Jump to content

I'm So Sick of the Buy/Sell Argument

brianod

By brianod
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Redskins Rick Hangout Grand Counsel

Redskins Rick

Posted
Posted
Hah...MLBTR just changed their tune...now it says:

TODAY: Though Chicago is pursuing a starter, the team has no interest in “pay[ing] a premium price for a rental,” tweets Bob Nightengale of USA Today. There are several different ways to interpret that, of course: it could mean that the club prefers to go after controllable assets, that it is looking more at mid-tier arms, or just that it won’t part with its best young talent in a rental deal (but still might be involved).

Link: Cubs/Price Rumor

Maybe a trade, if they get assurances that they can sign Price to an extension.

I wouldn't rule them out, since Madden is their manager and he has a good history with Price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldGlove21 All-Star

GoldGlove21

Posted
Posted

Why can't I be in the camp that believes that 7 games out is tough to overcome and that we could receive a decent haul for our soon to be departed free agents, while still being pro-Orioles? I see a lot of people cite 14 years of losing baseball as the reason to go all in now, but going all in may cost us 3-5 years of losing baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldGlove21 All-Star

GoldGlove21

Posted
Posted
Singleton was on 105.7 and said Cashman said they wasn't going to be big spenders. Singleton said they could use somebody at 2nd that could hit the ball.

They definitely need a middle of the infield upgrade, but IF Tex and ARod stay healthy that team is clearly better than the O's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brianod All-Star

brianod

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Seven games is not time enough for things to even out. Sorry. Luck.

What I'm saying is that if you played 100 7 games series between one team with a 57% chance of winning and another team with a 43% chance of winning, the team with a 57% chance of winning would win 57 of those series. So, it isn't luck that determines who wins playoff series. You could point to 43 out of 100 of those series as proof that luck is more important but I could point to 57 and say, not it's not. It's straight from college statistics courses. Of course, I do admit, it's been a while for me:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Number5 Hangout Grand Counsel

Number5

Posted
Posted
What I'm saying is that if you played 100 7 games series between one team with a 57% chance of winning and another team with a 43% chance of winning, the team with a 57% chance of winning would win 57 of those series. So, it isn't luck that determines who wins playoff series. You could point to 43 out of 100 of those series as proof that luck is more important but I could point to 57 and say, not it's not. It's straight from college statistics courses. Of course, I do admit, it's been a while for me:)

The emboldened is unlikely. It is certainly not straight from any college statistics course that I'm familiar with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
weams Hangout Grand Counsel

weams

Posted
Posted
What I'm saying is that if you played 100 7 games series between one team with a 57% chance of winning and another team with a 43% chance of winning, the team with a 57% chance of winning would win 57 of those series. So, it isn't luck that determines who wins playoff series. You could point to 43 out of 100 of those series as proof that luck is more important but I could point to 57 and say, not it's not. It's straight from college statistics courses. Of course, I do admit, it's been a while for me:)

On no. It doesn't work like that. You have to play out the 10,000 seven game series to say that. You were using percentages. And odds. And probability. That does not work over 100 chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...