Mr. Fusion says:

Is it reliably repeatable, hell no; and that’s not the point.

BUT that is the whole point of being random. When you understand that each pitch and swing are independent of each other you will start to understand.

The first foul ball has nothing to do with the second foul ball. Neither one required the other to occur.The second foul ball might still have occurred if, say, the batter fouled out to right field or straight back on the first foul. A swing still would have occurred on a pitch.

Now, a DOE has nothing to do with this. The experiment must be repeatable by changing one or some of the variables with the remainder remaining in control. The results must be measurable in a meaningful manner. There is nothing in this instance that is repeatable and there is definitely no meaningful results.

You make a lot of sense in most of your posts. This not one of them. I spent many years in the Quality field using statistics. First as a Statistical Analyst and working my up to Quality Manager. I know what I talk about.

😀

noname says:

Just to further my point about how non-random, i.e. repeatable batters are.

As I said in my first post::

Outfielders adjust their positions in response to each batter’s hitting tendencies

That is to plainly say, areas in a Stadium have a higher chance of being where the ball lands then other areas. Therefore there is a grouping of landing spots as opposed to the ball landing truly randomly inside the stadium.

Q.E.D. (quod erat demonstrandum)

Mr. Fusion says:

noname,

It is becoming quite apparent that a little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge.

Go ahead, pick any any experiment, roll a die, flip a coin, pick colored beads from a bag (replacing them each time). Every instance of each experiment is random even though the same beads / die / coin, person doing the experiment, and person scoring is used. That makes each event random. In order to be random, the test can not depend upon a prior test or have the outcome controlled.

As for baseball players tending to hit to one side of the field or another, I guess you have never heard of “going the other way”. The amount of influence a pitcher / batter has on the hit is apparent. A pitch breaking away from the hitter will usually go to the batter’s opposite side. A pitch breaking in on the batter will go to the batter’s side of the field. In statistical circles though, this would be called “noise” since it is minimal and uncontrolled.

If you are asked to verify some finished product what will you do? Take a handful off the top or take a random sample from throughout the lot? Guess what you would do if you worked for me? Even though the lot is in one bin and was made by one operator from one lot of raw material, on one machine, in one day has nothing to do with taking a “random” sample. The randomness is in the taking of the sample, the selection is not pre-ordained order or selected.

A similar situation can often be found when a machine heats up. It can change its mean to a different amount, influencing the run. Is it noise or an assignable cause? Pull a sample from the run for statistical analysis. Will you take a “Random sample” or a run of a certain number? Well, the answer depends upon what your intent is. But the point is in this case a “random” sample