03 Nov 2021 16:05:45
Random note:

The Braves were 31-37 against teams with a winning record in the 2021 regular season.

Interesting.


1.) 05 Nov 2021
05 Nov 2021 14:03:45
Yes, it happens. First time since 2015 that a team with a losing record against .500 teams made it to the World Series.

Maybe Rick Hahn should start emulating Alex Anthopoulos. He seemed to figure out how to win a WS despite losing his best player (and didn't make any excuses for it) .


2.) 05 Nov 2021
05 Nov 2021 14:28:17
Emulate Anthopoulos more racist pre arb extensions like those of Albies and Acuna? How dare he.


3.) 05 Nov 2021
05 Nov 2021 14:33:27
This is a good example of how history shows (look it up) that there is zero causation between win% against .500+ opponents in the regular season and playoff success.

This is just a narrative that Nate made up to bash the Sox and he wasn't really concerned whether or not it was rooted in reality. It only took a couple months for it to be proven bs.


4.) 05 Nov 2021
05 Nov 2021 16:00:41
Birds of a feather stick together!


5.) 07 Nov 2021
07 Nov 2021 12:17:56
"It only took a couple months for it to be proven bs. "

So you have one case of something happening (once in over 5 years, and for not even the 10th time in the last 20), and my point was correct over 90% over the past 2 decades.

But yes, it's all blown to pieces because of one outlier example.

You're what we in the insurance world call, "stupid".


6.) 08 Nov 2021
08 Nov 2021 10:47:42
No it wasn't because of one instance. The R^2 of playoff win% regressed on vs. > .500 win% in the regular season is between .2 and .3 SINCE 1960.

If you're simply checking off if the team had a .500 or better record against > .500 teams and whether or not they won the world series, well then that's not really how correlations work, but it's good for pushing the ole narrative.


7.) 08 Nov 2021
08 Nov 2021 10:49:05
In other words, only 20-30% of the variance in playoff success is explained by regular season win% vs. > .500 teams.

Not a lot.


8.) 08 Nov 2021
08 Nov 2021 13:41:59
Hey man, whatever you got to do to convince yourself that the White Sox stood a chance this year!

Because, let's be honest, that's what all this boils down to. You'd be more than happy to trot out these facts if the shoe was on the other foot. We both know you would. Here was my quote, for posterity sake: "I went from 2014-2019, and out of 24 teams who made it to the LCS in their respective leagues, just THREE (3) had losing records against .500 teams"

Also, the point wasn't the World Series. It'd help if you could understand how to read for a change. It was advancing to the LCS. We actually had two instances this year. And it's still remains less than 10 times in the last 20 years. That's not even 5%.

95% of all the teams to advance to the ALCS or NLCS over the past two decades had a winning record against .500 teams.


9.) 10 Nov 2021
10 Nov 2021 04:14:33
Well when you pick a random dependent variable to fit what ever narrative you’re pushing, otherwise known as the Natedog Special, you can really “prove” anything to be true.


10.) 14 Nov 2021
06 Nov 2021 16:04:38
"Oh my gosh guys! His evidence was wrong one time! Therefore, it's wrong all the time! "

The Braves 2021 World Series was an outlier to the rule, and not the norm, but please, try to convince yourself that the White Sox, who can't beat good teams despite playing in the easiest division in professional sports, can win a WS. (Hint: they won't. )

That's really the root of this. You're trying to find every possible measure to convince yourself that Rick Hahn has a club that'll win a World Series. Meanwhile, the Braves, with baseball's lowest win total and absent their best player (who is objectively a top 5 player in baseball) won it all without him.

But the White Sox were absent Luis Robert and Eloy Jimenez during non-crucial times and still use it as an excuse.

We can officially chalk up Alex Anthopoulos as yet another in the long line of superior GMs to Rick Hahn.


11.) 14 Nov 2021
09 Nov 2021 13:49:44
Also, if you can't see why there's a direct correlation between how you play against .500 teams in the regular season to help understand how you might play against them in the postseason (every postseason team has a .500 record or better), then I'm really not sure how to help you.

It's probably one of the most obvious correlations one can consider when predicting postseason success.

And when teams with losing records against .500 teams make the playoffs, they have less than a 10% chance of moving on to the next round.

Notice I never said "zero". Not once. We can obviously find outliers. The Braves being one.

Also, most of the Vegas Oddsmakers factor in head-to-head record as well as record/ success versus similar teams. Hence why the White Sox, Braves, and Red Sox were the underdogs in every series they played.

It's hilarious that you're trying to demean a statistically proven principle, mostly out of trying to dunk on someone online. What's even funnier is that you, once again, missed dearly.

You're really, really, really trying to find a time to be right on this website. We can all see it's bothering you. Maybe one day, you'll get a prediction right. And when that day comes, you'll be about 10 predictions behind. But I'll still let you do your victory lap.

I'm rooting for you. Despite all statistical evidence, I still have faith you'll get an accurate prediction on here!


12.) 15 Nov 2021
15 Nov 2021 13:21:08
"Also, if you can't see why there's a direct correlation between how you play against .500 teams in the regular season to help understand how you might play against them in the postseason (every postseason team has a .500 record or better), then I'm really not sure how to help you. "

Literally data tells us there is no substantial correlation, but OK dude. Like I said, only 20-30 % of the variance in playoff win% is explained by regular season win% vs. > .500+ teams. That's since 1960, pal.

"It's probably one of the most obvious correlations one can consider when predicting postseason success. "

Maybe in your head, Nate. You can convince yourself that anything is true. Probably is, there's objective evidence that proves your theory wrong.

"It's hilarious that you're trying to demean a statistically proven principle"

LOL, your "analysis" was to look at SEVEN seasons and used the arbitrary dependent variable of "advancing to the CS" as if that's the prefect barometer for a successful postseason. There is nothing "statistically proven", LMAOOOO. We've established that the reality in your head very rarely coincides with everyone else's.

Please don't get frustrated when someone takes freely available info, plugs it into a simple linear regression model, and proves your theory completely false. It seriously took 5 minutes. Also, the "correlation doe not equal causation" phrase is really kicking your butt.

You're out of your element.


13.) 18 Nov 2021
18 Nov 2021 13:41:00
" your "analysis" was to look at SEVEN seasons and used the arbitrary dependent variable of "advancing to the CS" as if that's the prefect barometer for a successful postseason"

I mean, advancing past the first round of the playoffs likely indicates some sort of success in the playoffs, don't you agree?

And you can use the "correlation doesn't prove causation" fallacy all you want. That's what it is: a fallacy. I'm literally proving that there's a correlation between the two things, you insufferable dweeb.

How one plays PLAYOFF CALIBER teams in the regular season has direct impact on how one plays those same teams in the PLAYOFFS.

It's literally no different than suggesting that a team that struggles against right-handed pitching will probably struggle against Lance Lynn. It's the exact same correlative principle. There's obviously greater chance for variations, given the specifically small sampling, but it's a good starting point.

Again, Vegas Oddsmakers legitimately use things like a team's record against that team, or a team's overall record versus similar teams when setting odds.

The "correlation doesn't prove causation" argument might hold true if I was talking about two unrelated things. For example, if I said, "every team who has knowingly hired a DUI manager has lost in the first round" and then another team hires a similar manager, it would be dumb of me to apply that principle.

But if you can't see the correlation between facing playoff caliber teams in the regular season and playing them in the postseason, then I really can't help you.

Again, it's the EXACT STATISTIC that Vegas Oddsmakers use to determine favorites and underdogs, among other betting lines. Fangraphs legitimately uses a team's record versus .500 teams to help determine their ROS, postseason, and WS odds.

This isn't some out-of-the-blue idea I've concocted here, Gabriel. This is a tried and true correlation that is used by baseball experts everywhere.

No one, not even myself, said it's foolproof. That would be dumb.

But you tried to throw it in some "linear regression model" to make it sound really, really smart. I think you should know by now that no one on this site believes you in the slightest. I've beaten the brakes off of you for long enough around here, as have others, that you should probably give up any hope of sounding accurate.


14.) 18 Nov 2021
18 Nov 2021 13:51:38
For what it's worth, your linear regression model argument got posted to an insurance/ actuary subreddit. It's getting quite the attention, and not in the good way, Leonard.

"That would be THE correlation most would look for when setting odds" said one comment.

Again, it's clear that you have never spent a minute doing actuaries or oddsmaking of any kind. Further evidence of this is you taking ZiPS and Steamer projections and thinking they are hard truths. You don't actually understand how this works, and, again, are just trying to pretend like the White Sox aren't an unmitigated joke of a baseball team.

They are. And you're, once again, completely wrong.

But this is what I've come to expect from you. And I eagerly await how you'll make it seem like you're the expert around here.

Read the room: no one is buying it, kiddo. No one.

Maybe get a prediction right, even just one, and maybe stop being a hilarious White Sox homer for two seconds, and maybe people will start buying into what you're saying. Chances are low, but it might not hurt to try.


15.) 18 Nov 2021
18 Nov 2021 14:25:42
"I mean, advancing past the first round of the playoffs likely indicates some sort of success in the playoffs, don't you agree? "

Sure, but rather than using a subjective, binary barometer for postseason success, using win% is much better analysis.

"How one plays PLAYOFF CALIBER teams in the regular season has direct impact on how one plays those same teams in the PLAYOFFS. "

" This is a tried and true correlation that is used by baseball experts everywhere. "

Just keep saying these things and maybe it will eventually become true. The data directly says otherwise. Could you maybe show me how it's a "tried and true correlation", or do we all just need to believe you because you're always correct? What you're saying is objectively false. There's no way to spin it.

Seriously, in this instance, there's nothing subjective in me saying that there is not a strong correlation at all between regular season success vs. > .500 teams and postseason win%. This is quite literally objective data on a completely un-tuned, statistics 101 linear regression model.

"Further evidence of this is you taking ZiPS and Steamer projections and thinking they are hard truths. "

You're trying to say that I take too much stock in projection systems (I don't, they're merely helpful guides)

but then you say, well there's a correlation between this because IT WAS ON REDDIT, LMAO.

"Again, it's the EXACT STATISTIC that Vegas Oddsmakers use to determine favorites and underdogs, among other betting lines. "

That's fantastic, Nate. I'm not talking about oddsmaking, I'm talking about WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN REAL LIFE.

You're frustrated, and I get it. This kind of stuff isn't your forte. My evidence is 60 years of data and your evidence is Reddit.


16.) 18 Nov 2021
18 Nov 2021 21:25:01
"You're trying to say that I take too much stock in projection systems (I don't, they're merely helpful guides) "

You literally tried to suggest that because Darin Ruf was projected at -0.7 WAR in 2022, per ZiPS, that he wasn't good. You conveniently never brought the argument back up when I proceeded to point out that Rico Garcia would also be better than Michael Kopech. Curious move.

"but then you say, well there's a correlation between this because IT WAS ON REDDIT, LMAO. "

No, I said I put your comment, formula included, on a subreddit with actuaries, who help insurance companies make decisions on data, and most everyone on it, people with DECADES OF STATISTICAL EXPERIENCE laughed at.

Again, just admit: you don't like the data because it doesn't benefit your stance that the Chicago White Sox are basically the greatest team ever. Because we both know that ANY STATS, anything you can find to prove your point, you'd use.

You'd even make the exact same correlation if helped your argument.

Heck, when you say things like "Don Cooper resurrected pitcher's careers", we know you'll say almost anything, so long as it works favorably toward the White Sox.

You also don't like this because it, once again, points to me being right. You're struggling with this reality, Damion. You were TORN UP INSIDE when the Giants acquired Kris Bryant for the exact key prospect as I predicted.

Or when I suggested that Craig Kimbrel was going to be a disaster for the White Sox.

Or when I said that Darin Ruf was better in 2021 than Jose Abreu.

Or when I suggested that, after 3 seasons, Farhan Zaidi would have the Giants in a better position than Rick Hahn has the White Sox. (He has more regular season and as many postseason wins in the last 3 seasons, his first 3, mind you. )

So I can see why you're struggling here. You tried to make up some fancy schmancy numbers, and they don't prove your point. But you NEED one. You're aching to get just one thing right on this here website.

So if you want, I can concede this one to you. Just to make you feel better. I'm feeling as benevolent as Rick Hahn giving up Dallas "Cy Young" Keuchel to teams for their sunk cost players.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm as drunk as Tony La Russa on the day of his press conference.

I'll let you decide. But you can have this one. Don't say I never did anything nice for you.


17.) 19 Nov 2021
19 Nov 2021 15:16:08
Could you link me to that subreddit? I'd be curious to see the context you put my comments in and what exactly their responses were. 0% of my evidence in that model was opinionated. Disagreeing with the result (different from my methodology) isn't really an option.

re: Ruf. Gnerally, guys that are projected to be almost a win BELOW replacement shouldn't be stacked up with reigning MVPs, or players with a career 132 wRC+ over almost 5000 PAs. Like I said, use it as a helpful guide. When a player is projected to be almost 3 wins better than another player, that's telling. When you start to micro-analyze projections within .3 wins or so of one another (i. e. Garcia vs. Kopech), that's where you start to misuse the intentions of the systems.

"Again, just admit: you don't like the data because it doesn't benefit your stance that the Chicago White Sox are basically the greatest team ever. Because we both know that ANY STATS, anything you can find to prove your point, you'd use. "

Huh? The data is objective. My results have nothing to do with the White Sox.

"You were TORN UP INSIDE when the Giants acquired Kris Bryant for the exact key prospect as I predicted. "

Could you show me where you're getting the inclination that I was torn up inside about KB going to SF?

"Or when I said that Darin Ruf was better in 2021 than Jose Abreu. "

He wasn't, we already proved this. The case is closed.

"Heck, when you say things like "Don Cooper resurrected pitcher's careers", we know you'll say almost anything, so long as it works favorably toward the White Sox. "

He did help resurrect some pitcher's careers, not an untrue statement. He led the greatest starting pitching performance in the history of the World Series.

Hey, at the very least, I know you keep everything I say very close to heart. Good effort on the "gotcha" examples tho.


18.) 22 Nov 2021
22 Nov 2021 14:32:57
Still waiting on that link bub.


19.) 28 Nov 2021
28 Nov 2021 03:03:14
Narrator:

"Nate's evidence was in fact, fake. The subreddit doesn't exist. "