Jump to content
North Side Baseball
Posted
Lost 2 of 3 to Milwaukee. Fantastic. On to face the hottest team in baseball in a park we never do well.

 

SEE? This is the [expletive] that I'm talking about. Calling a game over when the best team in baseball who has scored the 2nd most runs in baseball and who tied up the game against the closer about 13 hours ago, still has 3 outs to work with? Stupid.

 

Oh yeah, real stupid.

 

Hahahahaha, I hope you are kidding around.

  • Replies 309
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
If not for yesterday's miracle win, this team is 2-6 over their last 8 games. This bodes real well going to face the hottest team in the league.
Posted
If not for yesterday's miracle win, this team is 2-6 over their last 8 games. This bodes real well going to face the hottest team in the league.

 

Percentages actually say that a team that has won seven straight will lose a few, so we might be looking good.

Posted

 

SEE? This is the [expletive] that I'm talking about. Calling a game over when the best team in baseball who has scored the 2nd most runs in baseball and who tied up the game against the closer about 13 hours ago, still has 3 outs to work with? Stupid.

 

Oh yeah, real stupid.

 

Hahahahaha, I hope you are kidding around.

 

This dude loves being vindicated by Cubs failing. It's weird.

Posted (edited)
Winning Cubs baseball is like heroin. At first its the greatest thing ever and over time its still awesome but you need more (like run differential wins) to get the same high. Then suddenly its ripped away from you (losing a few games) and you start getting irritated and irrational. You get pissed when you don't have access to the stuff (like an offday after a loss, or a 9pm start tomorrow after a day game). If you just quit watching the Cubs, maybe after 6 months or so you could just enjoy them in moderation, but horsefeathers that Bryant is up with 2 men on, I will quit tomorrow. Edited by UMFan83
Posted
Winning Cubs baseball is like heroin. At first its the greatest thing ever and over time its still awesome but you need more (like run differential wins) to get the same high. Then suddenly its ripped away from you and you start getting irritated and irrational. You get pissed when you don't have access to the stuff (like an offday after a loss, or a 9pm start tomorrow after a day game). If you just quit watching the Cubs, maybe after 6 months or so you could just enjoy them in moderation, but [expletive] that Bryant is up with 2 men on, I will quit tomorrow.

 

Is watching on a really poor quality pirated video stream the equivalent to blowing dealers in back alleys?

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Winning Cubs baseball is like heroin. At first its the greatest thing ever and over time its still awesome but you need more (like run differential wins) to get the same high. Then suddenly its ripped away from you and you start getting irritated and irrational. You get pissed when you don't have access to the stuff (like an offday after a loss, or a 9pm start tomorrow after a day game). If you just quit watching the Cubs, maybe after 6 months or so you could just enjoy them in moderation, but [expletive] that Bryant is up with 2 men on, I will quit tomorrow.

 

free clean needles available at Murphy's Bleachers, corner of Waveland and Sheffield

Old-Timey Member
Posted
If not for yesterday's miracle win, this team is 2-6 over their last 8 games. This bodes real well going to face the hottest team in the league.

 

Percentages actually say that a team that has won seven straight will lose a few, so we might be looking good.

 

Please explain in detail.

Posted
If not for yesterday's miracle win, this team is 2-6 over their last 8 games. This bodes real well going to face the hottest team in the league.

 

Percentages actually say that a team that has won seven straight will lose a few, so we might be looking good.

 

Please explain in detail.

 

Well, I feel like most teams don't play 1.000 ball. So if a team is playing 1.000 percent over the course of seven games, the odds would suggest that they would then lose some to balance that. Now, even though the odds are against them continuing to win every game, it can happen for a lot longer. But I feel like the odds are not in their favor for that to continue.

 

I might be wrong, though. I'm not good at math.

Posted

 

Percentages actually say that a team that has won seven straight will lose a few, so we might be looking good.

 

Please explain in detail.

 

Well, I feel like most teams don't play 1.000 ball. So if a team is playing 1.000 percent over the course of seven games, the odds would suggest that they would then lose some to balance that. Now, even though the odds are against them continuing to win every game, it can happen for a lot longer. But I feel like the odds are not in their favor for that to continue.

 

I might be wrong, though. I'm not good at math.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

Posted (edited)

 

Percentages actually say that a team that has won seven straight will lose a few, so we might be looking good.

 

Please explain in detail.

 

Well, I feel like most teams don't play 1.000 ball. So if a team is playing 1.000 percent over the course of seven games, the odds would suggest that they would then lose some to balance that. Now, even though the odds are against them continuing to win every game, it can happen for a lot longer. But I feel like the odds are not in their favor for that to continue.

 

I might be wrong, though. I'm not good at math.

 

I mean that's pretty much exactly gambler's fallacy described. If you flip a coin 7 times and it lands heads, what is the chances the next one is tails? If a .500 team wins 7 games in a row, what are the odds they win the next game? And the game after that?

 

 

Basically whatever you do, don't go to a roulette wheel with that logic.

Edited by UMFan83
Posted

 

Please explain in detail.

 

Well, I feel like most teams don't play 1.000 ball. So if a team is playing 1.000 percent over the course of seven games, the odds would suggest that they would then lose some to balance that. Now, even though the odds are against them continuing to win every game, it can happen for a lot longer. But I feel like the odds are not in their favor for that to continue.

 

I might be wrong, though. I'm not good at math.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

 

So when the Cubs were like 21-6 or whatever, it was a fallacy to bet that the rate they were winning at would not continue? Honest question.

Posted

 

Well, I feel like most teams don't play 1.000 ball. So if a team is playing 1.000 percent over the course of seven games, the odds would suggest that they would then lose some to balance that. Now, even though the odds are against them continuing to win every game, it can happen for a lot longer. But I feel like the odds are not in their favor for that to continue.

 

I might be wrong, though. I'm not good at math.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

 

So when the Cubs were like 21-6 or whatever, it was a fallacy to bet that the rate they were winning at would not continue? Honest question.

 

What you are describing is more of 'regression to the mean' (i think), in that the Cubs probably aren't an .800 winning % baseball team (because no team has ever been one in MLB history). So eventually they will play to their true talent level, which is maybe something like .625-.650.

 

Gambler's fallacy would be saying "the Cubs are a .650 team that has been playing .800 ball, thus they are more likely go on a losing streak right now'

Posted

 

So when the Cubs were like 21-6 or whatever, it was a fallacy to bet that the rate they were winning at would not continue? Honest question.

 

What you are describing is more of 'regression to the mean' (i think), in that the Cubs probably aren't an .800 winning % baseball team (because no team has ever been one in MLB history). So eventually they will play to their true talent level, which is maybe something like .625-.650.

 

Gambler's fallacy would be saying "the Cubs are a .650 team that has been playing .800 ball, thus they are more likely go on a losing streak right now'

 

That's fair. You're right that I'm talking more regression to the mean. Guess I learned something here. I also didn't mean to imply that a team that is on a seven game winning streak would then be prone to go on a losing streak, but more just actually lose a game............which sounds like it's bad logic even though to me it seems right.

 

I will not be gambling any time soon with my knowledge of this horsefeathers.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Winning Cubs baseball is like heroin. At first its the greatest thing ever and over time its still awesome but you need more (like run differential wins) to get the same high. Then suddenly its ripped away from you (losing a few games) and you start getting irritated and irrational. You get pissed when you don't have access to the stuff (like an offday after a loss, or a 9pm start tomorrow after a day game). If you just quit watching the Cubs, maybe after 6 months or so you could just enjoy them in moderation, but [expletive] that Bryant is up with 2 men on, I will quit tomorrow.

 

brb, selling my mom's TV for Cubs tickets

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund
The North Side Baseball Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Cubs community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of North Side Baseball.

×
×
  • Create New...