From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:13:13 GMT

In article <3OCT199211534060@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>In article <17865@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu 
>     (Gary Didi Seven Huckabay) writes...

>>Why do many of the people here consider the 'statheads' or, 'SDCNs'
>>arrogant?

>Let me give you several reasons.

>(1) The statheads show themselves to be the first to be indignant
>    when something that doesn't fit the statistical picture is presented.

Care to give an example or two?  Or at least to name some names?

I've never heard of anyone around here using "the statistical picture"
as a standard.  Or anything like it.  Moreover, I don't notice a lot
of indignation except on the part of people who call other people
"statheads" as an insult.

>(2) It doesn't stop at "indignant."  There is name-calling (and you, yes
>    you, Mr. Huckabay, are one of the chief perpetrators).  Yes, I know
>    the non-statheads will resort to name-calling as well, but I have seen
>    you do it first and often.  I have seen Valentine do it first and often.
>    (Roger Maynard calls people names as well, in all fairness to you - I
>    consider this treatment unjust and unprofessional from both sides.)

Fine.  So this has nothing to do with statheads in general.  Sherri,
Dave, Ted, Harold, and YT don't generally call names at all.

>(3) Statements like the following:

>>On the contrary, to me, it is those who hang on to their own
>>observations, however limited and subjective they might be, in the
>>face of hard evidence, who would best be described as arrogant.

>    Indicate a tendency on the part of the stathead to recognize him/her
>    self as the only true baseball fan.  This is also unjust.

Why?  Sometimes there *is* hard evidence.  Moreover, close reading of the
above indicates nothing about "true baseball fans" or anything similar.

>(4) The statheads are first to flame the fans of lowly teams.  I have had
>    to take more shit for the Indians than I would care to say (although,
>    in all fairness, I was a supporter of the Swindell trade, which is to
>    many an unreasonable position), and yet I never resort to flaming fans
>    of other teams - even other teams that finish last.  It's bad enough
>    to deal with the angst of a sorry team without listening to Valentine
>    flame every move they make, or Ms. Nichols state that she has as much
>    insight to other teams' front offices as do the locals, or the 
>    redoubtable Dr. Tate constantly asking "why?  why must we believe the
>    Indians will ever be anything other than what they are?"  This is grating.

Huh? My team is the Washington Senators, perhaps the worst/most boring
of all time.  Nowadays I groan at the Mets, mostly.  Being a fan of a
lowly team gets you no points either way around here -- and I might add 
that some of the Pirates fans here were Pirates fans here in 1986, too.

Now, as for Sherri's insights, I bet that's correct.  The average local
fan knows zip about their team's front office; Sherri probably knows a
bit *more* than that.  

And as for flaming this team or that, gimme a break -- the statheads do
precious little of that, compared to the average poster here.  

>(5) You statheads, because you have been in this newsgroup a while and
>    (I suppose) know each other well, defend each other, even in the face
>    of the most rude behavior. 

In the face of it, sure!  We don't generally defend rude behavior, though.
Gary does make us laugh on occasion, though.

> You have called me names to my very face,
>    Mr. Huckabay, and Ms. Nichols has gone to bat on your behalf.  "I 
>    think what Gary is trying to say is..."  Horse-hockey.  You people are
>    sometimes rude,

You talkin' ta me?  If not, cut the "you people" stuff, please.

> and the closest you will ever get to admitting it is
>    to say "well, if I said something that offended you (and I doubt I
>    ever did), I apologize."  (Ms. Nichols just got done with this.)

Which is a hell of a lot more apology than we ever see from anyone else
around here, isn';t it?  Ever see Maynard apologize?  Last summer, 
someone was mature enough to start reposting 200-line messages with maybe
oneword tacked on, and then sent Gary huge amounts of garbage email.

THAT is rude.  Now, what were you saying about the statheads?

>(6) You have created an entire class of "underground statheads" who are
>    even bigger flamers than you people are publicly.  Consider this 

Ah.  We're responsible for other posters, now, just by our existence.

>    statement from Ward Larkin, saved in my files for just such an occasion:
>
>	I hope your [sic] a parking lot attendant or a janitor...
>	because you sure as hell are showing your stupidity.

Right.  This is Sherri's fault...huh?

>    I call him on this statement and he won't back off.  It takes a lot
>    of hard work to get into my kill file - and Larkin works that hard.

Keep talking.  I'm sure you'll get to a point sometime.  What doe this 
have to do with anything?  Why does Ward LArkin's email relate to Dr. Dave's
statistical analyses?  Would Ward be any less rude -- or his email any
more relevant -- if Valentine, Kirsch, Sherri, and I left the net?  Not.

>(7) You people are like statistical fundamentalists: your pure doctrine
>    is more important than your relationships with people.  You make

Right.  That's why we change our opinions when confronted with better models,
why we argue with one another, why we exchange data to work on, why we
differ on methodology.  You haven't been around here long, have you?  Or
maybe you just haven't read the postings you're presuming to criticize.

>    statements that are true, such as 

>>If you judge ballplayers based solely on your observations and
>>impressions, you are purposely limiting yourself in terms of the
>>information available to you.  Statistics are nothing more than
>>systematically recorded observations, made over time.  Observations
>>that are, in general, far more free from subjective filtering than
>>personal observation.

>    But then you follow them up with

>>In short, I don't feel as if anyone HERE has the right to call me, or
>>any other SDCN here 'arrogant' about baseball.  On the contrary, I
>>feel the burden of arrogance is upon those who refuse to open their
>>minds, certain that THEIR method of analysis is superior to that of
>>others.  

Well?  What does this have to do with "relationships with others?" We're
here to talk baseball, not to go out on dates; and if someone I don't even 
know comes up to me and tells me "I know what I'm talking about and I'm
right and here's a pile of utterly nonsensical evidence to prove it and I
won't listen to what you have to say about it and I insist on expressing
my opinion again and again without being challenged," 

...it's *my* fault if I dare to point out a few flaws in the argument?
Sorry.  It's a free net.

>(8) If there is no analysis involved in a subjective opinion, why not
>    just present the opposing numbers and leave it at that?  No, it'll

What?  I don't understand this.  Very few posts here hav numbers and no
analysis -- on either side.  Just *choosing* numbers from the great
set of stats available is analysis, for one thing.  Saying "Joe Carter
is great because he has lots of RBI" is not just numbers -- it's a
judgment of the value of RBI. That's analysis.  It can only be challenged
with a different analysis -- hopefully, a better analysis.

>    not happen.  You'll just pop the subjective person's quote in your
>    .sig file, as is done in any talk.* group.

Look, stupid comments are funny!  Get used to it.  

>>I have not seen one SDCN here who is unwilling to listen and respond
>>to a well reasoned argument, provided there's some evidence to be had
>>there.

>Maybe so, but not unless there are numbers, preferably real and not 
>integer.

Really?  You seem to have missed the Gambler's Fallacy argument of the
last few days.  That started with a few averages, to be sure, but the
discussion of Cope's Hypothesis had no numbers at all.  

Neither does the RBI discussion, usually. 

>You'll flame me for saying these things, no doubt.  Oh, well.  That is
>one way to ensure that people seldom point this sort of thing out to 
>you in the future.  You statheads are often rude and insulting, and I

YOU are rude and insulting and don't even have the guts to name the
people about whom you claim to say these things.  Do you mean me with
this sentence?

>just don't care how much statistical evidence you bring to bear on how
>many problems - I still want nothing to do with you.

Great.  Don't read news, then; this is a discussion forum.

>And I am still a *huge* baseball fan.  No-one can change that.

Good for you.  

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball