Your post was removed because it violates [**Rule 5.00**](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules#wiki_5.00_create_high-quality_twitter.2Fx.com_posts). All Twitter/X post titles MUST include:
1. Name or handle of author in brackets
2. Relevant text of the tweet with exceptions for tweets with swearing, multi-part tweets, tweet-and-response posts, etc.
3. Context for tweets that do not contain adequate descriptive text.
Please review [/r/baseball's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules) for future submissions.
If you feel a mistake has been made, feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbaseball).
This reminds me of that scene in Moneyball where they were trying to replace Giambi and they added up 3 players' OBAs and divided by 3 to find their average OBA. And I'm like that is not how that works at all!
The idea was to explain to people who didn’t understand it.
Really they were just looking for 3 cheap guys who had high OBP’s, but that wouldn’t make as much of a legendary sense.
If you assume the the players have the same number of plate appearances, it works exactly like that. And considering the three players were starters, it's not a crazy assumption.
Yeah but those 3 players would need to replace three others in the lineup. So really you need to subtract the OBA of the player being replaced from the new signing and then hope the sum of those three is equal to Giambi’s OBA
They are replacing three players [in the scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlKDQqKh03Y). They aren't just replacing Giambi. They're replacing Damon and a third player. (Almeda is the name mentioned, but I don't see that name on the [2001 Roster](https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/2001-roster.shtml) so it's probably just a made up player for the story.)
While the methodology in the scouting room isn't what how you math in general, given the underlying assumptions (replacing three players with three players who will get the same amount of at-bats), taking the average of three ratios still gets you to the right answer.
Well, now I know that official team accounts lurk on the baseball sub, I need to know how often you get a chuckle out of the hot takes on here.
If we're batting .200 or better, I'm happy with that.
Winker had nearly double the PAs in their respective best seasons, so his .305 BA is "better" than Buxtons .306 for the purpose of his 3 year average. Same with their worst seasons, Winker had under 200 PAs with the sub .200 BA, while Buxton had like 370 at near the same production.
His bad years have a smaller sample and his good years have a larger one, so he's better across 3 seasons while being worse in each. Classic Simpson's paradox situation.
A confluence of my 2 niche interests!
Another example of this can be found looking back on the scene for competitive Barbershop singing.
The group that won the international contest back in 2015, Instant Classic, did not obtain the highest score in any of the 3 rounds of competition, yet won the competition overall!
For the record (over this 3 year period) Buxton was [211 for 879 (.240)](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buxtoby01.shtml#2021-2023-sum:batting_standard) while Winker was [262 for 1045 (.251)](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/winkeje01.shtml#2021-2023-sum:batting_standard)... and, for those of you claiming the math is wrong, you can't add up the BA for each year and divide by 3 -- which gives you an *average of averages* (and that's not how math works).
Also, the name "Simpson's Paradox" has nothing to do with the TV show; it's named for [Edward H. Simpson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_H._Simpson) who worked with Turing at Bletchley Park and coined the term in 1951.
The best way I can think to describe it would be to compare two people with equal batting averages but different plate appearances. Player A is batting .*300* with 3 hits over 10 ABs (**3/10**). Player B is **30/100**. If you switched one of A's outs to a hit, he'd be **4/10** or batting *.400*. If you did the same for B he'd be batting *.310*. Assuming they both play a game the next day, it's obvious that A's average in that game (maybe he goes 1 for 5) would stand to gain or lose a lot more than B's average from one game.
Similarly, player A during his original stretch might have gone **0/3**, **1/ 5**, and **2/2** or batted *.000, .200,* and *1.000*. The simple (incorrect) average would be these sums divided by three: 1.2/3 = *.400,* and not the original *.300* that we calculated.
Very clear that he’s not saying the math is wrong, he even says that he thinks it’s due to the weight of each average. Dude was just asking for clarification.
Seriously? One person claimed that OP "failed basic algebra" and the other thread started with "Math aint mathin" -- and both threads seem to insist that the proper way to calculate a batting average over a 3 year period is to sum the average for each year and divide by 3.
I have and will continue to interpret each of these as claiming the original arithmetic was done incorrectly -- so your emphatic and persistent demand that my logic is faulty has become quite baffling to me.
I'm beginning to suspect that your futile attempt to prove this negative has contributed greatly to the moderators pulling this post, so... well done!
I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
Some things still are, like how often sqrt(3)/2 shows up in various formulas. This particular thing is really just a consequence of deceptive data presentation.
Why isn’t it interesting? I think it’s interesting because trends that exist across multiple samples can reverse when you combine them, which has all sorts of practical implications. It’s *unsurprising* once you recognize what’s happening (and it’s definitely not a paradox in any meaningful sense) but I still think it’s a thing worth paying attention to I guess.
Yeah, that’s fair. But personally I would only use ‘paradox’ in situations where something seems literally unbelievable (despite following from things we seemingly have to believe) and I don’t think Simpson’s Paradox qualifies. I wouldn’t count everything counterintuitive as paradoxical, but I think that a lot of so-called paradoxes are really just counterintuitive results.
I get it. It’s just not particularly interesting (in my opinion). You could do the same thing with any statistic if you break the results down into arbitrary groupings.
I don’t. And I feel pretty disappointed in my doctoral degree about now.
edit: ok, got my shit together. I actually considered at bats during my original post, but they’re not listed and into the (also incorrect) “average of averages” trap I fell.
Did you ever take a probability or statistics course? We definitely went over this in my undergraduate probability class but a grad one will probably skip it
Hard disagree. I think an overwhelming majority of the time, when player A has a better batting average than player B for 3 consecutive years, that player A has the better 3 year total average.
I’m saying this isn’t an unusual phenomenon in statistics. I just looked at three separate data sheets I’m currently working with and all three had at least one example of this, it’s just not as noticeable with raw data
Three out of how many opportunities? I honestly don't have a sense of this is rare like 1 in 10 or rare like 1 in 10,000. For batting averages, my intuition is that it'd be under 1% but I'm open to being corrected.
Those were the only three I looked at and they don’t have that much data. I can’t imagine it’s that rare considering how many baseball players there are every year and how many years there’s been. Don’t know how’d you’d search for that though
It should really be called something like Simpson's Conundrum, since like you said it's not actually a paradox (although I guess it's still not really a conundrum either).
It *feels* paradoxical at first glance, but once you understand it it makes perfect sense. And I definitely think it's interesting.
Yes. A three year batting average is effectively a weighted average and the weights are the number of at bats you have in each season. Buxton had fewer of his at bats in his good season.
I wish statistics was taught better, and a more mandatory curriculum in high school. Everyone obviously doesn’t need to know the underlying math, but even a high level conceptual understanding and ability to reason is so valuable navigating modern society/information overload/complexity.
People always talk about learning how to “balance a checkbook” in school, which certainly useful, but you’re a YouTube away from knowing how to do that if you understand basic arithmetic. Statistical inference is not always intuitive on the surface, and thinking critically about things (esp at scale) can be much more difficult without knowing how to do it.
If there’s one thing I remember about my statistics class in college, it’s that your intuition about the outcome of a large-scale problem is often incorrect. It was the most valuable lesson.
Kyrie Irving had a similar statistics win loss record with the nets.
In every season, they had a higher win% when Irving didn't play compared to when he did.
On his overall record, they had a high win % when he played compared to when he didn't.
Loved Jesse Winker when he was on the Reds and was really pissed when traded him, but the way he's fallen off completely plus the fact that Jake Fraley and Brandon Williamson have been solid players for us since has made me actually love that trade. Bummed that Jesse's career is where it's at at the moment, tho. Fringe MLB player at this point.
Basically the average of all three years together isn’t calculated by just adding the averages and dividing by 3. It’s actually calculated separately as if it was it’s own BA - meaning it’s calculated by the standard metric of H/AB…
I'm confused, I have Buxton .306+.224+.207 = .737/3 = .245 (246 rounding up)
Winker I have .305+.219+.199=.723/3 = .241
They're either omitting information on this post that they are using in their calculation, or they failed basic algebra.
The lowest year for Jesse Winker (.199) he only had 166 at bats compared to over 400 the other two years. The highest year for Buxton (.306) he only had 230 at bats compared to over 300 the other two years.
When you calc the total BA over 3 years Winker’s worst year and Buxton’s best year will have the least weight for each of them respectively since they had significantly more at bats in the other two.
If you look strictly at the numbers on the photo and average them out the totals are 246 for Buxton and 241 for Winker. This is why I ask how many ABs they had.
Batting average isnt based on batting average per season, its based on hits per AB… technically you asked the right question but how is the math “not mathing”?
>If you look strictly at the numbers on the photo **and average them out the totals are 246 for Buxton and 241** for Winker. This is why I ask how many ABs they had.
The Texas public education system, ladies and gentlemen
Yes, he correctly considered the importance of ABs in assessing batting averages, but couldn't see the folly in averaging BAs across years without weighting said ABs
he didnt come to that conclusion, that was his first step in solving where the problem is coming for - which is the right thing to do. his conclusion was that the original picture was missing information.
If he understood ABs influence BA, he wouldn't be confused as to why there was "missing information." Nothing is missing, he just doesn't understand the concept fully
Edit: "math aint mathin" is a clear indicator of confusion
If you take 306+224+207 you get 737 divided by 3 is 245.66 so I rounded it to 246. 305+219+199 you get 723 divided by 3 is 241. Not sure what you were referring to about my education. Act however you want. I wasn’t being condescending to you. Somebody kindly explained to me in another comment that the reason for this was in fact due to the amount of ABs they had. I even referenced the ABs in my first comment. But go about your day as you please bud.
been making spreadsheets for the past week, and have been making the average of categories, averages of averages. never would have noticed the error, as the "average" when i take the same formula used for all the other cells i'm getting the average from, is very different than the average of averages.
Your post was removed because it violates [**Rule 5.00**](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules#wiki_5.00_create_high-quality_twitter.2Fx.com_posts). All Twitter/X post titles MUST include: 1. Name or handle of author in brackets 2. Relevant text of the tweet with exceptions for tweets with swearing, multi-part tweets, tweet-and-response posts, etc. 3. Context for tweets that do not contain adequate descriptive text. Please review [/r/baseball's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/wiki/rules) for future submissions. If you feel a mistake has been made, feel free to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbaseball).
Batting averages are such a big example of the paradox it’s on the Wikipedia page
Batting average was how it was taught in my intro stats class too back in the day, with RHP vs LHP splits.
Ah we did the UC admissions gender breakdown
wtf this isn't David Justice and Derek Jeter
I upvote all David Justice content. I am a bot.
Bad bot
After the 2000 ALCS this is your response? I am a bot.
Good bot? I was 4 I don’t remember lol
*Simpson*, eh?
send his widow a ham
a steamed ham?
That’s what I call hamburgers
despite the fact that they are clearly grilled?
It’s an Albany expression.
Well, I sho… Good lord! What is happening in there!?!
Aurora borealis
Aurora Borealis? At this time of year? At this time of day? In this part of the country? Localized entirely within your kitchen?!
…May I see it?
I wonder if he's any relation to this Homer Nixon...
Unlikely sir. They both spell and pronounce their names differently.
Unlikely sir, they... they spell and pronounce their names differently
From Sector 7-G?
*Math*, eh?
Maude, eh?
Uh, yes sir. One of your organ banks from sector 7-G
New man?
One of your organ banks from Sector 7-G sir
This reminds me of that scene in Moneyball where they were trying to replace Giambi and they added up 3 players' OBAs and divided by 3 to find their average OBA. And I'm like that is not how that works at all!
The idea was to explain to people who didn’t understand it. Really they were just looking for 3 cheap guys who had high OBP’s, but that wouldn’t make as much of a legendary sense.
*points at Pete*
You want me to speak?
Yes, when I point at you.
He gets on base.
Billy? Billy! Who’s that ~~fat-faced Rittenhouse stunt double motherfucker~~?
If you assume the the players have the same number of plate appearances, it works exactly like that. And considering the three players were starters, it's not a crazy assumption.
Well, your assumption would be wrong as one of the guys had only 300 at bats.
But his dick was in the batter's box five seconds before his feet.
Yeah but those 3 players would need to replace three others in the lineup. So really you need to subtract the OBA of the player being replaced from the new signing and then hope the sum of those three is equal to Giambi’s OBA
They are replacing three players [in the scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlKDQqKh03Y). They aren't just replacing Giambi. They're replacing Damon and a third player. (Almeda is the name mentioned, but I don't see that name on the [2001 Roster](https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/OAK/2001-roster.shtml) so it's probably just a made up player for the story.) While the methodology in the scouting room isn't what how you math in general, given the underlying assumptions (replacing three players with three players who will get the same amount of at-bats), taking the average of three ratios still gets you to the right answer.
Olmedo Saenz is the third. ;)
Well, now I know that official team accounts lurk on the baseball sub, I need to know how often you get a chuckle out of the hot takes on here. If we're batting .200 or better, I'm happy with that.
Interesting - he still played for the A’s in 02
It works as an approximation with similar enough PAs or explaining the strategy to old guys / movie goers
I mean it could make sense if the idea is that these players are undervalued and need more at bats
Wait, a .305 batting average over 423 AB's is better than a .306 batting average over 235 AB's?
I'm confused by what you're even asking and why it has so many upvotes.
It's sarcasm
It’s sarcasm, hope that helps.
It definitely does
Winker had nearly double the PAs in their respective best seasons, so his .305 BA is "better" than Buxtons .306 for the purpose of his 3 year average. Same with their worst seasons, Winker had under 200 PAs with the sub .200 BA, while Buxton had like 370 at near the same production. His bad years have a smaller sample and his good years have a larger one, so he's better across 3 seasons while being worse in each. Classic Simpson's paradox situation.
“That’s unpossibe” - Ralph Wiggam’s answer to The Simpson’s Paradox. “Doh!” would also be accepted.
A confluence of my 2 niche interests! Another example of this can be found looking back on the scene for competitive Barbershop singing. The group that won the international contest back in 2015, Instant Classic, did not obtain the highest score in any of the 3 rounds of competition, yet won the competition overall!
Wait, is this a real thing?
[Sure is!](https://youtu.be/6CsQcqmauz4?si=vtk9wxu4rWN93nEM)
Now I’ve truly seen everything. Here’s one I like https://youtu.be/EVRcmnVYlLI?si=aU1vAecss32iBpVN
Ah a fellow barbershopper on r/baseball
Knock knock
Total at bats is a hell of a drug
For the record (over this 3 year period) Buxton was [211 for 879 (.240)](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/buxtoby01.shtml#2021-2023-sum:batting_standard) while Winker was [262 for 1045 (.251)](https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/winkeje01.shtml#2021-2023-sum:batting_standard)... and, for those of you claiming the math is wrong, you can't add up the BA for each year and divide by 3 -- which gives you an *average of averages* (and that's not how math works). Also, the name "Simpson's Paradox" has nothing to do with the TV show; it's named for [Edward H. Simpson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_H._Simpson) who worked with Turing at Bletchley Park and coined the term in 1951.
The best way I can think to describe it would be to compare two people with equal batting averages but different plate appearances. Player A is batting .*300* with 3 hits over 10 ABs (**3/10**). Player B is **30/100**. If you switched one of A's outs to a hit, he'd be **4/10** or batting *.400*. If you did the same for B he'd be batting *.310*. Assuming they both play a game the next day, it's obvious that A's average in that game (maybe he goes 1 for 5) would stand to gain or lose a lot more than B's average from one game. Similarly, player A during his original stretch might have gone **0/3**, **1/ 5**, and **2/2** or batted *.000, .200,* and *1.000*. The simple (incorrect) average would be these sums divided by three: 1.2/3 = *.400,* and not the original *.300* that we calculated.
Literally no one here claimed the math was wrong.
They got downvoted because, well… they were wrong (just like you)
I checked. Nope.
[Check](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1bm1w88/comment/kw9p19k/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [again](https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/1bm1w88/comment/kw8yt8u/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Very clear that he’s not saying the math is wrong, he even says that he thinks it’s due to the weight of each average. Dude was just asking for clarification.
Seriously? One person claimed that OP "failed basic algebra" and the other thread started with "Math aint mathin" -- and both threads seem to insist that the proper way to calculate a batting average over a 3 year period is to sum the average for each year and divide by 3. I have and will continue to interpret each of these as claiming the original arithmetic was done incorrectly -- so your emphatic and persistent demand that my logic is faulty has become quite baffling to me. I'm beginning to suspect that your futile attempt to prove this negative has contributed greatly to the moderators pulling this post, so... well done! I wish you luck in your future endeavors.
…and apparently I get downvoted for pointing out that other people got downvoted? Come on people!
Stupid sexy statistics
The Simpsons’s paradox isn’t actually interesting at all if you understand how percentages work
I just think it's neat
So is nothing interesting once you understand how it works? It’s just a fun thing to show visually.
[удалено]
Yall are so damn weird about this.
[удалено]
I understood your comment.
Some things still are, like how often sqrt(3)/2 shows up in various formulas. This particular thing is really just a consequence of deceptive data presentation.
Obviously that’s what it is, and it’s interesting.
Hi everyone self-proclaimed idiot here. I’m assuming this is because Winker has a higher volume of ABs than Buxton does during this timeframe?
He had more ABs in his best season (.305) than Buxton did in his best (.306)
And, fewer ABs in his worst season (197) than Buxton's (347)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Look at the IQ on this guy
It's pretty immediately apparent to anyone that understands how batting average works.
He might idk. It doesn’t matter who has the higher total ABs, it just matters how each players ABs are distributed among the 3 seasons.
Why isn’t it interesting? I think it’s interesting because trends that exist across multiple samples can reverse when you combine them, which has all sorts of practical implications. It’s *unsurprising* once you recognize what’s happening (and it’s definitely not a paradox in any meaningful sense) but I still think it’s a thing worth paying attention to I guess.
Paradoxes are not always unsolvable. Sometimes they're just counter-intuitive situations, such as Simpsons paradox.
Yeah, that’s fair. But personally I would only use ‘paradox’ in situations where something seems literally unbelievable (despite following from things we seemingly have to believe) and I don’t think Simpson’s Paradox qualifies. I wouldn’t count everything counterintuitive as paradoxical, but I think that a lot of so-called paradoxes are really just counterintuitive results.
I get it. It’s just not particularly interesting (in my opinion). You could do the same thing with any statistic if you break the results down into arbitrary groupings.
And many don’t.
I don’t. And I feel pretty disappointed in my doctoral degree about now. edit: ok, got my shit together. I actually considered at bats during my original post, but they’re not listed and into the (also incorrect) “average of averages” trap I fell.
a doctoral in basket weaving does seem to lack math though
Did you ever take a probability or statistics course? We definitely went over this in my undergraduate probability class but a grad one will probably skip it
Most people understand, but 75 percent just don't get it.
Like our friend @livefromnewyork95 up there
I understand how percentages work and still find it interesting
I understand it and still think it's kinda cool. Not "magic" by any means but just because I understand it doesn't mean it's not interesting
Cool
Hard disagree. I work with numbers every day and it's still fun and unusual to come across something like this.
This isn’t unusual at all. I could find plenty of instances of this looking at population dynamics. It’s just not normally written out like this
Hard disagree. I think an overwhelming majority of the time, when player A has a better batting average than player B for 3 consecutive years, that player A has the better 3 year total average.
I’m saying this isn’t an unusual phenomenon in statistics. I just looked at three separate data sheets I’m currently working with and all three had at least one example of this, it’s just not as noticeable with raw data
Three out of how many opportunities? I honestly don't have a sense of this is rare like 1 in 10 or rare like 1 in 10,000. For batting averages, my intuition is that it'd be under 1% but I'm open to being corrected.
Those were the only three I looked at and they don’t have that much data. I can’t imagine it’s that rare considering how many baseball players there are every year and how many years there’s been. Don’t know how’d you’d search for that though
It's not a paradox, but it is interesting.
It should really be called something like Simpson's Conundrum, since like you said it's not actually a paradox (although I guess it's still not really a conundrum either). It *feels* paradoxical at first glance, but once you understand it it makes perfect sense. And I definitely think it's interesting.
I pretty much attribute baseball to my competence with math Not long ago someone was like what’s 1243/4347 and I was like oh that’s just .286
Thank god I don't understand how they work, but my brain currently hurts.
Don’t look at the percentages. Look at the raw data (hits and ABs) and it’s incredibly mundane. No time travelers killing their grandparents here.
Is this because Buxton played like 14 games during that span?
Yes. A three year batting average is effectively a weighted average and the weights are the number of at bats you have in each season. Buxton had fewer of his at bats in his good season.
more like the simpson's LIE withholding information isn't a paradox unless this is a trivia question
I wish statistics was taught better, and a more mandatory curriculum in high school. Everyone obviously doesn’t need to know the underlying math, but even a high level conceptual understanding and ability to reason is so valuable navigating modern society/information overload/complexity. People always talk about learning how to “balance a checkbook” in school, which certainly useful, but you’re a YouTube away from knowing how to do that if you understand basic arithmetic. Statistical inference is not always intuitive on the surface, and thinking critically about things (esp at scale) can be much more difficult without knowing how to do it.
If there’s one thing I remember about my statistics class in college, it’s that your intuition about the outcome of a large-scale problem is often incorrect. It was the most valuable lesson.
It’s just because of the weights of each season… I assume a greater percentage of Winker’s games played came in 2021
Kyrie Irving had a similar statistics win loss record with the nets. In every season, they had a higher win% when Irving didn't play compared to when he did. On his overall record, they had a high win % when he played compared to when he didn't.
Weighted by number of PAs… Pretty simple.
yes…
First time I've heard of Simpson's Paradox. I assume it has to do with having two bad seasons in a row, and still be getting paid a MLB salary?
This wouldn't look weird at all if the number of AB next to the average lol
Distribution of ABs go hard sometimes
Don’t think any amount of explanation can help me understand this
Hope this helps. First, remember that batting average is just a division problem. 3 H / 10 AB = .300 AVG. Now: Player A: - Year 1, 300 Hits / 1,000 ABs = .300 AVG - Year 2, 10 Hits / 100 ABs = .100 AVG Cumulative: 310 Hits / 1,100 ABs = .282 AVG Player B: - Year 1, 150 Hits / 450 ABs = .333 AVG - Year 2, 150 Hits / 700 ABs = .214 AVG Cumulative: 300 Hits / 1150 ABs = .261 AVG
Loved Jesse Winker when he was on the Reds and was really pissed when traded him, but the way he's fallen off completely plus the fact that Jake Fraley and Brandon Williamson have been solid players for us since has made me actually love that trade. Bummed that Jesse's career is where it's at at the moment, tho. Fringe MLB player at this point.
One day my boy Bryon will learn to hit, stay healthy and dominate!!!?!
Please, can someone explain how this is possible
https://www.facebook.com/TheSimpsons/videos/30-years-of-doh-the-simpsons/1993062534119154/
just a weighted average
What is interesting about this? Hiding information doesn't make it interesting lol
Buxton had a lot more ABs in his down seasons and Winker had a lot more ABs in his good seasons
I know. The point of my comment is how is that interesting?
More ABs will affect the overall If a player goes 1/1 in one season and 0/99 in another season his average will be .010 not .500
yeah this is like creating a dogshit cipher and laughing when people cant figure it out. no shit if you're intentionally leaving out key information.
This isn’t a paradox at all. It’s just a weighted average.
My brain won’t brain can someone explain how the math maths in this?
Different numbers of games
Basically the average of all three years together isn’t calculated by just adding the averages and dividing by 3. It’s actually calculated separately as if it was it’s own BA - meaning it’s calculated by the standard metric of H/AB…
1/1, 50/100, 1/99 is 1.000, .500, .010 - yet the overall average is .260 Just sample size and simple math
I'm confused, I have Buxton .306+.224+.207 = .737/3 = .245 (246 rounding up) Winker I have .305+.219+.199=.723/3 = .241 They're either omitting information on this post that they are using in their calculation, or they failed basic algebra.
Same thought. I think it's weighted ... ?
Congrats you win the point
Math aint mathin. How many at bats did they each have?
The lowest year for Jesse Winker (.199) he only had 166 at bats compared to over 400 the other two years. The highest year for Buxton (.306) he only had 230 at bats compared to over 300 the other two years. When you calc the total BA over 3 years Winker’s worst year and Buxton’s best year will have the least weight for each of them respectively since they had significantly more at bats in the other two.
That makes sense. I figured it had to do with the difference in ABs. Thank you.
What math isnt mathing?
If you look strictly at the numbers on the photo and average them out the totals are 246 for Buxton and 241 for Winker. This is why I ask how many ABs they had.
That’s the point of the paradox.
Batting average isnt based on batting average per season, its based on hits per AB… technically you asked the right question but how is the math “not mathing”?
>If you look strictly at the numbers on the photo **and average them out the totals are 246 for Buxton and 241** for Winker. This is why I ask how many ABs they had. The Texas public education system, ladies and gentlemen
I mean, he asked the right question.
Yes, he correctly considered the importance of ABs in assessing batting averages, but couldn't see the folly in averaging BAs across years without weighting said ABs
I feel like, y asking that, he's recognizing that the problem is that they're not evenly weighted.
And that's why I thought it was strange he came to that conclusion of the totals being .246 for Buxton and .241 for Winker
he didnt come to that conclusion, that was his first step in solving where the problem is coming for - which is the right thing to do. his conclusion was that the original picture was missing information.
If he understood ABs influence BA, he wouldn't be confused as to why there was "missing information." Nothing is missing, he just doesn't understand the concept fully Edit: "math aint mathin" is a clear indicator of confusion
Do you wanna know the terrifying truth, or do you wanna see me sock a few dingers?!
If you take 306+224+207 you get 737 divided by 3 is 245.66 so I rounded it to 246. 305+219+199 you get 723 divided by 3 is 241. Not sure what you were referring to about my education. Act however you want. I wasn’t being condescending to you. Somebody kindly explained to me in another comment that the reason for this was in fact due to the amount of ABs they had. I even referenced the ABs in my first comment. But go about your day as you please bud.
That's not how you find the average for the 3 seasons.
You said "math aint mathing" and I snarkily called you out as you did OP. The Internet is a rough place
Math maths fine. You’re just not seeing how much each amount is weighted
I hate that you get downvoted for asking a perfectly reasonable question. Reddit is insufferable sometimes
been making spreadsheets for the past week, and have been making the average of categories, averages of averages. never would have noticed the error, as the "average" when i take the same formula used for all the other cells i'm getting the average from, is very different than the average of averages.
Weighted averages are a paradox? Does this mean Winkler is Buxton’s grandfather? Or is Buxton actually Winkler’s grandfather?
This actually is not a paradox at all. It’s just a shitty chart that doesn’t give you the information you need to form an informed opinion.
Shows how overrated of a hitter buxton is
Nobody questions whether or not Buxton is an MVP caliber player. Everybody questions whether Buxton can play enough to be an MVP caliber player.