To Crockpot:

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
I know the "hot team" theory's usually a fallacy, but I was wondering if you adjusted at all for the Rockies recent results or if you're just counting them the same as they were throughout the season? I think that even if the streak's overadjusted for, at least part of it has to be the young players maturing and the Rockies playing better baseball than they were earlier in the season. The price in your blog kind of strikes me as about where you'd set a line for a typical 90-win NL team if there was no improvement whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

running hot != improvement

[iggymcfly]

I understand that running hot's a big part of it. I'm just saying that when a young team goes 21-1 at the very end of the season after being 76-72 before that, there's a strong possibility that in addition to running hot, they also improved somewhat. I was wondering if Crockpot accounted for this or if he saw things the same way you did.

[CardSharpCook]

bugstud,

"running hot" can mean 1 of 3 things;

1. Team is simply getting lucky - use month old OBP, SLG, WHIP, etc numbers.
2. Team was underperforming, and now, while certainly getting lucky, team is closing in on true value - use current OBP, SLUG, WHIP, etc numbers.
3. Team is improving more than the mean level of improvement. Discount first few months of OBP, SLUG, WHIP, etc numbers and weight their numbers from the last two months more heavily.

I think iggy's question is: which line of thought has crockpot followed in his evaluations of the Rockies and, in general, how should we treat such run-goods as The Rockies 23-24 or the A's 22-win streak (or whatever the final number was) a few years ago? I think this is a valid question.

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
I know the "hot team" theory's usually a fallacy

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't mean to be a dick, but i don't think we're going to see eye to eye on this until you replace "usually" with "always".

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
The price in your blog kind of strikes me as about where you'd set a line for a typical 90-win NL team if there was no improvement whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this price reflects how a 90-win team would match up if three of their top four starting pitchers were injured and their fifth-best was being relegated to just one start in the Series. (Okay, maybe Morales is in the top four, but you get my point.)

For comparison's sake, I regarded last year's Cardinals as roughly a .500 team and I think their +200 World Series line was pretty fair.