Professors in mathematics did a massive study on the game of baseball and found the game is largely luck. Not ALL, but majority.
These are professors with PHD's....Thats all i need to know. In fact it confirmed why the odds are so tight in baseball as opposed to any other sport.
they found wild variances in the recorded stats, because the stats are flawed
anybody with a half a clue about baseball knows this. Why does a guy who hits 4 HR's have the same batting average as a guy who had 4 singles. The impact on the game is different, but recorded as exactly the same
Henry Chadwick invented baseball stats. He was English and had zero backround in the game
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Professors in mathematics did a massive study on the game of baseball and found the game is largely luck. Not ALL, but majority.
These are professors with PHD's....Thats all i need to know. In fact it confirmed why the odds are so tight in baseball as opposed to any other sport.
they found wild variances in the recorded stats, because the stats are flawed
anybody with a half a clue about baseball knows this. Why does a guy who hits 4 HR's have the same batting average as a guy who had 4 singles. The impact on the game is different, but recorded as exactly the same
Henry Chadwick invented baseball stats. He was English and had zero backround in the game
Why are the odds so different in 20/20 cricket as opposed to tests?
If Aus played WI in a test in Aus, the Windies would be $6-7 to win that game.
If Aus played WI in 50 over game, WiI would be about $3.50 to $3.70
If Aus played WI in a 20/20 game, WI would be about $2.60 - 70.
It is still cricket in terms of bowling, batting and hitting, BUT 20/20 has alot more luck involved than the other forms, especially tests, hence the books adjust.
0
Why are the odds so different in 20/20 cricket as opposed to tests?
If Aus played WI in a test in Aus, the Windies would be $6-7 to win that game.
If Aus played WI in 50 over game, WiI would be about $3.50 to $3.70
If Aus played WI in a 20/20 game, WI would be about $2.60 - 70.
It is still cricket in terms of bowling, batting and hitting, BUT 20/20 has alot more luck involved than the other forms, especially tests, hence the books adjust.
Why are the odds so different in 20/20 cricket as opposed to tests?
If Aus played WI in a test in Aus, the Windies would be $6-7 to win that game.
If Aus played WI in 50 over game, WiI would be about $3.50 to $3.70
If Aus played WI in a 20/20 game, WI would be about $2.60 - 70.
It is still cricket in terms of bowling, batting and hitting, BUT 20/20 has alot more luck involved than the other forms, especially tests, hence the books adjust.
and you now made my point for me
Tests go for longer then the other forms of the game. The longer an event, the more the edge plays out. Over the course of 162 games, if certain teams were so superior their winning % would be much higher as the edge plays out, and if teams were lucky their winning % will fall to a level of, oh lets say, the Toronto Raprors
0
Quote Originally Posted by Rostos:
Why are the odds so different in 20/20 cricket as opposed to tests?
If Aus played WI in a test in Aus, the Windies would be $6-7 to win that game.
If Aus played WI in 50 over game, WiI would be about $3.50 to $3.70
If Aus played WI in a 20/20 game, WI would be about $2.60 - 70.
It is still cricket in terms of bowling, batting and hitting, BUT 20/20 has alot more luck involved than the other forms, especially tests, hence the books adjust.
and you now made my point for me
Tests go for longer then the other forms of the game. The longer an event, the more the edge plays out. Over the course of 162 games, if certain teams were so superior their winning % would be much higher as the edge plays out, and if teams were lucky their winning % will fall to a level of, oh lets say, the Toronto Raprors
Tests go for longer then the other forms of the game. The longer an event, the more the edge plays out. Over the course of 162 games, if certain teams were so superior their winning % would be much higher as the edge plays out, and if teams were lucky their winning % will fall to a level of, oh lets say, the Toronto Raprors
Still disagree, Aus are ALOT more likely to beat the Windies in a test match because it tests a different skillset, it really tests your technique, mental strength, depth in the team etc etc. The better team wins.
20/20 brings the game alot more closer to the game of baseball. It is simply hit and miss. Seriously, 20/20 has alot of luck to hit. It is hit and miss.
Look, while the salaries do NOT show 100% effeiciency in terms of talent, it is a faor guide, no where is salary in any sport 100% reflective of ability, but it is a pretty damn good guide.
The inequality in TALENT is extremely uneven in baseball, more than the NBA, the NBA has a salary cap to some extent, where as baseball gets abused.
Yet u never get no where near the same odds in MLB as u do in NBA. The mathematicians and odds makers have backed this up, the game as a ridicolous amount of luck, not 100%, but alot.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hirschfelder:
and you now made my point for me
Tests go for longer then the other forms of the game. The longer an event, the more the edge plays out. Over the course of 162 games, if certain teams were so superior their winning % would be much higher as the edge plays out, and if teams were lucky their winning % will fall to a level of, oh lets say, the Toronto Raprors
Still disagree, Aus are ALOT more likely to beat the Windies in a test match because it tests a different skillset, it really tests your technique, mental strength, depth in the team etc etc. The better team wins.
20/20 brings the game alot more closer to the game of baseball. It is simply hit and miss. Seriously, 20/20 has alot of luck to hit. It is hit and miss.
Look, while the salaries do NOT show 100% effeiciency in terms of talent, it is a faor guide, no where is salary in any sport 100% reflective of ability, but it is a pretty damn good guide.
The inequality in TALENT is extremely uneven in baseball, more than the NBA, the NBA has a salary cap to some extent, where as baseball gets abused.
Yet u never get no where near the same odds in MLB as u do in NBA. The mathematicians and odds makers have backed this up, the game as a ridicolous amount of luck, not 100%, but alot.
If the 20/20 World Cup was 162 games then who would play in the final? Would the minnows be sighted?
The talent spread is more thin in the NBA then in MLB. Anybody of any body shape can play baseball, from fat shits like Prince Fielder, to short skinny guys like David Eckstein, to 6'10" guys like Randy Johnson. NBA talent basically excludes guys under 6'4". You and I could not play in the NBA with our body shapes, but any body can make it in MLB. Its why the NBA draft goes is only 2 rounds and MLB has gone up to 50 rounds.
With the talent pool so great in MLB it means there are a lot more players at the top of the pyramid, enough to fill out MLB rosters. It makes teams closer in talent. AAA ball is of a very good quality. The ABA and NBA D-League are woeful, because the talent isn;t there. Because they have such a small pool, once you get past the top players the talent level falls away fast
With the talent on rosters closer and deeper it makes the prices closer. Just like the top 32 teams in soccer.
And payrolls are the result of supply and demand, not talent. Its why Matt Orford earns so much, Justin Poore too
0
If the 20/20 World Cup was 162 games then who would play in the final? Would the minnows be sighted?
The talent spread is more thin in the NBA then in MLB. Anybody of any body shape can play baseball, from fat shits like Prince Fielder, to short skinny guys like David Eckstein, to 6'10" guys like Randy Johnson. NBA talent basically excludes guys under 6'4". You and I could not play in the NBA with our body shapes, but any body can make it in MLB. Its why the NBA draft goes is only 2 rounds and MLB has gone up to 50 rounds.
With the talent pool so great in MLB it means there are a lot more players at the top of the pyramid, enough to fill out MLB rosters. It makes teams closer in talent. AAA ball is of a very good quality. The ABA and NBA D-League are woeful, because the talent isn;t there. Because they have such a small pool, once you get past the top players the talent level falls away fast
With the talent on rosters closer and deeper it makes the prices closer. Just like the top 32 teams in soccer.
And payrolls are the result of supply and demand, not talent. Its why Matt Orford earns so much, Justin Poore too
If the 20/20 World Cup was 162 games then who would play in the final? Would the minnows be sighted?
The talent spread is more thin in the NBA then in MLB. Anybody of any body shape can play baseball, from fat shits like Prince Fielder, to short skinny guys like David Eckstein, to 6'10" guys like Randy Johnson. NBA talent basically excludes guys under 6'4". You and I could not play in the NBA with our body shapes, but any body can make it in MLB. Its why the NBA draft goes is only 2 rounds and MLB has gone up to 50 rounds.
With the talent pool so great in MLB it means there are a lot more players at the top of the pyramid, enough to fill out MLB rosters. It makes teams closer in talent. AAA ball is of a very good quality. The ABA and NBA D-League are woeful, because the talent isn;t there. Because they have such a small pool, once you get past the top players the talent level falls away fast
With the talent on rosters closer and deeper it makes the prices closer. Just like the top 32 teams in soccer.
And payrolls are the result of supply and demand, not talent. Its why Matt Orford earns so much, Justin Poore too
I see what you are saying, but when you look at the Pirates, that roster is woeful. So to is the Astros to an extent.
When these team lineup against powerful lineups such as the Yanks, Phils, if you look at it purely from a talent view, these bottom feeders should be getting way way more than $3.50- $4.00.
I am sorry, but the conclusions that professors and Odds makers came up with back up my claims.
You only have to watch the game to see how much luck is involved.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Hirschfelder:
If the 20/20 World Cup was 162 games then who would play in the final? Would the minnows be sighted?
The talent spread is more thin in the NBA then in MLB. Anybody of any body shape can play baseball, from fat shits like Prince Fielder, to short skinny guys like David Eckstein, to 6'10" guys like Randy Johnson. NBA talent basically excludes guys under 6'4". You and I could not play in the NBA with our body shapes, but any body can make it in MLB. Its why the NBA draft goes is only 2 rounds and MLB has gone up to 50 rounds.
With the talent pool so great in MLB it means there are a lot more players at the top of the pyramid, enough to fill out MLB rosters. It makes teams closer in talent. AAA ball is of a very good quality. The ABA and NBA D-League are woeful, because the talent isn;t there. Because they have such a small pool, once you get past the top players the talent level falls away fast
With the talent on rosters closer and deeper it makes the prices closer. Just like the top 32 teams in soccer.
And payrolls are the result of supply and demand, not talent. Its why Matt Orford earns so much, Justin Poore too
I see what you are saying, but when you look at the Pirates, that roster is woeful. So to is the Astros to an extent.
When these team lineup against powerful lineups such as the Yanks, Phils, if you look at it purely from a talent view, these bottom feeders should be getting way way more than $3.50- $4.00.
I am sorry, but the conclusions that professors and Odds makers came up with back up my claims.
You only have to watch the game to see how much luck is involved.
Hot Forum Topics
