Walker says Cubs play too many day games

[FergieJ31]

Check out this:

 

http://www.thecubdom.com/features/wrigleyfieldnightgames.html

 

So a .521 night winning percentage at home vs. a .512 during the day. Perhaps a difference of only a few games...but nonetheless a difference. So why the discrepancies in certain years?

 

So it's a 0.009 difference since 1988? Statistically insignificant. It's less than one standard deviation away from an equal winning pct between day games vs night.

 

One standard deviation of winning pct, after about 1350 games, is about 0.014 (= 0.5/sqrt(1350)). You typically need a 3+ standard deviation diff to argue significance.

[Pinktermite]

Okay, Professor...however, there are years where there is statistical sig. aren't there? I mean, a .700 vs. a .400 something? In some years there appears to be something like that...

[katway]

Okay, Professor...however, there are years where there is statistical sig. aren't there? I mean, a .700 vs. a .400 something? In some years there appears to be something like that...

 

There are also years in which the reverse (much better day record than night record) is true.

[FergieJ31]

Okay, Professor...however, there are years where there is statistical sig. aren't there? I mean, a .700 vs. a .400 something? In some years there appears to be something like that...

 

Yes, in 2000 one can't rule out the hypothesis that the Cubs were at a disadvantage in day games: 11-5 at night, 27-38 day.

 

But just one year prior to that, in 1999, we'd have to conclude the opposite: 3-14 night and 31-33 day. Pretty much the same (sucky) Cub team between 1999 and 2000.

 

Doing the year by year comparison is a weak test because of sample size -- it's dodgy and inconclusive.

 

Look, I'm not trying to denigrate anyone's opinion -- everyone can believe what they want -- and I can understand why certain Cub players would complain. But it's simply not true that playing more day games is any sort of systematic disadvantage to the Cubs.