BP Sox projection.

[kittle42]

Originally Posted by spawn

For the love of all that is holy...YOU ARE NOT BEING PERSONALLY ATTACKED!!! The only thing being attacked is your position. This

Actually, I think his position smells and dresses poorly.

[kittle42]

Originally Posted by blandman

No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.

Link

Pwned, as the kids say.

[Whitesox029]

I said this:

Originally Posted by whitesox029

That isn't the point. I am not trivializing the difference between "weighted statistical models" and random events any more than I would be trivializing the difference between fish and mammals if I were to say sharks:teeth::whales:baleen.
...
In a way though, you did grasp my point--guessing 3.5 as a die roll is obviously absurdly stupid.

You quoted that in the very same post that you then said:

Originally Posted by doublem23

NO, YOUR ANALOGY JUST SUCKS, GUY.

...

And yes, comparing weighted models like PECOTA to random events, again, underscores that you do not have a solid grasp of these ideas.

...

So to say it's the same thing as rolling a dice and getting 3.5 shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

I can only infer that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ the post that you quoted. I SAID that I was NOT comparing PECOTA to a random event. How much clearer could I have been? Do you still think that sharks:teeth::whales:baleen is a terrible analogy because, duh! whales are mammals and sharks are fish?

I'll say it again. This is high school English stuff. An analogy is not a comparison. It is meant to show that two DIFFERENT situations exhibit a similar relationship.

Am I alone here? Was there anyone who actually understood what I was trying to say?

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Whitesox029

I said this:


You quoted that in the very same post that you then said:

I can only infer that YOU DID NOT EVEN READ the post that you quoted. I SAID that I was NOT comparing PECOTA to a random event. How much clearer could I have been? Do you still think that sharks:teeth::whales:baleen is a terrible analogy because, duh! whales are mammals and sharks are fish?

I'll say it again. This is high school English stuff. An analogy is not a comparison. It is meant to show that two DIFFERENT situations exhibit a similar relationship.

Am I alone here? Was there anyone who actually understood what I was trying to say?

You can harp on this for as long as you want but your original analogy is still the stuff of complete buffoonery.

[spawn]

Originally Posted by blandman

No, only Danks himself has said he would be ready for the season. Every outlet has said he's more likely to be held back. Keep in mind...HE ISN'T EVEN THROWING FROM A MOUND YET.

Originally Posted by doublem23

Yes he is

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...r-feels-great/

Originally Posted by kittle42

Link

Pwned, as the kids say.

You were saying, munch?

[TheFrisbee]

This thread rules

[kittle42]

Originally Posted by spawn

You were saying, munch?

You see, it's all irrelevant anyway since the Tigers are a guaranteed lock for the WS.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by blandman

There isn't anything that says his return timetable isn't in question as regards to the beginning of the year, so absolutely not. That Danks SHOULD be there opening day is the questionable statement, the only mention of it is Danks himself being optimistic in reaction to the team's timetable.

And FWIW, Danks isn't even doing normal throwing, let alone normal spring training stuff right now. So to think he'll be ready opening day is pretty optimistic by any stretch of the imagination.

Wrong yet again. You should consider becoming an author. At least then you would get paid to have people read your fiction.
Meghan Montemurro ‏@M_Montemurro
Cooper on Danks: "If you lined up 10 pitchers on the mounds out there & said pick out the guy who had surgery, you couldn't have did it."

[Whitesox029]

Originally Posted by doublem23

You can harp on this for as long as you want but your original analogy is still the stuff of complete buffoonery.

Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."

These statements are meaningless.

Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.

[kittle42]

Originally Posted by Whitesox029

Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

By the technical definition, yes, if you take what you say as the case in each situation, but the analogy is horrible because your first example is a terrible one. No one in the first situation would "forget to consider" that a die only has 6 whole numbers. The relevant statistic is that there is a 1/6 chance that any number will come up on any roll. An average number there has zero bearing at all on prediction of results. Thus, you are saying two non-analogous situations are analogous.

[blandman]

"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.

[Dibbs]

Originally Posted by amsteel

Are people angry that BP isn't projecting 85 wins since that's what they did last year? You realize the functional difference between 85 wins and 77 wins is likely zero, right?

I hope they win 77 just to watch people's heads explode.

At 85 wins lat year, the Sox were the 8th best team in the AL. 77 wins would have been good enough for...8th best.

2011 77 wins = 10th
2010 77 wins = 11th
2009 77 wins = 10th
2008 77 wins = 10th

Are the Sox somewhere around the 8th-11th best team in the league? Of course, so stop losing your **** just because you don't like the numbers.

This is very interesting math.

[MUsoxfan]

Originally Posted by blandman

"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.

Keep digging that hole

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Whitesox029

Situation one: Die
-Has a person who bases his decision purely on statistics
-Person gets prediction wrong because he forgot to consider another factor
Situation two: PECOTA
-Has people who base decisions purely on statistics
-People get prediction wrong because they forgot to consider another factor
This makes it a valid analogy. That is what an analogy is.

Your idea of a valid analogy is evidently one in which everything is exactly the same: "People who base decisions on weighted statistical models are just like people who base decisions on weighted statistical models because both of them base decisions on weighted statistical models." or, "A zebra is just like another zebra because they are both zebras."

These statements are meaningless.

Calling someone a buffoon just because he paid attention in English class in high school and knows what an analogy is meant to convey is typical--among high school students. Not adults.

This is what you are simply not understanding, your situation 1 is NOT "BASED ON STATISTICS." Just because something has numbers and you use big college-type words like "average" doesn't make it a statistical model. Only a complete idiot would do what you are proposing. To say that invalidates the work of brilliant minds would be to say we should outlaw NASCAR because my cousin got drunk this weekend, tried to drive home, and ended up splitting his car on a telephone pole. Just because some people are too stupid to drive a car (or, understand stats) doesn't mean that people who are really, really good at it aren't correct. It just means the world is populated by troglodytes who think you can roll a 3.5 on a dice.

To be a proper analogy, the two situations have to have something in common, which these do not. And if you think they do, well, this is a good place to start.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by blandman

"The White Sox will be very careful to ensure Danks stays strong throughout the season, which could mean not breaking camp with the team even if he's ready"

From the White Sox OFFICIAL SITE.

From a link in this ****ING thread.

The MINIMUM if he doesn't break camp with the team to start the season, since he'd have to be DL'd, is 15 games. A month is not a ****ING STRETCH. To call me a liar for saying it's likely he'll miss about a month is ****ING PREPOSTEROUS AND NOTHING BUT ****ING PERSONAL BULL****.

How does "which could mean not breaking camp with the team" translate to "likely to miss the first month"?

Obviously you didn't excel at reading comprehension in school.