Graphics That Piss Me Off
by Eric Stephen on Oct 6, 2009 9:59 AM PDT
in News
Email
PrintTake a look at the above graphic, provided by Associated Press, using data from Major League Baseball and STATS LLC. Read the synopsis carefully:
The Los Angeles Dodgers, who had the most win in the National League but struggled down the stretch, will face the deep and talented St. Louis Cardinals led by slugger Albert Pujols.
The Dodgers won just four of their last ten games. Yes, that qualifies as struggling, but guess how the Cardinals finished: they won just two of their last ten. Yet, they are "deep and talented" with nary a mention of their stumbling finish, which was worse than the Dodgers.
This might as well have said, "The Dodgers had the best record in the National League but they really aren't that good."
C'mon, MLB and STATS LLC Associated Press, you're better than that.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
lol
and get this, mlb has a feature segment up for the the Dodgers and Cardinals on the main page
our title “Dodgers retain confidence despite late struggles”
Cardinals title “Cardinals have become NL’s October fixture”
lol..did we expect anything less though
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
Ha
Right. on. point.
I’m just glad there’s some baseball to watch tonight to hold me over until tomorrow. I can only read so many predictions and previews before I start going crazy anyways.
ya seriously
I think it’d be really exciting if there were some sort of play in game every year actually
William Doolittle at your service, a.k.a. will do.
The Cards' 2-8 finish
didn’t draw as much attention as the Dodger’s 4-6 because they did not have a hot Rockies team breathing down their necks.
Struggling down the stretch
Last 10 games
Dodgers 4-6
Cardinals 2-8
Last 20 games
Dodgers 11-9
Cardinals 7-13
Last 30 games
Dodgers 17-13
Cardinals 14-16
To be Fair
in those last 20 games 6 of those 9 losses were to the three worst teams in baseball.
bust mostly, there’s a bias, and i don’t want to detract from that.
Padres
Are not one of the three worst teams in baseball.
They finished with 75 wins which is more than Arizona, Pittsburgh, Houston, Washington, NY Mets, Kansas City, Cleveland and Baltimore and the same number of wins as Oakland and Toronto.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
wasn't their gm just canned?
They were horrible when it mattered. A rally back over .450 when you’re sub .400 in early august doesn’t mean much. Oakland was really, really bad too. BB totally owes his job to a cult of personality and the fact that ownership there is just a deer in the headlights on a variety of issues.
by stillnotah8er on Oct 6, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Ya. San Diego was not very good. But neither were a lot of teams. My point was that the Padres had more wins then several other teams, so I’m not sure how they can be classified as one of the 3 worst teams in baseball.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:15 AM PDT up reply actions
becuse they lost 62 of their first hundred
the games since are totally irrelevant unless you have some player-based interest in arbitration or a future contract.
by stillnotah8er on Oct 6, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
pecota donut day
2009/Jun 1:Nationals 13 36 .418 59.1 102.9 .00434
2009/Jul 4:Padres 34 45 .419 69.5 92.5 .00337
2009/Jul 6:Orioles 36 46 .469 71.7 90.3 .00648
2009/Jul 29:Pirates 43 57 .376 66.9 95.1 .00237
2009/Aug 10:Athletics 49 62 .432 71.9 90.1 .00664
2009/Aug 15:Royals 45 70 .490 67.7 94.3 .00758
2009/Sep 4:Indians 58 75 .474 72.1 89.9 .00645
i’d say that’s a powerful exhibit showing that they were exceeded in sheer horribleness only by the nats, unless I forgot a team.
by stillnotah8er on Oct 6, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
I have no idea what those numbers mean
or what it is showing.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions
the earliest day when their pecota postseaon odds
hit two decimals after the zero (1-10,000 odds) is the last variable, that and the date are all that really matter.
by stillnotah8er on Oct 6, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions
Wouldn’t the fact that the Padres play in the NL West which possesed the best team in baseball for most of the year hurt their odds more? As opposed to the Athletics which plays in a 4 team division where the Angels didn’t pull away particularly early. Ditto for the Royals, who AL Central division still doesn’t have a champion and the winner of that division will have the lowest win total in baseball.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
of course
that’s why the O’s were out of it early despite being a decent .469. the variable factors that in, pecota started most of those teams at 4%, the yanks at 45%.
do you think it is easier to qualify for the NL playoffs than to be an AL east team? that would be an interesting theory.
by stillnotah8er on Oct 6, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions
jesus you're a stickler
how about “three of the worst” instead of “the three worst”? does that help?
the graphic doesn't strike me as biased
A casual baseball fan is actually more likely to wonder why the cards are favored by vegas when the dodgers have the better offense and similar pitching. Joe fan is also aware that teams sometimes stink it up when playoff spots are somewhat locked.
sure
but they played their own crappy division and couldn’t scratch 95 wins out of it. we crushed sf and rolled everyone else in the spring, we earned it.
by stillnotah8er on Oct 6, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
But Dodgers have Momentum
We won our last 2, Cards dropped their last 3.
Why didn’t they throw in the momentum theory in there as well? Does the fact that Colorado dropped the last two mean all of their 80-40 momentum has stopped?
I am a bit worried that we did not manage to do worse than 3-7 like the Cards though (the end strong or end really really bad theory, never mediocre)?
I guess I won’t find out which theory is correct until after I read the sports pages when the NLDS are all wrapped up.
I blame having two days off when everyone is excited about the playoffs for everyone going off the deep end. Games should start today.
St. louis bias
God forbid that MLB puts up a graphic which might alienate The All-Time Greatest Fans of Baseball throughout the Known Universe™
2009-10 LA Kings Hockey: Where Smyt Happens!!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Oct 6, 2009 10:34 AM PDT reply actions
That was such a hysterical read. Thanks for sharing that, Cada de Oso!
2009-10 LA Kings Hockey: Where Smyt Happens!!
by DodgerBlueBalls on Oct 6, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions
The Cards have owned the Dodgers for a while now......
That is a fact. Let’s hope that changes starting Wednesday!!!!!! Go Blue!!!!!!!
INTERESTING FACT!!!
Last year’s splits for the Dodgers vs Cubs
W L RS RA WP
2 5 18 19 .286
This year’s splits for the Dodgers vs Cards
W L RS RA WP
2 5 19 31 .286
The only difference being we’re not crazy underdogs like last year.
by Seanny Rotten on Oct 6, 2009 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions
As much as I hate seeing things written like this
about the Dodgers, the Cardinals have been in the World Series twice in the last 5 years, winning one of them. If the Dodgers win it all, they will get that same respect year in and year out. The Dodgers need to strap it on, and take the Cardinals out.
I agree with you that the graphic and blurb
largely ignore the fact that the Dodgers do have a better record and numbers. It would be fair to the Dodgers and Cardinals if they pointed out that yes, the Cards have been money in the past, but the Dodgers look strong and want to knock off the Cardinals in what looks to be a tight series.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't really get what the past has to do with it
I guess some of the players are still on the team. But what difference does their championship in 2006 make in this series?
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions
There are still many of the same key players on the Cardinals from years past.
Pujols, Molina, Carpenter and also the coaches in Larussa and Duncan. I think the conventional thought for most people is the Cardinals are a perennial playoff team that has the chips and can get it done. I might analogize it by comparing it to the NFL playoffs. Anytime Pittsburgh or New England get in, they have a good chance in peoples eyes.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
By the way....
I enjoy our arguments on here mwhite06. I always know you are waiting with a good reply! :)
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Ha, nice.
In fairness, this time I started writing the reply before you made your post :)
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Only 2 starting position players remain from that team: Pujols and Molina.
Only Carpernter remains from the rotation. Wainwright was on that team but he was a reliever then (only 24 at the time.) He did have a spectactular postseason out of the bullpen.
But Pujols, Wainwright, and Carpenter are forces to be dealt with in this series because they are good. Not because they were a part of the team in 2006.
As for the perception argument. Well, the Marlins have clearly been more succesfull during the past 15 years than either the Cardinals or the Dodgers; but I doubt people would view them as a perennial playoff contender. My point being that perception doesn’t matter. Besides that 2006 team wasn’t even very good, they just happened to get hot at the right time. Could happen to any team in the playoffs. As has been said, the playoffs are a crap shoot.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions
I’ll clarify what I meant on the Marlins point.
To try to be like your Patriots/Steelers analogy, I was thinking the Marlins. Since the Marlins have won 2 championships in their short history, and every time they’ve made the playoffs they’ve won a championship.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:27 AM PDT up reply actions
The Marlins have been more successful than the Dodgers
and Cardinals, but everytime they meet success they blow it up. They never have sustained success like the Dodgers or Cardinals.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions
When have the Dodgers sustained success?
Certainly not during the comparitive time period (the time since Florida joined MLB.)
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Well I guess if you combine historical success and prestige
along with being in the playoffs in 1995, 1996, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009 plus some other good teams in between those years, you might think the Dodgers have had sustained success. On a tangent; A few years back, Plaschke asctually wrote a pretty insightful piece. He was saying how when the Dodgers traded Piazza away, he felt that the Dodgers were about to come into their own. If they would have kept that core together they may have won a series or a World Series, but Fox effectively killed it. Piazza went on to have some great years leading the Mets to the playoffs and World Series. I think keeping the core 1-2 players is incredibly important actually.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I have often thought
that the Mets success during those years should have been the Dodgers success. Piazza was a monster and flat out difference maker.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Defining success that way seems to be a departure from your initial point
Being that the Cardinals won a championship in 2006 where the Dodgers have not.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions
I am saying
that the Cardinals and Dodgers are both teams that often get in the playoffs, and teh Cardinals have had World Series runs recently too, so people percieve them as a stronger team than the Dodgers.
My point about Piazza was a tangent on the idea of keeping that one great player around and building around them.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Ya
Only the core 2 players were Piazza and Konerko, not Karros.
by Seanny Rotten on Oct 6, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I would have to say
that having Pujols, Molina, Carpenter and Wainwright are a good basic start for any team. To keep those guys around for 5-10 years, you are giving yourself a lot of chances to build a competitive ballclub every year. It is similar the Dodgers keeping Kershaw, Kemp, Ethier, Broxton around for the next 5-10 years. The Dodgers will always have a competitive team. If the Dodgers win it all this year, then in years to come with this basic core, people will have the same perception everytime they make it in. Ultimately perception doesn’t matter, but in the marketing wing of MLB it does.
by Ian Capilouto on Oct 6, 2009 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions
I agree
Having Pujols, Carpenter and Wainwright are an excellent start for a team. But that’s true because they’re good, not because they possess a ring in a box.
I get your point about the marketing wing of MLB. Its the ESPNificiation of sports.
by Michael White on Oct 6, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
Eric don't blame MLB or STATS LLC blame the AP
This is an Associated Press graphic and they got their statistics from MLB and STATS LLC. I work at a newspaper and we run AP graphics all the time. The bias in this graphic comes from the AP. As a Dodger fan I agree with your sentiment toward the graphic, it’s B.S.
I don't think there is any question though
that we are the deeper team (pen, staring pitching, Pierre, Belliard)
Carpenter's worst start this year
was a 25 game score against the Giants on June 30. A couple of hit parade innings.
Here I fixed the summary
The deep and balanced Los Angeles Dodgers with the most wins in the National League face the St. Louis Cardinals with talented starting pitching and the best hitter in baseball.
Hopefully its less annoying now, feel free to plagiarize AP.
by Dodger Dude on Oct 6, 2009 11:45 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I like the graphic
It shows that we are better than the Cardinals in all of the stats except for HR. If only the blurb described the graphic…
If that headline angers people I wouldn’t recommend that you read the ESPN experts pick which overwhelmingly show the Dodgers losing to the Glorious Cardinals
"If your season is going well, you have walked into an ambush."
We're a lock then.
Only have to worry about who we face in NLCS. That takes the excitement out of it.
tigers up 3-0 in the retrodome
Because when I think of Boris Diaw, I think of Beethoven and the age of Romanticism....
"The Dodgers had the best record in the National League but they really aren't that good"
I wouldn’t take it personally …..
besides, think about how you’ll feel if it turns out to be true (again)
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on True Blue LA
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
