The science of baseball stats

steve smyth — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:16:04 GMT

there's really no reason to even bother playing 162 games anymore...the last couple of seasons, stats predicted the teams win/lose numbers with startling accuracy...just go directly to the playoffs...which, thankfully still provide anomaly...

The science of baseball stats

David B — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 22:51:33 GMT

Steve--Over the entire season, the stats are very good a predicting who will be in first place. But they still can't predict who will win an individual game. Each game is won on the merits of hat particular game and it is still fun to watch and enjoy. Yeah, the Yankees will always have a good team because they can afford to spend the $. But that doesn't mean the Brewers can't put on a good show.

The science of baseball stats

Ryan Swanzey, Elon,NC — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:42:14 GMT

Are you serious? The NL's best team, Arizona, won 90 games despite a negative run differential. They were a .500 team that played themselves into the best record in the league. There is plenty of variation in a regular season - that's a blanket statement you've made. And I would argue that any well-informed fan could make pre-season picks for standings with quite a bit of accuracy without the numbers.

The science of baseball stats

tomj, seattle — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:12:25 GMT

Ummmm, Maybe Golf is as good or better with statistics. The reason it might be better is that it has a built in normalization system: par. But as in baseball, golf has many not quite helpful statistics. And golf lacks some helpful ones. In baseball, you get a slugging %. In golf, we all know that Tiger has a huge slugging %, but there are no stats to back it up.

The science of baseball stats

steve smyth — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:04:17 GMT

just funnin' witcha fellas...besides, as a Red Sox fan, I wouldn't get to experience Manny bein'Manny...which is drama, pathos, and a miracle of nature in and of itself...oh, yeah...Sox/As are in the third...Matsuzaka showing some nerves...baseball in the AM...gotta love it, eh?

The science of baseball stats

erik — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:51:55 GMT

i agree that most well informed fans can pick the winners without the numbers, but why the rage against the numbers? that's what i'll never understand. as for the dbacks, what they did is highly unusual, and there's some luck involved as well as maybe some determination from the players. but you will see few and far teams in between that will do that.

The science of baseball stats

T. D. Butler — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 04:43:25 GMT

You are all wrong! Until there is one division per league and all teams play the same schedule, you will never know who is the best. Anyone can get hot and win a tournament.

The science of baseball stats

Brett, HCMC, VN — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 05:16:37 GMT

It's hard to use statistics about sport when the bets are laid on people that are buying the best statistics for business purposes, funny how they try and stay in front of things!

The science of baseball stats

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:45:06 GMT

I still think the Detroit Red Wings will take the World Series, the b******s . . .

The science of baseball stats

Matt, Chicago, IL — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 08:04:13 GMT

Too bad statistics can't predict injuries. As a Cubs fan, I've seen more than my share of season-ruining injuries from glass-bodied players such as Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Moises Alou and Nomar Garciaparra. All the positive statistics in the world can't save a team that suffers injuries to crucial players at critical points in the season. Maybe it's time for some biological analysis as well...