From: dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Date: 28 Jul 92 17:54:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Factors of Ys, Inc.

In article <Bs3u7v.523@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> djohnson@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (David Johnson) writes:
>In article <3831@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:
>
>>How does it help to look at *lots* of biased reports?  They're all still
>>biased.  They aren't independent observations, either.
>
>Do you read the newspaper for anything other than stats? 

Sure.  I also look at injury reports, trades, signings, interesting bits of
history, fun anecdotes, and schedules.  I even read so-called "analysis" for
a bit of humor value.

(I assume you're talking about the sports pages here, which is what I was
 discussing in the article you referred to.  I give somewhat more credence
 to "real" news than to sports reporting.)


>Do you listen to the
>radio?  Do you watch TV.  If you answer ye to any of these my next question
>is why.  If you think that all reports are biased and can't be trusted then
>why the heck do you listen, read or watch them.

For amusement.  I just don't *believe* them, after having so much evidence to
hand that says it's mostly lies, misunderstandings, or sensationalism..

Have you ever been involved personally in a matter that received media 
attention, so that you had first-hand knowledge of things?  I have, on several
occasions.  In each case, the publicly-reported version of things was wrong
in several particulars, inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete.  My friends
who have been in similar situations report similar experiences.  In fact, I've
never met anyone who has been involved in a situation which was reported in a
way that managed to convey even the gist of the situation accurately.  Given
that, why am I supposed to believe that my friends and I have simply had an
extraordinary run of bad luck in this regard?

>Also extremely biased reports are mostly from media in the home town who
>really get to know the players well.  Get reports from different areas.

Great.  People who *don't* know the players or the team will give me a more
accurate view of the "inside story"?  Right.

>Also in your local newspaper learn about the writers and learn who can be
>trusted and who can't.  

The former category is a null set.

>Who can get the story correct and who can't.  Why do
>so many people not trust the media and assume they are all idiots who only
>write what they want whether true or not.  

Because that's what all our experience indicates?  Because the reporters
admit it openly?  

Why do you believe everything (or even anything) you read?

>Rather than assume the media is wrong why don't you look at the media's
>point of view and see if there is anything that you can observe to back up
>or shoot down the media's thoughts.

The media point of view is "sell newspapers" (or "sell advertising").  Oh,
there's also "win personal renown", as well.

>>And this still doesn't address the central issue that started the whole threa
>>which was this:  even if you *knew*, 100% sure, what a player's attitude was
>>like, how would you go about measuring how much performance you should be
>>willing to trade that off against?  When does difference in attitude outweigh
>>difference in play on the field?  If we can't ever know, then there's *no*
>>point in worrying about it.
>
>If you are 100% sure then why should you ignore it.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S WORTH!

Suppose you were toting up your personal net worth for purposes of applying
for a loan, or some such.  You stumble across something in the attic.  You
can see that it's an old coin of some kind, but you don't know what kind or
how much it's worth.  Do you include it in your total?  Do you assume that it
must be valuable?  Of course not.  And yet you seem perfectly willing to make
that sort of unjustified assumption about a given player's personality.


>  The value of the attitude
>also depends on the team.  If the team already has a good attitude then 
>bringing in a player who has been known to be a bit of a problem but is a
>quality player on the field may be worth it.  If the team has a bad attitude
>then trading away a little more quality for a good attitude may also be worth
>it.  If you want me to put a number on it I can't.

Exactly.  You can't.  Nobody can.  And yet you criticize us for not trying
to balance this non-quantity against what we *do* know about a player!  Just
how am I supposed to balance something that has no measure?


-- 
        David M. Tate        | "And that inverted Bowl we call The Dome
   dtate@unix.cis.pitt.edu   |  Whereunder crawling coop'd we field and bat,
   Edward "Mike" Fitzgerald  |     Lift not your eyes to *it* for help--for it
     from "The Ruthaiyat"    |  Will drop the tow'ring fly upon your hat."
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball