I don't know what to tell you, z. You've got to be one of the only azzclowns in America that think the Red Sox collapse in 2011 was more momentous and improbable than coming back from being down 0-3 in the 2004 ALCS. I am sure that there are Red Sox fans all over the country that would quickly trade in the 2004 WS title in exchange for winning this year's AL wild card. Yeesh.
.-.
MLB Playoffs Thread
- Thread starter Dann
- Start date
- Status
I don't know what to tell you, z. You've got to be one of the only azzclowns in America that think the Red Sox collapse in 2011 was more momentous and improbable than coming back from being down 0-3 in the 2004 ALCS. I am sure that there are Red Sox fans all over the country that would quickly trade in the 2004 WS title in exchange for winning this year's AL wild card. Yeesh.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 34,621
- Reaction Score
- 102,639
I don't know what to tell you bpo but if you do not at least agree that both are downright awful and comparable then you are living in a Sawks fanatsy world. 9 game lead with less than a month actually left compared to a good baseball team winning 4 games in a row? It's worth an argument on both ends no doubt and to think one is "better" than the other means someone is real ignorant. That or maybe they'd like to deflect the fact it was a monumental collapse?!?!
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,414
- Reaction Score
- 7,701
If the Yanks win this series will ya'll stop fixating on and talking about the Red Sox? I'm assuming your team has to do better than the Sox expected outcome (1st round wildcard exit ala Tampa) to let this alleged massive, monumental and historical collapse fade into Bolivian.
The whole argument is so stupid. Sox fans are saying 'the Sox really sucked' therefore the foundation held a house vulnerable to collapse. Yanks fans are saying 'the Sox really really sucked' and therefore the huge collapse was catastrophic. But we'd already evacuated; the fire department and paramedics were on standby etc.. No one was hurt and ya'll simply need to stop rubbernecking and focus on the road ahead. We've moved on.
The whole argument is so stupid. Sox fans are saying 'the Sox really sucked' therefore the foundation held a house vulnerable to collapse. Yanks fans are saying 'the Sox really really sucked' and therefore the huge collapse was catastrophic. But we'd already evacuated; the fire department and paramedics were on standby etc.. No one was hurt and ya'll simply need to stop rubbernecking and focus on the road ahead. We've moved on.
doggydaddy
Grampysorus Rex
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,008
- Reaction Score
- 8,970
I hear ya, other DD. I really do. I know you probably weren't one of the many Sox fans that STILL bring up 2004 and the 4 straight losses by the Yanks.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,273
- Reaction Score
- 2,931
Yes, actually, those odds DID have something to do with that. The 1 in 278 million is a mathematical combination of 4 separate statistical probabilities. The real numbers are certainly different than listed, as they are each based on the ultimate conclusion of the previous, but the odds would still be nearly the same.
Those odds are predicated on the first probability - that the Sox would give up a 9 game lead and miss the playoffs - a 0.3% chance. The percentage probability that they would give up that lead and be one strike away from forcing a 1 game playoff is negligibly higher than 0.3%. Same with the Rays getting to within 1 run after being down 7-0 in the 8th inning.
What is being said here is the chances of the Red Sox blowing a 9 game lead, then being within 1 strike of winning their final game and ultimately losing, AND the Rays coming back from 7-0 to be within 1 run in the 9th, then tying the game AND then winning it - the chances of those 4 things happening is 1 in 278 million. Yes, that is believable.
Those odds are predicated on the first probability - that the Sox would give up a 9 game lead and miss the playoffs - a 0.3% chance. The percentage probability that they would give up that lead and be one strike away from forcing a 1 game playoff is negligibly higher than 0.3%. Same with the Rays getting to within 1 run after being down 7-0 in the 8th inning.
What is being said here is the chances of the Red Sox blowing a 9 game lead, then being within 1 strike of winning their final game and ultimately losing, AND the Rays coming back from 7-0 to be within 1 run in the 9th, then tying the game AND then winning it - the chances of those 4 things happening is 1 in 278 million. Yes, that is believable.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,273
- Reaction Score
- 2,931
Yeah. Right around the time any argument about the Sox and Yankees isn't ended by Sox fans resorting to the 2004 comeback from being down 3-0. And since that hasn't happened YET, we'll consider letting go of this massive collapse sometime in roughly the year 2018.
Case in point, 5 posts up.
And if I get really bored, I'll go figure out the probability of the Yankees losing each of those 4 games and then combining those 4 into a single probability. I doubt it is even remotely close to 1 in 278 million
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction Score
- 266
The odds of the Yankees winning three in a row and then losing 4 in a row to the same team is greater than 0.5%. That, right there, is more probable than straight up blowing a 9 game lead over that few games. Honestly, baseball was overdue for what happened to the Yankees in 2004.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction Score
- 266
This from the forum profile: "sinkhole was last seen: Tuesday at 9:25 AM"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
doggydaddy
Grampysorus Rex
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,008
- Reaction Score
- 8,970
This from the forum profile: "sinkhole was last seen: Tuesday at 9:25 AM"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I don't think any Sox fans should be BWAHAHAHAHAHAing anyone until next season.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction Score
- 266
I'm a Yankee fan. I know you don't think it is possible to take issue with the GM or players on the team you are a fan of, but it is. I am a Yankee fan that thinks Cashman is a monkey who has spent way too much money on a lineup with way too many holes. But I will still root for them to overcome his mistakes.
One problem. When the Sox were one strike away from winning, the Tampa Bay game was already tied. The Sox/Orioles outcome was always in doubt as it was a close game throughout. As to the 1 in 278 million, who gives a flying duck about those permutations. Bottom line is the Sox played horrendous down the stretch and deserved their fate. Btw, anybody hear from sinkhole lately?
Overdue. LOL. It had never happened before and may be a long time before it happens again. But that's just the half of it. Ending an 86 year curse and beating the best closer in MLB history while one out from elimination is pretty incredible.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,273
- Reaction Score
- 2,931
So, here we go...
From fangraphs.com, game 4 of the 2004 world series... Yankees had just a 16.2% chance of losing after Jeter walked leading off the top of the 9th.
Game 5: Yankees had just a 12.2% chance of losing after Miguel Cairo doubled leading off the 8th inning. So far, the Yankees had just a 1.976% chance of losing both those games in such dramatic fashion.
Game 6: Yankees were never closer than a 44.2% chance of losing. Sadly, the odds of losing 3 games like this are just 0.874% or 1 in 114
Game 7: Yankees were never closer than a 47.3% chance of losing. Total odds of losing all 4 games the way they did = 0.413% or 1 in 242. thus making the Red Sox collapse roughly one million times more unlikely.
Unfortunately Huskymaniac is wrong, baseball actually WASN'T due for that to happen. According to this article at NBC Sports, there had only been 25 previous instances of one team taking a 3-0 lead in baseball. So the chances of a team coming back from 3-0 was no worse than 1 in 26. And considering the odds of getting 7 outcomes from a 1/2 proposition is 0.78% or 1 in 128, it wasn't due to happen, necessarily.
Though I guess, if you think about it, qualitatively, the fact that teams down 0-3 were 0 for 25 trying to comeback, you could say all those previous instances involved teams genuinely better than their opponent. The opposite case would be to say that the odds of a team coming back from 0-3 could be described as the likelihood that a lesser team could take a 3-0 lead on a team that could then win 4 straight games. I would agree, that description seems unlikely. Perhaps more unlikely than 1 in 128.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,273
- Reaction Score
- 2,931
Who cares about permutations ? Well, since that's how statistics work, lots of people.
Statistically speaking, it doesn't matter when one thing happens that has no direct effect on another thing. Besides, the unlikely event of Tampa coming back from down 7-0 doesn't speak to anything on the Red Sox part, now does it ? Its strictly a statistical improbability. The 1 in 278 million odds only speaks to the unlikely event that those 4 things would happen, as predicted when the Sox had a 9 game lead. Once the 9 game lead was gone and Tampa had already tied the score, the chances of the Rays winning and the Sox losing was only about 1%. A 1 in 100 scenario isn't all that interesting.
But standing there on September third with the Sox enjoying a 9 game lead, the chances of them blowing that lead, then standing at the precipice of the playoffs with the Rays down 7-0 and the Orioles down to their last strike and THEN missing the playoffs ? Yeah, 1 in 278 million.
doggydaddy
Grampysorus Rex
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,008
- Reaction Score
- 8,970
You'll excuse me for not recognizing your Yankee fandom. Based on your comments recently, it's really hard to tell.
"I have yet to hear anyone say anything that convinces me that the Yankees are as good as they should be given their payroll. They are a very good team. They have the payroll of a team that should crush the competition, leaving no doubt as to which is the best team in baseball. The guy the Tigers threw out there yesterday should not be able to completely shut down a lineup that is paid as much as the one the Yankees have. Not even if he was shot up with speed and himself blew sunshine up his arse before the game."
"Cashman the genius got a great deal on that Soriano guy. He's money. Oh wait, the other team scoring is BAD thing...nevermind. And that Martin guy can really hit. Well, he can catch the ball well so I guess that's ok. The Yankees have a lot of players that can catch well and are great clubhouse guys. Too bad most of them are hitting below .250. But, really, this game was winnable. Soriano put the game just far enough out of reach. Even before this series started I thought that Hughes would actually be a better option than Soriano in those situations. Girardi probably made a mistake going to this head case one more time. And isn't it ironic that the Tigers are putting the b all over the fence and the Yankees are demonstrating their warning track power. So much for power making up for a crappy batting average."
From Dictionary.com - Fan - an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity. Synonym - Supporter, enthusiast, partisan, booster, addict.
I suppose you could say you are a follower of the Yankees. I'll give you addict. But you are not a devotee, admirer, supporter, enthusiast, partisan, or booster based on those comments.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction Score
- 266
Look, you don't have to be a blind homer to be a devotee or any of those other things. They flat out have too many holes in the lineup and that just shouldn't happen with that payroll. I am NOT a fan of Cashman.
Just look at the bottom of the 4th and top of the 5th in this game as a microcosm of what I am talking about. The Yankees have the bases loaded with one out and we get two weak pop ups and no runs scored. The Tigers have a guy on second with two outs, the Yankees intentionally walk the BATTING CHAMPION but he is followed by VMart who also has a very high batting average and he delivers. The problem with the Yankee lineup is that they either hit home runs (often solo jobs) or they struggle to score and especially when facing even a decent pitcher. It is just too hard to get base hits with runners in scoring position when you don't get a lot of hits. You just can't string together hits when your lineup is swiss cheese. It is all about probabilities. If there are lots of low averages, it becomes more and more unlikely to string together hits.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction Score
- 266
Do the Yankees have a walk off win this year? I don't remember one but, in 81 games, I may have missed one. They need one now. On a side note, is Russell Martin on a 1 year contract? I hope so. The biggest hole in the lineup.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 653
- Reaction Score
- 266
2 runs scored. One on a solo home run and one on a walk. Not a single base runner was batted in. That's what I have been talking about. They had the most wins. They had the most home runs. They were, what, second in runs scored? But when faced with great pitchers, the lineup has too many holes to produce and they lack dominant pitchers to win with only 2 or 3 runs of support. The team is built to win lots of games and crush weak pitchers but it is not built to win a short series. And how much money did they spend for this? That's the best Cashman can put on the field for all that money? And the Steinbrenner kids will probably blame Girardi.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 839
- Reaction Score
- 504
Yep they did. Except for that third baseman, what's his name?
I actually agree with you. They got amazing production out of Colon/Garcia and Nova was a find. Robertson had a monster year and looks like the eventual successor to Rivera. They have some other good arms, too. Montero is going to be a beast. Granderson had an off the charts year and Gardner is a player (I'd take him over Crawford in a nanosecond). The negatives: That Arod contract looks like an anvil; Will CC opt out? Can't imagine how anybody could top 4 years at $92 mil for a guy that has averaged 240+ innings over the last five years and resembles your average NFL o-lineman. But who knows.
Btw, I ran several scenarios on my supercomputer at home and the odds of the NYY appearing in this year's ALCS are the same as the Red Sox- zero.
.-.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 4,414
- Reaction Score
- 7,701
Statistics, statistics, math, probability, blah blah blah. In order for the Sox to undercome those incredible odds they had to really really suck. They did, we knew that before during and after it happened = so what? Why is it important what the statistics said? Why is that more important than what Sox players, management and fans think and believe?
IF they had made the playoffs, then the odds of them winning their first series were very low, then the odds of them winning the ALDS and ALCS were extremely low and the odds of them winning the world series were close to your insane numbers. = the historical collapse was largely irrelevant because it simply hastened the end of what had already become a lost season. Even though there's always some hope (in this case it would have been comparable buying a lottery ticket) once you are in the playoffs, Sox fans largely believed the playoffs held only more disapointment so to see the team euthanized pre-playoffs was actually a preferrable outcome. Odds of them not making the playoffs could have been 10Billion to one and it doesn't change the fact that the team was shot by the end of August.
- Status