From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 03:07:45 GMT

In article <Bs3u7v.523@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> 
djohnson@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (David Johnson) writes:
>In article <3831@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
dtate+@pitt.edu (David M Tate) writes:

>>How does it help to look at *lots* of biased reports?  They're all still
>>biased.  They aren't independent observations, either.

>Do you read the newspaper for anything other than stats? Do you listen to the
>radio?  Do you watch TV.  If you answer ye to any of these my next question
>is why.  If you think that all reports are biased and can't be trusted then
>why the heck do you listen, read or watch them.

For ALL KINDS of reasons other than trying to calculate "intangibles,"
silly!  Entertainment.  A good laugh.  A good quote.  Why do YOU think
that the reports are reliable and complete indicators of the
personalities and moods of ballplayers -- THAT is the question we'd like
to have answered!

>Also extremely biased reports are mostly from media in the home town who
>really get to know the players well.  

How do you know this?

>Get reports from different areas.

In other areas they tend to get most of their reporting of this kind
from the home team papers...besides, they ONLY print the sensational
stories about out-of-town players -- yet ANOTHER source of bias.

>Also in your local newspaper learn about the writers and learn who can be
>trusted and who can't.  

How does one do this?

>Who can get the story correct and who can't.  

How should I know?  I can't go following the reporters around.  What's
YOUR method for doing this?

>Why do
>so many people not trust the media and assume they are all idiots who only
>write what they want whether true or not.  

Because it's a safe null hypothesis.  I suggest you go and look at a
century of American sports and feature writing; there is so much fantasy
and filler and utter tripe and publicity and whatever else mixed in with
the facts (which are generally quite boring) that it's impossible to
winnow out the nuggets of truth.

>I will admit that some media
>people are idiots and shouldn't be trusted so don't listen to these people.

How do you know which are which?

>Rather than assume the media is wrong why don't you look at the media's
>point of view and see if there is anything that you can observe to back up
>or shoot down the media's thoughts.

I don't spend all day with the ballclub.  For that matter, neither do
most reporters.  Much of what gets printed is mere hearsay and rumor, in
fact.  

Face it: unless you know far more than the press, you won't be able to
pick apart what they say.

>>And this still doesn't address the central 
>>issue that started the whole thread,
>>which was this:  even if you *knew*, 100% sure, what a player's attitude was
>>like, how would you go about measuring how much performance you should be
>>willing to trade that off against?  When does difference in attitude outweigh
>>difference in play on the field?  If we can't ever know, then there's *no*
>>point in worrying about it.

>If you are 100% sure then why should you ignore it.  The value of the attitude
>also depends on the team.  If the team already has a good attitude then 
>bringing in a player who has been known to be a bit of a problem but is a
>quality player on the field may be worth it.  

Or it could destroy the good attitude.  How do you tell in advance?

>If the team has a bad attitude
>then trading away a little more quality for a good attitude may also be worth
>it.  

Or the new player who had a bad attitude had it because of his old club,
and suddenly FIXES your team's bad attitude.  How can you tell in
advance?

>If you want me to put a number on it I can't.

You can't even point to it.  You can't come up with any generalization,
any way of telling what is *going* to happen.  Your theory has zero
predictive value, which is to say that it's useless for picking players.

And since you're ALSO doing it based on faulty information, it's a waste
of time.

Roger

Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball