2018 MLB Draft Thread

[Jaromir Jagr]

I've answered this at least twice already.

You just don't read anything.

Because you're argument wouldn't change one iota because of it. 1-8 or 2-8 wouldn't matter to your argument.

*your

Again, going 0-8 is important because we were never in a position to advance. You win one and then anything can happen on Monday. Most people know this.

 

[Mark Little]

If something is random, there is no likelihood of any outcome.

This isn't true and I'm stunned that you still don't understand this.

The larger a sample is, the less random the outcome is.

Hence, a 5 game series is more random than a 7 game series.

Hence why the regular season is always a better indicator of ability than the postseason.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Because you're a loon who lies constantly and takes things out of context.

You can't use something as a negative if you wouldn't have used it as a positive in reverse.

If they won that game, and still failed to advance, you wouldn't have given two ***** about it. You would've destroyed anybody who claimed it as a meaningful win.

It wouldn't have changed your argument. So stop lying already.

You're mad because of your own dumb comment. Slow down and choose your words more carefully.

 

[Mark Little]

You've repeated the random, small sample size thing dozens and dozens of times when it's used to defend Jim Morris.

The concept of chance and probability is unrelated to Jim Morris. It exists regardless of coach.

I hope you can at least understand that.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

This isn't true and I'm stunned that you still don't understand this.

The larger a sample is, the less random the outcome is.

Hence, a 5 game series is more random than a 7 game series.

Hence why the regular season is always a better indicator of ability than the postseason.

Oh my. You literally just butchered the definition of random. Something doesn't become more or less random. Holy cow.

 

[Mark Little]

So "who cares" if we won the 1-0 game even though it would have meant a better pitching setup and the need for Florida to beat us twice. Yeah, who cares?

Yes, you wouldn't have cared about that one game had we not advanced.

Perfectly clear in the post that you didn't quote accurately.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

The concept of chance and probability is unrelated to Jim Morris. It exists regardless of coach.

I hope you can at least understand that.

But you don't use it that way. You only use it in Morris' defense. When he blows a home regional, it's random. When he goes 0-tenyears on the road, it's because he wasn't expected to win any of those games.

 

[Mark Little]

You're mad because of your own dumb comment. Slow down and choose your words more carefully.

I'm not mad. You're just a liar.

You claim that you're "literally" quoting me and then I post the actual quote and it's not "literally" correct.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Yes, you wouldn't have cared about that one game had we not advanced.

Perfectly clear in the post that you didn't quote accurately.

We don't know what would have happened. That big zero gave us no shot in any of the Gainesville appearances. But who cares? They were better than us.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

I'm not mad. You're just a liar.

You claim that you're "literally" quoting me and then I post the actual quote and it's not "literally" correct.

At least I understand regional brackets and road win probabilities. And I certainly never put in writing that something is more or less random. Dumbest comment I've ever seen.

 

[Mark Little]

Oh my. You literally just butchered the definition of random. Something doesn't become more or less random. Holy cow.

Wrong again.

Let me put it in more laymen terms.

For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4.

When dealing with probabilistic outcomes (60/40 events, 70/30 events) the sample size matters in determining how representative a sample is.

 

[Mark Little]

But you don't use it that way.

I've been using it that way for years.

You've just been extremely dumb on this topic.

 

[Mark Little]

When he blows a home regional, it's random. When he goes 0-tenyears on the road, it's because he wasn't expected to win any of those games.

I only used random once when we lost a home regional (2014). So that's 50/50.

And, again, those are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Wrong again.

Let me put it in more laymen terms.

For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4.

When dealing with probabilistic outcomes (60/40 events, 70/30 events) the sample size matters in determining how representative a sample is.

That is not random. The actual statistical definition of random is that every outcome has an equal probability of happening. You've been misusing the word random. But that's expected.

 

[Mark Little]

We don't know what would have happened. That big zero gave us no shot in any of the Gainesville appearances. But who cares? They were better than us.

Agreed, we don't know. But I know the probability of advancing.

And I continue to be amused by your obsession with mediocre Miami teams losing Regionals to CWS teams.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Agreed, we don't know. But I know the probability of advancing.

And I continue to be amused by your obsession with mediocre Miami teams losing Regionals to CWS teams.

Baby steps. The last decade has been mediocre. You're getting there.

 

[Mark Little]

The actual statistical definition of random is that every outcome has an equal probability of happening. You've been misusing the word random. But that's expected.

Wrong.

Randomness is about uncertainty of outcome. We're dealing with probabilities.

Again, 7 will come up twice as much as 4 when two dice are thrown.

You have butchered this concept for 3+ years now.

 

[Mark Little]

Baby steps. The last decade has been mediocre. You're getting there.

No, slightly more than half the years were mediocre (2009, 2011-13, 2017-18) and slightly less than half weren't (2010, 2014-16).

So almost 50/50.

When it was mediocre, I said so. When it wasn't, I said so.

You, however, were wrong almost half the time and still can't admit it.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Wrong.

Randomness is about uncertainty of outcome. We're dealing with probabilities.

Again, 7 will come up twice as much as 4 when two dice are thrown.

You have butchered this concept for 3+ years now.

I'm not wrong about the definition of random, and you have been incorrectly applying the word random to baseball games for 3+ years now. Finally, though, you're admitting that the home team is supposed to win.

While we're on probabilities, though, could you show me (1) the percent of postseason games won by the visiting team in true away games, and (2) then compare it to Miami's record in those games. Can you admit that we're far below the percentages as defined by decades worth of data?

 

[Mark Little]

I'm not wrong about the definition of random, and you have been incorrectly applying the word random to baseball games for 3+ years now. Finally, though, you're admitting that the home team is supposed to win.

You're absolutely wrong and it's obvious.

What's funny is that you clearly capitulated in the past because you knew this as well. But now you're trying to Google conventional definitions of random to save face.

Say that the 2016 Miami team played Bethune-Cookman in a 7 game series. Everybody knows that Miami was the better team. There's no dispute. So why wouldn't the probability of a Miami win be 100%?

Why would it be, say, 95% instead?

Because of random chance.

Because there's a small chance that the lesser team could stumble into 4 wins. A small probability but a probability nonetheless.

Nothing has a 0% probably except things that are physically impossible.