I guess I can cross off mathematician as a profession for those on this post. Its obvious to me we have many intelligent folks in our community, but to categorize the recent poll as anything but one data point is inaccurate. The results don't tell me anything definitive for a few reasons.
1) Its one sample
2) the results are well within what would be the standard deviation if we were to conduct say 20 more of the same exact poll
3) the results also seem to be within the standard error
When data is analyzed many data points are collected, plotted and then reviewed for tendencies. Which means that samples that fall within the standard deviation are removed. So if the results that are remaining swing one way or the other THEN there's something to think about.
Now if the results of the poll were something like 20-7 one way or the other, then that would be something to take notice of, with further analysis dependent on projected impact and priority.
This matters to me because the default for ATG is the whole set, see Barnstormers.
Regarding Mize, debacle? Its statements like these that make me wonder. We added a HOF's season where he had his career high in HR's, RBI, R's and now he has a Giants card, which really completes his SOM profile. That's a win in my book.
Where to begin. Clearly Rosie isn't a mathematician, although I had four semesters of graduate statistics in the process of completing my PhD. so I do know a bit about inferential statistics and certainly the language that a mathematician would use to characterize what is going on here.
Rosie also writes
that's just it, I don't see it as a small majority expressing a different opinion. I see it as a piece of information that once you take into account the laws of math, doesn't conclusively tell me anything. If it was 15-12 the other way I'd read it exactly the same.
The Laws of Math huh.
That is one of the funniest and ill informed characterizations of inferential statistics that I have ever heard. What the poll does is provides us with a set of 27 binary numbers expressed as discrete rather than continuous variables. Those 27 numbers are the sample size which are a reflection of the true population size. It is not one data point
it is a set of discrete data points. Now statistics does not speak in the absolute terms that Rosie uses such as "meaningless." What it does is create a null hypothesis that is then subjected to various statistical procedures, based on measures of central tendency and variability, the aim of which is to determine with how much confidence the null hypothesis can be rejected, or if it cannot be rejected from the given data. Note one can never "prove" the null anymore than one can "prove a theory." The smaller the sample size, the larger the effect must be in order to reject the null hypothesis. Note that I characterized the results of the poll as merely "suggesting." The sample size and the results obtained are certainly not conclusive. We could subject the data to a power analysis to determine the precise sample size required to show an effect if one is present. The hypothesized mean of this set is 13.5 and the obtained results are only about .566 of a standard deviation, so clearly a larger sample size is needed. But one does not "remove" such samples for this reason. One runs additional polls to add to the sample size, the results of which can be additive if a different population is sampled from (i.e. people who didn't vote the first time).
However, this is the sample size we have and it provides a stark contrast with what a very few vocal folks are advocating for, which apparently resulted in Rosie's unilateral moratorium on card adds from that era. It is the best data we currently have and is suggestive of a possible trend in the population.
But rather than discuss the point rationally, Rosie spouts a bunch of pseudo mathematical gibberish and then verbally assaults Salty.
Note that my two initial posts of this subject were calm and rational, albeit unwelcome to both Andy and Rosie.
This whole charade reminds me of a plaque on an attorney friend's desk. If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have nothing, pound the table. Looks like Rosie pounded the table so hard he broke it.
Well I did learn one thing. When Rosie appears to want to say FU to someone, he instead says "cheers" or 'happy holidays."
Rosie and I do agree on one thing, there are plenty of intelligent folks in this community. However, Rosie's posts on this thread would not support a claim on his part to be one of them.
Mon Dec 11, 2017 6:17 pm