Minor League Discussion & Boxes 5-22-14

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i'm also pretty sure that when discussing the quality of cub teams for the next five years, we should look at how good the current team is, and the run differential would suggest that the current cub team is not nearly as bad as its record would indicate.

 

This.

[Guest]

yeah, except w/l records for teams actually matter. good try though.

 

pretty sure the results the pitcher gets matter too

 

i'm also pretty sure that when discussing the quality of cub teams for the next five years, we should look at how good the current team is, and the run differential would suggest that the current cub team is not nearly as bad as its record would indicate.

 

i'm not sure if you realized this but my post was sarcasm.

 

i feel like you might've just been piggybacking but i'm not sure.

[Guest]

yeah, except w/l records for teams actually matter. good try though.

 

pretty sure the results the pitcher gets matter too

 

The pitcher's results don't tell you what he did to contribute to the result. The team result tells you what the team did.

 

and nevertheless, the record of the team result in itself would be a significantly flawed (although not necessarily unreliable - just flawed) piece of data to use to attempt to determine the quality of the team and to predict what its results would be going forward.

[Guest]

yeah, except w/l records for teams actually matter. good try though.

 

pretty sure the results the pitcher gets matter too

 

The pitcher's results don't tell you what he did to contribute to the result. The team result tells you what the team did.

 

and nevertheless, the record of the team result in itself would be a significantly flawed (although not necessarily unreliable - just flawed) piece of data to use to attempt to determine the quality of the team and to predict what its results would be going forward.

That's crazy talk. At the end of the season team's win lose record is the ONLY thing that matters. If you want to take solace in some [expletive], those are your bricks to carry.

 

Again, for everyone, a model is only as good as it correlates with REALITY. Reality is never wrong, models are. If you want to say this team got lucky or this team got screwed, that's ok, but it's merely an emotional crutch. At the tails on both sides, it's not luck or lack thereof, it's an unaccounted for variable.

[Guest]

yeah, except w/l records for teams actually matter. good try though.

 

pretty sure the results the pitcher gets matter too

 

The pitcher's results don't tell you what he did to contribute to the result. The team result tells you what the team did.

 

and nevertheless, the record of the team result in itself would be a significantly flawed (although not necessarily unreliable - just flawed) piece of data to use to attempt to determine the quality of the team and to predict what its results would be going forward.

That's crazy talk. At the end of the season team's win lose record is the ONLY thing that matters. If you want to take solace in some [expletive], those are your bricks to carry.

 

Again, for everyone, a model is only as good as it correlates with REALITY. Reality is never wrong, models are. If you want to say this team got lucky or this team got screwed, that's ok, but it's merely an emotional crutch. At the tails on both sides, it's not luck or lack thereof, it's an unaccounted for variable.

 

the stuff you think you know is almost as bad as your opinions on liver and the bleachers

 

what you're saying is not entirely wrong. that doesn't change the fact that run differential is a better predictor of record going forward than the record is.

[Guest]

That's crazy talk. At the end of the season team's win lose record is the ONLY thing that matters. If you want to take solace in some [expletive], those are your bricks to carry.

 

Again, for everyone, a model is only as good as it correlates with REALITY. Reality is never wrong, models are. If you want to say this team got lucky or this team got screwed, that's ok, but it's merely an emotional crutch. At the tails on both sides, it's not luck or lack thereof, it's an unaccounted for variable.

At the end of the day, the w/l record for the year is the only thing that matters. You got that part right.

 

What we are talking about here, though, is using something as a predictor of future record. Run differential correlates more closely with future record than current, actual w/l record. Therefore, when predicting the future record it makes sense to weight pythag record more heavily in your predictions.

 

But go ahead and cling to whatever rock you like.

[XZero771679666304]

So, uh, Javy's HR last night

 

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=33087593&topic_id=&sid=milb&v=3&tcid=tw_video_

 

I know MILB teams aren't awash in money, but you'd think they could at least afford video cameras that don't produce video so poor that makes it seem like they were salvaged from a 70's porn outfit.

[Guest]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

[Guest]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

 

Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months.

[Guest]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

 

Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months.

So what you are saying is the model isn't so great for the Cubs?

[Guest]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

 

Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months.

So what you are saying is the model isn't so great for the Cubs?

wow...I mean...you took classes in stuff like this, right?

 

How did you pass?

[Guest]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

 

Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months.

So what you are saying is the model isn't so great for the Cubs?

 

No. I'm saying the Cubs have underperformed their pythag and their pythag is a better indication of how they will play going forward than their record is.

 

If you flip a coin heads ten times in a row, tails isn't any more likely to come on the 11th than it already was.

[StarlinOnYou]

Was not expecting a law of averages discussion in this thread. Impressive.

[abuck1220]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

 

Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months.

So what you are saying is the model isn't so great for the Cubs?

 

No. I'm saying the Cubs have underperformed their pythag and their pythag is a better indication of how they will play going forward than their record is.

 

If you flip a coin heads ten times in a row, tails isn't any more likely to come on the 11th than it already was.

 

lol, what a shitty analogy.

 

you realize that a baseball team losing 10 games in a row isn't blind luck/chance in the way that flipping a coin is, right?*

 

*pretty sure you don't.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

lol, what a [expletive] analogy.

 

you realize that a baseball team losing 10 games in a row isn't blind luck/chance in the way that flipping a coin is, right?*

 

*pretty sure you don't.

 

It behaves an awful lot like a weighted coin.

[Guest]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

 

Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months.

So what you are saying is the model isn't so great for the Cubs?

 

No. I'm saying the Cubs have underperformed their pythag and their pythag is a better indication of how they will play going forward than their record is.

 

If you flip a coin heads ten times in a row, tails isn't any more likely to come on the 11th than it already was.

 

lol, what a [expletive] analogy.

 

you realize that a baseball team losing 10 games in a row isn't blind luck/chance in the way that flipping a coin is, right?*

 

*pretty sure you don't.

 

wow, apparently you're bad at this too.

[davell]

We need an NSBB poker game.

[Gilby]

So, uh, Javy's HR last night

 

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=33087593&topic_id=&sid=milb&v=3&tcid=tw_video_

 

If that's at Wrigley, that has to be awfully close to the rooftops.

[Guest]

So, uh, Javy's HR last night

 

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=33087593&topic_id=&sid=milb&v=3&tcid=tw_video_

 

If that's at Wrigley, that has to be awfully close to the rooftops.

 

Glenallen Hill shot?

[XZero771679666304]

So, uh, Javy's HR last night

 

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=33087593&topic_id=&sid=milb&v=3&tcid=tw_video_

 

If that's at Wrigley, that has to be awfully close to the rooftops.

 

Probably, but it's hard to tell. Once the cameras switched, I couldn't see the ball anymore. If no one said where it landed, I would have had no idea. But since it left the entire park, over the second deck and signage, you'd have to imagine it would have at least struck one of the Waveland buildings, if not landed on top.

Edited May 23, 2014 by XZero77

[Clem Fandango]

So, uh, Javy's HR last night

 

http://www.milb.com/multimedia/vpp.jsp?content_id=33087593&topic_id=&sid=milb&v=3&tcid=tw_video_

 

If that's at Wrigley, that has to be awfully close to the rooftops.

 

Glenallen Hill shot?

 

He's gonna need different shoes, or something.

[Gmoney08]

That homer reminded me so much of mid 90's Sammy Sosa, the skinnier version with the lightning quick bat.

 

 

Crazy comparison but could Javy be a mid 90's Sammy playing SS, that seems to be pretty valuable even if he doesnt steal as many bases as 90's Sammy.

 

They are roughly about the same size as well, short guys with lightning quick bats (Sammy at 21 was probably even smaller then Javy is now). I could see Javy putting up similar strikeout numbers to mid 90's Sammy, hitting 30 to 45 homers, with roughly the same batting averages preroids Sosa was putting up (without looking I feel he was between 270 and 285 most those years).

[abuck1220]

wow, apparently you're bad at this too.

 

bad at what exactly?

 

you appear to be arguing that past wins/losses aren't indicative of future wins/losses much in the way that past heads/tails are not indicative of future heads/tails. this is not correct. at all.

[Guest]

wow, apparently you're bad at this too.

 

bad at what exactly?

 

you appear to be arguing that past wins/losses aren't indicative of future wins/losses much in the way that past heads/tails are not indicative of future heads/tails. this is not correct. at all.

Future baseball games are completely independent events from past baseball games, so the analogy is apt.

 

However, while you know that a fair coin has 50/50 odds, you are not sure about the underlying talent level of a team relative to a league. What past games give you is some indication of that relative talent level, which would help predict future record.

 

However, past w/l record is not as well correlated with true talent level (as exposed in future w/l record) as is run differential. Therefore, that is a better predictor of future success or failure than current w/l.

 

Now, as I said the other day, it is foolish to ignore either one. It is just that run differential should be weighted more highly when predicting future outcomes.

[Guest]

Before the annual fire sale, who here is predicting the Cubs are at or above .500? Let's get it down so we know.

 

Probably nobody...because they're already 11 games under .500 and I'm pretty sure nobody here thinks this is a team expected to go 11 games over .500 over 2.5 months.

So what you are saying is the model isn't so great for the Cubs?

wow...I mean...you took classes in stuff like this, right?

 

How did you pass?

With flying [expletive] colors.

 

Neither one of you humps answered my question so I'll just assume my point stands. 11 games under 500 at the deadline? Better than 11 games under? Where?