Jump to content

PreserveAWin

How many wins

Recommended Posts

I'd be ok with a split, but I think we can take three of four, based purely on the pitching matchups:

Jackson vs. Penny: Penny's been scuffling of late, going 1-3 with a 7.25 ERA, 26 hits in 22.1 innings, and given up 6 homers post-ASB. Jackson's last outing against Baltimore encouraged me, and he was just really unlucky against the Indians. Tigers win.

Porcello vs. Tazawa: Two kids dueling it out. Here's where the split-3/4 matchups gets kind of wonky. Don't really know what to expect from Tazawa (I hope we hit him like the Yankees did) but Porcello MUST go at least 6 innings for the Tigers to win, which I think he will. Porcello's got to save the bullpen for...

Galarraga vs. Beckett: Loss. Loss. Loss. Loss. Do I really need to say more?

Verlander vs. Buchholz: I like Verlander in the day game after a night game. Opponents are hitting .327 off Buchholz (.375 during the Day), his ERA in day games is 8.10 (Yes, it's only one game, but that's all we have), and his WHIP is 1.97. Tigers Win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the Penny v. Jackson matchup has very little to do with last night's Pettitte/Lester showdown.

If those were the only 2 people playing in the game I would tend to agree.

Right, but if anything, you'd expect the team that lost 6 in a row due to playing bad baseball to keep playing bad baseball.

Yes, this is what I'm saying. If you are going to gamble on baseball (which I wouldn't recommend) bet for any winning or losing streak greater than 3 games to continue. You will win more often than you lose (but not much more often - not enough to make it worthwhile).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If those were the only 2 people playing in the game I would tend to agree.

Don't you think the starting pitcher has more impact on the game than anyone else on the team?

I'd say there is very little that happened during Sunday's games that will impact today's matchup. While it's not as independent as a coin flip would be, it's still mostly independent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything less than a split is unacceptable. For christ sakes, it's mid-August and we're in a pennant race. There should be no such thing as losing a series from this point forward. Particularly to a team that has lost six straight games coming into the series. Not to mention, both Jackson and Verlander are going this series, so it will be really painful if we can't at least leave Boston with a split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think the starting pitcher has more impact on the game than anyone else on the team?

I'd say there is very little that happened during Sunday's games that will impact today's matchup. While it's not as independent as a coin flip would be, it's still mostly independent.

Sure the pitcher has more influence than any other individual player, but not more than everyone else combined. Independent requires zero correlation - you can't have "mostly independent".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anything less than a split is unacceptable. For christ sakes, it's mid-August and we're in a pennant race. There should be no such thing as losing a series from this point forward. Particularly to a team that has lost six straight games coming into the series. Not to mention, both Jackson and Verlander are going this series, so it will be really painful if we can't at least leave Boston with a split.

But couldn't Boston fans change a couple nouns in there and say the same thing? Boston is closer to being out of a playoff spot than the Tigers, so if there is a team that has "something to lose" this series, wouldn't it be the Tigers?

I'm not saying I'm looking for 1-3 or anything, just saying that that reasoning is the same reason why Boston needs to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be absolutely thrilled with a split in Boston.

One of the additional benefits of Boston's recent losing streak is that Detroit is now a mere 3 games out of the AL Wild Card spot. Hopefully we won't need it, of course. But it's good to know we now have a second legitimate chance at making the playoffs. Until recently, the BoSox were running away with that thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure the pitcher has more influence than any other individual player, but not more than everyone else combined. Independent requires zero correlation - you can't have "mostly independent".

Ok but there are degrees of correlation. If the correlation is very small, it's not really significant.

Frankly, I don't even think there's any correlation at all. Considering no one actually agrees on how the Boston losing streak affects their chances to win tomorrow, I don't see what happened in last night's game that has any affect for tonight, in terms of win probability. Is Thames or Cabrera or Martinez going to hit a home run because they hit one last night? Even if they do hit one today, it won't be because they hit one last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But couldn't Boston fans change a couple nouns in there and say the same thing? Boston is closer to being out of a playoff spot than the Tigers, so if there is a team that has "something to lose" this series, wouldn't it be the Tigers?

I'm not saying I'm looking for 1-3 or anything, just saying that that reasoning is the same reason why Boston needs to win.

Boston's reason for winning or splitting is that we have lost six straight games and they are throwing their best two SP during the series? Really? I don't think either of those is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boston's reason for winning or splitting is that we have lost six straight games and they are throwing their best two SP during the series? Really? I don't think either of those is true.

Those factors are less important than the first ones you mentioned, IMO, being...

it's mid-August and we're in a pennant race
There should be no such thing as losing a series from this point forward.

Right: We haven't lost 6 straight and we will not see both of their top 2, but they're in just as much of a pennant race as we are and cannot afford to be losing games, just as we can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok but there are degrees of correlation. If the correlation is very small, it's not really significant.

Is there such thing in a game where the differential for most teams between runs scored/game and runs allowed/game is 0.25/game or less? I'd say that all correlation is significant the the outcome of any one particular game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lynn Henning thinks Armando might not start Wednesday. FWIW.

DETNEWS | Weblogs | Lynn Henning

The mystery of Armando Galarraga

I'd be surprised if Jim Leyland starts Armando Galarraga in Wednesday's game at Fenway Park.

Leyland likes to feel, genuinely, that his starting pitcher can give him a chance to win. And no longer does Galarraga qualify there.

How he was able to put things together in 2008, and again through April, before coming unglued is one of those mysteries only the pitching universe can create. But no longer does it appear as if Galarraga has anywhere near the control or confidence to be entrusted with a start.

I suspect Leyland has already made up his mind accordingly. I have a hunch that Zach Miner will start Wednesday at Fenway Park, and if not Miner, than it will be Chris Lambert, the right-hander who was recently summoned from Triple A Toledo.

It's stunning to think that the Tigers have been able to hang in first place with no Jeremy Bonderman, with no Dontrelle Willis, with no Nate Robertson, and with only an occasional decent game from Galarraga.

Why aren't the White Sox on top by 10 games?

But to stay in first place the Tigers will need to have their starter pitch sturdily in every game. There will be a clunker or two, sure. But five or six innings of quality pitching will be the recipe for winning the American League Central title.

You knew by the second inning Friday, even with a 6-1 lead, that the Tigers would need to score 10 or 12 runs to win the game. They got 10 runs. But with one break going the other way -- or with Joe Crede in the Twins lineup -- that game would have been Minnesota's.

And Galarraga's poor pitching was the reason a blow-out became a close game that for the lack of a single play would have been in the Twins' win column.

Leyland can't manage that way. The Tigers can't win that way. Galarraga needs to come out of the rotation, all because he has made it clear he no longer is a reliable big-league starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this is what I'm saying. If you are going to gamble on baseball (which I wouldn't recommend) bet for any winning or losing streak greater than 3 games to continue. You will win more often than you lose (but not much more often - not enough to make it worthwhile).

Teams on long losing streaks are usually bad teams so I would guess that you are right that they would lose the next game more often than not. However, when a good team is on a long losing streak, I don't think your theory holds, although I have nothing to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lynn Henning thinks Armando might not start Wednesday. FWIW.

DETNEWS | Weblogs | Lynn Henning

Henning being Henning. Every game studly..yeah right.

Chris Lambert?? The Chris Lambert who gave up more hits than a Lions QB.

Zach Miner?? the only pitcher who nibbles more than AG..Henning is insightful isn't he??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with Henning except that there isn't any alternative who is a better choice than Galarraga. Maybe Miner, but certainly not Lambert. Miner has been just as bad as Galarraga and Lambert was far worse in his one appearance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there such thing in a game where the differential for most teams between runs scored/game and runs allowed/game is 0.25/game or less? I'd say that all correlation is significant the the outcome of any one particular game.

I'm not sure I'm following your post, but, certainly the two team's run differentials are relevant to a game, since run differential generally represents a team's true talent level.

All I'm saying is, the last few games that each team has played is not relevant to tonight's contest, unless something happened in those games that would have an effect on today's game (i.e. key injury/suspension)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Henning being Henning. Every game studly..yeah right.

Chris Lambert?? The Chris Lambert who gave up more hits than a Lions QB.

Zach Miner?? the only pitcher who nibbles more than AG..Henning is insightful isn't he??

That article was beyond putrid. I wish I could suck at my job as much as he does, and still be employed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I was getting at was that they just lost 6 in a row, the more games in a row they lose the lower their probability is that they lose tomorrow, so sooner or later they are going to win again and when they do, a team like the Red Sawks with an explosive offense and a decent collection of arms will probably have no problem getting back on the ball

Ahh..my good friend, the gambler's fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh..my good friend, the gambler's fallacy.

Wait a minute. Boston's a good team, no? They have good players. Good pitchers. They've lost 6 in a row, 4 of them close games. For them to win, wouldn't that be "regressing to the mean"? In the endless threads I see on here about BABIP I keep hearing that term on how a lucky pitcher is getting by and that he'll eventually "regress to the mean". How is that statistically dependant but a good team's performance in a game not? They've scored 2 runs in their last 37 innings. I think those boys are due to explode and "regress to the mean".

You act like whitesox901 just said that the Earth is flat. His theory is entirely plausible.

Comparing something that involves 50 actual people doing something in relation to each other to blackjack defies logic and reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait a minute. Boston's a good team, no? They have good players. Good pitchers. They've lost 6 in a row, 4 of them close games. For them to win, wouldn't that be "regressing to the mean"? In the endless threads I see on here about BABIP I keep hearing that term on how a lucky pitcher is getting by and that he'll eventually "regress to the mean". How is that statistically dependant but a good team's performance in a game not? They've scored 2 runs in their last 37 innings. I think those boys are due to explode and "regress to the mean".

You act like whitesox901 just said that the Earth is flat. His theory is entirely plausible.

Comparing something that involves 50 actual people doing something in relation to each other to blackjack defies logic and reason.

I thinks you do not quite understand the mechanics behind regression to the mean.

All that means is that they are playing at a level different from their true talent level, which does regress after a while. However, WHEN it regresses is completely random. The gamblers fallacy is a fallacy because while a streak may be due to correct itself, it might not correct itself for quite a while. Same goes for a batter posting an unusually high average, or a team on an unusually long losing streak. Will they go back to the mean? Yes. When will they? No one knows. Thus, attempting to predict when precisely it will regress is folly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thinks you do not quite understand the mechanics behind regression to the mean.

All that means is that they are playing at a level different from their true talent level, which does regress after a while. However, WHEN it regresses is completely random. The gamblers fallacy is a fallacy because while a streak may be due to correct itself, it might not correct itself for quite a while. Same goes for a batter posting an unusually high average, or a team on an unusually long losing streak. Will they go back to the mean? Yes. When will they? No one knows. Thus, attempting to predict when precisely it will regress is folly.

Of course nobody knows exactly WHEN they will. But I think it's a good bet to think it'll happen at home, where they are 35-17, against a team that's 23-33 on the road and allowed 28 runs in the last 3 games.

Naturally, if he's right and the Sox do well in the series, it won't be acknowledged. I guess they were just "lucky".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait a minute. Boston's a good team, no? They have good players. Good pitchers. They've lost 6 in a row, 4 of them close games. For them to win, wouldn't that be "regressing to the mean"? In the endless threads I see on here about BABIP I keep hearing that term on how a lucky pitcher is getting by and that he'll eventually "regress to the mean". How is that statistically dependant but a good team's performance in a game not? They've scored 2 runs in their last 37 innings. I think those boys are due to explode and "regress to the mean".

The Red Sox have scored only two runs in their last 37 innings. They are a better hitting team than that so they will probably score more than 2 runs in their next 37 innings. This won't happen because they are due. It will happen because they are a good hitting team.

It's the same thing with BABIP. If a pitcher with a lifetime BABIP of .300 has a .250 BABIP for half a season. You wouldn't expect him to have a .250 BABIP in the second half of the season. It will probably be higher than .250.

Games are not necessarily independent of each other but I don't think there is any such thing as being due. I haven't seen it in the studies I've done. I'm sure there are some teams that have responded positively to a poor streak of play and that there other teams that have responded negatively. However, knowing that a team is doing poorly does not help a fan determine whether they will do well or do poorly in the next game.

Comparing something that involves 50 actual people doing something in relation to each other to blackjack defies logic and reason.

But you aren't one of the 50 people so you have no control over what happens. So, for a fan, guessing how the team will respond to a losing streak is essentially the same as gambling.

Edited by tiger337

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,685
    • Total Posts
      2,986,477
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...