Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 288: Line 288:     
::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money.  I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
 
::: More generally, note that if you confine yourself to well-funded studies, then you limit yourself to what the funders of those studies want for their money.  I'm interested in going outside of the narrow sphere of funded studies and looking at real-world data to draw important conclusions that no one is willing to fund and advertise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
Then let's look at the data.  Refusal to allow your conclusions to be examined (which is the effect of hiding your methods) suggests something to hide.  In addition to knowing the frequency of no hitters, it would be important to know the number of games pitched.  That's the piece that we're missing here.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:04, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
    
::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters?  More than three, less than three?  The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not!    As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help.  But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:
 
::::But ''how many'' is 'a few' no-hitters?  More than three, less than three?  The answer affects whether they get into the Hall of Fame or not!    As for going straight to real-world data, that's totally fine with me - I encourage you to go beyond the regular data, and I'll help.  But wherever we get the data from, we STILL need to know two numbers:
953

edits

Navigation menu