CharlieS3 says:

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.”

Brandon says:

About random numbers occurring in clumps:

Given that one random digit from 0–9 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.

Mr. Fusion says:

#18, Mr. Diesel,

Thank you. I only wish I was half the athlete when I was her age.

Alfred1 says:

#27 Contrary to your claim, the abductions have affected you, your mind is ever on toiletries…unmentionables, cavity probes…

Why not fabricate a new tin foil hat…if they confiscate that also….make another!

noname says:

# 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.

Mr. Fusion says:

#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, Same…..

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.

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