You really don't understand what i am saying? Really? The Astros got hot for 2 weeks, 2 times during this THREE MONTH PERIOD. Anyway, clearly you understand but just cant admit we were hot for 1 month, not 3. Under .500 for 2 of those 3 months. Can't make this any clearer. Your 48-32 is fools gold.
The 1998 Astros were just an OK team minus their 22-7 August. No wonder they lost in the divisional series...
They played consistent baseball over 3 consecutive winning months. Over 90 days, they won 48 and lost 32. Over 75 of those days, they never lost more than 2 in a row. That far exceeds your 37 day sample size of bad baseball... Hell, even the torrid steaks of cangre tunnel vision exceeds the sample size of bad baseball. If you want to eliminate any teams outliers, both hot steaks and cold steaks, guess what you will discover? It's why baseball relies on large sample sizes to define things. Not sure if it can be explained any better or clearer, unless we aren't speaking the same language.
No you are saying a team that was hot for a month but played under . 500 for two months is hot for 3 months. Just give it up.
You should just say it like it happened. Hot for 1 month. Under .500 for 2 months. That is not hot for 3 months. The sample size is saying that those two streaks were not the norm for the season. We have played losing baseball for a good majority of the season. Two 2 week streaks skew the numbers a bit from whats been happening this season. Playing below average baseball for much of the season.
Except it wasnt one month. They won 48 games over 3 months. Even the one month that featured their worst losing steak of 4 games, they end up going 17-12.
Also worth mentioning is that borh of those streaks were against weak competition. The orioles were good and that is where our 1st streak started, at home against Baltimore. After that it was weak teams. We struggle against good teams.
It was 2 separate steaks that totaled 26 games. That was our good baseball for the year. Exactly a month. We were under .500 for the other 2 months. Your calendar month argument is weak.
Except they've also won series against Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Seattle (twice) and they beat a KC team that was dominant at home. But yeah, other than the wins, they lose.
Welcome to how good teams amass decent records. They go on runs of solid baseball... Avoid losing steaks of 3 plus games... And split or win series consistently. You do it long enough, and you end up winning enough games to stay in the hunt.
We have played great/good consistent winning baseball for a total of 1 month. The other 12 weeks have been really sub par. Thats why we went 48-32 over those calendar months and are currently only 3 games over .500. we went 23-3 over our 2 streaks. The rest of the year we are 34-51
Except In reality, that undefeated month you speak of was really over 3 months. And over 2 of those months, they had the best record in all of baseball. You really need to look into how large sample sizes work, and the ebbs/flows of how winning teams amass good records. Any way you slice it, it's the best 3 month stretch since 2009?
And i think you need to dig a little deeper and recognize the trend in our season. We have played poorly for an 85 game stretch. Played well for a 26 game stretch. We have played poorly much longer than we have played well and we are playing like crap right now. You can put as much lipstick onit as you want. You know Im right . I know that kills you.
More fuzzy math from you... but keep harping on the bad April and these past 2 weeks, and holding them to merely a 23-3 standard of "playing well" (when they continued to win 25 more games over the 3 months... never losing more than 2 in a row after mid May). I do agree that without Valbuena, good Rasmus, mediocre Gomez, LMJ, and Gregerson... this is a bad team.
