The W
Views: 100912933
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.11.14 1347
The W - Baseball - The Race Has Been Joined (Page 2)
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.02
Pages: Prev 1 2
(491 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (31 total)
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 14 hours
AIM:  
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.16
    Originally posted by Sec19Row53
      Originally posted by spf
      Well, it appears the race is unjoined, as the Reds just dropped a doubleheader last night to the Pirates.

      Also, the NL Central race is officially a 2-team race, as the Brewers have proven themselves to just be a terrible team. They will be lucky to get out of Chicago without getting swept.

    C'mon spf - we're the Cubs. We can lose with the best of them :-)

    I hope you're right though. The cold shoulders I'm getting at work today make it easier to get things done.

Oh I have no fear of having to live in a world where the Cubs win it all this year. But at this point I think if the Brew Crew went out onto an empty field and played just against a pitching machine they might need extra innings to win.

I can't believe the Cards are in second and only 2 back. The 4 games against St Louis between Sept. 10-16 are IMO going to decide the division. If the Cubs can break even in those games, they win. Anything less and it's anyone's match.
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 514 days
Last activity: 514 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.57
Develop a slight bit of faith in the Reds and they get skunked in a doubleheader by the Pirates. Hmm, the Pirates are only 8.5 games back. Here we go Pirates, here we go. And remember, Pittsburgh got screwed in interleague having to play 3 at New York when the Central wasn't playing the East, yet the Yankees have never played in Pittsburgh.
As for the Brewers vs. Pitching Machine: I'd think the pitching machine could get 5 in the last 3 innings against the Brewers bullpen to win. Why not, everyone else seems to.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 141 days
Last activity: 13 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
    "Parity" is when a lot of teams are close to the middle, right? The final record of a team has a .562 winning percentage is 91-71. The final record of a team with a .432 winning percentage is 70-92. Would anyone REALLY argue at the end of the season that those teams are close to the middle? I'd doubt it.

If that was your point, then why did you go through the exercise of subtracting the 41 wins and losses? Because that is obviously going to dramatically widen the distribution of winning percentages (hence CRZ's comment). And, if the 91 win team had an inordinate number of one run wins (and relatively few one run losses), while the other team had a poor win-loss percentage in one run games, then I would argue both teams would be pretty even and there would be ample evidence of parity, all else equal.

My point is that you can't just look at the winning percentage in one league in one given year and decide definitively whether or not there is parity, IMHO obviously.



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 107 days
Last activity: 107 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.40
    Originally posted by Corajudo
      Originally posted by JayJayDean
      "Parity" is when a lot of teams are close to the middle, right? The final record of a team has a .562 winning percentage is 91-71. The final record of a team with a .432 winning percentage is 70-92. Would anyone REALLY argue at the end of the season that those teams are close to the middle? I'd doubt it.

    If that was your point, then why did you go through the exercise of subtracting the 41 wins and losses? Because that is obviously going to dramatically widen the distribution of winning percentages (hence CRZ's comment). And, if the 91 win team had an inordinate number of one run wins (and relatively few one run losses), while the other team had a poor win-loss percentage in one run games, then I would argue both teams would be pretty even and there would be ample evidence of parity, all else equal.

    My point is that you can't just look at the winning percentage in one league in one given year and decide definitively whether or not there is parity, IMHO obviously.


Think about the math of JJD's reasoning. By his explanation, a 16-0 NFL season is just as likely as a 121-41 MLB season. Coincidentally, neither has ever happened, though teams have been very close to both in a similar number of instances. On the other hand, 0-16 or 1-15 is as likely as a 41-win season. Wouldn't you know it? That level of futility is rarely reached in baseball.

His point is simple - baseball is not as close to experiencing "parity" as a simple glance at winning percentages would indicate. He offered his own formula to support this, and I see now flaw in it. Is it scientific? Hardly, but it works for the purposes of this conversation.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 29.8.07 1439)
kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.45
As a die hard Reds fan, I still have to admit they are done. While they have had one of the better records since the All-Star break, I think they had the worst record in the first half, or damn near it. They buried themselves by the end of May. I am glad they have not rolled over, and are at least fighting their way back to respectability.




"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

-- Mahatma Gandhi
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30


    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    His point is simple - baseball is not as close to experiencing "parity" as a simple glance at winning percentages would indicate. He offered his own formula to support this, and I see now flaw in it. Is it scientific? Hardly, but it works for the purposes of this conversation.


Now, I love JJD like a brother, but I know that I have read about this particular formula on Baseball Prospectus or some other dignified site of baseball analysis. I searched but couldn't put my hands on the article. Trying to remember what the article stated..... but it was very similar to what JJD has proposed here and it makes absolute logical sense. Going by the history of all recorded baseball, Nate Silver (I think) concludes what JJD has stated previously. It sure seemed pretty scientific to me and math is my business, too.




CRZ had to edit my profile and close my table for me. I am a bad man.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 141 days
Last activity: 13 days
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by pieman
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      His point is simple - baseball is not as close to experiencing "parity" as a simple glance at winning percentages would indicate. He offered his own formula to support this, and I see now flaw in it. Is it scientific? Hardly, but it works for the purposes of this conversation.


    Now, I love JJD like a brother, but I know that I have read about this particular formula on Baseball Prospectus or some other dignified site of baseball analysis. I searched but couldn't put my hands on the article. Trying to remember what the article stated..... but it was very similar to what JJD has proposed here and it makes absolute logical sense. Going by the history of all recorded baseball, Nate Silver (I think) concludes what JJD has stated previously. It sure seemed pretty scientific to me and math is my business, too.

I have seen this analysis as well but only when comparing baseball to basketball or football. However, JJD did no such thing. After deducting the wins/losses, he essentially said that we now have 6 teams whose winning percentage is outside the .400 to .600 range. But then, there is no context given. I think, at a minimum, you have to look at the distribution of wins rather than the range or even the number of outliers. It would be better to also have some sort of historical benchmark or to use another sport for comparison.

Regardless, even if you want to just look at outliers, no team in the NL is even on pace to win 90 games, which would be the first time that's happened since schedules were expanded to 162 games. As for Nate Silver, his observation was about the AL, not the NL.

Over the past 7 years (since 2000, the last year of the Yankees' run), there have been 7 different champions, with 11 different teams participating in the World Series. And, in the last 9 years, 8 different NL teams have been in the WS. That, plus the league champ projected to have a historically low number of wins sounds like parity to me.



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
JayJayDean
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 15 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.40
    Originally posted by Corajudo
    I have seen this analysis as well but only when comparing baseball to basketball or football. However, JJD did no such thing.


What?

    Originally posted by by me in my first reply to this thread
    Wow, that's not really correct at all. You can't judge baseball that way because every team is guaranteed 41 wins and 41 losses, just by the nature of how the schedule plays out. You have to throw those 82 games away when you are considering "parity", when comparing it to the NFL or NBA, for example. A 14-2 NFL team, therefore, isn't comparable to a 140-22 MLB team, but a 111-51 MLB team. (80 games x .875 winning pct = 70-10, added to a 41-41 record.)




Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....

*snip*

Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass.
-- The Guinness. to Cerebus
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.57
I'd just like to point out that:

My head hurts

and

Cubs won, Brewers and Cards lost (yay!)



http://myspace.com/awarulz
Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
kentish
Andouille








Since: 19.8.05
From: My Old Kentucky Home

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 4 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.45
After a dramatic win last night, with maybe the defensive play of the year by Brandon Phillips, the Red simply refuse to stop getting my hopes up.




"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

-- Mahatma Gandhi
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 141 days
Last activity: 13 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
    Originally posted by JayJayDean
      Originally posted by Corajudo
      I have seen this analysis as well but only when comparing baseball to basketball or football. However, JJD did no such thing.


    What?

      Originally posted by by me in my first reply to this thread
      Wow, that's not really correct at all. You can't judge baseball that way because every team is guaranteed 41 wins and 41 losses, just by the nature of how the schedule plays out. You have to throw those 82 games away when you are considering "parity", when comparing it to the NFL or NBA, for example. A 14-2 NFL team, therefore, isn't comparable to a 140-22 MLB team, but a 111-51 MLB team. (80 games x .875 winning pct = 70-10, added to a 41-41 record.)


So, where's the comparison to actual football or basketball records to show that the NL lacks parity? If your point is that the NL is not an example of parity, you can't spread the distribution by subtracting games without providing context or an actual comparison. That's data mining. I could simply add those games back in and say 'See, that range is not quite so dramatic' because all the teams are truly between .430 and .556 winning percentages.

Besides, if you want to extend that analysis to the NBA, then a 14-2 NFL record would be equivalent to 71-72 wins. It's not uncommon for an NFL team to win 14 games, but it's rare for an NBA team to win that many games. Same would be true for the 2-14 NFL team versus the 71-72 loss NBA team. All I'm saying is that I don't see any substance to the argument that the NL lacks parity and that artificially increasing the range of winning percentages without context doesn't really prove anything (except CRZ's comment that you can use numbers to prove anything).



"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 6.02
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: Poor cubsfan
Next thread: Playoff standings with 4 weeks left
Previous thread: Astros fire GM, MGR
(491 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
That's Society for American Baseball Research, and it's in Toronto from Thursday-Sunday, including a Yankees-Blue Jays game on Friday. Anyone else going? I'll be set up in the vendors area.
Related threads: Josh Hamilton - Mr. Kearns go to Washington, Ponson to Yanks - This one belongs to the Reds - More...
The W - Baseball - The Race Has Been Joined (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.101 seconds.