• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Mike Trout on pace for greatest season in MLB history

The BELIEF YOU repeatedly stated is that a hitter's or pitcher's demonstrated, defined history has no bearing on the next at bat. That is total BS is many cases. There are certain players who do out of their norms (positive or negative) against a certain other player and continue to do.

You stated it doesn't happen and you can't use their histories to predict what they will do. It doesn't matter to you that there are examples that last careers.

I've NEVER said it is predominant or pervasive or average. But that's not good enough for you. I've even agreed that most players exist in a small range that plays itself out. You want to use that to say that it fits everyone.

You'll never admit you are wrong and that some hitters own some pitchers and some pitchers own some hitters. They will continue to grossly outperform/under-perform their career averages in these situations.
 
Last edited:
RJ, you keep sticking up for Bonds to the point where it's ridiculous. Look, you probably like me collected baseball cards when you were a kid. You knew the stats and you knew which ones mattered. Bonds was indeed a HOFer before the roids we know about, but you're the guy who forever said the roids weren't demonstrated with Bonds when they clearly were. That book came out and it was obvious what he did and you were just blah blah blah making excuses. Plus you can just look at the motherfucker and use your head. He was ridiculously roided up. That it affected him in a way so ridiculously positive should be a red flag. Everybody was apparently on roids but not being affected the way he was. Why? It's not like he was the greatest player ever prior to roids. He was a HOFer, a top 100 guy. That's it. He had speed and good power, but not great power. He turned into the Incredible Hulk.

And you with your dumb pitchers were on roids argument. Great. It means guys who throw 90 mph fastballs can throw 93 mph fastballs that Bonds and every other MLB player who can hit fastballs can crank out. For a guy like Clemens, it means he can keep his superior fastball superior.

I understand why those guys got roided up. They had to keep up with the Joneses. But that's no excuse, and no, you're not going to get into my fucking HOF for that. They can all eat a gigantic bag of dicks.
 
Bonds did roids. there's not a question about that.

Before roids, he was the first 400/400 player (would have become 500/500 easily) and a many time Gold Glover. He also had won 3 MVPs before roids. For the five years before roids, he hit 198 HRs in a bad park for HRs.
 
Arguing with RJ about statistics is like arguing with Sailor about politics.

They are both old dudes who not only are incapable of changing their minds, they are even incapable of understanding what the conversation is even about.

I can't wait to find out what irrational thing I become a complete idiot about when I get older. Hopefully it's something harmless like dog breeds or the like.
 
Vad, please what's irrational about the FACT that certain players perform disproportionally against specific others?

I never said anything about a player who is a bit above or below average against someone else. Of course, you can use career numbers to predict the vast majority of players. But there are outliers who consistently do substantially or worse against specific opponents and you should throw out career numbers against the balance of the league in those situations. This is all I've said.

Please tell me specifically what's "irrational" about this.

My bad, RJ has to be wrong about everything in this arena. Even when he's right.
 
Because they are outliers. For every example you selectively post, there are multiple examples of guys who had good averages against pitchers after 35-40 plate appearances that regressed to the mean with more AB. And likely the same thing would happen with these guys the more AB that they had.
 
Because they are outliers. For every example you selectively post, there are multiple examples of guys who had good averages against pitchers after 35-40 plate appearances that regressed to the mean with more AB. And likely the same thing would happen with these guys the more AB that they had.

That's ALL I was talking about. I have AGREED multiple times that would apply to most match-ups.

There's NO reason to assume that they would regress if they had more PAs. You are simply GUESSING. These happen over entire careers. There's no logic to assume they would change as they were given ample opportunity to either regress or improve.

There could actually be physical reasons for it. Maybe Hutton picked up the spin from Seaver better than anyone else. Maybe Halladay found spots that kept Manny off the bases and in the ballpark that others didn't. there are many other factors that could be the reasons for success or failure.

My bad, RJ is saying it. So, you can say anything you want.
 
I can't wait to find out what irrational thing I become a complete idiot about when I get older. Hopefully it's something harmless like dog breeds or the like.

Most likely whatever your wife is being irrational about at the time.
 
That's ALL I was talking about. I have AGREED multiple times that would apply to most match-ups.

There's NO reason to assume that they would regress if they had more PAs. You are simply GUESSING. These happen over entire careers. There's no logic to assume they would change as they were given ample opportunity to either regress or improve.

There could actually be physical reasons for it. Maybe Hutton picked up the spin from Seaver better than anyone else. Maybe Halladay found spots that kept Manny off the bases and in the ballpark that others didn't. there are many other factors that could be the reasons for success or failure.

My bad, RJ is saying it. So, you can say anything you want.

The reason you should assume they would regress to the mean is that, based on the studies linked on this thread, most players do regress.

Does that mean that everyone does? No, but it means it’s more likely than not to happen.

For someone who bets on horses, I would think you would have a better understanding of odds.

Do long shots sometimes win? Yes. But is it more likely that they lose? Of course.
 
The reason you should assume they would regress to the mean is that, based on the studies linked on this thread, most players do regress.

Does that mean that everyone does? No, but it means it’s more likely than not to happen.

For someone who bets on horses, I would think you would have a better understanding of odds.

Do long shots sometimes win? Yes. But is it more likely that they lose? Of course.

A long shot, like a 40% chance? That equals a .400 BA!
 
MOST is not ALL. I NEVER have discussed MOST. To everyone else here MOST EQUALS ALL.

I fully understand that the odds against a player owning or being owned is high. The others REFUSE that they exist AT ALL. That is irrational.

If a horse has run 10 races over a three year period at Track X and has won 7 times, it is more likely that he will win than he will lose at that track. I will bet him in Race 11. It's called horses for courses. Why it happens, no one really knows why.

The same is exactly true on certain batter/pitcher match-ups. To say it doesn't exist is intentionally neglecting ACTUAL FACTS and believing in non-proven theories. Saying the player will regress (or improve) in a specific situation when ALL the numbers over a period of YEARS and show it hasn't happened.

I showed three players who either did their best or worst against someone whom they faced the MOST times of any other pitcher or hitter. But to you and others that's not significant. I'm showing ACTUAL results, you are GUESSING what might happen. But I am the one who is "wrong" and "irrational".

AGAIN, the huge majority of players don't have this. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't prove that if Manny faced Hallady another 79 times that he would more HRs and have a better OPS. I CAN prove that he was inferior in REAL GAMES over his ENTIRE CAREER.

If this was about one or two years, I'd agree with you 100%. It's not.

Hell, Hutton had 3% of his total PAs of his career against Seaver. That is a significant number. The results happened over a period of time. None of you can admit there is likely some reason for this and other anomalies do exist. Hell, you can't even admit that this phenomenon is real.
 
Last edited:
MOST is not ALL. I NEVER have discussed MOST. To everyone else here MOST EQUALS ALL.

I fully understand that the odds against a player owning or being owned is high. The others REFUSE that they exist AT ALL. That is irrational.

If a horse has run 10 races over a three year period at Track X and has won 7 times, it is more likely that he will win than he will lose at that track. I will bet him in Race 11. It's called horses for courses. Why it happens, no one really knows why.

The same is exactly true on certain batter/pitcher match-ups. To say it doesn't exist is intentionally neglecting ACTUAL FACTS and believing in non-proven theories. Saying the player will regress (or improve) in a specific situation when ALL the numbers over a period of YEARS and show it hasn't happened.

I showed three players who either did their best or worst against someone whom they faced the MOST times of any other pitcher or hitter. But to you and others that's not significant. I'm showing ACTUAL results, you are GUESSING what might happen. But I am the one who is "wrong" and "irrational".

AGAIN, the huge majority of players don't have this. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't prove that if Manny faced Hallady another 79 times that he would more HRs and have a better OPS. I CAN prove that he was inferior in REAL GAMES over his ENTIRE CAREER.

If this was about one or two years, I'd agree with you 100%. It's not.

Hell, Hutton had 3% of his total PAs of his career against Seaver. That is a significant number. The results over a period of time. None of you can admit there is likely some reason for this and other anomalies do exist. Hell, you can't even admit that this phenomenon is real.

It's like you are arguing that stocks that go up over a period of time will continue to go up by only looking at stocks that have continued to go up. You still don't understand the argument, and the statistics you have provided do not prove your hypothesis.
 
MOST is not ALL. I NEVER have discussed MOST. To everyone else here MOST EQUALS ALL.

I fully understand that the odds against a player owning or being owned is high. The others REFUSE that they exist AT ALL. That is irrational.

If a horse has run 10 races over a three year period at Track X and has won 7 times, it is more likely that he will win than he will lose at that track. I will bet him in Race 11. It's called horses for courses. Why it happens, no one really knows why.

The same is exactly true on certain batter/pitcher match-ups. To say it doesn't exist is intentionally neglecting ACTUAL FACTS and believing in non-proven theories. Saying the player will regress (or improve) in a specific situation when ALL the numbers over a period of YEARS and show it hasn't happened.

I showed three players who either did their best or worst against someone whom they faced the MOST times of any other pitcher or hitter. But to you and others that's not significant. I'm showing ACTUAL results, you are GUESSING what might happen. But I am the one who is "wrong" and "irrational".

AGAIN, the huge majority of players don't have this. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You can't prove that if Manny faced Hallady another 79 times that he would more HRs and have a better OPS. I CAN prove that he was inferior in REAL GAMES over his ENTIRE CAREER.

If this was about one or two years, I'd agree with you 100%. It's not.

Hell, Hutton had 3% of his total PAs of his career against Seaver. That is a significant number. The results happened over a period of time. None of you can admit there is likely some reason for this and other anomalies do exist. Hell, you can't even admit that this phenomenon is real.

No one is saying anomalies don’t exist. Of course they do. Just like sometimes a long shot wins a race.

What they are saying is that if you look at data from ALL the players that have ever played, past results from hitter vs pitcher match ups isn’t a good predictor of future results of that matchup. And that’s why there are better predictors of success.
 
It's like you are arguing that stocks that go up over a period of time will continue to go up by only looking at stocks that have continued to go up. You still don't understand the argument, and the statistics you have provided do not prove your hypothesis.

I've shown results that happen over ENTIRE CAREERS. You can't get better than that.

I do understand what you say and agree a vast majority of the time. The stubborn one is you who can't admit that there are exceptions.

Bringing stock prices on companies that can live forever is the definition of being irrational and irrelevant to baseball. You have a finite career in baseball. You can't honestly extrapolate that people will regress AFTER they retire. They PROVED what they would do while they were playing. My "hypothesis" is proven by ACTUAL FACTS.

You refuse to admit there could be actual physical or mental reasons for these anomalies. Did you ever really play baseball on decent level? There are guys whose pitches you see better. Thus, you hit them better. I remember one semi-pro league I played in that a pitcher figured out I couldn't hit his change-up and he got me out all the time. I was a better hitter than he was a pitcher, but he owned me for years. There was another guy who liked to groove his first pitch to get ahead, and I wore him out because of it.

You can't just use raw numbers without any context and say this is the way it is and will be.
 
What's sad is MHB can't admit he's wrong. There are players who hit well above or well below the career norms against certain pitchers throughout their career. Thus, you can predict that they will do so.

It is irrational and wrong to say they would regress to their averages AFTER they haven PROVEN otherwise.

I'm using FACTS. They are using theories.
 
What's sad is MHB can't admit he's wrong. There are players who hit well above or well below the career norms against certain pitchers throughout their career. Thus, you can predict that they will do so.

It is irrational and wrong to say they would regress to their averages AFTER they haven PROVEN otherwise.

I'm using FACTS. They are using theories.

And this is where you’re wrong. It’s a fact that most people DO regress to their averages. So it would be unwise and illogical to predict that a player would continue perform above average. Even though a small number beat the odds and do so.

That’s based on looking at every player and every at bat in MLB history. You can’t get a better sample size than that.
 
i believe the data says that the # of players who don’t regress to the mean is exactly the number would expect to not regress based on randomness. a divergence from that (in either direction) could actually have some interesting causative effects, but it’s not what we see.
 
Back
Top