I cognitively understand that the Dodgers were 91-36 at one point.

Ain't no understanding like cognitive understanding

I don't disagree that making the NLCS three straight years and winning one World Series is pretty damn good, especially considering the less-than-stellar history of this franchise over the last century or so, but Parkins saying "People need to have a cognitive understanding of the randomness of baseball." just makes me laugh and roll my eyes.

Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

Literally nothing random about that series. It is a 100% a$$ whooping. That was a case of the much better team won. It happened as it should.

True and still, the Cubs lead in 4 of 5 games. With a good/great bullpen this series might have gone 7.

Was there really any point in a game where you felt the Cubs were in complete control? The closest I could argue for is when they had that early 2-0 lead on Saturday.

Even when they led you felt like the Cubs were an accident waiting to happen.

The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.

People tend to use "randomness"—or, in Bernstein's case, a bastardized usage of "variance" because he thinks it makes him sound smarter—as filler for all baseball failures.

Randomness in baseball is a line drive finding a glove, a warning track shot with just enough backspin to carry it over the wall, a diving liner turning over and touching down fair instead of foul. This series loss isn't about randomness, because the team was victimized by very little of that, if any at all. This is about a failure to execute, top to bottom.

Kris Bryant's 14 K's in 40 AB's in the postseason this year weren't random. The team as a whole this series striking out at a rate above 30% isn't random. Schwarber batting .167 isn't exactly unexpected given his regular season. Walking Yu Goddamned Darvish wasn't a statistical anomaly caused by small sample size. The litany of weak grounders being turned into outs isn't an unfair changing of the baseball winds.

The personalities will try to spin it like the dice just came up wrong for the Cubs this year and they crapped out, when really they crapped their pants.

What you're talking about really relates to the way this team is built and the current conventional wisdom on structuring an offense. Part of that is the idiotic belief (mostly made without any real thought and usuallly just a regurgitation of something read at Fangraphs or Prospectus or Sheehan's newsletter) that "a strikeout is no different than any other out." This is often followed by the same person talking about BABIP and the randomness of balls in play. It seems lost upon these people that it then logically follows that a non-strikeout will result in an overall OBP of around 30% while a strikeout results in an OBP of slightly more than 0%.

I believe strikeouts, mathematically dont affect run expectancy anymore than ground outs or fly outs.


How is a strikeout different? Just in judging the hitter? Or affecting the game?

I think the disconnect is that after the out is recorded there is little difference between a K and any other out.

But to say that you have one batter who is likely to strike out in 30% of his plate appearances and another that is likely to have the same BABIP but will only strike out 10% of the time and they are equivalent (assuming everything else is equal), well you can see how silly that is.

put the damn ball in play. besides, when you're off, you're off. you get nothing. can kill you in a short series, for a variety of reasons.

Absolutely not. I kinda thought they had a shot in Game 1.

But if they had a good pen, I would have. That's my point.

They averaged 1.6 runs per game in the NLCS. A better pen wasn't going to save them.

Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?

With a runner on third and no outs I think the team wants player B to be up.

Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?

The mitigating factor is that guys who strike out a lot and get to remain in the big leagues while playing regularly tend to have a lot of power. I'm sure that JLN can give us a number where the cost of the strikeouts is outweighed by the benefit of the power. The problem is that you don't know when the homers are going to come. The Cubs don't really have any table setters. Zobrist is the one guy they have who reliably puts the ball in play.

Right. Let's simply it. We have a crystal ball and we know that:

1) Player A will come to bat and strike out.
2) Player B will come to bat and put the ball in play.

Regardless of the ultimate disposition of Player B's at-bat, it's more desirable simply because it will result in him reaching base approximately 30% of the time.

JLN?