Prev: Will the Sox be the highest paid team that doesn't make the playoffs?
Next: Tweet 4/24
From: Wayback1918 on 23 Apr 2010 05:39
On Apr 23, 12:09 am, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:56:14 -0700 (PDT), Wayback1918
>
>
>
>
>
> <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Apr 22, 4:55 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 21, 10:58 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > Look at whatever stats you want and you will find that JD Drew has,
> >> > until this year, been a v. productive hitter and an above average
> >> > fielder for the RS.
>
> >> I'm convinced.
>
> >> > And he had a GS today.
>
> >> You should know better than to play that sample in a discussion about
> >> stats.
>
> >> As I like to say, the exception proves the rule. It is the absence of
> >> production when it is needed most that makes JD Drew a statistically
> >> above average player (who is slightly below average when it matters).
> >> Average is not that high a bar; this is the Red Sox, not the majority
> >> of perpetual non-contenders.
>
> >> Statistics are easily abused.  They are a useful tool, but only if
> >> paired with astute observation.  It's a mistake when someone like Bill
> >> James treats the game as a statistical exercise--taking into account
> >> only the things they have tried to quantify, and failing to comprehend
> >> all of the things they have yet to quantify. It's arrogant, hubris.
> >> That type of thinking brings us players like Drew in the first place.
> >> What makes Pedroia a more valuable player than JD?  OBP?  OPS+?  There
> >> isn't one metric which can quantify it. Of those two, who is more
> >> likely to battle deep into the count against a dominant pitcher that
> >> has been pounding the zone--and which one is likely to flail weakly at
> >> an outside slider everyone sees coming before he steps into the box?
>
> >Drew was 12th in the league in OPS+ much higher than league average.
> >But why would anyone just use one stat?
>
> >Your assertion that Drew is below average when it counts is
> >laughable.  I hope you try to make that case.....Make my day!
>
> >You must not have read anything by Bill James.  If you had you would
> >know that he had a deep love of the game as its played on the field as
> >well.
>
> >Actually Ortiz is leading the team right now Pitches/PA
> >Ortiz       4.89
> >Drew       4.21
> >Pedroia   4.17
> >Youkilis   4.16
>
> >There is so much more you are wrong about (and it was only a few
> >sentences).....a below average post.....and the bar is set pretty low
> >here.
>
> Thanks for the P/PA numbers. I see Drew and Pedroia are pretty close.
> where are these numbers avaialble? My guess is that Drew is more ahead
> in prior years.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/2010-pitches-batting.shtml

JD was always high in Pitches/PA but he only went over the 4.00 mark
when he reached the Red Sox. For his career he is 3.92

Youkilis is the best. His career number is 4.32

Ortiz is over 4.00 for his career. Varitek was for a few years when
was closer to his peak.
From: McDuck on 22 Apr 2010 00:58
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 09:21:57 -0700 (PDT), Throws like Mary
<yank_ees_suck(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 21, 8:30�am, JeffH <redsoxpatriot...(a)aol.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 21, 4:22�am, NK wrote:

>>
>> That was a horrible reply to my thread, How could anyone even post
>> that nonsense? �
>
>NK is to statistics what a sledgehammer is to fine construction: the
>wrong tool for the job.
>
>(NK is a sockpuppet who mostly comments to me. Find someone in this
>group who doesn't think critically--doesn't even believe that thinking
>critically is desirable attribute--has been embarrassed by yours
>truly, has a spoon-fed understanding of statistics, and lacks the
>courage to stand toe-to-toe with an intellectual superior--and you've
>found NK. It's not difficult to imagine who that might be....)

Look at whatever stats you want and you will find that JD Drew has,
until this year, been a v. productive hitter and an above average
fielder for the RS. And he had a GS today.
From: Throws like Mary on 23 Apr 2010 12:48
On Apr 22, 10:18 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Do you know anything about stats other than random terms? I'm not
> meaning to be nasty --- just asking. You probably do not actually mean
> "sample size" b/c in all the cases we have addresssed, we are using
> the entire data set, not a sample of that set.

What's amusing about your remark is that the *size* of the sample is
what matters, not the "completeness." :) The use of an entire
population is preferable when available, which makes your use of JD's
grand slam as statistically "meaningful" even more absurd.

"And he had a GS today."--McDuck

"You should know better than to play that sample in a discussion
about
stats."--TLM

I said "sample." Your comment was a sample, not a "complete
set." (For some reason you didn't follow up my remark inline?)

Anyway, let's get back to correcting your error. When you used the
example of JD's grand slam, a "sample size" of one, that was
statistically meaningless. You knew it--that's why you are being
defensive and trying to distract attention away from the error using a
trivial semantic argument. It's called a "red herring" (but I don't
need to tell you that.)


> Of course, it is v.
> common in this ng and elsewhere to use the term "sample size" when the
> "sample" is 100% of the data set, so we all know what you nean by that
> usage. Better terminology, however, is to say "small data set".


Actually, you are using the wrong terminology. As I said, this is a
red herring, but since you brought it up: a sample is the portion of a
population, the analysis of which yields meaningful generalizations
about the entire population. Typically it is a subset due to
difficulty sampling the entire population. When the total population
can be analyzed this is often desirable. The full term is "sample
population." From that you should see your mistake. This is nothing
more than a semantic red herring; *own your error*.

Also, your use of "data set" is incorrect. It isn't synonymous with
"population." A data set is merely the set of data being analyzed, it
could be a random sample, or it could be an entire population, etc. It
could be five numbers, or ten thousand. You brought it up so it bears
correcting.


>
> In the case of pitches/PA, the data set is rather large, or certainly
> could be. And the range is pretty wide.

The AL league average in 2009 is 3.84 pitches/PA. The variance is .
0043.



>
> I know what a standard deviation is, but I do not see its relevance to
> any point you were trying to make. What do you see as its relevance in
> this discussion?


Of course you don't. But then, you didn't see the point of my
argument, which was that statistics generalize about the whole
population, they don't describe specific events or tell you why
differences in similar events are important unless you know how to
isolate what is important about the differences. You don't. The metric
of P/Pa doesn't describe discreet events in a meaningful way, it
generalizes, aggregates. If you didn't follow that, I wouldn't expect
you to follow the more subtle point about attempting to infer
something specific and meaningful from statistics with an extremely
narrow distribution.

[remaining ad hom garbage snipped]

From: McDuck on 23 Apr 2010 14:06
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:48:12 -0700 (PDT), Throws like Mary
<yank_ees_suck(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 22, 10:18�pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Do you know anything about stats other than random terms? I'm not
>> meaning to be nasty --- just asking. You probably do not actually mean
>> "sample size" b/c in all the cases we have addresssed, we are using
>> the entire data set, not a sample of that set.
>
>What's amusing about your remark is that the *size* of the sample is
>what matters, not the "completeness." :) The use of an entire
>population is preferable when available, which makes your use of JD's
>grand slam as statistically "meaningful" even more absurd.
>
>"And he had a GS today."--McDuck
>
>"You should know better than to play that sample in a discussion
>about
>stats."--TLM
>
>I said "sample." Your comment was a sample, not a "complete
>set." (For some reason you didn't follow up my remark inline?)
>
>Anyway, let's get back to correcting your error. When you used the
>example of JD's grand slam, a "sample size" of one, that was
>statistically meaningless. You knew it--that's why you are being
>defensive and trying to distract attention away from the error using a
>trivial semantic argument. It's called a "red herring" (but I don't
>need to tell you that.)
>

Okay, so you don't understand stats and you are rude and, when asked
nicely to explain yourself, you make up a phony story of my drawing
statistical conclusions from a GS by Drew (in fact, I was poking a bit
of fun at you for picking his GS day for your anti-Drew venom). . So I
guess I now understand how to evaluate your comments. Thanks for the
useful information.
From: Throws like Mary on 22 Apr 2010 19:50
On Apr 22, 4:56 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:

> Actually Ortiz is leading the team right now Pitches/PA
> Ortiz       4.89
> Drew       4.21
> Pedroia   4.17
> Youkilis   4.16
>
> There is so much more you are wrong about (and it was only a few
> sentences).....a below average post.....and the bar is set pretty low
> here.

Lol. You missed the part about low standard deviation, sample size,
the whole "quasi-stat-head" ball of wax, didn't you? Never mind the
entire argument about what stats can't tell you. That's what's
amusing to me. (That's why I come here.)
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Will the Sox be the highest paid team that doesn't make the playoffs?
Next: Tweet 4/24