From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.134730.11702@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Dec17.070758.4386@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>>But why do you hold baseball to a higher standard than any other part
>>of life?  Can you prove that food was more important to your health
>>yesterday than watching TV?  Of course not.  Just because eating has been
>>shown over millions of years to be important to your health, while the
>>importance of watching TV has not been shown, doesn't mean that
>>*yesterday* watching TV wasn't as important as eating.  You watched TV
>>and you ate yesterday.  You stayed healthy.  No point in any more
>>conversation.  Food+TV was a success.  Trying to separate the two just
>>leads to error, "because you don't know the complete extent of that
>>[object's] contribution."  Everything else is "meaningless" "speculation."

>Alfredo was employed in an attempt to win the WS.  TV was not employed
>as a means to better health.

That's irrelevant, entirely.  Who cares *why* you did something?  The
effects of something do not disappear because you didn't intend them.

Furthermore, I'm sure there is some weird cult out there which *does*
feel that TV will lead to better health, just as there is some weird
cult out there which believes that Alfredo Griffin leads to winning.

>>>>It is a stupid statement because it says nothing of interest.  Was

>>>What says "nothing of interest" is comparing one player in a hypothetical
>>>situation to another.  Much was said this fall about how Abbott would have
>>>done in Jack Morris' shoes.  This is absurd.  It is impossible and 
>>>therefore has no relevance to baseball in the real world.  You cannot

>>Really?  Do you mean to say that Pat Gillick doesn't go around thinking
>>about whether to acquire Jack Morris or Jim Abbott?  Really?  You mean
>>he doesn't think it has relevance to baseball?   I think *that's* absurd.

>Certainly Gillick does have these concerns.  In fact he traded this off-season
>for Sojo because he is not sure that Alfredo can duplicate his WS winning
>performance of last year.

Now you're just being silly.  Alfredo Griffin didn't win the WS.  The
Toronto Blue Jays won the WS.  Alfredo Griffin played a small amount for
them, so he certainly was part of that WS-winning.  But he didn't have
"WS winning performance."  No one believes that--not even Don Zimmer.

>>>isolate the contribution of any one player to the team effort because you
>>>don't know the complete extent of that players contribution.  What is really
>>>silly is when you attempt to sum the isolated contributions to get the 
>>>total measure of a team's quality.  You have just compounded your original
>>>error by 25 (the number of players).

>>But you're ignoring empirical evidence that you are wrong.  We *can*
>>predict how many runs a team will score from the players' individual
>>stats.  We *can* predict how many wins a team will get from the runs
>>scored and allowed.  

>But you can't predict who will win the WS.  And that is the point.  You
>are claiming that what you can measure is important in a vain attempt to
>defend your pointless act of predicting.  In other words, what you are
>predicting has no value.  

Of course I can predict who will win the World Series.  The Atlanta
Braves.  There.  I just did it.

If I'm wrong, does that invalidate my method?  Not at all.  I understand
probability theory, so if I roll two dice, I will predict I will get 7,
since that is the most common roll.  If I'm wrong, and 2 comes up, does
that make probability theory invalid?  Of course not.

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not saying "Atlanta will
win the World Series."  I'm saying "Atlanta has the highest probability,
of any of the 28 teams, of winning the World Series."  They can finish
in last place without changing the fact that they had the highest
probability of winning the World Series.

>>The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it less true.  Baseball
>>is not voodoo.  You can't disbelieve sabermetrics and have it disappear.

>Certainly I understand it.  What is not understood here is that you have
>been skewered by Hume's fork.

But the real question is, could Hume carry John Stuart Mill's jock?

>>>What is really stupid and of little interest is to claim that any manager
>>>was "better" than Gaston in '92.  We know that the team that employed Gaston
>>>won.  We will never know whether or not that team would have won with any
>>>other manager and any speculation on this issue is purely idle.

>>If it wasn't of interest, it wouldn't be discussed, so you're just wrong.

>I should have had "really stupid and of little interest" in quotes I guess.
>I took that from Valentine's ranting about my point of view.  It seems to
>me that the issue of whether we can inductively support the inductive model 
>of reasoning is not stupid and is not of little interest.

>>It IS of interest, because what we care about is who will help a
>>team in 1993, not who helped in 1992.  A manager that was "better" in
>>1992, and also 1990 and 1991, is more likely to be "better" in 1993 also.

>We have to care about the future performances because we cannot be sure that
>the players we have will perform at the same level as they did the previous
>year.  And since the only accurate way to measure the level of an individual's
>performance is by counting the rings on his hand if we are wrong about the
>player's ability to equal his previous performance we will not find out until
>it is too late.

But what about the batboy?  Maybe the Jays won because of the batboy.
After all, you can't isolate his performance and say it wasn't as
important as Juan Guzman's.  That just leads to error.  And yet they
didn't even give him a WS ring!  So you can't just count WS rings.

Seriously, (though I don't see how my argument is any different or 
sillier than yours), counting the rings on a player's hand measures his
*team's* performance, not his individual performance.  

It is quite possible, even you will admit, that a given player hurt a
winning team.  It's possible that the Jays would have won 162 games,
plus a 4 game sweep of the playoffs and World Series, if they had
replaced Alfredo Griffin with that proven winner Dan Gladden.  And yet
your method doesn't take this into account, does it?  Alfredo Griffin
got a ring in 1992, so he helped the team.  That's your implicit argument.

And you're understating your case a little.  It's not that "you can't be
sure that the players will perform..."  It's that you have no idea.

>>>What you consider the "best" is meaningless.  The fact that so many argue 
>>>about just what the "best" is should be your first clue.  The fact that
>>>nobody argues about who the "most successful" is should be your second.

>>No, it certainly is NOT meaningless.  No one goes around arguing about
>>who won the World Series last year.  That should tell *you* something.  
>>They're interested in who is going to win the WS *THIS* year.  

>So am I.  The difference in philosophy might be reflected in our approaches
>to managing a defending champion.  I would try to hold as much of the old 
>team together as possible (within reason) while you would try to rebuild it 
>if it didn't fit your model of "best".

That's true.  And you'd find that most GMs would agree with you, which
is why few teams repeat over more than a 2 or 3 year stretch.

I agree that you should hold as much as the old team together as
possible ***WITHIN REASON***.  I just think that it's unreasonable to
keep a bad player simply because he played on a team that won.

>>That means what you need to know is who will help the team *this* year.
>>And that involves knowing what helps teams and who provides that help.

>>Of *course* best != most successful.

>Ok, you can have the best team and I will take the most successful!

How are you going to do that?  "Most successful" is a description of a
past event.  "Best" is an evaluation of the future.  You can't possibly
know the "most successful" team of 1993 until October of 1993, when it's
a little late.

>>Why do you bother to respond if you don't care?  Just because *you*
>>can't understand a more complex concept than a yes-no won-lost one
>>doesn't mean that (at least some of) the rest of the world can't.

>If you really think I am that stupid then "why do you bother to respond?"
>This discussion gives rise to more interesting issues than who will or 
>will not win the WS.  Or don't you think so?

Sure, but you're not responding to those issues.  You're repeating your
"I don't believe it" mantra over and over again.  The study of baseball
must be a religion, not a science, simply because our understanding isn't
perfect; a standard you'd never hold any other part of life to.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball