The Playoffs: Crapshoot?

[TruffleShuffle]

I've thought it was a crapshoot for a while now. But weighted crapshoot is a better description.

 

It's like the NBA draft lottery. Certain teams have better odds, but occaionally you get a "Chicago Bulls" that sneaks in there and grabs it.

 

The thing I like is that the Cubs have all the pieces that you need to weigh things on your side and give you better odds of succeeding

 

-Great top end starting pitching

-Very good bullpen

-Balanced patient offense

 

But even still, we see teams with all those crap out in the first round. The Angels have been doing it for years. In fact, look at the 2007 Angels and tell me that team doesn't remind you a little bit of this year's Cubs team.

 

the angels were 9th in the AL in walks last year and middle of the pack in OPS... that's the big difference between last year's angels and this year's cubs; the angels' offense wasn't patient and good pitchers were able to exploit that.

 

nate silver created something called "secret sauce" - basically, what he found was that playoff success was most likely for teams that were proficient in three areas:

 

* A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate.

* A good closer, as measured by WXRL.

* A good defense, as measured by FRAA.

 

*

 

Of the dozens of team characteristics that we tested for statistical significance, in terms of their relationship with winning post-season games and series, these were the only three that mattered. Ending the year hot doesn’t make a whit of difference, for example, nor does having a veteran club, or a smallball offense.

 

More remarkably, all three of these characteristics relate to run prevention, rather than run scoring. That does not mean that offense is of no importance in the playoffs. But there is a lot of noise in the postseason record, and offense did not produce enough signal to emerge through it. The reasons are too complicated to get into here, but have to do with what happens when good offenses face good pitching. Pitching does have some tendency to dominate these match-ups, whether they occur in the regular season or in the playoffs. Because "plus pitching" versus "plus hitting" duels occur more frequently in the post-season, we tend to notice the effects more then.

 

In any event, this "secret sauce" is fairly pungent. The two teams that rated most favorably in these categories in the 2005 playoffs were the White Sox and the Astros, who met in the World Series. The formula also predicts the success of some surprise World Series winners like the 1990 Reds and 1979 Pirates. Conversely, of the ten post-season teams since 1972 that rated worst in the "secret sauce" rankings, none advanced beyond their LCS.

 

 

a lot of people don't like BP's fielding metrics, and i'm not a big fan either. still, boston was the runaway winner of the secret sauce totals last season, but colorado ranked last among the playoff teams - their K-rate was the lowest in the majors and their relief pitching wasn't good either. the wholly mediocre cardinals were last in special sauce in 2006, and they won the WS.

 

still, the analysis has some merit i think - power pitchers would seem to be more likely to beat good hitters than guys who get by on guile.

 

here's how this year's playoff contenders rank in special sauce:

cubs: 20

red sox: 20

angels: 24

white sox: 30

devil rays: 31

d-backs: 32

mets: 33

phillies: 35

brewers: 36

marlins: 39

twins: 50

 

even if you don't like FRAA, you have to think that the cubs are a very good defensive team. they're 3rd in baseball in defensive efficiency; the only teams better are oakland and tampa. so yeah, the cubs are favored over most of the teams that will make the playoffs, but their chances of winning the world series are probably no better than 25%.

[CubinNY]

I've thought it was a crapshoot for a while now. But weighted crapshoot is a better description.

 

It's like the NBA draft lottery. Certain teams have better odds, but occaionally you get a "Chicago Bulls" that sneaks in there and grabs it.

 

The thing I like is that the Cubs have all the pieces that you need to weigh things on your side and give you better odds of succeeding

 

-Great top end starting pitching

-Very good bullpen

-Balanced patient offense

 

But even still, we see teams with all those crap out in the first round. The Angels have been doing it for years. In fact, look at the 2007 Angels and tell me that team doesn't remind you a little bit of this year's Cubs team.

 

the angels were 9th in the AL in walks last year and middle of the pack in OPS... that's the big difference between last year's angels and this year's cubs; the angels' offense wasn't patient and good pitchers were able to exploit that.

