37-18

"I" <robertoTOGLI DeleteThis @TOGLIrrweb.org> wrote in message
news:g0683i$tis$1@tdi.cu.mi.it...

> It's also quite sad to note that we have yet to win a game when our
> opponents get to *three* runs first

Can I take a little credit for today's win?

--
Roberto Ricca
2008: GO GIANTS (Anybody but the Dodgers) [Magic Number: 132]
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb.RemoveThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9A97B7EFC28Ejhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum.RemoveThis@sf.giants> wrote in news:68bt9aF2shibvU1
> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb.RemoveThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9A964F8E27461jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> >> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum.RemoveThis@sf.giants> wrote in
> >> news:68avegF2s8oh9U1@mid.individual.net:
> >> >> They lost one game on bad defense and another game on a phantom
> >> >> balk.
> >> >
> >> > Exactly.
> >>
> >> Of course, the former is part of the team -- it's a really bad
> >> defensive team.
> >
> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
>
> In what sense? It's an unusual event, but from a team perspective, I'm
> not sure why you would say it's unlucky.

Well, they committed 3 errors, and all of them led to runs scored. I don't
know the actual statistics, but a rough guess would be that when you commit
an error, half the times it doesn't lead to a score and half the times it
does. If those 3 errors led to zero runs, then I'd call them lucky. Simple
as that.

Also, even considering the 3 errors led to the 5 unearned runs, it might not
have mattered, if for example they lost 10-1, or won 12-5, something like
that. Thus the fact that they lost by 1 run was bad luck, since all 5
unearned runs mattered. Just 1 less unearned run and they could've won the
game.
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Roberto Ricca" <robertoTOGLI DeleteThis @TOGLIrrweb.org> wrote in message
news:g0683i$tis$1@tdi.cu.mi.it...
> Reading yesterday some of the old messages, I found this sentence,
> related to the game lost by the Giants last Sunday in Philadelphia:
>
> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote in message
> news:68bt9aF2shibvU1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
>
> I am probably taking it out of context, however if we were unlucky in
> Philly, we were lucky with the D'backs because, in our 14th game of the
> season, we won a game 5-4 against them and all the runs we scored were
> unearned.

I guess that does even out the other game...
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote in
news:697f87F31sdqnU1@mid.individual.net:

>
> "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9A97B7EFC28Ejhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
>> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote in news:68bt9aF2shibvU1
>> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns9A964F8E27461jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
>> >> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote in
>> >> news:68avegF2s8oh9U1@mid.individual.net:
>> >> >> They lost one game on bad defense and another game on a phantom
>> >> >> balk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Exactly.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the former is part of the team -- it's a really bad
>> >> defensive team.
>> >
>> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
>>
>> In what sense? It's an unusual event, but from a team perspective,
>> I'm not sure why you would say it's unlucky.
>
> Well, they committed 3 errors, and all of them led to runs scored. I
> don't know the actual statistics, but a rough guess would be that when
> you commit an error, half the times it doesn't lead to a score and
> half the times it does. If those 3 errors led to zero runs, then I'd
> call them lucky. Simple as that.

You're thinking like a pitcher, not like a team. Errors aren't "bad
luck" in any different way -- from the team's point of view -- than are
singles or walks. Change the three errors to hits, and you wouldn't
think of it being bad luck that they gave up five runs in those innings,
would you?

> Also, even considering the 3 errors led to the 5 unearned runs, it
> might not have mattered, if for example they lost 10-1, or won 12-5,
> something like that. Thus the fact that they lost by 1 run was bad
> luck, since all 5 unearned runs mattered. Just 1 less unearned run
> and they could've won the game.

The part about losing by one run, earned or unearned, I have no real
problem with calling luck.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb.DeleteThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA1C44E055C1jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum.DeleteThis@sf.giants> wrote in
> news:697f87F31sdqnU1@mid.individual.net:
>
> >
> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb.DeleteThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9A97B7EFC28Ejhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> >> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum.DeleteThis@sf.giants> wrote in news:68bt9aF2shibvU1
> >> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb.DeleteThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:Xns9A964F8E27461jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> >> >> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum.DeleteThis@sf.giants> wrote in
> >> >> news:68avegF2s8oh9U1@mid.individual.net:
> >> >> >> They lost one game on bad defense and another game on a phantom
> >> >> >> balk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Exactly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, the former is part of the team -- it's a really bad
> >> >> defensive team.
> >> >
> >> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
> >>
> >> In what sense? It's an unusual event, but from a team perspective,
> >> I'm not sure why you would say it's unlucky.
> >
> > Well, they committed 3 errors, and all of them led to runs scored. I
> > don't know the actual statistics, but a rough guess would be that when
> > you commit an error, half the times it doesn't lead to a score and
> > half the times it does. If those 3 errors led to zero runs, then I'd
> > call them lucky. Simple as that.
>
> You're thinking like a pitcher, not like a team.

No, I'm thinking in terms of probability. Sometimes errors lead to runs,
sometimes they don't; that's a fact.

> Errors aren't "bad
> luck" in any different way --

You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but errors don't
necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they *don't* lead to runs.
The fact that every single error in that game led to runs was bad luck. If
only 2 of the 3 errors caused them runs, then they might have won the game.
If none of the 3 errors led to any runs, then I'm sure we would've said they
were lucky. Would you have objected in that case, that they were lucky?

> from the team's point of view -- than are
> singles or walks. Change the three errors to hits, and you wouldn't
> think of it being bad luck that they gave up five runs in those innings,
> would you?
>
> > Also, even considering the 3 errors led to the 5 unearned runs, it
> > might not have mattered, if for example they lost 10-1, or won 12-5,
> > something like that. Thus the fact that they lost by 1 run was bad
> > luck, since all 5 unearned runs mattered. Just 1 less unearned run
> > and they could've won the game.
>
> The part about losing by one run, earned or unearned, I have no real
> problem with calling luck.


 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum RemoveThis @sf.giants> wrote in
> "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb RemoveThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message

>> >> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
>> >>
>> >> In what sense? It's an unusual event, but from a team
>> >> perspective, I'm not sure why you would say it's unlucky.
>> >
>> > Well, they committed 3 errors, and all of them led to runs scored.
>> > I don't know the actual statistics, but a rough guess would be that
>> > when you commit an error, half the times it doesn't lead to a score
>> > and half the times it does. If those 3 errors led to zero runs,
>> > then I'd call them lucky. Simple as that.
>>
>> You're thinking like a pitcher, not like a team.
>
> No, I'm thinking in terms of probability. Sometimes errors lead to
> runs, sometimes they don't; that's a fact.

And sometimes walks lead to runs, and sometimes singles lead to runs, and
sometimes they don't.

>> Errors aren't "bad
>> luck" in any different way --
>
> You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but errors
> don't necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they *don't*
> lead to runs. The fact that every single error in that game led to
> runs was bad luck. If only 2 of the 3 errors caused them runs, then
> they might have won the game. If none of the 3 errors led to any runs,
> then I'm sure we would've said they were lucky. Would you have
> objected in that case, that they were lucky?

Not errors, by themselves.

If they had given up, say, 15 baserunners, but no runs, then I'm OK with
calling *that* lucky -- and if, say, 7 singles/walks/one base errors over a
whole game produced five runs, then I'm OK with calling it unlucky. But
whether they are singles or one-base errors doesn't make any difference at
all, from a team point of view.

What's more, errors didn't "lead" to runs in any way more than the other
hits and walks do; we just have a bookkeeping convention that gives
responsibility for the errors to the fielder and not the pitcher, but it's
a totally silly convention (at least in today's baseball), and at any rate
has nothing to do with whether the team was lucky or not.

Looking it up....the game was May 4th, against the Phillies. The Phillies
that day had three reached-on-errors, five walks, one HBP, and seven hits
-- including three doubles and a HR. Now, others can put together the
math, but 16 baserunners including three doubles and a HR doesn't strike me
as a game where a team figures to score fewer than six runs. The Giants
that day had one BB and ten hits, including two doubles, a triple, and a
HR; that strikes me as a game where the Giants were probably outplayed, not
unlucky.

And, again, I strongly suspect that if no one had ever invented the concept
of earned and unearned runs (or errors, for that matter) that it wouldn't
have struck you as an unlucky sequence of events.

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA8DB2DB4AB7jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote in
> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>
> >> >> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
> >> >>
> >> >> In what sense? It's an unusual event, but from a team
> >> >> perspective, I'm not sure why you would say it's unlucky.
> >> >
> >> > Well, they committed 3 errors, and all of them led to runs scored.
> >> > I don't know the actual statistics, but a rough guess would be that
> >> > when you commit an error, half the times it doesn't lead to a score
> >> > and half the times it does. If those 3 errors led to zero runs,
> >> > then I'd call them lucky. Simple as that.
> >>
> >> You're thinking like a pitcher, not like a team.
> >
> > No, I'm thinking in terms of probability. Sometimes errors lead to
> > runs, sometimes they don't; that's a fact.
>
> And sometimes walks lead to runs, and sometimes singles lead to runs, and
> sometimes they don't.
>
> >> Errors aren't "bad
> >> luck" in any different way --
> >
> > You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but errors
> > don't necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they *don't*
> > lead to runs. The fact that every single error in that game led to
> > runs was bad luck. If only 2 of the 3 errors caused them runs, then
> > they might have won the game. If none of the 3 errors led to any runs,
> > then I'm sure we would've said they were lucky. Would you have
> > objected in that case, that they were lucky?
>
> Not errors, by themselves.

Wow, really? I think you're in a very minority. I think if you take a
poll, most people would think that if the Giants commit 3 errors which lead
to zero runs and they win by 1 run, they'd consider that fortunate or lucky.

> If they had given up, say, 15 baserunners, but no runs, then I'm OK with
> calling *that* lucky -- and if, say, 7 singles/walks/one base errors over
a
> whole game produced five runs, then I'm OK with calling it unlucky. But
> whether they are singles or one-base errors doesn't make any difference at
> all, from a team point of view.
>
> What's more, errors didn't "lead" to runs in any way more than the other
> hits and walks do; we just have a bookkeeping convention that gives
> responsibility for the errors to the fielder and not the pitcher, but it's
> a totally silly convention (at least in today's baseball), and at any rate
> has nothing to do with whether the team was lucky or not.
>
> Looking it up....the game was May 4th, against the Phillies. The Phillies
> that day had three reached-on-errors, five walks, one HBP, and seven hits
> -- including three doubles and a HR. Now, others can put together the
> math, but 16 baserunners including three doubles and a HR doesn't strike
me
> as a game where a team figures to score fewer than six runs. The Giants
> that day had one BB and ten hits, including two doubles, a triple, and a
> HR; that strikes me as a game where the Giants were probably outplayed,
not
> unlucky.
>
> And, again, I strongly suspect that if no one had ever invented the
concept
> of earned and unearned runs (or errors, for that matter) that it wouldn't
> have struck you as an unlucky sequence of events.

Not really. Runs scored on errors are runs scored on errors; however they
named the runs caused by errors doesn't really matter.
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum.RemoveThis@sf.giants> wrote in
> "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb.RemoveThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AA8DB2DB4AB7jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
>> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum.RemoveThis@sf.giants> wrote in
>> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb.RemoveThis@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message

[Let's keep boring everyone with this one...]

>> >> >> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
>> >> >>
>> > No, I'm thinking in terms of probability. Sometimes errors lead to
>> > runs, sometimes they don't; that's a fact.
>>
>> And sometimes walks lead to runs, and sometimes singles lead to runs,
>> and sometimes they don't.
>>
>> >> Errors aren't "bad
>> >> luck" in any different way --
>> >
>> > You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but
>> > errors don't necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they
>> > *don't* lead to runs. The fact that every single error in that game
>> > led to runs was bad luck. If only 2 of the 3 errors caused them
>> > runs, then they might have won the game. If none of the 3 errors
>> > led to any runs, then I'm sure we would've said they were lucky.
>> > Would you have objected in that case, that they were lucky?
>>
>> Not errors, by themselves.
>
> Wow, really? I think you're in a very minority. I think if you take
> a poll, most people would think that if the Giants commit 3 errors
> which lead to zero runs and they win by 1 run, they'd consider that
> fortunate or lucky.

Well, most people don't think these things through. Not that there's
anything wrong with that -- there's no reason to think about baseball
analytically, especially not this type of thing -- but at any rate most
people don't, and therefore they'll repeat back whatever the announcers
say. So I'm not going to disagree about what most people say, but I
also don't think it matters here.

[Leaving in lots of stuff...]

>> If they had given up, say, 15 baserunners, but no runs, then I'm OK
>> with calling *that* lucky -- and if, say, 7 singles/walks/one base
>> errors over
> a
>> whole game produced five runs, then I'm OK with calling it unlucky.
>> But whether they are singles or one-base errors doesn't make any
>> difference at all, from a team point of view.
>>
>> What's more, errors didn't "lead" to runs in any way more than the
>> other hits and walks do; we just have a bookkeeping convention that
>> gives responsibility for the errors to the fielder and not the
>> pitcher, but it's a totally silly convention (at least in today's
>> baseball), and at any rate has nothing to do with whether the team
>> was lucky or not.
>>
>> Looking it up....the game was May 4th, against the Phillies. The
>> Phillies that day had three reached-on-errors, five walks, one HBP,
>> and seven hits -- including three doubles and a HR. Now, others can
>> put together the math, but 16 baserunners including three doubles and
>> a HR doesn't strike
> me
>> as a game where a team figures to score fewer than six runs. The
>> Giants that day had one BB and ten hits, including two doubles, a
>> triple, and a HR; that strikes me as a game where the Giants were
>> probably outplayed,
> not
>> unlucky.

Each time I explain what I mean, as I just did above, you're not
reacting to it. Anything?


>> And, again, I strongly suspect that if no one had ever invented the
> concept
>> of earned and unearned runs (or errors, for that matter) that it
>> wouldn't have struck you as an unlucky sequence of events.
>
> Not really. Runs scored on errors are runs scored on errors; however
> they named the runs caused by errors doesn't really matter.

Something went wrong here...try again?

If you're saying that unearned runs are runs caused by errors, then it's
not true; it's just something we automatically tend to think because of
the scoring convention that involves reconstructing the inning without
errors. But that's an arbitrary convention, and certainly not an
argument for causation.

(In fact, both the earned/unearned runs rules *and* the whole concept of
errors in the first place are just arbitrary bookkeeping rules, just
like the rules about pitchers Wins, Losses, and Saves. If someone had
defined them differently, most people would probably think about them
differently. After all, no one would look at an inning that went out,
out, single, HR, HR, HR, and say that the single was the main difference
between a scoreless IP and a four run inning, but we do say that about
out, out, E4, HR, HR, HR. And we say that even if the "single" was a
ground ball that all non-Durham 2Bs would have turned into an out).

JHB
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>>> You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but errors
>>> don't necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they *don't*
>>> lead to runs. The fact that every single error in that game led to
>>> runs was bad luck. If only 2 of the 3 errors caused them runs, then
>>> they might have won the game. If none of the 3 errors led to any runs,
>>> then I'm sure we would've said they were lucky. Would you have
>>> objected in that case, that they were lucky?
>>
>> Not errors, by themselves.
>
> Wow, really? I think you're in a very minority. I think if you take a
> poll, most people would think that if the Giants commit 3 errors which lead
> to zero runs and they win by 1 run, they'd consider that fortunate or lucky.

Fortunate yes, I'm not sure why you like the term "lucky" so much. First of all,
whether errors lead to runs is not random chance -- it is affected by how good a
job the pitcher does of getting out of trouble after the errors. If the pitcher
on one team gets frazzled and gives up a home run after a couple errors, while
the pitcher on another team gets a strike out to end the inning, I wouldn't call
the second team "lucky". They were better.

But second and perhaps more importantly, it's dangerous to apply "luck" to a
single event in baseball -- you have to look at statistics over the long run.
You say, "The fact that every single error in that game led to runs was bad
luck," but have the Giants also had a game where *none* of their errors led to
runs? Or where every single opponent's error led to Giant runs? That's the
nature of the distribution of errors and hits -- you will typically have games
that fit all of these profiles over the course of a season. Only if you see a
trend where the random distribution has fallen in a way that has hurt the team's
overall W-L can you really call them "lucky" or "unlucky", for example:

(a) a team lets score a disproportionate number of unearned runs in close games

(b) a team fails to score a disproportionate number of runners on base due to
opponent's errors in close games

As another example, take the case where a pitcher gives up a broken-bat bloop
single over the first-baseman's head that scores the unearned runs. Again, you
could call that "unlucky", but if the same thing happened in the Giants favor in
another game, then is it really "unlucky"? Only if the distribution of *when*
these events happened ends up losing the Giants more games than it wins them.
But that determination can only be made by looking at the season as a whole, not
at any individual situation. (It doesn't really make sense to call a hitter
"lucky" every time he gets a hit simply because his chance of doing so is only
28%. You have to look at all his at-bats in totality. If a disproportionate
number of his hits happen to come in close/important situations, then you could
say the team was "lucky" that he got his hits when he did.)
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9AAAE818B1BF7jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.17.102...
> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote in
> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9AA8DB2DB4AB7jhbsocratesberkeleye@207.115.33.102...
> >> "Awesome Lincecum" <Lincecum DeleteThis @sf.giants> wrote in
> >> > "Jonathan Bernstein" <jhb DeleteThis @socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>
> [Let's keep boring everyone with this one...]
>
> >> >> >> > Sure, but 5 unearned runs in one game is still unlucky.
> >> >> >>
> >> > No, I'm thinking in terms of probability. Sometimes errors lead to
> >> > runs, sometimes they don't; that's a fact.
> >>
> >> And sometimes walks lead to runs, and sometimes singles lead to runs,
> >> and sometimes they don't.
> >>
> >> >> Errors aren't "bad
> >> >> luck" in any different way --
> >> >
> >> > You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but
> >> > errors don't necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they
> >> > *don't* lead to runs. The fact that every single error in that game
> >> > led to runs was bad luck. If only 2 of the 3 errors caused them
> >> > runs, then they might have won the game. If none of the 3 errors
> >> > led to any runs, then I'm sure we would've said they were lucky.
> >> > Would you have objected in that case, that they were lucky?
> >>
> >> Not errors, by themselves.
> >
> > Wow, really? I think you're in a very minority. I think if you take
> > a poll, most people would think that if the Giants commit 3 errors
> > which lead to zero runs and they win by 1 run, they'd consider that
> > fortunate or lucky.
>
> Well, most people don't think these things through.

Or maybe you have a weird way of looking at it than other people.

> Not that there's
> anything wrong with that -- there's no reason to think about baseball
> analytically, especially not this type of thing -- but at any rate most
> people don't, and therefore they'll repeat back whatever the announcers
> say. So I'm not going to disagree about what most people say, but I
> also don't think it matters here.

Well, I guess there's no absolute right or wrong here. Everyone's entitled
to his/her own opinion on what's considered lucky or unlucky. For the 3
errors they made, they could've given up:
a) 0 runs
b) 1 run
c) 2 runs
d) 3 runs
e) 4 runs
f) 5 or more runs

To me, "a" would be lucky and "f" would be unlucky, and losing the game by 1
run due to 5 unearned runs is tough luck too. But you're entitled to what
you believe.

Let's try some exaggerated examples:

1) If a really bad defensive team commits 300 errors in a season, and *none*
of those 300 errors cost them a single run. Would you call that lucky?

2) Same team same number of errors, but every single error cost them 1 or
more runs. That's not unlucky to you?
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

"Jamal Bernhard" <noone.TakeThisOut@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:2VZ_j.2510$N87.153@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Awesome Lincecum wrote:
>
> >>> You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but errors
> >>> don't necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they *don't*
> >>> lead to runs. The fact that every single error in that game led to
> >>> runs was bad luck. If only 2 of the 3 errors caused them runs, then
> >>> they might have won the game. If none of the 3 errors led to any runs,
> >>> then I'm sure we would've said they were lucky. Would you have
> >>> objected in that case, that they were lucky?
> >>
> >> Not errors, by themselves.
> >
> > Wow, really? I think you're in a very minority. I think if you take a
> > poll, most people would think that if the Giants commit 3 errors which
lead
> > to zero runs and they win by 1 run, they'd consider that fortunate or
lucky.
>
> Fortunate yes, I'm not sure why you like the term "lucky" so much.

Oh gee, now people are nitpicking on definitions? I used those 2 words to
mean the same thing above, as *most* people could tell. Read it again.
Geez.
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

>>>>> You still don't get it. Errors themselves aren't bad luck, but errors
>>>>> don't necessarily lead to runs. In fact, quite often they *don't*
>>>>> lead to runs. The fact that every single error in that game led to
>>>>> runs was bad luck. If only 2 of the 3 errors caused them runs, then
>>>>> they might have won the game. If none of the 3 errors led to any runs,
>>>>> then I'm sure we would've said they were lucky. Would you have
>>>>> objected in that case, that they were lucky?
>> >>
>>>> Not errors, by themselves.
>>> Wow, really? I think you're in a very minority. I think if you take a
>>> poll, most people would think that if the Giants commit 3 errors which
> lead
>>> to zero runs and they win by 1 run, they'd consider that fortunate or
> lucky.
>> Fortunate yes, I'm not sure why you like the term "lucky" so much.
>
> Oh gee, now people are nitpicking on definitions? I used those 2 words to
> mean the same thing above, as *most* people could tell. Read it again.
> Geez.

Doesn't matter which word you want to use for it -- everything I said in my post
is still valid.
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18 

Awesome Lincecum wrote:

> Well, I guess there's no absolute right or wrong here. Everyone's entitled
> to his/her own opinion on what's considered lucky or unlucky. For the 3
> errors they made, they could've given up:
> a) 0 runs
> b) 1 run
> c) 2 runs
> d) 3 runs
> e) 4 runs
> f) 5 or more runs
>
> To me, "a" would be lucky and "f" would be unlucky, and losing the game by 1
> run due to 5 unearned runs is tough luck too. But you're entitled to what
> you believe.

But how often does "a" happen? Or "f"? Let's assign some hypothetical percentages:

a) 15%
b) 30%
c) 25%
d) 15%
e) 10%
f) 5%

Forget about whether these percentages are realistic or not -- it's irrelevant
to the point. If the Giants have a game where 3 errors lead to no runs, why is
that lucky? It would be *expected* 15% of the time. It would only be lucky if it
happened more than 15% of the time.

>
> Let's try some exaggerated examples:
>
> 1) If a really bad defensive team commits 300 errors in a season, and *none*
> of those 300 errors cost them a single run. Would you call that lucky?

Of course, because that's way more than the 15% above (or whatever it is).

>
> 2) Same team same number of errors, but every single error cost them 1 or
> more runs. That's not unlucky to you?
>
>

Of course, because that's way more than the 30% above (or whatever it is).

That's the whole point -- you can only look at "luck" across time when
statistics are involved. Any individual game is not "luck" -- it's just one data
point in the distribution. If the Giants happen to have only a single game all
season where 3 errors lead to no runs, would you say that they were lucky that
game? Of course not. You would say that they were *unlucky* because that was the
only time that happened the entire season.
 >> Stay informed about: 37-18