### Meph Has a New Article Up

Posted:

**Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:39 pm**It's his third, you can find it on the front page.

The place for discussion about the Chicago Cubs

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/archive/

http://www.northsidebaseball.com/archive/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=50217

Page **1** of **1**

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:39 pm**

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

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:31 am**

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

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:03 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:07 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:15 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:18 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:26 am**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:05 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:07 pm**

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.

Posted: **Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:18 pm**

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

Posted: **Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:39 am**

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.