NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you give an opinion of a person or company your full name needs to be in your post. Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Postwar Sportscard Forums > Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-19-2017, 10:32 AM
frankbmd's Avatar
frankbmd frankbmd is online now
Fr@nk Burke++
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Between the 1st tee and the 19th hole
Posts: 4,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
Judge doesnt get a hit every time but thus far you are 0-2 (with 2 ks) for your negative views on Judge and also your views on the Dodgers in our many posts. If you want to declare the cubs will be the winner of the dodgers/cubs series now and they come through you can be 1-3
Jake, as I said before, the games need to be played to determine the outcome. If the Cubs win the series, I will not be upset. If the Dodgers win, that's fine too. I have a friend who could get me tickets to see Kershaw pitch in the World Series.

Stating that Judge struck out over 200 times in the regular season is not a positive or negative view. It is simply a statistic. In the current nomenclature of analytic baseball, strikeouts are non-productive outs though. With the recent escalation of both strikeouts and home runs in the game, I suspect that someday an Aaron Judge Jr will hit 90 home runs and strike out 300 times. Will such an AJ Jr be considered favorably to Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle? I haven't a clue.

Judge as a 25 year-old rookie, who appeared this year out of nowhere, remains unproven. Time will tell. I hope he knocks the train off the tracks in Houston and hits 10 home runs in the World Series. Hopefully for your sake, none of the 10 will be off Kershaw.
__________________
FRANK:BUR:KETT - ALMOST OLD ENOUGH TO BE ON A PREWAR CARD.

519/1000 Monster Number --- WHAT'S YOUR MONSTER NUMBER?

Over*650* successful B/S/T transactions completed in 2012-17.
Over 250 satisfied Board members served.
Thank you all.


Are you a T206 Insider?

Only 37.10% crazy based on recent polling data, but still a weird dude.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-19-2017, 11:17 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: http://www.psacard.com/PSASetRegistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=175000&ac=1
Posts: 3,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbmd View Post
Jake, as I said before, the games need to be played to determine the outcome. If the Cubs win the series, I will not be upset. If the Dodgers win, that's fine too. I have a friend who could get me tickets to see Kershaw pitch in the World Series.

Stating that Judge struck out over 200 times in the regular season is not a positive or negative view. It is simply a statistic. In the current nomenclature of analytic baseball, strikeouts are non-productive outs though. With the recent escalation of both strikeouts and home runs in the game, I suspect that someday an Aaron Judge Jr will hit 90 home runs and strike out 300 times. Will such an AJ Jr be considered favorably to Babe Ruth or Mickey Mantle? I haven't a clue.

Judge as a 25 year-old rookie, who appeared this year out of nowhere, remains unproven. Time will tell. I hope he knocks the train off the tracks in Houston and hits 10 home runs in the World Series. Hopefully for your sake, none of the 10 will be off Kershaw.
when hit 50+ home runs with a decent walk rate, we disagree that strikeouts are non-productive outs especially with nobody on base due to the opportunity to hit a a home run with the risk of the k versus ensuring no k but making a ground out/single etc. Its a least arguable that your statement is wrong. He's been proving it this whole year. So it does appear still you have a bias and not just stating facts.

Plus the walks dont hurt either. I am just focusing on this year and the playoffs. Next year is next year.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-19-2017, 11:37 AM
frankbmd's Avatar
frankbmd frankbmd is online now
Fr@nk Burke++
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Between the 1st tee and the 19th hole
Posts: 4,196
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
when hit 50+ home runs with a decent walk rate, we disagree that strikeouts are non-productive outs especially with nobody on base due to the opportunity to hit a a home run with the risk of the k versus ensuring no k but making a ground out/single etc. Its a least arguable that your statement is wrong. He's been proving it this whole year. So it does appear still you have a bias and not just stating facts.

Plus the walks dont hurt either. I am just focusing on this year and the playoffs. Next year is next year.
2017
Judge 208 K with 52 HR and 114 RBI = 62 teammates batted in
Rizzo 90 K with 32 HR with 109 RBI = 77 teammates batted in
Just the facts, Ma'am
__________________
FRANK:BUR:KETT - ALMOST OLD ENOUGH TO BE ON A PREWAR CARD.

519/1000 Monster Number --- WHAT'S YOUR MONSTER NUMBER?

Over*650* successful B/S/T transactions completed in 2012-17.
Over 250 satisfied Board members served.
Thank you all.


Are you a T206 Insider?

Only 37.10% crazy based on recent polling data, but still a weird dude.

Last edited by frankbmd; 10-19-2017 at 11:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:34 PM
rats60's Avatar
rats60 rats60 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
when hit 50+ home runs with a decent walk rate, we disagree that strikeouts are non-productive outs especially with nobody on base due to the opportunity to hit a a home run with the risk of the k versus ensuring no k but making a ground out/single etc. Its a least arguable that your statement is wrong. He's been proving it this whole year. So it does appear still you have a bias and not just stating facts.

Plus the walks dont hurt either. I am just focusing on this year and the playoffs. Next year is next year.
With bases empty Judge struck out 43% of the time. With RISP, he still struck out 36% of the time. With a runner on 3rd, 41%. His strike outs were still a big problem in key situations. Not being able to put the ball in play cost his team runs.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:30 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: http://www.psacard.com/PSASetRegistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=175000&ac=1
Posts: 3,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rats60 View Post
With bases empty Judge struck out 43% of the time. With RISP, he still struck out 36% of the time. With a runner on 3rd, 41%. His strike outs were still a big problem in key situations. Not being able to put the ball in play cost his team runs.
What are the numbers in the playoffs? He may have the best numbers on his team.

Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 10-20-2017 at 11:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-20-2017, 11:07 AM
frankbmd's Avatar
frankbmd frankbmd is online now
Fr@nk Burke++
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Between the 1st tee and the 19th hole
Posts: 4,196
Default

Barry's (Hi Barry) initial post in this thread sought an explanation for the fact that a team that goes 55-11 and then suddenly falls into a horrible slump going 1-17 for no easily apparent reason. Baseball, as we all know, is a measurable sport rife with statistics. We all recognize in any given year there are a few teams that seem destined for success and then there are a few teams that are god-awful. But on any given day a god-awful team can beat a team of destiny. It happens every year, sometimes for a day, sometimes for a series and this year sometimes for several weeks. The allure of baseball is the interplay between its randomness and its predictability (as determined the flood of statistics it generates). How many times have you watched a game and seen a play occur that you have never seen (or perhaps can't remember) before? After 60+ years of watching the game, it still happens.

The Dodgers winning ways in July and August were perhaps too good. Their announcers in late August speculated daily about how many games they would win and on what day they would top the record of 116. Not doing so was a possibility they never considered before the slump. Their losing ways in September were perhaps too bad. To shift overnight from being the team of ultimate destiny to a god-awful nine seemed unprecedented, but it happened.

Meanwhile the Indians streak emerged with only 4 losses (I think) in the last 5 weeks of the season. Did Francona suddenly become that good and Roberts suddenly become that bad as managers? Of course not.

But September certainly set the table for a lot of speculation about the post-season.

The "stats" or numbers were the attraction of the game for me at a young age. I'm a math guy, just born 10 years to soon and in the wrong place to become Bill Gates. In statistics, randomness can be measured to a certain degree by calculating standard deviations from the mean. The streaks of the Dodgers and the streak of the Indians this season both represent a greater standard deviation from expected results than in years past and perhaps in any past year. Because of the lengthy season, the final record of both the Dodgers and Indians approached their "mean" or expected result. Both teams ended up winning their divisions but neither was as good as their streaks might suggest.

The odds of winning in the post-season are speculation, determined by some on the basis of statistics and determined in Vegas by the money bet on each team. As in baseball, on any given day some gamblers win and some lose. I suppose in some sense the appeal of baseball (or any other game) is analogous to the appeal of gambling (with the obvious difference being the bookies cut in the latter).

Remember though on any given day the god-awful team can beat the team of destiny. Could a team win 162 games or lose 162 games in a single season? Sure, remotely possible but highly unlikely. But when you shift the framework to a single wild card game and short series of 5 or 7 games, the remote chance of an upset becomes a real possibility. I think the Dodgers won 21 or 22 consecutive series during their hot streak and then lost 6 in a row. In probability the result of an event is independent of the previous or subsequent event. If you flip a coin 28 times, one result would be 22 heads followed by 6 tails. Because the probability of heads or tails is 50%, the prior sequence is just as likely as the following sequential result:

H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T

But if you flip the coin 162 times or 162,000 times the preponderance of aggregate results will cluster around the 50-50 line.

So, without introducing any vitriol regarding the merits or liabilities of individual players, as we have seen in the past, any team that makes it into the post-season has more than a minuscule chance of winning any individual game or short series or the whole enchilada. The randomness of baseball will prevail. That is precisely why the games have to be played to determine the winner and loser, and also why we watch them. Play ball!!!
__________________
FRANK:BUR:KETT - ALMOST OLD ENOUGH TO BE ON A PREWAR CARD.

519/1000 Monster Number --- WHAT'S YOUR MONSTER NUMBER?

Over*650* successful B/S/T transactions completed in 2012-17.
Over 250 satisfied Board members served.
Thank you all.


Are you a T206 Insider?

Only 37.10% crazy based on recent polling data, but still a weird dude.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-20-2017, 11:40 AM
1952boyntoncollector 1952boyntoncollector is offline
ja.ke liebe.rman
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: http://www.psacard.com/PSASetRegistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=175000&ac=1
Posts: 3,942
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbmd View Post
Barry's (Hi Barry) initial post in this thread sought an explanation for the fact that a team that goes 55-11 and then suddenly falls into a horrible slump going 1-17 for no easily apparent reason. Baseball, as we all know, is a measurable sport rife with statistics. We all recognize in any given year there are a few teams that seem destined for success and then there are a few teams that are god-awful. But on any given day a god-awful team can beat a team of destiny. It happens every year, sometimes for a day, sometimes for a series and this year sometimes for several weeks. The allure of baseball is the interplay between its randomness and its predictability (as determined the flood of statistics it generates). How many times have you watched a game and seen a play occur that you have never seen (or perhaps can't remember) before? After 60+ years of watching the game, it still happens.

The Dodgers winning ways in July and August were perhaps too good. Their announcers in late August speculated daily about how many games they would win and on what day they would top the record of 116. Not doing so was a possibility they never considered before the slump. Their losing ways in September were perhaps too bad. To shift overnight from being the team of ultimate destiny to a god-awful nine seemed unprecedented, but it happened. Maybe seager was the reason they lost all those games in that last month by others people logic.

Meanwhile the Indians streak emerged with only 4 losses (I think) in the last 5 weeks of the season. Did Francona suddenly become that good and Roberts suddenly become that bad as managers? Of course not.

But September certainly set the table for a lot of speculation about the post-season.

The "stats" or numbers were the attraction of the game for me at a young age. I'm a math guy, just born 10 years to soon and in the wrong place to become Bill Gates. In statistics, randomness can be measured to a certain degree by calculating standard deviations from the mean. The streaks of the Dodgers and the streak of the Indians this season both represent a greater standard deviation from expected results than in years past and perhaps in any past year. Because of the lengthy season, the final record of both the Dodgers and Indians approached their "mean" or expected result. Both teams ended up winning their divisions but neither was as good as their streaks might suggest.

The odds of winning in the post-season are speculation, determined by some on the basis of statistics and determined in Vegas by the money bet on each team. As in baseball, on any given day some gamblers win and some lose. I suppose in some sense the appeal of baseball (or any other game) is analogous to the appeal of gambling (with the obvious difference being the bookies cut in the latter).

Remember though on any given day the god-awful team can beat the team of destiny. Could a team win 162 games or lose 162 games in a single season? Sure, remotely possible but highly unlikely. But when you shift the framework to a single wild card game and short series of 5 or 7 games, the remote chance of an upset becomes a real possibility. I think the Dodgers won 21 or 22 consecutive series during their hot streak and then lost 6 in a row. In probability the result of an event is independent of the previous or subsequent event. If you flip a coin 28 times, one result would be 22 heads followed by 6 tails. Because the probability of heads or tails is 50%, the prior sequence is just as likely as the following sequential result:

H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T-H-T

But if you flip the coin 162 times or 162,000 times the preponderance of aggregate results will cluster around the 50-50 line.

So, without introducing any vitriol regarding the merits or liabilities of individual players, as we have seen in the past, any team that makes it into the post-season has more than a minuscule chance of winning any individual game or short series or the whole enchilada. The randomness of baseball will prevail. That is precisely why the games have to be played to determine the winner and loser, and also why we watch them. Play ball!!!

Or, perhaps the last month didnt really mean anything as I have said over and over with you. Losing games with your #3-#6 pitchers and using relievers that wont pitch in the playoffs don't matter. Hitters smoking AAAA pitching in the majors the last month of the season also doesnt mean as much as the other regular season months.

Theres always room for arguments but its not like i havent been saying the 'losing' by the dodgers meant nothing before the playoffs started. They have only lost 1 playoff game thus far. The Dodgers didnt have to play the games in my mind, they had so much margin for error they were going to the world series, and if they didnt, it wouldnt of been from anything we saw the last month.

Theres always a chance. A high school team can beat a major league team perhaps. Theres a reason there are betting odds. Theres chance but there are also more likely than not scenarios.

Basically, i didn't see any room for speculation for that 'losing streak' impact on the playoffs and thats how it easily turned out. Of course that it turned out exactly what i have been saying, i am still wrong.

Last edited by 1952boyntoncollector; 10-20-2017 at 11:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-20-2017, 02:36 PM
ALR-bishop ALR-bishop is online now
Al Richter
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 5,169
Default

Frank-- I think Jake has you on that last paragraph.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-20-2017, 04:44 PM
bnorth's Avatar
bnorth bnorth is online now
Ben North
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 3,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
Or, perhaps the last month didnt really mean anything as I have said over and over with you. Losing games with your #3-#6 pitchers and using relievers that wont pitch in the playoffs don't matter. Hitters smoking AAAA pitching in the majors the last month of the season also doesnt mean as much as the other regular season months.

Theres always room for arguments but its not like i havent been saying the 'losing' by the dodgers meant nothing before the playoffs started. They have only lost 1 playoff game thus far. The Dodgers didnt have to play the games in my mind, they had so much margin for error they were going to the world series, and if they didnt, it wouldnt of been from anything we saw the last month.

Theres always a chance. A high school team can beat a major league team perhaps. Theres a reason there are betting odds. Theres chance but there are also more likely than not scenarios.

Basically, i didn't see any room for speculation for that 'losing streak' impact on the playoffs and thats how it easily turned out. Of course that it turned out exactly what i have been saying, i am still wrong.
With all that said what is your opinion on the Dodgers VS the Yankees or if they get real lucky the Astros? I honestly have not been fallowing that the playoffs have turned out exactly like you said.
__________________
T210 Series 3 Ft Worth, looking for low end examples and especially ones with a Y shaped hole punch. I also have some extra T210's for trade.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-21-2017, 05:12 PM
bravos4evr's Avatar
bravos4evr bravos4evr is offline
Nick Barnes
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: South Mississippi
Posts: 713
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector View Post
Or, perhaps the last month didnt really mean anything as I have said over and over with you. Losing games with your #3-#6 pitchers and using relievers that wont pitch in the playoffs don't matter. Hitters smoking AAAA pitching in the majors the last month of the season also doesnt mean as much as the other regular season months.

Theres always room for arguments but its not like i havent been saying the 'losing' by the dodgers meant nothing before the playoffs started. They have only lost 1 playoff game thus far. The Dodgers didnt have to play the games in my mind, they had so much margin for error they were going to the world series, and if they didnt, it wouldnt of been from anything we saw the last month.

Theres always a chance. A high school team can beat a major league team perhaps. Theres a reason there are betting odds. Theres chance but there are also more likely than not scenarios.

Basically, i didn't see any room for speculation for that 'losing streak' impact on the playoffs and thats how it easily turned out. Of course that it turned out exactly what i have been saying, i am still wrong.
this is so very wrong and not based on fact that it kinda makes me laugh.


The results of the playoffs are predominantly random due to the amount of teams now invited . In fact, the playoffs are so driven by small sample sizes and random occurrences unrelated to team talent (such as hit sequencing, and bullpen performance in any given series) that if we were to put the worst team in each league into the playoffs as an experiment, one of them would win the WS around every decade or so. The playoffs are simply unrelated to regular season results (which a cursory look at the winners of the WS in the wildcard era will show)


P.S. the above are not my opinions but are mathematical facts based on probability and the actual results of the tournament relative to the team pool over time
__________________
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away."- Tom Waits
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Real or Fake? Deal or No Deal? KMayUSA6060 Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 16 10-02-2016 11:13 AM
Good deal, Bad deal or just right? hunterdutchess Hockey / Basketball / Tennis Cards Forum 3 06-04-2011 07:30 PM
T205 deal or no deal Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 5 02-28-2008 05:56 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:28 AM.


ebay GSB