# A question on "median average"...

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

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

... a team scoring more than 5 runs half the time should have at least a .500 record.

It's interesting that this year we have a higher "median" runs scored than last year, but a losing record, and yet softy still rails on and on about our unbalanced offense as our major problem, not the pitching.

(Guys, there is no such thing as "median average. It's only in softy's head, but this has been a good read thread.)

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

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

I think the case that is trying to be made is that the Red Sox either score a lot of runs or no runs.

I think the better stat would be the mean with the standard deviation.  A low standard deviation would indicate the typical run total for a game was close to the average.  If the average run total was 4 and the standard deviation was 1, then a larger majority of the games had run totals between 3 and 5.

But a large standard deviation would mean the run total for each game varied widely.

In the 18 games, the Median for runs scored is 5, the Mean is 5.78, with a standard deviation of 4.41.

A Mean of 5.78 indicates the team is scoring a lot of runs, and a standard deviation of 4.41 means the scoring is all over the place, with little consistency.

In other words, they are beating up on bad pitching but good pitching kills them.

The Median runs allowed by the Red Sox is also 5.  If we just used the Median, we would expect this team to be at .500.

But the mean runs allowed by the Sox is 6.17 with a standard deviation of 4.93.   This indicates that the pitching has been worse than the hitting and even more inconsistent.

So on any given night, there's no telling what's going to happen.

And yes, I'm a numbers geek.

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

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

The Median runs allowed by the Red Sox is 5.  If we just used the Median, we would expect this team to be at .500.

How many teams had a median of 5 runs scored last year?

I think it was 2 (Yanks and Rangers). The Sox missed by 3 games (of 4 runs instead of 5).

A median of 5 should translate into a 60% or better winning % as long as the pitching holds up. It hasn't, and thus we are sub-500.

This year we have a better median than last year, but have a much worse winning %. It's all about the pitching (and defense)... always has been... always will be.

Last year we won 14 games when our staff let up 6 or more runs.
We were 17-13 in games we scored 4 runs, 7-10 in 3 run games, and 7-8 in 5 run games (31-31 in games with 3-5 runs scored). How many times did our staff bailout poor hitting games?

We were 4-23 in games that our offense scored 1-2 runs. 11-33 in games of 1-3 runs.

The point of this thread was to expose the silly clown for his whole "median average" position.
1) There's no such term.
2) If we pretend to assume the term exists and it means that since we scored 0-4 runs 9 times this year and 6 or more 9 times this year, our median average is 5, why aren't we winning more than last year?
3) Of course balanced scoring is an assett, but we all know keeping the opponents from scoring give the team a better chance of winning than scoring 5 runs more times than not.
4) This year, we are are just 3-2 in games we scored 9 runs or more!  Just 3-2!

4. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
The Median runs allowed by the Red Sox is 5.  If we just used the Median, we would expect this team to be at .500. How many teams had a median of 5 runs scored last year? I think it was 2 (Yanks and Rangers). The Sox missed by 3 games (of 4 runs instead of 5). A median of 5 should translate into a 60% or better winning % as long as the pitching holds up. It hasn't, and thus we are sub-500. This year we have a better median than last year, but have a much worse winning %. It's all about the pitching (and defense)... always has been... always will be. Last year we won 14 games when our staff let up 6 or more runs.  We were 17-13 in games we scored 4 runs, 7-10 in 3 run games, and 7-8 in 5 run games (31-31 in games with 3-5 runs scored). How many times did our staff bailout poor hitting games? We were 4-23 in games that our offense scored 1-2 runs. 11-33 in games of 1-3 runs. The point of this thread was to expose the silly clown for his whole "median average" position.  1) There's no such term. 2) If we pretend to assume the term exists and it means that since we scored 0-4 runs 9 times this year and 6 or more 9 times this year, our median average is 5, why aren't we winning more than last year? 3) Of course balanced scoring is an assett, but we all know keeping the opponents from scoring give the team a better chance of winning than scoring 5 runs more times than not. 4) This year, we are are just 3-2 in games we scored 9 runs or more!  Just 3-2!
Posted by moonslav59

Ok, a couple of thoughts here, if they put "median average" on your tombstone  instead of your actual years, you'd still be alive. The sample size is sooo small thus far, anyone drawing a conclusion ought to have their logic license suspended. Being just 3-2 is a whopping .600 winning percentage, I'd take that every month! Last years' slate of games in which the Sox scored 4 runs, did give them a 17-13 record, a .566 winning percentage...however, they only scored 3 more total runs in those games, 120-117 which equates to a Pythagorean winning percentage of .513 or expected win total of 15 games. James would say the Sox "got lucky" in those two wins. The key fact here is not that they won 17 games, it is that they only scored 4 runs in so many games.
The Yanks with 28 games, Tampa 21 and Texas 23 by way of comparison. The things to watch are median runs scored, 5 is ideal, and then run differential which factors in pitching and defense, and finally pythagorean winnng percentage.

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

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

Ok, a couple of thoughts here, if they put "median average" on your tombstone  instead of your actual years, you'd still be alive. The sample size is sooo small thus far, anyone drawing a conclusion ought to have their logic license suspended.

Dude, this whole "median average" post was a spoof on softy. He's the master of small sample size judgements, and 18 games is actually 17 games larger than many of his foundational sample sizes.

Being just 3-2 is a whopping .600 winning percentage, I'd take that every month!

You'll take a 60% winning percent in games we score 9 or more runs? Interesting.

Last years' slate of games in which the Sox scored 4 runs, did give them a 17-13 record, a .566 winning percentage...however, they only scored 3 more total runs in those games, 120-117 which equates to a Pythagorean winning percentage of .513 or expected win total of 15 games. James would say the Sox "got lucky" in those two wins. The key fact here is not that they won 17 games, it is that they only scored 4 runs in so many games.
The Yanks with 28 games, Tampa 21 and Texas 23 by way of comparison. The things to watch are median runs scored, 5 is ideal, and then run differential which factors in pitching and defense, and finally pythagorean winnng percentage.

I get it. I know we'd have won more had our median been 5 not 4, and if we spread out our runs better. My position has always been that "timely hitting" is not something that can be managed, traded for or projected. To say, "we need to build up our timely hitting" in the off season is just plain crazy on many levels.

Our offense is top 3. The runs and "timely hitting" or "balanced scoring" should all even out. If it doesn't, we'll have trouble making the playoffs again, but I'm not making any calls based on bad luck continuing.

Our pitching was our major problem last year, and it is again this year. I know the sample size is small this year, but it's super large in softy's world, and it is showing that winning is not all about median runs scored.

With tonight's game, our median runs scored is now 6. We've scored 6 or more runs in 9 out of 19 games, but have a losing record. Softy will look at these numbers and say, our problem is hitting not pitching. That doesn't shock me at all. He's been extremely absurd for over a year and a half now. The shocking thing to me is that a few of you guys are buying his Kool-Aid. It's OK that you agree with his politics, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with his absurd baseball positions.

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
and got good at estimating And commenting on math, you write "got good at estimating". LMAO!  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.  Yes, folks, we have an idiot talking about people and pridefully quoting a jaded lady who also spent a lot of time talking about people instead of ideas.
Posted by hankwilliamsjr

You would laugh your ars off...you cannot even read what is in front of you.  The sentence did not stop where you stopped it, and the sentence is both correct grammatically and made my point about math and baseball effectively.   But thanks for the nasty insult and criticism of my use of English.  I need that.  My writing is so fetid and convoluted when I don't have you correcting me.

Thank you again Spiro.  You are so correct...I'm the idiot, global warming is a leftist invention, Eleanor Roosevelt is jaded, and Jack Nicklaus, who I assume you are tight buds with, is no public policy panderer.  We need your reality checks here. We are so lost and misguided without them.e

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

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

An Absurd baseball position is millions to Varitek and Wastefield. An Absurd baseball position is sitting Ortiz for 3 years against most LP. And writing novels of snipets to defend the very pitcher who blocked a number of 2010 and 2011starts from Doubrant (yes, stooge, after the DL).

You are the last witch doctor on Varitek and pitching, as Harness is sulking. The Red Sox are winning now because of offensive production, which is their identity for obvious reasons. You have whined for years about "it's the pitching".

You take your information from some canned websites and offer nothing that an idiot using the internet can't access, snipet and spin for himself.

The offense carries the pitching, not the other way around. Status quo, as soon as these limited talent RH profiles start to feel the fatigue of full month or two of the season, the Red Sox will start losing again. Excellent pitching will not get it done for the Red Sox.

You spoof yourself with this lame thread. The fact is that you constantly whine and claim to ignore my posts. The fact is that you read every comment I make.

Get back with me when you grasp why the Twins could, would and did afford Joe Mauer. A dull knife with an endorsement is still a dull knife.

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : 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.
Posted by jimedfred

Thanks for the correction.  I'd been duped into believing that the cause of the meltdown was the lack of banking oversight and the changes in federal policy which allowed banks to start selling insurance, and insurance companies to start being banks, and the trend that followed wherein financial institutions became too big to fail.  All of which began during the Clinton era.  Now I know it was actually that dastardly liberal Jimmy Carter who caused the 2008 financial crisis, 28 years after he supposedly left office and founded a charitable organization.

BTW.  Just wondering.  If the conservatives have known this all this time, why didn't Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 do something about it, in the 20 intervening years they held office? Just curious.

Oh, and conservative Republican consultant Mary Matalin is married to James Carville.  Does that make her a liberal?

FACT CHECK: (not that facts get in the way of too many opinions on this board.)  Greenspan was criticized soundly by Democrats late in his tenure at the Fed for being too closely allied with Republican President George Bush and Bush's fiscal policies (including by Massachusetts's own Barney Frank).  Who immediately came to his defense?  Senate Republican Mitch McConnell.

AND:  In 2005, Greenspan was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award (kind of like being knighted by the Queen) in the USA by George W. Bush.  I do not think he would have received that award had he been perceived by the President or any of the GOP as being neo-liberal as you claim.

Like I said, I had not even heard any tea-party activists claiming Greenspan was liberal; that is until now. Only claims by liberals that he was "shilling" (not to be confused with the guy with the bloody sock) for Bush and the Republicans and their Wall Street cronies (see Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman).

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
An Absurd baseball position is millions to Varitek and Wastefield. An Absurd baseball position is sitting Ortiz for 3 years against most LP. And writing novels of snipets to defend the very pitcher who blocked a number of 2010 and 2011starts from Doubrant (yes, stooge, after the DL). You are the last witch doctor on Varitek and pitching, as Harness is sulking. The Red Sox are winning now because of offensive production, which is their identity for obvious reasons. You have whined for years about "it's the pitching". You take your information from some canned websites and offer nothing that an idiot using the internet can't access, snipet and spin for himself.   The offense carries the pitching, not the other way around. Status quo, as soon as these limited talent RH profiles start to feel the fatigue of full month or two of the season, the Red Sox will start losing again. Excellent pitching will not get it done for the Red Sox. You spoof yourself with this lame thread. The fact is that you constantly whine and claim to ignore my posts. The fact is that you read every comment I make.  Get back with me when you grasp why the Twins could, would and did afford Joe Mauer. A dull knife with an endorsement is still a dull knife.
Posted by hankwilliamsjr

Not nearly as absurd as mentioning them in every post 6 months after they have retired. At this point, you are the only one obsessed with them, as they are really, really unlikely targets given that they were a backup catcher and a long reliever/spot starter and both were paid in accordance with many others in the league holding those roles.

Repeating their names over and onver as if they were the snakes and you are St. Patrick doesn't make you sound as intelligent as you think it does.

And neither does throwing around strings of mathematical buzzwords that you don't understand...

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

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

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

LOL!   This is a great thread for laughs.   You guys are showing some terrific parsing of language, "farcing" of geography, music, math ... and even a touch of history.

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
I think the case that is trying to be made is that the Red Sox either score a lot of runs or no runs.  I think the better stat would be the mean with the standard deviation.  A low standard deviation would indicate the typical run total for a game was close to the average.  If the average run total was 4 and the standard deviation was 1, then a larger majority of the games had run totals between 3 and 5. But a large standard deviation would mean the run total for each game varied widely. In the 18 games, the Median for runs scored is 5, the Mean is 5.78, with a standard deviation of 4.41.   A Mean of 5.78 indicates the team is scoring a lot of runs, and a standard deviation of 4.41 means the scoring is all over the place, with little consistency. In other words, they are beating up on bad pitching but good pitching kills them. The Median runs allowed by the Red Sox is also 5.  If we just used the Median, we would expect this team to be at .500. But the mean runs allowed by the Sox is 6.17 with a standard deviation of 4.93.   This indicates that the pitching has been worse than the hitting and even more inconsistent. So on any given night, there's no telling what's going to happen. And yes, I'm a numbers geek.
Posted by DirtyWaterLover

Impressive

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
An Absurd baseball position is millions to Varitek and Wastefield. An Absurd baseball position is sitting Ortiz for 3 years against most LP. And writing novels of snipets to defend the very pitcher who blocked a number of 2010 and 2011starts from Doubrant (yes, stooge, after the DL). You are the last witch doctor on Varitek and pitching, as Harness is sulking. The Red Sox are winning now because of offensive production, which is their identity for obvious reasons. You have whined for years about "it's the pitching". You take your information from some canned websites and offer nothing that an idiot using the internet can't access, snipet and spin for himself.   The offense carries the pitching, not the other way around. Status quo, as soon as these limited talent RH profiles start to feel the fatigue of full month or two of the season, the Red Sox will start losing again. Excellent pitching will not get it done for the Red Sox. You spoof yourself with this lame thread. The fact is that you constantly whine and claim to ignore my posts. The fact is that you read every comment I make.  Get back with me when you grasp why the Twins could, would and did afford Joe Mauer. A dull knife with an endorsement is still a dull knife.
Posted by hankwilliamsjr

Not nearly as absurd as mentioning them in every post 6 months after they have retired. At this point, you are the only one obsessed with them, as they are really, really unlikely targets given that they were a backup catcher and a long reliever/spot starter and both were paid in accordance with many others in the league holding those roles.

Repeating their names over and onver as if they were the snakes and you are St. Patrick doesn't make you sound as intelligent as you think it does.

And neither does throwing around strings of mathematical buzzwords that you don't understand...

There isn't even a math word "median average", but the silly clown tried to absurd his way to pretending it has meaning beyond his twisted mind.

His clinging to his Wake and Vtek binkies is further evidence of his growing absurdities. Softy is the master of small sample sizes, so I think using this 19 game sample size to expose his absurdity is justifiable. Softy claimed we lost last year because we scored 4 or less runs more often than not and that cancelled out the fact that we led the league in almost every offensive category. Well, now our median is 6 runs, and we have a losing record. He fails to answer this point of the thread. Instead, he obfuscates, diverts, and adds more ad hom attacks based on more lies and gross misrepresentation of my past positions. Nothing changes with this clown.

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : Thanks for the correction.  I'd been duped into believing that the cause of the meltdown was the lack of banking oversight and the changes in federal policy which allowed banks to start selling insurance, and insurance companies to start being banks, and the trend that followed wherein financial institutions became too big to fail.  All of which began during the Clinton era.  Now I know it was actually that dastardly liberal Jimmy Carter who caused the 2008 financial crisis, 28 years after he supposedly left office and founded a charitable organization.  BTW.  Just wondering.  If the conservatives have known this all this time, why didn't Reagan and Bush 1 and Bush 2 do something about it, in the 20 intervening years they held office? Just curious. Oh, and conservative Republican consultant Mary Matalin is married to James Carville.  Does that make her a liberal? FACT CHECK: (not that facts get in the way of too many opinions on this board.)  Greenspan was criticized soundly by Democrats late in his tenure at the Fed for being too closely allied with Republican President George Bush and Bush's fiscal policies (including by Massachusetts's own Barney Frank).  Who immediately came to his defense?  Senate Republican Mitch McConnell.  AND:  In 2005, Greenspan was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award (kind of like being knighted by the Queen) in the USA by George W. Bush.  I do not think he would have received that award had he been perceived by the President or any of the GOP as being neo-liberal as you claim.  Like I said, I had not even heard any tea-party activists claiming Greenspan was liberal; that is until now. Only claims by liberals that he was "shilling" (not to be confused with the guy with the bloody sock) for Bush and the Republicans and their Wall Street cronies (see Nobel Prize winning Economist Paul Krugman).
Posted by parhunter55

Mr. Parhunter, you seem by your baseball posts to be relatively reasonable and intelligent. However, when it comes to economics, history, or terminology, ESPECIALLY THE TERM NEO-LIBERAL, you really need some education.
1) There were many contributing factors to the 2008 crisis, I stated the biggest one was the legislation originated by Carter. It was fully implemented, added to and enforced beginning with Clinton. Do you recall the big Fleet Financial mortgage discrimination scandal story  during Clinton terms?
For a good non-partisan read on the crisis, I suggest "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis, author also of "Moneyball".
Btw, had Jimmy Peanut been effective at anything, North Korea wouldn't have nuclear weapons. Remember Clinton having hiim lead those negotiations ?
2) Mr. Greenspan was rewarded for a long distinguished career in public service, apparently successful as during his tenure he was criticized from both right AND left, while never appearing partisan or political. I meant he was not known for being a conservative or tea partier. Andrea Mitchell though, probably couldn't bear even touching a conservative.
You REALLY should read up on classical economic theory; the term neo-liberal has almost NO political meaning in economic terms, except favoring free market economies over command ( as in totalitarian ) ones. I used it to refer to Greenspan's monetary policy.

3) Krugman's Nobel prize in Economics was for statistical research on international trade patterns, NOT for any brilliance in espousing a particular policy viewpoint.
4) Finally....Barney Frank ? Really ? You mean the man (?) who argued to Pres. Bush that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were just fine, completely solvent, and needed NO oversight or reining in , back as early as 2003 when Bush wished to intervene ? Congresswoman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd bear more culpability for malfeasance than anyone else in office from 2001 until present.

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

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

Games where we scored 0-3 runs: 0-5
Games where we scored 4-5 runs: 1-0
Games where we scored 6+ runs:  8-2

Games where we let up 0-3 runs: 5-3
Games where we let up 4-5 runs: 3-0
Games where we let up 6+ runs:  1-7

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

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

Not to pile on.....but as head of the Federal Reserve Mr. Greenspan was involved in setting MONETARY policy, not fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is the purview of the Treasury Department, the Office of Management & Budget, and the President.

Should you bother to look it up, you'd discover the most vehement criticism of Greenspan came from currency board or gold standard advocates such as Steve Forbes and Joe Granville, respectively. Neither could be, or have ever been, accused of being Democrats.

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
Games where we scored 0-3 runs: 0-5
Posted by moonslav59

Hopefully we can hold on tonight.

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : Hopefully we can hold on tonight.
Posted by JB-3

We can, and we did. Glad to see our offense carry us again.

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

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

jimedfred, I stand corrected.  Bush would have awarded Greenspan with the Medal of Freedom precisely because he is a neo-liberal, as you claim, meaning Greenspan is for less government intervention and oversight and more free market growth.  Which is precisely why Greenspan is a tea party favorite, and is reviled by so many liberal Democrats.  Which was my original point, after you brought his name up and tried to label him a favorite of liberal Democrats, including Jimmy Carter.

Do you not see the contradiction of your own argument?  Greenspan, if he is the neo-liberal economist you claim, would by definition be anti-Keynesian (the economist whose ideas had much influence on Roosevelt's New Deal-- that Republicans have been so vehemently trying to discredit and dismantle since the 1960s).  Therefore, by definition, Greenspan cannot be a liberal in the sense you imply when you insist that Andrea Mitchell would not touch him otherwise.

Do you really know Andrea Mitchell that well, or are you just blustering more right-wing talking points by insisting that all mainstream media types are liberals, and only the Rupert Murdoch shills at Fox News present the news in an unbiased manner?

I would counter all the other lies, mis-statements, obfuscations and lack of understanding exhibited in your last two attacks on my intelligence and credibility, but that would render this way too long.  Suffice it to say, you look ridiculous pretending to know anything about Andrea Mitchell's political and personal feelings, or anything about my background and need for studying history, economics or terminology.  But thanks for giving me a chance to hone my skills for fighting the warped version of reality that is the tenet of the tea party.

Might I recommend some instuctive reading to you?  "Pity the Billionaire," by
Thomas Frank, former columnist for the Wall Street journal.  He does a very good job of exposing the utter absurdity and pernicious contradictions behind tea party politics.

19. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
Ok, a couple of thoughts here, if they put "median average" on your tombstone  instead of your actual years, you'd still be alive. The sample size is sooo small thus far, anyone drawing a conclusion ought to have their logic license suspended.  Dude, this whole "median average" post was a spoof on softy. He's the master of small sample size judgements, and 18 games is actually 17 games larger than many of his foundational sample sizes. Being just 3-2 is a whopping .600 winning percentage, I'd take that every month!  You'll take a 60% winning percent in games we score 9 or more runs? Interesting. Last years' slate of games in which the Sox scored 4 runs, did give them a 17-13 record, a .566 winning percentage...however, they only scored 3 more total runs in those games, 120-117 which equates to a Pythagorean winning percentage of .513 or expected win total of 15 games. James would say the Sox "got lucky" in those two wins. The key fact here is not that they won 17 games, it is that they only scored 4 runs in so many games.  The Yanks with 28 games, Tampa 21 and Texas 23 by way of comparison. The things to watch are median runs scored, 5 is ideal, and then run differential which factors in pitching and defense, and finally pythagorean winnng percentage. I get it. I know we'd have won more had our median been 5 not 4, and if we spread out our runs better. My position has always been that "timely hitting" is not something that can be managed, traded for or projected. To say, "we need to build up our timely hitting" in the off season is just plain crazy on many levels.  Our offense is top 3. The runs and "timely hitting" or "balanced scoring" should all even out. If it doesn't, we'll have trouble making the playoffs again, but I'm not making any calls based on bad luck continuing. Our pitching was our major problem last year, and it is again this year. I know the sample size is small this year, but it's super large in softy's world, and it is showing that winning is not all about median runs scored. With tonight's game, our median runs scored is now 6. We've scored 6 or more runs in 9 out of 19 games, but have a losing record. Softy will look at these numbers and say, our problem is hitting not pitching. That doesn't shock me at all. He's been extremely absurd for over a year and a half now. The shocking thing to me is that a few of you guys are buying his Kool-Aid. It's OK that you agree with his politics, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with his absurd baseball positions.
Posted by moonslav59

FIrst, the classic "median average" comment has been recognized by everyone as a joke, and I thought I was playing along. Secondly, while one can not plan for timely hitting, one can design a line-up to promote it. Last year just didn't have that construction. Thirdly, to conclude that I agree with Hank's politics is to take small size sampling to an extreme. I'm not sure that his politics can even be defined, as for myself, I'm a conservative, with a Jeffersonian bent.
At the end of the season I offered up changes for improvement, taking a page from Herman Cain, I called it my 9-9-9 plan and 8-9 of those changes were implemented. (no, I'm not taking credit) I started another thread pointing out the lack of RH power last year, and was mocked all over the board, as some folks wrongly believed that it doesn't matter what side of the plate HR's come frorm. I fully expected that this year's line-up would have more RH power, and it does. I am content with Cody Ross, unlike Hank, as I see Ross as a Nick Swisher type player, he's not the straw in the drink, but he's an ice cube with impact. Finally, I've never been to Spain, but I kinda like the music.

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

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

Lester was back to his mean average ...     :o)

21. You have chosen to ignore posts from YOUKILLUS20. Show YOUKILLUS20's posts

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
Lester was back to his mean average ...     :o)
Posted by SinceYaz

Lester was putting up those donuts last night!

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

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

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.
Posted by carnie

You're kidding me right? What kind of degree in physics were you awarded and from where?

Beyond mathematics, physics is probably the longest running science discipline associated with the development of statistics. I don't think you can even do experimental physics without statistics. Physics + Mathematics + Statistics are hand-in-glove:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_Physics

It's hard to imagine statistics more elementary than the median and mode as descriptors of an average.

I used basic statistics extensively in the analysis of survey research data in the "soft sciences", so I am absolutely not a math and science geek. Thanks to the others in this thread that were quick to correct this gaff.

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

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

In Response to Re: A question on "median average"...:
In Response to Re: A question on "median average"... : 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

Short of congressional committees meeting to discuss juicing in baseball, politics has no place in this forum.

If we can't get back to baseball I'm going projectile vomit.

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

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

FIrst, the classic "median average" comment has been recognized by everyone as a joke, and I thought I was playing along. Secondly, while one can not plan for timely hitting, one can design a line-up to promote it. Last year just didn't have that construction. Thirdly, to conclude that I agree with Hank's politics is to take small size sampling to an extreme. I'm not sure that his politics can even be defined, as for myself, I'm a conservative, with a Jeffersonian bent.
At the end of the season I offered up changes for improvement, taking a page from Herman Cain, I called it my 9-9-9 plan and 8-9 of those changes were implemented. (no, I'm not taking credit) I started another thread pointing out the lack of RH power last year, and was mocked all over the board, as some folks wrongly believed that it doesn't matter what side of the plate HR's come frorm. I fully expected that this year's line-up would have more RH power, and it does. I am content with Cody Ross, unlike Hank, as I see Ross as a Nick Swisher type player, he's not the straw in the drink, but he's an ice cube with impact. Finally, I've never been to Spain, but I kinda like the music.

Well put, Youk.

I too have wanted a RH'd power bat since my days of arguing for signing Holliday to blasting the CC signing on day one, but I have also seen the need for better pitching as our primary goal.

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

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

Youk :  Was wondering if anyone would recognize " Arizona - Oklahoma-does it matter " reference !
Lasitter : Actually trying to avoid politics, digressed into economic theory but parhunter not cognizant of difference, LOL.

Parhunter : Again, point was Greenspan NOT conservative, in tea party context. Never revealed any partisan preference in his career , spanning early Reagan admin. to recent admin, that I know of. Neo-liberal referred to monetary policy / economic theory, not political persuasion.Point was that Rand acolytes come from different backgrounds and styles. Pretty much do know A. Mitchell's politics, easy to do from research.
And Keynesian Policies call for stimulative spending only at some times, and have been discredited by obective results.
But unlike Keynes, who advocated demand stimulation by deficit spending during recessions / depressions ONLY; today's Dems. advocate spending money we don't HAVE in good times and bad.
Frankly I'm done here, don't particularly care how ignorant you choose to remain.I believe analysis only effective if objective facts are considered and that political dogmas tend to be traps. Some are capable of friendly disagreement and discussion, some aren't.Some know what they're talking about, some don't.

Sections
Shortcuts