Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES! - Page 3 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 12:03 PM

Despite the idiot's efforts to ruin a good thread about THE RANGERS TRYING TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES, let's move on - we have Harrison vs. Lohse and we have had some pretty good success against him in the past.

Here is hoping for a far less dramatic victory - maybe something like 7-3. Come on Ranger bats, get it going tonight.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 12:49 PM

By the way, has anyone bought WS tickets to games 3, 4 or 5 yet? If so, what did you end up spending per ticket and roughly where are you sitting for that price?

Thinking hard about game 5 tickets this year.

Dirkadirkastan · 10-22-2011, 02:33 PM

For those that have ears...

The independent game model is not my own. I watched Basketball Reference track the most recent NBA Finals, and I was impressed by how well it read the pulse of that series. It's at least as good as someone sitting on their couch claiming to read into the psyche of both teams... and possibly better (I apologize for the heresy).

It's a very simple idea: Suppose the home team has a 60.4% chance to win any game in a series. Apparently they arrived at this number looking at history(!). Then watch the graph as it tracks the ebb and flow of the series.

These odds mathematically gave a 46.7% chance of the Mavs winning the series from the beginning. This made sense, since at the time they lacked the home advantage. Then these are how the odds evolved (and would have evolved) going into each game as the series progressed:

Game One: 46.7% (A win improves it to 66.1%, a loss moves it down to 33.9%*)
Game Two: 33.9% (win: 54.0% loss: 20.8%)
Game Three: 54.0% (win: 69.3% loss: 30.7%)
Game Four: 30.7% (win: 44.6% loss: 9.5%)
Game Five: 44.6% (win: 63.5% loss: 15.7%)
Game Six: 63.5% (win: 100.0% loss: 39.6%)

I see nothing objectionable here. The Mavs began under 50% because they lacked HCA, but they rose above 50% when they stole it. The Game Three winner would've had a 69.3% chance of winning either way, since they would have lead 2-1 with two upcoming home games. Dallas barely avoided a monstrous 3-1 deficit (which would've been devastating even without whatever psychological impact you care to postulate about). The Mavs' 3-2 advantage made them a 63.5% favorite, but had Miami taken a 3-2 edge, they would've been at 84.3%. With Game Five in Dallas, the Mavs had a fairly better chance to become a fairly weaker favorite.

Many people don't like this kind of analysis. They find the premise rather dry and the calculations over their heads. But typically their only counter is to call individuals who are competent at this sort of thing "stupid" and "moronic".

*I'm not sure why a few numbers in their synopsis deviate from the combinatorical theory by a few tenths of a percent. I guess there's a rounding issue somewhere.

xrobx · 10-22-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

It's a very simple idea: Suppose the home team has a 60.4% chance to win any game in a series. Apparently they arrived at this number looking at history(!). Then watch the graph as it tracks the ebb and flow of the series.

These odds mathematically gave a 46.7% chance of the Mavs winning the series from the beginning. This made sense, since at the time they lacked the home advantage. Then these are how the odds evolved (and would have evolved) going into each game as the series progressed:

Game Six: 63.5% (win: 100.0% loss: 39.6%)

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.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

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.

...as was it my point all along.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

For those that have ears...

The independent game model is not my own. I watched Basketball Reference track the most recent NBA Finals, and I was impressed by how well it read the pulse of that series. It's at least as good as someone sitting on their couch claiming to read into the psyche of both teams... and possibly better (I apologize for the heresy).

It's a very simple idea: Suppose the home team has a 60.4% chance to win any game in a series. Apparently they arrived at this number looking at history(!). Then watch the graph as it tracks the ebb and flow of the series.

These odds mathematically gave a 46.7% chance of the Mavs winning the series from the beginning. This made sense, since at the time they lacked the home advantage. Then these are how the odds evolved (and would have evolved) going into each game as the series progressed:

Game One: 46.7% (A win improves it to 66.1%, a loss moves it down to 33.9%*)
Game Two: 33.9% (win: 54.0% loss: 20.8%)
Game Three: 54.0% (win: 69.3% loss: 30.7%)
Game Four: 30.7% (win: 44.6% loss: 9.5%)
Game Five: 44.6% (win: 63.5% loss: 15.7%)
Game Six: 63.5% (win: 100.0% loss: 39.6%)

I see nothing objectionable here. The Mavs began under 50% because they lacked HCA, but they rose above 50% when they stole it. The Game Three winner would've had a 69.3% chance of winning either way, since they would have lead 2-1 with two upcoming home games. Dallas barely avoided a monstrous 3-1 deficit (which would've been devastating even without whatever psychological impact you care to postulate about). The Mavs' 3-2 advantage made them a 63.5% favorite, but had Miami taken a 3-2 edge, they would've been at 84.3%. With Game Five in Dallas, the Mavs had a fairly better chance to become a fairly weaker favorite.

