Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mathematician Predicts Yankees To Dominate

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the safe-bets dept.

anthemaniac writes "Computerized projections in sports are nothing new, but Bruce Bukiet of the New Jersey Institute of Technology has developed a model that seems to work pretty well. He projects how many games a Major League Baseball team will win by factoring in how each hitter ought to do against each pitcher in every game. His crystal ball says the Yankees will win 110 games this year, a pretty safe bet, many might agree. But he also projects all the divisional winners. He claims to be right more than wrong in five of the past six years."

170 comments

  1. 110 wins? by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a safe bet that the Yankees will do well, they always seem to spend almost twice as much as most other teams on talent, not to mention luring good players from other teams away to crush competition. Having said that, they have always spent such money, and not done exceptionally well as of late. 110 wins is a lot, and not many tesms have accomplished that. Safe bet? Hardly.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:110 wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The model is total rubbish. One of the most accurate gauges of how many games a team will win is by estimating 1) the total number of runs the team is expected to score over the course of the year, and 2) the total number of runs the team is expected to allow. Looking at these numbers, you can very reasonably expect the Yankees to win 90-95 games this year. To say they'll win 110 games is just wrong.

    2. Re:110 wins? by sebi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree that RS vs RA is a good way to predict the success of a team. It's not always so helpful looking back. The Indians scored 870 runs last season and only allowed 782. How did they do? Not so well: a 78-84 record, good enough to finish fourth in their division. How can one explain that disparity? Blowouts. Those 22-0 games that happen every once in a while. I like Runs Scored vs Runs Allowed models. Just not the ones that get updated during the season.

      --
      Hank! White!
    3. Re:110 wins? by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not safe at all, until you factor in whomever the Mob has their money riding on.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    4. Re:110 wins? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      One of the most accurate gauges of how many games a team will win is by estimating 1) the total number of runs the team is expected to score over the course of the year, and 2) the total number of runs the team is expected to allow.
      You're infringing on my patent for predicting the success of football teams. It goes along the lines of this: the team that wins the league generally 1) scores a lot of goals 2) allows the opponents to score very few goals (ideally none) and 3) minimises the number of individual games in which it breaks rules 1 and/or 2.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    5. Re:110 wins? by alisson · · Score: 1

      I was going to mention this. It's not terribly uncommon for a team or two to break 100 wins, but 110?? The last time they broke 110 was 1998, and their lineup was a LOT better.

    6. Re:110 wins? by MyOtherUIDis3digits · · Score: 1

      the success of football teams ... 1) scores a lot of goals

      Silly foreigners! I can see how you get confused as it's called a goal line, but the methods of scoring are called "touchdowns" and "field goals".

      --
      Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
    7. Re:110 wins? by megasudz · · Score: 1

      I can predict that too based on a $200,000,000 payroll. Best lineup in baseball, but questionable pitching and getting old!

    8. Re:110 wins? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we call soccer in the USA is called football in most if not all other countries...so I suspect hes talking about soccer...in which case he is not confused at all.

    9. Re:110 wins? by MyOtherUIDis3digits · · Score: 1

      What we call soccer in the USA is called football in most if not all other countries...so I suspect hes talking about soccer...in which case he is not confused at all.

      Instead of drawing that cute little picture often seen here on slashdot, I'm just going to say "Whoosh!"

      --
      Ignore anything I said above, I actually agree with everything you believe - mod accordingly.
    10. Re:110 wins? by captainjaroslav · · Score: 1

      Totally agree about 110 wins. No way. 110 is an AWESOME season and there's nothing about this year's Yankees to show that they are better than any of the teams from the last nine years since the last time the Yankees cracked 110. (They won 114, setting the record that was broken by the Seattle Mariners [w00t! Sorry, couldn't resist.] in 2001 with 116.]

      Interestingly, as you note, the heavy spending has consistently landed the Yankees in the playoffs, but, for several years now (I think they last won the World Series in 2000, but I didn't double check that) it hasn't helped them get past that.

      Also, the argument that "they have always spend such money" is not entirely true. This database at USA Today is interesting:
      http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/d efault.aspx

      Certainly the Yankees stay at the top of the list, but there is definitely a trend toward crazier spending. The database only goes back to 1988 so you can't look too far back, but enough to see what I'm talking about. (When did free agency start anyway, around 1980? It's probably an apples-and-oranges type of thing to compare pre- and post-free-agency numbers.)

      The Yankees' payroll now is about 10 times what it was in 1990, way more of an increase than can be attributed to inflation, and it's actually plateaued over the last couple of years (even gone down a little, I think) so increase is even sharper if you look at 1990-2005, rather thann 1990-2007.

      Also, in 1990, the Yankees' payroll was just over twice what the lowest-paid team dished out. Now, it's over SEVEN TIMES what the Devil Rays pay. That shows a sharp trend rather than just more of the same-old-same-old.

      OTOH, it's also interesting to note that the crazy spending trend does seem to be catching on with some other teams. Today there are nine teams that spend at least half of what the Yankees spend, whereas, as recently as 2005, when the Yankees spent $208M and the Red Sox spent $123M, there was only one. (!)

      One thing to note is how freely they Yankees spend money. Other teams seem to be a little more careful about how they spend money. I just read an article the other day where I learned that Jason Jiambi is the second-highest-paid (behind A-Rod) player in MLB. He makes like $23M per year. He's pretty good, but he's nowhere near that good!

      When they were at their best, they had some huge stars but they were also bringing up some good young players from their farm system. The Yankees team now looks more like a baseball card collection than a team. Baseball cards often get more valuable as they get older and older, the actual players... not so much.

      I will admit that the crazy spending doesn't seem to be hurting ALL of baseball so much, since the Yankees don't seem to be able to turn their regular-season success into playoff/World Series victories, but I do think it's made the AL East rather horrible. I personally don't like NY or Boston and I'm so sick of hearing about them. I hope Toronto, with a mere $81M, gives a strong showing again this year, but I won't count on it. It's so lopsided, it really takes the fun out of that division.

      --
      I'm just sayin'.
    11. Re:110 wins? by fumblebruschi · · Score: 1

      The last time they broke 110 was 1998

      That was also the only time they won that many games, and one of only five times that has happened in the history of baseball. So a "safe bet" is exactly what it isn't.

      Anyway, the guy's method is based on past data, and most of the data he's using are metrics that do not tend to show a strong consistency from one year to the next. For example, he measures batters against individual pitchers; but the work of Voros McCracken strongly indicates that a pitcher only has individual predictability when it comes to preventing walks and home runs. When a ball is put in play, the individual ability of the pitcher has no effect, and whether a ball, once put in play, becomes a hit is determined about 50% by the fielding ability of the other players and about 50% by random chance.

      For what it's worth, I have two armchair observations: 1) the Yankees will probably win between 90 and 95 games; and 2) a method that predicts such an extremely unlikely result should probably be reconsidered.

    12. Re:110 wins? by pthisis · · Score: 1

      the work of Voros McCracken strongly indicates that a pitcher only has individual predictability when it comes to preventing walks and home runs. When a ball is put in play, the individual ability of the pitcher has no effect, and whether a ball, once put in play, becomes a hit is determined about 50% by the fielding ability of the other players and about 50% by random chance.

      Even at the time McCracken recognized that this simply wasn't true of certain classes of pitchers (closers, sinkerballers, knuckleballers). Since then, he's argued vehemently at people who misinterpreted his findings as "BABIP is complete luck, and not a pitching skill".

      Generally since then, it's become apparent that BABIP (batting average on balls in play) _is_, in fact, a pitching skill--it's got a pretty high variance, but with a large enough sample size you can see that good pitchers actually do induce lower hit rates than bad ones (even controlling for defense).

      Now, a lot of his core points remain--if you have a pitcher who suddenly has a terrible ERA one year, but he's maintained his K rate, BB rate, HR rate and just has a much worse BABIP you can be pretty sure it's not a real decline (just a bad year) and that he'll return to form the next year. But when Chien-Ming Wang maintains a lower than league average BABIP for years, you can't say it's going to regress to league average the next year, unfortunately.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    13. Re:110 wins? by eh2o · · Score: 1

      There isn't any reason why all of these variables can't be taken into account. Then again, if he did that he would be a statistician, not a mathematician.

    14. Re:110 wins? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      I was working on a version for that game too, but I found all those twos, threes, sixes, sevens and eights too complicated.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  2. Re:Claims to be right more than wrong, heh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    86 Mets rock all y'all worlds!

  3. Um. Yeah. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1
    He claims to be right more than wrong in five of the past six years.

    Whoopty fsck. So's RailGunner. Runs are fun to watch, but pitching is what wins. And the Yanks have? Anyone? Anyone at all? Yep. They got nothin' at pitcher.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  4. If he's so confident... by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has he put up beaucoup bucks in Vegas on his numbers? If not, why not. If so, how much did he win, and where can I get his numbers this year?

    TLF

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:If he's so confident... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "5 out 6 years" bit refers to his DAILY picks on his site egrandslam.com. He picks games daily based on his model.

      He bases his pick on the daily money line odds of the day vs. what his system predicts the probable outcome to be. If you used his daily picks, based on the money line (@$100), you'd have the following results at the end of the past 6 seasons:

      2006: +2412 (360 games wagered on)
      2005: -1461 (438 games wagered on)
      2004: +399 (526 games wagered on)
      2003: +1176 (390 games wagered on)
      2002: +105 (605 games wagered on)
      2001: +3030 (1137 games wagered on)

      That's not bad at all. You can easily subscribe to his daily picks and wager your own money. It's free and you're not bombarded by ads.

      I went to NJIT and have talked to Prof. Bukiet on a number of occasions. He's the reason I chose a statistics minor, and I was almost persuaded to take a double major in math and comp sci. ;) He's a great guy that truly loves math. Every semester, no matter what math course you took, you could count on him showing up for at least 1 class and taking 10 or 15 minutes to profess the virtues of mathematics and why you should take a math/comp sci double major.

  5. Better Places to Put Your Effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His crystal ball says the Yankees will win 110 games this year, a pretty safe bet, many might agree.
    Get to work on the weather, then we'll start talking about me investing in your Vegas trips.
  6. I am skeptical by 5,+Troll · · Score: 0

    Just look at his predictions from 2006:
    http://www.egrandslam.com/SeasonPredictions2006.ht ml
    for example:
    he had Tigers 4th in AL Central (74-88 vs actual WC 95-67), Cubs 1st in NL Central (90-72 vs actually 6th and 66-96), Red Sox getting WC (99-63 vs 3rd 86-76).

    I predict Red Sox will win 161-1 (that 1 being the opening day loss to the Royals. The fact that I am a physicist makes my predictions newsworthy!)

    --
    Please mod me only (+) Underrated or (-) Troll
  7. WARNING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Purple backgrounds may cause permanent retinal damage.

  8. its a given that NYY will make the playoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's one of the biggest locks in sports. That's what a $200+ million payroll does for you, they have all stars at every position year after year, and whatever position they're lacking at midseason, George and Cash'll spend another $20-25 million to pick up for the stretch run.

    Then the playoffs start, and that's when pitching, defense, clutch hitting, and team chemistry takes on a much bigger role. Ref: Yankees 2001-06. Sometimes I think Jeter is just waiting for Arod to leave so he (Jeter) can go all out to win the WS again.

    1. Re:its a given that NYY will make the playoffs by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      And I suppose you probably had Duke picked to go to the Final Four this year, too, eh? ;-)

  9. I never understand these things... by krbvroc1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Isn't here some rule or law about 'fitting a curve' to past data? Yet, the sports predictions, and many of the 'stock market systems' are all about
    finding some seemingly obvious pattern in past data. While you might come up with a 'back tested' model that matches really well,
    it doesn't mean squat for the future.

    1. Re:I never understand these things... by BridgeBum · · Score: 4, Informative

      His models have evolved over the years, but he tries to simulate actual games using both individual statistics (players batting averages, etc.) as well as team trends (how well does a player do against a specific pitcher). He uses a large Markov chain to predict state transitions (Runner on first, no outs - how often does it go to two outs? That sort of thing.) Very interesting project, it was a lot of fun to work on. (I was an undergrad working with Bruce 15 years ago, when he was first starting this project. He's kept it going for years.)

      --
      My UID is the product of 2 primes.
    2. Re:I never understand these things... by Burdell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is still trying to predict future results based on past performance. No matter what you predict, last year's Chipper Jones will never again face last year's Roger Clemens. Even if Clemens un-retires (again), he is not the same person, and neither is Chipper Jones. You also can't predict injuries, trades, managers' decisions, umpires' calls, weather, etc., all of which have an impact on the outcome of an individual game.

    3. Re:I never understand these things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right. We should stop trying to predict anything because we won't ever be 100% correct.

    4. Re:I never understand these things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats why you partition your data into calibration and verification sets. This allows a bias free calibration.

    5. Re:I never understand these things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Why the hell am I going to grad school for signal processing anyway?! My signals and noises aren't the same from last moment to this moment, either!

    6. Re:I never understand these things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely correct.

      Neural networks can deliver predictions but then factors change. For example, read The Predictors by Thomas Bass. The DM $ prediction model started failing after German reunification.

      Part of Econometrics is to recognise that models do fail and you must recognise when this is happening. (and come up with a btter model)

      (How quaint I am writing this with Clap your Hands Say Yeah "Yankee Go Home" playing in the background)

    7. Re:I never understand these things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm wrong - but I think the point wasn't necessarily accuracy so much as the coolness factor of taking so many statistics into consideration at once.

      He could be right 51 percent of the time, who knows...

      Don't think he's saying "bet on it" it just sounds like a fun project.

      But - I don't like baseball and thus will not be reading this article so. Cheers! =p

    8. Re:I never understand these things... by bstorer · · Score: 1

      That's why we have PECOTA and similar systems to predict future player performance. The guys over at Baseball Prospectus do this all the time. This is nothing new.

    9. Re:I never understand these things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, said by somebody who fundamentally misses the point of time-series regression analysis.

      Yes, it's impossible to exactly recreate a moment in time. It's impossible to perfectly predict what will happen in the future based on data from the past or present. But that's why this is statistics, and there are these things called confidence intervals. The /. blurb may not have listed his, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a nice +/- something around that 110 point estimate.

      The main point is that, while you're right that predictions will never be perfect, that does not mean that they will never be accurate or worthwhile. As long as you clearly state your precision and confidence, you can predict any number of things in the future. In fact, for almost all common social events that are iterated, the past is an excellent prediction for the future. It depends on how fine you choose to make your unit of analysis - if you take it down to the second, then it's an almost perfect prediction, though that is an admittedly trivial case.

      For units of days or weeks or months or years, you can get "exogenous shocks" (say changes to Clemens or Jones that are not captured by the data) that influence your results. But these too can be controlled for to some degree, and the ultimate result of a properly done analysis can be quite accurate indeed.

      So don't dismiss all statistics just because it seems hard - it is hard, but it can be done right and yield quite good results.

  10. The best way to test... by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

    The best way to test any model is to start with the end points. How low does it score the New York Mets?

    --
    Demented But Determined.
    1. Re:The best way to test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But did he predict the Cardinals would win the World Series last year? I did and it paid nicely.

  11. Huh? by Kuukai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While Bukiet is the first to admit he's not a baseball expert, in five out of the past six years, he says that his model has produced more correct than incorrect predictions. What? Does this even mean anything? If, say, he was right 51% percent of the time five years and wrong 90% of the time that other year, wouldn't that make his number of successes less than the expected number of successes from just guessing "win" or "lose"? I guess he's either really modest ("I don't like to brag, so I'll just say the accuracy is higher than 42%."), or a really, really bad statician.
    --
    Sendou Wave Kick!!
    1. Re:Huh? by nefarity · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's too bad this guy couldn't have gotten a job at the now defunct PEAR Institute.

    2. Re:Huh? by AstrumPreliator · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...or a really, really bad statician.

      Or a really good statistician. Remember, when you ask a statistician to crunch some numbers for you he'll reply back with "and what would you like the numbers to say?". They'll make it fit any curve you throw at them.

  12. Keeping up appearances by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Hello Mr. Bukiet"

    "It's pronounced bouquet!"

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Keeping up appearances by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many people reading /. got that reference.

    2. Re:Keeping up appearances by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty funny show, considering it's subject matter. I've probably seen all six episodes by now. I'm sure most /.ers have stumbled across it looking for Red Dwarf or Dr. Who.

    3. Re:Keeping up appearances by ttyRazor · · Score: 1

      He didn't mind being called professor Bucket. He had some of the best-worst math jokes too, made staying awake for his 8:30 AM class that much more tolerable

    4. Re:Keeping up appearances by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I grabbed them all for my girlfriend, who loves it. And Patricia Routledge, who plays Hyacinth, is a rather accomplished theater actress in her own right. By American standards she would be overkill for a sitcom, but she really is funny.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Keeping up appearances by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      There's actually a lot more than six episodes, three seasons I think.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  13. Re:$$ does not = champion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, considering the Yankees spend a zillion times the amount that most teams spend, then their odds are better
    than most teams. What I find funny is that they have spent that huge amount of money forever and they STILL haven't
    won. Goes to show you that you don't have to spend a ton of money to win!
    In October, if the Yankees don't win, I'll be saying na-na-na-na....along with the weather people who predicted
    all those hurricanes last year. What are you talking about? It isn't as if they are trying to get to the World Series every year. Only every other year. And they are damn close at doing that (they've been to the World Series 39 times, winning 26 of them). How many Major League Baseball teams are there again and how many times has the World Series been played? Winning a quarter of the World Series games and almost half of the AL pennants are no trivial feat. But you go ahead and pick your favorite team and I'll pick the Yankees in a bet. We'll see how those teams fare in the next 20 years.
  14. amazing by flynt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wait, you mean you can use past data to try to predict future events under certain assumptions, and sometimes it works? Someone should generalize this into some sort of academic discipline!

    1. Re:amazing by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      They did. It's called "tenure".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:amazing by luckystuff · · Score: 1

      No way. That bridge I walked across this morning was sturdy enough. It's just that I'm never going to walk on that bridge again. Not for those historical, "can't cross the same stream twice" reasons either. I just don't trust engineers.

  15. Re:Claims to be right more than wrong, heh? by BridgeBum · · Score: 3, Informative

    Bruce is actually a die hard Mets fan. I helped work on this project with him back in my undergrad days 15 years ago or so. I doubt any of my code is still be used though. :-)

    --
    My UID is the product of 2 primes.
  16. We did this in college too... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    It was called Strat-O-Matic Baseball, and many a night in the hills of Worcester I had to fall asleep to the constant clinkity-clink-clink-clinkle of a pair of dice in a stolen cafeteria coffee cup.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:We did this in college too... by Fastball · · Score: 1

      1-5 HOMERUN

      :)

      PS - My all-time favorite Strat-O-Matic cards belonged to Bobby Witt. Especially his 1987 card. 143 IP, 160 K, 140 BB. Every inning an exciting one. :D

    2. Re:We did this in college too... by aero2600-5 · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone else that knows what Strat-O-Matic is.

      By the way, backgammon boards and cups really keep the noise down quite a bit.

      Aero

      --
      Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
    3. Re:We did this in college too... by jpellino · · Score: 1

      Most of the guys who played this 24-7 ended up on the 6-year plan. I'm not sure backgammon was in their repertoire.
      Three dice you say? Guess I left out a "clinkity" from all those years ago.

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  17. But... Yankees Suck!! by Jon_S · · Score: 3, Funny

    signed,

    Red Sox fan

    1. Re:But... Yankees Suck!! by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      My prediction is that the Yankees will spend more money than any other team. And still not win a World Series.

    2. Re:But... Yankees Suck!! by jtseng · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of faith disturbing...

        - Citizen of the Evil Empire

      --

      Sanity.html - Error 404 not found

    3. Re:But... Yankees Suck!! by roach2002 · · Score: 1

      I love that you got at least one "Insightful" mod.

  18. Re:$$ does not = champion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If money really won the championships, the Red Sox (second-highest spenders in all of baseball, they only spend something like 5% less than the Yankees) would have won more championships than they have.

    Number of times the Red Sox won the world series in the past 75 years? Once.

    Number of times the Yankees won the world series in the past 75 years? Twenty-three times.

    There's no real correlation between spending and winning.

    My prediction is that the Cubs won't win. It's an even safer bet.

  19. Biased by Thirdsin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This guy is a jackoff. He lives in Jersey... last I checked, oh wait, yea Yankee bandwagon fan territory.

    For my logical arguement, his calcs cannot possibly account for trades, injuries, or the fact that every god damn player ever in the MLB does not have many seasons that are close enough to eachother in terms of production to be predictable... This guy needs to go calculate the chances he gets hit by a bus on the Jersey Turnpike...

    btw BoSox all the way this year :-P

    --
    No words of wisedom here.
  20. Exactly 110 or at least 110? by dircha · · Score: 1

    The article says he has made more correct than incorrect predictions in his several years of doing this.

    Something tells me that when he predicts that the Yankees will win 110 games, for example, he is counting his prediction as fulfilled if the Yankees win AT LEAST 110 games.

    Because it would be pretty remarkable if he has correctly predicated the EXACT number of games teams will win more than incorrectly over the past several years.

    And since no margin of error is provided, there's really no basis for saying whether his model is impressive or not. Probably not.

    1. Re:Exactly 110 or at least 110? by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 1

      My model predicts that they will win at least one game. That makes me right for all six out of the last six years, so I guess I've got him beat.

  21. That's nothing... by ericpi · · Score: 5, Funny

    He claims to be right more than wrong in five of the past six years.

    That's nothing: I've devloped a new mathematical algorithm that correctly predicts the outcome of the past six years with 100% accuracy.

    1. Re:That's nothing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's nothing: I've devloped a new mathematical algorithm that correctly predicts the outcome of the past six years with 100% accuracy.

      Hahaha. You said "mathematical algorithm". That's as if there can be, "non-mathematical algorithm". Hahaha.

      (Oh no why am I laughing at idiots again. I am the pathetic one here.)

  22. the yankees song... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yankees yankees yankees,
    They win all the games!
    Yankees yankees yankees,
    yankees yankees yankees!

  23. 110 Games? by spike2131 · · Score: 1

    The Yankees have weak-ass pitching this year. No chance they win 110 games. More likely 90.

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
  24. Bah by localhost00 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Don't Yankees fans predict they will dominate every year? That being said, I never take predictions like this seriously, especially if it is another "Yankees will pwn" claim. Odd, however, that I didn't see anyone predict what the 2001 Seattle Mariners did (116 wins).

    Oh, and yes, I am a mathematician (will obtain BA degree in math this June).

    --

    Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.

    1. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You claim to be a mathematician with merely a BA in mathematics? Please, get off your high horse, son.

    2. Re:Bah by koreaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Generally one needs a Ph.D in math to be a "mathematician".

      --
      Le français vous intéresse?
    3. Re:Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Calling somebody who does not yet have a BA degree a mathematician is like ... (couldn't you have at least gotten a BS? Don't most people get a BS?)

  25. Mathematicians know nothing about by iminplaya · · Score: 0

    professional sports. Now, Jimmy the "Moose" Morgan, him I'll believe. He don't guess the probabilities, he makes them. A lead pipe trumps your modern math any day of the week.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Mathematicians know nothing about by spisska · · Score: 1

      Now Jimmy the "Moose" Morgan, him I'll believe. He don't guess the probabilities, he makes them. A lead pipe trumps your modern math any day of the week.

      But setting the odds on sports matches isn't really about the probablility of one team winning or losing. It's about balancing the way that people will bet. The odds are structured to minimize the risk and maximize the return of the bookmaker, based on bettor behavior.

      "Moose" Morgan doesn't need to know or care whether the Yankees are likely to beat Orioles tomorrow, only what the balance will be between bets on the Yankees and Orioles. As an experienced bookmaker, Moose will naturally give favor to the Yankees from the outset. But if he's getting twice the number of bets on the Orioles to win than the Yanks, then he will shift his odds accordingly.

      Because of this, the science (and math) in sports gambling comes down to finding the inefficiencies -- i.e. figuring out where the bettors have moved the gambling odds far enough beyond the real odds that it makes a bet attractive. Meaning that if you can come up with an algorithm that is reasonably accurate and says that the Yankees:Orioles ought to be 6:5 but the betting odds are 7:2, you stand to make a killing.

      This is much easier to do with something like horse racing than with baseball. With horses, you have a relatively small number of people spread across 6 to 15 or so potential winners in every race. Inefficiencies abound, in the sense that favorites often win but pay at 2:1 when realistically they should be 4:1, eg. The secret to a happy day at the track is finding the horse that should be 4:1 or 5:1 but is running at 16:1.

      Jimmy knows his business, and deserves credit for that. After all why would you try to gamble and risk losing when you're smart emough to take a piece of every bet and always win?

  26. Not that impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Statistically speaking, there is a 50% chance of blindly guessing correctly for each baseball game: win or lose. The fact that he has been "right more than wrong five out of the past 6 years" simply means that each year, except for one, he was more than 50% right. That is a very modest claim for such a comprehensive system. And for that one year, one would have better luck blindly guessing than following his calculations. There are a lot of methods of predicting the results of sports games and I fail to see why his deserves any attention, esp with such vague references of his collective results.

  27. He's been way off-the-mark for years... by Golgafrinchan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    First, a link to the professor's baseball page.

    In 2006, he predicted 102 Yankee wins. They won 97. Not too bad.

    In 2005, he predicted 113 Yankee wins. They won 95. Way off.

    In 2004, he predicted 117 Yankee wins. They won 101. Way off.

    In 2003, he predicted 110 Yankee wins. They won 101. Not great.

    In other words, take this forecast with a big boulder of salt.

    --
    My userid is prime!
    1. Re:He's been way off-the-mark for years... by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      So basically he tends to overestimate on the Yankees, so maybe a safer bet would be ~100 wins?

      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    2. Re:He's been way off-the-mark for years... by njchick · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would say 1.0*10^2 wins.

    3. Re:He's been way off-the-mark for years... by jayhawk88 · · Score: 1

      So basically he's just a myopic Yankee's fan. Got it.

      Although that is funny, him predicting in 2004 the Yankee's would break the season record for wins.

    4. Re:He's been way off-the-mark for years... by chazzf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and did he predict the Yankees getting crushed by Detroit in the playoffs?

      --
      No statement is true, not even this one.
    5. Re:He's been way off-the-mark for years... by gsyswerda · · Score: 1

      The problem with his methods is that he tells people of his predictions about how they will behave ahead of time. If they hear the predictions and believe them, that changes their behavior, making the predictions invalid.

      The only way to make consistently accurate predictions is to not tell anyone until after events have happened. That way, you can be much more accurate!

      --
      Make a difference: move to a swing state.
    6. Re:He's been way off-the-mark for years... by Carbonite · · Score: 1

      In general that may be true, but I highly doubt that MLB teams are changing their behavior due to predictions.

      --
      ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
    7. Re:He's been way off-the-mark for years... by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Note that the naïve prediction (the "prediction" is that they win the same number of games this year as they did last year) is much more accurate that the professor.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  28. Big Whup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bill James came up with simple quantifiable statistics that could very accurately predict the success rate for a baseball team back in the '70s. The Oakland A's had a lot of success using those methods to put teams out of the field that would win between 95-100 games per year while spending as little as possible. It worked remarkably well and a book (Moneyball, by Michael Lewis) was written about it.

    In short, this is old and well covered news, unless this guy has come up with a simulation that is significantly more accurate (doubtful).

    1. Re:Big Whup... by bstorer · · Score: 1

      While James came up with new statistical tools like win shares and the Pythagorean win percentage, his bigger influence was in suggesting that there were new ways to consider baseball, and that the common tools -- ERA, batting average, wins by a pitcher, etc -- were poor predictors. This lead to the rise of sabermetrics, a term he even coined. However, many of the tools that are now well regarded were developed by others. Voros McCracken's groundbreaking DIPS, Keith Woolner's VORP, and Nate Silver's PECOTA projections, for example. It should also be noted that Billy Beane's key statistic wasn't any of those created by James, but on-base percentage (OBP). James (and subsequently many others) showed that OBP is a much stronger predictor than the other common stats. And the reason Beane focused on it had more to do with the fact that OBP was undervalued by the other GMs, thereby making it cheap and reliable. Since the release of Moneyball, that has changed to some degree, and there are some who think Beane has moved his focus elsewhere; to other inefficiencies in the market.

  29. Re:Claims to be right more than wrong, heh? by thatshortkid · · Score: 1

    Bruce is actually a die hard Mets fan. I helped work on this project with him...

    does he account for beltran removing the bat from his shoulder or just watching strike 3? and if so, constant or variable?

    --
    The IRS is the one organization that you don't want to fuck with. Remember, these are the guys who took down Al Capone.
  30. A Much Safer Bet... by Black-Man · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Pirates - 2nd lowest payroll - will suck again. 14 losing seasons in a row. I give it a 99.9% certainty they make it 15. I'm not even a MIT grad!

    1. Re:A Much Safer Bet... by SCO+STINKS · · Score: 0

      I feel your pain as a Tigers fan. Three years ago we had the worst record in baseball.

      However now the Tigers have your old coach (Jim Leyland) who used to coach the Pirates when they were a winning team.

      Thanks for not renewing his contract!

      --
      Reason #32767 not to use VB6: Integers are 2 bytes... Think about it!
    2. Re:A Much Safer Bet... by rrhal · · Score: 1

      Of course the Mariners will spend three times as much on payroll and be right there with the Pirates.

      --
      All generalizations are false, including this one. Mark Twain
  31. Predicting the past is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    easier than predicting the future.

    He modeled his program on the past 5-6 years data thats why: "He claims to be right more than wrong in five of the past six years."

    How does he factor rookies? Does he model injuries and use the data to rank teams susceptibility to lost talent?

    Unless this program is 6 years old his model is only back-tested; not proven.

    1. Re:Predicting the past is... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Predicting the past is...easier than predicting the future.

      Are you basing that statement on past results?

    2. Re:Predicting the past is... by hyfe · · Score: 1

      Predicting the past is easier than predicting the future.

      No, it's seriously not. They are exactly the same. There's no difference between taking the first 3 of the last 5 years and training your dataset and validating on the last 2, and training on the last 3 years and validating on the next two to come. The models doesn't know the clock, and datasets are datasets.


      There is a world of difference between accuracy rates on your training/calibration set and your models performance on the validation set. One of them is occasionally usefull, one of them is never ever. Somewhat illustrated by the lackluster comments on this story, In regular computer science there's way too many people who don't know the difference. This is also one of the major reasons I really don't consider Computer Science a real Science, it's just hack'n'slash and fancy words (kinda like dentists).

      --
      "" How about taking the safety labels off everything, and let the stupidity-problem solve itself? """
  32. In Other News: by Miseph · · Score: 1

    "Accountant predicts Yankees will dominate based on salary spending."

    "Sports historian predicts Yankees will dominate based on past seasons."

    "Incoherent drunk predicts Yankees will dominate based on voices in his head telling him so."

    "Everyone who's even remotely familiar with MLB dies of a massive simultaneous aneurysm trying to comprehend why anyone predicting the Yankees will be one of the top teams in the league for any reason at all qualifies as "news" rather than statement of the obvious."

    Seriously, I'm from Massachusetts and detest the Yankees, and I still have to acknowledge that even if the Yankees are "having a bad season", they're still one of the best teams in the league.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  33. What about Daisuke? by stubear · · Score: 1

    I want to know how he calculated Daisuke Matsuzaka's numbers since he's never played ball in the states. Theoretically he should dominate the AL given his performance in Japan but those numbers don't mean much when considering the power hitters in the AL, much less MLB. Here's hoping Bukiet is wrong though. I'd love to see the Yankees tank and not make the play-offs but I'm a Red Sox fan and I always hope that happens.

    1. Re:What about Daisuke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I want to know how he calculated Daisuke Matsuzaka's numbers since he's never played ball in the states.

      It's simply not possible to calculate because the gyroball is not subject to your universe's rules.

    2. Re:What about Daisuke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when i looked at that, i thought you where talking about the red wings forward Pavel Datsyuk, but then i remembered we where talking about a lame sport.....

  34. Wanna bet on that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whaddya say.. $50?

    1. Re:Wanna bet on that? by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      $50? coward, I'll see you $100,000. No way in hell the Yanks win 100 games let alone exactly 110.

  35. Climate Models? by Matteo522 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So let me get this straight..

    Climatologists use past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to support global warming and predict future results, and everyone calls it strong science based on facts. If the models are off, it's just a part of the scientific process, but the overall claim is still valid.

    But if a statistician uses past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to predict baseball results, it's dismissed as some crack job's phony science. If the models are off, it's proof that he has no idea what he's doing and how these kinds of models don't work.

    Am I missing something here?

    1. Re:Climate Models? by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are. Peanuts and Crackerjacks. Then all of this makes sense.

    2. Re:Climate Models? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has got to be the most insightful comment on Slashdot in the past few years.

    3. Re:Climate Models? by mumrah · · Score: 1

      I would think climatologists have a bit more data to work with than a handful of baseball players' stats and past trends. Also climate models are based on physical laws as well as statistics, whereas baseball is pretty much purely statistics.

    4. Re:Climate Models? by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, In the public experience, most fancy sports predictions have a history of being inaccurate. This is unlike the experience with climate models, which historically have also given us some predictions.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Climate Models? by Ibag · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you are missing is that not all models are created equal, and not all things are as easy to model. It's all about variance. Consider the weather, for example. We can accurately predict what it will be for a day or two, and we have a decent guess for about a week, but beyond that, there is too much complexity and variability for us to say much (not to mention that weather appears to be a dynamical system, i.e., an example of chaos theory, which means that prediction is theoretically impossible). However, if I were to ask you what kind of weather I could expect this July, you could make some fairly accurate guess of "warm". All the small scale variations cancel out, and you can have a very good prediction of what the average temperature, or average rainfall, or average anything else will be over the next year, or 10.

      For long term climate, we have a good idea how many of the processes involved work, and we can vary all the parameters to give ranges on the possible outcomes. While we can't use them to predict the rainfall in Boston on July 4, 2057, we can use them to say that the mean global temperature will be 3-5 degrees warmer that year (or some other similar statement).

      Compare this to baseball. There aren't enough interactions for small variations not to throw everything off. Things like injuries, marital problems, drugs, rivalries, and weather could shift the outcomes of major games in ways and change the outcome in this model more severely than China switching to nuclear power would do in climate models. There is a better chance at predicting total numbers of runs or hits during the season, as the variation on things like that is smaller. Predicting the number of games won is almost as hopeless as predicting the outcome of an individual game, and if you could do that, you could hire people to post to slashdot for you.

    6. Re:Climate Models? by Britz · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was a good one.

      But the guys that modded you Insightful instead of Funny really made my day. I am still snickering writing this post.

    7. Re:Climate Models? by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 1

      Yes, the climate is ostensibly generated using some static algorithm that runs the universe with a bit of input from humans en masse, whereas major league sports rests on the shoulders of relatively few individuals, their whims, and their day-to-day fortunes.

    8. Re:Climate Models? by theantipop · · Score: 1

      People care more about sports than about the weather?

    9. Re:Climate Models? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Predicting the number of games won is almost as hopeless as predicting the outcome of an individual game, and if you could do that, you could hire people to post to slashdot for you.

      I predict that 2430 games will be won, give or take a couple.

    10. Re:Climate Models? by blake3737 · · Score: 1

      Yes, the fact the yankees suck. ;)
      from boston with love :)

    11. Re:Climate Models? by coult · · Score: 1

      What you are missing is the human factor. Predicting baseball is more like predicting the economy than predicting the weather. The latter is difficult only because of the sheer amount of variables involved (but we do understand the underlying principles), while the former is ultimately attempting to predict human behavior (we have no reliable scientific methods for doing that).

      --

      All is Number -Pythagoras.

    12. Re:Climate Models? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      How about this: the audience wants the weather to be predictable; in baseball, much of the audience (1) just wants their team to win or (2) wants there to be a reason to play the game. Perhaps the difference in people's opinions of the validity of climate and baseball modeling lies in what the people want to believe.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    13. Re:Climate Models? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Free will.

      People like to think that human events can't be reduced to numbers in the way that non-human events can. Being susceptible to prediction offends their sense of self determination.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    14. Re:Climate Models? by PMuse · · Score: 1

      Many people just don't understand the power and limitations of statistics. They point to each individual anecdote that goes against the trend predicted by the model as proof that it doesn't work. That's an emotional reaction that is stronger in baseball than in weather.

      If people understood statistics, they would understand that the trend predicted by the model (110 games) is never intended to forecast the result of a particular game. Further, they would understand that the model _expects_ outliers to appear.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  36. Win Expectancy and available data by h4ter · · Score: 1

    FTA: "Were the model to be commercialized, it could be updated on a play-by-play basis, which fans could monitor to see how every play changes the outcome of a game. "I think some fans would think that's cool," Bukiet said."

    How individual plays affect the outcome (or probable outcome) has been a well-worn subject of late in the blogs and discussion lists of baseball fans. And you don't need commercial products for answers. Retrosheet.org provides play-by-play data reaching back decades, from which I calculated how often given game-states have resulted in wins for the home team. Taking the win expectancies before and after an event tells you how important the event was. My Win Expectancy Finder is lives here.

    I imagine this guy's using Markov chains, too.

  37. Red Sox suck!! by doormat · · Score: 1, Funny

    Signed,

    Yankees fan

    PS Have fun blowing up more innocuous devices because you think they're bombs

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    1. Re:Red Sox suck!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Yankees Suck is +5 Funny, but Red Sox suck is -1 Flamebait? How so?

      I suppose it's because the Red Sox suck is demonstratively true and that the Yankees suck is demonstratively false.

      Besides, blowing up devices is fun. The stupid thing was that they had to evacuate parts of Boston over some blinking lights attached to batteries.

    2. Re:Red Sox suck!! by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1

      The stupid thing was that they had to evacuate parts of Boston over some blinking lights attached to batteries.

      No parts of Boston were evacuated, they shut down part of the subway and a bridge or two. None the less, it was pretty stupid and I had a good laugh over it. Luckily I had to get into work really early that day so I completely missed the orange line closing.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
    3. Re:Red Sox suck!! by Null537 · · Score: 1

      Have fun being a target for planes...


      pioleted by your own players.

    4. Re:Red Sox suck!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words, they EVACUATED the bridges and subway stops, unless "shutting them down" means something different in Boston than in the rest of the world.

      They EVACUATED parts of Boston. It's a fact. Live up to it and stop rewriting history.

      Be glad it's just LEDs as bombs that people think of when they think of Boston. They could remember the Big Dig and the glued tiles that fell and killed a woman, paid for by federal tax dollars...

    5. Re:Red Sox suck!! by soundonsound · · Score: 1

      I got news for you both. The Yankees AND the Red Sox suck. Put 'em both in the AL Central, and they're fighting for third place tops.

    6. Re:Red Sox suck!! by zero1101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I got news for you both. The Yankees AND the Red Sox suck. Put 'em both in the AL Central, and they're fighting for third place tops. On what planet? Granted the Red Sox did poorly against the AL Central in 2006 (15-19), but the Yankees were 23-12 against the Central.

      For the last 3 years, the Yankees are 61-37 against the AL Central as a whole, and the Sox are 56-45. For those years, the standings of the top 4 teams from the East and Central are as follows:
      2006:
      NYY 97-65
      MIN 96-66
      DET 95-67
      CWS 90-72
      2005:
      CWS 99-63
      NYY 95-67
      BOS 95-67
      CLE 93-69
      2004:
      NYY 101-61
      BOS 98-64
      MIN 92-70
      CWS 83-79

      Only last year would even one of those two teams not have ended up in a MINIMUM of third place, and the Yankees would still have been firmly on top. And frankly, a lot of the stars had to align for the standings to end up so well in the Central's favor last year. If you base your argument SOLELY on the 2006 results, and completely ignore any other factors, you might be able to make half a case, but it would be a weak one.
    7. Re:Red Sox suck!! by kinglink · · Score: 1

      The typical New York wit. Reverse the insult. How original.

    8. Re:Red Sox suck!! by Atheose · · Score: 1

      Cory Lidle = n00b

    9. Re:Red Sox suck!! by Wannabe+Code+Monkey · · Score: 1

      So, in other words, they EVACUATED the bridges and subway stops, unless "shutting them down" means something different in Boston than in the rest of the world. They EVACUATED parts of Boston. It's a fact. Live up to it and stop rewriting history.

      Shutting something down is vastly different than an evacuation. Unless parts of Boston were EVACUATED when I left my cubicle a few minutes ago to go to a meeting... then another part of Boston was EVACUATED when we left the meeting room. Saying that parts of a city were evacuated means that at least entire neighborhoods were cleared of people. If the North End or Back Bay or Charlestown was cleared of people; that would warrant the phrase "parts of Boston were evacuated". No one was removed from their houses or places of business (I guess some of the T workers might have left the Sullivan Square station), there were people within 50 yards of the "bomb" taking pictures and laughing.

      New Orleans was evacuated; Pripyat, Ukraine was evacuated; rational thought has been evacuated from your brain; but Boston was not evacuated.

      --
      We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
  38. Baseball is easy to predict by obdulio1950 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nobody could predict this one: http://www.planetworldcup.com/CUPS/1950/wc50index. html and the "Macacos" still cry about this......

    --
    PEÃ'AROL: SerÃs eterno como el tiempo y floreceras en cada primavera
  39. From one of his students by kenb215 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Wow, I never expected somebody that I knew to get on Slashdot. Bruce Bukiet is my Calculus II professor at NJIT.

    He mentioned this before a few times, including today after that article made it to the most popular spot on Yahoo! News. This is more of a hobby for him than an official project.

    From what he has said in the past about the model, it tends to overestimate the Yankees, among other reasons, because they often buy good players at the end of their prime. Thus the players won't play as well as they had in the past. He hasn't used it to make any bets. For the model, coming within a game or two of the actual results is considered a good prediction.

    As some people above said, the model isn't intended to be extremely accurate, and is frequently off by a significant amount. The interviews he does are more to get people interested in math, and to see how it has real use, rather than to try and show off. He used to go into more details in the past, but doesn't now because they tend to confuse the interviewer, and don't make it into the final article.

    Some pages of his own about the project are:
    http://m.njit.edu/~bukiet/baseball/baseball.html
    http://www.egrandslam.com/
  40. Re:Claims to be right more than wrong, heh? by arodland · · Score: 1

    Well actually if you predicted the Yankees to win the series every year from 1903 to 2006 you'd only have a .257 success rate. On the other hand that's a plurality, and more than double the wins of the next best thing, the Cardinals.

  41. Baseball and nerdiness go hand-in-hand... by walkie · · Score: 1
    Two of the more respected, statistically-based projection systems out there are Nate Silver's PECOTA and Diamond Mind Baseball.

    Their 2007 Yankees projections:

    PECOTA: 93
    Diamond Mind: 96

  42. Steinbrenner and Bush by Dracos · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Just as president Bush ignores Congress, so does George Steinbrenner ignore the salary cap rules of Major League Baseball. The yankees literally buy a spot in the playoffs every year.

    1. Re:Steinbrenner and Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bush would obey the Socialists in Congress and if Steinbrenner would obey Communists at the Major League Baseball organization.

      Then we could all get along.

  43. Not a real world application by HotDogWater · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a good idea but you are gonna go crazy just like Maximillian Cohen trying to predict life. You cant predict a player going on the injured list like you can calculate RBIs. It is illogical to use something like this in a chaos filled world. For all you know the whole Yankee's team can be thrown out for illegal sports betting. It is also wrong because you forgot about the Detroit Tigers.

  44. Isn't saying the Yankees will win by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    a little like saying the Cubs won't win?

    --
    What?
  45. Re:110 wins? A Safe bet? by Nick_Allain · · Score: 1

    Not a safe bet at all. Especially considering that the AL East is fairly strong this year. It seems april fools day comes 4 days late for baseball fans... The prediction is a joke. While math can certainly be applied to predict things like this, it fails to take into account that yankees overspend on old players. A more accurate prediction would be that by the end of the season, the cumulative number of years that yankees players are past their primes is about 110.

  46. Regression toward the mean by tyrr · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I guess, your "mathematician" is not a big fan of "regression toward the mean". Very unfortunate.
    Please, stop calling charlatans mathematicians. Mathematicians do know that luck cannot be predicted or replicated.

  47. He left out several important variables by PFritz21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Injuries. Did he take these into account? A lot of good teams have had lousy seasons due to players being hurt for long periods of time. MAYBE if every member of every team was able to play a full schedule of 162 games...

    Performances. If every player played consistently every day, but some guys go on hot streaks and get moved up in the batting order. Some guys go cold and get bumped down, or even worse, sent to the minors. MAYBE if the 25-man rosters stayed constant for the entire season.

    Luck. Three teams each score 750 runs over the course of a season. Each one also allows 750 runs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_expectati onBill James' Pythagorean expectation says that each team should play .500 ball; 81 wins and 81 losses. But one team could win a lot of close games and lose a couple dozen blowouts, finish with 90+ wins. Another could lose a bunch of close games and win a couple dozen blowouts, ending up with only 70 wins.

  48. Re:Claims to be right more than wrong, heh? by sebi · · Score: 1

    If you had done this this millennium you'd have struck out a lot. Like all the time. Let's face it. The time of total dominance by one team is over. Wild card and luxury tax seem to be doing what they're supposed to. The last six world series were won by six different teams. Of course that won't get my team any closer to a championship, but all Cubs fans agree: If we don't manage this year MLB just has to give the trophy to us. After 100 years that is the least we deserve.

    Also, they play-offs are a total crap-shoot. 8 teams make it every season. The Yankees are pretty much always one of the 8. That doesn't guarantee a championship. Hell, a crappy team with 83 wins can win it all. Why spend 183 million dollars on your roster?

    --
    Hank! White!
  49. deconstruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because his post was a tongue-in-cheek retort based on the standard battle cry of the Red Sox nation that is so ingrained that innumerable Bostonians are chanting it in their sleep right now, following their second win and a strong showing by Dice-K, pushing them to the top of the AL East. Applying the saying to retort a mathematical analysis of baseball is humorous because of the contrast drawn between the imagined stiff analytic mathematician and the rabid Red Sox fan, with a fenway frank in one hand and an overpriced fenway brew in the other. One knows which one to ask about the fluttering chaos of Wakefield's knuckleball on a blistering summer day at Tropicana Field, or, later, the chaos that will happen if Papelbon hits another batter deep into extra innings, and it's not the mathematician. For those in the know, the nature of baseball is that it's simply not subject to the mathematician's techniques, while the Sox fan's analysis is a succinct, withering critique of both the mathematician's methods and his results, while superficially the opposite appears to be true.

    Your post was just dumb.

    That's why he got +5 and you got a -1.

    Plus the yankees do suck.

  50. I hear they have a bat problem too by grahamsz · · Score: 1

    or so my attorney said

  51. Shameless Plug: by noSignal · · Score: 1

    Speaking of computerized projections, if you're at all interested in horse racing, check out http://www.desertsea.com/. Oh that and it takes some guts to predict a good season for the yankees. That's like going to a casino and rooting for the dealer.

  52. Math? Hardly by ffejie · · Score: 1

    AL East: New York Yankees
    AL Central: Cleveland Indians
    AL West: Los Angeles Angels
    AL wildcard: either the Boston Red Sox, the Toronto Blue Jays or the Minnesota Twins

    OK, so he managed to choose division winners and then say that the Wild card would come from one of THREE other teams. I don't think there's much math or stats going on here. Shouldn't he be able to pick ONE team and say they're going to win the Wild Card? This sounds more like a baseball fans prediction than a mathematical prediction.

    --
    Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
    1. Re:Math? Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AL East: New York Yankees
      AL Central: Cleveland Indians
      AL West: Los Angeles Angels
      AL wildcard: either the Boston Red Sox, the Toronto Blue Jays or the Minnesota Twins

      OK, so he managed to choose division winners and then say that the Wild card would come from one of THREE other teams. I don't think there's much math or stats going on here. Shouldn't he be able to pick ONE team and say they're going to win the Wild Card? This sounds more like a baseball fans prediction than a mathematical prediction.

      And if you bothered to look at his win/loss predictions:

      AL East AL Central AL West
      Yankees 110-52 Indians 91-71 Angels 94-68
      Red Sox 87-75 Twins 88-74 A's 80-82
      Blue Jays 87-75 Tigers 84-78 Rangers 77-85
      Orioles 75-87 White Sox 82-80 Mariners 74-88
      Devil Rays 55-107 Royals 58-104

      The Sox and Jays have 87 wins and the Twins 88. Given an error of +/- 1, this makes perfect sense.
  53. This sort of thing is explained in detail.... by iritant · · Score: 1

    ... in the book Moneyball by Michael Lewis. He follows Billy Beane through a season with the Oakland As, where they beat their division even though they were outspent by nearly every other team. This prompted former Fed Chair Paul Volker to comment that Beane had found a market inefficiency. He had used such an inefficiency, but it wasn't Beane who had found it.

    To do this right, however, you have to do legwork, because according to the model described in Moneyball, On Base Percentage is really what you're after, not batting average, and from a pitching/fielding perspective you want to do something more nuanced. He broke the field out into zones and provided feedback based on that. My recollection is that he didn't go into too many details about that part.

    The important part was to get a $/runs scored number.

  54. claims to be right in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> He claims to be right more than wrong in 5 of the past 6 years.

    60% of the time, it works every time.

  55. read this title here in Europe when half awake... by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    OMG, here in Europe I always enter /. on RSS (so with no tags indicated): honestly, this morning when half aspleep I understood someone had mathematically determined than US is to dominate everyone forever...

    --
    Herve S.
  56. I'll take that bet by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

    His crystal ball says the Yankees will win 110 games this year, a pretty safe bet, many might agree.
    Winning 110 (or more) games has only happened 6 times in all of MLB history (out of over 2000 chances)! There are just too many things that can go wrong to make this a "safe bet". The odds are dramatically stacked against it.
    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
  57. Re:Claims to be right more than wrong, heh? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What is this baseball of which you speak?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  58. Lemme Guess the Red Sox World Series Win... by haplo21112 · · Score: 1

    ...was the year he blew it.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  59. Re:But... Yankees Suck!! Alot! by haplo21112 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    George and the whole Yankee's Organization ruined Baseball, there are so many teams now that have so little conceivable chance of winning the world series that the sports watching public just isn't interested anymore. Its time for a salary cap.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
  60. If I flip a coin by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    If I flip a coin 300 times, it *should* land on head 150 times and tails 150 times. Guess what. It doesn't.

  61. Re:$$ does not = champion by li99sh79 · · Score: 1

    That assumes that over that time span the Red Sox spent at or near the level of the Yankees, which I don't believe is true. Before the mid-90's the Sawx were something of a penny-pinching operation. They didn't really start flexing their monetary muscle until the acquisitions of Pedro and Manny.
    For that matter the Yankees' payroll only got X-box hueg six or seven years ago. It was "reasonable" when they were actually winning championships.

    --
    I was just here, where did I go?
  62. Lame Ass Prediction by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1


    Who the F*uck cares how wins the division! Give me the World Series Winner!!

    The F*ucking AL East is a joke. Stong my ass. The division will come down to either Boston or N.Y. Oooo surprise. With the Yankees most likely winning. 110 games, they will not win.

    The odds are against the Yankees of winning the World Series because they don't have pitching!

    Every F*ucking year some Ass-hole picks the yankees to win and they keep failing - 7 years since the last win people.

    When they finally rebuild their pitching staff and have a manager who can coach and not baby sit - then they yankees will start winning again.

  63. Pair? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strat-o-matic uses 3 dice

  64. Re:Um. Yeah. by Zerbey · · Score: 1

    We got Wang and Mussina... Pettite maybe. Igawa is an unknown quantity right now. Proctor blows hot and cold, Farnsworth is a flip of the coin. I have a soft spot for Myers cause he always seems to get Ortiz out (bwhahaha). We also have Rivera to close things out and he's the best in the business. I'm not even going to talk about Pavano. The rest, ehhh they're ok I guess. Sometimes. We have some excellent prospects in the minors so I'm HOPING pitching will improve in the coming years.

    If we win 110 games I'll be pleasantly surprised.

  65. Bullshit. by devnull17 · · Score: 1

    This is total bullshit.

    First off, no one has been able to predict baseball results with great accuracy, and it's not for lack of trying. There's a whole cottage industry built around baseball statistics, populated by fans and professional scouts alike, and there's been some major innovation. But there's so much chance involved, and so many factors that we just can't measure (injuries, weather, slumps, etc.), that I don't think it's even possible to generate reliable predictions. Being more right than wrong five years out of six isn't all that impressive; common sense can usually net you at least three division winners a year.

    As other posters have mentioned, 110 wins would not be a safe prediction for any team in history. Even for a very good, well funded team expected to be in the running, such as the Yankees or Red Sox, a reasonable expectation is 95-100 wins per season. 110 happens, but it's rare. Especially in the somewhat competitive AL East, where the Sox and Yankees reside. Most of the big win totals come from teams that utterly dominate their divisions. (About half of MLB games are intra-division.)

    Furthermore, Burkiet's "surprising findings" aren't breaking news at all. I only dabble in Sabermetrics, but even I know that batting order has been proven to not really matter all that much, and that the third slot is where your best power hitter goes. (That last bit is actually conventional baseball wisdom, and has been around forever.)

    If you're interested in learning more about statistical analysis of baseball, ignore the publicity-seeking academics and look to the Society for American Baseball Research, or pick up anything written by Bill James. Michael Lewis's Moneyball is also a good place to start.

  66. Re:But... Yankees Suck!! Alot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George and the whole Yankee's Organization ruined Baseball, there are so many teams now that have so little conceivable chance of winning the world series that the sports watching public just isn't interested anymore. Its time for a salary cap.

    Yeah, because the Yankees have won the World Series so many times over the last few years. Heck, in 2003, some team with a measly 50-something million dollar payroll had the nerve to challenge them. Going into the 2007 season, only the Braves, Mets, Phillies, Marlins, Cubs, Cardinals, Astros, Padres, Dodgers, Diamondbacks, Giants, Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, Tigers, Twins, Indians, White Sox, A's, Angels, Rangers, and a few others were expected to have a chance at winning the World Series. Won't someone please think of the Devil Rays?

  67. I got your formula right here.... by swschrad · · Score: 1

    lemme see... 999X (dollars to buy the best free agents) over 2x (rest of major league baseball) = profit and championships!

    plus fans who hound mere mortals out of the ballpark...

    yeah, I think that might lead to better than statistical dead heats.

    I hereby place my secret formula into the public domain under GPL 2. any time X > Y in any of your programs, be sure to credit me.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  68. Re:$$ does not = champion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Until free agents became commonplace (1970's), spending was less of a factor in building a winning team. This business of "the past 75 years" is not a fair comparision.

    2. The Yankees have not won the world series since 2000, so the correlation of spending top dollar to winning top prize is anything but certain. HOWEVER, they have won the AL East for several years running. Spending does not win the championship, but it DOES get you into the playoffs. As we know, having the most wins in the regular season is not the same thing as winning a short series -- where anything can happen. In the post season, having 1 or 2 dominant pitchers is much better than having a solid staff, or even a well-balanced team. Add in some timely hitting (thank you Mr. Ortiz) and the rest is history. In fact, teams winning the wildcard have a disproportionate number of championship victories for some reason.

    3. It is very unlikely that the Yankees will win 110 games. The team is simply too old to keep everyone off of the DL long enough to fit the statistical model. Very few teams win that many, no matter how good they are. Put another way, if there was a way to bet on less than 110 wins for the Yankees, that would be a very good bet.

  69. Re:But... Yankees Suck!! Alot! by Cheeko · · Score: 1

    Have you not been watching baseball under the last 2 CBA's? There is more parity now than ever. Sure there are generally about 2-3 also-rans but by and large any team with good scouting and intelligent management can compete year in and year out. Oakland, Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, Atlanta (with new management), Washington(formerly Montreal), Milwaukee, have all done an exceptional job at being competitive even with less money.

    Revenue sharing and the soft-cap have helped to wonders for the competitive balance. Even teams like Tampa Bay and Kansas City look to have some potential these days.

  70. Yankees win because MLB makes money. by whimmel · · Score: 1

    Everyone has a hometown favorite. I grew up in NY and my family followed the Mets. Around here, people like the Devil Rays (huh?). Every team has its fans, usually close to home. However, there are Yankees fans *everywhere*.

    If the Yankees make it to post-season games, you guarantee LOTS of eyes on the screen. Lots of merchandise sales and ad revenue.

    The Yankees win because they're supposed to. Likewise I believe Boston won because it was time to cash in on the "curse."

    --
    Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
  71. Oh yeah? by stephentyrone · · Score: 1

    Well *this* mathematician predicts that the Red Sox will win the division this year. Pulling numbers out of my ass has been right more often than wrong, so my prediction meets the described standard for quality.

  72. Go CUBS!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FSCK the damn Yanks! Go CUBS!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

  73. Sports Commentators by snarkbot · · Score: 1

    How do his results compare to the predictions of sports commentators, or anyone else with a lot of knowledge and experience who makes public predictions? While the idea is cool and probably has a lot of potential in the long run, "right more than wrong in 5 of 6 years" doesn't sound particularly impressive to me, or to my crazy sports fan coworker sitting next to me...

    -snarkbot

  74. Re:$$ does not = champion by pthisis · · Score: 1

    If money really won the championships, the Red Sox (second-highest spenders in all of baseball, they only spend something like 5% less than the Yankees) would have won more championships than they have.

    1. The Red Sox spent $120 million last year--the Angels, White Sox, and Mets were all over $100 million (and 5 other teams were over $90 million). The Yankees spent $195 million. That's a hair bigger than a 5% difference (as in, the Yankees salary was 60% higher than the Red Sox--or the Red Sox salary was 40% lower than the Yankees--or half the teams in the league made less money than the difference between the Yanks and the Sox).

    The Red Sox spend a lot, but it's pretty much in line with other high-spending teams. The Yankees eclipse everyone, and have a _massive_ monetary advantage.

    2. In 2003, the Yankees, Mets, Braves, Dodgers, and Rangers all spent more than the Red Sox. Prior to 2000, the Red Sox hadn't even been in the top 5 in spending in years (since 1992--and even then they were still behind the Blue Jays in addition to the Yankees in their division). Through parts of the 1990s, they were in the bottom 1/2 of the league in spending.

    Basically, they didn't spend _tons_ of money when they were losing. Using them as a "money doesn't win" example doesn't make sense--since opening up the pocketbooks, they've been quite successful (4 playoff berths and 1 WS in 5 years as the #2-spending team). Heck, they got started losing in 1919 when Babe Ruth was sold as a salary and cost-cutting measure to lower payroll.

    --
    rage, rage against the dying of the light
  75. Test Data: Mariners 2001 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So theoretically he could input old data and see how well the predictions match what actually happened the next season (perhaps he's already done this).

    I wonder what the result would be for tracking the Mariners in 2001, when they tied the MLB record for most wins in a season (116). Having just lost A-rod, their lineup was not expected to be particularly strong, but outstanding team play, new Japanese-import Ichiro Suzuki, a backbone of consistent rather than superstar players like Edgar Martinez, Jamie Moyer, and John Olerud, and standout seasons from average players like Bret Boone and Jeff Nelson all combined to help them pad their wins column all season long.

    Of course, all the Seattle-folk here know they then blew the predictions the other way by losing the ALCS 1-4 against the Yankees.

    I seriously doubt the algorithm would have come up with the Mariners winning more than 100 games that season.

  76. Wonder how he's calculating statistics... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Is he following Pascal, or what?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  77. Re:But... Yankees Suck!! Alot! by sjames · · Score: 1

    George and the whole Yankee's Organization ruined Baseball, there are so many teams now that have so little conceivable chance of winning the world series that the sports watching public just isn't interested anymore. Its time for a salary cap.

    Actually, they serve as proof that you CAN'T buy the World Series. They keep losing to less well funded teams that enjoy playing the game more.