Twins confirm interest in signing pitchers Dallas Keuchel, Craig Kimbrel

[Mr. Brooks]

I'd argue each of those handfuls are that and you are wrongly lumping them together. It created the false sense of a pattern.

 

I too expect this team to be better and I too want them to add an ace an bullpen parts. I'm just not going to delude myself about the playoffs. The playoffs crown the World Series Championship. The 162 games decide the best teams.

You can't think it's random, and also want them to add talent for the playoffs. Those two views are at odds.

[TheLeviathan]

 

You can't think it's random, and also want them to add talent for the playoffs. Those two views are at odds.

 

This marks the third time you have confused small sample and random.  At this point, given your confusion on it, it doesn't seem like a conversation to continue.  

 

I will say this on the larger issue - I believe the run of playoff failures had more to do with the team's psychological make-up than anything else.  But being a team surviving the weakest division with less talent than the others didn't help.

 

This team has a much better edge to it.  It's already deep and talented.  It has the ingredients, which is why I'd invest in it.  Heavily.  It's why I'm disappointed about Kimbrel.  I'd be on the phone with the Giants every day about Smith and MadBum.

 

Because, how do you protect small sample flukes?  Well, you try to be as deep and talented as you can be to insulate yourself from perils of a small sample.  So adding talent is, really, your only way to do that.  However, the degree to which it can do that will always be more incremental than dramatic.  Still, I'll take increments when the opportunities are there.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Here are the last 6 World Series participants:

Red Sox/Dodgers
Astros/Dodgers
Indians/Cubs

 

I just have to point out the irony here is.....astounding.

[TheLeviathan]

And if you want to die on the hill of random....take it up with Harvard. 

 

What I think you mean is variability and, statistically speaking, baseball has a lot of it in the playoffs.

[Mr. Brooks]

I already stated that. I understand that small samples aren't "random", that's not my point. Max Kepler didn't "randomly" hit 3 home runs last night. But I'm going to go out on a limb and not draw any huge implications going forward either. Or in assessing Max Kepler. He had a helluva night. Drawing more conclusions than that (which you are) is the mistake.

 

That kind of sober approach to a small sample apparently is completely abandoned when people judge playoff performances. They say a team like the 116 win Mariners wasn't "as good" as the Yankees. No, they were probably better. They got beat in a small sample. If we could run that sample a hundred times perhaps the outcome is different more often than not.

 

Which goes to the Yankees - yes, it can happen. And did. It is a historical anomaly. It's much better explained by a combination of psychology, talent, and good fortune. Not as some massive pattern we can just "figure out" and magically win the next 10 championships.

I apologize for misunderstanding your argument, but nobody thinks there isn't variance and small sample size fluctuations in the playoffs, so I don't understand why you took up this argument if that wasn't your stance.

[Mr. Brooks]

I just have to point out the irony here is.....astounding.

I must be dense today because I have zero idea what you're hinting at here.

[Mr. Brooks]

And if you want to die on the hill of random....take it up with Harvard.

 

What I think you mean is variability and, statistically speaking, baseball has a lot of it in the playoffs.

Nothing in that article disputes my argument. I've never suggested there is no variance in the playoffs. Just that variance alone can't come close to explaining all of those consecutive Twins losses.

And I appreciate you now saying there were other factors, not sure why you didn't just say that from the start... because that's all that I was saying.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Nothing in that article disputes my argument. I've never suggested there is no variance in the playoffs. Just that variance alone can't come close to explaining all of those consecutive Twins losses.
And I appreciate you now saying there were other factors, not sure why you didn't just say that from the start... because that's all that I was saying.

 

Variance doesn't explain everything, certainly.  But it's a major factor that you have limited control over.

 

The post I took issue with said the playoffs are "not a crapshoot".  Well, what's a crapshoot?  If you argue that "crapshoot" means totally random thing you have no control over I'd suggest you aren't using the word "random" correctly and what you've said is mostly meaningless.  Your terms are wrong and you've basically made the equivalent of a one word strawman argument.

 

If what you mean by "crapshoot" is that it is subject to small sample variance, then there is only one correct answer:  Hell yes it's a crapshoot.  That is what most people mean, so the contention that it is not is simply not true.  We have data showing that.  

 

Now, lots of factors come into play in the playoffs.  Certainly talent disparities are a major part of that, but on the major league level those disparities are generally not that large.  Not enough to remove the tyranny of variance for sure.  There are intangibles that come into play as well.  So can you close those gaps?  Yup, for both talent and intangibles IMO.  You can even target players you think might specifically be valuable weapons against other particular teams.  But those changes are incremental because of how narrow the gap is and how powerful the variance can be. 

 

So, yeah, incrementally make this sucker better.  Playoffs are still a crapshoot though, so brace yourself,

[USAFChief]

 

Variance doesn't explain everything, certainly.  But it's a major factor that you have limited control over.

 

The post I took issue with said the playoffs are "not a crapshoot".  Well, what's a crapshoot?  If you argue that "crapshoot" means totally random thing you have no control over I'd suggest you aren't using the word "random" correctly and what you've said is mostly meaningless.  Your terms are wrong and you've basically made the equivalent of a one word strawman argument.

 

If what you mean by "crapshoot" is that it is subject to small sample variance, then there is only one correct answer:  Hell yes it's a crapshoot.  That is what most people mean, so the contention that it is not is simply not true.  We have data showing that.  

 

Now, lots of factors come into play in the playoffs.  Certainly talent disparities are a major part of that, but on the major league level those disparities are generally not that large.  Not enough to remove the tyranny of variance for sure.  There are intangibles that come into play as well.  So can you close those gaps?  Yup, for both talent and intangibles IMO.  You can even target players you think might specifically be valuable weapons against other particular teams.  But those changes are incremental because of how narrow the gap is and how powerful the variance can be. 

 

So, yeah, incrementally make this sucker better.  Playoffs are still a crapshoot though, so brace yourself,

You've just spent several paragraphs detailing why the playoffs aren't a crapshoot.

[Mr. Brooks]

Variance doesn't explain everything, certainly. But it's a major factor that you have limited control over.

 

The post I took issue with said the playoffs are "not a crapshoot". Well, what's a crapshoot? If you argue that "crapshoot" means totally random thing you have no control over I'd suggest you aren't using the word "random" correctly and what you've said is mostly meaningless. Your terms are wrong and you've basically made the equivalent of a one word strawman argument.

 

If what you mean by "crapshoot" is that it is subject to small sample variance, then there is only one correct answer: Hell yes it's a crapshoot. That is what most people mean, so the contention that it is not is simply not true. We have data showing that.

 

Now, lots of factors come into play in the playoffs. Certainly talent disparities are a major part of that, but on the major league level those disparities are generally not that large. Not enough to remove the tyranny of variance for sure. There are intangibles that come into play as well. So can you close those gaps? Yup, for both talent and intangibles IMO. You can even target players you think might specifically be valuable weapons against other particular teams. But those changes are incremental because of how narrow the gap is and how powerful the variance can be.

 

So, yeah, incrementally make this sucker better. Playoffs are still a crapshoot though, so brace yourself,

In not a linguistic expert, but doesn't crapshoot refer to the act of throwing dice? Wouldn't that be 100% random? When I hear that term, I think pure randomness, but perhaps I'm interpreting that term incorrectly.

And I don't think one person would ever say there is no variance in the playoffs, so even if it's being misused, I guess I don't understand who you are correcting if your argument is just that there is some variance in the playoffs?

[nicksaviking]

 

Presumably the Braves checked that before they agreed to give him $13 million.

 

88 MPH fastballs historically play better in the NL than they do the AL. 

 

Keuchel would also be feeding Sano grounders all day, which isn't usually the most optimal way to get outs.

[TheLeviathan]

 

In not a linguistic expert, but doesn't crapshoot refer to the act of throwing dice? Wouldn't that be 100% random? When I hear that term, I think pure randomness, but perhaps I'm interpreting that term incorrectly.
And I don't think one person would ever say there is no variance in the playoffs, so even if it's being misused, I guess I don't understand who you are correcting if your argument is just that there is some variance in the playoffs?

 

If one were to compare baseball (either as a crapshoot or not a crapshoot) in that sense.....would that be a rational use of the term?  Baseball isn't random like throwing dice, so I try to interpret the term with the best of intentions.  Go back and look at what Bob said that got this tangent rolling and I think his intent was pretty clear: you can add players but their effect size is rather minimal because of the variance factor.  That Levine can be justified by the numbers that dumping assets into acquisitions for playoff wins is unwise.

 

I sometimes agree and sometimes not with that last part.  I think that's what separates the best GMs.  What I do think is true is that the numbers do bear out that these sorts of midseason and playoff-focused acquisitions are not nearly as impactful as people think.  At least for the actual playoffs.  

 

But there is a subset of posters that will ignore the impact of playoff variance and overinflate the impact of trade acquisitions.  On that basis they claim "Not a crapshoot!" and on that basis they are most definitely wrong.

[Mr. Brooks]

If one were to compare baseball (either as a crapshoot or not a crapshoot) in that sense.....would that be a rational use of the term? Baseball isn't random like throwing dice, so I try to interpret the term with the best of intentions. Go back and look at what Bob said that got this tangent rolling and I think his intent was pretty clear: you can add players but their effect size is rather minimal because of the variance factor. That Levine can be justified by the numbers that dumping assets into acquisitions for playoff wins is unwise.

 

I sometimes agree and sometimes not with that last part. I think that's what separates the best GMs. What I do think is true is that the numbers do bear out that these sorts of midseason and playoff-focused acquisitions are not nearly as impactful as people think. At least for the actual playoffs.

 

But there is a subset of posters that will ignore the impact of playoff variance and overinflate the impact of trade acquisitions. On that basis they claim "Not a crapshoot!" and on that basis they are most definitely wrong.

The amount of variance involved is certainly up for debate, no doubt.

I happen to think it's less than others do, which is why I pointed out that all 6 of the last WS appearing teams were arguably the best regular season teams in their league. Which, BTW, I'm still waiting for you to let me in on the joke of why that is ironic.

It's possible that's just a coincidence, but I don't think it is. I think the best teams more often than not are the ones that end up making it to the WS.

[TheLeviathan]

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to let me in on the joke of why that is ironic.

 

You used a small sample.

[Mr. Brooks]

You used a small sample.

I don't think it's that small. Six teams times how many games each team played to make it that far (roughly 12 games each team) is a 72 game sample size.

We could go back further, and I'm confident the majority would be "deserving" teams. I just used three years because that is how long my memory goes back, didn't feel like researching.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Keuchel would also be feeding Sano grounders all day, which isn't usually the most optimal way to get outs.

Better than feeding him cheeseburgers!