A PhD candidate and a CU Applied Mathematics prof. just posted some interesting sports research in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30strogatz.html
QuoteUsing a comprehensive collection of baseball statistics from 1871 to 2005, we simulated the entire history of baseball 10,000 times in a computer. In essence, we programmed the computer to construct an enormous set of parallel baseball universes, all with the same players but subject to the vagaries of chance in each one.
The purpose was to find the longest hitting streaks in each probability-governed baseball history. All hail the parallel universe 109 game hitting streak!
Interesting idea but there are seem to be many, many flaws in what they did. Not the least of which is the fact that they treated the odds of getting a hit to be the same on any given day. Obviously Joe D was less likely to get a hit against Bob Feller (25-13, 3.15) than when Elden Aulker (14-15, 5.50) was on the hill.
Interesting, and an obvious oversimplification. Even if accurately done. it assumes the hitter faces average pitching each at bat, as opposed to sometimes facing an exceptional pitcher and other times a mediocre pitcher. With variations in pitchers' skill levels, hits would bunch up more and hitless days would be more likely.
[quote jkahn]Interesting, and an obvious oversimplification.[/quote]
That's a better way to say it than "flaws".
[quote jkahn]Interesting, and an obvious oversimplification. Even if accurately done. it assumes the hitter faces average pitching each at bat, as opposed to sometimes facing an exceptional pitcher and other times a mediocre pitcher. With variations in pitchers' skill levels, hits would bunch up more and hitless days would be more likely.[/quote]
Yeah, but you've gotta love setting up a computer to play what basically is a 130-year long strat-o-matic game 10,000 times. You should be able to extract a lot more interesting information...the latest year someone batted .400, for example.
One thing's for sure...the pitching in 1894 sucked. Either that, or the hitters were seriously juicing on Dr. G.W. Addington's Nerve Tonic and Blood Purifier.
[quote RichH][quote jkahn]Interesting, and an obvious oversimplification. Even if accurately done. it assumes the hitter faces average pitching each at bat, as opposed to sometimes facing an exceptional pitcher and other times a mediocre pitcher. With variations in pitchers' skill levels, hits would bunch up more and hitless days would be more likely.[/quote]
Yeah, but you've gotta love setting up a computer to play what basically is a 130-year long strat-o-matic game 10,000 times. You should be able to extract a lot more interesting information...the latest year someone batted .400, for example.
One thing's for sure...the pitching in 1894 sucked. Either that, or the hitters were seriously juicing on Dr. G.W. Addington's Nerve Tonic and Blood Purifier LEECHES! (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341629,00.html).[/quote]
FYP.
FWIW:
This study was also mentioned today on NPR's Saturday Edition. The NPR story was about the shuffle setting on iPods (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89408926) and whether or not songs were randomly played.