Woodrey needs to be moved..

[Brian Piccolo]

Oh, goodness. You think there is a "best team" and the "best team" doesn't always win.

I could give you the top 5 teams and you'd very rarely (if ever) get it right.

You keep dodging when the easiest thing to do is just admit that it's the truth.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

UCLA and Arizona were easily within the top 4% of all teams in those years.

Top 4%?

In what other sport do you have to go 12 deep to find a champion? And so consistently too.

All this pretzel twisting just to avoid admitting the truth.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

But you have an excuse for each small sample size......when we lose.

A small sample size is self-explanatory. It needs no excuse.

Anything can happen in a small sample size.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

UCLA and Arizona were easily within the top 4% of all teams in those years.

Top 4%?

In what other sport do you have to go 12 deep to find a champion? And so consistently too.

All this pretzel twisting just to avoid admitting the truth.

This explains a lot. You're in a football mindset. In college baseball, you could do a round robin with the top 12 teams and not come out with a clear champion. Show me another sport where the best teams lose 15 games.

After all this, you finally admit that you don't know the difference between football and baseball. I act shocked.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

In college baseball, you could do a round robin with the top 12 teams and not come out with a clear champion. Show me another sport where the best teams lose 15 games.

This is what I've been saying the last 2 months!

I've literally been saying that the outcomes are random and you've been denying it. Now all of the sudden you're saying it and claiming that I'm not getting it.

Amazing.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

After all this, you finally admit that you don't know the difference between football and baseball. I act shocked.

You're usually about half troll but I love how go full troll when you've been smoked on the issue.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

In college baseball, you could do a round robin with the top 12 teams and not come out with a clear champion. Show me another sport where the best teams lose 15 games.

This is what I've been saying the last 2 months!

I've literally been saying that the outcomes are random and you've been denying it. Now all of the sudden you're saying it and claiming that I'm not getting it.

Amazing.

Oh, but you're missing a very key point. If we had the top 12 teams play a round robin schedule, we would expect to see a lot of close games and a lot of records close to .500, agreed?

But the University of Miami baseball team has played several of those teams in the post-season over the last 7 years.....and hasn't won once. Not one time. That's a sign that Miami has not belonged with those teams. Because, as you say, the top teams would be expected to beat each other on a regular basis.

So don't get too excited. I have exposed your theory again.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

After all this, you finally admit that you don't know the difference between football and baseball. I act shocked.

You're usually about half troll but I love how go full troll when you've been smoked on the issue.

Please. You have contradicted yourself the whole time, and you clearly don't get the nature of the sport. You haven't figured out that there isn't a "best team", that there are several teams good enough to win the whole thing.

Just not Miami.

You think this is football, where there are at most three teams who should win it all. And if one of them doesn't, it must have been some crazy random quirk.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Oh, but you're missing a very key point. If we had the top 12 teams play a round robin schedule, we would expect to see a lot of close games and a lot of records close to .500, agreed?

This has basically been the crux of my entire argument that you've been fighting this whole time. Results are random because of both the nature of the sport and the variance in performance.

Somehow now you think that it's your point and I'm missing it.

I love it.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

You haven't figured out that there isn't a "best team", that there are several teams good enough to win the whole thing.

Again those are not mutually exclusive.

There are 'best' teams and there are also teams good enough to win it.

That doesn't explain how Fresno State won in 2008 or Arizona won in 2012 or Virginia won in 2015.

You've been fighting this concept of parity and randomness the whole time and now you're claiming that it's yours.

Laughable.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Just not Miami.

Just to prove, once again, that you don't know anything about this topic.

Just because they didn't win it doesn't mean they weren't good enough to win it. It just means they didn't win it.

You've struggled with this concept the entire time.

But I'm sure you'll claim this as your own in due time.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

You think this is football, where there are at most three teams who should win it all. And if one of them doesn't, it must have been some crazy random quirk.

Again, no.

There are 'best' teams. That's quantifiable. The best team (or even the 5 best teams) never win the College World Series. It's not some anomaly. It's the nature of the sport.

In the NBA for instance the Golden State Warriors are clearly the best team in the league but there are probably 4 teams (Warriors, Thunder, Spurs, Cavaliers) that could win it all. The Indiana Pacers never win it!

The Indiana Pacers have won it about 3 times in the last 8 years in college baseball.

You've spent the last 2+ months fighting this concept and have now just adopted it as your own.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Oh, but you're missing a very key point. If we had the top 12 teams play a round robin schedule, we would expect to see a lot of close games and a lot of records close to .500, agreed?

This has basically been the crux of my entire argument that you've been fighting this whole time. Results are random because of both the nature of the sport and the variance in performance.

Somehow now you think that it's your point and I'm missing it.

I love it.

But results aren't "random", unless you just don't get the definition of the word. When 12 good teams play against each other, there are going to be great games and they are going to beat each other because they are all good. Nothing about it is "random".

 

[Brian Piccolo]

But results aren't "random", unless you just don't get the definition of the word.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness

Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events. Randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

It seems that you don't understand what randomness is much like a lot of other things.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

You haven't figured out that there isn't a "best team", that there are several teams good enough to win the whole thing.

Again those are not mutually exclusive.

There are 'best' teams and there are also teams good enough to win it.

That doesn't explain how Fresno State won in 2008 or Arizona won in 2012 or Virginia won in 2015.

You've been fighting this concept of parity and randomness the whole time and now you're claiming that it's yours.

Laughable.

Uh, no, sunshine. I am not promoting that anything is "random". You have to go with the "random" angle because that's how you can deflect 2002-2015 from Jim Morris. My point is that there are more than four teams good enough to win it all. But we're not one of those anymore.

By the way, Arizona was #8 and #13 in the human polls and #8 in the ISR BEFORE the post-season began. It's anyone's guess as to how you are using them to make your already flimsy point about randomness.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

Just not Miami.

Just to prove, once again, that you don't know anything about this topic.

Just because they didn't win it doesn't mean they weren't good enough to win it. It just means they didn't win it.

You've struggled with this concept the entire time.

But I'm sure you'll claim this as your own in due time.

That's where people like you get bogged down by numbers and don't really watch games. Those Miami teams were not good enough to win the whole thing.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

When 12 good teams play against each other, there are going to be great games and they are going to beat each other because they are all good. Nothing about it is "random".

Proving once more that you don't know what random is.

Randomness is the lack of a pattern. Unpredictability. Variance.

That's exactly what you just described.

 

[Jaromir Jagr]

You think this is football, where there are at most three teams who should win it all. And if one of them doesn't, it must have been some crazy random quirk.

Again, no.

There are 'best' teams. That's quantifiable. The best team (or even the 5 best teams) never win the College World Series. It's not some anomaly. It's the nature of the sport.

In the NBA for instance the Golden State Warriors are clearly the best team in the league but there are probably 4 teams (Warriors, Thunder, Spurs, Cavaliers) that could win it all. The Indiana Pacers never win it!

The Indiana Pacers have won it about 3 times in the last 8 years in college baseball.

You've spent the last 2+ months fighting this concept and have now just adopted it as your own.

Nah, you just get any of this well enough to understand the dialogue.

The problem is your starting point. You begin with the idea that "Jim Morris is a phenomenal manager". You then have to come up with a theory that fits your pre-supposition. Jim Morris hasn't won squat in 15 years? Oh, because baseball is "random". Jim Morris won a lot from 1994-2001? Oh, that's because Jim Morris is a great post-season leader.

Only those off us who aren't on the teet can stand back and judge this without bias.

In less than one month:
"We ran into a buzzsaw"
"It's crazy how bad our tuition hurts us"
"We lost by a dozen because baseball is random"

Just a matter of time.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

When 12 good teams play against each other, there are going to be great games and they are going to beat each other because they are all good.

Virginia was 21st in the RPI. They were 37th in the ISR!

They weren't a top 5% team. It's debatable whether they were even in the top 10% of the sport.

You're clueless.

 

[Brian Piccolo]

Uh, no, sunshine. I am not promoting that anything is "random".

Because you clearly don't know what the word means.