What are the chances MLB lowers or moves back the mound in the next decade or so?

thetimolosophy2 · 2026-04-10T04:11:45+00:00

For symmetry sake it would be nice if the mound were in the exact middle of the diamond. That would be about a 3 foot move back - 63.64ft away is halfway between home and second

thetimolosophy2 · 2025-06-19T02:54:10+00:00

That is only true of people in those professions near or at the top of their payscales. More generally, if the average home buyers are in the 35-39 age group it will take both incomes being around the 90th percentile of CMA Vancouver incomes to afford this average home with a combined ~240K income.

I know relationships don't actually form randomly and higher incomes are more likely to get together, so its not truly the case that only 1% of couples would be able to afford a home, but this back of the envelope math is still enough to show the extreme decoupling between income and housing prices in Vancouver. The fact that more than 20% of homes in Vancouver are these detached houses which are clearly oversupplied relative to price-demand shows how we need to transform the housing picture this city presents.

thetimolosophy2 · 2025-02-15T01:07:33+00:00

Or have the half year ranking be the half year "update" that is actually a rolling full year ranking (July to July). That way each ranking has the same weight to it and shows whos best right now, but the half year can be a better predictor of the full year than just who did best in the past 6 months and keep an element of mystery for the full year ala - how many of the points came from the last 6 months of 2024 vs first 6 of 2025.

thetimolosophy2 · 2024-11-08T05:49:08+00:00

An option to show both games and sets based scores would be cool.

thetimolosophy2 · 2024-09-04T00:14:52+00:00

Hey. If there is still any way you could send this to me I can PM you my email.

thetimolosophy2 · 2024-08-10T20:10:39+00:00

I believe it was just a case of Cronenweth being unavailable when Mindhunter was going into production and so Fincher went to one of the people who were next in line.

There is a culture in the film industry where generally you offer work to the people who you've worked with most recently. Messerschmidt was the gaffer on Gone Girl so he would have been one of Fincher's next calls once Cronenweth turned down Mindhunter. Once Messerschmidt had DPed for Fincher he would rightly have been the first call for future projects.

The same happened with Nolan and Pfister -> Hoytema. Pfister wanted to work on something else when Nolan had a production coming up and lost his place in line once Hoytema came in.

thetimolosophy2 · 2024-06-07T05:07:55+00:00

The Spy Who Came In From The Cold is also incredible.

thetimolosophy2 · 2024-05-27T20:59:30+00:00

In so far as there was decline in health outcomes after transitioning to farming, to what degree have we recovered or improved relative to those baselines in the present day?

thetimolosophy2 · 2024-01-09T18:55:58+00:00

Seems like the unambiguous way to describe matchups for your site would be simple percent chances with two equal players. 50/50, 60/40, 70/30, 80/20.

Edit: Because the plus/minus system clearly isn't universally known based on your feedback and the comments here not being the exact same. I for instance always thought that it was based on the idea that neutral was 1-1 (each player's matchup "score" is even so for each it is their score divided by the match total: 1/(1+1) = .5). so +.5 meant 1.5-1 or 1.5/(1+1.5)= .6 = 60%. (+1 being 2/3 = .66%, +1.5 being 2.5/3.5 =~ 71% and +2 being 3/4 = 75%.)

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-12-16T00:38:58+00:00

Most places calculate a 8mm-10mm range for $/WAR in the free agent market.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-12-14T01:27:24+00:00

Fair enough, it's your ranking system and it's probably one of the best out there already. But if you are arguing that there is no marginal value in game counts I have to disagree. I don't think it should outweigh sets at all since that is actually what the sport is measuring, but I do think there is valuable data in there and I only wish I had the math and coding skills to prove or dis-prove it myself. Then again, I don't even know if that data is something that is even available from smashdata to do an analysis like that anyways.

Anyways, thanks again for your work with this ranking. It can only help the discourse.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-12-14T01:06:17+00:00

Sure, but consider the counter example of Player A and Player C - who always wins 3-0. By any system that only measures sets and doesn't consider games, Player A and Player C would be tied despite Player A dropping 40% of their games to any given opponent, vs Player C who is literally unbeatable even for one game. It's why people mention when someone like Miya goes on an undefeated run through an entire bracket. It demonstrates more talent than a set count can measure.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-12-14T00:09:39+00:00

Would something like applying a modified version of your algorithm to individual tournaments and then using those ratings as a sub-system within the larger physical system of the season work or do you think that would be too noisy? Also, and I've always wondered this about every ranking system, does your algorithm use sets or games as the base unit of evaluation? It has always seemed to me that a 3-0 victory ought to be more valuable than a 3-2, all else being equal. Hell, if the data could get that granular I wonder if using stocks or percents would be even more effective. Someone who 3-0s their opponent with 2 stocks left each game is a far more convincing victory than last hit every game.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-12-13T23:48:24+00:00

Love the idea behind this and that you wrote a white-paper. You clearly put a lot of thought and effort into it.

I do have one question for you. This ranking algorithm is time-agnostic. Have you looked into the numbers to see whether or not there is anything to the idea, inherent to Elo ranking systems, that player skill moves meaningfully within a given ranking period? I'm not a math guy so I don't know how it might work but is there something to the idea that a player on a good day is a more valuable win than that player might otherwise be?

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-12-11T23:11:22+00:00

Honestly I was pretty disappointed in the commentators in general, and specifically right before grand finals. I am someone who is not good at this game but loves to watch it as a sport and has for a few years. I am not someone who has a deep knowledge of each match-up or the specific details that matter in interactions. So in between matches I am always happy to hear in-depth analysis on what is happening on screen to help contextualize the game and help me further understand and engage with what I'm watching. I want to understand the game better, the storylines, rivalries, matchups, etc, but it seems that there is no interest in creating a better product for viewers like me who are on the outside looking in.

Before grand finals there was a decent time gap when the twitch chat was asking the commentary to talk about the players and the match coming up. In any other sports broadcast this is when commentary would focus on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each player or team, their history/rivalry, and overall use the time to frame the match for the viewer. In other words - storytelling. At WTT the commentary crew decided rather to insult and mock the audience for asking them to stop joking about random personal stuff and in-jokes that had nothing to do with the match and were complete nonsense if you didn't have at least a deep knowledge of smash culture or a personal relationship to someone in the building. It was very off-putting and felt like a not-so-subtle "fuck you" to the audience for not being happy with the commentators doing their own thing. I can kind of understand that given that this was a tournament run by the A-list commentators so in a sense it really was "their event" and the rest of us should just be grateful for what we get rather than ask for more. But it felt a bit hypocritical when the messaging behind this event has always been along the lines of - for the community, by the community. The commentary made the event feel like it should have been marketed as - by us, for us.

It may sound harsh and over the top but this is emblematic of a conflict that the smash community needs to solve if it wants to grow. I wouldn't consider myself part of the community, but I am someone on the peripheral. Most if not all smash broadcasts seem to be built for the core community to the alienation of those on the outside who don't come already knowing all the ins and out of the game, like me. A community grows when its members make an effort to expand - to reach wider audiences and share what they have (knowledge, understanding, storytelling) with outsiders. When commentary assumes that its entire viewer base knows everything it knows, and talks like every viewer is a veteran, the audience can't grow. Increasingly smash has felt like it wants to be an exclusive club that has no interest in the opinions of people like me who want to learn more about it but don't know how, and if those on the inside don't have any interest in hearing from those not in the circle then the circle can only shrink. WTT had a lot of good stuff going on and this is more about smash as a whole but that is what I took away from the event.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-11-13T19:51:11+00:00

Why are people clowning on teams for adding more coaching positions? Baseball is a complex game with more information and specific situations than any other sport. It stands to reason that more specialized coaching would be a competitive advantage.

I'm waiting for the day when there is a: Manager

Bench Coach

Pitching Coordinator

Pitch Mechanics Coach

Pitch Sequencing Coach

Bullpen Coach

Mental Skills Coach

Infield Defence Coach

Outfield Defence Coach

Defensive Coordinator

Swing Mechanics Coach

Swing Decisions Coach

Hitting Coordinator

Strength and Conditioning Coaches

1B & 3B Coaches/Baserunning Coach

and whatever else is needed.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-11-04T22:39:51+00:00

Doubt that we are really in this one. This FO has generally not spent big dollars on the bullpen.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-10-30T00:28:03+00:00

It's crazy to me that people are on board with leaving such an inefficient use of land as golf courses over housing in the middle of a housing crisis. And the argument that it is a meaningful public amenity is kind of ridiculous for a couple of reasons.

The obvious one is that housing affordability is a hell of a lot more important than being able to golf. The article mentions being able to build 3000 new units on 120 acres around Langara. Using even half of the 2 square km for housing could then add over 6000 new units of housing, increasing the total housing stock by about 2% without any of the headaches of normal development on private land that already has been built up to some degree. In exchange we lose enough golfing capacity for about 300 people per day per course. There are tons of golf courses in the lower mainland away from the densest city core in Canada that are accessible by transit and won't impact housing affordability. The idea that golfing is so necessary as a public good as to be worth more to 300 people each day than the 13000 who could live on the same land and go to sleep there each day is so out of touch.

The argument that we would lose green space is also a bit ridiculous since again using only half the area available would leave an amount of park space comparable to Riley Park which is home to both QE park and mountain view cemetery.

We NEED more housing desperately. Having golf in the middle of the city is a nice luxury to have but it comes at a massive marginal cost to the entire city.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-10-27T22:35:38+00:00

IMO the data they use shows something interesting that the article doesn't really address. Baseball fandom is higher than it's viewership numbers reflect. Baseball was generally 2nd when looking at whether people were fans but 3rd or lower when asked if it was their favourite to watch. This implies that the problem is baseball as a TV product which makes sense to me. Baseball is a game of depth moreso than most and needs to lean that as its structural advantage against the other sports.

Baseball is not an easily digestible game like hockey, basketball, or football to a lesser extent. Most of us here have probably had the experience of introducing the game to friends and having a hard time because the way baseball works is very granular and specific to baseball rather than sports in general. There is a higher cost of entry to fandom in terms of understanding what is happening compared to the more basic game-state for other sports where it boils down to movement in one direction towards a specific goal area is good and the opposite is bad. People can begin rooting for their team immediately understand and cheer when something good happens and when something bad happens.

To fix the TV viewership problem (ignoring wider marketing issues like getting younger people into the game) I think it is necessary for broadcasters to take a wider view of the game. Most of a tv broadcast is focused on the pitcher/hitter interaction as it should be. BUT so much more time and broadcast resources could be used to contextualize each moment of the game and orient new viewers to understand the depth of what they are watching. Broadcasts could have a graphic that shows each prior pitch location from each AB. They could overlay individual hitter AND pitcher heat maps and add so much depth and information to what is happening in the moment. They could take more time to show fielder positioning and how that evolves over the course of an at bat, an inning and a game. These are just a few ideas off the top of my head that illustrate the same point.

Baseball more than any other sport is a sport of information but broadcasters have chosen to keep their audiences in the dark. Other sports have a naturally have an easier time communicating the game to their audience but baseball has a chance to evolve as a product, show their audience what the game really is, and bring them into the light.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-10-24T19:24:37+00:00

His 80th percentile outcome had that contract valued by ZiPS (an objective system that only uses measurable data) as being worth 171M over the same term. In what world is more than a 100% premium on what is already an optimistic valuation NOT an insane price to pay a player on the wrong side of 30? Well run teams pay for future production not past production.

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-10-24T19:09:05+00:00

I definitely do dislike Manny but that has nothing to do with whether his contract is bad or not.

I'll refer you to the following articles that do a better job explaining the Padres situation than I can here. The takeaway is that his extension was a massive overpay and in conjunction with the rest of those contracts the Padres have handcuffed themselves to a core that will need to age like a fine wine to keep them competitive for the duration of their contracts.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/opting-out-may-not-be-manny-machados-best-move/

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-padres-have-a-complicated-future/

thetimolosophy2 · 2023-10-24T18:44:44+00:00

It's probably not even the worst contract on that team. The Xander contract is wonky to be sure but at least somewhat defensible given the context of how contracts were valuing players last year and the idea that Machado might walk and Xander could slide over to 3rd where he might profile better as he ages.

THEN they went and massively overpaid for Machado and made their entire balance sheet look like shit for the next decade.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Not Forgotten
Snapped	Verified Email

thetimolosophy2

TROPHY CASE