<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Fun Thought</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/</link>
	<description>Seattle Mariners blog and general baseball discussion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:59:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: joser</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320998</link>
		<dc:creator>joser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320998</guid>
		<description>Wait, the M&#039;s had Bloomquist last year.  Are you saying he&#039;s going to focus the Royals on losing 100+ games this year?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wait, the M&#8217;s had Bloomquist last year.  Are you saying he&#8217;s going to focus the Royals on losing 100+ games this year?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joser</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320997</link>
		<dc:creator>joser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:35:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320997</guid>
		<description>Oh &lt;i&gt;smacks forehead&lt;/i&gt; of course!  How could I have overlooked that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh <i>smacks forehead</i> of course!  How could I have overlooked that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DMZ</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320938</link>
		<dc:creator>DMZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320938</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s not going to happen again since they have Bloomquist to keep them focused and motivated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not going to happen again since they have Bloomquist to keep them focused and motivated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joser</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320937</link>
		<dc:creator>joser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320937</guid>
		<description>An unfun thought: In the opening days of the 2008 season, the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/2008-schedule-scores.shtml&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Royals&lt;/a&gt; went 6-2 and held first place in the AL Central for 11 days, until April 14th.  A week later they had fallen to last place, on their way to a 72-90 record.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An unfun thought: In the opening days of the 2008 season, the <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/KCR/2008-schedule-scores.shtml" rel="nofollow">Royals</a> went 6-2 and held first place in the AL Central for 11 days, until April 14th.  A week later they had fallen to last place, on their way to a 72-90 record.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: joser</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320820</link>
		<dc:creator>joser</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 02:24:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320820</guid>
		<description>Yeah, because if there&#039;s one thing Dave has been guilty of over the past few years, it&#039;s his excessive optimism.

The folks that run this blog just can&#039;t win.  When they state an unpopular opinion and are proven right, they never have anyone who disagreed come back and acknowledge that.  When they&#039;re realistic about the limitations of the team, they&#039;re accused of excessive negativity, of being &quot;haters&quot; or somehow wanting the team to fail. 

And now, when they express a little optimism, they&#039;re told to &quot;calm down.&quot; 

Sometimes I wonder why they bother.  (And then I remember: they&#039;re &lt;i&gt;fans&lt;/i&gt;.)

(FWIW, I think the brain trust is building for 2010-11 too; but clearly they&#039;re also trying to balance that with winning now and turning the fanbase around -- which, for their employers, is just as important.  Hence the Griffey signing.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, because if there&#8217;s one thing Dave has been guilty of over the past few years, it&#8217;s his excessive optimism.</p>
<p>The folks that run this blog just can&#8217;t win.  When they state an unpopular opinion and are proven right, they never have anyone who disagreed come back and acknowledge that.  When they&#8217;re realistic about the limitations of the team, they&#8217;re accused of excessive negativity, of being &#8220;haters&#8221; or somehow wanting the team to fail. </p>
<p>And now, when they express a little optimism, they&#8217;re told to &#8220;calm down.&#8221; </p>
<p>Sometimes I wonder why they bother.  (And then I remember: they&#8217;re <i>fans</i>.)</p>
<p>(FWIW, I think the brain trust is building for 2010-11 too; but clearly they&#8217;re also trying to balance that with winning now and turning the fanbase around &#8212; which, for their employers, is just as important.  Hence the Griffey signing.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: beckya57</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320798</link>
		<dc:creator>beckya57</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320798</guid>
		<description>Calm down, Dave.  They will have injuries, after all; for starters, Ichiro&#039;s ulcer could recur, and Jr is only one hamstring pull away from a lengthy DL stint.  I agree that this is a .500 team, and that&#039;s a huge improvement from last year (plus they&#039;re a whole lot more fun to watch), but playoff talk is WAY premature.  Lots of teams start strong and then regress to their true level later.  I think Jack Z and Wakamatsu are building for 2010 or 2011, and that&#039;s exactly what they should be doing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Calm down, Dave.  They will have injuries, after all; for starters, Ichiro&#8217;s ulcer could recur, and Jr is only one hamstring pull away from a lengthy DL stint.  I agree that this is a .500 team, and that&#8217;s a huge improvement from last year (plus they&#8217;re a whole lot more fun to watch), but playoff talk is WAY premature.  Lots of teams start strong and then regress to their true level later.  I think Jack Z and Wakamatsu are building for 2010 or 2011, and that&#8217;s exactly what they should be doing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gregor</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320784</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320784</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;No, Daveâ€™s post doesnâ€™t assume that. It assume that the remaining 153 games are as difficult as the whole 162 games (which they are).&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Of course, the assumption you state implies that the first nine games are also as difficult as the whole 162 games, and hence as the remaining 152 games.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>No, Daveâ€™s post doesnâ€™t assume that. It assume that the remaining 153 games are as difficult as the whole 162 games (which they are).</p></blockquote>
<p>Of course, the assumption you state implies that the first nine games are also as difficult as the whole 162 games, and hence as the remaining 152 games.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dylan S</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320779</link>
		<dc:creator>Dylan S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320779</guid>
		<description>&quot;This also assumes that either â€œopponent difficultyâ€ for the first nine games is roughly the same as for the remaining 153...&quot;

-fairweatherfan

&quot;To be fair, Daveâ€™s post is not entirely accurate unless you assume that the competition faced to date is comparable to the overall level of competition that you anticipated that they would face throughout the season&quot;

-IMFinksPa

No, Dave&#039;s post doesn&#039;t assume that.  It assume that the remaining 153 games are as difficult as the whole 162 games (which they are).  The post assumes nothing about the first nine games and &lt;em&gt;gives them no consideration&lt;/em&gt; going forward.  Dave&#039;s post is making the same prediction he made before the season except now assuming that the M&#039;s play a 153 game season and start off with a record of 7-2.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;This also assumes that either â€œopponent difficultyâ€ for the first nine games is roughly the same as for the remaining 153&#8230;&#8221;</p>
<p>-fairweatherfan</p>
<p>&#8220;To be fair, Daveâ€™s post is not entirely accurate unless you assume that the competition faced to date is comparable to the overall level of competition that you anticipated that they would face throughout the season&#8221;</p>
<p>-IMFinksPa</p>
<p>No, Dave&#8217;s post doesn&#8217;t assume that.  It assume that the remaining 153 games are as difficult as the whole 162 games (which they are).  The post assumes nothing about the first nine games and <em>gives them no consideration</em> going forward.  Dave&#8217;s post is making the same prediction he made before the season except now assuming that the M&#8217;s play a 153 game season and start off with a record of 7-2.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DLCheeZ</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320774</link>
		<dc:creator>DLCheeZ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320774</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;But I donâ€™t understand why we shouldnâ€™t look at the strength of schedule first, before determining that weâ€™re 3 games ahead of where we thought we would be.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

So let&#039;s look at strength of schedule.  In April, the Mariners face the following:

The 2008
AL West Champs
AL Central Champs
AL Central Runners Up
AL East Champs and AL Pennant Winners

It&#039;s not all A&#039;s and Tigers.  Though let&#039;s acknowledge that the Tigers currently are tied for first in their division.

As it turns out, the teams we&#039;ve beaten so far all have sub .500 records.  Why is that?  At least part of that is because the 2009 Mariners are handing out beatings like Halloween candy.

&lt;em&gt;NOBODY&lt;/em&gt; thought the M&#039;s would finish April above .500 and somehow, they&#039;re a 5-8 run away from making that a reality.  You&#039;d better believe this team is 3 games ahead of where we thought they would be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>But I donâ€™t understand why we shouldnâ€™t look at the strength of schedule first, before determining that weâ€™re 3 games ahead of where we thought we would be.</p></blockquote>
<p>So let&#8217;s look at strength of schedule.  In April, the Mariners face the following:</p>
<p>The 2008<br />
AL West Champs<br />
AL Central Champs<br />
AL Central Runners Up<br />
AL East Champs and AL Pennant Winners</p>
<p>It&#8217;s not all A&#8217;s and Tigers.  Though let&#8217;s acknowledge that the Tigers currently are tied for first in their division.</p>
<p>As it turns out, the teams we&#8217;ve beaten so far all have sub .500 records.  Why is that?  At least part of that is because the 2009 Mariners are handing out beatings like Halloween candy.</p>
<p><em>NOBODY</em> thought the M&#8217;s would finish April above .500 and somehow, they&#8217;re a 5-8 run away from making that a reality.  You&#8217;d better believe this team is 3 games ahead of where we thought they would be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: droppedrod</title>
		<link>http://www.ussmariner.com/2009/04/16/a-fun-thought/comment-page-2/#comment-320773</link>
		<dc:creator>droppedrod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/?p=7810#comment-320773</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s been some time since I took a stats class, but does Dave&#039;s logic work when the estimated record for the team isn&#039;t based on a true sample?  In other words, is a prediction that the team will finish .500 really a &quot;statistic&quot; in the true sense of the term?  

Saying, before the season starts, that the team will finish 81 and 81, regardless of how you get there, isn&#039;t based on a sample of this team&#039;s past performance. Once you have an adequate sample of the team&#039;s performance, then you can apply Dave&#039;s math. If the team goes .500 through the first 80 games, adding 3 wins to the predicted win total after a 6 game streak in August seems to work better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s been some time since I took a stats class, but does Dave&#8217;s logic work when the estimated record for the team isn&#8217;t based on a true sample?  In other words, is a prediction that the team will finish .500 really a &#8220;statistic&#8221; in the true sense of the term?  </p>
<p>Saying, before the season starts, that the team will finish 81 and 81, regardless of how you get there, isn&#8217;t based on a sample of this team&#8217;s past performance. Once you have an adequate sample of the team&#8217;s performance, then you can apply Dave&#8217;s math. If the team goes .500 through the first 80 games, adding 3 wins to the predicted win total after a 6 game streak in August seems to work better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

