It is currently Sat Nov 16, 2024 3:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If home field were completely meaningless, how many games would the away team win out of 100, on average?
50.


Thanks. If away teams have a 47% chance, on average, in baseball, how many games would an away team win, out of 100, on average?

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91932
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If home field were completely meaningless, how many games would the away team win out of 100, on average?
50.


Thanks. If away teams have a 47% chance, on average, in baseball, how many games would an away team win, out of 100, on average?
47

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91932
Location: To the left of my post
Hey, let's make this discussion worse!
http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/percent-difference-calculator.php
Answer:

Calculate percentage difference
between V1 = 47 and V2 = 53

( | V1 - V2 | / ((V1 + V2)/2) ) * 100

= ( | 47 - 53 | / ((47 + 53)/2) ) * 100
= ( | -6 | / (100/2) ) * 100
= ( 6 / 50 ) * 100
= 0.12 * 100

= 12% difference

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
If home field were completely meaningless, how many games would the away team win out of 100, on average?
50.


Thanks. If away teams have a 47% chance, on average, in baseball, how many games would an away team win, out of 100, on average?
47


Thanks. So, the point I'm really driving at is the difference between the Cubs winning tomorrow as a road team versus the odds of the Cubs winning if home-field were "meaningless" is 3%.

Now we can get onto the definition of the word "nearly". Hint: it's what Sox fans use to reference Jose Abreu's warning track drives.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 4:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72378
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
leashyourkids wrote:

Thanks. So, the point I'm really driving at is the difference between the Cubs winning tomorrow as a road team versus the odds of the Cubs winning if home-field were "meaningless" is 3%.

Now we can get onto the definition of the word "nearly". Hint: it's what Sox fans use to reference Jose Abreu's warning track drives.

It's actually a 3.9% difference. Not sure why everyone keeps rounding it down instead of up.

But even if it was 3%, that would still be statistically significant, correct?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82152
FavreFan wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:

Thanks. So, the point I'm really driving at is the difference between the Cubs winning tomorrow as a road team versus the odds of the Cubs winning if home-field were "meaningless" is 3%.

Now we can get onto the definition of the word "nearly". Hint: it's what Sox fans use to reference Jose Abreu's warning track drives.

It's actually a 3.9% difference. Not sure why everyone keeps rounding it down instead of up.

But even if it was 3%, that would still be statistically significant, correct?


Everyone is evading the truth revealed in this thread: Bryant being sent to the minors at the start of the season has put the Cubs at a disadvantage. Hide in semantics of degree but there is no escaping that truth.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
The bullpen early on hurt the Cubs more than Bryant missing 7 games.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
good dolphin wrote:
Everyone is evading the truth revealed in this thread: Bryant being sent to the minors at the start of the season has put the Cubs at a disadvantage. Hide in semantics of degree but there is no escaping that truth.



What am I? On the pay-no-mind list?

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82152
Peoria Matt wrote:
The bullpen early on hurt the Cubs more than Bryant missing 7 games.


That's irrelevant to the question of this thread.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
good dolphin wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
The bullpen early on hurt the Cubs more than Bryant missing 7 games.


That's irrelevant to the question of this thread.


:lol:

I'll see myself out.

I've got to stay out of the trolling threads.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
If one believed in this theory, I wonder if similar theories could be formed on "Schwarber and Russell being brought up earlier than many projected did make a difference"

Anyway this is all very exciting!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
rogers park bryan wrote:
If one believed in this theory, I wonder if similar theories could be formed on "Schwarber and Russell being brought up earlier than many projected did make a difference"

Anyway this is all very exciting!



No.

There can be no theories about positive decisions and impacts.

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
If one believed in this theory, I wonder if similar theories could be formed on "Schwarber and Russell being brought up earlier than many projected did make a difference"

Anyway this is all very exciting!



No.

There can be no theories about positive decisions and impacts.

Like the NRA on gun laws


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-kass-cubs-met-1007-20151006-column.html

Hell freezes over! Kass wishes Cubs well

John Kass:

Cubs fans deserve that feeling we Sox fans had in 2005.

With the Cubs in the playoffs against Pittsburgh on Wednesday and crazed Cubs fans so amped up, what are White Sox fans to do?

Some people insist they are Chicago fans, loving the Cubs and the Sox equally. And to such people I say, please moutza yourself before someone beats me to it.

You're either a cat or you're a dog. You can't hold two baseball teams in your heart, especially in playoff October.

Your baseball heart should be on your sleeve, beating wildly for just one team on the outside of your shirt for all to see, flapping meatily like some undiscovered primeval creature.

But that's baseball, and the Cubs are in the one-game wild-card playoff. So what should Sox fans do about it?

I suppose we could keep our mouths shut and watch the game with them and not provoke them, particularly if they're within reach of any kitchen utensils, like cleavers. And don't mention a fellow named Steve whom I'm not supposed to name, so I won't.

At morally ambiguous times like this, I rely on the counsel given me by the greatest White Sox fan in Chicago, the Rev. Richard O'Donnell, who is now but a few days shy of 105 years old.

I met him when he was a spry kid of 90, preparing to throw out the ceremonial first pitch before a game at Sox Park years ago.

"I figure I first picked up a baseball when I was about 5 years old," Father O'Donnell, the retired pastor of Our Lady of Good Counsel church on the South Side, told me in 2001. "I was born in 1910, you know. Oct. 15, 1910."

The Cubs didn't win the World Series in 1910, or any other year for more than a century afterward. Back then, most Cubs fans still knew the meaning of Tinker to Evers to Chance. And the Sox were nine years from the great Black Sox scandal of 1919 that almost killed baseball.

Father O'Donnell was about the same age as that little boy in legend, the one who said, "Say it ain't so, Joe."

"I'll stand out there and throw my stuff," said Father O'Donnell. "This heat is good for my old soup bone."

Naturally I had to ask him a Cubs question, because I was terrified that the North Siders just might win a World Series before our Sox got their rings.

Yes, I know it is a sin to use a priest in such a way. But I had good reason.

So what about the Cubs, Father O'Donnell?

"They're on the North Side. So they are out of our world," the South Side priest said with a gentle little smirk. "Wish them well, but that's it. They are not of our world."

His is the wisdom of the ages. The Cubs are not of our world. But still.

My younger brothers Peter and Nick are of my world. And they are crazed Cubs fans.

How crazed?

Don't even talk to them on Wednesday. They won't hear you.

And I could tell you how, when they were little boys, they'd talk over each Cubs game batter by batter, for hours before falling asleep. "Santo, Kessinger, Beckert, Banks, the infield third to first!!!" or "Would Ernie ever come over to our house after he retires?"

They'd sometimes play hooky to go to games at Wrigley. And early in the season, during Lent, they'd eschew hot dogs for their own Lenten fare.

Tarama sandwiches.

Tarama is a bright pink salty spread made of fish eggs and olive oil served at Greek restaurants. When they'd start slapping great dollops of tarama on bread in the morning, I knew.

"Game? What game?" they'd tell our parents, their pockets bulging with tarama sandwiches.

My brother-in-law David is also of my world, too, so in love with baseball that he still plays and manages in a serious hardball league in Florida. And Cubs fans like Mary Ellen, the Number One Cubs Fan at the Tribune, and others here like "Old School," who helps me with the column.

"Every other team has won their rings," Old School said. "The Bulls, the Sox, the Hawks, the Bears. Every team. Every team has won except the Cubs."

The Fire won, too.

"The Fire? Really? Oh, so every team except the Cubs."

If they win Wednesday, who knows? They could make a nice run, perhaps claim their destiny as it was foretold in "Back to the Future II."

Sox fans remember how it felt in 2005. We'll never forget.

So call me a heretic, but I'd like Chicago to know that feeling again. The city needs a break from death and taxes. And Cubs fans like my brothers have waited their entire lives.

I want to them to smile the way they did when Burt Hooton threw his no-hitter. When Billy Williams would spit it and hit it in the on deck circle, when Ernie would wiggle his fingers and Santo washed his hands with dirt. And Sandberg with his two home runs off St. Louis.

Yes, we're of different worlds. But these worlds float in the same Chicago baseball universe.

Sox fans won't wave a big blue foam finger or the "W" flag. We won't play the cat-dog. But Cubs fans, we wish you well.

Cubs, beat the Bucs. You can take these guys. You weren't expected to be here, but you are. So take them.

And once you do, go on that run. Do it.

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91932
Location: To the left of my post
leashyourkids wrote:
Thanks. So, the point I'm really driving at is the difference between the Cubs winning tomorrow as a road team versus the odds of the Cubs winning if home-field were "meaningless" is 3%.

Now we can get onto the definition of the word "nearly". Hint: it's what Sox fans use to reference Jose Abreu's warning track drives.
It's a 3% difference from 50%, but the road team doesn't stay at 50%, so it is a 6% difference.

The road team loses 3% too.

If they play 100 times, the home team will win 6% more. If that isn't the difference to you, then we'll have to agree that our differences on this are too far to overcome.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Thanks. So, the point I'm really driving at is the difference between the Cubs winning tomorrow as a road team versus the odds of the Cubs winning if home-field were "meaningless" is 3%.

Now we can get onto the definition of the word "nearly". Hint: it's what Sox fans use to reference Jose Abreu's warning track drives.
It's a 3% difference from 50%, but the road team doesn't stay at 50%, so it is a 6% difference.

The road team loses 3% too.

If they play 100 times, the home team will win 6% more. If that isn't the difference to you, then we'll have to agree that our differences on this are too far to overcome.


You proved it is 12% more.

It's 6% more often.

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 5:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Boilermaker Rick wrote:
leashyourkids wrote:
Thanks. So, the point I'm really driving at is the difference between the Cubs winning tomorrow as a road team versus the odds of the Cubs winning if home-field were "meaningless" is 3%.

Now we can get onto the definition of the word "nearly". Hint: it's what Sox fans use to reference Jose Abreu's warning track drives.
It's a 3% difference from 50%, but the road team doesn't stay at 50%, so it is a 6% difference.

The road team loses 3% too.

If they play 100 times, the home team will win 6% more. If that isn't the difference to you, then we'll have to agree that our differences on this are too far to overcome.


Nah... we are warriors, you and I... and you are straying from the original question. The question was regarding what is a "nearly meaningless" advantage. You agreed in one post that a "meaningless" home field advantage would be 50/50. If the stats we are working with are correct, a road team wins 47% of the time. Therefore, the difference between "meaningless" and reality from one team's perspective is 3%. We weren't debating away odds vs. home odds. We were debating meaningless vs nearly meaningless.

The only question now is the definition of the word "nearly," which I will soon not have the energy to care about since I've been fishing and drinking piss water beer.

Go Cubbies.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 25181
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Pequod's / Barnaby's
Image

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
IMU wrote:
Image


Still better than hot hatch talk.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:09 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
6% is NOT nearly meaningless. I would gladly take the team who has a 6% better chance of winning a game. If there were two lottery tickets I could pick from, and one had a 47% chance of winning and another had a 53% chance of winning I would easily take the latter. 53% to 47% in a Presidential election would almost be considered a landslide. I am sorry you cannot understand something so simple.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:11 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79465
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
Frank Coztansa wrote:
6% is NOT nearly meaningless.


Wait, is it 6% or 3%? :lol:

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
Frank Coztansa wrote:
If there were two lottery tickets I could pick from, and one had a 47% chance of winning and another had a 53% chance of winning I would easily take the latter.

Agree to disagree


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72378
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank the Statistician dropping truth bombs here.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 1:05 am
Posts: 25181
Location: Cultural Mecca
pizza_Place: Pequod's / Barnaby's
leashyourkids wrote:
IMU wrote:
Image


Still better than hot hatch talk.

You're lucky Furious and I didn't get started on that topic.

_________________
Rick Hahn is the best GM in baseball.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am
Posts: 79465
Location: Ravenswood Manor
pizza_Place: Pete's
rogers park bryan wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
If there were two lottery tickets I could pick from, and one had a 47% chance of winning and another had a 53% chance of winning I would easily take the latter.

Agree to disagree


:lol:

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Matthew, Tulsi, and Don


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
Frank Coztansa wrote:
6% is NOT nearly meaningless. I would gladly take the team who has a 6% better chance of winning a game. If there were two lottery tickets I could pick from, and one had a 47% chance of winning and another had a 53% chance of winning I would easily take the latter. 53% to 47% in a Presidential election would almost be considered a landslide. I am sorry you cannot understand something so simple.


I'm not going to respond to this with any semblance of thought, but to be nice, I'll at least type a sentence or two to let you know I read it. Good effort Frank.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 7:56 am
Posts: 32234
Location: A sterile, homogeneous suburb
pizza_Place: Pizza Cucina
And Frank is my guy, to be clear, just so all you shit stirrers don't go twisting my words.

_________________
Curious Hair wrote:
I'm a big dumb shitlib baby


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72378
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
leashyourkids wrote:
Frank Coztansa wrote:
6% is NOT nearly meaningless. I would gladly take the team who has a 6% better chance of winning a game. If there were two lottery tickets I could pick from, and one had a 47% chance of winning and another had a 53% chance of winning I would easily take the latter. 53% to 47% in a Presidential election would almost be considered a landslide. I am sorry you cannot understand something so simple.


I'm not going to respond to this with any semblance of thought, but to be nice, I'll at least type a sentence or two to let you know I read it. Good effort Frank.

:lol:

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:42 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
leashyourkids wrote:
I'm not going to respond to this with any semblance of thought.

Why start now.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2015 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:28 am
Posts: 11792
Location: Winnetka, Illinois
pizza_Place: Lou Malnati's
Frank Coztansa wrote:
6% is NOT nearly meaningless. I would gladly take the team who has a 6% better chance of winning a game. If there were two lottery tickets I could pick from, and one had a 47% chance of winning and another had a 53% chance of winning I would easily take the latter. 53% to 47% in a Presidential election would almost be considered a landslide. I am sorry you cannot understand something so simple.



Well, if the Sox won 6% more games.......they still would have been shitty! :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 262 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group