MLB Off-Topic

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Someone's getting fired over this...
https://twitter.com/KFCBarstool/stat...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

I'd be outraged if it was the Post or Daily News because they're in the business of disrespectful, eye grabbing headlines. I'm not sure with Newsday. I wanna give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were just going for a poorly timed Noah's Ark reference. I don't believe someone wrote that headline with the intention of mocking a dead man.

[countryboy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So Tim Tebow hit a homerun on the first pitch he saw in the Instructional League.

[The Kid 24]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So Tim Tebow hit a homerun on the first pitch he saw in the Instructional League.

He'll be Mets 2017 OD LF, book it... Haha

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Rookie of the Year race is wild. Both of the guys I want to win had unbelievable, incredible seasons and neither will win, with one maybe not getting a single vote.

Gary goes off for half the year, but here's Fulmer pitching well the entire year. Even crazier than that is my guy Trea Turner putting up the numbers he's putting up, looking like a premier top of the lineup hitter for years to come, and he won't get a vote because Seager is just unreal. I keep forgetting he's a rookie, everyone said coming into the year that he would be great, and he lived up in every aspect. I like seeing young guys come up and make a difference.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Having the best record doesn't particularly help, either.
World Series Champions since the Wild Card was introduced:

1995: Braves (2nd best regular season record)
1996: Yankees (3rd)
1997: Marlins (4th)*
1998: Yankees (1st)
1999: Yankees (3rd)
2000: Yankees (9th)
2001: Diamondbacks (6th)
2002: Angels (4th)*
2003: Marlins (7th)*
2004: Red Sox (3rd)*
2005: White Sox (2nd)
2006: Cardinals (13th)
2007: Red Sox (1st)
2008: Phillies (5th)
2009: Yankees (1st)
2010: Giants (5th)
2011: Cardinals (9th)
2012: Giants (4th)
2013: Red Sox (1st)
2014: Giants (10th)*
2015: Royals (4th)

*indicates Wild Card

True, but the original premise was that the team with the best record was somehow worse off for it or dare I say, cursed. That just by having the best record, they were essentially eliminating themselves.

The correct way to interpret this data is that there's a somewhat random relationship between regular season winning % and winning it all because you are requiring a team to win 3 consecutive short series.

Even if you give a really strong team a 65% probability of winning each series (Division Series, Championship Series, World Series), their probability of going all the way is merely .65*.65*.65 = 27%. So essentially a team in the playoffs, even one that's favored in each round, will only win it all about a quarter of the time. This is mostly due to the randomness of small sample sizes and the strength of competition in the playoffs.

Certainly, the Cubs have been the best team in baseball (with an enormous run differential of +248 after tonight) and have the best chance to win it all. Despite all that, the field (~75% chance) is always going to be favored over the top team (~25%) and not due to some flaw or hidden defect in the winningest team.

Some teams are so dominant (1998 Yankees) that they can actually tilt the probability so far as to make it more of a coin flip (what if you have an 80% chance of winning each series?). It remains to be seen if the Cubs are on that level or not. If you are betting on one team, given equal odds, you'd be crazy not to bet on the Cubs this year.

[SPTO]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Certainly, the Cubs have been the best team in baseball (with an enormous run differential of +248 after tonight) and have the best chance to win it all. Despite all that, the field (~75% chance) is always going to be favored over the top team (~25%) and not due to some flaw or hidden defect in the winningest team.

Some teams are so dominant (1998 Yankees) that they can actually tilt the probability so far as to make it more of a coin flip (what if you have an 80% chance of winning each series?). It remains to be seen if the Cubs are on that level or not. If you are betting on one team, given equal odds, you'd be crazy not to bet on the Cubs this year.

True, one would be crazy not to bet on the Cubs but I don't think they're a '98 Yankees type team. Lest we forget the Cubbies had that bad stretch in June/July where they were 28-26. Certainly the Cubs are a far different and arguably superior team right now but it's not a proverbial lock either.

[LambertandHam]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

So Tim Tebow hit a homerun on the first pitch he saw in the Instructional League.

Local news treated it as a top story this afternoon...

[Speedy]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

I still dislike the one-game playoff for the WC winners.

I'd really like to see a 3-game series.

[DrJones]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

True, but the original premise was that the team with the best record was somehow worse off for it or dare I say, cursed. That just by having the best record, they were essentially eliminating themselves.

The correct way to interpret this data is that there's a somewhat random relationship between regular season winning % and winning it all because you are requiring a team to win 3 consecutive short series.

Even if you give a really strong team a 65% probability of winning each series (Division Series, Championship Series, World Series), their probability of going all the way is merely .65*.65*.65 = 27%. So essentially a team in the playoffs, even one that's favored in each round, will only win it all about a quarter of the time. This is mostly due to the randomness of small sample sizes and the strength of competition in the playoffs.

Certainly, the Cubs have been the best team in baseball (with an enormous run differential of +248 after tonight) and have the best chance to win it all. Despite all that, the field (~75% chance) is always going to be favored over the top team (~25%) and not due to some flaw or hidden defect in the winningest team.

Some teams are so dominant (1998 Yankees) that they can actually tilt the probability so far as to make it more of a coin flip (what if you have an 80% chance of winning each series?). It remains to be seen if the Cubs are on that level or not. If you are betting on one team, given equal odds, you'd be crazy not to bet on the Cubs this year.

Completely agree, and yet I can't help but think there's a little added pressure on first-place teams that have a history of failure, if only from that city's paranoid fan base and media. Note that the only four 1st-place teams to win it all are the Yankees and Red Sox, shortly after ending lengthy title droughts as underdogs pulling off shocking comebacks. Very possible that teams suffering from the "burden of expectations" is just confirmation bias on my part, but I can't imagine having a jaded media and gunshy fanbase continually waiting for the other shoe to drop is a positive.

[areobee401]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Baseball continues to see great success in local markets.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybro.../#35e160646f41

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Completely agree, and yet I can't help but think there's a little added pressure on first-place teams that have a history of failure, if only from that city's paranoid fan base and media. Note that the only four 1st-place teams to win it all are the Yankees and Red Sox, shortly after ending lengthy title droughts as underdogs pulling off shocking comebacks. Very possible that teams suffering from the "burden of expectations" is just confirmation bias on my part, but I can't imagine having a jaded media and gunshy fanbase continually waiting for the other shoe to drop is a positive.

Oh there's definitely something to that, but it's hard to put a number on. If the Cubs have, say, a 75% probability of winning the NLDS (conjured that number out of thin air), do the added expectations make it really more like 60% odds? Hard to say.

I can tell you that the expectations and past failures matter to me. And that I will most definitely be a paranoid basket case when the Cubs inevitably get behind or give up a big inning in the playoffs. Or, heaven forbid, even lose a game.

[SPTO]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Baseball continues to see great success in local markets.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maurybro.../#35e160646f41

I know it's not as scientific as the data for the US teams it's nice to see the Blue Jays have the most improvement year over year with a 50% (and probably more as their data was through the end of July) increase which is HUGE compared to the highest increased team in the US. (The Dodgers with 28%)

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Yankees and Gary holding a press conference at 3, no idea what it's about.

[The Kid 24]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

Yankees and Gary holding a press conference at 3, no idea what it's about.

My guess is to sign him to the largest contact in MLB history!

[DieHardYankee26]

Re: MLB Off-Topic

My guess is to sign him to the largest contact in MLB history!

A lot of people were speculating an extension. Seems odd given his situation, he's just a rookie and will be on the minimum for a while, wouldn't be much incentive for the Yankees to deal unless they wanted to a. Establish that the relationship is in good faith and he's a cornerstone of our future or b. That it's a 7+ year deal that would buy out arbitration years.

Other people have said it could just be some kind of charity announcement. My favorite guess is him being named captain [emoji38]