From a Phillies Fan

Enscheff said:
The Phillies record is largely a result of sequencing and that sequencing is largely a function of luck...and luck doesn't typically hold up for extended periods of time.
Click to expand...

we're seeing that luck regress a little bit. last night, for example...
 
Enscheff said:
Fans severely over estimate the effect strength of schedule has for MLB teams. We see it weekly in the GDTs when someone says "there is no excuse to lose to this crappy team". Unlike football, where a 1-15 team is expected to lose to a 15-1 team 90%+ of the time, baseball doesn't work this way.

All teams in baseball win at least 40% of the time, so it is expected that good teams lose to bad teams...often. This football mentality is prevalent in baseball fans, and it is unequivocally wrong. It's why MLB seasons require 162 games to find the best team rather than 16 games.

This article is from July 20th, but it shows just how little of an effect strength of schedule has on a team's record. The Indians play in arguably the worst division MLB has seen in a long time, and that only "gives" them a 2.5 win advantage in the 2nd half of the season. That boost is, by far, the largest of all MLB teams.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-easiest-and-hardest-rest-of-season-schedules/

The teams with the "toughest" schedule were only penalized by ~1 game.

The rest, including the Braves and Phils, fell into the range that can be considered nothing more than noise.
Click to expand...

So, how much of the difference between baseball and football can be attributed to the difference in N in the two seasons? Football necessarily has a small N, so we would predict that luck (chance) has a disproportionate impact; it's possible to come up with teams with win percentages of 81% or 19%. In baseball, the much higher N means that most teams are between a 40% and 60% win rate. Maybe there just less of an overall effect of luck in baseball, and so the teams look like they are closer in quality.
 
conalthomas said:
So, how much of the difference between baseball and football can be attributed to the difference in N in the two seasons? Football necessarily has a small N, so we would predict that luck (chance) has a disproportionate impact; it's possible to come up with teams with win percentages of 81% or 19%. In baseball, the much higher N means that most teams are between a 40% and 60% win rate. Maybe there just less of an overall effect of luck in baseball, and so the teams look like they are closer in quality.
Click to expand...

In football the QB has the most impact on the outcome of games of any major sport...except for the pitcher in baseball. You either have Rodgers and win, or you have a scrub and lose. Rodgers gets to impact every single game in a hugely out sized way. If MLB played 1 game per week, the Nats would face off against every other team with Scherzer...and they would likely dominate.

The number of games certainly has something to do with it because 162 games forces teams to use many different pitchers. It would be like an NFL team having to play nearly everyday and being forced go with a 5 man QB rotation. Teams would be a lot more even if Rodgers only got to play in 20% of the games, with the rest being handled by guys who aren't even in the league right now.
 
Enscheff said:
In football the QB has the most impact on the outcome of games of any major sport...except for the pitcher in baseball. You either have Rodgers and win, or you have a scrub and lose. Rodgers gets to impact every single game in a hugely out sized way. If MLB played 1 game per week, the Nats would face off against every other team with Scherzer...and they would likely dominate..
Click to expand...

Partially true, but the real position with the most power is goalkeeper in hockey. Look at for example the 90s era Buffalo Sabers. Specifically the 97-98 Sabers, went all the way to the Conference Finals, with nothing but Dominik Hasek.
 
zitothebrave said:
Partially true, but the real position with the most power is goalkeeper in hockey. Look at for example the 90s era Buffalo Sabers. Specifically the 97-98 Sabers, went all the way to the Conference Finals, with nothing but Dominik Hasek.
Click to expand...

this isn't true really. they were a pretty young but talented team. peca, zhitnik, satan, i think woolley was on the squad..hasek was definitely their main reason for success tho. but i think that's more of an anomaly than anything else. a lot of times it's not great goalies in the playoffs and such. of course, last season in the NFL was a strange one, with the likes of case keenum, nick foles, and blake bortles all making it to the conference finals. but i think last year was a legitimate down year in the NFL.
 
Super said:
this isn't true really. they were a pretty young but talented team. peca, zhitnik, satan, i think woolley was on the squad..hasek was definitely their main reason for success tho. but i think that's more of an anomaly than anything else. a lot of times it's not great goalies in the playoffs and such. of course, last season in the NFL was a strange one, with the likes of case keenum, nick foles, and blake bortles all making it to the conference finals. but i think last year was a legitimate down year in the NFL.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Makes you wonder why Satan was successful. But so many jesus’s Were not.
 
zitothebrave said:
Partially true, but the real position with the most power is goalkeeper in hockey. Look at for example the 90s era Buffalo Sabers. Specifically the 97-98 Sabers, went all the way to the Conference Finals, with nothing but Dominik Hasek.
Click to expand...

I can't even discuss hockey due to sheer ignorance, so I concede you may very well be right.

The overall point still stands though: baseball does not allow a single elite player to dominate enough games to create the same level of super teams we see in football (and to some extent basketball).
 
Enscheff said:
I can't even discuss hockey due to sheer ignorance, so I concede you may very well be right.

The overall point still stands though: baseball does not allow a single elite player to dominate enough games to create the same level of super teams we see in football (and to some extent basketball).
Click to expand...

Which is why you see people confused how an all-star can be worth only 2-3 wins more than an average player.
 
Last edited:
Baseball prospectus now has our odds of making the playoffs at 91.3% with a 10.6% chance of winning the World Series. Phillies are down to a 21.4% chance of making the playoffs.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Baseball prospectus now has our odds of making the playoffs at 91.3% with a 10.6% chance of winning the World Series. Phillies are down to a 21.4% chance of making the playoffs.
Click to expand...

That seems... ambitious, but if we finish the season strong, i could see us being trendy darkhorse picks: "Baby Braves Bash AL TEAM, Win First World Series Since 1995"
 
UNCBlue012 said:
That seems... ambitious, but if we finish the season strong, i could see us being trendy darkhorse picks: "Baby Braves Bash AL TEAM, Win First World Series Since 1995"
Click to expand...

Seems about right. If you think about it, the "final eight" will have approximately 12.5% odds each.

And we have about an 80-90% chance of being one of the final eight.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top