From: crichar@eskimo.celestial.com (Craig Richardson)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:56:00 GMT


I realize this is a little late, but I thought I still had some valid things
to say.  Forgive me if this has been said more eloquently by others in the
meantime (this site tends to be 1-3 days behind in news :-( ).

In article <3OCT199211534060@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>In article <17865@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu 
>     (Gary Didi Seven Huckabay) writes...
>>Why do many of the people here consider the 'statheads' or, 'SDCNs'
>>arrogant?
[snip]
>(2) It doesn't stop at "indignant."  There is name-calling (and you, yes
>    you, Mr. Huckabay, are one of the chief perpetrators).  Yes, I know
>    the non-statheads will resort to name-calling as well, but I have seen
>    you do it first and often.  I have seen Valentine do it first and often.
>    (Roger Maynard calls people names as well, in all fairness to you - I
>    consider this treatment unjust and unprofessional from both sides.)

This is true - it's not an argument against statheads in general, just against
the level of discourse.  Both "sides" (why do there have to be sides?  We're
all here to discuss baseball - and hopefully to discover something about this
game we ALL [even we statheads] love) share the responsibility for, at times,
dragging the level of discourse down to where it lies on the other rec.sport
groups.

[snip]
>>On the contrary, to me, it is those who hang on to their own
>>observations, however limited and subjective they might be, in the
>>face of hard evidence, who would best be described as arrogant.
>
>    Indicate a tendency on the part of the stathead to recognize him/her
>    self as the only true baseball fan.  This is also unjust.

Uh, oh, here comes a stathead coming to another's defense :-).  This is 
frustration speaking.  I have seen this tendency more from the anti-statheads
who dismiss any statistical argument.  Some "statheads" need to learn that
the numbers aren't *everything*, but REAL(tm) statheads know this already.

>(4) The statheads are first to flame the fans of lowly teams.  I have had
>    to take more shit for the Indians than I would care to say (although,
>    in all fairness, I was a supporter of the Swindell trade, which is to
>    many an unreasonable position), and yet I never resort to flaming fans
>    of other teams - even other teams that finish last.  It's bad enough
>    to deal with the angst of a sorry team without listening to Valentine
>    flame every move they make, or Ms. Nichols state that she has as much
>    insight to other teams' front offices as do the locals, or the 
>    redoubtable Dr. Tate constantly asking "why?  why must we believe the
>    Indians will ever be anything other than what they are?"  This is grating.

Now, as a stathead *and* a follower of the acknowledged worst team in baseball,
I think I take exception to this...  Rarely have I seen a stathead flame a
team.  Flaming GM's for pulling a brick is another matter.

Oh, and "Ms. Nichols" *does* have as much insight into other teams' front
offices as do the locals :-).

[snip]
>(6) You have created an entire class of "underground statheads" who are
>    even bigger flamers than you people are publicly.  Consider this 
>    statement from Ward Larkin, saved in my files for just such an occasion:

I am mostly a lurker, because of the newsfeed lag at this site and because
others often say the same thing as I would and I'm not into wasting bandwidth
(except for this post, of course).  But I've never done anything like this
and I resent being tarred with the same brush.

But if these guys weren't "underground statheads", they'd be something else.

Infantile flamers are part of life on the net.  Learn to live with it.

>(7) You people are like statistical fundamentalists: your pure doctrine
>    is more important than your relationships with people.  You make
>    statements that are true, such as 

Pardon me, but I don't think I understand this one.  I value both statistics
and people.  But there are people on *both sides* of this who only care about
their preconceived notions.  But "statheads" such as Sherri, Gary, and
Dr. Dave are not, for the most part.

>(8) If there is no analysis involved in a subjective opinion, why not
>    just present the opposing numbers and leave it at that?  No, it'll
>    not happen.  You'll just pop the subjective person's quote in your
>    .sig file, as is done in any talk.* group.
>
>>I have not seen one SDCN here who is unwilling to listen and respond
>>to a well reasoned argument, provided there's some evidence to be had
>>there.
>
>Maybe so, but not unless there are numbers, preferably real and not 
>integer.

"Evidence" is, of course, the key word.  Observation of the game is like
eyewitness testimony.  Important, yes, but fallible.  Physical evidence
(read "correctly analyzed statistical information") is how you get
"convictions".

>And I am still a *huge* baseball fan.  No-one can change that.

Here's the key point.  I am a *huge* baseball fan too.  I enjoy being one of
the 8,000 sitting in our very own King County Mushroom, and have for years.
I also enjoy analysis of the game, trying to *discover* something that
*cannot* be seen by observation (finite observation, of course).

But "no-one" is trying to change that.  What the "statheads" are trying to
do is to get you to look at the game in a different way, one that might tell
you something and actually *improve* your enjoyment (it has for me), as well
as helping you to see through the fog of misinformation that clouds the game.

Long-windedly yours,
--Craig
Proud to be a SDCN
-- 
Craig S. Richardson (crichar@eskimo.celestial.com)
GM Pullman Sleepers (OBFBL) I've looked at backs that pushed the wall for years
GM Seattle Rainiers (IFL)   Scarred by many knives and too much fear
GM/Man Wis. T'wolves (IBL)  --Big Country - "Just A Shadow"
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball