2016 Postseason Thread

yeezus said:
Any praise of the Braves is offensive to some.
Act accordingly.
Click to expand...

I don't even thing the Braves have anything to do with anything I said. The Braves are "focusing on pitching." Great. I hope they bring in good pitchers and hitters, but that has nothing to do with the stupid annual playoff narratives.
 
gilesfan said:
The Cubs had a better pitching staff over the course of this year. You don't even realize you are talking about silly narratives. Pitching wins! Clutch! Argghhh!
Click to expand...

Pitching does trump hitting. that is my opinion and I will feel that way until I see something that tells me otherwise. the Dodgers are pitching better than the Cubs are hitting. The Cubs were supposed to blow the doors off this team. I haven't seen it.. I don't care how the Cubs are pitching. That was not my point. The Dodgers did not come into this series expected to score a ton of runs. They were expected to come in and scrape together a few runs and pitch well... They have done that.
 
The Dodgers have scored more runs than the Cubs this series. See good hitting beats good pitching!
 
I'd be curious to see a full-season simulation of these two teams to see what the record would be over 162 games. My guess is the Cubs would easily win over half the games. But it's a short series and anything can happen. As good as the Cubs are, they aren't a perfect team.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I didn't know scoring less runs than league average was good hitting... the things you learn from gNats fans.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we should compare runs scored vs. 4th and 5th starters and tired bullpens to expected runs scored vs. 1,2, and 3 starters with the best relievers available. It's like you enjoy digging a hole and letting logic flow past you.
 
50PoundHead said:
I'd be curious to see a full-season simulation of these two teams to see what the record would be over 162 games. My guess is the Cubs would easily win over half the games. But it's a short series and anything can happen. As good as the Cubs are, they aren't a perfect team.
Click to expand...

There are obviously other variables and it depends if you assume all 5 starters plus full bullpen or just simulating playoff games over the course of 162.

Based on 538 sports, the odds were the following:

Game 1 68/32
Game 2 54/46
Game 3 50/50
Game 4 51/49

So, I guess in theory the Cubs would win about 55/56% of the time. (well, if you prolong it further, probably a little more in Cubs favor since they have game 6 at home and game 7 at home) Makes sense, the Cubs are better in all phases including coaching staff (LOL off using a closer in a 6 run game) As we know all too well, anyone can happen over the course of a 7 game series. Hell, even Mark Lemke can get a hit.
 
gilesfan said:
Yeah, because we should compare runs scored vs. 4th and 5th starters and tired bullpens to expected runs scored vs. 1,2, and 3 starters with the best relievers available. It's like you enjoy digging a hole and letting logic flow past you.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are saying good pitching shuts down good hitting?
 
bravesfanMatt said:
Oh, so you are saying good pitching shuts down good hitting?
Click to expand...

Do the Cubs have good pitching?

As a matter of fact all 4 teams that are left have good pitching.

and good hitting

Because they are good teams, which is why they are in the playoffs.
 
gilesfan said:
Do the Cubs have good pitching?

As a matter of fact all 4 teams that are left have good pitching.

and good hitting

Because they are good teams, which is why they are in the playoffs.
Click to expand...

I think every team that made the playoffs had good pitching.. which draws WAAAYYYYYY back to my original point that I am glad the Braves are rebuilding centered around pitching (starter and relief).. because when you do make it to the playoffs, you will need a deep rotation and a deep bullpen... because pitching will always trump hitting.
 
I think the playoffs are a different animal than the regular season in a few ways (in every sport). I think the strike zone gets a hair bigger, which gives pitching slightly more influence in the post-season and the managing is a lot different. I doubt Maddon pinch-hits for Russell in the regular season (and I thought it was stupid last night).
 
50PoundHead said:
I'd be curious to see a full-season simulation of these two teams to see what the record would be over 162 games. My guess is the Cubs would easily win over half the games. But it's a short series and anything can happen. As good as the Cubs are, they aren't a perfect team.
Click to expand...

Kershaw is the factor, really. As good as the Cubs' pitching staff is, none of them are anywhere near as good as Kershaw. Maybe it doesn't matter in THIS series, but season-long, he's just so much. We'll see. Arrieta has been hot garbage the last month plus it feels like.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I think every team that made the playoffs had good pitching.. which draws WAAAYYYYYY back to my original point that I am glad the Braves are rebuilding centered around pitching (starter and relief).. because when you do make it to the playoffs, you will need a deep rotation and a deep bullpen... because pitching will always trump hitting.
Click to expand...

el o el. I just wished any of the 4 teams had good hitting.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I think every team that made the playoffs had good pitching.. which draws WAAAYYYYYY back to my original point that I am glad the Braves are rebuilding centered around pitching (starter and relief).. because when you do make it to the playoffs, you will need a deep rotation and a deep bullpen... because pitching will always trump hitting.
Click to expand...

The reason gilesfan is getting frustrated is because you're ignoring everything that contradicts what you're saying:

-Not every team that made the playoffs had good pitching (Orioles, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Rangers). Not every team with good pitching made the playoffs.
-Even disregarding the statement above, every team that made the playoffs but one had good hitting. Why isn't that just as relevant?
-Even ignoring both the above statements, how is the Cubs/Dodgers series a point in your favor? The Cubs' pitching is by many measures better than that of the Dodgers, so why are they losing the series? Why did the Dodgers beat the Nationals, who had better pitching? If anything, those two series just demonstrate that Clayton Kershaw trumps good hitting, which is very true but not particularly helpful or relevant to the Braves.
-This postseason hasn't even demonstrated the need for a deep rotation - the teams who have actually used more than 3 starters in the playoffs are either out or losing.

At this point you're going to say 'look at the offense-heavy teams that are out or losing.' But look at how they lost - Darvish and Hamels were awful for the Rangers, Price and Porcello forgot how to pitch for the Red Sox. Yes, the Cubs' bats have gone cold, but if it's all due to the Dodgers' pitching, then why is hasn't the same thing happened to the Dogers' [much worse] offense facing [as good or better] pitching from the Cubs and Nationals? At best this just boils down to something like "the playoffs are about getting hot (or not going cold) at the right time," which is just another way of saying "the playoffs are a crap shoot" and not particularly helpful.
 
rawwr said:
The reason gilesfan is getting frustrated is because you're ignoring everything that contradicts what you're saying:

-Not every team that made the playoffs had good pitching (Orioles, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Rangers). Not every team with good pitching made the playoffs.
-Even disregarding the statement above, every team that made the playoffs but one had good hitting. Why isn't that just as relevant?
-Even ignoring both the above statements, how is the Cubs/Dodgers series a point in your favor? The Cubs' pitching is by many measures better than that of the Dodgers, so why are they losing the series? Why did the Dodgers beat the Nationals, who had better pitching? If anything, those two series just demonstrate that Clayton Kershaw trumps good hitting, which is very true but not particularly helpful or relevant to the Braves.
-This postseason hasn't even demonstrated the need for a deep rotation - the teams who have actually used more than 3 starters in the playoffs are either out or losing.

At this point you're going to say 'look at the offense-heavy teams that are out or losing.' But look at how they lost - Darvish and Hamels were awful for the Rangers, Price and Porcello forgot how to pitch for the Red Sox. Yes, the Cubs' bats have gone cold, but if it's all due to the Dodgers' pitching, then why is hasn't the same thing happened to the Dogers' [much worse] offense facing [as good or better] pitching from the Cubs and Nationals? At best this just boils down to something like "the playoffs are about getting hot (or not going cold) at the right time," which is just another way of saying "the playoffs are a crap shoot" and not particularly helpful.
Click to expand...

Yay, another poster that can draw logical conclusions from the data at hand. Thanks for showing up!
 
Gonna laugh if Francona ends up ending another curse by beating the Cubs who didn't want to hire him to end their curse.
 
rawwr said:
The reason gilesfan is getting frustrated is because you're ignoring everything that contradicts what you're saying:

-Not every team that made the playoffs had good pitching (Orioles, Blue Jays, Red Sox, Rangers). Not every team with good pitching made the playoffs.
-Even disregarding the statement above, every team that made the playoffs but one had good hitting. Why isn't that just as relevant?
-Even ignoring both the above statements, how is the Cubs/Dodgers series a point in your favor? The Cubs' pitching is by many measures better than that of the Dodgers, so why are they losing the series? Why did the Dodgers beat the Nationals, who had better pitching? If anything, those two series just demonstrate that Clayton Kershaw trumps good hitting, which is very true but not particularly helpful or relevant to the Braves.
-This postseason hasn't even demonstrated the need for a deep rotation - the teams who have actually used more than 3 starters in the playoffs are either out or losing.

At this point you're going to say 'look at the offense-heavy teams that are out or losing.' But look at how they lost - Darvish and Hamels were awful for the Rangers, Price and Porcello forgot how to pitch for the Red Sox. Yes, the Cubs' bats have gone cold, but if it's all due to the Dodgers' pitching, then why is hasn't the same thing happened to the Dogers' [much worse] offense facing [as good or better] pitching from the Cubs and Nationals? At best this just boils down to something like "the playoffs are about getting hot (or not going cold) at the right time," which is just another way of saying "the playoffs are a crap shoot" and not particularly helpful.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with what I said.. where is the disconnect..

I said the Cubs have some swing and misses and are not scoring when not hitting bombs... then said glad the Braves are building around pitching. --that somehow got construed as a narrative that pitching wins.. which is true, but not what I said..

I never said Boston, Os, Cubs, blah blah are bad teams or worse at pitching.. I am saying that scoring goes down in the playoffs because the pitching is better.. logical right.. hope so.. So I am glad that we are building around pitching... both starters and relief.. yes/no..

I never said the postseason was not a crap shoot.. that you can win without scoring. I have only said that good pitching will usually beat good hitting.. If that is not true then dispute me.. But I have not seen it. So again, I am glad that the Braves are rebuilding centered around pitching..

reading is not that hard.. stop putting your own narrative to what I say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top