Quick take on the series. The Red Sox are better in hitting, defense and starting pitching. The Angels are better in bullpen and baserunning.

The Red Sox are the better team by basically any measure. But, what matters is not who has the higher true talent level, but who plays better baseball over the next week. And even if we take the most optimistic projection of the Sox and the most pessimistic projection of the Angels, there would still be a golid 33% chance of an Angels victory.

<i>Sox in 4,/i>

Decades? Yeah, they should win something in the next four decades. :)

Imagine that one of your best friends is a diehard Angels fan (yes, they do exist). What would you say to him on the eve of this series?

"Don't forget to keep the spiders away from your first baseman"?

Schilling for Coroner!

I think the Red Sox may be flat for the first game at least due to travel to the West coast. Eric M. Van, a Harvard braniac, did some very compelling studies showing that circadian shifts can have a powerful impact on certain players. Varitek in particular is likely to go hitless in Game 1.

I am starting to have my seasonal depression kick in. I can't tell if it's the long shadows or my pessimism about the Sox.
DB

Imagine that one of your best friends is a diehard Angels fan (yes, they do exist).

I have a good friend who lives and dies by the A's. I told him I wished him luck, and I hoped his team lost badly. He said the same, and we didn't talk about baseball for a while after that.

Eric M. Van, a Harvard braniac

That's our EMV. Health food nut.

The effect of the long travel is mitigated by the players' departure for the West Coast, which apparently started some time around the 4th inning on Sunday.

Village's #8 is pretty close to dead on. The Sox waited briefly in the clubhouse to watch the Twinkies' final game loss, but shortly after 5 Eastern they were on a bus to BWI where they had a charter plane warming up. They likely got excellent rest and will just have a light workout today to get those cicadas in rhythm (or whatever the hell Eric M. was researching).

So travel shouldn't be a disadvantage, and I might argue that having your top 2 veterans go on the road (esp. where it's likely warmer, for Pedro to get looser) and your 3-4 guys at home is not bad, either. And let the MFY cope with Santana.

I've often said I compare discussions on this site to that of a barroom bull session. Keyboards rather than beers. That said, I guarantee that most of us have never discussed "studies showing that circadian shifts can have a powerful impact on certain players". I actually looked at my monitor cross-eyed when I read that.

One study that will give Sox fans some comfort is posted today by Dayn Perry at the other BP. After crunching the post-'95 numbers, he concludes that:

From these data, it does indeed appear that in recent seasons teams with potent rotation fronts not only have an edge in making the postseason, but also in thriving in the wilder shores October. That's a welcome bit of news for Astros, Red Sox and Twins fans this time around.

Here's the daily dose of Sunshine:

Top 5 Postseason Starters, by Support-Neutral Lineup-adjusted Value Added (SNLVAR)

Player, Team, VORP, SNLVAR

Johan Santana, MIN, 89.3, 8.4
Curt Schilling, BOS, 73.4, 6.9
Brad Radke, MIN, 60.5, 6.7
Roger Clemens, HOU, 61.2, 6.1
Pedro Martinez, BOS, 51.7, 5.8

Wow, I had no idea Radke was that good.

Eric M. Van, a Harvard braniac, did some very compelling studies showing that circadian shifts can have a powerful impact on certain players.

He also did some very compelling studies about how Casey Fossum was tracking a HOF career path.

Hello all.

Man, am I glad we don't have to face the Twins.

Also, isn't it a little bit unfair that the Red Sox don't get the homefield advantage? I mean, after all, they did post a better record.

I once had a long debate in a bar about whether or not the word "racemization" had ever been uttered in said bar.

What's unfair is that NYC trumps LA/Boston combined. I'm pretty peeved about the schedule this week. Two mid-day starts and a late night one means that I have to exist in a bubble most of Tuesday and Thursday.

That said, I guarantee that most of us have never discussed "studies showing that circadian shifts can have a powerful impact on certain players".

Eric M. Van discussed them here (I can find links to occasions but they don't access) but moreso at SOSH. He essentially proved that Varitek's night-day splits were related to circadian shifts and had some very far-reaching conclusions relating to team travel in general.

It's nothing to be afraid of.

Eric M. Van, a Harvard braniac, did some very compelling studies showing that circadian shifts can have a powerful impact on certain players. Varitek in particular is likely to go hitless in Game 1.

First of all, if you found that study "very compelling," you have very low standards for compellation.

Now, even if that study had been very compelling, it didn't apply to "certain players," it applied to Varitek and Varitek alone, and the conclusion was that Varitek had trouble with night games, and had a true talent OPS of ~1.100 during day games.

Given that tomorrow is a day game, EMV would conclude that Varitek is likely to go 2 for 4 with a homer.

IaiC,
Congratulations, BTW, on another very successful troll.

Oh, and Varitek's Day/Night split this year was .700/.924.

So, either:

a) He has found a solution to his circadian problem which adversely affects his daytime production.

or

b) His previous day/night splits were the result of random variation.

Apropros of very little, the Sox ended up scoring 949 runs this year. Hot damn, how about that?

VLR,

I thought it was the reverse in that Varitek had trouble at night (while most players hit better during the day due to daylight conditions). This year Varitek's D/N was .700/.924 and in 2003 was .608/.982. From 2001-2003 he was at .752/.826. So Tuesday being a day game would adversely affect him, correct? (No need to be rude - I'm just pointing it out.)

I thought it was the reverse in that Varitek had trouble at night

Van concluded that Varitek was an early bird who had trouble with night games. He did his study before the 2003 season.

I have Sox sweeping if Arroyo gets game 3 as he should. If not, Sox in 4.

Geez, I remember Van. Didn't he produce some absurdly optimistic Red Sox W-L projections back in the day?

Some more fodder: a sunshiney CHB year-in-review column, concluding with a little black cloud:

Red Sox enter playoffs with seasoned performers

Damn, that last paragraph is a doozy. It was an enjoyable read up to that point.
DB

VORP and SNL have a couple of very obvious flaws. 1. They treat all runs the same, earned or unearned. Unearned runs aren't perfect, but they are better than raw runs.

2. The bigger problem is that they blindly use runs rather than component or DIPS numbers. This results in things like Radke ranking ahead of Johnson this year in SNL.

SNL also gives pitchers credit for inconsistency. Though that may actually result in more wins, there's not a real good reason to credit those wins to the pitcher.

On another subject, Eric Van is still an active poster over at SOSH, where he often debates statistical measures with a certain Tangotiger. I have no idea why Tango is over there, but after the way he handled disputes on Primate Studies, maybe it's where he belongs.

So, do you think Shredder is actually going to grace us with his presence?

Darren,

If you don't mind the question, what was your problem with Tango? I didn't follow the Studies blog too closely, but I always enjoyed his contributions in articles and comments.

(The way he left was weird as all crap, if anyone has good gossip there...)

In actual baseball discussion, Radke has had a hell of a year, but it's easily his best in a long time, and it's hard to say that he's really this good. I'm expecting him to get stomped by the Yankees, but we'll see.

Oh, and the EMV day/night thesis was possibly the greatest Eric Van moment ever. If it wasn't, I'll sleep with Liv Tyler.

I didn't have a problem with Tangotiger. However, he seemed to rule Primate Studies with an iron fist, and I think SOSH is a lot like that. I certainly don't know any gossip about how he left.

I liked Eric's other projections where he'd project a player's line based on arbitrary endpoints of after taking out his bad starts. I believe Frank Castillo was going to be a top of the rotation starter for us when Duquette signed him.

I liked Eric's other projections where he'd project a player's line based on arbitrary endpoints of after taking out his bad starts.

Blind squirrels and all, but he did project Mueller to a .390 OBP in 2003.

Of course, he also projected the Sox offense to 1150 runs that year.

I with Michael, though, the "Varitek is Barry Bonds shrouded by the tools of ignorance and a fear of darkness" theory was the best Vanism.

.
.
Posted by Gordon Edes at 09:42 PM (#897899)

When referring to him, please follow the Globe stylesheet as follows:

"Harvard brainiac and consumate Red Sox fan Eric M. Van."

Thank you.

I'll be in the upper deck, right field side, tomorrow. I wonder during which inning the "19-18!" chant will start up.

I've never particularly hated the Sox until last year, when I took my parents to their first baseball game in America. Some Sox fans behind us ripped up the rally monkey dolls they were giving out at the game, and rained them down on two senior citizens who didn't quite know how to react.

Yeah, yeah, a few rotten apples, whatever. 1918, buddy.

MLB.com's preview of the series.

Angels get the edge at catcher and center field? Please.

Some Sox fans behind us ripped up the rally monkey dolls they were giving out at the game, and rained them down on two senior citizens who didn't quite know how to react.

I stand by my comment that there is no lower form of life than a visiting Sox fan.*

*scotto excluded. Oh, and Toby (who I've never heard of until today) owns a border collie, and they rule, so he may not be all that bad.

My favorite part of the MLB.com preview: no entry for starting pitching. It's not like that's important in the playoffs or anything.

It wasn't in 2002.

The intangibles section is just mean:
"With the Red Sox, it always begins and ends with The Curse. When things go awry, they can't avoid those "Here we go again" blues. But this motley crew is oblivious enough to end it."

So he's saying that the Sox are going to duck the Curse because they've got toughness or character or will, but that they're just stupid? Did Kruk write this?

Thanks Shredder.

If it goes to Game 5 you're more than welcome to come to my place to watch the game. I'd have you over for Game 4 but I don't think any actual game watching will happen - too many kids between the ages of 2 and 8 to allow it to happen.

So he's saying that the Sox are going to duck the Curse because ...

Er, that should be NOT because.
But you knew that.

Some Sox fans behind us ripped up the rally monkey dolls they were giving out at the game, and rained them down on two senior citizens who didn't quite know how to react.


How many times do I have to say I'm sorry? I was drunk, okay? I thought they were real monkeys and they were taunting me.

Oh, and Toby (who I've never heard of until today) owns a border collie, and they rule, so he may not be all that bad.

Toby no longer has a border collie. Seems I ripped it up and rained it down on some senior citizens.

Never heard of me? Ouch.

Now my heart's been shredded and my dog's been, too.

Hmm ... them's the makings of a good country song.

FWIW, my Angels fan friend (see post #3) had this response:

Toby, in 1986 it was not the spider that caused the damage, it was the insertion of a relief pitcher who had lost his split-finger fastball. Having stood on the railing while watching that pitch fly over the fence, I know that is what cost us the series. In 2004, we do not have that same problem. The Angels will sweep this series.

The Angels will sweep? I want some of his crack.

If I was at Edison and they gave me a stuffed monkey, I would probably rip it to shreds. I don't think I would try to throw those shreds on seniors, but I can't control the wind.

Angels fans be warned. If you chant "1918", you're going to get "1986" in return and nobody wants that.

If you chant "1918", you're going to get "1986" in return and nobody wants that.

I plan on going with the bafflingly clever, "2002." At first the Angels fans will laugh at its silliness and puff their chests with pride, but as it continues, "two thousand two, two thousand two," feelings of doubt and unease will begin to creep into their hearts.

"Was 2002 our 1918?" they will ask themselves. "Was that plucky band on slap hitters the last World Champion I will root for before I kleave this mortal coil?"

Never heard of me? Ouch.

Sorry.

it was the insertion of a relief pitcher who had lost his split-finger fastball.

BS. Henderson looked foolish on the first two pitches. He got lucky on the third. Moore hadn't lost it. It was just a good swing put on a good pitch.

I recently replayed the 1986 ALCS on that free SBS simulation program, and the Angels kicked bum, winning in six games. Bob Boone was the big hero in the series.

The Angels will sweep this series.

Well, they're certainly off to a good start.

Wooo-hooo! Sorry I missed the chat, I was busy ripping up rally monkeys and showering senior citizens with them!

I recently replayed the 1986 ALCS on that free SBS simulation program, and the Angels kicked bum, winning in six games. Bob Boone was the big hero in the series.

SBS simulation program?

(52) Sox-Buster Software. It's a new project Steinbrenner's got some guys working on. He may be getting worried! :-))

I assume BHW meant this baseball simulator. Sort of a poor-man's Diamond Mind.