Mephistopheles
-
Posts
8,724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Mephistopheles
-
Its the person who is most likely to be the best in the near future.
-
Yeah it's comment like this that make me stand up and think if people ever think before they post. Okay I don't stand up.... 48% of balls that go into play off of Ted Lilly are flyballs. 43% of balls that go into play off of Rich Hill are flyballs.
-
Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions. No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on. In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home. Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS. in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky. True. Luck does play into it. But it's a better system than what we currently have. im not so sure it is. a playoff has about oh .5^3 chance of crowning the best team as NC. a one game BCS (with SOS and point differential) is probably around .5^2 Where that extra .5 comes from winning the big game in the season.
-
I'm not saying the qualityof the team changed. Just that they played below their best - hence UCLA outplaying them. Then youve missed my point. Ws and Ls dont judge a team in football any better than they do in baseball. The difference between 11-2 and 12-1 in football is probably the difference between a 30-25 and a 27-28 record in baseball. In the end that one loss is meaningless when it comes to figuring out who is better. After 55 games in a baseball season are you willing to accept the notion that a team 3 games up on another is better?
-
Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions. No, that's what I'm saying. No one looks at the winner of a playoff and says "well, there's the best team in the nation." They just accept them as the winner of the championship tournament and move on. In a sport where you only play 14 games, it's useless to try to determine who the best team is if you don't have to. Let's stick them in a playoff, crown a champion and go home. Exactly. Crown the team that proves their worth on the field. Enough with this subjective crap we've put up with dealing with the BCS. in reality all youre doing is crowing the team that got lucky. Crap if its an 8 team tournament and USC is the best team and they won they still got lucky.
-
Yeah, it does. No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong. They were the best team in the nation. They also lost two games, one of them a completely inexcusable loss to Oregon State. They did not and should not have gotten a shot at the national title. Again this isn't true. You've guys convinced yourself of an absurd lie. You're over emphasizing Ws and Ls which makes most polls a complete joke. You don't do it to nearly the same degree in baseball. If a team goes 30-20 over the first 50 games it does not make them a better team than the team that went 25-25 over the first 50 games. You're right. I'm overemphasizing Ws and Ls. You know, I bet there's a 4-8 team somewhere that outscored their opponents for the year - let's give them a bite of the apple. 11-2 is different from 4-8. Let's not be stupid. Of course you can always do some p testing...
-
The 10% hypothesis I alluded to earlier. If UCLA and USC played 10 games against each other. How often would USC win? Probably 7 times. So that 30% chance that they were outplayed happened. It doesn't change the quality of the team.
-
Not really. The larger the playoff is, the more likely the best team isn't crowned champions.
-
Yeah, it does. No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong. They were the best team in the nation. They also lost two games, one of them a completely inexcusable loss to Oregon State. They did not and should not have gotten a shot at the national title. Again this isn't true. You've guys convinced yourself of an absurd lie. You're over emphasizing Ws and Ls which makes most polls a complete joke. You don't do it to nearly the same degree in baseball. If a team goes 30-20 over the first 50 games it does not make them a better team than the team that went 25-25 over the first 50 games.
-
Yeah, it does. It doesn't change the fact that they were the most talented. They just didn't use that talent as well as other teams did. It doesn't even mean that.
-
Yeah, it does. No it doesn't. The comment "Yeah, it does" only makes you wrong.
-
This isn't true. He's produced the most but he's not the best pitcher thus he's not the ace.
-
I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship. Then you're blind. If there was a playoff last season the most likely winner had two losses (USC). I guess USC shouldn't have lost to Oregon State and UCLA then. Beat UCLA and they get into the title game. Tough luck. Same goes for Michigan (though they only had one loss). If they beat OSU, they're in the title game. Same goes for LSU. Beat Auburn and they get into the SEC title game where they get their shot at a rematch with Florida. Too bad they didn't. That's how it goes. It doesn't matter. When you institute a playoff system the team most likely to win is usually the best team (seeding can change probabilities somewhat). USC was the best team in the nation last year. The fact that they had two Ls doesn't change that fact. It's just that 10% chance of losing happening twice. It doesn't mean that 10% figure should be higher.
-
I was hoping for a better response. :( i just love that reference. i had to post it! :-k Not sure I can agree that it doesn't take a special ability to recognize talent. There are a lot of college players that put up great numbers. Being able to map which of those players will be able to successfully transition their skills to the pros is not straightforward, though, otherwise first round picks wouldn't fail at such a high rate. If a scouting department can find players that have a lower failure rate, that is most certainly valuable. It is difficult to separate the quality of the inputs from the process, though. Hmm...I wonder if some of the tools I use in business to do that could be applied here. I'd actually argue that drafting players in the last ten years has become much more numbers oriented and that the success rate of first rounders is increasing. Besides most of the pitchers who fail fail because of injuries. The analyst in me says avoid at all costs. The eye can catch the bad mechanics that cause injuries -- but more often than not it doesn't matter: Mark Prior. In sum drafting pitching is bad. Pay for it on the open market. Or draft it late hoping you get lucky (rich hill etc) -
most scouting departments are more worried about selling jeans than drafting baseball players /moneyball
-
Maybe the real success was the player development part of the systems, not the drafting.... im just saying. it doesnt take a special ability to recognize talent. it may take one to develop it...
-
Sean Marshall PLEASE, I'm gonna cry
Mephistopheles replied to SABR Gamer's topic in Chicago Cubs Talk
i wonder if there are any other active topics about marshall and trachsel.. -
It's the decline that causes the earlier peak.
-
agree. I thought most people here believe in the "reverting back to your career stats" theory. Yeah, completely different point in the development process. Reversion isn't an issue until you peak. Position players usually peak between 26-28. it depends on the position. catchers peak earlier than 1B.
-
I don't need to see an 8-4 2005 Florida State team getting into any sort of a playoff system. I also don't need to see a two or three loss team winning the national championship. Then you're blind. If there was a playoff last season the most likely winner had two losses (USC).
-
And A's fans can say the same thing about kendalls .378 obp.
-
A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included. Maybe you should explain it to all of us genius? So we can understand it because we'll not nearly as bright as you think you are. It really is fun to see how worked up you get. These college football threads always bring out the best in you. Yeah, they really do for some strange reason. I feel like the proverbial hippy that screams against the establishment when it comes to this topic. Just trying to stick it to the man I suppose. but youre going for the establishment. so youre a fake?
-
bama is gonna beat arkansas
-
A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included. Interesting. Something tells me it wouldn't be nearly as exciting as the playoffs, though. :D i dont doubt that. ive always been interested to see BCS rankings w/ point differential after the bowl season. i think wed be surprised at some of the things we would see. it quite honestly it would be correct. Why not have all 64 bowl teams play one bowl game in mid december, then have the 32 winners play in late december or early January. the sample size of cross-conference games between the elite doubles.
-
A complicated algorithm is going to be the best way. It's too bad people are too stupid to accept it. A lot of the posters here included.
