14 Apr 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitCertainly that Series was an upset; the A's had won 103 games and were playing in their third World Series in a row. But that team was pretty reliant on the long ball; they were only 12th in the AL in team BA. Keep the ball in the park and you had a decent chance of beating them.
Funny that you typed rookies instead of Rockies because they were rookies.
I still contend that sweeps are flukes, but this one didn't surprise me as much since the favorite won the series.
The Reds were serious underdogs against they A's and then swept them, so that one was a shocker, despite whodey's protests otherwise.
But still the Reds had only won 91 games and had to be considered underdogs though there's always the "anybody can win a short series" cliche. But a sweep was a stunner.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by whodeyA chapter in the new "sports Freakonomics" book, Scorecasting, they spend a chapter exploding the myth that baseball is "all about pitching." Like every other sport and as you would expect logically if you hadn't heard all the trite meaningless cliches, winning baseball games, divisions, pennants and championships is almost exactly equally about offense on one hand and pitching/defense on the other. There is no statistical evidence of any kind that indicates that good pitching is any more important than good hitting.
That series was not a fluke. Baseball is all about pitching and that club was loaded with it.
Besides, the A's had better pitching than the Reds that year anyway.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by no1marauderThere's so much luck in baseball that virtually no result of a single series can really be described as a stunner.
Certainly that Series was an upset; the A's had won 103 games and were playing in their third World Series in a row. But that team was pretty reliant on the long ball; they were only 12th in the AL in team BA. Keep the ball in the park and you had a decent chance of beating them.
But still the Reds had only won 91 games and had to be cons ...[text shortened]... hough there's always the "anybody can win a short series" cliche. But a sweep was a stunner.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76The great Yogi Berra correctly verbalized baseball competitions when he said
A chapter in the new "sports Freakonomics" book, Scorecasting, they spend a chapter exploding the myth that baseball is "all about pitching." Like every other sport and as you would expect logically if you hadn't heard all the trite meaningless cliches, winning baseball games, divisions, pennants and championships is almost exactly equally about offense on one ...[text shortened]... han good hitting.
Besides, the A's had better pitching than the Reds that year anyway.
"Good pitching beats good hitting.....and vice-versa"
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76Perhaps not the final outcome, but there have been very few sweeps.
There's so much luck in baseball that virtually no result of a single series can really be described as a stunner.
And, when the underdog does the sweeping, such as the Reds vs the A's, then it is a stunner.
14 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76In 87 World Series before 1990, the team with the better record had been swept only 4 times and only once (1954) was the differential in games won greater than 1990. Only once before had a defending World Champion been swept in the Series (1966)(and that year the Orioles had a better record than the defending champ Dodgers).
There's so much luck in baseball that virtually no result of a single series can really be described as a stunner.
Statistically, it's a very unusual result to say the least. Moreover, two of the games were blowouts so "luck" wasn't as big a factor as in other Series.
15 Apr 11
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76If your ball club consistantly scores 20 runs a game then you don't need pitching. However, none will never be able to accomplish this.
A chapter in the new "sports Freakonomics" book, Scorecasting, they spend a chapter exploding the myth that baseball is "all about pitching." Like every other sport and as you would expect logically if you hadn't heard all the trite meaningless cliches, winning baseball games, divisions, pennants and championships is almost exactly equally about offense on one ...[text shortened]... han good hitting.
Besides, the A's had better pitching than the Reds that year anyway.
As I said, the Reds in 1975 was third in the league when it came to pitching, so clearly they had good pitching. The reason they were able to overcome only being good and not great was because of their offense.
The reason that pitching is often emphasized more than batting is, statistical consistancy. What is more likely? Is it more likely that the entire team will consistanty hit well or is it more likely that a hand full of pitchers will pitch well?
As for the Big Red Machine, perhaps they were a bit of an exception because they had consistant offense.
15 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThey're equally likely. To have a good offensive series, you need maybe 5 or 6 hitters to hit well. To pitch well, you need 5 or 6 pitchers to pitch well.
The reason that pitching is often emphasized more than batting is, statistical consistancy. What is more likely? Is it more likely that the entire team will consistanty hit well or is it more likely that a hand full of pitchers will pitch well?
In Scorecasting, they did a historical study of these things and determined that in a series that pits the better hitting team against the better pitching team, and accounting for the relative disparities, (surprise!) the better hitting team is appropriately 50% likely to win and the better pitching team has approximately a 50% chance of winning.
The tired cliches like "pitching is 80% of the game" "pitching and defense wins championships" etc. etc. are all baloney. In all sports, people love to extol how important defense is, but the data shows that defense and offense are almost universally of equal importance. This, of course, makes sense, as they're opposite sides of the same coin. My good pitching means your bad offense and vice versa.
Why do people love to do this? Maybe because good defense is less obvious than good offense and so coaches like to overcompensate. Maybe good defense takes more subtle effort and so is viewed by people are morally superior. I don't know. I'm not a psychoanalyst.
Michael Jordan, who was both a great offensive and great defensive player, but who loved to talk about defense, once had this to say regarding another of those cliches:
One game, he hit the last 7 shots and the team won the game. One of the coaches tsked at his performance and said "Michael, there's no "I" in team." Jordan replied 'No, but there's an "i" in "win." So, which way do you want it?
15 Apr 11
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIf that's true and since the Reds did sweep and 2 "worse" teams have done it since (the '99 Yankees and '04 Red Sox), that means that of the 20 World series sweeps, 7 of them (35%!) have been done by the team with the worse record.
In 87 World Series before 1990, the team with the better record had been swept only 4 times and only once (1954) was the differential in games won greater than 1990. Only once before had a defending World Champion been swept in the Series (1966)(and that year the Orioles had a better record than the defending champ Dodgers).
Statistically oreover, two of the games were blowouts so "luck" wasn't as big a factor as in other Series.
More telling still is that in the last 16 World Series (not including last year when both teams had identical records), the team with the better record is 5-11(!)
Chew on that for a moment.
15 Apr 11
Originally posted by sh76What's happened since 1990 is hardly relevant to how much of an upset the Series was in 1990.
If that's true and since the Reds did sweep and 2 "worse" teams have done it since (the '99 Yankees and '04 Red Sox), that means that of the 20 World series sweeps, 7 of them (35%!) have been done by the team with the worse record.
More telling still is that in the last 16 World Series (not including last year when both teams had identical records), the team with the better record is 5-11(!)
Chew on that for a moment.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by shortcircuitThings will even-out over the course of the 162 game season.
Reds are 9W 8L and tomorrow's starting pitcher is up on theft charges.
For God's sake, the Marlins are 9 and 6, just had a 2-hit shut out from JJ, over the Buckos who have the best hitting percentage in the NL on the road so far this early 😀.
Josh Johnson is one of the best pitchers not talked about recently. SHHHHhhhhhhh. let's keep it that way 😉
20 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by SmookiePSmooks, go back and read my comment stating exactly that when whodey was crowing about the Reds being undefeated and running away with the pennant.
Things will even-out over the course of the 162 game season.
For God's sake, the Marlins are 9 and 6, just had a 2-hit shut out from JJ, over the Buckos who have the best hitting percentage in the NL on the road so far this early 😀.
Josh Johnson is one of the best pitchers not talked about recently. SHHHHhhhhhhh. let's keep it that way 😉
07 Apr '11 14:50
Indeed!!
All I know is that my Reds are undefeated right now. They are not just winning, they are killling teams left and right and Shorty is no where to be seen.
Where did he go?
How long before JJ leaves the fish.....just as all the others have in the past?? 😛😉
20 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitDon't let the Reds fool you. Their recent inability to hit a baseball or pitch with ERA"s of 20 runs or more are simply designed to mislead you into a false conclusion. Obviously you fell for the ploy.
[b]Smooks, go back and read my comment stating exactly that when whodey was crowing about the Reds being undefeated and running away with the pennant.
Mwha, hahaha, mwahahahahahah!!