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

[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.

use the handy ignore button.

 

I will if you will, my man.

[imb]

God these game threads rule, erik dont stop posting

[JimSorgi]

use the handy ignore button.

 

I will if you will, my man.

 

I would never ignore you. Your posts are incredibly entertaining.

[erik316wttn]

use the handy ignore button.

 

I will if you will, my man.

 

I would never ignore you. Your posts are incredibly entertaining.

 

That's what I'm aiming for.

[imb]

i love that erik admits he's talking nonsense but only when he complains that people are pointing out how stupid he's acting. its an incredible thing to see in person

[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.

 

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.

But a single win is not a large enough unit to realistically hold any weight. Referring back to your example of 162 coin flips and the first two were tails - yes - I would predict that 80 head flips would follow. However, although that may be the best guess possible, would I realistically expect it to fall on exactly 80? No, because a single number prediction is next to impossible to predict. That is my point. Within a sample of 162, two outcomes are barely significant. So, again, I technically understand your point. The cubs are slightly less likely to finish .500 (assuming that was their projection). However, that percentage is so small that it is not plausible here.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But a single win is not a large enough unit to realistically hold any weight. Referring back to your example of 162 coin flips and the first two were tails - yes - I would predict that 80 head flips would follow. However, although that may be the best guess possible, would I realistically expect it to fall on exactly 80? No, because a single number prediction is next to impossible to predict. That is my point. Within a sample of 162, two outcomes are barely significant. So, again, I technically understand your point. The cubs are slightly less likely to finish .500 (assuming that was their projection). However, that percentage is so small that it is not plausible here.

 

What you are talking about is the variance in all baseball projections, though. Doesn't mean we should stop projecting.

[erik316wttn]

i love that erik admits he's talking nonsense but only when he complains that people are pointing out how stupid he's acting. its an incredible thing to see in person

 

You should be the very very last person on this board to accuse anyone of acting stupid.

 

And there is a difference between acting stupid and actually being stupid. I can change. You can't.

[weis21]

What I'm talking about is that projections shouldn't be modified on account of two games.

 

Edit: Well, projections worth noting anyway.

[TruffleShuffle]

i love that erik admits he's talking nonsense but only when he complains that people are pointing out how stupid he's acting. its an incredible thing to see in person

 

You should be the very very last person on this board to accuse anyone of acting stupid.

 

And there is a difference between acting stupid and actually being stupid. I can change. You can't.

 

use the handy ignore button.

[JimSorgi]

i love that erik admits he's talking nonsense but only when he complains that people are pointing out how stupid he's acting. its an incredible thing to see in person

 

You should be the very very last person on this board to accuse anyone of acting stupid.

 

And there is a difference between acting stupid and actually being stupid. I can change. You can't.

you're so feisty

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What I'm talking about is that projections shouldn't be modified on account of two games.

 

Edit: Well, projections worth noting anyway.

 

Every projection worth nothing should be changed after two games if the team performed a full game different than expectations. If a one-game swing isn't big enough to change your projection, what is? Two games? Four? I'm not sure why you'd draw the line higher than one game.

 

On a similar note, Carlos Zambrano will have a hard time putting up another 120ish ERA+ season or an ERA under 4, just because of what he did on Monday.

[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.

 

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

 

And spring training, and Lou's comments, and last year. But yeah.

[Guest]

Z has had multiple outings of 7+ ER every season in recent memory.

[weis21]

What I'm talking about is that projections shouldn't be modified on account of two games.

 

Edit: Well, projections worth noting anyway.

 

Every projection worth nothing should be changed after two games

 

Freudian slip?

 

Seriously though, fine, go ahead and modify your projection after two games. Baseball seasons have ups and downs (not that two games would even qualify). Like SSR stated earlier, not every game has the same outcome probability. Playing a good team on the road is harder than playing a bad team at home and more times than not a team with .500 talent will probably end up somewhere around .500 after 162 games, that's all I'm saying.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Z has had multiple outings of 7+ ER every season in recent memory.

 

And? The fact that he's one-for-one now just means he'll likely have multiple+1 from here on out.

[SouthSideRyan]

 

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

 

And spring training, and Lou's comments, and last year. But yeah.

 

Ok, let's go with the theory that he lost his confidence based on the meaningless spring training games, 7 PAs, and last year when he was fat and incredibly hit unlucky.

 

What is the one day benching doing to remedy this again?

[imb]

i love that erik admits he's talking nonsense but only when he complains that people are pointing out how stupid he's acting. its an incredible thing to see in person

 

You should be the very very last person on this board to accuse anyone of acting stupid.

 

And there is a difference between acting stupid and actually being stupid. I can change. You can't.

 

so you admit you're acting stupid then, hmm hmm hmm

[bukie]

i love that erik admits he's talking nonsense but only when he complains that people are pointing out how stupid he's acting. its an incredible thing to see in person

 

You should be the very very last person on this board to accuse anyone of acting stupid.

 

And there is a difference between acting stupid and actually being stupid. I can change. You can't.

 

so you admit you're acting stupid then, hmm hmm hmm

I thought he was admitting you were acting stupid.

[C.C.]

I don't think Erik is going to make it past the first week.

[Soul]

Eh, they played a much better game last night. Dempster looked fantastic, they took a lead into the late innings.

 

I'm choosing to look at the positives right now.

 

It was a tough draw to have to open against the Braves in their ballpark. I think they could be a playoff team.

 

The Cubs just need to keep this in perspective and not let it bleed over into future games. The wins will come.

[Careless]

Santo sounded horrendously depressed after Chipper's homer and for the rest of the game. Just about as bad as I've heard him, and in the second game of the season

[Omar]

Do you guys know we're winning? Lets fight when the bullpen blows it.