Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES!

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

I could say the same thing about the non-independent theory - "there is insufficient evidence to abandon it. That only means that, until there is sufficient evidence against it, it is the soundest approach..."

Why can I say that? Because both theories are NOT 100%. You can side with either theory and in your head consider IT the right choice, say what you said above, cross your arms, say HMPFF, and think you're right. So, yeah, I do get it, you arrogant prick.

I'll try this one more time.

Null hypothesis:

A type of hypothesis used in statistics that proposes that no statistical significance exists in a set of given observations. The null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis.

Basically, I propose we start with no difference until hard evidence proves otherwise, simply because that is standard procedure. You, on the other hand, propose there must be a difference, because you... really insist upon it. With a 10% number you pulled out of your butthole.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I'll try this one more time.

Null hypothesis:



Basically, I propose we start with no difference until hard evidence proves otherwise, simply because that is standard procedure. You, on the other hand, propose there must be a difference, because you... really insist upon it. With a 10% number you pulled out of your butthole.

Let me see if I get this straight. We argue for 2 days about independent vs. non-independent theories and now your stance is that my theory really shouldn't even exist because the independent theory has not been 100% proven wrong? I mean is that basically what you are telling me? I swear dude, if you lived in the late 1400s your ass would have never boarded those ships. That World was flat and would always be flat until forward thinkers and visionaries proved it wrong for you.

Well that's a helluva way to look at it considering that there are countless people on record indicating the power of momentum, speaking of how the emotional state of players has to be overcome given a personal/team performance, etc. So professionals speaking on it - our very own Rangers (would be happy to link some soundbits from articles - show you quotes) mentioning it means nothing because it hasn't been definitively proven in percentages and stats. OK...

Oh, and as far as the 10% goes that I pulled out of my "butthole" as you so eloquently stated it? I continued to use that number because you FIRST used it and I just wanted to proceed with a figure we could both agree on. Twas you that pulled that little number out of your very derriere... Below is the post it was in and please feel free to find me speaking of it before then:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I think assuming the games are independent and have no impact on each other is a reasonable null hypothesis (such is the typical stance of null hypotheses). Some people think wins have a positive impact on future games (momentum) and others think they have a negative impact (letdown). Personally, I find that we see too much of both to believe either one is a genuine force.

Even if you disagree, let me expand on this a bit then I'll address the alternative.

If the games are independent, then their order simply does not matter. Consider the case where you're down 3-1 but still have two home games. Either

A) You have Game Five at home. The good news is you have a good chance to win that game and extend the series. The bad news is the best you can do is force another road game.

OR

B) You have Game Five on the road. The bad news is that you're now more likely to lose that game. But the good news is you have a chance to win, with BOTH remaining games at home. In other words, there's a higher risk but also a higher reward if the game is won.

Mathematically, it all evens out. For the sake of example, let's assume your odds of winning a home game are 60% and your odds of winning a road game are 40%. Then your odds of winning Games 5-7 in scenario A are (.6)(.4)(.6) = 14.4%. In scenario B, the odds are (.4)(.6)(.6) = 14.4%.

What you're proposing is a conditional probability model. That is, the games are not independent; rather, past games impact the win probabilities of future ones. Perhaps in scenario A, winning Game Five increases the likelihood of getting that road win in Game Six to 50%, and a win there in turn builds momentum such that your overall win odds are 70%. Then your odds of winning the series become (.6)(.5)(.7) = 21%. Whereas in the other scenario, perhaps only the odds for Game Seven are increased to 70%, in which case your odds of winning are (.4)(.6)(.7) = 16.8%.

There are two issues I have with this model. One is that I find it too complex to justify the decisive conclusion that you draw from it. Sure, maybe (maybe!) in the specific case you have home field yet trail 3-1, you are better off playing Game Five at home. But to truly evaluate the worth of having this game at home overall, you cannot just analyze this scenario. You have to analyze it under all possible scenarios and weight them accordingly. You may be down 3-1, but you may also be up 3-1, and it could also be 2-2. Mathematically, you have to set up a win probability matrix with each scenario weighted properly. Maybe Game Five is good to have at home when down 3-1, but maybe it's not all that likely you trail 3-1 in the first place. And maybe the consequences of the other scenarios outweigh them. Maybe.

Secondly, and more importantly, in order to abandon the null hypothesis, you have to come up with strong observable evidence that the null hypothesis is false. You can't just feel it in your gut that the guys are more confident and roll with it. You can point to the 2008 World Series and say it was all momentum, but then I'll ask you to explain the 2010 NLCS with the same analysis.

The way I see it, treating the games as independent is as reasonable as any other theory, with the side benefit that it is easier to analyze.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

Let me see if I get this straight. We argue for 2 days about independent vs. non-independent theories and now your stance is that my theory really shouldn't even exist because the independent theory has not been 100% proven wrong? I mean is that basically what you are telling me? I swear dude, if you lived in the late 1400s your ass would have never boarded those ships. That World was flat and would always be flat until forward thinkers and visionaries proved it wrong for you.

That's not a null hypothesis. Must laugh at the "we get it, we get it" comments.

Well that's a helluva way to look at it considering that there are countless people on record indicating the power of momentum, speaking of how the emotional state of players has to be overcome given a personal/team performance, etc. So professionals speaking on it - our very own Rangers (would be happy to link some soundbits from articles - show you quotes) mentioning it means nothing because it hasn't been definitively proven in percentages and stats. OK...

But you can't tell if it's a positive or negative influence. Look at my example again with the two recent NBA Finals series. You can write revisionist history to prove *both* right, or admit "momentum" isn't very predictable.

Oh, and as far as the 10% goes that I pulled out of my "butthole" as you so eloquently stated it? I continued to use that number because you FIRST used it and I just wanted to proceed with a figure we could both agree on. Twas you that pulled that little number out of your very derriere... Below is the post it was in and please feel free to find me speaking of it before then:

I used it to explain the concept. The theory will hold no matter what number you use.

For the sake of example, let's assume your odds of winning a home game are 60% and your odds of winning a road game are 40%.

But then it turned out 60.4% was the number arrived at when looking at history.

Actually, that is a good example of a null hypothesis, namely that home field has no influence on the outcome of the game, being refuted by sufficient evidence.

Originally Posted by xrobx

So using your own numbers, in a 2-3-2 format where both teams defend their home court for the first 5 games of the series, the team up 3-2 with games 6 and 7 on the road has a 63.5% chance of winning the series, even though they don't have HCA. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to make sure this is what you're stating and agreeing with. Because if it is, it's a pretty good indicator that 2-3-2 isn't very beneficial to the home team. Which position would you rather be in after 5 games? I'm not going to run the numbers but I'm pretty sure in a 2-2-1-1-1 format, if the home team wins every game up until game 5, and the team with HCA is up 3-2 with game 6 on the road and game 7 at home, their odds of winning the series would be much greater than 36.5%...so one would imagine that HCA would be more beneficial in a 2-2-1-1-1, which was my point all along. I'm actually interested in your rebuttal to this.

From the perspective of the V team:

Under 2-3-2
-------------
Odds of 3-2 lead: 33.2%
Odds of winning series after taking 3-2 lead: 63.5%
Overall odds of winning in this fashion: 21.1%

Under 2-2-1-1-1
-------------
Odds of 3-2 lead: 30.4%
Odds of winning series after taking 3-2 lead: 76.1%
Overall odds of winning in this fashion: 23.1%

Like I said, you have better odds of getting a worse advantage in 2-3-2. But where did those extra couple percentage points go? To the extra change you get in 2-3-2 of clinching in five games:

Under 2-3-2
-------------
4 games: 5.72%
5 games: 15.07%
6 games: 13.16%
7 games: 12.71%
Total odds: 46.66%

Under 2-2-1-1-1
-------------
4 games: 5.72%
5 games: 9.88%
6 games: 18.35%
7 games: 12.71%
Total odds: 46.66%

But for some reason, everyone just LOVES 2-3-2. Even though the Cards have a strong threat to permanently take HFA as early as Game Three.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That's not a null hypothesis. Must laugh at the "we get it, we get it" comments.

Laugh away - points are still being made.


But you can't tell if it's a positive or negative influence. Look at my example again with the two recent NBA Finals series. You can write revisionist history to prove *both* right, or admit "momentum" isn't very predictable.

But here is where I just don't understand why you take the statistics to prove your points over what the actual people say involved directly (players, coaches, managers, assistant managers, etc). I mean, they say it matters, but because it isn't predictable, it can't be deemed as a possible theory?

Look at the last full inning of play. You can see momentum swinging greatly. Young comes up and gets the big HR and away we go. Numerous hits after. The emotional swing from getting way down made this club wake the hell up. THAT IS EMOTION AT ITS FINEST. That is absolutely mometum. What we have going RIGHT NOW in the bottom of the 4th inning is momentum building. When the Mavs go on a huge 15-2 run after an amazing block that brings the crowd to their feet, that is momentum shifting.

My primary point is simply that winning a game can bring that momentum over into the next game based on how the win is earned and what happens emotionally in that game. Sure, something like today might take place where the momentum we carried over from our previous win is stolen from us by a horrible call or mistakes that aren't typically made, but that is exactly WHY it isn't predictable - human error.

I used it to explain the concept. The theory will hold no matter what number you use.

Well at least you recognize that it is YOUR butthole this shit came from. Progress.

But then it turned out 60.4% was the number arrived at when looking at history.

Actually, that is a good example of a null hypothesis, namely that home field has no influence on the outcome of the game, being refuted by sufficient evidence.

From the perspective of the V team:

Under 2-3-2
-------------
Odds of 3-2 lead: 33.2%
Odds of winning series after taking 3-2 lead: 63.5%
Overall odds of winning in this fashion: 21.1%

Under 2-2-1-1-1
-------------
Odds of 3-2 lead: 30.4%
Odds of winning series after taking 3-2 lead: 76.1%
Overall odds of winning in this fashion: 23.1%

Like I said, you have better odds of getting a worse advantage in 2-3-2. But where did those extra couple percentage points go? To the extra change you get in 2-3-2 of clinching in five games:

Under 2-3-2
-------------
4 games: 5.72%
5 games: 15.07%
6 games: 13.16%
7 games: 12.71%
Total odds: 46.66%

Under 2-2-1-1-1
-------------
4 games: 5.72%
5 games: 9.88%
6 games: 18.35%
7 games: 12.71%
Total odds: 46.66%

But for some reason, everyone just LOVES 2-3-2. Even though the Cards have a strong threat to permanently take HFA as early as Game Three.

Sigh... Around and around we go, where we stop, who the hell knows.

Comments above.