Playoff Chances

[valponick]

those odds are bulls***

 

the twins are 1/2 game better than the sox, yet they have an 18% better chance to make the playoffs because of that?

 

If you had bothered to go to the link that was provided you would see the results are based on the computer simulating the rest of the season 1 million times.

[loltrain]

Its amazing to me how many people are still stupid and/or bitter enough to think a team that was in first place for all 162 games and went 11-1 in the playoffs won the championship because they were "lucky".

 

These BP guys, who are all about stats, choose to ignore that overwhelming statistical fact.

 

You guys won last year because your pitchers pretty much all had career years at the same time. (Of course something like this is generally the cause for most great teams) So of course if someone looks at it statistically they will say "how did this happen?!"

[Flash Tizzle]

What I remember from this particular system is last year, AFTER the division was clinched, their playoff projections putting us at a 97% of winning the division. This wasn't a mistake either. What made it funnier is someone, can't recall the exact authors name, said (paraphrasing) "just because the White Sox have supposedly clinched doesn't mean it's correct." It was ridiculous, lol.

[Gene Honda Civic]

What I remember from this particular system is last year, AFTER the division was clinched, their playoff projections putting us at a 97% of winning the division. This wasn't a mistake either. What made it funnier is someone, can't recall the exact authors name, said (paraphrasing) "just because the White Sox have supposedly clinched doesn't mean it's correct." It was ridiculous, lol.

The system was flawed in that the Sox had a 3 game lead over CLE with 3 to play, so it wouldn't declare the Sox AL Central champions.

 

The Sox were AL Central champs at that moment because, even if they lost 3 straight Cleveland would only tie, and there was a series going on to decide the AL East. If NY or BOS won 3 to keep pace with CLE the other would have to lose and remove them from the wild card. And the Sox would be declared AL Central champs based on their H-2-H record with CLE.

 

With three games left to play, there was a 3% chance that the Sox would have been in a 3-way tie, that's all it was saying, since it's not programed include tie-breakers.

[Rowand44]

The system was flawed in that the Sox had a 3 game lead over CLE with 3 to play, so it wouldn't declare the Sox AL Central champions.

 

The Sox were AL Central champs at that moment because, even if they lost 3 straight Cleveland would only tie, and there was a series going on to decide the AL East. If NY or BOS won 3 to keep pace with CLE the other would have to lose and remove them from the wild card. And the Sox would be declared AL Central champs based on their H-2-H record with CLE.

 

With three games left to play, there was a 3% chance that the Sox would have been in a 3-way tie, that's all it was saying, since it's not programed include tie-breakers.

They literally did say something like "just because mlb says the White Sox have won the central doesn't mean they really have" in the article though.

[SABR Sox]

You are absolutely right.

 

the 2005 book wrote some of the meanest, dismissive predictions I've ever read about the Sox.

 

And read the 2006 book. They didn't admit they were wrong. They suggested the Sox were lucky and statistical freaks for winning all those one-run games.

 

I read Baseball Prospectus. But they have folks there who enjoy bashing the crap out of the White Sox, especially Kenny Williams.

 

So what?

 

They did the same last season and we shut them up so who cares?

 

Thier analysis at least has some evidence behind when they criticize a team or his GM, unlikey others in the newsmedia.

 

And yea, I do believe with them they were lucky last year, but who gives a damn becuase we won right.

 

It's tough to look down the road and find a team that hasn't won without luck, every team needs a few leprechans here and there.

[Al Lopez's Ghost]

One of BP's main comments about the Sox last year was that Cotts and Politte pitched far better than their true performance levels - that they were lucky. Say what you want, but at this point, that conclusion doesn't seem wrong to me.

[Texsox]

currently the majority of this board rate the team's chances at ZERO, and we b**** that a computer comes up with 40%

[mumu]

One of BP's main comments about the Sox last year was that Cotts and Politte pitched far better than their true performance levels - that they were lucky. Say what you want, but at this point, that conclusion doesn't seem wrong to me.

 

"True performance levels?" Is it mandatory that every player have the same statistical year, every year? Are better statistical years always due to good luck, and worse statistical years always bad luck, and median statistical years, no luck was involved? It's really just semantics, and means nothing, there is no such thing as luck.

[southsider2k5]

currently the majority of this board rate the team's chances at ZERO, and we b**** that a computer comes up with 40%

 

^

 

Soxtalk irony

[Texsox]

"True performance levels?" Is it mandatory that every player have the same statistical year, every year? Are better statistical years always due to good luck, and worse statistical years always bad luck, and median statistical years, no luck was involved? It's really just semantics, and means nothing, there is no such thing as luck.

 

Replace "luck" with "chance" or "the abundance of random events helping not hurting the performance". I believe sometimes a player does get "lucky". A ball hits a door hinge and caroms away from and not towards a fielder. A fan reaches across the wall and gives the batter another chance. An umpire makes a homerun call when it wasn't. That can drectly result in a W instead of a L. Easy to see that happen for a game. Perhaps some players are in the right place at the right time to benefit from these random events more often than others.

 

Watching a team you get a feel for some guys just always having good things happening and others have bad luck following them. I think both cases are magnified by the attitude of the player. Some guys "make their own luck".

 

 

 

 

 

 

^

 

Soxtalk irony

 

I discovered, after extensive research, that I agree with every baseball genious and disagree with all the baseball idiots. Amazingly enough, that same discovery was made by thousands of other soxtalk posters , go figure