crockpot's baseball picks 4/1-4/7 (incl futures)

[ImStillBen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Before the season, ~3.5% would have been a very conservative projection.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I want is for you to show me where you come up with this number. That's all I'm asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

That probability was arrived at via a highly robust and historically accurate player projection model coupled with a Monte Carlo simulation engine. I trust my numbers and they indicate that Tampa was a favorable bet though obviously unlikely to cash. You can go on the theory that "Tampa suckz yo" and use some poorly applied statistics to justify not taking the same bet. That difference of opinion is what makes this thing go.

[Thremp]

Homer,

You know ImBen's MO. He validates or invalidates people's comments. He's a huge douche about it either way, but the truth is the truth.

Post-Oak,

You are right. I'm a huge donk. Until Las Vegas embraces SABR they'll likely continue to be a joke compared to more stat oriented ones.

Or maybe because he's one of the sharpest guys on this board should be a decent reason?

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
That probability was arrived at via a highly robust and historically accurate player projection model coupled with a Monte Carlo simulation engine.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK. Crockpot supplied a link in which 4 historically accurate projection systems (Chone, Diamond Mind Projections, PECOTA, and Zips) were coupled with a Monte Carlo engine (Diamond Mind Baseball Simulator).

Here are the results for a run of 1,000 seasons in each instance:

Chone
TB averaged 71.3 wins and won the division 2 times (0.2% of the time)

Diamond Mind Projections
69.3 wins and 0 times (0.0%)

PECOTA
77.5 wins and 8 times (0.8%)

Zips
67.6 and 1 time (0.1%)

Cumalative results:
71.4 wins and 0.0275%


Diamond Mind themselves also runs a Monte Carlo simulation (using their own player projections only). Although they only run the sim 100 times, TB averaged 70 wins (they round off) and won the division 0 times.

Hardball times has TB averaging 68 wins and having a 0.2% chance to win the AL East.

PECOTA seems to have TB winning 78 games (I don't pay for that garbage so can't see the whole page). Even with this seemingly overly optimistic estimate (based upong a comparison with other projection systems/the LV line/expert consensus), there is no way that a team expected to win 78 games would win the AL East 3.5% of the time. A team with a true winrate of .4815 (78/162) would win 90+ games 3.5% of the time. The benchmark for winning the AL East should be set a little higher. 92+ games brings us down to 1.7%

Las Vegas had the over under at 68.5 if I remember correctly. A team whose true win rate is .4228 (68.5/162) for each of 162 games won't even win 81 games 3% of the time.

You're number is such a ridiculous outlier that it is simply ABSURD to claim 3.5% as a CONSERVATIVE estimate.

[ QUOTE ]

I trust my numbers and they indicate that Tampa was a favorable bet though obviously unlikely to cash.


[/ QUOTE ]

The season has barely started and it is apparent that your numbers are a complete and total joke. The slew of robust, historically accurate projection systems I have mentioned, combined with a highly sophisticated Monte Carlo engine (Diamond Mind), has not surprisingly produced better numbers than your absurd >>3.5% estimate. Oh, Las Vegas also thinks your numbers are a joke too. And they were right.

[ QUOTE ]

You can go on the theory that "Tampa suckz yo"


[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no.

[ QUOTE ]

and use some poorly applied statistics to justify not taking the same bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, no. I am clearly WAY ahead of you on this one. First of all, I was smart/experienced enough to consult MULTIPLE projections. I also didn't completely ignore Las Vegas/handicapper/consensus expert estimates because I was so proud of my own CRAP projections.

[ QUOTE ]

That difference of opinion is what makes this thing go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is clearly what makes sports betting beatable.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe because he's one of the sharpest guys on this board should be a decent reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny.

I only know two things about this guy. One is that he refuses to provide any firm numbers or explanations. The other is that I just took him to school. I really doubt he is quite as sharp as you think.

[Thremp]

Post Oak,

You are so full of [censored] its oozes everywhere. BP is the best of those projections. And Las Vegas is sometimes very wrong on lines (10+ games yo?).

Good luck with your sharpy McSharperson analysis.

[TheRover]

Thremp, you tool, you don't UNDERSTAND. When you capitalize full words for EMPHASIS your arguments have more FORCE and are automatically more ACCURATE and almost unassailable.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
BP is the best of those projections.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't share this opinion. In fact, I there was a debate on here before last year about some PECOTA projections and I was right (PECOTA was wrong). Of course, it was just variance for sure.

Anyway, even BP's outlier results for TB don't say that they would win the division 3.5% of the time. It's not close. To say that 3.5% is a CONSERVATIVE estimate is BEYOND ABSURD. If you can't see this, it's because the groupthink and hero worship you suffer from is clouding your judgement.

[ QUOTE ]

And Las Vegas is sometimes very wrong on lines (10+ games yo?).


[/ QUOTE ]

Being wrong by 10+ games is very rare, as I assume even a square like yourself should understand.

You seem pretty bad at math, so I will tell you how much a 9.5 game difference in the line would be worth in this case. A team which you would expect to win 78 games would go over 68.5 wins 93.27% of the time. That's quite an edge, even for a super sharp such as Ben.

[Post-Oak]

[ QUOTE ]
Thremp, you tool, you don't UNDERSTAND. When you capitalize full words for EMPHASIS your arguments have more FORCE and are automatically more ACCURATE and almost unassailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another groupthink 2+2 SQUARE (note emphasis) who attacks the messenger but not the analysis.

[Thremp]

Post Oak,

ever hear of a small team calleD the white sox? maybe yOu should recoNsult your experts, mmKay?

Rover,

BETTER?!?!?!?!

[TheRover]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thremp, you tool, you don't UNDERSTAND. When you capitalize full words for EMPHASIS your arguments have more FORCE and are automatically more ACCURATE and almost unassailable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another groupthink 2+2 SQUARE (note emphasis) who attacks the messenger but not the analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I "attack" the messenger and not the "analysis" because I don't have a strong opinion on the analysis (other than that someone that refers to PECOTA as "garbage" is likely full of [censored]), but I do think the messenger is an annoying jackass.

Do you base the square comment on anything other than a perceived disagreement with your opinion, which I had never stated?