1
Love the headline for this one, Doc. :)
Thank you for pointing out the silver linings...it's a rough day to be a Mariner fan...but we're not out until we're numerically out.
.
I would compare the M's situation to that of an NFL team, down 14 points at halftime. (That's about an 11% chance of winning for the bad guys, by the way. Advanced NFL Stats gave a mere 4% chance of winning to Houston, down 14 with 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter).
There isn't a lot of margin for error. The M's simply have to win now, no excuses. If they go 5-1 then the Royals will probably go 3-3 or worse. Statistically speaking, the Royals have the following chances of winning X games or less, proceeding only from the basis that they're a .545 team:
- 57% chance, winning 3 games or fewer
- 26% chance, winning 2 games or fewer (M's could go 4-2)
- 7% chance, winning 1 game or fewer (M's could go 3-3 and back into a WC game)
I find that a little bit encouraging, on a discouraging day. Because when the Seahawks were up 14 in the third quarter, the victory didn't seem a slam dunk, and wasn't a slam dunk.Notice there is an additional 25% chance, roughly, that Oakland will win 2 games or fewer. Or is that a 90% chance? :- )
.......
The real problem for an NFL team, down 17-3 in the third, is NOT that time is running out. There is all kinds of time for two TD drives. No, the problem is that they're not playing well. They've spotted -14 points to a team that's better than them that day.
That is why you get the 4% and 7% and 11% win probabilities so early in the second half. Because most of those games involve teams that are mismatched anyway. The score, as such, is not prohibitive. The computer "playoff probabilities" do not, and cannot, take into account the idea of a bad team starting to play good.
Same deal-io with the Mariners. It's not that they've been a game or two behind; it's that they're catastrophically flawed. With their pitching, they've had a "puncher's chance" of winning the whole enchilada. But "punchers" are underdogs...
.........
MtGrizzly pointed out:
@shannondrayer: Paxton admits to being over-amped. "-It got away so quick, it all seemed like a blur to me. It's tough. They're all important games right now" - See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/comment/148551#comment-148551
.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Where [sword] = [rookie pitchers]. At long last, on his 16th start, Paxton finally pitches like a rookie. And the M's roster is exposed as being one that was relying far too much on serendipity.
It's cool of Paxton to own up to the fact that he caked out. This was my impression during the game: Bautista and Encarnacion were unnervingly good in the first inning, and Paxton faltered .... as he went through the rest of the lineup, he "began to settle down." Then, up came Bautista and Encarnacion again...
Veteran pitchers DO have many advantages. They have figured out their mechanics. They have figured out in-game adjustments. They have figured out that when under pressure, they can go softer instead of harder. They have figured out that it is the 2-2 count you want to decide the AB in, not the 3-2 count. On and on.
They have also figured out: "Throw strikes. Babe Ruth is dead." Nothing hurts you more than walks and 3-1 counts do.
.....
Dr. D was under no illusion that James Paxton would run 350 consecutive lockdown starts. His irritation is directed at a corporate mission statement that demanded a rookie pitcher to personally win the pennant for them.
You know, there is one recent pitcher who essentially threw 50 good games* in the 50 most important starts of his career. That was Randy Johnson. But Randy made over 150 career starts before he became The Big Unit.
.
Okay, must win tonight. ... EITHER the Royals OR the A's might well lose their way out of the playoffs the last week; that's what we're reduced to hoping now.
M's are going to go with Johnny Bullpen and the Fab Four. And the Angels could easily have clinched the #1 record by the time we play games 2 and 3 of that series, so maybe we'll get the junior varsity then.
BABVA,
Dr D