ST Alpha - "17 ABs isn't a large enough sample size in baseball to prove *anything*." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

17 ABs isn't a large enough sample size in baseball to prove anything.

Posted by Reagen (aka Reagen) Aug 4 '10, 08:57

and moose, for all his sports wieniness, rather consistently argues on the side of needing larger sample sizes.

Responses:

[deleted] 16
- I think we're far too eager as sports fans to find a reason for things (sports writers are the worst at this). Random chance isn't satisfying - Reagen Aug 4, 09:07 15
  - agreed, but not just sports fans. luck plays a far bigger role in success of all kinds than most people are willing to accept....nm - xi Aug 4, 09:20
  - He himself has said he pressed for 500....he's been a notorious underperformer in postseason (ie big moments).... - Will Hunting Aug 4, 09:14 4
    - He was notoriously called a postseason choker, but it wasn't true. Again, sample size. - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:17
    - i think the playoff underperformer thing has been proved to be complete myth. -- nm - TFox Aug 4, 09:15 2
      - But they said it *so many times*, TFox. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:18
      - in general, you have better pitching in the playoffs, so hittes numbers should tail off - groiny Aug 4, 09:17
  - [deleted] 8
    - It's not that there's no human element. But you just can't prove anything. - Reagen Aug 4, 09:13 6
      - Right. You just can't know definitively one way or the other. So to take either definitive stance is kinda silly. -- nm - TFox Aug 4, 09:14 4
        
        [deleted] 3
        
        Even then, sometimes players look for reasons, just like fans do. - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:23 2
        
        [deleted] 1
        
        Only because I've been so expertly manipulated, oh great puppetmaster. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:27
      - [deleted]
    - big deal, he can go 4 for 4 and be right back into things. - groiny Aug 4, 09:11
also, Jim, I think MLB is just acknowleding reality with the changing balls things - Reagen Aug 4, 09:00 27
- Sure. But to me, I say screw those guys. Put your ball on Ebay and people will either believe it's real and bid or not. - Jim Aug 4, 09:03 26
  - It's really not so much about helping the guy with the actual ball as it is stopping the guys with the fake balls. - Ender Aug 4, 09:13 2
    - Well said. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:34
    - A good NY Times article on MLB's authentication program. -- (link) - Ender Aug 4, 09:21
  - sure, but what about foul balls hit with that ball? - groiny Aug 4, 09:12 2
    - [deleted] 1
      - ugh. nm -- nm - groiny Aug 4, 09:13
  - It's not only about auction. It's about authenticating stuff. Like if a fan wants to donate ARod's 600th HR ball to the HOF, it benefits MLB to be - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:10 14
    - I'm also not sure why they're so crazy about ARod's 600th. How many of them are tainted? How many "real" homers does he have? - Jim Aug 4, 09:11 13
      - None of them are tainted anymore than Hank Aaron's HRs were tainted by greenies, or Ruth's HRs were tainted by segregation. - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:14 11
        
        Then why are the steroid guys considered cheaters? -- nm - Jim Aug 4, 09:16 10
        
        I don't like them, but I don't consider them cheaters. The HRs are on the books, they're legit. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:20 3
        
        like it or not, baseball did not test, so players took advantage.... - groiny Aug 4, 09:22 2
        
        That one is a much uglier can of worms. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:28 1
        
        besides that he got busted, he also quit on his team. - groiny Aug 4, 09:29
        
        who considers them cheaters? - groiny Aug 4, 09:18 5
        
        HOF voters, for one. Many current and retired players. Writers, reporters. Seriously? McGwire and bonds are thought to be the biggest cheaters in - Jim Aug 4, 09:19 4
        
        HOF voters also voted Jim Rice in before Bert Blylevin. They get lots of stuff wrong. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:21
        
        HOF voters are retards. - groiny Aug 4, 09:21 2
        
        No they didn't...so I guess it's cool then. Carry on. -- nm - Jim Aug 4, 09:22 1
        
        You can not segregate them for cheating when they never tested - groiny Aug 4, 09:24
      - throw them in their own special wing in the HOF for the "steroid era" - groiny Aug 4, 09:13
  - That's what I say. Baseball should take a disinterested stance in how fans profit. Baseball should just be about playing the game. -- nm - mara Aug 4, 09:07 4
    - More than any other sport, history, lore and records are important to the fabric of the game. I think MLB has a reasonable interest in maintaining - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:12 2
      - Yet so many of their recent records are so tainted...I don't know how they can still be considered "fabric of the game". - Jim Aug 4, 09:13 1
        
        they went through this in the reverse with the "dead ball" era.... - groiny Aug 4, 09:14
    - Baseball suffers from PR fallout when idiots try to profit. - Will Hunting Aug 4, 09:12
Hockey still sucks, backhanded-compliment-giver. (nm) - musubi Aug 4, 08:59
It's too late. He's been hypnotized. -- nm - TFox Aug 4, 08:58 4
- Rod Sox suxxxorz. Yankees pwn. Rawr. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 08:59 3
  - I'd ask a Mets question, but the answer would be ambiguous anyway. -- nm - Reagen Aug 4, 09:02 2
    - The answer is Mike Piazza. It's *always* Mike PIazza. (nm) - zombie musubi Aug 4, 09:05 1
      - dammit, that was the line I needed! -- nm - Cameron Crowe Aug 4, 09:08

Post a message top

17 ABs isn't a large enough sample size in baseball to prove *anything*.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.

17 ABs isn't a large enough sample size in baseball to prove anything.