From: mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Subject: Re: season over for SDCNs?
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 20:36:21 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM Corp. Kingston NY

In article <1992Oct7.014244.9150@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Over and Out Maynard) writes:
|In <1992Oct06.232103.22841@watson.ibm.com> mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:
|>In article <1992Oct6.215135.28474@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger "Ramjet" Maynard) writes:
        [annoying and insulting diatribe about statheads]
|>Yo! Rog! Been getting that message a bit garbled, I think! It's a bit of a
|>logical jump from "short series don't prove which team is better" to "short
|>seresi tells us only which team is the 'luckiest'", but you made it in a
|>breeze, you old syllogistical kangaroo! Nice opening insult, too. A bit more
|Not quite sure what you mean about the leap.  If the short series does not
|prove which team is the best and it does not prove which team is the luckiest
|what then does it prove?

Obviously. You, in your neverending quest to prove that you can
misunderstand anything said by anyone, took the claim, which has been made
and abundantly supported by various statheads, that "short series don't
prove which team is better" and twisted it so you could claim that the
stathead position was "short series tell us only which team is the
luckiest". The frightening thing is that you've convinced me that you may
really not be able to tell the difference.
 
|>subtle than your usual. I'll have you know that as an STCN (that's "Tipsy";
|>I haven't made it all the way to "Drunk" yet), I find your attitude pretty
|>obnoxious. In fact, I do believe that one of the A's, Jays, Braves, and
|>Pirates is the best team in baseball. I just don't believe that the LCS and
|>the WS is going to tell us which one of them is *the* best. It *will* tell
|>us that one of them is the champion, and that's plenty exciting for me.
|Well if the Champions are not the best team and they are not the luckiest 
|team what exactly are they?  The best team over a 7 game period?  Is that
|more meaningful than being best over 162 games?  If not, what is all of
|the excitement all about?

They are the Champions. They are not necessarily the best, and not
necessarily the luckiest. The excitement is about the fact that a lot of
people are interested in who the Champion will be. Come on, Roger, this is
English. I haven't used a single number! It should be understandable for
even you.
 
|>>be satisfied to know that over the long haul their team tied for the
|>>overall best record in the AL?  If the Jays should get "lucky" and
|>If their team doesn't win the LCS or the WS, they should take a goodly
|>amount of satisfaction from it. The Jays had a very good year, and they
|>should be proud of it even if they get swept by the A's (which would
|>surprise me greatly).
|Blue Jay fans are damn tired of the "very good year".  It may seem arrogant
|in Cleveland perhaps, but anything less than a WS appearance will be con-
|sidered a failure by most Toronto fans.

Then some Blue Jay fans (I'm sure it's not all of them, and I'd bet it's not
even most) are arrogant bastards who don't deserve such a good team.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Success is a rare paint, hides all the ugliness.
	- John Suckling (1609-1642)
From: boell@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Donald P Boell)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:03:01 GMT
Subject: Larussa errors cost A's games 3 and 4
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server