"Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.
SOS and evaluating a team by the W/L ratio is interesting, but has difficulty translating W/L probability, as that is a much more complicated metric that either of those stats could ever dream of providing.
Pitching vs Batter matchups, overall health of team, are they in a slump or on a winning streak, are they well rested or tired, are they playing at home or away, etc etc etc. Too many times throughout many seasons in baseball, the statistically inferior teams get upsets against statistically superior teams (2011 NLDS series, 2012 NLDS series, 2013 Subway Series, etc etc etc).
So bottom line... while looking at the stats is interesting, the only reliable way to evaluate a team win probability IMHO, is to look at how each is performing at THAT particular instance in the season and stack them up.
For instance, in 2012 I would have looked at the End of May/Early June Dodgers (Leading MLB by 4 games) very differently than the End of June Dodgers (8 game losing streak)
But that's just the point. Whos the say that those early June Dodgers were the 'true' dodgers? Maybe they were just being lucky at that time...playing over their heads. Why did the go on an eight game losing streak? Did they lose their best 3 players to injury or did they simply come down to earth? And teams very often go through whats called a "west coast" or Cetral swing, meaning if the dodgers play the Reds this week, they are likely gonna play the Cards and another Central team in the same road trip or home stand so both teams will get the getting either the 'hot' or 'cold' dodgers at around the same times. SoS evens out, its simple as that.
My point is that I don't care if SoS evens out in the end. Using SoS now to try and determine who has an easier playing schedule provides and incomplete picture for determining W/L probability...... for all of the reasons you've said.
So looking at SoS and saying the Reds have the easier schedule doesn't carry so much water in my book. There are more situational factors to take into consideration. Yeah sure the Marlins suck most of the year... but even they can carry a winning streak and represent a formidable foe in August, when in June they were knocked around by everyone (sounds like the 2011 Cards).
Obviously, there are teams that are patently bad throughout most of the year, but even Miami can win 5 in a row at some point.
Conversely, the upper echelon rarely slump more than a week to 10 days.
We can share the women, we can share the wine.
The biggest difference? The Reds have the best fan-board on the web. It's such a great board it attracts every fanbase.
That said I don't think there is much between these two teams. I don't think that the Cards can sustain their current form, but stranger things have happened. I would still favour the Reds in a playoff series if for no other reason than I think their roster is more proven.
I see great things in baseball. It's our game.
The way I see it, the Cardinals are a better team than anyone in the league right now. Arguably, whether they "are" better or have just "played" better is up to individual perception and opinion. Clearly they've scored more runs than the Reds, given up fewer runs than the Reds, won more games than the Reds, and beaten them consistently in head to head meetings thus far in the season. None of which really matters at all when the playoffs arrive. Let the Cardinals and their fans feel superior until October. Then the Reds can either prove them wrong or justify their arrogance.
It's really silly. The Cardinals are the best team in baseball. No one is even close.
The Reds, will compete with about 8 other teams for 2nd best. As of today, The reds are .500 team when they aren't playing the Cubs or Marlins. So I would take the Red Sox, Yankees, Braves, Diamondbacks, Rangers, A's and Tigers over them.
Quite frankly, I'm not impressed with the Reds at all.
And until they compete in a series against the Cardinals, this isn't even a discussion.
He meant more proven as in they have more experience and you know what you should be able to expect from them going forward. He means the individual players. Look who the cards are relying on: Mujica, Rosenthal, Miller, Lyons, Matt Carpenter playing 2B for the first time, Freese and Beltran you just don't know how many games they'll miss. The Cards have a lot of rookies and fragile players so these are people who aren't 'proven' and if they are proven (in the case of Freese and Beltran) you just don't know how well they'll hold up. The Reds aren't relying on my rookies so your team is more proven.
LOL cant believe you didn't understand what he meant.
You know what...that's my fault and I apologize. You disagree with me. You have the right to disagree with me and I shouldn't get bent out of shape about it. Again...I apologize. Its just that I stay away from Cards boards for this very reason and I lurked here for a long time and didn't have to see posts like this and now these posts are everywhere but that is not your problem and I shouldn't take it out on you.
Last edited by dabvu2498; 06-14-2013 at 10:29 AM.