1. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 10:28 PM EDT

    softy coined the absurd term, so I guess only he can answer.

    The Sox have scored 4 runs or less 8 times.
    The Sox have scored 6 or more runs 8 times.
    The Sox have not scored 5 runs this year.

    Is our "median average" 5?

    If yes, does this mean we are "more balanced" than last year?

    If yes, why do we have a worse winning % than last season?

    If no, is it because the sample size is larger than what softy usually uses?

    I'm confused.

    Is there a math major in the house?
     

  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 10:46 PM EDT

    In Response to A question on "median average"...:
    softy coined the absurd term, so I guess only he can answer. The Sox have scored 4 runs or less 8 times. The Sox have scored 6 or more runs 8 times. The Sox have not scored 5 runs this year. Is our "median average" 5? If yes, does this mean we are "more balanced" than last year? If yes, why do we have a worse winning % than last season? If no, is it because the sample size is larger than what softy usually uses? I'm confused. Is there a math major in the house?
    Posted by moonslav59

    So their median would would be 5 runs, and their average is actually 5.7. So would their median average be 5.35? There mode would be 3 by the way.
     

  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:18 PM EDT

    In Response to A question on "median average"...:
    softy coined the absurd term, so I guess only he can answer. The Sox have scored 4 runs or less 8 times. The Sox have scored 6 or more runs 8 times. The Sox have not scored 5 runs this year. Is our "median average" 5? If yes, does this mean we are "more balanced" than last year? If yes, why do we have a worse winning % than last season? If no, is it because the sample size is larger than what softy usually uses? I'm confused. Is there a math major in the house?
    Posted by moonslav59
    I wasn't a math major, but I was a physics major. There are two different averages you can look at, statistically speaking. The mean is what we usually think of as an average, that is the sum divided by the total number of instances being looked at. The median is the most commonly occurring value. So as usual softy doesn't know what he's talking about.
     

  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:20 PM EDT

    I think you have to divide both figures by pi, multiply by the longitude and latitude of Phoenix, Arizona, and then add the length in time of Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda Da-Vida."

     

  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:27 PM EDT

    LOL, except on Thursdays!
     

  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:37 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    I think you have to divide both figures by pi, multiply by the longitude and latitude of Phoenix, Arizona, and then add the length in time of Iron Butterfly's "In-A-Gadda Da-Vida."
    Posted by LloydDobler

    My formal education was mostly in Canuckistan, believe in " metric math" it's WINSLOW, Arizona.......but NOT Oklahoma...but does it matter ?

    Ortiz hitting .400 +........now THAT'S a " mean " average.
     

  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:41 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : My formal education was mostly in Canuckistan, believe in " metric math" it's WINSLOW, Arizona.......but NOT Oklahoma...but does it matter ? Ortiz hitting .400 +........now THAT'S a " mean " average.
    Posted by jimedfred
    Or swinging a mean stick
     

  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:44 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    In Response to A question on "median average"... : I wasn't a math major, but I was a physics major. There are two different averages you can look at, statistically speaking. The mean is what we usually think of as an average, that is the sum divided by the total number of instances being looked at. The median is the most commonly occurring value. So as usual softy doesn't know what he's talking about.
    Posted by carnie


    You're thinking of mode.  median is (to put it simply) the middle number.

    1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8

    Mode: 1
    Median: 4
    Mean: 3.91
     

  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from NUSoxFan. Show NUSoxFan's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:48 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : You're thinking of mode.  median is (to put it simply) the middle number. 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 Mode: 1 Median: 4 Mean: 3.91
    Posted by JB-3


    This is correct.

    A median is a pretty fundamental way of picking a middle value, line'um up, pick the middle one, if the numbers are even, take the two middle one's add'um and divide by two. Mean is an actual statistical average. Medians can sometimes be more reliable because they will factor out outliers, for example let's say we scored 1, 12, 13, and 14 runs in 4 games, the median would be 12. The average would be 10. 12 Seems more accurate considering the frequency of higher scoring games.
     

  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/26/2012 11:49 PM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : You're thinking of mode.  median is (to put it simply) the middle number. 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 Mode: 1 Median: 4 Mean: 3.91
    Posted by JB-3
    You're right. But I always did hate statistics. It was my downfall in quantum mechanics.
     

  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:12 AM EDT

    Nu and  JB are correct, which is why, if the Sox have NOT scored 5 runs in a game this season, they cannot have a median score of 5.  Nor can they have a "median average" score, as these are mutually exclusive concepts.  But I am sure to softy, this is all left-wing, socialist conspiracy...and global warming is a myth.  Science has no place in the Ayn Rand/tea party vision of truth.
     

  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:15 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : You're thinking of mode.  median is (to put it simply) the middle number. 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 Mode: 1 Median: 4 Mean: 3.91
    Posted by JB-3


    Math major here, and this is correct.

    The median is really the midpoint.  Had there been an even number of values, say no "8" as the last number in the set, the median would be found by averaging out the two middle numbers, in this case 3 and 4.  So the median of 3.5 I guess in that case would be a median average.  I mean, if you accept a defintion that sort of involves using both concepts in a roundabout and fringe kind of way.

    I've been kind of ripping on him on that term for a couple years now, but he still clings to it.  Probably because he thinks it sounds intelligent, but it sadly has the opposite effect...



     

  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:20 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    Nu and  JB are correct, which is why, if the Sox have NOT scored 5 runs in a game this season, they cannot have a median score of 5.  Nor can they have a "median average" score, as these are mutually exclusive concepts.  But I am sure to softy, this is all left-wing, socialist conspiracy...and global warming is a myth.  Science has no place in the Ayn Rand/tea party vision of truth.
    Posted by parhunter55

    Disagree completely. Rational people examine objective truth, measuring inputs and outputs or results, and draw conclusions. People of either political persuasion who remain wedded to dogma over evidence are both lost. Randian belief system not restricted to conservatives, check Alan Greenspan.
    And most tea party folks just want fiscal sanity and balanced budgets, not stupidity. What is unreasonable about economic growth and stability ?
     

  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:44 AM EDT

    Nothing unreasonable about economic growth and stability.  BTW, Last time we had that in this country, Clinton was president.  Everything unreasonable about softy's propensity to paint anyone who disagrees with him a socialist or left-wing liberal. 

    And everything unreasonable about the right-wing conservative's penchant for disavowing science when it does not fit their capitalistic goals and labeling it elitist (see "Atlas Shrugged").

    By the way, who ever taught you that Greenspan was anything but conservative?  He is hardly a liberal; never even heard a tea partier try to claim that.  Greenspan has always been an insider of Wall Street and big banks.  The whole faltering structure that lead to the economic collapse of 2008 was built on his watch.
     

  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:47 AM EDT

    I was told there would be no math.

    Cool
     

  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:50 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    I was told there would be no math.
    Posted by royf19
    Baseball without math? Huh?
     

  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:55 AM EDT

    Baseball is how I learned to turn my fractions (3 for 7) into percentages (.429), and got good at estimating and otherwise doing math in my head!

     

  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 12:56 AM EDT

    Jack Nicklaus isn't a collectivist public policy panderer.

    Global warming alarmists have little respect for science or private property rights, except when it comes to their own. "Global Warming" is a midget minded bugaboo to further a political agenda. 

    Nice to see the shill, who claims not to read my posts, making another attempt to troll a personal attack thread. Yes, small minded folks, there is such thing as an average of medians over subsets. 

    No greater compliment than a cyber mob of mental midgets, captiously claiming that "there is no such thing as median average";)  
     

  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 1:00 AM EDT

    Thanks for proving my point, Spiro.
     

  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 7:33 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : Disagree completely. Rational people examine objective truth, measuring inputs and outputs or results, and draw conclusions. People of either political persuasion who remain wedded to dogma over evidence are both lost. Randian belief system not restricted to conservatives, check Alan Greenspan. And most tea party folks just want fiscal sanity and balanced budgets, not stupidity. What is unreasonable about economic growth and stability ?
    Posted by jimedfred


    Jim,

    Expecting the current political system to deliver it.
     

  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimedfred. Show jimedfred's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 10:26 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    Nothing unreasonable about economic growth and stability.  BTW, Last time we had that in this country, Clinton was president.  Everything unreasonable about softy's propensity to paint anyone who disagrees with him a socialist or left-wing liberal.  And everything unreasonable about the right-wing conservative's penchant for disavowing science when it does not fit their capitalistic goals and labeling it elitist (see "Atlas Shrugged"). By the way, who ever taught you that Greenspan was anything but conservative?  He is hardly a liberal; never even heard a tea partier try to claim that.  Greenspan has always been an insider of Wall Street and big banks.  The whole faltering structure that lead to the economic collapse of 2008 was built on his watch.
    Posted by parhunter55

    1) Greenspan is not known nor regarded as a conservative fiscally, socially, or politically. His monetarist policies were classicly neo-liberal, and though defeated inflation did help contribute to equity and especially real estate bubbles due to artificially low interest rates.
    2) Greenspan neither originated Carter's Fair Housing / Community Reinvestment Act NOR helped Clinton strengthen & implement it. This ONE policy , more than ANY other, contributed to the subprime meltdown.
    3) Greenspan has been married to noted lefty newswoman Andrea Mitchell for many years.
     

  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 10:55 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    Baseball is how I learned to turn my fractions (3 for 7) into percentages (.429), and got good at estimating and otherwise doing math in my head!
    Posted by parhunter55


    Me too. I was always strong in math and statistics, and a lot of it has to do with baseball. I was always into stats and used to add up stats w/o a calculator when I was a kid.
     

  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NUSoxFan. Show NUSoxFan's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 11:07 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    Nice to see the shill, who claims not to read my posts, making another attempt to troll a personal attack thread. Yes, small minded folks, there is such thing as an average of medians over subsets. 


    All of those things you said are mathematical words, with definitions, and can be applied to situations sure, but not to a single string of data without recatagorizing it. It sounds like you're saying that you are using the average of medians of all of our game's subsets (based on that vague undefined rhetoric you've given).

    The set of all subsets of a set (say that 5 times fast) of data is known as it's power set. The number of sets in this set, can be found by raising two to the cardinality of the original set. We've played 18 games, so the number of medians you would have to average to do so is 2 to the 18th power, otherwise known as 262,144 medians. I find it unlikely you are doing this, or that it would even have any merit.

    A pure statistical median is probably the best way to factor out the weight of outliers while still acknowledging the occurance of a high or low scoring game.


    Our organized scores are,
    0 0 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 6 6 7 9 10 11 12 12 13

    With an even number of games we have to take the middle to numbers and average them, which are 4 and 6, which means our median is 5. The Sox bats aren't the problem, a team scoring more than 5 runs half the time should have at least a .500 record.
     

  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Roadrunner9234. Show Roadrunner9234's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 11:36 AM EDT

    Hank,

    Those who don't believe in global warming(despite the supporting scientific evidence) made it a political issue. So much so that it's not even possible to break the discussion down to whether it's man made.
     

  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from JB-3. Show JB-3's posts

    Re: A question on "median average"...

    posted at 4/27/2012 11:59 AM EDT

    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
    In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : All of those things you said are mathematical words, with definitions, and can be applied to situations sure, but not to a single string of data without recatagorizing it. It sounds like you're saying that you are use the average of medians of all of our game's subsets (based on that vague undefined rhetoric you've given). The set of all subsets of a set (say that 5 times fast) of data is known as it's power set. The number of sets in this set, can be found by raising two to the cardinality of the original set. We've played 18 games, so the number of medians you would have to average to do so is 2 to the 18th power, otherwise known as 262,144 medians. I find it unlikely you are doing this, or that it would even have any merit. A pure statistical median is probably the best way to factor out the weight of outliers while still acknowledging the occurance of a high or low scoring game. Our organized scores are, 0 0 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 6 6 7 9 10 11 12 12 13 With an even number of games we have to take the middle to numbers and average them, which are 4 and 6, which means our median is 5. The Sox bats aren't the problem, a team scoring more than 5 runs half the time should have at least a .500 record.
    Posted by NUSoxFan


    Well said!