Jump to content

six-hopper

They are who Pythagoras thinks they are.

Recommended Posts


On 7/29/2019 at 1:05 PM, Oblong said:

Still blows my mind that this pythagorean thing works so well.

I know it's been modified somewhat but even at it's inception (which didn't have any adjustments, it was straight runs) for a quick and dirty analysis at being so close most of the time is remarkable.

Math in life.

My biggest regret is bailing on Calc II because things stopped coming to me so quickly.  I thought about that the other day when I was running.  I'm training for a half marathon.  I hate running. My wife loves it.  I took it up as a means to stay fit and something we can do together as a hobby.  The thing you learn from it with my attitude is you never really like it while you are doing it.  All I think about is "when can I stop?".  Each increase in milage is deemed impossible - until I do it.  But that's the point.  It's supposed to be hard and grueling.  That was my attitude with math when I got to the advanced stages.   After failing my very first Algebra class in 9th grade my teacher talked with me and something just clicked. From then on it was A's.  Even through calc I, I did pretty well.  Then it got very hard and I had to really think about things.  I guess I just gave up because I figured if I had to think about it so hard then it must not be my thing.  My professor tried to tell me but I was 19 and knew everything.  But I felt like i missed out on a large part of my brain's functional ability by giving up on it.

 

Wow, there is so much in this post.  Like my whole life!

When I was younger, I had good days where I could run 10 miles and feel really good to the point where I would zone out for a while and all of the sudden realize I had just gone two miles without feeling it.  Other days, I would do a five mile run, feel like crap and just wanted to get it done.  But the more I trained, the more good days I had.  It got to the point where I could just go out and run 5-7 miles every day with one longer runs on weekends without thinking about it.  Getting faster was difficult though.  I had to work hard if I wanted to do better in races.  Now, I never run hard.  I just run 2-3 times a week and mix in some hiking and bicycling.  It is never difficult now because I have accepted the fact that I am old and slow and am not trying to get better in races.  

Calculus and anything above it was hard for me.  I liked the challenge and it was interesting to see my mind develop to the point where it became not so hard.  It was actually a lot like running and I think seeing how running became easier as I did more of it gave me more confidence that I do the same in math.  They definitely fed off each other.  I have now forgotten most of the high level math I learned unless it's something I need for work.  However, I feel like having developed my brain in that area helped me become more logical and analytical in general.  

By the way,  even simpler and almost as good as the Pythagorean Theorem is just using run differential and saying that 10 runs equals one victory.  So, if a team scores 800 runs and allows 700, their record should be 100/10 = 10 games above .500.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 6:52 PM, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Some people enjoy the endorphins.

I enjoyed that it took my mind off of the day to day bull**** that is life.  It took a few months to get to that point, but once my body was conditioned for longer runs (not lordstanley long, but say a 1 hour run), I loved it because it helped recharge me emotionally / mentally.  When I ran, I found myself in a Zen like state, if that makes sense.

When I injured my knee, the worst part, by far was not being able to run anymore.  And my recovery and rehab was pretty arduous - something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Running (now hiking) really does let me get away from all the BS.  I used to get that zen like state too, although it doesn't really happen much now.  I have also never done Lord Stanley distance.  Ten miles or a little above was my long run.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Wow, there is so much in this post.  Like my whole life!

When I was younger, I had good days where I could run 10 miles and feel really good to the point where I would zone out for a while and all of the sudden realize I had just gone two miles without feeling it.  Other days, I would do a five mile run, feel like crap and just wanted to get it done.  But the more I trained, the more good days I had.  It got to the point where I could just go out and run 5-7 miles every day with one longer runs on weekends without thinking about it.  Getting faster was difficult though.  I had to work hard if I wanted to do better in races.  Now, I never run hard.  I just run 2-3 times a week and mix in some hiking and bicycling.  It is never difficult now because I have accepted the fact that I am old and slow and am not trying to get better in races.  

Calculus and anything above it was hard for me.  I liked the challenge and it was interesting to see my mind develop to the point where it became not so hard.  It was actually a lot like running and I think seeing how running became easier as I did more of it gave me more confidence that I do the same in math.  They definitely fed off each other.  I have now forgotten most of the high level math I learned unless it's something I need for work.  However, I feel like having developed my brain in that area helped me become more logical and analytical in general.  

By the way,  even simpler and almost as good as the Pythagorean Theorem is just using run differential and saying that 10 runs equals one victory.  So, if a team scores 800 runs and allows 700, their record should be 100/10 = 10 games above .500.  

 

Yesterday I did a 5K and like I said I am training for a half... I forgot my garmin so I had no idea how fast I was running.  It was muggy and sunny and I was worried I would go too fast so I just had to figure it out on my own... I finished with a comfortable, but not slow pace, didn't really struggle, I still hated it, but it was nice to run "naked" as they say.  No pressure.  My training now is 3x a week, smaller runs during the week and a long one on the weekend.  My overall goal with running was to just be able to go out and run 3-4 miles without it being a "thing".  I"ve reached that point.  After this half I'll have to figure out what's next.  My wife took this year off in terms of goals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Phy

9 minutes ago, Oblong said:

. I finished with a comfortable, but not slow pace, didn't really struggle, I still hated it, but it was nice to run "naked" as they say.  No pressure.  

I just use a very simple watch these days. No GPS, no Strava, no Garmin, no heart rate monitor. I do have a standalone GPS that I use when running/hiking in the mountains, helps me navigate without draining a phone battery.  

Speaking of naked running, do you think Pythagoras ever competed in running events in ancient Olympic games or was he just a math geek?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to time myself maybe once a week in one "animal run".  The rest of the week, I didn't look at my watch.  As long as you get the miles in and maybe one sort of hard run a week, you will be ready for races.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do it more to catch myself from going too fast at first.  My "normal" run if you ask me to go from point A to B is too fast.  Then I burn out.  Right now in the heat and humidity, it's been mid to high 80s here, I try to go about 10-10:30 pace.   When I look at my watch and see I'm slowing down then I will adjust but if after that its a struggle then I stop for about a minute.  Then I go back to the natural 10-10:30 pace.   ITs sort of my way of telling myself "You do need to stop" vs "you are just being lazy and want to stop".   My route in my neighborhood has some intersections paced out perfectly for that where waiting at a light is all I need.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Oblong said:

I do it more to catch myself from going too fast at first.  My "normal" run if you ask me to go from point A to B is too fast.  Then I burn out.  Right now in the heat and humidity, it's been mid to high 80s here, I try to go about 10-10:30 pace.   When I look at my watch and see I'm slowing down then I will adjust but if after that its a struggle then I stop for about a minute.  Then I go back to the natural 10-10:30 pace.   ITs sort of my way of telling myself "You do need to stop" vs "you are just being lazy and want to stop".   My route in my neighborhood has some intersections paced out perfectly for that where waiting at a light is all I need.

Try to bring this back on topic by telling us you slide into intersections better than Miggy .    😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

Did Phy

I just use a very simple watch these days. No GPS, no Strava, no Garmin, no heart rate monitor. I do have a standalone GPS that I use when running/hiking in the mountains, helps me navigate without draining a phone battery.  

Speaking of naked running, do you think Pythagoras ever competed in running events in ancient Olympic games or was he just a math geek?

Zeno used to invite him, but he could never quite get to any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiger337 said:

By the way,  even simpler and almost as good as the Pythagorean Theorem is just using run differential and saying that 10 runs equals one victory.  So, if a team scores 800 runs and allows 700, their record should be 100/10 = 10 games above .500.  

??? 

Let's put it to the test:

Among other things:Current Standings as of today:

Includes actual W/L .......then X-W/L (Pythagorean) .......then W/L "IF" DIFF/10 (or 10 runs = 1 victory)

Looks like best/over and worst/under .500 NOTE are much less accurate.

NOTE:  Tigers gain 11 wins ???

https://www.mlb.com/standings

 
AL East W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L     W/L "IF" DIFF/10  
NY Yankees 78 41 .655 -         704 548   +156 76 - 43     67 - 52   
Tampa Bay 69 50 .580 9.0         558 459 +99 70 - 49     65 - 54   
Boston 62 58 .517 16.5         692 632 +60 65 - 56     63 - 57   
Toronto 49 72 .405 30.0         542 605 -63 54 - 67     57 - 64   
Baltimore 39 79 .331 38.5         515 749 -234   40 - 78     47 - 71   
AL Central W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Cleveland 71 47 .602 -         548 462    +86   68 - 50   63 - 55    
Minnesota 71 47 .602 -         675 548 +127 70 - 48   66 - 52    
Chi Wht Sox 52 64 .448 18.0         478 595 -117 47 - 69   52 - 64    
Kansas City 43 76 .361 28.5         525 624 -99 51 - 69   55 - 64    
Detroit 35 80 .304 34.5         423 653 -230 36 - 80   46 - 69    
AL West W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Houston 77 41 .653 -         653 469  +184   76 - 42   68 - 50    
Oakland 67 51 .568 10.0         599 509 +90 68 - 51   63 - 54    
Texas 59 58 .504 17.5         603 604 -1 58 - 59   58 - 59    
LA ....Angels 58 61 .487 19.5         596 621 -25 57 - 62   58 - 61    
Seattle 48 71 .403 29.5         573 690 -117 50 - 69   54 - 65    
 
NL East W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Atlanta 70 50 .583 -         647 585  +62    65 - 55   63 - 57    
Washington 62 55 .530 6.5         584 537 +47 63 - 54   61 - 56    
NY Mets 61 57 .517 8.0         569 557 +12 60 - 58   60 - 58    
Philadelphia 60 58 .508 9.0         557 590 -33 56 - 62   57 - 61    
Miami 44 73 .376 24.5         428 547 -119 46 - 71   53 - 64    
NL Central W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L W/L "IF" DIFF/10      
Chicago Cub 64 54 .542 -         591 514 +77    66 - 52 63 - 55      
St. Louis 61 55 .526 2.0         518 502 +16 60 - 56 59 - 57      
Milwaukee 62 57 .521 2.5         566 586 -20 58 - 61 59 - 60      
Cincinnati 56 60 .483 7.0         531 492 +39 62 - 54 60 - 56      
Pittsburgh 48 69 .410 15.5         544 644 -100 50 - 67 53 - 64      
NL West W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
LA Dodgers. 79 41 .658 -         648 456 +192    79 - 41   70 - 50    
Arizona 59 59 .500 19.0         606 539 +67 65 - 53   63 - 55    
S.F. Giants 59 60 .496 19.5         511 568 -57 54 - 65   57 - 62    
San Diego 55 62 .470 22.5         529 563 -34 55 - 62   57 - 60    
Colorado 53 65 .449 25.0         624 689 -65 54 - 64   56 - 62    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ******* cares

edit: the above is not a reference to the most recent post. It was a general reference regarding the tigers performance this year. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

??? 

Let's put it to the test:

Among other things:Current Standings as of today:

Includes actual W/L .......then X-W/L (Pythagorean) .......then W/L "IF" DIFF/10 (or 10 runs = 1 victory)

Looks like best/over and worst/under .500 NOTE are much less accurate.

NOTE:  Tigers gain 11 wins ???

https://www.mlb.com/standings

 
AL East W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L     W/L "IF" DIFF/10  
NY Yankees 78 41 .655 -         704 548   +156 76 - 43     67 - 52   
Tampa Bay 69 50 .580 9.0         558 459 +99 70 - 49     65 - 54   
Boston 62 58 .517 16.5         692 632 +60 65 - 56     63 - 57   
Toronto 49 72 .405 30.0         542 605 -63 54 - 67     57 - 64   
Baltimore 39 79 .331 38.5         515 749 -234   40 - 78     47 - 71   
AL Central W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Cleveland 71 47 .602 -         548 462    +86   68 - 50   63 - 55    
Minnesota 71 47 .602 -         675 548 +127 70 - 48   66 - 52    
Chi Wht Sox 52 64 .448 18.0         478 595 -117 47 - 69   52 - 64    
Kansas City 43 76 .361 28.5         525 624 -99 51 - 69   55 - 64    
Detroit 35 80 .304 34.5         423 653 -230 36 - 80   46 - 69    
AL West W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Houston 77 41 .653 -         653 469  +184   76 - 42   68 - 50    
Oakland 67 51 .568 10.0         599 509 +90 68 - 51   63 - 54    
Texas 59 58 .504 17.5         603 604 -1 58 - 59   58 - 59    
LA ....Angels 58 61 .487 19.5         596 621 -25 57 - 62   58 - 61    
Seattle 48 71 .403 29.5         573 690 -117 50 - 69   54 - 65    
 
NL East W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Atlanta 70 50 .583 -         647 585  +62    65 - 55   63 - 57    
Washington 62 55 .530 6.5         584 537 +47 63 - 54   61 - 56    
NY Mets 61 57 .517 8.0         569 557 +12 60 - 58   60 - 58    
Philadelphia 60 58 .508 9.0         557 590 -33 56 - 62   57 - 61    
Miami 44 73 .376 24.5         428 547 -119 46 - 71   53 - 64    
NL Central W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L W/L "IF" DIFF/10      
Chicago Cub 64 54 .542 -         591 514 +77    66 - 52 63 - 55      
St. Louis 61 55 .526 2.0         518 502 +16 60 - 56 59 - 57      
Milwaukee 62 57 .521 2.5         566 586 -20 58 - 61 59 - 60      
Cincinnati 56 60 .483 7.0         531 492 +39 62 - 54 60 - 56      
Pittsburgh 48 69 .410 15.5         544 644 -100 50 - 67 53 - 64      
NL West W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
LA Dodgers. 79 41 .658 -         648 456 +192    79 - 41   70 - 50    
Arizona 59 59 .500 19.0         606 539 +67 65 - 53   63 - 55    
S.F. Giants 59 60 .496 19.5         511 568 -57 54 - 65   57 - 62    
San Diego 55 62 .470 22.5         529 563 -34 55 - 62   57 - 60    
Colorado 53 65 .449 25.0         624 689 -65 54 - 64   56 - 62    

You are doing it wrong. +150 doesn’t mean a 15 game difference between a total wins and losses. You need to start with what the .500 record would be. So for the Yankees you would start with 60-59, then add 15 wins and subtract 15 losses. So 75-44. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shelton said:

You are doing it wrong. +150 doesn’t mean a 15 game difference between a total wins and losses. You need to start with what the .500 record would be. So for the Yankees you would start with 60-59, then add 15 wins and subtract 15 losses. So 75-44. 

I stand corrected.  Thank you for explaining where I made my mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tigrrfan said:

I stand corrected.  Thank you for explaining where I made my mistake.

Shelton will always explain why you are wrong.  He is good that way.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In grade school I unsuccessfully predicted win totals using chisanbop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shelton said:

You are doing it wrong. +150 doesn’t mean a 15 game difference between a total wins and losses. You need to start with what the .500 record would be. So for the Yankees you would start with 60-59, then add 15 wins and subtract 15 losses. So 75-44. 

 

Am in process of recalculating .. .. .. .. .. .. .. wait for it .. .. .. .. .. .. done!

OK, now tiger337's formula looks much much more realistic.

NOTE:  Arizona and San Francisco records are quite puzzling.

 
AL East W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L     W/L "IF" DIFF/10  
NY Yankees 78 41 .655 -         704 548   +156 76 - 43     76 - 43   
Tampa Bay 69 50 .580 9.0         558 459 +99 70 - 49     70 - 49   
Boston 62 58 .517 16.5         692 632 +60 65 - 55     66 - 54   
Toronto 49 72 .405 30.0         542 605 -63 54 - 67     54 - 67   
Baltimore 39 79 .331 38.5         515 749 -234   40 - 78     36 - 82   
AL Central W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Cleveland 71 47 .602 -         548 462    +86   68 - 50   68 - 50    
Minnesota 71 47 .602 -         675 548 +127 70 - 48   71 - 47    
Chi Wht Sox 52 64 .448 18.0         478 595 -117 47 - 69   46 - 70    
Kansas City 43 76 .361 28.5         525 624 -99 50 - 69   49 - 70    
Detroit 35 80 .304 34.5         423 653 -230 35 - 80   34 - 81    
AL West W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Houston 77 41 .653 -         653 469  +184   76 - 42   77 - 41    
Oakland 67 51 .568 10.0         599 509 +90 68 - 50   68 - 50    
Texas 59 58 .504 17.5         603 604 -1 58 - 59   58 - 59    
LA ....Angels 58 61 .487 19.5         596 621 -25 57 - 62   57 - 62    
Seattle 48 71 .403 29.5         573 690 -117 50 - 69   48 - 71    
 
NL East W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
Atlanta 70 50 .583 -         647 585  +62    65 - 55   66 - 54    
Washington 62 55 .530 6.5         584 537 +47 63 - 54   63 - 54    
NY Mets 61 57 .517 8.0         569 557 +12 60 - 58   60 - 58    
Philadelphia 60 58 .508 9.0         557 590 -33 56 - 62   56 - 52    
Miami 44 73 .376 24.5         428 547 -119 46 - 71   47 - 70    
NL Central W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L W/L "IF" DIFF/10      
Chicago Cub 64 54 .542 -         591 514 +77    66 - 52 66 - 52      
St. Louis 61 55 .526 2.0         518 502 +16 60 - 56 60 - 56      
Milwaukee 62 57 .521 2.5         566 586 -20 58 - 61 58 - 61      
Cincinnati 56 60 .483 7.0         531 492 +39 62 - 54 62 - 54      
Pittsburgh 48 69 .410 15.5         544 644 -100 50 - 67 48 - 69      
NL West W L PCT GB         RS RA DIFF X-W/L   W/L "IF" DIFF/10    
LA Dodgers. 79 41 .658 -         648 456 +192    79 - 41   80 - 40    
Arizona 59 59 .500 19.0         606 539 +67 65 - 53   65 - 53    
S.F. Giants 59 60 .496 19.5         511 568 -57 54 - 65   54 - 65    
San Diego 55 62 .470 22.5         529 563 -34 55 - 62   55 - 62    
Colorado 53 65 .449 25.0         624 689 -65 54 - 64   53 - 65    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything to stop talking about people's running stories.

Oh, you run?  Really?  You like it?  That's great!

No one cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, let's talk about our fantasy teams!

Or how much we bench.

Do we have to turn everything into a Biggs thread?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Buddha said:

Anything to stop talking about people's running stories.

Oh, you run?  Really?  You like it?  That's great!

No one cares.

You're just jealous.  

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.


×
×
  • Create New...