To all of you who use the the term "sample size"...

  1. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    Good post, Burrito, and it's not surprising you would receive hater dirve-by from Mooncrat. No one posts more subjectively selected sample size and type snipets and uses zero brain function on anything else related to anything else. 

    Burrito, remember the CERA and Wakefield selected stats that never ceased up until the moment Mooncrat's plea for one final 2M offer to Wakefield was rejected?

    Anyone can cut and paste and excel stats, but let's leave the "WAR" and "Sample Size" for the propaganda agenda of Mooncrat and Hill. Hitting that scroll down button has never been more useful when you see these two drive-by posters go by. They also have this creepy air of seriousness with the personality of a 15 years of counting my pension days postal worker. 

    This Board is lame without Geo, yourself and the few other posters who simply say what's on your minds without filters. I come here to read the "seat of the pants" comments of Red Sox fans, not to read the cut and past "War" and Google nonsense that anyone can simply click to. 



    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    I come here to laugh at posters who mess the seat of their pants.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.


    Since I'm the "undisputed king of cherry picking", you'll have no problem providing specific individual examples. 

    Burriot receives a lot of heavy handed static from the de facto moderators on here. I think a narrative on "sample size" is a good one. Let's not hijack this thread for personal agendas, Space. 

    SOFTY, is that you ????   Welcome back, SON !!!


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    As DAD would say .......  "SON, based on the sample size of girls that you have brought home, I wouldn't bring that one home either" !!!

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.


    Since I'm the "undisputed king of cherry picking", you'll have no problem providing specific individual examples. 

    Burriot receives a lot of heavy handed static from the de facto moderators on here. I think a narrative on "sample size" is a good one. Let's not hijack this thread for personal agendas, Space. 



    Sorry for the intrusion of my personal agenda Softy. I think a narrative on "sample size" is a good one as well (see my previous post not colored by my personal agenda).

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    Good post, Burrito, and it's not surprising you would receive hater dirve-by from Mooncrat. No one posts more subjectively selected sample size and type snipets and uses zero brain function on anything else related to anything else. 

    Burrito, remember the CERA and Wakefield selected stats that never ceased up until the moment Mooncrat's plea for one final 2M offer to Wakefield was rejected?

    Anyone can cut and paste and excel stats, but let's leave the "WAR" and "Sample Size" for the propaganda agenda of Mooncrat and Hill. Hitting that scroll down button has never been more useful when you see these two drive-by posters go by. They also have this creepy air of seriousness with the personality of a 15 years of counting my pension days postal worker. 

    This Board is lame without Geo, yourself and the few other posters who simply say what's on your minds without filters. I come here to read the "seat of the pants" comments of Red Sox fans, not to read the cut and past "War" and Google nonsense that anyone can simply click to. 



    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.



    No doubt. softy the clown holds the record for smallest sample size defintive judgement: one pitch where a batter never took his bat off his shoulder was enough for the clown to judge a player's whole career by.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    Good post, Burrito, and it's not surprising you would receive hater dirve-by from Mooncrat. No one posts more subjectively selected sample size and type snipets and uses zero brain function on anything else related to anything else. 

    Burrito, remember the CERA and Wakefield selected stats that never ceased up until the moment Mooncrat's plea for one final 2M offer to Wakefield was rejected?

    Anyone can cut and paste and excel stats, but let's leave the "WAR" and "Sample Size" for the propaganda agenda of Mooncrat and Hill. Hitting that scroll down button has never been more useful when you see these two drive-by posters go by. They also have this creepy air of seriousness with the personality of a 15 years of counting my pension days postal worker. 

    This Board is lame without Geo, yourself and the few other posters who simply say what's on your minds without filters. I come here to read the "seat of the pants" comments of Red Sox fans, not to read the cut and past "War" and Google nonsense that anyone can simply click to. 



    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.



    No doubt. softy the clown holds the record for smallest sample size defintive judgement: one pitch where a batter never took his bat off his shoulder was enough for the clown to judge a player's whole career by.

    Yes Mr. MOON, but its nice to have SOFTY back !!!!   We want him on this board, we need him on this board, he provides all the security to keep some of our posters from the leftside in line !!!!


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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    No board needs a racist hate monger to balance anything or anyone else.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bill-806. Show Bill-806's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    No board needs a racist hate monger to balance anything or anyone else.

    Theres that "CARD" again.....  How many of those do you have in the deck ???


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Flapjack07. Show Flapjack07's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    Next year I intend to popularize SSTSS ("small spring training sample size) to combat the folks who will be up in arms when Xander Bogaerts is hitting .150 in March and Joe Blow the 31 year-old AAA guy is hitting .400.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    No board needs a racist hate monger to balance anything or anyone else.

    Theres that "CARD" again.....  How many of those do you have in the deck ???




    softy is the card.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slasher9. Show slasher9's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    Theres that "CARD" again.....  How many of those do you have in the deck ???



    actually, just in case you didn't know....your post is racist.  but i bet you already knew that....

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from The-Big-O. Show The-Big-O's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    Good post, Burrito, and it's not surprising you would receive hater dirve-by from Mooncrat. No one posts more subjectively selected sample size and type snipets and uses zero brain function on anything else related to anything else. 

    Burrito, remember the CERA and Wakefield selected stats that never ceased up until the moment Mooncrat's plea for one final 2M offer to Wakefield was rejected?

    Anyone can cut and paste and excel stats, but let's leave the "WAR" and "Sample Size" for the propaganda agenda of Mooncrat and Hill. Hitting that scroll down button has never been more useful when you see these two drive-by posters go by. They also have this creepy air of seriousness with the personality of a 15 years of counting my pension days postal worker. 

    This Board is lame without Geo, yourself and the few other posters who simply say what's on your minds without filters. I come here to read the "seat of the pants" comments of Red Sox fans, not to read the cut and past "War" and Google nonsense that anyone can simply click to. 



    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.



    No doubt. softy the clown holds the record for smallest sample size defintive judgement: one pitch where a batter never took his bat off his shoulder was enough for the clown to judge a player's whole career by.

    Yes Mr. MOON, but its nice to have SOFTY back !!!!   We want him on this board, we need him on this board, he provides all the security to keep some of our posters from the leftside in line !!!!





    This board needs Softlaw back like America needs GW Bush back!

     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

     

    Enchilada, help me out here.  I agree that 'sample size' is used willy-nilly here, and that it can be used to back up pretty much any arguement when stretched or conrtacted to fit the point.

    As for it sounding stupid, you might be right.  However, on a discussion forum like this, where we sit around talking baseball everyday, parcing the smallest issues to death, what should we use instead?  I mean, it is impossible not to have to break down arguements and notions by ... the specific period of time in which a particular statistical phenomenon can be referenced ... So, we need some sort of signifier.  I am happy to use another term than sample size.  But, we need a substitute.  Any ideas?

     



    How about "based on what player X has done over X amount of whatever, he may be capable of ...."

     

    Rather than telling us Napoli will mash 35 dingers or JBJR will fail at the plate based on miniscule sample-sizes - using the term sample-size suggest there is some merit to long-term projections... and nearly all sample-sizes are small.

    short-term does not equal long-term

    Anyhow you are the better poster and I must declare I was really annoyed by the JBJR 'sample size' thread. 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from S5. Show S5's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to Bill-806's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to SpacemanEephus' comment:

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    Good post, Burrito, and it's not surprising you would receive hater dirve-by from Mooncrat. No one posts more subjectively selected sample size and type snipets and uses zero brain function on anything else related to anything else. 

    Burrito, remember the CERA and Wakefield selected stats that never ceased up until the moment Mooncrat's plea for one final 2M offer to Wakefield was rejected?

    Anyone can cut and paste and excel stats, but let's leave the "WAR" and "Sample Size" for the propaganda agenda of Mooncrat and Hill. Hitting that scroll down button has never been more useful when you see these two drive-by posters go by. They also have this creepy air of seriousness with the personality of a 15 years of counting my pension days postal worker. 

    This Board is lame without Geo, yourself and the few other posters who simply say what's on your minds without filters. I come here to read the "seat of the pants" comments of Red Sox fans, not to read the cut and past "War" and Google nonsense that anyone can simply click to. 



    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.



    No doubt. softy the clown holds the record for smallest sample size defintive judgement: one pitch where a batter never took his bat off his shoulder was enough for the clown to judge a player's whole career by.

    Yes Mr. MOON, but its nice to have SOFTY back !!!!   We want him on this board, we need him on this board, he provides all the security to keep some of our posters from the leftside in line !!!!




    We?  WE?  Dp you have a toad in your pocket whom your also speaking for, because I haven't heard anyone else echoing your opinion.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    If memory serves, Burr, last offseason you were using the small sample size argument yourself.  When people like Drewski and myself were saying we should sign Napoli and pointing out his great numbers at Fenway, you were making fun of the fact it was only based on 40 games or whatever it was. 



    Who was the guy going on and on about Napoli never playing more than 120 games, and disregarding the fact that he was a catcher?  Or throwing out tiny sample sizes to show how bad Napoli's fielding would be?

    Past that, ignoring sample size is one of the worst ideas in the world.  It's almost unfarhomable that people would choose to ignore sample size in this day and age.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    S5 that was funny. I still get a a good read out of softlaw....

    Back to sample size... as in "would u liek a free sample"..... samples are small and irrelevant. 

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    If memory serves, Burr, last offseason you were using the small sample size argument yourself.  When people like Drewski and myself were saying we should sign Napoli and pointing out his great numbers at Fenway, you were making fun of the fact it was only based on 40 games or whatever it was. 



    Who was the guy going on and on about Napoli never playing more than 120 games, and disregarding the fact that he was a catcher?  Or throwing out tiny sample sizes to show how bad Napoli's fielding would be?

    Past that, ignoring sample size is one of the worst ideas in the world.  It's almost unfarhomable that people would choose to ignore sample size in this day and age.



    Napoli still failed to play in more games than usual, he hit exactly as his career numbers suggested he would based on a 162 game average - and not on the sample-size of his whopping 70 careers Fenway at-bats. I'd rather hear back from all the "Naps is going to mash" characters on the board.

    My posts on what his 2013 numbers would be were much closer and far more reasonable than many.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.


    Since I'm the "undisputed king of cherry picking", you'll have no problem providing specific individual examples. 

    Burriot receives a lot of heavy handed static from the de facto moderators on here. I think a narrative on "sample size" is a good one. Let's not hijack this thread for personal agendas, Space. 




     

    Well, there is the sudden clinging of OPS vs LHP as the only statisical data.

     

    And there was the 6 game sample from Jackie Bradley last September you have repeatedly provided as proof positive of him overcoming his hitting woes.

     

    How many samples do I need?

     
  24. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to notin's comment:

    In response to solareclipse's comment:

    The irony, of course, here is that you are the undisputed king of 'sample size' cherry picking.


    Since I'm the "undisputed king of cherry picking", you'll have no problem providing specific individual examples. 

    Burriot receives a lot of heavy handed static from the de facto moderators on here. I think a narrative on "sample size" is a good one. Let's not hijack this thread for personal agendas, Space. 




     

    Well, there is the sudden clinging of OPS vs LHP as the only statisical data.

     

    And there was the 6 game sample from Jackie Bradley last September you have repeatedly provided as proof positive of him overcoming his hitting woes.

     

    How many samples do I need?



    You'll never get a straight answer.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share