Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES!

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by xrobx

I knew you'd eventually give up.

I've certainly given up on you.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I've certainly given up on you.

That's good, considering that all you had left was the argument from authority fallacy that the fact you get paid to analyze risk somehow proves your stance right about a home team's advantages in a 2-3-2 baseball series.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That is a strange quirk. But my question pertains to the bottom line: Does this format actually increase your overall chance to win the series? Perhaps the likelihood of a 3-2 edge is slightly boosted. But it's also a 3-2 edge of the worst kind, since the final two games are both scheduled on the road.

In the NBA finals, out of the eight times a series has been 3-2 in favor of the lower seeded team going into games 6 and 7 in a 2-3-2 format, the lower seeded team won game 6 (and the series) five of those eight times. The other three times the higher seeded team defended home court and won the series in 7 games. It's hardly anything conclusive with such a small sample size, but it suggests at the very least that having a 3-2 edge going on the road for games 6 and 7 hardly puts a team at a disadvantage....and the momentum of being up 3-2 (or a team being down 2-3 with their backs against the wall and added pressure) must somehow factor into it.

I'm not sure about the MLB stats in this format, I'm too tired to look it up right now.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by xrobx

That's good, considering that all you had left was the argument from authority fallacy that the fact you get paid to analyze risk somehow proves your stance right about a home team's advantages in a 2-3-2 baseball series.

Actually I had already beaten you to death with logic but you'd been too dense to recognize it. So now I have nothing else to say.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Actually I had already beaten you to death with logic but you'd been too dense to recognize it. So now I have nothing else to say.

In other words, you have nothing else to say other than resorting to hurling personal insults. Yeah, I guess we're about done here.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by xrobx

In other words, you have nothing else to say other than resorting to hurling personal insults. Yeah, I guess we're about done here.

You realize Chum was the one that first called your side "extraordinarily inane", right?

He mistakenly and uncharacteristically attributed it to me, but you're the one that fails to comprehend that, in his words, "You don't lose an advantage by winning games. You gain an advantage by winning games."

So had the series gone like this:
Game Five - Rangers trail 3-1 (According to you, Rangers have HFA)
Game Six - Rangers trail 3-2 (According to you, HFA is neutral)
Game Seven - Series tied 3-3 (According to you, Giants have HFA)

Then according to you, they would have lost the home field advantage by winning games. Yep, I'd say the words "extraordinarily inane" are rather appropriate.

Let me try another angle. The Rangers lost Game Four. Before that game was played, they had a Game Four home advantage. Once that game was lost, the advantage was squandered over to the Giants. There was no Game Four advantage going into Game Five, let alone after the series ended while you did your retrospective junk analysis.

But there I go, using logic again. Why do I even bother? I cannot put it any simpler terms than this. If you fail to comprehend it once again, then perhaps you are deserving of a few insults.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You realize Chum was the one that first called your side "extraordinarily inane", right?

He mistakenly and uncharacteristically attributed it to me, but you're the one that fails to comprehend that, in his words, "You don't lose an advantage by winning games. You gain an advantage by winning games."

So had the series gone like this:
Game Five - Rangers trail 3-1 (According to you, Rangers have HFA)
Game Six - Rangers trail 3-2 (According to you, HFA is neutral)
Game Seven - Series tied 3-3 (According to you, Giants have HFA)

Then according to you, they would have lost the home field advantage by winning games. Yep, I'd say the words "extraordinarily inane" are rather appropriate.

Let me try another angle. The Rangers lost Game Four. Before that game was played, they had a Game Four home advantage. Once that game was lost, the advantage was squandered over to the Giants. There was no Game Four advantage going into Game Five, let alone after the series ended while you did your retrospective junk analysis.

But there I go, using logic again. Why do I even bother? I cannot put it any simpler terms than this. If you fail to comprehend it once again, then perhaps you are deserving of a few insults.

You keep pulling a straw man and saying "according to you", when I never said or implied any of those things. I never said a team could lose home field advantage by winning games. I'm not even trying to dispute what you stated above. Perhaps you have misunderstood me. I understand how having home field advantage works and alternates as you progress through a series. I was talking about who ultimately had an advantage when the series was said and done, not who had it after game X. We aren't even talking about the same thing, and ultimately we were using this to be a reason to be pro/con 2-3-2 for a team with home field advantage in which Chum agreed with my stance and called you extraordinarily inane, you can try to spin it on me all you want. The point is that in a 2-3-2, you can win all your home games and still have home field advantage and be losing a series 2-3. As I stated a few posts up, more often than not, the team with games 6 and 7 at home LOSE the series. This is why 2-2-1-1-1 is better for a team with HCA. This entire discussion was about 2-3-2 vs. 2-2-1-1-1, and you are trying to change the subject to advantages because I think you realize at this point that 2-3-2 is not as beneficial to the team entering the series with HCA as 2-2-1-1-1 and right now you are literally the only person on here taking that stance.

And once more for the records so we don't have to go back into this, The Giants had HFA last year. They still had it after the first 2 wins. And they still held home field advantage in games 3, 4, and 5, having 6 and 7 at home. The Giants had HFA going into every single game in the series. This is not in dispute. But when you look at the series in retrospect, and see that they won the series in 5 games having played 3 on the road, the point is that ultimately they won the series and they won it having played more road games, which was not advantageous to them in the end, but they won in 5 anyway. That's all I'm saying. You can't lose HFA by winning games, I agree with you.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Chum took your beliefs and pinned them on me. I was pointing out the ridiculousness in what you said and he somehow thought I was explaining my own thoughts. I do not believe one loses an advantage by winning games, but it is the direct logical consequence of your beliefs, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Historically, teams rarely win the NBA Finals when they only have the middle the games at home, even though they're supposedly one of the top two teams in the league. But sure, go ahead and pretend they win all the time. We can't effectively compare the two formats in baseball, because one has never been used.

[Male30Dan]

Guys... Seriously! The Rangers just split the friggin series in St. Louis and took HFA in the process. We have 3 games at home with an opportunity to close this thing out and win our first championship ever.

Instead of comparing the lengths of your penis over a topic that has been beaten to death, just concede to the fact that in this situation a 2-3-2 format is most definitely the preferred format to have given a 1-1 split.

You know, exactly what I said initially...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That is a strange quirk. But my question pertains to the bottom line: Does this format actually increase your overall chance to win the series? Perhaps the likelihood of a 3-2 edge is slightly boosted. But it's also a 3-2 edge of the worst kind, since the final two games are both scheduled on the road.

I think it absolutely does. It depends on what you think about the psychological impact of being one game from elimination when the other team isn't, but I think it's just huge--considerably more important than where the games are played. I'll take up 3-2 with two road games over down 2-3 with two home games, and I'll take it 100% of the time. Sometimes you'll lose both, but I think it's just a much better position to be in.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I think it absolutely does. It depends on what you think about the psychological impact of being one game from elimination when the other team isn't, but I think it's just huge--considerably more important than where the games are played. I'll take up 3-2 with two road games over down 2-3 with two home games, and I'll take it 100% of the time. Sometimes you'll lose both, but I think it's just a much better position to be in.

You're right, it is better to be up 3-2 than down no matter what. But this is how it balances out:

You are more likely to be up 3-2 than down 3-2. However, your chances of capitalizing on that lead are the lowest of all possible 3-2 leads.

You are less likely to fall behind 3-2 than take a 3-2 lead. However, if you do fall behind 3-2, your chances of a comeback are slim to none. This is the scenario that generally goes ignored by those that love having the middle three games.

