It is currently Sun Feb 23, 2025 2:09 pm

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
Douchebag
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:03 pm
Posts: 43866
Crystal Lake Hoffy wrote:
Do you guys ever wonder how many people who post here on the board are also on meth? I'd assume we'd get at least a few hits.

1. Scooter
2. Chas
3. Boilmaker Rick

_________________
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?
Top
 Profile  
 
KDdidit
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:28 am
Posts: 24706
Location: Boofoo Zoo
pizza_Place: Chuck E Cheese
Next you'll be telling me PFF's made up grades aren't true indictors of a players performance.
Top
 Profile  
 
Juice's Lecture Notes
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 23557
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
But they're not "proofs". There is way too much noise and too many assumptions being made.

Just since the time McCracken discovered that balls in play "normalized" around 30% I have read countless "yeah buts" and amendments.


Ok, so you don't know what a proof is. To what "noise" are you referring, specifically, and how has it not been accounted for in these non-proof proofs?


:lol: I do know what a proof is and these theories regarding where baseballs go are not proofs. The vast majority of baseball "research" doesn't stand up to scientific rigor. It's great fodder for message boards though.


Which ones and how so? What facets of them are unscientific or violate accepted statistical practices? Be specific.
Top
 Profile  
 
good dolphin
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82995
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
But they're not "proofs". There is way too much noise and too many assumptions being made.

Just since the time McCracken discovered that balls in play "normalized" around 30% I have read countless "yeah buts" and amendments.


Ok, so you don't know what a proof is. To what "noise" are you referring, specifically, and how has it not been accounted for in these non-proof proofs?


:lol: I do know what a proof is and these theories regarding where baseballs go are not proofs. The vast majority of baseball "research" doesn't stand up to scientific rigor. It's great fodder for message boards though.


Which ones and how so? What facets of them are unscientific or violate accepted statistical practices? Be specific.


Any metric that has a "should have" factor immediately includes subjectivity and is no longer scientific. This seems to include several defensive metrics

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Board index » GENERAL BULLSHIT SECTION » GENERAL DISCUSSION

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Reared on the Score and 21 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group