Playoff stats

[Cobra Mgr]

Why have we not moved past the myth that playoff stats "don't count"? They are the most important stats of the season. They are against tougher competition cause they are always vs a playoff team. Especially in baseball, where you aren't facing he 4th or 5th starter.

The games are real. They are more intense. There is more pressure. They come deeper into the year when you are more worn down. They should most definitely figure into an individual's career stats.

[pilight]

We want to compare apples to apples. Therefore, oranges are counted separately.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

We want to compare apples to apples. Therefore, oranges are counted separately.

Regular season may be a Granny Smith & playoffs may be a McIntosh, but they are still apples, not another fruit.

[mytreds]

It’s a strawman argument. Who says playoff stats don’t count? Who made this so called “myth”? Are the stats that got the player/team to the playoffs not as important? Is it not possible that both types of stats carry the same weight when looking at a players career? Should Dan Marino not be in the HoF despite not winning a Championship? Should Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Roy Campanella, Tom Glavine, Dwight Gooden, Clayton Kershaw, Willie Mays, Joe Morgan, Jackie Robinson, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Schmidt, and many other great players have their legacies devalued due to not doing well in the postseason?

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by mytreds

It’s a strawman argument. Who says playoff stats don’t count? Who made this so called “myth”? Are the stats that got the player/team to the playoffs not as important? Is it not possible that both types of stats carry the same weight when looking at a players career? Should Dan Marino not be in the HoF despite not winning a Championship? Should Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Roy Campanella, Tom Glavine, Dwight Gooden, Clayton Kershaw, Willie Mays, Joe Morgan, Jackie Robinson, Alex Rodriguez, Mike Schmidt, and many other great players have their legacies devalued due to not doing well in the postseason?

I might be wrong, but I think Cobra might be asking why the stats don't count towards a players career totals.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I might be wrong, but I think Cobra might be asking why the stats don't count towards a players career totals.

That is the main point, yes.

Perfect example came after I started this thread last night. Kobe White had a career high 40 points in a do or die game. But it doesn't count in his career totals. Nor in his playoff totals. It's treated like an exhibition game. But it wasn't even close to being an exhibition game.

I could make an argument they should be used in season totals as well. The batting champ isn't the one w/the most hits. It's the one w/the highest percentage. The NBA scoring champ isn't the one w/the most points, but the one w/the highest average per game. We already acknowledge that averages & per game are significant factors to understand the totals. We should just do the same in the official record books. Rank them by totals & then rank them by average. W/qualifiers for the "title" having to play a certain percentage of their team's games.

I think it is silly that the postseason has the most important matches in an athlete's career, but when we look @ the HOF credentials it is almost exclusively the regular season numbers.

[pilight]

It would make comparisons across time impossible. Modern players have much greater opportunity to make the playoffs and play many more games once they do. Frankie Crosetti, with his seven rings, played in slightly more than half as many playoff games as Barry Bonds, famous for his postseason disappointments. Ronald Acuna, who is 26 years old and has never played in a World Series, has more playoff games than Stan Musial, who played in four World Series and won three.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by pilight

It would make comparisons across time impossible. Modern players have much greater opportunity to make the playoffs and play many more games once they do. Frankie Crosetti, with his seven rings, played in slightly more than half as many playoff games as Barry Bonds, famous for his postseason disappointments. Ronald Acuna, who is 26 years old and has never played in a World Series, has more playoff games than Stan Musial, who played in four World Series and won three.

Once again, you solve that by dividing by games or seasons. No one thinks Pete Rose is the greatest hitter of all time. But he has the most thanks to playing til he was 60. We know how to look @ that number because we know he played way more games than anyone else. We have enough calculators to figure out how great the numbers if we want to.

[kq76]

The question is interesting and I like mytreds point, if you want to factor in playoff stats then go ahead. It's not like anyone is going to say, "oh no, you can't possibly factor in their postseason stats when deciding on whether they're Hall-worthy".

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Perfect example came after I started this thread last night. Kobe White had a career high 40 points in a do or die game. But it doesn't count in his career totals. Nor in his playoff totals. It's treated like an exhibition game. But it wasn't even close to being an exhibition game.

That's a completely separate issue though that the NBA is just being stupid about. Of course they should be counted as playoff stats or regular season stats. 163-game stats counted as regular season stats in baseball. I think they should be counted as postseason stats myself, but whatever, pick one.

Originally Posted by pilight

It would make comparisons across time impossible. Modern players have much greater opportunity to make the playoffs and play many more games once they do. Frankie Crosetti, with his seven rings, played in slightly more than half as many playoff games as Barry Bonds, famous for his postseason disappointments. Ronald Acuna, who is 26 years old and has never played in a World Series, has more playoff games than Stan Musial, who played in four World Series and won three.

I would have agreed with this once upon a time, but no longer. We can't really completely fairly compare across eras as it is. You can't break something that is already broken.

Different eras had a different # of games, different teams had or didn't have something to play for late in a season, some players were injured or "injured", etc. If Cobra wants to say the true home run record holder had X home runs, including those in postseason play, I'm cool with that.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I could make an argument they should be used in season totals as well. The batting champ isn't the one w/the most hits. It's the one w/the highest percentage. The NBA scoring champ isn't the one w/the most points, but the one w/the highest average per game. We already acknowledge that averages & per game are significant factors to understand the totals. We should just do the same in the official record books. Rank them by totals & then rank them by average. W/qualifiers for the "title" having to play a certain percentage of their team's games.

I like the notion that we should or could just compare players on rate stats, but I do think we run into a problem when looking at a rate stat that takes from both regular and post season stats. That is, one would think that it'd be tougher to get good stats in a PS game and therefore the player who played in more PS games might not look as good in comparison to others as maybe they should.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by kq76

I like the notion that we should or could just compare players on rate stats, but I do think we run into a problem when looking at a rate stat that takes from both regular and post season stats. That is, one would think that it'd be tougher to get good stats in a PS game and therefore the player who played in more PS games might not look as good in comparison to others as maybe they should.

So since they are harder & tougher, playoff #'s don't count?

To me, that is like taking the grades you get during the school year, but ignoring what you got on the year end exams. Isn't the object to finish the year w/a knowledge of the subject? That is what is most important and should be kept as part of the equation. Same w/post season #'s

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

So since they are harder & tougher, playoff #'s don't count?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying rate stats that include both regular and postseason stats will likely make the player with more playoff games look worse than other players as the competition is stronger.

It'd be like a video gamer who plays on the standard difficulty comparing their win/loss record in a game with that of someone who only plays that same game on the hardest difficulty.

If you want to compare rate stats go ahead, but we should probably only compare RS rate stats with RS rate stats and PS with PS rather than combine them.

Counting stats, however, I agree with you that I don't think there should be much issue with adding them. I mean, I still think it'd be best if they were separated due to the difference in difficulty, but I wouldn't think it was wrong if that was already the prevailing custom. In a way I'd think they earned the extra PS stats, just like a player who plays well earns more playing time.

[thehef]

In theory, wouldn't the merging of playoff & regular season stats benefit the guys who played fewer playoff games? If Joe Schmoe is a solid player for years on a team that consistently makes the playoffs, then he's going to have significant playoff numbers facing pretty much against other playoff teams' top starters & relievers. Whereas Johnny Doe, who barely sniffed the playoffs, has a career's worth of regular season stats that include plenty of AB's against #4 and #5 (and lesser) starters, back of the bullpen relievers, and guys up for a September cup of coffee...

Edit: I guess I read kq76's post too fast and didn't realize he essentially made the same point as I made above, only he was more concise

Now where I see a related issue is with OOTP, where unless you bloat up your pc with annual almanacs or undertake intensive manual processes, prior postseasons pretty much disappear from OOTP. You can generally see what teams won postseason series', and you can access individual player playoff stats, but that's about it... Wanna relive a classic World Series from 15 years ago by reviewing boxscores and seeing team stats from the series? Fuggetabout it... For a game that offers an insane amount of ways to play and tracks so many stats, I'm surprised the the postseason - the most important part of the season - is so overlooked... But that is another issue...

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by kq76

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying rate stats that include both regular and postseason stats will likely make the player with more playoff games look worse than other players as the competition is stronger.


It'd be like a video gamer who plays on the standard difficulty comparing their win/loss record in a game with that of someone who only plays that same game on the hardest difficulty.

I understand that. What I'm saying is we are intelligent enough to grade w/a curve if you will.

Let's face it, death lies & statistics. People are going to color numbers to fit their preconceived opinions all the time. So if I want to "prove" Duke Snider is better than Mays or Mantle, I'm going to find the formula that will get me the right mix.

