From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball
Subject: Re: R.S.BB FAQ V1.22 (9/25/92)
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:04:20 GMT
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Oct1.014709.20685@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> 91287041@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>In <0g!p=3b@lynx.unm.edu> kbos@carina.unm.edu (Kurt "Some Guy" Bose) writes:

>>      Also, the group dynamics here are interesting.  Several of the fans
>>here are interested in sabermetrics, a term coined to describe the study of
>>baseball statistics.  This group includes many of the more prominent posters

>What is the purpose of this sentence?  Every poster on this net is equally
>"prominent".  Wipe the brown stuff off your nose Kurt...

>>are welcome to post, note that we've heard most of it before.  Just to set
>>the record straight, the more numbers-minded folk are just as knowledgeable
>>about the game as their old-school counterparts, watch as many games, in some
>>cases even play the game at competitive levels.  Many of them can converse

>Hardly.  Certainly some of them are more so.  But from what I can see the
>vast majority of so-called "statheads" don't get any closer to the game
>than the morning newspaper.

Well, Roger, we *know* what you can see.  And in your case, the brown stuff
is your own.  Take a look around.  Try *not* spewing the usual insults,
and if you must, try naming names.  Try telling us *which* of the statheads 
don't go to games.  (Bad year for me: only 6, in only 4 different ballparks.)

As for posting prominence, yes, Roger, you're prominent, too.  You saw to
that by behaving like a spoiled child.  Prominent as in egregious, certainly.

But some posters have a baseball prominence all their own, based on, 
um, different credentials.  Some have degrees in relevant fields.  Some
have actually published their work on baseball, and have received lots
of expert criticism on it.  

Some posters actually -- gasp -- provide evidence for their claims,
something that confers a prominence all its own.

>>as easily about swings and mechanics as they can about DA and OPS*.  For the
>>most part, they are just using their skills to enjoy and understand the game
>>as much as people who don't stare at the Sunday paper with a calculator in
>>hand.  Who knows?  They might even be able to do a good job managing a team.
>>(Other "stat-heads" include Dave Johnson, Tony LaRussa, Earl Weaver, and 
>>Branch Rickey.)

>Now you have gone beyond the realm of mildly amusing.  This is truly hilarious.

And hilariously true.  All those people are/were stat-heads; Branch Rickey
is credited with the invention of OBP, and made no bones about the fact
that his ability to pick good players based on their numbers made his
Cards and Dodgers as good asthey were.

>If you are going to do this faq thing Kurt, you have to try to be at least a
>little impartial.  I realize it is an enormous undertaking and I give you
>credit for doing it.  I certainly couldn't.  But this is not rec.sport.SDCN.

So tell us, Roger.  What part would *you* like to write?  I'm sure Kurt
is looking for lots of volunteers.

>Otherwise, a very fine job.  Thank you.

Oh, well, such a nice compliment after a pile of rude insults.  Makes up
for everything.

Roger