Comments on: X W-L Standings Statistic http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/05/12/x-w-l-standings-statistic/ Tech, Entrepreneurship, and Venture Capital in New York City Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:04:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: South Side Dave http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/05/12/x-w-l-standings-statistic/#comment-214469 South Side Dave Fri, 30 May 2008 02:57:11 +0000 http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/05/12/x-w-l-standings-statistic/#comment-214469 God I hate the Yankees. God I hate the Yankees.

]]> By: Joe Bob http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/05/12/x-w-l-standings-statistic/#comment-211166 Joe Bob Sat, 24 May 2008 04:12:19 +0000 http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/05/12/x-w-l-standings-statistic/#comment-211166 I think the reason that 1.82 is used in the equation is because of baseball's magical mathematicians, such as Derek Jeter and Melky Cabrera. Everyone already knows that the people working behind the scenes (like Brian Cashman) are magical I think the reason that 1.82 is used in the equation is because of baseball’s magical mathematicians, such as Derek Jeter and Melky Cabrera. Everyone already knows that the people working behind the scenes (like Brian Cashman) are magical

]]> By: Alex Janevski http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/05/12/x-w-l-standings-statistic/#comment-59961 Alex Janevski Thu, 07 Jun 2007 03:00:17 +0000 http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/05/12/x-w-l-standings-statistic/#comment-59961 The 1.82 exponent has been experimentally determined. Initially, 2 was used, hence the equation was dubbed the "Pythagorean Expectation" for its similarity to the equation that bears the same name. However, at least for baseball, experiment has shown that 1.82 is more accurate at predicting than 2. As for mathematically why this is the case I have yet to see a good explanation. Likely it involves a somewhat complicated statistical argument. From one paper I've seen I'm left with the feeling that it has to do with the actual values of runs scored and runs against in a given season, that is, the distribution of said values around the mean. Hope this helps. The 1.82 exponent has been experimentally determined. Initially, 2 was used, hence the equation was dubbed the “Pythagorean Expectation” for its similarity to the equation that bears the same name. However, at least for baseball, experiment has shown that 1.82 is more accurate at predicting than 2. As for mathematically why this is the case I have yet to see a good explanation. Likely it involves a somewhat complicated statistical argument. From one paper I’ve seen I’m left with the feeling that it has to do with the actual values of runs scored and runs against in a given season, that is, the distribution of said values around the mean.

Hope this helps.

]]>