|
Post by mgoetze on May 22, 2015 4:16:44 GMT -5
Cheer up all, given this level and intesity of of sub-median perfomance and aberrant results, the regression back to the mean and perhaps even a little beyond, should it occur, will be nearly supersonic in its speed and upward trajectory. In other word, peaking just as they slide into the playoffs. Yeah, this is what is known as the "gambler's fallacy".
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 7:01:19 GMT -5
Napoli is killing us. Don't worry though, Farrell will continue to plug him right in the heart of the order. You're continually saying this as if there are so many choices on the bench. Who? Nava is the only other 1B and you want him off the team. Be reasonable. I say this as someone who wants Farrell fired.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 22, 2015 7:45:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 22, 2015 7:58:10 GMT -5
Cheer up all, given this level and intesity of of sub-median perfomance and aberrant results, the regression back to the mean and perhaps even a little beyond, should it occur, will be nearly supersonic in its speed and upward trajectory. In other word, peaking just as they slide into the playoffs. Yeah, this is what is known as the "gambler's fallacy". Or naked sarcasm. I dressed it up a bit because the overlords like us to keep it clean on here. This team is running into some bad luck, but some of the guys are just having tight, anxious ABs. Anyone whose played above the level of Legion Ball has been there. You try to do too much and roll it to one of the middle infielders. What Otriz said in that Tomasse article is edifying. Chili's been preaching "go with what ypu're given" but some guys are just ignoring him. But hey, at least the pitching's getting into th 7th inning now...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on May 22, 2015 9:38:44 GMT -5
I love how he chooses one example to disprove luck as a factor and didn't happen to mention all the line drives that were caught the other night.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on May 22, 2015 11:46:28 GMT -5
He's a very busy man.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on May 23, 2015 5:56:49 GMT -5
Cheer up all, given this level and intesity of of sub-median perfomance and aberrant results, the regression back to the mean and perhaps even a little beyond, should it occur, will be nearly supersonic in its speed and upward trajectory. In other word, peaking just as they slide into the playoffs. Yeah, this is what is known as the "gambler's fallacy". Gamblers fallacy assumes events are independent. So it's def true for casino games but less so I think for baseball. For at bats to be independent a players probability of getting a hit should be the same every at bat. I think we can agree that things like opposing pitcher, mechanics, etc have an effect on the probability of a hit from at bat to at bat. So independence is violated. So I think it may be reasonable to expect regression to the mean in baseball but not casino games. Doesn't necessarily mean Napoli will start hitting though, some other factor might keep him below the mean.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on May 23, 2015 6:05:11 GMT -5
Yeah, this is what is known as the "gambler's fallacy". Gamblers fallacy assumes events are independent. So it's def true for casino games but less so I think for baseball. For at bats to be independent a players probability of getting a hit should be the same every at bat. I think we can agree that things like opposing pitcher, mechanics, etc have an effect on the probability of a hit from at bat to at bat. So independence is violated. So I think it may be reasonable to expect regression to the mean in baseball but not casino games. Doesn't necessarily mean Napoli will start hitting though, some other factor might keep him below the mean. Eh... that's not what statistical independence is at all. Different chances of getting a hit due to, e.g., the opposing pitcher do not stop the events from being independent. Plate appearances would be statistically dependent only if the chances of a result in one PA were influenced by the result of an earlier PA. For instance, if whenever a player went 0 for 3 and came up to the plate a fourth time, the opposing pitchers were inclined to have sympathy with him and groove him a fastball middle-middle, that would constitute statistical dependence of the individual PAs. This is not the case in professional baseball, except perhaps for Derek Jeter, but he's retired. And hey, if you don't believe it... there's about 100 years of data to prove that regression to the mean does happen in baseball, go look it up.
|
|
|
Post by rangoon82 on May 23, 2015 6:32:25 GMT -5
ah this is actually a good call. What I mentioned is statistical independence, it just didn't apply in the context of the gamblers fallacy. The probabilities can be different from at bat to at bat but but the outcome of an at bat isn't affected by the outcome of a prior at bat.
So the gamblers fallacy still does apply. But you can still expect a jump in BA if a player starts facing terrible pitchers or makes a mechanics adjustment. Because getting a hit is not independent of those things.
|
|