Thursday, August 7, 2008

2008 NY Yankees - splitting the 4-game series the hard way

The Yankees certainly aren't doing themselves any favors. They have split 4 different 4 game series' after losing the first two games of the series. Don't believe me? Check this out:

April 4-7 vs. TB:
Loss 13-4, Loss 6-3, Win 9-2, Win 6-1

April 25-28 @ CLE:
Loss 6-4, Loss 4-3, Win 1-0, Win 5-2

July 3-6 vs BOS:
Loss 7-0, Loss 6-4, Win 2-1, Win 5-4

Aug 4-7 @ TEX:
Loss 9-5, Loss 8-6, Win 5-3, Win 3-0

Note: The series from May 12-15, the Yankees dropped the first two, but then won the third and lost the last game. Also, from May 30-June 2 the Yankees won the first two at Minnesota, and lost the last two. In the beginning of June, the Yankees went win-loss, win-loss against the Royals.

So, in 50% of their 4 game series' in 2008, the Yankees have dropped the first two only to salvage the final two games. Just think where the Yankees would be in the race for a playoff spot if they woke up before they were in the 2-0 hole. I know, I know - Michael Kay would tell me something about the fallacy of the predetermined outcome. Screw you Michael Kay. By the way, I can't find the definition of that phrase anywhere, so I'm not sure it even exists.

That is doing things the hard way.
Talk about it in the NYYSI Forums!


Alan / Falcon said...

Not too hard to find the definition of that phrase.


This is a current favorite of mine, and I learned it from Michael Kay, a talented and intelligent sports announcer for the New York Yankees.

Kay often runs into fans who say something akin to: "If only player x had gotten on base, then player y's home run right after x's at bat would have won the game."

Kay counters that we cannot assume player y would have hit the homerun in this hypothetical situation, because we have changed what led up to y's homerun so that all future outcomes are now in doubt - i.e. the playing field is literally changed. For specific examples, Kay would point out that after walking player x, the opposing pitcher might have been substituted, or that player y may have become more anxious knowing that the game was now on the line and struck out. In fact, aliens from outer space, who had placed wagers on the Yankee's opponents, may have chosen that instant to attack and annihilate Yankee stadium. There is simply no way to know for certain what would happen next. Whatever the specifics, we can never assume that an outcome would be exactly the same as it is now, if we were to hypothetically go back and change variables that led up to the outcome. The flaw in the assumption here is that the arguer is assuming that he can keep whatever outcomes that please him, while denying those that do not, when in fact all variables in outcomes are connected and can never be separated.

And if you want to argue that the article only exists because of the Michael Kay connection, you need only google the phrase to find multiple mention of this very real term.

Ross said...

Alan -

I have tried to google the phrase, and every hit that came up mentioned Michael Kay.

There is nothing on wikipedia or any other dictionary type of site. I really think Michael Kay made it up. Nothing to sneeze at, because it makes a lot of sense. I think he just put those three words together and created the phrase. Please prove me wrong!

Ross said...

Hey Alan -

I think I found it, but it isn't called what Michael Kay says it is called:


SEO By Profit By Search India