Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

107 views

Skip to first unread message

Message has been deleted

Apr 26, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/26/00

to

In article <8e7929$g0g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <hgw...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Going into today's game, he's hitting a robust .194. He seems to be

>drawing a lot of walks and knocking in some runs (but I know most people

>in this group don't think RBIs are a real stat). Unless he goes on a

>tear, he'll end the month hitting around the Mendoza line. Do you think

>he'll get it back up to his normal average by season's end, or will he

>hit around .230? I bring it up because I notice a couple people in

>other groups talking about how he's still being productive. Well, he's

>got Dave Kingman stats and most people hated Kingman (not me, I loved

>the guy). What are your (flameless) opinions?

>Going into today's game, he's hitting a robust .194. He seems to be

>drawing a lot of walks and knocking in some runs (but I know most people

>in this group don't think RBIs are a real stat). Unless he goes on a

>tear, he'll end the month hitting around the Mendoza line. Do you think

>he'll get it back up to his normal average by season's end, or will he

>hit around .230? I bring it up because I notice a couple people in

>other groups talking about how he's still being productive. Well, he's

>got Dave Kingman stats and most people hated Kingman (not me, I loved

>the guy). What are your (flameless) opinions?

I don't have the numbers to back up this statement, but I'm sure if you

went back and looked at Griffey's career on a month-by-month basis, you'd

find there were months in which he hit .200, others in which he batted

.400, and a whole bunch in between. For his career, he's a .297 hitter.

Let's say Griffey bats .300 the rest of the way (which will probably

happen):

(.200 + .300 * 5 / 6) = .283

I imagine he's pressing just a little bit to impress th hometown

fans. Once he gets settled in, I'm sure he'll start hitting for a higher

average like he normally does.

Ben Grieve was pretty terrible for the first few months last year before

rebounding to bat around .270 for the season. Same goes for Trot Nixon.

Every player will go through slumps. When they happen in April they're

just more apparent.

Regards,

jc

P.S. I presume you play some sort of fantasy baseball. If you can convince

some schmoe to trade him to you cheap, go for it. Conversely, if you own

him, don't get suckered into dealing him.

--

"If you get fresh with me on the mound or do something to show me up,

I`ll drill your ass."

-- Pedro Martinez, Boston Red Sox

Apr 26, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/26/00

to

Jack Cooney wrote:

>

> Let's say Griffey bats .300 the rest of the way (which will probably

> happen):

>

> (.200 + .300 * 5 / 6) = .283

Actually, the Reds have played only 20 games, so 7 and 8 would be more

appropriate numbers to use than 5 and 6. Taking your exercise a step further,

I estimate that if Griffey plays 160 games and hits his career average from

here on out, he'll end up at 286/373/550 with 37 homers. Not quite what Reds'

fans would've hoped, but far from a disaster.

> Every player will go through slumps. When they happen in April they're

> just more apparent.

Absolutely correct.

Doug

Apr 26, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/26/00

to

hgw...@my-deja.com wrote:

> Going into today's game, he's hitting a robust .194. He seems to be

> drawing a lot of walks and knocking in some runs (but I know most people

> in this group don't think RBIs are a real stat). Unless he goes on a

> tear, he'll end the month hitting around the Mendoza line. Do you think

> he'll get it back up to his normal average by season's end, or will he

> hit around .230? I bring it up because I notice a couple people in

> other groups talking about how he's still being productive. Well, he's

> got Dave Kingman stats and most people hated Kingman (not me, I loved

> the guy). What are your (flameless) opinions?

> Going into today's game, he's hitting a robust .194. He seems to be

> drawing a lot of walks and knocking in some runs (but I know most people

> in this group don't think RBIs are a real stat). Unless he goes on a

> tear, he'll end the month hitting around the Mendoza line. Do you think

> he'll get it back up to his normal average by season's end, or will he

> hit around .230? I bring it up because I notice a couple people in

> other groups talking about how he's still being productive. Well, he's

> got Dave Kingman stats and most people hated Kingman (not me, I loved

> the guy). What are your (flameless) opinions?

Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

--

Voros McCracken

vo...@daruma.co.jp

2000 Projections at:

http://www.enteract.com/~mccracke/project/index.html

Apr 26, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/26/00

to

Voros wrote:

>

> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>

> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

physicist might use the term) to me.

Am I missing something, or did you just think axiom sounded cooler?

Doug

Apr 27, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/27/00

to

Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> Voros wrote:

>>

>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

> Voros wrote:

>>

>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

> Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

> be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

> physicist might use the term) to me.

I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and it

is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could be

expected by chance).

> Am I missing something, or did you just think axiom sounded cooler?

Didn't really know the difference except that you didn't really need to do

anything but use common sense for an Axiom.

Apr 27, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/27/00

to

In article <8ea6b0$1enp$4...@news.enteract.com>,

Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:

> Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> > Voros wrote:

> >>

> >> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>

> > Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something

that could

> > be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the

sense that a

> > physicist might use the term) to me.

>

> I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

> naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and

it

> is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could

be

> expected by chance).

>

> > Am I missing something, or did you just think axiom sounded cooler?

>

> Didn't really know the difference except that you didn't really need

to do

> anything but use common sense for an Axiom.

Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:

> Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> > Voros wrote:

> >>

> >> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>

> > Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something

that could

> > be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the

sense that a

> > physicist might use the term) to me.

>

> I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

> naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and

it

> is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could

be

> expected by chance).

>

> > Am I missing something, or did you just think axiom sounded cooler?

>

> Didn't really know the difference except that you didn't really need

to do

> anything but use common sense for an Axiom.

That's what I thought you were saying. Perhaps they use the word

incorrectly, but I heard two different announcers doing two different

games use the phrase (I'm paraphrasing) "To quote one of baseball's old

axioms, 'If you have a runner at third w/ no one out, you need to try to

hit it to the right side.'" Strategy or grammar aside, this appears to

be one of the pantheon of baseball "axioms." In fact, I remember my dad

buying me a book with that very title when I was about 9 or 10.

Basically, it was a book on baseball fundamentals accepting as

"universal truths" (my Webster's definition).

Basil T

--

"And when Alexander saw the breadth of

his domain, he wept for there were no

more worlds to conquer. Benefits of a

classical education." -Hans from "Die Hard"

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/

Before you buy.

Apr 28, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/28/00

to

Basil T wrote:

>

> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:

> > Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>

> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:

> > Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> > I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

> > naming laws after myself.

The same way you go about naming Axioms after yourself.

> > I have done the experimentation on this and

> > it is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could

> > be expected by chance).

Presto, you're perfectly justified calling it Voros' Law.

> > > Am I missing something, or did you just think axiom sounded cooler?

> >

> > Didn't really know the difference except that you didn't really need

> > to do anything but use common sense for an Axiom.

If you call something an axiom, you're asking us to accept it without proof,

based *solely* on common sense. If you call it a law, then you're claiming

you've verified it and that we could too if we wanted to. You can call it an

axiom, but you don't have to, and generally speaking, you want as few axioms

as possible.

Doug

Apr 28, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/28/00

to

Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> writes:

>Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>> Voros wrote:

>>>

>>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>> Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

>> be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

>> physicist might use the term) to me.

>I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

>naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and it

>is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could be

>expected by chance).

Actually, I think it sounds more like a Conjecture to me than either an

Axiom, Law, or Theorem. A Conjecture is something that presumably can be

proven or demonstrated, but which hasn't been proven or demonstrated

yet. I think that "anyone can hit anything over 60 AB" fits into that

category pretty well.

In any case, I think that Voros's Conjecture is pretty clearly wrong,

albeit in an interesting, correctable way. The problem is that there's

much more room for hitting anything _worse_ than one could normally hit,

but there's some kind of ceiling for players hitting dramatically better

than their previous performance. A good case of this is hitting for

power. A slugger like Griffey could very easily have a 60 AB homer

drought, where he completely failed to hit any dingers. A total

non-slugger like Walt Weiss, though, isn't going to suddenly go through a

60 AB stretch were he hits 10 homers. The interesting thing about this is

that it means that sudden surges in success are more likely real than

equally dramatic drops in success. If Griffey goes without a homer for 60

AB, it just means that he's had a bad 60 AB. If Walt Weiss hits 10 homers

in 60 AB, though, it probably means that he's made a genuine improvement

to his ability to hit for power.

--

Raj (r...@alumni.caltech.edu)

Master of Meaningless Trivia (626) 585-0144

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

Apr 28, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/28/00

to

Roger Moore wrote:

>

> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> writes:

>

> >Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> >> Voros wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>

> >> Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

> >> be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

> >> physicist might use the term) to me.

