From: franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione)
Subject: Re: Maynard Ex Ante
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:38:18 GMT

maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>In <franjion.724661541@spot.Colorado.EDU> franjion@spot.Colorado.EDU (John Franjione) writes:

>>maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>>Vegas odds are predictions of how people in general will bet.  They are 
>>>not any kind of "scientific" prediction of how good a team is.

>>>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.

>>This is amazing!  Roger, what is your problem?  Ted did NOT mention Las
>>Vegas odds.  He did not.  He didn't.  Read it again.  He didn't.  The

>Some people confuse the two.  If he wasn't confusing them there is no harm
>done so hold onto your hat...

>>*true* probability of a team's success is UNKNOWN???  Please explain
>>what *true* probablility is.  I don't have any formal training in
>>probabability or statistics, but what is so hard about recognizing

>Neither do I but I suppose that is rather obvious...

>>probabilities for what they are?  They don't express anything with
>>certainty.  I suppose that you think that one team has a 100% chance of
>>winning the WS, it's just that we don't have enough information,
>>right?

>Absolutely correct.  Bingo.  You got it.  We don't have enough information.

This seems to me to be an awfully "deterministic" way of viewing
events.  You contend that if we had EXACT knowledge of EVERYTHING
beforehand, that we could predict who would win the WS.  Geez, if it
were possible to have that much knowledge, people's lives would be
vastly different.  I would know which career path to take.  And which
gift to buy my wife for Christmas, and ...  You are welcome to this
viewpoint, but it seems silly to me.

Anyway, I don't see why, in the face of not having a priori exact
knowledge of everything, that any other attempts to predict who is
going to win the WS are fruitless.

>Now tell me - Who is the "best" team?  Who are the "best" players?  "Best"
>is an absolute and "best" cannot be arrived at inductively.

Toronto won the WS.  Are they the best team?  I think so.  The Dodgers
won the WS in 1988.  Were they the best team that year?  Not in my
opinion.  You seem to have an extremely narrow definition of "best".
If Toronto was the "best" team last year, why didn't they win every
game?

My definition of best (in the context of baseball) is: if a 1,000,000
game season could be played in an instant, with players current
abilities not changing, the team that had the best record in this
season would be the best.

Admittedly, this scenario is impossible.  However, if I could simulate
this season somehow, then I think it would give an idea on which team
was most likely to win.  However, one cannot forsee everything.  I
thought that the Red Sox were going to win the ALE in 1992.  But if
you had told me beforehand that Ellis Burks and Mike Greenwell were
going to miss 2/3 of the season, that Wade Boggs was going to have his
worst season be far, and that Phil Plantier was going to injure his
elbow, then I wouldn't have thought they would win.

I think that the best players are the ones who give his team the best
chance of winning the WS.  I would prefer Roger Clemens to Jack
Morris.  Barry Larkin to Alfredo Griffin.  Frank Thomas to John
Olerud.  Ken Griffey Jr. to Devon White.

Of course, I can't "prove" (especially to your satisfaction) that
making any of these switches would make the Blue Jays a better team.
I think that if the Blue Jays had these guys last year, they would
have won at lest 15 more games than they actually did.

How do you define "best" team, and "best" players?  And how would you
go about assembling the "best" team for 1993?

John Franjione