Interesting Baseball News Items That Do Not Warrant Their Own Thread

[DrNick]

Former Yankee/Brave Pascual Perez killed in home invasion robbery in the DR.

RIP Pascual

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/p...rts-say-110112

[Eldee5]

Angel Pagan enjoying his well earned meal from Taco Bell:

http://mlb.mlb.com/cutfour/index.jsp#contentId=40130200

This is awesome!

[nnysiny]

the Angels trade Haren to the Cubs for Marmol, who is due $9.8 mil. what?
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/1...#disqus_thread


EDIT: turns out this trade never happened, and Haren is now a FA.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/1...ns-option.html

[spikeowenfan]

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.asp...yers=2063,2790

Dave Cameron posted this to twitter. One of these players is now in triple AAA.

[Waitinfor27]

http://news.sportslogos.net/2012/11/...ogos-uniforms/

Not sure how I feel about them. I appreciate the old-school style look of the logo, but the actual jerseys just seem so generic to me. I feel like I could pick them up at my local sporting goods store custom made instead of paying $200 for an authentic one.

[Ram Man]

I appreciate the old-school style look of the logo,

I think they're great except for the orange "alternate" jersey. I hope they're not planning to wear the blue batting practice jerseys in games but it kind of sounds that way from the ESPN story:

The Astros have a blue batting practice jersey with rainbow print down the side that will also be worn for Sunday games.

What isn't clear is if they'll wear those for batting practice before Sunday games or in the Sunday games themselves. If the latter, I don't like it.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/85...irst-al-season

[Yankeefan3783]

The Astros should have gone with the shooting star jerseys

[Chacon]

So weird hearing Nate Silver name dropped so much during election coverage

Score one for sabermetrics

[ieddyi]

So weird hearing Nate Silver name dropped so much during election coverage

Score one for sabermetrics

He's got Obama as 91% chance to win

If he loses, Silver loses credibility big time

[sweet_lou_14]

So weird hearing Nate Silver name dropped so much during election coverage

Score one for sabermetrics

Comparing his work in the political sphere to his work in baseball yields some interesting observations.

In politics, the inputs to his analysis (i.e. the polls) are by no means guaranteed to be accurate. These inputs themselves are sampled, and therefore dependent on all sorts of variables and subject to various kinds of potential bias. The outputs of his analysis, however, are quite straightforward. The only sound argument against the predictive value of Silver's political analysis is, basically, garbage in garbage out.

In baseball sabermetrics, the inputs are, for the most part, beyond dispute. The outcome of an at-bat is unambiguous, at least until you get to stats with a more subjective component such as LD%. And while samples are small in many statistical exercises, you never have to worry about data you simply can't know. All of the data is available. But the predictive value of the data is subject to a great deal of debate.

The bottom line is, if you're betting on sports you know that no amount of analysis is going to give you a lock on predicting the outcome of the next game or series. But, assuming you have even a basic trust in the accuracy of the polling -- and the integrity of the voting process itself -- you'd be insane to bet against Nate Silver's prediction of who's going to win the electoral college.

(That said, I encourage everyone to get out there and vote!)

[philleotardo]

He's got Obama as 91% chance to win

If he loses, Silver loses credibility big time

Then you completely misunderstand what he does and how he gets those numbers.

[awy]

the 91% is actually on the low side of poll based aggregators using gaussian estimation. silver has this 'cheating' adjustment for systematic poll error which is giving a small chance for romney.

still, turnout is the name of hte game

[sweet_lou_14]

He's got Obama as 91% chance to win

If he loses, Silver loses credibility big time

I predict that if you roll two dice, you have only a 1 in 36 chance of rolling double sixes.

If you do roll double sixes, I lose credibility big time.

[ieddyi]

I predict that if you roll two dice, you have only a 1 in 36 chance of rolling double sixes.

If you do roll double sixes, I lose credibility big time.

Great analogy since those 2 events are so similar (you lose credibility making disingenuous comparisons )

"The only sound argument against the predictive value of Silver's political analysis is, basically, garbage in garbage out."

You had it right in your paragraph above ( garbage in- garbage out )- it's all about the integrity of the state polls that he's basing his analysis on

The big question this cycle is the continued oversampling of D's in the polls. The majority of them are assuming a turnout that equals the 2008 for D's. In the real world, it's obvious that the 2008 election was an outlier for several reasons and that the relative enthusiasm of the 2 parties has switched. Yet, you get a CNN final poll that has a D + 11 sample- an even greater turnout for dems than 2008. Romney is up by double digits among independents in most polls. Gallup and Rasmussen have done surveys of likely voters over the past several months w/ sample sizes greater than 15,000 ( much larger than typical polls ) and they predict a voter turnout that is actually greater R than D ( a historical first, I believe ).

So the wide range of opinions. Micheal Barone- someone who's been paying attention to this on the precinct level for the whole country for decades has a Romney blowout. Others see it as an Obama landslide

I do understand what the 91% number implies, but if Obama does lose, Silver does lose credibility. He's responsible for that "garbage" he's been feeding into his models. Rasmussen has adjusted his sample to reflect his view on likely turnout- and he's had a stellar track record. there was talk that Silver had access to Obama internal polling during the last cycle that does taint him a bit.

Regardless, we'll know tonight ( hopefully )

[sweet_lou_14]

The demonizing of Nate Silver in this election cycle is part of a pattern in the media of making everything -- even clearly demonstrable facts and the workings of basic mathematics -- into a political issue subject to interpretation. There are many very loud voices in the media right now who have chosen to attack Silver, and several have confused his probabilistic analysis with a binary prediction. Even when his number for Obama was 75-80%, there were people loudly exclaiming that a Romney victory would invalidate Silver's entire methodology and expose him as a partisan hack (which he is not).

The comparison to a roll of the dice is not at all disingenuous for those people who have proven in the public square that they don't comprehend math. You'll have to forgive me if I have lost all patience with these kinds of people -- the same people who repeatedly and quite deliberately demonstrate and perpetuate a lack of respect for facts, the scientific method, and objective research and analysis that happens to contradict their own magical thinking. I apologize if I've incorrectly assumed you were choosing to sympathize with that group based on your post above.

It's oversimplifying to say Silver is responsible for the "garbage in," although it's my understanding he does choose to weight or even ignore certain polls based on factors such as their past predictive performance. As awy points out, he has made genuine attempts to be even-handed and has, to my understanding, attempted to factor in the possibility of nationwide, cross-poll errors in Obama's favor.

Whether the correct "probability" for an Obama win is 91%, or 83%, or 76% is unprovable now, and will remain unprovable after the election is over, regardless of the victor. But if you're looking for people who are retrofitting the available facts to a political agenda, Nate Silver isn't where you should be focusing. There are many others doing this in both political parties. At this moment, the media needs to promote the meme of a tight race to ensure ratings and eyeballs. And both campaigns need to promote the same meme to encourage voter turnout.

Nate Silver and others offer a refreshing departure from partisan smoke-screens because they are just calling it as they see it from the facts at hand, with no regard for anybody's feelings. And I happen to believe they are directionally correct in their consensus that Obama's a big favorite.

[ieddyi]

The demonizing of Nate Silver in this election cycle is part of a pattern in the media of making everything -- even clearly demonstrable facts and the workings of basic mathematics -- into a political issue subject to interpretation. There are many very loud voices in the media right now who have chosen to attack Silver, and several have confused his probabilistic analysis with a binary prediction. Even when his number for Obama was 75-80%, there were people loudly exclaiming that a Romney victory would invalidate Silver's entire methodology and expose him as a partisan hack (which he is not).

The comparison to a roll of the dice is not at all disingenuous for those people who have proven in the public square that they don't comprehend math. You'll have to forgive me if I have lost all patience with these kinds of people -- the same people who repeatedly and quite deliberately demonstrate and perpetuate a lack of respect for facts, the scientific method, and objective research and analysis that happens to contradict their own magical thinking. I apologize if I've incorrectly assumed you were choosing to sympathize with that group based on your post above.

It's oversimplifying to say Silver is responsible for the "garbage in," although it's my understanding he does choose to weight or even ignore certain polls based on factors such as their past predictive performance. As awy points out, he has made genuine attempts to be even-handed and has, to my understanding, attempted to factor in the possibility of nationwide, cross-poll errors in Obama's favor.

Whether the correct "probability" for an Obama win is 91%, or 83%, or 76% is unprovable now, and unprovable after the election is over, regardless of the victor. But if you're looking for people who are retrofitting the available facts to a political agenda, Nate Silver isn't where you should be focusing. There are many others doing this in both political parties. At this moment, the media needs to promote the meme of a tight race to ensure ratings and eyeballs. And both campaigns need to promote the same meme to encourage voter turnout.

Nate Silver and others offer a refreshing departure from partisan smoke-screens because they are just calling it as they see it from the facts at hand, with no regard for anybody's feelings. And I happen to believe they are directionally correct in their consensus that Obama's a big favorite.

I think the demonization is in direct proportion to the hype he's received. There's also the fact that he was receiving Obama inside polling info in the 2008 cycle w/o publicizing that fact. It's legal, but in my mind there's a conflict of interest there.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeedpoli...ng-with-silver

Sorta goes to his partisan credentials, no?

His PECOTA system, his previous claim to fame has, IMO , limited usefulness as well

Anyhow, it's just a diversion now , as the only real poll is taking place ( no, that's not the exit polls either )

[awy]

silver is a nerd why you bullying him

[awy]

*good nerd

[Eldee5]

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/ey...eball/20855866

Rangers ace Yu Darvish will pass up the chance to repeat his World Baseball Classic exploits, as he's opted to sit out the upcoming tournament. Darvish released the following statement through his agents:

After much deliberation, which has included a lot of consultation with my coaches and
trainers, I have decided that I will not play in the upcoming World Baseball Classic. This was a very difficult decision for me as it is always a tremendous honor to represent my native country of Japan. I greatly enjoyed being a part of the 2009 Championship ballclub and I will be supporting this year's team as they look to defend their title. There are many very talented players in Japan and I am confident this team will uphold Japan's great tradition in this event.

[Yankee Fan in Boston]

Great analogy since those 2 events are so similar (you lose credibility making disingenuous comparisons )

"The only sound argument against the predictive value of Silver's political analysis is, basically, garbage in garbage out."

You had it right in your paragraph above ( garbage in- garbage out )- it's all about the integrity of the state polls that he's basing his analysis on

The big question this cycle is the continued oversampling of D's in the polls. The majority of them are assuming a turnout that equals the 2008 for D's. In the real world, it's obvious that the 2008 election was an outlier for several reasons and that the relative enthusiasm of the 2 parties has switched. Yet, you get a CNN final poll that has a D + 11 sample- an even greater turnout for dems than 2008. Romney is up by double digits among independents in most polls. Gallup and Rasmussen have done surveys of likely voters over the past several months w/ sample sizes greater than 15,000 ( much larger than typical polls ) and they predict a voter turnout that is actually greater R than D ( a historical first, I believe ).

So the wide range of opinions. Micheal Barone- someone who's been paying attention to this on the precinct level for the whole country for decades has a Romney blowout. Others see it as an Obama landslide

I do understand what the 91% number implies, but if Obama does lose, Silver does lose credibility. He's responsible for that "garbage" he's been feeding into his models. Rasmussen has adjusted his sample to reflect his view on likely turnout- and he's had a stellar track record. there was talk that Silver had access to Obama internal polling during the last cycle that does taint him a bit.

Regardless, we'll know tonight ( hopefully )

So, I guess the the flip side is true, right? All those who were desperately criticizing the polls should lose credibility, and we should recognize that perhaps Silver's model wasn't "garbage" after all?

[philleotardo]

So, I guess the the flip side is true, right? All those who were desperately criticizing the polls should lose credibility, and we should recognize that perhaps Silver's model wasn't "garbage" after all?

Don't worry, he won't be in to respond tonight.

[ieddyi]

So, I guess the the flip side is true, right? All those who were desperately criticizing the polls should lose credibility, and we should recognize that perhaps Silver's model wasn't "garbage" after all?

Yep, props to Silver- he got it right

I don't think it was "desperation" there were apparent substantive issues about the sampling makeup of the polls that raised legitimate questions.

Barone is not a partisan hack and has been doing that type of analysis for decades. He was spectacularly wrong, but his position was data based- not wish based

[ieddyi]

Don't worry, he won't be in to respond tonight.

You're right, I wasn't online last night

PS

Bite me

[Hitman23]

http://news.sportslogos.net/2012/11/...ogos-uniforms/

Not sure how I feel about them. I appreciate the old-school style look of the logo, but the actual jerseys just seem so generic to me. I feel like I could pick them up at my local sporting goods store custom made instead of paying $200 for an authentic one.

I actually like their hats. The only jersey that should go is the solid orange one. Otherwise they are good. If I were a fan I'd give them my money to help their cause of trying not to suck.

[Jace]

Yep, props to Silver- he got it right

How did he "get it right"? I think that sentence doesn't make sense in the context of a probability distribution. He created a distribution based off of data and the margins of error on the data... he didn't pick a winner in the traditional political sense.

If he made a bet based on the distribution, its no different than a professional poker player making a bet on a 90% favored hand. If they lose, they didnt "get it wrong"

Even if you think the polls were biased, thats the most public data available and the most open method