>

> >I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

> >naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and it

> >is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could be

> >expected by chance).

>

> Actually, I think it sounds more like a Conjecture to me than either an

> Axiom, Law, or Theorem. A Conjecture is something that presumably can be

> proven or demonstrated, but which hasn't been proven or demonstrated

> yet.

>

> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> writes:

>

> >Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> >> Voros wrote:

> >>>

> >>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>

> >> Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

> >> be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

> >> physicist might use the term) to me.

>

> >I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

> >naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and it

> >is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could be

> >expected by chance).

>

> Actually, I think it sounds more like a Conjecture to me than either an

> Axiom, Law, or Theorem. A Conjecture is something that presumably can be

> proven or demonstrated, but which hasn't been proven or demonstrated

> yet.

But he just said above, "I have done the experimentation on this and it is

correct."

> In any case, I think that Voros's Conjecture is pretty clearly wrong,

> The problem is that there's

> much more room for hitting anything _worse_ than one could normally hit,

> but there's some kind of ceiling for players hitting dramatically better

> than their previous performance. A good case of this is hitting for

> power. A slugger like Griffey could very easily have a 60 AB homer

> drought, where he completely failed to hit any dingers. A total

> non-slugger like Walt Weiss, though, isn't going to suddenly go through a

> 60 AB stretch were he hits 10 homers.

Probably true, but he can go through 60 AB stretches where his overall

offensive production is equivalent to Griffey's production during a 10 HR in

60 AB stretch. Maybe.

I interpret Voros' Law to mean something like "Anyone can hit within 300

points of his "true" OPS in a 60 AB stretch, or some such. He probably should

at some point say precisely what Voros' Law is, in the technical sense. Then,

having done that, he could revert to using the informal statement: anyone can

hit anything in 60 ABs.

How 'bout it, Voros, could you explain exactly what Voros' Law is?

> The interesting thing about this is

> that it means that sudden surges in success are more likely real than

> equally dramatic drops in success. If Griffey goes without a homer for 60

> AB, it just means that he's had a bad 60 AB. If Walt Weiss hits 10 homers

> in 60 AB, though, it probably means that he's made a genuine improvement

> to his ability to hit for power.

Now *that's* a conjecture.

Doug

Apr 28, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/28/00

to

Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> Basil T wrote:

>>

>> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:

>> > Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> Basil T wrote:

>>

>> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:

>> > Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>> > I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

>> > naming laws after myself.

> The same way you go about naming Axioms after yourself.

>> > I have done the experimentation on this and

>> > it is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could

>> > be expected by chance).

> Presto, you're perfectly justified calling it Voros' Law.

>> > > Am I missing something, or did you just think axiom sounded cooler?

>> >

>> > Didn't really know the difference except that you didn't really need

>> > to do anything but use common sense for an Axiom.

> If you call something an axiom, you're asking us to accept it without proof,

> based *solely* on common sense. If you call it a law, then you're claiming

> you've verified it and that we could too if we wanted to. You can call it an

> axiom, but you don't have to, and generally speaking, you want as few axioms

> as possible.

Alright, then I guess it's "Voros' Law."

VOROS' LAW

================

Anyone can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

For reference points:

The late Jose Oliva.

Manny Ramirez' first Cup of Coffee in the bigs.

Ken Griffey Jr., 2000

David Bell, 1999

Max Venable, 1989

Todd Haney, 1993?

Shane Spencer, 1998

Apr 28, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/28/00

to

>>Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>>> Voros wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>>> Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

>>> be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

>>> physicist might use the term) to me.

>>I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

>>naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and it

>>is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could be

>>expected by chance).

> Actually, I think it sounds more like a Conjecture to me than either an

> Axiom, Law, or Theorem. A Conjecture is something that presumably can be

> proven or demonstrated, but which hasn't been proven or demonstrated

> yet. I think that "anyone can hit anything over 60 AB" fits into that

> category pretty well.

> In any case, I think that Voros's Conjecture is pretty clearly wrong,

> albeit in an interesting, correctable way. The problem is that there's

> much more room for hitting anything _worse_ than one could normally hit,

> but there's some kind of ceiling for players hitting dramatically better

> than their previous performance. A good case of this is hitting for

> power. A slugger like Griffey could very easily have a 60 AB homer

> drought, where he completely failed to hit any dingers. A total

> non-slugger like Walt Weiss, though, isn't going to suddenly go through a

> 60 AB stretch were he hits 10 homers. The interesting thing about this is

> that it means that sudden surges in success are more likely real than

> equally dramatic drops in success. If Griffey goes without a homer for 60

> AB, it just means that he's had a bad 60 AB. If Walt Weiss hits 10 homers

> in 60 AB, though, it probably means that he's made a genuine improvement

> to his ability to hit for power.

That's the more or less part. Obviously there are boundaries in

performance that are difficult to reach.

But in the case stated above, while it's not likely that Weiss would hit

10 Homers in 60 At Bats, if he does that still doesn't mean he's

established an astoundingly high new level of performance. If he hits 10

in 60 at bats, it's still reasonable to believe the possibility that he

might only hit five more all year. After David Bell's big surge last year,

he hit home runs at about the same rate he always had in his career before

the surge.

While statistically such a result is very significant, it would only be so

if the 60 at bats were representative of the type of at bats he'd have in

an entire season.

This is the other big problem with sample sizes. That not only is it

tought to make statistical inferrences from such a small sample, but that

60 at bats are very often highly concentrated in a few number of parks,

pitchers and weather conditions all of which could skew the results one

way or the other.

The fact remains that correlations from 60 AB samples with future

performance are VERY low and therefore what happens in those samples is

not particularly valuable in estimating future performance.

Apr 28, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM4/28/00

to

Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> Roger Moore wrote:

>>

>> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> writes:

>>

>> >Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>> >> Voros wrote:

>> >>>

>> >>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>>

>> >> Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

>> >> be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

>> >> physicist might use the term) to me.

>>

>> >I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

>> >naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and it

>> >is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could be

>> >expected by chance).

>>

>> Actually, I think it sounds more like a Conjecture to me than either an

>> Axiom, Law, or Theorem. A Conjecture is something that presumably can be

>> proven or demonstrated, but which hasn't been proven or demonstrated

>> yet.

> Roger Moore wrote:

>>

>> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> writes:

>>

>> >Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>> >> Voros wrote:

>> >>>

>> >>> Axiom #1: Anybody can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>>

>> >> Just curious, Voros, why do you call this an Axiom? It's something that could

>> >> be verified by "experiment," so it seems more like a Law (in the sense that a

>> >> physicist might use the term) to me.

>>

>> >I can call it Voros' law if you like, but I'm not sure how to go about

>> >naming laws after myself. I have done the experimentation on this and it

>> >is correct (correlations at that level are mostly no higher than could be

>> >expected by chance).

>>

>> Actually, I think it sounds more like a Conjecture to me than either an

>> Axiom, Law, or Theorem. A Conjecture is something that presumably can be

>> proven or demonstrated, but which hasn't been proven or demonstrated

>> yet.

> But he just said above, "I have done the experimentation on this and it is

> correct."

>> In any case, I think that Voros's Conjecture is pretty clearly wrong,

>> The problem is that there's

>> much more room for hitting anything _worse_ than one could normally hit,

>> but there's some kind of ceiling for players hitting dramatically better

>> than their previous performance. A good case of this is hitting for

>> power. A slugger like Griffey could very easily have a 60 AB homer

>> drought, where he completely failed to hit any dingers. A total

>> non-slugger like Walt Weiss, though, isn't going to suddenly go through a

>> 60 AB stretch were he hits 10 homers.

> Probably true, but he can go through 60 AB stretches where his overall

> offensive production is equivalent to Griffey's production during a 10 HR in

> 60 AB stretch. Maybe.

> I interpret Voros' Law to mean something like "Anyone can hit within 300

> points of his "true" OPS in a 60 AB stretch, or some such. He probably should

> at some point say precisely what Voros' Law is, in the technical sense. Then,

> having done that, he could revert to using the informal statement: anyone can

> hit anything in 60 ABs.

> How 'bout it, Voros, could you explain exactly what Voros' Law is?

It's the weekend, so I guess I can dig up the data. There's a lengthy post

on it on Baseball Boards dot Com. Of course, I'm currently trying to look

up the URL and they're moving the site.

Basically I took a series of 50-100 AB Major league seasons in recent

history and compared them with minor league seasons of 300 ABs or more the

same year, to see which was a better indicator of future performance. The

discussion centered around Mark Quinn, and my position was that since

Quinn was a good hitter in AAA, his MLB cup of coffee did not indicate

anything that his AAA numbers didn't and therefore was not particularly

useful in assessing his future (which I said at the time looked good as a

hitter nevertheless).

Anyway as one might expect, the higher minor league sample correlated

better with the following season than the cup of coffee did. What was

amazing was how poorly the cup of coffee really correlated.

One key note was the following:

There were fifty players who had not played any real time in the majors

before the season (the actual def. was more precise but I forget), had at

least 300 ABs in the minors that year, had from 50-100 ABs in the majors

that year, and posted 200 ABs in the majors the next year.

The highest OPS of the 50 was Shane Spencer in 1998.

The lowest OPS of the 50 was Manny Alexander in 1996? or 1995? (around

.240! or something ridiculously low).

The following year Alexander had a higher OPS than Spencer did in 1999.

If, in a 60 At Bat sample, the highest OPS player is no guarantee to

outhit the lowest OPS player over the next couple hundred at bats, it

seems to me the value of a 60 at bat sample is limited to say the least.

>> The interesting thing about this is

>> that it means that sudden surges in success are more likely real than

>> equally dramatic drops in success. If Griffey goes without a homer for 60

>> AB, it just means that he's had a bad 60 AB. If Walt Weiss hits 10 homers

>> in 60 AB, though, it probably means that he's made a genuine improvement

>> to his ability to hit for power.

> Now *that's* a conjecture.

And of course some recent examples, like Spencer or Jose Oliva, tend to

disagree. Using something like Binomial Distributions, yes such a breakout

is VERY significant, but a 60 AB sample is different because the

probabilities could be skewed upward or downward severely by facing a

higher concentration of good or bad pitchers, (Voros has Deja Vu moment,

strange) good or bad hitters parks, or good or bad weather.

Not only is the difference between someone who's good at hitting the

target and someone who is bad relatively small (a peculiar aspect of

baseball) but the target is moved somewhat randomly after each throw to a

new location that may be easier or harder to hit. In 60 tries one might

get a higher concentration of "easy" targets than another.

May 1, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM5/1/00

to

In article <8eco7v$c4t$3...@news.enteract.com>, Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:

>

>Alright, then I guess it's "Voros' Law."

>

>VOROS' LAW

>================

>Anyone can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>

>For reference points:

>

>The late Jose Oliva.

>Manny Ramirez' first Cup of Coffee in the bigs.

>Ken Griffey Jr., 2000

>David Bell, 1999

>Max Venable, 1989

>Todd Haney, 1993?

>Shane Spencer, 1998

>

>Alright, then I guess it's "Voros' Law."

>

>VOROS' LAW

>================

>Anyone can hit just about anything in 60 At Bats.

>

>For reference points:

>

>The late Jose Oliva.

>Manny Ramirez' first Cup of Coffee in the bigs.

>Ken Griffey Jr., 2000

>David Bell, 1999

>Max Venable, 1989

>Todd Haney, 1993?

>Shane Spencer, 1998

Brett Boone

July 1995 .367/.417/.755 107 PAs

August 1995 .152/.252/.212 112 PAs

--

RNJ

May 1, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM5/1/00

to

> Brett Boone

Most of Troy Glaus' 1999 looked like that.

Hopefully he can avoid another repeat of last May and solidify himself as

an All-Star candidate.

May 12, 2000, 3:00:00â€¯AM5/12/00

to

In article <39098137...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu>,

Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>If you call something an axiom, you're asking us to accept it without proof,

>based *solely* on common sense. If you call it a law, then you're claiming

>you've verified it and that we could too if we wanted to. You can call it an

>axiom, but you don't have to, and generally speaking, you want as few axioms

>as possible.

Doug Drinen <dri...@mailhost.math.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

>If you call something an axiom, you're asking us to accept it without proof,

>based *solely* on common sense. If you call it a law, then you're claiming

>you've verified it and that we could too if we wanted to. You can call it an

>axiom, but you don't have to, and generally speaking, you want as few axioms

>as possible.

A minor nitpick. You want as *simple* as axioms as possible. That way

the "correctness" and/or acceptance of them is more likely. Increasing the

number of axioms while decreasing their complexity is a valuable tradeoff.

--

World's Greatest Living Poster

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu