yankees
arthur_turnbull
surprise. The big market teams have the money and keep on winning. Sport is
now simply a giant marketing exercise and small teams will win less and
less. The excitement is going out of sport - whats the point of watching
the same team win.
Arthur T
JAS Carter
"arthur_turnbull" <arthur_...@tinyworld.co.uk> warbled oh so
charmingly:
The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
more? I cannot bear this sort of myopia. Yes, they won the World
Series. Sure. That proves that they won the World Series.
If you cannot watch an individual baseball game and find excitement,
find another sport to watch. It's really that simple.
And stop whining. You're starting to sound like Paul O'Neill.
Julie Carter
--
http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
http://www.epinions.com/welcome.html?member=jsgoddess
Doug Norris
"That's my take, Romey. Rack me, I'm out."
Doug
Voros
> Well, that's the 'World' Series over and the Yankees win again. What a
> surprise. The big market teams have the money and keep on winning.
God damn Orioles win every year. I'm sick of these Dodgers/Orioles series
matchups.
--
Voros McCracken
vo...@daruma.co.jp
http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/
Hank Gillette
<arthur_...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
> Sport is
> now simply a giant marketing exercise and small teams will win less and
> less. The excitement is going out of sport - whats the point of watching
> the same team win.
Unlike the good old days of the 40's and 50's?
--
Hank Gillette
Kyle
cry.
"The Dynasty is dead!"
Kyle
The Jeff Huson of alt.sports.baseball.chicago-cubs
Dave Bialas for Manager, 2001
IvySprouts Online www.geocities.com/ivysprouts/
Dale Hicks
>
> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
> more?
Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
I'll agree with Maynard.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
John Bianco
Hank Gillette wrote in message ...
The Yankees basically bought many of their players back then as well,
trough trades with the many teams that had bad attendence problems in the
50s. The 40s and 50s were not the good old days, for the Yankees it was, but
to a extent, you can argue that the Yankees dominance doomed many of the
then smaller market teams, especially in the AL, where declineing
attendence, due in part to the dominance of the NYY, were forced to move.
The dominance of the NYY demoted the Philly A's and St Louis Borwns to 2nd
team status in their cities,and in part because of that 2nd team status,
forced them to move. It compounded the problems the Washington Senators had,
and also eventually in part forced them to move, even the Red Sox had
attendence problems even after the Braves left.
>
>--
>Hank Gillette
David Marc Nieporent
Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
>JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <39ffcefa....@news.supernews.com>...
>> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
>> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
>> more?
>Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
>I'll agree with Maynard.
I do. Therefore, you're wrong.
Agreeing with Maynard is *never* the right thing to do.
--
David M. Nieporent Roberto Petagine for the
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu Hall of Fame
Bronsius Mogath
>
>
> Julie Carter
> --
> http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
> http://www.epinions.com/welcome.html?member=jsgoddess
If Paul O'Neill wants to whine, he can. He has five rings....
Regards,
Jeff
Bronsius Mogath
Doesn't matter how many games they won during the year, if there was a
better team out there than the Yankees, they would have won it all. There
hasn't been for three straight years. Simple as that...
Regards,
Mogath
Steve Cutchen
> On 28 Oct 2000, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
> > Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
> >
> > >> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
> > >> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
> > >> more?
> >
> > >Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
> > >I'll agree with Maynard.
> >
> > I do. Therefore, you're wrong.
> >
> > Agreeing with Maynard is *never* the right thing to do.
> > --
> > David M. Nieporent Roberto Petagine for the
> > niep...@alumni.princeton.edu Hall of Fame
>
> Doesn't matter how many games they won during the year, if there was a
> better team out there than the Yankees, they would have won it all. There
> hasn't been for three straight years. Simple as that...
I don't believe the playoffs determine the best team. They determine the
MLB World Champions.
It is a tournament and, especially in a sport like baseball, lots of things
can happen. Was NCState the best basketball team the year they beat Phi
Slama Jama? What do you think Valvano would say? Nope. But they WERE the
better team in each specific game when they played in that tournament.
They ran the table and were National Champions. But not necessarily the
best team. That's what makes their National Championship so sweet.
Cinderella, Baybee!
The best team? They should have the best chance to be Champions. But it
doesn't often work out that way. Every team in the tournament has a
chance, too... Even the worst team in the tournament has some chance.
Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year. But it
certainly was the better team in each post-game series they played. And
they are the MLB World Champs. Three times running (though that is a
stretch, since the team changes year to year... This is certainly NOT the
'98 Yankees). That says a lot about their ability to play tournament
baseball. Truly awesome clutch baseball. Through guile, guts, heart,
skill, and all of the other tangibles and intangibles... (and just like
O'Neill said after Game 5) they just found ways to win, one game at a time,
in the post season.
The regular season awards the Pennants. Through 162 games, indicative of
the best team in each division for that year. And the regular season
provides the ticket to the Playoffs... necessary to be crowned World
Champions.
The best team? Determined during the season to the extent it can be...
That's what we get to argue about here. Like best pitcher. Or best
manager. Braves? Yankees? A's? Pale Hose? Cards? Giants? Hard not to
pick one of these, since they were the best in their Divisions...
But World Champion? Proven on the field, series by series... NYYankees.
--
---Steve Cutchen O- | Baseball: Umpiring, Quotes and Poetry
scut...@airmail.net | Maxima MaxFAQ & Villager and Quest FAQ
--------------
An eclectic mix at http://web2.airmail.net/scutchen
John Bianco
>
>The best team? They should have the best chance to be Champions. But it
>doesn't often work out that way. Every team in the tournament has a
>chance, too... Even the worst team in the tournament has some chance.
>
>Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year. But it
>certainly was the better team in each post-game series they played. And
>they are the MLB World Champs. Three times running (though that is a
>stretch, since the team changes year to year... This is certainly NOT the
>'98 Yankees). That says a lot about their ability to play tournament
>baseball. Truly awesome clutch baseball. Through guile, guts, heart,
>skill, and all of the other tangibles and intangibles... (and just like
>O'Neill said after Game 5) they just found ways to win, one game at a time,
>in the post season.
>
And in the opposite, the same can be said about the Braves in ability to
play tournament baseball. The 91 world series loss could be explained in
large part because of the teams in experience, but the loss of the world
series in 92, the leauge championchip in 93 to the inferior Phillies, the 96
loss to the Yankees, the 97 loss to the Marlins, the 98 loss to the Padres,
and the embrassing sweeps by the Yankees in 99 and the Cards this year just
indicate strongly for whatever reason, the Braves are just horrible when the
games count. Even in 96, the were on the ropes against the Crads and last
years the Mets fought back from a 3-0 hole.
Many can and will argue that the Braves were the best MLB team of the 90s,
and with its line up, it is hard to argue that, but for whatever reason, be
it Cox's inability to get the Braves to play more as a team, or even
possibly Ted Turners aloof style of ownership, the Braves just do not know
how to win games that are meaningful.
Josprung
>and with its line up, it is hard to argue that, but for whatever reason, be
>it Cox's inability to get the Braves to play more as a team, or even
>possibly Ted Turners aloof style of ownership, the Braves just do not know
>how to win games that are meaningful.
>
During this run, from 91-00 they were 52-46, for a 530 winning percentage. They
won 11 out of 19 series. What did you expect? That they would win 3/4's of
the games or the series? That is a very tough standard when you realize that
they are playing these games against GOOD teams, and that baseball favors the
better team by less than any of the 4 major sports. Have they underperformed
their expectations? Absoulutely. Do they not know how to win meaningful
games? I'd say that is unfair, since they have in fact won more games than
they lost in the postseason.
Of course, they have also been made to look bad by the incredible run the
Yankees have had: The last 5 years they are 46-14 in the post and have won 12
of 13 series. Lets just call the Braves an average plus playoff team and the
Yankees the best playoff team of all time.
Danny
Bronsius Mogath
> Many can and will argue that the Braves were the best MLB team of the 90s,
> and with its line up, it is hard to argue that, but for whatever reason, be
> it Cox's inability to get the Braves to play more as a team, or even
> possibly Ted Turners aloof style of ownership, the Braves just do not know
> how to win games that are meaningful.
>
Wait a minute, who WON the WORLD SERIES THREE times in the nineties?? Who
lost EIGHT games in a ROW to those winners of the WORLD SERIES in the
World Series??? Until the Braves start winning some world titles, they are
just another also-ran. The best pitching staff ON PAPER, the best team ON
PAPER. Blah-blah-blah. Everyone likes to say the Braves this and the
Braves that. The Braves are the Buffalo Bills of baseball.
Regards,
Mogath
Steve Cutchen
<cr...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
Duh... Mo... Did you read the thread?
car...@marte.cinv.iteso.mx
about that issue...
It's good some other people notice it....
In article <39f9c...@news2.vip.uk.com>,
"arthur_turnbull" <arthur_...@tinyworld.co.uk> wrote:
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dale Hicks
> In <01c040a5$e2047ba0$91f84cd8@celeron>,
> Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
> >JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <39ffcefa....@news.supernews.com>...
>
> >> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
> >> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
> >> more?
>
> >Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
> >I'll agree with Maynard.
>
> I do. Therefore, you're wrong.
Name the past 20 teams that finished with the best record.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
David Marc Nieporent
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in article <8tfnud$ae9$1...@shell.monmouth.com>...
>> In <01c040a5$e2047ba0$91f84cd8@celeron>,
>> Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
>> >JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <39ffcefa....@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>> >> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
>> >> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
>> >> more?
>>
>> >Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
>> >I'll agree with Maynard.
>>
>> I do. Therefore, you're wrong.
>
>Name the past 20 teams that finished with the best record.
Okay. I follow the AL far more closely, so I'm pretty confident about
those. In the NL, I can handle recent years (of course, they're pretty
easy), but less so in the 1980s.
2000 - White Sox, Giants
1999 - New York, Atlanta
1998 - New York, Atlanta
1997 - Baltimore, Atlanta
1996 - Cleveland, Atlanta
1995 - Cleveland, Atlanta
1994 - New York, Montreal
1993 - Toronto, Atlanta
1992 - Toronto+Oakland, Atlanta
1991 - Toronto, Pittsburgh
1990 - Oakland, Pittsburgh
1989 - Oakland, San Francisco
1988 - Oakland, New York
1987 - Detroit, St. Louis
1986 - Boston, New York
1985 - Toronto, St. Louis
1984 - Detroit, Chicago
1983 - Chicago, LA
1982 - Milwaukee, Atlanta
1981 - Oakland, Cincinnati
How's that?
Doug Norris
>Wait a minute, who WON the WORLD SERIES THREE times in the nineties?? Who
>lost EIGHT games in a ROW to those winners of the WORLD SERIES in the
>World Series??? Until the Braves start winning some world titles, they are
>just another also-ran. The best pitching staff ON PAPER, the best team ON
>PAPER. Blah-blah-blah. Everyone likes to say the Braves this and the
>Braves that. The Braves are the Buffalo Bills of baseball.
Boy, the EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION really ADDED to your ARGUMENT.
Doug
John Bianco
Josprung wrote in message <20001029081140...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>> Many can and will argue that the Braves were the best MLB team of the
90s,
>>and with its line up, it is hard to argue that, but for whatever reason,
be
>>it Cox's inability to get the Braves to play more as a team, or even
>>possibly Ted Turners aloof style of ownership, the Braves just do not know
>>how to win games that are meaningful.
>>
>
>During this run, from 91-00 they were 52-46, for a 530 winning percentage.
They
>won 11 out of 19 series. What did you expect? That they would win 3/4's
of
>the games or the series? That is a very tough standard when you realize
that
>they are playing these games against GOOD teams, and that baseball favors
the
>better team by less than any of the 4 major sports. Have they
underperformed
>their expectations? Absoulutely. Do they not know how to win meaningful
>games? I'd say that is unfair, since they have in fact won more games than
>they lost in the postseason.
>
But how many of these wins came againts weak teams in the divsional
playoffs? I do not have the record book with me now, but as I recall, in
95,96,97,98 and 99, the Braves dominated these series, usually winning by
3-0 or 3-1.
>Of course, they have also been made to look bad by the incredible run the
>Yankees have had: The last 5 years they are 46-14 in the post and have won
12
>of 13 series. Lets just call the Braves an average plus playoff team and
the
>Yankees the best playoff team of all time.
>
>Danny
The Yankees havbe the best playoff record by far in this period, for
various reasons, partially due to the fact other AL teams were weak in this
period(only the Indians seemd to ever stack up well against the Yankees),
and due to the fact for whatever reason, the Braves just could not pull it
together in the big games.
John Bianco
>Wait a minute, who WON the WORLD SERIES THREE times in the nineties?? Who
>lost EIGHT games in a ROW to those winners of the WORLD SERIES in the
>World Series??? Until the Braves start winning some world titles, they are
>just another also-ran. The best pitching staff ON PAPER, the best team ON
>PAPER. Blah-blah-blah. Everyone likes to say the Braves this and the
>Braves that. The Braves are the Buffalo Bills of baseball.
>
>Regards,
>Mogath
>
>
Ok fanboy, you obviously did not read the arguments we posted here, just
go to the NY Yankees newsgroup and spew you fanboy crap. I agree that the
Yankees can win the big games, and I will be the first to agree that unlike
so many other teams of this era, they actually play as a team, rather than
just a bunch of big name superstars chasing after their own glory, but in
terms of player for player talent, quality of picthers and so on, the
Yankees, with the exception of the 98 edition, did not impress me as being a
team that has a huge advantage over other teams that reached the playoffs.
JAS Carter
<dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article <39ffcefa....@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
>> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
>> more?
>
>Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
>I'll agree with Maynard.
How can you argue that the Yankees win more and more and more if they
*don't* in fact win more than other teams?
They may win more World Series rings, but they don't win more games.
How can they be buying World Series rings, but not buying a team that
wins regular season games? If they are buying these rings, why isn't
their team better during the regular season?
--
Julie Carter
sant...@my-deja.com
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
> In <01c040a5$e2047ba0$91f84cd8@celeron>,
> Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
> >JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<39ffcefa....@news.supernews.com>...
>
> >> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
> >> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
> >> more?
>
> >Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
> >I'll agree with Maynard.
>
> I do. Therefore, you're wrong.
>
To be absolutely precise, he should have said, "outside of a small
coterie of religious zealots on r.s.b., nobody cares."
> Agreeing with Maynard is *never* the right thing to do.
> --
Thy faith is strong.
sant...@my-deja.com
"Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
> JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<39ffcefa....@news.supernews.com>...
> >
> > The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
> > Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
> > more?
>
> Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
> I'll agree with Maynard.
>
No kidding. And RM is considered obsessed on this newsgroup? The
asinine position that the Yankees weren't the best team this season is
being parroted to a compulsive extent that even he couldn't hope to
achieve. It is in direct contravention of the rules of the game and so
more resembles a religious conviction than an intellectual position.
sant...@my-deja.com
Doggone it, you were doing so well earlier, composing a response longer
than one line. Keep trying.
sant...@my-deja.com
<0B6AD7DD5B17E2B0.998DEA11...@lp.airnews.net>,
???????
> It is a tournament and, especially in a sport like baseball, lots of
things
> can happen. Was NCState the best basketball team the year they beat
Phi
> Slama Jama?
Yes. By definition.
> What do you think Valvano would say? Nope. But they WERE the
> better team in each specific game when they played in that
tournament.
> They ran the table and were National Champions. But not necessarily
the
> best team. That's what makes their National Championship so sweet.
> Cinderella, Baybee!
>
> The best team? They should have the best chance to be Champions.
But it
> doesn't often work out that way. Every team in the tournament has a
> chance, too... Even the worst team in the tournament has some
chance.
>
> Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year.
Yes it was. By definition.
But World Champion does not equal best team? When MLB throws open the
number of strikes a batter is allowed or the number of outs in an
inning to public vote then your ridiculous argument might have a
smidgen of merit.
sant...@my-deja.com
No, the 40s and 50s sucked too, and perhaps not coincidentally baseball
went through a major period of franchise shifts and expansion in the
following two decades.
Doug Norris
>Doggone it, you were doing so well earlier, composing a response longer
>than one line. Keep trying.
When it's merited, that's what will be given.
Doug
JAS Carter
>No kidding. And RM is considered obsessed on this newsgroup? The
>asinine position that the Yankees weren't the best team this season is
>being parroted to a compulsive extent that even he couldn't hope to
>achieve. It is in direct contravention of the rules of the game and so
>more resembles a religious conviction than an intellectual position.
My position was that you can't argue that the Yankees win more than
other teams since, at least this year, they didn't.
They won in the playoffs. Are you arguing that they money they used
to "buy the playoffs" somehow didn't kick in until they reached the
playoffs? If they are the best team, unarguably, why didn't they win
the most games during the regular season?
As I've stated before, I view the regular season and the post-season
almost as two different sports. First you have the marathon, then you
have the sprints. Casual baseball fans place too much emphasis on the
sprints.
A stumble out of the blocks can lose a sprint race. It won't lose you
a marathon. Marathoners aren't necessarily fast, they are simply
durable. Two different propositions, though both are measured in
"wins."
The Yankees were the best playoff team this year. Good for them. If
you are unaware that they had to play 161 games to get there, then
you're just a tad ignorant, ain'tcha?
My name IS actually Dave Clark
>I do not have the record book with me now, but as I recall, in
>95,96,97,98 and 99, the Braves dominated these series, usually winning by
>3-0 or 3-1.
Do explain how that qualifies the team as being weak. Should we also nullify
the Yankees annual ripping of the Texas Rangers?
In '95, the Braves played the Rockies. With Galarraga/Walker/Castilla/Bichette.
With, mind you, the Rockies having undeserved *home field*. Weak?
I'll give you 96-97. The Astros went gaggola and the Dodgers didn't seem to
care.
'98 had the Cubbies. But those Cubbies had 90-some wins and owned Atlanta
during the regular season.
'99 had the Astros with Hampton, Reynolds, and Lima (back when he was good).
Weak?
Dave Clark
"Dave, I give you a poster grade of C
because you're just not very nice."
-SyRollr300
Voros
That resembles an Ad Hominem.
Simply put, a sample of 162 is more likely to reflect actual probabilities
than a sample of 16. This isn't anything like a religious conviction, it's
elementary probability.
Which isn't to say a 162 game season determines the best team either. I
personally think the indians were a better team than the White Sox this
year. But it is far more likely to determine it than a few short
series. It is more equitable by the laws of probability.
I don't think it's particularly critical who the "best" team is even if we
could agree on what "best team" means.
But to use the Yankees winning the WS as evidence that no one else had a
chance is false. The outcome that happens is not necessarily the only
outcome that _could_ have happened. I think considering how often the
Yankees lost this year, how close they came to losing to Oakland, and the
fact that in a very recent playoff setup they would not have made the
playoffs, the notion that the Yankees _had_ to win is shaky at best.
The Yankees deserve all the credit and praise in the world for
constructing a great team and they deserve congratulations on their third
straight championship. They deserve congratulations because they _could_
have lost and there was a chance they would but they didn't.
But they aren't invincible and can be beaten. At this point I would not
consider them to be favorites to win the WS next year. And that's probably
the first time I'd say that since they won in 1996.
--
Voros McCracken
vo...@daruma.co.jp
http://www.baseballstuff.com/mccracken/
Paul Botts
John Bianco <rft...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8tiest$oc9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> But how many of these wins came againts weak teams in the
divsional
> playoffs? I do not have the record book with me now, but as I
recall, in
> 95,96,97,98 and 99, the Braves dominated these series, usually
winning by
> 3-0 or 3-1.
"Weak" teams in the divisional series? What's the typical season
record of any of those teams, maybe .550? How does having maybe
the 8th or 10th best record out of 30 teams, make a team "weak"?
Let's see, your argument is that the Braves have done better
against weaker playoff teams (in the opening rounds) and worse
against better ones (in the LCS and World Series). This startling
result is therefore evidence that the Braves "don't know how to
win the big games" or somesuch, right?
We're all blown away by the clarity of your logical insight. If
you're looking for a career change, I think there's a
sports-columnist or color-commentary job somewhere calling for
you.
Ben Flieger
"John Bianco" <rft...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8tiest$oc9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> playoffs?
There are no weak teams in the divisional playoffs.
The worst teams to make the playoffs still wins at least 85 games. I
believe Cleveland in 1997 at 86 wins is the worst wildcard era playoff
team.
> The Yankees havbe the best playoff record by far in this period, for
> various reasons, partially due to the fact other AL teams were weak in
this
> period(only the Indians seemd to ever stack up well against the
Yankees),
> and due to the fact for whatever reason, the Braves just could not
pull it
> together in the big games.
The Braves have pulled it together repeatedly in the big games. You
don't get to the World Series if you can't win big games. You don't get
to the playoffs without winning big games. Hell, if you as a player
can't handle the big game pressure, you don't make it past high school.
You are exhibiting two common problems with baseball analysis.
Accepting something that is clearly not true as true because a lot of
people believe it(the Braves choke) and desiring to give a reason for
things that don't have reasons(why do the Braves choke?). Even if the
Braves had choked(change it from Braves to Rangers or Giants or
whatnot), there's no failing there. That's just the way it played out.
Why don't people wonder why the Yankees went 3-1 in that key 4 game
series against Cleveland in late September?
Where were the claims that the Yankees didn't know how to win big games?
That Cleveland's ability to make contact countered New Yorks control
based pitching staff? Where was the kind of overanalysis that goes on
before and after every postseason series?
If that series had happened 2 weeks later than it did, had it been the
ALDS instead of just a late season series between contenders, I suspect
we would've heard those things, along with many others. David Justice
would've been branded a cancer, Chuck Finley a Yankee killer, etc.
Just because it happens in the playoffs doesn't make it a different
game. And in baseball, there are a lot of things that are just luck.
There was nothing psychological that caused Todd Zeile's 2 almost home
runs to be just that, almost home runs. It was luck.
sant...@my-deja.com
norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Doug Norris) wrote:
Yes, the world breathlessly awaits your bon mots. By the way, did you
forge that Webtv slogan?
Doug Norris
>By the way, did you forge that Webtv slogan?
Alright, you've lost me. Please explain your joke.
Doug
Dan Szymborski
norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu says...
> sant...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >By the way, did you forge that Webtv slogan?
>
> Alright, you've lost me. Please explain your joke.
I don't know what the reference was, either, but an earlier quote of
yours would make a great slogan for WebTV.
"Are you too dumb to know how to use eBay?"
--
Dan Szymborski
Cze...@msn.com
"You know, I've never understood the hype around Bordick."
- Texas Ranger infielder Frank Catalanotto
Doug Norris
>I don't know what the reference was, either, but an earlier quote of
>yours would make a great slogan for WebTV.
>"Are you too dumb to know how to use eBay?"
Hey, if WebTV is willing to buy the rights to it, I'm game... :-)
Doug
Dale Hicks
> In <01c041e8$bc4aa300$5efa4cd8@celeron>,
> Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Name the past 20 teams that finished with the best record.
>
> How's that?
No clue, but if someone looks it up and finds that it's
reasonably right, I'll cede the point.
And rephrase it as "99% of the population doesn't care
who wins the most games in a season". :)
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Dale Hicks
>
> They may win more World Series rings, but they don't win more games.
> How can they be buying World Series rings, but not buying a team that
> wins regular season games? If they are buying these rings, why isn't
> their team better during the regular season?
They don't have to be?
The current system doesn't care about best in the league, it
just cares about rewarding those that win what they need to.
Mind you, I'm not arguing the money breeds success argument,
as I think the Yankees benefit from a great SS, CF, and RP,
plus that deal with the devil. I just get bothered by the
insistence that a lack of regular success means as little as
a few of you give it.
In fact, there are some attractions of the sprint at the end,
as it does seem to expose some measure of guts, even if it
is artificial. Hence the Yankees' godliness and the Braves'
inability to hit every postseason.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
Ronald L. Matthews
> JAS Carter <jsgo...@geocities.com> wrote in article <39fecf79...@news.supernews.com>...
>>
>> They may win more World Series rings, but they don't win more games.
>> How can they be buying World Series rings, but not buying a team that
>> wins regular season games? If they are buying these rings, why isn't
>> their team better during the regular season?
> They don't have to be?
> The current system doesn't care about best in the league, it
> just cares about rewarding those that win what they need to.
There is only one method of determining which team is the "best" in
the league. And that is by seeing who wins the WS.
Teams do not have absolute levels of efficiency. The potential of a
team, and its players, to play efficient baseball fluctuates wildly
from day to day. To try to peg a number on a team - or a player -
and say that this is how "good" that player or team is, is
meaningless.
But not to you, of course. For little shits like yourself baseball
is all about measuring efficiency.
G'nite Rose Marie,
cordially, as always,
rm
dke...@best.com
Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in article <8ti3bh$2hu$1...@shell.monmouth.com>...
>> In <01c041e8$bc4aa300$5efa4cd8@celeron>,
>> Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
>> >>
>> >> >Nobody cares who won the most games in a season.
>> >>
>> >> I do. Therefore, you're wrong.
>> >
>> >Name the past 20 teams that finished with the best record.
>>
>> Okay. [snipped list]
>> How's that?
>
>No clue, but if someone looks it up and finds that it's
>reasonably right, I'll cede the point.
It's reasonably right. I believe he had one wrong in each league.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (408) 752-1400
dke...@well.com
You gotta love an army that never fights a war and issues
corkscrews to its troops. ---- J.P. Toomey
David Marc Nieporent
John Bianco <rft...@nospam.mindspring.com> claimed:
>>The best team? They should have the best chance to be Champions. But it
>>doesn't often work out that way. Every team in the tournament has a
>>chance, too... Even the worst team in the tournament has some chance.
>>Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year. But it
>>certainly was the better team in each post-game series they played. And
>>they are the MLB World Champs. Three times running (though that is a
>>stretch, since the team changes year to year... This is certainly NOT the
>>'98 Yankees). That says a lot about their ability to play tournament
>>baseball. Truly awesome clutch baseball. Through guile, guts, heart,
>>skill, and all of the other tangibles and intangibles... (and just like
>>O'Neill said after Game 5) they just found ways to win, one game at a time,
>>in the post season.
> And in the opposite, the same can be said about the Braves in ability to
>play tournament baseball. The 91 world series loss could be explained in
>large part because of the teams in experience, but the loss of the world
>series in 92, the leauge championchip in 93 to the inferior Phillies, the 96
>loss to the Yankees, the 97 loss to the Marlins, the 98 loss to the Padres,
>and the embrassing sweeps by the Yankees in 99 and the Cards this year just
>indicate strongly for whatever reason, the Braves are just horrible when the
>games count. Even in 96, the were on the ropes against the Crads and last
>years the Mets fought back from a 3-0 hole.
So, IOW, they won when the games counted, thus proving your theory wrong.
And if they were horrible when the games counted, how exactly did they get
to face the Cardinals in 96 and the Mets in 99 and the Marlins in 97 and
the Philies in 93 and the Yankees in 96 and...?
Hint: they've won a bucket o' games "when the games count," both in the
regular season *and* in the playoffs.
What you're saying is that the Blue Jays in 1992 weren't any good. They
only won the World Series because the Braves can't play. Same for the
Yankees in 1996 and 1999. The Marlins in 1997 weren't any good; they only
won because the Braves can't play. That's what you're saying. Don't you
think it might be a little insulting to those teams to suggest that?
> Many can and will argue that the Braves were the best MLB team of the
>90s, and with its line up, it is hard to argue that, but for whatever
>reason, be it Cox's inability to get the Braves to play more as a team,
>or even possibly Ted Turners aloof style of ownership, the Braves just do
>not know how to win games that are meaningful.
Pay attention sometime. You'll see that they've won hundreds of
meaningful games, including scores in the postseason.
And WTF does "play more as a team" even mean?
sant...@my-deja.com
norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Doug Norris) wrote:
Joke? You don't remember posting what appeared to be a bogus Webtv
advertising slogan? Something about being stupid enough for a fetus to
use? You know, when you use quotation marks, it denotes attribution.
Where did the words come from?
Doug Norris
>In article <norrisdt....@rintintin.colorado.edu>,
> norr...@rintintin.colorado.edu (Doug Norris) wrote:
>> sant...@my-deja.com writes:
>>
>> >By the way, did you forge that Webtv slogan?
>>
>> Alright, you've lost me. Please explain your joke.
>Joke? You don't remember posting what appeared to be a bogus Webtv
>advertising slogan? Something about being stupid enough for a fetus to
>use? You know, when you use quotation marks, it denotes attribution.
>Where did the words come from?
Well, that was a Doug Norris original. Seriously.
Doug
sant...@my-deja.com
Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
> sant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <01c040a5$e2047ba0$91f84cd8@celeron>,
> > "Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
> >> JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
> > <39ffcefa....@news.supernews.com>...
> >> >
> >> > The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular
season.
> >> > Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more
and
> >> > more?
> >>
> >> Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
> >> I'll agree with Maynard.
> >>
>
> > No kidding. And RM is considered obsessed on this newsgroup? The
> > asinine position that the Yankees weren't the best team this season
is
> > being parroted to a compulsive extent that even he couldn't hope to
> > achieve. It is in direct contravention of the rules of the game
and so
> > more resembles a religious conviction than an intellectual position.
>
> That resembles an Ad Hominem.
>
???
> Simply put, a sample of 162 is more likely to reflect actual
probabilities
> than a sample of 16. This isn't anything like a religious conviction,
it's
> elementary probability.
>
Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not terribly
complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
> Which isn't to say a 162 game season determines the best team either.
I
> personally think the indians were a better team than the White Sox
this
> year. But it is far more likely to determine it than a few short
> series. It is more equitable by the laws of probability.
>
> I don't think it's particularly critical who the "best" team is even
if we
> could agree on what "best team" means.
>
There's no need for agreement, just as there is no need for agreement
on how many outs in an inning.
> But to use the Yankees winning the WS as evidence that no one else
had a
> chance is false.
Why on earth are you implying that I hold that position? Where have I
said anything like this?
> The outcome that happens is not necessarily the only
> outcome that _could_ have happened.
No way!
> I think considering how often the
> Yankees lost this year, how close they came to losing to Oakland, and
the
> fact that in a very recent playoff setup they would not have made the
> playoffs, the notion that the Yankees _had_ to win is shaky at best.
>
Sure would be, if I actually held it.
> The Yankees deserve all the credit and praise in the world for
> constructing a great team and they deserve congratulations on their
third
> straight championship. They deserve congratulations because they
_could_
> have lost and there was a chance they would but they didn't.
>
> But they aren't invincible and can be beaten. At this point I would
not
> consider them to be favorites to win the WS next year. And that's
probably
> the first time I'd say that since they won in 1996.
>
It would be wrong to say that lower payroll teams have absolutely no
chance. I mean, a middling payroll team won as recently as nine years
ago, woo-hoo. It's also wrong to imply that lower payroll teams have a
good shot at it, when the results of the last eight consecutive World
Series suggest otherwise. This whole "Yankees weren't the best"
nonsense is just a feeble attempt to bolster the latter position.
Still, there's all sorts of wiggle room for reasonable people to
disagree on where the burgeoning payroll gap is leading the game.
Invoking silly mantras that are contradictory to the rules of baseball
adds nothing to the debate.
JAS Carter
>Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
>elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
>MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not terribly
>complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
Why is it that nearly every time someone says "case closed" it's
because they don't have any argument?
Why?
David Marc Nieporent
> scut...@airmail.net (Steve Cutchen) wrote:
>> Bronsius Mogath <cr...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>> > On 28 Oct 2000, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> > > Dale Hicks <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> claimed:
>> > > >JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote>...
>> > > >> The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
>> > > >> Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
>> > > >> more?
>> > > >Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
>> > > >I'll agree with Maynard.
>> > > I do. Therefore, you're wrong.
>> > > Agreeing with Maynard is *never* the right thing to do.
>> > Doesn't matter how many games they won during the year, if there was a
>> > better team out there than the Yankees, they would have won it all. There
>> > hasn't been for three straight years. Simple as that...
>> I don't believe the playoffs determine the best team. They determine the
>> MLB World Champions.
>???????
Was there a word there that was confusing for you? If so, please point it
out and I'll explain it for you.
>> It is a tournament and, especially in a sport like baseball, lots of
>> things can happen. Was NCState the best basketball team the year they
>> beat Phi Slama Jama?
>Yes. By definition.
Definition of what? Where did you get this definition from?
>> What do you think Valvano would say? Nope. But they WERE the
>> better team in each specific game when they played in that tournament.
>> They ran the table and were National Champions. But not necessarily the
>> best team. That's what makes their National Championship so sweet.
>> Cinderella, Baybee!
>> The best team? They should have the best chance to be Champions. But it
>> doesn't often work out that way. Every team in the tournament has a
>> chance, too... Even the worst team in the tournament has some chance.
>> Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year.
>Yes it was. By definition.
No, it wasn't. By application of intelligence.
>But World Champion does not equal best team?
Correct.
>When MLB throws open the
>number of strikes a batter is allowed or the number of outs in an
>inning to public vote then your ridiculous argument might have a
>smidgen of merit.
When you figure out how to construct an argument that actually makes
sense, post. Until then, could you please continue to watch WWF and not
baseball?
Terry May
jsgo...@geocities.com (JAS Carter) pitched the following:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:27:10 GMT, sant...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
> >elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
> >MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not terribly
> >complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
>
> Why is it that nearly every time someone says "case closed" it's
> because they don't have any argument?
>
> Why?
Or its equivalent: "Nuff said."
AKA: "My argument is as weak as Rey Ordonez's bat, and I'm afraid
you'll further expose me, so hopefully my saying this will end the thread."
--
"There's no crying in baseball." - Pedro Martinez
David Marc Nieporent
> Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
>> sant...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > "Dale Hicks" <dgh...@bellSPAMLESSsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
>> >> > The Yankees didn't have the best record during the regular season.
>> >> > Not really even close. So, how do you argue that they win more and
>> >> > more?
>> >> Nobody cares who won the most games in a season. On that,
>> >> I'll agree with Maynard.
>> > No kidding. And RM is considered obsessed on this newsgroup? The
>> > asinine position that the Yankees weren't the best team this season is
>> > being parroted to a compulsive extent that even he couldn't hope to
>> > achieve. It is in direct contravention of the rules of the game and so
>> > more resembles a religious conviction than an intellectual position.
>> That resembles an Ad Hominem.
>???
That seems to be your response, frequently. Perhaps you'd like to invest
in a dictionary?
>> Simply put, a sample of 162 is more likely to reflect actual probabilities
>> than a sample of 16. This isn't anything like a religious conviction, it's
>> elementary probability.
>Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
>elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
The rules of MLB are here:
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/headquarters/rulesfront.htm
Can you please tell me where you see anything about deciding who the best
team is?
>MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not terribly
>complicated.
No. MLB has a system to decide who the champion is. MLB is powerless to
decide who the best team is.
>The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
You're an idiot. Case closed.
Realto Margarino
> So, IOW, they won when the games counted, thus proving your theory
> wrong. And if they were horrible when the games counted, how
> exactly did they get to face the Cardinals in 96 and the Mets in
> 99 and the Marlins in 97 and the Philies in 93 and the Yankees in
> 96 and...?
When he says "...the games counted..." he was not referring to
whether the games literally counted in the standings. He was
talking about how the Braves seem to fold when the pressure is the
greatest.
> Hint: they've won a bucket o' games "when the games count," both in the
> regular season *and* in the playoffs.
Uh, well, you see, you are attributing a literal meaning to what he
is saying just so you can attack a straw man. You've done this for
years and it is getting kind of old.
There is not nearly so much pressure to win in April as there is in
October and if you don't understand this then you have no business
posting to this group.
Ah, hell, you have no business posting to this group, anyway...
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
>>> determine the MLB World Champions.
>>???????
> Was there a word there that was confusing for you? If so, please
> point it out and I'll explain it for you.
The whole statement is silly. The MLB Champions _are_ the best
team. How else would you determine which team is the best?
>>> It is a tournament and, especially in a sport like baseball,
>>> lots of things can happen. Was NCState the best basketball team
>>> the year they beat Phi Slama Jama?
>>Yes. By definition.
> Definition of what? Where did you get this definition from?
From the structure of the game itself, you dumb fuck. Where do you
get _your_ definition of "best" from? A spreadsheet?
The schedule and the playoffs are the means that MLB uses to
determine which team is the best. Do you have a better method?
Go on back to sleep...
cordially, as always,
rm
JAS Carter
niep...@shell.monmouth.com (David Marc Nieporent) warbled oh so
charmingly:
>>The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
>
>You're an idiot. Case closed.
Damn. You just blew my theory.
Julie Carter
--
http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
http://www.epinions.com/welcome.html?member=jsgoddess
ash...@nospam.skypoint.com
> Uh, well, you see, you are attributing a literal meaning to what he
> is saying just so you can attack a straw man. You've done this for
> years and it is getting kind of old.
Unlike calling Pete Rose the greatest hitter because he amassed the
greatest number of hits.
--
John W. Gregory ash...@skypoint.com URL=http://www.skypoint.com/~ashbury
Thought for the moment:
We may learn more from a man's errors, than from his virtues. -- Longfellow
Voros
>> That resembles an Ad Hominem.
> ???
Any traits or characteristics of the person making the argument are
irrelevant to the quality of the argument.
>> Simply put, a sample of 162 is more likely to reflect actual
> probabilities
>> than a sample of 16. This isn't anything like a religious conviction,
> it's
>> elementary probability.
>>
> Put down the sliderule and step back slowly.
Ad hominem.
This isn't about
> elementary probability,
Of course it is. The existence of and functioning of life is pretty much
about elementary probability. Ask Gregor Mendel.
> it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
Methinks you should look up the word elementary. Considering the rules of
which you speak were created 6 years ago and the game ha been played for
about 150+ years, I'd hardly call them elementary.
> MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not terribly
> complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
Of course MLB has changed that system _dramatically_ over the
last 6 years. So your idea that this is all very simple of course is
BS. In 1993 neither the Yankees nor the Mets make the playoffs.
>> Which isn't to say a 162 game season determines the best team either.
> I
>> personally think the indians were a better team than the White Sox
> this
>> year. But it is far more likely to determine it than a few short
>> series. It is more equitable by the laws of probability.
>>
>> I don't think it's particularly critical who the "best" team is even
> if we
>> could agree on what "best team" means.
>>
> There's no need for agreement, just as there is no need for agreement
> on how many outs in an inning.
>> But to use the Yankees winning the WS as evidence that no one else
> had a
>> chance is false.
> Why on earth are you implying that I hold that position? Where have I
> said anything like this?
Welcome to the killfile.
Vinay Kumar
: MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not terribly
: complicated.
No, they have a system to decide the championship. That's very
different. I'm sorry if you haven't been able to figure out the
distinction yet.
: It's also wrong to imply that lower payroll teams have a good shot
: at it, when the results of the last eight consecutive World Series
: suggest otherwise.
Well that's just silly. The A's and White Sox had a good shot at it.
As I wrote in another forum earlier today, go back to October 3rd: who
was better-positioned to win the World Series than the Oakland
Athletics?
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------\
| Vinay Kumar |
| vi...@baseball.org http://www.baseball.org/~vinay |
\---------------------------------------------------------------/
BJ VanDewater
best team, an agrument that the best team is the one that wins the most
games could make sense if it included all the games. The logic of only
using the first 162 seems flawed, at best.
Cheers
--
BJ VanDewater
bjv...@chello.at
Realto Margarino
> sant...@my-deja.com writes:
> : MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not terribly
> : complicated.
> No, they have a system to decide the championship. That's very
> different. I'm sorry if you haven't been able to figure out the
> distinction yet.
Oh? What other system does MLB use to determine which team is the
best? Answer? None. In fact, there is no other system. Pseudo
stat fans like yourself equate best with "most efficient" and _you_
claim that the WS winner is not necessarily the most efficient,
therefore, not the best according to _your_ definition. But why on
earth should anyone care who _you_ think is the best team? Why on
earth should anyone care about how a non sport fan like yourself
defines "best?"
cordially, as always,
rm
sant...@my-deja.com
jsgo...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2000 03:27:10 GMT, sant...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
> >elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
> >MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
terribly
> >complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
>
> Why is it that nearly every time someone says "case closed" it's
> because they don't have any argument?
>
> Why?
>
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
You were saying?
sant...@my-deja.com
sant...@my-deja.com
No, Major League Baseball and I will explain it to you below.
> >> It is a tournament and, especially in a sport like baseball, lots
of
> >> things can happen. Was NCState the best basketball team the year
they
> >> beat Phi Slama Jama?
>
> >Yes. By definition.
>
> Definition of what? Where did you get this definition from?
>
The NCAA, which determines the best team by holding a tournament. N.C.
State won that year. I thought you would already know this.
> >> What do you think Valvano would say? Nope. But they WERE the
> >> better team in each specific game when they played in that
tournament.
> >> They ran the table and were National Champions. But not
necessarily the
> >> best team. That's what makes their National Championship so sweet.
> >> Cinderella, Baybee!
>
> >> The best team? They should have the best chance to be Champions.
But it
> >> doesn't often work out that way. Every team in the tournament has
a
> >> chance, too... Even the worst team in the tournament has some
chance.
> >> Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year.
>
> >Yes it was. By definition.
>
> No, it wasn't. By application of intelligence.
>
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
That's the official site of MLB, by the way.
> >But World Champion does not equal best team?
>
> Correct.
>
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
> >When MLB throws open the
> >number of strikes a batter is allowed or the number of outs in an
> >inning to public vote then your ridiculous argument might have a
> >smidgen of merit.
>
> When you figure out how to construct an argument that actually makes
> sense, post.
When you have a point that's even arguable, get back to me.
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
> Until then, could you please continue to watch WWF and not
> baseball?
Not self-important or anything, are we?
sant...@my-deja.com
Or one of you could explain how it is an ad hominem.
> >> Simply put, a sample of 162 is more likely to reflect actual
probabilities
> >> than a sample of 16. This isn't anything like a religious
conviction, it's
> >> elementary probability.
>
> >Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
> >elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
>
> The rules of MLB are here:
>
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/headquarters/rulesf
ront.htm
>
> Can you please tell me where you see anything about deciding who the
best
> team is?
>
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
That's from the official site of MLB. You seem to have missed it.
> >MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
terribly
> >complicated.
>
> No. MLB has a system to decide who the champion is. MLB is
powerless to
> decide who the best team is.
>
You'd better tell them, then, because they think they already know at
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
> >The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
>
> You're an idiot. Case closed.
Did you pull that one out of the Doug Norris toychest of witty
rejoinders?
sant...@my-deja.com
Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
> sant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> That resembles an Ad Hominem.
>
> > ???
>
> Any traits or characteristics of the person making the argument are
> irrelevant to the quality of the argument.
>
And can you explain how my statement was an ad hominem? Oops, looks
like you snipped it. Shocking.
> >> Simply put, a sample of 162 is more likely to reflect actual
> > probabilities
> >> than a sample of 16. This isn't anything like a religious
conviction,
> > it's
> >> elementary probability.
> >>
>
> > Put down the sliderule and step back slowly.
>
> Ad hominem.
>
Because I implied you use a sliderule? Touchy, aren't we.
> This isn't about
> > elementary probability,
>
> Of course it is. The existence of and functioning of life is pretty
much
> about elementary probability. Ask Gregor Mendel.
>
There's entirely no need to drag Mendel, Planck, or anything else into
this. MLB has spoken:
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
> > it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
>
> Methinks you should look up the word elementary. Considering the
rules of
> which you speak were created 6 years ago and the game ha been played
for
> about 150+ years, I'd hardly call them elementary.
>
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
> > MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
terribly
> > complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
>
> Of course MLB has changed that system _dramatically_ over the
> last 6 years. So your idea that this is all very simple of course is
> BS. In 1993 neither the Yankees nor the Mets make the playoffs.
>
Irrelevant to the basic fact:
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
> >> Which isn't to say a 162 game season determines the best team
either.
> > I
> >> personally think the indians were a better team than the White Sox
> > this
> >> year. But it is far more likely to determine it than a few short
> >> series. It is more equitable by the laws of probability.
> >>
> >> I don't think it's particularly critical who the "best" team is
even
> > if we
> >> could agree on what "best team" means.
> >>
>
> > There's no need for agreement, just as there is no need for
agreement
> > on how many outs in an inning.
>
> >> But to use the Yankees winning the WS as evidence that no one else
> > had a
> >> chance is false.
>
> > Why on earth are you implying that I hold that position? Where
have I
> > said anything like this?
>
> Welcome to the killfile.
>
Lalalalalalalalalalalalala.........I can't HEEEEEEEEAR
you..........lalalalalalalalalalalalalala..........
sant...@my-deja.com
Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
> sant...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> : MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
terribly
> : complicated.
>
> No, they have a system to decide the championship. That's very
> different. I'm sorry if you haven't been able to figure out the
> distinction yet.
>
You'd better tell Major League Baseball, they didn't get the word:
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
baseball."
> : It's also wrong to imply that lower payroll teams have a good shot
> : at it, when the results of the last eight consecutive World Series
> : suggest otherwise.
>
> Well that's just silly. The A's and White Sox had a good shot at it.
> As I wrote in another forum earlier today, go back to October 3rd: who
> was better-positioned to win the World Series than the Oakland
> Athletics?
>
The team with the most depth, talent, and experience, and we all know
who that was.
JAS Carter
>> >Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
>> >elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of baseball.
>> >MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
>terribly
>> >complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
>>
>> Why is it that nearly every time someone says "case closed" it's
>> because they don't have any argument?
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
>http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
>aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
>
>"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
>baseball."
>
>You were saying?
I was saying that you don't have an argument. You want to define
terms based on something that few people here agree on.
You can call a toupee your hair, but everyone else will just call it a
bad rug.
Doug Norris
>Where did the quoted material come from?
Boy, you've really got a stick in your ass over this sort of question. Why?
Doug
David Marc Nieporent
> niep...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
>> In <8tik56$fsd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sant...@my-deja.com> claimed:
>> > scut...@airmail.net (Steve Cutchen) wrote:
>> >> Bronsius Mogath <cr...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>> >> > On 28 Oct 2000, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>> >> > Doesn't matter how many games they won during the year, if there
>> >> > was a better team out there than the Yankees, they would have won
>> >> > it all. There hasn't been for three straight years. Simple as
>> >> > that...
>> >> I don't believe the playoffs determine the best team. They
>> >> determine the MLB World Champions.
>> >???????
>> Was there a word there that was confusing for you? If so, please
>> point it out and I'll explain it for you.
>No, Major League Baseball and I will explain it to you below.
You failed to explain it. Playoffs don't determine the best team. They
determine the champions.
>> >> It is a tournament and, especially in a sport like baseball, lots
>> >> of things can happen. Was NCState the best basketball team the year
>> >> they beat Phi Slama Jama?
>> >Yes. By definition.
>> Definition of what? Where did you get this definition from?
>The NCAA, which determines the best team by holding a tournament. N.C.
>State won that year. I thought you would already know this.
You didn't answer the question. Where did the NCAA define "best team?"
>> >> Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year.
>> >Yes it was. By definition.
>> No, it wasn't. By application of intelligence.
>http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
>aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
>"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
>baseball."
>That's the official site of MLB, by the way.
It's an Associated Press story, moron. Who cares what an AP writer says?
You said it was in the rules. I posted a link to the rules. You failed
to find it. That's because it isn't in there.
No definition of "best team" exists anywhere, except your own head.
Realto Margarino
> I was saying that you don't have an argument. You want to define
> terms based on something that few people here agree on.
Actually, virtually everyone _except_ a few people here recognize
the WS winner as the best team.
How would _you_ determine the best team?
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> You failed to explain it. Playoffs don't determine the best team. They
> determine the champions.
What's the difference?
> You didn't answer the question. Where did the NCAA define "best team?"
No, you didn't answer the question. How would you determine the
"best team?"
> No definition of "best team" exists anywhere, except your own head.
Oh, so you are saying that there is no definition?
The best team is the last team standing. And they are the last team
standing because they were the best.
Very simple.
cordially, as always,
rm
mak...@my-deja.com
I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this also...seems to me the
Yanks must be the best team...how could they not be..they back door it
into the playoffs with a team that defies the usual rec.sport.baseball
analysis, and win the series again.
It almost appears that the analytical might have to redefine what makes
a "good" team?
====================================================================
"We in the analytical community sometimes discount the traditional, I-
only-trust-what-I-see-with-my-own-eyes "wisdom" of scouts and baseball
people, and many times we're justified. But every so often we're
reminded that, just as we see things in statistics that they don't know
are there, they see things the untrained eye can miss.
It's a good lesson to keep in mind when we fall into the trap of
thinking we have all the answers." - Art Martone
Tom Nawrocki
: I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this also...seems to me the
: Yanks must be the best team...how could they not be..they back door it
: into the playoffs with a team that defies the usual rec.sport.baseball
: analysis, and win the series again.
Could you explain how the Yankees defied the usual r.s.bb analysis? Please be
specific.
: It almost appears that the analytical might have to redefine what makes
: a "good" team?
The Yankees were above average in OBP, slugging percentage and ERA. Their runs
scored and runs allowed project to 86 wins, and they won 87. How could anyone
analyze the Yankees and not conclude they were a good team?
Tom Nawrocki
Roger Maynard
>The Yankees were above average in OBP, slugging percentage and ERA.
>Their runs scored and runs allowed project to 86 wins, and they won
>87. How could anyone analyze the Yankees and not conclude they were
>a good team?
Weasel time. The issue is not whether the Yankees were merely good.
The issue is whether the stat fans predicted that the Yankees would
turn out to be the best. The Yankees did, and the stat fans didn't.
G'nite Irene,
cordially, as always,
rm
Vinay Kumar
: In article <un1fky...@baseball.org>,
: > : MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
: terribly
: > : complicated.
: >
: > No, they have a system to decide the championship. That's very
: > different. I'm sorry if you haven't been able to figure out the
: > distinction yet.
: >
:
: You'd better tell Major League Baseball, they didn't get the word:
:
: http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
: aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
:
: "They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
: baseball."
That's an AP game recap. It's not some official declaration. Or are
you saying that MLB also offically declared that Bubba Trammell
started because of his career success against Andy Pettitte (which was
something else stated in the article).
You said that it was in the "elementary rules" of baseball. If it's
in the elementary rules, then why do you have to resort to quoting an
AP recap?
You know, you could just say that *you* think the Yankees are the best
team, and nobody would really be able to argue with that. But
instead, you're trying to say that *MLB* thinks the Yankees are the
"best" team, and you don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not sure why
you're arguing that point so vehemently.
: > Well that's just silly. The A's and White Sox had a good shot at
: > it. As I wrote in another forum earlier today, go back to October
: > 3rd: who was better-positioned to win the World Series than the
: > Oakland Athletics?
: The team with the most depth, talent, and experience, and we all know
: who that was.
Way to avoid the point, moron.
Roger Maynard
>That's an AP game recap. It's not some official declaration. Or
>are you saying that MLB also offically declared that Bubba Trammell
>started because of his career success against Andy Pettitte (which
>was something else stated in the article).
Well then tell us, sweetie, how do _you_ determine the "best" team
in baseball? Enlighten us, please...
cordially, as always,
rm
Dale Hicks
For each team, add up all of the expected runs for the batters
appearances, all of the expected runs allowed for the pitchers,
adjust for park effects, normalize to league average, then
pytagoreanize a W-L record. Add ten wins to Barry Bonds' team
and subtract ten from Todd Helton's. Rank in order of
expected wins, and publish the results with your margin of
error.
That, or play it out on the field.
--
Cranial Crusader dgh...@bellsouth.net
sant...@my-deja.com
niep...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
> In <8tns0a$r6o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sant...@my-deja.com> claimed:
> > niep...@alumni.princeton.edu wrote:
> >> In <8tik56$fsd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <sant...@my-deja.com>
claimed:
> >> > scut...@airmail.net (Steve Cutchen) wrote:
> >> >> Bronsius Mogath <cr...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
> >> >> > On 28 Oct 2000, David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>
> >> >> > Doesn't matter how many games they won during the year, if
there
> >> >> > was a better team out there than the Yankees, they would have
won
> >> >> > it all. There hasn't been for three straight years. Simple as
> >> >> > that...
>
> >> >> I don't believe the playoffs determine the best team. They
> >> >> determine the MLB World Champions.
>
> >> >???????
>
> >> Was there a word there that was confusing for you? If so, please
> >> point it out and I'll explain it for you.
>
> >No, Major League Baseball and I will explain it to you below.
>
> You failed to explain it. Playoffs don't determine the best team.
They
> determine the champions.
>
I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
> >> >> It is a tournament and, especially in a sport like baseball,
lots
> >> >> of things can happen. Was NCState the best basketball team the
year
> >> >> they beat Phi Slama Jama?
>
> >> >Yes. By definition.
>
> >> Definition of what? Where did you get this definition from?
>
> >The NCAA, which determines the best team by holding a tournament.
N.C.
> >State won that year. I thought you would already know this.
>
> You didn't answer the question. Where did the NCAA define "best
team?"
>
On a basketball court, in a tournament.
> >> >> Same with the Yankees. This was not the best team this year.
>
> >> >Yes it was. By definition.
>
> >> No, it wasn't. By application of intelligence.
>
>
>http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/re
c
> >aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
> >"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
> >baseball."
> >That's the official site of MLB, by the way.
>
> It's an Associated Press story, moron.
So many kind words, please, stop, you're embarrassing me.
> Who cares what an AP writer says?
This is a just a wild guess, but I'd say MLB cares, since they bothered
to post his story. I haven't seen any "Yankees Not Best Team in Spite
of Postseason Tournament" by David Marc Nieporent bylines lately over
there. In fact, the overwhelming majority of their content is non-
controversial stuff that even the most slavering idiot would recognize
as self-evident.
> You said it was in the rules. I posted a link to the rules. You
failed
> to find it. That's because it isn't in there.
>
I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Is RM correct, are you a lawyer?
> No definition of "best team" exists anywhere, except your own head.
And in the heads of 99.8% of the baseball-following public.
sant...@my-deja.com
This coming from the individual who threw a hissy because a low-grade
troll fabricated a quote of his.
Proper spelling, grammar, punctuation, and attribution only an issue
when the correct ox is being gored, hmm?
What's good for the goose...
sant...@my-deja.com
jsgo...@geocities.com wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 01:37:33 GMT, sant...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> >Put down the sliderule and step back slowly. This isn't about
> >> >elementary probability, it's about the elementary rules of
baseball.
> >> >MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
> >terribly
> >> >complicated. The Yankees were the best team in 2000, case closed.
> >>
> >> Why is it that nearly every time someone says "case closed" it's
> >> because they don't have any argument?
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >
>
>http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/re
c
> >aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
> >
> >"They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
> >baseball."
> >
> >You were saying?
>
> I was saying that you don't have an argument.
Technically correct. There is no argument.
> You want to define
> terms based on something that few people here agree on.
>
Tell you what; lets poll the millions of baseball fans around the world
on the question, "which team was the best in 2000?" If a term is to be
defined based upon what people agree on, which appears to be what you
are saying, I will say with some confidence that my definition will win
by a friggin' landslide.
> You can call a toupee your hair, but everyone else will just call it a
> bad rug.
>
You mean, a couple dozen posters on r.s.b will call it a bad rug.
You're really losing me here; a couple dozen of you on a usenet
newsgroup get to decide these issues? What exactly are you saying?
sant...@my-deja.com
Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
> sant...@my-deja.com writes:
> : In article <un1fky...@baseball.org>,
> : Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
> : > sant...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> : > : MLB has a system to decide who is the best team, and it's not
> : terribly
> : > : complicated.
> : >
> : > No, they have a system to decide the championship. That's very
> : > different. I'm sorry if you haven't been able to figure out the
> : > distinction yet.
> : >
> :
> : You'd better tell Major League Baseball, they didn't get the word:
> :
> :
http://www.majorleaguebaseball.com/u/baseball/mlbcom/2000/postseason/rec
> : aps/MLB_2000...@NYM.htm
> :
> : "They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
> : baseball."
>
> That's an AP game recap. It's not some official declaration.
How many dissenting opinions have been posted on MLB.com?
> Or are
> you saying that MLB also offically declared that Bubba Trammell
> started because of his career success against Andy Pettitte (which was
> something else stated in the article).
>
> You said that it was in the "elementary rules" of baseball. If it's
> in the elementary rules, then why do you have to resort to quoting an
> AP recap?
>
It's a truism, like driving down the right side of the road in the
U.S. I was trying to make it easy for you.
> You know, you could just say that *you* think the Yankees are the best
> team, and nobody would really be able to argue with that.
This has nothing to do with any declaration of mine. We're discussing
the declarations of others to the effect that the Yankees are NOT the
best team.
> But
> instead, you're trying to say that *MLB* thinks the Yankees are the
> "best" team, and you don't have a leg to stand on.
Then explain to me why MLB holds playoffs and a World Series, and what
you think it means to them.
> I'm not sure why
> you're arguing that point so vehemently.
This statement encapsulates perfectly my observation that this is more
a religious conviction than an "argument". The infidel is "vehement"
against the Received Doctrine -- riiiiiight.
>
> : > Well that's just silly. The A's and White Sox had a good shot at
> : > it. As I wrote in another forum earlier today, go back to October
> : > 3rd: who was better-positioned to win the World Series than the
> : > Oakland Athletics?
>
> : The team with the most depth, talent, and experience, and we all
know
> : who that was.
>
> Way to avoid the point, moron.
>
More kind words from the Keepers of the Eternal Flame.
sant...@my-deja.com
Uh, determine it on the field of play? WHAT?????
Heresy!!!!
PLONK!!!!!!!!!!!!
Vinay Kumar
: In article <ulmv38...@baseball.org>,
: Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
: > sant...@my-deja.com writes:
: > : In article <un1fky...@baseball.org>,
: > : Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
: > : > sant...@my-deja.com writes:
[MLB.com]
: > : "They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city, best in
: > : baseball."
: >
: > That's an AP game recap. It's not some official declaration.
:
: How many dissenting opinions have been posted on MLB.com?
What does it matter?
If I have a web site and write that I'm seven feet tall, does that
mean I'm really seven feet tall if nobody writes back dissenting?
: > You said that it was in the "elementary rules" of baseball. If it's
: > in the elementary rules, then why do you have to resort to quoting an
: > AP recap?
: It's a truism, like driving down the right side of the road in the
: U.S.
Except that there's a rule that says you drive on the right side of
the raod in the US. It's easy to find. If somebody asks you about
it, you can cite the rule, which is a lot stronger than showing a
picture of people driving on the right side of the road.
Once again: you said it was in the "elementary rules" of baseball.
If so, show me.
: > You know, you could just say that *you* think the Yankees are the
: > best team, and nobody would really be able to argue with that.
: This has nothing to do with any declaration of mine. We're
: discussing the declarations of others to the effect that the Yankees
: are NOT the best team.
Fine. I don't believe the Yankees were the best team in baseball this
year.
: > But instead, you're trying to say that *MLB* thinks the Yankees
: > are the "best" team, and you don't have a leg to stand on.
: Then explain to me why MLB holds playoffs and a World Series, and
: what you think it means to them.
Cynically, I'll say it's for the revenue. The World Series was
initially an exhibition between the two league champions. Eventually,
World Series Champion came to mean something. If you can't see the
distinction between "champion" and "best team", then I don't know what
more to say.
: > I'm not sure why you're arguing that point so vehemently.
: This statement encapsulates perfectly my observation that this is
: more a religious conviction than an "argument". The infidel is
: "vehement" against the Received Doctrine -- riiiiiight.
I don't know where you come up with this stuff.
: > : > Well that's just silly. The A's and White Sox had a good shot
: > : > at it. As I wrote in another forum earlier today, go back to
: > : > October 3rd: who was better-positioned to win the World Series
: > : > than the Oakland Athletics?
: > : The team with the most depth, talent, and experience, and we all
: > : know who that was.
: > Way to avoid the point, moron.
:
: More kind words from the Keepers of the Eternal Flame.
I don't resort to calling people "moron" in this group except when
they do what you do: you snipped the point from my post, and
responded to one question out of context. You're arguing like an
eight-year-old.
JAS Carter
sant...@my-deja.com warbled oh so charmingly:
>You mean, a couple dozen posters on r.s.b will call it a bad rug.
>You're really losing me here; a couple dozen of you on a usenet
>newsgroup get to decide these issues? What exactly are you saying?
I'm saying that you are not very bright.
You should talk to rm. He's right up your alley.
Julie Carter
--
http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
http://www.epinions.com/welcome.html?member=jsgoddess
Realto Margarino
> What does it matter?
> If I have a web site and write that I'm seven feet tall, does that
> mean I'm really seven feet tall if nobody writes back dissenting?
If you wrote that you were 7 feet tall you would be deliberately
misleading the public (by about 2 and a half feet). Are you
suggesting that MLB was deliberately trying to mislead the public?
cordially, as always,
rm
FM
>Tell you what; lets poll the millions of baseball fans around the world
>on the question, "which team was the best in 2000?" If a term is to be
>defined based upon what people agree on, which appears to be what you
>are saying, I will say with some confidence that my definition will win
>by a friggin' landslide.
Amazing. Design an imaginary poll that one isn't capable of
running oneself and then use the imaginary result to support
one's argument. If the poll said which team was the best, I'd
say the Yankees would be the most popular answer, but I doubt
it would have the majority of the votes. If the poll asked
whether the World Series Champion is necessarily the best team
in the Major Leagues that season, I don't think the result
would support your argument.
--
Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed
to be doing at the moment.
-- Robert Benchley
FM
>This is a just a wild guess, but I'd say MLB cares, since they bothered
>to post his story. I haven't seen any "Yankees Not Best Team in Spite
>of Postseason Tournament" by David Marc Nieporent bylines lately over
>there. In fact, the overwhelming majority of their content is non-
>controversial stuff that even the most slavering idiot would recognize
>as self-evident.
No, they posted it because it's from the AP. It's not as
though the MLB explicitly endorses anything from the AP.
Even the statement wasn't very clear - it was more of an
expression of exhilaration, rather than a literal
statement. It actually seems that the writer wasn't even
using his own perspective - he was merely describing the
emotions of the Yankees players. There are so many things
wrong with claiming that this is the MLB's official
position that that even the most slavering idiot wouldn't
make that mistake every time. Here's the quote:
>The New York Yankees took turns parading their
>World Series trophy around the field, hoisting
>it high so fans could see it gleaming gold in
>the lights. Derek, El Duque, the Rocket -- each
>one holding on tight.
>
>That the scene unfolded on the green grass of
>Shea Stadium, home of their Subway Series rivals,
>hardly mattered.
>
>They were champions again. Best in the city, best
>in baseball.
--
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true
or becomes true.
-- John Lilly
Erik Simpson
: In article <20001030204041...@unlvrebels.com>,
: Terry May <outr...@unlvrebels.com> wrote:
someone else wrote--
: > > Why is it that nearly every time someone says "case closed" it's
: > > because they don't have any argument?
: > >
: > > Why?
: >
: > Or its equivalent: "Nuff said."
: >
: > AKA: "My argument is as weak as Rey Ordonez's bat, and I'm afraid
: > you'll further expose me, so hopefully my saying this will end the
: thread."
: Where did the quoted material come from?
As you surely know, using quotation marks in that context is routine in
informal writing and common in formal writing. You're floundering for a
real point, and you haven't found one here. This is perfectly clear
informal writing, not a serious error of attribution such as, for
instance, claiming that an AP article represents the official opinion of
MLB.
Erik
Realto Margarino
> As you surely know, using quotation marks in that context is routine in
> informal writing and common in formal writing. You're floundering for a
> real point, and you haven't found one here. This is perfectly clear
> informal writing, not a serious error of attribution such as, for
> instance, claiming that an AP article represents the official opinion of
> MLB.
Actually, the claim is that the AP article is not inconsistent with
the official opinion of MLB. And I think the point stands.
G'nite Agnes,
cordially, as always,
rm
sant...@my-deja.com
da...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
> sant...@my-deja.com <sant...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >This is a just a wild guess, but I'd say MLB cares, since they
bothered
> >to post his story. I haven't seen any "Yankees Not Best Team in
Spite
> >of Postseason Tournament" by David Marc Nieporent bylines lately over
> >there. In fact, the overwhelming majority of their content is non-
> >controversial stuff that even the most slavering idiot would
recognize
> >as self-evident.
>
I think you need to clarify that statement a bit.
> It's not as
> though the MLB explicitly endorses anything from the AP.
But as their content consists of only a select few AP articles, all
seemingly non-controversial in nature, the implication is clear.
> Even the statement wasn't very clear - it was more of an
> expression of exhilaration, rather than a literal
> statement.
It was both clear and an expression of exhiliration. Not that that
matters.
> It actually seems that the writer wasn't even
> using his own perspective - he was merely describing the
> emotions of the Yankees players. There are so many things
> wrong with claiming that this is the MLB's official
> position that that even the most slavering idiot wouldn't
> make that mistake every time. Here's the quote:
>
> >The New York Yankees took turns parading their
> >World Series trophy around the field, hoisting
> >it high so fans could see it gleaming gold in
> >the lights. Derek, El Duque, the Rocket -- each
> >one holding on tight.
> >
> >That the scene unfolded on the green grass of
> >Shea Stadium, home of their Subway Series rivals,
> >hardly mattered.
> >
> >They were champions again. Best in the city, best
> >in baseball.
>
Yep, there it is. Where exactly is the part where he says that he is
merely describing the feelings of Yankee players, rather than what he
seems to be saying to you?
Is it your position that the Yankees are not the "best" but
merely "champion"? And does that mean another lawyerly round of
parsing?
> --
> In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is
true
> or becomes true.
No kidding.
> -- John Lilly
sant...@my-deja.com
esim...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Erik Simpson) wrote:
> sant...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : In article <20001030204041...@unlvrebels.com>,
> : Terry May <outr...@unlvrebels.com> wrote:
>
> someone else wrote--
>
> : > > Why is it that nearly every time someone says "case closed" it's
> : > > because they don't have any argument?
> : > >
> : > > Why?
> : >
> : > Or its equivalent: "Nuff said."
> : >
> : > AKA: "My argument is as weak as Rey Ordonez's bat, and I'm afraid
> : > you'll further expose me, so hopefully my saying this will end the
> : thread."
>
> : Where did the quoted material come from?
>
in
> informal writing and common in formal writing. You're floundering
for a
> real point,
You're ignoring the total context of the exchange, so you don't know
what you're talking about.
> and you haven't found one here. This is perfectly clear
> informal writing, not a serious error of attribution such as, for
> instance, claiming that an AP article represents the official opinion
of
> MLB.
>
Ah, I shouldn't be so critical of writing as informal as, say, a Usenet
post, yet I am held to the highest standards of rhetorical rigor when
discussing "best" vs. "champion" or quoting from the official website
of MLB.
Got it.
sant...@my-deja.com
world
> >on the question, "which team was the best in 2000?" If a term is to
be
> >defined based upon what people agree on, which appears to be what you
> >are saying, I will say with some confidence that my definition will
win
> >by a friggin' landslide.
>
> running oneself and then use the imaginary result to support
> one's argument.
Amazing. Delete preceding context and argue against a straw man.
> If the poll said which team was the best, I'd
> say the Yankees would be the most popular answer, but I doubt
> it would have the majority of the votes. If the poll asked
> whether the World Series Champion is necessarily the best team
> in the Major Leagues that season, I don't think the result
> would support your argument.
>
This is entirely ridiculous. You are arguing against a bit of my
sarcasm, which you would have known if you had bothered to keep the
context intact.
sant...@my-deja.com
jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 02:05:59 GMT, in rec.sport.baseball
> sant...@my-deja.com warbled oh so charmingly:
>
> >You're really losing me here; a couple dozen of you on a usenet
> >newsgroup get to decide these issues? What exactly are you saying?
>
>
> You should talk to rm. He's right up your alley.
>
Jeez, and you were the one saying that "case closed" denotes no
argument? You end an exchange by snipping most of it, then saying I'm
an idiot and a troll and you DO have an argument?
sant...@my-deja.com
> : Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
> : > sant...@my-deja.com writes:
> : > : In article <un1fky...@baseball.org>,
> : > : Vinay Kumar <vi...@baseball.org> wrote:
> : > : > sant...@my-deja.com writes:
>
>
> : > : "They [the Yankees] were champions again. Best in the city,
best in
> : > : baseball."
> : >
> : > That's an AP game recap. It's not some official declaration.
> :
> : How many dissenting opinions have been posted on MLB.com?
>
>
> If I have a web site and write that I'm seven feet tall, does that
> mean I'm really seven feet tall if nobody writes back dissenting?
>
No, what it means is that, if it is said without obvious sarcasm or
irony, you are telling the world that you are seven feet tall.
> : > You said that it was in the "elementary rules" of baseball. If
it's
> : > in the elementary rules, then why do you have to resort to
quoting an
> : > AP recap?
>
> : It's a truism, like driving down the right side of the road in the
> : U.S.
>
> Except that there's a rule that says you drive on the right side of
> the raod in the US. It's easy to find. If somebody asks you about
> it, you can cite the rule, which is a lot stronger than showing a
> picture of people driving on the right side of the road.
>
Okay, find it and post it.
> Once again: you said it was in the "elementary rules" of baseball.
> If so, show me.
>
Just take a look at the World Series winner.
We all know that MLB has rules (I will drop "elementary" since I was
only mimicking someone else when I said it, and it seems to distress
some of you so much) which outline a format for playoffs and a World
Series. This process ends with the naming, except to those who don't
know what the meaning of "is" is, of MLB's best team. I couldn't find
this particular set of rules in my brief jog around the site, but I
think you will concede the point that they exist.
