Printable View
It's really irrelevent because the study does use a method that is commonly accepted by anybody with any reasonable amount of baseball statistical knowledge. It's just not widely known by the mainstream.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewOsborn
And after all, statistical studies should use methods that are commonly accepted by statisticians, not by the fans, just like scientific studies should use methods that are commonly accepted by scientists, not by the common person.
I didn't call it a science.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
It was an analogy. Scientific studies should use methods which are accepted by scientists. Likewise, statistical studies should use methods which are accepted by statisticians.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
But, technically, sabermetrics is a science. Sabermetrics is statistical analysis, which is a mathmatical science.
If you enjoy the article, you're stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redsauce
:D
You're doing fine... you don't need to argue every point until you and everyone else is blue in the face, is all. State your opinion, others will do the same, and move on. That's really been the only problem ever, is that there's a certain group of people (and it's definitely not just you) who just won't let it go. If a couple of y'all get together in one thread, all of a sudden we get 50 posts in the space of an hour or two with nothing but back and forth talk about... well, nothing really.Quote:
Originally Posted by yankee hater
I think he qualifies his "averaging out" point well, nor does he say it's a fact - rather, an assumption:
He had to, or he wouldn't have any remotely significant sample size.Quote:
As for the other effects, like pitch sequence, count and the like: from necessity, I'm going to assume that this stuff averages out. I'm forced to do this because if I divide the data up too much, I won't have enough pitches in any sub-group to analyze.