Re: Twins now in 2nd
John Poutre
news:v211f2pkr73c8dmud...@4ax.com...
> Twins overtook Sox last night for 2nd place. So with the latest update
> on playing .500 ball?
>
> If the Tigers go 17-16 in their last 33 games, the Twins would need to
> go 24-11 in their last 35 games to overtake us.
>
> That means Detroit could play .515 ball and the Twins would have to
> play .685 ball.
>
> Still looks good.........IF we start playing good again. Hopefully
> this is just a team slump that every team goes thru and we'll get back
> on track and SOON.
>
>
Last night does not panic me as Sowers has been pitching very well. So we
hit a hot young starter. BUT now the Tigers must take the next 2, should
take the next 2.
Bill Kawalec
"John Poutre" <mehat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hw3Ig.4552$xk3.2589@dukeread07...
well, they do need to put together a few wins, and soon. problem is, they're
not doing what the Indians did to them tonight, i.e. score some runs in the
frame after the other team has scored against you. They're not putting up
runs late in the game anymore, and they racked up a lot of wins early on
doing just that.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
John Poutre
news:ZoednSQaIPsQnmzZ...@comcast.com...
I agree but tonight is more troubling to me. I didn't see the game, but
Verlander got rocked. I hope it was just a fluke. They are in a bit of a
funk, which is not good with the Yankees coming up.
Thank god they have a pretty easy Sept. schedule overall.
S. Smith
>Twins overtook Sox last night for 2nd place. So with the latest update
>on playing .500 ball?
>
>If the Tigers go 17-16 in their last 33 games, the Twins would need to
>go 24-11 in their last 35 games to overtake us.
>
>That means Detroit could play .515 ball and the Twins would have to
>play .685 ball.
Not that unreasonable for the Twins to do, given the way they
have been playing lately. Especially now that we're going to
the 40 man rosters next week.
I would worry more about the Tigers being able to play .515 ball
the rest of the way. Also, not that unreasonable considering the
way the Tigers have been playing this season.
>Still looks good.........IF we start playing good again. Hopefully
>this is just a team slump that every team goes thru and we'll get back
>on track and SOON.
We'll see. That upcoming four game series with the Twins in
Minneapolis sure looks to be a very interesting one. I'll be there
for at least three of those four games...and I'm really looking forward
to it. Should be some very entertaining baseball.
Good luck to your Tigers...and Go Twins!!! ;-)
- Scott Smith: sc...@sludgereport.org
Book Blog: http://scottsbooks.blogspot.com
Blue States Rising: http://www.bluestaterising.blogspot.com
Bill Kawalec
"John Poutre" <mehat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xe8Ig.4572$xk3.2698@dukeread07...
Frankly, I think they can still outpitch the Yankees.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
John Poutre
Yes, but not outhit them.
Monkey
"John Poutre" <mehat...@gmail.com> wrote:
I was listening to the game on Cleveland Radio. It was brutal. Between
fading in and out of reception, the fifth inning and the Cleveland
announcers being able to call one of the Indian's season highlights ---
I am surprised I didn't drive off I-90 to a ditch (willingly).
For the life of me I couldn't figure out why we keep leaving young
pitchers in situations that the Tigers say they are not.
Sure Verlander had the volecity, but if you are trying to control pitch
counts and innings pitched.... why not pull him when he got to 90
pitches, when we still had a chance.
well doesn't kill ya, makes for a good story
monk
chew 'em up Tigers
Bill Kawalec
can't disagree, so, the remaining question, which may not be answered until
october, is whether they need to do both.
Bill Kawalec
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:03 -0400, "Bill Kawalec"
> <billk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Frankly, I think they can still outpitch the Yankees.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but not outhit them.
>>
>>
>>can't disagree, so, the remaining question, which may not be answered
>>until
>>october, is whether they need to do both.
>
>
> every time?"
> I never did agree with that. A good hitting team like the Yankees can
> beat just about any pitcher. They may give up 7 runs, but they can
> score 10.
I disagree with the "every." I'd be more inclined to say something like
"Good pitching will give you an advantage."
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> Brian
Monkey
Brian Matthews <noone...@ddd.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:03 -0400, "Bill Kawalec"
> <billk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Frankly, I think they can still outpitch the Yankees.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, but not outhit them.
> >
> >
> >can't disagree, so, the remaining question, which may not be answered until
> >october, is whether they need to do both.
>
>
> Yeah, that old baseball expression "Good pitching beats good hitting
> every time?"
> I never did agree with that. A good hitting team like the Yankees can
> beat just about any pitcher. They may give up 7 runs, but they can
> score 10.
>
> Brian
If they do it right, which they usually do...
That is, the Tigers when they show a little patience, will work a
pitcher so that in the sixth inning the pitcher is above 100 pitches and
then the Tigers look for chinks in the armor
as I said, the Yankers seem to make it an art form
monkey
chew 'em up
John Poutre
I do think that more times than not, great pitching beats great hitting.
But the Yankees can just plain hit. That will be a challenge for the
Tigers, not so much now, but when the pressure is on in the playoffs if they
face them.
powr...@aol.com
> Brian Matthews wrote:
> Twins overtook Sox last night for 2nd place. So with the latest update
> on playing .500 ball?
>
> If the Tigers go 17-16 in their last 33 games, the Twins would need to
> go 24-11 in their last 35 games to overtake us.
>
> That means Detroit could play .515 ball and the Twins would have to
> play .685 ball.
Doesn't look like a problem for the Twins. They have been playing .688
ball since June. Their remaining schedule:
EASY
7 games at home vs. KC
3 at Tampa Bay
3 at Baltimore
4 at Cleveland
Out of those seventeen games, I say they win 12 of them.
NOT EASY
3 at NY Yankees
4 at home vs. Tigers
3 at home vs. Oakland
3 at Boston
3 at home vs. White Sox (last three games of the year)
Out of those sixteen games, I say they win 10 of them, including 3 out
of 4 from Detroit.
This would put the Twins at 98-64.
Tigers remaining schedule:
3 at NY Yankees
3 at home vs. Angels
3 at home vs. Mariners
4 at Minnesota
2 at home vs. Texas
3 at home vs. Baltimore
3 at White Sox
1 at Baltimore
3 at KC
3 at home vs. Toronto
3 at home vs. KC
Do you see 16 wins in there? If so, it would put the Tigers at 98-64.
Based on head-to-head matchups Detroit would take the AL Central.
brink
<powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156774532....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
So tough to say. Detroit has been in a death spiral for the last several
weeks frittering away a massive lead while a hotshot young upstart team in
the division that started poorly is closing the gap at a sprint... but does
that remind you of anything by chance? Hint: 2005 AL Central, White Sox and
Indians... and we all know how that turned out.
My guess is that the end result will be like you predicted, Alan. Detroit
will likely take the division. Minny's REAL race is for the WC, and the way
things appear today it seems that this is more or less a 2-team competition
between Twins and ChiSox, with Boston hanging around as a dark horse. It is
definitely worth noting the three teams's records since the ASB:
MIN 29-15
CHI 19-23
BOS 18-26
I'll also throw in:
NY 27-16
OAK 29-13
Fortunately for the Twins, the two teams still in the race have both really
tripped up since the break, mainly because of pitching breakdowns -- which
is *exactly* what the Twins are going through. Difference is, the Twins
have still been mainly winning, almost inexplicably, but that takes away
credit from the offense, Johan, Radke, and the bullpen, all of which have
been very, very good.
The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each head-to-head
is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the net
difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent and
winning.
brink
fungod
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lgp0pF...@individual.net...
The Tigers are up 5 now. They were up 5 a month ago. What was their
"massive" lead several week ago? Six? Six and a half? And now they've
frittered it away from a massive six to miniscule five? HOLY SHIT THE SKY IS
FALLING!! DEATH SPIRAL!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!
Get a grip.
John A Witzke
It's just an "old baseball expression" I don't agree with it either.
Even the greatest pitchers lose sometimes. But I've heard that
expression a million times and even though I don't agree with it, it
does exist.
==================================
the adage rings true as can be over the course of hundreds of
games...it's simple math really...what does the average hitter
hit?...let's say, for the purpose of argument, .280, with a .340
OBP...that means 640! times out of 1000 the average MLB hitter isn't
reaching base...when facing *good* pitching, those numbers go down even
further...predicting what will happen over the course of just a 3 game
regular season series or a 7 game post-season series is a whole
different bowl of pudding...therein lies one of the #1 reasons you see
casinos being built, not torn down
brink
"fungod" <throwinglig...@yourhead.org> wrote in message
news:1QHIg.23942$uH6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Methinks he doth protest too much.
brink
brink
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <br...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each head-to-head
>>is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the net
>>difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent
>>and
>>winning.
>>
>>brink
>
>
I respectfully disagree; if the Twins and White Sox have identical records
heading into the last game of the season with the Tigers already clinching
the division and Minny and Chicago essentially playing for all the marbles
of the wild card berth, then I submit that the last game of the season will
by far be the most importnat game of the season.
It's the same principle of high-leverage vs. low-leverage runs and outs in a
game and why closers have the most important outs and runs to deal with,
even though they aren't "worth more."
>
> When the Tigers won yesterday, the Twins lost. We extended our lead by
> a game, same as if we played them and won. At the end of the year,
> it's the team with the most wins that wins the division. Just ask
> Bill, he'll explain it better. (this is NOT a slam at you Bill, I see
> your point now. If only the Tigs could have swept the Indians......)
I agree, but when you play your #1 rival and biggest threat to your goal,
whether that's winning the division or making the playoffs, you have a
unique opportunity to not only add a win to your total, but to add a loss to
theirs, thereby gaining a whole game advantage in the standings. This is
quite different from winning and then having to rely on an opponent doing
the favor of taking a game from them.
Also, it's more than that -- you have the opportunity to prevent your
opponent from doing the same to you, which is where the 2-game swing comes
in. It's why the 5-game sweep of NY over BOS was so devastating; had all
five games gone the other way (unlikely but of course possible) the face of
the AL East race looks *completely* different right now with the Yankees
likely not making the postseason rather than Boston. Instead of a 6.5 game
lead for NYY at the conclusion of the series, it would've been a 3.5 lead
for BOS. That's a heck of a lot of difference for just five games played.
brink
brink
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:15:07 -0700, "brink" <br...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>I respectfully disagree; if the Twins and White Sox have identical records
>>heading into the last game of the season with the Tigers already clinching
>>the division and Minny and Chicago essentially playing for all the marbles
>>of the wild card berth, then I submit that the last game of the season
>>will
>>by far be the most importnat game of the season.
>
>
> month. Those games were JUST as important. If either team had beat
> K.C. just 2 more times, that last "most important" game would be
> meaningless.
>
> Thus......each and every game has the same importance.
>
> Like I said, if it takes 99 wins to win a division, it doesn't matter
> whom they come against. The Twins could go 0-19 against Chicago and
> still walk away with the division title.
Sure. And a guy who hits with a .189/.211/.287 line could just so happen to
get all his hits close and late with RISP and have 30 game winning RBIs.
How likely do you suppose that is to happen?
brink
Bill Kawalec
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <br...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the net
>>difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent
>>and
>>winning.
>>
>>brink
>
>
A win in April counts as much as a win in September.
:-)
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> When the Tigers won yesterday, the Twins lost. We extended our lead by
> a game, same as if we played them and won. At the end of the year,
> it's the team with the most wins that wins the division. Just ask
> Bill, he'll explain it better. (this is NOT a slam at you Bill, I see
> your point now. If only the Tigs could have swept the Indians......)
>
>
> Brian
Bill Kawalec
"fungod" <throwinglig...@yourhead.org> wrote in message
news:1QHIg.23942$uH6....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
They did actually have the lead up to 9 1/2 or 10. Don't ask me when. I
don't feel like looking it up.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>
> "Brian Matthews" <noone...@ddd.com> wrote in message
> news:tkh6f2hae6d3i6ot5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <br...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each
>>>head-to-head
>>>is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the net
>>>difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent
>>>and
>>>winning.
>>>
>>>brink
>>
>>
>> Each game is of equal importance. Think about it;
>
> I respectfully disagree; if the Twins and White Sox have identical records
> heading into the last game of the season with the Tigers already clinching
> the division and Minny and Chicago essentially playing for all the marbles
> of the wild card berth, then I submit that the last game of the season
> will
> by far be the most importnat game of the season.
Nope! It would be the one the Twins lost to the W Sox yesterday. The last
game, as a result of that loss, is no more dramatic, but no more important.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lh646F...@individual.net...
uhhhh, I'm sorry, but there is no logic to that. A win IS a win. You don't
get less than a "1" in the win column because your win came against KC, nor
do you get more than "1" for beating the Yankees. There is no other residual
effect of a win, as there can be with a base hit. A win is a win, and
nothing can change its value.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> brink
>
brink
Hmmm. So you don't think there's marginal value in the fact that you can
accomplish two things with one win? I.e. giving yourself a W (and more to
the point, avoiding a L) while giving your top rival a L?
In other words, it doesn't matter to you whom your favorite team is playing?
I'm assuming your a Tigers fan, those 4 games vs Minny won't have any extra
signifcance, importance, or value?
I'm not debating absolute value, I'm debating relative/marginal value.
brink
fungod
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:52:29 GMT, "fungod"
> <throwinglig...@yourhead.org> wrote:
>
>>The Tigers are up 5 now. They were up 5 a month ago. What was their
>>"massive" lead several week ago? Six? Six and a half? And now they've
>>frittered it away from a massive six to miniscule five? HOLY SHIT THE SKY
>>IS
>>FALLING!! DEATH SPIRAL!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!
>>
>>Get a grip.
>
>
> on August 7th. That was their high water mark of the year, 40 games
> over .500. Now they're 33 games over the .500 mark. Very good
> considering where they came from in past years, IMO.
I stand corrected. Still, 10 games head to 5 is hardly a death spiral; the
78 Red Sox was a death spiral. (14 game lead in July, 4 game lead in
September). And as you say, considering that they hadn't had a winning
record since about the Carter administration playing 700 ball all year was
very unrealistic. My own feeling is that the Tigs are like one of those
Warner Bros characters who've run off the end of the cliff and are pistoning
their legs whilst floating in the air. The only question is how long its
going to take them to look down.
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lh8olF...@individual.net...
All that counts in the end is the number of wins.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
brink
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
brink
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lhl39F...@individual.net...
uhhhh, that's deep. I guess. At least it might be to someone who can't grasp
that a win is a win. Or something.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> brink
>
brink
Here's a free clue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously
The point being that I think we're at an impasse; our definitions of "value"
are fundamentally different. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose... we
probably just take different roads to get to the same conclusion, i.e. the
team with the most wins at the end of the season will be the division
winner.
That being the case, I will be rooting for the Twins to go 30-or-so-and-0 to
end the season, and would just as soon see the Tigers go about 23-7,
including sweeping the White Sox. ;-)
brink
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lhtbdF...@individual.net...
1) Wikkypedia is full-o-crap.
2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup. They don't get
credit for two wins for beating some teams, and only one for others. Even if
the Tigers take the reamaining three from the Sox, they will have a poor
record against them overall for the season, yet they will have to take a
serious dive, while the Sox do the opposite, to lose the division. See, if
the games where Detroit met Chicago head on had more "value," the Sox would
already be out in front. A win in April counts as much as a win in
September. A win against KC counts as much as a win against Chicago or
Minnesota, or New York or Boston, or Oakland or Anaheim.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
Bill Kawalec
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"Bill Kawalec" <billk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cN6dnbwM66ruUm7Z...@comcast.com...
Monkey
.
>
> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup. They don't get
> credit for two wins for beating some teams, and only one for others. Even if
> the Tigers take the reamaining three from the Sox, they will have a poor
> record against them overall for the season, yet they will have to take a
> serious dive, while the Sox do the opposite, to lose the division. See, if
> the games where Detroit met Chicago head on had more "value," the Sox would
> already be out in front. A win in April counts as much as a win in
> September. A win against KC counts as much as a win against Chicago or
> Minnesota, or New York or Boston, or Oakland or Anaheim.
I agree with a win is a win, but aren't there other things --
psychologically -- related to some victories. A sweep of the yankers
this week has to be a moral victory and three wins in the win column.
Or the Win against the BoSox was good moral victory, a win in the win
column, but losing Polanco added a little bitters to the sweetness.
To get to the post-season you need to win, but when you get there you
have to have the mindset that you can win and your players healthy.
monk
chew 'em up Tigers
John Poutre
Well, a key game at the end of the season IS (or can be) more dramatic, but
no more important than any other game.
powrwrap
> Bill Kawalec wrote:
> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup.
Except for the niggling fact that the first tie breaker in determining
a division winner is the head-to-head records. So, these games could
have the ultimate importance.
John Poutre
You are confusing the word important with drama. Much more drama if the
last game of the season is a winner take all. But important? Same value,
as if you won another game in April, this game would not be that dramatic.
Brian J
Brian Matthews wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 10:49:28 -0700, "brink" <br...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >The key always seems to be those head-to-head matchups. Each head-to-head
> >is actually worth *2 whole games* in the standings, since that is the net
> >difference in the standings between losing to your head-to-head opponent and
> >winning.
> >
> >brink
>
>
> Each game is of equal importance. Think about it;
>
> a game, same as if we played them and won. At the end of the year,
> it's the team with the most wins that wins the division. Just ask
> Bill, he'll explain it better. (this is NOT a slam at you Bill, I see
> your point now. If only the Tigs could have swept the Indians......)
>
to head games are more important. On Sunday, the Twins lost and the
Tigers won. That is the same result in the standings as if they had
played each other. But it took 2 games to achieve that result, whereas
if the teams were playing each other, it would happen in one game.
Brian Jones
John Poutre
news:1156865413....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, you could make a case for this, as you will always have a 1 game swing
when playing another team, vs, playing 2 different games. But
fundamentally, each game is stil the same 1/162 important.
that guy
>
> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup. They don't get
> credit for two wins for beating some teams, and only one for others.
A win against your primary rival also gives them a loss, which lowers the
amount of wins you need to win the division. It's inherently more
valuable than a win verses a random team.
It's simple game theory. Consider this case (made as simple as possible
to illustrate the point). The Twins and Tigers are tied
in the standings with 2 games to play, one game is against each other and
one is against a team in another division. All teams have an equal chance at
winning each game.
The baseball gods let you pick one game where your team is guaranteed to
win. Do you pick a win against your main rival or the other team?
that guy
powrwrap
> Brian Matthews wrote:
> Wrong. If two teams are tied for the Division TITLE, head to head
> means nothing. The Twins could go 19-0 against the Tigers and if
> they're tied at season's end, there would be a 1 game playoff, with
> the home team being determined by a coin toss.
> Now the Wild Card? I believe it's determined by head to head but I'm
> not sure. Check the rules Bill posted in an earlier post. It will
> explain it for you.
You mean this?:
Major League Baseball Playoff Tiebreaker Info (1999)
1.. When there is a tie for a Division Championship and the breaking
of
the tie will result in the losing team nonetheless being the Wild Card
team,
the Division Champion shall be:
a.. a. the team with the better record in head-to-head competition,
or
in the event the teams have the same record in head-to-head
competition,
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sports.baseball.detroit-tigers/msg/bd8dd678be3985c1?dmode=source
Bill Kawalec
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"Monkey" <ne...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:never-B13134....@news.northnet.org...
> <snip>
> .
>>
>> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
>> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup. They don't
>> get
>> credit for two wins for beating some teams, and only one for others. Even
>> if
>> the Tigers take the reamaining three from the Sox, they will have a poor
>> record against them overall for the season, yet they will have to take a
>> serious dive, while the Sox do the opposite, to lose the division. See,
>> if
>> the games where Detroit met Chicago head on had more "value," the Sox
>> would
>> already be out in front. A win in April counts as much as a win in
>> September. A win against KC counts as much as a win against Chicago or
>> Minnesota, or New York or Boston, or Oakland or Anaheim.
>
> I agree with a win is a win, but aren't there other things --
> psychologically -- related to some victories.
maybe
brink
"that guy" <tha...@notarealemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@cerzvhz.fbzrvfc.pbz...
Repeat mantra: "a win is just a win. a win is just a win. a win is just a
win."
I'm sorry, there is no room for your logic in this discussion.
brink
brink
"John Poutre" <mehat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44f4491b$0$97238$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
No. In your world, all games are equal. In my world, I see that games are
most certainly not treated as such. Which is a big part of the reason why
we see managers juggling pitching rotations to ensure best matchups possible
vs. rivals, fewer off-days for regular players in the head-to-head matchups,
etc.
I have to assume that, by your "each game is equally 1/162nd important"
theory that you also believe that each out in a nine-inning game is also
1/27th important, and that you furthermore don't believe in high-leverage
situations that are dictated by *which* out(s) a pitcher or hitter is
dealing with.
Again in my world, games played after a team has clinched and has nothing of
postseason value to play for quite obviously have diminished importance to
the team that has clinched.
An excellent example would be the 2003 season, where the Twins -- who had
already clinched -- rolled into Detroit to play the 41-118 Tigers, on the
cusp of setting a dubious record. Fortunately for the Tiggers, the Twins
had little to play for, so the Twins trotted out such luminaries as Michael
Restovich, Alex Prieto, Rob Bowen, Dustan Mohr, Michael Ryan, Denny Hocking,
and Chris Gomez, Adam Johnson, Carlos Pulido, and Brad Thomas for dozens of
at bats and innings pitched while the starters rested.
Which helps explain why the sucktacular Tiggers were able to take 2 of 3
from the Twins and barely avoid the losses record after going 2-14
head-to-head to start the season.
You're welcome. ;-)
brink
Bill Kawalec
"powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156857751.9...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
IMO, that game would have no importance at all. HYPOTHETICALLY, let's say
the Tigers were one game back, playing the first place team on the last day
of the season, and that team clearly has head to head already wrapped up,
AND, the second place team is clearly the wild card winner. What is the
value of that game? ZERO! I would forfeit it if I had to, but, with
September call-ups, that's unnecessary. I would send out a lineup of nothing
but AA and AAA call-ups.
Bill Kawalec
"Brian Matthews" <noone...@ddd.com> wrote in message
news:ffp8f2htnda023ucr...@4ax.com...
> Wrong. If two teams are tied for the Division TITLE, head to head
> means nothing. The Twins could go 19-0 against the Tigers and if
> they're tied at season's end, there would be a 1 game playoff, with
> the home team being determined by a coin toss.
Depends. IF the lsoing team would not be the wild card winner, there is a
playoff game. IF the loser is the wild card team, the division winner is
determined by head to head.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> Now the Wild Card? I believe it's determined by head to head but I'm
> not sure. Check the rules Bill posted in an earlier post. It will
> explain it for you.
>
> Brian
Bill Kawalec
"Brian J" <firs...@turtlecreek.net> wrote in message
news:1156865413....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
...but it's still a win and aloss, and YOUR team only played one.
Bill Kawalec
"that guy" <tha...@notarealemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.06...@cerzvhz.fbzrvfc.pbz...
>>
>> 2) NO one win has any more "value" than any other win. Sundays result was
>> just as good as beating the Twins in a head to head matchup. They don't
>> get
>> credit for two wins for beating some teams, and only one for others.
>
> A win against your primary rival also gives them a loss, which lowers the
> amount of wins you need to win the division. It's inherently more valuable
> than a win verses a random team.
nooooo. It's still just one in your win column. Your theory is based on an
assumption that team B could not lose to another team.
>
> It's simple game theory. Consider this case (made as simple as possible to
> illustrate the point). The Twins and Tigers are tied in the standings with
> 2 games to play, one game is against each other and one is against a team
> in another division. All teams have an equal chance at
> winning each game.
>
> The baseball gods let you pick one game where your team is guaranteed to
> win. Do you pick a win against your main rival or the other team?
doesn't matter. You beat the Twins, then lose the other while they win, you
broke even.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
>
>
> that guy
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
NO, but now I begin to understand why you don't grasp the concept. There is
such a thing as over-analyzing. Within an individual game, each at bat is
"situational," and some situations will give you a greater opportunity to
score, BUT, in the end, the deciding factor is whether you scored more than
your opponent. In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game
scheclue, a win is a win.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
powrwrap
> Bill Kawalec wrote:
> In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game scheclue, a win is a win.
Just so we understand you, the upcoming four game Detroit series vs.
the Twins at the Metrodome is no more important of a series than the
Tigers' four game series vs. the Devil Rays in mid-June. At that time
the Tigers had a 12 game lead on the Twins; now they have a 5 game
lead.
Why don't you just admit that the only time a win is just a win is on
March 31st?
(I wonder why the schedule makers have unbalanced schedules within
divisions?)
John Poutre
Depends how you look at it. Lets first just look at any single game during
the year. Some think that if you have game 162 where if you win, you go to
the playoffs and if you lose, you go home, then this game is somehow more
important than a game in the middle of April. Not true, because maybe if
you won that game in April, then this game would not really mean anything.
It would be more dramatic, sure. But not more important. The key word is
DRAMA vs Importance.
If you add games where you play a rival or team that you are closest in the
standing, maybe all of their games are slightly more important because a win
or lose is an automatic 1 game change. But really you are just combining
the importance of 2 teams single game together.
Ok, maybe this is more of a semantics question, but here are my 2 cents.
Bill Kawalec
>
>> In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game scheclue, a win
>> is a win.
>
> Just so we understand you,
"WE"???
the upcoming four game Detroit series vs.
> the Twins at the Metrodome is no more important of a series than the
> Tigers' four game series vs. the Devil Rays in mid-June. At that time
> the Tigers had a 12 game lead on the Twins; now they have a 5 game
> lead.
that's right. a win is a win.
>
> Why don't you just admit that the only time a win is just a win is on
> March 31st?
>
> (I wonder why the schedule makers have unbalanced schedules within
> divisions?)
>
cuz they're dufuses.
powrwrap
> Bill Kawalec wrote:
> > powrwrap:
> >> Bill Kawalec wrote:
> >
> >> In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game scheclue, a win
> >> is a win.
> > Just so we understand you,
>
>
> "WE"???
Yes, we, the people that are arguing against you. Brink, Brian J., and
me.
> the upcoming four game Detroit series vs.
> > the Twins at the Metrodome is no more important of a series than the
> > Tigers' four game series vs. the Devil Rays in mid-June. At that time
> > the Tigers had a 12 game lead on the Twins; now they have a 5 game
> > lead.
>
>
>
> that's right. a win is a win.
Ever hear of magic numbers as it relates to baseball? I wonder why the
team cracks open crates full of champagne after that win that puts them
in the playoffs? Could it be that after that point it doesn't matter if
they win another game during the regular season or not? That any win
after that point doesn't matter?
brink
>
>> It's simple game theory. Consider this case (made as simple as possible
>> to illustrate the point). The Twins and Tigers are tied in the standings
>> with 2 games to play, one game is against each other and one is against a
>> team in another division. All teams have an equal chance at
>> winning each game.
>>
>> The baseball gods let you pick one game where your team is guaranteed to
>> win. Do you pick a win against your main rival or the other team?
>
>
> doesn't matter. You beat the Twins, then lose the other while they win,
> you broke even.
Except for the tiny little matter that you're discussing *three* games
instead of one, you're absoutely correct!
brink
brink
> Depends how you look at it. Lets first just look at any single game
> during the year. Some think that if you have game 162 where if you win,
> you go to the playoffs and if you lose, you go home, then this game is
> somehow more important than a game in the middle of April. Not true,
> because maybe if you won that game in April, then this game would not
> really mean anything. It would be more dramatic, sure. But not more
> important. The key word is DRAMA vs Importance.
>
> If you add games where you play a rival or team that you are closest in
> the standing, maybe all of their games are slightly more important because
> a win or lose is an automatic 1 game change. But really you are just
> combining the importance of 2 teams single game together.
Exactly. One outcome. A zero sum game. Head-to-head is always this, by
definition. Two simultaneous games, not head to head are not zero-sum...
both teams can win, both can lose. What Team A does in Game 1 does not
affect what happens to Team B in Game 2.
The ultimate goal of the regular season is to reduce one's magic number to
zero. Head-to-head games are the only time a team can by its own actions
reduce its magic number head-to-head with a given rival by 2. It is also
the *only* time a team can prevent the other team from reducing *its* magic
number.
>
> Ok, maybe this is more of a semantics question, but here are my 2 cents.
I disagree that it's a semantics question -- shocker I know -- but it might
be a philosophy difference. I don't think the word "importance" or "value"
leaves much room for semantic games, though.
brink
powrwrap
> Brian Matthews wrote:
> Games in April and May are just as important as games in September, no
> matter WHO the opponent is.
>
> The Twins started out horrible. They were 24-28 on May 31st.
> A .462 winning percentage.
>
> Since then, they have won at a 52-25 record.
> A .675 winning percentage.
> So, in this case, if the Twins don't make the playoffs, it will be
> because of all the games they lost early in the season. And you don't
> think those games were of equal importance?
Conversely, if the Twins do make the playoffs, all those losses in May
didn't make any difference.
Bill Kawalec
>
>> Bill Kawalec wrote:
>
>> > powrwrap:
>
>> >> Bill Kawalec wrote:
>> >
>> >> In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game scheclue, a
>> >> win
>> >> is a win.
>
>
>
>> > Just so we understand you,
>>
>>
>> "WE"???
>
>
> Yes, we, the people that are arguing against you. Brink, Brian J., and
> me.
>
>
>> the upcoming four game Detroit series vs.
>> > the Twins at the Metrodome is no more important of a series than the
>> > Tigers' four game series vs. the Devil Rays in mid-June. At that time
>> > the Tigers had a 12 game lead on the Twins; now they have a 5 game
>> > lead.
>>
>>
>>
>> that's right. a win is a win.
>
>
> Ever hear of magic numbers as it relates to baseball? I wonder why the
> team cracks open crates full of champagne after that win that puts them
> in the playoffs?
Yeah, skippy, I've heard of magic numbers. Can you grasp the concept that
the more games you won in April, the lowever that number will be on
September 1, NO MATTER WHO THOSE WINS WERE AGAINST??
Could it be that after that point it doesn't matter if
> they win another game during the regular season or not? That any win
> after that point doesn't matter?
>
AHA!!! So a win in April counts MORE than a win in September!!!
EUREKA!!!
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
four.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
> brink
>
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ljs68F...@individual.net...
>
> "John Poutre" <mehat...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:44f4a5e0$0$97276$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
>> Depends how you look at it. Lets first just look at any single game
>> during the year. Some think that if you have game 162 where if you win,
>> you go to the playoffs and if you lose, you go home, then this game is
>> somehow more important than a game in the middle of April. Not true,
>> because maybe if you won that game in April, then this game would not
>> really mean anything. It would be more dramatic, sure. But not more
>> important. The key word is DRAMA vs Importance.
>>
>> If you add games where you play a rival or team that you are closest in
>> the standing, maybe all of their games are slightly more important
>> because a win or lose is an automatic 1 game change. But really you are
>> just combining the importance of 2 teams single game together.
>
> Exactly. One outcome. A zero sum game. Head-to-head is always this, by
> definition. Two simultaneous games, not head to head are not zero-sum...
> both teams can win, both can lose. What Team A does in Game 1 does not
> affect what happens to Team B in Game 2.
>
> The ultimate goal of the regular season is to reduce one's magic number to
> zero. Head-to-head games are the only time a team can by its own actions
> reduce its magic number head-to-head with a given rival by 2. It is also
> the *only* time a team can prevent the other team from reducing *its*
> magic number.
you're still over analyzing. Every time the Tigers win, that's one more the
W Sox or Twins can't make up.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
>>
Bill Kawalec
> matter WHO the opponent is.
>
> The Twins started out horrible. They were 24-28 on May 31st.
> A .462 winning percentage.
>
> Since then, they have won at a 52-25 record.
> A .675 winning percentage.
>
> started them out at 35-17.
>
> Their record now would be 87-42 and they would be 6 games AHEAD of
> Detroit.
>
> So, in this case, if the Twins don't make the playoffs, it will be
> because of all the games they lost early in the season. And you don't
> think those games were of equal importance?
If one were to take it one step further by the novice logic, one could then
argue that the April games were MORE important. A win is a win, and anything
that says otherwise is overanalysis.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> Brian
Bill Kawalec
"powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156891086.7...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Because???
(need help on this one?)
Because, every game is equally important. Just as the Tigers now have a lead
because of their early wins (Early Wynn?!?), they could blow that lead with
late losses. But, you see, the Twins can't win the division (or the wild
card) AS A RESULT OF April and May losses, while the Tigers could WIN AS A
RESULT OF April and May wins.
brink
Ya think?
brink
brink
Yes, and runs in the 1st inning are worth the same as runs in the 9th
inning. Therefore there is no such thing as a higher-leverage inning.
Batting average is also the best way to identify the best hitters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident.
brink
brink
>
> "powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1156887820.6...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> Bill Kawalec wrote:
>>
>>> > powrwrap:
>>
>>> >> Bill Kawalec wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> In the big picture, the endurance contest of a 162 game scheclue, a
>>> >> win
>>> >> is a win.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Just so we understand you,
>>>
>>>
>>> "WE"???
>>
>>
>> Yes, we, the people that are arguing against you. Brink, Brian J., and
>> me.
>>
>>
>>> the upcoming four game Detroit series vs.
>>> > the Twins at the Metrodome is no more important of a series than the
>>> > Tigers' four game series vs. the Devil Rays in mid-June. At that time
>>> > the Tigers had a 12 game lead on the Twins; now they have a 5 game
>>> > lead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> that's right. a win is a win.
>>
>>
>> Ever hear of magic numbers as it relates to baseball? I wonder why the
>> team cracks open crates full of champagne after that win that puts them
>> in the playoffs?
>
> Yeah, skippy, I've heard of magic numbers. Can you grasp the concept that
> the more games you won in April, the lowever that number will be on
> September 1, NO MATTER WHO THOSE WINS WERE AGAINST??
I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of 2 > 1.
So how much do you suppose Team A's magic number head-to-head with Team B
decreases when they beat Team B?
How much does Team A's magic number head-to-head with Team B decrease when
they beat Team C?
Compare and contrast. I'll wait.
>
>
> Could it be that after that point it doesn't matter if
>> they win another game during the regular season or not? That any win
>> after that point doesn't matter?
>>
>
>
> AHA!!! So a win in April counts MORE than a win in September!!!
> EUREKA!!!
>
It doesn't "count" more, though it can clearly be more important. Just look
at what lineups the managers field in "meaningless" September games vs. the
still-meaningful April games. Compare and contrast. I'll wait.
brink
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lk1d9F...@individual.net...
try not to cop attitude, okay. NO, as a matter of fact, no inning can be
proven to be more valuable than any other inning. A run in the 9th inning of
a game where there is a 10 run differential don't mean squat, does it?? A
run in the first, if it's the only one you score, and the other team scores
ten, means about the same, don't it?
There is a high percentage of games where the winning team scores more in
one inning than the losing team scores in the entire game, but I don't
remember what the number is, so I won't even bring it up.
>
> Batting average is also the best way to identify the best hitters.
FAR more often than not, that IS true. Now I suppose you'll want to list the
exceptions, one by one.
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident.
again with the "we"
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> brink
>
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lk1daF...@individual.net...
well, sonny, you can just wait until hell freezes over.
IF a win that the Tigers accomplished in April could be taken away from
them, then AND ONLY THEN would it be less important than tomorrow's game.
WHEN can an April win be taken away from them?
I'll wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
>
> brink
>
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lk1daF...@individual.net...
HUH!?!?! There is no ""magic number head to head."" Try to take this slowly,
point by point:
The Tigers lead the division.
Any game the Tigers win is one more the teams trailing them CANNOT make up.
The Tigers have the lead they have now BECAUSE they won a lot in April, May,
and June!
Get it yet? MAYBE head to head games are important now to the W Sox and the
Twins, BECAUSE they did not do as well in April, May and June. BUT, EVEN SO,
A LOSS HEAD TO HEAD HURTS THEM EVEN MORE THAN A HEAD TO HEAD WIN HELPS THEM,
BECAUSE they are behind, and they are behind BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WIN IN
APRIL.
Last I checked, the wins in April vs KC put a "1" in the win column that is
no different from the "1" they will get if they beat the Yankess tomorrow.
If you still do not grasp it, then please do attempt to explain to me what
the increased value of a win tomorrow is vs the wins they already have.
I'll wait.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
Bill Kawalec
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lh8olF...@individual.net...
>
> Hmmm. So you don't think there's marginal value in the fact that you can
> accomplish two things with one win? I.e. giving yourself a W (and more to
> the point, avoiding a L) while giving your top rival a L?
>
> brink
oh, not even ""marginal"" value. You do know that the Tigers are only under
.500 against three teams this season, and that the worst of those is their
record against the W Sox (they've only played 3 and 4 against the othet two
teams)? Soooooo, from the point of view of a W Sox fan, can you begin to
explain how head to head games are more important, since they are the second
place team? Conversely, with the first place team being 5-11 vs the W Sox
(but 11-1 vs KC), can you explain, from the POV of their fans, how the head
to head games are more important?
I'll wait.
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
and wait
>
Matt
Bill Kawalec wrote:
>
> uhhhh, I'm sorry, but there is no logic to that. A win IS a win.
And a loss IS a loss. If you're playing the Royals and you win, there's
a 50% chance (yeah, I know - it's not a simple as a coin flip, but
let's go with 50% for the sake of simplicity) that your competition
loses. It's completely out of your hands.
Say the Sox and Twins are battling for the final playoff spot. A Twins
win over the Sox is INDEED more important than a win over the Royals.
Because a win over the Royals gains you, on average half a game (50% of
the time, you gain 1 game, 50% you gain 0 games - average is .5 games).
Meanwhile, a win over the Sox gains you a full game every time - 100%,
with an average gain of 1 game.
> You don't
> get less than a "1" in the win column because your win came against KC, nor
> do you get more than "1" for beating the Yankees.
It's not as simple as a win is a win and it's the difference between 99
or 100 either way. Because it's not just about adding one win to the
column. It's also about preventing your competition from adding one.
Where are people getting lost here?
Matt
Matt
Bill Kawalec wrote:
>
> All that counts in the end is the number of wins.
You're quite wrong in that regard. The number of wins is meaningless.
What counts is the DIFFERENCE in the number of wins between you and
your competition. And that's why beating your compeition is more
important than beating the Royals.
Matt
Bill Kawalec
"Matt" <Aces...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156910532....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
you tell me. you're the lost one. a win is a win. just look at the
standings!! look at the team by team wins/losses. HOW MUCH does it matter
that the W Sox are 11-5 against the Tigers?? OBVIOULSY not as much as it
means that the Tigers are 11-1 vs KC. OBVIOUSLY.
QUESTION: what determines a division winner??
ANSWER: the total number of wins.
QUESTION: does head to head competition ever determine a division winner?
ANSWER: ONLY if two teams are tied in the win column OVERALL, and, even
then, ONLY if the second place team IS the wild card winner, otherwise,
there will be a single game playoff to determine who has MORE WINS.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
> Matt
>
Bill Kawalec
"Matt" <Aces...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156910638.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
yikes!!! I'm sorry, I really really am, but now you're being a complete
idiot!
ASK THE W SOX HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YIKES!!! WHICH PART DO YOU ***NOT*** GET?!? Which standing are you looking
at, where the team with more head to head wins IS out in front?!?!?
>
> Matt
>
brink
>
>
> --
> I never read email at the Yahoo address!
> "brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4lh8olF...@individual.net...
>>
>> Hmmm. So you don't think there's marginal value in the fact that you can
>> accomplish two things with one win? I.e. giving yourself a W (and more
>> to the point, avoiding a L) while giving your top rival a L?
>>
>> brink
>
>
>
> oh, not even ""marginal"" value. You do know that the Tigers are only
> under .500 against three teams this season, and that the worst of those is
> their record against the W Sox (they've only played 3 and 4 against the
> othet two teams)? Soooooo, from the point of view of a W Sox fan, can you
> begin to explain how head to head games are more important, since they are
> the second place team? Conversely, with the first place team being 5-11 vs
> the W Sox (but 11-1 vs KC), can you explain, from the POV of their fans,
> how the head to head games are more important?
No. Since the Tiggers are enjoying an unbeatable, uncatchable, totally
impregnable whole *five game* lead over the White Sox, I know the upcoming
games vs. the White Sox are just another series of games with no added
importance or significance over their remaining games with the Royals.
brink
brink
>
>
> "Matt" <Aces...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156910638.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Bill Kawalec wrote:
>>>
>>> All that counts in the end is the number of wins.
>>
>> You're quite wrong in that regard. The number of wins is meaningless.
>> What counts is the DIFFERENCE in the number of wins between you and
>> your competition. And that's why beating your compeition is more
>> important than beating the Royals.
>
> yikes!!! I'm sorry, I really really am, but now you're being a complete
> idiot!
>
>
> ASK THE W SOX HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry, we can't hear you. Please try again with more capital letters
and exclamation points.
brink
brink
Thanks, but we're not arguing that particular statement, Mr. Tautologies R
Us...
What we're arguing is that beating your top rivals head-to-head is more
important than beating random Team X.
This is easily illustrated by the fact that the Tigers could very well have
their same record of 82-49 and yet be tied with the White Sox with a record
of 82-49 and be 4.5 games behind Minnesota at 86-44 by not winning as many
head-to-head matchups with Minnesota and Chicago.
Same number of wins, but one game away from staying home in the playoffs.
brink
Bill Kawalec
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lkkmoF...@individual.net...
Bill Kawalec
"brink" <br...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4lkm03F...@individual.net...
no, sonny, your incorrectness is EASLIY illustrated by the Sox' 11-5 record
vs the Tigers. can't help noticing you ALWAYS avoid that. PLEASE do explain
how you arrived at the conclusion that the Tigers could have the SAME record
by NOT beating the Sox and Twins.
I'll wait.
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
--
I never read email at the Yahoo address!
>
that guy
> Before the season starts, you could predict, with certainty, that 110
> wins will win the division. Does it matter WHO you get those 110 wins
> against?
With a .626 winning percentage, The Tigers are on pace to win 101 games
this year. Looks like there won't be any playoff teams from the AL Central.
Is there some other way of determining playoff spots for teams that don't
win 110 games?
that guy
powrwrap
> Brian Matthews wrote:
> At the beginning of the season, the Royals ARE the competition. And in
> every game, the "opposing" team IS the competition, whether it's the
> Sox, Twins or Royals.
>
> Before the season starts, you could predict, with certainty, that 110
> wins will win the division. Does it matter WHO you get those 110 wins
> against? Say Detroit goes 0-19 against the Twins and White Sox. And
> they go 110-14 against the rest of the league. Which game in that
> sample season was the most important? EVERY game has equal importance.
> Sure, you're correct that IF the season came down to the last game and
> the Tigers and Twins were tied and played each other, that game would
> be more DRAMATIC. But.......the games a team won or lost in April,
> May, June, July and August were just as IMPORTANT. That's what we're
> TRYING to explain to you. The difference between IMPORTANT and
> DRAMATIC.
You've almost got it. Yes, the Tigers' wins in April and May were just
as important as their wins now, BUT, equally important was the fact
that their division rivals were losing games.
> When was the Royals most "important" game? How about Cleveland? Tampa
> Bay?
They don't get any important games because they are out of the hunt for
the division title.
> Did the media in those towns make a big deal of games within these
> teams division as being the most important games in April and May?
> If not, they screwed up, according to your logic. Because all these
> teams lost consistently in the beginning of the year. So they don't
> get to play any "important" games after they fell 10 or 15 games out
> of 1st place?
I agree with you almost 100%. I think what everybody is saying
(obliquely) is that every win is important but so is every loss by
teams in your division. Your 110 win season example notwithstanding,
wins against teams in your division are more important than wins
against teams outside your division, because they have the dual purpose
of elevating your team in the standings while pushing the other team
down in the standings.
> If a team wins 110 games, it doesn't matter if they start the season
> 110-0 or 0-52. As long as they get those 110 wins. Are you starting to
> understand the math now? A win is one game. Get that 110 times and you
> win the division.
A win against a division rival will always put at least one game of
distance between you and that team. However, a win against a different
division's team may get you no distance (your division rival also wins
on that day), 1/2 game distance (your team wins, rival is idle), or 1
game distance in the standings (you win your game, your rival loses
their game).
Therefore, wins against division rivals are more important.
> Let's try another example. A few years ago, the Red Sox came back from
> a playoff series against the Yankees when they were down 3 games to 0.
> Which game was the most important? With your logic, it would be the
> 7th game. With our logic, all games we of equal importance because if
> the Sox would have won one of the first 3, there would have been no
> game 7.
Comparing playoff games to regular season games isn't a fair
comparison. The discussion is about the importance of games as it
relates to winning the division.
If the Twins were in first place by 5.5 games and the Tigers had eight
games left with the Twins instead of four, I wonder if you would see
things differently...
powrwrap
> Brian Matthews wrote:
> I stated yesterday if the Twinkies played the same % of baseball in
> April and in May that they have played SINCE then, they would be AHEAD
> of the Tigers by 6 games. It doesn't matter who they played. They
> would have many more wins than they have now. Is it hard for you all
> to understand it doesn't matter who you beat at the end of the season?
And if the Tigers had lost 6 more games in April and May the standings
would be a lot closer. No doubt.
> It only matters how MANY wins you have. If you win 76 games, 19
> against all 4 division rivals and lose the rest, you won't win the
> division. Thus....it doesn't matter if you sweep every team in your
> own division. You still miss the playoffs.
I notice that you insist on changing the subject from the importance of
head-to-head wins vs. division rivals to total number of wins.
Anyway, in your scenario above no mention was made as to whether or not
your division rivals won more than 76 games. Thus it cannot be said
with certainty that my team has missed the playoffs.
I noticed you didn't address this:
A win against a division rival will always put at least one game of
distance between you and that team. However, a win against a different
division's team may get you no distance (your division rival also wins
on that day), 1/2 game distance (your team wins, rival is idle), or 1
game distance in the standings (you win your game, your rival loses
their game).
Therefore, wins against division rivals are more important.
> Get this;
>
> The team with the most wins at the end of the season wins the
> division.
>
> End of story.
Not quite. In the case of a tie, the team with the better head-to-head
record wins the division. Thus, head-to-head victories vs. division
rivals are more important than victories vs. out of division rivals.
Matt
Brian Matthews wrote:
>
> At the beginning of the season, the Royals ARE the competition.
But it's not the beginning of the season anymore is it?
Right now, the Twins and White Sox are battling for one playoff spot.
Two teams, one spot. A win for the Twins over the Sox IS more important
than a win over the Royals. It's simple math.
A win over the White Sox is worth 1 game in the standings, on average
(100% Twins win, 100% Sox lose).
A win over the Royals is worth 0.5 games in the standings, on average
(100% Twins win, 50% Sox lose). Or if you protest that the Sox lose
only 40% of the time, that's fine. Then it's worth 0.4 games in the
standings. The percentage doesn't matter, either way, a win over the
Sox gains you more than a win over the Royals.
Because you don't make the playoffs for total wins (you make them for
having more wins than your competition), a win over the Sox is clearly
more valuable. It reduces your magic number by 2, rather than by 1,
which is what a win over the Royals does for you.
> And in
> every game, the "opposing" team IS the competition, whether it's the
> Sox, Twins or Royals.
In theory, that's true at the beginning of the season. But we're not at
the beginning of the season. We no longer have to feign ignorance as to
who is competing for that final playoff spot. We know that.
> Before the season starts, you could predict, with certainty, that 110
> wins will win the division.
Agreed. But you CANNOT predict that it will take exactly 110 wins. It
could be 110, it could be 100, it could be 92. It all depends on how
many games the other teams in the division win. And when you defeat
those other teams, you're manipulating that number.
> Does it matter WHO you get those 110 wins
> against?
It wouldn't if 110 was some sort of magic number. Unfortunatly, it's
not. 110 wins is meaningless. The number of wins required is a dynamic
number, not as static one. It's a number that you can affect by handing
losses to your division rivals.
You seem to be missing this simple fact. You don't clinch a division
(or a Wild Card) by reacing a static number of wins. You clinch by
winning more games that you competition does. And in the case of a
Twins/Sox game for the Wild Card, their competion is now each other.
They're not trying to reach 110 or 105 or whatever - they're trying,
and this is very simple:
To win more than the other team.
See how easy that is? And one way to win more than the other team is to
make sure that other team does not win.
> When was the Royals most "important" game? How about Cleveland? Tampa
> Bay?
I'm not talking about importance. I'm talking about value. And right
now, there's more value for these teams to beat one another than to
beat someone out of the race. Simple, straightforward math. 1 > 0.5
> If a team wins 110 games, it doesn't matter if they start the season
> 110-0 or 0-52.
And you're still laboring under the delusion that there's anything
special about that static number. There isn't. The number of wins
required to clinch is DYNAMIC. Follow? It's not a static, set number.
It's dynamic, and you have a say in those dynamics. You can reduce the
number needed by reducing the number of games the competition wins.
> Let's try another example. A few years ago, the Red Sox came back from
> a playoff series against the Yankees when they were down 3 games to 0.
> Which game was the most important? With your logic, it would be the
> 7th game.
Where the hell did you get that? Because that's not "my logic" at all.
Please stick to the issue at hand. If you're not even understanding
what's being discussed, I'm not sure I'll bother even trying any more.
Matt
Matt
Brian Matthews wrote:
>
> The team with the most wins at the end of the season wins the
> division.
Exactly. So forcing your division rivals to lose is a huge boost.
Suppose the Twins sweep the Sox in a 4-game series. How much ground do
they gain against the Sox? Simple: 4 games.
Suppose the Twins sweep the Royals in a 4-game series. How much ground
do they gain against the Sox? Now we don't know. Could be anywhere
between 0 and 4 games. Hell, if Chicago has a doubleheader in there,
they could even LOSE ground.
You try to have more wins than your division (or Wild Card) rivals at
season's end. So all wins are important. You have that right. But what
you're missing is that all losses by said rivals are EQUALLY important.
That's why it's more valuable for the Twins to beat the Sox than it is
for the Twins to beat the Royals.
Matt
Monkey
Brian Matthews <noone...@ddd.com> wrote:
> On 30 Aug 2006 08:27:26 -0700, "powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I notice that you insist on changing the subject from the importance of
> >head-to-head wins vs. division rivals to total number of wins.
>
>
>
> <sigh>
>
> Because it is the total number of wins that determines the division
> winner. Unless they changed the rules? If K.C. beats the Tigers 10 out
> of 19 but only ends up with 75 wins and the Tigers get 95 wins, K.C.
> wins the division?
>
> TOTAL NUMBER OF WINS DETERMINES THE DIVISION WINNER, NO MATTER WHO THE
> WINS ARE AGAINST.
>
> Brian
I think the 'importance' game people are only looking at the end of the
year, when a team has NOT won enough games, so --- in a sense --- they
need to win more than the team that has already won.
Mo'key
chew 'em up tigers
...throw a few boys of fire at them
Monkey
Brian Matthews <noone...@ddd.com> wrote:
> Wrong. The Twins only play the Sox 19 times. They could sweep and
> still finish 10 games behind them.
>
> As for beating the other teams? All games have the same meaning. At
> the end of the season, MLB does a trick. It adds up all your wins and
> the team with the most (no matter who they're against) gets to go to
> the playoffs. No fair for Twins fans because they won the "important"
> games? Too bad. Beat the snot out of all the bad and middle of the
> road teams and maybe you'll make the playoffs. It would be a good
> warm-up for the Yankees.
>
> Brian
what is a inter*league win worth --- even less than your league game,
which is less than your division win?
Monkey
Chew 'em up Tigers
powrwrap
Say you've got 11 and the dealer shows a 6.
You double down.
You draw a face card. The dealer busts. You win. You win twice as much
money as you originally bet.
How many hands did you win?
One.
But it was twice as valuable.
Playing and beating division rivals is like doubling down in blackjack.
brink
Simple. By beating the Indians, Yankees, Red Sox, Royals, and other teams
more.
Seems fairly self-evident to me.
brink
Bill Kawalec
"powrwrap" <powr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1156948178.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
no. each win is *1* in the W column. No more. No less.
>
>> If a team wins 110 games, it doesn't matter if they start the season
>> 110-0 or 0-52. As long as they get those 110 wins. Are you starting to
>> understand the math now? A win is one game. Get that 110 times and you
>> win the division.
>
> A win against a division rival will always put at least one game of
> distance between you and that team. However, a win against a different
> division's team may get you no distance (your division rival also wins
> on that day), 1/2 game distance (your team wins, rival is idle), or 1
> game distance in the standings (you win your game, your rival loses
> their game).
>
> Therefore, wins against division rivals are more important.
>
>
>> Let's try another example. A few years ago, the Red Sox came back from
>> a playoff series against the Yankees when they were down 3 games to 0.
>> Which game was the most important? With your logic, it would be the
>> 7th game. With our logic, all games we of equal importance because if
>> the Sox would have won one of the first 3, there would have been no
>> game 7.
>
>
> Comparing playoff games to regular season games isn't a fair
> comparison. The discussion is about the importance of games as it
> relates to winning the division.
Oh?? Why not?? The R Sox had to beat the Yankkes head to head, didn't they?
>
> If the Twins were in first place by 5.5 games and the Tigers had eight
> games left with the Twins instead of four, I wonder if you would see
> things differently...
Nope. We'd be saying "they shoulda beat the Royals back in April!"