Is Confidence In Winning A Barrier To Sucess?

[SilentJames]

Of course I would, as generally you could say he should be a better player than Pinson in the future as well but that is all you can say. What I am denouncing is anyone who thinks they would have been able to predict Frank's Triple Crown Year in 1966 by using statistics as a predictor. Nobody could then, and nobody can now. Statistics are no better than a guess with a range built into them.

I could have said I predict Frank will be the best hitter on the Orioles in 1966 and wouldn't need to be an expert in statistics to do so. Whereas as stats guru would say I predict he will hit in a range of 300-320 with 32-40 homers and 100-115 rbi's. So what? I don't see where that is anymore useful at all. Neither of us would have foreseen his best season ever now would we?

But you said this::

That's because statistical analysis is so unreliable as to be useless as a predictor of anything meaningful.

So you are saying that using stats to figure an expected range of expectations is not meaningful at all?

[SilentJames]

I swear my ACT results gave me a 60% chance of getting a C or better in College which was why I went to a Junior College for my first couple years. (I had no confidence and had to pay my own way anyway). So at that time they did "predict" your grade chances despite your counter-assertion.

You did guess right, I avoided a course in statistics by taking Linguistics instead.:laughlol:

You know if you talk like that in bars I frequent you will get thrown out on your ear.

please.

[Old#5fan]

But you said this::

So you are saying that using stats to figure an expected range of expectations is not meaningful at all?

When it comes to baseball. It no doubt would be useful in many other things like predicting the weather, etc.

[Old#5fan]

You know if you talk like that in bars I frequent you will get thrown out on your ear.

please.

What are you griping about now? I swear every word in that post is true so help me God! I would swear under oath to the Supreme Court that is the truth.

[SilentJames]

When it comes to baseball. It no doubt would be useful in many other things like predicting the weather, etc.

Wait a minute, that is complete bullcrap. So everything else in existence is based in a world that respects the laws of statistical probability, except baseball.

Next you are going to tell me that it only take five minutes for water to soak into a grit in your kitchen.

This is one of those moments where you just need to admit that you are wrong.

[CrimsonTribe]

insanity - in·san·i·ty (ĭn-sān'ĭ-tē) - n. - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[BRobinsonfan]

Of course I would, as generally you could say he should be a better player than Pinson in the future as well but that is all you can say. What I am denouncing is anyone who thinks they would have been able to predict Frank's Triple Crown Year in 1966 by using statistics as a predictor. Nobody could then, and nobody can now. Statistics are no better than a guess with a range built into them.

I could have said I predict Frank will be the best hitter on the Orioles in 1966 and wouldn't need to be an expert in statistics to do so. Whereas as stats guru would say I predict he will hit in a range of 300-320 with 32-40 homers and 100-115 rbi's. So what? I don't see where that is anymore useful at all. Neither of us would have foreseen his best season ever now would we?

Of course no one on the board - or in their right mind for that matter - would use statistics (or past performance) to suggest that a given player would win the Triple Crown in a given year.

But if you looked at Luis Aparicio's batting history in 1965 and you looked at Frank Robinson's batting history in 1965 - who would you think had a better shot at winning a triple crown? Pretty obvious who you'd bet on if you had to, right? (Triple Crown is a bad example because it happens so infrequently - but hopefully even you should get the point).

I still think my earlier question regarding the cancer cure if valid. Nearly Everyone would take "treatment A." Now if "treatment A" doesn't work - does it mean the statistics, or prediction were wrong?" Of course not - it simply means you had the bad luck (human factor) to be in the 15% for which the treatment didn't work.

Translate that to baseball. Who's more likely to hit .300 - Player A who's averaged .309 over a 5 year career in the majors or Player B who's averaged a .262 average over a 5 year career in the majors? Obviously it's Player A. But if player A hits .290 the next year and Player B hits .300 does that mean statistic as are "all wrong?" Of course not. And the likelihood of Player A and Player B reverting to form the next year is pretty high - not 100% mind you - but pretty high. Think of it this way - Statistics are not meant to show exactly what will happen - they are meant to show what is more likely to happen. That's all - nothing more - nothing less. Statistics tell us Player A is more likely to hit for higher average than player B.

