Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site philabs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!linus!philabs!dpb
From: dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin)
Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Re: playoff slugging + onbase avg.
Message-ID: <528@philabs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Dec-85 13:43:40 EST
Article-I.D.: philabs.528
Posted: Thu Dec  5 13:43:40 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 01:56:17 EST
References: <483@philabs.UUCP> <941@water.UUCP> <489@philabs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Philips Labs, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 44

> Sorry, if you want to argue from the game by game evidence, you will have to
> actually present it.  The inference from series to games doesn't wash -- the
> statistical validity of the sample depends on the size of the sample, not
> on the size of any underlying statistic.

I will present it. It's interesting that I have to present evidence to
argue from it, whereas you state below that YOUR point of view is reasonable
though unproven. Double standard, eh? No wonder I can't take your arguments
seriously.

> >> If you do not expect a positive result, it lets you go on not expecting a
> >> positive result.  But don't use that test to back up your argument; it is
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> >Not if my argument is that those who expect a positive result have no
> >evidence. Do you remember the original postings, in which David Rubin
> >posted screen after screen of numbers which supposedly showed that
> >one player was superior to another on the basis of SA+OBA? My argument
> >is that there is no evidence to support SA+OBA as such an important
> >determinant of quality. The lack of a positive result in the last 25
> >World Series IS evidence to support my position.
> 
> No, because the evidence for the use of the statistic *isn't statistical*.
> It is based on theoretical analysis, based on the assumption that situational
> variations in performance is mostly random; that any personal differences
> from this (clutch hitters, etc.) are small if they exist at all.  *This is
> a reasonable, although unproven, assumption.*  Reference to statistical
> results is made primarily to show that they do not invalidate the hypothesis.
> Pointing out that those statistics don't support the conclusion is no reason
> to reject it, because there are other reasons for believing it.  There are,
> by contrast, no reasons for believing in aliens in flying saucers.

Take a basic logic course! The evidence for the use of the statistic
isn't statistical?!?! It's based on theoretical arguments?!?!?!?! WHAT
theoretical arguments? I have yet to see a mathematical model of the
game of baseball that WORKS, i.e., that predicts winners. Don't expect
a mathematician to swallow handwaving arguments.

And you even invalidate your own arguments! How can I take this
seriously? (I don't.) You invalidate your argument by stating "It is based
on the assumption that situational variations in performance is mostly
random". This is what I have been disagreeing with all along! If you 
are going to assume that I am wrong, then of course it is easy to 
show that I am wrong! What DRIVEL!!!