From: kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose)
Subject: Re: R.S.BB FAQ V1.22 (9/25/92)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 10:51:28 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Oct1.014709.20685@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <0g!p=3b@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose) writes:
>
>>      Also, the group dynamics here are interesting.  Several of the fans
>>here are interested in sabermetrics, a term coined to describe the study of
>>baseball statistics.  This group includes many of the more prominent posters
>
>What is the purpose of this sentence?  Every poster on this net is equally
>"prominent".  Wipe the brown stuff off your nose Kurt...
>
Sorry, but I can't let this go.  In the first place, every poster on this
net is NOT "equally prominent".  David Tate is prominent.  Check the group on
any given day and you will probably find a dozen posts from him on all sorts
of subjects, and that's if he hasn't found a discussion that suits him.  Gary
Huckabay is prominent.  I doubt a new reader of R.S.BB could go for a week
without hearing about Gary.  Roger Maynard is prominent.  Mike Fester is
prominent.  

Karen Kuder, on the other hand, is not particularly prominent.  Not that there's
anything wrong with her (far from it; I've gotten nice suggestions about the 
list from her), but usually her name isn't plastered over every article.

>>are welcome to post, note that we've heard most of it before.  Just to set
>>the record straight, the more numbers-minded folk are just as knowledgeable
>>about the game as their old-school counterparts, watch as many games, in some
>>cases even play the game at competitive levels.  Many of them can converse
>
>Hardly.  Certainly some of them are more so.  But from what I can see the
>vast majority of so-called "statheads" don't get any closer to the game
>than the morning newspaper.
>

Such as???

>>as easily about swings and mechanics as they can about DA and OPS*.  For the
>>most part, they are just using their skills to enjoy and understand the game
>>as much as people who don't stare at the Sunday paper with a calculator in
>>hand.  Who knows?  They might even be able to do a good job managing a team.
>>(Other "stat-heads" include Dave Johnson, Tony LaRussa, Earl Weaver, and 
>>Branch Rickey.)
>
>Now you have gone beyond the realm of mildly amusing.  This is truly hilarious.
>
>If you are going to do this faq thing Kurt, you have to try to be at least a
>little impartial.  

I _am_.  Take a wild shot at just what the single biggest fricking question that
comes across in this group is.  Guess for us just what has been asserted time
and time again, even just up above, and pray, tell us what you feel is the #1
post that comes from a new user whose only exposure to baseball is getting
drunk in the bleacher seats (granted, a highly spiritual experience) and logs on
to this group for the first time only to find that a bunch of people with pen,
paper, and a pocket calculator are saying things about heir "hero" that happens
to conflict with what Joe Q. Jock said in the newsroom last night.

I can tell you right now.

"You people aren't REAL fans!  You probably don't get any closer to a game than
the morning newspaper.  Cecil Fielder is incredible, because nobody else could
get all those RBIs.  In fact, he was ROBBED last year!  Because Joe Q. Jock said
so, and _he's_ a TV announcer!  What have _you_ done?  You probably don't even
know what a curve ball is, you LOSERSSSSSSSSSS!!!!"

That usually brings Gary out with his offer to hit a home run off of any one of
youses.  Which starts off another round of how David Tate is so arrogant and
five or six of the people here gang up and bully any different opinion that
dares to rear its head.

I thought I'd try to be a little more diplomatic about it.

This document is a Frequently Asked Questions List, and the Most Frequently
Asked Question here is "Why are you geeks posting when you've probably never
even seen a baseball in your life?"

I answered it.  And I happen to think it's a damn good answer.  And it's stayingright there, at least until the next article is composed.

About that FAQ article.  Dave Tate and I were discussing it a bit last week, and
one of the things he wanted to do was get one person to write about the place
of the "stathead" in the field in general, and allow another person the same 
amount of space to write a flip side to that, about how important team chemistry
is, as well as leadership, "heart", and intangibles.  In short, why not to judge
a player by the place of the decimal point.  

I'd like to invite you to write that, if you wish.  Thirty-six columns, eighty
characters wide, completely unretouched by anyone other than yourself.  A free
offer, one discussed and proffered before this post or any other anticipated
attack on the idea.  It's been public knowledge that the numbers are going to
be crunched in this second FAQ for months.  Your article, if you wish to write
it, with no changes, even to the insertion of spelling errors.  No rebuttal, no
retribution.  If you want to spend the whole 36 lines calling me an ass-kissing
brownnose, I'll print it, word for word.  And it STAYS in that post, unless you
decide to change it.

Ask, and the space is yours.  Decline, and I will ask someone else.

I realize it is an enormous undertaking and I give you
>credit for doing it.  I certainly couldn't.  But this is not rec.sport.SDCN.
>
Well, if it were, I would have posted in binary...

>Otherwise, a very fine job.  Thank you.

You're welcome.

(Oh, BTW, you never sent me that KILL file to include...:)

-- 
Kurt Bose (as in Daisy, not Rose) * kbos@carina.unm.edu * Make..oh, you know.---
-"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is--
--no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors.  The cause of the other-
---half can be attributed to playing Jose Offerman at short." - John Stuart Mill
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball