The National League East is fucking horrible

Scoreboard? As in, what 26 titles to 2?

[Nate the Grate]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

SO the nightly "Alex Rodriguez is a big fat choker" reports that ignore a lot of statistics are all out of love I suppose

close and late:

.163/.234/.233/.467

while the stat is far from perfect, you'd be an idiot to not admit that it's not indicative of his struggles. and it's just can't be a statistical oddity, because it's wildly inconsistent with his performance in every single other situation.

[Nate the Grate]

Originally Posted by Boner

Scoreboard? As in, what 26 titles to 2?

yes, because those 26 titles mean a whole lot to their current situation. especially all those won in the 20's and 30's.

and what exactly does 26-2 mean? championships including and after 1918? you probably want to do a little research before you post some witty snarky remark.

(just so you don't have to do any actual work, the count is 26-6. sox have the third most in baseball, but you wouldn't care about that now, would you?)

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

close and late:

.163/.234/.233/.467

while the stat is far from perfect, you'd be an idiot to not admit that it's not indicative of his struggles. and it's just can't be a statistical oddity, because it's wildly inconsistent with his performance in every single other situation.

Have you look at Manny's numbers?

Have you heard Manny's numbers mentioned on ESPN?

no.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

I'll take REAL wins over expected wins any day of the week...

SCOOOOREBOARD

oh wait, sorry

STAAAAANDINGS

I'm pretty sure you're missing the entire point, as usual, which means the inevitable collapse that the numbers indicate will come should meet you with great shock and disbelief

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

close and late:

.163/.234/.233/.467

while the stat is far from perfect, you'd be an idiot to not admit that it's not indicative of his struggles. and it's just can't be a statistical oddity, because it's wildly inconsistent with his performance in every single other situation.

It's called sample size. His numbers last year were good.

[17 Seconds]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

You're right and wrong

ESPN spends too much time covering the Red Sox and Yankees, but the Sox coverage is positive while the nightly A-Rod chokes/specials entitled "Are the Yankees Bad for Baseball"? Yes, they spend too many hours on the Yankees, but it's not biased towards, it's biased against.

Read ESPN's Page 2 sometime.

I don't see where you think I'm wrong.

I didn't mention whether the content of the Red Sox or Yankees reports were either positive or negative - it doesn't matter.

My point was that ESPN is biased against the other teams due to the fact they cover the Red Sox or Yankees (whether positive or negative - makes no difference) way more than they cover the other teams.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by 17 Seconds

I don't see where you think I'm wrong.

I didnt' mention whether the content of the Red Sox or Yankees reports were either positive or negative - it doesn't matter.

My point was that ESPN is biased the other teams due to the fact they cover the Red Sox or Yankees (whether positive or negative - makes no difference) way more than they cover the other teams.

I agree with that part, but not with the word "biased" as much.. more like they focus on two teams too much.

[17 Seconds]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I agree with that part, but not with the word "biased" as much.. more like they focus on two teams too much.

Isn't that what bias means?

bi·as (bs) KEY

NOUN:

1.A line going diagonally across the grain of fabric: Cut the cloth on the bias.
2.a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b.An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
3.A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
4.Sports a.A weight or irregularity in a ball that causes it to swerve, as in lawn bowling.
b.The tendency of such a ball to swerve.
5.The fixed voltage applied to an electrode

[Nate the Grate]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I'm pretty sure you're missing the entire point, as usual, which means the inevitable collapse that the numbers indicate will come should meet you with great shock and disbelief

nah I got that point, I just flat out disagree. I think that the meteoric collapse in numbers for guys like Lowell, Youkilis, Nixon, Gonzalez, Papelbon, Schilling, and Loretta that would need to happen to get back to their projected numbers (which contributed to the pythagorean prediction) is not going to happen. I see no reason to believe that it will. difference in opinion. we're going to have to agree to disagree.











wait no, I mean, SCOOOOOREBOARD. screw passiveness and understanding.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

nah I got that point, I just flat out disagree. I think that the meteoric collapse in numbers for guys like Lowell, Youkilis, Nixon, Gonzalez, Papelbon, Schilling, and Loretta that would need to happen to get back to their projected numbers (which contributed to the pythagorean prediction) is not going to happen. I see no reason to believe that it will. difference in opinion. we're going to have to agree to disagree.











wait no, I mean, SCOOOOOREBOARD. screw passiveness and understanding.

Uh, I don't think you understand pythagorean records at all. it has nothing at all to do with projected numbers

christ why do i bother with this guy

[Nate the Grate]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Uh, I don't think you understand pythagorean records at all. it has nothing at all to do with projected numbers

christ why do i bother with this guy

okay, after further researching pythagorean records (to be honest, I wasn't all that educated on them, thought they were determined at the beginning of the season based on past season's run productions and using PECOTA-like predictions for runs scored and whatnot, and not a running calculation), I suppose you're right...but I now think you're an idiot for using a theorem that projects wins to make your point, which does not coincide with actual stats. I'll take real hard stats over theoretical projections any day of the week.

ps...you still haven't addressed the fact that you said that stats didn't back up the widely held thought that A-rod is the suck in the clutch, while his close and late stats are beyond abysmal.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

okay, after further researching pythagorean records (to be honest, I wasn't all that educated on them, thought they were determined at the beginning of the season based on past season's run productions and using PECOTA-like predictions for runs scored and whatnot, and not a running calculation), I suppose you're right...but I now think you're an idiot for using a theorem that projects wins to make your point, which does not coincide with actual stats. I'll take real hard stats over theoretical projections any day of the week.

ps...you still haven't addressed the fact that you said that stats didn't back up the widely held thought that A-rod is the suck in the clutch, while his close and late stats are beyond abysmal.

No.. pythagorean record doesn't predict anything. It uses run differentials to show what - barring luck - a team's current record should be based on their YTD stats.

And I already mentioned sample size to you

[Nate the Grate]

alright, some more close and late stats to chew on...A-Rod ranks 100th in the AL in OPS in close and late situations (updated to a whopping .571 with yesterday's homerun). what did you say about Manny? 1.054 OPS, 13th in the AL.

[Nate the Grate]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

No.. pythagorean record doesn't predict anything. It uses run differentials to show what - barring luck - a team's current record should be based on their YTD stats.

And I already mentioned sample size to you

...alright...I think we're done here.

[Nimrod's Son]

Like I said it's a small sample size of a brand new stat that was invented and popularized mainly to get David Ortiz an undeserved MVP award

You can cherry pick all you like though.

[Nate the Grate]

same to you bub

I have a feeling we're in for another ridiculous Yankees/Red Sox September playoff run into October playoff showdown. ahhhh, I was beginning to miss it already.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Nate the Grate

same to you bub

I have a feeling we're in for another ridiculous Yankees/Red Sox September playoff run into October playoff showdown. ahhhh, I was beginning to miss it already.

No, the Red Sox aren't going to make the playoffs this year.

[sppunk]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

SO the nightly "Alex Rodriguez is a big fat choker" reports that ignore a lot of statistics are all out of love I suppose

Every paper in New York City, you mean. Not a TV network.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by sppunk

Every paper in New York City, you mean. Not a TV network.

Oh them too. Baseball tonight ran multiple special segments about it.