Silent James speaks his Mind

[CA-ORIOLE]

Could anyone still out there double check my math. If I have made a math error that's fine ill own it. But I think im pretty right in here.

And hey if I am wrong then so be it.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

I don't have time to do it right now, but will check when I have a chance, probably late tonight or in the morning. You're using Brefs formula with the 1.83 exponent correct? In any case, you have to look at overall variation not just a window of 23 games and I'm not quite sure how to approach that. The 1 run games and extra inning games would seem to be the low hanging fruit.

[SilentJames]

I don't have time to it right now, but will check when I have a chance, probably late tonight or in the morning. You're using Brefs formula with the 1.83 exponent correct? In any case, you have to look at overall variation not just a window of 23 games and I'm not quite sure how to approach that. The 1 run games and extra inning games would seem to be the low hanging fruit.

Yes. That is what I attempted to do a couple posts ago.

My whole theory is that the 23 game window sunk the overall numbers and skewed them against us.

When you isolate everything we are pretty much on point, but when you take the aggregate you see the effect.

My contention the whole time has been that the team is not as necessarily the luckiest team in 100 years. That a remarkably bad stretch, skewed the numbers and moreover - as glenn pointed out, roster changes have taken effect meaning leading to a much better team going forward.

Yes. Bbref pythag. I used this site for ease.

http://www.crashburnalley.com/pwl.html

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[CA-ORIOLE]

Yes. That is what I attempted to do a couple posts ago.

My whole theory is that the 23 game window sunk the overall numbers and skewed them against us.

When you isolate everything we are pretty much on point, but when you take the aggregate you see the effect.

My contention the whole time has been that the team is not as necessarily the luckiest team in 100 years. That a remarkably bad stretch, skewed the numbers and moreover - as glenn pointed out, roster changes have taken effect meaning leading to a much better team going forward.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Going forward isn't really relevant here. Luck/statistical anomolies and or some other unidentified factor skewing the pythageron has to be the point. Lets try and stay on that point or there really isn't much to discuss.

[Lucky Jim]

see the edit.

In June:

We scored 68 runs through June 17 (or 66 games).

We gave up 62 runs through June 17 (or 66 games).

Our runs = 96+134+68 = 298

Their runs = 84+138+62= 284

The expected wins for that through 66 games is 34-32

We were 39-27.

So, through 66 games we were 5 over.

Over the next 23 games (which is what you blogged about) we were outscored 69-139.

Over the next 24 games (which would take us through game 90) we were outscored 73-145.

298+69 = 367

298 + 73 = 371

284 + 139 = 423

284 + 145 = 429

For a run differential of 367 to 423 over 89 games, we'd be expected to win 39 games. Instead we'd won 46.

For a run differential of 371 to 429 over 90 games, we'd be be expected to win 39 games. Instead we'd won 46.

So we gained two games of differential over those 23/24 games. We had five games of differential before. And we've apparently gained 3 games of differential since.

[SilentJames]

When I said 23, I misspoke. I was obviously using the numbers for the 24 game.

But therein lies my point. The stretch had an aggregate impact on our run differential and caused the gap to grow much larger than it had been.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[Lucky Jim]

When I said 23, I misspoke. I was obviously using the numbers for the 24 game.

But therein lies my point. The stretch had an aggregate impact on our run differential and caused the gap to grow much larger than it had been.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Not by my count, it didn't. It grew two games. You made a number of math errors, as far as I can tell. All of which, it would appear, favor your opinion.

Put it this way - we gained 5 games of differential over the first 66 games, or one every 12-13 games.

We gained 2 games of differential over the next 24 games, or one every 12 games.

We have gained 3 games of differential over the 20 games, or one ever 6-7 games.

[SilentJames]

Not by my count, it didn't. It grew two games.

Yes. But going from being just on the outside of standard deviation, to being at an historic level is a bit of a jump.

The next question, why did it continue to grow after we began to win games again?

Because we are paying the interest. Right now our runs scored is still very out of whack when you consider how many games we have played.

It seems to work like paying a credit card bill. If you inly.pay the minimum you never really pay it off and it takes forever.

The orioles are working with a positive run differential over the last 21 games. If they can keep playing consistently then we should see the pythag. Record come back to that 4-5 area it was in before the stretch.

And that is still overperforming, but not historic or a very noteworthy overperformance. Assuming the standard deviation is 2 or 3 games.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[Lucky Jim]

Yes. But going from being just on the outside of standard deviation, to being at an historic level is a bit of a jump.

The next question, why did it continue to grow after we began to win games again?

Because we are paying the interest. Right now our runs scored is still very out of whack when you consider how many games we have played.

It seems to work like paying a credit card bill. If you inly.pay the minimum you never really pay it off and it takes forever.

The orioles are working with a positive run differential over the last 21 games. If they can keep playing consistently then we should see the pythag. Record come back to that 4-5 area it was in before the stretch.

And that is still overperforming, but not historic or a very noteworthy overperformance. Assuming the standard deviation is 2 or 3 games.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

This is all pretty much wrong, as far as I can tell.

Further, you claimed it went from 4 to 8 (i.e., doubled in 23 games) and you think going from 5 to 7 (in 24 games) supports your point?

[Lucky Jim]

The next question, why did it continue to grow after we began to win games again?

In the past 20 games we've outscored the opponent 83-79 while winning 65% of our games.

Pythag has us as a .500 team. Thus, we gained 3 games. Do you understand how this works? It's not about "paying interest".

[Fired-Up]

This formula is poo. It doesn't measure the heart of a team. I really do not care how we are winning. I don't care if we win 1-0, 11-10, 26-0. I really don't care. When we win I'm happy. Winning is all that matters. The standings are all that matter.

[SrMeowMeow]

Sure, no question. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But if many of those players have been replaced, particularly the starting pitchers who were allowing many of the runs, how meaningful is it really?

I think the record in 1-run games is far more an indicator that we've been lucky than the run differential, though the two are obviously related.

I said on, like, Page One of this Sisyphean thread that a team's Pythagorean record shouldn't be taken as a straight-up projection of the team going forward.

However: a run differential this big means, incontrovertibly, that We. Are. Lucky. To be where we are right now. And it means that our current record should also not be taken as a straight-up projection of the team going forward.

I am honestly as bullish on this season, dating back to Opening Day, as anyone on these boards. And I definitely think we can elevate and scorch our way to a division win. None of that has anything to do with bad logic, which is, I think we can all agree, bad.

[glenn__davis]

However: a run differential this big means, incontrovertibly, that We. Are. Lucky. To be where we are right now. And it means that our current record should also not be taken as a straight-up projection of the team going forward.

OK. I'm absolutely fine with that.