Many people don't like this kind of analysis. They find the premise rather dry and the calculations over their heads. But typically their only counter is to call individuals who are competent at this sort of thing "stupid" and "moronic".

*I'm not sure why a few numbers in their synopsis deviate from the combinatorical theory by a few tenths of a percent. I guess there's a rounding issue somewhere.

Seriously? Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. Can't you move past this?

Essentially claiming that those that don't agree with you are somehow struggling to grasp the concept and dealing with facts that are "over their heads" makes you look like a little whiny bitch begging for others to sit on his side of the fence.

Let it go. We get it - you think each individual game is completely independent and there is no emotional carry over into the game other than the fact that there is a finite percentage of win expectancy at home vs. on the road. We get it. You watched a show about it too. You also took some classes and got a job. Congrats. Doesn't make your OPINION on the matter right. Neither is mine by the way. It is my OPINION.

The difference is that I don't ONLY use dry facts and percentages. I use them, sure, and they help me come to an overall conclusion (just like I do when taking into account various things that Thiggy and 5-0 have argued with me about in the past), but I don't only use them. I am quite consistent on this. I always let my eyes play a role. I always let my ears listen to what people that are far more Fing close to the situation than you and I (or your boy narrarating a GD TV show).

Of course, it makes sense. If your job is to offer sound advice you are likely quite methodical and very, very strict on using facts only so it doesn't surprise me that you let those same policies affect your every day life. That's fine. Your opinion. But don't sit on your GD high horse and act like my opinion is all guts and fairy tales and that me and others that have disagreed with you are in over our heads. Get the F over yourself.

Dirkadirkastan · 10-22-2011, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

Let it go. We get it - you think each individual game is completely independent and there is no emotional carry over into the game other than the fact that there is a finite percentage of win expectancy at home vs. on the road. We get it. You watched a show about it too. You also took some classes and got a job. Congrats. Doesn't make your OPINION on the matter right. Neither is mine by the way. It is my OPINION.

No, you don't get it. I said that's the null hypothesis, and there is insufficient evidence to abandon it. That only means that, until there is sufficient evidence against it, it is the soundest approach...

Especially when it comes to predictive matters. It's easy to look back at Game Six of the 2011 NBA Finals and say "Wow, that momentum from the previous two games sure was effective in carrying the Mavs to victory." It's also easy to look at Game Six of the 2010 NBA Finals and say "Wow, those back-to-back wins in Boston sure made them due for a letdown."

But it's all revisionist history. When looking ahead, you simply can't tell. The only thing you have to go on is you know where the game is being played, and you know how successful teams typically are at home.

But perhaps looking at facts and weighing unknowns with historical percentages is too arrogant, while valuing your own opinion is more humble. I would have figured it would be the other way around, but who knows.

Quote:

The difference is that I don't ONLY use dry facts and percentages. I use them, sure, and they help me come to an overall conclusion (just like I do when taking into account various things that Thiggy and 5-0 have argued with me about in the past), but I don't only use them. I am quite consistent on this. I always let my eyes play a role. I always let my ears listen to what people that are far more Fing close to the situation than you and I (or your boy narrarating a GD TV show).

Well, I'm sure your well balanced approach is most reliable. Congratulations.

Quote:

Of course, it makes sense. If your job is to offer sound advice you are likely quite methodical and very, very strict on using facts only so it doesn't surprise me that you let those same policies affect your every day life. That's fine. Your opinion. But don't sit on your GD high horse and act like my opinion is all guts and fairy tales and that me and others that have disagreed with you are in over our heads. Get the F over yourself.

Yeah, that's about right. Basically, I use my knowledge of probability and statistics to become wealthy off of people who prefer to rely on gut instincts and hot streaks. So it would probably be best if I just lay low and let them continue.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

No, you don't get it. I said that's the null hypothesis, and there is insufficient evidence to abandon it. That only means that, until there is sufficient evidence against it, it is the soundest approach...

Especially when it comes to predictive matters. It's easy to look back at Game Six of the 2011 NBA Finals and say "Wow, that momentum from the previous two games sure was effective in carrying the Mavs to victory." It's also easy to look at Game Six of the 2010 NBA Finals and say "Wow, those back-to-back wins in Boston sure made then due for a letdown."

But it's all revisionist history. When looking ahead, you simply can't tell. The only thing you have to go on is you know where the game is being played, and you know how successful teams typically are at home.

But perhaps looking at facts and weighing unknowns with historical percentages is too arrogant, while valuing your own opinion is more humble. I would have figured it would be the other way around, but who knows.

Well, I'm sure your well balanced approach is most reliable. Congratulations.

Yeah, that's about right. Basically, I use my knowledge of probability and statistics to become wealthy off of people who prefer to rely on gut instincts and hot streaks. So it would probably be best if I just lay low and let them continue.

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.

And you just said all that you needed to for me to understand why you are so arrogant and cocky to people that knock your opinion on this matter. You think you and your "wealth-earning" methodology makes statistical-analysis right every time. You really are showing your true colors today and over the past couple of days really.

Hey, Mortimer, can you loan me a few dollars from your Ducktales-like palace of gold, frankincense and mir collected off of us simpletons such that I can afford to live as my gut-instinct approach and lucky rolls in life have recently come up dry. Damn I envy you.

Wait, no, that's pity.

Dirkadirkastan · 10-22-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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 · 10-22-2011, 07:23 PM

Quote:

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:

Quote:

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.

Jon Avalon · 10-22-2011, 05:21 PM

Heh Dirk and Cardinal ready for tonight

Quote:

@BrianCardinal: Let's make this happen @Rangers @swish41 and I are ready to roll!!!

Scoobay · 10-22-2011, 07:16 PM

i think it's time for someone to bean allen craig... batting 1000? geez...

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoobay

i think it's time for someone to bean allen craig... batting 1000? geez...

Not just that - RBIs every single at bat. Not just that - go ahead RBIs every single at bat.

Ugh. Agreed with bean his ass.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 07:41 PM

Come on Murphy - big spot for you... Let's get that uppercut HR here...

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 07:42 PM

...or not! Ugh.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 07:46 PM

Come on Kinsler...

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 07:48 PM

Way to make up for it baby!

xrobx · 10-22-2011, 08:05 PM

The Rangers offense has left a lot to be desired.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrobx

The Rangers offense has left a lot to be desired.

It's just a different team right now. Of course, if you take away the one 9-run inning and if Nelson Cruz wasn't playing as a baseball God, we would have struggled to score in the previous series as well.

Would be nice not to have our best all around player gimpy with a hernia, or at least not have him hitting 3rd in the lineup wasting scoring opportunities.

xrobx · 10-22-2011, 08:11 PM

Wow... out by a mile.... sternball in full effect

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xrobx

Wow... out by a mile.... sternball in full effect

Definitely, but Kinsler is playing like horse shit defensively. Wouldn't have to depend on the dumb ass umpires if he could learn to throw and catch tonight.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:13 PM

Wow. If this crap costs us a run...

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:16 PM

Just fucking unbelievable.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:19 PM

Just wow.

xrobx · 10-22-2011, 08:20 PM

well... it's over

just have to win games 4 and 5 like the mavs did.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:22 PM

I wonder how percentages play into this fuck job, eh Dirk? 3 runs across the plate, all starting from a HORRENDOUS call largely because of ANOTHER huge, huge mistake by Kinsler. Then Napoli.......... Just wow. So glad I'm not at this game. Would want to kill someone right about now.

Tell you one thing, Ian and Napoli damn well better make up for this with the stick later - they have single handedly cost us this game if we don't come back (well, that and the great work of the 1B Ump).

Dirkadirkastan · 10-22-2011, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

I wonder how percentages play into this fuck job, eh Dirk? 3 runs across the plate, all starting from a HORRENDOUS call largely because of ANOTHER huge, huge mistake by Kinsler. Then Napoli.......... Just wow. So glad I'm not at this game. Would want to kill someone right about now.

Tell you one thing, Ian and Napoli damn well better make up for this with the stick later - they have single handedly cost us this game if we don't come back (well, that and the great work of the 1B Ump).

I agree. "Momentum" doesn't seem to factor much into this.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I agree. "Momentum" doesn't seem to factor much into this.

Actually, a person could easily argue just the opposite. They got the momentum going from the bad call and got several good hits and breaks moving forward as a result after not having anything prior to that.

Likewise, the negative momentum from the first mistake leads to other mistakes. When the good gets going it continues and likewise for the bad. At least that is one way you could look at that inning.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:22 PM

Whatever. Screw this shit. Later.

GermanDunk · 10-22-2011, 08:25 PM

that inning is jinxed

GermanDunk · 10-22-2011, 08:27 PM

Seriously. How could the Ump call the Runner safe ?

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:36 PM

Sheesh!!! Have to get down 5-0 to wake the hell up. Great job Cruz.

GermanDunk · 10-22-2011, 08:42 PM

Crazy. Look, there is one of my relatives on the Rangers´ roster

DubOverdose · 10-22-2011, 08:50 PM

Napoli needs to step it up! Bad throw to home on defense, tagged out at home on offense.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DubOverdose

Napoli needs to step it up! Bad throw to home on defense, tagged out at home on offense.

He may have still been out, but that was a TERRIBLE slide.

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:54 PM

Come on Feldman - geez man. Team just got you back into it and you give up a single and a walk. COME ON!

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 08:56 PM

Really Feldman? Really?

Male30Dan · 10-22-2011, 09:01 PM

Just gift-wrapped this game for them. Just gift-wrapped it. Completely inexcusable after they came right back. Inexcusable.

Scoobay · 10-22-2011, 09:23 PM

murph's getting on then yorvit's gonna go yard - 3 run jack

Scoobay · 10-22-2011, 09:27 PM

he got scared and pitched around him - now Kins is up and he's going yard. grand salami baby