BBTF's Sox Therapy Discussion :: I learned how to write a Monte Carlo sim in Excel

Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Friday, September 23, 2011

I learned how to write a Monte Carlo sim in Excel

Who says nothing good came out of the epic Sox collapse of aught-eleven?

Here’s your data. To make things a little cleaner, I’m not using as many different team quality scenarios. I have the pessimistic scenario, wherein the Sox are a terrible club (.48 ExpWP), and the Rays and Angels are very good (.6 and .57 ExpWP), I have the BPro W3% scenario, where the Sox at .61 lead the Rays and Angels at .57 and .53, and a parity scenario where the Sox at .55 are a bit behind the Rays and Angels at .57. The Monte Carlo sim also allows me to put precise numbers of each of the possible tying scenarios, so I’m listing the probably of each individual outcome. The percentages are based on running 10000 simulations of the season, using the log5 method for each team-game.

These numbers have been updated from the initial post. There was a small mistake in a few of the calculations which has now been fixed. Things look a teensy bit better after the error was corrected.

BPro W3% (Sox .61, Rays .57, Angels .53)
79% Sox
6% Rays
1% Angels
11% Sox-Rays
2% Sox-Angels
0.3% Rays-Angels
1% Doomsday Three-way

Parity (Sox .55, Rays .57, Angels .57)
71% Sox
9% Rays
1% Angels
12% Sox-Rays
4% Sox-Angels
1% Rays-Angels
2% Doomsday Three-way

Pessimistic (Sox .48, Rays .6, Angels .57)
58% Sox
16% Rays
2% Angels
17% Sox-Rays
4% Sox-Angels
1% Rays-Angels
3% Doomsday Three-way

That is the state of the spreadsheet on the morning of September 23, 2011.

Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:00 PM | 120 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Related News:

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.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

1. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:18 PM (#3933879)

For the Yankees team quality, I'm using .560 for the Red Sox series and .550 for the Rays series, to account for them not using their best roster. For the Rangers, I'm using .580 to account for them probably not using their best roster. Everyone else gets BPro W3%. I can take requests if you have a team quality scenario you want to run.

2. Darren

Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:37 PM (#3933888)

I'm confused. Would the Rangers drop a bit more than .001 if not using their good starters and possibly giving a few position players and relievers extra rest?

I'd put the Red Sox, as currently constituted, somewhere between #2 and #3, which means they have about, what, a 60% chance to take the Wild Card outright? Yikes, that is way too low for comfort. Well, at least we have two more starts from Lester and 1 from Beckett. I'm going to work hard to force my brain to believe in their long-term performance as opposed to the sense of doom I have based on their last few games. :)

3. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:48 PM (#3933892)

The Rangers W3% is crazy good - .630. I'm using that as my initial guess at team quality, so I'm downgrading both the Rangers and Yankees by .05 in WP in their final three games of the season.

4. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:51 PM (#3933893)

I've been more positive the last 24 hours than I have been for a few weeks now. That Angel loss last night made me feel a lot better. With the magic number of 4 to get rid of them and 5 for the Rays the Sox just need no sweeps in any of the relevant series to force a one game playoff. Anything better than that puts them in. That feels doable though the Sox aren't inspriring confidence.

Part of the reason I've been freaking out for awhile is while I expected the Sox to play poorly I thought the Rays were well poised to get on a run with that pitching staff. Instead, they've been kind enough to #### the bed in their own right. Other than Red Sox games they've played sub-.500 this month which has really saved our bacon.

I'm still not confident even in the slightest but I feel more optimistic than I have in a couple of weeks. I feel like Tampa and the Angels have really missed their chance to catch us. I'm thinking 3 wins is a good thing and 4 gets us home.

5. Textbook Editor Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM (#3933894)

I am somewhat comforted by the fact that if they win the 3 Beckett/Lester starts, TB has to go 5-1 to tie and 6-0 to win it outright. But a tie seems like the way this is headed, one way or another, and this team hasn't gone 3-3 over 6 games in what seems like forever, so getting 3 wins seems a tall order.

Of course, if they just manage 2 wins, TB still has to go 4-2 to tie, 5-1 to win it outright, so unless there is a complete collapse (and I wonder what the odds are of a 0-6 end to the season?), it would still seem likely that, at worst, there will be a playoff game with someone.

6. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:55 PM (#3933896)

I'd put the Red Sox, as currently constituted, somewhere between #2 and #3, which means they have about, what, a 60% chance to take the Wild Card outright? Yikes, that is way too low for comfort.

Yeah, one thing I learned from running the simulations is that those numbers which have the Red Sox making the playoffs 75% of the time or 80% of the time are including about a ~10% chance that the Sox win a playoff for the Wild Card. I mean, that still counts as winning the Wild Card, but I hadn't fully thought out how likely it was and how large a percentage of the "Sox win" scenario it makes up.

7. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 23, 2011 at 12:59 PM (#3933900)

there will be a playoff game with someone.

That could be a mess. The Sox have Wakefield starting on Saturday, the Angels have Jerome Williams and the Rays haven't announced though it should be Wade Davis' turn. Any playoff would be setting up as a 10-9 affair. I don't know if that favors the Sox or not.

8. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:01 PM (#3933902)

I've been more positive...

I am somewhat comforted...

I've seen these kinds of notes in a couple places. I'm kind of hoping that the Red Sox themselves also needed the day off. Tonight's game is pretty freakin' huge - though I guess with six games to go, none of them are small.

9. tfbg9 Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:06 PM (#3933904)

I'm having a lot of trouble envisioning the Red Sox winning 3 games between now and Wednesday.

10. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:09 PM (#3933905)

I'm having a lot of trouble envisioning the Red Sox winning 3 games between now and Wednesday.

The chances of neither the Rays nor the Angels winning more than 90 games are about 33%, and the chances of neither the Rays nor the Angels winning more than 89 games are about 8%. So, if the Sox only win two, they still have not unreasonable chance at playing a wild card playoff.

Still, though, the Sox really need to win three.

11. El Tigre Makes A Desert And Calls It Peace Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:14 PM (#3933909)

The Red Sox owe baseball an extra day of fun to atone for forcing the viewing public to watch John Lackey all year, so they'd better tie at least one and possibly both of Tampa and Anaheim. It's only fair.

12. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:15 PM (#3933910)

Tonight's game is pretty freakin' huge - though I guess with six games to go, none of them are small.

Concur. Lester-Garcia is a great matchup for the Sox. If they lose this one, the sweep looms large.

But then again, you can't predict baseball.

13. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:21 PM (#3933912)

My feelings exactly, snapper.

14. tfbg9 Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:28 PM (#3933917)

The line tonight, so far, puts the Sox at 59.4% to win.
Hahahaha.

15. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 01:40 PM (#3933925)

And, if Russell Martin is any indication, the Yankees are coming to play this weekend.

"Anything to get the Red Sox out would be awesome for me,” the catcher said before getting the night off in the Yankees’ 15-8 loss to the Rays.

Martin didn’t mince words when asked why he felt so strongly about ending Boston’s season.

“Because I hate the Red Sox,”

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/yankees/catcher_doesn_hide_his_hate_2ozRwDe9UzGh76t6e9vIJJ#ixzz1YmaJpwfA

16. El Tigre Makes A Desert And Calls It Peace Posted: September 23, 2011 at 02:17 PM (#3933962)

Martin just holds a grudge because Boston was so late to integrate Canadians into their team. Yawkee's no-Frostback policy still rankles.

17. Darren

Posted: September 23, 2011 at 02:44 PM (#3933999)

Is Martin upset that the Sox didn't offer him a chance to catch full time? Or something else. Whatever the case, it looks like he turned out to be a good pickup for the Yanks. The Sox would certainly be better off if he, not Varitek, were splitting time with Salty.

18. Roger Cedeno's Spleen Posted: September 23, 2011 at 02:56 PM (#3934007)

If there's a three-way tie they should just do this...

19. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 23, 2011 at 02:58 PM (#3934011)

Is Martin upset that the Sox didn't offer him a chance to catch full time? Or something else. Whatever the case, it looks like he turned out to be a good pickup for the Yanks. The Sox would certainly be better off if he, not Varitek, were splitting time with Salty.

Yeah, this sounds more like standard "I know how to say something the fans will love" than anything else to me.

I would argue that not having Martin turned out to be a positive at least long term. I think if Martin had been in the fold the Sox would have been more likely to go to him when Saltalamacchia started the year playing like crap. I think with Varitek the Sox knew that he was simply not an option as a regular so they kind of had to stick with Saltalamacchia which has turned out to be a good thing.

20. RB in NYC (Now with New iPhone!) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 02:59 PM (#3934012)

Martin just holds a grudge because Boston was so late to integrate Canadians into their team. Yawkee's no-Frostback policy still rankles.

This may be my favorite post of 2011 and I'm not even fully prepared to explain why

21. Textbook Editor Posted: September 23, 2011 at 03:08 PM (#3934027)

Lotta rain in the forecast for the weekend all over the east coast, which could cause even more issues if everyone can't get 3 games in by Sunday night. This season endgame is turning into Bud Selig's nightmare scenario... which I have to admit pleases me.

22. Darren

Posted: September 23, 2011 at 03:12 PM (#3934030)

The Sox seemed pretty convinced that Martin was not going to be able to play catcher full time. I think Salty still gets 50-80 starts even with Martin on the team.

23. RB in NYC (Now with New iPhone!) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 03:14 PM (#3934032)

Given the Yankees waited until midnight or whatever it was to play that game a couple of weeks ago, I suppose they could do the same tonight but it is pretty much supposed to start raining around 6 PM tonight and not stop until Saturday night. Obviously I doubt it will be pouring for all 24 hours, but finding a Red Sox/Yankee game window in there might be tough.

Boston's nightmare scenario, I assume, would be to start the game and use Lester for 3-4 innings in a game that ends up being rained out. I have no idea if that kind of thing is taken under consideration.

24. saltyjohnson Posted: September 23, 2011 at 03:17 PM (#3934034)

This off day couldn't have come at a better time. Hopefully, the boys took a deep breath, realized that they are firmly in the driver's seat, and don't have to perform miracles to slide into the playoffs. Maybe they can start playing a little looser. Paradoxically, I always have reservations about big winning streaks where everything goes your way, because (except for the MFY it seems) baseball karma always bites you in the ass. I'm hoping we have appropriately paid our dues to the funky gods, and can start getting some good luck - or even neutral luck - along with the bad.

25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 03:19 PM (#3934037)

Boston's nightmare scenario, I assume, would be to start the game and use Lester for 3-4 innings in a game that ends up being rained out. I have no idea if that kind of thing is taken under consideration.

Nope, Boston has no say. The Yankees decide when to start the game, then the umps have control.

26. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 23, 2011 at 03:33 PM (#3934049)

The Yankees decide when to start the game, then the umps have control.

Is this true this weekend? I thought that for the last visit to a city the series fell under the control of MLB.

I think both MLB and the Yankees DESPERATELY want this series played. No one except the Red Sox wants a situation where the Sox are playing a meaningful game on Thursday against a lineup that would make last night look like the '27 Yankees.

27. Mayor Blomberg Posted: September 23, 2011 at 04:42 PM (#3934113)

I always have reservations about big winning streaks where everything goes your way, because (except for the MFY it seems) baseball karma always bites you in the ass.

you watched the 2004 ALCS without noticing who the Sox came back against?

28. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 04:47 PM (#3934119)

Is this true this weekend? I thought that for the last visit to a city the series fell under the control of MLB.

Never heard of that. Do they have someone in attendance at every stadium to monitor field conditions, etc.?

29. RB in NYC (Now with New iPhone!) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 04:49 PM (#3934120)

Never heard of that. Do they have someone in attendance at every stadium to monitor field conditions, etc.?

That sound familiar to me, and I believe the umpires do the job.

30. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 04:52 PM (#3934123)

That sound familiar to me, and I believe the umpires do the job.

So, why don't they let the umps decide all the time?

31. Fat Al Posted: September 23, 2011 at 04:56 PM (#3934127)

Cross-posting from the WC thread, from the Yanks:

MLB is monitoring weather conditions. They will determine if the game is played. Updates will be posted when available.

32. Dan Szymborski

Posted: September 23, 2011 at 05:15 PM (#3934147)

When making a simple win estimator Monte Carlo on Excel, one thing that helps is *don't* have simply one input.

For example, if you think Boston's a .520 team right now, doing something like making a list of, say, .480, .481, .482, .483 to say, .560 and ordering excel to choose a random number from that list for each iteration will give you more varied results (I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass as an example).

Generally, you want to have some of a range, because when "true" probabilities are unknown, the error range of that probability should leave, when done right, a more fat-tailed distribution than you would see when monte carloing out coin flips.

33. Benji Gil Gamesh is not being paid to be that guy Posted: September 23, 2011 at 05:19 PM (#3934153)

For example, if you think Boston's a .520 team right now,

So you're saying you think the Sox are only a .520 team right now?!?!

;)

34. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 23, 2011 at 05:47 PM (#3934190)

So you're saying you think the Sox are only a .520 team right now?!?!

What is that? Avg. game time?

35. Nasty Nate Posted: September 23, 2011 at 05:57 PM (#3934197)

What is that? Avg. game time?

I thought it was Opponents' batting average...

36. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 23, 2011 at 07:42 PM (#3934304)

Thanks for the tip, Dan.

For example, if you think Boston's a .520 team right now, doing something like making a list of, say, .480, .481, .482, .483 to say, .560 and ordering excel to choose a random number from that list for each iteration will give you more varied results (I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass as an example).

Now, maybe I'm doin' it wrong - and to make the programming a little easier, I used slightly larger increments of team quality to choose between, but on the same range (+/- .04) - but I get basically the same results after adding variation into team quality.

BPro W3% (Sox .61, Rays .57, Angels .53)
79% Sox
7% Rays
1% Angels
11% Sox-Rays
2% Sox-Angels
0.3% Rays-Angels
1% Doomsday Three-way

Parity (Sox .55, Rays .57, Angels .57)
71% Sox
10% Rays
2% Angels
12% Sox-Rays
3% Sox-Angels
1% Rays-Angels
2% Doomsday Three-way

Pessimistic (Sox .48, Rays .6, Angels .57)
57% Sox
17% Rays
2% Angels
16% Sox-Rays
4% Sox-Angels
1% Rays-Angels
3% Doomsday Three-way

It very slightly increased the chances of the Rays and Angels, but by really half a percentage point here or there. Have you found a larger effect in other studies? Is maybe the fact that it's only six games hiding the effect? Or, I dunno.

