White Sox Winner!!!

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the white sox will not win a post season series, assuming the get there.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you deny the awesomeness of their 1-4 punch
El Duque (2.5 ERA in postseason), Buerhle, Garland, Garcia.

[/ QUOTE ]

the white sox winnign a series (or the whole WS) has less to do with theier starting pitching and more to do with how lucky they are (bloop hits, fly balls that stay in the park, streakiness of hitters)

That goes for every team, some have a better chance to win than others (Stl>Chicago>SD etc) but when 'good' teams play a short series, variance rules supreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky? That's ridiculous. Absolutely pathetic. You seemed smarter than this. Bloop hits? Don't comment on things you don't know about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think variance plays a huge part in the playoffs? Since you are so convinced that the White Sox have not gotten very lucky throughout the whole season, lets place a bet on whether they will even win a series. I think they will not win a series in the post season; whether they play Boston, Anaheim, New York Yankees, or Oakland in the first round. You name the amount. I will do anything $150 or less. And at this point I will do even money. But, the longer we wait, the less likely I will be willing to do this (because the longer the season goes on, the more likely it will be they will be a favorite..unless they play Boston or NYY..then they will be dogs..with or without the HFA).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, i have had this clown on ignore since jump street. nice to see he's as retarded as i thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice -- once you've realized you're way over your skis, and you have absolutely no point to make, go ahead and get personal with some insults. That's the M.O., right?

What you said was wrong, and had zero basis on fact whatsoever. I pointed it out, and I'm retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I will simplify this as much as possible (why, i dont know, as the chances of you agreeing you are wrong are null)

When two teams of approximate skill* meet in a game, one will win 50% of the time, the other 50% if you play the game a large amount of times (say 162 for sake of argument)

Now with variance mixed in, one team will win 4 in a row or 4/7 quite a few times. (to further illustrate this point go flip a coin 100 times and record the results).

Now if you flip heads 10 times in a row, what would you call it? Clutch flipping ability? Or variance? (another term for variance is LUCK) Now, luck doesnt exist, it all evens out in the long run (say 162 trials, even that's too small). It doesnt even out over 7 games.

Look at the NYY and the Devil Rays this year. The Devil rays have a winning record, yet you would have to a complete moron to suggest they are a better team than the Yankees. If they played another 100 games against each other, the odds suggest the Yankees would have a winning record over them (by a VERY wide margin).

I am amazed that this is the premier gambling site on the internet yet simple mathematical issues like this make people look idiotic when trying to discuss them.


*Note: Two teams are rarely exactly 50/50 in terms on win expectancy. Just they are a lot closer in the playoffs than the regular season, thus LUCK (variance) playing such a large factor. If you put the Royals in a 7 games series against the White sox, luck will still exist but it wont be as big a factor due to the Sox being far superior in talent.

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I will simplify this as much as possible (why, i dont know, as the chances of you agreeing you are wrong are null)

When two teams of approximate skill* meet in a game, one will win 50% of the time, the other 50% if you play the game a large amount of times (say 162 for sake of argument)

Now with variance mixed in, one team will win 4 in a row or 4/7 quite a few times. (to further illustrate this point go flip a coin 100 times and record the results).

Now if you flip heads 10 times in a row, what would you call it? Clutch flipping ability? Or variance? (another term for variance is LUCK) Now, luck doesnt exist, it all evens out in the long run (say 162 trials, even that's too small). It doesnt even out over 7 games.

Look at the NYY and the Devil Rays this year. The Devil rays have a winning record, yet you would have to a complete moron to suggest they are a better team than the Yankees. If they played another 100 games against each other, the odds suggest the Yankees would have a winning record over them (by a VERY wide margin).

I am amazed that this is the premier gambling site on the internet yet simple mathematical issues like this make people look idiotic when trying to discuss them.

*Note: Two teams are rarely exactly 50/50 in terms on win expectancy. Just they are a lot closer in the playoffs than the regular season, thus LUCK (variance) playing such a large factor. If you put the Royals in a 7 games series against the White sox, luck will still exist but it wont be as big a factor due to the Sox being far superior in talent.

[/ QUOTE ]
As stated in my previous post, I understand the concept of variance -- in fact I've understood it too well lately, as it relates to poker. I'm having a hard time understanding how it relates to them in the regular season. They've played 124 games now -- if they're getting lucky all year, then by your explanation I can expect them to finish the year 4-34 and even out at .500? By your own description, you have to consider them the favorite in the AL at this point, don't you?

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
By your own description, you have to consider them the favorite in the AL at this point, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they play Bos, NYY, and possibly even ANA, they will not be favored. I am not saying they won't be good bets, because I don't know the lines, but they won't be favored. And I am saying this knowing they will most likely have HFA (unless they really screw it up).

craig

p.s. I can't stand the yankees and really don't like ANA very much, so I am not using any type of fan bias here. But, I think if they play boston (which I am a boston fan) they will be bigger dogs than vs. any other team. And in fact, that is the team i hope that Boston plays. I don't think they are a horrible team, but I also don't think they are as good as their record shows. And if there is any factor of luck that is more than apparent, it is in the one run games, which they are 27-15. And truthfully, their record is not THAT much better than the other AL division leaders.

craig

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
By your own description, you have to consider them the favorite in the AL at this point, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

If they play Bos, NYY, and possibly even ANA, they will not be favored. I am not saying they won't be good bets, because I don't know the lines, but they won't be favored. And I am saying this knowing they will most likely have HFA (unless they really screw it up).

craig

p.s. I can't stand the yankees and really don't like ANA very much, so I am not using any type of fan bias here. But, I think if they play boston (which I am a boston fan) they will be bigger dogs than vs. any other team. And in fact, that is the team i hope that Boston plays. I don't think they are a horrible team, but I also don't think they are as good as their record shows. And if there is any factor of luck that is more than apparent, it is in the one run games, which they are 27-15. And truthfully, their record is not THAT much better than the other AL division leaders.
craig

[/ QUOTE ]
I won't argue with this -- I hope the rest of the AL stays in the dark. If a dominant record in one run games is a sign of luck, so be it. Let's just say they're the luckiest team 30 games over .500 in the history of baseball.

I guess we'll see in the playoffs. One thing we both seem to agree on is who we'd like to see as our first round opponents. Since we can't face an AL Central opponent in the first round, Boston would be my first pick. Good luck.

[LoaferGee12]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I will simplify this as much as possible (why, i dont know, as the chances of you agreeing you are wrong are null)

When two teams of approximate skill* meet in a game, one will win 50% of the time, the other 50% if you play the game a large amount of times (say 162 for sake of argument)

Now with variance mixed in, one team will win 4 in a row or 4/7 quite a few times. (to further illustrate this point go flip a coin 100 times and record the results).

Now if you flip heads 10 times in a row, what would you call it? Clutch flipping ability? Or variance? (another term for variance is LUCK) Now, luck doesnt exist, it all evens out in the long run (say 162 trials, even that's too small). It doesnt even out over 7 games.

Look at the NYY and the Devil Rays this year. The Devil rays have a winning record, yet you would have to a complete moron to suggest they are a better team than the Yankees. If they played another 100 games against each other, the odds suggest the Yankees would have a winning record over them (by a VERY wide margin).

I am amazed that this is the premier gambling site on the internet yet simple mathematical issues like this make people look idiotic when trying to discuss them.

*Note: Two teams are rarely exactly 50/50 in terms on win expectancy. Just they are a lot closer in the playoffs than the regular season, thus LUCK (variance) playing such a large factor. If you put the Royals in a 7 games series against the White sox, luck will still exist but it wont be as big a factor due to the Sox being far superior in talent.

[/ QUOTE ]
As stated in my previous post, I understand the concept of variance -- in fact I've understood it too well lately, as it relates to poker. I'm having a hard time understanding how it relates to them in the regular season. They've played 124 games now -- if they're getting lucky all year, then by your explanation I can expect them to finish the year 4-34 and even out at .500? By your own description, you have to consider them the favorite in the AL at this point, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he ever said luck contributed to our regular season success?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't think variance plays a huge part in the playoffs? Since you are so convinced that the White Sox have not gotten very lucky throughout the whole season, lets place a bet on whether they will even win a series. I think they will not win a series in the post season; whether they play Boston, Anaheim, New York Yankees, or Oakland in the first round. You name the amount. I will do anything $150 or less. And at this point I will do even money. But, the longer we wait, the less likely I will be willing to do this (because the longer the season goes on, the more likely it will be they will be a favorite..unless they play Boston or NYY..then they will be dogs..with or without the HFA).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, variance plays a huge part of the playoffs, as evidenced by the fact that wild card teams have won the Series for what...the last 3 years? I just have a hard time believing that a team that has won 77 games, has the best record in the AL by 5 1/2 games, and until just this past week had the best record in baseball isn't good -- they're just lucky. That's B.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sublime never said they were lucky in the regular season, just in the playoffs there's a bigger variance issue. You seem to understand this but are extrapolating his argument to mean that the Sox have also been lucky in the regular season.

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
the white sox winnign a series (or the whole WS) has less to do with theier starting pitching and more to do with how lucky they are (bloop hits, fly balls that stay in the park, streakiness of hitters) [ QUOTE ]

I don't think he ever said luck contributed to our regular season success?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's not what I took from it. Whatever. Who cares? They're right -- we're lucky, and we'll show up for our beating in round one. Just tell us where to go.

[sublime]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I will simplify this as much as possible (why, i dont know, as the chances of you agreeing you are wrong are null)

When two teams of approximate skill* meet in a game, one will win 50% of the time, the other 50% if you play the game a large amount of times (say 162 for sake of argument)

Now with variance mixed in, one team will win 4 in a row or 4/7 quite a few times. (to further illustrate this point go flip a coin 100 times and record the results).

Now if you flip heads 10 times in a row, what would you call it? Clutch flipping ability? Or variance? (another term for variance is LUCK) Now, luck doesnt exist, it all evens out in the long run (say 162 trials, even that's too small). It doesnt even out over 7 games.

Look at the NYY and the Devil Rays this year. The Devil rays have a winning record, yet you would have to a complete moron to suggest they are a better team than the Yankees. If they played another 100 games against each other, the odds suggest the Yankees would have a winning record over them (by a VERY wide margin).

I am amazed that this is the premier gambling site on the internet yet simple mathematical issues like this make people look idiotic when trying to discuss them.

*Note: Two teams are rarely exactly 50/50 in terms on win expectancy. Just they are a lot closer in the playoffs than the regular season, thus LUCK (variance) playing such a large factor. If you put the Royals in a 7 games series against the White sox, luck will still exist but it wont be as big a factor due to the Sox being far superior in talent.

[/ QUOTE ]
As stated in my previous post, I understand the concept of variance -- in fact I've understood it too well lately, as it relates to poker. I'm having a hard time understanding how it relates to them in the regular season. They've played 124 games now -- if they're getting lucky all year, then by your explanation I can expect them to finish the year 4-34 and even out at .500? By your own description, you have to consider them the favorite in the AL at this point, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thye HAVE been lucky this year (thier record is better than thier runs scored/allowed would suggest) that doesnt mean they are not a good team, just been luckier than normal.

Nobody has said they are a .500 team playign that FAR over thier heads, they just have been on the right side of variance (unlike a team like the blue jays who have been on the negative side)

[JayLear]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok. I will simplify this as much as possible (why, i dont know, as the chances of you agreeing you are wrong are null)

When two teams of approximate skill* meet in a game, one will win 50% of the time, the other 50% if you play the game a large amount of times (say 162 for sake of argument)

Now with variance mixed in, one team will win 4 in a row or 4/7 quite a few times. (to further illustrate this point go flip a coin 100 times and record the results).

Now if you flip heads 10 times in a row, what would you call it? Clutch flipping ability? Or variance? (another term for variance is LUCK) Now, luck doesnt exist, it all evens out in the long run (say 162 trials, even that's too small). It doesnt even out over 7 games.

Look at the NYY and the Devil Rays this year. The Devil rays have a winning record, yet you would have to a complete moron to suggest they are a better team than the Yankees. If they played another 100 games against each other, the odds suggest the Yankees would have a winning record over them (by a VERY wide margin).

I am amazed that this is the premier gambling site on the internet yet simple mathematical issues like this make people look idiotic when trying to discuss them.

*Note: Two teams are rarely exactly 50/50 in terms on win expectancy. Just they are a lot closer in the playoffs than the regular season, thus LUCK (variance) playing such a large factor. If you put the Royals in a 7 games series against the White sox, luck will still exist but it wont be as big a factor due to the Sox being far superior in talent.

[/ QUOTE ]
As stated in my previous post, I understand the concept of variance -- in fact I've understood it too well lately, as it relates to poker. I'm having a hard time understanding how it relates to them in the regular season. They've played 124 games now -- if they're getting lucky all year, then by your explanation I can expect them to finish the year 4-34 and even out at .500? By your own description, you have to consider them the favorite in the AL at this point, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thye HAVE been lucky this year (thier record is better than thier runs scored/allowed would suggest) that doesnt mean they are not a good team, just been luckier than normal.

[/ QUOTE ]
What can I say...when you're right, you're right.

[stanky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the white sox will not win a post season series, assuming the get there.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you deny the awesomeness of their 1-4 punch
El Duque (2.5 ERA in postseason), Buerhle, Garland, Garcia.

[/ QUOTE ]

the white sox winnign a series (or the whole WS) has less to do with theier starting pitching and more to do with how lucky they are (bloop hits, fly balls that stay in the park, streakiness of hitters)

That goes for every team, some have a better chance to win than others (Stl>Chicago>SD etc) but when 'good' teams play a short series, variance rules supreme.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lucky? That's ridiculous. Absolutely pathetic. You seemed smarter than this. Bloop hits? Don't comment on things you don't know about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think variance plays a huge part in the playoffs? Since you are so convinced that the White Sox have not gotten very lucky throughout the whole season, lets place a bet on whether they will even win a series. I think they will not win a series in the post season; whether they play Boston, Anaheim, New York Yankees, or Oakland in the first round. You name the amount. I will do anything $150 or less. And at this point I will do even money. But, the longer we wait, the less likely I will be willing to do this (because the longer the season goes on, the more likely it will be they will be a favorite..unless they play Boston or NYY..then they will be dogs..with or without the HFA).

craig

[/ QUOTE ]

Craig, I'll take your bet. $150 is fine. Let me know if you accept.

-Pete