From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: <None>
Date: 9 Sep 92 00:26:57 GMT
Organization: ?

In <1992Sep8.131825.856@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:

>In article <5461@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>> Thus spake z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu:
>> 
>>>In article <5440@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, genetic+@pitt.edu (Dr. Dave) writes:
>> If you were looking at only one player, chosen at random, then this would be
>> true.  But you aren't; you're looking at Pat Tabler in particular, and you're
>> looking at him precisely because his batting average with the bases loaded is
>> so eye-catching.  It now becomes a question of (drumroll, please) Extremal
>> Value Theory, which deals with the distribution of the most extreme observed
>> value in a collection of independent observations.
>> 
>> This was the point of my comment about tossing 200 coins.  If you toss one
>> coin 102 times, we have a very good idea of what constitutes surprising vs.
>> non-surprising numbers of heads to observe.  On the other hand, if I toss
>> 200 identical coins 102 times each, do you have any feel for how many heads
>> you should expect to see from the coin that comes up heads most often, even
>> if all the coins are fair?  I doubt it; I certainly don't.  There is a branch
>> of statistics that deals with these questions, though; I'll try to post a
>> quick summary of relevant results sometime soon.
>>                                                                        

>	Sounds like some pseudo-mathematical mumbo-jumbo to me.

Insert the appropriate remark.  

 Are you really
>saying that batting with the bases loaded is as random as flipping coins? I
>should have been clearer on what I meant. Saying a guy has a .500 BA with the
>bases full doesn't mean much when he has only 10 AB. On the other hand, if he
>has 100 AB, it means more, because some of the random fluctuation can be taken
>out, and you get a truer picture of how a batter hits in such a situation,
>since he has sustained his performance over a longer duration.
>        Well, if the greed of the players, owners, and little kids who collect
>baseball cards for profit rather than fun don't destroy the game, statheads
>like you will.

Oh, sure.  Whatever you say.  If the game of baseball is ever destroyed
-and I give as much credence to those type of predictions as I do to the
predictions of the streetcorner nuts who tell everyone the world will
end next week - it will be destroyed by stupidity, not intelligence.

 When you start expecting people to know advanced statistics,
>quantum physics, and tarot card reading to properly understand baseball, you
>have gone too far.

In order to >fully< understand baseball, yes, it is necessary to
understand advanced statistics and physics.  Actually, in order to fully
understand life, you probably need to understand advanced statistics and
physics.  And biology, chemistry, history, etc.  Without absolute full
knowledge you will never fully understand life.  Or baseball.  Of course,
no one will ever have absolutely complete knowledge of everything.  But
that doesn't mean one shouldn't try.

What you're arguing smacks of the anti-intellectual bullshit that makes
it all right for people to choose to be stupid.  Everyone has to choose 
the areas in which they want to pursue knowledge.  But to claim that
people shouldn't seek to learn and understand an area of interest, whether
it be baseball or death, is an attitude that earns my complete contempt.

 Why can't you just accept that Tabler, over most of his
>career, has been an excellent hitter with the bases loaded?

Because it very well may not be true.  Why should we accept something we
have reason to believe isn't true?

Tabler has been a very successful hitter wi|th the bases loaded during
his career.  That is undeniably true.  But it is far from clear
that Tabler is - or ever was - a better hitter with the bases loaded.
Acheivement in a certain situation does not always result from a special
ability in that situation.  Let's say we have a stock investor.  Over
his career, this stock investor has been a lot more succesful with
his investments in communications stocks than with his investments in
electronics stocks.  Can we assume that he is therefore better at
investing in communications stocks than electronics stocks?  No,
absolutely not.  He may be, but we cannot tell that just by looking
at his record of acheivement.


Greg 
-- 
  spira@panix.com       "The one-O delivery to Fisk.  He swings.  Long drive,  
 cmcl2!panix!spira      left field!  If it stays fair, it's gone!  Home Run!"  
158-17 Riverside Dr.                     Ned Martin, 10/22/75   
Whitestone NY 11357          (Insert your favorite baseball moment here) 
Xref: sparky rec.sport.baseball:27247 soc.culture.japan:8058