From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:47:30 GMT

In <1992Dec17.070758.4386@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>But why do you hold baseball to a higher standard than any other part
>of life?  Can you prove that food was more important to your health
>yesterday than watching TV?  Of course not.  Just because eating has been
>shown over millions of years to be important to your health, while the
>importance of watching TV has not been shown, doesn't mean that
>*yesterday* watching TV wasn't as important as eating.  You watched TV
>and you ate yesterday.  You stayed healthy.  No point in any more
>conversation.  Food+TV was a success.  Trying to separate the two just
>leads to error, "because you don't know the complete extent of that
>[object's] contribution."  Everything else is "meaningless" "speculation."

Alfredo was employed in an attempt to win the WS.  TV was not employed
as a means to better health.

>>>It is a stupid statement because it says nothing of interest.  Was

>>What says "nothing of interest" is comparing one player in a hypothetical
>>situation to another.  Much was said this fall about how Abbott would have
>>done in Jack Morris' shoes.  This is absurd.  It is impossible and 
>>therefore has no relevance to baseball in the real world.  You cannot

>Really?  Do you mean to say that Pat Gillick doesn't go around thinking
>about whether to acquire Jack Morris or Jim Abbott?  Really?  You mean
>he doesn't think it has relevance to baseball?   I think *that's* absurd.

Certainly Gillick does have these concerns.  In fact he traded this off-season
for Sojo because he is not sure that Alfredo can duplicate his WS winning
performance of last year.

>>isolate the contribution of any one player to the team effort because you
>>don't know the complete extent of that players contribution.  What is really
>>silly is when you attempt to sum the isolated contributions to get the 
>>total measure of a team's quality.  You have just compounded your original
>>error by 25 (the number of players).

>But you're ignoring empirical evidence that you are wrong.  We *can*
>predict how many runs a team will score from the players' individual
>stats.  We *can* predict how many wins a team will get from the runs
>scored and allowed.  

But you can't predict who will win the WS.  And that is the point.  You
are claiming that what you can measure is important in a vain attempt to
defend your pointless act of predicting.  In other words, what you are
predicting has no value.  

>The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it less true.  Baseball
>is not voodoo.  You can't disbelieve sabermetrics and have it disappear.

Certainly I understand it.  What is not understood here is that you have
been skewered by Hume's fork.

>>What is really stupid and of little interest is to claim that any manager
>>was "better" than Gaston in '92.  We know that the team that employed Gaston
>>won.  We will never know whether or not that team would have won with any
>>other manager and any speculation on this issue is purely idle.

>If it wasn't of interest, it wouldn't be discussed, so you're just wrong.

I should have had "really stupid and of little interest" in quotes I guess.
I took that from Valentine's ranting about my point of view.  It seems to
me that the issue of whether we can inductively support the inductive model 
of reasoning is not stupid and is not of little interest.

>It IS of interest, because what we care about is who will help a
>team in 1993, not who helped in 1992.  A manager that was "better" in
>1992, and also 1990 and 1991, is more likely to be "better" in 1993 also.

We have to care about the future performances because we cannot be sure that
the players we have will perform at the same level as they did the previous
year.  And since the only accurate way to measure the level of an individual's
performance is by counting the rings on his hand if we are wrong about the
player's ability to equal his previous performance we will not find out until
it is too late.

>>What you consider the "best" is meaningless.  The fact that so many argue 
>>about just what the "best" is should be your first clue.  The fact that
>>nobody argues about who the "most successful" is should be your second.

>No, it certainly is NOT meaningless.  No one goes around arguing about
>who won the World Series last year.  That should tell *you* something.  
>They're interested in who is going to win the WS *THIS* year.  

So am I.  The difference in philosophy might be reflected in our approaches
to managing a defending champion.  I would try to hold as much of the old 
team together as possible (within reason) while you would try to rebuild it 
if it didn't fit your model of "best".

>That means what you need to know is who will help the team *this* year.
>And that involves knowing what helps teams and who provides that help.

>Of *course* best != most successful.

Ok, you can have the best team and I will take the most successful!

>Why do you bother to respond if you don't care?  Just because *you*
>can't understand a more complex concept than a yes-no won-lost one
>doesn't mean that (at least some of) the rest of the world can't.

If you really think I am that stupid then "why do you bother to respond?"
This discussion gives rise to more interesting issues than who will or 
will not win the WS.  Or don't you think so?

a pleasure, as always,

rm


-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca