Permutations of the Angels-Rangers series

[ThejacKmp]

So my cousin was asking me if there was any reason for us to not care much about the first few games of the Angels-Rangers series because we possibly don’t want the Rangers to clinch and not have anything to care about later in the series. Some of this is obvious but it’s kind of fun to think through logically.

 

As a note, below assumes the Twins win out. If they don’t they need things to get real messy. That’s not impossible by any means since the Rangers are capable of taking 3 or 4 out of 4 from the Angels and the Astros are capable of crapping the bed on the road in an NL park but it’s not worth planning for now. Thus, we are assuming the Twins win out.

 

++++++++++++++++

 

Here’s the first part of this, which may seem simple but is necessary to discuss: Who do we want to win the Angels-Rangers overall? I love that this series is taking place because it turns out that the Twins win no matter what happens. Assuming the Twins win out, only five outcomes happen as a result of that series:

 

A.) Texas sweep, the Twins pass the Angels
B.) Texas 3-1, the Twins pass the Angels
C.) 2-2, the Twins pass the Angels
D.) Angels win 3-1, the Twins tie the Angels
E.) Angels sweep, the Twins tie the Rangers

 

All of these are good outcomes, begging the question “Should we be indifferent?” A closer view of the outcomes shows that we should be rooting very hard for the Angels to lose since we can only tie the Rangers while we have 3 out of 4 scenarios where we pass the Angels and avoid involving them in Game 163 scenarios. There is also the side point that if the Twins do lose a game, they can’t catch the Rangers in any of these scenarios but there are still three outcomes where they catch or pass the Angels. So go Rangers! We want the Rangers to win at least two, with any more only sweetening the pot.

 

+++++++++++++++++

 

So now we need to address whether we care which order the Rangers/Angels games go – e.g. if we could choose, is there any way we would to order the Angels wins and the Rangers wins of a series that goes 2-2 in order to maximize Texas’s investment in the series? In other words, if Texas clinches too early, will they quit trying and in doing so, hurt the Twins chances?

 

First of all, the Rangers are going to have to care about at least the first two games. If the Rangers win Thursday, the Angels are eliminated in the AL West but the Astros, who don’t play Thursdau, would still only be three games back and could tie it over the last three. The Rangers would still be gunning Friday because if they lose out and the Astros win out they need to play the Astros for the division, a huge deal. So there isn’t a scenario in which the Rangers win Thursday and are all done. Thus, we now need to examine scenarios where the Rangers are done after two games to see if that hurts the Twins.

 

For the Rangers to clinch after two games, they need to win Thursday. In our Twins-win-out world, the Twins are now even with the Angels and are a game back on the Astros. Giggity giggity.

 

So then we come to Friday where a Rangers win means they clinch the AL West. If this happens, the Angels are a game back of our dauntless Twins and the Astros have also been eliminated from winning the AL West crown. Texas can now rest guys but it doesn’t matter because the Angels are a game back on the Twins and are out of it as long as we win out. If the Astros win Friday, they are still a game ahead of the Twins and the race comes down to the final two days, with the Twins needing the Astros to lose one game to tie and two games for the Twins to be the Wild Card without Game 163. If the Astros lose Friday, the Twins are tied for the Wild Card and all bets are off. Giggity giggity.

 

The other way for the Rangers to be done after two games is if the Angels win Friday but the Astros lose. In that case the Twins are tied with both the Angels and the Astros for the Wild Card. The final two games become wildly crazy but if your Twins win out, they are playing Game 163s and maybe 164s. A great outcome, though not as good as the Rangers-win-and-Astros-lose Friday scenario we looked at previously. The Rangers won’t be trying hard over the rest of the weekend but the Twins will control their own destiny. We’ll take it!

 

Any scenario where the Rangers lose Thursday and Friday leaves the Twins in the precarious position of needing to catch or pass the Angels in the last two days (while likely also having to catch or pass the Astros). Thus Rangers wins in the first two games makes this a two team race, which is way better than a three team race game. We should always be cheering for the Rangers to win. Always.

 

+++++++++++++++++

 

So the nice thing about the Angels-Rangers series is that the Twins have positive outcomes no matter what happens. Assuming we win out and the Astros lose at least once, we will be in a Game 163 regardless of the outcome of this series. That said, we have a very strong preference for Texas to win games because it can keep us out of a Game 164 and makes it more likely that two Astros losses makes us undisputed Wild Card #2. It also gives the Twins a sliver of hope if we go 3-1 instead of 4-0. It's also important to know that there is no scenario in which the Twins are hurt by Texas winning early in the series – if Texas clinches that means we passed the Angels and are now mano y mano with the Astros. We can cheer for the Rangers unabashedly all weekend.

 

Thoughts?

[bluechipper]

That was a very well thought out post, but I am simply rooting for anything that keeps the Angels out of the playoffs. I don't mind Trout, but there's not much to like about them besides him.

[Dman]

I like the presentation and it sounds really good except that I don't see the Twins winning all their games.  It is amazing to me that this team is still in the hunt.  Nice analysis though.

[Mike Sixel]

Great write up, thanks!

[diehardtwinsfan]

I think winning out is a bit unrealistic personally.  That's a tall order, though doable.  I think while 2-2 would be nice, I think a better scenario would be a Texas sweep...  We are more likely to get in that way.

 

I guess I don't care who I'm rooting for, I think I'm rooting to make game 163...

[Otto von Ballpark]

Thanks for doing some research.

 

Of course, winning out is still hard.  Fangraphs "coin flip mode" gives us only a 8.2% chance of claiming that last wild card.

 

Although one factor in our favor is it's difficult for the Royals to overtake Toronto for home field.  They are a game back now, and would lose a head-to-head tiebreaker.  A Toronto win and KC loss today would reduce Toronto's magic number for home field to 1, essentially making the final series completely meaningless for KC.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Looking at some non-winning out scenarios...

 

If the Twins go 3-1, the Rangers can't be caught, so we'd need the Astros to go 1-2 (or worse) AND the Angels to go 2-2 (or worse).

 

If the Twins go 2-2, we'd need to Astros to get swept AND the Angels to go 1-3 (or get swept).

 

And both of these would likely result in game 163 and possibly even game 164 tiebreaker scenarios.  (Texas and KC, once their respective divisions and seeds are clinched, might even be somewhat inclined to help create a massively messy tiebreaker for the wild card teams...)

[ThejacKmp]

 

Looking at some non-winning out scenarios...

 

If the Twins go 3-1, the Rangers can't be caught, so we'd need the Astros to go 1-2 (or worse) AND the Angels to go 2-2 (or worse).

 

If the Twins go 2-2, we'd need to Astros to get swept AND the Angels to go 1-3 (or get swept).

 

And both of these would likely result in game 163 and possibly even game 164 tiebreaker scenarios.  (Texas and KC, once their respective divisions and seeds are clinched, might even be somewhat inclined to help create a massively messy tiebreaker for the wild card teams...)

 

Yeah. They have to win out to have a realistic change at this. 3-1 is not totally insane but a lot of things have to break their way. 2-2 just gets too nuts.

Great thought on the Royals. Lots to cheer for tonight. Go Twins/Rangers/Blue Jays/White Sox. Well maybe not the White Sox. Maybe not the White Sox.

 

[DaveW]

The Astros series is what really worries me, I just don't see a loss in those last 3 games. They have their stud pitchers lined up (I could be wrong)

 

I'd say the odds are as followed in that series:

Astros Sweep: 50%

Astros win two of three: 40%

Astros lose 2 or 3: 10%

 

Twins simply need to win out.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

Yeah the Twins would be in a better position today had they won last night, but regardless coffee is for closers and the Twins need to take the next four games as if their playoff chances depend upon it. (Which they most certainly do) 

[Otto von Ballpark]

Probable starters, according to ESPN:

 

Twins - Indians/Royals

Duffey (5-1) Bauer (11-12)

Santana (7-4) Young (11-6)

Milone (9-5) Ventura* (12-8)

TBA (Gibson?) Cueto* (10-13)

 

* will be pulled early, I imagine

 

Astros - Diamondbacks

Keuchel (19-8) De La Rosa (14-8)

McHugh (18-7) Hellickson (9-11)

McCullers (6-7) Ray (5-12)

 

Angels - Rangers

Heaney (6-3) Holland (3-3)

Weaver (7-12) Perez (3-6)

Santiago (9-9) Lewis (17-9)

Tropeano (3-2) Hamels (12-8) (probably not Hamels, assuming they clinch division before Sunday)

[IndyTwinsFan]

 

The Astros series is what really worries me, I just don't see a loss in those last 3 games. They have their stud pitchers lined up (I could be wrong)

 

I'd say the odds are as followed in that series:

Astros Sweep: 50%

Astros win two of three: 40%

Astros lose 2 or 3: 10%

 

Twins simply need to win out.

True.  But even that may not be enough to get to a game 163, come Sunday evening.

 

I'm inclined to agree with the so-called experts that the odds to get a ticket to the playoff dance are extremely long, no matter how these last 4 games play out.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

True.  But even that may not be enough to get to a game 163, come Sunday evening.

 

I'm inclined to agree with the so-called experts that the odds to get a ticket to the playoff dance are extremely long, no matter how these last 4 games play out.

IF the Twins win out, they have pretty good odds.  The problem is, winning out is pretty low odds to begin with.

 

As the original poster said, if the Twins go 4-0, we will be tied or ahead of one of the Angels or Rangers.  That forces a game 163 as long as the Astros fail to win out (at least 1 loss).

 

We still (almost) control our own destiny!  Go Twins!  Go Diamondbacks!

[Otto von Ballpark]

MLB has to be relieved that there is no longer the chance for a 4-way tie!  The only outcome that brings the Rangers down to the Twins would also vault the Angels above both teams.

 

Still a chance for a 3-way tie for the 2nd wild card, or a 2-way tie for the west division, with the tiebreaker loser also tied for the 2nd wild card.

[wavedog]

Great breakdown of our playoff chances!  

[ThejacKmp]

 

MLB has to be relieved that there is no longer the chance for a 4-way tie!  The only outcome that brings the Rangers down to the Twins would also vault the Angels above both teams.

 

Still a chance for a 3-way tie for the 2nd wild card, or a 2-way tie for the west division, with the tiebreaker loser also tied for the 2nd wild card.

 

Actually, a 4 way tie is in some ways better for MLB  and is at least no worse than a 3 team tie. Both a 4 team tie and a 3 team tie mean that there are two nights of games but in the 4 team one, at least all teams play 2 games - it seems more fair to the casual fan that someone doesn't get a pass on the first game based on some random tiebreaker.

 

Plus, we all know MLB just wants more do or die games. "eight team tie? Let's do it!"

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Actually, a 4 way tie is in some ways better for MLB  and is at least no worse than a 3 team tie. Both a 4 team tie and a 3 team tie mean that there are two nights of games but in the 4 team one, at least all teams play 2 games - it seems more fair to the casual fan that someone doesn't get a pass on the first game based on some random tiebreaker.

 

Plus, we all know MLB just wants more do or die games. "eight team tie? Let's do it!"

Actually a 4 team tie may not necessarily result in two nights of games, depending on who wins the first games.  A 3 team tiebreaker is guaranteed to have two nights of games.

 

I don't think MLB is too concerned about tiebreaker fairness, especially when it is primarily head-to-head record.  Remember, they flipped a coin instead of using head-to-head record to decide home field advantage as recently as 2008.

 

I think MLB would like to avoid ties that disrupt their scheduling.  Complex tiebreaker games may not actually be "do or die" and would make it harder for MLB to schedule and promote the two wild card games that are guaranteed "do or die" contests, not to mention the larger postseason.

 

My guess is MLB would prefer simple two team tiebreakers.

[USAFChief]

Although it isn't necessarily true today, scenarios that have the Twins making the WC without going 4-0 get more and more farfetched, so I think the Twins need to do whatever they can to go 4-0

 

Even if it turns out 4-0 wasn't necessary, avoiding game 163 and going straight to the WC make pulling out all the stops worth it.

 

Manage like every game is game 7, Mr Molitor.

[Mike Sixel]

Although it isn't necessarily true today, scenarios that have the Twins making the WC without going 4-0 get more and more farfetched, so I think the Twins need to do whatever they can to go 4-0

 

Even if it turns out 4-0 wasn't necessary, avoiding game 163 and going straight to the WC make pulling out all the stops worth it.

 

Manage like every game is game 7, Mr Molitor.

Right, if it is clear your starter doesn't have it, yank him. Like, right away.

[woolywoolhouse]

 

MLB has to be relieved that there is no longer the chance for a 4-way tie!  The only outcome that brings the Rangers down to the Twins would also vault the Angels above both teams.

