HHP: Pythagorean record and the Gaussian Copula-Function: How I learned to stop worrying and love

[cityknight]

The beauty of baseball is that you really don't have to think about the game to enjoy it.

Yeah? Have you heard of Walt Whitman?

[Flash- bd]

Ehh, not me. I've seen enough. Wake me up when someone does some actual coherent analysis related to run distribution and BP performance.

Read again, "I can't believe I actually convinced myself...." I think we're in agreement.

The beauty of baseball is that you really don't have to think about the game to enjoy it.

For me it's actually pretty nearly the opposite.

Yeah? Have you heard of Walt Whitman?

Not quite sure what the allusion is supposed to be here...Whitman didn't exactly have a minimalistic approach...

[Malike]

Ehh, not me. I've seen enough. Wake me up when someone does some actual coherent analysis related to run distribution and BP performance.

Instead of taking a dump on all of these type of threads, how about you wake up, and do some actual coherent analysis related to run distribution and BP performance? You clearly know what you want, so do it. Then you don't have to come into these types of threads, and make silly comments. We will all be smarter for your analysis, and I for one, am waiting with baited breath to read it.

[weams]

You are Roger Bannister, aren't you ???

Sir Sebastian Coe.

[olehippi]

Yeah? Have you heard of Walt Whitman?

Yes, of course, but paraphrasing would be redundant.

[Flash- bd]

Yes, of course, but paraphrasing would be redundant.

What am I missing here? Did Whitman make some famous commentary on baseball I'm not aware of?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Read again, "I can't believe I actually convinced myself...." .

" ...to read through another thread"..... which I technically haven't. Skimmed through would be more correct.

I think we're in agreement.

We're for all intensive purposes in agreement.

[Malike]

What am I missing here? Did Whitman make some famous commentary on baseball I'm not aware of?

I see great things in baseball. It's our game - the American game. It will take our people out-of-doors, fill them with oxygen, give them a larger physical stoicism. Tend to relieve us from being a nervous, dyspeptic set. Repair these losses, and be a blessing to us. ~Walt Whitman

That's the only quote I remember Whitman speaking about baseball.

[Lucky Jim]

What am I missing here? Did Whitman make some famous commentary on baseball I'm not aware of?

There's a somewhat apocryphal quote used in Bull Durham and a few others floating around that are unverified, I think.

As for the other points, it's interesting - and maybe a bit frustrating - to watch those who've already proven they have no idea what they're talking about rush to applaud this thread, as if it somehow struck a blow for their side. It's a fine summation of the basic points, but it doesn't move the needle in their favor. Not an inch.

[Lucky Jim]

We will all be smarter for your analysis, and I for one, am waiting with bated breath to read it.

Just an FYI - one (like champing at the bit) I think we all get wrong a lot (heck, dictionaries might have picked up baited already).

[Flash- bd]

I see great things in baseball. It's our game - the American game. It will take our people out-of-doors, fill them with oxygen, give them a larger physical stoicism. Tend to relieve us from being a nervous, dyspeptic set. Repair these losses, and be a blessing to us. ~Walt Whitman

That's the only quote I remember Whitman speaking about baseball.

Americans were nervous and dyspeptic even in the 19th century? Guess it's always been in the water...

[Lucky Jim]

Americans were nervous and dyspeptic even in the 19th century? Guess it's always been in the water...

Civil War will do that to a country.

[Flash- bd]

Civil War will do that to a country.

But..."It will take our people out-of-doors, fill them with oxygen, give them a larger physical stoicism."

(Probably crossing the line here...Civil War jokes=probably not funny to many.)

[Malike]

There's a somewhat apocryphal quote used in Bull Durham and a few others floating around that are unverified, I think.

As for the other points, it's interesting - and maybe a bit frustrating - to watch those who've already proven they have no idea what they're talking about rush to applaud this thread, as if it somehow struck a blow for their side. It's a fine summation of the basic points, but it doesn't move the needle in their favor. Not an inch.

Who exactly has already proven they have no idea what they're talking about, and are applauding the thread? There is nothing wrong with the thread. Is it groundbreaking new material? Of course not. Was it mildly interesting? Yes, yes, it was. What I find frustrating is the people who think they have proven they have every idea of what they are talking about, just poo-pooing other peoples threads, instead of doing their own bulletproof research, to end all debate. Of course, I know its much easier to float into someone's thread and say you are wrong.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Instead of taking a dump on all of these type of threads, how about you wake up, and do some actual coherent analysis related to run distribution and BP performance? You clearly know what you want, so do it. Then you don't have to come into these types of threads, and make silly comments. We will all be smarter for your analysis, and I for one, am waiting with baited breath to read it.

Because I don't want to take the time to do it. I'm not the one making a huge issue of pythag. I have no problem with it. My issue is the semantics and rhetoric. The likely deviations other than luck, are BP performance and run distribution. Considering our record in one run games, I have no doubt the far greater issue is luck. If you disagree with that, fine.