Madison wrote:DK wrote:Mad... Do I need to show you the simulations for the umpteenth time?
Need I remind you that games are not played on a computer for the umpteenth time? They are played in real life.
I know what your simulation says. It's basically irrelevant though.
Sure, it can help to show a trend or a reasonable possibility (I do give some credit there), but it's hardly an exact science to base all beliefs around, especially when dealing with a situation that has never happened before.
I never said it was an exact science. But the fact is, each simulation was done 1,000 times. He took out the bottom 100 outliers and the top 100 outliers of each.
The simulation is based on REAL stats. It is not a guessing game. It's not as if James said, "Oh, well, let's just put X for the number of HR, because that's what I believe". He said, "let's take Babe Ruth's exact stats, make him a little better, and put him around the worst line-up of all time". Then, he said, "Let's take Babe Ruth, have him intentionally walked every time up, and put him around the worst line-up of all time".
If the gap was small, such as 608 runs to 602 runs, it'd be a different story. But it's not. The gap is sixty-five runs, or the amount of runs an average team would score in over thirteen games. 667 to 602, after 1,000 simulations (800 without the outliers) is a huge difference, and much too big to simply be a mistake.