Do the the new big bats change Cash's plan?

[poneil2321]

I don't recall the Giants relying too much on the HR in their 3 title runs.

[THEBOSS84]

I don't recall the Giants relying too much on the HR in their 3 title runs.

Bumgarner is pretttttty, prettty good.

[Yankee Tripper]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ml...ths-to-ignore/

I suggest everyone read at a minimum the sections titled

Myth: In the Land of Decreased Scoring, Small Ball Is King

Myth: Teams Without Aces Need Not Apply, and Pitching and Defense Win Championships



in the above link.

[awy]

i read a study upon which that section was based but i can't find the link now. it was prob a baseballprospectus thing

[Rollo_T]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ml...ths-to-ignore/

I suggest everyone read at a minimum the sections titled

Myth: In the Land of Decreased Scoring, Small Ball Is King

Myth: Teams Without Aces Need Not Apply, and Pitching and Defense Win Championships



in the above link.

That article is from 2014. I remember reading it.

Before that, I think Nate Silver tried to come up with the 'secret sauce' to winning in the postseason. His conclusion was that there was none. There's no statistical significance of winning one way or another.

It's not complicated. Just get into the postseason and try to get on a roll for that 3-week stretch of games.

[Bill Marsh]

That article is from 2014. I remember reading it.

Before that, I think Nate Silver tried to come up with the 'secret sauce' to winning in the postseason. His conclusion was that there was none. There's no statistical significance of winning one way or another.

It's not complicated. Just get into the postseason and try to get on a roll for that 3-week stretch of games.

Interesting article. One of its points is that it's hard to find any statistical indicator that correlates with postseason success other than that good teams during the regular season do better than not-so-good teams.

What I'd like to see is an analysis of postseason failures. The rule of good regular season teams doesn't hold for the Yankees 2004-12. Who was more successful during the regular season than the Yankees over that period? Except for 2009, who was a bigger postseason disappointment? It seems obvious to me that they didn't have the pitching to get it done in the postseason despite having a dominating offense year after year. Offense in baseball will inevitably struggle at times. Pitching and defense are more consistent in a short time span. A team that doesn't have the pitching to carry them when the bats go cold will inevitably be eliminated.

One of the flaws in the attempts to do the kind of postseason analysis that this article reports is the use of regular season stats as though they are a measure of a team's postseason pitching capabilities. They aren't. In the postseason, the 5th starter is dropped from the rotation entirely and the 4th starter is used sparingly. A pitcher who saw limited use during the regular season as a late season rookie call up or veteran returning from imjury may be a major factor in the postseason (Cone '96, Stottlemyre '64). The best arms in the pen are used more and the mediocre ones are used less. Managers make decisions like there is no tomorrow instead of managing fir 162 games. More off days affecte the use of both starters and relievers. It's just a different game as far as pitching is concerned.

[sjb23]

It's not complicated. Just get into the postseason and try to get on a roll for that 3-week stretch of games.

This is why I laugh when so many posters say a team is or isn't one player away from a championship caliber team, or they aren't good enough to get very far in October, etc. etc.

I am convinced that postseason baseball these days is a crapshoot. Just get in there, and you have a pretty good chance to win if you get hot and/or get some breaks.

[NerfBall55]

This is why I laugh when so many posters say a team is or isn't one player away from a championship caliber team, or they aren't good enough to get very far in October, etc. etc.

I am convinced that postseason baseball these days is a crapshoot. Just get in there, and you have a pretty good chance to win if you get hot and/or get some breaks.

Which is also why it's necessary to improve the team when you have a shot to make the playoffs, since there's no guarantee you'll be there the next year. Take a team like the Mets.....playoffs seemed like a lock preseason.

I think NY has the opportunity to deal from strength in the farm system to acquire a piece or two if they're in it at the ASB. This can be done without sacrificing the future and staying on track with the rebuild.

[Yankee Tripper]

Interesting article. One of its points is that it's hard to find any statistical indicator that correlates with postseason success other than that good teams during the regular season do better than not-so-good teams.

What I'd like to see is an analysis of postseason failures. The rule of good regular season teams doesn't hold for the Yankees 2004-12. Who was more successful during the regular season than the Yankees over that period? Except for 2009, who was a bigger postseason disappointment? It seems obvious to me that they didn't have the pitching to get it done in the postseason despite having a dominating offense year after year. Offense in baseball will inevitably struggle at times. Pitching and defense are more consistent in a short time span. A team that doesn't have the pitching to carry them when the bats go cold will inevitably be eliminated.

One of the flaws in the attempts to do the kind of postseason analysis that this article reports is the use of regular season stats as though they are a measure of a team's postseason pitching capabilities. They aren't. In the postseason, the 5th starter is dropped from the rotation entirely and the 4th starter is used sparingly. A pitcher who saw limited use during the regular season as a late season rookie call up or veteran returning from imjury may be a major factor in the postseason (Cone '96, Stottlemyre '64). The best arms in the pen are used more and the mediocre ones are used less. Managers make decisions like there is no tomorrow instead of managing fir 162 games. More off days affecte the use of both starters and relievers. It's just a different game as far as pitching is concerned.

The flip side is who had more dominant pitching in the 90 than the Braves yet managed to win just one WS.

[Bill Marsh]

The flip side is who had more dominant pitching in the 90 than the Braves yet managed to win just one WS.

Yes, but the Braves got to 5 World Series in 8 years in the '90's (not counting 1994) and were eliminated in the first round only once. I'd say they had a lot of success in the postseason in the '90's, just had trouble winning the big one other than '95. They also had the misfortune of facing one of the great dynasties in baseball history in 2 of those WS they lost. And it's not like they were losing to teams with bad pitching.

The Yankees got to just one World Series in 2004-12 and were eliminated in the first round 4 times. Not much postseason success in that era.

[Yankee Tripper]

Until I see some statistical evidence, I'm going to go with the hot team theory. And that hot team can wind up being any of the 10 that make it in.

[Zimmer's Helmet]

Until I see some statistical evidence, I'm going to go with the hot team theory. And that hot team can wind up being any of the 10 that make it in.

Except the hot team theory really doesn't explain teams like the 1996-2001 Yankees who were in the World Series every single year except for '97. There was clearly more to their success than simply being a hot team at the right time...

[Art Vanderlay]

The flip side is who had more dominant pitching in the 90 than the Braves yet managed to win just one WS.

The Braves had great starting pitching but their bullpen cost them dearly in the post season. As David Cone said, if they had Mariano Rivera instead of NYY, the Braves would have won 3-4 championships during the 90s.

[mbn007]

Except the hot team theory really doesn't explain teams like the 1996-2001 Yankees who were in the World Series every single year except for '97. There was clearly more to their success than simply being a hot team at the right time...

In fact,, in 2000, the Yankees entered the post-season as anything but a hot team. They had a horrible last 3 weeks of the season.

[Bill Marsh]

In fact,, in 2000, the Yankees entered the post-season as anything but a hot team. They had a horrible last 3 weeks of the season.

Calling that stretch "a horrible last 3 weeks of the season" is an insult to teams that actually had a horrible last 3 weeks of the season.

That was beyond horrible.

[NerfBall55]

Except the hot team theory really doesn't explain teams like the 1996-2001 Yankees who were in the World Series every single year except for '97. There was clearly more to their success than simply being a hot team at the right time...

It's a combination of skill, timing, and luck, IMO.

[mbn007]

Calling that stretch "a horrible last 3 weeks of the season" is an insult to teams that actually had a horrible last 3 weeks of the season.

That was beyond horrible.

Why? They only lost 15 of their last 18. And, if I remember correctly, they beat Detroit twice in a row, and the papers were full of stories how they finally straightened out the ship.


Then they proceeded to lose like 7 of their last 8 or something.

[Bill Marsh]

Why? They only lost 15 of their last 18. And, if I remember correctly, they beat Detroit twice in a row, and the papers were full of stories how they finally straightened out the ship.


Then they proceeded to lose like 7 of their last 8 or something.

I assume this post was tongue in cheek, but it's nice to hear from Brooklyn where I was born and grew up. How's things?

[mbn007]

I assume this post was tongue in cheek, but it's nice to hear from Brooklyn where I was born and grew up. How's things?

It was tongue-in-cheek. I can't put icons in my posts - something to do with the my companies security system here with their network.


Brooklyn is great. If one lives in a decent neighborhood here, you have everything that's available in Manhattan, at a lower cost. And I do mean everything.

[Bill Marsh]

It was tongue-in-cheek. I can't put icons in my posts - something to do with the my companies security system here with their network.


Brooklyn is great. If one lives in a decent neighborhood here, you have everything that's available in Manhattan, at a lower cost. And I do mean everything.

When I left Brooklyn in the '70's, Fort Green was the heroin capitol of the borough. It wasn't safe to even drive a car through the neighborhood for fear of getting car jacked. A brownstone could be had for $10,000. No joke.

When I revisited the Fort Green a few years ago, it had become a boutique neighborhood with sidewalk cafes and great restaurants. The kids from Pratt Institute are no long afraid to leave the campus. Brownstones are now selling in the millions. Great to see!

[mbn007]

When I left Brooklyn in the '70's, Fort Green was the heroin capitol of the borough. It wasn't safe to even drive a car through the neighborhood for fear of getting car jacked. A brownstone could be had for $10,000. No joke.

When I revisited the Fort Green a few years ago, it had become a boutique neighborhood with sidewalk cafes and great restaurants. The kids from Pratt Institute are no long afraid to leave the campus. Brownstones are now selling in the millions. Great to see!

It's not just Fort Greene. Parts of Williamsburg/Greenpoint, which were slums several years ago, have become havens for Artists, and the like. Real money was put in those areas to upgrade them.


Other areas, like Midwood for example, which was always a solid neighborhood, remain that way. Except that nice homes, on not large properties, are well over $1 million, and many are in the $3 million - $5 million range.

[Bill Marsh]

It's not just Fort Greene. Parts of Williamsburg/Greenpoint, which were slums several years ago, have become havens for Artists, and the like. Real money was put in those areas to upgrade them.


Other areas, like Midwood for example, which was always a solid neighborhood, remain that way. Except that nice homes, on not large properties, are well over $1 million, and many are in the $3 million - $5 million range.

Yeah, the artists have been driven out of the old lofts in Manhattan. Many have fled up the Hudson Valley to places like Beacon, Saugerties, and Hudson to live and work in their art. I know some. They then come into the city on weekends to show their works. Even Brooklyn is getting prohibitively expensive for some.

Midwood/Flatlands was my old stomping grounds. My wife was from Prospect Heights. I still have relatives & friends in Brooklyn and Queens, bringing me back regularly.

[Zimmer's Helmet]

Yeah, the artists have been driven out of the old lofts in Manhattan. Many have fled up the Hudson Valley to places like Beacon, Saugerties, and Hudson to live and work in their art. I know some. They then come into the city on weekends to show their works. Even Brooklyn is getting prohibitively expensive for some.

Midwood/Flatlands was my old stomping grounds. My wife was from Prospect Heights. I still have relatives & friends in Brooklyn and Queens, bringing me back regularly.

As someone who grew up on Long Island (Suffolk County) and spent a lot time in Brooklyn visiting family in the 70's/80's, I find myself shocked at the transformation due to gentrification.

I only make my way down to NYC maybe once a year now that I live north of the Adirondacks, so I find myself enjoying my visits to Brooklyn now - something I never thought I'd ever say.

[Art Vanderlay]

Yeah, the artists have been driven out of the old lofts in Manhattan. Many have fled up the Hudson Valley to places like Beacon, Saugerties, and Hudson to live and work in their art. I know some. They then come into the city on weekends to show their works. Even Brooklyn is getting prohibitively expensive for some.

Midwood/Flatlands was my old stomping grounds. My wife was from Prospect Heights. I still have relatives & friends in Brooklyn and Queens, bringing me back regularly.

Born and raised in the Gravesend section on the outskirts of Bensonhurst. Also go back regularly for family and friends,

[Bill Marsh]

Born and raised in the Gravesend section on the outskirts of Bensonhurst. Also go back regularly for family and friends,

My sister's right near Gravesend.