From: thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley)
Subject: Re: Value of Stats
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 04:51:11 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.200202.15313@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:
>In <1992Jul27.153614.27645@adobe.com> snichols@adobe.com (Sherri Nichols) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul25.030944.22822@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (roger maynard) writes:
>
>>Why do you think that number of World Series rings is a useful determiner
>>of value?  It takes a lot of luck to get through two 7-game series
>>successfully.  Ernie Banks never got a World Series ring.  Ted Williams
>>never got a World Series ring.  Does that make Kirby Puckett a better
>>player than Ted Williams?  Is Mickey Hatcher a better player than Ted Williams?
>
>I think we have had this dance before.  Mickey Hatcher?  
>
However, you must admit that Randy Bush is twice as good as Mickey Hatcher.

>IF, going into an infinite series, two teams were statistically equal - very 
>big IF - AND one team was to win a significantly greater amount of games than 
>the other team, you would attribute the total difference to luck.  I would 
>attribute some of that difference to luck and some of that difference to
>the slippery essence of all human endeavors.  No, I don't know what that essence
>is nor do I know how to measure it.  When people talk about character or
>attitude they are trying to describe it.  I can't do much better than that. 
>I am not arrogant enough to assume that reality is only that which can be 
>measured.  The sun used to revolve around the earth.  Aristotle measured it.
>
If one team won a significantly greater amount of games in a finite series,
I would conclude that that team was the better one, even if the stats were
otherwise identical.  (By "significant", of course, I mean statistically
significant.  Note that a sweep of a seven-game series is not sufficient
to conclude that one team is better, even by the loosest significance
level used.)  If the difference is not statistically significant, then
obviously luck could be the deciding factor, and there is no basis to claim
that some undefined essence was involved.

Further, you're claiming that an undefined essence exists, then trying to
define it.  Instead of calling it "fitness to win" (a la Fred Jane), you
are calling it "character" and "attitude", and assuming that it consists of
a certain type of character or attitude, and claiming you can tell it from
television sound bites and demonstrably unreliable newspaper reports.

Nor has any stathead in the current thread claimed that "reality is only
that which can be measured".  We have claimed that we can measure only that
which can be measured.  Some players may be better or worse than their
individual stats, possibly by a large amount.  However, we can't measure
it, and therefore we cannot claim that one player is better than another
based on intangibles.  Anybody who thinks he or she can sounds *real*
arrogant to me.

BTW, your history of science is also faulty.

>It is almost a question of faith.  I have faith in something that you don't
>have faith in.  That faith makes my life a little richer.  And knowing that
>my faith is unfounded probably makes your life a little richer - either way
>there is not much to be gained by fighting over it.
>
It *is* a question of faith, the way you put it.  You have faith in
sportswriters and television interviews, and I don't have faith in those
things.  Whether this makes your life richer or not is a matter of
question.  (Ever wonder how life would be if the Weekly World News was
accurate reportage?)

For what it's worth, my idea of a rich life is one in which I see things
and learn things.  One good way to do this is to drop faith when it can be
replaced by observation and reasoning.  If you have faith in too many
things, you don't see the real world.  To wander back to baseball, if you
have faith that Lansford is a good fielder, you won't *see* him as he
fields.  If you have faith that Rickey Henderson is a clubhouse cancer,
you won't *see* him at the plate.

David Thornley
"Lonnie Smith is playing in deep left field.  John Smoltz is pitching.
Al Newman is at bat.  What is the sound of the ball meeting the glove?"
-Traditional Zen koan.