From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: na
Date:  5 Oct 1992 11:22 EST  

I expected this.  We seem to have some among us (besides me) with thin skins.

In article <1992Oct3.201313.11231@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu 
     (Roger Lustig) writes...

>>(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 named at least four names, and gave at least six examples.  Exactly what
more do you want out of me?

>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.

I simply disagree with you on both points.  And on most others mentioned
in this thread.

>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.  

That was not the point.  The average local fan doesn't end up here.
She was comparing her knowledge of other teams' front offices to the 
knowledge of local fans *within this newsgroup*.  I am willing to bet
that even her prodigious knowledge falls somewhat short here.

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

Let's try a little of your methodology: name names.  Give examples.

>> 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.

I wasn't before.  I am now.

>> 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.

Is this an isolated incident?  Or does it show a pattern of abuse?  That
makes a difference, because I am not talking about isolated incidents.

>>(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.

Yes, as a matter of fact, you are.  The folks that are considered more
"prominent," as Mr. Bose put it in his FAQ, are going to be imitated by
others who would like to be accepted in the group.  If you deny this you
are simply being naive.

>>    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.

He might be less rude if rudeness were not accepted as the norm around here.
My point is that many people here say things in front of thousands of people
around the world on Usenet that they would *never* say to a colleague down
the hall from their own offices.

>>(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.

How can you not know how long I've been around?  I helped to bring you
r.s.b.fantasy.  And the fantasy baseball Mailing List before that.  You 
have to be careful not to make the same mistake you accuse me of making.

I recognize that each of you will modify your models of baseball to 
accommodate what you learn - we all have to do that.  I am upset because
you - yes, I'm talking to you this time - have such a thin skin when
confronted by others who don't share your statistical base.  I should
think that people who know a certain amount about baseball would be able
to be secure with themselves when challenged.  I'm not seeing that.

>>>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," 

Did you notice that you were arguing with Mr. Huckabay here, and not me?
I bet that would have made a difference.

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

Sometimes they are.  But a stupid comment does not mean the one who makes
the comment is stupid.

I could also say, look, people will disagree with you.  Get used to it.
Look, people will measure performance based on RBI.  Get used to it.
People will want Cecil Fielder to be the MVP every year.  Get used to it.

>>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 [...]

>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?

If you see your name, I am naming you.  If you see the names of Mr. Huckabay,
Dr. Tate, Ms. Nichols, and Valentine - as you should have seen above, 
although I wonder now if you weren't too pissed off to pay attention -
then I am naming them.  In either case, I do name the people against whom
I make the claim.  This business about naming names is old and tired when
it is valid, and here it isn't even valid.

>>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.

It's a bleedin' flame forum is what it is.  That's my point.  Thank you
very much for backing up my point.

RG
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball