WBC and Sample Size
There hasn't been a lot of discussion related to the WBC on this site, but many in the press and on blogs and message boards have offerred their opinions and criticisms of team USA.
Poor pitching, no timely hitting, bad defense, etc.
While all of this may be true, it has to be remembered that this is basically like the second week of spring training for all of the players.
All of that though, IMO, is quite irrelevent to the bigger picture in all of this.
A major league baseball season comprises 162 games. Over a 162 game season great teams will have stretches of 2-8 or 3-7, great hitters will go 2 for 17 or 4 for 31 (and even much worse). Terrible pitchers with career 5.40 ERA's will pitch shutouts, Cy Young caliber pitchers will give up 8 runs in 3 innings. Baseball isn't like football where a better team will beat an inferior opponent 8 or 9 times out of 10. Over the course of a complete season the Devil Rays will beat the Yankees on more than one occasion. A AAA team would probably beat their major league affiliate 3 times out of 10.
The problem with the WBC is that the sample of AB and IP is so small it that it basically renders the results meaningless. When a 0.300 hitter faces a 4.50 ERA pitcher over a sample of 20AB it is possible for the hitter to go 1 for 20 or 12 for 20. No matter how hard the hitter tries because he has USA on his chest his rate of success or failure is GREATLY dependent on luck when you are talking about only 20AB. Very small differences in bat to ball contact produce hugely different results.
The purpose of a 162 game schedule is to reduce the luck factor by greatly increasing the sample size.
Now I realize that luck is a factor in all sports, but to have a baseball competition decided by one game, or even 3 games is just plain dumb. It proves exactly nothing.
The fact that the US team was eliminated before the semi-finals doesn't say anything about the quality of US baseball, or even about the quality of this team or how well the players on the team performed. Being spring training rusty combined with hitting in bad luck basically doomed them.
Now I'm Canadian, but the fact that Canada beat the US in that one game didn't give me any sense of national pride. I know that is was a one game fluke, and basically a statistical anomoly. To call it any more than that, and to read anything into which country wins this tournament is just plain foolish.
0 recs |
15 comments
Comments
This is the point that no one gets.
People make a big deal about these huge upsets and it's all a bunch of crap. I can lob 27 74 MPH fastballs over a plate and throw a perfect game to major league hitters. It's very, very, very unlikely, but it can happen and it's nothing against he major league hitters.
Now if the US lost to South Africa, that would be another thing, although I think if the two teams played 100 times, SA would win at least once. South Africa is basically a Division II college. At best.
The only bad pitching for USA was from Dontrelle Willis basically. He lost two games by himself. Buck Martinez lost the other ones. I didn't notice too much bad defense. It was basically the hitting that wasn't there for team USA. And the managing of course, but what do you expect with Buck Martinez?
by Klostrophobic on Mar 17, 2006 4:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't call it dumb
Maybe it doesn't prove something on a statistical level, but I don't think most of the people in the countries involved care about what is statistically significant, or what is dumb luck. We weren't really out to prove that U.S. baseball is the best baseball in the world, which is a statement that no one will really dispute, even now.
While I agree that it was silly to think the US would go 8-0, it was evident that Dontrelle Willis wasn't ready, and that Buck Martinez shouldn't coach because he orders Michael Young to bunt.
You're right that you can't conclude one nation's baseball is better than another's from this contest.
But I think we do have a healthy measure of respect, more than before at least, for Korean baseball.
And I think that for some of the countries, one game does make a difference, if not for proving a point, at least for pride. I'm not knocking your patriotism or anything - it's simply a byproduct of the tournament format.
Personally, I think the tournament is a huge success. Even if Damon and Derrek Lee have balky shoulders, no one tore a labrum (yet, knock on wood), and the games have been extremely exciting.
by sasquatch83 on Mar 17, 2006 7:12 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I like it
That said, this tournament is contained entirely within a two week span and provides some high tension baseball. From an entertainment perspective it's great. This is like the olympics. Sometimes a speed skater no one expects to win gets the gold. They all train for four years just for one race where the most accomplished and talented athlete could get unlucky and not even finish on the medal stand.
If you can accept it for what it is and not dwell on what it isn't, the WBC is entertaining baseball. I will admit the tiebreakers are a joke though...
by natsfan2005 on Mar 17, 2006 9:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Very...
by almantle on Mar 17, 2006 9:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
pretty useless
by sabernar on Mar 17, 2006 9:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
More then an Exibition
by krfisher on Mar 17, 2006 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point of the WBC is...
I do not think this tournament is intended to show which country has the best baseball. It is merely a tournament, much like any other. To find a champion, OF THAT TOURNAMENT.
Regarding the tie-breaker situation. What else do you want the WBC to do? if teams are tied, should they play additional games and completely screw up the schedule? This needs to be started and stopped at the appropriate times due to MLB scheduleing concerns. Everyone knows the rules going into the tournament, so no whining can occur.(except by Team Japan had the US team beaten Mexico).
Speaking of the umpiring, who the @$%#! is Bob Davidson? I understand the missed call on the tag play in the Japan/USA game. While it was inncorrect, a logical person can see how he could have missed it. But a ball hitting more than 10 feet up the foul pole, and he thinks it hit the wall? come on...
My point here is this, lets all stop worrying about Team USA losing. Its just a tournament. Next time out, Team USA can try again. Also, I wouldn't say that USA baseball is the best in the world. The Cubans look good, and the Dominicans certainly have a lot of good players too... and we haven't touched on the Koreans and Japanese teams....
by dbimberg on Mar 17, 2006 9:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
WBC has been great
The tournament was set up for the Americans to advance to the finals, much like the Canada Cup is always set up to favour the Canadians. The Americans have home field advantage, a favourable schedule and have certainly enjoyed the dubious umpiring.
Say what you like, Japan has played much better than the US so it's good to see them advance.
The US sent a second rate team, coached by a bad broadcaster and failed manager. It's record reflects the quality of its team.
I've caught a few of the games and it's exciting quality baseball. The last round of games in the second round were great to watch.
by ehteam on Mar 17, 2006 9:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
WBC is great
If you had tickets to the Yankees and Devil Rays and Tampa Bay won 12-0, if you thought it was a complete fluke, then why even watch the game? Why not appreciate the competition and the game for what it is.
If Team A beats Team B in the World Series 4 games to 3, does that mean Team A is really better?
The College World Series in Omaha shares similar aspects of the WBC. I don't see anybody complaining about sample size after their favorite school is finished after losing 2 games during the opening round in Omaha.
Many amateur baseball competition decide championships in the very same way as the WBC.
When MLB got rid of the true pennant race and introduced the wild card, the sample size aspect was eliminated from baseball a long time ago. Prior to 1969, the World Series was a true sample size championship.
GregJP, just enjoy the competition for what it is. Who cares if Korea is playing over their heads? When teams get behind the white lines, it doesn't matter what the rules are, you play to win.
by sdbaseballfan on Mar 17, 2006 11:09 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Enjoyment
The problem is that many media and members seem to think that the result of ONE GAME does make a significant statement about the relative merit of the teams. That just happens to totally annoy me.
As far wild cards and best of 5 playoff series, they are also a travesty in my opinion. It's all done so teams can make more money without regard for the nature of the acual competition structure.
It's funny how in virtually every European soccer league the winner of the regular season title is the true and deserving winner of the championship. What do we do here in N.America. We test the true strength of baseball teams over a 162 game scedule and then flip coinf for a month to decide the "world champions" What a complete joke that is. Anyone that believes that a best of 5 playoff series between 2 baseball teams in any way shape or form determines which is the better of the teams just doesn't understand the nature of baseball and doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of basic statistics related to sample size.
by GregJP on Mar 17, 2006 11:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Football vs Baseball
by William K on Mar 17, 2006 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I LOVE THE WBC!!!!
I'm not bitter at all about the USA losing--I think it's great to see that on a given day a David can defeat a Goliath just by bringing it with everything they have. My favorite things to see in this have been guys like Gourriel and Lee Seung Yeop.
One last point--I think it is interesting the way the US team was constructed. The lineup and pitching staff were stacked, but like the Yankees of recent years (as compared to the Yankees of the late '90s) they sort of reflected the USAs individualistic nature as opposed to the cohesive unit fielded by, for example, Cuba. One thing this tournament has shown is that the teams that either have experience playing together or that are somehow able to jell more quickly, do better.
by D O on Mar 17, 2006 2:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Jelling
On one hand the consensus seems to be that the sample size renders any result meaningless, and yet on the other hand we have posts about a team jelling or being more cohesive.
The vast majority of the games have been decided by one or two plays where one-eighth of an inch difference in bat to ball contact would have reversed the outcome. The Koreans (probable less than a 0.500 team given the level of the competition are 6-0 just like the Royals could win their first 6 games. The only difference is that the Royals would still lose 100 games, while the Koreans have supposedly "jelled" as a team.
by GregJP on Mar 17, 2006 6:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ayala
That's unfortunate. Aside from Lee and Damon having balky shoulders, it seemed like a fairly injury-free tournament for major leaguers.
by sasquatch83 on Mar 17, 2006 4:03 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
it's not because of the WBC
by ohad on Mar 18, 2006 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 









