PDA

View Full Version : Optimism?


JasonC23
07-11-2003, 04:12 PM
Check out the standings at the bottom of Rob Neyer's ESPN page...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/neyer/index

These standings, for those who don't know, use each team's runs scored and runs allowed to calculate what their record should be...or, you could say, how a team is actually playing vs its record.

Interestingly enough, the Sox "should" be in first place, but the Royals have a record 5 games (!) better than their runs scored/allowed indicates. This would seem to lend credence to those who are counting on a Royals fade in the second half, as they appear to have gotten some very good luck in the first half.

On the other hand, the Cubs should be 7 games out (before today's game), but both the Astros and the Cardinals have records 5 games WORSE than expected.

Buh-bye, Dusty's boys. :D:

Hullett_Fan
07-11-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by JasonC23
Interestingly enough, the Sox "should" be in first place, but the Royals have a record 5 games (!) better than their runs scored/allowed indicates. This would seem to lend credence to those who are counting on a Royals fade in the second half, as they appear to have gotten some very good luck in the first half.


That's the Hypothegorean (SP?) W-L.

Sox had identical record to the Twins last year using that equation. Tells you that there's more to the game than scoring runs and limiting opponents runs...



:hawk

"It's called intangibles and we ain't got em DJ"

JasonC23
07-11-2003, 04:26 PM
Well, one theory is that when a team underperforms its expected record, the manager is to blame... :o:

kempsted
07-11-2003, 04:28 PM
Sox had identical record to the Twins last year using that equation. Tells you that there's more to the game than scoring runs and limiting opponents runs...

Well yes and no. Actually the W-L formula looked at over a number of years is very statistically correlated to how they actually did. You will always get outliers. But when you look back at the past you find for example that very few teams stay over or under there mark long term. So if someone is playing over their head you do expect them to come back down. But look at us - we are about where we should be win loss wise.

Lip Man 1
07-11-2003, 08:14 PM
Those stats are worth about as much as blowing your nose into them.

The poster is correct and this was beat to death by some of the folks on the message boards here earlier this season how about the stats PROVED the Twins played over their heads and weren't that good yadda, yadda, yadda.

The fact is the only stats that matter are the won / lost record for your team. Just because some intagibles say we are as good as the Twins, Royals, Yankees etc. doesn't mean squat.

It's proven on the field. The Twins proved it. The Sox haven't. AND STILL HAVEN'T.

Lip

LASOXFAN
07-11-2003, 09:22 PM
Here's a reason to be optimistic:

ERA's following Friday's debacle:

Wright 5.93
Glover 5.17
White 6.14
Sanders 5.03
Koch 5.63

4 out of 5 have ERA's under 6.00. And I can totally understand Glover's frustration. After watching him tonight he deserves to pitch more. Why shouldn't he be allowed to contribute to this disastrous season just as much as anyone else?

Everett left 6 men on base, 4 in scoring position. There's no reason to be mad at this team, just realistic. They're just not that good.

StillMissOzzie
07-11-2003, 11:58 PM
Hey, if you only go by stats, then D'Angelo Jiminez was a really good player.

:gulp:

kempsted
07-13-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Those stats are worth about as much as blowing your nose into them.

The poster is correct and this was beat to death by some of the folks on the message boards here earlier this season how about the stats PROVED the Twins played over their heads and weren't that good yadda, yadda, yadda.

The fact is the only stats that matter are the won / lost record for your team. Just because some intagibles say we are as good as the Twins, Royals, Yankees etc. doesn't mean squat.

It's proven on the field. The Twins proved it. The Sox haven't. AND STILL HAVEN'T.

Lip

Actually take a look. The Twins proved that they DID play over their heads last year. They wern't that good and they are showing it this year with their sub 500 performance.

These stats are NOT looking at intangibles. They are simply using a theory that seems to be well grounded that to win you have to score more runs than your opponent and not just in that game but in the long run. They are predictive tools.

To say it is proven on the field is trite. It is like saying the weather is proven in the skies and so I don't care what this or that says the weather should be.

But as far as it goes - the stat the poster shows we still should be a sub 500 team doing almost exactly what we are now doing. So what these stats are showing us now is ..... drum roll please - we are not winning because we are scoring fewer runs then our opponents

MarkEdward
07-13-2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
Hey, if you only go by stats, then D'Angelo Jiminez was a really good player.

:gulp:

Winning percentage with Jimenez, 2003: .494

Winning percentage without Jimenez, 2003: .363

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but were we swept by the Tigers when DJ was playing for us?

kempsted
07-13-2003, 11:46 PM
Winning percentage without Jimenez, 2003: .363

Has anyone ever talked to you about what a statistically significant sample is. I guess that is where the one poster is correct. You have to be very careful with stats. There is a great book called "How to lie with statistics". This before and after comparison would be another example of misusing statistics.

Meixner007
07-14-2003, 12:09 AM
63% of all statistics are made up................

MarkEdward
07-14-2003, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by kempsted
Has anyone ever talked to you about what a statistically significant sample is. I guess that is where the one poster is correct. You have to be very careful with stats. There is a great book called "How to lie with statistics". This before and after comparison would be another example of misusing statistics.

Just putting a little humor into the discussion. I know all about sample sizes.