2014 MLB Thread

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Seems like we could have way more data than only 579 boxes. Doesn't whatever gets watched on DTV/Cable get tracked somehow.

Depends upon your receiver, IIRC. I believe only those using SDV delivery can do it currently, at least aside from the PPV type stuff (no clue what the percentage of cable households receiving via SDV is now)

It would be fairly meaningless for them since advertisers would never accept the data without it being certified by an independent 3rd party anyway, and I really don't see anyone trusting any of the cable providers that far.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

A couple of things worth nothing here on the whole 0.0 topic.

1) Part of this rests with the network. There are officially 2,289,360 TV Households in the Houston DMA. According to the articles there are only 500,000 households with access to Comcast SportsNet Houston. If the meters were apportioned on that basis, they really went 0/126 instead of 0/579.

CSN is a giant cluster and that explains most of it, above and beyond the Astros not being very good. The carriage fees were way too high so, shockingly, only Comcast was willing to pick them up. However, they can't drop the rates because the teams (especially the Astros, if rumors are correct) wouldn't budge on their payments. So, comically, CSN had to declare bankruptcy and everything's frozen so no one's receiving money and the carriage fees aren't able to be negotiated and barely a quarter of Houston is able to see the Astros, Rockets, or Dynamo.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

Seems like we could have way more data than only 579 boxes. Doesn't whatever gets watched on DTV/Cable get tracked somehow.

As for more boxes, that = more cost ... which would then be passed on to the networks/ratings subscribers, who would then pass it along to advertisers, who would then pass it along to consumers.

fwiw, A recent comment from an ABC exec cited their own internal figure as a margin of error (for A18-49) of +- 0.2 ratings points on any given show. Some studies show that the long held +/- 10% standard that's been the unofficial benchmark is growing in recent years but the reality is that ratings exist almost entirely because they are the currency that allows networks & advertisers to communicate. The standard (and the margin of error) is agreed upon, effectively, between the two interested parties that have money changing hands based on the numbers.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by molson

I think that 500,000 number who had access to the game in the first place maybe says more about the lack of importance of the Astros than the 0.0 does.

And it's kind of crazy that we don't have this Bleacher Report article or this conversation, and instead have a very un-newsorthy 1.0 rating if 5 or 6 measured boxes tune in.

Isn't some of that just the nature of polling? I'm pretty sure we can assume that there was at least 1 person in Houston watching the Astros the other night. But you can't reliably measure everyone without doing some level of polling which is going to lead to some inaccuracies. I'm not sure what the number of people is for 500K but it probably isn't much more than 500 to get within 2 sigmas so that the number is 95% accurate (have fun calculating if you want).

(I'm not implying you were doing this, btw) It's funny that I think there's an anti-intellectual meme running around that polling isn't accurate because it's a small sample. While it's not perfectly accurate, it's pretty good and there are even mathematical formulas which will tell you how accurate. However, it also is based on a couple of assumptions. First, the sampling is random. If you grab 100 people who live in the same apartment complex in Houston, that's not really representative but that's probably not what Nielsen does (tho there will be some selection bias). And second, there's a chance that any particular poll could be a bad sample- that's why you're really 95% accurate not 100% accurate. But with Presidential polls, for instance, it's pretty easy to see the outliers versus the standards (then again, there's some funny business going on with their formulas that can also cause errors but that's neither here nor there). And that's why Nate Silver can look like a genius, because if you keep feeding his system more and more polls, the better it will be (unless, of course, the samples aren't random or the adjustments are unfair but then he starts adjusting for those, even).

That said, to call Awful Announcing "BR" is a bit unfair to AA as I think we can all agree that BR is roughly 99.7% garbage while I've read some AA stuff that's pretty good and certainly at a lot better than the average BR article ("100 WAYS TO GET YOU TO READ BR BECAUSE IT'S THE BEST EVER!").

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

However, it also is based on a couple of assumptions. First, the sampling is random. If you grab 100 people who live in the same apartment complex in Houston, that's not really representative but that's probably not what Nielsen does (tho there will be some selection bias).

