5/22 Cubs (Shark) @ Pirates (Liriano) 6:05 PM CT WGN/720

[Guest]

It's not a good team because of negative variance, no more or less.

 

you keep sticking to that theory.

 

That theory that's like math and numbers and stuff?

[jersey cubs fan]

It's not a good team because of negative variance, no more or less.

 

you keep sticking to that theory.

 

That theory that's like math and numbers and stuff?

 

the theory that never stops having to be revised because it is an imperfect way to measure the results. I have very little doubt that this team is better than it's record, but it's stupid to pretend this team is good.

[Guest]

It's not a good team because of negative variance, no more or less.

 

you keep sticking to that theory.

 

That theory that's like math and numbers and stuff?

You really should take several statistics classes. I'm not going to get too deep into because frankly you and most of the other numbskuls on this board aren't worth it. However, variance i.e., "luck" (because that is the way it is being used in this context) is not a factor in making sense of data, it is a black hole to be chipped away at. In theory that deals with, "like math and numbers and stuff", luck simply means you don't know. Variability is extrinsic to a data set and requires an explanation. It is not an explanation.

[Guest]

You are the only person to use the word luck in this thread, or in the other thread on the similar topic in Baseball discussions.

 

I think you might be surprised how many of us numbskuls (sic) can gather that waving your hands and declaring this sequence of games to be a fluke is not factually correct. More to the point, with such a small sample there's simply so little legitimate "chipping away" at that variance that can be done, so the best we can do is theorize "if the macro level stuff(run differential) continues this way, odds are we'll see better results". Apologies if the semantics of the terms used by us numbskuls (sic) to describe that phenomenon offended your sensibilities.

[Guest]

It's not a good team because of negative variance, no more or less.

 

you keep sticking to that theory.

 

That theory that's like math and numbers and stuff?

You really should take several statistics classes. I'm not going to get too deep into because frankly you and most of the other numbskuls on this board aren't worth it. However, variance i.e., "luck" (because that is the way it is being used in this context) is not a factor in making sense of data, it is a black hole to be chipped away at. In theory that deals with, "like math and numbers and stuff", luck simply means you don't know. Variability is extrinsic to a data set and requires an explanation. It is not an explanation.

 

This coming from a supposed educator who can't spell for [expletive] and who doesn't know what process vs. results oriented thinking is and thinks that Theo Epstein, of all people, is results oriented.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's been really stressed about monekys with WMDs, apparently.

[neely crenshaw]

Baseball statistics in general do not work like you guys are trying to make them. You are working too hard to find a way that you can make this team seem good.

Most of the statistic being used are reflective not predictive. Baseball simply does not work like that. You can't accurately use them to decide when you should win a game simply because you don't know when the stats are going to come. This team is the poster child for all of this. They win 8-2, then lose 1-0, 3-2 and 2-1. You look and say we out scored them 11-8 how can we lose 3 out of 4.

You can look at their pythagorean and the only real thing you can say is we should/could have won a few more games, but you don't need an equation to tell you that.

You guys might be a whole lot happier if you just watched the team instead of trying to make them a contender. Then every other week when reality rears it head, you won't be ready to jump off a cliff.

There are a heck of a lot of positives going on that we should be happy about instead of being pissed that some players (who aren't part of the future) continue suck instead of magically becoming good.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why are all of your posts seemingly replies to posts that don't actually exist? Guys like Kyle and TT are actually talking about things like variance in a "reflective" sense. Who the hell are you talking about when you say people are using them as "predictive" tools?

 

And then of course you turn around and turn it into a "numbers don't tell you everything/you need to open your eyes and watch more games" nonsense. You're like a davearm2 clone that crawled out of the vat too soon.

[neely crenshaw]

This adds so much. I truly hope this helps make you feel better about yourself. I suggest you simply mark me as a foe and you will never have to read another post. It would be very easy and probably keep you from turning every thread into a personal attack/vendetta.

[Sammy Sofa]

Nobody has a vendetta against you, especially not over hilariously bad baseball posts. Way to dramatically inflate your own self-importance.

[neely crenshaw]

Pot...meet kettle.

[CubInOK]

Neely, please finish high school stat class.

[Sammy Sofa]

Pot...meet kettle.

 

Please explain how you possibly think this is the case. If I ever said anything as laughably melodramatic as "someone on a Cubs message board has a VENDETTA against me" please link to it and then kill me.

[neely crenshaw]

Well here you go. High school stats tells me that in baseball things that happened in the first 46 games has absolutely no bearing and is not predictive of what happens in the next X games.

The variance can say we played well enough that we should have a better record, the newspaper tells me we played poorly enough to be 18-28.

Your Pythagorean says we are .530 "talent" team. I have said from the beginning this is a 75 win team, less if they sell off.

So in the next 50 games(which takes us to the Arizona series) The variance says we should win 27 games. My old fashioned way of looking at the schedule and the team, says we are looking at 27 losses(.460 clip- or a 75 win pace)

So here and now state your case, tell me I'm wrong and the theories are right...I'll wait

[Sammy Sofa]

Please show me where the variance discussions have been hinged on anything predictive outside of some people basically saying "I hope it means they go on a hot streak at some point." Until then I'm not sitting here dealing with your crazy made-up arguments that exist only in your head. I think this team stinks and will stink for the rest of the year (and only picked them to win 72-77 games this year, so quit with this voice of reason garbage you think you have), and quite frankly I don't give a damn what you think because it hurts my head to read it. Edited May 25, 2013 by Sammy Sofa

[Guest]

none of my teams are ever going to win again, are they?

[neely crenshaw]

Ok, if not for your self importance, why would you even think I was talking to you?

 

If it's so bad, don't read my posts, block me or whatever you need to do.There is no rule that you have to comment on every thread Call it what you want you won't just help yourself, you have to comment on every post, and then whine about it. For all your girly whining you certainly spend a lot time worrying about what I post.

Sad part is you argue with everything I say, and then in the end you agree, sad..

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, those stupid girls, man. Bitches always be shopping, amirite?