2022 MLB Postseason Results (Spoilers!) & MLB.tv

[thehef]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

I think the upsets have more to do with correctly applying analytic analysis rather than just trying to buy a $250M team.

2022 MLB playoff upsets, so far:

- Padres (89 wins) beating Dodgers (111) - big upset, but not based upon payroll (Padres' $238m vs Dodgers' $276m - payrolls are basically the same if you discount the two big name suspended players on each team).

- Padres (89 wins) beating Mets (101) - big upset, but it's not like the Padres' payroll ($238m) is dwarfed by the Mets' highest-in-the-league payroll ($283m).

- Phils (87 wins) beating Braves (101) - big upset, but not by payroll (Phillies = $255m; Braves = $200m).

- Phils (87 wins) beating Cards (93) - not a huge upset, but still the bigger payroll won.

IOW, all upsets thus far have been pulled off by the teams ranking #4 and #5 - and in the $250m range - in 2022 payroll. Are these two teams not trying to buy a $250m team, whereas others are?

And if you look at the four teams remaining, they rank 3, 4, 5 and 9 in 2022 payroll. So where is it that analytics are trumping those "just trying to buy a $250m team?"

It could be that I'm totally misunderstanding the point... it's happened before . If so, please explain

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by thehef

2022 MLB playoff upsets, so far:

- Padres (89 wins) beating Dodgers (111) - big upset, but not based upon payroll (Padres' $238m vs Dodgers' $276m - payrolls are basically the same if you discount the two big name suspended players on each team).

- Padres (89 wins) beating Mets (101) - big upset, but it's not like the Padres' payroll ($238m) is dwarfed by the Mets' highest-in-the-league payroll ($283m).

- Phils (87 wins) beating Braves (101) - big upset, but not by payroll (Phillies = $255m; Braves = $200m).

- Phils (87 wins) beating Cards (93) - not a huge upset, but still the bigger payroll won.

IOW, all upsets thus far have been pulled off by the teams ranking #4 and #5 - and in the $250m range - in 2022 payroll. Are these two teams not trying to buy a $250m team, whereas others are?

And if you look at the four teams remaining, they rank 3, 4, 5 and 9 in 2022 payroll. So where is it that analytics are trumping those "just trying to buy a $250m team?"

It could be that I'm totally misunderstanding the point... it's happened before . If so, please explain

Maybe if you want to mircoanalyze each matchup, but I still believe analytics are minimizing the win value of big free agent signings on a long term basis.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Maybe if you want to mircoanalyze each matchup, but I still believe analytics are minimizing the win value of big free agent signings on a long term basis.

I don't see it as microanalyzing. I'm just identifying the upsets by comparing win totals, and then using the metric you mentioned - salary. If most of the teams we are talking about - the upseters and the upsetees - are all basically in the same salary range, then I don't see how we can say analytics are besting big spending...

Perhaps there is merit to your point. But unless you or someone else can explain it, the macro analysis would seem to dismiss it

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by thehef

I don't see it as microanalyzing. I'm just identifying the upsets by comparing win totals, and then using the metric you mentioned - salary. If most of the teams we are talking about - the upseters and the upsetees - are all basically in the same salary range, then I don't see how we can say analytics are besting big spending...

Perhaps there is merit to your point. But unless you or someone else can explain it, the macro analysis would seem to dismiss it

To be honest I don't have the time or energy to research it right now. But logic seems to dictate that two $15M signings are better than one $30M signing.

[Westheim]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

To be honest I don't have the time or energy to research it right now. But logic seems to dictate that two $15M signings are better than one $30M signing.

Depends entirely on how much bang you get from your $500k signings.

[monkeyman576]

Originally Posted by Westheim

Depends entirely on how much bang you get from your $500k signings.

Obviously young talent needs to be part of a sucessfull strategy. It just seems a lot of big market teams primary strategy revolves around signing big free agents. And looking at a lot of the free agent signings from 3-4 years ago they seem to be rather hit or miss.

