Grant77
-
Posts
9,932 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Toronto Blue Jays Videos
2025 Toronto Blue Jays Top Prospects Ranking
Toronto Blue Jays Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Toronto Blue Jays Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Grant77
-
I'd be surprised if the 'pitcher for pitcher' and 'hitter for hitter' rules didn't still apply for these substitutions.
-
No I'm not. I'm saying that nobody has a substantial advantage. Look, you don't understand statistics so I'm just going to drop it. Go bet on the Cubs if you think you are right. /end thread
-
You bring up a good example, Olerud. Vegas odds adjust to betting patterns. You pay a premium to bet on a popular choice. That's a great example of how someone who understands and accepts the evidence can take advantage of people who don't. The Cubs get heavy action, but Vegas knows they are more or less a 1/8 chance like everyone else.
-
I'm still not clear on how these concussion rules work. Can we have a player like Tepera on the roster and simply replace him with Liriano when the 7 days are up without losing Tepera for the next series? That's how it should be if they want to provide incentives for resting concussed players.
-
Certainly the latter. I'd bet my life that a coin flip model would prove more accurate over a large enough sample. So would the people at fangraphs.
-
I'm sorry to waste your time Olerud, but I posted the data earlier. Statisticians have already done the work, I'm just using their conclusions. There's nothing original here on my part, just a belief in logic. Multiple people use the term crapshoot to describe the playoffs without accepting or understanding what that means. We've got over 100 years of data that says it's a virtual coin flip. It doesn't matter if a team is 'better'. Still, these people fall into the trap and use that irrelevant data to predict winners and declare themselves intellectually superior. I'll proudly say that I don't know who is going to win a given series because that's what the evidence shows.
-
Sure, I haven't questioned that. Strong team A vs. Weak team B has played out hundreds of times in baseball playoff history. Weak team B wins roughly just as often. Why? I don't have a f***ing clue, but there it is. Why do you think the Cubs are unique? The available evidence says they aren't. As I said, the burden of proof is on you.
-
I don't think it makes a significant difference in our chances one way or another, but gun to my head I'd choose to avoid Bumgarner after seeing his mind blowing performance in 2014. The burden of proof is on you here. There are lots of studies out there that say regular season performance isn't a huge factor in the playoffs. Prove to me why the Cubs are a unique case. I'm a scientist through and through. If you show me compelling proof then I'll change my stance and be happy to have learned something new.
-
If talent level mattered, it wouldn't be 'essentially a coin flip'. You contradict yourself in a big way here. Talent level should determine wins. That makes sense. The data we have shows that it doesn't determine wins in the playoffs. That doesn't make sense. I totally get your confusion here. Highly regarded baseball analysts still try to predict champions based on regular season performance so you're not alone. I'm open to any additional data you have here and could certainly be wrong, but I think there are other factors that DO influence playoff success. Things like good/bad matchups, hot players, etc.
-
I clearly interpreted his statement in a different way and responded in kind. Let's drop that for a moment. With some exceptions, regular season record is a decent measure of the talent level of a team. I use the term 'decent' to avoid you picking on semantics and avoiding the topic at hand. I know there are exceptions like the Rangers. Here's the question that needs to be answered. If regular season record doesn't determine postseason success then why does 'talent level'? How do you define this?
-
The argument was about whether regular season record is a significant factor in the playoffs. Njh thinks it is and I think it isn't. What side are you on? Let's hear your answer with no stupid comment. Yes it is or no it isn't. Why? What we know about the Giants postseason teams is that Bumgarner is a horse that can single handedly win a series with his endurance and performance. When the series is a virtual coin flip, I'd rather not face him. The way they utilize him is a 'legit' advantage in my opinion. Not all pitchers can do that.
-
You're such a f***ing clown. Try contributing something of substance to the discussion instead of attributing false statements to people and fishing for a response.
-
Crafty Maddon
-
You've been a self declared winner in every argument with me. Stupid and witty has always trumped intelligent and mature on message boards. I bow to your greatness.
-
Sure, you win. You said something stupid and incorrect. I provided evidence to show prove that. You can't respond intelligently so you resort to childish little games. For the umpteenth time your wit has triumphed over intelligent conversation. Well played.
-
At least in part, no question.
-
I agree.
-
I don't agree. I think that the chances are rather high. Managers make good decisions all of the time, bad ones too. Any of those could decide a short series like this, just look at what Buck Showalter did. What's up for debate is whether managers can make decisions with good outcomes on a consistent basis. I lean towards no. It's just as likely that Franconia makes bad decisions that cost them the series or that Gibby makes good ones.
-
Lol!! Where do I start? My argument all along was that regular season success isn't an indicator of postseason success. I posted statistical data to back that up after you disputed that statement by saying: It doesn't matter if they are a 'better team' once the playoffs start. Other factors, whether they be luck or something else, come into play at this point. If you want to continue your argument that the Cubs regular season record is important in determining postseason success then let's see your evidence. No smart ass comments, no peripheral arguments. Put your cards on the table you coward. Let's see it or you are wrong.
-
Random stat: An NL team with more. Than 92 wins hasn't won the World Series in more than 20 years. That's pretty crazy to me.
-
Funny, no more snarky responses from njh when confronted with data that shows he was actually the victim of cognitive bias. Facts are his kryptonite.
-
I'm saying that I have reviewed some statistical data and came to the conclusion that the Cubs shouldn't be favoured because of their regular season record. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/Research/Ugrad/soncrant_Research.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiW6-7kmtTPAhUn2IMKHcfVDaAQFgg0MAU&usg=AFQjCNFdSoGYFxnmjqD0qPlxNaRcyxXDqg&sig2=K0Mfcmvt7K_4HzYdF1eflw http://www.azsnakepit.com/2011/9/9/2411144/post-season-play-do-regular-season-records-matter Taking that conclusion into account, I have a gut feeling that the Giants have some guys like Bumgarner and Posey that thrive in the playoffs and it's more than a fluke.
-
I wasn't debating that. I simply think there's more to the playoffs than regular season performance. For example, you were all sucking the red sox dicks as a vastly superior team to the Indians. I guess it's true when you agree with the narrative and not true when you don't.
-
What value do you put on the Giants playoff experience? Every team is good in the playoffs and history has shown that a few extra regular season wins don't give the Cubs a distinct advantage.
-
Matt Moore lol