The selection bias has actually gotten lower around the PPM (metered) era vs the diary era. The bigger issue with accuracy seems to lie with issues in getting certain demographics to participate in the system in any way.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The selection bias has actually gotten lower around the PPM (metered) era vs the diary era. The bigger issue with accuracy seems to lie with issues in getting certain demographics to participate in the system in any way.

Well, that's kindof the selection bias as opposed to the outright "lying about it" bias

Lower incomes, in particular, will be underrepresented.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Isn't some of that just the nature of polling? I'm pretty sure we can assume that there was at least 1 person in Houston watching the Astros the other night. But you can't reliably measure everyone without doing some level of polling which is going to lead to some inaccuracies. I'm not sure what the number of people is for 500K but it probably isn't much more than 500 to get within 2 sigmas so that the number is 95% accurate (have fun calculating if you want).

(I'm not implying you were doing this, btw) It's funny that I think there's an anti-intellectual meme running around that polling isn't accurate because it's a small sample. While it's not perfectly accurate, it's pretty good and there are even mathematical formulas which will tell you how accurate. However, it also is based on a couple of assumptions. First, the sampling is random. If you grab 100 people who live in the same apartment complex in Houston, that's not really representative but that's probably not what Nielsen does (tho there will be some selection bias). And second, there's a chance that any particular poll could be a bad sample- that's why you're really 95% accurate not 100% accurate. But with Presidential polls, for instance, it's pretty easy to see the outliers versus the standards (then again, there's some funny business going on with their formulas that can also cause errors but that's neither here nor there). And that's why Nate Silver can look like a genius, because if you keep feeding his system more and more polls, the better it will be (unless, of course, the samples aren't random or the adjustments are unfair but then he starts adjusting for those, even).

That's true, and I know that Nielsen, or any poll taker, needs a lot fewer people than it would "seem" they need to be representative. As long as the sample is random. I get how that's true for Nielsen ratings generally. But when we're talking about a 0.0 rating being particularly newsworthy as opposed to a 0.2 or 0.4, then I'm not as sure. Because we are literally talking about 2 or 3 households. Rounded.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, that's kindof the selection bias as opposed to the outright "lying about it" bias

Lower incomes, in particular, will be underrepresented.

SI

But advertisers don't care so much about lower income populations, I would imagine, especially since advertisers are usually selling discretionary spending products. And since advertisers don't care, neither do the networks. So I can see why there would be little push to get lower income groups more represented in the Nielsens.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, that's kindof the selection bias as opposed to the outright "lying about it" bias Lower incomes, in particular, will be underrepresented.

But to call it "selection bias" really screws up the practical (if not technical) use of the phrase. I mean, they've gone insanely above & beyond trying to get some demos to participate, at some point if they won't then they won't. And honestly, few networks or advertisers really sweat it a whole lot deep down since some of those aren't highly attractive targets anyway.

Which kinda goes back to the point I mentioned before, that ratings exist in order to give networks & advertisers some basis to negotiate on. If not for that, it'd be something few people would bother to pay the costs for.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

That's true, and I know that Nielsen, or any poll taker, needs a lot fewer people than it would "seem" they need to be representative. As long as the sample is random. I get how that's true for Nielsen ratings generally. But when we're talking about a 0.0 rating being particularly newsworthy as opposed to a 0.2 or 0.4, then I'm not as sure. Because we are literally talking about 2 or 3 households. Rounded.

It's "newsworthy" -- I guess -- in the sense that not all that many live pro sports broadcasts dip that far. But it's really more of a "news of the weird" story than anything earth shaking.

The real story here is probably more like "why on earth would anyone in their right mind advertise on those games"

[cartman]

Yu had a perfecto through 5, but the first Astros batter of the 6th got a Texas Leaguer to drop in behind short.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The real story here is probably more like "why on earth would anyone in their right mind advertise on those games"

Because the broadcaster is paying them to fill the dead airtime?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because the broadcaster is paying them to fill the dead airtime?

Nah, they'd just run promos.

[claphamsa]

tuck rule lives in MLB!

you must transition the ball out of your glove... catching it is irrelevant. fucking moronic.

[cuervo72]

This is a bit of an odd game going on in ATL.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

This is a bit of an odd game going on in ATL.

stupid braves

[cuervo72]

I'm still a Phillies fan, so I'm pretty impartial on this one.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

tuck rule lives in MLB!

you must transition the ball out of your glove... catching it is irrelevant. fucking moronic.

???

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

How in the world did Brandon League make the roster for LA? He is awful.

2 days ago. Still awful. GTFO!!!

[Vince, Pt. II]

More random Giants statistics:

Matt Cain has pitched in 268 games in his career. In 71 of those games, Cain has gone 6 or more innings while allowing fewer than two runs and NOT gotten the win. The Giants have lost 50 of those 71 games.

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

???

Nate McLouth caught the ball, then dropped it on the transition to throw, apparently the MLB rule is it is not officially a catch until you transition it out of your glove. which is idiotic

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

Nate McLouth caught the ball, then dropped it on the transition to throw, apparently the MLB rule is it is not officially a catch until you transition it out of your glove. which is idiotic

While they haven't used the phrase "point of emphasis", that's basically what it seems to be. That was one of several similar calls in the early going & they've been pretty clear it's intentional.

Baseball’s Newest and Dumbest Rule: Schrödinger’s Catch | Getting Blanked | Blogs | theScore.com

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

???

Just what he said. If you catch the ball, but lose it transitioning out of your glove, there is no out. I've never seen it called like it was last night, but from the commentators that has always been the rule. They have just decided to emphasize it this year. It was a weird looking play.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

Nate McLouth caught the ball, then dropped it on the transition to throw, apparently the MLB rule is it is not officially a catch until you transition it out of your glove. which is idiotic

So it's not really the tuck rule so much as the player needing to make "a baseball move."

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by rowech

So it's not really the tuck rule so much as the player needing to make "a baseball move."

its not even a baseball move... its getting it out of the glove. (assuming FP Santangelo is right, which is never a given.)

[Atocep]

Francoeur is pranked for a month into thinking a teammate is deaf.

On Jeff Ears - YouTube

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

(assuming FP Santangelo is right, which is never a given.)

Hehehehe.

The rest of the game was goofy too - LaRoche's no-catch (which was just where I tuned in), Harper getting picked off at 2nd, Zimmerman getting picked off at 2nd and breaking his thumb, Desmond *again* having a ball get stuck under the OF wall...

[BillJasper]

Just watched two baserunners get thrown out at home plate on the same ground ball in the Tampa Bay-Cincinnati game. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Just watched two baserunners get thrown out at home plate on the same ground ball in the Tampa Bay-Cincinnati game. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

I think the Reds still think they are in AZ.

[PilotMan]

Holy crap that is funny. Team convinces Francouer that his teammate is deaf. Joke lasts a month.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Holy crap that is funny. Team convinces Francouer that his teammate is deaf. Joke lasts a month.

Advocacy group for the deaf releasing statement about how disrespectful this is to those who are actually deaf in 3...2...1

[cartman]

The Rangers are suffering from an extreme power outage to start the season. They've only scored more than 5 runs twice in the first 12 games, and 3 or fewer in seven.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by rowech

Advocacy group for the deaf releasing statement about how disrespectful this is to those who are actually deaf in 3...2...1

As one who is partially hearing-impaired, I'm more impressed that the teammate was able to keep up the charade for a month than concerned about disrespect.

See, the thing about pretending deafness when you're not actually deaf is, it's fucking hard to do. It means pretending to be unaware of any sounds you might come across, and that includes things like, say, a distressed mother screaming "MY BABY!" if a dangerous situation occurs. Or having your reactions on lockdown such that a sudden slamming door doesn't give you a start. Or perhaps your son isn't in on the prank and he hollers at you to get your attention. Someone's going to realize that, y'know, your kid isn't going to yell at you if you're completely deaf. He's more likely to tap you to get your attention and then sign to you (although he may still vocalize while he does that, yes).

I mean, there's no way I can include the full range of things that might trip the teammate up on a prank like this. Either Francoeur is literally the dumbest box of rocks ever, or this teammate is an acting genius and is in the wrong line of work entirely.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

...Someone's going to realize that, y'know, your kid isn't going to yell at you if you're completely deaf...

...Either Francoeur is literally the dumbest box of rocks ever...

If you watch the video, there's a point at which Francouer and the supposedly deaf teammate are out to dinner with the team. Francouer asks the guy's wife how she communicates with him, and the response is something along the lines of 'a lot of text messages, mostly gestures.' The random teammate relating this story in the video makes the point that Jeff is completely oblivious to the fact that sign language does indeed exist and yet they apparently don't use it.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Either Francoeur is literally the dumbest box of rocks ever, or this teammate is an acting genius and is in the wrong line of work entirely.

I absolutely believe Francouer is oblivious to everything. Reminds me of the Kevin Mench story where it wasn't until he was in the major leagues for 2 years that a trainer pointed out he was wearing shoes 2 sizes too small.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by rowech

Advocacy group for the deaf releasing statement about how disrespectful this is to those who are actually deaf in 3...2...1

That reminds me of a time I was working on learning on something we were training and we were doing a train back (where you train part of the material you just learned). And something came up about people with learning difficulties and I mention something about deaf people and it was like I said a bad word. I guess in some areas of the US using the word deaf is related to being dumb.

I honestly was dumbfounded since that isn't how it's looked at here in California.

[rowech]

Pirates have gone back-to-back three different times tonight, twice with the same two players.

[Scoobz0202]

And the Reds have four home runs to break the single game record for GABP at 10.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

And the Reds have four home runs to break the single game record for GABP at 10.

I have 5 fantasy homeruns in this game alone (for some reason decided to pick Gaby Sanchez up off the waiver wire, should have played daily fantasy baseball!). This will probably end with a rainout and I won't get any stats!

[rowech]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have 5 fantasy homeruns in this game alone (for some reason decided to pick Gaby Sanchez up off the waiver wire, should have played daily fantasy baseball!). This will probably end with a rainout and I won't get any stats!

They just went to delay at 7-7 at end of six. There have been 10 homeruns between the two teams. I believe the record is 12.

[Suicane75]

Wouldn't they just complete it at a later date?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Holy crap that is funny. Team convinces Francouer that his teammate is deaf. Joke lasts a month.

Awesome. He must be in his own world a lot; like when they said the catcher would be out talking to him with his glover over his mouth and he never caught on.... and the "hand gestures" thing...

[EagleFan]

Dom Brown!!!!!!

[EagleFan]

This guy is making me wish Pappelclown was closing...

[Logan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

This guy is making me wish Pappelclown was closing...

Phillies Fans' Reactions To Dan Uggla's Grand Slam Are Amazing

Was watching that live. The regular slo-mo shot that ESPN showed might have been more amazing.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Logan

Phillies Fans' Reactions To Dan Uggla's Grand Slam Are Amazing

Was watching that live. The regular slo-mo shot that ESPN showed might have been more amazing.

Beautiful and even funnier the second time watching it.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Logan

Phillies Fans' Reactions To Dan Uggla's Grand Slam Are Amazing

Was watching that live. The regular slo-mo shot that ESPN showed might have been more amazing.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Beautiful and even funnier the second time watching it.

That was good stuff

[MrBug708]

Anyone read this article about Puig?

http://www.lamag.com/features/2014/0...dodgers/page/1

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

SI, you going to any of the Royals games this week?

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Logan

Phillies Fans' Reactions To Dan Uggla's Grand Slam Are Amazing

Was watching that live. The regular slo-mo shot that ESPN showed might have been more amazing.

This was glorious.