best CF in AL
Ron Graham
Not based on the numbers, anyway. At the very least, Chad Curtis was better
than Lofton according to all relevant numbers: PO, A, DP, E and AVG. Devon
White had better numbers than Lofton in most categories, and Junior was also
significantly better. Maybe Lofton will continue to improve to the point
where he will actually *earn* the Gold Glove he was given -- but based on age
only one might expect at least Curtis and Griffey to hang with him.
I sure love Lofton tho'. :-)
RG
"If they don't postpone this game tonight, then it'll be played."
- WKNR's Greg Brinda, 04/06/94
Greg Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life Spira
Rangewise, there are a couple at the top
Defensive Average
Curtis .614
Lofton .607
Yount .605
Johnson .601
White .600
Zone Rating
Curtis .875
Lofton .872
Johnson .871
White .863
We'll assume Yount's presence in the DA ratings is a fluke, since
he hasn't shown any similar ability recently.
Obviously, the rest of these guys are close. What distinguishes
Lofton is his arm. STATS has a hold percentage, rating how many
baserunners outfielders allow to take an extra base given that
possibility. Lofton came in second in that category last year,
behind Bernie Williams, and ahead of all those who compete with
him in range above.
Lofton 46.3%
Curtis 56.2%
White 58.3%
Johnson 62.0%
The worst three centerfielders, btw, were Hatcher, Griffey, and Puckett.
All three have about average arms but finished at the bottom in both
DA and ZR.
Greg
Jeffrey Zirker
|>Defensively, it's almost certainly Kenny Lofton.
|>
|>Rangewise, there are a couple at the top
|>
|>Defensive Average
|>Curtis .614
|>Lofton .607
|>Yount .605
|>Johnson .601
|>White .600
|>
|>Zone Rating
|>Curtis .875
|>Lofton .872
|>Johnson .871
|>White .863
|>
|>Lofton is his arm. STATS has a hold percentage, rating how many
|>baserunners outfielders allow to take an extra base given that
|>possibility. Lofton came in second in that category last year,
|>behind Bernie Williams, and ahead of all those who compete with
|>him in range above.
|>
|>Lofton 46.3%
|>Curtis 56.2%
|>White 58.3%
|>Johnson 62.0%
By the numbers stated above, I'd give the nod to Curtis over Lofton. Unless
some names have been omitted between Lofton and Curtis in the hold percentage
rankings? If so, then Lofton gets the nod.
To take this a step further, we've proven how valuable both Lofton and Curtis's
defenses are. Now, let's add in their offensive numbers, and see who's the
'overall' best CF in the AL? Lofton or Curtis?
Jeff
unknown
>As a Tribe Homer, let me say that the answer to the above ain't Kenny Lofton.
>Not based on the numbers, anyway. At the very least, Chad Curtis was better
>than Lofton according to all relevant numbers: PO, A, DP, E and AVG.
These aren't very relevant to much. DP? For outfielders? E? What,
Lofton have 4 and Curtis 3? Tell us more relevant numbers, like
hat size and height of children.
Devon
>White had better numbers than Lofton in most categories,
ONly by about -.060 in obp and -.100 in slg.
and Junior was also
>significantly better.
OK, there's one...
Maybe Lofton will continue to improve to the point
>where he will actually *earn* the Gold Glove he was given -- but based on age
>only one might expect at least Curtis and Griffey to hang with him.
>
In terms of gold gloves? Nah....
paul
unknown
>|>Lofton is his arm. STATS has a hold percentage, rating how many
>|>baserunners outfielders allow to take an extra base given that
>|>possibility. Lofton came in second in that category last year,
>|>behind Bernie Williams, and ahead of all those who compete with
>|>him in range above.
>|>
>|>Lofton 46.3%
>|>Curtis 56.2%
>|>White 58.3%
>|>Johnson 62.0%
>
>By the numbers stated above, I'd give the nod to Curtis over Lofton. Unless
>some names have been omitted between Lofton and Curtis in the hold percentage
>rankings? If so, then Lofton gets the nod.
Quite a few names are dropped. In fact, 56% is about average (Remember
Lofton is #2).
>
>To take this a step further, we've proven how valuable both Lofton and Curtis's
>defenses are. Now, let's add in their offensive numbers, and see who's the
>'overall' best CF in the AL? Lofton or Curtis?
>
>Jeff
If you're adding in offense, also consider Griffey (is great O+poor D enough
to overcome good O+good D?)
paul
Roger Maynard
Why doesn't he change that to "Statistics is a Way Of Life"
>Defensively, it's almost certainly Kenny Lofton.
>
>[silliness deleted]
All you have shown is who has the best stats. The issue is the best centre
fielder, isn't it? And since baseball is a team sport - with team goals -
any measurement of an individual's contribution must be taken in the context
of the team goal. And of course that is impossible. Your after the fact
statistics are nothing but an expression of your after the fact opinion which
brings me to this point: In all of the time that I have been reading this
group I have _never_ ever seen you give any indication at all that you have
ever watched a game. I'll bet that you're one of those clowns that reads
the newspaper while the game is on. And of course the next day, after the
next newspaper is published you're an "expert" on yesterday's game.
If you want an after the fact opinion how about this one: Devon White is
the centre fielder you'd have wanted on your team the last two years. And
he is the _only_ choice, unless of course you don't care whether or not
your team wins it all...
Wonder what song we'll get this time?
cordially, as always,
rm
--
Roger Maynard
may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
John C. Davenport
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>In article 8...@panix2.panix.com, sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>
>Why doesn't he change that to "Statistics is a Way Of Life"
>
>>Defensively, it's almost certainly Kenny Lofton.
>>
>>[silliness deleted]
Now Playing at an Internet site near you, with a scheduled run until
October, its the Incredible (and I mean that in the original spirit of
the word) Roger Maynard. For those of you who joined the net since
October, when Roger went into his annual winter hibernation (you're
early, Roger. Don't tell me your team couldn't make hockey's bloated
playoff structure), he is a continual foil to the "statheads" of this
group. His usual points are all here: the reliance on "rings" as a
measure of individual success, the denial that objective measures of
individual performance have any validity whatsoever, and the common
slur about people who look at stats without ever watching a game.
Expect to see the same points repeated often, and try to
remember that you are not going to change his mind, no matter how
cogent your reasoning. Expect numerous heated replies that could rival
the length of the Show(er) thread, until a critical mass catches on
and stops responding to the bait.
I'll respond to this one, mostly to get the word out to Cory, Dorian,
and others who may not know him yet. You will, folks, don't worry.
>All you have shown is who has the best stats. The issue is the best centre
>fielder, isn't it? And since baseball is a team sport - with team goals -
>any measurement of an individual's contribution must be taken in the context
>of the team goal. And of course that is impossible. Your after the fact
>statistics are nothing but an expression of your after the fact opinion which
>brings me to this point: In all of the time that I have been reading this
>group I have _never_ ever seen you give any indication at all that you have
>ever watched a game. I'll bet that you're one of those clowns that reads
>the newspaper while the game is on. And of course the next day, after the
>next newspaper is published you're an "expert" on yesterday's game.
>
>If you want an after the fact opinion how about this one: Devon White is
>the centre fielder you'd have wanted on your team the last two years. And
>he is the _only_ choice, unless of course you don't care whether or not
>your team wins it all...
If Devon is a package deal with Alomar, Olerud, and Molitor, yeah, I
guess so...
Your idea that any player from the championship team is, ipso facto,
better than any corresponding player from a non-championship team is a
non-sequitor.
The Blue Jays, as a team, are the best in baseball the last two years.
It is thus fair to conclude that the *average* Blue Jay player is better
than the average player from any other team.
To then say that each Blue Jay is better than other players is the logical
equivalent of saying that, since the average man is taller than the
average woman, I must be taller than all women (I'm 5'6", BTW).
5 7 9 8 6 8 avg=7.17
6 8 2 9 7 9 avg=6.83
The first line, as a group, is worth more, but is less than group 2 in
all but one place.
>Wonder what song we'll get this time?
Your song, at least, remains the same.
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm
>--
>Roger Maynard
>may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
--
Clay D.
jc...@virginia.edu
A manager who'd bat Flynn and Blake ahead of Casey is an idiot.
Gordon Niguma
I've been thinking about this argument a long time and applied it to hockey.
Now, I am a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs and decided that Doug Gilmour should
be traded for someone like Andre Racicot. Gilmour has already shown that he
is too old and too decrepit to play for a Stanley Cup team. I doubt he
could make the roster of the Montreal Canadians.
Gord Niguma
(fav player: John Olerud)
Zzzzz
> In article 8...@panix2.panix.com, sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of
Life" Spira) writes:
>
> Why doesn't he change that to "Statistics is a Way Of Life"
>
> >Defensively, it's almost certainly Kenny Lofton.
> >
> >[silliness deleted]
>
>
> If you want an after the fact opinion how about this one: Devon White is
> the centre fielder you'd have wanted on your team the last two years. And
> he is the _only_ choice, unless of course you don't care whether or not
> your team wins it all...
>
> Wonder what song we'll get this time?
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
> --
> Roger Maynard
> may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
So are you saying that Toronto wouldn't have won the last 3 division and last
2 world series if Devon wasn't there, and Cleveland would have won the title if
Devon played CF for them? I just thought you said baseball is a team sports.
Maybe Toronto wouldn't have won the titles without Devon, but does that mean
Devon is the sole reason Toronto had won? probably not, they won because they
had other good players in the TEAM. On the other hand, Cleveland didn't win the
division with Kenny, so does that mean that Cleveland lost because of Kenny?
hell no, Cleveland lost because they didn't have as good a team as other team.
Both Devon White and Kenny Lofton are good players, but just because one's team
won and the other one's team lost that doesn't make one better player than the
other. Statistic sure doesn't tell the whole story, but it does give you some
idea of a player's perfomance from relative and objective view. All in all,
it's pretty good tool to judge one's *performance*. When one says one had
better stats than the other, that means one had better performance than the
other relative to the hits, put outs or whatever categories that were used in
the statistics. Of course statistics can't always tell everything about one's
abilities, but nothing does. However, one's performance does reflect one's
abilities in ways. So lot of people use statistic when talking about players.
If you have problem with that maybe you should try to find a better way to
determine a players ability and while you're doing that you should try to
understand others view, I believe.
--
###############################################################################
#P.J. KIM p-k...@uiuc.edu \||||/ any opinion expressed above is not of my#
#U. of ILLINOIS at U-C [@ @] school or of anybody else. in fact, they#
#GO FIGHTING ILLINI!! { _||_ }are not even mine. a god tells me things#
#GO BRAVES!! [____] in my dreams so go argue with him not me#
###########################official I-HEAD#####################################
Dorian Rysling Kim
John C. Davenport <jc...@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>Now Playing at an Internet site near you, with a scheduled run until
>October, its the Incredible (and I mean that in the original spirit of
>the word) Roger Maynard. For those of you who joined the net since
>October, when Roger went into his annual winter hibernation (you're
>early, Roger. Don't tell me your team couldn't make hockey's bloated
>playoff structure), he is a continual foil to the "statheads" of this
>group. His usual points are all here: the reliance on "rings" as a
>measure of individual success, the denial that objective measures of
>individual performance have any validity whatsoever, and the common
>slur about people who look at stats without ever watching a game.
And I was depressed thinking that Roger gave up on us. I feel much better
now. :P
>I'll respond to this one, mostly to get the word out to Cory, Dorian,
>and others who may not know him yet. You will, folks, don't worry.
Clay, thanks for the warning, but I was on this newsgroup even before SDCN
was coined, and have already gotten my Maynard vaccine[tm]. In case those
of you out there who haven't yet had the fortune of getting it, Maynard
vaccine[tm] is a one time injection of TOP SECRET compound (courtesy of
B1FF and John Birch Society) that will allow you to totally ignore Roger
Maynard. Once innoculated, the effect is permanent.
Some might be allergic to the compound, and in such cases, judicious use
of the kill file is recommended.
But remember kids, don't try this at home. Please consult expert opinions.
_Dorian_
--
---{@---{@
Dorian R. Kim \ "Baldrick, you wouldn't know a subtle plan if it
UM ITS SysAdmin \ painted itself purple and danced atop a harpsi-
dor...@umich.edu \ chord singing 'Subtle Plans are Here Again'."
Scott E Cantor
John C. Davenport <jc...@darwin.clas.Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>
>
>I'll respond to this one, mostly to get the word out to Cory, Dorian,
>and others who may not know him yet. You will, folks, don't worry.
Thank you.
>Your idea that any player from the championship team is, ipso facto,
>better than any corresponding player from a non-championship team is a
>non-sequitor.
>
>The Blue Jays, as a team, are the best in baseball the last two years.
>It is thus fair to conclude that the *average* Blue Jay player is better
>than the average player from any other team.
I wouldn't even go that far. The Blue Jays won the world series, but that
doesn't make them the best team in baseball. It makes them the World Series
Champions. Obviously, you'd normally expect that team to be among the best
in the league, but it's not a requirement. Perhaps they are the best team, but
that requires a more in depth argument then the fact they won ther Series.
In any case, I would find it rather difficult to make the case that just
because a team wins the Series, that means their average player is more
talented than another team's average player. It may be true in the Blue
Jays case, but not generally.
>Clay D.
--------------------------------- -----------------------------------
Scott Cantor The one good thing about repeating
University Systems your mistakes is that you know when
sca...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu to cringe.
Roger Maynard
>Your idea that any player from the championship team is, ipso facto,
>better than any corresponding player from a non-championship team is a
>non-sequitor.
I never said that.
>The Blue Jays, as a team, are the best in baseball the last two years.
>It is thus fair to conclude that the *average* Blue Jay player is better
>than the average player from any other team.
>To then say that each Blue Jay is better than other players is the logical
>equivalent of saying that, since the average man is taller than the
>average woman, I must be taller than all women (I'm 5'6", BTW).
>5 7 9 8 6 8 avg=7.17
>6 8 2 9 7 9 avg=6.83
Nonsense. If the question is, "Are men taller than women?" then your height
alone is hardly the determining factor. And in baseball the only valid
question is "which _team_ is the best?", because, after all, that is what
baseball is all about. There are only certain questions that can be
meaningfully asked and "which player is the best?" is not one of them because
the sport gives us no way to determine the answer. You can give us your
opinion, of course, even one based on stats. But if you do all you can
really say is - "Which player has the highest marks in this statistical
comparison?" And of course that is meaningless.
And by the way, thanks for the kind words. I don't remember engaging you
in battle before but you're eager (and wrong) and that's about all that
matters to me.
Roger Maynard
> I've been thinking about this argument a long time and applied it to hockey.
>Now, I am a fan of the Toronto Maple Leafs and decided that Doug Gilmour should
Gilmour plays at Christie Pits now? Isn't he going to wait until the hockey
season is over?
>be traded for someone like Andre Racicot. Gilmour has already shown that he
>is too old and too decrepit to play for a Stanley Cup team. I doubt he
>could make the roster of the Montreal Canadians.
I guess that's why he is playing baseball now. BTW: Thanks for defending
me in the Blue Jay mailing list. But why did you go back after leaving?
I thought that the deep thinking shown by all of those kids was totally
appropriate...
Roger Maynard
>So are you saying that Toronto wouldn't have won the last 3 division and last
>2 world series if Devon wasn't there, and Cleveland would have won the title if
>Devon played CF for them? I just thought you said baseball is a team sports.
Baseball is a team sport. And the only "best" that there can be in baseball
is the "best" team because that is what the individuals are striving for. If
their objective was to be the "best" player then perhaps we could talk about
who the "best" player is. But they aren't striving to be the "best" player.
They are striving to help their team win. And these ambitions are not
identical.
To say that so and so is the best player in baseball is a meaningless because
the only "best" that can be determined is the "best" team.
Phillip Torrez
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>If you want an after the fact opinion how about this one: Devon White is
>the centre fielder you'd have wanted on your team the last two years. And
>he is the _only_ choice, unless of course you don't care whether or not
>your team wins it all...
Thus, Dick Schofield and Manny Lee are the only shortstops you'd have
wanted on your team? Todd Stottlemyre is one of the only starters you'd
have wanted on your team? Pat Borders is the only catcher you'd have
wanted.... etc, etc....
Individual performance is and should be measured independent of team
performance. Don't you think the Jays would have preferred to have had
Cal Ripken, Kevin Appier, and Chris Hoiles instead of Schofield,
Stottlemyre, and Borders last year?
-Andrew
Paul Moorehead
|>
|> I wouldn't even go that far. The Blue Jays won the world series, but that
|> doesn't make them the best team in baseball. It makes them the World Series
|> Champions. Obviously, you'd normally expect that team to be among the best
|> in the league, but it's not a requirement. Perhaps they are the best team, but
|> that requires a more in depth argument then the fact they won ther Series.
|>
The case might be made that whichever team wins the World Series is, by
definition, the best team in baseball. Winning the Series is, after all,
the goal of every team. Maybe the team that achieves its ultimate goal
should be considered the "best team."
Paul
Roger Maynard
Nonsense. Your statistical measurements are all after the fact so why
shouldn't mine be? You want Berry Bonds because of how he hit last year.
I want Pat Borders because the Jays won with him last year.
Roger Maynard
> I wouldn't even go that far. The Blue Jays won the world series, but that
>doesn't make them the best team in baseball. It makes them the World Series
>Champions. Obviously, you'd normally expect that team to be among the best
>in the league, but it's not a requirement. Perhaps they are the best team, but
>that requires a more in depth argument then the fact they won ther Series.
Nonsense. The sole criterion used by MLB to determine the best team is the
team that wins the last game of the season. You can redefine the word "best"
if you please but then you are no longer talking about the "best" team in
baseball. Rather, you are talking about the "best" team in the context of
a set of statistics that you have chosen to be meaningful. However the
goal of the team - and the individual players for that matter - is not to
be the "best" by your statistical measurement but to be the best by the
standard defined by MLB. In other words they aren't trying to win your
statistical "title". They are trying to win the WS.
> In any case, I would find it rather difficult to make the case that just
>because a team wins the Series, that means their average player is more
>talented than another team's average player. It may be true in the Blue
>Jays case, but not generally.
In a team game evaluations such as "Average" player are impossible to ascertain
because the players are not striving to be average, above average or less than
average. Unless their initials are BB they are striving to win the WS. And
since that is their only goal, the winning of the WS is the only standard that
their contribution can be measured against.
Zzzzz
> In <2oc39v$a...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> Zzzzz writes:
>
> >So are you saying that Toronto wouldn't have won the last 3 division and
last
> >2 world series if Devon wasn't there, and Cleveland would have won the title
if
> Baseball is a team sport. And the only "best" that there can be in baseball
> is the "best" team because that is what the individuals are striving for. If
> their objective was to be the "best" player then perhaps we could talk about
> who the "best" player is. But they aren't striving to be the "best" player.
> They are striving to help their team win. And these ambitions are not
> identical.
Here you talk about "best" team. A team is consisted of players, and it's the
players who can make the team "best" or else. Each individual players try to
bring out the best of his talents to contribute to make the team "best".
Therefore, the talent level of each player matter in making "best" team. From
what I can make out of what you said, it seems that it's possible to make a
good team out of players that have great desire to win but no talent. Wouldn't
you believe that Toronto would be a better team if they had Willie Mays instead
of Devon White? While I understand and agree your view that players' main
purpose is to help the team win, it is also a fact that some players can help
the team more than others. It's the players that make the "best" team, not a
team making players the best.
> To say that so and so is the best player in baseball is a meaningless because
> the only "best" that can be determined is the "best" team.
People are just trying to determind which players have more talent and can
help a team more. Think of it this way. Saying player A is better than player B
is like saying player A would do more for his team than player B would do to
his team.
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
> --
> Roger Maynard
> may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
--
Mark I. Jareb
> Baseball is a team sport. And the only "best" that there can be in baseball
> is the "best" team because that is what the individuals are striving for. If
> their objective was to be the "best" player then perhaps we could talk about
> who the "best" player is. But they aren't striving to be the "best" player.
> They are striving to help their team win. And these ambitions are not
^^^^^^^^^
This point I disagree with the most. How can one strive to be
less than their individual best and at the same time strive for
their team to be the best?
Mark
Mike Jones
The difference, of course, is that most of us want Barry Bonds because
we know that past performance using appropriate measurements is a good
predictor of future performance; i.e., we are pretty sure that Bonds
is going to contribute strongly to his team winning games this year no
matter who that team happens to be.
You, on the other hand, want Pat Borders because of some bullshit you
trot out even though there's no indication that Borders being on a
winning Blue Jays team last year means that he'll be a factor in any
team (including the Blue Jays) winning anything this year.
In other words, you are (as always) contemplating your navel. Enjoy,
but pardon the rest of us if we decline to partake.
Mike Jones | jon...@rpi.edu
Respect for the flag must be voluntary. Once people are compelled to respect
a political symbol, they are no loger free and ther "respect" is meaningless.
- William Kunstler
Dave Geiser
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I was wondering why this subject had so many replies.
> All you have shown is who has the best stats. The issue is the best centre
> fielder, isn't it? And since baseball is a team sport - with team goals -
> any measurement of an individual's contribution must be taken in the context
> of the team goal. And of course that is impossible. Your after the fact
> statistics are nothing but an expression of your after the fact opinion which
> brings me to this point: In all of the time that I have been reading this
> group I have _never_ ever seen you give any indication at all that you have
> ever watched a game. I'll bet that you're one of those clowns that reads
> the newspaper while the game is on. And of course the next day, after the
> next newspaper is published you're an "expert" on yesterday's game.
You know, you had something of an intriguing point (at least a point worth
arguing about) to make in the first few sentences. But then you spout
this tired absurdity about never watching games and render yourself unworthy
of the slightest bit of respect. You probably think people react to you
because of your great ability to challenge them intellectually, when the
fact is that you simply piss people off by making ridiculous statements
like this. I was going to make a serious reply to your post, but I
realize that you didn't post it to elicit serious discussion, but rather
to give yourself an opportunity to insult people.
Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Geiser Department of Genetics University of Georgia
unknown
Goddamnit Roger, answer his question! Would Toronto have won two
world series if Devon White hadn't been there? Yes or No.
paul
>--
>Roger Maynard
>may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
unknown
And maybe the quarter that just came up heads 4 out of 7 flips
should be considered 'loaded'.
paul (the lower case one)
unknown
>>wanted.... etc, etc....
>
>>Individual performance is and should be measured independent of team
>>performance. Don't you think the Jays would have preferred to have had
>>Cal Ripken, Kevin Appier, and Chris Hoiles instead of Schofield,
>>Stottlemyre, and Borders last year?
>
>Nonsense. Your statistical measurements are all after the fact so why
>shouldn't mine be? You want Berry Bonds because of how he hit last year.
>I want Pat Borders because the Jays won with him last year.
>
>cordially, as always,
>
>rm
>--
>Roger Maynard
>may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Roger, do you play Strat or APBA or PTP or anything? I want you
in my league. "Roger, I'll trade you Mike Piazza for Pat Borders.
This is a steal, the Dodgers finished nearly last and the Blue Jays
won the World Series."
That would be great...
paul
unknown
>
>Nonsense. The sole criterion used by MLB to determine the best team is the
>team that wins the last game of the season. You can redefine the word "best"
>if you please but then you are no longer talking about the "best" team in
>baseball. Rather, you are talking about the "best" team in the context of
>a set of statistics that you have chosen to be meaningful.
Apparently Roger doesn't think wins and losses are meaningful
statistics.
paul (why am I wasting my time)
Todd Rader
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
%In <2oc6uh$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sca...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott E Cantor) writes:
%
%> I wouldn't even go that far. The Blue Jays won the world series, but that
%>doesn't make them the best team in baseball. It makes them the World Series
%>Champions. Obviously, you'd normally expect that team to be among the best
%>in the league, but it's not a requirement. Perhaps they are the best team, but
%>that requires a more in depth argument then the fact they won ther Series.
%
%Nonsense. The sole criterion used by MLB to determine the best team is the
%team that wins the last game of the season. You can redefine the word "best"
%if you please but then you are no longer talking about the "best" team in
%baseball. Rather, you are talking about the "best" team in the context of
%a set of statistics that you have chosen to be meaningful.
Right.
Now, as a person of not-appreciably-above-average linguistic ability,
it was pretty darn easy for me to discern that the "set of statistics"
in this case is an ability to have the best mix of run scoring and
opponents run prevention. It's a little thing called context that
tipped me off. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume that your ability to interpret English is not significantly
worse than mine. If this is false, you have my sympathy. If this
is true, then you understood exactly what Scott Cantor meant, but
chose to argue anyway. Did that make you feel better?
%However the
%goal of the team - and the individual players for that matter - is not to
%be the "best" by your statistical measurement but to be the best by the
%standard defined by MLB. In other words they aren't trying to win your
%statistical "title". They are trying to win the WS.
Yup.
%> In any case, I would find it rather difficult to make the case that just
%>because a team wins the Series, that means their average player is more
%>talented than another team's average player. It may be true in the Blue
%>Jays case, but not generally.
%
%In a team game evaluations such as "Average" player are impossible to ascertain
%because the players are not striving to be average, above average or less than
%average. Unless their initials are BB they are striving to win the WS. And
%since that is their only goal, the winning of the WS is the only standard that
%their contribution can be measured against.
Bud Black does not want to win the World Series? News to me....
Buddy Biancalana did not want to win the Series, and yet had the
incredible misfortune to play on a team that won one anyway, in such
a short career? What a pity...
As for Bugs Bunny, you are probably right there.
unknown
By grounding out to second to move a runner to third?
Yeah, it's stupid but some people actually think you should do it
_on purpose_.
paul
mhunt...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> In article 8...@panix2.panix.com, sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of Life" Spira) writes:
>
> Why doesn't he change that to "Statistics is a Way Of Life"
>
>>Defensively, it's almost certainly Kenny Lofton.
>>
>>[silliness deleted]
>
> All you have shown is who has the best stats.
And all you ever do is try to get people riled up.
> The issue is the best centre
> fielder, isn't it? And since baseball is a team sport - with team goals -
> any measurement of an individual's contribution must be taken in the context
> of the team goal. And of course that is impossible. Your after the fact
> statistics are nothing but an expression of your after the fact opinion which
> brings me
There is ONE team goal. To make money.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Roger.
> this point: In all of the time that I have been reading this
> group I have _never_ ever seen you give any indication at all that you have
> ever watched a game. I'll bet that you're one of those clowns that reads
> the newspaper while the game is on. And of course the next day, after the
> next newspaper is published you're an "expert" on yesterday's game.
Thereby proving that you don't have a clue. How many posts did you actually
*read* over the winter?
>
> If you want an after the fact opinion how about this one: Devon White is
> the centre fielder you'd have wanted on your team the last two years. And
> he is the _only_ choice, unless of course you don't care whether or not
> your team wins it all...
Yeah, right. You take White. i'll take Griffey, or Puckett. I'll have more
wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And more money,
since both of those two bring in oodles of dough.
>
> Wonder what song we'll get this time?
Go to Alt.music.whine or something. This is boring.
Matthew Huntington
Charles W Saeger
Lofton is a much better hitter than Curtis, but Ken Griffey is better than
both of them, and is the better player.
Roger Maynard
I don't know either. How can one "strive to be less than their individual
best?"
Put perhaps I understand what you are trying to say. It may have something
to do with utilitarianism.
Roger Maynard
>You know, you had something of an intriguing point (at least a point worth
>arguing about) to make in the first few sentences. But then you spout
>this tired absurdity about never watching games and render yourself unworthy
>of the slightest bit of respect. You probably think people react to you
>because of your great ability to challenge them intellectually, when the
>fact is that you simply piss people off by making ridiculous statements
>like this. I was going to make a serious reply to your post, but I
>realize that you didn't post it to elicit serious discussion, but rather
>to give yourself an opportunity to insult people.
And what do you call your response if it is not taking advantage of an
opportunity to insult me? I simply got my shot in at Spira before he
insulted me.
In any case I expressed an opinion about baseball. And that seems to be
more than you did in your response.
Tyndall Jackson
>Nonsense. If the question is, "Are men taller than women?" then your height
>alone is hardly the determining factor. And in baseball the only valid
>question is "which _team_ is the best?", because, after all, that is what
>baseball is all about.
^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^
No, Roger, I'll tell you what baseball is all about.
Baseball is about good healthy discussions about players. It's about
figuring out what player or players could make your team better. It's about
getting up in the morning and before doing anything else, grabbing the
morning paper and reading the box scores. It's about putting up with
TBS and other insipid NL superstations just because it's the only baseball
you can see regularly. It's about becoming 'involved' in a great game.
Talking stats. Observing players. I refuse to subscribe to your theory
that baseball begins and ends in the World Series: yes, that may be all
that teams are gunning for, but /fans/ have always enjoyed the 'debating'
of which players are the best, which managers are the best, which players are
overrated and which are diamonds in the rough. Even Rotisserie is an
extension of this: instead of saying who's the best you can prove it by
picking a better team than the other guy.
Baseball is a wonderful sport that has a lot to offer to millions of people
around the world. It's a shame that you have such a limited view of what
the game is about.
---
Chad 'Mr.B' Jackson \ "28 years of bitterness.. come out
mis...@netcom.com / in my shots." -- Boston
Go Jays, Jags, Lightning & Gators \ Bruin defenseman Al Iafrate
Roger Maynard
>There is ONE team goal. To make money.
>Sorry to burst your bubble, Roger.
Nonsense. Making money is the ownership's goal. Winning it the team goal.
>Thereby proving that you don't have a clue. How many posts did you actually
>*read* over the winter?
One too many apparently.
>Yeah, right. You take White. i'll take Griffey, or Puckett. I'll have more
>wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And more money,
>since both of those two bring in oodles of dough.
And the Jays took White. And with White instead of Griffey or Puckett the
Jays had "more wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And
more money."
In the future you might try to think a bit before you post. And remember
this: flames are only effective if the person you're flaming has some
reason to respect your opinion. Think a bit about that too.
Roger Maynard
>The difference, of course, is that most of us want Barry Bonds because
>we know that past performance using appropriate measurements is a good
>predictor of future performance; i.e., we are pretty sure that Bonds
>is going to contribute strongly to his team winning games this year no
>matter who that team happens to be.
Hardly. I have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a
WS berth let alone a victory.
>You, on the other hand, want Pat Borders because of some bullshit you
>trot out even though there's no indication that Borders being on a
>winning Blue Jays team last year means that he'll be a factor in any
>team (including the Blue Jays) winning anything this year.
Borders has done it twice before. Using past statistics - as you do -
to predict future participation I would have to point out that since
Borders has been there twice it is quite possible that he can do it
again. We don't know yet if it is even possible that Bonds can play
in the WS.
COONEY JOHN AIDAN
>>>team that wins the last game of the season. You can redefine the word "best"
>>>if you please but then you are no longer talking about the "best" team in
>>>baseball. Rather, you are talking about the "best" team in the context of
>>>a set of statistics that you have chosen to be meaningful.
>
>>Apparently Roger doesn't think wins and losses are meaningful
>>statistics.
>
>>paul (why am I wasting my time)
>
>understand what I am saying then I submit to you that you are indeed
>wasting your time.
Perhaps some believe that a sample size of 4-7 games is provides an
inadequate amount of data by which to determine which team is the best.
It's going to get even worse this year when the third tier of playoffs
will only be best of 5 game series. Most of this people on this group
enjoy the game of baseball because it has so many different ways in which
to look at who is the best. If I simply concentrated on who wins the
World Series, what would be the point of the other 160-170 games during
the season? I submit that if you are only concerned with the winner,
you should stick to lotteries and bingo.
Jack
--
Jack Cooney
coo...@ecf.toronto.edu
University of Toronto
"Life is lived looking forwards, but is only understood looking backwards."
Jim_...@transarc.com
> Nonsense. If the question is, "Are men taller than women?" then your height
> alone is hardly the determining factor. And in baseball the only valid
> question is "which _team_ is the best?", because, after all, that is what
> baseball is all about.
Why is it the only valid question? And "all about" sounds a bit too
much like Vince Lombardi. (I always liked Tom Boswell's 99 reasons wy
baseball is better than football, one of which was "Vince Lombardi
wasn't embarrassed when he said 'Winning isn't everything, it's the
only thing.'")
>There are only certain questions that can be
> meaningfully asked and "which player is the best?" is not one of them because
> the sport gives us no way to determine the answer.
Here's where you are venturing into opinion. The sport does give us
some indications of which players are better than which other players.
It may not be exact and there may be room for debate, but certainly
there is a preponderance of evidence that Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas
contribute more to winning than does Billy Hatcher.
> You can give us your
> opinion, of course, even one based on stats. But if you do all you can
> really say is - "Which player has the highest marks in this statistical
> comparison?" And of course that is meaningless.
Meaningless? Certainly not. You're overstating your case here. They'd
have meaning to many even if that was all they really did say. Beyond
that, though, they do say more than that.
So, answer this question. You have your choice for left field. Who do
you want: Billy Hatcher or Barry Bonds? And how did you come to your
decision? Try to do so without using some of those meaningless stats
you mention. And remember that you said there is no way to say which
player is better than the other.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
The Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 338-4442
John H. Rickert
> In article 8...@panix2.panix.com, sp...@panix.com (Greg "Sarcasm Is A Way Of
Life" Spira) writes:
> >Defensively, it's almost certainly Kenny Lofton.
> >[silliness deleted]
> any measurement of an individual's contribution must be taken in the
> that you have ever watched a game. I'll bet that you're one of those
> clowns that reads
> the newspaper while the game is on. And of course the next day, after the
> next newspaper is published you're an "expert" on yesterday's game.
>
> the centre fielder you'd have wanted on your team the last two years. And
> he is the _only_ choice, unless of course you don't care whether or not
> your team wins it all...
I was under the impression that baseball is a team sport.
As someone who has watched a few games I can tell you that
I've seen many in which the team won (Sorry, I couldn't
resist including that stat, but I figured it was OK since
you used it) despite the damaging effects of a player having
a particularly bad game.
Why do you seem unwilling to admit this dimension of the game?
(personal question: Are you one of those people who argues when
you get the right answer but the prof/grader takes off for
incorrect method? Your argument seems like the kind of argument
such people use.)
john rickert
ric...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Baseball is a dull game only to dull minds - Red Smith
Roger Maynard
> Perhaps some believe that a sample size of 4-7 games is provides an
>inadequate amount of data by which to determine which team is the best.
Well then you could complain to Major League Baseball because that is the
way that they have set it up. Or you could just be content to crown the
pennant winners as the best team. But then you will be talking about a
different definition of "best" that the rest of us use.
>It's going to get even worse this year when the third tier of playoffs
>will only be best of 5 game series. Most of this people on this group
>enjoy the game of baseball because it has so many different ways in which
>to look at who is the best. If I simply concentrated on who wins the
No. You like to predict who you think will turn out to be the best. But
there is only one way of ascertaining who actually is the best, isn't there?
How many Atlanta Braves fans would be happy if you told them that their
team was the best? Not too many...
>World Series, what would be the point of the other 160-170 games during
>the season? I submit that if you are only concerned with the winner,
>you should stick to lotteries and bingo.
Where did I ever say that I only enjoyed baseball because the best team is
the team that wins the WS? Where did I say that I was only concerned with
the winner?
Perhaps you should rethink your arguments, look a little more closely at
what I had to say, and then submit another response.
unknown
>
>And the Jays took White. And with White instead of Griffey or Puckett the
>Jays had "more wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And
>more money."
>
Double talk. I thought you couldn't say what would have happened
if they had Puckett or Griffey. Now you say that they had 'more.."
because they took White instead of Puckett or Griffey. You can't
have it both ways, Roger.
paul
Roger Maynard
> But then you have to go and spout off some nonsense about them winning
>_because_ they didn't have a better CF (Griffey, for example). Unless a
Never said that.
>player has a negative effect on team morale (which Griffey certainly does
>not, from what I can see), there is simply no justification on any basis
>for claiming that a player with superior baseball ability would not help a
How do you ascertain that one player has more ability than another? I
would never say that one player is better than another. I would say that
a player is good enough to win a WS with, if in fact a team did win a WS
with that player in the lineup. And I will say that we don't know if a
player is good enough to win a WS with until that player has won a WS.
You're assuming that the individual stats that you use to measure what
you consider to be a player's skills are in someway an indication of that
player's potential to participate in a WS victory. That is only an
assumption.
>team win more games. Griffey could outhit White if his hands were broken,
>and his defense is not so much worse that you lose alot. It's a complete
You are assuming that hitting and defense are the only contributions a
player makes to a WS victory.
>red herring to claim that you can't assume Griffey's stats would have been
>similar had he been playing for Toronto instead of Seattle. Moreover,
I don't give a damn about Griffey's stats. Not White's. I do care about
the team stat though - the stat that says that they were the best team in
baseball for two years in a row. And that is the only stat that has any
absolute meaning. That is the only stat that gives anyone the right to
say that something was "best" in baseball. In other words the only thing
that can be best in a team sport is the team - not the players. And the
only reason that the team can be the best is found in the nature of the
sport itself. That is, the sport only rewards the team with the title of
"best".
>since that's the purpose of this newsgroup (discussing things we have no
>proof of or control over), if you claim otherwise, you really ought to try
>and have the newsgroup rmgrouped. Show us the error of our ways.
Far too much bandwidth is wasted on statistical analysis. And this is due
to the nature of the readership rather than the nature of the sport. And
when it gets hilariously out of hand is when those who know all the stats
but never watch the sport pretend to know more about the game than the
managers and players down on the field. Last year the Toronto Blue Jays
selected Paul Molitor, their DH, as their MVP. Olerud's stats were far
better and he played a two way game. And when you consider Alomar's stats
and his defensive contribution then he would seem to be more valuable as
well. So what the stathead will claim is that the players simply don't
know the game of baseball. This is truly hilarious. And that Cito Gaston
is a lousy manager for various stat related reasons (platooning, batting
order, etc). It just doesn't seem to matter to them that not a single
manager in the history of the game could have accomplished more with respect
to the team's goal than Gaston did the last two years.
Roger Maynard
>Here's where you are venturing into opinion. The sport does give us
>some indications of which players are better than which other players.
>It may not be exact and there may be room for debate, but certainly
If it isn't exact then you can't call one player the best.
>there is a preponderance of evidence that Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas
>contribute more to winning than does Billy Hatcher.
I am not aware that any of the three have accomplished the only goal
that matters. How can you say that Thomas has contributed more to
winning a WS than Hatcher has?
>> You can give us your
>> opinion, of course, even one based on stats. But if you do all you can
>> really say is - "Which player has the highest marks in this statistical
>> comparison?" And of course that is meaningless.
>Meaningless? Certainly not. You're overstating your case here. They'd
>have meaning to many even if that was all they really did say. Beyond
>that, though, they do say more than that.
Not in the only context that is significant. And that is their contribution
to winning a WS. How many WS did Ted Williams win? Who would you rather
have out there the last two years if you were a Blue Jay fan? Devo, knowing
that they won twice with him or Griffey knowing that he had better individual
stats? You take the stats if you want and tell me that I am overstating my
case. I'll take the rings.
>So, answer this question. You have your choice for left field. Who do
>you want: Billy Hatcher or Barry Bonds? And how did you come to your
>decision? Try to do so without using some of those meaningless stats
>you mention. And remember that you said there is no way to say which
>player is better than the other.
Damned hard for me to make decisions of this type because my knowledge is
secondhand. But if I was a manager I would probably use a lot of criteria
in making the decision. And the question for me would not be who has had
the best stats in the past but who is the likeliest to help my team win
the WS.
Of course being distanced from MLB as all of us are means that we will grasp
at any kind of knowledge we can to give us more information. And the only
knowledge that we have available is stats. But don't delude yourself into
thinking that stats are the whole story.
Roger Maynard
>I was under the impression that baseball is a team sport.
I certainly can't disagree with you here.
>As someone who has watched a few games I can tell you that
>I've seen many in which the team won (Sorry, I couldn't
>resist including that stat, but I figured it was OK since
>you used it) despite the damaging effects of a player having
>a particularly bad game.
>Why do you seem unwilling to admit this dimension of the game?
Not at all. What is your point?
>(personal question: Are you one of those people who argues when
>you get the right answer but the prof/grader takes off for
>incorrect method? Your argument seems like the kind of argument
>such people use.)
I really don't understand your point here either. It seems to me that you
are probably one of those people who lose marks because the prof/grader
isn't a mind-reader.
mhunt...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
> In <1994Apr11...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> mhunt...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
>
> Nonsense. Making money is the ownership's goal. Winning it the team goal.
>
>>Thereby proving that you don't have a clue. How many posts did you actually
>>*read* over the winter?
>
> One too many apparently.
I like you, Maynard. You come back here, after a 4 month haitus, and say
"I have never seen XXX post anything about seeing a game" just days after
he finished talking about a game he'd seen. You could at least read for
a few days before shooting off.
>
>>Yeah, right. You take White. i'll take Griffey, or Puckett. I'll have more
>>wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And more money,
>>since both of those two bring in oodles of dough.
>
> And the Jays took White. And with White instead of Griffey or Puckett the
> Jays had "more wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And
> more money."
If the Jays hadn't had White, they would have won in '91, and better in
'92 and '93.
