UBlink

Soto with 2 HR's tonight through the 7th. Ho-hum Edit: Oh, and there's also a double and walk in his 4 PA's.

I'd say the 2 run double by Ramirez was a pretty big contribution. Yes, but I'm curious to see their numbers over the past 7 games. I don't think they've really been playing at the level they usually do. Aramis - 300/417/450/867 Lee - 304/360/478/838 Also, the team ERA for the last 7 days - 2.62 - best in MLB.

Logic alert!! [-X

From page 8 It really has been decades but I believe in a probit model you can't use all the possibilities - one has to be omitted. Hence the bolded quote from page 8. My imprecise use of the term control group was unfortunate and I apologize. columns a nnd b are probit models with the interpretation I suggest, and c is a linear probability model so I think the interpretation is applicable there as well I don't see cherry-picking of data - I do see creating a single model that incorporates all the data, thus increasing the likelihood of getting a significant result. And unless things have changed a lot in empirical economic studies over the last 2 or 3 decades, this is a reasonably good example of how this kind of research is done. Most empirical research involves using whatever statistical tools are available in order to get a significant result.

Exactly. The general public doesn't necessarily understand the purpose of a discussion paper. On the surface it looks like a legit and rigorous study. Also please note: they have a VERY(*) tenuous claim of significance on cherry-picked data. Why were the games w/white umpires omitted in Table 3? (*) t-stat of their main result is 2.0, which barely makes it significant at the 5% level, not the 1% level. I don't think the white-umped games were left out - what the model is measuring in the probit models is the difference between the black or hispanic umpires and the white umpires - in other words, the white umpires are the control group. So in the first cell, a black umpire is likely to call a ball thrown by a white pitcher a strike 0.13% less often than a white umpire (with a standard error of 0.22%).

So he looked at about 11 games with a black starting pitcher and a black home plate umpire. 11 games. And he cites a percent based on that. If you flip a coin 11 times, the expected number of heads is 5.5+/- 1.65, making the one-standard deviation error bar a whopping 15.1 percent. Seriously, this guy should give back his PhD. Utterly irresponsible. Table 3 shows standard errors for all of the point estimates, the most controversial of which is statistically significant. In particular, using the LPM model, the standard error of the .00341 estimate is .0017. It's the .00341 estimate that drives the 1% effect described, since 32% of called pitches are strikes. I didn't bother to calculate an appropriate t-statistic, but with N>1,000,000 and reverting to my grad school presumption that all t-statistics are 2, the effect appears to be statistically significant. Note that the impact of pitch count is dramatically greater than any race effect. Again, the measured effect of race is extremely small, but statistically significant. I'm sure discrimination lawsuits have been won using less persuasive evidence. I think their PhD's are safe. Also, note that this is a discussion paper, not a refereed published work. I'm sure the authors would be interested in any criticism prior to submission for publication - see the first two words at the top of the paper.

Uh, who is going to testify to sealed grand jury testimony? nobody... if Schilling is being sued for defamation of Bonds' character, he can use Bonds' own grand jury testimony to show that he indeed did use steroids. I wasn't aware that Bonds's grand jury testimony had been unsealed.

Uh, who is going to testify to sealed grand jury testimony?

I believe there was a chance he could be back as early as last week, nothing set. I haven't heard anything about him since. I think I remember hearing on a pre- or post-game show earlier this week that both Kroeger and Moore could be back soon.

I-Cubs up 5-0 in the top of the 1st on a John Nelson 3R homer.

The I-Cubs broadcast is on - Geovany Soto (ever heard of him?) walks to fill the bases bringing up Matt Craig. Craig singles in 2 runs.

It's been a decade or 2 since I had statistics, but there is a distinction between the statistical significance of a predictive variable and the size of the impact. For example, I think it would be easy to show that the weight of a driver has a statistically significant effect on fuel economy - meaning that after you've taken everything else into account, a heavy driver will tend to get worse gas mileage than a light driver. The effect will undoubtedly be small, probably much less than 1%, but with a large enough sample size it would also be statistically significant. But it would still be insignificant from a practical basis. The 1% number probably means that only 1% of the calls are close enough for race to be a factor, but within those 1% race as a predictor is statistically significant.

Be sure and include the examples when you sticky the rules - I thought I knew the rules but the examples cited in this thread were more informative than just a recitation of the rules.

What's the point in posting this? Seriously, why even bother if this is all you're going to say? It's Gallagher's dad. Still. What's the point? It helps to know there's something going on and to be looking for public/official confirmation even if the poster can't reveal the details. I say thanks for the heads up.

2 LF's and no CF ?

The I-Cubs announcers made a point tonight that Piggy and Fox were not available - no comments on corresponding moves.

Link

Cubs announcers mention that they can't say any roster moves are impending, but surprisingly (nod, nod, wink, wink) Jake Fox and Carmen Pigniatelo are not in the I-Cubs lineup tonight.

can I get grandfathered in? That privilege is reserved for real grandfathers.

Bad news - last I heard, Moore is on the DL at Iowa. Good news - his replacement is hitting even better than Moore. Bad news - Craig isn't on the 40 man roster. It's the Cubs, you didn't expect the last line to be good news, did you?

Wish 2 players on our team could combine their HRs and even make 35! Kroeger (20) and Soto (19), and they do it with OPS > 1.000

I can't imagine that the trib doesn't recognize the value that would be created by a successful 2007 for the Cubs team. In this case the bottom line is the projected sales price of the Cubs, and they would be idiots to only see an increase in expenses and miss the upside on the sales value of the franchise. Maybe I just answered my own question.

I guess Moore could come straight from the I-Cubs DL to the majors but I'd say that's unlikely.

Didn't take Craig long to settle in at AAA - .409/.500/.591/1.091 to add to his AA line - .326/.416/.514/.931. [yeah, yeah, sample size, but still, moving up a level could have been a concern]

Not necessarily - it's an opportunity to get out of the Cubs system. Could be the best thing that ever happened to him. Remember, with the Cubs his only position appears to be occupied for the short and medium term. Now he can be traded to/picked up by an AL team or an NL team that needs a first baseman.