BJSFAN123 wrote:The save opps will eventually come, even closers on the worst of teams get saves.

Again no one is disputing that. What we're saying is don't expect it to be a lot of save ops over time. Maybe they'll get 3 in a week then 3 over the next 3 weeks kind of thing. If Morrow were to close the rest of the season, which doesn't sound likely if Putz doesn't need surgery, he might get 15 to at the most 20 saves if he stayed healthy too. If Putz misses a month and Morrow stays healthy I'll take the under on 7 saves over that month.

BJSFAN123 wrote:The save opps will eventually come, even closers on the worst of teams get saves.

Again no one is disputing that. What we're saying is don't expect it to be a lot of save ops over time. Maybe they'll get 3 in a week then 3 over the next 3 weeks kind of thing. If Morrow were to close the rest of the season, which doesn't sound likely if Putz doesn't need surgery, he might get 15 to at the most 20 saves if he stayed healthy too. If Putz misses a month and Morrow stays healthy I'll take the under on 7 saves over that month.

Sherrill already has 21 saves. You just never know with closers.

jackie hayes wrote:Sherrill already has 21 saves. You just never know with closers.

First Sherrill is on a team with 33% more wins then Seattle (8 wins difference / 24 seattle wins = 33%). 33% is a rather significant difference. The Os obviously have a lot more chances to generate save ops while not having an offense good enough to routinely blow out teams. Simply put your statement that because Sherrill has that many saves there's no reason Morrow or whoever is closing in Seattle can't save as many as him. Simply put the facts of the 2 vastly different situations say, at this time, that's an absurd statement. What evidence do you have to present that shows Seattle is about to become a team like the Os that is that is generating a lot of save ops because there pitching and offense have them playing a lot of close games? The statistics for the first approx 40% of the season so far give no such indication. That's not exactly a small sample size. You have to look at the teams. If you want to argue the point present some evidence, any evidence that actually backs it up. I'll end this post by saying you could be right, they could smash through the odds and generate a lot of save ops. The numbers, however, say that's a real longshot.

jackie hayes wrote:Sherrill already has 21 saves. You just never know with closers.

First Sherrill is on a team with 33% more wins then Seattle (8 wins difference / 24 seattle wins = 33%). 33% is a rather significant difference. The Os obviously have a lot more chances to generate save ops while not having an offense good enough to routinely blow out teams. Simply put your statement that because Sherrill has that many saves there's no reason Morrow or whoever is closing in Seattle can't save as many as him. Simply put the facts of the 2 vastly different situations say, at this time, that's an absurd statement. What evidence do you have to present that shows Seattle is about to become a team like the Os that is that is generating a lot of save ops because there pitching and offense have them playing a lot of close games? The statistics for the first approx 40% of the season so far give no such indication. That's not exactly a small sample size. You have to look at the teams. If you want to argue the point present some evidence, any evidence that actually backs it up. I'll end this post by saying you could be right, they could smash through the odds and generate a lot of save ops. The numbers, however, say that's a real longshot.

Actually, yeah, that kinda is a small sample size.

Baltimore has 8 more wins and 9 more saves, so that's obviously not the answer. Neither team is good, and it's not like Seattle has had dramatically fewer close games (20 1-run games, compared to 23 for Baltimore). There's not much to compare, but there's no dramatic difference. If anything, Seattle has better pitching, which has underperformed, and a worse offense. Nothing that would really change save opps.

You seem to think I'm predicting that Morrow will have tons of save opps going forward. I'm not. All I'm saying is that there's a LOT of randomness. You claimed that it was not even imaginable that Morrow would get more than 20 saves going forward. Now that is an absurd claim. Saves are way, WAY too unpredictable to make any statement like that.

jackie hayes wrote:Actually, yeah, that kinda is a small sample size.

Baltimore has 8 more wins and 9 more saves, so that's obviously not the answer. Neither team is good, and it's not like Seattle has had dramatically fewer close games (20 1-run games, compared to 23 for Baltimore). There's not much to compare, but there's no dramatic difference. If anything, Seattle has better pitching, which has underperformed, and a worse offense. Nothing that would really change save opps.

