From: carlr@cpqhou.compaq.com (Carl Rempert)
Subject: Ok
Reply-To: carlr@cpqhou.UUCP (Carl Rempert)
Organization: Compaq Computer Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:32:26 GMT

Now that the smoke has somewhat cleared(?), I feel it is time to respond.

My "Prove your statement" post, as it is affectionately referred as, was
worded that way for a reason.  It was meant to illicit a particular response,
which it did.  Yes, it was rude.  The tone and content of the post was taken
basically from a compilation of posts I have saved.  I made a point of saving
only the ones from netters who post most often.  The response was extremely 
interesting.  What I found extremely interesting, although not surprising,
was that the initial response was not how rude the post was.  Rather it was
"How dare you question our authority".  The rudeness part was thrown in as
an afterthought.  I also found it interesting that offense was taken to
a response given regularly by some of the netters here.  

Now to me it doesn't matter to me if you use RC, OPS, or for that matter a
Ouija board to base your opinion on.  All opinions are valid until proven
wrong.  Nothing irks me more than to have someone say "I have proven my 
opinion is more valid than yours because I put so-and-so in a computer 
simulation and this is what happened".  Statements have been made here (and
you know who you are) that computer simulations are valid ways to project
performance.  I don't buy it.  Want an example of why I don't buy it.
I'll give you two.  After the Kevin Mitchell trade it was stated on here that
he was projected to hit at least 40 home runs in Seattle.  This statement
was based on a computer simulation.  Well, guess what.  He won't hit that many
homers.  In fact he'll be lucky if he hits 20.  Phil Plantier was projected
to hit .300 with 25 to 40 homers.  Mind you these are only two of many
such projections that have fallen off their mark.  

I have posted numerous opinions that were attacked for lacking validity, i.e.
they were not statistically driven.  I was the only one who stated that 
Craig Biggio would make the move to 2nd and in fact probably excel at the 
position.  I stated that I thought Plantier was extremely over-rated in this
newsgroup, and in fact would be no better than a .250-.270 hitter with 15-25
home run capabilities.  I stated that Bret Barbarie was not even close to the
hitter a lot of netters here were claiming.  While a number of you were 
expounding the virtues of Al Osuna, I stated he was not consistent enough to
be a closer at this time.  I stated that Curt Schilling did not have the
mental approach it takes to be a closer and that he would be better suited
to be a starting pitcher.  

The point being that I did not use a bit of statistical data to make the above
statements.  And at this point in time, these statements are on the mark.
Again, to me it doesn't matter how you form your opinions.  Regardless of how
the opinion is formed, it is not more valid than anyone elses opinion until
it is proven right or wrong.  You tell me that Plantier is a .300 hitter due
to statistical projection.  I tell you he is no more than a .260 hitter 
because he has an extremely flawed swing that pitchers will take advantage of
when they get their book on him.  Who is more right?

One more point and I'll get off my soapbox.  Frank Thomas is god on this
newsgroup and it has been stated how "stat-heads" saw his coming from afar.
I almost get the impression that individuals here think they were the only
ones who saw his capabilities.  If I recall right, wasn't he a high 1st
round pick of the White Sox?  It hardly seems like sabermetric people were
the only ones to see his potential.  In fact, it is most probable that
the White Sox selected him because of the input from their scouting corp.
Sorry I just get tired of seeing individuals here wave FT around as an 
example of their prowess in projecting talent.  

By the way, don't feel embarassed for me, Greg.  I was merely testing the
bounds of reality.  

You know, stat-heads and anti-stat people can co-exist, as long as neither
group gets an holier than thou attitude.  So people, post your opinions. 
And let he (or she) who is without fault cast the first stone.