. That was accomplished primarily due to a very nice move by the much-derided GM Brian Sabean to have signed Joaquin Arias.

I too have been wrong about Sabean, stating when his contract was renewed a few years ago that I was shocked. Fortunately I have defended him to the extent of asking our posters to view his accomplishments (excellent trades and shrewd pickups of bottom-of-the-barrel free agents) with his failures (mostly mistakes with high-priced free agents).

One thing to remember is that there are plenty of GM's who make similar mistakes to those of Sabean, yet don't pull of nearly as many positive moves to overcome them.

And regarding the difficulty of overcoming injuries to Pablo, let's not forget that Pablo had a GREAT postseason, one that helped the Giants overcome long odds to win it all.


Allen -- That their leading hitter at the time missed the final 49 games due to a positive PED test?

Rog -- Again, a very shrewd move by Sabean to trade for Melky. The questions with the trade were whether Melky's 2011 rebound was real (which is now in doubt) and what caused Jonathan Sanchez to implode around the end of May, 2011. Turns out Melky was getting chemical aid, while Sanchez's career may have effectively ended by injuries suffered in 2011. Perhaps the Giants were more aware of the extent of Sanchez's injuries than KC and we were.

The stats did say that something radically changed with Jonathan in late May of 2011 though, and it was noted here.


Allen -- That the player they projected as their starting second baseman missed the entire year, and a player they projected as the starter at first was virtually useless?

Rog -- Again, let's give Sabean some credit here. He had Brandon Belt ready to take over first base, even if he did so in fits and starts. He made a key trade for Marco Scutaro to fill the second base hole.

I personally praised that trade -- although more because the Giants gave up virtually nothing (Charlie Culberson) than because I expected Marco to do anything close to what he did.

When the Giants traded for Marco, he was hitting something like .230 outside Coors Field and was 38 years old. Given those factors, I would say his performance the rest of the way was in the 97th percentile of reasonable expectations.

But again another move that worked out for Sabean in a manner that may have made it the best trade of 2012 -- with the trades for Melky and Pagan also in the running.

Sabean was just chosen by the MLB Network as the #5 GM in the game. He was the most polarizing of all 30 GM's, but he had enough support -- including a couple who voted him the best GM in the game -- to overcome those who didn't rate him even in their top 10.

Just as Bruce Bochy suddenly "became" a fine manager (chosen #1 the past two seasons, with his 2011 honor coming even after not making the playoffs), Sabean has "become" a good general manager.

In reality, we too often tend to look at things as black or white, apparently not realizing in all but the most extreme of circumstances, there is at least some good to help offset some of the bad that we are myopically focusing on.

As I said, seven or eight year ago I was WAY wrong about Sabean. But at least I was pointing out the many good moves he had made. I simply thought he had inexplicably lost his touch. Clearly I was wrong -- and it is quite possible his hands were somewhat tied by ownership back then.

The one thing Brian has been guilty of is trading the future for the present. But that certainly paid off in 2010 and 2012, didn't it?

The one move he made that just killed me was his trade of Zack Wheeler for Carlos Beltran. As I mentioned at the time, I understood why he made the deal; I just thought it was a really bad one.

Brian himself had previously said he wouldn't make that kind of deal (top prospect for a rental), and I doubt he will do so again. I know some here are high on Gary Brown (who is off to an excellent start in training camp), but if the deal could have been done for Brown instead of Wheeler, I would have traded the latter.

But the biggest mistake was in making the deal to begin with.












Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2LvNZlMKh

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Are you really that desperate? Using one yahoo from talk radio to make a point? You should stick to your numbers, stats boy.

Rog -- I'm sorry you didn't pick up the irony. At the time I heard it, I just thought it was really ironic -- and that I could post it in a manner that emphasized the irony. Maybe part of the problem is that people here just don't seem to get me. I'll try to do a better job of presenting.

Regarding stats, the opinion of their value is changing, as people open their minds and use them. If you doubt me, check out the present issue of ESPN the Magazine.

And for those who think those who rely on stats do so blindly, ESPN quotes Bill James as saying something to the effect of being careful what stats lead one to believe. The point is in keeping the mind open and using the stats in a logical manner -- and realizing their limitations, especially in areas like fielding.

I think one of the reasons some doubt statistical analysis is that such analysis isn't 100% perfect. My position has long been that if stats can help us understand something better than we previously did, those stats have value.

Criticizing analytics because it doesn't predict human behavior 100% of the time is a correct response far less than 100% of the time.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2LvXlAOe5

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- An outstanding accomplishment by the Giants. One that was predictable though. When Wilson went down, it immediately stated here that the Giants would be fine at close without him. The Giants wound up with one of the best save records in baseball.

When the Giants were forced to go to closer by committee, it was immediately pointed out that closer by committee hadn't worked previously more because of the lack of talent in those bullpens, and that the Giants had enough to pull off what is actually a good concept.

Overcoming the loss of Wilson and later the temporary loss of effectiveness of the backup closer, Santiago Casilla, due to a blister problem, was outstanding.

But a question I will ask is this: Was it the East Coast Bias that most here thought both moves would fail? If an East Coast journalist had written it, posters here would have cited the East Coast Bias. But since they themselves were the ones saying it, naturally it was simply the wise observation of long-time Giants fans.

Boagie- The examples you've given here are situations that I would not second guess an analyst questioning. I too had doubts about losing Wilson for the entire season, and the fact that they had trouble against above .500 teams during the regular season. There are legitimate questions going into this season too. Will Timmy bounce back..Will Zito continue his success from last year, will they find an acceptable platooon in LF?...The difference here between common concerns, and a bias is that last year, and in 2010 when the chips are down, and the Giants answered all those questions with an exclamation point they were still labeled by the mainstream media as a team that got lucky or got all the bounces, rather than just a great team.

How many times have the Yankees or Redsox been labeled as a team that got lucky breaks? How many times have they been labeled as the team of outcasts and misfits? I get it once, but not twice. Cain, Lincecum, Bumgarner, Posey and Sandoval are all perennial All-Star caliber players. Matt Cain started the All-Star game last year, threw a perfect game and started every post-season clinching game for the Giants. Would you use "misfit" when describing Matt Cain? Posey started the All-Star game, and won just about every offensive award last year..Outcast? Pablo Sandoval also started the All-Star game, and roped a triple off Verlander, hit 3 homeruns in the World Series and won World Series MVP...I guess those homeruns bouncing off bleacher seats were balls bouncing his way?

Now, going into the World Series last year, I understand why writers and analysts predicted the Tigers to win, but did they completely forget what happened just 2 years prior? Isn't it sort of their job to pay attention?

We know that most analysts picked the Tigers to win, but remember Fox's two check marks by the Tigers pitching staff before game 1? Did they really need to put two? and was two check marks over the Giants pitching staff accurate even at that point?

Finally I close with another example of the bias leading up to the World Series, after the Giants had proven they won't go down without a fight.


by Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY Sports

Published: 10/24/2012 08:36am

SAN FRANCISCO -- The Detroit Tigers sat back in Motown this past week and watched the cute little story unfold in the National League.

They saw the San Francisco Giants pull off their Lazarus act time and time again, winning a record six consecutive elimination games, and become overnight media darlings.

They're starting to wonder if these guy dress in a clubhouse or a TV studio, where they can rehearse their zany skits and goofy pregame antics.

The Tigers are sorry to ruin the ending to this charming show, but the Giants' season is over.

Detroit will win the World Series in five games.

WORLD SERIES: Who has the edge?

There may be more suspense watching the Giants grab a razor this winter and shaving those black beards, thick enough to hold wildlife, than viewing this public thrashing.

The Giants haven't seen a team this powerful all year, and by this time next week, they won't know what hit them. The Tigers, like a caged boxer, know they are about to deliver an ugly whuppin', but will refrain from providing clubhouse fodder.

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- the Giants answered all those questions with an exclamation point they were still labeled by the mainstream media as a team that got lucky or got all the bounces, rather than just a great team.

Rog -- Guess what, Boagie? Virtually ANY team that wins the World Series got lucky.

How do we know this? A very good team finishes with a .600 winning percentage (the Giants fell four wins short this season). I don't remember the odds of a .600 team winning a five-game series followed by winning a 7-game series followed by winning another 7-game series, but I can tell you it is less than 50%.

In other words, virtually NO team goes into the playoffs with a better chance of winning the World Series than of being one of the 7 also-rans.

I am reading an intriguing book about basketball right now. The first chapter is essentially that the key to winning basketball is that it isn't about basketball. It's about 8 or 9 players putting their egos into their hind pockets and being willing to work as a team to make each other better. I'm strongly buying into this concept of chemistry.

But we're talking baseball here. It isn't about how you set a pick, help out on defense or attack the boards. Sure, there are relay plays. We saw a wonderful one in which three fielders combined to cut down a Fielder.

But mostly, baseball is batter vs. pitcher. Clearly the catcher plays a role, as well.

It's also about fielding, but only relays, steals, rundowns and bounced throws involve much collaboration beyond pitcher, catcher and hitter.

It's about base running, but beyond the coach, that's an individual thing, as well.

So which team wins the World Series? Is it the best one?

Sometimes. But rarely does a team make the playoffs with a winning percentage much above .600 -- about as often as a team makes them with a winning percentage below about .540 or so. In other words, rarely is one team tremendously better than another.

So it comes down to injuries, luck and getting hot at the right time.

Yeah, you say, but the Giants played six elimination games and won every single one. The odds of that happening are more 50 to one. See how great they are?

But if the Giants were truly that good, how did they get down 2-0 and later 3 games to ? Did they intentionally do that in order to show just how great they were?

At some point one has to at least wonder if, wow, that team really WAS that good. Certainly if a team sweeps all four rounds. Maybe if it loses only one to three games among the three series.

Other than that, it's pretty sure that the best team was the one who won the most games -- or came close to doing so -- over the l62-game schedule.

It's not unheard of to get unrealistically hot over an ll to l9 game stretch. It almost never happens that a team gets unrealistically hot over l62 games.

The larger the sample, the more accurate the result is likely to be. Is that an ll-l9 game sample, or a l62-gamer?

The writer who says that a team DIDN'T get lucky in winning the World Series is probaby the guy who is wrong, not one who says the team DID get lucky. Some teams may need a little more luck than others, but virtually NO team goes into the playoffs with a better chance of winning it than not winning the championship.

We're not talking about high school teams here.






Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#9153#ixzz2M7KgKT56

[Islandboagie]

Boagie -- the Giants answered all those questions with an exclamation point they were still labeled by the mainstream media as a team that got lucky or got all the bounces, rather than just a great team.

Rog -- Guess what, Boagie? Virtually ANY team that wins the World Series got lucky.


Boagie- This is the opinion the stat nerds take when their stats and predictions dont pan out. They claim Scott Rolen not making the play on Arias's grounder was good luck for the Giants, I say it's the fact that Rolen didn't make the play when the pressure is on and a play MUST be made. If Sandoval had botched that play in the same situation I would say the Reds were the more deserving team because they didn't choke in a crucial playoff game.

We just see things differently, Rog. You see things as luck, I see things as good and bad play by both teams. The team that lets "luck" beat them is not the better team. Never has been.

The Giants outplayed the Reds, Cardinals and most certainly the Tigers.

There was alot of emphasis put on Pagan's chopper that hit the 3rd base bag. Yet no attention put on the ball that bounced off Pagan's mitt and went over the fence for a homerun. Why is that? Why arent the stat geeks fixated on the ball that went off Pagan's mitt?

I'll tell you why, because it doesn't excuse their poor analysis of the post-season. Whereas they can point at the ball off the 3rd base bag as something that nobody could have predicted, adding a luck factor, which they claim effects their prediction, thus making them not wrong.

I have never heard a sabermetric analyst say.."well, turns out I was wrong about that." Instead they insert luck factors, and injury factors which explains why their numbers didn't predict an accurate result. Show me an example of ANY sabermetric analyst admitting they were just wrong?

I've admitted it. I was wrong about Angel Pagan. I was wrong about Juan Uribe. I thought Dan Ortmeier was going to have a nice major league career. Heck, I had more than a few doubts of the Giants chances in the post season last year...I was wrong. I've been wrong alot, and I'm sure I'll be wrong again.

Rog- We're not talking about high school teams here.

Boagie- exactly, that's why a lucky bounce, injury, or a misplay will always reveal whom the better team is. I know it sounds cliche, but I honestly believe the better Major League Baseball team overcomes those occurances, and plays through it. The Giants did that last year, the teams they faced, didn't.

A good pitcher pitches through an error, or a lucky bounce, or even an umpire that seems to be squeezing them. They don't drop to the mound in the fetal position and blame everything on bad luck (although Jonathan Sanchez appeared to at times.) They pitch through it, that's what separates the good pitchers from the mediocre or bad pitchers. It's the same with teams.

I'll give you the last word here, Rog. I'm sure you have many more quotes from your "Sabermetrics Bible of Excuses."

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- How many times have the Yankees or Redsox been labeled as a team that got lucky breaks?

Rog -- Not enough.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#9191#ixzz2M8IbDfrI

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Now, going into the World Series last year, I understand why writers and analysts predicted the Tigers to win, but did they completely forget what happened just 2 years prior? Isn't it sort of their job to pay attention?

Rog -- I think it would have been worth mentioning that the Giants had won two years ago. Certainly had they won the season immediately previous (20ll), it would have been mentioned.

I'm sure the writers paid attention, but it is also possible they either forgot or didn't have enough space to feel the comment was more warranted than others.

Boagie -- We know that most analysts picked the Tigers to win, but remember Fox's two check marks by the Tigers pitching staff before game 1? Did they really need to put two? and was two check marks over the Giants pitching staff accurate even at that point?

Rog -- If they were talking about the entire series, I don't think the two check marks were warranted. If they were talking about game l only, I think they were.

One thing game l demonstrated, though, is the having a great pitcher going is no GUARANTEE of a win. Sometimes with a guy like Verlander going, it is almost like the guy CAN'T lose. I know I was perhaps guilty of that.

I was hoping the Giants could split with Verlander and win 3 out of 5 of the other games. Since the record for pitchers pitching before their regular day, I was willing to face Verlander on short rest in a game 7, if that became necessary.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2M8IvXpW9

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- Detroit will win the World Series in five games.

Rog -- Writers write like that. Clearly Nightengale didn't KNOW the Tigers would win in five. He was likely figuring Verlander would win twice, and the Tigers would win two out of the other three.

With Verlander pitching, I can't say I expected the Giants to win -- and certainly not to sweep -- but I would have predicted six or seven game -- not five.

Boagie -- WORLD SERIES: Who has the edge?

There may be more suspense watching the Giants grab a razor this winter and shaving those black beards, thick enough to hold wildlife, than viewing this public thrashing.

Rog -- More writing in an attempt to be colorful and inject added life.

Boagie -- The Giants haven't seen a team this powerful all year, and by this time next week, they won't know what hit them. The Tigers, like a caged boxer, know they are about to deliver an ugly whuppin', but will refrain from providing clubhouse fodder.

Rog -- I see this as an overestimation of the Tigers. Not sure though if he meant power-hitting or powerFULL.

Going in, I thought the Tigers had the edge because they had their rotation set up, and they had Verlander, who had been impregnable in this postseason and the best pitcher in baseball during the regular season.

Because they had to go so hard and so long to reach the World Series, the Giants didn't have their ace going until the 4th game. I would say the Giants had more depth in their rotation -- except that Barry Zito was in it.

Zito shows, though, how lesser players and lesser teams can flourish in the short term beyond their long-term capabilities.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2M8KRMCF8

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- How many times have they been labeled as the team of outcasts and misfits?

Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, but I think there are two sides to the equation. True, the Giants did have five players who were former All-Stars.

But their former closer was injured, and and their former ace turned into the seven of spades, digging his career quite a hole. The Giants wound up with a closer who they had picked off the scrap heap, then went to closer-by-committee (which I like, but the mainstream doesn't), then pulled their third full-time closer of the season out of the hat.

They added a waiver pickup who nicely balanced out their bullpen, adding a third lefty. Their 2nd- or 3rd-best starter had been out of the majors for many years before finding his way back after eating some super-sushi.

Their lineup included the MVP of the league, but it also played a first baseman who had struggled for consistency over his two-year career. The MVP himself was a big question mark entering the season, because he was coming off the most gruesome of the previous year. It had a second baseman the team picked up for a career minor leaguer. Their shortstop had a marvelous glove, but when it came to batting mittens he wasn't so good.

A player picked up off the scrap heap played key games at third, short and second. Their left fielder was picked up off the scrap heap, and after being a fifth outfielder who turned into a fourth outfielder, was forced into regular duty when arguably the team's best hitter was suspended for the final third of the season. Sometimes that fifth, turned fourth, turned third outfielder platooned with a player who had been released elsewhere because he couldn't get his batting average off the interstate.

Their center fielder was a player who failed elsewhere, began the season playing at a fifth outfielder level both at the plate and in the field, then blossomed on both grass and dirt. Their right fielder was a guy who couldn't get out of the .220's after being acquired as seemingly the key midseason trade.

The guy who was the team MVP in their previous World Series run wasn't even the MVP of the bench -- although he might have been the LVP (the opposite of most).

Their starting second baseman to begin the season had returned to the minors, and their fourth starter was a pitcher fans thought should have been released when his contract still had over $l00 million on.

A very intriguing team. A very good team. Built in significant part from a group of misfits.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2M9RKYcER

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I honestly believe the better Major League Baseball team overcomes those occurances, and plays through it. The Giants did that last year, the teams they faced, didn't.

Rog -- Again, I understand your point, but the evidence over the course of the entire season and postseason indicates that the Giants often weren't the best or even the better team.

Don't think I don't love and appreciate the Giants. I'll bet I was the only one here who saw Tim Lincecum play in 2007. I'll bet I was solo when I saw Buster Posey in 2008. And I'll go out on a limb and make an educated guess that no one else here saw Madison Bumgarner make his San Jose debut on April l0, 2009.

I'll bet VERY strongly that I was the only one here who saw Mad Bum's first bullpen there to Buster Posey. There were three of us, and one was my son.

But I'm also a realist. I LOVE it that the Giants have been world champs two of the past three seasons. The first time it happened so quickly compared to how long I had waited, for me to fully understand it. This past year I was able appreciate it without being so whiplashed that I wasn't quite sure WHAT had happened.

But I'm also wise enough to know that the best team doesn't always win. And as much as I would like them to be, I'm far from sure the Giants were truly the best team either year.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2M9VlukEk

[sfgdood]

Rog -- Guess what, Boagie? Virtually ANY team that wins the World Series got lucky.

Dood - wow so skill and <gasp> stats have nothing to do with it? I'd never have guessed you felt this way, stats boy.

~Dood

[Islandboagie]

Dood - wow so skill and <gasp> stats have nothing to do with it?

Boagie- No, Randy. It's all luck. Scott Rolen dropping the ball was bad luck, not an error. Major League Baseball is contemplating on dropping the error stat and adopting a bad luck circumstance stat, the opposing player will receive a good luck circumstance stat in the box score when a fielder experiences bad luck.

In other news...An Arkansas man who won the lottery twice in one weekend has been invited to the Cincinnati Reds camp to try out for the 3rd base job.

[sfgdood]

and plays through it. The Giants did that last year, the teams they faced, didn't.

Rog -- Again, I understand your point, but the evidence over the course of the entire season and postseason indicates that the Giants often weren't the best or even the better team.

Don't think I don't love and appreciate the Giants. I'll bet I was the only one here who saw Tim Lincecum play in 2007. I'll bet I was solo when I saw Buster Posey in 2008. And I'll go out on a limb and make an educated guess that no one else here saw Madison Bumgarner make his San Jose debut on April l0, 2009.

I'll bet VERY strongly that I was the only one here who saw Mad Bum's first bullpen there to Buster Posey. There were three of us, and one was my son.

But I'm also a realist. I LOVE it that the Giants have been world champs two of the past three seasons. The first time it happened so quickly compared to how long I had waited, for me to fully understand it. This past year I was able appreciate it without being so whiplashed that I wasn't quite sure WHAT had happened.

But I'm also wise enough to know that the best team doesn't always win. And as much as I would like them to be, I'm far from sure the Giants were truly the best team either year.

Dood - this is EXACTLY the absolute dithering CRAP I'd expect to hear from somebody who never played the game and worships stats above all other things in the game. Anyone who ever worked his ass off day after day taking ground balls, fly balls, BP or throwing bullpen sessions in blistering heat for love of this game knows better. Nobody who had to spend 6 months with a group of men to come together and achieve something great would buy this load of milarkey!

The way this game is set up, a team has to survive a 162 game season to qualify for postseason play and then must best all the other qualifying teams in order to hoist the trophy and have a parade. Anyone who says a WS winning team "just got lucky" does NOT respect the game or its players in the least.

~Dood

[sharksrog]

Rog -- Guess what, Boagie? Virtually ANY team that wins the World Series got lucky.

Dood - wow so skill and <gasp> stats have nothing to do with it? I'd never have guessed you felt this way, stats boy.

Rog -- Of course you wouldn't. That's not what I said.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#9201#ixzz2MIeMC76m

[sharksrog]

Dood - wow so skill and <gasp> stats have nothing to do with it?

Boagie- No, Randy. It's all luck. Scott Rolen dropping the ball was bad luck, not an error.

Rog -- Let's look at this as it truly is. For the Reds, Rolen's dropping the ball was an error. For the Giants, it was good luck.

If the ball had taken a bad hop, that would have been both good luck for the Giants and bad luck for the Reds.

Is this concept really so hard to understand?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MIekZAV4

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- Let's look at this as it truly is. For the Reds, Rolen's dropping the ball was an error. For the Giants, it was good luck.

If the ball had taken a bad hop, that would have been both good luck for the Giants and bad luck for the Reds.

Is this concept really so hard to understand?


Boagie- Not hard to understand, we just see it two different ways here.

You see Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants, I still merely see it as the other team not playing up to the capabilities required to be a Championship team. Championship teams don't choke on plays in crucial games.

The Giants made those plays, the other teams didn't.

The ball hit off Matt Cain in Detroit, which died on the infield grass would have been considered "good luck" for Detroit, but Brandon Crawford came in and made a great play on it and took the luck factor away. Same with Blanco, Pence, Pagan, Scutaro ect...They all made the plays. The other teams didn't.

Now, if there had been tons of bad hops and odd occurances that led to the Giants success, I might agree with the luck factor, but I didn't see that happen. I guess the two plays that someone COULD consider luck, was the ball hit off the bag by Pagan, and the broken bat hit from Pence. In both instances I don't believe those plays would have changed the outcome of either series. The Giants ended up winning the "Pence broken bat" game 9-0. And the Giants won the WS in 4 games during the "Ball of the bag" occurance.

So, In my opion the Giants were the best team in 2012 because they played like it.

Their bullpen didn't have a meltdown like the Nationals and Orioles.

They were able to finish off the other teams, unlike the Reds and Cadinals.

They didn't get absolutely trounced like the Tigers and the Yankees did.

And they made nary a costly error.

The Giants might not have had the best numbers, pitching or hitting wise throughout the season, but when it was all over, they proved to have the least amont of weaknesses, which in my opinion makes them the best team.

You see it differently, and that's fine.

[sharksrog]

Boagie- Not hard to understand, we just see it two different ways here.

You see Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants, I still merely see it as the other team not playing up to the capabilities required to be a Championship team. Championship teams don't choke on plays in crucial games.

Rog -- You just defined Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants. The Reds didn't field up to their capabilities, which is something the Giants have no control over. If you have no (or minimal) control over something, its results are luck to you.

Luck is defined as a force that brings fortune or adversity. For the Giants, Rolen's error was a force that brought fortune. For the Reds, it wasn't a force, but rather their own action.

Let's suppose you and I are gambling on the flip of a coin. Clearly the results are luck. But now let's suppose I am a bad guy and weight the coin in my favor. The results are now bad luck for you, but cheating (something I control) for me.

Since the Giants have virtually no control over whether Rolen fields that ball, the results are luck to them. Since Rolen has control over whether he fields the ball or not, the results aren't luck for the Reds -- unless the error is the result of a significant bad hop, in which case it usually isn't scored an error.

A bad hop is unlucky, since the fielder has no control over it. How he fields a ball, unless the bad hop is close to unplayable, is under his control -- and therefor not the result of luck.

Luck is something beyond one's control. Doesn't this make almost perfect sense?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#9251#ixzz2MUjvdnQQ

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- In other news...An Arkansas man who won the lottery twice in one weekend has been invited to the Cincinnati Reds camp to try out for the 3rd base job.

Rog -- I'll bet he doesn't win it.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MUnBtiNl

[sharksrog]

Randy -- Anyone who says a WS winning team "just got lucky" does NOT respect the game or its players in the least.

Rog -- I know of many who would say that someone who wins at craps "just got lucky," but I know of no one who would say that a team that won the World Series JUST got lucky.

You know the old statement that it's better to be lucky than good? Can't say for sure whether that is true or not (although I lean against it), but the best chance of all is to be lucky AND good.

Teams that make the playoffs are good. But not all are lucky.

Let me ask you a question. The team that wins the World Series got hot at the right time. Do you think a team has significant control over when it gets hot? If they do have significant control, why aren't they hot all the time?

The Giants were cold enough that you pretty much gave up on them, Randy. I didn't. You seem more prone to viewing luck in your evaluation than I do. I seem to have a better understanding than you that even good teams have peaks and valleys.


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MUnNkQou

[sharksrog]

Boagie -- I'll give you the last word here, Rog. I'm sure you have many more quotes from your "Sabermetrics Bible of Excuses."

Rog -- Tell you what, Boagie. You're a nice guy. If I can find that book, I'll send you a free copy.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MUomMAav

[sharksrog]

Rog -- But I'm also wise enough to know that the best team doesn't always win. And as much as I would like them to be, I'm far from sure the Giants were truly the best team either year.

Dood - this is EXACTLY the absolute dithering CRAP I'd expect to hear from somebody who never played the game and worships stats above all other things in the game.

Rog -- If I find one, I'll ask him.

Randy -- Anyone who ever worked his ass off day after day taking ground balls, fly balls, BP or throwing bullpen sessions in blistering heat for love of this game knows better. Nobody who had to spend 6 months with a group of men to come together and achieve something great would buy this load of milarkey!

Rog -- What I said doesn't imply that skill and hard work don't have anything to do with the results. The better a team is, the better its odds. But in the end, virtually no team is odds-on to win it all. You work as hard as you can to get as good as you can -- then hope you're hot at the right time.

You've played baseball enough to know it is indeed a game of inches. Line drives become hits about 70% of the time. That means three out of l0 don't fall in. Once the batter hits the ball, he has no control over its results.

A long time ago -- well before I began studying stats -- I realized that many games are indeed decided by inches. Once I hit that line drive, I don't have control over whether the fielder is good enough to just catch it or lacking enough to just miss it. As you know, on many plays, there's not much difference.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1574&page=1#ixzz2MUpHjX7Y

[sharksrog]

It is foolish to say that a game in which hard-hit balls are caught and poorly-hit balls fall in doesn't involve luck.

One play that has always seem ironic to me. If I get the tiniest piece of a pitch and foul it back into the stands, I'm not out. If I get just a little MORE of it (and isn't the idea to put the bat on the ball as much as possible), it stays in play, and I am out.

And if I swing and miss entirely with fewer than two strikes, the result is less harmful than on 7 out of l0 balls I hit and put in play.

Baseball is actually a very unfair game. Ask Willie McCovey.

[Islandboagie]

Rog -- You just defined Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants. The Reds didn't field up to their capabilities, which is something the Giants have no control over. If you have no (or minimal) control over something, its results are luck to you.

Boagie- Rolen's play was a botched routine play that benefitted the Giants. I guess YOU could call that lucky if you wanted to. Heck, I might have even let the "luck" word fly a time or two when watching a game. However, when really considering the situation, I don't think you can claim the opposing teams poor play is luck.

Like I've stated many times I believe it to be an error, which has nothing to do with good luck or bad luck, it was just a misplayed ball by Rolen. That play was Rolen's to make, it was all up to him whether he made it or not, no other unknown factor came into play. If it had taken a crazy hop or spin, or if Rolen caught his cleat on the ground and fell...then I guess you could say it was lucky or unlucky. This really isn't the orginal point I was trying to make.

The orginal point is the Giants made the routine plays and alot of the hard ones too, the other teams didn't play up to the same level the Giants did. Calling that lucky or unlucky for the other teams is weak, and I'll agree with Randy, people who see baseball that way probably never played it.

You're more than welcome to think that way, Rog. Brian Kenny would surely agree with you. But I wouldn't, Arias wouldn't, and I'm fairly certain Scott Rolen wouldn't either.

[sfgdood]

Boagie- Not hard to understand, we just see it two different ways here.

You see Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants, I still merely see it as the other team not playing up to the capabilities required to be a Championship team. Championship teams don't choke on plays in crucial games.

Rog -- You just defined Rolen's error as good luck for the Giants.

Dood - Uh, no...I see above that he defined Rolen's error as the Reds player not playing up to championship level.




Rog - The Reds didn't field up to their capabilities, which is something the Giants have no control over. If you have no (or minimal) control over something, its results are luck to you.

Dood - No, that would be true if you were playing strat o matic or some other such stats geek game where it is assumed that all plays will probably be made routinely, according to some fielding metric.



Rog - Luck is defined as a force that brings fortune or adversity. For the Giants, Rolen's error was a force that brought fortune. For the Reds, it wasn't a force, but rather their own action.

Dood - I'm sorry but in a skill game like baseball, that definition of luck does not apply automatically because fortune and adversity can be brought about by the skill or lack thereof shown by a player or group of players...and even, at times, by strategies used by coaching staffs. I can see how by using this broad-based definition of luck, you could believe that all winning teams are lucky.

~Dood

[sfgdood]

Rog -- But I'm also wise enough to know that the best team doesn't always win. And as much as I would like them to be, I'm far from sure the Giants were truly the best team either year.

Dood - this is EXACTLY the absolute dithering CRAP I'd expect to hear from somebody who never played the game and worships stats above all other things in the game.

Rog -- If I find one, I'll ask him.

Dood - try looking in a fully functional mirror.




Rog -- What I said doesn't imply that skill and hard work don't have anything to do with the results.

Dood - Maybe not...but your lame comments about luck sure as hell devalue the effect of the skill and hard work factors. Remember that all teams receive fortune that is outside of their control during the course of a game and a series...but the winning team is the one that has the skill to limit bad breaks and take full advantage of good breaks. The losing team and its fans are ALWAYS the ones groaning about how unlucky they were. Point is, you have to have the stones and the skill to overcome bad breaks. If you are the better team--not the better stats team but the team that plays better as a unit--you should be able to do this.


Rog - You've played baseball enough to know it is indeed a game of inches. Line drives become hits about 70% of the time. That means three out of l0 don't fall in. Once the batter hits the ball, he has no control over its results.

Dood - true, but he has FULL control before the ball reaches the strike zone. And the pitcher and defense have the scouting report to tell them where--and where not--to pitch a certain batter and where the defense should be playing. The advance scouts and the coaching staff are all a part of this too. Maybe a pitcher missed his location by just a fraction and the ball was able to be hit away from the defense instead of to it. There's more about this than just hitting the ball hard or softly.

For example, no gambler in his right mind would ever wager that the World Series would end with Miguel Cabrera taking an 89 MPH fastball right down Broadway for the final strike but it happened. Is that luck or was it just outexecuting? I'd say it was the latter.

~Dood

[sfgdood]

Rog - It is foolish to say that a game in which hard-hit balls are caught and poorly-hit balls fall in doesn't involve luck.

Dood - maybe so, but it is even MORE foolish to say that a team was able to win a playoff series, and especially three of them, by employing the strategy of luck. I'm sure Tim Lincecum didn't win his CY awards by not practicing and just saying "I'm going to dominate because I'm just that lucky."





Rog - Baseball is actually a very unfair game. Ask Willie McCovey.

Dood - I'd be willing to bet you a million bucks that Willie would say the game is more about skill than luck. And even on that line drive to Richardson, I have heard Willie say he should have hit that ball out of the park.

~Dood