2016 MLB Regular-Season Thread

The best day in baseball in my lifetime was that end of year when the Rockies got in on the last day and someone else did simultaneously.

 

I thought he was traded on the 30th ... their record at the end of the day on the 30th was 52-50 wasn't it? It really doesn't matter, though ... it's not going to change the probabilities appreciably.

The point is that they could have brought in other talent and legitimately made their team better ... and there'd still be a substantial chance they'd have as shitty a go of it in the 50-odd games that'd follow.

 

Based on your "statistical analysis," which was built upon at least two vague statements rather than actual numbers. My analysis may be far simpler, but it is also far more honest than yours.

 

Incredibly emotional scene in Miami before the game with the Mets. Lots of players crying through the ceremony. Mets broadcasters also were crying when the ceremony ended.

Marlins up 6-0 as Colon did nothing tonight.

 

Best day ever was the night the Rays rallied from a 7-0 deficit entering the eighth inning to beat the Yankees in extra innings on a walkoff by Longoria, while the Orioles beat the Red Sox, eliminating Boston and allowing Tampa leap from third in the AL East to clinch the Wild Card. In the NL, meanwhile, the Cardinals beat Houston and the Phillies beat the Braves in something like 15 innings, eliminating Atlanta, and clinching the Wild Card for St. Louis.

I think it was Verducci who called it "the most thrilling 129 minutes in baseball history." And he was right. I think it was 2011.

 

You stated your position as "proven" even though you made no note of the Type I error risk your conclusion rested on.

There's no way to know just what a given team's win likelihood is, of course. I ran two scenarios to get a sense of what an optimistic take (as re: your position) and a pessimistic take would look like.

Fact is a 25-28 record is easily within the realm even of really good teams. If you wanna quibble with my use of the binomial distribution, knock yourself out. But my win probability's gotta be pushing 1.0 there.

 

Stop at that part in bold. The rest of it is an attempt to pass off an argument based in vague foundations as true statistical analysis. You've done it twice now. At last I don't have to try to mislead to make my argument. I don't doubt your statistical expertise. I do doubt your credibility due to the attempts to mislead in your posts on this topic.

Perhaps you would have had a point if you approached this honestly, but you chose not to do so.

I said the Pirates cost-cutting in the offseason weakened their team and the results this season back that up. I said trading Melancon and failing to strengthen the team at the deadline hurt the team's playoff chances and the results backed that up as well.

The last bit of my argument, that the Pirates were wrong to go the cheap route before and during this season, is subjective. It is based on my opinion that the time for a small market team to spend is when it builds a contender, which the Pirates clearly were heading into this past offseason. The Pirates chose to do what they usually do, go the cheap route, and the result is a losing record even though only one player departure from last season was unavoidable (Burnett). That is somewhat subjective, but again, it fits the evidence based on the results the past three seasons and this season.

 

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I was merely trying to flesh out the "maybe."

Tell me, when the Pirates lost the first game after the trade -- they did, right? -- if I'd encountered someone who said "See, this shows the trade hurt their playoff chances" and said, "That's nonsense; this proves nothing," would you have considered that to be dishonest, too? Then why do you consider it dishonest to arrive at roughly the same place after 53 games? The fundamental logic is EXACTLY the same.

Further, you don't seem to understand what true statistical analysis is. It sure as hell isn't just crunching the numbers that we have. It's crunching numbers that we have and then putting those numbers in context, quite often by considering how likely it is that thus-and-such would occur if this-and-that is true.

 

Dressing up vague baselines with what looks like complex statistical analysis was the dishonesty and you are smart enough to know that is what I meant. That leads me to conclude that your analogy above is yet another attempt to mislead, one that failed, rather than a genuine argument.

Please spare me the "you don't understand" bullshit. I understood what you did well enough to see right through it.

 

I honestly don't think you did (or do).

 

Interesting Brewers infield tonight in that all four players (Yadiel Rivera at third, Orlando Arcia at short, Jonathan Villar at second and Hernan Perez at first) have played shortstop at some point this season.

 

That Marlins-Mets game with Dee Gordon's leadoff HR had me tearing up (at 53!!). That was moving. Damn, 24 is way too young.