> : > You know, you could just say that *you* think the Yankees are the
> : > best team, and nobody would really be able to argue with that.
>
> : This has nothing to do with any declaration of mine. We're
> : discussing the declarations of others to the effect that the Yankees
> : are NOT the best team.
>
> Fine. I don't believe the Yankees were the best team in baseball this
> year.
>
What are your criteria?
> : > But instead, you're trying to say that *MLB* thinks the Yankees
> : > are the "best" team, and you don't have a leg to stand on.
>
> : Then explain to me why MLB holds playoffs and a World Series, and
> : what you think it means to them.
>
> Cynically, I'll say it's for the revenue.
I knew this was coming. Look, we all know that the entire enterprise
is a money making venture, so please tell me, financial considerations
aside, what you think the playoffs and World Series means to MLB.
> The World Series was
> initially an exhibition between the two league champions. Eventually,
> World Series Champion came to mean something.
What might that be?
> If you can't see the
> distinction between "champion" and "best team", then I don't know what
> more to say.
>
> : > I'm not sure why you're arguing that point so vehemently.
>
> : This statement encapsulates perfectly my observation that this is
> : more a religious conviction than an "argument". The infidel is
> : "vehement" against the Received Doctrine -- riiiiiight.
>
> I don't know where you come up with this stuff.
>
> : > : > Well that's just silly. The A's and White Sox had a good shot
> : > : > at it. As I wrote in another forum earlier today, go back to
> : > : > October 3rd: who was better-positioned to win the World Series
> : > : > than the Oakland Athletics?
>
> : > : The team with the most depth, talent, and experience, and we all
> : > : know who that was.
>
> : > Way to avoid the point, moron.
> :
> : More kind words from the Keepers of the Eternal Flame.
>
> I don't resort to calling people "moron" in this group except when
> they do what you do: you snipped the point from my post,
False, I did no such thing.
> and
> responded to one question out of context.
To my rereading of it I answered straightforwardly and in context.
> You're arguing like an
> eight-year-old.
>
See response to JAS.
Realto Margarino
> da...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
>> >They were champions again. Best in the city, best
>> >in baseball.
> Yep, there it is. Where exactly is the part where he says that he
> is merely describing the feelings of Yankee players, rather than
> what he seems to be saying to you?
> Is it your position that the Yankees are not the "best" but merely
> "champion"? And does that mean another lawyerly round of parsing?
If the Yankees are not the best then which of the other teams, all
of whom got beaten out, was the best?
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter) wrote:
>> I'm saying that you are not very bright.
>> You should talk to rm. He's right up your alley.
> Jeez, and you were the one saying that "case closed" denotes no
> argument? You end an exchange by snipping most of it, then saying
> I'm an idiot and a troll and you DO have an argument?
I don't see where you were called a troll. If you are referring to
rm as a troll, then you should know that the position that you are
putting forth about "best" has been one of rm's more successful
"trolls" for years now.
cordially, as always,
rm
Ben Flieger
<sant...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8u3u79$bdr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > As you surely know, using quotation marks in that context is routine
> in
> > informal writing and common in formal writing. You're floundering
> for a
> > real point,
>
> You're ignoring the total context of the exchange, so you don't know
> what you're talking about.
This phrase has appeared in both of your recent posts to this thread. In
neither case does it make sense. What do you think "context" means?
You are floundering for a real point.
> > and you haven't found one here. This is perfectly clear
> > informal writing, not a serious error of attribution such as, for
> > instance, claiming that an AP article represents the official
opinion
> of
> > MLB.
> >
> Ah, I shouldn't be so critical of writing as informal as, say, a
Usenet
> post, yet I am held to the highest standards of rhetorical rigor when
> discussing "best" vs. "champion"
No, there was nothing semantic about that discussion. You established
that you thought the champion was the best team. Other people
established that they thought you were wrong.
You _were_ held to basic standards of logic, sorry about that. In
future, please alert others that you are an idiot prior to the argument,
and they can proceed from there.
or quoting from the official website
> of MLB.
The article you quoted was an AP article. It could be found any number
of places, including your local newspaper.
Realto Margarino
> No, there was nothing semantic about that discussion. You
> established that you thought the champion was the best team. Other
> people established that they thought you were wrong.
The champion _is_ the best team, by definition. If you are going to
challenge the notion that the champion is the best team then you are
going to have to show us why you think another team is better.
> You _were_ held to basic standards of logic, sorry about that.
You ignore the "basic standards of logic" all the time.
>> or quoting from the official website of MLB.
> The article you quoted was an AP article. It could be found any
> number of places, including your local newspaper.
And MLB wouldn't post it on their web site if they felt that the
article was false, would they, Mr. Logic?
If the Yankees are not the best team, then who is, and why?
cordially, as always,
rm
sant...@my-deja.com
"Ben Flieger" <flie...@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> <sant...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8u3u79$bdr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > As you surely know, using quotation marks in that context is
routine
> > in
> > > informal writing and common in formal writing. You're floundering
> > for a
> > > real point,
> >
> > You're ignoring the total context of the exchange, so you don't know
> > what you're talking about.
>
> This phrase has appeared in both of your recent posts to this thread.
In
> neither case does it make sense. What do you think "context" means?
>
Look it up.
> You are floundering for a real point.
>
You too are jumping into the middle of something you know nothing
about. Do you know which post, or even thread, this all goes back to?
Do you always jump into the middle of a discussion and take up the
standard when one of the actual principals has dropped out?
> > > and you haven't found one here. This is perfectly clear
> > > informal writing, not a serious error of attribution such as, for
> > > instance, claiming that an AP article represents the official
> opinion
> > of
> > > MLB.
> > >
> > Ah, I shouldn't be so critical of writing as informal as, say, a
> Usenet
> > post, yet I am held to the highest standards of rhetorical rigor
when
> > discussing "best" vs. "champion"
>
> No, there was nothing semantic about that discussion. You established
> that you thought the champion was the best team. Other people
> established that they thought you were wrong.
>
No, other people claimed (with nothing to back it up) that the Yankees
are not the best team. I disagreed. Please get it right when you jump
into the middle of something.
> You _were_ held to basic standards of logic, sorry about that. In
> future, please alert others that you are an idiot prior to the
argument,
> and they can proceed from there.
>
See response to JAS. Read something you don't like, therefore the
individual is an idiot. How cowardly.
What are your criteria for "best team"?
> or quoting from the official website
> > of MLB.
>
> The article you quoted was an AP article. It could be found any number
> of places, including your local newspaper.
>
And most people's sigs can be found any number of places, but if you
choose to make it your sig then it signifies something, hmm?
sant...@my-deja.com
No, since I'm sure she, along with many others here, regards you as a
troll, she was therefore calling me one when she compared me to you.
For the record, whatever disagreements I might have with your various
positions or how you express them, you are not a troll, at least not by
any definition that intellectually honest people understand. You are
almost always on topic, are not deliberately trying to instigate
arguments (although the Holy Brethren who claim this group as their own
might want to think so), and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with
what you say. Not only that, your posts are easily the most
entertaining.
FM
> da...@dartmouth.edu wrote:
>> No, they posted it because it's from the AP.
>I think you need to clarify that statement a bit.
The World Series is over. Someone from AP writes a recap
about the last game. The MLB (along with a whole bunch of
other media sites) posts it on their website. Duh.
>> It's not as
>> though the MLB explicitly endorses anything from the AP.
>But as their content consists of only a select few AP articles, all
>seemingly non-controversial in nature, the implication is clear.
That's funny. I guess if you really try to argue a position
and that spin the world around it, then you might even come
up with the above logic.
Do you really think they have this article on their website
because it's not controversial?
>> Even the statement wasn't very clear - it was more of an
>> expression of exhilaration, rather than a literal
>> statement.
>It was both clear and an expression of exhiliration. Not that that
>matters.
Sure. Of course the very likely possibility the author
wasn't expressing his opinion is completely beyond you.
>> It actually seems that the writer wasn't even
>> using his own perspective - he was merely describing the
>> emotions of the Yankees players. There are so many things
>> wrong with claiming that this is the MLB's official
>> position that that even the most slavering idiot wouldn't
>> make that mistake every time. Here's the quote:
>>
>> >The New York Yankees took turns parading their
>> >World Series trophy around the field, hoisting
>> >it high so fans could see it gleaming gold in
>> >the lights. Derek, El Duque, the Rocket -- each
>> >one holding on tight.
>> >
>> >That the scene unfolded on the green grass of
>> >Shea Stadium, home of their Subway Series rivals,
>> >hardly mattered.
>> >
>> >They were champions again. Best in the city, best
>> >in baseball.
>Yep, there it is. Where exactly is the part where he says that he is
>merely describing the feelings of Yankee players, rather than what he
>seems to be saying to you?
Wow. When's the last time you read a competent writer
explicitly mentioning that he is going to describe
someone's feeling before every time he did? You surely
know about the 3rd person (restricted) POV, right? Does
any writer who wants to state his own perspective
unambiguously (and have it taken seriously) use the
above style?
Take the following paragraph.
:John dreamed and dreamed and on and on. He was at once
:a god and a man, then a peacock. Then a dog, seemingly
:a lion and a rodent. A tree stood before him but stopped
:him, never. He was the supreme being, the master of the
:park. Suddenly, he felt a stroke of divine warmth, the
:kind he can expect from the heaven above. His mom woke
:him up.
Uhm, does the speaker believe in any of the stuff that
was apparently (from the context) in John's dream?
>Is it your position that the Yankees are not the "best" but
>merely "champion"? And does that mean another lawyerly round of
>parsing?
Actually my position is that the term ("good") is
intrinsically subjective (aside from being fairly
meaningless) in any context. I almost wrote a fairly
long rant about this issue before.
--
Nature makes boys and girls lovely to look upon so they can be
tolerated until they acquire some sense.
-- Anonymous
Vinay Kumar
: Amazing. Delete preceding context and argue against a straw man.
What's that line, something about a pot and a kettle?
You did the exact same thing to me. It's why I stopped arguing.