Using our pathetic team as a brief lesson in sample size
I'm playing with a sample size calculator today. Fun fact that you might not know: There actually is a way to calculate how big of a sample you need when you're estimating a population. In baseball, it never really works correctly because we're not taking random samples, but it's fun to take a look.
In any case, we have 162 games in the season and our current win percentage is .363. Throwing numbers into the old calculator says that we can be 80% confident that .363 is indicative of our actual win percentage, plus or minus 10%. But Dex, you're saying, plus 10% means we could actually win 16 more games than what you're saying. Sure that's true (and it's also true that I'm misusing this calculator somewhat), but still... Give the Padres those 16 games and be 80% confident that the .363 will stick and that means...
75 wins this season. 87 losses.
And that would've been with our team at full health. With K-Cam gone and no obvious replacement, it's tough to credit the Padres with the full 16. In fact, we might look at taking away the 16 (the plus or minus part of it) and see that there's an outside shot of actually only managing 43 wins. Keep in mind this is not based on a small sample size, but one that we can be 80% confident in.
Now obviously, the big thing that hurts this calculation is that it can't take into account any changes to the team over the course of the season and it doesn't take into account other teams that we have yet to play, but let's just say that it's not looking good.
Positivity though... The Padres quants know that we're moving into the realm of "this really doesn't look good" and I'm sure are actually making moves as we speak. As we speak.
0 recs |
7
comments
| Add your comment
Comments
what's a quant ?
a quantative analyst?
I wish we had enough talent for a qualitative analysis. Any truth to the rumor that Jenny Finch will fill our bullpen hole??
by TheRevRun on
May 7, 2008 6:44 AM PDT
reply
0 recs
Right now
87 losses actually sounds good. To state the obvious, if AZ and LA continue to play well and we…do not…100 losses seems very likely, particularly if the guys that are (hopefully) called up from Portland go thru a period of adjustment. The part that’s really going to suck is that whomever is called up is going to be looked at to produce immediately and that rarely happens. It seems to me like its going to get worse (or maybe just stay the same because I’m not sure what would make it worse) before it gets better.
by Winfield's Ghost on
May 7, 2008 8:20 AM PDT
reply
0 recs
That's where I'm at.
We can’t get any lower and what is on the field is a) not working, b) not worth continuing.
The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world.
by Axion on
May 7, 2008 11:08 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
100 losses seems extremely unlikely in this day and age.
Talent-wise the Padres are not the worst team in the league and win a rate closer to .500 for the rest of the year. Unless the injury bug bites some of our best players, 100 losses is a very unrealistic expectation.
I watched all 23 innings and all I got was this lousy signature.
by Wonko on
May 7, 2008 8:10 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
That should have said.
will most likely win a rate closer to .500 for the rest of the year.
I watched all 23 innings and all I got was this lousy signature.
by Wonko on
May 7, 2008 8:11 PM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
Why?
What gives you the impression that they will win at a rate closer to .500 for the rest of the year?
by Winfield's Ghost on
May 8, 2008 6:54 AM PDT
up
reply
0 recs
OR
With a 95% confidence level we can be sure the best we can do is just above .500!
by Wes on
May 7, 2008 8:59 AM PDT
reply
0 recs