[monkeyman576]

Mookie Betts(12/365)(1 pennant)
Francisco Lindor(10/341)(0)
Fernando Tatis Jr(10/341)(0)
Bryce Harper(13/330)(0)
Giancarlo Stanton(13/325)(0)
Corey Seager(10/325)(0)
Gerrit Cole(9/324)(0)
Manny Machado(10/300)(0)
Alex Rodriguez(10/275)(1)
Nolan Aranado(8/260)(0)
Alex Rodriguez(10/252)(0)
Miguel Cabrera(8/248)(0)
Albert Pujols(10/240)(0)
Robinson Cano(10/240)(0)
Joey Votto(10/224)(0)
David Price(7/247)(1)
Clayton Kershaw(7/215)(3)
Christian Yelich(9/215)(0)
Prince Fielder(9/214)(0)
Max Scherzer(7/210)(1)

Top 25 Contracts in money value in MLB history.
Bold=in my opinion a bad signing(to this point).

[thehef]

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Mookie Betts(12/365)(1 pennant)
Francisco Lindor(10/341)(0)
Fernando Tatis Jr(10/341)(0)
Bryce Harper(13/330)(0)
Giancarlo Stanton(13/325)(0)
Corey Seager(10/325)(0)
Gerrit Cole(9/324)(0)
Manny Machado(10/300)(0)
Alex Rodriguez(10/275)(1)
Nolan Aranado(8/260)(0)
Alex Rodriguez(10/252)(0)
Miguel Cabrera(8/248)(0)
Albert Pujols(10/240)(0)
Robinson Cano(10/240)(0)
Joey Votto(10/224)(0)
David Price(7/247)(1)
Clayton Kershaw(7/215)(3)
Christian Yelich(9/215)(0)
Prince Fielder(9/214)(0)
Max Scherzer(7/210)(1)

Top 25 Contracts in money value in MLB history.
Bold=in my opinion a bad signing(to this point).

No real arguments there. I just don't see which teams were upset this postseason while trying to buy a title, having fallen victim to teams who using analytics better... Looking at my team (Dodgers), and tying it into this...

Originally Posted by monkeyman576

Obviously young talent needs to be part of a sucessfull strategy. It just seems a lot of big market teams primary strategy revolves around signing big free agents. And looking at a lot of the free agent signings from 3-4 years ago they seem to be rather hit or miss.

STARTING POSITION PLAYERS
C - Smith, homegrown, 27 yrs old
1B - Freeman, free agent signing who didn't make your list but had a great 1st season with LA, 32
2B - Lux, homegrown, 24
SS - T Turner, acquired via trade, 29
3B - Muncy, signed as a castaway free agent, 31
LF - Taylor, acquired as a nobody for a nobody, 31
CF - Bellinger, homegrown, 26
RF - Betts, acquired via trade, 29
DH - J Turner, signed as a non-marquee free agent, 37

KEY RESERVES
OF - Thompson, reacquired journeyman, 31
C - Barnes, homegrown, 32
IF - Alberto, non-marquee/journeyman free agent, 29

STARTING PITCHERS
Urias - homegrown, 25
Kershaw - homegrown, 34
Anderson - acquired as non-marquee free agent, 32
Heaney - acquired as non-marquee free agent, 31
Buehler - homegrown, 27

(I won't go thru the bullpen but let's just say it's a mostly young-ish collection of players who were castoffs from other teams, with no marquee free agent signings among them.)

Overall, I'd say that's a pretty good mix of young guys & vets, and a very solid record of developing both their own players and castoffs. If you don't count re-signing their own players, Freeman is the only marquee free agent in the group.

As for the other upset victims, it'd be hard to criticize the Braves given that they won it all last year and had a $200m payroll (8th in MLB) this year. I mean, they won the title last year with $162m payroll (11th in the league) and then spent some - essentially to replace departed free agents - to try to defend their title.

The Mets, perhaps, might be your legitimate target. I dunno. Highest payroll in baseball. But still, that got them 101 wins. Were they beaten by better analytics? Perhaps. But it sure seems like the Padres have been willing to spend big bucks on marquee players recently. Maybe their high-dollar players just came thru better than NY's. Or maybe their low-salary guys outperformed NY's... Or maybe both...

[WestCoastGuy]

How come better analytics apparently worked for these lower-win teams in the postseason but didn't work during the six months of games that preceded it?

[Amazin69]

I doubt "analytics" had anything to do with the Padres-Mets result. We were dead men walking after getting swept in Atlanta. Any playoff team would have whipped us.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

I doubt "analytics" had anything to do with the Padres-Mets result. We were dead men walking after getting swept in Atlanta. Any playoff team would have whipped us.

I sort of feel the same way about my team, the Dodgers, losing to the Padres, only it was the way they so listlessly closed the regular season, especially the bats, that had me doubting. That, plus the unsettled bullpen (although that was less of an issue vs the Pads than the quiet bats were...).

Plus, with Dave Roberts handling the strategery, there's not much room for the players to perform below expectations...

[WestCoastGuy]

I know that everyone here knows this, but I'll say it anyway.

Baseball teams go through ups and downs, and hot streaks and slumps that take place in July are quickly forgotten, but ones that occur in October are extensively overanalyzed.

It didn't take me all that long of time being a baseball fan to figure that out and realize that there was no being "good enough" to win the World Series. You had to be good enough to get to the postseason and then hope that you had good timing on your side.

The first MLB season that I followed closely was 1985, and I remember as a kid being so confused as to how the Cardinals were so much better than the Royals during the regular season but then lost the World Series.

But it was years following the Giants when I realized that playoff games are not all that different from regular-season games as far as hot streaks and slumps go. You just have to hope for good timing in October as far as which you are going through then.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by WestCoastGuy

I know that everyone here knows this, but I'll say it anyway.

Baseball teams go through ups and downs, and hot streaks and slumps that take place in July are quickly forgotten, but ones that occur in October are extensively overanalyzed.

It didn't take me all that long of time being a baseball fan to figure that out and realize that there was no being "good enough" to win the World Series. You had to be good enough to get to the postseason and then hope that you had good timing on your side.

The first MLB season that I followed closely was 1985, and I remember as a kid being so confused as to how the Cardinals were so much better than the Royals during the regular season but then lost the World Series.

But it was years following the Giants when I realized that playoff games are not all that different from regular-season games as far as hot streaks and slumps go. You just have to hope for good timing in October as far as which you are going through then.

Yep. Crossing sports, it goes along with what Bucks' coach Mike Budenholzer said after being eliminated by the Celtics last year in their title defense and being asked if he thought having Kris Middleton available would've made a difference (paraphrasing): "To win a championship you have to be good, you have to be lucky, and you have to be healthy."

[Pelican]

I don’t totally discount the value of free agent signings. As a Phillies fan, I can’t ignore Harper, Schwarbs, Castellanos (playoffs only). But it does strike me that homegrown players like Hoskins, Stott, Bohm, Nola are having a huge impact as well. And the Phillies are testament to how spending “stupid money” does not pay off right away, or ever, sometimes.

Also, it makes me smile to hear the victories over St. Louis and Atlanta described as huge upsets. These were two overrated and overhyped (by the media) teams that deserved to be favored only due to the brutal scheduling of the Wild Card and Divisional rounds, heavily penalizing the away teams.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Stott, Bohm

I was admiring the play of these two guys last night.

[Westheim]

(changes desktop background to the Astros logo as Lice Harper belts one to ******* Delaware)

[Westheim]

Someone please explain *that bunt* to me. In simple language, because I have a simple brain. Thx.

[Amazin69]

Trent Grisham, despite belting $78,833,333 worth Mets "aces" out of the park, panicked and decided he couldn't hit Ranger-Freaking-Suarez. This either says something awesome about Ranger, something sad about Grisham…or something pathetic about ScherzGrom.

Or, possibly, all three.

On a broader note, having the game decided by RGNS (Random Guys Named Suarez) doesn't say a thing about the managers' decisions to pull Darvish and Wheels after 91 and 87 pitches, respectively, nuh-huh! It's PERFECTLY LOGICAL to pull Yu Darvish (5x All-Star, and a 5x All-Star and 2x MVP in his Japanese days) after 6 innings and try to get two innings out of Robert Suarez, who's had such a stellar career that he didn't even make the majors until age 31. You betcha!

(And let's hear it for Rob Thomson setting up his bullpen so perfectly that…neither Alvarado nor Dominguez was around for the 9th! Great planning! Maybe if you'd let Zack have another inning? Sigh.)

Great Moments in Broadcasting: as Josh Hader warms up in the bottom of the 8th, Joe Davis tells us that the Phillies, trailing 3-2 at the time, will have to face Hader in the 9th.

Well, not if they treat Robert Suarez like the mediocrity he's been for over a decade and take the lead they won't, Joe. Now you know.

[low]

Barring a miracle, the Astros being in the World Series guarantees I won't watch one minute of it.

[Westheim]

(applies orange war paint to his black-and-white furry face)