notin
-
Posts
52,073 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
Content Type
Profiles
Boston Red Sox Videos
2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking
Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
Guides & Resources
2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
News
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by notin
-
If they tender him a contract, I do think you will be very pleased. I don't see him getting traded for one year at his estimated salary...
-
Oh ok. I could have looked that up. But when I see Palmer and McNally, I always think of him as being there. Along with Pat Dobson, who was also missing from that list...
-
Agreed. Which is why raw data is not biased. The biases I an talking about are cognitive biases inherent to human thought processes...
-
No. There is a difference between a cognitive bias related to human processing of information and data simply collected in different sets. But you are correct in tht these are factors that get ignored in comparing stats from different players. However, even with all this, the sets will never be equal because hitters cannot face pitchers from their own team (and vice versa) which gives advantages to the teammates of the best players....
-
They are raw data, but arguably subject to a sample selection bias, inasmuch as they ignore all data from previous games. But they are done for the purpose of showing a hot streak or short term improvement. The question is, how representative are they?
-
Many have given up on JBJ but what about Benny ?
notin replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Nothing. Betts is a serious trade candidate. Bradley is a non-tender or trade candidate. And the Sox have one outfield prospect who might be able to play next year if they rush him. They might need to hold on to at least one outfielder.... -
No Mike Cuellar?
-
Puig ?Castellanos ? Trade Benny and Mookie
notin replied to Swiharts Ghost's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
I think I would listen to either of them about Puig over anyone on this board. They KNOW the guy... -
Not always true. Historically the Yankees and Cubs have dominated betting action from the get go, and the oddsmakers took it into account. In the case of the Cubs, there were literally thousands betting “this is the year” every season with small bets on high odds. So there were plenty of years where the Cubs were the worst team in the league, but the opening line didn’t reflect it...
-
Correct. Momentum describes history. But then again, so does “win”..,
-
Raw data is not biased. But data analysis can be subject to a whole different set of cognitive biases, like skewed data bias, sample selection bias, cause-effect bias. And so on...
-
No, because it’s all done by software now..,
-
It's not abut assessing right or wrong as much as it is about approaching (not reaching, just approaching) objectivity. And when it comes to the "human element" of baseball, all humans have flawed observational skills, pre-conceived notions, faulty memories, and can alter their own memories unconsciously. Data doesn't do that. Stats capture the human element better. But that doesn't mean stat geeks do...
-
As I mentioned earlier in the thread. Not only did they never have a lead, they only had one inning that ended in a tie (Game 1, inning 6). The Sox jumped out to a lead in the first inning of every games...
-
At this point, you're repeating a lot of what I say about stats. The bias in stats typically comes from either error or intent. An agent uses intent. But the biases we all have when we observe things or remember things are part of the human psyche. Stuff like Dunning-Kruger effect, confirmation bias, negativity bias, self-serving bias, optimism/pessimism bias, hindsight bias, decline bias, and of course, the ever popular Backfire Effect. That last one is when you try to prove someone else wrong on a subject, and their reaction is to take the correction as a personal attack and then only cling more deeply to their beliefs. We see that one daily on this board. This is all psychology stuff, and admittedly I am not an expert on it, although the Dunning-Kruger effect wants to me to think I am...
-
But it is funny the weird stereotypes our televisions created. for years, people insisted all left-handed pitchers threw across their bodies and got more break, because that was how it looked when the centerfield camera was positioned just over the pitcher's right shoulder...
-
Actually, not necessarily. It's times like that where many people actually confront their biases. In fact, it might be the best way to confront them...
-
Except that there are just certain biases we have inherently. Our brains can just be wired flat out weird. Dave Cameron, formerly of Fangraphs, once wrote that the eye test for defense often just turns into "I saw that guy make an error once." This is just a simple confirmation bias that we are all prone to. We go into watching a game thinking Player X cannot field well. He makes a mistake. And on that sample size of one play, the observer feels assured with his initial hypothesis. He can't help it. None of us can...
-
True The biggest difference is that it can be easier to see that data refutes an initial hypothesis, whereas observations tend to lean towrds a confirmation bis or whatever one is appropriate...
-
Another option. If he opts out...
-
I want Ian Anderson, just so we can pair him with Brian Johnson and have some serious rock and roll on that pitching staff..
-
EXcept that in the case of humans, many of the biases are just inherent to us as observers of anything. It's really hard to not fall victim to, say, the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Statistical biases are usually more the product of intention or incomplete research and are easier to avoid...
-
Not getting Lux or Verdugo or May, let alone all threes. I see something more along the lines of Drew Waters and Touki Toussaint...
-
Yankee fan want Gerrit Cole. Cole reportedly wants the west coast. So maybe Madison Bumgarner as the consolation prize...
-
Oh DNA has flaws, too. I posted a link earlier to a famous and (I think) extremely funny case where DNA evidence lead police to think a serial killer was at work, when in reality the widesprad DNA belonged to a woman who packaged the cotton swabs they were using. No one is getting on about perfection. And before we go too much further down this rabbit hole, this all started as a statement about the various biases and foibles of human memory that makes it very difficult for human beings to judge the human element in the game of baseball. I think that's actually one area where stats are actually better than people. When used properly of course...
