From: spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira)
Subject: Re: Blue Jays-Gillick
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:45:32 GMT
Organization: Boo!  

In <1992Dec18.233017.14333@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>In article <1992Dec18.002532.5364@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>In <1992Dec17.174319.13706@panix.com> spira@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>>>In <1992Dec17.030347.22009@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> (Roger Maynard) writes:

>Since I thought of the same batboy example just before I read this post,
>(you did it again, Greg), I'm morally obligated to respond to this:

It really is kind of spooky, David.

>>>>Nope.  They won with Griffin.  If you think they could have won without him
>>>>then the onus is on you to prove it.  And you can't.  I can prove that they
>>>>won with him.And if you can't prove that they could have won without Griffin
>>>>then you can't prove that Griffin was any less valuable to the team than
>>>>Alomar.

>>>And, of course, by that logic, we can't prove that the Jays would have
>>>won without the bat boy, the equipment manager, the trainer, the clubhouse
>>>attendant, the ticket sellers, the guys who deliver food to the lockerroom,
>>>the Toronto press, the fans, etc.

>>>Wait a minute.  You know, I got to watch a lot of Toronto games on tv this
>>>year.  And there is in fact no way to prove that they would have won the
>>>World Series if I had not watched those games, because in fact they did
>>>win the World Series with me watching.  Therefore, there is no way of
>>>proving that I was any less valuable to the team than Roberto Alomar{or
>>>Pat Gillick or Dave Winfield or Joe Carter!

>>Wait a minute.  You know, Pat Gillick got to sign a lot of Toronto players
>>to contracts.  Winfield and Carter hit balls, fielded balls, snapped towels
>>in the showers...what did you do to contribute to their championship?  You
>>watched TV.  No doubt you bought some product they were hawking (although
>>I don't recall ever seeing a Mattel Toy Co. add during a jay's game) so I 
>>guess in some sense you helped pay that 45M+ payroll.  You should be pleased.
>>Please watch again this year.

>In some sense?  How do you know that his watching TV didn't *cause* them
>to win?  It has as much relevance to baseball as snapping towels in a shower.  
>And it has more relation to winning than eating outs like Fettuccini did.

>Can you prove he wasn't the *primary* cause of them winning the World
>Series?  (He certainly contributed as much as Alfredo Griffin did.) No, 
>you can't.  The onus is on you to prove it, and you can't, so you have no
>justification for claiming that he did do any less than Winfield or Carter.

>Even you would agree that this was silly, and yet it's the EXACT SAME
>argument you're using.

Yup.  And that's the beauty of it.  There's no way that Roger can prove
that I didn't see something wrong that a Jays player was doing on tv, and
tell my friend who sells food at Skydome, who mentioned it to a reporter,
who told the player, who made adjustments and thus enabled the Jays to
win it all.  Absurd?  Of course.  Remotely, remotely possible?  Absolutely.
There's absolutely no way it can be definitely, absolutely, 100% proven
that this did not happen.  Therefore, by Roger's own logic, I deserve lots
and lots of credit - as much as anyone on the Jays - for the Jays' World
Series victory.

And frankly, I'm enjoying the outpouring of thanks I'm now getting from
Blue Jays fans for enabling the Jays to win the Series.  It's nice to be
so honored.  But please, send your money to the Buy-A-Logic-Textbook-For-
Roger-Maynard fund instead.

Greg