Jump to content

PreserveAWin

How many wins

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

I don't understand the distinction between "Being Due" as used by fans and writers/announcers vs. "They are a good hitting team and will probably not score as low as they have ben previously" (summarizing your view)

I think when people use the term "he's due" they mean "He's too good to keep on sucking like he has" or what it is you described. It's not meant to say "It will absolutely be this game because the baseball gods owe him".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

If the Red Sox do well in the series, that in no way will prove that they were "due" to win so there would be nothing to acknowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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".

Sure, but all of that is better reasoning and much more relevant than "they will win because they are due." If the Sox win the series, it will have far more to do with anything you mentioned, than something about "being due."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

But we have 50 individuals to examine and they have a track record that that we can look at and that is not random, as opposed to a plastic card dispenser that gets reshuffled every few minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, but all of that is better reasoning and much more relevant than "they will win because they are due." If the Sox win the series, it will have far more to do with anything you mentioned, than something about "being due."

Why can't all of those things be implied with the phrase "being due"? It's shorter. That's what people mean when they use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand the distinction between "Being Due" as used by fans and writers/announcers vs. "They are a good hitting team and will probably not score as low as they have ben previously" (summarizing your view)

I think when people use the term "he's due" they mean "He's too good to keep on sucking like he has" or what it is you described. It's not meant to say "It will absolutely be this game because the baseball gods owe him".

Read whitesox's post again:

"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"

The bolded portion is what I assume is meant by "being due," and it is patently false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand the distinction between "Being Due" as used by fans and writers/announcers vs. "They are a good hitting team and will probably not score as low as they have ben previously" (summarizing your view)

I think when people use the term "he's due" they mean "He's too good to keep on sucking like he has" or what it is you described. It's not meant to say "It will absolutely be this game because the baseball gods owe him".

That's not how I interpreted WhiteSox901's post or your previous post. Maybe I misinterpreted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read whitesox's post again:

"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"

The bolded portion is what I assume is meant by "being due," and it is patently false.

I guess the difference is I continued to read the bit right after the bolded part.

If he's talking about the Pittsburgh Pirates, I'd agree with you. But it's the Boston Red Sox. Is it a scientific fact? Of course not. And I don't think he meant that it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't all of those things be implied with the phrase "being due"? It's shorter. That's what people mean when they use it.

I think people mean different things when they use the term. I know plenty of people who think, for example, that a team that scores 15 runs in one game is likely to have a really bad game the next day just because they scored 15 runs the day before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't all of those things be implied with the phrase "being due"? It's shorter. That's what people mean when they use it.

Well, for one, I don't know if that's what people mean, as I pointed out in whitesox's post earlier in the thread. I think a lot of people genuinely think that the streak itself influences future events. I mean, no one would bother to talk about the gambler's fallacy unless a few people actually did believe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On regression to the mean:

If the Red Sox average 5 runs a game, and then average 2.5 runs a game for a week, regression to the mean does not imply that they would score 7.5 runs a game for a week to "make up for" the bad week. It means that they're likely to score 5 runs a game for a week because that is the mean.

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"?

No, for them to win means they outscored the Tigers, nothing more, nor nothing less. It is not a foregone conclusion that should the Red Sox win -> Red Sox are 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".

a. One cannot predict when the 'regression to the mean' takes place. Sometimes it is gradual, sometimes it is sudden. There is no reason to presume it will happen tonight.

b. If the 2009 Boston have a history of scoring 5 runs a night on average, but happens to have only scored 2 runs in the last 37 innings for no apparent reason (i.e. loss of player(s), massive clubhouse turmoil, etc.), one should presume the Sox will score 5 runs a game on average moving forward, even though it is likely that the Sox will score something like 10 runs a few times and be held to 2 runs or less a few times the remainder of the season.

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

I didn't 'act' like anything. I pointed out his/her logic is based on the gambler's fallacy.

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

Pointing out that using the Red Sox recent scoring difficulties / losses (despite being a good hitting team and team overall) as a reason to presume they will be more successful against the Tigers is flawed logic neither defies logic nor reason.

Just because baseball is a human endeavor does not mean that logic cannot be applied to it. I don't think teams do well because they have done poorly recently, even if the team is good.

I'd further suggest the fact that up to 50 people have a hand in the outcome of the games only serves to make the outcomes harder to predict / more variable.

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
      96,671
    • Total Posts
      2,975,775
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

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