***The OFFICIAL Cardinals vs. Astros NLCS Thread*** - Page 4

djj6835 · #31 10-10-2005, 02:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Who will win this series? Astros, hands down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why did the astros lose last year when they had a better team, and the cardinals were worst compared to this year?

Benholio · #32 10-10-2005, 03:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are comparing the regular season to the playoffs. Don't do that.

That's like comparing a cash game to a tourney. You guys DO have the better team. Who cares? This is a 7-game TOURNAMENT.

We have the advantage in this TOURNAMENT. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you admit that the Cardinals have a better team but you insist that you (and the Astros) have an advantage? That is silly. Why would the BETTER team not be favored in a tournament? Are tournaments usually won by WORSE teams?

[ QUOTE ]

Using your argument...how do you explain the Braves (the best team over the last 14 years) only winning 1 WS??

[/ QUOTE ]

Variance. Send any team to the playoffs for the last 14 years, and they will average 2-3 WS wins (less since divisional playoffs were introduced). The Braves are on the low side of that total, but it isn't that improbable statistically speaking.

[ QUOTE ]

Who's team is better? Cardinals, hands down. Who will win this series? Astros, hands down.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the 'hands down' better team is the 'hands down' underdog in a best of 7 series? Brilliant!

#33 10-10-2005, 03:18 PM

You keep thinking we were better last year. We weren't. Stop thinking that. We're much more well-rounded this year.

#34 10-10-2005, 03:21 PM

Yes. Phil Hellmuth has an advantage over Chip Reese in a large-entry tournament. However, Chip Reese is the better player.

Huh..imagine that.

Braves, variance!? lol. Hard to have much variance when you've had the same Coach, pitching coach, and hitting coach almost all these years. You'd think they'd learn how to advance by now.

Variance isn't as great in baseball as it is in poker, doof.

Benholio · #35 10-10-2005, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. Phil Hellmuth has an advantage over Chip Reese in a large-entry tournament. However, Chip Reese is the better player.

[/ QUOTE ]

The cash game vs tournament analogy is a bad one. They aren't playing an entirely different formal all season then switching for the playoffs. If Chip Reese is the favorite in a years worth of cash games vs. Helmuth, then he would also be a favorite in a series of 7 CASH GAMES vs. Helmuth.

[ QUOTE ]

Braves, variance!? lol. Hard to have much variance when you've had the same Coach, pitching coach, and hitting coach almost all these years. You'd think they'd learn how to advance by now.

Variance isn't as great in baseball as it is in poker, doof.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to learn what variance is before you start using it in your arguments. Your above quote really makes no sense. Variance is simply the difference between what is expected and what actually occurs. There is quite a bit of variance in baseball.

#36 10-10-2005, 03:39 PM

Playoff games are nowhere near what they are like during the season. Case in point last nights playoff game, Roger coming out of pen.

You are trying to make a valid argument but are coming up short. A SERIES is one, giant, tournament.

And I know what variance is, but it's nowhere near what it is in poker. Bobby Cox basically has to meander through 3 rounds of 5-7 games each to win the WS. Variance doesn't rear it's ugly head much in a 7 game series.

If it were 1-game rounds then yes, obviously, but not 5 or 7.

Ulysses · #37 10-10-2005, 03:44 PM

Once again, I would just like to make a general statement that I don't have the proper time to devote to this thread right now and will just agree w/ whatever K Steel says.

GuyOnTilt · #38 10-10-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Variance doesn't rear it's ugly head much in a 7 game series.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

GOOOOO STROOOS!!!!

GoT

Benholio · #39 10-10-2005, 03:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And I know what variance is, but it's nowhere near what it is in poker. Bobby Cox basically has to meander through 3 rounds of 5-7 games each to win the WS. Variance doesn't rear it's ugly head much in a 7 game series.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is laughable. Even a team that has a 60% chance to win vs. another team will only win that series ~71% of the time. Most matchups are closer than 60%, too. (Only 2 teams won 60% of their games this year, and that is against all teams, not just playoff teams, which are logically tougher)

I submit that you and El Diablo need to learn more about statistics before making such absurd statements!

#40 10-10-2005, 04:26 PM

A series is broken down into 7 games, which are broken down into 9 innings, which are broken down to 3 outs per.

Where is the variance? Think of these as "steps" for SNG's. If you put some AB's together (Step 1), you get runs, if you put some innings together (step 2), you get wins. And if you put some wins together (step 3), you take the series.

This isn't like a football super bowl where you can overcome a 6-point deficit with :01 remaining on the clock when your punt returner runs it all the way back.

Or better yet, last play of the game your star RB fumbles and their linebacker picks it up and runs it back. Variance.

Now those are examples of variance. Deciding who the best football team is is kind of a joke. Baseball has MUCH less of that crap.

If baseball had any less variance it would be basketball.

The first 3 quarters of a playoff basketball game are meaningless, as it's usually near-tied after 3. Hardly any variance whatsoever in that sport.

EDIT: And, can I suppose, that by your definition of variance, the Cardinals are just on the "positive side" of variance over the last 2 years? LOLOL.