You appeal to statistics all the time when it suits you. For example, your tortured argument about Nick Markakis not being the guy want up to bat when the game is on the line. We've all heard you say that time and time a again. And why don't you want him there? Because you point to his past performance in "close and late situations" (Of course you do this by pointing to stats over a small sample size and ignore the rest of his career - but nevertheless that's what you've done. Now if Nick gets up and hits a double with runners on 2nd and 3rd with two outs in the bottom of the 9th when we're trailing by a run - are you suddenly going to say Nick is a great hitter in "close and late" situations? No, or course not - you're gonna say something like "he got lucky" or "I'm going to have to see him do that a lot more before I think he's good in close and late situations."

The fact is - no one on this board uses statistics the way you accuse them of using them. What makes baseball such a great game is that on any given day a Luis Hernandez is going to come up with the clutch hit in the bottom of the 9th. But if you had a choice of sending Derek Jeter to the plate in that situation or Louis Hernandez - you'd pick Jeter every time. And again, why would you do that? You'd probably say it's "common sense" but in reality what your saying is that "based on his past performance Derek Jeter is more likely to produce a good outcome here than Louis Hernandez.

[BRobinsonfan]

Wait a minute, that is complete bullcrap. So everything else in existence is based in a world that respects the laws of statistical probability, except baseball.

Next you are going to tell me that it only take five minutes for water to soak into a grit in your kitchen.

This is one of those moments where you just need to admit that you are wrong.

You are on fire today my friend.

Look, everyone in the entire grit eating world knows that the laws of physics are suspended in OldFan's kitchen.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You are on fire today my friend.

Look, everyone in the entire grit eating world knows that the laws of physics are suspended in OldFan's kitchen.

I guess Oldfan isn't an Alton Brown fan.

[osfan83]

I get that but NOBODY PREDICTED THAT DID THEY? I am certainly not dissing statistics in general. They are superb at measuring what HAPPENED but basically worthless in PREDICTING ANYTHING MEANINFUL! Please read and re-read this last sentence! THANK YOU!!!

If this is true, why does everyone think the Yanks and Sox will be at the top ofthe division this season? What does there performance last season or the last decade have to do with his season? I would say statistics have done a pretty good job at predicting the future.

Statistics show that summers are usually warmer than winter, and damn it, pretty much every year that prediction seams to come true!

[Old#5fan]

Wait a minute, that is complete bullcrap. So everything else in existence is based in a world that respects the laws of statistical probability, except baseball.

Next you are going to tell me that it only take five minutes for water to soak into a grit in your kitchen.

This is one of those moments where you just need to admit that you are wrong.

Where did I say "everything else in existence'?. I said many things and that is now what you are accusing me of saying? Can you even read and comprehend an English sentence written by me without having some hidden agenda to distort what I said???? Unbelievable!

[BRobinsonfan]

What are you griping about now? I swear every word in that post is true so help me God! I would swear under oath to the Supreme Court that is the truth.

So which is it? God or the Supreme Court?

And you wanna be my latex salesman?

[Old#5fan]

Of course no one on the board - or in their right mind for that matter - would use statistics (or past performance) to suggest that a given player would win the Triple Crown in a given year.

But if you looked at Luis Aparicio's batting history in 1965 and you looked at Frank Robinson's batting history in 1965 - who would you think had a better shot at winning a triple crown? Pretty obvious who you'd bet on if you had to, right? (Triple Crown is a bad example because it happens so infrequently - but hopefully even you should get the point).

I still think my earlier question regarding the cancer cure if valid. Nearly Everyone would take "treatment A." Now if "treatment A" doesn't work - does it mean the statistics, or prediction were wrong?" Of course not - it simply means you had the bad luck (human factor) to be in the 15% for which the treatment didn't work.

Translate that to baseball. Who's more likely to hit .300 - Player A who's averaged .309 over a 5 year career in the majors or Player B who's averaged a .262 average over a 5 year career in the majors? Obviously it's Player A. But if player A hits .290 the next year and Player B hits .300 does that mean statistic as are "all wrong?" Of course not. And the likelihood of Player A and Player B reverting to form the next year is pretty high - not 100% mind you - but pretty high. Think of it this way - Statistics are not meant to show exactly what will happen - they are meant to show what is more likely to happen. That's all - nothing more - nothing less. Statistics tell us Player A is more likely to hit for higher average than player B.

You appeal to statistics all the time when it suits you. For example, your tortured argument about Nick Markakis not being the guy want up to bat when the game is on the line. We've all heard you say that time and time a again. And why don't you want him there? Because you point to his past performance in "close and late situations" (Of course you do this by pointing to stats over a small sample size and ignore the rest of his career - but nevertheless that's what you've done. Now if Nick gets up and hits a double with runners on 2nd and 3rd with two outs in the bottom of the 9th when we're trailing by a run - are you suddenly going to say Nick is a great hitter in "close and late" situations? No, or course not - you're gonna say something like "he got lucky" or "I'm going to have to see him do that a lot more before I think he's good in close and late situations."

The fact is - no one on this board uses statistics the way you accuse them of using them. What makes baseball such a great game is that on any given day a Luis Hernandez is going to come up with the clutch hit in the bottom of the 9th. But if you had a choice of sending Derek Jeter to the plate in that situation or Louis Hernandez - you'd pick Jeter every time. And again, why would you do that? You'd probably say it's "common sense" but in reality what your saying is that "based on his past performance Derek Jeter is more likely to produce a good outcome here than Louis Hernandez.

I do get what you are saying and give you props for this post but there is still a lot more that goes into who would you rather have up with the game on the line. Your example is about as extreme you can get (Jeter versus Hernadez). Lets say though it was between Markakis and Gary Matthews Jr. GMattJr I know has hit two walk off homers as an Oriole (if not both homers at least two walkoff game winning hits. Markakis probably has at least one, maybe two. Yet say Markakis has say for example 200 close and late ABs as an Oriole in Close and Late Situations and GMattJr 45 AB's and has two game winning walkoff clutch hits. I personally would probably want G-MattJr up there and not Markakis. However, that is not etched in stone because perhaps Markakis is hitting against Riveria and he has a 300 lifetime BA against him and G-Matt 190. In that case I would probably want Markakis. There are just two many variables to be able to predict realistically what is "likely" to happen.

[Old#5fan]

If this is true, why does everyone think the Yanks and Sox will be at the top ofthe division this season? What does there performance last season or the last decade have to do with his season? I would say statistics have done a pretty good job at predicting the future.

Statistics show that summers are usually warmer than winter, and damn it, pretty much every year that prediction seams to come true!

But that is a generalist statement you don't need stats to predict. What these stats gurus try to claim is they can predict the win totals and none of them can nor do to any great degree of accuracy. They aren't any more accurate than Joe Fan sitting at home watching the games and making a guess. Its a joke if you ask me.

[SilentJames]

I do get what you are saying and give you props for this post but there is still a lot more that goes into who would you rather have up with the game on the line. Your example is about as extreme you can get (Jeter versus Hernadez). Lets say though it was between Markakis and Gary Matthews Jr. GMattJr I know has hit two walk off homers as an Oriole (if not both homers at least two walkoff game winning hits. Markakis probably has at least one, maybe two. Yet say Markakis has say for example 200 close and late ABs as an Oriole in Close and Late Situations and GMattJr 45 AB's and has two game winning walkoff clutch hits. I personally would probably want G-MattJr up there and not Markakis. However, that is not etched in stone because perhaps Markakis is hitting against Riveria and he has a 300 lifetime BA against him and G-Matt 190. In that case I would probably want Markakis. There are just two many variables to be able to predict realistically what is "likely" to happen.

The point is that you are inconsistent. You use stats when they suit you, but when you are wrong you say that "using stats to project performance is meaningless."

you flip-flop, you waffle, you backtrack, you make no sense.