PDA

View Full Version : Angels In Chicago


Lip Man 1
05-24-2005, 11:38 AM
On another thread ChiSox Fan asked what was the Angels record in Chicago against the Sox the past five years. He stated that it was just as bad as the Sox record in Anaheim.

The numbers say otherwise:

2004: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2003: Anaheim 0-3 in Chicago
2002: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2001: Anaheim 1-2 in Chicago
2000: Anaheim 2-4 in Chicago

9-15 overall.

That's a far cry from 3-16 for the Sox.

Lip

CHISOXFAN13
05-24-2005, 11:53 AM
On another thread ChiSox Fan asked what was the Angels record in Chicago against the Sox the past five years. He stated that it was just as bad as the Sox record in Anaheim.

The numbers say otherwise:

2004: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2003: Anaheim 0-3 in Chicago
2002: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2001: Anaheim 1-2 in Chicago
2000: Anaheim 2-4 in Chicago

9-15 overall.

That's a far cry from 3-16 for the Sox.

Lip

It's a far cry, but 9-15 is far from stellar. I'd take my chances against them if the Sox were the No. 1 seed.

We'll see how it shakes out because I still think the Sox will get the job done out there this week.

Lip Man 1
05-24-2005, 12:02 PM
They better start doing it quickly then. Tonight would be nice.

Lip

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:03 PM
On another thread ChiSox Fan asked what was the Angels record in Chicago against the Sox the past five years. He stated that it was just as bad as the Sox record in Anaheim.

The numbers say otherwise:

2004: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2003: Anaheim 0-3 in Chicago
2002: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2001: Anaheim 1-2 in Chicago
2000: Anaheim 2-4 in Chicago

9-15 overall.

That's a far cry from 3-16 for the Sox.

Lip

That's a .625 winning % for the Sox at home vs. the Halos.

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:12 PM
That's a .375 winning %.

Brian26
05-24-2005, 12:17 PM
I don't know what it is about that park, but it feels like the Sox are a little league team playing the '27 Yankees.

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:17 PM
That's a .375 winning %.
This is what happens when I'm allowed near numbers. I'm an idiot! :redface:

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:20 PM
Dad is a math professor (and a cub fan) ... good thing I only took after part of him!

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:20 PM
This is what happens when I'm allowed near numbers. I'm an idiot! :redface:

No... you got it right, the other poster was giving the Angels' winning percentage.

.375+.625 = 1.000 just like it's supposed to...

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:23 PM
No... you got it right, the other poster was giving the Angels' winning percentage.

.375+.625 = 1.000 just like it's supposed to...

White Sox = 9 of 24 (.375)
Halos = 15 of 24 (.625)

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:23 PM
No... you got it right, the other poster was giving the Angels' winning percentage.

.375+.625 = 1.000 just like it's supposed to...
I'm going to back away from this thread and leave it alone. I based the Sox % on 24 home games, which is incorrect. Thank goodness people like me can still get degrees in English Literature in this day and age. :nuts:

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:25 PM
White Sox = 9 of 24 (.375)
Halos = 15 of 24 (.625)

It's a total of 15 games in Chicago, no?

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:25 PM
It's a total of 15 games in Chicago, no?

9(W) & 15(L) = 24 games

Brian26
05-24-2005, 12:26 PM
White Sox = 9 of 24 (.375)
Halos = 15 of 24 (.625)

You've got it reversed though. The Sox won 15 of 24, and the Halos won 9 of 24. The Sox have the .625 winning percentage at home.

Brian26
05-24-2005, 12:27 PM
It's a total of 15 games in Chicago, no?

I think it's 24 games. The Angels apparently came to town twice in the same season a couple of times.

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:29 PM
I think it's 24 games. The Angels apparently came to town twice in the same season a couple of times.

Lip's chart shows the Halos winning 9 games out of 15, no? eg. 2000: Halos win 2 games out of 4.

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:29 PM
Am I reading this wrong?

2004: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2003: Anaheim 0-3 in Chicago
2002: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2001: Anaheim 1-2 in Chicago
2000: Anaheim 2-4 in Chicago

Is it W-L or W of Total?

This is too much for a Tuesday.

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:30 PM
This thread is humiliating. Is there an engineer in the house? :redface:

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:31 PM
9(W) & 15(L) = 24 games

that's the Angels record the way I read the post.

The Angels one 9 games in 24 chances = .375

The Sox won 15 games in 24 chances = .625

I think you just got the numbers backwards. Maybe I misunderstood the numbers quoted over all and I am not going to go look it up myself.

Brian26
05-24-2005, 12:31 PM
Am I reading this wrong?

2004: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2003: Anaheim 0-3 in Chicago
2002: Anaheim 3-3 in Chicago
2001: Anaheim 1-2 in Chicago
2000: Anaheim 2-4 in Chicago

Is it W-L or W of Total?

This is too much for a Tuesday.

LOL, Ok, I see the point of confusion. I think the answer is that it's W-L, because there's no way they only played 2 games in Chicago in 2001.

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:32 PM
Lip's chart shows the Halos winning 9 games out of 15, no? eg. 2000: Halos win 2 games out of 4.

No, because they never would have only played 2 games. The first number is wins, the second number is losses. Total games played is the first number plus the second number.

Paulwny
05-24-2005, 12:33 PM
Wow, I hope we never get into any calculus problems on this board. :?:

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:37 PM
So, was I right when I said the Sox have a .625 win % at home vs the Halos?

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:37 PM
Wow, I hope we never get into any calculus problems on this board. :?:





When Joe Crede hits a popup, it can be proven that at the exact pinnacle of it's arc, the ball is neither going up nor down for one instant in time. You would use calculus to prove that point...:D:

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:38 PM
So, was I right when I said the Sox have a .625 win % at home vs the Halos?

Looks that way to me...

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:42 PM
Looks that way to me...
What's left of my dignity is preserved. Thx! :cheers:

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:44 PM
Looks that way to me...

Ok, looked it up, so here goes nothin:

Year WS(W) Ang(W) Games
2004 3 3 6
2003 0 3 3
2002 3 3 6
2001 1 2 3
2000 2 4 6

9 15 24
Win %: .325 .675 1.000

Iwritecode
05-24-2005, 12:45 PM
When Joe Crede hits a popup, it can be proven that at the exact pinnacle of it's arc, the ball is neither going up nor down for one instant in time. You would use calculus to prove that point...:D:

Actually, I think I learned that in Physics class. I haven't taken Calc yet... :D:

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:46 PM
Ok, looked it up, so here goes nothin:

Year WS(W) Ang(W) Games
2004 3 3 6
2003 0 3 3
2002 3 3 6
2001 1 2 3
2000 2 4 6

9 15 24
Win %: .325 .675 1.000

it took away my spaces, that looks like ****

Paulwny
05-24-2005, 12:47 PM
When Joe Crede hits a popup, it can be proven that at the exact pinnacle of it's arc, the ball is neither going up nor down for one instant in time. You would use calculus to prove that point...:D:

Yep, but it looks like there'd be multiple answers from everyone. :D:

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:48 PM
Year WS(W) Ang(W) Games
2004 ---- 3 ------ 3 ---- 6
2003 ---- 0 ------ 3 ---- 3
2002 ---- 3 ------ 3 ---- 6
2001 ---- 1 ------ 2 ---- 3
2000 ---- 2 ------ 4 ---- 6

--------- 9 ------ 15 --- 24
Win %: .375 ---- .625 -- 1.000

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:51 PM
Actually, I think I learned that in Physics class. I haven't taken Calc yet... :D:

Yes, but the proof is done in calculus. It has to do with the derivative of a hyperbola which shows the slope (vertical change in relation to horizontal change) at any given point on the curve. At the peak of the upside down hyperbola that is a popup, the slope is zero. The ball is neither going up or down. :cool:

steranim
05-24-2005, 12:52 PM
Now I'm gonna have to go to the bar, if only I could get an Old Style out here in the middle of no where. Now if I get a six pack and drink 2 of them...:wired:

TDog
05-24-2005, 12:52 PM
When Joe Crede hits a popup, it can be proven that at the exact pinnacle of it's arc, the ball is neither going up nor down for one instant in time. You would use calculus to prove that point...:D:

Calculating from that point where the ball will fall and at what speed, perhaps applying the force of wind vectors if the day is a blustery one, would be a physics problem. Don't forget to take the topspin into consideration. The way I play the outfield, I should brush up on my physics.

Since the Angels have gotten very good, they are very tough at home against teams flying to the coast. When I used to drive to Anaheim in the 80s and 90s, the Sox played very well there. Things seemed to turn around in 1997. For that weekend series, the Sox started Eyre and Clemens.

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:53 PM
Year WS(W) Ang(W) Games
2004 ---- 3 ------ 3 ---- 6
2003 ---- 0 ------ 3 ---- 3
2002 ---- 3 ------ 3 ---- 6
2001 ---- 1 ------ 2 ---- 3
2000 ---- 2 ------ 4 ---- 6

--------- 9 ------ 15 --- 24
Win %: .375 ---- .625 -- 1.000

Okay, then you were right (but you mistyped the percentages at the bottom - I fixed them in the quote). I read that entirely differently in the original post.

Sorry, BF, you got it backwards...

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:54 PM
Calculating from that point where the ball will fall and at what speed, perhaps applying the force of wind vectors if the day is a blustery one, would be a physics problem. Don't forget to take the topspin into consideration. The way I play the outfield, I should brush up on my physics.

Since the Angels have gotten very good, they are very tough at home against teams flying to the coast. When I used to drive to Anaheim in the 80s and 90s, the Sox played very well there. Things seemed to turn around in 1997. For that weekend series, the Sox started Eyre and Clemens.

Once you start throwing the weather elements into it, you are going to get into chaos theory pretty quickly especially in Chicago...:D:

Baby Fisk
05-24-2005, 12:55 PM
Okay, then you were right (but you mistyped the percentages at the bottom - I fixed them in the quote). I read that entirely differently in the original post.

Sorry, BF, you got it backwards...

Oh good.

The humiliation is complete. :gulp:

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 12:57 PM
Oh good.

The humiliation is complete. :gulp:

Hey, I got it backwards too. You didn't screw up the math, you just read the word problem wrong. So did I, btw... so, I'll join you for that cocktail...:gulp:

JB98
05-24-2005, 01:02 PM
The last time the Angels were in Chicago, they beat the Sox 12-0 and ruined my 28th birthday.

Bottom line: The Sox suck against the Angels. Normally, I feel very confident on the day Buerhle pitches. Today, I'm just praying that we score a run at some point in tonight's game.

Iwritecode
05-24-2005, 01:06 PM
Year WS(W) Ang(W) Games
2004 ---- 3 ------ 3 ---- 6
2003 ---- 0 ------ 3 ---- 3
2002 ---- 3 ------ 3 ---- 6
2001 ---- 1 ------ 2 ---- 3
2000 ---- 2 ------ 4 ---- 6

--------- 9 ------ 15 --- 24
Win %: .375 ---- .625 -- 1.000

That's still wrong. The Sox won 3 games in Chicago in 2003.

They won 2 and lost one in Chicago in 2002.

That would probably mean the Sox have a .625 winning percentage against the Angels when playing in Chicago...

BF & Voodoo, you were both right. :gulp:

Paulwny
05-24-2005, 01:10 PM
Further proof that the rest of the world is ahead of us in math err.... arithmetic.:D:

TDog
05-24-2005, 01:11 PM
Once you start throwing the weather elements into it, you are going to get into chaos theory pretty quickly especially in Chicago...:D:

In the middle of my fourth decade of following the White Sox, I've been immersed in chaos theory long before factoring the weather into the equation.

Come to think of it, though, friends who have seen me play the outfield have probably been thinking about chaos theory for years.

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 01:25 PM
In the middle of my fourth decade of following the White Sox, I've been immersed in chaos theory long before factoring the weather into the equation.

Come to think of it, though, friends who have seen me play the outfield have probably been thinking about chaos theory for years.

You should try being a Bears fan under the Michael McCaskey reign. Chaos theory has nothing on Managing Change Ambiguously or whatever the name of his PHD thesis was...

Brian26
05-24-2005, 02:19 PM
Yes, but the proof is done in calculus. It has to do with the derivative of a hyperbola which shows the slope (vertical change in relation to horizontal change) at any given point on the curve. At the peak of the upside down hyperbola that is a popup, the slope is zero. The ball is neither going up or down. :cool:

Nice job. I'd add one minor correction- I think you mean "parabola" instead of "hyperbola". Good enough to teach junior college math, though.

voodoochile
05-24-2005, 03:04 PM
Nice job. I'd add one minor correction- I think you mean "parabola" instead of "hyperbola". Good enough to teach junior college math, though.

:redface:

Lip Man 1
05-24-2005, 06:42 PM
Yikes!

What have I done!!!

Sorry, I thought it was clear but the Angels records are won and lost in Chicago only...for example 3-3 one season, 0-3 another and so forth.

Lip