Lou Piniella veering into Dusty Baker Territory

[sunnydoo]

But the Cubs haven't been much different than the rest of the majors. In that '56-07 span, teams won 53.9% of their home games and (obviously) won 46.1% of their road games. A 7.8% difference not unlike the Cubs's 7.7% difference.

 

That is an incorrect use of statistics.

 

If the deviation is 7.7% then you have to look at the case made individually not by the whole.

 

You need to take the win loss records from 1956 to 1990 and compare it to the actual Cub win loss record and then do the same from 1990 to present.

 

pre1990 the Cubs were 1382-1317 .512 at home and 1141-1548 .425 on the road.

 

post 1990 they are 690-682 .503 at home and 611-747 a.450 away.

 

Second problem is that you also have to look at the difference between the league and the record not just the differences of the total.

 

i will have to find the time to get piersons coefficient and the standard deviations.

Edited May 25, 2007 by sunnydoo

[seanimal]

I have no idea what this is trying to prove. I think it's pretty convincing that the Cubs have been horribly run, and there is absolutely no statistic out there that can even help shade the argument that the field is the issue.

[SouthSideRyan]

pre1990 the Cubs were 1382-1317 .512 at home and 1141-1548 .425 on the road.

 

post 1990 they are 690-682 .503 at home and 611-747 a.450 away.

 

Second problem is that you also have to look at the difference between the league and the record not just the differences of the total.

 

Honest to God, I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

 

And where did the 1990 cut off come from?

 

Difference between the league and the record??

 

And looking back over things, it seems like you're (partially) blaming Wrigley for both the Cubs having a high disparity between home/loss record(cause they're too focused on winning at Wrigley) and a low disparity between home/loss record(cause they're not taking advantage of their homefield like a team should. There is not a single amount of statistical evidence that can prove to you that Wrigley isn't bad for the Cubs.

[sunnydoo]

pre1990 the Cubs were 1382-1317 .512 at home and 1141-1548 .425 on the road.

 

post 1990 they are 690-682 .503 at home and 611-747 a.450 away.

 

Second problem is that you also have to look at the difference between the league and the record not just the differences of the total.

 

Honest to God, I have no clue what you're trying to say here.

 

And where did the 1990 cut off come from?

 

Difference between the league and the record??

 

And looking back over things, it seems like you're (partially) blaming Wrigley for both the Cubs having a high disparity between home/loss record(cause they're too focused on winning at Wrigley) and a low disparity between home/loss record(cause they're not taking advantage of their homefield like a team should. There is not a single amount of statistical evidence that can prove to you that Wrigley isn't bad for the Cubs.

 

Ok, looking at some of the studies been on Coors Field and at my college stats books, i have discovered something. Park Factor takes into account more than i thought it did. It takes both runs scored and given up and win/loss % based on the scenario of events using an OPC.

 

Using that data, take a look at what i was talking about. I provided the totals earlier based on decades which i had from another research project. I initially described a shift that i saw occurring around 1990. Taking that into account and now looking at park factors, i can say that the shift occurred in 1993. For the last 14 years, there has been a huge dropoff in park factor for the cubs over that haul, which might explain why they are losing more at home and winning more on the road.

 

I am going to do a correlation study (misspelled Pearson earlier i realize rofl) based on park factor now using Cubs data and perhaps as someone suggested WhiteSux and RedSux data to see how far into the distribution set they are.

[NCCubFan]

Thats about it. Hendry and Piniella blamed Sean Marshall for the loss following the game and traded him for Chone Figguns who brings alot of tools and "grit" to the Cubs.

No, that's not how it works. They blamed Marshall for the loss, so they traded Guzman for Figgins. :D