From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Mattingly, what a fine fielder (was: Hardly not etc.)
Date: 7 Nov 92 06:00:16 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Nov6.194451.117@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.180753.839@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov05.005627.159157@zeus.calpoly.edu> jplee@zeus.calpoly.edu (Jason Lee) writes:

>>>pointless.  I haven't seen that many games this year, but I think to a
>>>certain extent I'm qualified to at least discuss baseball. 

>>You don't have to see any games to be "qualified" to discuss baseball.  

>This is just about the most rediculous statement I have ever seen any member
>of the FofDT Society post.  You seem to be suggesting that one could be
>"qualified" to discuss baseball if one had never seen even one game.
>Leaving aside the obvious question of why one would wish to discuss 
>something one had no first hand familiarity with, let me just point out
>that one does not have to see baseball if one wants to discuss baseball
>statistics, which after all, are nothing more than detailed second-hand
>descriptions of the real events.  Once again we have an example of the 
>fundamental SDCN confusion - Baseball is not statistics and statistics
>are not baseball.

Of course one could.  When you discuss baseball, what are you
discussing?  Rules, stats, history, etc.  You can discuss any of these
things without seeing a game.  You'd have a hard time discussing who
looked most graceful in the outfield last night, to be sure.  And you'd
have trouble discussing who looked worst up at the plate against
Eckersley last week.  But you could discuss who *did better* against
Eckersley.

>>>see one game, that certainly qualifies you to discuss is.  Mr. Loparco
>>>has the right idea here.  He says the only real way to judge a player is
>>>by watching him.

>>I disagree.  I think in many ways, that's the worst way to judge a player.

>I stand corrected.  You just outdid yourself.  I guess when you want to
>know what the weather is like outside you just flick the remote to the 
>weather channel right?

You know, Roger, I think this is a really good example.  If I want to
know whether it is raining outside in Princeton right now, I might want
to look out the window.  But if I want to know if it rained last week,
or if it is going to rain next week, then looking out the window won't
help.  And if I want to know if it is rainier here today than it is in
Los Angeles, then looking out the window won't help, even if I once
visited Los Angeles.  And if I want to know if it is *usually* rainier 
here than in Los Angeles, then looking outside won't help.

And is it hotter in Princeton in April than in Los Angeles in September?
Even if you've been to both places a LOT of times during the appropriate
month, can you really say that you can tell which was hotter
objectively?  You can certainly say that one of them *felt* hotter --
but maybe that was just humidity.  Or maybe you been in Alaska before
you had visited Los Angeles, making it feel warmer, while you had been
in Florida before Princeton, making it feel colder.

Now, which would you trust a year later -- the Weather Channel, plus 
weather maps, plus satellite photos, or your own memory?

>>>What difference does it make?  He said he *feels* that Mattingly is as
>>>good as McGwire.  Arguing about it is the whole fun of it.

>>It's one thing to say that I enjoy watching Mattingly play defense.  It's
>>another to say "Mattingly is the best defensive first baseman in baseball,
>>and anybody who thinks he's only average is clearly crazy."

>I guess if you don't understand the fundamentals of how a player should
>field a position, and I guess if you are unable to see whether one is an
>athlete or not then I guess you have no recourse.  One thing is for sure:
>if you don't watch any games you won't have a clue.  Then again, some 
>people spend half of their lives watching games and they don't have a 
>clue neither.

Oh, really?  You've spent that much of your life watching games?  :)
No, really, this is the point.  Watching games does *not* make you a
better judge, necessarily, than looking at the stats.

Quick -- who was a better hitter -- Ted Williams or Bob Uecker?   You 
never watched any games of either of them, did you? And yet I'll bet even 
*you* have a clue as to which one was better.  So why are you denying the 
same possibility to Mattingly vs. McGwire in fielding?

No one would *ever* judge a hitter mainly by his stance and swing --
that would be foolish.  David Segui looks really great at the plate, but
he can't hit.  Meanwhile, Dave Winfield has never looked very good at
the plate (to me) and yet he's an excellent hitter.

Who got more hits last year -- Willie McGee, with his awful looking
swing, or John Olerud, with his great swing?  Surprise!  It was Willie
McGee.  Who was better at basestealing -- Mike Devereaux, one of the
fastest guys in the league, or Ron Karkovice, a catcher?  Surprise!  Ron
Karkovice stole as many bases, and much more successfully.

But watching them certainly wouldn't have told you that, while the stats DO.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
niepornt@phoenix.    |------------------------------------ 
   princeton.edu     | "I still believe in a place called Hope."
Clinton/Gore '92.  Don't stop thinking about tomorrow.