MLB. And here comes the Post Season!

Cleveland is a good, balanced team. They had the second best record in the American League, at 94-67. (The team with the best record, Texas, is already eliminated.)

Hitting: Cleveland had the second-highest scoring offense in the 15-team American League, though the margin between second and fifth (Toronto, the team they now play) is small. They hit roughly an average number of homers but had the third highest batting average in the league, are patient hitters who draw walks, and run the bases better than anyone in the American League; left fielder Rajai Davis led the league in steals. The team’s best hitter is probably Carlos Santana, a Cleveland lifer. None of Cleveland’s catchers can hit at all but otherwise it’s a balanced lineup.

Pitching: Cleveland had perhaps the best pitching staff in the American League, but are hampered by the fact that two of their fine young starters, Carlos Carrasco and Danny Salazar, are hurt, so they will be at a disadvantage ion Games 3 and 4 against Toronto, when they will have to start pitchers not as good as Toronto can present. Nonetheless they still have Corey Kluber, one of the very best pitchers in the world, and an excellent bullpen anchored by Andrew Miller, who is ludicrously awesome.

Fielding: Cleveland is one of the best fielding teams in the American League and has a very strong infield, especially. Shortstop Francisco Lindor is tremendous and very fun to watch. The only real weakness is left fielder Rajai Davis, who is not a technically sound fielder and has a weak arm. As Toronto’s hitters are mostly righthanded (meaning they hit to left field) Davis will be put to the test.

Cleveland presents a harder lineup to deal with tactically. They have skilled hitters on both sides of the plate, and are more balanced top to bottom than Toronto, whose good hitters are all righthanded and who are more dependent on an elite core of star hitters at the top of the lineup. You will likely see Cleveland try to maneuver things to bring in the mighty Andrew Miller to face the heart of the Toronto lineup. If Miller can shut them down, and he has been nearly unhittable this year, Toronto will be hard pressed to score runs late in ballgames.

It would be fair to say that Cleveland will be at a disadvantage early in the game, except when Corey Kluber is starting, but will be at an advantage later in the game.

Managing: Cleveland’s manager Terry Francona, a World Series winner with Boston, is as good a tactician as the game has. Francona’s use of his bullpen is unorthodox and much more effective than most managers.

How They Stack Up Against Toronto: The teams are very similar in overall skill on both offense and defense; both are good hitting teams, both are extremely good fielding teams and both can pitch. Toronto’s modus operandi is different; their offense is based on drawing a lot of walks and hitting home runs, and they don’t steal bases or hit for average like Cleveland does, but the sum total of both teams is about equally effective. The Indians will not strike out as much as Toronto will.

Although Cleveland had a slightly better pitching staff Toronto’s is also very good and Toronto does not have an injured starting pitcher, which confers a bit of an advantage.

Toronto’s manager, John Gibbons, is relatively conventional and predictable in his approach, except in how he orders his starting rotation. He seems to have an unusual ability to choose the right starting pitcher for the right game, though; he has made some unusual choices and they usually work. Francona, however, has vastly more experience in playoff battles. He is as clever as they come. Any team managed by Terry Francona can win any playoff series against any opponent.

Interesting Facts:

The executives currently in charge of Toronto, Mark Shapiro and Ross Atkins, worked for the Indians until this year. The Indians squad was largely built by them.

Cleveland last made a World Series in 1997, Toronto in 1993. Neither team has any player who was even in the major leagues in 1997.

Cleveland has never played against Toronto in a playoff series before. The only team left in the playoffs they have ever played in the postseason are the Dodgers, who they beat in the World Series 96 years ago, in 1920, when the Dodgers were still in Brooklyn. That World Series is famous for Indians infielder Bill Wambsganss making an unassisted triple play, the only time that has ever happened in a postseason game. In the same game in which Wambsganss pulled the rare feat (it has been done only 15 times in the major leagues, making it rarer than a perfect game) two other World Series firsts happened; the Indians’ Elmer Smith hit a grand slam, the first ever in a World Series, and Indians pitcher Jim Bagby hit a home run, the first time a pitcher homered in a World Series.
Interestingly enough, of the 15 unassisted triple plays in MLB history, 3 have been turned by Cleveland Indians.

They beat the Ty Cobb Tigers.

A recap of Washington post-season baseball:

The Nationals’ ancestor, the Montreal Expos, made it to the NLCS in 1981. Never a WS.

Washington’s previous team, the Senators version 2.0, never made the post-season before moving to Texas and becoming the Rangers.

The Senators 1.0 (moved to Minnesota in 1961) lost the World Series in 1925 and 1933. They won a WS in 1924.

Thanks. That was detailed.

The Indians’ strength against the Red Sox was BABIP, which happened to be the Red Sox weakness in that series.
I can’t find the original source, but I read that the league average on batted balls with exit velocity under 94mph is something like .150. The Indians’ in this series was over .500.
Meanwhile, when the Sox did manage to hit a ball on the screws, it was right at somebody.

I won’t say the series boiled down to bad luck. David Price stunk up the joint in game 2 and Drew Pomeranz made a really bad and costly pitch to Coco Crisp in game 3. But it was frustrating as a Red Sox fan to see so many Indians’ hits trickle through the infield.

And as **RickJay **said, Terry Francona is a phenomenal manager. Probably one of the best managers of a pitching staff ever.

The Red Sox, IMHO, are the best team in the American League. But sometimes, the breaks just don’t go your way, and that’s how it went against Cleveland. Baseball teams get unlucky sometimes, and the Sox got unlucky.

The expansion of the playoffs simply makes it harder for the best team to win it all. I love playoff baseball but that’s a fact of life; it adds a lot of randomness to it - or, if you prefer, it creates two “Best teams,” the team that dominated the regular season and the team that won the most games in October.

If you go back to the 1903-1968 system where you just had a World Series, it’s actually quite unusual to see a case where a team that really appears to be the better team loses the World Series. There’s some subjectivity here because, the leagues being separate, you cannot assume a 93-win team is worse than a 95-win team. But just eyeballing the rosters and working from 1968 back, I don’t see many cases where I’m like “well, that was an upset.” 1960 clearly was. 1962 probably was. 1954. It’s not very often.

Once you introduce divisions you make the path to victory more prone to one starter having a bad day. Just in the 1980s, the 1980 Phillies, 1982 Cardinals, 1985 Royals, 1987 Twins and 1988 Dodgers do not look to me like the regular season’s finest teams, even squinting and giving them some credit for divisional play. (Nor the 1981 Dodgers, who won a three-round system.) Three rounds and it’s likelier still. I will give the 1996 Yankees a pass because that team doesn’t look sensational in 1996 but went on to enormous glory in subsequent years, but the 1997 and 2003 Marlins, 2000 Yankees (very weak as compared to their other years) 2001 Diamondbacks, 2006 and 2011 Cardinals and 2014 Giants were all pretty clearly not the best teams in the regular season, but kicked ass when October rolled around.

Note that I’m not just going by W/L. I did not mention the 2004 Red Sox, who did not have the best record but, looking at the roster and the numbers, really they look as good as anyone else that year.

Ugh, Bruce Bochy has forgotten how to handle a bullpen.

And if you want to watch some highlights from that World Series, here’s some recently found footage.

Well, I expect Bochy’s general plan was “Get the platoon matchup in as many cases as possible.” And in general I applaud the notion that you don’t HAVE to have a designated closer who ALWAYS pitches the ninth, even if everybody does it, that roles can change even among the folks in the bullpen. So there’s that.

That being said, that constant shuffling of pitchers in and out of the game jumped out at me this morning when I read the wrapup and especially when I looked at the box score. And I agree, it just seems insane. “Better to be decisive than right,” as the saying goes, and it feels like Bochy was unable to be decisive. “Him…no, him…well, how about him…There must be SOMEbody who can get us out of this inning!” Well, maybe if you didn’t pull them after one batter–

Sounds like he kind of Paniked, and I don’t mean Joe.

May I just say how happy I am that the Giants lost? Or is there a different thread for gloating? :smiley:

nm

(I was going to make a jest, an obscene directive disguised as a website. But I got spooked that anything I put between www and dotcom will direct to a real site. :slight_smile: )

A simple way to look at it is this: suppose Team A, which dominated the regular season, is so much better than all the other teams that the odds are 80% that it will win a 5- or 7-game series against any other team in MLB.

If it only has to win one such series to win the world champoionship, then its chances of becoming world champion are 80%.

If it has to win two such series to win the world champoionship, then its chances of becoming world champion are .80*.80 = 64%.

If it has to win three such series to win the world champoionship, then its chances of becoming world champion are .80*.80*.80 = 51.2%.

There’s nothing magic about using 80%, or even about using the same probability of winning every series: put in whatever numbers you like. The point is that as long as Team A’s chances of winning a given series are less than 100%, piling on more series between regular-season-dominating Team A and the championship inevitably reduces its chances of being the postseason champ, no matter how much Team A clearly outclasses the rest of MLB.

That’s why I don’t like the one game wild card playoff and I don’t really love the best of 5 division series. Something like BABIP will even itself out over the course of 162 games. But a team can stumble upon a stroke of luck and advance in the postseason.

I’m finally getting around to reading Moneyball (only about a hundred pages into it), and I think that theory of roster construction works fine over the long haul of a baseball season. Mainly looking for high OBP and OPS. But in a short series, the things you think don’t matter so much, like stolen bases and sacrifices, can make enough difference to steal a precious victory.

The playoffs are a different kind of test than the long season. Feature not bug. It wouldn’t be much use doing them if the RS leaders were certain, or overwhelmingly likely, to win.

It always bugs me that sacrifices and stolen bases are looked down on relative to home runs. Why do they contribute to “stealing” a victory? They are a part of baseball; and were a huge part of the game in the past. In a similar regard why is it a “piling on crime” to steal a base when you’re winning by several runs, but it’s not a “crime” for a home run hitter to try to hit a home run?

Not really, no. Just looking at the most recent World Series and how many bases the winning team stole vs. the losing team:

2015: KC 7, NY 1
2014: SF 1, KC 1
2013: BOS 1, STL 3
2012: SF 3, DET 0
2011: STL 0, TEX 1
2010: SF 1, TEX 2
2009: NY 4, PHI 5
2008: PHI 7, TB 7
2007: BOS 2, COL 1
2006: STL 1, DET 1

There is no clear connection between outstealing your opponent and winning the World Series. There is no particular correlation between a team’s overall basestealing skill at all and winning the World Series, actually - a lot of those teams were not basestealing clubs at all. There is no correlation at all between sacrifice bunts and winning MLB games.

I would agree that there are some roster composition factors that help more in the postseason. Specifically, team depth means much less in the postseason than it does in the regular season. In the regular season pitchers have to be paced, catchers can’t play every day, and other position players usually need a day off now and then. In the playoffs you can load far more innings onto your best pitchers and your hitters don’t need to take games off, so your bench isn’t very important. Having two or three very good starters, as opposed to five good ones, might not be an advantage in the regular season because you’ve got to play every day and your mediocre fourth and fifth starters have to be sent out there, but it is in the postseason; most fifth starters won’t even make the postseason roster and you can skip the fourth starter as often as not. Having two or three elite relief pitchers and a weak back end of the bullpen can hurt you in the regular season; in the postseason you can ride those three guys all the way to the championship.

One of my favourite illustrative stats: Mariano Rivera pitched about 5% of all innings pitched by Yankee pitchers during his career in the regular season. In the playoffs he pitched more than 10%. Rivera had a GREATER impact in the postseason than he did in the regular season, game for game. But he couldn’t have pitched that much in the regular season. He’s one of the reasons the Yankees won 21 of 32 postseason series when he played for them.

I’m not saying this is a perfect way to predict who will win a given series, but I am pretty sure I’ve seen studies that showed a correlation exists.

I refuse to gloat over the Giants loss. I’m glad they’re out, mind you. But there is a healthy chance the Dodgers will be sharing tee times with them this weekend. And Happiness requires both a Dodgers victory and a Giants defeat. Half the equation just doesn’t cut it.

Tru dat, but that’s orthogonal to my point. Even if you’ve got a team that’s overwhelmingly good at winning short series (which is what the postseason tests), the more of them you have, the less likely it is that that dominant-at-short-series team will win the championship.

Whatever your criteria are for determining the ‘best’ team going in to the postseason, more rounds reduces the likelihood of that team’s winning.

Focus…fading.

Game 5…looming.

I was more responding to Barkis and RickJay, on rosters and randomness.

Is it not equally true that the more rounds of short series there are, the more likely it is that the winner will be a great short-series team, rather than one that fluked into the spot?

Maybe my criteria is to see the teams play successive short series against each other.