From: steph@cs.uiuc.edu (Dale Stephenson)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:51:41 GMT

In <17865@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zuhars@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Gary Didi Seven Huckabay) writes:

>I want to address a question that many people have brought up on many
>occasions here, and one that, in all likelihood, will not die.

>Why do many of the people here consider the 'statheads' or, 'SDCNs'
>arrogant?

>I'm really serious.  I've heard people talk about being attacked from
>all fronts, by Sherri, David, Harold, Roger, myself, and a plethora of
>other charges, but I don't really understand why anyone would think
>these people arrogant.

IMNSVHO, I think most of the "arrogance" opinion comes from being attacked
on all fronts.  When five or six people are waging the same campaign against
a particular idea, it's a safe bet that they won't all be completely
polite.  Many of the words used to describe others opinions would be
considered insulting if applied to the posting individual.  After reading
six posts covering the same material, it is difficult to remember who
was the model of decorum, and who compared you to a common vegetable.

Someone wandering in here from a different rec.sport group is in for a rude
shock.  In other groups, mindless woofing is the norm.  Here, woofing up
any player is likely to produce a flood of statistics showing beyond a
doubt that the player has less actual value than Alfredo Fettucini Griffin.
Sometimes I think the "George Bell is a great clutch hitter" posts are best
ignored.

(Not that I want to see the end of SDCN postings.  This is the one USENET
group that has actually changed my life.  I wish there were some SDCNs in
the football and basketball groups.)

>On the contrary, to me, it is those who hang on to their own
>observations, however limited and subjective they might be, in the
>face of hard evidence, who would best be described as arrogant.

arrogant 1) full of or due to unwarranted pride and self importance; giving
oneself an undue degree of importance; haughty; conceited:  applied to persons;
as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.

Personally, I'm not sure what kind of pride is warranted.  Arrogance is
an attitude.  You can be right, and arrogant.  You can be wrong, and humble.

Examples:

"OPS is the one true statistic" -- Arrogant

"OPS correlates well with runs scored" -- Not arrogant

"Joe Carter is definitely the best player ever" -- Arrogant

"I think Joe Carter is more valuable than Roberto Alomar." -- Not arrogant
(Even though demonstrably wrong.)

[snip]

>In short, I don't feel as if anyone HERE has the right to call me, or
>any other SDCN here 'arrogant' about baseball.  On the contrary, I
>feel the burden of arrogance is upon those who refuse to open their
>minds, certain that THEIR method of analysis is superior to that of
>others.  

The burden of arrogance?  I don't think trying to place the burden of
arrogance on any particular group is productive.  If it becomes a question
of judging attitude, SDCNs and mediaphiles are on equal ground.

>I have not seen one SDCN here who is unwilling to listen and respond
>to a well reasoned argument, provided there's some evidence to be had
>there.

I hope there are some lurking SDCNs who don't respond to all well
reasoned arguments!  :->

Already a computer nerd, loves stats, but never drunk...
--
Dale J. Stephenson |*| (steph@cs.uiuc.edu) |*| Baseball fanatic

  "It is considered good to look wise, especially when not 
   overburdened with information" -- J. Golden Kimball