Testy Copy Editors

Our new website is up and running at testycopyeditors.org. This board will be maintained as an archive. Please visit the new site and register. Direct questions to the proprietor, blanp@testycopyeditors.org
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 11:00 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: How to lie with statistics
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 2266
Location: New Jersey
AP:

The Tigers lost 90 games last season -- a 29-game improvement -- in what was the second-best turnaround in the AL since it expanded in 1961.

***I don't know what going from 119 losses to 90 is, but it's not a "turnaround." The Tigers are going to be a bad, bad team for a long time.***


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 1324
Location: N 36° 57' 9", W 121° 24' 2"
In sheer numbers, the Mets' legitimate turnaround from 1968 (73-89) to 1969 (100-62 and the world championship) didn't match Detroit's improvement from coma to mere critical condition. But what's really impressive is that the Mets made a full statistical turnaround in just two seasons; in 1967 they were 61-101.

For some reason, I'm compelled to note here that the worst single-season record in major-league history does not belong to the 1962 Mets, losers of 120 games. That distinction goes to the 1916 Philadelphia Athletics, who went 36-117 (.235).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 2266
Location: New Jersey
In the modern era (1901-present), yes. The worst record ever for a major league team was 20-134, set by the 1899 Cleveland Spiders.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 10:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 1324
Location: N 36° 57' 9", W 121° 24' 2"
I did not know that.

Cripes. One of their starters was 4-30.

1899 Cleveland Spiders


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 2266
Location: New Jersey
The best stat on that page:

Scored 529 runs, Allowed 1252 runs.

The explanation for the Spiders' stunning futility, as I understand it, is that their owner also owned the St. Louis Browns, and decided to put all the good players on one team and all the bad players on the other.

No joke.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2002 12:01 am
Posts: 1775
Location: Baltimore
Matthew Grieco wrote:
The explanation for the Spiders' stunning futility, as I understand it, is that their owner also owned the St. Louis Browns, and decided to put all the good players on one team and all the bad players on the other.


Synergy! Convergence!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 1324
Location: N 36° 57' 9", W 121° 24' 2"
Matthew Grieco wrote:
The explanation for the Spiders' stunning futility, as I understand it, is that their owner also owned the St. Louis Browns, and decided to put all the good players on one team and all the bad players on the other.

No joke.

From what I've read, this was not uncommon in baseball's early days.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2002 12:01 am
Posts: 1286
Location: Saranac Lake, N.Y.
Oeditpus Rex wrote:
Matthew Grieco wrote:
The explanation for the Spiders' stunning futility, as I understand it, is that their owner also owned the St. Louis Browns, and decided to put all the good players on one team and all the bad players on the other.

No joke.

From what I've read, this was not uncommon in baseball's early days.


I've read that the Kansas City Athletics essentially were a farm team for the Yankees in the '50s. I know Maris played for K.C. at some point.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:01 am
Posts: 32
I don't know what going from 119 losses to 90 is, but it's not a "turnaround." The Tigers are going to be a bad, bad team for a long time.


Well, actually the Tigers have been a bad, bad team for a long time...like about 15 years. With the signing of (a hopefully healthy) Ordonez, Detroit could break .500 this year...which would make them amazingly mediocre. And a possible contender to win the weak American League Central division.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2005 4:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 741
Location: The Empire State
I think teams like the Tigers are doomed until baseball realigns its divisions by revenue, which I believe was proposed by Bob Costas, among others. It's an intelligent solution and will require lots of moxie to implement.

New ballparks (e.g., Comerica) and their attendant luxury suites clearly aren't helping teams put competitive clubs on the field, and neither is revenue sharing or the luxury payroll tax.

Realignment by revenue should happen sometime around the 12th of Never. Give or take a few days.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 2266
Location: New Jersey
wordygurdy wrote:
Realignment by revenue should happen sometime around the 12th of Never. Give or take a few days.


I've been meaning to ask, but forgot to actually post this question until now: How would "realignment by revenue" work, exactly?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 741
Location: The Empire State
I've been meaning to ask, but forgot to actually post this question until now: How would "realignment by revenue" work, exactly?[/quote]

Matthew, I tried to remember where I saw that proposal, and I found a citation for it on the Web here. (Scroll down about two-thirds--or search on "Jim Bowden" on the page--to see interim Nationals GM Jim Bowden's idea quoted.) I do recall reading about Bowden's having proposed it, but I thought I had seen a piece somewhere in which Costas endorsed it as well. Perhaps not, as a quick Google search didn't turn up any hits on Costas' name being linked to that particular realignment proposal.

You can read a blogger's comments on Bowden's idea here.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01 am
Posts: 2266
Location: New Jersey
It's an interesting concept. The big problems would be shattering traditional rivalries and annual scheduling nightmares.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 12:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:03 pm
Posts: 103
Location: Illinois
Matthew Grieco wrote:
It's an interesting concept. The big problems would be shattering traditional rivalries and annual scheduling nightmares.


Another big problem would be that incompetent management is a far bigger reason for lack of competitiveness than is lack of resources.

Not to mention that payroll level is often a choice made by the team, rather than an externality.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

What They're Saying




Useful Links