Klapisch: ~90% Chance Yanks Miss Post-Season

12 Responses to “Klapisch: ~90% Chance Yanks Miss Post-Season”

1. Lee Sinins on July 8th, 2008 10:15 am

   I have no dispute with the conclusion that the Yankees are not in good shape.

   However, I have serious problems with this website and all others that do what this one purports to do.

   Where is the proof that their system works? Where is the proof that, when they claim that a team has a 17% chance (just to pick a random number), 17% of such teams (actually 17%, within an appropriate margin of error) actually make it?

   It’s not there.

   They make impressive claims like they run the season 1,000,000 times a day, but leave out the most important detail–proving that what they say has any scientific validity.

   Does anyone honestly think that, if they actually had the evidence that proves that their system worked, they wouldn’t present it? So, that leaves only 2 possibilities–(1) they didn’t even bother first establishing that the system works before trying to promote themselves or (2) the evidence doesn’t support them being a scientifically valid method.

   Given human nature and the desire to create systems that purport to be scientifically accurate, without also doing to work to establish the validity, I suspect it’s probably the former.

   So, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt and just call them incredibly lazy rather than call them dishonest.

2. OnceIWasAYankeeFan on July 8th, 2008 10:30 am

   Not that it should make a difference but coolstandings.com was created by a Red Sox fan. He told me that he started it because he got tired of seeing the Sox sprint out to big leads only to blow it in the past. He wanted to know, really know, when he could breathe easy about their chances.

   BP’s post-season odds page has an even more pessimistic view, with only a 6.4% chance of making the playoffs, and less than a 1% chance of the Division crown.

   Adjusted by PECOTA only gets it to 8.8% but ELO (whatever that is) raises it to 14%.

   So if Klapisch wanted to be extra pessimistic, he should have gone to the site that really crunches the numbers.

   Interesting to look at runs scored/runs allowed between last year and this year:

   Last year after 89 games
   480 - 405
   This year after 89 games:
   417-394

   So the pitching actually is marginally better, but the drop in offense has made the difference.

   There’s time but the Rays and to a lesser extent the Orioles complicate things. Far fewer “gimme” games going forward, really for either of our teams.

3. OnceIWasAYankeeFan on July 8th, 2008 10:38 am

   Lee, these sites wouldn’t use these tweaked versions of pythagorean theorems of runs scored - minus runs allowed equals win probability if they didn’t do a decent job of predicting wins. I’m not sure the derivation but I’m pretty sure that Bill James crunched a lot of numbers before he came up with his version.

   That being said, nothing is a given. The D-Backs should have been a below .500 team but they made the playoffs. Two years ago the Indians should have won 88 and they were below .500. The Halos are outperforming their pythag because of an unbelievable record in close games. Will their “luck” change in the second half or will they manage to keep it up?

   Its why they play the games, and why we watch them.

   Fact is though that as the games dwindle down, those odds are going to become more and more accurate. If the Yankees are at 8% chance on September 1, you can probably book an October vacation.

4. Lee Sinins on July 8th, 2008 11:30 am

   I’m not sure the derivation but I’m pretty sure that Bill James crunched a lot of numbers before he came up with his version.

   ————-

   The difference is James provided the proof that what he ultimately came up with worked. coolstandings.com has not done that.

5. Lee Sinins on July 8th, 2008 11:38 am

   Fact is though that as the games dwindle down, those odds are going to become more and more accurate. If the Yankees are at 8% chance on September 1, you can probably book an October vacation.

   —————–

   Yes, but if the Yankees are listed as a 8% chance on September 1, do you really think that nobody would be able to figure out by themselves that the situation looks extremely hopeless for the Yankees?

   Of course not.

   So, what does this site bring to the table that we couldn’t figure out on our own. They provide, no they purport to provide a scientific method to provide a specific percentage.

   In order for a scientific method to be accepted as valid, you need the data that proves it is valid.

   Bill James, at least the old Bill James, the Abstracts version one, Bill James 1.0, as opposed to the newer one, complied with the scientific method. The same can not be said for this site.

6. OldYanksFan on July 8th, 2008 4:22 pm

   I think the odss take into account the division makeup. Maybe the two best teams in baseball (TB and Boston) are in the AL East. So an AL Central or West team might make the WC with a much poorer record then the Yanks. I think that is why the Yanks odds are so low.

7. yankees76 on July 9th, 2008 1:38 am

   Am I the only one who reads this site and thinks that Steve just isn’t bright enough to use statistics?

   Steve, you, uh, linked to last year’s coolstandings projections from a date MORE THAN TWO WEEKS further into July, after the Yankees had played 99 games. They were, at that point, seven games over .500. After tonight, they have played ONLY 88 games, and are SIX GAMES over .500.

   I don’t know about you, but I’ll take this year’s version, where Jeter, Abreu and Cano are all likely to improve in the second half.

8. yankees76 on July 9th, 2008 1:48 am

   Or, if you add 48 + 42, you might also get “90,” instead of 88.

   Guess I get blinded by range when I read careless or poorly-sourced posts around here.

9. Steve Lombardi on July 9th, 2008 9:33 am

   yankees76 - I think you’re still blinded…I mean, after all, how can I honestly be expected to respect your opinion when you open up with insulting me, personally? When you’re ready to start dealing like a rational and calm person, I’ll be happy to explain why I posted/linked, what I did…

10. yankees76 on July 13th, 2008 12:46 am

    That’s fine if you do not want to address the comment because you were insulted. You take umbrage when others play fast and loose with statistics, and find increbily inane statistics to highlight and pinpoint as somehow critical, and (what I actually find infuriating) you are only *careless* with statistics when it supports the generally negative tone of this site and your analysis. You may have had *another reason* for posting highly-analytical probability measures as somehow supportive of your argument as to where this team stands, but if you weren’t linking those numbers for statistical significance, you should have highlighted that in your post, rather than making the statement that those statistics demonstrated that the team was somehow in the same (or a similar position) as the team last year. The team wasn’t when you posted it, and it still isn’t now. If the team loses the next five games, you’re a prophet; it they win them, your post becomes even more irrelevant, but either way, you can’t pick and choose when to be precise with your statistical analysis.

    It’s stunning to me how infrequently you admit when you’re wrong on this site. Every other reputable blogger does, Steve. It’s not a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of maturity and self-awareness.

11. Steve Lombardi on July 13th, 2008 10:23 am

    ~~~It’s stunning to me how infrequently you admit when you’re wrong on this site. Every other reputable blogger does, Steve. It’s not a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of maturity and self-awareness.~~~

    benjamin - you need to read this blog more often. There have been many, many, times in the last four years where I have confessed mistakes.

    But, then again, it’s easier to cherry-pick posts, etc., that just rub you the wrong way and then try to make personal and insulting attacks at me.

    Here’s a question for you: If I am everything bad that you claim I am as a blogger, why do you read the blog and continue to post on it? Sounds like a waste of your time, to me.

12. 67 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall : WasWatching.com on July 18th, 2008 10:13 am

    [...] backs-up what Bob Klapisch wrote ten days ago. The Yankees are going to need some serious magic to make it to October in 2008. Maybe it’s [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.