Hey, I didn't feel it this year and they lost. Remember halfway when the Sox were rolling and seemed unstoppable? All the Sox fans were so arrogant. That sewason was so mediocre. Boring. Sorry, but baseball has to change. Basketball even changed a little toward the positive. Hockey expanded too much. Baseball needs a face lift
________________________________ From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Mon Nov 16 18:55:30 2009 Subject: Re: Re: Football Numbers Sure, sure, just like you knew the Sox would come back in 04....we believe you. On Nov 16, 2009 9:52pm, "Beaudoin, John" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I sent mine before I got the 4th one. See, I can predict the future on a > feeling and without data. > > > > > From: [email protected] [email protected]> > > To: [email protected] [email protected]> > > Sent: Mon Nov 16 17:46:08 2009 > Subject: Re: Football Numbers > > > > > 100% apparently. > > Stupid Blackberry. > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Beaudoin, John [email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the probability that Ray sends the same msg a 4th time? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: [email protected] [email protected]> > > To: [email protected] [email protected]> > > Sent: Mon Nov 16 14:24:56 2009 > > Subject: Re: Football Numbers > > > > > > > > While I think the probabilities around "the decision" was correct, I > > defer to Matt's point that everything around the decision was wrong. > > > > Belichick had a bad night and I think he cost us the game. > > > > On 11/16/09, Steve Gendron [email protected]> wrote: > > > However, I did want to point out, that while I am deferring to the odd-god, > > > in his initial analysis, he said the following: > > > > > > "I think that Indy had the same 50% chance of getting a touchdown whether > > > they were on our 30 or theirs." > > > I think we can say that this data proves this statement to be wrong. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [email protected] > > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Salemi > > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 7:49 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Football Numbers > > > > > > I calculate that Belichick's decision to go for it gave us a 70% chance of > > > winning the game. Here's my logic. Indy needed two things to happen for > > > them to win. They needed us not to convert, and they needed to score a > > > touchdown from the30 with 2 minutes and no time outs. Their chances were > > > the product of two probabilities. > > > > > > 1. Chances of stopping the Patriots conversion -- call it 60% > > > 2. Chances of scoring from the 30 with 2 minutes left and no timeouts -- > > > call it 50% (remember all the punting they did that day.) > > > > > > Indy's chances of winning: (60%) * (50%) = 30% > > > > > > Patriots chances = 70%. > > > > > > In addition, I think that Indy had the same 50% chance of getting a > > > touchdown whether they were on our 30 or theirs. > > > > > > If Faulk were 3 feet downfield Belichick is a genius. If Reggie Wayne > > > doesn't make a fingertip catch, Belichick is a genius. If the O-Line > > > doesn't get gashed just when they needed to make a stop, Belichick is a > > > genius. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from my mobile device > > > > Author of "Leading After a Layoff: Reignite Your Team's Productivity > > in Just 12 Weeks" > > www.leadingafteralayoff.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Author of "Leading After a Layoff: Reignite Your Team's Productivity in Just > 12 Weeks" > www.leadingafteralayoff.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
