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

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