From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:41:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.030347.22009@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <1992Dec17.002229.28458@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> nlu@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Nelson Lu) writes:
>>In <1992Dec16.222334.13983@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> (Roger Maynard) writes:

>>>the functions or purposes of a cigarette lighter and the drive train are
>>>not the same.  the cigarette lighter makes no claim that it contributes
>>>to my safe arrival.  A better comparison is the tiny jet in my carburetor 
>>>and the drive shaft.  I wouldn't have made it without either.

>>Why?  Prove it! :-)

>Well I don't really like these analogies because sooner or later they break
>down.  I guess taking the drive shaft out of the car might be like taking the
>shortstop off of the field.  perhaps the carburetor is the 1b man.  Do you
>really want me to prove that a team that only fields 7 players can't win a
>major league game?

No, you really don't like these analogies because sooner or later they
show how silly your position is.

Taking Alfredo Griffin off the roster *IS* the equivalent of removing
the cigarette lighter, not the drive shaft or the carburetor.  But we're
NEVER discussing removing a player from the team; we're discussing
replacing that player with someone else.  

Would a *different* carburetor have gotten the car home more efficiently?
Will a *different* drive shaft get the car to a more distant destination
than the current one would?  What will happen on the *next* trip home?
These are all questions we're interested in.

Not, obviously, if all we care about is "did we get home yesterday?"
But that's rarely all we're interested in.

You wouldn't run your life on that concept.  "Well, sure that tire looks
worn through.  But it worked last time, and that's all we care about.
Will it work again?  Sorry, that's just  meaningless, idle speculation, 
and it's silly.  I won't discuss it.  It's meaningless.  Only a
dork-scientist-stathead would care about things like that."

>>But if you want to use "claim" of contribution, then this is senseless.
>>Griffin, for example, makes no claim either that he's an essential part of
>>the Blue Jays' success.  So what does that tell you?  Nothing.  David Cone
>>didn't make that kind of a claim either.  What does that tell you?  Nothing.

>I guess you are saying that these players did not accept a share of the
>playoff and WS winnings?

Big deal.  If it were offered to me, I'd take it too.  That doesn't
mean I'm claiming I was important.  Just greedy.  :)

>>>Well yah, the car ran and I got home OK.  Should I consider a discussion
>>>worthwhile that centred on whether the drive shaft or the carberutor jet 
>>>was more important to my journey?  Furthermore, should I feel safer knowing
>>>that I had the best jet and the best drive shaft before the journey while 
>>>not even understanding that there is far more to the car than those 2 parts?

>>Prove that Griffin is as important as a drive shaft.  If you can't, don't
>>bother asking anyone to prove anything from now on.

>Nope.  They won with Griffin.  If you think they could have won without him
>then the onus is on you to prove it.  And you can't.  I can prove that they
>won with him.  And if you can't prove that they could have won without Griffin
>then you can't prove that Griffin was any less valuable to the team than
>Alomar.

The car worked with the cigarette lighter.  If you think that it
wouldn't then the onus is on you to prove it.  And you can't.  I can
prove that it worked with the lighter.  And if you can't prove that the
car could have worked without the lighter then you can't prove that the
lighter is any less valuable than the drive shaft.

Restating your own (indefensible) position does not constitute logical
proof of it, Roger.  It still doesn't make sense.  We can't PROVE that
*ANYTHING* in the past would or wouldn't have turned out differently if 
something different had happened.

Just like you can't prove that if I let go of this book right now, it
will fall.  You can show that it always has in the past, but that
certainly isn't proof.  You can do it right now, but that's a different
book, and it's a few minutes later.  That doesn't prove that it would
have if I had done it.

That doesn't make such a claim less valid, though.  Or your claim any
less silly.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball