From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: Hall of Famers
Keywords: I still have yet to see ANY evidence from you.
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 15:27:17 GMT

In article <15347@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Electric Pancreas Huckabay) writes:
>(Mike "Ducking The Issue" Fester) writes:
>
>[Talking, as you may recall, about Steve Garvey's defense.]
>
>>However, Thorn and Palmer's method apparantly DID call him at least decent.
>>The Dodgers' subjective opinion of him was that he wasn't a good 3rd baseman,
>>small sample size or not. This for a man universally attributed with a 
>>Venus de Milo arm. I'd say the source is faulty.

>Mike, you can impugn any source you like.  The fact remains: You claimed Garvey

The source is self-impugning. You admit you don't know HOW they arrive at these 
numbers, they contradict what most people believe (ie, 3rd base is a TOUGHER
defensive position than 1st) but you swallow it H,L & S.

>was a very good defensive first baseman.  I claimed he sucked eggs.  I

You also stated he had no footwork, a bad arm, etc, and yet was a decent
3rd baseman.

>presented the best information available to me, and asked you to provide some
>objective evidence supporting your position.  You have not done so.

And you claimed you don't know how they got the data. SO, you have a source 
that lists a guy with (your words) no arm, bad footwork, and a proclivity to 
let shots go down the line as a BAD 1st baseman, but a DECENT 3rd baseman.
It doesn't make any sense, yet you don't question it in the slightest.

Objective evidence? Sorry, does your source keeps track of throws in the dirt,
scooped out by 1st basemen? Probably not. Does it keep track of (eg) 
successful plate-blockings? Again, probably not. So, not only will I make
the statement "Garvey was a GOOD defensive 1st baseman", I will make the
the staement "Scioscia was an OUTSTANDING plate blocker". No "objective source
available for it. None, keine, nil, rei, bu, pick a word. I saw it happen,
over and over again. Routinely. Often. Get the picture? Clear enough? What is
confusing you here?

>Your slash-and-burn style of
>debate, which is really just a thinly veiled attempt to stir things up, is

Actually, it is YOU who responded, not me. And the term your looking for is
"point and laugh".

>not going to work in this situation.
>
>Just provide me with some EVIDENCE that Garvey was as good as you say.

Watch some old clips were he scoops Cey's and Russell's throws out of the dirt.

>I don't accept your personal observations as evidence.  No offense intended,

And I state that your source is faulty. Point blank. 

>but everyone's memory is guilty of having a small sample size, and several
>filters.  

And your source has a serious logic flaw.

>Now prepared for the knee-jerk "Stathead!  Die!" response.

How's this; explain how a guy with all the qualifications you mentioned makes
a decent 3rd baseman.
 
Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opiini^H^H damn! ^H^H ^Q ^[ .... :w  :q  :wq  :wq! ^d  X ^?
exit X Q  ^C ^? :quitbye  CtrlAltDel   ~~q  :~q  logout  save/quit :!QUIT
^[zz ^[ZZZZZZ ^H  man vi ^@  ^L  ^[c  ^# ^E ^X ^I ^T ? help  helpquit ^D  ^d 
man help ^C ^c help exit ?Quit ?q CtrlShftDel "Hey, what does this button d..."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball