It was the Large Father, shortly after things really got going, and he yelled mother f***er several times. But, you want to hear it for yourself.
I wish my muted celebrations went something like this.
Edit: This article (http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/09/29/red-sox-swearing-locker-room-celebration-nesn-expletives-david-ortiz/) indicates that the NESN feed caught a ton of f-bombs. Can we get that up here somehow, please!?!
Yeah, but he celebrates like that when he finds the prize in a cereal box. Koji's an excitable dude.
A few early tweets seemed to indicate that the Sox were still down from the loss. Clearly they got over it quickly.
Exactly. The Sox have won 18 of 25 in September, a .720 winning percentage, and four of the losses are by one run. They've outscored their opponents by 67 runs in those 25 games.
I like it for fantasy purposes as it doesn't now allow just overrated closers to be valuable.
Is this serious? Of all the things I could possibly be worried about with this team heading into the playoffs, the offense is at the bottom of the list.
Good for you to not be worried. For me, it's a concern. In their last 19 games they haven't scored more than 7 runs in any game, and only 4 times they've scored more than 5 runs. In those 19 games they've scored 76 runs, for an average of 4 a game. Not awful, but not what they've been doing.
I expanded it by more than a week. The results were not encouraging to me.
It's just another sign of their inconsistency all season. Rip off 11 in a row to seize control of the division, and then follow that up by losing 5 of 6.
They are. They averaged 4.72 runs per game in the week before the sample you cited. 5.22 if you expand it two more games. 5.87 if you expand that sample back to 15 games. 5.18 if we take your 19 game sample and expand it to 22 (I wonder why you chose to cut that sample off just before 4 game stretch where they scored 38 runs). You are cherry picking samples to make the offense look as bad as possible. Good lord...
I'm not "trying" to make the offense look as bad as possible. I'm not really making an argument here. Just trying to point out something that is a concern of mine. How they hit nearly a month ago isn't what they've been doing lately. If it's not a concern of yours, great.
Ok fair enough.
Ok, first, I was a douche. Apologies.
Don't sweat it. I appreciate the apology.
That's exactly how I feel. I think that, talent-wise, they're still the best of the teams in the AL, but they've made it tougher on themselves than it needed to be.
The issue isn't with pessimism. The issue is with seeking out sample sizes that support the narrative rather than building a narrative around the data. Your order of operations is backwards. My response with various sample sizes that showed an excellent offense weren't meant to prove you wrong. They were meant to demonstrate that statistics, sufficiently tortured, will confess to anything.
At least it's progress over the "concerns" of one game samples that's infected the board all season?
I hear you. But sometimes small sample sizes indicate CURRENT trends. Which may matter greatly.
Your argument contains an implicit assumption that streaks are self-extending, but they're not. Streaks, by definition, end. The fact that a player is currently in a cold streak tells us exactly nothing about how likely it is that he will hit well today. It only tells us that if he does hit well today, today will be different from yesterday--and there's nothing inherently unlikely about that. If his overall, long-term record supports the idea that he is as likely as not to hit well today, then that's what should guide our expectations.
I hear what you're saying, but that's not really what I'm assuming. I'm not assuming that all streaks self-extend. Obviously they don't. Similarly, a .400 batter can easily have a bad series. Ted Williams hit .342/.497/.667/1.164 in 1946, then proceeded to go 5-25 with zero extra base hits in the '46 World Series.
It is bad methodology to predict how someone might perform in an upcoming series: that's the whole point. Tiny samples are not predictive. There's also practically no way to talk about "lately" without cherry-picking.
And David Ortiz was 2 for 22 in the 2013 ALCS (although one of the hits was rather important). We all know what happened in the next series.
Dunno about #4.
And Ted Williams had an ops of over 1.100 during the season and was dreadful (just 5-25 with no XBH) in the '46 Series. I mean, we can point to individual players til the cows come home on either side of this question.
Exactly, which is why your statement that started this back-and-forth -- that recent productive could be predictive of playoff performance -- doesn't hold water.
I don't understand. This particular example was used to show that using his whole season was just as useless as a predictive tool as his last week or two. So how does this argue against my point?
Not the Williams example, the fact that -- as you said -- examples could be used from either side of the argument. That countless examples on either side exist, the point in question becomes meaningless.
