LITTLE NELL

03-31-2008, 11:42 AM

Ive been all over the net I cant find our lineup for today. Can anyone help me with a link?

View Full Version : Todays Lineup

LITTLE NELL

03-31-2008, 11:42 AM

Ive been all over the net I cant find our lineup for today. Can anyone help me with a link?

turners56

03-31-2008, 11:46 AM

Supposedly Ozuna isn't gonna start. So...

1. LF Swisher

2. SS Cabrera

3. DH Thome

4. 1B Konerko

5. RF Dye

6. C Pierzynski

7. CF Ramirez

8. 3B Crede

9. 2B Uribe

TBH, I don't know why Ozzie has Ramirez in front of Crede. I got this off of Whitesox.com, don't know if it's completely accurate.

Indians are probably going with...

1. CF Sizemore

2. 2B Cabrera

3. DH Hafner

4. C Martinez

5. SS Peralta

6. 1B Garko

7. LF Michaels

8. 3B Blake

9. RF Gutierrez

1. LF Swisher

2. SS Cabrera

3. DH Thome

4. 1B Konerko

5. RF Dye

6. C Pierzynski

7. CF Ramirez

8. 3B Crede

9. 2B Uribe

TBH, I don't know why Ozzie has Ramirez in front of Crede. I got this off of Whitesox.com, don't know if it's completely accurate.

Indians are probably going with...

1. CF Sizemore

2. 2B Cabrera

3. DH Hafner

4. C Martinez

5. SS Peralta

6. 1B Garko

7. LF Michaels

8. 3B Blake

9. RF Gutierrez

BRDSR

03-31-2008, 11:50 AM

Supposedly Ozuna isn't gonna start. So...

If true, count it as Ozzie's first mistake of the 2008 campaign, and it will happen as soon as Sabathia throws the first pitch of the White Sox' season. Ozuna bats .400 (12/30) against Sabathia. Best of any player ont he Sox, and its a statistically relevant number of at bats.

If true, count it as Ozzie's first mistake of the 2008 campaign, and it will happen as soon as Sabathia throws the first pitch of the White Sox' season. Ozuna bats .400 (12/30) against Sabathia. Best of any player ont he Sox, and its a statistically relevant number of at bats.

doublem23

03-31-2008, 11:54 AM

Ozuna bats .400 (12/30) against Sabathia. Best of any player ont he Sox, and its a statistically relevant number of at bats.

No it's not. 30 at bats isn't even 10 games.

No it's not. 30 at bats isn't even 10 games.

Meixner007

03-31-2008, 11:57 AM

I believe a sample set of 30 makes it statistically relevant.

LITTLE NELL

03-31-2008, 11:58 AM

Supposedly Ozuna isn't gonna start. So...

1. LF Swisher

2. SS Cabrera

3. DH Thome

4. 1B Konerko

5. RF Dye

6. C Pierzynski

7. CF Ramirez

8. 3B Crede

9. 2B Uribe

TBH, I don't know why Ozzie has Ramirez in front of Crede. I got this off of Whitesox.com, don't know if it's completely accurate.

Indians are probably going with...

1. CF Sizemore

2. 2B Cabrera

3. DH Hafner

4. C Martinez

5. SS Peralta

6. 1B Garko

7. LF Michaels

8. 3B Blake

9. RF Gutierrez

Thanks, Whitesox.com didnt have it a couple of hours ago.

1. LF Swisher

2. SS Cabrera

3. DH Thome

4. 1B Konerko

5. RF Dye

6. C Pierzynski

7. CF Ramirez

8. 3B Crede

9. 2B Uribe

TBH, I don't know why Ozzie has Ramirez in front of Crede. I got this off of Whitesox.com, don't know if it's completely accurate.

Indians are probably going with...

