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

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

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

    A)  A Sample size can be adjusted to benefit anyone's aim to make a point....

    B)  You all sound foolish everytime you say "sample size"

     

    Sample Size | FanGraphs Sabermetrics Library

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    We do it to keep Stiffy happy.  Guess you can't please everybody?

     

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    Having said that, you've got a point.  The only reliable "sample size" for a player is, his stats over a full season.  

    The problem?  Assessing value for a role player.....  Sorry!  Then it's a different metric.  I.e. "the dreaded SS word.  Perhaps we should take a page from Harry Potter, & agree to use the term, "metric which shall not be named?"

    henceforth, we shall never use the SS word again!!!!!

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    Your sample size of poor posts is large enough.

     
  5. 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 moonslav59's comment:

    Your sample size of poor posts is large enough.



    Really? I wish I had a thread with over 5,000 posts and the participation of .0001% of the rest of the forum.

    I should thank you though, your lengthy stat posts have helped me to perfect my skimming skills. I can now skim with the best of them.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    I think the sample size post was, at least partially, directed at Moon who uses that term. Moon in turn went after your posts. You got insulted and then attacked Moon more directly.

    You have to at least acknowledge your participation in putting someone in a position where they have to defend themself. Themself? Does that sound right? I don't know. Anyway, you shouldn't have taken it so personally since you started the argument whether you will admit to it or not. JMO

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    Btw, my post was just to try to lessen an argument between two posters who have had their moments throughout the years, but have also gotten along with eachother.

    And Burrito is also a big contributer to Moon's thread.

     
  8. 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 kimsaysthis' comment:

    I think the sample size post was, at least partially, directed at Moon who uses that term. Moon in turn went after your posts. You got insulted and then attacked Moon more directly.

    You have to at least acknowledge your participation in putting someone in a position where they have to defend themself. Themself? Does that sound right? I don't know. Anyway, you shouldn't have taken it so personally since you started the argument whether you will admit to it or not. JMO



    Actually the idiot who said we should sign Granderson becasue of JBJR's lack of (potential) offense was the reason. moon never entered my mind.... 

    And I am not a big contributor to his main thread because I don't like to post at length such as he and his 5 regular contributors.... plus boomfangsdotcom bores the heck out of me - and is more cruel than I could hope to be.

    I come here to be entertained!  

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I think the sample size post was, at least partially, directed at Moon who uses that term. Moon in turn went after your posts. You got insulted and then attacked Moon more directly.

    You have to at least acknowledge your participation in putting someone in a position where they have to defend themself. Themself? Does that sound right? I don't know. Anyway, you shouldn't have taken it so personally since you started the argument whether you will admit to it or not. JMO

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually the idiot who said we should sign Granderson becasue of JBJR's lack of (potential) offense was the reason. moonnever entered my mind.... 

     

    And I am not a big contributor to his main thread because I don't like to post at length such as he and his 5 regular contributors.... plus boomfangsdotcom bores the heck out of me - and is more cruel than I could hope to be.

    I come here to be entertained!  

    [/QUOTE]

    Boom can be cruel, I'll give you that. I found that out when Moon put me in the top five posters category for the year -- even though they were just suggestions. He was livid to say the least because he wasn't included in the list.

    FTR, I think Moon, like myself, thought your thread may have been directed at him.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    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. 

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ice-Cream. Show Ice-Cream's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

     

    I have dated three Korean women.  Based on that "sample size", I have come to the conclusion that Korean women are very emotional.   LOL  Tongue Out

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSPCB73. Show RSPCB73's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    Scientists use the term sample size all the time to make certain inferences, as do engineers, pollsters, etc..  If the sample size is appropriate relative to the total "population", there is nothing wrong about using the phrase, nor is there anything wrong in these situations to draw inferences and conclusions based upon the sample size!

    Having said that I do get Burrito's point.  Most sports fans are inclined to use a very small sample size to make big predictions or GM decisions whichare useless!

    Red Sox 2013 World Series Champs.  Patriots 2014 Super Bowl Champs???!!!

     
  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 EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Your sample size of poor posts is large enough.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? I wish I had a thread with over 5,000 posts and the participation of .0001% of the rest of the forum.

     

    I should thank you though, your lengthy stat posts have helped me to perfect my skimming skills. I can now skim with the best of them.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, you are an expert skimmer.

    Something you should feel very proud of.

     
  15. 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 RSPCB73's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Scientists use the term sample size all the time to make certain inferences, as do engineers, pollsters, etc..  If the sample size is appropriate relative to the total "population", there is nothing wrong about using the phrase, nor is there anything wrong in these situations to draw inferences and conclusions based upon the sample size!

    Having said that I do get Burrito's point.  Most sports fans are inclined to use a very small sample size to make big predictions or GM decisions whichare useless!

    Red Sox 2013 World Series Champs.  Patriots 2014 Super Bowl Champs???!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly, and those here using JBJ's 100 or so MLB PA sample size that was spread over 4 tiny stretches of 2013 to make definitive judgements are basing their foundation on shaky ground.

    I have probably thrown the "small sample size" argument at more posters than anyone on this site, perhaps because I have made more posts than anyone but softy the clown since my arrival here many years ago, but the fact is, this board is notorious for jumping to conclusions based on the tiniest of sample sizes.

     
  16. 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 kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to kimsaysthis' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I think the sample size post was, at least partially, directed at Moon who uses that term. Moon in turn went after your posts. You got insulted and then attacked Moon more directly.

    You have to at least acknowledge your participation in putting someone in a position where they have to defend themself. Themself? Does that sound right? I don't know. Anyway, you shouldn't have taken it so personally since you started the argument whether you will admit to it or not. JMO

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Actually the idiot who said we should sign Granderson becasue of JBJR's lack of (potential) offense was the reason. moonnever entered my mind.... 

     

    And I am not a big contributor to his main thread because I don't like to post at length such as he and his 5 regular contributors.... plus boomfangsdotcom bores the heck out of me - and is more cruel than I could hope to be.

    I come here to be entertained!  

    [/QUOTE]

    Boom can be cruel, I'll give you that. I found that out when Moon put me in the top five posters category for the year -- even though they were just suggestions. He was livid to say the least because he wasn't included in the list.

    FTR, I think Moon, like myself, thought your thread may have been directed at him.

    [/QUOTE]


    I remember that.

     
  17. 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 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. 

     



    What? No way dude. 70 AB's. Drewski was using the small sample size to project 35+ homers out of Napoli.... I used career averages and was nearly on the money with Napoli's 2013 numbers as far back as April 1, 2013. 

     

     
  18. 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 EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    A)  A Sample size can be adjusted to benefit anyone's aim to make a point....

    B)  You all sound foolish everytime you say "sample size"

     

    Sample Size | FanGraphs Sabermetrics Library

    [/QUOTE]

    Out of curiosity,  did you read the linked article?  The author is supporting sample sizes I would think are pretty small.

     

    Or are you saying no sample is too small?  If you are clinging to the line about scouting being superior to stats for small samples, I agree.  But watching a player 3 times a year does not qualify as scouting.   It qualifies as a "small sample size."

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    when does a small "sample size" cease to exist and just become "average"?

    1 week?

    1 month?

    1 season?

    5 seasons?

    or

    25 AB's?

    100 AB's?

    500 AB's?

    2,500 AB's?

    or

    9IP?

    27IP?

    200IP?

    1,000IP?

     

    What is the cutoff? 

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to EnchiladaT's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    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. 

    What? No way dude. 70 AB's. Drewski was using the small sample size to project 35+ homers out of Napoli.... I used career averages and was nearly on the money with Napoli's 2013 numbers as far back as April 1, 2013. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Like I say, you objected to the small sample size.  So you are someone who uses the term.

     

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    I don't use the term but I guess now I will start using it.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    There is nothing wrong with using the term "sample size" as long as you understand what you are doing.  People who know statistics are well aware that narratives can be slapped on data, and often we see the "causation without correlation" affect in these arguments.

    But as long as you understand your own convictions, and state that everything is in context then that is fine.  

    You also have to understand that data can be more telling than it is predictive, a guy can go 0-10 and be just as likely to go on a hot streak as he is to stay cold. 

    The larger the sample size the better, as the law of large numbers starts to balance things out.   Statistics are tricky, and can be misleading, but they are often either MIS-USED or IGNORED by those who don't understand how to use them. 

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RSF4Life234. Show RSF4Life234's posts

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    In response to slasher9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    when does a small "sample size" cease to exist and just become "average"?

    1 week?

    1 month?

    1 season?

    5 seasons?

    or

    25 AB's?

    100 AB's?

    500 AB's?

    2,500 AB's?

    or

    9IP?

    27IP?

    200IP?

    1,000IP?

     

    What is the cutoff? 

    [/QUOTE]

    I think the best sample size is one full season.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    when does a small "sample size" cease to exist and just become "average"?

    1 week?

    1 month?

    1 season?

    5 seasons?

    or

    25 AB's?

    100 AB's?

    500 AB's?

    2,500 AB's?

    or

    9IP?

    27IP?

    200IP?

    1,000IP?

     

    What is the cutoff?

    Depends on what you are using the small sample size for.

     

    There's no problem using a small sample size to say a player is "hot" or "cold" or trending up or down, but too many poster make defintive judgements based on 100 PA or 50 IP sample sizes.

    Example: "JBJ cannot hit MLB pitching" sounds like a definitive judgement. It can't be based on his minor league record, so it must be based on a 107 PA MLB sample size broken into 4 parts spread over 2013.

    To me, a 250 PA and 100 IP is a significant sample size to get an idea of what someone might be able to do or not do, but it's still not enough to make a definitive judgement. 500 PA and 150 IP is significant but still not definitive. Once yo get near 800 PAs and 300 IP, I think you can start making definitive judgements, but you should keep the idea open that the player can still prove your judgement wrong. Sometimes a hitter's weakness is exposed later than others. Sometimes the hitter can and does adjust: other times he does not and never repeats his early success.

    I like to use recent 2-3 season sample sizes to have an idea what a player has done and might do going forward, but age, health, trends and other factors such as park size & strength of opponents can make adjusting worthwhile.

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

    Re: To all of you who use the the term

    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?

     

Share