From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 22:36:50 GMT
Distribution: na
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Nov6.194451.117@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.180753.839@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov05.005627.159157@zeus.calpoly.edu> jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:
>>>pointless.  I haven't seen that many games this year, but I think to a
>>>certain extent I'm qualified to at least discuss baseball. 
>
>>You don't have to see any games to be "qualified" to discuss baseball.  
>
>This is just about the most rediculous statement I have ever seen any member
>of the FofDT Society post.  You seem to be suggesting that one could be
>"qualified" to discuss baseball if one had never seen even one game.
>Leaving aside the obvious question of why one would wish to discuss 
>something one had no first hand familiarity with, let me just point out
>that one does not have to see baseball if one wants to discuss baseball
>statistics, which after all, are nothing more than detailed second-hand
>descriptions of the real events.  Once again we have an example of the 
>fundamental SDCN confusion - Baseball is not statistics and statistics
>are not baseball.

I presume, then, that we will never see a posting from you discussing Babe
Ruth, Honus Wagner, Ted Williams, Willie Mays, etc., etc., since you didn't
see them play? You're foaming at the mouth again, Roger, and as usual you
can't make a local call to a clue. There are people all over the place
interested in baseball, and some fraction of them have never seen the game.
Occasionally they post here for information. There's more to baseball than
showing up, downing a few beers, and presuming that since you actually had
your butt in the seat when something happened that you're qualified to judge
it.

>>>see one game, that certainly qualifies you to discuss is.  Mr. Loparco
>>>has the right idea here.  He says the only real way to judge a player is
>>>by watching him.
>
>>I disagree.  I think in many ways, that's the worst way to judge a player.
>
>I stand corrected.  You just outdid yourself.  I guess when you want to
>know what the weather is like outside you just flick the remote to the 
>weather channel right?

Well, if I want to know if it's going to freeze, I *do* consult a
thermometer rather than sticking my nose out the door and guessing. If I
want to know what the weather is going to be like tomorrow, I *do* listen to
the weather report rather than asking somebody what happened the next day
the last time it was cloudy on Thursday. Really, Roger, you cling so dearly
to your mythical game of baseball that you're blind to observational bias.
Perhaps a science course or two at your fine university could clear up your
confusion. You know, even if you *did* get enough observations to be useful
and weren't biased because of a player's team, position, etc., I still don't
think I'd believe that you are as qualified to make player judgements as a
scout.

>>>What difference does it make?  He said he *feels* that Mattingly is as
>>>good as McGwire.  Arguing about it is the whole fun of it.
>
>>It's one thing to say that I enjoy watching Mattingly play defense.  It's
>>another to say "Mattingly is the best defensive first baseman in baseball,
>>and anybody who thinks he's only average is clearly crazy."
>
>I guess if you don't understand the fundamentals of how a player should
>field a position, and I guess if you are unable to see whether one is an
>athlete or not then I guess you have no recourse.  One thing is for sure:
>if you don't watch any games you won't have a clue.  Then again, some 
>people spend half of their lives watching games and they don't have a 
>clue neither.

Once again, we're back to the basic fallacy. Just because a guy looks
graceful or athletic doesn't mean he's a good player. Boy, you must think
that John Kruk really sucks in the field. He doesn't look athletic and his
fundamentals can't compare to Mattingly or McGwire. But what does this tell
you about how well he fields? The minor leagues are full of guys whose
fundamentals looked good enough for a scout to sign them, but a lot of them
just can't play the game.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

After a few boring years, socially meaningful rock 'n' roll died out.  It was
replaced by disco, which offers no guidance to any form of life more advanced
than the lichen family.
	- Dave Barry, "Kids Today: They Don't Know Dum Diddly Do"