2016 MLB Regular-Season Thread

I don't think this guy like Big Papi very much.

The fraudulent myth of Big Papi

 

He spelled Donald Trump incorrectly.

 

Weird rooting for a team in a playoff spot (currently) that has had the worst record in MLB post AS break; unfulfilling to say the least. Well at least its not an uneventful lost season that others have had to endure. (Damn, Giants almost got Melancon; what a difference that would have made.) Even if the Giants make the playoffs, its like the Braves in the 90's, good team but late innings will always be questionable because no real closer (Berenguer? Pena? Wohlers?)

 

Well, the author is a Yankees fan.

 

I will never understand why in public opinion he skates on the PEDs in a sport that brutally punishes everyone else tainted by them.

 

Race for the AL Wild Card ...
Toronto up 1 1/2 on Baltimore ... O's at Jays for three this week, followed by O's at Yankees for three.
Baltimore up 1 1/2 on Detroit ... Tigers host Cleveland for four and play three at Atlanta
Seattle is 2 1/2 back and Houston is three back. Seattle at Houston for three, so one of them will cancel the other out. Seattle finishes with Oakland at home; Houston ends with three in Anaheim.

Who gets the spots? Toronto is pretty much close to a lock at this point, barring a total collapse. If Baltimore can find a way to go 4-2, that might be enough. Can't see Detroit or Seattle/Houston going on a weeklong tear and winning six or seven straight.

 

Suppose a team was hovering around 0.500 (let's say, for argument's sake, its record was 52-50) when it traded away a player with some market value. In the intervening games, let's say said team went 25-28. How likely would such a turnaround in fortune be if the team was absolutely no worse without the traded player?

If you assume that team's record prior to the trade is indicative of its average probability of winning, there'd be a 34% chance of a decline of that magnitude or worse.

Another way you can think about it is to say, OK, what if that team had made itself better, giving it an average probability of winning equal to that of the team currently in the last WC spot? Meaning, what if our "selling" team had bought its way to an average likelihood of winning of 52.6%? How likely would that improved team be to nevertheless have a 53-game record of 25-28 or worse? Close to 26% (25.6% to be exact).

 

Note the phrases "a player of some market value" and "that team had made itself better." Both are vague statements in what is being disguised as an exercise in statistical analysis.

 

And that's a problem because?

 

Who said there was a problem? I simply enjoy shining a light upon the murky doings of the denizens of SJ.com.

 

Let's talk about the phrase "I've been proved right ..."

 

And here, I thought you were being hypothetical. If not, the Pirates were three games over .500 when they traded Melancon, not two.

I presented my evidence. I never dressed it up as something it was not the way you just did. You are welcome to quibble with my definition of proven if you like, but at least I posted honestly. I'm not sure you can say the same regarding your analysis tonight.

People argued that the Pirates would be fine even after an offseason of cost-cutting that weakened the entire roster, especially the pitching staff. Then they even argued that trading away Melancon wasn't hurting the team. The results overall this season and the losing record since the Melancon deal do back me up quite nicely.