From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Cordero
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 05:21:38 GMT

In <20578@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez027993@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary The Owners Are Lying Bastards Huckabay) writes:

>(Roger "Watch ONLY my left thimb, lass" Maynard) writes:
>Gary "Can't find the &^%& Strike Zone AGAIN!" Huckabay writes:

>>Excuse me?  Where have I ever said that I understand the mechanics of the
>>game any better than a teenage softball player?

>Where did I say you didn't?  And if you're referring to me as a teenage
>softball player, thank you.  I'm flattered.  I'm actually a 27-year old
>SDCN who plays amateur baseball and softball, and occasionally semi-pro
>baseball.  I'd LOVE to be a 'teenage' ANYTHING again.

oh.  I see.  I mentioned the teenage softball player to indicate my own
level of expertise.  I was not comparing you to that level.  But that 
started you off didn't it?

>>This is the true arrogance in my opinion.  Certainly stats are useful
>>in evaluating talent but stats alone do not give us absolutes.

>And observation does?  Why hold statistics to a higher standard than 
>scouting?

I have claimed along that there are no absolutes.  But if we can approach
them it will have to be using all of the resources available to us.  We
need both statistics AND observation to accurately assess talent.  This
is so obvious that I can't believe I have to state it.

>>Would you sign a player without looking him over?  Would you claim a player
>>is the "best" without observing him carefully with your own eyes, or lacking
>>that level of understanding, wouldn't you at least respect the opinion of 
>>someone you feel is knowledgeable about the mechanics of the sport?

>But my feeling about who is knowledgeable is likely to be invalid.
>Most people consider sportswriters knowledgeable.  I sure as hell don't.
>Because a kid is drafted at 18, plays baseball in an environment filled
>with anti-intellectual influences for 25 years, I'm supposed to think
>he knows something about personnel evaluation or strategy?  Playing
>the game and managing the game are two entirely different things.

What the hell do sportswriters have to do with this conversation?  Would
you consider a professional talent scout knowledgeable?  A major league
manager?  Is there anyone at all you would consider knowledgeable enough
to add to your knowledge of a players ability?
 
>>If you are going to put words in my mouth I would appreciate it if you
>>made an attempt to understand my point of view first.

>Roger, I try to stay civil, but this is like Jesse Jackson and 
>Louis Farrakhan calling Marge Schott racist.  I have *bent over backwards*
>trying to understand your point of view.  It's just that the holes in
>your argument are too big for me to support it.

I am not asking you to support it.  Just try to quote me correctly.  Is
that too much to ask?  If you can't quote me correctly then don't bother
to quote me at all.  I consider that "civil" behaviour, don't you?

>You, on the other hand, seem to be totally uninterested in learning,
>only in pontificating.  Problem is, you don't have the intellectual
>or moral high ground from which to preach.

I didn't know there were any moral issues being questioned here - other
than (perhaps) net etiquette.  And unlike yourself, I have the "intellectual"
ability to learn what others have to say without necessarily agreeing with
it.

>And, speaking strictly for myself, I'm not convinced you know enough
>to pontificate, teach, or evaluate anything about baseball.  Your credentials
>and track record are not impressive to me.  I, and perhaps others here,
>might take you more seriously if you made an effort to evaluate statements
>more logically, and be more consistent in your application of reasoning.

Is this ad hominem attack of yours an example of logical reasoning?  Perhaps,
since it is slightly more subtle than the usual name-calling, you haven't
even realized that it is ad hominem?  As for my "credentials and track record"
if it really matters to you I will put my understanding of baseball 
statistics up against your's anytime at all.  And from what I have seen
of your postings I will put my knowledge of baseball history up against
your's as well.  But, unlike yourself, I am not so insecure as to have to 
constantly remind the other netters just what my "credentials" are.

And that is what this attack is all about isn't it?  You thought I was 
calling you a teenage softball player.  Perhaps "if you made an effort
to evaluate statements more logically" you wouldn't get involved in so
many flame wars.

As for "pontificating", do you mean those who vocally disagree with the 
stathead model and refuse to be chased off like the Blickhan's have been?  
Just as you try to come to an understanding that Bonds is the best player
because of some statistical categories you feel are relevant, I am trying
to understand if I am prepared to call a player the "best" who has not 
yet proved that he can contribute to a WS winner.  And I can take the 
jokes from the simpletons who think that I am saying that Alfredo must
be the better player because he has more rings.  Is that the "high 
ground" that you refer to?

You want some pontificating?  How's this:

Gary, there are some intelligent and creative people in the world, 
whose basic grasp of reality goes far beyond the simplistic one-
dimensional understanding prevalent here, and who object vehemently 
to the scientification of all glorious pursuits.  We find it truly
repugnant and can only conclude that those who pursue this mode of
thinking are philistines and do it only because they don't know any
better.  The net has been a little fiefdom for these nerds because
up until recently the net has only been available to the scientific
community.  But things are changing.  Five years from now the SDCN
will be a fringe character on this net just as s/he is in real life.
Right up there on the same shelf as the "trekkies".  And I am going to 
hang in and watch it happen.  I can't wait to see the formation of
the "rec.sport.baseball.stathead" group and all the self-justifications
that we, the anti-stats, will have to endure as the lot of you are
chased off.  

I am really getting tired of your nonsense.

rm

-- 
Roger Maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball