dpb@philabs.UUCP (Paul Benjamin) (08/25/85)
The omniscient David Rubin writes: > In regard to what YOU are interested: How are we to know what makes a > winning team? And, more important to the issue at hand, how are we to > know to what an extent an INDIVIDUAL contributes to victory? What > makes a player a "winning team player" save for your seal of approval? My seal of approval is not necessary. I am not a baseball professional. Neither are you. Neither of our opinions means a damn thing. > I am willing to discuss the merits of various forms of measurement. It > appears to me that you are not seriously interested in how we measure > things, so long as they are comfortable for you. > I suspect that had my "contorted" statistics (SA, OB, PO, A, et. al.) > supported your belief system, you would have rushed to embrace them, Sticking words in my mouth, so that you can attack them? A neat way to win an argument. > I'm not that familiar with Blyleven, but I'll vouch for Parker as a > team player. He's welcome on "my" team. YOU will vouch for Parker as a team player! What makes you an expert on Parker? If he were that valuable, do you think the Pirates wouldn't even have made him an offer? They said they weren't interested in him, and if you followed him more closely, you would know that it is because he is self-centered, on and off the field. > A misleading answer. If a man singles another home, the run is counted > twice: once as a run scored for the man who crosses the plate, another > as an rbi for the batter. Why treat a homerun differently? Because we are trying to determine how many runs the player figures in. All runs are counted twice, but only for HRs are they counted twice for the same person. Counting twice for different players is OK, because we can still add figure R + RBI - HR /teams runs to see the percentage of runs the player figures in (not being able to get directly at runs he helps produce, but doesn't score or drive in.) Counting HRs twice invalidates this computation. This fact would have been obvious to any bright high-school freshman. > If you accept the opinion of "authority" as final, why do you bother > discussing such things on your own? Why do you assume that awards are > never given in error? How else, if not by prejudice or coin flip, is > an award given when two contenders possess equal virtue? Why does > "Gold Glove" == best at position (unless fielding is the only thing > that influences winning)? I did not discuss them on my own. I responded to your arrogant claim that it was "lucky that I voted for Carter" or else Pena might have won the net poll to start at catcher. You don't know any more than any other amateur, including me. Pretending to be more objective, and thus putting yourself above others, is irritating, at best. > On the contrary, you are quite willing to USE whatever statistics > support your beliefs, regardless of their merits and impervious to > suggestions they don't mean what you say they mean. I am no less a > baseball fan because I desire to understand the game better. Are you > more of a fan for spurning information? I do spurn obviously incomplete information. Refusing to make an insufficiently substantiated opinion is better than forming a bad one. I do NOT use whatever statistics support my opinion, any more than you do! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE GAME BETTER, particularly not better than the professionals whom you hold in such contempt. Perhaps we should end this discussion, as it has boiled down to your belief that you know more than people that work in the game, and I think you know very little.
abgamble@water.UUCP (abgamble) (08/27/85)
> > My seal of approval is not necessary. I am not a baseball professional. > Neither are you. Neither of our opinions means a damn thing. > Paul, Since your opinion doesn't mean a damn thing, would you please quit inflicting it upon us. -- Bruce Gamble - abgamble@water.UUCP