User Blog: Jew Unit Posts made by Jew Unit on How to please everyone? Put it to a vote. Tell us why it is changing. Jew Unit Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:48:38 -0400 <p>I've read this blog for I don't know how long. I've lurked most of the time because there wasn't anything that I thought I could add to the conversation that wasn't already present.</p> <p> </p> <p>However, I attempted to get an answer for a question yesterday that got taken down. Why was it taken down? There was nothing violating the rules of use; there was really no reason to take it down and I really would like an explanation, but that's for another place and another time. What I really want is an answer is to the main crux of the question: "why is everything changing". Don't get me wrong, I read the front page post. It is an announcement of things changing, it fails to mention reasons. I find that problematic.<br><br><br>There are two reasons why anything would change. Either the old thing wasn't good and it NEEDED to change or there was a clear alternative. I don't think anyone hated the name PSA. Does anyone like PB (PSB?) more than PSA? I mean, there is an incredibly simple way to find this out: a poll. This really should be a non-issue. Put it up to a poll, and that wins.</p> <p> </p> <p>There are some other fundamental flaws I have in the logic of changing the name itself, but that's neither here nor there. It also will turn into a rant into why I dislike the change(s) thus far and I feel like that will spurn other people to. <br><br><br>Here's something else: I really don't get what is changing about this site. The post says that dramatic upgrades will be made to the editorial process and also "content and conversation will remain the same". Those things are mutually exclusive. Your content (mostly an editorial rooted in analysis of data or observations relating to the yankees) and comments (obviously a user-based mini-editorial) cannot not change and change at the same time. Which is it? Even after that is answered, WHY is it changing?<br><br>The users like what we have (had). The users are the one that is using it; without the users, SBN loses. What, exactly, is spurring all this change? What is the purpose of changing (note: you can't just say it's an upgrade. It's a change until it proves to be beneficial for the good of the site.)<br><br>Digg died because the higher ups wanted to fix something that wasn't broken. Facebook's stock is falling because it's trying to please it's shareholders, not the users. Nintendo can't release a good game or platform in a timely manner in comparison to it's competitors because of the ideology of their CEO and thinking they are above game updates. Do you know why Google is incredibly successful? It does stuff for it's users, not the higher ups. Why has reddit exploded in niche popularity the way it has? It's pretty much entirely user-based.</p> <p>So name, logo, and other things- why are we not polling? I really have no objection to the idea of change. I am very much for the idea of change, just not for the sake of changing. </p> <p> </p> <p>********PLEASE DO NOT TURN THIS INTO A "I DISLIKE ____" THREAD. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS MEANT FOR. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY IT IS CHANGING. WE CAN GET OUT THE PITCHFORKS LATER.*********</p> Why trading for Ben Gordon (or potentially Humpries) is not a TERRIBLE idea Jew Unit Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:35:13 -0400 <p>We need to spend the money somewhere.</p> <p> </p> <p>Let me put it another way: in any given year, teams have a salary floor that is a certain percentage of the cap (I've read between 85-90% depending on the source).</p> <p> </p> <p>After the signing of our draft picks and the cap holds for our RFA's, we are actually not too far away from the floor. Depending on how a potential howard trade is structured, we probably won't take on that much extra salary, so that's not a huge deal. What is a potential problem is next year.</p> <p>We have 22 million in guaranteed money, about 7.5 more for QO's for hendo and mullens (if we extend them), about 6 more in options for kemba and Bismack, plus up to 7 more for cap holds for Carroll and williams (if we don't renounce their rights... I went ahead and assumed we weren't going to accept the 8+ million cap hold for diop's contract). That's putting us at about 7-10 million below the salary floor.</p> <p>So her me out- we have to spend the money anyways. If picking up <a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Ben Gordon</a> and <a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Kris Humphries</a> means adding a few first round picks or <a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Marshon Brooks</a> or getting at least a marginal veteran presence on the team (something that was sorely absent for every game that maggette was injured)- we have to spend the money anyways. Why not add a few picks while we are at it?</p> <p> </p> <p>Side bar: Assuming we're aiming for the salary floor, this is why amnestying TT is not a good idea. Keep in mind that amnestied players still count towards the salary floor, but if we are not gaining any benefit financially (IE we're not signing max free agents), there is no purpose in cutting him.</p> The lottery is "rigged"- a statistical perspective. Jew Unit Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:02:21 -0400 <p>This is what I'm going to prove to you in this article: The lottery is not rigged, or at least we don't have the information to prove that.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">(For purposes of this article, I’m going to define "winning" as getting the first pick and "losing" as…not.)</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Fair warning: there is a lot of sarcasm and math in this article. So if you didn’t understand Inception, then don’t read this article. If you didn’t watch Inception, then stop reading this article and go friggin’ watch Inception.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">WE HAD A 25% CHANCE OF WINNING AND WE DIDN’T WIN? THE LOTTERY IS RIGGED!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">THEY HOLD THE LOTTERY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS? THAT MUST MEAN IT’S RIGGED!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Can we see how ridiculous the first statement is? We had a 25% chance of winning, so that means we had a SEVENTY FIVE percent chance of losing. And we lost. Because there are 14 possible (weighted) outcomes, the probability of any single outcome is rather low.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Put a pin in that thought and follow me after the jump.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">The standard dartboard is 17.75 inches in diameter. That’s 247.45 square inches in area. That’s 160000 mm^2 in area. I was having troubles finding the area of a standard dart tip, but let’s say that it’s about 1 square mm. If you were to look at that mathematically, the probability of hitting a single point that is 1 square mm in a dart board that is 160000 is .00000625. WHAT A SMALL PROBABILITY! So if I throw my dart and I hit the board, the probability of that event occurring is 0.00000625. Let that marinate.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">OK back to basketball (or whateve</p> <p> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">r sport <a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Cory Higgins</a> gets paid to play). There have been 19 drafts since the current lottery format started and the worst team has won the lottery twice- IT’S RIGGED! I’m not going to go into the complex analysis as to how I got here because it involves a 19 term polynomial, but it happened and the probability of only two teams winning is .08. EIGHT ONE HUNDRETHS? Well if you look, stats would have expected the team to win 4 or 5 times- the likelihood of those happening is only 20%. If this lottery crap happened for 100 years, there wouldn’t be a single outcome over 5%. If it happened 160000 times… you get the idea.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Even if you looked at the bulls getting rose and some other small percentages, it is hard to conclusively say it is rigged based on these numbers.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">There are two ways to prove the lottery is rigged:</p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst">1) Use numbers: See what INDIVIDUAL balls come up significantly higher or lower than normal (that’s not too hard- there are only ten balls).</p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast">2) Weight the freaking balls.</p> <p>We lost the lottery. Get the hell over it.</p> Interpreting stats: regression to mean vs regression towards a mean Jew Unit Thu, 24 May 2012 00:42:25 -0400 <p>Diclaimer: If you love stats, keep reading. If you hate stats, then you can check out any of Lord Duggan's posts about how <a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Mark Teixeira</a> is goofy with semi-pictoral representations. If you like representations of bunnies using only keyboard characters, then just scroll to the bottom and ignore everything that I wrote.</p> <p>So let me give you a scenario: I'm flipping a coin ten times. First, I get 9 heads and 1 tail. I just outperformed expectations by 40% (or underperformed by 40% if you're a pessimist or have a tail fetish). What do they odds suggest about my number of heads next time? I think we can all agree that it is still five.</p> <p>BUT WAIT, MR JEW UNIT (AND I CAN ONLY ASSUME NOW THE COIN YOU ARE FLIPPING WAS A PENNY) WHY AREN'T YOU ACCOUNTING FOR YOU ONLY GETTING 1 TAIL THE FIRST TIME?</p> <p>Frankly my dear, I just don't give a damn. Let’s say I haven’t flipped the second set. I have well overperformed the expected outcome of 50%. Obviously there is going to be a regression towards the mean (note the use of TOWARDS, not TO). </p> <p class="MsoNormal">So stats are going to say that I’m going to get 5 heads next time. Now I’m at an average of 7. See how that’s closer to the mean (my average is going towards the mean). I get five again- my average is now 6.33. Another 5 sets me at an average of 6. You get the picture- I’m going towards five. After a long while, I’ll get to just about 5 after a large sample.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Two things to note of this:</p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="">1) 1. this is what we’re commonly introduced to as a “small samples size” bias- that is looking at the first set and suggesting that I’m really good at getting heads. Data sets will regress to the mean in large enough batches.</p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="">2) 2. More importantly, note how the 9 heads were not indicative of how I would perform in the future because the odds of getting a heads on a fair coin are 50%. Rather, in a small-medium sample size (e.g. a single season out of a whole career), they will only regress towards a mean, unless something freak happens like I flip 9 tails the next time around (improbable, but plausible)</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So how in the name of moses does this relate to baseball? <strike>Every single statistic</strike> BABIP, of course! When reading these really good posts on BABIP and BABIP w/ RISP, and you read something like “Bud Selig needs botox! Also, did you know Mark Teixeira has a BABIP w/ RISP .107 lower than his career?”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">this is the wrong way to interpret them:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Hooray! In the rest of the season, Tex is going to hit .107 higher than his career to balance it out!”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">False. Go play golf on your day off. This is the correct way to interpret that:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">“Hooray/Meh/ (O_o) ! Teixeira will probably hit his career average going forward, which will make it look like he’s regressing towards the mean, but probably won’t get all the way back without tweaking something”</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Of course, this is all contingent upon the assumption that they have not totally forgotten how to hit baseballs and that given a solid sample size for their career, we know what we are getting from these players. Or they are aging dramatically. Or they get traded to the <a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Padres</a>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Thank you for reading. Here is your bunny. Please be quiet as he is sleeping.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">(\</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">( -_- )</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">(“) (“)</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">Oh no, you woke him up.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style=""> </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="">(\__/)<br> (='.'=)<br> (")_(")</p> Quick science explanation behind Braun's pee Jew Unit Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:42:42 -0500 <p>Hi there- lurker here. I great enjoy reading Pinstripe Alley and it's mathematical analysis of things in between my breaks at... you guessed it, a biochemical research lab. We actually do testosterone measurements on serum samples (though not from baseball players). After the jump, you'll find a quick explanation as to why you should be totally outraged at the idiocy of Ryan Braun's situation.</p> <p>The assay ("test to measure") for testosterone is fairly straightforward. You take the sample, centrifuge it if it's blood (skip this step if it's pee), and ...wait for it... FREEZE IT. We freeze it to keep the testosterone (and epitestosterone) molecules from being degraded due to either heat or enzymes. In fact, if you just left it lying around, the levels of testosterone and epitestosterone would be lower, although they would be proportional, so the ratio theoretically should be the same (depending on how long it was kept out). This doesn't happen because epitestosterone levels could fall to a level that is below the minimum signal threshold (IE there isn't enough to calculate a ratio) and the test pretty much fails.</p> <p>So this investigator actually did the right thing in freezing it and sending it later. The testing protocol was, by my estimation, made by scientists- it's not stupid, it actually makes perfect sense to put it in your freezer instead of driving 50 miles and drop it off to let it sit in a questionably temperature controlled room. I'm baffled by the people that don't understand this (I'm looking at you, Shyam Das) and think that the investigator somehow broke protocol. In fact, he did everything exactly correctly. Except for putting a video tape on the sample for the 50 hours it was in his house. What an idiot.</p> <p>Read your favorite protocol regarding this assay, but here is an awesome (according to me) article on sports drug testing and you get an added bonus of how people cheat without being caught. Read a comprehensivearticle <a href="">here</a> or an abstract <a href="">here</a>.</p> <p>-Not Bill Nye</p> Figuring out actually what happened and what will; Why not to worry Jew Unit Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:01:22 -0400 <p><br>Let's take a step back and see what the trade that got nixed and the trade that didn't offered the bobcats</p> <p> </p> <p>Toronto trade (nixed):</p> <p>netted us a good offensive point guard (read: starting point guard) at roughly the same long term salary as the combined salary of the outgoing players.  Also gave us the opportunity to give someone the MLE without going over the tax threshold (rosterbators go crazy with which center they thought the MLE could be used on)</p> <p> </p> <p>Dallas trade (unnixed):</p> <p>netted us two bench players who will see little to no time if derrick brown and henderson ever wish to become remotely respectable NBA players (on the flip side, will most likely render the two...erm...rookies obsolete).  Also 13M unguaranteed contract...what that means after the jump. But first, those two bench players...wait for it...make as much as calderon's long term salary!</p> <p>now what does that mean?</p> <p>Here are the two options the bobcats will do with dampier:</p> <p>1) trade him</p> <p>2) waive him</p> <p> </p> <p>now if we trade him, he is really only useful to people at or around the luxury tax or are otherwise looking to shed lots of salary.  Since many sign and trades have already occured and most of the people we want have been already traded to utah for a trade exception and two first round picks, lets run through who could even possibly be trade partners.</p> <p> </p> <p><a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Lakers</a>, mavs, nuggets (and surprisingly, us) are over the luxury tax (according to hoops hype...I'm not going to bother figuring out who actually is).  something tells me we will not be acquiring any more players from those three teams.  Other options include people who are close, or owners that just want to save money by trading away long-term commitments.  Now, trading ANYBODY for erick dampier (+/- 25% according to trade rules) will put us over the luxury tax limit.  So we have to trade for an extremely good player to go over the limit.</p> <p> </p> <p>Now there is one player as we all know that is clearly available for an owner that is so cheap...well he spurned Charlotte once already.  That is the only person I can envision trading dampier for so we can go over the tax limit.  I'm sure a trade can be worked out (I'm thinking minimum dampier, 2nd round pick, swap of 1st,  and henderson for paul).  So here are a slightly revised list of options:</p> <p>1) Trade for <a href="" class="sbn-auto-link">Chris Paul</a></p> <p>2) Waive dampier so we are under all thresholds</p> <p> </p> <p>So if option 1 occurs, HOORAY!.  If option 2 occurs, we just traded essentially the same things (don't get into numbers, I've crunched them, we are the same on money on both the trade that did and didn't happen) minus getting rid of diaw so we can get two bench players instead of a starting point guard.  Congratulations, Michael Jordan will have cemented his status as one of the worst GM/owners of all time and I will officially rescind my bobcats fan status.</p>