U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-14-2013, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,690 posts, read 89,243,749 times
Reputation: 29451

Advertisements

So yeah, a real snoozer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-14-2013, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,047 posts, read 18,583,829 times
Reputation: 18687
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
So yeah, a real snoozer.
It isn't de-snoozed yet, what the Nationals have done by playing well recently is to establish the potential for de-snoozing it. They have moved from being a 50-1 shot to being a 20-1 shot which is great, except that they are still a 20-1 shot.

The Reds have already won today so the pressure is on Washington to beat Philadelphia tonight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 03:56 PM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,652,004 times
Reputation: 3181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Can you cite the statistics you used in formulating that conclusion? No, you cannot because you never consulted any, did you? You simply decided in your head that this is the case when in fact you do not know.
Real simple. There are two teams with a higher winning percentage than them. You expect the teams with a better record to beat them. That is as conventional as you can get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 04:01 PM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,652,004 times
Reputation: 3181
Nats went back to 5.5 last night after a close lost but came back, won today, Reds lost after being up 5-0 today and so now, it's back down to 4.5.

Nats now have a 3 game series with the Braves. This is when we are going to find out if they are for real or not. They have beat up on some lesser teams lately but this is a legit match up. The season either ends or gets jump started in the next three days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,047 posts, read 18,583,829 times
Reputation: 18687
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
Real simple. There are two teams with a higher winning percentage than them. You expect the teams with a better record to beat them. That is as conventional as you can get.
Yes, it is very simple when you duck the request.

Again, please cite the data, that would be numbers, not conventional wisdom or University of the Atmosphere conclusions, which supports your assertion.

If you cannot, then I will conclude that you made the assertion in the absence of knowing whether or not it was valid.

Your specific assertion was:
Quote:
The Nationals aside, who would have ever thought the Reds would go 6-1 versus the Cardinals and Dodgers but then lose a series to the Cubs.
And you said it was "statistically speaking". Therefore I assume you had some statistics backing the assertion. What are they?

Last edited by Grandstander; 09-15-2013 at 05:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 05:35 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,047 posts, read 18,583,829 times
Reputation: 18687
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
Nats went back to 5.5 last night after a close lost but came back, won today, Reds lost after being up 5-0 today and so now, it's back down to 4.5.

Nats now have a 3 game series with the Braves. This is when we are going to find out if they are for real or not. They have beat up on some lesser teams lately but this is a legit match up. The season either ends or gets jump started in the next three days.
Saturday was bad for Washington because they lost, but today was also bad because even though they lost no ground, they did lose another game among the few they have left in which to cut the lead. The Nationals had been a 20-1 shot on Saturday morning, and now that has dropped to a 35-1 shot.

The Nationals may now be considered the sole team outside of the top five which is still in the race. The Diamondbacks chances have dropped to a 1000-1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 07:03 PM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,652,004 times
Reputation: 3181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Saturday was bad for Washington because they lost, but today was also bad because even though they lost no ground, they did lose another game among the few they have left in which to cut the lead. The Nationals had been a 20-1 shot on Saturday morning, and now that has dropped to a 35-1 shot.

The Nationals may now be considered the sole team outside of the top five which is still in the race. The Diamondbacks chances have dropped to a 1000-1.
They aren't going to gain ground everyday. The fact they got back to 4.5 is important. They need to at least knock 2 games off this week to have a shot at the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 07:06 PM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,652,004 times
Reputation: 3181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Yes, it is very simple when you duck the request.

Again, please cite the data, that would be numbers, not conventional wisdom or University of the Atmosphere conclusions, which supports your assertion.

If you cannot, then I will conclude that you made the assertion in the absence of knowing whether or not it was valid.

Your specific assertion was:


And you said it was "statistically speaking". Therefore I assume you had some statistics backing the assertion. What are they?
Are "winning percentages" not stats to you. If you want to see the stats, look at the standings. What team has the higher winning percentage? The Reds or the Cardinals? The Reds or the Dodgers? I don't know how else to explain this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,047 posts, read 18,583,829 times
Reputation: 18687
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
Are "winning percentages" not stats to you. If you want to see the stats, look at the standings. What team has the higher winning percentage? The Reds or the Cardinals? The Reds or the Dodgers? I don't know how else to explain this.
The above suggests that any team with a better winning percentage than the team it is playing, should be favored to win. That would suggest that all team winning percentages are static, that they are established at the beginning of the season and never change.

We know that does not happen.

But even if it did, you were quite specific, weren't you?
Quote:
who would have ever thought the Reds would go 6-1 versus the Cardinals and Dodgers but then lose a series to the Cubs. Statistically speaking the opposite should have happened
So, the opposite would have been the Reds going 6-1 vs the Cubs but losing series to the Cardinals and Dodgers.

My bet is that you cannot come up with a set of statistics which suggests anything like the above being a statistical probability. Citing team winning percentages at the time of the meetings will not cut it.

You may prove me wrong by producing the stats which validate your assertion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2013, 07:51 PM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,652,004 times
Reputation: 3181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The above suggests that any team with a better winning percentage than the team it is playing, should be favored to win. That would suggest that all team winning percentages are static, that they are established at the beginning of the season and never change.

We know that does not happen.

But even if it did, you were quite specific, weren't you?


So, the opposite would have been the Reds going 6-1 vs the Cubs but losing series to the Cardinals and Dodgers.

My bet is that you cannot come up with a set of statistics which suggests anything like the above being a statistical probability. Citing team winning percentages at the time of the meetings will not cut it.

You may prove me wrong by producing the stats which validate your assertion.


Hmm...is this guy serious?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top