And this kind of nonsensical crap is equal to yours.
> In the future you might try to think a bit before you post.
A wonderful concept. I shall have to try it sometime.
> And remember
> this: flames are only effective if the person you're flaming has some
> reason to respect your opinion. Think a bit about that too.
>
You thought THAT was a flame? You're too sensitive.
I have never flamed ANYONE here. Never put anyone in my kill file.
Never attacked anyone personally. Ever. Period. Not the woofers,
not the "XXX ROOLZ" people (who I tend to end up defending, god knows
why, except that I hate to see ANY player put down in general. They work too
hard to be disparaged like that), not even you. I have been here long enough
to realize how little I knew, and to learn to listen to everyone here.
Think about it.
Matthew Huntington
The more you know
the more you know
The less you know
About more and more
Josh Kaderlan
(Roger Maynard) says:
>
>In <0hei_pKSM...@transarc.com> Jim_...@transarc.com writes:
>
>>there is a preponderance of evidence that Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas
>>contribute more to winning than does Billy Hatcher.
>
>I am not aware that any of the three have accomplished the only goal
>that matters. How can you say that Thomas has contributed more to
>winning a WS than Hatcher has?
>
forgot, the WS is all that counts. Never mind the fact that you have to win to
get there in the first place.
>>> You can give us your
>>> opinion, of course, even one based on stats. But if you do all you can
>>> really say is - "Which player has the highest marks in this statistical
>>> comparison?" And of course that is meaningless.
>
>>Meaningless? Certainly not. You're overstating your case here. They'd
>>have meaning to many even if that was all they really did say. Beyond
>>that, though, they do say more than that.
>
>Not in the only context that is significant. And that is their contribution
>to winning a WS. How many WS did Ted Williams win? Who would you rather
>have out there the last two years if you were a Blue Jay fan? Devo, knowing
>that they won twice with him or Griffey knowing that he had better individual
>stats? You take the stats if you want and tell me that I am overstating my
>case. I'll take the rings.
>
Congratulations. You've just used a *team* measure of success to define
*individual* success. See, you're saying that you'd rather have Devo because
his team won the WS last year. Only thing is, there are 24 other guys on the
team who have a little something to do with whether or not a team makes it to
the playoffs, let alone the WS. Put Devo on the Mariners and let's see how far
they go.
>>So, answer this question. You have your choice for left field. Who do
>>you want: Billy Hatcher or Barry Bonds? And how did you come to your
>>decision? Try to do so without using some of those meaningless stats
>>you mention. And remember that you said there is no way to say which
>>player is better than the other.
>
>Damned hard for me to make decisions of this type because my knowledge is
>secondhand. But if I was a manager I would probably use a lot of criteria
>in making the decision. And the question for me would not be who has had
>the best stats in the past but who is the likeliest to help my team win
>the WS.
>
But once again, how can you decide which player is most likely to help your
team win the WS in a manner independent of his teammates? Bonds' stats
indicate that he is more likely to set your team up to be in the WS than
Hatcher, *independent* of his teammates. Please don't tell me that having the
fortune to play on a winning team makes you a winner. That's what's known as
a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
>Of course being distanced from MLB as all of us are means that we will grasp
>at any kind of knowledge we can to give us more information. And the only
>knowledge that we have available is stats. But don't delude yourself into
>thinking that stats are the whole story.
>
How would your decision making change if you were a GM? What criteria would
you use then? And BTW, are you always this disingenuous? (Look it up.) Or do
you get some thrill out of filling up your mailbox with letters from people
saying "You're wrong"?
Josh
Scott Southwick
>Hardly. I have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a
>WS berth let alone a victory.
OK, here's one you can't get out of, Roger. You just said that you
"have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a victory."
But *somebody* on the Giants must have been reposible for all those
victories last year. Was it only the other guys? By what arcane
intellectual process is Bonds excluded from this group?
yrs,
Scotty
--
Steve Geswein, IBRC
> may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
(among other things...)
>>There are only certain questions that can be
>> meaningfully asked and "which player is the best?" is not one of them because
>> the sport gives us no way to determine the answer.
>
> Here's where you are venturing into opinion. The sport does give us
> some indications of which players are better than which other players.
> It may not be exact and there may be room for debate, but certainly
> there is a preponderance of evidence that Barry Bonds and Frank Thomas
> contribute more to winning than does Billy Hatcher.
>
>> You can give us your
>> opinion, of course, even one based on stats. But if you do all you can
>> really say is - "Which player has the highest marks in this statistical
>> comparison?" And of course that is meaningless.
>
> Meaningless? Certainly not. You're overstating your case here. They'd
> have meaning to many even if that was all they really did say. Beyond
> that, though, they do say more than that.
>
> So, answer this question. You have your choice for left field. Who do
> you want: Billy Hatcher or Barry Bonds? And how did you come to your
> decision? Try to do so without using some of those meaningless stats
> you mention. And remember that you said there is no way to say which
> player is better than the other.
>
Odd that you should mention Hatcher here... Were Mr. Maynard historically or
statistically inclined, he could point out Hatcher's 1990 World Series, when
he got a hit in each of his first eight or so ABs (including the gift from
Canseco that won game 2).
Personally, I'll take Bonds, but it would have been tough to argue against
Hatcher that week...
Steve Geswein sges...@indyvax.iupui.edu
hey, I think all sides might be on me for this one...
Roger Maynard
>In article <2oce1c$m...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>>
>>Nonsense. The sole criterion used by MLB to determine the best team is the
>>team that wins the last game of the season. You can redefine the word "best"
>>if you please but then you are no longer talking about the "best" team in
>>baseball. Rather, you are talking about the "best" team in the context of
>>a set of statistics that you have chosen to be meaningful.
>Apparently Roger doesn't think wins and losses are meaningful
>statistics.
>paul (why am I wasting my time)
I suggest that you read again what I said above and if you still can't
understand what I am saying then I submit to you that you are indeed
wasting your time.
cordially, as always,
Roger Maynard
>Goddamnit Roger, answer his question! Would Toronto have won two
>world series if Devon White hadn't been there? Yes or No.
My whole point is that this question can never be answered. But what we
do know is that they did win with White in there. And that is good enough
for Pat Gillick, Cito Gaston and the Blue Jay fans.
Just because you can put words together in the form of a question does not
mean that the question makes any sense.
Roger Maynard
>Roger, do you play Strat or APBA or PTP or anything? I want you
As if.
Dave Eisen
>In <Co5MK...@ecf.toronto.edu> coo...@ecf.toronto.edu (COONEY JOHN AIDAN) writes:
>> Perhaps some believe that a sample size of 4-7 games is provides an
>>inadequate amount of data by which to determine which team is the best.
>Well then you could complain to Major League Baseball because that is the
>way that they have set it up. Or you could just be content to crown the
>pennant winners as the best team. But then you will be talking about a
>different definition of "best" that the rest of us use.
That is completely false, Roger. And you know it. The "rest" of
us (meaning I presume the majority of baseball fans) use exactly
the definition that John was alluding to: the team, that in the
speaker's judgment, would be more likely to win a series against
the other. This is not necessarily the team that actually won the
series.
Now perhaps your definition is better than ours is. I really don't
want to argue with you on that. But your definition, not John's, is
the one that is a different definition of "best" than the rest of us
use,
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (415) 967-5648
There's something in my library to offend everybody.
--- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
Scott E Cantor
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>In <1994Apr11...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu> mhunt...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu writes:
>
>>There is ONE team goal. To make money.
>>Sorry to burst your bubble, Roger.
>
>Nonsense. Making money is the ownership's goal. Winning it the team goal.
So Barry won't mind if I rewrite his contract for him?
>>Yeah, right. You take White. i'll take Griffey, or Puckett. I'll have more
>>wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And more money,
>>since both of those two bring in oodles of dough.
>
>And the Jays took White. And with White instead of Griffey or Puckett the
>Jays had "more wins, more fans, more publicity, and more book contracts. And
>more money."
>
You know, you do OK when you stick to the team performance having an
effect on individual stat angle. I actually agree with you that it's not
possible to state unquivocally whether or not the Jays would have won the
series with a worse CF then Devon White. You can make the case that his
defense was essential (certainly it was in the Series), but then one can
argue that they won because they had three top hitters, etc. It's a fun
debate, but an unwinnable argument.
But then you have to go and spout off some nonsense about them winning
_because_ they didn't have a better CF (Griffey, for example). Unless a
player has a negative effect on team morale (which Griffey certainly does
not, from what I can see), there is simply no justification on any basis
for claiming that a player with superior baseball ability would not help a
team win more games. Griffey could outhit White if his hands were broken,
and his defense is not so much worse that you lose alot. It's a complete
red herring to claim that you can't assume Griffey's stats would have been
similar had he been playing for Toronto instead of Seattle. Moreover,
since that's the purpose of this newsgroup (discussing things we have no
proof of or control over), if you claim otherwise, you really ought to try
and have the newsgroup rmgrouped. Show us the error of our ways.
In short, you claim we cannot ask the question, "Would the Blue Jays have
won the Series with a better CF than Devon White?" But it seems we did.
That makes your only point wrong, doesn't it? We asked it. Sorry.
>Roger Maynard
--------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Scott Cantor In case of atomic attack, the federal
University Systems ruling against prayer in schools
sca...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu will be temporarily canceled.
Harold Brooks
>In <2oc6uh$a...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sca...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott E Cantor) writes:
>
>> I wouldn't even go that far. The Blue Jays won the world series, but that
>>doesn't make them the best team in baseball. It makes them the World Series
>>Champions. Obviously, you'd normally expect that team to be among the best
>>in the league, but it's not a requirement. Perhaps they are the best team, but
>>that requires a more in depth argument then the fact they won ther Series.
>
>Nonsense. The sole criterion used by MLB to determine the best team is the
>team that wins the last game of the season.
Nonsense. MLB has _no_ criteria to determine the "best" team. MLB only
determines a champion, determined by who wins the World Series. Can you
point out where in the rules the word "best" is used in conjunction with
teams
Harold
Roger Maynard
>Pay attention. He said "more to winning," *not* "more to winning a WS." Oh, I
No you tell him to pay attention. I am talking about winning the WS.
>forgot, the WS is all that counts. Never mind the fact that you have to win to
>get there in the first place.
That's right. And the Jays have won to get there, haven't they? What is your
point?
>>Not in the only context that is significant. And that is their contribution
>>to winning a WS. How many WS did Ted Williams win? Who would you rather
>>have out there the last two years if you were a Blue Jay fan? Devo, knowing
>>that they won twice with him or Griffey knowing that he had better individual
>>stats? You take the stats if you want and tell me that I am overstating my
>>case. I'll take the rings.
>>
>Congratulations. You've just used a *team* measure of success to define
>*individual* success. See, you're saying that you'd rather have Devo because
Missed it again, didn't you? The only measure of success that counts in the
team sport of baseball is team success. Not only am I saying that you can't
measure individual success in a team sport but I am taking it a step further
by saying that there is no point at all in trying.
>his team won the WS last year. Only thing is, there are 24 other guys on the
>team who have a little something to do with whether or not a team makes it to
>the playoffs, let alone the WS. Put Devo on the Mariners and let's see how far
>they go.
And we wouldn't know how far the Mariners would go with Devo until he was out
there, would we? I don't disagree with this at all.
>>Damned hard for me to make decisions of this type because my knowledge is
>>secondhand. But if I was a manager I would probably use a lot of criteria
>>in making the decision. And the question for me would not be who has had
>>the best stats in the past but who is the likeliest to help my team win
>>the WS.
>But once again, how can you decide which player is most likely to help your
>team win the WS in a manner independent of his teammates? Bonds' stats
No player can help his team win the WS independent of his teammates. What
are you talking about?
>indicate that he is more likely to set your team up to be in the WS than
>Hatcher, *independent* of his teammates. Please don't tell me that having the
>fortune to play on a winning team makes you a winner. That's what's known as
>a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.
The only fallacy that is being committed here is ignoratio elenchi. And it
is being committed by yourself. Post hoc, indeed. Who the hell are you
trying to impress?
Certainly the player that plays on the winning team is a winner. He sure as
hell ain't a loser. But no one said that he was any better, as an individual
player than any other player. All that was said is that he was good enough
to win the WS and that is all that is worth celebrating because that is the
only goal the team has in a team sport. You are a victim of the error that
is most common to the unsophisticatd statfan like yourself. You think that
a team's success is a reflection of the sum of individual isolated
performances. This is a sophomoric attitude that is usually adapted by
thick-lensed little geeks that were never able to participate in team sports
and therefore never understood the nature of the game. They tend to perceive
of team sport success as some collection of individual glories because it
is individual glory that is lacking in their own miserable little lives.
>>Of course being distanced from MLB as all of us are means that we will grasp
>>at any kind of knowledge we can to give us more information. And the only
>>knowledge that we have available is stats. But don't delude yourself into
>>thinking that stats are the whole story.
>How would your decision making change if you were a GM? What criteria would
>you use then?
I guess if I had anything intelligent to say in response to that question
I would probably be in the employ of a major league club, wouldn't I? But
I can assure you that my research would go far far beyond a simple perusal
of stats.
>And BTW, are you always this disingenuous? (Look it up.)
Look what up?
>you get some thrill out of filling up your mailbox with letters from people
>saying "You're wrong"?
The "thrill" is considerably greater when the respondent has something
intelligent to say. And I've yet to experience anything close to a thrill
so far in this thread.
Roger Maynard
How many world series victories did the Giants celebrate last year?
cordially, as always,
rm
--
Roger Maynard
may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Scott Fischthal
>Far too much bandwidth is wasted on statistical analysis. And this is due
>to the nature of the readership rather than the nature of the sport. And
>when it gets hilariously out of hand is when those who know all the stats
>but never watch the sport pretend to know more about the game than the
>managers and players down on the field. Last year the Toronto Blue Jays
>selected Paul Molitor, their DH, as their MVP. Olerud's stats were far
>better and he played a two way game. And when you consider Alomar's stats
>and his defensive contribution then he would seem to be more valuable as
>well. So what the stathead will claim is that the players simply don't
Uh-huh. Why do you believe the players have *any* idea who the MVP on their
team is? All they can make is a moderately-informed, gut-feel guess. If
someone came into my office and asked me, "who's the most valuable person in
your executive area," how the hell do *I* know? I could give an answer based on
what I've *seen*, which
1. May or may not be giving short shrift to people who do things I don't see or
understand.
2. May show that, even though I've been here nine years and have advanced
degrees in the field, I may not have appropriate training to make such an
evaluation.
3. May or may not agree with what, for example, a manager in the area believes.
4. Is probably based on biased and/or incomplete information.
It is, however, quite possible that an outside analyst could come in, observe
the situation, collect appropriate data, and make a more informed (though
certainly not perfect) study of the situation. He'll probably want to do
systematic studies of our processes (oops -- we're getting into statistics now).
He'll probably want to look at our performance evaluation systems, to see if
they cause us to perform better (or worse).
Oh, and by the way, while I have no idea whether YOU have ever watched baseball
(and if you have no idea whether Barry Bonds or Billy Hatcher is a better
player, I really have to wonder...), but I know I've seen thousands of games, at
the major league and minor league levels. I think your nonsense about people
"who never watch the sport" is uncalled for.
Scott Fischthal
Artificial Intelligence Technology Center
Loral Federal Systems Group (formerly IBM FSC)
Gaithersburg, MD
Phillip Torrez
Roger Maynard.
As evidence, I offer this statement, unaltered in any way:
---
In article <2of9ql$m...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>,
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>How do you ascertain that one player has more ability than another? I
>would never say that one player is better than another.
---
Maynard also said to me that he would rather have Pat Borders than Barry
Bonds, since Borders has been to the World Series.
I submit that anyone with this outlook cannot be debated with in the
manner in which we are accustomed to on r.s.b. Posts will simply continue
to pile up in which Maynard says "I refuse to differentiate between the
best player in the game and a sack of fetid rabbit turds sitting on
Toronto's bench, because Toronto won the world series, and who knows, they
might have lost it if they'd replaced the rabbit turds with Barry Bonds."
If someone cannot accept the valid distinction between Bonds and, say,
Turner Ward, then they cannot be argued with. They'll never see it our
way. Let 'em be in peace.
-Andrew
T. Spencer Medvick
: Missed it again, didn't you? The only measure of success that counts in the
: team sport of baseball is team success. Not only am I saying that you can't
: measure individual success in a team sport but I am taking it a step further
: by saying that there is no point at all in trying.
Gosh, then this really isn't the thread for you, is it? Because
measuring individual ability in a team sport is what it's about.
By the way, are you so foolish not to realize that every player
out there has individual goals as well as support for the team goals.
Say, I bet you don't watch the all-star game, do you?
David M. Nieporent
>I submit that anyone with this outlook cannot be debated with in the
>manner in which we are accustomed to on r.s.b. Posts will simply continue
>to pile up in which Maynard says "I refuse to differentiate between the
>best player in the game and a sack of fetid rabbit turds sitting on
>Toronto's bench, because Toronto won the world series, and who knows, they
>might have lost it if they'd replaced the rabbit turds with Barry Bonds."
>
>If someone cannot accept the valid distinction between Bonds and, say,
>Turner Ward, then they cannot be argued with. They'll never see it our
>way. Let 'em be in peace.
like Justice Rehnquist), we can't show that Dwight Eisenhower wasn't the person
most responsible for the Jay's win last year.
--
David M. Nieporent
Niep...@delphi.com
DNiep...@aol.com
Send Email to DNiep...@aol.com if you want me to see it
Orioles 1994: MVP - Palmeiro, RotY - Hammonds, Cy - Mussina
unknown
>
>
>Well then you could complain to Major League Baseball because that is the
>way that they have set it up.
Since when? Where does Major League Baseball claim that the World
Series Champion = Best Team?
Or you could just be content to crown the
>pennant winners as the best team. But then you will be talking about a
>different definition of "best" that the rest of us use.
If you think that 4/7 determines "best" team, you have a really
different definition than most people (who are 'us', Roger?)
>
>
>No. You like to predict who you think will turn out to be the best. But
>there is only one way of ascertaining who actually is the best, isn't there?
>How many Atlanta Braves fans would be happy if you told them that their
>team was the best? Not too many...
>
They'd probably agree...
paul
Scott Southwick
>sco...@habanero.ucs.indiana.edu (Scott Southwick) writes:
>
>>Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>>>Hardly. I have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a
>>>WS berth let alone a victory.
>
>>OK, here's one you can't get out of, Roger. You just said that you
>>"have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a victory."
>>But *somebody* on the Giants must have been reposible for all those
>>victories last year. Was it only the other guys? By what arcane
>>intellectual process is Bonds excluded from this group?
>
>How many world series victories did the Giants celebrate last year?
Zero, and there's a little red light flashing over your head: the A-H
Detector. Your first post quoted above was not scoffing at the idea of
Bonds contributing to WS victories, but to *any* victories: a poster
said, "Bonds wins more games than other players," and you responded
"Hardly."
So feel free to answer my questions now: if Bonds doesn't contribute
to victories, then who does?
yawn,
Scotty
--
Steve Geswein, IBRC
> You are a victim of the error that
> is most common to the unsophisticatd statfan like yourself. You think that
> a team's success is a reflection of the sum of individual isolated
> performances. This is a sophomoric attitude that is usually adapted by
> thick-lensed little geeks that were never able to participate in team sports
> and therefore never understood the nature of the game.
Jeez. Do you, like, lift weights in the off-season, to post this forcefully
with no firm ground to stand on?
Steve Geswein sges...@indyvax.iupui.edu
Roger Maynard
>That is completely false, Roger. And you know it. The "rest" of
>us (meaning I presume the majority of baseball fans) use exactly
>the definition that John was alluding to: the team, that in the
>speaker's judgment, would be more likely to win a series against
>the other. This is not necessarily the team that actually won the
>series.
Nonsense. They might say the "best on paper" but that is not the same
as best for most fans and that is why it is qualified by the "on paper".
But for statheads - the minority by a long shot - "best" does not need
qualification because the best team for you clowns is the one that meets
the criteria demanded by your formulae rather than the team that proves
it by winning the WS.
Of course part of the confusion lies in the fact that "best on paper" is
a prediction of who is going to win and nothing more. It is not an absolute
statement of quality about the team that you are calling the "best". It is
merely a prediction based on formulae as to who you beleive is the most likely
to win. Once the WS has actually been won your prediction as to which team
is the best has no meaning. There is no point in talking about which team
you thought should have won after the fact unless you are just trying to
make excuses (if you were wrong in your prediction) or saying "I told you
so!" if you were right.
Once again - the best team is the team that wins. That is why they keep
score. If you want to call another team the "best" then you are either
making a prediction about the next WS winner or you are just plain wrong.
HODGE, GARY R
team sport of baseball is team success. Not only am I saying that you can't
> measure individual success in a team sport but I am taking it a step further
> by saying that there is no point at all in trying.
>
>
>>team win the WS in a manner independent of his teammates? Bonds' stats
>
> No player can help his team win the WS independent of his teammates. What
> are you talking about?
>
> hell ain't a loser. But no one said that he was any better, as an individual
> player than any other player. All that was said is that he was good enough
> to win the WS and that is all that is worth celebrating because that is the
> only goal the team has in a team sport. You are a victim of the error that
> is most common to the unsophisticatd statfan like yourself. You think that
> a team's success is a reflection of the sum of individual isolated
> performances. This is a sophomoric attitude that is usually adapted by
> thick-lensed little geeks that were never able to participate in team sports
> and therefore never understood the nature of the game. They tend to perceive
> of team sport success as some collection of individual glories because it
> is individual glory that is lacking in their own miserable little lives.
>
>
>>you use then?
>
> I guess if I had anything intelligent to say in response to that question
> I would probably be in the employ of a major league club, wouldn't I? But
> I can assure you that my research would go far far beyond a simple perusal
> of stats.
Why would you need to do any research at all other than to look at the
Blue Jays roster? You just said you can't measure individual success
in a team sport. Isn't that the same as saying you can't tell which
players are superior, i.e., which players are more likely to help your team
win in the future? Just try and trade for a Blue Jay, any Blue Jay.
Of course, the Jays probably wouldn't want to make any trades. Since they
won the WS, and we can't tell which ones are the ones who most helped them
to win, it wouldn't be wise to trade any of them.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
> --
> Roger Maynard
> may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
Regards,
Gary Hodge
g...@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
Stephen Weick
In total agreement.
Stephen Weick
Doug Dolbear
Phillip Torrez <pc8...@unix1.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>This is a general plea to all of you in r.s.b to QUIT responding to
>Roger Maynard.
>
I completely agree. Anyone who argues with Roger again this year has way too
much time on their hands. If you all stop, then he will have no one to
respond too.
Doug Dolbear
do...@innovus.com
COONEY JOHN AIDAN
>>proof of or control over), if you claim otherwise, you really ought to try
>>and have the newsgroup rmgrouped. Show us the error of our ways.
>
>to the nature of the readership rather than the nature of the sport. And
>when it gets hilariously out of hand is when those who know all the stats
>but never watch the sport pretend to know more about the game than the
>managers and players down on the field. Last year the Toronto Blue Jays
>selected Paul Molitor, their DH, as their MVP. Olerud's stats were far
>better and he played a two way game. And when you consider Alomar's stats
>and his defensive contribution then he would seem to be more valuable as
>well. So what the stathead will claim is that the players simply don't
>is a lousy manager for various stat related reasons (platooning, batting
>order, etc). It just doesn't seem to matter to them that not a single
>manager in the history of the game could have accomplished more with respect
>to the team's goal than Gaston did the last two years.
Uh Roger, it is a rather large assumption that SDCN's "...never watch
the sport..." Unless you have a super duper satellite, your exposure to
"watching" professional baseball games has been limited to coverage of the
Blue Jays and Expos (judging from your remote place of residence). I'd
be willing to wager that the people you're arguing with have seen much
more baseball than you. Also, your main argument has nothing to do with
going and watching games either ("...the sole criterion MLB uses..."). So
which one is it Roger? In previous posts you would have us believe that
one only needs to see who won the WS at the end of the year to appreciate
who is the *best*.
Most people around here *like* platooning Roger. It gives the batter a
statistical edge. W.R.T. Cito's accomplishments, READ SOME BASEBALL BOOKS
ROGER. Teams have won far more than two championships in a row in MLB.
Face the facts Roger, you do not command any respect in this group because
you are largely ignorant of what goes on in the game of baseball.
Jack
P.S. How, exactly, do you find time to respond to all of this mail? It must
seriously cut into the amount of time you spend watching baseball games.
--
Jack Cooney
coo...@ecf.toronto.edu
University of Toronto
"Life is lived looking forwards, but is only understood looking backwards."
David M. Nieporent
>Once again - the best team is the team that wins. That is why they keep
>score. If you want to call another team the "best" then you are either
>making a prediction about the next WS winner or you are just plain wrong.
just to see how many responses you can get, but I just have to ask...
Do you *really* not believe in randomness?
Because that *is* the implication of what you're saying. That there is
no randomness in the universe. No probability. That when you roll two
dice, the one that comes up higher is *better* at getting higher numbers.
Or at least it was better at getting higher numbers at the time you rolled
the dice.
You can't really believe the universe works that way, Roger, can you?
Because, like I've said in other posts, if you do, then you have to give
Tommy Lasorda just as much credit for the Blue Jays victory as Cito Gaston.
Because, after all, the year the Blue Jays won the world series, Tim Wallach
was on the Dodgers. You can't ask "what if Wallach wasn't on the Dodgers."
Because he was. "The question has no meaning." I mean, no one can show that
Wallach's being on the Dodgers *didn't* cause the Blue Jays to win. So only
a stathead who had never seen a baseball game would question the assumption
that Wallach helped the Blue Jays win the World Series.
(See, everyone, this is easy. You too can play at home. Take two
seemingly unrelated events. Assert that one caused the other. Tell everyone
repeatedly that they can't prove differently. Make up a new definition if it
suits you. Then insult those who question you.)
Is there a Guiness Book of World Records listing for "person in the most kill
files," Roger? Or do you just do this for fun?
Roger Maynard
>Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>>sco...@habanero.ucs.indiana.edu (Scott Southwick) writes:
>>
>>>Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>>>>Hardly. I have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a
>>>>WS berth let alone a victory.
>>
>>>OK, here's one you can't get out of, Roger. You just said that you
>>>"have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a victory."
>>>But *somebody* on the Giants must have been reposible for all those
>>>victories last year. Was it only the other guys? By what arcane
>>>intellectual process is Bonds excluded from this group?
>>
>>How many world series victories did the Giants celebrate last year?
>Zero, and there's a little red light flashing over your head: the A-H
>Detector. Your first post quoted above was not scoffing at the idea of
>Bonds contributing to WS victories, but to *any* victories: a poster
>said, "Bonds wins more games than other players," and you responded
>"Hardly."
Nonsense. I suggest you check back and you will see that he misinterpreted
what _I_ was saying and that I simply corrected him. Bonds has contributed
to 0 WS victories which is all that I claimed.
John H. Rickert
> But don't delude yourself into
> thinking that stats are the whole story.
Then why do you keep quoting a statistic to support your view?
john rickert
ric...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Baseball is a dull game only to dull minds - Red Smith
Roger Maynard
>It's worse than that. By Maynard's logic, (okay, it's an oxymoron, sort of
>like Justice Rehnquist), we can't show that Dwight Eisenhower wasn't the person
>most responsible for the Jay's win last year.
That is exactly true. And about as close to the point as I imagine that you
are ever going to get.
BTW: Who was reponsible? Pierre Elliot Trudeau?
Roger Maynard
>Maynard also said to me that he would rather have Pat Borders than Barry
>Bonds, since Borders has been to the World Series.
I have never, ever, ever said anything of the sort. Only someone who
completely misunderstood what I have been trying to say would make such
a claim. You are going to have to try to grasp the progression from
modus ponens to modus tollens. I have better things to do than teach
you.
>I submit that anyone with this outlook cannot be debated with in the
>manner in which we are accustomed to on r.s.b. Posts will simply continue
>to pile up in which Maynard says "I refuse to differentiate between the
>best player in the game and a sack of fetid rabbit turds sitting on
>Toronto's bench, because Toronto won the world series, and who knows, they
>might have lost it if they'd replaced the rabbit turds with Barry Bonds."
Missed the point entirely. Why don't you leave it for the big kids to
dispute?
Adam Raine
(alot of typical Maynard crap deleted)
: cordially, as always,
: rm
: --
: Roger Maynard
: may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
If any of you are on rec.sport.hockey, you'll know Mr. Maynard
well. I though maybe r.s.b. was safe, but I guess not. As long as you
post something intelligent and well thought out, you'll have Rog ripping
apart your post, spewing out "nonsenses" and "cordiallys", as evidenced by
the waste of bandwidth he contributed to this post. It's a sad day.
*************************************************************************
*Adam Raine Roberto Alomar for MVP in 1994! *
*ad...@uoguelph.ca Sergei Fedorov for Hart Trophy in 1994! *
*TORONTO BLUE JAYS:3PEAT IN '94! DETROIT RED WINGS:STANLEY CUP 1994! *
*DETROIT LIONS:SUPER BOWL '95! TORONTO ARGONAUTS:GREY CUP '94! *
*************************************************************************
Harold_Brooks
[deletions]
>
>Once again - the best team is the team that wins.
Not according to the definition you've given us previously. The definition
you've given us in the past has no present tense, only past tense. You can
only say that the best team _was_ the team that won. Since your definition
(at least how you've always written it before) requires that we know the
outcome of the event, you can say absolutely nothing about the present or
the future.
Just as cordially,
Harold
--
Harold Brooks hbr...@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
National Severe Storms Laboratory (Norman, OK)
Dorian Rysling Kim
>Roger Maynard.
I definitely agree. I'm offering Roger Maynard vaccine for anyone who's
willing to try it. :)
>If someone cannot accept the valid distinction between Bonds and, say,
>Turner Ward, then they cannot be argued with. They'll never see it our
>way. Let 'em be in peace.
I keep wondering if Roger has some strange ability to draw folks into
this neverending debates, but I realize that it's our memory that's at
fault. Please, let's remember what happened before with Roger Maynard,
and put an end to this.
_Dorian_
--
---{@---{@
Dorian R. Kim \ "Baldrick, you wouldn't know a subtle plan if it
UM ITS SysAdmin \ painted itself purple and danced atop a harpsi-
dor...@umich.edu \ chord singing 'Subtle Plans are Here Again'."
Roger Maynard
>Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> writes:
>
>>Once again - the best team is the team that wins. That is why they keep
>>score. If you want to call another team the "best" then you are either
>>making a prediction about the next WS winner or you are just plain wrong.
>
>Do you *really* not believe in randomness?
Why do you ask?
>Because that *is* the implication of what you're saying. That there is
No it's not. How did you make that leap?
>no randomness in the universe. No probability. That when you roll two
>dice, the one that comes up higher is *better* at getting higher numbers.
>Or at least it was better at getting higher numbers at the time you rolled
>the dice.
Most would agree that there is no randomness in the universe. The notion
of probability arises out of our perceptual process. The only way that we
can establish the "truth" about probability is to roll the dice an infinite
amount of times. But what the hell does this have to do with what I am
trying to say?
>You can't really believe the universe works that way, Roger, can you?
It really is a question of belief. Your notion of probability can't be
proved one way or the other.
>Because, like I've said in other posts, if you do, then you have to give
>Tommy Lasorda just as much credit for the Blue Jays victory as Cito Gaston.
Nonsense. The flaw in your thinking is that you feel that you are able to
measure everything about a player's contribution that can be measured.
And rather than accept that there may be reasons why a team wins that you
are unable to either fathom or measure you pretend that the team's performance
is a sum of individual performances spiked with luck. But of course the only
way that you can get away with this is to redefine the notion of "best".
Best is no longer a measure of team performance, instead it is a measure of
the sums of individual performances spiked by luck. But you have nowhere
established that what you consider to be luck may in part be attributable to
something else. God, for instance. Or fate. In other words the notion of
probability cannot be "proved".
>Because, after all, the year the Blue Jays won the world series, Tim Wallach
>was on the Dodgers. You can't ask "what if Wallach wasn't on the Dodgers."
>Because he was. "The question has no meaning." I mean, no one can show that
>Wallach's being on the Dodgers *didn't* cause the Blue Jays to win. So only
>a stathead who had never seen a baseball game would question the assumption
>that Wallach helped the Blue Jays win the World Series.
No you got lost on this one. I make no assumptions about Tim Wallach or any
other individual's performance that the statfan can question. It is the
statfan that is making the assumptions and I question them. I have said
repeatedly that it is pointless to attempt to measure an individual's
contribution to the team's WS victory or failure and that doing so indicates
that the measurer has failed to grasp the notion of team sport. The essence
of team sport lies in team performance. Attempts to portray a team sport as
a collection of individual efforts runs contrary to the spirit of the game.
And it is the spirit of the game that yields the glory. It is the glory of
the game that yields that drama. And it is the drama of the game that we
crave. To be simplistic for a moment, when some of us watch a baseball
game we are cheering for the team. Others are cheering for collections of
individuals. And there is also the question of amateur purity (team spirit)
and professional pollution (individual performance). But I don't have time
to go into that unless someone else wants to. Briefly, by celebrating the
contribution of the individual over the performance of the team you are
making any team sport something less than it could be. And if your primary
interest in baseball lies in exploiting its potential to be statistically
analyzed at the individual player level then I submit that you are a statfan
and not a sport fan.
>(See, everyone, this is easy. You too can play at home. Take two
>seemingly unrelated events. Assert that one caused the other. Tell everyone
>repeatedly that they can't prove differently. Make up a new definition if it
>suits you. Then insult those who question you.)
You might have got the last part right but that's about it. I'm afraid I've
gone a bit too far over your head.
>Is there a Guiness Book of World Records listing for "person in the most kill
>files," Roger? Or do you just do this for fun?
You are always free to increase that record by one.
Roger Maynard
>In article <2oeh0q$2...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>
>may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>> In <2ockq1$5...@usenet.rpi.edu> jon...@alum01.its.rpi.edu (Mike Jones)
>writes:
>> Hardly. I have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a
>> WS berth let alone a victory.
>Personally, I think that you've seen the evidence (it's certainly been
>presented to you in other posts) but you simply haven't recognized it.
This is not the issue. The issue is whether or not Bonds can contribute
more than White. And he can't. Because White contributed to the victory.
All that is important here is that White was part of the winning team while
Bonds was not. Individual statistics are irrelevant. This should be obvious
by now. White has two rings and Bonds has none. And yet the goal of both
players (hopefully) is not to have the best individual stats but to participate
in the team goal of winning the WS.
Of course at the beginning of the year Gaston will ask which player, White
or Bonds, is likely to help his team get there again. But Gaston's answer,
and the answer of every other manager in the league, will not depend totally
on the player's stats. In fact the only folks whose answers do depend
totally on stats are the stat fans and this is because they are not privy
to any (or very little) other knowledge.
In any case, if no major league manager is stupid enough to rate players
as being the "best" purely on statistical evaluation I don't see why anyone
else should, unless of course they feel that their knowledge of the game
exceeds that of a major league manager's. (Don Zimmer notwithstanding)
>*You* don't know if it's possible. I know that it's possible
As I pointed out in another post statistical evaluations are hardly a matter
of knowledge.
Roger Maynard
>In article <2oh706$1...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
>[deletions]
>>
>>Once again - the best team is the team that wins.
>Not according to the definition you've given us previously. The definition
>you've given us in the past has no present tense, only past tense. You can
>only say that the best team _was_ the team that won. Since your definition
>(at least how you've always written it before) requires that we know the
>outcome of the event, you can say absolutely nothing about the present or
>the future.
You are quite right. I wasn't clear. I should have said that the best team
is the team that will win the WS. And of course they won't be the best team
until they have actually won it. This is what I meant to say so I don't
believe that I was contradicting myself. Thanks for pointing this out.
Roger Maynard
> Uh Roger, it is a rather large assumption that SDCN's "...never watch
>the sport..." Unless you have a super duper satellite, your exposure to
>"watching" professional baseball games has been limited to coverage of the
>Blue Jays and Expos (judging from your remote place of residence). I'd
>be willing to wager that the people you're arguing with have seen much
>more baseball than you. Also, your main argument has nothing to do with
Quite right. The statement was pure hyperbole. And I think that everyone
understood that except for you.
>going and watching games either ("...the sole criterion MLB uses..."). So
>which one is it Roger? In previous posts you would have us believe that
>one only needs to see who won the WS at the end of the year to appreciate
>who is the *best*.
I wouldn't say "appreciate". You can appreciate baseball all year round
regardless of who is the best. But to actually know who the best team is
you have to know who won the WS.
> Most people around here *like* platooning Roger. It gives the batter a
>statistical edge. W.R.T. Cito's accomplishments, READ SOME BASEBALL BOOKS
Yes I know that most people around here like platooning - except in Olerud's
case. But Gaston doesn't. You can argue with Gaston if you'd like to but
as a Jay's fan I must say that I am glad that he did things the way he did
the last two years.
>ROGER. Teams have won far more than two championships in a row in MLB.
Sure. So what? How many teams have won back to back titles in the age of
all out free agency?
>Face the facts Roger, you do not command any respect in this group because
>you are largely ignorant of what goes on in the game of baseball.
And you seem to be largely ignorant of what goes on in these conversations.
>P.S. How, exactly, do you find time to respond to all of this mail? It must
>seriously cut into the amount of time you spend watching baseball games.
I can type with more than two fingers.
Josh Kaderlan
>
>only goal the team has in a team sport. You are a victim of the error that
>is most common to the unsophisticatd statfan like yourself. You think that
Just where the hell do you get off calling me an "unsophisticatd statfan"? How
the hell do you know what means I use to cast judgment on the game of baseball,
the players, and the teams? I've never met you in my life, and don't presume
to tell me that I'm an "unsophisticatd statfan." You know nothing of me other
than what I've written in *one* article, so don't you dare make comments about
me other than what I have clearly demonstrated in my posts. Go to hell.
>a team's success is a reflection of the sum of individual isolated
>performances. This is a sophomoric attitude that is usually adapted by
>thick-lensed little geeks that were never able to participate in team sports
>and therefore never understood the nature of the game. They tend to perceive
>of team sport success as some collection of individual glories because it
>is individual glory that is lacking in their own miserable little lives.
>
I'm *so* glad you can psychoanalyze me through *one* post. Freud had nothing
on you. How the hell do you know there's been "individual glory...lacking" in
my life? Go to hell.
>
>I guess if I had anything intelligent to say in response to that question
>I would probably be in the employ of a major league club, wouldn't I? But
>I can assure you that my research would go far far beyond a simple perusal
>of stats.
>
Hey, look, he admitted he didn't have anything intelligent to say! What a leap
forward. (And there is a smiley there, if you look *real* hard.
Josh
David McKinnon
1994 season:
At the end of the regular season, the Baltimore Orioles finish with
100 wins, top of the AL East Division, with Toronto languishing in second
with 87 wins, which is nonetheless good enough for the wild card.
Which team is the best team in the AL East, Roger? Surely you agree
that the answer is the Baltimore Orioles, because they won the most games --
in fact, far more games than anyone else. In particular, they are *better*
than the Toronto Blue Jays.
Now comes the playoffs. Both Toronto and Baltimore win their first
round series, and in the ALCS, Toronto squeaks out a 4-3 victory in the
series, with John Olerud hitting a clutch 3-run homer in the top of the
ninth of Game 7 to win the series.
And in the World Series, Toronto easily polishes off a weak Houston
team in five games. So, by your own definition of "best", the Toronto Blue
Jays are, once again, the best team in baseball.
But wait, they're in the AL East, right? And Baltimore is the best
team in the AL East -- we know that already. So Baltimore is *better* than
the *best* team in baseball, namely, the Toronto Blue Jays.
I would be very interested to hear your interpretation of this
situation, Mr. Maynard. Cordially, as always,
--David McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Roger Maynard
>Uh-huh. Why do you believe the players have *any* idea who the MVP on their
>team is? All they can make is a moderately-informed, gut-feel guess. If
"moderately informed gut-feel guess?" Hardly. They have access to better
stats than you do. And a whole lot more besides.
>someone came into my office and asked me, "who's the most valuable person in
>your executive area," how the hell do *I* know? I could give an answer based on
>what I've *seen*, which
>1. May or may not be giving short shrift to people who do things I don't see or
>understand.
And what makes you think that there is anything that the players don't
understand about the way their teammates play? What makes you think that
any ousider could understand any more than the players?
>2. May show that, even though I've been here nine years and have advanced
>degrees in the field, I may not have appropriate training to make such an
>evaluation.
And what makes you think that the players need training to know who their
MVP is? What makes you think that anyone has any training that gives them
a level of competency exceeding the player's?
>3. May or may not agree with what, for example, a manager in the area believes.
This is meaningless.
>4. Is probably based on biased and/or incomplete information.
No one know the absolute truth. But the players information is far more
complete than anyone else's.
>It is, however, quite possible that an outside analyst could come in, observe
>the situation, collect appropriate data, and make a more informed (though
And who is to judge that the outsider's opinion is more informed? The
outsider?
>certainly not perfect) study of the situation. He'll probably want to do
>systematic studies of our processes (oops -- we're getting into statistics now)
>He'll probably want to look at our performance evaluation systems, to see if
>they cause us to perform better (or worse).
Right. And when he's done he will hand you a less than objective evaluation
based on criteria that only he feels is important. And of course he'll hand
you a big fat invoice as well. And while he walks out the door he'll be
saying to himself "there's one born every minute."
>Oh, and by the way, while I have no idea whether YOU have ever watched baseball
What is your point?
>(and if you have no idea whether Barry Bonds or Billy Hatcher is a better
>player, I really have to wonder...), but I know I've seen thousands of games, at
And after watching thousands of games you feel that you are better prepared
to analyse than those that have _played_ thousands of games? Or after watching
thousands of games you admit that you are still so befuddled that you will
have to call in an outside analyst to tell you what to think?
>the major league and minor league levels. I think your nonsense about people
>"who never watch the sport" is uncalled for.
And lots of stuff happens that "is uncalled for". Even stuff that you have
never even heard about. Ain't life a bitch?
mhunt...@mac.cc.macalstr.edu
Welcome to Durkheim.
Durkheim was a turn-of-the-century philosopher who believed that an
organization had, somehow, something more than simply the people in it.
I'm not going to argue about it: it was nicely torn apart in the 30's and
40's. But it has about as much revelence to real discussion as Papal
Infallibility.
Here is one arguement against it, adjusted for baseball:
If the Blue Jays were found to have been gambling on the spread, and their
WS title was stripped and given to the Phillies, would that make the Phillies
a better team?
If you say "no", then the original premise was wrong, the WS winners are NOT
the best team, since the Phillies are now the WS winners. If you say "yes"
then you would be arguing that the "best" team has nothing to do with how
well they play, since they played equally well and yet they are now better.
If you say "well, it hasn't happened" then you are either a coward, or have no
imagination.
Matthew Huntington
I refute him thus. <WHACK> Ow!
Roger Maynard
>In article <2ogu2g$1...@unix1.circ.gwu.edu>,
>Phillip Torrez <pc8...@unix1.circ.gwu.edu> wrote:
>>This is a general plea to all of you in r.s.b to QUIT responding to
>>Roger Maynard.
>I definitely agree. I'm offering Roger Maynard vaccine for anyone who's
>willing to try it. :)
Just send me your requests and I will be happy to enlighten you as to
the purpose and application of a kill file.
>>If someone cannot accept the valid distinction between Bonds and, say,
>>Turner Ward, then they cannot be argued with. They'll never see it our
>>way. Let 'em be in peace.
It's the weight attached to what you feel is a "valid" distinction that I
object to. Don't disregard a notion simply because you don't understand it.
You won't grow that way. (and judging by the content of this post you have
quite a bit of growing yet to do).
>I keep wondering if Roger has some strange ability to draw folks into
>this neverending debates, but I realize that it's our memory that's at
>fault. Please, let's remember what happened before with Roger Maynard,
>and put an end to this.
I must confess that my memory must be at fault as well. What happened before?
This argument is just another manifestion of the never-ending squabble
between idealists and empiricists. It's been going on a lot longer than
you have and will be still going strong long after you're dust.
Roger Maynard
>In article <2ogptf$k...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>, may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
>(Roger Maynard) says:
>>
>>In <94102.222...@psuvm.psu.edu> Josh Kaderlan <JEK...@psuvm.psu.edu>
>>writes:
>>
>>only goal the team has in a team sport. You are a victim of the error that
>>is most common to the unsophisticatd statfan like yourself. You think that
>Just where the hell do you get off calling me an "unsophisticatd statfan"? How
Would you prefer sophisticated statfan?
>the hell do you know what means I use to cast judgment on the game of baseball,
>the players, and the teams? I've never met you in my life, and don't presume
>to tell me that I'm an "unsophisticatd statfan." You know nothing of me other
>than what I've written in *one* article, so don't you dare make comments about
>me other than what I have clearly demonstrated in my posts. Go to hell.
This is going to be a profitable read...
>>a team's success is a reflection of the sum of individual isolated
>>performances. This is a sophomoric attitude that is usually adapted by
>>thick-lensed little geeks that were never able to participate in team sports
>>and therefore never understood the nature of the game. They tend to perceive
>>of team sport success as some collection of individual glories because it
>>is individual glory that is lacking in their own miserable little lives.
>>
>I'm *so* glad you can psychoanalyze me through *one* post. Freud had nothing
>on you. How the hell do you know there's been "individual glory...lacking" in
>my life? Go to hell.
I didn't realize that you were one of the "thick-lensed little geeks" that I
was referring to.
>>I guess if I had anything intelligent to say in response to that question
>>I would probably be in the employ of a major league club, wouldn't I? But
>>I can assure you that my research would go far far beyond a simple perusal
>>of stats.
>>
>Hey, look, he admitted he didn't have anything intelligent to say! What a leap
>forward. (And there is a smiley there, if you look *real* hard.
Would it help if you put your thick-lensed little glasses on?
Roger Maynard
>I have another question for Mr. Maynard. Consider this scenario, for the
>1994 season:
> At the end of the regular season, the Baltimore Orioles finish with
>100 wins, top of the AL East Division, with Toronto languishing in second
>with 87 wins, which is nonetheless good enough for the wild card.
> Which team is the best team in the AL East, Roger? Surely you agree
>that the answer is the Baltimore Orioles, because they won the most games --
>in fact, far more games than anyone else. In particular, they are *better*
>than the Toronto Blue Jays.
Actually there is only one best team in all of baseball. And that is the
team that wins the world series. And they are only the best after they
win the world series. You might say that you feel that the Orioles have
a better chance of winning and you therefore predict that they will in
fact turn out to be the best team. But you won't know until after the
series.
> Now comes the playoffs. Both Toronto and Baltimore win their first
>round series, and in the ALCS, Toronto squeaks out a 4-3 victory in the
>series, with John Olerud hitting a clutch 3-run homer in the top of the
>ninth of Game 7 to win the series.
You don't like Joe Carter? You must be a statfan.
> And in the World Series, Toronto easily polishes off a weak Houston
>team in five games. So, by your own definition of "best", the Toronto Blue
>Jays are, once again, the best team in baseball.
If they win the Series then yes indeedy, they are the best team.
> But wait, they're in the AL East, right? And Baltimore is the best
>team in the AL East -- we know that already. So Baltimore is *better* than
>the *best* team in baseball, namely, the Toronto Blue Jays.
I guess this is where we disagree. But you were quite right to ask me to
"wait" cause I'm way ahead of you...
> I would be very interested to hear your interpretation of this
>situation, Mr. Maynard. Cordially, as always,
Still interested?
John Cheng-Yung Yuan
First off, Mr. Maynard: How much of baseball do you know?!?!?!?!
Seriously, I haven't seen any mention of any teams before the
Blue Jays... is this some sort of Canadian thing, or what?
The only example I've seen is Ted Williams - and you are SERIOUSLY
lacking when it comes to your knowledge here! For the record,
I would take Williams over ANY player today - and I'm sure I'm
not the only one.
Second of all, I've noticed you've stayed away from the topic of
pitching - with is 90% of the game! So, would you take the staff
of the Jays over the Braves staff? Other than Ward, the staff
is VERY lacking.... I'd put it behind Baltimore, Boston, and
New York in the NL East - in fact, take away Ward and Guzman,
and I wouldn't touch this staff with a ten foor pole (Hentgen
was rejected by *Detroit*).
Now, as for the topic of best CF in the AL... I'd have to say
Griffey. How about best of all time (AL and NL)? Now *there*
is something to debate about.
(Even Mr. Maynard couldn't screw this one up... both Mantle
and DiMaggio have more rings than any Blue Jay!!).
My choice: Willie Mays.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Yuan |
| e-mail:barch...@cmu.edu |
| "The boy pulls down his baseball cap and covers up his eyes..." |
| -Rush, "Analog Kid" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Roger Maynard
>Ok...
>First off, Mr. Maynard: How much of baseball do you know?!?!?!?!
Not nearly as much as you. I can tell that right away.
>Seriously, I haven't seen any mention of any teams before the
>Blue Jays... is this some sort of Canadian thing, or what?
Was there baseball before the Blue Jays?
>The only example I've seen is Ted Williams - and you are SERIOUSLY
>lacking when it comes to your knowledge here! For the record,
>I would take Williams over ANY player today - and I'm sure I'm
>not the only one.
Alfredo Griffin has more rings. And what about Michael Jordan?
>Second of all, I've noticed you've stayed away from the topic of
>pitching - with is 90% of the game! So, would you take the staff
90% eh?
>of the Jays over the Braves staff? Other than Ward, the staff
>is VERY lacking.... I'd put it behind Baltimore, Boston, and
>New York in the NL East - in fact, take away Ward and Guzman,
Well Jim Palmer, Luis Tiant and Jim Hunter are pretty tough to
beat. But as long as we still have Dave Stieb and Jimmy Key we'll
be ok. I hope.
>and I wouldn't touch this staff with a ten foor pole (Hentgen
>was rejected by *Detroit*).
Yeah but we still got Bill Gullickson and David Wells.
>Now, as for the topic of best CF in the AL... I'd have to say
>Griffey. How about best of all time (AL and NL)? Now *there*
>is something to debate about.
>(Even Mr. Maynard couldn't screw this one up... both Mantle
>and DiMaggio have more rings than any Blue Jay!!).
>My choice: Willie Mays.
Gee...and you were doing so well...I guess you never heard of Rick Bosetti?
It should be a real hot summer...
John H. Rickert
may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
> In <2ockq1$5...@usenet.rpi.edu> jon...@alum01.its.rpi.edu (Mike Jones)
writes:
> Hardly. I have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a
> WS berth let alone a victory.
Personally, I think that you've seen the evidence (it's certainly been
presented to you in other posts) but you simply haven't recognized it.
> >You, on the other hand, want Pat Borders because of some bullshit you
> >trot out even though there's no indication that Borders being on a
> >winning Blue Jays team last year means that he'll be a factor in any
> >team (including the Blue Jays) winning anything this year.
>
> Borders has done it twice before. Using past statistics - as you do -
> to predict future participation I would have to point out that since
> Borders has been there twice it is quite possible that he can do it
Absolutely. Anyone who claims otherwise isn't paying attention.
> again. We don't know yet if it is even possible that Bonds can play
> in the WS.
*You* don't know if it's possible. I know that it's possible
(I even know that there is a better than 1 in 10^1000000
chance that *I* can play in the World Series), and I infer from
reading other posts that many (probably most) other posters
realize that it is possible. It's certainly possible that
you don't realize that it's possible (that Bonds can play
in the World Series).
john rickert
ric...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Tyndall Jackson
>In any case, if no major league manager is stupid enough to rate players
>as being the "best" purely on statistical evaluation I don't see why anyone
>else should, unless of course they feel that their knowledge of the game
>exceeds that of a major league manager's. (Don Zimmer notwithstanding)
Right. Major League teams have scouts that look at every player a team is
interested in acquiring to see if that player would be a good addition to that
*team*, while every team looks to deal from within their organization to
make their team *better* in the ultimate goal of being the best, winning
the World Series.
What these scouts measure encompasses a lot. For pitchers, it's mechanics,
velocity, poise on the mound, how they react in certain game-time situations,
etc. For position players it might be how they field.. what kind of range
in the scouts opinion they have, how they handle themselves at the plate.
I don't know all of what they measure since I don't sit with scouts at the
game. (except velocity as we use binoculars to get a speed reading on their
radar guns from time to time).
But as Joe Average Fan, we don't have access to this kind of knowledge, hardly
ever. There are a couple of books printed (the 1994 Scouting Report that's
done yearly, for one) that shows this kind of information, but all that
Joe Average Fan has to look at are statistics. Plus any extended commentary
that people on the tube or the radio see fit to shove down people's throats.
Fans use what they're given. And I submit to you that it is /not/ pointless
to use statistics to argue who is the best, or even which player would be
the best /addition/ to a team. Why? Because it's fun, Roger. It adds to
the enjoyment of the game. I'm forever looking for players that Toronto
can trade for that will give the team a better chance to three-peat. Have
been since last October. When Stottlmyre got shelled in the memorable
15-14 win over the Phils, I uttered the cryptic words "That's the last game
Todd's ever thrown in a Blue Jays uniform." I was mad, as a fan, that he
allowed so many runs, so I was looking for replacements. Yes, I'm happy
we came back and won the game -- ecstatic i fact -- but I still wanted
Toad off the team. Because he pitched poorly.
I enjoy being a fan of baseball, and doing what I do. I do not enjoy
people telling me that what I do, how I study and enjoy baseball, is
pointless. I had to deal enough of that when I was playing/writing in High
School. It really is beyond my comprehension that a baseball fan would
call anything related to this great game pointless.
Is that it, Roger? Are you really not a baseball fan?
---
Chad 'Mr.B' Jackson \ "28 years of bitterness.. come out
mis...@netcom.com / in my shots." -- Boston
Go Jays, Jags, Lightning & Gators \ Bruin defenseman Al Iafrate
Scott Southwick
one now:
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>(Scott Southwick) writes:
>>Your first post quoted above was not scoffing at the idea of
>>Bonds contributing to WS victories, but to *any* victories: a poster
>>said, "Bonds wins more games than other players," and you responded
>>"Hardly."
>
>Nonsense. I suggest you check back and you will see that he misinterpreted
>what _I_ was saying and that I simply corrected him. Bonds has contributed
>to 0 WS victories which is all that I claimed.
OK, so I checked back. It was a lot of work, but you're worth it. I
went and got the original post, because I love th English language and
hate to see it abused...
Mike Jones wrote:
>The difference, of course, is that most of us want Barry Bonds because
>we know that past performance using appropriate measurements is a good
>predictor of future performance; i.e., we are pretty sure that Bonds
>is going to contribute strongly to his team winning games this year no
>matter who that team happens to be.
Maynard's complete response:
>Hardly. I have yet to see any evidence that Bonds can contribute to a
>WS berth let alone a victory.
That's it. Mike said, "We are pretty sure that Bonds is going to
contribute strongly to his team winning games this year," and you said
"hardly."
Of course, your implication may be that "regular-season wins are
worthless, and I was thus of course responding with the proper use of
the word 'victory,' as in 'the only victory that matters.'" But if you
really believe that baseball is a team sport, which is played for
drama and excitement, then you had better believe that those
regular-season wins *mean* something.
Additionally, if that was your implication--that when Mike says "wins"
it should mean "World Series wins"--then it's pure language abuse.
It's like you've decided that the word "giraffe" should really refer
to "box turtle"; and whenever someone says "Giraffes are tall and
yellow," you smugly reply, "No, they're not. They're small and green,
as I've said before."
So: does Bonds contribute to lots of Giants regular-season victories?
yrs,
Scotty
--
David M. Nieporent
>You are quite right. I wasn't clear. I should have said that the best team
>is the team that will win the WS. And of course they won't be the best team
>until they have actually won it. This is what I meant to say so I don't
>believe that I was contradicting myself. Thanks for pointing this out.
game season, there is NO best team in baseball. It doesn't exist. After
Oct 1993, the Blue Jays were the best team in baseball in 1993. But from
April-September 1993, the Blue Jays were not the best team in baseball.
Huh?
What do you mean "they won't be the best team until they have actually won
it."???
NO ONE in the world uses best team in this way, Roger. Admit it.
It was bad enough when you were claiming that they were the best team because
they had won, but for you now to try to claim that they weren't the best team
all along, but then suddenly -- poof! -- on October 10th, or whatever date the
WS ended, became the best team? Really.
Roger Maynard
>And now, Roger, we get the startling relevation that for the entire 162
>game season, there is NO best team in baseball. It doesn't exist. After
>Oct 1993, the Blue Jays were the best team in baseball in 1993. But from
>April-September 1993, the Blue Jays were not the best team in baseball.
>
>Huh?
It's not too difficult. The purpose of the 162 game schedule and the playoffs
is to give every team the opportunity to become the best. And you become the
best by besting the opposition in the approved manner. And the approved manner
is winning the games that baseball deems necessary to declare yourself the
best.
>What do you mean "they won't be the best team until they have actually won
>it."???
>
>NO ONE in the world uses best team in this way, Roger. Admit it.
Hardly. Anyone who thinks about words and how to use them can't help but
come to this conclusion. What some statisticians do is attempt to predict
who the best team will be at the end of the seasons. But the statfan or
SDCN feels that these predictions are more meaningful than the outcome of
the actual season. And so they use what are merely predictions as a standard
by which they measure reality against. Sport fans would never make such an
obvious blunder. Sport fans see the notion of "best" as one that is determined
on the field. Stat fans see the notion of "best" as one that is determined
on the spreadsheet.
>It was bad enough when you were claiming that they were the best team because
>they had won, but for you now to try to claim that they weren't the best team
>all along, but then suddenly -- poof! -- on October 10th, or whatever date the
>WS ended, became the best team? Really.
The Jays are the reigning champions. This means that they were the best team
last year. We won't know who the best team is this year until the year is
over. Of course you are free to predict who you feel will turn out to be
the best team but if you call them the best team right now, without them
having proved themselves within the nature of the sport, then you are misusing
the word "best". And statistical evaluations are not within the nature of
the sport. They are merely aids that you employ in arriving at your own
subjective opinion as to who is likeliest to win the WS thereby becoming the
best team in baseball.
Keep in mind that until the striving to top your statistical categories
becomes the individual player's priority then your categories are an
absolute measure of nothing that could be called "best.
John H. Rickert
may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
> In <2oeo6d$g...@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> ric...@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
(John H. Rickert) writes:
> >As someone who has watched a few games I can tell you that
> >I've seen many in which the team won (Sorry, I couldn't
> >resist including that stat, but I figured it was OK since
> >you used it) despite the damaging effects of a player having
> >a particularly bad game.
> >Why do you seem unwilling to admit this dimension of the game?
>
> Not at all. What is your point?
You seem to say that Pat Borders has contributed more to winning
than Barry Bonds. I'm saying that your stat (WS rings) is not a
sufficient measure of their contributions. The `game-level' example
may be extended to the `season-level'. In several posts you appear
to have denied this possibility.
I guess I disagree with the "Not at all." Most of your other posts
did appear to deny many dimensions of the game. For example:
In article <2ogptf$k...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>
may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
[in response to another]
> Missed it again, didn't you? The only measure of success that counts in
> the team sport of baseball is team success. Not only am I saying that you
> can't measure individual success in a team sport but I am taking it a step
> further by saying that there is no point at all in trying.
Though this may just be a denial of the last century or
so of mathematical statistics. I guess I'm no mind-reader either.
(And yes, I lost many points because the graders weren't mind-readers
- the point was that you seem to feel that the "final goal"
is "sufficient evidence" )
john rickert
ric...@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu
Jeff Drummond
In article <2oeab4$o...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca>, may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca (Roger Maynard) writes:
> In <Co4EI...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> pout...@mace.cc.purdue.edu (unknown) writes:
>
> >Goddamnit Roger, answer his question! Would Toronto have won two
> >world series if Devon White hadn't been there? Yes or No.
>
> My whole point is that this question can never be answered. But what we
> do know is that they did win with White in there. And that is good enough
> for Pat Gillick, Cito Gaston and the Blue Jay fans.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the question cannot be answered
to _your_ satisfaction. Most of the rest of us are able to measure individual
contributions to group efforts, with various degrees of accuracy, and we do it
all the time.
The corporation I work for expends a lot of time and effort on employee
evaluations. In the Maynard Universe (TM), this is entirely unnecessary
since the goal of the corporation is to make money. Thus, if profits > 0
then each employee did a great job, else each employee did a poor job; no
need to find and reward the hard workers or to reprimand the underachievers,
since individual contributions are unknown and unknowable. Furthermore, if
the corporation is profitable, then don't change anything because we can't
know why it's profitable or how to improve profitability.
The Maynard Universe (TM): where everything is imponderable.
> Just because you can put words together in the form of a question does not
> mean that the question makes any sense.
Indeed.
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
> --
> Roger Maynard
> may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca
-Jeff j...@cray.com Omnia est ponderis expers.
--
"Can you step out of the batter's box
and thus understand the signs?"
-Lao "Lefty" Tzu in _The_Tao_of_Baseball_, Chapter 10.
Roger Maynard
> And here we come to the only point in any of these ridiculous side
>discussions...According to the gospel of Roger Maynard, those who consider
>statistics to be an interesting way to measure player performance, and through
>it, team performace in baseball, are not sports fans. If you like arguing that
I never said that. I enjoy looking at stats too. I find them interesting.
But I am not naive enough to believe that I can determine any "best" team
or player merely by looking at either individual performance evalutions or
collections of them.
>Team Blue wasn't the athletically superior team except for one week in October
>because so and so was this or he did that, etc. then you aren't a sports fan.
> If you like replaying seasons by computer to see what happens, you must not
>be a sports fan. And, of course, if you even dare to consider asking the
Hardly. Why put words in my mouth? Do you feel that you have to resort to
this strategy to refute my argument? If you feel that your statistically
derived team was the "best" after another team has won the WS then you are
a statfan. That is not the same as a statistician. Statisticians can
offer us lots of useful information and their predictions are fun. But
even they will acknowledge that the stats that they generate are only
predictions. And unless they are being careless they will always qualify
their predictions. No serious statistician ever claimed to be able to
measure truth. Only probability. Your confusion lies in the fact that you
assume that highest probability = best. And you are wrong.
Roger Maynard
>You seem to say that Pat Borders has contributed more to winning
>than Barry Bonds. I'm saying that your stat (WS rings) is not a
>sufficient measure of their contributions. The `game-level' example
>may be extended to the `season-level'. In several posts you appear
>to have denied this possibility.
I'm not really sure that it matters but it seems obvious to me that Borders
has contributed a lot more to winning WS's. He's won two of them. Bonds
hasn't won any. I have never said that Bonds couldn't win a WS - only
that he hasn't. Borders has. Celebrate Borders victory. It is more important
than Bonds' stats. Even Bonds would agree with that.
>> Missed it again, didn't you? The only measure of success that counts in
>> the team sport of baseball is team success. Not only am I saying that you
>> can't measure individual success in a team sport but I am taking it a step
>> further by saying that there is no point at all in trying.
>Though this may just be a denial of the last century or
>so of mathematical statistics. I guess I'm no mind-reader either.
How much did Borders contribute to either WS? Does that contribution make
him better or worse than Bonds? Of course to answwer that you are going
to have to compare Border's contribution to a WS Championship with Bond's.
And that might be tough to do.
gi...@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
> Defensively, it's almost certainly Kenny Lofton.
>
> Rangewise, there are a couple at the top
>
> Defensive Average
> Curtis .614
> Lofton .607
> Yount .605
> Johnson .601
> White .600
>
> Zone Rating
> Curtis .875
> Lofton .872
> Johnson .871
> White .863
>
> We'll assume Yount's presence in the DA ratings is a fluke, since
> he hasn't shown any similar ability recently.
>
> Obviously, the rest of these guys are close. What distinguishes
> Lofton is his arm. STATS has a hold percentage, rating how many
> baserunners outfielders allow to take an extra base given that
> possibility. Lofton came in second in that category last year,
> behind Bernie Williams, and ahead of all those who compete with
> him in range above.
>
> Lofton 46.3%
> Curtis 56.2%
> White 58.3%
> Johnson 62.0%
>
> The worst three centerfielders, btw, were Hatcher, Griffey, and Puckett.
> All three have about average arms but finished at the bottom in both
> DA and ZR.
>
> Greg
Kirby Puckett is not a center fielder anymore.
David McKinnon
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>In <2oi2eo$a...@agate.berkeley.edu> mcki...@durban.berkeley.edu (David
>McKinnon) writes:
>
>> At the end of the regular season, the Baltimore Orioles finish with
>>100 wins, top of the AL East Division, with Toronto languishing in second
>>with 87 wins, which is nonetheless good enough for the wild card.
>
>> Which team is the best team in the AL East, Roger? Surely you agree
>>that the answer is the Baltimore Orioles, because they won the most games --
>>in fact, far more games than anyone else. In particular, they are *better*
>>than the Toronto Blue Jays.
>
>Actually there is only one best team in all of baseball.
[snip]
So there was no "best" team in the AL West last year. Correct? If this is
so, why did Major League Baseball award a divisional title to the Chicago
White Sox?
>> Now comes the playoffs. Both Toronto and Baltimore win their first
>>round series, and in the ALCS, Toronto squeaks out a 4-3 victory in the
>>series, with John Olerud hitting a clutch 3-run homer in the top of the
>>ninth of Game 7 to win the series.
>
>You don't like Joe Carter? You must be a statfan.
Huh? I don't like Joe Carter because John Olerud hit a home run. This
must be some strange form of logic I'm wasn't previously aware of.
Besides, Joe Carter drew a two-out walk to set up Olerud's homer -- I like
him fine.
>> I would be very interested to hear your interpretation of this
>>situation, Mr. Maynard. Cordially, as always,
>
>Still interested?
Yep. I'm still waiting to hear it, too. From your reply, it seems that you
group baseball teams into two categories: the World Series winner, and all
other teams. All results and awards of Major League Baseball apart from the
winner of the World Series are irrelevant, except to the extent that they
affect which team wins the World Series. How's that for a quick summary
of your position? Cordially, as always,
--David McKinnon
mcki...@math.berkeley.edu
Scott E Cantor
Roger Maynard <may...@ramsey.cs.laurentian.ca> wrote:
>In <2ok4cv$h...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sca...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Scott E Cantor) writes:
>
>> And here we come to the only point in any of these ridiculous side
>>discussions...According to the gospel of Roger Maynard, those who consider
>>statistics to be an interesting way to measure player performance, and through
>>it, team performace in baseball, are not sports fans. If you like arguing that
>
>I never said that. I enjoy looking at stats too. I find them interesting.
>But I am not naive enough to believe that I can determine any "best" team
>or player merely by looking at either individual performance evalutions or
>collections of them.
What does that have to do with what I said? I never said anything about
using stats to determine who the "best" team or player is. I said it's an
interesting way to measure performance. Read it again.
>>Team Blue wasn't the athletically superior team except for one week in October
>>because so and so was this or he did that, etc. then you aren't a sports fan.
>
>> If you like replaying seasons by computer to see what happens, you must not
>>be a sports fan. And, of course, if you even dare to consider asking the
>Hardly. Why put words in my mouth? Do you feel that you have to resort to
>this strategy to refute my argument? If you feel that your statistically
>derived team was the "best" after another team has won the WS then you are
>a statfan. That is not the same as a statistician. Statisticians can
Where did I say that I thought that? Whose putting words into whose
mouth, Roger? I'm paraphrasing exactly what you wrote. If you don't
believe me, go back and look. You have been rejecting any use of statistics
in this thread from day one. Lying about it doesn't change it.
>offer us lots of useful information and their predictions are fun. But
>even they will acknowledge that the stats that they generate are only
>predictions. And unless they are being careless they will always qualify
>their predictions. No serious statistician ever claimed to be able to
>measure truth. Only probability. Your confusion lies in the fact that you
>assume that highest probability = best. And you are wrong.
>
You are the master of putting words in other people's mouths, apparently.
Nowhere, by any stretch of the imagination, did I ever equate a statistical
prediction with reality. And to complain about someone's use of the word
"best" as it pertains to a team because they don't qualify it by saying
that it's merely a prediction based on previous performance is splitting
hairs to an extent that tends to lead to physical violence when presented
with such an annoyance face to face. What, do you make phone calls to SI when
they pick so and so as the best team in the upcoming season?
--------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Scott Cantor Think honk if you're a telepath.
University Systems
sca...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu