bmags Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 Question: more and more, win probability is being mentioned in game. While I find win probability interesting retroactively to see how impactful a specific play was, I find in game it is a stupid stat. Wondering what other people think. I hope it goes away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 11:26 AM) Question: more and more, win probability is being mentioned in game. While I find win probability interesting retroactively to see how impactful a specific play was, I find in game it is a stupid stat. Wondering what other people think. I hope it goes away. Somewhat agree. I don't know statistics well enough, but to me it seems that you can't always apply the general "win probability" to specific games too accurately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shysocks Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 11:28 AM) Somewhat agree. I don't know statistics well enough, but to me it seems that you can't always apply the general "win probability" to specific games too accurately. I find win probability fascinating but I agree with both of you, it doesn't enhance the watching experience to get the numbers. The one exception: I'd like to see a fullscreen WP graphic every time a manager calls for a dumb sac bunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (shysocks @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 12:13 PM) I find win probability fascinating but I agree with both of you, it doesn't enhance the watching experience to get the numbers. The one exception: I'd like to see a fullscreen WP graphic every time a manager calls for a dumb sac bunt. This is actually a very interesting use which I'd like. But when the cubs were in the playoffs and bernstein was tweeting like "cubs now have a 65% probability of winning", it was like, cool, should I watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 6, 2015 Author Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 12:22 PM) This is actually a very interesting use which I'd like. But when the cubs were in the playoffs and bernstein was tweeting like "cubs now have a 65% probability of winning", it was like, cool, should I watch. Ha, he was balls deep in win probability when the Cubs played the Cardinals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panerista Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 12:22 PM) This is actually a very interesting use which I'd like. But when the cubs were in the playoffs and bernstein was tweeting like "cubs now have a 65% probability of winning", it was like, cool, should I watch. The problem with a number of these stats is they are based heavily on regular season performance, but when compared to a 162 game season, the playoffs are a minuscule sample size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 12:25 PM) Ha, he was balls deep in win probability when the Cubs played the Cardinals I was wondering if he was getting paid for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 10:53 AM) The problem with a number of these stats is they are based heavily on regular season performance, but when compared to a 162 game season, the playoffs are a minuscule sample size. The specific in-game win probability numbers are based on many, many thousands (if not more) points of data. I couldn't tell you exactly how the algorithms are formulated, but they are using all kinds of historical data to simulate how often a team would win in at this particular point of a game over a statistically-meaningful sample size. Often times, that number is 50,000 games. There are all kinds of fancy modeling words for these types of simulations, including monte carlo simulations and la grangian relaxation mixed integer programming, blah blah. We use these types of models to determine whether to make particular types of power or gas transactions that reach far out into the future. The concept here is very similar. You are basically trying to simulate different levels of volatility to determine all the potential impacts of making a decision or taking a particular course of action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shysocks Posted November 6, 2015 Share Posted November 6, 2015 QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 6, 2015 -> 01:34 PM) The specific in-game win probability numbers are based on many, many thousands (if not more) points of data. I couldn't tell you exactly how the algorithms are formulated, but they are using all kinds of historical data to simulate how often a team would win in at this particular point of a game over a statistically-meaningful sample size. Often times, that number is 50,000 games. There are all kinds of fancy modeling words for these types of simulations, including monte carlo simulations and la grangian relaxation mixed integer programming, blah blah. We use these types of models to determine whether to make particular types of power or gas transactions that reach far out into the future. The concept here is very similar. You are basically trying to simulate different levels of volatility to determine all the potential impacts of making a decision or taking a particular course of action. Sometimes they use models to get win expectancy, but isn't there a simpler method that just uses box scores? i.e. x% of teams in baseball history who were down two runs in the top of the 7th with a runner on 2nd ended up winning the game. It's not perfect, largely because it crosses eras.. That team is probably a little less likely to win in 2015 than in 2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 So the Cubs are going to the Score? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 QUOTE (shipps @ Nov 10, 2015 -> 06:35 PM) So the Cubs are going to the Score? yes. announced this morning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwritecode Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) I think it was actually announced months ago. Just not "officially". Edited November 11, 2015 by Iwritecode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panerista Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Nov 11, 2015 -> 08:31 AM) I think it was actually announced months ago. Essentially. CBS had a one shot opportunity to move from WBBM to WSCR and everyone kind of knew it would happen due to the White Sox move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 QUOTE (AustinIllini @ Nov 11, 2015 -> 08:33 AM) Essentially. CBS had a one shot opportunity to move from WBBM to WSCR and everyone kind of knew it would happen due to the White Sox move. Yeah. It's a really smart move for both parties. Feder had the news about a week ago though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted November 11, 2015 Author Share Posted November 11, 2015 QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Nov 11, 2015 -> 08:31 AM) I think it was actually announced months ago. Just not "officially". Yea it was a poorly kept secret Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted November 30, 2015 Share Posted November 30, 2015 Rachel Nichols leaving CNN to come back to ESPN. I watch so little ESPN now (other then actual live content) that I didn't realize she was gone (and never noticed her on CNN). Probably a good move on her part. Than again, I usually flip to CNN and skowl at the fact that I can't even get any news and thus change channel immediately. I can't remember what event was going on, but it was a big national event and I first flipped to CNN (always thinking for general news they are pretty good)....yet all I had was some stupid reality type show and I was like what the hell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 All these female sideline reporters blend together these days. I don't mean to sound sexist but it's all that's out there. Easy to get lost in the shuffle like Rachel Nichols has, even though she does more pieces than sideline stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 QUOTE (Brian @ Nov 30, 2015 -> 04:34 PM) All these female sideline reporters blend together these days. I don't mean to sound sexist but it's all that's out there. Easy to get lost in the shuffle like Rachel Nichols has, even though she does more pieces than sideline stuff. I like Nichols. She is one of the best, imo. I just pay so little attention to this type of stuff these days (as I have limited time to watch sports so when I do, it is actual sports I'm watching vs. talking heads, etc). Only talking heads I get are on talk radio when driving to/from work, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord chas Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Does any Score personality not constantly push their political agendas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 30, 2015 -> 06:53 PM) I like Nichols. She is one of the best, imo. I just pay so little attention to this type of stuff these days (as I have limited time to watch sports so when I do, it is actual sports I'm watching vs. talking heads, etc). Only talking heads I get are on talk radio when driving to/from work, etc. Ya, Rachel Nichols is awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 QUOTE (lord chas @ Dec 2, 2015 -> 08:21 PM) Does any Score personality not constantly push their political agendas? They don't unless there's a shooting or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingandalongonetoleft Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 2, 2015 -> 08:59 PM) Ya, Rachel Nichols is awesome. Also a great fan of Rachel Nichols. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 Just heard Phil Rogers on The Score. How does he have a job? I feel dumber after listening. Our SoxNet/FutureSox writers are more informed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxsoxsoxsox Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 CSN finally bringing Kendall Gil back after he punched Tim Doyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Dec 17, 2015 -> 03:32 PM) CSN finally bringing Kendall Gil back after he punched Tim Doyle Is that Pat's brother? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.