PDA

View Full Version : Sox record against the best


ondafarm
07-11-2006, 05:08 PM
At the All-Star break here are the records of the top eight teams in the American League against their top competition. This is actually a better predictor of how the team will fare in the playoffs than strictly record against the league.

White Sox are 21-11

Blue Jays are 18-16

Yankees are 20-18

Tigers are 18-17

Rangers are 21-24

A's, Red Sox and Twins are each 17-21.

Ol' No. 2
07-11-2006, 05:13 PM
At the All-Star break here are the records of the top eight teams in the American League against their top competition. This is actually a better predictor of how the team will fare in the playoffs than strictly record against the league.

White Sox are 21-11

Blue Jays are 18-16

Yankees are 20-18

Tigers are 18-17

Rangers are 21-24

A's, Red Sox and Twins are each 17-21.Predictive? The Sox had losing records against the Red Sox and Angels in the regular season last year. How'd that work out again?

Flight #24
07-11-2006, 05:17 PM
At the All-Star break here are the records of the top eight teams in the American League against their top competition. This is actually a better predictor of how the team will fare in the playoffs than strictly record against the league.

White Sox are 21-11

Blue Jays are 18-16

Yankees are 20-18

Tigers are 18-17

Rangers are 21-24

A's, Red Sox and Twins are each 17-21.

What's tough is that this shows that the Sox have played the fewest games among the top 8 (32). Texas has 45, Yanks/As/BoSox/Twins 38, Tigers 35 & Jays 34.

batmanZoSo
07-11-2006, 05:49 PM
Good for us. Better for Detroit.

fquaye149
07-11-2006, 05:58 PM
Predictive? The Sox had losing records against the Red Sox and Angels in the regular season last year. How'd that work out again?

sample size anyone? how about 30+ games are more indicative than two three-game series (or a four-game in the case of Boston)...

Ol' No. 2
07-11-2006, 06:17 PM
sample size anyone? how about 30+ games are more indicative than two three-game series (or a four-game in the case of Boston)...Well, what was the Sox record against eventual playoff teams last year?

fquaye149
07-11-2006, 06:23 PM
Well, what was the Sox record against eventual playoff teams last year?

I don't know.

I don't necessarily think this proves much of anything either...but I certainly wouldn't say our (1 game from being winning) losing record vs. two teams we beat in the playoffs means much of anything one way or another.

Sox-o-matic
07-11-2006, 06:23 PM
For some reason, as long as I can remember the Sox have always played tougher against top teams . In 2003 we couldn't beat Detroit for the life of us and we've also had some problems with the Royals and Tampa Bay this year.

Ol' No. 2
07-11-2006, 06:26 PM
I don't know.

I don't necessarily think this proves much of anything either...but I certainly wouldn't say our (1 game from being winning) losing record vs. two teams we beat in the playoffs means much of anything one way or another.That was kind of the point. I don't think any of those kind of comparisons mean much.

fquaye149
07-11-2006, 06:34 PM
That was kind of the point. I don't think any of those kind of comparisons mean much.

I don't know if you're wrong or right...but I think having a very good record against the best teams in baseball does tend to suggest that you're the kind of team likely to beat the best teams in baseball (i.e., in the playoffs).

This is kind of like how a team like the Mets can amass a very good record against a relatively weak NL East and NL in general but will not likely be as formidable a playoff opponent as, say, the Red Sox or the White Sox.

It also is kind of like what my claim has always been--that the teams the Tigers (and the Twins) have been beating aren't that great, and that their superior w/l record is largely due to them playing better against the lousy teams of the NL Central and AL Central cellar.

Yes, yes, yes, you have to beat the bad teams too...and the White Sox sometimes struggle with that and I don't mean to excuse that. I'm just saying that when you take two teams, like the White Sox and the Tigers who are almost certain to make the playoffs, that if one team is better than the other at beating very good teams, logic SEEMS to suggest that the team that is better at beating very good teams is more likely to advance in the playoffs (a competition between very good teams)....

That's what I'm saying...and the fact that we pretty much split series against Boston and Anaheim last year and then went on to beat them in the playoffs is much much much too small a sample size to discard something that seems, to me, to be logically sound.

ondafarm
07-11-2006, 06:38 PM
Predictive? The Sox had losing records against the Red Sox and Angels in the regular season last year. How'd that work out again?

The record of teams against the best other teams is the best predictor of success. Head to head matchups with individual teams are too small of a sample size, but records against above .500 records (as shown in my original post) is a better predictor of post-season success than general records.

Ol' No. 2
07-11-2006, 06:38 PM
I don't know if you're wrong or right...but I think having a very good record against the best teams in baseball does tend to suggest that you're the kind of team likely to beat the best teams in baseball (i.e., in the playoffs).

This is kind of like how a team like the Mets can amass a very good record against a relatively weak NL East and NL in general but will not likely be as formidable a playoff opponent as, say, the Red Sox or the White Sox.

It also is kind of like what my claim has always been--that the teams the Tigers (and the Twins) have been beating aren't that great, and that their superior w/l record is largely due to them playing better against the lousy teams of the NL Central and AL Central cellar.

Yes, yes, yes, you have to beat the bad teams too...and the White Sox sometimes struggle with that and I don't mean to excuse that. I'm just saying that when you take two teams, like the White Sox and the Tigers who are almost certain to make the playoffs, that if one team is better than the other at beating very good teams, logic SEEMS to suggest that the team that is better at beating very good teams is more likely to advance in the playoffs (a competition between very good teams)....

That's what I'm saying...and the fact that we pretty much split series against Boston and Anaheim last year and then went on to beat them in the playoffs is much much much too small a sample size to discard something that seems, to me, to be logically sound.It might be interesting to see which correlated better with playoff success: regular season record against playoff teams or overall regular season record. I'm almost sure I've seen this somewhere. I'd be willing to bet there's no difference.

ondafarm
07-11-2006, 06:49 PM
It might be interesting to see which correlated better with playoff success: regular season record against playoff teams or overall regular season record. I'm almost sure I've seen this somewhere. I'd be willing to bet there's no difference.

You bet wrong.

And once again. I posted the records against ALL TEAMS WITH ABOVE .500 RECORDS nothing on your nonsense of head-to-head records.

Ol' No. 2
07-11-2006, 06:52 PM
You bet wrong.Is this just your opinion, or do you have any actual facts to back this up?

jenmcm76
07-12-2006, 02:07 PM
Well, what was the Sox record against eventual playoff teams last year?

All I know is the Sox' record against ACTUAL playoff teams last year... 11-1! :bandance:


Interestingly enough, if you remove the Sox-Tigers games from the initial stats, the Sox are 16-10, and Detroit is 17-12. No big difference there... Using these numbers (since by default there'd be no Sox-Tigers matchup in the first round), it looks good for a Sox-Tigers ALCS. With our 5-1 record against them so far this year, the chances of another World Series appearance don't look too shabby.

Of course, that's assuming that's assuming that the predictor holds any water.