From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: Maynard Ex Ante
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 17:37:56 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
: In <1gsk97INNt3t@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:
: >> The true probability of any team's success is unknown if we cannot  
: >determine
: >> all of the premisses.  And we can't.  That is exactly my point.   
: >The true
: >> odds of any team winning the WS cannot be determined.  Too many  
: >variables.
: >You are fuzzing the issue again, talking about true odds. If by this
: >you mean: do we know exactly the chances, with no margin for
: >error, the answer is, of course not. There are variables, as you
: >say. But not being able to say EXACTLY does not mean that we can't
: >say anything.  Or do you really think the Marlins are as likely
: >as the Jays to win the series next year?
: Can you put a number on it?  Can you say how much more likely one team will
: win than the other?  If you can't measure it how do you know it's really
: there?  Sounds a little like one of Dr. Dave's explanations of intangibles
: to me.  Luck. 

Actually, we *can* put numbers on it. It's just that the conditions and
error bounds limit the usefulness of it. The two main factors that limit the
accuracy of team predictions are the random nature of injuries and the
worse-than-random unpredictability of managers. IF we could assume that a
manager would make out a predictable lineup (note--not necessarily good,
just predictable) and that no significant injuries would happen, then we
could predict a team's performance fairly accurately. While we can predict,
say, Billy Hatcher's performance fairly accurately, we can't predict that
Ellis Burks will miss most of the season with injuries or that Butch Hobson,
possessed by the evil spirit of Don Zimmer, will bat him leadoff.
Performance prediction isn't an exact science. BFD. Neither is meteorology,
but most people find the weather report useful.

What is your argument here, anyway? At this point, we appear to have
devolved into a Monty Python sketch where you are basically gainsaying
anything anyone you've identified as a "stathead" posts and claiming it's
argument. 
   
: >So, if someone in the street, who never even watched a baseball
: >game, comes up to you and says "I think the Marlins are going
: >to win it all next year," his opinion is just as well founded
: >as yours?
: Not likely.  The people who make these kinds of pronouncements while
: having never watched a game are most likely statheads and they are 
: generally a confused lot.

And, of course, the people who deny the value of stats are most likely
clueless jerks and they are generally a confused lot. So there, nyah. Before
the ad hominem, though, I did notice that you admit that not all opinions
are created equal. How do you differentiate between the worthwhile and
worthless ones?

: >I'm also confused by your use of the term "subjective."  You went
: >(a few paragraphs back) from saying that nothing we can predict
: >is "exact" (which is true, but misleading the way you stated it)
: >to saying that all our knowledge about baseball is "subjective"
: >(which is nonsense).  There is just too much hard evidence out
: >there that can be used in prediction, and that has worked in the
: >past. Has it worked exactly?  No, there are other factors that
: >can modify it. But this does not mean that it is somehow 
: >subjective.  
: Yes you are partially right. There is hard evidence that is objective.  
: However unless the predictive process does work exactly we cannot
: call it objective.  Non-objective is better than subjective in this 
: case.

To use a time-honored baseball expression, horseshit. You're now completely
out in left field, Roger. How do you draw a connection between objectivity
and exactness? If I flip a fair coin 500 times, I can't predict exactly how
many times it will come up heads. Does that make the process somehow
subjective? In what way?
  
: >Actually, when you talk about the best TEAM, you have a point.
: >A good defintion of the best team IS the one that won the
: >series.  However, you took this a step furhter than that. You
: >then said that, since the Jays were the best team, Cito had
: >to be the best manager. Someone pointed out to you that this,
: >by analogy, means that Alfredo Griffen was the best shortstop,
: >and you agreed.  The Jays being the best team does NOT mean
: No, I said that you cannot prove that there is a better manager than
: Cito or that there is a better utility infielder than Griffin.  I did
: not say that they were the "best".  The "best" cannot be determined.

Of course, you can likewise not prove that there is a worse manager than
Cito. By the way, what dialect of English are you using? I think most people
would assume that "you can't prove that there is a better X than Y" strongly
implies "Y is the best X", if not quite completely equivalent.
  
: >that they had the best player at each position, and that they
: >had the best manager. It just means that the sum total of the
: >package was the best.
: >middle).  But the point you started out on was that
: >"if Tornonto was the best team, Cito had to be the best manager."
: >This simply does NOT follow.
: You are right in that it does not follow.  In fact the antecedents to
: "Cito is the best (or worst) manager" are unknown and are probably ;^)
: unknowable.

Therefore, of course, the truth value of the statement "Cito is the best
manager" is unknown and probably unknowable. Most of us, stathead or
otherwise, reject that position. So, now that you've given up on all fronts
on your original argument (as demonstrated in the quoted material
immediately above), what are you going to entertain us with next?

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

Remember the game Core Wars?  Write little programs, set them loose, let them
fight to the death?  Well, talk.bizarre is JUST like that.
	- T. Rev
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball