I Don't Care What The Cubs Do Anymore (Mostly/Sorta)

[Oldcity]

I think it's important to recognize that Russ wasn't "wrong." He didn't say the Brewers couldn't, or even wouldn't win the division. He was just saying that their best chance at the playoffs, by far, was via the wildcard.

[rluzinski]

Last month, an MLB projection showed that something like 12 teams had only about a 5% chance of making the playoffs. Of course, that means that theres about a 50% that at least w of those teams WILL make the playoffs.

 

Rattling off a bunch of imrpobable playoff runs does not disprove anything. That's how it works.

[Bring Back the Stein]

Over at northsidebaseball.com, they have a thread asking "When will Cubs lose 1st place?" The consensus seems to be "in Milwaukee."

 

Edit: The sample size was three when I looked, but still....

[Thurston Fluff]

When the Brewers were 4 games under .500 two months ago, it goes without saying that the odds were low of them having the best record in the Nl for the next 2 months. Well, the improbable has happened

 

Not to nitpick but if the Brewers really projected to be better than the >.500 record showed then it would seem probable not improbable that at some point a winning streak would even it out. Projections show what will happen over time. That must take into account the nature of winning and losing trends somehow. That's where I think projections get misused. They look at a projection then see where the team is relative to that projection then adjust it up or down according to the current record. for example if the Brewers were supposed to be a 90 win team and after two months they are 4 below 500. A lot of people then think the team is only an 85 win team based of the slow start. But the projection must have taken into account a bad stretch along the way since every team goes through them. Same with the Brewers last year. They started out hot and people said (myself included) they only have to play .500 ball the rest of the way to win the division. That doesn't take into account the likely hood of them not playing .500 ball the rest of the way. Almost every team that plays above their heads at one point play equally below at another. Those un/lucky enough to buck the trend have either really good or really bad years.

[BrewCityUnit]

Teams are hot into they aren't . They are cold until they aren't . Vegas doesn't care about hot streaks and neither do I.

 

This simply isn't true. During the Rockies run last September their lines continued to get higher and higher the hotter they got.

[rluzinski]

Again, that's the gambler's falacy. Take a team that's expected to win at a .556 clip and finish with 90 wins for a season. They start 0-5. Since it's only 5 games, you really don't need to update the expected winning percentage. They are still the same team. But those 5 games just went POOF, so you are no longer expected to win 90 winston games. Only about 87 (you were expected to start about 3-2). You don't get those wins back.

[homer]

Vegas only cares that the betting is even on both sides of a team - i.e. same number of people are betting for and against you. In the Rockies case, as they got hot more people started betting on them so Vegas lowered the payout to reduce the number of people betting for them and increase the number betting against them.

[rluzinski]

Teams are hot into they aren't . They are cold until they aren't . Vegas doesn't care about hot streaks and neither do I.

 

This simply isn't true. During the Rockies run last September their lines continued to get higher and higher the hotter they got.

 

Is that stuff archived anywhere? I'd be interedted to see if ite opening line changed as dramatically as you are suggesting. Like, they were being treated like a .475 win% team (or whatever it was) before the streak and a .900 win% after? And while it's true that Vegas only cares about evening the bets, the people are very good at guessing the correct odds when you aska million people and require that they actually put some money on that opinion. It's possible that the gamblers overcompensated for the streak . That's why I'd like to see the actual lines. So, there heavy favorites in the playoffs?

[Thurston Fluff]

They are still the same team. But those 5 games just went POOF, so you are no longer expected to win 90 winston games. Only about 87 (you were expected to start about 3-2). You don't get those wins back.

 

This is where I start to lose confidence in projections. It can't take a long term projection with all that encompasses then change the outcome before all the factors play out. Considering the nature of the game to be accurate it has to assume there will be a 5 game losing streak sometime so why does it change if that streak comes early instead of late? Maybe I'm the one who is stupid here since I don't gamble but any system that doesn't take into account the way baseball season play out if it doesn't account for slow starts not being indicative of the final record. Especially if it doesn't take into account strength of schedule and such.

[BrewCityUnit]

I will try to find the line rluz. I agree that if a team has won 9 games in a row there chances of winning a 10th game in a row is the same as if they have lost 5 in a row heading into that 10th game. My point was that the line in Vegas does reflect how well a team is playing at that time....maybe that is because more money is being put on the "hot team" causing the line to move...but that doesn't change the fact that the line is higher.

 

Why even play the season if we are going to go off of projections. Do you think back in April the Rays would be favored to beat the Red Sox in Tampa when they played back in late June? Of course not, things change as the season progresses.

 

I still cannot understand how one could think the Cubs SHOULD be the favorite to win the NL Central when you factor in each teams current roster, the upcoming schedule and momentum (yes it does exist).

 

Also, how can you say that the difference in schedules don't matter.....isn't it easier to beat bad teams compared to good teams. The Brewers have 10 home games the rest of the season vs. teams with winning records (7 against the Cubs and 3 against the Mets) One more thing....CC is worth more than 2 wins just by his mere presence alone ane message it sent to the team http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[TooLiveBrew]

But the projection must have taken into account a bad stretch along the way since every team goes through them.

 

Exactly, Buc, and this is something Russ was trying to say early on in this thread -- it appears that over the course of this season, a lot of fans posting in this thread have developed a much better understanding of projections & the way they work. I know I'm one of them, and once again we have Russ to thank for a very large part of that.

[rluzinski]

I'm teeling you, backcatcher, that's just not how it works. The most simple example is flipping a coin. Flip it 100 times over and over again' Once in awhile, you'll flip 5 heads to start off your 100 flip set. That doesn't change the odds, going forward, though. Still 50% for each subsequent flip. No catching up. I'm not saying it's particularly intuative. Gambler's Fallacy. Just google it.

 

Baseball projections should be updated not just to reflect the current record of the team but to also incorporate the individual player performances. Projections are dynamic.

 

Most of what baseball fans see as hot and cold streaks is just good ol' sample varience. I wrote a bf.net article about it, I think.

[olliegjw]

I will try to find the line rluz. I agree that if a team has won 9 games in a row there chances of winning a 10th game in a row is the same as if they have lost 5 in a row heading into that 10th game.

I strongly disagree with this premise. Games are not played in a vaccuum without emotion. Confidence plays a huge part in baseball. A team that has won 9 in a row has a much better chance of winning that 10th game, than the same team that has lost 5 in a row.

[TooLiveBrew]

A team that has won 9 in a row has a much better chance of winning that 10th game, than the same team that has lost 5 in a row.

 

That's just an assumption, though. I think if you look around the league, the reverse of that statement is actually true (if the two teams are assumed as equal in terms of talent). Which is why you don't often see winning streaks sustained into double-digits, I'd guess.

[olliegjw]

A team that has won 9 in a row has a much better chance of winning that 10th game, than the same team that has lost 5 in a row.

 

That's just an assumption, though. I think if you look around the league, the reverse of that statement is actually true (if the two teams are assumed as equal in terms of talent). Which is why you don't often see winning streaks sustained into double-digits, I'd guess.

Let's say the Brewers play the Cubs on opening day in Miller Park. For argument's sake, the Brewers have a 52% chance to win according to projections. The Brewers win that game, and their next nine games. The Cubs lose their first 10. Game 11 is in Miller Park with the same teams, same pitchers, same lineups, same umpires, etc. Would the Brewers still be at 52% chance to win? I tend to think they would be slightly better favorites for that second game.

[igor67]

A huge conceptual problem in this discussion is a mixing of levels of explanation and probability. You can very simply model a team as a winning percentage and predict wins and loses quite accurately. If you are taking that approach as Rluz is above then there is no evidence for predictive value of streaks. On the other hand there are many factors that go into determining the actual winning percentage. It is hypothetically possible that the "confidence" of being hot is a factor at this level. However if you ask what it takes to win 9 in a row you come up with a very different probability set up. In that case every individuals performance becomes it's own random percentage. I'd argue that almost everytime a team goes on a long winning streak it is because a lot of those lower level probabilities came up positive. The odds of that continuing are smaller in general and would almost certainly swamp any modest "confidence" effect.

[rluzinski]

Would the Brewers still be at 52% chance to win? I tend to think they would be slightly better favorites for that second game.

 

I would never rule out the possiblity of some small effect. There's no way ever to know the exact win percentage to begin with. The problem is when people to use streaks as proof of some significant effect. Streaks can and will happen from chance alone:

 

http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewArticle.do?articleId=267

 

Also, how can you say that the difference in schedules don't matter

 

I didn't say it doesn't matter at all. It's just not as important as some think. Check the schedule thread for my opinion.

[pitchleague]

this almost needs to be a separate topic. Anybody else agree?

Great conversation, though.

[rluzinski]

I believe that the Cubs and Cardinals still play each other 9 times. If you had to choose right now, what would you want the Cubs' record to be in those games?

 

Without looking at the numbers, I'd be tempted to say around 6-3 in favor of the Cubs. Get the Cards out of the wild card race.

[BrewCityUnit]

I personally will be rooting for the Cardinals to win all 9 games. That would mean if we went 4-5 over that stretch, we would still be tied for the wild card spot (assuming nobody from the East goes 7-2 over that time) I know that is not realistic, but I am not giving up on the division yet, and the closer we can get to the Cubs the better I will feel. I definately can see why one would want to get rid of the Cardinals, and obviously the Cubs winning all 9 games would increase our chances of making the playoffs. With that said, I want to set our self up for the best chances to reach the World Series and winning the division in my mind makes that goal more obtainable.

[logan82]

rluzinski wrote:

Without looking at the numbers, I'd be tempted to say around 6-3 in favor of the Cubs. Get the Cards out of the wild card race.

I wouldn't mind seeing the Cardinals sweep the Cubs in those games. Cubs end up in third. Doesn't matter to me how those games end up really. As long as we take care of our business we will end up ahead of somebody.

 

I hope you weren't cheering for the Cubs this week Russ.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[rluzinski]

The Brewers can "take care of business" by finishing 30-22 and could still miss the playoffs. What the other teams do still matters.

 

And while it's true that the Brewers will have an easier path through the playoffs as the divisional winner, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I just want to consentrate on them making it, first

[BrewCityUnit]

I think everybody would be estatic with just making the playoffs first, but I think it is a huge advantage to win the division over the wild card. I think the difference of playing the NL West winner at home in the first round compared to heading out East for the first round is huge. Honestely, would you feel more comfortable playing the Mets/Phillies on the road instead of the Dodgers/DBacks at home?

[logan82]

The Brewers can "take care of business" by finishing 30-22 and could still miss the playoffs. What the other teams do still matters.

True, but I am not going to worry about it until it is probably the last week of the season. As long as we play well, I will be happy.

[2008 world champs]

Well who would we rather have the Brewers match up with in the playoffs, Philly or New York?