I actually find it kinda funny ...

Now Joe Maddon has lost his job due to the obvious normilaztion of the Los Angeles Angels by Major League Baseball. After opening the season 27-17 and with one of the best records in baseball and having postive run differential they have lost an unbelieveable 12 games in a row. Once again major league baseball conspires to keep an Angel team out of the playoffs. It is the only explanation I can find after such a great start because it's obvious isn't it? Imean they just lost to Boston and had beaten them 2 out of three previous. What changed? Nothing, Angels have the best two way player in baseball & Mike Trout, no one can tell me this team is capable of losing 12 games without normilazation taking over which is so obivious and major league baseball will not tell us how they are doing this. To protest I am going to continue to attend games but will post often on forums about how all this normilazation is making my daily visits to ball parks less enjoyable. Only through my constant whining will I get MLB to take the action they have refused to take to this point.

It was bad enough when MLB let the 107 win Giants lose to the 106 win dodgers but when they obviously let the Dodgers get beat by the Atlanta Braves with only 88 wins after losing 4 of 6 games to the Dodger in the regular season. But this latest travesty just lets all the world see how evil normilazation truly is. Sure the Dodgers are one of the most succesful franchises ever and continue to win year after year, but this is just spitting in their face by MLB controlling the game to make them lose World Series when they winn 100 games in a year. This following the 2019 debacle where the Dodgers won 106 games in the regular season and lost to the Washington Nationals who they had beat 4 out of 7 games. Same damn thing happened in 2017 when Dodgers won 107 games and lost in the World Series. It is obvious MLB has a conspiracy against California teams, and this has to stop.

I will say more tomorrow but I have to go pick up my tickets to the game tonight.

The logic that someone has to disprove something that didn’t happen is faulty in and of itself. It goes like this.

Do you know what animals are the best at hiding in trees. Elephants. I guarantee you’ve never even seen an elephant hiding in a tree. That’s how good they are. You have no evidence that this isn’t happening but go ahead and disprove it.

Hmm- while I actually agree that its impossible to 'prove a negative' -
if you alter the question slightly, look what you can do-- (of course you'd have to define best etc.)
'Of all animals known to hide in trees, which do it best?'

Did you want to change egvrichs original statement as well? Or are you just tilting at windmills here?

The logic that someone has to disprove something that didn’t happen is faulty in and of itself. It goes like this.

You are missing the entire point of my post ... AND ... once again you have proven my point!

My point is that those that say there is nothing going on feel like they are just absolutely RIGHT and are totally unwilling to even consider any other possibility.

And then you continue to defend your position by making statements that imply those who believe there is stuff going on are ignorant, misguided or just plain stupid!

As a lifelong Cubs fan, I'd say Joe Maddon lost his job because he is an overrated manager who plays too many hunches, game 7 as a perfect example pulling Hendrix for his own intuitive (read stupid) reasons.

The logic that someone has to disprove something that didn’t happen is faulty in and of itself. It goes like this.

Do you know what animals are the best at hiding in trees. Elephants. I guarantee you’ve never even seen an elephant hiding in a tree. That’s how good they are. You have no evidence that this isn’t happening but go ahead and disprove it.

Hmm- while I actually agree that its impossible to 'prove a negative' -
if you alter the question slightly, look what you can do-- (of course you'd have to define best etc.)
'Of all animals known to hide in trees, which do it best?'

Did you want to change egvrichs original statement as well? Or are you just tilting at windmills here?

Is there some sort of misuse of metaphors contagion?
Tilting at windmills would not be the correct one for whatever you are trying to say-
If I were actually 'tilting', then it would be the entire effort to get folk's to understand whats happening- not simply explaining the semi-fallacy with your explanation.
In any case,
just bc he phrased it a certain way, doesn't mean that there isn't any truth behind what hes getting at.

As a lifelong Cubs fan, I'd say Joe Maddon lost his job because he is an overrated manager who plays too many hunches, game 7 as a perfect example pulling Hendrix for his own intuitive (read stupid) reasons.

Rich- IMHO here, not worth responding to the poster who extrapolates a real world example to mean that 'all extreme examples anywhere should happen with any amount of frequency'.
IE Mike Tyson existed, so in a world where you simulate ten times more boxing, there's nothing wrong with seeing a Tyson emerge every week.

As a lifelong Cubs fan, I'd say Joe Maddon lost his job because he is an overrated manager who plays too many hunches, game 7 as a perfect example pulling Hendrix for his own intuitive (read stupid) reasons.

Rich- IMHO here, not worth responding to the poster who extrapolates a real world example to mean that 'all extreme examples anywhere should happen with any amount of frequency'.
IE Mike Tyson existed, so in a world where you simulate ten times more boxing, there's nothing wrong with seeing a Tyson emerge every week.

That's why I only responded about Maddon himself.

As a lifelong Cubs fan, I'd say Joe Maddon lost his job because he is an overrated manager who plays too many hunches, game 7 as a perfect example pulling Hendrix for his own intuitive (read stupid) reasons.

Rich- IMHO here, not worth responding to the poster who extrapolates a real world example to mean that 'all extreme examples anywhere should happen with any amount of frequency'.
IE Mike Tyson existed, so in a world where you simulate ten times more boxing, there's nothing wrong with seeing a Tyson emerge every week.

We actually play 1000 times more leagues than MLB so we should see 1000X more unusual things, that is just a mathematical certainty. It should be the other way around where YOU are arguing we are seeing things that never happen in MLB but actually it is the reverse where a rare occurence happens in the real world with 1000's of less opportunity.

Rich- IMHO here, not worth responding to the poster who extrapolates a real world example to mean that 'all extreme examples anywhere should happen with any amount of frequency'.
IE Mike Tyson existed, so in a world where you simulate ten times more boxing, there's nothing wrong with seeing a Tyson emerge every week.

"We actually play 1000 times more leagues than MLB so we should see 1000X more unusual things, that is just a mathematical certainty. It should be the other way around where YOU are arguing we are seeing things that never happen in MLB but actually it is the reverse where a rare occurence happens in the real world with 1000's of less opportunity.[/quote]"

How come no one told me it was faulty assumption week or is it month now?
We don't play 1000s of leagues every few months dude-
and if we play 1000 leagues a year then thats about 10 times more than MLB has played-
we see much more than 10 times of these occurances per year. (or even 100 Id wager)

And here I thought literally giving you the correct counter argument might help-- oh well.
Also apologize to myself and Rich for having to respond.

Can you explain to the simple minded what it is that you are even talking about?

My premise for "how the simulation works" is that each at bat is a unique and stand-alone occurrence between the batter card and pitcher card during which the "dice" are imaginarily rolled and outcomes determined in similar manner to the board game.

Are egrich and salty asserting that there is some hidden "normalization" code that forces outcomes away from the outliers and back to norms? Something BEYOND ordinary statistical regression?

Because A) If that's true, who cares, it impacts all of us equally; and B) if you do care because you think it happens to you too much, why are you paying money to play the game?

Just curious, sincere questions from a looker-on. I'm not "taking sides" one way or the other. I'm trying to understand the point being argued. Thank you kindly.