I ONLY talked about the ones that do. I
"I only talked about the selective sample that confirms my belief." YOU brought up all that other stuff."
I ONLY talked about the ones that do. I
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.