Prev: Will the Sox be the highest paid team that doesn't make the playoffs?
Next: Tweet 4/24
From: Wayback1918 on 22 Apr 2010 19:55
On Apr 22, 7:50 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.)

Loser....
From: Dano on 22 Apr 2010 20:17
Wayback1918 wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:50 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 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.)
>
> Loser....

And THAT'S why she's in my KF...


From: Throws like Mary on 22 Apr 2010 20:38
On Apr 22, 5:55 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 7:50 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 4:56 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>

> > > Ortiz       4.89
> > > Drew       4.21
> > > Pedroia   4.17
> > > Youkilis   4.16

> > 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.)
>
> Loser....

Typical reaction of the schooled: No answer, call opponent a name.

What part of *less than one pitch a plate appearance* did you think
could be descriptive--over ~62 at bats no less? Did you even think
before you pulled up those numbers?
From: Wayback1918 on 22 Apr 2010 21:13
On Apr 22, 8:38 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 5:55 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 7:50 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 4:56 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Ortiz       4.89
> > > > Drew       4.21
> > > > Pedroia   4.17
> > > > Youkilis   4.16
> > > 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.)
>
> > Loser....
>
> Typical reaction of the schooled:  No answer, call opponent a name.
>
> What part of *less than one pitch a plate appearance* did you think
> could be descriptive--over ~62 at bats no less?  Did you even think
> before you pulled up those numbers?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Big loser....
From: Throws like Mary on 22 Apr 2010 21:17
On Apr 22, 7:13 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 8:38 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 5:55 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 22, 7:50 pm, Throws like Mary <yank_ees_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 22, 4:56 pm, Wayback1918 <wayback1...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Ortiz       4.89
> > > > > Drew       4.21
> > > > > Pedroia   4.17
> > > > > Youkilis   4.16
> > > > 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.)
>
> > > Loser....
>
> > Typical reaction of the schooled:  No answer, call opponent a name.
>
> > What part of *less than one pitch a plate appearance* did you think
> > could be descriptive--over ~62 at bats no less?  Did you even think
> > before you pulled up those numbers?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Big loser....

Wow. That puts the exclamation point on my earlier remark, doesn't
it?
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