Joe's "predictions" are reminding me of the Sports Night episode "The Cutman Cometh":
Casey: How 'bout a prediction?
Chuck "Cutman" Kimmel: When it comes to the sweet science I'm not much on predictions, Casey, but I will say this: one of these fighters is gonna win this bout tonight and the other will almost surely not.
I wrote on an earlier article that I had bookmarked 94 writer's division and World Series predictions.
That is 564 division winners, and after the season is over they got 244 of those correct (2.6 out of 6, on average) Of the ones they missed, 136 of those picks are wild cards, and 184 (close to one third) of them did not make the playoffs.
76 of the 94 still have their champion alive, though. 43 Dodgers, 26 Blue Jays, 3 Yankees, 2 Braves, 1 Padre, 1 Rays.
That means no one picked the Astros (really? - they were my pick), Guardians, Mariners, Cardinals, Mets, or Phillies.
Bob Costas has said that before he dies, he always has wanted to ask a winning player who thanks God for making the victory possible, "Why do you think God hated the other team?"
Yeah I used to wonder – there have to be plenty of times where both the pitcher and the hitter are religious. Is God really up there saying “OK on this at bat … hmm … Fly out to left field, yes, F7.” Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God and I believe he cares about us. Just not sure he spends his time determining the outcome of baseball games.
What constitutes "a very real chance" is up for debate, but thinking through the Dodgers versus the Nationals in a three-game series in LA more reassures me about three-game playoffs than otherwise. Granted, a match-up this lopsided is hardly the norm. The Dodgers are a .685 team this year. You put them against a .340 team, and then put them at home, I'm guessing they're an .800 team. The chance that an .800 team would win a three-game series is .896.
I was more surprised to see Matt Olson that near the top of the leaderboard for home runs since 2018 than Eugenio Suarez. But his home run totals since 2018 are 29, 36.14, 39, 34, so o.k. His best league rank was 5th with those 39. 2017 was actually the year Olson was uncanny with 24 HR in 189 AB. Suarez had that 49-HR season, so I'm less likely to overlook him.
The surprising stat I keep telling everyone is that Pete Alonso's .260 average was the lowest ever for someone who hit 50 or more home runs (double checking, it's actually less than a point lower than Jose Bautista in 2010, who went .260 54). But this alerts us to how one-of-a-kind Schwarber's season seems to be. He hit .218 with 46 HR. The lowest average ever for someone with 43 or more HR was Curtis Granderson's 232 43 in 2012. So Schwarber really blew that out of the water. The general principle seems to be that the more home runs you hit, the more remarkable a low batting average is, contrary to what people might typically think. I guess it's all about BAbip. .240 for Schwarber this season.
But it's not just the Nats! The *other* worst team in the NL beat the Dodgers 2 of 3 in Pittsburgh, and 3 of 3 in LA.
In other words, LA played 4 series this year against 100-game losers and only won one of them.
Wait, I just checked; they swept the Reds over 7 games (CIN came on strong to lose 100, losing 20 of 27). But the point stands: a 111-game winner went 3-3 in 3-game series against terrible teams.
But isn't that just a coincidence? Why would you honor that and not math? This "study" also has the weakness of sample size that is the weakness of three-game series.
In thinking about it, my point is flawed, however. The reason the Dodgers would be so favored against the Nats has to do with their advantage in any one game. Doing more math, three-game series don't lend a lot of clarity. Writing in a .530 advantage for a team, over a three-game series this team should just win 54.5% of the time. So I think the case for three-game series versus a single game would be very weak, if it weren't for the fact that putting different starting pitchers out there does make things more fair, more representative.
If we want to see the best team win (and that team is marked by the team with home field advantage), home field advantage's key role in effecting this also becomes clear. Home field advantage alone was worth a 53-47 edge in 2022. Having home field for one game would produce more formful results than playing three games on a neutal site versus playing one: that only increases the advantage from 53% to 54.5%. Anyway, a lot to thing about.....
Oh, of course it's a coincidence, I'm just saying that this year demonstrates just how poorly short series advantage even clearly superior teams.
I agree with all your other stuff. It's always been a devil's bargain for MLB to add playoff rounds, since it just adds more short series in which inferior teams can get hot/lucky.
As a Pirates fan, I've spent a lot of time thinking about more fair Wild Card scenarios (as you can imagine); I never actually thought they'd have the guts to give one team 3 home games, and I do love that. But as both a Mets and Pirates fan, I wish they'd never added a second WC at all.
You’ve found a way to up your prediction game for the postseason - 100% accuracy instead of that measly 98.6% from the Poscast season preview.
If I don’t have a rooting interest in a series, the out of the blue unexpected great performance is just what I’m hoping to see. The guy nobody wanted or thought could do anything getting the big hit or the game saving play in the field, or the guy everyone thought was ok/good making like 2004 Carlos Beltran, or the reliever who suddenly nobody can touch - that’s what I’m hoping for.
Maybe for the next round, a happiness thing like you’ve been doing for the NFL?
Well if the Guardians make the next round, the happiness thing doesn’t have much meaning for Joe. The Guardians are his boyhood team and so happiness scale would be terribly one sided.
Yes, especially since I see now that they would face the Yankees. Would only be interesting if he didn’t stick to a strict -4 to +4 scale. Maybe have 50 positive points and 50 negative points and divide them up however he chooses?
Although the Padres haven't played in a playoff series that mattered since 2006, I want to throw a little love towards the 2007 play-in game (and Game 163s in general - bring them back!) against Colorado. What a finish that was! Was Matt Holliday out? Was Holliday safe? He was safe. But did he touch the plate? Yogi Berra says Jackie Robinson was out on that famous steal of home but it doesn't matter. Plus, remember Josh "Dragonslayer" Fogg, who was rather unremarkable most of the time but always seemed to get the win when the opposing pitcher was an ace? Well, he didn't pitch all that well in this game, but neither did Padres starter Jake Peavy, so he at least wrestled the "dragon" to a draw if not slayed it. I watched this mostly on TV at a bar in Williamsburg, Brooklyn called The Turkey's Nest, just off McCarren Park. They used to sell 32oz Budweisers in styrofoam to-go cups with lids and straws. A fine arrangement! I wonder if they still do, in the Williamsburg of today...
Isn't that the same as "refuses to say"? Not sure of his exact quote you're referring to. I do recall in the aftermath the Padres' catcher saying "If Tim McClelland says he touched the plate, then he touched the plate." Not sure if he was complimenting McClelland's general ability as an ump or just being fatalistic in the age before replay.
One could describe either of those as "He refused to say he touched the plate." But in neither does he say he DIDN'T touch the plate, which I think is what you were originally implying.
I had sort of half-jokingly projected Eugenio Suarez to challenge Roger Maris in 2020. His HR totals the previous 5 seasons went: 13 - 21 - 26 - 34 - 49 and if you draw a trend line it came out right around 62 for the following season. Alas, he got hurt in spring training and then there was a pandemic or something, so it was never realized.
I'm a Mariners fan, and when we got Winker from the Reds, Suarez was the guy we had to take because of his big contract (and the Reds being super cheap). So of course Winker has a terrible year and Suarez was a gem. Go figure.
Craig, once again it’s so hard to predict in baseball. I too thought Winker was going to be the big add, and he just never got going. If he can get back to his old ways next year, the Mariners could really be good. Or, in keeping with Joe’s theme, maybe not
By far, he has batted leadoff more than any other position in the Batting Order. (1107 plate appearances vs. the next most, which is 6th at 559). The Cubs batted him leadoff a lot. Weirdly, his OBP is only .320 batting leadoff in his career whereas overall it is .339.
The Nationals batted him lead off before they traded him at their mid-season fire sale last season. Overall, in 117 PAs at the leadoff position in 2021, Schwarber slashed an astounding 297/.385/.832.
Is it just me, or is it weird to think of the '86 Mets as young? I mean, obviously Doc and Straw were still young and they had kids like Dykstra and Kevin Mitchell, but in my head all I see are Hernandez, Knight, Carter, Mookie, etc.
See below but also Backman was 26, HoJo was 25, Santana was 28, Teufel was 27, Danny Heep was 28. Backup catcher Ed Hearn was 25 (as a Royals fan I just shudder at his name). 21 year old Kevin Elster and 23 year old Dave Magadan got a few ABs.
That shocked me too. I guess their pitching staff had to be a big part of that. In addition to Gooden (21) their rotation has Sid Fernandez (23), Rick Aguilera (24), Ron Darling (25) and Bob Ojeda (28). Roger McDowell was 25, and even Jesse Orosco, who in my memory pitched 37 seasons all at age 43, was only 29.
Good point, because I also would've lumped Orosco and Ojeda in with the old guys even though they evidently weren't. How did that team not become a dynasty?
A little more seriously, in '87 they had all-time bad injury luck in the rotation and *still* almost made the playoffs, then in '88 they were almost as good as in '86, but lost to the Dodgers in a short playoff series. By '89 Carter & Hernandez were part timers, and the FO did a bad job of adding (Samuel & Jefferies busted).
And, tbh, the clubhouse was toxic in a lot of ways, and that might not matter in the short term, but I think the bill comes due, as evidenced by the way Jefferies was treated.
Also crazy that the 1986 team is the only time the Mets have won more than the 101 games they won this year, yet because of the Braves series last week it feels like a big let down.
Wow! After the first day of games, Joe is on track for a 100% accurate prediction of the winners!
I was going to make this joke… Apparently we all think alike
Joe's "predictions" are reminding me of the Sports Night episode "The Cutman Cometh":
Casey: How 'bout a prediction?
Chuck "Cutman" Kimmel: When it comes to the sweet science I'm not much on predictions, Casey, but I will say this: one of these fighters is gonna win this bout tonight and the other will almost surely not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdID_lAV2aE
I wrote on an earlier article that I had bookmarked 94 writer's division and World Series predictions.
That is 564 division winners, and after the season is over they got 244 of those correct (2.6 out of 6, on average) Of the ones they missed, 136 of those picks are wild cards, and 184 (close to one third) of them did not make the playoffs.
76 of the 94 still have their champion alive, though. 43 Dodgers, 26 Blue Jays, 3 Yankees, 2 Braves, 1 Padre, 1 Rays.
That means no one picked the Astros (really? - they were my pick), Guardians, Mariners, Cardinals, Mets, or Phillies.
These are really a fun set of series. So much fun reading about the teams.
My no- BS review of this blog post? I give it 5 stars.
Thanks Joe.
P.S. I also give the comments so far 5 stars as a group. A diverse set of trivia- I mean important baseball knowledge and opinion.
Actually, the team that will win is the team that really wants to win and comes to play.
It’s actually going to be the team that has that one player that decides he is NOT GOING TO LET HIS TEAM LOSE!
Love it. Like one team doesn't want to win!
Bob Costas has said that before he dies, he always has wanted to ask a winning player who thanks God for making the victory possible, "Why do you think God hated the other team?"
Yeah I used to wonder – there have to be plenty of times where both the pitcher and the hitter are religious. Is God really up there saying “OK on this at bat … hmm … Fly out to left field, yes, F7.” Don’t get me wrong, I believe in God and I believe he cares about us. Just not sure he spends his time determining the outcome of baseball games.
What constitutes "a very real chance" is up for debate, but thinking through the Dodgers versus the Nationals in a three-game series in LA more reassures me about three-game playoffs than otherwise. Granted, a match-up this lopsided is hardly the norm. The Dodgers are a .685 team this year. You put them against a .340 team, and then put them at home, I'm guessing they're an .800 team. The chance that an .800 team would win a three-game series is .896.
I was more surprised to see Matt Olson that near the top of the leaderboard for home runs since 2018 than Eugenio Suarez. But his home run totals since 2018 are 29, 36.14, 39, 34, so o.k. His best league rank was 5th with those 39. 2017 was actually the year Olson was uncanny with 24 HR in 189 AB. Suarez had that 49-HR season, so I'm less likely to overlook him.
The surprising stat I keep telling everyone is that Pete Alonso's .260 average was the lowest ever for someone who hit 50 or more home runs (double checking, it's actually less than a point lower than Jose Bautista in 2010, who went .260 54). But this alerts us to how one-of-a-kind Schwarber's season seems to be. He hit .218 with 46 HR. The lowest average ever for someone with 43 or more HR was Curtis Granderson's 232 43 in 2012. So Schwarber really blew that out of the water. The general principle seems to be that the more home runs you hit, the more remarkable a low batting average is, contrary to what people might typically think. I guess it's all about BAbip. .240 for Schwarber this season.
But it's not just the Nats! The *other* worst team in the NL beat the Dodgers 2 of 3 in Pittsburgh, and 3 of 3 in LA.
In other words, LA played 4 series this year against 100-game losers and only won one of them.
Wait, I just checked; they swept the Reds over 7 games (CIN came on strong to lose 100, losing 20 of 27). But the point stands: a 111-game winner went 3-3 in 3-game series against terrible teams.
But isn't that just a coincidence? Why would you honor that and not math? This "study" also has the weakness of sample size that is the weakness of three-game series.
In thinking about it, my point is flawed, however. The reason the Dodgers would be so favored against the Nats has to do with their advantage in any one game. Doing more math, three-game series don't lend a lot of clarity. Writing in a .530 advantage for a team, over a three-game series this team should just win 54.5% of the time. So I think the case for three-game series versus a single game would be very weak, if it weren't for the fact that putting different starting pitchers out there does make things more fair, more representative.
If we want to see the best team win (and that team is marked by the team with home field advantage), home field advantage's key role in effecting this also becomes clear. Home field advantage alone was worth a 53-47 edge in 2022. Having home field for one game would produce more formful results than playing three games on a neutal site versus playing one: that only increases the advantage from 53% to 54.5%. Anyway, a lot to thing about.....
Oh, of course it's a coincidence, I'm just saying that this year demonstrates just how poorly short series advantage even clearly superior teams.
I agree with all your other stuff. It's always been a devil's bargain for MLB to add playoff rounds, since it just adds more short series in which inferior teams can get hot/lucky.
As a Pirates fan, I've spent a lot of time thinking about more fair Wild Card scenarios (as you can imagine); I never actually thought they'd have the guts to give one team 3 home games, and I do love that. But as both a Mets and Pirates fan, I wish they'd never added a second WC at all.
The Mets also got Carlos Carrasco in the Lindor deal, which has added a ton of value to the back end of the rotation.
You’ve found a way to up your prediction game for the postseason - 100% accuracy instead of that measly 98.6% from the Poscast season preview.
If I don’t have a rooting interest in a series, the out of the blue unexpected great performance is just what I’m hoping to see. The guy nobody wanted or thought could do anything getting the big hit or the game saving play in the field, or the guy everyone thought was ok/good making like 2004 Carlos Beltran, or the reliever who suddenly nobody can touch - that’s what I’m hoping for.
Maybe for the next round, a happiness thing like you’ve been doing for the NFL?
Well if the Guardians make the next round, the happiness thing doesn’t have much meaning for Joe. The Guardians are his boyhood team and so happiness scale would be terribly one sided.
Yes, especially since I see now that they would face the Yankees. Would only be interesting if he didn’t stick to a strict -4 to +4 scale. Maybe have 50 positive points and 50 negative points and divide them up however he chooses?
Exactly what I was going to say. The other 10 teams may fit on a -5 to +5 scale, but the Guardians and the Yanks are on a whole other level.
Although the Padres haven't played in a playoff series that mattered since 2006, I want to throw a little love towards the 2007 play-in game (and Game 163s in general - bring them back!) against Colorado. What a finish that was! Was Matt Holliday out? Was Holliday safe? He was safe. But did he touch the plate? Yogi Berra says Jackie Robinson was out on that famous steal of home but it doesn't matter. Plus, remember Josh "Dragonslayer" Fogg, who was rather unremarkable most of the time but always seemed to get the win when the opposing pitcher was an ace? Well, he didn't pitch all that well in this game, but neither did Padres starter Jake Peavy, so he at least wrestled the "dragon" to a draw if not slayed it. I watched this mostly on TV at a bar in Williamsburg, Brooklyn called The Turkey's Nest, just off McCarren Park. They used to sell 32oz Budweisers in styrofoam to-go cups with lids and straws. A fine arrangement! I wonder if they still do, in the Williamsburg of today...
Matt Holliday refuses to say he touched the plate, which is all you need to know.
The ump said he did, and that is the only one that matters.
You think?
I don't think Matt Holiday has any idea whether he touched it or not, nor does anyone else. It was that close.
Then he'd say just that, wouldn't he?
Isn't that the same as "refuses to say"? Not sure of his exact quote you're referring to. I do recall in the aftermath the Padres' catcher saying "If Tim McClelland says he touched the plate, then he touched the plate." Not sure if he was complimenting McClelland's general ability as an ump or just being fatalistic in the age before replay.
He refuses to say that he touched the plate. He doesn't say he doesn't know if he touched it or not. Those are two different things, no?
Not necessarily.
Q: Did you touch the plate?
A: I don't know.
Q: Can you positively say you touched the plate?
A: No. I don't know if I did or not.
One could describe either of those as "He refused to say he touched the plate." But in neither does he say he DIDN'T touch the plate, which I think is what you were originally implying.
I had sort of half-jokingly projected Eugenio Suarez to challenge Roger Maris in 2020. His HR totals the previous 5 seasons went: 13 - 21 - 26 - 34 - 49 and if you draw a trend line it came out right around 62 for the following season. Alas, he got hurt in spring training and then there was a pandemic or something, so it was never realized.
But some of us KNEW! ;-)
I'm a Mariners fan, and when we got Winker from the Reds, Suarez was the guy we had to take because of his big contract (and the Reds being super cheap). So of course Winker has a terrible year and Suarez was a gem. Go figure.
Craig, once again it’s so hard to predict in baseball. I too thought Winker was going to be the big add, and he just never got going. If he can get back to his old ways next year, the Mariners could really be good. Or, in keeping with Joe’s theme, maybe not
Didn’t the RedSox also bat Schwarber leadoff when he was there? (Maybe my memory’s faulty.)
It’s not just the Phillies who’d bat him leadoff—it’s any team that doesn’t have a leadoff hitter…but it does especially fit the Phillies…
By far, he has batted leadoff more than any other position in the Batting Order. (1107 plate appearances vs. the next most, which is 6th at 559). The Cubs batted him leadoff a lot. Weirdly, his OBP is only .320 batting leadoff in his career whereas overall it is .339.
The Nationals batted him lead off before they traded him at their mid-season fire sale last season. Overall, in 117 PAs at the leadoff position in 2021, Schwarber slashed an astounding 297/.385/.832.
Wow.
Love what you said about Julio but he hit 28 HRs and stole 25 bases, not the other way around.
Hmm, who will win the playoffs either the Mudville Mudhens or the Sonoma Stompers!!!
Is it just me, or is it weird to think of the '86 Mets as young? I mean, obviously Doc and Straw were still young and they had kids like Dykstra and Kevin Mitchell, but in my head all I see are Hernandez, Knight, Carter, Mookie, etc.
See below but also Backman was 26, HoJo was 25, Santana was 28, Teufel was 27, Danny Heep was 28. Backup catcher Ed Hearn was 25 (as a Royals fan I just shudder at his name). 21 year old Kevin Elster and 23 year old Dave Magadan got a few ABs.
That shocked me too. I guess their pitching staff had to be a big part of that. In addition to Gooden (21) their rotation has Sid Fernandez (23), Rick Aguilera (24), Ron Darling (25) and Bob Ojeda (28). Roger McDowell was 25, and even Jesse Orosco, who in my memory pitched 37 seasons all at age 43, was only 29.
I agree with every part of this
Good point, because I also would've lumped Orosco and Ojeda in with the old guys even though they evidently weren't. How did that team not become a dynasty?
TOO MUCH COKE.
A little more seriously, in '87 they had all-time bad injury luck in the rotation and *still* almost made the playoffs, then in '88 they were almost as good as in '86, but lost to the Dodgers in a short playoff series. By '89 Carter & Hernandez were part timers, and the FO did a bad job of adding (Samuel & Jefferies busted).
And, tbh, the clubhouse was toxic in a lot of ways, and that might not matter in the short term, but I think the bill comes due, as evidenced by the way Jefferies was treated.
Also crazy that the 1986 team is the only time the Mets have won more than the 101 games they won this year, yet because of the Braves series last week it feels like a big let down.
Glasnow is a righty.
Julio Rodriguez doesn't need to be vaccinated, Canada dropped the mandate on October 1st. The US, however, still enforces that for non-Americans, btw.