No, but I will give myself a one day ban as of now.

 

No.

Open season, guys. Get it while the gettin' is good...

 

Nothing is "real".
Everything we observe and experience is a thing from the past.

I see your point and don't exactly disagree with it, but I would add that some people believe that reality is, in fact, what we "observe and experience". Like most people, I would like to believe that something is out there that is initiating the observation and experience, but the fact is, all we have is our own "observation and experience". There is no opportunity to sense reality other than with "observation and experience".

There are a couple of "inconveniences" inherent to this limitation:

1. It is virtually impossible for two people to observe or experience identical realities. Fortunately, there is oftentimes enough commonality to make living together at least possible.

2. Sometimes, the relationship between the event (photons traveling to the eye) and the observation and experience (all that sensor transduction and neuronal processing that we call sensation and perception) is tenuous at best. We can stimulate sensation and perception to observe and experience light, without a photon present at all. Moreover, in some cases (some instances of schizophrenia) this happens on its own (i.e., auditory hallucinations).

Edited to remove the humorous video - no one told me to, but my humor is not always shared.

 

Point taken.

I use the rainbow as a good example. Whenever I get the opportunity I explain to folks that every rainbow seen is unique to the viewer. The geometric center of the arc of a rainbow falls on a straight line that connects the viewer's head and the sun. Hence everyone sees a different rainbow.

The reality is that the light reaching your eye from any object is different from that to another viewer for all circumstances. Hence your observation must be different from mine. The observation and physical experience can never be the same.

That's the ultimate philosophical take on this.

 

I use the rainbow as a good example. Whenever I get the opportunity I explain to folks that ever rainbow seen is unique to the viewer.

And their perception has a great deal to do with whether or not they believe in unicorns and/or leprechauns.

 

I’m really not trying to fan any flames here, but I want to comment on the back and forth using the baseball hitting scenario.

I really enjoy psychophysics (more so than physics or inferential statistics) and although it is a bit of a tangent from the TS’s questions, the baseball hitting analogy is awe-inspiring in many aspects. But, in discussing the phenomenon a good deal of care in the definition and use of terms is in order.

Whether it has nothing to do with luck or everything to do with luck or something in between will depend on how you define luck.

The term “luck”, is of no real use to me (of course I still use it). It seems to be defined as a random outcome that is desirable (good luck) or undesirable (If it wasn’t for bad luck, I wouldn’t have no luck at all).

To me, a random outcome is one where all possible outcomes have an equal likelihood of occurrence. The drawn lottery number is a decent example. A pitch is not a very good example. The swing by the batter is also not a very good example. Hitting the ball or not is also not a very good example.

Another point involves discussion of the mean (i.e., batting average). Consider:

“If you average across all batters, yes, it can look like luck that anyone hits a ball at all. The best batters are far more productive against fastballs than the average. The distribution curve has a "long tail".

The mean alone NEVER provides any other information about the underlying distribution. It certainly can be true that the best batters are better against fastballs then the average. But, that alone says nothing about the underlying distribution. It does not, therefore follow that ‘The distribution curve has a "long tail".’

The distribution under the mean for batting average could be a standard normal distribution or something else and it does not, necessarily, provide evidence for or against “luck” [although if it were a purely random process, yes, I would expect a standard normal distribution].

Personally, I don’t think there is much luck involved (as I have defined luck). Here is why:

There is always intent to hit the ball (assuming a fair game) and it always involves anticipation (calling the process “extrapolating the "past" into the present” or simply “timing” is not so relevant because I think they are different terms for the same process. That whole process of mastering the psychophysics is the skill and it is both inherited and acquired. In general, great hitters have mastered it to a greater extent than poor hitters.

That is, a highly skilled player is more likely than a less skilled player to hit the ball. Differences between the outcomes between players can be explained entirely by differences in skill. I don’t see any reason to invoke random processes at all. That the skill itself is complex and involves many aspects is certainly true.

One example that is illustrative for mere mortals, like me, is from the “catch the dollar bill” trick, illustrated below.

If you try this with me, I will win more than I will lose – I promise you that, because I have done so more than a few times. Reaction time is too slow to catch the bill and that is what the trick is based upon. But, you can good at this skill through practice. There is little you can do to improve your reaction time so that is not the way. Instead, learn to anticipate the drop AND learn to move your hand downward as you are closing your fingers for the grab.

Much like hitting a baseball, the physics are against you, but cognition along with psychophysics can work for you.

 

I’m really not trying to fan any flames here, but I want to comment on the back and forth using the baseball hitting scenario.

I really enjoy psychophysics (more so than physics or inferential statistics) and although it is a bit of a tangent from the TS’s questions, the baseball hitting analogy is awe-inspiring in many aspects. But, in discussing the phenomenon a good deal of care in the definition and use of terms is in order.

Whether it has nothing to do with luck or everything to do with luck or something in between will depend on how you define luck.

The term “luck”, is of no real use to me (of course I still use it). It seems to be defined as a random outcome that is desirable (good luck) or undesirable (If it wasn’t for bad luck, I wouldn’t have no luck at all).

To me, a random outcome is one where all possible outcomes have an equal likelihood of occurrence. The drawn lottery number is a decent example. A pitch is not a very good example. The swing by the batter is also not a very good example. Hitting the ball or not is also not a very good example.

Another point involves discussion of the mean (i.e., batting average). Consider:

“If you average across all batters, yes, it can look like luck that anyone hits a ball at all. The best batters are far more productive against fastballs than the average. The distribution curve has a "long tail".

The mean alone NEVER provides any other information about the underlying distribution. It certainly can be true that the best batters are better against fastballs then the average. But, that alone says nothing about the underlying distribution. It does not, therefore follow that ‘The distribution curve has a "long tail".’

The distribution under the mean for batting average could be a standard normal distribution or something else and it does not provide evidence for or against “luck”.

Personally, I don’t think there is much luck involved (as I have defined luck). Here is why:

There is always intent to hit the ball (assuming a fair game) and it always involves anticipation (calling the process “extrapolating the "past" into the present” or simply “timing” is not so relevant because I think they are different terms for the same process. That whole process of mastering the psychophysics is the skill and it is both inherited and acquired. In general, great hitters have mastered it to a greater extent than poor hitters.

That is, a highly skilled player is more likely than a less skilled player to hit the ball. Differences between the outcomes between players can be explained entirely by differences in skill. I don’t see any reason to invoke random processes at all. That the skill itself is complex and involves many aspects is certainly true.

One example that is illustrative for mere mortals, like me, is from the “catch the dollar bill” trick, illustrated below.

If you try this with me, I will win more than I will lose – I promise you that, because I have done so more than a few times. Reaction time is too slow to catch the bill and that is what the trick is based upon. But, you can good at this skill through practice. There is little you can do to improve your reaction time so that is not the way. Instead, learn to anticipate the drop AND learn to move your hand downward as you are closing your fingers for the grab.

Much like hitting a baseball, the physics are against you, but cognition along with psychophysics can work for you.

And, somehow, the people with good “skill” at catching the dollar bill can no longer catch the bill if they are forced to put their forearm on a countertop (to prevent bobbing their hand). It is not great skill at anticipation but a cheating technique you are using (intentional or not) that the dropper is not calling you out for). Try it.

 

And, somehow, the people with good “skill” at catching the dollar bill can no longer catch the bill if they are forced to put their forearm on a countertop (to prevent bobbing their hand). It is not great skill at anticipation but a cheating technique you are using (intentional or not) that the dropper is not calling you out for). Try it.

LOL, oh come on, I suppose the person losing the money might want to invoke "cheating", but there is absolutely no cheating involved. The rules are straightforward. Now, if you change the rules, maybe I would change my willingness to play.

In any event, what I was trying to communicate was straightforward - I guess I ran out of luck

EDIT to add: I do have to qualify this a bit. I just went through the entire video again. He starts out by repeatedly defining the task as I drop it you catch it - that's all he says. THEN later, before the terms of monetary exchange are discussed, he says, you can't move your hand down.

So, yes, you are right. It wouldn't be cheating but it wouldn't be a payoff or even a play, because I wouldn't agree to it. On this point I have to correct myself (should have chosen a better video

But, the point is that I think it represents the same process as the hitter. If I wait until I can see the ball to start my swing, it will be past me. So, they start the swing before that and adjust.

 

That is, a highly skilled player is more likely than a less skilled player to hit the ball. Differences between the outcomes between players can be explained entirely by differences in skill. I don’t see any reason to invoke random processes at all. That the skill itself is complex and involves many aspects is certainly true.

If it were purely a function of skill -- and I don't disagree that skill and practice have a great deal to do with it -- then there would be no such thing as a "slump".

 

But, that alone says nothing about the underlying distribution. It does not, therefore follow that ‘The distribution curve has a "long tail".’

The nature of how players are selected for a team does affect the distribution. Not all players are selected for their hitting ability -- therefore, there will be a long tail of exceptional hitters who fall far outside that predicted by a normal distribution.

 

If it were purely a function of skill -- and I don't disagree that skill and practice have a great deal to do with it -- then there would be no such thing as a "slump".

Why not? Having a skill level does not mean that it is practiced at the same level all of the time. It's does not have to be a constant. In fact, we know it is dynamic because we don't have HR leaders in their 60s. Add to that, extraneous dynamic factors, that can serve as modifiers or distractors (I'm getting fired, My wife is cheating on me, I'm hung over, I'm hearing a lot of Boos, etc...), and there are lots of reasons for a slump, even if it is a matter of skill.

 

Why not? Having a skill level does not me that it is practiced at the same level all of the time. It's does not have to be a constant. In fact, we know it is dynamic because we don't have HR leaders in their 60s. Add to that, extraneous dynamic factors, that can serve as modifiers or distractors (I'm getting fired, My wife is cheating on me, I'm hung over, I'm hearing a lot of Boos, etc...), and there are lots of reasons for a slump, even if it is a matter of skill.

You make my point. Hitting ability is not purely a function of skill. And, I agree with you that it is wrong to assign luck to a consistently good hitter.

 

The nature of how players are selected for a team does affect the distribution. Not all players are selected for their hitting ability -- therefore, there will be a long tail of exceptional hitters who fall far outside that predicted by a normal distribution.

It is true that there are multiple skill sets that make up a baseball team and a baseball player. Pitching, fielding,base running, in addition to hitting are pretty obvious. But, again, those factors do not, necessarily, say anything about the distribution of performance of the league. And again, I don't agree that what you say, while true, means "therefore, there will be a long tail of exceptional hitters who fall far outside that predicted by a normal distribution"

This, because, the poor hitters can be represented to the same extent below the mean. In the absence of looking at the distribution, I don't know how or why you would want to make that claim. Now, if you start saying things like...there are 200 major league players with batting averages above .300 and only 1 below 100 and the overall batting average is 200 with a SD of 100, it is a different story. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

You make my point. Hitting ability is not purely a function of skill. And, I agree with you that it is wrong to assign luck to a consistently good hitter.

The question is, what is the skill? Is the skill (1) timing the pitcher and estimating the position of the ball based on the batters “read” of the pitcher’s release? Or, is the skill actually (2) seeing the ball’s position all the way into the plate and actually being able to respond to it as it travels to the batter?

I vote for number 1 that is why a good batter is about twice as good as an average professional batter and a poor hitter is about half as good. Remember, even the good batter is only hitting about 1/6 of the strikes thrown. If it was so much skill at the contact point (option 2), I would assume results would be much better.

As for the slump argument, the focus to “read” the pitcher can be present or not to result in a good day or bad.

 

You make my point. Hitting ability is not purely a function of skill. And, I agree with you that it is wrong to assign luck to a consistently good hitter.

Ok, I can agree with you there. Still, distractions and other extraneous factors do not need to be randomly distributed, inferring luck. I guess I should have been more accurate by saying something like...almost entirely based on skill, but, of course, influenced by some unspecified extraneous factors....and BTW, when we have to deal with unexplained variability, we could get called out on assuming that variability is distributed normally. If you define a model and used some least-squared estimation technique to draw an inference, you might very well be asked to evaluate the residual (the parts not account for by your model) for normality - you may end up having t use a non-parametric test.

 

And again, I don't agree that what you say, while true, means "therefore, there will be a long tail of exceptional hitters who fall far outside that predicted by a normal distribution"

You are remarkably correct. And I don't mean this as "it is remarkable that you are correct", but "it is remarkable how correct you are":

Source: https://politicsandprosperity.com/tag/baseball/

I bow to the superior intellect.

Edit: In my defense, there is a teensy little long tail above +3.0 SDs.

 

You are remarkably correct. And I don't mean this as "it is remarkable that you are correct", but "it is remarkable how correct you are":

Source: https://politicsandprosperity.com/tag/baseball/
.

Thank you for bothering to go get actual data (something I was too lazy to do). Now i learned some things, not the least of which is your willingness to advance the discussion regardless - I sincerely appreciate that.

 

I was considering going pro-ball, my fast ball was clocked at 75 miles per hr, which when converted at 60'6" distance to plate then convert it to feet per sec is approximately hitting the catchers glove in a little under 1/2 sec, a rattle snake strike at 2 feet would be about the equivalent 7 feet per sec so, or equal to under 1/2 sec.

There is little time for reaction, my dad use to pit me against older boys playing American Legion I was still in Pony League, I played AllStar and we had several successes but, eventually I realized it's a political environment you have to know someone who knows someone.

The college Coach at the time had Scouts looking at me, they said my baseball would break upward by the time it reached the plate and is the reason I was so hard to hit, once you include that in the equation you'll realize more the chances you will hit the ball thrown by a pro, I got out of it because I didn't want to ride a bus in the Minors until I was Fourty or worse blow my arm out and have nothing to show for it.

Might as well try to be a Rock Star, I would have had better chances.

kv

 

Nothing is "real".
Everything we observe and experience is a thing from the past.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a prime example of why objects cannot be viewed in real time.

As soon as light hits a very small object, the momentum changes the position of the object. With large objects, the light has to travel from the object back to the viewer.

 

Thank you Glenn to turning back the discussion into the main topic.