U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-10-2013, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,117 posts, read 18,599,788 times
Reputation: 18730

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sskink View Post
I said it's generally accepted in MLB that that's the case. And it's true. I'm not your errand boy to go dig up data. Get it yourself.
Do you think that this is any sort of acceptable answer? It is not.

A) You advanced the thesis, not I, therefore it is up to you to provide data in support.

B) Employing "it is generally accepted in MLB" is an attempt to make it seem like there is some common wisdom or proof backing you, when in fact this is you making something up. Even if it was generally accepted, that would still not make it true or false, only studying the incidents of first time encounters and examining the data collected from such a study, would reveal whether or not the batter has an advantage over the pitcher or the reverse is true.

I do not think that you aren't producing the data because you aren't my "errand boy", I think you aren't producing the data because there is no such data, you have never seen any sort of study of the issue, have you?

So, a great deal more than "it is generally accepted" will be required if you wish to be taken seriously with your idea that pitchers have the first encounter advantage. I could as easily write that the opposite is "generally accepted" and I would be utilizing the same source as you for your assertion....no source at all.

You haven't even offered any sort of guesses as to why this would be. Why would a pitcher who knows nothing about a batter be better off than a batter who knows nothing about a pitcher?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2013, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Currently living in Reddit
5,655 posts, read 5,706,454 times
Reputation: 7280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Do you think that this is any sort of acceptable answer? It is not.

A) You advanced the thesis, not I, therefore it is up to you to provide data in support.

B) Employing "it is generally accepted in MLB" is an attempt to make it seem like there is some common wisdom or proof backing you, when in fact this is you making something up. Even if it was generally accepted, that would still not make it true or false, only studying the incidents of first time encounters and examining the data collected from such a study, would reveal whether or not the batter has an advantage over the pitcher or the reverse is true.

I do not think that you aren't producing the data because you aren't my "errand boy", I think you aren't producing the data because there is no such data, you have never seen any sort of study of the issue, have you?

So, a great deal more than "it is generally accepted" will be required if you wish to be taken seriously with your idea that pitchers have the first encounter advantage. I could as easily write that the opposite is "generally accepted" and I would be utilizing the same source as you for your assertion....no source at all.

You haven't even offered any sort of guesses as to why this would be. Why would a pitcher who knows nothing about a batter be better off than a batter who knows nothing about a pitcher?

Honestly, get over yourself. The lady doth protest too much.

From ESPN today via Jim Caple:
Quote:
Still, the Tigers were facing Gray for the very first time in Game 2. The conventional wisdom is that a pitcher usually has the advantage in such a situation. The key is how he fares after the hitters get to know him and make some adjustments. Gray has a good fastball that also seems to explode on batters because of his arm motion. Will the Tigers fare better having seen it Saturday?
I can find Jim's email if you'd like to ask him to provide the supporting statistical evidence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,117 posts, read 18,599,788 times
Reputation: 18730
Quote:
Originally Posted by sskink View Post
Honestly, get over yourself. The lady doth protest too much.

From ESPN today via Jim Caple:


I can find Jim's email if you'd like to ask him to provide the supporting statistical evidence.
You have provided the opinion of a single commentator and wish me to believe that this validates your wild guess?

You made an assertion for which you had no grounds..and neither does Jim Caple. He calls it "conventional wisdom" and that is right out of the same school of thought you employed to produce "generally accepted." That is pretending that you are backed by some authority by assigning it to some vague thing...."wisdom" or "accepted." Those are the refuge of the uninformed......."Oh everyone knows that."

And I note that you have still made no effort at all to answer my question.....how does this work? Why would a pitcher unfamiliar with a batter enjoy some advantage over a batter unfamiliar with the pitcher? Why is not knowing the opponent's strengths and weaknesses a plus for pitchers but not for batters?

You will not escape with attitude posts like "get over yourself", you need to provide an actual answer.

Do you have such an answer? It doesn't seem like you do. And If you do not, then why should anyone here take you seriously?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Currently living in Reddit
5,655 posts, read 5,706,454 times
Reputation: 7280
Let's see... Jim Caples has been following baseball for awhile and actually talks to real people involved in the game on a daily basis and has done so for years.

And if you really knew as much about the statistical game-inside-the-game as you like to think you do, you'd already be aware of these guys and their work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2013, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Mequon, WI
7,836 posts, read 19,586,883 times
Reputation: 4435
Jim Caple didn't win any friends here in Wisconsin with his constant Miller Park and Brewer bashing, it came off sounding more and more bitter and personal each week. After Brewer fans voted Miller Park the best park, Jim Caple said in a radio interview that the fans of the Brewer ruined his espn poll and said good job on ruining a contest. The personal shots on the radio and in newspapers and online is what ruined his espn contest.

Battle of the Ballparks -- Miller Park defeats AT&T Park - ESPN
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2013, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,117 posts, read 18,599,788 times
Reputation: 18730
Quote:
Originally Posted by sskink View Post
Let's see... Jim Caples has been following baseball for awhile and actually talks to real people involved in the game on a daily basis and has done so for years.

And if you really knew as much about the statistical game-inside-the-game as you like to think you do, you'd already be aware of these guys and their work.
I note that you are doing all that you can to avoid answering my question and I shall let the readers here decide what that means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2013, 07:53 AM
 
Location: Currently living in Reddit
5,655 posts, read 5,706,454 times
Reputation: 7280
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
I note that you are doing all that you can to avoid answering my question and I shall let the readers here decide what that means.
I just answered your question. What part of "first time a pitcher a faces a batter is worth 7 OBP points" is going over your head?

You are no longer worth my time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2013, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,117 posts, read 18,599,788 times
Reputation: 18730
Quote:
Originally Posted by sskink View Post
I just answered your question. What part of "first time a pitcher a faces a batter is worth 7 OBP points" is going over your head?

You are no longer worth my time.
The part where you seem to believe that 7 OBP points is a significant distinction.

Do you understand what that means? If batter A reaches base 400 times out of a thousand chances, and batter B reaches base 407 times out of thousand chances, there isn't enough difference between those figures to extract an correlation between cause and effect. In short, the difference is too small to establish what you are claiming it establishes. Batter B would be getting on base about one more time a month than batter A. And this proves that Babe Ruth was overcoming some horrendous handicap when he hit those WS home runs? You really think this?

For you to be correct you would need data which shows a far greater distinction in outcomes. Further, you obviously looked up this data recently and you were not relying upon it when you made your original assertion.

So, to date your arsenal has consisted of "generally accepted", "conventional wisdom" and some data, the significance of which you obviously did not understand.

The good news was your final sentence since that suggests you will no longer be posting on this topic. I hope you are as good as your word.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2013, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Currently living in Reddit
5,655 posts, read 5,706,454 times
Reputation: 7280
It's still 7 points.

Thus it answers your question, which was to prove that the pitcher has an advantage over the batter the first time they face each other.

Period.

You want to pretend you're the smartest guy out here. In the case of Ruth vs. Beltran, yes, those 7 points with each new pitcher do start to make a significant cumulative difference over a number of seasons where Ruth played in a WS. That's a pretty simple model to understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2013, 12:10 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,117 posts, read 18,599,788 times
Reputation: 18730
Quote:
Originally Posted by sskink View Post

You want to pretend you're the smartest guy out here..
Such hyperbole.

And you lied about wasting any more time here, didn't you?

I have formal training in advanced statistics and what I have written to you concerning the insufficiency of the data upon which you are relying, is certainly correct.

Each coin toss is done on a 50/50 odds basis. If you are tossing 1000 times in each sampling, after 407 flips heads is ahead of tails by 7, that is not a large enough number to state that anything other than random chance is at work. If you took that example and tried to state that "Heads has an advantage in coin tossing" and cited the extra 7 head wins as proof, you would be absolutely wrong, just as you are wrong in attempting to claim that the data you provided proves anything at all about first encounter advantages.

To determine whether or not data is statistically significant requires what is known as the chi test, a mathematical formula which is employed to find out if the difference between observed and expected results is significant. The formula yields what is called the correlation coefficient, a measure of the relationship between two things and whether or not your data is useful in making future predictions. If the result is .005 or smaller, then the answer is deemed statistically significant. In precise terms the test is stating that there is less than an .005 chance that A and B are not in a causal relationship. If the answer falls outside of that .005 figure, then no correlation is determined and you cannot state that the data supports there being a relationship.

Obviously 407 to 400 doesn't come anywhere close to the needed figure, so trying to pass off what you have as any sort of proof, is actually just making noise.

So, you will need something far more persuasive than this one example which you found.

Finally, you aren't even in the right ballpark in terms of the data you are applying to the question. You cited 7 points of on base percentage in support of a thesis about slugging (Babe Ruth's 15 WS home runs.) You would need data on slugging averages or on home runs for it to be relevant. Do you have any such data?



Now, do you have relevant answers to any of that, as in something other than comments on my personality? Do you have an answer to my earlier question about how all this is supposed to work, what it is about pitching which provides a first encounter advantage to the pitcher?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Baseball
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top