Did the false positive cost the Giants? - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Did the false positive cost the Giants? (/thread-20536.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Did the false positive cost the Giants? (/thread-20536.html)
Did the false positive cost the Giants? - lex24 - 09-28-2020
(Sorry for the thread typo - can’t edit) It shortened the series in SD to three games. But two were in 7 inning DH. And it’s very difficult to sweep a 4 game series. Ironically, of course, the SD scheduled game turned into the second game of the DH in SF. Ending with the walk off.
BTW - hadn’t thought of this. - at the time I was just glad they won the game. But why on earth did Kapler pitch Watson in the 7th (9th equivalent) in game 1 up by four? Wouldn’t it have made sense to save your best and most experienced reliever for game 2. Watson was gassed at seasons end. And got lit his last two (including giving up 3 in that 7th). But I would have liked my chances with him over a Coonrod.
I know. Time to let go. But.......
RE: Did the false positive costbthe Giants? - CompSci87 - 09-28-2020
If you need to edit the title of a thread you started, use "full edit" instead of "quick edit" on the first post. I don't think you have to be a moderator.
lex24 - lex24 - 09-28-2020
(09-28-2020, 11:18 PM)CompSci87 Wrote: If you need to edit the title of a thread you started, use "full edit" instead of "quick edit" on the first post. I don't think you have to be a moderator.
Thank you.
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - OutsiderFan - 09-29-2020
How about a thread on saving the Titanic from sinking after it hit the ice berg? Seriously.
The Giants flat out and simply didn’t have good enough pitching. We all thought going in they also didn’t have good enough hitting and scoring ability, but turns out they did. You lose more baseball games than you win when lacking quality pitching.
It’s almost like Bill Walsh’s famous philosophy that you can scheme offense to score points with lesser athletes, but like you must have quality pitching to win baseball games, you must have great athletes on defense to stop the opponent enough times to consistently win football games.
The Cardinals and Marlins both had long Covid layoffs and plenty of double headers. Both those teams made the playoffs because they both pitched well. The Phillies, Giants, Mets, and Brewers all lacked good enough pitching as well, and the Reds were also better.
Over 162, the Giants would have lost 90+ games.
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - Papa John - 09-29-2020
(09-29-2020, 03:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: How about a thread on saving the Titanic from sinking after it hit the ice berg?
Ask and ye shall receive...
https://historytotallynaked.com/2019/04/13/discover-10-ways-the-titanic-could-have-avoided-sinking-or-saved-its-passengers/
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - teejers1 - 09-29-2020
(09-29-2020, 03:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: How about a thread on saving the Titanic from sinking after it hit the ice berg? Seriously.
The Giants flat out and simply didn’t have good enough pitching. We all thought going in they also didn’t have good enough hitting and scoring ability, but turns out they did. You lose more baseball games than you win when lacking quality pitching.
It’s almost like Bill Walsh’s famous philosophy that you can scheme offense to score points with lesser athletes, but like you must have quality pitching to win baseball games, you must have great athletes on defense to stop the opponent enough times to consistently win football games.
The Cardinals and Marlins both had long Covid layoffs and plenty of double headers. Both those teams made the playoffs because they both pitched well. The Phillies, Giants, Mets, and Brewers all lacked good enough pitching as well, and the Reds were also better.
Over 162, the Giants would have lost 90+ games.
I don't get why you're so intent on insulating Kapler from at least some blame this season.
And when you finish 1 game out - 1 stinking game from making (expanded) playoffs or sitting home with the other $hitty teams - the obvious blunders can be absolutely crucial. And Kapler made several that cost the Giants. The playoffs, it turns out.
Now, it may well be that the Giants pitching is mediocre. So what? They still should be competing in the playoffs, even if it is one series against the Dodgers.
And btw, your question about why the Giants would even want to play the Dodgers and get smoked is the ultimate in surrender monkeyism. (And in a best of 3 series, the best team doesn't always win).
In short, you can believe (a) the Giants have insufficient pitching, (b) the Giants substantially improved hitting (at least some of which should be credited to the staff), and © Kapler's in-game decisions, in a few instances, were horrible and cost the team the playoffs. They are not mutually exclusive.
As for the Corona-replayed game, I don't think that cost the Giants. If anything, it gave them a better shot at the W (which the Giants gagged).
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - Phogge - 09-29-2020
I thought the season would be a bore. But it was fun watching those guys compete. Now Farhan has to do magic with a restructured bullpen. Plus sign Smily and Glausman.
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - Mick - 09-29-2020
(09-29-2020, 03:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: How about a thread on saving the Titanic from sinking after it hit the ice berg? Seriously.
The Giants flat out and simply didn’t have good enough pitching. We all thought going in they also didn’t have good enough hitting and scoring ability, but turns out they did. You lose more baseball games than you win when lacking quality pitching.
It’s almost like Bill Walsh’s famous philosophy that you can scheme offense to score points with lesser athletes, but like you must have quality pitching to win baseball games, you must have great athletes on defense to stop the opponent enough times to consistently win football games.
The Cardinals and Marlins both had long Covid layoffs and plenty of double headers. Both those teams made the playoffs because they both pitched well. The Phillies, Giants, Mets, and Brewers all lacked good enough pitching as well, and the Reds were also better.
Over 162, the Giants would have lost 90+ games.
Prorated, wouldn't it have been 84 losses? 31 losses/60 games, .483 winning percentage x 162 games = 84 losses
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - BostonCard - 09-29-2020
(09-29-2020, 02:49 PM)Mick Wrote: Prorated, wouldn't it have been 84 losses? 31 losses/60 games, .483 winning percentage x 162 games = 84 losses
I don't want to put words in OF's mouth, but I have a feeling that this isn't a simple proration, but rather an expectation that over 162 games there would be a reversion to the mean (presumably especially on the offensive side of the ball) and that the Giants would have done worse in the remaining 102 games than they did in the 60 they played.
BC
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - BobK - 09-29-2020
That's fair BC so my prediction we could have won 84. :)
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - Giants - 09-29-2020
(09-28-2020, 09:35 PM)lex24 Wrote: (Sorry for the thread typo - can’t edit) It shortened the series in SD to three games. But two were in 7 inning DH. And it’s very difficult to sweep a 4 game series. Ironically, of course, the SD scheduled game turned into the second game of the DH in SF. Ending with the walk off.
BTW - hadn’t thought of this. - at the time I was just glad they won the game. But why on earth did Kapler pitch Watson in the 7th (9th equivalent) in game 1 up by four? Wouldn’t it have made sense to save your best and most experienced reliever for game 2. Watson was gassed at seasons end. And got lit his last two (including giving up 3 in that 7th). But I would have liked my chances with him over a Coonrod.
I know. Time to let go. But.......
It wasn’t the false positive, it was the bullpen that cost SF a playoff spot.
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - OutsiderFan - 09-29-2020
BC is correct. I wasn’t pro rating on purpose because I would see the Giants falling off a similar cliff as they did in 2019 as this season unfolded, were it any longer.
RE: Did the false positive cost the Giants? - Mick - 09-29-2020
(09-29-2020, 05:28 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: BC is correct. I wasn’t pro rating on purpose because I would see the Giants falling off a similar cliff as they did in 2019 as this season unfolded, were it any longer.
I wonder about that. They started 8-16 and finished 21-15 to go 29-31. If they kept up the pace of their last 36 games -- assuming they'd figured it out and played 102 more games, they would have gone 60-42, with a final record of 89-73.
Anyway, l that's what I'm telling myself...
lex24 - lex24 - 09-29-2020
(09-29-2020, 03:44 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: How about a thread on saving the Titanic from sinking after it hit the ice berg? Seriously.
The Giants flat out and simply didn’t have good enough pitching. We all thought going in they also didn’t have good enough hitting and scoring ability, but turns out they did. You lose more baseball games than you win when lacking quality pitching.
It’s almost like Bill Walsh’s famous philosophy that you can scheme offense to score points with lesser athletes, but like you must have quality pitching to win baseball games, you must have great athletes on defense to stop the opponent enough times to consistently win football games.
The Cardinals and Marlins both had long Covid layoffs and plenty of double headers. Both those teams made the playoffs because they both pitched well. The Phillies, Giants, Mets, and Brewers all lacked good enough pitching as well, and the Reds were also better.
Over 162, the Giants would have lost 90+ games.
True. But it was a 60 game season. So you can hide the warts a little easier. My comment had nothing to do about the length of the layoff. Just that they might’ve been able to win one of the four originally scheduled games in San Diego. Which might’ve made a difference