1. CF Sizemore

2. 2B Cabrera

3. DH Hafner

4. C Martinez

5. SS Peralta

6. 1B Garko

7. LF Michaels

8. 3B Blake

9. RF Gutierrez

Thanks, Whitesox.com didnt have it a couple of hours ago.

doublem23

03-31-2008, 12:01 PM

I believe a sample set of 30 makes it statistically relevant.

Give or add 3 hits and his BA would flucate by 100 points. If you really believe that makes those statistics meaningful, we need to agree to disagree.

Give or add 3 hits and his BA would flucate by 100 points. If you really believe that makes those statistics meaningful, we need to agree to disagree.

UofCSoxFan

03-31-2008, 12:03 PM

I think the arguement for having Ramierez infront of Crede is that you have some speed in between AJ and Crede. Otherwise, with one or both of those guys in fron of Ramierez you really have the bases clogged up and may not be able to full use his speed. I mean this club will be slow anyway but Thome, Konerko, Dye, AJ, Crede all in order...that's just ridiculous.

balke

03-31-2008, 12:04 PM

No it's not. 30 at bats isn't even 10 games.

Ozuna hits lefties very well in general. (.296 in 308 at-bats) I'd say its a semi-mistake, but it shouldn't be big enough to prevent the Sox from winning.

Uribe: .263 avg. sub .300 OBP

Thome: .240 v. Lefties

I thought about Ozuna at DH, but he can't hit hr's, and Thome can. At 2B he's adding .030 to the batting avg., but it might be better to have a capable 2Bman playing the position like Uribe. Ozuna has more speed though.

Ozuna not playing isn't a huge mistake, but it might be a small one. It'll look bigger if the Sox lose a close one.

Ozuna hits lefties very well in general. (.296 in 308 at-bats) I'd say its a semi-mistake, but it shouldn't be big enough to prevent the Sox from winning.

Uribe: .263 avg. sub .300 OBP

Thome: .240 v. Lefties

I thought about Ozuna at DH, but he can't hit hr's, and Thome can. At 2B he's adding .030 to the batting avg., but it might be better to have a capable 2Bman playing the position like Uribe. Ozuna has more speed though.

Ozuna not playing isn't a huge mistake, but it might be a small one. It'll look bigger if the Sox lose a close one.

BRDSR

03-31-2008, 12:04 PM

No it's not. 30 at bats isn't even 10 games.

30 at bats is statistically relevant when it consists of such specific circumstances as a particular batter against a particular pitcher. If it took more than 30 at bats to get statistically relevant information on batter/pitcher matchups, there would be very little statistically relevant batter/pitcher matchups.

By comparison, only three other players on the White Sox roster has more than 30 at bats against Sabathia. They are Joe Crede (31), Paul Konerko (40), and Juan Uribe (42). They bat .194, .175, and .190 against Sabathia, respectively. If Ozzie isn't going to play Ozuna at second against a pitcher he bats .400 against in 30 at bats, instead of Uribe, who bats .190 in 42, I don't know why Ozuna is on the roster.

30 at bats is statistically relevant when it consists of such specific circumstances as a particular batter against a particular pitcher. If it took more than 30 at bats to get statistically relevant information on batter/pitcher matchups, there would be very little statistically relevant batter/pitcher matchups.

By comparison, only three other players on the White Sox roster has more than 30 at bats against Sabathia. They are Joe Crede (31), Paul Konerko (40), and Juan Uribe (42). They bat .194, .175, and .190 against Sabathia, respectively. If Ozzie isn't going to play Ozuna at second against a pitcher he bats .400 against in 30 at bats, instead of Uribe, who bats .190 in 42, I don't know why Ozuna is on the roster.

russ99

03-31-2008, 12:12 PM

Are you guys going to nitpick every single thing Ozzie does this season?

OMG, he forgot to scratch his butt in the 5th inning... that must mean the Sox are doomed to 4th place and 85 losses!

Thank goodness the games start today. I've had my fill of all the preseason negativity and moves being questioned around here. Hopefully the Sox get a few quick early wins, and all will be right with WSI.

OMG, he forgot to scratch his butt in the 5th inning... that must mean the Sox are doomed to 4th place and 85 losses!

Thank goodness the games start today. I've had my fill of all the preseason negativity and moves being questioned around here. Hopefully the Sox get a few quick early wins, and all will be right with WSI.

twsoxfan5

03-31-2008, 12:14 PM

Are you guys going to nitpick every single thing Ozzie does this season?

OMG, he forgot to scratch his butt in the 5th inning... that must mean the Sox are doomed to 4th place and 85 losses!

Thank goodness the games start today. I've had my fill of all the preseason negativity and moves being questioned around here. Hopefully the Sox get a few quick early wins, and all will be right with WSI.

Yes they are.

OMG, he forgot to scratch his butt in the 5th inning... that must mean the Sox are doomed to 4th place and 85 losses!

Thank goodness the games start today. I've had my fill of all the preseason negativity and moves being questioned around here. Hopefully the Sox get a few quick early wins, and all will be right with WSI.

Yes they are.

BRDSR

03-31-2008, 12:18 PM

Are you guys going to nitpick every single thing Ozzie does this season?

OMG, he forgot to scratch his butt in the 5th inning... that must mean the Sox are doomed to 4th place and 85 losses!

Thank goodness the games start today. I've had my fill of all the preseason negativity and moves being questioned around here. Hopefully the Sox get a few quick early wins, and all will be right with WSI.

Yes, I'm going to. Playing arm-chair manager is pretty much a right appurtenant to being a fan. What else am I going to do on an online forum that caters to the most avid of fanatical fans?

"OMG, you're a White Sox fan!? Me too! Fancy meeting you here! Umm...Go White Sox!"

OMG, he forgot to scratch his butt in the 5th inning... that must mean the Sox are doomed to 4th place and 85 losses!

Thank goodness the games start today. I've had my fill of all the preseason negativity and moves being questioned around here. Hopefully the Sox get a few quick early wins, and all will be right with WSI.

Yes, I'm going to. Playing arm-chair manager is pretty much a right appurtenant to being a fan. What else am I going to do on an online forum that caters to the most avid of fanatical fans?

"OMG, you're a White Sox fan!? Me too! Fancy meeting you here! Umm...Go White Sox!"

Meixner007

03-31-2008, 12:31 PM

Give or add 3 hits and his BA would flucate by 100 points. If you really believe that makes those statistics meaningful, we need to agree to disagree.

No, I'm referring back to my statistics courses. I thought the relevance of a number, when having a sample size of 30 or greater, was far more accurate than if you had 29 or less.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

No, I'm referring back to my statistics courses. I thought the relevance of a number, when having a sample size of 30 or greater, was far more accurate than if you had 29 or less.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

russ99

03-31-2008, 12:43 PM

Yes they are.

OK, just so we're straight on that. :D:

Go Sox!

OK, just so we're straight on that. :D:

Go Sox!

jabrch

03-31-2008, 12:54 PM

I believe a sample set of 30 makes it statistically relevant.

You must be kidding...

After 30 ABs, you think that's enough of a relevant sample to project value?

You must be kidding...

After 30 ABs, you think that's enough of a relevant sample to project value?

RowanDye

03-31-2008, 12:55 PM

No, I'm referring back to my statistics courses. I thought the relevance of a number, when having a sample size of 30 or greater, was far more accurate than if you had 29 or less.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

It depends what kind of statistics you are doing (e.g. chose of confidence level for hypothesis testing). As a general rule though, 25-30 observations is a good bare minimum to start with. Things like bootstrapping and such break down below ~25 observations.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

It depends what kind of statistics you are doing (e.g. chose of confidence level for hypothesis testing). As a general rule though, 25-30 observations is a good bare minimum to start with. Things like bootstrapping and such break down below ~25 observations.

Meixner007

03-31-2008, 12:56 PM

You must be kidding...

After 30 ABs, you think that's enough of a relevant sample to project value?

