Re: Memo to the College of Arrogance

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 12:32:09 -0500, Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Seth Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:48:29 -0500, Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Seth Jackson wrote:
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
In other other post you wrote "That's true only if you presuppose that
there is no such thing as choking." in response to UsualNoise's comments
that based on Gordon's stats (and only stats) you should expect a
performance more like his overall performance going forward. This is
not a statistically correct statement, I think (Neil or someone else,
feel free to chime in of course).

No, that's not correct. If you allow for the possibility that choking
exists, then you can't expect a statistical reversion to the mean.
That means you may or may not get one.

"The Book" says clutch hitting exists. They also say that you have to
regress back to the mean a lot/have a lot of at-bats before any clutch
differences you observe may be meaningful. They allow for clutch
hitting, yet still regress substantially.

But let's assume that choking really does exist. And further, let's
assume that Gordon is a huge choker who simply unravels in the
postseason. If that were in fact the case, then his observed
statistics probably are a good representation of his abilities. If so,
then no reversion to the mean would be expected.

Of course, in reality, we have no way of knowing whether he really is
or isn't a choker other than by observation. Thus, my assertion that,
if you allow for the possibility that choking exists, you can't expect
a reversion to the mean. You may or may not get one.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Memo to the College of Arrogance (& applying "The Book" to relievers)
    ... It's not just that his postseason ... He was horrendous in that small sample of innings. ... Gordon's stats are enough to lead to the choker conclusion. ... I'm no statistics expert, but the general method in statistical testing ...
    (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: How to link tables via the field names themselves, not their c
    ... you can query the database to do what you want easily. ... There are approximately 30 different aspects (or statistics) which are ... Beacuse there are so many stats per contract, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
  • RE: How to link tables via the field names themselves, not their c
    ... you can query the database to do what you want easily. ... There are approximately 30 different aspects (or statistics) which are ... Mulitple audits are made per contract. ... Beacuse there are so many stats per contract, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.queries)
  • Re: Just Arod being Arod
    ... they will lead to better or worse statistics. ... Player B has very little heart, guts, and nerve. ... ARod has a hell of a long way to go to match Reggie in Yankee lore ... pitches, it's in his stats. ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees)