Neyer & "small market" mediocy
Dbriblet
When it comes to baseball on the field, Neyer is just
about the best writer in the mainstream press these days.
That makes it all the more aggravating that he toes the
mediot line so consistently on the "small market teams
can't compete" beat.
In the latest example, here's an excerpt from his
ESPN chat yesterday:
# Amos: Every year, a small market team surprises
# everyone with success. Who do you think it will be this year?
# Rob Neyer: Hmmm, good question. The Athletics
# are a trendy pick, but they did win 87 games last
# year so I'm not sure if you'd categorize them as
# a surprise. How about the White Sox? They're
# young, and they've got some good pitching prospects.
So, uh, Chicago is now a small market? Someone
raises this issue later in the chat:
# David: Don't you find it strange how the White
# Sox can be considered a "small market" team
# while the Indians are not? Chicago is a huge
# city, Cleveland is a small city. What's up with that?
# Rob Neyer: The term "small market" is a misnomer,
# as I have written many times. It makes more sense
# to classify teams as "low-revenue" and "high-revenue,"
# because teams in large markets can still suffer
# financially if they play in old ballparks and don't
# enjoy lucrative local TV deals. Philadelphia's one
# example.
Sorry, Rob, but this is the economics equivalent to saying
"Joe Girardi makes the Cubs a contender with his veteran
leadership and postseason experience."
Let's look at the White Sox. Like the Indians, they got
a new stadium about 5-7 years ago. They have one of
the best stadium deals in baseball. Their local TV contract
is at least average, maybe better than average. And just
three years ago, they were constantly cited as an example
of the "big market teams who will dominate by buying up
all the top players" (as were the Phillies circa 1993-95).
The ONLY factors that make the White Sox "small market"
are their recent losing records and their current youth movement.
Like the idiotic sportswriters he rightly criticizes elsewhere,
Neyer just ignores the facts that (1) team revenues change
from year to year, largely due to whether the team is winning,
and (2) the identity of the "small market teams that can't
compete" changes from year to year, depending on which
teams are winning and losing.
-----------
Doug Riblet
Bob-Nob
<snip of critique of Rob Neyer's toeing the party line on market size and
the ability to compete>
Have you written Neyer to point out where you disagree with him?
I've not written him in a long while, but once upon a time, he used to
respond to the email he received.
Catch you later.
--Bob Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer (Bob) | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Class of 1996 | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
ACRFC MVP, Teacher, Captain, Coach | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"BOB IS NOB!"
Jabberwocky
>
>When it comes to baseball on the field, Neyer is just
>about the best writer in the mainstream press these days.
I have to disagree. I'll tell you why...
...this is why. He's always going back and forth. He'll criticize a
player for a particular reason and than laud another player for
exactly the same reason he criticized the first player. Or he'll
blast one player for having a weakness in particular statistic, but
completely ignore the same weakness in another player in which he
finds favor.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Rob in his own
words, on how he goes about writing his columns: "For the most part,
this column is about ones and zeroes, right and wrong, yesses and nos,
blacks and whites. People want strong opinions when they read a
column, so I generally try to come down strongly on one side of an
issue or the other. I'll decide what I believe, then find all the
possible evidence to support that belief, often ignoring at least some
of the evidence on the other side. This, even though I usually know
The Truth lies somewhere in the middle." (11/15/99)
I brought his use of inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning to his
attention and he sheepishly replied that it [the implication of his
statement] was his editors' fault. Ahh, but the proof is in the
pudding, Rob...
-Sheldon Rowan,
>On 25 Feb 2000 18:13:42 GMT, dbri...@aol.com (Dbriblet) wrote:
>
>>When it comes to baseball on the field, Neyer is just
>>about the best writer in the mainstream press these days.
>
>I have to disagree. I'll tell you why...
I like your comments and agree with your criticisms, but who in the
mainstream press do you consider a better writer? I guess it depends on
where you draw your boundary of mainstream, but I presume someone with
national exposure need be considered.
<snip>
>...this is why. He's always going back and forth. He'll criticize a
>player for a particular reason and than laud another player for
>exactly the same reason he criticized the first player. Or he'll
>blast one player for having a weakness in particular statistic, but
>completely ignore the same weakness in another player in which he
>finds favor.
This is definitely true about Neyer. I blame his close proximity to Peter
Gammons, hence he isn't always sufficiently rational. I have another
example. In past articles he mentions the downfalls of using fielding
percentage in evaluating defense, yet in his recent chat suggests the Jays
are erring in not playing Segui at 1st base, going as far as suggesting
that it will cost the Jays a few runs. He completely ignores the fact
that Segui's zone rating has plumetted to rock bottom in the AL and many
observers have noticed a big drop in range; rather going with the mediot
perspective that Segui is one of the finest defensive 1st baseman. Pure
laziness. I'm sure if he studies the issue, he'd come to a different
conclusion, but the use of conventional wisdom diminshes his words.
>But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Rob in his own
>words, on how he goes about writing his columns: "For the most part,
>this column is about ones and zeroes, right and wrong, yesses and nos,
>blacks and whites. People want strong opinions when they read a
>column, so I generally try to come down strongly on one side of an
>issue or the other. I'll decide what I believe, then find all the
>possible evidence to support that belief, often ignoring at least some
>of the evidence on the other side. This, even though I usually know
>The Truth lies somewhere in the middle." (11/15/99)
That's another terrible cliche about the truth that is as frequently
untrue as it is correct. Honestly, I'm telling you the the truth here :-)
>I brought his use of inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning to his
>attention and he sheepishly replied that it [the implication of his
>statement] was his editors' fault. Ahh, but the proof is in the
>pudding, Rob...
One thing I do like about Rob is that he is better than the typical
sportswriter at admitting error. I think a big issue with him is the time
pressure whereby he has to produce an article. I'm betting he has the
skills and education to do a much better job, but often doesn't have the
time to do enough conscientous research on the subject. He's a bigger
victime of carelessness than ignorance. His column today on ignoring what
the players have to say was a particular gem, though.
Sheldon
David Geiser
tst...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> I brought his use of inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning to his
> attention and he sheepishly replied that it [the implication of his
> statement] was his editors' fault. Ahh, but the proof is in the
> pudding, Rob...
That might be a lame excuse, but it's got to be
true. Neyer is a sportswriter, and he's expected to write
a certain kind of column. I agree that he could do
a better job of being consistent, and I don't understand
how a guy who worked for STATS can keep citing pitcher "Wins"
and runs scored in evaluating players, but I'm willing
to overlook that for the good he does. I will probably feel
a similar way when I vote for Al Gore.
--
Dave Geiser
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jabberwocky
<david...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <38b74035...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> tst...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
>> I brought his use of inductive reasoning vs deductive reasoning to his
>> attention and he sheepishly replied that it [the implication of his
>> statement] was his editors' fault. Ahh, but the proof is in the
>> pudding, Rob...
>
>That might be a lame excuse, but it's got to be
>true. Neyer is a sportswriter,
What he does is irrelevant. He described the way he thinks, the
method by which he considers issues. Should he need an editor to
remind him, "uh, Rob, you should think about things this way, or at
least tell people that you actually think this way even though you
don't"? For me, the answer would be "no".
And I take umbrage with applying the term "sportswriter" to Rob Neyer.
Neyer is a statistical analyst - and from what I can see, a mediocre
one - who writes columns that are sometimes entertaining. At best, he
is an editorialist. He rarely, if ever, writes the stories of players
or events. He gives synopses, then breaks things down into what he
feels are meaningful statistics. This is not the definition of a
writer, unless your defintion of a writer is anyone who types or puts
words on paper.
I guess many will find this is as ticky-tack nit-picking, but I think
a distinction needed to be made before some in this group apotheosize
him as the next Grantland Rice.
As for the question of who out there is better than Neyer, I have a
personal preference for Thomas Boswell. Keith Olberman did/does a
respectable job, although he does get a little overly passionate about
some issues. John Sickels does a very good job, too, and I'm not
saying this just because he frequents this group. :-) And frankly,
the observations of Voros or Vinay or Lev are as meaningful as those
of Neyer, and they'll usually respond to a rebuttal.
Patrick Rock
Jabberwocky wrote:
> But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Rob in his own
> words, on how he goes about writing his columns: "For the most part,
> this column is about ones and zeroes, right and wrong, yesses and nos,
> blacks and whites. People want strong opinions when they read a
> column, so I generally try to come down strongly on one side of an
> issue or the other. I'll decide what I believe, then find all the
> possible evidence to support that belief, often ignoring at least some
> of the evidence on the other side. This, even though I usually know
> The Truth lies somewhere in the middle." (11/15/99)
I don't remember which one of the Baseball Abstracts it was in, but Bill
James once noted that the difference between a his view of baseball
arguments and those of a typical sports writer or broadcaster is simply
this:
James would take a statement ("Pitching is 75% of baseball") and analyzes
it to see if it was true by theorizing what would follow from that
statement (pitchers would never be traded even-up for an everyday player,
as the pitcher would be worth many times what a player was; teams with
better pitching would win 3/4 of the time over teams with better hitting,
etc.), and determine whether the theory held up when tested.
A sportswriter would take a statement and look for whatever evidence s/he
could find to support the statement, sometimes conveniently ignoring facts
that don't fit the theory. Very much the same as what Limbaugh does.
And now Neyer has made a concrete statement that this is exactly what he
does, and (IMO) makes nearly anything he wishes to pontificate upon to be
worthless, because we now know that the idea hasn't been tested, just
pushed. Gods, I can get that from the local schmoes in Kansas City who
keep crying about "small markets" or telling us that first base defense is
the most important thing to judge Jeremy Giambi by.
Arne Olson
Patrick Rock <roc...@sw.bellnet> wrote in message
news:38B88F89...@sw.bellnet...
> >
> A sportswriter would take a statement and look for whatever evidence
s/he
> could find to support the statement, sometimes conveniently ignoring
facts
> that don't fit the theory. Very much the same as what Limbaugh does.
>
> And now Neyer has made a concrete statement that this is exactly what
he
> does, and (IMO) makes nearly anything he wishes to pontificate upon to
be
> worthless, because we now know that the idea hasn't been tested, just
> pushed. Gods, I can get that from the local schmoes in Kansas City
who
> keep crying about "small markets" or telling us that first base
defense is
> the most important thing to judge Jeremy Giambi by.
The proper test of any piece of analysis is whether it stands up to
scrutiny. Do we really care whether Einstein meticulously sifted
through the data and discerned the patterns that led him to the theory
of relativity, or whether the theory was a hunch and he went out looking
for data to support it? IOW, judge Neyer's arguments or anybody's
arguments by how convincing they are, not what you think his motivations
or methods ought to be. Giambi will show his true worth in time, and
then the local sportswriters' arguments can be demonstrated to be either
true or false.
Arne
Patrick Rock
Arne Olson wrote:
> The proper test of any piece of analysis is whether it stands up to
> scrutiny. Do we really care whether Einstein meticulously sifted
> through the data and discerned the patterns that led him to the theory
> of relativity, or whether the theory was a hunch and he went out looking
> for data to support it? IOW, judge Neyer's arguments or anybody's
> arguments by how convincing they are, not what you think his motivations
> or methods ought to be. Giambi will show his true worth in time, and
> then the local sportswriters' arguments can be demonstrated to be either
> true or false.
I'm not sure I follow your argument here.
You're saying that the test of an theory is whether it works or not, and
then
you say we should judge Neyer on how convincing he is.
Well, of course he will sound convincing if you ignore the fact that he's
selectively presenting his proof, ignoring findings and facts that might
contradict his assertion. To me, this is dishonest. Let's re-read his
statement (emphasis mine):
"People want strong opinions when they read a column, so I generally
try to come down strongly on one side of an issue or the other. "I'LL
DECIDE WHAT I BELIEVE, then find all the possible evidence to support
that belief, OFTEN IGNORING AT LEAST SOME OF THE EVIDENCE on
the other side. This, even though I usually know The Truth lies
somewhere in the middle."
What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment. While I have no
problem with the entertainment value, I feel it renders his believability as
an honest analyst nil. Neyer gives his opinion, then presents alleged
statistical analysis in support of it. That is dishonest. I don't care
what
his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
observable fact.
And the local sportswriters' arguments (at least in KC) don't need to wait
till Giambi's true worth is known; Kansas City's sportscasters and writers
tell the public exactly what the teams tell them to say. Wouldn't know an
original thought if it bit them in their collective fundament. :-)
And let's not compare this to Einstein. This is baseball, not general
relativity. The proofs required for scientific theory and statistical
analysis are not the same, and the "we" in the two examples (as
in "do we really care") are two entirely different groups. I don't
know what Dr. Einstein would have said about this himself, but
then I don't speak German . . .
Jabberwocky
Wiseacre) wrote:
>Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> And I take umbrage with applying the term "sportswriter" to Rob Neyer.
>> Neyer is a statistical analyst - and from what I can see, a mediocre
>> one - who writes columns that are sometimes entertaining. At best, he
>> is an editorialist. He rarely, if ever, writes the stories of players
>> or events. He gives synopses, then breaks things down into what he
>> feels are meaningful statistics. This is not the definition of a
>> writer, unless your defintion of a writer is anyone who types or puts
>> words on paper.
>
>Neyer is a sportswriter. He writes about sports. Sure, he's neither a
>bog-standard locker-room beat reporter nor a Gammonsian
>guess-who-I-had-lunch-with-this-week rumour-mongering type. But to
>describe him as a "statistical analyst" rather than a writer is to do a
>vast disservice to his writing. He is, granted, a baseball writer who
>relies more than most other baseball writers on statistics that actually
>mean something, as opposed to the average-homers-RBI bollocks spouted by
>most. But I don't see how his reliance on common sense makes him any
>less of a writer.
>
>I'm not suggesting he's anything approaching the next Grantland Rice,
>nor am I suggesting that I agree with everything he writes. Like every
>writer who has to churn out as much copy - five 1,000-word columns a
>week, plus the occasional Stats Class (to my mind, the only time his
>work for espn.com could properly be classed as "statistical analysis"
>rather than "writing"), plus other features from time to time - on as
>wide a range of baseball-related topics as he does, he's going to miss
>things from time to time. And to be fair, he will often mention his
>error in the next day's column after it's been brought to his attention
>by readers.
>
>But on the whole, he's a writer who writes very well and very
>perceptively about baseball from a sabermetrically-minded standpoint in
>what is, at ESPN, a largely mainstream environment. And it's for this
>reason that those expecting a daily online Baseball Prospectus or BBBA
>is missing the point.
>
>_________________________________________
>Will Fulford-Jones
>The Wiseacre
David Geiser
tst...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> What he does is irrelevant. He described the way he thinks, the
> method by which he considers issues. Should he need an editor to
> remind him, "uh, Rob, you should think about things this way, or at
> least tell people that you actually think this way even though you
> don't"? For me, the answer would be "no".
Like I said, it was a lame excuse.
> And I take umbrage with applying the term "sportswriter" to Rob Neyer.
> Neyer is a statistical analyst -
No, he's a sportswriter. He writes a column for
espn.com. Yes, he uses statistical analysis and
he writes about it, but he's being paid to write
columns, and he's being judged not on how effective
an analyst he is, but to the extent that people like
his column and keep hitting espn.com. That means he
has to answer to his editor, and his editor might
not think the way we would like him/her to think.
> I guess many will find this is as ticky-tack nit-picking, but I think
> a distinction needed to be made before some in this group apotheosize
> him as the next Grantland Rice.
I don't think you're nitpicking - what you brought up
is a substantial point. Still, I guess I have to respect
Neyer because he was the ONLY voice representing any degree
of statistical enlightenment when he started out. I
was really surprised to see him in the mainstream press
(ok, maybe the internet isn't mainstream, but espn is)
when he started out and he IS willing to say things that
most sportswriters wouldn't dare say.
FM
> Well, of course he will sound convincing if you ignore the fact that he's
> selectively presenting his proof, ignoring findings and facts that might
> contradict his assertion.
If those facts are available to you, why should you ignore
them? Neyer is not the only source of baseball facts.
> To me, this is dishonest.
This is about as dishonest as writing a resume without listing
one's faults. It's something that everyone is expected to do, and
does. If I want to make an argument, I shouldn't try to bring up
the other side of it, except for the purpose of refuting it.
> "People want strong opinions when they read a column, so I generally
> try to come down strongly on one side of an issue or the other. "I'LL
> DECIDE WHAT I BELIEVE, then find all the possible evidence to support
> that belief, OFTEN IGNORING AT LEAST SOME OF THE EVIDENCE on
> the other side. This, even though I usually know The Truth lies
> somewhere in the middle."
This is generally what is often expected of a writer, or an
academic researcher, basically to find a suitable hypothesis and
present the best possible defense for it. And often the strongest
case is made by avoiding but-then's.
> What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
> but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment.
Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong. What he's
saying is that the arguments he makes are sometimes be a bit more
extreme than facts warrant.
> While I have no
> problem with the entertainment value, I feel it renders his believability as
> an honest analyst nil. Neyer gives his opinion, then presents alleged
> statistical analysis in support of it. That is dishonest.
In few situations does an analysis ever begin without an
underlying assumption.
> I don't care
> what
> his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
> observable fact.
He does support his opinion with observable fact. It's merely
that he does what everyone else does as well, ignoring th
contrary evidence to avoid unnecessarily weakening his
arguments.
Mischa E Gelman
FM <dan...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>> To me, this is dishonest.
>
>This is about as dishonest as writing a resume without listing
>one's faults. It's something that everyone is expected to do, and
>does. If I want to make an argument, I shouldn't try to bring up
>the other side of it, except for the purpose of refuting it.
Well, no. As an opinions writer, you should look at both sides of the
argument. It speaks of a closed mind to only present one view of the
issue when you know it isn't an accurate summary of what's going on. If
you're going to write about populism, you should not lavish praise on its
anti-corporatist stance or backing of moral issues, but you have to
mention that its anti-immigrant stance flies in the face of the facts.
Similarly, when discussing the skills of a baseball player, you should
touch on the good and bad. It would be dumb to spend a whole article
blasting Tony Womack for limited range in the infield and a lack of power,
utterly ignoring his good range in the outfield and his base-stealing
prowess. You should use all the facts rather than just pick out which
ones support your case and ignore the rest.
>This is generally what is often expected of a writer, or an
>academic researcher, basically to find a suitable hypothesis and
>present the best possible defense for it.
I certainly expect better from writers. Perhaps this is why so many
writers do such a bad job in covering politics - they simply argue for
their ideology and ignore any conflicts that may arise. I guess this is
why I prefer folks like Andrew Bard Schmookler, who are willing to discuss
both sides of the issue in detail.
I sure as heck expect better from researchers. If you're only presenting
part of your findings, you're not being intellectually honest in the
search for the whole truth, which is the whole point of academic research.
> And often the strongest case is made by avoiding but-then's.
Yes, propoganda can be stronger than the truth. Still, I prefer the
latter.
>> What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
>> but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment.
>
>Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong.
Yes they can. "Howard Johnson was a good fielder." "Rey Ordonez is the
best hitter in the history of the baseball." "Man, Joe Oliver is one fast
man. It's my opinion he's faster than Carl Lewis." There are definitive
rights and wrongs and many grey areas in most topics.
>> I don't care
>> what
>> his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
>> observable fact.
>
>He does support his opinion with observable fact.
Selected by the situation at hand. If he used the same facts for each
case, it's no big problem, but if he picks and chooses, it's just sick.
It's like all the Womack-bashers who choose this case to ignore things
like RC/27 or VORP which they may use when, say, arguing in favor of Bobby
Abreu (not to say that the two are at all comparable).
> It's merely
>that he does what everyone else does as well, ignoring th
>contrary evidence to avoid unnecessarily weakening his
>arguments.
It's a sad, sad world if every writer does that. Thankfully, many do not.
We should not merely praise those who present the whole issue, but condemn
those who use blinders and selective evidence in arguing their cases.
--
Both parties have drifted so far to the right over the past two decades
that if they were playing in the NFL, the ball would have to be hiked from
the press box - Sam Smith, 1997
Tom Nawrocki
: You're saying that the test of an theory is whether it works or not, and
: then you say we should judge Neyer on how convincing he is.
: Well, of course he will sound convincing if you ignore the fact that he's
: selectively presenting his proof, ignoring findings and facts that might
: contradict his assertion. To me, this is dishonest. Let's re-read his
: statement (emphasis mine):
: "People want strong opinions when they read a column, so I generally
: try to come down strongly on one side of an issue or the other. "I'LL
: DECIDE WHAT I BELIEVE, then find all the possible evidence to support
: that belief, OFTEN IGNORING AT LEAST SOME OF THE EVIDENCE on
: the other side. This, even though I usually know The Truth lies
: somewhere in the middle."
: What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
: but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment.
Well, no, that's not what he's saying at all. I don't know why you would
interpret "I'll decide what I believe" as "I'll make up something without any
basis in reality." I've read enough Neyer columns to know that his reasoning
always has some basis in the facts. He then presents only those facts that
support his opinion, which may be dishonest, but is hardly unheard of. It's
extremely rare that a columnist of any stripe takes pains to present the
opposing viewpoints, even on topics far more controversial and fuzzy than
baseball.
: While I have no
: problem with the entertainment value, I feel it renders his believability as
: an honest analyst nil. Neyer gives his opinion, then presents alleged
: statistical analysis in support of it. That is dishonest. I don't care
: what his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
: observable fact.
When has he given an opinion that was unsupportable by facts?
Neyer is one of the few baseball writers out there who is worth reading every
day. I don't always agree with him, and I often think he's flat-out wrong, but
he's still informative and entertaining.
Tom Nawrocki
FitNFeisty
>> To me, this is dishonest.
>
>This is about as dishonest as writing a resume without listing
>one's faults. It's something that everyone is expected to do, and
>does. If I want to make an argument, I shouldn't try to bring up
>the other side of it, except for the purpose of refuting it.
<<Well, no. As an opinions writer, you should look at both sides of the
argument. It speaks of a closed mind to only present one view of the
issue when you know it isn't an accurate summary of what's going on. If
you're going to write about populism, you should not lavish praise on its
anti-corporatist stance or backing of moral issues, but you have to
mention that its anti-immigrant stance flies in the face of the facts.
Similarly, when discussing the skills of a baseball player, you should
touch on the good and bad. It would be dumb to spend a whole article
blasting Tony Womack for limited range in the infield and a lack of power,
utterly ignoring his good range in the outfield and his base-stealing
prowess.>>
The Pirate NG certainly was guilty of the above, with a few exceptions.
They were happy he was dealt, even if it was for a PTBNL, who turned out to be
a marginal pitching prospect.
<<You should use all the facts rather than just pick out which
ones support your case and ignore the rest.>>
Most people are guilty of this, myself included.
>This is generally what is often expected of a writer, or an
>academic researcher, basically to find a suitable hypothesis and
>present the best possible defense for it.
<<I certainly expect better from writers. Perhaps this is why so many
writers do such a bad job in covering politics - they simply argue for
their ideology and ignore any conflicts that may arise. I guess this is
why I prefer folks like Andrew Bard Schmookler, who are willing to discuss
both sides of the issue in detail.>>
Maybe you expect too much from writers, particularly sports writers. Many
readers prefer writers who reinforce their opinions, beliefs, and values, not
contradict, challenge or mock them.
<<I sure as heck expect better from researchers. If you're only presenting
part of your findings, you're not being intellectually honest in the
search for the whole truth, which is the whole point of academic research.>>
Sportswriting isn't academic research, plagiarism usually isn't a concern
among sportswriters.
> And often the strongest case is made by avoiding but-then's.
<<Yes, propoganda can be stronger than the truth. Still, I prefer the
latter.>>
True, but perception is often greater than reality.
>> What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
>> but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment.
>
>Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong.
<<Yes they can. "Howard Johnson was a good fielder." "Rey Ordonez is the
best hitter in the history of the baseball." "Man, Joe Oliver is one fast
man. It's my opinion he's faster than Carl Lewis." There are definitive
rights and wrongs and many grey areas in most topics.>>
I prefer the term invalid opinions.
>> I don't care
>> what
>> his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
>> observable fact.
>
>He does support his opinion with observable fact.
<<Selected by the situation at hand. If he used the same facts for each
case, it's no big problem, but if he picks and chooses, it's just sick.
It's like all the Womack-bashers who choose this case to ignore things
like RC/27 or VORP which they may use when, say, arguing in favor of Bobby
Abreu (not to say that the two are at all comparable).>>
IIRC, one poster went so far as to say he disliked RC/27 because it was
favorable towards Tony Womack. Most anit-Womack posters, aren't necessarily in
favor of other players,(maybe Warren Morris), they just dislike Womack and
distrust any statistical formula they shows him in any kind of a favorable
light.
> It's merely
>that he does what everyone else does as well, ignoring th
>contrary evidence to avoid unnecessarily weakening his
>arguments.
<<It's a sad, sad world if every writer does that. Thankfully, many do not.
We should not merely praise those who present the whole issue, but condemn
those who use blinders and selective evidence in arguing their cases.>>
More blame than praise, in that scenario.
Arne Olson
Patrick Rock <roc...@sw.be.lln.et> wrote in message
news:38B9F9A2...@sw.be.lln.et...
>
> Arne Olson wrote:
>
> > The proper test of any piece of analysis is whether it stands up to
> > scrutiny. Do we really care whether Einstein meticulously sifted
> > through the data and discerned the patterns that led him to the
theory
> > of relativity, or whether the theory was a hunch and he went out
looking
> > for data to support it? IOW, judge Neyer's arguments or anybody's
> > arguments by how convincing they are, not what you think his
motivations
> > or methods ought to be. Giambi will show his true worth in time,
and
> > then the local sportswriters' arguments can be demonstrated to be
either
> > true or false.
>
> I'm not sure I follow your argument here.
>
and
> then
> you say we should judge Neyer on how convincing he is.
No, I'm saying we should judge him on how convincing his *case* is. His
writing, while entertaining, has little to do with the strength of any
particular case.
>
> Well, of course he will sound convincing if you ignore the fact that
he's
> selectively presenting his proof, ignoring findings and facts that
might
> contradict his assertion. To me, this is dishonest.
I think "dishonest" is a bit strong. You have to consider the medium.
As a daily columnist, his job is to provoke. In order to do so, he
often goes out on a limb that ultimately may or may not support the
weight of his argument. In doing so, he's hardly different from George
Will or William Safire or any of the other op-ed columnists that grace
the pages of our daily newspapers. In the long run, his effectiveness
will depend on how often he's right. That doesn't mean every column
needs to be a work of art. I expect he'll be a bit more careful and
even-handed in his upcoming book. That medium demands it, if the work
is to endure.
But that's a digression; the point I really wanted to make is that any
particular argument rises or falls on the strength of the facts and
analysis that support it. If you disagree with a conclusion, there are
plenty of forums to present the opposing view, complete with facts of
your own with which refute his argument. If you can't do so, his
argument will stand no matter what his motivations were in stating it.
> Let's re-read his
> statement (emphasis mine):
>
> "People want strong opinions when they read a column, so I generally
> try to come down strongly on one side of an issue or the other. "I'LL
> DECIDE WHAT I BELIEVE, then find all the possible evidence to support
> that belief, OFTEN IGNORING AT LEAST SOME OF THE EVIDENCE on
> the other side. This, even though I usually know The Truth lies
> somewhere in the middle."
>
> What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be
wrong,
> but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment. While I have
no
> problem with the entertainment value, I feel it renders his
believability as
>
> an honest analyst nil. Neyer gives his opinion, then presents alleged
> statistical analysis in support of it. That is dishonest. I don't
care
> what
> his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
> observable fact.
All this means is that you shouldn't take his conclusions for granted
without doing some thinking, and perhaps investigating, of your own.
Which a thinking person does with *any* writer, no matter trusted. You
want to be able to believe something based on the motivations of the
person who wrote it, and that's a bad idea. Even the best and most
careful of writers are bound to make mistakes or omit salient details on
occasion.
Arne
Arne Olson
Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:38bb46d1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>
> As for an opinion unsupportable by facts, here's a recent one: "I
> suppose this all must sound pretty arrogant to some of you. Who does
> this scrawny columnist think he is, acting like he knows more about
> baseball than the men who actually get paid to play the game?
>
> Hey, you want to learn how to throw a curveball? Ask Mike Hampton.
> Want to learn how to hit a curveball? Ask Al Martin. But if you want
> to know how it all comes together, most of the time you don't want to
> ask a ballplayer, any more than you'd ask a tree how to manage a
> forest, because most ballplayers (and most trees) don't have the
> necessary perspective." (2/25/00)
>
> Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
> together, are ex-ballplayers.
No GM or manager that I know of is *currently* a ballplayer.
Ballplayers spend 10 months out of the year playing baseball. They
don't have the time to study how successful baseball franchises are
designed. Most of them spend years in apprentice jobs before taking any
positions of responsibility in front offices. As demonstrated recently
by Ken Griffey, Jr., who was angry that the Mariners had released Russ
Davis, and by Michael Jordan, who's had a rough first few weeks on the
job, being a good ballplayer does not automatically make one a good
evaluator of talent or team administrator.
> NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
> played the game.
Care to back that up? I believe there are currently several GMs who
never played professional ball.
>
> So am I to assume that Rob Neyer feels he'd be the best manager and/or
> GM in the history of baseball?
>
>
> >Neyer is one of the few baseball writers out there who is worth
reading every
> >day. I don't always agree with him, and I often think he's flat-out
wrong, but
> >he's still informative and entertaining.
>
> How can he be flat out wrong if his opinions are supported by facts?
> Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your usage of the phrase "flat-out
> wrong".
Lots of wrong opinions can be supported by facts. FACT: China is the
most populous nation on earth. OPINION: Therefore, China is the most
powerful nation on earth. The question is how *effective* the facts are
at supporting the opinion.
Arne
JVV4sm
>
>> Well, of course he will sound convincing if you ignore the fact that he's
>> selectively presenting his proof, ignoring findings and facts that might
>> contradict his assertion.
>
>them? Neyer is not the only source of baseball facts.
>
>
>one's faults. It's something that everyone is expected to do, and
>does. If I want to make an argument, I shouldn't try to bring up
>the other side of it, except for the purpose of refuting it.
>
>> try to come down strongly on one side of an issue or the other. "I'LL
>> DECIDE WHAT I BELIEVE, then find all the possible evidence to support
>> that belief, OFTEN IGNORING AT LEAST SOME OF THE EVIDENCE on
>> the other side. This, even though I usually know The Truth lies
>> somewhere in the middle."
>
>This is generally what is often expected of a writer, or an
>academic researcher, basically to find a suitable hypothesis and
>present the best possible defense for it. And often the strongest
>case is made by avoiding but-then's.
>
>> What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
>> but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment.
>
>Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong. What he's
>saying is that the arguments he makes are sometimes be a bit more
>extreme than facts warrant.
>
>> While I have no
>> problem with the entertainment value, I feel it renders his believability
>as
>> an honest analyst nil. Neyer gives his opinion, then presents alleged
>> statistical analysis in support of it. That is dishonest.
>
>In few situations does an analysis ever begin without an
>underlying assumption.
>
>> I don't care
>> what
>> his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
>> observable fact.
>
>He does support his opinion with observable fact. It's merely
JVV4sm
Jabberwocky
wrote:
>Patrick Rock wrote:
>
>: You're saying that the test of an theory is whether it works or not, and
>: then you say we should judge Neyer on how convincing he is.
>
>: Well, of course he will sound convincing if you ignore the fact that he's
>: selectively presenting his proof, ignoring findings and facts that might
>: contradict his assertion. To me, this is dishonest. Let's re-read his
>: statement (emphasis mine):
>
>: "People want strong opinions when they read a column, so I generally
>: try to come down strongly on one side of an issue or the other. "I'LL
>: DECIDE WHAT I BELIEVE, then find all the possible evidence to support
>: that belief, OFTEN IGNORING AT LEAST SOME OF THE EVIDENCE on
>: the other side. This, even though I usually know The Truth lies
>: somewhere in the middle."
>
>: What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
>: but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment.
>
>Well, no, that's not what he's saying at all. I don't know why you would
>interpret "I'll decide what I believe" as "I'll make up something without any
>basis in reality." I've read enough Neyer columns to know that his reasoning
>always has some basis in the facts. He then presents only those facts that
>support his opinion, which may be dishonest, but is hardly unheard of. It's
>extremely rare that a columnist of any stripe takes pains to present the
>opposing viewpoints, even on topics far more controversial and fuzzy than
>baseball.
>
>: While I have no
>: problem with the entertainment value, I feel it renders his believability as
>: an honest analyst nil. Neyer gives his opinion, then presents alleged
>: statistical analysis in support of it. That is dishonest. I don't care
>: what his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is supported by
>: observable fact.
>
>When has he given an opinion that was unsupportable by facts?
Supportable by facts or carefully chosen statistics? Neyer suffers
from the same flaws that many editorialist do, only he couches his
arguments in the lingo of the stathead in order to offer a mask of
credibility. He is baseball's Rush Limbaugh.
As for an opinion unsupportable by facts, here's a recent one: "I
suppose this all must sound pretty arrogant to some of you. Who does
this scrawny columnist think he is, acting like he knows more about
baseball than the men who actually get paid to play the game?
Hey, you want to learn how to throw a curveball? Ask Mike Hampton.
Want to learn how to hit a curveball? Ask Al Martin. But if you want
to know how it all comes together, most of the time you don't want to
ask a ballplayer, any more than you'd ask a tree how to manage a
forest, because most ballplayers (and most trees) don't have the
necessary perspective." (2/25/00)
Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
together, are ex-ballplayers. NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
played the game.
So am I to assume that Rob Neyer feels he'd be the best manager and/or
Mason M A
>Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
>together, are ex-ballplayers. NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
>played the game.
>
I guess I missed the great careers of Brian Cashman, Jim Bowden, Dave
Dombrowski, Walt Jocketty, Dan Duquette, Randy Smith, John Schuerholtz, Dan
O'Dowd, and heck, probably a bunch of others!
Voros
>> Giambi will show his true worth in time, and then the local
>> sportswriters' arguments can be demonstrated to be either
>> true or false.
I don't think this is true. For example, it appears that despite how much
we tout him, we never really will know how good Roberto Petagine is/was.
Quite simply, Giambi won't look nearly as good if he is forced to sit
around for three years waiting for his opportunity. Unfortunately much of
what managers say negative about their players is a self fulfilling
prophecy. If Jim Riggleman says that Pedro Valdes is not a major league
caliber ballplayer when Valdes is 23 and gulags him for three years on the
40 man, when Valdes is 27, ripping apart AAA, and waiting for his
"chance", does that mean Riggleman was right? Many people would argue
that.
The "truth" is often not very easy to find even after something happens.
For example, it is widely accepted that Mike Sweeney's big year was due to
him moving out from behind the plate. Why? Isn't it possible that Sweeney
was going to hit like that even if he caught? I think occassionally things
get accepted as "truth" without any real discussion of their actual
veracity.
> What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
> but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment. While I have no
> problem with the entertainment value, I feel it renders his believability as
> an honest analyst nil. Neyer gives his opinion, then presents alleged
> statistical analysis in support of it. That is dishonest. I don't care
> what his motivations are, but I DO care whether his opinion is
> supported by observable fact.
It's a tough call, really. In my own experience I could do two things:
a)Hits allowed for pitchers are meaningless. I can prove, it's been shown
and anyone who thinks otherwise simply refuses to look at the facts
or
b)Most of the evidence I've encovered shows that hits allowed are at best,
a very weak indicator of future performance. Strikeouts seem to be the
much more dominant factor in determining future hits. There may, however,
be instances where a hits allowed total may be representative of a special
ability of a certain pitcher, and the best candidates there would be trick
delivery pitchers like knuckleballers and sidearmers. STill more work
needs to be done there. As a result, I think it's important that people at
least think about how much a high hits allowed total really means when
thinking about how well the pitcher will perform in the future.
The second one is wordy, mealy-mouthed, filled with qualifiers and
suggestive that the issue is not settled. In short it's the way the issue
really is, but it's terrible newswriting.
The first one, while not necessarily good news writing, is certainly more
of that bent. It makes a statement and one not commonly held. And
challenges people to prove the writer wrong. The crap such a statement
will draw is enourmous and crap=increased circulation.
So as a writer you have a choice between telling what you believe to be
the whole story and being mealy-mouthed, or shunting away any possible
opposing view and sound authoritative.
It's easy for me to say I'd do the second since I'm not employed as a
writer. If push came to shove, I'm not sure what I'd do.
> And the local sportswriters' arguments (at least in KC) don't need to wait
> till Giambi's true worth is known; Kansas City's sportscasters and writers
> tell the public exactly what the teams tell them to say. Wouldn't know an
> original thought if it bit them in their collective fundament. :-)
And quite frankly if Jeremy Giambi gets a full shot and is the worst
hitter in the majors, they are still wrong as the chances were that he was
going to be a great hitter. The stats said it and the scouts said it. And
really that's all a team can go on. The chance that this guy will help.
--
Voros McCracken
vo...@daruma.co.jp
http://www.baseballstuff.com/fraser/dips.html
Voros
> <<n article <89dkkv$be5$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>,
> FM <dan...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> <<Selected by the situation at hand. If he used the same facts for each
> case, it's no big problem, but if he picks and chooses, it's just sick.
> It's like all the Womack-bashers who choose this case to ignore things
> like RC/27 or VORP which they may use when, say, arguing in favor of Bobby
> Abreu (not to say that the two are at all comparable).>>
> IIRC, one poster went so far as to say he disliked RC/27 because it was
> favorable towards Tony Womack. Most anit-Womack posters, aren't necessarily in
> favor of other players,(maybe Warren Morris), they just dislike Womack and
> distrust any statistical formula they shows him in any kind of a favorable
> light.
Well I took my swipes at Womack too, but mine were based on the presence
of Warren Morris. Also note that the PTBNL was widely rumored to be
someone really good for a long time. Jack Cust was the name mentioned most
often. Abraham Nunez was also mentioned. By the time the PTBNL was
announced as Boyd, Womack had been gone for quite some time and the
general reaction was gee, you think we could have gotten a little more
than that. So in defense, Womack for Cust would have been an excellent
trade, and since that was a rumored possibility for months on end, the
trade made sense.
And to set the record straight, RC/27 Outs is by no means Tony Womack's
best friend. I mean, the people comapring him to Re Ordonez might have
been out of line, but we're not talking about Joe Morgan here. The Pirates
got very good production from Morris and Morris RC/27 was actually better
up until the late season collapse.
Voros
> In article <89dkkv$be5$1...@merrimack.Dartmouth.EDU>,
> FM <dan...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>This is generally what is often expected of a writer, or an
>>academic researcher, basically to find a suitable hypothesis and
>>present the best possible defense for it.
> I certainly expect better from writers. Perhaps this is why so many
> writers do such a bad job in covering politics - they simply argue for
> their ideology and ignore any conflicts that may arise. I guess this is
> why I prefer folks like Andrew Bard Schmookler, who are willing to discuss
> both sides of the issue in detail.
> I sure as heck expect better from researchers. If you're only presenting
> part of your findings, you're not being intellectually honest in the
> search for the whole truth, which is the whole point of academic research.
I agree 100% here. I certainly prefer studies which at least recognize
some of it's flaws as it gives you a better framework of what the actual
issue is.
Unfortunately it isn't done enough as the original poster implied, in the
quest for research funds often the idea is to make a splash and mop up the
water later.
>> And often the strongest case is made by avoiding but-then's.
> Yes, propoganda can be stronger than the truth. Still, I prefer the
> latter.
>>> What he is saying is that he is fully aware that his opinion may be wrong,
>>> but he'll argue it anyway for the sake of entertainment.
>>
>>Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong.
> Yes they can. "Howard Johnson was a good fielder." "Rey Ordonez is the
> best hitter in the history of the baseball." "Man, Joe Oliver is one fast
> man. It's my opinion he's faster than Carl Lewis." There are definitive
> rights and wrongs and many grey areas in most topics.
They can especially be "wrong" when the expresser of said opinion might
not really believe them anyway, as was suggested about Neyer.
Voros
> Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:38bb46d1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>>
>> As for an opinion unsupportable by facts, here's a recent one: "I
>> suppose this all must sound pretty arrogant to some of you. Who does
>> this scrawny columnist think he is, acting like he knows more about
>> baseball than the men who actually get paid to play the game?
>>
>> Hey, you want to learn how to throw a curveball? Ask Mike Hampton.
>> Want to learn how to hit a curveball? Ask Al Martin. But if you want
>> to know how it all comes together, most of the time you don't want to
>> ask a ballplayer, any more than you'd ask a tree how to manage a
>> forest, because most ballplayers (and most trees) don't have the
>> necessary perspective." (2/25/00)
>>
>> Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
>> together, are ex-ballplayers.
> No GM or manager that I know of is *currently* a ballplayer.
> Ballplayers spend 10 months out of the year playing baseball. They
> don't have the time to study how successful baseball franchises are
> designed. Most of them spend years in apprentice jobs before taking any
> positions of responsibility in front offices. As demonstrated recently
> by Ken Griffey, Jr., who was angry that the Mariners had released Russ
> Davis, and by Michael Jordan, who's had a rough first few weeks on the
> job, being a good ballplayer does not automatically make one a good
> evaluator of talent or team administrator.
>> NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
>> played the game.
> Care to back that up? I believe there are currently several GMs who
> never played professional ball.
And quite frankly, I'm sure Neyer has played baseball once or twice in his
life. There are any number of ways a person can learn about baseball. They
can play lots of baseball. They can watch lots of baseball. They can read
a lot about baseball. They can study baseball statistics. Any way a former
pro player can learn about baseball, a non former pro player can learn
about baseball.
FM
> >This is about as dishonest as writing a resume without listing
> >one's faults. It's something that everyone is expected to do, and
> >does. If I want to make an argument, I shouldn't try to bring up
> >the other side of it, except for the purpose of refuting it.
> Well, no. As an opinions writer, you should look at both sides of the
> argument.
You should, but if you present the opposing side without
a convincing refutation, you're not really making an argument.
And an opinionated writing without an argument is considered
a weak piece.
> It speaks of a closed mind to only present one view of the
> issue when you know it isn't an accurate summary of what's going on. If
> you're going to write about populism, you should not lavish praise on its
> anti-corporatist stance or backing of moral issues, but you have to
> mention that its anti-immigrant stance flies in the face of the facts.
Well, I can see where you're coming from and I don't entirely
disagree but I believe those who practice your ideals from
their youth are quite likely to be labeled as bad writers.
> Similarly, when discussing the skills of a baseball player, you should
> touch on the good and bad. It would be dumb to spend a whole article
> blasting Tony Womack for limited range in the infield and a lack of power,
> utterly ignoring his good range in the outfield and his base-stealing
> prowess. You should use all the facts rather than just pick out which
> ones support your case and ignore the rest.
You can't and shouldn't use "all the facts" for an obvious
reason. Which means any writer will have to pick out which
ones to use and not. Also you don't generally ignore all the
facts in contrary. You ignore the ones you would have a hard
time refuting or in general doesn't contribute to your argument
in any positive way.
> >This is generally what is often expected of a writer, or an
> >academic researcher, basically to find a suitable hypothesis and
> >present the best possible defense for it.
> I certainly expect better from writers. Perhaps this is why so many
> writers do such a bad job in covering politics - they simply argue for
> their ideology and ignore any conflicts that may arise. I guess this is
> why I prefer folks like Andrew Bard Schmookler, who are willing to discuss
> both sides of the issue in detail.
That is your style of reading. I don't mind reading a
lopsided argument as I don't have to accept the author's
point of view and it helps if I read two difference pieces
from contrasting points of views. I don't need someone else
to summarize the argument and present both sides of the
issue. I tend to be an extreme moderate in almost all the
issues anyways.
> I sure as heck expect better from researchers. If you're only presenting
> part of your findings, you're not being intellectually honest in the
> search for the whole truth, which is the whole point of academic research.
Well no single work is going to be the whole truth, but merely
a piece to the puzzle. I think that's where your extremism
fails. For example, if I was to write what I *really* think
about a particular political topic, I may have to write a
book. Otherwise, I would prefer to do my main argument a
favor and not introduce any points that detract from it.
(though in practice not doing this well enough is a major
flaw in my writing)
> >Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong.
> Yes they can. "Howard Johnson was a good fielder." "Rey Ordonez is the
> best hitter in the history of the baseball." "Man, Joe Oliver is one fast
> man. It's my opinion he's faster than Carl Lewis." There are definitive
> rights and wrongs and many grey areas in most topics.
Only insofar as they are not opinions, but incorrect
beliefs, they can be wrong.
> It's a sad, sad world if every writer does that. Thankfully, many do not.
> We should not merely praise those who present the whole issue, but condemn
> those who use blinders and selective evidence in arguing their cases.
Ok.
It's an ironic world after all.
Dan.
The Wiseacre
I think you'd probably do what you were commissioned by your editor to
do.
If you were asked to write a purely analytical four- or five-page piece
on the relative worth of the various statistical methods for measuring
pitchers' effectiveness, you'd probably write b), backing it up with a
wealth of numbers and perhaps going on to mention just about every other
way of crunching the numbers (ERA, RA, groundball-flyball ratio,
strikeout-walk ratio, etc), including examples of various different
types of pitcher in the analysis. Many of your sentences would probably
be as long and mealy-mouthed as that one.
If you were employed to write a shorter column offering interesting and
orthodoxy-challenging opinion every day, and that this particular day
you'd decided to concentrate on the best way of measuring pitchers'
effectiveness, you'd write something along the lines of a) - though
perhaps nowhere near as brutal - and back it up with fewer statistics.
This is the difference between what Neyer does on espn.com - and though
I don't always agree with him, he never degenerates to the level of a) -
and the sort of work you might find in more densely analytical
publications. Personally, I feel that while Neyer might gloss over some
important facts in order to make his points, they are at least, on the
whole, good points, points made by very, very few sportswriters in the
mainstream. In any case, a photo byline at the top of any piece usually
denotes that what you're getting will invariably be more opinionated and
spiky than other pieces of writing or analysis in the same publication:
it's a column, after all.
The trade-off is between opinionated column-writing, which may ignore
some of the evidence in favour of interesting copy, and stricter, more
detailed and reasoned analysis, which presents every conceivable piece
of evidence to the frequent detriment of the actual writing itself, is
an inevitable one. I think they can coexist quite easily, too. Neyer, at
least, tends towards using "the right" stats - by that I mean, for
example, that he uses AVG/OBP/SLG rather than AVG/HR/RBI - and usually
makes prescient points, rare indeed for any sports columnist in a
mainstream publication.
Oh, and there's one more thing. If Neyer immediately started to write
his daily column for espn.com in the style of b) rather than a), it's my
bet that he wouldn't be in his job a month from now. In his place would
be another of the grunting AVG/RBI/HR types, who are far more inclined
to write any old crap for the sake of controversy.
The Wiseacre
> As for an opinion unsupportable by facts, here's a recent one: "I
> suppose this all must sound pretty arrogant to some of you. Who does
> this scrawny columnist think he is, acting like he knows more about
> baseball than the men who actually get paid to play the game?
>
> Hey, you want to learn how to throw a curveball? Ask Mike Hampton.
> Want to learn how to hit a curveball? Ask Al Martin. But if you want
> to know how it all comes together, most of the time you don't want to
> ask a ballplayer, any more than you'd ask a tree how to manage a
> forest, because most ballplayers (and most trees) don't have the
> necessary perspective." (2/25/00)
>
> Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
> together, are ex-ballplayers. NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
> played the game.
You're digging your own grave here, Jabberwocky.
Neyer writes about "ballplayers". Your argument relates entirely to
"ex-ballplayers". Ex-ballplayers will, by definition, have more
perspective.
And, in reference to GMs and managers, "NONE are... guys who never
played the game"? This looks to be to be what you would - and, indeed,
just did - call "an opinion unsupportable by facts". I'm not even
convinced that a majority of GMs played professional ball: does anyone
have a list to save me ferreting through the record books?
You would seem to be ignoring vast amounts of relevant evidence in order
to make an extreme and opinionated point. In other worse, exactly what
you've been criticising Neyer for.
Jabberwocky
>Arne Olson <keri...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>> news:38bb46d1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>>>
>>> As for an opinion unsupportable by facts, here's a recent one: "I
>>> suppose this all must sound pretty arrogant to some of you. Who does
>>> this scrawny columnist think he is, acting like he knows more about
>>> baseball than the men who actually get paid to play the game?
>>>
>>> Hey, you want to learn how to throw a curveball? Ask Mike Hampton.
>>> Want to learn how to hit a curveball? Ask Al Martin. But if you want
>>> to know how it all comes together, most of the time you don't want to
>>> ask a ballplayer, any more than you'd ask a tree how to manage a
>>> forest, because most ballplayers (and most trees) don't have the
>>> necessary perspective." (2/25/00)
>>>
>>> Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
>>> together, are ex-ballplayers.
>
>> No GM or manager that I know of is *currently* a ballplayer.
>> Ballplayers spend 10 months out of the year playing baseball. They
>> don't have the time to study how successful baseball franchises are
>> designed. Most of them spend years in apprentice jobs before taking any
>> positions of responsibility in front offices. As demonstrated recently
>> by Ken Griffey, Jr., who was angry that the Mariners had released Russ
>> Davis, and by Michael Jordan, who's had a rough first few weeks on the
>> job, being a good ballplayer does not automatically make one a good
>> evaluator of talent or team administrator.
>
>>> NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
>>> played the game.
>
>> Care to back that up? I believe there are currently several GMs who
>> never played professional ball.
>And quite frankly, I'm sure Neyer has played baseball once or twice in his
>life. There are any number of ways a person can learn about baseball. They
>can play lots of baseball. They can watch lots of baseball. They can read
>a lot about baseball. They can study baseball statistics. Any way a former
>pro player can learn about baseball, a non former pro player can learn
>about baseball.
Learn? Probably. Properly apply that knowledge? I have my doubts.
Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
how to make love to a woman?
Jabberwocky
<keri...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I never said professionally. But all have played at some level.
Neyer has stated on several occasions that he has never played the
game at any level, including little league.
I'm not going to list the playing experience of every manager and GM
in the history of baseball, but if you'd like to name a couple, I'll
be happy to respond with their playing backgrounds if I can.
>> So am I to assume that Rob Neyer feels he'd be the best manager and/or
>> GM in the history of baseball?
>>
>>
>> >Neyer is one of the few baseball writers out there who is worth
>reading every
>> >day. I don't always agree with him, and I often think he's flat-out
>wrong, but
>> >he's still informative and entertaining.
>>
>> How can he be flat out wrong if his opinions are supported by facts?
>> Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your usage of the phrase "flat-out
>> wrong".
>
>Lots of wrong opinions can be supported by facts. FACT: China is the
>most populous nation on earth. OPINION: Therefore, China is the most
>powerful nation on earth. The question is how *effective* the facts are
>at supporting the opinion.
How does your fact support your opinion in this case?
Tom Nawrocki
> As for an opinion unsupportable by facts, here's a recent one: "I
> suppose this all must sound pretty arrogant to some of you. Who does
> this scrawny columnist think he is, acting like he knows more about
> baseball than the men who actually get paid to play the game?
>
> Hey, you want to learn how to throw a curveball? Ask Mike Hampton.
> Want to learn how to hit a curveball? Ask Al Martin. But if you want
> to know how it all comes together, most of the time you don't want to
> ask a ballplayer, any more than you'd ask a tree how to manage a
> forest, because most ballplayers (and most trees) don't have the
> necessary perspective." (2/25/00)
>
> Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
> together, are ex-ballplayers. NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
> played the game.
Brian Cashman? Never played professionally. I don't think he even played in
college.
Sandy Alderson played in college, but that was at Dartmouth, which barely
counts.
Brian Sabean? Kevin Malone? Dan Duquette? Dave Dombrowski? I think Dombrowski
was a gofer in the White Sox front office while he was still in college.
The Braves used to have a guy who was about four foot three running their front
office, Bill Bartholomay, I think it was. It's a pretty safe bet that he never
played the game at anything above the Little League level.
In other words, your "fact" is at least as wrong as anything I've ever read in
a Neyer column.
Tom Nawrocki
Tom Nawrocki
: >Neyer is one of the few baseball writers out there who is worth reading
every
: >day. I don't always agree with him, and I often think he's flat-out wrong,
but
: >he's still informative and entertaining.
: How can he be flat out wrong if his opinions are supported by facts?
: Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your usage of the phrase "flat-out
: wrong".
Take for example his opinion that the Royals can never compete for a World
Series again. There are facts that can support this: They stink, for one. They
certainly have much less revenue than the World Champion Yankees. They rarely
spend any money on free agents, and never on any good free agents. Those are
facts that one might use to support the argument that the Royals can't compete.
The problem is, there are many other facts that would lead one to believe, as I
do, that the Royals suffer far more from poor management than from lack of
money.
People used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. That's an opinion
supported by a fact: The sun appears to revolve around the earth. It's also
wrong. To take a more recent example, people used to believe the coelacanth was
extinct. That was supported by facts: Nobody ever saw a live coelacanth, and
its fossils looked similar to other creatures that had died out millions of
years ago. But that opinion turned out to be wrong.
Tom Nawrocki
Mischa E Gelman
Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
>> IIRC, one poster went so far as to say he disliked RC/27 because it was
>> favorable towards Tony Womack. Most anit-Womack posters, aren't necessarily in
>> favor of other players,(maybe Warren Morris), they just dislike Womack and
>> distrust any statistical formula they shows him in any kind of a favorable
>> light.
>
>Well I took my swipes at Womack too, but mine were based on the presence
>of Warren Morris.
I had no complaints with those who felt it made sense to play Morris
instead, or who believe Morris is better, as I am one of those folks. I
worried more about the folks who said they hope Tony fails, say he isn't
major-league caliber or just generally make him out to be the worst player
since Mario Mendoza.
>And to set the record straight, RC/27 Outs is by no means Tony Womack's
>best friend. I mean, the people comapring him to Re Ordonez might have
>been out of line, but we're not talking about Joe Morgan here. The Pirates
>got very good production from Morris and Morris RC/27 was actually better
>up until the late season collapse.
Womack's PRC/27 was higher than Morris this past year, right? (Or pretty
close - it shocked me that Morris didn't have a decent edge) He's been
around average for an MLB 2B basically each of the 3 years. As a RF, he
obviously stinks offensively, which is why the D-bax are moving him back
to the middle infield.
--
You don't stick a knife in [someone's] back nine inches and then pull it
out six inches and say you're making progress - Malcolm X
Bob-Nob
> In "Alice In Wonderland", they found Alice guilty first, then
> looked for the facts that supported their verdict. Welcome to Wonderland.
I'm pretty sure that it was the Knave of Hearts for whom the
verdict was rendered first before arguments had been heard.
Catch you later.
--Bob Machemer
--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer (Bob) | "For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Class of 1996 | rise again, and woe to the wicked!"
ACRFC MVP, Teacher, Captain, Coach | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"BOB IS NOB!"
Stefan Backstrom
>Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>how to make love to a woman?
Probably not.
If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
company?
-- Stefan.
Paul Wenthold
How about this: if you wanted to know how about how reproduction
occurs,
would you ask a Mormon who has 12 kids or a gynocologist who is a
virgin?
paul
Voros
>>> IIRC, one poster went so far as to say he disliked RC/27 because it was
>>> favorable towards Tony Womack. Most anit-Womack posters, aren't necessarily in
>>> favor of other players,(maybe Warren Morris), they just dislike Womack and
>>> distrust any statistical formula they shows him in any kind of a favorable
>>> light.
>>
>>Well I took my swipes at Womack too, but mine were based on the presence
>>of Warren Morris.
> I had no complaints with those who felt it made sense to play Morris
> instead, or who believe Morris is better, as I am one of those folks. I
> worried more about the folks who said they hope Tony fails, say he isn't
> major-league caliber or just generally make him out to be the worst player
> since Mario Mendoza.
>>And to set the record straight, RC/27 Outs is by no means Tony Womack's
>>best friend. I mean, the people comapring him to Re Ordonez might have
>>been out of line, but we're not talking about Joe Morgan here. The Pirates
>>got very good production from Morris and Morris RC/27 was actually better
>>up until the late season collapse.
> Womack's PRC/27 was higher than Morris this past year, right? (Or pretty
> close - it shocked me that Morris didn't have a decent edge)
Morris had a decent edge most of the year and then went into a horrible
slump at the end of the season. The two are close enough where I believe
different metrics give different answers to who created more runs per 25
outs, so in generally their production was basically the same. Considering
Morris was a rookie and this was probably Womack's best offensive season,
I certainly think Morris is still the better choice.
> He's been around average for an MLB 2B basically each of the 3 years.
Probably maybe a tad below overall.
> As a RF, he obviously stinks offensively, which is why the D-bax are
> moving him back to the middle infield.
If he can play shortstop he's a decent hitter there. But I doubt he can
play shortstop.
Jabberwocky
>>
>>Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
>>together, are ex-ballplayers. NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
>>played the game.
>>
>
>I guess I missed the great careers of
(I'll just state the highest level achieved)
Brian Cashman: starting second baseman at Georgetown U. I assume he
played high school ball and probably little league.
Jim Bowden: played varsity baseball for Westin High School in Westin,
MA. He went to Rollins College, but it does not look like he played
baseball there.
Dave Dombrowski: played briefly at Cornell, then transferred to
Western Michigan. Although he didn't play baseball at WMU (he did
play football), he did play baseball semi-professionally for the
Oakmont Rangers and the Palos Falcons during his summers there.
Walt Jocketty: not much info here, however, the media relations people
with the Cardinals confirmed that he did play through high school in
Minneapolis, MN. He didn't play at UMinn.
Dan Duquette: starting catcher at Amherst College. He also played
football there.
Randy Smith: Randy played through high school (Memorial High in
Houston, TX)
John Schuerholtz: All-Conference baseball (and soccer) player at
Towson State - his bio didn't specify which position.
Dan O'Dowd: played at Rollins College (the same that Bowden attended).
His bio didn't specify a position.
I'd like to re-emphasize that Neyer has stated that he has absolutely
NO playing experience. All of the above have played competitve
baseball at some level.
Now I'm not saying that any of these guys were any threat to break
into the bigs. However, I am saying that because they played in
organized baseball, they have an understanding of team dynamics and
insight into the mindset of players that someone who has only been an
observer, like Neyer, would not have. That understanding is important
to assembling a team. The degree of importance can be debated. To my
understanding of the game, it's fairly important, or at least
significant enough not to dismiss..
Jabberwocky
wrote:
> tst...@bigfoot.com (Jabberwocky) wrote:
>
>>Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>>how to make love to a woman?
>
>Probably not.
>
>If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
>advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
>company?
A better example would be if you were going to start a company, who
would you confer with: the financial analyst or someone who runs a
company.
Voros
> On 29 Feb 2000 08:30:59 GMT, Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
>>Arne Olson <keri...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>> news:38bb46d1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>>And quite frankly, I'm sure Neyer has played baseball once or twice in his
>>life. There are any number of ways a person can learn about baseball. They
>>can play lots of baseball. They can watch lots of baseball. They can read
>>a lot about baseball. They can study baseball statistics. Any way a former
>>pro player can learn about baseball, a non former pro player can learn
>>about baseball.
> Learn? Probably. Properly apply that knowledge? I have my doubts.
> Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
> how to make love to a woman?
No, but you don't have to have had sex with Cindy Crawford (the sex
equivalent of the big leagues) to know where to put what and how to move
it around.
I mentioned up there that one of the ways to learn is to play. And I think
a great number of people accused of "having never played the game" have
actually played and played very often. I've played a ton of Baseball in my
life and most of the time played pretty well. Nevertheless since I've
never played professional ball somehow I've "never played the game." I
don't buy it.
Jabberwocky
wrote:
>Stefan Backstrom wrote:
>>
>> tst...@bigfoot.com (Jabberwocky) wrote:
>>
>> >Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>> >how to make love to a woman?
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>> If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
>> advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
>> company?
>>
>
>How about this: if you wanted to know how about how reproduction
>occurs, would you ask a Mormon who has 12 kids or a gynocologist who is a
>virgin?
Trick question: there no such thing as a OB-GYN who's a virgin. ;-)
Jabberwocky
>Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> On 29 Feb 2000 08:30:59 GMT, Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
>
>>>Arne Olson <keri...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:38bb46d1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>
>>>And quite frankly, I'm sure Neyer has played baseball once or twice in his
>>>life. There are any number of ways a person can learn about baseball. They
>>>can play lots of baseball. They can watch lots of baseball. They can read
>>>a lot about baseball. They can study baseball statistics. Any way a former
>>>pro player can learn about baseball, a non former pro player can learn
>>>about baseball.
>
>> Learn? Probably. Properly apply that knowledge? I have my doubts.
>
>> Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>> how to make love to a woman?
>
>No, but you don't have to have had sex with Cindy Crawford (the sex
>equivalent of the big leagues) to know where to put what and how to move
>it around.
That doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a good job, though, which
is the whole point of this discussion, yes?
>I mentioned up there that one of the ways to learn is to play. And I think
>a great number of people accused of "having never played the game" have
>actually played and played very often. I've played a ton of Baseball in my
>life and most of the time played pretty well. Nevertheless since I've
>never played professional ball somehow I've "never played the game." I
>don't buy it.
Again, my point is not that Neyer has not played professionally. He
himself states that he has never played the game at any level,
including little league or recreational league. You have played more
baseball than Neyer, according to him. Maybe he's just joking.
Eric Roush
: Learn? Probably. Properly apply that knowledge? I have my doubts.
: Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
: how to make love to a woman?
Someone needs to watch "Revenge of the Nerds".
--
Eric Roush "I can show you how to make a bomb out of
ero...@phl.vet.upenn.edu a roll of toilet paper and a stick of
dynamite." Dale Gribble
This program has undergone a Y2K upgrade. Have a nice dak.
Paul Wenthold
>
> Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> : Learn? Probably. Properly apply that knowledge? I have my doubts.
>
> : Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
> : how to make love to a woman?
>
> Someone needs to watch "Revenge of the Nerds".
>
The most disturbing part about this line is that
I actually understand the reference
paul
RStLoup
>
Wrong fascist dictator. That expression is about Mussolini.
Voros
Organization:
Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2000 18:56:18 GMT, Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
>>Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>> On 29 Feb 2000 08:30:59 GMT, Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>>>Arne Olson <keri...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:38bb46d1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
>>
>>>>And quite frankly, I'm sure Neyer has played baseball once or twice in his
>>>>life. There are any number of ways a person can learn about baseball. They
>>>>can play lots of baseball. They can watch lots of baseball. They can read
>>>>a lot about baseball. They can study baseball statistics. Any way a former
>>>>pro player can learn about baseball, a non former pro player can learn
>>>>about baseball.
>>
>>> Learn? Probably. Properly apply that knowledge? I have my doubts.
>>
>>> Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>>> how to make love to a woman?
>>
>>No, but you don't have to have had sex with Cindy Crawford (the sex
>>equivalent of the big leagues) to know where to put what and how to move
>>it around.
> That doesn't necessarily mean you're doing a good job, though, which
> is the whole point of this discussion, yes?
My sexual prowess is probably not an indication of my ability to become a
sex-therapist let's say. To be a sex-therapist I must also be literate, up
to date on the latest research, and so on. I don't necessarily need to be
able to perform the moves perfectly, but I should know how to perform the
moves and which moves are generally most effective.
In other words, Billy Beane wasn't a particularly good major league
player, but he nonethteless is able to tell what a good major league
player does.
>>I mentioned up there that one of the ways to learn is to play. And I think
>>a great number of people accused of "having never played the game" have
>>actually played and played very often. I've played a ton of Baseball in my
>>life and most of the time played pretty well. Nevertheless since I've
>>never played professional ball somehow I've "never played the game." I
>>don't buy it.
> Again, my point is not that Neyer has not played professionally. He
> himself states that he has never played the game at any level,
> including little league or recreational league. You have played more
> baseball than Neyer, according to him. Maybe he's just joking.
I suppose that's a valid criticism then. Still, it doesn't wholesale
exclude him from being able to comment on the sport if he watches it
enough. A virgin that watches enough porn will still know what DP is.
Stefan Backstrom
>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 19:22:38 +0100, 17...@hhss.se (Stefan Backstrom)
>wrote:
>
>>If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
>>advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
>>company?
>
>A better example would be if you were going to start a company, who
>would you confer with: the financial analyst or someone who runs a
>company.
Depends on what you're looking for. I know that I would not start any
economic venture without consulting a person with knowledge of the
financial markets, regardless of his expertise in the particular field
of business in which I am engaging.
Furthermore, the person who manages the other company has probably never
worked on the factory floor. If I understand your argument, he has no
business running a company?
IIRC, this discussion used to be about whether you need to be a baseball
player to make (baseball) decisions. Sure, if you want to know how to
throw a change-up, ask Pedro Martinez. However, if I want to estimate
how much the Yankees should offer Derek Jeter, I'd rather speak to a
Neyer or a Cashman than, say, Rey Ordonez. YMMV.
-- Stefan.
Jabberwocky
I'm reluctant to go further with this part of the discussion, as I
think we're probably leaving the topic. I'll conclude my portion by
stating it's one thing to know the moves, quite another to know when
and how to use them to their greatest effectiveness. Each
circumstance can be quite different.
>In other words, Billy Beane wasn't a particularly good major league
>player, but he nonethteless is able to tell what a good major league
>player does.
>
>>>I mentioned up there that one of the ways to learn is to play. And I think
>>>a great number of people accused of "having never played the game" have
>>>actually played and played very often. I've played a ton of Baseball in my
>>>life and most of the time played pretty well. Nevertheless since I've
>>>never played professional ball somehow I've "never played the game." I
>>>don't buy it.
>
>> Again, my point is not that Neyer has not played professionally. He
>> himself states that he has never played the game at any level,
>> including little league or recreational league. You have played more
>> baseball than Neyer, according to him. Maybe he's just joking.
>
>I suppose that's a valid criticism then. Still, it doesn't wholesale
>exclude him from being able to comment on the sport if he watches it
>enough. A virgin that watches enough porn will still know what DP is.
I didn't say he shouldn't comment on the sport, nor did I exclude him
from becoming a GM. The implication of his statement was that he'd
make a better GM than a ballplayer would and I was stating that there
is little or no evidence to prove it.
Jeff Drummond
In article <20000228201036...@ng-dc1.aol.com>, jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
[ snip ]
|> What's the big deal? Hitler got the trains to run on time.
Actually, the anecdote is about Mussolini--no one would ever believe
that German trains haven't always run on time; Italian trains, on the
other hand...
But I read somewhere that Italian train statistics were actually worse
under Mussolini.
Longtime r.s.bb readers may recall the great Italian Train Efficiency
debate between Gary Huckabay and the infamous Italian trainspotter,
Realto Margarino.
-Jeff j...@cray.com
--
"We shit on your train stats." --Realto Margarino
Michael Wolverton
Paul Wenthold <p...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>>
>> tst...@bigfoot.com (Jabberwocky) wrote:
>>
>> >Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>> >how to make love to a woman?
>>
>occurs, would you ask a Mormon who has 12 kids or a gynocologist who
>is a virgin?
"Virgin Gynecologists" would be an excellent name for a rock band.
-Michael
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wolverton "Is that clear?"
m...@cs.stanford.edu "No, but it's consistent!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Wenthold
>
> In article <38BC109A...@purdue.edu>,
> Paul Wenthold <p...@purdue.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> tst...@bigfoot.com (Jabberwocky) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
> >> >how to make love to a woman?
> >>
> >How about this: if you wanted to know how about how reproduction
> >occurs, would you ask a Mormon who has 12 kids or a gynocologist who
> >is a virgin?
>
> "Virgin Gynecologists" would be an excellent name for a rock band.
>
Only if it is shortened to "Virgin Gynos"
paul
Cordial Boy!
> tst...@bigfoot.com (Jabberwocky) wrote:
>>Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>>how to make love to a woman?
> Probably not.
> If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
> advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
> company?
I'd probably talk to the analyst. But I most certainly would talk
to those in the company.
cordially, as always,
rm
Stefan Backstrom
Aha, a long term saver. Somehow, I am not surprised that you belong to
the Peter Lynch school of investment.
-- Stefan (at least you can't say *this* post belongs in rsbba.)
Kimberly Murphy-Smith
wrote:
>Michael Wolverton wrote:
>> In article <38BC109A...@purdue.edu>,
>> Paul Wenthold <p...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>> >> >how to make love to a woman?
>> >>
>> >occurs, would you ask a Mormon who has 12 kids or a gynocologist who
>> >is a virgin?
>>
>> "Virgin Gynecologists" would be an excellent name for a rock band.
>>
>
>Only if it is shortened to "Virgin Gynos"
Vir-GYNs.
Kimberly Murphy-Smith -- kamu...@ix.netcom.com
http://members.aol.com/kimmurphy
AOL IM: kimmurphy ICQ: 32992711
Try out my new zine, THE HOT CORNER!
http://members.aol.com/hczine
POWER STAR Archives has moved! http://psarchives.webjump.com
Dan Szymborski
sta...@home.com says...
> Stefan Backstrom <17...@hhss.se> trolls:
> > tst...@bigfoot.com (Jabberwocky) wrote:
>
> >>Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
> >>how to make love to a woman?
>
>
> > If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
> > advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
> > company?
>
> I'd probably talk to the analyst. But I most certainly would talk
> to those in the company.
Maybe we'll all luck out and Maynard'll get a little *too* much
information and get caught for insider trading.
--
Dan Szymborski
Cze...@mindspring.com
Mike Jones
> On 29 Feb 2000 08:30:59 GMT, Voros <vo...@daruma.co.jp> wrote:
> >Arne Olson <keri...@nospam.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> Jabberwocky <tst...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >> news:38bb46d1...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> >>> suppose this all must sound pretty arrogant to some of you. Who does
> >>> this scrawny columnist think he is, acting like he knows more about
> >>> baseball than the men who actually get paid to play the game?
> >>> Hey, you want to learn how to throw a curveball? Ask Mike Hampton.
> >>> Want to learn how to hit a curveball? Ask Al Martin. But if you want
> >>> to know how it all comes together, most of the time you don't want to
> >>> ask a ballplayer, any more than you'd ask a tree how to manage a
> >>> forest, because most ballplayers (and most trees) don't have the
> >>> necessary perspective." (2/25/00)
> >>> together, are ex-ballplayers.
> >> Ballplayers spend 10 months out of the year playing baseball. They
> >> don't have the time to study how successful baseball franchises are
> >> designed. Most of them spend years in apprentice jobs before taking any
> >> positions of responsibility in front offices. As demonstrated recently
> >> by Ken Griffey, Jr., who was angry that the Mariners had released Russ
> >> Davis, and by Michael Jordan, who's had a rough first few weeks on the
> >> job, being a good ballplayer does not automatically make one a good
> >> evaluator of talent or team administrator.
> >>> NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
> >>> played the game.
> >> never played professional ball.
> >And quite frankly, I'm sure Neyer has played baseball once or twice in his
> >life. There are any number of ways a person can learn about baseball. They
> >can play lots of baseball. They can watch lots of baseball. They can read
> >a lot about baseball. They can study baseball statistics. Any way a former
> >pro player can learn about baseball, a non former pro player can learn
> >about baseball.
> Learn? Probably. Properly apply that knowledge? I have my doubts.
> how to make love to a woman?
Considering how many lousy lovers there are in the world, it's probably
not as bad a bet as you think. Put another way, would you say that men
are not qualified to be obstetricians? Experience is only one way to
learn things, and not always the best.
Mike Jones
The Wiseacre
> Considering how many lousy lovers there are in the world, it's probably
> not as bad a bet as you think.
I'm not sure if the above posting was written from bitter personal
experience, but it did bring to mind one of my favourite Woody Allen
lines. He's at a party - the film is Manhattan, by the way - and during
the inevitable discussion of analysts, one woman mentions that she
finally had her first orgasm, "but my analyst told me it was the wrong
kind."
"Really?" replies Allen. "I've never had the wrong kind. Even my worst
one was right on the money."
_________________________________________
Will Fulford-Jones
The Wiseacre
JVV4sm
>>>how to make love to a woman?
>
>
>> If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
>> advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
>> company?
>
>I'd probably talk to the analyst. But I most certainly would talk
>to those in the company.
>
>Stefan Backstrom <17...@hhss.se> trolls:
>> tst...@bigfoot.com (Jabberwocky) wrote:
>
>>>Let me put it another way: would you take the advice of a virgin on
>>>how to make love to a woman?
>
>> Probably not.
>
>> If you were considering buying shares in a company, would you seek
>> advice from a financial analyst or from the people who actually run the
>> company?
>
>I'd probably talk to the analyst. But I most certainly would talk
>to those in the company.
>
What stocks do you own?
JVV4sm
>>
>
>
>
They all look alike to me.
JVV4sm
>>>Fact: most GM's and managers, the guys who actually put the teams
>>>together, are ex-ballplayers. NONE are like Rob Neyer, guys who never
>>>played the game.
>>>
>>
Cameron Laird
Jeff Drummond <j...@cray.com> wrote:
>
>In article <20000228201036...@ng-dc1.aol.com>, jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>
>that German trains haven't always run on time; Italian trains, on the
>other hand...
>
>But I read somewhere that Italian train statistics were actually worse
>under Mussolini.
>
>Longtime r.s.bb readers may recall the great Italian Train Efficiency
>debate between Gary Huckabay and the infamous Italian trainspotter,
>Realto Margarino.
>
>-Jeff j...@cray.com
>--
>"We shit on your train stats." --Realto Margarino
Allow me to beat this dead horse: I assumed that the
Hitler got the trains to run on time.
remark was deliberately evocative of most sportswriting,
in that there was a blatant superficial factual mistake,
the underlying proposition seems to be a verifiable one
that's widely believed, and yet is true only in the world
of fascist self-promotion. That's an apt model for far
too much of what passes for journalism.
--
Cameron Laird <cla...@NeoSoft.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
David Short
snip of gm's with experience playing ball in school....
>Now I'm not saying that any of these guys were any threat to break
>into the bigs. However, I am saying that because they played in
>organized baseball, they have an understanding of team dynamics and
>insight into the mindset of players that someone who has only been an
>observer, like Neyer, would not have. That understanding is important
>to assembling a team. The degree of importance can be debated. To my
>understanding of the game, it's fairly important, or at least
>significant enough not to dismiss..
Are you seriously suggesting that the experience of an 18 year old
with teammates within a year of his age from the same neighborhood
will give insight into constructing a team of 24-35 year olds from different
nations?
Seriously?
And exactly how is that understanding important in assembling a team ?
Sometimes it's tough to spot the trolls without a bridge.
dfs
Don Malcolm
>
> In article <89hav1$di...@fido.engr.sgi.com>,
> Jeff Drummond <j...@cray.com> wrote:
> >
> >In article <20000228201036...@ng-dc1.aol.com>, jvv...@aol.comNOSPAM (JVV4sm) writes:
> >
> >[ snip ]
> >
> >|> What's the big deal? Hitler got the trains to run on time.
> >
> >Actually, the anecdote is about Mussolini--no one would ever believe
> >that German trains haven't always run on time; Italian trains, on the
> >other hand...
> >
> >But I read somewhere that Italian train statistics were actually worse
> >under Mussolini.
> >
> >Longtime r.s.bb readers may recall the great Italian Train Efficiency
> >debate between Gary Huckabay and the infamous Italian trainspotter,
> >Realto Margarino.
> >
> >-Jeff j...@cray.com
> >--
> >"We shit on your train stats." --Realto Margarino
>
> Allow me to beat this dead horse: I assumed that the
> "Hitler got the trains to run on time"
> in that there was a blatant superficial factual mistake,
> the underlying proposition seems to be a verifiable one
> that's widely believed, and yet is true only in the world
> of fascist self-promotion. That's an apt model for far
> too much of what passes for journalism.
Good point, Cam. But since Weisberg is still absent, let's
just note that Hitler could have made the trains run on
time, if he'd wanted to. :-)
Jabberwocky
<dsh...@nova.wright.edu> wrote:
>Jabberwocky wrote in message <38bc1795...@news.bellatlantic.net>...
>snip of gm's with experience playing ball in school....
>
>>Now I'm not saying that any of these guys were any threat to break
>>into the bigs. However, I am saying that because they played in
>>organized baseball, they have an understanding of team dynamics and
>>insight into the mindset of players that someone who has only been an
>>observer, like Neyer, would not have. That understanding is important
>>to assembling a team. The degree of importance can be debated. To my
>>understanding of the game, it's fairly important, or at least
>>significant enough not to dismiss..
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that the experience of an 18 year old
>with teammates within a year of his age from the same neighborhood
>will give insight into constructing a team of 24-35 year olds from different
>nations?
Concerning the emotions of the game? yes. Concerning how particular
personalities mesh? yes. Concerning traits and skills to look for?
yes. Concerning the salary structure of a team? no.
>Sometimes it's tough to spot the trolls without a bridge.
Really? Perhaps you need to re-take the class.
Peter Spiegel
>Good point, Cam. But since Weisberg is still absent, let's
>just note that Hitler could have made the trains run on
>time, if he'd wanted to. :-)
But could Julius Ceasar have done it?
- Peter (phspi...@aol.com)
Don Malcolm
> Don Malcolm dmal...@backatcha.com wrote:
>
> >Good point, Cam. But since Weisberg is still absent, let's
> >just note that Hitler could have made the trains run on
> >time, if he'd wanted to. :-)
>
> But could Julius Caesar have done it?
Peter, that depends entirely on whose calendar/timetable
you're using...
Basil T
I think we all know that Rome didn't build a dependable train system in
a day.
Basil T
--
"And when Alexander saw the breadth of
his domain, he wept for there were no
more worlds to conquer. Benefits of a
classical education." -Hans from "Die Hard"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mischa E Gelman
FitNFeisty <fitnf...@aol.com> wrote:
>Similarly, when discussing the skills of a baseball player, you should
>touch on the good and bad. It would be dumb to spend a whole article
>blasting Tony Womack for limited range in the infield and a lack of power,
>utterly ignoring his good range in the outfield and his base-stealing
>prowess.>>
>
> The Pirate NG certainly was guilty of the above, with a few exceptions.
Yeah - everytime I sign up for that NG, I last a month or two, then have
to leave, because of all the anger there. The Bucs mailing list does a
much better job at accurate analysis and mannerly discussion.
>They were happy he was dealt, even if it was for a PTBNL, who turned out to be
>a marginal pitching prospect.
And a class-A outfielder non-prospect!
> <<You should use all the facts rather than just pick out which
>ones support your case and ignore the rest.>>
>
> Most people are guilty of this, myself included.
Oh, I know I am. When I write though, I try to look at both sides of the
issue, as best I can. I doubt I always manage it, but I don't
intentionally pick-and-choose the evidence that matches my view.
><<I certainly expect better from writers. Perhaps this is why so many
>writers do such a bad job in covering politics - they simply argue for
>their ideology and ignore any conflicts that may arise. I guess this is
>why I prefer folks like Andrew Bard Schmookler, who are willing to discuss
>both sides of the issue in detail.>>
>
> Maybe you expect too much from writers, particularly sports writers.
Perhaps - lord knows I don't care much for the local columnists in
Pittsburgh. There used to be two decent ones, but one moved out of the
sports department (he actually had the nerve not to take the games too
seriously) and another got canned in favor of a radio-sports-jock.
> Many
>readers prefer writers who reinforce their opinions, beliefs, and values, not
>contradict, challenge or mock them.
I don't ones who mock me, certainly, and I probably concentrate on writers
whose views match my own. I do try to read the more reasonable,
open-minded folks whose ideologies I disagree with though, like George
Will or Father Neuhaus. Also, I guess hanging out on politics newsgroups
on usenet guarantees running into folks who mock your views a lot, or who
are of different mindset.
><<I sure as heck expect better from researchers. If you're only presenting
>part of your findings, you're not being intellectually honest in the
>search for the whole truth, which is the whole point of academic research.>>
>
> Sportswriting isn't academic research, plagiarism usually isn't a concern
>among sportswriters.
True, sportswriting isn't academic research (and thank G-d for that), but
it still should be objective, honest and somewhat open-minded (I agree
with Chesterton than an open mind is an open mouth, in that it should be
closed on something solid).
> True, but perception is often greater than reality.
Too true. Just look at the Reagan legacy, or the notion that Clinton is
somehow a liberal, or the idea that Babe Ruth wasn't athletic.
>>Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong.
>
><<Yes they can. "Howard Johnson was a good fielder." "Rey Ordonez is the
>best hitter in the history of the baseball." "Man, Joe Oliver is one fast
>man. It's my opinion he's faster than Carl Lewis." There are definitive
>rights and wrongs and many grey areas in most topics.>>
>
> I prefer the term invalid opinions.
I guess it's a minor disagreement then, over terminology. I took your
statement to mean that you felt there were no absolutes. Sorry.
>>He does support his opinion with observable fact.
>
><<Selected by the situation at hand. If he used the same facts for each
>case, it's no big problem, but if he picks and chooses, it's just sick.
>It's like all the Womack-bashers who choose this case to ignore things
>like RC/27 or VORP which they may use when, say, arguing in favor of Bobby
>Abreu (not to say that the two are at all comparable).>>
>
> IIRC, one poster went so far as to say he disliked RC/27 because it was
>favorable towards Tony Womack.
I recall one that said it can be ignored in non-standard cases like
Womack's, which sounds pretty close-minded, if no facts are used to
support that idea. I think it does measure SB/CS well, as it almost
perfectly pegged a tabletop dice team I ran with no power (well, 2 guys
with 20 HRs, but only one other barely in double digits) and around 700
steal attempts on the season - if that's not an extreme case, I'm not sure
what is.
> Most anit-Womack posters, aren't necessarily in
>favor of other players,(maybe Warren Morris), they just dislike Womack and
>distrust any statistical formula they shows him in any kind of a favorable
>light.
I agree with that. I don't agree with total reliance on stats to judge a
player's skill, but have much less of a problem with those who
consistently rely on the same formulas than with those who pick and
choose, based on the case at hand.
>We should not merely praise those who present the whole issue, but condemn
>those who use blinders and selective evidence in arguing their cases.>>
>
> More blame than praise, in that scenario.
Sadly, I fear you may be right.
--
Mozart was, what we call, a bust - Victor Borge
Mischa E Gelman
FM <dan...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>> Well, no. As an opinions writer, you should look at both sides of the
>> argument.
>
>You should, but if you present the opposing side without
>a convincing refutation, you're not really making an argument.
>And an opinionated writing without an argument is considered
>a weak piece.
Well, most opinions pieces should, yes. But you could be writing about
how genetically engineered food needs to be discussed more and then
present both the anti-GE and pro-GE positions - you need not pick sides.
And even if you do pick sides, you shouldn't utterly ignore the other
side's points. If you're writing a pro-Bradley/anti-Gore article for
instance, you should also mention Bradley's flaws and Gore's positive
qualities. 800 words is limiting, but you can still manage such feats.
>> Similarly, when discussing the skills of a baseball player, you should
>> touch on the good and bad. It would be dumb to spend a whole article
>> blasting Tony Womack for limited range in the infield and a lack of power,
>> utterly ignoring his good range in the outfield and his base-stealing
>> prowess. You should use all the facts rather than just pick out which
>> ones support your case and ignore the rest.
>
>You can't and shouldn't use "all the facts" for an obvious
>reason.
True, but you shouldn't pick and choose either. If the facts you swear by
are Gold Gloves, HRs and SB, you should consistently use them in each
occasion with the same relative weight. You can't say Vince Coleman's a
great player because he steals a lot, while saying Tony Womack's a bad
player because he has no power. You can say they both are great IYO, or
both average, or both awful, but you have to be consistent. If your thing
is OPS, you can't brush it off when it doesn't match your opinion.
>That is your style of reading. I don't mind reading a
>lopsided argument as I don't have to accept the author's
>point of view and it helps if I read two difference pieces
>from contrasting points of views.
It helps, though, if the contrasting points at least acknowledge their own
flaws and present the virtues of the other side. I have a hard time
reading one-sided books (for instance, I recently read the leftist "No
Mercy" by Delgado and Stefancic and conservative "De-valuing of America"
by William Bennett, both of which were ideal polemics, and thus served to
anger me regardless of the fact that both had good points), greatly
preferring ones that examine both sides. Some of my favorite "issue"
books of course are the multi-perspective ones, with 20 or so articles on
a topic, from varying views.
>issue. I tend to be an extreme moderate in almost all the
>issues anyways.
Wow. I tend to be extreme in one direction or the other on most issues.
Only on some, like gun control or fiscal policy, do I not have a strong
opinion.
>> >Wrong is a harsh word. Opinions can't be really wrong.
>
>> Yes they can. "Howard Johnson was a good fielder." "Rey Ordonez is the
>> best hitter in the history of the baseball." "Man, Joe Oliver is one fast
>> man. It's my opinion he's faster than Carl Lewis." There are definitive
>> rights and wrongs and many grey areas in most topics.
>
>Only insofar as they are not opinions, but incorrect
>beliefs, they can be wrong.
How are they not opinions?
>It's an ironic world after all.
That it is.
--
Woe to the legislators of infamous laws, to those who issue tyrannical
decrees, who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among
my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan
-- the prophet Isaiah