This is ridiculous proof of the random number theory which shows things happen in clumps.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Wow, lucky kid!
That’s not random. The batter is obviously trying to hit into a particular part of the field. It stands to reason that the balls are going to land in close proximity to each other.
“This is ridiculous proof of the random number theory which shows things happen in clumps.” /// If you are emphasizing “ridiculous”, I agree. If you are thinking this is proof, then you confuse example of with proof which it is not.
The hitting of foul balls is not random at all and has nothing to do with number theory, random or otherwise.
Now, random number theory does posit that what seem to be clusters of non-random numbers do appear in data steams at random locations. Quite a paradox that if random numbers did not cluster then they wouldn’t be random?
Course, we haven’t defined cluster or clump or random. Different models/definitions treat them differently.
The strange thing is, this isn’t the first time I remember this happening. Probably about… maybe 15 years ago, a similar incident happened at Yankee Stadium. My memory is unclear whether it was Don Mattingly or Mike Pagliarulo who was batting, but they fouled a ball off to the 3rd base side. Someone in the front row of the upper deck reached for the ball, but it slipped from their grasp and fell to the lower tier. He got some boos for this happening. Later in the same at-bat (actually, I believe it was the very next pitch), another foul ball was hit. This one was caught by the very same fan who dropped the first one. So it DOES happen, but you’d have a better chance of seeing an unassisted triple play or a perfect game than seeing this.
The empty seats around the kid also makes the target much bigger than one person–on a more crowded day, the catch would have been less probable.
I was flipping channels during a commercial break in whatever show I was watching and caught this report on ESPN.
“Lucky kid.”
He had his glove with him — to a certain degree he made his own luck! Louis Pasteur: “Chance favors the prepared mind.” Next time I go to a game, I’m taking my glove with me!
(Note to self: buy a baseball glove…)
I wear Umpire cologne, it’s for foul balls.
#8 – Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey… Watch the umpire comments. đ
17 years behind the plate, thank you very much.
Somebody oughta tell that kid: It’s downhill from here, son.
Way cool. Never heard of that before.
#4, Jim,
So it DOES happen, but youâd have a better chance of seeing an unassisted triple play or a perfect game than seeing this.
Well, my daughter had a solo triple play this summer. Playing third, bases loaded, she caught a fly, stepped on third because the runner had left, and then tagged the runner coming from second. The funny thing is I saw the almost exact same play happen last year with a team mate and the year before when my kid was called up to play with the next level.
All three cases were near identical and about the same time of year. I attribute this partly to luck but mostly to the third baseman being skilled enough to catch the ball and smart enough to tag the base and base runner.
Your point is very valid however. I’m just another dad proud of his kid. Did I mention her grand slams, …
#10, Amsterdamned
Somebody oughta tell that kid: Itâs downhill from here, son.
Of course, the kid is in the third tier.
Actually, the odds wouldn’t be THAT bad at a Pittsburgh Pirates game. With only two people there, odds are good the same person would catch it…
There is no “random number theory” that requires events happen in clumps.
In order to be random, the event must be unrelated to all other events that have or will occur AND uninfluenced by any event. These two catches satisfy those requirements. Each hit was independent of the other hit.
How many games have we seen the pitcher catch a line drive by holding his glove up in a defensive gesture? It happens. The ball is hit to a near identical spot on the field.
nothing random about it
-same batter
-same pitcher
-same environment
-historical precedence for foul balls in that section
-the fan was able to move around(he became almost 8 people in one)
http://bit.ly/OWLMu
# 12 Mr. Fusion said,
“Did I mention her grand slams, ⌔
Does she spend a lot of time at Denny’s?
(Yes, I’m sure you are a proud poppa.)
đ
More over…the fact that this DOESN’T happen often, that this is the first time anyone remember this ever happening, out of hundreds of thousands, or millions of at bats, means that it’s just rare.
You’ll notice this effect (emphasize the rare, ignore the others) occurs in a lot of life issues. Folks notice when there’s an odd event or coincidence, and ignore the million times it DIDN’T happen. Such as, “It must be a miracle! That child fell out a 5 story window and lived!” No, that’s just odds. You simply ignored the other 100,000 people that have fallen that far (out a window, cliff edge, ladder) who died. Repeat something enough times and you ALWAYS have an outlier. If you ONLY pay attention to the outlier, it’s a miracle.
I am big fan of this blog, but since a couple of weeks a guy called Guilherme Cherman has been trolling posts on a daily basis. I have googled him and discover that is a brazilian teenager who has a site promoting a electronic book call “Ganhe Dinheiro Com Seu Blog – Guilherme Cherman” translated: make money with your blog, and is an idiotic manual of dirty tricks to catch clicks and make money with publicity. Please Mr Dvorak or Uncle Dave stop this nonsense.
This reminds me of an incident in Philadelphia in the 1950s – Richie Ashburn was a Philly outfielder. From Wikipedia
“During an August 17, 1957 game, Ashburn hit a foul ball into the stands that struck spectator Alice Roth, wife of Philadelphia Bulletin sports editor Earl Roth, breaking her nose. When play resumed, Ashburn fouled off another ball that struck Roth while she was being carried off in a stretcher.[2] Ashburn and Roth would maintain a friendship for many years and her son later served as a Phillies batboy.”
Now… if he catches 10,000 fouls in a row… then we can talk about evidence for random chance creating … er… bringing about… us.
About random numbers occurring in clumps:
Given that one random digit from 0â9 is chosen, the next independently random digit has a 10% chance of being the same digit. In a string of 10 more random digits, you would expect to get one pair of “twins.” Given a string of hundreds of digits, it is so probable to get a pair of twins that it is inevitable.
When people try to create “random” number strings off the top of their head, they usually avoid twins. I suppose the idea of having a different number each time seems more chaotic, which is incorrectly assumed as being more random.
Unfortunately, this reminds me of my golf game. There was one instance when I duffed a short iron shot into a small pond and proceeded to unintentionally hit the next shot in the dead center of the water ripples from the first shot.
#18, Mr. Diesel,
Thank you. I only wish I was half the athlete when I was her age.
Well randomness does work. Alphie picked up some used toilet paper to blow his nose. And, … Oh, wait, I said random. Never mind.
C’mon..that is awsome…just makes you want to see a game.
# 15 Mr. Fusion, your statement is so B.S.
“Each hit was independent of the other hit.”
No, No there are definitely not independent of each other.
You flunk and the other RANDOM morons here flunk basic D.O.E 101!!!
Yes I agree there are two separate events, but; they are very much related, having the Same batter, Same pitcher, Same…..
Obviously you have never designed a “good” Experiment. Random unrelated events means random unrelated batters, random unrelated pitchers, random unrelated ….. What about that can’t you understand??
It’s not uncommon for the same batter and same pitcher to hit a ball in the same area. In fact, if; you by random chance watch baseball; outfielder frequently move around, to position themselves where “de” batter is more likely to hit the ball.
Nothing really random except your non-sequiturs.
#3 bobbo, not to be ornery, got it right. #15 Mr. conFusion and JD got it wrong.
Randomness is baseball is uncommon…how many times have you seen a batter hit a ball right at an outfielder who is playing way left or right? Happens all the time.
The biggest random in baseball is a knuckleball.
#30, noname,
You flunk and the other RANDOM morons here flunk basic D.O.E 101!!!
Yes I agree there are two separate events, but; they are very much related, having the Same batter, Same pitcher, SameâŚ..
So when you do a DOE do you use different operators, different machines, different materials, different facilities, different weather, different people designing the experiment, … every experiment? No, of course not, because that is not what contributes to a DOE. Nor, does DOE have anything to do with a random event. A DOE is looking at the conditions that contribute to the most favorable outcome(s).
It looks to me like someone has their statistics lessons all mixed up. Did you help do a DOE at work and are now an expert? I taught Industrial Statistics for several years and supervised many experiments.
Each event; the pitcher throwing the ball and the batter hitting it, are independent of the previous pitch (and even at bat) even though the people, ball, bat, and weather conditions remain the same. Nothing in the first foul ball had anything to do with the pitch that came before or after.
If the hit could have been controlled to make the ball land where it did then it would not be a random occurrence. But that would involve the pitcher throw the ball at a certain speed with a specific rotation to an exact location and the batter would have had to swing the bat at exactly the right time at a specific angle in a certain orientation to control the location of the ball landing. In other words the probability would be so minute to rule all the parameters being met simultaneously as 0 (zero).
A coin toss is a random event. Toss it again and again. Each toss is independent of the previous flip. Yet the same coin and person tossing the coin remain. If we were to influence the outcome, say by weighting a side or flipping it in a specific way so it will flip exactly the same each time is not a random toss but a controlled toss.
A State lottery drawing is a random event as well. Each time the numbers all have an equal chance of being picked. The numbers chosen this week have no relation to the numbers chosen last week or will be chosen next week. That a number appears to be more frequent only means that some other number must become less frequent. Over time and infinite drawings, all numbers should have been drawn an approximate equal number of times.
# 32 Mr. conFusion,
For a D.O.E
1st:) Once you have identified a list of variable(s) that that contribute or help determine an event(s) outcome, (boy catches ball, twice in row)
Identified baseball variable list::
operators (pitcher, batter) machines (bat, glove), materials (baseball), facilities, weather, …………
2.) Then to prove or demonstrate a causal relationship, you have to simultaneously address the two propositions:
If X, then Y
and
If not X, then not Y. (your #32 post blithely says not X, then not Y is not needed)
I contend, that there is a contributing relationship between the same batter, same pitcher, same …. that caused the same outcome twice in a row. Is it reliably repeatable, hell no; and that’s not the point.
The point is, in your post #15, your statement is as B.S. as you are!!!!
âEach hit was independent of the other hit.â
The correct statement is:: Each hit is *NOT* independent of the other hit.
As I said above::
Obviously you have never designed a âgoodâ Experiment. Random unrelated events means random unrelated batters, random unrelated pitchers, random unrelated âŚ.. What about that canât you understand??