From: ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: na
Date:  3 Oct 1992 11:53 EST  

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?

Let me give you several reasons.

(1) The statheads show themselves to be the first to be indignant
    when something that doesn't fit the statistical picture is presented.

(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.)

(3) Statements like the following:

>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.

(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.

(5) You statheads, because you have been in this newsgroup a while and
    (I suppose) know each other well, defend each other, even in the face
    of the most rude behavior.  You have called me names to my very face,
    Mr. Huckabay, and Ms. Nichols has gone to bat on your behalf.  "I 
    think what Gary is trying to say is..."  Horse-hockey.  You people are
    sometimes rude, and the closest you will ever get to admitting it is
    to say "well, if I said something that offended you (and I doubt I
    ever did), I apologize."  (Ms. Nichols just got done with this.)

(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 hope your [sic] a parking lot attendant or a janitor...
	because you sure as hell are showing your stupidity.

    I call him on this statement and he won't back off.  It takes a lot
    of hard work to get into my kill file - and Larkin works that hard.

(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 

>If you judge ballplayers based solely on your observations and
>impressions, you are purposely limiting yourself in terms of the
>information available to you.  Statistics are nothing more than
>systematically recorded observations, made over time.  Observations
>that are, in general, far more free from subjective filtering than
>personal observation.

    But then you follow them up with

>In short, I don't feel as if anyone HERE has the right to call me, or
>any other SDCN here 'arrogant' about baseball.  On the contrary, I
>feel the burden of arrogance is upon those who refuse to open their
>minds, certain that THEIR method of analysis is superior to that of
>others.  

(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.

You'll flame me for saying these things, no doubt.  Oh, well.  That is
one way to ensure that people seldom point this sort of thing out to 
you in the future.  You statheads are often rude and insulting, and I
just don't care how much statistical evidence you bring to bear on how
many problems - I still want nothing to do with you.

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

RG

"I don't see why [the Indians] lose.  I really don't."  -  John Smiley
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball