User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.6234 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. jmac_66 Posted: August 26, 2004 at 10:09 PM (#821712)damn--he wouldn't name names
I'm sorry, but Billy Beane is now an official idiot.
One of MGL's rules is that if you say something really stupid (and incorrect) and it is not extemporaneous (I assume that he had time to compose his responses), you cannot recover - you are officially a moron.
Beane shouldn't have to worry about how much he gets paid by the A's. He could just go to Vegas each year and bet on all the 2-1 and 3-2 and 2.5 to 1 underdogs in the 5 game series. For example, if the Yankees (or Bosox) play the Twins in the first round (I don't know if that is possible), they will be at least a 2-1 favorite and that would probably be about right. Ditto for the Cardinals versus the Giants or even the Dodgers.
Again no offense as you are smarter than I, but does anyone here see mgl as this dude with a really big head you looks around at everyone and gets frustrated by their lack of genius? Kinda like that guy in Princess bride?
Again I dont' really mean any offence.
I agree that 55% is low. Should be easy to figure out though. Get a decent baseball simulator, set up a team with the Yankess stats, one with the Twins stats, allocate the playing time correctly, and let them have at it a few thousand times.
I'd say about 70-30 Yankees.
Seriously, I don't mean that literally (that Beane is an "idiot") but it is quite illuminating that Beane would not know, even off the top of his head, that there are plenty of playoff matchups where one team is favored my more than 55%.
These interviews are usually conducted by e-mail, aren't they?
Philistine is very glad to hear that but it still transgresses one of his rules.
And I must say I figured you would be really mad at me following my post. Kudos to you.
I'd say about 70-30 Yankees.
Is this in the universe where Johan Santana wouldn't be pitching two of the games?
Of course, he'd still be wrong, he'd just be lying instead of being an idiot.
Well, I don't think I'd call Beane an idiot, but it's really shocking to me that he would think that the chances are never better than 55%. I mean, with all the analysis his staff does, and all the times they've lost in the first round of the playoffs, you'd think they'd devote some time to analyzing playoff series and stuff like that.
Again no offense as you are smarter than I, but does anyone here see mgl as this dude with a really big head you looks around at everyone and gets frustrated by their lack of genius? Kinda like that guy in Princess bride?
I see MGL more as someone who looks around and gets frustrated by others' lack of pure objectivity.
I think it's great that we have someone like him around here--really, what would Primer be without one--and I usually find his uncompromising tone hilarious, even when I think he's being a little harsh.
P(n) - probability that the yankees win game n.
P(!m) - probability that the yankees lose game m.
P(n!m) - probability that the yankees win game n and lose game m.
P(n|!m) - probability that the yankees win game n given that the yankees lost game m.
Observe that 1 = P(n) + P(!n) = P(n|m) + P(!n|m)
I'll do a three game series to illustrate, but the priciples hold for longer series as well, just more terms.
What is the probability that the Yankees win a three game series? They win the series if they win the first two games, or if they win one of the first two, and win the third.
= P(12) + P(!123) + P(1!23)
= P(1)P(2|1) + P(!1)P(2|!1)P(3|2!1) + P(1)P(!2|1)P(3|!21)
[Even this much is a simplification of the real problem, since the odds of winning the second game may depend on how the first game played - different odds after a pitchers duel than after a blowout.]
It is common to make the simplification that the games are independent events - that the events of the first game have a small enough effect on the outcome of the second that they may safely be ignored. In this case, all of the conditional terms reduce [ P(n|m) becomes P(n) ], and the expression can be written
= P(1)P(2) + P(!1)P(2)P(3) + P(1)P(!2)P(3)
Another common assumption is that the probabilities are similar enough from one game to the next that we need not fret over the difference - that P(n) = P(m). Rewriting again, using P(W) = P(1) = P(2) = P(3), and P(L) = P(!1) = P(!2) = P(!3)
= P(W)P(W) + P(L)P(W)P(W) + P(W)P(L)P(W)
With this set of assumptions, you are treating each game as an independent Bernoulli Trial. The order that we do the multiplcations doesn't matter, so we can simplify this a bit
= P(W)^2 + 2 P(W)^2 P(L)
There are a couple different ways to think about what this means; fortunately they all give the same answer (and are in fact mathematically equivalent - though it's a ##### to demonstrate).
For me, the most intuitive is to consider that the yankees win if they win one game and the last one.
= [ P(W) + 2P(W)P(L) ] * P(W)
I introduce the symbol (NcM) to denote the number of distinct ways you can choose m objects from a collection n. It happens that
(NcM) = N! / ( M! (N-M)! )
so we can rewrite the expression above as
= [ (1c1)P(W) + (2c1)P(W)P(L) ] P(W)
= [ (1c1)P(W)^1 + (2c1)P(W)^1P(L)^(2-1) ] P(W)
= Sum [N: (Nc1)P(W)^1P(L)^(N-1) ] P(W)
= Sum [N: (Nc1)P(L)^(N-1)] P(W)^2
For best of series, the rule is that you must win N out of 2N-1 (in this example N=2 ). So the general expression is
= SUM [M: ((M+N)c(N-1))P(L)^M] P(W)^N
where you sum the terms for M=0 through M=N-1.
You really really need two assumptions for P(n)--one for home games and one for road games. One of the primary reasons that the probabilities in a 7-game series are not much different from those in a 5-game series is that the home field advantage gets diluted from 3/5 games to 4/7 games in the former.
And more playoff revenue!!!!
damn--he wouldn't name names
Rhymes with Shason Shiambi.
The article will not tell any Primate anything they don't already know about baseball. It is, however, a very in-depth piece with Beane and a real treat for A's fans like me.
Voice of Unreason - Does discounting the varying starting pitchers and parks, the asumption that p(1) = p(2) = p(W), make this method meaningless for use in predicting the likihood of winning a baseball playoff series? Thanks in advance for you thoughts.
Or possibly Shiguel Shejada? Mr. Swing at Everything himself?
I have no idea, just speculating.
Why??
So dorks can like him more?
(I'm a dork too)
[Just in case: I'm used to being called that already.]
I guess....I just think that if you know better, why deliberately introduce numerical precision that you know to be incorrect? The "crapshoot" theory does not depend on the 55% number--even a team with a 70% chance of winning each playoff series will only win the world series 34% of the time. Even if you have only a 55% chance of winning each series, the odds of you losing 4 in a row are still just 4%--so it's not like Beane's explanation really helps him out much here.
In any case, the improvement of 59% to 60.6% could be significant if looked at another way. The first 50% is a bit of a red herring, because it would be a strange (or corrupt) sport in which the better team is more likely to lose. In the first you have a 9 point improvement on a coin toss, in the second a 10.6 point improvement. You might say that the first is actually 18% of the way to being a certain winner and the second is 21.2% or that the second number is over 17% higher than the first. Now 17% of not very much may not be very much, but it is still a 17% improvement.
I guess that depends on your definition of "stroked out". Someone mentioned Elisha Cuthbert in "Girl Next Door" in the Lounge, and I felt a strong urge to stroke out. But I'm at work so I restrained myself.
I think you missed the play on words.
And #36, Philistine is concerned about Runningbyrd's way of referring to Runningbyrd. Good post though!
Talent-wise, (the 2004 team) is not nearly as dynamic as that club. It doesn’t have the talent, but it’s a little more resilient up to this point. Maybe that’s a key ingredient
Apparently "resiliency" is an intangible that can be measured. ;)
Isn't "crapshoot" a poor metaphor? I mean aren't there statistical probabilities on the number that comes up in a crapshoot?
I see your smiley, yet here I go anyway.
They're ####### people. Some people have better attitudes and "intangibles". The Jeter exerpt from Olney's book made a convincing case that Jeter has exceptional value from "intangibles", some of which create measureable impact.
Notice how he said "maybe?" He realizes it can't be measured.
The Jeter exerpt from Olney's book made a convincing case that Jeter has exceptional value from "intangibles", some of which create measureable impact.
If the impact is measurable, then it's tangible.
Right. But there is a connotation to the word "intangibles". Jeter's "intangibles" may produce a measure result. Perhaps his "intangibles" influence the Yankees' postseason "luck".
On a larger scale, I have made it my mission to rail against dogma. I will lose often, but luck is flipping a coin, and winning a World Series is based on a lot more than a heads-up penny.
Rail against "dogma" with some of your own? A crapshoot isn't 50/50.
Of course, this fails to explain the loss of the 1954 Indians. In 4 games. Crap shoot.
Winning percentage probably isn't the greatest comparison between teams from 2 entirely separate leagues.
Its more of a 'throw #### against the wall and see what sticks' kind of thing.
I understand the stats just fine.
How often does the better team win in a best of 5?
You'd need to know relative health for the teams, true ability vs single season win totals, and also the specific pitching matchups. A team that has, say, Johnson and Schilling starting 3/5 of the games will be better in a 5 game series than in the regular season.
Game 4 of the 2003 ALDS, Hudson vs Burkett. How much would you have given for Boston's chances in that matchup? But Hudson had to leave the game after one inning, the matchup became Sparks vs Burkett - and the odds tilted back toward the Red Sox. (Yes, it still took a blown save from Foulke to give Boston the win, but do 'ya think the score might not have been as close as 4-3 in the ninth if Hudson had been healthy?)
I don't think one can make an a priori determination that such-and-such team is a better team going into a series. So much depends on pitching matchups, relative health, home-field advantage, weather conditions - a bunch of things that are game-specific - that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to declare one team up front as better than the other on the basis of season-long winning percentage. Again, the Oakland team that went into last year's ALDS was missing one key component (Mark Mulder) and lost a second key component (Hudson) before they could get maximum value out of him. Those types of breaks get a chance to even out over the course of a long season, but won't in a 5-game or 7-game series.
-- MWE
And a team that adds players after the deadline (either through guys returning from injury or trades or callups, etc.) will be better in the postseason than in the regular season.
I think it's easy to forget that the "team" that gets used is very different from the "team" that plays in the postseason.
For example, is second half performance a better indicator of post-season success than first half performance? Would a weighted average over months be better, weighting recent performance more heavily than weighting past performance?
We saw with the Marlins that a team that doesn't play very well in April and May is not necessarily unable to win in the postseason. I don't think that it is completely due to luck, more due to perspective.
And a team that adds players after the deadline (either through guys returning from injury or trades or callups, etc.) will be better in the postseason than in the regular season.
These things are true of most every post-season team. They all cut back to their top 3-4 starters and their top 3 relievers and don't trot out their backup C and SS unless they have to.
My guess is that these changes tend to benefit the "underdog" as much and as often as they benefit the "favorite." Lord knows the Yankees are an exception (their bench and back end of the bullpen are often putrid), but good teams often have decent 5th starters, better than average benches and bullpens with 5 good relievers. Some of their in-season advantage disappears in the playoffs.
Exactly which is why it's so puzzling to me that people cite the Marlins as beneficiaries of postseason roster management. They had 5 good starters (Beckett, Penny, Pavano, WIllis, and Redman), so they had to use Willis and various others out of the bullpen. Their bench was solid with Hollandsworth and Encarnacion, 2 slightly below average hitters. Their postseason bullpen did weed out some awful performances, but the same goes for every team.
The 2004 A's look like they could benefit from a postseason usage pattern. Their 9 regulars are a very good offense, but their team offense has been dragged down by below replacement level performances from Kielty, Karros, German, Menechino, and McMillon. Their only bench players above replacement level are McLemore and Melhuse. Additionally, there's been a large difference between their top 3 starters and bottom 2.
The 1984 Detroit Tigers say "Hi."
------------------------------------------------------
I wish Blez would have asked something about the lit'l g - "F'n" Mabry trade. BB wouldn't have cared much for the blogosphere then as it was almost arrayed as a "lynch mob" against him. ;-) ...
-----------
trevise :-) ...
I'm not totally convinced, because as you say the home field advantage dissipates in a longer series. For example - if the home team wins 54% of the time, then it will win 54% of a "best of one", but 52% of a "best of three". I haven't tried the calculation for 5 or seven, but it looks like it will fall away pretty quickly. But not to zero, so include it if you like.
An interesting note - the number of home games matters, but the ordering doesn't. I didn't find this to be intuitive, but it falls out of the calculation very elegantly. [ex playing 4 home games followed by 3 road games improves your chances of a sweep, but has no effect on your overall chances.]
Of course, in practice, winning sooner rather than later does have a real impact (especially if you have another series after this one).
Or maybe not.
The last several years the A's starters have rarely been injured (though not such good luck in the playoffs). As I at least superficially showed in my A's season preview, the A's have also been among league leaders in percent of PAs by the top 9 hitters and, less often, percent of relief appearances by their top 3 relievers. In short, moreso than probably any other team, for the last few years the regular season A's have borne a strong resemblance to the post-season A's. The exception to that is their annual mid-season trade.
This year looks like more of the same. They have only two bench hitters (other than Melhuse) with substantial PA. But one is McLemore who's not much of a hitter but neither is Scutaro. The other is Kielty who's been atrocious this year (his SLG in each of the last 3 months? 219, 294, and 217 -- the only good thing that can be said is that at least his OBP is higher).
The A's bench has been crappy this year and not using those crappy hitters will certainly benefit them, but they aren't using them much anyway, so the benefit will be small relative to other teams with crappy benches.
On pitching, Hudson did miss some time, but otherwise their starters have been healthy and their bullpen usage has been pretty standard.
So like in years past, I'd guess the A's regular season usage patterns and postseason usage patterns will look pretty similar. Their main hope for "being better than they are" is that the bullpen isn't as bad as the regular season numbers suggest and they have to hope Zito isn't either. And they'd prefer if the April/June Jermaine Dye showed up rather than the 2002/2003/May/July/August one.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main