Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Verlander was getting the outside strike vs the A's which he wasn't getting in SF. That's the difference...they do K a lot, but they also walk alot and are trained to wait for their pitch. With Verlander getting such a wide zone, they had no choice but to be aggressive and swing at what he was dealing...in SF he was forced to throw it down the middle.
But he's a contact hitter who didn't strike out a lot and hit over .300
I'm totally willing to hear your argument that Oakland had a below average offense, but you have to support your argument with actual data.
Not all contact hitters are the same.
And besides, we're talking about an entire lineup loaded with guys who hit about .250. They've got Cespedes and Moss, and after that, the production and discipline at the plate just aren't there. The A's were scrappy and picked their moments to play their best baseball, and in the process, they stung teams like the Angels and Rangers late. But they were also a team that was waiting to be dominated by a set of 1, 2, 3 pitchers who could slow the game down and set up the game pitch-by-pitch. That's pretty much what the Tigers starters did...and were it not for their closer, the Tigers would have closed it out earlier.
The are strike zone maps for umpire Gerry Davis. The top is for right-handed batters, the bottom of left-handed batters.
The colors/frequencies are for strikes the umpire calls relative to other umpires. Red is a higher frequency, blue a lower frequency.
You can see that Davis calls a much tighter zone than most.
Here's the strike zone map from the game
I don't see a lot of pitches that should have been called strikes that were called balls. There were a couple of balls inside (to lefties) that were close and called balls.
Here's the strike zone map from his Oct 11th start against the A's
I don't see any evidence of a much bigger strike zone. In fact, regarding the two inside pitches I mentioned above, there were two nearly identical pitches called balls in this game.
I don't see that the strike zone made much of a difference
Verlander was getting the outside strike vs the A's which he wasn't getting in SF. That's the difference...they do K a lot, but they also walk alot and are trained to wait for their pitch. With Verlander getting such a wide zone, they had no choice but to be aggressive and swing at what he was dealing...in SF he was forced to throw it down the middle.
And besides, we're talking about an entire lineup loaded with guys who hit about .250. They've got Cespedes and Moss, and after that, the production and discipline at the plate just aren't there. The A's were scrappy and picked their moments to play their best baseball, and in the process, they stung teams like the Angels and Rangers late. But they were also a team that was waiting to be dominated by a set of 1, 2, 3 pitchers who could slow the game down and set up the game pitch-by-pitch. That's pretty much what the Tigers starters did...and were it not for their closer, the Tigers would have closed it out earlier.
You didn't provide any actual data.
The A's had an average to above average offense. Not one of the worst in baseball.
Advanced stats show the A's to have had the 6th best AL offense.
Heck, just looking at runs scored, they were 8th in the AL in scoring. 95 runs behind the 1st place Rangers and 94 runs ahead of the last place Mariners.
The A's had an average to above average offense. Not one of the worst in baseball.
Advanced stats show the A's to have had the 6th best AL offense.
It depends on the metric. You can look at their overall runs scored and make the conclusions that you have, but I come to a different conclusion. The guys in the lineup were mostly hitting well under .300. Sure, when they go out and take on teams in the middle of the regular season, they might have offensive outbursts that pad their data, and sometimes they might get hot during a stretch of several games. But it's just like in the NBA: the regular season and the postseason are two different games. Teams don't see number five starters in the postseason; they don't see teams platooning players or resting players with nagging pains or itches; they don't pad the data by playing the Mariners for 12+ games. Predicting a playoff winner has to take into account some of the qualitative arguments that can be made, not just the statistical data. That's why sportswriters end up scratching their heads, wondering why 'the best teams don't always win.' Hint: maybe they weren't really 'the best' to begin with. Maybe the stats don't tell the whole story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Heck, just looking at runs scored, they were 8th in the AL in scoring. 95 runs behind the 1st place Rangers and 94 runs ahead of the last place Mariners.
They sure were -- during the regular season.
How did they handle Detroit's starting pitching? They never scored more than four runs in a single game, and we're including extra innings.
You can look at their overall runs scored and make the conclusions that you have, but I come to a different conclusion. The guys in the lineup were mostly hitting well under .300.
Show me something that indicates that batting average reflects overall offensive performance
It doesn't by the way.
Quote:
Sure, when they go out and take on teams in the middle of the regular season, they might have offensive outbursts that pad their data, and sometimes they might get hot during a stretch of several games.
This may also happen in the post season, correct?
A team may also go into a cold stretch in the regular season, correct?
A team may also go into a cold stretch in the post season, correct?
What point were you trying to make?
Quote:
But it's just like in the NBA: the regular season and the postseason are two different games
I disagree. Support your assertion.
Quote:
Teams don't see number five starters in the postseason;
True.
Quote:
they don't see teams platooning players
Not true.
Quote:
or resting players with nagging pains or itches; they don't pad the data by playing the Mariners for 12+ games.
Well, the Mariners stadium, pitching and defense actually do a very good job of preventing the opposition from scoring. Not easy to run up the stats on those guys.
Quote:
Predicting a playoff winner has to take into account some of the qualitative arguments that can be made, not just the statistical data. That's why sportswriters end up scratching their heads, wondering why 'the best teams don't always win.' Hint: maybe they weren't really 'the best' to begin with. Maybe the stats don't tell the whole story.
Most sportswriters don't understand squat about statistics.
THe real reason that it's difficult to predict post season baseball is because baseball is based on a lot of unpredictable events.
. That's why sportswriters end up scratching their heads, wondering why 'the best teams don't always win.' Hint: maybe they weren't really 'the best' to begin with. Maybe the stats don't tell the whole story.
.
You have established a dynamic where there is no rational way to identify a "best team."
To wit: Your claim:
If the best teams do not always win in the post season, it may be because they really were not the best team during the regular season.
Okay, we cannot correctly identify which was the best team based on the post season, nor can we trust the designation of best arising from the regular season.
This leaves only Spring Training and I shall guess you would not be arguing that March baseball establishes which team is best.
You have created a logical loop and left us with no standards by which to judge "best."
And of course irrespective of any of that, the actual reason the "best" teams do not always win in the post season is that the difference between the best and worst teams qualifying for the post season, which required 162 games to identify, is not much of a factor in a five or seven game series.
A 100 win team (.617 ball) playing a 90 win team (.555 ball) :
Five game series -100 team wins 3.08 games, 90 win team wins 2.8 games.
Seven game series -100 win team wins 4.3 games, 90 win team wins 3.9 games.
Eleven game series -100 win team wins 6.8 games, 90 win team wins 6.1 games
Thirteen game series - 100 win team wins 8 games, 90 win team wins 7.2 games
Fifteen game series - 100 win team wins 9.3 games, 90 win team wins 8.3 games
And there you have it, it requires a fifteen games series between these teams before a full one game advantage materializes for the 100 win team....and keep in mind, this is the 100 win team prevailing by one game, not stomping the 90 win team.
You need look no further for any explanation as to why the "best" teams do not always grab the championships. The post season isn't long enough for the established advantages to have an impact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
