Like i said...peace of mind. Doesn't actually mean much of anything what players on a sports team would prefer. Their preference has no actual bearing on statistics and reality. You're talking psychology. They still have to accomplish the difficult task of winning the baseball games. Also, you keep including the win column in your arguments. Why? If you are a game ahead in the loss column and "control your own destiny" with 5 games left in the season, is that relevant? What about 10? 20? 80? While unsuccessfully looking for an article that I had read years ago agreeing that "the loss column" is an illogical fallacy, I just happened upon this one. Not as good as the one I was looking for, but this guy coincidentally speaks to the "destiny controlling" argument, which, though it isn't my primary argument, it seems to be yours, and he seems to agree with me. (And he's way more intelligent and eloquent than I am) http://www.thesandb.com/sports/assessing-the-risk-assessment-in-the-loss-column.html
For Chrissake, if you're gonna debate, have the decency to make W-L the only variable. The other poster messed up when he said he "only looks at L's". Wins and losses both mean something, but I'll take fewer losses every time unless there's some large discrepancy in the win total. It's better to control your own destiny and that's what fewer losses entails. It's not just "peace of mind", it's reality.
Yeah, I've read all the columns.... which are only written in an attempt to "question" because looking at the loss column is a well-established, accepted dogma. And I still agree that the loss column is the more important factor when comparing two teams that have played a different amount of games... moreso than simply looking at the "GB" column. It provides more context to exactly "how many games back" a team is. Just like a caught stealing provides context on a player's true impact of stolen bases... or a no-hitter that featured 12 walks and 4 errors by the team with the no-hitter pitcher is likely to have resulted in a loss. In reality, the Angels are not truly 2 or 3 games back right now... unless you're going to have the Astros magically stop playing, and you then see if the Angels go 1-2 or 2-1 in the 3 games that they have yet to play (that the Astros have already played). Likewise, they are "truly" one game back in the loss column.... which will never change prior to the above made-up scenario. Thus, you can put your head in the sand and believe that the Astros cannot lose their "lead" by losing the next two games (with the Angels winning 2)... which would actually give them more losses than the Angels... or you can look at the loss column which says they're one loss better.
No, it doesn't. It provides no context whatsoever. It's completely out of context by itself. It only means anything when it's combined with the win column. It's the reason you didn't answer my scenario in the earlier post. If you don't mind, can you link the columns that you read that you're talking about? Maybe the one I was looking for is one of them. And why is it a "well-established, accepted dogma"? Because the media uses it willy nilly? It's correct because they use it?
This arguing over w/Ls is crazy. if the angels weren't winning at the same time that we're losing, this wouldn't be a topic.
Please... of course it provides context... especially when teams have played a varying amount of games (but not a "vastly" different amount... thus their wins aren't going to be all that off). But with a varying amount of games played between the two teams... the Astros are not exactly "2.5" games ahead of the Angels as the GB suggests. Here's a column discussing the need for a better "GB" metric to truly define the deficit between teams. Obviously it goes into some higher level math that nobody will calculate off the top of their heads... hence why I favor looking at the losses as it tends to correlate with the "deficit" formula closer than simply "wins" does. The first example mirrors what the current Astros-Angels situation is. 2.5 games "ahead" in the "GB" column, but only 1 game ahead in the loss column. If you calculate the true "deficit" it is 2.24 (not 2.5)... implying that the amount losses are statistically more important (in varying game situations) than the amount of wins. (and this is in addition to the "controlling the destiny" scenario that definitely is important at the end of seasons). http://research.sabr.org/journals/a-truer-measure-of-games-behind I'll also take a statistical/mathematical article any day over a "psychology" one... I'm sure the front office would too.
I don't know why some people want to lump Gattis and Carter in the same boat. Gattis comes up with bigger hits and is just a better hitter. Gattis isn't a great hitter but he is certainly better than Carter.
I agree with Charlie Pallilo when he said on the radio the other day that the organization should have given a pitcher like Feliz a chance instead of this Straily guy.
Not sure what on earth the front office has to do with the debate, but ok. I would too, and the article that I can't find was just that. And you were the one who ventured into psychology in an attempt to support your stance in the first place, with this: "If you've ever been on a sports team, you'd understand that you'd much rather want the situation in your control... and not having to rely on help from others." I'm done for now, since the game is underway.