37. Dan Szymborski

Posted: September 23, 2011 at 08:13 PM (#3934321)

6 games kinda hides the effect.

38. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 24, 2011 at 11:15 AM (#3934649)

Can the Red Sox get rained out every night? This race is way more fun to follow when they don't play at all.

The Rays and Angels losses last night did wonders for the probabilities in the sim.

BPro W3% (Sox .61, Rays .57, Angels .53)
89% Sox
3% Rays
0.2% Angels
7% Sox-Rays
1% Sox-Angels
0.1% Rays-Angels
0.5% Doomsday Three-way

Parity (Sox .55, Rays .57, Angels .57)
84% Sox
4% Rays
0.5% Angels
9% Sox-Rays
1% Sox-Angels
0.2% Rays-Angels
1% Doomsday Three-way

Pessimistic (Sox .48, Rays .6, Angels .57)
74% Sox
9% Rays
0.5% Angels
13% Sox-Rays
2% Sox-Angels
0.5% Rays-Angels
1% Doomsday Three-way

39. Dan Posted: September 24, 2011 at 05:03 PM (#3934846)

Why the #### is Adrian Gonzalez being dropped to 5th in the batting order to bump Carl "sub-.300 OBP" Crawford to 2nd in the order?

Are you ####### joking, Francona?

40. tfbg9 Posted: September 25, 2011 at 12:58 AM (#3935377)

Gag-job-arooni.

41. tfbg9 Posted: September 25, 2011 at 01:14 AM (#3935382)

If Lester's not hiding some injury or illness, this is one hell of a choke run he's on. Three straight heaping mound turds when the club really needed him. Well done!

The only huge second-guess I have, in hindsight, and I think its hard to argue with, is the assertion
that Aceves ought to have been moved to the rotation after the Beckett injury when they were down to Lester,
Weiland, Lackey, Wakefield and Miller. And at least at that point, if not sooner.

If Wakefield pitches a great game and the Sox win tomorrow, I will be as surprised as I have ever been at a
single sporting event's outcome. Lackey, slightly less so, for some reason.

But screw 'em. I withdraw my support. I'd rather have the bet money at this point.

42. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 25, 2011 at 01:38 AM (#3935396)

They have to get a "win" tomorrow. Whether it is in the form of a win or a Tampa loss they can't leave NY tied.

Whoever doesn't get the WC is going to look back with a lot of frustration.

43. Textbook Editor Posted: September 25, 2011 at 01:49 AM (#3935402)

Even a magic number of 3 going to BAL doesn't fill me with warm fuzzies--just nausea that Lester will get pounded in a playoff game at TB and we'll have to listen to the damn cowbells for 9 innings.

If Wakefield pitches a great game and the Sox win tomorrow, I will be as surprised as I have ever been at a single sporting event's outcome.

Yup, that sums up my feeling pretty well.

To be honest, I do think if they fully collapse and not make the playoffs then Francona won't be brought back. At this point, I think we need a new thread: Who will replace Francona?

44. Dan Posted: September 25, 2011 at 01:58 AM (#3935406)

I'm voting for Dierker, but I think realistically he's a long shot at best.

45. Dale Sams Posted: September 25, 2011 at 02:25 AM (#3935416)

Pessimistic (Sox .48, Rays .6, Angels .57)
74% Sox

Does this include tomorrows guaranteed two losses?

46. Textbook Editor Posted: September 25, 2011 at 02:39 AM (#3935423)

I'd like to see Dierker considered, but if Theo goes too, I'm less sure a saber-friendly guy gets the nod... And he might not be interested anyway.

I've heard Valentine's name mentioned... which would be a clusterduck of epic proportions. I'm hoping/praying there's nothing to that.

47. Dan Posted: September 25, 2011 at 02:48 AM (#3935428)

I think the Red Sox could do worse than Valentine.

And even if Theo does leave or get fired, I imagine not much will change in regards to the FO strategy. Either Cherington will take over or they'll bring back Byrnes or something. It's not like they're going to go hire Ned Colletti or Andy MacPhail or some other baseball lifer. It's still going to be a saber guy.

48. Darren

Posted: September 25, 2011 at 02:58 AM (#3935432)

Valentine has a pretty good track record, including some great work in Japan. I know he has an annoying voice, but you'd get used to it.

49. Mayor Blomberg Posted: September 25, 2011 at 02:58 AM (#3935433)

Has Dierker even been offered jobs in the last decade? Or is he just happy down home in Houston?

50. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 25, 2011 at 04:21 AM (#3935481)

I can't see the Red Sox hiring a manager who might be great. Managers like that demand a level of control that Theo and Henry/Lucchino are highly unlikely to be interested in. If they do go for a new manager, it'll probably be someone's bench coach, or a mid-level guy who hasn't impressed terribly in previous jobs - you know, someone like Terry Francona or Joe Maddon, the finalists for the job last time.

and... update - the numbers are just about exactly the same as they were yesterday morning when I posted the thread:

BPro W3% (Sox .61, Rays .57, Angels .53)
77% Sox
7% Rays
0.5% Angels
13% Sox-Rays
1% Sox-Angels
0.3% Rays-Angels
1% Doomsday Three-way

Parity (Sox .55, Rays .57, Angels .57)
71% Sox
9% Rays
1% Angels
14% Sox-Rays
2% Sox-Angels
1% Rays-Angels
2% Doomsday Three-way

Pessimistic (Sox .48, Rays .6, Angels .57)
59% Sox
14% Rays
1% Angels
18% Sox-Rays
3% Sox-Angels
1% Rays-Angels
3% Doomsday Three-way

51. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 25, 2011 at 08:39 PM (#3935893)

Not a good day so far, likely to get worse - Angels are winning, and while technically the Sox haven't lost the nightcap yet, John Lackey is preparing to pitch in the game.

BPro W3% (Sox .61, Rays .57, Angels .53)
59% Sox
15% Rays
0.5% Angels
22% Sox-Rays
1% Sox-Angels
0.5% Rays-Angels
2% Doomsday Three-way

Parity (Sox .55, Rays .57, Angels .57)
51% Sox
19% Rays
1% Angels
23% Sox-Rays
2% Sox-Angels
1% Rays-Angels
3% Doomsday Three-way

Pessimistic (Sox .48, Rays .6, Angels .57)
40% Sox
27% Rays
1% Angels
24% Sox-Rays
2% Sox-Angels
2% Rays-Angels
4% Doomsday Three-way

52. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 25, 2011 at 08:47 PM (#3935897)

I've added a fourth scenario. I need to come up with a shorter name than "the Red Sox are playing with their heads up their asses, and the Rays and Angels are about as good as their W3%." Say

Choking (Sox .40, Rays .57, Angels .53)
32% Sox
34% Rays
1% Angels
24% Sox-Rays
2% Sox-Angels
2% Rays-Angels
5% Doomsday Three-way

53. Dale Sams Posted: September 25, 2011 at 09:20 PM (#3935916)

.400 is too kind. Arnt they like .233 for the month?

54. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:50 AM (#3937010)

Jacoby Ellsbury with three homers in the double-header. He's the only guy to show up to play every day of the unpleasantness, and of course he'd be the one to win a game the team desperately needed. I love that kid.

BPro W3% (Sox .61, Rays .57, Angels .53)
75% Sox
7% Rays
18% Sox-Rays
0.1% Sox-Angels
0.2% Doomsday Three-way

Parity (Sox .55, Rays .57, Angels .57)
70% Sox
8% Rays
21% Sox-Rays
0.1% Sox-Angels
0.3% Doomsday Three-way

Pessimistic (Sox .48, Rays .6, Angels .57)
60% Sox
13% Rays
26% Sox-Rays
0.1% Sox-Angels
0.5% Doomsday Three-way

The Angels loss this afternoon takes them just about entirely out of this thing.

55. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:20 AM (#3937038)

John Lackey was pissed during the post-game media session. Evidently he received a text message from a member of the media prior to the start about "some personal stuff." He looked like he was ready to punch someone.

Holy crap, if that truly happened and it was a media guy (or gal) that is incredibly unprofessional. It is a known courtesy (if not league rule, anyone know?) that pitchers are not spoken to on their day to pitch.

56. tfbg9 Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:24 AM (#3937042)

Scutaro has been solid as well.

57. Vaux, A.B.D. Posted: September 26, 2011 at 04:49 AM (#3937051)

Maybe media guys should have been texting Lackey before every one of his starts.

58. bobm Posted: September 26, 2011 at 05:11 AM (#3937056)

[54] Jacoby Ellsbury with three homers in the double-header. He's the only guy to show up to play every day of the unpleasantness

Here's September splits (not including Sunday) from BB-REF, sorted by OPS:



Player           G; GS   PA; AB    BA;  OBP;  SLG;  OPS; BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+

Gonzalez      21 21   88; 72 .333 .455 .583 1.038 .426   117     186;

Ellsbury      22 22 104  95 .358 .404 .611 1.014 .361   121     177;

Scutaro        21; 20   87; 74 .378 .429 .527   .956 .391   152     164;

Crawford      18 17   71; 67 .299 .338 .493  .831 .388   134     127;

Ortiz            21; 21   86; 73 .288 .395 .384   .779 .333     68;   118;

Pedroia        22; 22   94; 90 .267 .287 .467   .754 .292     74;   105;

59. Textbook Editor Posted: September 26, 2011 at 06:54 AM (#3937069)

John Lackey was pissed during the post-game media session. Evidently he received a text message from a member of the media prior to the start about "some personal stuff." He looked like he was ready to punch someone.

Why on earth would a player ever give his cell # to a member of the media--for any reason? I accept some players may do this; there's not a snowball's chance in hell I ever would.

60. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM (#3937093)

One of the things Lackey asked was how the person got his cell number.

61. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 11:55 AM (#3937096)

Pete Abe says the text-messager in question was "a gossip columnist not associated with the baseball media". Whatever that means.

62. Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige Posted: September 26, 2011 at 12:00 PM (#3937097)

Murray Chass

63. Chip Posted: September 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM (#3937098)

One of the things Lackey asked was how the person got his cell number.

He/she works for Murdoch?

64. Fridas Boss Posted: September 26, 2011 at 12:04 PM (#3937100)

Here's the story:

Red Sox John Lackey Divorcing Wife Battling Cancer

http://www.tmz.com/2011/09/26/john-lackey-divorce-boston-red-sox-krista-lackey-breast-cancer-playoffs-wild-card/

65. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM (#3937102)

Huh.

The divorce certainly puts a new, weird spin on the story of Lackey's horrible no good very bad year.

66. Textbook Editor Posted: September 26, 2011 at 12:18 PM (#3937105)

Huh indeed.

67. depletion Posted: September 26, 2011 at 12:41 PM (#3937114)

This thread is useless without source code.
Did you use VBA or were you able to do it with Excel only? Nice work, regardless.

68. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 26, 2011 at 12:51 PM (#3937117)

More class shown by the people at TMZ. What a bunch of dirtbags.

69. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:10 PM (#3937130)

From the article in # 64:

Lackey filed on August 30, according to court docs in Texas, claiming "the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities." Krista and John got married in November, 2008.

Sources close to the family tell TMZ ... Krista underwent a double mastectomy back in March and underwent chemo as recently as June.

The divorce petition says John and Krista had a prenup. It also says Lackey has "separate property" he wants to keep for himself.

Without knowing more, I'm not going to say anything about the filing, but I don't understand what Lackey hoped to gain by calling attention to the TMZ inquiry.

70. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:13 PM (#3937133)

More class shown by the people at TMZ. What a bunch of dirtbags.

Must be Yankee fans.

I'm more than a little disturbed by this kind of stuff going on.

Papi and Manny's names on the steroid list? Leaked by a Yankee fan.
Bedard gets served papers? The guy shows up in Yankee uniform.
Lackey gets a text right before game start? I'm sure a Yankee fan was involved somewhere.

Evil Empire my ass. This would be like if Darth Vader used a bunch of bounty hunters instead of the Empire's immeasurable resources.

71. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:13 PM (#3937134)

I don't understand what Lackey hoped to gain by calling attention to the TMZ inquiry.

I imagine he was pissed at being contacted the way he was by a member of the media. Lackey's not exactly a press friendly sort to begin with and this season isn't likely to have improved that relationship. This event is definitely not going to leave him feeling warm and fuzzy.

72. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:18 PM (#3937141)

I can't stress enough how revolting I find TMZ and their ilk. These scumbags make their livings off of making other people look bad. It's because they are pitiful, small dicked, immoral cocksuckers who have never accomplished a damned thing in their lives except to make others look bad. The people who read this stuff religiously are no better.

If you are that pitiful that all you have is to make fun of Gwyneth Paltrow because she has cellulite on her thighs or whatever then just go #### yourself.

73. Mattbert Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:35 PM (#3937154)

Evil Empire my ass. This would be like if Darth Vader used a bunch of bounty hunters instead of the Empire's immeasurable resources.

Wait a minute...

74. villageidiom Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:36 PM (#3937155)

Calcaterra on the Lackey thing, plus his reaction to a Passan tweet on the same subject.

75. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:37 PM (#3937157)

I imagine he was pissed at being contacted the way he was by a member of the media.

OK, but what did he hope to gain by calling attention to it? And by suggesting that it may have been the baseball media that contacted him? And by referring to it as a personal matter without further explanation? Lackey just made his divorce filing a bigger story.

76. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:46 PM (#3937167)

Calcaterra on the Lackey thing, plus his reaction to a Passan tweet on the same subject.

I have to disagree with Craig here. If Lackey has valid reasons for divorcing his wife, they should be in the divorce filing.

"the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities." is not enough to divorce your wife while she stricken with cancer.

77. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 01:54 PM (#3937174)

If Lackey has valid reasons for divorcing his wife, they should be in the divorce filing.

Why?

78. The Yankee Clapper Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:02 PM (#3937184)

If Lackey has valid reasons for divorcing his wife, they should be in the divorce filing.

That's not how it's always done. It's also possible that Lackey and his wife have already worked out a settlement. I just wouldn't jump to any conclusion, either way. However, I do think Lackey was, at best, remarkably unsophisticated in raising the issue how he did.

79. villageidiom Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#3937186)

OK, but what did he hope to gain by calling attention to it?

Lackey hates talking to the media; he had a rough start to the game - the subject of the question he got prior to spouting off; they just went through 12 hours of baseball, the last five being rather intense; and he has a whole steaming pile of off-field stuff going on, including some made public rather coincidentally right before he needed to concentrate on the game. What did he hope to gain? I think he just hoped to vent.

80. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:03 PM (#3937189)

Why?

Because generally, folks want to make the best divorce case possible. Especially when seeking to uphold a pre-nup, and maintain "separate property".

If she cheated, or beat their kids, or abused him, he'd include that b/c he doesn't want to pay, and he doesn't want to look like an ass for divorcing his cancer stricken wife.

81. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:08 PM (#3937197)

he'd include that b/c he doesn't want to pay, and he doesn't want to look like an ass for divorcing his cancer stricken wife.

And if she's divorcing him and he's just handling the paperwork? If their parting is completly amicable? If the cancer is completly in remission? If she's terminal and her bucket list includes "Boning the 1989 Yankee roster", and he can't get behind that?

82. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:12 PM (#3937200)

OK, but what did he hope to gain by calling attention to it? And by suggesting that it may have been the baseball media that contacted him? And by referring to it as a personal matter without further explanation? Lackey just made his divorce filing a bigger story.

Maybe, and I am going out on a limb here, Lackey was pissed off at the media and lashed out at them in anger without considering the repercussions of said lash out. You know, sort of how pretty much all arguments go? Start off reasonable, get pissed, get more pissed, say something you shouldn't...

Not everything has a deeper meaning.

83. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:15 PM (#3937203)

If Lackey has valid reasons for divorcing his wife, they should be in the divorce filing.

If Lackey is divorcing his wife it is none of your ####### business.

84. Jose Can You Seabiscuit Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:18 PM (#3937204)

"the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities." is not enough to divorce your wife while she stricken with cancer.

Look, I think people get divorced far too readily these days but I think the legal terminology here probably sanitizes the situation. I'm guessing legal documents won't include phrases like \"##### is ####### crazy" or "mouth-breathing jackass needs to be neutered."

85. Famous Original Joe C Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:28 PM (#3937217)

"the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities." is not enough to divorce your wife while she stricken with cancer.

Yeah, let's pass judgment on people we don't know personally and situations we have zero actual first hand knowledge of. How very Christian of you.

86. Joel W Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:30 PM (#3937220)

"the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities."

I can't be 100% sure, and I don't know where they are getting divorced, but I'd bet a lot of money that that is the language used for no-fault divorce in the state where they are getting divorced. No state, now that New York has added "irretrievable breakdown of the marriage" requires proving the grounds of fault anymore in divorce, simply that one side say the marriage has broken down for a sufficiently long period. Even in places where the husband has been an abusive #######, or there is infidelity, it is unlikely that will come in to prove the grounds of divorce. It may come up when looking at custody, or something like that. In New York they even have a script where you just answer yes or no to prove the grounds of the divorce.

87. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:37 PM (#3937227)

OK, but what did he hope to gain by calling attention to it?

This is John Lackey. Have you looked at the man? Listened to him talk? He's not exactly reflective. Dude just does.

It seems to me that it's very possible that Lackey is deeply and horribly in the wrong, in this divorce case. It's probably the most likely scenario, if we're approaching things from a purely statistical standpoint. Of course, John and Krista Lackey are individual people with a relationship that none of us know. I don't think it's right to judge them, morally, based on the level of information we have.

My hope is that this is amicable, that this is the best for the children, that all parties involved are experiencing as little suffering as possible.

88. Mayor Blomberg Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:40 PM (#3937233)

Just looked over my divorce TX decree and there wasn't a thing about reason. Given that I filed it at a cashier and showed up 60 days later for 30 seconds with a judge, I'm sure I'm not missing anything.

89. Dale Sams Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:41 PM (#3937235)

This is John Lackey. Have you looked at the man? Listened to him talk? He's not exactly reflective. Dude just does.

And I'm incredibly resentful that I've been forced to defend John Lackey.

I need a shower.

90. villageidiom Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:42 PM (#3937238)

"the marriage has become insupportable because of discord or conflict of personalities." is not enough to divorce your wife while she stricken with cancer.

You say this because you have already judged that particular phrasing to refer to trivial matters. It could be that part of her personality is to treat him like ####. It could be that she treats him worse now, and tells him he has to take it because she has cancer and everyone would take her side of the story. It could be that he was planning to file for divorce before her diagnosis, and he held off this long not because she behaved any different toward him but simply out of pity. It could be that he's more shallow than any of us currently believe.

Whatever is actually the case, you've already jumped to a conclusion with no basis in fact. You're saying Calcaterra is wrong essentially because there is enough information in the public realm for us to judge, and you back that up by citing a lack of information in the public realm. I don't know if Lackey is a monster, but Calcaterra has it absolutely right.

91. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:44 PM (#3937245)

Yeah, let's pass judgment on people we don't know personally and situations we have zero actual first hand knowledge of. How very Christian of you.

Well, traditional Christianity doesn't recognize the possibility of divorce (beyond a civil separation), so requires a good reason to separate (not just, "we don't want to be married anymore").

I'm not judging the man's soul, saying he's damned (that's what the Bible quote is about). I'm judging his actions, which look pretty shitty.

92. Benji Gil Gamesh is not being paid to be that guy Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3937252)

Wow, Jeff Passan is being quite an ####### about this.

93. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:48 PM (#3937254)

traditional Christianity doesn't recognize the possibility of divorce

We don't need to get into a theological or ecclesiological debate, but "traditional" for whom? Based on which tradition? The earliest text we have on marriage in the Christian tradition, 1 Corinthians, both says that "the Lord" forbids divorce, and that the apostle Paul allows it among his communities. Out of this core tension in the Christian tradition, as well as various other strands of thought and practice, have come innumerable different laws and practices of divorce.

You are making a specific and unargued theological claim when you say that a particular strand of Christian tradition which forbids divorce is uniquely "traditional."

94. Nasty Nate Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:48 PM (#3937256)

There's a thread about the divorce if people are interested. *cough* hint hint

I was hanging out with some Yankees fans this weekend and they all wanted Boston to miss the playoffs. Now, part of that was them wishing embarrassment on the Sox and their fans, but part of it was they didn't want the Sox in the playoffs and would rather face Tampa in a potential LCS because of illogical fear. Ten years ago or less, it would be unthinkable that Yankee fans would have a fear of Red Sox' playoff mojo. Having this thought occur to me is only enjoyable Sox-related thing right now.

95. villageidiom Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:55 PM (#3937267)

Because generally, folks want to make the best divorce case possible.

A divorce filing is not a divorce case. A divorce filing gets the ball rolling. I can't imagine a scenario in which a divorce hearing would not be granted - and the opportunity to make a divorce case would be denied - simply because the wording in the filing isn't explicit enough.

96. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 02:58 PM (#3937273)

This thread is useless without source code.
Did you use VBA or were you able to do it with Excel only?

I just did it in Excel with 10,000 cell columns of "=Rand()" and some lookups. The size of the file is already huge with just a sim of 18 team-games, so I'm going to need to re-learn VBA or Perl or something if I want to do a better version of it next year. I'd kind of like a programming project, I haven't done one in almost a decade.

97. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:00 PM (#3937276)

both says that "the Lord" forbids divorce, and that the apostle Paul allows it among his communities.

Are you speaking about the "Pauline privelege"? That is a very narrow exception that allows a bishop to dissolve a marriage in favor of the faith. That has nothing in common with our modern conception of divorce and remarriage.

Both the teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox churches only provide for a second marriage (while the first spouse lives) because of some defect in the first marriage. Catholics call this a "decree of nullity", Orthodox allow it "in economia" b/c the first marriage was never spiritually completed (or some such reasoning). While both practices may be abused, both Churches uphold the indissolubility of marriage.

98. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:05 PM (#3937285)

Are you speaking about the "Pauline privelege"? That is a very narrow exception that allows a bishop to dissolve a marriage in favor of the faith. That has nothing in common with our modern conception of divorce and remarriage.

That is one reading of Paul. There are lots of others within the Christian tradition, historically. Divorce was permitted by Paul - he does not say that he dissolves marriages, but that he permits their dissolving - and later by Christian emperors, who pre-date the Orthodox and Catholic traditions you privilege as "traditional."

Dominant, historical traditions in Orthodox and Catholic Christianity don't recognize divorce. Calling these traditions exclusively "traditional Christianity" is a theological claim, not a historical or descriptive one.

99. Famous Original Joe C Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:18 PM (#3937300)

I'm judging his actions, which look pretty shitty.

This is to what I was speaking. You're ready to pass judgment on another person's actions based on a few lines you read on the internet, about something you, again, have zero first hand knowledge.

100. Joel W Posted: September 26, 2011 at 03:21 PM (#3937306)

I for one am shocked that this list has a group of historians and lawyers which allow us to discuss divorce through a number of different lenses.

Anyway, last night I was also at dinner w/ a bunch of Yankees fans and the world's only Rays fan. It was torture, just refreshing and refreshing. These were fans like us, so I honestly don't think they care who they play, but have a minor preference for the Red Sox missing the playoffs just out of schaudenfreude.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, September 23, 2011

I learned how to write a Monte Carlo sim in Excel

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics

Syndicate