Thanks for sharing Fra, I really liked Vinay's orginal work - it's nice to have some other data points added. It's a lot more interesting than: luck luck luck luck and well... luck.

A Red Sox vs. Cubs series – a portent of the End of Time and the Last Things?

Ah, the Red Sox just won one 3 years ago, no portent there. I'm rooting for Cubs-Indians, longest World Championship drought in each league now. My dad was 13 when his hometown Indians last won the World Series. His dad was 10 when the Cubs did.

Me too, but I doubt it'll happen. We'll get the Yankees against the Phillies.

I just read a bit in B-Pro's "It Ain't Over 'til It's Over" (highly recommended) and they have a bit on does having a fast start matter. They say it does and note that teams that get off to a fast start and then flounder (relatively speaking) the rest of the year before making the playoffs tend to do a damn good job brushing off the cobwebs in October. Examples were the 2000 Yanks, 2005 ChiSox, 1984 Tigers, and both 2006 teams. From my own memory, I'd add the 1955 Dodgers.

Their research should be good news to any Red Sox fans out there on the blogosophere.

Maybe I'll check that bbok out from the library. I flipped through some of it in the bookstore and didn't really see anything new, but I may've looked at the wrong pages.

I think a repeat of the 2001 world series would be fun to watch :)

EWK,

The section I'm referring to is a brief essay right after their piece on the 1984 AL West pennant race.

I'd proffer that, right now, the Dbacks and Cubs are at least equal in terms of defensive efficiency. The Dbacks have an excellent defensive outfield in Byrnes/Young/Salazar or Upton, Drew + Ojeda + Snyder are solid up the middle, and Reynolds + Jackson/Clark are at least average in the corners.

I'd scoff at this if it didn't precisely capture my gut feelings as well about the Red Sox vs. the AL field, and even the Indians vs. Yankees. Anything can happen, blah blah, but no way I would bet money on the Yankees to get out of the first round, especially when you consider that they're probably big Vegas favorites.

Waiting for Shredder to ##### about how Kumar is just a whiner. 3... 2... 1 ...

Very interesting stuff. I think it might be helpful to have the "strong" categories marked for each matchup. (I kept having to scroll back up to the top to see which ones they were.)

Rob, Vinay didn't write this article.

Does it matter? Anything that casts doubt on the Angels is enough to get Seitz going. He doesn't have any arguments of his own, refuses to try and refute others' research, just idiotic fanboyism and an itch to demand of others (read: me) that they STFU unless they have something nice to say.

Your descent into whiny little ######## has really been quite fascinating to watch. Sad, but fascinating.

Rob, Vinay didn't write this article.

Accuracy has never been one of Rob's strong suits.

########

That would be "b!+chdom"

Does it matter? Anything that casts doubt on the Angels is enough to get Seitz going. He doesn't have any arguments of his own, refuses to try and refute others' research, just idiotic fanboyism and an itch to demand of others (read: me) that they STFU unless they have something nice to say.

That may be the most inaccurate description of Shredder since the last time someone said he was cool.

Thanks for doing this. I was hoping somebody would do this and I am glad I didn't have to. Thanks for saving me the time.

I flipped a coin and came up with the following:

Angels
Indians
Cubs
Phillies

The coin thinks the Angels will beat the Cubs in the World Series.

That coin is so biased. You can't trust the coin.

So, does this mean that pitching and defense win championships?
Maybe these SABR types are onto something.

Your descent into whiny little ######## has really been quite fascinating to watch. Sad, but fascinating.

I thought the Angels were no match for the Red Sox back in 2004, too. Was I a "whiny little ########" then, too? If there's been anyone who's changed around here, it's you, Seitz. You call names, you hide behind your smirking one-liners, but you don't have a thing to add to any analysis of the Angels.

That may be the most inaccurate description of Shredder since the last time someone said he was cool.

You haven't been reading him lately, then.

Here's the thing: how different is this from Bill James's Postseason Prediction thingy? It's basically found the same way, right? And though that had something like a 70% record at predicting success at the time he created it, it has been more or less .500 afterwards. Why should the above be any different?

Straight from my arse hairs prediction:
Cubs vs Dbacks: Cubs in 4.

Phillies vs Rockies: Phillies in 5

Yankees vs Indians: Yankees in 4

Red Sox vs Angels: Angels in 4

Cubs vs Phillies: Cubs in 6

Angels vs Yankees: Angels in 5

Angels vs Cubs: Cubs in 7

You haven't been reading him lately, then.

Yeah, I've been much cooler lately.

Was I a "whiny little ########" then, too?

No, you were much more rational then, which is why fewer people gave you crap. You were interesting to read. Read your own damn comments. I'm not the only who feels this way. I'm just the only one who calls you out on it. You also didn't go apesh!t and delete posts that you disagreed with back then.

And analysis? You mean reproducing other peoples' posts and saying "I agree". That's pretty impressive. Though I noticed things in Blackhawk's post that you would never write anymore, such as:

This is a good team

and

Obviously, an Angel victory is possible, and a reasonable possibility

And I'm still waiting for his post where he whines about Jered Weaver throwing too many pitches over six shutout innings, and offers the wonderfully generous compliment "I won't say he failed to do his job".

And really, when it comes to analysis, this was quite impressive:

As Bootcheck showed today, the middle of the bullpen is just soft and creamy filling for the other club's offensive parts, so why bother showing up?

Yes, as that guy who won't pitch in the post-season, and will lucky to even be on the roster showed, the Angel players who won't be in the playoffs aren't that great. That's quite a keen insight you have. Or how about this beauty from June 28th:

but it doesn't mask the facts that (a) the offense stinks, and (b) the offense has masked some pretty abysmal pitching over the last couple weeks (see also, the Astros and Pirates series).

For those that didn't quite get that, the offense, which stinks, has been good enough to make up for some really awful pitching. Remember, this is the really crappy offense that finished fourth in the AL.

Why bother showing up, indeed. There's plenty of us who wish you wouldn't.

What's up with Shredder and scareduck? Can't all Angel fans unite to stop the Evil Empires?

Posted: October 02, 2007 at 07:40 PM (#2556926)
What's up with Shredder and scareduck? Can't all Angel fans unite to stop the Evil Empires?

Hunter green, right

Hunter green, left

Nope, that joke's not funny over here, either.

#25: perfect examples of the kind of crap I've put up with in my comments sections all frackin' year. Pitch efficiency doesn't matter, says the mighty Seitz. Pulling crap out of your ass like, "as that guy who won't pitch in the post-season" about Bootcheck when you have no damned idea if he will or won't. Got any more strawmen to flog, Seitz?

Okay, you were right.

GET A ROOM.

Hillary has just announced her own playoff predictions:

Yanks-Indians: Good competititive series. Jacobs Field serves excellent brownies, made from my husband's secret recipe.

Red Sox-Angels: This could go either way. I have lots of friends in both camps, but Bill Buckner and Donnie Moore* favor Obama.

Cubs-Diamondbacks: I grew up as a Cubs and Yankees fan, but you can't overlook the beauty of the Grand Canyon.

Rockies-Phillies: I firmly believe in a woman's right to choose between these two historic teams, and if you don't like it, I'll think about it.

EDIT: I have just been informed that Donnie Moore has passed away. I regret this mistake on the part of someone else, and send my condolences to his widow.

EDIT: Never mind.

I'd like to note that:

Pitch efficiency doesn't matter, says the mighty Seitz.

Is followed shortly thereafter by:

Got any more strawmen to flog, Seitz?

Wow. That is a lack of self-awareness the likes of which one rarely sees.

Wow. That is a lack of self-awareness the likes of which one rarely sees.

Except from you, Seitz. Except from you.

How do you like the feedback, fra paolo?

I'd like to see a Cubs-Indians series. But, honestly, I won't really mind any combination that doesn't include the Red Sox, the Yankees, or the Diamondbacks. Sorry, guys. Just seem a little too much of you lately.

So fra paolo's 3 for 4, with the missing one being the series he was least confident about:

Cover my a**e comment: You could toss a coin for this series. It’s one of the most evenly balanced I’ve seen.

If I had been betting on this, I'd have gone for four triples and a quadruple (ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD and ABCD). So I'd have lost four bets and won one, but I figure I'd have won more that way than by betting on each series individually. I didn't check the odds beforehand.

So, fra, from your comments, it looks like you're picking the Red Sox to go all the way. Who are you tipping to meet them in the World Series?

24. McCoy Posted: October 02, 2007 at 07:17 PM (#2556908)
Straight from my arse hairs prediction:
Cubs vs Dbacks: Cubs in 4.

Phillies vs Rockies: Phillies in 5

Yankees vs Indians: Yankees in 4

Red Sox vs Angels: Angels in 4

Now there's a swing and a miss!

So, fra, from your comments, it looks like you're picking the Red Sox to go all the way. Who are you tipping to meet them in the World Series?

I've updated all the data, and compared the Championshp Series' contenders.

First, though, I'd like to say that the 2007 Divisional Series in all cases showed that having an advantage in the strong categories is more important than a lead in all categories. The Yankees were just ahead of the Indians overall, ten to seven, but lagged in the strong categories, three to five. The Cubs and Diamondbacks were level in the strong categories with five each, but the Diamondbacks had the lead overall, ten to eight.

So, with that to inform us, let's look at each series.

<u>Boston vs Cleveland</u>
Boston is the clear leader in both the strong and the overall categories. They have five strong to the Indians' two, and a big fifteen to three lead overall. (Bold = strong)

BOSTON
Runs scored/runs allowed ratio
Batting average
On-base percentage
Doubles
Triples
Batter walks
Batter strikeouts
Net stolen bases
Stolen base percentage
Fewer caught stealing
Pitcher strikeouts
Hits allowed
Shutouts
Bullpen ERA
Defensive efficiency

CLEVELAND
Pitcher walks
Complete games
Double plays

<u>Arizona vs Colorado</u>
These two teams are flat out even with eight apiece overall, but Arizona has a significant lead in the strong categories, four to two.

ARIZONA
Triples
Net stolen bases
Stolen base percentage
Pitcher strikeouts
Complete games
Shutouts
Saves
Saves by team leader

COLORADO
Runs scored/runs allowed ratio
Runs scored
Batting average
On-base percentage
Doubles
Batter walks
Fielder errors
Double plays

So it looks like the better bet is on a Boston vs Arizona World Series.

Whoops, the Red Sox have six. Where's the edit function when you need it?

Sox won, of course.