All else being equal, from a purely statistical standpoint, yes.

After 30 ABs, you think that's enough of a relevant sample to project value?

All else being equal, from a purely statistical standpoint, yes.

jabrch

03-31-2008, 12:57 PM

No, I'm referring back to my statistics courses. I thought the relevance of a number, when having a sample size of 30 or greater, was far more accurate than if you had 29 or less.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

The relevance of the sample size can only be determined significant when compared to the size of the total population. 30 our of 50 is a relevant sample size. 30 out of 600 is not. In this case, when you are talking about 30 ABs over the course of a CAREER it is not statistically significant using any statistical test.

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

The relevance of the sample size can only be determined significant when compared to the size of the total population. 30 our of 50 is a relevant sample size. 30 out of 600 is not. In this case, when you are talking about 30 ABs over the course of a CAREER it is not statistically significant using any statistical test.

Meixner007

03-31-2008, 01:01 PM

The relevance of the sample size can only be determined significant when compared to the size of the total population. 30 our of 50 is a relevant sample size. 30 out of 600 is not. In this case, when you are talking about 30 ABs over the course of a CAREER it is not statistically significant using any statistical test.

Not in the way I was taught it. 30+ you get better predictions of future events. 29 or less and the correlation drops off significantly.

I'm not arguing this from a baseball standpoint, I'm arguing it from a statistics standpoint.

Not in the way I was taught it. 30+ you get better predictions of future events. 29 or less and the correlation drops off significantly.

I'm not arguing this from a baseball standpoint, I'm arguing it from a statistics standpoint.

jabrch

03-31-2008, 01:02 PM

The question is what are the chances that this result could be coincidental and not a direct effect. With 30 ABs, one bad day would drive his numbers down to a point where you'd argue that he's not good. I don't see how that's significant using any definition.

jabrch

03-31-2008, 01:03 PM

Not in the way I was taught it. 30+ you get better predictions of future events. 29 or less and the correlation drops off significantly.

I'm not arguing this from a baseball standpoint, I'm arguing it from a statistics standpoint.

I did my time in Stats at U of I...statistical significance (again - if I recall correectly) is related to the probability of that event happening randomly or not. And that is impacted by the size of your sample relative to the size of the entire population it would measure.

I'm not arguing this from a baseball standpoint, I'm arguing it from a statistics standpoint.

I did my time in Stats at U of I...statistical significance (again - if I recall correectly) is related to the probability of that event happening randomly or not. And that is impacted by the size of your sample relative to the size of the entire population it would measure.

Meixner007

03-31-2008, 01:04 PM

The question is what are the chances that this result could be coincidental and not a direct effect. With 30 ABs, one bad day would drive his numbers down to a point where you'd argue that he's not good. I don't see how that's significant using any definition.

Same could be said for a exceptionally good day, or a pitcher having a bad day, would inflate the numbers. The way I learned it was with a sample size of 30 or greater the outliers would cancel each other out (you would have just as many good days to bad days).

Same could be said for a exceptionally good day, or a pitcher having a bad day, would inflate the numbers. The way I learned it was with a sample size of 30 or greater the outliers would cancel each other out (you would have just as many good days to bad days).

BRDSR

03-31-2008, 01:08 PM

The relevance of the sample size can only be determined significant when compared to the size of the total population. 30 our of 50 is a relevant sample size. 30 out of 600 is not. In this case, when you are talking about 30 ABs over the course of a CAREER it is not statistically significant using any statistical test.

This is only a valid argument if you're trying to use Ozuna's 30 at bats against Sabathia to predict his success against any random pitcher. That's not what we're doing here: we're using Ozuna's 30 at bats against Sabathia to predict his success against Sabathia.

Using your approach, lets assume that there is a fixed, but obviously unknowable, chance of success when Ozuna faces Sabathia. That chance of success will only eventually be known when Ozuna or Sabathia retires. Over the course of his career, the total population of that set may in fact be around 50. Therefore, relatively speaking, 30 of whatever that number turns out to be is statistically relevant.

I understand that such approximations cannot possibly be as accurate as, say, using Ozuna's career average to predict his chance of success in any random at bat. But using that logic, the past successes or failures of a hitter against a pitcher would always be completely irrelevant, because they will always pale in comparison to the batter's entire set of at bats. This seems to completley ignore the most specific dataset at your disposal in determining whether a player will or will not have success on a given day.

This is only a valid argument if you're trying to use Ozuna's 30 at bats against Sabathia to predict his success against any random pitcher. That's not what we're doing here: we're using Ozuna's 30 at bats against Sabathia to predict his success against Sabathia.

Using your approach, lets assume that there is a fixed, but obviously unknowable, chance of success when Ozuna faces Sabathia. That chance of success will only eventually be known when Ozuna or Sabathia retires. Over the course of his career, the total population of that set may in fact be around 50. Therefore, relatively speaking, 30 of whatever that number turns out to be is statistically relevant.

I understand that such approximations cannot possibly be as accurate as, say, using Ozuna's career average to predict his chance of success in any random at bat. But using that logic, the past successes or failures of a hitter against a pitcher would always be completely irrelevant, because they will always pale in comparison to the batter's entire set of at bats. This seems to completley ignore the most specific dataset at your disposal in determining whether a player will or will not have success on a given day.

Heffalump

03-31-2008, 01:21 PM

This is only a valid argument if you're trying to use Ozuna's 30 at bats against Sabathia to predict his success against any random pitcher. That's not what we're doing here: we're using Ozuna's 30 at bats against Sabathia to predict his success against Sabathia.

Using your approach, lets assume that there is a fixed, but obviously unknowable, chance of success when Ozuna faces Sabathia. That chance of success will only eventually be known when Ozuna or Sabathia retires. Over the course of his career, the total population of that set may in fact be around 50. Therefore, relatively speaking, 30 of whatever that number turns out to be is statistically relevant.

I understand that such approximations cannot possibly be as accurate as, say, using Ozuna's career average to predict his chance of success in any random at bat. But using that logic, the past successes or failures of a hitter against a pitcher would always be completely irrelevant, because they will always pale in comparison to the batter's entire set of at bats. This seems to completley ignore the most specific dataset at your disposal in determining whether a player will or will not have success on a given day.

PLEASE START THE GAMES !!!!!

Using your approach, lets assume that there is a fixed, but obviously unknowable, chance of success when Ozuna faces Sabathia. That chance of success will only eventually be known when Ozuna or Sabathia retires. Over the course of his career, the total population of that set may in fact be around 50. Therefore, relatively speaking, 30 of whatever that number turns out to be is statistically relevant.

I understand that such approximations cannot possibly be as accurate as, say, using Ozuna's career average to predict his chance of success in any random at bat. But using that logic, the past successes or failures of a hitter against a pitcher would always be completely irrelevant, because they will always pale in comparison to the batter's entire set of at bats. This seems to completley ignore the most specific dataset at your disposal in determining whether a player will or will not have success on a given day.

PLEASE START THE GAMES !!!!!

PicktoCLick72

03-31-2008, 02:04 PM

PLEASE START THE GAMES !!!!!

I second that

I second that

Chicken Dinner

03-31-2008, 02:16 PM

I kind of like the line-up Ozzie has today. :smile:

sox1970

03-31-2008, 02:18 PM

Ramirez is batting 6th; Pierzynski 7th

RockyMtnSoxFan

03-31-2008, 03:18 PM

So is this the game thread?

EDIT: Never mind, my bad.

EDIT: Never mind, my bad.

TheVulture

03-31-2008, 03:20 PM

Give or add 3 hits and his BA would flucate by 100 points. If you really believe that makes those statistics meaningful, we need to agree to disagree.

Not necessarily. You could also consider disagreeing upon agreeing.

Not necessarily. You could also consider disagreeing upon agreeing.

vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.