PDA

View Full Version : Its better to lose the crosstown classic!!!


soxwon
05-21-2007, 04:10 PM
statistics show the loser of the series, has a better record in the next 10 games.
you can't argue with facts.
but it isnt fool proof either.
but history is history.


In 2003 sox went to wrigley with a 33-39 record sox won 2 of 3 in the next 10 games the sox went 7-3
in 2003 cubs were 39-32 record lost 2 of 3 to sox next 10 games cubs went 3-7
in 2003 sox were 37-41 played the cubs at the cell and sox won 2 of 3 next 10 games 3-7
2003 cubs came to the cell 41-36 lost 2 of 3 then went 4-6 in next 10

2004 sox played cubs at sox park sox were 37-32 sox won 2 of 3 then went 5-5 in next 10 games
2004 cubs traveled to sox park with a 40-32 record lost 2 of 3 then went 5-5 in next 10
2004 sox traveled to wrigley 42-33 record cubs swept them 3-0 sox went 5-5 after
2004 cubs entered with a 43-35 record swept the sox 3-0 then went 3-7 after

2005 sox traveled to wrigley 29-12 record sox won 2 of 3 went 5-5 after
2005 cubs entered with a 18-20 record lost 2 of 3 then went 8-2 after
2005 sox played the cubs at sox park with a 49-22 record cubs won 2 of 3 then sox went 7-3 after
2005 cubs had a 36-35 record won 2 of 3 at sox pk went 2-8 in next 10

2006 sox hosted the cubs, had a 26-14 record sox won 2 of 3 then went 5-5 in next 10
2006 cubs traveled t southside with a 17-23 record lost 2 of 3 then went 3-7 after
2006 sox traveled to wrigley with 51-27 record sox won 2 of 3 then went 4-6 in next 10
2006 cubs hosted sox had a 29-49 record sox won 2 of 3 cubs went 5-5 after

team with better record
2003 cubs lost 2 of 3 went 3-7
2003 cubs lost 2 of 3 went 4-6
2004 cubs lost 2 of 3 went 5-5
2004 sox lost 3 of 3 went 5-5
2005 sox won 2 of 3 went 5-5
2005 sox lost 2 of 3 went 7-3
2006 sox won 2 of 3 went 5-5
2006 sox won 2 of 3 went 4-6

winner of the series
2003 sox 7-3
2003 sox 3-7
2004 sox 5-5
2004 cubs 3-7
2005 sox 5-5
2005 cubs 2-8
2006 sox 5-5
2006 sox 4-6
totals 34-46

loser of the series
2003 cubs 3-7
2003 cubs 4-6
2004 cubs 5-5
2004 sox 5-5
2005 cubs 8-2
2005 sox 7-3
2006 cubs 3-7
2006 cubs 5-5
totals 40-40

HotelWhiteSox
05-21-2007, 04:13 PM
:nuts:

sox1970
05-21-2007, 04:26 PM
The Crosstown Classic was an exhibition game played in the 80's and the first part of the 90's.

eriqjaffe
05-21-2007, 04:31 PM
Awesome, now the Sox are a lock to go .500 over the next 10 games!

soxwon
05-21-2007, 04:32 PM
The Crosstown Classic was an exhibition game played in the 80's and the first part of the 90's.

its still being refered to that, as of 2007.
Technically you are correct.

Scottiehaswheels
05-21-2007, 04:33 PM
Awesome, now the Sox are a lock to go .500 over the next 10 games!:D: Gee against the A's, D-rays, slumping Twins/Blue Jays... Who woulda thunk?

IlliniSox4Life
05-21-2007, 04:45 PM
statistics show the loser of the series, has a better record in the next 10 games.
you can't argue with facts.
but it isnt fool proof either.
but history is history.

winner of the series
totals 34-46

loser of the series
totals 40-40

History is history, it doesn't mean that it's going to repeat itself. And what you have shown is not only not significant, but the minor difference is merely a coincidence. I could do the same for every series we played, and there's bound to be some sort of difference between our record in the next 10 games and the record of the team we played. It doesn't mean anything, especially with the small sample we have.

Now maybe if we were to run some sort of regression of the records of teams the 10 games after they won/lost to their biggest rivals compared to their winning percentage the rest of the year, and include data from all teams the last 100 years, and found a positive correlation between losing a series to a rival and rebounding with a streak of good games, then maybe I would believe it.

billcissell
05-21-2007, 05:03 PM
Years ago this game was known as the "Boys Benefit Game". If I remember correctly, thousands of Little Leaguers would show up in full uniform and parade around the field before the game.

The game itself was played during the regular season, but it was an exhibition. Both teams would bring up a few Triple A prospects, and the regulars might only play part of the game, if at all.

I think proceeds from the game went to various Little League organizations in the area. But it was still a big Sox vs. Cubs rivalry thing back then, even if it didn't count in the standings.

tony1972
05-21-2007, 05:14 PM
Now I wish we had lost yesterday...!

Daver
05-21-2007, 05:17 PM
Years ago this game was known as the "Boys Benefit Game". If I remember correctly, thousands of Little Leaguers would show up in full uniform and parade around the field before the game.

The game itself was played during the regular season, but it was an exhibition. Both teams would bring up a few Triple A prospects, and the regulars might only play part of the game, if at all.

I think proceeds from the game went to various Little League organizations in the area. But it was still a big Sox vs. Cubs rivalry thing back then, even if it didn't count in the standings.

You are correct, the benefits used to go to the Police Athletic League in areas that had it, and admission for little league players and their coaches was gratis.

WhiteSoxJunkie
05-21-2007, 05:44 PM
Umm...no.

soxwon
05-21-2007, 06:52 PM
History is history, it doesn't mean that it's going to repeat itself. And what you have shown is not only not significant, but the minor difference is merely a coincidence. I could do the same for every series we played, and there's bound to be some sort of difference between our record in the next 10 games and the record of the team we played. It doesn't mean anything, especially with the small sample we have.

Now maybe if we were to run some sort of regression of the records of teams the 10 games after they won/lost to their biggest rivals compared to their winning percentage the rest of the year, and include data from all teams the last 100 years, and found a positive correlation between losing a series to a rival and rebounding with a streak of good games, then maybe I would believe it.

Or we could simply Have faith in statistics presented, rather than go deep into mumbo jumbo, reworking of factual statistical differences of all major league teams, that in a short series, those statistics may prove, to some, it's a possibility, that the less statistics we have, are more convincing, than the longer elongated, references to other means of figuering out, one's differences, after said series, and simply appreciate the ones in front of you to prove a point, that dont require a college degree or thesis, of belief.
In laymans terms, Its most likely the sox will win 5 or more games than they lose.
Get it, Got It GOOD!!!!

kittle42
05-21-2007, 06:53 PM
Or we could simply Have faith in statistics presented, rather than go deep into mumbo jumbo, reworking of factual statistical differences of all major league teams, that in a short series, those statistics may prove, to some, it's a possibility, that the less statistics we have, are more convincing, than the longer elongated, references to other means of figuering out, one's differences, after said series, and simply appreciate the ones in front of you to prove a point, that dont require a college degree or thesis, of belief.
In laymans terms, Its most likely the sox will win 5 or more games than they lose.
Get it, Got It GOOD!!!!

Speaking of mumbo jumbo...

soxwon
05-21-2007, 06:57 PM
Speaking of mumbo jumbo...

Oh and his wasn't!!!

Soxfanspcu11
05-21-2007, 08:25 PM
:nuts:


DITTO!!!

I started to look at all those stats and after about a minute, I had to give up. It was just getting ridiculous. I was starting to forget everything that I was reading.

But as someone else in this thread said, History is History!

Past stats are fun to look at and they can sometimes be useful, but in reality, they are pointless.

The game still has to be played on the field. Anything can happen on any given day.

I mean, just as an example. In 2004, Boston was down 0-3 to NYY. No team had ever come back to win a series in that situation, so everyone thought that it was over. Well, we all know what happened with that.

Stats like that are just pretty much meaningless.

whitesoxwilkes
05-21-2007, 08:31 PM
Speaking of mumbo jumbo...

I think it is easier to have faith in stats when DA REVERAND presents them.

kittle42
05-21-2007, 09:31 PM
I think it is easier to have faith in stats when DA REVERAND presents them.

Well, I guess he can't misspell stats.

soxwon
05-21-2007, 09:33 PM
Well, I guess he can't misspell stats.

who cares its the internet!!!
Nelson!!!!
GIT R' DONE...

Nellie_Fox
05-21-2007, 09:42 PM
Now I wish we had lost yesterday...!:tealtutor:

chisoxfanatic
05-21-2007, 10:12 PM
Uhhh, with much due respect, Reverand, losing of ANY kind negatively effects us in the standings!

What you're talking about is correlation here in your post, NOT causation. There's a huge difference.

IlliniSox4Life
05-21-2007, 10:37 PM
Or we could simply Have faith in statistics presented, rather than go deep into mumbo jumbo, reworking of factual statistical differences of all major league teams, that in a short series, those statistics may prove, to some, it's a possibility, that the less statistics we have, are more convincing, than the longer elongated, references to other means of figuering out, one's differences, after said series, and simply appreciate the ones in front of you to prove a point, that dont require a college degree or thesis, of belief.
In laymans terms, Its most likely the sox will win 5 or more games than they lose.
Get it, Got It GOOD!!!!

First of all, in the world of statistics, what I said did make sense.

Your sample is 8 different points and 80 games, and the difference was only 6 games between the records. That is not "significant". In other words, there's a bit of randomness to everything in the world. You can't prove any sort of correlation between two things on such a small amount of data.

And further, like it was stated, even if this was enough and valid data, all it would prove is a correlation and not causation. The difference is huge. For example, I could tell you that since 1901, Sox attendance has increased on average. Also, I could say that since 1901, the price of gasoline has gone up on average. It doesn't mean that since gasoline prices keep going up that our attendance is going up. They aren't related.

Also, I fully expect us to win at least 5 of the next 10 like you said we will. Not because of this though, but because our record is above .500. Odds are that at any point in this season we will win at least 5 of 10.

waldo_the_wolf
05-22-2007, 02:52 AM
Kind of along these same lines, something I've noticed in the past, (there have been exceptions, i know) is most of the time when the sox win the season series against the cubs, its been in disappointing seasons (2001, 2003, 2006), and when the sox have a great season like 2000 and 2005, they failed to win the intra-city season series. i know, not much of a newsflash, didn't take sherlock to notice, but i'd say that makes that whole crap cub fans are always saying about "sox fans care more about beating the cubs than making the playoffs" even more ridiculous, after all how many of us in 2005 said, "you know this is okay but since they didn't beat the cubs it's a waste"

soxwon
05-22-2007, 06:03 PM
Its only stats to use at your own discretion.
Im trying to show how its possible, its better off to lose that series
Take it for what its worth.
I look at it as being positive, and for us to not feel so bad after we lose.
Im trying to bring a ray of hope and sunshine to Mudville.
Accept it as optomism, or Dont.
No Biggie Life Goes on, and the Sox will continue to Win games.
Have a faitha
Da Rev

Lets stop bickering and Enjoy our Team.

Scottiehaswheels
05-22-2007, 06:18 PM
ok just for arguments sake.. What if we miss out on the playoffs by 1 game... Is it still better to lose games in May/June? Not saying you can point to this series in particular but just saying its never good to lose games no matter who the hell the opponent is...

soxwon
05-22-2007, 06:33 PM
ok just for arguments sake.. What if we miss out on the playoffs by 1 game... Is it still better to lose games in May/June? Not saying you can point to this series in particular but just saying its never good to lose games no matter who the hell the opponent is...

we lose by one game, blame the opening day loss.

gosiu
05-22-2007, 06:48 PM
ok just for arguments sake.. What if we miss out on the playoffs by 1 game... Is it still better to lose games in May/June? Not saying you can point to this series in particular but just saying its never good to lose games no matter who the hell the opponent is...
You blame the games that we lost that you should have one. For example: Jenks mini-blowup in Oakland perhaps. This past Friday and Saturday, we had the lead. Doesn't matter when they happen.

MRM
05-22-2007, 06:51 PM
First of all, in the world of statistics, what I said did make sense.

Your sample is 8 different points and 80 games, and the difference was only 6 games between the records. That is not "significant". In other words, there's a bit of randomness to everything in the world. You can't prove any sort of correlation between two things on such a small amount of data.

And further, like it was stated, even if this was enough and valid data, all it would prove is a correlation and not causation. The difference is huge. For example, I could tell you that since 1901, Sox attendance has increased on average. Also, I could say that since 1901, the price of gasoline has gone up on average. It doesn't mean that since gasoline prices keep going up that our attendance is going up. They aren't related.

Also, I fully expect us to win at least 5 of the next 10 like you said we will. Not because of this though, but because our record is above .500. Odds are that at any point in this season we will win at least 5 of 10.

You're both full of it.

The original post was simply a fun oddity. Statistics are used for that purpose all the time in virtually every field. To put ANY faith in this sort of thing is ridiculous. Anything can be "proven" with the misuse of stats in this manner.

As far as "correlation" Vs. "causation". That's just silly. Statistics, by themsleves, never show causation. They ONLY show result. They might be used to help substantiate an argument of causation, but can NEVER make that argument all by themself. To even try to do so is no different than what the original poster did. Attempt to use stats to "prove" a theory without presenting the root of the theory in the first place.

Statistics "showed", beyond question, that Enron was a great investment, for example.

MRM
05-22-2007, 06:55 PM
we lose by one game, blame the opening day loss.

Or any other single loss during the season.

But his point was solid. A win/loss in May means exactly as much in the standings as a win/loss in September.