So a little side note - before contract stuff mainly because contract stuff is likely to drag on at least until early December and more likely until the new year.
The Nats had an amazing run this year. From 19-31, comebacks through multiple elimination games. There were a bunch of things the Nats did that were either rarely or never done before. Because of that there's a lot of fans and local media that want to crown this team a miracle squad who had the best post-season ever, or failing that the most improbable. On one hand, nearly every team does this in some fashion. Either your postseason was the most dominant, or most exciting, or most crazy, etc. etc. It's what fans do. On the other hand, even outsiders are getting into the bit. So what does I say, the outsider's insider? Was this season the most improbable run imaginable?
It's hard to figure out!
First let's go to two points that are generally brought up. The Nats came back from 19-31 record to make the playoffs. The Nats won 5 elimination games after trailing. What does that tell you? Well it does tell you that they did things that were never done before. But in terms of improbability are we looking at it the right way?
It's true that precious few teams overcome a start as bad as the Nats do to make the playoffs (forget about win the WS for a moment - these things follow separate rules and should be seen as two distinct things imo). But there's a good reason for that that has nothing to do with the fortitude of the team involved. The vast vast majority of teams, pretty much all, that start as bad as the Nats did fail to make the playoffs because they are bad teams who lack the talent to do so. That's not the Nats. The Nats are a good team. Most pundits and projections had them in or near the playoffs. So what's really strange isn't the fact they made the playoffs but that they bungled to the start they did. Should they be "rewarded" for this? Given praise for the fastest clean up of a mess of their own making? It seems kind of weird to me. This isn't to make coming back from 19-31 less impressive a feat, the run after that is remarkable, but I want to make sure we understand the 19-31 wasn't some arbitrary burden given to this team. They did this. Part of their season was crashing so hard that they needed a tremendous run. That is not good. That should detract from their accomplishments, not add to it.
That same sort of "how'd they get here" should be taken into account in series and games as well, though to a far lesser extent. Good teams shouldn't start seasons bad, but series where good teams against good teams will create elimination games for someone, and every team will have to comeback in games regularly. So there's far less of a "detract" component here. But there is a reality that needs to be injected. There is a chance that the Nats win every series they are in. There's a chance they win it in 4 games, 5, 6, 7 and a chance they lose it the same. The improbability of what we end up seeing is really the chance that they ended up at this point (and won) + the chances they could have lost earlier MINUS the chances they could have won earlier.
Let me elaborate. The Nats beat the Astros in 7 games. The improbability of that (in the sense the Nats won) is not only the chance that that happened, but it also has to add in in the chances a negative outcome would have happened, the chance the Astros win in 4,5,6,7 games. But on the flip side there was a chance the Nats could have won in 4,5,6 themselves. That they didn't do that has to work against them.
If you follow this way of looking at it you get a more fair idea of "improbability". It's far more improbable that a significantly worse team sweeps 4 games in a row than an equalish team wins a 7 game series. That should be obvious, but the mind doesn't always work like that. We see a bad team buzzsaw as inevitable, a good team fighting to the end as catching breaks and needing miracles.
This kind of thought process can also be expanded to individual games. What combining the odds for all the Nats comeback wins does is tell you what are the chance the Nats would win all those games coming from their point of lowest chances. But it's not the chances they would win all those games apriori. The first tells us how improbable it is that we saw what we saw. The second one tells us how we should judge a team for the outcomes. You don't get a benefit for falling behind in the latter. You shouldn't do that! It's not good!
What you may be able to glean from the above is that the most exciting things in sports often involve a team doing something wrong and coming back from that. But we often dismiss that first part - that they dug a hole and focus only on the latter. If we're being completely fair we need to take the whole thing into account.
What are the most improbable series then? The ones where the worst teams best better teams quickly. The 88 win 2014 Giants who racked up a 11-5 record never once playing a team with a worse record. The middling 2003 Cardinals who did the same after an 83 win season, ditto the 2000 87 win Yankees. The 74 As, the 88 Dodgers, 90 Reds. I know I know these aren't FUN series in general. There's no excitement to be had with a Yankees team cruising to title number 4 in 5 seasons even if objectively the team they put out there shouldn't have been able to do that. But you didn't ask about fun and it's not how this postseason is being framed. It's not that the Nats wouldn't be somewhere up there - the opponents they beat were very good and they had to go through a lot of rounds - but the actual advantage the other teams had in a short series with the Nats staff? It's muted. So maybe the Nats aren't even Top five, maybe Top 10 in pure "improbability" (Now of course to do this properly you'd have to go back and calculate all the odds of all these series somehow. I'm not doing that.)
In the end though - this is a lot of words that are kind of missing the point. It's not that you REALLY care what's the most improbable series - even though that's what ends up being said and annoying me - you care about what's the most... crazy? fun? Entertaining? series. And that has to be measured differently. That has to be measured with comebacks and elimination games won and long series and historical importance. And clearly this Nats season would be up there for that.
If you dig a little you'll see that a lot of playoff winners had some adversity - either playing better teams, or winning elimination games so it'll take time to rank them all. Like scratch at a team... 1980 Phillies and you see a CS with 4 straight extra inning games - the last two being Phillies elimination game wins and a WS that features a ninth inning comeback to win G5. A team with a huge history of being terrible winning their first title. That's pretty good!
My personal favorite and one that I put above the Nats is the 1985 Royals. They had knocked on the door and lost some heart breaking playoff games in the CS and WS in years past. They clearly had a horrible offense (look for yourself) and faced two legitimately 100 win teams in the CS and WS (ok one was 99). Then proceeded to win 6 elimination games, 3 in each series, including a bottom of the 9th walk-off comeback in Game 6.
That's the only one just looking off the top of my head I'd clearly have ahead of the Nats. This was a team that shouldn't have made the playoffs and once in shouldn't have beat either team. The Nats were not as good as the Dodgers and Astros but if you look at the stats they were almost equal teams if you could eliminate the pens and the Nats found a way to do that.
Would they fall beyond Number 2? I don't know. Lots of stuff to look at.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
I get what you're saying Harper, but many are the team predicted to make the playoffs that get off to bad starts....and never recover (see 2018 Nats). You are what your records says you are -- preseason predictions be damned. The fact that the Nats mentally and physically were able to rally was improbable based on history.
@Lougretzky, I hear that, and it's an important part of Nats Fandom(TM) right now. But by the "you are what your record says you are" rule, the Nats were the 3rd worst team in the playoffs, who got lucky against two juggernauts. It's not uncommon for great teams to have rough patches. In 2017 (maybe it was 2018?) the Dodgers had both a historically good streak of 25ish games, and a historically bad one in the same year--it was wild and improbable but ultimately the Dodgers were a 100+ win team that lost the WS. The sequencing though, made it look like a tremendous team collapsing and recovering--a very different narrative from "wow choking dogs who should sell at the deadline to world series winners!" The terrible stretches happened, and the Dodgers were benefited (in terms of media attention and objective playoff odds) by having their worst stretch in late summer, when the division was nearly wrapped up instead of right out of the gate.
If either LA or the Nats had avoided their terrible stretches (and LA had won the world series) we'd be talking about best teams of all time. The Nats will probably go down as a good team that underperformed for two months and mounted a furious rally, with an ultimately respectable record. 93 wins is pretty good! In any given year if someone could promise you 93 wins you'd probably be happy with that, and you'd most likely make the playoffs in the current format.
Harper, this is the soulless automaton-esque analysis that I come here for. There I was, thinking about how awesome and improbable this team was, and you had to throw the Law of Total Probability in my face. I have to deal with that crap everyday at work, but my passions blind me outside the office. I despise you yet respect you for it
People seem to forget how banged up the Nats where with Rendon, Soto, Turner and Zimmerman sitting injured. Records mean little based upon who is available and playing. Best on best the Nationals paced the league in wins and their coolness under immense pressure in elimination games is what saw them through. The ability to perform under the pressure of the playoffs is far more key than some sabermatics read on who is the most talented. If you can't breathe and the vision narrows in the eighth while trailing by 2 runs I don't care how talented you are. You're going to strike out flailing at a slider in the dirt.
Ultimately, nearly all of sports commentary is just the narratives we build out of the numbers the sport produces, summed up perfectly by XKCD here:
https://xkcd.com/904/
But that's a big part of the fun of following the season. By building the narratives, we make the game more engaging, fun, and durable. We learn about the personalities and build them into the narrative arcs of the teams.
A statistician would look at the 2019 Nats and conclude that Gerardo Parra was not an important part of the team. And that would be a correct analysis. But if you watched, and you saw the baby shark dance, and people dressed as sharks, and the colored glasses, and the dancing, and everything else, you get to enjoy the narrative and view his contributions as being something other than the usual baseball activities. And that is fun in a way that comparing his wRC+ and his WAR is just not going to be for most people.
I guess I'm just trying to build a defense of narratives as being largely the point of being a fan. Statistics are important for understanding the game and how to maximize the performance of your players and your team. They help you build the team, choose the players, fill holes and predict the future more accurately so you can ultimately have fun, engaging narratives. As long as you don't trust narratives to predict the future, it's okay to adopt them as fan canon. Like, we don't need to give Parra a huge contract because of his clubhouse enthusiasm, but we should absolutely keep him in our minds as a key part of the legend of the 2019 Nats' success.
So to that end, in my mind, the Nats aren't being "rewarded" for their bad start; it's just a key part of an excellent redemption arc. That's how those stories always go. There is a character who is bad, but through some event (or a good montage sequence), becomes good. In the end, the reader/viewer knows that the character always had this goodness in them, but it took the event or the montage of events to finally bring it out.
TL/DR: Statistics are good and helpful, but narratives are fun.
Best postseasons ever is an easy question:
#1: 1969 NY Mets. The Miracle Mets.
#2: 1886 NY Mets. The Bill Buckner play. And the Mets came from 3 down to win Game 7 against the Red Sox.
#3: 2019 Washington Nationals
These were the 3 best postseasons for me! Who needs objectivity?
This is really good analysis, and I appreciate this perspective.
The one minor issue I have is with the 'reward' concept. We all agree that 19-31 is bad (or very bad!). The Nats would only get 'rewarded' if you are considering 'best' postseason ever (or, more precisely, best Total Season). But I don't think that 'reward' comes into play when you are simply measuring probability. It was improbable that the 2019 Nats, with the talent they had, would go 19-31. But they did. So, it was improbable that they would make the playoffs, let alone make the World Series, let alone win. This 'improbability' isn't a reward, its simply a reflection of the situation on May 23rd/24th.
To me, it's that an injury-riddled (and therefore, bad) Nats team got off to an awful start and then had to play like the best team in baseball the rest of the way, which they improbably did.
Lougretzky - certainly this happens but I'm going to guess that a lot of time this happens because of an underlying issue that does not get resolved. We think you are a 95 win team but your ace goes down to injury for the year or a couple key older guys start aging and it doesn't get better. We'd have to isolate all the teams predicted to be playoff teams that started very poorly and look at them one by one. My guess is the Nats still over came something but rather than the 1 in several hundered odds (or whatever it is that we see) it's more like 1 in 10 or 20. IOW there have been 10-20 very good teams who started slow, didn't face any major obstacle other than that fact and ended up missing the playoffs because of that slow start.
Cautiously Pessimistic - you can look at it that way but that's why I did the reframe at the end. Really what we want is the most fun playoff run. Give me an big underdog up against wall over and over who beats back death and keeps coming back. Give me big late game moments and great pitching performances. I'm probably going to go through and just assign random values (comeback win - 3pts, comeback win in 8/9 - 5 pts...) and see what shakes out
The problem is though you really have to take time to look at teams. the Nats vs Dodgers/Astros weren't nearly as lopsided as gambling or records would have you believe. Playoffs favor rotations and the Nats had by and far the strongest in the majors. Nats weakness was bullpen which they basically avoided showing. That's stuff that gets lost over time looking back. The context
I wouldn't argue ith anyone on their favorite World Series (and I usually like to do Top %'s anyway, not limit myself to best-ever-language and choosing only one.) I see what you are saying with some of this Harper, but to me, as a fan that has followed them since they got here in DC, the recovery of this team from nadir of 19-31 actually adds to the praise this team is worthy of. Previous iterations failed The psychology of this team has been perceived (and likely been the reality) of being fragile. To have high expectations, then to come out and suck, and then come back from sucking this bad, adds to their accomplishment, both for the team itself who remained resilient and even started to have fun, but also management, who didn't fire Davey, didn't blow up the team to sell off and start over.
It's not exactly the same thing, but we can also look at the scarcity of a certain way of winning. Winning four road games in a seven game series doesn't happen. It is a black swan. It also shouldn't happen, but "shouldn't" is just narrative. That alone, being down three games to two having lost three at home and then going on to win the next two on the road and the whole series, that appears, based on a decent number of observations (in multiple sports) to be very rare. Going from an event being very rare to saying that it is improbable while strictly wrong, is actually fine and how probability works for most of us.
Based on this analysis, I think I will re-define the Nats' season as:
1) Best 'brink-of-elimination' postseason run (stole this title from Boz), due to the 5-0 elimination despite losing in all 5 games, and losing in the 7th or later in three of them, and 2 of those 3 on the road against a top-20 all-time MLB team
2) Best season in DC Sports History. If you limit this to just title wins in the Big 4 sports, this run beats the 1924 Senators WS win, the 3 Redskins Super Bowls, the Bullets title in 1978, and even the Caps title in '18 (though all of those were great seasons!!).
@Harper on your larger point. Well...yes. Obviously the descriptor most improbable/miracle is not describing like the the US hockey team. It’s based on them coming back from holes. This is why we’re not saying they’re like “one of the greatest teams ever” or something. But adjust the descriptor however u want. Most resilient or most “never say die” or whatever. Clearly we kind of know what we’re describing. That said.....you can’t put beating the dodgers and the Astros as some sort of the Nats put themselves in a hole then came back type accomplishment. Those are two of the 15 best regular season teams ever. The Astros in particular have a claim to the best (or top 3 if you want to broaden it) regular season teams ever when you look at run differential, talent, etc. just looking at the numbers and it’s crazy. They were the best at defense, offense (and best since 27 Yankees by wRC+), and overall pitching. That’s insane. It hasn’t been done before. Only their bullpen can be described as non-incredible, despite it being very good. I am almost more surprised that the Nats took down those two teams in the fashion they did than I am about the other accomplishments. (More the Astros, 5 game series are more fluky).
Would encourage everybody to read this piece. Before I read it, it just hadn’t fully sunk in how special BOTH the dodgers and Astros teams were. These were not your basic “best team in each league” situation. They were both historically good. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-2019-astros-join-a-list-of-great-failures/
But to me I would echo what you said and what others have said. If you look carefully at statistical probabilities and a priori stuff, yeah some of it becomes less awesome. That said. Nobody will ever forget the 2004 Red Sox. Right? But why? Because (1) the Red Sox had been unable to win a WS forever. Should they be rewarded for that, when the team in 04 clearly didn’t have much to do with like the Buckner team, etc? (2) the come back from 0-3. Thing is, we’re again making it special because they went down 3 games to none then won 4 in a row (something that happens in baseball...a good team sweeping a good team over 4 games). But still, a legendary team. You can say the Nats aren’t on that level, but that’s the type of thing they did. Various feats like that that either ended periods of futility in DC or this team, and then comebacks in series and the regular season...and then flourishes having to do with health like the bloody sock (in this case the max spasms thing).....and then beating amazing teams (either the bogeyman Yankees rivals or two heavyweights). That’s the team actually that this one reminds me of the most, including the whole “idiots” thing vs the Nats fun stuff in dugout.
I think the 80 Phillies are actually a better comp (that's why they were on my mind). Older team at the end of a great run that basically got them nowhere - lots CSs in 76 77 78 twice having second most wins in baseball - team kind of mocked by others, winning first title - and a memorable impossible playoffs, in their case absolutely crazy NLCS and a WS that was tight every game.
That said, I honestly think that as a playoff team, the Nats were right there with the Dodgers and Astros in terms of ability of their top guys: the starting lineup, the starting rotation, the best couple of guys in the pen (yeah, Doo and Hudson weren't going to match the Dodgers and 'Stros best but it was respectably close). What the Nats didn't have--and what those other two teams did have, and in spades--was depth. The Dodgers have something like eight starting pitchers who could put up four-win seasons over 30 starts. These teams' bullpens go 6-7 deep, where we get three in and we're looking at a fireballing rookie who doesn't quite know where his pitches are going or the Fernando Rodney Experience. They have quality backups; we're signing Baby Sharks and similar retreads off the waiver wire. That's why the Nats started 19-31, because as much as people like to talk about "next man up" and all that, Wilmer Difo was not the guy anyone wanted to be that next man.
(Of course, the Yankees managed to have an entire All-Star team on the IL at the same time and not care, 'cause apparently they could have suited up the beer vendor and have him put up a .900 OPS, if we want to talk improbability...)
So the idea that two roughly-equal squads could play out a series to the end...yeah, that's not all that improbable. Michael Taylor playing huge in a SSS appearance for Robles was basically the only time when we got truly lucky. The Cardinals getting buzzsawed...well, that's was actually the most predictable outcome of the bunch, once you look at the true talent level of the actual guys on the field (and ignore the influence of Devil Magic narratives).
But yeah, Kenny B's right--narratives *are* the core part of fandom. Soulless numbers, on the other hand, are what we want on our side to produce the kind of narratives we want to experience instead of the ones that end with cursing the Cardinals again!
@G Cracka - Sorry, but the '91-'92 Skins were easily the best DC sports SEASON ever. They went 14-2, and the only two games they lost were by 3 pts to Dallas (who went on to win 3 of the next 4 Super Bowls, and pulled out every gimmick play for the game) and by 2pts to the Eagles in the season-finale where their starters played like one series. Their point differential (+261) was more than 100 pts better than the next best team, and they dominated the second-best team in the NFL (the 13-3 Bills) in the Super Bowl.
That said, I'm still giddy every time I realize the Nats' WS win is real!
@Harper, you should have had a variable or two in your probability equation for what Para and Annibal Sanchez did for this team. Some crazy people at FanGraphs gave Nats less than 2% chance to beat Dodgers or Astros and hell even the Cards. Nats were playing against all odds including umpiring this WS.
I am so happy, we pulled it off!
At this point, I don't care if they don't win any more WS this century. This was dream come true for Nats fanbase.
Go NATS!
Redskins? Who are they? Actually, one of my favorite parts about both the Caps and Nats parades is that I overheard people saying, “This is awesome, but, could you imagine how crazy this parade would be if it were the Redskins?” Caps parade, people were curious, didn’t dismiss that notion entirely. This time around? People laughed. The Redskins are an irrelevant organization in DC. The abused fan base is getting older and I’d venture to say that the team has the smallest percentage of fans aged 18 and younger in the entire NFL. So, unless this is comedy hour, let’s stick to baseball. Even the nauseating political talk is preferable to the Redskins.
You see, Harper?
No matter how thoroughly you research, your correspondents insist the Nats' victory is the most beautiful bouquet of flowers ever.
Next time be a tarantula instead of an ordinary daddy-long-legs spider.
@Anon at 7:21 yes, you are right. My definition of ‘best’ wasn’t clear. I meant ‘best’ as ‘most compelling/thrilling/dramatic’, not ‘most dominant’. I remember the 1992 Redskins Super Bowl win, and it was great! But it wasn’t as surprising and crazy as the Nats winning the World Series this year.
@Ole PBN Alright, lets make a deal then. Commenters stop posting political takes, and we’ll stop with the Redskins references and get back to what this blog is supposed to be about: the Nats!
Amen GCX. Side note, this offseason is already stressing me out. Really would love for some familiar faces to be out there next opening day, but sad that it might not happen. Keep this party going!
Actually, Daddy Long Legs are not spiders. "People often mistake a daddy longlegs, also called a harvestman, for a spider. Daddy longlegs do have some spider-like qualities since, like spiders, they are classified as arachnids. Like all arachnids, they do have eight legs and tend to skitter about the way spiders do. We often see them in the same places where we see spiders. In fact, daddy longlegs are more like scorpions than spiders."
Cite: https://www.thoughtco.com/is-a-daddy-longlegs-a-spider-or-not-1968493
Best.
Postseason.
Ever.
Seriously, the National's are the first team in history to win all four games on the road. And in the process beat potential CYA winners Verlander twice, and Cole and Grienke once in their own park!
Meanwhile in every single elimination game at every step (WC, LDS, LCS, & WS they came back during or AFTER the 7th inning.
Naw, not historic or unprecedented are all.
Froggy:
I stand corrected. (Actually, I'm sitting, but corrected nonetheless.)
Copy/paste from earlier discussion. More germane here than lost among the political harangue (and with apologies to Stras, whose 2019 post-season would be 2nd on my list):
Best pitching post-season in my lifetime: Mickey Lolich 1968. Three complete game victories against the mighty St. Louis Cardinals (Bob Gibson, Orlando Cepeda, Lou Brock, Curt Flood, Tim McCarver, Mike Shannon), including TWO elimination games-- the final one beating Gibson in game 7 in St. Louis on two days' rest, surrendering only one run, a two-out solo dinger to Shannon in the bottom of the 9th.
Hasn't been matched since.
A great deal of their 19-31 record was secondary to their injuries. I'll admit I thought there was no way they would come back to make the playoffs. I remember laughing when Parra said they'd make the playoffs after that early Dodger win. They won games the rest of the way at the same rate the "immortal" Astros did. Then they came back against one of the best closers in the game in Hader. Beat the 106 win Dodgers. Killed the Cardinals (so convincingly that series had two near no hitters and it is not event talks about). They then won 4 games in Houston when Houston hadn't lost two games at home all year. The announcers (and the umpires in my opinion) made it the Astros show until the 8th inning of game 7. Most teams pack it in the regular season. Most teams then pack it in during the wild card game. Most teams pack it in during the Dodgers series. Most teams pack it in during the Astros series after losing 3 in a row at home. I love this blog, but this post just feels like a reach to not give proper credit to a great post season run. If this wasn't a great turn around in the regular season and an all time post season run, then I would argue there has never been one. Not saying this is the best run, but it was crazy nonetheless.
There's no way to statistically measure the "greatness" of this post-season run. Various measures have calculated the probability of them coming back to make the WC, then the probability of winning each post-season leg with the added twist of being behind in the 7th inning or later of four elimination games. Based on those calculations, it's certainly top ten. But then you throw in the team chemistry, the manager's heart problems, the injection of last minute guys who played big, the recovery from injury first of Howie and then, when no one (as least me) was expecting it, Zimmerman, bot of whom became key contributors. Heck, we even thought they might blow it mid-September, but they went on 8-0 run right when the Cubs went on an 0-9 run. And they had to win a step of the playoffs four times!
And you add Max's crazy up-and-down season with two (or was it three?) injuries, not including the black eye, but including one right before a crucial WS start. And the great clubhouse chemistry is part of the story, and the fact that it was cross-cultural and FUN on a team that was notoriously serious in the past. And then add in the fact that losing Harper was supposed to be the kiss of death. Add the perfect mix of young stars, great pitching, and older guys (the "viejos," part of the cross-cultural fun the team had), and light-hearted but focused team spirit.
Add in the senior owner is 94 and they won the NLCS on his birthday. And then they won the WS!
Add in the brilliant "hide your BP" strategy enabled by a starting staff that said, "Of course!" when asked to pitch out of the pen. The Nats used the sparse October schedule (17 games in 30 days) to their advantage so smartly (of course, the team had to execute and they did).
And add in that it's our Nats this year after so many Game 5 meltdowns (and the Zimmermann game...) and it's pretty much mind-boggling and so fun for fans.
Finally throw in that the team's franchise player hit the team's first WS HR so many years after he started with the team, and that the Nats beat two great, great teams in LA and Houston. Since it's not measurable in terms of intangibles, we can call it the greatest ever but remember how amazing it must have been for fans of those other teams on the "greatest post-season run ever" list.
And think of how awful it was for fans of the '64 Phils (I was seven and they were my team!) and '69 Cubs and '69 O's (I was 12 and they were my other team!) and on and on. It's freaking awesome to the point that I still revisit some aspect of it pretty much every day through highlights, stats, or game summaries.
Still love this blog, even if it's logic punches my emotion in the gut once in awhile. Great work, Harper!
Someone MUST be writing a book about this, right? Sorry this is so long...I should get my own blog, but it wouldn't be half as good as this one.
I bet Boswell has been pitching a book idea to publishers
@Harper, I just realized. Is this “still a no cabbage zone” though? Seems to me that type of chemistry (especially during the losing) is what pulled this group together to overcome future obstacles. That and fWAR and zip/BaF% I suppose.
Post a Comment