4/7 GT Cubs(Dempster) vs. Braves(Jurjens) 6:10 CST CSN+

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Damn you and your logical, well-thought-out arguments!

 

 

The part that you're missing is that nobody is disagreeing with Kyle in an absolute/technical sense.

 

Truffle did. That's what started all this :)

[erik316wttn]

 

This. The law of averages is a bunch of crap.

 

 

What nonsense are you babbling?

 

You literally have no idea what you think you're arguing about.

 

Well, I guess that settles it. I've been proven wrong.

 

 

Make a point with any substance to it and I'll gladly take it back. Go ahead.

 

 

ONE HUNDRED AND TWO YEARS. THAT'S THE POINT.

 

I wasn't the one making any real points. I was agreeing with Kyle and his "gamblers fallacy" argument, and how people use the law of averages as a crutch to think that all the bad is going to be canceled out by an equal amount of good, or that some good just "has" to happen because something has been bad for so long, and that's not always the case.

 

But yes, 102 years is a prime example. You may be sick of hearing it. I'm sick of saying it. But it's true.

[TruffleShuffle]

wait the cubs haven't won a world series in 102 years? can someone point me to the yankees message board, i'm gonna go root for them.

[weis21]

The main reason it is misapplied is when it is used on a small sample size. The law of large numbers supports the belief that, over time, a .500 team will play .500 baseball. To look at a sample of two games and make a determination is pointless.

 

The reason it is misapplied is because people expect it to act as a cosmic force where past deviations are cancelled out by future deviations in the opposite direction.

I understand your point. I just don't think it's practical in this scenario.

 

It's a finite season. 2 losses in a period where most teams would expect one win should always subtract 1 win from a team's projected totals. I don't know what the odds are of one win making the difference for a playoff spot or not, but it's definitely non-zero. The Cubs' playoff odds are a little worse than they were before the season started.

 

Similarly, any team that started out 2-0 can add one win to their projected total.

Well of course they are in "worse" shape than if they had won a game or two. That's not the point. The point is that no one would realistically change their projections or perception of a .500 team after only two games. Perhaps your argument would hold more weight if the season were 16 games, but it's not. There are 160 more chances for the odds to even, or even swing into the positive. Once again, I understand your point - it's just not terribly applicable to the situation at hand.

[erik316wttn]

wait the cubs haven't won a world series in 102 years? can someone point me to the yankees message board, i'm gonna go root for them.

 

Oh for fucks sake....

[Hairyducked Idiot]

wait the cubs haven't won a world series in 102 years? can someone point me to the yankees message board, i'm gonna go root for them.

 

Most of the good stuff is people hanging out on replacementlevel.com 's comments.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Well of course they are in "worse" shape than if they had won a game or two. That's not the point. The point is that no one would realistically change their projections or perception of a .500 team after only two games. Perhaps your argument would hold more weight if the season were 16 games, but it's not. There are 160 more chances for the odds to even, or even swing into the positive. Once again, I understand your point - it's just not terribly applicable to the situation at hand.

 

If I asked you how many heads you would project to get from a fair coin flipped 162 times, you'd say "81"*

 

If the first two coins came up tails and I said "now how many?" you'd say "80"*

 

* - assuming you understand probability

 

You aren't changing your opinion about the coin or its abilities to come up heads. But you still slide your projection down one.

[David]

But variance is so hugely in play in a 50/50 scenario that adjusting that projection by that much after that many occurrences and with that many still to come is almost meaningless.

 

That said, I completely understand the point you're making.

Edited April 8, 2010 by David

[weis21]

Look at it this way:

 

If a 6-sided die were rolled 162 times, then you would expect that the average roll would be very close to 3.5.

 

Let's say that the first two of the 162 rolls both landed on one. Or, they both landed on 6. The average at that point would obviously be heavily skewed. However, the law of large numbers states that if a large number of rolls are recorded, the average roll will still be 3.5 - because the first two rolls hold little weight in and of themselves.

[JimSorgi]

Weis and David, please shut up. I've got a really good point: 102 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SouthSideRyan]

Geo, that big stick you have? It's called a bat. You're supposed to use it to try to hit the ball.

 

Game thread will be up tomorrow morning.

 

I hope Koyie Hill gets the start tomorrow. Soto does not look like a major league hitter up there right now. He doesn't look like he has any confidence. I'm not saying he should be benched and placed behind hill or anything but he needs something to wake him up.

 

Holy [expletive].

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Look at it this way:

 

If a 6-sided die were rolled 162 times, then you would expect that the average roll would be very close to 3.5.

 

Let's say that the first two of the 162 rolls both landed on one. Or, they both landed on 6. The average at that point would obviously be heavily skewed. However, the law of large numbers states that if a large number of rolls are recorded, the average roll will still be 3.5 - because the first two rolls hold little weight in and of themselves.

 

Slightly incorrect. The law of averages says that the most likely result as you roll more and more times is that the average *approaches* 3.5 but doesn't quite reach it.

[erik316wttn]

Weis and David, please shut up. I've got a really good point: 102 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You know, I know you're trying to mock me (and failing, I might add), but does it occur to you that you're making yourself look like a bigger idiot than I ever have? Just an FYI.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

Yes, a team with an expectation of winning half its games that starts out 0-2 is then "expected" to go 80-82. So what?

 

So there is some percentage chance that any given loss will be the difference between playoffs and no playoffs. While it's true that an 0-2 start is far too small a sample to change any projections about the team's true talent level, the odds of making the playoffs have now dropped a little. That's important.

 

If this team was projected to go 81-81, they wouldn't have had 50% chances to win these games, just like they wouldn't have a 50% chance in a home game against the Pirates.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If this team was projected to go 81-81, they wouldn't have had 50% chances to win these games, just like they wouldn't have a 50% chance in a home game against the Pirates.

 

True, but the differences are small enough to be within rounding. If you wanted to project a team to some fractional number of wins, that would have to be taken into account.

[weis21]

Look at it this way:

 

If a 6-sided die were rolled 162 times, then you would expect that the average roll would be very close to 3.5.

 

Let's say that the first two of the 162 rolls both landed on one. Or, they both landed on 6. The average at that point would obviously be heavily skewed. However, the law of large numbers states that if a large number of rolls are recorded, the average roll will still be 3.5 - because the first two rolls hold little weight in and of themselves.

 

Slightly incorrect. The law of averages says that the most likely result as you roll more and more times is that the average *approaches* 3.5 but doesn't quite reach it.

Fine, so then it's a split of single hair. It's hardly a worthwhile application in this context.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Look at it this way:

 

If a 6-sided die were rolled 162 times, then you would expect that the average roll would be very close to 3.5.

 

Let's say that the first two of the 162 rolls both landed on one. Or, they both landed on 6. The average at that point would obviously be heavily skewed. However, the law of large numbers states that if a large number of rolls are recorded, the average roll will still be 3.5 - because the first two rolls hold little weight in and of themselves.

 

Slightly incorrect. The law of averages says that the most likely result as you roll more and more times is that the average *approaches* 3.5 but doesn't quite reach it.

Fine, so then it's a split of single hair. It's hardly a worthwhile application in this context.

 

It's precisely worthy of application. The difference between the expected average after the bad start and the ordinary expected average shrinks over time, and with an infinite number of rolls it eventually becomes infinitesimal. But we don't have an infinite number of games left. We have 160. So we know how big the difference is expected to be over our sample: About one win's worth.

[TruffleShuffle]

Weis and David, please shut up. I've got a really good point: 102 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You know, I know you're trying to mock me (and failing, I might add), but does it occur to you that you're making yourself look like a bigger idiot than I ever have? Just an FYI.

 

i beg to differ.

[UMFan83]

Geo, that big stick you have? It's called a bat. You're supposed to use it to try to hit the ball.

 

Game thread will be up tomorrow morning.

 

I hope Koyie Hill gets the start tomorrow. Soto does not look like a major league hitter up there right now. He doesn't look like he has any confidence. I'm not saying he should be benched and placed behind hill or anything but he needs something to wake him up.

 

Holy [expletive].

 

Edit: nevermind I hate getting into disagreements with you because you just post 2 word responses that don't directly address anything and call it proving your point.

[SouthSideRyan]

Geo, that big stick you have? It's called a bat. You're supposed to use it to try to hit the ball.

 

Game thread will be up tomorrow morning.

 

I hope Koyie Hill gets the start tomorrow. Soto does not look like a major league hitter up there right now. He doesn't look like he has any confidence. I'm not saying he should be benched and placed behind hill or anything but he needs something to wake him up.

 

Holy [expletive].

 

Edit: nevermind I hate getting into disagreements with you because you just post 2 word responses that don't directly address anything and call it proving your point.

 

You're judging a player's self-confidence based on 7 PAs. I didn't think that needed to be spelled out.

[erik316wttn]

Weis and David, please shut up. I've got a really good point: 102 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You know, I know you're trying to mock me (and failing, I might add), but does it occur to you that you're making yourself look like a bigger idiot than I ever have? Just an FYI.

 

i beg to differ.

 

NSBB is hilarious sometimes. A vaild (yet tired) point is posted, and it's then quoted out of context by people who think they're witty but really just make themselves looking worse than the people they're attempting to mock.

 

OH, this one is my favorite: people complain in the game threads, and then there are twice as many people who complain about the complaining, which just makes it worse in the first place.

[erik316wttn]

Geo, that big stick you have? It's called a bat. You're supposed to use it to try to hit the ball.

 

Game thread will be up tomorrow morning.

 

I hope Koyie Hill gets the start tomorrow. Soto does not look like a major league hitter up there right now. He doesn't look like he has any confidence. I'm not saying he should be benched and placed behind hill or anything but he needs something to wake him up.

 

Holy [expletive].

 

Edit: nevermind I hate getting into disagreements with you because you just post 2 word responses that don't directly address anything and call it proving your point.

 

You're judging a player's self-confidence based on 7 PAs. I didn't think that needed to be spelled out.

 

 

Based on 2009 and 7 PA's in 2010.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

You're judging a player's self-confidence based on 7 PAs. I didn't think that needed to be spelled out.

 

 

Based on 2009 and 7 PA's in 2010.

 

Do the squirting flower trick.

[TruffleShuffle]

Weis and David, please shut up. I've got a really good point: 102 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You know, I know you're trying to mock me (and failing, I might add), but does it occur to you that you're making yourself look like a bigger idiot than I ever have? Just an FYI.

 

i beg to differ.

 

NSBB is hilarious sometimes. A vaild (yet tired) point is posted, and it's then quoted out of context by people who think they're witty but really just make themselves looking worse than the people they're attempting to mock.

 

i'm just disagreeing that he is making himself look stupider than you ever have on this board.

[JimSorgi]

Weis and David, please shut up. I've got a really good point: 102 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You know, I know you're trying to mock me (and failing, I might add), but does it occur to you that you're making yourself look like a bigger idiot than I ever have? Just an FYI.

 

i beg to differ.

 

NSBB is hilarious sometimes. A vaild (yet tired) point is posted, and it's then quoted out of context by people who think they're witty but really just make themselves looking worse than the people they're attempting to mock.

 

OH, this one is my favorite: people complain in the game threads, and then there are twice as many people who complain about the complaining, which just makes it worse in the first place.

use the handy ignore button.