Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES!

[Male30Dan]

Way to make up for it baby!

[xrobx]

The Rangers offense has left a lot to be desired.

[Male30Dan]

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]

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

[Male30Dan]

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]

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

[Male30Dan]

Just fucking unbelievable.

[Male30Dan]

Just wow.

[xrobx]

well... it's over

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

[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).

[Male30Dan]

Whatever. Screw this shit. Later.

[GermanDunk]

that inning is jinxed

[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.

[GermanDunk]

Seriously. How could the Ump call the Runner safe ?

[Dirkadirkastan]

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]

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

[Male30Dan]

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.

[GermanDunk]

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

[DubOverdose]

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

[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.

[Male30Dan]

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]

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

[Male30Dan]

Really Feldman? Really?

[Male30Dan]

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

[Scoobay]

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

[Scoobay]

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

[Dirkadirkastan]

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.

You couldn't predict a single bit of it from the previous win. But you claim that the games not only are somehow tied together, but that they tie together in the same way every time.

Right here, you're trying to demonstrate that good things trigger good things, good things trigger bad things, bad things trigger good things, and bad things trigger bad things. Well shit Sherlock, it sure looks like you have all your bases covered, doesn't it?

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

Everyone else explains their ideas in terms of "Well, this format looks good because it has this one favorable scenario and it looks fairly likely it could happen although the other possible scenario doesn't look good but at least it appears it's less likely, but in the other format there's this other thing that could happen that would be much better except it's more likely that the bad thing happens so overall I like first situation better than the second." The problem is, as long as it isn't quantified, it's meaningless. How likely and how good or bad is each thing you're talking about? That's what determines which scenario is better, not just a general feeling of likely and unlikely and good and bad.

I'll say it again: The number was used as an example. However, the theory does not depend on that number.

[Scoobay]

calm down alexi - don't walk the leadoff man please

[Scoobay]

geez - mitt is dead center and he throws a fastball a foot inside

[Scoobay]

ogando vs. craig round 3

[Scoobay]

well ogando got him finally

[Bayliss]

So how did Dirk do?

[Scoobay]

wow... fastball up to pujols

[Male30Dan]

Well this is just an unbelievable performance by our pitchers. The offense is doing EVERYTHING it can to try to stay in this thing and our pitchers are just pissing ALL OVER them. They should all be ashamed of themselves.

[Scoobay]

doesn't seem like some of the guys came to play today... very disappointing...

[Jon Avalon]

I hate Pujols

[Scoobay]

wow look at the replay of the pujol's jack - he's so far off from where yorvit put his mitt

[Dirkadirkastan]

This game is ASS.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You couldn't predict a single bit of it from the previous win. But you claim that the games not only are somehow tied together, but that they tie together in the same way every time.

What I actually said: 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.

Amazing how me saying that somehow means I am claiming it always happens and it happens the exact same way every time. Your general comprehension skills need some serious work.

Right here, you're trying to demonstrate that good things trigger good things, good things trigger bad things, bad things trigger good things, and bad things trigger bad things. Well shit Sherlock, it sure looks like you have all your bases covered, doesn't it?

No, I'm not. I am saying that because it can't take place every single time doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Jesus Christ, how can you not get a grasp on this? Are you really, really this stupid?

Everyone else explains their ideas in terms of "Well, this format looks good because it has this one favorable scenario and it looks fairly likely it could happen although the other possible scenario doesn't look good but at least it appears it's less likely, but in the other format there's this other thing that could happen that would be much better except it's more likely that the bad thing happens so overall I like first situation better than the second." The problem is, as long as it isn't quantified, it's meaningless. How likely and how good or bad is each thing you're talking about? That's what determines which scenario is better, not just a general feeling of likely and unlikely and good and bad.

Again, I apologize that I can't give you 23.7x - 14n / 32.8 + square root of 19^3 = i where x = blah blah blah so that you feel better about the percentages taking place, at least enough for you to acknowledge that this type of a situation can take place. It's sad that your life is one big equation with only black and white, but it is what it is I guess. So be it.

I'll say it again: The number was used as an example. However, the theory does not depend on that number.

That's not my point. My point was you tried to call me out for conjuring that number up and it was your ass that created that. You were WRONG. One of many times. That black and white enough for you?

Above.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

This game is ASS.

Wow. The one intelligent thing you have managed in a long, long time.