Jays and Shark

[GD]

That's fair enough^^

[Angrioter]

Blue jays: Trade for Jeff Samardzija has 'zero chance'

The Toronto Blue Jays have been rumored to be targeting Cubs' righty Jeff Samardzija, but CBS Sports' Jon Heyman reports that there is "zero chance" the Jays part with the prospects Chicago is demanding. Heyman proposes one-year rentals such as Samardzija's teammate Jason Hammel, Indians righty Justin Masterson, and others.

 

http://www.mlbdailydish.com/2014/6/25/5839784/blue-jays-trade-rumors-samardzija-hammel-masterson-liriano-peavy

[Angrioter]

Good. They are not getting Sanchez, Norris, and Pompey. Nobody will give them 3 high upside prospects for him without an extension.

 

at the end

 

Sanchez, Norris, Pompey for Shark and..............................Valbuena

[Convo]

Earth.

 

Where the proper term is "regression toward the mean"

 

It's not "progression" or "progress."

 

And it's not "to."

 

It's "regression," and it's "toward."

 

You do not use "progression to the mean." It is incorrect. It doesn't "make sense too" and it isn't "more descriptive." Don't use it.

 

And unless you are referring to a value actually landing directly on the mean, it's "toward," not "to."

 

You can regress. You can progress. But when referring to movement toward the mean, you are always regressing toward it, even if the value is getting more positive, or less negative.

 

Lol^ There's still nothing actually wrong with it, nothing in what you said actually makes a case against it.

[GD]

Moogster, I think what he's looking for with the negative regression is retrogression, lol.

 

for reference

 

ret·ro·gres·sion

ˌretrəˈgreSHən/Submit

noun

1.

the process of returning to an earlier state, typically a worse one.

[GeorgiaPeach]

It might be their time to win. I'd rather see a couple of contending seasons and then a garbage team than more mediocre-good seasons which we always have to watch. I'm not sure the Jays have much of a choice but maybe the price will change.

 

You promise not to complain if the Jays go all in and you have to suffer through some 70 win seasons?

[G-Snarls]

Clicked on thread to see if any more trade rumours

 

Found painful battle of semantics

 

Leaving now

[NorthOf49]

Today on PTS, Stephen Brunt called Jason Hammel, "Josh Hamels." It was hilarious lol

[Convo]

Holy f***.

 

"Regression" when used within the term "regression toward the mean," does not mean "going backward," or anything similar. It is an established term in basic math and statistics. It is what it is. It means "moving" in this usage. Therefore, you cannot use "progression" as one version of it, referring to movement one side of the distribution. It makes zero sense given basic understanding of the English language.

 

What would be the mirror? If positive regression is progression, what is negative regression? It can't just be "regression" (and if you don't understand this you should just stop trying to think, about anything ... ever). "Reregression"? (That actually is alarmingly fitting here). Perhaps "regression, and we really mean it"? You have positive regression and negative regression. You don't have "progression." Just like you can't just change the term "standard deviation" to something you think is neat, or which sounds better to you, you can't change "regression."

 

How the hell do you people function?

 

You try WAY too hard to act like you know what you're talking about. The fact is regression also means "a return to a former or less developed state", and progression is the exact opposite "a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state". While regression toward the mean is the commonly adopted, both are valid. The fact is you're both right and wrong at the same time. Progression toward the mean or regression toward are perfectly valid.

 

/TheEnd

[GD]

progression has nothing to do with a mean though

 

Just because you're progressing upwards and the mean is above your current position doesn't mean you're actually progressing specifically towards the mean

 

just means (heh) you're progressing period

 

pro·gres·sion

prəˈgreSHən/Submit

noun

a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.

 

nothing to do with a mean

 

re·gres·sion

riˈgreSHən/Submit

noun

a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

[reedjohnsonfan]

You try WAY too hard to act like you know what you're talking about.

 

Exactly. I can't believe there's multiple pages discussing this. We know what the initial poster meant when he said progression to the mean so who gives a s***? It's laughable how hard some posters try to look smart.

[Maahfaace]

progression has nothing to do with a mean though

 

Just because you're progressing upwards and the mean is above your current position doesn't mean you're actually progressing specifically towards the mean

 

just means (heh) you're progressing period

 

pro·gres·sion

prəˈgreSHən/Submit

noun

a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.

 

nothing to do with a mean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

re·gres·sion

riˈgreSHən/Submit

noun

a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

 

Very smart this one is, for him future bright

[Maahfaace]

You try WAY too hard to act like you know what you're talking about. The fact is regression also means "a return to a former or less developed state", and progression is the exact opposite "a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state". While regression toward the mean is the commonly adopted, both are valid. The fact is you're both right and wrong at the same time. Progression toward the mean or regression toward are perfectly valid.

 

/TheEnd

 

You should just quote his grammatical errors and be even

[pickoff22]

Can we talk about baseball please?

[dineke]

progression has nothing to do with a mean though

 

Just because you're progressing upwards and the mean is above your current position doesn't mean you're actually progressing specifically towards the mean

 

just means (heh) you're progressing period

 

pro·gres·sion

prəˈgreSHən/Submit

noun

a movement or development toward a destination or a more advanced state, especially gradually or in stages.

 

nothing to do with a mean

 

re·gres·sion

riˈgreSHən/Submit

noun

a measure of the relation between the mean value of one variable (e.g., output) and corresponding values of other variables (e.g., time and cost).

 

Holy s***, we all knew what he meant. As Stephen fry said, "don't mind your language".

[dineke]

Holy double f***.

 

This was explained to you. It doesn't matter that another usage of the word means something else. Because this isn't that usage. So you can't just substitute in another usage, and then try to play off that word. When you do that, it's slang, or a pun, not a "valid usage."

 

It's been this way for nearly 200 years. The concept has been investigated and applied by researchers, analysts and scientists, among others. All sorts of fabulously intelligent and learned individuals. Geniuses and doctorates alike. And never once did "hey, progression is valid, too" ever come up, without someone being slapped with a glove on both sides of the face.

 

Why are you trying so hard not to learn? To sound unintelligent and, apparently, revel in it?

 

I am correct. Or, I guess I could say ... I am right. You are left. (Just as a helpful hint ... That last sentence was an illustration of taking a different usage of a word, and applying its mirror to the wrong situation, as you're trying to do here).

 

You are left, know goodly sex off.