There was a little bit of streamy goodness seeping through the digital airwaves yesterday, and fortunately for all of us, theScore was there to scoop it all up and put it on their MLB video page– both in its entirety, as you can see here, or in small bits. It’s Getting Streamed On, Episode 34 – The World Series Preview!

And if you’ve been a good member of the Monkey Army and have subscribed to The Getting Blanked Podcast on iTunes, you’ll be able to get an mp3 of yesterday’s business at some point there too. [Update: Yep... it's here.]

NEXT STREAM: Wednesday, October 26th, at 3:30 PM ET!

Comments (1)

  1. Much as I
    enjoy being the butt of (I’m sure affectionate) inside jokes, I suddenly
    realized today that Parkes doesn’t actually know the difference between the
    colloquial and scientific use of the word predict. So, though the season draws
    near its end, I’ll weigh in with one last effort; I hope you appreciate me
    taking this valuable time out of my busy day on behalf of Dustin Parkes. And I
    promise to make this my final attempt to inspire some rigor to the
    proceedings.   

     

    If you want
    to use the word “prediction” in the colloquial manner, that’s fine, but don’t
    try to have it both ways. If you’re using it colloquially then it has no
    scientific rigor and pretending otherwise is either dishonest or confused. In
    science predictions are repeatable; if it’s not repeatable, it’s a hypothesis
    (which, incidentally, can be legitimately based on statistical probability). If
    inconsistent correlation of expressed anticipation and objective outcome
    qualified as prediction then we’d have to declare astrology, roulette and
    inebriated bravado as predictive sciences.

     

    If you
    really believe you can predict any performance outcome in baseball exclusively on
    statistics, why don’t you follow your own advice: liquidate all your worldly
    belongings and bet every last penny on it? If you’d take the other side of the
    wager, I’d more than happily do that if I can be allowed to predict the
    direction of falling bodies on the earth’s surface, the temperature effects of
    reduced molecular friction or the number of times the earth rotates on its axis
    during the next lunar orbit. Such things are repeatable and thus predictable.
    Baseball performance outcomes (or any other) based on statistics are not.

     

    That’s why Vegas,
    for the right odds, will happily take ANY wager you want to make based on
    statistically derived probabilities, whereas they will not take my wager for ANY
    odds: mine actually is predictable and they’d simply be throwing away their
    money. But, if you think I’m wrong, I’ll take that wager. Finally, at the risk
    of stating the obvious, this is not about a semantic quibble, but illustrating
    a symptom of a chronic conceptual vanity that informs the previously referenced
    tendency to pseudo-expertise that has reduced my pleasure in the podcast of
    late. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *