How Many Stats Guru's Predicted That....

[The Rick]

<img src="http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b198/rshackelford/notthisagain.jpg"></img>

Tell me about it. We're just 6 pages away from my prediction on page 1 of this thread going 10 pages. And i'm no stat guru. I suppose I went on my gut feeling on this one.

[Old#5fan]

Through May of last year, Scott had 4 homers in 128 at bats.

So far this year, Scott has 3 homers in 122 at bats.

Last year, Scott hit 18 homers in 369 at bats.

I hate to use facts in a ridiculous thread like this but what the hell.

So that means automatically that Scott will duplicate his past season? I think anyone that is sane would know that is totally untrue. If so, how would stats experts account for Brady Anderson's one year of 50 home runs where he never even sniffed 40 before or after?

Your "facts" are utterly worthless. It is far more likely that Scott won't hit 18 homers in 369 at bats or anything close. Very, very few players are that consistent from year to year. Hank Aaron and AROD come to mind but they are rare superstar types. You are living in dreamland if you think Scott is going to be that consistent.

[The Rick]

So that means automatically that Scott will duplicate his past season? I think anyone that is sane would know that is totally untrue. If so, how would stats experts account for Brady Anderson's one year of 50 home runs where he never even sniffed 40 before or after?

Your "facts" are utterly worthless. It is far more unlikely that Scott won't hit 18 homers in 369 at bats or anything close. Very, very few players are that consistent from year to year. Hank Aaron and AROD come to mind but they are rare superstar types.

I agree with you! It's very likely he will. You're coming around eh? It must be snowing...

And how is it totally insane to think a player might duplicate their past results? No one's saying it's guaranteed. But these are tools to predict that they may.

I can't believe i'm even wasting my time with you, you'll never open your mind to consider another point of view or admit you may just be flat out wrong. And by may, I mean are flat out wrong.

[Lt Melmo]

So that means automatically that Scott will duplicate his past season? I think anyone that is sane would know that is totally untrue. If so, how would stats experts account for Brady Anderson's one year of 50 home runs where he never even sniffed 40 before or after?

Your "facts" are utterly worthless. It is far more unlikely that Scott won't hit 18 homers in 369 at bats or anything close. Very, very few players are that consistent from year to year. Hank Aaron and AROD come to mind but they are rare superstar types.

It takes a superstar to hit 18 homers in 369 at-bats two years in a row?

I would really like to make some bets with you.

[Old#5fan]

That depends on your definition of wrong.

Wrong.

Why would anyone want to say this?

Uh, because it is true?

I don't know of anyone with any sense who makes predictions on what Player X will be doing on May 18 - there's absolutely no reason to do so.

Uh, why not? It is about a quarter of the season and that is when most managers say by then you can get a pretty good read on a player and a team.

If Tony didn't frown on such things I'd be very happy to make a wager with you as to which player will hit more home runs this year.

I have had one PM already offering this. I turned them down because Payton doesn't have as much of a chance as he is getting way fewer at bats.

[Pedro Cerrano]

So that means automatically that Scott will duplicate his past season? I think anyone that is sane would know that is totally untrue. If so, how would stats experts account for Brady Anderson's one year of 50 home runs where he never even sniffed 40 before or after?

Your "facts" are utterly worthless. It is far more unlikely that Scott won't hit 18 homers in 369 at bats or anything close. Very, very few players are that consistent from year to year. Hank Aaron and AROD come to mind but they are rare superstar types.

How are the stats he provided utterly worthless? Let me ask you something...how do you gauge the value of a player if they aren't one of those superstars like Aaron and ARod? If every other player, in your eyes, is so inconsistent, how can you possibly know what their value is as a player?

[The Rick]

I have had one PM already offering this. I turned them down because Payton doesn't have as much of a chance as he is getting way fewer at bats.

Which is one of several reasons why people predicted Scott to have more homers anyway. So what was your point with this thread anyway? You won't even bet that your stance. Unbelievable.

[Lt Melmo]

And has anyone mentioned Scott's HR/FB% yet? 16.2% last year, 7.9% this year. He's hitting virtually the same amount of fly balls, too.

Payton, on the other hand, has had 5.9% and 5.2% the past two years (wow). This year it's 14.7%.

[Old#5fan]

I agree with you! It's very likely he will. You're coming around eh? It must be snowing...

And how is it totally insane to think a player might duplicate their past results? No one's saying it's guaranteed. But these are tools to predict that they may.

I can't believe i'm even wasting my time with you, you'll never open your mind to consider another point of view or admit you may just be flat out wrong. And by may, I mean are flat out wrong.

No, way, no how am I wrong about Scott. I guarantee you he won't hit 18 homers in 369 at bats this season. I highly doubt he gets 18 for the entire season.

[Old#5fan]

It takes a superstar to hit 18 homers in 369 at-bats two years in a row?

I would really like to make some bets with you.

No, just players aren't often that darn consistent, except a handful of superstars like Aaron and AROD. How hard is that concept to comprehend? If you really are a Lt. you ought to be plenty smart enough to understand that the first time I posted it.

[Crazysilver03]

So that means automatically that Scott will duplicate his past season? I think anyone that is sane would know that is totally untrue. If so, how would stats experts account for Brady Anderson's one year of 50 home runs where he never even sniffed 40 before or after?

Your "facts" are utterly worthless. It is far more likely that Scott won't hit 18 homers in 369 at bats or anything close. Very, very few players are that consistent from year to year. Hank Aaron and AROD come to mind but they are rare superstar types. You are living in dreamland if you think Scott is going to be that consistent.

Hey...its not fair to throw steroids into the argument.

By the way, I like my dreamland better than Old Fart Land. I like me some facts. Its like believing in gravity. It keeps me grounded.

[Old#5fan]

How are the stats he provided utterly worthless? Let me ask you something...how do you gauge the value of a player if they aren't one of those superstars like Aaron and ARod? If every other player, in your eyes, is so inconsistent, how can you possibly know what their value is as a player?

I simply go by observation, clutch hitting, and the three main classic statistical categories which I personally value the most, BA, Rbi and HRs. What they use to determine the Triple Crown.

[Old#5fan]

Hey...its not fair to throw steroids into the argument.

By the way, I like my dreamland better than Old Fart Land. I like me some facts. Its like believing in gravity. It keeps me grounded.

Whatever works for you is fine with me. I just ask for the same in return.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I simply go by observation, clutch hitting, and the three main classic statistical categories which value the most, BA, rbi and HRs. What they use to determine the Triple Crown.

Well since you "observed" Luke Scott hitting 18 HR in 300 some-odd ABs last year, what makes you so certain this year that he can't do it again?

[Old#5fan]

Which is one of several reasons why people predicted Scott to have more homers anyway. So what was your point with this thread anyway? You won't even bet that your stance. Unbelievable.

The bet should be who will homer more times per at/bat not have more homers. Any kind of bet based on total numbers when the players are comparable but one gets many more chances would be a sucker bet. :rolleyes:You are the one who is "unbelieveable" if you think anyone would be that big of a sucker to take that bet. I wasn't born yesterday.:laughlol: