The Hunt for a Red October [Wait Until Next Year!]

[mimontero88]

as is removing the first 15 games of the season. Saying the Braves are a .500 team by pulling the streak where they have played well is statistical heresy.

There's a huge difference between the two.  In the case of saying the Braves are a .500 team you are using the overwhelmingly large portion of the sample to negate the much smaller sample (12-2) which is logically sound.  In the case of what Minty was saying, he is using the overwhelming small portion of the sample to negate the much larger sample which is not logically sound.  The two assumptions are not comparable.

[DPMOmaha]

You are what your record says you are.  That view can/will change or solidify or morph over the course of the season.  You can add or subtract whatever "hot streaks" or "cold spells" you like, but in the end the Nats are ~ a .500 team and the Braves are ~ 12 games over .500.  Nats gotta beat the Braves when they play them if they want any hope of getting back into it, it's basically that simple.

[wpa2629]

as is removing the first 15 games of the season. Saying the Braves are a .500 team by pulling the streak where they have played well is statistical heresy.

I don't understand what's so hard about this point of view. The last 90 games would suggest that the Braves are a 500 team and catching them would be easier than catching a team that started off slow and is really starting to sizzle - like the Dodgers for example

It's simply pointing to what is now a well established trend - it doesn't throw out the beginning games.

[sph274]

There's a huge difference between the two.  In the case of saying the Braves are a .500 team you are using the overwhelmingly large portion of the sample to negate the much smaller sample (12-2) which is logically sound.  In the case of what Minty was saying, he is using the overwhelming small portion of the sample to negate the much larger sample which is not logically sound.  The two assumptions are not comparable.

How is removing the first 14 games of the Braves season different from removing the first 9 games of the Nats season?

[HalfSmokes]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make

My point is - The Braves last 90 games would suggest they are a 500 team, therefore, catching them would be easier than if they were playing "lights" out the last several weeks like the Dodgers have been.

Capish?

I'm sure to you the distinction between the genuine nature of the national's 7-2 start versus the Brave's fraudulent 12-2 makes sense

[mimontero88]

How is removing the first 14 games of the Braves season different from removing the first 9 games of the Nats season?

That's not what Minty said.  He said that the Nationals had to win the last 3 games just to get close to .500.  In reality, the Nats over a much larger sample size are roughly a .500 team.  Honestly, I would agree that if you remove the first 14 games of the Barves season it's fair to remove the first 9 of the Nats season as well (though you gain significantly less variation when removing the Nats start versus the Braves).  But that's not the point I was debating.

[wpa2629]

You are what your record says you are.  That view can/will change or solidify or morph over the course of the season.  You can add or subtract whatever "hot streaks" or "cold spells" you like, but in the end the Nats are ~ a .500 team and the Braves are ~ 12 games over .500.  Nats gotta beat the Braves when they play them if they want any hope of getting back into it, it's basically that simple.

Very true - the early games count. But I would be much more concerned about trying to catch a team like the Dodgers at this point than the Braves. 

But of course it's all Moot if the Nats don't bust out of their well established 500 trend and go on a hot streak, which includes beating the Braves

[sph274]

That's not what Minty said.  He said that the Nationals had to win the last 3 games just to get close to .500.  In reality, the Nats over a much larger sample size are roughly a .500 team.  Honestly, I would agree that if you remove the first 14 games of the Barves season it's fair to remove the first 9 of the Nats season as well (though you gain significantly less variation when removing the Nats start versus the Braves).  But that's not the point I was debating.

i was using your point to refute another poster's previous point.

[wpa2629]

I'm sure to you the distinction between the genuine nature of the national's 7-2 start versus the Brave's fraudulent 12-2 makes sense

if you want to have a discussion, that's fine. If you want to keep putting words in my mouth, feel free to stop responding to my posts.

Who said the 12-2 start was fraudulent? It's not, it's simply a much smaller sample size than 90.

[Lintyfresh85]

Probably would be best to judge them on their 105 game schedule and not picl and choose what you want to make your argument look better, is what they're saying.

The Nats have not been a .500 team as you put it. Remove their 7-2 start, and the Nats are still 45-52, well below .500 you claim them to be.

[mimontero88]

i was using your point to refute another poster's previous point.

I didn't see anyone argue that you can't also remove the Nats' start in your analysis but even if they did, there is some validity to it.  A 7-2 streak is much more common than a 12-2 streak.  Both are unsustainable over the long run but going .778 in 9 games is a much more reasonable streak than going .857 over 14 games.  The difference in terms of sustainability and realistic reflection of a team is actually pretty statistically significant.

That said, I have no problem with someone choosing to remove both.  I would only caution that the conversation is taking part in the context of the Nats being a well better team than their record would indicate and the Braves being a .500 team (as evidenced by an overwhelmingly high percentage of their total season sample).  We are operating under this assumption because we're discussing scenarios where the Nats would make the playoffs and this assumption basically has to be your starting point for attributing any reality to the possibility of the Nats catching the Braves.

[DPMOmaha]

Very true - the early games count. But I would be much more concerned about trying to catch a team like the Dodgers at this point than the Braves. 

But of course it's all Moot if the Nats don't bust out of their well established trend and go on a hot streak, which includes beating the Braves

I'm not as concerned about division leaders in the West and Central, they really have no bearing on us.  We need to worry about the Braves and the teams in front of us for the WC spots which are Arizona, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh.  Cards face Pitt and Cincy 23 more times this season (including 7 this week).  Honestly, our best hope to get in is that St. Louis runs away with the Central and beats up those two in the process. The Dodgers play Arizona 7 more times and we still have 9 with Atlanta. We close the season in Arizona, which could make things REALLY interesting if we do find a way back into it.  IF...

[HalfSmokes]

if you want to have a discussion, that's fine. If you want to keep putting words in my mouth, feel free to stop responding to my posts.

Who said the 12-2 start was fraudulent? It's not, it's simply a much smaller sample size than 90.

so the nationals haven't been a .500 team all year, the Nationals last 97 games (larger sample size than 90), suggest that they are a 45-52 team. Arbitrarily subtracting games from the start of the season to make a point works both ways- if the most recent 90 games suggests that the Braves are only a .500 team, then it's equally relevant the last 97 games (an equally arbitrary number) have shown the nationals to be a worse than .500 team

[mimontero88]

so the nationals haven't been a .500 team all year, the Nationals last 97 games (larger sample size than 90), suggest that they are a 45-52 team. Arbitrarily subtracting games from the start of the season to make a point works both ways- if the most recent 90 games suggests that the Braves are only a .500 team, then it's equally relevant the last 97 games (an equally arbitrary number) have shown the nationals to be a worse than .500 team

I think the difference we're pointing out is that you can discount a 7-2 streak as a fairly normal streak of games in baseball.  7-2 runs happen all the time.  12-2 is a much more rare occurrence and, because of this, it is certainly subject to scrutiny particularly in the instance that the team that started that way has only played .500 ball since over a much larger sample size.

EDIT:  By the way, it would also be absolutely fair to apply this same logic to the Nationals' own 14-4 start last season.  The difference would be that the Nats were 84-60 outside of that start so they maintained their winning ways even without that streak lending them much more credibility as a legitimate winning team.

[wpa2629]

Probably would be best to judge them on their 105 game schedule and not picl and choose what you want to make your argument look better, is what they're saying.

The Nats have not been a .500 team as you put it. Remove their 7-2 start, and the Nats are still 45-52, well below .500 you claim them to be.

Yes, but wouldn't it only make sense to remove the 7-3 start for the Nats if it were a statistical anomaly? The Nats have had more than one 7-3 stretch this year.

Unlike the Braves who have not replicated their 12-2 stretch since the first 14 games.

[HalfSmokes]

I think the difference we're pointing out is that you can discount a 7-2 streak as a fairly normal streak of games in baseball.  7-2 runs happen all the time.  12-2 is a much more rare occurrence and, because of this, it is certainly subject to scrutiny particularly in the instance that the team that started that way has only played .500 ball since over a much larger sample size.

since, 12-2 is an anomaly and 7-2 is part of a season back out the braves first five games ( 4-1) and they are still 56-44

[wpa2629]

so the nationals haven't been a .500 team all year, the Nationals last 97 games (larger sample size than 90), suggest that they are a 45-52 team. Arbitrarily subtracting games from the start of the season to make a point works both ways- if the most recent 90 games suggests that the Braves are only a .500 team, then it's equally relevant the last 97 games (an equally arbitrary number) have shown the nationals to be a worse than .500 team

Yes, but the Nats have had more than one 7-3 stretch this year. The Braves have not had any 10+ games stretches since April

[mimontero88]

since, 12-2 is an anomaly and 7-2 is part of a season back out the braves first five games ( 4-1) and they are still 56-44

That creates an incomplete argument.  We're taking the 12-2 sample and basically arguing that the Braves did something in this stretch that they are completely unable to replicate.  Maybe they got super lucky or maybe they just far outperformed what they actually are.  Regardless, they haven't come close to doing it since.  The Nats have had other streaks that were close to 7-2 this season as, I would suspect, almost all teams have (probably not the Marlins or Astros).

[HalfSmokes]

Yes, but wouldn't it only make sense to remove the 7-3 start for the Nats if it were a statistical anomaly? The Nats have had more than one 7-3 stretch this year.

Unlike the Braves who have not replicated their 12-2 stretch since the first 14 games.

the braves have an 8 game losing streak - clearly an anomaly- they're really a 60-37 team (this is the absurdity that starts happening when you take streaks out of a team's record)

[HalfSmokes]

That creates an incomplete argument.  We're taking the 12-2 sample and basically arguing that the Braves did something in this stretch that they are completely unable to replicate.  Maybe they got super lucky or maybe they just far outperformed what they actually are.  Regardless, they haven't come close to doing it since.  The Nats have had other streaks that were close to 7-2 this season as, I would suspect, almost all teams have (probably not the Marlins or Astros).

the braves have a separate 8 game winning streak- so clearly only 2 games from the 10 game win streak were luck

[wpa2629]

since, 12-2 is an anomaly and 7-2 is part of a season back out the braves first five games ( 4-1) and they are still 56-44

Why wouldn't you back out the first 9 games for both teams?

[mimontero88]

the braves have an 8 game losing streak - clearly an anomaly- they're really a 60-37 team (this is the absurdity that starts happening when you take streaks out of a team's record)

I agree with that logic to an extent.  It is one of the issues in analyzing the Barves.  They're streaky as hell.  But again, in the context of discussing the possibility of the Nats catching the Braves, you have to make the assumption that the farce was the 12-2 and that the 8 game losing streak was simply a product of a .500 team going through some variation.  Is it logically sound?  No, not perfectly but in the context of this discussion it's an assumption that has to be made.

[TigerFan]

It is far easier to replicate 7-3 than it is 12-2.  The braves also won 10 in a row and 8 in a row.  I dislike the braves as much as anyone else but to discredit where they are now is homeish and foolish IMO. 

They are who they are.  Want to rise above them?  Beat them soundly in the 9 remaining games or 7 of the 9 and let the chips fall where they may. 

[wpa2629]

Ok

My head hurts

You stat geeks kill me

Here's my opinion on the matter. There's nothing remotely awesome about the Braves. They've had some hot streaks and some cold streaks, but for the most part they've been pretty average.

A good team could and should be able to catch them. Whether or not the Nats are that team remains to be seen.

[HalfSmokes]

Why wouldn't you back out the first 9 games for both teams?

because backing out any number of games is absurd