From: maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard)
Subject: Re: Maynard Ex Ante
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:32:06 GMT

In <1gsk97INNt3t@transfer.stratus.com> jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann) writes:

>> The true probability of any team's success is unknown if we cannot  
>determine
>> all of the premisses.  And we can't.  That is exactly my point.   
>The true
>> odds of any team winning the WS cannot be determined.  Too many  
>variables.

>You are fuzzing the issue again, talking about true odds. If by this
>you mean: do we know exactly the chances, with no margin for
>error, the answer is, of course not. There are variables, as you
>say. But not being able to say EXACTLY does not mean that we can't
>say anything.  Or do you really think the Marlins are as likely
>as the Jays to win the series next year?

Can you put a number on it?  Can you say how much more likely one team will
win than the other?  If you can't measure it how do you know it's really
there?  Sounds a little like one of Dr. Dave's explanations of intangibles
to me.  Luck. 
 
>So, if someone in the street, who never even watched a baseball
>game, comes up to you and says "I think the Marlins are going
>to win it all next year," his opinion is just as well founded
>as yours?

Not likely.  The people who make these kinds of pronouncements while
having never watched a game are most likely statheads and they are 
generally a confused lot.

>I'm also confused by your use of the term "subjective."  You went
>(a few paragraphs back) from saying that nothing we can predict
>is "exact" (which is true, but misleading the way you stated it)
>to saying that all our knowledge about baseball is "subjective"
>(which is nonsense).  There is just too much hard evidence out
>there that can be used in prediction, and that has worked in the
>past. Has it worked exactly?  No, there are other factors that
>can modify it. But this does not mean that it is somehow 
>subjective.  

Yes you are partially right. There is hard evidence that is objective.  
However unless the predictive process does work exactly we cannot
call it objective.  Non-objective is better than subjective in this 
case.

>Actually, when you talk about the best TEAM, you have a point.
>A good defintion of the best team IS the one that won the
>series.  However, you took this a step furhter than that. You
>then said that, since the Jays were the best team, Cito had
>to be the best manager. Someone pointed out to you that this,
>by analogy, means that Alfredo Griffen was the best shortstop,
>and you agreed.  The Jays being the best team does NOT mean

No, I said that you cannot prove that there is a better manager than
Cito or that there is a better utility infielder than Griffin.  I did
not say that they were the "best".  The "best" cannot be determined.

>that they had the best player at each position, and that they
>had the best manager. It just means that the sum total of the
>package was the best.

>middle).  But the point you started out on was that
>"if Tornonto was the best team, Cito had to be the best manager."
>This simply does NOT follow.

You are right in that it does not follow.  In fact the antecedents to
"Cito is the best (or worst) manager" are unknown and are probably ;^)
unknowable.

a pleasure, as always,

rm

-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
From: oz@hpkslx.mayfield.HP.COM (Kent Ostby)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:57:19 GMT
Subject: Marlins Mailing List
Organization: HP Response Center Lab