|
|
#1
10-01-2006, 02:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
average versus quantity
This was posted on another thread, and makes no sense to me.
Can any of you math folks help me understand this sentence. I should add that I have a clear understanding of what a batting average is, and how it is calculated, but I have no understanding of the following statement: "Batting average is still the quantity of hits - it's just adjusted for playing time." I believe the statement above is technically incorrect? At face value, does the statement make any sense? Whay do the math guys say. 
|
|
#2
10-02-2006, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: average versus quantity
31 people read this and nobody has an answer??
|
|
#4
10-04-2006, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: average versus quantity
[ QUOTE ]
This was posted on another thread, and makes no sense to me. Can any of you math folks help me understand this sentence. I should add that I have a clear understanding of what a batting average is, and how it is calculated, but I have no understanding of the following statement: "Batting average is still the quantity of hits - it's just adjusted for playing time." I believe the statement above is technically incorrect? At face value, does the statement make any sense? Whay do the math guys say. [/ QUOTE ] My guess, and without context thats all it is, is that: any average is occurrences/trials and in batting averages occurences = number of hits and trials = at bats = an alternative measure of "time" (in that number of at bats are highly correlated to number of games are highly correlated to elapsed time in a season). Thus if time is relatively equal for two players, batting average is equivalent to number of hits.
|
|
#5
10-05-2006, 04:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: average versus quantity
If u know what an average is, what's it matter? whatever they're saying is kind of silly.
|
|
#6
10-05-2006, 11:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: average versus quantity
[ QUOTE ]
"Batting average is still the quantity of hits - it's just adjusted for playing time." [/ QUOTE ] I think the poster above answered pretty well what they were trying to say. I think the speaker is wrong, however. Basically because the formula for batting average is Hits/At Bats, and At Bats does not correlate well with playing time. A player does not get an atbat when (1) they get a walk (2) they get hit with a pitch (3) they sacrafice to score a runner or move him over, etc. Hits per Plate Appearance would be a better measure of hits adjusted for time, as every time a player stands in to hit they notch a PA. And just to rant: neither H/AB nor H/PA is a decent way to measure a player's offensive production.
|
|
#7
10-05-2006, 09:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: average versus quantity
I agree that the statement doesn't make much sense, although perhaps in context it did. What it seems to say is wrong both in baseball terms, as KurtSF pointed out, and more generally.
It seems like saying speed is the same as distance - it's just adjusted for travel time. Speed is distance divided by time, it's not the same as distance, whether adjusted for time or not. Batting average is hits divided by at-bats. It's not the same as hits, whether adjusted for at bats or not; and certainly not adjusted for playing time.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
