From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:19:03 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec16.210013.10713@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>  
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
> In <1992Dec16.155127.10035@cs.cornell.edu> tedward@cs.cornell.edu  
(Edward [Ted] Fischer) writes:
> >That is the most ridiculous statement I've seen in ages.  And I'm  
not
> >even taking it out of context!
> 
> >I'll take Alfredo Griffin, thank you very much.  "So should every  
team
> >in baseball.  At least in '92.  Because the team he played for won  
it
> >all, and that's all there is to win...".
> 
> Can you prove to me that in '92 the Jays would have won without  
Griffin?
> (or Gaston or any other member of the team).  No you can't and  
until you can
> prove it you cannot tell me that any member of the team was more  
important
> than any other if importance is defined as being necessary to  
winning the WS. 

Nor can you prove that he WAS necessary;  I'm sure that better
cases can be made that he wasn't than you can make that he
was.  

> 
> >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
> 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).

If by "impossible" you mean "impossible to say with 100% certainty,"
then you are right. There is a margin of error in just about
anything. But we can say these things with greater than 90%
certainty and often with greater than 90% certainty, and baseball
history backs us up.  

Also, baseball is not basketball or football. Your argument is
much more valid with either of those sports (though you can
still often make projections of what would have happened if
player X were replaced by player Y).  Both basketball and
football are much more team sports. Baseball by and large, while
played by teams, is a one-on-one sport.  The contributions of
individuals can be much more easily isolated than they can
in other sports.

> 
> 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.

Ah, you are a rare sports fans.  You must be the only one who
doesn't spend at least some of his/her time speculating about
what might have been, or talking about what might have been
with your friends.  What would the Red Sox have done had
MacNamara replaced Buckner in '86?   What would the Packers have
done had so-and-so thrown a pass instead of running the ball?
What would Mark McQuire do if he played in Fenway instead of
in Oakland (not to happen, sigh!)?  Most of us like talking about
these kinds of things, but I guess we shouldn't since it is
purely idle.

> 
> >Cito the most successful manager in 1992?  Of course.  Was he the
> >best?  Not by any normal definition of "best".  (I know.  You  
prefer
> >your own dictionary, in which "best" and "most successful" are
> >synonyms.  Why don't you just accept that the rest of the world
> >defines the terms differently?)

Most of the world does NOT confuse the two, especially in cases
as complex as this.  A manager has to have the horses, as the
saying goes.  A manager without much of a team who manages that
team into contention may be less successful (has fewer wins) than
the manager who has lots of talent on his team and has a few more
wins.  But a good case can be made for the former manager having
had a better season, even if a "less sucessful" one.

> 
> 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.
> 
> a pleasure, as always,

The difference is that one is defined as single number (most wins)
or a single thing (winner of the World Series), the other
is more complex (but certainly not meaningless). Is it meaningless
to talk about the best hitter in baseball or the best pitcher, just
because there may be some difference of opinion.  It may not
be like best BA (for which it's easy to say who is "best"), but
that doesn't mean a good case can't be made for one person or
anther being the best hitter or best pitcher.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com