You don't seem be grasping the concept of statistics in this case. You can't just look at the wins, you have to factor in the losses, that is the sample size is actually the number of games played, not wins. Seattle doesn't magically get games played that resulted in losses back in an effort to make up the win gap. So we're talk 65 and 66 games out of a 162 game season. That's a huge sample size for statistical purposes. Far more then you actually need to predict trends given the total of only 162 games. As I implied before statistical probablities can be beaten, or they would be called certainties, but beating the probability is not the likely outcome. The probability is much greater that Seattle continues as they have and don't generate a lot of 9th inning save ops even moreso with a weakened bullpen, which is now down it's top setup man who has been thrust into the closers role. Your point about the 1 run games is valid, but 20 and 23 games out of 162 is a much smaller sample size then 65 and 66.

jackie hayes wrote:You seem to think I'm predicting that Morrow will have tons of save opps going forward. I'm not. All I'm saying is that there's a LOT of randomness.

Well you implied that was the case since you're arguing against the other side of the coin. If that's not the case, fine. Anyway, In this case I'm using statistics to predict probabilities for the "randomness," but I guess you aren't familiar with that aspect of statistics.

jackie hayes wrote:You claimed that it was not even imaginable that Morrow would get more than 20 saves going forward. Now that is an absurd claim. Saves are way, WAY too unpredictable to make any statement like that.

So now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth? Go back reread my posts. I used words like "probably" and "don't expect" "longshot." 15 to 20 saves, if he closes the rest of the season, was simply my best guess based on the huge 40% sample size so far. I thought that was perfectly clear. Basically that's the most likely result based on the numbers to this point in the season. I did NOT use phrases like "will not" or "have no chance." Hell, I even said there's a small possibility you could be right and that they could beat the odds. Don't put words in my mouth, its a sign of a weak argument on your side.

Your "WAY too unpredictable" statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of using statistics to predict probabilities or you'd never make that claim. Given enough of a sample size, a huge 40% of 162 games in this case, statistics can be used to predict probable outcomes for anything. The don't guarantee definite results, and I'm not claiming they do so don't say that's what I'm saying, but they can predict probable results, which is all I'm doing. And not a lot of save chances is the most probable result based on the information we have about this season so far. I can't be any clearer, if you don't understand yet then you probably never will.

dude it's been said million times already that saves have nothing to do with how many wins a team gets. just look at the saves leading teams from last year and you'll see they were not all high win teams.

BitterDodgerFan wrote:dude it's been said million times already that saves have nothing to do with how many wins a team gets. just look at the saves leading teams from last year and you'll see they were not all high win teams.

Either 1) you didn't read any of what I said or 2) we have another person who doesn't know anything about statistical analysis. It's not just about the wins. That's merely one piece of the puzzle. To say wins have nothing to do with saves is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Without wins there are no saves, PERIOD. The number of wins has a direct impact on who many saves a team could have. Beyond that you have to look at other factors, which is why wins are only a component of the analysis. If you'd read and understood what I wrote you'd know that.

Is there no one around here that understands basic statistical analysis and using it to predict probabilities?

jackie hayes wrote:Actually, yeah, that kinda is a small sample size.

Baltimore has 8 more wins and 9 more saves, so that's obviously not the answer. Neither team is good, and it's not like Seattle has had dramatically fewer close games (20 1-run games, compared to 23 for Baltimore). There's not much to compare, but there's no dramatic difference. If anything, Seattle has better pitching, which has underperformed, and a worse offense. Nothing that would really change save opps.

You don't seem be grasping the concept of statistics in this case. You can't just look at the wins, you have to factor in the losses, that is the sample size is actually the number of games played, not wins. Seattle doesn't magically get games played that resulted in losses back in an effort to make up the win gap. So we're talk 65 and 66 games out of a 162 game season. That's a huge sample size for statistical purposes. Far more then you actually need to predict trends given the total of only 162 games. As I implied before statistical probablities can be beaten, or they would be called certainties, but beating the probability is not the likely outcome. The probability is much greater that Seattle continues as they have and don't generate a lot of 9th inning save ops even moreso with a weakened bullpen, which is now down it's top setup man who has been thrust into the closers role. Your point about the 1 run games is valid, but 20 and 23 games out of 162 is a much smaller sample size then 65 and 66.

jackie hayes wrote:You seem to think I'm predicting that Morrow will have tons of save opps going forward. I'm not. All I'm saying is that there's a LOT of randomness.

Well you implied that was the case since you're arguing against the other side of the coin. If that's not the case, fine. Anyway, In this case I'm using statistics to predict probabilities for the "randomness," but I guess you aren't familiar with that aspect of statistics.

jackie hayes wrote:You claimed that it was not even imaginable that Morrow would get more than 20 saves going forward. Now that is an absurd claim. Saves are way, WAY too unpredictable to make any statement like that.

So now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth? Go back reread my posts. I used words like "probably" and "don't expect" "longshot." 15 to 20 saves, if he closes the rest of the season, was simply my best guess based on the huge 40% sample size so far. I thought that was perfectly clear. Basically that's the most likely result based on the numbers to this point in the season. I did NOT use phrases like "will not" or "have no chance." Hell, I even said there's a small possibility you could be right and that they could beat the odds. Don't put words in my mouth, its a sign of a weak argument on your side.

Your "WAY too unpredictable" statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of using statistics to predict probabilities or you'd never make that claim. Given enough of a sample size, a huge 40% of 162 games in this case, statistics can be used to predict probable outcomes for anything. The don't guarantee definite results, and I'm not claiming they do so don't say that's what I'm saying, but they can predict probable results, which is all I'm doing. And not a lot of save chances is the most probable result based on the information we have about this season so far. I can't be any clearer, if you don't understand yet then you probably never will.

Let me start with your claim that I'm "putting words in your mouth." You said, "he might get 15 to at the most 20 saves if he stayed healthy too". Do you know the meaning of "at the most"? You did not say he'd "probably" get fewer than 20 saves, you did not say you "don't expect" him to get 20 saves or more, you did not say it was "a longshot" that he got 20 saves or more. You said, "at the most 20 saves". How about you actually look at what you wrote before you claim you're being misrepresented?

Second, on the statistics, I actually know statistics very well, thank you, well enough to know that there is no one-size-fits-all number that makes a sample big enough. For Bernoulli trials with a relatively small test inequality, 60-odd observations does not seem like much. I ran some quick simulations which suggest that that's correct. If you have a specific idea, either show me the math or suggest a simulation. But cut out this personal insult crap. Nothing is more tiresome than long rants based on one claim ('60-some games is enough to make any prediction and if you disagree you're just stupid').

jackie hayes wrote:Let me start with your claim that I'm "putting words in your mouth." You said, "he might get 15 to at the most 20 saves if he stayed healthy too". Do you know the meaning of "at the most"? You did not say he'd "probably" get fewer than 20 saves, you did not say you "don't expect" him to get 20 saves or more, you did not say it was "a longshot" that he got 20 saves or more. You said, "at the most 20 saves". How about you actually look at what you wrote before you claim you're being misrepresented?

Once again you're trying to distort the facts of the situation by selectively leaving out a lot of the facts. You said, "You claimed that it was not even imaginable that Morrow would get more than 20 saves going forward." You are addressing only 1 of my posts with that statement while conviently ignoring all my other posts. I'm sure the reason you did that was because if you factor in my other posts you'd have no choice but to admit you are wrong for making such a claim. The alternative to you selectively rewriting history is that you failed to read my other posts, including those before the post you're selectively addressing, and are reposnding without first finding out all the facts of what I said. If you look at my posts collectively there's no reasonable way to conclude the meaning of what I said is what you say it is. I had used the word "probably" in a post prior to the post giving numbers and factoring in the context of that prior post the logical conclusion is that when I said at most 20 I was giving my best guess within the context of "probably." So yes you are putting words in my mouth.

jackie hayes wrote:Second, on the statistics, I actually know statistics very well, thank you

You certainly haven't said much to demonstrate that. You honestly think 40% is not enough of a sample size to produce any probablities? Wow, I'm stuned. So all the predictions experts are making for the rest of the season, for all sorts of things, are meaningless? I suppose you think there's still a good possiblity Seattle could still face Washington in the world series this year?

jackie hayes wrote:But cut out this personal insult crap..........you're just stupid

Funny how you want to b1tch about something then go and do it yourself. Furthermore you're accusing me of something I didn't even do, while doing it yourself. I went back and quickly scanned my posts replying to you and all I noticed that I said that could remotely be considered personal was you lacked an understanting of statistics. You weren't saying anything to suggest otherwise and it's hardly anything like calling your mama fat or anything remotely close to that, which is what a normal person thinks of as a personal attack. BTW, the only "evidence" you've supplied are based on significantly smaller sample sizes (20 something games) then I've used.

So, now that this thread has deteriorated into a SV vs W thread I want to steer it back to the original idea and that is Putz and the Seattle closer situation, I read somewhere that the Seattle mgr was quoted saying a CBS with Batista...thoughts?