I have often thought about why I'm so interested in baseball. It's definitely not anything about the game itself. Like other sports, other than playing, and the emotional attachments of being a fan of certain teams, I actually find the game kind of boring. I long ago decided the answer was in the numbers. Everything in baseball is measured, and a statistic is placed on every event and even some non-events. The numbers by themselves mean nothing to me. I'm not a statistician or a mathematician. I failed my last semester of Calculus. I decided what the numbers provide is an explanation for what is happening on the surface. Being able to understand what you're seeing using these numbers offers the ability to reasonably predict future outcomes. Having the ability to analyze this data and understand it's significance offers a feeling of control over what otherwise seem like a series of random events. It's oddly comforting.
I think one of the most troubling aspects of the human condition is the acute awareness of an utter lack of control. Despite our willingness to elect leaders and construct organizations, the fact remains, nobody really has control. We're all just sort of mimicking each other and faking it. There are far more unknowns than answers. Some deal with this by turning to a religion, placing varying levels of responsibility for outcomes at the will of a higher power. Some suggest everything is left to random chance. Whatever you believe, there is one looming certainty awaiting all of us, and we all know it. This physical existence is going to end one day. That knowledge and that lack of control can be maddening. Many have questioned the point of it all, and many have attempted to give reason. I've just assumed with such a lack of control, lack of answers, other than the inevitable that awaits us all, it's probably insignificant what you stand for and what you believe. The real value is what you've created, what you're ready to leave behind. That's really all you can control.
The amount of love sent my families way in the past 36 hours has been overwhelming. I think it speaks to how much my grandparents gave. They never had much, yet they gave not just to me, not just to family, and not just to friends. They gave to people to which they had no obligation. I watched how well they treated complete strangers. I watched people come to their Church, unable to pay bills, or pay for medication, and my grandparents gave. They gave to each other. My grandfather, when diagnosed with cancer, leaned on my grandmother for support, and the strength, and motivation to fight. As my grandmother's health declined, my grandfather gave her the same treatment. The result was more time with each other, and for us, more time with them than I could have ever hoped, and far more than was predicted by the doctors. They gave us a tremendous example.
Seven months ago, my grandmother was released from the hospital after suffering a near fatal stroke. The change I witnessed in her from that time on was incredible. Every day tasks had become a struggle and the outlook for a significant recovery was somewhat bleak. However, she continued to progress, and all during the process, she joked and laughed more often than I could ever remember. I believe the extra time allowed her to develop an even greater appreciation for everything she had experienced and overcome in her life. She was able to spend precious time with her husband, with her 6 children, and 14 grandchildren, with a pride in what she had created, what she had passed on, and what she would leave behind. She was satisfied with what she controlled.
Shirley Perry will be missed greatly, but there is a piece of her that lives on in every one of us she influenced.
Love you, grandma.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Climate change and baseball
If I have one more person try to tell me that because global warming has paused over the last 17 years, human beings must not be contributing to climate change, I'm going to explode. That argument is the product of searching for some evidence to validate a preconceived belief.
In the study of baseball statistics, it's kind of an inside joke to mention sample size, because although it's important identifying where data stabilizes and becomes informative, it can be applied to literally every piece of information. Any time something wonky happens, sample size is the easiest and often most accurate explanation, even if there's a far deeper cause for the deviation, often temporary, but occasionally permanent. It's funny because in something that can be so mathematically complex, a child can watch Mike Trout go 0-4 with 4Ks and identify that's not indicative of future performance based on a wealth of past information, yet as the selection grows even slightly, many overreact.
With the evidence present for the rise in surface temperature since the beginning of human industrialization, it's ridiculous to select a 17-year sample of slowdown, and present it as negating the long term evidence of climate change. There are probably a near infinite number of natural variables that could temporarily counteract the effects, and cause a hiatus. I'm far too dumb to explain exactly why because I certainly don't understand the intricacies of thermodynamics. There are plenty of theories out there, but I'm incapable of determining the accuracy of any of the work. I'm at the mercy of the author.
The best explanation I'm capable of giving is in terms of baseball statistics, of course. You can't take surface temperature data from a 120-year sample, select the most recent 17 years, and reach conclusions from that tiny sample. It's as unwise as taking ERA from a 120-inning sample, selecting the most recent 17 innings, and deciding that ERA is indicative of a true performance level, and of future performance. There's just too much noise in that data. If you strip it down further and analyze Velocity, K/BB, HR rate, pitch selection/sequencing, swinging strike rates, etc., you may begin to identify if the change in overall results (ERA) is just the result of natural variations in a small sample size, or if you're potentially seeing the beginnings of a change in skill level. Ultimately, you're just making an educated guess until you have enough data. It's the same when analyzing the data in climate change.
If we're equating surface temperature to ERA, there are other components of a climate system that can provide a more complete climate picture, as pitchers have other indicators that provide a more complete picture of their true performance . When studying the atmosphere, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating back into space. Scientists say the retained energy should be producing warming. A baseball analogy for that would be, when a pitcher allows more fly balls, you'd expect to see a higher number of homeruns allowed. Over 120 years we have seen that warming trend, and over 120 innings, you'd see an increase in homeruns allowed. However, over the sample size of 17 years/innings, it's entirely possible natural fluctuations in a complex system could cause a stagnation that's misleading. If you look at any pitcher in 17-inning samples, his HR/FB rate will fluctuate wildly without there being any real change in skill level. It takes time for that data to stabilize. Two other, often overlapping, components in the Earth's climate system is the hydrosphere and the cryosphere. Despite the recent hiatus in surface temperature, sea level rise has not stopped in recent years, and Arctic sea ice decline has continued. Again, this would suggest a continuation of climate change due to global warming, despite the pause in surface temperature. In baseball terms, this is comparable to a rise in BB-rate combined with a decline in K-rate. It's a clear indication of declining skill. Over a small sample, naturally variations can lead to ERA being unaffected, masking the declining skill, but like before, the data will eventually stabilize and reveal a true performance level.
In summary, you shouldn't just toss out 17 years of data, but you can analyze it, and combine it with past data, to make more reasonable assertions. Just as you shouldn't unthinkingly panic if Mike Trout hits .200 over the next month, or if Clayton Kershaw has a 4.50 ERA in July, you shouldn't dismiss a clear trend just because there's a relatively brief hiatus in one aspect of the progression. Try to understand natural variances in sample sizes. Children do it watching Mike Trout. Everyone is capable.
In the study of baseball statistics, it's kind of an inside joke to mention sample size, because although it's important identifying where data stabilizes and becomes informative, it can be applied to literally every piece of information. Any time something wonky happens, sample size is the easiest and often most accurate explanation, even if there's a far deeper cause for the deviation, often temporary, but occasionally permanent. It's funny because in something that can be so mathematically complex, a child can watch Mike Trout go 0-4 with 4Ks and identify that's not indicative of future performance based on a wealth of past information, yet as the selection grows even slightly, many overreact.
With the evidence present for the rise in surface temperature since the beginning of human industrialization, it's ridiculous to select a 17-year sample of slowdown, and present it as negating the long term evidence of climate change. There are probably a near infinite number of natural variables that could temporarily counteract the effects, and cause a hiatus. I'm far too dumb to explain exactly why because I certainly don't understand the intricacies of thermodynamics. There are plenty of theories out there, but I'm incapable of determining the accuracy of any of the work. I'm at the mercy of the author.
The best explanation I'm capable of giving is in terms of baseball statistics, of course. You can't take surface temperature data from a 120-year sample, select the most recent 17 years, and reach conclusions from that tiny sample. It's as unwise as taking ERA from a 120-inning sample, selecting the most recent 17 innings, and deciding that ERA is indicative of a true performance level, and of future performance. There's just too much noise in that data. If you strip it down further and analyze Velocity, K/BB, HR rate, pitch selection/sequencing, swinging strike rates, etc., you may begin to identify if the change in overall results (ERA) is just the result of natural variations in a small sample size, or if you're potentially seeing the beginnings of a change in skill level. Ultimately, you're just making an educated guess until you have enough data. It's the same when analyzing the data in climate change.
If we're equating surface temperature to ERA, there are other components of a climate system that can provide a more complete climate picture, as pitchers have other indicators that provide a more complete picture of their true performance . When studying the atmosphere, measurements at the top of the atmosphere show that Earth is receiving more energy than it is radiating back into space. Scientists say the retained energy should be producing warming. A baseball analogy for that would be, when a pitcher allows more fly balls, you'd expect to see a higher number of homeruns allowed. Over 120 years we have seen that warming trend, and over 120 innings, you'd see an increase in homeruns allowed. However, over the sample size of 17 years/innings, it's entirely possible natural fluctuations in a complex system could cause a stagnation that's misleading. If you look at any pitcher in 17-inning samples, his HR/FB rate will fluctuate wildly without there being any real change in skill level. It takes time for that data to stabilize. Two other, often overlapping, components in the Earth's climate system is the hydrosphere and the cryosphere. Despite the recent hiatus in surface temperature, sea level rise has not stopped in recent years, and Arctic sea ice decline has continued. Again, this would suggest a continuation of climate change due to global warming, despite the pause in surface temperature. In baseball terms, this is comparable to a rise in BB-rate combined with a decline in K-rate. It's a clear indication of declining skill. Over a small sample, naturally variations can lead to ERA being unaffected, masking the declining skill, but like before, the data will eventually stabilize and reveal a true performance level.
In summary, you shouldn't just toss out 17 years of data, but you can analyze it, and combine it with past data, to make more reasonable assertions. Just as you shouldn't unthinkingly panic if Mike Trout hits .200 over the next month, or if Clayton Kershaw has a 4.50 ERA in July, you shouldn't dismiss a clear trend just because there's a relatively brief hiatus in one aspect of the progression. Try to understand natural variances in sample sizes. Children do it watching Mike Trout. Everyone is capable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)