The Cardinals started the season hot, went into a tailspin in September, and barely hung on to make the playoffs.
Ditto for the Tigers.
Ditto for last year’s White Sox.
Moral: “Momentum” is, and has always been, a load of crap! A win in April counts as much as a win in September, and once the playoffs begin, your late season hot streak counts for nothing.
Absolutely true.
The team with less momentum won all four first-round series this year.
To steal a line I heard on PTI (who stole it from somebody else), momentum is the next day’s starting pitching.
None of the stuff that shit-brained commentators harp on matters- momentum, who had the most time off between series, who had to travel cross country, etc.
I don’t know if the time off actually matters, but teams who get to rest do have an advantage from what I’ve heard.
Except when they lose, in which case they claim that they were rusty. 
Pitching shuts down hitting. Please notify New York.
To be fair, the Met lost two important pitchers to injury. They did plan on outhitting everybody, but they did pretty well considering how damaging similar losses would be to any team.
Exactly. And now the crappy redbirds are in the World Series again. I hope Detroit sweeps them just like Boston did a couple of years ago, although with Carpenter and Suppan you’d have to bet on at least one Cardinal victory, possibly two.
Detroit has pitching every bit as good as Carpenter and Suppan. They sure look like the best team right now, and the rotation is fully recharged.
I always hope for a 7-game nailbiter, but I have a feeling Detroit will win easily. Still, I’ve been wrong in most series so far, so what do I know.
And how did the Orioles do this year again?
I don’t think that’s true. A “hot streak” just means a team is playing better and winning more games. Generally a team’s performance in September is a better predictor of their October performance than their April performance was.
Not sure what that’s got to do with anything.
The Orioles did about as well this year as they’ve done in every one of the six years i’ve lived in the US—they finished below .500. Which, if you look at my early season contributions to baseball threads, is pretty much what i predicted.
The fact that the Orioles suck doesn’t change my hopes or my predictions for the World Series.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, and in fact your assertions seems, on the face of it, perfectly reasonable and logical. But i’d be interested to know if you have statistics to back up that statement? How large is the difference? How much more accurate is September performance than April performance as a predictor of October performance?
I don’t remember the stats myself, but at the end of the regular season, ESPN showed teams that clinch early (defined as 8 or more games before the end of the regular season) win their first-round series more often than teams that clinch in the middle or late.
Yes, if only because a team’s roster, and the health of the players on it, is more likely to be similar.
Right, but that’s a different statistic than the one that says that September perfromance is better than April performance as an indicator of October performance. In fact, it complicates the issue even further, because it’s entirely possible to combine early clinching with very poor September performance.
Take the Mets. They clinched the AL East on Septmber 18, if my reading of the MLB standings page is correct. At that time, they had played 149 games, and were 14.5 games ahead of the Phillies. That means the Mets could have lost every single one of their last 13 games of the season, and still won the division. If that had happened, which stat should we take as a more likely predictor of their postseason performance:
a) their early clinching of the division title, or
b) their poor September performance?
The main reason i asked for the stats on this issue is related to an observation i’ve made about baseball fans and their stats. You see, one thing i had to get used to in learning about baseball after moving to the US was the incredible amount of stats generated by the game, and the tendency of baseball fans to use those statistics for making their arguments about the game.
But what i also had to get used to was the fact that many baseball fans make what seem like commonsense statements as if they were backed by statistics, when in fact the only basis for the statement is what seems reasonable and logical. I’ve seen some occasions in baseball where something is repeated so often that it becomes pretty much received wisdom, and then when you look at the stats you find out that this commonsense assertion is actually not backed by the evidence.
That why, when i see an assertion like:
i like to see the statistics.
I believe (and correct me if I’m wrong, brianjedi) it was in response to the “crappy redbirds” comment. While they’ll probably lose against the Tigers, they are going to the World Series. The Orioles aren’t.
That’s the “problem”, if you will, with baseball. The game is such that literally any team can beat any other on any given day, even on the raod, even in important games. The KC Royals, playing for nothing, the worst team in the league, I think swept the Tigers who were playing for everything late in the year. The Devil Rays have had good runs against the Yankees, and on and on. A base hit here, bad pitch there, and Terry Felton or Anthony Young can win a game against Santana or Clemens.
Not true in other sports- if the Patriots played the Texans in three straight games, what are the odds the Texans could win even one, even at home? To a lesser degree, same with basketball.