Thursday, October 18, 2007

Small Sample Size

If one were to read today's Shank column and conclude based on it that he sucked as a writer, you would be committing a mistake in logic. One column is not enough to show that a columnist is good or bad. To truly determine that Shank sucked, you would need to look at his whole body of work.

Dan makes such a mistake in today's column, blaming players for poor hitting over a four-game period. (My favorite is "Organization poster boy Dustin Pedroia is hitting .172 against the Tribe", implying that there is something wrong about an organization with a 2b hitting .380/.440.) Let's ignore what happened over six months for what happened over the last week. This is the same type of irrational, panicked thinking that CHB would slam fans for engaging in.

But this small sample size problem is just an example of the basic flaw in Dan's thesis. Dan claims that this team, down 3-1, is somehow different than all the other teams that have come back from the same deficit because this one looks bad. But all those teams looked bad, that's why they were down 3-1. After seeing the Red Sox get blown out in Game 3 of the 2004 ALCS, nobody thought they looked good, poised to roar back. But they did because they began to play better, much better. You cannot predict, just hope that it happens.

Factual Error
Manny Delcarmen is not one of Theo's guys. He was drafted in 2000.


Anonymous said...

Dale & Holley on WEEI responded to Shank's claim that the majority of the players on the 2004 team were brought in by Dan Duquette. 16 of 25 were Theo's, eight were Duquette's and one was Lou Gorman's. Never let the facts get in the way of good Shankin'.

Dubegedi said...

I love how nobody in the media is pointing out the difference between a good move and a move that works out. Gange? He had a 1.32 pre AS era and we all know about his career achievements. The Sox gave up two guys who probably won't amount to more than career 4th outfielder and a spot starter. So it hasn't worked out, was Espstein supposed to have magical powers and know the Gagne would inexplicably be awful? Drew was a guy with very good career numbers-maybe he is a bit injury prone but nobody expected him to suck as he has this season. Lugo, fine...I was never all that impressed with him but once again, how can you blame such an astronomical dip in performance on the GM? And the Pedroia comment... how the fuck is it the GM's fault that a guy he signed went .317/ .380/ .442 in his rookie year and then performed poorly in a grand total of 7 games? I suppose being obsessed with results rather than the process in achieving those results is what a guy like CHB does best.

ObjectiveBruce said...

Wow when people need to turn to a fourth-rate radio broadcast to buttress arguments it shows they have nothing in the tank.

Shaughnessy never said "the majority of the players on the 2004 team were brought in by Dan Duquette."

He wrote: "Duquette assembled half of the 2004 champs"

He didn't say half the 50 players who spent some time on roster were put on the team by Duquette. Look at the eight position players who started the World Series. Four (that's half, people) were assembled at the major league level by Duquette: Rameriz, Damon, Varitek and Nixon (signed by an earlier era but after ten years in the organization it's not a stretch to call him part of the Duquette regime since he was brought to the majors and installed as a regular by Duquette).

The Sox used four starting pitchers in the '04 World Series Wakefield, Martinez, Schilling and Lowe. Three were "assembled" by Duquette.

Five of the nine players who took the field in game 1 were Duquette holdovers, five of nine in game 2, five of nine in game 3 and five of nine in game 4.

Amusing how Mr. Arnold has time on his hands to count players from three-year-old rosters now that he no longer has to worry about sucking up to the Jacobs family.

mike_b1 said...

Dammit Bruce, you know we don't speak Spanish.

dbvader said...


Seriously, can you account for your major gaffe regarding the videotaping?

You are always screaming for accountability, but seem to lack it when it is sought from you.

Read it a fifth time and then tell us you were wrong.

Anonymous said...

Bruce your logic is absolutely amazing. In order to make your argument work, you discredited Dale & Holley's FACT, by calling them fourth-rate.

How in the world does them being a good or bad radio change the fact that 16 of the 25 guys on the team were assembled by Theo and the new ownership?

"Well the answer is very simple, because the guys who brought you said fact, well they are big Poopy-pants as radio hosts", says Bruce.

Hey Bruce don't let your hatred for someone who simply disagrees with your views get in the way of the truth. As you are so fond of telling the rest of the posters on this blog to do.

Monkeesfan said...

So Bruce, what is your conclusion? That Theo should be fired as GM?