Phatferd wrote:I love you too Agnes, so don't think I was leaving you out.

I understand your argument and I just don't agree with it, so I have my argument straight not backwards. Backwards to you maybe, but not me.

I understand all of that, but what if according to your theory the Red Sox will win roughly 60% of their games.

Wouldn't they also have a 60% chance of winning 1 game? I know its 50/50, but the better team has a slightly bigger chance, at least according to Vegas and they sure as hell aren't losing money.

I still go back to my theory that an entire season is based on series, so what changes from then to the playoffs? They play better teams.

BTW, bloops, dinks and dunks aren't luck. They are all parts of the game and are hits. The only luck that comes into play is where the defense is aligned and that is ultimately up to the coach.

If this were luck then every hit would be luck, therefore everything in baseball and life essentially is luck.

In one game, yes, the Sox have a 60% chance of winning.

But, over 50 games, the chances of the Sox winning 26 or more games is much, much, greater than 60%.

So, your odds of winning the bet are much higher.

Let's just do it with a 3 game series versis one game.

In one game, there's a 60 percent chance the Sox win and a 40% chance the DRays win.

In a three game series, there's:
.6x.6x.6 =21.6% chance the Sox win 3-0
.4x.6x.6 + .6x.4x.6 + .6x.6x.4 = 43.2% chance the Sox win 2-1.

Overall, there's a 65% chance the Sox win a 3 game series, versus a 35% chance the DRays do.

Now, think out working that out over a longer series. It keeps increasing.

And you are simply wrong about the bloops, etc. No pitcher or hitter has such control that can can determine EXACTLY where a ball will go. The 1/1,00000000 of an inch that determines whether ball meets bat in a way that leads to a HR versus a warning track fly in a single at bat is part of the luck element.

I think the hangup here is referring to the outcomes as "luck". Yes, it's all skill when things DO go right, but all skill does is give you a better chance of thigns going right. You can't expect uniform SKILL over the course of a 5 or 7 game series. If players always played at the same level for every game, then Pujols would go 1/3 every single night and have a 162 game hit streak every season. But that doesn't happen. You can call it luck, or you can call it a bad game every now and a great game every now and then that evens it out, whatever. There are slumps, hot streaks, balls that barely land fair/foul, etc. Call it what you like, but those things happen. And that is why the best teams rarely win the World Series.

And the probability GTWMA was showing is the same way I calculated it; You have to look at all the possibilities of a successful outcome (winning the series) and as the amount of games in the series increases, so do the chances of the best team winning the series. Over one game, the odds might be 65% that the Yankees will beat TB. In a 5 game series, it might be 70%. In a 31 game series, it would probably be more like 85%. This is how things work; baseball is no different. A bigger sample size = more accurate results. It's not a theory.

"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"

"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."

I am done with this thread after this final post. I am glad we were able to end this thread without name calling and got it back on track. I am to blame for this as well.

I understand all of your theories. I understand what GTWMA just showed, but he said it himself that the best teams end up with a .600 winning percentage, so no matter how you slice, it they win at a 60% clip. Be it 10, 20, 30, 40, ...162, 60% is 60%. The whole purpose of percents is to give you a calculation of the probability of something out of 100. Be it 1 or 1,000,000.

About Pujols going 1/3 well yeah, hypothetically statistics will tell you that he averages 1 hit every 3 ABs which should mean a hit a game, but in a series players don't hit for numbers like that they hit for numbers around 600 sometimes. If you break down each individual series of the entire year I doubt you find players who hit in the 300s often. Say for a series Pujols is in a slump so things aren't equal, someone else on the team can be picking up the slack and therefore equaling it out.

Another thing is why do hitters go into slumps? Most want to say its a personal thing, but I think it has more to do with the pitchers he is facing and if they are the reason he is slumping, then that means their staff is better than him and therefore make them the better team (if by stopping him they stop the majority of the lineup).

I know I am not going to change any minds, so I will leave this discussion until another thread is created in a week or so and this starts all over, but for now I will bid this thread goodbye and thanks for the discussion.

Phatferd wrote:I am done with this thread after this final post. I am glad we were able to end this thread without name calling and got it back on track. I am to blame for this as well.

I understand all of your theories. I understand what GTWMA just showed, but he said it himself that the best teams end up with a .600 winning percentage, so no matter how you slice, it they win at a 60% clip. Be it 10, 20, 30, 40, ...162, 60% is 60%. The whole purpose of percents is to give you a calculation of the probability of something out of 100. Be it 1 or 1,000,000.

You are asking the wrong question.

Yes, the win probability is the same if it's one game or 162 games.

But, the question is win probability in one game versus the probability that you will win a majority of games in a series. Those are two completely different numbers, as I showed you.

In one game the DRays might have a 40 percent shot of beating the Sox.

But do you really believe that over 162 games, they have a 40 percent shot of finishing with a better record than the Sox?

Of course not. The real probability that the Rays would win that series of games is less than 1 percent.

It's a simple fact. You can ignore it, or you can learn from it. Your choice: ignorance or knowledge.

Phatferd wrote:If the A's are the second best team based on record, then isn't a pitcher with the 2nd most wins the same?

You can't have your cake and eat it too...

Baseball is a team sport. The goal of the team is to win games. The goal of the pitcher is not to win games. The goal of the pitcher is to prevent the other team from scoring runs. You are wrong in this case. Assigning wins to pitchers is foolish. It is the only position in the team sport of baseball that has wins and losses assigned to it as a statistic. By way of your flawed arguement, is Albert Pujols worthless? If not, how many wins does he have for his career? Who was the better lefty last season, Randy Johnson or Kenny Rogers?

Phatferd wrote:Sample sizes this and that, baseball is a game not a math competition. Humans play it out and the better ones win.

The best teams win a greater percentage of the time. Last I checked no one has gotten through a season without losing a game. The best teams do not always win.

Last edited by looptid on Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Phatferd wrote:Luck implies you have no control over something, and I think that is total crap. When the pitcher takes the rubber for any game (regular or postseason) they control their destiny not some outside force. As with a hitter who steps to the plate.

Well, that's not really what chance in baseball is about. If you look at things that way, there is no chance. If you flip a coin, based on where your thumb makes contact on the coin, how much force you apply, the density of the atmosphere, and the distance the coin has to fall before coming to rest, it can only have one result. You are the cause of a coin flip coming out heads or tails.

But if you don't believe there is chance in baseball, show me that you can control the results of flipping a coin.

Phatferd wrote:Luck implies you have no control over something, and I think that is total crap. When the pitcher takes the rubber for any game (regular or postseason) they control their destiny not some outside force. As with a hitter who steps to the plate.

Well, that's not really what chance in baseball is about. If you look at things that way, there is no chance. If you flip a coin, based on where your thumb makes contact on the coin, how much force you apply, the density of the atmosphere, and the distance the coin has to fall before coming to rest, it can only have one result. You are the cause of a coin flip coming out heads or tails.

But if you don't believe there is chance in baseball, show me that you can control the results of flipping a coin.

I can control a coin flip - heads I win, tails you lose. Works every time

"Jack, will you call me, if you're able?"

"I've got your phone number written, in the back of my Bible."