All of this discussion reminds me of Yogi Berra " I'm not a slump, I just ain't hittin"

(05-24-2013 08:11 PM)Gravy Owl Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 04:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:53 PM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  Expecting the 0-15 hitter to get a hit is the Gambler's Fallacy. You should expect a lifetime .280 hitter who is on an 0-15 streak to have a 28% chance of getting a hit their next time at bat.

Some gamblers would say he is due, since he is 4.2 hits below expectation and the Law of Averages will take over.

I think that's why it's called the Gambler's Fallacy.

So maybe he'll get a hit and maybe he won't.

(05-24-2013 05:45 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Where exactly were the relevant "facts" in the discussion? Seriously? What was presented was a limitted study dealing with major league batters coming up for their 4th AB in a game after getting extrabase hits in their first 3 ABs. You do realize how rare an occurence that is, right? To extrapolate from that data a conclusion that what a batter has done in his previous ABs in a game have "no impact" on his next AB is more than a little bit of a stretch, IMO. Just as batters go in slumps, which are at times extended due to pressing and trying to change one's swing, hitters also go on hot streaks when the "feel" their in a zone, and say they are picking up the ball better than usual. That's what they say at any rate.

Uh, they're right there in your third sentence. And you steadfastly insist on completely ignoring them.

Basically, what you're saying is that this 859-sample subset of instances of hitters having good prior at-bats is entirely worthless... I think due to some argument about "the law of averages kicking in"?

Gravy's response is possibly the best. Just laugh at what you're saying and move on.