Comments on: Small Sample Size Craziness

By: joser

joser — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 02:00:12 +0000

Well, now that LL is flush with corporate money, they should be able to do more than infiltrate.

Of course, they may not bother now that they’re watching M’s games from their solid platinum hot tubs filled with champagne and endangered salmon.

By: Graham

Graham — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:10:51 +0000

We might have to put them in their place. Know your role, LL!

Little does Dave know of our master plan to infiltrate USSM by posing as volunteer moderators. Heh heh heh.

By: Steve T

Steve T — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:45:09 +0000

@67 — I would bet that about 90% of all the fans in the ballpark on any given day would agree with him 100% — which is why that sort of thing gets published.

By: Steve T

Steve T — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:44:15 +0000

Another thing that’s hard for old-school fans to grasp is this: if it looks random, it IS random. If it is indistinguishable from what a random toss would suggest, given an underlying rate of probability and so on, IT IS RANDOM. Even if it’s accomplished with mega effort.

Or, if that’s too painful to accept, then think of it this way: it adds nothing to the understanding to think about the non-random aspect. Nor anything to prediction of the future, which is even tougher.

By: Typical Idiot Fan

Typical Idiot Fan — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 01:00:47 +0000

That Jim Armstrong article has to be an intentional troll / satirical piece. There’s no way somebody like that still exists.

By: rea

rea — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:04:11 +0000

Every player is bound to get a hit at his next at bat, because all players are either hot or due.

By: JMHawkins

JMHawkins — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:47:54 +0000

But let me say that what looks like randomness or probability at a distance might in reality determined by something on the smaller scale.

Studies have been done on this. There is such a thing as “being hot”, but it’s too small to warrant any attention. A player’s performance over the past three years is a far better predictor of how he will perform over the next few games than his performance over the last few games. A hitter on a “hot streak” might expect his OBP to be 3 or 4 points higher than his “normal” average.

So, if Brad Wilkerson, based on his career, is expected to have a OBP of .363 and is on a cold streak, and Willie Bloomquist, based on his career, is expected to have an OBP of .313, then if Wilks is cold and Willie is hot, Cold Brad is still likely to be 40 points better than hot Willie.

Yes, there’s predictive value in hot streaks. It still doesn’t matter. Play your best players.

By: Mike Snow

Mike Snow — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:31:04 +0000

Because people don’t want to think it is dumb luck, bad or good. People want to have control over their destinies. It’s why people have lucky charms, or habits, or superstitions.

And baseball players are notoriously superstitious.

By: BurkeForPres

BurkeForPres — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:25:05 +0000

Awesome post joser. The content definitely justified the length.

By: Jeff Nye

Jeff Nye — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:53:55 +0000

Good post, joser, despite being long.

We all want to think we can understand and attribute causes to everything, and it’s difficult as a species for us to get our heads around the concept of randomness.