And Dan, yes it is great that the Rangers can close out the series by sweeping at home. But this would be true in either format.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You're right, it is better to be up 3-2 than down no matter what. But this is how it balances out:

You are more likely to be up 3-2 than down 3-2. However, your chances of capitalizing on that lead are the lowest of all possible 3-2 leads.

You are less likely to fall behind 3-2 than take a 3-2 lead. However, if you do fall behind 3-2, your chances of a comeback are slim to none. This is the scenario that generally goes ignored by those that love having the middle three games.

And Dan, yes it is great that the Rangers can close out the series by sweeping at home. But this would be true in either format.

Ah, yes it would be true in either format, unless you subscribe to the fact that each game is NOT its own entity with zero carry over. If the Cardinals win game 5 at their home in the 2-2-1-1-1 format, depending on how they win (whether or not we choke the lead away, get dominated, etc) it could carry over into our last home game, reducing our chances of winning. This is where the percentages come into play. Even if you don't buy into this component, the fact that it is possible and the fact that it isn't possible if we simply hold serve in a 2-3-2 format after splitting the first two games is the exact reason it is preferred.

Can you lose home games? Sure. We just showed that last night. Are you more likely to win home games? Check our record. If you have a 60% chance to win at home and games are not exclusively independent that would mean we could conceivably have a much higher chance of winning games 4 and 5 after winning game 3. Why wouldn't we want that advantage?

Again, even if you don't subscribe to that theory, the fact that there is no advantage with one theory and a possible advantage with the other theory makes one more valuable than the other. Just look at what happened with the Heat collapse... You don't think games 3-5 carried over into game 6? Different sport, sure, but momentum, hurt pride, frustration - those are real things that do exist and emotions are part of the game. Now that we have the split we have the momentum and we have the best opportunity with this format not to lose it again by holding our home serve.

There really is no way to refute this. You can say you don't agree with the non-independent theory, but again, if you can be so honest with yourself to admit there is a CHANCE it is in play, one gives a better opportunity for success. Period.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You are less likely to fall behind 3-2 than take a 3-2 lead. However, if you do fall behind 3-2, your chances of a comeback are slim to none. This is the scenario that generally goes ignored by those that love having the middle three games.

It's not ignored in the slightest; it's factored into the argument. The entire point of the argument is that the chance to get up 3-2 first via home wins is far more valuable than anything you lose, including the slim opportunity to possibly "come back" if you're down 3-2. The majority of teams don't come back from down 3-2 no matter where the last two games are. Once you're on the ropes, you usually lose.

That's the whole point, and that's where the psychological impact comes in. Give me the chance to strike first and put the opponent on the brink. I think that's considerably more valuable than the often unrealized "threat" of two games at home to end the series.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Look at the numbers, guys.

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You are more likely to be up 3-2 than down 3-2. However, your chances of capitalizing on that lead are the lowest of all possible 3-2 leads.

In baseball, you can see this is exactly what happens. The V team (played Game One as the visitor) has taken a 3-2 edge 48 times, while the H team (played Game One at home) has taken the same advantage only 43 times. However, the V teams are only 31-17 in clinching the series, while the H teams are 33-10. So the H teams have actually capitalized more times, despite having fewer opportunities.

So no, Longhorn, I don't believe you're giving it sufficient recognition. The two advantages clearly aren't the same, because the H 3-2 advantage has a significantly higher success rate than the V 3-2 one.

Unfortunately, the site doesn't separate the NBA Finals history between the two formats, but here we go. So far, in the history of 2-3-2, there have been 8 cases of the V team taking the 3-2 lead, and there have been 9 cases of the H team taking a 3-2 lead. The V team has been decent with the advantage, going 5-3, but the H team is a perfect 9-0. So not only do H teams have a firmer grip on the series by that point, but so far they seem to be just as likely to get the initial advantage.

Edit: Let's not forget that H teams are 20-7 in the NBA Finals since the introduction of the 2-3-2 format. (The Mavs' appearances constitute two of the seven, so it's easy to have our perception skewed a bit.) Before the change in '85, H teams were 26-12.

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

There really is no way to refute this. You can say you don't agree with the non-independent theory, but again, if you can be so honest with yourself to admit there is a CHANCE it is in play, one gives a better opportunity for success. Period.

On the contrary Dan, when it comes to this kind of speculation, there's always a way to talk up one side or the other. Whatever advantage you want to emphasize in one format, there's an equally defensible advantage you concede to the other.

You can talk up the 2-3-2 format by emphasizing momentum. I can talk up the 2-2-1-1-1 format by emphasizing the opportunity to clinch at home in Game Six.

You can talk down on 2-2-1-1-1 by emphasizing momentum breaks. I can talk down 2-3-2 by noting that once a mere two games are lost, the series must be clinched on the road.

Then we can banter on and on about which momentum swing or home field opportunity in which specific scenario outweighs which other specific event that could potentially happen in the other format etc etc. But now we're piling up on the speculation without any quantification whatsoever and the discussion becomes entirely meaningless.

That's why I prefer to deal with real, observable evidence. You're more likely to be right when you do.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

On the contrary Dan, when it comes to this kind of speculation, there's always a way to talk up one side or the other. Whatever advantage you want to emphasize in one format, there's an equally defensible advantage you concede to the other.

You can talk up the 2-3-2 format by emphasizing momentum. I can talk up the 2-2-1-1-1 format by emphasizing the opportunity to clinch at home in Game Six.

You can talk down on 2-2-1-1-1 by emphasizing momentum breaks. I can talk down 2-3-2 by noting that once a mere two games are lost, the series must be clinched on the road.

Then we can banter on and on about which momentum swing or home field opportunity in which specific scenario outweighs which other specific event that could potentially happen in the other format etc etc. But now we're piling up on the speculation without any quantification whatsoever and the discussion becomes entirely meaningless.

That's why I prefer to deal with real, observable evidence. You're more likely to be right when you do.

No man, you can't. You simply can't with a straight face. If one method proves an advantage and another method proves no advantage and there are no absolutes in play (i.e., no definitive method considered correct) and you are a manager having to select one method, how could you with a straight face say you would pick the method that has no potential for an advantage over the method that might not prove an advantage (in the event that the independent game situation is correct), but there again, might?

You just wouldn't. It is just that simple. You wouldn't. You know I'm right here, but we live in a world of Dallas-Mavs.com where no one EVER admits they are wrong or that the other person has a helluva point. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. So be it. Not interested in the penis measuring contest that you and Dub have long ago entered.

On to things WAY, WAY more important - like the Rangers going up 2-1 on the Cardinals.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

No man, you can't. You simply can't with a straight face. If one method proves an advantage and another method proves no advantage and there are no absolutes in play (i.e., no definitive method considered correct) and you are a manager having to select one method, how could you with a straight face say you would pick the method that has no potential for an advantage over the method that might not prove an advantage (in the event that the independent game situation is correct), but there again, might?

You just wouldn't. It is just that simple. You wouldn't. You know I'm right here, but we live in a world of Dallas-Mavs.com where no one EVER admits they are wrong or that the other person has a helluva point. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. So be it. Not interested in the penis measuring contest that you and Dub have long ago entered.

On to things WAY, WAY more important - like the Rangers going up 2-1 on the Cardinals.

Sigh. Your "momentum" theory is entirely bullshit.

Look at history. H teams are just as successful closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five on the road as V teams are to closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five at home. But either way, it's pretty much a toss up. Not 80% or whatever you said earlier.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Sigh. Your "momentum" theory is entirely bullshit.

Look at history. H teams are just as successful closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five on the road as V teams are to closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five at home. But either way, it's pretty much a toss up. Not 80% or whatever you said earlier.

Ah, back to insults so quick? Whatever bro - you are wrong about your stance with me and about your stance with LHD. You keep fighting the good fight though. Showing history of series despite the players and managers themselves regularly speaking of momentum swings. Nah, they don't exist though. Ignore the emotional aspect of the game.

Like I said, your argument matters nothing to me anymore. We are in the position we want to be in and ANY FOOL or intelligent person can admit that. Being tied 1-1 with 3 games at home is the way any "smart" person would rather this series to be. Consider me expecting you to argue against it of course.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Who cares if they aren't actually more successful, what matters is that emotionally it feels like they will be. Good point Dan, good point.

What was I thinking, looking at "facts"? Why would those be more relevant than gut instincts?

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Who cares if they aren't actually more successful, what matters is that emotionally it feels like they will be. Good point Dan, good point.

What was I thinking, looking at "facts"? Why would those be more relevant than gut instincts?

So your entire stance is that a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and moves on to the road has as good of a chance of closing the series out as...

a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and has a final game at home?

This being the case because past results have turned out that way? Do you know how fucking stupid that makes you look?

By the way, next time in Vegas, hit the game of roulette up. Look for the amazingly hot table where one color has hit some X number of times in a row - preferably 6-10 times. Walk up and put all your money on that same color because, you know, history shows that is what will happen again.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

So your entire stance is that a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and moves on to the road has as good of a chance of closing the series out as...

a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and has a final game at home?

This being the case because past results have turned out that way? Do you know how fucking stupid that makes you look?

That is not my entire stance. My entire stance involves weighing all possible benefits and risks associated having the middle three games at home and the last two on the road. Most people tend to obsess over one scenario and pretend it somehow dominates all others.

By the way, next time in Vegas, hit the game of roulette up. Look for the amazingly hot table where one color has hit some X number of times in a row - preferably 6-10 times. Walk up and put all your money on that same color because, you know, history shows that is what will happen again.

A pitiful misunderstanding of formulating and testing hypotheses.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That is not my entire stance. My entire stance involves weighing all possible benefits and risks associated having the middle three games at home and the last two on the road. Most people tend to obsess over one scenario and pretend it somehow dominates all others.



A pitiful misunderstanding of formulating and testing hypotheses.

Ugh... Answer this question... ANSWER IT WITHOUT PRANCING AROUND IT WITH STATS AND HYPERBOLE! JUST PICK ONE.

IF a team is up 3-1, would you rather play the 5th game at home where, if you lose, you have to play 2 games on the road; however, have a much higher chance to win that 5th game and the series

OR

...would you rather play the 5th game on the road where, if you lose, you still have a game to play at home; however, have a much higher chance of finding yourself only up 3 games to 2 instead of finishing out the series in 5 (and potentially allowing momentum from your opponent to be built)

Which?

I get that I am bypassing the chance of losing one of the first two games at home ouf of the 3, which would mean the lead is 2-2 going into game 5, but before going any further, I need to determine if you are an idiot or a complete moron. We can go from there...

[Dirkadirkastan]

They both look pretty strong to me.

Therefore, I am an idiot and a complete moron, due to Dan's baseless decree. What a shame.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

They both look pretty strong to me.

Therefore, I am an idiot and a complete moron, due to Dan's baseless decree. What a shame.

And of course, you prance around and show your hand. Yes, you are an idiot that I am completely done with and that has done his best to ruin this thread. Get your last word in - I'll let you, but this will be my last post to you. I find myself feeling quite a bit like Mr. Osment below...

[Dirkadirkastan]

I am an idiot because I trust neither gut instincts nor common urban myths, and instead prefer more reliable analysis.

All hail Dan's gut! I am humbled.

[Male30Dan]

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]

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]

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.

[Male30Dan]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

[Jon Avalon]

Heh Dirk and Cardinal ready for tonight

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

[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.

[Scoobay]

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

[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.

[Male30Dan]

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.

[xrobx]

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]

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]

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

[Male30Dan]

...or not! Ugh.

[Male30Dan]

Come on Kinsler...