Mathematician Predicts Yankees To Dominate 170
anthemaniac writes "Computerized projections in sports are nothing new, but Bruce Bukiet of the New Jersey Institute of Technology has developed a model that seems to work pretty well. He projects how many games a Major League Baseball team will win by factoring in how each hitter ought to do against each pitcher in every game. His crystal ball says the Yankees will win 110 games this year, a pretty safe bet, many might agree. But he also projects all the divisional winners. He claims to be right more than wrong in five of the past six years."
110 wins? (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I never understand these things... (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate Models? (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight..
Climatologists use past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to support global warming and predict future results, and everyone calls it strong science based on facts. If the models are off, it's just a part of the scientific process, but the overall claim is still valid.
But if a statistician uses past data, computer models, and mathematical projections to predict baseball results, it's dismissed as some crack job's phony science. If the models are off, it's proof that he has no idea what he's doing and how these kinds of models don't work.
Am I missing something here?
Re:I never understand these things... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Climate Models? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Climate Models? (Score:3, Insightful)
For long term climate, we have a good idea how many of the processes involved work, and we can vary all the parameters to give ranges on the possible outcomes. While we can't use them to predict the rainfall in Boston on July 4, 2057, we can use them to say that the mean global temperature will be 3-5 degrees warmer that year (or some other similar statement).
Compare this to baseball. There aren't enough interactions for small variations not to throw everything off. Things like injuries, marital problems, drugs, rivalries, and weather could shift the outcomes of major games in ways and change the outcome in this model more severely than China switching to nuclear power would do in climate models. There is a better chance at predicting total numbers of runs or hits during the season, as the variation on things like that is smaller. Predicting the number of games won is almost as hopeless as predicting the outcome of an individual game, and if you could do that, you could hire people to post to slashdot for you.
Re:Bah (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Red Sox suck!! (Score:3, Insightful)
For the last 3 years, the Yankees are 61-37 against the AL Central as a whole, and the Sox are 56-45. For those years, the standings of the top 4 teams from the East and Central are as follows:
2006:
NYY 97-65
MIN 96-66
DET 95-67
CWS 90-72
2005:
CWS 99-63
NYY 95-67
BOS 95-67
CLE 93-69
2004:
NYY 101-61
BOS 98-64
MIN 92-70
CWS 83-79
Only last year would even one of those two teams not have ended up in a MINIMUM of third place, and the Yankees would still have been firmly on top. And frankly, a lot of the stars had to align for the standings to end up so well in the Central's favor last year. If you base your argument SOLELY on the 2006 results, and completely ignore any other factors, you might be able to make half a case, but it would be a weak one.