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 0.2975 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.
Yes. Can you answer my simple question?
I have a degree in mathematics. I am a computer programmer. I honestly have trouble translating numbers into real life based on years of experience. This isn't about statistical analysis. This is about trying to ignore real life by focusing on numbers. In experience I don't think it works.
Do you seriously reject the insight and utility offered by the Pythagorean principle?
The broad principle makes a lot of sense, but I'd find it even more useful if you could find a way to lessen the weight of extreme blowouts. I doubt if that 30-3 Rangers-Orioles game had a significance that lives up to the run total.
Beyond that, it'd be equally interesting to see a breakdown of how teams were able to score against pitchers of varying quality. They may already calculate this but I'm not sure where to find it.
Then we are oceans apart.
Can you answer my simple question?
Yes. Pythag record has empirically proven to be a slightly better predictor of future W/L than actual W/L. It's not sensible to reject the value and utility of that insight.
This isn't about statistical analysis.
Yes, it is. Wins and losses are statistics. Runs scored and runs allowed are statistics. This is entirely about statistical analysis, whether simple or complex.
This is about trying to ignore real life by focusing on numbers.
The distinction between real life and numbers is a false dichotomy. Numbers are as real as anything else in the universe.
If the Diamondbacks go on to sweep the LCS and the World Series, they are still faced with a problem in that they got outscored this year. They cannot conclude that runs scored do not matter. They can't say, "well, gritty play beats scoring runs, so let's extend Eric Byrnes another five years and let's acquire Darin Erstad to play first base."
Dunno...but I'm having a lot of trouble with the whole not eating beans thing!
Then filter extreme blowouts out of the data, if you choose. They're rare enough that it wouldn't be all that hard to do.
Beyond that, it'd be equally interesting to see a breakdown of how teams were able to score against pitchers of varying quality. They may already calculate this but I'm not sure where to find it.
Lots of analysts perform this kind of stuff. Any of the mega-stats guys could direct you to it.
We are definitely far apart.
I am not completely sure what role actual W/L record provides in predicting future W/L record. So much changes. Plus I am not sure about the value of something that proves to be a slightly better predictor of the future. What is meant by slightly? And how do other factors figure into the prediction? Can that be measured?
I guess this is why I can be a mathmetician and not a sabermatician. Numbers are real to me. Thinking numbers can predict future human performance is not real to me. Too many variables. Numbers can provide insights based on past performance. In my mind numbers can not predict.
Whatever role it provides has been empirically proven to be less impactful than Pythag.
Plus I am not sure about the value of something that proves to be a slightly better predictor of the future. What is meant by slightly?
I don't know the precise %'s. There are mountains of research on this subject.
Thinking numbers can predict future human performance is not real to me. Too many variables. Numbers can provide insights based on past performance. In my mind numbers can not predict.
I frankly don't understand what this means.
That to me is your problem.
I mean situations change. Human beings change. We are talking about people playing a sport. Not something theoretical. Not pure mathematics. The human condition is never just about numbers. Some people learn. Some never learn. Some people adapt. Some never adapt. Numbers can not predict any of that.... Things can happen in a persons life that help their mental state or hurt their mental state. Numbers can not predict how a human being will change.
Just like trying to predict future W/L record based on past W/L record or past pythagorean W/L record seems like a fools errand to me. So much changes.
and the question of future W/L - well what does that really have to do with which team got hot for 3 weeks and won the WS?
besides teams are not the same from year to year - guys leave, guys get hurt, guys get traded, guys retire, new guys play, the manager for no real reason you can figure decides to platoon an excellent offensive/defensive player with one who sucks, pitchers get older, pitchers get hurt, the ace reliever sux because albert pujols "destroyed" him
youneverknow...
You really do never know.....
Despite how much you wish you knew.
Except for the one area that appears to be most relevant to this year's teams; teams that win in the .550 range while scoring and allowing runs in something closer to the .500 range. Every way I try to slice the historical data, I keep coming to the same conclusion: if the WP is in the .550 range, and the run differential is much lower than that, the .550 WP is more likely to be where the team ends up in the short term.
-- MWE
However, numbers are pretty good data for predicting numbers. Anything may happen in Albert Pujols's emotional and spiritual life in the next twelve months, but he is likely to hit somewhere around .330 next season. Their lifetime batting averages are better predictors of what Jason Bay or Vernon Wells -- or Jorge Posada or Placido Polanco, for that matter -- will hit in 2008 than their 2007 batting averages are. That sort of thing.
I don't disagree with this per say while including the broad idea that sometimes stuff changes.....
I just disagree with this general concept from what seems like a long time ago in my bourbon induced haze.....
Exactly. And the first 65 or so times that they played it, hardly anybody even pretended that it did. It really was first and foremost a showcase. A reward for winning the pennant much more than a crucible for proving who had the better team. And I am not arguing that things were better back then; just pointing out that it really was different.
Well geez, the whole concept is that it isn't real life. It is a baseball game.
Thank you, Bob, from the bottom of my heart. Maybe Henry Kissinger knew what he was talking about when he said (paraphrasing), the lower the stakes, the more vicious the arguments.
But it did eventually come to mean something. You have no point. None.
This seems like a ridiculous concept to me. I honestly don't believe this at all. Do you have any proof that this statement is true. To me the series had meaning from the begining. It has meaning now. Why even play if this is not the case.
This game is fun. The Diamondbacks went 24-9 against the NL East this year. If they had been in that division all year, they would have won over a hundred games!
And the first 65 or so times that they played it, hardly anybody even pretended that it did.
This seems like a ridiculous concept to me. I honestly don't believe this at all. Do you have any proof that this statement is true. To me the series had meaning from the begining. It has meaning now. Why even play if this is not the case.
- because back then didn't nobody care if it was "small sample size" or statistically significant. or if it would predict anything. just a contest between the top teams in 2 separate leagues
Er ... is this a real question? Money?
It is actually true if you read the writings of the saintly old-timers, that the pennant was generally cited as the major goal. It even extended to popular baseball fiction, where the stories were almost entirely about winning the pennant with the WS being an afterthought.
So then we're agreed. The Diamondbacks are the best team in the National League in 2007 and no crummy short series result will ever change that.
If only Steinbrenner in his dotage had that subtle a sense of humor. But it did at least have the effect of keeping A-Rod out of the headlines for a day, which can't hurt.
Yeah, but hopefully by next week he'll have forgotten about it anyway, and will just fire Buck Showalter instead.
What's your sample size there, Mike?
I understand getting him one inning tonight, so he can get any confidence back that may have been lost after Friday's debacle. But there's no way he should have come out there for the 8th. Trust one of the scrubs with the 5 run lead, I mean you have a whole series to win here, not just one game.
He threw 25 pitches Friday, 38 Sunday and he's not going to be worth a damn Monday.
Brilliant Joe.
Plus if he lost tonight he'd have been fired. Or maybe not. *shrug* I hope Torre enjoys the money - seems like a lot to put up with.
He was thinking Joba and Mo for 6 innings today and tomorrow.
In the playoffs, you manage to win that game. I really didn't feel like sweating the Kyle Farnsworth show in the eighth.
He was thinking Joba and Mo for 6 innings today and tomorrow.
But with Hughes pitching as well as he was...why not get one more inning out of him?
as for the main subject of this derailed thread: the way English football does it, where winning the league COUNTS, and winning the FA cup (single-elimination tournament, running alongside league season) also counts, makes all kinds of sense. because they both matter. the ability to dominate over 162 games matters. the ability to win a short series of agonizing high-pressure games in which a few big stars or unlikely heros can carry you also matters. the MLB system, like all American systems, favors the latter. and this I think plays into our obsession with chokers, big game players, and so on....
Two minutes ago, I knew nothing about Spanish Premier League soccer. Then I looked up last year's standings, goals for, and goals against. That's now all I know about Spanish Premier League soccer.
I am willing to bet you that, this year, Barcelona will do well, and Athletic Bilbao will do poorly. Want to take that bet?
You watch those scrubs pitch much this year? I might not trust them with a fifteen run lead.
If this is based on your comments in that other thread, then your sample size is, what, three teams?
Look, pythagoras isn't everything, and there are always going to be exceptions, but it's still a sound way of analyzing teams. Baseball has been played for over 100 years, and there are thousands of team seasons in the books. If it were really true that a team could win consistently while getting outscored by leveraging their bullpen correctly (or whatever), then there should be a fair number of examples of such teams. AFAIK, there aren't. Nor are there enough examples of teams winning a lot of games while getting outscored to draw any meaningful conclusions about those teams. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to make the playoffs while getting outscored, just that it's probably pointless to try to derive much meaning from the DBack's success.
There aren't.
Four teams in MLB history have achieved a .550+ winning percentage while being outscored: the 1932 Pirates, the 1984 Mets, the 1997 Giants, and the 2007 Dbacks. It's the epitome of a fluke.
About ten days ago, I asked you which team, Red Sox or Yankees, IYO, has the better:
25 man
system
FO
field manager
Your answer was "pretty close" in all areas.
So, do you think that the Yankees are actually a lot more talented than the Red Sox? Were they also a lot more talented in in 2003-2006?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main