Nomadsfest Sox Fans

A forum for the old AOL board Sox fans and others.


    Roger's Email

    Share

    Guest
    Guest

    Roger's Email

    Post by Guest on Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:00 am

    FYI, Roger was gracious enough to send me a spreadsheet concerning the decade long 1.8 debate.


    Unfortunately, I did not see a Run Expectancy matrix nor did I see any method showing how 1.8 is calculated.  Therefore, I have no reason to change the conclusion of my own research which states 1.8 was derived by the coefficients of a linear regression.  Which means 1.8 is the product of multicolinearity and is not anything of value.  Until I see an actual calculation that is not from a linear regression, I will not abandon this claim


    What Roger did attempt to show is some sort of correlation analysis between runs scored and various measures.  However, the way he measured correlation is NOT how a correlation coefficient is calculated according to standard text books.  Unless Roger can show his method is used in an actual stats textbook, I have no reason to accept his methodology as valid.  Therefore, Roger has yet to prove his case.  More likely, I suspect he just validated everything I have claimed for the past ten years.


    As to ROBZ claim that I am not fooling anybody on this subject.  To the best of knowledge, nobody else on this board gives a rat's ass if 1.8 is true or not.  Therefore, I don't need to fool anybody because just about everybody here never believed 1.8 to begin with.


    Now here is a life lesson for everybody on this board from a former auditor.  If people look to commit fraud, one of the methods they use is to make things unneccessarily complicated.  Now complexity itself does not prove fraud.  It merely indicates that fraud MAY BE present.  Baseball is suppose to be a simple game.  So you do the math.


    XOXOXOXOXO
    THE KARK
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:19 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    As to ROBZ claim that I am not fooling anybody on this subject.  To the best of knowledge, nobody else on this board gives a rat's ass if 1.8 is true or not.  Therefore, I don't need to fool anybody because just about everybody here never believed 1.8 to begin with.

    At least now you're trying to make what appears to be a good faith effort to understand his position and explain yours, instead of just demeaning him and calling him stupid and declaring yourself the victor of your childish war that's going on in your head.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Guest on Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:14 pm

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    As to ROBZ claim that I am not fooling anybody on this subject.  To the best of knowledge, nobody else on this board gives a rat's ass if 1.8 is true or not.  Therefore, I don't need to fool anybody because just about everybody here never believed 1.8 to begin with.

    At least now you're trying to make what appears to be a good faith effort to understand his position and explain yours, instead of just demeaning him and calling him stupid and declaring yourself the victor of your childish war that's going on in your head.



    Excuse me, but I have tried to do that for 10 freaking year.  So excuse me for occasionally getting frustrated.


    BTW, you still owe me multiple apologies for your deliberate disagreements and automatic assumptions that I must be wrong.  Not to mention all the times you attempted to pass of specualtion as fact instead of taking a few minutes to verify it on Google.  Plus it was you that claimed to understand roger's method, then declined offer a simple explanation when it cam time to put money where your keyboard is.  How Juanita Broderick of you.


    So spare me your condescending attitude.  You ain't fooling anybody.  It's time the both of you admit I'm correct, just like I was with $2gas.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2820
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:47 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:FYI, Roger was gracious enough to send me a spreadsheet concerning the decade long 1.8 debate.


    Unfortunately, I did not see a Run Expectancy matrix nor did I see any method showing how 1.8 is calculated.  Therefore, I have no reason to change the conclusion of my own research which states 1.8 was derived by the coefficients of a linear regression.  Which means 1.8 is the product of multicolinearity and is not anything of value.  Until I see an actual calculation that is not from a linear regression, I will not abandon this claim


    What Roger did attempt to show is some sort of correlation analysis between runs scored and various measures.  However, the way he measured correlation is NOT how a correlation coefficient is calculated according to standard text books.  Unless Roger can show his method is used in an actual stats textbook, I have no reason to accept his methodology as valid.  Therefore, Roger has yet to prove his case.  More likely, I suspect he just validated everything I have claimed for the past ten years.


    As to ROBZ claim that I am not fooling anybody on this subject.  To the best of knowledge, nobody else on this board gives a rat's ass if 1.8 is true or not.  Therefore, I don't need to fool anybody because just about everybody here never believed 1.8 to begin with.


    Now here is a life lesson for everybody on this board from a former auditor.  If people look to commit fraud, one of the methods they use is to make things unneccessarily complicated.  Now complexity itself does not prove fraud.  It merely indicates that fraud MAY BE present.  Baseball is suppose to be a simple game.  So you do the math.


    XOXOXOXOXO
    THE KARK

    Kark, I think your response becomes easier to process when you respond to specific points rather than  general glossing over followed by conclusionary statements on your part.  To that end,
    1st- As to multicolinearity, I think that is pertinent (as I said in a prior post) to ONLY the BA part of OBP and Slug which both share.  As to the BB part of OBP, which is totally independent of Slug, and the extra base part of Slug, which is totally independent of OBP, there is no multicolinearity.  The 1.8 studies separated those independent portions and compared the results.   Once more, in a 10 PA sequence:
    A)-  A walk (pure OBP no movement of Slug involved) adds 67 points to OBP
    B)  An extra base beyond a single or walk adds 167 pts to Slug  or 100 pts beyond the OBP addition.
    That relationship (100/67) alone represents a ratio of 1.49 meaning that for the same 1 base Slug gets a point reward roughly 1.5 times greater than OBP.  That requires an adjustment just due to pure math of the way OBP and Slug points operate.  But the adjustment is even greater when you consider that the base gain (in terms of Run Expectancy value) is greater from home to 1st than from 1st to 2nd.

    2nd- You are right that I didn't include the Run Expectancy tables since they are long and tortuous.  I don't have the time to calculate all 24 out/onbase situations, each of which involve 6 different outcomes (BB, single, double, triple, HR, out).  That's 144 scenarios and then each has to be multiplied by the frequency on which they occur to get a final result.  Maybe Tango did all that number crunching.  Or he may have just taken his Linear Weights which is the average of all those scenarios. 
    By like I said in point # 1 above, when you see that 100 pts of added Slug (over and above the OBP portion) = 1 base, and when 67 points of added OBP = 1 base, that disparity demands correction in order to adjust the relative values of each added point of OBP or Slug.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Soxillinirob on Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:18 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    So spare me your condescending attitude.  You ain't fooling anybody.  It's time the both of you admit I'm correct, just like I was with $2gas.

    $2 gas is the gift that keeps on giving.  You claimed if Obama would allow more drilling we'd get gas down to $2.  I argued that I didn't believe it could sustain at $2 no matter how much he allowed drilling because I believed the producers would manipulate the market and keep it higher than $2.  I even noted that I thought perhaps $2.50 was possible, at least for a while, but that I thought they'd even have a hard time keeping it that low.  That said, i'm not sure how I'm wrong in the above scenario.  I have to admit that I'm surprised they've managed to keep it in the 2.25 to 2.65 range for the last year or two.  But it rarely drops to $2, and it never stays at $2.  

    While I'm on this topic, there's something strange going on out by me in the gas pricing.  It's pretty much 2.49 everywhere around here.  Maybe 2.54.  The other day I see 2.01 at BP, and figure that must be a typo, but I fill up and pay 2.01.  The Shell across the street was empty, and charging 2.59.  Yesterday, I pull into Costco and it's 1.95/gal.  Meanwhile, everywhere else in St. Charles it's still 2.49 or 2.54.  Commodity oil prices are around $58/barrel.  Gas is never in the $2/gal range unless oil drops to around $40 a barrel.  Anyone else seeing something like this in their town?  Something is amiss.
    avatar
    rmapasad
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 2820
    Join date : 2009-04-06
    Location : Northridge, CA

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by rmapasad on Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:19 pm

    However, the way he measured correlation is NOT how a correlation coefficient is calculated according to standard text books.  Unless Roger can show his method is used in an actual stats textbook, I have no reason to accept his methodology as valid.  Therefore, Roger has yet to prove his case.  More likely, I suspect he just validated everything I have claimed for the past ten years.>>
    Final point.  I ran a bunch of other STDEV of different categories and compared them to the STDEV of runs.  I ran BA, K's, HR's, Singles, SB's and they all correlated poorly.  SB's had a 1.2 correlation, HR's a .76.
    Remember both OBP*1.8+Slug and OBP*Slug were in the .115 correlation.  I did find one category whose correlations to Runs beat everything else - RBI's at .025.  
    This makes perfect sense as Runs and RBI's correlate almost exactly.
    The fact that I got this relationship between Runs and RBI's verifies the methodology of comparing STDEV's of various categories and formulae to STDEV of runs has validity.  
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7600
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by alohafri on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:22 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:



    Excuse me, but I have tried to do that for 10 freaking year.  So excuse me for occasionally getting frustrated.



    Occasionally? That's like saying Seka occasionally had sex.
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7600
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by alohafri on Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:23 am

    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    So spare me your condescending attitude.  You ain't fooling anybody.  It's time the both of you admit I'm correct, just like I was with $2gas.

    $2 gas is the gift that keeps on giving.  You claimed if Obama would allow more drilling we'd get gas down to $2.  I argued that I didn't believe it could sustain at $2 no matter how much he allowed drilling because I believed the producers would manipulate the market and keep it higher than $2.  I even noted that I thought perhaps $2.50 was possible, at least for a while, but that I thought they'd even have a hard time keeping it that low.  That said, i'm not sure how I'm wrong in the above scenario.  I have to admit that I'm surprised they've managed to keep it in the 2.25 to 2.65 range for the last year or two.  But it rarely drops to $2, and it never stays at $2.  

    While I'm on this topic, there's something strange going on out by me in the gas pricing.  It's pretty much 2.49 everywhere around here.  Maybe 2.54.  The other day I see 2.01 at BP, and figure that must be a typo, but I fill up and pay 2.01.  The Shell across the street was empty, and charging 2.59.  Yesterday, I pull into Costco and it's 1.95/gal.  Meanwhile, everywhere else in St. Charles it's still 2.49 or 2.54.  Commodity oil prices are around $58/barrel.  Gas is never in the $2/gal range unless oil drops to around $40 a barrel.  Anyone else seeing something like this in their town?  Something is amiss.

    You are a LIAR! You know full well that $2.00 doesn't mean $2.00. It means anything between $2.00 and $2.99. By that regard the KARK is 100% accurate!

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Guest on Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:38 am

    rmapasad wrote:However, the way he measured correlation is NOT how a correlation coefficient is calculated according to standard text books.  Unless Roger can show his method is used in an actual stats textbook, I have no reason to accept his methodology as valid.  Therefore, Roger has yet to prove his case.  More likely, I suspect he just validated everything I have claimed for the past ten years.>>
    Final point.  I ran a bunch of other STDEV of different categories and compared them to the STDEV of runs.  I ran BA, K's, HR's, Singles, SB's and they all correlated poorly.  SB's had a 1.2 correlation, HR's a .76.
    Remember both OBP*1.8+Slug and OBP*Slug were in the .115 correlation.  I did find one category whose correlations to Runs beat everything else - RBI's at .025.  
    This makes perfect sense as Runs and RBI's correlate almost exactly.
    The fact that I got this relationship between Runs and RBI's verifies the methodology of comparing STDEV's of various categories and formulae to STDEV of runs has validity.  


    Again, this is not how you calculate a correlation coefficient.


    and running std deviations on individual stats has zero to do with this discussion.  


    Your entitled to your opinion.  You are not entitled to invent your own math.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Guest on Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:45 am

    alohafri wrote:
    Soxillinirob wrote:
    Deplorable Mark wrote:


    So spare me your condescending attitude.  You ain't fooling anybody.  It's time the both of you admit I'm correct, just like I was with $2gas.

    $2 gas is the gift that keeps on giving.  You claimed if Obama would allow more drilling we'd get gas down to $2.  I argued that I didn't believe it could sustain at $2 no matter how much he allowed drilling because I believed the producers would manipulate the market and keep it higher than $2.  I even noted that I thought perhaps $2.50 was possible, at least for a while, but that I thought they'd even have a hard time keeping it that low.  That said, i'm not sure how I'm wrong in the above scenario.  I have to admit that I'm surprised they've managed to keep it in the 2.25 to 2.65 range for the last year or two.  But it rarely drops to $2, and it never stays at $2.  

    While I'm on this topic, there's something strange going on out by me in the gas pricing.  It's pretty much 2.49 everywhere around here.  Maybe 2.54.  The other day I see 2.01 at BP, and figure that must be a typo, but I fill up and pay 2.01.  The Shell across the street was empty, and charging 2.59.  Yesterday, I pull into Costco and it's 1.95/gal.  Meanwhile, everywhere else in St. Charles it's still 2.49 or 2.54.  Commodity oil prices are around $58/barrel.  Gas is never in the $2/gal range unless oil drops to around $40 a barrel.  Anyone else seeing something like this in their town?  Something is amiss.

    You are a LIAR! You know full well that $2.00 doesn't mean $2.00. It means anything between $2.00 and $2.99. By that regard the KARK is 100% accurate!


    Figures you'd side with the Schmuck you claims that Nancy Pelosi never meant "you have the pass the bill to see whats in" or and that Obama never meant "you didn't built that."

    Plus the Schmuck is lying!  Because when I made these remarks, gas was pushing $5 a gallon.  So the issue isn't $2 to $2.5 the why is is lying now.  Its $2 to $5.  So my rant, which any sane rperson would now was figurative, not literal, is a helluva lot closer to the truth.  and remember what caused the rant.  The Schmuck from St Chuck mocking Newt's $2.5 gas.  So again, I prove your buddy a liar as well as a two faced hypocrit.


    PS, I'm sure I mentioned fracking as well.  And we all know that Obama would have stopped that if he had the power to do so.
    avatar
    Soxillinirob
    Chairman Reinsdorf

    Posts : 7964
    Join date : 2009-04-05
    Age : 52
    Location : St. Charles, IL

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Soxillinirob on Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:58 am

    Deplorable Mark wrote:



    Figures you'd side with the Schmuck you claims that Nancy Pelosi never meant "you have the pass the bill to see whats in" or and that Obama never meant "you didn't built that."

    You could just go to YouTube and watch the video of her saying it, and see for yourself what she said.  she sure as hell didn't say "you have to pass the bill to see what's in it."  I know it's politically expedient for you to keep pushing that story, but it's not true, and watching the video shines a bright light on her context and makes it clear that she's not implying we need to pass it to find out what's in it.  Instead, she's noting that Congress needs to pass it so that her constituents can see what's actually IN IT, since they are hearing a blizzard of different accounts from the two parties.  Her point is that they need to pass it so that the constituents can see for themselves.  Again, if you don't believe me, watch the couple of minutes of video...or declare me a liar.  Whatever floats your boat.  It's easy to cut 10 seconds out and pretend that the original context is not a part of it.  Fox loves doing that.  


    Plus the Schmuck is lying!  Because when I made these remarks, gas was pushing $5 a gallon.  So the issue isn't $2 to $2.5 the why is is lying now.  Its $2 to $5.  So my rant, which any sane rperson would now was figurative, not literal, is a helluva lot closer to the truth.  and remember what caused the rant.  The Schmuck from St Chuck mocking Newt's $2.5 gas.  So again, I prove your buddy a liar as well as a two faced hypocrit.

    Someone else was $2 in the political arena.  Newt was 2.50.  Might have been either Palin or Bachmann.  Either way, $2 gas is not 2.48 gas, or 2.28 gas, or 2.89 gas.  No sane person thinks 2.89 =2, or 2.29=2.  Nobody is falling for this stupidity on your part, but feel free to keep saying it.  Keep declaring yourself some kind of victor if it makes you feel good.  I continue to maintain that $2 gas will be a tough thing to have happen and sustain, because they can barely drill oil and make gasoline for a price that'll allow $2 to sustain.  We'll get to $2 at times, but jump back up.  If they find a cheaper way to obtain and refine oil (a distinct possibility), then maybe gas stays at 2/gal.  With the growing popularity of battery powered vehicles, gasoline demand will keep declining.  That'll help.  

    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7600
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by alohafri on Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:05 am

    Especially around here where the gas prices jump 40 cents in a twelve hour period for no apparent reason.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Guest on Wed Dec 06, 2017 11:24 am

    alohafri wrote:Especially around here where the gas prices jump 40 cents in a twelve hour period for no apparent reason.


    THEY MUST SEE YOU COMING
    avatar
    alohafri
    Pope Malort I

    Posts : 7600
    Join date : 2009-04-03
    Age : 51
    Location : Southwest Suburbs

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by alohafri on Wed Dec 06, 2017 12:18 pm

    Deplorable Mark wrote:
    alohafri wrote:Especially around here where the gas prices jump 40 cents in a twelve hour period for no apparent reason.


    THEY MUST SEE YOU COMING

    cheers cheers cheers

    Sponsored content

    Re: Roger's Email

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 24, 2018 7:09 am