## Meph Has a New Article Up

- CaliforniaRaisin
- Inner-Circle HOF
**Posts:**84788**Joined:**Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:20 am**Location:**Pasadena, CA

### Meph Has a New Article Up

It's his third, you can find it on the front page.

- Derwood
- Stall Monitor
**Posts:**58429**Joined:**Thu Jul 10, 2003 10:44 am**Location:**375 Miles East of Wrigley

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

Interesting read, but it reminds me of why I wasn't a math major.

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

No offense to Meph, but it's one of the more ridiculous things he's written. There is no normal distribution in baseball. Talent is not equally dispersed across the league.

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

- Transmogrified Tiger
- Hall of Fame
**Posts:**49202**Joined:**Tue Jun 03, 2003 10:23 am**Location:**Puget Sound

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

CubinNY wrote:No offense to Meph, but it's one of the more ridiculous things he's written. There is no normal distribution in baseball. Talent is not equally dispersed across the league.

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games.

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

Transmogrified Tiger wrote:CubinNY wrote:No offense to Meph, but it's one of the more ridiculous things he's written. There is no normal distribution in baseball. Talent is not equally dispersed across the league.

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games.

The problem isn't the math, it is the assumption that math is based on.

The odds of winning or losing a game are not 50/50 unless "talent" is equally distributed across the two teams. That almost never is the case.

It's kind of like in vegas. The roulette wheel is set up so that no matter what happens, in the long run the house wins.

- Transmogrified Tiger
- Hall of Fame
**Posts:**49202**Joined:**Tue Jun 03, 2003 10:23 am**Location:**Puget Sound

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

CubinNY wrote:Transmogrified Tiger wrote:CubinNY wrote:No offense to Meph, but it's one of the more ridiculous things he's written. There is no normal distribution in baseball. Talent is not equally dispersed across the league.

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games.

The problem isn't the math, it is the assumption that math is based on.

The odds of winning or losing a game are not 50/50 unless "talent" is equally distributed across the two teams. That almost never is the case.

It's kind of like in vegas. The roulette wheel is set up so that no matter what happens, in the long run the house wins.

Yes, that's what I was just saying. Every team still has that same standard deviation regardless of their talent level. I don't see how that invalidates his conclusion.

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

A binomial distribution assumes that the there is an equal likelihood of a yes/no outcome. In most cases in sports there is not. Therefore, the SD is correct only in theory.Transmogrified Tiger wrote:CubinNY wrote:Transmogrified Tiger wrote:

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games.

The problem isn't the math, it is the assumption that math is based on.

The odds of winning or losing a game are not 50/50 unless "talent" is equally distributed across the two teams. That almost never is the case.

It's kind of like in vegas. The roulette wheel is set up so that no matter what happens, in the long run the house wins.

Yes, that's what I was just saying. Every team still has that same standard deviation regardless of their talent level. I don't see how that invalidates his conclusion.

It's a nice thought experiment though and shows how much chance there when two teams are equal.

- Mephistopheles
- 5-Time All-Star
**Posts:**8726**Joined:**Sun May 14, 2006 11:29 pm-
**Contact:**

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

CubinNY wrote:

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games.

The problem isn't the math, it is the assumption that math is based on.

The odds of winning or losing a game are not 50/50 unless "talent" is equally distributed across the two teams. That almost never is the case.

i already addressed this in the article. even if the split is .650/.350 the standard deviation is still over six.

"Meph was like Mozart: When he was on point every other numbers guy was Salieri"

--Sulleymon

--Sulleymon

- Mephistopheles
- 5-Time All-Star
**Posts:**8726**Joined:**Sun May 14, 2006 11:29 pm-
**Contact:**

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

CubinNY wrote:A binomial distribution assumes that the there is an equal likelihood of a yes/no outcome. In most cases in sports there is not. Therefore, the SD is correct only in theory.Transmogrified Tiger wrote:CubinNY wrote:

He's still has never defined what "true talent" means.

In 162 game season the best team finishes first.

Changing the likelihood that you win the games doesn't really change the standard deviation. A team with a 105 win talent level will still have a standard deviation of 6 games.

The problem isn't the math, it is the assumption that math is based on.

The odds of winning or losing a game are not 50/50 unless "talent" is equally distributed across the two teams. That almost never is the case.

It's kind of like in vegas. The roulette wheel is set up so that no matter what happens, in the long run the house wins.

Yes, that's what I was just saying. Every team still has that same standard deviation regardless of their talent level. I don't see how that invalidates his conclusion.

It's a nice thought experiment though and shows how much chance there when two teams are equal.

actually you can mathematically derive all of this if you go game by game if you want to, but in the end it's going to average right around this, but the accuracy gained is inconsequential compared tot the amount of work added. since we're dealing with an extremely large sample, we can do this. a binomial assumes there is an equal chance of yes/no each time. it doesnt assume that it's 50/50.

"Meph was like Mozart: When he was on point every other numbers guy was Salieri"

--Sulleymon

--Sulleymon

- jersey cubs fan
- Hall of Fame
**Posts:**49519**Joined:**Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:38 pm

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

I think it reads like an extended intro into a bigger article.

Tim wrote:"Hawthorne Effect". Basically, people improve their behavior if they know they're being watched. I'm a competitive cur, so having friends that are also doing it drives me to want to "win" daily/weekly challenges and such.

### Re: Meph Has a New Article Up

Meph,

I think you give far, far too much value to chance. Competitive sports like baseball is not the same thing as rolling a six sided dice and looking at variance and probability. There are far too many variables in play to chalk victory up to luck. It's my one big gripe with the saber community. They have a weird fetish to want to chalk up any unexplained variance to luck. It's really a piss poor way to do behavioral analysis.

A manger making a poor decision that cost his team 1 game in April can have a big effect in September if his team loses the WC by one game. That's not bad luck. We could go round and round on this one but I think luck is a default position, one only used when all other possibilities have been exhausted.

I think you give far, far too much value to chance. Competitive sports like baseball is not the same thing as rolling a six sided dice and looking at variance and probability. There are far too many variables in play to chalk victory up to luck. It's my one big gripe with the saber community. They have a weird fetish to want to chalk up any unexplained variance to luck. It's really a piss poor way to do behavioral analysis.

A manger making a poor decision that cost his team 1 game in April can have a big effect in September if his team loses the WC by one game. That's not bad luck. We could go round and round on this one but I think luck is a default position, one only used when all other possibilities have been exhausted.

Return to “Front Page Article Discussion”

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest