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.
The Phillies have the best record in the league at 64-37. Their pythag record is 62-39
The Yankees' record is 60-40. Their pythag record is 63-37
Well, then it doesn't show a high correlation. Whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
The Pythag formula he employs, he employs because it works. Better than anything else he tried, it successfully predicted the won lost records of teams based on their runs scored and runs allowed.
Wait a minute. You mean we knew how many runs were scored by and against each team, but didn't know how many games those teams won yet, but we didn't need to know because the pythag predicted the number of wins? But filihok just said it failed to predict that accurately.
I'm still wondering what the pythag tells us that we didn't know already. We knew how many runs the teams scored, and we knew how many games each team won. What new and analytically useful information did the pythag give us?
You implied that we could tell how well the Mariners performed over the past 16 games. Well, Duh, they lost every game, so their performance was pretty transparent, without invoking geometry. Luckily (here's where luck come in, I guess), the analysts who reported how many runs were scored also kept track of who won each game, so it was not necessary to use one set of statistics to infer the other. Yes, we already knew that, but thanks to Pythagoras, we could tell that they had Genuine Badness, too. Which, as I pointed out, is illusory, and overall, the team is at least as good as four other teams, and up until July 5, they outperformed half the MLB teams in spite of their Genuine Badness.
So, as I understand it, you say "it successfully predicted the won lost records of teams based on their runs scored and runs allowed", except in cases where, as Filihok puts it, "That's not true", where it did not successfully predict the won lost records of teams based on their runs scored and runs allowed. Is that it?
Furthermore,
Quote:
Games outside the streak would be irelevancies.
. . . and are of no value in determining "genuine badness". How much genuine badness? Depends on whether you use game results, or pythag predictions, which looks like about a 20% margin of error (3 games out of 16), which is pretty wide. In fact, for a .500 team over 16 games, pythag could come with any number of wins from 5 to 11, if it can miss by 3. I'm not sold on its predictive value.
Wait a minute. You mean we knew how many runs were scored by and against each team, but didn't know how many games those teams won yet, but we didn't need to know because the pythag predicted the number of wins? But filihok just said it failed to predict that accurately.
He said no such thing.
Quote:
I'm still wondering what the pythag tells us that we didn't know already. We knew how many runs the teams scored, and we knew how many games each team won. What new and analytically useful information did the pythag give us?
Since I already told you the purpose, differentiating what is luck from what is merited in the way of wins and losses, it is depressing to find you still asking the question.
Quote:
You implied that we could tell how well the Mariners performed over the past 16 games. Well, Duh, they lost every game, so their performance was pretty transparent, without invoking geometry
.
I stated nothing beyond precisely what the formula was designed to measure.
Quote:
Luckily (here's where luck come in, I guess), the analysts who reported how many runs were scored also kept track of who won each game, so it was not necessary to use one set of statistics to infer the other.
You don't understand this, so rather than making an effort to understand, you think the better part of valor is to make a fool of yourself in this thread. Good choice.
I refer you back to my previous explanations. You get it or you don't. If the light does go on for you, swell. If it does not, I'm not interested in further efforts to educate you about this.
Well, then it doesn't show a high correlation. Whatever.
It does show a high correlation.
I have to agree with this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
You don't understand this, so rather than making an effort to understand, you think the better part of valor is to make a fool of yourself in this thread. Good choice.
Except for the opinion that that is a good choice.
Coming off the DL with his spot in the rotation in doubt, Zito lucked out when Sanchez had to go on the DL. He then went out and had what were probably his best three consecutive starts since joining the Giants.
Hopes float high...but....
Zito has been a very streaky pitcher with SF, albeit longer bad streaks than good ones. I figured that the roof would come crashing down sooner or later and it turned out to be sooner when in his 4th start since coming off the DL, he was hammered for eight runs in 3.2 innings..seven hits, four walks, two home runs.
And in keeping with his stinko mode, tonight against the Phillies he has been most kind to the Philadelphia hitters...five runs in four innings, two more gopher balls.
Giants are down 5-1 in the 5th. They are the sort of team that has been good at coming back from being one run down in the late innings, but if they fall behind by a lot early, there is little chance that they will make it competitive.
The Giants have had 26 games this seasons where the opposition has scored five or more runs. In those 26 games they are 6-20.
Edit: It is now the top of the sixth and Giants color announcer Mike Krukow just explained that we should now be looking for some fireworks from the Giants. See, even though Phillies pitcher Vance Worley has held them to two hits and no walks so far, "The Giants have now twice seen everything he has to offer and they will be zeroing in on him." Plus the top of the order would be batting.
They went 1-2-3.
Last edited by Grandstander; 07-26-2011 at 06:26 PM..
Adam Dunn went deep in the first inning for his 10th homer of the year. It was not a lazy fly ball that barely got over like a few of his have been this year, he actually put a great swing on the ball. Naturally, his next AB he struck out. However, I think anyone would take a 1-4 with 3K and 1 hr day from him, seeing how awful he has been.
Edit: It is now the top of the sixth and Giants color announcer Mike Krukow just explained that we should now be looking for some fireworks from the Giants. See, even though Phillies pitcher Vance Worley has held them to two hits and no walks so far, "The Giants have now twice seen everything he has to offer and they will be zeroing in on him." Plus the top of the order would be batting.
They went 1-2-3.
1st plate appearance vs a pitcher: .681 OPS
2nd PA vs a pitcher: .722 OPS
3rd PA vs a pitcher: .764 OPS
4th + PA vs a pitcher: .735 OPS
Interesting, perhaps Krukow was right to expect a better showing with the lumber.
Question...why would the OPS decline in the 4th appearances? Wouldn't the pitcher be more exhausted when facing a lineup for the 4th go round than he is during the third?
Thought....in all probability, those pitchers who are around long enough to face a lineup for the 4th time, are the higher quality pitchers. The lousy pitchers are typically gone from the game before they face batters for the 4th time, so the database for 4th time arounds would be skewed due to the absense of the crappiest pitchers.
Question...why would the OPS decline in the 4th appearances? Wouldn't the pitcher be more exhausted when facing a lineup for the 4th go round than he is during the third?
Thought....in all probability, those pitchers who are around long enough to face a lineup for the 4th time, are the higher quality pitchers. The lousy pitchers are typically gone from the game before they face batters for the 4th time, so the database for 4th time arounds would be skewed due to the absense of the crappiest pitchers.
Basically. Pitchers who are facing batters for a 4th appearance are the guys who have succeeded in getting the opposing hitters out the other three times that they have come to the plate.
Open up excel.
Plot the actual records of every team on the X-axis
Plot the pythag record of every team on the Y-axis
Tell us what the graph looks like
Quote:
The smaller the number of games, the worse the correlation.
That may, or may not, be true. You could have a perfect correlation with a small sample, or 0 correlation, or negative correlation.
Quote:
Over 16 games, it certainly cannot show that a team is "genuine badness".
Work out the pythag for me on the seven game 1960 World Series, and tell me, on that basis, which team was "genuine badness". I bet it's Pittsburgh.
Here., I'll make it easy for you.
2011 Mariners, R/OR, 16-game streak: 40/87
1960 Pirates WS win, 7 games: 27/55
What point are you trying to make here?
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.
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.
