2020-2021 Offseason Thread

[notin]

@ChrisCotillo

Barnes doesn't really have an explanation as to how he was cleared. Says he has taken like 8 tests in the last few days and they've all been negative. One positive from last week (Wed or Thurs).

 

The mystery thickens. How prevalent is a false positive?

 

For people with a positive test result but no virus - 100%...

[jad]

Let's see if I remember the math. If you have a test that's 95% accurate, and you administer it to a population where 10% actually have the virus, then roughly half the positives will be false positives.

[harmony]

@mlbtraderumors

Red Sox, Tyler Olson Agree To Minor League Deal

Tyler Olson was one of two Gonzaga lefthanders taken in the 2013 MLB draft:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?pos=P&year_ID=2013&draft_type=junreg&query_type=pos_year&from_type_jc=0&from_type_hs=0&from_type_4y=0&from_type_unk=0

 

The other was Seattle southpaw Marco Gonzales.

[notin]

Let's see if I remember the math. If you have a test that's 95% accurate, and you administer it to a population where 10% actually have the virus, then roughly half the positives will be false positives.

 

No.

 

Under those conditions, the rate of false positives would be just under 1/3 of the positive results.

 

If 90% of the population does not have the virus, then a 95% accuracy yields 86.5% negative, leaving 4.5% with false positive. On the other 10%, you get 9.5% accurate positives (and 0.5% false negative). So the rate of false positives (4.5%) among positive tests (14% or 4.5% + 9.5%) is roughly 32.1%, or just under 1 of 3 positive test results being a false positive

[moonslav59]

Are you deliberately wasting people's time? I don't understand why you'd do this.

 

I had my yearly physical, and my doctor suggested I get the test done right there at the office, for free.

 

I asked why I needed it, and he said it will let me know, if the vaccine worked.

 

I thought it was strange, but it was just a pin prick on a finger, so I went with it.

[jad]

No.

 

Under those conditions, the rate of false positives would be just under 1/3 of the positive results.

 

If 90% of the population does not have the virus, then a 95% accuracy yields 86.5% negative, leaving 4.5% with false positive. On the other 10%, you get 9.5% accurate positives (and 0.5% false negative). So the rate of false positives (4.5%) among positive tests (14% or 4.5% + 9.5%) is roughly 32.1%, or just under 1 of 3 positive test results being a false positive

 

Ha! nice. (Although in my defense, I did say "roughly".) What is interesting about this problem is (1) you can have more confidence in a negative result being accurate [iF, that is, your original premise of 10% 'real' infections is correct, which itself is based in part on the assumption of accuracy of testing!], and (2) it's not strictly a probability problem, since you cannot know WHY you are getting a false positive, and the existence of false positive may not be purely random. If it were random, then re-testing would solve things. But apparently, no one is willing to assume that. It's nice that we are now applying these models to the efficacy of vaccination rather than testing!

Edited March 30, 2021 by jad

[notin]

Ha! nice. (Although in my defense, I did say "roughly".) What is interesting about this problem is (1) you can have more confidence in a negative result being accurate [iF, that is, your original premise of 10% 'real' infections is correct, which itself is based in part on the assumption of accuracy of testing!], and (2) it's not strictly a probability problem, since you cannot know WHY you are getting a false positive, and the existence of false positive may not be purely random. If it were random, then re-testing would solve things. But apparently, no one is willing to assume that. It's nice that we are now applying these models to the efficacy of vaccination rather than testing!

 

Well, the confidence in the result - positive or negative - is the same. It’s 90%. But a false negative is obviously more dangerous, whereas a false positive just leads to unnecessary precautions.

 

Of course, that was using your parameters. The tests are not really 90% accurate and, depending on the test, do not give false positives and false negatives equally.

 

The fun thing was the original antibody tests, which were really only about 50% accurate (and cost over $100 and were not covered). What’s the point? You get the same result flipping a coin and calling “Heads I’m sick with a potentially deadly virus!”

[jad]

Well, the confidence in the result - positive or negative - is the same. It’s 90%. But a false negative is obviously more dangerous, whereas a false positive just leads to unnecessary precautions.

 

Of course, that was using your parameters. The tests are not really 90% accurate and, depending on the test, do not give false positives and false negatives equally.

 

The fun thing was the original antibody tests, which were really only about 50% accurate (and cost over $100 and were not covered). What’s the point? You get the same result flipping a coin and calling “Heads I’m sick with a potentially deadly virus!”

 

Not so. Because the % of infected and non-infected subjects is not the same, the confidence in positive/negative results is also NOT the same. That's the point of this math/probability exercise: it depends on the percentage of the general population carrying the infection, as you yourself state above.

 

If you get a negative result, you can be fairly confident that result is accurate (90-95% or so). If you get a positive result, you only have a 1 in 3 chance of that being accurate (this is using your own figures ).

 

(If there were no one carrying infections, for example, you could have 100% confidence in a negative result, 0% confidence in a positive one). To evaluate the results in a meaningful way, you need to know (or assume) what percentage of the gen. pop. is infected.

[Bellhorn04]

Looks like a good time to shut this thread down LOL

[mvp 78]

Looks like a good time to shut this thread down LOL

 

There's a whole other day to get through!!!

[Kimmi]

He had antibodies of COVID but not active COVID.

 

??? Peopled with antibodies from previously having COVID don't test positive, do they?

[mvp 78]

??? Peopled with antibodies from previously having COVID don't test positive, do they?

 

IDK.

 

It was apparently a false positive.

[jad]

Looks like a good time to shut this thread down LOL

 

48 hours to make asses of ourselves on topics no one either (1) understands (2) gives a crap about (3) believes related to baseball.

[moonslav59]

48 hours to make asses of ourselves...

 

One thing we all are pretty good at.

Edited March 31, 2021 by moonslav59

[jad]

48 hours to make asses of ourselves...

 

One thing we all are pretty good at.

 

It's all about practice.

[a700hitter]

@NBCSEdgeBB

Red Sox think Barnes could have false positive

And they have a false starting rotation.

[cp176]

And they have a false starting rotation.

 

Are you positive about this? When you have compiled all available data, is it not positive that there is a slight chance that your statement taken in part might be negative?

[mvp 78]

Preview of next year's thread:

 

@redsoxstats

Rosenthal @TheAthletic: "The list of clubs that potentially will be in the market for a shortstop next offseason figures to be rather lengthy: Start with all of the teams that might lose a free agent... Then add the Red Sox, if they want to move Xander Bogaerts off of short."

[Thunder]

And they have a false starting rotation.

 

Not to mention a false pitching staff. I trust the rotation more than the bullpen

[notin]

Preview of next year's thread:

 

@redsoxstats

Rosenthal @TheAthletic: "The list of clubs that potentially will be in the market for a shortstop next offseason figures to be rather lengthy: Start with all of the teams that might lose a free agent... Then add the Red Sox, if they want to move Xander Bogaerts off of short."

 

We will have to see if Lindor and Correa sign extensions. If so, the Super Shortstop Market takes a big hit...

[moonslav59]

We will have to see if Lindor and Correa sign extensions. If so, the Super Shortstop Market takes a big hit...

 

...making a Bogey opt out more intriguing.

[notin]

...making a Bogey opt out more intriguing.

 

Well, what also makes it intriguing might be the potential availability of Willy Adames...

[Bellhorn04]

...making a Bogey opt out more intriguing.

 

Bogey's opt out is after the 2022 season.

[moonslav59]

Bogey's opt out is after the 2022 season.

 

Yes, but teams maybe not being able to land Correa & Lindor, this winter, may be very interested in Bogey in 2022.

[Kimmi]

IDK.

 

It was apparently a false positive.

 

Pete Abraham

@peteabe

·

2h

Barnes is not regarded as a false positive but was deemed non-infectious.

 

 

Not trying to give you a hard time about this, but I really want to know how someone can test positive and be non-infectious. Jacko?

[Kimmi]

And they have a false starting rotation.

 

Not much more false than the other teams in the division.

[mvp 78]

Pete Abraham

@peteabe

·

2h

Barnes is not regarded as a false positive but was deemed non-infectious.

 

 

Not trying to give you a hard time about this, but I really want to know how someone can test positive and be non-infectious. Jacko?

 

No idea. I’m baffled as to what happened.

[oldtimer]

Interesting and probably true throughout MLBB, the field players for the Socks consist of Latinos or islanders with the exception of Dalbec and Palawecki. Even the utility players Gonzalez and Arroyo have that background. Perhaps they play BB year round on the islands and in the southern US where immigration has resulted in Latinos becoming a high proportion of the population. I'm and old guy and remember when there were very few, so times have changed. Not against the change, only noting it.

[Nick]

Yes, but teams maybe not being able to land Correa & Lindor, this winter, may be very interested in Bogey in 2022.

 

He will turn 30, how long can he play SS? If he's opting out, he'd want something like 8 yr, $200M? Maybe I'm way off base.

[mvp 78]

Interesting and probably true throughout MLBB, the field players for the Socks consist of Latinos or islanders with the exception of Dalbec and Palawecki. Even the utility players Gonzalez and Arroyo have that background. Perhaps they play BB year round on the islands and in the southern US where immigration has resulted in Latinos becoming a high proportion of the population. I'm and old guy and remember when there were very few, so times have changed. Not against the change, only noting it.

 

@SoxNotes

The Red Sox’ Opening Day roster features 14 players born in the United States, 3 in the Dominican Republic, 3 in Venezuela, 2 in Puerto Rico, 1 in Aruba, 1 in Canada, 1 in China, and 1 in Japan.