Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES!

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

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

He truly destroyed that ball. He hit it REALLY hard. Just disgusting how we have played today. The offense tried SO hard.

Would be amazed to see them come out AGAIN and try to will the team given the life that must have been taken out of their sails by the pitching fail taking place tonight. You know, with the momentum swing and all.

[Scoobay]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

He truly destroyed that ball. He hit it REALLY hard. Just disgusting how we have played today. The offense tried SO hard.

Would be amazed to see them come out AGAIN and try to will the team given the life that must have been taken out of their sails by the pitching fail taking place tonight. You know, with the momentum swing and all.

law of averages is getting us now - how many runs did Feldman and Ogando give up until today? and today 7 runs in 1.2 innings. horrible.

i'm not sure what anyone can do about it - i mean you game plan to pitch around pujols - catcher puts the target low and outside corner, and he throws a meatball straight over the plate belt high. i mean what do you think's gonna happen? it's albert **** pujols...

[GermanDunk]

Only Dirk can help now.

[Scoobay]

well sure, while we're playing law of averages, let's pitch to Pujols some more and have him hit 5 home runs today so that he won't hit any the rest of the series....

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

law of averages is getting us now - how many runs did Feldman and Ogando give up until today? and today 7 runs in 1.2 innings. horrible.

i'm not sure what anyone can do about it - i mean you game plan to pitch around pujols - catcher puts the target low and outside corner, and he throws a meatball straight over the plate belt high. i mean what do you think's gonna happen? it's albert **** pujols...

Eh, just lack of execution. Balls, balls, balls, meatballs, balls, meatballs, balls, balls, balls, meatballs, rinse/repeat. Horrible pitching tonight. Horrible. I mean, shit, we are playing football here. 14-6? Really?

Kind of is what it is. The sad thing is that this was ALL started by one really horrible call. The score was 1-0 at the time. Who knows how the rest of the game plays out if that doesn't take place and allow for those 3 runs to score. Harrison still needs to get out of that inning without letting as much damage take place, but I seriously doubt the sequence of events play out as they did if that call is made correctly.

Hopefully Holland can come out and deliver tomorrow unlike his last several times out. If not, things could get bad really quick. As I said after our win in St Louis, having HFA in any format does not guarantee wins. We still have to go out and play the game. Sucks that we didn't even consider doing that today from a pitching perspective. Hell, from a defensive perspective too. Sad for the 45,000+ people that dropped $300+ for a ticket. Sad for the millions of fans hoping we FINALLY get that ring. Sad for them.

Still not out of this, but now we will have to win another game in St Louis (or both, depending on how the rest of the home games play out).

Go Rangers? Sigh.

[Dirkadirkastan]

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.

And you need to touch up on your logic. If you think teams that win Game Five generally have momentum going into Game Six, then yes, you are making a decree that applies across the board.

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?

And I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that it's too inconsistent as a positive or negative force that it is entirely unreliable as a predictive factor. Are you really this stupid? (Does saying that make my case stronger?)

It's easy to look back on any given scenario and explain it in terms of one momentum theory, yet look back at another scenario and explain it in terms of a momentum theory that, in essence, says the complete opposite. But when it comes to looking ahead, all these positive/negative theories cancel out and have no predictive power.

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?

You did make that 10% number up. I read about the 60% being the historical percentage a long time ago.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Scoobay

well sure, while we're playing law of averages, let's pitch to Pujols some more and have him hit 5 home runs today so that he won't hit any the rest of the series....

As I have said, the dude's name should be Mike Hrzalez. Fing SUCKS. Him and the little punk from Baltimore that wants to go back home after having his ass handed to him over and over again.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

And you need to touch up on your logic. If you think teams that win Game Five generally have momentum going into Game Six, then yes, you are making a decree that applies across the board.

I think teams that win game 5 going into game 6 have momentum going into game 6. The momentum varies based on whether or not they have a 3-2 lead or are trailing 2-3 and can vary based on how that particular game played out, but yeah, I think you are an absolute moron if you can't see that there are positive affects from a win. I think if you made a poll that asked the following question: "Do you think a team that wins a game gains any positive emotional impact and ultimately momentum that can give them a slight advantage over their opponent the next night?" you would have an unbelievable high percentage for YES. Back to my roulette analogy, do you think when a baseball or basketball team wins 8, 10, 12 games in a row that it is just red or black hitting that many times in a row and not emotions and confidence and momentum taking place? What about when the same team loses 4 or 5 out of 6? Same thing, huh?

And I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying that it's too inconsistent as a positive or negative force that it is entirely unreliable as a predictive factor. Are you really this stupid? (Does saying that make my case stronger?)

Aren't you? Aren't you saying that it doesn't take place reliably so it doesn't take place and the stats method is the only way to go until it finally proves you wrong and does happen reliably? Sure sounded that way your last post.

It's easy to look back on any given scenario and explain it in terms of one momentum theory, yet look back at another scenario and explain it in terms of a momentum theory that, in essence, says the complete opposite. But when it comes to looking ahead, all these positive/negative theories cancel out and have no predictive power.

Sure they do... Sure they do.

You did make that 10% number up. I read about the 60% being the historical percentage a long time ago.

No, no I didn't. You did. We aren't talking about the 60% number dumbass. We are talking about the 10% number - the additional 10% from having momentum. That is the number you used in my bolded text that I then carried forward with all of my non-independent postings.

Above.

[Dirkadirkastan]

I think teams that win game 5 going into game 6 have momentum going into game 6. The momentum varies based on whether or not they have a 3-2 lead or are trailing 2-3 and can vary based on how that particular game played out, but yeah, I think you are an absolute moron if you can't see that there are positive affects from a win. I think if you made a poll that asked the following question: "Do you think a team that wins a game gains any positive emotional impact and ultimately momentum that can give them a slight advantage over their opponent the next night?" you would have an unbelievable high percentage for YES.

Who cares if it actually works out that way, at least everyone thinks it does! Right?

Maybe we should ask those people in the 1400s about the flat earth...

Aren't you? Aren't you saying that it doesn't take place reliably so it doesn't take place and the stats method is the only way to go until it finally proves you wrong and does happen reliably? Sure sounded that way your last post.

It's as good as any predictive theory, and possibly better.

Sure they do... Sure they do.

Yup, they sure do. Like when Dallas went into Miami for Game Six, and when Boston went into LA the previous year. The momentum theory must be true! But the letdown theory must also be true! Everybody wins! Oh, except that guy over there that says it's unpredictable.

No, no I didn't. You did. We aren't talking about the 60% number dumbass. We are talking about the 10% number - the additional 10% from having momentum. That is the number you used in my bolded text that I then carried forward with all of my non-independent postings.

Oh, the example of a model I don't believe in? Man, you're really reaching here.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Who cares if it actually works out that way, at least everyone thinks it does! Right?

Maybe we should ask those people in the 1400s about the flat earth...

Yes, right. Everyone in the game, around the game and the vast majority of fans that watch the game. But YOU are right. YOU win.

It's as good as any predictive theory, and possibly better.

Again, YOU are right. YOU.

Yup, they sure do. Like when Dallas went into Miami for Game Six, and when Boston went into LA the previous year. The momentum theory must be true! But the letdown theory must also be true! Everybody wins! Oh, except that guy over there that says it's unpredictable.

Yup, that's it. If there isn't an equation to provide a 100% frequency it is impossible. Your new nickname should be changed to Dirkamonochrome.

Oh, the example of a model I don't believe in? Man, you're really reaching here.

What exactly am I reaching on? Let me see if I can't clear this incredibly simple thing up for you. You said that I pulled a 10% stat out of my butthole. Do you remember typing that? I quoted it above if you need to remind yourself. I then went back and found where YOU initially created that percentage using your equation. If you look at the numbers, you will CLEARLY see that you gave a 10% extra cushion in your example. I then used that same percentage moving forward so we were on the same page. I never, NEVER first said anything about that percentage until you did. I am not reaching for ANYTHING. You said it, and I repeated it in my future posts. Now you act as if I made it up somehow. No idiot, you did. YOU. You were wrong for saying I made it up and I called you out for it. Accept that.

...

[Male30Dan]

3 errors (should have been 4)... 6 walks... 4 HRs... 16 Runs...

This is our defense and pitching line for the night. Every single pitcher that entered the game was scored on. All 6 of them. We gave up 3 HRs to Pujols. I would have hit his ass in the neck after his 2nd.

P.S. Josh has an .083 average, .077 OBP (gotta love Sac fly rules), and .083 slugging percentage and yet will continue to hit in the #3 slot. SAD.

[dalmations202]

Just a FYI ... that game hoovered.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Just a FYI ... that game hoovered.

Wow - you know when you have had too much to drink when the sentence above takes you 5 seconds to get.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

It's easy to look back on any given scenario and explain it in terms of one momentum theory, yet look back at another scenario and explain it in terms of a momentum theory that, in essence, says the complete opposite. But when it comes to looking ahead, all these positive/negative theories cancel out and have no predictive power.

I think your math about the probabilities of winning in a certain number of games, given a set HFA, does prove your claim. (Given a game-independent model, that is.) But I'm going to nit-pick you on the paragraph quoted above and in doing so perhaps raise another couple questions.

The nit-pick is that the method you describe above (looking back on data and seeing how well they fit the theory) is actually, wouldn't you say, also precisely what you are doing when you use a set HFA perameter like 60.4%?

You see, the challenge is that you are applying--and with integrity, to be sure--strict experimental procedures to something that does not, and will not ever, behave like a strict experiment.

The reason for that, of course, is that you have distilled the problem down to two variables (site and series score) but there may be any number of other variables that you have not controlled for.

For one very straightforward example, it is very, very difficult to control for whatever differences might exist between the relative strengths of the team. How much better is Team A than Team B, in other words? In the model we are using here, some of that question gets answered by itself...who has HFA in the first place and who is ahead in the series at any given time. Some...but nowhere near all. In the World Series, for example, HFA has never been assigned based on the better record, has it? And in the case where a series is tied 2-2, the series score hasn't contributed anything that might suggest one team is better than the other (though, of course, also hasn't said that there is no difference between the two teams...not by a mile).

So...what if we have a situation where Team A is in actuality (if we could somehow know that) a lot better than Team B, but they are tied 2-2? Which team do we expect to win the series? We'd like to know which team has HFA (because we do believe there is *some* benefit to that, even if we may not know how best to quantify it). But if we could choose only one thing to know, wouldn't we a lot rather know which is the better team?

Maybe our model says that in a certain situation Team A wins out 50% of the time. Well...then that situation would have no statistical significance at all, right? Of course not. But what if, were we able to control for all other variables, we knew that Team A would be expected to win only 30% of the time? In that case, the situation that we at first dismissed now suddenly seems to take on great importance.

My first question, then, would be this. How can we know that the 60.4% HFA--or any number anyone has settled on will do just as well, as you point out--is the actual independent variable that is in play at any given time? I mean, that's a number that is derived from a large mass of games that have been played under a broad array of circumstances. Surely some teams have a greater HFA than other teams do. That is a trivial observation (it would seem). Much more importantly, to our discussion here, might that number actually vary based on in-series situations? (In other words, might there be an interaction?)

Let's consider this in terms of two hypothetical NBA scenarios. Let's say that two absolutely evenly matched teams are tied 2-2 after four games. Team A has home court advantage.

In the first scenario, we play 2-3-2 and Team B wins Game Five at home. Late in the third quarter of Game Six, Team B (away) takes a 12-point lead.

In the second scenario, we play 2-2-1-1-1 and we know that whatever happens in Game Five, Team B wins Game Six. Late in the third quarter of Game Five, Team B (away) takes a 12-point lead.

The question is: Do the two scenarios look exactly equal to you?

[mavspwnage]

Seriously? I attend TWO 9 run playoff losses in a matter of a few weeks? What did I do to piss off the baseball gods?

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by mavspwnage

Seriously? I attend TWO 9 run playoff losses in a matter of a few weeks? What did I do to piss off the baseball gods?

Stay the hell away from our ballpark! GOT IT?

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I think your math about the probabilities of winning in a certain number of games, given a set HFA, does prove your claim. (Given a game-independent model, that is.) But I'm going to nit-pick you on the paragraph quoted above and in doing so perhaps raise another couple questions.

The nit-pick is that the method you describe above (looking back on data and seeing how well they fit the theory) is actually, wouldn't you say, also precisely what you are doing when you use a set HFA perameter like 60.4%?

You see, the challenge is that you are applying--and with integrity, to be sure--strict experimental procedures to something that does not, and will not ever, behave like a strict experiment.

The reason for that, of course, is that you have distilled the problem down to two variables (site and series score) but there may be any number of other variables that you have not controlled for.

I will agree with this. It's a very simple model, with the single purpose of quantifying the notion of home field advantage. Given how the numbers evolve over the course of a series, I'd say it does a pretty good job.

The Rangers trail 2-1. With two games at home still to play, they're still in this thing, but it's an uphill climb to be sure. So 31% seems a pretty good depiction of their predicament.

(Actually, I believe the 60.4% came from the NBA. I don't currently know the MLB one, so for the purposes of argument, let's stick to 60.4%. Besides, it still works out to around 31% in this scenario using a wide range of numbers.)

For one very straightforward example, it is very, very difficult to control for whatever differences might exist between the relative strengths of the team. How much better is Team A than Team B, in other words? In the model we are using here, some of that question gets answered by itself...who has HFA in the first place and who is ahead in the series at any given time. Some...but nowhere near all. In the World Series, for example, HFA has never been assigned based on the better record, has it? And in the case where a series is tied 2-2, the series score hasn't contributed anything that might suggest one team is better than the other (though, of course, also hasn't said that there is no difference between the two teams...not by a mile).

So...what if we have a situation where Team A is in actuality (if we could somehow know that) a lot better than Team B, but they are tied 2-2? Which team do we expect to win the series? We'd like to know which team has HFA (because we do believe there is *some* benefit to that, even if we may not know how best to quantify it). But if we could choose only one thing to know, wouldn't we a lot rather know which is the better team?

Absolutely. In the case of this series, you might believe the Rangers to be the better team. So you could redo the calculations with some number better than 60.4% at home and/or a number better than 39.6% on the road.

Now, I still believe 31% to be a reasonable indicator of the challenge set in front of them. Historically, baseball appears to reflect this. But in the NBA, teams come back at a significantly lower rate. I figure this is likely due to the fact the weaker team is more likely to fall behind 2-1 in the first place (and more weak teams enter the playoffs in that sport).

The key idea here is once you try to include other factors, you're simultaneously making a claim as to how they work. So you better have a good reason for the number you end up using, because now you're making a stronger claim on how this particular series will go, instead of just quantifying home field.

Maybe our model says that in a certain situation Team A wins out 50% of the time. Well...then that situation would have no statistical significance at all, right? Of course not. But what if, were we able to control for all other variables, we knew that Team A would be expected to win only 30% of the time? In that case, the situation that we at first dismissed now suddenly seems to take on great importance.

My first question, then, would be this. How can we know that the 60.4% HFA--or any number anyone has settled on will do just as well, as you point out--is the actual independent variable that is in play at any given time? I mean, that's a number that is derived from a large mass of games that have been played under a broad array of circumstances. Surely some teams have a greater HFA than other teams do. That is a trivial observation (it would seem). Much more importantly, to our discussion here, might that number actually vary based on in-series situations? (In other words, might there be an interaction?)

I have to agree with this as well. In any given matchup, there is probably some "true mean" on each field that deviates from 60.4% by a certain margin. Unfortunately, there just isn't a very large sample size to help us figure out what that percentage is. Conversely, 60.4% has a very large sample size, with the drawback of including vastly different matchups.

There are some interesting things one could do, however. Perhaps there is a way to arrive at home and road strengths for these particular teams by looking at their regular season records (or some other season stats), then combining them in some way to arrive at alternative percentages on each field. Then use the same method on the regular seasons of past World Series teams to see if it provides a better predictive rate overall.

Seems like a lot of work though. And one potential flaw I see already is the lack of interleague play. A team could dominate its own league yet be proven thoroughly inept against the best team from the other.

Let's consider this in terms of two hypothetical NBA scenarios. Let's say that two absolutely evenly matched teams are tied 2-2 after four games. Team A has home court advantage.

In the first scenario, we play 2-3-2 and Team B wins Game Five at home. Late in the third quarter of Game Six, Team B (away) takes a 12-point lead.

In the second scenario, we play 2-2-1-1-1 and we know that whatever happens in Game Five, Team B wins Game Six. Late in the third quarter of Game Five, Team B (away) takes a 12-point lead.

The question is: Do the two scenarios look exactly equal to you?

First off, for nostalgic purposes, let's modify the 12-point lead to 9.

I guess those two scenarios do look the same. You're twelve road minutes away from a 100% chance of victory either way.

Now if you think there's a certain psychological factor in one or the other, fine. But the problem is, you can't predict what it is.

"Team A is at home, so they have a great chance at a comeback."
"Team B is on the road, but they can smell victory."
"Team A realizes its crumbling, and the home fans are getting antsy. It's getting into their heads so they will continue to crumble."
"Team B has a fragile lead on the road. It could all fall apart in a matter of minutes and they know it."

Statements similar to all four of these were likely uttered on this day as well as on this day. Two of them looked good after the first game, and the other two looked good after the second game. So if you always retrospectively buy into the two that worked out on that particular day, they'll all appear to be strong (yet conspicuously contradictory) predictive analysis.

Unfortunately, I have no example of Game Fives during which the results of Game Six were guaranteed (?).

[Maringa]

We should be down 0-3 in the series by now...lucky break in the 9th in the second game.
This could be painfull tonight if our pitching doesn't get it together. Even though our hitters are not doing so well, 7 runs should win a game most nights. I just don't see how we are going to overcome the Card batters...They just score too easily....

[Ninkobei]

time for the Dutch Oven to show those Card batters how to strike out. He MUST have his A Game tonight.

[xrobx]

Apparently the Rangers are the MLB's version of the Buffalo Bills.

[mavspwnage]

When we lost Game 1 of the ALDS by 9 runs, we won the next three games. Just sayin.

[Male30Dan]

Well, down to 4 games left. May the best team win.

Go Rangers!

[chumdawg]

Holland is bringing the pain.

[FINtastic]

Gotta like what we've seen from Holland through 4 innings.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

Gotta like what we've seen from Holland through 4 innings.

Kid is dealing. No fear. The others should take a lesson. Damn, we were pitching scared last night.

[FINtastic]

Holland's a pretty bipolar pitcher, but we're getting Manic High Holland tonight.

[chumdawg]

Big tater. Big help!

YEAR OF THE NAPOLI!!!!

[DubOverdose]

Gotta love some of St. Louis' pitching changes!

[dalmations202]

Nice game..........wow

[mavspwnage]

Did Holland just have a Madison Bumgarner moment? What a performance.

[Dirkadirkastan]

What an absolute masterpiece by Holland.

[Ninkobei]

Holland is easily the best pitcher on the roster - when he's ON. I hope CJ can put up 5 good innings tonight. ;/

[Male30Dan]

Truly fantastic performance by Holland yesterday - loved every minute of it. Told my friend I was watching the game with that, at times, it looks like Holland aggressively attacked a pudding snack with that lip of his. What a pimp.

Down to 3 games left. May the best team win!

GO RANGERS!!!

[DirkFTW]

Come on CJ!

[Kirobaito]

Gammons just said three different GMs have predicted that Prince Fielder will be a Ranger next year.

Thoughts?

2B Kinsler
SS Andrus
LF Hamilton
3B Beltre
1B Fielder
DH Young
C Napoli
RF Cruz
CF Gentry/Martin

?

[DubOverdose]

It's getting difficult to watch these errors

[xrobx]

wow, they just bunted for a no out double. why not? we can't field the ball.

[mavspwnage]

Are the Rangers serious right now?!

[mavspwnage]

McCarver with the great setup for Moreland. LOL

[Kirobaito]

Any guesses on that one? 430?