Of course I guessed. But it’s an educated guess. Individual MLB games are generally near toss-ups with teams rarely having greater than a 60% chance of winning (or a greater than 40% chance of losing). I do think there is value to not playing an extra game, but I think that value is more than offset by the increased odds of actually making the NLDS by having two chances to win rather than letting it ride on one game.
Those are insane numbers (for example, fangraphs gives the Brewers a 47% chance of winning tomorrow, they’d probably give them a 55% chance or so against the Rockies and a 45% chance or so against the Dodgers) but that’s fine, we’ll work with them. Let’s say having to play tomorrow decreases the Brewers chance of winning by 10% and the Rockies/Dodgers having to play increases the Brewers chance of winning by 10% So the Brewers would have a 36.8% chance of beating the Cubs, a 57.9% chance of winning the wild card game because they have to play tomorrow, and a 70.73% chance of winning the wild card game if they just forfeited tomorrow. So under your strategy, the Brewers have a 70.73% chance of advancing to the NLDS. By playing tomorrow and then Tuesday if they lose, the Brewers have a 73.4% chance of advancing to the NLDS.
What would you say are the following: 1. Percent chance Brewers beat Cubs tomorrow 2. If they lose to the Cubs, percent chance Brewers win wild card game 3. Percent chance Brewers would have had to win wild card game if they wouldn’t have had to play tomorrow
This is the stupidest idea I’ve ever read. Needing to win one game out of two is so exponentially better a position to be in than needing to win one game out of one.
It could just be a coincidence (or a correlation rather than a causation) but the winner of the final HOH comp has won 9 of the last 11 seasons so I wonder if that comes into play in some of the juror's minds more than we may realize.
Fessie went home because Kaycee beat him in a POV comp that could not have been more tailored to his skill set. It wouldn’t surprise me if his vote was that simple. She also won the POV the next week when Scottie went home the second time but I wouldn’t think that’s what decided things for Scottie.
Sam was also a perfect example of piss poor jury management and it singlehandedly cost him the game. He spent all season cultivating a personal relationship with her and then just lied to her face while sending her out the door.
Tyler's answers and speech tonight were a total trainwreck. He may well have lost Bayleigh's vote (and the game), with his bullshit story about trying to piss her off in the house because everybody loved him and he needed an enemy. He also completely failed to mention his role in flipping Kaitlyn, which is what led to Level 6 being as strong as they were.
It fucks the players a hell of a lot more than it fucks the agents. The system of dramatically underpaying players in their 20s was only sustainable when they in turn got overpaid once they finally hit free agency.
I'm not against judicial term limits but they need to be long enough that it's still realistically the last job the person will ever have.
I'm intrigued by the proposal of 18 year limits which allows two appointments per Presidential term (plus any unexpected vacancies).
Lacking corroboration and not being credible are completely different things. Assuming what she says happened did happen, for anyone not in that room, it was just one of countless parties that there was zero reason to remember weeks later, let alone decades later.
He cancelled his return flight, leased an apartment, and didn’t turn himself into the authorities when the US Marshall warrant went out so there’s some decent evidence he was trying to flee prosecution.
I do completely agree with this by the way. Because pitchers have the Cy Young and there is no explicit “most outstanding position player” award, I effectively view the MVP as a position player award. So I don’t think deGrom should win it, just not for the dumbass reasons Derka said.
You’re the one presupposing that participation correlates to value. I’m simply demonstrating what a shitass understanding of participation you have. And I explicitly accounted for baserunning so no, I did not ignore it at all. Modern stats do have at least a rough estimation of how many runs scored Baez has been worth this his bat and his base running plus how many runs prevented he has been worth with his glove and arm. It’s called Runs Above Replacement. And he’s been worth about 50.3 runs more than a replacement-level shortstop this year. deGrom by comparison has been worth 70.3 runs more than a replacement-level starting pitcher.
So based on your value in participation, since deGrom was involved in 200 more plate appearances than Yelich, for Yelich to be as or more impactful, we need to find 200 more plate appearances where he was not at bat but nevertheless he had an impact.
There were 311 balls hit in Yelich's vicinity this year. 214 of those were routine and 58 were impossible, leaving 39 plate appearances where he could make an impact (he made the out on 23 of those).
So in addition to those 39 fielding opportunities when he could make an impact, we need to find 161 baserunning opportunities for him to do so.
Yelich was on base 200 times this year (175 hits + 56 walks - 31 home runs). Surely you don't believe he made a non-routine play on the basepaths over 75% of the times he was on base, right?
In those 30 games, he had as much impact as any position player over the course of the season. DeGrom has faced 810 batters this season. By way of comparison, Yelich has had 610 plate appearances.