We all know the Guardians and Reds aren't good teams, right?
 

They both benefitted from epic collapses. The Guardians benefitted from the collapse of the Tigers, and to a lesser extent the Astros. The Reds benefitted from the collapse of the Mets, and to a lesser extent the D-Backs and Giants trading away key players at the deadline.

Here -- I'll prove it:


2025 Guardians:
Pythagorean W-L: 80-82, 643 Runs, 649 Runs Allowed
Runs per game: 3.97 -- ranked 27th
xwOBA: .299 -- ranked 30th
Runs allowed per game: 4.01 -- ranked 7th
xERA: 3.98 -- ranked 11th

They have only two hitters with an OPS+ of 100 or more -- meaning, only two hitters who aren't at least average.

They have only one starting pitcher with at least 100 innings pitched and a ERA+ of 100 or more.

Their record prior to September was 68-67. They went 20-7 in September in large part because they beat up on crappy teams. They started the month losing 2 of 3 to the playoff-bound Red Sox, but then only played one other playoff team the rest of the month -- the cratering Tigers, who went 7-17 in September.

The Guardians aren't a bad team, but they're a .500 team pretending to be a good team.


2025 Reds:
Pythagorean W-L: 85-77, 716 Runs, 681 Runs Allowed
Runs per game: 4.42 -- ranked 16th
xwOBA: .306 -- ranked 27th
Runs allowed per game: 4.20 -- ranked 11th
xERA: 3.97 -- ranked 9th

They had no hitter with an OPS+ of 110 or better -- they had only 3 hitters with at least 150 PA and a 100 OPS+. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

They did have very good starting pitching, though -- 3 starters with at least 100 innings pitched an ERA+ of 137 or higher.

It took the Mets going a combined 21-32 in August and September for the Reds to be a playoff team. They were .500 all season long -- very consistently so:

March: 2-2
April: 14-13
May: 13-15
June: 15-11
July: 13-12
August: 12-15
September: 14-11

The Reds have good pitching, but they're not a good team.


If you ask me, I'd rather see the Mets and Astros in October, but sometimes middling teams get lucky.

The Guardians are one of the most charmed teams in major league history. I believe there is a stat out there that they had 16 wins more than expected. However, I think most of their fanbase knows they played over their heads (they finished with a negative run differential to boot).

Doesn't matter anymore, though. Baseball playoffs are weird, anyone can make a run.

I don't know that anyone is trying to say either of these teams are juggernauts, but I'm not sure your point.

Is it wrong if the Guards ride their pitching to say the ALCS or even the World Series, because numbers say they're a pretender?

Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good.

It's not about who was better averaged over a season, it's about who's best now. Why would you rather see a Mets team that is playing horribly? Those numbers you posted are skewed significantly by stats put up in April and May. After 162 games, a team isn't the same team it was back then. I want to see who's hot and a better team NOW. Cleveland is a better team RIGHT NOW than the Astros, and the Reds are a better team RIGHT NOW than the Mets.

The NY Giants were horrible heading into the 2007 NFL playoffs...

[QUOTE=JustinVerlander07;20036676]The Guardians are one of the most charmed teams in major league history. I believe there is a stat out there that they had 16 wins more than expected. However, I think most of their fanbase knows they played over their heads (they finished with a negative run differential to boot).

Doesn't matter anymore, though. Baseball playoffs are weird, anyone can make a run.[/QUOTE]

Diehard fan here and I will be the first to admit this very same team could have been a 90-100 loss team, but alas here we are with a chance. Same goes for the Reds I believe.

Hopefully for the big market lovers the Guards and Reds will get taken out this week and it will all be over

It doesn't matter once the playoffs start.

[IMG]https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyMTlhZ3hwMnFlZzY4ZGt0ZzBoeXNlMzJvam56NWl3dGt6czNwdDI5MyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/5zEeBWDRsReLK/giphy.gif[/IMG]

Trust me, no one in Cincinnati actually thinks the reds are a good team. They lucked into the playoffs and will most likely get swept by the dodgers.

[QUOTE=DioBrando;20036737]Trust me, no one in Cincinnati actually thinks the reds are a good team. They lucked into the playoffs and will most likely get swept by the dodgers.[/QUOTE]

That's what I assumed. I would rather have seen a Mets-Dodgers series, and I'm not a big-market snob -- I just don't think the Reds are a good or compelling team.

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;20036689]It's not about who was better averaged over a season, it's about who's best now. Why would you rather see a Mets team that is playing horribly? Those numbers you posted are skewed significantly by stats put up in April and May. After 162 games, a team isn't the same team it was back then. I want to see who's hot and a better team NOW. Cleveland is a better team RIGHT NOW than the Astros, and the Reds are a better team RIGHT NOW than the Mets.[/QUOTE]

That means no World Series titles for the 2000 Yankees (13-17 in September) or 2006 Cardinals (25-31 combined in Aug and Sept).

And the Reds haven't been hot -- they went 3-3 in their last 6 games, which they needed badly to win.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036750]That means no World Series titles for the 2000 Yankees (13-17 in September) or 2006 Cardinals (25-31 combined in Aug and Sept).

And the Reds haven't been hot -- they went 3-3 in their last 6 games, which they needed badly to win.[/QUOTE]

You're taking what he said a little out of context. He didn't say anyone that overcame a cold streak like your examples and still made the playoffs should be out or something.

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20036683]Is it wrong if the Guards ride their pitching to say the ALCS or even the World Series, because numbers say they're a pretender?[/QUOTE]

Out of all the past Indians/Guardians playoff teams, this has got to be the weakest. Pray they don't make a deep playoff run, because it will need to be ugly -- I'm talking key injuries to opposing teams and such.

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20036753]You're taking what he said a little out of context. He didn't say anyone that overcame a cold streak like your examples and still made the playoffs should be out or something.[/QUOTE]

He said more recent play should dictate who is the better team and who should get the last playoff spot. The Reds -- who have consistently been .500 this season and have played better than the Mets recently -- should get the last playoff spot. You can't make the argument the Reds are a good team -- they haven't been all season, including now.

The best players sometimes don't show up in the playoffs, and sometimes the best teams don't either. I'll be pleased with good games.

Having some scrappy, small market teams make it in is good for the game. It may even save the 2027 season.

No one knows anything about any of this.
The results of the upcoming games are all that matters and will contain the only useful information.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036756]Out of all the past Indians/Guardians playoff teams, this has got to be the weakest. Pray they don't make a deep playoff run, because it will need to be ugly -- I'm talking key injuries to opposing teams and such.[/QUOTE]

I never said they're strong. You just seem really bent on they have no chance unless people get hurt and it's going to be ugly. You don't understand playoff baseball if that is the case.

I'm a fan so won't be praying they don't make a run and I really don't get your end game here. You act like they don't qualify somehow and it's a travesty if they make some sort of run

Hopefully for you the Reds get beat by the Dodgers and the Guards get beat by the juggernaut Tigers and you can say see I told you

For the record checkout the year 2007 for the then Indians. A lot of the same make up as a team. Maybe not statistically as bad, but that team played over their head.

Or the 2013 Indians who had to basically win out the last week of the season to make the one game wild card and they lost.

2016 even statistically not as bad but remember guys like Marlon Byrd, Juan Uribe, Tommy Hunter and a few others help this team be good at the right times and the pitching was out of their minds until the ran out of gas in the last of the World Series. Better team yes, were they the best team in the AL on paper (probably not) but if they win game 7 doesn't matter they still would've gotten the trophy.

[QUOTE=hammertime;20036764]Having some scrappy, small market teams make it in is good for the game. It may even save the 2027 season.[/QUOTE]

Oh sir that's where you're wrong. Nothing is saving the 2027 season.

[QUOTE=hammertime;20036764]Having some scrappy, small market teams make it in is good for the game. It may even save the 2027 season.[/QUOTE]

But at the end of the day, the small-market, low-budget teams don't win championships -- the numbers are conclusive on this. You've got to be in the upper half of payroll to have a shot.

Having token small-market teams like the Brewers, Reds and Indians make the playoffs -- with the help of 6 Wild Card spots now -- doesn't mean the game is particularly balanced competitively. It just means some big spenders like the Mets and Astros can crap the bed sometimes and let the scrub teams sneak in.

The only thing I would mention about the Reds is they are prime to upset the Wild Card Round. They have the pitching to win exactly two games. Hunter Greene and some combo of Nick Lodolo and maybe Chase Burns out of the pen can steal another game. Not predicting it, just saying the path is there.

And when the Reds beat the Dodgers?....

[QUOTE=StlBen;20036780]And when the Reds beat the Dodgers?....[/QUOTE]

Most of the Dodgers were hurt or something horrible happened

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036772]But at the end of the day, the small-market, low-budget teams don't win championships -- the numbers are conclusive on this. You've got to be in the upper half of payroll to have a shot.

Having token small-market teams like the Brewers, Reds and Indians make the playoffs -- with the help of 6 Wild Card spots now -- doesn't mean the game is particularly balanced competitively. It just means some big spenders like the Mets and Astros can crap the bed sometimes and let the scrub teams sneak in.[/QUOTE]

Tell me again how you're not a big market snob as you put it.

I love when small market middling teams trigger big market snobs. How about this for teams like the Astros or Mets: Play better.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036750]That means no World Series titles for the 2000 Yankees (13-17 in September) or 2006 Cardinals (25-31 combined in Aug and Sept).

And the Reds haven't been hot -- [B]they went 3-3 in their last 6 games[/B], which they needed badly to win.[/QUOTE]

They went 9-4 the last two weeks of the season. I'd say that's pretty hot.

Well at least you know what teams to parlay on with a bet [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QUOTE=DioBrando;20036737]Trust me, no one in Cincinnati actually thinks the reds are a good team. They lucked into the playoffs and will most likely get swept by the dodgers.[/QUOTE]That's not true at all. The Reds have the best 3 man rotation around. Nobody wants to face Greene, Lodolo, and Abbott in a 3 game series. Baseball people know once you get into the playoffs it's all about pitching. [QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036750]That means no World Series titles for the 2000 Yankees (13-17 in September) or 2006 Cardinals (25-31 combined in Aug and Sept).

And the Reds haven't been hot -- they went 3-3 in their last 6 games, which they needed badly to win.[/QUOTE]Nice cherrypicking. The Reds won 9 of their last 13, including a 4 game sweep of the Cubs and finishing with a series win against the Brewers when it mattered most (a team they hadn't won a series against in 3 seasons).

[QUOTE=OhioLawyerF5;20036828]That's not true at all. The Reds have the best 3 man rotation around. Nobody wants to face Greene, Lodolo, and Abbott in a 3 game series. Baseball people know once you get into the playoffs it's all about pitching.[/QUOTE]

Uh, the Dodgers top three starters are better than the Reds':

Reds:
1. Andrew Abbott -- 159 ERA+
2. Hunter Greene -- 166 ERA+
3. Nick Logolo -- 137 ERA+

Dodgers:
1. Blake Snell -- 177 ERA+
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto -- 167 ERA+
3. Shohei Ohtani -- 145 ERA+

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036673]They both benefitted from epic collapses. The Guardians benefitted from the collapse of the Tigers, and to a lesser extent the Astros. The Reds benefitted from the collapse of the Mets, and to a lesser extent the D-Backs and Giants trading away key players at the deadline.

Here -- I'll prove it:


2025 Guardians:
Pythagorean W-L: 80-82, 643 Runs, 649 Runs Allowed
Runs per game: 3.97 -- ranked 27th
xwOBA: .299 -- ranked 30th
Runs allowed per game: 4.01 -- ranked 7th
xERA: 3.98 -- ranked 11th

They have only two hitters with an OPS+ of 100 or more -- meaning, only two hitters who aren't at least average.

They have only one starting pitcher with at least 100 innings pitched and a ERA+ of 100 or more.

Their record prior to September was 68-67. They went 20-7 in September in large part because they beat up on crappy teams. They started the month losing 2 of 3 to the playoff-bound Red Sox, but then only played one other playoff team the rest of the month -- the cratering Tigers, who went 7-17 in September.

The Guardians aren't a bad team, but they're a .500 team pretending to be a good team.


2025 Reds:
Pythagorean W-L: 85-77, 716 Runs, 681 Runs Allowed
Runs per game: 4.42 -- ranked 16th
xwOBA: .306 -- ranked 27th
Runs allowed per game: 4.20 -- ranked 11th
xERA: 3.97 -- ranked 9th

They had no hitter with an OPS+ of 110 or better -- they had only 3 hitters with at least 150 PA and a 100 OPS+. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

They did have very good starting pitching, though -- 3 starters with at least 100 innings pitched an ERA+ of 137 or higher.

It took the Mets going a combined 21-32 in August and September for the Reds to be a playoff team. They were .500 all season long -- very consistently so:

March: 2-2
April: 14-13
May: 13-15
June: 15-11
July: 13-12
August: 12-15
September: 14-11

The Reds have good pitching, but they're not a good team.


If you ask me, I'd rather see the Mets and Astros in October, but sometimes middling teams get lucky.[/QUOTE]

Thats great but none of that is how they determine who makes the playoffs so.....

[QUOTE=AnthonyCorona;20036686]Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

And if you don't want mediocre teams in the playoffs, then stop expanding the number of wild cards!!!

Nobody asked for a 6th wild card except for the TV networks.....

I would argue that the Mets had a 394M Payroll (per Spotrac) and spent that money like idiots. They had every advantge in the world and still couldn't make the playoffs. The Astros finished at 254M and this applies for them as well. Meanwhile the Reds were at 136M and the Guardos 118M. The Guardians also lost the best closer in baseball to a permanent ban as well as a #3 starter for the same reason, then they traded a former Cy Young pitcher to Toronto and here we are.

Also, the Guardians won the division. They would be in any format.

[QUOTE=itsbaytime;20036899]I would argue that the Mets had a 394M Payroll (per Spotrac) and spent that money like idiots. They had every advantge in the world and still couldn't make the playoffs. The Astros finished at 254M and this applies for them as well. Meanwhile the Reds were at 136M and the Guardos 118M. The Guardians also lost the best closer in baseball to a permanent ban as well as a #3 starter for the same reason, then they traded a former Cy Young pitcher to Toronto and here we are.[/QUOTE]

Nobody uses the tax estimates

LAD 585M
NYM 428M
NYY 380M
PHI 357M
TOR 290M
SD 283M
BOS 247M
CHC 227M
SEA 191M
DET 170M
MIL 146M
CIN 141M
CLE 126M

[QUOTE=JRX;20036902]Nobody uses the tax estimates

LAD 585M
NYM 428M
NYY 380M
PHI 357M
TOR 290M
SD 283M
BOS 247M
CHC 227M
SEA 191M
DET 170M
MIL 146M
CIN 141M
CLE 126M[/QUOTE]

Same premise. Not sure what you are saying? I also don't see Houston on that list.

[QUOTE=itsbaytime;20036906]Same premise. Not sure what you are saying? I also don't see Houston on that list.[/QUOTE]

I only included one non playoff team - the Mets to further dump on them lol. The point was its not 394M its even MORE!

[QUOTE=JRX;20036908]I only included one non playoff team - the Mets to further dump on them lol. The point was its not 394M its even MORE![/QUOTE]
:)!:)!:)!:)!:)!:)!:)!

This thread is awesome

Baseball boys are wild

Starting today the 2025 regular season doesn't matter. The only thing that mattered about the 2025 regular season was being able to play in a game today.

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20036785]Tell me again how you're not a big market snob as you put it.[/QUOTE]

I felt the same way reading his statement, lol. I guess I'll just continue to cheer on my "scrub" Brewers and thank baseball for expanding to a 6th wildcard so they were able to make the postseason. It's not like they had the best record and run differential in baseball...sheer luck they got in. And since Milwaukee is actually the smallest market, I guess we're extra scrubby. :)!

Ironic - the fact that the teams may not be as dynamic in talent, payroll, and storylines does, in fact, make them compelling.

[QUOTE=itsbaytime;20036899]I would argue that the Mets had a 394M Payroll (per Spotrac) and spent that money like idiots. They had every advantge in the world and still couldn't make the playoffs. The Astros finished at 254M and this applies for them as well. Meanwhile the Reds were at 136M and the Guardos 118M. [B]The Guardians also lost the best closer in baseball to a permanent ban as well as a #3 starter for the same reason[/B], then they traded a former Cy Young pitcher to Toronto and here we are.[/QUOTE]

Was this definitely announced?

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036851]Uh, the Dodgers top three starters are better than the Reds':

Reds:
1. Andrew Abbott -- 159 ERA+
2. Hunter Greene -- 166 ERA+
3. Nick Logolo -- 137 ERA+

Dodgers:
[B]1. Blake Snell -- 177 ERA+[/B]
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto -- 167 ERA+
[B]3. Shohei Ohtani -- 145 ERA+[/B][/QUOTE]
Holy Small Sample Size Batman!

[QUOTE=TBTC Baseball;20037002]Holy Small Sample Size Batman![/QUOTE]

I really wanted to point that out, but decided to leave it.

[QUOTE=Bosoxfan5990;20036982]Was this definitely announced?[/QUOTE]

Not definitely announced that they're gone, but even if they aren't banned you more than likely will not see them in Cleveland again.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036772]But at the end of the day, the small-market, low-budget teams don't win championships -- the numbers are conclusive on this. You've got to be in the upper half of payroll to have a shot.

Having token small-market teams like the Brewers, Reds and Indians make the playoffs -- with the help of 6 Wild Card spots now -- doesn't mean the game is particularly balanced competitively. It just means some big spenders like the Mets and Astros can crap the bed sometimes and let the scrub teams sneak in.[/QUOTE]

Not always true though largely it is. Royals 2015 is a somewhat recent example. Made the WS in 2014 and went to game 7 as well.

Haters gonna hate.

No team wants to face the Reds in a 3 game series.

Good or not, they’re in the playoffs.
The Indians came back from a 15 game deficit to win the division.

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20037007]Not definitely announced that they're gone, but even if they aren't banned you more than likely will not see them in Cleveland again.[/QUOTE]

I am 99% sure they will both be banned for life. They can't announce it immediately due to MLBPA rules and all of that, but the CBA is very specific about gambling. They will both be done forever and lose visas. Very, very stupid for both of them and whatever small amount they made from it compared to future earnings.

[QUOTE=TBTC Baseball;20037002]Holy Small Sample Size Batman![/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20037006]I really wanted to point that out, but decided to leave it.[/QUOTE]

It was a good thing that you did:

2023-2025 (3-year sample):

1. Andrew Abbott: 133 ERA+; 413.2 IP
2. Hunter Greene: 134 ERA+; 370.0 IP
3. Nick Logolo: 108 ERA+; 306.1 IP

1. Blake Snell: 163 ERA+, 345.1 IP
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto: 154 ERA+; 263.2 IP
3. Shohei Ohtani: 143 ERA+; 179.0 IP

[QUOTE=itsbaytime;20037223]I am 99% sure they will both be banned for life. They can't announce it immediately due to MLBPA rules and all of that, but the CBA is very specific about gambling. They will both be done forever and lose visas. Very, very stupid for both of them and whatever small amount they made from it compared to future earnings.[/QUOTE]

I generally agree that this is the most likely outcome. Being a Guards fan and somehow holding out hope against hope, I think the only chance they may have is if there is some bigger organized crime issue behind this where perhaps family or something like that was threatened. They both happen to be from the Dominican.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20037286]It was a good thing that you did:

2023-2025 (3-year sample):

1. Andrew Abbott: 133 ERA+; 413.2 IP
2. Hunter Greene: 134 ERA+; 370.0 IP
3. Nick Logolo: 108 ERA+; 306.1 IP

1. Blake Snell: 163 ERA+, 345.1 IP
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto: 154 ERA+; 263.2 IP
3. Shohei Ohtani: 143 ERA+; 179.0 IP[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but what does 3 year sample have to do with what was being discussed? This year.

[QUOTE=chompie99;20037033]Not always true though largely it is. Royals 2015 is a somewhat recent example. Made the WS in 2014 and went to game 7 as well.[/QUOTE]

The Royals boosted their total payroll to 13th highest in MLB in 2015.

Since the low-payroll Marlins won the championship in 2003, only the cheating 2017 Astros had a payroll ranked in the bottom half of MLB (17th).

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20037294]Nice try, but what does 3 year sample have to do with what was being discussed? This year.[/QUOTE]

Well, if you insist, we have Statcast-based stats that reveal a pitcher's true performance:

xERA -- 2025:

1. Andrew Abbott: 3.57
2. Hunter Greene: 3.09
3. Nick Logolo: 3.50

1. Blake Snell: 3.20
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto: 2.73
3. Shohei Ohtani: 2.45

[QUOTE=erock28;20036958]I felt the same way reading his statement, lol. I guess I'll just continue to cheer on my "scrub" Brewers and thank baseball for expanding to a 6th wildcard so they were able to make the postseason. It's not like they had the best record and run differential in baseball...sheer luck they got in. And since Milwaukee is actually the smallest market, I guess we're extra scrubby. :)![/QUOTE]

I wasn't referring to the Brewers -- aka, the Rays of the NL. They've consistently won with a lower payroll.

I was thinking more of the Reds this season, or the Marlins and D-Backs in 2023.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20037299]Well, if you insist, we have Statcast-based stats that reveal a pitcher's true performance:

xERA -- 2025:

1. Andrew Abbott: 3.57
2. Hunter Greene: 3.09
3. Nick Logolo: 3.50

1. Blake Snell: 3.20
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto: 2.73
3. Shohei Ohtani: 2.45[/QUOTE]

Right back to the point small sample size correct

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20037304]I wasn't referring to the Brewers -- aka, the Rays of the NL. They've consistently won with a lower payroll.

I was thinking more of the Reds this season, or the Marlins and D-Backs in 2023.[/QUOTE]

With that logic you'd definitely be talking about the Guardians as well. They have the 4th most wins in the past 10 years after the Dodgers, Astros and Yankees and just ahead of..... the Brewers. No Rays in the top 5 there, though.

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20037305]Right back to the point small sample size correct[/QUOTE]

You can use Eno Sarris' Stuff+, which measures how nasty a pitcher has been. Sample size is less of a factor:

Stuff+ -- 2025:

1. Andrew Abbott: 99
2. Hunter Greene: 123
3. Nick Logolo: 100

1. Blake Snell: 113
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto: 110
3. Shohei Ohtani: 118

Green's Stuff+ score is extremely impressive -- highest score of all pitchers with at least 100 IP this season. But the Dodgers staff is just better.

[QUOTE=goyder43;20037306]With that logic you'd definitely be talking about the Guardians as well. They have the 4th most wins in the past 10 years after the Dodgers, Astros and Yankees and just ahead of..... the Brewers. No Rays in the top 5 there, though.[/QUOTE]

The Guardians overperformed this season -- not so much a scrub, but a 1-year fluke.

The Rays have fallen off the last couple of seasons, but they had a half-decade where they were consistently in the playoffs:

Rays:
2017: 80-82 -- 27th in payroll
2018: 90-72 -- 30th in payroll
2019: 96-66 -- 30th in payroll
2020: 40-20 -- 26th in payroll
2021: 100-62 -- 26th in payroll
2022: 86-67 -- 23rd in payroll
2023: 99-63 -- 27th in payroll
Total: 591-432 -- 27th in payroll (average)

Brewers:
2017: 86-76 -- 30th in payroll
2018: 96-67 -- 22nd in payroll
2019: 89-73 -- 16th in payroll
2020: 29-32 -- 22nd in payroll
2021: 95-67 -- 19th in payroll
2022: 86-76 -- 19th in payroll
2023: 92-70 -- 18th in payroll
Total: 573-461 -- 20th in payroll (average)

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20037325]You can use Eno Sarris' Stuff+, which measures how nasty a pitcher has been. Sample size is less of a factor:

Stuff+ -- 2025:

1. Andrew Abbott: 99
2. Hunter Greene: 123
3. Nick Logolo: 100

1. Blake Snell: 113
2. Yoshinobu Yamamoto: 110
3. Shohei Ohtani: 118

Green's Stuff+ score is extremely impressive -- highest score of all pitchers with at least 100 IP this season. But the Dodgers staff is just better.[/QUOTE]


Regardless of Stats or analytics I still say if especially Greene is on no one wants to face the Reds right this moment. But we shall.see how it plays out

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20037351]The Guardians overperformed this season -- not so much a scrub, but a 1-year fluke.

The Rays have fallen off the last couple of seasons, but they had a half-decade where they were consistently in the playoffs:

Rays:
2017: 80-82 -- 27th in payroll
2018: 90-72 -- 30th in payroll
2019: 96-66 -- 30th in payroll
2020: 40-20 -- 26th in payroll
2021: 100-62 -- 26th in payroll
2022: 86-67 -- 23rd in payroll
2023: 99-63 -- 27th in payroll
Total: 591-432 -- 27th in payroll (average)

Brewers:
2017: 86-76 -- 30th in payroll
2018: 96-67 -- 22nd in payroll
2019: 89-73 -- 16th in payroll
2020: 29-32 -- 22nd in payroll
2021: 95-67 -- 19th in payroll
2022: 86-76 -- 19th in payroll
2023: 92-70 -- 18th in payroll
Total: 573-461 -- 20th in payroll (average)[/QUOTE]


Guardians over performed this year yes.but one year fluke ummm 8 out of 13 years they have been in playoffs

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20037396]Guardians over performed this year yes.but one year fluke ummm 8 out of 13 years they have been in playoffs[/QUOTE]

Should have phrased it better -- meant they had a fluky season this year, but have been legitimately good otherwise the last decade-plus.

[QUOTE=Chris Lyle;20037396]Guardians over performed this year yes.but one year fluke ummm 8 out of 13 years they have been in playoffs[/QUOTE]

They mostly are what they are. A talented team that doesn't quite have enough to get over the hump unless they just nail their prospects and peak when their best prospects are cheap.

[QUOTE=atk825;20037426]They mostly are what they are. A talented team that doesn't quite have enough to get over the hump unless they just nail their prospects and peak when their best prospects are cheap.[/QUOTE]


I know who they are trust me. and I am not saying they are some juggernaut, but they are overall not as bad as what is being portrayed here in this thread overall. If this group can progress with guys that are coming then they may make some noise again.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20037415]Should have phrased it better -- meant they had a fluky season this year, but have been legitimately good otherwise the last decade-plus.[/QUOTE]

Makes a little more sense.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20036673]They both benefitted from epic collapses. The Guardians benefitted from the collapse of the Tigers, and to a lesser extent the Astros. The Reds benefitted from the collapse of the Mets, and to a lesser extent the D-Backs and Giants trading away key players at the deadline.

Here -- I'll prove it:


2025 Guardians:
Pythagorean W-L: 80-82, 643 Runs, 649 Runs Allowed
Runs per game: 3.97 -- ranked 27th
xwOBA: .299 -- ranked 30th
Runs allowed per game: 4.01 -- ranked 7th
xERA: 3.98 -- ranked 11th

They have only two hitters with an OPS+ of 100 or more -- meaning, only two hitters who aren't at least average.

They have only one starting pitcher with at least 100 innings pitched and a ERA+ of 100 or more.

Their record prior to September was 68-67. They went 20-7 in September in large part because they beat up on crappy teams. They started the month losing 2 of 3 to the playoff-bound Red Sox, but then only played one other playoff team the rest of the month -- the cratering Tigers, who went 7-17 in September.

The Guardians aren't a bad team, but they're a .500 team pretending to be a good team.


2025 Reds:
Pythagorean W-L: 85-77, 716 Runs, 681 Runs Allowed
Runs per game: 4.42 -- ranked 16th
xwOBA: .306 -- ranked 27th
Runs allowed per game: 4.20 -- ranked 11th
xERA: 3.97 -- ranked 9th

They had no hitter with an OPS+ of 110 or better -- they had only 3 hitters with at least 150 PA and a 100 OPS+. Pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

They did have very good starting pitching, though -- 3 starters with at least 100 innings pitched an ERA+ of 137 or higher.

It took the Mets going a combined 21-32 in August and September for the Reds to be a playoff team. They were .500 all season long -- very consistently so:

March: 2-2
April: 14-13
May: 13-15
June: 15-11
July: 13-12
August: 12-15
September: 14-11

The Reds have good pitching, but they're not a good team.


If you ask me, I'd rather see the Mets and Astros in October, but sometimes middling teams get lucky.[/QUOTE]

Who cares? It's not like this was a secret.

But if those other teams wanted to get into the playoffs they know what they had to do, and they didn't do it. Cleveland came back from 15 games out of first, and it why they are playing ball in October.

I'm going to be honest. This is one of the stupidest posts I've seen on here in a long time. I'm a Guards fan, sure, but absolutely nobody thinks we're some powerhouse. Especially the fans, who knows exactly how bad the teams hitting is.

[QUOTE=OscarOne;20037581]Who cares? It's not like this was a secret.

But if those other teams wanted to get into the playoffs they know what they had to do, and they didn't do it. Cleveland came back from 15 games out of first, and it why they are playing ball in October.

[B]I'm going to be honest. This is one of the stupidest posts I've seen on here in a long time. I'm a Guards fan, sure, but absolutely nobody thinks we're some powerhouse. Especially the fans, who knows exactly how bad the teams hitting is.[/B][/QUOTE]

He's gone off the rails ever since he discovered analytics. He's like the kid in 6th grade who just realized you can spell words with numbers if you turn the calculator upside down, and now he has to show everyone he sees.

[QUOTE=Rooftop;20037045]Haters gonna hate.

No team wants to face the Reds in a 3 game series.[/QUOTE]

The Dodgers didn't seem scared of the team who hasn't won a postseason series since 1995.

[QUOTE=auctionjmm;20037753]He's gone off the rails ever since he discovered analytics. He's like the kid in 6th grade who just realized you can spell words with numbers if you turn the calculator upside down, and now he has to show everyone he sees.[/QUOTE]

Haha -- what the hell are you talking about? I've been reading and discussing baseball analytics on the internet for almost a decade-and-a-half now. I remember watching guys like Ben Lindberg and Jay Jaffe being interviewed by Brian Kenny on the MLB Network show MLB Now in the early 2010s.

Oh, auctionjmm, you're so logical and articulate, but you never come with the receipts to back up your claims and arguments -- it's always through deductive logic; never statistics and hard data. I bring the statistics -- sorry that annoys you.

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;20037782]Haha -- what the hell are you talking about? I've been reading and discussing baseball analytics on the internet for almost a decade-and-a-half now. I remember watching guys like Ben Lindberg and Jay Jaffe being interviewed by Brian Kenny on the MLB Network show MLB Now in the early 2010s.

Oh, auctionjmm, you're so logical and articulate, but you never come with the receipts to back up your claims and arguments -- it's always through deductive logic; never statistics and hard data. I bring the statistics -- sorry that annoys you.[/QUOTE]

Over your head. 99% of people agreed with you before you made this thread. You didn't need a "here, I'll prove it" thread. We don't need analytics or "receipts" to watch a Guardians game and know this team isn't very good lol. It's okay to trust your eyes sometimes.

To your second point, I'm usually arguing against people who make crazy claims without evidence in the first place. Not the other way around. There are conspiracy theories all over this forum that can't be proven with hard data. In those instances, logic and common sense is often all that is needed.

Like when somebody says that money laundering and tax evasion are "big drivers" of the high-end market but have zero proof of this. Or that the feds likely know this and aren't making it a priority. Or the knucklehead who said yesterday that the average return on a Bob Ross Collector's Box is $50-$100 and the only reason boxes are rising is because resellers are colluding on a pump scheme. These are just random theories concocted by individuals who can't comprehend why the market is growing, so they just throw random stuff out there.

More often than not, you can get through life pretty efficiently with simple observation and common sense. I love data, but I'm also okay with just throwing an umbrella in the car when I see dark clouds overhead instead of spending 30 minutes analyzing forecast models before work.

[QUOTE=auctionjmm;20037825]Over your head. 99% of people agreed with you before you made this thread. You didn't need a "here, I'll prove it" thread. We don't need analytics or "receipts" to watch a Guardians game and know this team isn't very good lol. It's okay to trust your eyes sometimes.

To your second point, I'm usually arguing against people who make crazy claims without evidence in the first place. Not the other way around. There are conspiracy theories all over this forum that can't be proven with hard data. In those instances, logic and common sense is often all that is needed.

Like when somebody says that money laundering and tax evasion are "big drivers" of the high-end market but have zero proof of this. Or that the feds likely know this and aren't making it a priority. Or the knucklehead who said yesterday that the average return on a Bob Ross Collector's Box is $50-$100 and the only reason boxes are rising is because resellers are colluding on a pump scheme. These are just random theories concocted by individuals who can't comprehend why the market is growing, so they just throw random stuff out there.

More often than not, you can get through life pretty efficiently with simple observation and common sense. I love data, but I'm also okay with just throwing an umbrella in the car when I see dark clouds overhead instead of spending 30 minutes analyzing forecast models before work.[/QUOTE]

Your eyes can be deceiving, which is why the supporting data is important. Also, the Guardians went 20-7 in September, so a lot of people who were just starting to pay attention to them might have been convinced they were good.

In regards to your supposed surefire approach to life using logic for everything -- people and the world are illogical. Yeah, I know, it's shocking to learn. People act stupid and the world can be chaotic and hard to grasp. Applying logic to everything can lead you astray and give you a false sense of things.

With regards to my comment about money laundering and tax evasion being rampant and a main driver in the hobby -- that was a theory I was proposing. My assumption was that others agreed with that view -- I didn't state it as fact.

The reason why the current hobby is doing well is largely because of gambling and repackers -- the gambling side is driving the sales of new product, and the repackers are providing a lot of liquidity to the singles market. There is also likely a lot of market manipulation going on, due to absence of regulation in the hobby.

Edit: meant Guardians; not Indians.

[QUOTE=rats60;20037758]The Dodgers didn't seem scared of the team who hasn't won a postseason series since 1995.[/QUOTE]

Even as a Reds fan, that went about how I thought it would. The Reds simply aren't good. They earned their playoff spot, but absolutely nobody is, or should be, afraid to play us.

When I think of “hard data,” I value whether a team actually won a game over whether they should have won the game based on statistics and trends. Maybe that’s just me

[QUOTE=ScooterD;20037838]When I think of “hard data,” I value whether a team actually won a game over whether they should have won the game based on statistics and trends. Maybe that’s just me[/QUOTE]

How do you determine how much luck was a factor then?