Royals open at -120 WORLD SERIES Discussion

[TABLE="class: tableOdds, width: 1180"]
<tbody id="oddsBody">[TR="class: row-odd"]
[TD="class: team"] 10/28

8:05 PM


903 NYM-J deGrom
904 KC-J Cueto
​
[/TD]
[TD="class: bets"] 26143
[/TD]
[TD="class: pct"] 67%
33%
[/TD]
[TD="class: pct"] 70%
30%
[/TD]
[TD="class: pct"] 60%
40%
[/TD]
[TD="class: pct"] 71%
29%
[/TD]
[TD="class: pressure"]

[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
 
as i said numerous times, u can not kill KC. they never fucking quit.
 
Thanks Hugh. F5 line has dropped from -140 to -125 in past hour or two?? Now same as game line at my site. NyM F5 -.5 is +115.
 
nbafan88 said:
playoff games played together
Click to expand...
There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.-- But to be concise, he makes the leap in his abstract that he is substituting teammate experience as a proxy variable for chemistry. In laymen terms, that means chemistry is immeasurable (duh). To add my personal opinion: Teammate experience is not even close to what most of us would consider team chemistry, therefore there is not a close correlation and thus shouldn't be utilized as a proxy variable.
 
I know I will get some disagreement as some will say that the Royals won games that they were supposed to win at home and now it's time for the Mets to win at home, but I disagree. I think this series is very over.

Let's take another stab at what the new series line will be? Royals -275?
 
TheHbomb said:
I think it's a huge mistake to think this series is over. Can easily see the mets winning 3 in NY.
Click to expand...

They're gonna have to, but if they do then KC will be awfully tight in g6

With that said, hard to have much faith in fastball-heavy syndergaard unless he has a good breaking ball in G3. Not as familiar with his pitch arsenal, but deGrom didn't have a good slider tonight and he couldn't get swings and misses eventually leading to not being able to escape the 5th

Under beats have been brutal, not gonna try G3 cuz I don't like Ventura out of the stretch at all
 
TheHbomb said:
I think it's a huge mistake to think this series is over. Can easily see the mets winning 3 in NY.
Click to expand...

"Easily"...huh???

The Royals won't lose 3 in a row or 4 out of 5 right now. They have such a superior offense that their pitching doesn't matter. The Royals only need 5 innings out of their starters, which is so tough to contend with. And most importantly, it was stated in this thread before the series and it's been overstated everywhere by now, but the fact that the Royals simply don't strike out makes this series impossible to win for the Mets. The Cubs and Dodgers were totally different hitters and they made the entire Mets staff look like a bunch of Cy Youngs for 2 straight weeks.

This series could very well go 6. Hell, maybe even 7. But the Royals aren't losing 4 of 5, with 2 at home.
 
Well, enlighten me how you think they will lose 3 in a row to a mets team who will be throwing their 3rd and 4th pitchers out there with a pen that the kc hitters know by now. That's my short version.

I know anything can happen but losing three in a row I dunno man.
 
The historical stats continue to pile up to an insane degree against the Mets WS chances now KC is up 2-0, but one other factor some have cast doubt on in this thread is really shining through for me: the Mets are paying for a lack of experience.

That doesn't just mean simple WS experience or even playoff experience (which KC obv. has over them on both counts), it means their experience as a 'winning team'. The Mets have been a 'winning team' for 3-4 months. They're new to the experience of carrying the mantle/pressure of being expected to be able to win any particular game they're involved in after years in the losers wilderness (their last winning reg. season before 2015 was in 2008); they're still now growing into the role of carrying around a winning team's mentality. KC went through the process in 2013-14 (they may not have made the playoffs, but they ended '13 @86-76, their first winning season in 'forever', and obv. cemented that growth with 2014's 89-73 effort). They developed, with admittedly some 'lucky' results, faster than probably even they themselves thought they would, but they've spent 18 regular season months & 1 previous playoff month growing into their new identity, that's at least 13 more months with their noses to this particular grindstone than the Mets have: that's the difference that's showing here.

Also to note, KC had to forge their new identity in a division that featured a team regularly making the ALCS (Detroit), where the NL East presented the Mets with no opponent strong enough to make the NLCS the last 4 years: the Mets were a losing team in an already weak division, where the Royals were not, so the Mets have begun their forging of a new identity, in light of the unbalanced schedule, in a less strenuous milieu than KC's own. Certainly the Mets weren't served by the Cubs rolling over in the NLCS, which brings me to the perfect mirror of this current situation that occurred in the not so distant past -

It's 2007 and the Rockies were not a 'winning team' (they were under .500 at one point after the AS break, whereas at least the Mets can claim to have left behind being under .500 for the last time this year before the break), but they caught fire for a couple of months and suddenly played like they'd forgotten their identity as a losing team. They weren't tested at all in the NL section of the playoffs (7-0 SU, only 2 of those 7 wins based on a leads gained after the 6th inning; only 2 games decided by 1 run margins & no extra inning games), but then they met an AL team who clearly had the kind of experience advantage I'm talking about above: I doubt I need remind anyone what then *cough broom cough* happened. The same dynamic looks to be in play at the moment. It wasn't like the Rockies were a fraud of a team, they had ballers. But on the WS stage, they were found out for not having paid their long term dues. (I should note at this point that while KC went 8-0 through last years AL side of the playoffs, they had 4 games go to extra innings & 4 of their games were decided by 1 run = they were repeatedly tested. It was those challenges that clearly prepared them to X degree for what SF would bring to bear.)

There's no argument to be made for the Mets having paid their dues. KC ran into a team that had paid more than enough dues in last year's WS, arguably only a team with the vast winning experience SF had was capable of stopping that Royals team that was part juggernaut, and part pure luckbox. This Mets team doesn't begin to compare to that Giants team in terms of experience. The furnace that the Giants subject the Royals to last season, is the furnace that's forged their numerous comebacks these playoffs. None of this means their weaknesses (starting pitching, lack of power hitting) have disappeared (the precise reasons the Mets managed pre-6th inning leads in the first place), but I have to think the way the Mets lost G1 contributed mightily to their weak offensive outing against Cueto in Game 2. Not saying they should've hammered him, but a team used to winning/that expects to win wouldn't have meekly managed only 1 guy out of 9 hitting safely off Cueto in 9 innings of exposure to him (The Mets just cost some team a lot of money by helping overvalue this guy's worth. The only other teams he went 9.0 IP against this season were 2 who were dead-in-the-water, the Tigers [4 hits, 0 ER] & Nationals [2 hits, 0 ER]).

Finally, as if the point needed further evidencing: Toronto's season is almost a mirror image of the Mets. Floating around .500 headed into the AS break, then a few trades later it was *poof* = a winning team for 3-4 months. That 'winning team' should've been dealt to by Texas (who, even more so than KC, had a core of personal who were experienced hardened going back a number of seasons), but due to injuries and a plethora of errors (in probably the worse single playoff effort any individual has ever had) it was left to KC to finish that job. Mets/Blue Jays, Blue Jays/Mets. What KC did to one, it's doing to the other.

-------

I said not too many posts back that the Mets had to avoid late losses and they'd be good. The nature of their Game 1 loss speaks to a team that cracked [it goes beyond just the 9th inning homer & their extra inning meltdown kicked off by an error: it speaks to how they blew a 2 run lead as soon as it was generated in the 6th]. They turned a lead into a significant deficit in game 2 within an inning of generating it. Even chucking out the history of WS winning percentages based upon 2-0 leads, who does it read like is going to win this series from here:

The team that's become used to winning over the last 3 seasons & has repeatedly come from behind in the first 2 games? or the team that's become used to winning only over the last 3-4 months & has blown numerous leads already in the first 2 games?

The Mets are getting leads because of KC's weakness/their own strength (starting pitching). That one area just doesn't read as being nearly enough to believe the Mets can comeback. KC has HFA, has the bullpen (Mushdon excepted), and has the experience. If each side's bats were a toss-up consideration before the series began, games in the bank means immediate hindsight allows for the observation that that's no longer the case. This WS is over. My dismissiveness about the future competitiveness of this WS is as much about how the Mets have lost to this point, and how quickly the nature of those losses could crack their nascent identity as a 'winning team' and rekindle the loser energy they've otherwise lived with as their norm for the past few seasons (which is not to say that isn't precisely what occurred after game 1 hence helped forge game 2's result), as it is about KC's strength. If KC was so good in terms of pure talent/ability, Houston wouldn't have been 2 innings away from cleaning them up in less than 5 games in their ALDS. But Houston, like the Mets & like the Blue Jays, was yet another recent poor performer only just starting to get used to the mantle of being a 'winning team' (except for their winning ways encompassing more of the reg. season). KC's experience is counting like nothing else for them these playoffs, against just the right sort of opponents.
 
I think whats forgotten in this series matchup is the fact that KC is a nightmare matchup for the Mets. The Mets rely heavily on the strikeout and KC doesn't strike out much. Which means more balls in play, more chances of balls going through the hole which translates into runs. I bet Harvey under 6 strikeouts in game 1 and Degrom under 6 strikeouts in game 2.

Hopefully the Syndergaard strikeout prop is reasonable and the books haven't caught on to this.
 
Read every word BC and agree that there is a certain class of team that is tough to overcome until the team actually does it, but I'd argue NYM has done it already reaching the WS.

You could be right that this team has lost it mentally at this point, and that is very possible considering the traumatic loss in g1, but i wouldn't go that far just because they didn't provide much resistance in g2. I think taking a g2 lead was enough to say this team is not done, unfortunately deGrom had been leaking oil all playoffs struggling but somehow limiting damage and getting out of jams and he couldn't last night.

In reality, this team was two outs away with its lock-down closer from stealing one in KC and taking control of the series. I think/hope Ventura gets shelled at Citi as a NYM series backer and at 2-1 the momentum and pressure will be different. 3-2 heading back to KC is pretty much essential for NYM's chances to win this thing and with superior SPs in each game I don't dislike their chances assuming they hold a lead late.

It's very early to call this series over, though a KC win in G3 might seal the fate
 
Gabe said:
I think whats forgotten in this series matchup is the fact that KC is a nightmare matchup for the Mets. The Mets rely heavily on the strikeout and KC doesn't strike out much. Which means more balls in play, more chances of balls going through the hole which translates into runs. I bet Harvey under 6 strikeouts in game 1 and Degrom under 6 strikeouts in game 2.

Hopefully the Syndergaard strikeout prop is reasonable and the books haven't caught on to this.
Click to expand...

Have you listened to any of the broadcasts on Fox? I don't know how anyone on Earth doesn't know by now, because joe buck pulls a string on Harold Reynolds' back for 3 hours straight during the game and Harold repeats it over and over.
 
TheHbomb said:
Have you listened to any of the broadcasts on Fox? I don't know how anyone on Earth doesn't know by now, because joe buck pulls a string on Harold Reynolds' back for 3 hours straight during the game and Harold repeats it over and over.
Click to expand...

I mute the TV.
 
HUNT said:
Well, enlighten me how you think they will lose 3 in a row to a mets team who will be throwing their 3rd and 4th pitchers out there with a pen that the kc hitters know by now. That's my short version.

I know anything can happen but losing three in a row I dunno man.
Click to expand...

Easily wasn't meant in a literal sense, but I think it is easy to focus on last night and lose sight of the fact that the mets are a blown save (thanks to a moronic attempt to quick pitch) away from being tied. Yes, they have their 3 and 4 starters, but don't confuse them with the league average 3 & 4 starters; they are much better. I think the momentum will shift at citi field. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I am not gonna bury the mets yet. If they lose tomorrow, I will, but if they win, they will have a chance to even the series on Saturday night and we could be looking at a whole new series. We will see what happens tomorrow.
 
I love to think this series is over but I think Thor shoves tomorrow night and who knows with Chris Young on Friday considering the Mets have already seen him. I wouldn't be shocked to see 2-2 going into game 5. Mets +350 has some value IMO.
 
The Mets are certainly not dead, though I'm not sure how much I like either starter in game 3 or 4 (certainly don't like Chris Young either).

Snyndergaard is good, no doubt about it and a better pitcher than Ventura. But, as we've seen, you have to like the Royals lineup and bullpen better. All the KC starter has to do is get 5-6 quality innings and they have the chance to steal the game. I think the Mets have a good shot in game 3.

Mats is being overvalued though. He threw 35 total innings in the majors. While, he had some decent state (8.5 k/9, 2/5 bb/9) he did give up some homers and somehow stranded 91% of runners that were on base. I think he's a bit of fools gold. The Royals have a few guys that hit lefties well (Zobrist, Cain, Gordon, Moustaks, Morales) and Hosmer doesn't embarrass himself vs. lefties.

I think 3 and 4 could be close games as well and I can't discount the Royals ability to get a run and prevent runs from their relievers. I agree the line is ridic and the Mets shouldn't be that high.

Im eyeing a game total over bet in game 4, but I have a feeling a lot of people will be because of Young.
 
I like Matz a lot and strand rates are higher when the pitcher has great stuff.

Likely looking for a NYM or under play in G4. Gonna be cold in NYC and Young hasn't gotten touched up in what seems like years. Not sure NYM is the team to do it and the P spot is a great rally killer
 
There are 2 sets of historical stats in this post, those concerning (1) overall WS outcomes for teams with HFA who were 2-0 up after 2 games, and those (2) relating specifically to Game 3's within such WS. Starting off with (1)...

BetCrimes1984 said:
View attachment 39684
Click to expand...

(A) That 65-13 figure (a 83.9% series win rate) for teams up 2-0 covers all postseason series, not simply the WS nor simply teams who had HFA. If we whittle down the stat pool to...

- Team A's up 2-0 in the WS itself
- Team A's who had HFA in the WS
- WS that used the 2-3-2 format
- Team A's that didn't lose to their WS opponent in the previous year's WS

...then we arrive at a 23-4 record: that's a winning rate of 85.2%, compared to the (now) 82.4% win rate for the (51) remaining 2-0 series situations which don't fit these 4 criteria. The Mets are therefore in a 2-0 hole that's even more difficult to climb out of than the overall historical norm.


(B) Looking at the 23 teams who won the WS after going up 2-0:

- 21 of the 23 (91.3%) won at least 1 of their middle 3 road games
- 17 of the 23 (73.9%) won at least 1 their first 2 road games
- 3 of the 4 teams who won a road game in extra innings swept their opponents


(C) Looking at the 4 teams who blew their winning 2-0 position, there's one thing that stands out like a politician in a church confessional: they all lost every road game they played (loser's score first):

1981 Yankees: 4-5, 7-8, 1-2 (lost WS in Game 6)
1971 ..Orioles: 1-5, 3-4, 0-4 (lost WS in Game 7)
1965 ...Twins: 0-4, 2-7, 0-7 (lost WS in Game 7)
1955 Yankees: 3-8, 5-8, 3-5 (lost WS in Game 7)

This is the history the Mets are up against: no one in their specific position has ever won the WS after dropping a solitary home game.

--------

Now looking at the historical stats pertaining specifically to Game 3, re any pointers they might have regarding pre-game & live betting for Friday's game.

(A) To cover the most relevant stat first: the Game 3 w/l record for teams up 2-0:

- 11 wins in regulation
- _1 win in extra innings
- 12 losses in regulation
- _3 losses in extra innings

(a1) Historically they've won this game pretty much 50% of the time when avoiding going beyond the distance, but beyond the 9th inning has seen natural home advantage dominate proceedings (the one home team to lose in extras - Houston in 2005 - twice had a man on 3rd before the winning road runs crossed home plate).

(a2) Every single one of the 12 road teams to win Game 3 went on to sweep the WS by winning Game 4. That's how big Game 3 is for Met fans hoping to see their team win at least once on the big stage in 2015.

(a3) How the home & road teams for these Game 3's have gone about winning is very different:

- Home teams have been all about restricting their opponents: in 9 of their 12 reg. innings wins (75.0% rate) they've restricted their opponent to 2 runs or less, compared to road teams managing that feat in only 4 of their 11 reg. innings wins (36.3% rate)

- Road teams have been all about piling on the runs against their opponents: in 8 of their 11 reg. innings wins (72.7% rate) they've scored at least 6 runs, compared to home teams managing that feat in only 2 of their 12 reg. innings wins (16.7% rate)

These stats above obviously run into the recognition that higher scoring G3's decided in reg. have been won by the road team, and lower scoring G3's decided in reg. have been won by the home team...

1-7 total runs scored: home teams 9-2 SU
_8+ total runs scored: road teams 9-3 SU

(Game 3's decided in extra innings have totaled 7, 9, 12 & 13 runs, with the only game not decided by 1 run being the only game won by the road team.)

(a4) Game 3 regulation innings result margins...

Margin .... Home .... Road
1 run ..... 4 wins ... 1 win
2 runs .... 3 wins ... 2 wins
3 runs .... 0 wins ... 1 win
4 runs .... 3 wins ... 4 wins
5 runs .... 2 wins ... 2 wins
6 runs .... 0 wins ... 1 win

Mirroring the Home reg. wins being in lower scoring games and Road reg. wins being in higher scoring games, are the margin distributions for Game 3 results. Home teams have dominated the low-scoring close games, but have more readily been blown out in the higher scoring ones (curious to me is the dearth of 3 run results).


(B) The immediate stand-out stat that I came across re live betting angles concerns the 1st scoring team: teams scoring 1st in Game 3's have - in games decided in the regulation 9 innings - gone 20-3 SU. To put that into some context, here are the W/L-in-regulation records for 1st scorers over the first 4 games of these 27 WS (the numbers in brackets are the results for 1st scorers for those games that went into extra innings):

Game 1: 14-11 (1-1)
Game 2: 19-7 (0-1)
Game 3: 20-3 (1-3)
Game 4: 12-11 (4-0)

While G2's 73.1% reg. win rate is impressive, G3's 87.0% is off the charts. The 3 teams that make for the exceptions (SD 3 run 6th in '98; MIN 1 run 6th in '87; STL 2 run 1st in '28)...

- all were scored against within their opponent's next 2 AB
- all conceded a multi-run inning within 3 innings of their scoring 1st
- all trailed after scoring 1st before they scored again
- all lost their leads within 3 innings of their scoring 1st

-------

In keeping with the above 1st scoring stat, I'll now relate some stats that are aligned not with the 4 criteria introduced above, but will refer back to a previous post: The following stats are derived from Game 3 results for WS teams who...

- won Game 1 by a 1 run margin
- won Game 2 (margin irrelevant)

Game 3's from WS fitting those 2 criteria have seen the 1st scoring team...

- go 12-0 SU when Game 3 was decided in regulation innings.
- go 1-1 SU when Game 3 was decided in extra innings.

If KC scores 1st in Game 3 & then hold the Mets to 0 in the bottom of said inning, they should just stop the game at that point and hand them the trophy then & there.

-------

Coming back to stats related to the 4 criteria introduced intitally:

(C) KC restricted the Mets to 2 hits in Game 2. Teams taking a 2-0 lead in the WS by restricting their opponents to 3 hits or less in Game 2 have never lost the WS (given the 4 criteria listed)...

2012: SF held DET to 2 hits in G2, won the WS 4-0
2001: AZ held NYY to 3 hits in G2, won the WS 4-3
1988: LAD held OAK to 3 hits in G2, won the WS 4-1
1939: NYY held CIN to 2 hits in G2, won the WS 4-0

While the Yankees effort of 2001 might seem a good historical example for the Mets to hang their hats on, it can't ever be forgotten that Byung-Hyun Kim surrendered multi-run leads with the Yankees twice being 1 out away from losing. By all rights that WS at a minimum should've ended in 6 games, more probably 5. Of course Wade Davis is no reincarnation of Kim, so the miraculous way one New York team engineered a revisiting of their opponent's home field seems to have no possible counterpart in the present. Other than that example, the remaining outcomes seen here sound a rather resounding message: teams that have put in piss poor offensive efforts in Game 2's to go 2-0 down in the WS have taken it up the ass when they've gone back home (a total of 1 home win out of 7 games played).
 
GWarner27 said:
Read every word BC and agree that there is a certain class of team that is tough to overcome until the team actually does it, but I'd argue NYM has done it already reaching the WS.You could be right that this team has lost it mentally at this point, and that is very possible considering the traumatic loss in g1, but i wouldn't go that far just because they didn't provide much resistance in g2. I think taking a g2 lead was enough to say this team is not done, unfortunately deGrom had been leaking oil all playoffs struggling but somehow limiting damage and getting out of jams and he couldn't last night.
Click to expand...

In the specific instance of appraising the fight in this Mets team (re the bolded quote), you may be right. But looking at the historical stats for...

teams down 0-1 who then scored 1st in game 2 but lost game 2 SU

...when those teams...

- didn't have HFA
- were subject to a 2-3-2 WS format
- weren't playing a team who beat them in the previous year's WS

...then we find that those teams have gone 1-7 in the WS, with 5 of those 7 losers being swept. Their having scored 1st isn't much to hang one's hat on viewed through the lens of history.
 
Agree w HBomb. Really terrific read BC. At this point I am hoping for that statistical outlier i.e., '86 Mets.
 
Obviously the Mets managed to traverse the Game 3 hurdle which, had they faied, would have been all anybody wrote. While Game 4 presents no real change for the Mets (again their position is 'must-win'), this game starts to count for a lot more re KC's position...

Of the 27 teams who met the 4 criteria matching KC's position after 2 games, 15 lost Game 3. 4 of those 15 teams ended up losing the WS, so where the historical WS winning rate for those teams was 85.2% after 2 games, that rate drops down to 73.3% for those teams with a 2-1 series lead after 3 games. A 1-in-4 chance of winning looks a lot more of a manageable task for the Mets than did a 3-in-20 one. I don't see the need or point to harp on any further about the long term series stats (this should suffice), so let's move right along to the historical stats for this Game 4 spot re any pointers they have re potential pre-game bets & live betting.


(Before I do so, I have to note the following: during Game 3 I was looking up some baseball history and came across the fact that both (1) the pitcher's mound was reduced 5 inches, and (2) the strike zone reduced before the start of the 1969 season. I'd previously posted some stats in groupings differentiating the up-to-1968 & 1969-&-beyond split, indicating the significance I saw between the 2 groups due to the fact the LCS phase of the postseason was introduced starting 1969, but these added aspects of the mound & strike zone change now make the difference between these two time periods even more cavernous from my pov. Since I've consistently lumped together the -68 & 69+ stats in this thread to this point I'll continue to do so, but have introduced the sole 1969 onwards stats in brackets besides every overall figure presented. As it stands now in light of learning of these multiple changes in the game, I personally don't see pre-1969 stats as having any great bearing as a reference point going forward.)


(1) Once again, to cover the most relevant stat first: the Game 4 w/l record for teams up 2-1:

4 (4) wins in regulation innings
1 (0) wins in extra innings
9 (5) losses in regulation innings
1 (1) loss in extra innings

(The first relevant stats cab off the rank for this game immediately marks out the difference for teams playing before the '69 season & those playing onwards from it:

1969+ teams have gone 4-5 SU in reg & 0-1 in extra innings in this spot.
-1968 teams have gone 0-4 SU in reg. & 1-0 in extra innings in this spot.

If I had conflated the 2 and made no mention of this '68/69 dichotomy, then the position of the historical stats would've been seen to read rather strongly in favour of the Mets for Game 4, given the regulation inning win rate for home teams overall in this spot without noting any 'split' is 69.2%. As it stands, it's basically a 50% split for those games decided in regulation played under 1969+ conditions vs. a 100% Home win rate for those played under the 'old', now defunct conditions.)


(2) Where Game 3's stats for 1st scoring teams were rather emphatic (and how apt it was for the Mets to match the in-game feats of those 3 previous teams who defied that trend), those for Game 4 are emphatic but in a much different way. Where Game 3 heavily favoured 1st scoring teams to win SU, Game 4's historical stats strongly point to the road team scoring 1st (a dominance which traverses the 68/69 stat divide)...

1st scorers in games decided in regulation innings
Home teams: 2 (1) times .... 15.4% (11.1%)
Road teams: 11 (8) times ... 84.6% (88.9%)

1st scorers in games decided in extra innings
Home teams: 1 (1) time
Road teams: 1 (0) time

Keeping in mind this stat pool reflects only road teams that lost their Game 3's after being up 2-0 in the WS, this phenomena I think reflects the fact that the bounce back facility in the series-leading team to date is obviously a typical dynamic of the early play in these Game 4's. That that bounce back energy hasn't been sustained often throughout these games is reflected in the fact that only 33% (50%) of those 1st scoring Road teams have gone on to win SU (be it in reg. or extras), well below the normal rate for 1st scoring teams in playoff games. Where it was historically important for the Mets to score 1st in Game 3 (or manage a particular sequence of feats if they didn't: something they did rather precisely), here it's obviously important for KC to score 1st given no home team has lost when it's been the one to break the 0-0 tie.


(3) Game 4 regulation inning margin results...

Margin .... Home wins .... Road wins
1 run ......... 4 (3) ........... 2 (2)
2 runs ........ 2 (1)
3 runs ........ 1 (0) ........... 1 (1)
4 runs ............................ 1 (1)
5 runs ........ 2 (1)

These games have generally played out tightly from 1969 onwards.

(3a) Only 2 Game 4's have previously been decided in extra innings:

- 2001: Byung-Hyun Kim's 1st of 2 straight 2-run blown saves with 2 out in the 9th leads to a 4-3 Yankee win.
- 1933: NY Giants broke a 1-1 tie in the top of the 11th, then survived a bases loaded, 1 out jam to win 2-1.


(4) How these teams have gone about winning in regulation:

- In 9 (5) wins, the Home team has conceded more than 3 runs just 2 (1) times.
- In 4 (4) wins, the Road team has not once conceded more than 3 runs.

Pretty clear that it will be worth paying attention to see which (if any) team breaks the 4 run barrier first.

(4a) Team results correlated to total regulation runs scored:

- Home teams have gone 5-0 (3-0) in reg. innings games totaling 8+ runs.
- Road teams have gone 4-4 (4-2) in reg. innings games totaling 1-7 runs.

History suggests the Mets need another barn burner, where conversely KC needs to get back to pitching well.
 
If it wasn't for the Mets having already seen big Chris I would be on KC....still lean that way. If u like Mets tonight I'd hit +160 series as well....
 
Including the postseason, Chris Young has had 18 game starts this season. Of those 18 starts, he has pitched 7 innings or more only once (June 16th). He has pitched 6 innings or less in 14 of his 18 starts. 7 of those 14 starts he lasted just 5 innings or less. The best case scenario for KC is to get between 5 and 6 innings out of Young tonight, and hope he holds the Mets in check. If he doesn't do that for them, KC's bullpen, who outside of Wade Davis, were taxed last night, will have to be relied upon heavily. If that situation does transpire (which it very well could), The KC bullpen will be severely taxed heading into the critical game 5 and the Mets will have a decided advantage in that scenario.

In short, you have a starting pitcher, who has lasted just 5 innings or less in 50% of his starts and is now pitching on 3 days rest and a bullpen that was used heavily last night. Does that sound like a sound investment? Not to me.
 
Bullpen totally not taxed....Duffy and Medlen both can go 2+ and Morales obv not going to be used. I want to bet CY but gonna go small piece KC Over 3 and just root my ass off. GL all!
 
Ventura last 3 2/3 last night, not sure what you call it, but it's far from ideal for your bullpen and when Chris Young lasts 5 innings tonight, I will call that taxed for Sunday's game 5, if that happens. Just my opinion.
 
Of the 27 teams who met the 4 criteria I introduced after Game 2, only 5 remain headed into Game 5 in light of the sequence of results for Games 3 & 4. That doesn't really leave much of a stat pool worth referencing, but FTR after the H-H-A-H win sequence the 5 WS that remain relevant saw the Road team go 4-1 SU in Game 5; the 1st scoring teams in those games going 5-0 SU. (For the H-H-H-H win sequence, Home teams then went 7-3 SU in Game 5: those teams scoring 1st going 9-1 SU.) Needless to say, none of the 5 Road teams here who won G4 ended up losing the WS.

(In reference to a post I made now deleted, I unfortunately mistook 1st scoring results for SU results from a stat sheet I referenced. While the G5 SU results for G4 winners are still an impressive 11-4 SU, they aren't quite as impressive as the 1st scoring 14-1 SU figure that I inadvertently misrepresented).

However, there is one constant for the efforts of these 15 road teams in Game 5 that transcend the relevance of the SU result of Game 4, that being:

- Road teams conceding 0-3 runs in Game 5 have gone 7-2 SU
- Road teams conceding 4+ runs in Game 5 have gone 0-6 SU.

-----

Since the stats from that pool of 27 WS have been exhausted to this point, it's been a case of just looking at general WS results for any historical pointers for this coming game. As with the notation I made in my previous post about -1968/1969+ stats, I've only concerned myself with stats derived from WS played since 1969.


(1) The most obvious aspect to this game is it's elimination nature: it's potentially the last game of the WS. Remembering a thread that probably got lost due to the site crash, I'll reintroduce here this trend:

The last game of the WS, since the introduction of the divisional series phase in the playoffs (1995), has been overwhelmingly prone to total 7 runs or less.

Final Game ......... Runs: 1-7 .... 8+
1969-1993 - G4-5 ......... 4 ..... 5
1969-1993 - G6-7 ......... 9 ..... 7
1995-2014 - G4-5 ........ 10 .... 0
1995-2014 - G6-7 ......... 8 ..... 2

Between 1969 (new mound size, new strike zone, LCS introduced) & 1993, no matter which game turned out to be the final game of the WS, the scoring for said game was pretty random* re this 7/8 run divide (*except for the fact that G7's not unnaturally featuring the lowest scoring affairs). But since the introduction of the divisional phase, there's been a significant drop off in the scoring in final games (cue the dearth of 8+ run results). I'd say a logical deduction to make for this (given it encompasses WS played during the heart of the steroid era, as well as more recent WS during a league-wide period in a drop-off in run scoring) is by the time the end of the WS is rolling round given the addition of having had to play that extra series (of up to 5 games), the mental fatigue factor for the team down in the WS and facing elimination is just exponentially greater, therefore presents more inertia to the fight/effort they have to bring. Cue the following:

Losing team totals in final WS games between 1969-1993
2.40 rpg overall
2.73 rpg in G4-5-6
1.90 rpg in G7

Losing team totals in final WS games between 1995-2014
1.55 rpg overall
1.47 rpg in G4-5-6
1.80 rpg in G7

FTR: the only 2 x 8+ run results from the 1995-2014 period both involved (1) teams clinching the WS on their home field, (2) teams that had played in 14+ run fests their previous games, and (3) teams who, with their opponents, put at least 5 runs up on the scoreboard by the end of the 3rd inning (carried over hot bats from the previous game presumably contributed to said fast starts). None of the other 18 results from this period tick all 3 of these boxes, and certainly this coming KC/Mets G5 doesn't tick either of the 2 boxes currently knowable.


(2) Again concentrating on the 'final game of the WS' angle, concerning 1st scoring teams. Here the results from either side of the '69-93/'95-14 divide aren't pronounced, so haven't been separated:

- Teams who clinched the WS in a road G4 or G5 scored 1st in 9 of 11 wins.
- Teams who failed to clinch in a road G4 or G5 scored 1st in 2 of 5 losses.

A positive sign for KC clinching Sunday would be their scoring 1st anyway, but seen through the lens of the above stats it would be a feat amplified by historical realities. A team scoring 1st when it has a chance to clinch in a road G4 or 5, has seen it complete the feat 81.8% of the time.

(2a) Just on the subject of scoring 1st: the last 3 teams to score 1st in this series have lost SU. Of the 9 other occasions that saw 3 consecutive WS games feature 1st scoring losers, only once has there been a 4th straight (1975's Red Sox vs. Reds, G2-3-4-5).


(3) Late runs have been a feature of this p.s. with very few scoreless 7th & 8th innings combinations, so I looked at the scoring across these 2 innings in the final WS games. Here again the results from either side of the '69-93/'95-14 divide aren't pronounced so haven't been separated:

Final Game 4's
scoreless. 7th & 8th: 3 games
scoring in 7th or 8th: 6 games

Final Game 5's
scoreless. 7th & 8th: 2 games
scoring in 7th or 8th: 8 games

Just to note: the 4 games in this WS have been scoreless in the 7th, the longest streak of games this p.s. devoid of 7th inning runs.


Of course much of the above doesn't amount to a hill of beans if the Mets win, but there will be a final game so those stats will be relevant sooner or later (I'm thinking sooner). If KC scores 1st and holds the Mets to 3 runs or less, this baseball season should be about done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

laopadak
2024 U.S. Open at Pinehurst Discussion
2 3 4 5
Replies
246
Views
4K
KJ
KJ
DOUBLEUP4LIFE
JUNE DEGEN MLB daily/College World Series/NFL FUTURES/Ponies
Replies
9
Views
224
DOUBLEUP4LIFE
DOUBLEUP4LIFE
P
MLB 1st Game-Korea Ball
Replies
3
Views
279
TheDodgers
T
Hulu
Hulu's NBA Playoffs 23/24
2 3
Replies
127
Views
3K
Hulu
Hulu
B.A.R.
2024 MLB Futures and Season Long Props Discussion
Replies
16
Views
659
MikeU
M
Back
Top