|
|
Post by inger on Jun 26, 2021 14:32:40 GMT -5
The numbers are factual. They come from BR. You can get them there for yourself. My statements stand. End of story…
|
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Jun 26, 2021 14:56:37 GMT -5
The numbers are factual. They come from BR. You can get them there for yourself. My statements stand. End of story… Point to any of my posts where I said the numbers were not factual? And, I’ve already addressed this exact clouding of the issue in a prior post, when I wrote that small sample sizes and anomalies are indeed factual and historical. Statistics do not have to be incorrect or ahistorical to be misleading. Like the skewed .731 slugging percentage that you maintain, without argument, is a perfect representation of how Chapman is pitching. And, as if I am unaware of Baseball Reference, you are changing the subject of the argument and applying a false emphasis. Ignoratio elenchi - a logical fallacy. Again, if you refuse to address the content and questions within the discussion, why bother? Your statements may stand, but your arguments to support them are nonexistent. Every single batter Chapman has faced since July 10 has a slugging percentage of .731 isn’t a bit misleading due to one single appearance skewing the data? Laughable. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jun 26, 2021 15:06:23 GMT -5
This is going nowhere, Rizz. I cannot address your concerns to your satisfaction. The end…
|
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on Jun 26, 2021 16:18:40 GMT -5
This is going nowhere, Rizz. I cannot address your concerns to your satisfaction. The end… You should stop pretending that you have even tried to address any actual questions posed. |
|
|
|
Post by inger on Jun 26, 2021 16:52:55 GMT -5
This is going nowhere, Rizz. I cannot address your concerns to your satisfaction. The end… You should stop pretending that you have even tried to address any actual questions posed. Okay. I stop pretending. Let it go… |
|
