Fire alex cora

[notin]

But how can there can be bias collecting batting averages and ERA's?

 

Some of these stuff is purely objective.

 

And if it's 'cherry-picked', a reader with any baseball IQ can see that and respond accordingly.

 

Agreed. Which is why raw data is not biased.

 

The biases I an talking about are cognitive biases inherent to human thought processes...

[Slasher9]

Agreed. Which is why raw data is not biased.

 

The biases I an talking about are cognitive biases inherent to human thought processes...

 

raw data is biased just in the fact of what data you decide to collect.

[notin]

raw data is biased just in the fact of what data you decide to collect.

 

No.

 

If you collect or analyze an incomplete sample, that is a form of Selection Bias done by the collector/analyst. Not the data...

[Kimmi]

there will be bias until:

- the 2 leagues play under identical rules (see: DH)

- 100% balanced schedules

- robot strike zone

 

I get what you're saying. The number of strikeouts, for instance, is raw data. However, strikeouts are subject to the interpretation of the home plate umpire, whose calls are affected by bias.

 

That said, when a poster or any other person states that a pitcher has 7 Ks in a game, the use of that raw data has no bias in it.

[jad]

No.

 

If you collect or analyze an incomplete sample, that is a form of Selection Bias done by the collector/analyst. Not the data...

 

Well, we're not going to agree. My point is that something like BA is not raw, since someone has made a determination that it is significant. BASEBALL could perhaps be defined as raw, as long as we agree entirely that that, and only that, is what we're talking about. (I doubt we could agree as to what the 'field' or 'corpus of evidence' would be, though). Oh well, only 5 months or so unttil spring training.

[cp176]

raw data is biased just in the fact of what data you decide to collect.

 

Always! - it depends upon the point that you are trying to prove.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, we're not going to agree. My point is that something like BA is not raw, since someone has made a determination that it is significant.

 

So what exactly meets your definition of raw data?

[jad]

So what exactly meets your definition of raw data?

 

I don't really have one, I guess; but then again, I'm not the one invoking the term or the existence of what that term refers to. I suppose "things that happen unperceived by humans" might work (i.e., a "given"), but once perceived by humans, all bets are off. (Same response I might give if some religious wacko were to hit me with various defn's of 'God' then answer my objections with: 'So, what's YOUR definition of God?')

[Bellhorn04]

I don't really have one, I guess; but then again, I'm not the one invoking the term or the existence of what that term refers to. I suppose "things that happen unperceived by humans" might work (i.e., a "given"), but once perceived by humans, all bets are off. (Same response I might give if some religious wacko were to hit me with various defn's of 'God' then answer my objections with: 'So, what's YOUR definition of God?')

 

Well, I'm afraid that wasn't much help.

 

Kidding. I love philosophical stuff too.

[Slasher9]

Always! - it depends upon the point that you are trying to prove.

 

exactamundo my friend!

[notin]

Well, we're not going to agree. My point is that something like BA is not raw, since someone has made a determination that it is significant. BASEBALL could perhaps be defined as raw, as long as we agree entirely that that, and only that, is what we're talking about. (I doubt we could agree as to what the 'field' or 'corpus of evidence' would be, though). Oh well, only 5 months or so unttil spring training.

 

We are definitely not going to agree.

 

The data is not biased just because someone made a determination on what data to collect. There is no cognitive bias involved in the actual data itself, but there may be one in the determination of what data is useful, but that is not the same thing at all.

 

ur evaluations as humans can be subject to cognitive biases that make observations in question due to systematic errors in our thought processes and errors, but that comes into play afterwards. If, for example, we determine BA to be significant, that poses no actual bias on the data itself, but only on the importance of it. This is a form of what is known as Selection Bias...

Edited October 23, 2019 by notin

[jad]

We are definitely not going to agree.

 

The data is not biased just because someone made a determination on what data to collect. There is no cognitive bias involved in the actual data itself, but there may be one in the determination of what data is useful, but that is not the same thing at all.

 

ur evaluations as humans can be subject to cognitive biases that make observations in question due to systematic errors in our thought processes and errors, but that comes into play afterwards. If, for example, we determine BA to be significant, that poses no actual bias on the data itself, but only on the importance of it. This is a form of what is known as Selection Bias...

 

Well yes. But then, that's a very big "if," as there are many on this board (can't recall whether you are one) who argue that BA is NOT at all significant. So I suppose that yes, there is 'data' (as, for example, today the sun came out), but there will be little agreement as to what is significant. Compiling a list of the number of sheep in Boston suburbs, say, is unlikely to be admitted as 'data' regarding the success of the RS even though it is a 'given'.

[moonslav59]

Well yes. But then, that's a very big "if," as there are many on this board (can't recall whether you are one) who argue that BA is NOT at all significant. So I suppose that yes, there is 'data' (as, for example, today the sun came out), but there will be little agreement as to what is significant. Compiling a list of the number of sheep in Boston suburbs, say, is unlikely to be admitted as 'data' regarding the success of the RS even though it is a 'given'.

 

Baaahhhhh Hummm bug.

 

Not one person on the board has said BA is not at all significant. I think I'd have remembered that, and it would have caused an uproar.

 

People have said it is not as important as OBP or SLG or other stats or metrics, but never "not at all significant."

[notin]

Well yes. But then, that's a very big "if," as there are many on this board (can't recall whether you are one) who argue that BA is NOT at all significant. So I suppose that yes, there is 'data' (as, for example, today the sun came out), but there will be little agreement as to what is significant. Compiling a list of the number of sheep in Boston suburbs, say, is unlikely to be admitted as 'data' regarding the success of the RS even though it is a 'given'.

 

 

How does the significance of batting average place a bias in the batting average numbers?

[jad]

How does the significance of batting average place a bias in the batting average numbers?

 

We're talking at cross-purposes, since you're objecting to a claim I never made. (By the way, BA was merely an example. We could have said anything: xWAR or # of errors or strike-out rate or WHIP or "percentage of doubles in away night games" ...)

[notin]

We're talking at cross-purposes, since you're objecting to a claim I never made. (By the way, BA was merely an example. We could have said anything: xWAR or # of errors or strike-out rate or WHIP or "percentage of doubles in away night games" ...)

 

 

I get that the stat was an example.

 

But there is a difference between objective data and analysis performed with cognitive biases. And the observers’ view of the data - which can be laden with cognitive biases - doesn’t change this.

 

It’s like two people looking at a plant and you ask both what color it is. The first one says “Green.” The second person - the colorblind one - says “It looks grey to me.”

 

But really, regardless of colorblindness or cognitive bias - is the plant green? It has a true, objective, unbiased color regardless of the person viewing it.

 

(And FYI - “Colorblindness or Cognitive Bias” is a great title for a nerdy country song.)

[jad]

I get that the stat was an example.

 

But there is a difference between objective data and analysis performed with cognitive biases. And the observers’ view of the data - which can be laden with cognitive biases - doesn’t change this.

 

It’s like two people looking at a plant and you ask both what color it is. The first one says “Green.” The second person - the colorblind one - says “It looks grey to me.”

 

But really, regardless of colorblindness or cognitive bias - is the plant green? It has a true, objective, unbiased color regardless of the person viewing it.

 

(And FYI - “Colorblindness or Cognitive Bias” is a great title for a nerdy country song.)

 

That's a great song title! (But I think 'color' is not a good example, since I don't think it has an objective existence. Words and distinctions for colors are inconsistent across languages, and don't follow what might be found, say, in a prism or in wave-length measurement -- e.g., even in Old English, blood is 'brown' and gold is 'red'.) Oh well, in the end, I actually do agree with you on the value of statistics (even shaky ones) over the 'eye-test'. I used to believe firmly that you could tell the quality of a musician just by looking at the way they hold the instrument. Well, there is 'some' truth to this; but having been to hundreds of concerts, I have to concede that my certainty about the 'eye-test' test for musicianship is completely false.

[notin]

I used to believe firmly that you could tell the quality of a musician just by looking at the way they hold the instrument. Well, there is 'some' truth to this; but having been to hundreds of concerts, I have to concede that my certainty about the 'eye-test' test for musicianship is completely false.

 

And I used to think you could evaluate a hitter by the mechanics of his swing.

 

But then I realized some of the most flawless swings I ever saw belonged to Frank Catalanotto and Gerald Perry (who would later be a hitting instructor in the Sox farm system). Whereas some of the ugliest swings belonged to Ichiro and Bernie Williams. Which set of those two contains better hitters?

[jad]

And I used to think you could evaluate a hitter by the mechanics of his swing.

 

But then I realized some of the most flawless swings I ever saw belonged to Frank Catalanotto and Gerald Perry (who would later be a hitting instructor in the Sox farm system). Whereas some of the ugliest swings belonged to Ichiro and Bernie Williams. Which set of those two contains better hitters?

 

Or this guy!

[notin]

Or this guy!

 

I had no idea Musial was so grainy and blurry.

 

 

Really what dawned on me was, a great swing is useless unless you know when to use it.

[mvp 78]

Extend Alex Cora.

[Slasher9]

Extend Alex Cora.

 

a hand and thank him for his 2 years of service

[mvp 78]

a hand and thank him for his 2 years of service

 

And sign him up for another decade.

[Slasher9]

And sign him up for another decade.

 

as the bench coach.

[mvp 78]

as the bench coach.

 

Because they don’t need a bench coach if Cora is already the manager.

[jad]

I had no idea Musial was so grainy and blurry.

 

 

.

 

Oh yeah. I can confirm through the eye-test that he absolutely was. I occasionally saw him on tv right after we got our first one in, oh, 1953, and he ALWAYS looked this way.

[Slasher9]

buh bye WTF!

[Swiharts Ghost]

Get rid of this guy today before the hammer drops .

[mvp 78]

Get rid of this guy today before the hammer drops .

 

Nope

[mvp 78]

buh bye WTF!

 

This s*** is so funny to me. Life is really absurd sometimes.