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 00:52:54 GMT

In <1992Dec17.212616.1708@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.134730.11702@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>>Really?  Do you mean to say that Pat Gillick doesn't go around thinking
>>>about whether to acquire Jack Morris or Jim Abbott?  Really?  You mean
>>>he doesn't think it has relevance to baseball?   I think *that's* absurd.
>>
>>Certainly Gillick does have these concerns.  In fact he traded this off-season
>>for Sojo because he is not sure that Alfredo can duplicate his WS winning
>>performance of last year.

>Why do you suppose that is?

Perhaps Alfredo is getting too old.  

>>>But you're ignoring empirical evidence that you are wrong.  We *can*
>>>predict how many runs a team will score from the players' individual
>>>stats.  We *can* predict how many wins a team will get from the runs
>>>scored and allowed.  
>>
>>But you can't predict who will win the WS.  And that is the point.  You
>>are claiming that what you can measure is important in a vain attempt to
>>defend your pointless act of predicting.  In other words, what you are
>>predicting has no value.  

>Rog, darling, are you saying that, right now, right this minute, every
      ^^^^^^^
and you promised you wouldn't tell!

>team in baseball has 27-1 odds against winning the World Series in 1993?
>That the Blue Jays and Rockies have about equivalent chances of winning
>the World Series?

Vegas odds are predictions of how people in general will bet.  They are 
not any kind of "scientific" prediction of how good a team is.

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.

>If you feel that the Blue Jays (or, indeed, even the Cincinnati Reds)
>have a better chance than the Rockies, what makes you feel that way?

"feel" is the keyword in your sentence and I am pleased to see that you
seem to be catching on (finally).  My opinion on who is going to win is
totally subjective as is yours however I don't delude myself by believing
that my "evidence" is in any way objective.

>>>It IS of interest, because what we care about is who will help a
>>>team in 1993, not who helped in 1992.  A manager that was "better" in
>>>1992, and also 1990 and 1991, is more likely to be "better" in 1993 also.
>>
>>We have to care about the future performances because we cannot be sure that
>>the players we have will perform at the same level as they did the previous
>>year.  And since the only accurate way to measure the level of an individual's
>>performance is by counting the rings on his hand if we are wrong about the
>>player's ability to equal his previous performance we will not find out until
>>it is too late.

>How many rings did Dave Winfield have in 1991 at the age of 40?

What a bum eh!  But what alternative did they have?  Rance Mulliniks?

>Why aren't the Blue Jays signing Winfield (with one ring) instead of
>Molitor (with zero rings) in 1992 for 1993?

Dave wanted too much money and too long a contract.  Beeston has a budget.

>Would you sign Alfredo Griffin (two rings) over both Winfield and Molitor?

Certainly, if I needed a cheap shortstop. 

>Or are you making an argument you don't really mean?

I am deadly serious about all of this stuff.  

>>>No, it certainly is NOT meaningless.  No one goes around arguing about
>>>who won the World Series last year.  That should tell *you* something.  
>>>They're interested in who is going to win the WS *THIS* year.  
>>
>>So am I.  The difference in philosophy might be reflected in our approaches
>>to managing a defending champion.  I would try to hold as much of the old 
>>team together as possible (within reason) while you would try to rebuild it 
>>if it didn't fit your model of "best".

>Ah.  What is "within reason"?  

You mean what is out of reason?  A torn rotator cuff perhaps?  A salary budget?

>Perhaps the statheads are also holding the team together "within reason"?
>But are just being slightly more reasonable?

That of course is a matter of opinion isn't it?  The statheads can "prove"
that the winner of the WS is not the "best" team.  And they want the "best"
team.  I want the WS winner.  We will have to let the fans decide I guess.

>After all, by your argument, Griffin is twice as good as Winfield, who
>is infinitely better than Molitor.

Nope.  My point is that we cannot tell which player contributed more to the
WS win and it is pointless to speculate on the subject.

>>>Of *course* best != most successful.
>>
>>Ok, you can have the best team and I will take the most successful!

>You get the Yankees and the Dodgers, then.  I'll take the Braves and the 
>Blue Jays.

Do you honestly think (sorry - "feel") that the Jays are going to be the
"best" in the AL this year?

Why is that?

all my love,

rm

-- 
roger maynard
maynard@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca