21–30 of 37 posts
Billy Beane's A's may be winning games, but during the period in question (2002-2014), the Red Sox have won 3 World Series Championships, and the A's haven't been to one in 25 years... it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant.
Billy Beane's A's may be winning games, but during the period in question (2002-2014), the Red Sox have won 3 World Series Championships, and the A's haven't been to one in 25 years... it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant.
This is an outrageously dumb post for a site that is supposed to be full of people who understand remedial mathematics and statistics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I agree with this. At least in comparison to other pro sports, the MLB playoffs seem to be the most representative of actual talent. The early rounds are 5-game series, and the best teams are playing the worst teams, so you would expect a low sample size is needed to determine the "best" team. In the later rounds, when teams are much more closely matched in talent, the series last 7-games. I haven't done…
There are good reasons why the A's don't do as well as other teams in the playoffs. Mostly, it's that "playoff" baseball is different than regular season baseball. The strike zones expand, the scores drop and the breaks between innings increase to allow for more commercials. There's also more rest/travel days between games. All of this magnifies the value of top pitchers since it allows them to pitch a greater percen…
The A's are almost certainly the victim of variance, the likes of which apparently even Hacker News readers can't grasp. For them to have the record they do in the playoffs given their expected talent level is something like a 17% shot on chance alone.
Ever see something happen that was an 83% underdog? No?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MLB playoffs are a crapshoot. You can construct a team that consistently performs well over the 162 game regular season but once you reach the postseason it often comes down to luck and which teams are hot at the right time. Billy Beane has been very unlucky there.
I'm not sure I agree with this. At least in comparison to other pro sports, the MLB playoffs seem to be the most representative of actual talent. The early rounds are 5-game series, and the best teams are playing the worst teams, so you would expect a low sample size is needed to determine the "best" team. In the later rounds, when teams are much more closely matched in talent, the series last 7-games. I haven't done…
NFL plays are VASTLY more multivariate than any single pitch in MLB. This is comparing apples to garbage dumps, at best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not according to the Red Sox. They still made him an offer despite their wins and despite Billy Beane's absence from the World Series.
The Sox had not won a World Series since 1918(!), and hadn't appeared in one since 1986. The offer was made in 2002. They made him an offer, thinking that he would lead them to a Win after an 84-year drought. Despite his refusal, they were still able to win 3 championships. Maybe this shows that while Beane can get you wins, his method may not work in building a Championship-winning team?
Pop quiz: Who was the most influential man that recommended Theo Epstein to John Henry?
Billy Beane's A's may be winning games, but during the period in question (2002-2014), the Red Sox have won 3 World Series Championships, and the A's haven't been to one in 25 years... it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant.
> it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant. This is an outrageously dumb post for a site that is supposed to be full of people who understand remedial mathematics and statistics.
Billy Beane's A's may be winning games, but during the period in question (2002-2014), the Red Sox have won 3 World Series Championships, and the A's haven't been to one in 25 years... it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant.
> it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant. This is an outrageously dumb post for a site that is supposed to be full of people who understand remedial mathematics and statistics.
World Series wins may in one sense be a very poor reflection of some abstract idea of "team quality", but at the same time be the most important single measure when it comes to the ability of a team to drive demand for its products (tickets, licensed goods, etc.)
Understanding statistics is one team, understanding what matters in a particular market is another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant. This is an outrageously dumb post for a site that is supposed to be full of people who understand remedial mathematics and statistics.
Baseball is business, heavily marketing dependent, and World Series wins are a big marketing deal. Metrics that don't measure what the customers are actually buying the product for are bad metrics. World Series wins may in one sense be a very poor reflection of some abstract idea of "team quality", but at the same time be the most important single measure when it comes to the ability of a team to drive demand for its…
Unless you can prove Billy's performance in the playoffs is heavily dependent on skill. I look forward to your analysis. (You may want to note that no one else has been able to do this, and many have tried.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are good reasons why the A's don't do as well as other teams in the playoffs. Mostly, it's that "playoff" baseball is different than regular season baseball. The strike zones expand, the scores drop and the breaks between innings increase to allow for more commercials. There's also more rest/travel days between games. All of this magnifies the value of top pitchers since it allows them to pitch a greater percen…
It should be pointed out that not a SINGLE sabermetrician has shown the "facts" in this post to be true. BPro used a similar concept called "secret sauce" that had many of these ideas in them, and it was routinely debunked years after it was published. The A's are almost certainly the victim of variance, the likes of which apparently even Hacker News readers can't grasp. For them to have the record they do in the pla…
Not an expert on the subject, but baseball doesn't have and explicit chance component, so please explain what you mean when you say "on chance".
I assume, embedded in your definition, will be statistics about the same teams playing each other or something. However, it seems like it would be hard to apply these statistics to refute someone who is saying both that "the A's are different" and "championship games are different".
For instance, if Michael Jordan wins 100 one-on-one games of basketball against me, I could come out an say "Yes, but if we played on the International Space Station, then I'd win. ISS games are different.". To refute that you'd need a body of evidence of basketball games on ISS. Let's say you have 5000 games of history on the ISS, where the players' success rates are almost identical to those on Earth's surface. I could still say "But I'm different. Everyone else tries to play ISS basketball like Earth basketball, but I have these cool tricks.". Controlling for both of those things seems to require having lots of data about me playing on the ISS.
None of that means the post to which you responded is right. But if the claims "the A's are different" and "the championships are different" both seem plausible; and if the A's record in championships is poor compared with the regular season; then you should dial back the confidence a bit.
Billy Beane's A's may be winning games, but during the period in question (2002-2014), the Red Sox have won 3 World Series Championships, and the A's haven't been to one in 25 years... it's the World Series wins that count, eventually. Everything else is irrelevant.