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.