IGT 8/15/2012 NYM @ CIN: We'll Always Have Dickey

[Frayed Knot]

Weird night for Dickey: Whole lotta strike-outs (10 I think) but a bunch of balls hit on the nose too.

[Zvon]

OHHHH! What a play by Wright!

[Zvon]

Frayed Knot wrote: Weird night for Dickey: Whole lotta strike-outs (10 I think) but a bunch of balls hit on the nose too.

I really think the Reds were just thinking : swing as hard as you can, not at where the ball is (cause it won't be there), just around it, and if you hit it it'll go places. Far places.

[Zvon]

Zvon wrote: Weird night for Dickey: Whole lotta strike-outs (10 I think) but a bunch of balls hit on the nose too. I really think the Reds were just thinking : swing as hard as you can, not at where the ball is (cause it won't be there), just around it, and if you hit it it'll go places. Far places.

I think Valdespin does that^ all the time, knuckler or no.

[Zvon]

And Leake is gonna pitch a complete game against us? Ugh come-on, and least knock him the fuck outta there guys.

Tholes playing like hes been knuckleyezd.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

Look at it this way: If we keep hitting like this we won't see Chapman the whole series.

[Zvon]

Tejada might end up with a higher batting average than Wright by seasons end. Both at .321 atm.

[Zvon]

Well, R.A., you ain't gonna get no Cy Young pitching like that. And if that bracelet business did upset you, pooh pooh, shame on you.

[Fman99]

Well that sucked a big sucky sucky suck.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Whoever arranged for the Mets to pitch so well, play so hard, and luck into so many wins in the first half... congrats. You got me.

[batmagadanleadoff]

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Whoever arranged for the Mets to pitch so well, play so hard, and luck into so many wins in the first half... congrats. You got me.

You can fool Pythagoras some of the time....

[ashie62]

Zvon wrote: Tejada might end up with a higher batting average than Wright by seasons end. Both at .321 atm.

Well, remember Wright is 'not a superstar" lol

[MFS62]

Frayed Knot wrote: Look at it this way: If we keep hitting like this we won't see Chapman the whole series.

That glass isn't just half full, its f'n overflowing.
Good point, though.

Later

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Whoever arranged for the Mets to pitch so well, play so hard, and luck into so many wins in the first half... congrats. You got me. You can fool Pythagoras some of the time....

If they had played to their Pythagoras record in June, things would probably be looking much better right now. I think they played 3 under it.

[Vic Sage]

When pendulums swing back, and trends revert to the mean, they don't stop at the balancing point. they blow right on by, then slink back.
The fact was that we were BABIP-ing and "2-out RBI"-ing our way to more early wins than our overall production could justify or sustain. And now the trend has reversed.
wow, shocker.

[Ceetar]

Vic Sage wrote: When pendulums swing back, and trends revert to the mean, they don't stop at the balancing point. they blow right on by, then slink back. The fact was that we were BABIP-ing and "2-out RBI"-ing our way to more early wins than our overall production could justify or sustain. And now the trend has reversed. wow, shocker.

yeah, no. That's saying that if you flip a coin 10 times and get 8 heads, you'll probably get 8 tails in the next 10 flips.

[Vic Sage]

no, that's saying that the more times you flip the coin, you more likely you'll reach it's true balancing point (50/50, in the case of a coin). If you have a run of heads, the more likely you'll have a run of tails. Now that's meaningless in projecting what the next single toss is (its always a 50/50 shot with a balanced coin), but over the long run, "reversion to the mean" isn't an opinion. It's mathematical reality.

of course the Mets don't have a 50/50 balancing point. Their balancing point is only knowable retroactively. But Pythagoras does give us some objective guideposts along the way to see where we are and allows us to estimate if a correction or reversion (or "adjustment" as you like to say) is likely.

[Ceetar]

If you have a run of heads, the more likely you'll have a run of tails

no.

If you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, the most probable result for 100 flips is 55 heads.

[metsmarathon]

Ceetar wrote: If you have a run of heads, the more likely you'll have a run of tails no. If you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, the most probable result for 100 flips is 55 heads.

yup.

[batmagadanleadoff]

metsmarathon wrote: Ceetar wrote: If you have a run of heads, the more likely you'll have a run of tails no. If you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, the most probable result for 100 flips is 55 heads. yup.

So? That doesn't contradict Vic's post. It's still trending towards a reversion to the mean. After 10 flips you had a 100% outcome for heads. After 100 flips, it's down to 55%. Keep on projecting and you'll get closer and closer to 50% with every single projected marginal flip.

[Edgy MD]

If you're flipping a coin.

[Guest Mets � Willets Point]

Should've traded Dickey while he was at his apogee.

[metsmarathon]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: metsmarathon wrote: Ceetar wrote: If you have a run of heads, the more likely you'll have a run of tails no. If you flip a coin and get 10 heads in a row, the most probable result for 100 flips is 55 heads. yup. So? That doesn't contradict Vic's post. It's still trending towards a reversion to the mean. After 10 flips you had a 100% outcome for heads. After 100 flips, it's down to 55%. Keep on projecting and you'll get closer and closer to 50% with every single projected marginal flip.

well a possible point, other than striving for accurate information regarding probability and chance, is that the mets weren't exactly due for a string of ten tails after the first half of their season came out mostly heads. they were due for a sting of 50/50 splits. now, they're getting all tails. hell, they flip a coin into the air, and two coins land, both tails. so maybe they're due for this bad spell to regress to the mean as well. sure, they weren't as good as they played in the first half, but they sure as hell can't be as bad as they are now. can they...?

well... i hope not.

[Frayed Knot]

The 2nd half slide is a lot simpler to explain than pythagorean shifts (that 'gap' had self-corrected prior to the tumble) or reversions to the mean involving 2-out hits or whatever.

Pre-ASB: RS = 4.58/G; RA (ERA) = 3.97
Post-ASB: RS = 3.64/G; RA = 5.10


Basically Wright stopped being an MVP candidate, Nieuwenhuis & Duda stopped hitting (and eventually stopped playing), Tejada missed a month and Ike has never really started hitting.
On the other side, Johan went from good to awful (with a stop at unavailable), Dickey slid from fantastic to merely very good, and Gee stepped out of the picture altogether.

And virtually nobody, save for Rauch and maybe Muffy, has had a better 2nd half than 1st