Question: more and more, win probability is being mentioned in game. While I find win probability interesting retroactively to see how impactful a specific play was, I find in game it is a stupid stat.

 

Wondering what other people think. I hope it goes away.

Question: more and more, win probability is being mentioned in game. While I find win probability interesting retroactively to see how impactful a specific play was, I find in game it is a stupid stat.

 

Wondering what other people think. I hope it goes away.

Somewhat agree. I don't know statistics well enough, but to me it seems that you can't always apply the general "win probability" to specific games too accurately.

Somewhat agree. I don't know statistics well enough, but to me it seems that you can't always apply the general "win probability" to specific games too accurately.

I find win probability fascinating but I agree with both of you, it doesn't enhance the watching experience to get the numbers. The one exception: I'd like to see a fullscreen WP graphic every time a manager calls for a dumb sac bunt.

I find win probability fascinating but I agree with both of you, it doesn't enhance the watching experience to get the numbers. The one exception: I'd like to see a fullscreen WP graphic every time a manager calls for a dumb sac bunt.

 

This is actually a very interesting use which I'd like.

 

But when the cubs were in the playoffs and bernstein was tweeting like "cubs now have a 65% probability of winning", it was like, cool, should I watch.

This is actually a very interesting use which I'd like.

 

But when the cubs were in the playoffs and bernstein was tweeting like "cubs now have a 65% probability of winning", it was like, cool, should I watch.

 

Ha, he was balls deep in win probability when the Cubs played the Cardinals

This is actually a very interesting use which I'd like.

 

But when the cubs were in the playoffs and bernstein was tweeting like "cubs now have a 65% probability of winning", it was like, cool, should I watch.

The problem with a number of these stats is they are based heavily on regular season performance, but when compared to a 162 game season, the playoffs are a minuscule sample size.

Ha, he was balls deep in win probability when the Cubs played the Cardinals

 

I was wondering if he was getting paid for it.

The problem with a number of these stats is they are based heavily on regular season performance, but when compared to a 162 game season, the playoffs are a minuscule sample size.

The specific in-game win probability numbers are based on many, many thousands (if not more) points of data. I couldn't tell you exactly how the algorithms are formulated, but they are using all kinds of historical data to simulate how often a team would win in at this particular point of a game over a statistically-meaningful sample size. Often times, that number is 50,000 games. There are all kinds of fancy modeling words for these types of simulations, including monte carlo simulations and la grangian relaxation mixed integer programming, blah blah.

 

We use these types of models to determine whether to make particular types of power or gas transactions that reach far out into the future.

 

The concept here is very similar. You are basically trying to simulate different levels of volatility to determine all the potential impacts of making a decision or taking a particular course of action.

The specific in-game win probability numbers are based on many, many thousands (if not more) points of data. I couldn't tell you exactly how the algorithms are formulated, but they are using all kinds of historical data to simulate how often a team would win in at this particular point of a game over a statistically-meaningful sample size. Often times, that number is 50,000 games. There are all kinds of fancy modeling words for these types of simulations, including monte carlo simulations and la grangian relaxation mixed integer programming, blah blah.

 

We use these types of models to determine whether to make particular types of power or gas transactions that reach far out into the future.

 

The concept here is very similar. You are basically trying to simulate different levels of volatility to determine all the potential impacts of making a decision or taking a particular course of action.

Sometimes they use models to get win expectancy, but isn't there a simpler method that just uses box scores? i.e. x% of teams in baseball history who were down two runs in the top of the 7th with a runner on 2nd ended up winning the game.

 

It's not perfect, largely because it crosses eras.. That team is probably a little less likely to win in 2015 than in 2000.

So the Cubs are going to the Score?

So the Cubs are going to the Score?

 

yes. announced this morning

I think it was actually announced months ago. Just not "officially".

Edited November 11, 201510 yr by Iwritecode

I think it was actually announced months ago.

Essentially. CBS had a one shot opportunity to move from WBBM to WSCR and everyone kind of knew it would happen due to the White Sox move.

Essentially. CBS had a one shot opportunity to move from WBBM to WSCR and everyone kind of knew it would happen due to the White Sox move.

 

 

Yeah. It's a really smart move for both parties. Feder had the news about a week ago though.

I think it was actually announced months ago. Just not "officially".

 

Yea it was a poorly kept secret

Rachel Nichols leaving CNN to come back to ESPN. I watch so little ESPN now (other then actual live content) that I didn't realize she was gone (and never noticed her on CNN). Probably a good move on her part. Than again, I usually flip to CNN and skowl at the fact that I can't even get any news and thus change channel immediately. I can't remember what event was going on, but it was a big national event and I first flipped to CNN (always thinking for general news they are pretty good)....yet all I had was some stupid reality type show and I was like what the hell.

All these female sideline reporters blend together these days. I don't mean to sound sexist but it's all that's out there. Easy to get lost in the shuffle like Rachel Nichols has, even though she does more pieces than sideline stuff.

All these female sideline reporters blend together these days. I don't mean to sound sexist but it's all that's out there. Easy to get lost in the shuffle like Rachel Nichols has, even though she does more pieces than sideline stuff.

I like Nichols. She is one of the best, imo. I just pay so little attention to this type of stuff these days (as I have limited time to watch sports so when I do, it is actual sports I'm watching vs. talking heads, etc). Only talking heads I get are on talk radio when driving to/from work, etc.

Does any Score personality not constantly push their political agendas?

I like Nichols. She is one of the best, imo. I just pay so little attention to this type of stuff these days (as I have limited time to watch sports so when I do, it is actual sports I'm watching vs. talking heads, etc). Only talking heads I get are on talk radio when driving to/from work, etc.

Ya, Rachel Nichols is awesome.

Does any Score personality not constantly push their political agendas?

 

 

They don't unless there's a shooting or something.

Ya, Rachel Nichols is awesome.

Also a great fan of Rachel Nichols.

Just heard Phil Rogers on The Score. How does he have a job? I feel dumber after listening.

 

Our SoxNet/FutureSox writers are more informed.

CSN finally bringing Kendall Gil back after he punched Tim Doyle

CSN finally bringing Kendall Gil back after he punched Tim Doyle

 

Is that Pat's brother?