Comments on: Yankees win the SALCS… http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/ A New York Yankees Blog Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:34:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Yankees win the sAL East | River Avenue Blues http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-820277 Yankees win the sAL East | River Avenue Blues Fri, 02 Apr 2010 04:01:29 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-820277 [...] Yankees. Back in October, on the eve of the ALCS against the Angels, we found out that the Yankees won the sALCS. Clay Davenport of Baseball Prospectus ran simulations of the ALCS and then World Series and the [...] [...] Yankees. Back in October, on the eve of the ALCS against the Angels, we found out that the Yankees won the sALCS. Clay Davenport of Baseball Prospectus ran simulations of the ALCS and then World Series and the [...]

]]> By: Mac http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627760 Mac Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:58:52 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627760 + 1 + 1

]]> By: toad http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627719 toad Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:20:56 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627719 I'm very dubious about this, for two reasons. First, just about every number that goes into this sort of thing seems to be based on empirical data that necesarily contains measurement error. That is, if you throw an OBP into the simulation you're saying that the number you use is the true long-run OBP, which it probably isn't. It might be close, but mash together a lot of numbers and relationships that all contain error and the final result is very imprecise. Or consider run environment. Isn't that likely to be affected by the weather, and wouldn't that change the results? I'd be more impressed if Davenport told us what the confidence interval, or something, of that number, is. Second, the number doesn't check against some simple calculations. Suppose the Yankees are 55% to win any individual game against the Angels. Then their chance of winning the series is about 60%. Are the Yankees much more than 55% to beat the Angels in a given game? Make it an unrealistic 60% and you get a series win probability of .710, a still lower than the simulation results. It would be interesting to know what the simulation would predict about the regular season series. I’m very dubious about this, for two reasons.

First, just about every number that goes into this sort of thing seems to be based on empirical data that necesarily contains measurement error. That is, if you throw an OBP into the simulation you’re saying that the number you use is the true long-run OBP, which it probably isn’t. It might be close, but mash together a lot of numbers and relationships that all contain error and the final result is very imprecise. Or consider run environment. Isn’t that likely to be affected by the weather, and wouldn’t that change the results?

I’d be more impressed if Davenport told us what the confidence interval, or something, of that number, is.

Second, the number doesn’t check against some simple calculations. Suppose the Yankees are 55% to win any individual game against the Angels. Then their chance of winning the series is about 60%. Are the Yankees much more than 55% to beat the Angels in a given game? Make it an unrealistic 60% and you get a series win probability of .710, a still lower than the simulation results.

It would be interesting to know what the simulation would predict about the regular season series.

]]> By: dkidd http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627640 dkidd Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:34:54 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627640 tough room tough room

]]> By: Tank Foster http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627620 Tank Foster Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:17:02 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627620 Wow. I expected love. Wow. I expected love.

]]> By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627579 tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:52:53 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627579 www.instantcrickets.com http://www.instantcrickets.com

]]> By: pat http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627524 pat Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:15:33 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627524 They didn't do this themselves, they're reporting other people's findings. They didn’t do this themselves, they’re reporting other people’s findings.

]]> By: Joseph Pawlikowski http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627501 Joseph Pawlikowski Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:44:09 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627501 "Unfortunately for the computers, they’ll play the real games on the field. " Uh, considering that's exactly what I wrote, I'd say I am. “Unfortunately for the computers, they’ll play the real games on the field. ”

Uh, considering that’s exactly what I wrote, I’d say I am.

]]> By: Tank Foster http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627497 Tank Foster Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:34:35 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627497 Yeah that's all well and good, but you know even with spreadsheet games, you don't play them on a spreadsheet. [That was a feeble attempt at humor intended to catch the attention of TSJC] Yeah that’s all well and good, but you know even with spreadsheet games, you don’t play them on a spreadsheet.

[That was a feeble attempt at humor intended to catch the attention of TSJC]

]]> By: Stryker http://riveraveblues.com/2009/10/yankees-win-the-salcs-18499/#comment-627494 Stryker Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:16:03 +0000 http://riveraveblues.com/?p=18499#comment-627494 i, for one, love the statistical analysis and i'm glad the guys have dived in. it's a part of the game - why completely disregard it? i, for one, love the statistical analysis and i’m glad the guys have dived in. it’s a part of the game – why completely disregard it?

]]>