From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Maynard Ex Ante
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:35:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.153206.1989@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1gsk97INNt3t@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>>>The true probability of any team's success is unknown if we cannot determine
>>>all of the premisses.  And we can't.  That is exactly my point.  The true
>>> odds of any team winning the WS cannot be determined.  Too many variables.

>>You are fuzzing the issue again, talking about true odds. If by this
>>you mean: do we know exactly the chances, with no margin for
>>error, the answer is, of course not. There are variables, as you
>>say. But not being able to say EXACTLY does not mean that we can't
>>say anything.  Or do you really think the Marlins are as likely
>>as the Jays to win the series next year?

>Can you put a number on it?  Can you say how much more likely one team will
>win than the other?  If you can't measure it how do you know it's really
>there?  Sounds a little like one of Dr. Dave's explanations of intangibles
>to me.  Luck. 
 
No, not true at all.  Is Bill Clinton taller than Ross Perot?  Yes.  Can
I put a number on it?  Not exactly, no.  I can make an estimate, of
course, but I can't say precisely how much taller he is.  That doesn't
invalidate the point that he *is* taller.

Is he *friendlier* than Ross Perot?  Now *that's* an intangible.

Furthermore, the real reason I can't is because there *are* things that
I don't know.  Is the manager going to lead off with Mike Devereaux
"because he's fast"?  Is the manager going to play Billy Ripken "because
he's related to Cal Ripken"?  Is the manager going to play Glenn Davis
"because we traded for him, and we wouldn't want that trade to be a
waste"?  Is Tim Leary going to break Chris Hoiles's wrist with a pitch?

>>So, if someone in the street, who never even watched a baseball
>>game, comes up to you and says "I think the Marlins are going
>>to win it all next year," his opinion is just as well founded as yours?

>Not likely.  The people who make these kinds of pronouncements while
>having never watched a game are most likely statheads and they are 
>generally a confused lot.

Why do you continually post ad homenims which are just plain wrong, as
well as stupid?  Can you name even *1* stathead who has never watched a
game?  No, of course not.  The morons who can't understand statistics
and so denigrate them are the only people who would give an idiotic
non-response like this to the above question.  (See, I can do it too.)

Anyway, you just admitted that his opinion *isn't* as well-founded as
yours, because he has never watched a game and is therefore a stathead
and is thus confused.

So you admit that some opinions have less value than others, even
though they are all opinions.  Wow.  What a concession.  Roger admits
that he's been wrong all along.

>>I'm also confused by your use of the term "subjective."  You went
>>(a few paragraphs back) from saying that nothing we can predict
>>is "exact" (which is true, but misleading the way you stated it)
>>to saying that all our knowledge about baseball is "subjective"
>>(which is nonsense).  There is just too much hard evidence out
>>there that can be used in prediction, and that has worked in the
>>past. Has it worked exactly?  No, there are other factors that
>>can modify it. But this does not mean that it is somehow subjective.  

>Yes you are partially right. There is hard evidence that is objective.  
>However unless the predictive process does work exactly we cannot
>call it objective.  Non-objective is better than subjective in this case.

Closer, but still incorrect.  It might be "wrong," or it might be
"inexact," but it *is* objective.  You don't seem to understand the
meaning of the word.

If I roll 2 dice 100 times, I can make predictions about what numbers
will come up.  The fact that these predictions will not be 100% correct
does NOT make them subjective at all.

>>Actually, when you talk about the best TEAM, you have a point.
>>A good defintion of the best team IS the one that won the
>>series.  However, you took this a step furhter than that. You
>>then said that, since the Jays were the best team, Cito had
>>to be the best manager. Someone pointed out to you that this,
>>by analogy, means that Alfredo Griffen was the best shortstop,
>>and you agreed.  The Jays being the best team does NOT mean

>No, I said that you cannot prove that there is a better manager than
>Cito or that there is a better utility infielder than Griffin.  I did
>not say that they were the "best".  The "best" cannot be determined.

Again, you can't "prove" anything.  No one can.  You can only provide 
evidence to support a particular claim.  If the person refuses to accept the
evidence as proof, though, there is nothing you can do.  

The best cannot be determined *precisely*, but it can be determined.
The fact that this determination is not *exact* does not mean that it is
completely incorrect.

>>that they had the best player at each position, and that they
>>had the best manager. It just means that the sum total of the
>>package was the best.

>>middle).  But the point you started out on was that
>>"if Tornonto was the best team, Cito had to be the best manager."
>>This simply does NOT follow.

>You are right in that it does not follow.  In fact the antecedents to
>"Cito is the best (or worst) manager" are unknown and are probably ;^)
>unknowable.

So why did you say it?
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina