From: tedward@cs.cornell.edu (Edward [Ted] Fischer)
Subject: Re: Arrogance, Statheads, and Life.
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:50:04 GMT

In article <3OCT199211534060@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>
>(1) The statheads show themselves to be the first to be indignant
>    when something that doesn't fit the statistical picture is presented.

As the mediaphiles are quite indignant when something is said that
doesn't fit their image of the world.  How often have we heard "I
don't care what your numbers show, Kelly Gruber is a great clutch
player."  (Oops.  Now that Kelly Gruber has strung together two
mediocre seasons in a row, we have moved up to Bell and Fielder.)

>(2) It doesn't stop at "indignant."  There is name-calling.

This too happens from both sides.  And yes, I sometimes even start it.
I won't promise not to be insulting.  But I'll try to reserve it for
those times when I have a truly good reason (see Brandon's idiotic
defense of a mistake).

>(3) Statements like the following:
>
>>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.
>
>    Indicate a tendency on the part of the stathead to recognize him/her
>    self as the only true baseball fan.  This is also unjust.

Well, I don't personally say things like this.  But is this comparable
to "You don't know anything about the game, you've never been closer
than the morning boxscores"?  Something which is certainly heard
often.

>(4) The statheads are first to flame the fans of lowly teams.  I have had
>    to take more shit for the Indians than I would care to say.

I have *never* flamed you for supporting the Indians.  I have
repeatedly flamed the Indians for making what I thought were stupid
moves.  And I won't apologize for that.  But it is in no way an attack
on you.  Note that I flame the Red Sox moves too.  And in fact flame
*all* teams when they do stupid things.  (Though I am generally biased
in favor of the Red Sox and against the Mets, Jays, and A's, I don't
think I show any unusual bias against the Indians.)

>(5) You statheads, because you have been in this newsgroup a while and
>    (I suppose) know each other well, defend each other, even in the face
>    of the most rude behavior.  You have called me names to my very face,
>    Mr. Huckabay, and Ms. Nichols has gone to bat on your behalf.

I've seen some of this happening.  I try to avoid it myself.  I will
sometimes knowingly be rude, and I don't ask for any defense when that
happens.  And I'm certainly not going to pretend that Gary never calls
names.  :-)

>   "I think what Gary is trying to say is..."  Horse-hockey.

Well, sometimes there are honest misunderstandings.  Like when Sherri
thought she had been called an idiot.  But I agree.  More often this
is just a cover-up.

>(6) You have created an entire class of "underground statheads" who are
>    even bigger flamers than you people are publicly.  Consider this 
>    statement from Ward Larkin, saved in my files for just such an occasion:

HERE I OBJECT!  Flame me for something I say or do.  But I take NO
responsibility for the actions of others.  It is not my fault that Mr.
Larkin is rude, any more than it is your fault that Gary Blickhan is a
shithead (as proven by his 20-consecutive-long-quote-post streak).

>(7) You people are like statistical fundamentalists: your pure doctrine
>    is more important than your relationships with people.  You make
>    statements that are true, such as 

Us SDCNs aren't all fundamentalists.

>(8) If there is no analysis involved in a subjective opinion, why not
>    just present the opposing numbers and leave it at that?  No, it'll
>    not happen.  You'll just pop the subjective person's quote in your
>    .sig file, as is done in any talk.* group.

Huh?  I believe I stole the "make outs, not walks" line from a fellow
SDCN.  Besides, I don't understand what you are complaining about
here.

>You'll flame me for saying these things, no doubt.

I don't know.  Was this a flame?  I generally respect your opinion,
but I disagree with many of your above points.  Even many of the valid
objections don't apply to a very high proportion of the SDCN crowd.

Cheers,
-Valentine
-- 
Make outs, not walks!					tedward@cs.cornell.edu
Clemens four Cy Young!