 

 

 

Actually, if the Yankees drop their next 4 games, then there is a possibility for a 4-way tie... Hurray!

[DaveW]

 

 

Manage like every game is game 7, Mr Molitor.

10 bunts per game!

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Actually, if the Yankees drop their next 4 games, then there is a possibility for a 4-way tie... Hurray!

Good point, I forgot about the Yankees.  Same record as the Rangers right now, and they have a similarly straightforward path to the postseason: any combination of two wins or Astros and Angels losses.

 

That would actually be a more messy 4-way tie too, since no division title would be at stake, it would be guaranteed to cover two days.

[ThejacKmp]

 

Actually a 4 team tie may not necessarily result in two nights of games, depending on who wins the first games.  A 3 team tiebreaker is guaranteed to have two nights of games.

 

I don't think MLB is too concerned about tiebreaker fairness, especially when it is primarily head-to-head record.  Remember, they flipped a coin instead of using head-to-head record to decide home field advantage as recently as 2008.

 

I think MLB would like to avoid ties that disrupt their scheduling.  Complex tiebreaker games may not actually be "do or die" and would make it harder for MLB to schedule and promote the two wild card games that are guaranteed "do or die" contests, not to mention the larger postseason.

 

My guess is MLB would prefer simple two team tiebreakers.

 

I still see no scenario in which a 4 team tiebreaker doesn't result in two games.  Elaborate?

[Otto von Ballpark]

I still see no scenario in which a 4 team tiebreaker doesn't result in two games. Elaborate?

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/59527184/playoff-tiebreaker-rules

 

Three-Club Tie for Division Championship & Tie with Club Outside Division For One Wild Card Spot:

After Clubs have been assigned their A, B, C and D designations (In this case, Club D would be the Club outside the Division), Club A would host Club B and Club C would host Club D.

 

1. If Club D wins, it would be declared the Wild Card Club and the winner of the game between Club A and Club B would be declared the Division Champion.

 

2. If Club C wins, then the winner of the game between Club A and Club B would host Club C. The winner of the game would be declared the Division Champion and the loser would be declared the Wild Card Club.

[Rosterman]

I am just jumping up-and-down that the twins DID have a winning season and that it looks like they have clinched second place in the division. 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I guess I don't care who I'm rooting for, I think I'm rooting to make game 163...

Given how the Royals playing for home field and the Astros are facing a Diamondbacks team without much reason to play at this point in the season, I think game 163 is a best case scenario for the Twins.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

I think the Diamondbacks want to finish the season at .500 -at the very least game 1 of that series in AZ should be competitive. The Astros will be short a DH, and they stink on the road. I give the Diamondbacks a better chance than most teams in their position to help the Twins tonight.

 

[spinowner]

 

Given how the Royals playing for home field and the Astros are facing a Diamondbacks team without much reason to play at this point in the season, I think game 163 is a best case scenario for the Twins.

Opening a 7-game series at home becomes a home-field advantage only if the series goes to a 7th game. In a 4-game or 6-game series the venues are evenly split, and in a 5-game series the team that opens on the road actually has the home field advantage. That said, I'd still rather open at home.

[ThejacKmp]

Cueto's Sunday start is also not a given. If the Twins win the first two, the Royals will likely be out of the home field advantage picture. They may want to give Cueto some rest since he's had some arm soreness down the stretch. Then again, he's slotted as the Game #2 starter for them and wouldn't pitch until Friday October 9th. So pitching Sunday would mean he would pitch his regular schedule. Interesting to see if Royals place more value on getting some rest or staying on schedule.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Cueto's Sunday start is also not a given. If the Twins win the first two, the Royals will likely be out of the home field advantage picture. They may want to give Cueto some rest since he's had some arm soreness down the stretch. Then again, he's slotted as the Game #2 starter for them and wouldn't pitch until Friday October 9th. So pitching Sunday would mean he would pitch his regular schedule. Interesting to see if Royals place more value on getting some rest or staying on schedule.

I think it's been reported that Ventura and Cueto will make their starts this weekend, but I could see them pulled after a few innings, and possibly no more than 5 even if Toronto technically hasn't clinched home field yet.

 

Of course, given the Royals bullpen, that may not be much comfort to the Twins.