I think we've grown beyond looking at totals only and concluding that "X" is the best. And when we talk about HOF careers, we don't look back @ that thrilling January NBA game or that June afternoon ballgame. We are looking @ the postseason. Maybe it would have cluttered things when there were only 2-4 teams making the playoffs. But now 40% or more of the league gets into the playoffs. If you don't have playoff #'s to add to your resume (looking at you Trout), I think that says something about your "legacy".

College sports have for decades now stopped omitting postseason #'s in career stats & the sports world hasn't one into chaos. I think it is time for the pros to do the same.

[dsvitak]

So. Yadier Molina is one of the greatest hitters of all time, due to his cranking out playoff hits. Got it.

Yadi had 406 playoff plate appearances. That's a LOT. 102 hits, and his average was .273. One can call Yadi the Harold Baines of playoff games.

My comparison, Mr. October (Reggie Jackson) had 78 hits, and his average was .278.

Mickey Mantle held the record for playoff dingers with 18, for DECADES. He only had 59 hits in playoff games, and FEWER total bases than Molina, and only hit .257.

Can you see, as correctly mentioned, that different eras require a different appreciation and analysis?

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Can you see, as correctly mentioned, that different eras require a different appreciation and analysis?

Which we already do, This is what career WAR & dWAR & PER & adjusted goals & approximate value already attempt to do. We aren't tearing the building to its foundations & starting anew. All I'm saying is it is time for a fresh coat of paint. Career regular season totals is just a fraction of a player's story.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Which we already do, This is what career WAR & dWAR & PER & adjusted goals & approximate value already attempt to do. We aren't tearing the building to its foundations & starting anew. All I'm saying is it is time for a fresh coat of paint. Career regular season totals is just a fraction of a player's story.

Agreed.

Also. If a team is in a playoff series, they are playing a team significantly better than the Cubbies, or other bottom dwelling team. The quality of the pitching they are facing is much better.

For that reason, and due to the intense pressure of a playoff game, I tend to cut players some slack for how well they perform.

It would be interesting to see what the numbers are...how much better or worse a team's performance is in the playoffs vs. the regular season.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Career regular season totals is just a fraction of a player's story.

Considering a season is much longer than playoffs, I think you have that reversed.

As I have proven, many great players have had less than stellar postseasons. To weigh their postseason mediocrity more than their stellar regular season careers is silly.

I can see bringing to light those mediocre players who played crucial roles for their team in the postseason, giving them their due credit. But that alone shouldn’t make them HoFers.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by mytreds

Considering a season is much longer than playoffs, I think you have that reversed.

As I have proven, many great players have had less than stellar postseasons. To weigh their postseason mediocrity more than their stellar regular season careers is silly.

I can see bringing to light those mediocre players who played crucial roles for their team in the postseason, giving them their due credit. But that alone shouldn’t make them HoFers.

It is so not silly. Players like Jeter, Worthy, Reggie Miler, Smoltz have their status heightened because of their ability in the clutch. Others like Jordan, Mahomes, Brady, Rivera are legends because they do what they do in the regular & postseason. Then you have your Marinos, Paul Georges, Madduxs & Kershaws who are known for lesser play when it matters most.

We are already using the postseason to judge these players. it is part of their career. It is part of the story.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

It is so not silly. Players like Jeter, Worthy, Reggie Miler, Smoltz have their status heightened because of their ability in the clutch. Others like Jordan, Mahomes, Brady, Rivera are legends because they do what they do in the regular & postseason. Then you have your Marinos, Paul Georges, Madduxs & Kershaws who are known for lesser play when it matters most.

We are already using the postseason to judge these players. it is part of their career. It is part of the story.

I have to say..here in St. Louis, we don't think much of Kershaw, our designated beyotch.

[thehef]

I just read where Coby White's career-high 42 points the other night against Atlanta won't count as his regular-season high nor his playoff high.

I'm pretty sure most of us can agree that play-in stats should at least count one way or the other - either as regular-season stats (like the former one- and three-game MLB playoffs series - typically to decide a division - counted) or as playoff stats; they should not be essentially in thin air as their own category. That they don't count as either one is, IMO, absurd.

BTW, I just checked on basketball-reference.com and on the season summary page where you get a complete overview of the postseason (https://www.basketball-reference.com.../NBA_2023.html), there's no reference to the play-in games. I think the only place you can find those is on each team's schedule (results) listing...