 

nate silver created something called "secret sauce" - basically, what he found was that playoff success was most likely for teams that were proficient in three areas:

 

* A power pitching staff, as measured by normalized strikeout rate.

* A good closer, as measured by WXRL.

* A good defense, as measured by FRAA.

 

*

 

Of the dozens of team characteristics that we tested for statistical significance, in terms of their relationship with winning post-season games and series, these were the only three that mattered. Ending the year hot doesn’t make a whit of difference, for example, nor does having a veteran club, or a smallball offense.

 

More remarkably, all three of these characteristics relate to run prevention, rather than run scoring. That does not mean that offense is of no importance in the playoffs. But there is a lot of noise in the postseason record, and offense did not produce enough signal to emerge through it. The reasons are too complicated to get into here, but have to do with what happens when good offenses face good pitching. Pitching does have some tendency to dominate these match-ups, whether they occur in the regular season or in the playoffs. Because "plus pitching" versus "plus hitting" duels occur more frequently in the post-season, we tend to notice the effects more then.

 

In any event, this "secret sauce" is fairly pungent. The two teams that rated most favorably in these categories in the 2005 playoffs were the White Sox and the Astros, who met in the World Series. The formula also predicts the success of some surprise World Series winners like the 1990 Reds and 1979 Pirates. Conversely, of the ten post-season teams since 1972 that rated worst in the "secret sauce" rankings, none advanced beyond their LCS.

 

 

a lot of people don't like BP's fielding metrics, and i'm not a big fan either. still, boston was the runaway winner of the secret sauce totals last season, but colorado ranked last among the playoff teams - their K-rate was the lowest in the majors and their relief pitching wasn't good either. the wholly mediocre cardinals were last in special sauce in 2006, and they won the WS.

 

still, the analysis has some merit i think - power pitchers would seem to be more likely to beat good hitters than guys who get by on guile.

 

here's how this year's playoff contenders rank in special sauce:

cubs: 20

red sox: 20

angels: 24

white sox: 30

devil rays: 31

d-backs: 32

mets: 33

phillies: 35

brewers: 36

marlins: 39

twins: 50

 

even if you don't like FRAA, you have to think that the cubs are a very good defensive team. they're 3rd in baseball in defensive efficiency; the only teams better are oakland and tampa. so yeah, the cubs are favored over most of the teams that will make the playoffs, but their chances of winning the world series are probably no better than 25%.

Is it better to have lower or higher secrete sauce numbers?

[David]

Based on that list, I would venture to say the lower numbers are better.

[David]

BTW, last year we were pretty good (best in NL, possibly) in secret sauce, if I remember right.

 

It was in one of those BP pieces that said we should be the favorites playoffs last year.

[TruffleShuffle]

BTW, last year we were pretty good (best in NL, possibly) in secret sauce, if I remember right.

 

It was in one of those BP pieces that said we should be the favorites playoffs last year.

 

last year was really a crap shoot in the nl. the cubs being the favorites was a defensible position; there's no way to know that the cub offense is going to collectively poop itself against pitchers who were, beyond brandon webb, pretty mediocre.

[Ivy.n.Denver]

The thing that concerns me the most (assuming we make the playoffs) is Soriano.

 

Soriano seems to me to be a guy that mashes mediocre pitching and gets shut down by good pitching.

 

I don't have any numbers to back this up - because I'm lazy

 

But considering the difference in the team's winning percentage with and without Soriano this is a real concern.

[David]

BTW, last year we were pretty good (best in NL, possibly) in secret sauce, if I remember right.

 

It was in one of those BP pieces that said we should be the favorites playoffs last year.

 

last year was really a crap shoot in the nl. the cubs being the favorites was a defensible position; there's no way to know that the cub offense is going to collectively poop itself against pitchers who were, beyond brandon webb, pretty mediocre.

 

Wasn't trying to discredit it at all. Just pointing it out. It popped to mind since that was the last time I remembered hearing about the secret sauce.

 

I still think the Cubs were the better team. Granted, I'm biased, but they were.

[David]

Everyone gets shut down by good pitching and mashes bad/mediocre pitching. By definition.

[Ivy.n.Denver]

Everyone gets shut down by good pitching and mashes bad/mediocre pitching. By definition.

 

I guess I should have said good pitchers and mediocre pitchers...does that make any differnce for ya?

[David]

Everyone gets shut down by good pitching and mashes bad/mediocre pitching. By definition.

 

I guess I should have said good pitchers and mediocre pitchers...does that make any differnce for ya?

 

Not trying to be a jerk, but no?

 

 

Good pitchers tend to get hitters out more than mediocre and bad ones. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think it really means anything.

 

That said, if there's any anecdotal way to characterize Soriano, I'd say it's more like he mashes everybody when he's hot and is over-matched by just about everybody when he's cold.

 

He's been hot a lot more than cold this year, though.

[Ivy.n.Denver]

It unfortunate that he's been pretty much cold every post-season that he's played in with his .598 OPS over 160 ABs

 

You'd think he'd maybe get hot one of those Octobers

[TruffleShuffle]

It unfortunate that he's been pretty much cold every post-season that he's played in with his .598 OPS over 160 ABs

 

You'd think he'd maybe get hot one of those Octobers

 

well a lot of that is due to his performance in 2003, he went into a horrid slump and couldn't hit a beach ball. he struck out 20 times in 13 games and wasn't great on the rare occasion that he did hit the ball.

 

derrek lee's postseason numbers are also some cause for concern. but yeah, it's safe to say that if all the cubs' good hitters go into a slump like they did after the all star break, the cubs will not be long for the playoffs.

[Backtobanks]

Everyone gets shut down by good pitching and mashes bad/mediocre pitching. By definition.

 

I guess I should have said good pitchers and mediocre pitchers...does that make any differnce for ya?

 

Not trying to be a jerk, but no?

 

 

Good pitchers tend to get hitters out more than mediocre and bad ones. I know what you're trying to say, but I don't think it really means anything.

 

That said, if there's any anecdotal way to characterize Soriano, I'd say it's more like he mashes everybody when he's hot and is over-matched by just about everybody when he's cold.

 

He's been hot a lot more than cold this year, though.

 

Basically, good hitters hit pitchers' mistakes. The better the pitcher, the fewer mistakes. If pitchers didn't make mistakes, there wouldn't be many runs scored.

[David]

How many times have we lost 4/7 or 3/5 this year?

 

I know it's sort of hard to answer (given that, say, one 3 game losing streak = 3 "stretches" of 5 games with 3 losses), but it would be interesting to look at.

 

For the most part, outside of one or two stumbles, we've managed to avoid losing for any even remotely prolonged periods.

[otis89]

How many times have we lost 4/7 or 3/5 this year?

 

I know it's sort of hard to answer (given that, say, one 3 game losing streak = 3 "stretches" of 5 games with 3 losses), but it would be interesting to look at.

 

For the most part, outside of one or two stumbles, we've managed to avoid losing for any even remotely prolonged periods.

 

The Cubs have only been swept once this season, right?

[Slugger_16]

How many times have we lost 4/7 or 3/5 this year?

 

I know it's sort of hard to answer (given that, say, one 3 game losing streak = 3 "stretches" of 5 games with 3 losses), but it would be interesting to look at.

 

For the most part, outside of one or two stumbles, we've managed to avoid losing for any even remotely prolonged periods.

 

The Cubs have only been swept once this season, right?

 

Twice. The Rays and the White Sox did it.

[otis89]

How many times have we lost 4/7 or 3/5 this year?

 

I know it's sort of hard to answer (given that, say, one 3 game losing streak = 3 "stretches" of 5 games with 3 losses), but it would be interesting to look at.

 

For the most part, outside of one or two stumbles, we've managed to avoid losing for any even remotely prolonged periods.

 

The Cubs have only been swept once this season, right?

 

Twice. The Rays and the White Sox did it.

 

Oh, yeah. I forgot about the White Sox series, but that's probably a good thing.