Re: Memo to the College of Arrogance

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 09:45:35 -0500, Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

BadgerBC wrote:
Seth Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 22:41:50 -0500, Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Seth Jackson wrote:

Here's the thing that makes it hard for me to buy the sample size
argument in Gordon's case. It's not just that his postseason
performance is below his regular season performance. It's that it's
so far below that it's almost off the charts. It's absolutely
horrendous. Being that bad seems to indicate something more than bad
luck.
Absolutely horrendous in an extremely tiny sample size. If you are just
relying on stats, and not bringing in the other factors, there is not
enough statistical evidence to draw that conclusion.
What conclusion? That he was horrendous? The numbers speak for
themselves. He was horrendous in that small sample of innings. I
don't see how you can argue otherwise.

I think Kenny is specifically referring to "Being that bad seems to
indicate something more than bad luck." If you look at the innings
pitched (19+) in the postseason compared to his career IP of say 1900,
I think he has a valid claim that it could be noise. The extent of his
ineffectiveness (if you only look at the total runs allowed) doesn't
mean that it proves significance any more than an outlyer would.

Right, that's my point (and what got me in trouble with Keith about
defining the problem to small :-) ). Seth and I think perhaps Joe F.
earlier in the other thread (correct me if I'm wrong), was implying that
Gordon's stats are enough to lead to the choker conclusion. Which is
why I'm going out of my way to explain that his stats alone, minus
external factors, are not enough to lead to that conclusion.

Kenny, I think we all understand your statistical argument. At least
I certainly do. I'm trying to explain the opposing argument, which
I'm not even certain I believe. Still, if I needed a pitcher in a big
spot in a postseason game, I'm not sure Gordon is the guy I'd want to
have to go to.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Memo to the College of Arrogance
    ... It's not just that his postseason ... Gordon's stats are enough to lead to the choker conclusion. ... If you allow for the possibility that choking ... statistics probably are a good representation of his abilities. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: Memo to the College of Arrogance
    ... Seth Jackson wrote: ... It's not just that his postseason ... Gordon's stats are enough to lead to the choker conclusion. ... (though if you were to do a hypothesis test, ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: Memo to the College of Arrogance
    ... It's not just that his postseason ... Gordon's stats are enough to lead to the choker conclusion. ... If you allow for the possibility that choking ... (though if you were to do a hypothesis test, ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)
  • Re: Overuse of "post season career" stats
    ... All these cumulative stats for post season really ... >> argument that will probably put him into the HOF is the fact that he ... >> postseason games played. ... > slanted toward post-1969 players. ...
    (rec.sport.baseball)
  • Re: Memo to the College of Arrogance
    ... It's not just that his postseason ... He was horrendous in that small sample of innings. ... indicate something more than bad luck." ... Gordon's stats are enough to lead to the choker conclusion. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)